Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 10/23/09 07:20 PM

Exodus
21:16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
21:17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
22:19 Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.
31:14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it [is] holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth [any] work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
31:15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh [is] the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth [any] work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

Leviticus
20:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
20:2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever [he be] of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth [any] of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.
20:27 A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood [shall be] upon them.
20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with [another] man's wife, [even he] that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
20:11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.
20:12 And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood [shall be] upon them.
20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.
20:15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.
20:16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

Leviticus
24:13 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
24:14 Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard [him] lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him.

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.

Leviticus
20:14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it [is] wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.
21:9 And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.

Joshua
7:15 And it shall be, [that] he that is taken with the accursed thing shall be burnt with fire, he and all that he hath: because he hath transgressed the covenant of the LORD, and because he hath wrought folly in Israel.

Deuteronomy
13:15 Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that [is] therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword.
20:13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:

Joshua
6:21 And they utterly destroyed all that [was] in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.

Joshua
10:30 And the LORD delivered it also, and the king thereof, into the hand of Israel; and he smote it with the edge of the sword, and all the souls that [were] therein; he let none remain in it; but did unto the king thereof as he did unto the king of Jericho.
10:31 And Joshua passed from Libnah, and all Israel with him, unto Lachish, and encamped against it, and fought against it:
10:32 And the LORD delivered Lachish into the hand of Israel, which took it on the second day, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and all the souls that [were] therein, according to all that he had done to Libnah.
10:33 Then Horam king of Gezer came up to help Lachish; and Joshua smote him and his people, until he had left him none remaining.
10:34 And from Lachish Joshua passed unto Eglon, and all Israel with him; and they encamped against it, and fought against it:
10:35 And they took it on that day, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and all the souls that [were] therein he utterly destroyed that day, according to all that he had done to Lachish.
10:36 And Joshua went up from Eglon, and all Israel with him, unto Hebron; and they fought against it:
10:37 And they took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and the king thereof, and all the cities thereof, and all the souls that [were] therein; he left none remaining, according to all that he had done to Eglon; but destroyed it utterly, and all the souls that [were] therein.
10:38 And Joshua returned, and all Israel with him, to Debir; and fought against it:
10:39 And he took it, and the king thereof, and all the cities thereof; and they smote them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed all the souls that [were] therein; he left none remaining: as he had done to Hebron, so he did to Debir, and to the king thereof; as he had done also to Libnah, and to her king.
10:40 So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded.
10:41 And Joshua smote them from Kadeshbarnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon.
10:42 And all these kings and their land did Joshua take at one time, because the LORD God of Israel fought for Israel.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 10/23/09 09:02 PM

Did God give in and permit people to execute sinners so as not to lose their respect and favor? Or, is capital punishment symbolic of the final judgment?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 10/24/09 07:00 PM

Why doesn't God command us nowadays to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 10/24/09 07:03 PM

Were the people guilty of sinning who obeyed God's command to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? If so, were they required to repent and confess their sin on the head of the sacrificial animal and slit its throat? Also, were they required to repent for killing an innocent animal? If not, why not?
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 10/25/09 10:34 PM

Quote:
Did God give in and permit people to execute sinners so as not to lose their respect and favor? Or, is capital punishment symbolic of the final judgment?

I think in this passage Ellen White defines well why sinners were executed in the OT times:

"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. In sparing the life of Cain, God had demonstrated to the universe what would be the result of permitting sin to go unpunished. The influence exerted upon his descendants by his life and teaching led to the state of corruption that demanded the destruction of the whole world by a flood. The history of the antediluvians testifies that long life is not a blessing to the sinner; God's great forbearance did not repress their wickedness. The longer men lived, the more corrupt they became. {RH, February 11, 1909 par. 18}

"So with the apostasy at Sinai. Unless punishment had been speedily visited upon transgression, the same results would have again been seen. The earth would have become as corrupt as in the days of Noah. Had these transgressors been spared, evils would have followed greater than resulted from sparing the life of Cain. It was the mercy of God that thousands should suffer, to prevent the necessity of visiting judgment upon millions. In order to save the many, he must punish the few. Furthermore, as the people had cast off their allegiance to God, they had forfeited the divine protection, and, deprived of their defense, the whole nation was exposed to the power of their enemies. Had not the evil been promptly put away, they would soon have fallen a prey to their numerous and powerful foes. It was necessary for the good of Israel, and was also a lesson to all succeeding generations, that crime should be promptly punished. And it was no less a mercy to the sinners themselves that they should be cut short in their evil course. Had their lives been spared, the same spirit that led them to rebel against God would have been manifested in hatred and strife among themselves, and they would have eventually destroyed one another. It was in love to the world, in love to Israel, and even to the transgressors, that crime was punished with swift and terrible severity." {RH, February 11, 1909 par. 19}
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 10/26/09 10:54 PM

"I will visit their sin upon them." What means did God employ to punish and destroy these sinners? Did He merely allow sin to run its course? Or, did He command people to stone, scorch, or smite them? If so, why?

Quote:
In the name of "the Lord God of Israel," Moses now commanded those upon his right hand, who had kept themselves clear of idolatry, to gird on their swords and slay all who persisted in rebellion. "And there fell of the people that day about three thousand men." Without regard to position, kindred, or friendship, the ringleaders in wickedness were cut off; but all who repented and humbled themselves were spared. {PP 324.1}

In deep sadness the people had buried their dead. Three thousand had fallen by the sword; a plague had soon after broken out in the encampment; and now the message came to them that the divine Presence would no longer accompany them in their journeyings. Jehovah had declared, "I will not go up in the midst of thee; for thou art a stiffnecked people: lest I consume thee in the way." And the command was given, "Put off thy ornaments from thee, that I may know what to do unto thee." Now there was mourning throughout the encampment. In penitence and humiliation "the children of Israel stripped themselves of their ornaments by the mount Horeb." {PP 327.1}
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 11/01/09 08:40 PM

As we all know, Tom vehemently opposes the idea that it was God's will or desire to command people to stone, scorch, or smite sinners. He says the "humane hunter" story explains precisely why the Bible portrays God commanding people to do such things. It has something to do with running the risk of being misunderstood.

For example, God ran the risk of being viewed as being in favor of burning people alive when He commanded it. The question is - Why did He run such risks? What comfort or consolation would it be to those who survived the incineration of their loved ones?

Leviticus
20:14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it [is] wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.

Leviticus
21:9 And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.

Joshua
7:15 And it shall be, [that] he that is taken with the accursed thing shall be burnt with fire, he and all that he hath: because he hath transgressed the covenant of the LORD, and because he hath wrought folly in Israel.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 11/04/09 06:59 PM

It's hard to imagine God doing something diametrically opposed to His law. Obviously, therefore, He didn't violate any eternal principles when He commanded people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death.
Posted By: dedication

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 11/11/09 05:01 AM

This is the a difficult thing to understand.

We shudder in horror at the Moslem methods of punishing the transgressors, but aren't they, in actuality just following Leviticus.
We point at the Mediavel Church and their witch burnings/drownings, their deadly persecution of those who "strayed", yet they can find their justification in those texts quoted above.

We as Christians don't believe this is the way to do things.
Why?

What has changed?

Some look at the story of the woman caught in adultery. According to the law she was to be stoned (along with the guy she was caught with) why didn't Jesus simply point out the guilty guy and have them both stoned?

A whole gnostic line of theology developed over these concerns and seeming differences between the God of the Old Testament and Jesus. According to them the old testament God was an inferior evil god that Jesus came to liberate people from.

There are some SERIOUS questions on this subject.

While I personally think Tom has taken the subject too far in another direction, yet I know there are BIG questions concerning some of these things that need more logical answers.

As I study prophecy, I also realize the Christian world will use those texts again to enforce what they view as "will of God".
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 11/11/09 04:05 PM

One factor to be considered is that God meets people where they are. In this week's lesson we see that sometimes not even God's severe judgments could eliminate or change the rebellious spirit of those people. It's not that human beings are completely different today than they were then, but civilization in general is a little more refined.
Posted By: dedication

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 11/12/09 04:56 AM

I'm not sure civilization is more refined -- more technological yes, but refined? I had the opportunity to visit some of the ancient sites of Greece and Rome and they had civilization that in many ways was more refined than are own.

I don't think severe judgments are the key to changing rebellious people. The fear of it might restain them, but the rebellious spirit would still be inside them.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 11/12/09 03:24 PM

Quote:
I'm not sure civilization is more refined -- more technological yes, but refined? I had the opportunity to visit some of the ancient sites of Greece and Rome and they had civilization that in many ways was more refined than are own.

As I said, human beings haven't really changed, and the spirit of the gladiator fights in the arena still survive in the boxing ring, but people in general are a little more conscious about human rights.

Quote:
I don't think severe judgments are the key to changing rebellious people. The fear of it might restain them, but the rebellious spirit would still be inside them.

Yes, the idea was restraint by fear:

"The statutes and judgments given of God were good for the obedient. 'They should live in them.' But they were not good for the transgressor; for in the civil law given to Moses, punishment was to be inflicted on the transgressor, that others should be restrained by fear." {1SP 266.1}

But I think that although fear isn't the ideal motivator for someone to follow God, it has sometimes a place in leading the person to God, being later replaced by nobler motivators like love. Just look at Sinai - it was a terrifying experience.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 11/12/09 07:19 PM

So, why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? Are people, like Tom, correct in saying God ran the risk of being misunderstood, that He compromised until the time and their hearts were right to lead them to higher, holier ground (that is, to love and forgive sinners until they are obedient and submissive)?

Or, did God command capital punishment because it symbolizes the essence and nature of the final judgment (that is, God will execute justice and judgment by punishing and destroying the wicked)? People like Tom, on the other hand, believe sin, not God, is what will punish and kill the wicked.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 11/12/09 09:36 PM

1.I never said God compromised about anything.
2.In regards to the punishment of the wicked, I've never said that God will not punish the wicked, nor that sin, not God, is what will punish the wicked.

I do believe that suffering and death are the inevitable result of sin. Regarding punishment, I believe is plays out as described in GC 35-36:

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. 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
Page 36
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.


I doubt I'm going to get involved in a conversation here, but if I see that positions I've expressed are being misstated, I may pop in to say something.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 11/13/09 02:04 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
1.I never said God compromised about anything.
2.In regards to the punishment of the wicked, I've never said that God will not punish the wicked, nor that sin, not God, is what will punish the wicked.


I'm glad you recognize the truth here, that God will punish sinners. Now...if only we could figure out how it is that God uses "kindness" to punish. smile

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 11/13/09 04:31 PM

God punishes according to the principles laid out in the quote I cited.

1.The Jews had forged their own fetters.
2.They had filled for themselves the cup of vengeance.
3.They but reaped the harvest which their own hands had sown. 4.They destroyed themselves.
5.They fell by their iniquity.
6.Their sufferings are often represented as a punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God.
7.It is thus that the great deceiver seeks to conceal his own work.
8.By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them
9.We cannot know how much we owe to Christ for the peace and protection which we enjoy.
10.God's mercy and long-suffering holds in check the cruel, malignant power of the evil one.
11.But when men pass the limits of divine forbearance, that restraint is removed.
12.God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression;
13.He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown.
14.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.
15.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.

This outlines the principles involved. Notice that the last principle explicitly identifies the above principles as "punishment," saying that there is not example which serves as more decisive testimony of the certain punishment than the case of Jerusalem. That makes it a great case study!

Regarding kindness:

Quote:
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. 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 think what happens is that many simply don't believe that sin and Satan can be defeated by the prevailing power of God's government. Not seeing how truth and love could possible overcome sin or Satan, it is thought that force and violence are necessary. The principles of the enemy are needed to defeat the enemy. Kindness, mercy and love are thought to be insufficient to succeed.

I disagree! I believe that love and truth are strong than sin and the devil, and these principles will overcome! It seems to me, the last chapter of "The Great Controversy" explains how this happens. As the truth is revealed, the wicked lose all desire to attack the city of God, and instead bow to Christ, recognizing God's righteousness, and that He has acted in accordance with the principles of His government (kindness, mercy and love!) throughout.

The chapter "It Is Finished" in "The Desire of Ages," also explains how the revelation of the truth, and the love of God, served to win the Great Controversy.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 11/13/09 06:26 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
God punishes according to the principles laid out in the quote I cited.

1.The Jews had forged their own fetters. (i.e. God does not do this.)
2.They had filled for themselves the cup of vengeance. (i.e. God does not do this.)
3.They but reaped the harvest which their own hands had sown. (i.e. God does not do this.) 4.They destroyed themselves. (i.e. God does not do this.)
5.They fell by their iniquity. (i.e. God does not do this.)
6.Their sufferings are often represented as a punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God. (i.e. God does not do this, hence a "misrepresentation.")
7.It is thus that the great deceiver seeks to conceal his own work. (i.e. God does not do this, the devil does.)
8.By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them (i.e. God does not do anything, but rather is prevented from doing something.)
9.We cannot know how much we owe to Christ for the peace and protection which we enjoy. (i.e. God only protects.)
10.God's mercy and long-suffering holds in check the cruel, malignant power of the evil one. (i.e. God only protects.)
11.But when men pass the limits of divine forbearance, that restraint is removed. (i.e. God only protects.)
12.God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; (i.e. God does not punish.)
13.He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown. (i.e. God does not punish.)
14.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. (i.e. God does not punish; Satan does this.)
15.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.(i.e. God does not punish, but merely is prevented from protecting?)

You speak from both sides of the mouth here. You say God punishes, but then turn and say He does not.

Originally Posted By: Tom
This outlines the principles involved. Notice that the last principle explicitly identifies the above principles as "punishment," saying that there is not example which serves as more decisive testimony of the certain punishment than the case of Jerusalem. That makes it a great case study!

Indeed, but one is led to believe by your interpretation that this was no Divine act, merely a Satanic "justice."

Originally Posted By: Tom
Regarding kindness:

Quote:
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. 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 think what happens is that many simply don't believe that sin and Satan can be defeated by the prevailing power of God's government. Not seeing how truth and love could possible overcome sin or Satan, it is thought that force and violence are necessary. The principles of the enemy are needed to defeat the enemy. Kindness, mercy and love are thought to be insufficient to succeed.

I disagree! I believe that love and truth are strong than sin and the devil, and these principles will overcome! It seems to me, the last chapter of "The Great Controversy" explains how this happens. As the truth is revealed, the wicked lose all desire to attack the city of God, and instead bow to Christ, recognizing God's righteousness, and that He has acted in accordance with the principles of His government (kindness, mercy and love!) throughout.

The chapter "It Is Finished" in "The Desire of Ages," also explains how the revelation of the truth, and the love of God, served to win the Great Controversy.


Tom,

In my view it is God's love, mercy, and kindness -- and GRACE! -- which have earned Him the right, the privilege, the honor of cleansing the Universe from sin once and for all by destroying sin, sinners, and all traces of them, and restoring the repentant ones to righteousness.

This is what the cross was all about.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 11/13/09 07:44 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
1. I never said God compromised about anything.
2. In regards to the punishment of the wicked, I've never said that God will not punish the wicked, nor that sin, not God, is what will punish the wicked.

I do believe that suffering and death are the inevitable result of sin. Regarding punishment, I believe is plays out as described in GC 35-36 . . .

If God made no compromise, does it mean you believe commanding people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death is perfectly consistent with His law and love?

If you've never said sin, not God, is what will punish and destroy the wicked during the final judgment, does it mean you believe God is the one who will punish and destroy them?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 11/13/09 07:48 PM

To the first question, "compromise" is rather pejorative. What Jesus said was that certain things were permitted because of the hardness of their hearts.

Regarding the second, I discussed in my response to GC how God punishes.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 11/13/09 07:52 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
Regarding the second, I discussed in my response to GC how God punishes.

But it appeared to me you were discussing how God does not punish. In which of the 15 points in your list do you see God punishing?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 11/13/09 08:01 PM

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
T:God punishes according to the principles laid out in the quote I cited.

1.The Jews had forged their own fetters. (i.e. God does not do this.)
2.They had filled for themselves the cup of vengeance. (i.e. God does not do this.)
3.They but reaped the harvest which their own hands had sown. (i.e. God does not do this.) 4.They destroyed themselves. (i.e. God does not do this.)
5.They fell by their iniquity. (i.e. God does not do this.)
6.Their sufferings are often represented as a punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God. (i.e. God does not do this, hence a "misrepresentation.")
7.It is thus that the great deceiver seeks to conceal his own work. (i.e. God does not do this, the devil does.)
8.By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them (i.e. God does not do anything, but rather is prevented from doing something.)
9.We cannot know how much we owe to Christ for the peace and protection which we enjoy. (i.e. God only protects.)
10.God's mercy and long-suffering holds in check the cruel, malignant power of the evil one. (i.e. God only protects.)
11.But when men pass the limits of divine forbearance, that restraint is removed. (i.e. God only protects.)
12.God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; (i.e. God does not punish.)
13.He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown. (i.e. God does not punish.)
14.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. (i.e. God does not punish; Satan does this.)
15.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.(i.e. God does not punish, but merely is prevented from protecting?)

GC:You speak from both sides of the mouth here. You say God punishes, but then turn and say He does not.


This wasn't me. I quoted the SOP. I just ordered the statements.

Quote:
T:This outlines the principles involved. Notice that the last principle explicitly identifies the above principles as "punishment," saying that there is not example which serves as more decisive testimony of the certain punishment than the case of Jerusalem. That makes it a great case study!

GC:Indeed, but one is led to believe by your interpretation that this was no Divine act, merely a Satanic "justice."


I didn't "interpret" anything. I just quoted.

Quote:
GC:In my view it is God's love, mercy, and kindness -- and GRACE! -- which have earned Him the right, the privilege, the honor of cleansing the Universe from sin once and for all by destroying sin, sinners, and all traces of them, and restoring the repentant ones to righteousness.

This is what the cross was all about.


The point I was making was that it's not necessary for God to use the methods of the enemy's government to destroy the enemy. Force and violence are not a part of God's government. His principle "are not of this order." The prevailing power is "truth and love." I was pointing out that God's "prevailing power" is sufficient to do the job. No need for principles which are not of His government.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 11/13/09 08:21 PM

Tom,

In which of those points is God "punishing" sinners? You say God punishes, and then turn around and try to prove the opposite?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 11/13/09 08:30 PM

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
In which of those points is God "punishing" sinners? You say God punishes, and then turn around and try to prove the opposite?


Point 15:

Quote:
15.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 point of the post was not to prove that God does not punish, but to show *how* He punishes. The SOP says there is not more "decisive testimony" to the certain punishment that will fall upon the wicked than this. That's why I said it makes such a good case study.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 11/13/09 09:07 PM

Let's compare these principles to a test case--that of Herod, of whom Mrs. White also writes. First, the quote regarding Herod, then the applicability of the principles outlined previously.
Originally Posted By: Ellen White
Herod's heart grew still harder, and when he heard that Jesus had arisen, he was not much troubled. He took the life of James; and when he saw that this pleased the Jews, he took Peter also, intending to put him to death. But God had a work for Peter to do, and sent his angel and delivered him. Herod was visited with judgment. God smote him in the sight of a great multitude as he was exalting himself before them, and he died a horrible death. {1SG 71.1}

Herod knew that he deserved none of the praise and homage offered him, yet he accepted the idolatry of the people as his due. His heart bounded with triumph, and a glow of gratified pride overspread his countenance as he heard the shout ascend, "It is the voice of a god, and not of a man." {AA 151.1}
But suddenly a terrible change came over him. His face became pallid as death and distorted with agony. Great drops of sweat started from his pores. He stood for a moment as if transfixed with pain and terror; then turning his blanched and livid face to his horror-stricken friends, he cried in hollow, despairing tones, He whom you have exalted as a god is stricken with death. {AA 151.2}
Suffering the most excruciating anguish, he was borne from the scene of revelry and display. A moment before he had been the proud recipient of the praise and worship of that vast throng; now he realized that he was in the hands of a Ruler mightier than himself. Remorse seized him; he remembered his relentless persecution of the followers of Christ; he remembered his cruel command to slay the innocent James, and his design to put to death the apostle Peter; he remembered how in his mortification and disappointed rage he had wreaked an unreasoning vengeance upon the prison guards. He felt that God was now dealing with him, the relentless persecutor. He found no relief from pain of body or anguish of mind, and he expected none. {AA 151.3}
Herod was acquainted with the law of God, which says, "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me" (Exodus 20:3); and he knew that in accepting the worship of the people he had filled up the measure of his iniquity and brought upon himself the just wrath of Jehovah. {AA 151.4}
The same angel who had come from the royal courts to rescue Peter, had been the messenger of wrath and judgment to Herod. The angel smote Peter to arouse him from slumber; it was with a different stroke that he smote the wicked king, laying low his pride and bringing upon him the punishment of the Almighty. Herod died in great agony of mind and body, under the retributive judgment of God. {AA 152.1}
This demonstration of divine justice had a powerful influence upon the people. The tidings that the apostle of Christ had been miraculously delivered from prison and death, while his persecutor had been stricken down by the curse of God, were borne to all lands and became the means of leading many to a belief in Christ. {AA 152.2}


Quote:
1.The Jews had forged their own fetters. (Check: Herod had acted on his own.)
2.They had filled for themselves the cup of vengeance. (Check: Herod had filled his own cup of iniquity.)
3.They but reaped the harvest which their own hands had sown. (Check: Herod received a just judgment, earned by his own actions.)
4.They destroyed themselves. (Check/NOT: Herod destroyed himself. / But it was God who caused/facilitated Herod's destruction.)
5.They fell by their iniquity. (Check: Herod had filled his own cup of iniquity, and it was for this reason he was executed.)
6.Their sufferings are often represented as a punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God. (Check: The Bible and Ellen White represent Herod's sufferings as by direct decree of God.)
7.It is thus that the great deceiver seeks to conceal his own work. (NOT! Even Herod declared to the people that he had been visited with death, and he knew the Source of his visitation.)
8.By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them (Check: Herod had caused God's protection to be withdrawn--to the point that God also visited him with death.)
9.We cannot know how much we owe to Christ for the peace and protection which we enjoy. (Check: And yet it is clear that God can also destroy when He chooses--both protection and destruction are within His power.)
10.God's mercy and long-suffering holds in check the cruel, malignant power of the evil one. (Check.)
11.But when men pass the limits of divine forbearance, that restraint is removed. (Check.)
12.God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; (Check: This is God's general attitude. However, God executed upon Herod the sentence of death, he having passed the limits of God's forbearance.)
13.He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown. (Indeed. Herod was "left" to reap that which he had sown!)
14.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. (Check.)
15.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.(Check. And yet there are other clear examples as well.)


Herod was not only visited by God with death--but with a "horrible" death, eaten by worms, dying in "great agony" under God's "retributive justice." Mrs. White tells us this was a "demonstration of divine judgment."

This post is slightly off-topic, and yet parallel to the topic, in that instead of God commanding people, God commanded an angel to inflict the death penalty.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 11/13/09 09:09 PM

GC, do you suppose he was defining what "punishment" was, how God punishes? I assumed that from his emphasis of:
Quote:
This outlines the principles involved. Notice that the last principle explicitly identifies the above principles as "punishment," saying that there is not example which serves as more decisive testimony of the certain punishment than the case of Jerusalem. That makes it a great case study!
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 11/14/09 12:33 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
T: I never said God compromised about anything. In regards to the punishment of the wicked, I've never said that God will not punish the wicked, nor that sin, not God, is what will punish the wicked. I do believe that suffering and death are the inevitable result of sin. Regarding punishment, I believe is plays out as described in GC 35-36.

M: If God made no compromise, does it mean you believe commanding people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death is perfectly consistent with His law and love? If you've never said sin, not God, is what will punish and destroy the wicked during the final judgment, does it mean you believe God is the one who will punish and destroy them?

T: To the first question, "compromise" is rather pejorative. What Jesus said was that certain things were permitted because of the hardness of their hearts. Regarding the second, I discussed in my response to GC how God punishes.

Why do you think "compromise" is derogatory? Also, Jesus was addressing divorce. He wasn't explaining why He commanded people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death. He didn't "permit" it; instead, He commanded it. In fact, He rejected King Saul because he refused to obey His command to utterly destroy the city of Amalek.

"And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal." Can you imagine yourself hacking Agag to pieces in obedience to the command of God? Or, do you see yourself, like Saul, disobeying God's command?

Secondly, it sounds like you agree God does indeed punish and destroy the wicked except that you believe He does it by withdrawing His protection from enemy combatants. How do you envision this idea playing out during the final judgment? Do you think God will withdraw His protection and permit enemy combatants to punish and destroy sinners? If so, who will punish and destroy the last surviving enemy combatants?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 11/14/09 12:41 AM

Originally Posted By: GC
Herod was not only visited by God with death--but with a "horrible" death, eaten by worms, dying in "great agony" under God's "retributive justice." Mrs. White tells us this was a "demonstration of divine judgment." This post is slightly off-topic, and yet parallel to the topic, in that instead of God commanding people, God commanded an angel to inflict the death penalty.

"The same angel who had come from the royal courts to rescue Peter, had been the messenger of wrath and judgment to Herod." Ellen wrote something similar is the following passage:

"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}

PS - Of course, Tom cites this passage to prove holy angels have never punished or destroyed sinners in obedience to God's command. He interprets "the same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands" to mean holy angels are commanded to permit evil angels to punish and destroy selected sinners.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 11/14/09 02:14 AM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
PS - Of course, Tom cites this passage to prove holy angels have never punished or destroyed sinners in obedience to God's command. He interprets "the same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands" to mean holy angels are commanded to permit evil angels to punish and destroy selected sinners.

I truly do not understand how Tom can avoid such a plain "thus saith the Lord." Yet even if he chooses to hide his face from the less-pleasant facts, they still remain factual, and I must accept them. As a Christian, it is nice to have pleasant facts. But as long as sin still exists, there will also be some unpleasant facts and unpleasant duties which our righteous God must carry out. I believe it is helpful, not harmful, to my Christian experience to accept all of the facts and truths here, and not just the subset of them which look appealing.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: tall73

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 11/14/09 05:39 AM

Originally Posted By: dedication
This is the a difficult thing to understand.

We shudder in horror at the Moslem methods of punishing the transgressors, but aren't they, in actuality just following Leviticus.
We point at the Mediavel Church and their witch burnings/drownings, their deadly persecution of those who "strayed", yet they can find their justification in those texts quoted above.

We as Christians don't believe this is the way to do things.
Why?

What has changed?


Interesting questions. Paul seems to support the role of the state in punishing wrongdoers:

Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval,
Rom 13:4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.


Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 11/14/09 05:57 AM

Regarding Herod, the angels smote him according to the principles laid out in GC 35-36.

Quote:
1.The Jews had forged their own fetters. (Check: Herod had acted on his own.)


Ok.

Quote:
2.They had filled for themselves the cup of vengeance. (Check: Herod had filled his own cup of iniquity.)


Ok.

Quote:
3.They but reaped the harvest which their own hands had sown. (Check: Herod received a just judgment, earned by his own actions.)


Ok.

Quote:
4.They destroyed themselves. (Check/NOT: Herod destroyed himself. / But it was God who caused/facilitated Herod's destruction.)


God removed His protection, just like with the Jews. 4 applies in the same way for Herod as for the Jews.

Quote:
5.They fell by their iniquity. (Check: Herod had filled his own cup of iniquity, and it was for this reason he was executed.)


He was "executed" in the same way as laid out in the GC section. As quoted previously:

Quote:
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


Quote:
6.Their sufferings are often represented as a punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God. (Check: The Bible and Ellen White represent Herod's sufferings as by direct decree of God.)


I'll address this point later, as this is a key point I've raised, of not applying principles to other cases, but treating things as if God dealt with things according to different principles, sometimes according to those laid out in the GC passage, and sometimes according to force and violence, principles which are "not of the Lord's order" but "found only under Satan's government."

Quote:
7.It is thus that the great deceiver seeks to conceal his own work. (NOT! Even Herod declared to the people that he had been visited with death, and he knew the Source of his visitation.)


If Satan blames God for the things he does, it's not surprising one of his servants would do the same.

Quote:
It was generally believed by the Jews that sin is punished in this life. Every affliction was regarded as the penalty of some wrongdoing, either of the sufferer himself or of his parents. It is true that all suffering results from the transgression of God's law, but this truth had become perverted. Satan, the author of sin and all its results, had led men to look upon disease and death as proceeding from God,--as punishment arbitrarily inflicted on account of sin. Hence one upon whom some great affliction or calamity had fallen had the additional burden of being regarded as a great sinner.(DA 471)


Satan is the author of sin and all its results. Not God.

How many times did Jesus Christ attribute the afflicting of a disease of someone upon God? Never!

Quote:
8.By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them (Check: Herod had caused God's protection to be withdrawn


Ok up to here.

Quote:
--to the point that God also visited him with death.)


Of course, this makes no sense. You'd have to think God was protecting Herod from Himself. But God doesn't remove His protection from Himself, as God is not a threat to anyone, but to things mentioned previously.

Quote:
9.We cannot know how much we owe to Christ for the peace and protection which we enjoy. (Check: And yet it is clear that God can also destroy when He chooses--both protection and destruction are within His power.)


This is the idea I was speaking of in point 6. I'll treat this separately. Briefly, there is no need whatsoever for God to "also" destroy. One destroyer is enough!

Quote:
He (God) preserves them (humans) from a thousand dangers to them unseen and guards them from the subtle arts of Satan, lest they should be destroyed. Because the protecting care of God through His angels is not seen by our dull vision, we do not try to contemplate and appreciate the ever-watchful interest that our kind and benevolent Creator has in the work of His hands; and we are not grateful for the multitude of mercies that He daily bestows upon us. (3T 373;emphasis mine)


Quote:
10.God's mercy and long-suffering holds in check the cruel, malignant power of the evil one. (Check.)


Ok.

Quote:
11.But when men pass the limits of divine forbearance, that restraint is removed. (Check.)


Ok.

Quote:
12.God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; (Check: This is God's general attitude. However, God executed upon Herod the sentence of death, he having passed the limits of God's forbearance.)


He executed the sentence upon Herod the same way He executed it upon the Jews. As the SOP states, never was their a more decisive testimony of God's hatred of sin or the certain punishment of those who choose sin than the destruction of Jerusalem. There would be no reason for God to change principles for Herod. For one thing, it would be out of character for Him to do so, as the principles being suggested that God used are explicitly identified as "not being of the Lord's order." Satan is the author of sin *and all its results*. This includes what happened to Herod. If we say that what happened to Herod was the result of sin, then if we say God caused what happened to it, then Satan, being the author of sin and all its results, would be the author of God's actions, which doesn't make sense.

Quote:
13.He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown. (Indeed. Herod was "left" to reap that which he had sown!)


Exactly! He reaped what he had sown. God did not attack him with the weapons of Satan.

Quote:
14.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. (Check.)


Ok.

Quote:
15.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.(Check. And yet there are other clear examples as well.)


Yes, and these follow the same principles.

Quote:
Herod was not only visited by God with death--but with a "horrible" death, eaten by worms, dying in "great agony" under God's "retributive justice."


Indeed. To me this is clear evidence that it was not something caused by God, but permitted to happen by Him. As EGW described God earlier, He is "benevolent and kind." Therefore He doesn't act cruelly. What you're suggesting would have God acting cruelly, which is why it must be rejected.

Quote:
Thus the arch-fiend clothes with his own attributes the Creator and Benefactor of mankind. Cruelty is Satanic. (GC 534)


Quote:
Mrs. White tells us this was a "demonstration of divine judgment."


Yes, just as the destruction of Jerusalem, the "most decisive testimony."

Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 11/14/09 06:10 AM

This post is the one I said I would write separately in regards to point 6.

There's two basic approaches that can be taken in regards to the incidents in Scripture which depict God as acting violently. One is that we can understand all these incidents according to the principles laid out in GC 35-36. The other is that we can't, but must treat the incidents on a case by case basis, the idea being that sometimes God acts according to the principles laid out in GC 35-36, and sometimes He doesn't.

Inspiration often presents God as doing that which He permits. Examples include:

1.The killing of Saul.
2.The attack of the serpents against Israel.
3.The destruction of Jerusalem.
4.The calamities that befell David's household after David's sin.
5.The sending of lying spirits to deceive Ahab.

We know from inspiration that, although God is reported explicitly as having done these things, what actually happened is He permitted them to happen. Could it be that this same principle applies to other incidents as well? Sure! Why not! This would make perfect sense, as it would have God acting in a consistent manner, according to the principles of His own government.

Let's suppose this can't be the case, that we can't apply these principles to other cases. Then which cases do we apply them to? Since sometimes God is presenting as doing that which He permits (i.e., a violent action), when God is reported as doing something violent, how do we know whether He's doing it or permitting it?

We don't! We'd have to apply some sort of principle of interpretation like the following:

If inspiration depicts God as doing something violent, then God did it, unless He didn't (because some other place in inspiration tells us He didn't).

This doesn't seem like a satisfactory principle. For example, let's consider the sending of the snakes and the destruction of Jerusalem. According to the SOP, the snakes were there the whole time, and what happened is God removed His protection. There's no hint in the Bible that this is the case. This means if one were to take the principle suggested above, for thousands of years, until God sent a prophet to send additional light, the student of Scripture would have ignorantly attributed to God what was actually not God's doing. The destruction of Jerusalem is similar, as Scripture ascribes this as an action God undertakes.

Rather than accept the principle that if inspiration presents God as doing something violent, God did it, unless somewhere else it says He didn't, it seems much better to go with the idea that God, who changes not, applies the same principles laid out in GC 35-36. This is in harmony with His character.

Also, a point to bear in mind, is there is absolutely no necessity for God to act in a destructive manner (even assuming He was capable of doing so, character-wise). That is, there are a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which God protects us. It is sufficient for God to simply stop protecting us from these dangers, and we would be destroyed, even terrible, as Herod was.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 11/14/09 06:14 AM

Originally Posted By: MountainMan
MM:Why do you think "compromise" is derogatory?


When speaking of God? Can you form a sentence where God is the subject, and comprise is the verb, that doesn't portray God in a negative way?

Quote:
Also, Jesus was addressing divorce. He wasn't explaining why He commanded people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death. He didn't "permit" it; instead, He commanded it. In fact, He rejected King Saul because he refused to obey His command to utterly destroy the city of Amalek.

"And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal." Can you imagine yourself hacking Agag to pieces in obedience to the command of God? Or, do you see yourself, like Saul, disobeying God's command?


Jesus was articulating a principle.

Quote:
Secondly, it sounds like you agree God does indeed punish and destroy the wicked except that you believe He does it by withdrawing His protection from enemy combatants. How do you envision this idea playing out during the final judgment? Do you think God will withdraw His protection and permit enemy combatants to punish and destroy sinners? If so, who will punish and destroy the last surviving enemy combatants?


Since we have a thread on the final judgment going already, these could be discussed there.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 11/14/09 06:21 AM

Quote:
PS - Of course, Tom cites this passage to prove holy angels have never punished or destroyed sinners in obedience to God's command.


Pardon me? Please, MM, if you're going to write something like this, quote something to substantiate what you're saying!

I've never cited this passage as you're stating.


(PS, you've done this a number of times in this thread. Please be more careful!)
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 11/14/09 07:55 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
GC: Herod was not only visited by God with death--but with a "horrible" death, eaten by worms, dying in "great agony" under God's "retributive justice." Mrs. White tells us this was a "demonstration of divine judgment." This post is slightly off-topic, and yet parallel to the topic, in that instead of God commanding people, God commanded an angel to inflict the death penalty.

M: "The same angel who had come from the royal courts to rescue Peter, had been the messenger of wrath and judgment to Herod." Ellen wrote something similar is the following passage:

"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}

Of course, Tom cites this passage to prove holy angels have never punished or destroyed sinners in obedience to God's command. He interprets "the same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands" to mean holy angels are commanded to permit evil angels to punish and destroy selected sinners.

T: Pardon me? Please, MM, if you're going to write something like this, quote something to substantiate what you're saying! I've never cited this passage as you're stating. You've done this a number of times in this thread. Please be more careful!

Tom, I am surprised to learn you vehemently oppose the interpretation I described above and ascribed to you. If you do not believe it means what I described, does it mean you agree with me? In other words, do you believe it means holy angels obeyed God's command to punish and destroy sinners? Or, do you believe it means they withdrew their protection and permitted the forces of nature or evil men or evil angels to cause death and destruction? For example, do you believe a holy angel killed the first born of Egypt? Or, do you believe he permitted it to happen without actually doing it himself?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 11/14/09 08:05 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
This post is the one I said I would write separately in regards to point 6.

You didn't address why you think God commanded people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 11/14/09 08:18 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
M: Why do you think "compromise" is derogatory?

T: When speaking of God? Can you form a sentence where God is the subject, and comprise is the verb, that doesn't portray God in a negative way?

True, the word "compromise" can mean something negative. But obviously I'm using it in a negative way. My wife and I make compromises all the time in the interest of peace and harmony. There is nothing sinful about compromising if it serves a higher purpose. For example, God compromised and appointed a king. However, it is clear He did not compromise when He commanded people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death. He was acting in perfect harmony with His law and character. You seem to disagree. Why?

Quote:
M: Also, Jesus was addressing divorce. He wasn't explaining why He commanded people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death. He didn't "permit" it; instead, He commanded it. In fact, He rejected King Saul because he refused to obey His command to utterly destroy the city of Amalek.

"And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal." Can you imagine yourself hacking Agag to pieces in obedience to the command of God? Or, do you see yourself, like Saul, disobeying God's command?

T: Jesus was articulating a principle.

True, He was pointing out a principle. However, you didn't address my comments and questions. Do you agree with me that God didn't permit the Jews to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death, that instead He commanded them to do so? And, do you see yourself being like Saul or Samuel? Would you have obeyed God and hacked Agag to pieces?

Quote:
M: Secondly, it sounds like you agree God does indeed punish and destroy the wicked except that you believe He does it by withdrawing His protection from enemy combatants. How do you envision this idea playing out during the final judgment? Do you think God will withdraw His protection and permit enemy combatants to punish and destroy sinners? If so, who will punish and destroy the last surviving enemy combatants?

T: Since we have a thread on the final judgment going already, these could be discussed there.

Okay.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 11/14/09 10:23 PM

Quote:
M: Why do you think "compromise" is derogatory?

T: When speaking of God? Can you form a sentence where God is the subject, and comprise is the verb, that doesn't portray God in a negative way?

M:True, the word "compromise" can mean something negative. But obviously I'm using it in a negative way. My wife and I make compromises all the time in the interest of peace and harmony. There is nothing sinful about compromising if it serves a higher purpose. For example, God compromised and appointed a king. However, it is clear He did not compromise when He commanded people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death. He was acting in perfect harmony with His law and character. You seem to disagree. Why?


God isn't violent.

Quote:
M: Also, Jesus was addressing divorce. He wasn't explaining why He commanded people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death. He didn't "permit" it; instead, He commanded it. In fact, He rejected King Saul because he refused to obey His command to utterly destroy the city of Amalek.

"And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal." Can you imagine yourself hacking Agag to pieces in obedience to the command of God? Or, do you see yourself, like Saul, disobeying God's command?

T: Jesus was articulating a principle.

M:True, He was pointing out a principle. However, you didn't address my comments and questions. Do you agree with me that God didn't permit the Jews to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death, that instead He commanded them to do so? And, do you see yourself being like Saul or Samuel? Would you have obeyed God and hacked Agag to pieces?


Because of the hardness of people's hearts, God permitted certain things to be done. God is not violent. Jesus revealed God's character.

Quote:
M: "The same angel who had come from the royal courts to rescue Peter, had been the messenger of wrath and judgment to Herod." Ellen wrote something similar is the following passage:

"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}

Of course, Tom cites this passage to prove holy angels have never punished or destroyed sinners in obedience to God's command. He interprets "the same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands" to mean holy angels are commanded to permit evil angels to punish and destroy selected sinners.

T: Pardon me? Please, MM, if you're going to write something like this, quote something to substantiate what you're saying! I've never cited this passage as you're stating. You've done this a number of times in this thread. Please be more careful!

Tom, I am surprised to learn you vehemently oppose the interpretation I described above and ascribed to you.


What I'm objecting to is you wrote:

Quote:
Of course, Tom cites this passage to prove holy angels have never punished or destroyed sinners in obedience to God's command.


This is a false statement! I've never cited this passage as you've described! You said something that isn't the case, claiming I did something I didn't do, so I took issue with that.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 11/15/09 11:22 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
M: True, the word "compromise" can mean something negative. But obviously I'm using it in a negative way. My wife and I make compromises all the time in the interest of peace and harmony. There is nothing sinful about compromising if it serves a higher purpose. For example, God compromised and appointed a king. However, it is clear He did not compromise when He commanded people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death. He was acting in perfect harmony with His law and character. You seem to disagree. Why?

T: God isn't violent.

True, God is not violent. However, He can do what we cannot, namely, execute infinite justice. Ellen wrote, “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} On the other hand, King Saul displeased God because he did not obey Him and hack Agag to pieces. Do you agree?

Quote:
T: Jesus was articulating a principle.

M: True, He was pointing out a principle. However, you didn't address my comments and questions. Do you agree with me that God didn't permit the Jews to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death, that instead He commanded them to do so? And, do you see yourself being like Saul or Samuel? Would you have obeyed God and hacked Agag to pieces?

T: Because of the hardness of people's hearts, God permitted certain things to be done. God is not violent. Jesus revealed God's character.

Okay. But you didn’t answer my questions. 1) Do you agree with me that God didn't permit the Jews to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death, that instead He commanded them to do so? 2) And, do you see yourself being like Saul or Samuel, that is, would you have obeyed God and hacked Agag to pieces?

Quote:
M: "The same angel who had come from the royal courts to rescue Peter, had been the messenger of wrath and judgment to Herod." Ellen wrote something similar is the following passage:

"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}

M: Of course, Tom cites this passage to prove holy angels have never punished or destroyed sinners in obedience to God's command. He interprets "the same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands" to mean holy angels are commanded to permit evil angels to punish and destroy selected sinners.

T: Pardon me? Please, MM, if you're going to write something like this, quote something to substantiate what you're saying! I've never cited this passage as you're stating. You've done this a number of times in this thread. Please be more careful!

M: Tom, I am surprised to learn you vehemently oppose the interpretation I described above and ascribed to you. If you do not believe it means what I described, does it mean you agree with me? In other words, do you believe it means holy angels obeyed God's command to punish and destroy sinners? Or, do you believe it means they withdrew their protection and permitted the forces of nature or evil men or evil angels to cause death and destruction? For example, do you believe a holy angel killed the first born of Egypt? Or, do you believe he permitted it to happen without actually doing it himself?

T: What I'm objecting to is you wrote: “Of course, Tom cites this passage to prove holy angels have never punished or destroyed sinners in obedience to God's command.” This is a false statement! I've never cited this passage as you've described! You said something that isn't the case, claiming I did something I didn't do, so I took issue with that.

Maybe you haven’t cited it to prove holy angels exercise destructive power by permitting evil angels to kill selected sinners, but you have responded accordingly whenever I’ve quoted it to prove holy angels have obeyed the command of God to kill selected sinners.

Also, you didn’t answer my questions. Do you believe it means holy angels obeyed God's command to punish and destroy sinners? Or, do you believe it means they withdrew their protection and permitted the forces of nature or evil men or evil angels to cause death and destruction?

For example, do you believe a holy angel killed the first born of Egypt? Or, do you believe he permitted it to happen without actually doing it himself?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 11/16/09 10:29 PM

MM, I entered this thread to correct a misstatement in regards to what I had said. I'll continue to comment on misstatements. Regarding the rest, we've discussed this before.

Quote:
M: "The same angel who had come from the royal courts to rescue Peter, had been the messenger of wrath and judgment to Herod." Ellen wrote something similar is the following passage:

"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}

M: Of course, Tom cites this passage to prove holy angels have never punished or destroyed sinners in obedience to God's command. He interprets "the same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands" to mean holy angels are commanded to permit evil angels to punish and destroy selected sinners.

T: Pardon me? Please, MM, if you're going to write something like this, quote something to substantiate what you're saying! I've never cited this passage as you're stating. You've done this a number of times in this thread. Please be more careful!

M: Tom, I am surprised to learn you vehemently oppose the interpretation I described above and ascribed to you. If you do not believe it means what I described, does it mean you agree with me? In other words, do you believe it means holy angels obeyed God's command to punish and destroy sinners? Or, do you believe it means they withdrew their protection and permitted the forces of nature or evil men or evil angels to cause death and destruction? For example, do you believe a holy angel killed the first born of Egypt? Or, do you believe he permitted it to happen without actually doing it himself?

T: What I'm objecting to is you wrote: “Of course, Tom cites this passage to prove holy angels have never punished or destroyed sinners in obedience to God's command.” This is a false statement! I've never cited this passage as you've described! You said something that isn't the case, claiming I did something I didn't do, so I took issue with that.

M:Maybe you haven’t cited it to prove holy angels exercise destructive power by permitting evil angels to kill selected sinners, but you have responded accordingly whenever I’ve quoted it to prove holy angels have obeyed the command of God to kill selected sinners.


Maybe? MM, the issue is that you asserted something which is entirely false. I've never quoted the text you mentioned in the manner you cited. There's no "maybe" about it. It's out of line for you to make assertions like this with no basis in fact.
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 11/18/09 12:34 AM

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
PS - Of course, Tom cites this passage to prove holy angels have never punished or destroyed sinners in obedience to God's command. He interprets "the same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands" to mean holy angels are commanded to permit evil angels to punish and destroy selected sinners.

I truly do not understand how Tom can avoid such a plain "thus saith the Lord." Yet even if he chooses to hide his face from the less-pleasant facts, they still remain factual, and I must accept them. As a Christian, it is nice to have pleasant facts. But as long as sin still exists, there will also be some unpleasant facts and unpleasant duties which our righteous God must carry out. I believe it is helpful, not harmful, to my Christian experience to accept all of the facts and truths here, and not just the subset of them which look appealing.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

It sounds to me that you are saying God does less than pleasant things. That God does unpleasant things.

Am I understanding that correctly?
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 11/18/09 02:39 AM

Originally Posted By: kland
It sounds to me that you are saying God does less than pleasant things. That God does unpleasant things.

Am I understanding that correctly?

Yes, you are.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 11/19/09 07:38 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
M: True, the word "compromise" can mean something negative. But obviously I'm using it in a negative way. My wife and I make compromises all the time in the interest of peace and harmony. There is nothing sinful about compromising if it serves a higher purpose. For example, God compromised and appointed a king. However, it is clear He did not compromise when He commanded people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death. He was acting in perfect harmony with His law and character. You seem to disagree. Why?

T: God isn't violent.

M: True, God is not violent. However, He can do what we cannot, namely, execute infinite justice. Ellen wrote, “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} On the other hand, King Saul displeased God because he did not obey Him and hack Agag to pieces. Do you agree?

----

T: Jesus was articulating a principle.

M: True, He was pointing out a principle. However, you didn't address my comments and questions. Do you agree with me that God didn't permit the Jews to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death, that instead He commanded them to do so? And, do you see yourself being like Saul or Samuel? Would you have obeyed God and hacked Agag to pieces?

T: Because of the hardness of people's hearts, God permitted certain things to be done. God is not violent. Jesus revealed God's character.

M: Okay. But you didn’t answer my questions. 1) Do you agree with me that God didn't permit the Jews to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death, that instead He commanded them to do so? 2) And, do you see yourself being like Saul or Samuel, that is, would you have obeyed God and hacked Agag to pieces?

----

M: "The same angel who had come from the royal courts to rescue Peter, had been the messenger of wrath and judgment to Herod." Ellen wrote something similar is the following passage:

"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}

M: Of course, Tom cites this passage to prove holy angels have never punished or destroyed sinners in obedience to God's command. He interprets "the same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands" to mean holy angels are commanded to permit evil angels to punish and destroy selected sinners.

T: Pardon me? Please, MM, if you're going to write something like this, quote something to substantiate what you're saying! I've never cited this passage as you're stating. You've done this a number of times in this thread. Please be more careful!

M: Tom, I am surprised to learn you vehemently oppose the interpretation I described above and ascribed to you. If you do not believe it means what I described, does it mean you agree with me? In other words, do you believe it means holy angels obeyed God's command to punish and destroy sinners? Or, do you believe it means they withdrew their protection and permitted the forces of nature or evil men or evil angels to cause death and destruction? For example, do you believe a holy angel killed the first born of Egypt? Or, do you believe he permitted it to happen without actually doing it himself?

T: What I'm objecting to is you wrote: “Of course, Tom cites this passage to prove holy angels have never punished or destroyed sinners in obedience to God's command.” This is a false statement! I've never cited this passage as you've described! You said something that isn't the case, claiming I did something I didn't do, so I took issue with that.

M: Maybe you haven’t cited it to prove holy angels exercise destructive power by permitting evil angels to kill selected sinners, but you have responded accordingly whenever I’ve quoted it to prove holy angels have obeyed the command of God to kill selected sinners. Also, you didn’t answer my questions. Do you believe it means holy angels obeyed God's command to punish and destroy sinners? Or, do you believe it means they withdrew their protection and permitted the forces of nature or evil men or evil angels to cause death and destruction? For example, do you believe a holy angel killed the first born of Egypt? Or, do you believe he permitted it to happen without actually doing it himself?

T: MM, I entered this thread to correct a misstatement in regards to what I had said. I'll continue to comment on misstatements. Regarding the rest, we've discussed this before. The issue is that you asserted something which is entirely false. I've never quoted the text you mentioned in the manner you cited. There's no "maybe" about it. It's out of line for you to make assertions like this with no basis in fact.

Your unwillingness to discuss this important topic doesn’t speak well of your opposing view. It implies a weakness in your argument, one that you seem to be avoiding. If so, why?

Also, I’ve already conceded your complaint regarding: “The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits.” Now I’m trying to get clarification.

Do you believe holy angels exercise “destructive power” by withdrawing their protection and permitting evil angels to exercise cause death and destruction, and that this is what Ellen meant when she wrote “the same destructive power”?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 11/19/09 10:18 PM

Quote:
Your unwillingness to discuss this important topic doesn’t speak well of your opposing view. It implies a weakness in your argument, one that you seem to be avoiding. If so, why?


In regards to discussing this topic with you, I answered pages upon pages of questions, and made the point over and over again that to understand these things we needed to understand the teachings of Christ, in particular the atonement, and never got any response. I've suggested an approach, and the approach I suggested was ignored. I went along with your approach for months, and hundreds of posts. I think characterizing this as "unwillingness" on my part isn't a particularly fair way of characterizing things.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 11/20/09 07:11 AM

Tom, of those hundreds of posts, not once did you give a clear answer. You've never once explained why you think God commanded people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death. Saying He ran a risk of being misunderstood as approving of such things does not answer the question. The humane hunter story does not answer the question.
Posted By: Kevin H

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 12/14/10 06:29 PM

The Hebrews lived in a time where there was a lot of slow torcher and long painful ways to die. Since they would probably have a death penalty anyway, then God would limit them to the quickest lest painful of the choices availble in that day.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 12/16/10 02:53 AM

Originally Posted By: MM
Tom, of those hundreds of posts, not once did you give a clear answer. You've never once explained why you think God commanded people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death. Saying He ran a risk of being misunderstood as approving of such things does not answer the question. The humane hunter story does not answer the question.


I disagree. I think the humane hunter story answers the question very well.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 12/17/10 01:54 AM

Originally Posted By: Kevin H
The Hebrews lived in a time where there was a lot of slow torcher and long painful ways to die. Since they would probably have a death penalty anyway, then God would limit them to the quickest lest painful of the choices availble in that day.

Kevin, do you think Jesus compromised and commanded laws requiring capital punishment for specific transgressions?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 12/17/10 02:01 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
Originally Posted By: MM
Tom, of those hundreds of posts, not once did you give a clear answer. You've never once explained why you think God commanded people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death. Saying He ran a risk of being misunderstood as approving of such things does not answer the question. The humane hunter story does not answer the question.

I disagree. I think the humane hunter story answers the question very well.

Where in the Bible or the SOP does it say God commanded laws requiring capital punishment for reasons similar to those articulated in the humane hunter story?

Also, where in the Bible or the SOP does it say capital punishment was required until such time Jesus could wean the Jews from them?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 12/17/10 04:48 AM

Originally Posted By: MM
Where in the Bible or the SOP does it say God commanded laws requiring capital punishment for reasons similar to those articulated in the humane hunter story?


One place where this principle is articulated is when Jesus explained why Moses said what he did in regards to divorce.

Quote:
Also, where in the Bible or the SOP does it say capital punishment was required until such time Jesus could wean the Jews from them?


Why are you asking this question?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 12/17/10 04:51 AM

Originally Posted By: MM
Kevin, do you think Jesus compromised and commanded laws requiring capital punishment for specific transgressions?


Why do you think it is fair to characterize what Jesus did as "compromising"? For example, when Moses wrote what he did in regards to divorce, did this involve a "compromise" on the part of Jesus? In the story of the humane father, do you think this should be characterized as "compromise" on the part of the father?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 12/18/10 08:59 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
M: Where in the Bible or the SOP does it say God commanded laws requiring capital punishment for reasons similar to those articulated in the humane hunter story?

T: One place where this principle is articulated is when Jesus explained why Moses said what he did in regards to divorce.

You didn't answer my question. Why not? Do you think divorce and capital punishment are one and the same thing?

Quote:
M: Also, where in the Bible or the SOP does it say capital punishment was required until such time Jesus could wean the Jews from them?

T: Why are you asking this question?

Why aren't you addressing the question? Does it say anywhere in the Bible or the SOP that the laws Jesus gave commanding capital punishment were temporary or transitional?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 12/18/10 09:05 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
Originally Posted By: MM
Kevin, do you think Jesus compromised and commanded laws requiring capital punishment for specific transgressions?

Why do you think it is fair to characterize what Jesus did as "compromising"? For example, when Moses wrote what he did in regards to divorce, did this involve a "compromise" on the part of Jesus? In the story of the humane father, do you think this should be characterized as "compromise" on the part of the father?

Yes, I think Jesus compromised to accommodate divorce. And yes, I think the father compromised to accommodate his son's desire to hunt and kill game. Do you agree?

However, I do not think Jesus compromised or conceded to accommodate unenlightened, bloodthirsty Jews when He commanded laws requiring capital punishment. Do you agree?

PS - Please take it upon yourself to elaborate on your answers. That is, don't make me ask obvious follow up questions. Thank you.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 12/21/10 01:28 AM

Quote:
M: Where in the Bible or the SOP does it say God commanded laws requiring capital punishment for reasons similar to those articulated in the humane hunter story?

T: One place where this principle is articulated is when Jesus explained why Moses said what he did in regards to divorce.

M:You didn't answer my question. Why not? Do you think divorce and capital punishment are one and the same thing?


I think the same principle is involved, so the divorce examples serves to address your question.

Quote:

M: Also, where in the Bible or the SOP does it say capital punishment was required until such time Jesus could wean the Jews from them?

T: Why are you asking this question?

M:Why aren't you addressing the question?


I don't see why I should, or, more accurately, why you would think I should. That's why I'm asking you why you're asking me.

Quote:
Does it say anywhere in the Bible or the SOP that the laws Jesus gave commanding capital punishment were temporary or transitional?


Are you asking if we should today be stoning people who don't do the things listed in the Torah?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 12/21/10 01:31 AM

Originally Posted By: MM
T:Why do you think it is fair to characterize what Jesus did as "compromising"? For example, when Moses wrote what he did in regards to divorce, did this involve a "compromise" on the part of Jesus? In the story of the humane father, do you think this should be characterized as "compromise" on the part of the father?

M:Yes, I think Jesus compromised to accommodate divorce. And yes, I think the father compromised to accommodate his son's desire to hunt and kill game. Do you agree?


I wouldn't express it this way. I would simply say that Jesus accommodated them because of the hardness of their hearts.

Quote:
However, I do not think Jesus compromised or conceded to accommodate unenlightened, bloodthirsty Jews when He commanded laws requiring capital punishment. Do you agree?


I wouldn't put it this way, no.

Quote:
PS - Please take it upon yourself to elaborate on your answers. That is, don't make me ask obvious follow up questions. Thank you.


We've discussed this at length already. I think our difference of opinion is much more deeply seated than addressing these types of questions, already discussed at great length, can get at. It has to do with our picture of God, and how we should obtain that picture. I'm saying that Jesus Christ during His earthly mission, should be that picture.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 12/21/10 08:26 PM

We are discussing this on another thread. No need to do it here. Although this thread is more to the point than the other thread and by all rights should be discussed here instead.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 12/21/10 08:27 PM

Here's what I posted on the other thread:

Jesus said, "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." "I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?" He also said, "The Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."

I agree with you, Tom, that we can learn a lot about God and His ways and means through the NT picture of Jesus. However, Jesus Himself said, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now."

One thing is clear to me, on several occasions Jesus burned His enemies alive in the OT but in the NT He rebuked James and John for wanting to do the same thing. The question is - Why did Jesus do it in the OT but not while He was here in the flesh?

So far you have avoided answering this question. In light of your suggestion (study the NT Jesus to understand the OT Jesus), citing the humane hunter story is not an adequate answer for the simple reason the NT Jesus, unlike the OT Jesus, never did anything contrary to His preferred will.

What is your point? Since the NT Jesus never did anything contrary to His preferred will (He never commanded His chosen people to kill sinners, He never withdrew His protection and permitted the forces of nature or the evil men or evil angels to kill sinners) how can we possibly learn why the OT Jesus did so so many times?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 12/22/10 01:51 AM

Ok, here's how I responded:

Originally Posted By: MM

Jesus said, "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." "I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?"


You understand this isn't literal, don't you, and really has nothing to do with our discussion?

Quote:

He also said, "The Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."


This does, however.

Quote:

I agree with you, Tom, that we can learn a lot about God and His ways and means through the NT picture of Jesus.


"All that man can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son" is much stronger than what you wrote.

Quote:

However, Jesus Himself said, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now."


Yes, but these "many things" weren't in regards to the revelation of God's character. He wasn't saying there were things about God which He hadn't revealed. The following makes this point clear:

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. The Signs of the Times, January 20, 1890


Quote:

One thing is clear to me, on several occasions Jesus burned His enemies alive in the OT but in the NT He rebuked James and John for wanting to do the same thing.


I think you're going about this backwards.

Quote:

The question is - Why did Jesus do it in the OT but not while He was here in the flesh?


No, this is backwards. The question, "What is God like?" That really needs to be settled first, because our conception of God's character is so vital in regards to how we interpret scripture. This is the very problem James and John had. They didn't understand God's character, which led them to wrong conclusions regarding His will. They "knew not what spirit" they were of, because they didn't know God's character.

Quote:

So far you have avoided answering this question.


Not at all. I haven't avoided it, but have pointed out that it's not the right question to ask, and I've pointed out why.

Quote:
In light of your suggestion (study the NT Jesus to understand the OT Jesus), citing the humane hunter story is not an adequate answer for the simple reason the NT Jesus, unlike the OT Jesus, never did anything contrary to His preferred will.

What is your point?


I'll repeat my point. If we don't understand God's character, we won't interpret Scripture correctly, because a correct understanding of God's character is vital to rightly interpreting Scripture.

Quote:

Since the NT Jesus never did anything contrary to His preferred will (He never commanded His chosen people to kill sinners, He never withdrew His protection and permitted the forces of nature or the evil men or evil angels to kill sinners) how can we possibly learn why the OT Jesus did so so many times?


Perhaps what you're wanting to learn isn't right to begin with, and a different understanding of God's character could make this clear.

I've given an example of this. Scripture says that God sent lying spirits to Ahab, but you understand that God doesn't lie, so you reject the interpretation of this text that would have God lying. Similarly, I understand that violence and the exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government and His character, so I reject the interpretation of texts which lead to the conclusions that God's kingdom is one of violence, or that God uses violence to achieve His goals.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 12/22/10 07:56 PM

Tom, you still haven't explained why the OT Jesus commanded His chosen people to kill sinners, and why He withdrew His protection and permitted the forces of nature and evil men and evil angels to kill sinners.

Yes, I agree with you, the NT Jesus never did these things while here in the flesh. But therein lies the problem with your suggestion that we study the NT Jesus in order to understand why the OT Jesus commanded His chosen people to kill sinners, and why He withdrew His protection and permitted the forces of nature and evil men and evil angels to kill sinners.

You firmly believe Jesus is non-violent and would never do the violent things the OT records Him doing. What then? Do you assume someone or something else did them? If so, who or what did them? For example, who or what caused the fire to come down from heaven in response to Elijah's prayer and burned alive the two bands of fifty?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 12/22/10 07:58 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
Scripture says that God sent lying spirits to Ahab, but you understand that God doesn't lie, so you reject the interpretation of this text that would have God lying.

It doesn't say God lied. It says God sent a lying spirit who lied to Ahab. The same thing is true of 2 Thes 2:10-12. God will send them a strong delusion (which I believe will be Satan personating the return of Jesus).
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 12/22/10 11:11 PM

Originally Posted By: MM
T:Scripture says that God sent lying spirits to Ahab, but you understand that God doesn't lie, so you reject the interpretation of this text that would have God lying.

M:It doesn't say God lied. It says God sent a lying spirit who lied to Ahab.


That's what I said.

Quote:
The same thing is true of 2 Thes 2:10-12. God will send them a strong delusion (which I believe will be Satan personating the return of Jesus).


If God literally sent a lying spirit to Ahab, He would be lying, because He would be lying through an agent in this case. But knowing that God does not lie, one can easily infer that God permitted the lying spirit to go to Ahab and lie. Similarly for the strong delusion, what actually happens is a permissive action on God's part.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 12/22/10 11:15 PM

Regarding #129780, I responded on the other thread. Why are you posting these twice?

Originally Posted By: MM
Tom, you still haven't explained why the OT Jesus commanded His chosen people to kill sinners, and why He withdrew His protection and permitted the forces of nature and evil men and evil angels to kill sinners.


Yes I have, many times, over dozens (hundreds?) of pages. Please stop writing this. If there's something you don't understand, or wish to discuss further, you may quote it, and ask your question or make your comments, but please don't say I haven't explained something when I have.

Quote:

Yes, I agree with you, the NT Jesus never did these things while here in the flesh. But therein lies the problem with your suggestion that we study the NT Jesus in order to understand why the OT Jesus commanded His chosen people to kill sinners, and why He withdrew His protection and permitted the forces of nature and evil men and evil angels to kill sinners.


I would say, "But therein lies the solution to the problem." You see a disconnect between the NT Jesus and the OT God. The disconnect goes away when we are convinced that all that man needs to know, or can know, of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son during His earthly mission.

Quote:

You firmly believe Jesus is non-violent and would never do the violent things the OT records Him doing. What then? Do you assume someone or something else did them? If so, who or what did them? For example, who or what caused the fire to come down from heaven in response to Elijah's prayer and burned alive the two bands of fifty?


I assume the same principles were at work in the OT that Jesus Christ revealed and spoke of, principles which are clearly articulated in the GC 35-37 passage.

We have a great deal of detail in regards to what happened in the destruction of Jerusalem, a whole chapter, over many pages. Scripture records this as an event proceeding from God, that God would "murder" the guilty ones. But the GC passage explains that God is presented as doing that which He permits. He's not to be looked as the executioner of the sentence against the sinner, but the sinner himself sets into motion a course of action by His resistance to the Holy Spirit, which God permits to occur.

Do you disagree with the idea that Jesus Christ is non-violent?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 12/23/10 04:49 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
T: Scripture says that God sent lying spirits to Ahab, but you understand that God doesn't lie, so you reject the interpretation of this text that would have God lying.

M: It doesn't say God lied. It says God sent a lying spirit who lied to Ahab.

T: That's what I said.

You said, ". . . you reject the interpretation of this text that would have God lying." I've never heard of such an interpretation, so how can I reject it? I believe Jesus sent the lying spirit to lie to Ahab.

Quote:
M: The same thing is true of 2 Thes 2:10-12. God will send them a strong delusion (which I believe will be Satan personating the return of Jesus).

T: If God literally sent a lying spirit to Ahab, He would be lying, because He would be lying through an agent in this case. But knowing that God does not lie, one can easily infer that God permitted the lying spirit to go to Ahab and lie. Similarly for the strong delusion, what actually happens is a permissive action on God's part.

And what, the lying spirit conveniently came up with the very lie needed for things to work out according to God's will?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 12/23/10 05:03 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
M: You firmly believe Jesus is non-violent and would never do the violent things the OT records Him doing. What then? Do you assume someone or something else did them? If so, who or what did them? For example, who or what caused the fire to come down from heaven in response to Elijah's prayer and burned alive the two bands of fifty?

T: I assume the same principles were at work in the OT that Jesus Christ revealed and spoke of, principles which are clearly articulated in the GC 35-37 passage. We have a great deal of detail in regards to what happened in the destruction of Jerusalem, a whole chapter, over many pages. Scripture records this as an event proceeding from God, that God would "murder" the guilty ones. But the GC passage explains that God is presented as doing that which He permits. He's not to be looked as the executioner of the sentence against the sinner, but the sinner himself sets into motion a course of action by His resistance to the Holy Spirit, which God permits to occur. Do you disagree with the idea that Jesus Christ is non-violent?

Yes, I believe Jesus is non-violent. The "act of punishment" is non-violent. For example, on those rare occasions when I had to spank my children, I was not being violent, although technically I hit them, which some people claim is violent.

Now, when did Jesus demonstrate the GC 35-37 principle while He was here in the flesh? That is, when did He withdraw His protection and permit evil men to slaughter men, women, and children?

And, when did Jesus demonstrate, while here in the flesh, commanding holy people to kill unholy people? If He didn't do it in the NT, how can we understand why He did it in the OT?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 12/23/10 10:13 PM

Originally Posted By: MM
M:Yes, I believe Jesus is non-violent. The "act of punishment" is non-violent. For example, on those rare occasions when I had to spank my children, I was not being violent, although technically I hit them, which some people claim is violent.


Setting people on fire in not "punishment." Surely you know that. You wouldn't set a child of yours on fire to punish them.

Also, setting someone on fire is violent behavior. Simply using a different word, like "punishment" as opposed to "violence," doesn't change the actions undertaken, and setting people on fire is a violent act.

Quote:
Now, when did Jesus demonstrate the GC 35-37 principle while He was here in the flesh? That is, when did He withdraw His protection and permit evil men to slaughter men, women, and children?


That's not the principle (your second sentence). Here's a place where the principles of GC 35-37 was demonstrated:

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)


When not desired, rather than "punish" people by setting them on fire, Jesus departed.

Also, the destruction of Jerusalem is a good example. Remember how Jesus said He longed to protect them, as a hen protects its chickens, but they weren't willing.

Quote:
And, when did Jesus demonstrate, while here in the flesh, commanding holy people to kill unholy people? If He didn't do it in the NT, how can we understand why He did it in the OT?


We should think of things in terms of principle. What's the principle involved here? It's the same principle Jesus spoke of in His comments regarding divorce.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 12/23/10 11:34 PM

Tom, what does divorce and executing capital punishment and killing enemy soldiers during war have in common?

If burning people alive is an "act of violence" who or what, then, do you think caused fire to descend from heaven and burned alive the two bands of fifty in response to Elijah's prayer?

And, how does Jesus departing result in His enemies being burned alive?

Who or what remains to burn them alive?

Who or what decides how His enemies die when Jesus departs?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 12/23/10 11:36 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
T: Scripture says that God sent lying spirits to Ahab, but you understand that God doesn't lie, so you reject the interpretation of this text that would have God lying.

M: It doesn't say God lied. It says God sent a lying spirit who lied to Ahab.

T: That's what I said.

You said, ". . . you reject the interpretation of this text that would have God lying." I've never heard of such an interpretation, so how can I reject it? I believe Jesus sent the lying spirit to lie to Ahab.

Quote:
M: The same thing is true of 2 Thes 2:10-12. God will send them a strong delusion (which I believe will be Satan personating the return of Jesus).

T: If God literally sent a lying spirit to Ahab, He would be lying, because He would be lying through an agent in this case. But knowing that God does not lie, one can easily infer that God permitted the lying spirit to go to Ahab and lie. Similarly for the strong delusion, what actually happens is a permissive action on God's part.

And what, the lying spirit conveniently came up with the very lie needed for things to work out according to God's will?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 12/27/10 07:58 PM

Originally Posted By: MM
Tom, what does divorce and executing capital punishment and killing enemy soldiers during war have in common?


Neither express God's ideal will, but are things God allows because of the hardness of the hearts of those with whom He is dealing.

Quote:
If burning people alive is an "act of violence" who or what, then, do you think caused fire to descend from heaven and burned alive the two bands of fifty in response to Elijah's prayer?


Why would this matter?

Quote:
And, how does Jesus departing result in His enemies being burned alive?


It allows the fire to occur.

Quote:
Who or what remains to burn them alive?


Something or someone. Why does this matter? The only thing that matters is whether it's God or not, isn't that true? That is, either God directly takes action to cause people to be burnt alive, and that's His intention, or He doesn't.

Quote:
Who or what decides how His enemies die when Jesus departs?


From GC 35-37, we read that the Spirit of God, when persistently resisted and rejected, eventually departs, leaving those who have rejected Him to suffer the result of their choice. As to those this happens, that depends on the situation.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 12/27/10 09:07 PM

Originally Posted By: MM
You said, ". . . you reject the interpretation of this text that would have God lying." I've never heard of such an interpretation, so how can I reject it? I believe Jesus sent the lying spirit to lie to Ahab.


You mean sent as in ordered? Or sent as in permitted? If the former, then this is tantamount to God's lying, as anything an agent does for you, as an expression of your will, is as if you yourself performed the act.

Quote:
And what, the lying spirit conveniently came up with the very lie needed for things to work out according to God's will?


I guess this means "And what if, the lying spirit," etc. This question is based on a false premise. God isn't dependent upon lies in order to accomplish His will.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 12/28/10 09:09 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
M: Tom, what does divorce and executing capital punishment and killing enemy soldiers during war have in common?

T: Neither express God's ideal will, but are things God allows because of the hardness of the hearts of those with whom He is dealing.

Where in the Bible or the SOP does it say Jesus "allowed" capital punishment and killing enemy soldiers during war? The fact is Jesus "commanded" both.

Quote:
M: If burning people alive is an "act of violence" who or what, then, do you think caused fire to descend from heaven and burned alive the two bands of fifty in response to Elijah's prayer?

T: Why would this matter?

I believe it was Jesus who caused fire to burn alive the two bands of fifty. I realize you believe I am dead wrong. What is not clear, though, is who or what you believe caused fire to burn alive the two bands of fifty fire to burn alive the two bands of fifty. I cannot remember you ever actually answering this question.

Quote:
M: And, how does Jesus departing result in His enemies being burned alive?

T: It allows the fire to occur.

This makes it sound like fire is self-acting. The truth is, however, fire cannot do anything without Jesus. Ellen wrote, "Many teach that matter possesses vital power. They hold that certain properties are imparted to matter, and it is then left to act through its own inherent power; and that the operations of nature are carried on in harmony with fixed laws, that God himself cannot interfere with. This is false science, and is sustained by nothing in the word of God. Nature is not self-acting; she is the servant of her Creator. God does not annul his laws nor work contrary to them; but he is continually using them as his instruments. Nature testifies of an intelligence, a presence, an active agency, that works in, and through, and above her laws. There is in nature the continual working of the Father and the Son. Said Christ, "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." {HL 290.1}

Quote:
M: Who or what remains to burn them alive?

T: Something or someone. Why does this matter? The only thing that matters is whether it's God or not, isn't that true? That is, either God directly takes action to cause people to be burnt alive, and that's His intention, or He doesn't.

See comments and questions above.

Quote:
M: Who or what decides how His enemies die when Jesus departs?

T: From GC 35-37, we read that the Spirit of God, when persistently resisted and rejected, eventually departs, leaving those who have rejected Him to suffer the result of their choice. As to those this happens, that depends on the situation.

Why did fire kill the two bands of fifty when Jesus withdrew and not water or lightning or wind or something else? Was it arbitrary? Or, was there some kind of natural cause and effect reason? That is, did their specific sin cause fire to burn them alive? And, again, what was the origin of this fire? Where was it residing until Jesus withdrew?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 12/28/10 09:29 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
Originally Posted By: MM
You said, ". . . you reject the interpretation of this text that would have God lying." I've never heard of such an interpretation, so how can I reject it? I believe Jesus sent the lying spirit to lie to Ahab.


You mean sent as in ordered? Or sent as in permitted? If the former, then this is tantamount to God's lying, as anything an agent does for you, as an expression of your will, is as if you yourself performed the act.

Quote:
And what, the lying spirit conveniently came up with the very lie needed for things to work out according to God's will?


I guess this means "And what if, the lying spirit," etc. This question is based on a false premise. God isn't dependent upon lies in order to accomplish His will.

Here's the story in the Bible:

2 Chronicles
18:18 Again he said, Therefore hear the word of the LORD; I saw the LORD sitting upon his throne, and all the host of heaven standing on his right hand and [on] his left.
18:19 And the LORD said, Who shall entice Ahab king of Israel, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one spake saying after this manner, and another saying after that manner.
18:20 Then there came out a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will entice him. And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith?
18:21 And he said, I will go out, and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And [the LORD] said, Thou shalt entice [him], and thou shalt also prevail: go out, and do [even] so.
18:22 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil against thee.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 12/28/10 10:42 PM

Quote:
M: Tom, what does divorce and executing capital punishment and killing enemy soldiers during war have in common?

T: Neither express God's ideal will, but are things God allows because of the hardness of the hearts of those with whom He is dealing.

M:Where in the Bible or the SOP does it say Jesus "allowed" capital punishment and killing enemy soldiers during war? The fact is Jesus "commanded" both.


The divorce laws were commands too, but they weren't God's will. It really shouldn't be difficult to discern God's ideal will. This should be clear from considering His character, or from considering Jesus Christ.

Quote:
M: If burning people alive is an "act of violence" who or what, then, do you think caused fire to descend from heaven and burned alive the two bands of fifty in response to Elijah's prayer?

T: Why would this matter?

M:I believe it was Jesus who caused fire to burn alive the two bands of fifty. I realize you believe I am dead wrong. What is not clear, though, is who or what you believe caused fire to burn alive the two bands of fifty fire to burn alive the two bands of fifty. I cannot remember you ever actually answering this question.


I don't think it matters.

Quote:
M: And, how does Jesus departing result in His enemies being burned alive?

T: It allows the fire to occur.

M:This makes it sound like fire is self-acting.


No, that's not necessary. There can be an agent involved, either animate or inanimate. God allows the fire to occur in either case.

Quote:
The truth is, however, fire cannot do anything without Jesus. Ellen wrote, "Many teach that matter possesses vital power. They hold that certain properties are imparted to matter, and it is then left to act through its own inherent power; and that the operations of nature are carried on in harmony with fixed laws, that God himself cannot interfere with. This is false science, and is sustained by nothing in the word of God. Nature is not self-acting; she is the servant of her Creator. God does not annul his laws nor work contrary to them; but he is continually using them as his instruments. Nature testifies of an intelligence, a presence, an active agency, that works in, and through, and above her laws. There is in nature the continual working of the Father and the Son. Said Christ, "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." {HL 290.1}


This is completely missing the point. God doesn't do evil. This has to be taken into account, or else, one could take the same argument you're presenting and make God responsible for the holocaust or anything else. One needs to consider whose will is involved. The morality of the issue comes from the one whose will is involved in the act.

Quote:
M: Who or what remains to burn them alive?

T: Something or someone. Why does this matter? The only thing that matters is whether it's God or not, isn't that true? That is, either God directly takes action to cause people to be burnt alive, and that's His intention, or He doesn't.

M:See comments and questions above.


You didn't deal with the questions I'm asking here.

Quote:
M: Who or what decides how His enemies die when Jesus departs?

T: From GC 35-37, we read that the Spirit of God, when persistently resisted and rejected, eventually departs, leaving those who have rejected Him to suffer the result of their choice. As to those this happens, that depends on the situation.

M:Why did fire kill the two bands of fifty when Jesus withdrew and not water or lightning or wind or something else? Was it arbitrary? Or, was there some kind of natural cause and effect reason? That is, did their specific sin cause fire to burn them alive? And, again, what was the origin of this fire? Where was it residing until Jesus withdrew?


I've suggested over and over again that the way to tackle this question is to first form a foundation based on what God's character is, based on the life and revelation of Jesus Christ, and then come back to these questions, as opposed to starting with these questions. As I've repeatedly pointed out, I believe our interpretation of Scripture is very much dependent upon our view of God's character. That's why we need to understand that *first*, and the way to understand it is by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 12/29/10 11:54 PM

Okay, let's do it your way. Please take the lead. Present your case in a way that explains 1) why Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in battle, 2) why Jesus commanded godly people to execute captial punishment, and 3) why Jesus withdraws His protection and permits the forces of nature, evil men, and/or evil angels to kill men, women, and children.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 12/31/10 12:48 AM

Originally Posted By: MM
Okay, let's do it your way. Please take the lead. Present your case in a way that explains 1) why Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in battle, 2) why Jesus commanded godly people to execute captial punishment, and 3) why Jesus withdraws His protection and permits the forces of nature, evil men, and/or evil angels to kill men, women, and children.


You did this before. This isn't "my way." When you did this before, I explained this. Yet here you are doing it again. Why?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 12/31/10 12:52 AM

From our previous conversation, a couple of weeks ago:

M:Tom, let's do it your way. Let's limit our study to the earthly life and teachings of Jesus to determine why He commanded godly people in the OT to kill ungodly people.

T:Why do you do this? On purpose, or ignorantly? This isn't "my way". I've never suggested this.

What I've said is that God's character was revealed by Jesus Christ, and we should use this as our foundation to understand what God is like. This is "my way." Why would you substitute something I've said over and over again for something I've never said?

M:You wrote, "God was constrained to do things because of the hardness of people's hearts." Did Jesus command Moses to kill ungodly people because Moses' heart was hard? If so, how do we glean this from Jesus' words in the NT? If otherwise, same question.


T:This isn't doing what I suggested. What would be "my way" would be to consider the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. For example, the Sermon on the Mount would be a good place to start. What does the Sermon on the Mount tell us about what God is like?

Here's the thing: how we interpret inspired comments is *highly* dependent upon how we view God. You see God as capable of doing certain things, such as setting people on fire and keeping them alive for the purpose of punishing them. Because you see God as capable of doing this, you interpret certain inspired statements the way you do. But you don't see God as capable of lying. So when there's an inspired statement which says that God sent lying spirits to Ahab, you would (I presume) understand this to mean that God permits these spirits to lie to Ahab, not that God was using these to lie to Ahab, since God does not lie.

Or here's another example. You have a certain view regarding how God views the future. So statements which speak of risk you interpret in the way you do, a way which seems strange to me, since "risk" means the possibility of loss (in the context of Christ, of failure), which you reject, because you believe Christ was certain He would succeed. (To connect the dots here, unless you think Christ might have been wrong in being certain that He would succeed, it follows that it was not possible for Christ to fail. This is because if Christ failed, it would mean He was wrong in being certain that He wouldn't. And, given it was not possible for Christ to have failed, there was no risk involved.)

Similarly I interpret certain inspired statements the way I do, a way that seems strange to you, because my understanding of God's character, that He was exactly like Jesus Christ revealed during His earthly mission, constrains me to do so. I can't imagine that God would do things which could only be called "torture" if anyone else were doing exactly the same thing other than God.

I believe Jesus Christ revealed conclusively, both by precept and example, that God is not violent. Not only is God not violent, He is anti-violence. As such, how could God act violently or be in favor of violence?

Also I believe that Jesus Christ revealed clearly that the Kingdom of God is not a kingdom of violence. Indeed, I can't imagine how Jesus Christ could have communicated this point any more clearly than He did. For example, how did He react when Peter cut off the man's ear? How did He react when the disciples wanted to have fire from heaven destroy those who wouldn't receive Him? How did He react when others sought to do Him harm?

Or consider the idea that force is not a principle of God's kingdom. It seems to me that Jesus Christ illustrated this as clearly as could be done, in the entirety of His life. And we have a clear statement stating exactly this point, that force is not a principle of God's government. Yet you believe that force IS a principle of God's government, despite the clear statement, and despite the example and teachings of Jesus Christ.

Why do you believe this? Mainly, as far as I can tell, because of the way you understand the Old Testament.

The main purpose of the Old Testament, which is true for all Scripture, and all inspired statements, is to lead us to Jesus Christ. In Him we see, in unrivaled clarity, what God is like, and what constitutes the principles of God's government.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 12/31/10 07:21 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
T: I've suggested over and over again that the way to tackle this question is to first form a foundation based on what God's character is, based on the life and revelation of Jesus Christ, and then come back to these questions, as opposed to starting with these questions

M: Okay, let's do it your way. Please take the lead. Present your case in a way that explains 1) why Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in battle, 2) why Jesus commanded godly people to execute captial punishment, and 3) why Jesus withdraws His protection and permits the forces of nature, evil men, and/or evil angels to kill men, women, and children.

The purpose of this exercise is to obtain a correct understanding of the three actions named above. That is, the "way to tackle this question is to first form a foundation based on what God's character is, based on the life and revelation of Jesus Christ, and then come back to these questions."

I agree. Please take the lead. Thank you.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 01/01/11 04:43 AM

Quote:
The purpose of this exercise is to obtain a correct understanding of the three actions named above. That is, the "way to tackle this question is to first form a foundation based on what God's character is, based on the life and revelation of Jesus Christ, and then come back to these questions."

I agree. Please take the lead. Thank you.


All right. Let's consider the revelation of God given by Christ through His life and teachings. What did He teach us regarding God? Let's start with the Sermon on the Mount. What did Christ teach regarding God?

Christ taught that one should turn the other cheek, walk the second mile, give the shirt off one's back to the request of a coat, that one should love one's enemies. Is God like this?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 01/03/11 07:26 AM

Yes, the Father is like that.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 01/03/11 09:35 PM

A key question to consider regarding God's character has to do with authority. Does God want us to do what He says because we're convinced it's right? Or does He want us to do what He says because "I said so."? Hopefully this distinction is clear.

Is there something from Christ's life and teachings that would give us a clue as to the basis upon which God desires obedience?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 01/03/11 11:14 PM

Another thing is to consider the death of Christ. What does that tell us about how God treats His enemies?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 01/04/11 08:30 PM

The Father wants us to love and obey Him because we understand why it's right.

Not sure about Jesus' death and how God treats His enemies.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 01/04/11 11:03 PM

Quote:
The Father wants us to love and obey Him because we understand why it's right.


I agree with this.

Quote:
Not sure about Jesus' death and how God treats His enemies.


How did Jesus Christ treat His enemies? That is, when His enemies treated Him badly, how did He respond in return?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 01/05/11 03:49 AM

Jesus responded to His enemies in various ways. Sometimes He slipped away unnoticed. Sometimes He forgave them. Sometimes He rebuked them. Sometimes He outwitted them and left them feeling defeated and dumbfounded.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 01/05/11 05:19 AM

Everything Jesus did was for the good of others. While there was any chance, Jesus did what He could for His enemies. It was only when there was no more chance to save them that He rebuked them, and when He did so, there were tears in His voice. When He left them feeling defeated and dumbfounded, He did it in such a way, as far as possible, to lead them to Himself.

Here's an example of Jesus' tact. When Simon invited Jesus to a feast, in thanks for having healed him, Mary, Simon's niece, crashed the party. Simon said, to himself, "If He(Jesus) were a prophet, He would know what manner of woman this is." Mary had been led into sin by Simon himself. Simon's thoughts were the basest hypocrisy.

How did Jesus react? Did He expose him publicly? No. Jesus told Simon a story, a story that only Simon understood, that let him know that Jesus had read his heart, knew all about him, but still loved him. It was that love, that tact, that led Simon to become a believer.

Regarding the cross, what the cross teaches us is that Jesus died for His enemies, and at the hands of His enemies. Rather than call for legions of angels, rather than destroy them, He let them (apparently) destroy Him. He chose to be tortured and killed rather than act out of character.

When Jesus said "turn the other cheek," this is just what He did, and the cross demonstrates this more clearly than anything else could. It revealed the character of God, One who turns the other cheek, who walks the second mile, who gives His shirt when asked for a coat; unbelievably humble, kind, generous and compassionate is God.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 01/06/11 05:46 AM

Amen! Wonderful Savior! Please continue with the study. Thank you.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 01/07/11 03:21 AM

Ok, I'll try.

What made a big impact on me was realizing in a deeper way the truth that Jesus described in saying, "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father." It's easy to picture Jesus as being humble, gracious, and being interested in your well-being in a non-threatening way, but not so easy to picture God in these terms.

When we think of God, His awesomeness comes to mind (i.e., awesome in terms of power). For example, thinking of the stars is just mind boggling. There are billions of galaxies, and the galaxies have billions of stars, some of which are so big that compared to our sun, they are bigger than our sun is compared to the earth. And the "billions" perhaps should be "trillions," at least for the number of galaxies, as I don't think this is even known, but guessed at. So just thinking of a being who could create all this is mind bending.

So when we think of God, His holiness, righteousness, justice, and awesome power are what tend to come to mind, as opposed to when we think of Jesus, and things like mercy, compassion, kindness, gentleness and humility come to mind. If you ask someone what they think of when they think of God, they'll likely say "Judge." Jesus referred to God as "Father" I can't remember how many times, but something over a hundred and less than two hundred, but never as "judge" IIRC. This isn't to make any point regarding "judge," but to make the point that Jesus was attempting to get us to view God in a different way.

After considering this, it became clear to me in a more powerful way just how humble and gracious, as well as patient, God is.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 01/09/11 01:15 AM

I began learning about God when I was 15 years old (1975) through Uncle Arthur. I viewed the Father and the Son as equally kind and loving. I've never thought of the Father as less kind and loving. I realize, though, there are people who view the Father as harsh and vindictive.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 01/11/11 12:32 AM

Sometimes people are unaware of the biases they hold. Jesus alluded to this. This is actually the problem of the Laodicean church. It's very difficult for God to heal people who don't think they have a problem.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 01/11/11 09:00 PM

Please continue with the study.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 01/13/11 03:57 AM

John tells us that no one has seen God at any time, but Jesus Christ, His only Son, who knew Him best, has shown us what God is really like.

Jesus said He did the things He saw His Father doing, and said the things He heard His Father saying. Where did He hear and see His Father? In the Scriptures.

So Jesus presented a picture of the Father very different than that which we ordinarily think of. This means that Jesus' view of the Father is different than ours.

Who will we believe? Are we willing to let go of our view in exchange for His?

I think this is what Jesus had in mind when He spoke of not being able to put new wine in old wineskins. This is a metaphor for our paradigms.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 01/13/11 08:47 PM

Amen! We need to make sure our view of the Father coincides with Jesus' view. Please continue with the study. Thank you.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 01/17/11 08:26 PM

Please continue with the study.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 01/18/11 05:51 PM

We can learn many things regarding God by studying Christ. There's a certain point of view, which I've heard called the "blueprint view" which has the idea that anything bad that happens is a part of God's design. We don't know why given tragedies happen, but we should accept them as things we need, ways that God uses to "prune" us.

While it's true that God does work all things for good, including the tragedies that happen in our lives, the life of Christ demonstrates that it's not God's will that these things happen, nor a part of His plan. On no occasion did Christ ever ascribe any tragedy to God. On many occasions, He assigned blame to Satan; sometimes upon the individuals themselves, but never to God.

Tragedies happen because of sin, and when they do, our hearts should go out to others, sympathizing with others, as Christ did, realizing that these things happen despite God's will, not because of it. Luke chapter 13 is a good example of the principles being discussed here.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 01/18/11 07:29 PM

Would you go as far as to say bad things happen because God's hands are tied and He has no authority to prevent them?
Posted By: vastergotland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 01/19/11 12:04 AM

That is not the only option Mike. You, for instance, have the authority to drown unwanted kittens. Your hands are not tied to prevent you from doing so, yet your morals and principles keep you from doing it. God thus does not prevent bad things from happening to people because His hands are tied but because He has chosen to grant the blessing of free choice to His creatures.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 01/19/11 01:42 AM

Originally Posted By: MM
Would you go as far as to say bad things happen because God's hands are tied and He has no authority to prevent them?


God's hands are definitely tied, but the issue obviously isn't one of authority, as God has no lack of authority. The issue is the Great Controversy.

Thomas' answer addresses this point. God's character is such that He respects free will, the result being that much of what happens in this world is contrary to His will.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 01/19/11 06:34 PM

Originally Posted By: vastergotland
That is not the only option Mike. You, for instance, have the authority to drown unwanted kittens. Your hands are not tied to prevent you from doing so, yet your morals and principles keep you from doing it. God thus does not prevent bad things from happening to people because His hands are tied but because He has chosen to grant the blessing of free choice to His creatures.

Factoring in what Tom has written about Jesus (i.e. study the NT Jesus to understand why the OT Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people), how would you apply the principle you articulated above? For example, in what sense was He honoring freewill when He commanded Moses to utterly slay every man, woman, and child?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 01/19/11 06:41 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
Originally Posted By: MM
Would you go as far as to say bad things happen because God's hands are tied and He has no authority to prevent them?

God's hands are definitely tied, but the issue obviously isn't one of authority, as God has no lack of authority. The issue is the Great Controversy. Thomas' answer addresses this point. God's character is such that He respects free will, the result being that much of what happens in this world is contrary to His will.

Is God free to do anything and everything? Or, is He bound by law and justice? In other words, does He have the authority to disregard law and justice and do as He pleases? Did Jesus do anything, while here in the flesh, that demonstrates the point and helps us understand why He commanded godly people in the OT to utterly destroy every man, woman, and child?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 01/19/11 08:38 PM

Originally Posted By: MM
Factoring in what Tom has written about Jesus (i.e. study the NT Jesus to understand why the OT Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people), how would you apply the principle you articulated above? For example, in what sense was He honoring freewill when He commanded Moses to utterly slay every man, woman, and child?


Where in the NT did Jesus command Moses to do anything?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 01/19/11 08:47 PM

Originally Posted By: MM
Is God free to do anything and everything?


Not sure what you're asking here. If you're asking if God can do anything He pleases, the answer is yes, because He only pleases to do good things. If you're asking if it's possible for God to do anything, the answer is no, because God cannot do evil nor be tempted by evil, because of His character.

Quote:
Or, is He bound by law and justice?


He is bound by His character. His law, and justice, are expressions of His character.

Quote:
In other words, does He have the authority to disregard law and justice and do as He pleases?


God's authority is not limited, but this question is self-contradictory, because it is God's character that defines His law, and justice. So you're basically just asking if God has the authority to act contrary to His character.

Quote:
Did Jesus do anything, while here in the flesh, that demonstrates the point and helps us understand why He commanded godly people in the OT to utterly destroy every man, woman, and child?


If we have a view of what happened in the OT which contradicts the revelation of Jesus Christ, our idea of what happened is wrong. We know it's wrong, because if it weren't wrong, there wouldn't be a contradiction. Rather than quash Jesus Christ's revelation of God, to make it of none effect, we should change our way of thinking, our paradigm. That's what putting new wine in old wineskins is talking about.

So first we should seek to understand the revelation of Jesus Christ, to understand what God is really like. Then try to understand what happened in the OT. Then ask questions.

It looks like you are asking questions based on an idea you already have as to what happened. I'm suggesting that before trying to figure out what happened, it would be good to try to figure out what God's character is.
Posted By: vastergotland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 01/19/11 10:25 PM

In another instance, God commanded Moses to step aside so He could destroy the whole nation of Israel. Moses refused and the Israelites eventually prospered. What would have happened if Moses had refused to slay the enemy but again pleaded to Gods grace and justice? We will never know. Yet, honouring free will, Moses could have refused to order the killings if he had so chosen.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 01/20/11 05:47 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
Originally Posted By: MM
Factoring in what Tom has written about Jesus (i.e. study the NT Jesus to understand why the OT Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people), how would you apply the principle you articulated above? For example, in what sense was He honoring freewill when He commanded Moses to utterly slay every man, woman, and child?

Where in the NT did Jesus command Moses to do anything?

I thought you said we need to study the NT Jesus to understand why the OT Jesus commanded people like Moses to kill men, women, and children. Did I misunderstand you?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 01/20/11 06:12 AM

Originally Posted By: vastergotland
In another instance, God commanded Moses to step aside so He could destroy the whole nation of Israel. Moses refused and the Israelites eventually prospered. What would have happened if Moses had refused to slay the enemy but again pleaded to Gods grace and justice? We will never know. Yet, honouring free will, Moses could have refused to order the killings if he had so chosen.

King Saul did exactly that (refused to obey Jesus) and it didn't turn out so good for him. I'm referring to Agag. " And yet Saul had ventured to disobey God, and reserve that which he had cursed, and appointed unto death, to offer before God as a sacrifice for sin. {4aSG 75.3}
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 01/20/11 06:21 AM

Tom, you've been leading this study for the purpose of explaining why the OT Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people. To do this, you've been describing what the Father is like by describing what the NT Jesus was like. Please continue the study.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 01/20/11 06:48 AM

Quote:
Tom, you've been leading this study for the purpose of explaining why the OT Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people.


No, this isn't the case. That's never been my purpose.

Quote:
To do this, you've been describing what the Father is like by describing what the NT Jesus was like. Please continue the study.


What I've said is that to understand what happened in the Old Testament, we first need to understand God's character. I've suggested we obtain an idea of what God is like, and *after* we've done that, we consider what happened in the OT. I've said this over and over again.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 01/20/11 06:49 AM

Quote:
I thought you said we need to study the NT Jesus to understand why the OT Jesus commanded people like Moses to kill men, women, and children. Did I misunderstand you?


I never said this.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 01/20/11 06:53 AM

Originally Posted By: MM
Thomas:In another instance, God commanded Moses to step aside so He could destroy the whole nation of Israel. Moses refused and the Israelites eventually prospered. What would have happened if Moses had refused to slay the enemy but again pleaded to Gods grace and justice? We will never know. Yet, honouring free will, Moses could have refused to order the killings if he had so chosen.

MM:King Saul did exactly that (refused to obey Jesus) and it didn't turn out so good for him. I'm referring to Agag. " And yet Saul had ventured to disobey God, and reserve that which he had cursed, and appointed unto death, to offer before God as a sacrifice for sin. {4aSG 75.3}


MM, it appears to me you could read more carefully. You're asking me about things I've never said, and here, with Thomas, I see something similar. Thomas wrote:

Quote:
What would have happened if Moses had refused to slay the enemy but again pleaded to Gods grace and justice?


Surely you don't think this is what Saul did, do you?
Posted By: vastergotland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 01/20/11 12:31 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Originally Posted By: vastergotland
In another instance, God commanded Moses to step aside so He could destroy the whole nation of Israel. Moses refused and the Israelites eventually prospered. What would have happened if Moses had refused to slay the enemy but again pleaded to Gods grace and justice? We will never know. Yet, honouring free will, Moses could have refused to order the killings if he had so chosen.

King Saul did exactly that (refused to obey Jesus) and it didn't turn out so good for him. I'm referring to Agag. " And yet Saul had ventured to disobey God, and reserve that which he had cursed, and appointed unto death, to offer before God as a sacrifice for sin. {4aSG 75.3}
Saul disobeyed God through utterly destroying that which he had no use for while he spared that which would enrich himself. Moses refusal to obey God in stepping aside so God could destroy the people was for Gods glory, while Sauls refusal to obey God to destroy all the Amalekites had owned was for his own gain. My question rather concerns what would have happened if Saul had refused to obey God for Gods glory, rather than for personal gain.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 01/20/11 07:03 PM

Originally Posted By: vastergotland
Yet, honouring free will, Moses could have refused to order the killings if he had so chosen.

Again, King Saul refused to order the execution of Agag. Yes, his reasons were motivated by the culture of heathen nations. If Moses had exercised his God-given freewill and refused to carry out God's command to slaughter every man, woman, and child would he have fared any better than King Saul?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 01/20/11 08:09 PM

Tom, here's what you agreed to:

Originally Posted By: Tom
T: I've suggested over and over again that the way to tackle this question is to first form a foundation based on what God's character is, based on the life and revelation of Jesus Christ, and then come back to these questions, as opposed to starting with these questions

M: Okay, let's do it your way. Please take the lead. Present your case in a way that explains 1) why Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in battle, 2) why Jesus commanded godly people to execute capital punishment, and 3) why Jesus withdraws His protection and permits the forces of nature, evil men, and/or evil angels to kill men, women, and children.

The purpose of this exercise is to obtain a correct understanding of the three actions named above. That is, the "way to tackle this question is to first form a foundation based on what God's character is, based on the life and revelation of Jesus Christ, and then come back to these questions." I agree. Please take the lead. Thank you.

T: All right. Let's consider the revelation of God given by Christ through His life and teachings. What did He teach us regarding God? Let's start with the Sermon on the Mount. What did Christ teach regarding God? Christ taught that one should turn the other cheek, walk the second mile, give the shirt off one's back to the request of a coat, that one should love one's enemies. Is God like this?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 01/20/11 09:35 PM

Yes, this indeed looks like what I agreed to, which is not what you've been suggesting. Note:

Quote:
I've suggested over and over again that the way to tackle this question is to first form a foundation based on what God's character is, based on the life and revelation of Jesus Christ, and then come back to these questions, as opposed to starting with these questions.


So I am opposed to starting with the questions you keep asking. I think the problem lies with the whole mindset that would ask the question. I believe a correct understanding of God's character would result in the asking of different questions.
Posted By: vastergotland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 01/20/11 11:26 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Originally Posted By: vastergotland
Yet, honouring free will, Moses could have refused to order the killings if he had so chosen.

Again, King Saul refused to order the execution of Agag. Yes, his reasons were motivated by the culture of heathen nations. If Moses had exercised his God-given freewill and refused to carry out God's command to slaughter every man, woman, and child would he have fared any better than King Saul?
Mike, you are consistently avoiding my point that Moses in another event/s (Ex 32; Num 14) DID exercise his God-given free will and refused to carry out God's command. And what was Gods verdict of Moses?
Originally Posted By: God
He (Moses)is faithful in all my house. 8With him I speak mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in riddles, and he beholds the form of the LORD.
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 01/21/11 05:52 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Originally Posted By: vastergotland
That is not the only option Mike. You, for instance, have the authority to drown unwanted kittens. Your hands are not tied to prevent you from doing so, yet your morals and principles keep you from doing it. God thus does not prevent bad things from happening to people because His hands are tied but because He has chosen to grant the blessing of free choice to His creatures.

Factoring in what Tom has written about Jesus (i.e. study the NT Jesus to understand why the OT Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people), how would you apply the principle you articulated above? For example, in what sense was He honoring freewill when He commanded Moses to utterly slay every man, woman, and child?

The correct answer is:
While God had the authority to command Moses to maim, torture, and kill men, women, and children, we must conclude it was not His will. And, as brought out elsewhere, Moses could have refused.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 01/21/11 08:44 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
T: I've suggested over and over again that the way to tackle this question is to first form a foundation based on what God's character is, based on the life and revelation of Jesus Christ, and then come back to these questions, as opposed to starting with these questions

M: Okay, let's do it your way. Please take the lead. Present your case in a way that explains 1) why Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in battle, 2) why Jesus commanded godly people to execute capital punishment, and 3) why Jesus withdraws His protection and permits the forces of nature, evil men, and/or evil angels to kill men, women, and children.

The purpose of this exercise is to obtain a correct understanding of the three actions named above. That is, the "way to tackle this question is to first form a foundation based on what God's character is, based on the life and revelation of Jesus Christ, and then come back to these questions." I agree. Please take the lead. Thank you.

T: All right. Let's consider the revelation of God given by Christ through His life and teachings. What did He teach us regarding God? Let's start with the Sermon on the Mount. What did Christ teach regarding God? Christ taught that one should turn the other cheek, walk the second mile, give the shirt off one's back to the request of a coat, that one should love one's enemies. Is God like this?

M: Tom, all of the above is what you agreed to.

T: Yes, this indeed looks like what I agreed to, which is not what you've been suggesting. . . . So I am opposed to starting with the questions you keep asking. I think the problem lies with the whole mindset that would ask the question. I believe a correct understanding of God's character would result in the asking of different questions.

For the last several pages of this thread I've been encouraging you to lead this study as you see fit. And, you've been doing a great job of presenting the Father and the Son in the best light. You've made it abundantly clear God is "merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin . . . ."

Please continue to lead this study as you see fit. Thank you.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 01/21/11 09:12 PM

Originally Posted By: vastergotland
V: Yet, honouring free will, Moses could have refused to order the killings if he had so chosen.

M:Again, King Saul refused to order the execution of Agag. Yes, his reasons were motivated by the culture of heathen nations. If Moses had exercised his God-given freewill and refused to carry out God's command to slaughter every man, woman, and child would he have fared any better than King Saul?

V: Mike, you are consistently avoiding my point that Moses in another event/s (Ex 32; Num 14) DID exercise his God-given free will and refused to carry out God's command. And what was Gods verdict of Moses? "He (Moses)is faithful in all my house. 8With him I speak mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in riddles, and he beholds the form of the LORD."

Here's what you're referring to:

Quote:
32:9 And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it [is] a stiffnecked people:
32:10 Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.
32:11 And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand?
32:12 Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people.
32:13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit [it] for ever.
32:14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

Here's what Ellen wrote about it:

Quote:
"Let Me alone, . . . that I may consume them," were the words of God. If God had purposed to destroy Israel, who could plead for them? How few but would have left the sinners to their fate! How few but would have gladly exchanged a lot of toil and burden and sacrifice, repaid with ingratitude and murmuring, for a position of ease and honor, when it was God Himself that offered the release. {PP 318.2}

But Moses discerned ground for hope where there appeared only discouragement and wrath. The words of God, "Let Me alone," he understood not to forbid but to encourage intercession, implying that nothing but the prayers of Moses could save Israel, but that if thus entreated, God would spare His people. He "besought the Lord his God, and said, Lord, why doth Thy wrath wax hot against Thy people, which Thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand?" {PP 318.3}

God had signified that He disowned His people. He had spoken of them to Moses as "thy people, which thou broughtest out of Egypt." But Moses humbly disclaimed the leadership of Israel. They were not his, but God's--"Thy people, which Thou has brought forth . . . with great power, and with a mighty hand. Wherefore," he urged, "should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did He bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth?" {PP 318.4}

During the few months since Israel left Egypt, the report of their wonderful deliverance had spread to all the surrounding nations. Fear and terrible foreboding rested upon the heathen. All were watching to see what the God of Israel would do for His people. Should they now be destroyed, their enemies would triumph, and God would be dishonored. The Egyptians would claim that their accusations were true--instead of leading His people into the wilderness to sacrifice, He had caused them to be sacrificed. They would not consider the sins of Israel; the destruction of the people whom He had so signally honored, would bring reproach upon His name. How great the responsibility resting upon those whom God has highly honored, to make His name a praise in the earth! With what care should they guard against committing sin, to call down His judgments and cause His name to be reproached by the ungodly! {PP 319.1}

As Moses interceded for Israel, his timidity was lost in his deep interest and love for those for whom he had, in the hands of God, been the means of doing so much. The Lord listened to his pleadings, and granted his unselfish prayer. God had proved His servant; He had tested his faithfulness and his love for that erring, ungrateful people, and nobly had Moses endured the trial. His interest in Israel sprang from no selfish motive. The prosperity of God's chosen people was dearer to him than personal honor, dearer than the privilege of becoming the father of a mighty nation. God was pleased with his faithfulness, his simplicity of heart, and his integrity, and He committed to him, as a faithful shepherd, the great charge of leading Israel to the Promised Land. {PP 319.2}

In this case, God was testing Moses. And Moses passed the test. However, do you think God was testing Moses when Jesus commanded him to "kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him"? Do you think God expected Moses to intercede on their behalf? Did he fail the test?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 01/21/11 09:16 PM

Originally Posted By: kland
While God had the authority to command Moses to maim, torture, and kill men, women, and children, we must conclude it was not His will. And, as brought out elsewhere, Moses could have refused.

Where in the Bile or the SOP does it say God commanded Moses to maim and torture men, women, and children?

If Moses had refused to obey Jesus' command to "kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him" what do you think He would have done about it?
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 01/22/11 12:22 AM

I thought you were the one saying it.

What happened the other times when people refused to do what God told them?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 01/22/11 05:42 AM

Originally Posted By: kland
K: While God had the authority to command Moses to maim, torture, and kill men, women, and children, we must conclude it was not His will. And, as brought out elsewhere, Moses could have refused.

M: Where in the Bile or the SOP does it say God commanded Moses to maim and torture men, women, and children? If Moses had refused to obey Jesus' command to "kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him" what do you think He would have done about it?

K: I thought you were the one saying it. What happened the other times when people refused to do what God told them?

I've never said God commanded Moses to maim or torture men, women, and children. Consider the case of King Saul and Agag. What happened when he refused to obey Jesus' command to kill Agag?
Posted By: vastergotland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 01/22/11 08:05 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Originally Posted By: vastergotland
V: Yet, honouring free will, Moses could have refused to order the killings if he had so chosen.

M:Again, King Saul refused to order the execution of Agag. Yes, his reasons were motivated by the culture of heathen nations. If Moses had exercised his God-given freewill and refused to carry out God's command to slaughter every man, woman, and child would he have fared any better than King Saul?

V: Mike, you are consistently avoiding my point that Moses in another event/s (Ex 32; Num 14) DID exercise his God-given free will and refused to carry out God's command. And what was Gods verdict of Moses? "He (Moses)is faithful in all my house. 8With him I speak mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in riddles, and he beholds the form of the LORD."

Here's what you're referring to:

Quote:
32:9 And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it [is] a stiffnecked people:
32:10 Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.
32:11 And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand?
32:12 Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people.
32:13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit [it] for ever.
32:14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

Here's what Ellen wrote about it:

Quote:
"Let Me alone, . . . that I may consume them," were the words of God. If God had purposed to destroy Israel, who could plead for them? How few but would have left the sinners to their fate! How few but would have gladly exchanged a lot of toil and burden and sacrifice, repaid with ingratitude and murmuring, for a position of ease and honor, when it was God Himself that offered the release. {PP 318.2}

But Moses discerned ground for hope where there appeared only discouragement and wrath. The words of God, "Let Me alone," he understood not to forbid but to encourage intercession, implying that nothing but the prayers of Moses could save Israel, but that if thus entreated, God would spare His people. He "besought the Lord his God, and said, Lord, why doth Thy wrath wax hot against Thy people, which Thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand?" {PP 318.3}

God had signified that He disowned His people. He had spoken of them to Moses as "thy people, which thou broughtest out of Egypt." But Moses humbly disclaimed the leadership of Israel. They were not his, but God's--"Thy people, which Thou has brought forth . . . with great power, and with a mighty hand. Wherefore," he urged, "should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did He bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth?" {PP 318.4}

During the few months since Israel left Egypt, the report of their wonderful deliverance had spread to all the surrounding nations. Fear and terrible foreboding rested upon the heathen. All were watching to see what the God of Israel would do for His people. Should they now be destroyed, their enemies would triumph, and God would be dishonored. The Egyptians would claim that their accusations were true--instead of leading His people into the wilderness to sacrifice, He had caused them to be sacrificed. They would not consider the sins of Israel; the destruction of the people whom He had so signally honored, would bring reproach upon His name. How great the responsibility resting upon those whom God has highly honored, to make His name a praise in the earth! With what care should they guard against committing sin, to call down His judgments and cause His name to be reproached by the ungodly! {PP 319.1}

As Moses interceded for Israel, his timidity was lost in his deep interest and love for those for whom he had, in the hands of God, been the means of doing so much. The Lord listened to his pleadings, and granted his unselfish prayer. God had proved His servant; He had tested his faithfulness and his love for that erring, ungrateful people, and nobly had Moses endured the trial. His interest in Israel sprang from no selfish motive. The prosperity of God's chosen people was dearer to him than personal honor, dearer than the privilege of becoming the father of a mighty nation. God was pleased with his faithfulness, his simplicity of heart, and his integrity, and He committed to him, as a faithful shepherd, the great charge of leading Israel to the Promised Land. {PP 319.2}

In this case, God was testing Moses. And Moses passed the test. However, do you think God was testing Moses when Jesus commanded him to "kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him"? Do you think God expected Moses to intercede on their behalf? Did he fail the test?
How few but would have left the sinners to their fate!

Two groups of sinners, two commands of God that the sinners should be destroyed. One time Moses defended the sinners, the other time Moses slayed the sinners. Are some sinners better than other sinners, perhaps less sinful or perhaps having more leeway to sin? The father of faith and the starting point of Gods project of salvation, Abraham, pleaded with God over sinners he was unrelated to. Moses only pleaded with God over sinners who were his kin. Did he fail the test, I do not know, but it is possible.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 01/23/11 06:50 PM

Originally Posted By: vastgotland
Did he fail the test, I do not know, but it is possible.

Thank you for clearly answering my question.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 01/26/11 07:39 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
T: I've suggested over and over again that the way to tackle this question is to first form a foundation based on what God's character is, based on the life and revelation of Jesus Christ, and then come back to these questions, as opposed to starting with these questions

M: Okay, let's do it your way. Please take the lead. Present your case in a way that explains 1) why Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in battle, 2) why Jesus commanded godly people to execute capital punishment, and 3) why Jesus withdraws His protection and permits the forces of nature, evil men, and/or evil angels to kill men, women, and children.

The purpose of this exercise is to obtain a correct understanding of the three actions named above. That is, the "way to tackle this question is to first form a foundation based on what God's character is, based on the life and revelation of Jesus Christ, and then come back to these questions." I agree. Please take the lead. Thank you.

T: All right. Let's consider the revelation of God given by Christ through His life and teachings. What did He teach us regarding God? Let's start with the Sermon on the Mount. What did Christ teach regarding God? Christ taught that one should turn the other cheek, walk the second mile, give the shirt off one's back to the request of a coat, that one should love one's enemies. Is God like this?

M: Tom, all of the above is what you agreed to.

T: Yes, this indeed looks like what I agreed to, which is not what you've been suggesting. . . . So I am opposed to starting with the questions you keep asking. I think the problem lies with the whole mindset that would ask the question. I believe a correct understanding of God's character would result in the asking of different questions.

For the last several pages of this thread I've been encouraging you to lead this study as you see fit. And, you've been doing a great job of presenting the Father and the Son in the best light. You've made it abundantly clear God is "merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin . . . ."

Please continue to lead this study as you see fit. Thank you.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 01/27/11 06:47 PM

Bump for Tom.
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 01/28/11 05:34 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Originally Posted By: kland
While God had the authority to command Moses to maim, torture, and kill men, women, and children, we must conclude it was not His will. And, as brought out elsewhere, Moses could have refused.

Where in the Bile or the SOP does it say God commanded Moses to maim and torture men, women, and children?

If Moses had refused to obey Jesus' command to "kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him" what do you think He would have done about it?
It appears to me from your comment, that you do know of a place where it says that. Though maybe you are getting me on a technicality. You are correct, the Bible does not use the word, "maim".
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 01/28/11 05:39 PM

De 25:12 "then you shall cut off her hand; your eye shall not pity her.

But then was it Moses' words or God through Moses?
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 01/28/11 05:42 PM

Speak to the rock.

He refused, and struck it.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 01/28/11 07:43 PM

Originally Posted By: kland
De 25:12 "then you shall cut off her hand; your eye shall not pity her.

But then was it Moses' words or God through Moses?

Oh yes, forgot about "an eye for eye" type commands and punishment. Is there any doubt Jesus is the one who commanded such laws?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 01/28/11 07:45 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
T: I've suggested over and over again that the way to tackle this question is to first form a foundation based on what God's character is, based on the life and revelation of Jesus Christ, and then come back to these questions, as opposed to starting with these questions

M: Okay, let's do it your way. Please take the lead. Present your case in a way that explains 1) why Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in battle, 2) why Jesus commanded godly people to execute capital punishment, and 3) why Jesus withdraws His protection and permits the forces of nature, evil men, and/or evil angels to kill men, women, and children.

The purpose of this exercise is to obtain a correct understanding of the three actions named above. That is, the "way to tackle this question is to first form a foundation based on what God's character is, based on the life and revelation of Jesus Christ, and then come back to these questions." I agree. Please take the lead. Thank you.

T: All right. Let's consider the revelation of God given by Christ through His life and teachings. What did He teach us regarding God? Let's start with the Sermon on the Mount. What did Christ teach regarding God? Christ taught that one should turn the other cheek, walk the second mile, give the shirt off one's back to the request of a coat, that one should love one's enemies. Is God like this?

M: Tom, all of the above is what you agreed to.

T: Yes, this indeed looks like what I agreed to, which is not what you've been suggesting. . . . So I am opposed to starting with the questions you keep asking. I think the problem lies with the whole mindset that would ask the question. I believe a correct understanding of God's character would result in the asking of different questions.

For the last several pages of this thread I've been encouraging you to lead this study as you see fit. And, you've been doing a great job of presenting the Father and the Son in the best light. You've made it abundantly clear God is "merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin . . . ."

Please continue to lead this study as you see fit. Thank you.
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 01/31/11 08:16 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Originally Posted By: kland
De 25:12 "then you shall cut off her hand; your eye shall not pity her.

But then was it Moses' words or God through Moses?

Oh yes, forgot about "an eye for eye" type commands and punishment. Is there any doubt Jesus is the one who commanded such laws?

Which brings us back to:

M: For example, in what sense was He honoring freewill when He commanded Moses to utterly slay every man, woman, and child?

K: The correct answer is:
While God had the authority to command Moses to maim, torture, and kill men, women, and children, we must conclude it was not His will. And, as brought out elsewhere, Moses could have refused.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 01/31/11 09:06 PM

Returning to MM's request that I lead the study as I see fit, based on the revelation of Jesus Christ, who said, "When you've seen Me, you've see the Father," what can we conclude that God is like?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 02/01/11 04:28 AM

The Father's character includes at least the following:

Exouds
34:6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,
34:7 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].

Galatians
5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 02/04/11 06:39 PM

Tom, how does knowing and believing the Father and the Son are merciful and gracious help us understand why God commanded godly people to kill ungodly people? If you're not ready to explain why, that's okay. If so, please continue to build your case. Thank you.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 02/04/11 11:54 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
Returning to MM's request that I lead the study as I see fit, based on the revelation of Jesus Christ, who said, "When you've seen Me, you've see the Father," what can we conclude that God is like?


One characteristic that I much admire about God is that He is FAIR. He is just. He will "reward every man as his work shall be."

I like the way God puts it through the pen of Ellen White in Christ's Object Lessons.

Originally Posted By: Ellen White
By these angel messengers a faithful record is kept of the words and deeds of the children of men. Every act of cruelty or injustice toward God's people, all they are caused to suffer through the power of evil workers, is registered in heaven. {COL 177.1}
"Shall not God avenge His own elect, which cry day and night unto Him, though He bear long with them? I tell you that He will avenge them speedily." {COL 177.2}
"Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompense of reward. For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise. For yet a little while, and He that shall come will come, and will not tarry." Hebrews 10:35-37. "Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and hath long patience for it, until he receive the early and latter rain. Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts; for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh." James 5:7, 8. {COL 177.3}
The long-suffering of God is wonderful. Long does justice wait while mercy pleads with the sinner. But "righteousness and judgment are the establishment of His throne." Psalm 97:2, margin. "The Lord is slow to anger;" but He is "great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked: the Lord hath His way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of His feet." Nahum 1:3. {COL 177.4}
The world has become bold in transgression of God's law. Because of His long forbearance, men have trampled upon His authority. They have strengthened one another in oppression and cruelty toward His heritage, saying, "How doth God know? and is there knowledge in the Most High?" Psalm 73:11. But there is a line beyond which they cannot pass. The time is near when they will have reached the prescribed limit. Even now they have almost exceeded the bounds of the long-suffering of God, the limits of His grace, the limits of His mercy. The Lord will interpose to vindicate His own honor, to deliver His people, and to repress the swellings of unrighteousness. {COL 177.5}
In Noah's day, men had disregarded the law of God until almost all remembrance of the Creator had passed away from the earth. Their iniquity reached so great a height that the Lord brought a flood of waters upon the earth, and swept away its wicked inhabitants. {COL 178.1}
From age to age the Lord has made known the manner of His working. When a crisis has come, He has revealed Himself, and has interposed to hinder the working out of Satan's plans. With nations, with families, and with individuals, He has often permitted matters to come to a crisis, that His interference might become marked. Then He has made manifest that there is a God in Israel who will maintain His law and vindicate His people. {COL 178.2}


1. Every evil act is registered in heaven, just as good acts are registered.
2. Jesus announced that these evil acts will be avenged by God.
3. God's long-suffering is wonderful, and long, but has a limit.
4. God is "slow to anger." The text does not say that God will never be angry. There is a limit to His forbearance.
5. God "will not at all acquit the wicked."
6. God hinders the work of Satan. Amen!
7. God will vindicate His people. Amen!

Regarding hindering the work of Satan, there are some notable examples in the Bible which Ellen White alluded to in this passage and which I may elaborate on in another post.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 02/08/11 01:52 AM

Originally Posted By: MM
T:Returning to MM's request that I lead the study as I see fit, based on the revelation of Jesus Christ, who said, "When you've seen Me, you've see the Father," what can we conclude that God is like?

M:The Father's character includes at least the following:

Exouds
34:6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,
34:7 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].

Galatians
5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.


Really hard to follow the logic here. How does a quote from Exodus explain what God is like, based on Christ's revelation of Him while here in the flesh?

I agree that God is like these things, of course, and the same for the Galatians quote, but don't see the connection. I was expecting some sort of summary of what Christ was like, and then the conclusion that, based on Christ's statement, the Father is like that too.

Originally Posted By: MM
Tom, how does knowing and believing the Father and the Son are merciful and gracious help us understand why God commanded godly people to kill ungodly people? If you're not ready to explain why, that's okay. If so, please continue to build your case. Thank you.


I think we need to be careful not to get the cart before the horse. What is God like? That should be our first question. Otherwise we're bound to interpret what's happening in the OT incorrectly.

And I think this is the big problem. I think you're understanding what happened in the OT incorrectly and then ask questions based on that understanding, using that as the foundation of everything else. I think that's the wrong foundation. The foundation should be Jesus Christ. What did He reveal about God? Then ask what happened, and why.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 02/08/11 02:15 AM

Originally Posted By: GC
1. Every evil act is registered in heaven, just as good acts are registered.
2. Jesus announced that these evil acts will be avenged by God.
3. God's long-suffering is wonderful, and long, but has a limit.
4. God is "slow to anger." The text does not say that God will never be angry. There is a limit to His forbearance.
5. God "will not at all acquit the wicked."
6. God hinders the work of Satan. Amen!
7. God will vindicate His people. Amen!


In regards to vengeance, the following comes to mind:

Quote:
19Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

20Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.

21Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.(Romans 12)


Here we see how vengeance is obtained: By doing good to those who do evil! It sounds backwards to our way of thinking, but this is the way of God's kingdom.

If your enemy is in need, what do you do? You attend to his need. This is the way of vengeance. And this is God's way of vengeance as well. Overcoming evil with good.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 02/09/11 05:38 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
Originally Posted By: MM
T:Returning to MM's request that I lead the study as I see fit, based on the revelation of Jesus Christ, who said, "When you've seen Me, you've see the Father," what can we conclude that God is like?

M:The Father's character includes at least the following:

Exouds
34:6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,
34:7 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].

Galatians
5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.


Really hard to follow the logic here. How does a quote from Exodus explain what God is like, based on Christ's revelation of Him while here in the flesh?

I agree that God is like these things, of course, and the same for the Galatians quote, but don't see the connection. I was expecting some sort of summary of what Christ was like, and then the conclusion that, based on Christ's statement, the Father is like that too.

Originally Posted By: MM
Tom, how does knowing and believing the Father and the Son are merciful and gracious help us understand why God commanded godly people to kill ungodly people? If you're not ready to explain why, that's okay. If so, please continue to build your case. Thank you.


I think we need to be careful not to get the cart before the horse. What is God like? That should be our first question. Otherwise we're bound to interpret what's happening in the OT incorrectly.

And I think this is the big problem. I think you're understanding what happened in the OT incorrectly and then ask questions based on that understanding, using that as the foundation of everything else. I think that's the wrong foundation. The foundation should be Jesus Christ. What did He reveal about God? Then ask what happened, and why.

Please lead the study. Provide answers.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 02/09/11 08:33 PM

How did Jesus deal with this enemies? I suppose, a good first question would be, who were Jesus' enemies?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 02/10/11 09:48 PM

Tom, would you mind simply stating the truth? Perhaps summarizing your view would be beneficial.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 02/11/11 02:04 AM

I think Jesus treated His enemies by returning good for evil, kindness for violence.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 02/11/11 05:01 AM

Amen! Do you have more, or does this summarize your study?
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 02/11/11 12:58 PM

I personally, theologically think that in the context of a most-supposed to be righteous society of God, who had heard God proclaim His Law with their own ears, such capital judgements were to serve as a tangible object lesson to Israel of what Hell Judgement will be, where people will both suffer and then (eternally) die for, then any and every sin. This ordained judgement also had a practical purpose to help maintain the religious community of Israel. If we just trace the ultimate end result due to the committing of each of these capital crimes, i.e., if everybody did them, as seen in our degenerate societies today, then we can see the ultimate end result of death. Thus the justified, pre-emptive and most deterring, death penalty for them. God is all-wise and just in what He, always judiciously, allows to be done!
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 02/14/11 09:30 PM

Originally Posted By: MM
Amen! Do you have more, or does this summarize your study?


I could try to summarize where I perceive our chief difference lies. I see my paradigm as being characterized by, "Let determine what God is like by considering the revelation of Jesus Christ while He was here in the flesh. This provides a complete revelation of God's character, which is not lacking in any particular."

I see you paradigm as being characterized by, "Considering the revelation of Jesus Christ while here in the flesh is certainly a good thing to do, but it's not enough. We also need to consider other revelations God has given us in regards to His character."
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 02/14/11 09:34 PM

NJK, the difficulty I have with the point of view you are suggesting, assuming I've understood it correctly, is it seems to view the relationship between sin and death as non-organic. That is, there is nothing inherent about sin that results in death, just like there is nothing inherent about parking in a wrong parking spot that causes an accident. If one parks in a wrong parking spot, one can receive a ticked as a penalty, but there's nothing inherently bad or dangerous about so doing (unless one obstruct a fire hydrant, or something like that).

I view death as organically related to sin, because sin is based on putting self first, which, of necessity, means separating oneself from God, who alone is the source of life.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 02/15/11 01:02 AM

Tom, on one hand I was actually addressing the issue of Capital Sins, i.e., those that God said the offender should be put to death. Clearly not all sins carried that penalty as most were to be confessed annually during the Passover which would pay this penalty of death. So in these Capital Sins, I indeed see a paramount “practical” reason why they had to be punished with death and that clearly to me is because of what they could/would ultimately, inevitably lead to if not so strictly held in check. E.g., widespread adultery would lead to outbreaks of STD, even aids, let alone angry spouses seeking murderous revenge, etc. Breaking the Sabbath on thee other hand has more of a Theological though still tangible/practical consequence since observance of such “overtly” religious laws (more vs. civil ones) allowed God to, in a GC context, gracefully bless His People with various blessings that would ultimately make them the Crown Jewel Kingdom/Country of the world (cf. Isa 58:13, 14). So, as in the episode with Achan, breaking that commandment even by a single person stifled that Grand Blessing and consequently put the very lives of all Israel and by salvific implication the whole world at risk. So it too had to be strictly kept in check. However God, or rather Israel, only applied these capital sentences when they themselves were a holy society for the vast majority. When they all chose to live in disobedience and apostasy, then they naturally did not care that such laws be upheld, to their great detriment, as seen in their final, utter demise as God’s chosen people.

Now it is interesting that you make this organic/non-organic comment, because my various Theological studies have led me to understand God as a most real/practical God where everything He does, allows or commands ultimately have a most practical reason. So in this way I have come to see sin as being “non-organic” as your term puts it. That is humans surely die because of sin for practical reasons and not merely an ethereal reason. Case in point, when Adam and Eve sinned, the reason why they gradually physically degenerated and eventually surely died was because they were barred access to the Tree of Life. As God Himself knowingly put it, He did so, so that sinful man would not live eternally (Gen 3:22-24). So clearly sinful man could have continued to live healthily forever if they continued to have access to this Tree of Life, which, as stated in the book of Revelation (22:2, 14), was, in the fruits that it produced, like a cure all pharmacy for created man. Indeed this is how we will once again have eternal and healthy lives in Heaven and on the New Earth, when access to that all-healing Tree is once again allowed.

The reason why creation also died when Adam and Eve fell was (1) because the intelligently created Man had lost His granted Paradise of deserved comfort and ease, and tangibly this nature degeneration may have been caused by God withholding a key, natural “Tree of Life” type ingredient in nature and or withdrawing His preserving nature maintenance and protection.

The fall of Adam and Eve also affect them mentally/psychologically because from then one, indeed from the instance when Eve, as rightly related in the SOP (cf. this post) knowingly chose to continue to stray away from Adam towards the forbidden tree, they began subject to the direct suggestions/influence (i.e., temptations) of Satan himself. So the protection against this mental/psychological perversion that was found in obey God and staying together, a testing time which apparently would not last forever but only for a period of time. Indeed I believe that all of the created worlds of God had such a similar testing time and when the past first handedly oblivious, prior to that, to how things had turned out in other worlds, God removed this granted tempting opportunity of Satan and his views, and like a most protective parent and wholly and desiringly trusting child, knowing what is best for their child, has since then been actively, through His Spirit, shielded these worlds from temptations to disobey His Law.

So it is indeed from those Theological findings that I do see sin as ‘non-organically, tangibly, consequential’ and by correspondence, God Law as having a most practical purpose which we do not fully yet understand.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 02/16/11 03:37 AM

Thank you for your detailed response. Time constraints permit only touching on a couple of points right now, but hope to return later.

Originally Posted By: NJK
However God, or rather Israel, only applied these capital sentences when they themselves were a holy society for the vast majority.


This was never the case. The vast majority were never holy, but were a stubborn, stiff-necked people. How they were is demonstrated by how they treated Christ, which is how Christ would have been treated had He come earlier. If the vast majority were ever holy, God would have been more than happy to have sent Christ then, so He could have been accepted, and Israel spared, rather than rejecting Him and sealing their own doom.

Quote:
So clearly sinful man could have continued to live healthily forever if they continued to have access to this Tree of Life, which, as stated in the book of Revelation (22:2, 14), was, in the fruits that it produced, like a cure all pharmacy for created man. Indeed this is how we will once again have eternal and healthy lives in Heaven and on the New Earth, when access to that all-healing Tree is once again allowed.


We know that "forever" means "for as long as the time in question pertains" to the Hebrew mindset, and not "for all eternity" as we Westerners would think of things. This comes up in Revelation 20, for example, and in many places in Scripture.

I think the reason for prohibiting access to the tree of life was for the same reason that God allowed the eating of meat after the flood, which was to allow man's lifetime to decrease. Surely it's not possible to sin and live forever, as sin, when it has matured, brings forth death (as James puts it; a paraphrase from memory). Anyway, from a purely logical standpoint, it doesn't make sense that the principle of selfishness could sustain life forever; at least, I don't see the sense in this.

In heaven, the powers of the tree of life are another story, as there won't be any sin there.

Also there's a spiritual aspect to the tree of life, don't you think? That is, sin isn't solely, or even primarily, a physical problem. If that's the case, then a physical remedy can't be sufficient, can it?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 02/16/11 03:49 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
Now it is interesting that you make this organic/non-organic comment, because my various Theological studies have led me to understand God as a most real/practical God where everything He does, allows or commands ultimately have a most practical reason. So in this way I have come to see sin as being “non-organic” as your term puts it. That is humans surely die because of sin for practical reasons and not merely an ethereal reason.


I'm not understanding this comment. "Organic," as I'm using the term, means there is an actual link between sin and death, as opposed to as arbitrary one, such as a punishment for a crime. I don't see how this could be characterized as "ethereal" as opposed to practical.

For example, one can get lung cancer from smoking. I would consider this a "practical" result, as opposed to an "ethereal" one (and "organic" as opposed to "non-organic"). It's not that God arbitrarily smites some people with lung cancer who smoke, but smoking, by its very nature, is unhealthful, and can cause unpleasant side effects. I see sin as similar to smoking in this regard. It causes death, the second death, which is final separation from God. It does this by virtue of what it does to the one who sins, wrecking his mind, causing him to believe lies, lies which destroy him.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 02/16/11 03:52 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
Indeed I believe that all of the created worlds of God had such a similar testing time and when the past first handedly oblivious, prior to that, to how things had turned out in other worlds, God removed this granted tempting opportunity of Satan and his views, and like a most protective parent and wholly and desiringly trusting child, knowing what is best for their child, has since then been actively, through His Spirit, shielded these worlds from temptations to disobey His Law.


I agree with this.

Although I disagree with some of your points, I really enjoyed your post. Thanks for taking the time to write all that out.

Quote:
So it is indeed from those Theological findings that I do see sin as ‘non-organically, tangibly, consequential’ and by correspondence, God Law as having a most practical purpose which we do not fully yet understand.


I don't follow this. I don't follow why you think this paragraph would follow from the previous one. Also, I don't see why you think we don't yet fully understand the most practical purpose of God's law. I think it's quite clear and easy to understand the purpose of God's law.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 02/16/11 11:00 AM

Hello Tom, it is readily observable that you do not understand much of what I have said because your are solely viewing/filtering it through your Theological perspective. I will however try to make some things more clear. Also, exegesis and not eisogesis, i.e., letting the text and its context speak for itself, is the key here, and, on top pf Scripture, that also applies to what I have said/written. I recommend you first take the time to carefully read what I have said.

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
However God, or rather Israel, only applied these capital sentences when they themselves were a holy society for the vast majority.


Originally Posted By: Tom
This was never the case. The vast majority were never holy, but were a stubborn, stiff-necked people. How they were is demonstrated by how they treated Christ, which is how Christ would have been treated had He come earlier.


Here you have overextended what I said to cover the entire period of Ethnic Israel, through the time of Christ. (Perhaps you misunderstood “vast majority” to be referring to Israel’s years instead of the what I meant: ‘a vast majority of the people (e.g., 90%) during a given period of time (e.g., 2 years).’ I indeed never meant this in such an all-encompassing and durative way. As I next said in the context of that statement: “When they all chose to live in disobedience and apostasy, then they naturally did not care that such laws be upheld, to their great detriment, as seen in their final, utter demise as God’s chosen people.” Given their sanctuary service, Israel could, in such prescribed righteousness, become a holy society every year. It is only when they chose to persist in apostasy and either completely ignored these services and/or made them completely void because of their really non-repented of sins that they became a unholy society. That of course did not occur many times, but the Bible relates some periods of such graceful righteousness. Still the execution of capital punishments was left entirely in the hands of the people. And when they were living unrighteously, indeed as “stiff-neck” people, they naturally and/or indifferently just did not bother to enforce them. So thus Sabbath breaking was common and non-reprimanded, as was idolatry and various forms of fornication and adultery.
So while Israel was indeed for the most part of their existence as God’s Chosen People, unrighteous, they did however have brief periods of righteousness, during which such measures of capital punishment were faithfully, righteously carried out as God had directed.

Originally Posted By: Tom
If the vast majority were ever holy, God would have been more than happy to have sent Christ then, so He could have been accepted, and Israel spared, rather than rejecting Him and sealing their own doom.


That is not a Biblical, nor Theological valid concept. God was not waiting for Israel to be most holy to send Jesus, or else He would have done so, e.g., in the days of David. God instead was waiting for the most opportune time geo-politically for the Gospel message, which would have to be established and proclaimed through mainly natural means, to flourish. So this was when Rome, with its respect of Laws, Justice and Rights, was the world’s ruler, when Rome also had made travel throughout the world both most accessible to all and safe, etc, (cf. “The Fullness of the Time” in DA 32-38). God had also set a certain prophetic time for Christ’s first advent. Indeed with just this specific prophetic time Israel should have been ready.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: NJK Project
So clearly sinful man could have continued to live healthily forever if they continued to have access to this Tree of Life, which, as stated in the book of Revelation (22:2, 14), was, in the fruits that it produced, like a cure all pharmacy for created man. Indeed this is how we will once again have eternal and healthy lives in Heaven and on the New Earth, when access to that all-healing Tree is once again allowed.


Originally Posted By: Tom
We know that "forever" means "for as long as the time in question pertains" to the Hebrew mindset, and not "for all eternity" as we Westerners would think of things. This comes up in Revelation 20, for example, and in many places in Scripture.


The limits of the term “forever” in the Bible is actually defined by the context in which it is used. (E.g, Isa 9:6; 26:4; Micah 5:2; NT: Rev 4:9, 10) So it could mean a limited period of time, but if it refers to eternity, then it has this “eternal” meaning for that is the unlimited “limits” of such a period. So my comment did indeed in an “eternal” meaning. That is expressedly because that is what the Scriptures, as made clear in the SOP, say. (see Gen 3:22-24 and PP 60.3 (see below))

Originally Posted By: Tom
I think the reason for prohibiting access to the tree of life was for the same reason that God allowed the eating of meat after the flood, which was to allow man's lifetime to decrease. Surely it's not possible to sin and live forever,...


Originally Posted By: PP 60.3
In order to possess an endless existence, man must continue to partake of the tree of life. Deprived of this, his vitality would gradually diminish until life should become extinct. It was Satan's plan that Adam and Eve should by disobedience incur God's displeasure; and then, if they failed to obtain forgiveness, he hoped that they would eat of the tree of life, and thus perpetuate an existence of sin and misery. But after man's fall, holy angels were immediately commissioned to guard the tree of life. Around these angels flashed beams of light having the appearance of a glittering sword. None of the family of Adam were permitted to pass the barrier to partake of the life-giving fruit; hence there is not an immortal sinner. {PP 60.3}


Originally Posted By: Tom
...as sin, when it has matured, brings forth death (as James puts it; a paraphrase from memory).


As follows, to make my view most transparent, you can indeed go through each of the 10 Commandments and see how, ‘when their violation has been brought to their full maturity/end, then bring forth death, i.e.,:
-(1) obeying another God who does not even exist, thus effectively living by the counsels of man, and not those of the Creator, leads to making the wrong life choices and thus death
-(2) the same goes for this second commandment, which is a more tangible form of the violation of the first.
-(3) disrespecting God and also tangibly taking His name in vain, which by natural implication means that you presumptively act in the name of God, will lead people to place themselves in situations where God cannot intervene to help them, which could also involve life-threatening situations. That commandment could carry a direct judgement of God in order to preserve the holiness of His name.
-(4) Disobeying God’s Sabbatical Principles leads to the “live an let die” ways of today, which also comes to affect the ones who ignore the plight of the vitally poor, particularly in terms of strife and cut-throat competition.
-(5) A irreverent and thus also disobedient child is most likely to make even fatally wrong choices and cut significantly cut short their lives.
-(6) A “murderer” automatically becomes a person marked for death, even if it is through judicial measures. Only current laws prevent the authorized killing of murderers who have not been incarcerated or even released after serving their non-full life time.
-(7) Sexual immorality leads to deadly diseases as well as desires of murderous vengeance by some offended parties.
-(8) Thieves are usually armed with deadly weapons for a reason, because they could be killed out of self-defence or to protect one’s property, which can indeed be vital.
-(9) Lying can both get someone killed and bring back death upon such a murderous liar.
-(10) When on covets the possessions of others deeply enough, any means will be justified to obtain them, and this usually leads to recursively violation at least one of these other commandments, which as shown can all have deadly consequences.

So “mature/full blown/unrestrained sin” indeed results in death and that for clear tangible, consequential reasons. (Notice that the most prominent reason why God brought about the flood and destruction of all flesh was that ‘they had filled the world with violence (Gen 6:11-13; cf. 9:6) -i.e., such “mature/full blown/unrestrained sin”. The ‘thoughts of their hearts was indeed evil continually, and that was actually manifested in acts of violence, and no doubt rampant, wanton murder and bloodshed.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Anyway, from a purely logical standpoint, it doesn't make sense that the principle of selfishness could sustain life forever; at least, I don't see the sense in this.


I would need to see the Biblical support for that “selfishness = sin” Theological concept. It seems to me that this is indeed merely assumed (if not presumed) “sensical/logical” theology. You cannot base an entire Theology on mere, private assumptions.

In actuality true/full selfishness leads, as see in e.g., the individualism of Capitalism, leads one to only concern themselves with themselves thus leaving others to suffer and die, were it but fir the many Socialist “safety nets” that have been incorporated into, now “mixed economies.” All this to say that such selfishness also naturally, tangibly leads to certain death. I.e., Imagine global life today without any Socialistic (=sharing) principles.

Originally Posted By: Tom
In heaven, the powers of the tree of life are another story, as there won't be any sin there.


Biblically and SOP speaking... hardly. It was that same tree that was taken up with Eden that will be in the Heaven and New Earth. Also the Bible is clear that only God possesses immortality (1 Tim 6:16), so as the Bible and SOP say, it is only by eating of this tree and thus taking in whatever health restoring/maintaining ingredients that it has that we, and any of God’s created beings, in other worlds live eternally. (Somehow, however this is not the case with heavenly beings such as angels, as Satan and his angels surely do not have access to a Tree of Life yet they have lived for 6000+ years and will only be destroyed when God does so. Perhaps their regenerative cycle need is much greater than man’s, i.e., more than 1000 years, perhaps 10,000 years or more. However is seems to me that EGW says that she saw that Satan had diminished from his previous form/stature, which may be his degenerating process.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Also there's a spiritual aspect to the tree of life, don't you think? That is, sin isn't solely, or even primarily, a physical problem.


The psychological effects of sin certainly has its effect on the mind, which is why e.g., movies are rated by what is considered a mentally acceptable age to effectively view some sins. However I only see that sin has physical effect when it is practised, especially in a full blown way, which as seen above ultimately leads to death. Again the Bible and SOP are clear that Adam and Eve would have retained their physical longevity and by clear implication, health and vigor if they could continue to eat of the fruit of life. In such a case they, and/or their descendants, though being mentally evil would still be quite healthy. The adverse physiological effect that their corrupt mental state could have had on their body could also have been continually cured by the tree of life. Even physical wounds for various sure “violence”, be it externally or internally, would also have been “healed” by the fruit of the tree of life.

Originally Posted By: Tom
If that's the case, then a physical remedy can't be sufficient, can it?


As I said before, you’ll first need to Biblically prove (i.e., Scriptures and SOP) that, this, contrary to what is it clearly said and understood their, is ‘not the case’.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Originally Posted By: NJK
Now it is interesting that you make this organic/non-organic comment, because my various Theological studies have led me to understand God as a most real/practical God where everything He does, allows or commands ultimately have a most practical reason. So in this way I have come to see sin as being “non-organic” as your term puts it. That is humans surely die because of sin for practical reasons and not merely an ethereal reason.


Originally Posted By: Tom
I'm not understanding this comment. "Organic," as I'm using the term, means there is an actual link between sin and death, as opposed to as arbitrary one, such as a punishment for a crime. I don't see how this could be characterized as "ethereal" as opposed to practical....


With this added definition, I now clearly see what you mean by organic, however that does not change the essence of my (previously “non-organic”) understanding. I think the problem here is how you are viewing sin, i.e., merely as a spiritual concept vs. the “practical”/tangible view of mine. In that sense you are understanding “organic” to also have the same spiritual “fabric”. I however now, correcting myself, use this “organic” term as “a linked, non-arbitrary result” to apply it to how I previously understood “non-organic”, namely that the “organic” result of sin is pointedly in the physical/practical outcome of various degrees of death that is surely brings about. I guess the only Spiritual application that can be made, which also is a practical one, is that this death is ultimately solely because man does not have access to God’s Tree of Life since Adam fell. So even if man lived a relatively speaking holy, righteous, 10 Commandment keeping life, as with Believers in God, they still would eventually die, simply because they do not have access to the tree of life, and not “ethereally” because they had committed a single sin. It is in that tangible sense that the wages of sin is death.

And to also address a previous point you made about life expectancy after the flood, having just studied Gen 9:5 more carefully (which EGW does not seem to have said anything about); I do not see any support that this is how God shortened the lives of men after the flood. That is commonly assumed, especially by proponents of vegetarianism, (I also had this view), however that verse seems to simply preemptively speak against the rampant, murderous violence that existed before the flood where men and animals were wantonly murdered. God was instituting capital punishment. I.e., the beast that killed man should be killed man (literally ‘“your [i.e., the] blood of your lives” will be required from the killing animal (9:5a NASB margin)) and ‘a man killing another man will, and apparently his brethern’ have to be put to death’ (9.5b). This harmonizes best with vs. 6. In the case of animals, that is why today when an animal kills a man, whether in domestication or in the wild, they are put down, because they are then more prone to do it again. So here, God was just trying to prevent the type of murderous violence that existed amongst all flesh before the flood. That also shows that God viewed sin from a more “pragmatic/practical” level and it was not until such a level of violence existed, where man and animals (=all flesh) were just going about murdering each other, evidently for any minor reason, that God intervened with the flood. This is not to say that non murderous sins are evil in the eyes of God, but apparently violence/murder (evidently as well as sexual perversion as with Sodom and Gomorrah) are God’s direcctly intervening limits.

So the life of man may have naturally degraded and also keep in mind that the destruction of the flood had really complicated living on earth, so a more physically demanding life vs. the sure greater ease and comfort that existed before the flood came to affect the longevity of man. This also comes to adversely affect man’s genetic make up and thus becomes worse with subsequent generations. Also the long ages that we hear about before the flood, may only have been the achievement of those who lived within God’s will. The immoral and abusive lifestyle of the evil “antedelluvians” may have shorted their lives. So this ever shortening age (from which we only of righteous people) may have already been in full effect sin the fall of Adam and Eve and greatly aggravated after the flood, due to the existing harsh and life-sustaining adverse condition. Cold seasons and Winters alone, caused by the shift in the earth’s axis during the flood, probably greatly shortened man’s life. Nonetheless, a now greatly animal/meat-based diet, out of pure natural necessity, which the evil antedelluvians probably already had engaged in prior to the flood, killing animals, may have contributed to this life expectancy shortening due to the diminished nutrition, however the other alternative of not eating meat at all would have probably ended in people starving to death. So it really was the lesser of two evils.

So, in summary, in all of this, I can only see tangible, pragmatic/practical consequences/results in the relationship between sin and death.

Originally Posted By: Tom
...I see sin as similar to smoking in this regard. It causes death, the second death, which is final separation from God.


Again here seems to be a purely “assumed Theology”: Where in the Bible does it says/imply that ‘the second death (i.e., death via hell’s judgement) is “separation from God”’). The Second Death is called that in the Bible because it literally is the Second Death. I.e., all men die once, and then they are all resurrected. Some will go on to live forever, other will be cast in the Lake of fire and ultimately, die, never to be resurrected again, thus their Second Death. There is not even a felt “separation” from God because there is no consciousness or knowledge in any death.

So all of these theological points you cite seem to me to be merely circular evangelistic truism that are actually not rooted in concrete Biblical teachings.

Originally Posted By: Tom
It does this by virtue of what it does to the one who sins, wrecking his mind,
causing him to believe lies, lies which destroy him.


Apply this (also assumed theology) to the fall of Eve. When was her mind so ‘“wrecked” causing her to believe the lie of Satan, resulting eventually in her physical death years later’? According to your line of reasoning, this would have to be before she ate of the fruit. So according to this view, she sinned, not when she ate the forbidden fruit, but before that when she believed Satan and picked it and then ate it. However, if Eve had thrown the fruit away prior to eating, even biting into, it, choosing to now stop believe the Serpent and once again trusting God, she would not have sinned. She would have allowed herself to be greatly tempted, but would not have sinned. (Also had she remained/returned by Adam’s side, she would then not even have been tempted.) As the Bible states clearly in regards to Jesus, being tempted in not synonymous with committing sin (E.g,. Christ’s wilderness temptation, ordained/allowed by God (Matt 4:1); Heb 4:15). So Eve was deceived and believed Satan’s lie with a perfect and “un-wrecked” mind.

Again all of our teachings/understandings/theology have to be anchored by the word of God and not private suppositions/assumptions.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: NJK Project
So it is indeed from those Theological findings that I do see sin as ‘non-organically, tangibly, consequential’ and by correspondence, God Law as having a most practical purpose which we do not fully yet understand.


Originally Posted By: Tom
I don't follow this. I don't follow why you think this paragraph would follow from the previous one.


That paragraph was actually a summary of all of my findings related priorly and not just to the last paragraph.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Also, I don't see why you think we don't yet fully understand the most practical purpose of God's law. I think it's quite clear and easy to understand the purpose of God's law.


This is being said in relation to the statements in this blog post and with the vast majority in the Church either believing in, or indifferent going along with Capitalism, which is directly or remotely causing all of the adverse effects upon man in our world, all of God’s Commandments are systematically being perpetually violated. It is this practical aspect of God’s law that people do not understand, especially in relation to the first 4 Commandments. Thus with all 10, not only is the Spirit of God’s law violated, but tangible/ “practical” adverse effects are resulting from this, even deaths, such as 65 million infants every year. So it is only when, like the Pharisees of old, the Letter of the law is looked at, and not this included, even deeper spiritual aspect, all anchored in the Biblical “fuller” understanding of God’s Sabbath, that one can surfacely perceive solely a “clear and easy” understanding and say that they are in full harmony with God’s Law. That is thus how God’s Law has an even more practical aspect than many either know of, or want to admit. However sin we know to do much better than the world, even Capitalism-espousing Christians, then not doing so, which results in the suffering and death of millions of people, is sin to us (James 4:17) and thus the transgression of God’s Law. (1 John 3:4)

Originally Posted By: Tom
Although I disagree with some of your points, I really enjoyed your post. Thanks for taking the time to write all that out.


You are welcome. Although my time is greatly overloaded, I do take time to discuss topics that are pertinently related to my current projects thrust as they address certain FAQ-type of topics/issues that I will eventually have to concretely deal with. (Sorry for some typos due to a lack of proofreading time).

After these more indepth explanations and clarifications, we’ll see if you still disagree with those points. Also if you disagree with me on something, it obviously is because you think I am wrong and your right. And since I do not aim, nor want to be in error than if this is for a substantive Biblical reason, than please make that reason known so that it can be verified and ascribed to if valid.

God Bless.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 02/16/11 09:33 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
Originally Posted By: MM
Amen! Do you have more, or does this summarize your study?

I could try to summarize where I perceive our chief difference lies. I see my paradigm as being characterized by, "Let determine what God is like by considering the revelation of Jesus Christ while He was here in the flesh. This provides a complete revelation of God's character, which is not lacking in any particular."

I see you paradigm as being characterized by, "Considering the revelation of Jesus Christ while here in the flesh is certainly a good thing to do, but it's not enough. We also need to consider other revelations God has given us in regards to His character."

I think you misunderstood my question, Tom. You are leading this study with an objective in mind - To explain why God commanded godly people to stone, scorch, and smite ungodly people to death.

To do this, you maintain we must first understand what God is like by studying the example of Jesus while He was here in the flesh. You've been doing a wonderful job, so far, demonstrating the loving, caring, compassionate nature of Jesus.

I agree with everything you've stated about Jesus. However, you have yet to explain why God commanded godly people to stone, scorch, and smite ungodly people to death. Are you ready to do so? Or, do you more time? If so, please take all the time you need.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 02/16/11 11:49 PM

I chose to respond to several aspects of your last post. If I skipped over a point or points that you feel were particularly important, please repeat them, and I'll be happy to address them.

Originally Posted By: NJK
Hello Tom, it is readily observable that you do not understand much of what I have said because your are solely viewing/filtering it through your Theological perspective.


I don't think this is a likely explanation for lack of understanding on my part. Most of what I read comes from a different theological perspective from what I hold, so I have a lot of practice understand ideas different from my own.

Quote:
I will however try to make some things more clear. Also, exegesis and not eisogesis, i.e., letting the text and its context speak for itself, is the key here, and, on top pf Scripture, that also applies to what I have said/written. I recommend you first take the time to carefully read what I have said.


I'm carefully reading what you're writing now. I don't have time to read everything you've written, just as you don't have time to do so with me. I do appreciate you're trying to be as clear as possible.

Quote:
T:This was never the case. The vast majority were never holy, but were a stubborn, stiff-necked people. How they were is demonstrated by how they treated Christ, which is how Christ would have been treated had He come earlier.

NJK:Here you have overextended what I said to cover the entire period of Ethnic Israel, through the time of Christ.


No I didn't. *I* made the comment that what you stated (that Isreal was a holy society) was never the case.

Quote:
So while Israel was indeed for the most part of their existence as God’s Chosen People, unrighteous, they did however have brief periods of righteousness, during which such measures of capital punishment were faithfully, righteously carried out as God had directed.


I disagree with this statement. I invite you to make the case that there was ever a time when it was ever the case that, as you claimed in your previous post, that the "vast majority" of Israel was a "holy society." I'm curious as to why you would think this, when there's so much evidence to the contrary. All along the way, from beginning to end, Israel fought God's will and purposes. Their society at best but very dimly reflected God's government or character. Consider the huge discrepancy between their society and the life of Christ.

Quote:
T:If the vast majority were ever holy, God would have been more than happy to have sent Christ then, so He could have been accepted, and Israel spared, rather than rejecting Him and sealing their own doom.

NJK:That is not a Biblical, nor Theological valid concept. God was not waiting for Israel to be most holy to send Jesus, or else He would have done so, e.g., in the days of David.


Sure it's a Biblical concept. God is not willing that any should perish. That's one example of the concept.

Also I didn't say anything about Israel being "most holy" but spoke in terms of the "vast majority" being holy, which I have asserted was never the case.

If you consider God's original plan for Israel, it was that they be a light to the world, spreading the Gospel, not that they would reject His Son. God bent over backwards, all along the way, to save Israel, and if it had been possible to do so, He certainly would have.

Quote:
The limits of the term “forever” in the Bible is actually defined by the context in which it is used. (E.g, Isa 9:6; 26:4; Micah 5:2; NT: Rev 4:9, 10) So it could mean a limited period of time, but if it refers to eternity, then it has this “eternal” meaning for that is the unlimited “limits” of such a period. So my comment did indeed in an “eternal” meaning. That is expressedly because that is what the Scriptures, as made clear in the SOP, say. (see Gen 3:22-24 and PP 60.3 (see below))


As James points out:

Quote:
sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. (James 1:15)


Is sin merely a physical problem? Can a simple physical remedy prevent it from "bringing forth death"?

Regarding the death that sin results in, I understand this to be speaking primarily of the second death (which is what I had in mind in my comments). Your explanations (of the commandments) looked to be in reference to the first death.

Quote:
T:Anyway, from a purely logical standpoint, it doesn't make sense that the principle of selfishness could sustain life forever; at least, I don't see the sense in this.

NJK:I would need to see the Biblical support for that “selfishness = sin” Theological concept.


Here's something from the SOP which speaks to the concept I had in mind:

Quote:
The only remedy for the sins and sorrows of men is Christ. The gospel of His grace alone can cure the evils that curse society. The injustice of the rich toward the poor, the hatred of the poor toward the rich, alike have their root in selfishness, and this can be eradicated only through submission to Christ. He alone, for the selfish heart of sin, gives the new heart of love. —Christ’s Object Lessons, 254 (1900).


Quote:
It seems to me that this is indeed merely assumed (if not presumed) “sensical/logical” theology. You cannot base an entire Theology on mere, private assumptions.


I'm not sure what it is you're taking issue with. I wrote that the principle of selfishness cannot support life. Are you disagreeing with this? Also, I spoke of the principle of selfishness being the root of sin. I think this is clearly seen in the fall of Lucifer. Is it this idea you are disagreeing with?

Let's look at it this say. Is it possible for one to be selfish and yet not sin? To be selfish is to put self first, which means not putting God first, which would be breaking the first commandment, right? Also, if one considers each of the 10 Commandments, it seems easy to see that breaking any of them is only possible if one has a "me first" mentality, as opposed to having Christ first.

Regarding the further Tree of Life comments, you seem to be looking at sin as a physical problem as opposed to a mental problem. That is, the problem of sin involves not thinking in the right way. The right way is "Not I, but Christ," as is exemplified by the 10 Commandments. This is the way of life, not because God does something arbitrary to make it so, but because the principles of the 10 Commandments *are* the principles of life, the principles of agape.

Similarly, in the other direction, the principle of sin must lead to death. This isn't something that can be healed by a physical remedy, but there must be a new mind, hence a new birth. One, to live eternally, must think not "me first," but "not I, but Christ."

Quote:
With this added definition, I now clearly see what you mean by organic, however that does not change the essence of my (previously “non-organic”) understanding. I think the problem here is how you are viewing sin, i.e., merely as a spiritual concept vs. the “practical”/tangible view of mine.


Human beings have the mind, soul and body inextricably intertwined. Christ said, "As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he." But this isn't merely a spiritual concept, and not practical, because the practical aspects inevitably follow from what's in the mind. It cannot be otherwise. Because of how we think in our heart, we make decisions; we speak and act.

Quote:
I guess the only Spiritual application that can be made, which also is a practical one, is that this death is ultimately solely because man does not have access to God’s Tree of Life since Adam fell.


Why did Christ die? Simply because He didn't have access to the tree of life?

If one considers the entirety of Christ's life and teachings, where is the concept you have articulated to be found? That is, where did Christ teach that the only Spiritual application that can be made is that death is ultimately solely because man does not have access to the tree of life? When I see Christ teaching as spiritual reasons for death are things like unbelief and disobedience.

Quote:
And to also address a previous point you made about life expectancy after the flood, having just studied Gen 9:5 more carefully (which EGW does not seem to have said anything about); I do not see any support that this is how God shortened the lives of men after the flood.


Here's one statement that speaks to this:

Quote:
After the Flood the people ate largely of animal food. God saw that the ways of man were corrupt, and that he was disposed to exalt himself proudly against his Creator and to follow the inclinations of his own heart. And He permitted that long-lived race to eat animal food to shorten their sinful lives. Soon after the Flood the race began to rapidly decrease in size, and in length of years. 406
Counsels on Diet and Foods, 373
{CCh 228.2}


Regarding your comments viz a viz the second death, I invite you to consider how Christ died. Here is a description from "The Desire of Ages"

Quote:
The guilt of every descendant of Adam was pressing upon His heart. The wrath of God against sin, the terrible manifestation of His displeasure because of iniquity, filled the soul of His Son with consternation. All His life Christ had been publishing to a fallen world the good news of the Father’s mercy and pardoning love. Salvation for the chief of sinners was His theme. But now with the terrible weight of guilt He bears, He cannot see the Father’s reconciling face. The withdrawal of the divine countenance from the Saviour in this hour of supreme anguish pierced His heart with a sorrow that can never be fully understood by man. So great was this agony that His physical pain was hardly felt. {DA 753.1}
The Desire of Ages, p. 753.2 (EGW)
Satan with his fierce temptations wrung the heart of Jesus. The Saviour could not see through the portals of the tomb. Hope did not present to Him His coming forth from the grave a conqueror, or tell Him of the Father’s acceptance of the sacrifice. He feared that sin was so offensive to God that Their separation was to be eternal. Christ felt the anguish which the sinner will feel when mercy shall no longer plead for the guilty race. It was the sense of sin, bringing the Father’s wrath upon Him as man’s substitute, that made the cup He drank so bitter, and broke the heart of the Son of God.


This speaks to Christ's dying because His heart was broken, which was caused by the separation Christ was feeling from His Father, due to the effect of His taking our sin upon Him.

Regarding my statement

Quote:
It does this by virtue of what it does to the one who sins, wrecking his mind,
causing him to believe lies, lies which destroy him.


I invite you to consider Lucifer and Judas as examples of this principle.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 02/17/11 06:58 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
I chose to respond to several aspects of your last post. If I skipped over a point or points that you feel were particularly important, please repeat them, and I'll be happy to address them.


In all sincerity and seriousness, Tom, I considered all points in my post to be important. Since I do not know which ones you skipped because you didn’t have a Biblical response for them or just considered to be “unimportant” then it is not expedient for me to engage in a gauging trial and error reposting here. In such discussion I logically assume that when something is not disputed/refuted, then it accepted as a valid argument. There is also a false but popular tendency, which you are factually also guilty of, for people, especially in Biblical study, to ignore Biblical passage and statements that oppose their view and for which they do not have a resolution to. I do not operate that way, instead taking into consideration all points pertinent to a topic and harmonizing them according to the clearest/most objective light. Also in this sense, I work from factual statements to Theology and not vice versa, since Theology is only rightly determined from the contribution of individual statements. The opposite course is the unbiblical method of “philosophizing”. So I’ll again address all of your points in detail and do consider my prior points to be indeed valid. So you’ll really have individually “debunk” them before so “moving pass” them.

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Originally Posted By: NJK
Hello Tom, it is readily observable that you do not understand much of what I have said because your are solely viewing/filtering it through your Theological perspective.


To further clarify this statement here, it particularly involves this non-addressing of individual factual points, just ignoring them and continue on with your perspective. So the issue is not ‘what you have read or have done’, as you replied, but what you are currently doing in this discussion.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I don't have time to read everything you've written, just as you don't have time to do so with me.


I have actually read all that you have posted in response to me so far in this discussion, which, in its dealing with individual factual passages before addressing theology, is quite self-contained.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Tom
No I didn't. *I* made the comment that what you stated (that Isreal was a holy society) was never the case.


Originally Posted By: Tom
I disagree with this statement. I invite you to make the case that there was ever a time when it was ever the case that, as you claimed in your previous post, that the "vast majority" of Israel was a "holy society." I'm curious as to why you would think this, when there's so much evidence to the contrary. All along the way, from beginning to end, Israel fought God's will and purposes. Their society at best but very dimly reflected God's government or character. Consider the huge discrepancy between their society and the life of Christ.


Originally Posted By: Tom
Also I didn't say anything about Israel being "most holy" but spoke in terms of the "vast majority" being holy, which I have asserted was never the case.


Succinctly said, I spiritually, logically take it that every time Israel conquered new territory, tangibly received God’s blessing, won a military campaign, enjoy periods of piece, etcs, they were in a period of being a holy society. “Sinless” surely not, hence the Sanctuary service. Short-lived spurts, evidently. But many surely righteous enough for a holy God to work with, and through them. Also in acts where God entered into judgement with a, usually small, part of the camp, it was because the rest the people were doing their best to live according to His Laws, thus were holy, through their Temple Ministry (= our Gospel of Grace through Faith).

And the whole point of this statement is focusedly, and most pertinent to this topic, that it was Israel who had to physically carry out their capital punishments. I.e., God did not go about the camp striking people dead. And all Israel had to representatively tangibly participate in this execution. So it seems most logical to me that if most of them enjoyed engaging in these sins, they then due to such like-mindedness did not carry out these ordained punishments.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Sure it's a Biblical concept. God is not willing that any should perish. That's one example of the concept.


Here is a perfect example of ignoring what I have said: What then do you do with the 70 Week time prophecy given ca. 600 years before Christ? What then do you do with the “fulness of the time” teaching? (Gal 4:4). If your view was true, Paul would have instead said, “when the people were, relatively, most holy...” For according to your view, God was waiting for the time when His people were most ready, so obviously the time when Jesus appeared was the best time. Why not in any of the previous period of, indeed, holiness, cited above, and that any time from the formation of Israel?? Surely the victorious and conquering generation under Joshua was a prime generation!

Originally Posted By: Tom
God bent over backwards, all along the way, to save Israel, and if it had been possible to do so, He certainly would have.


The Biblical fact and truth is that “all along the way” God was instead waiting for the best time geo-politically for His salvation to spread throughout the world and when that came, as He figured out it would and surely worked to maintain this time, He sent His world salvation irrespective of how ready the Jews were, for all that an All Mighty God really needed was a faithful remnant.

Originally Posted By: Tom
If you consider God's original plan for Israel, it was that they be a light to the world, spreading the Gospel, not that they would reject His Son.


That was indeed God’s plan, however He is realistic and does present clearly both life and death results before his people. In e.g., the 70 Weeks prophecy, he warningly presented the end result of death, and as expected, the people persisted in a course that led to that result.

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Quote:
The limits of the term “forever” in the Bible is actually defined by the context in which it is used. (E.g, Isa 9:6; 26:4; Micah 5:2; NT: Rev 4:9, 10) So it could mean a limited period of time, but if it refers to eternity, then it has this “eternal” meaning for that is the unlimited “limits” of such a period. So my comment did indeed in an “eternal” meaning. That is expressedly because that is what the Scriptures, as made clear in the SOP, say. (see Gen
3:22-24 and PP 60.3 (see below))


Well... no duly direct counter argument from you here??? Just, as usual, moving on to your points... This point however completely refutes your view that the sinner could not live eternally if he continued to eat the fruit of life as clearly stated by EGW in PP 60.3. So I’ll therefore logically consider that I did disprove your previously stated objection.

Originally Posted By: Tom
As James points out:

Quote:
sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. (James 1:15)


The term “finished” is not telic but “transitive” focusing on the process. I.e., ‘Sin when it has been brought to its completion/fullness’. See literal reading in NASB margin.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Regarding the death that sin results in, I understand this to be speaking primarily of the second death (which is what I had in mind in my comments).


Here you are making a theological assumption, especially with a notion that the “Second Death” is somehow different from the pre-final resurrection one. I do not see any Biblical support that this “Second Death” involves in itself, nothing more than what is involved in the First One. The supernaturally-sustained prior punishing suffering and torment of hell is distinct from this physical death.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Your explanations (of the commandments) looked to be in reference to the first death.


Again you need to show what it the substantive difference between the first and second death. The stated violation of the spirit and letter of God’s Commandment undistinguishedly leads to both death for the unsaved.

Quote:
Quote:
T:Anyway, from a purely logical standpoint, it doesn't make sense that the principle of selfishness could sustain life forever; at least, I don't see the sense in this.

NJK:I would need to see the Biblical support for that “selfishness = sin” Theological concept.


Having reviewed some of my blog posting, I have found a most clear Biblical/SOP support for this notion that Selfishness is at the root of all sin. It is found in 4T 384ff. EGW states based on her vision selfishness at the General head of sins [of God’s professed people]; followed then by four sub heading of: Covetousness; Ambition; Jealousy; Intemperance, followed by ‘lesser [i.e., hierarchaly lower], sub sins’. The example you cited from COL 254 was really to case specific, i.e., the rich vs. the poor to be determinative of a general theology, though it did remind me of that statement from my blog post.

Now the question is: Is this general heading category of Selfishness unique at the top of sins, or is it one of several other branches. It seems to be only focusing on man-ward sins (i.e. the last 6 commandments) vs. the God-ward ones. Thus there may be another general heading under which occur sins towards God. The crux of the message in this vision seemed to be trying to show how God’s people were lacking in interpersonal relations all the while being shown to be most religious, thus seeming to be observing the first 4 commandments, (to the letter at least). So more study may flesh this out, however, I’ll go with the notion that selfishness is at the head of, specifically, all man-ward committed sins.

Perhaps it is “self-love” vs. Loving God that is at a counterparting head (Matt 22:36-40); which is not the same as selfishness which is ‘being concerned with one’s welfare and disregarding other’, whereas the first for commandments, to be broken and since it distinguishedly, inevitably is God who can provide our well being, thus straightly involves not caring about/loving God.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I'm not sure what it is you're taking issue with. I wrote that the principle of selfishness cannot support life. Are you disagreeing with this?


To a certain extent yes. As seen in Capitalism, which has selfishness as its fundamental tenet, at least some life is supported by it. Many others suffer and die, but the economically capable person (e.g, the First World) does live a comfortable and relatively speaking full life. In the end all die, again, as the Bible clearly states, because they cannot eat of the tree of life to restore their bodies and extend their life. I know that this concept goes against your “Theology” but your view is squarely at odd as to what God in the Bible has explicitly and clearly stated. So in such a stand off, it is your view that is discredited.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Also, I spoke of the principle of selfishness being the root of sin. I think this is clearly seen in the fall of Lucifer. Is it this idea you are disagreeing with?


As stated above I know see how selfishness is the root of man/peer-ward sins. In the case of Lucifer, EGW indicates that it was sins in the form of jealousy, ambition and covetousness, all initially directed at a just exalted Christ, who had, in position been his peer prior to God exalting Him. So it can be seen that these are indeed sub-sins of selfishness however, pointedly directed at his peer Michael and, at first not at God. So he here first specifically violated the ‘confiding and unselfish love for one another’ that existed among the heavenly beings, and then, after the maturation of these sins, he violated the ‘Supreme Love to God’ that existed ; -thus completely transgressing the perfect ‘allegiance of love’ that had existed in heaven. (cf. PP 35.1). So the same two parts of Love to God and Love to Peers also existed in heaven, and in violating this second part, Lucifer’s sins were then indeed begun under the tier of “selfishness” sins.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Let's look at it this say. Is it possible for one to be selfish and yet not sin?


If one “is” selfish (= your “be”) then the sins has already been concretized. One can have a thought of acting selfishly but until that concretely manifest itself, the sins has not been committed. And this manifestation will always be tangible. E.g., I can think to act selfishly and e.g., by persisting in this thought which then tangibly leads me to sit at home and not do what I should unselfishly have done I have concretized the thought. On the flipped side I really can persistently think of being selfish all while doing the unselfish act and if that thought never tangibly manifests itself, even tracely, I would not have been selfish. I instead really would have rather been greatly tempted to be selfish, but not have sinned, and that by actually having overcome such evil thoughts with the good acts that I instead chose to do.

Originally Posted By: Tom
To be selfish is to put self first, which means not putting God first, which would be breaking the first commandment, right?


For the concrete reasons cited about, I now rather see this to be more specifically, in relation to such first four commandments, self-love vs. God Love. Interestingly enough the Sabbath commandment fall in both categories with its religious aspect expressing love for God to spend devoted time with him and in its socio-economic aspects, focusing on being pointedly unselfish towards other peers.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Also, if one considers each of the 10 Commandments, it seems easy to see that breaking any of them is only possible if one has a "me first" mentality, as opposed to having Christ first.


While generally true, and with selfishness really (i.e., by definition involving the welfare of others, which is not really the case/need for God. I thus see the 1-4(a) | 4(b)-10 commandment dichotomy here under the distinct General Heading of “Self-Love” and “Selfishness” sin headings. The violation of the first heading really tries to make oneself a god, or at least independent of God, while the second heading seek to make oneself superior amongst peers. That is why you can find people who violate the first 4 commandments, but fully keep the last 6, and conversely, in EGW vision in 4T 384-387, the focus is to show God’s professed and manifestly religious people, how they are violated all of the last 6 commandments, by their “selfish” acts.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Regarding the further Tree of Life comments, you seem to be looking at sin as a physical problem as opposed to a mental problem.


I am actually working from the clear statements in Gen 3:22-24 and PP 60.3 that the sinner could have lived eternally by eating from the Tree of Life. I thus have to let this unambiguous and factually (vs. assumed theology) undisputed, concrete statement control and guide my working theology.

Originally Posted By: Tom
That is, the problem of sin involves not thinking in the right way. ... [your theology]


For a thinking to become sin it has to be concretized. In certain cases that is indeed done internally, when one chooses to dwell on this sin, however still having quite tangible physiological effects, but for the most part, it need to be physically acted out to become sin. Also hypocrisy does not prevent this from taking place, as the sin of false witness is then also committed. (That applies in the selfish thoughts example that I stated above.) So it therefore seems to me that true evil/sinful thinking is inseparable from various degrees of sinful acts, and any thinking that does not come to so manifest itself has remained in the unimpeaching realm of temptation.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Similarly, in the other direction, the principle of sin must lead to death.


I rather see that only concretized/acted out sinful thoughts come to start this causing death process, which tangibly occurs when, as James says, “brought to its completeness/fulness” (1:15). A “principle of sin” punishment would be as unfair a completely blameless being incarcerated simply because he live on a street when there are many criminal gangs. That person can only pay this penalty if they also have participated in some contributing form, in these crimes. However access to the Tree of Lie after sin would have provide the sinner with an immunity from death for their sins.

Originally Posted By: Tom
This isn't something that can be healed by a physical remedy, but there must be a new mind, hence a new birth.... [your theology]


The issue with “being tainted” by sin is that, when first committed, it lowers the human will and psyche to resist it in the future. So it is in this sense that out Spirit has to be renewed and not necessarily our physical mind. And that is tangibly done through the new birth where then God’s Spirit is, by our persisting desire, allowed to have a stronger influence on our Spirit than tempting, evil spirit. So what our spirits could not, because they did not to, resist in the past, we know with this fortified and renewed spirit and greater influence are able to resist. So here also I do not see that sin is having a physical effect on the brain, but merely a psychological one. That is thus why the sinner could eat of the Fruit of Life yet still have the desire and mentality to sin. And that is how such a mentally entrenched sinner could still live forever. The fruit, while probably physically rejuvenating the health and vigor of the brain, did not “brainwash” the person, when his sinful mentality was purged. If that was the case, then that would have been the method of redemption and not Christ mentally and physically sin bearing atonement. I believe that through this mental atonement of Christ, God will then be able, and allowed, to expunge any sinful traces from the Heavenly redeemed person’s mind from his prior, lived life on earth. So I further see the Tree of life solely focusing on the physical aspects of man and Christ sacrifice dealing with the mental/psychological aspects.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Human beings have the mind, soul and body inextricably intertwined.


For the reasons explained above, I do not agree with this. And the “soul” really is the combination of mind consciousness and the body. I.e., the life giving breath and the body. I also think Paul’s expressed dilemma in Rom 7 further challenges that notion. (See especially vss. 21-25).

Originally Posted By: Tom
Christ said, "As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he."


(That Bible quote was actually said in Proverbs 23:7). To “think in one’s heart involves a desired ingestation. (I.e., the (emotional) heart). Also this verse is best translated as ‘as a man reckons in his soul...’ (NASB marginal reading). In the soul means also denotes this total ingestation by involving both the body and the spirit.

Originally Posted By: Tom
But this isn't merely a spiritual concept, and not practical, because the practical aspects inevitably follow from what's in the mind. It cannot be otherwise. Because of how we think in our heart, we make decisions; we speak and act.


I agree in part with this, however seeing a significant difference in what is actually concretely entertained in the mind as constituting sin, and not the mere presence of this sinful thought, which is then just at the stage of temptation. Case in point, when Christ heard and mentally processed the evil suggestions of Satan during his wilderness temptations, that thought had to be internalized by Him for him to hear and understand it. However it did not take a acting out root in him and thus was never sin. Had Satan never spoken these words to him, that evil thought would have never been so internalized for processing. So the inner presence of an evil- thought in itself does not constitute a sin. Thus not even in a thought did Christ not seen even if so tempted.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Why did Christ die? Simply because He didn't have access to the tree of life?
If one considers the entirety of Christ's life and teachings, where is the concept you have articulated to be found? That is, where did Christ teach that the only Spiritual application that can be made is that death is ultimately solely because man does not have access to the tree of life? When I see Christ teaching as spiritual reasons for death are things like unbelief and disobedience.


I think I have already resolved that issue above, however I’ll add that Christ die to bear our sins and by doing so, give us access to the tree of life in heaven so that we can live eternally. (Cf. Rev 2:7) If we do not eat of this tree, will we live eternally?? The unequivocal answer is no!. So the spiritual aspects of Christ and sin are in the substitutionary bearing of them for us so that He can pay our death penalty.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Here's one statement that speaks to this:

Quote:
After the Flood the people ate largely of animal food. God saw that the ways of man were corrupt, and that he was disposed to exalt himself proudly against his Creator and to follow the inclinations of his own heart. And He permitted that long-lived race to eat animal food to shorten their sinful lives. Soon after the Flood the race began to rapidly decrease in size, and in length of years. 406
Counsels on Diet and Foods, 373
{CCh 228.2}


Having studied that text exegetically prior to answering before, indeed for time ever, I rather see that it is clearly as I have said: namely speaking in regards to capital punishment penalties (cf. vs. 6). So as much as I hate to do it, I’ll have to disagree with EGW here, and actually follow her counsel to let the Bible be the final authority here. In Alden Thompson book “Inspiration”, (pp. 290-295) he cites several major examples where EGW herself had to revise and complete change prior statements which she had made, and which similarly, seemingly had an air of “direct revelation”. I think the Biblical evidence is more conclusive and like I said in the prior post, the reduction in man’s life was seemingly a natural result of the now harsh life on earth following the flood, nonetheless including a much less healthy diet. So, as it usually is the case, EGW may not have been totally of the mark here. She just did not have the complete light on this.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Regarding your comments viz a viz the second death, I invite you to consider how Christ died. Here is a description from "The Desire of Ages" [DA 753]


Succinctly said here, first of all, again, that notion that the Second Death is something distinct in its essence needs to be more concretely supported before I can accept as valid. I am willing to concede (based upon Rev 2:11; 20:6, 14; 21:18) that it contains an element of suffering, in that God supernaturally sustains the sinner in those conditions which were suppose to bring instant death, however once that Death occurs, there not longer is any experienced notions (e.g., a felt separation from God.)

Originally Posted By: Tom
This speaks to Christ's dying because His heart was broken, which was caused by the separation Christ was feeling from His Father, due to the effect of His taking our sin upon Him.


This concept is interesting as I discuss it on my blog, however in reading what EGW relates on the crucifixion in this DA chapter, I can only more convincingly see that this notion of ‘Christ dying of a broken heart’ is not implied something physical, but something psychological (and in a poetic sense). In that chapter EGW relates a period of mental anguish suffering by Christ. She then punctuates it with this broken heart statement. However Christ did not die then. Following that period accompanied by greater darkness, Christ again became aware of his surroundings and his own physical pain, as this overwhelming mental anguish had been completed and subsided. It is after that, that He later cries “It is finished” and soon after that “yields up his life”. So he did not physically die of a broken heart, but during the prior period of mental anguish his spirit/psyche broke for the first time since this mental anguish of guilt all began back in Gethsemane. He was broken in his hope just as sinful man will when their sins combined with a hopelessness of being able to overcome them, so overwhelms them while in the flames of Hell. So it was Christ’s spirit that momentarily became fully broken and not as popularly thought and said, his heart that physically ruptured itself, because that is the only way that someone can actually dies from a broken heart.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I invite you to consider Lucifer and Judas as examples of this principle.


There is indeed an observable physical degeneration in a person who persists in sin and “brings it to its fulness/completeness” however, as stated before, the mere naturally-speaking presence sinful thoughts in one’s processing mental faculties, when not entertained, cannot begin this degeneration process, which again end in death when that thought is taken to its full, physically tangible extreme/end.
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 02/17/11 05:12 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Originally Posted By: Tom
Originally Posted By: MM
Amen! Do you have more, or does this summarize your study?

I could try to summarize where I perceive our chief difference lies. I see my paradigm as being characterized by, "Let determine what God is like by considering the revelation of Jesus Christ while He was here in the flesh. This provides a complete revelation of God's character, which is not lacking in any particular."

I see you paradigm as being characterized by, "Considering the revelation of Jesus Christ while here in the flesh is certainly a good thing to do, but it's not enough. We also need to consider other revelations God has given us in regards to His character."

I think you misunderstood my question, Tom. You are leading this study with an objective in mind - To explain why God commanded godly people to stone, scorch, and smite ungodly people to death.

I'm sorry, but I did not understand Tom as doing that. I had thought his objective was that to understand what God is like, one must see what Jesus was like. I must have missed where he made the objective you suggest. Could you show where he did that?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 02/17/11 08:23 PM

Kland, here's what Tom agreed to:

Originally Posted By: Tom
T: I've suggested over and over again that the way to tackle this question is to first form a foundation based on what God's character is, based on the life and revelation of Jesus Christ, and then come back to these questions, as opposed to starting with these questions

M: Okay, let's do it your way. Please take the lead. Present your case in a way that explains 1) why Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in battle, 2) why Jesus commanded godly people to execute capital punishment, and 3) why Jesus withdraws His protection and permits the forces of nature, evil men, and/or evil angels to kill men, women, and children.

The purpose of this exercise is to obtain a correct understanding of the three actions named above. That is, the "way to tackle this question is to first form a foundation based on what God's character is, based on the life and revelation of Jesus Christ, and then come back to these questions." I agree. Please take the lead. Thank you.

T: All right. Let's consider the revelation of God given by Christ through His life and teachings. What did He teach us regarding God? Let's start with the Sermon on the Mount. What did Christ teach regarding God? Christ taught that one should turn the other cheek, walk the second mile, give the shirt off one's back to the request of a coat, that one should love one's enemies. Is God like this?

M: Tom, all of the above is what you agreed to.

T: Yes, this indeed looks like what I agreed to.
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 02/18/11 12:20 AM

Thanks. That's been some time ago. I would have to agree with you that now he has set up the background, he has not addressed your questions in this thread. That is, coming back to these questions.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 02/18/11 12:27 AM

MM, if you would put the post#, that would help a lot, when it's not a recent post. It took a while to find this, but here's what I wrote, which I'm posting to make clear what the "this" that I am agreeing to is:

Quote:
Yes, this indeed looks like what I agreed to, which is not what you've been suggesting. Note:

"I've suggested over and over again that the way to tackle this question is to first form a foundation based on what God's character is, based on the life and revelation of Jesus Christ, and then come back to these questions, as opposed to starting with these questions."

So I am opposed to starting with the questions you keep asking. I think the problem lies with the whole mindset that would ask the question. I believe a correct understanding of God's character would result in the asking of different questions.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 02/18/11 12:33 AM

Originally Posted By: kland
Thanks. That's been some time ago. I would have to agree with you that now he has set up the background, he has not addressed your questions in this thread. That is, coming back to these questions.


I wrote:

Quote:
So I am opposed to starting with the questions you keep asking. I think the problem lies with the whole mindset that would ask the question. I believe a correct understanding of God's character would result in the asking of different questions.


which I think does address the questions.
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 02/18/11 07:49 PM

Ok, I see what you mean. However, I also see how he would take it. While you do say, "then come back to these questions" and "as opposed to starting with these questions", you then you clarified it by saying one would not ask those questions once they understood God's character. Either he was dishonest in listing what you agreed to, or he had completely blocked out your clarification and could not see it the first time nor this time. I would have to admit that I may be of the latter and clued in on the word "starting".

Unfortunately, he did not help one to immediately disqualify the former by listing the post#. Which, if so included, all could go back and verify it and see if there was anything left out. Going to all the trouble to find it, it should be assumed he would list it. Maybe he wrote it down elsewhere?



So MM, now that it's been clarified, and that you thought Tom did a good job of describing Jesus, could you give some ideas or suggestions as to why you think Tom would say, once someone correctly understands Jesus and He came to demonstrate the character of God, that one would ask different questions?
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 02/24/11 09:52 AM

Originally Posted By: SOP (EW 39.3)
The Lord has given me a view of other worlds. Wings were given me, and an angel attended me from the city to a place that was bright and glorious. The grass of the place was living green, and the birds there warbled a sweet song. The inhabitants of the place were of all sizes, they were noble, majestic and lovely. They bore the express image of Jesus, and their countenances beamed with holy joy, expressive of the freedom and happiness of the place. I asked one of them why they were so much more lovely than those on the earth. The reply was--"we have lived in strict obedience to the commandments of God, and have not fallen by disobedience, like those on the earth." Then I saw two trees, one looked much like the tree of life in the city. The fruit of both looked beautiful; but of one they could not eat. They had power to eat of both, but were forbidden to eat of one.

In the light of this SOP revelation, (see especially bold) I have to slightly revise this prior understanding of mine:

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Indeed I believe that all of the created worlds of God had such a similar testing time and when the past first handedly oblivious, prior to that, to how things had turned out in other worlds, God removed this granted tempting opportunity of Satan and his views, and like a most protective parent and wholly and desiringly trusting child, knowing what is best for their child, has since then been actively, through His Spirit, shielded these worlds from temptations to disobey His Law.

It seems clear here that the Tree of Good and Evil has remained ever present in all God’s created world. The only thing that seems to be absent/banned is Satan’s presence in these worlds as he was, as a Serpent, on Earth in Eden. So that temptation aspect of Satan’s personal presence, itself does seems to have been banned after a period of allowed testing, but the forbidden tree itself remains.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 02/24/11 07:46 PM

I think I read somewhere in the SOP that after a certain amount of time the "bad" tree was taken away.
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 02/24/11 08:28 PM

Otherwise, there could be temptation without Satan. Her vision may not have been of present time but of times past for the purpose of helping her understand.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 02/24/11 10:41 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
I think I read somewhere in the SOP that after a certain amount of time the "bad" tree was taken away.

I also vaguely had this underlying understanding in expressing my prior view. After some Internet and SOP writings research, here are a couple of such statements:

Quote:
Originally Posted By: SOP
Between the school established in Eden at the beginning and the school of the hereafter there lies the whole compass of this world's history--the history of human transgression and suffering, of divine sacrifice, and of victory over death and sin. Not all the conditions of that first school of Eden will be found in the school of the future life. No tree of knowledge of good and evil will afford opportunity for temptation. No tempter is there, no possibility of wrong. Every character has withstood the testing of evil, and none are longer susceptible to its power. --Ed 301, 302 (1903)


Originally Posted By: SOP
I heard shouts of triumph from the angels and from the redeemed saints which sounded like ten thousand musical instruments, because they were to be no more annoyed and tempted by Satan and because the inhabitants of other worlds were delivered from his presence and his temptations.--SR 416 (1858)
(cf. LDE 297)

This also demonstrates to me that God does not consider the ‘accessible/ready opportunity to sin’ as inextricably crucial to having true “Freedom”.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 02/24/11 10:42 PM

Originally Posted By: kland
Otherwise, there could be temptation without Satan. Her vision may not have been of present time but of times past for the purpose of helping her understand.

Apparently, to me at least, it is only after this GC on earth is ended and fully resolved and Satan and his angels are destroyed that all of the universe will be completely satisfied of the absolute wisdom of God’s ways and it is only then that these shown trees of Good and Evil will be removed from all worlds, and that by the will of all these world inhabitants.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 02/24/11 11:01 PM

By the way Tom, in regards to our prior discussion on the “practically tangible aspects” of sin, which you apparently have chosen to quietly, wholly ignore, how do created humans live eternally?? I.e., is it a sinless nature that, of itself, tangibly provides this perpetual (and not actually immortal) life, or is it, as the Bible and SOP clearly say, the eating of the fruit of the Tree of Life?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 02/25/11 03:33 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
This also demonstrates to me that God does not consider the ‘accessible/ready opportunity to sin’ as inextricably crucial to having true “Freedom”.


By virtue of having free will, every creature has the ability to sin, as Lucifer demonstrated.

Quote:
By the way Tom, in regards to our prior discussion on the “practically tangible aspects” of sin, which you apparently have chosen to quietly, wholly ignore, how do created humans live eternally??


Why would you be so uncharitable? There are other possible reasons for my actions, such as being extremely busy, or perhaps an oversight. Why not attribute a motive like that, instead of an ugly one?

Quote:
I.e., is it a sinless nature that, of itself, tangibly provides this perpetual (and not actually immortal) life, or is it, as the Bible and SOP clearly say, the eating of the fruit of the Tree of Life?


Regarding why those who will live forever, there's no reason why they shouldn't. Even insignificant animals, like insects, will live forever. That's without partaking of the tree of life. One might as well ask how that's possible.

Really, the question isn't why beings created by God should live, but why they would die. Death is the aberration, not life.

Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 02/25/11 04:08 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
Why would you be so uncharitable? There are other possible reasons for my actions, such as being extremely busy, or perhaps an oversight. Why not attribute a motive like that, instead of an ugly one?


Really just stated what was, all things reasonable things considered, contextually “apparent” to me, as generally observed... But since you claim to have a “honest/valid” reason: What was it?? (And that is not a “rhetorical” question.)

Originally Posted By: Tom
Regarding why those who will live forever, there's no reason why they shouldn't.


If this was to occur on its own, created humans would be immortal. In a sense the God vs. human reality is like a car maker vs. a car. The human, relatively speaking has life in itself, whereas the car without necessary ingredients (i.e., fuel/energy) and repairs and maintenance, will never start (i.e., come to life) or last long. In the same way, God’s Creation, with the life-sustaining and repairing ingredients in the Fruit of Life, will, apparently within 1000 years, physically degenerate and die.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Even insignificant animals, like insects, will live forever. That's without partaking of the tree of life. One might as well ask how that's possible.


I had stated before that something in this line of Fruit of Life seems to have been removed from nature when Adam and Eve sinned. Perhaps this was made available in the water that directly or indirectly provided nutrients to all living things. Inanimate objects like e.g, rocks, iron, gold do not so, of themselves, degenerate and die but only animate ones that feed upon various things to live. So God apparently made this Fruit of live readily accessible to the rest of “(alive) Creation” through other natural means.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Really, the question isn't why beings created by God should live, but why they would die. Death is the aberration, not life.


The simple, Biblical answer to me is that God could not give immortality to humans/Creation. So He instead devised a means that their life and health could be periodically restored to its initial perfection. Death is thus the natural consequence for Creation without this life-giving means.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 02/28/11 06:51 PM

Been really busy. Thought I had responded already, but don't see anything. Sorry about that.

Quote:
T:Why would you be so uncharitable? There are other possible reasons for my actions, such as being extremely busy, or perhaps an oversight. Why not attribute a motive like that, instead of an ugly one?

NJK:Really just stated what was, all things reasonable things considered, contextually “apparent” to me, as generally observed... But since you claim to have a “honest/valid” reason: What was it?? (And that is not a “rhetorical” question.)


I've been really busy. Also, it may have been an oversight.

Quote:
T:Regarding why those who will live forever, there's no reason why they shouldn't.

NJK:If this was to occur on its own, created humans would be immortal.


Immortality is an attribute of God's character. A more accurate way of putting this is that human beings wouldn't not have been subject to death. Death is the fruit of sin. Without sin, there is no death.

Quote:
In a sense the God vs. human reality is like a car maker vs. a car. The human, relatively speaking has life in itself, whereas the car without necessary ingredients (i.e., fuel/energy) and repairs and maintenance, will never start (i.e., come to life) or last long. In the same way, God’s Creation, with the life-sustaining and repairing ingredients in the Fruit of Life, will, apparently within 1000 years, physically degenerate and die.


Again, death comes as the result of sin. You're making a statement based on what happened after sin arose, which is a different situation.

Quote:
T:Even insignificant animals, like insects, will live forever. That's without partaking of the tree of life. One might as well ask how that's possible.

NJK:I had stated before that something in this line of Fruit of Life seems to have been removed from nature when Adam and Eve sinned. Perhaps this was made available in the water that directly or indirectly provided nutrients to all living things. Inanimate objects like e.g, rocks, iron, gold do not so, of themselves, degenerate and die but only animate ones that feed upon various things to live. So God apparently made this Fruit of live readily accessible to the rest of “(alive) Creation” through other natural means.


You're making suggestions based on your original idea being correct. What I'm pointing out is that without sin, there would be no reason for anything to die. You can't divorce death from sin.

Quote:
T:Really, the question isn't why beings created by God should live, but why they would die. Death is the aberration, not life.

NJK:The simple, Biblical answer to me is that God could not give immortality to humans/Creation. So He instead devised a means that their life and health could be periodically restored to its initial perfection. Death is thus the natural consequence for Creation without this life-giving means.


Death is the result of sin. There are many statements from inspiration which explain this. For example, James tells us that sin, when it is finished, brings forth death.

From the SOP:

Quote:
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. {DA 764.2}
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/01/11 12:22 AM


Hello Tom. I appreciate your response and can understand the reason for your prior non-response. However in reading through your answers here, pointedly in your objection to my Bible and SOP based understanding that ‘sin only led to death because man was barred from eating any more from the Tree of Life’ it seems that you did indeed overlook this entire post of mine which further defended that priorly established view. So, as not too restate all of these points again, you’ll first need to respond and/or read through that post, because that is indeed why I maintain my view on Sin and Death as it is still Biblically soundly supported.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Immortality is an attribute of God's character.


I do not see the Bible stating God’s Immortality as a trait of His Character (i.e., conduct/personality), but an inherent physical attribute.

Originally Posted By: Tom
A more accurate way of putting this is that human beings wouldn't not have been subject to death. Death is the fruit of sin. Without sin, there is no death.
...
Again, death comes as the result of sin. You're making a statement based on what happened after sin arose, which is a different situation.
...
You're making suggestions based on your original idea being correct. What I'm pointing out is that without sin, there would be no reason for anything to die. You can't divorce death from sin.


In the (still non-substantially disproven by you) Biblical and SOP understanding that Man died only because they could not eat the Fruit of Life, it is made clear that Man was always, i.e., from his creation, subject to gradually degeneration, however the Tree of Life helped to heal and restore them to perfect status and thus perpetuate their life. As God literally warned in Gen 2:17: ‘by reason of he [i.e., (created) man] naturally dying (Qal infinitive absolute + 3 persons masc. sing suffix) you will consequently die (Qal imperfect).

Originally Posted By: Tom
Death is the result of sin. There are many statements from inspiration which explain this. For example, James tells us that sin, when it is finished, brings forth death.


You need to, both, substantiate that claim with a text other than James 1:15 which I have already exegetically responded to, bringing out its pointed meaning and also address the clear statement to the contrary in Gen 3:22-24 and PP 60.3 (“In order to possess an endless existence, man must continue to partake of the tree of life....”). Just repetitively insisting that ‘I am wrong’ with any Biblical support does not make it so! The arbitrating/determinative proof is in the Bible and SOP and thus far you have not provided such sound and proper support for your Theological view.

...

That DA 764.2 statement fully harmonizes with my understanding of James 1:15. It is not sin in itself that, per se, brings death but the carrying out of sin to its fullness. Also the ‘result of sin being ultimately death’ again is because, as the Bible and SOP clearly state, access to the Tree of Life was barred.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/01/11 01:34 AM

Quote:
NJK:Hello Tom. I appreciate your response and can understand the reason for your prior non-response. However in reading through your answers here, pointedly in your objection to my Bible and SOP based understanding that ‘sin only led to death because man was barred from eating any more from the Tree of Life’ it seems that you did indeed overlook this entire post of mine which further defended that priorly established view.


I see from that post that there were many points I responded to. So one could hardly fairly say that I "overlooked" the entire post, given the number of comments I made.

If there's some specific point you'd like to discuss at more length, or some specific point you feel I didn't address, I'll be happy to do so.

Quote:
So, as not too restate all of these points again, you’ll first need to respond and/or read through that post, because that is indeed why I maintain my view on Sin and Death as it is still Biblically soundly supported.


I responded to the post, with many comments. Perhaps you could respond to those. Or restate a point you particularly wish discussed.

Quote:
T:Immortality is an attribute of God's character.

NJK:I do not see the Bible stating God’s Immortality as a trait of His Character (i.e., conduct/personality), but an inherent physical attribute.


I'm not sure characterizing it as "physical" is the best way of designating it. This seems like a minor point, however. Lot's just say it's an attribute of God. I think we can both agree to that.

Quote:
T:A more accurate way of putting this is that human beings wouldn't not have been subject to death. Death is the fruit of sin. Without sin, there is no death.
...
Again, death comes as the result of sin. You're making a statement based on what happened after sin arose, which is a different situation.
...
You're making suggestions based on your original idea being correct. What I'm pointing out is that without sin, there would be no reason for anything to die. You can't divorce death from sin.

NJK:In the (still non-substantially disproven by you) Biblical and SOP understanding that Man died only because they could not eat the Fruit of Life, it is made clear that Man was always, i.e., from his creation, subject to gradually degeneration, however the Tree of Life helped to heal and restore them to perfect status and thus perpetuate their life. As God literally warned in Gen 2:17: ‘by reason of he [i.e., (created) man] naturally dying (Qal infinitive absolute + 3 persons masc. sing suffix) you will consequently die (Qal imperfect).


I substantiated that death is the result of sin, both from Scripture and the SOP. From that the rest of what I said follows. The whole question resolved around what the cause of death is. Is it sin? Or something else?

Quote:
T:Death is the result of sin. There are many statements from inspiration which explain this. For example, James tells us that sin, when it is finished, brings forth death.

NJK:You need to, both, substantiate that claim with a text other than James 1:15 which I have already exegetically responded to, bringing out its pointed meaning and also address the clear statement to the contrary in Gen 3:22-24 and PP 60.3 (“In order to possess an endless existence, man must continue to partake of the tree of life....”).


One could just as easily say that in order to possess and endless existence, man must continually breath. But to attribute eternal life to breathing seems to be looking at the issue superficially, because the issue is primarily a spiritual one, having to do with character, not a physical one.

Quote:
Just repetitively insisting that ‘I am wrong’ with any Biblical support does not make it so!


? I don't know what this is referring to. Where have I "insisted" that "you are wrong" without any Biblical support?

Quote:
The arbitrating/determinative proof is in the Bible and SOP and thus far you have not provided such sound and proper support for your Theological view.


I would think the statement that death is "the inevitable result of sin" substantiates the view that death is the result of sin.

There are many statements that establish this. From Scripture:

"The soul that sinneth, it shall die."
"The wages of sin is death."
"The sting of death is sin."

Another one from the SOP:

Quote:
The cross teaches the lesson of self-sacrifice. As by faith men behold the royal Sufferer, the conviction comes to them that the sure result of sin is death.{RH, January 7, 1902 par. 11}


Quote:
That DA 764.2 statement fully harmonizes with my understanding of James 1:15. It is not sin in itself that, per se, brings death but the carrying out of sin to its fullness.


Sin, when completed, brings forth death. That's the idea in James, isn't it?

Quote:
Also the ‘result of sin being ultimately death’ again is because, as the Bible and SOP clearly state, access to the Tree of Life was barred.


Is sin primarily a physical or spiritual problem? Consider the above mentioned quote:

Quote:
The cross teaches the lesson of self-sacrifice. As by faith men behold the royal Sufferer, the conviction comes to them that the sure result of sin is death.{RH, January 7, 1902 par. 11}


Why would the cross bring to men the conviction that the sure result of sin is death, if this is not a spiritual issue?

If you look at the statement in DA 764 in context, it supports through the organic concept I laid out. Something close to a dozen times in those couple of paragraphs, Ellen White repeated that the destruction of the wicked is not due to something God does to them, but is a result of their own choice.

Consider the portion from which I quoted, for example. It says that had God permitted Satan and his followers to reap the full result of sin, they would have perished, but it would not have been apparent that this is the inevitable result of sin. There's no tree involved here. The point is that death is the inevitable result of sin, but had God allowed Satan and his followers to die, it would have appeared to onlookers that God had done something to them to make them die, as opposed to their death being the result of sin.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/01/11 02:28 AM

Sincerely, but frankly, stated here Tom, given that you want to view every Bible and SOP passage through your (supposed) “organic” prism rather than allowing the Bible to define how sin results in death as shown in Gen 2:17; 3:22-24 (PP 60.3) which, particularly in regards tot he Bible passages, you have not provided, at least to me, and exegetically valid response to what they are straightly stating, then I really do not see continuing this discussion as being personally worthwhile, especially at this time. When I take on such Theological Issues, I let the clear and literal passages in the Bible and SOP anchor my study and then study all other passages in this clear light and not vice-versa.

I have also personally seen that such a ‘spiritualizing of everything’ in the Bible as if it is an inherent necessity has greatly hampered a more accurate understanding of our most Real God and derived Theological issues.

So for these reasons, I think I have to end my discussion of this topic here. I nonetheless have appreciated it.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/01/11 04:39 AM

NJK, you are certainly welcome to continue discussions here if you like. Tom has been polite. No one has told you to leave. However, it might help you to enjoy this forum more if you adopt the perspective of this passage.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/01/11 08:01 AM

********* Post removed by Admin with PM to be sent to explain why it was removed *******
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/01/11 08:40 AM

NJK, if you choose not to continue the discussion, that's your prerogative, but I'd like to make a comment, which is that we all have paradigms by which we view sacred things. We all share the perspective that the writings we consider inspired are inspired by God, and so believe they have an inherent consistency, despite appearances to the contrary.

It's very common that sincere Christians view things differently. For example, SDA's are in a minority in regards to a number of doctrines, including the State of the Dead. There are many passages which appear to give a point of view contrary to the one we hold. But if we consider the broader picture, there are clear reasons to see why the point of view that we hold makes sense, despite various texts which may appear to be to the contrary.

I give this as example, because what I'm interested in trying to ascertain in these discussions is what's the reasoning of those who hold a different paradigm that I hold. Rarely do people change their paradigms, although it does happen from time to time. But even though paradigms do not change, it's still a valuable experience to see the reasoning of another, and to have the opportunity to defend and consider one's old perspective.

So if you wish to continue our discussion, I welcome that, with the request that you respond to the points I've made and the questions I've asked.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/01/11 09:28 AM

I can certainly understand your chosen philosophy/approach, Tom, however it is just that many of these different viewpoints and paradigms are factually and/or readily demonstrably, the result of skewed, faulty, deficient, shoddy or entirely absent exegesis and/or an improper exegetical approach, namely one that uses from the unclear to understand/reword the concretely clear. I personally, currently do not have the time to entertain such an approach, nonetheless, I do plan to exhaustively deal with all such divergent viewpoints, (see here) however when the necessary manpower is available, and that solely to debunk all viewpoints that are indeed spurious.

In regards to your offer to continue, sincerely speaking, to be worth my while, it will have to be exegetically based and conducted and to this end, you still have not provided an exegetical sound response, if any, to the clear statements made in Gen 2:17 & Gen 3:22-24 (PP 60.3). I am thus firstly awaiting for a response from you on these because trying to understand this topic starting with other, exegetically and relatively speaking, “sub-statements” than these “statements of God Himself” is not proper exegesis. That is instead really saying: “ I am going to ignore what God Himself is clearing stating here, to instead go by what I understand other statements to mean.

And in regards to viewing texts as inspired, whether these are the writings of EGW, “the SDA Pioneers”, the Apocrypha, the Church Fathers, or other’s people works, I think and actually only consider as worthwhile the accompanying view that the Bible is to be the final authority of the validity of the statements made in any of these other works.
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/01/11 05:49 PM

NJK, it has been my experience that when someone says things such as "clearly", "obviously", "most likely", etc., it may not be so clear. In fact, there was a different denomination's little booklet which used such words which resulted in "skewed, faulty, deficient, shoddy" interpretations. I thought, I hope our church doesn't do such things. Now I have come across a paper from our denomination doing the same things. It makes me call into question anyone who uses such words.

If something is so clear and obvious, why should there be a need to dig diligently? And isn't that what we are instructed to do?


Regarding the two Genesis passages, those clearly are two different trees, two different ideas.

Do you consider the following passage "clear", that God killed Saul?
Quote:
1 Chron 10:13 So Saul died for his unfaithfulness which he had committed against the LORD, because he did not keep the word of the LORD, and also because he consulted a medium for guidance. 14 But he did not inquire of the LORD; therefore He killed him, and turned the kingdom over to David the son of Jesse
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/01/11 11:52 PM

NJK, I think my background regarding exegesis is probably as strong as yours is. I majored in Theology, and studied several years at the seminary. I'm only mentioning this because I don't believe our difference is due to exegetical methodology, but due to the assumptions we have; in short, our paradigms are different.

Regarding using the SOP, you used the SOP, so I felt it would be cricket for me to do so as well. I've cited several statements to demonstrate the validity of my point of view. In particular, I believe the one involving the cross is quite a strong one, as far as my point of view is concerned. Why should the cross bring the conviction to one that the result of sin is death? I think that question can only be answered along the lines of what I've been asserting.

What do you think of this assertion? (i.e., that one is convicted that the sure result of sin is death by looking at the cross) Do you think it agrees with Scripture?
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/02/11 03:17 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
********* Post removed by Admin with PM to be sent to explain why it was removed *******

As stated in that reply, this was all said in the baselessly judgmental and condemnatory interjecting statement of Green Cochoa:

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
NJK, you are certainly welcome to continue discussions here if you like. Tom has been polite. No one has told you to leave. However, it might help you to enjoy this forum more if you adopt the perspective of this passage.


I had no problem with Tom at all. Green Cochoa just presumed this to make his ‘jabbing’ point, and his hypocritical circuitous biblical reference, clearly trying to by pass the rules of the forum here. So he need to refrain from such vindictive “attacks” which have as an underlying basis, that his views are unimpeachable.

Therefore I correspondingly expect that Green Cochoa’s irrelevant and baseless instigating statement will likewise be removed. Then will this subsequent, pertinent public defense/clarification no longer be necessary. Otherwise that will just concretize the points I made in that statements.
Posted By: Daryl

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/02/11 03:33 AM

NJK Project,

Instead of responding here, please reply to the PM I sent you.

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Originally Posted By: NJK Project
********* Post removed by Admin with PM to be sent to explain why it was removed *******

As stated in that reply, this was all said in the baselessly judgmental and condemnatory interjecting statement of Green Cochoa:

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
NJK, you are certainly welcome to continue discussions here if you like. Tom has been polite. No one has told you to leave. However, it might help you to enjoy this forum more if you adopt the perspective of this passage.


I had no problem with Tom at all. Green Cochoa just presumed this to make his ‘jabbing’ point, and his hypocritical circuitous biblical reference, clearly trying to by pass the rules of the forum here. So he need to refrain from such vindictive “attacks” which have as an underlying basis, that his views are unimpeachable.

Therefore I correspondingly expect that Green Cochoa’s irrelevant and baseless instigating statement will likewise be removed. Then will this subsequent, pertinent public defense/clarification no longer be necessary. Otherwise that will just concretize the points I made in that statements.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/02/11 03:46 AM


Originally Posted By: kland
If something is so clear and obvious, why should there be a need to dig diligently? And isn't that what we are instructed to do?

I judiciously reserve my clear statement for points that I do, at least personally, consider to be clear. So claiming that I am wrong in such cases, will have to be done substantively and not by merely addressing the use of “clear” in a statement. So where exegetically-based points prove something to be clear, I accordingly explicitly say so.

Originally Posted By: kland
Regarding the two Genesis passages, those clearly are two different trees, two different ideas.


LOL. “Clearly” this default “clear” abhorrence/suspicion does not apply to you...

Nonetheless, substantively speaking, if you had read my post dealing with Gen 2:17 you would see that I was not dealing with the tree of Good and Evil, but with God’s literal explanation of how it is that man will die if he eats of that tree. That verse exegetically states that man was also naturally subject to death from Creation. Only eating of the tree of life prevented that from being the end result through its health restoration and healing capabilities

Originally Posted By: kland
Do you consider the following passage "clear", that God killed Saul?


Sure God cause the judicious premature/untimely death of Saul. Saul was however, independently still due to die someday. That was a capital punishment execution. So I do not see how this relates to this present discussion on whether man, without eating of the tree of life can live eternally.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/02/11 05:18 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
NJK, I think my background regarding exegesis is probably as strong as yours is. I majored in Theology, and studied several years at the seminary.


In my experience, including with formally educated seminarians, the “strength” of one’s exegetical ability, is much determined by how deep their studies have been in these issues, and that is mostly done in specific and more detailed studies beyond what was done during seminary which, though more advanced, tends to merely be a general overviews of many Biblical studies “departements”.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I'm only mentioning this because I don't believe our difference is due to exegetical methodology, but due to the assumptions we have; in short, our paradigms are different.


I do substantively, specifically see our approach as between at two opposite ends here. I am working from the view that the foundational passages are being misunderstood or indifferently ignored in this discussion. You seem to be working from an already self-establish view that sin is organic, and also that sin must be a spiritual issue, while I am showing you here that such passages, from the mouth of God Himself state/imply the absolute contrary, focusing more on a physical aspect of things here.


Nonetheless, since you do have a formal Theological background then it should not be any trouble for you to see what is literally being said by God in Gen 2:17b. That phrase has often been translated/rendered as a form of a hendiadys, as “you shall surely die”, (as is the statement ‘it shall be built again/rebuilt’ in Dan 9:25b) however that is, though popular, an exegetical/translational fallacy. That statement, (as the syntactically similar one in Dan 9:25 as shown in an Adventist Theological Society publication), is more distinct and specific in what it is saying/conveying as seen through more indepth syntactic analysis.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Regarding using the SOP, you used the SOP, so I felt it would be cricket for me to do so as well. I've cited several statements to demonstrate the validity of my point of view.


I have no problem with using the SOP, however, I follow EGW recommendation and first try to establish what the Bible is teaching before going to the SOP. EGW was not inerrant and it is repeatedly seen that many of her statements, even Theological ones, were greatly dependent on how she understood some things. That is why she has had to make many corrective revisions of prior, even Theological views/statement that she had made.

Originally Posted By: Tom
In particular, I believe the one involving the cross is quite a strong one, as far as my point of view is concerned. Why should the cross bring the conviction to one that the result of sin is death? I think that question can only be answered along the lines of what I've been asserting. What do you think of this assertion? (i.e., that one is convicted that the sure result of sin is death by looking at the cross) Do you think it agrees with Scripture?


Actually, in even the SOP passages that you have quoted, I do not see that she is contradicting my view that: [sin = no tree of life = death] so [sin = death] is perfectly acceptable, but the full truth, as shown in the Bible (Gen 3:22-24), is that this is because access to the tree of life has been removed as she clearly corroborates in PP 60.3 which you have, at least in my view, not provided a proper explanation for (i.e., why would not support my view).

As I have already said: the cross restores the right of redeemed man to have access to the tree of life, through which they can then perpetuate their life. It is thus in that sense that the Cross, shows/reminds us that sin will end up resulting in death and without this sin bearing sacrifice, one will not be allowed into Heaven where the tree of life is. So also sin without the Cross = Death by no tree of life.

Also, consider this. Why do people who accept the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, and are completely forgiven of their sins when they sincerely ask for this, still die if that was, in itself, the, physically speaking, life perpetuating solution/remedy? One would just have to ask for forgiveness every second , as it can sincerely be done, in order to never die!! Since we are not ever going to have immortality, as this is only an attribute that God possesses, then you have to answer, how will we live forever, but for eating of the, pointedly-named “Tree of Life.”
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/02/11 07:43 AM

Quote:
T:NJK, I think my background regarding exegesis is probably as strong as yours is. I majored in Theology, and studied several years at the seminary.

NJK:In my experience, including with formally educated seminarians, the “strength” of one’s exegetical ability, is much determined by how deep their studies have been in these issues, and that is mostly done in specific and more detailed studies beyond what was done during seminary which, though more advanced, tends to merely be a general overviews of many Biblical studies “departements”.


I'm curious as to what your experience consists of. That is, on what basis are you making these conclusions? Also, do you think it is the strength of one's exegetical ability that best correlates to being able to discern truth?

Quote:
T:I'm only mentioning this because I don't believe our difference is due to exegetical methodology, but due to the assumptions we have; in short, our paradigms are different.

NJK:I do substantively, specifically see our approach as between at two opposite ends here. I am working from the view that the foundational passages are being misunderstood or indifferently ignored in this discussion. You seem to be working from an already self-establish view that sin is organic, and also that sin must be a spiritual issue, while I am showing you here that such passages, from the mouth of God Himself state/imply the absolute contrary, focusing more on a physical aspect of things here.


I agree with your assertion that foundational passages are being misunderstood or indifferently ignored in this discussion. You seem to be working from an already self-established view that sin is not organic, while I am showing you here that such passages, from the mouth of God Himself state/imply the absolute contrary, focusing more on a spiritual aspect of things here.

Indeed, the Bible is a spiritual book, which is spiritually discerned. It seems to me if we view death as only/primarily physical, we're missing the whole point. If this were the case, what would be special about the cross? Certainly from a physical standpoint, there have been many more impressive deaths than Christ's.

Quote:
Nonetheless, since you do have a formal Theological background then it should not be any trouble for you to see what is literally being said by God in Gen 2:17b. That phrase has often been translated/rendered as a form of a hendiadys, as “you shall surely die”, (as is the statement ‘it shall be built again/rebuilt’ in Dan 9:25b) however that is, though popular, an exegetical/translational fallacy. That statement, (as the syntactically similar one in Dan 9:25 as shown in an Adventist Theological Society publication), is more distinct and specific in what it is saying/conveying as seen through more indepth syntactic analysis.


Gen. 2:17 is one of the most debated passages in Scripture. Why do you think this is the case?

Quote:
T:Regarding using the SOP, you used the SOP, so I felt it would be cricket for me to do so as well. I've cited several statements to demonstrate the validity of my point of view.

NJK:I have no problem with using the SOP, however, I follow EGW recommendation and first try to establish what the Bible is teaching before going to the SOP. EGW was not inerrant and it is repeatedly seen that many of her statements, even Theological ones, were greatly dependent on how she understood some things. That is why she has had to make many corrective revisions of prior, even Theological views/statement that she had made.


I find your statement here rather incredible. Certainly there is the implication that Ellen White's writings are inferior to those of Scripture because:

1.She was not inerrant (whereas Bible writers weren't).
2.Her writings were greatly dependent upon how she understood some things, whereas those of the Bible writers were not.

Is this correctly representing your thought? Do you really think that the writings of Scripture were not greatly dependent upon how the Bible writers understood things?

Quote:
In particular, I believe the one involving the cross is quite a strong one, as far as my point of view is concerned. Why should the cross bring the conviction to one that the result of sin is death? I think that question can only be answered along the lines of what I've been asserting. What do you think of this assertion? (i.e., that one is convicted that the sure result of sin is death by looking at the cross) Do you think it agrees with Scripture?


Actually, in even the SOP passages that you have quoted, I do not see that she is contradicting my view that: [sin = no tree of life = death] so [sin = death] is perfectly acceptable, but the full truth, as shown in the Bible (Gen 3:22-24), is that this is because access to the tree of life has been removed as she clearly corroborates in PP 60.3 which you have, at least in my view, not provided a proper explanation for (i.e., why would not support my view).

As I have already said: the cross restores the right of redeemed man to have access to the tree of life, through which they can then perpetuate their life.


This is not the thought that anyone considering the cross would have. Instead, their thoughts are drawn to the great love of God revealed in such a sacrifice, and that love draws the viewer to repentance that made such suffering necessary.

Quote:
It is thus in that sense that the Cross, shows/reminds us that sin will end up resulting in death and without this sin bearing sacrifice, one will not be allowed into Heaven where the tree of life is. So also sin without the Cross = Death by no tree of life.


I don't think this sense is a sense that anyone considering the cross sees. I can think of many, many statements regarding the cross, by both inspired and non-inspired writers, but cannot recall every the idea being mentioned that sin without the Cross = Death by no tree of life.

This doesn't mean, of course, that of necessity your idea is false, but simply it is an idea original to yourself. You may dispute this by citing someone who has written that sin without the Cross = Death by no tree of life.

I don't mind being wrong here, by the way, as I like learning new things. Simply quote for me someone who has expressed this idea. I don't mean word for word, but simply the idea in a general sense. I don't believe anyone considering the cross would have the idea that from it one sees that death comes about as a result of not having access to the tree of life.

Quote:
Also, consider this. Why do people who accept the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, and are completely forgiven of their sins when they sincerely ask for this, still die if that was, in itself, the, physically speaking, life perpetuating solution/remedy?


They don't! Jesus said, "He who believes in me shall never die."

Quote:
One would just have to ask for forgiveness every second , as it can sincerely be done, in order to never die!!


Eternal life is not of works, but of faith. Surely having to ask for forgiveness every second to obtain eternal life would be tantamount to salvation by works.

Quote:
Since we are not ever going to have immortality, as this is only an attribute that God possesses, then you have to answer, how will we live forever, but for eating of the, pointedly-named “Tree of Life.”


I addressed this. We can only life forever by breathing. Does this mean that the problem of death is one best answered by considering breathing?

Let's consider sin for a moment. The root of sin is selfishness, or love of self (or, one could say, unbelief). Do you disagree with this?

Assuming you don't, how is it possible that such principles as these could sustain life forever? (or, even at all)

Life is the fruit of faith, of obedience. God alone is the source of life. We receive life by being yoked to Him. The parable of the Vine illustrates this. We have no life except as we are connected to God, and the whole point of the Tree of Life is to make evident this point, in the clearest manner possible.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/02/11 08:23 AM

You have made some good points in your post here, Tom, particularly with respect to Ellen White, Jesus, eternal life and the Cross. Well said, and thank you.

Regarding the Tree of Life portion of this discussion, I remain in the sidelines on account of my relative ignorance of this topic. I have yet to be convinced on the Biblical or White evidence as to the exact relationship of the Tree to our living forever.

It is interesting that there are sometimes truths or distorted truths in other religions, even "pagan" ones. The devil likes to mix a little error with the truth (or vice versa). No religion seems completely devoid of truth. This discussion causes me to think a little upon the Buddhist beliefs and compare them to what is being said here in relationship to the Tree of Life. Have any of you read (or perhaps watched the movie based on it) the book "Journey to the West?" It is one of the Chinese classics from centuries ago, and is something like a cross between "The Great Controversy" and "Pilgrim's Progress" in terms of the Buddhist beliefs, i.e. parts of it genuinely follow their understanding of the spiritual realm and parts are more allegorical and/or legendary. If you have read it, perhaps you can recall the manner of obtaining or increasing one's immortality in their belief.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/02/11 10:12 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
I'm curious as to what your experience consists of. That is, on what basis are you making these conclusions?


Succinctly said here, over now 13 years of having to deal with many and various “scholars” (i.e., SDA’s and non-SDA’s), whether personally or through their works, whose views were surfacely plausible, but upon more indepth exegesis have proven to be grossly deficient. Some of these corrections and experiences are documented on my blog. And, for the most part, these errors have stemmed from an inability to properly function in both Biblical Hebrew and Greek Syntax, indeed the ‘Level of Grammar Beyond the Basic.’

Originally Posted By: Tom
Also, do you think it is the strength of one's exegetical ability that best correlates to being able to discern truth?


Not necessarily. God’s Spirit can guide someone into Truths when expediently necessary. I believe that is what occurred with EGW in many points, though not exhaustively, even resulting in some inaccuracy when she was entirely left to her own level of knowledge. Indeed, as shown in this post, some of the things that EGW state and seem to be extra-biblical are proven to be concretely in the Bible through a deeper exegesis. However, naturally, this ability is necessary for exegetical issues, such as the Syntax of Biblical Languages.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I agree with your assertion that foundational passages are being misunderstood or indifferently ignored in this discussion. You seem to be working from an already self-established view that sin is not organic,...


I actually got this view from ready what God said in Gen 2:17b & 3:22-24, as confirmed by the SOP in PP 60.3. That is indeed what anchored my viewed on this subject and I, in a deductive approach, study all other Bible and also SOP passages in that clearest light.

Originally Posted By: Tom
while I am showing you here that such passages, from the mouth of God Himself state/imply the absolute contrary, focusing more on a spiritual aspect of things here.


I would like to see a listing of those specific passages because I (off the top of my head) only recall the passage in Ezek 18:4 where God says: the soul (i.e., living person) that sins shall die. Which actually is meaning, the person who has himself sinned in that case will die. However even if this is understand as ‘sin leads to death’, which I do not see that it is exegetically/contextually concerned with, I still see that the 2 statements in Genesis have already, foundationally, defined/described why death was the consequence/result of having sinned.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Indeed, the Bible is a spiritual book, which is spiritually discerned. It seems to me if we view death as only/primarily physical, we're missing the whole point. If this were the case, what would be special about the cross? Certainly from a physical standpoint, there have been many more impressive deaths than Christ's.


I appreciate your right to express your personal point of view, but I think it would be better at this foundational level of this discussion if we do not now focus on what would “seem to be right for us” or ‘what should be’ but rather on what the Bible is literally saying, as revealed through proper and indepth exegesis. So if I make such personal suppositions, do not hesitate to point them out to me.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Gen. 2:17 is one of the most debated passages in Scripture. Why do you think this is the case?


That is the first time I hear of this, but be it as it may, that still does not mean that it cannot be understood through proper exegesis. (I know from many, many past experiences that such a surface, non-substantive objection to studying out a passage has never proven to be the incontrovertible obstacle that it had been claimed to be.) So let’s deal with the text here, rather than what people claim about it, even if more substantively than this objection. As a trained seminarian, I presume that analysing the crucial syntax here of the last statement in that verse should not be a problem here. So, seriously speaking, let’s concretely deal with it already!

Originally Posted By: Tom
I find your statement here rather incredible. Certainly there is the implication that Ellen White's writings are inferior to those of Scripture because:

1.She was not inerrant (whereas Bible writers weren't).
2.Her writings were greatly dependent upon how she understood some things, whereas those of the Bible writers were not.

Is this correctly representing your thought? Do you really think that the writings of Scripture were not greatly dependent upon how the Bible writers understood things?


First of all, that is not a personal opinion but a factual one. The writings of EGW are indeed the Lesser, and actually not indispensable, Light while the Bible is the Greater and indispensable light.

Secondly, errors/inacurracies,/incomplete understandings in the SOP are amatter of fact and not opinion. That can easily be studied out from many honest and responsible works that deal with these issues.

Thirdly I was not dealing with the Bible vs . the Bible in that response but solely the SOP vs. the Bible. Having said that, one of the reasons why there are very little, if any such crucial “differences” between the writings of Bible writers is that they, much more than less, over 1600 years of this writing period, all spoke the same language, lived in the same geographical area, had the same culture, lived in pretty much homogeneous worldly times, etcs. We today, includign EGW are far removed from these key aspects for this crucial “context” and so it is mainly through in depth exegesis that we can recreate this need context through which we can understand what was being said. And so it is because of this variously manifested remoteness that much of the errors, inaccuracies and deficiencies in our Biblical understandings come to occur. And, correspondingly, what we think are errors in the Bible is actually due to our own exegetical deficiency.

So I do factually known and see that the writing of EGW are subordinate to the Bible itself.

Originally Posted By: Tom
This is not the thought that anyone considering the cross would have.


Let’s be honest/real here. On what factual basis are you making that blanketly generalizing point??? It is my thought, for one!

Originally Posted By: Tom
Instead, their thoughts are drawn to the great love of God revealed in such a sacrifice, and that love draws the viewer to repentance that made such suffering necessary.


If they Theologically understand the ‘Right to the tree of Life’ that t the Cross has made possible, then they’ll see it as I have presented. You are viewing the cross from a sentimental aspect. That is really your view, and though it may be a popular one, that does not necessarily mean that is the Biblical One.

How one emotionally looks at the cross also does not change or set its underlying Theology. Biblical Truth and theology is not set by such emotionalism and sentimentalism. Rather much error has been. We were dealing with the Theological truth of the Cross, to which I made my point and not “How does reading about Calvary make me feel?”
So also, let’s set subjective, personal emotionalism and sentimentalism aside for this Theological discussion, because they really do not contribute to the Theological understanding here.

Also, will someone become a Christian merely by reading about Calvary in the Bible or SOP? If that was the case, then sentimental and emotional people would have the greatest chance to be saved.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I don't think this sense is a sense that anyone considering the cross sees. I can think of many, many statements regarding the cross, by both inspired and non-inspired writers, but cannot recall every the idea being mentioned that sin without the Cross = Death by no tree of life.

This doesn't mean, of course, that of necessity your idea is false, but simply it is an idea original to yourself. You may dispute this by citing someone who has written that sin without the Cross = Death by no tree of life. I don't mind being wrong here, by the way, as I like learning new things. Simply quote for me someone who has expressed this idea. I don't mean word for word, but simply the idea in a general sense. I don't believe anyone considering the cross would have the idea that from it one sees that death comes about as a result of not having access to the tree of life.


Skipping over the recurring issue of overgeneralization, I do not guage what is Biblically true, by what most people believe. Only the Bible can serve as the indicator and arbitrator of actual Truth. That is therefore why, again, it is passages like Gen 2:17b; 3:22-24 and PP 60.3 that have shown to me this to be the Biblical Truth here. If you disagree address these passages substantively and head on rather than continuing to skirt them,* and worst appealing to popular consensus. Biblical Truth is not determined through setting up a voting booth. So I indeed quote God Himself in the Bible for the validity of this Theological understanding.

*I.e. If I am saying that 2+2=5, you can’t actually nor think to be disproving my “view” by even rightly saying that: 3+1=4. You rather/duly have to address that calculation “error” head on. Why you as a seminarian are not jumping on this would-be exegetical opportunity to prove me wrong, and doing this “correction” is actually quite baffling me, to say the least. It just demonstrates to me that you cannot exegtically disprove this concrete Biblical fact.

Originally Posted By: Tom
They don't! Jesus said, "He who believes in me shall never die."


Let be serious and Biblically/exegetically responsible here. People do die. Jesus was speaking here of dying eternally. Had Adam and Eve never sinned, they would never have died at all. And that because they would have continued to have access to the Tree of Life.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Eternal life is not of works, but of faith. Surely having to ask for forgiveness every second to obtain eternal life would be tantamount to salvation by works.


How about this then. How about asking for forgiven after every single sin, as most, born from above Christian aim to do. And a blanket prayer occasionally for committed sins we may have missed. That’s certainly is not works, as it is with cause. Why then do will still physically die sin we are forgiven?

Originally Posted By: Tom
I addressed this. We can only life forever by breathing. Does this mean that the problem of death is one best answered by considering breathing?


That is not a good analogy because we actually do not breathe, since at some point our lungs fail, or some other vital body part and we stop breathing. The Tree of Life however prevents this from ever becoming the case by restoring out body and its part to perfect health, apparently every month. So, as the Bible clearly states. the problem of dying because of sin is still inextricably linked together by the removal of the Tree of Life that occurred in Eden.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Let's consider sin for a moment. The root of sin is selfishness, or love of self (or, one could say, unbelief). Do you disagree with this?


Not fully, however I do not see that such derived issues can be examined yet since the exegetical foundation is still not set on your part. So that is really just ‘jumping to a conclusion’ and a rather subjective one at that (e.g., “one could say”)

Originally Posted By: Tom
Assuming you don't, how is it possible that such principles as these could sustain life forever? (or, even at all)


As the Bible in Gen 3:22 and PP 60.3 says, by the sinner continuing to eat of the Tree of life, and that not only one more time, but for, at least once a month for every month after that.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Life is the fruit of faith, of obedience.


Gen 3:22-24 rather teaches that the ‘Right to Life’ is the fruit of faith that leads to obedience to God.

Originally Posted By: Tom
God alone is the source of life.


He has indeed Created Life and has, through an apparently highly scientific process made it that human life, i.e., of non-immortal beings is perpetuated through the healing ingredients in the fruit of Life.

Originally Posted By: Tom
We receive life by being yoked to Him.


We receive physical life only when we are faithful and obedient and thus have right to the Tree of Life on top of Him not injuctively killing us if need be. E.g., fallen man could live for up to 969 years, if not 1000 years, still God could have injunctively destroyed them at any point before such natural time elapse.

Originally Posted By: Tom
The parable of the Vine illustrates this. We have no life except as we are connected to God, and the whole point of the Tree of Life is to make evident this point, in the clearest manner possible.


Since the parable of the Vine (John 15:1-11) is speaking of spiritual vitality i.e., a fruit-bearing life (vs. 8), then it exegetically does not, per se, speaking on this issue of physical life. So that is really a textbook “proof-text.”
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/02/11 04:45 PM

Quote:
NJK:Indeed, as shown in this post, some of the things that EGW state and seem to be extra-biblical are proven to be concretely in the Bible through a deeper exegesis. However, naturally, this ability is necessary for exegetical issues, such as the Syntax of Biblical Languages.


I agree with this, although I would change the "some of the things" to "many of the things" in regards to EGW. That is, a great deal of what she writes can be found in Scripture, if one has a discerning eye.

While working with Biblical languages is important, it seems to me a far greater deficiency is a lack of familiarity with the culture and history, the "milieu," which leads to many fanciful interpretations for which there may appear to be a linguistic support, but which, taking into account the historical setting, would be impossible. Perhaps the State of the Dead is an example of this.

Quote:
I agree with your assertion that foundational passages are being misunderstood or indifferently ignored in this discussion. You seem to be working from an already self-established view that sin is not organic,...


I actually got this view from ready what God said in Gen 2:17b & 3:22-24, as confirmed by the SOP in PP 60.3. That is indeed what anchored my viewed on this subject and I, in a deductive approach, study all other Bible and also SOP passages in that clearest light.


It seems really odd to me that you would consider these passages to be foundational when it comes to the question of eternal life and eternal death. Why wouldn't a passage like John 3:16, for example, be more foundational? Or Romans 6:23? Or the many passages in John where life is linked to Christ? Is it really possible that the message of Scripture is that life comes from a tree, as opposed to from Jesus Christ, who said, "I am the resurrection and the life," and of whom it is said, "He who has the Son has life; He who has not the Son has not life"?

Quote:
I would like to see a listing of those specific passages because I (off the top of my head) only recall the passage in Ezek 18:4 where God says: the soul (i.e., living person) that sins shall die. Which actually is meaning, the person who has himself sinned in that case will die. However even if this is understand as ‘sin leads to death’, which I do not see that it is exegetically/contextually concerned with, I still see that the 2 statements in Genesis have already, foundationally, defined/described why death was the consequence/result of having sinned.


Assuming the words of Jesus Christ count as words coming directly from the mouth of God, there are many passages where Christ explains the causes of life and death, including faith in Him and obedience. Since I'm sure you're familiar with them, I won't quote them, but wouldn't you agree that Christ taught that obedience/faith in Him leads to eternal life, whereas disobedience/unbelief leads to eternal death?

Quote:
T:Indeed, the Bible is a spiritual book, which is spiritually discerned. It seems to me if we view death as only/primarily physical, we're missing the whole point. If this were the case, what would be special about the cross? Certainly from a physical standpoint, there have been many more impressive deaths than Christ's.

NJK:I appreciate your right to express your personal point of view, but I think it would be better at this foundational level of this discussion if we do not now focus on what would “seem to be right for us” or ‘what should be’ but rather on what the Bible is literally saying, as revealed through proper and indepth exegesis. So if I make such personal suppositions, do not hesitate to point them out to me.


Here are points made in the above paragraph, to which you are responding:

1.The Bible is a spiritual book.
2.It is spiritually discerned.
3.If we view death as primarily/only physical, we miss the point.
4.If physical death is the primary/only thing that matters, then there are other deaths more impressive than Christ's.

You didn't respond to any of these points, other than to make a general statement regarding what the Bible "literally" says is what's important. Do you disagree with any of these assertions? If you do, please state so, and state why.

Also, when you speak of what the Bible "literally" says, what do you mean by this? The Bible, being a spiritual book, is spiritually discerned. We need the Holy Spirit to understand it. Our willingness to respond to Him, our willingness to understand and to do God's will are critical to our ability to correctly understand Scripture. Do you disagree?

Quote:
T:Gen. 2:17 is one of the most debated passages in Scripture. Why do you think this is the case?

NJK:That is the first time I hear of this,


There are opinions as to whether this meant physically die on that very day, spiritually die on that very day, or begin to die on that day. Aren't you aware of this?

Quote:
but be it as it may, that still does not mean that it cannot be understood through proper exegesis.


My point wasn't that it can't be understood, but that it's a highly controverted passage. I asked you why you think this is the case. I'll venture to suggest it's because it's a difficult passage to understand.

Quote:
(I know from many, many past experiences that such a surface, non-substantive objection to studying out a passage has never proven to be the incontrovertible obstacle that it had been claimed to be.) So let’s deal with the text here, rather than what people claim about it, even if more substantively than this objection. As a trained seminarian, I presume that analysing the crucial syntax here of the last statement in that verse should not be a problem here. So, seriously speaking, let’s concretely deal with it already!


I think if it were this simple, there would be widespread agreement as to its meaning.

Quote:
T:I find your statement here rather incredible. Certainly there is the implication that Ellen White's writings are inferior to those of Scripture because:

1.She was not inerrant (whereas Bible writers weren't).
2.Her writings were greatly dependent upon how she understood some things, whereas those of the Bible writers were not.

Is this correctly representing your thought? Do you really think that the writings of Scripture were not greatly dependent upon how the Bible writers understood things?

NJK:First of all, that is not a personal opinion but a factual one.


This isn't a reasonable assertion. First of all, it pits personal opinion against factual opinion, which doesn't make sense. You are expressing an opinion, which is yours, so it is certainly a personal opinion. It may or may not be true.

Secondly, what's the point in such an assertion? I can just as readily say that what I'm writing to you are not personal opinions, but are facts. How would that be helpful?

Quote:
The writings of EGW are indeed the Lesser, and actually not indispensable, Light while the Bible is the Greater and indispensable light.


This is a reference to the Sanctuary service, where the greater light referred to the Pentateuch, and the lesser light were the other writings of the Old Testament. The thought is not that the lesser is inferior in terms of quality (i.e., less error-prone), or inspiration.

Quote:
Secondly, errors/inacurracies,/incomplete understandings in the SOP are a matter of fact and not opinion. That can easily be studied out from many honest and responsible works that deal with these issues.


Is it your idea that these are present in the SOP, but not in Scripture? That's what I'm asking.

Again, you are asserting that what you say is not opinion but fact. I don't see the point in doing so. Anyone can do this. Why bother? Of course you believe what you say is true.

Quote:
Thirdly I was not dealing with the Bible vs . the Bible in that response but solely the SOP vs. the Bible.


I wasn't asking you a question in terms of Bible vs. Bible, but in terms of Bible vs. the SOP. Your response appeared to be stating you believe the Bible is inerrant, whereas the SOP is not, and that Ellen White was greatly dependent upon some things she understood, whereas the Bible writers were not. I'm wanting to know how the Bible writers could not be greatly dependent upon things they understood.

Quote:
Having said that, one of the reasons why there are very little, if any such crucial “differences” between the writings of Bible writers is that they, much more than less, over 1600 years of this writing period, all spoke the same language, lived in the same geographical area, had the same culture, lived in pretty much homogeneous worldly times, etcs. We today, includign EGW are far removed from these key aspects for this crucial “context” and so it is mainly through in depth exegesis that we can recreate this need context through which we can understand what was being said.


By "deep exegesis" do you mean more than simply linguistic considerations?

Quote:
And so it is because of this variously manifested remoteness that much of the errors, inaccuracies and deficiencies in our Biblical understandings come to occur.


I agree with this, if "deep exegesis" includes an understanding of historical and cultural considerations.

Quote:
And, correspondingly, what we think are errors in the Bible is actually due to our own exegetical deficiency.


Or our paradigm. I think that's a more likely cause, or, better stated, a more "pregnant" cause. What I mean is that having a wrong paradigm can lead to errors that are real "whoppers," whereas if our paradigm is correct, the errors we have will be of lesser import. For example, the paradigm of some who lived in Christ's day led them to crucify Him.

Quote:
So I do factually known and see that the writing of EGW are subordinate to the Bible itself.


You didn't answer my questions. They were two. I'll restate them.

1.Do you believe that Ellen White's writings are not inerrant, whereas Scripture is?

You just addressed the first part, regarding Ellen White. You've implied you believe Scripture is inerrant, but haven't explicitly stated so. What I'm getting at is you appear to believe that Ellen White's writings have errors in them, whereas there are no errors in Scripture. I want to know if this is correctly stating your belief.

2.How is it possible that the Bible writers were not greatly dependent upon some of the things they understood?

I'm going to stop here for time considerations. I appreciate your detailed response very much. I'll continue as I have time.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/02/11 05:50 PM

Quote:
T:I don't think this sense is a sense that anyone considering the cross sees. I can think of many, many statements regarding the cross, by both inspired and non-inspired writers, but cannot recall every the idea being mentioned that sin without the Cross = Death by no tree of life.

This doesn't mean, of course, that of necessity your idea is false, but simply it is an idea original to yourself. You may dispute this by citing someone who has written that sin without the Cross = Death by no tree of life. I don't mind being wrong here, by the way, as I like learning new things. Simply quote for me someone who has expressed this idea. I don't mean word for word, but simply the idea in a general sense. I don't believe anyone considering the cross would have the idea that from it one sees that death comes about as a result of not having access to the tree of life.

NJK:Skipping over the recurring issue of overgeneralization, I do not guage what is Biblically true, by what most people believe.


If you'll notice what I said, I said this doesn't mean what you believe isn't true, but that it's original to yourself, which substantiates my point that one (with the singular exception of yourself) considering the cross would not have the idea that not partaking of the tree of life is what causes one's death.

Quote:
Only the Bible can serve as the indicator and arbitrator of actual Truth. That is therefore why, again, it is passages like Gen 2:17b; 3:22-24 and PP 60.3 that have shown to me this to be the Biblical Truth here. If you disagree address these passages substantively and head on rather than continuing to skirt them,* and worst appealing to popular consensus.


Not popular consensus, but any consensus! I'm just asking you to cite ONE person (other than yourself), that has the view you are espousing.

Quote:
Biblical Truth is not determined through setting up a voting booth.


If there's only one person in all recorded history that has a given view, it should be easy to see why such a view should be treated prudently. Why should I think you alone have the correct view in regards to the cross? I'm just asking for one other "voter" besides yourself.

Quote:
So I indeed quote God Himself in the Bible for the validity of this Theological understanding.


Where does God Himself in the Bible say that when one considers the cross, the lesson is that one will die if one does not partake of the tree of life? Let's keep in mind that what we're discussing here is the assertion that when one considers the cross, one comes to the conviction that the sure result of sin is death.

Quote:
*I.e. If I am saying that 2+2=5, you can’t actually nor think to be disproving my “view” by even rightly saying that: 3+1=4. You rather/duly have to address that calculation “error” head on. Why you as a seminarian are not jumping on this would-be exegetical opportunity to prove me wrong, and doing this “correction” is actually quite baffling me, to say the least. It just demonstrates to me that you cannot exegtically disprove this concrete Biblical fact.


I think you've gone away from what I was asking you about. Ellen White wrote that considering the cross brings the conviction that the sure result of sin is death. I said that no one considering the cross would conclude that the sure result of sin is death because of being denied access to the Tree of Life. You disputed this. So I asked you to cite someone, other than yourself, who holds this view.

Here's my assertion: You hold a view regarding the cross that no one else holds.

Please either disprove my assertion by citing someone other than yourself who holds the view you hold, or concur with my assertion.

Quote:
T:They don't! Jesus said, "He who believes in me shall never die."

NJK:Let be serious and Biblically/exegetically responsible here. People do die. Jesus was speaking here of dying eternally.


I've been speaking dying eternally throughout our discussion. I've made this clear by such expressions as "the second death," and quoted from passages which were discussing this.

Quote:
Had Adam and Eve never sinned, they would never have died at all. And that because they would have continued to have access to the Tree of Life.


How about Jesus Christ? What did He mean when He said that whosoever believes in Him should not die but have life eternal? Is Jesus Christ not important in this conversation?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/02/11 08:47 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
Originally Posted By: MM
T: I've suggested over and over again that the way to tackle this question is to first form a foundation based on what God's character is, based on the life and revelation of Jesus Christ, and then come back to these questions, as opposed to starting with these questions

M: Okay, let's do it your way. Please take the lead. Present your case in a way that explains 1) why Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in battle, 2) why Jesus commanded godly people to execute capital punishment, and 3) why Jesus withdraws His protection and permits the forces of nature, evil men, and/or evil angels to kill men, women, and children.

The purpose of this exercise is to obtain a correct understanding of the three actions named above. That is, the "way to tackle this question is to first form a foundation based on what God's character is, based on the life and revelation of Jesus Christ, and then come back to these questions." I agree. Please take the lead. Thank you.

T: All right. Let's consider the revelation of God given by Christ through His life and teachings. What did He teach us regarding God? Let's start with the Sermon on the Mount. What did Christ teach regarding God? Christ taught that one should turn the other cheek, walk the second mile, give the shirt off one's back to the request of a coat, that one should love one's enemies. Is God like this?

M: Tom, all of the above is what you agreed to.

T: Yes, this indeed looks like what I agreed to.

MM, if you would put the post#, that would help a lot, when it's not a recent post. It took a while to find this, but here's what I wrote, which I'm posting to make clear what the "this" that I am agreeing to is:

Originally Posted By: Tom
Yes, this indeed looks like what I agreed to, which is not what you've been suggesting. Note:

"I've suggested over and over again that the way to tackle this question is to first form a foundation based on what God's character is, based on the life and revelation of Jesus Christ, and then come back to these questions, as opposed to starting with these questions."

So I am opposed to starting with the questions you keep asking. I think the problem lies with the whole mindset that would ask the question. I believe a correct understanding of God's character would result in the asking of different questions.

Please present your case in a way that explains 1) why Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in battle, 2) why Jesus commanded godly people to execute capital punishment, and 3) why Jesus withdraws His protection and permits the forces of nature, evil men, and/or evil angels to kill men, women, and children.

The purpose of this exercise is to obtain a correct understanding of the three actions named above. That is, the "way to tackle this question is to first form a foundation based on what God's character is, based on the life and revelation of Jesus Christ, and then come back to these questions."

You wrote, "I believe a correct understanding of God's character would result in the asking of different questions." As it relates to the three types of actions named above, how would you rephrase the three questions I asked above?

PS - "MM, if you would put the post#, that would help a lot, when it's not a recent post." I noticed you also forgot to cite the post number. Must be contagious. Sorry.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/02/11 11:39 PM

Quote:
T:Eternal life is not of works, but of faith. Surely having to ask for forgiveness every second to obtain eternal life would be tantamount to salvation by works.

NJK:How about this then. How about asking for forgiven after every single sin, as most, born from above Christian aim to do. And a blanket prayer occasionally for committed sins we may have missed. That’s certainly is not works, as it is with cause. Why then do will still physically die sin we are forgiven?


Our physical death has nothing to do with whether or not we sin or ask forgiveness. We physically die for the same reason insects and other living beings on earth die.

Quote:
T:I addressed this. We can only life forever by breathing. Does this mean that the problem of death is one best answered by considering breathing?

M:That is not a good analogy because we actually do not breathe, since at some point our lungs fail, or some other vital body part and we stop breathing.


We do not actually breathe, since at some point our lungs fail, or some other vital body part and we stop breathing? This doesn't make any sense. Of course we actually breathe. We actually breathe until we stop breathing.

Quote:
The Tree of Life however prevents this from ever becoming the case by restoring out body and its part to perfect health, apparently every month. So, as the Bible clearly states. the problem of dying because of sin is still inextricably linked together by the removal of the Tree of Life that occurred in Eden.


The analogy is that if we don't breathe, we die. God created us in such a way that we need to breath in order to live. That doesn't mean that the theological problem of death (the second death) in a physical one.

You're using an argument similar to this one. You're saying that if Adam and Eve died because they were denied access to the Tree of Life, so therefore death (the second death) is a physical problem, related to whether or not one has access to the Tree of Life. I'm saying that the issue of eternal life and eternal death is a spiritual one, depending upon whether or not they have faith in Christ.

I'm saying that just as you are that eternal death is a physical issue because Adam and Eve died because they did not have access to the Tree of Life, so one could argue that eternal death is a physical issue because if one did not have access to air, one would die.

The Tree of Life (and breathing) are means to teach us of our dependence upon God for life. I'm not denying that the Tree of Life has healthful benefits (as does breathing), but am pointing out that the real significant thing is that *God* is life, and is the source of life, and we have life by virtue of being united to Him, which the Tree of Life was meant to teach.

Quote:
T:Let's consider sin for a moment. The root of sin is selfishness, or love of self (or, one could say, unbelief). Do you disagree with this?

NJK:Not fully, however I do not see that such derived issues can be examined yet since the exegetical foundation is still not set on your part. So that is really just ‘jumping to a conclusion’ and a rather subjective one at that (e.g., “one could say”)


"One could say" is not subjective. It indicates that something could be said in another way. It has nothing to do with subjectivity.

The point is that sin is based on principles which are not conducive to life.

Quote:
T:Assuming you don't, how is it possible that such principles as these could sustain life forever? (or, even at all)

NJK:As the Bible in Gen 3:22 and PP 60.3 says, by the sinner continuing to eat of the Tree of life, and that not only one more time, but for, at least once a month for every month after that.


This doesn't address the issue that the principles of sin are not conducive to life. Or maybe it does indirectly, if your point is that it doesn't matter if you sin or not, as long as you have access to the Tree of Life. You could sin as much as you wanted, and you would never die. I guess that's your idea.

So you could be totally separated from God, and not die, as long as you're not separated from the tree.

Quote:

T:Life is the fruit of faith, of obedience.

R:Gen 3:22-24 rather teaches that the ‘Right to Life’ is the fruit of faith that leads to obedience to God.


What about the rest of Scripture? Should I quote some texts which state that life is the fruit of faith, of obedience?

Quote:
T:God alone is the source of life.

NJK:He has indeed Created Life and has, through an apparently highly scientific process made it that human life, i.e., of non-immortal beings is perpetuated through the healing ingredients in the fruit of Life.


Life is not only a physical thing. Eternal life involves more than physically living forever.

Quote:
T:We receive life by being yoked to Him.

NJK:We receive physical life only when we are faithful and obedient and thus have right to the Tree of Life on top of Him not injuctively killing us if need be. E.g., fallen man could live for up to 969 years, if not 1000 years, still God could have injunctively destroyed them at any point before such natural time elapse.


Why do other living beings on earth die? Will they not live forever in the new earth? Will they need access to the Tree of Life?

Quote:
T:The parable of the Vine illustrates this. We have no life except as we are connected to God, and the whole point of the Tree of Life is to make evident this point, in the clearest manner possible.

NJK:Since the parable of the Vine (John 15:1-11) is speaking of spiritual vitality i.e., a fruit-bearing life (vs. 8), then it exegetically does not, per se, speaking on this issue of physical life. So that is really a textbook “proof-text.”


The life we have by connected to Christ is eternal life, not (merely) physical life.

Quote:
Now that we are branches of the Living Vine we will be nourished by the sap that flows from the Vine. It flows all the time to every branch, and every branch will bear fruit to the glory of God. "It is your Father's good pleasure" "that ye bear much fruit." Well then, what is our position? It must be a position of living faith. {FW 65.2}...

You may be united to the Living Vine. Every member of your whole being may be united to that Vine, and the sap and nourishment that come from the Vine will nourish the branch that is in the Vine, until you are one with Christ as He was one

with the Father. Thus His blessings will be imparted to you. But brethren, we have not had faith. We have dishonored God by unbelief long enough. {FW 66.5}


Here's an example from the first Commentary I happened to run across:

Quote:
Believers are branches of this Vine. The root is unseen, and our life is hid with Christ; the root bears the tree, diffuses sap to it, and in Christ are all supports and supplies. The branches of the vine are many, yet, meeting in the root, are all but one vine; thus all true Christians, though in place and opinion distant from each other, meet in Christ. Believers, like the branches of the vine, are weak, and unable to stand but as they are borne up. The Father is the Husbandman. Never was any husbandman so wise, so watchful, about his vineyard, as God is about his church, which therefore must prosper. We must be fruitful. From a vine we look for grapes, and from a Christian we look for a Christian temper, disposition, and life.


Isn't it evident that a lesson from the parable is that we receive life from Christ? This thought is all over the Gospel of John. Also in his first epistle. Do you disagree?
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/03/11 12:09 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK Project

Originally Posted By: kland
If something is so clear and obvious, why should there be a need to dig diligently? And isn't that what we are instructed to do?

I judiciously reserve my clear statement for points that I do, at least personally, consider to be clear. So claiming that I am wrong in such cases, will have to be done substantively and not by merely addressing the use of “clear” in a statement. So where exegetically-based points prove something to be clear, I accordingly explicitly say so.

It sounds like you are saying what I attempted to say, that is, things can only be clear to you personally and does not mean the same thing is clear to others nor does it make it correct nor should that "clearness" be urged upon others.

And speaking of correctness, if I understood you correctly, I do believe you are incorrect about Saul.
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/03/11 12:13 AM

MM, I believe I had asked you to state why you thought Tom thought different questions would be asked once one looks at Jesus' life.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/03/11 01:20 AM

Originally Posted By: MM
Please present your case in a way that explains 1) why Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in battle, 2) why Jesus commanded godly people to execute capital punishment, and 3) why Jesus withdraws His protection and permits the forces of nature, evil men, and/or evil angels to kill men, women, and children.


I addressed this.

Quote:
The purpose of this exercise is to obtain a correct understanding of the three actions named above. That is, the "way to tackle this question is to first form a foundation based on what God's character is, based on the life and revelation of Jesus Christ, and then come back to these questions."

You wrote, "I believe a correct understanding of God's character would result in the asking of different questions."


This is how I addressed the above.

Quote:
As it relates to the three types of actions named above, how would you rephrase the three questions I asked above?


What is God's character like? How does God treat His enemies? Given how God treats His enemies, why would God request someone else to act in a way so out of harmony with His own character?

Quote:
PS - "MM, if you would put the post#, that would help a lot, when it's not a recent post." I noticed you also forgot to cite the post number. Must be contagious. Sorry.


It wasn't a post# from several months ago, was it? If so, I'm also sorry about that. I tend not to include numbers if the post was in the immediate past, but if it's many screens back I try to.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/03/11 02:37 AM

Oh, MM, btw, Welcome Back!
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/03/11 05:49 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
Oh, MM, btw, Welcome Back!

Thank you. I enjoy my work, but I miss my wife terribly when I'm away on assignment.

Originally Posted By: Tom
M: Please present your case in a way that explains 1) why Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in battle, 2) why Jesus commanded godly people to execute capital punishment, and 3) why Jesus withdraws His protection and permits the forces of nature, evil men, and/or evil angels to kill men, women, and children.

T: Given how God treats His enemies, why would God request someone else to act in a way so out of harmony with His own character?

Indeed, why? For example, why did He command Moses to utterly kill every man, woman, and child? And, what of the other two named above?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/03/11 05:54 AM

Originally Posted By: kland
MM, I believe I had asked you to state why you thought Tom thought different questions would be asked once one looks at Jesus' life.

I'm hoping to understand why as we study it further. Tom is good at explaining things.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/03/11 07:22 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
I agree with this, although I would change the "some of the things" to "many of the things" in regards to EGW. That is, a great deal of what she writes can be found in Scripture, if one has a discerning eye.


No argument from me. The more the better, however much coordinated work needs to be done in this area by those who believe the SOP because I have heard many wild and detrimental attempts to make such Bible Proofs of SOP statements. Though a “discerning eye” is indeed needed and helpful in doing this, one still needs to be exegetically competent in order to discover the many other proofs that literally ‘lie beneath the surface’ of modern mis-translations (where/when applicable).

Originally Posted By: Tom
While working with Biblical languages is important, it seems to me a far greater deficiency is a lack of familiarity with the culture and history, the "milieu," which leads to many fanciful interpretations for which there may appear to be a linguistic support, but which, taking into account the historical setting, would be impossible. Perhaps the State of the Dead is an example of this.


I do not know where you stand exactly on the State of the Dead, (apparently I cannot take it for granted that an SDA will have the same view as the Fundamental SDA view(?!?)), but I have personally found that improper exegesis, which can only include such multifaceted depth, is indeed a greater example of this. Let me clearly state that when I say exegesis, I fully understand, mean and am referring to all of the sub-elements involved in it other than Biblical Languages.

Originally Posted By: Tom
It seems really odd to me that you would consider these passages to be foundational when it comes to the question of eternal life and eternal death. Why wouldn't a passage like John 3:16, for example, be more foundational? Or Romans 6:23? Or the many passages in John where life is linked to Christ? Is it really possible that the message of Scripture is that life comes from a tree, as opposed to from Jesus Christ, who said, "I am the resurrection and the life," and of whom it is said, "He who has the Son has life; He who has not the Son has not life"?


I can understand your (surfacely seen) objection here, but I do consider the Genesis passages to be “foundational” because (1) they were said by God Himself and (2) they were made at a time when there was no sin in the world. If man had not fallen, the sacrifice of Jesus would never have been necessary. Also if you read e.g., EW 149-153 you’ll see that the plan of Redemption was only (most relunctantly) agreed upon, and manifestly established, by God the Father, at the convincing insistence of Christ, only after man has fallen. As EGW points out just after the fall: “Sorrow filled heaven, as it was realized that man was lost, and that world which God had created was to be filled with mortals doomed to misery, sickness, and death, and there was no way of escape for the offender.” (EW 149.2) (Relatedly, the Bible speaks of ‘Christ being (symbolically, i.e., through types) since/“away from” the foundation of the world and not “before”, that is if Rev 13:8 & 17:8 are even saying that. So this agrees with this post fallen plan and typological implementation.) All this to say that God’s plan for man to live eternally was originally apart from a Sacrifice of Christ. And that life perpetuating plan was through the Tree of Life. As EGW says: “Obedience, perfect and perpetual, was the condition of eternal happiness. On this condition he was to have access to the tree of life.” {PP 49.2} As I have said before, the post fall sacrifice of Christ came to make it possible to have man spiritually restored to a perfect state before God and thus once again grant this right to access the Tree of Life.

It is through this foundational “Perfect/Sinless World” plan of God that I view this issue and the Bible and SOP, with the Tree of Life mention in heaven, to which we will have free access (cf. Rev 2:8), is clear that this will again be the plan once sin is removed from the this world and the universe.

So in regards to Christ statements, which are factually all from God’s (reluctant) Plan B in regards to providing eternal/perpetuating life for man, I’ll use the following illustration:

If I am seeking to buy a house but do not have all of the cash at hand, I’ll therefore need to go to a bank which will make me a loan and actually pay that money directly to the house owner, allowing be to buy the house. I can’t truthfully say to others that I bought the house out of my own money because without the bank covering my cash shortcoming, that would not have been possible at all. So in this way, when I say that fallen man has perpetual life by eating of the tree of life, I implicitly do and can only mean that this is only possible through the sin covering and atoning sacrifice of Christ. However for Unfallen/Sinless Man (i.e., a buyer with all of the cash on hand) such a claim to unmediated, even unaided access would truthful as it factually would be the case.

That may be surfacely “shocking” to hear, but it is all the Biblical/Theological reality. So that is why I consider these pre-fall statements of God to be most foundational.

A question that you need to answer is: What do you believe is the function of the Tree of Life since you obviously do not see that it is to perpetuate man’s life?

Also in regards to the foundational statement in Gen 2:17b, it is most significant to me that God, as seen in the 3rd person singular suffix attached to a particle preposition and related to a Qal infinitive absolute verb collectively rightly rendered as: ‘[In the day that you (Adam) eat of it], out of the reason of Man naturally dying’ was abstractly/generally stating, even before man sinned that ‘(Created) Man was subject to naturally die.’ So (now using a 2nd person singular suffix with a Qal imperfect again with the verb “to die”) to pointedly/specifically refer to Adam himself), when God added: “you (Adam) will consequently, naturally die.”

Originally Posted By: Tom
Assuming the words of Jesus Christ count as words coming directly from the mouth of God, there are many passages where Christ explains the causes of life and death, including faith in Him and obedience. Since I'm sure you're familiar with them, I won't quote them, but wouldn't you agree that Christ taught that obedience/faith in Him leads to eternal life, whereas disobedience/unbelief leads to eternal death?


Prophetically speaking, I do see that Christ’s words were that of the Father (cf. John 14:24) and even the apparent mistake in Matt 10:23 would have been (as it is fully understandable in the proper understanding of God and the Future) that this also had been God’s plan at that early point in Christ’s ministry. So in applicable prophetic comparison with EGW, I would say that all of Christ’s statements were from “I was shown” types of revelations.

I believe I have already addressed your other comments here in the above discussion of Tree of Life, The Plan of Redemption, and the Plan B nature of the Cross in regards for man to being able to perpetually live. In regards to the “obedience” comment here I most pertinently again quote the above mentioned statement/understanding of EGW in PP 49.2.


Originally Posted By: Tom
Here are points made in the above paragraph, to which you are responding:

1.The Bible is a spiritual book.
2.It is spiritually discerned.
3.If we view death as primarily/only physical, we miss the point.
4.If physical death is the primary/only thing that matters, then there are other deaths more impressive than Christ's.

You didn't respond to any of these points, other than to make a general statement regarding what the Bible "literally" says is what's important. Do you disagree with any of these assertions? If you do, please state so, and state why.

Also, when you speak of what the Bible "literally" says, what do you mean by this? The Bible, being a spiritual book, is spiritually discerned. We need the Holy Spirit to understand it. Our willingness to respond to Him, our willingness to understand and to do God's will are critical to our ability to correctly understand Scripture. Do you disagree?


From both intellectual knowledge and personal experience I fully believe and know that the Bible is a spiritual book and that spiritual discernment is key to understanding it. However I have to problems with applying this at this stage, especially as this is not indispensably required. Firstly, as I have shown above, the Plan of Salvation was God’s Plan B in regards to how man was to live perpetually. Had man not sinned it would not even have been planned, let alone implemented. So from this alone, it can be seen that: how (sinless) man can live perpetually without being immortal is indeed seen in the Genesis statements on this issue, with one (2:17b) being pre-fall.

Secondly, when one makes “spiritual discernment” be the first “resource” to understanding the Bible over first, at least, exegetically having an accurate rendering of the text from the original language, it therefore really becomes a futile subjective exercise which really depends on what “spirit” is influencing that person. It is easily to claim that this is the “Spirit of God” that really is a private/subjective opinion. I think the Bible even makes Biblical exegesis the arbitrating test of such claimed spirits by testing what they said with the word of God (cf. 1 Thess 5:20; Act 17:11). That is why EGW also subjected herself to this Bible testing. As you can see in this other discussion of mine (see section {20}), I had this same problem with another SDA who, staunchly quoting 1 John 2:20, was claiming that they did not need to do exegetical studies because the “unction of the Holy Spirit” would directly tell them what is truth. I then showed them how their claimed “unction” was really just limited by the Bible version they happen to be using. So having an accurate text and reading is paramountly most foundational and important.

Here you are claiming that this issue must be understood through a spiritual prism and based upon this view, you are just “ignoring” passages like Gen 2:17 & 3:22-24 which, as repeatedly shown say much upon this issue and in a straightforward (=”literal”) way. As I said before, Theology that is not rooted in, and derived from, proper exegesis leads to all sorts of false “spiritual” claims and conclusions. This is what I see is insistently occurring here, and why I had much prefer to not continue this, then futile discussion, because you are here, again, “ignoring” Theologically and Chronologically (even beyond a strict timeline way, but here with pre-fall involvement) foundational texts, to present what it really your view of what the sacrifice of Christ means, i.e., without it man (and, by implication, sinless man), would not be able to perpetually live forever. It is black on white clear that this is not what the Bible and SOP is saying. So again what you have done is just (truncatedly) see that sin = death, whereas the full Biblical teaching in this regards is that sin without eating from the tree of live = death (Gen 3:22-24 & PP 60.3). I just can’t and won’t ignore these Biblical statements to, effectively, “get caught up” in your selective spiritualization of this issue. The word of God is my arbitrator and anchor here.

Originally Posted By: Tom
There are opinions as to whether this meant physically die on that very day, spiritually die on that very day, or begin to die on that day. Aren't you aware of this?


Now that aspect of this text I am fully aware of and it is indeed greatly disputed. However that is not what we were pointedly discussing. I was referring to the often hendiadys rendered portion as “surely die”. So that is why I was also wondering where you were getting this “great confusion”.

Originally Posted By: Tom
My point wasn't that it can't be understood, but that it's a highly controverted passage. I asked you why you think this is the case. I'll venture to suggest it's because it's a difficult passage to understand.


I personally believe that “in the day” has a ‘pivotal change’ understanding here (see Waltke and O’Connor, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 196), which says: ‘from the day you eat of it [...] you will consequently, naturally die.’ Again this was to naturally continue to occur in ‘naturally dying man’ because access to the tree of life would immediately be barred thus making it impossible for Man to heal/restore his ‘naturally dying’ body.

So when proper exegesis is applied here (e.g., syntax and context) it does not become that “difficult” to understand.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I think if it were this simple, there would be widespread agreement as to its meaning.


I think I have demonstrated this simplicity above. You’ll be surprised, even shocked, by how much such claims of “understanding impossibility” are actually the fault of a combination of scholarly pride, stubborness and outright laziness, to allow advance studies to replace prior cherished beliefs/assumptions and correct both one’s view and scholarly knowledge. I know I am from many such experiences in the past 13+ years of scholarly research and studies.

Originally Posted By: Tom
This isn't a reasonable assertion. First of all, it pits personal opinion against factual opinion, which doesn't make sense. You are expressing an opinion, which is yours, so it is certainly a personal opinion. It may or may not be true.

Secondly, what's the point in such an assertion? I can just as readily say that what I'm writing to you are not personal opinions, but are facts. How would that be helpful?


Since all of your comments here are stemming from a belief that I am making that statement up, read e.g., the section in the book Inspiration by Alden Thompson, pp. 290-295ff to see many such examples of these theological understandings errors in the SOP. I had made those statements in the light of these facts.

My point is that the statements of EGW are to always be tested by the Bible to see if they are in harmony with what has been written there.

Originally Posted By: Tom
This is a reference to the Sanctuary service, where the greater light referred to the Pentateuch, and the lesser light were the other writings of the Old Testament. The thought is not that the lesser is inferior in terms of quality (i.e., less error-prone), or inspiration.


I rather more fully see that EGW lesser light was a light where the Greater light available in the Bible could be more easily taken in. Just like a commentary helps to explain what is said in the Bible. However, it is still a fact that EGW’s understanding was not inerrant and at once full, in fact not even complete, but gradually increased even having to correct pass misunderstandings. So that is why I test her statements with the Bible and not vice versa.

Succintly said, as an example, (see in this post)when relating the episode of Christ’s appearance to Mary after his resurrection, EGW had no problem quoting her Bible verbatim then to say “Touch me not...” for ca. 50 years until when she wrote the Desire of Ages and manifestly got the “light” here that Jesus had actually said “Do not detain me...” She made this deliberate correction in DA {790.2} as seen by the fact that this segment is left out of her verbatim quote of her Bible. Many modern scholars and Bible translation now see that this “holding onto” vs. ‘mere touching’ notion is indeed the accurate understanding here.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Is it your idea that these are present in the SOP, but not in Scripture? That's what I'm asking.


As stated for the SOP, Yes though in a very small amount, and thus far in my deeper studying of the Bible, in regards to such Theological misunderstandings, No. (A factual mistake that I have seen in the Bible, which may be Matthew’s own or possibly Jesus’ is in Matt 23:35 as that “Zechariah” was apparently the one in 2 Chr 24:20, 21, but he was the son of Jehoiada.) However as I said, I do not see EGW statements to contradict my view. In fact, reading them in the light of her other statements on this matter (e.g., PP 60.3) I see that she had this same understanding as mine. I rather have/see a difference with your view which is leaving the tree of life completely out of this sin = death equation.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Again, you are asserting that what you say is not opinion but fact. I don't see the point in doing so. Anyone can do this. Why bother? Of course you believe what you say is true.


That is the furthest thing from what I said and meant. As I mentioned before, this conclusion of your is evidently out of your ignorance of these EGW “mistakes” so I recommend that you read up on them.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I wasn't asking you a question in terms of Bible vs. Bible, but in terms of Bible vs. the SOP.


Great! Glad to clear up the misunderstanding here.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Your response appeared to be stating you believe the Bible is inerrant, whereas the SOP is not, and that Ellen White was greatly dependent upon some things she understood, whereas the Bible writers were not. I'm wanting to know how the Bible writers could not be greatly dependent upon things they understood.


They indeed were, though to a much lesser extent than EGW for the many present exegetical factors readily available and understandable to them, contrary to EGW living in America, and some 1800+ years later. The difference that I see and state is that they did not make Theological misunderstanding and exegetical errors as EGW did in some places. (Cf. 2 Pet 1:20, 21). I personally believe that this was both out of a natural development given their inherent familiarity with the key exegetical factors at hand and also because God was in the process of setting up this Biblical canon. And so His Spirit actively work to help prevent these errors from taking place. I do not see this a being the case with EGW, except for explicit “I was shown statements” or those that are seen to be derived from such explicit revelations. So EGW when she continue to carefree eat meat and even unclean meats up through the 1890's, implicitly endorsing this for the Church, that was not the work of God’s Spirit but her own personal preference and also improper understanding that oysters were unclean.

To an even lesser extent, I see this being the case in the Jewish apocrypha, which EGW was shown in vision were valuable, though not fully trustworthy, resources for us today. As most of these works were written in the intertestamental period, because this was a time of spiritual lukewarmness and actual waywardness amongst the Jews especially by having neglected to follow the counsels and plans given in the exilic book of Ezekiel, God was not able to fully work with these people and thus only partial revelation was given to them occasionally recorded in these works. However these gems were obscured by the greater “worldy” and fantasaical genre of work that was allowed to be considered as “inspired” writings, indeed in a man-made attempt to “inspire” the Jewish nation to greatness.

Originally Posted By: Tom
By "deep exegesis" do you mean more than simply linguistic considerations?
---
I agree with this, if "deep exegesis" includes an understanding of historical and cultural considerations.


As stated above, "Yes"; and that by unalienable necessity.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Or our paradigm. I think that's a more likely cause, or, better stated, a more "pregnant" cause. What I mean is that having a wrong paradigm can lead to errors that are real "whoppers," whereas if our paradigm is correct, the errors we have will be of lesser import. For example, the paradigm of some who lived in Christ's day led them to crucify Him.


As I stated before, our paradigm can and should be anchored down by proper exegesis, otherwise it is just purely a “philosophical” approach to understanding Scripture and not an exegetical one through proper hermeneutics. As Jesus repeteadly told the people who opposed him and later crucified him: ‘they were in error in their knowledge of the Bible. Indeed this was mainly through a selective approach to Scripture, emphasizing some parts while outrightly ignoring or lightly regarding pertinent others. I see that this is also the main reason for our difference here. I.e., not giving the rightful, foundational place of passages like Gen 2:17b; 3:22-24 (PP 60.3).

Originally Posted By: Tom
You didn't answer my questions. They were two. I'll restate them.


I actually had answered them, at least implicitly, however I’ll give you a more explicit, though succinct answer here, given that I have already addressed this issue.

Originally Posted By: Tom
1.Do you believe that Ellen White's writings are not inerrant, whereas Scripture is?

You just addressed the first part, regarding Ellen White. You've implied you believe Scripture is inerrant, but haven't explicitly stated so. What I'm getting at is you appear to believe that Ellen White's writings have errors in them, whereas there are no errors in Scripture. I want to know if this is correctly stating your belief.


Summarily short: Yes.

Originally Posted By: Tom
2.How is it possible that the Bible writers were not greatly dependent upon some of the things they understood?


They were. However their understanding was culturally and Theologically “more pure” to start with as a base, than EGW’s, especially stemming from her culturally and time removed context along with a Catholic/Protestant “Babylonian” background. She, factually, personally had much, much more to both learn and unlearn than those Bible writers.

Originally Posted By: Tom
This doesn't mean, of course, that of necessity your idea is false, but simply it is an idea original to yourself. You may dispute this by citing someone who has written that sin without the Cross = Death by no tree of life. I don't mind being wrong here, by the way, as I like learning new things. Simply quote for me someone who has expressed this idea. I don't mean word for word, but simply the idea in a general sense. I don't believe anyone considering the cross would have the idea that from it one sees that death comes about as a result of not having access to the tree of life.
---
If you'll notice what I said, I said this doesn't mean what you believe isn't true, but that it's original to yourself, which substantiates my point that one (with the singular exception of yourself) considering the cross would not have the idea that not partaking of the tree of life is what causes one's death.
---
Here's my assertion: You hold a view regarding the cross that no one else holds.

Please either disprove my assertion by citing someone other than yourself who holds the view you hold, or concur with my assertion.


I can search through many commentaries, however, given the fact that this is a view that is was seen from a much deeper Biblical exegesis study along with supporting SOP statements, I do not see a need to go further than the SDABC (which also uses the SOP) and the more exegetical Word Biblical Commentary. Actually not at all surprising to me, given my observedly known deficiency of these two works, I do not find this view expressed there. I suspect this will be the same for other commentaries, which I tangibly understand to be variously inferior to these works. Nonetheless, since my views is based on sound exegesis along with the SOP, I do not mind standing alone here, as with many other such views that others have not seen also out of shoddy and deficient exegesis. I really do not see how this is a problem with you since you should be able to verify such an exegetical finding. The reason why you do not see this is evidently because, at the very least, you do not see these passage as either contributive or foundational to this issue instead preferring to “sentimentally” see things through the Cross. However as I have shown before, the cross was an intermediatary Plan B on this issue of how created man was to have perpetual life.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Not popular consensus, but any consensus! I'm just asking you to cite ONE person (other than yourself), that has the view you are espousing.


Already addressed that issue but/and I am asking you to first enter into an exegetical study of these key text.

Originally Posted By: Tom
If there's only one person in all recorded history that has a given view, it should be easy to see why such a view should be treated prudently. Why should I think you alone have the correct view in regards to the cross? I'm just asking for one other "voter" besides yourself.


Simply said here, because it is based on proper exegesis which you should be competent in doing. I know that it may be new/implausible/impossible to you that, pointedly here, I would be the lone right person here, but as the studies posted on my blog show, where many of such scholarly errors and misunderstanding are transparently addressed and corrected, that is not so “unfeasible”/impossible to me.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Where does God Himself in the Bible say that when one considers the cross, the lesson is that one will die if one does not partake of the tree of life? Let's keep in mind that what we're discussing here is the assertion that when one considers the cross, one comes to the conviction that the sure result of sin is death.


Gen 2:17b; 3:22-24 (PP 60.3) - Your “assertion” without these statements is just mere assumption and partial understanding.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I think you've gone away from what I was asking you about. Ellen White wrote that considering the cross brings the conviction that the sure result of sin is death. I said that no one considering the cross would conclude that the sure result of sin is death because of being denied access to the Tree of Life. You disputed this. So I asked you to cite someone, other than yourself, who holds this view.


I understand EGW statement to mean that since Jesus Himself, God the Son died despite having lived a sinless life, one indeed cannot look at what happened at the cross and not see and understand that sin will surely end up in death. God, who was most reluctant to go through with this (EW 149-153), clearly had no other option than this death. So it is in that sense of inevitability that I understand her statements and not that sin directly causes death since Gen 3:22-24 clearly states that sinful man could have lived forever if they continued to have access to the Tree of Life.... Really Tom, what is so hard to plainly understand here?? You are just letting your “spiritualizing” view do away with the plain reading of Scripture, something EGW counsels against doing. E.g.:

Originally Posted By: SOP (1SM 170.2)
We must be careful lest we misinterpret the Scriptures. The plain teachings of the Word of God are not to be so spiritualized that the reality is lost sight of. Do not overstrain the meaning of sentences in the Bible in an effort to bring forth something odd in order to please the fancy. Take the Scriptures as they read. -- Manuscript 30, 1904.


Originally Posted By: Tom
I've been speaking dying eternally throughout our discussion. I've made this clear by such expressions as "the second death," and quoted from passages which were discussing this.


Still the Tree of Life is what allows one to live eternally. Christ’s redemption makes it possible to avoid coming under the sentence of the Second Death, which is not a natural death either in its actualization (i.e., living for a while in Hell fire) nor in terms of time (the resurrected wicked could probably live on for much longer than they will when God forcefully takes hold of them and throws them in the Lake of Fire.) So while Christ’s makes avoidance of this second death possible, it is tangibly effectuate in redeemed and still mortal (i.e., not immortal) men through eating of the Tree of Life. For fallen but then redeemed man, access to this (perpetuating) life is only possible through Christ’s redemptive work. (cf. Rev 2:8).

Your strict and limited view is moreoverly improper because it totally makes void those Genesis and SOP statements whereas mine harmonizes them all without this arbitrary and subjective selectiveness. That is what proper exegesis is to result in. Tellingly enough, I also see the same selectiveness on teachings such as the State of the Dead, Hell, God and the Future, the Sabbath, etc both by SDA and non-SDA’s so that they, think, their doctrines can be upheld. However God’s Spirit will not need nor result in such arbitrary and contradicting dichotomies.

Originally Posted By: Tom
How about Jesus Christ? What did He mean when He said that whosoever believes in Him should not die but have life eternal? Is Jesus Christ not important in this conversation?


There is really not conflicting/irreconcilable issue here since believing in Christ and accepting what he did in faith is indeed what restores fallen man to the right to the Tree fo life he had prior to the fall. (Cf. Rev 2:8). There is no slighting at all of Christ or His words here. In fact, the fact that Jesus was so emphatic on this direct correlation, indeed not mentioning the tree of life process, was because if man did not full have faith in Him, indeed solely in Him and not in the tree, per se, this eternal life would never be possible. Just like, as in my example before, the cash deficient prospective buyer cannot afford the house he wants without a loan from the bank (of course that illustration excludes possible private loans and/or gifts from other people, but the most likely, ready and most capable source is the bank mortgage loan, just like Christ is truly the only Way back to this life.


Originally Posted By: Tom
Our physical death has nothing to do with whether or not we sin or ask forgiveness. We physically die for the same reason insects and other living beings on earth die.


It seems to me that you are grossly contradicting you view here that sin = death, seemingly throwing it under the bus for some reason here? How then does ‘our physical death have nothing to do with whether or not we sin or ask forgiveness”??

And also: How/Why do “We physically die for the same reason insects and other living beings on earth die.” I.e what is that “reason?”

From what I read and understand in the Bible and SOP man was always subject to death and this was allowed to be inevitable end when the Tree of Life was remove. (I deduced that a similar life perpetuating element/ingredient was removed from nature causing other created/alive things to die).

Originally Posted By: Tom
We do not actually breathe, since at some point our lungs fail, or some other vital body part and we stop breathing? This doesn't make any sense. Of course we actually breathe. We actually breathe until we stop breathing.


That was actually a typo. I meant to say that your analogy comparing breathing to eternal life was not fitting since we do not/cannot live for ever merely by breathing since our vital organ, even beyond the lungs, need to continue to function properly so that we can breathe. So to live forever one would need to have all of these vital organs to continue working perfectly and not merely force themselves to breathe. So, as I went on to say, the key is organ vitality and this was ensured by the restoring power in the Fruits of the Tree of Life.

Originally Posted By: Tom
The analogy is that if we don't breathe, we die. God created us in such a way that we need to breath in order to live. That doesn't mean that the theological problem of death (the second death) in a physical one.


That is exactly why I objected to your analogy here using breathing. That is a straw man approach. Death is a physical problem because or vital organ will degenerate if not restored by the tree of life. And it was in order to prevent this physical possibility by sinful man that God barred access to the Tree of Life.

Originally Posted By: Tom
You're using an argument similar to this one. You're saying that if Adam and Eve died because they were denied access to the Tree of Life, so therefore death (the second death) is a physical problem, related to whether or not one has access to the Tree of Life. I'm saying that the issue of eternal life and eternal death is a spiritual one, depending upon whether or not they have faith in Christ.


I previously address the issue of the Second Death here and then here indeed do see that it tangibly, ultimately is a physical matter. That death will end up being as the first one was, a consciousless state (i.e., not felt “separation” from God) The spiritual aspects of it are in having faith in Jesus Christ so that our sins can be forgiven and thus this death will not “hurt” nor have “authority” over us (Rev 2:11; 20:6).

Originally Posted By: Tom
I'm saying that just as you are that eternal death is a physical issue because Adam and Eve died because they did not have access to the Tree of Life, so one could argue that eternal death is a physical issue because if one did not have access to air, one would die.


You’ll need to use another element than breathing for the reasons cited above which indeed make it incongruous as an analogy and thus a straw man argument.

...

Ironically enough notice this SOP statement:

Originally Posted By: SOP (PP 62.3)
Then [in ‘Eden restored in the New Heavens and New Earth’] they that have kept God's commandments shall breathe in immortal vigor beneath the tree of life;


We in heaven may not even have to eat of the Tree of Life but “breathe it in” which makes logistical sense vs. the only 2 people who had to do this in Eden. This aromatic way may also be the way that nature was perpetually preserved in the Garden of Eden itself. And since Adam and Eve, and probably all other created things were immediately expelled from Eden (cf. PP 61.4ff) yet Eden remained in its original beauty while the rest of nature/creation gradually degenerated and died. This healing aroma for nature may have then been limited to the area of the Garden itself after the Fall. Adam and Eve may have been required to physically eat of this fruit then as both an object lesson and to directly counter the fact that they had to eat of the tree of the knowledge of Good and evil in order to fall. So that “excusing”/self-justifying tasting temptation would have been taken away here.

Originally Posted By: Tom
The Tree of Life (and breathing) are means to teach us of our dependence upon God for life. I'm not denying that the Tree of Life has healthful benefits (as does breathing), but am pointing out that the real significant thing is that *God* is life, and is the source of life, and we have life by virtue of being united to Him, which the Tree of Life was meant to teach.


Well that is not at all what I am “plainly reading” in Gen 3:22-24. Would fallen Adam and Eve live forever simply by restoring this claimed ‘object-lesson’ which would be done by merely eating of the Tree??? Such illogical and depleting, distorting spiritualization of straightforward Scripture is indeed indicative to me of a false view. It reminds me of the popular and copious spurious “allegorical” works of the early Church Fathers vs. exegetical ones which greatly help to plunge the Church into confusion and, actually, spiritual darkness.

Originally Posted By: Tom
"One could say" is not subjective. It indicates that something could be said in another way. It has nothing to do with subjectivity.


Well one would still prefer to say “unbelief” out of a subjective reason since this term is not synonymous with “selfish”. That would also be a theological subjectivity here that would make this association. Unbelief has nothing to do with a “love of self” E.g., I can believe that God will do something, but out of a more important to me “love of self” I can choose to follow my own course. So I really would not be “believing God” but rather ‘loving myself more than Him.’

Originally Posted By: Tom
The point is that sin is based on principles which are not conducive to life.


Though surfacely seemingly sound and reasonable, my deeper exegetical view does not see this so shallowly because the Bible states that sinful man could have lived forever. So it is rather that ‘sin is not conducive to an “abundant” life (John 10:10) rather than a perpetuating life where e.g., hatred, jealousy, strife, lying, etc are allowed to also reign supreme and that without a consequence of death as it would have been the case if fallen man had access to the tree.

Originally Posted By: Tom
This doesn't address the issue that the principles of sin are not conducive to life. Or maybe it does indirectly, if your point is that it doesn't matter if you sin or not, as long as you have access to the Tree of Life. You could sin as much as you wanted, and you would never die. I guess that's your idea.


That’s not “my idea”... far from it, that is rather what the Bible clearly states (Gen 3:22-24 & PP 60.3) and until I carefully studied this out in the Bible and SOP and allowed these inspired texts to speak for themselves, I did not see or understand that possibility.

Originally Posted By: Tom
So you could be totally separated from God, and not die, as long as you're not separated from the tree.


Unfortunately. Yes. Indeed just as a fully knowing God thought and was afraid of this coming to pass. You do not have an issue with me, as you have been stating, but with what the Bible says. (Perhaps that will remove the apparent mental block that is preventing you from plainly reading and understanding these statements!?) That is why I have been challenging you to disprove this by addressing those Bible and SOP passages head on and not plastering them over with your independently understood “spiritual” view.

Originally Posted By: Tom
What about the rest of Scripture? Should I quote some texts which state that life is the fruit of faith, of obedience?


You may however, under proper exegesis, these will/would not be in complete ignorance of the theological, physical reality expressed in Gen 3:22-24. The Spirit of God does not contradict itself so, like any doctrinal study, all the texts which speak on this issue, must be brought into the ‘threading harmony.’ (=EGW’s “Golden Thread” 1SM 20.1).

Originally Posted By: Tom
Life is not only a physical thing. Eternal life involves more than physically living forever.


That is really an expression of your view. The Bible is clear that perpetual life is possible through merely eating of the tree of life, by even sinful man. You’ll need to disprove that truth first.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Why do other living beings on earth die? Will they not live forever in the new earth? Will they need access to the Tree of Life?


I have addressed that above in the PP 62.4 statement.

Originally Posted By: Tom
The life we have by connected to Christ is eternal life, not (merely) physical life.


Eternal Life is a physical reality. Sinless life and the “abundance of life” i.e., optimal quality of life is what we obtain through remaining obedient and faithful to God’s will.

The connection to Christ here is dealing with what will be needed to bear fruits. Contextually, the entire chapter of John 15, spoken in the Upper Room as part of Christ’s instruction to those twelve who would now have to continue his work with him about to be taken away from them, was pointedly telling them here what they needed to do in order to be successful/fruitful in this mission. So the therefore had to (1) spiritually remaining connected to Him (15:1-11); (2) being and remaining in perfect unity with each other (15:12-17); How to properly relate to the world and beneficially keep it in proper perspective (15:18-25); the aiding and assisting work of the coming Holy Spirit (15:26-16:15). Now where in this mission instructional section does the word “life” (Greek: zoe #2222) does not occur a single time. (The (translational) mention of “life” in John 15:13 is actually the Greek word “psyche” (#5590) which spoke of the type/wider extent that Christ was soon going to undergo in sufferings (cf. this post). So saying that Jesus was speaking on how to have “eternal life” in John 15:1-11 is, as further seen here, indeed a “proof-texting” claim and approach.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Originally Posted By: SOP

Now that we are branches of the Living Vine we will be nourished by the sap that flows from the Vine. It flows all the time to every branch, and every branch will bear fruit to the glory of God. "It is your Father's good pleasure" "that ye bear much fruit." Well then, what is our position? It must be a position of living faith. {FW 65.2}...

You may be united to the Living Vine. Every member of your whole being may be united to that Vine, and the sap and nourishment that come from the Vine will nourish the branch that is in the Vine, until you are one with Christ as He was one with the Father. Thus His blessings will be imparted to you. But brethren, we have not had faith. We have dishonored God by unbelief long enough. {FW 66.5}


In those SOP statement EGW also does not speak of “eternal life”. Physical Life is not the focus of her comments here but fruit bearing life (i.e., during Gospel Work) which indeed chiefly requires a persistent faith in Christ to have, and maintain this spiritual connection.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Tom
Here's an example from the first Commentary I happened to run across:


Originally Posted By: (unknown commentary)
Believers are branches of this Vine. The root is unseen, and our life is hid with Christ; the root bears the tree, diffuses sap to it, and in Christ are all supports and supplies. The branches of the vine are many, yet, meeting in the root, are all but one vine; thus all true Christians, though in place and opinion distant from each other, meet in Christ. Believers, like the branches of the vine, are weak, and unable to stand but as they are borne up. The Father is the Husbandman. Never was any husbandman so wise, so watchful, about his vineyard, as God is about his church, which therefore must prosper. We must be fruitful. From a vine we look for grapes, and from a Christian we look for a Christian temper, disposition, and life.


That commentary also does not see this as a reference to ‘eternal life’ but to fruit-bearing.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Isn't it evident that a lesson from the parable is that we receive life from Christ?


Straightly said, due to my above comments... Not at all. Only eisogesis forces such an understanding and conclusion into the text.

Originally Posted By: Tom
This thought is all over the Gospel of John. Also in his first epistle. Do you disagree?


That is “No” to your ‘eisogetically imposed thought’ and also, since the thought of that Gospel Mission Instructional statement is actually “fruit-bearing”, I do not see such instruction in the rest of the Gospel of John. (The word “life” (zoe) occurs 32 times in the Gospel of John, but not once in this specific section).
Interestingly enough John does reecho many of the actual themes found in this Instructional section his first epistle. (Probably realizing that his time to depart may be near, so yes for that question based upon the accurate understanding of the themes here.) Also his “life” theme there is entirely different from any notion in this specific section in his Gospel.

I do not mean to be rude here at all, but I have very low tolerance for shoddy exegesis with such answers from especially people who have had Seminary level education. I don’t mind “cleaning up” a lay person’s accidental mess, but in regards to seminarians, this really feels like babysitting teenagers. Nothing personal here. Just a little encouragement to properly apply the knowledge and/or training to exact accurate knowledge that you supposedly and/or should received at the Seminary.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/03/11 07:49 AM

Originally Posted By: kland
Originally Posted By: NJK Project

Originally Posted By: kland
If something is so clear and obvious, why should there be a need to dig diligently? And isn't that what we are instructed to do?

I judiciously reserve my clear statement for points that I do, at least personally, consider to be clear. So claiming that I am wrong in such cases, will have to be done substantively and not by merely addressing the use of “clear” in a statement. So where exegetically-based points prove something to be clear, I accordingly explicitly say so.

It sounds like you are saying what I attempted to say, that is, things can only be clear to you personally and does not mean the same thing is clear to others nor does it make it correct nor should that "clearness" be urged upon others.

And speaking of correctness, if I understood you correctly, I do believe you are incorrect about Saul.


Solely for the sake of my time, I am just going to ignore this budding, quibbling, peripheral “clear-statements” side-issue, though, for the reasons I have stated you will surely encounter it again in my statements. As I said, if you find that something I have said is not “clear” to you or incorrect, then at least to substantively address the issue with a question or comment, respectively.

Case in point, in regards to Saul’s pre-time death (Eccl 7:17), what do you find “incorrect” from what I had stated??
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/03/11 01:14 PM

Tom, since you were looking for “any consensus” I have just received an “thanking” and approving Personal Message for: “present[ing] Genesis 2:17 and Genesis 3:22-24 just as it says”. Also asking “Why is this so hard to accept?” (Your Character of God contributions are “appreciated”). How’s that for your “any consensus”??

That user also found the following great SOP quote on the Tree of Life in Medical Ministry:

Originally Posted By: SOP MM 233.5
The fruit of the tree of life in the Garden of Eden possessed supernatural virtue. To eat of it was to live forever. Its fruit was the antidote of death. Its leaves were for the sustaining of life and immortality.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/03/11 06:19 PM

PS - For years I have presented on this forum the fact immortal life is dependent upon us regularly eating the fruit of the tree of life. The first death is the result of God denying us access to the fruit of the tree of life. Even sinners, if allowed access, could "eat and live forever." However, the fruit does not prevent the first death in cases involving mortal wounds such as decapitation.
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/03/11 11:57 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Case in point, in regards to Saul’s pre-time death (Eccl 7:17), what do you find “incorrect” from what I had stated??
The way I understood you is that you said God killed Saul. How did Saul die?
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/04/11 12:37 AM

Interesting Mountain Man. Where have you been during all this prolonged sub-discussion. It could have saved us a lot of “digital ink”. I would like to read your prior statement/discussion on this.

I would be interested to hear your view on Gen 2:17b which the Hebrew Syntax (literally) states that ‘Man was naturally always subject to death and it was in this way (through non-access to the Tree) would, consequently, so naturally continue to die?

I agree with your mortal wound comment. I would venture to think that any non-natural wound, if through violence may be left to its own fate. I.e., the Fruit of Life was not a “surgeon”, though direct “doctoral” assistant by people could, as today, help bring such a wound to a state where the body can completely heal it through the “powers” of the Fruit of Life. I think this because with God knowing the powers of the Tree and also the possibility of Man to Fall and live forever, He may have made it so that “violence” (cf. Gen 6:11, 13) inflicted wounds, and that by two causeless/senseless willing belligerent, were not healed by the Tree of Life. In the case of an accidental wound, or even a wound received by a righteous person (from e.g, a perpetually living sinner), God could however intervene either directly or through indirect instruction, to patch up that wound.

In regards to the First v. Second Death, the only way that I see the Second being different than the First is in how it will be brought about (by a similar “unusual/strange task, and [i]foreign[\i] work” of God - cf. Isa 28:21) and in its process (sinner surviving for an extended period of time in the Lake of Fire). It is also around this time, when these sinners will be surrounding the city that that God will ‘break/destroy the “psyche”’ (=Matt 10:28) of resolute opposition and hatred of God of the wicked and they will most sincerely acknowledge the Wisdom and Authority of God (Rom 14:11 (=Isa 45:23); Phil 2:10). So it is here that I see that a deep sense of a Separation from God and its result will be felt by these wicked, leading them to their confessing acknowledgement. (cf. GC 662-673). Other than that, I see that the Second Death, when eventually completed, will not be different than the First in this oblivious/unconscious state and effect.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/04/11 01:14 AM

Originally Posted By: kland
The way I understood you is that you said God killed Saul. How did Saul die?


Oh.. Now I see your objection. Like usual, and also with such Theological issues, one has to Theologically think/study this one through. (1 Sam 28/PP 675-682ff). Succinctly said here, from what I understand about ”God and the Future” among other pertinent Theological factors here, the “Samuel” that appeared to Saul could have been a God-approved, “lying spirit” actually sent to Saul. However since that superhuman (= “elohim” 1 Sam 28:13) spirit(s) was most convincingly (i.e., through a Samuel imitation) cautioning Saul against a possible/probable death, and given that Saul was, now for a long time, a terrible, inefficient and “lame-duck” king who was prevented God’s Israel to advance, I rather believe that this was indeed an evil Spirit, acting on its own, and trying to preserve the life of Saul so that he can continue his detrimental reign. With David having been anointed since ca. year 25 of Saul’s (40-year) reign, and since God easily could have easily non-naturally killed Saul long before that to effectuate this succession, but did not allowing Saul to live out his reign, probably as an object-lesson to Israel and also to the young David, this Spirit was then allowed to make this cautionary statement, though out of an nefarious motive of prolonging this reign. Nonetheless probably seeing/sensing that God could be planning to (“seamlessly”) allow Saul and his sons (thus no challenging regnal succession possible) to be killed the next day in the war, with the time for his succession having arrived, that evil spirit could also have been desperately trying to prevent this. So what that witch saw/made to appear and the prediction of the death tomorrow was actually not a view of the future, but just what God was (even most likely) “planning to do” (cf. Isa 46:9-11). It however was for the capital sin of consulting a medium, that was indeed to be punished by death, that Saul was killed. Even the simple fact that, with Saul preparing to go to war the next day and here committing this capital sin, these evil spirits saw that Saul’s death was thus inevitable and sought to keep him from going of to war the next day as it is then that this death penalty could be executed.

So for any of these possible scenarios:

-God “planning” Saul’s death the next day on that Battlefield to effectuate the transition to David
-Capital punishment for this sin of consulting a witch

even a combination of the two, I see that God, who easily could have protected Saul, allowed, even pointed made, him and his sons to be killed in that battle. I.e., his premature death was Divinely planned (= execution) and not a normal course of events development.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/04/11 01:52 AM

Haven't had time to read all this. Thanks for the time to respond. I'll look as I have time, but just a quick thing.

Quote:
Tom, since you were looking for “any consensus” I have just received an “thanking” and approving Personal Message for: “present[ing] Genesis 2:17 and Genesis 3:22-24 just as it says”. Also asking “Why is this so hard to accept?” (Your Character of God contributions are “appreciated”). How’s that for your “any consensus”??

That user also found the following great SOP quote on the Tree of Life in Medical Ministry:

Originally Posted By: SOP MM 233.5
The fruit of the tree of life in the Garden of Eden possessed supernatural virtue. To eat of it was to live forever. Its fruit was the antidote of death. Its leaves were for the sustaining of life and immortality.


Regarding this post, this is missing the point. Perhaps you covered it elsewhere, since, as I said, I haven't read everything, but my point was the EGW's statement was that by looking at the cross one comes to the conviction that the sure result of death is sin. I'm saying in the context of the cross, the tree of life would not be thought of.

Statements addressing this would need to consider both the cross and the Tree of Life.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/04/11 03:00 AM

I did address that in my previous reply, Tom. = ‘Even God had to die because of sin.’ (To pay for us the price of its imposed (Gen 3:22-24 - thus “non-organic”) death penalty, of course). Man, without the Tree of Life, was always subject to death. (Gen 2:17b).

As I also say: the tree of life function in this Sin=Death equation is an underlying procedural issue. One does not surfacely/readily see the tree of life when contemplating the cross, but it is still the “means” by which the committing of sin comes to result death.

It seems to me that you are categorically changing your previous objection here where you had been seeking to make this rightly stated EGW “perception” the full (Biblical) “reality”. The full reality is that death comes to all who sin from non-access to the Tree of life. However as I said in reply to Mountain Man’s comments death could also come to sinful men through violent acts. The Fruit of the Tree of Life may also not have been empowered to heal sin-derived fatal diseases such as Aids and e.g., cancer from smoking, etc. So in this sense God would have known that a sinful life would one way (No Tree of Life) or the other (fatal diseases/injuries) surely end up death for even a sinful person eating of the Tree of Life.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/04/11 03:08 AM

As some of the comments I made in my PM discussion with that user, in response to his, may be helpful in this discussion I have posted some of my (pertinent) comments on these points here.

-I can see what you are getting at with your subsequent comments on sin’s hereditary destructions, However I do have the following Bible/SOP based comments.

-First of all, the ‘other Tree” is pointedly called the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. As I understand it, prior to falling Adam and Eve did not have a knowledge of Evil, therefore they also did not really have a knowledge of Good per se, since they had nothing to contrast the “good” that they were doing with. That was Satan 90% Truthful lie. Because they would indeed then know evil. (Cf. Gen 3:22a). I believe that prior to the fall, God, like a trusted protective parent, had supernaturally prevented any evil from coming into the mind of Adam and Eve. The only way they could begin to receive this “knowledge” i.e, by then being subject to the thoughts of the Devil and evil angels, was when they, first wandered alone and then approached that tree clearly forbidden tree thus coming within the allowed range of influence of the Serpent/Devil. Still only when they went through with the sin by eating the fruit, probably, by God’s mercy more than just taking a single bit, thus showing in eating all of it that they really wanted to do this, though this, like any sin was much easier to do after that first bite/taste, then that thought-shield was removed, probably similar to their robe of light, and that probably only after Adam, who never spoke to the serpent, (as you also say) also ate. The it was fair game for the Devil upon the mind/psyche of Adam and Eve. So this is how I understand Adam to have begun to have a “knowledge of”, detrimentally, “evil.” and through such Satan could influence them to live the selfish and otherwise sinful life that He envisioned that God’s created beings should have a free right to decide live if they so chose. Indeed at that point he was just beginning exploring his view that God had allowed him to explore since he felt it was so much better, however outside of heaven. (See my blog post on the War in Heaven for more on this allowed development and the GC implication here).

-In regards to Romans 5:12 I understand it as sin entering through (generically speaking) one man and death by sin, however indirectly because man was no longer able to eat of the tree of life. And it is in this way that death is passed through all man, because, along the lines of what you later say, man, by not being able to renew their bodies, health and also genes, DNA, has been gradually passing on increasingly poorer and as you point out skewed/“code”-corrupt genes to their descendants. A poorer diet after the flood, now eating meat, also accelerated this degeneration. And that is a “spreading/passing/coming to all; upon (Gr. epi - and not “because”) those who have sinned”, as Paul literally said it in the Greek. So since all have sinned (Rom 3:23), this penalty ‘comes to all’. However I understand here that if someone had not sinned God would have to supernaturally protect them from this death penalty, by renewing their life. Even if this meant periodically, as they continued to live sinless, restoring their health, maybe by bringing them, through a (disguised) angel, and maybe without that person knowing/realizing it, a fruit from the Tree of Life which has been in Heaven since the flood. Or taking them to Heaven without dying as done with Enoch and Elijah though they themselves were probably not sinless. I have wondered why God kept the Garden on Earth for over 1700 years until just before the Flood (in ca. 2245 B.C.) and this may have been to allow it to be inhabited by worthy sinless people, i.e., people who live some time or much of their life without sinning. Who knows? No one however has been able to live a sinless life and that is thus why gradual degeneration, aging and death comes to all, - because no one has been able to eat of that perfection restoring Fruit of Life.

-I have done an exegetical analysis of David’s statement in Psa 51:5 in this forum post which absolutely fascinated me by what it revealed about David. You may find it most interesting and helpful to this discussion.

-Relatedly, I also do not see that sin itself as a “mental illness”, as you say, but it does comes to spiritually impair the mind from the perfect state that it was before the fall. Still any physical degeneration is probably because its constituency and membrane cannot be renewed to perfect health by the fruit of the tree of life.

-I think Gen 2:17b also says much on why man dies and that is evidently, as the Hebrew precisely says: ‘Man naturally dies’. From this I do not understand that man, not being immortal, was ever capable of living forever independent of the Fruit of Life, even if sinless. That is indeed why Adam and Eve along with the redeem in the future, had to and will have to periodically eat of this healing Tree. Our bodies are meant to degenerate and decay. So for this also, I do not see the eating of the banned fruit physically starting anything. Man would have naturally died anyway were it but for the tree of life. So when they sinned, that, through God’s barring of access to the Tree of Life, sealed their inherent, natural, “subjectivity” to death. I also see that Angels are also not immortal, however they may have been made up of a “better material” than dirt as humans are. So they may thus be able to live longer without a restoring fruit. Which may be an added reason why they were expelled from heaven, where those their may partake of this life perpetuating “fruit” just in the atmosphere. So these evil angels may be able to live for 10,000 years vs. man’s original ca. 1000 years.

-I believe from Gen 3:22-24 that the sinner would live in perfect health even as a sinner if he could eat of the Tree of Life. He may even be able to completely heal any harm done to the body such as brain cell losses through alcohol consumption and drug taking, smoking, STD’s etc. So that is why God was quick and forceful in making sure this could never be the case.

-I can see the medical contribution to this understanding, however I Biblically see the problem of death as solely being in the inability to eat from the fruit of life or otherwise partake of/intake its ‘death antidote supernatural virtue.’
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/04/11 04:21 AM

Originally Posted By: MM
MM:PS - For years I have presented on this forum the fact immortal life is dependent upon us regularly eating the fruit of the tree of life.


But only for people. Neither plants nor animals (other than humans) need to eat of the Tree of Life. So it cannot be for physical reasons that the Tree of Life is needed. It's for spiritual reasons, which is why it only involves human beings.

Quote:
The first death is the result of God denying us access to the fruit of the tree of life. Even sinners, if allowed access, could "eat and live forever." However, the fruit does not prevent the first death in cases involving mortal wounds such as decapitation.


Why did animals and plants start dying? Why won't they die in the new earth?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/04/11 05:08 AM

NJK, I really appreciate all the effort you put into your response. I'm sure that took a lot of time. I'm going to respond to points I find interesting on a case by case basis as I have time. If I omit to consider something you think is really important, please bring it up again.

Quote:
T:It seems really odd to me that you would consider these passages to be foundational when it comes to the question of eternal life and eternal death. Why wouldn't a passage like John 3:16, for example, be more foundational? Or Romans 6:23? Or the many passages in John where life is linked to Christ? Is it really possible that the message of Scripture is that life comes from a tree, as opposed to from Jesus Christ, who said, "I am the resurrection and the life," and of whom it is said, "He who has the Son has life; He who has not the Son has not life"?

NJK:I can understand your (surfacely seen) objection here, but I do consider the Genesis passages to be “foundational” because (1) they were said by God Himself and (2) they were made at a time when there was no sin in the world.


You may have spoken to this elsewhere, so I apologize if so, since I'm responding to things as I read them and haven't read everything, but do you consider the words of Jesus Christ to be words spoken by God?

Quote:
If man had not fallen, the sacrifice of Jesus would never have been necessary. Also if you read e.g., EW 149-153 you’ll see that the plan of Redemption was only (most relunctantly) agreed upon, and manifestly established, by God the Father, at the convincing insistence of Christ, only after man has fallen.


Why do you think God was "most reluctant"?

Quote:
As EGW points out just after the fall: “Sorrow filled heaven, as it was realized that man was lost, and that world which God had created was to be filled with mortals doomed to misery, sickness, and death, and there was no way of escape for the offender.” (EW 149.2) (Relatedly, the Bible speaks of ‘Christ being (symbolically, i.e., through types) since/“away from” the foundation of the world and not “before”, that is if Rev 13:8 & 17:8 are even saying that. So this agrees with this post fallen plan and typological implementation.) All this to say that God’s plan for man to live eternally was originally apart from a Sacrifice of Christ. And that life perpetuating plan was through the Tree of Life. As EGW says: “Obedience, perfect and perpetual, was the condition of eternal happiness. On this condition he was to have access to the tree of life.” {PP 49.2} As I have said before, the post fall sacrifice of Christ came to make it possible to have man spiritually restored to a perfect state before God and thus once again grant this right to access the Tree of Life.


I'll try to state your position:

1.God's plan was for man to live forever, and made this possible by means of the Tree of Life.
2.When man sinned, God cut off his access to the Tree of Life.
3.The Plan of Salvation restores man to such a place that he can again have access to the Tree of Life, and so live eternally.

So when the Bible says that we receive eternal life by faith in Christ, this is only indirectly. We receive eternal life because we will, after the resurrection, by virtue of Christ's work in the Plan of Salvation, have access to the Tree of Life.

Does this accurately present your view?

Quote:
It is through this foundational “Perfect/Sinless World” plan of God that I view this issue and the Bible and SOP, with the Tree of Life mention in heaven, to which we will have free access (cf. Rev 2:8), is clear that this will again be the plan once sin is removed from the this world and the universe.

So in regards to Christ statements, which are factually all from God’s (reluctant) Plan B in regards to providing eternal/perpetuating life for man, I’ll use the following illustration:

If I am seeking to buy a house but do not have all of the cash at hand, I’ll therefore need to go to a bank which will make me a loan and actually pay that money directly to the house owner, allowing be to buy the house. I can’t truthfully say to others that I bought the house out of my own money because without the bank covering my cash shortcoming, that would not have been possible at all. So in this way, when I say that fallen man has perpetual life by eating of the tree of life, I implicitly do and can only mean that this is only possible through the sin covering and atoning sacrifice of Christ. However for Unfallen/Sinless Man (i.e., a buyer with all of the cash on hand) such a claim to unmediated, even unaided access would truthful as it factually would be the case.

That may be surfacely “shocking” to hear, but it is all the Biblical/Theological reality. So that is why I consider these pre-fall statements of God to be most foundational.

A question that you need to answer is: What do you believe is the function of the Tree of Life since you obviously do not see that it is to perpetuate man’s life?


That the Tree of Life perpetuates man's life is incidental, as breathing is. God could have created us so we could live without breathing, or without partaking of the Tree of Life, but we are spiritual beings, with intellect, and God wanted to teach us of our dependence upon Him for life. The fundamental truth is that the Tree of Life teaches us that God is the source of life, and our ability to live depends upon Him.

Quote:
Also in regards to the foundational statement in Gen 2:17b, it is most significant to me that God, as seen in the 3rd person singular suffix attached to a particle preposition and related to a Qal infinitive absolute verb collectively rightly rendered as: ‘[In the day that you (Adam) eat of it], out of the reason of Man naturally dying’ was abstractly/generally stating, even before man sinned that ‘(Created) Man was subject to naturally die.’


I wasn't able to find any translations saying this. Can you point me to one?

Quote:
So (now using a 2nd person singular suffix with a Qal imperfect again with the verb “to die”) to pointedly/specifically refer to Adam himself), when God added: “you (Adam) will consequently, naturally die.”


One last question. Were you saying that the Plan of Salvation was only formed after man fell? I understand that it wasn't put into effect until after the fall, but I'm asking if the Plan had been formulated.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/04/11 05:15 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
Again this was to naturally continue to occur in ‘naturally dying man’ because access to the tree of life would immediately be barred thus making it impossible for Man to heal/restore his ‘naturally dying’ body.


You're saying here that man was created by God to naturally die, correct? And, to counter this natural death, God gave man access to the Tree of Life. I've understood you correctly?

Do you believe that animals and plants would have died had man not sin? I've been taking it for granted that you believed, as I do, that plants and animals only die because of man's sin, but I'm not sure that's a good assumption on my part.

MM, if you're reading this, I'm curious if you agree with NJK that man was created to naturally die.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/04/11 05:53 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
MM, if you're reading this, I'm curious if you agree with NJK that man was created to naturally die.

Not sure. I believe unfallen A&E would have gradually died if they had neglected to regularly eat the fruit of the tree of life. I think the same thing will hold true for people living on the New Earth.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Why did animals and plants start dying? Why won't they die in the new earth?

After A&E sinned, God cursed the earth. Plants and animals cannot live eternally under such circumstances.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/04/11 06:04 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
Oh, MM, btw, Welcome Back!

Thank you. I enjoy my work, but I miss my wife terribly when I'm away on assignment.

Originally Posted By: Tom
M: Please present your case in a way that explains 1) why Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in battle, 2) why Jesus commanded godly people to execute capital punishment, and 3) why Jesus withdraws His protection and permits the forces of nature, evil men, and/or evil angels to kill men, women, and children.

T: Given how God treats His enemies, why would God request someone else to act in a way so out of harmony with His own character?

Indeed, why? For example, why did He command Moses to utterly kill every man, woman, and child? And, what of the other two named above?
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/04/11 06:27 AM

Just a note Tom. I’ll answer the questions that you have posted thus far, however succinctly since I have already answered many of these questions. So I recommend that you first read through all of my previous comments before asking questions. I, personally, am not in any rush.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/04/11 07:51 AM

Okay Tom, here are my response, though succinct for the reasons stated above:

Originally Posted By: Tom
do you consider the words of Jesus Christ to be words spoken by God?


Yes. Though I believe that this was through normative prophetic means, allowing Jesus to put it in his own thoughts. As I said, I believe all that He said were directly drawn form what EGW referred to as “I was shown” type of revelations. (Cf. Luke 10:18; John 5:19, 20ff; 8:28; 14:24).

Originally Posted By: Tom
Why do you think God was "most reluctant"?


Read EW 149-153. In that SOP account, EGW relates that Jesus, who was actually volunteering Himself for this task, had to present Himself 3 times for this and was ‘“pleading” with the Father’. It is also related that there was also “perplexity” and “trouble/doubt” involved in this decision-making.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I'll try to state your position:

1.God's plan was for man to live forever, and made this possible by means of the Tree of Life.
2.When man sinned, God cut off his access to the Tree of Life.
3.The Plan of Salvation restores man to such a place that he can again have access to the Tree of Life, and so live eternally.


Yes to all three points

Originally Posted By: Tom
So when the Bible says that we receive eternal life by faith in Christ, this is only indirectly. We receive eternal life because we will, after the resurrection, by virtue of Christ's work in the Plan of Salvation, have access to the Tree of Life.


Yes. That will be tangible effectuation of this Spiritual statement.

Originally Posted By: Tom
That the Tree of Life perpetuates man's life is incidental, as breathing is. God could have created us so we could live without breathing, or without partaking of the Tree of Life, but we are spiritual beings, with intellect, and God wanted to teach us of our dependence upon Him for life. The fundamental truth is that the Tree of Life teaches us that God is the source of life, and our ability to live depends upon Him.


I can see, based on your expressed view of things here how you consider this as “incidental”, however in my view I can only see it as “essential/necessary”. Furthermore, your points make more prominent this depletion of the Reality that is involved in God and His Vast Creation. Having a Spiritualizing paradigm here leaves such “realities” out. As an example with created man, I rather see that God’s creation of man was absolutely perfect. (cf. Gen 1:31). In other words all that God created, is created to the best that it could ever be. That is because God is dealing with real elements in nature and the universe and from these elements, he has fashioned the life we know as it best could. We cannot have a Science fiction view where we could e.g., spit fire with our breath or even ‘live without breathing’. That is not realistic.

It is easy to look at the degenerated state of man and creation today an see all the imperfection and say that God could have done things better. However that was not the case in the beginning. Adam was functioning at an optimum level. He was ca. 15 feet tall, some thus estimate ca. 2000 lbs; had perfect fitness and strength (i.e., full range of muscular strength); we use ca. 10% of our mind; he used 100% on top of having abilities such as photographic memory. Just looking at some “geniuses” today and people with special capabilities, such as remembering every event from any day of one’s past life, shows us just how powerful unfallen Man was. Adam was a walking supercomputer. He probably did not need a digital camera or video camera to recall things, nor a spreadsheet or word processor to process data and prepare speeches. He could easily do this as any technology today. Sharing this with others is another thing, however the (ESP-type) ability to send information waves to someone else as with a cell phone may be something that unfallen man could do. All this to say that God created us perfectly given what is actually available as “building materials”. Even the dust from which he formed man was the best material possible.

This reality also extends to Heavenly creature (i.e., not other “humans” in other world). Why are angels given wings to fly. Why not just fly without such assitance or even thought teleport themselves. Angels also need to be made to fly even more swiftly than normal in certain circumstances. The SOP speaking of Angels excelling in strength. Why are all angels so “strong”. Etc.

Foundational in my journey in personal and original (when substantively needed) Biblical Research, I saw that I had to start taking God literally at His word, giving Him a benefit of the doubt and instead prayerfully trying to find out “why” He did or said something as He did. And I certainly have not regretted this, because in many ways, we have lost many key truths in the Bible through Spiritualizing, just like the Allegorical paradigms of early Church Father did damage the Church and Truth.

So, based on this background info for my view on this and other such topics, I see that we are rather physical beings. We only become “spiritual” as we, on one hand, come into communion and communication with God. That is indeed really the understanding of being spiritual. Some people looked at the Cross and saw a false prophet paying a just price. Others, even pagans, saw that “this was surely the Son of God”. Spirituality is the result of how we chose to perceive reality and in this GC when we make a move of faith towards God, then he begins to spiritually/mentally “connect” with us, making us spiritual people. Increasingly this will more overtly also become the effort of the Devil. He is only staying in the shadows for now because if he manifested himself as he really is, he would just prove that the Bible is right. So now he prefers to let man follow their own course, which he at times subtly influences, since this self-worshipping spirit also serves his purpose. Indeed making created beings be “gods” was always his goal.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I wasn't able to find any translations saying this. Can you point me to one?


Given the popularity, though syntactical fallacious, of translators to turn such back to back related verbal forms into sorts of hendiadys, stemming from 1600's KJV understandings and for the most part just blindly followed, I do not think I’ll find one. However, as you should know/be functional in Hebrew, that should not be hard to understand. “The proof is in the pudding;” particularly the overall/contextual Theological issue which do indeed greatly affects the way translators render certain expressions.

Originally Posted By: Tom
One last question. Were you saying that the Plan of Salvation was only formed after man fell? I understand that it wasn't put into effect until after the fall, but I'm asking if the Plan had been formulated.


Based on the sequence of events and the emotions related in EW 149-153, that is what I understand. It is not the “popular” truth given the overarching popular belief that ‘God knows (all of) the future from the ceaseless ages of eternity,’ however this is an example of how EGW was “shown” something which she herself did not fully grasp, even at all, for the most part, but nonetheless from which the Biblical Theological Truth on “God and the Future” is properly understood. I personally believe that EGW started to understand this very late in her ministry, when she, around 1908, began to realize that God, because of the failure of that privileged SDA generation, was going to prolong time and thus cause all of her prophecies to be put on hold for a much later time than what she had truthfully and possibly been showed.

Originally Posted By: Tom
You're saying here that man was created by God to naturally die, correct? And, to counter this natural death, God gave man access to the Tree of Life. I've understood you correctly?


Based on the statement in Gen 2:17b, Yes. And I add, from the above statements, that this was the best that God could do in created human beings living in our universe elements and atmosphere which God further had to arrange to support optimal life. God also chose Earth for this initial creation because, if man sinned, that was probably the best planetary location in this Milky Way galaxy where a degeneration of nature would take the longest before it severely made living impossible.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Do you believe that animals and plants would have died had man not sin?


I have also addressed this. See also in the above post of my comments in a PM. I believe form PP 62.3 that animals and nature could partake of the fruit “aromatically”. As I also said, I think the tangible eating by man was the object-lesson as well as the matching counterpart for eating the forbidden fruit. So they had no excusing temptation to “taste” here.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I've been taking it for granted that you believed, as I do, that plants and animals only die because of man's sin, but I'm not sure that's a good assumption on my part.


As I also state priorly, this affectation of living non-humans, including nature was apparently because of a withdrawal and limited-to-Eden, “Fruit of Life” aroma made available in the air. That is why Adam and Eve and other animals had to be expelled from the Garden that was evidently still being preserved through this ‘aromatic means.’ Such inert things as the “ground” had to be distinctly cursed.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/04/11 02:42 PM


Here are some SOP statements that I found which are helpful to this Tree of Life issue in this discussion:

Originally Posted By: SOP 3SG 88.1
By transgressing God's commandments a curse fell upon Adam and Eve, and they were deprived of all right to the tree of life. Christ died to save man, and yet preserve the honor of God's law. He says "Blessed are they that do his commandments that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the City." The Son of God here presents the doing of the commandments of God as the condition of a right to the tree of life. The transgression of God's commandments deprived man of all right to the tree of life. Christ died, that by virtue of his blood, obedience to God's law might make man worthy of the heavenly benediction, and grant him a right again to the tree of life. {3SG 88.1}


Originally Posted By: SOP ML 355.4
The redeemed saints, who have loved God and kept His commandments here, will enter in through the gates of the city, and have right to the tree of life. They will eat freely of it as our first parents did before their fall. The leaves of that immortal widespread tree will be for the healing of the nations. All their woes will then be gone. Sickness, sorrow, and death they will never again feel, for the leaves of the tree of life have healed them. Jesus will then see of the travail of His soul and be satisfied, when the redeemed, who have been subject to sorrow, toil, and afflictions, who have groaned beneath the curse, are gathered up around that tree of life to eat of its immortal fruit, that our first parents forfeited all right to, by breaking God's commands. There will be no danger of their ever losing right to the tree of life again, for he that tempted our first parents to sin will be destroyed by the second death. {ML 355.4}


Originally Posted By: SOP 1SP 44.2
Angels were commissioned to immediately guard the way of the tree of life. It was Satan's studied plan that Adam and Eve should disobey God, receive his frown, and then partake of the tree of life, that they might perpetuate a life of sin. But holy angels were sent to debar their way to the tree of life. Around these angels flashed beams of light on every side, which had the appearance of glittering swords. {1SP 44.2}


Originally Posted By: SOP ExV 32.4
Then I was pointed to Adam and Eve in Eden. They partook of the forbidden tree, and then the flaming sword was placed around the tree of life, and they were driven from the Garden, lest they should partake of the tree of life, 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 that flaming sword, and have partaken of the tree of life?” I heard another angel answer, “Not one of the family of Adam have 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 for ever, where there will be no hope of a resurrection; and then the wrath of God will be appeased. {ExV 32.4}


Originally Posted By: SOP TM 133.3
Adam and Eve and their posterity lost their right to the tree of life because of their disobedience. "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of Us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever: therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the Garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken." Adam and Eve transgressed the law of God. This made it necessary for them to be driven from Eden and be separated from the tree of life, to eat of which after their transgression would perpetuate sin. "So He drove out the man; and He placed at the east of the Garden of Eden cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life." Man was dependent upon the tree of life for immortality, and the Lord took these precautions lest men should eat of that tree "and live forever"--become immortal sinners. {TM 133.3}
Death entered the world because of transgression. But Christ gave His life that man should have another trial.


Originally Posted By: SOP EW 289.1
I then saw Jesus leading His people to the tree of life, and again we heard His lovely voice, richer than any music that ever fell on mortal ear, saying, "The leaves of this tree are for the healing of the nations. Eat ye all of it." Upon the tree of life was most beautiful fruit, of which the saints could partake freely. In the city was a most glorious throne, from which proceeded a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal. On each side of this river was the tree of life, and on the banks of the river were other beautiful trees bearing fruit which was good for food. {EW 289.1}


Originally Posted By: SOP GC 532.3-534.1
In the midst of Eden grew the tree of life, whose fruit had the power of perpetuating life. Had Adam remained obedient to God, he would have continued to enjoy free access to this tree and would have lived forever. But when he sinned he was cut off from partaking of the tree of life, and he became subject to death. The divine sentence, "Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return," points to the utter extinction of life. {GC 532.3}
Immortality, promised to man on condition of obedience, had been forfeited by transgression. Adam could not transmit to his posterity that which he did not possess; and there could have been no hope for the fallen race had not God, by the sacrifice of His Son, brought immortality within their reach. While "death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned," Christ "hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel." Romans 5:12; 2 Timothy 1:10. And only through Christ can immortality be obtained. Said Jesus: "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life." John 3:36. Every man may come into possession of this priceless blessing if he will comply with the conditions. All "who by patient continuance in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality," will receive "eternal life." Romans 2:7. {GC 533.1}
The only one who promised Adam life in disobedience was the great deceiver. And the declaration of the serpent to Eve in Eden--"Ye shall not surely die"--was the first sermon ever preached upon the immortality of the soul. Yet this declaration, resting solely upon the authority of Satan, is echoed from the pulpits of Christendom and is received by the majority of mankind as readily as it was received by our first parents. The divine sentence, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die" (Ezekiel 18:20), is made to mean: The soul that sinneth, it shall not die, but live eternally. We cannot but wonder at the strange infatuation which renders men so credulous concerning the words of Satan and so unbelieving in regard to the words of God. {GC 533.2}
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} But after the Fall, Satan bade his angels make a special effort to inculcate the belief in man's natural immortality; and having induced the people to receive this error, they were to lead them on to conclude that the sinner would live in eternal misery. 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 534.1}


The following SOP quotes may seem to validate your view however these are only “pastoral”/practical applications by EGW and not a ‘Theological redifining of the realities involved in the Tree of Life seen in her above statements.

Originally Posted By: SOP 7BC 957.7
Must we wait until we are translated before we eat of the leaves of the tree of life? He who receives into his heart the words of Christ knows what it means to eat the leaves of the tree of life. [John 6:33-63 quoted.] {7BC 957.7}


Originally Posted By: SOP GCDB, March 6, 1899 par. 5-6
The garden of Eden was not only Adam's dwelling, but his school-room. As in that school, so in the school of earth today, two trees are planted,--the tree of life, which bears the fruit of the true education: the tree of knowledge yielding the fruit of "science falsely so called." All who have a connection with Christ have access to the tree of life, a source of knowledge of which the world is ignorant. After sin entered this world, the heavenly Husbandman transplanted the tree of life to the paradise above; but its branches hang over the wall to the lower world. Through the redemption purchased by the blood of the Son of God, man may now partake of its life-giving fruit. The tree of knowledge has its roots in the earth--it is of the earth, earthy. All who have tasted of the heavenly fruit, the Bread of Life, are to be co-workers with God, pointing others from the tree of knowledge to the tree of life, that they also may partake of its fruits. {GCDB, March 6, 1899 par. 5}
Jesus Christ is to the world as the tree of life to which Adam and Eve had access in the garden of Eden. When, by disobedience, the fallen pair were deprived of the fruit of this tree, thy lost everlasting life. The tree of knowledge became a curse to them, not because of its poisonous qualities, but because of their act of disobedience. It was attractive to them; and in their great desire for it, they partook of it, and lost their purity and their allegiance to God. But Christ presents himself as the Life-giver, the tree of life for the world. By feeding upon his flesh, and drinking his blood, our spiritual life is perfected. {GCDB, March 6, 1899 par. 6}


Originally Posted By: SOP RH Jan. 26, 1897 | 7BC 988.9
The tree of life is a representation of the preserving care of Christ for His children. As Adam and Eve ate of this tree, they acknowledged their dependence upon God. The tree of life possessed the power to perpetuate life, and as long as they ate of it, they could not die. The lives of the antediluvians were protracted because of the life-giving power of this tree, which was transmitted to them from Adam and Eve (RH Jan. 26, 1897). {7BC 988.9}


Originally Posted By: SOP ST March 31, 1909 | 7BC 989.3
After the entrance of sin, the heavenly Husbandman transplanted the tree of life to the Paradise above; but its branches hang over the wall to the lower world. Through the redemption purchased by the blood of Christ, we may still eat of its life-giving fruit. {7BC 989.1}
Of Christ it is written, "In him was life; and the life was the light of men." He is the fountain of life. Obedience to Him is the life-giving power that gladdens the soul. {7BC 989.2}
Christ declares: "I am the bread of life; he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst" [John 6:57, 63; Revelation 2:7, last part, quoted] (ST March 31, 1909). {7BC 989.3}


Originally Posted By: SOP RH Jan. 26, 1897 | 7BC 989.8
Christ is the source of our life, the source of immortality. He is the tree of life, and to all who come to Him He gives spiritual life (RH Jan. 26, 1897). {7BC 989.8}
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/04/11 07:29 PM

Originally Posted By: MM
T:MM, if you're reading this, I'm curious if you agree with NJK that man was created to naturally die.

M:Not sure. I believe unfallen A&E would have gradually died if they had neglected to regularly eat the fruit of the tree of life. I think the same thing will hold true for people living on the New Earth.


If a person refused to breath, he would gradually die as well (although the "gradual" death would be a lot quicker). We couldn't conclude from this that God created man to naturally die, right?

I haven't heard the idea that God created man to naturally die before. This concept doesn't make sense to me, as death, to my way of thinking, is dependent upon sin.

Quote:
T:Why did animals and plants start dying? Why won't they die in the new earth?

MM:After A&E sinned, God cursed the earth. Plants and animals cannot live eternally under such circumstances.


So in your view God did something to make the earth and the things in it "bad" (or "defective"). That is, God actually made the earth "bad" (or "defective" or "cursed") as opposed to pronouncing it as such, in view of the damage that Satan/sin had caused. If God, under your view, had simply left things as they were, earth would have been in a much better condition. But, as punishment for what man had done, God hurt every living thing.

Quote:
Christ never planted the seeds of death in the system. Satan planted these seeds when he tempted Adam to eat of the tree of knowledge which meant disobedience to God. Not one noxious plant was placed in the Lord's great garden, but after Adam and Eve sinned, poisonous herbs sprang up. In the parable of the sower the question was asked the master, "Didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?" The master answered, "An enemy hath done this" (Matt. 13:27, 28). All tares are sown by the evil one. Every noxious herb is of his sowing, and by his ingenious methods of amalgamation he has corrupted the earth with tares. {2SM 288.2}

Then shall physicians continue to resort to drugs, which leave a deadly evil in the system, destroying that life which

Christ came to restore? Christ's remedies cleanse the system. But Satan has tempted man to introduce into the system that which weakens the human machinery, clogging and destroying the fine, beautiful arrangements of God. The drugs administered to the sick do not restore, but destroy. Drugs never cure. Instead, they place in the system seeds which bear a very bitter harvest. . . . {2SM 288.3}


The first paragraph is especially to the point, but I included the one following as well, as it seems to accent the idea that God created human beings to live, not to naturally die.

Anyway, I believe that the first paragraph articulates the operative principle. It's not that God did bad things to the earth, or to plants and animals, to make them defective, or work less well than He originally designed them to, but that, because of sin, Satan was given greater access to this world, and *everything* we see in nature which is less than perfect is a result of *Satan's* work, not God's.

This seems so clear and easy and logical to me that I don't see how or why one would think otherwise. That is:

1.God ==> good
2.Satan ==> bad

It comes down to that. It's not:

1.Man ==> bad; therefore God responds with bad in kind.

Rather, man is bad, but God continues to be good, overcoming evil with good.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/04/11 07:42 PM

Quote:
T: Given how God treats His enemies, why would God request someone else to act in a way so out of harmony with His own character?

M:Indeed, why? For example, why did He command Moses to utterly kill every man, woman, and child? And, what of the other two named above?


Perhaps God didn't do what you think He did. This has been the whole point.

Consider when the disciples asked Christ if they should command fire to come down from heaven to destroy them like Elijah did. Christ sighed, explaining they didn't know what spirit they were of, that He had come not to destroy but to save.

Christ, by nature, is not a destroyer, but a Savior, and the same is true of God (He is described as such in Isaiah, for example). Satan is the destroyer, not God, or Christ. Christ was explaining this to the disciples, whom, because they didn't know God (i.e., know what He was really like), were thinking He (or Christ, who was God in the flesh) would be pleased by having His enemies destroyed by fire. But Christ was not pleased, because that's not the sort of thing that would please Him. The SOP comments on this by saying that the disposition to harm those who act against us is demonstrative of the spirit of Satan.

The point of this is that the disciples did not understand things because they didn't know God. This led them to misinterpret what God's will was viz a viz what happened in Elijah's time. If they had known God like Christ did, they wouldn't have made that mistake.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/04/11 08:28 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
T:MM, if you're reading this, I'm curious if you agree with NJK that man was created to naturally die.

M:Not sure. I believe unfallen A&E would have gradually died if they had neglected to regularly eat the fruit of the tree of life. I think the same thing will hold true for people living on the New Earth.

T: If a person refused to breath, he would gradually die as well (although the "gradual" death would be a lot quicker). We couldn't conclude from this that God created man to naturally die, right? I haven't heard the idea that God created man to naturally die before. This concept doesn't make sense to me, as death, to my way of thinking, is dependent upon sin.

We are not immortal. Our immortality is conditional upon us living in harmony with natural law. If we disobey, death is immediate or gradual. For example, if we refuse to breathe, we will naturally die. That's how God designed us. I suppose it could be argued that refusing to breathe is a sin; however, the cause of death is asphyxiation.

Quote:
T:Why did animals and plants start dying? Why won't they die in the new earth?

MM:After A&E sinned, God cursed the earth. Plants and animals cannot live eternally under such circumstances.

T: So in your view God did something to make the earth and the things in it "bad" (or "defective"). That is, God actually made the earth "bad" (or "defective" or "cursed") as opposed to pronouncing it as such, in view of the damage that Satan/sin had caused. If God, under your view, had simply left things as they were, earth would have been in a much better condition. But, as punishment for what man had done, God hurt every living thing.

Quote:
Christ never planted the seeds of death in the system. Satan planted these seeds when he tempted Adam to eat of the tree of knowledge which meant disobedience to God. Not one noxious plant was placed in the Lord's great garden, but after Adam and Eve sinned, poisonous herbs sprang up. In the parable of the sower the question was asked the master, "Didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?" The master answered, "An enemy hath done this" (Matt. 13:27, 28). All tares are sown by the evil one. Every noxious herb is of his sowing, and by his ingenious methods of amalgamation he has corrupted the earth with tares. {2SM 288.2}

Then shall physicians continue to resort to drugs, which leave a deadly evil in the system, destroying that life which

Christ came to restore? Christ's remedies cleanse the system. But Satan has tempted man to introduce into the system that which weakens the human machinery, clogging and destroying the fine, beautiful arrangements of God. The drugs administered to the sick do not restore, but destroy. Drugs never cure. Instead, they place in the system seeds which bear a very bitter harvest. . . . {2SM 288.3}


The first paragraph is especially to the point, but I included the one following as well, as it seems to accent the idea that God created human beings to live, not to naturally die.

Anyway, I believe that the first paragraph articulates the operative principle. It's not that God did bad things to the earth, or to plants and animals, to make them defective, or work less well than He originally designed them to, but that, because of sin, Satan was given greater access to this world, and *everything* we see in nature which is less than perfect is a result of *Satan's* work, not God's.

This seems so clear and easy and logical to me that I don't see how or why one would think otherwise. That is:

1.God ==> good
2.Satan ==> bad

It comes down to that. It's not:

1.Man ==> bad; therefore God responds with bad in kind.

Rather, man is bad, but God continues to be good, overcoming evil with good.

Does Satan have the power to create and to sustain his creations?

Are the laws of nature self-acting?

Is Satan free to manipulate the laws of nature as he sees fit?

Does God ever employ the forces of nature to cause death and destruction?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/04/11 08:37 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
M: Please present your case in a way that explains 1) why Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in battle, 2) why Jesus commanded godly people to execute capital punishment, and 3) why Jesus withdraws His protection and permits the forces of nature, evil men, and/or evil angels to kill men, women, and children.

T: Given how God treats His enemies, why would God request someone else to act in a way so out of harmony with His own character?

M: Indeed, why? For example, why did He command Moses to utterly kill every man, woman, and child? And, what of the other two named above?

T: Perhaps God didn't do what you think He did. This has been the whole point. Consider when the disciples asked Christ if they should command fire to come down from heaven to destroy them like Elijah did. Christ sighed, explaining they didn't know what spirit they were of, that He had come not to destroy but to save. Christ, by nature, is not a destroyer, but a Savior, and the same is true of God (He is described as such in Isaiah, for example). Satan is the destroyer, not God, or Christ. Christ was explaining this to the disciples, whom, because they didn't know God (i.e., know what He was really like), were thinking He (or Christ, who was God in the flesh) would be pleased by having His enemies destroyed by fire. But Christ was not pleased, because that's not the sort of thing that would please Him. The SOP comments on this by saying that the disposition to harm those who act against us is demonstrative of the spirit of Satan. The point of this is that the disciples did not understand things because they didn't know God. This led them to misinterpret what God's will was viz a viz what happened in Elijah's time. If they had known God like Christ did, they wouldn't have made that mistake.

You asked, "Why would God request someone else to act in a way so out of harmony with His own character?" My questions for you are:

1. Did Jesus ever command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle? Given how God treats His enemies, why would God request someone else to act in a way so out of harmony with His own character?

2. Did Jesus ever command godly people to execute capital punishment? Given how God treats His enemies, why would God request someone else to act in a way so out of harmony with His own character?

3. Did Jesus ever withdraw His protection and permit the forces of nature or evil men, and/or evil angels to kill men, women, and children? Given how God treats His enemies, why would God request someone else to act in a way so out of harmony with His own character?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/04/11 09:48 PM

Quote:
NJK:Okay Tom, here are my response, though succinct for the reasons stated above:

T:Do you consider the words of Jesus Christ to be words spoken by God?

NJK:Yes. Though I believe that this was through normative prophetic means, allowing Jesus to put it in his own thoughts. As I said, I believe all that He said were directly drawn form what EGW referred to as “I was shown” type of revelations. (Cf. Luke 10:18; John 5:19, 20ff; 8:28; 14:24).


I see this differently. I think Christ spoke things which He Himself thought, which thoughts He obtained through His study of Scripture under the illumination of the Holy Spirit.

Quote:
T:Why do you think God was "most reluctant"?

NJK:Read EW 149-153.


I'm very familiar with this passage. I asked because I was interested in your thoughts regarding it.

Quote:
In that SOP account, EGW relates that Jesus, who was actually volunteering Himself for this task, had to present Himself 3 times for this and was ‘“pleading” with the Father’. It is also related that there was also “perplexity” and “trouble/doubt” involved in this decision-making.


I'd like to know why you think the Father was reluctant.

Quote:
T:I'll try to state your position:

1.God's plan was for man to live forever, and made this possible by means of the Tree of Life.
2.When man sinned, God cut off his access to the Tree of Life.
3.The Plan of Salvation restores man to such a place that he can again have access to the Tree of Life, and so live eternally.

NJK:Yes to all three points.


Thanks. It's good to be able to state the positions of those with whom we are discussing things accurately, so we don't just talk past one another.

Quote:
T:So when the Bible says that we receive eternal life by faith in Christ, this is only indirectly. We receive eternal life because we will, after the resurrection, by virtue of Christ's work in the Plan of Salvation, have access to the Tree of Life.

NJK:Yes. That will be tangible effectuation of this Spiritual statement.


Ok. (I mean, Ok that you've confirmed my statement of your position; not that I agree with it.)

Quote:
T:That the Tree of Life perpetuates man's life is incidental, as breathing is. God could have created us so we could live without breathing, or without partaking of the Tree of Life, but we are spiritual beings, with intellect, and God wanted to teach us of our dependence upon Him for life. The fundamental truth is that the Tree of Life teaches us that God is the source of life, and our ability to live depends upon Him.

NJK:I can see, based on your expressed view of things here how you consider this as “incidental”, however in my view I can only see it as “essential/necessary”.


I'd say it's "necessary" as breathing is.

Quote:
Furthermore, your points make more prominent this depletion of the Reality that is involved in God and His Vast Creation. Having a Spiritualizing paradigm here leaves such “realities” out. As an example with created man, I rather see that God’s creation of man was absolutely perfect. (cf. Gen 1:31). In other words all that God created, is created to the best that it could ever be.


I agree with this, but disagree that the best that things can be means that beings must be created to naturally die.

Quote:
That is because God is dealing with real elements in nature and the universe and from these elements, he has fashioned the life we know as it best could. We cannot have a Science fiction view where we could e.g., spit fire with our breath or even ‘live without breathing’. That is not realistic.

It is easy to look at the degenerated state of man and creation today an see all the imperfection and say that God could have done things better. However that was not the case in the beginning. Adam was functioning at an optimum level. He was ca. 15 feet tall, some thus estimate ca. 2000 lbs; had perfect fitness and strength (i.e., full range of muscular strength); we use ca. 10% of our mind; he used 100% on top of having abilities such as photographic memory. Just looking at some “geniuses” today and people with special capabilities, such as remembering every event from any day of one’s past life, shows us just how powerful unfallen Man was. Adam was a walking supercomputer. He probably did not need a digital camera or video camera to recall things, nor a spreadsheet or word processor to process data and prepare speeches. He could easily do this as any technology today. Sharing this with others is another thing, however the (ESP-type) ability to send information waves to someone else as with a cell phone may be something that unfallen man could do. All this to say that God created us perfectly given what is actually available as “building materials”. Even the dust from which he formed man was the best material possible.

This reality also extends to Heavenly creature (i.e., not other “humans” in other world). Why are angels given wings to fly. Why not just fly without such assitance or even thought teleport themselves. Angels also need to be made to fly even more swiftly than normal in certain circumstances. The SOP speaking of Angels excelling in strength. Why are all angels so “strong”. Etc.


Clearly wings are not necessary for angels to move around. They can go from heaven, which is, I don't know, billions of light years away(?) (maybe only millions) to earth instantaneously, so this can't be a function of wings.

Quote:
Foundational in my journey in personal and original (when substantively needed) Biblical Research, I saw that I had to start taking God literally at His word, giving Him a benefit of the doubt and instead prayerfully trying to find out “why” He did or said something as He did. And I certainly have not regretted this, because in many ways, we have lost many key truths in the Bible through Spiritualizing, just like the Allegorical paradigms of early Church Father did damage the Church and Truth.


It seems to me your being very selective in how you view "literal" vs. "spiritual." It seems to be this:

1.My point of view = "literal."
2.Any other point of view = "spiritualizing."

For example, Jesus Christ said, "Take, eat, for this is my body and blood." My guess is that you don't take this literally. So is this not taking Christ at His word?

We're told that spiritual things are spiritually discerned. Also Christ told us that His words are spirit, and life. We need the Holy Spirit to understand Scripture. If it were not a spiritual book, why would we need the Holy Spirit?

Quote:
NJK:So, based on this background info for my view on this and other such topics, I see that we are rather physical beings. We only become “spiritual” as we, on one hand, come into communion and communication with God. That is indeed really the understanding of being spiritual. Some people looked at the Cross and saw a false prophet paying a just price. Others, even pagans, saw that “this was surely the Son of God”. Spirituality is the result of how we chose to perceive reality and in this GC when we make a move of faith towards God, then he begins to spiritually/mentally “connect” with us, making us spiritual people. Increasingly this will more overtly also become the effort of the Devil. He is only staying in the shadows for now because if he manifested himself as he really is, he would just prove that the Bible is right.


Why would this be a problem? That is, why would God's proving the Bible is right be a problem?

Quote:
So now he prefers to let man follow their own course, which he at times subtly influences, since this self-worshipping spirit also serves his purpose.


How does it serve His purpose?

Quote:
Indeed making created beings be “gods” was always his goal...

T:I wasn't able to find any translations saying this. Can you point me to one?

NJK:Given the popularity, though syntactical fallacious, of translators to turn such back to back related verbal forms into sorts of hendiadys, stemming from 1600's KJV understandings and for the most part just blindly followed, I do not think I’ll find one. However, as you should know/be functional in Hebrew, that should not be hard to understand. “The proof is in the pudding;” particularly the overall/contextual Theological issue which do indeed greatly affects the way translators render certain expressions.


Is the idea you presented an original one? (about "dying thou shalt die" meaning "by reason of being a natural dying being" etc.)

Quote:
T:One last question. Were you saying that the Plan of Salvation was only formed after man fell? I understand that it wasn't put into effect until after the fall, but I'm asking if the Plan had been formulated.

NJK:Based on the sequence of events and the emotions related in EW 149-153, that is what I understand. It is not the “popular” truth given the overarching popular belief that ‘God knows (all of) the future from the ceaseless ages of eternity,’ however this is an example of how EGW was “shown” something which she herself did not fully grasp, even at all, for the most part, but nonetheless from which the Biblical Theological Truth on “God and the Future” is properly understood. I personally believe that EGW started to understand this very late in her ministry, when she, around 1908, began to realize that God, because of the failure of that privileged SDA generation, was going to prolong time and thus cause all of her prophecies to be put on hold for a much later time than what she had truthfully and possibly been showed.


We may have some agreement here. Not sure. I'll express my view in some detail when I get a chance. My view's also not the "popular" one.

Quote:
T:You're saying here that man was created by God to naturally die, correct? And, to counter this natural death, God gave man access to the Tree of Life. I've understood you correctly?

NJK:Based on the statement in Gen 2:17b, Yes. And I add, from the above statements, that this was the best that God could do in created human beings living in our universe elements and atmosphere which God further had to arrange to support optimal life. God also chose Earth for this initial creation because, if man sinned, that was probably the best planetary location in this Milky Way galaxy where a degeneration of nature would take the longest before it severely made living impossible.


According to the SOP, there were millions of worlds. I think any of them could have failed, as they all had the two trees. I don't think any needed to fail, nor was it intended that any should fail.

It sounds like your view would require the existence of entropy (the 2nd law of Thermodynamics) before man sinned.

Quote:
T:Do you believe that animals and plants would have died had man not sin?

NJK:I have also addressed this. See also in the above post of my comments in a PM. I believe form PP 62.3 that animals and nature could partake of the fruit “aromatically”.


How could a tree, for example, on the other side of the world partake of the fruit of the Tree of Life "aromatically"?

Quote:
As I also said, I think the tangible eating by man was the object-lesson as well as the matching counterpart for eating the forbidden fruit. So they had no excusing temptation to “taste” here.


I agree that it was an object-lesson.

Quote:
T:I've been taking it for granted that you believed, as I do, that plants and animals only die because of man's sin, but I'm not sure that's a good assumption on my part.

NJK:As I also state priorly, this affectation of living non-humans, including nature was apparently because of a withdrawal and limited-to-Eden, “Fruit of Life” aroma made available in the air. That is why Adam and Eve and other animals had to be expelled from the Garden that was evidently still being preserved through this ‘aromatic means.’ Such inert things as the “ground” had to be distinctly cursed.


That seems a rather fanciful interpretation to me, but thank you for the explanation.

I appreciate all the time you're putting into this. I'll spend some time thinking through things (i.e., from your perspective, trying to get your model in my head) and get back to you.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/04/11 11:32 PM

Quote:
MM:You asked, "Why would God request someone else to act in a way so out of harmony with His own character?" My questions for you are:

1. Did Jesus ever command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle? Given how God treats His enemies, why would God request someone else to act in a way so out of harmony with His own character?


I don't think killing is in accordance with God's character. Do you agree?

Quote:
2. Did Jesus ever command godly people to execute capital punishment? Given how God treats His enemies, why would God request someone else to act in a way so out of harmony with His own character?


What do you think His character is? Or, better yet, what do you think Jesus Christ revealed in regards to God's character. How do you think God treats His enemies? How does God win battles? Through overwhelming power, and by violence? Or in some other way?

Quote:
3. Did Jesus ever withdraw His protection and permit the forces of nature or evil men, and/or evil angels to kill men, women, and children?


Yes. For example, in regards to Jerusalem, He said, "How I long to gather you as a hen gathers its chicks, but you would not," indicating His desire to protect them, but they refused, and as a result of their refusal, Satan was permitted to treat them according to his will, and the destruction of Jerusalem happened.

Quote:
Given how God treats His enemies, why would God request someone else to act in a way so out of harmony with His own character?


Why when I ask you a question, do you ask me the same question over and over and over again? As opposed to answering my question? Would you like it if I asked you the same question over and over and over again? Would you like it if I asked you the same question over and over and over again? Would you like it if I asked you the same question over and over and over again? smile
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/04/11 11:38 PM

Originally Posted By: MM
T: If a person refused to breath, he would gradually die as well (although the "gradual" death would be a lot quicker). We couldn't conclude from this that God created man to naturally die, right? I haven't heard the idea that God created man to naturally die before. This concept doesn't make sense to me, as death, to my way of thinking, is dependent upon sin.

M:We are not immortal. Our immortality is conditional upon us living in harmony with natural law. If we disobey, death is immediate or gradual. For example, if we refuse to breathe, we will naturally die. That's how God designed us. I suppose it could be argued that refusing to breathe is a sin; however, the cause of death is asphyxiation.


This doesn't appear to be addressing the point I made. If you think it is, please explain to me how what you wrote addresses the point I made.

Quote:
Does Satan have the power to create and to sustain his creations?


What do you think? Why are you asking this?

Quote:
Are the laws of nature self-acting?


In response to something you wrote several years ago implying this was the case, I brought to your attention to an SOP quote which made clear that it isn't. So you know the answer to this question, and you know that I know you know the answer to this question, as well as knowing the answer yourself. So why did you ask this?

Quote:
Is Satan free to manipulate the laws of nature as he sees fit?


To a great extent, obviously he has been given power to do so, as the quote I referenced makes clear. Think of all the noxious plants there are. Satan did all that. The same principle applies to the animal kingdom. All of nature acts differently than originally designed (in terms of animals killing each other for food, death, etc.) This is all of Satan's doing.

Quote:
Does God ever employ the forces of nature to cause death and destruction?


God permits things to happen.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/05/11 01:45 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
Quote:
MM:You asked, "Why would God request someone else to act in a way so out of harmony with His own character?" My questions for you are:

1. Did Jesus ever command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle? Given how God treats His enemies, why would God request someone else to act in a way so out of harmony with His own character?


I don't think killing is in accordance with God's character. Do you agree?

Quote:
2. Did Jesus ever command godly people to execute capital punishment? Given how God treats His enemies, why would God request someone else to act in a way so out of harmony with His own character?


What do you think His character is? Or, better yet, what do you think Jesus Christ revealed in regards to God's character. How do you think God treats His enemies? How does God win battles? Through overwhelming power, and by violence? Or in some other way?

Quote:
3. Did Jesus ever withdraw His protection and permit the forces of nature or evil men, and/or evil angels to kill men, women, and children?


Yes. For example, in regards to Jerusalem, He said, "How I long to gather you as a hen gathers its chicks, but you would not," indicating His desire to protect them, but they refused, and as a result of their refusal, Satan was permitted to treat them according to his will, and the destruction of Jerusalem happened.

Quote:
Given how God treats His enemies, why would God request someone else to act in a way so out of harmony with His own character?


Why when I ask you a question, do you ask me the same question over and over and over again? As opposed to answering my question? Would you like it if I asked you the same question over and over and over again? Would you like it if I asked you the same question over and over and over again? Would you like it if I asked you the same question over and over and over again? smile

My answer to the first part of each of the three questions asked above is - Yes. I have no idea what your answers are. Would you mind answering them?

PS - I pasted in your question to each of the three questions for the purpose of context. Again, I have no idea what your answers are.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/05/11 02:19 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
T: If a person refused to breath, he would gradually die as well (although the "gradual" death would be a lot quicker). We couldn't conclude from this that God created man to naturally die, right? I haven't heard the idea that God created man to naturally die before. This concept doesn't make sense to me, as death, to my way of thinking, is dependent upon sin.

M: We are not immortal. Our immortality is conditional upon us living in harmony with natural law. If we disobey, death is immediate or gradual. For example, if we refuse to breathe, we will naturally die. That's how God designed us. I suppose it could be argued that refusing to breathe is a sin; however, the cause of death is asphyxiation.

T: This doesn't appear to be addressing the point I made. If you think it is, please explain to me how what you wrote addresses the point I made.

You asked, "We couldn't conclude from this that God created man to naturally die, right?" Death is natural, right? It obeys natural law. God did not design us to live without breathing. If dying under this circumstance isn't natural, what is it?

Quote:
M: Does Satan have the power to create and to sustain his creations?

T: What do you think? Why are you asking this?

No.
Don't know what you believe.

Quote:
M: Are the laws of nature self-acting?

T: In response to something you wrote several years ago implying this was the case, I brought to your attention to an SOP quote which made clear that it isn't. So you know the answer to this question, and you know that I know you know the answer to this question, as well as knowing the answer yourself. So why did you ask this?

Good. We agree nature is not self-acting.

Quote:
M: Is Satan free to manipulate the laws of nature as he sees fit?

T: To a great extent, obviously he has been given power to do so, as the quote I referenced makes clear. Think of all the noxious plants there are. Satan did all that. The same principle applies to the animal kingdom. All of nature acts differently than originally designed (in terms of animals killing each other for food, death, etc.) This is all of Satan's doing.

Since we agree nature is not self-acting, and since we agree Satan cannot create or sustain the things of creation, can we also agree God acts to enable noxious plants and animals to live and behave they way they do?

Quote:
M: Does God ever employ the forces of nature to cause death and destruction?

T: God permits things to happen.

Since we agree nature is not self-acting, can we agree God acts to enable the forces of nature to behave the way it does when it causes death and destruction?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/05/11 02:22 AM

Originally Posted By: MM
My answer to the first part of each of the three questions asked above is - Yes. I have no idea what your answers are. Would you mind answering them?

PS - I pasted in your question to each of the three questions for the purpose of context. Again, I have no idea what your answers are.


I'll address one of these.

Quote:
(Your question)3. Did Jesus ever withdraw His protection and permit the forces of nature or evil men, and/or evil angels to kill men, women, and children?

(My response)Yes. For example, in regards to Jerusalem, He said, "How I long to gather you as a hen gathers its chicks, but you would not," indicating His desire to protect them, but they refused, and as a result of their refusal, Satan was permitted to treat them according to his will, and the destruction of Jerusalem happened.


I'm flummoxed as to how you can say I didn't answer your question. How is this not an answer to your question? I answered "yes," and then explained why I answered yes.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/05/11 02:30 AM

Quote:
T: If a person refused to breath, he would gradually die as well (although the "gradual" death would be a lot quicker). We couldn't conclude from this that God created man to naturally die, right? I haven't heard the idea that God created man to naturally die before. This concept doesn't make sense to me, as death, to my way of thinking, is dependent upon sin.

M: We are not immortal. Our immortality is conditional upon us living in harmony with natural law. If we disobey, death is immediate or gradual. For example, if we refuse to breathe, we will naturally die. That's how God designed us. I suppose it could be argued that refusing to breathe is a sin; however, the cause of death is asphyxiation.

T: This doesn't appear to be addressing the point I made. If you think it is, please explain to me how what you wrote addresses the point I made.

M:You asked, "We couldn't conclude from this that God created man to naturally die, right?" Death is natural, right?


No, it's not natural. Life is natural. Death is the result of sin, an aberration.

Quote:
It obeys natural law. God did not design us to live without breathing. If dying under this circumstance isn't natural, what is it?


Death is connected to sin. No sin = no death. That's what's natural.

Quote:
M: Does Satan have the power to create and to sustain his creations?

T: What do you think? Why are you asking this?

M:No.
Don't know what you believe.


Why would you think I think Satan has to the power to create? You don't think I know that God alone is the Creator? Why would you have any doubt about this? I really don't understand why you would question me. It would be like me asking you if you believe God exists, and you ask me why I'm asking you that, and I say it's because I don't know what you believe.

Quote:
T: To a great extent, obviously he has been given power to do so, as the quote I referenced makes clear. Think of all the noxious plants there are. Satan did all that. The same principle applies to the animal kingdom. All of nature acts differently than originally designed (in terms of animals killing each other for food, death, etc.) This is all of Satan's doing.

M:Since we agree nature is not self-acting, and since we agree Satan cannot create or sustain the things of creation, can we also agree God acts to enable noxious plants and animals to live and behave they way they do?


I would feel more comfortable stating this in the way the referenced quote does. I think it needs to made as clear as possible who (Satan) is responsible for the plans having the noxious quality.

Quote:
M: Does God ever employ the forces of nature to cause death and destruction?

T: God permits things to happen.

M:Since we agree nature is not self-acting, can we agree God acts to enable the forces of nature to behave the way it does when it causes death and destruction?


Same point. I think it's important that responsibility be made clear. "Enable" can give a false impression of responsibility. God is not responsible for sin or its results. The SOP makes this clear in saying that Satan is the author of sin and all its results.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/05/11 02:40 AM

I'd like to ask MM and NJK, (and anyone reading this who'd like to respond; e.g. kland), what your view of the Great Controversy is, in brief. I'll post my view as an example of what I'm interested in seeing.

I've got an idea as to MM's view, but not to NJK's. It would be interesting to see if it's the same as MM's.

My view is that Satan desired God's position and power, so he misrepresented God's character in order to win the homage of God's creatures. This is how he deceived men and angels.

Satan raised questions regarding God, His character, and His government which could only be answered by God's permitting Satan to develop his principles, as the parable of the wheat and the tares illustrates.

I believe death (the second death) is the result of sin, and involves the damage that happens to the psyche, to the conscience, making it impossible to co-exist with God, and those who choose to live according to God's principles.

God's purpose in the Plan of Salvation is primarily to reveal the truth about Himself and His government. The Great Controversy is all about this conflict between whom God says He is, and what God says the principles of His government are, and what the enemy says these are.

The Great Controversy will be resolved when all agree that God has been right.

Jesus Christ was the primary means, and continues to be, by which God fights this battle. "Primary" doesn't do justice to Christ's primacy in this regard.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/05/11 02:58 AM

NJK, thank you very much for the quotes on the Tree of Life.

You commented:

Quote:
The following SOP quotes may seem to validate your view however these are only “pastoral”/practical applications by EGW and not a ‘Theological redifining of the realities involved in the Tree of Life seen in her above statements.


Why do you make this distinction? For example, when she says that Jesus Christ is life everlasting to us, why would this be only a "pastoral"/practical application as opposed to a Theological redefining of reality?

To my way of thinking, Jesus Christ's being everlasting life to us is *THE* Theological redefining of reality. That is to say, if this isn't a Theological redefining of reality, nothing is.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/05/11 06:24 AM

Hello Tom. I appreciate your reply to my latest comments. Here are some responses however, though somewhat detailed here, with most of these, you’ll also need to read up on my previous comments that you apparently had not yet read and/or answered in order to get my fuller/complete view and the greater context.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I see this differently. I think Christ spoke things which He Himself thought, which thoughts He obtained through His study of Scripture under the illumination of the Holy Spirit.


I can see your view here. I have no problem with it, however I understand my view to also allow for this. I see that such Spirit-guided/illuminated understandings of Christ all stemmed from such key/anchoring I was shown” revelations, many could have been when He as He was growing up (i.e., 12-30+(start of ministry)), but they also could all have been in the revelations, learned from Mary, surrounding His birth. These served to make Him see/read/place the Scriptures in/from a completely different perspective than a regular man would. That is why by 12, He had realized that He was to be the Lamb of God for Israel. Such direct, anchoring and extra-biblical revelations forever guided His later expositions of Scripture and if only limited to His birth events, required great faith from Him. The (confirming) revelation at the Jordan during His baptism was also an example of such anchoring, direct extra-biblical revelation that guided Christ understanding of Scripture. I.e., ‘he was then (maybe for the first time in His life, confirmedly) shown/told that ‘He was the Son of God’. Hence the then permitted temptation of the Devil around this point immediately after that. Also with Christ being sinless, the assistance of the Holy Spirit for this was literally unlimited, as it potentially can be for any man.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I'm very familiar with this passage. I asked because I was interested in your thoughts regarding it.
---
I'd like to know why you think the Father was reluctant.


While it could be argued that the relating “pleading” of Jesus with the Father in EW 149-153, apparently in three sessions, was ‘so that man could be spared this death sentence,’ the fact that an angel later related to EGW: “Think ye that the Father yielded up His dearly beloved Son without a struggle? No, no. It was even a struggle with the God of heaven, whether to let guilty man perish, or to give His beloved Son to die for him.” Given the fact that this plan of redemption was apparently Jesus’ voluntary idea and could have been suggested at the first enclosed, ‘pleading meeting’ with the Father. Apparently, God making known to Him the requirements involved in this (only) plan had caused Jesus to become “perplexed” and “troubled/doubtful”. So since the agreement with this Plan was a “struggle” for God [who, quite significantly, according to Classical Foreknowledge, should have known that it was going to perfectly work out], I therefore understand a hesitancy and reluctance of God in accepting to send Jesus to carry out this only possible redemptive plan.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I'd say it's "necessary" as breathing is.


We can only work here with how God has actually created us and not a limitless potential of other “possibilities”. So for mortal (the only other option for not being immortal) Man, as God created them, to (normatively) live perpetually, eating of the Tree was essential and necessary. If we go down a, though possible, road of all the other ways that man could die, then other possibilities than just “breathing” could be posited here. However, to simply demonstrate the shortcoming in your (factually “straw man”) breathing analogy, if Adam had decided that he was only going to focus on breathing and not eat of the fruit of the Tree of Life, He would have died. So the Fruit of the Tree of Life is indeed indispensable, even if viewed solely in an ultimate standpoint, to Man Living forever.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I agree with this, but disagree that the best that things can be means that beings must be created to naturally die.


Again, and it should be logically and Theologically clear that this is the only other option for God’s created Beings not being immortal as He only is (1 Tim 6:16).

Originally Posted By: Tom
Clearly wings are not necessary for angels to move around. They can go from heaven, which is, I don't know, billions of light years away(?) (maybe only millions) to earth instantaneously, so this can't be a function of wings.


That is not such a “clear” correlation wings on creatures cause them to fly. How fast is entirely dependent upon the strength involved. An eagle will fly faster than a dove because they have more strength in their wings. So the wings of angels can have enough strength to make the fly that fast.

Having said that, I, from a recent exegetical study, do not think that Angels fly that fast. As far as I see the only passage that leads people to that assumption/conclusion is in Dan 9:21 & 23 where Gabriel was seemingly dispatched from Heaven at the beginning of Daniel’s prayer and “was caused to fly swiftly to Daniel’s side on earth, reaching him in the time it takes to read that prayers in vs. 4-19 (ca. 2 minutes). However, as the NASB rightly reads, vs. 21 is actually saying that Daniel was in extreme weariness (lit. ‘weary with weariness’) when Gabriel reached him. This literal statement has apparently been understood an reworded by most Bible translators as ‘Gabriel being tired from having flown swiftly’ however that is incorrect. It was Daniel who was “extremely weak”. Also, Gabriel did not necessarily have to be in heaven when “the command went forth” apparently to make Daniel understand the vision of Dan 8 started 13 years before. Given that 13 years had past since the interruption of that prior vision explanation, God had manifestly stepped in to delay the resumption of that explanation. So a ‘command for God’ indeed had to be issued for it to be taken up again. It was probably decided that it would be best to wait until the 70 years were about to end vs. an explanation in the ca. 57th year. So Gabriel may already have been on earth, around Daniel, when that command was given. Still I see a better understanding.

Daniel in vs. 3 says that he was ‘fasting with sackcloths’. Later Daniel says that he was ‘extremely weary’ . So he may have started this “season of fasting and prayer” many days before he uttered that prayer. And it would have been when he began that season of prayer, i.e., from the ‘beginning point’ That Gabriel was dispatched to go to him, even starting his trip from Heaven. Since Daniel was extremely weary, He may have reached him several days after Daniel had started to pray. However it may just be that only the command went forth at that beginning time and Gabriel only later started this trip. All this to say that I do not see Biblical Support that Angel fly at warp speed.

Here also is an unappreciated reality with God, Divine things and Angels, which, if SDA’s took the time to thoroughly study would remove all objections to particularly the Investigative Judgement issue. To succinctly illustrate these realities, this is why angels record things in books, they use a gold card to validate their access into the Heavenly realm, they did not fully see the evil of Satan’s plan until the cross, etc. I.e., Angels are not science fiction superheroes, but just higher forms of human and which do need wings to fly. Humans do not, and will not in heaven, since it is not our “mission in life” to be God’s envoys/messengers throughout his universe. However when we will want to fly to other worlds, I see that we will either use a cloud (as Jesus used to ascend to heaven (Acts 1:9); be temporarily given a set of wings, like a “jet-pack”; or have an angel carry us.

So for these Biblical/Exegetical reasons I see and understand that angels need and pertinently related to this discussion, that in God creating them with this, it was also an indispensable necessity as was the Tree of Life for Man’s perpetual life.

Originally Posted By: Tom
It seems to me your being very selective in how you view "literal" vs. "spiritual." It seems to be this:

1.My point of view = "literal."
2.Any other point of view = "spiritualizing."

For example, Jesus Christ said, "Take, eat, for this is my body and blood." My guess is that you don't take this literally. So is this not taking Christ at His word?

We're told that spiritual things are spiritually discerned. Also Christ told us that His words are spirit, and life. We need the Holy Spirit to understand Scripture. If it were not a spiritual book, why would we need the Holy Spirit?


I certainly do not see it as such. No need to “muddy up”/confuse the issues here. I fully understand the distinction between something that is literal, spiritual and figurative/symbolic. Christ’s statement was clearly “figurative” with a spiritual understanding; and not meant to be taken literal in any way. Indeed only those with spiritual discernment here would grasp the meaning in this veiled, figurative statement.

On the other hand, I think, at least to me, that it is very easy to see when something is meant literally and not to be given a spiritual meaning that renders null the literal reality. And this is what EGW strongly cautions against. So, I guess, spiritual discernment is also needed to do this and this is largely dependent upon one’s Theological Views of God. As I said, I have decided to give God the benefit the doubt and so when e.g., he says to Abraham “for now I know...” Gen 22:12, among many such examples, that this is indeed what He literally meant and not, as e.g., Classical Foreknowledge people falsely rationalize, ‘God did not really mean that because He always knew that Abraham would faithfully follow through in obeying this request.’ To defaulty impose spiritual understanding on passages that are literal is to engage in esiogesis and can, and will, only lead to false, deficient, inaccurate and/or imcomplete understandings.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: NJK Project
.... Increasingly this will more overtly also become the effort of the Devil. He is only staying in the shadows for now because if he manifested himself as he really is, he would just prove that the Bible is right....So now he prefers to let man follow their own course, which he at times subtly influences, since this self-worshipping spirit also serves his purpose.


Originally Posted By: Tom
Why would this be a problem? That is, why would God's proving the Bible is right be a problem?


Originally Posted By: Tom
How does it serve His purpose?


Re-read my statement carefully and properly retrace the antecedents for those subsequent pronouns. I was since referring to actions/ploys “the Devil” and not to God. That will/should answer/resolve your questions.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Is the idea you presented an original one? (about "dying thou shalt die" meaning "by reason of being a natural dying being" etc.)


As far as I know yes, without taking the time to go through other commentaries. I also never heard this being preached by any preacher. The reason for me not doing this search is that they Hebrew syntax here is clear to me. God is referring to ‘Man (2 person suffix) dying abstractly/generally.’ Indeed compare this use of the 2 person sing. suffix with the particle preposition “by reason of/because” with a similar one in Gen 3:17 that is saying that because of you [3 pers. sing.] (i.e., Adam) the ground will be cursed and ‘thus produce weeds, thistles and thorns.’ (vs. 18). So clearly in Gen 2:17b God was referring to ‘Created Man’ in general, and not to Adam, as ‘naturally dying’.

I would have brought out a potential understanding contribution of the LXX which makes a distinction in this Hebrew construction with a self-decreed/sure death (Judge 13:22; 2 Sam 14:14; Eze 3:18) vs. one that is only a potential possibility (Eze 33:8 & 33:14), pointedly revolving around the adding of a the apo preposition before the future verb “to die”, however the LXX translators who were not Theologically, thus translationally perfect, completely left out the key “He (i.e., Man in general) becuase of/by reason of...) statement expressed in the Hebrew.

Whether you understand/accept this exegetical rendering, it should be logical that non-immortal man will, at some point die. So he is inevitably and inherently/“naturally” created to (= “destined to”) die, except for eating of the Tree of Life.

Originally Posted By: Tom
We may have some agreement here. Not sure. I'll express my view in some detail when I get a chance. My view's also not the "popular" one.


Glad to hear that because many make the assumed Classical/Popular View some sort of a test of heresy. The Biblical View instead unlocks many Doctrinal and Prophetic Truths in the Bible. I believe that God, like with the October 22, 1844 test, allowed man to have the Classical View belief to test how they would act under such a belief that the future was both known and set in stone. With particularly SDA who hold this view, the more detailed and precise end time prophecies of EGW should have literally compelled them to live obedient and wholly devoted, active lives to the Gospel cause, since they, especially in EGW time, we ‘sure that the Second Coming would occur in the lifetime of at least EGW’. But it did not and still has not. And the incorrect Theological understanding here has also led many to reject the SOP and live lukewarm lives today, rather preferring to adopt a wait and see (i.e., wait for a Sunday Law) attitude, before engaging in all-out efforts to Finish the Work. That is the result of bad Theology, and it should not be a problem in our Church who has many “scholars” and higher education religious departments and seminaries.

Originally Posted By: Tom
According to the SOP, there were millions of worlds. I think any of them could have failed, as they all had the two trees. I don't think any needed to fail, nor was it intended that any should fail.
...
It sounds like your view would require the existence of entropy (the 2nd law of Thermodynamics) before man sinned.


You have overshot my “painted target” here. There are indeed millions of inhabited worlds. In the beginning the may all have begun with only one inhabited planet per Galaxy as it the case with ours. In fact all of these worlds may each be in their own galaxy. I was saying that God placed us on this planet so that if we sinned and then nature would begin to degenerate, man would then not suddenly be exposed to extreme heat because of e.g., developing holes in the Ozone layer. If man was place closer to the sun, then the atmosphere there that would have made living on this nearer planet possible would have begun to lose its efficacy and protections, even if at the same rate as our own planet’s but because we would have been closer to the sun, “Global Warming” would have begun much sooner, and creation may have been wiped out from that planet long before e.g, 6000 years had passed. Similarly, imagine post-flood winters on planets further away from the sun. Man would be wiped out in the first winter. So that is why I see that this planet was the perfect location for man during his allowed testing period. Created Humans in other Galaxies may, since they passed and (as I see it) are still passing their test, have probably been allowed, able to even develop technologies to inhabit the other planets in their Galaxies which would similarly be unevenly located away from their sun.

Originally Posted By: Tom
How could a tree, for example, on the other side of the world partake of the fruit of the Tree of Life "aromatically"?


Easily since this could also be speaking of this aroma being airborne and thus widely dispersable. To use a crude example, the often talk about and greatly feared “biological” attacks are known to be capable of having a great radius of contamination. So in a similar way, the aroma sent into the air by the tree of live can thus reach to all living creation. EGW was probably shown man “breathing in” this aroma while being under the tree of life to help her to properly grasp this reality. If she was just shown man breathing in the air, even if she understood that this was beneficially ionized air (like in an oxygen tank), she may not have seen the crucial relation to the Tree of Life. Keep in mind that prophetic visions are, more than anything, compacted, meaningful depictions. So not everything is 100% literal but, even if literal, they could also be just pointed summaries (a sketch, outline, microcosm) of the Greater Truth involved. So that imagery help her to see the source of this beneficial aromatic air and that is, indispensably for mortal man, the Tree of Life. Indeed, surely the redeemed will not be lining up for days every months to get right under the Tree of Life to breathe in the air.

In regards specifically to trees and other vegetation “breathing”, they do intake e.g., carbon dioxide from the air through their leaves. So they indeed also “breathe” so the dispersing medicated air from the tree of life could easily reach and be taken in by it. Seems to me that all living creatures breathe in some way. Even fish breathe under water through their gills taking the oxygen out of the water.

Nonetheless a God-cursed ground, as it occurred in Eden, could, through the roots of vegetation, cause them to have die after sin, especially if they were then intaking bad elements from their roots and now did not have the tree of life’s antidote, breathe in through their foliage, to counter this.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I agree that it was an object-lesson.


Based on what I understand from your view, I do no think that our view here is identical. I understand here that, (contrary to the clear statements in the Bible and SOP, I might add) you do not think that there is anything tangibly special in the fruit of life and eating of ot, but that I was merely an “object-lesson” to teach/instill, and for Adam and Eve to demonstrate obedience and faith in God and His specific command here. So from what I see here you see man’s life being someone externally sustained by something else other than by the ingredients in the Fruit of Life and that “life-sustaining force” was maintained by God as long as Adam and Eve continued to demonstrate their obedience by obeying God and eating of that Tree.

In my understanding and view, I rather see that the “object-lesson” was in the fact that they had to eat the fruit, whereas its life perpetuating ingredients could have been taken in by them through breathing as it apparently is possible and will be in Heaven for even humans. So I see that God making Man eat of this vs. inhaling its aroma, was the object-lesson to tangibly act out their obedience and faith but also that this taken in of the fruit was indispensable to perpetuating their lives. As I also said, this eating was also done to fittingly counter them having to eat of the banned fruit.

Interestingly enough in Rev 22:2 that though the tree bears fruit, the ‘healing/therapy of the nations’ is through the leaves. This may all corroborate EGW view since the aroma of a tree in indeed in its foliage. So though the fruit will grow, the healing aroma will come from leaves and be airborne. The 12 different monthly fruits are that which give the tree its particular aroma. Each fruit/scent is probably key to different aspect of Man’s health restoration. So with the Greek word “ethnos” being also indicative of peoples living abroad (which in the Bible World, as today, are likely a different race/country), it can be seen that what is meant here is not merely that various ‘races will be “healed”’ of the factors that have caused the rifts amongst peoples, but rather that this “healing/therapy will disperse itself, through the leaves’ aroma to all of the peoples abroad from this tree which will only be in the New Jerusalem, even when it has been transposed to the renewed Earth.

Furthermore, it is interesting to see that a “therapy” as the Greek literally says (Strong’s #2322) is different from a “healing/curing” (Strong’s #2390). The latter is for an already instilled disease, while the first, as seen today, is pointedly to improve a condition which is not necessarily a disease. E.g., a person after reconstructive knee surgery to repair physical damage that had occurred, while following that repairing surgery undergo “therapy” to improve on that repair and restore their knee back to its original form. Without first undergoing that surgery, no amount to therapy would have “healed/cured” them of the physical damage. So the therapy on works to restore to optimal health or even help prevent diseases and not to do the foundational healing work. It is along these lines that exercising is understood as a form of therapy as it serves to maintain optimal health and prevent sickness, but it is not a remedy for e.g., a heart attack or stroke. A doctor here would first have to intervene to remedy that failure and then, once that person has reached a state of recovery, prescribe exercise as a “therapy” to return back to original good health.

All this shed some like upon the function of the Tree/Fruit of Life and indeed without it, Man’s condition, being mortal and thus ‘destined/subject to (eventually) die’, would gradually degenerate into fatal sickness and health failures.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: NJK Project
As I also state priorly, this affectation of living non-humans, including nature was apparently because of a withdrawal and limited-to-Eden, “Fruit of Life” aroma made available in the air. That is why Adam and Eve and other animals had to be expelled from the Garden that was evidently still being preserved through this ‘aromatic means.’ Such inert things as the “ground” had to be distinctly cursed.


Originally Posted By: Tom
That seems a rather fanciful interpretation to me, but thank you for the explanation.


That is rather the “fruit” of proper exegesis, as from concrete and literal understandings, such theological and unstated things can be approximated and reliably inferred. Hopefully for you, my added statements in this response post, also derived from Biblical Exegesis and SOP statements, will further validate this understanding.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I appreciate all the time you're putting into this. I'll spend some time thinking through things (i.e., from your perspective, trying to get your model in my head) and get back to you.


No problem. Do however consider/refer to all that I have posted thus far to get the full context and details.

...

Here is an added quote of the Tree of Life by EGW:

Originally Posted By: SOP EW 149
He then made known to the angelic host that a way of escape had been made for lost man. He told them that He had been pleading with His Father, and had offered to give His life a ransom, to take the sentence of death upon Himself, that through Him man might find pardon; that through the merits of His blood, and obedience to the law of God, they could have the favor of God, and be brought into the beautiful garden, and eat of the fruit of the tree of life. {EW 149.2}


Notice that the end goal of this just devised and “ratified” plan of Salvation is not complete unless man is able to once again eat of the Tree of Life. You view curtails this Biblical Theology after the “favor with God” statement, or even after the “beautiful garden” one (=Heaven/New Earth). That is why your Theology of the Cross is incomplete without this. And this Theological reality is all because it is only through this mean that God can make mortal live forever. God is dealing with real factors so we should adjust, align, calibrate our understanding to that Biblical and “Universe-al” fact.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/05/11 01:36 PM


Originally Posted By: NJK Project
God is referring to ‘Man (2 person suffix) dying abstractly/generally.’ Indeed compare this use of the 2 person sing. suffix with the particle preposition “by reason of/because” with a similar one in Gen 3:17 that is saying that because of you [3 pers. sing.] (i.e., Adam)


Here is a slight typo fix of the above statement from the post above:

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
God is referring to ‘Man (3 person suffix) dying abstractly/generally.’ Indeed compare this use of the 3 person sing. suffix with the particle preposition “by reason of/because” with a similar one in Gen 3:17 that is saying that because of you [2 pers. sing.] (i.e., Adam)
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/05/11 01:39 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
I'd like to ask MM and NJK, (and anyone reading this who'd like to respond; e.g. kland), what your view of the Great Controversy is, in brief. I'll post my view as an example of what I'm interested in seeing.

I've got an idea as to MM's view, but not to NJK's. It would be interesting to see if it's the same as MM's.

My view is that Satan desired God's position and power, so he misrepresented God's character in order to win the homage of God's creatures. This is how he deceived men and angels.

Satan raised questions regarding God, His character, and His government which could only be answered by God's permitting Satan to develop his principles, as the parable of the wheat and the tares illustrates.

I believe death (the second death) is the result of sin, and involves the damage that happens to the psyche, to the conscience, making it impossible to co-exist with God, and those who choose to live according to God's principles.

God's purpose in the Plan of Salvation is primarily to reveal the truth about Himself and His government. The Great Controversy is all about this conflict between whom God says He is, and what God says the principles of His government are, and what the enemy says these are.

The Great Controversy will be resolved when all agree that God has been right.

Jesus Christ was the primary means, and continues to be, by which God fights this battle. "Primary" doesn't do justice to Christ's primacy in this regard.


It is indeed significant to have an overview of what someone generally and also ultimately believes, because it does shed some light on where they are coming from, and even heading, in a discussion. I would say that my view is basically similar to yours except for some more in depth/“literalistic” understandings, indeed as made manifest in this discussion. Due to its length and as this was small scale part of a much grandeur project of the sort that I have planned to do, I have posted it on by blog. See here.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/05/11 01:40 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
NJK, thank you very much for the quotes on the Tree of Life.

You commented:

Quote:
The following SOP quotes may seem to validate your view however these are only “pastoral”/practical applications by EGW and not a ‘Theological redifining of the realities involved in the Tree of Life seen in her above statements.


Why do you make this distinction? For example, when she says that Jesus Christ is life everlasting to us, why would this be only a "pastoral"/practical application as opposed to a Theological redefining of reality?

To my way of thinking, Jesus Christ's being everlasting life to us is *THE* Theological redefining of reality. That is to say, if this isn't a Theological redefining of reality, nothing is.


That is indeed a key and pivotal issue in this discussion. The main reason why I do not see this as Theological redefinition it the fact that EGW has made many literal comments about the Tree of Life contribution to physical Life itself extending into the Earth made new. If she was making a Theological redefinition, which I contextually can only understand to mean that all that we will need to do to live eternally in Heaven and the New Earth is to believe in Christ’s sacrifice, then she would have consistently made that point. Since she categorically does not, I therefore see these as being pastoral and practical in that she here, by a sort of Theological license, sought to make this future reality tangibly pertinent to the believer today. So she therefore makes typological applications of what will be, once again as in Eden, the tangibly reality in the age to come.

Again here, as with any Biblical/Theological analysis which seems to involve passages on two different sides. They have to be harmonized and the proper, exegetical way of doing this is to allow what is concretely literally said, as substantively applicable, to be the “canon” by which all other statements are to measure against and brought into theological harmony with. So in short EGW comments are consistent that our perpetual life depends on the Tree of Life once again made accessible by faith in the Sacrifice of Christ.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/05/11 07:38 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
1. Did Jesus ever command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle?

2. Did Jesus ever command godly people to execute capital punishment?

3. Did Jesus ever withdraw His protection and permit the forces of nature or evil men, and/or evil angels to kill men, women, and children?

M: My answer to the each of the three questions asked above is - Yes. I have no idea what your answers are. Would you mind answering them?

T: I'll address 3. Yes. For example, in regards to Jerusalem, He said, "How I long to gather you as a hen gathers its chicks, but you would not," indicating His desire to protect them, but they refused, and as a result of their refusal, Satan was permitted to treat them according to his will, and the destruction of Jerusalem happened. I'm flummoxed as to how you can say I didn't answer your question. How is this not an answer to your question? I answered "yes," and then explained why I answered yes.

Did Jesus close their 490 year probation early? Was there still a chance they might comply with the conditions and remain God's chosen people and nation? Or, was their death and destruction inevitable?

When Jesus finally withdrew His protection, what organic relation, if any, did their death and destruction at the hands of Roman soldiers in 70 AD have to do with their sins? That is, is death at the hands of enemy soldiers the natural, organic, inevitable result of rejecting Jesus? Or, is there something arbitrary about it?

Also, how is Jesus withdrawing His protection and permitting enemy soldiers to kill people different than President Truman permitting the military to drop atomic bombs on Japan?

Finally, I would appreciate it if you would take the time to answer the other two questions asked above.

PS - Love the word "flummoxed" (addle, baffle, bamboozle, beat, befog, befuddle, bemuse, bewilder, buffalo, confound, discombobulate, disorient, confuse, fox, fuddle, get, gravel, maze, muddle, muddy, mystify, perplex, pose, puzzle, vex).
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/05/11 08:55 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
Quote:
T: If a person refused to breath, he would gradually die as well (although the "gradual" death would be a lot quicker). We couldn't conclude from this that God created man to naturally die, right? I haven't heard the idea that God created man to naturally die before. This concept doesn't make sense to me, as death, to my way of thinking, is dependent upon sin.

M: We are not immortal. Our immortality is conditional upon us living in harmony with natural law. If we disobey, death is immediate or gradual. For example, if we refuse to breathe, we will naturally die. That's how God designed us. I suppose it could be argued that refusing to breathe is a sin; however, the cause of death is asphyxiation.

T: This doesn't appear to be addressing the point I made. If you think it is, please explain to me how what you wrote addresses the point I made.

M:You asked, "We couldn't conclude from this that God created man to naturally die, right?" Death is natural, right?


No, it's not natural. Life is natural. Death is the result of sin, an aberration.

Quote:
It obeys natural law. God did not design us to live without breathing. If dying under this circumstance isn't natural, what is it?


Death is connected to sin. No sin = no death. That's what's natural.

Quote:
M: Does Satan have the power to create and to sustain his creations?

T: What do you think? Why are you asking this?

M:No.
Don't know what you believe.


Why would you think I think Satan has to the power to create? You don't think I know that God alone is the Creator? Why would you have any doubt about this? I really don't understand why you would question me. It would be like me asking you if you believe God exists, and you ask me why I'm asking you that, and I say it's because I don't know what you believe.

Quote:
T: To a great extent, obviously he has been given power to do so, as the quote I referenced makes clear. Think of all the noxious plants there are. Satan did all that. The same principle applies to the animal kingdom. All of nature acts differently than originally designed (in terms of animals killing each other for food, death, etc.) This is all of Satan's doing.

M:Since we agree nature is not self-acting, and since we agree Satan cannot create or sustain the things of creation, can we also agree God acts to enable noxious plants and animals to live and behave they way they do?


I would feel more comfortable stating this in the way the referenced quote does. I think it needs to made as clear as possible who (Satan) is responsible for the plans having the noxious quality.

Quote:
M: Does God ever employ the forces of nature to cause death and destruction?

T: God permits things to happen.

M:Since we agree nature is not self-acting, can we agree God acts to enable the forces of nature to behave the way it does when it causes death and destruction?


Same point. I think it's important that responsibility be made clear. "Enable" can give a false impression of responsibility. God is not responsible for sin or its results. The SOP makes this clear in saying that Satan is the author of sin and all its results.

Good. We agree Satan cannot create or sustain creation. Jesus allows Satan to tamper with the laws of nature resulting in noxious plants and animals. But Satan isn't free to do as he pleases. He is limited by the constraints imposed upon him by Jesus. Satan is prohibited to exceed the limits established and enforced by Jesus.

Nevertheless, the noxious plants and animals Jesus permits Satan to develop are not self-acting. Nor is Satan able to give them life or the ability to function as they do. They are totally and completely dependent upon Jesus for their existence and for their ability to act and behave the way they do. True, Satan may influence them to harm people, but their ability to act and harm people is derived solely from Jesus.

So, whenever Satan desires to cause death and destruction, he must first obtain permission from Jesus. Jesus considers the request and then establishes the perimeters within which Satan is allowed to work. Jesus also enforces His limitations by commanding holy angels to ensure evil angels do not exceed His restrictions. Satan is then dependent upon Jesus to work to uphold the laws that give life and vitality to whatever resources he intends to use to wreak havoc on humanity.

With these things in mind it is proper to ask - Who or what acts when sinners are punished and killed? For example, when fire "went out from the LORD" and killed Nadab and Abihu, who or what acted to kill them? We both agree the fire did not act on its own. Please understand I'm not asking you to explain why they deserved to die. Obviously they are responsible for the fact they died. The question is - Who or what employed the fire that killed them?

PS - Do you believe in the New Earth we will be dependent upon the regular intake of food, water, air, and the fruit of the tree of life in order to live forever? If so, what do you think would theoretically happen if we were unable to partake of them for an extended period of time?
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/06/11 08:18 AM

Here are more of my comments in a private conversation on this topic which may be helpful to this discussion. The main issue in that conversation is: Did the tree of life have a tangible, active “sin” ingredient in it which “poisoned” the perfection of man or did sin and the adverse physical effect come from just this first hand “knowledge” of evil.

I certainly understand your “reverse engineering” of how sinful propensities and diseases stem from abnormalities that have come to be part of fallen man’s DNA, here is my question to you based on this SOP quote:

Originally Posted By: SOP
The tree of knowledge became a curse to them, not because of its poisonous qualities, but because of their act of disobedience. It was attractive to them; and in their great desire for it, they partook of it, and lost their purity and their allegiance to God. But Christ presents himself as the Life-giver, the tree of life for the world. By feeding upon his flesh, and drinking his blood, our spiritual life is perfected. {GCDB, March 6, 1899 par. 6}


Obviously EGW is not meaning “poison” as merely something that could cause sudden death, but in spiritual reference to the origin of diseases and also the root of sin. As science shows that one’s mental state can affect the cells of the body even causing diseases, I am inclined to think God knew that if man began to entertain sinful thoughts, this would affect their DNA and cause various mutations in it. This inceptive, root, thought process in itself, is entirely within the possibility of man and his/her free will. So the harmful effects of sin could have simply started with this altering of the mind/thoughts from priorly solely good to now also include evil. The perfect that existed before that was complete void of such evil thoughts and that is how God knew that His creation could remain perfect.

As seen in my exegesis on Gen 2:17b, I see that Man was non the less subject to death unless he ate of the Fruit of Life and took in its “therapeutic” qualities. Man’s DNA could also begin to degenerate and adversely mutate from the absence of the Fruit of Life.

Robe of Light - From what I understand, the robe of light was a supernatural thing and was manifestly only possible as man remained sinless. I also do not see it as being an automatic thing in the sense that as soon as they sinned it disappeared because Eve sinned before Adam and she did not mention being nor feel ‘naked and ashamed’. Adam also did not mention or see that. So she no doubt returned to him still having the robe of light. As EGW says, Adam saw nothing unusual or different from Eve, in fact she seems to be more delighted. It was only when they both sinned that their robe disappeared. Manifestly, when God saw that they both sinned He removed the robe of light. I think this was allowed by Him with Eve so as not to provide a tangible influence for Adam not to sin if he wanted to. He was to make his choice entirely based upon a faith in, and trusting obedience to, God.

Animal and Plant Suffering - For the same reasons mentioned above for man, animals now also deprived of the Tree of Life, which may have been “aromatically” accessible to them (vs. Man which God apparently deliberately made them to eat of the fruit, for reasons I have already stated), could have also begun this gradual DNA degeneration and mutation process. Your argument does not answer how nature and Animals could have been physically infected by the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and evil since they did not eat or partake of it in any way. This degenerative mutation in DNA may have come to cause animals to have ill feelings towards each other. Also with Adam having now to kill animals, this may have instilled this notion of killing in them, though that is not necessarily the main root of this change of behavior in animals.

Gen 3:17 shows that thrones, thistles and weeds came because the ground was cursed by God. So he may have removed a “Tree of Life” type of nutrient in it. Furthermore, if, as I see it, the Tree of life was dispersed through the air in nature then for non humans, and since the ground is essentially also composed of air/oxygen in order to be fruitful, the absence to this ingredient in the air could produce the formation of weed/thistle/thorn seeds and also provide bad nourishment to the roots of other vegetation like trees, causing their leaves to die and fall periodically.

So in summary here, your view is mainly dealing with the outgrowth of physical sinful effects, which includes some thoughts and psychological problems It is easily and logically understandable that this is from bad DNA. However what I am seeing as the root cause is a degeneration and mutation that started with the free-will choice of Man when they came to know of themselves what evil was and the resulting evil thoughts. Satan probably add complete access to their minds from the time of their fall and surely injected many evil thoughts in their heads which He had already developed. These are such thoughts and emotions as distrust, anger, fear, etc, all of which cause tangible adverse consequences to the physical body including at the cellular/DNA level.

Plan of Redemption - I think it is easy and simple to see that at the resurrection and translation we will again have perfect bodies, just like Man had prior to the Fall and then by access to the Tree of Life this perfect body and DNA will be “upkept” by the therapeutic Tree of Life.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/06/11 11:46 AM


After a closer examination, I am going to have to make a retraction here, though it really does not make much of a difference overall given the observable evidence that still supports the point made on that issue.

No (major) English translation, except, arguably, for the KJV (with its secondary “thereof” for “from it”) has accurately (i.e., fully) rendered Gen 2:17 as it is (fully) saying:

Originally Posted By: Gen 2:17 NASB
“but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat from it, for in the day that you eat from it, you will surely die. (Gen 2:17 NASB)”


That first “from it” is the same expression just before the infinitive absolute “dying”. The 3 person suffix could be he|she|it and in this case “it”, actually being in the masc. form, is referring back to the Tree (of Evil) which is also in the masculine.

I also now agree that “(you) surely die” is an acceptable way of rendering the literal Hebrew which is “dying (you) will (naturally) die” in English. However the fact that the expression “will die” is in the uncaused verbal Qal form as opposed to a Causative (Hiphil/Hophal = “cause to die” e.g., Gen 26:11) shows that this would be an inherently due death, thus a “natural death”. I.e, by not eating the of the Tree of Life, death would follow its course to this end.

There is really no major change, if any to the observation that Man was always subject to death, which is why they had to eat of the Tree of Life.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/06/11 12:32 PM

Added PM Comment:

Adam and Eve Communicating with God - As far as I see it, no one can communicate with God the Father who dwells in “unapproachable light” and actually “no man has seen” (1 Tim 6:16). The person Adam and Eve were communicating with prior to their fall was Michael =Jesus Christ. He also appears elsewhere in the OT, post the Fall as “the Angel of the Lord”. It was also this same presence that came looking for Adam and Eve after they had sinned and they interacted with Him without dying (Gen 3:8ff). So man could talk with God directly before and after the fall. Even Moses talked with God directly long after the fall, yet without see His Face/Front Side (Exod 33:17-23. The same ma have been the case with Adam in terms of simply talking with God the Father. They could however see Michael in Personal manifestation. So the perfection of one’s DNA (i.e., pre-fall Man) has nothing to do with this paramount reality about the unapproachable glory/front side of God.
Posted By: APL

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/06/11 08:29 PM

Greetings all...
Originally Posted By: NJK said
Nonetheless a God-cursed ground, as it occurred in Eden, could, through the roots of vegetation, cause them to have die after sin, especially if they were then intaking bad elements from their roots and now did not have the tree of life’s antidote, breathe in through their foliage, to counter this.
NJK - compare your though with EGW:
Originally Posted By: EGW
Christ never planted the seeds of death in the system. Satan planted these seeds when he tempted Adam to eat of the tree of knowledge, which meant disobedience to God. Not one noxious plant was placed in the Lord's great garden, but after Adam and Eve sinned, poisonous herbs sprang up. In the parable of the sower the question was asked the master, "Didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? From whence then hath it tares?" The master answered, "An enemy hath done this." [Matthew 13:27, 28.] All tares are sown by the evil one. Every noxious herb is of his sowing, and by his ingenious methods of amalgamation he has corrupted the earth with tares. {16MR 247.2}
What is being described here? Genetic engineering? Sure sounds like it to me. Eating from the Tree of Knowledge was the key to releasing these "seeds" on to creation. I think this statement says that God is not responsible in any way for the distress we see in creation.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/07/11 03:41 AM

Welcome APL.
I agree in essence with this SOP statement. The use of a Qal verbal form for “curse” shows that this would be a natural act. I.e., natural because of sin. The causation of Satan however may merely been from the fact that he was able to make Adam and Eve fall and thus remove the Tree of Life beneficence from all of Nature resulting in this, actually natural genetic self-mutation. So I do not understand this to pointedly mean an ‘active/direct sowing of bad seeds’ by the devil but an indirect one through the more direct act of having tempted Adam and Eve into sinning. Still “an enemy has done this’.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/07/11 05:30 AM

More of my pertinent PM comments on this topic

-I am not versed in genetic science as you manifestly are but here you say that the mental state affects gene expression, then why is that not enough to come to cause DNA damage? This is just like a key is really not why you car start. I.e., you can hot wire the car and make it start or find soem other way along the line (e.g., with a manual car, roll it down a hill), however the key does also make the car start and that most easily. That is how I see that mental states can cause damage, even if indirectly to one’s DNA.

-EGW states that we can break free from this ‘captivity’ when the ‘whole heart is yielded to God.’ I’ll say more on this distinct issue later.

-I see that this “act” opened the door for the devil to influence them to do evil and thus caused these evil thoughts to begin to flow in their minds.

-As I said earlier in the forum discussion thread (see here):

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Tom
It does this by virtue of what it does to the one who sins, wrecking his mind, causing him to believe lies, lies which destroy him.


Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Apply this (also assumed theology) to the fall of Eve. When was her mind so ‘“wrecked” causing her to believe the lie of Satan, resulting eventually in her physical death years later’? According to your line of reasoning, this would have to be before she ate of the fruit. So according to this view, she sinned, not when she ate the forbidden fruit, but before that when she believed Satan and picked it and then ate it. However, if Eve had thrown the fruit away prior to eating, even biting into, it, choosing to now stop believe the Serpent and once again trusting God, she would not have sinned. She would have allowed herself to be greatly tempted, but would not have sinned. (Also had she remained/returned by Adam’s side, she would then not even have been tempted.) As the Bible states clearly in regards to Jesus, being tempted in not synonymous with committing sin (E.g,. Christ’s wilderness temptation, ordained/allowed by God (Matt 4:1); Heb 4:15). So Eve was deceived and believed Satan’s lie with a perfect and “un-wrecked” mind.


God never said that they could not “touch” the banned fruit. That was Eve’s statement in Gen 3:3 (vs. Gen 2:17). So that is also why I see that God made the test here to fully eat of the fruit in order to have this chose sealed. The fact that the effect of sin was not immediate also gave both Adam and Eve an uninfluenced chance to stopped this fruit eating at any time before the wholly ate it, thus this sudden change of mind would have been wholly done in faith and would have righteously been credited to them. By taking a first bite and not seeing any change they however placed themselves under the possibility of believing that Satan lie was truth and thus in continuing to eat the whole fruit, they sealed their choice that they distrusted God and believed Satan.

-Here is the continuation of my earlier point. And this is where Tom’s Theologically view fits in. I believe that Jesus takes care of the psyche/psychological aspects of sin. This “psyche” is what is understood as the soul. Christ bore our acted out sins and that mainly, psychologically. See my blog post on this topic.
The Tree of Life takes care of or physical perpetual life (i.e., body and health) however Christ’s sacrifice takes care of the mental/psychological (= “soul”) detrimental effects of sin. So He purges our mind of these adverse effects and traces of sin restores to us a perfect psyche. Still our eternal life is physically possible only by eating of the fruit of life and if we were to refuse to eat it, we actually would be sinning, violating God’s health law.

-As a pointed symbol of God’s Righteousness, I see the Robe of Light as being distinct of Man’s physical body. So I see that God fully controlled when I could be removed and thus see that He did not immediately remove it after Eve sinned, but only when both Adam and Eve sinned, for the reasons stated above. And for sin to be established in the Earth, both Adam and Eve had to sin. So sin really did not take its effect when Eve alone ate the fruit. Furthermore, this Robe of Light is the only thing that man had wholly/tangibly lost as a result of sin. Our bodies remain the same sin Creation, though they have gradually become less performance. So that fact also suggests to me that this Robe was distinct from Man’s physical form/body/faculties.

I also see that its function was to properly cover Man and Woman with their perfect bodies which could in itself, independently be a source of temptation and a occasion for sin. So God took it upon himself to remove that natural temptation. No doubt this Robe was not even “form-fitting/revealing.” Hence also the dress and adornment reform mandate of the Remnant Church.

-I addressed this point in my first comment above. If thoughts are a root or indirect cause of DNA damage, then it is still a cause, and a indispensable one at that. As a example, if I spend my life being angry and having feeling of hatred against my spouse who I live with every day, those bad emotions and thoughts will cause my body to over-secrete or even just secrete e.g., bile which can lead to the development of cancer. Thus my thoughts came to affect me on the cellular level. The healthful converse is true for having a “merry heart” and being joyful.

-We will indeed see God like the Angel’s see him. And that may simply be looking at the light which surrounds Him. From what I understand only Mighty Angels, which include Michael/Jesus and Gabriel. (And evidently five others (see here [search for “Raphael”]) for a total of 7) are able to enter into that light; at least more than the other regular angels.

-Fully agreed and the end result would inevitably be death, through harm and diseases that the Fruit of Life may not have been empowered to fully heal as they were sin related. God no doubt new this which is why he cut things short here, preventing such suffering. However a “righteous” sinful/unbelieving person, as many in the world today consider themselves could live a very long time if they avoided these blatantly evil acts though they would no doubt be affected in some ways by the misery in the world. Satan was probably banking on this latter possibility: I.e., created beings could live without having to be subject to God’s authority and this requirement was really just self-serving and arbitrary. God on the other hand knew that even if it took 1 million years, death could be the end result. E.g. a violent sinful person could assault a “self-righteous” sinful person and inflict a mortal blow and to defend against this, this “self-righteous” sinful person would have to build weapons to defend himself and thus would probably have to kill many people along their long life. So one way or the other such fear, death, killing and murder would mar the world.

-I rather see that the Theological reason why Adam and Eve had a shorter grace period than Lucifer was that Lucifer was acting in a first instance situation. Adam and Eve were clearly warned by God. They thus had much less excuse for falling/persisting in their wrong course. Satan was testing waters that had never been tested. Adam and Eve sinned out of a complete non necessity. They did not need to eat of the fruit, having a garden full of other permitted trees. Satan sin was more ideologically centered. So that shows me the fairness of God’s grace, indeed as seen throughout the Bible and as it will be in the final judgement (cf. Exod 33:19). So God really and justly “understood” Lucifer more in his fall than Adam and Eve who had less of an excuse/reason to sin.

-Though, through freedom, a possibility, I see that this fully-allowed-to-develop GC, will be the reason why no one will mistrust God again. However, consider this: I also believe that it could for some reason happen, however sin God and all of the Universe will have tangible proof at hand as to what this will lead to, indeed with all of the issues having been answered during the GC, then no one will object to the instant, summary destruction of such a rebelling person. So that is pointedly how I see and understand the often quoted Nah 1:9 here as it fully says: “Whatever you devise against the LORD, He will make a complete end of it. Distress [and not merely sin will not rise up twice.” (Nah 1:9 NASB). So “sin” may freely take root in someone, but its “distressing effect will not again be allowed to flourish and that through the full approval of everyone else. That is really the inevitable risk in truly and eternally granted freedom.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/07/11 05:33 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
So “sin” may freely take root in someone, but its “distressing effect will not again be allowed to flourish and that through the full approval of everyone else. That is really the inevitable risk in truly and eternally granted freedom.

Were sin to reoccur in the New Earth, death would also reoccur. However, Jesus promises, "There shall be no more death."
Posted By: APL

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/07/11 08:35 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
-I am not versed in genetic science as you manifestly are but here you say that the mental state affects gene expression, then why is that not enough to come to cause DNA damage? This is just like a key is really not why you car start. I.e., you can hot wire the car and make it start or find soem other way along the line (e.g., with a manual car, roll it down a hill), however the key does also make the car start and that most easily. That is how I see that mental states can cause damage, even if indirectly to one’s DNA.
Mental state and lifestyle choices greatly affect what is known as epigenetics which alters gene expression. The underlying DNA does not change, but the switches that turn it on or off do change. In your car example, this may represent you loosing the key. There are other ways to make the car go, but without the key it is more difficult. However, this is not all that we see in the genome. It is one thing to loose the key, it is another is someone came in and took out the entire steering column along with the ignition switch. You may still be able to start the car, but it is much more difficult to control the car without a steering wheel.

That is what has happened in the genome. DNA elements called transposons, mobile DNA, jumping genes, transposable elements (TEs), selfish DNA, junk DNA, many names, have caused wide wholesale damage to the DNA. If a portion of DNA is completely removed, how do you get it back? You don't. TE are responsible for many, perhaps all of out diseases. I realize that is a bold statement, but the evidence is accumulating and pointing that way. TE damage accumulates over time. All life forms are infected by TEs. Romans 8:22 AKJV "For we know that the whole creation groans and travails in pain together until now."

Yes, our thought patterns affect gene expression. But this does not account for the huge damage observed in the genome. Epigenetics can control much of the damaged genome, but can not cure it. EGW talked about "holy flesh".
Originally Posted By: 2SM
"All may now obtain holy hearts, but it is not correct to claim in this life to have holy flesh." {2SM 32.1} "If those who speak so freely of perfection in the flesh, could see things in the true light, they would recoil with horror from their presumptuous ideas."{2SM 32.2}. "In this work we are to be laborers together with God. Much may be done to restore the moral image of God in man, to improve the physical, mental, and moral capabilities. Great changes can be made in the physical system by obeying the laws of God and bringing into the body nothing that defiles. And while we cannot claim perfection of the flesh, we may have Christian perfection of the soul."{2SM 32.3}
So the question - is sin just a wrong thought pattern, believing lies about God, or is it something else? I submit, that believing lies is insufficient in and of itself. If Eve had believed the lie at first, but had stopped short of eating the fruit, she would not have been a transgressor. The Tree of Life could have perpetuated sinful man if allowed to eat from it, but it would not have been able to undo all the damage done, thus our need of a savior. And our savior Jesus destroyed the works of the devil (1 John 3:8) which is more that just lies. EGW in GC page 49 depicts Satan as lying about God, telling lies. Yet, "He had not at this time fully cast off his allegiance to God." How do you lie and yet still not cast off allegiance? Particularly if Satan's works are his lies. At some point, Satan had gone too far. So far that even God could not repair it!

Again, our thoughts and actions are the cause of many diseases, this is not in question. But it is at the epigenetic level which is the control of the genome. The underlying genome has been horrifically damaged beyond what is possible with by epigenetic control.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/07/11 08:45 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
T:I'm very familiar with this passage. I asked because I was interested in your thoughts regarding it.
---
I'd like to know why you think the Father was reluctant.

NJK:While it could be argued that the relating “pleading” of Jesus with the Father in EW 149-153, apparently in three sessions, was ‘so that man could be spared this death sentence,’ the fact that an angel later related to EGW: “Think ye that the Father yielded up His dearly beloved Son without a struggle? No, no. It was even a struggle with the God of heaven, whether to let guilty man perish, or to give His beloved Son to die for him.” Given the fact that this plan of redemption was apparently Jesus’ voluntary idea and could have been suggested at the first enclosed, ‘pleading meeting’ with the Father. Apparently, God making known to Him the requirements involved in this (only) plan had caused Jesus to become “perplexed” and “troubled/doubtful”. So since the agreement with this Plan was a “struggle” for God [who, quite significantly, according to Classical Foreknowledge, should have known that it was going to perfectly work out], I therefore understand a hesitancy and reluctance of God in accepting to send Jesus to carry out this only possible redemptive plan.


What I'm trying to get at is *why* God the Father was reluctant, not *that* He was reluctant. That is, I think you're wanting to defend the point of view that God was reluctant, but I'm not questioning *that* God was reluctant. I'm asking your thoughts as to *why* God was reluctant.

I can see the ambiguity in the question. Sorry I wasn't clearer earlier, but hope that it's clear now.

Also, I've been extremely busy, so sorry I haven't been contributing more, but hope to read through all the comments and chime in some.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/07/11 10:06 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
T:I agree with this, but disagree that the best that things can be means that beings must be created to naturally die.

NJK:Again, and it should be logically and Theologically clear that this is the only other option for God’s created Beings not being immortal as He only is (1 Tim 6:16).


Another option is that creatures are not immortal of themselves, but live while God gives them life, which, without the existence of sin, is forever.

Quote:
T:Clearly wings are not necessary for angels to move around. They can go from heaven, which is, I don't know, billions of light years away(?) (maybe only millions) to earth instantaneously, so this can't be a function of wings.

NJK:That is not such a “clear” correlation wings on creatures cause them to fly. How fast is entirely dependent upon the strength involved. An eagle will fly faster than a dove because they have more strength in their wings. So the wings of angels can have enough strength to make the fly that fast.


Are you saying that angels need to have wings to fly from heaven to earth? And they can travel millions of light years because they have really powerful wings?

Quote:
On the other hand, I think, at least to me, that it is very easy to see when something is meant literally and not to be given a spiritual meaning that renders null the literal reality. And this is what EGW strongly cautions against. So, I guess, spiritual discernment is also needed to do this and this is largely dependent upon one’s Theological Views of God. As I said, I have decided to give God the benefit the doubt and so when e.g., he says to Abraham “for now I know...” Gen 22:12, among many such examples, that this is indeed what He literally meant and not, as e.g., Classical Foreknowledge people falsely rationalize, ‘God did not really mean that because He always knew that Abraham would faithfully follow through in obeying this request.’ To defaulty impose spiritual understanding on passages that are literal is to engage in esiogesis and can, and will, only lead to false, deficient, inaccurate and/or imcomplete understandings.


I think we're on the same page regarding Abraham and "for now I know," so that's nice to see. Given that's the case, we're probably on the same page in relation to the EW statement that it was a struggle for God to send His Son.

Regarding literal/spiritual, can a thing be literally true, but there's still a spiritual, and more important, aspect to the thing in question? For example, in addition to the tree of life, there's also a "river of life" which proceeds from the throne of God. Jesus Christ is the "water of life." Wouldn't the deeper truth here be that Jesus Christ is what we need for life, and that water, because it is so essential to our existence, is used as a reference? This doesn't mean that we don't need water, nor that there isn't a "river of life," but the real point is that we need Jesus Christ.

Christ is referred to in myriad ways, and one of them is the "Tree of Life." If we think the primary or main issue is that we need access to the tree of life to live (or we need water, or bread, or air), don't we miss the real point, which is that we need Christ?

Quote:
Whether you understand/accept this exegetical rendering, it should be logical that non-immortal man will, at some point die. So he is inevitably and inherently/“naturally” created to (= “destined to”) die, except for eating of the Tree of Life.


Immortality rests inherently only in God. Our living is dependent upon His life. God alone is the source of life, so if man is separated from Him, he dies. This doesn't mean that man was created to "naturally die," however. It simply means that man has a dependence upon God in order to live.
Posted By: APL

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/07/11 11:59 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
Immortality rests inherently only in God. Our living is dependent upon His life. God alone is the source of life, so if man is separated from Him, he dies. This doesn't mean that man was created to "naturally die," however. It simply means that man has a dependence upon God in order to live.
Originally Posted By: EGW in PP 60.3
In order to possess an endless existence, man must continue to partake of the tree of life. Deprived of this, his vitality would gradually diminish until life should become extinct. It was Satan's plan that Adam and Eve should by disobedience incur God's displeasure; and then, if they failed to obtain forgiveness, he hoped that they would eat of the tree of life, and thus perpetuate an existence of sin and misery.
Tom - perhaps it is me, but this EGW quote seems to not agree with your view. The EGW quote agrees with Genesis 3:22.
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/08/11 12:09 AM

APL, there are some 'thorns' which are really modified branches which, as I see it, could easily be accountable to selection - that is, those trees with branches which slough off creating sharp structures are more likely to survive than those which don't. But true thorns do seem to be designed. They do appear to me to be new structures. This leaves us with either God created a second creation of pain, satan is able to create some things, evolution does happen creating new structures, or God created structures which were suppressed and then became expressed. What do you think? I tend towards the belief that God didn't create life that would succumb to the first disaster which happened by, that He created life to survive. This may mean that He created the ability to produce defense mechanisms, the ability to survive cold and droughts, etc. which then were no longer suppressed.

There are some parasites which have complex relationships that can only seem to be designed that way. However, some observations of other relationships suggest a symbiotic relationship gone awry. However, thorns seem unusual to attribute to anything of a beneficial purpose. It can appear to some that God created these to smite people. However, I can no more seeing it was God's will that things harm people than it was to command people to kill others. But unlike in people wanting to kill others, you can't see trees wanting to harm others.

The only thing I came across once was a biology student said something about thorns were not part of the tree but a outgrowth from an organism living inside it. They used a term that sounded like arbuckle. But that was the days before I was interested in biology and now I have searched and found nothing related to such an idea. Any thoughts?
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/08/11 12:14 AM

Is the tree of life some magic herb, or does it have a deeper meaning?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/08/11 12:30 AM

Originally Posted By: APL
So the question - is sin just a wrong thought pattern, believing lies about God, or is it something else? I submit, that believing lies is insufficient in and of itself. If Eve had believed the lie at first, but had stopped short of eating the fruit, she would not have been a transgressor.


Jesus said, "As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he." "Thinking in one's heart," denotes deep thought, getting to the core of one's beliefs, not simply mental assent. The lie Eve believed involved God's character, not simply whether or not to eat a fruit. Satan deceived Eve by representing God to her as One who did not have her best interests at heart. Believing this lie led her into transgression.

Quote:
The Tree of Life could have perpetuated sinful man if allowed to eat from it, but it would not have been able to undo all the damage done, thus our need of a savior. And our savior Jesus destroyed the works of the devil (1 John 3:8) which is more that just lies. EGW in GC page 49 depicts Satan as lying about God, telling lies. Yet, "He had not at this time fully cast off his allegiance to God." How do you lie and yet still not cast off allegiance? Particularly if Satan's works are his lies. At some point, Satan had gone too far. So far that even God could not repair it!


I think this is a good point. If the problem of sin were merely a physical one, then it would be easily fixed, whether by eating of a special tree, or God's simply snapping His fingers. But sin involves our core, and this God cannot change without changing us apart from our own decisions, which would violate our free will.

Not sure how clear that is, but what I'm getting at is who we are at our core is determined by our decisions -- what we choose to believe, what we choose to do and think about. God cannot change who we are apart from this mechanism (we choose to fellowship with Him, to respond to His Spirit, to meditate upon His word, to overcome evil with good, etc.), without our being like automatons. And, as you rightly point out, that comes a point of no return, where even God cannot undo the damage. I suppose something like alcoholism might be an example of this, to where the will gets to damaged, a person can no longer recover.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/08/11 01:20 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
-Though, through freedom, a possibility, I see that this fully-allowed-to-develop GC, will be the reason why no one will mistrust God again. However, consider this: I also believe that it could for some reason happen, however sin God and all of the Universe will have tangible proof at hand as to what this will lead to, indeed with all of the issues having been answered during the GC, then no one will object to the instant, summary destruction of such a rebelling person.


I think the rebelling person might object.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/08/11 01:25 AM

Quote:
T:Immortality rests inherently only in God. Our living is dependent upon His life. God alone is the source of life, so if man is separated from Him, he dies. This doesn't mean that man was created to "naturally die," however. It simply means that man has a dependence upon God in order to live.

A(quoting EGW):In order to possess an endless existence, man must continue to partake of the tree of life. Deprived of this, his vitality would gradually diminish until life should become extinct. It was Satan's plan that Adam and Eve should by disobedience incur God's displeasure; and then, if they failed to obtain forgiveness, he hoped that they would eat of the tree of life, and thus perpetuate an existence of sin and misery.

A:Tom - perhaps it is me, but this EGW quote seems to not agree with your view. The EGW quote agrees with Genesis 3:22.


I made these points:

1.Immortality rests inherently only in God.
2.Our living is dependent upon His life.
3.God alone is the source of life, so if man is separated from Him, he dies.
4.This doesn't mean that man was created to "naturally die," however. It simply means that man has a dependence upon God in order to live.

I'm guessing you're not speaking about points 1-3, but point 4. My point of view, that because man dies if separated from God, it doesn't follow that man was created to "naturally die," contradicts the EGW quote?

I'm not seeing this. Please elaborate how. Or, more generally, what in what I said (first paragraph quoted) contradicts what Ellen White wrote (second paragraph quoted)?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/08/11 01:38 AM

Originally Posted By: MM
PS - Do you believe in the New Earth we will be dependent upon the regular intake of food, water, air, and the fruit of the tree of life in order to live forever? If so, what do you think would theoretically happen if we were unable to partake of them for an extended period of time?


This is an interesting question. I think our bodies will work much differently than they do now, and it's difficult to answer this. For example, without sin, will there be entropy? It seems to me that entropy is a by-product of sin. Everything we know about the human body depends upon entropy, however, so I don't know how we can go about addressing your question. That is, we'd have to imagine a situation completely different to what we are accustomed to.

I agree with NJK's point about such actions would of themselves be sin, by violating the health laws God had created. That is, God created us to eat, to breath, to drink water, etc. So it could be that persisting in a self-destructive action would be sin, which would bring about entropy, allowing sin to bring forth death.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/08/11 02:22 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
Glad to hear that because many make the assumed Classical/Popular View some sort of a test of heresy. The Biblical View instead unlocks many Doctrinal and Prophetic Truths in the Bible. I believe that God, like with the October 22, 1844 test, allowed man to have the Classical View belief to test how they would act under such a belief that the future was both known and set in stone. With particularly SDA who hold this view, the more detailed and precise end time prophecies of EGW should have literally compelled them to live obedient and wholly devoted, active lives to the Gospel cause, since they, especially in EGW time, we ‘sure that the Second Coming would occur in the lifetime of at least EGW’. But it did not and still has not. And the incorrect Theological understanding here has also led many to reject the SOP and live lukewarm lives today, rather preferring to adopt a wait and see (i.e., wait for a Sunday Law) attitude, before engaging in all-out efforts to Finish the Work. That is the result of bad Theology, and it should not be a problem in our Church who has many “scholars” and higher education religious departments and seminaries.


Agreed.

Quote:
You have overshot my “painted target” here. There are indeed millions of inhabited worlds. In the beginning the may all have begun with only one inhabited planet per Galaxy as it the case with ours. In fact all of these worlds may each be in their own galaxy.


Why do you think this is the only inhabited planet in our galaxy?

Quote:
T:How could a tree, for example, on the other side of the world partake of the fruit of the Tree of Life "aromatically"?

NJK:Easily since this could also be speaking of this aroma being airborne and thus widely dispersable. To use a crude example, the often talk about and greatly feared “biological” attacks are known to be capable of having a great radius of contamination. So in a similar way, the aroma sent into the air by the tree of live can thus reach to all living creation.


If breathing the aroma is sufficient, then why would man have to eat of it?

Quote:
Based on what I understand from your view, I do no think that our view here is identical. I understand here that, (contrary to the clear statements in the Bible and SOP, I might add) you do not think that there is anything tangibly special in the fruit of life and eating of ot,


I haven't said this.

Quote:
but that I was merely an “object-lesson” to teach/instill, and for Adam and Eve to demonstrate obedience and faith in God and His specific command here.


Nor this! I never used words like "merely" or "only". I've said that the point of the Tree of Life is to teach sentient, spiritual beings that they receive life from God.

Quote:
All this shed some like upon the function of the Tree/Fruit of Life and indeed without it, Man’s condition, being mortal and thus ‘destined/subject to (eventually) die’, would gradually degenerate into fatal sickness and health failures.


I don't understand how there can be death without sin.

Quote:
Notice that the end goal of this just devised and “ratified” plan of Salvation is not complete unless man is able to once again eat of the Tree of Life. You view curtails this Biblical Theology after the “favor with God” statement, or even after the “beautiful garden” one (=Heaven/New Earth). That is why your Theology of the Cross is incomplete without this. And this Theological reality is all because it is only through this mean that God can make mortal live forever. God is dealing with real factors so we should adjust, align, calibrate our understanding to that Biblical and “Universe-al” fact.


My view is not that the Tree of Life is not that God didn't create man to eat from the Tree of Life, nor that the Tree of Life does not have special properties, but that the cause of death is not being denied access to the Tree of Life, but rather sin. I've also made the point that life comes from God, not from a Tree (except indirectly). God designed things in a certain way so that we would see that life comes from Him. If there were no tree involved (or eating in general, or breathing), it wouldn't be so obvious that we are dependent upon God for life.

Regarding comments about Christ's healing the soul/mind, I agree with that, but would also point out that the body is connected to the soul/mind. So we obtain bodily benefits by having our mind/soul healed by Christ. Do you think the Tree of Life would fully supply these benefits, apart from Christ?

That is, if we accept that sin causes harm to the soul/mind, which also causes harm to the body, can this harm to the body be healed by the Tree of Life, independent of Christ?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/08/11 06:21 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
1. Did Jesus ever command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle?

2. Did Jesus ever command godly people to execute capital punishment?

3. Did Jesus ever withdraw His protection and permit the forces of nature or evil men, and/or evil angels to kill men, women, and children?

M: My answer to the each of the three questions asked above is - Yes. I have no idea what your answers are. Would you mind answering them?

T: I'll address 3. Yes. For example, in regards to Jerusalem, He said, "How I long to gather you as a hen gathers its chicks, but you would not," indicating His desire to protect them, but they refused, and as a result of their refusal, Satan was permitted to treat them according to his will, and the destruction of Jerusalem happened. I'm flummoxed as to how you can say I didn't answer your question. How is this not an answer to your question? I answered "yes," and then explained why I answered yes.

Did Jesus close their 490 year probation early? Was there still a chance they might comply with the conditions and remain God's chosen people and nation? Or, was their death and destruction inevitable?

When Jesus finally withdrew His protection, what organic relation, if any, did their death and destruction at the hands of Roman soldiers in 70 AD have to do with their sins? That is, is death at the hands of enemy soldiers the natural, organic, inevitable result of rejecting Jesus? Or, is there something arbitrary about it?

Also, how is Jesus withdrawing His protection and permitting enemy soldiers to kill people different than President Truman permitting the military to drop atomic bombs on Japan?

Finally, I would appreciate it if you would take the time to answer the other two questions asked above.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/08/11 06:42 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
M: Do you believe in the New Earth we will be dependent upon the regular intake of food, water, air, and the fruit of the tree of life in order to live forever? If so, what do you think would theoretically happen if we were unable to partake of them for an extended period of time?

T: God created us to eat, to breath, to drink water, etc. So it could be that persisting in a self-destructive action would be sin, which would bring about entropy, allowing sin to bring forth death.

My question doesn't envision willfully refusing to eat, drink, breathe, or eat the fruit of the tree of life. It imagines a theoretical situation in which someone is unable to partake of one or more them for reasons that are not evil or sinful. You seem to be saying partaking isn't necessary to sustain life.

Also, whenever Satan desires to cause death and destruction, he must first obtain permission from Jesus. Jesus considers the request and then establishes the perimeters within which Satan is allowed to work. Jesus also enforces His limitations by commanding holy angels to ensure evil angels do not exceed His restrictions. Satan is then dependent upon Jesus to work to uphold the laws that give life and vitality to whatever resources he intends to use to wreak havoc on humanity.

With these things in mind it is proper to ask - Who or what acts when sinners are punished and killed? For example, when fire "went out from the LORD" and killed Nadab and Abihu, who or what acted to kill them? We both agree the fire did not act on its own. Please understand I'm not asking you to explain why they deserved to die. Obviously they are responsible for the fact they died. The question is - Who or what employed the fire that killed them?
Posted By: APL

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/08/11 07:12 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
Jesus said, "As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he." "Thinking in one's heart," denotes deep thought, getting to the core of one's beliefs, not simply mental assent. The lie Eve believed involved God's character, not simply whether or not to eat a fruit. Satan deceived Eve by representing God to her as One who did not have her best interests at heart. Believing this lie led her into transgression.
One of the main features of God's creation is free will. So yes, as we think that is the direction we will go. Yes, believing the lie led her to transgress. But the transgression was the eating of the fruit, not the believing the lie. As I suggested, if perhaps Adam came around the corner just as Eve was ready to take a bite, and said STOP. And Eve did stop and did not take the bite, she would not have been a transgressor.

Originally Posted By: Tom
If the problem of sin were merely a physical one, then it would be easily fixed, whether by eating of a special tree, or God's simply snapping His fingers.
I think this is a naive suggestion when looking at the genome. The genome controls the laws of how a body functions. It exerts significant influence over all body processes including the brain. Autism for example may be in part a flaw in the oxytocin receptors in the brain. As more damage occurs to the DNA, there is a point where you can not fix it and retain the character of the individual. It would be impossible. You can not totally separate the physiological functions from the mental functions of the mind.

Before Adam and Eve ate the fruit, they could have entertained doubts about God's character. But with a perfect brain given the time and evidence, they would have sorted out the issues. The eating of the fruit, appears to me, to have causes a change change in their physiology which was not reversible by the Tree of Life, or by anything they could personally do. This is why they needed a savior. Jesus came and "borne our infirmities and carried our diseases" Isaiah 53:4, and "bore our sin in his body on the tree" 1 Peter 2:24. These are literal statements. And then Hebrews 1:3 says, that "he purged our sins by himself, then sat down on the right hand of the Father". Has he literally purges my sin, or your sin? No. But if there is a physical representation of sin, which he carried, then yes, you could have purged it from himself and by himself. EGW: "By taking upon Himself man's nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin."{16MR 116.3}. Key term, "participate in its sin".

The other issue Tom, is how does believing lies about God cause thorns to grow on roses, and our dogs to get cancer? There is no explanation.

Another question - what is separation from God? This is a favorite term of those that espouse the character of God (a character which I agree with), but that is not explained very well. From the same article above, "It was sin that separated man from his God, and it is sin that maintains this separation." {16MR 115.2}

And this is to NJK - The Tree of Life can perpetuate life. But sin causes a separation from God and how is that caused? One hypothesis along the genomic view is that the DNA so weakened by transgression/sin, would disintegrate in the presence of God. Who can stand in the everlasting burnings? Only the righteous. Isaiah 33:14-15.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/08/11 07:53 AM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Were sin to reoccur in the New Earth, death would also reoccur. However, Jesus promises, "There shall be no more death."


I have addressed that point more fully in the blog post on my GC view (see Eternity Section), however succinctly said here, since man will be free sin can, though highly unlikely, occur again. Rev 21:4 also is speaking of: “death [i]of itself[/u] not being again (Greek middle [=reflexive] voice), so that would not include passive or active death i.e., capital punishment or “possibly” deliberately suicide. As I theologically understand it, the future is not known so I see this statement of Jesus meaning that He, and because of this GC proof, will not permit death to be reinstitute again as it was in this fallen earth, causing death. So if someone was ever to try to doubt God’s Wisdom and challenge His Authority as did Lucifer at the beginning, they would immediately dealt with. I however do see a period of many sincere ‘questions to God’ by the Redeemed during the Millenium, however after all is demonstrated during that time all issues in this GC will truly be completely resolved.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/08/11 07:54 AM

Originally Posted By: APL
It is one thing to loose the key, it is another is someone came in and took out the entire steering column along with the ignition switch. You may still be able to start the car, but it is much more difficult to control the car without a steering wheel.


Not being knowledgeable in genetics I may have spoken of the wrong causative element, but my main point in this key illustration was that the root cause of physical imperfection/disease, what this genetically/scientifically is, has a pointed cause. I spoke of wrongful thinking adversely, even greatly and most tangibly affecting the physical body, and that may be one of two possible way in which sin came to affect fallen man. That may be the “psyche-derive” aspect of it. What you are pointing to “transposons”, to me, seems to be the “physical” aspect of sin which, as I see it, could all have resulted from Man no longer eating of the Fruit of Life. Thus his body/genes naturally began to degenerate and get corrupted from its perfect state, producing those harmful results. Since I see that Man, as with all of Creation, being mortal, was always susceptible to such consequence when he stop eating of the Fruit of Life, I do not see that this harmful elements had to be externally injected into his system through the fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. If that was the tangible case, the I think it would have been called, the Fruit of Disease/Death instead of merely “knowledge”. As I Biblically understand it, this “knowledge” came to be the case when God’s limitation on the influence of the Devil was thus removed and he could at will “share” his ideas of evil and lawlessness with them, further plunging them into sin.

Also sin and Disease are not the same thing, as disease is only the effect of sin and, as I see it, tangibly through the absence of the tree of life.

Originally Posted By: APL
EGW talked about "holy flesh" [2SM 32.3]


I personally see that you are eisogetically reading way to much into the writings of EGW. I have already encountered (through an email discussion) this attempt to force a scientific hypothesis into the statements of EGW with an SDA physicist (see his website here) who saw that God was incarnated again in the Nuclear Detonation on at the end of WWII!! My point is to exegtically study the writings of EGW and let her say what she actually understood and meant and not impose our various understandings on her.

So in short here, I understand sin to inceptively be a mind that has strayed apart from the Truth of God and this comes to have tangible effects upon the body as they are naturally or deliberately, physically acted out. In terms of the tangible sickness, disease and death that is the result of sin, I see that this all comes from mortal man no longer being able to maintain and restore himself to health through the Tree of Life. This will all first be remedied by Christ when, at the resurrection/translation, we will be given brand new bodies. We will then maintain this perfect “therapeutically” by the tree of life.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/08/11 07:57 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
What I'm trying to get at is *why* God the Father was reluctant, not *that* He was reluctant. That is, I think you're wanting to defend the point of view that God was reluctant, but I'm not questioning *that* God was reluctant. I'm asking your thoughts as to *why* God was reluctant.

I can see the ambiguity in the question. Sorry I wasn't clearer earlier, but hope that it's clear now.


Ah!! That precision indeed make a great difference here. Shortly said, Since God, as related by Jesus in EW 150ff, knew exactly how this sacrifice was going to be fully acceptable, in terms of both the type of suffering and shame that was needed to fully account for sin and also in the faith that would be needed to be demonstrated by man in order to benefit from it (i.e., faith in God having been incarnated as a humble, simple man, long after this fall), then I understand that He was reluctant both in regards to the great risk involved for Jesus, sin as a man he could have sinned and thus be eternally lost and also in the fact that this may not be worth it since man would likely, mostly fail this test of faith. Since I Biblically do not believe that the future is known, and thus this future outcome, then this was a genuinely felt emotion of God and it did indeed require a great struggle to accept to go through with it. As you say later, we may indeed agree here.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Also, I've been extremely busy, so sorry I haven't been contributing more, but hope to read through all the comments and chime in some.


Absolutely no problem from me. I am personally more concerned with well thought out answers than just quick replies. This more “pensive” approach usually results in less discussion being needed to arrive at the Biblical Truth so it benefits everyone in terms of time.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/08/11 07:58 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
Another option is that creatures are not immortal of themselves, but live while God gives them life, which, without the existence of sin, is forever.


I just cannot agree with you here Tom since Gen 3:22-24 as well as many SOP statements are straightforwardly and abundantly clear on this issue. This life, which in a ultimate sense does come from God who has engineered it, is however concretely perpetuated by the “supernatural power” in the Fruit of Life, and that is something that even sinful man could have benefited from if they continued to have access to the Tree. This understanding does not at all take anything away from God since, as I said, He is the one who engineered things this way. This would be like saying that the elevator button is greater than the inventor of this elevator since I can only move about on this elevator if I press that button. That would be senseless to anyone because without that inventor who also provided this easy way of controlling the elevator, there would be no invention. However I can have Mr. Elisha Otis himself standing right next to me in one of his elevators and just staring at him or even bowing down worshipping him won’t make that elevator move. Even if I, with him still standing there, and will insulting and mocking him I decide to try to make the elevator move by jumping or kicking its wall, it still would not move. Only when I pressed the button, as designed will it work. And even if I am still insulting him! This is all similar with what is the case with the Fruit of Life and sinless or sinful man. Eating it still perpetuates life.

You have advanced that the tree of Life in heaven in entire different from the one in Eden however I have not seen any Scripture or SOP statements to support this view. That would also imply that Man then will be “more perfect” than how God originally had created and I also do not see any Biblical support for this, indeed quite to the contrary. The whole goal of this GC is to restore us to how created man was before the all.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Are you saying that angels need to have wings to fly from heaven to earth? And they can travel millions of light years because they have really powerful wings?


Yes that it what the Bible and SOP teach/depict (see e.g. Isa 6:2) I assume here that you meant speed and not merely distance in regards to the ‘billions of light years’ As I said, only from Daniel 9:21 has it been (incorrectly) assumed that it took ca. 2 minutes for angels to fly. As far as I see it from my prior explanation, it could have take Gabriel 40 days to reach Daniel during this season of prayer and fasting which had greatly weakened Daniel.
That would considerably reduce the speed that Gabriel needed. It would still be quite high, but that does not mean that this thus cannot be achieved by wings. Angels are naturally much stronger than man and so this strength can be transferred into their wings for flying at such speed. As a contemporary example, glider has a huge wingspan but cannot even come close to matching the speed of a hypersonic plane. The difference is all in the strength of “engine” that is powering that flight. This all shows me of the great reality that exists with God. In fact in Ezek 1, when a mobile throne of God is shown coming down to earth, carrying a Man, the used their wings to fly and this was apparently all tangibly “powered” something in between them that could be understood as electricity, which Ezekiel understood only a burning coal of fire. (See Ezek 1;4, 6b, 8, 13, 14, 25ff; see also my related post on these Four Living Creatures).

Originally Posted By: Tom
Regarding literal/spiritual, can a thing be literally true, but there's still a spiritual, and more important, aspect to the thing in question? For example, in addition to the tree of life, there's also a "river of life" which proceeds from the throne of God.


I did forget to mention the water of life. And this may be another way in which God’s Tree of Life is spread throughout nature since every living thing requires water. In fact these life giving ingredients may all be in this water that flows from God’s throne and which cause the tree of life on its banks to provide these fruit. This may also have been the case in Eden. The “life” here would indeed come from God, as, as I showed earlier, it still did with the Tree of Life in Eden, nonetheless it is still a tangible “supernatural” ingredient that can only be ingested by Man through the Tree, its aromatic air or possibly that water of Life. Simply even bowing down all day and night before God’s throne at the mouth of that River won’t actually perpetuate that life. To me this inevitable reality shows how mortal man is unimprovably naturally mortal and his body needs to tangibly ingest this fruit of Life.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Jesus Christ is the "water of life." Wouldn't the deeper truth here be that Jesus Christ is what we need for life, and that water, because it is so essential to our existence, is used as a reference? This doesn't mean that we don't need water, nor that there isn't a "river of life," but the real point is that we need Jesus Christ.
...
Christ is referred to in myriad ways, and one of them is the "Tree of Life." If we think the primary or main issue is that we need access to the tree of life to live (or we need water, or bread, or air), don't we miss the real point, which is that we need Christ?


How I theological understand and reconcile these spiritual vs. literal points here is that Jesus did rightfully make that point because if we do not accept him, we will never be able to access this ingredient of life. So He is the Water of Life, which as I said may be the actual source of the Tree of Life’s capability to bear the Fruit of Life and also release it in its leaves, in that He is the one who “concocts” this life giving agent. Who knows, as see with the healing of the blind man with spit-made mud, seriously speaking, this life giving ingredient may be injected in the water of life simply by Jesus or God Himself periodically spitting into that stream of water, thus imparting some key genes of of healing from his immortality in the water.

Another pertinent question/issue that comes to my mind here is: “When Jesus died on the Cross, when, I believe God then died, did the God nature that was in him revive. I.e., did God pay an ultimate price here by allowing the God in Jesus to eternally die at that sacrifice, which is why he didn’t/couldn’t raise himself from the dead. Just as Jesus kept his incarnation body after the resurrection, this Sacrifice would have actually required the permanent death of God in Him to be complete. This would also add to the great reluctance of God to go through with this great Sacrifice. As such this source of Life for the Water of Life could only come from God the Father. Nonetheless it is only by going through Jesus Christ that we can have this Life. So that is how I Theologically, fully, understand Christ’s statements here.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Immortality rests inherently only in God. Our living is dependent upon His life. God alone is the source of life, so if man is separated from Him, he dies. This doesn't mean that man was created to "naturally die," however. It simply means that man has a dependence upon God in order to live.


Again, this notion of ‘mere separation causing death’ is not attested to in the Bible. It is really a (incorrectly) derived Theological supposition. The Bible and SOP is clear that sinful man could live perpetually.

I would like to know, what would it theologically/entail mean to you if you no longer had this view?
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/08/11 08:00 AM

Originally Posted By: kland
Is the tree of life some magic herb, or does it have a deeper meaning?


Originally Posted By: SOP MM 233.5
The fruit of the tree of life in the Garden of Eden possessed supernatural virtue. To eat of it was to live forever. Its fruit was the antidote of death. Its leaves were for the sustaining of life and immortality.


What is meant by EGW in “supernatural” is not something magical, but something that transcends what it naturally possible/achievable. E.g. Samson was not naturally so strong, but God empowered him to become “supernaturally” strong. Interestingly enough one hears of feats by, e.g., a mother who seized with fear that her child is being crushed by a car, somehow was able to lift the car and save their child, something they later cannot do again, and that may show how Samson could become so strong. God cause a similar and greater strengthening spirit to come over him, cause his muscles to be able to exert greater strength than normal. I do not believe that God does anything through “hocus pocus” but just on a much higher scientific level than we may even understand.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/08/11 08:01 AM

Sin does involve a spiritual aspect that distinctly needs to be dealt with, but its result in bodily degeneration and eventually death is itself purely physical and its pointed antidote is the fruit of life. Christ character, mind and spirit however is the antidote for the root cause of sin, working on our minds/psyche (= “soul”).
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/08/11 08:03 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
I think the rebelling person might object.


Like Lucifer of old, I am sure he’ll put of a fight, albeit a vexatious one since all the concrete “GC proof” will be in by then, unless that person can come up with some issue of controversy that is entirely new, however, by God wisely having allowed the GC to fully play itself out, even letting the sin mastermind Satan pretty much free to suggest whatever he want to man, which he surely will do in order to somehow win this GC, I do not see this as being the case.

So if it ever comes to such a case where someone has to be “cut off” because they (most freely) chose to sin (sin Satan would not even be around to tempt them), they will surely be immediately blotted out by God, probably after a judgement session, with the GC proof speaking volumes against them.

I think this Theological point is key because many people think that they’ll be some sort of androids in Heaven, more such a belief leads them to not work on their characters on earth. God will work to remove sin from our minds/psyche but what we have not cultivated will not be suddenly injected in our psyche/character then. We will either have to work on it or not have it at all. That does not mean that one will be hateful in heaven if they never learn to love their brother on earth, but they may just not fully love their brethren as someone else who had cultivated this in their character. They will probably have the chance to grow into character perfection none the less. I am just saying that this will no supernaturally given to them simply because that would really come to violate our freedom.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/08/11 08:04 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
This is an interesting question. I think our bodies will work much differently than they do now, and it's difficult to answer this. For example, without sin, will there be entropy? It seems to me that entropy is a by-product of sin. Everything we know about the human body depends upon entropy, however, so I don't know how we can go about addressing your question. That is, we'd have to imagine a situation completely different to what we are accustomed to.


This is where I ask you to substantiate this view that the future redeemed will be tangibly different than Pre-Fall Man. That was God’s original and perfect plan and there was no entropy then in Eden when God told Adam and Eve to eat of the Tree of Life.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/08/11 08:06 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
Agreed.


I’ll add here that God really did that because He really wanted to effectuate the second coming then since, in EGW’s time he saw that an even deeper darkness, through increased knowledge and the wearing away of the Gospel through Fallen and Corrupted “Babylon” would come upon the world, and it statistically is the case today, those who would be ale to pass through Final Events would only be ca. 0.25% of all those alive at the end. So it would be better for him to end things then, rather than have ca. 99.75% of all those born thereafter eventually suffering and die in Hell.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Why do you think this is the only inhabited planet in our galaxy?


Well I guess I can assuredly speak about Mars for now given the current exploration which did not reveal habitation. Perhaps a more power space telescope will allow “Earthlings” to inspect other planets remotely, however, just because of such ready, galactical accessibility, I do not think that God created each world within reach of each other, i.e., in the same galaxy.


Originally Posted By: Tom
If breathing the aroma is sufficient, then why would man have to eat of it?


As I said, that was how God designed it in Eden to pointedly counter what was needed to sin with the banned fruit. Man himself was maybe not “enabled” to simply breathe it in then, versus the rest of name. That however does not result in a drastic different between Pre-fall man and the Redeemed since the Fruit’s ingredient still needs to be tangibly ingested to perpetuate life. As I also said, breathing it in Heaven may simply be for practical reasons, which again, speaks to me of the reality of God.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I haven't said this.

...
Nor this! I never used words like "merely" or "only". I've said that the point of the Tree of Life is to teach sentient, spiritual beings that they receive life from God.


I have relocated your original statement, or at least what I was basing my comments on:

Quote:
The Tree of Life (and breathing) are means to teach us of our dependence upon God for life. I'm not denying that the Tree of Life has healthful benefits (as does breathing), but am pointing out that the real significant thing is that *God* is life, and is the source of life, and we have life by virtue of being united to Him, which the Tree of Life was meant to teach.


I here do not follow the association here. How does eating the fruit off tree teach that God is the source of life. It would seem to be that something more direct such as praying to him for life would be more directly “illustrative|instructive” here. I rather see that the only way for God to convey this Life to man was in the tree of life.

Furthermore, notwithstanding all that I have previously said about God injecting the ingredients of Life into the water of Life which produced the Fruits of Life in the Tree, why didn’t God simply make it that this ingredient of Life would no longer be injected in the water, thus rendering this fruit powerless. The only answer I have, is that this would have resulted in the complete destruction of the Garden of Eden itself and God apparently wanted to preserve that Garden in its state of perfection. Perhaps as reminder to the antedelluvians in hope to keep them holy or relative good. That may indeed have slowed down the moral degeneration and world corruption then.

I don't understand how there can be death without sin.

There is not death, per se, there is gradually degeneration or one that will naturally start if the Fruit of life is not eaten to prevent this. That is all because man, even if perfect, is “unimprovably” mortal. Only God cannot so self-degenerate. So, like taking vital medicine on time, there was no manifestation of the degeneration if the Fruit was timely eaten, however that inherently involves that everpresent reality. As I said, disobeying God’s health law here would constitute sin and instantaneously begin this death process. The only way that this all could be avoided was if man was immortal, but this is not the case. So this may be the difference in saying that ‘Man, without the fruit, was destined/subject to (eventually) die’ vs. Man actually daily dying until he timely ate it again. That first miss eating of it may have started that dying process.

Originally Posted By: Tom
My view is not that the Tree of Life is not that God didn't create man to eat from the Tree of Life, nor that the Tree of Life does not have special properties, but that the cause of death is not being denied access to the Tree of Life, but rather sin. I've also made the point that life comes from God, not from a Tree (except indirectly). God designed things in a certain way so that we would see that life comes from Him. If there were no tree involved (or eating in general, or breathing), it wouldn't be so obvious that we are dependent upon God for life.


As already expressed, I do see your ultimate source here, however it seems to me that the Tree of Life was more tangible than, even also, teaching a dependence upon God. As I said prayer could have better done this.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Regarding comments about Christ's healing the soul/mind, I agree with that, but would also point out that the body is connected to the soul/mind. So we obtain bodily benefits by having our mind/soul healed by Christ. Do you think the Tree of Life would fully supply these benefits, apart from Christ?

That is, if we accept that sin causes harm to the soul/mind, which also causes harm to the body, can this harm to the body be healed by the Tree of Life, independent of Christ?


Evidently Yes. The Tree of Life could heal many, if not most bodily harm, which is why God was afraid that sinful man could have access to it and life forever. Sin does indeed ultimately originate in the mind, however it took a physical act of God to prevent sinful man from being able to live forever. And, as I see it, it is only by that tangible barring act that perpetual life now comes through having faith in Christ since he then allows us this access again. (Rev 2:7). My whole point here is that if God thought that sinful man could live forever than I have to adjust my theology to include that most explicitly stated reality. Otherwise it would be a personal|private|preferred view that I would be upholding and not the Bible.

Truthfully accepting Christ serves to keep our minds from ever slipping into this state of sinfulness and thus continues to grant us access to this Life perpetuating Tree.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/08/11 08:12 AM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Did Jesus close their 490 year probation early? Was there still a chance they might comply with the conditions and remain God's chosen people and nation? Or, was their death and destruction inevitable?

When Jesus finally withdrew His protection, what organic relation, if any, did their death and destruction at the hands of Roman soldiers in 70 AD have to do with their sins? That is, is death at the hands of enemy soldiers the natural, organic, inevitable result of rejecting Jesus? Or, is there something arbitrary about it?

Also, how is Jesus withdrawing His protection and permitting enemy soldiers to kill people different than President Truman permitting the military to drop atomic bombs on Japan?


I finds these question here off-issue as they all deal with death after sin was fully instilled in the world, and that actively manufactured death. As such all of these deaths, including from an enemy in war, are all the result of the reign of sin in the world. Perhaps it just me, but is my understanding of things here.
Posted By: APL

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/08/11 09:34 AM

DNA is a communication medium. It is a language, that conveys information. DNA is not the information. The particular arrangement is the information. Thus, information is independent of the medium. Also, information always, always, comes from an intelligent source. That said, transposons (TE) are DNA. They convey information also. The question is, who sent this information? Did God send this information? If so, then He is responsible for all the damage TEs do to the genome. I point to the parable of the weeds. Matthew 13:27-28 AKJV "So the servants of the householder came and said to him, Sir, did not you sow good seed in your field? from where then has it tares? (v28) He said to them, An enemy has done this."

Yes, thoughts can change epigenetic gene control. But it is a far stretch to get to total destruction of DNA by TEs.I suggest you do a little study on these things to see how really destructive they are.

As to sin being totally in the mind, again, I don't think so. How much doubt can there be and it not be called sin? The good angels had doubt right up until the cross. Doubt means you are not 100% sure. That means they were at least entertaining belief in the lies. If sin is just wrong beliefs, then if you have the truth, does this reverse the effects of sin? Truth does set us free! But we still die. Why did eating of the fruit in the Garden start an irreversible processes which only the plan of redemption could undo?
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/08/11 12:18 PM

Here is a question for you APL: Could not the ‘supernatural elements’ in the Fruit of Life also serve to prevent the wrong information coding of TE’s? I.e. does science know that TE’s are not self-writable or self-corruptable? In the absence of an original/pure TE which Adam surely had it may not be possible to determine this definitely. In such a case, I cannot form a Theology on an assumption. On the other hand, I know from the Bible and SOP that the withdrawal of the Fruit of Life permitted death/mortality to take its course, so I can easily deduce that it is the withdrawal of that fruit the began this physical degeneration.

Also then, in regards to Matt 13:27, 28, since the serpent tempted Eve to sin, then is the entire derived results of sin not attributable to him. E.g., why is Osama Bin Laden being held responsible for the 9/11 attacks? All he did was green light them, but he did not physically execute these attacks. Similarly, if eating the fruit open the door to the devils ideas which result in the Tree of Life being barred which causes TE’s to misfire/mis-write themselves, then is this damage not fully attributable to the Devil even if he did not actively inject this misinformation into the DNA?

All sin originates in the mind. Simple doubt itself may indeed not be sin. Sin acted upon whether in the mind, or further through the body is sin? If the loyal angels had said, because I doubt God, I will not obey until this doubt is cleared up (which is what the evil angels did) then this would have been sin, the sin of faithlessness.

The plan of redemption made the way to the tree of life again permissible/accessible to man and in order to excise/purge our minds of all and any sinful traces/traits, Christ had to endure our mind/psyche sins. Our minds may serve as a primary and distinct obstacle to being saved through Christ sacrifice just as God had sought to prevent with sinful man in Eden.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/08/11 05:44 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Were sin to reoccur in the New Earth, death would also reoccur. However, Jesus promises, "There shall be no more death."


I have addressed that point more fully in the blog post on my GC view (see Eternity Section), however succinctly said here, since man will be free sin can, though highly unlikely, occur again. Rev 21:4 also is speaking of: “death [i]of itself[/u] not being again (Greek middle [=reflexive] voice), so that would not include passive or active death i.e., capital punishment or “possibly” deliberately suicide. As I theologically understand it, the future is not known so I see this statement of Jesus meaning that He, and because of this GC proof, will not permit death to be reinstitute again as it was in this fallen earth, causing death. So if someone was ever to try to doubt God’s Wisdom and challenge His Authority as did Lucifer at the beginning, they would immediately dealt with. I however do see a period of many sincere ‘questions to God’ by the Redeemed during the Millenium, however after all is demonstrated during that time all issues in this GC will truly be completely resolved.

I'm not sure I understand your point. It sounds like you're saying "There shall be no more death" does not exclude capital punishment should it become necessary.
Posted By: APL

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/08/11 07:49 PM

Understand that I believe the battle is being wages in our minds. Everything depends on the right exercise of the will. EGW says in SC chapter 5 that the greatest battle ever fought, is the battle against self.
Originally Posted By: Steps to Christ page 43
By nature we are alienated from God. The Holy Spirit describes our condition in such words as these: "Dead in trespasses and sins;" "the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint;" "no soundness in it." We are held fast in the snare of Satan, "taken captive by him at his will." Ephesians 2:1; Isaiah 1:5, 6; 2 Timothy 2:26. God desires to heal us, to set us free. But since this requires an entire transformation, a renewing of our whole nature, we must yield ourselves wholly to Him. {SC 43.2}
The warfare against self is the greatest battle that was ever fought. The yielding of self, surrendering all to the will of God, requires a struggle; but the soul must submit to God before it can be renewed in holiness. {SC 43.3}
By nature, we are alienated from God. When we are born, we are alienated. Where is the mind choice in this matter? We need renewal. We are already lost at birth. The choice is to yield to God or not. None of choose to be born in this condition.

One of the best arguments I've heard in favor of God and creation comes from engineering and information theory and people such as Werner Gitt and Stephen Meyer. I'm not going to go into the details on information theory, look up some of the work by the above gentlemen to find out more. The DNA contains information. Information is independent of the medium that conveys the information. So the DNA is not the information, but the order in which the DNA is assembled is the information. All information has to come from an intelligent source. Deuteronomy 32:4, God is the Rock, His work is perfect. Psalms 19:7, the law of the Lord is perfect. When you look at the genome, it is not perfect. It is not perfect because of the TEs show that it is not perfect. TEs cause all kinds of havoc. They cause DNA deletions, extra insertions, point mutations, altered gene expression by adding new gene promotors. The code written in TEs is different than original DNA. Yes, you can read the code and see the differences. There is information in TEs, which thus points to an intelligent source also, but that source is inferior to the source of the original DNA. The Great Controversy can be seen in every cell of the body. God did not create chaos, Matthew 13, an enemy has done this. You can not originate TEs just by bad thinking. There is no science to support this.
Quote:
Genesis 3:15 AKJV And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; it shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.
This quotation is often taken as just a Messianic promise. But there is more. What is "seed"? We often say offspring, descendants. This can be interpreted as genetic material. Does the Devil have children? No. But he can have genetic material that he has put into the system. TEs? All life forms on earth have TEs. There was a lot of press last year when Craig Venter produced an "artificial" genome. When his genome was resequenced, it was infected by TEs. Venter did not put them there. I think God put the enmity against sin in order to preserve our free will. But to continually go against God's laws, which include the laws of health, you will eventually loose free will, they unpardonable sin.

So while the battle again sin is waged in the mind, sin is not just a mental illness. The whole head is sick which includes the physiology, the whole body is sick. Isaiah 1:5,6. Jesus took our sickness upon Himself, Isaiah 53:4, and cured it. Hebrews 1:3.

These ideas are not originally mine. There are several people that are doing the research and have done a number of lectures in the last year at at least 3 different Adventist university groups. Yes, it is a new concept, but it fits. They need to now publish there data...
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/08/11 09:07 PM

I don't believe there is "junk" DNA. I do believe there is DNA which we don't understand. And I'm not so sure the concept of transposons is so bad. I recall learning there is benefit to them. I suggest that the mechanism in transposons have been degraded much as any other part of nature, but that originally it was for a good benefit. I see it as a way for organisms to adapt to various environments.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090520140408.htm
Quote:
It all happens very quickly. Genes called transposons in the single-celled pond-dwelling organism Oxytricha produce cell proteins known as transposases. During development, the transposons appear to first influence hundreds of thousands of DNA pieces to regroup. Then, when no longer needed, the organism cleverly erases the transposases from its genetic material, paring its genome to a slim 5 percent of its original load.

"The transposons actually perform a central role for the cell," said Laura Landweber, a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at Princeton and an author of the study. "They stitch together the genes in working form." The work appeared in the May 15 edition of Science.
Posted By: APL

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/08/11 09:52 PM

All I said is there are those that call it junk DNA. I think most DNA has function. It is true, transposable elements (TE) do have many functions. I can also give you many diseases that are directly related to TEs. If you have an evolutionary view, you must look at TEs as being beneficial.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/09/11 04:28 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
NJK:I don't understand how there can be death without sin.

There is not death, per se, there is gradually degeneration or one that will naturally start if the Fruit of life is not eaten to prevent this. That is all because man, even if perfect, is “unimprovably” mortal. Only God cannot so self-degenerate. So, like taking vital medicine on time, there was no manifestation of the degeneration if the Fruit was timely eaten, however that inherently involves that everpresent reality. As I said, disobeying God’s health law here would constitute sin and instantaneously begin this death process. The only way that this all could be avoided was if man was immortal, but this is not the case. So this may be the difference in saying that ‘Man, without the fruit, was destined/subject to (eventually) die’ vs. Man actually daily dying until he timely ate it again. That first miss eating of it may have started that dying process.


I'll comment on this part separately, and perhaps the rest later.

I've said a couple of times that I don't believe that entropy, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, would have happened without sin. This would preclude the idea that man would "run-down," because that's what entropy is. So I think this is a fundamental question to consider. Did God create the Universe such that entropy existed from the get go? Or is entropy the result of sin?

My thoughts on this aren't settled in stone, but from the little I've pondered this, it seems to me that entropy is the result of imperfection, which is the result of sin.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/09/11 05:08 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
T:Regarding comments about Christ's healing the soul/mind, I agree with that, but would also point out that the body is connected to the soul/mind. So we obtain bodily benefits by having our mind/soul healed by Christ. Do you think the Tree of Life would fully supply these benefits, apart from Christ?

That is, if we accept that sin causes harm to the soul/mind, which also causes harm to the body, can this harm to the body be healed by the Tree of Life, independent of Christ?

NJK:Evidently Yes. The Tree of Life could heal many, if not most bodily harm, which is why God was afraid that sinful man could have access to it and life forever.


Adam and Eve had already partaken of the Tree of Life, and didn't live forever, so partaking of it doesn't cause one to live forever. It would have prolonged man's life, however, and God, in mercy, didn't want to do that.

I don't think the type of separation you're suggesting is possible. That is, the body cannot be separated from the soul and mind so that its problems can be solved independently from solving the problem of the soul and mind. To heal the body, the soul and mind must be healed. Man is an indivisible unit.

Quote:
Sin does indeed ultimately originate in the mind, however it took a physical act of God to prevent sinful man from being able to live forever.


I don't believe this. The problem of death is not physical, but spiritual. The cure is also spiritual. This is why Jesus Christ is fundamental to the salvation of man. If it were a physical problem, Jesus Christ wouldn't be necessary; just the tree.

Quote:
And, as I see it, it is only by that tangible barring act that perpetual life now comes through having faith in Christ since he then allows us this access again. (Rev 2:7).


This makes faith in Christ a completely arbitrary thing. God could just as easily require memorizing all the prime numbers up to a 1000 to have access to the Tree of Life. This way of thinking makes no meaningful connection between the cure (faith in Christ) and the problem (death, arising from sin). I believe that Christ heals us from sin, which saves us from death.

Quote:
My whole point here is that if God thought that sinful man could live forever than I have to adjust my theology to include that most explicitly stated reality.


Or you could accept a different premise, which is that God thinks that sinful man needs to be converted by faith in Christ, and this is what enables him to live forever, also explicitly stated by God.

Quote:
Otherwise it would be a personal|private|preferred view that I would be upholding and not the Bible.


I think this is exactly what you're doing; upholding a personal|private|preferred view, as opposed to the Bible. However, having said this, I don't think this is a good way of looking at things.

That is, we all have different paradigms and perspectives. We perceive truth differently, and are in different points in our pilgrimage. I don't believe God has a black and white way of considering these things, but is helping us go down our path, His goal being that we would learn to have the paradigm and perspective that He has. So it's not, "I must believe this one thing in just this way, or I am rejecting the Bible," but a matter of accepting a new skin in which to hold new wine.

I perceive, from your viewpoint regarding the future, that you seem to be open to new wineskins.

Also, it's possible we may be talking past each other to some extent. I agree with much of what you say.

Truthfully accepting Christ serves to keep our minds from ever slipping into this state of sinfulness and thus continues to grant us access to this Life perpetuating Tree.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/09/11 08:05 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
Adam and Eve had already partaken of the Tree of Life, and didn't live forever, so partaking of it doesn't cause one to live forever. It would have prolonged man's life, however, and God, in mercy, didn't want to do that.


Though I would see the following as inconsequential knowing that the Fruit of Life had to be continually eaten and not just a “once for all” time, I do not see any statement that says that Adam and Eve ever ate of the Fruit of Life. If it was to be eaten every months, as it will be in Heaven, they would, from their perfect start, only need to first eat it at the end of their first month. However they easily could have sinned 2½ weeks into that first month. Having said that, as I already said, Man had to eat the fruit repeatedly, periodically and not just once, in order to live forever. To me that fact further shows how a sinful person can indeed, as God feared, live forever despite being sinful if they continued to have access to the tree of life.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I don't think the type of separation you're suggesting is possible. That is, the body cannot be separated from the soul and mind so that its problems can be solved independently from solving the problem of the soul and mind. To heal the body, the soul and mind must be healed. Man is an indivisible unit.


The line of separation between these two entities is very thin because as soon as man entertains a sinful thought in their minds, it immediately, various adversely affects the body. In Matt 10:28 Jesus made a clear distinction between this “psyche” (i.e., one’s developed character) and the physical body. It is for such reasons that I see that Christ’s sacrifice and the Tree of Life are inseperable to achieve full redemption, i.e., spiritually and phsyically for without the first one cannot be saved (and thus will not have access to the tree of life) and without also the second, as my earlier Otis Elevator and ‘Throne of God worshipping’ illustrations showed, perpetual life will not be achieved.

In regards to my other points that post, I really cannot express them any more clearly or Biblically. I actually baffles me that you responded to them not by challenging the Bible and SOP passages that they are based upon (namely Gen 3:22-24 and PP 60.3 among many others especially in regards to EGW statements on the Tree of Life), but by just resorting to how ‘you think the paradigm should be, i.e., sin ir organic and thus: “The problem of death is not physical, but spiritual.” Until you provide an exegetical demonstration as to why those passages upon which I am basing these views should not be understood as they plainly read, as many others in this thread have also said, then your view will factually continue to be a private view and not the Biblical one.

It is self-evident from the premise of your statements, that you are paramountly seeking to make Jesus the “one and only” and “all and all” in this case, however, based on those Biblical passages, that it not the physical case. This theology of redemption physically ends in the Tree of Life for God’s Creation. Just making “I (rather) think” claims does not prove or disprove anything. Even your “I don't believe God has a black and white way of considering these things, but is helping us go down our path, His goal being that we would learn to have the paradigm and perspective that He has” is anthropomorphically subjective. Since God is Truth, then His Word which was either His direct statements, or under the guidance of His Spirit also contains a single Truth. All you really need to do to properly defend your view is deal with it exegetically starting with Gen 3:22-24 and PP 60.3. Proper exegesis also takes into consideration all statements on a matter and not only those favorable to one’s view.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I perceive, from your viewpoint regarding the future, that you seem to be open to new wineskins.


I believe in this “Foreplanning View” of mine about ‘God and the Future’ because that is what the Bible teaches. And also, and this is not merely semantics, Christ’s parable speaks of being new wineskins which are thus capable of receiving Christ’s new wine. And that foundationally involves allowing the word of God to shape our views and not vice versa, thus discarding the old wineskins for these adequately receptive new ones.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Also, it's possible we may be talking past each other to some extent. I agree with much of what you say.


Same here. The only difference may be the issue of the role of the Tree of Life in providing perpetual life and also keeping nature perfect. I see all of this as an inevitable reality for anything that is not and cannot become “immortal” and that is everything else but God Himself.

As I relatedly posed before, I am inclined to think that “God in Jesus” eternally died on the Cross.” This would have made the penalty for sin (i.e., the (permanent) death of the Lawgiver Himself truly, and lastingly, paid for.). So Jesus would now have nothing more than the nature of a Man, nor even the Angelic form/nature that He had before as the Archangel. I would like to hear what you, or others, think on this.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/09/11 08:05 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
I've said a couple of times that I don't believe that entropy, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, would have happened without sin. This would preclude the idea that man would "run-down," because that's what entropy is. So I think this is a fundamental question to consider. Did God create the Universe such that entropy existed from the get go? Or is entropy the result of sin?

My thoughts on this aren't settled in stone, but from the little I've pondered this, it seems to me that entropy is the result of imperfection, which is the result of sin.


I understand your view here and would agree in part to it as I see this physical “entropy” starting from the withdrawal of the Tree of Life from man and also nature, which could necessarily extend throughout a galaxy. (Which is why I believe that creation was limited to one world per galaxy, with the other planets being at least, visitable, through developed technology, by the people of the lone galactic world.) So I see this entropy prevention tangibly present in the ‘supernatural ingredients/powers’ of the Fruit of Life.

Also God manifestly made the upkeeping of the world dependent of Man’s obedience as this all belonged to him. So the withdrawal of such a Fruit of Life ingredient from even planetary nature or even the direct protection of God upon the galaxy surrounding Man’s world (Earth) would have resulted in this self-degeneration.

However, as I understand it, in all of this, because man, and also nature, is mortal, entropy, even if dormant or “held in check” by the Fruit of Life was still present in him and nature.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/09/11 08:06 AM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
I'm not sure I understand your point. It sounds like you're saying "There shall be no more death" does not exclude capital punishment should it become necessary.

That is indeed what I said and meant, for the exegetical and Theological reasons cited there.

Is see EGW’s statements here as supporting and not even contradicting this view:

Originally Posted By: SOP GC 504.1
The whole universe will have become witnesses to the nature and results of sin. And its utter extermination, which in the beginning would have brought fear to angels and dishonor to God, will now vindicate His love and establish His honor before the universe of beings who delight to do His will, and in whose heart is His law. Never will evil again be manifest. Says the word of God: "Affliction shall not rise up the second time." Nahum 1:9. The law of God, which Satan has reproached as the yoke of bondage, will be honored as the law of liberty. A tested and proved creation will never again be turned from allegiance to Him whose character has been fully manifested before them as fathomless love and infinite wisdom. {GC 504.1}

I understand “evil” here as a fully developed manifestation from an inceptive sinful course.

So the remaining/ensuing question is, if you are opposing this view: What is your exegetical and Theological response/objection those points?
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/09/11 08:11 AM

While geneticists, even SDA ones, are manifestly still trying to figure out what the correct, even hypothesis, let alone, science, should be on this view, I am actually convinced that such genetic degeneration was prevented by the “supernatural powers” contained in the Fruit of Life. The attempts to justify this TE view with the Bible and SOP are, to me at least, eisogetical, and thus not ascribable to.

By the way, in regards to “enmity”, God can work to produce this without physically doing anything, which would actually violate our free will. He could be saying here that He will be actively involve in helping anyone who manifests any desire to do what is Godly and right. This is done through the sustaining help of His Spirit, which indeed, only those who want to be in tune with it, can benefit from it. In this way is such “enmity” gradually built up in man, and only maintained as they continue to allow themselves to be guided by this Spirit. So “seed” here may simply be figuratively speaking of ‘one’s nature’.
Posted By: APL

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/09/11 09:28 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
I've said a couple of times that I don't believe that entropy, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, would have happened without sin. This would preclude the idea that man would "run-down," because that's what entropy is. So I think this is a fundamental question to consider. Did God create the Universe such that entropy existed from the get go? Or is entropy the result of sin?
Originally Posted By: EGW PP 60.3
In order to possess an endless existence, man must continue to partake of the tree of life. Deprived of this, his vitality would gradually diminish until life should become extinct.
Seems strait forward and clear. Finishing the paragraph:
Originally Posted By: EGW PP 60.3
It was Satan's plan that Adam and Eve should by disobedience incur God's displeasure; and then, if they failed to obtain forgiveness, he hoped that they would eat of the tree of life, and thus perpetuate an existence of sin and misery. But after man's fall, holy angels were immediately commissioned to guard the tree of life. Around these angels flashed beams of light having the appearance of a glittering sword. None of the family of Adam were permitted to pass the barrier to partake of the life-giving fruit; hence there is not an immortal sinner. {PP 60.3}
Posted By: APL

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/09/11 09:31 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
I don't think the type of separation you're suggesting is possible. That is, the body cannot be separated from the soul and mind so that its problems can be solved independently from solving the problem of the soul and mind. To heal the body, the soul and mind must be healed. Man is an indivisible unit.
I would also say, to heal the mind, the body must be healed. The Adventist health message is a very significant part of the plan of salvation.
Posted By: APL

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/09/11 09:33 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
I don't believe this. The problem of death is not physical, but spiritual. The cure is also spiritual. This is why Jesus Christ is fundamental to the salvation of man. If it were a physical problem, Jesus Christ wouldn't be necessary; just the tree.
As you said, the body, mind and soul are one unit. Death is always physical ultimately. With the death of the body, the mind is gone.

As for the tree - it does indeed appear that it could perpetuate life. But Satan's plan was to perpetuate a life of sin. That life would have been a life of misery. The Tree of Life is just that, a tree that perpetuates life. It can not undo all the damage. That is the plan of salvation.
Posted By: APL

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/09/11 09:50 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
While geneticists, even SDA ones, are manifestly still trying to figure out what the correct, even hypothesis, let alone, science, should be on this view, I am actually convinced that such genetic degeneration was prevented by the “supernatural powers” contained in the Fruit of Life. The attempts to justify this TE view with the Bible and SOP are, to me at least, eisogetical, and thus not ascribable to.

By the way, in regards to “enmity”, God can work to produce this without physically doing anything, which would actually violate our free will. He could be saying here that He will be actively involve in helping anyone who manifests any desire to do what is Godly and right. This is done through the sustaining help of His Spirit, which indeed, only those who want to be in tune with it, can benefit from it. In this way is such “enmity” gradually built up in man, and only maintained as they continue to allow themselves to be guided by this Spirit. So “seed” here may simply be figuratively speaking of ‘one’s nature’.
It is one thing to have degeneration. It is another to have a manifest all out attack. And attack that can literally completely destroy portions of the DNA. This would cause a loss of Information which is not retrievable without some kind of supernatural re-infusion of information. And the restoration (healing; salvation) must be done is such a way as to maintain an individual's character.

Seed in Genesis 3:15 is in Hebrew Zera. Which can mean, children, posterity, offspring, semen, sowing. Or simply, genetic material.

EGW says that God communications via the electrical impulses in the brain. What is the underlying hardware has been tampered with and changed. God has put enmity with Satan in order to maintain a channel to man. If the underlying hardware is damaged, then there needs to be interference with Satan's work at the biochemical level. And indeed, we find "interfering RNA" molecules that lock up and shut down a lot of the added DNA.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/09/11 02:17 PM

Originally Posted By: APL
It is one thing to have degeneration. It is another to have a manifest all out attack. And attack that can literally completely destroy portions of the DNA. This would cause a loss of Information which is not retrievable without some kind of supernatural re-infusion of information. And the restoration (healing; salvation) must be done is such a way as to maintain an individual's character.


I still see that this “all out attack” could have all occurred at the moment when the “supernatural powers” of the tree of life were no longer present to prevent this from happening. That’s is a source/origin hypothesis that I find more implicit Biblical corroboration, even then saying that Satan himself inject this information in man through the Banned Fruit. Or was it God Himself since he had created that banned Fruit??

Originally Posted By: APL
Seed in Genesis 3:15 is in Hebrew Zera. Which can mean, children, posterity, offspring, semen, sowing. Or simply, genetic material.


I am not denying these literal meaning, I am just seeing that this enmity is being figuratively spoken of here and is a cultivated nature aided by God for those who desire it. To say that this is a literal seed, is also to say that some people are destined, even doomed, to be wicked people and other are destined, even forced to be good. That goes against established Theology on this issue. Furthermore all of these offspring came from Eve, so she is the one who would birth these two different seeds. And even if it is claimed that Abel was the good seed and Cain was the evil seed, this evil seed was clearly lost at the flood since only the descendants of the good seed in Noah and his sons, survived. From where/How then did another “evil seed” come to take root from the flood. To me this only comes to freely be the case through developed/cultivated nature which is either greatly influence by God’s Spirit or by the one of devils and evil angels. Also I read of “sons/daughters of men” vs. “sons/daughters of God” and not “sons/daughters of Satan” per se, i.e., except figuratively, as one lives/acts like the Devil (e.g., John 8:44). To me that pits this dichotomy between men who choose to live according to their own will vs. those who adhere to God’s will.

I recommend you do an SOP study on Gen 3:15 (see Scriptural Index) 1 SM 254-256 is a good place to start as EGW shows there that this seed is indeed in one’s nature and is a cultivated hatred for sin. She also speaks of it in a supernatural sense only with the incarnate Jesus, through the Divine side of His dual nature which had this ‘perfect hatred for sin’ since that was indeed the very nature of a perfect God.

Originally Posted By: APL
EGW says that God communications via the electrical impulses in the brain. What is the underlying hardware has been tampered with and changed. God has put enmity with Satan in order to maintain a channel to man. If the underlying hardware is damaged, then there needs to be interference with Satan's work at the biochemical level. And indeed, we find "interfering RNA" molecules that lock up and shut down a lot of the added DNA.


I think you are here again reading too much into EGW’s statement here. Again she understood the enmity to be from a “naturally” cultivated nature. To say that this is a “hardware adjustment” is really to make man part androids. Who then is really free? That in itself would be a virus. One the other hand, the more one strive to live godly, the more and the easier it is for them to hate sin in any form. However the perfect enmity was only realizable or even hardwired in the incarnate Christ, still, fairly, since He indeed was God, so He was fully entitled to also have that perfect nature.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/09/11 07:23 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
I'm not sure I understand your point. It sounds like you're saying "There shall be no more death" does not exclude capital punishment should it become necessary.

That is indeed what I said and meant, for the exegetical and Theological reasons cited there. Is see EGW’s statements here as supporting and not even contradicting this view:

Originally Posted By: SOP GC 504.1
The whole universe will have become witnesses to the nature and results of sin. And its utter extermination, which in the beginning would have brought fear to angels and dishonor to God, will now vindicate His love and establish His honor before the universe of beings who delight to do His will, and in whose heart is His law. Never will evil again be manifest. Says the word of God: "Affliction shall not rise up the second time." Nahum 1:9. The law of God, which Satan has reproached as the yoke of bondage, will be honored as the law of liberty. A tested and proved creation will never again be turned from allegiance to Him whose character has been fully manifested before them as fathomless love and infinite wisdom. {GC 504.1}

I understand “evil” here as a fully developed manifestation from an inceptive sinful course. So the remaining/ensuing question is, if you are opposing this view: What is your exegetical and Theological response/objection those points?

The reason I believe "There shall be no more death" means sin and death will never happen again is because of the context - "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." The promise says there shall be no death, no crying, no sorrow, no pain. If God killed someone because they sinned I don't see how it could happen without pain, crying, and sorrow on the part of the guilty party and on the part of those who witness it.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/09/11 07:36 PM

Tom, please don't overlook 131526 and 131527.
Posted By: APL

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/09/11 07:37 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
I am not denying these literal meaning, I am just seeing that this enmity is being figuratively spoken of here and is a cultivated nature aided by God for those who desire it. To say that this is a literal seed, is also to say that some people are destined, even doomed, to be wicked people and other are destined, even forced to be good. That goes against established Theology on this issue. Furthermore all of these offspring came from Eve, so she is the one who would birth these two different seeds
First, if sure does feel like you are denying the literal meaning. And if Gen 3:15 is not literal, then what else is not literal? Gen 3:22? Second, you have missed the whole point all together. The serpent's seed is that which he added to the system, the transposable elements. So we all have them! To say Able had good seed and Cain had bad seed misses the point. To say that the flood wiped out the bad seed misses the point. Clearly the bad seed also was preserved by the flood.
Originally Posted By: NJK
I recommend you do an SOP study on Gen 3:15 (see Scriptural Index) 1 SM 254-256 is a good place to start as EGW shows there that this seed is indeed in one’s nature and is a cultivated hatred for sin. She also speaks of it in a supernatural sense only with the incarnate Jesus, through the Divine side of His dual nature which had this ‘perfect hatred for sin’ since that was indeed the very nature of a perfect God.
I suggest you read MR No. 1201.
Originally Posted By: MR 1201
The enmity referred to in the prophecy in Eden was not to be confined merely to Satan and the Prince of life. It was to be universal. Satan and his angels were to feel the enmity of all mankind. {16MR 117.3}
The enmity put between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman was supernatural.
Yes, the seed in one's nature, the whole nature, including the physiology. And it was not confined to just between Christ and Satan. The Great Controversy is being waged in each one of us.

Originally Posted By: NJK
To say that this is a “hardware adjustment” is really to make man part androids.
Really? If I took out your frontal lobes, would you be the same? Do you required hardware in order to be you? If we need hardware, then does that make you an androids. NO! We are flesh and blood. This is what we are. Created by God. Our nature was corrupted by Satan, and it is not just caused by an altered thought process in an otherwise perfect brain that Adam and Eve had (and we do not!). The engineering what went into the system was corrupted.
Originally Posted By: MR 1201
Everything had been transformed by the working of the arts of Satan.{MR16 122.3}
Our whole nature has been changes.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/09/11 07:40 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
T: I've suggested over and over again that the way to tackle this question is to first form a foundation based on what God's character is, based on the life and revelation of Jesus Christ, and then come back to these questions, as opposed to starting with these questions

M: Okay, let's do it your way. Please take the lead. Present your case in a way that explains 1) why Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in battle, 2) why Jesus commanded godly people to execute capital punishment, and 3) why Jesus withdraws His protection and permits the forces of nature, evil men, and/or evil angels to kill men, women, and children.

The purpose of this exercise is to obtain a correct understanding of the three actions named above. That is, the "way to tackle this question is to first form a foundation based on what God's character is, based on the life and revelation of Jesus Christ, and then come back to these questions." I agree. Please take the lead. Thank you.

T: All right. Let's consider the revelation of God given by Christ through His life and teachings. What did He teach us regarding God? Let's start with the Sermon on the Mount. What did Christ teach regarding God? Christ taught that one should turn the other cheek, walk the second mile, give the shirt off one's back to the request of a coat, that one should love one's enemies. Is God like this?

Yes, God is like that. Which begs the three questions listed above. What else can you tell us about Jesus that can help us understand the three actions named above?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/09/11 09:13 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
NJK:Though I would see the following as inconsequential knowing that the Fruit of Life had to be continually eaten and not just a “once for all” time, I do not see any statement that says that Adam and Eve ever ate of the Fruit of Life. If it was to be eaten every months, as it will be in Heaven, they would, from their perfect start, only need to first eat it at the end of their first month. However they easily could have sinned 2½ weeks into that first month. Having said that, as I already said, Man had to eat the fruit repeatedly, periodically and not just once, in order to live forever. To me that fact further shows how a sinful person can indeed, as God feared, live forever despite being sinful if they continued to have access to the tree of life.


This way of putting things almost sounds like God is subservient to the tree.

It seems to me that God, out of mercy, did not want their life prolonged, similarly to how He permitted the eating of meat after the flood to shorten man's life.

Quote:
I actually baffles me that you responded to them not by challenging the Bible and SOP passages that they are based upon (namely Gen 3:22-24 and PP 60.3 among many others especially in regards to EGW statements on the Tree of Life), but by just resorting to how ‘you think the paradigm should be, i.e., sin ir organic and thus: “The problem of death is not physical, but spiritual.” Until you provide an exegetical demonstration as to why those passages upon which I am basing these views should not be understood as they plainly read, as many others in this thread have also said, then your view will factually continue to be a private view and not the Biblical one.


Scripture should be compared with Scripture to obtain a proper understanding of things. You can't just pick one text, and make it "boss," and not consider other things which have been written on a subject.

It seems to me incontrovertible that eternal life comes through faith in Christ. Do you disagree? If I understand your viewpoint correctly, it is:

1.Eternal life comes to us through a tree.
2.Jesus Christ is instrumental because He gives us access to the tree.
3.Eternal life does not come through Jesus Christ, except indirectly (because He gives us access to the tree).
4.The many times in Scripture that speak of our receiving life through Jesus Christ (or representing Jesus Christ as "the life", "the life and the resurrection," etc.) implicitly mean that He is such because He gives us access to the tree of life.

I see the tree of life as of minimal importance when compared to Jesus Christ. My understanding of Scripture is that Jesus Christ is all important, and that we receive life by receiving Him. For example, "He that has the Son, has life." This life that we receive, eternal life, is dependent upon Jesus Christ.

Quote:
Until you provide an exegetical demonstration as to why those passages upon which I am basing these views should not be understood as they plainly read, as many others in this thread have also said, then your view will factually continue to be a private view and not the Biblical one.


You have a unique view of how these passages should be "plainly read." Given that it's unique, to claim this is how the passage plainly read needs to be considered in that context. That is, it is how it plainly reads to you, but clearly not to everyone.

On the other hand, that Jesus Christ is preeminent in Scripture, and has a crucial role in our salvation, beyond granting us access to a tree, is not a view uniquely held by me.

Also, it's not simply a matter of how this one passage is understood, but there's the rest of Scripture to take into account. From my point of view, it's not simply that you're understanding one given passage in a certain way, but you're not giving due weight to other passages. Scripture must be understood as a whole.

For example, I brought out the passage from the SOP saying that when one looks to the cross, one comes to the conviction that the sure result of sin is death. I stated that no one would look to the cross and come to the conviction that if one doesn't partake of the tree of life, one will die. You disagreed with this stating that that this is what you though. I pointed out to you that you were unique with this, and challenged you to point out any other writer who has expressed this idea, to which you responded that truth is not determined by popular consensus, to which I responded that I was not looking for a popular consensus, but a consensus of one (other than yourself).

The point here is that you are taking a view point which is unique to yourself, and expressing dismay when I disagree with it. That doesn't seem to me to be a reasonable reaction.

If I have a point of view which is unusual, or unique, then I understand that the onus of proof will be on me, and much patience will be required, to try to persuade others to see things as I do, or even, an objective much easier to try to achieve (but still challenging), to get others to at least understand what my point of view is.

Quote:
Since God is Truth, then His Word which was either His direct statements, or under the guidance of His Spirit also contains a single Truth. All you really need to do to properly defend your view is deal with it exegetically starting with Gen 3:22-24 and PP 60.3. Proper exegesis also takes into consideration all statements on a matter and not only those favorable to one’s view.


This has been my point. I think you're overemphasizing one passage, a passage which you interpret uniquely. I don't think trying to deal with our disagreement by challenging your interpretation of this one passage has any chance of success. That's why I'm trying to discuss things from the perspective of the Great Controversy, or Plan of Salvation, as a whole.

I provided a brief summary as to how I see the Great Controversy, and asked for you to do the same. I've been extremely busy, and have tried to do the best I can keeping up with this thread (and appreciate all the time and effort you've put into it), but may have missed your response to this request. If you responded, please point me to where.

Quote:
I believe in this “Foreplanning View” of mine about ‘God and the Future’ because that is what the Bible teaches.


Statements like this may be taken as self-serving and rather off-putting. It may give the impression that you are dispersing truth from on high, as opposed to being a fellow seeker, who has seen some things, but not others, and has things to learn, like the rest of us. And I'm speaking as one who shares (it appears to me) your point of view on this question.

The reason you believe in the "Foreplanning View" is because this is what you *perceive* the Bible teaches. And this is the same reason everybody, who accepts the Bible as authoritative, believes what they believe.

Quote:
And also, and this is not merely semantics, Christ’s parable speaks of being new wineskins which are thus capable of receiving Christ’s new wine. And that foundationally involves allowing the word of God to shape our views and not vice versa, thus discarding the old wineskins for these adequately receptive new ones.


Yes, indeed! We need to be open to viewpoints other than our own, willing to see things in another way, willing to admit error. That is, being open-minded and flexible in our thinking our necessary traits.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/09/11 09:17 PM

Originally Posted By: APL
T:I don't think the type of separation you're suggesting is possible. That is, the body cannot be separated from the soul and mind so that its problems can be solved independently from solving the problem of the soul and mind. To heal the body, the soul and mind must be healed. Man is an indivisible unit.

APL:I would also say, to heal the mind, the body must be healed. The Adventist health message is a very significant part of the plan of salvation.


Agreed. It goes both ways.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/09/11 09:25 PM

Originally Posted By: APL
T:I don't believe this. The problem of death is not physical, but spiritual. The cure is also spiritual. This is why Jesus Christ is fundamental to the salvation of man. If it were a physical problem, Jesus Christ wouldn't be necessary; just the tree.

APL:As you said, the body, mind and soul are one unit. Death is always physical ultimately. With the death of the body, the mind is gone.

As for the tree - it does indeed appear that it could perpetuate life. But Satan's plan was to perpetuate a life of sin. That life would have been a life of misery. The Tree of Life is just that, a tree that perpetuates life. It can not undo all the damage. That is the plan of salvation.


Here's a passage that comes to mind:

Quote:
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." ... 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 764.2}


This first sentence points out that one dies by separating oneself from God, who is the "fountain of life." I think this is true irrespective of the tree of life.

For example, later on in the passage, it says that had God left Satan and his followers to reap the full result of their sin, they would have died. Thus the full result of sin is death.

God did not permit this to happen, for it would not have been apparent to onlooking angels that this connection between sin and death existed. It would have appeared, instead, that God was arbitrarily destroying them. It took the cross to make the connection between sin and death clear.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/09/11 09:27 PM

Originally Posted By: APL
T:I've said a couple of times that I don't believe that entropy, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, would have happened without sin. This would preclude the idea that man would "run-down," because that's what entropy is. So I think this is a fundamental question to consider. Did God create the Universe such that entropy existed from the get go? Or is entropy the result of sin?

APL:(quoting EGW)In order to possess an endless existence, man must continue to partake of the tree of life. Deprived of this, his vitality would gradually diminish until life should become extinct.(end quote)


Does this mean you think this passage is implying that entropy did exist before there was sin?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/09/11 10:11 PM

Quote:
Tom, please don't overlook 131526 and 131527.


Ok.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/09/11 10:18 PM

Originally Posted By: APL
As for the tree - it does indeed appear that it could perpetuate life. But Satan's plan was to perpetuate a life of sin. That life would have been a life of misery. The Tree of Life is just that, a tree that perpetuates life. It can not undo all the damage. That is the plan of salvation.


I think all will agree that the tree helped increase man's vital force, to use EGW's phraseology. Also, we agree that God did not wish to have man's life prolonged, in mercy, to cut short man's suffering, since man had chosen to live in a world of sin.

Regarding man's living forever, consider the time of the flood. At this point in time, man didn't live very long, because of all the violence. Left alone, man could live a long time, but man wasn't often left alone, but killed. In this case, even having access the tree of life, man would still die, by being killed by others.

This is a fundamental problem of sin; it makes murderers of those who choose to live by its principles. This isn't something the tree of life can fix. It requires Jesus Christ to fix the problem of sin.

So, to sum up the thought, even if man continued to have access to the tree of life, he would still die, in the case where he was killed by another man, and this was very common by the time of the flood, which was only two generations, counting a generation in terms of how long a man could live.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/09/11 10:24 PM

Originally Posted By: MM
M:1. Did Jesus ever command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle?

2. Did Jesus ever command godly people to execute capital punishment?

3. Did Jesus ever withdraw His protection and permit the forces of nature or evil men, and/or evil angels to kill men, women, and children?

M: My answer to the each of the three questions asked above is - Yes. I have no idea what your answers are. Would you mind answering them?

T: I'll address 3. Yes. For example, in regards to Jerusalem, He said, "How I long to gather you as a hen gathers its chicks, but you would not," indicating His desire to protect them, but they refused, and as a result of their refusal, Satan was permitted to treat them according to his will, and the destruction of Jerusalem happened. I'm flummoxed as to how you can say I didn't answer your question. How is this not an answer to your question? I answered "yes," and then explained why I answered yes.

M:Did Jesus close their 490 year probation early?


No.

Quote:
Was there still a chance they might comply with the conditions and remain God's chosen people and nation? Or, was their death and destruction inevitable?


Once they rejected Christ, choosing Satan as their ruler, it's difficult to see how any other outcome could have been possible. Hence Christ's anguish.

Quote:
When Jesus finally withdrew His protection, what organic relation, if any, did their death and destruction at the hands of Roman soldiers in 70 AD have to do with their sins?


They rejected God, choosing Satan instead, and were given over to the master of their choice.

Quote:
That is, is death at the hands of enemy soldiers the natural, organic, inevitable result of rejecting Jesus? Or, is there something arbitrary about it?


Yes. No.

Quote:
Also, how is Jesus withdrawing His protection and permitting enemy soldiers to kill people different than President Truman permitting the military to drop atomic bombs on Japan?


There are all sorts of differences. To name just one, the Japanese did not choose Truman as their master.

Quote:
Finally, I would appreciate it if you would take the time to answer the other two questions asked above.


We've discussed these at length in the past. I don't have anything new to add right now.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/09/11 10:31 PM

Quote:
M: Do you believe in the New Earth we will be dependent upon the regular intake of food, water, air, and the fruit of the tree of life in order to live forever? If so, what do you think would theoretically happen if we were unable to partake of them for an extended period of time?

T: God created us to eat, to breath, to drink water, etc. So it could be that persisting in a self-destructive action would be sin, which would bring about entropy, allowing sin to bring forth death.

M:My question doesn't envision willfully refusing to eat, drink, breathe, or eat the fruit of the tree of life. It imagines a theoretical situation in which someone is unable to partake of one or more them for reasons that are not evil or sinful. You seem to be saying partaking isn't necessary to sustain life.


I don't see how the theoretical situation your suggesting would be possible without the commission of sin.

Quote:
Also, whenever Satan desires to cause death and destruction, he must first obtain permission from Jesus. Jesus considers the request and then establishes the perimeters within which Satan is allowed to work. Jesus also enforces His limitations by commanding holy angels to ensure evil angels do not exceed His restrictions. Satan is then dependent upon Jesus to work to uphold the laws that give life and vitality to whatever resources he intends to use to wreak havoc on humanity.


I don't think this is a good way of looking at things. This is from the chapter "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." [HOS. 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. {GC88 36.1}

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 rejecters 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. {GC88 36.2}


This way of putting things resonates much better with me. The way you put things sounds (to me) like you are envisioning that God is behind the bad things which happen, whereas the above paragraphs (to my mind) make it clear that this is not the case.

Quote:
With these things in mind it is proper to ask - Who or what acts when sinners are punished and killed? For example, when fire "went out from the LORD" and killed Nadab and Abihu, who or what acted to kill them? We both agree the fire did not act on its own. Please understand I'm not asking you to explain why they deserved to die. Obviously they are responsible for the fact they died. The question is - Who or what employed the fire that killed them?


I think the same principles were at work in these cases as laid out in the paragraphs I just quoted.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/09/11 10:40 PM

Originally Posted By: MM
M:Yes, God is like that. Which begs the three questions listed above. What else can you tell us about Jesus that can help us understand the three actions named above?


I think it begs other questions.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/10/11 03:24 AM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
The reason I believe "There shall be no more death" means sin and death will never happen again is because of the context - "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." The promise says there shall be no death, no crying, no sorrow, no pain. If God killed someone because they sinned I don't see how it could happen without pain, crying, and sorrow on the part of the guilty party and on the part of those who witness it.


You have only stated your “belief” without really any exegetical or Theological support, at least to counter the ones I had presented. The verb “to be” for ‘mourning, crying, tears, pain’ is also in the middle voice. So they too will not occur “of themselves.” And that is indeed because the “former things” which naturally brought about these emotions would have passed away, namely the hurt that is brought by sin.

Furthermore there very well may be ‘no mourning, nor crying, or tears’ either by the those who are faithful as they would fully understand the fairness and necessity of such a judgement. Even the one being judged may not express any such emotion recognizing also its fairness. Indeed only a extremely recalcitrant person in the face of all this GC proof will choose to go down this path of sin again, and so they themselves will not manifest these emotions. Also, since God would be “nipping this sin in the bud”, there may also not be any pain involved in this judgement.

Still the full force of this verse, in context focuses on the adverse emotions that had been brought about by the ‘former state of thing’ which God will make sure never comes to be the case again, thus not reproducing these derived emotional results.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/10/11 03:25 AM

Originally Posted By: APL
First, if sure does feel like you are denying the literal meaning. And if Gen 3:15 is not literal, then what else is not literal? Gen 3:22? Second, you have missed the whole point all together. The serpent's seed is that which he added to the system, the transposable elements. So we all have them! To say Able had good seed and Cain had bad seed misses the point. To say that the flood wiped out the bad seed misses the point. Clearly the bad seed also was preserved by the flood.


(A) As a “prophecy” this statement is fully subject to symbolism and not mere literalism, if any. Indeed it is only fully fulfilled in the perfect divine nature that existed in Christ. Gen 3:22 is not a prophecy.

(B) To say that “The serpent's seed is that which he added to the system, the transposable elements.” is at your proving stage merely (eisogetical), hypothetical conjecture. Thus it is not “proof” to me. I have not seen a Bible or SOP statement that says that. On the other hand the SOP consistently applies a symbolic understanding to Gen 3:15. I have yet to see “proof” that ‘Satan physically injected something evil in man through the banned fruit.’ Just mere uncertain, speculative hypothesis. My argument based upon the Biblical evidence is that this physical corruption self-occurred in may when the fruit of life was removed from its system. If it was providing a supernatural element then is corresponds that its removal would result in “supernatural” damage, i.e., Man’s genetic information misfiring. As an illustration, a car that runs out of oil will result in the engine self-destroying without any external element being injected into the system.

Originally Posted By: APL
I suggest you read MR No. 1201.
....
Yes, the seed in one's nature, the whole nature, including the physiology. And it was not confined to just between Christ and Satan. The Great Controversy is being waged in each one of us.


1 SM 254-256 is the same text as your quote. So as those passages fully say, thus self-explaining themselves:

Originally Posted By: SOP
With Christ the enmity was in one sense natural; in another sense it was supernatural, as humanity and divinity were combined. And never was the enmity developed to such a marked degree as when Christ became a resident of this earth. Never before had there been a being upon the earth who hated sin with so perfect a hatred as did Christ. He had seen its deceiving, infatuating power upon the holy angels, causing them to revolt, and all His powers were enlisted against Satan. In the purity and holiness of His life, Christ flashed the light of truth amid the moral darkness with which Satan had enshrouded the world. Christ exposed his falsehoods and deceiving character, and spoiled his corrupting influence.


As I read/understand this in its context it, the “seed of th woman” was pointedly Christ here, and that enmity was the supernatural inclusion of a divine nature in the incarnate Christ. No mention that ‘the seed of the serpent was supernatural” or even the “enmity in man is “supernatural”. Only in Christ was this supernatural and thus perfect. Fallen man has had to naturally cultivate this enmity.

Originally Posted By: APL
Really? If I took out your frontal lobes, would you be the same? Do you required hardware in order to be you? If we need hardware, then does that make you an androids. NO! We are flesh and blood. This is what we are. Created by God. Our nature was corrupted by Satan, and it is not just caused by an altered thought process in an otherwise perfect brain that Adam and Eve had (and we do not!). The engineering what went into the system was corrupted.


I understood “hardware adjustment” from the precisions in your statement:

Originally Posted By: APL
EGW says that God communications via the electrical impulses in the brain. What is the underlying hardware has been tampered with and changed. God has put enmity with Satan in order to maintain a channel to man. If the underlying hardware is damaged, then there needs to be interference with Satan's work at the biochemical level. And indeed, we find "interfering RNA" molecules that lock up and shut down a lot of the added DNA.


For God to adjust this so-called ‘biochemical “hardware”’ so that we would hate sin is to, as any biochemical affection in the body, make us chemically dependent and “addicted” to good. That, like any “addicted” person, would take away our free will. Again it was only in Christ that this enmity was supernatural. In fallen man, it was developed naturally, and only gradually, as man would allow the nature of God to grow in them.

Originally Posted By: APL
Originally Posted By: SOP
Everything had been transformed by the working of the arts of Satan.{MR16 122.3}


To me the “working of the arts” merely involve sensorily influential things and not any direct physical interference or injection. In other words Satan various places before us his ways and man, by choosing to follow them, allows them to affect him. In regards to nature, it came to be affected because of Man’s fall which cause the agent that preserved its perfection to be removed, thus allowing it to become self-corrupted.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/10/11 03:27 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
This way of putting things almost sounds like God is subservient to the tree.


It does not to me since God is the one who actually provides this life ingredient in the tree. E.g., the elevator is not greater than Elisha Otis who invented it. This is simply the way that God has designed for man to physically live forever, and as I see it, that is the best that could have been done for mortals.

Originally Posted By: Tom
It seems to me that God, out of mercy, did not want their life prolonged, similarly to how He permitted the eating of meat after the flood to shorten man's life.


Knowing the hurt that sin would inevitably bring, including death for many, as already explained here it was indeed in mercy. However ‘sinful man managing to live forever was possible with the fruit of life.

It seems to me that man’s life was cut short after the flood to keep in check the increase of sin. With man being subject to death earlier, that would make them think twice before engaging in evil ways. It would also decrease the population expansion, thus allowing for God to work out his prophetic plans as needed without again being forced to start all over, as with the flood, due to the conditions then. Shorten lives also involves diminished intellectual and physical performance, and thus a slower pace in the increase of knowledge, as prophetically crucial.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Scripture should be compared with Scripture to obtain a proper understanding of things. You can't just pick one text, and make it "boss," and not consider other things which have been written on a subject.


It seems to me that this is exactly what you are doing here. Jesus Himself spoke of the importance of the Tree of Life for the Redeemed in Rev 2:7 as well as the other mentions in Revelation. EGW repeatedly and clearly makes this point. Gen 3:22-24 shows the physical reality involved here, as expressed by God, particular in regards to sinful man. Jesus said that a sinful man will surely die, however God [and the SOP] had said that they could live forever as sinful people. Did the physical make up of man change at the cross? I fully understand that without accepting Christ man will die, however I do not see anything throughout the Bible or SOP that says that this death will occur for any other reason than the fact that that sinful person will not be granted access to the Tree of Life. Jesus merely made a physical reality go through him as due, to be effectuated. However he did not destroy that physical reality. That is a similar reasoning that people use to say that the Ten Commandments have been abolished. I.e., because Jesus brought forth grace. To paraphrase EGW: ‘one statement of God does not destroy the other’. We should instead see how the reconcile. So I theologically see that Jesus took the pre-fall equation: Man + Sinlessness + Tree of Life = Perpetual Life and added the needed pivotal Gospel Provision that: Man + Atoning Sacrifice + Tree of Life = Perpetual Life. And that is all in the GC context where the Tree of Life had only been granted access to for sinless man. If that had not been the case the equation would potentially be Man + Tree of Life = Perpetual Life.

As I said before, the Cross was always a Plan B, and a bridging one at that, in this equation that Man could live forever by just eating this God-Provided fruit of Life.

Originally Posted By: Tom
It seems to me incontrovertible that eternal life comes through faith in Christ. Do you disagree?


Access to the possibilty of perpetual life now comes through faith in Christ’s sacrifice. Explain away the illustration in this post where even a redeemed person worshipping at the foot of the throne of God at the mouth of the river of life every day in Heaven will not die if He does not eat of the fruit of life and you’ll begin to prove your point where your theological understanding for eternal life ends with Christ, something which EGW also does not relate.

Originally Posted By: Tom
If I understand your viewpoint correctly, it is:

1.Eternal life comes to us through a tree.
2.Jesus Christ is instrumental because He gives us access to the tree.
3.Eternal life does not come through Jesus Christ, except indirectly (because He gives us access to the tree).
4.The many times in Scripture that speak of our receiving life through Jesus Christ (or representing Jesus Christ as "the life", "the life and the resurrection," etc.) implicitly mean that He is such because He gives us access to the tree of life.


Simply said, given my prior restatments here, ‘Yes to all 4 points.’

Originally Posted By: Tom
I see the tree of life as of minimal importance when compared to Jesus Christ. My understanding of Scripture is that Jesus Christ is all important, and that we receive life by receiving Him. For example, "He that has the Son, has life." This life that we receive, eternal life, is dependent upon Jesus Christ.


The most ironic thing is that you are actually fully correct here, not by what you actually seem to believe, but because of the actual realities involved in the Fruit of Life. As I had said here:

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
I did forget to mention the water of life. And this may be another way in which God’s Tree of Life is spread throughout nature since every living thing requires water. In fact these life giving ingredients may all be in this water that flows from God’s throne and which cause the tree of life on its banks to provide these fruit. This may also have been the case in Eden. The “life” here would indeed come from God, as, as I showed earlier, it still did with the Tree of Life in Eden, nonetheless it is still a tangible “supernatural” ingredient that can only be ingested by Man through the Tree, its aromatic air or possibly that water of Life. Simply even bowing down all day and night before God’s throne at the mouth of that River won’t actually perpetuate that life. To me this inevitable reality shows how mortal man is unimprovably naturally mortal and his body needs to tangibly ingest this fruit of Life.


This “ingredient of Life” probably comes directly from God and is provided through man and creation only via a necessary mediated from (i.e., River of Life-Tree-Fruit|Aroma). I still have a question if this now only comes from God the Father, if the “God in Jesus” actually eternally died in the atonement sacrifice, i.e., the Lawgiver forever died to redeem man.

Originally Posted By: Tom
You have a unique view of how these passages should be "plainly read." Given that it's unique, to claim this is how the passage plainly read needs to be considered in that context. That is, it is how it plainly reads to you, but clearly not to everyone.


You’ll have to provide more substantiation for this since at least 2 other people in this thread (+ EGW) see Gen 3:22-24 as being ‘plain and straightforward’. In regards to Gen 3:15, it was a prophecy (as the SOP also says). I understand “plain reading” as it is exegetically ascertainable. So also engaging in such exegesis should make these “clear” also to you. So as far as I see it here, you are the one who is in the “unique” category here. I also am not to be blamed for a lack of exegesis on the part of you or others.

Originally Posted By: Tom
On the other hand, that Jesus Christ is preeminent in Scripture, and has a crucial role in our salvation, beyond granting us access to a tree, is not a view uniquely held by me.


In regards to living eternally, the sacrifice of Christ was a Plan B. Perpetual Life for man was to be provided otherwise, but as I say, this life ingredient itself actually comes from God, which also includes, at least possibly, prior to the Cross, Michael/Jesus Christ.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Also, it's not simply a matter of how this one passage is understood, but there's the rest of Scripture to take into account. From my point of view, it's not simply that you're understanding one given passage in a certain way, but you're not giving due weight to other passages. Scripture must be understood as a whole.


There is sufficient Bible and SOP that support that Gen 3:22-24 is indeed foundational to man living forever, whether sinful or not.

Originally Posted By: Tom
For example, I brought out the passage from the SOP saying that when one looks to the cross, one comes to the conviction that the sure result of sin is death. I stated that no one would look to the cross and come to the conviction that if one doesn't partake of the tree of life, one will die. You disagreed with this stating that that this is what you though. I pointed out to you that you were unique with this, and challenged you to point out any other writer who has expressed this idea, to which you responded that truth is not determined by popular consensus, to which I responded that I was not looking for a popular consensus, but a consensus of one (other than yourself).


I have responded to that saying that the “spiritual” realization here will be that sin will even result in the death of God if it is ever to be dealt with. Even the death of God was the only option/way to ultimately eradicate it. That indeed was the lesson that God wanted to portray on the cross. Yet it does not negate the fact that sinful man can live forever if they ate of the Fruit of Life. Since EGW also clearly says that, this is how I see these two sets of statements reconciling with each other. In this case an intended perception did not eclipse the possible reality was it not, but for the barring action of God in Eden. Indeed a sinful person, (i.e., one who live according to his will and not God’s, as many people do today), who has access to the tree of life, can, avoiding certain diseases and mortal wounds, live forever. God however wanted to completely avoid the sure death and bloodshed that could also result even is such a sinfully “good” life.

Originally Posted By: Tom
The point here is that you are taking a view point which is unique to yourself, and expressing dismay when I disagree with it. That doesn't seem to me to be a reasonable reaction.

If I have a point of view which is unusual, or unique, then I understand that the onus of proof will be on me, and much patience will be required, to try to persuade others to see things as I do, or even, an objective much easier to try to achieve (but still challenging), to get others to at least understand what my point of view is.


My assurance in certain points that may be unique to me is all based upon exegesis. If I am advancing a personal opinion, I, naturally, contrary to what you may understand, will not state it with such assurance. E.g., my understanding that the ‘“God in Christ” eternally died at the Cross.’ So, as I say you need to challenge the foundation of what I have stated, which as a seminarian, you, of all people should have been, and should be, most capable of doing. (Even if I am saying so myself, it is a good thing that I can, and will correct an exegetical mistake that I may have made. My aim here is also to arrive at Biblical Truth and not merely/paramountly, to personally be right).

Originally Posted By: Tom
This has been my point. I think you're overemphasizing one passage, a passage which you interpret uniquely. I don't think trying to deal with our disagreement by challenging your interpretation of this one passage has any chance of success. That's why I'm trying to discuss things from the perspective of the Great Controversy, or Plan of Salvation, as a whole.


As I said before, there is a Theological chief/foundational element to Gen 3:22-24 which is corroborated in the many quotes EGW made on the Tree of Life which transcend the entire period of the GC, and does not end at the Cross as you are claiming.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I provided a brief summary as to how I see the Great Controversy, and asked for you to do the same. I've been extremely busy, and have tried to do the best I can keeping up with this thread (and appreciate all the time and effort you've put into it), but may have missed your response to this request. If you responded, please point me to where.


See this post. You will find that my GC view emphasizes/highlights the Theological realities revealed in the Bible, as seen with the Tree of Life.

Originally Posted By: Tom
The reason you believe in the "Foreplanning View" is because this is what you *perceive* the Bible teaches. And this is the same reason everybody, who accepts the Bible as authoritative, believes what they believe.


I guess I should have added “exegetically” teaches, because that would have factually dismissed many views of people who are not bothering to take this step, which does not necessarily involve delving into the original languages, but also just letting the text speak for itself from its context. E.g., when Gen 22:12 says: “Now I know” that is what is to be understood or also: when Isa 46:10 says: “Declaring the end...” it is not saying ‘I know the end’ or even “making known the end”, but indeed stating what it will come to be as with any “declaration.” The pertinent wider context also supports this view. It is private views that bar such plain readings, also ignoring this wider context. In regards to your understanding of Christ’s words on “Life”, it is easy to see that many times Christ was figuratively speaking, i.e., He was not necessarily that physical thing but symbolically the key to that what was done by or the physical aspect of, that thing. E.g., Christ saying that one who believes in Him will never die, is clearly to be understood spiritually sin we will now still die.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Yes, indeed! We need to be open to viewpoints other than our own, willing to see things in another way, willing to admit error. That is, being open-minded and flexible in our thinking our necessary traits.


I am most willing to do that, however prove it first. I am not going to accept one’s view simply because of the sentimentalism they have attached to it. That is why exegesis is paramount to Biblical understanding.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/10/11 03:30 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
Originally Posted By: SOP
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.


This “full result” in context speaks of the immediate destruction of Satan and his host for having sin by opposing the government of God, prior to sin having been allowed to fully develop. There is no mention or implication here at all by the SOP that “It took the cross to make the connection between sin and death clear.” It is simply how sin exactly, we fully develop, will bring about death, that is the issue here as explicitly stated in the preluding 763.4-764.1. (This is what I mean by eisogesis and not allowing the text to plain read for itself, but reading it through one’s own theological views.)
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/10/11 03:31 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted By: APL
APL:(quoting EGW)In order to possess an endless existence, man must continue to partake of the tree of life. Deprived of this, his vitality would gradually diminish until life should become extinct.(end quote)


Originally Posted By: Tom
Does this mean you think this passage is implying that entropy did exist before there was sin?


I personally see the EGW statement here pointedly saying that such “entropy” only began when man/nature would be “dperived” of the fruit of life.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/10/11 03:32 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
This is a fundamental problem of sin; it makes murderers of those who choose to live by its principles. This isn't something the tree of life can fix. It requires Jesus Christ to fix the problem of sin.

So, to sum up the thought, even if man continued to have access to the tree of life, he would still die...


As man is, and will always be free, they can always commit murder if they so choose. Christ does not take away this accessible possibility but removes the inherited tendency to such sins for those who accept his sacrifice in faith. Sinful man did not have to murder anyone else. Human nature would make this a likely possibility but there could alway be a last man, couple or clan/tribe standing even through this violence, which could have been “self-defence” for them. So a sinful man could indeed live forever.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/10/11 01:19 PM

Originally Posted By: APL
Second, you have missed the whole point all together. The serpent's seed is that which he added to the system, the transposable elements. So we all have them! To say Able had good seed and Cain had bad seed misses the point. To say that the flood wiped out the bad seed misses the point. Clearly the bad seed also was preserved by the flood.


I must further point out her APL, that “this Seed” can indeed really only be truly/fully fulfilled in Christ. I think Paul’s theologically related comments in Gal 3:16 & 19, emphasizing the singular form here (as both the Greek and Hebrew for zera & sperma (respectively) is in Gen 3:15) shows that this is to be perfectly, if not solely fulfilled in Christ. (cf. Rom 16:20). So “the seed” may indeed be speaking of the fallen nature that Satan brought about through influence vs. the coming perfect Divine nature that will be found in Christ. Interestingly both natures were present in Christ (with, of course, the human nature being sinless, but, as the SOP says, just like any man’s living at that time.)
Posted By: APL

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/10/11 08:31 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
B) To say that “The serpent's seed is that which he added to the system, the transposable elements.” is at your proving stage merely (eisogetical), hypothetical conjecture.
It is only eisegesis if the Bible does not support it in other places.
Originally Posted By: NJK
I have yet to see “proof” that ‘Satan physically injected something evil in man through the banned fruit.’
Can I absolutely prove it? No. But Matthew 13 sure hints at it, and Romans 5:12, 18, and Psalms 51:5.
Originally Posted By: John 8
John 8:44 AKJV You are of your father the devil...
Is the devil a father? Does he have offspring? Or, could this be interpreted in another way with respect to genetics?

Question - is God arbitrary? Is God ever arbitrary? When God said, do not eat of the tree, was this an arbitrary test of obedience on the part of God?
Originally Posted By: EGW
The fruit itself was harmless. If God had not forbidden Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, their action in taking it would not have been sinful. Up to the moment of God's prohibition, Adam might have eaten of the fruit of that tree without realizing any harm. But after God had said, Thou shalt not eat, the act became a crime of great magnitude.{ST, January 23, 1879 par. 14}
Did God arbitrarily forbid the eating of the fruit?
Posted By: APL

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/10/11 08:38 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
Originally Posted By: EGW in DA
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."
What is the life of God? Could it not be that the life that God has given us is encoded in our very being, in our DNA? Is we destroy that DNA, we then alienate our selves from the life of God? The law that controls our 100 trillion cells is written in the DNA. Transgress that law = misery and death.
Posted By: APL

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/10/11 08:52 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
To me the “working of the arts” merely involve sensorily influential things and not any direct physical interference or injection.
Is this not eisegesis? This is your opinion.
Originally Posted By: NJK
In regards to nature, it came to be affected because of Man’s fall which cause the agent that preserved its perfection to be removed, thus allowing it to become self-corrupted.
Genesis 3:22 says that the Tree of Life would have caused man to life forever. Are you saying that if Man had not been barred from the Tree of Life, that out nature would have remained perfect?
Originally Posted By: {ST, November 19, 1894 par. 2}
Satan sought to correct the law of God in heaven, and to supply an amendment of his own.
HOW would Satan correct the law of God in Heaven? How could supply an amendment? The real question is, what is God's law?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/10/11 09:58 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
M: With these things in mind it is proper to ask - Who or what acts when sinners are punished and killed? For example, when fire "went out from the LORD" and killed Nadab and Abihu, who or what acted to kill them? We both agree the fire did not act on its own. Please understand I'm not asking you to explain why they deserved to die. Obviously they are responsible for the fact they died. The question is - Who or what employed the fire that killed them?

T: I think the same principles were at work in these cases as laid out in the paragraphs I just quoted [GC88 36].

Here's an excerpt from the quote you posted, "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."

In the Bible it says, "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. And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD."

Ellen wrote, "God consumed them by fire for their positive disregard of His express directions. {RH, March 25, 1875 par. 2} "Fire from his presence destroyed them in their sin. {4aSG 125.1} "A fire blazed out from the holy of holies and consumed them. {Te 280.1}

You seem to be suggesting the "fire" that "blazed out" from the "presence" of God in "the holy of holies" and "consumed" Nadab and Abihu in reality was employed by Satan. Is this what you believe Ellen had in mind? If so, doesn't that imply she believed Satan was standing beside God in the most holy place when he employed fire to kill them?

Do you know of even one passage where Ellen plainly says, God withdrew His protection and permitted Satan to employ fire to kill Nadab and Abihu?

Originally Posted By: Tom
1. In the OT, did Jesus ever command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle?

2. In the OT, did Jesus ever command godly people to execute capital punishment?

3. In the OT, did Jesus ever withdraw His protection and permit the forces of nature or evil men, and/or evil angels to kill men, women, and children?

M: Yes, God turns the other cheek, goes the extra mile, and offers His other coat. Which begs the three questions listed above. What else can you tell us about Jesus that can help us understand the three actions named above?

T: I think it begs other questions.

What other questions do you have in mind?

Also, it is obvious that the answer to the three questions listed above is - Yes! Do you agree? If not, why not?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/10/11 10:20 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
The reason I believe "There shall be no more death" means sin and death will never happen again is because of the context - "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." The promise says there shall be no death, no crying, no sorrow, no pain. If God killed someone because they sinned I don't see how it could happen without pain, crying, and sorrow on the part of the guilty party and on the part of those who witness it.

You have only stated your “belief” without really any exegetical or Theological support, at least to counter the ones I had presented. The verb “to be” for ‘mourning, crying, tears, pain’ is also in the middle voice. So they too will not occur “of themselves.” And that is indeed because the “former things” which naturally brought about these emotions would have passed away, namely the hurt that is brought by sin.

Furthermore there very well may be ‘no mourning, nor crying, or tears’ either by the those who are faithful as they would fully understand the fairness and necessity of such a judgement. Even the one being judged may not express any such emotion recognizing also its fairness. Indeed only a extremely recalcitrant person in the face of all this GC proof will choose to go down this path of sin again, and so they themselves will not manifest these emotions. Also, since God would be “nipping this sin in the bud”, there may also not be any pain involved in this judgement.

Still the full force of this verse, in context focuses on the adverse emotions that had been brought about by the ‘former state of thing’ which God will make sure never comes to be the case again, thus not reproducing these derived emotional results.

The idea that "there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain" can be interpreted to mean sin and death will continue to play out in the New Earth is hard to swallow. Ellen wrote:

"But we desire to enter heaven, for there, there is no disappointment, no sorrow, no sin, no one who shall say, "I am sick." There, there is no burial train, no mourning, no death, no parting, no broken hearts; and Jesus is there, peace is there. {ST, February 8, 1892 par. 4}

If, as you say, sin and death will continue to play out in the New Earth, why, then, did Ellen say, There will be "no sin . . . no disappointment . . . no parting"?
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/11/11 05:20 AM

Originally Posted By: APL
It is only eisegesis if the Bible does not support it in other places.


You need to produce this purported Biblical support and, as mentioned next, the verses you have claimed thus far are exegetically not supportive of this “genetic” extent.

Originally Posted By: APL
Can I absolutely prove it? No. But Matthew 13 sure hints at it, and Romans 5:12, 18, and Psalms 51:5.


-Matt 13:28 could easily attribute this symbolized harm indirectly, i.e., merely through influences, to Satan, through His temptation and not by active interject.

-I have already responded to Rom 5:12 in this post. Verse 18 contextually continues along these lines and is not necessarily implicating anything “genetical.” As I understand it thus far, Christ’s sacrifice spiritually deals with the sin problem in order to allow God to later make the physical fixes and this will be mostly done by the wholesale replacement of our fallen bodies (1 Cor 15:53. 54; cf. 1 Tim 6:16 on the “immortality” issue.). As I Theologially understand it, the only tweaking that will be done with what will continue to exist from this fallen age will be with out “psyche” (= our characters - a.k.a soul), as God will excise and purge out all that is not Sanctified/Godly/Holy and fitted for life in Heaven and the New Earth.

I have already done an exegetical analysis of David’s statement in Psa 51:5 in this forum post.

Though absolutely proof may not be achievable, as with many Biblica topic, I personally would need more exegetical proof, rather than ones that ignore these exegetical anchors and imposes an external meaning/reading on the text, and thus also the actual intent of the author, indeed “in his context.”

Originally Posted By: APL
John 8:44 AKJV You are of your father the devil...

Is the devil a father? Does he have offspring? Or, could this be interpreted in another way with respect to genetics?


You are here also jumping over the exegetical implications of this statement to directly go to your genetical hypothesis. Both Jesus and these Jews had Abraham as their father, so Jesus was here not referring to a literal, even genetic ancestor but to a Spiritual one. As clearly stated by Jesus in that context vss. 39-47, the issue here was which spiritual nature they were following. As he concluded: ‘they were not of God’ (vs. 47b).

Originally Posted By: APL
Question - is God arbitrary? Is God ever arbitrary? When God said, do not eat of the tree, was this an arbitrary test of obedience on the part of God?


A main, exegetically learned tenet to my Theological foundation is that God is absolutely not arbitrary and everything that He says and does, has a tangible, practical and absolute necessary underlying reason.

Originally Posted By: APL
Originally Posted By: EGW

The fruit itself was harmless. If God had not forbidden Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, their action in taking it would not have been sinful. Up to the moment of God's prohibition, Adam might have eaten of the fruit of that tree without realizing any harm. But after God had said, Thou shalt not eat, the act became a crime of great magnitude.{ST, January 23, 1879 par. 14}

Did God arbitrarily forbid the eating of the fruit?


Is it only me, but I clearly see that this SOP quote completely disprove your ‘genetical misinformation injection through the forbidden fruit’ hyposthesis as it relates that the fruit itself was completely harmless. The pivotal issue here was that eaten of it would concretely prove a decided and deliberate disobedience to God. And the harmful consequence of this would come to be physically realized by God having to banned such a now sinful man from eating of the Tree of Life. So as I continue to see it, the harm that occurred in man and nature came from this withdrawal of the ‘supernaturally empowered’ Fruit of Life from their system, which caused it to become self-corrupt.

As EGW says elsewhere, ‘the fruit was not poisonous’ and if something had been injected it from the time when God had banned it, then I think EGW would correspondingly have been given such a revelation, just as she was spiritually impressed, if not directly “shown”, that it was ‘harmless’ and ‘not poisonous’.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/11/11 05:21 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted By: NJK Project

To me the “working of the arts” merely involve sensorily influential things and not any direct physical interference or injection.


Originally Posted By: APL
Is this not eisegesis? This is your opinion.


It really is neither eisegesis, nor mere opinion and was only tentatively expressed because I chose not to do a more thorough study on the issue here before responding.

As I logically and lexically suspected, the word “arts” in the writings of EGW refers to ‘external demonstrations’ and not, scientifically, to your supposed “surgical injection and genetic tampering”. The Devil can indeed do enough damage to the human who shapes their mentality mainly through the 80% sensorial intake achieved by the eyes. Much more damage can also be done by the devil from thoughts which largely play on what we have allowed our eyes to intake. (cf. Psa 101:2-4). So this was really an informal, semi-exegetical deduction on my part.


Quote:
Originally Posted By: NJK Project

In regards to nature, it came to be affected because of Man’s fall which cause the agent that preserved its perfection to be removed, thus allowing it to become self-corrupted.


Originally Posted By: APL
Genesis 3:22 says that the Tree of Life would have caused man to life forever. Are you saying that if Man had not been barred from the Tree of Life, that out nature would have remained perfect?


For some reason, you have clouded, even misconstrued, my straightforward, and straight-flowing, statement here. I clearly, at least to me, said that Man (first) fell and then, as a “caused” result, the Tree of Life, which would maintain his physical perfection, was removed thus allowing for this physical/genetic self-corruption. So clearly I had implied and actually explicitly expressed that ‘their nature had become fallen/“imperfect” before that removal.’

Quote:
Originally Posted By: SOP
Originally Posted By: {ST, November 19, 1894 par. 2}
Satan sought to correct the law of God in heaven, and to supply an amendment of his own.


Originally Posted By: APL
HOW would Satan correct the law of God in Heaven? How could supply an amendment? The real question is, what is God's law?


The SOP context for that statement is indeed doubly clear of the GC context and “law understanding” of that statement as it said:

Originally Posted By: SOP ST, November 19, 1894 par. 2

Through the pope of Rome the same work has been carried on here on earth as was carried on in the courts of heaven before the expulsion of the prince of darkness. Satan sought to correct the law of God in heaven, and to supply an amendment of his own. He exalted his own judgment above that of his Creator, and placed his will above the will of Jehovah, and in this way virtually declared God to be fallible.


So it is only through an eisegetical mindset that the Law of God in this context could be understood as anything else than ‘the legislative law of God as found in the 10 Commandments.’ So, furthermore, since this is the “law of God in heaven”, and this “amendment of Satan” had occurred before man was created, then how does it affect, even involve Man that would only later be created later, and that in a Spiritually and physically perfect state???
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/11/11 06:02 AM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
The idea that "there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain" can be interpreted to mean sin and death will continue to play out in the New Earth is hard to swallow. Ellen wrote:

"But we desire to enter heaven, for there, there is no disappointment, no sorrow, no sin, no one who shall say, "I am sick." There, there is no burial train, no mourning, no death, no parting, no broken hearts; and Jesus is there, peace is there. {ST, February 8, 1892 par. 4}

If, as you say, sin and death will continue to play out in the New Earth, why, then, did Ellen say, There will be "no sin . . . no disappointment . . . no parting"?


I think you are overstating my view here with you manifest ‘playing out’ understanding. I am not saying that sin will be a normative development in Heaven, as this implies. To the contrary, I am saying that, indeed unlike the past 6000+ year GC, it will not at all be allowed to “play out” anymore. It will instead be “nipped in the bud” indeed even at the (mentally) “devising stage” as stated in Nahum 1:9 as God can easily expose anyone who chooses to engage in such thoughts as Lucifer had done, to God’s knowledge, before beginning to express them out loud (PP 37.1; cf. Ezek 28:15).

So I do not see EGW’s statement here as preventing this Theologically-realizable, ever possible, reality. Indeed, Theologically-speaking, there can, and will, always be the possibility that ‘there will be one who desires to pervert the freedom that God had granted to His creatures.’ (PP 35.1).

As you should also properly know and understand, EGW is not the final arbitrator in matter of Theological understanding or Biblical Truth, and she indeed did not understand, at least for most of her ministry, the full Truth about ‘God and the Future.’ So this Theological understanding may have never come to her mind as with many other “fuller” and even correct truths. Notice, also that EGW’s emotional and exhortational statement, which may thus all be “by permission and not commission” is saying, with specifications, much more than it was revealed in Rev 21:4. The fact that God will then work to nip any of these possible rebellions in the bud will indeed assure that “distress” and any such adverse resulting feelings from again becoming the norm.

Also notice the rest of what EGW interestingly says in that Signs article:

Originally Posted By: SOP ST, February 8, 1892 par. 4
Oh, we must be with him, for in his presence is fullness of joy, at his right hand there are pleasures forevermore! And it is here that we must behold him, and become changed into his image. "We all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord." Oh, it is important that we behold him here by the eye of faith, that we may be made like him, but what will it be to behold him as he is without one dimming veil between?


Note: She is also here (merely!) calling us to, prepatorily, do “in faith” what we will manifestly do and have to do, once we get to Heaven.

That all supports the Theological point that I had advance earlier in this post that, many will be saved despite not having had formed full/perfect Christlike/Christian characters but will have a chance to improve them in heaven, however with their sinful characters having been excised and expunged from their “psyche”. However it is pointedly because of such, effectively, “half-baked”/incomplete, even Christian characters which they will have to freely improve, indeed as they, yet still by choice, behold the glory and perfection of Christ, as EGW describes here, that a “base devising of evil ways” can occur. So this “hazardous” “growing up in Christ” may be done during the period of the Millennium and maybe even beyond, especially as we are return to this very same planet and now have to build up our lives and livelihood, freely, i.e., out of our own planning and organization, sharing and allocating the variety resources that God has provided for us. (If our history means anything, as it significantly does in this GC, some “half-baked” (Protestant) Christians will probably, once again, staunchly-recommend Capitalism!!)

This all accords with the Biblical/SOP related fact that not everyone who God will justly/righteously redeem, will have reached the same full Christian character, knowledge and/or development.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/11/11 04:47 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
As you should also properly know and understand, EGW is not the final arbitrator in matter of Theological understanding or Biblical Truth,...


As (another) case in point that EGW was not inerrant in what she stated “by permission,” (i.e., based upon her understanding, even when based upon a vision), I have just posted on my blog a correction, from her own writings which substantively showed that she wrongly placed the vision of the Ascension of Christ at the end of DA instead of between Chapters 82 & 83 when Christ first ascended to Heaven after his resurrection. See Note #14 in this post.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/11/11 05:40 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
T: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.

NJK:This “full result” in context speaks of the immediate destruction of Satan and his host for having sin by opposing the government of God, prior to sin having been allowed to fully develop.


No it doesn't. If you read the paragraphs in question, it can be seen to be saying the reverse. She writes over and over again, some 9 or 10 times, that the destruction of the wicked is NOT due to something being done to them by God, but is the result of their own choice. She could not have made the organic connection any clearer here. For example:

Quote:
This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God.


Again:

Quote:
The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown.


One more:

Quote:
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.


And she continues along this line.

The context is an organic relationship, rather than something artificially imposed by God as a punishment.

Quote:
There is no mention or implication here at all by the SOP that “It took the cross to make the connection between sin and death clear.”


This is missing both the point in the immediate context, and of the chapter as whole. The entire chapter, "It is Finished," is about what the cross accomplished. It explains this for 7 pages or so. The last page discusses the destruction of the wicked in the context of understanding what the cross accomplished. One of the things the cross accomplished was making clear what happens at death. The paragraph that speaks of the angels not understanding this makes this point clear. That is, the angels didn't understand, until the cross, that Satan's demise would be due to sin, if God left Satan to reap the full result of his sin.

Quote:
It is simply how sin exactly, we fully develop, will bring about death, that is the issue here as explicitly stated in the preluding 763.4-764.1. (This is what I mean by eisogesis and not allowing the text to plain read for itself, but reading it through one’s own theological views.)


It seems only eisogesis could explain not perceiving that DA 764 and the rest is bringing out the organic relationship of sin and death, since the point is repeated so many times, and in so many ways, in such a short passage. DA 763.4-764.1 is simply quoting Scripture. It is following this that the Scripture is explained, and it is explained in terms of an organic relationship between sin and death.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/11/11 05:46 PM

Quote:
APL:(quoting EGW)In order to possess an endless existence, man must continue to partake of the tree of life. Deprived of this, his vitality would gradually diminish until life should become extinct.(end quote)


Originally Posted By: Tom
Does this mean you think this passage is implying that entropy did exist before there was sin?


I personally see the EGW statement here pointedly saying that such “entropy” only began when man/nature would be “dperived” of the fruit of life.


Then man could not have been created in a condition to naturally die, since there was no entropy. One could say man was created in a condition in which he would die only if he disobeyed God.
Posted By: APL

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/11/11 07:12 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
Is it only me, but I clearly see that this SOP quote completely disprove your ‘genetical misinformation injection through the forbidden fruit’ hyposthesis as it relates that the fruit itself was completely harmless. The pivotal issue here was that eaten of it would concretely prove a decided and deliberate disobedience to God. And the harmful consequence of this would come to be physically realized by God having to banned such a now sinful man from eating of the Tree of Life. So as I continue to see it, the harm that occurred in man and nature came from this withdrawal of the ‘supernaturally empowered’ Fruit of Life from their system, which caused it to become self-corrupt.

As EGW says elsewhere, ‘the fruit was not poisonous’ and if something had been injected it from the time when God had banned it, then I think EGW would correspondingly have been given such a revelation, just as she was spiritually impressed, if not directly “shown”, that it was ‘harmless’ and ‘not poisonous’.
This does not prove it. The fruit itself was fine. But once God said, "do not eat of it", it became a grievous crime. Was this an arbitrary command of God? I think not.

I agree that the fruit of the Tree of Life was necessary to sustain life. And probably will in the world to come (Rev 2:7).

It is clear from EGW that other worlds had a tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil. See {EW 39.3}.

Satan was not out to kill Adam and Eve. He was out to win their allegiance. So it is fair to write "There was nothing poisonous in the fruit of the tree of knowledge itself, nothing that would cause death in partaking of it."{ST, February 13, 1896 par. 7} True statement! This does not disprove the genomic view hypothesis. It actually is in its favor, as TEs have their highest concentration in the genes that code for the CNS. What happened when Eve ate the fruit?
Originally Posted By: EGW
She ate, and thinking she felt the sensation of a new and more exalted life, she bore the fruit to her husband. The serpent had said that she should not die, and she felt no ill effects from eating the fruit,—nothing which could be interpreted to mean death, but, instead, a pleasurable sensation, which she imagined was as the angels felt. Her experience stood arrayed against the positive command of Jehovah, yet Adam permitted himself to be seduced by it. {CTBH 42.2}
A pleasurable sensation - just like drugs can cause a pleasurable sensation leading to addiction. Addictions cause interesting changes in gene expression but I digress. Satan was out to take man captive. 2 Timothy 2:26 AKJV "And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will."
Originally Posted By: EGW
She expressed greater, higher love for him than before her disobedience, as the effect of the fruit she had eaten. He saw in her no signs of death. She had told him of the happy influence of the fruit, of her ardent love for him, and he decided to brave the consequences. He seized the fruit and quickly ate it, and, like Eve, felt not immediately its ill effects. {ST, January 23, 1879 par. 1}
This statement does not say there were no ill effects. It says that the effects were not immediately felt. It very well could have been a long time coming. They soon felt they were naked. There sure were no other people around to embarrass them. And very soon after, the love they expressed for each other was thrown out and Adam blamed God and "the woman" Genesis 3:12. Adam and Eve's allegiance had changed.

The problem I see with the idea that sin is only in the mind, is that then how do you explain from the Bible, why there are thorns and thistles? Genesis 3:18. EGW explains this and I think I already quoted, that it was via genetic engineering.
Originally Posted By: EGW
All tares are sown by the evil one. Every noxious herb is of his sowing, and by his ingenious methods of amalgamation he has corrupted the earth with tares. {16MR 247.2}
I think there is no doubt that Satan can do genetic engineering. All creation groans and pains under sin, Romans 8:22. Another example of engineering:
Originally Posted By: EGW
Satan gathered the fallen angels together to devise some way of doing the most possible evil to the human family. One proposition after another was made, till finally Satan himself thought of a plan. He would take the fruit of the vine, also wheat, and other things given by God as food, and would convert them into poisons, which would ruin man's physical, mental, and moral powers, and so overcome the senses that Satan should have full control.
Some of the yeasts that are used in making alcohol have lost metabolic pathways such that they produce alcohol, and great expense to themselves. And what has caused this? Transposable genetic elements... You can't blame the travail of all nature to the removal of the Tree of Life alone. No where does it say that animals were required to eat of the tree, and certainly not plants. But plants and animals have all infested by transposable elements.
Posted By: APL

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/11/11 07:18 PM

Originally Posted By: apl
I asked:
Are you saying that if Man had not been barred from the Tree of Life, that out nature would have remained perfect?

to which you responded:
Originally Posted By: NJK
For some reason, you have clouded, even misconstrued, my straightforward, and straight-flowing, statement here. I clearly, at least to me, said that Man (first) fell and then, as a “caused” result, the Tree of Life, which would maintain his physical perfection, was removed thus allowing for this physical/genetic self-corruption. So clearly I had implied and actually explicitly expressed that ‘their nature had become fallen/“imperfect” before that removal.’

I guess I'm confused by your reaction to my question, which you did not answer! Let me rephrase the question, if the Tree of Life was NOT removed, and the Adam was allowed to eat of it, would his nature have been restored to perfection?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/11/11 08:30 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
The idea that "there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain" can be interpreted to mean sin and death will continue to play out in the New Earth is hard to swallow. Ellen wrote:

"But we desire to enter heaven, for there, there is no disappointment, no sorrow, no sin, no one who shall say, "I am sick." There, there is no burial train, no mourning, no death, no parting, no broken hearts; and Jesus is there, peace is there. {ST, February 8, 1892 par. 4}

If, as you say, sin and death will continue to play out in the New Earth, why, then, did Ellen say, There will be "no sin . . . no disappointment . . . no parting"?


I think you are overstating my view here with you manifest ‘playing out’ understanding. I am not saying that sin will be a normative development in Heaven, as this implies. To the contrary, I am saying that, indeed unlike the past 6000+ year GC, it will not at all be allowed to “play out” anymore. It will instead be “nipped in the bud” indeed even at the (mentally) “devising stage” as stated in Nahum 1:9 as God can easily expose anyone who chooses to engage in such thoughts as Lucifer had done, to God’s knowledge, before beginning to express them out loud (PP 37.1; cf. Ezek 28:15).

So I do not see EGW’s statement here as preventing this Theologically-realizable, ever possible, reality. Indeed, Theologically-speaking, there can, and will, always be the possibility that ‘there will be one who desires to pervert the freedom that God had granted to His creatures.’ (PP 35.1).

As you should also properly know and understand, EGW is not the final arbitrator in matter of Theological understanding or Biblical Truth, and she indeed did not understand, at least for most of her ministry, the full Truth about ‘God and the Future.’ So this Theological understanding may have never come to her mind as with many other “fuller” and even correct truths. Notice, also that EGW’s emotional and exhortational statement, which may thus all be “by permission and not commission” is saying, with specifications, much more than it was revealed in Rev 21:4. The fact that God will then work to nip any of these possible rebellions in the bud will indeed assure that “distress” and any such adverse resulting feelings from again becoming the norm.

Also notice the rest of what EGW interestingly says in that Signs article:

Originally Posted By: SOP ST, February 8, 1892 par. 4
Oh, we must be with him, for in his presence is fullness of joy, at his right hand there are pleasures forevermore! And it is here that we must behold him, and become changed into his image. "We all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord." Oh, it is important that we behold him here by the eye of faith, that we may be made like him, but what will it be to behold him as he is without one dimming veil between?


Note: She is also here (merely!) calling us to, prepatorily, do “in faith” what we will manifestly do and have to do, once we get to Heaven.

That all supports the Theological point that I had advance earlier in this post that, many will be saved despite not having had formed full/perfect Christlike/Christian characters but will have a chance to improve them in heaven, however with their sinful characters having been excised and expunged from their “psyche”. However it is pointedly because of such, effectively, “half-baked”/incomplete, even Christian characters which they will have to freely improve, indeed as they, yet still by choice, behold the glory and perfection of Christ, as EGW describes here, that a “base devising of evil ways” can occur. So this “hazardous” “growing up in Christ” may be done during the period of the Millennium and maybe even beyond, especially as we are return to this very same planet and now have to build up our lives and livelihood, freely, i.e., out of our own planning and organization, sharing and allocating the variety resources that God has provided for us. (If our history means anything, as it significantly does in this GC, some “half-baked” (Protestant) Christians will probably, once again, staunchly-recommend Capitalism!!)

This all accords with the Biblical/SOP related fact that not everyone who God will justly/righteously redeem, will have reached the same full Christian character, knowledge and/or development.

I'm sorry, but you lost me. Ellen wrote:

Quote:
But we desire to enter heaven, for there, there is no disappointment, no sorrow, no sin, no one who shall say, "I am sick." There, there is no burial train, no mourning, no death, no parting, no broken hearts; and Jesus is there, peace is there. {ST, February 8, 1892 par. 4}

What is your opinion of this insight? Did she overstate the point and misrepresent truth?

Regarding the completion of the investigative judgment, John quoted Jesus when he wrote, "He that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still." There is no indication they will sin again in the New Earth.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/11/11 09:16 PM

Originally Posted By: APL
The problem I see with the idea that sin is only in the mind, is that then how do you explain from the Bible, why there are thorns and thistles? Genesis 3:18. EGW explains this and I think I already quoted, that it was via genetic engineering.


This is what I have thought. She uses the term "amalgamation," but it's difficult to think of what else this could be referring to, if not what we would call "genetic engineering."
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/11/11 10:29 PM

Would that open up evolution? Creation scientists tell us no new structures are created. But, if satan could create structures, could he create something much different that just confusion within the species?
Posted By: APL

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/11/11 10:57 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
Originally Posted By: APL
The problem I see with the idea that sin is only in the mind, is that then how do you explain from the Bible, why there are thorns and thistles? Genesis 3:18. EGW explains this and I think I already quoted, that it was via genetic engineering.


This is what I have thought. She uses the term "amalgamation," but it's difficult to think of what else this could be referring to, if not what we would call "genetic engineering."

Today, genetic engineering is done via transposable elements. These things can be designed to target very specific regions of the DNA. Human DNA is full of them. Plant DNA is full of them. Animal DNA - the same. If all creation groans together (Romans 8:22) and it is caused by sin, then how does this happen? Genetic engineering fits for Genesis 3:18. "Seed" in Genesis 3:15 fits genetics, in perhaps multiple ways.
Originally Posted By: EGW
Adam was required to render perfect obedience to God, not only in his own behalf, but in behalf of his posterity. ...
But Adam failed to bear the test. And because he revolted against God's law, all his descendants have been sinners. {2SAT 180.2}
God's law had once been written in the hearts of men and women. But their cherished sins dimmed and nearly effaced that writing.{2SAT 180.3}

Adam's sin is passed to his descendants. This is by BOTH heredity and cultivation as EGW says it. If it is inhereted, then how? TEs fit. DNA is an alphabet used for writing the information that builds from raw materials an organism, and also how to run and maintain that organism.

Believing lies about God was not the fall! Believing the lies led to the fall!
Originally Posted By: EGW
She disbelieved the words of God, and this was what led to her fall. {PP 55.2}

Her fall occurred when she ate the fruit.

EGW makes an interesting statement, and that is that here have been a succession of falls. Not just fall, but multiple.
Originally Posted By: EGW
If the race had ceased to fall when Adam was driven from Eden, we should now be in a far more elevated condition physically, mentally, and morally. But while men deplore the fall of Adam, which has resulted in such unutterable woe, they disobey the express injunctions of God, as did Adam, although they have his example to warn them from doing as he did in violating the law of Jehovah. Would that man had stopped falling with Adam. But there has been a succession of falls. Men will not take warning from Adam's experience. They will indulge appetite and passion in direct violation of the law of God, and at the same time continue to mourn Adam's transgression, which brought sin into the world. {RH, March 4, 1875 par. 8}

Originally Posted By: EGW
From Adam's day to ours there has been a succession of falls, each greater than the last, in every species of crime. God did not create a race of beings so devoid of health, beauty, and moral power as now exists in the world. Disease of every kind has been fearfully increasing upon the race. This has not been by God's especial providence, but directly contrary to His will. It has come by man's disregard of the very means which God has ordained to shield him from the terrible evils existing. Obedience to God's law in every respect would save men from intemperance, licentiousness, and disease of every type. No one can violate natural law without suffering the penalty. {RH, March 4, 1875 par. 9}

So loss of health, beauty, and moral power, disease of every kind increased. Man's lifespan markedly decreased after the flood. This is more that just lacking access to the Tree of Life. This is a continual corruption of our nature. EGW uses the term, the "accumulation of sin" or "accumulation of contamination", or "accumulated suffering". TEs sure do that, hey continue to accumulate.

Over the last year, after first hearing this genetic hypothesis, almost every disease I've looked at will ultimately have as an underlying cause transposable elements. Metabolic pathways that lead to heart disease, stroke, cancer, autoimmune disease, and infection risks from eating meat and dairy, directly caused by transposable elements. And this data published in top scientific journals. Send me a PM and I'll email you a packet some of the documents.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/12/11 02:10 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
No it doesn't. If you read the paragraphs in question, it can be seen to be saying the reverse. She writes over and over again, some 9 or 10 times, that the destruction of the wicked is NOT due to something being done to them by God, but is the result of their own choice. She could not have made the organic connection any clearer here.


Sincerely, you’ll need to list where you see these claimed “9 or 10 times” because I really do not see “all”, if any, of these actual mentions. This further explained “life” as “the life of God” makes this sounds to me more like an intended emphasis on a “quality of Life” vs. merely “life” here.

I’ll have to cut this pointed discussion short because it has the potential of being as futile as trying to get you to admit the plain reading of Gen 3:22-24 and PP 60.3.

Of all of the things that EGW says that the came to be “Finished” at the Cross, I do not see a statement that:
Originally Posted By: Tom
One of the things the cross accomplished was making clear what happens at death. The paragraph that speaks of the angels not understanding this makes this point clear. That is, the angels didn't understand, until the cross, that Satan's demise would be due to sin, if God left Satan to reap the full result of his sin.


Please provide the reference for that paragraph.

Originally Posted By: Tom
This is missing both the point in the immediate context, and of the chapter as whole.


The point indeed was that the paragraph you cited did not say this.

Similarly, your underlying tenet for the “organic” extent of your view is that, and correct me if I am wrong, ‘in the Cross, the organic relationship between sin and death can clearly be seen.’ Then how and why didn’t, even angels, not get the understanding that “sin results in death” from the billions of Human deaths before the Cross, starting with Abel’s???

Originally Posted By: Tom
It seems only eisogesis could explain not perceiving that DA 764 and the rest is bringing out the organic relationship of sin and death, since the point is repeated so many times, and in so many ways, in such a short passage.


List these ways...

Originally Posted By: Tom
DA 763.4-764.1 is simply quoting Scripture.


DA 763.4-764.1 is not “simply quoting Scripture.” It makes statements and quotes/references Scriptures to support these points.

Originally Posted By: Tom
It is following this that the Scripture is explained, and it is explained in terms of an organic relationship between sin and death.


What follows in DA 764.2 builds upon this basis in DA 763.4-764.1 of the start and permitted time for Satan’s rebellion so that it would be seen that his destruction was fully justified. Something (i.e., the justified destruction of Satan, and not “death itself”) the angels would not have understood had it been immediately carried out in Heaven. That is the entire point of EGW in these statements and not an attempt to demonstrate an organic relationship between sin and death, something that was clearly seen and was actually easily understood by all.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/12/11 02:11 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
Then man could not have been created in a condition to naturally die, since there was no entropy. One could say man was created in a condition in which he would die only if he disobeyed God.


I would agree with that statement only if this death is Biblically understood as being the result of being deprived of the Tree of Life, which, as I said before, was manifestly tangibly supplied of its “supernatural, life-giving power” from God Himself. In other words, I do not see that this, ultimately/originally ‘Life from God’ does not come to humans “ethereally/spiritually” or ‘by osmosis’ but tangibly, through, here the Fruit/Aroma of a Tree of Life.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/12/11 02:12 AM

Originally Posted By: APL
This does not prove it. The fruit itself was fine. But once God said, "do not eat of it", it became a grievous crime. Was this an arbitrary command of God? I think not.


Where we disagree here is that, since you see that this is not arbitrary, then it must then involve a directly active agent in itself. I also see that it was not arbitrary, but that the “harmful” element in this that made it not arbitrary was in the consequences and measures that God knew he would have to take for this tangible, thus deliberate, “disobedience”. And that was in barring access to the Tree of Life, which I also see, started the self-corruption of Man’s previously perfect genes with the absence of the “supernatural, God power/ingredient” init that had prevented this.

Originally Posted By: APL
I agree that the fruit of the Tree of Life was necessary to sustain life. And probably will in the world to come (Rev 2:7).


As I say, I can see this as the only way and means by which God can inject this supernatural element in the system of “non-immortal” man and Creation.

Originally Posted By: SOP
"There was nothing poisonous in the fruit of the tree of knowledge itself, nothing that would cause death in partaking of it."{ST, February 13, 1896 par. 7}


Does not this bold segment also preclude the injection of misinformation and TE’s from the fruit itself as you claim.

Originally Posted By: APL
A pleasurable sensation - just like drugs can cause a pleasurable sensation leading to addiction.


A “pleasurable sensation” can be caused in a person by many things other than an “ingested drug”. This is called “euphoria” which is a “an exhilarating psychological state of pride and optimism; an absence of depression”. E.g., winning a sporting event or money causes this “pleasurable sensation”. So this did not have to be something tangibly found in the fruit. It was probably just a feeling of: “Hey look, I just did what I wanted, even disobeying God Himself....I must know more than Him.... Wow, etc”

Originally Posted By: APL
Satan was out to take man captive.


It was indeed this addictive “euphoric” feeling of thinking to be as great and even greater than God Almighty, indeed becoming a god yourself, that Satan wanted to instill in man. Keep in mind the premise in Satan’s temptation of ‘being like God’ (Gen 3:5). So it was in this most addictive way that Satan wanted to, and (still) has greatly taken this world captive. To say that this was something tangible as a drug would also destroy our freedom, just like someone forcing a person done and injecting enough crack in their system to make them an addict. They did not become an addict by a free choice of theirs. God is also painted as unjust for punishing us from having been “addictively drugged” with sin. Eve may have freely eaten of the banned fruit, but she may not have asked to be so made into an “addict.”

Originally Posted By: APL
This statement does not say there were no ill effects. It says that the effects were not immediately felt. It very well could have been a long time coming. They soon felt they were naked. There sure were no other people around to embarrass them. And very soon after, the love they expressed for each other was thrown out and Adam blamed God and "the woman" Genesis 3:12. Adam and Eve's allegiance had changed.


As you say, the first felt ill-effect was a feeling of being naked and being ashamed of this. It can however be said that they were still genetically perfect and that until the next time to eat again (or for the first time?) of the fruit of life came and went.

Originally Posted By: APL
The problem I see with the idea that sin is only in the mind, is that then how do you explain from the Bible, why there are thorns and thistles? Genesis 3:18. EGW explains this and I think I already quoted, that it was via genetic engineering.


I have revised/calibrated my understanding here to understand as sin being both mental and physical and with both able to come to affect the body tangibly. Sinful/adverse thinking can affect the body however many of its harmful effects may be cured by the powers in the fruit of life, which is probably what necessitated its banning. However the absence of the fruit, as I see it, caused the human body to go haywire and self-corrupt itself. Still some sinful thinking, if they really cause not harm to the body can and will only be dealt with on a purely spiritual level, and that through the Sacrifice of Christ which prominently involved this atoning for man’s fallen “psyche”.

Originally Posted By: APL
EGW explains this and I think I already quoted, that it was via genetic engineering.


The foundational, Biblical/Theological problem with this view is that it gives Satan creative powers. That is readily seen in the ‘potential issue/question’ that kland went on to bring up in a follow up post. I do not see how this is possible for any created being. I rather see that what he does bring about, even as new, is from working with what already exists, just like humans today concoct things, even noxious/harmful things (e.g., agents for biological weapons) in labs. So I see that Satan came to ‘“sow” his noxious herb’ only after he had done some even genetical “amalgamation” from what already existed, indeed just like weeds can come to sprout in a perfect lawn simply from what already exists in that lawn. The ingredients of the “fruit of life” either transmitted to nature through the water or the air, could have also prevented the occurrence of this weed seed and God in Gen 3:17-19 apparently knew that this would be the natural result of this “Life ingredients” being removed from nature. So from this weed seed/gene Satan may have developed even more types of “noxious herbs and tares” and actively “sowed” them about the earth. (“sowing” and “amalgamating” is not the same thing as ‘originally creating as God can/does.’

Indeed the implied understanding that Satan could create goes against passages like John 1:3 that Jesus was the original Creator of everything. (I.e., before the point of secondary amalgamations or “genetic engineering”.)

Originally Posted By: APL
You can't blame the travail of all nature to the removal of the Tree of Life alone. No where does it say that animals were required to eat of the tree, and certainly not plants. But plants and animals have all infested by transposable elements.


I consider your TE hypothesis to be applicable/true only on a secondary level, i.e., sometime following the fall, in order to make things worse for man, and thus indeed variously take him captive, though that really would be should yourself in the foot because causing harm and disease is really not the way to prove that your way is better than God’s. However, I do not see it as being inceptive, i.e., that Satan (or God) had tangibly injected it into the banned fruit. Perhaps this genetic corruption in man would only have been realizable only after the time to eat of the Tree of Life had come and gone, then resulting in man’s immune system to vulnerably degrade from its perfect state. So injecting this prior to that time would have been useless as Man’s perfect body them would probably have successfully fought it off, removing it from the system. Also did Satan even know that God would ban the Fruit of Life from Man if they sinned. That may be why he said/believed that sinful man would not die. (However as I also believe that his own life clock was ticking since he had been cast out of Heaven, where probably Created Being have access to a similarly fruit of life, probably aromatically, he may have been aware of this probability and thus would indeed have “outrightly lied” here.)
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/12/11 02:33 AM

Originally Posted By: APL
I guess I'm confused by your reaction to my question, which you did not answer! Let me rephrase the question, if the Tree of Life was NOT removed, and the Adam was allowed to eat of it, would his nature have been restored to perfection?


I guess I also came to misunderstand “nature”, due to just reading and reacting to your response, as “human nature”, which is evidently what you had misread/misunderstood, but is not what I had actually initially said. My statement had been:

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
In regards to nature, it came to be affected because of Man’s fall which cause the agent that preserved its perfection to be removed, thus allowing it to become self-corrupted.


Which in turn had been a response to your “everything changed” SOP quote.

So in regards to Creation/Nature my short answer is, Yes, it would have remained perfect since, as I understand it, it also was being kept perfect by the ingredients of the tree of Life, either by water or “aromatically”. That is why, as I previously said, I believe that the Garden of Eden which continued to have the Tree of Life even after the Fall and Expulsion of Man, continued to remain in it’s perfect state of over 1700 years while on Earth until just before the flood as the Tree was allowed to continue to diffuse this supernatural elements, or like the River of Life in Heaven, it was all in the water, and the Tree of Life was exclusively enable to produce Fruits of Life from this Water of Life.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/12/11 02:37 AM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
I'm sorry, but you lost me.


I didn’t think this could do that...

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
What is your opinion of this insight? Did she overstate the point and misrepresent truth?


Succinctly said here, given my prior fuller and contextualizing explanation, I think she did not fully understand all of the Theological implications involved in this statement and thus, only express this Truth as she best understood it. (“Misrepresent” or even “overstated” implies deliberate intent, which she did not have.)

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Regarding the completion of the investigative judgment, John quoted Jesus when he wrote, "He that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still." There is no indication they will sin again in the New Earth.


The fact that the pertinent verbs here are expressed as “volitions” and “possibilities” (i.e., the Greek imperative mood - “the mood furthest removed from certainty” (Wallace, 485) - hence the resorting to “force”), shows that this is merely a desired wished. I.e., the Investigative Judgement has ended but there are still some teetering cases on both sides. So Jesus’s “wish” is that they will remain just where they are at so that He will not have made a wrong decision either way. Indeed in the unknown future as saved person may, after this judgement ends, “chicken out” and change sides. Conversely an unbelieving person may decide to follow the truth. So this is a statement that this should not come to pass, and Jesus has both the liberty and power to indeed forcefully harden/sustain people in both camps after this close of probation so that would not be the case, so that saved people will not be lost and “filthy” people will not make base ascents to the truth now fully/tangibly seeing the signs being fulfilled. (Matt 16:4).

So this statement, furthermore makes no mentions of what the future in Heaven will/should be. Man will always have the freedom to rebel against God if they insist. While Christ may be mercifully towards those who will be threatened with death after the close of probation and intervene to help prevent them from falling away (e.g. giving them sustain dreams), In heaven, with everything then proven, this merciful act would be outright and unjustified force against one’s inherently deliberate rebellious desires.
Posted By: APL

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/12/11 03:46 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
The foundational, Biblical/Theological problem with this view is that it gives Satan creative powers.

Really? How is that? Did Satan create life? No. Viruses - I would propose are an invention of Satan. Are they alive? No. They require intact living cellular systems in order to replicate. They take over a living organism. But they are not "alive". What we see in genetics is that TEs have modified all living organisms. The difference between placentals and marsupials? TEs. The genes are basically the same. How those genes are express, which is controlled by the TEs is the difference.

Satan can not and has not created life. But he has a powerful intellect that can be used to corrupt that life.

Humans have been given creative powers. We can create little people in our own image. Something I do not think Satan can do!
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/12/11 07:54 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
T:Then man could not have been created in a condition to naturally die, since there was no entropy. One could say man was created in a condition in which he would die only if he disobeyed God.

NJK:I would agree with that statement only if this death is Biblically understood as being the result of being deprived of the Tree of Life, which, as I said before, was manifestly tangibly supplied of its “supernatural, life-giving power” from God Himself. In other words, I do not see that this, ultimately/originally ‘Life from God’ does not come to humans “ethereally/spiritually” or ‘by osmosis’ but tangibly, through, here the Fruit/Aroma of a Tree of Life.


The point made is that if entropy did not exist, then man could not have been created as naturally dying. You say you could only agree with this if death is Biblically understood as being the result of being deprived of the Tree of Life, but it should be easy to see that my statement has not dependence whatsoever upon what your saying, or, more generally, upon the Tree of Life at all.

My statement is simply that if there is no entropy, then it could not be said that man was created in a state of naturally dying. That doesn't make sense. Man could only be said to be "naturally dying" if entropy existed.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/12/11 07:57 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
NJK:No it doesn't. If you read the paragraphs in question, it can be seen to be saying the reverse. She writes over and over again, some 9 or 10 times, that the destruction of the wicked is NOT due to something being done to them by God, but is the result of their own choice. She could not have made the organic connection any clearer here.

NJK:Sincerely, you’ll need to list where you see these claimed “9 or 10 times” because I really do not see “all”, if any, of these actual mentions.


Ok. This in itself will make the post long, so I'll make this its own post.

1.This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God.
2.The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown.
3.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."
4.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.
5.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.
6.The glory of Him who is love will destroy them.
7.At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this.
8.Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished;
9.It would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/12/11 08:18 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
NJK:I’ll have to cut this pointed discussion short because it has the potential of being as futile as trying to get you to admit the plain reading of Gen 3:22-24 and PP 60.3.


Is it futile for you to admit the plain reading of John 3:16?

Quote:
Of all of the things that EGW says that the came to be “Finished” at the Cross, I do not see a statement that:
Originally Posted By: Tom
One of the things the cross accomplished was making clear what happens at death. The paragraph that speaks of the angels not understanding this makes this point clear. That is, the angels didn't understand, until the cross, that Satan's demise would be due to sin, if God left Satan to reap the full result of his sin.

Please provide the reference for that paragraph.


DA 764, where it says that the angels did not understand "this." What "this" is is spoken of in the preceding paragraph, that the wicked have placed themselves so out of harmony with God that His presence to them is a consuming fire, and the glory of Him who is love will destroy them.

Quote:
T:This is missing both the point in the immediate context, and of the chapter as whole.

NJK:The point indeed was that the paragraph you cited did not say this.


Yes it did. I'll quote it:

Quote:
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.


This says:

1.At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this. What is "this"? It's what she was just speaking of in the preceding paragraph, that the wicked place themselves so out of harmony with God that His presence is to them a consuming fire, and the glory of Him who is love will destroy them.
2.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.

This says if God left Satan and his followers to reap the full result of sin they would have perished, but it would not have been been apparent to onlooking angels that this was the result of sin. Why is this no longer the case? Because Jesus died on the cross. Everything in the chapter is speaking of what Christ's death on the cross accomplished. This is apparent by reading the chapter. "It Is Finished" is speaking to this. The chapter starts out with this theme, and the theme is developed throughout the chapter. It starts out explaining things which were not evidence to onlooking angels until the cross, and it ends with this.

Quote:
Similarly, your underlying tenet for the “organic” extent of your view is that, and correct me if I am wrong, ‘in the Cross, the organic relationship between sin and death can clearly be seen.’ Then how and why didn’t, even angels, not get the understanding that “sin results in death” from the billions of Human deaths before the Cross, starting with Abel’s???


Because the cross is special, of course. That is why "It Is Finished" refers to the cross.

Quote:
T:It seems only eisogesis could explain not perceiving that DA 764 and the rest is bringing out the organic relationship of sin and death, since the point is repeated so many times, and in so many ways, in such a short passage.

NJK:List these ways...


I've done so.

Quote:
T:DA 763.4-764.1 is simply quoting Scripture.

NJK:DA 763.4-764.1 is not “simply quoting Scripture.” It makes statements and quotes/references Scriptures to support these points.


It makes the points I've listed.

Quote:
T:It is following this that the Scripture is explained, and it is explained in terms of an organic relationship between sin and death.

NJK:What follows in DA 764.2 builds upon this basis in DA 763.4-764.1 of the start and permitted time for Satan’s rebellion so that it would be seen that his destruction was fully justified. Something (i.e., the justified destruction of Satan, and not “death itself”) the angels would not have understood had it been immediately carried out in Heaven. That is the entire point of EGW in these statements and not an attempt to demonstrate an organic relationship between sin and death, something that was clearly seen and was actually easily understood by all.


She doesn't say this at all! She says nothing whatsoever along the lines that had God destroyed Satan before such and such was understood, this would have created problems, but now that such and such is understood, God can destroy Satan without any problem. She says that God gives the wicked a time to develop their character, and they make themselves so out of harmony with God that His presence is to them a consuming fire. This isn't something God is doing to destroy them, but something they do themselves to cause their destruction. She makes the point over and over again that the wicked do something to destroy themselves. She says that God alone is the fountain of life, and whoever separates themselves from God dies as a result.

She says if God "left" Satan and his host to suffer the full the result of their sin they would have perished, but it wouldn't have been understood that death was the inevitable result of sin. Why not? What do you think? Isn't it clear that the reason is because they would have misinterpreted the death of Satan and his followers to some cause which wasn't the case?

She says that they wouldn't have understood that death is the inevitable result of sin. That means they would have understood that their death was the cause of something else other than sin. So if they were understanding Satan's death, and the death of his followers, to be the death of something other than sin, what else could that be than that they were misunderstanding their death to be the result of God's destroying them?
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/12/11 10:17 AM

As I said APL, Satan has secondary, manipulative “re-creative” powers and not the “ex-nihilo” power of God. So whatever he “creates” comes from the “Seed” of what already exist. The same thing occurs with man with his reproductive abilities. That creative “seed” was created by God.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/12/11 10:22 AM

My view that man was dying from creation had been based on my mistranslation of Gen 2:17b. So I’ll agree that entropy in man did not exist prior to the first missed Fruit of Life taking at its scheduled time. Same with nature with the withdrawal of the “fruit” ingredient.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/12/11 10:23 AM

Interesting List and comments on DA 764 and that It Is Finished chapter. I do not agree with it however. I see that the “this” in DA 764.2 refers back to chief sentence of the preceding paragraph (764.1): “This [the destruction of the wicked] is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God.” So the rebellion of Satan had to be allowed to be played out until the Cross to demonstrate that their sin was fully deserving of death. That is what was finally “Finished” on the Cross. The Angels fully knew that sin causes death long before that. They did not need the Cross to realize this, but solely the GC history and development of it before that. What they wouldn’t have understood before this GC development was that Satan’s sin as it then inceptively was, was deserving of their death. What they realized at the Cross was the (1) true motives, (2) concealed great hatred and jealousy of Satan towards God and Christ and also (3) the great price that it would take to redeem anyone who sinned: namely the (eternal?) death of God.

This hatred and jealousy of Christ by Satan that the SOP detailedly speaks of, also delving into revealed inner feelings and sentiments, these angels may have never known nor understood until they saw it for themselves at the Cross and it thus shocked them that this destruction of God/Christ had been Satan’s real/full plan all along.

By the way I specifically understand John 3:16 as Jesus now being the only accepted way to regain this Life, and thus without faith in him it indeed becomes impossible to have. My question however now is, does He still now, i.e., since His death, still have the divine nature in him to, as it appears to be the case, tangibly provide this physical life to man through these supernatural ingredients being injected into the Water of Life flowing from God’s thrown and alimenting the Tree of Life growing on its banks. So I still see the eternal life of man as wholly depending on a physical transmission from Christ and not merely for the indirect, ethereal spiritual reasons that you seems to have.
Posted By: APL

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/12/11 08:12 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
...since there was no entropy.

If there is no entropy, then there is no metabolism. There would be no need to eat anything. Adam and Eve were to tend the garden. What is there to tend if there is no entropy.
Posted By: APL

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/12/11 08:30 PM

Sin after the Great Controversy is over:
Originally Posted By: EGW
Says the word of God: "Affliction shall not rise up the second time." Nahum 1:9. The law of God, which Satan has reproached as the yoke of bondage, will be honored as the law of liberty. A tested and proved creation will never again be turned from allegiance to Him whose character has been fully manifested before them as fathomless love and infinite wisdom. {GC 504.1}

1) Nahum 1:9 - affliction shall not rise up a second time.
2) God's law is the law of liberty.
3) A tested and proved creation will never again be turned from allegiance to God.

Here is the key from the genetic view, creation has been tested and proved. The work of God is perfect Deu. 32:4. His law is perfect Psa. 19:7. New created beings are sure to come in the future. Might there be doubts in their minds about God? Might there be things that we who are redeemed may not understand about what God is doing and must continue to trust (have faith) in Him? Was God's creation so fragile that just a wrong thought brought the whole system down? Or is this saying that the sin experiment has been done. God's was right, you can't change how life operates (mod DNA). You can't mess with the systems internals. His creation has been tested and proven. Christ and the redeemed will be the testimony about the awful experiment of sin.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/12/11 10:12 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
"But we desire to enter heaven, for there, there is no disappointment, no sorrow, no sin, no one who shall say, "I am sick." There, there is no burial train, no mourning, no death, no parting, no broken hearts; and Jesus is there, peace is there. {ST, February 8, 1892 par. 4}

M: What is your opinion of this insight? Did she overstate the point and misrepresent truth?

N: Succinctly said here, given my prior fuller and contextualizing explanation, I think she did not fully understand all of the Theological implications involved in this statement and thus, only express this Truth as she best understood it. (“Misrepresent” or even “overstated” implies deliberate intent, which she did not have.)

Are you saying she erroneously believed sin and death would never happen again in the New Earth?

Also, do you know of a statement in her writings where she clearly says, If someone were to silently sin in their heart in the New Earth, God would immediately destroy that person before their sin could ripene into open rebellion?

Originally Posted By: NJK
M: Regarding the completion of the investigative judgment, John quoted Jesus when he wrote, "He that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still." There is no indication they will sin again in the New Earth.

N: The fact that the pertinent verbs here are expressed as “volitions” and “possibilities” (i.e., the Greek imperative mood - “the mood furthest removed from certainty” (Wallace, 485) - hence the resorting to “force”), shows that this is merely a desired wished. I.e., the Investigative Judgement has ended but there are still some teetering cases on both sides. So Jesus’s “wish” is that they will remain just where they are at so that He will not have made a wrong decision either way. Indeed in the unknown future as saved person may, after this judgement ends, “chicken out” and change sides. Conversely an unbelieving person may decide to follow the truth. So this is a statement that this should not come to pass, and Jesus has both the liberty and power to indeed forcefully harden/sustain people in both camps after this close of probation so that would not be the case, so that saved people will not be lost and “filthy” people will not make base ascents to the truth now fully/tangibly seeing the signs being fulfilled. (Matt 16:4).

So this statement, furthermore makes no mentions of what the future in Heaven will/should be. Man will always have the freedom to rebel against God if they insist. While Christ may be mercifully towards those who will be threatened with death after the close of probation and intervene to help prevent them from falling away (e.g. giving them sustain dreams), In heaven, with everything then proven, this merciful act would be outright and unjustified force against one’s inherently deliberate rebellious desires.

Ellen wrote:

Quote:
When the work of the investigative judgment closes, the destiny of all will have been decided for life or death. Probation is ended a short time before the appearing of the Lord in the clouds of heaven. Christ in the Revelation, looking forward to that time, declares: "He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still. And, behold, I come quickly; and My reward is with Me, to give every man according as his work shall be." Revelation 22:11, 12. {CCh 349.2}
The righteous and the wicked will still be living upon the earth in their mortal state—men will be planting and building, eating and drinking, all unconscious that the final, irrevocable decision has been pronounced in the sanctuary above. {CCh 349.3}
Silently, unnoticed as the midnight thief, will come the decisive hour which marks the fixing of every man's destiny, the final withdrawal of mercy's offer to guilty men. 621 {CCh 349.4}

When the third angel's message closes, mercy no longer pleads for the guilty inhabitants of the earth. The people of God have accomplished their work. They have received "the latter rain," "the refreshing from the presence of the Lord," and they are prepared for the trying hour before them. Angels are hastening to and fro in heaven. An angel returning from the earth announces that his work is done; the final test has been brought upon the world, and all who have proved themselves loyal to the divine precepts have received "the seal of the living God." Then Jesus ceases His intercession in the sanctuary above. He lifts His hands and with a loud voice says, "It is done;" and all the angelic host lay off their crowns as He makes the solemn announcement: "He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still." Revelation 22:11. Every case has been decided for life or death. Christ has made the atonement for His people and blotted out their sins. The number of His subjects is made up; "the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven," is about to be given to the heirs of salvation, and Jesus is to reign as King of kings and Lord of lords. {GC 613.2}

Do her insights described above support what you wrote above?

Also, do you know of any statement in her writings where Ellen clearly says after probation closes some people will changes their minds and reverse their eternal destiny?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/12/11 10:15 PM

Tom, I've bumped this post twice now hoping you will address it.

Originally Posted By: Tom
M: With these things in mind it is proper to ask - Who or what acts when sinners are punished and killed? For example, when fire "went out from the LORD" and killed Nadab and Abihu, who or what acted to kill them? We both agree the fire did not act on its own. Please understand I'm not asking you to explain why they deserved to die. Obviously they are responsible for the fact they died. The question is - Who or what employed the fire that killed them?

T: I think the same principles were at work in these cases as laid out in the paragraphs I just quoted [GC88 36].

Here's an excerpt from the quote you posted, "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."

In the Bible it says, "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. And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD."

Ellen wrote, "God consumed them by fire for their positive disregard of His express directions. {RH, March 25, 1875 par. 2} "Fire from his presence destroyed them in their sin. {4aSG 125.1} "A fire blazed out from the holy of holies and consumed them. {Te 280.1}

You seem to be suggesting the "fire" that "blazed out" from the "presence" of God in "the holy of holies" and "consumed" Nadab and Abihu in reality was employed by Satan. Is this what you believe Ellen had in mind? If so, doesn't that imply she believed Satan was standing beside God in the most holy place when he employed fire to kill them?

Do you know of even one passage where Ellen plainly says, God withdrew His protection and permitted Satan to employ fire to kill Nadab and Abihu?

Originally Posted By: Tom
1. In the OT, did Jesus ever command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle?

2. In the OT, did Jesus ever command godly people to execute capital punishment?

3. In the OT, did Jesus ever withdraw His protection and permit the forces of nature or evil men, and/or evil angels to kill men, women, and children?

M: Yes, God turns the other cheek, goes the extra mile, and offers His other coat. Which begs the three questions listed above. What else can you tell us about Jesus that can help us understand the three actions named above?

T: I think it begs other questions.

What other questions do you have in mind?

Also, it is obvious that the answer to the three questions listed above is - Yes! Do you agree? If not, why not?
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/13/11 03:42 AM

Originally Posted By: APL
Sin after the Great Controversy is over:
Originally Posted By: EGW
Says the word of God: "Affliction shall not rise up the second time." Nahum 1:9. The law of God, which Satan has reproached as the yoke of bondage, will be honored as the law of liberty. A tested and proved creation will never again be turned from allegiance to Him whose character has been fully manifested before them as fathomless love and infinite wisdom. {GC 504.1}

1) Nahum 1:9 - affliction shall not rise up a second time.
2) God's law is the law of liberty.
3) A tested and proved creation will never again be turned from allegiance to God.

Here is the key from the genetic view, creation has been tested and proved. The work of God is perfect Deu. 32:4. His law is perfect Psa. 19:7. New created beings are sure to come in the future. Might there be doubts in their minds about God? Might there be things that we who are redeemed may not understand about what God is doing and must continue to trust (have faith) in Him? Was God's creation so fragile that just a wrong thought brought the whole system down? Or is this saying that the sin experiment has been done. God's was right, you can't change how life operates (mod DNA). You can't mess with the systems internals. His creation has been tested and proven. Christ and the redeemed will be the testimony about the awful experiment of sin.


APL, sincerely speaking, since you appear to be sincere, this is what has become disturbing to me with your “genetic” view, as you said, you indeed do see it everywhere in EGW writing, and in places such as this text where I do not begin to see how/why is would/should/could apply. Creation became messed up because of the removal of the sustaining Tree of Life, all indirectly stemming from the “thought” Eve had about second guessing God. So it is solely in that way that the upheaval in nature is linked to a single thought.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/13/11 04:26 AM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Are you saying she erroneously believed sin and death would never happen again in the New Earth?


What EGW was in “error” here was that she did not understand the Biblical Truth about God and the Future and thus did not see this as an eternal possibility. So she made such “absolute negation” statements based on her incomplete/inaccurate view on this Theological topic.

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Also, do you know of a statement in her writings where she clearly says, If someone were to silently sin in their heart in the New Earth, God would immediately destroy that person before their sin could ripene into open rebellion?


I do not know of any such statement, probably because it was not a present/understood truth for her and her generation then.

I am also not really saying that God will immediately destroy this person. Based on how the rebellion of Lucifer first began in his heart, which God surely could read, I rather see that such “devising thoughts” (Nah 1:9a) will be immediately exposed by God and a trial will surely follow where this person will be given the just penalty. It may only be the opportunity to present his case and weigh it against the GC facts. So if that doubt/questioning was sincere, that person may not even be destroyed, however if the person was scheming on how to steal from his neighbor that would be “nipped in the bud” and that sin and sinner eradicated.

However given the present realities then of e.g., seeing God, Jesus, Heaven, the GC etc., I do not see such sinful pettiness ever being entertained by these previously careful examined and selected redeemed ones. That is why the Investigative Judgement is so crucial and so thorough. It is not a matter of simply going through the motions. So this possibility of sin/rebellion may only be for something entirely “new” as it was for Lucifer’s rebellion.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: SOP
When the work of the investigative judgment closes, the destiny of all will have been decided for life or death. Probation is ended a short time before the appearing of the Lord in the clouds of heaven. Christ in the Revelation, looking forward to that time, declares: "He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still. And, behold, I come quickly; and My reward is with Me, to give every man according as his work shall be." Revelation 22:11, 12. {CCh 349.2}
The righteous and the wicked will still be living upon the earth in their mortal state—men will be planting and building, eating and drinking, all unconscious that the final, irrevocable decision has been pronounced in the sanctuary above. {CCh 349.3}
Silently, unnoticed as the midnight thief, will come the decisive hour which marks the fixing of every man's destiny, the final withdrawal of mercy's offer to guilty men. 621 {CCh 349.4}

When the third angel's message closes, mercy no longer pleads for the guilty inhabitants of the earth. The people of God have accomplished their work. They have received "the latter rain," "the refreshing from the presence of the Lord," and they are prepared for the trying hour before them. Angels are hastening to and fro in heaven. An angel returning from the earth announces that his work is done; the final test has been brought upon the world, and all who have proved themselves loyal to the divine precepts have received "the seal of the living God." Then Jesus ceases His intercession in the sanctuary above. He lifts His hands and with a loud voice says, "It is done;" and all the angelic host lay off their crowns as He makes the solemn announcement: "He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still." Revelation 22:11. Every case has been decided for life or death. Christ has made the atonement for His people and blotted out their sins. The number of His subjects is made up; "the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven," is about to be given to the heirs of salvation, and Jesus is to reign as King of kings and Lord of lords. {GC 613.2}


Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Do her insights described above support what you wrote above?


I Indeed think they do. Jesus’s statement in Rev 22:11 are stated after the visions of Revelation have been given (Rev 22:6ff). It is also said in a context of Jesus’s return being “near|swiftly”. As such it is spiritually, substantively and temporally quite applicable to the short period of time between the Close of Probation and the Appearing of Christ in the sky. So EGW apparent revelation that these words were said and/or apply in that time period as seen in GC 613 are thus Biblically supported.

Exegetically speaking, the imperative mood also adds more understanding here as it indeed expresses mere intent vs. “assertion/certainty” (indicative mood); “probability” (subjunctive); “possibility” (optative). These statement are even said to be an “ironic command” expressing a taunt or dare, particularly in regards to the evildoers. (See Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 490-491, 748-751). So what is being conveyed here is a strong desire that this will remain the state of affairs following this close of Probation. Indeed as it was seen with Pharaoh when his (typological) plagues were falling, God hardened his heart starting from the sixth plague on so that he would not change his mind until all ten plagues had fallen. So the same thing can be done by God during the outpouring of the 7 Last Plagues so that both sides will remain where they were at the Close of Probation.

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Also, do you know of any statement in her writings where Ellen clearly says after probation closes some people will changes their minds and reverse their eternal destiny?


I did not say “will”, I said “could” and that is “could want to” but God will not allow it then. As I said above, Pharaoh considered it, EGW states that the antedelluvians did and began banging on the Ark’s door (after 7 days since the close of their probation) so that Noah would let them in. (PP 99.3-100.1) Indeed it is most logical and likely that people who will have scoffed at the Three Angels Message will want to join the faithful remnant when they see the plagues falling only on them. That is how base, pain-or-pleasure trained people “think” and react. They don’t do the right thing until it begins to hurt them. The sealed saved on the other hand will most likely, though not ‘assertively, certainly’ remain faithful until the end, however some may freely choose to switch sides then. Hence the “forceful desire/command” of Jesus in Rev 22:11 for them to ‘continue to practice righteousness and be holy’ during this trying time.

When one understand the Biblical teaching about “God and the Future” it is rightly and easily understood that such future decision really cannot be definitely known, so it is not surprising that this is not shown in EGW’s vision. Indeed Jesus greatly wishes here that it will not be the case and thus will surely endeavor to make sure it indeed does not come to pass.
Posted By: APL

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/13/11 11:21 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
APL, sincerely speaking, since you appear to be sincere, this is what has become disturbing to me with your “genetic” view, as you said, you indeed do see it everywhere in EGW writing, and in places such as this text where I do not begin to see how/why is would/should/could apply. Creation became messed up because of the removal of the sustaining Tree of Life, all indirectly stemming from the “thought” Eve had about second guessing God. So it is solely in that way that the upheaval in nature is linked to a single thought.

The eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is what caused the fall. As I quoted from EGW, Eve believed the lies of Satan, and this LED to her fall. Believing the lie was not her fall.

As for nature falling apart because of the removal of the Tree of Life does not fit. Yes, the TOL could have continued to support life. But that life would be of a sinner.
Originally Posted By: EGW
Man was dependent upon the tree of life for immortality, and the Lord took these precautions lest men should eat of that tree "and live forever"--become immortal sinners. {TM 133.3}

I get the feeling from your replies about the Tree of Life, that if Adam and Eve could have eaten from that tree, they would have been able to be restored to perfection. But if so, the why do they need a savior?

You are right in that I do see the genetic tie-in all over EGW's writings. It is every where. But if you do not have genetic glasses, you will never see it.

In studying this genetic issue, I have found transposable elements responsible for many diseases. The extreme hypothesis is that all disease is caused by them. I could go down the line of so many diseases the I have found to as their underlying cause transposable elements.
Originally Posted By: EGW
Our Lord Jesus Christ came to this world as the unwearied servant of man's necessity. He "took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses," that He might minister to every need of humanity. Matthew 8:17. The burden of disease and wretchedness and sin He came to remove. It was His mission to bring to men complete restoration; He came to give them health and peace and perfection of character. {MH 17.1}

Messiah took on our sicknesses, and he came to remove our burden of disease. If disease is caused by TEs, then one of the goal of His mission was to find a solution to the TE problem.
Originally Posted By: 1 John
1 John 3:8 AKJV He that commits sin is of the devil; for the devil sins from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

With genetic glasses, TEs are the work of the devil.

The Tree of Life could have perpetuated life, but a sinner would have had a life of misery. And there is more. A sinner could not come into the presence of God, because to them God would be a consuming fire. And there is good scientific evidence that could explain why from a TE point of view. TEs weaken DNA, change the shape, make is susceptible to ionizing radiation. Take Nadab and Abihu. They came into the presence of God without the proper preparation. The fire of God consumed them. I do not see this as an arbitrarily imposed sentence against them. But as a natural consequence of a sinner being exposed to God's presence. Their TEs disintegrate, killing the sinner. I don't see the Tree of Life solving this problem, from a science point of view. TEs can cause whole segments of information to be lost. This can only be solved by putting the information back. This also explains why only Christ can come and solve the sin problem. It is so much more that just excising the defective part. Solving the sin problem is probably orders of magnitude harder than the original creation in that the remedy has to be individual specific, and it is ever changing. And it has to be solved and yet maintain the character of the individual.

Affliction will not rise again because the experiment has been done. If you mess with the way God has designed life to work, it will destroy it. The system is how ever not so fragile that just a doubt in the mind will crash the system. It was more. And this also explains how in the book Great Controversy, page 495, Satan is telling lies about God, a clear violation of the moral law! And yet had not yet sworn off allegiance to God. He had not yet so damaged himself that it could have been unwound.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/13/11 01:21 PM

Just to make sure you are reading and understanding me correctly here are my views in the light of your responses:

-I do not see that the fall came from something tangible in the banned fruit.

-When I speak of “nature” I am referring to Creation and not “human nature”.

-I never said that sinful Adam or Eve eating the fruit would restore them to perfection, especially in term of human nature. It would however perpetuate their life.

-I agree with your genetic view except for ‘seeing it everywhere through genetics glasses. To me that is not necessary. Of course all of the evils in the world can be traced back to genetic malfunctions, however that does not have to, nor come to, mean that ‘EGW knew and wrote about this throughout her writings.’ That is classical eisegesis on her writings. She was not knowledgeable to this level of science which probably did not even exist then, nor was she given revelations on this. So this view has to be externally imposed on her writings, and the “proof” of that only subjectively lies with the “beholder”.

Originally Posted By: APL
Affliction will not rise again because the experiment has been done. If you mess with the way God has designed life to work, it will destroy it. ...


-Genetics does not trump man free will. So it does not come to force man to live perfectly forever in the future (i.e., after the second coming) That is a deliberate choice that all will have to knowingly and freely make. In you view, how then did sin originate in Heaven where all was perfect, indeed even more than what will be in the future since e.g., our characters will have to be improved upon and Jesus will have his human form.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/13/11 10:43 PM

NJK, regarding post 131748, thank you for answering my questions. I've never met anyone who believes as you described above.
Posted By: APL

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/13/11 10:48 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
-Genetics does not trump man free will. So it does not come to force man to live perfectly forever in the future (i.e., after the second coming) That is a deliberate choice that all will have to knowingly and freely make. In you view, how then did sin originate in Heaven where all was perfect, indeed even more than what will be in the future since e.g., our characters will have to be improved upon and Jesus will have his human form.

Agreed that freewill is maintained. And in the New Earth, there will not be the temptation of evil. However, one must eat of the Tree of Life in order to maintain immortality. We won't have evil any longer, but we will still have a choice to live or not.
Originally Posted By: NJK
-I agree with your genetic view except for ‘seeing it everywhere through genetics glasses. To me that is not necessary.

OK - then how do you explain all the disease we see around us and in all life? It can not be lack of access to the Tree of Life because the "Information" that the system is telling us is that there is two antagonistic authors reflected in the DNA.
Originally Posted By: NJK
Of course all of the evils in the world can be traced back to genetic malfunctions, however that does not have to, nor come to, mean that ‘EGW knew and wrote about this throughout her writings.’ That is classical eisegesis on her writings. She was not knowledgeable to this level of science which probably did not even exist then, nor was she given revelations on this. So this view has to be externally imposed on her writings, and the “proof” of that only subjectively lies with the “beholder”.

It is true, she had no knowledge of DNA. That does not mean she did not understand heredity. Today we can decode the writing in the DNA. But she was very aware of the effects of heredity.
Originally Posted By: EGW
But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life. {DA 48.5}
Originally Posted By: EGW
Faith Purifies Inherited Imperfections.--Those who through an intelligent understanding of the Scriptures view the cross aright, those who truly believe in Jesus, have a sure foundation for their faith. They have that faith which works by love and purifies the soul from all its hereditary and cultivated imperfections.--6T 238 (1900). {1MCP 146.3}
Originally Posted By: EGW
The question for us to consider is, Have we the attributes of Christ? Excuses are valueless. All circumstances, all appetites and passions are to be servants to the God-fearing man, not rulers over him. The Christian is not to be enslaved by any hereditary or cultivated habits or tendency He is to rule the animal passions, rather than to be held in the bondage of habit. {SpTA09 56.1}
Originally Posted By: EGW
There are hereditary and cultivated tendencies to evil that must be overcome.{8T 314.1}
Originally Posted By: EGW
There is every phase of character received by children as an inheritance. The defects and the virtues in traits of character are thus revealed. Let every instructor take this into consideration. Hereditary and cultivated deformity of human character, as also beauty of character, will have to be met, and much grace cultivated in the instructor to know how to deal with the erring for their present and eternal good.
Originally Posted By: EGW
Christ has given us no assurance that to attain perfection of character is an easy matter. A noble, all-around character is not inherited. It does not come to us by accident. A noble character is earned by individual effort through the merits and grace of Christ. God gives the talents, the powers of the mind; we form the character. It is formed by hard, stern battles with self. Conflict after conflict must be waged against hereditary tendencies. We shall have to criticize ourselves closely and allow not one unfavorable trait to remain uncorrected. --COL 331 (1900). {2MCP 546.1}

EGW did not know about DNA. But she knew about inheritance. There are several aspects in inheritance. There are epigenetic changes which change gene expression without changing the underlying DNA code. Epigenetic changes are what is used to control the underlying DNA. And there are the transposable elements which can modify gene expression, destroy genes, and bring in new genes via horizontal transfer. These changes caused by transposable elements may be responsible for ALL disease as the underlying cause. Epigenetics are influenced by our thoughts, habits, diets, etc. is what turns on or all the ill effects of the TEs. Thus the Adventist health message is not a trivial part in the Gospel, being as EGW says, the right arm.

Sin is not just bad thinking, or believing lies. The acting on these beliefs is what pulls the trigger. Eve believed lies about God, this was not her fall. It led to her fall.
Originally Posted By: EGW
She disbelieved the words of God, and this was what led to her fall. {PP 55.2}
Originally Posted By: EGW
Since the laws of nature are the laws of God, it is plainly our duty to give these laws careful study. We should study their requirements in regard to our own bodies and conform to them. Ignorance in these things is sin. {6T 369.1}

So, yes, she did not know heredity to the level of science we have today. But that does not mean she did not have understanding of the issues as pertaining to genetics. And I have not mentioned her "amalgamation" comments for which has received so much flack.

I have many more quotes of EGW that support a genetic view. You call it eisegesis. It is only eisegesis on my part if she is not talking about genetics and I say she is.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/14/11 02:30 AM

Originally Posted By: APL
Agreed that freewill is maintained. And in the New Earth, there will not be the temptation of evil. However, one must eat of the Tree of Life in order to maintain immortality. We won't have evil any longer, but we will still have a choice to live or not.


That won’t be our only choice. It is manifestly because you believe that sin/evil can only tangibly come from a banned fruit that you make this conclusion. How then did iniquity form in Lucifer’s “perfect” heart (Ezek 28:15). What banned fruit did he eat?? You did not answer that question in my prior post! As long as God’s Created Being will be free, this possibility of them devising sin in their heart, (i.e., thoughts/mind and, logically/factually, not the physical pumping organ) will always be present.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: NJK Project
I agree with your genetic view except for ‘seeing it everywhere through genetics glasses. To me that is not necessary.


Originally Posted By: APL
OK - then how do you explain all the disease we see around us and in all life? It can not be lack of access to the Tree of Life because the "Information" that the system is telling us is that there is two antagonistic authors reflected in the DNA.


(a) I was referring to ‘everywhere in EGW’s writings’;
(b) as I went on to explanatorily say: “Of course all of the evils in the world can be traced back to genetic malfunctions, ...’”

I just don’t see a “proof” of your, let’s be honest, “scientifically, at best, still hypothetical view” that this harm was done by Satan (or God??) himself having written a corrupting “DNA code” in some, and addictive, ingredient in the banned fruit. Really you first need to work on moving your view from scientifically being a hypothesis, to proven science or else it is no better than arguing for life on Pluto, and morevover, claiming that it was Satan who had originally created them!!

Originally Posted By: APL
It is true, she had no knowledge of DNA. That does not mean she did not understand heredity. Today we can decode the writing in the DNA. But she was very aware of the effects of heredity.


That is indeed true, however I still do not see a reason to go eisegetically overboard as you have and “see genetics everywhere” including, as you staunchly claimed before, in the Legislative Law of God that Satan sought to amendment. Where else are you falsely/eisegetically ‘seeing genetics’. When EGW makes explicit or substantively allusive statements on heredity, then I’ll concede that it involves some form of genetics, otherwise requiring ‘rose-colored “genetic glasses”’ instead of such substantive exegesis is not my approach to understanding the writings of EGW, let alone the Bible. So if you want to convince me, substantiate your claims exegetically and also avoid making conclusory jumps as in: ‘since she said ‘heredity’ in this passage, then she must have understood TE’s and DNA in that other unrelated passage where the term is not even mentioned.’

Originally Posted By: APL
EGW did not know about DNA. But she knew about inheritance. There are several aspects in inheritance. There are epigenetic changes which change gene expression without changing the underlying DNA code. Epigenetic changes are what is used to control the underlying DNA. And there are the transposable elements which can modify gene expression, destroy genes, and bring in new genes via horizontal transfer. These changes caused by transposable elements may be responsible for ALL disease as the underlying cause. Epigenetics are influenced by our thoughts, habits, diets, etc. is what turns on or all the ill effects of the TEs. Thus the Adventist health message is not a trivial part in the Gospel, being as EGW says, the right arm.

...

So, yes, she did not know heredity to the level of science we have today. But that does not mean she did not have understanding of the issues as pertaining to genetics. And I have not mentioned her "amalgamation" comments for which has received so much flack.

I have many more quotes of EGW that support a genetic view. You call it eisegesis. It is only eisegesis on my part if she is not talking about genetics and I say she is.


To be quite honest with you, I really have no problem with your genetics look at the effects of sin problem, (there indeed is ample scientific and even Biblical support for it), except for attributing it as a source to the banned fruit of life. The fact that man physically degenerated when they stopped eating of the fruit of life, is proof enough to me that it was its “supernatural powers” that were preventing this genetics corruption. And still that was not an act of God, but a natural consequence, just like it is not your doctor, nor your sworn enemy, who injected you with a sickness when it breaks out in you because you stopped taking the pills that were keeping it from even ever beginning to develop. That in itself is highly speculative, Theologically unsound and thus outright eisegesis.

Originally Posted By: APL
Sin is not just bad thinking, or believing lies. The acting on these beliefs is what pulls the trigger. Eve believed lies about God, this was not her fall. It led to her fall.


Sin indeed “is not just bad thinking, or believing lies” however that is the very place that it all always begins, hence its only source. It also takes and entirely distinct process to turn a simple thought (e.g., temptation) into a sin in the mind. And, as I said before, if Eve’s sin came from an external and addictive source, then this whole GC has been an unfair act of God and that impeaches His Just, Fair and Loving Character.
Posted By: APL

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/14/11 05:26 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
That won’t be our only choice. It is manifestly because you believe that sin/evil can only tangibly come from a banned fruit that you make this conclusion. How then did iniquity form in Lucifer’s “perfect” heart (Ezek 28:15). What banned fruit did he eat?? You did not answer that question in my prior post!

I've given my view in the discussion. Ezekiel 28:15 AKJV You were perfect in your ways from the day that you were created, till iniquity was found in you.

"iniquity was found in you". What does this mean? Of course there was no Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in heaven. But are you not an engineer by training? EE? Certainly you have designed something in the past. How did it come about? First you needed to understand how the system components worked, and how they all worked together. Then you had a goal as to what you wanted to achieve. You then used existing components and built up your design and tested it. Satan sought to add an amendment to the law in heaven (quoting EGW). If that law is codified in the DNA of his very being, then your poke at the lack of a bad tree in heaven is not relevant. Satan "is the author of sin". (GC 422). I read this literally. You read it figuratively.

Here is one of the issues. You can't accept this because to you God's law is just a legal law, is that what you are saying in the following quote of yours?
Originally Posted By: NJK
... in the Legislative Law of God that Satan sought to amendment.

So God's law is legislative, a legal declaration. I'm saying that God's law is codified in all the law of nature, including DNA. If you mess with that coding, that is sin. EGW even talks about "defacing the image of God" in man by the use of amalgamation. This is genetic engineering. And she has gotten a lot of flack for that comment.

I read this view in scripture and in EGW. And it makes sense. It presents and interesting view of the plan of salvation. It explains, in a non-legal way how the sins of the world can be placed on Christ, how he can actually bear the sins of the world. It puts emphasis on God as the Creator and his Creation.
Originally Posted By: NJK
And, as I said before, if Eve’s sin came from an external and addictive source, then this whole GC has been an unfair act of God and that impeaches His Just, Fair and Loving Character.

And unfair act on God's part? He had warned Adam and Eve of the consequences of eating from the Tree.

But there is more to the genetic story which I have not discussed in this thread. TEs make up 50-90% of human DNA. About 40% of the DNA is locked up, suppressed. Genesis 3:15 says that there will be enmity between the serpent's seed and the woman's seed. Why only the woman and not Adam? There is good genetic answer, but I digress. With 40% of the DNA locked down, Satan can claim, "not fair". His experiment has been tampered with. At the cross, the "enmity" was removed. And it killed Christ. In the garden before the crucifixion, Jesus was dying, sweating blood. His physiology was falling coming apart. Isaiah 52:13-15 comes to mind. When was the last time you heard a sermon on those verses?

EGW in Great Controversy makes the following comment: It is Satan's constant effort to misrepresent the character of God, the nature of sin, and the real issues at stake in the great controversy. {GC 569.1}

So what is the "nature of sin" that the devil is misrepresenting?
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/14/11 08:23 AM


Originally Posted By: APL
I've given my view in the discussion. Ezekiel 28:15 AKJV[
You were perfect in your ways from the day that you were created, till iniquity was found in you.

"iniquity was found in you". What does this mean? Of course there was no Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in heaven.

But are you not an engineer by training? EE? Certainly you have designed something in the past. How did it come about? First you needed to understand how the system components worked, and how they all worked together. Then you had a goal as to what you wanted to achieve. You then used existing components and built up your design and tested it.


Sorry but I do not see Electrical Engineering explaining this Theological issue. Nor does it actually illustrate it as for it to apply here, it would have to be said that Satan invented the electrons that then make all of that future engineering work. As I understand it, Satan does not have that originally creating power (John 1:3). Why do you think he was so jealous of Christ and God planning the creation of man without consulting him if he could create even anything on his own. If I have the money and some friends of mine decide to leave me out of their planned group trip to the Super Bowl, I be upset yes, but I’ll just go and by my own tickets there.

Originally Posted By: APL
Satan sought to add an amendment to the law in heaven (quoting EGW).


EGW also had this notion of the Law of Nature, but in that passage she is solely referring to the 10 Commandments, which the Papacy also sought to similarly “amend”.


Originally Posted By: APL
If that law is codified in the DNA of his very being, then your poke at the lack of a bad tree in heaven is not relevant.


You first need to show that the Law of Nature is synonymous with the 10 Commandments. To me they are distinct, though both contributive to God’s perfection.

Originally Posted By: APL
Satan "is the author of sin". (GC 422). I read this literally. You read it figuratively.


Indeed he literally is. He was the first to come up with what was sin in Heaven. However that does not mean, nor need to mean, that he is the one who inceptive, actively corrupted the perfect state of man by injecting something in the banned life. The removal of Tree of Life cause this inceptive corruption, indeed opening the door for Satan’s subsequent active corruptive means. Still I read of this tangibly being done to/in animals and nature, and not actually humans.

And if it was the case that the banned fruit was Satan’s “sin/TE poison” addicitive pill, why did EGW say anything of the sort on such a key and foundational point as she did with the Fruit of Life in stating that it contained “supernatural powers”.

Originally Posted By: APL
Here is one of the issues. You can't accept this because to you God's law is just a legal law, is that what you are saying in the following quote of yours?


Interesting way of “legalistically” putting it. I know that God’s Law is multifaceted. It does include nature. All I said was that in that EGW quote she was pointedly and solely referring to the Legislative/10 Commandment Law, which she also said was what was at issue in Heaven at Lucifer’s rebellion. Any other view needs to ignore that context, and thus is eisegetical.

Originally Posted By: APL
So God's law is legislative, a legal declaration. I'm saying that God's law is codified in all the law of nature, including DNA.


There are different aspect to God’s Law for different/distinct aspects of His Creation.

Originally Posted By: APL
If you mess with that coding, that is sin. EGW even talks about "defacing the image of God" in man by the use of amalgamation. This is genetic engineering. And she has gotten a lot of flack for that comment.


You may have an angle here....

Originally Posted By: APL
I read this view in scripture and in EGW. And it makes sense. It presents and interesting view of the plan of salvation. It explains, in a non-legal way how the sins of the world can be placed on Christ, how he can actually bear the sins of the world. It puts emphasis on God as the Creator and his Creation.


In my theological view, Jesus only had to pay for the sins committed by man. Just like, because man sinned, God removed his protection from creation allowing it to become corrupt, and be (second-handedly) corrupted (i.e., through the sowing of ‘noxious mixes’ and “amalgamations”, in the same way, when man’s sin is paid for, which all started in the mind/psyche, all of these sins and their effects will naturally be overturned, and unlike man, in especially regards to his psyche/character, that will be done by completely wiping the slate clean and starting all over. In the same way our bodies will not be remade from what had been, but will be entirely new ones. So God does not have to somehow impose on Christ all of the genetical malfunctions of the entire creation. As far as I see it, it was the sinful psyche that was the main issue that needed to be atoned at the cross so that it could be purged for the redeemed.

Originally Posted By: APL
And unfair act on God's part? He had warned Adam and Eve of the consequences of eating from the Tree.


Fair enough..., in isolative part. It is however your “addictive” addition to this act that really makes it unfair. Adam and Eve wanted to repent from this sin, but it was too late. They had crossed the line where the Ultimate Price for even that single sin had to be paid. However for this to have suddenly corrupted their DNA to make sin a now hereditary craving, I do not Theologically see it. To me it was the subsequent removal of the Tree of Life that started this, even spiritual, degeneration. If not then, how did God say that a sinful person can live forever?? We try to lessen that statement by saying that this is not what he really meant, and that man would eventually die, however that is not what God literally said, nor meant. That is why I understand that the first of Life has the supernatural power to preserve physical perfection, and that includes man’s genetics.

Originally Posted By: APL
But there is more to the genetic story which I have not discussed in this thread. TEs make up 50-90% of human DNA. About 40% of the DNA is locked up, suppressed. Genesis 3:15 says that there will be enmity between the serpent's seed and the woman's seed. Why only the woman and not Adam? There is good genetic answer, but I digress.


Well, you’ll need to present that “good genetic answer” because seed could only mean “descendants/offspring”. And it was the woman through whom sin originated in mankind!

Originally Posted By: APL
With 40% of the DNA locked down, Satan can claim, "not fair". His experiment has been tampered with. At the cross, the "enmity" was removed. And it killed Christ.


As I understand enmity here (i.e., a hatred for sin), I would have to understand here that the Divine, and even sinless human nature of Jesus came to “love sin”. I do not see any Biblical support for this view. If that because the case, his atonement would be made void. It was because he resisted sin to the end that he can be our perfect substitute.

Originally Posted By: APL
In the garden before the crucifixion, Jesus was dying, sweating blood. His physiology was falling coming apart. Isaiah 52:13-15 comes to mind. When was the last time you heard a sermon on those verses?


I do not recall exactly the last time I heard it but, e.g., just reading the SDABC points me to places where other people have sweat blood because of such agony!

Originally Posted By: APL
EGW in Great Controversy makes the following comment: It is Satan's constant effort to misrepresent the character of God, the nature of sin, and the real issues at stake in the great controversy. {GC 569.1}
So what is the "nature of sin" that the devil is misrepresenting?


It does not take much linguistic/colloquial understanding to see that, in that context the “nature of sin” here simply refers to how evil/dangerous/deadly sin actually is. Just look around our world/society today and you see this realization with sin, in its various manifestations being wholeheartedly and/or indifferently lauded and celebrated by most. Indeed just as the character of God and the GC issues are being misrepresented.


You’re a fully entitled to your views. I am just saying that your proof of it is not convincing to me, and that mainly because I see it as being eisegetical. So we may just have to agree to disagree on this issue.
Posted By: APL

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/14/11 08:34 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
Sorry but I do not see Electrical Engineering explaining this Theological issue. Nor does it actually illustrate it as for it to apply here, it would have to be said that Satan invented the electrons that then make all of that future engineering work. As I understand it, Satan does not have that originally creating power (John 1:3). Why do you think he was so jealous of Christ and God planning the creation of man without consulting him if he could create even anything on his own.

Do EEs invent electrons? NO. Do they invent the laws of physics on which electronics work? NO. Do they use the reasoning powers to intelligently construct circuits that function? YES. Did Satan invent the electron? NO. Did Satan invent DNA? NO. Could Satan put DNA into a specific order? Why not? Is this creative power akin to God? NO. Is Satan a creator? Only in the same sense that an engineer is a creator. He used existing laws to change the way life works, just as an engineer uses existing laws to make electrical components and devices.
Originally Posted By: NJK
EGW also had this notion of the Law of Nature, but in that passage she is solely referring to the 10 Commandments, which the Papacy also sought to similarly “amend”.

Yes, the quote in question had to do with the Pope. But you did not answer how you add an "amendment" to the law. What did he want to amend? But there are other quotes. The following is an example:
Originally Posted By: EGW
After the fall of our first parents, Christ declared that in order to save man from the penalty of sin, He would come to the world to conquer Satan on the enemy's own battle-field. The controversy that began in heaven was to be continued on the earth. {ST, August 27, 1902 par. 2}
In this controversy much was to be involved. Vast interests were at stake. Before the inhabitants of the heavenly universe were to be answered the questions: "Is God's law imperfect, in need of amendment or abrogation, or is it immutable? Is God's government in need of change, or is it stable?" {ST, August 27, 1902 par. 3}

The context is "God's Law". The "law" is written on our inward parts.
Originally Posted By: EGW
God's law is written by His own finger upon every nerve, every muscle, every faculty which has been entrusted to man.

Hello!!! DNA.
If you corrupt that law, it leads to misery and death.
Originally Posted By: NJK
You first need to show that the Law of Nature is synonymous with the 10 Commandments. To me they are distinct, though both contributive to God’s perfection.

Synonymous with the 10C. Hmm, was there a Sabbath in heaven? Was there a need for the command to not commit adultery? I think not. EGW says the law was added because of transgression. (see {1SM 233.1}) Transgression of what? The law. Sin is transgression of the law. We need to sort out the laws here are one can quickly get into circular definitions.
Originally Posted By: NJK
Interesting way of “legalistically” putting it. I know that God’s Law is multifaceted. It does include nature. All I said was that in that EGW quote she was pointedly and solely referring to the Legislative/10 Commandment Law, which she also said was what was at issue in Heaven at Lucifer’s rebellion.

Again - were the "10C" in place in heaven? Are the 10C "legislative" as you put it, or are they descriptive of one who is in harmony with the way they were designed (created)?
Originally Posted By: NJK
In my theological view, Jesus only had to pay for the sins committed by man.

And just exactly how does Jesus make the "payment" and to whom is it paid? Is this a legal requirement?
Originally Posted By: NJK
As far as I see it, it was the sinful psyche that was the main issue that needed to be atoned at the cross so that it could be purged for the redeemed.

This is part of it. But it can be shown that many psychiatric diseases are directly related to the underlying hardware.
Originally Posted By: EGW
Our Lord Jesus Christ came to this world as the unwearied servant of man's necessity. He "took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses," that He might minister to every need of humanity. Matthew 8:17. The burden of disease and wretchedness and sin He came to remove. It was His mission to bring to men complete restoration; He came to give them health and peace and perfection of character. {MH 17.1}

Originally Posted By: NJK
Adam and Eve wanted to repent from this sin, but it was too late.

What made it too late? Read Great Controversy, chapter 29, and page 495 in particular. Satan is telling LIES about God! Clearly a violation of the 10C, but he had not gone too far. to be restored, all he needed to do was to confess and submit. What was the difference? There was a point where Satan had gone too far. EGW talks about that. And, there was NO REMEDY. WHY? What is your answer? The genomic view has an answer.
Originally Posted By: NJK
Well, you’ll need to present that “good genetic answer” because seed could only mean “descendants/offspring”. And it was the woman through whom sin originated in mankind!

Adam's sin was MUCH WORSE than Eve's. Eve was deceived. Adam was not. Put Adam's sin in view of the idea that sin originates in solely in the mind. it is harder to explain it that way.

As for the seed (offspring, genetic material) being of the woman, what does a man contribute to the offspring? 23 chromosomes surrounded by a cap with a flagellum. That's it. The woman supplies the cell, the cytoplasm, but cellular machinery, and something much more interesting, small interfering RNA molecules. Without the sRNA molecules, you will never get a fetus. They are necessary to suppress the TEs in the male's DNA. There is lots of science to back this up. And it would take hours to explain. The Bible is right and right from a scientific point of view.
Originally Posted By: NJK
It does not take much linguistic/colloquial understanding to see that, in that context the “nature of sin” here simply refers to how evil/dangerous/deadly sin actually is.

What you have to explain is why is sin so deadly. So far, your only explanation is that it is because God has barred the sinner from the Tree of Life. So, is sin deadly, or lack of eating from the Tree of Life the real issue?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/14/11 10:45 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
My view that man was dying from creation had been based on my mistranslation of Gen 2:17b. So I’ll agree that entropy in man did not exist prior to the first missed Fruit of Life taking at its scheduled time. Same with nature with the withdrawal of the “fruit” ingredient.


Ok. So you're saying man was not created "naturally dying," but that this became his condition when he partook of the forbidden fruit. That's correct?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/15/11 01:42 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
Interesting List and comments on DA 764 and that It Is Finished chapter. I do not agree with it however. I see that the “this” in DA 764.2 refers back to chief sentence of the preceding paragraph (764.1): “This [the destruction of the wicked] is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God.”


It can include this too, but the "this" has to include what was just being talked about. It can't be dealing with something unrelated to what she just said, which was, "the glory of Him who is love will destroy them." "This" is what they didn't understand.

Quote:
So the rebellion of Satan had to be allowed to be played out until the Cross to demonstrate that their sin was fully deserving of death.


That could be a possible interpretation, if she has something along these lines, but she didn't. Instead, she spoke of how the wicked receive the results of their choice.

The primary definition of "arbitrary" is:

Quote:
1: depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law <the manner of punishment is arbitrary>


In saying that the destruction of the wicked was not due to an arbitrary act of power on the part of God, but due to the choice of the wicked, she means their destruction is not dependent upon God's individual discretion, acting out the part of a judge, but is the result of their own choice. And the rest of the paragraph explains that.

Quote:
That is what was finally “Finished” on the Cross.


She doesn't make this argument. Instead she explains that the destruction of the wicked is a result of their own choice. If she had in mind what you were saying, she would have had to have said something along the lines of "God is right to use an act of power to destroy the wicked, for this is just and righteous, because (list reasons). Instead she argues that the wicked are not destroyed by an act of power of God, but as a result of their own choice (she lists the reasons).

Quote:
The Angels fully knew that sin causes death long before that.


No, they didn't understand this until the cross. Remember, the second death is the context. It wasn't until the cross that the second death was understood, because nobody had experienced that death until then.

Quote:
They did not need the Cross to realize this, but solely the GC history and development of it before that.


They needed the cross to understand. That is the "this" that they didn't understand in DA 764. She says precisely this, that the angels did not understand that the inevitable result of sin was death.

Quote:
What they wouldn’t have understood before this GC development was that Satan’s sin as it then inceptively was, was deserving of their death.


She nowhere says this in the passage. Instead she says had God "left" Satan and his follower to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished, but the angels would not have understood that their death was the inevitable result of sin. The cross is what made this clear.

There's no argument being made that it is just on God's part to destroy the wicked.

Quote:
What they realized at the Cross was the (1) true motives, (2) concealed great hatred and jealousy of Satan towards God and Christ and also (3) the great price that it would take to redeem anyone who sinned: namely the (eternal?) death of God.


These are some things they understood. They also understood that the inevitable result of sin is death, and that when God eventually leaves Satan and his followers to suffer death, that this is what is happening, as opposed to their being destroyed by an arbitrary act of power on the part of God.

Quote:
This hatred and jealousy of Christ by Satan that the SOP detailedly speaks of, also delving into revealed inner feelings and sentiments, these angels may have never known nor understood until they saw it for themselves at the Cross and it thus shocked them that this destruction of God/Christ had been Satan’s real/full plan all along.


Yes, this is true. This is a portion of what the chapter discusses.

Particularly interesting here is her application of Rev. 12 to the cross (i.e., that there was a war in heaven, and Satan was "cast down").

Quote:
By the way I specifically understand John 3:16 as Jesus now being the only accepted way to regain this Life, and thus without faith in him it indeed becomes impossible to have. My question however now is, does He still now, i.e., since His death, still have the divine nature in him to, as it appears to be the case, tangibly provide this physical life to man through these supernatural ingredients being injected into the Water of Life flowing from God’s thrown and alimenting the Tree of Life growing on its banks.


This is too long a sentence. Could you break this up into several sentences please? It sounds like your idea is that Jesus Christ is temporarily playing the part of the Tree of Life(?)

Quote:
So I still see the eternal life of man as wholly depending on a physical transmission from Christ and not merely for the indirect, ethereal spiritual reasons that you seems to have.


This is difficult to follow. Scripture says that when one has Christ, one has life. Jesus Christ said, "I am the life." Also, "I am the resurrection and the life." Also "I am the way, the truth, and the life."

We receive life by receiving Christ. I've been saying this all along. What's "ethereal spiritual" about this?

What I've been asserting is that Scripture teaches that:

1.Death comes as a result of sin.
2.Eternal life is a gift of God, which one receives through faith in Christ.

Do you disagree that this is what Scripture teaches?

Also, I request a brief summary of the Great Controversy from your perspective, similar to what I provided. Did you write something up? My apologies if you did so and I missed it.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/15/11 01:51 AM

Originally Posted By: APL
T:...since there was no entropy.

APL:If there is no entropy, then there is no metabolism.


Why not? Entropy implies a lack of efficiency in a process, not that a process cannot occur.

Quote:
There would be no need to eat anything.


I think this is a better argument.

Quote:
Adam and Eve were to tend the garden. What is there to tend if there is no entropy.


This is worth thinking about as well. I think I have an answer to this one.

When we think of tending a garden, we think in terms of entropy, because that's what we're used to. Plants need to be weeded, for example. If we just "let things go," they would become all weeds.

But the Garden of Eden had no weeds, nor would they have any weeds, if Adam and Eve didn't tend it. Also the plants would not die because of pests, or bad weather, or for any other cause. So what would their tending consist of?

They could cultivate a garden to be beautiful, the way botanic gardens are crafted today. Even if garden today didn't have the problems of pests/weather/weeds, etc., there would still be lots of work to do to make them beautiful, as well as a great deal of scope for the gardener to "make the garden his own."

As far as eating is concerned, that seems to imply a transfer of energy from one source to another. Entropy involves a lack of efficiency, energy being lost in a process, so from that standpoint I don't see the need for entropy.

Where I do see the possible need for entropy would be in response to the question of why man needs to eat at all in the first place. Why would man "run down," if there were no entropy?

But couldn't one consider this from the standpoint of something like a bank account. You make a withdraw (in the form of energy), and the withdraw needs to be replaced, even though there's no lack of efficiency in the process.

I appreciate your comments.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/15/11 05:34 AM

Hello APL and Tom. I appreciate your comments in this discussion. Because of my time constraints and demands on my schedule, I have to “pick my battles”, so to speak. As this discussion will require much more resources that I presently have and/or can invest in I’ll have to refrain from further in depth participation in it specifically, if any. God Bless.

Tom, I noticed a visit to my blog from your area which visited my GC overview post. That is indeed my overview. If you need something briefer, then as I said, it is basically the same as the SDA’s/yours. I just go deeper in terms of the realities, freedoms and correct Theology involved.

Since I won’t be able to follow up on my comments here, I wholly refrain from making any comments on your recent replies. It’s been interesting....

By the way, if this is of any help here, my initial comments (page #14) that had touched off this discussion was that some sins were to be capitally punished, because, were they allowed to fully bloom, they would reveal how deadly they were. I see the same thing occurring with Lucifer’s sin however God allowed it to develop to transparently reveal this inevitable end. With Israel, God was asking the to accept this known future consequence in faith so as to avoid a similar GC development scenario within Israel. All sins of course have the end result of death, however some accomplish this much sooner for various more direct societal and health affectations. These are also “high-handed” sins which leads to committer to be more bold in sinning and thus more likely to more rapidly effectuate this death end result. That is why I see that these specifically had to be “kept in check” and “nipped in the bud”. Of course, Toms reply then was that: ‘this view made sin and death seem as not being “organic”’, and hence this sub, “multi-branch” discussion...
Posted By: APL

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/15/11 07:02 AM

NJK - Adios. Thanks for the discussion. I've never argued the genetic view before. And it certainly did not originate with me. However, I think it explains a lot, and I've studied is from science, the Bible and EGW. I hope the originators of this hypothesis will write a book - soon! Think of DNA as information to build and operate a complete organism, and the transposons also represent information, however they only cause death and disease (debated but I think the case can be made), then what you really see in out DNA is the Great Controversy on a microscopy level.

Tom - entropy is a reordering of energy. Less order from greater order. You manicured garden example is and example of going fro less order to greater order with Adam and Eve adding energy to the system. A phase change from ice, to liquid to gas is an increase in entropy. Breaking sugars down to more elementary componest, CO2 and H20, is a change in entropy, thus metabolism changes entropy. On earth, sunlight add energy to the system allowing synthesis of sugars. We eat them, and the go back to simple compounds and the cycle continues. I think entropy will still be in the earth made new. I doubt however that we will see the disasters we see today.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/15/11 04:16 PM

Originally Posted By: APL
I hope the originators of this hypothesis will write a book - soon!

As with you APL, I would like to see such a publication. And if/when I have my desiredly-needed, intending research resources in place then, I'll painstakingly study it out, as it will then be done with other Biblical works. God Bless!
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/15/11 04:59 PM

Originally Posted By: APL
Today, genetic engineering is done via transposable elements. These things can be designed to target very specific regions of the DNA. Human DNA is full of them. Plant DNA is full of them. Animal DNA - the same. If all creation groans together (Romans 8:22) and it is caused by sin, then how does this happen? Genetic engineering fits for Genesis 3:18. "Seed" in Genesis 3:15 fits genetics, in perhaps multiple ways.
Just a slight correction here according to my understanding. Maybe you meant to say genetic engineering can be done via transposable elements or genetic engineering sometimes is done via transposable elements. While I'm not sure about the bacteria portion, the very least is that genetic engineering is not always done via transposable elements using both or all involved organisms.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/15/11 07:48 PM

Originally Posted By: APL
Tom - entropy is a reordering of energy. Less order from greater order. You manicured garden example is and example of going fro less order to greater order with Adam and Eve adding energy to the system. A phase change from ice, to liquid to gas is an increase in entropy. Breaking sugars down to more elementary componest, CO2 and H20, is a change in entropy, thus metabolism changes entropy. On earth, sunlight add energy to the system allowing synthesis of sugars. We eat them, and the go back to simple compounds and the cycle continues. I think entropy will still be in the earth made new. I doubt however that we will see the disasters we see today.


Nice reply. I need to be more precise in what I have in mind. Surely things like gas changing state will continue to happen, and this isn't what I had in mind.

What I was thinking had to do with inefficiencies in a process. For example, we produce waste, because of inefficiencies in our digestive system. Were we designed this way (so this will continue in the new earth), or is this the result of inefficiencies which came about as a result of sin? Similarly, our bodies break down over time; we get old and wrinkled, our hair turns grey, etc. Were we designed this way? And the Tree of Life prevents these things from happening? Or is the Tree of Life more along the line of resupplying energy (or "vital force," to use EGW's terminology)?

Regarding entropy, you've mentioned phase changes for gas, and another example comes to mind, which is that particles (say from perfume in a room) disperse and reach a state of equilibrium, going from more ordered (perfume in one spot) to equally dispersed. So "entropy" clearly isn't the right term for me to be using. I'll try "lack of efficiency" until something better comes to mind.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/15/11 08:04 PM

Originally Posted By: MM
M:Here's an excerpt from the quote you posted, "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."

In the Bible it says, "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. And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD."

Ellen wrote, "God consumed them by fire for their positive disregard of His express directions. {RH, March 25, 1875 par. 2} "Fire from his presence destroyed them in their sin. {4aSG 125.1} "A fire blazed out from the holy of holies and consumed them. {Te 280.1}

You seem to be suggesting the "fire" that "blazed out" from the "presence" of God in "the holy of holies" and "consumed" Nadab and Abihu in reality was employed by Satan. Is this what you believe Ellen had in mind? If so, doesn't that imply she believed Satan was standing beside God in the most holy place when he employed fire to kill them?

Do you know of even one passage where Ellen plainly says, God withdrew His protection and permitted Satan to employ fire to kill Nadab and Abihu?


We've discussed Nadab and Abihu at great length. To respond briefly, what I said is think the same principles articulated in GC 35-37 apply, where she speaks about how Israel destroyed itself by persistently resisting the Spirit of God, giving itself over to sin/Satan.

There are thousands of dangers from which God protects us constantly, by various means, including the Holy Spirit, holy angels, for example. We can be destroyed by natural causes, that God permits to happen, by evil beings (whether angelic or human) when God permits, or we can destroy ourselves by things we do (all of a sudden or over time). Destruction can be accidental, or planned.

The Destruction of Jerusalem explains in great detail how one such destruction took place. While the Bible uses language which clearly identifies God as the One responsible, the SOP draws away the curtain, and we see, despite the clear Biblical language apparently to the contrary, that it was not God who was responsible, but Satan. I believe many principles articulated here are general principles, and shouldn't be limited to Jerusalem. For example:

Quote:
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.


I think these principles apply to destruction by means of violent death that occurs, whether accidental or planned. Every such death comes about as the result of sin/Satan, and is not according to the plan of God. As Jesus explained, when urged to destroy His enemies with fire, He did not come to destroy but to save. Destruction is the work of "Apollyon," the destroyer. Violence/torture/cruelty/compelling power are not principles of God's government.

He doesn't hold a big stick over our heads, and say, "It's my way or the highway!" and smash us over the head if we don't do what He says. Rather, He warns us, as a kind, wise, heavenly Father, of the consequences of fooling setting aside His counsel.
Posted By: APL

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/15/11 08:34 PM

Yes kland, there are several techniques. In plants, the Gene Gun is often used, invented by John Sanford. This is not a precise method of gene insertion. Other methods include bacterial plasmids and viruses. These both are forms of transposable elements. Newer techniques are using transposons to target genomic sites very specifically. Again a TE technique.

BTW - John Sanford's book, "Genetic Entropy" is a must read for anyone interested in the Bible and genetics. While only a few pages in the book mention the Bible, the implications of his book point to the truth of the Bible.
Posted By: APL

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/15/11 09:03 PM

Nadab and Abihu entered into the presence of God. There was very precise steps that needed to be taken in order to enter in. Nadab and Abihu did not take those steps and were in direct violation of God's commands. The question I ask is did God then flair out fire and "consume" them to punish them, or was this a direct consequence of their entering into the presence of God, the inevitable result, they would be destroyed. One could ask, what is the difference, either way, they are dead. To me it makes a big difference. In Nadab and Abihu's day, the presence of God was indicated by the Shekinah glory, the actual presence of God. Who can stand in this glory? Isaiah 33:14-15, the righteous. God had warned them not to come into His presence, not because He would then have to kill them, but because if they did, they would not survive. No one can see my face and life. See Exodus 33:20-23.

Ultimately however, it is the work of the devil that did kill them. A sanctuary had been created where by God could dwell with men. Nadab and Abihu willfully violated the precautions and violated the protections God had in place so he could dwell them men. They thus destroyed themselves.

Yes, I can give you a genetic reason why this happens, but for now will refrain. :-) I'll just say there is nothing arbitrary about it.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/15/11 09:17 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
Originally Posted By: MM
M:Here's an excerpt from the quote you posted, "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."

In the Bible it says, "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. And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD."

Ellen wrote, "God consumed them by fire for their positive disregard of His express directions. {RH, March 25, 1875 par. 2} "Fire from his presence destroyed them in their sin. {4aSG 125.1} "A fire blazed out from the holy of holies and consumed them. {Te 280.1}

You seem to be suggesting the "fire" that "blazed out" from the "presence" of God in "the holy of holies" and "consumed" Nadab and Abihu in reality was employed by Satan. Is this what you believe Ellen had in mind? If so, doesn't that imply she believed Satan was standing beside God in the most holy place when he employed fire to kill them?

Do you know of even one passage where Ellen plainly says, God withdrew His protection and permitted Satan to employ fire to kill Nadab and Abihu?


We've discussed Nadab and Abihu at great length. To respond briefly, what I said is think the same principles articulated in GC 35-37 apply, where she speaks about how Israel destroyed itself by persistently resisting the Spirit of God, giving itself over to sin/Satan.

There are thousands of dangers from which God protects us constantly, by various means, including the Holy Spirit, holy angels, for example. We can be destroyed by natural causes, that God permits to happen, by evil beings (whether angelic or human) when God permits, or we can destroy ourselves by things we do (all of a sudden or over time). Destruction can be accidental, or planned.

The Destruction of Jerusalem explains in great detail how one such destruction took place. While the Bible uses language which clearly identifies God as the One responsible, the SOP draws away the curtain, and we see, despite the clear Biblical language apparently to the contrary, that it was not God who was responsible, but Satan. I believe many principles articulated here are general principles, and shouldn't be limited to Jerusalem. For example:

Quote:
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.


I think these principles apply to destruction by means of violent death that occurs, whether accidental or planned. Every such death comes about as the result of sin/Satan, and is not according to the plan of God. As Jesus explained, when urged to destroy His enemies with fire, He did not come to destroy but to save. Destruction is the work of "Apollyon," the destroyer. Violence/torture/cruelty/compelling power are not principles of God's government.

He doesn't hold a big stick over our heads, and say, "It's my way or the highway!" and smash us over the head if we don't do what He says. Rather, He warns us, as a kind, wise, heavenly Father, of the consequences of fooling setting aside His counsel.

Thank you for answering some of my questions. However, I'm disappointed you consciously ignored my other questions. I don't understand why you are unwilling to answer them. Do you think you've already answered them? If so, please cite the post where you did so.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/15/11 09:27 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
M: With these things in mind it is proper to ask - Who or what acts when sinners are punished and killed? For example, when fire "went out from the LORD" and killed Nadab and Abihu, who or what acted to kill them? We both agree the fire did not act on its own. Please understand I'm not asking you to explain why they deserved to die. Obviously they are responsible for the fact they died. The question is - Who or what employed the fire that killed them?

T: I think the same principles were at work in these cases as laid out in the paragraphs I just quoted [GC88 36].

M: Here's an excerpt from the quote you posted, "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."

In the Bible it says, "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. And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD."

Ellen wrote, "God consumed them by fire for their positive disregard of His express directions. {RH, March 25, 1875 par. 2} "Fire from his presence destroyed them in their sin. {4aSG 125.1} "A fire blazed out from the holy of holies and consumed them. {Te 280.1}

You seem to be suggesting the "fire" that "blazed out" from the "presence" of God in "the holy of holies" and "consumed" Nadab and Abihu in reality was employed by Satan. Is this what you believe Ellen had in mind? If so, doesn't that imply she believed Satan was standing beside God in the most holy place when he employed fire to kill them?

Do you know of even one passage where Ellen plainly says, God withdrew His protection and permitted Satan to employ fire to kill Nadab and Abihu?

T: We've discussed Nadab and Abihu at great length. To respond briefly, what I said is think the same principles articulated in GC 35-37 apply, where she speaks about how Israel destroyed itself by persistently resisting the Spirit of God, giving itself over to sin/Satan.

There are thousands of dangers from which God protects us constantly, by various means, including the Holy Spirit, holy angels, for example. We can be destroyed by natural causes, that God permits to happen, by evil beings (whether angelic or human) when God permits, or we can destroy ourselves by things we do (all of a sudden or over time). Destruction can be accidental, or planned.

The Destruction of Jerusalem explains in great detail how one such destruction took place. While the Bible uses language which clearly identifies God as the One responsible, the SOP draws away the curtain, and we see, despite the clear Biblical language apparently to the contrary, that it was not God who was responsible, but Satan. I believe many principles articulated here are general principles, and shouldn't be limited to Jerusalem. For example:

Quote:
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.

I think these principles apply to destruction by means of violent death that occurs, whether accidental or planned. Every such death comes about as the result of sin/Satan, and is not according to the plan of God. As Jesus explained, when urged to destroy His enemies with fire, He did not come to destroy but to save. Destruction is the work of "Apollyon," the destroyer. Violence/torture/cruelty/compelling power are not principles of God's government.

He doesn't hold a big stick over our heads, and say, "It's my way or the highway!" and smash us over the head if we don't do what He says. Rather, He warns us, as a kind, wise, heavenly Father, of the consequences of fooling setting aside His counsel.

Based on what you wrote above, I still do not know your answers to the following questions asked above:

1. You seem to be suggesting the "fire" that "blazed out" from the "presence" of God in "the holy of holies" and "consumed" Nadab and Abihu in reality was employed by Satan. Is this what you believe Ellen had in mind?

2. If so, doesn't that imply she believed Satan was standing beside God in the most holy place when he employed fire to kill them?

3. Do you know of even one passage where Ellen plainly says, God withdrew His protection and permitted Satan to employ fire to kill Nadab and Abihu?

Originally Posted By: Tom
1. In the OT, did Jesus ever command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle?

2. In the OT, did Jesus ever command godly people to execute capital punishment?

3. In the OT, did Jesus ever withdraw His protection and permit the forces of nature or evil men, and/or evil angels to kill men, women, and children?

M: Yes, God turns the other cheek, goes the extra mile, and offers His other coat. Which begs the three questions listed above. What else can you tell us about Jesus that can help us understand the three actions named above?

T: I think it begs other questions.

What other questions do you have in mind?

Also, it is obvious that the answer to the three questions listed above is - Yes! Do you agree? If not, why not?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/15/11 09:35 PM

Originally Posted By: APL
Nadab and Abihu entered into the presence of God. There was very precise steps that needed to be taken in order to enter in. Nadab and Abihu did not take those steps and were in direct violation of God's commands. The question I ask is did God then flair out fire and "consume" them to punish them, or was this a direct consequence of their entering into the presence of God, the inevitable result, they would be destroyed. One could ask, what is the difference, either way, they are dead. To me it makes a big difference. In Nadab and Abihu's day, the presence of God was indicated by the Shekinah glory, the actual presence of God. Who can stand in this glory? Isaiah 33:14-15, the righteous. God had warned them not to come into His presence, not because He would then have to kill them, but because if they did, they would not survive. No one can see my face and life. See Exodus 33:20-23.

Ultimately however, it is the work of the devil that did kill them. A sanctuary had been created where by God could dwell with men. Nadab and Abihu willfully violated the precautions and violated the protections God had in place so he could dwell them men. They thus destroyed themselves.

Yes, I can give you a genetic reason why this happens, but for now will refrain. :-) I'll just say there is nothing arbitrary about it.

A glorious light surrounds God and radiates out from Him. Do you think this light causes us to die similar to the way other forms of light causes us to die? For example, when Jesus returns, Ellen wrote, "The light of the glory of God, which imparts life to the [redeemed] righteous, will slay the wicked. {DA 107.4}
Posted By: APL

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/16/11 01:00 AM

Originally Posted By: MM
Do you think this light causes us to die similar to the way other forms of light causes us to die? For example, when Jesus returns, Ellen wrote, "The light of the glory of God, which imparts life to the [redeemed] righteous, will slay the wicked. {DA 107.4}
I'm not sure what you mean by "other forms of light causes us to die". Indeed, we need light to live.

That said, I take the 2 Thessalonians 2:8 statement for what it says. I think that a better statement in explaining this is in Great Controversy:
Originally Posted By: EGW
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. 2 Thessalonians 2:8. 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. {GC 37.1}

And this fits the genomic model. :-) Their nature is so debased, the glory of God consumes them. And this is where I think NJK and I parted company on the Tree of Life. The Tree of Life could impart life to the wicked, but that life would have been a life of misery, a life with a debased nature. So that should God have manifested Himself, tree or not, the sinner would have been destroyed. That this would have happened would not have been apparent at the start of sin. And if God had let the natural consequences proceed, the universe would have worshiped God out of fear. The Cross proved God right.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/16/11 01:19 AM

The DA 107 statement fits in with the points you made, APL.

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. 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.

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. (DA 107-108)


I can only say, "Amen!" to your comments, and it seems easy to see how the comments you made fit into this passage as well.

Of note is Christ, "the revealer of the character of God." The glory of God is His character, and light = revelation. So "light of the glory of God" = "revealer of the character of God." This is none of than Jesus Christ, the corner stone, providing life for the willing, but a stone of stumbling, a rock of offense, for those who reject Him.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/16/11 01:47 AM

Quote:
Based on what you wrote above, I still do not know your answers to the following questions asked above:

1. You seem to be suggesting the "fire" that "blazed out" from the "presence" of God in "the holy of holies" and "consumed" Nadab and Abihu in reality was employed by Satan.


I just quoted GC and said I thought the same principles applied. I spelled out in detail what I thought that meant. I disagree with your assessment in regards to what you think I seem to be suggesting.

Quote:
Is this what you believe Ellen had in mind?


What you said? No. I think she would agree with the idea that the same principles were in effect, however, if we could ask her now.

Quote:
2. If so, doesn't that imply she believed Satan was standing beside God in the most holy place when he employed fire to kill them?


No.

Quote:
3. Do you know of even one passage where Ellen plainly says, God withdrew His protection and permitted Satan to employ fire to kill Nadab and Abihu?


As I said, I think the same principles were at work here as in the GC chapter on the Destruction of Jerusalem. I think these are principles at work in all such incidents, as I explained. I see no reason why she would need to repeat this for every such incident in Scripture. We should be able to figure out what the principles are by which God runs His government, and apply them to other situations, don't you think?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/16/11 02:02 AM

Originally Posted By: MM
T:1. In the OT, did Jesus ever command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle?

2. In the OT, did Jesus ever command godly people to execute capital punishment?

3. In the OT, did Jesus ever withdraw His protection and permit the forces of nature or evil men, and/or evil angels to kill men, women, and children?

M: Yes, God turns the other cheek, goes the extra mile, and offers His other coat. Which begs the three questions listed above. What else can you tell us about Jesus that can help us understand the three actions named above?

T: I think it begs other questions.

What other questions do you have in mind?

Also, it is obvious that the answer to the three questions listed above is - Yes! Do you agree? If not, why not?


I guess, "What really happened?" would be a good question to ask. If our ideas lead us to ideas that have God acting completely out of character, perhaps we should question those ideas.

Another question came out, but I can't remember it.
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/16/11 07:20 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
3. Do you know of even one passage where Ellen plainly says, God withdrew His protection and permitted Satan to employ fire to kill Nadab and Abihu?
MM, why do you do that? Why is it necessary to find a passage that specifically says such rather than finding general principles for all such things happening.

I mean, I mean, that's kind of me like saying, find me one passage which states that God is going to directly burn kland if he turns away from God. Meaning, that if you can't present such a statement, then your belief is false.

I find that.... can't really think of the word....
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/16/11 10:42 PM

Originally Posted By: APL
Originally Posted By: MM
Do you think this light causes us to die similar to the way other forms of light causes us to die? For example, when Jesus returns, Ellen wrote, "The light of the glory of God, which imparts life to the [redeemed] righteous, will slay the wicked. {DA 107.4}

I'm not sure what you mean by "other forms of light causes us to die". Indeed, we need light to live.

That said, I take the 2 Thessalonians 2:8 statement for what it says. I think that a better statement in explaining this is in Great Controversy:

Originally Posted By: EGW
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. 2 Thessalonians 2:8. 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. {GC 37.1}

And this fits the genomic model. :-) Their nature is so debased, the glory of God consumes them. And this is where I think NJK and I parted company on the Tree of Life. The Tree of Life could impart life to the wicked, but that life would have been a life of misery, a life with a debased nature. So that should God have manifested Himself, tree or not, the sinner would have been destroyed. That this would have happened would not have been apparent at the start of sin. And if God had let the natural consequences proceed, the universe would have worshiped God out of fear. The Cross proved God right.

I totally agree.

PS - By "other forms of light" I mean EMR like gamma light waves. "Gamma rays have more energy and a higher frequency than visible light rays. Visible light has a longer wavelength. Gamma rays have the most energy of all the seven types of light." Radio waves, microwaves, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, x-rays, and gamma-rays. Link

Quote:
Electromagnetic radiation [EMR] is classified according to the frequency of its wave. In order of increasing frequency and decreasing wavelength, these are radio waves, microwaves, infrared radiation, visible light, ultraviolet radiation, X-rays and gamma rays (see Electromagnetic spectrum). The eyes of various organisms sense a small and somewhat variable window of frequencies called the visible spectrum. Link

The visible spectrum is the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that is visible to (can be detected by) the human eye. Electromagnetic radiation in this range of wavelengths is called visible light or simply light. A typical human eye will respond to wavelengths from about 390 to 750 nm.[1] In terms of frequency, this corresponds to a band in the vicinity of 400–790 THz. Link

Since gamma light waves can kill us, it seems reasonable to assume the light that God radiates is deadly to humans in our fallen state.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/16/11 10:53 PM

Originally Posted By: kland
Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
3. Do you know of even one passage where Ellen plainly says, God withdrew His protection and permitted Satan to employ fire to kill Nadab and Abihu?
MM, why do you do that? Why is it necessary to find a passage that specifically says such rather than finding general principles for all such things happening. I mean, I mean, that's kind of me like saying, find me one passage which states that God is going to directly burn kland if he turns away from God. Meaning, that if you can't present such a statement, then your belief is false. I find that.... can't really think of the word....

Consider the following observations posted above:

Quote:
In the Bible it says, "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. And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD."

Ellen wrote:

1. "God consumed them by fire for their positive disregard of His express directions. {RH, March 25, 1875 par. 2}

2. "Fire from his presence destroyed them in their sin. {4aSG 125.1}

3. "A fire blazed out from the holy of holies and consumed them. {Te 280.1}

Based on the above, is there any doubt in your mind as to where and from whom Ellen believed the fire came from that killed Nadab and Abihu? I believe it is crystal clear she believed it came from the presence of God in the most holy place. Do you agree? If not, can you produce positive proof from the SOP she believed it was in fact Satan who employed the fire that killed them?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/16/11 11:46 PM

Quote:
I find that.... can't really think of the word....


Yeah, me too.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/16/11 11:48 PM

Quote:
Since gamma light waves can kill us, it seems reasonable to assume the light that God radiates is deadly to humans in our fallen state.


Since certain gasses are deadly, it seems reasonable to assume that God's breath smells like ammonia.
Posted By: APL

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/17/11 07:43 AM

Originally Posted By: MM
Based on the above, is there any doubt in your mind as to where and from whom Ellen believed the fire came from that killed Nadab and Abihu? I believe it is crystal clear she believed it came from the presence of God in the most holy place. Do you agree? If not, can you produce positive proof from the SOP she believed it was in fact Satan who employed the fire that killed them?

To me, it is clear, it was God's glory the destroyed them. Not that he did it to punish them, or waited until they got to just the right place, and then flared up and killed them. God dwelled with the COI in the Most Holy Place. He had given expressed commands in how they were to approach Him, and Nadab and Abihu violated those commands. This is not vengeance or punishment on God's part. It is a natural consequence. EGW compares it with harmful habits we inflict on ourselves.
Originally Posted By: EGW
"Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil." God will no more receive a sacrifice from the hands of those who thus pollute themselves, and offer with their service the incense of tobacco and liquor, than He would receive the offering of the sons of Aaron, who offered incense with strange fire. {Con 83.2}

Tobacco and liquor pay their wage. God does not have to come down and inflict the punishment. N&A went in where they were told not to go, and indeed could not without suffering death. They destroyed themselves.

Did Satan cause their death? No... and yes. Satan is the originator of evil. He is the one that depraved human nature. He is the author of sin ( and I do take this quite literally ). I do not see Satan coming in and throwing fire on Nadab and Abihu. But he is ultimately the root cause of death.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/17/11 09:47 AM

Given the expressed views here on God’s consuming glory vs. sinners, I would like to hear how it is explained how Satan, as related in Job, could physically come into the Heavenly Realm and even into the physical presence of God, also conversing with God, and that ca. 1700+ years after sin, indeed after God had recently completely destroyed all sin-filled/consumed beings and animals in the flood, and he himself, the originator, “influencer” and sustaining supporter of this utter depth of sin not be instantly destroyed. (Job likely lived after the flood and evidently, before the time of Moses, probably even Abraham). Even if this approaching was not within the “unapproachable light” of God’s glory, it nonetheless should have been enough to instantly incinerate that now tangibly demonstrated vile sinner in Satan, as with the antedelluvians. It seems to me that God only allows sinners to be destroyed by His glory if He wills/allows this to take place and could “dim”/attenuate this power in His glory at will.
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/17/11 05:17 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man

Based on the above, is there any doubt in your mind as to where and from whom Ellen believed the fire came from that killed Nadab and Abihu? I believe it is crystal clear she believed it came from the presence of God in the most holy place. Do you agree? If not, can you produce positive proof from the SOP she believed it was in fact Satan who employed the fire that killed them?

In the Bible it says God slew Saul. You personally were not aware of any place where it says differently. That doesn't mean that it doesn't say differently. Suppose that part of the Bible, which you were not aware of, wasn't in there. That still doesn't mean God slew Saul. If there were no such occurrences in the Bible, then I would agree with you. But as Tom and I have pointed out several examples to you, shouldn't that make you think there may be other things going on? I believe you have said yourself that God assumes responsibility for the universe.

When a boss or project leader assumes responsibility, that doesn't mean he caused the mess-up (or success!) but that he takes the responsibility for what happened. A project leader is expected to control/coerce what happens. In the great controversy, do you think God's purpose is to control and coerce everything that happens or is there another purpose?

You have a presumed premise of what fire is, the purpose is, and see a binomial effect that either God killed them or Satan killed them. Could there be other alternatives? How does that match with what Tom has quoted Ellen White as saying numerous times from the Great Controversy?
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/17/11 05:20 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
Quote:
Since gamma light waves can kill us, it seems reasonable to assume the light that God radiates is deadly to humans in our fallen state.


Since certain gasses are deadly, it seems reasonable to assume that God's breath smells like ammonia.

ROFL
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/17/11 05:25 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Given the expressed views here on God’s consuming glory vs. sinners, I would like to hear how it is explained how Satan, as related in Job, could physically come into the Heavenly Realm and even into the physical presence of God, also conversing with God, and that ca. 1700+ years after sin, indeed after God had recently completely destroyed all sin-filled/consumed beings and animals in the flood, and he himself, the originator, “influencer” and sustaining supporter of this utter depth of sin not be instantly destroyed. (Job likely lived after the flood and evidently, before the time of Moses, probably even Abraham). Even if this approaching was not within the “unapproachable light” of God’s glory, it nonetheless should have been enough to instantly incinerate that now tangibly demonstrated vile sinner in Satan, as with the antedelluvians. It seems to me that God only allows sinners to be destroyed by His glory if He wills/allows this to take place and could “dim”/attenuate this power in His glory at will.
Questions: Which death? Do you remember Ellen White speaking of what would happen to Satan if he was left to reap (not supernaturally protected) the results of separation from God? Is there a point to his existence for a time versus letting him reap the result immediately? For that matter, is there a point for those of the past and of us in the present to have our current lives and time extended? Is there a point when that extension is no longer useful to us or anyone else?
Posted By: APL

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/17/11 06:34 PM

NJK - I thought you were done with this thread! :-)

NJK - you make some interesting assumptions, but you have not presented in backup scripture or even EGW to support it. First - you don't know that the meeting described in Job was within in "unapproachable light". In fact, it may not even have been in heaven. Rev. 12:7-9 says Satan was cast out. In the book Story of Redemption, EGW says that Satan could never be admitted back into heaven.
Originally Posted By: EGW
Christ wept at Satan's woe but told him, as the mind of God, that he could never be received into heaven. Heaven must not be placed in jeopardy. All heaven would be marred should he be received back,...
The SDABC comment on Job 1:6 in fact, points out that we can not assume that the meeting was in heaven. The fact is, we are not told where it was.

You then "eisegetically" state ...should have been enough to instantly incinerate... But recall, Christ came among men, His glory veiled.
Originally Posted By: EGW
He veiled His divinity with humanity. Had Christ come in His divine form, humanity could not have endured the sight. The contrast would have been too painful, the glory too overwhelming.
So NJK - if you have any evidence to support your statement, I'm open to new "light" (pun intended).
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/17/11 06:48 PM

Originally Posted By: kland
Questions: Which death? Do you remember Ellen White speaking of what would happen to Satan if he was left to reap (not supernaturally protected) the results of separation from God? Is there a point to his existence for a time versus letting him reap the result immediately? For that matter, is there a point for those of the past and of us in the present to have our current lives and time extended? Is there a point when that extension is no longer useful to us or anyone else?


Succinctly said, my Theological understanding is that Satan had not yet fully matured his own GC plans and that needed to be fully played out so that his judgement would transparently be seen and understood by all as not having been an arbitrary act of God but indeed a deserved, executed judgement.

My question is still unanswered though: Why didn’t that physical appearance in God’s presence destroy him. That does not seem to harmonize with the stated view that: ‘a being with sin automatically, can but disintegrate when physically in God’s presence.’
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/17/11 08:13 PM

Originally Posted By: APL
NJK - I thought you were done with this thread! :-)


Hey APL. In priorly saying “if any” I had left the door to pose some clarification questions as this one on this discussion. Indeed I wanted to have this pointed issue clarified.

Some quick comments:

Originally Posted By: APL
NJK - you make some interesting assumptions, but you have not presented in backup scripture or even EGW to support it. First - you don't know that the meeting described in Job was within in "unapproachable light". In fact, it may not even have been in heaven. Rev. 12:7-9 says Satan was cast out. In the book Story of Redemption, EGW says that Satan could never be admitted back into heaven.
Originally Posted By: EGW
Christ wept at Satan's woe but told him, as the mind of God, that he could never be received into heaven. Heaven must not be placed in jeopardy. All heaven would be marred should he be received back,...
The SDABC comment on Job 1:6 in fact, points out that we can not assume that the meeting was in heaven. The fact is, we are not told where it was.


-It seems to me that the SR 26.1 is speaking of continuing to, and/or residing again in Heaven. Statements like “heaven would be marred should he be received back” also further stress/highlight to me that cohabiting threat vs. mere visit, indeed to “represent the fallen earth”, now his HQ. Maybe it was only after this first visit, as seen in the question to Satan as to why he present here, that He was formally banned from entering Heaven again. Maybe the “Gold Card” system (probably biometric) was set up from then on to authenticate Heavenly visitors??

-We are indeed not explicitly told where the meeting took place but I think that it is logical/sequitur to assume that such a Universe convention took place in heaven. I.e., ‘a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before God.’ Unless God rotates these, seemingly periodic meetings (as SDA do with GC Sessions [i.e., somewhere else in North America!!]).

-Wherever it was, God was manifestly physically there and it seems to me that He would not travel in the unfallen universe, if that was the case, or even if that could be done, without His glory, which He seems to veil only for appearances on earth, which may have all been various physical manifestation of God the Son/Jesus who, as stated below, does not have this destructive glory issue.


Originally Posted By: APL
You then "eisegetically" state ...should have been enough to instantly incinerate... But recall, Christ came among men, His glory veiled.
Originally Posted By: EGW
He veiled His divinity with humanity. Had Christ come in His divine form, humanity could not have endured the sight. The contrast would have been too painful, the glory too overwhelming.


That “esiegetical” denunciation/claim here is contextually an overkill here, don’t you think?? Case in point, that SOP passage you’ve cited only speaks of “discomfort” (probably as Moses’ radiant face caused) and not unapproachable, “incinerating glory.” (E.g., John 18:6 - DA 694.5-6)

Originally Posted By: APL
So NJK - if you have any evidence to support your statement, I'm open to new "light" (pun intended).


(There’s actually plenty of (other) new light on my blog if you’re interested!!!...)
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/17/11 10:35 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
Quote:
Based on what you wrote above, I still do not know your answers to the following questions asked above:

1. You seem to be suggesting the "fire" that "blazed out" from the "presence" of God in "the holy of holies" and "consumed" Nadab and Abihu in reality was employed by Satan.


I just quoted GC and said I thought the same principles applied. I spelled out in detail what I thought that meant. I disagree with your assessment in regards to what you think I seem to be suggesting.

Quote:
Is this what you believe Ellen had in mind?


What you said? No. I think she would agree with the idea that the same principles were in effect, however, if we could ask her now.

Quote:
2. If so, doesn't that imply she believed Satan was standing beside God in the most holy place when he employed fire to kill them?


No.

Quote:
3. Do you know of even one passage where Ellen plainly says, God withdrew His protection and permitted Satan to employ fire to kill Nadab and Abihu?


As I said, I think the same principles were at work here as in the GC chapter on the Destruction of Jerusalem. I think these are principles at work in all such incidents, as I explained. I see no reason why she would need to repeat this for every such incident in Scripture. We should be able to figure out what the principles are by which God runs His government, and apply them to other situations, don't you think?

Ellen clearly wrote, the "fire" that "blazed out" from the "presence" of God in "the holy of holies" "consumed" Nadab and Abihu. It sounds like you believe Ellen expected us to interpret her words to mean God withdrew His protection and permitted Satan to employ the fire that burned Nadab and Abihu alive.

Please answer the following questions:

1. Did fire blaze out from the presence of God in the holy of holies and burn Nadab and Abihu alive?

2. If not, why did Ellen clearly say so?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/17/11 10:49 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
1. In the OT, did Jesus ever command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle?

2. In the OT, did Jesus ever command godly people to execute capital punishment?

3. In the OT, did Jesus ever withdraw His protection and permit the forces of nature or evil men, and/or evil angels to kill men, women, and children?

T: "What really happened?" would be a good question to ask. If our ideas lead us to ideas that have God acting completely out of character, perhaps we should question those ideas.

I believe the answer to the three questions listed above is - Yes! The language employed in the OT makes it crystal clear that Jesus did indeed command the first two and did the third. In fact, we both agree Jesus did the third.

Do you agree Jesus commanded the first two? Or, do you suspect the language employed in the OT misrepresents what Jesus really commanded? For example:

Quote:
Exodus
22:20 He that sacrificeth unto [any] god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

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.

Deuteronomy
2:34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:
20:17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; [namely], the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:

Joshua
10:40 So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded.

Again, the question remains - Why did such a loving, merciful, forgiving God command godly people to kill ungodly people?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/17/11 11:04 PM

Originally Posted By: APL
Originally Posted By: MM
Based on the above, is there any doubt in your mind as to where and from whom Ellen believed the fire came from that killed Nadab and Abihu? I believe it is crystal clear she believed it came from the presence of God in the most holy place. Do you agree? If not, can you produce positive proof from the SOP she believed it was in fact Satan who employed the fire that killed them?

To me, it is clear, it was God's glory the destroyed them. Not that he did it to punish them, or waited until they got to just the right place, and then flared up and killed them. God dwelled with the COI in the Most Holy Place. He had given expressed commands in how they were to approach Him, and Nadab and Abihu violated those commands. This is not vengeance or punishment on God's part. It is a natural consequence. EGW compares it with harmful habits we inflict on ourselves.
Originally Posted By: EGW
"Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil." God will no more receive a sacrifice from the hands of those who thus pollute themselves, and offer with their service the incense of tobacco and liquor, than He would receive the offering of the sons of Aaron, who offered incense with strange fire. {Con 83.2}

Tobacco and liquor pay their wage. God does not have to come down and inflict the punishment. N&A went in where they were told not to go, and indeed could not without suffering death. They destroyed themselves.

Did Satan cause their death? No... and yes. Satan is the originator of evil. He is the one that depraved human nature. He is the author of sin ( and I do take this quite literally ). I do not see Satan coming in and throwing fire on Nadab and Abihu. But he is ultimately the root cause of death.

Again, I totally agree. Ellen wrote:

Quote:
I saw a throne, and on it sat the Father and the Son. I gazed on Jesus' countenance and admired His lovely person. The Father's person I could not behold, for a cloud of glorious light covered Him. I asked Jesus if His Father had a form like Himself. He said He had, but I could not behold it, for said He, "If you should once behold the glory of His person, you would cease to exist." {EW 54.2}

In our sinful, fallen state we cannot survive in the light that radiates from the person and presence of God. The radiant light of His glory would cause our flesh to melt like wax exposed to sunlight. "Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth." {Zeh 14:12}
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/17/11 11:08 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
It seems to me that God only allows sinners to be destroyed by His glory if He wills/allows this to take place and could “dim”/attenuate this power in His glory at will.

I agree. Which would explain how Satan could appear before God with the "sons of God" in the story of job without being consumed to death.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/17/11 11:16 PM

Originally Posted By: kland
Originally Posted By: Mountain Man

Based on the above, is there any doubt in your mind as to where and from whom Ellen believed the fire came from that killed Nadab and Abihu? I believe it is crystal clear she believed it came from the presence of God in the most holy place. Do you agree? If not, can you produce positive proof from the SOP she believed it was in fact Satan who employed the fire that killed them?

In the Bible it says God slew Saul. You personally were not aware of any place where it says differently. That doesn't mean that it doesn't say differently. Suppose that part of the Bible, which you were not aware of, wasn't in there. That still doesn't mean God slew Saul. If there were no such occurrences in the Bible, then I would agree with you. But as Tom and I have pointed out several examples to you, shouldn't that make you think there may be other things going on? I believe you have said yourself that God assumes responsibility for the universe.

When a boss or project leader assumes responsibility, that doesn't mean he caused the mess-up (or success!) but that he takes the responsibility for what happened. A project leader is expected to control/coerce what happens. In the great controversy, do you think God's purpose is to control and coerce everything that happens or is there another purpose?

You have a presumed premise of what fire is, the purpose is, and see a binomial effect that either God killed them or Satan killed them. Could there be other alternatives? How does that match with what Tom has quoted Ellen White as saying numerous times from the Great Controversy?

If the fire that blazed out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned N&A alive did not, in fact, blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burn N&A alive, where, then, did the fire come from, and from whom?

If it wasn't "fire" that blazed out from the presence of God in the most holy place that killed N&A, what, then, killed them?

And, why did Ellen clearly say it was fire that blazed out from the presence of God in the most holy place that killed N&A?
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/17/11 11:55 PM

Quote:
And, why did Ellen clearly say it was fire that blazed out from the presence of God in the most holy place that killed N&A?
Are you aware of places in the bible where "fire" is not as you think of it as?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/18/11 12:03 AM

Quote:
Again, the question remains - Why did such a loving, merciful, forgiving God command godly people to kill ungodly people?


Do you picture God as being this way? That is, is this something you see Jesus/God doing?
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/18/11 06:59 PM

Hmmm, it almost sounds like he's questioning either if God is "such a loving, merciful, forgiving God" or if He did not really command people to kill others.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/18/11 11:03 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Originally Posted By: NJK Project
It seems to me that God only allows sinners to be destroyed by His glory if He wills/allows this to take place and could “dim”/attenuate this power in His glory at will.

I agree. Which would explain how Satan could appear before God with the "sons of God" in the story of job without being consumed to death.

I think the episode of God and Moses in Exod 33:17-23 concretely demonstrates how God can allow even a man who has sinned see His “glory” (vs. 18 & 22) and still live. God apparently only ‘partly covered Moses with His hand for a while so that he would not see His face (= front side)’ (vs. 23). However Moses could, and/or was sustained to, see God’s glory of His back.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/18/11 11:42 PM

Of course, this is really referring to God's character. God's glory is His character.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/19/11 10:42 AM

That has been a popular understanding of this passage, indeed based upon this passage, however upon carefully/exegetically studying the text, I do not see this as being the actual case.

Vs. 17 says ‘Moses had found favor/grace in the eyes of God so that his request to know God’s deeper and sure will for Israel would be granted, indeed mainly because of Moses’ faithfulness (vs. 13-16), especially here on the heels of the Golden Calf incident (Exod. 32).

-In response to Moses’ glory request in vs. 18; God did not actually say that He would not grant it, He just later said that it would only be the back side of His glory that Moses could/would see (vs. 20). And that is exactly what he proceeded to do in vss. 21-23. But before that God seemingly added other things that He would here reveal to Moses besides just this requested “glory”. And that was His “goodness” as well as the (audible) proclamation of His Name (vs. 19a). Then it is added, manifestly to explain why all this was being granted to Moses that ‘God would be gracious and have compassion on whomever He chooses.’ Notice this is not merely saying: ‘I am gracious’ and ‘I am compassionate’, as a ‘character description’, as it is commonly assumed, simply would do.

So I see that it was on top of proceeding to show Moses His visible glory (the back) as Moses had requested, God added the distinct “goodness+” revelations. These were also in direct answer to Moses’ request in vs. 13-16, as to God’s specific intentions for, and planned dealings with, Israel from then on (i.e., after this Golden Calf debacle - cf. PP 327.1-328.4). God was here telling Moses that He would judge amongst the people and not treat/condemn them as a whole, and be “good, gracious, and compassionate” on whomever, from amongst the people, He thought was worthy of it.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/19/11 11:42 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
I guess, "What really happened?" would be a good question to ask. If our ideas lead us to ideas that have God acting completely out of character, perhaps we should question those ideas.

I would agree that if it is our ideas leading us astray, we should question those ideas. However, how would we know? If it is our own ideas at fault, chances are, we are ignorant of being in the wrong. Most people don't walk around thinking that their ideas are wrong. wink

Which brings us to a hard and solid fact: The Bible must be trusted over and above any of our ideas. This is what brings us to a certain need for diligence and setting aside of personal opinions, biases, or prejudices when studying the Word of God.

Ultimately, what seems right often isn't. Therefore, our ideas about God's character must not dictate to us our doctrine. We must base both on the Bible, not upon reason.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Will

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/19/11 09:58 PM

I was giving this topic some thought, or at least the theme, and part of the big picture.
In those ancient times, the Israelites were God's people, His children, and if any of you are parents, what would you do for your children to protect them?
I know that when the Amelekites were not slaughtered as God commanded, this resulted in Haman remaining alive, and genocide against the Israelites was a very real possibility.
God Bless,
-Will
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/19/11 11:10 PM

Originally Posted By: kland
M: Based on the above, is there any doubt in your mind as to where and from whom Ellen believed the fire came from that killed Nadab and Abihu? I believe it is crystal clear she believed it came from the presence of God in the most holy place. Do you agree? If not, can you produce positive proof from the SOP she believed it was in fact Satan who employed the fire that killed them?

K: In the Bible it says God slew Saul. You personally were not aware of any place where it says differently. That doesn't mean that it doesn't say differently. Suppose that part of the Bible, which you were not aware of, wasn't in there. That still doesn't mean God slew Saul. If there were no such occurrences in the Bible, then I would agree with you. But as Tom and I have pointed out several examples to you, shouldn't that make you think there may be other things going on? I believe you have said yourself that God assumes responsibility for the universe. When a boss or project leader assumes responsibility, that doesn't mean he caused the mess-up (or success!) but that he takes the responsibility for what happened. A project leader is expected to control/coerce what happens. In the great controversy, do you think God's purpose is to control and coerce everything that happens or is there another purpose? You have a presumed premise of what fire is, the purpose is, and see a binomial effect that either God killed them or Satan killed them. Could there be other alternatives? How does that match with what Tom has quoted Ellen White as saying numerous times from the Great Controversy?

M: If the fire that blazed out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned N&A alive did not, in fact, blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burn N&A alive, where, then, did the fire come from, and from whom? If it wasn't "fire" that blazed out from the presence of God in the most holy place that killed N&A, what, then, killed them? And, why did Ellen clearly say it was fire that blazed out from the presence of God in the most holy place that killed N&A?

K: Are you aware of places in the bible where "fire" is not as you think of it as?

Yes. In fact, I suspect the "fire" that blazed out from the presence of God in the most holy place and killed N&A was the radiant light of God's person and presence. Do you agree? If not, what do you think killed N&A?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/19/11 11:16 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
M: Again, the question remains - Why did such a loving, merciful, forgiving God command godly people to kill ungodly people?

T: Do you picture God as being this way? That is, is this something you see Jesus/God doing?

The following is the entire post:

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
1. In the OT, did Jesus ever command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle?

2. In the OT, did Jesus ever command godly people to execute capital punishment?

3. In the OT, did Jesus ever withdraw His protection and permit the forces of nature or evil men, and/or evil angels to kill men, women, and children?

T: "What really happened?" would be a good question to ask. If our ideas lead us to ideas that have God acting completely out of character, perhaps we should question those ideas.

M: I believe the answer to the three questions listed above is - Yes! The language employed in the OT makes it crystal clear that Jesus did indeed command the first two and did the third. In fact, we both agree Jesus did the third. Do you agree Jesus commanded the first two? Or, do you suspect the language employed in the OT misrepresents what Jesus really commanded? For example:

Quote:
Exodus
22:20 He that sacrificeth unto [any] god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

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.

Deuteronomy
2:34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:
20:17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; [namely], the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:

Joshua
10:40 So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded.

Again, the question remains - Why did such a loving, merciful, forgiving God command godly people to kill ungodly people?

In response to the last part of the post above you asked - "Do you picture God as being this way? That is, is this something you see Jesus/God doing?" To answer your question I'm going to quote from the part you omitted:

I believe the answer to the three questions listed above is - Yes! The language employed in the OT makes it crystal clear that Jesus did indeed command the first two and did the third. In fact, we both agree Jesus did the third. Do you agree Jesus commanded the first two? Or, do you suspect the language employed in the OT misrepresents what Jesus really commanded?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/19/11 11:29 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
Quote:
Based on what you wrote above, I still do not know your answers to the following questions asked above:

1. You seem to be suggesting the "fire" that "blazed out" from the "presence" of God in "the holy of holies" and "consumed" Nadab and Abihu in reality was employed by Satan.


I just quoted GC and said I thought the same principles applied. I spelled out in detail what I thought that meant. I disagree with your assessment in regards to what you think I seem to be suggesting.

Quote:
Is this what you believe Ellen had in mind?


What you said? No. I think she would agree with the idea that the same principles were in effect, however, if we could ask her now.

Quote:
2. If so, doesn't that imply she believed Satan was standing beside God in the most holy place when he employed fire to kill them?


No.

Quote:
3. Do you know of even one passage where Ellen plainly says, God withdrew His protection and permitted Satan to employ fire to kill Nadab and Abihu?


As I said, I think the same principles were at work here as in the GC chapter on the Destruction of Jerusalem. I think these are principles at work in all such incidents, as I explained. I see no reason why she would need to repeat this for every such incident in Scripture. We should be able to figure out what the principles are by which God runs His government, and apply them to other situations, don't you think?

Ellen clearly wrote, the "fire" that "blazed out" from the "presence" of God in "the holy of holies" "consumed" Nadab and Abihu. It sounds like you believe Ellen expected us to interpret her words to mean God withdrew His protection and permitted Satan to employ the fire that burned Nadab and Abihu alive.

Please answer the following questions:

1. Did fire blaze out from the presence of God in the holy of holies and burn Nadab and Abihu alive?

2. If not, why did Ellen clearly say so?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/19/11 11:46 PM

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
Originally Posted By: Tom
1. In the OT, did Jesus ever command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle?

2. In the OT, did Jesus ever command godly people to execute capital punishment?

3. In the OT, did Jesus ever withdraw His protection and permit the forces of nature or evil men, and/or evil angels to kill men, women, and children?

I guess, "What really happened?" would be a good question to ask. If our ideas lead us to ideas that have God acting completely out of character, perhaps we should question those ideas.

I would agree that if it is our ideas leading us astray, we should question those ideas. However, how would we know? If it is our own ideas at fault, chances are, we are ignorant of being in the wrong. Most people don't walk around thinking that their ideas are wrong. wink

Which brings us to a hard and solid fact: The Bible must be trusted over and above any of our ideas. This is what brings us to a certain need for diligence and setting aside of personal opinions, biases, or prejudices when studying the Word of God.

Ultimately, what seems right often isn't. Therefore, our ideas about God's character must not dictate to us our doctrine. We must base both on the Bible, not upon reason.

When the Bible clearly says Jesus commanded one and two above and did the third, is it appropriate to take God at His word? Or, should we assume since Jesus didn't do either one of the three while here in the flesh that He didn't do either of them in the OT? For example:

Quote:
Exodus
22:20 He that sacrificeth unto [any] god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

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.

Deuteronomy
2:34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:
20:17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; [namely], the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:

Joshua
10:40 So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded.

What is the truth regarding the passages above as it relates to the three questions above?
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/20/11 02:16 AM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Yes. In fact, I suspect the "fire" that blazed out from the presence of God in the most holy place and killed N&A was the radiant light of God's person and presence. Do you agree? If not, what do you think killed N&A?

I know I'm not the one you were addressing here, but perhaps you will not mind hearing my thoughts on this too.

God chose that sanctuary as the place in which His presence would dwell. It was God's house, His tabernacle among men. In light of this, it seems to me that it would have put a blight upon God's name and honor to have anyone think, much less report to others, that the Devil had been present there to act in this manner. It would be as though God had been asleep on His watch, or not actually present as He had claimed!

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/20/11 02:38 AM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
When the Bible clearly says Jesus commanded one and two above and did the third, is it appropriate to take God at His word?

I would answer this with a decided "Yes!" It is most certainly appropriate to take God at His Word.

From Mrs. White, we have many, many admonitions to do exactly this: to take God at His Word. Here are just a few...
Originally Posted By: Ellen White
Those who take God at His word, and obey His commandments with the whole heart, will be blessed.

It is our privilege to take God at his word.

Said the angel: "Feeling is not faith. Faith is simply to take God at His word."

Come to the Scriptures and intelligently take God at His word.

Take God at His word, and work in faith. Satan will come with his suggestions to make you distrust the word of your heavenly Father; but consider, "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin." Press your faith through the dark shadow of Satan, and lodge it upon the mercy seat, and let not one doubt be entertained. This is the only way in which you will gain an experience, and find the evidence so essential for your peace and confidence.

We must take God at His word, and believe that He will do just as He has said. If He chastises us, it is that we may be partakers of His divine nature.

Some men seem afraid to take God at His word as though it would be presumption in them. They pray for the Lord to teach us and yet are afraid to credit the pledged word of God and believe we have been taught of Him.... You must not for a moment doubt Him and dishonor Him thereby.

The Lord works in cooperation with the will and action of the human agent. It is the privilege and duty of every man to take God at His word, to believe in Jesus as his personal Saviour, and to respond eagerly, immediately, to the gracious propositions which He makes. He is to study to believe and obey the divine instruction in the Scriptures. He is to base his faith not on feeling but upon the evidence and the Word of God (MS 3, 1895).


According to Mrs. White, it is intelligent to take God at His word. Furthermore, we are to do this regardless of feeling. Faith is not a feeling. I cannot trust, therefore, to any feeling I might have about the matter. I must trust only to the plain word of God, written for my instruction.

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Or, should we assume since Jesus didn't do either one of the three while here in the flesh that He didn't do either of them in the OT? For example:

Quote:
Exodus
22:20 He that sacrificeth unto [any] god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

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.

Deuteronomy
2:34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:
20:17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; [namely], the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:

Joshua
10:40 So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded.

What is the truth regarding the passages above as it relates to the three questions above?

The truth is, Jesus did not repeat all of His history for us in a short 3.5 years. He did not, for example, create our world and all of its myriad organisms during those years. And yet, we know from the Old Testament how He did this. Jesus caused no manna to fall from Heaven during His 3.5 years of ministry on earth, and yet we know that He did this for 40 years from the Old Testament. Jesus said in John 5:39 that we are to "search the scriptures...and they are they which testify of Me." Those scriptures which testify of Christ were the Old Testament scriptures, every one of them. No portion of the New Testament was yet written, so far as we know, when Jesus spoke those words. By this commandment, Jesus sanctioned the view that His character is revealed throughout the Old Testament scriptures.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/20/11 02:47 AM

Originally Posted By: Will
I was giving this topic some thought, or at least the theme, and part of the big picture.
In those ancient times, the Israelites were God's people, His children, and if any of you are parents, what would you do for your children to protect them?
I know that when the Amelekites were not slaughtered as God commanded, this resulted in Haman remaining alive, and genocide against the Israelites was a very real possibility.
God Bless,
-Will
Good thoughts, Will. There are ramifications to our neglect of following God's orders, however illogical they might seem to us. Many of God's commands have been perceived as inappropriate on the part of the ones addressed. Gideon surely must have wondered at the military reductions he was told to make. Where he thought he needed more, God saw that he needed less. We might think we know what is best and right, but God has an entirely different thought and understanding of which we may be oblivious.

Speaking of which...did Gideon do what was best? As a missionary, I can see some other potential "options" for him. Why not send forth evangelists to convert those heathen enemies? wink

Instead of questioning God's Word, we should trust God. At the end of the conflict, God will be vindicated as Just and Holy in all He has done, including the purging of sin through various times and means to the point of death.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/20/11 05:48 AM

Quote:
1. In the OT, did Jesus ever command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle?

2. In the OT, did Jesus ever command godly people to execute capital punishment?

3. In the OT, did Jesus ever withdraw His protection and permit the forces of nature or evil men, and/or evil angels to kill men, women, and children?

Green, it sounds as though you are saying, yes, to all three questions. You also seem to be saying it was Jesus, not Satan, who consumed N&A.

I agree with you that Jesus did not demonstrate, while here in the flesh, everything He demonstrated in the OT.
Posted By: APL

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/21/11 05:27 AM

Originally Posted By: Green
The truth is, Jesus did not repeat all of His history for us in a short 3.5 years. He did not, for example, create our world and all of its myriad organisms during those years. And yet, we know from the Old Testament how He did this.
The lame walk and blind see. People raised from the dead. His re-creative power was clearly seen.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/21/11 07:38 PM

Originally Posted By: APL
GC: The truth is, Jesus did not repeat all of His history for us in a short 3.5 years. He did not, for example, create our world and all of its myriad organisms during those years. And yet, we know from the Old Testament how He did this.

APL: The lame walk and blind see. People raised from the dead. His re-creative power was clearly seen.

More to the point, the pretentious fig tree Jesus cursed withered and died within a day.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/21/11 11:49 PM

This is from a book by Greg Boyd called, "Is God To Blame?"

Quote:
This book offers a very different picture of God. Thought it will be new to some, it really is not new at all, for it is rooted in the biblical depiction of Jesus Christ. When someone asked jesus to show him God the Father, Jesus said, "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father" (Jn 14:9). In essence, Jesus was saying, "I am your picture of God." Many people construct their picture of God from various philosophical premises or their own life experience. But while philosophical thinking can be helpful and life experiences cannot be ignored, Jesus tells us that our understanding of God should be centered on him. This is why the Bible calls him the "Word," the "image" and the "exact imprint" of God (Jn 1:1; 2 Cor 3:17--4:6; Col 1:15;Heb 1:3).

The foundation for this book--and I believe for Christianity as a whole--is the c laim that God looks like Jesus. As we will see, Jesus spent his ministry freeing people from evil and misery. This is what God seeks to do. Jesus wars against spiritual forces that oppress people and resist God's good purposes. This is what God does. Jesus loved people others rejected--even people who rejected him. This is how God loves. ...


There are some statements which are more directly to the point of the discussion we're having, and some by Ty Gibson as well, but I don't have them with me, and could only quote from a portion of the book (the part they have available as a preview). But it serves to bring out the point I have in mind.

What we're dealing with here is the issue of how to know what God is like. EGW wrote that all that we can know of God was revealed by His Son (speaking of His life on earth with us). This is in contrast to the idea that part of what we can know of God was revealed by Jesus Christ while here in the flesh, but part was not.

The question arises, was God really like Jesus Christ in the flesh? Or not really. Just sort of. Jesus showed one side of God, one facet of His character, but to really know God, we need to add to the picture that Jesus Christ portrayed the violent episodes of the Old Testament.

Is violence a part of God's character? A part of His government? If we look at Jesus Christ's testimony, it isn't. If we look at the Old Testament, it certainly appears that the message is "My way, or the Highway."

What's the true picture of God? Jesus Christ? Or Jesus Christ + Old Testament? It could be argued that this is a false dichotomy, but if this is the case, then why do we need the Old Testament to know what God is like? Isn't Jesus Christ sufficient?

Also, if it is true that all that we can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son while here in the flesh, then again, isn't Jesus Christ sufficient?
Posted By: APL

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/22/11 03:47 AM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Originally Posted By: APL
GC: The truth is, Jesus did not repeat all of His history for us in a short 3.5 years. He did not, for example, create our world and all of its myriad organisms during those years. And yet, we know from the Old Testament how He did this.

APL: The lame walk and blind see. People raised from the dead. His re-creative power was clearly seen.

More to the point, the pretentious fig tree Jesus cursed withered and died within a day.

I posted a reply to this but I do not see it here any more. Don't know what happened. So, I'll try to say it again...

Read Desire of Ages chapter 64, and there is a discussion of the Fig Tree that Jesus cursed. What we find plays right into what Tom has been saying. I won't quote the whole chapter. :-)

Originally Posted By: Desire of Ages
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.

OK - so this parable is to tell us the cause of Israel's doom!
Originally Posted By: Desire of Ages
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 583.2}

And the end of the chapter we read...
Originally Posted By: Desire of Ages
Christ foresaw that Jerusalem would remain obdurate and impenitent; yet all the guilt, all the consequences of rejected mercy, lay at her own door. Thus it will be with every soul who is following the same course. The Lord declares, "O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself." "Hear, O earth: behold, I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not hearkened unto My words, nor to My law, but rejected it." Hosea 13:9; Jeremiah 6:19. {DA 588.2}
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/22/11 07:00 PM

APL, yes, thank you. When Jesus withdrew His protection and permitted evil angels to influence enemy soldiers to attack Jerusalem the Jews suffered a terrible slaughter. Jesus wept.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/22/11 08:07 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
Also, if it is true that all that we can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son while here in the flesh, then again, isn't Jesus Christ sufficient?

Yes, of course, Jesus is more than sufficient. But "all that man needs to know or can know of God" (see quote and context below) is not sufficient to understand "his strange act" (Isa 28:21). Ellen wrote - "To our merciful God the act of punishment is a strange act." {GC 627.2} "The work of wrath and destruction is indeed a strange, unwelcome work for Him who is infinite in love." {ST, August 24, 1882 par. 15} Jesus has not seen fit to explain everything there is to know about His "ministration of wrath." Ellen wrote:

Quote:
God in his infinite mercy bears long with the transgressors of his law. In the days of Abraham he declared that the idolatrous Amorites should still be spared until the fourth generation; for their iniquity was not yet full, and he could not give command for their destruction. For more than four hundred years he spared them, but when, instead of turning to repentance, they hardened their hearts in iniquity, and made war upon his people, their day of probation closed, and the mandate went forth for their utter extinction. With unerring accuracy, the Infinite One keeps a record of the impiety of nations and individuals. Long is his mercy tendered to them, with calls to repentance; but when their guilt reaches a certain limit, which he has fixed, then mercy ceases her pleadings, and the ministration of wrath begins. {LP 318.1}

I realize you believe Jesus punishes and destroys sinners by withdrawing His protection and permitting the forces of nature or evil men and/or evil angels to kill them, however, in the passage above it is clear Jesus commanded Moses to utterly kill every man, woman, and child. Moses wrote:

Quote:
Deut 3:2-6

And the LORD said unto me . . . thou shalt do unto him as thou didst unto Sihon king of the Amorites . . . and we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city.

However, it would be a terrible mistake to assume Ellen thought the OT fails to portray Jesus accurately. She wrote:

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

Genuine religion is based upon a belief in the Scriptures. God's Word is to be believed without question. No part of it is to be cut and carved to fit certain theories. Men are not to exalt human wisdom by sitting in judgment upon God's Word. The Bible was written by holy men of old, as they were moved upon by the Holy Spirit, and this Book contains all that we know for certain and all that we can ever hope to learn in regard to God and Christ, unless, like Paul, we are taken to the third heaven to hear "unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter" (2 Corinthians 12:4). This revelation to the apostle did not spoil his humility. {9MR 300.1}

The life of a Christian is a life regulated by the Word of God just as it reads. All the truths of the Old and the New Testaments form a complete whole. These truths we are to cherish, believe, and obey. To the true disciple, faith in God's Word is a living, active principle; for "with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation" (Romans 10:10). By faith man believes that he receives the righteousness of Christ. {9MR 300.2}
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/22/11 08:31 PM

Tom, please respond to post 131970 and 131971.
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/22/11 11:26 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
APL, yes, thank you. When Jesus withdrew His protection and permitted evil angels to influence enemy soldiers to attack Jerusalem the Jews suffered a terrible slaughter. Jesus wept.
Then, I didn't understand your comment about the fig tree.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/23/11 04:35 AM

Kland, the cursing of the fig tree speaks to the third question.

1. In the OT, did Jesus ever command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle?

2. In the OT, did Jesus ever command godly people to execute capital punishment?

3. In the OT, did Jesus ever withdraw His protection and permit the forces of nature or evil men, and/or evil angels to kill men, women, and children?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/23/11 06:03 AM

Quote:
Tom, please respond to post 131970 and 131971.


Regarding 13670, I asked if you see God/Jesus as One who commands godly people to kill ungodly people. According to how you answered the question, it appears you think this is the way God/Jesus is. I see a couple of problems with this view, not the least of which is if you believe me to be an ungodly person, you could well think it God's will that you kill me, or kill my friends or loved ones.

Regarding 13671, it looks to me like you aren't grasping the principles spoken of broadly enough. Or, rather, you are applying the principles to narrowly, in my opinion. I believe the principle is that there are a thousand dangers from which God protects us, and if we reject His protection, then we are in danger from these thousand dangers. It's not just Satan directly taking action against us that is addressed.

Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/23/11 06:35 AM

Originally Posted By: MM
M:APL, yes, thank you. When Jesus withdrew His protection and permitted evil angels to influence enemy soldiers to attack Jerusalem the Jews suffered a terrible slaughter. Jesus wept.


And this is the point of the fig tree, which you said was "more to the point." So "more to the point" is the point I've been making all along, as APL pointed out.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/23/11 07:59 AM

Originally Posted By: MM
T:Also, if it is true that all that we can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son while here in the flesh, then again, isn't Jesus Christ sufficient?

M:Yes, of course, Jesus is more than sufficient. But "all that man needs to know or can know of God" (see quote and context below) is not sufficient to understand "his strange act" (Isa 28:21).


All that man needs to know of God, or can know of God, was revealed in the life and character of His Son. This must include "his strange act," or else her statement wouldn't be true.

Quote:
M:Jesus has not seen fit to explain everything there is to know about His "ministration of wrath."


Ellen White wrote that all that man needs to know, or can know, of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son. You are making exceptions to this. This is where we part company.

I believe that Jesus Christ was a full and complete revelation of God, including "his strange act," His "ministration of wrath," and anything else one needs to know, or can know, of God, as the statement says.

Quote:
M:However, it would be a terrible mistake to assume Ellen thought the OT fails to portray Jesus accurately. She wrote:

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


Here's what she wrote in context:

Quote:
"Then He said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into His glory?" The disciples wondered who this stranger could be, that He should penetrate to their very souls, and speak with such earnestness, tenderness, and sympathy, and with such hopefulness. For the first time since Christ's betrayal, they began to feel hopeful. Often they looked earnestly at their companion, and thought that His words were just the words that Christ would have spoken. They were filled with amazement, and their hearts began to throb with joyful expectation.

Beginning at Moses, the very Alpha of Bible history, Christ expounded in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself. Had He first made Himself known to them, their hearts would have been satisfied. In the fullness of their joy they would have hungered for nothing more. But it was necessary for them to understand the witness borne to Him by the types and prophecies of the Old Testament. Upon these their faith must be established. Christ performed no miracle to convince them, but it was His first work to explain the Scriptures. They had looked upon His death as the destruction of all their hopes. Now He showed from the prophets that this was the very strongest evidence for their faith.

In teaching these disciples, Jesus showed the importance of the Old Testament as a witness to His mission. Many professed Christians now discard the Old Testament, claiming that it is no longer of any use. But such is not Christ's teaching. So highly did He value it that at one time He said, "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." Luke 16:31.

It is the voice of Christ that speaks through patriarchs and prophets, from the days of Adam even to the closing scenes of time. The Saviour is revealed in the Old Testament as clearly as in the New. It is the light from the prophetic past that brings out the life of Christ and the teachings of the New Testament with clearness and beauty. The miracles of Christ are a proof of His divinity; but a stronger proof that He is the world's Redeemer is found in comparing the prophecies of the Old Testament with the history of the New.

Reasoning from prophecy, Christ gave His disciples a correct idea of what He was to be in humanity. Their expectation of a Messiah who was to take His throne and kingly power in accordance with the desires of men had been misleading. It would interfere with a correct apprehension of His descent from the highest to the lowest position that could be occupied. Christ desired that the ideas of His disciples might be pure and true in every specification. They must understand as far as possible in regard to the cup of suffering that had been apportioned to Him. He showed them that the awful conflict which they could not yet comprehend was the fulfillment of the covenant made before the foundation of the world was laid. Christ must die, as every transgressor of the law must die if he continues in sin. All this was to be, but it was not to end in defeat, but in glorious, eternal victory. Jesus told them that every effort must be made to save the world from sin. His followers must live as He lived, and work as He worked, with intense, persevering effort.


The way you are interpreting her, it seems like you're saying Jesus Christ need not have come at all, as if His Coming added nothing to our understanding of God's character. But this isn't her point at all. She's explaining that the character of Christ's mission was prophesied in the Old, so that He should not have been rejected as Messiah just because He didn't come in the manner expected by the people in general.

All of Scripture is about Christ. He is the One to whom the Scriptures point. "You search the Scriptures to find life, but they are they which testify of Me, and you will not come to Me that you may have life." (from memory; may not be exactly right, but this is the idea).

Although the Old Testament points to Christ, it is not Christ. It testifies of Christ, but we receive life from Christ, as He points out.

Hebrews 1 tells us:

Quote:
1God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

3Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person ...


Christ is "the express image of his person." Christ was a revelation which had not been seen before.

John tells us that the law came through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. What truth? The truth about God, as John explains a few versus later, in saying that no one has seen God at any time, but His only Son, who knew Him best, has shown us what God is really like.

Ellen White tells us that the "revelation of God" was the "whole purpose" of Christ's mission. If God had already been fully revealed, the "whole purpose" of Christ's mission would have been unnecessary (ST 1/20/90).

Regarding God (or Christ, as you put it) being accurately portrayed in Scripture, the problem is not Scripture, but us. We don't read Scripture as Christ did. Christ was able to read the Scriptures, and perceive God's character correctly, and this is what He revealed.

Christ said that what He heard His Father say, He said, and what He saw His Father do, He did. Where did Christ hear and see these things? In the Scriptures. So what Christ lived and spoke is what Christ saw and heard when *He* read the Scriptures. But that's not what *we* see and hear when we read the Scriptures.

There's a disconnect between our understanding of the Scriptures, and Christ's. We need to defer to Christ's understanding.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/24/11 04:18 AM

Tom, with your thoughts about Jesus in mind, please address the following reworded questions:

1. In the OT, why did Jesus command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle?

2. In the OT, why did Jesus command godly people to execute capital punishment?

For example:

Exodus
22:20 He that sacrificeth unto [any] god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

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.

Deuteronomy
2:34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:
20:17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; [namely], the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:

Joshua
10:40 So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/24/11 03:00 PM

My thoughts are

1.What happened may not be what appeared to happen. The story of the father of the hunter comes to mind.

2.Before tackling the episodes in violence in the OT, it's imperative that we have a solid understanding of God's character, or we're bound to misunderstand them, having God acting and thinking according to how we would act and think, instead of according to how Jesus Christ revealed Him to be.

3.Christ said that what He heard His Father say, He said, and what He saw His Father do, He did. Where did Christ hear and see these things? In the Scriptures. So what Christ lived and spoke is what Christ saw and heard when *He* read the Scriptures. But that's not what *we* see and hear when we read the Scriptures.

There's a disconnect between our understanding of the Scriptures, and Christ's. We need to defer to Christ's understanding.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/24/11 07:01 PM

Tom, thank you. I agree. With these thoughts in mind, please address the two questions and texts above.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/25/11 04:39 AM

I did and have been. Plus we've discussed them in great detail in the past. I don't have anything new to add.

I'll summarize what I perceive our difference to be.

I take Jesus Christ to be foundational, and, more than that, all-in-all in terms of revealing God's character. If I come across what look to be disconnects to that in anything, I defer whatever that thing is to the revelation of Jesus Christ. For example, in regards to the OT, I understand that what Christ lived and spoke was *His* understanding of the OT. I therefore accept that as definitive, and if the OT looks different to me, I conclude that Jesus Christ must be right, and defer to that.

I see no need to add to the revelation of Jesus Christ.

On the other hand, you see Jesus Christ's revelation as lacking. For example, He did not reveal the "ministration of wrath" as you put it, nor God's "strange act." Your perception is that we need to add to Jesus Christ's revelation, to include the Old Testament, and, perhaps, the Spirit of Prophecy.

So for me, it's Christ, and only Christ. For you it's Christ +.

To be clear, I'm speaking of "the whole purpose of Christ's mission on earth," to use Ellen White's phrase, which was His work while here in the flesh, in all the above references to Christ and His revelation above.

You can let me know if you have any disagreements with my summary of a principle difference we have.

Another big difference is I perceive you to be more rules-based, whereas I'm more principle-based. I'll go into more detail regarding this in a future post if you'd like.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/25/11 03:42 PM

After reading Tom’s summary and enunciation of differences, above I’ll succinctly chime in on this topic again, just to say that it also does seem to me that Jesus put on hold His ‘ministry of wrath’ [as Mountain Man has said] and execution of due judgement, which was in line with OT Divine dealings during his 3.5 year ministry period, as e.g., explicitly stated by Him in Luke 12:49, 50 (i.e., (literally - also from the exegetical analysis I had done on this passsage for a sermon): “I have [personally i.e., not ‘been sent’] come to cast [“Hell” vss. 45-48] Fire upon the Earth; and how I wish that it be already kindled! But I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how I am constraining myself (i.e., “holding myself back so that it may be accomplished [as it possibly may not be if Jesus so opted = Matt 26:37-44]”

I see a concrete manifestation of this deliberate delaying in Christ’s cutting his initial sermon on Isa 61:1, 2 short (Luke 4:18-21) as He refrained from mentioning the “day of vengeance of our God” (vs. Isa 61:2b), however did so at the end of His ministry when speaking judgements on the nation of Israel as they had failed to continue to advance in God’s will (Luke 21:22); indeed so that “all that has been written be fulfilled”. Ironically enough, “God’s day of vengeance” mentioned in Isa 61:2b, intended for the enemies of Israel, was here, out of pure necessity, going to include the unbelieving Jews (cf. DA 240.4), indeed as seen in the 70 A.D. destruction.

So the operative determinant here is to let the text itself determine what our view should be and not vice versa, however sincerely “righteous” we may consider it to be. If it is indeed “righteous” then it should not be contradicted. So it therefore seems clear to me that Jesus did not similarly demonstrate this OT wrath during his Earthly ministry simply because it was not yet the appropriate time to do so. That principle also manifested itself in God’s/His OT dealings (e.g., Gen 15:13, 16).
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/25/11 06:50 PM

Appreciate your comments, NJK.

The question is if Jesus Christ is a full and complete revelation of God's character. If that's the case, we don't really need to consider exceptions on a case by case basis, as there wouldn't be any exceptions.

That Jesus Christ was a full and complete revelation of God's character is explicitly stated by the SOP, in several places. One example is (from memory) "All that man needs to know, or can know, of God was reveled in the life and character of His Son." I think that's from 8T 216.

It's possible to arrive at this same conclusion using Scripture alone. I know of two people who have come to this conclusion, and written out why. One is Ty Gibson (an SDA), and the other is Greg Boyd (not an SDA). I quoted a little bit from Body. I can try to do so in more detail later on (perhaps tonight or tomorrow). I'm interested in seeing how his train of thought goes. It's interesting that he says the same thing Ellen White wrote, almost word for word, that all that we can know of God was revealed in Jesus Christ (interesting because he knows nothing of Ellen White, so arrived at this conclusion strictly from Scripture).

I thought of something else, having to do with a principle of how to consider these sorts of incidents, which I'll treat in a separate post.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/25/11 08:13 PM

I fully understand your view Tom, in fact I fully agree with its actual declaration (i.e., ‘Jesus is the full revelation of God’), however, and just as it was in our prior discussion on the Tree of Life, I think you are artificially limiting the understanding here to actually what you understand from this. In the Tree of Life view (not to reopen that discussion), I believed both tangibly and spiritually that Life ultimately came from Jesus, however through an actual tangible process which He or the Father somehow literally/tangibly imparted to us through the River of Life that flowed from His throne and alimented the Tree of Life that was on its banks.

In this view, what you see as “exceptions”, I rather see as contributors to this view of Christ’s revelation. And thus, as He has expressed, I see that this, indeed, “ministry of wrath” (= (from the “Revelation of Jesus Christ”) Rev 15:1; cf. e.g, Rev 14:10, 19, 15:7; 16:1, 19; 19:15, among many other NT examples)) was demonstrated also by Jesus. However as His mission then was to establish the New Covenant, it was thus not fully executed, as in OT times, when justified, but it surely will be, as revealed in Revelation, when this New Covenant message has been fully and clearly revealed to the world. Persisting unbelievers then, even becoming a tangible threat to God’s people, as were many OT peoples, will then suffer this same wrath.

So in summary, the main problem that I see with your stance here, as with our prior conversation is that it is setting up eisegetical parameters to determine what the “full revelation of Christ is” rather than allowing the Bible, and here also, Jesus Himself, specify what it is.
Posted By: APL

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/25/11 08:23 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
Jesus put on hold His ‘ministry of wrath’ [as Mountain Man has said] and execution of due judgement

God's wrath was clearly demonstrated by Jesus. It was beginning to be demonstrated in Gethsemane. It was replayed on the Cross.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/25/11 09:02 PM


Jesus here was made to bear the full wrath of God so that no human, if they so chose, -by living according to God’s ways, would themselves not have to be subject to it, however it clearly was not here preventing it from being inflicted upon any human who would trample upon this provided mercy. And it was the unbelieving Jewish nation who first got a taste of part of this wrath in their 70 A.D. national destruction, with the rest due at the Hell Fire execution of the final judgement. So this “ministry of wrath” is evidently two-part, one that can be tangibly felt in the ‘here and now’, if God deems it to be just and necessary (= OT temporal judgements) and another part at the end of this GC.

So here I was referring to this “here and now” part in this wrath, which was to be executed on the enemies/obstructors of God’s people, (who ever they may/came to, be), and that Jesus clearly put on hold for ca. 3.5 years, before ‘firmly determining it’ (=Dan 9:26b) at the manifestation of Israel’s intent on rejecting him. Still they were mercifully given 3.5 more years to change their mind and receive this provided, wrath-averting mercy.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/25/11 09:19 PM

Another difference I thought of in terms of how MM and I see things has to do with the approach one should take to understanding the incidents in Scripture where God apparently acts out of character.

What I mean by "out of character" is apparently violently. For example, when Christ cursed the fig tree, the disciples were taken aback, but this looked so different than Christ's normal behavior. They understood Christ not to be a violent person, so when Christ acted apparently violently, this was confusing to them. It turns out that the cursing of the fig tree was an acted out parable, acting out what would happen to Israel, if they didn't repent.

Quote:
Christ's act in cursing the fig tree had astonished the disciples. It seemed to them unlike His ways and works. Often they had heard Him declare that He came not to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. They remembered His words, "The Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." Luke 9:56. His wonderful works had been done to restore, never to destroy. The disciples had known Him only as the Restorer, the Healer. This act stood alone. What was its purpose? they questioned.

God "delighteth in mercy." "As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked." Micah 7:18; Ezek. 33:11. To Him the work of destruction and the denunciation of judgment is a "strange work." Isa. 28:21. But it 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. (DA 582)


Quote:
That day had come to Jerusalem. Jesus wept in anguish over the doomed city, but He could not deliver her. He had exhausted every resource. In rejecting the warnings of God's Spirit, Israel had rejected the only means of help. There was no other power by which they could be delivered.

The Jewish nation was a symbol of the people of all ages who scorn the pleadings of Infinite Love. The tears of Christ when He wept over Jerusalem were for the sins of all time. In the judgments pronounced upon Israel, those who reject the reproofs and warnings of God's Holy Spirit, may read their own condemnation.


The point that I wanted to get at is the following. There are scores of violent episodes in Scripture, many of which appear to portray God as acting "out of character" (unless we wish to view violence as not out of God's character). Do we need to go through these one by one, looking at each one, to determine if in a given particular case God is really acting violently? Or is it enough to make a case study of a particular incident in which God has given us a great deal of information?

In Scripture, in regards to the destruction of Jerusalem, God is portrayed as acting violently.

Quote:
But the tenants said to one another, 'This is the heir. Come, let's kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.' So they took him and killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard. What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others. (Mark 12)


Quote:
"But the king was enraged, and he sent his armies and destroyed those murderers and set their city on fire." (Matt. 22:7)


Here we see God portrayed in a normal human way. Things don't go His way, so He gets enraged, and takes vengeance with violence. This seems normal to us, so we have no problem interpreting God as acting in such a way, because that's the way we are. There are many incidents in Scripture which appear to portray God acting in such a manner.

In the chapter "The Destruction of Jerusalem" in "The Great Controversy" we have great detail as to what actually happened.

It seems to me this is sufficient to understanding God's acting "out of character" in general. The solution is that God isn't really acting the way it appears. God isn't really "enraged" to "send armies" to "destroy" nor "burn cities." He didn't really "come to kill" the Jews.

Quote:
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 35)


God wasn't really doing what He was portrayed as doing in Scripture. This is very common occurrence, the principle being that God presents Himself as doing that which He permits.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/25/11 09:29 PM

Quote:
NJK:And it was the unbelieving Jewish nation who first got a taste of part of this wrath in their 70 A.D. national destruction...


And what happened here? They persistently resisted the Holy Spirit so that they had not protection against Satan. This is how they tasted God's wrath; God withdrew.

The Romans 1 passage we've been discussing (in a different context) brings this out:

Quote:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: (Romans 1)


This speaks of God's "giving them up," which is the outworking of His wrath. There are lots of examples of this in Scripture.

Here's one:

Quote:
"My anger shall be aroused against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide My face from them, and they shall be devoured. And many evils and troubles shall befall them, so that they will say in that day, 'Have not these evils come upon us because our God is not among us?' And I will surely hide My face in that day because of all the [evil] which they have done, in that [they have turned to other gods]" (Deuteronomy 31:17, 18).


We see God's anger, or wrath, expressed by His withdrawal, which leads to troubles coming upon those whom He was protecting.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/25/11 10:38 PM

I have followed that other destruction, and I say here that it really does not matter how God actually brings about this wrath. The fact remains that, as He can prevent it, He therefore is fully responsible for its occurrence. Satan cannot do anything on this planet to anyone unless God allows him do. Perhaps not at a case specific level, but certainly in a general way, probably, to some extent, since the Fall.

I see that God’s giving up of people to suffer the natural effect of their harm (e.g., contracting AIDS for a promiscuous/perverted lifestyle; overdosing on drugs), is all part of the freedom granted in this GC. Since most of these “self-inflicted” people don’t believe in God, or at least enough to fully obey Him, He is hoping that in allowing natural consequence to affect them, they will of themselves, come to acknowledge that God and His Ways are superior and out of such a free-will choice obey Him. The opposite would be God to strike people with lightning if they persisted in disobedience. How many fearful, and thus faithless, (sort of “loaves and fishes”) converts would that result in. There are however some of such “direct” judgements of God in the Bible (e.g., Sodom and Gomorrah*), however most judgement of God were done through indirect, and externally natural-looking means, e.g., Israel’s army victories, mass illnesses, even the Flood.

*(I personally believe that the perverted evil in Sodom and Gomorrah had reached the “critical mass” of having resulted in an outbreak of life threatening diseases e.g, HIV, AIDS, and/or other STD’s. So God’s capital intervention here was fully justified for imagine an outbreak of an incurable disease then, in those times. Just look at the devastating effects HIV and AIDS is having in our advanced world today, especially in poor/under developed countries. So, likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the other surrounding cities may have been a tangible threat to the life of other peoples, including, even if not sexually transmitted, to Abraham’s (and thus Israel’s) family, e.g., through Lot or others. So that destruction was indeed to be, and that, in its means used, a most deterring object-lesson.)

So I see that where God has chosen to visibly directly intervene, in a that can only be attributed to Him, e.g., the freakish ‘Fire from Heaven’ destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, it was to indeed instill fear in people, in this case, so that they immoral and perverted lifestyle of the Sodomites and the other surrounding cities would not be repeated. Being fearful of this judgement and not engaging in these perverted acts however does not result in one having a saving faith in God and so does not really affect the GC Faith and Freedom that God prefers.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/25/11 10:41 PM

Reply to Tom’s ‘God Seeming to Act “Violently”’ Post [#132105]:

I personally think that in saying that: 'in such judgement acts God is acting violently' it is, at the very least, mislabelling God’s action here. E.g, A judge who condemned a serial killer to the electric chair is not acting “violently”. A soldier/army who defends their nation from a ‘clear and present danger’ is not acting violently. Such self-defense acts are not “violent” acts. That is why I made the initial comment on this discussion that God’s actions in the OT were for such tangible life or death implications and were not “violent”. The method used to execute these judgement is also to serve as an object lessons to others who are not, or not yet, deserving of such judgement so that they can change their ways and prevent any future death.

In the parables of Jesus, where such acts, which may be construed as violent are depicted, they are actually symbolic of the final judgement, even Hell judgement. So while the symbolic example may seem to be “violent”, it in its actually reality will not be. And here again this symbolic act is literally meant to instill a healthy fear in people (e.g., Wow, is God that serious for just this). Better a “violently portrayed” parable than an actual/acted out reality. Hence also the ultimate aim in the fig tree. The disciples were to take it most seriously not to trivially consider the obstinance of the Jewish leaders and people, because God certain was most seriously, eventually and surely, going to deal with it.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/25/11 11:16 PM

What does "violent" mean? Here's a definition:

Quote:
Effected by force or injury rather than natural causes.


Does that sound acceptable?

There's a big difference in considering man's actions and God's actions, as man can be seen as being constrained to use violence in order to protect his interests, whereas this does not apply to God. God always has other means available to accomplish His purposes, so violence on God's part would always be optional. It would mean that God chose a violent act in preference to a non-violent one. Does God ever make this choice?

Quote:
In the parables of Jesus, where such acts, which may be construed as violent are depicted, they are actually symbolic of the final judgement, even Hell judgement.


The ones I cited were dealing with the destruction of Jerusalem. The killing, and burning of cities, and sending of armies were violent acts, and actually did happen. God was portrayed as doing these things, but what really happened is He permitted them to happen.

Quote:
So while the symbolic example may seem to be “violent”, it in its actually reality will not be.


In the case cited, in its actual reality, it was violent.

Quote:
And here again this symbolic act is literally meant to instill a healthy fear in people (e.g., Wow, is God that serious for just this).


This sounds like something the enemy would do. That is, obedience by means of intimidation as opposed to being motivated by love, appreciation, or gratitude. If someone "obeys" God because they're afraid of what will happen to them if they don't, is this really obedience?

Quote:
Better a “violently portrayed” parable than an actual/acted out reality. Hence also the ultimate aim in the fig tree. The disciples were to take it most seriously not to trivially consider the obstinance of the Jewish leaders and people, because God certain was most seriously, eventually and surely, going to deal with it.


He dealt with it by permitting the things that happened to Jerusalem to happen, not by acting violently Himself.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/25/11 11:17 PM

What’s the difference between God in the OT clearly telling His people [who were privileged to have his manifest presence amongst them in the Most Holy Place], and that in advance, that if you commit such and such a sin, you will be put to death, in such and such a way, and following through if/when this came to be the case vs. Jesus in the NT directly and inclusively warning people, indeed also in the Gospel Proclamation, that if they did not believe that He was God Incarnate, they would burn in the fires of Hell for some deserved time (e.g., Luke 12:49, 50)? The latter may be a more delayed judgement and wrath, and that probably solely because of the relative physical remoteness of God with man in the New Covenant vs. the Old Covenant, but both are still manifestations of God’s wrath, on both the sin and the committing sinner(s).
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/25/11 11:28 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
I have followed that other destruction, and I say here that it really does not matter how God actually brings about this wrath.


I think it matters a great deal. The whole battle of the Great Controversy is over God's character. The enemy presents God as being a certain way, and the question is really if that's the way God is.

Quote:
The fact remains that, as He can prevent it, He therefore is fully responsible for its occurrence.


I believe this is the argument of the enemy. I believe our job as Christians is to argue the reverse, that Satan/sin is responsible for all the evil in the world, and not God. I believe the judgment will reveal that God has been completely innocent, and that the responsibility for all "bad" things ("bad" being anything less than God's ideal) is entirely because sentient beings have chosen to act differently than how God would have them act (or, equivalently, differently than how Jesus acted).

Quote:
Satan cannot do anything on this planet to anyone unless God allows him do. Perhaps not at a case specific level, but certainly in a general way, probably, to some extent, since the Fall.


One could extend this to say that a person cannot die of cancer unless God allows them to. The person may smoke 7 packs of cigarettes a day, and then contract lung cancer. Is God responsible because He permitted this to happen?

Quote:
I see that God’s giving up of people to suffer the natural effect of their harm (e.g., contracting AIDS for a promiscuous/perverted lifestyle; overdosing on drugs), is all part of the freedom granted in this GC.


I completely agree. And Satan's actions, and the choices of all sentient being, also enter into this.

Quote:
Since most of these “self-inflicted” people don’t believe in God, or at least enough to fully obey Him, He is hoping that in allowing natural consequence to affect them, they will of themselves, come to acknowledge that God and His Ways are superior and out of such a free-will choice obey Him. The opposite would be God to strike people with lightning if they persisted in disobedience. How many fearful, and thus faithless, (sort of “loaves and fishes”) converts would that result in.


Yes.

Quote:
There are however some of such “direct” judgements of God in the Bible (e.g., Sodom and Gomorrah*), however most judgement of God were done through indirect, and externally natural-looking means, e.g., Israel’s army victories, mass illnesses, even the Flood.

*(I personally believe that the perverted evil in Sodom and Gomorrah had reached the “critical mass” of having resulted in an outbreak of life threatening diseases e.g, HIV, AIDS, and/or other STD’s. So God’s capital intervention here was fully justified for imagine an outbreak of an incurable disease then, in those times. Just look at the devastating effects HIV and AIDS is having in our advanced world today, especially in poor/under developed countries. So, likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the other surrounding cities may have been a tangible threat to the life of other peoples, including, even if not sexually transmitted, to Abraham’s (and thus Israel’s) family, e.g., through Lot or others. So that destruction was indeed to be, and that, in its means used, a most deterring object-lesson.)

So I see that where God has chosen to visibly directly intervene, in a that can only be attributed to Him, e.g., the freakish ‘Fire from Heaven’ destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, it was to indeed instill fear in people, in this case, so that they immoral and perverted lifestyle of the Sodomites and the other surrounding cities would not be repeated. Being fearful of this judgement and not engaging in these perverted acts however does not result in one having a saving faith in God and so does not really affect the GC Faith and Freedom that God prefers.


It could be something happened differently than what is commonly thought, and God acted according to the same principles as the destruction of Jerusalem. Is violence a part of God's government?
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/26/11 12:09 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
What does "violent" mean? Here's a definition:
Quote: Effected by force or injury rather than natural causes.
Does that sound acceptable?


With that particular, applicable definition, i.e., using force vs. ‘malicious intent’ -it is indeed more acceptable.

Originally Posted By: Tom
There's a big difference in considering man's actions and God's actions, as man can be seen as being constrained to use violence in order to protect his interests, whereas this does not apply to God. God always has other means available to accomplish His purposes, so violence on God's part would always be optional. It would mean that God chose a violent act in preference to a non-violent one. Does God ever make this choice?


I see that God is always acting to defend His interests, whether it is to protect His people when righteous and/or preserve the invested Redemptive plans for this planet.

The “use of force” by God may all be for this needed external, deterring object lesson. Also using an alternative means would be similar to using the electric chair or lethal injection for Capital punishment. As God could also have used “life in prison” vs. these death inflicting means, it further indicates to me that death was the necessary and/or best deterring option, for the greater good of the GC, indeed perhaps serving to save the eternal life of millions of other people.

Originally Posted By: Tom
The ones I cited were dealing with the destruction of Jerusalem. The killing, and burning of cities, and sending of armies were violent acts, and actually did happen. God was portrayed as doing these things, but what really happened is He permitted them to happen.


As an example of God’s ultimate judgement, even on His former people, the destruction of Jerusalem was symbolic of the final execution of Judgement, at least, of the final religiously-based conflict that will punctuate this GC. As EGW says:

Originally Posted By: SOP GC 36.2ff
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. {GC 36.2}


To also be exegetically accurate, in reality, God did not physically dispossess national Israel to given these riches to the NT Church. Also, while the destruction punishment was indeed manifest in reality, it, to the issue of this discussion, was a “wrathful” pronouncement of Jesus Himself, which He surely may have been quite instrumental in allowing when the time came.

Originally Posted By: Tom
In the case cited, in its actual reality, it was violent.


It could also be argued, as you apparently already understand, that God’s acted non-violently by simply not permitting His “wisening” Spirit to influence (in this case of rebellion, “compel”) these Jews to do the right things. So, as it degeneratively developed as told by Josephus, they, around 66 A.D., in nationalistic ambitions, decided to no longer pay Rome its taxes, which casued Rome to send a military detachment to, at least, visually compel payment. When the Jews further refused, Rome moved in to physically collect these overdue taxes, and then the Jews saw it ‘wise in their own eyes’ to take refuge in the Temple (evidently counting on God’s protection there), when it did not occur as expected, they literally went nuts and the utter physical destruction of the city and great amount of death “naturally” resulted from now more direct confrontations with the Romans, and also by the Roman soldiers also correspondingly “losing it” in the face of this madness, where even the Generals such as Titus could not bring things back under control before it was way too late.

So here God did not actually do anything “violent” here at all. Indeed if they had just heeded Christ counsel to ‘pay Caesar what belongs to him’, this whole catastrophe would probably have been averted.

Quote:

N:And here again this symbolic act is literally meant to instill a healthy fear in people (e.g., Wow, is God that serious for just this).

T:This sounds like something the enemy would do. That is, obedience by means of intimidation as opposed to being motivated by love, appreciation, or gratitude. If someone "obeys" God because they're afraid of what will happen to them if they don't, is this really obedience?


A) It seems that doing, an even cursory, word study on the word “fear” in relation to God in the Bible (OT #03372a & NT #5399) will corroborate exactly what “healthy fear” I am referring to. (E.g, OT: Gen 22:12; Job 1:1; 8, 9; 2 Chr 6:31; - NT: Matt 10:28; Heb 4:1; Rev 11:18; 14:7; 19:5, etc)

B) I think my other comments on this issue showed how this fear is a most loving kind, indeed just as parent would have to deal with a rebellious child if they do want to save them as much as they are able to. According to the Bible such ‘sparing of the rod’ (manifestly when this is the best remaining option) is not an act of love, but quite to the contrary.

Originally Posted By: Tom
He dealt with it by permitting the things that happened to Jerusalem to happen, not by acting violently Himself.


As I had said, this is manifestly how you understand this in terms of “violence” vs. “a natural act”. I also agree with this understanding to some extent. However, it must also be taken into consideration that God could, in many ways, still have prevented the “violent” outcome, e.g., the Roman armies suddenly becoming too sick to fight. Indeed with the sudden withdrawal of the first Siege attempt under Cestus in ca. 66 A.D., God had worked to delay this violence. He therefore could similarly have entirely prevented it. So to another extent, He is ultimately responsible for its occurrence, as He was in the OT when the Assyrians, then Babylon took the kingdoms of Israel, the Judah away into captivity. The same level of indirect implication of God is equally involved in both Testament acts.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/26/11 12:16 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
What’s the difference between God in the OT clearly telling His people [who were privileged to have his manifest presence amongst them in the Most Holy Place], and that in advance, that if you commit such and such a sin, you will be put to death, in such and such a way, and following through if/when this came to be the case vs. Jesus in the NT directly and inclusively warning people, indeed also in the Gospel Proclamation, that if they did not believe that He was God Incarnate, they would burn in the fires of Hell for some deserved time (e.g., Luke 12:49, 50)?


What's the mechanism that causes death? If death is organic to sin, then the fires of hell happen when God permits people to experience the result of their choice, as DA 764 explains. If the mechanism in the OT is the same, then there's no difference.

Quote:
The latter may be a more delayed judgement and wrath, and that probably solely because of the relative physical remoteness of God with man in the New Covenant vs. the Old Covenant, but both are still manifestations of God’s wrath, on both the sin and the committing sinner(s).


God's wrath is His permitting the sinner to experience the result of his choice, as DA 764 outlines (for the judgment), and GC 35-37 (for retribution in this life). From Scripture, Romans 1 and the Deut. passage, respectively (for judgment and this life) apply as well.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/26/11 12:30 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK Project - Correction
I have followed that other discussion, and I say here that it really does not matter how God actually brings about this wrath.


Originally Posted By: Tom
I think it matters a great deal. The whole battle of the Great Controversy is over God's character. The enemy presents God as being a certain way, and the question is really if that's the way God is.


I think the foundational accusation of Satan is that God is arbitrary in both the Laws that He enacts and thus inherently, in the judgements to uphold this Law.

Quote:

N: The fact remains that, as He can prevent it, He therefore is fully responsible for its occurrence.

T: I believe this is the argument of the enemy. I believe our job as Christians is to argue the reverse, that Satan/sin is responsible for all the evil in the world, and not God. I believe the judgment will reveal that God has been completely innocent, and that the responsibility for all "bad" things ("bad" being anything less than God's ideal) is entirely because sentient beings have chosen to act differently than how God would have them act (or, equivalently, differently than how Jesus acted).


I disagree with the first part of your reply here, but it is indeed saved by the latter part. Indeed the issue here is for us to make it clear why this evil is happening in our world and thus, in response to the first part of your reply, why a Good, Loving and All Mighty God is allowing for this to happen; even permitting Satan to live. Hence the Remnant Church’s GC revelation and understanding and the inclusive mandate to share this foundational and enlightening Truth to the world, thus making crystal clear to all ‘the loving character of God’.

Originally Posted By: Tom
One could extend this to say that a person cannot die of cancer unless God allows them to. The person may smoke 7 packs of cigarettes a day, and then contract lung cancer. Is God responsible because He permitted this to happen?


In a ultimate sense yes since cancer could have been prevented and cured by the Fruit of Life. However if one has “chosen” by such directly causing unhealthy acts such as smoking to expose themselves to getting cancer, then God may still also have allowed this by having banned the preventive healing found in Fruit of Life. It was indeed such sinful acts that resulted in the banning of access to that healing tree.

Originally Posted By: Tom
It could be something happened differently than what is commonly thought, and God acted according to the same principles as the destruction of Jerusalem. Is violence a part of God's government?


-“Violence” as in the act of energetic, even supernatural force: copiously, manifestly “Yes”. Many capital deaths in the Bible involved this type of “violence”

- “Violence” as in e.g., a thug stabbing an innocent person to death because they refuse to give them their money, i.e., an act that is for something that violates God’s own Law/Character in any way: definitely “No”.

So in these cases, God’s capital punishment are clearly not acts of murder and thus not ‘maliciously/illegally/sinfully violent’.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/26/11 12:57 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
What's the mechanism that causes death? If death is organic to sin, then the fires of hell happen when God permits people to experience the result of their choice, as DA 764 explains. If the mechanism in the OT is the same, then there's no difference.

God's wrath is His permitting the sinner to experience the result of his choice, as DA 764 outlines (for the judgment), and GC 35-37 (for retribution in this life). From Scripture, Romans 1 and the Deut. passage, respectively (for judgment and this life) apply as well.


(We, of course, as discussed before, do not have the same understanding on what is the arbitrary act in DA 764 would be in relation to: I see it’s the full development of Satan’s plan; you see that it is straightly the presence of sin itself).

In the Bible, I read that (potentially billions of) sinners in the end will (many at least) (1) be forcefully cast alive by God into the Lake of Fire (Rev 19:20). The rest will at least be also directly struck dead by Christ (vs. 21). That is however only the “Here and Now” judgement for them, not to mention the “bird’s feast” (Rev 19:17, 18). (2) Following the Millenium (Rev 20:1-10) the wicked dead are all raised, adjudged and once again thrown into the lake of Fire, for now their “Second Death” (Rev 20:11-15), where they will be supernaturally enabled to live for some time in those supposed to be instantaneously destructive fires to suffer their due punishment, as depicted in Luke 12:45-48.

So both of these acts are “violent” i.e., forceful and supernatural acts of God in satisfying His wrath. Those prophetic facts must also be taken into consideration with the statements that the brightness of the glory of God itself strikes the wicked dead and consumes them. Could it be that God will actually only do this for certain sinners who were less guilty than others?? Maybe “no” as shown in the involved descriptions of Revelation.

It must be added here that this view actually does not contradict 2 Thess 2:8 which literally says’

Originally Posted By: 2 Thess 2:8 NASB
Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by [or, better “at”] the appearance[/“manifestation” - and not actually “brightness” as KJV/NKJV] of His coming;


So it may be here that God will opt to not allow His Glory to destroy the wicked, though it could, so that they can survive to duly feel His wrath upon them and their sinfulness.

(In my current eschatological understanding of end time prophecies, I see how this all is perfectly feasible as stated as these depiction in Revelation are symbolic prior to Christ’s Second Advent and literal, afterwards.)
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/26/11 01:16 AM

Quote:
T:What does "violent" mean? Here's a definition:
Quote: Effected by force or injury rather than natural causes.
Does that sound acceptable?

NJK:With that particular, applicable definition, i.e., using force vs. ‘malicious intent’ -it is indeed more acceptable.


No one questions (i.e., no Christians) that God doesn't have malicious intent.

Quote:
NJK:I see that God is always acting to defend His interests, whether it is to protect His people when righteous and/or preserve the invested Redemptive plans for this planet.


To me that concept that God *ever* acts to defend His interests is contrary to agape. Agape is by its nature other-centered. God always acts in the best interest of others, regardless of the cost to Himself. This was exemplified by Christ on the cross.

Satan argued, in Eden, that God had His own interests in mind in prohibiting Adam and Eve from eating of the TOTKOGAE. He said they would be as goods, the implication being that God didn't want this to happen, as that would be bad for God (and good for Adam and Eve). The temptation was predicated on the idea that God looks after His own interests, to the detriment of the interests of His creatures. The reality is that God looks after the interests of others, even His enemies, to the detriment of His own.

Quote:
The “use of force” by God may all be for this needed external, deterring object lesson. Also using an alternative means would be similar to using the electric chair or lethal injection for Capital punishment. As God could also have used “life in prison” vs. these death inflicting means, it further indicates to me that death was the necessary and/or best deterring option, for the greater good of the GC, indeed perhaps serving to save the eternal life of millions of other people.


The problem here is that if the problem is sin, and that's what needs to be demonstrated, then anything artificial that God does to cause pain/injury/death is not demonstrating that sin is the problem, but the opposite. Only by it being seen that sin is the problem can it be seen that sin is the problem. This is what the chapter "It Is Finished" (from which we have discussed the last page) is discussing throughout. It wasn't until the cross that this principle was clearly seen by the (loyal) angels (and unfallen worlds). This is when the Great Controversy was won, as far as they are concerned.

The ones I cited were dealing with the destruction of Jerusalem. The killing, and burning of cities, and sending of armies were violent acts, and actually did happen. God was portrayed as doing these things, but what really happened is He permitted them to happen.


Quote:
As an example of God’s ultimate judgement, even on His former people, the destruction of Jerusalem was symbolic of the final execution of Judgement, at least, of the final religiously-based conflict that will punctuate this GC....


Indeed. And we see what the principle involved in the destruction of Jerusalem was. The wrath of God was inflicted by means of His permitting those who rejected Him to experience the result of their choice. This is the same principle at work in the judgment, as described in DA 764. We even see the same language used and the same Scriptures quoted ("Thou hast destroyed thyself.")

Quote:
To also be exegetically accurate, in reality, God did not physically dispossess national Israel to given these riches to the NT Church.


Right. The use of force is contrary to the principles of His government. Compelling power is found only under the government of the enemy.

Quote:
Also, while the destruction punishment was indeed manifest in reality, it, to the issue of this discussion, was a “wrathful” pronouncement of Jesus Himself, which He surely may have been quite instrumental in allowing when the time came.


He had no choice, given the constraints of free will.

Quote:
T:In the case cited, in its actual reality, it was violent.

NJK:It could also be argued, as you apparently already understand, that God’s acted non-violently by simply not permitting His “wisening” Spirit to influence (in this case of rebellion, “compel”) these Jews to do the right things.


It's not possible to compel people to do right things, unless one has a very superficial idea as to what doing right things means.

Quote:
So, as it degeneratively developed as told by Josephus, they, around 66 A.D., in nationalistic ambitions, decided to no longer pay Rome its taxes, which casued Rome to send a military detachment to, at least, visually compel payment. When the Jews further refused, Rome moved in to physically collect these overdue taxes, and then the Jews saw it ‘wise in their own eyes’ to take refuge in the Temple (evidently counting on God’s protection there), when it did not occur as expected, they literally went nuts and the utter physical destruction of the city and great amount of death “naturally” resulted from now more direct confrontations with the Romans, and also by the Roman soldiers also correspondingly “losing it” in the face of this madness, where even the Generals such as Titus could not bring things back under control before it was way too late.

So here God did not actually do anything “violent” here at all.


Agreed. My point is that this episode illustrates how God always acts; it's not a special case.

Quote:
Indeed if they had just heeded Christ counsel to ‘pay Caesar what belongs to him’, this whole catastrophe would probably have been averted.


A good insight.

Quote:
A) It seems that doing, an even cursory, word study on the word “fear” in relation to God in the Bible (OT # & NT #5399) will corroborate exactly what “healthy fear” I am referring to. (E.g, NT Matt 10:28; Heb 4:1; Rev 11:18; 14:7; 19:5, etc)


The following comes to mind:

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)
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/26/11 01:57 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
T:I think it matters a great deal. The whole battle of the Great Controversy is over God's character. The enemy presents God as being a certain way, and the question is really if that's the way God is.

NJK:I think the foundational accusation of Satan is that God is arbitrary in both the Laws that He enacts and thus inherently, in the judgements to uphold this Law.


The first chapter of "The Desire of Ages" has influenced my thinking a lot in regards to the Great Controversy theme. Unfortunately, the Desire of Ages is not loading well right now, so I can't copy/paste what I had in mind, but basically it says that self-serving began with Lucifer, who desired to be first. In order to gain the homage of God's creatures, he misrepresented God's character.

Satan used the law as a ruse, a means to an end, but his beef was always with God. He hated Christ, and wanted to get back at him, and the most effective way he could think of so doing was to level the spurious claims against God that he did.

Quote:
T: I believe this is the argument of the enemy. I believe our job as Christians is to argue the reverse, that Satan/sin is responsible for all the evil in the world, and not God. I believe the judgment will reveal that God has been completely innocent, and that the responsibility for all "bad" things ("bad" being anything less than God's ideal) is entirely because sentient beings have chosen to act differently than how God would have them act (or, equivalently, differently than how Jesus acted).

NJK:I disagree with the first part of your reply here, but it is indeed saved by the latter part. Indeed the issue here is for us to make it clear why this evil is happening in our world and thus, in response to the first part of your reply, why a Good, Loving and All Mighty God is allowing for this to happen; even permitting Satan to live. Hence the Remnant Church’s GC revelation and understanding and the inclusive mandate to share this foundational and enlightening Truth to the world, thus making crystal clear to all ‘the loving character of God’.


You're disagreeing with the following?

Quote:
I believe our job as Christians is to argue the reverse, that Satan/sin is responsible for all the evil in the world, and not God.


Quote:
One could extend this to say that a person cannot die of cancer unless God allows them to. The person may smoke 7 packs of cigarettes a day, and then contract lung cancer. Is God responsible because He permitted this to happen?


In a ultimate sense yes since cancer could have been prevented and cured by the Fruit of Life. However if one has “chosen” by such directly causing unhealthy acts such as smoking to expose themselves to getting cancer, then God may still also have allowed this by having banned the preventive healing found in Fruit of Life. It was indeed such sinful acts that resulted in the banning of access to that healing tree.


I think you're over-complicating this. It has nothing to do with the tree of life. If you smoke, you may get cancer, because of the characteristics of cigarettes. This is an example of a free will choice leading to an undesirable consequence. If all had followed God's counsels, these things wouldn't happen. God is not responsible for these things happening, but they follow the law of cause and effect.

Quote:
T:It could be something happened differently than what is commonly thought, and God acted according to the same principles as the destruction of Jerusalem. Is violence a part of God's government?

NJK:-“Violence” as in the act of energetic, even supernatural force: copiously, manifestly “Yes”. Many capital deaths in the Bible involved this type of “violence”

- “Violence” as in e.g., a thug stabbing an innocent person to death because they refuse to give them their money, i.e., an act that is for something that violates God’s own Law/Character in any way: definitely “No”.


I was going to say this one isn't an issue, but the plagues of Egypt come to mind. Many have the idea of God's acting like a criminal wanting protection money, using more and more force until He gets His way. That would be similar to what you're suggesting here.

I don't believe God is violent, nor that violence is part of God's government, in either of the two ways you mentioned. I don't see any hint of this in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

Quote:
So in these cases, God’s capital punishment are clearly not acts of murder and thus not ‘maliciously/illegally/sinfully violent’.


Is any kind of violence a part of God's government? If so, did this part of God's government exist from the beginning, and just wasn't revealed, like grace and mercy? So we could say that God was always violent, but this aspect of His character wasn't seen, until sin came about (similarly to mercy and grace).
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/26/11 02:54 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
No one questions (i.e., no Christians) that God doesn't have malicious intent.


Seems to me that even questioning God with “why” to a personal tragedy, even by Christians, which inherently implies, ‘is God acting unfairly towards me?’ inherently brings into issue of the question of whether or not God is acting “maliciously” i.e., “out of feeling a need to see others suffer” and/or ‘without just/due cause.’

Originally Posted By: Tom
To me that concept that God *ever* acts to defend His interests is contrary to agape. Agape is by its nature other-centered. God always acts in the best interest of others, regardless of the cost to Himself. This was exemplified by Christ on the cross.


Simply said, how is ordering the death of anyone, e.g., “a stubborn child” (Deut 21:18-21) in their own “best interest”?? God interest is to have a sinless universe. So His acts are ultimately towards that interest which in itself is for the best of all of His creatures. So even in allowing sinful men to live, that is to serve as a tangible GC demonstration, for those who will be redeemed, why His ways should be followed.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Satan argued, in Eden, that God had His own interests in mind in prohibiting Adam and Eve from eating of the TOTKOGAE. He said they would be as goods, the implication being that God didn't want this to happen, as that would be bad for God (and good for Adam and Eve). The temptation was predicated on the idea that God looks after His own interests, to the detriment of the interests of His creatures. The reality is that God looks after the interests of others, even His enemies, to the detriment of His own.


Well then... Satan lied. Indeed he perverted this protective stance of God here. A parent similarly protecting their child is not only acting with their best interest in mind, but also, ultimately so they will not have to be held responsible for the wrong acts that this child may commit by being exposed to such evils. However when that child becomes legally responsible and also, as long as they are no longer under the “parent’s roof”, then such prohibitions are usually no longer imposed or policed. So clearly, Satan lied in misrepresenting God’s actual intentions in doing this preventive act, for the good of Adam and Eve and the whole universe. Satan just wanted a foothold to be permitted to continue His rebellion or, if Adam and Eve had resisted, He probably would have been destroyed a long time ago.

Originally Posted By: Tom
The problem here is that if the problem is sin, and that's what needs to be demonstrated, then anything artificial that God does to cause pain/injury/death is not demonstrating that sin is the problem, but the opposite. Only by it being seen that sin is the problem can it be seen that sin is the problem. This is what the chapter "It Is Finished" (from which we have discussed the last page) is discussing throughout. It wasn't until the cross that this principle was clearly seen by the (loyal) angels (and unfallen worlds). This is when the Great Controversy was won, as far as they are concerned.


It seems to me that in the final paragraph of DA 764, the titling phrase “It is Finish” is speaking of the necessity for this GC to go on, was here finished at the cross and soon this decreed judgement would be executed.

Again my view and understanding of DA 764 is that the angels did not understand the sinfulness of Satan’s sin, and thus that it was not deserving of death. However I see that they fully understood this at least by the debacle in the antedelluvians needing the Flood to redress things. What they pointed came to fully understand at the Cross, i.e., 4000 years after sin, was that, and just how much, Satan actually hated Jesus and wanted Him dead. That is what was umasked and resulted in the Angels utterly rejecting him (DA 761.2)

Originally Posted By: Tom
Indeed. And we see what the principle involved in the destruction of Jerusalem was. The wrath of God was inflicted by means of His permitting those who rejected Him to experience the result of their choice. This is the same principle at work in the judgment, as described in DA 764. We even see the same language used and the same Scriptures quoted ("Thou hast destroyed thyself.")


Still, given the undeniable sovereignty of God in all and any matter, I see that what is meant here is ‘Thou hast destroyed thyself by the means that God has ultimately allowed.’ God does not always have to directly cause destruction when there are perfectly natural means that will naturally bring about this result, still means that He has the power, if He wills, to prevent and/or defeat.

Quote:
NJK:It could also be argued, as you apparently already understand, that God’s acted non-violently by simply not permitting His “wisening” Spirit to influence (in this case of rebellion, “compel”) these Jews to do the right things.

Tom:Right. The use of force is contrary to the principles of His government. Compelling power is found only under the government of the enemy.


I actually understand that God can use force (i.e., a definition of “violence”) to forcefully bring about a judgement (e.g., the Flood and Sodom and Gomorrah) and not that God uses force to “compel” people. So I was saying here that if God had permitted His Spirit to “strive” with these unbelieving Jews here to make them e.g., ‘see that paying their taxes was the best choice,’ he would have, given their decided rebelliousness against His will, been “compelling” them to do the right thing = His will here. If such a dilemma had been righteous, then surely God would have acted to influence a choice for good amongst such would-be sincere seekers of His will. However they were acting out of pure and callous rebelliousness.

Quote:
NJK: Also, while the destruction punishment was indeed manifest in reality, it, to the issue of this discussion, was a “wrathful” pronouncement of Jesus Himself, which He surely may have been quite instrumental in allowing when the time came.

Tom: He had no choice, given the constraints of free will.


The deliberate ‘veiled teaching’ approach of Jesus (Matt 13:10-15) all directly based upon the desire for physical destruction in the OT in Isa 6:9-13 and the later “blindness in part” that occurred on Ethnic Jews (e.g., Rom 11:25) all surely greatly contributed to this final utter end. Therefore He was indeed “instrumental” in this end. He could have easily done the same thing with His disciples who in many ways ‘just didn’t get it’ until after the resurrection.

Quote:
T:In the case cited, in its actual reality, it was violent.

NJK:It could also be argued, as you apparently already understand, that God’s acted non-violently by simply not permitting His “wisening” Spirit to influence (in this case of rebellion, “compel”) these Jews to do the right things.

Tom: It's not possible to compel people to do right things, unless one has a very superficial idea as to what doing right things means.


And... didn’t God, e.g., “compel” the right thing to be done by Moses and his previously disobedient wife, when He was going to strike Moses dead if he persisted in his disobedience. (Exo 4:24-26). If God actually wanted Moses dead then, rather than actually be forced to do what was right, Moses would have died. Actual Biblical Truth is not determined by mere philosophically-based maxims but by all that is written! (2 Tim 3:16).

Originally Posted By: Tom
Agreed. My point is that this episode illustrates how God always acts; it's not a special case.


I do not see how ‘one’ development can become an ‘illustration of how God always acts’. The Divinely active and direct Sodom and Gomorrah destruction (Gen 19:24, 25), indeed with God and two Angels having bodily made a trip to Earth for this is a prominent examples of how God can actively bring about the results and judgement of sin. As it will also occur with the Lake of Fire destruction of the wicked.

Quote:
NJK: Indeed if they had just heeded Christ counsel to ‘pay Caesar what belongs to him’, this whole catastrophe would probably have been averted.

Tom: A good insight.


Promotion: That was taken from my book on the 70 Weeks.

Quote:
NJK: [As now updated]: A) It seems that doing, an even cursory, word study on the word “fear” in relation to God in the Bible (OT #03372a/#03374 & NT #5399) will corroborate exactly what “healthy fear” I am referring to. (E.g, OT: Gen 22:12; Job 1:1; 8, 9; 2 Chr 6:31; - NT: Matt 10:28; Heb 4:1; Rev 11:18; 14:7; 19:5, etc)

Tom: The following comes to mind: (MS 20, 1897)


In keeping with the ‘healthy fear of God’ understanding in the Bible, indeed pivotal to the final warning to be given to the world (Rev 14:7), the following ‘more to the point’ (= exegetically pertinent) passages comes to mind: Job 28:28; Psa 111:10; Pro 1:7; 9:10; 15:33; Isa 11:2; 33:6.

As your cited SOP statement, moreover, actually says nothing against having this Biblically encouraged “healthy fear of God”, I can only see your opposition to this as also being merely as ‘how you prefer things to be; how they should be’ and not what the Bible actually teaches! Needless to say, at least for me, that I personally am not persuaded by what is not Biblical, however surfacely righteous one may think they are.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/26/11 04:13 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
I take Jesus Christ to be foundational, and, more than that, all-in-all in terms of revealing God's character. If I come across what look to be disconnects to that in anything, I defer whatever that thing is to the revelation of Jesus Christ. For example, in regards to the OT, I understand that what Christ lived and spoke was *His* understanding of the OT. I therefore accept that as definitive, and if the OT looks different to me, I conclude that Jesus Christ must be right, and defer to that. I see no need to add to the revelation of Jesus Christ.

On the other hand, you see Jesus Christ's revelation as lacking. For example, He did not reveal the "ministration of wrath" as you put it, nor God's "strange act." Your perception is that we need to add to Jesus Christ's revelation, to include the Old Testament, and, perhaps, the Spirit of Prophecy. So for me, it's Christ, and only Christ. For you it's Christ +.

To be clear, I'm speaking of "the whole purpose of Christ's mission on earth," to use Ellen White's phrase, which was His work while here in the flesh, in all the above references to Christ and His revelation above. You can let me know if you have any disagreements with my summary of a principle difference we have. Another big difference is I perceive you to be more rules-based, whereas I'm more principle-based. I'll go into more detail regarding this in a future post if you'd like.

I do not believe Jesus, while here in the flesh, revealed everything there is to know about "His strange act". I also believe Jesus began revealing what the Father is like in the OT before His incarnation and continued doing so while here in the flesh. Jesus said, "I have many things I'd like to share with you but none of you are ready. I'll finish sharing it with you through the Holy Spirit later on."

What I really keep hoping is that you'll honor my request to address the two newly worded questions posted above. I realize you think you have adequately addressed them, but after all these years I still have absolutely no idea what you believe. It would do my heart and soul wonders if you were to explain your thoughts in the clearest of terms possible. "Go ahead, make my day."
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/26/11 04:17 AM

Tom, for your convenience:

1. In the OT, why did Jesus command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle?

2. In the OT, why did Jesus command godly people to kill ungodly people through the execution of capital punishment?

Quote:
Exodus
22:20 He that sacrificeth unto [any] god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

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.

Deuteronomy
2:34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:
20:17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; [namely], the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:

Joshua
10:40 So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/26/11 05:37 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
You're disagreeing with the following?

Quote:
I believe our job as Christians is to argue the reverse, that Satan/sin is responsible for all the evil in the world, and not God.


Actually yes. As God can and has prevented evil, e.g., to safeguard Israel, He therefore is fully responsible for its occurrence, indeed simply by removing this protection, choosing not to have mercy. So I do not see this as “the argument of the enemy” per se, but rather just his cover, and that by calculatedly to this end, having chosen to remain in the shadows while letting, the already manifested and more prominent God, wholly take the blame. Again, Satan’s GC position is that man can live independently of God and if the Tree of Life had not been removed, as I understand it, such ‘sinful perpetual life, despite knowing good and evil, and indeed practising evil, would have been possible (Gen 3:22-24). So Satan’s posturing here is to make God responsible for the adverse effects of sin, all stemming from God withdrawal of the life quality maintaining tree. And towards this blaming end, he does indeed try to complicate matters, now have nothing to lose, but rather many more, upset-with-God, people to gain.

So in summary of my Theological understanding here: I do not see that ‘God is not responsible for why evil happens as sin is this why but solely, in an ultimate since, that this evil is permitted to be effectuated, as he can easily prevent it, and all that stemming from the decision to ban access to the Tree of Life to sinful man and curtail its effect upon nature outside of the Garden of Eden. So it is solely in that since that I say “responsible for” i.e., ‘having allowed it’ but certainly not for actively doing it. The Devil in many ways does that. Still much of our various personal and planetary adversities are natural occurrences of a continually degenerating nature from its once perfect state. E.g., God does not cause earthquakes or hurricanes, an ageing planet with damaged and shifting tectonic plates natural cause earthquakes, and an uneven climate causes hurricanes to form.

Quote:
NJK: In a ultimate sense yes since cancer could have been prevented and cured by the Fruit of Life. However if one has “chosen” by such directly causing unhealthy acts such as smoking to expose themselves to getting cancer, then God may still also have allowed this by having banned the preventive healing found in Fruit of Life. It was indeed such sinful acts that resulted in the banning of access to that healing tree.

Tom: I think you're over-complicating this. It has nothing to do with the tree of life. If you smoke, you may get cancer, because of the characteristics of cigarettes. This is an example of a free will choice leading to an undesirable consequence. If all had followed God's counsels, these things wouldn't happen. God is not responsible for these things happening, but they follow the law of cause and effect.


I actually am not, in my understanding. With cancer, many people live healthy lives and still get cancer. That all really stems back to the absence of the Fruit of Life in our lives. Cigarette smoking is something else entirely and may be a cause-and-effect issue. However many diseases are not, but just a natural consequence of our bodily frailty after so many years of being removed from the Tree of Life and our once perfect state.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I was going to say this one isn't an issue, but the plagues of Egypt come to mind. Many have the idea of God's acting like a criminal wanting protection money, using more and more force until He gets His way. That would be similar to what you're suggesting here.


While the plagues are an example of God’s use of force, I actually do not see them as an act of compelling since if God wanted to compel Pharoah to obey Him, He would not have hardened his heart at all. Seems to me that God wanted to completely break the Spirits of Pharaoh so that Israel would have an unobstructed exodus and also a financially rewarded one as it indeed came to pass.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I don't believe God is violent, nor that violence is part of God's government, in either of the two ways you mentioned. I don't see any hint of this in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.


Due to a seeming confusion of understandings I suggest/move for an abandonment of the term “violence” here for instead ‘use of force’ as this is supposed to be how this term is being used here. So in that sense, I see God, in many instances, as “using force”, e.g., supernatural acts, to effectuate a judgement action and not always just letting nature take its course..

Originally Posted By: Tom
Is any kind of violence a part of God's government?


If violence is “use of force” here, then yes.

Originally Posted By: Tom
If so, did this part of God's government exist from the beginning, and just wasn't revealed, like grace and mercy?


Of course, prior to sin: “No”; however after sin, by variously protective necessity: “Yes”.

Originally Posted By: Tom
So we could say that God was always violent, but this aspect of His character wasn't seen, until sin came about (similarly to mercy and grace).


(Same response as above.)

-In regards to mercy and grace, it was not prominent in the OT as the spiritual discretion needed to implement it was not allowed by the Law. The Law was supposed to be a School Master to probably inculcate in believers the proper application of mercy and grace (cf. Matt 5:17, 18ff). Only the believers in Christ who thus had a proper understanding of the Law and its honourableness, through His Gospel crash course, were able to properly grasp and apply mercy and grace.

Nonetheless, by God annually forgiving all of the sins of Israelites in the Passover ceremony and the blotting them out in the Day of Atonement, “mercy and grace” were also quite present in the OT. Of course, God, as I see it, for most tangible, inherent life and death reasons, commanded that the commitance of various “high-handed” sins were to be immediately, capitally punished. However most lesser tangibly affecting sins, were mercifully dealt with through the Sanctuary system.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/26/11 07:54 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
After reading Tom’s summary and enunciation of differences, above I’ll succinctly chime in on this topic again, just to say that it also does seem to me that Jesus put on hold His ‘ministry of wrath’ [as Mountain Man has said] and execution of due judgement, which was in line with OT Divine dealings during his 3.5 year ministry period, as e.g., explicitly stated by Him in Luke 12:49, 50 (i.e., (literally - also from the exegetical analysis I had done on this passsage for a sermon): “I have [personally i.e., not ‘been sent’] come to cast [“Hell” vss. 45-48] Fire upon the Earth; and how I wish that it be already kindled! But I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how I am constraining myself (i.e., “holding myself back so that it may be accomplished [as it possibly may not be if Jesus so opted = Matt 26:37-44]”

I see a concrete manifestation of this deliberate delaying in Christ’s cutting his initial sermon on Isa 61:1, 2 short (Luke 4:18-21) as He refrained from mentioning the “day of vengeance of our God” (vs. Isa 61:2b), however did so at the end of His ministry when speaking judgements on the nation of Israel as they had failed to continue to advance in God’s will (Luke 21:22); indeed so that “all that has been written be fulfilled”. Ironically enough, “God’s day of vengeance” mentioned in Isa 61:2b, intended for the enemies of Israel, was here, out of pure necessity, going to include the unbelieving Jews (cf. DA 240.4), indeed as seen in the 70 A.D. destruction.

So the operative determinant here is to let the text itself determine what our view should be and not vice versa, however sincerely “righteous” we may consider it to be. If it is indeed “righteous” then it should not be contradicted. So it therefore seems clear to me that Jesus did not similarly demonstrate this OT wrath during his Earthly ministry simply because it was not yet the appropriate time to do so. That principle also manifested itself in God’s/His OT dealings (e.g., Gen 15:13, 16).

NJK,

Excellent post. Well said.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/26/11 07:56 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
The question is if Jesus Christ is a full and complete revelation of God's character. If that's the case, we don't really need to consider exceptions on a case by case basis, as there wouldn't be any exceptions.


Tom,

Will you know everything that it is possible to know about God the moment you see Jesus when He comes?

How about after 3.5 years in Heaven with Him?

God bless,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/29/11 05:13 AM

Thanks to everyone for the input. I'm very busy, but will respond to things as I can.

Originally Posted By: NJK
T:No one questions (i.e., no Christians) that God doesn't have malicious intent.

NJK:Seems to me that even questioning God with “why” to a personal tragedy, even by Christians, which inherently implies, ‘is God acting unfairly towards me?’ inherently brings into issue of the question of whether or not God is acting “maliciously” i.e., “out of feeling a need to see others suffer” and/or ‘without just/due cause.’


Greg Boyd speaks of the "blueprint" perspective, or paradigm, where everything that happens is for a purpose (i.e., God is behind it). This perspective can indeed lead to the types of questions you're asking. This would be as opposed to the casualties of a war zone perspective, from what he calls the "
"Trinitarian warfare" perspective, better known by us as "the Great Controversy."

Quote:
T:To me that concept that God *ever* acts to defend His interests is contrary to agape. Agape is by its nature other-centered. God always acts in the best interest of others, regardless of the cost to Himself. This was exemplified by Christ on the cross.

NJK:Simply said, how is ordering the death of anyone, e.g., “a stubborn child” (Deut 21:18-21) in their own “best interest”?? God interest is to have a sinless universe. So His acts are ultimately towards that interest which in itself is for the best of all of His creatures. So even in allowing sinful men to live, that is to serve as a tangible GC demonstration, for those who will be redeemed, why His ways should be followed.


When God has to choose between Himself and someone else, He always choose the someone else over Himself. This is seen in the gift of Christ for man. Consider the difficult choice He made revealed in the Early Writings passage we've discussed previously. This same choice is wonderful described in the chapter "Gethsemane" in "The Desire of Ages."

Quote:
T:Satan argued, in Eden, that God had His own interests in mind in prohibiting Adam and Eve from eating of the TOTKOGAE. He said they would be as goods, the implication being that God didn't want this to happen, as that would be bad for God (and good for Adam and Eve). The temptation was predicated on the idea that God looks after His own interests, to the detriment of the interests of His creatures. The reality is that God looks after the interests of others, even His enemies, to the detriment of His own.

NJK:Well then... Satan lied.


He's still lying. He misrepresents God's character. This the secret of his power.

Quote:
T:The problem here is that if the problem is sin, and that's what needs to be demonstrated, then anything artificial that God does to cause pain/injury/death is not demonstrating that sin is the problem, but the opposite. Only by it being seen that sin is the problem can it be seen that sin is the problem. This is what the chapter "It Is Finished" (from which we have discussed the last page) is discussing throughout. It wasn't until the cross that this principle was clearly seen by the (loyal) angels (and unfallen worlds). This is when the Great Controversy was won, as far as they are concerned.

NJK:It seems to me that in the final paragraph of DA 764, the titling phrase “It is Finish” is speaking of the necessity for this GC to go on, was here finished at the cross and soon this decreed judgement would be executed.

Again my view and understanding of DA 764 is that the angels did not understand the sinfulness of Satan’s sin, and thus that it was not deserving of death.


The question addressed wasn't whether Satan was deserving of death, but that had God permitted him to die, that event would have been misunderstood, as the angels did not yet understand that death is the inevitable result of sin. This is right in the paragraph. There's no discussion in regards to deserving death.

Quote:
NJK:However I see that they fully understood this at least by the debacle in the antedelluvians needing the Flood to redress things. What they pointed came to fully understand at the Cross, i.e., 4000 years after sin, was that, and just how much, Satan actually hated Jesus and wanted Him dead. That is what was umasked and resulted in the Angels utterly rejecting him (DA 761.2)


It made clear that Satan had been lying in regards to his own purposes, and also in regards to the misrepresentations regarding God's character and the principles of His government.

Quote:
T:Indeed. And we see what the principle involved in the destruction of Jerusalem was. The wrath of God was inflicted by means of His permitting those who rejected Him to experience the result of their choice. This is the same principle at work in the judgment, as described in DA 764. We even see the same language used and the same Scriptures quoted ("Thou hast destroyed thyself.")

NJK:Still, given the undeniable sovereignty of God in all and any matter, I see that what is meant here is ‘Thou hast destroyed thyself by the means that God has ultimately allowed.’ God does not always have to directly cause destruction when there are perfectly natural means that will naturally bring about this result, still means that He has the power, if He wills, to prevent and/or defeat.


He doesn't have to ever directly cause destruction. This has been a key point I've been making. The SOP tells us that the use of force is not a principle of God's government, that it is only found in Satan's government.

I've been asserting that this principle did not exist before sin came about (I think there should be agreement on this point), and also that it was not added afterward (it is probably here that we would disagree, with perhaps you and others of your persuasion, seeing it included temporarily as an emergency method).

Quote:
NJK:It could also be argued, as you apparently already understand, that God’s acted non-violently by simply not permitting His “wisening” Spirit to influence (in this case of rebellion, “compel”) these Jews to do the right things.

Tom:Right. The use of force is contrary to the principles of His government. Compelling power is found only under the government of the enemy.

NJK:I actually understand that God can use force (i.e., a definition of “violence”) to forcefully bring about a judgement (e.g., the Flood and Sodom and Gomorrah) and not that God uses force to “compel” people.


This would be using force to compel people. If you threaten to use force to kill people if they don't do what you say, that's using force to compel them.

Quote:
So I was saying here that if God had permitted His Spirit to “strive” with these unbelieving Jews here to make them e.g., ‘see that paying their taxes was the best choice,’ he would have, given their decided rebelliousness against His will, been “compelling” them to do the right thing = His will here.


God did permit His Spirit to strive against them, but they persistently resisted His Spirit, and that's why God permitted the things to happen against them that did. They chose their will over God's will. That's how they destroyed themselves.

Quote:
If such a dilemma had been righteous, then surely God would have acted to influence a choice for good amongst such would-be sincere seekers of His will. However they were acting out of pure and callous rebelliousness.

NJK: Also, while the destruction punishment was indeed manifest in reality, it, to the issue of this discussion, was a “wrathful” pronouncement of Jesus Himself, which He surely may have been quite instrumental in allowing when the time came.

Tom: He had no choice, given the constraints of free will.

NJK:The deliberate ‘veiled teaching’ approach of Jesus (Matt 13:10-15) all directly based upon the desire for physical destruction in the OT in Isa 6:9-13 and the later “blindness in part” that occurred on Ethnic Jews (e.g., Rom 11:25) all surely greatly contributed to this final utter end. Therefore He was indeed “instrumental” in this end. He could have easily done the same thing with His disciples who in many ways ‘just didn’t get it’ until after the resurrection.


Jesus Christ did all He could to save them. In the beginning of His mission, He spoke plainly, but, because of the opposition, He changed His approach. At the end of His mission, He spoke plainly again. At all times He did all that He could to save them. He did nothing to contribute to their destruction. As He said, He came not to destroy but to save. When it was suggested that He destroy, He replied that those making the suggestion did not know what spirit they were of.

Quote:
T:In the case cited, in its actual reality, it was violent.

NJK:It could also be argued, as you apparently already understand, that God’s acted non-violently by simply not permitting His “wisening” Spirit to influence (in this case of rebellion, “compel”) these Jews to do the right things.

Tom: It's not possible to compel people to do right things, unless one has a very superficial idea as to what doing right things means.

NJK:And... didn’t God, e.g., “compel” the right thing to be done by Moses and his previously disobedient wife, when He was going to strike Moses dead if he persisted in his disobedience. (Exo 4:24-26). If God actually wanted Moses dead then, rather than actually be forced to do what was right, Moses would have died. Actual Biblical Truth is not determined by mere philosophically-based maxims but by all that is written! (2 Tim 3:16).


You're saying that actual Biblical truth is that God forced Moses to do what was right by threatening to strike him dead, right? But didn't you earlier say that God doesn't do this? (i.e. compel people to do what's right)

Quote:
T:Agreed. My point is that this episode illustrates how God always acts; it's not a special case.

NJK:I do not see how ‘one’ development can become an ‘illustration of how God always acts’.


If God acts consistently, it makes perfect sense that one development can illustrate how God always acts. The only way this wouldn't make sense is if God sometimes acts one way, and sometimes acts another.

For example, Jesus said, if someone strikes you on the cheek, to turn the other cheek. If someone asks you for your coat, give him your shirt as well. Is this how Jesus Himself acted? Did He consistently act like this, or only sometimes? If He always acted like this, then wouldn't any episode in His life demonstrating this principle be an illustration of how He always acted?

Does God act like Jesus Christ? If what Jesus Christ said was true, that when we see Him we see the Father, wouldn't this have to be the case?

Above all, the cross demonstrates how God always acts. Whether considered from the standpoint of the Father or the Son, it's an incredible demonstration of self-sacrificing love. This revelation is a revelation of God's character, of how God is in His core being. He always acts according to the description of "The Destruction of Jerusalem" (or, better yet, according to the description of the cross) because of who is He is.

Quote:
The Divinely active and direct Sodom and Gomorrah destruction (Gen 19:24, 25), indeed with God and two Angels having bodily made a trip to Earth for this is a prominent examples of how God can actively bring about the results and judgement of sin. As it will also occur with the Lake of Fire destruction of the wicked.


How did Jesus Christ teach that we should treat our enemies? Does God treat His enemies differently than what Jesus Christ taught?

Quote:
NJK: [As now updated]: A) It seems that doing, an even cursory, word study on the word “fear” in relation to God in the Bible (OT #03372a/#03374 & NT #5399) will corroborate exactly what “healthy fear” I am referring to. (E.g, OT: Gen 22:12; Job 1:1; 8, 9; 2 Chr 6:31; - NT: Matt 10:28; Heb 4:1; Rev 11:18; 14:7; 19:5, etc)

Tom: The following comes to mind: (MS 20, 1897)

NJK:In keeping with the ‘healthy fear of God’ understanding in the Bible, indeed pivotal to the final warning to be given to the world (Rev 14:7), the following ‘more to the point’ (= exegetically pertinent) passages comes to mind: Job 28:28; Psa 111:10; Pro 1:7; 9:10; 15:33; Isa 11:2; 33:6.

NJK:As your cited SOP statement, moreover, actually says nothing against having this Biblically encouraged “healthy fear of God”, I can only see your opposition to this as also being merely as ‘how you prefer things to be; how they should be’ and not what the Bible actually teaches! Needless to say, at least for me, that I personally am not persuaded by what is not Biblical, however surfacely righteous one may think they are.


If by "fear of God" you mean being afraid of God because of what He will do to you if you don't, that's precisely what the statement is addressing. Here's another one:

Quote:
It is not the fear of punishment, or the hope of everlasting reward, that leads the disciples of Christ to follow Him. They behold the Saviour's matchless love, revealed throughout His pilgrimage on earth, from the manger of Bethlehem to Calvary's cross, and the sight of Him attracts, it softens and subdues the soul. Love awakens in the heart of the beholders. They hear His voice, and they follow Him. (DA 482)
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/29/11 08:02 AM

Originally Posted By: MM
M:I do not believe Jesus, while here in the flesh, revealed everything there is to know about "His strange act".


Then He didn't reveal all we need to know of God.

Quote:
I also believe Jesus began revealing what the Father is like in the OT before His incarnation and continued doing so while here in the flesh.


It wasn't understood.

Quote:
Jesus said, "I have many things I'd like to share with you but none of you are ready. I'll finish sharing it with you through the Holy Spirit later on."


The things He had yet to share weren't in regards to God's character. He said "it is finished," which was finishing to reveal God's character, as ST 1/20/90 states.

Quote:
What I really keep hoping is that you'll honor my request to address the two newly worded questions posted above. I realize you think you have adequately addressed them, but after all these years I still have absolutely no idea what you believe.


I've tried for years and written hundreds pages. What makes you think anything else I could write would help?

Quote:
It would do my heart and soul wonders if you were to explain your thoughts in the clearest of terms possible. "Go ahead, make my day."


I can't write any clearer than what I've written. I can refer to writings on line that explain these things in ways very similar to what I think. Or send something to you. I'd be happy to do so.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/29/11 08:16 AM

Quote:
NJK:Seems to me that even questioning God with “why” to a personal tragedy, even by Christians, which inherently implies, ‘is God acting unfairly towards me?’ inherently brings into issue of the question of whether or not God is acting “maliciously” i.e., “out of feeling a need to see others suffer” and/or ‘without just/due cause.’

Tom: Greg Boyd speaks of the "blueprint" perspective, or paradigm, where everything that happens is for a purpose (i.e., God is behind it). This perspective can indeed lead to the types of questions you're asking. This would be as opposed to the casualties of a war zone perspective, from what he calls the "
"Trinitarian warfare" perspective, better known by us as "the Great Controversy."


Everything that happens is indeed for a purpose that we will come to be aware of during especially the ‘Millennium books reviews’, however that does not stop many people now to ask these “why” and ‘Divine-demeanor/intent’ questions. Job candidly and sincerely clearly asked them eventhough he never gave up faith in God (e.g., Job 19), as did others in the Bible, and that is because God does punish the wrongs of even His people. So when no personal wrong is known, one, even the Believer, usually, almost knee-jerkedly, asks such Divine Character probing questions. It really takes an achieved stoic character to, effectively, emotionlessly (or at least unnaturally, emotions wise) accept whatever happens to you without such questions, however not only do I not see this in the Bible, e.g., Psa 94, but I do not believe that God expects this of even Believers. Refusing to obey God or opposing Him and His cause because of such assumed wrongdoings on His part is another thing, but sincerely questioning them is quite normal.

Quote:
NJK:Simply said, how is ordering the death of anyone, e.g., “a stubborn child” (Deut 21:18-21) in their own “best interest”?? God interest is to have a sinless universe. So His acts are ultimately towards that interest which in itself is for the best of all of His creatures. So even in allowing sinful men to live, that is to serve as a tangible GC demonstration, for those who will be redeemed, why His ways should be followed.

Tom:When God has to choose between Himself and someone else, He always choose the someone else over Himself. This is seen in the gift of Christ for man. Consider the difficult choice He made revealed in the Early Writings passage we've discussed previously. This same choice is wonderful described in the chapter "Gethsemane" in "The Desire of Ages."


Seems to me that this scenario skirts the actual issue at hand here by narrowing it down here, though actually “spuriously”, to: ‘God Himself vs. others (directly)’. Is not God’s Will just as much a part of God as He Himself is?? Then my question above still remains. I.e., e.g., when God says for, or directly, causes the death of an individual or a group of people, is He not choosing between Himself = His Will vs. that person and their will. Indeed, in the GC context, the two are inseperable, just like a soldier in a [u[war[/u] is bound by laws of war to no kill defenseless civilians but will self-defensively seek to “neutralize” as the need is, a uniformed combatant, indeed even just because he is in that enemy uniform. In the GC war both God and sinning men are in their respective uniforms on this battlefield and thus the two (the individual and the uniform) become ideologically inseparable and share in the same warring fate.

Quote:
NJK:Well then... Satan lied.

Tom: He's still lying. He misrepresents God's character. This the secret of his power.


That should go without saying, doesn’t it?!... My point was that God indeed did not want Adam and Eve to know good and, that was actually a truth. The lie was that it was not for the reasons that Satan appendedly claimed.

Quote:
NJK: Again my view and understanding of DA 764 is that the angels did not understand the sinfulness of Satan’s sin, and thus that it was not deserving of death.

Tom: The question addressed wasn't whether Satan was deserving of death, but that had God permitted him to die, that event would have been misunderstood, as the angels did not yet understand that death is the inevitable result of sin. This is right in the paragraph. There's no discussion in regards to deserving death.


The angels did not see that Satan “sin” was “sinful”, i.e., deserving to be put to death just for having decided not to continue to obey God’s law. If Satan then had been immediately destroyed, the Angel surely would have known that it was because of that act of rebellion which God would have surely stated was “sin”, if they did not already know that definition themselves. What they would not have understood was “why”, i.e., why did Satan have to be destroyed for that “new “lawless” way that he was proposing. It was then to be shown in the GC how Satan’s way was indeed deserving of death as it was not a better way, but one that would lead to suffering and death. That was seen long before the cross, e.g., by the Flood.

What was “finished” at the Cross was literally the opposing arguments in this GC and not a long ago demonstrated knowledge that sin is deserving of death. Indeed had God not barred access to the tree of Life, sinners would not even have died, but lived a perpetual life of sin. So it was even not to prove/show that ‘the inevitable result of sin is death’ that the GC was permitted to go on, or else one can easily make this Tree of Life removal objection. It was to show how wrong the course of Satan was that it was indeed deserving of being eradicated along with anyone who wanted to adhere to it.

Originally Posted By: Tom
It made clear that Satan had been lying in regards to his own purposes, and also in regards to the misrepresentations regarding God's character and the principles of His government.


As DA 761.2 states, in seeing the root of Satan’s controversy: i.e., out of jealousy of Christ and not out of consciousness for the freedom of God’s created beings, the Angels finally came to see and understand Satan’s real, even hopeless purposes here and probably felt quite duped for having given him a partial benefit of the doubt, even being ‘sympathetic’ to his cause. However the knowledge that sin and sinners were deserving of death was long ago settled. Yet this complete “umasking” of Satan could only be tangibly proven by what God had allowed to happen at the Cross, and there indeed, Satan proceeded to completely expose and betray himself.

Originally Posted By: Tom
He doesn't have to ever directly cause destruction. This has been a key point I've been making. The SOP tells us that the use of force is not a principle of God's government, that it is only found in Satan's government.


How then did Sodom and Gomorrah and surrounding cities “naturally” get destroyed? The inhabitants ignored the customary “brimstone and fire” precipitation??? (Gen 19:14b, 24, 25). Same with the Flood, or the Egyptians in the Red Sea. I can name a plethora of Biblical examples along this “non-natural” lines.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I've been asserting that this principle did not exist before sin came about (I think there should be agreement on this point),


Indeed it was not as there was nothing to so “forcefully” oppose, if not destroy, in God’s universe.

Originally Posted By: Tom
and also that it was not added afterward (it is probably here that we would disagree, with you and others of your persuasion, seeing it included temporarily as an emergency method).


Indeed I disagree for from the time that God “organized” a war fo “strength” (Rev 12:8b) (and not merely for expulsion Rev 12:8b, 9) in Heaven so that the winner would indeed “take all”, God has had, and occasionally does, make use of force in this GC.

Quote:
NJK:I actually understand that God can use force (i.e., a definition of “violence”) to forcefully bring about a judgement (e.g., the Flood and Sodom and Gomorrah) and not that God uses force to “compel” people.

Tom: This would be using force to compel people. If you threaten to use force to kill people if they don't do what you say, that's using force to compel them.


Making use of force to effectuate a judgement is not at all “using force to compel people” nor ‘threatening to use force to kill people if they don't do what you say’.

All I said that God used force to bring about these non natural calamities. Case in Point:

The Flood:

Originally Posted By: SOP PP
Then "the fountains of the great deep" were "broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." Water appeared to come from the clouds in mighty cataracts. Rivers broke away from their boundaries, and overflowed the valleys. Jets of water burst from the earth with indescribable force, throwing massive rocks hundreds of feet into the air, and these, in falling, buried themselves deep in the ground. {PP 99.1}


Sodom and Gomorrah:

Originally Posted By: SOP PP 162.2-3
Suddenly and unexpectedly as would be a thunder peal from an unclouded sky, the tempest broke. The Lord rained brimstone and fire out of heaven upon the cities and the fruitful plain; its palaces and temples, costly dwellings, gardens and vineyards, and the gay, pleasure-seeking throngs that only the night before had insulted the messengers of heaven--all were consumed. The smoke of the conflagration went up like the smoke of a great furnace. And the fair vale of Siddim became a desolation, a place never to be built up or inhabited--a witness to all generations of the certainty of God's judgments upon transgression. {PP 162.2}
The flames that consumed the cities of the plain shed their warning light down even to our time. We are taught the fearful and solemn lesson that while God's mercy bears long with the transgressor, there is a limit beyond which men may not go on in sin. When that limit is reached, then the offers of mercy are withdrawn, and the ministration of judgment begins. {PP 162.3}


That all sound to me like “force”, even violent force to achieve this level of destruction.

Quote:
NJK: So I was saying here that if God had permitted His Spirit to “strive” with these unbelieving Jews here to make them e.g., ‘see that paying their taxes was the best choice,’ he would have, given their decided rebelliousness against His will, been “compelling” them to do the right thing = His will here.

Tom: God did permit His Spirit to strive against them, but they persistently resisted His Spirit, and that's why God permitted the things to happen against them that did. They chose their will over God's will. That's how they destroyed themselves.


What I meant here was ‘Striving with them to the end’. Of course at a point they had silenced the voice of the Holy Spirit and God did not act against this resolute will.

Quote:
NJK:The deliberate ‘veiled teaching’ approach of Jesus (Matt 13:10-15) all directly based upon the desire for physical destruction in the OT in Isa 6:9-13 and the later “blindness in part” that occurred on Ethnic Jews (e.g., Rom 11:25) all surely greatly contributed to this final utter end. Therefore He was indeed “instrumental” in this end. He could have easily done the same thing with His disciples who in many ways ‘just didn’t get it’ until after the resurrection.

Tom: Jesus Christ did all He could to save them. In the beginning of His mission, He spoke plainly, but, because of the opposition, He changed His approach. At the end of His mission, He spoke plainly again. At all times He did all that He could to save them. He did nothing to contribute to their destruction.


How is “doing all He could” not inclusive of such a large portion of His ministry, indeed this middle part. The disciple who heard these parables did not even understand many of them, if any, unless Christ explained it to them. Jesus, as indeed directed in Isa 6:9-13, was working to hardened these inceptively rebellious Jews in their unbelief. Then at the end, His clearer pronouncements, which were actually, as I see it, His judgement pronouncements in Matt 23, just fell on this already completely hardened soil, and thus brought forth no fruit in most.

Originally Posted By: Tom
As He said, He came not to destroy but to save. When it was suggested that He destroy, He replied that those making the suggestion did not know what spirit they were of.


Such statements were pointedly made in regards to outsiders such as these Samaritans. However the Jews were not as in the dark as these people. Which is why Jesus spoke to these Jews veiledly for the most, and crucial portion of His Ministry. (Cf. DA 582-586). It actively was by God no longer blessing the Jewish nation that they had come to be destroyed. Their unbelief had caused this withholding of God which tangibly effectuated this destruction.

Originally Posted By: Tom
You're saying that actual Biblical truth is that God forced Moses to do what was right by threatening to strike him dead, right? But didn't you earlier say that God doesn't do this? (i.e. compel people to do what's right)


Fair enough in surface part. So I’ll defer to the SOP here which states that the sent Angel, though making it unequivocally clear that Moses was going to be killed, said absolutely nothing, but Moses was left to recall/figure out why this threatened destruction was being made.

Full SOP statement:

Originally Posted By: SOP
On the way from Midian, Moses received a startling and terrible warning of the Lord's displeasure. An angel appeared to him in a threatening manner, as if he would immediately destroy him. No explanation was given; but Moses remembered that he had disregarded one of God's requirements; yielding to the persuasion of his wife, he had neglected to perform the rite of circumcision upon their youngest son. He had failed to comply with the condition by which his child could be entitled to the blessings of God's covenant with Israel; and such a neglect on the part of their chosen leader could not but lessen the force of the divine precepts upon the people. Zipporah, fearing that her husband would be slain, performed the rite herself, and the angel then permitted Moses to pursue his journey. In his mission to Pharaoh, Moses was to be placed in a position of great peril; his life could be preserved only through the protection of holy angels. But while living in neglect of a known duty, he would not be secure; for he could not be shielded by the angels of God. {PP 255.5}


So indeed on this Great and Spiritual Mission, Moses was surely a dead man if he did not adhere to God’s requirements and God here made this clear.

Quote:
T:Agreed. My point is that this episode illustrates how God always acts; it's not a special case.

NJK:I do not see how ‘one’ development can become an ‘illustration of how God always acts’.

Tom: If God acts consistently, it makes perfect sense that one development can illustrate how God always acts. The only way this wouldn't make sense is if God sometimes acts one way, and sometimes acts another.


That is not the way that I engage in exegesis. When two seemingly opposite developments manifest themselves and upon deeper exegesis reveal to indeed be exactly as rendered, then I longer see an either/or choice here, but a both/and. So you may want to only consider instances where you think that God did nothing to force a judgement, I, including all pertinent episodes, as in this issue, see that God can and does use both natural and forced developments to effectuate judgements. I therefore build my Theology on that comprehensively harmonized conclusion rather than only a preferred single side of episodes. Again that is the only way of doing Biblical exegesis vs. the opposite which is actually eisegesis.

Originally Posted By: Tom
For example, Jesus said, if someone strikes you on the cheek, to turn the other cheek. If someone asks you for your coat, give him your shirt as well. Is this how Jesus Himself acted? Did He consistently act like this, or only sometimes? If He always acted like this, then wouldn't any episode in His life demonstrating this principle be an illustration of how He always acted?


Notice that despite this, Jesus does not instruct us to be pushovers, but to also demand, as much as possible, fairness, even justice, to the end. So when going to the Garden of Gethsemane, he instructed his disciples to take their swords (Luke 22:35-39). He even twice demonstrated that He could terrace that arresting mob if he wanted to. When He was struck in the Judgement hall, He demand to know exactly why.

Interestingly enough, the counsels of Christ that you cited (Matt 5:39) above were made for ‘when dealing with an “evil” person. I.e., it would be almost suicidal to resist such an evil person. As people are similarly told today, when someone is robbing you, do not put up a fight. Turning the other = engaging in a confrontational fight vs. self-defensive acts.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Does God act like Jesus Christ? If what Jesus Christ said was true, that when we see Him we see the Father, wouldn't this have to be the case?


I’ll further add that all that was done in the OT was tangibly done through Michael/Christ. E.G. the Heavenly visitor who came to down to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah was the incarnate Michael/Christ. And so I do not have a dichotomy between what was done by God in the OT vs. what was done in the NT. So they are all contributive to this theological understanding here to me and not, effectively, “mutually exclusive”.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Above all, the cross demonstrates how God always acts. Whether considered from the standpoint of the Father or the Son, it's an incredible demonstration of self-sacrificing love. This revelation is a revelation of God's character, of how God is in His core being. He always acts according to the description of "The Destruction of Jerusalem" (or, better yet, according to the description of the cross) because of who is He is.


The self-sacrifice that was demonstrated at the Cross was mainly because there was, at least potentially, one person that could/would saved by it. So that ‘giving of His “life” (psyche) for his friend, even a single person, was indeed solely for that reason. However in the Destruction of Jerusalem 40 years of delay and thorough preaching had demonstrated no such redemptive potential. Indeed all those who would be redeemed had already long fled the city back in ca. 67 A.D. So no self-sacrifice and forbearance was demonstrated here instead but the complete removal of God’s Spirit, leaving man, on both sides, to follow their own passions resulting in that utter physical destruction and slaughter of life. Had a similar complete mercilessness been expressed on the Cross, Jesus would, at the very least, struck all of His enemies dead, while still dying for the relatively faithful/believing others.

Originally Posted By: Tom
How did Jesus Christ teach that we should treat our enemies? Does God treat His enemies differently than what Jesus Christ taught?


‘Do good to them until it no longer is worthwhile because of their recalcitrance.’ (E.g., Matt 10:13-16; 11:20-27; 18:15-18). Again here, a teaching/theological understanding is not to be built around a single verse, and that to the exclusion of all of the other applicable ones.

Originally Posted By: Tom
If by "fear of God" you mean being afraid of God because of what He will do to you if you don't, that's precisely what the statement is addressing.


In one part the word “fear” in both the OT and NT only mean “being (variously) afraid of ...”. It also further seems to me that this fear (even if of what God can do in punishment e.g., Matt 10:28) is indeed the beginning of this walk towards God that naturally soon will transform itself into love as God then begins to enter into a relationship with this “approached fearful” person. That is a “fear” that most people in the world do not even have and thus they persist in sin and rebellion. So fear is only a beginning here and indeed that is the most logical thing to expect when dealing with a God that most have not personally seen, because a claim of ‘inceptive love’ here in such an effective case of ‘blind dating’, prior to that meeting on that first date, would at best be hypocrisy. The truth inceptively drawing emotion here is “fear” and then (relational) “love”.

Originally Posted By: SOP
A proper fear of God, in believing His threatenings, works the peaceable fruits of righteousness, by causing the trembling soul to flee to Jesus. Many ought to have this spirit today, and turn to the Lord with humble contrition, for the Lord has not given so many terrible threatenings, pronounced so severe judgments in His Word, simply to have them recorded, but He means what He says. One says, "Horror hath taken hold upon me because of the wicked that forsake thy law," Paul says, "Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men" (RH Oct. 21, 1890). {6BC 1100.8}


Again, as repeatedly confirmed in my Biblical/Theological studies, the God I have more fully/accurately come to know, and indeed love, and deeper at that, -because of that fact, is Real; and that in every single aspect of His Person, His Governance and His Creation and all that He as revealed in His Word and the SOP resolutely point to that fact. That is why trying to fit God into a Theological box rather than letting that “realness” speak for itself actually impedes that Great “Loving” Revelation of Him. As in any relationship, one prefers to be dealing with someone who is “real” rather than someone who is illogically/unaturally “artificial”.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/29/11 02:09 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
T:You're disagreeing with the following?

I believe our job as Christians is to argue the reverse, that Satan/sin is responsible for all the evil in the world, and not God.

NJK:Actually yes. As God can and has prevented evil, e.g., to safeguard Israel, He therefore is fully responsible for its occurrence, indeed simply by removing this protection, choosing not to have mercy.


God could only prevent evil by restricting free will. Satan is the author of sin and all its results. Satan is responsible for evil, not God.

Quote:
So I do not see this as “the argument of the enemy” per se, but rather just his cover, and that by calculatedly to this end, having chosen to remain in the shadows while letting, the already manifested and more prominent God, wholly take the blame.


I'm not understanding your point here. My point is that Satan is responsible for evil, not God, and that Satan's argument is that God is responsible. It sounds like you're saying that God is responsible for evil, and that it is not Satan's argument that God is responsible for evil. Well, if God is responsible for evil, then since Satan is a liar, one would expect Satan to argue the reverse, that God isn't responsible for evil.

Quote:
Again, Satan’s GC position is that man can live independently of God and if the Tree of Life had not been removed, as I understand it, such ‘sinful perpetual life, despite knowing good and evil, and indeed practising evil, would have been possible (Gen 3:22-24).


I agree this is an argument of Satan's. In reality, man cannot live independently of God, and even if the the Tree of Life had not been removed, man could not have lived forever independently of God.

Quote:
So Satan’s posturing here is to make God responsible for the adverse effects of sin, all stemming from God withdrawal of the life quality maintaining tree.


This is overly complicated. Satan simply misrepresents God's character, presenting Him as One who is responsible for evil, because He looks after His own interests in preference to those of His creatures, in addition to being harsh, severe, and arbitrary.

Quote:
And towards this blaming end, he does indeed try to complicate matters, now have nothing to lose, but rather many more, upset-with-God, people to gain.


People are not upset with God because they think God removed the Tree of Life (very, very few think in these terms), but rather because they don't trust God, perceiving Him wrongly to be concerned with Himself, and responsible for evil. And not just evil in general, but the specific evil which happens in their own lives.

Quote:
So in summary of my Theological understanding here: I do not see that ‘God is not responsible for why evil happens as sin is this why but solely, in an ultimate since, that this evil is permitted to be effectuated, as he can easily prevent it, and all that stemming from the decision to ban access to the Tree of Life to sinful man and curtail its effect upon nature outside of the Garden of Eden.


You didn't close the quote mark. This is a very difficult sentence to understand. I'll just comment on the "as He can easily prevent it" part. God cannot easily prevent evil. If He could prevent evil, He would, as that His character. God hates evil, and is doing all He can to bring it to an end, as quickly as possible. The judgment will reveal that God has consistently been working towards this end. All of His actions have been motivated by bringing evil to an end.

To bring evil to end it is necessary to reveal the character of the enemy, and the character of his government, as well as the character of Himself and His government. The parable of the wheat and the tares addresses this.

Quote:
So it is solely in that since that I say “responsible for” i.e., ‘having allowed it’ but certainly not for actively doing it.


I agree that God has allowed evil to occur, and one can argue that there is responsibility inherent in that, and I believe God recognizes and accepts that. However, the alternative would be not have created creatures with the ability to love and be loved. Loved requires risk. God was willing to understand this risk, and God has paid for the risk in the sacrifice of His Son.

Although God could be said to be responsible in a certain sense for having permitted evil to occur, His responsibility doesn't go beyond that, and, again, the only alternative would have been a Universe without sentient creatures capable of love.

Quote:
The Devil in many ways does that. Still much of our various personal and planetary adversities are natural occurrences of a continually degenerating nature from its once perfect state. E.g., God does not cause earthquakes or hurricanes, an ageing planet with damaged and shifting tectonic plates natural cause earthquakes, and an uneven climate causes hurricanes to form.


Agreed.

Quote:
NJK: In a ultimate sense yes since cancer could have been prevented and cured by the Fruit of Life. However if one has “chosen” by such directly causing unhealthy acts such as smoking to expose themselves to getting cancer, then God may still also have allowed this by having banned the preventive healing found in Fruit of Life. It was indeed such sinful acts that resulted in the banning of access to that healing tree.

Tom: I think you're over-complicating this. It has nothing to do with the tree of life. If you smoke, you may get cancer, because of the characteristics of cigarettes. This is an example of a free will choice leading to an undesirable consequence. If all had followed God's counsels, these things wouldn't happen. God is not responsible for these things happening, but they follow the law of cause and effect.

NJK:I actually am not, in my understanding. With cancer, many people live healthy lives and still get cancer.


This doesn't counter the point, that people who smoke may, and do, get cancer according to the principle of cause and effect.

Quote:
That all really stems back to the absence of the Fruit of Life in our lives.


This is irrelevant to the point that cigarette smoking causes cancer.

Quote:
Cigarette smoking is something else entirely and may be a cause-and-effect issue.


Right!

Quote:
However many diseases are not, but just a natural consequence of our bodily frailty after so many years of being removed from the Tree of Life and our once perfect state.


These are the result of sin. You're way of looking at things seems to make God responsible for disease, since He removed the tree, instead of putting the blame where it belongs, which is on sin and Satan.

Quote:
T:I was going to say this one isn't an issue, but the plagues of Egypt come to mind. Many have the idea of God's acting like a criminal wanting protection money, using more and more force until He gets His way. That would be similar to what you're suggesting here.

M:While the plagues are an example of God’s use of force, I actually do not see them as an act of compelling since if God wanted to compel Pharoah to obey Him, He would not have hardened his heart at all.


Pharaoh hardened his own heart. That's written half a dozen times or so. God didn't force Pharaoh to do something against his will.

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.

Quote:
Seems to me that God wanted to completely break the Spirits of Pharaoh so that Israel would have an unobstructed exodus and also a financially rewarded one as it indeed came to pass.


Spirits of Pharaoh?

Quote:
T:I don't believe God is violent, nor that violence is part of God's government, in either of the two ways you mentioned. I don't see any hint of this in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

NJK:Due to a seeming confusion of understandings I suggest/move for an abandonment of the term “violence” here for instead ‘use of force’ as this is supposed to be how this term is being used here. So in that sense, I see God, in many instances, as “using force”, e.g., supernatural acts, to effectuate a judgement action and not always just letting nature take its course..


Ok, I'll put it this way. I believe the exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government. I believe compelling power is found only under Satan's government.

Quote:
T:Is any kind of violence a part of God's government?

NJK:If violence is “use of force” here, then yes.

T:If so, did this part of God's government exist from the beginning, and just wasn't revealed, like grace and mercy?

NJK:Of course, prior to sin: “No”; however after sin, by variously protective necessity: “Yes”

T:So we could say that God was always violent, but this aspect of His character wasn't seen, until sin came about (similarly to mercy and grace).

NJK:(Same response as above.)


What I'm asking is the following. God was always merciful, although this was an aspect of God's character which had not been revealed, as it was unnecessary until sin came about. We could also say that God was always violent, but this was also an aspect of God's character which was not revealed until sin came about. It sounds to me like this is what you are saying.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/29/11 02:11 PM

Originally Posted By: GC
NJK:So the operative determinant here is to let the text itself determine what our view should be and not vice versa, however sincerely “righteous” we may consider it to be. If it is indeed “righteous” then it should not be contradicted. So it therefore seems clear to me that Jesus did not similarly demonstrate this OT wrath during his Earthly ministry simply because it was not yet the appropriate time to do so. That principle also manifested itself in God’s/His OT dealings (e.g., Gen 15:13, 16).

GC:NJK,

Excellent post. Well said.


So the principle that all that we need to know of God, or can know of God, was revealed in the life and character of His Son during His earthly ministry is false.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/29/11 02:16 PM

Quote:
T:The question is if Jesus Christ is a full and complete revelation of God's character. If that's the case, we don't really need to consider exceptions on a case by case basis, as there wouldn't be any exceptions.

GC:Tom,

Will you know everything that it is possible to know about God the moment you see Jesus when He comes?

How about after 3.5 years in Heaven with Him?


Since these questions are coming out of the blue, I'm guessing your train of thought is the following. If it were true that everything that we can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son then it would follow that we would know everything it is possible to know about God the moment we saw Jesus when He comes? (Or, in 3.5 years in Heaven with Him). Otherwise I don't see why you would ask these questions.

I don't think this is a valid argument, as the fact that Jesus Christ revealed all that man needs to know of God, or can know, in His life and character does not contradict the idea that God is infinite in love and goodness, and that even eternity will not be enough to exhaust the knowledge of His wonderful character.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/29/11 04:10 PM

I'll treat this part separately.

Originally Posted By: NJK
Tom: The question addressed wasn't whether Satan was deserving of death, but that had God permitted him to die, that event would have been misunderstood, as the angels did not yet understand that death is the inevitable result of sin. This is right in the paragraph. There's no discussion in regards to deserving death.

NJK:The angels did not see that Satan “sin” was “sinful”, i.e., deserving to be put to death just for having decided not to continue to obey God’s law.


This isn't the issue discussed in the DA chapter.

Quote:
If Satan then had been immediately destroyed, the Angel surely would have known that it was because of that act of rebellion which God would have surely stated was “sin”, if they did not already know that definition themselves. What they would not have understood was “why”, i.e., why did Satan have to be destroyed for that “new “lawless” way that he was proposing.


This isn't at all what the statement says. Or, more accurately, the statement says nothing at all like this.

What it says is that God gives an opportunity to develop character, and that those who rebel against Him develop a character so out of harmony with Himself that His very presence to them is a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them. The angels did not understand this. Had God left Satan and his follower to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished, but the angels would not have understand that this is because the inevitable result of sin is death.

This is precisely what the statement says.

Quote:
It was then to be shown in the GC how Satan’s way was indeed deserving of death as it was not a better way, but one that would lead to suffering and death.


Again, this wasn't the issue discussed.

Quote:
That was seen long before the cross, e.g., by the Flood.


It wasn't seen then. The chapter explains that it wasn't until the cross that it was seen that there was no truth in Satan's accusations. Elsewhere it is written that apart from the cross, the holy angels were no more secure than they were when Satan stared his rebellion. The cross safe-guarded the universe by making clear what the character is of God and His government in contrast to that of the enemy. The Great Controversy will continue until this distinction is seen by all.

Quote:
What was “finished” at the Cross was literally the opposing arguments in this GC and not a long ago demonstrated knowledge that sin is deserving of death.


Sin being deserving of death isn't something discussed at all. The point made wasn't that sin was *deserving* of death, but that sin *results* in death. That's in important distinction.

Quote:
Indeed had God not barred access to the tree of Life, sinners would not even have died, but lived a perpetual life of sin.


No way! The time before the flood demonstrates this clearly. Men at this time could have lived to almost the age of a thousand, but few did, because of all the violence in the world. With so much violence, it would not have taken long for men to have killed each other. This is the essence of sin. You have to be number one. The only way to be number one is to get rid of the opposition.

At any rate, this wasn't discussed in the chapter.

Quote:
So it was even not to prove/show that ‘the inevitable result of sin is death’ that the GC was permitted to go on,


That was *a* reason, and a very important one. Had God left Satan and his follower to reap the full result of their sin, it would not have been understood that their demise was the result of their sin, but would have appeared to have been an arbitrary act of power on the part of God. This would have created a seed of doubt in regards to God's character.

This is explained in the paragraphs under discussion.

Quote:
or else one can easily make this Tree of Life removal objection.


This wasn't discussed.

Quote:
It was to show how wrong the course of Satan was that it was indeed deserving of being eradicated along with anyone who wanted to adhere to it.


No. Not at all. Not one word was mentioned along these lines.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/29/11 06:24 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
Tom: Greg Boyd speaks of the "blueprint" perspective, or paradigm, where everything that happens is for a purpose (i.e., God is behind it). This perspective can indeed lead to the types of questions you're asking. This would be as opposed to the casualties of a war zone perspective, from what he calls the "
"Trinitarian warfare" perspective, better known by us as "the Great Controversy."

NJK:Everything that happens is indeed for a purpose that we will come to be aware of during especially the ‘Millennium books reviews’, however that does not stop many people now to ask these “why” and ‘Divine-demeanor/intent’ questions.


Not everything that happens is for a purpose. There's a reason God has made the decisions that He has made, choosing to allow certain things to happen (like the Holocaust, for example) but this does not mean that God *purposed* for these things to happen. God's allowing certain things to happen, and purposing that they happen are very different things.


Quote:
Job candidly and sincerely clearly asked them event hough he never gave up faith in God (e.g., Job 19), as did others in the Bible, and that is because God does punish the wrongs of even His people. So when no personal wrong is known, one, even the Believer, usually, almost knee-jerkedly, asks such Divine Character probing questions. It really takes an achieved stoic character to, effectively, emotionlessly (or at least unnaturally, emotions wise) accept whatever happens to you without such questions, however not only do I not see this in the Bible, e.g., Psa 94, but I do not believe that God expects this of even Believers.


Would God want such a thing? Is this what we see from Jesus Christ?

Quote:
Refusing to obey God or opposing Him and His cause because of such assumed wrongdoings on His part is another thing, but sincerely questioning them is quite normal.


Agreed. God welcomes sincere questions.

More later.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/29/11 06:50 PM

Tom, in response to the following two questions, here's what I remember what you've said thus far.

1. In the OT, why did Jesus command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle?

The reason you believe Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in battle is because 1) the Jews failed to trust Jesus to defeat their enemies in a godly way, and 2) the Jews expected Him to think and behave like a pagan god.

2. In the OT, why did Jesus command godly people to kill ungodly people through the execution of capital punishment?

The reason you believe Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people through the execution of capital punishment is because 1) the Jews failed to trust Jesus to punish them in a godly way, and 2) the Jews expected Him to behave like a pagan god.

Quote:
Exodus
22:20 He that sacrificeth unto [any] god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

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.

Deuteronomy
2:34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:
20:17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; [namely], the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:

Joshua
10:40 So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded.

You believe Jesus was willing to think and behave like a pagan god in order to gain the trust and respect of the Jews long enough to wean them off such ungodly expectations.

Do you believe anything else about it?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/29/11 06:52 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
Not everything that happens is for a purpose. There's a reason God has made the decisions that He has made, choosing to allow certain things to happen (like the Holocaust, for example) but this does not mean that God *purposed* for these things to happen. God's allowing certain things to happen, and purposing that they happen are very different things.

What were Jesus' options in cases like the Holocaust?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/29/11 07:43 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
T:Not everything that happens is for a purpose. There's a reason God has made the decisions that He has made, choosing to allow certain things to happen (like the Holocaust, for example) but this does not mean that God *purposed* for these things to happen. God's allowing certain things to happen, and purposing that they happen are very different things.

MM:What were Jesus' options in cases like the Holocaust?


That's a pretty tall order for me, isn't it? That is, you're asking me to enumerate the options of divinity? I don't think I'm qualified to do that.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/29/11 08:08 PM

Originally Posted By: MM
Tom, in response to the following two questions, here's what I remember what you've said thus far.

1. In the OT, why did Jesus command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle?

The reason you believe Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in battle is because 1) the Jews failed to trust Jesus to defeat their enemies in a godly way, and 2) the Jews expected Him to think and behave like a pagan god.


I think an issue being discussed, which kland also chimed on, was the question of what God's expectations were. For example, God said he was going to destroy Israel, and found a new country, with Moses as its father. Moses argued with God and prevailed.

Quote:
2. In the OT, why did Jesus command godly people to kill ungodly people through the execution of capital punishment?

The reason you believe Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people through the execution of capital punishment is because 1) the Jews failed to trust Jesus to punish them in a godly way, and 2) the Jews expected Him to behave like a pagan god.


The point made above comes to play, I think. Was God displeased when Moses argued with Him when He said He was going to create a new nation with Moses as its father?

A point I've been making all along is that to understand incidents like this, we need to understand God's character. I've given the example of the hunter/father. In that example, the father's character was such that he was against hunting. That's fundamental to understanding the example.

Is it fair to say that God is against killing? (like the father in the story was against hunting). Is it possible to understand God's actions in a similar way to how the father's actions could be understood in the story?

Quote:
Exodus
22:20 He that sacrificeth unto [any] god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

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.

Deuteronomy
2:34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:
20:17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; [namely], the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:

Joshua
10:40 So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded.

You believe Jesus was willing to think and behave like a pagan god in order to gain the trust and respect of the Jews long enough to wean them off such ungodly expectations.

Do you believe anything else about it?
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/29/11 10:54 PM

Quote:
The reason you believe Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people through the execution of capital punishment is because 1) the Jews failed to trust Jesus to punish them in a godly way,
Wow! I had no idea Tom believed that way! I would be quite shocked if Tom confirmed that. From what I have seen Tom write, it is a rather opposite view.
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/29/11 11:05 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man

What were Jesus' options in cases like the Holocaust?

Good point. I was thinking about the flood. If it was true, that God sent the flood, etc. to destroy people when He gets upset at them, or make a point with others as in you'd better not do that if you don't want to get what Joe got, then why did he flood the earth? The ones who drowned, weren't alive to get the benefits from the punishment, and the righteous who He didn't destroy, why did they have to suffer from the results of the destruction? And if he destroyed the earth and climate just to serve as a heading off means for the righteous remaining, why wouldn't He do something to stop the Holocaust? And a bigger question is, if He destroyed the earth to serve as some example, why did He promise not to do it again?
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/29/11 11:36 PM

As a contextually accurate understanding of the DA “It is Finished” chapter (79) is key to this discussion, I have now taken the time to do a complete analysis and commentary on it to see what it is precisely saying. Here goes:

[{758.1}-{758.2}]

Originally Posted By: SOP DA 758.3
To the angels and the unfallen worlds the cry, "It is finished," had a deep significance. It was for them as well as for us that the great work of redemption had been accomplished. They with us share the fruits of Christ's victory. {DA 758.2}
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 758.3}


-From here it is introductorily, and thus not in full details, chiefly stated that ‘what was “victoriously finished’ at the Cross was the “great work of redemption. (Thus no notion here of ‘a understood knowledge that sin results in death.’)

-It also was: “the character of Satan”, his previously deceptively concealed “principles” and “the nature of his rebellion” that were “clearly revealed to the angels or to the unfallen worlds”.

[{758.4}-{759.1}]

Originally Posted By: SOP DA 759.2
It was God's purpose to place things on an eternal basis of security, and in the councils of heaven it was decided that time must be given for Satan to develop the principles which were the foundation of his system of government. He had claimed that these were superior to God's principles. Time was given for the working of Satan's principles, that they might be seen by the heavenly universe. {DA 759.2}


-‘Satan was given time to develop the principles which were the foundation of his system of government in order “to place things [i.e. the resolution of the issues brought forth in this GC] on an eternal basis of security”.’

-During this time the Heavenly Universe watched these “working of Satan's principles”.


Originally Posted By: SOP DA 759.3
For four thousand years, Christ was working for man's uplifting, and Satan for his ruin and degradation. And the heavenly universe beheld it all. {DA 759.3}


-During that time of 4000 years (i.e., ca. Creation to the Cross), the heavenly universe were beholding the ruin and degradation being done by Satan. Surely they would see and understand here that Satan sin and government involved suffering and death. Yet for some reason they were still “sympathetic” to His cause. Perhaps they were also thinking that they should be free to choose this course of life if they wanted to. Thus the option of obeying God’s Law or not, and suffering the consequences if one so chooses, should indeed be a free and also, not God condemned act for free moral agents.

[{759.4}-{761.1}] - At Christ’s First Advent, Satan now focused his efforts to destroyed Him from His birth and that reached a climax in the frenzied efforts that took place at the Cross. It is then and there that Satan betrayed himself. His true/actual “character”, “principles” and “the nature of his rebellion” were all fully exposed for what they were:

Originally Posted By: SOP DA 761.2
Satan saw that his disguise was torn away. His administration was laid open before the unfallen angels and before the heavenly universe. He had revealed himself as a murderer. By shedding the blood of the Son of God, he had uprooted himself from the sympathies of the heavenly beings. Henceforth his work was restricted. Whatever attitude he might assume, he could no longer await the angels as they came from the heavenly courts, and before them accuse Christ's brethren of being clothed with the garments of blackness and the defilement of sin. The last link of sympathy between Satan and the heavenly world was broken. {DA 761.2}


-It is striking to me, as it will be seen in the next section, that the angels made a somewhat arbitrary decision here to no longer be sympathetic to Satan as they still did not even then fully understand the issue involved in the GC which would only be further revealed in the 2000+ years that remained in the GC. So it is apparently simply out of allegiance to Jesus, who Satan here wanted to murder, that they decided to from then on completely shut Satan out. Yet the GC issues were still not fully resolved in their minds then.

Originally Posted By: SOP DA 761.3
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}


-If ‘death was then (i.e., at the Cross) “finally” understood to be the inevitable result of sin,’ as you claim Tom, then it seems to me that Satan could and should have been destroyed then, rather than simply be shut out of Heaven. However the actual issue here was that: “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.” The issues involved in the free choice to serve God or Satan still needed to be ‘further “deliberated”’ and eventually resolved.

Originally Posted By: SOP DA 761.4
In the opening of the great controversy, Satan had declared that the law of God could not be obeyed, that justice was inconsistent with mercy, and that, should the law be broken, it would be impossible for the sinner to be pardoned. Every sin must meet its punishment, urged Satan; and if God should remit the punishment of sin, He would not be a God of truth and justice. When men broke the law of God, and defied His will, Satan exulted. It was proved, he declared, that the law could not be obeyed; man could not be forgiven. Because he, after his rebellion, had been banished from heaven, Satan claimed that the human race must be forever shut out from God's favor. God could not be just, he urged, and yet show mercy to the sinner. {DA 761.4}


-Here EGW restates the foundational issues involved in this GC which were actually resolved at the Cross. See also [{761.5}-{762.3}]

Conclusion:
Originally Posted By: SOP DA 762.4
By His life and His death, Christ proved that God's justice did not destroy His mercy, but that sin could be forgiven, and that the law is righteous, and can be perfectly obeyed. Satan's charges were refuted. God had given man unmistakable evidence of His love. {DA 762.4}


-Still another issue(s) needed to be resolved, as follows:

Originally Posted By: SOP DA 762.5
Another deception was now to be brought forward. Satan declared that mercy destroyed justice, that the death of Christ abrogated the Father's law. Had it been possible for the law to be changed or abrogated, then Christ need not have died. But to abrogate the law would be to immortalize transgression, and place the world under Satan's control. It was because the law was changeless, because man could be saved only through obedience to its precepts, that Jesus was lifted up on the cross. Yet the very means by which Christ established the law Satan represented as destroying it. Here will come the last conflict of the great controversy between Christ and Satan. {DA 762.5}


{762.5b}-{763.3} - EGW’s elaboration on these Final Conflict Implications.

Originally Posted By: SOP DA 763.4
Then the end will come[i.e., the end of time (6000+ years) and not the Cross (4000 years)]. God will vindicate His law and deliver His people. Satan and all who have joined him in rebellion will be cut off. Sin and sinners will perish, root and branch, (Malachi 4:1),--Satan the root, and his followers the branches. The word will be fulfilled to the prince of evil, "Because thou hast set thine heart as the heart of God; . . . I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. . . . Thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more." Then "the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be;" "they shall be as though they had not been." Ezekiel 28:6-19; Psalm 37:10; Obadiah 16. {DA 763.4}


-It is this (end time) destruction of Satan that will then indeed not be construed as an arbitrary act of God as all of the self-actuating evidence will be in by then. That was not possible at the begin of the GC so that destruction act would have been misunderstood as arbitrary. I.e. there was no evidence that Satan’s sin was deserving of death, indeed this natural, self-combusting death.

Originally Posted By: SOP DA 764.1
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." Ephesians 4:18; Proverbs 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. {DA 764.1}


-Time is given for opposers of God’s Law to “ develop their character and reveal their principles” and not to learn that sin results in death. When this is accomplished, indeed by the faultiness of their own, now fully developed course, which now, as such, indeed ‘itself brings death’ (James 1:15), “they receive the results of their own choice”. Can’t better restate/explain EGW’s statement that it is: “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. ” So it seems clear to me here that it is a most advanced level of sin that comes to be “self-combustible material in the presence of God’s presence, and not, as commonly assumed, ‘just a trace presence of sin.’ That would explain many instances in the Bible and SOP where sinful people were not immediately consumed by just being in the presence of God (e.g., as previously discussed, Satan in the Job episode).

-Seeing the face of God on the other hand, which is distinct from His presence, and which also symbolically implicates “fully understanding”/discerning God, evidently instantly results in that immediate destruction. (Exod 33:20-22).

-I however do not see in the Bible that even the wicked at the end will be self-combustibly destroyed just by the presence of God. This further, and in this context here, says to me that though they will have unforgiven sins on their ledger, they may not have reached this “self-combustible” level. That is why they will have to variously be “forcefully” destroyed in the end by being actively thrown into the Lake of Fire vs. merely being destroyed by the glory of God, even before the Second Death judgement, at the pre-millennium appearing of Christ.

Originally Posted By: SOP DA 764.2
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 764.2}


So then what would the angels did not have understood had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin (i.e., the “inevitable” consuming destruction merely at God’s glory) at the beginning of the great controversy?? That this, effectively pre-emptively accelerated judgement on Satan for his suggested contra-Law ways, was deserved. So he had to be given time to himself develop this sin to its fulness and thus, of himself bring about this then inevitable result. Hence this 6000+ year GC. For as seen in the next paragraph, the 4000 years leading up to the Cross were not even sufficient to make this “inevitable result” self-evident.

Originally Posted By: SOP DA 764.3
But not so when the great controversy shall be ended. Then, the plan of redemption having been completed, the character of God is revealed to all created intelligences. The precepts of His law are seen to be perfect and immutable. Then sin has made manifest its nature, Satan his character. Then the extermination of sin will vindicate God's love and establish His honor before a universe of beings who delight to do His will, and in whose heart is His law. {DA 764.3}


It is the “plan of redemption” that needs to be “completed” to self-reveal the true nature of sin. Not merely that sin (i.e., living outside of God’s Laws) results in death, as it can easily be seen, but that God’s destruction of sin and sinner is fully justified because their suggested course has no just, true nor redemptive qualities. So it was the immediate ending of a sinful course and the death of the sinner that were to be proven to not be an arbitrary act and this act was that sin, in its fullness would indeed itself result in this self-combusting end. If God had done this earlier in the GC instead of at the very end of it as stated here by EGW, it would have to be a forced act in the light of the not yet fully developed sin (=James 1:15) and not the natural one that it will be when this sin is indeed fully developed as allowed in the GC.

-However, and seriously, I still would need to see where this self-combustible destruction is said/envisioned to actually occur in the Bible or GC. It seems to me that much more time than what is found in a ca. 6000 year GC would be necessary to achieve this ‘critical mass’ stage. Also combined with the complete withdrawal of God’s restraining influence. So it very well may be that sinners will have to be actively destroyed in the end by God (vs. passively, merely by His glorious presence),because of a still not yet full matured level of sin. This may also be the case with Satan and His Angels who will similarly be forcefully/actively destroyed. All this to says, that, as indeed seen in the symbolism of 7, which is a ‘perfect representation of something’ and actually not a “complete” one, as other elements could have been added for this selective representation, that God, in mercy and for the sake of the righteous, cut short the time, (and also permitted extent) that would be needed for sin to fully mature to that full blown and ‘critical mass’ stage. This is why the Millennium period will be needed to answer the patent question of: “why wasn’t so and so saved”. I.e., that full blown sinfulness may not have been surfacely seen in their life. (Perhaps, symbolically speaking, 10,000 years for a GC would have been needed, but, again, for the ‘sake of the elect’ such a time was cut short by God, indeed, for the redeemed opting for “righteousness” vs. an enduringly achieved sinless state (i.e., much longer than what will be exacted in the end). The same conversely applied to the wicked. Indeed just looking at our world today, one can see and say that it could be many times much more evil and wicked then it is today, pointedly by people who do not believe in the God of the Bible. Other “regulating” moral religions other than Christianity are the perfect example of that.

Originally Posted By: SOP DA 764.4
Well, then [at the end of time and the GC], might the angels rejoice as they looked upon the Saviour's cross; for though they did not then understand all, they knew that the destruction of sin and Satan was forever made certain, that the redemption of man was assured, and that the universe was made eternally secure. Christ Himself fully comprehended the results of the sacrifice made upon Calvary. To all these He looked forward when upon the cross He cried out, "It is finished." {DA 764.4}


-The angels did not understand all in the GC at the Cross. Yet they understood that ultimate victory was guaranteed by this event. Christ ‘fully comprehended this’ and hence His thus prescient statement: “It [the GC] is [i.e, surely will be] finished [resolved].”
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/30/11 03:22 AM

Quote:
NJK:Actually yes. As God can and has prevented evil, e.g., to safeguard Israel, He therefore is fully responsible for its occurrence, indeed simply by removing this protection, choosing not to have mercy.

Tom: God could only prevent evil by restricting free will. Satan is the author of sin and all its results. Satan is responsible for evil, not God.


I actually meant that God could prevent any ‘“bad things” as a consequence of this already established evil/sin in the universe’ from occurring if He so chose. Satan is indeed the originator of sin, however God has the last word on what he can and cannot do in even this sinful world. Demons cannot even say things to oppose the work of God is God does not want it. (Mark 1:34b).
Indeed by God removing the Tree of Life from this fallen world, many naturally occurring ‘adverse effects of sin’ where just in that one action permitted by God to occur.


Quote:
NJK: So I do not see this as “the argument of the enemy” per se, but rather just his cover, and that by calculatedly to this end, having chosen to remain in the shadows while letting, the already manifested and more prominent God, wholly take the blame.

Tom: I'm not understanding your point here. My point is that Satan is responsible for evil, not God, and that Satan's argument is that God is responsible. It sounds like you're saying that God is responsible for evil, and that it is not Satan's argument that God is responsible for evil. Well, if God is responsible for evil, then since Satan is a liar, one would expect Satan to argue the reverse, that God isn't responsible for evil.


Substantively (i.e., Bible/SOP) correct if I am wrong here but I see, as expressed in the Garden of Eden, that Satan’s foundational argument in the GC is that God does not want His Creatures to truly be free by being free to know and practice things contrary to His stated will if they so choose. I.e., doing what they think is best for them. I however do not see Satan explicitly blaming God for causing, at least all (i.e., also the natural) adverse effects of sin. Satan rather is blaming God in this regard for having taken measure so that sin and sinners die because they have chosen to disobey God. And as I Biblically see it, though we may not understand how, God knew that sinful man could live forever just by eating of the Tree of Life. So Satan is here implicitly also trying to blame the adverse effect of sin on God mainly because God took measures for this to be the result upon sinners.

So I am not saying that God caused sin/evil (= your: ‘God is responsible for evil’ misunderstanding/misconstruing), but the He has indeed allowed for its adverse effects to come to pass. And that is what Satan is trying to paint as being unfair by God, i.e., artificially/arbitrary hindering his cause, hence this protracted GC to self-demonstrate that God’s sin/sinner limiting action is fully warranted and thus fully deserving of the utterly eradicating and death judgement that God wants to execute on it.

Quote:
Again, Satan’s GC position is that man can live independently of God and if the Tree of Life had not been removed, as I understand it, such ‘sinful perpetual life, despite knowing good and evil, and indeed practising evil, would have been possible (Gen 3:22-24).

I agree this is an argument of Satan's. In reality, man cannot live independently of God, and even if the the Tree of Life had not been removed, man could not have lived forever independently of God.


Based on God’s statement in Gen 3:22-24, as previously discussed I have to disagree with you here. God knows that the fruit of Life can perpetuate the life of a sinful person. As seen today, variously, blatantly sinful people do not contract some unique disease by which they die. They can live just a long and as healthy as a just person, and many times even longer and healthier. So it seems clear to me that on an even field, i.e., without any intervention by God (e.g., removing the tree of life, healing and preventing diseases) any sinner would have been able to life perpetually.

By banning and removing the Tree of Life God came to effectuate this needed physical separation from God which result in physical death, through this non-access to a tangibly imparted source of perpetuating life for Created Beings. That is why in Heaven, we will not live for ever merely by being in the presence of God, but by tangibly eating of the tree of Life, thus tangibly taking in whatever tangible, supernatural ingredient He manifestly is injecting in it, in the Water of Life flowing from His Throne.

Quote:
NJK: So Satan’s posturing here is to make God responsible for the adverse effects of sin, all stemming from God withdrawal of the life quality maintaining tree.

Tom: This is overly complicated. Satan simply misrepresents God's character, presenting Him as One who is responsible for evil, because He looks after His own interests in preference to those of His creatures, in addition to being harsh, severe, and arbitrary.


Not at all to me as explained above. It all makes perfect, and “real”, Theological/Biblical sense. This misrepresenting action is merely to further turn people against God so that they will not accept His way of Life as stipulated in His Laws nor His provisions for redemption. The same tactic is seen in political campaigns to try to secure votes for oneself and a political party’s cause.

Quote:
NJK: And towards this blaming end, he does indeed try to complicate matters, now have nothing to lose, but rather many more, upset-with-God, people to gain.

Tom: People are not upset with God because they think God removed the Tree of Life (very, very few think in these terms), but rather because they don't trust God, perceiving Him wrongly to be concerned with Himself, and responsible for evil. And not just evil in general, but the specific evil which happens in their own lives.


Explicitly no. However most people who do not believe in God do so because they look at all the pain, sickness and suffering in the world and say: How could a purported ‘All-Loving and Omnipotent God exist and allow this.’ And all these ‘adverse effects of sin in humans, animals and nature would have been kept in check by the continue access/presence of the Tree of Life in nature, as it was the case in Eden, indeed for ca. 1700 after the Fall, while this Garden, thus maintained in its perfect state, was while still on earth until its removal by God just before the Flood.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: NJK (edited)
NJK:So in summary of my Theological understanding here: I do not see that ‘God is not responsible for “why” evil happens as sin is this “why” but solely, in an ultimate since, that this adverse effects of sin (= priorly termed “evil”) is permitted to be effectuated, as He can easily prevent it, and all that stemming from the decision to ban access to the Tree of Life to sinful man and curtail its effect upon nature outside of the Garden of Eden.


Tom: You didn't close the quote mark. This is a very difficult sentence to understand.


Understood. I closed that single quote mark above.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I'll just comment on the "as He can easily prevent it" part. God cannot easily prevent evil. If He could prevent evil, He would, as that His character. God hates evil, and is doing all He can to bring it to an end, as quickly as possible. The judgment will reveal that God has consistently been working towards this end. All of His actions have been motivated by bringing evil to an end.


Again here, as priorly throughout, what I meant by “evil” was not “sin” but the adverse effects of sin. I think that clarification completely renders moot your expressed object.

Originally Posted By: Tom
To bring evil to end it is necessary to reveal the character of the enemy, and the character of his government, as well as the character of Himself and His government. The parable of the wheat and the tares addresses this.


Indeed to bring “sin” to an end as sin is “the transgression of God law”. Thus to bring the arguments that claim that this transgression is warranted to an end, such GC character defending and exposing for respectively, God’s side and Satan’s own, indeed have to be done. However keeping in check the adverse effects of sin can be independently done if God had wanted this to be the case, indeed starting with the permitting of access, and profusion in nature, of the supernatural powers placed in the Tree of Life.

As stated in COL 71.1 the sowing of the tares was ‘an act of revenge’. I understand this act of revenge being for Satan feeling cheated by God for taking measures so that sinful men could not live for ever. And so, as these adverse effects of sin can indeed be attributed to God’s measures here, as with the Fruit of Life and its God-inject supernatural ingredient, this would not have been the case (Gen 3:22-24), Satan is trying to enrage people against God. He indeed can easily claim that He is not responsible for these adverse effects, but that God’s methods have enabled them. However this parable is trying to show that the root cause of all of these “tares” are from the Devil’s noxious seed sowing (= suggesting this concept of “sin”). I.e., the tares did not spring up in the field of themselves, but ultimately came from this sin-seed that had been sown by Satan in his GC rebellion.

It is noteworthy to see in the Bible, especially the OT, how all non-natural adverse acts in nature were understood to be “Acts of God”. If only in the sense of ‘God having allowed it’. Indeed it is explicitly related that God at times summons evil angels to be “lying/deceiving spirits” to people who God wants to fasten in deception. (1Kgs 22:22, 23). God is indeed in total authority of what occurs on this earth, even of the harming works of the Devil, probably all as a purposeful punishment for sin which indeed serves to wisen up many people to the futility of a sinful course.

Also, relatedly to DA chapter 79:

Originally Posted By: SOP COL 72.2
The teaching of this parable is illustrated in God's own dealing with men and angels. Satan is a deceiver. When he sinned in heaven, even the loyal angels did not fully discern his character. This was why God did not at once destroy Satan. Had He done so, the holy angels would not have perceived the justice and love of God. [and not merely/surfacely that ‘sin results in death’.] A doubt of God's goodness would have been as evil seed that would yield the bitter fruit of sin and woe. Therefore the author of evil was spared, fully to develop his character. Through long ages God has borne the anguish of beholding the work of evil, He has given the infinite Gift of Calvary, rather than leave any to be deceived by the misrepresentations of the wicked one; for the tares could not be plucked up without danger of uprooting the precious grain.{COL 72.2}


Quote:
NJK: So it is solely in that since that I say “responsible for” i.e., ‘having allowed it’ but certainly not for actively doing it.

Tom: I agree that God has allowed evil to occur, and one can argue that there is responsibility inherent in that, and I believe God recognizes and accepts that. However, the alternative would be not have created creatures with the ability to love and be loved. Loved requires risk. God was willing to understand this risk, and God has paid for the risk in the sacrifice of His Son.

Tom: Although God could be said to be responsible in a certain sense for having permitted evil to occur, His responsibility doesn't go beyond that, and, again, the only alternative would have been a Universe without sentient creatures capable of love.


Again I did not understand “evil” to be synonymous with “sin” but instead speaking of “the adverse effects of sin”. (To me that key distinction entirely resolves the misunderstanding here.)

Quote:
NJK: The Devil in many ways does that. Still much of our various personal and planetary adversities are natural occurrences of a continually degenerating nature from its once perfect state. E.g., God does not cause earthquakes or hurricanes, an ageing planet with damaged and shifting tectonic plates natural cause earthquakes, and an uneven climate causes hurricanes to form.

Tom: Agreed.


I however do not think that every adverse occurrence in nature or individual lives are such “natural occurrences” as the Bible repeatedly shows that God actively effectuates adverse effects: E.g., Plagues, Flood, Red Sea Crossing Egyptian destruction, epidemics, earthquakes (Jericho), even military defeats, etcs. However most, if not all, calamities especially today, given the collective absence of a worthy people in pointed instances, are ‘naturally occurring/resulting adverse effects of sin.’

Quote:
NJK:I actually am not, in my understanding. With cancer, many people live healthy lives and still get cancer.

Tom:This doesn't counter the point, that people who smoke may, and do, get cancer according to the principle of cause and effect.

NJK: That all really stems back to the absence of the Fruit of Life in our lives.

Tom:This is irrelevant to the point that cigarette smoking causes cancer.

NJK: Cigarette smoking is something else entirely and may be a cause-and-effect issue.

Tom: Right!


Perhaps the Fruit of Life could have “supernaturally” prevented even the harmful effects of smoking, if furthermore, the harmful components in Tobacco, or Tobacco plants itself, would have come to be found in nature. Perhaps this is one of the noxious plants that Satan concocted and then planted in nature. Surely God did not create (harmful) Tobacco, if at all. So Satan here would have sought a way to addictively harm the life of man, and that all so that he can keep people from truly following God and His ways or not enjoying the ‘more abundant life’ that Jesus wants to give them, even in this fallen world, as seen e.g., in Christians who smoke cigarettes, and also consume alcohol. Hence the reason for, and purpose of, the Remnant Church’s GC Health Reform message. So it is indeed all “related” and relevant in a greater and pertinent cause to effect issue. Perhaps Tobacco plants of themselves became self corrupted and harmful by the removal of the perfection preserving Fruit of Life.

Quote:
NJK:However many diseases are not, but just a natural consequence of our bodily frailty after so many years of being removed from the Tree of Life and our once perfect state.


Tom:These are the result of sin. You're way of looking at things seems to make God responsible for disease, since He removed the tree, instead of putting the blame where it belongs, which is on sin and Satan.


Again my Theological understanding is based on this manifest Biblical reality that Satan is responsible for sin and God is ultimately responsible for having allowed the adverse effect of sin by the ‘perfect protection removal measures’ He opted to take following the Fall.

Indeed it could be because of this very fact that sin in undeveloped self does not result in death unless God so intervenes to make it so, it the reason why the GC objection that ‘Creatures of God did not need to live according to His Laws to actually live for ever’ was so widely accepted as plausible, including amongst unfallen angels. So God needed time to demonstrate this harmful evil in this proposed course of “living independent of God’s Law (= “sin”).

Quote:
T:I was going to say this one isn't an issue, but the plagues of Egypt come to mind. Many have the idea of God's acting like a criminal wanting protection money, using more and more force until He gets His way. That would be similar to what you're suggesting here.

NJK:While the plagues are an example of God’s use of force, I actually do not see them as an act of compelling since if God wanted to compel Pharoah to obey Him, He would not have hardened his heart at all.

Tom: Pharaoh hardened his own heart. That's written half a dozen times or so. God didn't force Pharaoh to do something against his will.


Here is the exegetical Biblical evidence:
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.

Based on 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.’

It was to be a striking National object-lesson for Israel and its enemies of a show of force and the strength of Israel’s God and not actually an attempt to compel Pharaoh to do something against his will. As I understand it, if that had been the case, God would not have actively and forcefully hardened Pharaoh in, and from, the sixth plague (Exod 9:12ff).


Quote:
NJK: Seems to me that God wanted to completely break the Spirits of Pharaoh so that Israel would have an unobstructed exodus and also a financially rewarded one as it indeed came to pass.

Tom: Spirits of Pharaoh?


That is ‘spirit (i.e., psyche) of Pharaoh.’ That is God wanted through this to have the initial phase of the Exodus unhindered by Pharaoh and his army until Israel was in a place/position where God could use nature to defeat the Egyptian armies, drawn then, by God’s hardening; and the financial, slavery reparations equating, reward was also achieved through the fear brought about by these multiple mighty acts (Exod 3:21, 22; 11:2, 3; 12:33, 35-36; Psa 105:37, 38).

Quote:
T:I don't believe God is violent, nor that violence is part of God's government, in either of the two ways you mentioned. I don't see any hint of this in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

NJK:Due to a seeming confusion of understandings I suggest/move for an abandonment of the term “violence” here for instead ‘use of force’ as this is supposed to be how this term is being used here. So in that sense, I see God, in many instances, as “using force”, e.g., supernatural acts, to effectuate a judgement action and not always just letting nature take its course.

Tom: Ok, I'll put it this way. I believe the exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government. I believe compelling power is found only under Satan's government.


I think you are conflating or confusing the object of this ‘use of force’. I Biblically see and understand that God uses force to effectuate non-natural events/judgments but not to “compel” people to do His will. These effectuated judgement can produce such a compellation but this would be as ‘non-compelling to freely do right’ as someone being sentenced in civil court to pay full damages after having lost the case. A change of mind to right at the threat of judgment from God, as found throughout the Bible (e.g., Rev 14:9-11) is not an act of having been compelled as the judgement was not yet manifested. (= the Ninevites repentance). If however God accepts the doing of right after the previously clearly threatened consequences/judgement had started, that would be “compellation”. The key in all of this is whether the right is done out of faith vs. due to manifested consequences.

Originally Posted By: Tom
...What I'm asking is the following. God was always merciful, although this was an aspect of God's character which had not been revealed, as it was unnecessary until sin came about. We could also say that God was always violent, but this was also an aspect of God's character which was not revealed until sin came about. It sounds to me like this is what you are saying.


A) I do not see God as “violent” except only as this is understood as Him having to use force to do something that is necessary for the good, either way , in this GC.

B) I do not see this as necessarily having to be a trait of God. It is just a required type of action. And He is not using it in anyway to “compel” anyone to do what is right. But ot either bring a fully deserved judgement that in turn will right a wrong crucial for the successful carrying out of this GC, but as the righteousness of His professed people, even if simply as small, faithful Remnant, permit Him to do so.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/30/11 03:34 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
So the principle that all that we need to know of God, or can know of God, was revealed in the life and character of His Son during His earthly ministry is false.


I personally see, as apparently also Mountain Man and Green Cochoa, that Jesus did indeed demonstrate that “Ministry of Wrath” (= the SOP’s “ministration of judgement” {PP 162.3}) though it was very limited, though having to most utter consequence for Israel, because He only needed to express it most explicitly at the end of His ministry (=Luke 21:22).

So indeed by also demonstrating this righteous aspect of God as found in the OT, and also through fully deserved Justice, Jesus here did fully complete His Revelation of God. This also honours/vindicates the manifested OT character and actions of God and Jesus probably did this because He had seen the Father also do this in the OT (e.g., John 5:19, 22, 30).

Ironically enough, if this is not seen/recognized from His ministry years, it is then that this Revelation becomes deficient/incomplete.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/30/11 04:02 AM


For the following bloc of objections see my commentary on DA Ch. 79 here. These comments/objections are addressed there, and the basis for my observed, and here expressed, derived GC view is there concretely demonstrated, substantiated and/or clarified.

Quote:
Quote:
NJK:The angels did not see that Satan “sin” was “sinful”, i.e., deserving to be put to death just for having decided not to continue to obey God’s law.

Tom:This isn't the issue discussed in the DA chapter.


Quote:
NJK: If Satan then had been immediately destroyed, the Angel surely would have known that it was because of that act of rebellion which God would have surely stated was “sin”, if they did not already know that definition themselves. What they would not have understood was “why”, i.e., why did Satan have to be destroyed for that “new “lawless” way that he was proposing.

Tom:This isn't at all what the statement says. Or, more accurately, the statement says nothing at all like this.

What it says is that God gives an opportunity to develop character, and that those who rebel against Him develop a character so out of harmony with Himself that His very presence to them is a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them. The angels did not understand this. Had God left Satan and his follower to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished, but the angels would not have understand that this is because the inevitable result of sin is death.

This is precisely what the statement says.


Quote:
NJK: It was then to be shown in the GC how Satan’s way was indeed deserving of death as it was not a better way, but one that would lead to suffering and death.

Again, this wasn't the issue discussed.


Quote:
NJK: That was seen long before the cross, e.g., by the Flood.

Tom: It wasn't seen then. The chapter explains that it wasn't until the cross that it was seen that there was no truth in Satan's accusations. Elsewhere it is written that apart from the cross, the holy angels were no more secure than they were when Satan stared his rebellion. The cross safe-guarded the universe by making clear what the character is of God and His government in contrast to that of the enemy. The Great Controversy will continue until this distinction is seen by all.


Quote:
What was “finished” at the Cross was literally the opposing arguments in this GC and not a long ago demonstrated knowledge that sin is deserving of death.

Tom: Sin being deserving of death isn't something discussed at all. The point made wasn't that sin was *deserving* of death, but that sin *results* in death. That's in important distinction.

...
Quote:
NJK: or else one can easily make this Tree of Life removal objection.

Tom: This wasn't discussed.


Quote:
NJK: It was to show how wrong the course of Satan was that it was indeed deserving of being eradicated along with anyone who wanted to adhere to it.

Tom: No. Not at all. Not one word was mentioned along these lines.

...
Quote:
NJK: So it was even not to prove/show that ‘the inevitable result of sin is death’ that the GC was permitted to go on,

Tom: That was *a* reason, and a very important one. Had God left Satan and his follower to reap the full result of their sin, it would not have been understood that their demise was the result of their sin, but would have appeared to have been an arbitrary act of power on the part of God. This would have created a seed of doubt in regards to God's character.

This is explained in the paragraphs under discussion.


----

Quote:
NJK: Indeed had God not barred access to the tree of Life, sinners would not even have died, but lived a perpetual life of sin.

Tom: No way! The time before the flood demonstrates this clearly. Men at this time could have lived to almost the age of a thousand, but few did, because of all the violence in the world. With so much violence, it would not have taken long for men to have killed each other. This is the essence of sin. You have to be number one. The only way to be number one is to get rid of the opposition.


In the context of an existing “survival of the fittest” where Men could die from various causes, such violence was probably borne out of that, including mental imbalances. However in a perfect physical and mental state, many of the reasons for such violence may have been removed/not utilized from even a sinful, but, assuredly, perpetually living people. E.g., no need to basely covet your neighbor’s spouse if your own spouse is just as physically perfect.

That of course does not mean that no violence would exist, as it surely would, but that it probably may have been much less, indeed simply from the removal of that constant angst, stress, anxiety, pain, etc., to simply survive in a world that was naturally non-productive or cooperative, among other such hardships brought about by the removal of the fruit of life. Also no need to fight for a would be “more favorable” geographical place to settle in.” etcs.

Originally Posted By: Tom
At any rate, this wasn't discussed in the chapter.


It still is a foundational and intrinsic part of the GC and this issue, hence its discussion, in pertinently applicable part. I.e., why couldn’t sinful man be allowed to perpetually, and physically perfectly, live.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/30/11 04:38 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
Not everything that happens is for a purpose. There's a reason God has made the decisions that He has made, choosing to allow certain things to happen (like the Holocaust, for example) but this does not mean that God *purposed* for these things to happen. God's allowing certain things to happen, and purposing that they happen are very different things.


As I believe that God is in total control of all that occurs, and that He allows to occur, on this Planet, indeed as most crucially necessary so that He can accurately bring about the prophetic plans that He has made long ago (Isa 46:9-11), I see that everything that God thus allows or directly does is for a particular purpose in this GC, even if it is merely naturally permitted (i.e., not supernaturally averted) quasi-quota, facially seeming, injustices, (e.g., infants getting AIDS), a Tsunami killing hundreds of thousands, so as to impress others to seek to do what is right.


Quote:
NJK: Job candidly and sincerely clearly asked them even though he never gave up faith in God (e.g., Job 19), as did others in the Bible, and that is because God does punish the wrongs of even His people. So when no personal wrong is known, one, even the Believer, usually, almost knee-jerkedly, asks such Divine Character probing questions. It really takes an achieved stoic character to, effectively, emotionlessly (or at least unnaturally, emotions wise) accept whatever happens to you without such questions, however not only do I not see this in the Bible, e.g., Psa 94, but I do not believe that God expects this of even Believers.

Tom: Would God want such a thing?


It is all an unremovable part of our freedom for a truly genuine relationship with God. (See also e.g., Jer 20:7-18; Matt 11:1-6 (DA 214.1-218.2)). In our present state where we are living by faith and not by sight, I think God fully expects this and non-reproachingly, candidly and understandingly interacts with it. (E.g, Gen 18; Exod 4:1-9) God only opposes this when ample and adequate evidence has already been given. (Exod 4:10-17).

Originally Posted By: Tom
Is this what we see from Jesus Christ?


As a Man Jesus had ample evidence in to have the level of faith He needed to not faithlessly as such doubting question, however when all such evidence was suddenly seemingly completely useless in the light of what He was experiencing at the Cross, He did cry out “in a loud voice” where all heard him: “God! God! Why have Yo forsaken Me??! (Matt 27:46, 47). This was probably the only time in His earthly life that He “real-ly” felt abandoned by God and thus did not hesitate to openly express this.

Again God has nothing against man to be real with Him. The unnatural opposite is really hypocrisy and one can say you are not really loving God but are only in it for some benefit, like a silent and uncomplaining spouse married to known an unfaithful spouse, keeping silent so that certain terms of a marital agreement can be met so that she will make off with a large part of their fortune when she much later, after much accumulated commonwealth, divorces him on these costly faulting grounds of marital infidelity.

Quote:
NJK: Refusing to obey God or opposing Him and His cause because of such assumed wrongdoings on His part is another thing, but sincerely questioning them is quite normal.

Tom: Agreed. God welcomes sincere questions.


And Christ’s question on the Cross mentioned above was one of those “sincere questions”. Had Christ lost faith He could have come down from the cross and that then, vs. before this great psychological ordeal, may not have been sin for Him given this manifest utter and genuine sincerity. (Rom 14:23b)
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/30/11 04:53 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
So the principle that all that we need to know of God, or can know of God, was revealed in the life and character of His Son during His earthly ministry is false.


Yes, Tom, that principle is false. It has come from the great book of "Tom Says," and not from an inspired source. Mrs. White never says what you say here, despite your tenacious ideas about what you think she has said.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/30/11 04:56 AM

Quote:
Tom: ...There's a reason God has made the decisions that He has made, choosing to allow certain things to happen (like the Holocaust, for example)...

MM: What were Jesus' options in cases like the Holocaust?


Contrary to common belief, and though I am extremely sympathetic to the Jews for this “Calamity” that they suffered at the hands of the Nazi, it really is no less different than any cause of mass, non-natural dying in our world. Over 20 million Russians lost their lives in WWII. Why isn’t the same question asked for them. I.e., what was God’s “purpose” in that. I think it all stems from a trace/underlying belief that God is still actively and directly, specially working for the Jewish Nation, His former “Chosen People,” which I do not see any Biblical support for such. Even SDA’s (e.g., Doug Batchelor) have this view, even seeing the reestablishment of Israel in 1948 as the fulfillment of Bible Prophecies (e.g., Ezek 37:11-14; Luke 21:24). So I do not see this, though atrocious calamity as being any different than e.g., why Soviet -styled Communist regimed murdered millions of their own citizen, why over 130,000 Japanese were murdered by American nuclear bombs, why there are 65,000,000+ abortions per year today, among many other such historical and current examples that could be listed here. I.e., it is all the result of man acting hatefully and murderously against their fellow man, and God equally allows all of this to occur, perhaps to allow the consequences of sin to take their course, which simultaneously show that living according to His ways are the better options to follow.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/30/11 05:40 AM

Originally Posted By: kland
I was thinking about the flood. If it was true, that God sent the flood, etc. to destroy people when He gets upset at them, or make a point with others as in you'd better not do that if you don't want to get what Joe got, then why did he flood the earth?


Gen 6:5, 11, 12 - God brought the flood to destroy all flesh (man and beast) on the earth because all flesh had become irreparably corrupt and violent on the earth. That is also why capital punishment was instituted immediately after the Flood (Gen 9:5, 6), in order to serve a deterrent from conditions getting that wholly murderous and violent in the future. The use of Flooding Water vs. fire, was the best way to achieve this destruction while not destroying the earth to a point where it became inhabitable and would require a re-Creation to be habitable, as will be the case from the comparable Second coming’s, Fire destruction.

Originally Posted By: kland
The ones who drowned, weren't alive to get the benefits from the punishment,


I think it should be easy to readily, logically comprehend that adjudged capital judgement/punishment for their life of murder and violence was being executed. So no benefit for them was at all considered here.

Originally Posted By: kland
and the righteous who He didn't destroy, why did they have to suffer from the results of the destruction?


As EGW states in PP 107.4, a “Third Curse “ occurred with the Flood from the necessity to healthily bury all of the dead bodies strewn about the earth. Much of the destruction to the Earth surface, including burying mineral treasures, occurred at that point. So, all things considered, the eight righteous then, and us today, only got the lesser of two evils. Making man work harder to live also serves to limit the level and extent of sinfulness that they engage in when they have too much leisure time on their hand, and physically non-demanding work to do otherwise.

For one thing, whether a limited blessing, but probably a curse, given the other persuable renewable energy alternatives, coal and crude oil was produced by the flood as stated by EGW in PP 108.2.

Originally Posted By: kland
And if he destroyed the earth and climate just to serve as a heading off means for the righteous remaining, why wouldn't He do something to stop the Holocaust?


For the exact same reason, as I explained previously, why God did not intervene in many other instances when even innocent, bystanding civilians and people were unjustly being murdered. It is just the outworking of sin and all the direct actions of man. Again, God did not have any obligation, i.e., anymore, to defend the Jews in anyway.

This question of Why didn’t God... however can be asked of the hundreds of millions of faithful people who were martyred by e.g., pagan and then papal Rome. (Indeed cf. Rev 6:9-11). However it can here be Spiritually seen that their martyrdom probably has served to produce a much stronger and faithful crop of Christians today who remain faithful when they face much lessor oppositions.

Also the systematic and Militaristic atrocity of the Holocaust probably served to prevent similar and worst atrocities in the future, however as seen in e.g., Communist Regimes, Darfur, Rwanda, [and, relatedly, also Abortions] only when those who can do something (i.e., (militaristically) capable world powers) choose to do what it right and intervene in behalf of those being murdered. (And as much as I had to say it, the atomic bombings in WWII probably prevented the Cold War from ever getting “Hot” and producing a greater Nuclear Weapons utilization right through our current days.)

Originally Posted By: kland
And a bigger question is, if He destroyed the earth to serve as some example, why did He promise not to do it again?


Perhaps God saw that, in the scheduled remaining time of the GC and given the state of destruction now, there quite foreseeable would not be a need for such a destruction again, which was probably all due to the combination of man then living hundreds of years and also have a relatively quite easeful and comfortable life and readily abundant livelihood. But with man’s life being curtailed after the Flood and life becoming much more demanding, God presciently foresaw that He would not have such a need until the GC was ended, at the Second Coming. And also, so as not to have people do His will simply out of a fear of bringing about another Flood, He expressedly removed that threat of punishment, with the threat of the Second Coming destruction not being mentioned until the time of the New Covenant. The rainbow also served to remove this fear. (Cf. PP 106.1) So man, especially “Atheistic man” was again free of any external influence to freely choose to follow God or not, or else every rain fall would produce a spurious and insincere mass repentance around the earth.
Posted By: APL

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/30/11 07:28 AM

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
Originally Posted By: Tom
So the principle that all that we need to know of God, or can know of God, was revealed in the life and character of His Son during His earthly ministry is false.


Yes, Tom, that principle is false. It has come from the great book of "Tom Says," and not from an inspired source. Mrs. White never says what you say here, despite your tenacious ideas about what you think she has said.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.


False? Really?

Originally Posted By: EGW
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}


John 14:9 AKJV Jesus said to him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet have you not known me, Philip? he that has seen me has seen the Father; and how say you then, Show us the Father?
Posted By: APL

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/30/11 08:10 AM

Tom says, God does not use force.
EGW agrees...

Originally Posted By: EGW
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." Malachi 4:2. {DA 22.1}
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/30/11 08:31 AM

For God to use force to ‘lighten the gloomy shadows caused by Satan’s deceptive power so that the world might be brought back to Him’ is indeed contrary to His Government which is indeed based on actual “Love”. Indeed as EGW says: “This could not be done by force.” However, that God has used non-“natural” force of various adequate Earth’s elements, or even influence peoples, in order to bring about a certain, adjudged consequence for rebellious sin, -again not to compel anyone, but to execute this judgement, is copious attested throughout the Bible, both NT and OT, -with the Father, Son and through God’s Spirit.

Those two notion of Divine Force, with the first one not even being an ‘actuality’ (i.e., ‘something feasible’) should rightly, duly be kept distinct in this discussion, and not incorrectly conflated.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/30/11 09:21 AM

Originally Posted By: APL
False? Really?

Originally Posted By: EGW
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}


John 14:9 AKJV Jesus said to him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet have you not known me, Philip? he that has seen me has seen the Father; and how say you then, Show us the Father?

And who did Abraham see?

When did Jesus become "alive?" Did He truly live only 33 years?

You see, the subtle switch here is from the word "character" to "ministry," implying only those 3.5 years of Jesus' principal work while incarnate upon this earth. That is what invalidates the "inspiration" of Tom's statement, and which has no backing in Mrs. White's writings nor those of the Bible.

If you can find one single statement from Mrs. White where she says what Tom said, then I might adjust my own view on this matter. Until then, I am careful to understand what she expressly said, and not what someone else thinks she said or should have said instead.

God bless,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/30/11 09:23 AM

Originally Posted By: APL
Tom says, God does not use force.
EGW agrees...

Originally Posted By: EGW
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." Malachi 4:2. {DA 22.1}


Notice the context for this statement. It is in terms of "commanding." It is not in terms of what God may or may not choose to do in terms of actions against sinners who have passed the threshold of His patience.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/30/11 04:44 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK

I think it should be easy to readily, logically comprehend that adjudged capital judgement/punishment for their life of murder and violence was being executed. So no benefit for them was at all considered here.
You just spoke about wars, holocausts, bombings and say God just lets things happen, but now in the next breath you say capital punishment is needed?!

Quote:
Making man work harder to live also serves to limit the level and extent of sinfulness that they engage in when they have too much leisure time on their hand, and physically non-demanding work to do otherwise.
Would you say God made a mistake and now had to make people to work harder? How is that working out?

Quote:
God presciently foresaw that He would not have such a need until the GC was ended, at the Second Coming. And also, so as not to have people do His will simply out of a fear of bringing about another Flood, He expressedly removed that threat of punishment, with the threat of the Second Coming destruction not being mentioned until the time of the New Covenant.
Ummmm. Something's not making sense here.
Capital punishment needed. But don't want people to fear me. But yet want them to fear a greater punishment.
Huh?
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/30/11 04:46 PM

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa

Notice the context for this statement. It is in terms of "commanding." It is not in terms of what God may or may not choose to do in terms of actions against sinners who have passed the threshold of His patience.
Would you prefer, "coerced"?
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/30/11 05:18 PM

Quote:
He took old truths, of which he himself was the originator, and placed them before his hearers in heaven's own light. And how different was their representation! What a flood of meaning, and brightness, and spirituality was brought in by their explanation! {RH, July 12, 1898 par. 1}
Does this mean Jesus whitewashed the inconvenient truth? That is, did he present people killing each other as being just and therefore everyone received brightness and spirituality from that flood of meaning?

Quote:
Christ set forth deeper and more spiritual truths than had ever before been heard from rulers, scribes, or elders. "I am the way, the truth, and the life," he declared. The rich treasures of truth opened before the people attracted and charmed them. They were in marked contrast with the spiritless, lifeless expositions of the Old Testament Scriptures by the rabbis. And the miracles which Jesus wrought kept constantly before his hearers the honor and glory of God. He seemed to them a messenger direct from heaven; for he spoke not to their ears only, but to their hearts. As he stood forth in his humility, yet in dignity and majesty, as one born to command, a power attended him; hearts were melted into tenderness. An earnest desire was created to be in his presence, to listen to the voice of him who uttered truth with such solemn melody. {RH, July 12, 1898 par. 2}
Does this mean Jesus explained the killings of the Old Testament that they were right and just and that Jesus came to explain how that fit perfectly with God's character and the listeners then said, Wow, I am charmed and my heart melts into tenderness. I have an earnest desire to be next to you so I can hear how the killings were so just.

Quote:
Every miracle wrought by Christ convinced some of his true character. Had a man in the common walks of life done the same works that Christ did, all would have declared that he was working by the power of God. But there were those who did not receive the light of heaven, and they set themselves more determinedly against this evidence. {RH, July 12, 1898 par. 4}
Is healing the sick in some way supporting the killings, that is showing God's true character?

And were the rulers, scribes, and elders upset because Jesus justified the killings and explained how good they were by his works? Is that why they killed Him? In what way were the leaders disagreeing with how Jesus presented God's true character of the killings?
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/30/11 05:52 PM

Originally Posted By: kland
Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa

Notice the context for this statement. It is in terms of "commanding." It is not in terms of what God may or may not choose to do in terms of actions against sinners who have passed the threshold of His patience.
Would you prefer, "coerced"?

kland,

Do you call it "coerced" when a parent disciplines a child? Is it "coerced" when someone is sentenced to capital punishment?

We are all already thus sentenced, as sinners. We are not, however, "coerced," as we have the option of choosing to accept Christ's free offer of salvation. It is optional. That is the point. If we do not choose life, however, God will destroy us. The destruction, having been avoidable, cannot properly be called either "force" or "coercion."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: APL

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/30/11 06:12 PM

Green - The quote of EGW is life and character. What Tom said above is this:
Originally Posted By: Tom
So the principle that all that we need to know of God, or can know of God, was revealed in the life and character of His Son during His earthly ministry is false.
So I think you need to clarify what you mean by a subtle change of "character" to "ministry". Also, John 14:9 was speaking specifically of his life that Philip was seeing. My vote is still with how Tom has interpreted EGW's statement.



Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
Originally Posted By: APL
False? Really?

Originally Posted By: EGW
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}


John 14:9 AKJV Jesus said to him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet have you not known me, Philip? he that has seen me has seen the Father; and how say you then, Show us the Father?

And who did Abraham see?

When did Jesus become "alive?" Did He truly live only 33 years?

You see, the subtle switch here is from the word "character" to "ministry," implying only those 3.5 years of Jesus' principal work while incarnate upon this earth. That is what invalidates the "inspiration" of Tom's statement, and which has no backing in Mrs. White's writings nor those of the Bible.

If you can find one single statement from Mrs. White where she says what Tom said, then I might adjust my own view on this matter. Until then, I am careful to understand what she expressly said, and not what someone else thinks she said or should have said instead.

God bless,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: APL

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/30/11 06:31 PM

Originally Posted By: Green
Notice the context for this statement. It is in terms of "commanding." It is not in terms of what God may or may not choose to do in terms of actions against sinners who have passed the threshold of His patience.
So is the main problem with sin is that God runs out of patience, and then has to use force to execute judgment? Are the wages of sin execution by God, or does sin pay its wage? (Romans 6:23). Or is it when sin is full grown, you get executed, or when sin is full grown, it brings forth death? (James 1:15)
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/30/11 07:00 PM

Originally Posted By: APL
Green - The quote of EGW is life and character. What Tom said above is this:
Originally Posted By: Tom
So the principle that all that we need to know of God, or can know of God, was revealed in the life and character of His Son during His earthly ministry is false.
So I think you need to clarify what you mean by a subtle change of "character" to "ministry". Also, John 14:9 was speaking specifically of his life that Philip was seeing. My vote is still with how Tom has interpreted EGW's statement.

APL,

Sure, I will clarify that. In fact, the word "shift" is more suitable there. Basically, Tom has taken the quote which speaks of Jesus' "life" and "character" and applied those terms to His "earthly ministry." But Mrs. White did not use the term "earthly ministry" anywhere in connection with this statement.

Two points of clarification here:

1) Would Mrs. White have held the belief that Jesus only lived on this earth, never before? I do not believe so. Mrs. White speaks of Jesus just as the Bible does--the one who was the Creator and originator of all life. He was the Source of life. His "life," in fact, has meaning far beyond an earthly existence or ministry. "I am the way, the truth, and the life," He says. "He that hath the Son, hath life." To have Jesus is to have life everlasting. (See John 3:36.)

2. Is there anything about Jesus' character that was somehow new or different during His "earthly ministry?" If this were the case, how does one interpret Malachi 3:6? God's law is a reflection of His character. His law is unchanging, therefore His character must also be unchanging. His character must certainly have been the same during His "earthly ministry," as at the times when He walked with Abraham, wrestled with Jacob, and communed with Moses.

To transfer one's thoughts of Jesus' character to thoughts of His earthly ministry may seem benign, but in the transfer, a broader picture is given up. Something is lost. It was this shift or change of concept that I was trying to address in my earlier comments.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/30/11 07:06 PM

Originally Posted By: APL
Originally Posted By: Green
Notice the context for this statement. It is in terms of "commanding." It is not in terms of what God may or may not choose to do in terms of actions against sinners who have passed the threshold of His patience.
So is the main problem with sin is that God runs out of patience, and then has to use force to execute judgment? Are the wages of sin execution by God, or does sin pay its wage? (Romans 6:23). Or is it when sin is full grown, you get executed, or when sin is full grown, it brings forth death? (James 1:15)


Originally Posted By: The Bible
God is jealous, and the LORD revengeth; the LORD revengeth, and is furious; the LORD will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies. The LORD is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked: the LORD hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet. (Nahum 1:2-3)


Originally Posted By: Ellen White
The time is coming when in their fraud and insolence men will reach a point that the Lord will not permit them to pass and they will learn that there is a limit to the forbearance of Jehovah.--9T 13 (1909).

Time will last a little longer until the inhabitants of the earth have filled up the cup of their iniquity, and then the wrath of God, which has so long slumbered, will awake, and this land of light will drink the cup of His unmingled wrath.--1T 363 (1863).


I think those statements answer your question.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/30/11 07:58 PM


Being quite familiar with your position against capital punishment, kland, I am not surprise that you have seen completely red when you read it, and as a result, as customary, just don’t bother to think things through, but make “cute”, curt and knee-jerk, vacuous/mindless retorts. Notwithstanding the added expenditure of my time, simply for the record, I’ll (where applicable) do this basic/logical thinking for you:

Quote:
NJK:I think it should be easy to readily, logically comprehend that adjudged capital judgement/punishment for their life of murder and violence was being executed. So no benefit for them was at all considered here.

kland:You just spoke about wars, holocausts, bombings and say God just lets things happen, but now in the next breath you say capital punishment is needed?!


-I spoke of the death of up to ca. 25 million Russians in death. While it can be argued, though faintly, that Germany had a just war in their attempt to regain the (Germanic) lands that were removed from them from earlier wars, their, even deceptive/deal-breaking, attempt to invade and take over the land of Russia, and that because it had many of the various natural and mineral resources that they needed was a “war crime” as an “unjust war” and thus the resulting death of 25 million Russians (with ca. 14 million being civilians deaths) were themselves murderous acts by the Nazis.

-The Holocausts, just as an act against non-combatants and civilians, let alone its genocidal reasons was also a national and war crime.

-The Nuclear Bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, targeting civilian cities, whose “crime” was to have war manufacturing plants with civilians working there, was a (still unprosecuted) War Crime by the United States.

-Communist Leaders (e.g, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot) starving parts of their population and/or otherwise murdering them were crimes.

-The 1994 genoicide in Rwanda was a crime.

-The slaughter in Sudan and the Darfur Region was a crime.

-Legalized and/or committed 65,000,000+ million abortions per year are individual and national crimes.

Capital Punishment, by its inherent legal definition and deliberate judicial process is not, when rightly adjudged, a crime.

Also, God could have intervened to supernaturally stopped these, however, especially as there were quite feasible world powers that could have done this intervention, or should have refrained from their actions, but chose not to, God allowed this man-made disaster to occur indeed just like He allows many, if not most/all naturally forming disasters to occur.

I also Theologically understand that in this GC, God limits His supernatural interventions and the scope of them, so as not to give the Devil a justified opportunity to similarly, adversely intervene in the “natural” and freely chosen course life of man, and also of naturally developing nature.

Quote:
NJK: Making man work harder to live also serves to limit the level and extent of sinfulness that they engage in when they have too much leisure time on their hand, and physically non-demanding work to do otherwise.

kland:Would you say God made a mistake and now had to make people to work harder? How is that working out?


To answer your question: ‘No I would not say that’, and that is neither what I had said!
God created this mostly leisure full and painfree life, as it will be in Heaven, for people who would be and remain sinless. So he is not responsible when sinful man took this blessing and turned it into an opportunity to dive headlong into unrestraint evil pursuits! What’s so hard to see here?!?

Quote:
NJK: God presciently foresaw that He would not have such a need until the GC was ended, at the Second Coming. And also, so as not to have people do His will simply out of a fear of bringing about another Flood, He expressedly removed that threat of punishment, with the threat of the Second Coming destruction not being mentioned until the time of the New Covenant.

kland: Ummmm. Something's not making sense here.
Capital punishment needed. But don't want people to fear me. But yet want them to fear a greater punishment. Huh?


Yes. Indeed. When you are dealing with a person/people who do not care about the life of others and threaten to, or have gratuitously snuffed the lives of others out, then Capital Punishment, and when applicable in its War/Military form, is indeed needed, as prescribed by God (e.g., Gen 9:6, 7).

The fear of the Second Coming, as well as other “promised” judgements of God in the Bible is merely to mercifully serve as an beginning step for the sinner to seek to get acquainted with this God that he has not and cannot see. On the flip side, when judiciously manifested, it serves to justly right some key GC wrongs.
Posted By: APL

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/30/11 08:44 PM

Yes Green - the wrath of God - when their cup is full, they will receive the wrath of God. Which is what? See Romans 1. And Deuteronomy 31:17, 18. And Jeremiah 33:5. And 2 Chronicles 29:6, 8. And 2 Kings 17:17-20. And Isaiah 57:17. And 1 Kings 14:15, 16.

And read EGW in Signs of the Times where she specifically talks about Christ's ministry at His first Advent here: January 20, 1890 God Made Manifest in Christ.

Again - Tom's statements are up-healed. No there is nothing new about God's character. But to this point is had been mis-interpreted. Read the whole article.
Originally Posted By: EGW ST Jan 20, 1890
Oh, that men might open their minds to know God as he is revealed in his Son!
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/30/11 09:33 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
T: Not everything that happens is for a purpose. There's a reason God has made the decisions that He has made, choosing to allow certain things to happen (like the Holocaust, for example) but this does not mean that God *purposed* for these things to happen. God's allowing certain things to happen, and purposing that they happen are very different things.

M: What were Jesus' options in cases like the Holocaust?

T: That's a pretty tall order for me, isn't it? That is, you're asking me to enumerate the options of divinity? I don't think I'm qualified to do that.

1. What factors does God weigh when choosing to allow things to play out the way they do?

2. Is God free to allow or disallow things like N&A being burned alive and the two bands of fifty being burned alive?

3. Or, are His hands tied?

4. Is Satan free to do as he pleases without limits?

5. Did Jesus, while here in the flesh (as opposed to after He returned to heaven), choose to allow things like ungodly people being burned alive?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/30/11 09:55 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
M: Tom, in response to the following two questions, here's what I remember what you've said thus far.

1. In the OT, why did Jesus command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle?

M: The reason you believe Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in battle is because 1) the Jews failed to trust Jesus to defeat their enemies in a godly way, and 2) the Jews expected Him to think and behave like a pagan god.

T: I think an issue being discussed, which kland also chimed on, was the question of what God's expectations were. For example, God said he was going to destroy Israel, and found a new country, with Moses as its father. Moses argued with God and prevailed.

Why did God give in to Moses? Ellen wrote:

Quote:
As Moses interceded for Israel, his timidity was lost in his deep interest and love for those for whom he had, in the hands of God, been the means of doing so much. The Lord listened to his pleadings, and granted his unselfish prayer. God had proved His servant; He had tested his faithfulness and his love for that erring, ungrateful people, and nobly had Moses endured the trial. His interest in Israel sprang from no selfish motive. The prosperity of God's chosen people was dearer to him than personal honor, dearer than the privilege of becoming the father of a mighty nation. God was pleased with his faithfulness, his simplicity of heart, and his integrity, and He committed to him, as a faithful shepherd, the great charge of leading Israel to the Promised Land. {PP 319.2}

This doesn't sound to me as though Moses failed the test or that God truly wanted to start over with Moses and his descendants.

Quote:
2. In the OT, why did Jesus command godly people to kill ungodly people through the execution of capital punishment?

M: The reason you believe Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people through the execution of capital punishment is because 1) the Jews failed to trust Jesus to punish them in a godly way, and 2) the Jews expected Him to behave like a pagan god.

T: The point made above comes to play, I think. Was God displeased when Moses argued with Him when He said He was going to create a new nation with Moses as its father? A point I've been making all along is that to understand incidents like this, we need to understand God's character. I've given the example of the hunter/father. In that example, the father's character was such that he was against hunting. That's fundamental to understanding the example. Is it fair to say that God is against killing? (like the father in the story was against hunting). Is it possible to understand God's actions in a similar way to how the father's actions could be understood in the story?

Do you agree with my summary of your view?

It sounds as though you are saying Moses forced God into a position of commanding godly people to kill ungodly in battle and though the execution of capital punishment.

Was Jesus, while here in the flesh (as opposed to after He returned to heaven), forced to command godly people to kill ungodly in battle or through capital punishment?

Quote:
Exodus
22:20 He that sacrificeth unto [any] god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

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.

Deuteronomy
2:34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:
20:17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; [namely], the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:

Joshua
10:40 So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded.

You believe Jesus was willing to think and behave like a pagan god in order to gain the trust and respect of the Jews long enough to wean them off such ungodly expectations.

Do you believe anything else about it?
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/30/11 10:39 PM

Originally Posted By: kland
Quote:
He took old truths, of which he himself was the originator, and placed them before his hearers in heaven's own light. And how different was their representation! What a flood of meaning, and brightness, and spirituality was brought in by their explanation! {RH, July 12, 1898 par. 1}
Does this mean Jesus whitewashed the inconvenient truth? That is, did he present people killing each other as being just and therefore everyone received brightness and spirituality from that flood of meaning?

Quote:
Christ set forth deeper and more spiritual truths than had ever before been heard from rulers, scribes, or elders. "I am the way, the truth, and the life," he declared. The rich treasures of truth opened before the people attracted and charmed them. They were in marked contrast with the spiritless, lifeless expositions of the Old Testament Scriptures by the rabbis. And the miracles which Jesus wrought kept constantly before his hearers the honor and glory of God. He seemed to them a messenger direct from heaven; for he spoke not to their ears only, but to their hearts. As he stood forth in his humility, yet in dignity and majesty, as one born to command, a power attended him; hearts were melted into tenderness. An earnest desire was created to be in his presence, to listen to the voice of him who uttered truth with such solemn melody. {RH, July 12, 1898 par. 2}
Does this mean Jesus explained the killings of the Old Testament that they were right and just and that Jesus came to explain how that fit perfectly with God's character and the listeners then said, Wow, I am charmed and my heart melts into tenderness. I have an earnest desire to be next to you so I can hear how the killings were so just.

Quote:
Every miracle wrought by Christ convinced some of his true character. Had a man in the common walks of life done the same works that Christ did, all would have declared that he was working by the power of God. But there were those who did not receive the light of heaven, and they set themselves more determinedly against this evidence. {RH, July 12, 1898 par. 4}
Is healing the sick in some way supporting the killings, that is showing God's true character?

And were the rulers, scribes, and elders upset because Jesus justified the killings and explained how good they were by his works? Is that why they killed Him? In what way were the leaders disagreeing with how Jesus presented God's true character of the killings?


It’s quite telling to me that in none of the SOP examples you have cited is “killing” ever addressed. You have to injected that notion in these passages. As I have stated before, Jesus had a chance to completely do away with Capital Punishment in the episode of the woman caught in adultery, however He rather told the men to indeed execute this punishment, however only if they themselves were (currently(?)) without sin.

So it seems to me that Jesus did not do away with the Capital Punishment instruction in the OT, but as He did with all other laws, elevated it to the righteous level that it should be on and that was that, those who were guilty of similar and other capital sins, or even lesser, but cherished sins, were in no position to effectuate this judgement. Hypocritically doings so had never been part of God’s will.

In the distinct case of murder, most people can truthfully say that they are without that sin, and as stated in Gen 9:6, 7 that is probably the most basic justification for Capital Punishment. Still Jesus’ honoring of the law shows that if someone is harboring hatred in their heart, they are equivalently guilty of murder. So they would be unfit to carry out that punishment. That similarly is a major reason why most people today remain on death row for years, even decades before being executed and why this is increasingly done as humanely as possible. So that no element of revenge, spitefulness and injustice will be added to this judicial process. Interestingly enough, people were stoned to death in God’s Israel apparently so that not a it could justly be a collective judgement (i.e., expressing the disapproval of the Israel society as a whole and not only one person) and thus also so that not a single person would unduly be ‘blamed”/feel guilty for having caused the death of that guilty and deservingly executed person.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/30/11 11:01 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountan Man
This doesn't sound to me as though Moses failed the test or that God truly wanted to start over with Moses and his descendants.


I rather see it, as EGW states in PP 318.1 that this was going to be an act out of Justice by God, however He mercifully was seeking for an excuse not to “justly” do so. So He was hoping that Moses might be found, and that worthy, to avert the execution of that just judgement, and so proceeded to candidly test him. If Moses had any trace of selfishness in him, not only would Israel would have been destroyed because no intercessor would have been found for them, but maybe also Moses. However Moses sincerely prevail, indeed, as EGW states in PP 318.3 quibbling for anything in God’s pronouncement that he could use as an entrance to plead for an overturning of Judgement.

It also seems to me that despite that worthy intercession of Moses, God still had to option to execute the judgement and start over with Moses as He had said, but now He truly had two options to choose from, and out of mercy, opted for the merciful, and actually, though respectfully, well-put, plea (Exod 32:13, 14) of Moses.

So I see that God, though quite sadly, did intend to execute that judgement, but was also hoping for someone to worthily intercede for Israel. (cf. Jer 5:1; Ezek 22:30, 31; Isa 59:16a) The same issues transpired in the redemption of man. So it seems that God, even in the face of due justice, still seeks as a final option for at least one worthy person to “stand in the gap.”
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/30/11 11:22 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
And also, so as not to have people do His will simply out of a fear of bringing about another Flood, He expressedly removed that threat of punishment, with the threat of the Second Coming destruction not being mentioned until the time of the New Covenant. The rainbow also served to remove this fear. (Cf. PP 106.1) So man, especially “Atheistic man” was again free of any external influence to freely choose to follow God or not, or else every rain fall would produce a spurious and insincere mass repentance around the earth.

It must be also, clarifyingly added that the “threat” of a Flood is much greater than the, indeed “threat” of the future Second Coming destruction, because the Flood already occurred, and thus could be used as a reference point by most. The Second Coming, and other future “judgement threats/warnings” (e.g., Rev 14:9-11 cf. GC 627.3-628.2) on the other hand is still wholly in the realm of faith. As such it is not a compelling force or threat.

Perhaps the ‘Flood judgement’ would have been understood as a “threat” (if it had been allowed to be perceived as such - i.e., without the Rainbow Covenant Promise), due to its concrete, prior demonstration, while the Second Coming and other judgements are “lesserly” in the realm of “warnings” as they are not tangibly made to be known to be ‘clear and present.’ So God is not using any compellation in either past/present or future case.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/31/11 05:33 PM

Originally Posted By: GC
And who did Abraham see?

When did Jesus become "alive?" Did He truly live only 33 years?

You see, the subtle switch here is from the word "character" to "ministry," implying only those 3.5 years of Jesus' principal work while incarnate upon this earth. That is what invalidates the "inspiration" of Tom's statement, and which has no backing in Mrs. White's writings nor those of the Bible.

If you can find one single statement from Mrs. White where she says what Tom said, then I might adjust my own view on this matter.


The statement was quoted for you. If you'll read the statement in it's context, you'll see its specifically speaking of Jesus Christ's ministry here on earth.

Also, if you want a more detailed explanation, the Signs of the Times article "God Made Manifest in Christ" discusses the "whole purpose" of Christ's earthly mission in detail:

http://www.msc1888.org/egw/godmademanifestinchrist.htm

Quote:
Until then, I am careful to understand what she expressly said, and not what someone else thinks she said or should have said instead.


Consider the context, and the idea being presented from the perspective of the point she was wishing to make.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/31/11 06:48 PM

Quote:
APL:Sure, I will clarify that. In fact, the word "shift" is more suitable there. Basically, Tom has taken the quote which speaks of Jesus' "life" and "character" and applied those terms to His "earthly ministry." But Mrs. White did not use the term "earthly ministry" anywhere in connection with this statement.


Here's the statement in context:

Quote:
All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son. {8T 286.1}
Testimonies for the Church Volume 8, p. 286.2 (EGW)
“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. {8T 286.2}
Testimonies for the Church Volume 8, p. 286.3 (EGW)
Taking humanity upon Him, Christ came to be one with humanity and at the same time to reveal our heavenly Father to sinful human beings. He was in all things made like unto His brethren. He became flesh, even as we are. He was hungry and thirsty and weary. He was sustained by food and refreshed by sleep. He shared the lot of men, and yet He was the blameless Son of God. He was a stranger and sojourner on the earth—in the world, but not of the world; tempted and tried as men and women today are tempted and tried, yet living a life free from sin. {8T 286.3}
Testimonies for the Church Volume 8, p. 286.4 (EGW)
Tender, compassionate, sympathetic, ever considerate of others, He represented the character of God, and was constantly engaged in service for God and man. {8T 286.4}
Testimonies for the Church Volume 8, p. 286.5 (EGW)
“The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, ...full of grace and truth.” Verse 14. {8T 286.5}
Testimonies for the Church Volume 8, p. 286.6 (EGW)
“Unto the men whom Thou gavest Me out of the world,” He said, “I manifested Thy name,” “that the love wherewith Thou hast loved Me may be in them.” John 17:6, A. R. V., 26. {8T 286.6}
Testimonies for the Church Volume 8, p. 286.7 (EGW)
“Love your enemies,” He bade them; “bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven;” “for He is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.” “He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” “Be ye therefore merciful, as 287your Father also is merciful.” Matthew 5:44, 45; Luke 6:35, 36. {8T 286.7}


So it is clear that this is dealing with Jesus Christ during His earthly mission. By the way, to be clear, I never limited Christ's earthly mission to 3.5 years, nor do I think in these terms.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/31/11 07:14 PM

In case this it may be the subconscious, underlying case, as expressed to some degree by some in this discussion, I would warn against a popular “Evangelical”, knee-jerk, OT-disparaging view that the God of the OT was violent, spiteful, vengeful, made ‘character mistakes,’ was not loving, etc. but Jesus was somehow a different and “better” God, or at least, a better demonstration/example of God. Many tangible factors leading to that false and dichotomic conclusion are obliviously and/or indifferently, summarily taken out of popular “Evangelical” tenet. And that chiefly is, among other factors, that in the OT, God was dealing with a national Israel, that was facing an ever present, imminent physical threat from surrounding nations. However for God to be able to defend them, even, as it would mostly require, given Israel’s tangible, natural limitations: supernaturally, -especially open and high-handed sin could not be tolerated in their midst. And so it had to be completely and wholly eradicated whenever it manifested itself. Also God tangibly lived in their midst in the Most Holy Place; and Israel also had abundant demonstrations of God’s power through mighty miracles. So they, compared to NT Believers, were living much more by sight than by faith, and as such, God’s tolerance of waywardness and sin was relatively considerably lower.

Nonetheless, in the NT, the episode of Annanias and Sapphira shows, at least to me, that whenever the clear revelation of God is more tangibly made manifest, this same low tolerance for waywardness and rebellion will naturally and inevitably be revived. So I see this all as God being proportionately fair in His dealing with His professed people corresponding to the level of revelation, including its tangibleness that they have received. So in summary the closer God physically get’s to His People the higher will be the expected level of holiness.

Also, I do not see that, as Jesus also said in Matt 5:17-19, that He abolished any aspect of the OT Law given to God’s Israel, spiritually covering various aspects of Believers lives, except for the ceremonial laws which were types of Christ’s Atoning sacrifice. It seems to me that this is the common SDA argument when trying to show that dietary laws from the OT are still bindng today!

Also, in many ways, we still observe many, if not all of the various other types of OT Laws, particularly civil ones, however, we (i.e., Christian Believers) have “abdicated” the authority to establish these laws to democratic civil powers, (e.g., in Judeo-Christian societies) rather than go straight to what God had wisely and perfectly said. So it is not surprising that many of these OT Civil laws, if emulated in our civil societies are found in a watered down form.

So all this to say that, the God of the OT, which most tangibly was Jesus, is not in any way, including character wise, than the Revelation that was demonstrated by Jesus. And since Jesus did indeed do only what He saw the Father had done (i.e., in OT dealings) than they are not at all different. As I stated before, Jesus works of reform in the Law and social dealings was to elevate the level of righteousness when applying these laws and close the spiritual “loopholes” that the Israelites in His day, particularly the leaders had basely created.

As I also said, I see that Jesus, as it was appropriately necessary, also emulated the “ministration of judgement” (which includes “Divine wrath”) during His ministry. (Matt 23 readily comes to mind). The same principle held true here: ‘Abundant revelation first, as it was actually necessary for especially these educated and knowledgeable leaders, and then, if opposition and objection indifferently persists, then these judgements and wrath.’
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/31/11 09:10 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Originally Posted By: Mountan Man
This doesn't sound to me as though Moses failed the test or that God truly wanted to start over with Moses and his descendants.

I rather see it, as EGW states in PP 318.1 that this was going to be an act out of Justice by God, however He mercifully was seeking for an excuse not to “justly” do so. So He was hoping that Moses might be found, and that worthy, to avert the execution of that just judgement, and so proceeded to candidly test him. If Moses had any trace of selfishness in him, not only would Israel would have been destroyed because no intercessor would have been found for them, but maybe also Moses. However Moses sincerely prevail, indeed, as EGW states in PP 318.3 quibbling for anything in God’s pronouncement that he could use as an entrance to plead for an overturning of Judgement.

It also seems to me that despite that worthy intercession of Moses, God still had to option to execute the judgement and start over with Moses as He had said, but now He truly had two options to choose from, and out of mercy, opted for the merciful, and actually, though respectfully, well-put, plea (Exod 32:13, 14) of Moses.

So I see that God, though quite sadly, did intend to execute that judgement, but was also hoping for someone to worthily intercede for Israel. (cf. Jer 5:1; Ezek 22:30, 31; Isa 59:16a) The same issues transpired in the redemption of man. So it seems that God, even in the face of due justice, still seeks as a final option for at least one worthy person to “stand in the gap.”

There's more to it than what i quoted above. Listen:

Quote:
"Let Me alone, . . . that I may consume them," were the words of God. If God had purposed to destroy Israel, who could plead for them? How few but would have left the sinners to their fate! How few but would have gladly exchanged a lot of toil and burden and sacrifice, repaid with ingratitude and murmuring, for a position of ease and honor, when it was God Himself that offered the release. {PP 318.2}

But Moses discerned ground for hope where there appeared only discouragement and wrath. The words of God, "Let Me alone," he understood not to forbid but to encourage intercession, implying that nothing but the prayers of Moses could save Israel, but that if thus entreated, God would spare His people. He "besought the Lord his God, and said, Lord, why doth Thy wrath wax hot against Thy people, which Thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand?" {PP 318.3}

Moses believed God wanted him to intercede on behalf of Israel. He knew God wasn't serious about wanting to destroy Israel.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/31/11 11:13 PM

I had read that wider SOP context. It was clear to me that Moses did not see that “God was not serious” but merely that God had deliberately left a way of averting His judgement. And the humble and unselfish Moses took advantage of that opportunity. EGW’s statements of: “discerned ground for hope”; “not to forbid but to encourage”, “if thus entreated, God would spare His people.” Otherwise, as shown in the other verse I referenced, if no one was found to intercede here, God would have carried out that judgement. (cf. e.g., Jer 5:1; Ezek 22:30, 31). So God was indeed most serious here, but also merciful, indeed, of His own initiative (= Isa 59:16), working to orchestrate this chance for Israel to come to have this crucially needed, intercessor from amongst them, and that through an honest and candid act of Moses, hence the utilized veiledness here. Indeed, as “implied” by God, “nothing but. the prayers of Moses could save Israel.”

It further seems to me, as done by Jesus in Matt 13:10-17 = Isa 6:9-13, God indeed did not prominently want to forgive Israel, but indeed bring about their destruction, (though not without an opportunity for mercy) hence the veiling of this way of escape for them, even likely to fail, given its playing upon the natural preferences of Man. As EGW puts its: “How few but would have gladly exchanged a lot of toil and burden and sacrifice, repaid with ingratitude and murmuring, for a position of ease and honor, when it was God Himself that offered the release.” God indeed could have used a much more open, straightforward and even commanding method as He would later do with Ezekiel, when He outrightly wanted to forgive the sins of Israel and Judah in order to effectuate their restoration (and thus carry out, without added delay, His GC redemptive plans). (Ezek 4:4-6 = 36:22-38; 33:21-23ff).

Notice also when this ‘entire destruction’ episode comes up again in Num 14:11, 12. God here does not himself provide such a pleading opening. Perhaps Moses should have known by now to do so. However, Moses could easily have used this as an excuse not to, as before, do so. So here also, God was leaning much more towards this deserving destruction judgement, (as a faithless people is really, completely useless to Him (as Moses knew firsthand (Exod 4:24-26 - PP 255, 256)), than towards forgiveness. Indeed as seen then, destruction did come, though mercifully limited and drawn out. (cf. PP 391.1)
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 03/31/11 11:31 PM

War crimes. Could you explain how war is not a crime? Have there been any such wars?

The purpose of war is to kill people. Or to get our way and killing people is a casualty. But yet, we say it isn't right to target the main perpetrator of the war, but we will kill many of his people, and destroy much property. As is relevant most recently.


Originally Posted By: NJK Project
So he is not responsible when sinful man took this blessing and turned it into an opportunity to dive headlong into unrestraint evil pursuits! What’s so hard to see here?!?
But you said he was the one who flooded the earth which would not happen other than the direct act on His part. That sounds responsible to me and more so than just allowing it to happen based upon man's choices. Neither does it answer why the eight had to suffer.

Originally Posted By: NJK Project

It’s quite telling to me that in none of the SOP examples you have cited is “killing” ever addressed.
But God's character is addressed and you say God's character include killing.

Quote:

You have to injected that notion in these passages.
Actually, I was pointing out it doesn't fit.

Quote:
As I have stated before, Jesus had a chance to completely do away with Capital Punishment in the episode of the woman caught in adultery, however He rather told the men to indeed execute this punishment, however only if they themselves were (currently(?)) without sin.
Could you give evidence that that's what He intended?

And what's this about righteous level? Do you say the past killings you speak of were not righteous, but now anyone without sin can kill? Why was it permitted in the past when the ones doing it had sin and revenge, spitefulness and injustice? Why can't in now be a "collective judgement"?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/01/11 12:57 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
As a contextually accurate understanding of the DA “It is Finished” chapter (79) is key to this discussion, I have now taken the time to do a complete analysis and commentary on it to see what it is precisely saying. Here goes:

-From here it is introductorily, and thus not in full details, chiefly stated that ‘what was “victoriously finished’ at the Cross was the “great work of redemption. (Thus no notion here of ‘a understood knowledge that sin results in death.’)


This is an odd comment. She didn't discuss the aspect of death being the inevitable result of sin until the last two pages. Why comment on this here?

The point I made was that the whole chapter deals with what was accomplished at the cross. As you note, it starts right at the beginning of the chapter.

Quote:
-It also was: “the character of Satan”, his previously deceptively concealed “principles” and “the nature of his rebellion” that were “clearly revealed to the angels or to the unfallen worlds”.

[{758.4}-{759.1}]


Reading the whole chapter, one sees that for the angels there's more of an emphasis on Satan's character, whereas for man, there's more of an emphasis on God's character. This makes sense, given their respective abodes.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: SOP DA 759.2

-‘Satan was given time to develop the principles which were the foundation of his system of government in order “to place things [i.e. the resolution of the issues brought forth in this GC] on an eternal basis of security”.’

-During this time the Heavenly Universe watched these “working of Satan's principles”.


There was a need for the working out of the principles of both governments, as well as the character of both protagonists, to be revealed. The parable of the wheat and the tares is a good example of this. The revelation of each protagonist reveals the other.


Quote:
Originally Posted By: SOP DA 759.3
-During that time of 4000 years (i.e., ca. Creation to the Cross), the heavenly universe were beholding the ruin and degradation being done by Satan. Surely they would see and understand here that Satan sin and government involved suffering and death. Yet for some reason they were still “sympathetic” to His cause.


They could see that there death involved, but the cause wasn't clear. We need to remember that Satan was blaming God for everything, and camouflaging what he was doing. It became clear to the angels who was responsible for what, but many non-angels still confuse the two protagonists, which is why the Great Controversy continues.

Quote:
Perhaps they were also thinking that they should be free to choose this course of life if they wanted to. Thus the option of obeying God’s Law or not, and suffering the consequences if one so chooses, should indeed be a free and also, not God condemned act for free moral agents.


One doesn't choose to suffer the consequences of God's law or not. It's not an arbitrary law.

Quote:
[{759.4}-{761.1}] - At Christ’s First Advent, Satan now focused his efforts to destroyed Him from His birth and that reached a climax in the frenzied efforts that took place at the Cross. It is then and there that Satan betrayed himself. His true/actual “character”, “principles” and “the nature of his rebellion” were all fully exposed for what they were:

Originally Posted By: SOP DA 761.2
Satan saw that his disguise was torn away. His administration was laid open before the unfallen angels and before the heavenly universe. He had revealed himself as a murderer. By shedding the blood of the Son of God, he had uprooted himself from the sympathies of the heavenly beings. Henceforth his work was restricted. Whatever attitude he might assume, he could no longer await the angels as they came from the heavenly courts, and before them accuse Christ's brethren of being clothed with the garments of blackness and the defilement of sin. The last link of sympathy between Satan and the heavenly world was broken. {DA 761.2}


-It is striking to me, as it will be seen in the next section, that the angels made a somewhat arbitrary decision here to no longer be sympathetic to Satan as they still did not even then fully understand the issue involved in the GC which would only be further revealed in the 2000+ years that remained in the GC.


It wasn't arbitrary at all! The whole point here is that it wasn't arbitrary. It was a non-arbitrary decision based on evidence.

You left out the preceding statement, which helps to understand the part you were commenting on:

Quote:
Christ bowed His head and died, but He held fast His faith and His submission to God. "And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night." Rev. 12:10.


There was a war in heaven, which is a war of ideas. Satan was not "cast down" by force, but by evidence. Satan's influence was curtailed because his disguise was torn away. This is how he was "cast down."

Quote:
So it is apparently simply out of allegiance to Jesus, who Satan here wanted to murder, that they decided to from then on completely shut Satan out. Yet the GC issues were still not fully resolved in their minds then.


It wasn't simply out of allegiance, but based on evidence. It was completely clear to them who was lying and who was telling the truth at that point.

Quote:
-If ‘death was then (i.e., at the Cross) “finally” understood to be the inevitable result of sin,’ as you claim Tom, then it seems to me that Satan could and should have been destroyed then, rather than simply be shut out of Heaven.


That would be good logic if death being the inevitable result of sin was the only thing the Great Controversy entails.

Quote:
However the actual issue here was that: “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.”


The actual issue as compared to what? I suppose you mean as opposed to death being the inevitable result of sin, but these aren't two different things which are being contrasted, so your point here doesn't make sense.

The Great Controversy encompasses many things, all under the umbrella of who is telling the truth in regards to God's character and the principles of His government. That death is the inevitable result of sin is one aspect of the Great Controversy.

Quote:
The issues involved in the free choice to serve God or Satan still needed to be ‘further “deliberated”’ and eventually resolved.


As pertains to the holy angels and unfallen worlds, these have been secured.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: SOP DA 761.4
In the opening of the great controversy, Satan had declared that the law of God could not be obeyed, that justice was inconsistent with mercy, and that, should the law be broken, it would be impossible for the sinner to be pardoned. Every sin must meet its punishment, urged Satan; and if God should remit the punishment of sin, He would not be a God of truth and justice. When men broke the law of God, and defied His will, Satan exulted. It was proved, he declared, that the law could not be obeyed; man could not be forgiven. Because he, after his rebellion, had been banished from heaven, Satan claimed that the human race must be forever shut out from God's favor. God could not be just, he urged, and yet show mercy to the sinner. {DA 761.4}


-Here EGW restates the foundational issues involved in this GC which were actually resolved at the Cross. See also [{761.5}-{762.3}]


This is more of a parenthetical statement. Contrast how much time she spends on this as opposed to what happened to Christ on the cross viz a viz Satan's actions.

Quote:
{762.5b}-{763.3} - EGW’s elaboration on these Final Conflict Implications.

Originally Posted By: SOP DA 763.4
Then the end will come[i.e., the end of time (6000+ years) and not the Cross (4000 years)]. God will vindicate His law and deliver His people. Satan and all who have joined him in rebellion will be cut off. Sin and sinners will perish, root and branch, (Malachi 4:1),--Satan the root, and his followers the branches. The word will be fulfilled to the prince of evil, "Because thou hast set thine heart as the heart of God; . . . I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. . . . Thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more." Then "the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be;" "they shall be as though they had not been." Ezekiel 28:6-19; Psalm 37:10; Obadiah 16. {DA 763.4}


-It is this (end time) destruction of Satan that will then indeed not be construed as an arbitrary act of God as all of the self-actuating evidence will be in by then. That was not possible at the begin of the GC so that destruction act would have been misunderstood as arbitrary.


It would have been misunderstood as arbitrary because Jesus Christ had not died on the cross.

Quote:
I.e. there was no evidence that Satan’s sin was deserving of death, indeed this natural, self-combusting death.


If it's self-combusing, then it's not something which is deserved. So there's no question of its being deserved.

The problem would not have been whether or not Satan deserved to die, but *why* he died. That's where the confusion would have been.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: SOP DA 764.1
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." Ephesians 4:18; Proverbs 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. {DA 764.1}


-Time is given for opposers of God’s Law to “ develop their character and reveal their principles” and not to learn that sin results in death.


The angels were the ones who learned that sin resulted in death. Your confusing two different groups here; holy angels and wicked rebels. The wicked rebels were given time to develop their principles. The holy angels were the ones who needed to see that the inevitable result of sin is death. This was so when God permitted the wicked to reap the full result of their sin, their death would not be misunderstood.

Quote:
When this is accomplished, indeed by the faultiness of their own, now fully developed course, which now, as such, indeed ‘itself brings death’ (James 1:15), “they receive the results of their own choice”. Can’t better restate/explain EGW’s statement that it is: “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. ” So it seems clear to me here that it is a most advanced level of sin that comes to be “self-combustible material in the presence of God’s presence, and not, as commonly assumed, ‘just a trace presence of sin.’ That would explain many instances in the Bible and SOP where sinful people were not immediately consumed by just being in the presence of God (e.g., as previously discussed, Satan in the Job episode).


Sin is not "material" at all, let alone "self-combustible material." Sin is in the mind. It involves thoughts, decisions and actions one undertakes.

Quote:
-Seeing the face of God on the other hand, which is distinct from His presence, and which also symbolically implicates “fully understanding”/discerning God, evidently instantly results in that immediate destruction. (Exod 33:20-22).


This is because of what's happening in the mind. "Understanding," "Discerning God," are indications of this.

Quote:
-I however do not see in the Bible that even the wicked at the end will be self-combustibly destroyed just by the presence of God. This further, and in this context here, says to me that though they will have unforgiven sins on their ledger, they may not have reached this “self-combustible” level. That is why they will have to variously be “forcefully” destroyed in the end by being actively thrown into the Lake of Fire vs. merely being destroyed by the glory of God, even before the Second Death judgement, at the pre-millennium appearing of Christ.


If they're destroyed by the glory of God (which is His character), they obviously cannot subsequently be destroyed by physically being cast into a lake of fire. Their destruction by the glory of Him who is love *is* their act of being destroyed by being cast into the lake of fire. Note she says, in the sentence immediately preceding, that the wicked develop characters so out of harmony with God's character that His very presence is to them a consuming fire.

Once we understand this is not a physical issue, but a spiritual one (i.e., involves the mind, acts/thoughts/decisions -- that's what sin is), then everything fits together.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: SOP DA 764.2
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 764.2}

So then what would the angels did not have understood had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin (i.e., the “inevitable” consuming destruction merely at God’s glory) at the beginning of the great controversy??


What she was explaining when she said this is what they would not have understood.

Quote:
That this, effectively pre-emptively accelerated judgement on Satan for his suggested contra-Law ways, was deserved.


Sir, there's not one mention of "deserved," nor any synonym, anywhere to be seen either in this paragraph or in any nearby one. This wasn't the issue being discussed.

Quote:
So he had to be given time to himself develop this sin to its fulness and thus, of himself bring about this then inevitable result. Hence this 6000+ year GC. For as seen in the next paragraph, the 4000 years leading up to the Cross were not even sufficient to make this “inevitable result” self-evident.

Originally Posted By: SOP DA 764.3
But not so when the great controversy shall be ended. Then, the plan of redemption having been completed, the character of God is revealed to all created intelligences. The precepts of His law are seen to be perfect and immutable. Then sin has made manifest its nature, Satan his character. Then the extermination of sin will vindicate God's love and establish His honor before a universe of beings who delight to do His will, and in whose heart is His law. {DA 764.3}


It is the “plan of redemption” that needs to be “completed” to self-reveal the true nature of sin.


She wrote, "the character of God is revealed to all created intelligences." This cannot happen until the final judgment, because the character of God is not revealed to all created intelligences until then.

Quote:
Not merely that sin (i.e., living outside of God’s Laws) results in death, as it can easily be seen, but that God’s destruction of sin and sinner is fully justified because their suggested course has no just, true nor redemptive qualities. So it was the immediate ending of a sinful course and the death of the sinner that were to be proven to not be an arbitrary act and this act was that sin, in its fullness would indeed itself result in this self-combusting end. If God had done this earlier in the GC instead of at the very end of it as stated here by EGW, it would have to be a forced act in the light of the not yet fully developed sin (=James 1:15) and not the natural one that it will be when this sin is indeed fully developed as allowed in the GC.

-However, and seriously, I still would need to see where this self-combustible destruction is said/envisioned to actually occur in the Bible or GC. It seems to me that much more time than what is found in a ca. 6000 year GC would be necessary to achieve this ‘critical mass’ stage.


Sin impacts the mind. It causes the sinner to believe things about God which is not true. This is why the sinner cannot bear to be in God's presence. What happens here wasn't seen or understood by onlooking holy angels or unfallen worlds until the cross. That's why all these comments are in the context of the chapter "It is Finished."

Quote:
Also combined with the complete withdrawal of God’s restraining influence. So it very well may be that sinners will have to be actively destroyed in the end by God (vs. passively, merely by His glorious presence),because of a still not yet full matured level of sin.


This isn't the issue. She explains that the wicked are given time to fully develop, and that they develop characters so out of harmony that the very presence of God is to them a consuming fire, that the glory of Him who is love will destroy them. This makes clear what causes their destruction. There's no mention of "critical mass" or any similar idea.

Also that God's action is passive is made clear by the statement that had God "left" Satan and his follower to "reap the full result of their sin" they would have perished.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/01/11 01:37 AM

kland, I’ll give you a partial benefit of the doubt here that you are being sincere, and not mischievously quibbling here, and that it is a sincere (though I believe, actually irrational) opposition to any killing that is preventing you to “see any light” here. However that other part of me that can comprehend this incomprehension here will only allow me to make, as succinct as possible, summary indicative answers. I.e., you can think the Theological/Spiritual/Logical/Legal/Rational underlying reasons through, if you actually want to.

Originally Posted By: kland
War crimes. Could you explain how war is not a crime? Have there been any such wars?


Defensive self-defense of corresponding force in any form is not a crime. Thus the God-ordained wars of Israel in the Bible were not crimes, GC context and issues included.
And in secularly speaking, e.g, the Allies effort in WWII to rid the world of the Nazi Regime and its lesser evil Axis Allies was not a criminal act.

Originally Posted By: kland
The purpose of war is to kill people. Or to get our way and killing people is a casualty. But yet, we say it isn't right to target the main perpetrator of the war, but we will kill many of his people, and destroy much property.


That is what is done by those who start an unjust war. And really, unless God Himself tells you to, attacking another country for no “clear and present” danger reason, and/or using excessive force is a crime, indeed as stated in International Conventions. So I am clearly not saying that all/any war is acceptable.

Originally Posted By: kland
As is relevant most recently.


Especially in our technologically advanced day and age of various, smart/guided/precision ordnance, I am against using the claim of “collateral damage” as an excuse to killing non-combatants/civilian. The recent, relatively-just, UN intervention in Libya started of as such with ca. 65 civilian deaths on the first day from these the UN forces hands, however I have heard of news reports, (from, proudly, participating Canadian forces) that a destruction mission was aborted because of the risk of civilian casualties. (Pertinently to this discussion, it was Canada who came up with the concept of UN peace keeping mission (the “blue helmets”) during the Suez Canal Crisis to prevent the outbreak of war or instill and/or assure a cease fire so that peaceful resolutions can be (fairly) pursued instead.

Quote:
NJK: So he is not responsible when sinful man took this blessing and turned it into an opportunity to dive headlong into unrestraint evil pursuits!

kland: But you said he was the one who flooded the earth which would not happen other than the direct act on His part. That sounds responsible to me and more so than just allowing it to happen based upon man's choices.


That is what fallen/sinful man did before the Fall. Again: “What’s so hard to see here?!?”

The Fall also naturally complicated man’s work long before the fall. As EGW’s revelation shows, God indirectly allowed it to be further complicated in His action to bury all the dead bodies after the flood, which also buried mineral resource and much damaged the earths surface. It was not the Flood itself/per se that did this.

Originally Posted By: kland
Neither does it answer why the eight had to suffer.


As I said, that was the lesser of two evils, and God has worked with His faithful people in the future to give them wisdom and even supernaturally intervene to lessen the effects of this damage on them, however only when they are faithful.

Quote:
NJK: It’s quite telling to me that in none of the SOP examples you have cited is “killing” ever addressed.

kland: But God's character is addressed and you say God's character include killing.


I did not say that, the Bible amply states that God ordained judicious killing, including in war. So the onus is on you to show how this act of justice is contrary to God’s character. Letting e.g., a serial killer roam about and go unpunished, as deserved and deterrently essential given the irreparability of a murder, is what is not an act of love for those who are living right.

Quote:
NJK: You have to injected that notion in these passages.

kland: Actually, I was pointing out it doesn't fit.


Again, given the copious Biblical testimony involving God in judicious killing, you need to show how/why.

Quote:
NJK: As I have stated before, Jesus had a chance to completely do away with Capital Punishment in the episode of the woman caught in adultery, however He rather told the men to indeed execute this punishment, however only if they themselves were (currently(?)) without sin.

kland: Could you give evidence that that's what He intended?


He did say: “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her
(Cf. Deut 17:2-8ff) Also He could have instead easily said: “You have heard it said.... but I say (otherwise)”.
Also:

Originally Posted By: SOP DA 461.3-4
With all their professions of reverence for the law, these rabbis, in bringing the charge against the woman, were disregarding its provisions. It was the husband's duty to take action against her, and the guilty parties were to be punished equally. The action of the accusers was wholly unauthorized. Jesus, however, met them on their own ground. The law specified that in punishment by stoning, the witnesses in the case should be the first to cast a stone. Now rising, and fixing His eyes upon the plotting elders, Jesus said, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." And stooping down, He continued writing on the ground. {461.3}
He had not set aside the law given through Moses, nor infringed upon the authority of Rome. The accusers had been defeated. {DA 461.4}


Jesus indeed raised the standard here of the Law of Deut 17:7 here to make, at least this first witness, to be clean of any sin himself. He thus closed this loophole where, manifestly unholy people where “hypocritically” accusing and condemning others of sins, possibly/probably, even the same ones. So He indeed ‘did not do away with the Law, but fulfilled it’, -‘magnifying it and making it honourable.’ (= Matt 5:17-20; Isa 42:21).

Originally Posted By: kland
And what's this about righteous level? Do you say the past killings you speak of were not righteous, but now anyone without sin can kill? Why was it permitted in the past when the ones doing it had sin and revenge, spitefulness and injustice?


I did not make that blanket statement. Probably most of these past capital punishment executions were indeed righteous, i.e., the accusers and executors themselves were righteous. As I see it in the OT, when Israel was not righteous, such sins were not even condemned, nor adjudged, including at the highest levels. However by Christ day, and maybe only in that single “ensnaring” attempt case, the accusers were hypocritically not righteous. Indeed hypocrisy had become an entrenched loophole in Israel by Christ advent, which He copiously, variously addressed throughout His all-restoring ministry. So Jesus addressed that fact head on, and if applicable, set the standard for that Law on an even higher level, an amendment that He, the Lawgiver, can freely do.

Also “revenge” and partly “spitefulness” was likely to occur in cases of murder where the next of kin had the authority to seek out the murderer and kill him. However to ensure that this was not done injustly, the system of city of refuge was established by God so that if there really was any disculpating issue (i.e., ‘it was an accident’) that could be thoroughly investigated and judicially deliberated. However God clearly allowed this instant death provision from the next of kin to further deter the committance of murder, as sure and instant death of the murderer was assured. Again this is because a murder cannot begin to be adequately compensated.

Originally Posted By: kland
Why can't in now be a "collective judgement"?


You are really mixing up my statements here... however, as Jesus now elevated it, at the very least, the accuser/witness had to be righteous. If that witness or any other were not righteous, then the capital punishment could not be executed by anyone else, as there then would not have been a (worthy = credible) witness to establish the crime. Only when the case was “righteously established” could the collective judgement, expressing the will of an in turn righteous society be expressed.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/01/11 01:45 AM

Quote:
Moses believed God wanted him to intercede on behalf of Israel. He knew God wasn't serious about wanting to destroy Israel.


Huh? The first part is fine, but the second is a head-scratcher. What makes you think Moses thought God was kidding?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/01/11 02:01 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
I had read that wider SOP context. It was clear to me that Moses did not see that “God was not serious” but merely that God had deliberately left a way of averting His judgement. And the humble and unselfish Moses took advantage of that opportunity. EGW’s statements of: “discerned ground for hope”; “not to forbid but to encourage”, “if thus entreated, God would spare His people.” Otherwise, as shown in the other verse I referenced, if no one was found to intercede here, God would have carried out that judgement. (cf. e.g., Jer 5:1; Ezek 22:30, 31). So God was indeed most serious here, but also merciful, indeed, of His own initiative (= Isa 59:16), working to orchestrate this chance for Israel to come to have this crucially needed, intercessor from amongst them, and that through an honest and candid act of Moses, hence the utilized veiledness here. Indeed, as “implied” by God, “nothing but. the prayers of Moses could save Israel.”


I think this is the right way of looking at this, especially in conjunction with the comments from GC 35-37. That is:

Quote:
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.


Combining your insight with this one, what we see is that the Great Controversy is a real war. It's not that God destroys people because He gets angry at them, but there are rules of engagement, and if there is no one to intercede, or not enough interest in righteousness, I suppose one could put it, then God withdraws, and allows the destroyer to do his work.

God is in a quandary. On the one hand, if God never allowed sin/Satan to have any sway, no one would be able to discern their malignant effects. Indeed, from the discussion of "It Is Finished," we can see that even holy angels had trouble discerning this until the cross, so clever is Satan in camouflaging his purposes and actions.

One the other hand, if God did not intervene at all, Satan/sin would destroy everyone, so their wouldn't even be a Great Controversy. So God needs to allow sin/Satan to have some sway, so that the cause/effect relationship of sin and its results can be seen, but not too much sway. So where to draw the line? That requires divine wisdom. One thing we know is that our prayers have a lot to do with God's decisions, which is an awesome thing.
Posted By: APL

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/01/11 02:23 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
Sin is not "material" at all, let alone "self-combustible material." Sin is in the mind. It involves thoughts, decisions and actions one undertakes.
I very much appreciate what you have written. I use to believe that sin was just in the mind. However, explain to me how sin causes cancer in animals, and thorns on leaves. The is a real physical aspect to sin. NJK wants to say that these things are a result of the extraction of the Tree of Life, however he has produced no evidence to that fact. The Tree was in Eden for a long time after the fall. There also has been multiple falls! Yes, Eve believed the lies of Satan, and that is what led to her fall. It was not her fall. Eating the fruit was her fall. Sin is hereditary and cultivated.
Originally Posted By: EGW
By taking upon Himself man's nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin. {16MR 116.3}
Christ took on fallen nature, but did not "participate in its sin". She often refers to sinful human nature. The nature of sin is one thing that Satan has lied about. Christ was "made to be sin", yet we know in His mind, He never lost faith in His Father. If sin is in the mind only, then Christ could not be made to be sin. And while many diseases can have their start in the mind, there are many diseases for which we have clear genetic causes.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/01/11 04:18 AM

I don't disagree with what you're saying, APL. There certainly are physical effects to sin. You mentioned the impact on the animal kingdom, and one could add even inanimate objects. Consider the moon, for example. It seems unlikely that what it looks like now is how God created it. Destructive weather is another item that comes to mind.

But these things can be explained in terms of actions, thoughts, decisions, I think. For example, if I make the decision to harm or kill you physically, then that has a physical impact. But it's still true that sin is a thing of the mind.

In the case of Satan, I'd still say sin is a thing of the mind. Satan has a great mind (in terms of intellect), and is able to do the genetic things you mentioned, and cause havoc in all sorts of ways.

The point I was making deals with how to get rid of sin. If sin is a matter of the mind, then you get rid of sin by changing the way people think, the decisions they make, and the actions they perform. Of course, there are physical aspects as well, such as sinful nature vs. resurrected sinless nature, but the real essence of the sin problem is one of the mind is my belief and was my point.

To deal with sin in a final "once and forever" way involves every sentient being in the universe being convinced that God was correct, and has acted virtuously, in harmony with His character of love, benevolence, justice, mercy, etc. This, I believe, is the primary purpose of the final judgment. Everyone else will have been convinced by that point in time, so only rebel humans remain.
Posted By: APL

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/01/11 07:45 AM

Tom,
How do we get rid of sin - we also need to know what sin is. If sin is only in the mind, then we need to explain what happened to Satan. He was lying in heaven about God. Yet, he had not gone so far that if he would have confessed and submitted to God, he would have been reinstated into his office. There was a point of no return for him. Man on the other hand, ate the fruit, and there was no return. Satan was telling lies, and had not gone too far. Man believed the lie, then ate the fruit. Believing the lie, was not the fall, it led to the fall.
Originally Posted By: EGW
She disbelieved the words of God, and this was what led to her fall. {PP 55.2}
The disbelief of God was not the fall, it led to the fall. And there were multiple falls.
Originally Posted By: EGW
A succession of falls has occurred since Adam's day. {PHJ, February 1, 1902 par. 8}
And in the plan of redemption, we need to explain how what Jesus achieved, is applied to us. Is it just that we see the life of Christ and that influences us? (Moral Influence). Or is it more?
Originally Posted By: EGW
The atonement of Christ is not a mere skillful way to have our sins pardoned; it is a divine remedy for the cure of transgression and the restoration of spiritual health. It is the Heaven-ordained means by which the righteousness of Christ may be not only upon us but in our hearts and characters (Letter 406, 1906).
So the righteousness of Christ is a cure for transgression AND restoration of spiritual health. His righteousness in upon us, AND in our hearts and characters. It is physical and spiritual.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/01/11 10:36 AM

Quote:
NJK: -From here it is introductorily, and thus not in full details, chiefly stated that ‘what was “victoriously finished’ at the Cross was the “great work of redemption. (Thus no notion here of ‘a understood knowledge that sin results in death.’)

Tom: This is an odd comment. She didn't discuss the aspect of death being the inevitable result of sin until the last two pages. Why comment on this here?


As this is one of those purely commentary Chapters in the DA vs. the narrative ones, I would see that EGW would be stating what the chief issues in this “It is Finished” topic will be from the start. And so I find it striking that she does not state in the introductory paragraph in question (DA 758.3) this chief issue for this “It Is Finished” chapter that; ‘the angels did not understand that death being the inevitable result of sin, especially if this had been a crucial understanding of that statement. It thus seems clear to me that it is the ‘character of Satan’, ‘his proposed principles’ and the nature of his rebellion that are what was pointedly understood at the Cross. Indeed simply by understanding these completely, it can then be seen that ‘“death was the inevitable result of” this proposed ‘lawlessness’ [= “sin” - 1 John 3:4] course of life, that Satan had proposed, and cunningly concealed and defended all of this time.’...

Originally Posted By: Tom
The point I made was that the whole chapter deals with what was accomplished at the cross. As you note, it starts right at the beginning of the chapter.


...So while the whole chapter deals with that theme, I see the latter mention that ‘death in the inevitable result of sin’ (i.e., this proposed “Law transgressing/lawless course”), as being a sub-statement to these chief ones. What had to be understood so that this conclusion could be understood was the true nature, character and principles of Satan’s proposed course and of Satan himself, as candidly self-exposed during his all-out murderous efforts at Calvary.

Quote:
NJK: -It also was: “the character of Satan”, his previously deceptively concealed “principles” and “the nature of his rebellion” that were “clearly revealed to the angels or to the unfallen worlds”.
[{758.4}-{759.1}]

Tom: Reading the whole chapter, one sees that for the angels there's more of an emphasis on Satan's character, whereas for man, there's more of an emphasis on God's character. This makes sense, given their respective abodes.


Perhaps this is indeed the case, however, as we are dealing pointed with what they angels and humans in worlds unfallen had to come to understand at/by the Cross, my statement does emphasizes this pertinent point.

Quote:
NJK: -During that time of 4000 years (i.e., ca. Creation to the Cross), the heavenly universe were beholding the ruin and degradation being done by Satan. Surely they would see and understand here that Satan sin and government involved suffering and death. Yet for some reason they were still “sympathetic” to His cause.

Tom: They could see that there death involved, but the cause wasn't clear. We need to remember that Satan was blaming God for everything, and camouflaging what he was doing. It became clear to the angels who was responsible for what, but many non-angels still confuse the two protagonists, which is why the Great Controversy continues.


Here could potentially be a reconciling of our views. You say that ‘the angels could see that there [was] death involved, but the cause wasn’t clear’ and this is pointedly what I find completely irrational, hence object wholly to your view. If first of all, as you claim, the death of Lucifer in heaven its self would have been done by the consuming glory of God because of sin being in its presence, then how/why wouldn’t these intelligent angels see the direct correlation here. I.e., Satan was killed because ‘iniquity/sin/unrighteousness was found in him’ (Ezek 28:15). Just like I can see a direct correlation to something though I do not understand how/why this is the result. That is why it seems clear to me that the issue is not surfacely that sin=death, but the deeper issue of “why”. I.e., WHY is ‘death the inevitable result of sin’, either naturally or by God’s intervene action. So it is this why that I see that the angels needed to be answered and its answer is not to be found in a scientific explanation, but by answering the GC issue of ‘why should those who choose to live outside of God’s Law must die.

I say “must” because I have now come to Theologically see that if God had not imposed the Tree of Life banning injunction on man, as He states, sinful man would have lived forever. (I think that point, which you evidently do not agree with, is amply and explicitly supported in the Bible and SOP. As I said, your view that ‘this is not true because all life comes from Jesus’ is easily reconcilable that God will manifestly, tangibly impart this life to us through the River of Life flowing from His throne. It is not by osmosis that we have perpetual life, by only by actually, physically, ingesting this “supernatural” provision of God.) So I therefore see that the angels needed to understand why God had taken such measure to make those who choose to life outside of His Law die. In other words, why didn’t He let sinful man continue to eat of the Tree of Life. Back to heaven’s fall, if He had killed Lucifer, that same question would have been asked.

I also see that angels are not immortal, so they need to also ingest a “Fruit of Life” also containing this similar “Supernatural, life perpetuating power”. So when Satan and the disloyal angels were banished from Heaven, they lost access to this Fruit, and just like man was thus limited to ca. 1000 years of existence with it, angels probably have a 10,000 life expectancy without it. That is how, Satan also knew at that first expulsion that “his time was little/few/brief”, i.e., limited. (Rev 12:12)

So... these are the underlying reasons why I have said that the issue here is: “is this eradicating death penalty for living without/outside of God’s law deserved. That is what I understand in the statement that ‘it was to be shown that “death is the inevitable result of sin”’. And so, immediately bringing about this result without the need of 6000+ years to first demonstrate this “inevitable result” would, if understood, have been seen by all as a fair and deserving act and not an arbitrary one. Again, if any sin results immediately in death then there really is nothing else to prove, and that by 6000+ years of sin. So I do only see here that it is the why sinners must die, as being the issue, as, if these sinners were allowed to eat of the fruit of life, they would have lived forever, indeed right next to righteous people. However God took measures to prevent that possibility and the ongoing GC is now to demonstrate exactly why! I.e. why must sinners be made to die. (Of course if you don’t see what Gen 3:22-24 is saying, indeed all physically stemming from the perpetual Life that Jesus/God provides to man, I do not expect you to agree here.)

Quote:
NJK: Perhaps they were also thinking that they should be free to choose this course of life if they wanted to. Thus the option of obeying God’s Law or not, and suffering the consequences if one so chooses, should indeed be a free and also, not God condemned act for free moral agents.

Tom: One doesn't choose to suffer the consequences of God's law or not. It's not an arbitrary law.


This, honestly, “validly”, ongoing GC is seeking to demonstrate that God’s law, and the ultimate consequence of eternal death is indeed not an arbitrary act of God, but sinners must be made to suffer this fate. Indeed God’s presence would consume them, when, as I understand it, they reach a certain level of sinfulness, so then why not let them live apart from God’s presence, i.e., in a perfect world like ours were, with a Tree of Life, and where God never visits or without shielding His consuming glory. Somewhat like how Satan and the Fallen angels have lived for over 6000 years as vile sinners outside of God presence, though with many in person visit with God. That also implicates this GC issue of “why must sinners die”? [And the answer is not the circular maxim that “sinners can’ t but die” because, as I said, if that what the direct cause-effect, I do not think that 6000+ years of a GC, with billions of human deaths and suffering would be needed to prove that already inevitable self-reality. Angels can readily grasp that “scientific” reality. The actual issue is “why”, and not “why” this happens, but why must it be allowed to, even made to, happen.]

Quote:
NJK: ...-It is striking to me, as it will be seen in the next section, that the angels made a somewhat arbitrary decision here to no longer be sympathetic to Satan as they still did not even then fully understand the issue involved in the GC which would only be further revealed in the 2000+ years that remained in the GC.

Tom: It wasn't arbitrary at all! The whole point here is that it wasn't arbitrary. It was a non-arbitrary decision based on evidence.

You left out the preceding statement, which helps to understand the part you were commenting on:

Quote:
Christ bowed His head and died, but He held fast His faith and His submission to God. "And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night." Rev. 12:10.


The SOP text/narrative actually indicates otherwise. The angels had bee “sympathetic” to Satan. They thus found his arguments plausible and needed the GC to resolve the questions/doubts they had. However EGW clearly says that even at/after the Cross, they still had more doubts and questions, however they chose, for the remaining time now ca. 2000 years, to no longer give Satan the platform he had at the gates of Heaven to make known his cause, even accusations. Since the GC issues were still unresolve yet they still chose to now ban Satan, then I can only see that decision as being now based suddenly based upon having seen the true nature and character of Satan. I.e., he was not the honest being that he was portraying before, but a vile murderer. And since their casting out decision was based on that, and not on the fact that their GC questions/doubts had been resolved, then, in regards to the GC, it was obliviously arbitrary, choosing the honesty and character issues instead. (Much like what we see many times in politics where a candidate loses merely on a substantively irrelevant character flaw or past mistake. E.g., cheated on his wife.)

Originally Posted By: Tom
There was a war in heaven, which is a war of ideas. Satan was not "cast down" by force, but by evidence. Satan's influence was curtailed because his disguise was torn away. This is how he was "cast down."


With all due respect, I baffledly hold a potential LOL laughter because I do not see how SDA’s commonly make this “wishful thinking” statement. I have exegetically dealt with this issue head on in my blog. See this post. As clearly stated in the SOP, the war in Heaven was a show of brute physical strength, even more than the resulting, forceful expulsion of the losing party.

Quote:
NJK: So it is apparently simply out of allegiance to Jesus, who Satan here wanted to murder, that they decided to from then on completely shut Satan out. Yet the GC issues were still not fully resolved in their minds then.

Tom: It wasn't simply out of allegiance, but based on evidence. It was completely clear to them who was lying and who was telling the truth at that point.


Originally Posted By: SOP DA 764.4
Well, then, might the angels rejoice as they looked upon the Saviour's cross; for though they did not then understand all, they knew that the destruction of sin and Satan was forever made certain, that the redemption of man was assured, and that the universe was made eternally secure. Christ Himself fully comprehended the results of the sacrifice made upon Calvary. To all these He looked forward when upon the cross He cried out, "It is finished." {DA 764.4}


It seems clear to me by that SOP statement that the angels merely knew for certain that what Jesus had suffered through assured the redemption of man and doom of Satan, but they did not understand all then, i.e., all that is implicated in lawlessness, and that not until “when the great controversy shall be ended. ” (DA 764.3) So I see here that they only acted on what they had come to understand at the Cross and that was ‘the character of Satan, his principles and the nature of his rebellion’ (DA 758.3). I.e., these respectively were that he was a liar, deceiver and murderer, his principles were all crafty deceptions and the nature of his rebellion was out of jealous of Christ and desires of self-exaltation. Again they, rejected Satan before thoroughly seeing the invalidity of his proposed course, as it was still yet to be revealed in the remaining 2000 years of the GC. As prophesied, the cast out Satan was now going to continue his work through the lawless one, the anti-Christ. Just look how many people are deceived by the papacy and are somewhat sympathetic to Catholics as fellow Christians, even Sunday worshippers at large, and also the United States and its “freedom and democracy claims”, and you’ll get a taste of how the angels could be sympathetic to Satan and his similar “freedom” cause. However for true believers, the evil in these law breaking and unBiblical freedom systems will be concretely exposed, and that, when the speak as a dragon and seek to kill those who follow God and honour His Law.

Quote:
NJK: -If ‘death was then (i.e., at the Cross) “finally” understood to be the inevitable result of sin,’ as you claim Tom, then it seems to me that Satan could and should have been destroyed then, rather than simply be shut out of Heaven.

Tom: That would be good logic if death being the inevitable result of sin was the only thing the Great Controversy entails.


Seems to me that you are backpedalling here, to only now make it ‘one of many issues’ whereas before you had said that this was the main point of the Cross and this “It Is Finished” chapter. E.g. this statement of yours:

Originally Posted By: Tom March 25, 2011 - Post #132119
The problem here is that if the problem is sin, and that's what needs to be demonstrated, then anything artificial that God does to cause pain/injury/death is not demonstrating that sin is the problem, but the opposite. Only by it being seen that sin is the problem can it be seen that sin is the problem. This is what the chapter "It Is Finished" (from which we have discussed the last page) is discussing throughout. It wasn't until the cross that this principle was clearly seen by the (loyal) angels (and unfallen worlds). This is when the Great Controversy was won, as far as they are concerned.


Quote:
NJK: However the actual issue here was that: “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.”

Tom: The actual issue as compared to what? I suppose you mean as opposed to death being the inevitable result of sin, but these aren't two different things which are being contrasted, so your point here doesn't make sense.


Only countering your previously expressed view that had needed to prove that ‘death must be shown to be the inevitable result of sin’. I surely cannot be held responsible and condemned as ‘not making sense’ if you are just subtly changing points/emphasis in mid discussion!!

As I said, the issue of death being the deserved result for sin, had yet to be fully and objectively proven to them, even after the Cross.

Originally Posted By: Tom
The Great Controversy encompasses many things, all under the umbrella of who is telling the truth in regards to God's character and the principles of His government. That death is the inevitable result of sin is one aspect of the Great Controversy.


Well glad to hear that multi-faceted view from you. Seems like a first to me. Perhaps I had misunderstood or misread you in the past. However it does not seem so to me.

Quote:
NJK: The issues involved in the free choice to serve God or Satan still needed to be ‘further “deliberated”’ and eventually resolved.

Tom: As pertains to the holy angels and unfallen worlds, these have been secured.


I contrarily see that DA 764.4 states that angels only understood at/by the Cross that ultimate victory was assured by Christ successful sacrifice, by anyone who would choose to accept it. However the question/issue of ‘why sinner should be made to die’ would not be fully understood until after the GC was “ended”.

Quote:
(DA 761.4 Quoted)
NJK: -Here EGW restates the foundational issues involved in this GC which were actually resolved at the Cross. See also [{761.5}-{762.3}]

This is more of a parenthetical statement. Contrast how much time she spends on this as opposed to what happened to Christ on the cross viz a viz Satan's actions.


It is parenthetical in the chapter, that easy to see, however in going back to what had first occurred in heaven to open up this GC, it is thus “foundational”, indeed stating the “foundational issues” involved.

Quote:
{762.5b}-{763.3} - EGW’s elaboration on these Final Conflict Implications.
(DA 763.4 quoted)

NJK: -It is this (end time) destruction of Satan that will then indeed not be construed as an arbitrary act of God as all of the self-actuating evidence will be in by then. That was not possible at the begin of the GC so that destruction act would have been misunderstood as arbitrary.

Tom: It would have been misunderstood as arbitrary because Jesus Christ had not died on the cross.


Your entitled to maintain your view here. I rather clearly see that it would be seen as arbitrary because it would not be understood why sinner must be made to die, (as I also stated next), indeed as in the Garden of Eden after the Fall, by the barring of access to the Tree of Life.

Quote:
NJK: I.e. there was no evidence that Satan’s sin was deserving of death, indeed this natural, self-combusting death.

Tom: If it's self-combusing, then it's not something which is deserved. So there's no question of its being deserved.


I think I have earlier more fully explained what I mean here and that is that the “why” God would allow this to happen, i.e., sinners die, and that immediately, at any trace presence of sin, first had to be demonstrated and self-explained by the unfolding of Satan’s plans in the GC.

Originally Posted By: Tom
The problem would not have been whether or not Satan deserved to die, but *why* he died. That's where the confusion would have been.


I rather would see it as “why he had deserved to suffer that normative death”. However, I more specifically believe that such a death is only possible with a certain level of sin. Prior to that, the sinner must be actively put to death. And this premature/pre-emptive killing is indeed what needed to be demonstrated as deserving to be so done.

Quote:
NJK: -Time is given for opposers of God’s Law to “ develop their character and reveal their principles” and not to learn that sin results in death.

Tom: The angels were the ones who learned that sin resulted in death. Your confusing two different groups here; holy angels and wicked rebels. The wicked rebels were given time to develop their principles. The holy angels were the ones who needed to see that the inevitable result of sin is death. This was so when God permitted the wicked to reap the full result of their sin, their death would not be misunderstood.


I do not see that I am confusing anything according to my understanding. The angels were learning through the sin outplaying lives of the “wicked rebels” why sin was indeed deserving of death, indeed as God had made it so since the Fall. Don’t you see/think that it is the sinful outplaying of sinners who can access the tree of life and thus live forever that would pointedly focus on why sin is not the course to follow vs. actually making them be subject to death by barring access to that supernatural power. This is where I see that this GC has honestly resulted in the opposing side being given a platform of plausibility. Satan’s argument being that this imposed death to humans is not fair and arbitrary. So this GC is demonstrating exactly why this was the best choice and that this penalty of death is a just imposition.

Quote:
NJK: When this is accomplished, indeed by the faultiness of their own, now fully developed course, which now, as such, indeed ‘itself brings death’ (James 1:15), “they receive the results of their own choice”. Can’t better restate/explain EGW’s statement that it is: “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. ” So it seems clear to me here that it is a most advanced level of sin that comes to be “self-combustible material in the presence of God’s presence, and not, as commonly assumed, ‘just a trace presence of sin.’ That would explain many instances in the Bible and SOP where sinful people were not immediately consumed by just being in the presence of God (e.g., as previously discussed, Satan in the Job episode).

Tom: Sin is not "material" at all, let alone "self-combustible material." Sin is in the mind. It involves thoughts, decisions and actions one undertakes.


I understand this “mind thing’ as being that material. As I understand it, science (e.g, brain activity imaging/scans) easily proves that thoughts produce a tangible imprint on the brain, so thoughts themselves may indeed be tangible, even if microscopic. And whether “material” i.e, tangible or not, that is quibbling beside the point as sin is still somehow present in each human distinctly and that is what comes to be consumed by God’s glory.

Quote:
NJK: -Seeing the face of God on the other hand, which is distinct from His presence, and which also symbolically implicates “fully understanding”/discerning God, evidently instantly results in that immediate destruction. (Exod 33:20-22).

Tom: This is because of what's happening in the mind. "Understanding," "Discerning God," are indications of this.


I rather see it as the inherent, defaultly affronting, presumptuousness in this, i.e., fallen/sinful man thus being able to “understand/discern” the infinite God?!

Quote:
NJK: -I however do not see in the Bible that even the wicked at the end will be self-combustibly destroyed just by the presence of God. This further, and in this context here, says to me that though they will have unforgiven sins on their ledger, they may not have reached this “self-combustible” level. That is why they will have to variously be “forcefully” destroyed in the end by being actively thrown into the Lake of Fire vs. merely being destroyed by the glory of God, even before the Second Death judgement, at the pre-millennium appearing of Christ.

Tom: If they're destroyed by the glory of God (which is His character), they obviously cannot subsequently be destroyed by physically being cast into a lake of fire. Their destruction by the glory of Him who is love *is* their act of being destroyed by being cast into the lake of fire. Note she says, in the sentence immediately preceding, that the wicked develop characters so out of harmony with God's character that His very presence is to them a consuming fire.


I have priorly addressed that exegetically inaccurate statement of yours that God’s physical glory = His character. See here. You have/had not responded to that exposition.

As I understand it, it is because, sin has not had neither the time or spiritual unrestraint to reach that “critical mass”/self-combusting point in this GC, by God’s various limitation and spiritual influence, especially through believers.

Also though EGW repeatedly makes the claim that the wicked are slain by the brightness of God’s glory, it is actually from a misunderstanding of hers, from the mistranslation of 2 Thess 2:8 (e.g., GC 657.1) -see below. The Bible also does not indicate this in the prophecies of Revelation.

The angry multitudes are suddenly arrested. Their mocking cries die away. The objects of their murderous rage are forgotten. With fearful forebodings they gaze upon the symbol of God's covenant and long to be shielded from its overpowering brightness. {GC 635.3}

Notice also the harmony of Paul’s statement in 2 Thess 2:8a and Rev. 19:21a
Paul’s “spirit of his mouth” could be made to thematically match Revelation’s “sword of his mouth” as symbolically the sword = the word of God, which in turn is only rightly expressed through God’s Spirit, thus becoming that offensive “two-edged, Sword of the Spirit (Eph 6:17b; Heb 4:12). All this to say that that symbolism checks out, and Eschatologically indicates to me, that this antichrist kingdom and its followers will be Spiritually slain by this word of God.

So I only see that the antichrist power will be ‘put to an end by the appearance of Christ’s Return’ (2 Thess 2:8 NASB & GC 635.5) and not be ‘slain by His glory’s brightness’ as EGW incorrectly understood and stated.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Once we understand this is not a physical issue, but a spiritual one (i.e., involves the mind, acts/thoughts/decisions -- that's what sin is), then everything fits together.


I neither see it as a ‘purely spiritual issue’ nor that it will be a ‘brightness-caused destruction’, but an actively done, Lake of Fire casting and “sword of God” act of God. Historically, this would have been a more literal sword, however Eschatologicallly, it will be more spiritual, i.e., by the Zionistic Gospel/Word work that would have been done by God’s Triumphant Church. (E.g., Isa 60:12). That will also be part of this GC resolution.
Again, the non self-combustion destruction is out of tangibly necessity because of not yet fully ripened sin in man despite these permitted 6000+ years.

Quote:
(DA 764.2 quoted)
NJK: So then what would the angels not have understood had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin (i.e., the “inevitable” consuming destruction merely at God’s glory) at the beginning of the great controversy??

Tom: What she was explaining when she said this is what they would not have understood.


(That may be a cute/curt answer but I do not see what you actually understand by it).
My answer:

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
That this, effectively pre-emptively accelerated judgement on Satan for his suggested contra-Law ways, was deserved.


Originally Posted By: Tom
Sir, there's not one mention of "deserved," nor any synonym, anywhere to be seen either in this paragraph or in any nearby one. This wasn't the issue being discussed.


What’s with the “Sir”?!? Perhaps you think I am not serious in my “deserving” view here. I know I am! As explained at the top, that is what I have understood to be underlyingly, clearly and incontrovertibly implied.

Quote:
NJK: So he had to be given time to himself develop this sin to its fulness and thus, of himself bring about this then inevitable result. Hence this 6000+ year GC. For as seen in the next paragraph, the 4000 years leading up to the Cross were not even sufficient to make this “inevitable result” self-evident.

(DA 764.3 quoted)

Tom: It is the “plan of redemption” that needs to be “completed” to self-reveal the true nature of sin.


As also, as stated in DA 764.3, the character of Satan (perhaps ‘more fully’) all in relation to the remaining GC issues, which indicates to me that the decision of the angels to cast him out at the Cross was indeed done with a not yet full understanding of even him. However they had seen enough about him through what he had endeavored to do to Christ. This revelation to “all created intelligences” includes the angels and other unfallen beings and not only fallen humans or else that surely would have been pointedly said.

Originally Posted By: Tom
She wrote, "the character of God is revealed to all created intelligences." This cannot happen until the final judgment, because the character of God is not revealed to all created intelligences until then.


If that could all been done at the Cross, as you had claimed, even for people living after the Cross, the EGW would be writing about this full demonstration and vindication of God and His Character at the Cross and we would be reading of exactly how this is the case, indeed just like we learn a lot from what was revealed about the GC in the SOP, some of these being things that Angels had learned at the Cross. However the remaining 2000 years of this GC are first needed to be fulfilled to completely resolve the remaining issue. That is why all will have this revelation/understanding only at the end of the GC.

Quote:
NJK: Not merely that sin (i.e., living outside of God’s Laws) results in death, as it can easily be seen, but that God’s destruction of sin and sinner is fully justified because their suggested course has no just, true nor redemptive qualities. So it was the immediate ending of a sinful course and the death of the sinner that were to be proven to not be an arbitrary act and this act was that sin, in its fullness would indeed itself result in this self-combusting end. If God had done this earlier in the GC instead of at the very end of it as stated here by EGW, it would have to be a forced act in the light of the not yet fully developed sin (=James 1:15) and not the natural one that it will be when this sin is indeed fully developed as allowed in the GC.

-However, and seriously, I still would need to see where this self-combustible destruction is said/envisioned to actually occur in the Bible or GC. It seems to me that much more time than what is found in a ca. 6000 year GC would be necessary to achieve this ‘critical mass’ stage.

Tom: Sin impacts the mind. It causes the sinner to believe things about God which is not true. This is why the sinner cannot bear to be in God's presence. What happens here wasn't seen or understood by onlooking holy angels or unfallen worlds until the cross. That's why all these comments are in the context of the chapter "It is Finished."


Though I pointedly believe sin to inceptively originate its harmful effects in the mind, combined with physical degenerations due to the absence of Fruit of Life, I really do not begin to at all see the validity of your remaining notions from the statements in that chapter. The issue to me is clearly the deserving of the effected punishment of death which prior to a certain point of full sin maturity has to be actively/forcefully done by God, as repeatedly seen in the Bible

Quote:
NJK: Also combined with the complete withdrawal of God’s restraining influence. So it very well may be that sinners will have to be actively destroyed in the end by God (vs. passively, merely by His glorious presence),because of a still not yet full matured level of sin.

Tom: This isn't the issue. She explains that the wicked are given time to fully develop, and that they develop characters so out of harmony that the very presence of God is to them a consuming fire, that the glory of Him who is love will destroy them. This makes clear what causes their destruction. There's no mention of "critical mass" or any similar idea.


My countering argument here again, on top of a mistranslation issue, is that I do not see it depicted in the Prophecies of Revelation. And any EGW claim to this was influenced by the mistranslation of 2 Thess 2:8

Also that God's action is passive is made clear by the statement that had God "left" Satan and his follower to "reap the full result of their sin" they would have perished.

It is indeed passive when the full result of sin is being reap. However here, there was no evidentiary ground allow or even, naturally cause this passive action, so it would have had to be a forced act of God, even if passive and that is what the angels would not have understood. Instead they would have thought that the punishment didn’t fit the crime and that this had to be forced by God. Hence the time to let it naturally fully mature to naturally reap this result. However, as I see it in th Bible and SOP, that natural result, by God limitations and intervenings, will not be achieved in these 6000 years. Perhaps the resetting flood destruction also prevented this from become the case.
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/01/11 04:35 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK Project

Originally Posted By: kland
War crimes. Could you explain how war is not a crime? Have there been any such wars?


Defensive self-defense of corresponding force in any form is not a crime. Thus the God-ordained wars of Israel in the Bible were not crimes, GC context and issues included.
And in secularly speaking, e.g, the Allies effort in WWII to rid the world of the Nazi Regime and its lesser evil Axis Allies was not a criminal act.

Originally Posted By: kland
The purpose of war is to kill people. Or to get our way and killing people is a casualty. But yet, we say it isn't right to target the main perpetrator of the war, but we will kill many of his people, and destroy much property.


That is what is done by those who start an unjust war. And really, unless God Himself tells you to, attacking another country for no “clear and present” danger reason, and/or using excessive force is a crime, indeed as stated in International Conventions. So I am clearly not saying that all/any war is acceptable.

"to rid the world of the Nazi Regime and its lesser evil Axis Allies"
Evil? In whose mind? Aren't all wars done to eliminate "evil" in someone's mind? Who says the International Conventions are "right"? What was Hitler's purpose? Wasn't it to eliminate "evil" danger? Are you hearing what I'm saying?

And do you say God told them to eliminate the Nazi's?

Quote:

Originally Posted By: kland
As is relevant most recently.


Especially in our technologically advanced day and age of various, smart/guided/precision ordnance, I am against using the claim of “collateral damage” as an excuse to killing non-combatants/civilian. The recent, relatively-just, UN intervention in Libya started of as such with ca. 65 civilian deaths on the first day from these the UN forces hands, however I have heard of news reports, (from, proudly, participating Canadian forces) that a destruction mission was aborted because of the risk of civilian casualties. (Pertinently to this discussion, it was Canada who came up with the concept of UN peace keeping mission (the “blue helmets”) during the Suez Canal Crisis to prevent the outbreak of war or instill and/or assure a cease fire so that peaceful resolutions can be (fairly) pursued instead.
What I was referring to was eliminating a specific person or leader. Not civilians.

Quote:

Originally Posted By: kland
Neither does it answer why the eight had to suffer.


As I said, that was the lesser of two evils, and God has worked with His faithful people in the future to give them wisdom and even supernaturally intervene to lessen the effects of this damage on them, however only when they are faithful.

What lesser of two evils? It doesn't answer the question of why the earth had to be flooded then but not at later times (or earlier times).
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/01/11 04:37 PM

Quote:
NJK: It’s quite telling to me that in none of the SOP examples you have cited is “killing” ever addressed.

kland: But God's character is addressed and you say God's character include killing.

NJK: I did not say that, the Bible amply states that God ordained judicious killing, including in war. So the onus is on you to show how this act of justice is contrary to God’s character. Letting e.g., a serial killer roam about and go unpunished, as deserved and deterrently essential given the irreparability of a murder, is what is not an act of love for those who are living right.

NJK, is killing part of God's character?
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/01/11 04:52 PM

Quote:
Those who have experienced the blessing of God should be the most grateful of persons. They should send up to God words of thanksgiving because Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh, clothing his divinity with humanity, in order that he might bring before the world the perfection of God in his own character. He came to represent God, not as a stern judge, but as a loving father. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." God is love. This was the great truth that Christ came to the world to reveal. Satan had so misrepresented the character of God to the world, that man stood remote from God; but Christ came to display to the world the Father's attributes, to represent the express image of his person. "As the Father gave me commandment, even so I do." "This commandment have I received of my Father." The object of Christ's mission to the world was to reveal the Father. {Signs of the Times, April 11, 1895 par. 2}

Quote:
The Lord Jesus is an example in all things. By the works which he did he made it plain that he was in council with the Father, and that he was in every move fulfilling the eternal purposes of God. In spirit, in works, in his whole earthly history, he revealed the mind and purpose of God toward his heritage among men. In his obedience to the law of God, he exemplified in his human nature the fact that the law is a transcript of divine perfection. In the gift of Christ to the world God would overwhelm fallen man with a marvelous manifestation of his great love wherewith he has loved us; but while he would that all should come to repentance, the declaration no less expresses his character, that he will by no means clear the guilty.

"but"
Maybe that's what you're looking for. As in some say, God is a god of love but (which means, negate everything I just said), but He is a god of hate, too.

"But", what does it say. It says He will by no means clear the guilty. What does that mean? It doesn't say He will kill them. Just not clear them. Next sentence:
Quote:
Should he give the least sanction to sin, his throne would be corrupted.
To me, that means not clearing them means not sanctioning them. If He doesn't sanction them, it doesn't mean He has to kill them.
Posted By: APL

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/01/11 08:40 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
With all due respect, I baffledly hold a potential LOL laughter because I do not see how SDA’s commonly make this “wishful thinking” statement. I have exegetically dealt with this issue head on in my blog. See this post. As clearly stated in the SOP, the war in Heaven was a show of brute physical strength, even more than the resulting, forceful expulsion of the losing party.
Talk about suppressing LOL!!! The war was about brute strength??? I don't think so.
Originally Posted By: EGW in DA
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. 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 759.1}
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/01/11 09:43 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
I think this is the right way of looking at this, especially in conjunction with the comments from GC 35-37.
---
...It's not that God destroys people because He gets angry at them, but there are rules of engagement, and if there is no one to intercede, or not enough interest in righteousness, I suppose one could put it, then God withdraws, and allows the destroyer to do his work.


I appreciate the exposition/view seconding/recognizing Tom, however I do not see that, nor how, it is complimented by GC 35-37 or the view that ‘God always does destructions indirectly, through a third-party’. I do not see that latter view as being taught in the Bible. As far as I know, no indication is made in the Bible or SOP as tho how God would have effectuated this destruction. So it cannot be assumed that it would have been done by a third party or even Satan. It would take quite a military expedition to kill over 2,000,000 people in virtually on shot. As God has been shown to orchestra natural events to capitally punish His people, such as an earth opening and swallowing earthquake, an epidemic fatal outbreak, even fire from Heaven, I rather see He would have done this destruction Himself, even through Angels of death.

I also see that God does this, not because He is mean, vengeful, “angry,” etc, but rather out of mercy. As David would later say, He would much rather have God’s people suffer punishment at the hands of God Himself than anyone/anything else, because of this mercy. Indeed when God had withdrawn His protection on Israel and allowed, even inspired, Babylon to come and physically punish Israel, God later so detested the extent to which Babylon did this that He vowed and effectuated punishment on Babylon for this overreach. (Jer 51 -see esp. vss. 1, 5, 6, 24, 36; cf. Psa 137:8, 9).

I think rather than try to literally “paint” God into what we would want Him to be as the ‘God of our expectancy’, we should rather take Him at His word, expressions and emotional manifestations and seek to find out “why” (i.e., on what justified basis) did God say, act or feel like that. I think Tom, given your expressed belief and understanding of, at least, the “Open View of God” you can do this. God is real and deal in a real way with this GC. (By the way, I believe my “Foreplanning” view is different from the Open Theist view, i.e., God is not awaiting for our input to shape the future, but rather seeking people to fulfill His already and perfectly laid out plans).

Originally Posted By: Tom
Combining your insight with this one, what we see is that the Great Controversy is a real war....


It’s confusing to me how you see the GC as a “real war” here but not the war in heaven??

Originally Posted By: Tom
God is in a quandary. On the one hand, if God never allowed sin/Satan to have any sway, no one would be able to discern their malignant effects.


I don’t see this as God allowing Satan ‘gratuitously’ to “have his sway”, but God rather having to choose which of the many deserving judgement that He will, in a quota way, allow Satan to exercise the open door that he naturally has because of the committed sin. Satan of course does it to seek to turn people against God, because as most people believe, and as I see the Bible teaches, God is indeed ultimately responsible for all that occurs on the planet, by simply letting it happen, however God is hoping that these limited number of judgements will serve as object lesson to both believers and unbeliever alike, showing indeed that sin has it terrible consequences. Of course I more widely believe that Satan does this out of spite that God did not permit sinners to live a healthy and perpetual life after the Fall, and so, is hoping that these actions will not lead people towards God but away from Him. And there indeed is a 50-50 chance of this going either way depending on the level of God/Biblical and GC knowledge of the individual(s).

Originally Posted By: Tom
Indeed, from the discussion of "It Is Finished," we can see that even holy angels had trouble discerning this until the cross, so clever is Satan in camouflaging his purposes and actions.
....

One the other hand, if God did not intervene at all, Satan/sin would destroy everyone, so their wouldn't even be a Great Controversy. So God needs to allow sin/Satan to have some sway, so that the cause/effect relationship of sin and its results can be seen, but not too much sway. So where to draw the line? That requires divine wisdom.


Of course, I do not agree with this view, as stated in other posts. I rather see that the angels could, long before the Cross see the adverse effects of sin and also that this is not what they came to (partly) understand at the Cross. I rather see that they are seeking to understand why sinner cannot live perpetually as God barred that possibility at the Fall. I.e., is Satan right that God is arbitrarily afraid of letting people live while not obey His Law. So the Full GC is to demonstrate exactly why this indeed should not be and lawless people should be eternally put to death. So the issue may go way beyond simply the effects of sin. In other words, how would sinners be if God had not prevent them from living forever. The GC is probably to demonstrate that even good sinners, including Christians who only are breaking the fourth commandment, ultimately have no case for this implicated and more subtle version of lawlessness. So this GC is to demonstrate that lawlessness has no redeemable values and that was first demonstrated by the Antedelluvians, the at the Cross and in the future, with the last generation of people who will all be, either by force or by beliefs Sunday Keeping Christians.

Originally Posted By: Tom
One thing we know is that our prayers have a lot to do with God's decisions, which is an awesome thing.


To me this point is only true if the future actually does not already exist, contrary to what the Classical View of Foreknowledge claims, otherwise our praying would not be making any difference at all but just be what we were always going to do anyways. So we would simply be ‘going through the motions.’
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/01/11 09:44 PM

Originally Posted By: APL
The is a real physical aspect to sin. NJK wants to say that these things are a result of the extraction of the Tree of Life, however he has produced no evidence to that fact. The Tree was in Eden for a long time after the fall.


That is indeed what I am saying APL and I believe I have stated satisfactory, though circumstantial evidence, just as your Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil direct inject view is, (also being based on a still not proven hypothesis). If man kept his perfection and health by the eating of the fruit of Life, then I see it as most sequitur and logical that that fruit and its supernatural powers was already internally preventing something harmful from ever starting to take place. If the imperfection and even genetic corruption was not self-containedly possible within man himself then there would be no need to eat of the Fruit of Life.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/01/11 09:46 PM

Originally Posted By: APL
The disbelief of God was not the fall, it led to the fall. And there were multiple falls.


As see that EGW further explains that the multiple falls were from stemming from a combination of wrong habits, immoral practices and violations of physical laws.

Originally Posted By: SOP
There is a close relation between the moral law and the laws that God has established in the physical world. If men would be obedient to the law of God, carrying out in their lives the principles of its ten precepts, the principles of righteousness that it teaches would be a safeguard against wrong habits. But as, through the indulgence of perverted appetite, they have declined in virtue, they have become weakened through their own immoral practises and their violation of physical laws. The suffering and anguish that we see everywhere, the deformity, decrepitude, disease, and imbecility now flooding the world, make it a lazar-house in comparison to what it might be even now if God's moral law and the law which He has implanted in our being were obeyed. By his own persistent violation of these laws, man has greatly aggravated the evils resulting from the transgression in Eden. How dishonoring to God is all this, how opposed to His design that men should glorify Him in their body and spirit, which are His! How destructive, too, to the health and happiness of mankind! {PHJ, February 1, 1902 par. 10}
Against every transgression of the laws of life nature utters her protest. She bears abuse as long as she can; but finally retribution comes, and the mental as well as the physical powers suffer. Nor does the punishment fall on the transgressor alone; the effects of his indulgence are seen in his offspring, and thus the evil is passed on from generation to generation. {PHJ, February 1, 1902 par. 11}


She also says:

Originally Posted By: SOP
There is an intimate relation between the mind and the body; they react upon each other. In order, then, to reach a high standard of moral and intellectual attainment, and to secure a strong, well-balanced character, the laws that control our physical being must be heeded; both the mental and the physical powers must be developed. Such a training will produce men of strength and solidity of character, of keen perception and sound judgment,--men who will be an honor to God and a blessing to the world. {PHJ, February 1, 1902 par. 14}


It thus seems to me that this “intimate relation” is reciprocal and that a mental moral degeneration through the entertaining and practice of sin tangibly affects the body, possibly recoding one’s DNA.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/01/11 09:47 PM

Originally Posted By: kland
Evil? In whose mind? Aren't all wars done to eliminate "evil" in someone's mind? Who says the International Conventions are "right"? What was Hitler's purpose? Wasn't it to eliminate "evil" danger?


Of course Hitler and the Germans, (at least at first) thought that their cause was righteous. However when a country invades another country and seeks to murder people simply because of their race and spurious claims of “economic impedance” you can expect that most, especially the murdered and invaded ones will rise up to defend themselves. Hence the inevitably of war to on one hand defend oneself against aggression and protect your life. So let the stronger one win! Unfortunately your desire not to have any war is indeed not tenable because someone will always try to get more than what they naturally have and life threateningly aggress someone else in this endeavor. That is why I do not see it as a wrong to defend oneself by taking up arms. War is just a necessary evil in this Fallen world. It even occurred in Heaven as a show of strength. In some circumstances, you either kill or you surely will be killed by what you would have allowed to live and freely have their murderous ways.

Originally Posted By: kland
Are you hearing what I'm saying?


The problem is that your ideas are not rooted in realistic conditions, and that because you manifestly don’t bother, or feel a need, to adequately/fairly think them through. ‘No war’ and ‘not killing at all’ may sound great as a philosophical ideology and maxim however it would not adequately deal with the reality that some men will be murderously violent and many innocent people will suffer at their hands. So unless you know way better than God here in dealing with sin and sinful people since He allowed for War and judicious killings, then I defer to the wisdom of God. Your judicious killing free world would instead come to be a murderously filled quagmire with even more deliberately caused deaths.

If you don’t think so then do present your view of how this will not be the case if “all” killings were banned. What if people still wanted to have abortions. Would you become a dictator and force them to not have laws permitting it???

Originally Posted By: kland
And do you say God told them to eliminate the Nazi's?


Actually no. God does not usually tell people who are not His Chosen people what to do. In this case the murderous regime of Nazism had to be dealt with and relatively good people got together and did what was right, over with the nuclear bombing of Japan and also many indiscriminate, carpet bombing of German cities, especially at night they also went way over the line; - though Hitler was doing this to London, so, in a way, it was relatively justified.

Originally Posted By: kland
What I was referring to was eliminating a specific person or leader. Not civilians.


If a leader is corruptly and selfishly preventing his people from obtaining a livelihood and refuses to leave power than force, preferably internal force in a civil war is justified. (Btw, I see no valid justification for forcefully removing Gadaffi from power in Libya. Instead an internationally supervised national referendum should be conducted to see what exactly is the will of the people and if it is not only a minority few who want him to depart. He did make a mistake by using deadly force seeking to silence protest by using arms but even the U.S. have done that in their history e.g., Nixon. That mistake in Libya was adequately and justly dealt with to prevent it from occurring again. However the current arming of “rebels” by the CIA is not the way to go, as I do not see that other feasible diplomatic means have first been exhausted. When you so aggress and physically threaten someone, they will not only respond with force, but will no longer trust you
as an honest broker for diplomatic discussions.)

Originally Posted By: kland
What lesser of two evils?


The evils of also letting sinful man live and/or also destroying the earth by fire vs. water.

Originally Posted By: kland
It doesn't answer the question of why the earth had to be flooded then but not at later times (or earlier times).


It clearly does to me: i.e., doing that necessary destruction then to curtail evil and that through a less destructive flooding vs. letting evil thrive and having a very bleak, if even possibly future civilization, let alone worthy people (i.e., more than 8). That was a GC-crucial, judicious killing righteous and just intervention by God.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/01/11 09:51 PM

Originally Posted By: kland
NJK, is killing part of God's character?


Because God is Just in his character, judicious killing harmonizes with how He sees best to deal with the sin problem. The Theodicy Truth here is not determined by what I need my God to be, but what He has revealed and done in the Bible. God never acts out of Character as that would itself be sin, since He/His Character is already and unimprovingly perfect.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/01/11 09:53 PM

Quote:
kland: (Signs of the Times, April 11, 1895 par. 2 Quoted)

I fully see and believe that Jesus completely revealed the Loving and Just, among other things, character of God in His Life and Ministry. The two are not mutually exclusive, nor do I need to selectively ignore some things in the OT, as I do not see them as violating God’s Character.

Originally Posted By: kland
"but"
Maybe that's what you're looking for. As in some say, God is a god of love but (which means, negate everything I just said), but He is a god of hate, too.


You have quite grossly mal-construed what the SOP said here in ST, April 11, 1895 par. 3. EGW used that “but” to say that while God is Love and wants to convince people of this through a overwhelming demonstration of this, which He cannot do if man does not want to be in a relationship with him, as it is only possible through faith in this GC, he however is Just and as such “will by no means clear the guilty”. As EGW then adds (and as you partly quote, but then misexplain):

Originally Posted By: SOP ST, April 11, 1895 par. 3
Should he give the least sanction to sin, his throne would be corrupted. At immense cost, he opens a way of refuge for the sinner, providing that through the work of the Holy Spirit man shall be transformed into an obedient child of God, a loyal subject of his kingdom. He who receives Jesus Christ as his personal Saviour, also is provided with heavenly protection and heavenly light; for the angels of God are sent to minister to those who shall be heirs of salvation. ...


There are definite rules in this GC and that all to prevent Satan from fairly and duly “overwhelming us with evil, thus forcing us to live ungodly and be doomed eternally.

And in the future, limit you view to what you actually know, or can know, and do not presume to know what I need or not. You, and quite sectarianly vs., at least, societies at largely, don’t even understand, or refuse to understand, this view, so how can you know what I actually would need??

And, if you can handle it... God does “hate” things/people. E.g., “divorce” (Mal 2:16) and Esau (Mal 1:2). He even deliberately made Esau and his descendants live out a perpetuating life of misery (Mal 1:3, 4) and all that because Esau despised the Israel Nation birthright that was to be his despite having the Miracle Child of Isaac as his father proving that God could and would accomplish this great Abraham Nation promise. So that shunning and punishing was most deserved to make him and his descendants them forever understand that grave sin of this National despising (Mal 1:5).

Quote:
SOP: Should he give the least sanction to sin, his throne would be corrupted.

kland: To me, that means not clearing them means not sanctioning them. If He doesn't sanction them, it doesn't mean He has to kill them.


Well guess what the Biblical reality states and reveals kland, God does not only not sanction sin, but also, and many times effectuates the killing of sinners. Indeed He variously made this a legal requirement in the Law He gave to His people. So your ‘gospel according to kland’ or ‘testimony of kland’ does not even begin to harmonize with, respectively, the Word of God, or the SOP (= Testimony of Jesus).
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/01/11 10:03 PM

Originally Posted By: APL
Talk about suppressing LOL!!! The war was about brute strength??? I don't think so.

Well then let me proceed to LOL for this distinct case! Did you even bother to read what I had posted on my referred to blog post which includes what the SOP said about this, from which that statement was directly based??! I do not see so!!

Quote:
APL: (DA 759.1 quoted)

I did not say that the war in Heaven was to destroy Satan, but actually to indeed, “brutely” demonstrate who was physically stronger here. That was the agreed condition to have a partial settlement in that conflict. The loser was then forcefully, apparently by God’s direct power, “hurled” out of Heaven. God did not use this force to “compel” Satan to believe in Him.
Posted By: APL

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/01/11 11:59 PM

NJK, I've read a number of things on your website. I've read this thread. I've read your plain statement, that this was a battle of brute strength. The Desire of Ages quote addresses this very clearly. Was the devil "compelled" to leave heaven under your paradigm, by force? You say yes. The devils know who has the power, and they tremble. (James 2:19). It is not a question of power.
Posted By: APL

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/02/11 01:17 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
As see that EGW further explains that the multiple falls were from stemming from a combination of wrong habits, immoral practices and violations of physical laws.
Yes. And these led to physical changes, and further degradation.
Originally Posted By: NJK
It thus seems to me that this “intimate relation” is reciprocal and that a mental moral degeneration through the entertaining and practice of sin tangibly affects the body, possibly recoding one’s DNA.
No question, the mind affects the body. But there is no science that shows the mind can create all the chaos we see in the DNA. Epigenetics greatly affects offspring, but epigenetic does not constitute changes in the underlying DNA base pairs, it changes the expression of those genes. But we see more in the DNA, destruction of genes, and this by transposable genetic elements. And these affects all life forms. You can not explain this by a thought pattern in man.

You also make the jump that eating the fruit would have maintained perfect health. The fruit of the tree of life could have preserved life. But what kind of life? A life of sin and misery. "For earth's sin and misery the gospel is the only antidote.{MH 141.2}" What Christ achieved, was the only antidote. The physical tree of life could not undo all the damage.

As to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the evidence is there right after the eating of a physical change. They knew there were naked, the robe of light was gone. A physical change had occurred. And yes, their attitudes changed. Adam who transgressed because of his love for Eve, was ready to accuse her of his change. (also see 1SP41) "Satan trembled as he viewed his work. {SR 26.1}" Was this work just in his mind? "He [Satan] shuddered at the thought of plunging the holy, happy pair into the misery and remorse he was himself enduring.{1SP 32.1}" Was this just being barred from the tree of life? No, this is what a life a sin produces, and the physical tree of life would only perpetuate this, not cure it.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/02/11 01:36 AM

Originally Posted By: APL
NJK, I've read a number of things on your website. I've read this thread. I've read your plain statement, that this was a battle of brute strength. The Desire of Ages quote addresses this very clearly. Was the devil "compelled" to leave heaven under your paradigm, by force? You say yes. The devils know who has the power, and they tremble. (James 2:19). It is not a question of power.


Come on APL.... Is that a serious answer?? That semi-vexatious, peripheral, and thus, at least, effectively, obfuscating retort does not begin to pertinently prove anything. Again, did you read that particular linked blog post??! My detailed records still strongly indicate “no.” You can read all the 43 other posts currently on my blog, but if you have not read that one, you won’t know what I am referring to.

My, indeed, ‘plain, (and/been convinced), statement’ is based on the unequivocal SOP quotes cited there and thus my view is Biblical. (If, however, you are outrightly citing James 2:19 in blind opposition to whatever EGW may have said, then that’s a different story. However here statements there were I was shown’ type of statements.)
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/02/11 02:11 AM

Originally Posted By: APL
Originally Posted By: NJK
As see that EGW further explains that the multiple falls were from stemming from a combination of wrong habits, immoral practices and violations of physical laws.
Yes. And these led to physical changes, and further degradation.
Originally Posted By: NJK
It thus seems to me that this “intimate relation” is reciprocal and that a mental moral degeneration through the entertaining and practice of sin tangibly affects the body, possibly recoding one’s DNA.
No question, the mind affects the body. But there is no science that shows the mind can create all the chaos we see in the DNA. Epigenetics greatly affects offspring, but epigenetic does not constitute changes in the underlying DNA base pairs, it changes the expression of those genes. But we see more in the DNA, destruction of genes, and this by transposable genetic elements. And these affects all life forms. You can not explain this by a thought pattern in man.

You also make the jump that eating the fruit would have maintained perfect health. The fruit of the tree of life could have preserved life. But what kind of life? A life of sin and misery. "For earth's sin and misery the gospel is the only antidote.{MH 141.2}" What Christ achieved, was the only antidote. The physical tree of life could not undo all the damage.

As to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the evidence is there right after the eating of a physical change. They knew there were naked, the robe of light was gone. A physical change had occurred. And yes, their attitudes changed. Adam who transgressed because of his love for Eve, was ready to accuse her of his change. (also see 1SP41) "Satan trembled as he viewed his work. {SR 26.1}" Was this work just in his mind? "He [Satan] shuddered at the thought of plunging the holy, happy pair into the misery and remorse he was himself enduring.{1SP 32.1}" Was this just being barred from the tree of life? No, this is what a life a sin produces, and the physical tree of life would only perpetuate this, not cure it.


I’ve been down that "circular" road with you before APL, I am personally satisfied that my understanding of what the Fruit of Life can do based on the Bible is comprehensive and accurate enough. Again I see that since you are working from a hypothesis, you are putting the cart before the oxen, by making arguments from that unproven hypothesis. Again, I see your “miracle” coding corrupting found in the absence of the Fruit of Life’s supernatural power.

Notwithstanding, here are few passing observation. Can man live perpetually without also having perfect health? In other words, if the physical body is never damaged beyond repair, including the healing of wounds, then how would a life of misery occur. The bodies immune system, when working perfectly is design to heal most, if not all wounds and damages. Surgery can even help that process.

I believe that all that Jesus provides for fallen man when redeemed will be found in the ingredients he and/or the father will be injecting in the Water of Life for the Tree.
Posted By: APL

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/02/11 07:38 AM

Yes NJK - I know where you are coming from. Andrews University Seminary. Stefanovic views the Revelation 8-11 as God's response to the prays of the martyrs. (See Stefanovic, Revelation, page 277). On the final plagues, Stefanovic writes,
Originally Posted By: Stefanovic, Revelation, p 470
Why then is the execution of the last plagues necessary? The reason is found in the underlying theme of the book of Revelation: the wicked must face the righteous judgments of God. In the scene of the opening of the fifth seal, the martyred saints cry out for vindication. Their cry symbolizes the perennial plea of God’s people throughout history for deliverance from rebellious humanity. It is now in the pouring out of God’s final wrath that the prayers of God’s oppressed people are being answered. The wicked must experience the righteous judgments which are appropriate to their sins (cf. Rev. 16:5-7).
Really? Does God have to execute judgments like this? Are the 7 last plagues brought on by God? If the book of Revelation about judgements against man? Or is the book of Revelation a revealing of sin and its effects? Reading you NJK, I think you agree with Stefanovic. So how does this jive with Matt 5:38-48? How does your view jive with DA759 which you did not address? I'm sorry if I do not see your "plain" and "convincing" view.





Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Originally Posted By: APL
NJK, I've read a number of things on your website. I've read this thread. I've read your plain statement, that this was a battle of brute strength. The Desire of Ages quote addresses this very clearly. Was the devil "compelled" to leave heaven under your paradigm, by force? You say yes. The devils know who has the power, and they tremble. (James 2:19). It is not a question of power.


Come on APL.... Is that a serious answer?? That semi-vexatious, peripheral, and thus, at least, effectively, obfuscating retort does not begin to pertinently prove anything. Again, did you read that particular linked blog post??! My detailed records still strongly indicate “no.” You can read all the 43 other posts currently on my blog, but if you have not read that one, you won’t know what I am referring to.

My, indeed, ‘plain, (and/been convinced), statement’ is based on the unequivocal SOP quotes cited there and thus my view is Biblical. (If, however, you are outrightly citing James 2:19 in blind opposition to whatever EGW may have said, then that’s a different story. However here statements there were I was shown’ type of statements.)
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/02/11 08:38 AM

Uhhh.... Just to factually and substantively correct you here, APL:
(1) I did not go to the AU Seminary, or any SDA Seminary. I just took ca. 2 years of undergraduate Theology classes at Andrews.

(2) If you had read my experience on my blog, see in this post, particularly dealing with my days at Andrews you would see that I do not give default deference to even/especially AU professors.

(3) Just surfacely reading what you quoted from Stefanovic, and being familiar with his other publication on interpretations/application in Revelation, I am not impress by the quality of his exegesis in general nor here. So I do not see how he makes that application and conclusion. I rather see that the 7 Trumpets delineate the Militant Work of the Church. It runs concurrent with the 7 Seals of which this Fifth Seal is part. However I do structurally see that the Fifth Seal corresponds with the Fifth Trumpet and in Church History it was indeed the militant work of Muslims against the Catholic Church that diverted the persecutions that were being carried out against God’s faithful people. That is how Martin Luther was able to be left alone and continue with his work of reforms.

(4) EGW states this about the 7 Last Plagues:

Originally Posted By: SOP GC 628, 629
These plagues are not universal, or the inhabitants of the earth would be wholly cut off. Yet they will be the most awful scourges that have ever been known to mortals. All the judgments upon men, prior to the close of probation, have been mingled with mercy. The pleading blood of Christ has shielded the sinner from receiving the full measure of his guilt; but in the final judgment, wrath is poured out unmixed with mercy. {GC 628.2}
In that day, multitudes will desire the shelter of God's mercy which they have so long despised.


-Sounds indeed like justified and deserving, Divine ‘wrathful’ judgements to me.

(5) You are wrongly trying to put the whole book of Revelation in one box. That part of the book of Revelation (ch. 15 & 16) deals with God’s judgements on those who have made their allegiance with the Beast Powers.

(6) I have already, partially addressed Matt 5:38-42 earlier in this discussion. Succinctly said, these are instructions against an “evil” person (vs. 39b) -not to ‘“resistively” confront them’ (Greek: #436 anti-isthemi: ‘come to “stand/be established against = (‘in the place of’)’). Vss. 43-48 are instructions to love our enemies. I understand this as not being vindictively hateful against those who hate us but do good to them by loving them, thus heaping coals on their heads. That however does not mean to be a pushover or a doormat and let people abuse us. Christ does not condemn using justice to protect us from such unwarranted attacks and treatments when possible. That however does not mean that you hate the person, or should hate them.

(7) I have not address DA 759 because knowing what I know from the SOP, I understand it to not be applicable to the actual fighting that took place in Heaven. Only to the convincing aspects of that conflict. How can you “see” my plain view if you still have not bothered to read it on my blog??? I am not responsible for this decision of yours!
Posted By: APL

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/02/11 04:18 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
-Sounds indeed like justified and deserving, Divine ‘wrathful’ judgements to me.
Romans 1 describes God's wrath. I gave other examples from the OT previously. I see your view of God's wrath as something actively inflicted on the deserving sinner. The other view is that God's judgment is that there is nothing more that can be done, and stops His intervention (without mercy) and lets the sinner go to reap the natural consequence of his sin. The wages of sin is death, not execution by God.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/02/11 07:01 PM

Quote:
NJK:With all due respect, I baffledly hold a potential LOL laughter because I do not see how SDA’s commonly make this “wishful thinking” statement. I have exegetically dealt with this issue head on in my blog. See this post. As clearly stated in the SOP, the war in Heaven was a show of brute physical strength, even more than the resulting, forceful expulsion of the losing party.


Quote:
APL:Talk about suppressing LOL!!! The war was about brute strength??? I don't think so.


There's also the statement from "It Is Finished," which NJK quoted himself:

Quote:
Could one sin have been found in Christ, had He in one particular yielded to Satan to escape the terrible torture, the enemy of God and man would have triumphed. Christ bowed His head and died, but He held fast His faith and His submission to God. "And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night." Rev. 12:10.

Satan saw that his disguise was torn away. His administration was laid open before the unfallen angels and before the heavenly universe. He had revealed himself as a murderer. By shedding the blood of the Son of God, he had uprooted himself from the sympathies of the heavenly beings. Henceforth his work was restricted. Whatever attitude he might assume, he could no longer await the angels as they came from the heavenly courts, and before them accuse Christ's brethren of being clothed with the garments of blackness and the defilement of sin. The last link of sympathy between Satan and the heavenly world was broken. (DA 761)


Satan was cast down not by physical force, but by weight of evidence. That's the only this war could ever be won. From beginning to end, it's a war that's won by revealing the truth. When the revelation is seen and believed by all, then the war is won, and the Great Controversy is over. (Lest "believed by all" be misunderstood, I don't mean in a salvific sense, but in the sense described in the last chapter of "The Great Controversy," that all recognize that what God has been asserting is correct.)
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/02/11 07:03 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
I think this is the right way of looking at this, especially in conjunction with the comments from GC 35-37.
---
...It's not that God destroys people because He gets angry at them, but there are rules of engagement, and if there is no one to intercede, or not enough interest in righteousness, I suppose one could put it, then God withdraws, and allows the destroyer to do his work.


I appreciate the exposition/view seconding/recognizing Tom, however I do not see that, nor how, it is complimented by GC 35-37 or the view that ‘God always does destructions indirectly, through a third-party’. I do not see that latter view as being taught in the Bible. As far as I know, no indication is made in the Bible or SOP as tho how God would have effectuated this destruction.


GC 35-37 explains this in great detail.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/02/11 07:13 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
T:Combining your insight with this one, what we see is that the Great Controversy is a real war....

NJK:It’s confusing to me how you see the GC as a “real war” here but not the war in heaven??


It's the same war! Note the explanation in DA 761 that Satan was "cast down" when the truth regarding his character was seen, and he lost his influence. The Great Controversy is a war of ideas, a war of truth, a war which God wins by revelation. It's not a war that can be won by physical force, and, indeed, there are a number of statements which specifically tell us that compelling power is only to be found under the government of the enemy, that force is contrary to the principles of God's government.

What we have is the enemy

1.Stating that physical force is a principle of God's government, and that God uses coercion to get His way.
2.Uses physical force and coercion himself to get his way.

Whereas God

1.States that physical force is not a principle of His government, and that He does not use coercion to get His way.
2.Does not use coercion to get His way.
3.Asserts that the enemy does these things.

Yes, despite this, most Christians agree with the enemy! For example, consider the plagues in Egypt. What do most Christians think happened here? They think that God applied more and more force until he forced Pharaoh to do what He wanted Him to do. Like the mafioso who wants protection money, and breaks a window of a store-owners shop. He suggests the payment of protection money would prevent such "accidents" from occurring. If the payment is refused, the "accidents" get worse and worse, until the store-owner finally capitulates. This is how God is viewed as behaving.

Another example the SOP speaks of was the church during the period of colonization. The church would come in with gifts of healing and kind words, but if there was opposition, the sword was right there to make things happen.

We're dealing with a question of principles and character. Does "might make right"? Is coercion OK?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/02/11 07:29 PM

Quote:
So the Full GC is to demonstrate exactly why this indeed should not be and lawless people should be eternally put to death. So the issue may go way beyond simply the effects of sin. In other words, how would sinners be if God had not prevent them from living forever.


But this is precisely demonstrating the effects of sin! How sinners would be if God allowed them to live forever is exactly demonstrating what sin would cause.

You write here "if God had not prevented them from living forever," which implies that God's creatures have life in themselves, which they don't.

Quote:
God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. (DA 764)


Quote:
The GC is probably to demonstrate that even good sinners,


"Good sinners"? That's an oxymoron, if ever there was one.

Quote:
including Christians who only are breaking the fourth commandment, ultimately have no case for this implicated and more subtle version of lawlessness. So this GC is to demonstrate that lawlessness has no redeemable values and that was first demonstrated by the Antedelluvians, the at the Cross and in the future, with the last generation of people who will all be, either by force or by beliefs Sunday Keeping Christians.


This is again precisely what you're saying above it is not, which is to demonstrate the effect of sin.

I wanted to comment on one more thing. Quoting again from above:

Quote:
So the Full GC is to demonstrate exactly why this indeed should not be and lawless people should be eternally put to death.


From DA 764:

Quote:
. 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.


This speaks of being "left to reap the full result of their sin," and it is again explain that their perishing is "the inevitable result of sin," but this would not have been apparent to heavenly beings. Of course if God puts people to death, what I've just quoted here doesn't make sense, because there's no ground for misunderstanding if God puts people to death.

To make this point clear, the quote says:

1.God could have left Satan and his followers to reap the full result of their sin, and they would have perished.
2.But had He done so, it would not have been apparent that their perishing was the inevitable result of sin.

Now if Satan and his followers perish because God puts them to death, this doesn't make any sense. We would have this:

1.God could have left Satan and his followers to reap the full result of their sin, by putting them to death, and they would have perished.
2.But had He done so, it would not have been apparent that their perishing was the inevitable result of sin.

Of course it wouldn't be apparent that their perishing was the inevitable result of sin, because it wouldn't be true! Their perishing would be the inevitable result of God's putting them to death.

The problem I see in your explanation is that it in not way follows what is said in DA 764. You have a theory of what will happen, and what DA 764 actually says is glossed over. Your idea is a reasonable one, which many have, which is that God must put sinners to death for the good of the universe. This can't happen too soon, because if God did this too soon, it wouldn't be apparent that God was acting in justice. It would appear to be an arbitrary act of power.

The problem is that DA 764 doesn't argue that God is just in executing sinners, but that their death is not due to an arbitrary act of power on His power, but instead is the result of their own choice. Your theory, although a reasonable one, from the standpoint of ordinary logic, in no way corresponds to what she actually says.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/02/11 07:30 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
T:One thing we know is that our prayers have a lot to do with God's decisions, which is an awesome thing.

NJK:To me this point is only true if the future actually does not already exist, contrary to what the Classical View of Foreknowledge claims, otherwise our praying would not be making any difference at all but just be what we were always going to do anyways. So we would simply be ‘going through the motions.’


We agree on this point.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/02/11 07:34 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
That is indeed what I am saying APL and I believe I have stated satisfactory, though circumstantial evidence, just as your Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil direct inject view is, (also being based on a still not proven hypothesis). If man kept his perfection and health by the eating of the fruit of Life, then I see it as most sequitur and logical that that fruit and its supernatural powers was already internally preventing something harmful from ever starting to take place. If the imperfection and even genetic corruption was not self-containedly possible within man himself then there would be no need to eat of the Fruit of Life.


Even if we assumed that the Tree of Life was 100% effective in its ability to cure the effects of sin, which is a tall assumption, there is still the problem of violence. Sinners wouldn't live forever, because they would kill other sinners, and this level of violence was reached in only a couple of generations. What would happen in eternity? Eventually only one would survive, like the Highlander. "There can only be one." Such is the nature of sin. Kill your enemies, until you're the only one left.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/02/11 07:37 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
It thus seems to me that this “intimate relation” is reciprocal and that a mental moral degeneration through the entertaining and practice of sin tangibly affects the body, possibly recoding one’s DNA.


And this corresponds to the point I've been making about the Tree of Life. Would it recode back the DNA to its original form? Even if you answered that question, "yes," surely you don't think it would change a person's thinking from sinful to righteous. Free will wouldn't allow for that. So the moral and mental degeneration would continue, worse and worse and worse.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/02/11 07:40 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
Because God is Just in his character, judicious killing harmonizes with how He sees best to deal with the sin problem. The Theodicy Truth here is not determined by what I need my God to be, but what He has revealed and done in the Bible. God never acts out of Character as that would itself be sin, since He/His Character is already and unimprovingly perfect.


Indeed. Truth is not determined by your need for God to be violent, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ, who perfectly revealed the Father. How violent was He? Did He teach the theory of "judicious killing"?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/02/11 07:42 PM

Originally Posted By: APL
You also make the jump that eating the fruit would have maintained perfect health. The fruit of the tree of life could have preserved life. But what kind of life? A life of sin and misery. "For earth's sin and misery the gospel is the only antidote.{MH 141.2}" What Christ achieved, was the only antidote. The physical tree of life could not undo all the damage.


I've been attempting to make this same point. I'm requoting this here because I think this is very clearly put.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/02/11 07:56 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
"These plagues are not universal, or the inhabitants of the earth would be wholly cut off. Yet they will be the most awful scourges that have ever been known to mortals. All the judgments upon men, prior to the close of probation, have been mingled with mercy. The pleading blood of Christ has shielded the sinner from receiving the full measure of his guilt; but in the final judgment, wrath is poured out unmixed with mercy." {GC 628.2}

"In that day, multitudes will desire the shelter of God's mercy which they have so long despised." (end of EGW quote)


-Sounds indeed like justified and deserving, Divine ‘wrathful’ judgements to me.


It sounds that way to you because of your mind-set. To your way of thinking "judicious violence" is a good thing (or "judicious killing," which is what your actual words were).

The way we view God impacts how we interpret spiritual statements, whether from Scripture or the SOP. To someone who views things the way you do, "Sounds indeed like justified and deserving, Divine ‘wrathful’ judgements to me" is what comes naturally to mind. Someone who views violence/killing/coercion/use of force to get ones way/etc. as contrary to God's character, sees something different happening.

Immediately before the statement you cited, we read:

Quote:
When Christ ceases His intercession in the sanctuary, the unmingled wrath threatened against those who worship the beast and his image and receive his mark (Revelation 14:9, 10), will be poured out.


Earlier in the chapter she explained:

Quote:
When He leaves the sanctuary, darkness covers the inhabitants of the earth. In that fearful time the righteous must live in the sight of a holy God without an intercessor. The restraint which has been upon the wicked is removed, and Satan has entire control of the finally impenitent. God's long-suffering has ended. The world has rejected His mercy, despised His love, and trampled upon His law. The wicked have passed the boundary of their probation; the Spirit of God, persistently resisted, has been at last withdrawn. Unsheltered by divine grace, they have no protection from the wicked one. Satan will then plunge the inhabitants of the earth into one great, final trouble. As the angels of God cease to hold in check the fierce winds of human passion, all the elements of strife will be let loose. The whole world will be involved in ruin more terrible than that which came upon Jerusalem of old.


Enumerating what happens:

1.In that fearful time the righteous must live in the sight of a holy God without an intercessor.

(This is the problem! There is no more intercessor to defend against the attacks of Apollyon, the destroyer.)

2.The restraint which has been upon the wicked is removed, and Satan has entire control of the finally impenitent.

3.God's long-suffering has ended.
(Let's see what happens as a result)

4. The wicked have passed the boundary of their probation; the Spirit of God, persistently resisted, has been at last withdrawn. Unsheltered by divine grace, they have no protection from the wicked one. Satan will then plunge the inhabitants of the earth into one great, final trouble.

She concludes the paragraph with a comparison to the destruction of Jerusalem, which she explained in the same terms that she is here explaining the pouring out of the last plagues.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/02/11 08:07 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
Quote:
Moses believed God wanted him to intercede on behalf of Israel. He knew God wasn't serious about wanting to destroy Israel.

Huh? The first part is fine, but the second is a head-scratcher. What makes you think Moses thought God was kidding?

Again, here's what Ellen wrote about it:

Quote:
"Let Me alone, . . . that I may consume them," were the words of God. If God had purposed to destroy Israel, who could plead for them? {PP 318.2}

But Moses discerned ground for hope where there appeared only discouragement and wrath. The words of God, "Let Me alone," he understood not to forbid but to encourage intercession, implying that nothing but the prayers of Moses could save Israel, but that if thus entreated, God would spare His people. {PP 318.3}

Here the Lord proved Moses. He knew that it was a laborious and soul-trying work to lead that rebellious people through to the promised land. He would test the perseverance, faithfulness and love of Moses, for such an erring and ungrateful people. {1SP 245.1}

God had proved his servant, he had tested his faithfulness and his love for that erring, ungrateful people, and nobly had Moses endured the trial. . . God was pleased with his faithfulness, his simplicity of heart, and his integrity, and he committed to him, as a faithful shepherd, the great charge of leading Israel to the promised land. {RH, February 11, 1909 par. 8}

He loved his people better than himself, and in the very words, "Let me alone," he saw encouragement to hope that if God were earnestly importuned, he would spare the people. {YI, November 21, 1901 par. 8}

She clearly says God was testing, proving Moses. Which plainly means He did not intend to destroy Israel. Otherwise, if Moses had failed the test and God had destroyed Israel, it implies God would have raised up a nation through a man who failed the test of his faithfulness.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/02/11 11:12 PM

Tom and APL, again I see we have reached an impasse. I cannot have a discussion where what I have said/linked is outrightly ignored so I won’t be commenting on your decided oblivious views on the “War in Heaven”. You all can read this SOP proof for yourselves whenever you feel like it. You all are, manifestly, “regalingly”, thinking that you are merely arguing against my view, however your are arguing against direct revelations and statements of the SOP. Suit yourselves. I cannot force you to click on a link.

In regards to God and His judgments, including the plague, you are a painting Him like a hypocritical Mafia don who feels guiltless and clean because he sent his capo soldiers out to do his dirty work and that simply by saying something disparaging and understood as an execution command to his captains or underboss.

The Bible is clear that God both directly execute judgements and also at times leaves this to the work of nature, peoples or directly Satan. Trying to “launder” the wrath of God clearly expressed in the Bible is implicitly claiming that God would have been doing something wrong, just like a judge sentencing someone to the electric chair or the officer one who flips that switch are doing something wrong.

And please, spare me the spurious quibbling, peripheral knit-picking. I don’t have time for that. And frankly it is like dealing with vexatious little children. (Take it as you surely will.) You all just prove that you only answer what you think you have an answer to but just wholly ignore whatever you can’t answer which disprove your view and of course never admit this. Having a discussion with people who are thus ‘still seeing a forest despite all of the felled trees’ is not at all worthwhile for me.

And my view of God is not eisogetical, but exegetical. Do these studies for yourselves. This GC is not and has not been a stoic and bloodless conflict, especially for God. So whether direct or indirect, God is ultimately responsible for all that has occurred and been allowed to occur in this world. (GC 35-37 is only one type of God’s destruction = the indirect one.) The operative issue is “why has He allowed this to be the case.”

Have you not also read...:
Originally Posted By: SOP
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}

...or is this fact to be “best-knowingly”, selectively, excised from the Biblical record to uphold your view of what God should really be like???

And Gen 3:22-24 along with the tangible water of life view is unequivocally clear to me. If God said it would happen, then I believe it over man’s rationalization simply you cannot accept that this could be the case. You all, particularly APL, are looking a natural answer, e.g, TE’s or even Satan injected-coding for something that is entirely “supernatural.” Instead this is were I now see and understand is the epicenter crux of the dividing and still open issue in this ongoing GC: i.e., 'why can’t people who choose not to observe God’s law, even only breaking one, even if replacing it with an alternative law, (= “good sinners”) be allowed to live.' Doesn’t EGW similarly say somewhere something in the line of: ‘whereas Satan priorly in the GC wanted to make such a point upon the entire Law, following the Cross, i.e, in the NT Church Age, he has instead focused that GC issue solely upon the (and seemingly arbitrary, as most Christian implicitly believe) Sabbath commandment!! Seems to me that the issue involving the other 9 commandments have been already demonstrated prior to the cross. As I see it, the last 6 by the time of the Flood, and the first 3 during especially the times of Ancient Israel, at least in the religious realm, i.e., without God’s help by making Him their God and respecting Him, other evil nations would route God’s professed people.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/02/11 11:14 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
She clearly says God was testing, proving Moses. Which plainly means He did not intend to destroy Israel. Otherwise, if Moses had failed the test and God had destroyed Israel, it implies God would have raised up a nation through a man who failed the test of his faithfulness.


As I said, I see it that God instead, through indeed this testing, raised up a mercy option which was not there before because of the absence of an intercessor. And for this to be genuine. He had to veil it as He did. Then with now the option to pardon, whereas before he only had the option to destroy, God, through also the good points of Moses, chose to pardon Israel. Again a faithless nation is completely useless to God given the supernatural feats needed to establish this otherwise helpless and vulnerable nation of poor slaves. So this destruction would have just been an acceleration of what was sure to occur otherwise, (e.g.., surrounding nations coming against them and routing them), if such faithlessness persist or even because of this great unforgiven sin of the Golden Calf.

Notice also, as I previously stated that there was not divinely hinted opportunity for the sin on the borders of Canaan, and protracted judgement did follow, albeit only on the supposed-to-be responsible adults.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/03/11 04:15 AM

Originally Posted By: MM
She clearly says God was testing, proving Moses. Which plainly means He did not intend to destroy Israel.


There are other incidents in Scripture where this very thing happened. For example, God looked for someone to repair the breach of the wall. If He had found someone, things could have been different. In Moses, He did find someone, and things were different.

Quote:
Otherwise, if Moses had failed the test and God had destroyed Israel, it implies God would have raised up a nation through a man who failed the test of his faithfulness.


It does imply that. But people have failed tests of faithfulness and gone on to be great followers of God, of which Abraham, the very father of the people whom were discussing, is an example.

The reason Israel wasn't destroyed was because of Moses' intercession. God wasn't kidding.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/03/11 04:40 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
So whether direct or indirect, God is ultimately responsible for all that has occurred and been allowed to occur in this world. (GC 35-37 is only one type of God’s destruction = the indirect one.) The operative issue is “why has He allowed this to be the case.” & {GC 614.2}

...and it is readily seen that it is when God no longer desires to have mercy (e.g., with the “unmixed”/undiluted 7 Last Plagues) that He steps aside and let’s Satan have His way. OF course Satan follows through in order to take advantage of this “no mercy” green light, because if He does not, God will, though, “mercifully, do this indismissable judgement Himself, and Satan wants both people to hate God and also wants to take vengeance on God’s creation, especially since he now has nothing left to gain by continuing to pretend to be a well-wisher for these rebellious ones.
Posted By: APL

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/03/11 04:43 AM

NJK - I suggest listening to a recording of a Sabbath School class on the book of Revelation, speaking about retribution. You can find it here: http://goo.gl/2yPSW.

As always, it is best to hear the whole thing. But starting around 35 or 36 minutes, speaking about the topic of retribution the speaker (Tonstad) speaks about doing the exegesis. He says has done it in his writings, and he will win the discussion based on exegesis - "narrowly". But you can't win the Great Controversy narrowly, you need to win it in a big way. And he is speaking of Friedrich Nietzsche, who was not a friend of Christianity. And I'll leave it there. Listen at your own risk, should you dare.

Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/03/11 04:44 AM

Quote:
Tom and APL, again I see we have reached an impasse. I cannot have a discussion where what I have said/linked is outrightly ignored so I won’t be commenting on your decided oblivious views on the “War in Heaven”. You all can read this SOP proof for yourselves whenever you feel like it. You all are, manifestly, “regalingly”, thinking that you are merely arguing against my view, however your are arguing against direct revelations and statements of the SOP. Suit yourselves. I cannot force you to click on a link.


I've got no idea what this is in response to. It's not very responsive. There's really no way to reply to something like, right? It's not an argument or statement of any sort that can be responded to.

Quote:
In regards to God and His judgments, including the plague, you are a painting Him like a hypocritical Mafia don who feels guiltless and clean because he sent his capo soldiers out to do his dirty work and that simply by saying something disparaging and understood as an execution command to his captains or underboss.


No, I'm not doing this! I'm arguing *against* this point of view. I merely pointed out that this is the view that many have of the Egyptian plagues, that God applied more and more force until He got His way.

Quote:
The Bible is clear that God both directly execute judgements and also at times leaves this to the work of nature, peoples or directly Satan. Trying to “launder” the wrath of God clearly expressed in the Bible is implicitly claiming that God would have been doing something wrong, just like a judge sentencing someone to the electric chair or the officer one who flips that switch are doing something wrong.


How is the Bible clear that there are different mechanisms involved by which God expresses His wrath? Romans 1 makes it clear how God's wrath works. There are many examples of this throughout Scripture. For example, one at random:

Quote:
20And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end shall be: for they are a very froward generation, children in whom is no faith.

21They have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God; they have provoked me to anger with their vanities: and I will move them to jealousy with those which are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation.

22For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.

23I will heap mischiefs upon them; I will spend mine arrows upon them.

24They shall be burnt with hunger, and devoured with burning heat, and with bitter destruction: I will also send the teeth of beasts upon them, with the poison of serpents of the dust.

25The sword without, and terror within, shall destroy both the young man and the virgin, the suckling also with the man of gray hairs. (Deut. 32)


Note how God's anger, or wrath, is equated with the hiding of His face. Now how it speaks in direct terms ("I will also send") when depicting passive action.

For example, Scripture speaks of God's sending fiery serpents against the Israelites, where the SOP makes clear that the serpents were there all along, and God merely removed His protection from them.


Quote:
And please, spare me the spurious quibbling, peripheral knit-picking. I don’t have time for that. And frankly it is like dealing with vexatious little children.


This sort of language doesn't argue well for your position.

Quote:
(Take it as you surely will.) You all just prove that you only answer what you think you have an answer to but just wholly ignore whatever you can’t answer which disprove your view and of course never admit this. Having a discussion with people who are thus ‘still seeing a forest despite all of the felled trees’ is not at all worthwhile for me.


There's no argument here, no evidence, nothing that can be responded to. This is just name-calling.

Quote:
And my view of God is not eisogetical, but exegetical.


Your view of God is colored by your mind-set, your paradigm, your already existing ideas of God's character, just like everybody else's is.

Quote:
Do these studies for yourselves. This GC is not and has not been a stoic and bloodless conflict, especially for God.


Stoic? Where do you get stoic from? Why are you linking bloodless and stoic? Do you the idea that a lack of violence implies stoicism?

Quote:
So whether direct or indirect, God is ultimately responsible for all that has occurred and been allowed to occur in this world. (GC 35-37 is only one type of God’s destruction = the indirect one.) The operative issue is “why has He allowed this to be the case.”


Your response here is typical of those who take your position take, and, indeed, the only defense. That is, this is just one way that God destroys, but there are others. But if you consider what is written, there are flaws with this idea.

First of all, she writes that the great deceiver presents God as destroying in order to hide his own work. This would hardly be an effective ploy if God is actually the one doing the destroying.

Secondly, there is nothing whatsoever in Scripture which gives the idea, through the language used, that God was not at work actively destroying Jerusalem. It is said that He was angry, that He would send armies to destroy the city, that He would kill those who had killed His Son. It's all presented as something He would do, in active voice, and Satan isn't mentioned at all.

Yet, through a subsequent prophet, the curtains are drawn aside, and we see what really happened. The point is that when the same language is used in regards to other incidents, there is no reason the same mechanism should not be at work. That is, there is no reason to suppose that the principles of GC 35-37 do not apply to these other incidents, just as there is no reason to suppose that they do apply to the destruction of Jerusalem.

There is nothing stated in the explanation of the destruction of Jerusalem to suggest that Ellen White intended these comments to be applicable only to that incident. Indeed, the opposite is clear, as she specifically applies the principles there to other incidents, including the final events of earth's history before Christ's Second Coming.

And she does the same thing the other way around. That is, when discussing these last events, when Christ leaves the sanctuary, she ties back to the destruction of Jerusalem!

Coming back to a previous point, the mind-set we have, or paradigm that we hold, our view of God's character, greatly impacts how we view His actions. So the question arises as to how we should obtain the right view of His character. The answer I've been asserting is through the revelation of Jesus Christ.

In Jesus Christ we see that truth about God. We see what God looks like, in human flesh, where we can best comprehend it.

The "whole purpose" of Christ's earthly mission (ST 1/20/90) was the revelation of God. All that we need to know about God, nor can know of Him, was revealed by the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

I don't see the ideas you are espousing anywhere in Christ's life and teachings. Rather than use force or violence to get His way, what I see instead is self-sacrificing love dying a horrible death on behalf of the creatures who would use force and violence against Him.

Quote:
Have you not also read...:
Originally Posted By: SOP
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}

...or is this fact to be “best-knowingly”, selectively, excised from the Biblical record to uphold your view of what God should really be like???


This is the favorite passage of those who espouse your view, and they, like you, ignore the paragraph immediately preceding, which is the one I quoted, and the one you're not commenting on. This is just what I expected would happen.

Switching points here, why is your writing so angry? If the position you hold is true, there is no need for the types of tactics you are employing here, involving name-calling, and so forth. Simply present your view, and adduce evidence for it, based on arguments taken from texts from Scripture or the Spirit of Prophecy.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/03/11 06:34 AM

Tom: (1) You can answer your question here by reading what I have already said and linked to. I won’t waste my time restating them.

(2) My exegetical approach is not to build a teaching on one or a select few “favoring” passages in the Bible or SOP but harmonize all paassages.

(3) You’ll mind-boggling, to say the least, to read what I have posted on my blog on the “War in Heaven” and just blindly continuing with your comments is basically what upset me and made this discussion no longer worth the time investment.

So I will only wish you “good luck” with your single-sided GC and Theodicy view! I think I’ve made my point and I won’t be held responsible for doing your analysis and reading work. And... seriously stated, in regards to my “attitude” switch read e.g., Matt 23 for some clues. Knowing myself for now 36+ years, when I make such statements, they are certainly not “tactics” but my weighed decision. Sorry if you all choose to remain indifferent and/or oblivious to your disrespectful “trespasses” here.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/03/11 06:35 AM

Originally Posted By: APL
NJK - I suggest listening to a recording of a Sabbath School class on the book of Revelation, speaking about retribution. You can find it here: http://goo.gl/2yPSW.

As always, it is best to hear the whole thing. But starting around 35 or 36 minutes, speaking about the topic of retribution the speaker (Tonstad) speaks about doing the exegesis. He says has done it in his writings, and he will win the discussion based on exegesis - "narrowly". But you can't win the Great Controversy narrowly, you need to win it in a big way. And he is speaking of Friedrich Nietzsche, who was not a friend of Christianity. And I'll leave it there. Listen at your own risk, should you dare.

APL: I’ll listen to that sermon when I have time. Don't expect my comments though. I really don’t see why you are suggesting it to me if it is so ‘dangerous’??!
Posted By: APL

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/03/11 09:40 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
I’ll listen to that sermon when I have time. Don't expect my comments though. I really don’t see why you are suggesting it to me if it is so ‘dangerous’??!
It is not a sermon, it is a class room setting. It is dangerous, because it destroys your paradigm. Tom, if you have not listened to it, I think you will appreciate it. The recording, done on 3/19/2011, was done by a gentleman named Cole.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/03/11 11:28 AM

Ohhh... APL, I guess I should have contextually assumed that. By the way, same goes for my blog post on the War in Heaven and your view! [Notice that I could easily just cite the pertinent, and self explanatory, SOP references quoted and discussed there!! But it is just so much easier for me for you all to just simply click that provided link!]

I'll see what he has "taught". I have, objectively, factually speaking of course, ‘taken on’ and beaten many (even seminary educated) teachers/professors in the past!!

If you, or anyone else, wants to ‘destroy my paradigm and/or views’ then be exegetically exhaustive and not indifferently selective.

Again, but more precisely, don’t expect me to waste my time giving any feedback comments if it was exegetically spurious.
Posted By: APL

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/03/11 05:06 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
If you, or anyone else, wants to ‘destroy my paradigm and/or views’ then be exegetically exhaustive and not indifferently selective.

Again, but more precisely, don’t expect me to waste my time giving any feedback comments if it was exegetically spurious.
It is specifically your exegetical stance that I suggested this presentation, and why I said start around minute 36 (or is it 37 or 38) so as to not "waste your time". The speaker talks about doing the exegetical treatment, and he think he could win it on points, but only narrowly. The controversy can not be won narrowly. It must be won in a big way. The story of the good Samaritan was not won on exegesis. It however won in a big way. God ls like the Samaritan. God is exactly as seen in Jesus (John 14:9).
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/03/11 06:39 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
M: She clearly says God was testing, proving Moses. Which plainly means He did not intend to destroy Israel.

T: There are other incidents in Scripture where this very thing happened. For example, God looked for someone to repair the breach of the wall. If He had found someone, things could have been different. In Moses, He did find someone, and things were different.

To what purpose was God testing, proving Moses?

Quote:
M: Otherwise, if Moses had failed the test and God had destroyed Israel, it implies God would have raised up a nation through a man who failed the test of his faithfulness.

T: It does imply that. But people have failed tests of faithfulness and gone on to be great followers of God, of which Abraham, the very father of the people whom were discussing, is an example. The reason Israel wasn't destroyed was because of Moses' intercession. God wasn't kidding.

Why would God destroy a nation fathered by a failure only to replace it by another father of failure? "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Also, why did God need Moses' permission to destroy Israel? "If God had purposed to destroy Israel, who could plead for them?" Her use of the word "if" implies it was not God's intention to destroy Israel.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/03/11 08:19 PM

Originally Posted By: APL
It is specifically your exegetical stance that I suggested this presentation, and why I said start around minute 36 (or is it 37 or 38) so as to not "waste your time". The speaker talks about doing the exegetical treatment, and he think he could win it on points, but only narrowly. The controversy can not be won narrowly. It must be won in a big way. The story of the good Samaritan was not won on exegesis. It however won in a big way. God ls like the Samaritan. God is exactly as seen in Jesus (John 14:9).

In a deserving one word answer: “Dud”

Indeed, normatively I would not respond to that, indeed spurious exposition, but so that you don’t claim victory by default and since you manifestly sincerely think he his incontrovertibly right then I make some brief comments.

-I listened to the whole lecture. His exegesis and approach struck me as exactly what I utterly loathe from the SDA Scholarly philosophy. I.e., incompetent and substantively vacuous replies to objections. I am therefore not surprised that he jumped on the defensive bandwagon and reverse psychology ploy of Nietzsche: ‘If you can’t (substantively) beat them, then peripherally make them think they’re weak.’ Show me where in the parable of the Good Samaritan that the bypassing Priest and the Levite had a dilemma between what God had stated by law (i.e., not to touch a dead corspe) and helping the man. That is why Jesus pointedly said he was “half dead”. And indeed, as expounded on by EGW in COL 379.2, both the Priest and the Levites fully knew he was not dead. So they had absolutely not legal dilemma to come to his aid, indeed especially since he was not dead and thus not a health hazard as that law sought to protect Israel against. So they chose to bypass him and disculpate themselves out of their own selfish indifference to the plight of the needy. So this is substantively not an example against not doing something that is not only legally valid (i.e., just war, judgement and/or capital punishment), and also has great vital and societal benefit, namely utterly protect against the gratuitous snuffing away of life by evildoers (i.e., e.g., murders and abusers of military force).

Secondly, the ‘claim to win a Theological war by ignoring or losing all, or even some, of the exegetical Battles’ does not begin to make sense to me. My approach is, when there are such seemingly “losing battles”, i.e., passages that seem to oppose your main view, is to seek to reconcile/harmonize the two, thus seek a negotiated peace in that battle. And not claim victory while those battle have not been won and are still being fought. SO if you think that view give you a right to outrightly ignore what EGW has said on the War in Heaven, then you are only engaging in arbitrary and selective eisogesis, (i.e., deciding for yourself what a view should be without consulting all pertinent passages on the topic).

Sorry but that Loma Linda professor, Sigve Tonstad [PhD, MD] by name (Associate Professor, Religion -Theological Studies), needs to properly do what he has apparently, or should have been educated and trained to do: proper exegesis, and that only is: ‘fighting and seeking to win all of the exegetical battles first’ before claiming victory or else that really only is capitulating and still claim victory then is being delusional.

P.S. Funny, but when I make a comparable argument for the SDA Church and members to seek to do more to help the millions of people dying from preventable and curable causes, as we easily can as a large, global Church, I get the same Priest and Levite attitude, with the added spurious claims that “this is not the mission of the Church” or worst: “time is too short to do that”!??
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/03/11 08:26 PM


Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
To what purpose was God testing, proving Moses?


As I have already said: ‘To at least genuinely have an intercessor for Israel.’ Indeed just like God had tested Abraham to find out if he really ‘fear Him’. (Gen 22:12) I know that in the pervasive view of foreknowledge, yours being the Classical View, such testing is not being genuine on God’s part since He knew the answer from eternity, but supposedly only done in relation to Moses. I of course don’t see it this way, but see/understand that God was also genuinely finding out what Moses was made of, character wise. (= E.g., Deut 8:2; cf. Exod 15:25; 16:4; 2 Chr 32:31) God does indeed need to test what is in someone heart and that is done by being so candid.

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Why would God destroy a nation fathered by a failure only to replace it by another father of failure? "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."


...So I also see that this was being done to ascertain whether or not he had a worthy person with which to seal this serious deal. So God killed two birds with one stone and after this test, and only after this test He on one hand had the option an intercessor and thus mercy, and on the other hand, He was also sure now that He had a worthy person for such a offer. However Moses’ pointed arguments (even calculatively saying “Israel” instead of “Jacob” (Exod 32:13a) - I.e., the covenant name) probably convinced Him to opt for mercy rather than judgement.

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Also, why did God need Moses' permission to destroy Israel?


Obviously, as I see it, God was not seeking any permission here. Just establishing the “intercessor option” and also verify if Moses was indeed worthy. As I said in a sermon on this episode: “When God twice offers to make you greater than father Abraham and you turn it down, you must indeed be the most humble man in the world.” (Num 12:3) So after that test which proved that Moses was faithful, then, just like Abraham passing his test confirmed to God that He can indeed proceed with the great promise previously made to Him (Gen 22:15-18), Moses’ passing of this test confirmed to God that He could proceed with the destruction and start over with Moses, but Moses was able to talk him out of it (Exod 32:14 = Isa 1:18). Nonetheless, God instead opted for a lesser judgement (Exod 32:33-35).

As I said before, later in Num 14 where much greater judgement was effectuated, God did not proceed to leave this caveat for Moses to seize as He then evidently did not need to test Moses again. However Moses again talked Him into doing a lesser judgement. (Num 14:20).

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
"If God had purposed to destroy Israel, who could plead for them?" Her use of the word "if" implies it was not God's intention to destroy Israel.


I rather understand her use of “if” here to mean: If there was no “ground for hope” here at all. I.e., “if” this had been the sole desire of God here. Indeed God was candidly seeking to establish the option for mercy. Again, that is not made in Num 14, perhaps revealing that God indeed was going to do some form of great punishment either way. And with all adults then condemned to (naturally) die, so as to not indicate a judgement of God to e.g, the Egyptians who, ironically enough, would know firsthand (pun intended) that Israel’s powerful God could do this and as they would also know that no other god would have overpoweringly been able to do this, if Yahweh did not allow it, this great punishment, though mercifully and maybe justly reduced so as to not include children (under 20), was done. That ‘just curtailment’ prove to me that, here too, God was also ‘greatly angered’ (Exod 32:11) and may have overlooked/been indifferent of that fact. (Cf. Num 14:20). However since God does punish sins onto subsequent generations, it all was probably all justly appropriate, especially as these had seen this, and other, bad examples of their parents and thus were more likely to also do this later and/or merely serve God out of fear and not faith.

So God did not, at that stage yet (firmly) “purpose” this (i.e., in the definition sense for that term, of: “reach a decision”), but was here really just considering it, but first wanted to have a mercy option and also, more pertinently, ascertain that Moses was worthy to proceed with that ‘considered plan.’
Posted By: APL

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/03/11 10:34 PM

NJK - I feel the love. May you have peace on your journey.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/03/11 11:19 PM

Originally Posted By: APL
NJK - I feel the love. May you have peace on your journey.

Thanks APL. Same to you. My end goal is indeed peace, including, Eschatologically, Sabbatical socio-economic peace (Isa 58; GC 637.1|Ezek 34:25; 37:26) however, and in this GC, Matt 11:12...
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/04/11 12:48 AM

Quote:
Tom: (1) You can answer your question here by reading what I have already said and linked to. I won’t waste my time restating them.


What question are you referring to? I did something like 8 posts, where I quoted what you wrote, and asked questions, and made points for you to respond to.

Quote:
(2) My exegetical approach is not to build a teaching on one or a select few “favoring” passages in the Bible or SOP but harmonize all paassages.


Your approach looks to be to make a theory based on one or two passages, and try to harmonize everything else to that. There are several others on this thread. We can appeal to them to see what there perspective is, but I think there would be agreement on this point.

Quote:
(3) You’ll mind-boggling, to say the least, to read what I have posted on my blog on the “War in Heaven” and just blindly continuing with your comments is basically what upset me and made this discussion no longer worth the time investment.


I'm reading what you post on this forum. I don't recall your responding to DA 761, which speaks of Satan's being "cast down" at the cross, when the angels became aware of his true character. I don't know what your thoughts are in regards to that. When you went through the chapter, in "It Is Finished," you didn't quote this portion, nor comment on it.

Quote:
So I will only wish you “good luck” with your single-sided GC and Theodicy view! I think I’ve made my point and I won’t be held responsible for doing your analysis and reading work.


Sarcasm is easier than evidence.

Quote:
And... seriously stated, in regards to my “attitude” switch read e.g., Matt 23 for some clues. Knowing myself for now 36+ years, when I make such statements, they are certainly not “tactics” but my weighed decision.


I'm sorry you think name calling is an acceptable way for Christians to dialog regarding spiritual things. I hope you change your mind regarding this.

Quote:
Sorry if you all choose to remain indifferent and/or oblivious to your disrespectful “trespasses” here.


I'm sorry you have chosen to resort to name-calling and sarcasm as opposed to presenting evidence for the points of view you hold. I hope you'll change your mind, and decide to continue a civilized discourse. I'm interested in your ideas.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/04/11 01:02 AM

Tom: Read my blog post on the “War in Heaven”. I care more for the substantive rather than the “pretentiousably” diversionary externals (e.g., Matt 23:25, 26ff).

And really, don’t feel sorry for what I may have ‘decided’ to do. I know it’s in my best interest! When a discussion ceases to be an equally-invested discussion, it is no longer worthwhile for me.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/04/11 01:05 AM

Originally Posted By: APL
Tom, if you have not listened to it, I think you will appreciate it. The recording, done on 3/19/2011, was done by a gentleman named Cole.


I know who you're talking about. Do you know that I know that? I think so, IIRC.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/04/11 01:09 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
And really, don’t feel sorry for what I may have ‘decided’ to do. I know it’s in my best interest! When a discussion ceases to be an equally-invested discussion, it is no longer worthwhile for me.


This is rather ironic, since you're the one who's made it such. MM and I have been discussing things for years. One posts something, the other voices disagreements, explains why, and the discussion goes back and forth until one or both (usually we both agree) that it's been "talked out" for the time being. Often we return to the subject later.

I've taken the time to address your points, ask you questions, and make counter-points. If you don't wish to continue the discussion, that's fine, but there's no need for excuses, or name-calling, or false accusations.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/04/11 01:42 AM

...I really don’t get it Tom. You want to continue this discussion and want me to continue addressing your question yet you outrightly refuse to read my answer on the “War in Heaven” on my blog, which resolves that issue, instead preferring to accuse me of being a ‘violent warmonger’ who colors my reading of the Bible and SOP according to that paradigm’??1 What’s the real story here. Do I have to beg you not to so blindly falsely accuse me??? And since that is what you want to blindly assume and moreover, falsely, generalizingly believe about me, then what’s the point of continuing the discussion. You’ve freely made your choices, then, at least, live with them!! And as your selectively, one-sided Theodicy view goes, you should clearly understand here where the entire blames lies for this cessation of “discussion”.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/04/11 01:48 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
Originally Posted By: NJK
And really, don’t feel sorry for what I may have ‘decided’ to do. I know it’s in my best interest! When a discussion ceases to be an equally-invested discussion, it is no longer worthwhile for me.


This is rather ironic, since you're the one who's made it such. MM and I have been discussing things for years. One posts something, the other voices disagreements, explains why, and the discussion goes back and forth until one or both (usually we both agree) that it's been "talked out" for the time being. Often we return to the subject later.

I've taken the time to address your points, ask you questions, and make counter-points. If you don't wish to continue the discussion, that's fine, but there's no need for excuses, or name-calling, or false accusations.

Like I perceived before, you obliviously see absolutely nothing wrong with your conduct here. I don’t have the time, patience or desire to deal with that self-obliviousness. That is typically relativist though, the only thing that matters is what [u]you’ve[u] done last.
Posted By: APL

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/04/11 03:16 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
I know who you're talking about. Do you know that I know that? I think so, IIRC.
Yes, I know you know him. :-)
Posted By: APL

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/04/11 08:33 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
You all, particularly APL, are looking a natural answer...for something that is entirely “supernatural.”
We are flesh and blood, are you not? Is there something in us apart from our body? A soul, which is separate from our body? NO. Do we inherit our sinful nature? Yes. (See Romans 5). So, yes, I will look at the natural world to see what may have gone wrong. Something that has changed us, and something for which there is nothing we can do of ourselves to fix it. Sin is not supernatural.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/04/11 09:09 AM

I knew this would be “glibly” taken. Of course sin is not supernatural, or else it would not have freely originated, and that in Heaven. However as the SOP says that the Fruit of Life had “supernatural” powers, then what it provided, and by sequitur implication, protected against/from was duly supernatural. Hence my comment. ‘No need to take prescription medicine for a common cold!’

(Btw, I do not understand “supernatural” to be something “magical,” as expressed on my blog, I see God as always operating on a scientific, level, I.e., a science level we don’t, and probably never will comprehend. I understand “supernatural” here to be capable of altering what is natural and thus: “to this extreme degree of the natural science”. So that “supernatural” code corrupting that you need to come externally from Satan, I see as being the result of the removal of that preventive ‘“supernatural” power/ingredient’ from the Fruit of Life.)
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/04/11 10:07 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Tom: (1) You can answer your question here by reading what I have already said and linked to. I won’t waste my time restating them.

(2) My exegetical approach is not to build a teaching on one or a select few “favoring” passages in the Bible or SOP but harmonize all paassages.

(3) You’ll mind-boggling, to say the least, to read what I have posted on my blog on the “War in Heaven” and just blindly continuing with your comments is basically what upset me and made this discussion no longer worth the time investment.

So I will only wish you “good luck” with your single-sided GC and Theodicy view! I think I’ve made my point and I won’t be held responsible for doing your analysis and reading work. And... seriously stated, in regards to my “attitude” switch read e.g., Matt 23 for some clues. Knowing myself for now 36+ years, when I make such statements, they are certainly not “tactics” but my weighed decision. Sorry if you all choose to remain indifferent and/or oblivious to your disrespectful “trespasses” here.

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
...I really don’t get it Tom. You want to continue this discussion and want me to continue addressing your question yet you outrightly refuse to read my answer on the “War in Heaven” on my blog, which resolves that issue, instead preferring to accuse me of being a ‘violent warmonger’ who colors my reading of the Bible and SOP according to that paradigm’??1 What’s the real story here. Do I have to beg you not to so blindly falsely accuse me??? And since that is what you want to blindly assume and moreover, falsely, generalizingly believe about me, then what’s the point of continuing the discussion. You’ve freely made your choices, then, at least, live with them!! And as your selectively, one-sided Theodicy view goes, you should clearly understand here where the entire blames lies for this cessation of “discussion”.
Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Originally Posted By: Tom
Originally Posted By: NJK
And really, don’t feel sorry for what I may have ‘decided’ to do. I know it’s in my best interest! When a discussion ceases to be an equally-invested discussion, it is no longer worthwhile for me.


This is rather ironic, since you're the one who's made it such. MM and I have been discussing things for years. One posts something, the other voices disagreements, explains why, and the discussion goes back and forth until one or both (usually we both agree) that it's been "talked out" for the time being. Often we return to the subject later.

I've taken the time to address your points, ask you questions, and make counter-points. If you don't wish to continue the discussion, that's fine, but there's no need for excuses, or name-calling, or false accusations.

Like I perceived before, you obliviously see absolutely nothing wrong with your conduct here. I don’t have the time, patience or desire to deal with that self-obliviousness. That is typically relativist though, the only thing that matters is what [u]you’ve[u] done last.


MODERATOR HAT ON:
NJK,

The one being disrespectful and making false accusations here in this discussion seems evident in the above posts. This is a Christian forum with certain rules established for maintaining friendly discussions. Your posts here appear to stand in violation of some of those rules. Please review our "Forum Rules of Conduct," and note that we try to make it a point here at Maritime to have our posts address the issues, not the individuals. This helps to minimize unfriendly debate.

In light of the above, please tone down your rhetoric.

MODERATOR HAT OFF.


Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/04/11 10:59 AM

“HAT ON Administrator” Green Cochoa... Did you even read the posts leading up to those statements of “recounting facts”??? E.g, Post #132294 Or is that, as done before, to be irrelevant???

And this ‘certainly is not “rhetoric” at all’... but of course you would have had to read my prior post explaining this fact to understand this statement here! It takes more than “putting on a HAT” to make the proper call, especially in the Spiritual realm! As the saying goes, ‘the clothing/frock doesn’t make the monk/priest.’
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/04/11 11:28 AM

Are you referring to this post?

Originally Posted By: Tom
Originally Posted By: NJK
"These plagues are not universal, or the inhabitants of the earth would be wholly cut off. Yet they will be the most awful scourges that have ever been known to mortals. All the judgments upon men, prior to the close of probation, have been mingled with mercy. The pleading blood of Christ has shielded the sinner from receiving the full measure of his guilt; but in the final judgment, wrath is poured out unmixed with mercy." {GC 628.2}

"In that day, multitudes will desire the shelter of God's mercy which they have so long despised." (end of EGW quote)


-Sounds indeed like justified and deserving, Divine ‘wrathful’ judgements to me.


It sounds that way to you because of your mind-set. To your way of thinking "judicious violence" is a good thing (or "judicious killing," which is what your actual words were).

The way we view God impacts how we interpret spiritual statements, whether from Scripture or the SOP. To someone who views things the way you do, "Sounds indeed like justified and deserving, Divine ‘wrathful’ judgements to me" is what comes naturally to mind. Someone who views violence/killing/coercion/use of force to get ones way/etc. as contrary to God's character, sees something different happening.

Immediately before the statement you cited, we read:

Quote:
When Christ ceases His intercession in the sanctuary, the unmingled wrath threatened against those who worship the beast and his image and receive his mark (Revelation 14:9, 10), will be poured out.


Earlier in the chapter she explained:

Quote:
When He leaves the sanctuary, darkness covers the inhabitants of the earth. In that fearful time the righteous must live in the sight of a holy God without an intercessor. The restraint which has been upon the wicked is removed, and Satan has entire control of the finally impenitent. God's long-suffering has ended. The world has rejected His mercy, despised His love, and trampled upon His law. The wicked have passed the boundary of their probation; the Spirit of God, persistently resisted, has been at last withdrawn. Unsheltered by divine grace, they have no protection from the wicked one. Satan will then plunge the inhabitants of the earth into one great, final trouble. As the angels of God cease to hold in check the fierce winds of human passion, all the elements of strife will be let loose. The whole world will be involved in ruin more terrible than that which came upon Jerusalem of old.


Enumerating what happens:

1.In that fearful time the righteous must live in the sight of a holy God without an intercessor.

(This is the problem! There is no more intercessor to defend against the attacks of Apollyon, the destroyer.)

2.The restraint which has been upon the wicked is removed, and Satan has entire control of the finally impenitent.

3.God's long-suffering has ended.
(Let's see what happens as a result)

4. The wicked have passed the boundary of their probation; the Spirit of God, persistently resisted, has been at last withdrawn. Unsheltered by divine grace, they have no protection from the wicked one. Satan will then plunge the inhabitants of the earth into one great, final trouble.

She concludes the paragraph with a comparison to the destruction of Jerusalem, which she explained in the same terms that she is here explaining the pouring out of the last plagues.


Yes, I did read that post. I do not see Tom accusing you as you have claimed. In fact, I did a search here in the forum of all of Tom's posts during the last year, and was unable to find even one instance of him calling you a "violent warmonger," nor did he even use this term. I think you might consider reading the posts you are responding to again, and looking at them in the best light possible before answering. This is advice that I sometimes need as well. As humans, it is easy to "read into" someone's words things which they may have not meant at all, simply because we have misconceptions of their intent.

Try to maintain an attitude of civility, and it will go a long ways toward a more enjoyable and productive discussion.

God bless,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/04/11 02:20 PM

As stated here that was one of the contributive factors. And ‘violent warmonger’ = my supposed “mind-set”, was knowingly and significantly in single quotes. Can’t have a “discussion” when what you’ve stated is being ignored and then you’re being accused of what you have disproven there!! That is what is not worthwhile to me.
Posted By: Daryl

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/04/11 06:00 PM

What single quotes are you referring to?

Also, if anybody here feels a post is in violation of any of our forum rules of conduct, the report a post link should normally be used and the reason then stated in the reason area for reporting the post. That is the manner in which such posts should be handled. All reported posts are reviewed by the Admin Team and then actioned accordingly.

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
As stated here that was one of the contributive factors. And ‘violent warmonger’ = my supposed “mind-set”, was knowingly and significantly in single quotes. Can’t have a “discussion” when what you’ve stated is being ignored and then you’re being accused of what you have disproven there!! That is what is not worthwhile to me.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/04/11 06:39 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
M: She clearly says God was testing, proving Moses. Which plainly means He did not intend to destroy Israel.

T: There are other incidents in Scripture where this very thing happened. For example, God looked for someone to repair the breach of the wall. If He had found someone, things could have been different. In Moses, He did find someone, and things were different.

To what purpose was God testing, proving Moses?

Quote:
M: Otherwise, if Moses had failed the test and God had destroyed Israel, it implies God would have raised up a nation through a man who failed the test of his faithfulness.

T: It does imply that. But people have failed tests of faithfulness and gone on to be great followers of God, of which Abraham, the very father of the people whom were discussing, is an example. The reason Israel wasn't destroyed was because of Moses' intercession. God wasn't kidding.

Why would God destroy a nation fathered by a failure only to replace it by another father of failure? "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Also, why did God need Moses' permission to destroy Israel? "If God had purposed to destroy Israel, who could plead for them?" Her use of the word "if" implies it was not God's intention to destroy Israel.
Posted By: Daryl

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/04/11 06:53 PM

What about Abraham pleading to God about not destroying Sodom & Gomorrah, if there were such and such a number of righteous people living there?
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/04/11 08:05 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Originally Posted By: kland
NJK, is killing part of God's character?

Because God is Just in his character, judicious killing harmonizes with how He sees best to deal with the sin problem. The Theodicy Truth here is not determined by what I need my God to be, but what He has revealed and done in the Bible. God never acts out of Character as that would itself be sin, since He/His Character is already and unimprovingly perfect.

Would you say the only difference between God's character and satan's character (regarding killing), is that God's killing is considered "judicious" while satan's killing is not?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/04/11 08:56 PM

NJK, I don't believe I've ever used the term "warmonger," as in my whole life, unless I've been quoting someone else. I saw two statements I made, that have some similarity to what you mentioned:

Here's the first one:

Quote:
NJK:-Sounds indeed like justified and deserving, Divine ‘wrathful’ judgements to me.

T:It sounds that way to you because of your mind-set. To your way of thinking "judicious violence" is a good thing (or "judicious killing," which is what your actual words were).

The way we view God impacts how we interpret spiritual statements, whether from Scripture or the SOP. To someone who views things the way you do, "Sounds indeed like justified and deserving, Divine ‘wrathful’ judgements to me" is what comes naturally to mind. Someone who views violence/killing/coercion/use of force to get ones way/etc. as contrary to God's character, sees something different happening.


Here's the second:

Quote:
Your view of God is colored by your mind-set, your paradigm, your already existing ideas of God's character, just like everybody else's is.


Were these the statements you had in mind? Or was it something else I said?

I'm sorry if I said something to upset you.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/04/11 09:03 PM

Quote:
M: She clearly says God was testing, proving Moses. Which plainly means He did not intend to destroy Israel.

T: There are other incidents in Scripture where this very thing happened. For example, God looked for someone to repair the breach of the wall. If He had found someone, things could have been different. In Moses, He did find someone, and things were different.

M:To what purpose was God testing, proving Moses?


To the end of revealing His character.

Quote:
M: Otherwise, if Moses had failed the test and God had destroyed Israel, it implies God would have raised up a nation through a man who failed the test of his faithfulness.

T: It does imply that. But people have failed tests of faithfulness and gone on to be great followers of God, of which Abraham, the very father of the people whom were discussing, is an example. The reason Israel wasn't destroyed was because of Moses' intercession. God wasn't kidding.

M:Why would God destroy a nation fathered by a failure only to replace it by another father of failure?


Any nation founded by any human being, other than the man Jesus Christ, is going to be founded upon someone flawed.

Quote:
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Also, why did God need Moses' permission to destroy Israel?


I don't understand why you're asking this. That is, why do you think God needed Moses' permission?

Quote:
"If God had purposed to destroy Israel, who could plead for them?" Her use of the word "if" implies it was not God's intention to destroy Israel.


What's the context here? Just taking a single sentence, or portion of a sentence, isn't a good way of ascertaining what's going on, IMO.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/04/11 10:49 PM

Originally Posted By: Daryl
What about Abraham pleading to God about not destroying Sodom & Gomorrah, if there were such and such a number of righteous people living there?


I think this goes along with the idea, expressed by the SOP, that it is according to God's purposes to do things that He would not otherwise have done because of prayer. There are a number of examples of disaster being avoided because of intercessory prayer.

It seems to me that God acts according to certain "rules" in the Great Controversy. Prayer evidently enables Him to do things He couldn't do otherwise. Not that He couldn't do so if He chose to, of course, since God is all powerful, but God chooses not to intervene in such cases at times.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/05/11 12:27 AM

Originally Posted By: Daryl F
What single quotes are you referring to?

Also, if anybody here feels a post is in violation of any of our forum rules of conduct, the report a post link should normally be used and the reason then stated in the reason area for reporting the post. That is the manner in which such posts should be handled. All reported posts are reviewed by the Admin Team and then actioned accordingly.

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
As stated here that was one of the contributive factors. And ‘violent warmonger’ = my supposed “mind-set”, was knowingly and significantly in single quotes. Can’t have a “discussion” when what you’ve stated is being ignored and then you’re being accused of what you have disproven there!! That is what is not worthwhile to me.

Thanks for the reminder Daryl. Like in society, when one does not think they’ll get fairness/justice from ‘established Law Enforcement’, especially if based upon concrete past incidents, they’ll tend to take matters into their own hands instead of calling upon them. Notwithstanding, I’ll deferentially consider, and make us of, that provision, if/when applicable, in the future.

Tom’s later comment found those underlying comments to that single-quoted term in that linked post.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/05/11 12:35 AM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Originally Posted By: Tom
M: She clearly says God was testing, proving Moses. Which plainly means He did not intend to destroy Israel.

T: There are other incidents in Scripture where this very thing happened. For example, God looked for someone to repair the breach of the wall. If He had found someone, things could have been different. In Moses, He did find someone, and things were different.

To what purpose was God testing, proving Moses?

Quote:
M: Otherwise, if Moses had failed the test and God had destroyed Israel, it implies God would have raised up a nation through a man who failed the test of his faithfulness.

T: It does imply that. But people have failed tests of faithfulness and gone on to be great followers of God, of which Abraham, the very father of the people whom were discussing, is an example. The reason Israel wasn't destroyed was because of Moses' intercession. God wasn't kidding.

Why would God destroy a nation fathered by a failure only to replace it by another father of failure? "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Also, why did God need Moses' permission to destroy Israel? "If God had purposed to destroy Israel, who could plead for them?" Her use of the word "if" implies it was not God's intention to destroy Israel.

(Did you notice my replies to those questions of yours here and here, (among other replies), Mountain Man??)
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/05/11 12:39 AM

Originally Posted By: Daryl
What about Abraham pleading to God about not destroying Sodom & Gomorrah, if there were such and such a number of righteous people living there?

That is indeed a good example. It also shows that God does candidly need to investigate the will of people before making a final decision and executing any deserved judgement, and also allowing for any deserved mercy, as God had indeed descended to effectuate this judgement, if it was found to be deserved, as “audible outcry” had it. (Gen 18:20, 21).
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/05/11 12:40 AM

Originally Posted By: kland
Would you say the only difference between God's character and satan's character (regarding killing), is that God's killing is considered "judicious" while satan's killing is not?


Indeed that is my understanding and view. When these “judicious killing” of God are investigated to determine why He would have done/sanctioned/ordered such an act, the just reason can be seen. (The destruction and dispossession of the indigenous habitants of the land of Canaan is a perfect example of this. As seen in Gen 15:13 & 16, their freely committed sins, which were increasingly of the perverse kind, had not reached this life-threatening (= “complete”) level where death was the next, and inevitable, result (= James 1:15); but also putting other righteous people at risk.) That is indeed also why I see that Lucifer was not immediately destroyed in Heaven. This “justifying” evidence was not yet in.

One could further illustrate the difference between God and Satan’s ‘GC War’ and ‘killing policies’ here as: God using precision and forwarned strikes, while Satan uses terroristic and indiscriminate mass destructions, and that, in regards to Satan, like a terroristic group operating within the territorial jurisdiction of a State, by trying to place the blame on God as “Acts of God”.

Notwithstanding, since I also see and believe that nothing happens on this planet unless God wills it, while Satan’s, thus “allowed destruction” is indeed merciless and indiscriminate, just as Babylon’s allowed destruction on Judah was (Jer 51, Psa 137:8, 9), I theologically see that God allows this and other of Satan’s concocted deadly weapons as this actually is showing to the entire universe that Satan, from the start had absolutely no love for anyone other than himself in embarking upon this lawless GC campaign. Perhaps God will be most merciful in the judgement to those who were collaterally killed by Satan in these Divinely-permitted actions.

However it must also be tangibly noted that, the judgements that God allows Satan to perform are upon just causes deserving of judgement and thus they are probably actively limited by God for the extent to which they can affect people. Also, all of Satan’s concoctions, e.g., drugs, Tobacco, etc, are not forced upon any man but taken in by their free choices.

So in summary, my views is that God indeed allows all these things that take place, but in the end, and even now, with deep Biblical pondering, it can and will be seen that they were all fair, and, as I see in, in cases were innocent people were killed, God may compensate them by giving them Eternal Life. Now there may be a major source of questioning/examining of God’s judgement in the Millennium reviewing judgement!
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/05/11 12:42 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
NJK, I don't believe I've ever used the term "warmonger," as in my whole life, unless I've been quoting someone else. I saw two statements I made, that have some similarity to what you mentioned:

Here's the first one:

Quote:
NJK:-Sounds indeed like justified and deserving, Divine ‘wrathful’ judgements to me.

T:It sounds that way to you because of your mind-set. To your way of thinking "judicious violence" is a good thing (or "judicious killing," which is what your actual words were).

The way we view God impacts how we interpret spiritual statements, whether from Scripture or the SOP. To someone who views things the way you do, "Sounds indeed like justified and deserving, Divine ‘wrathful’ judgements to me" is what comes naturally to mind. Someone who views violence/killing/coercion/use of force to get ones way/etc. as contrary to God's character, sees something different happening.


Here's the second:

Quote:
Your view of God is colored by your mind-set, your paradigm, your already existing ideas of God's character, just like everybody else's is.


Were these the statements you had in mind? Or was it something else I said?

I'm sorry if I said something to upset you.


Since it is applicable, Tom -apology accepted. These are indeed the statements that I had in mind. Reading my blog post on the ‘War in Heaven’ would further substantiate my view.

I just could/can not understand why these expressed views were to be my, and that ‘subjective’, “mind-set” when the Bible and SOP clearly states that God performs many judgements directly Himself. Indeed the same SOP that pulls back the curtains to show how a judgement occurred, also makes this statement, and affirms what is many times straightly said, to this point, in the Bible. Whether God uses direct or indirect, active or passive, methods to execute a judgement that He Himself has taken the command to do (vs. allowing Satan to have his way), He still is doing the judgement. The use of natural elements and even geo-political circumstances to do these judgements instead of uses freak supernatural acts such as fire and brimstone raining down on a particularly valley, is done so as to not over-influence the will of man. So one will have the faith-implicated choice to say: ‘that was not a judgement of God, but just nature’ and thus continue in their lawless ways, or one could in faith choose to more seriously consider God. Both choices would thus have been free and really non-compelled. The ironic truth is that ultimately, all of these adverse events are a form of God’s judgements, as they are all allowed to occur by Him. At the very least, one should see that something is not right here and maybe the message of the Bible does have the right answer, solution and (saving) world view.

So in summary, it was those clear Bible, SOP-confirmed and distinct SOP statements that ‘set my mind’ on this view and, definitely not anything else of the eisegetical, converse effect.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/05/11 12:55 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
Originally Posted By: Daryl
What about Abraham pleading to God about not destroying Sodom & Gomorrah, if there were such and such a number of righteous people living there?


I think this goes along with the idea, expressed by the SOP, that it is according to God's purposes to do things that He would not otherwise have done because of prayer. There are a number of examples of disaster being avoided because of intercessory prayer.

It seems to me that God acts according to certain "rules" in the Great Controversy. Prayer evidently enables Him to do things He couldn't do otherwise. Not that He couldn't do so if He chose to, of course, since God is all powerful, but God chooses not to intervene in such cases at times.

Good point Tom. That is indeed the innate raison d’être of Divinely-permitted, and most seriously considered, “intercession” (cf. Isa 1:18). God is looking for an excuse to have, even undeserved, mercy towards fallen Man in this semi-blindsiding, but inevitably so, GC. Of course then upon conditions of subsequent individual obedience and responsibility for this gracious advance, (even when it was unbeknownst), gift, thus confirming it (see e.g., Isa 1:19, 20).
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/05/11 08:14 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
I just could/can not understand why these expressed views were to be my, and that ‘subjective’, “mind-set” when the Bible and SOP clearly states that God performs many judgements directly Himself.


NJK, I've been speaking of the Destruction of Jerusalem for precisely this reason. In Scripture, it is expressed that God performed this judgment directly Himself. But...

Quote:
It is thus that the great deceiver seeks to conceal his own work. (GC 35)


There is nothing in Scripture to suggest this is the case (i.e., nothing direct; we can infer it from God's character revealed in Jesus Christ, but that's the whole point!); that is, the following:

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.(ibid)


Their suffering are often presented as punishment visited upon them by God because Scripture presents these judgments as coming directly from God.

So if these judgments, which Scripture says come directly from God, are really the result of God's withdrawing His protection, then why not others?

In regards to "mind-set" you wrote:

Quote:
NJK:-Sounds indeed like justified and deserving, Divine ‘wrathful’ judgements to me.


Indeed, it sounds like this to you, but not to me, or APL, or kland, or many others. Why doesn't it sound like this to us, but it does to you? Because your mind-set is different than ours.

I said:

Quote:
The way we view God impacts how we interpret spiritual statements, whether from Scripture or the SOP. To someone who views things the way you do, "Sounds indeed like justified and deserving, Divine ‘wrathful’ judgements to me" is what comes naturally to mind. Someone who views violence/killing/coercion/use of force to get ones way/etc. as contrary to God's character, sees something different happening.


I'm not seeing what's offensive in saying this. I'm simply saying you see things in one way, because of your mind-set or paradigm, whereas others, because of their mind-set or paradigm, see things differently.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/05/11 11:17 AM

I appreciate your effort to clarify/justify your position Tom, however I can only see that this blaming of my statements on, effectively, ‘a mind-set that is not in the Bible’ is further not justified, and is indeed due to you not having a due, harmonized understanding of such seemingly divergent Scriptures/SOP statements.

Quote:
Tom: NJK, I've been speaking of the Destruction of Jerusalem for precisely this reason. In Scripture, it is expressed that God performed this judgment directly Himself. But...

Quote:SOP “It is thus that the great deceiver seeks to conceal his own work. (GC 35)”

Tom: There is nothing in Scripture to suggest this is the case (i.e., nothing direct; we can infer it from God's character revealed in Jesus Christ, but that's the whole point!);


First of all, where in Scripture is the destruction event of Jerusalem recorded?? It is only from the SOP account and Josephus that we have an account of that event. So one will not find statements in the Bible, unlike, e.g., the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19:14, 24) that say that: ‘God did so and so.... during that destruction.’ the closest thing we have in the Bible are the prophecies of Jesus in His Olivet discourse (Matt 24:15-21; Mk 13:14-19; Luke 21:20-24), however nowhere does He indeed make a claim of a direct judgement from God Himself. I indeed have no problem with that view, and in a related discussion in my book on the 70 Weeks, as summarized in my blog, I also make this point directly from the Hebrew grammar and syntax of Dan 9:26b & 27b. The cause and feasance of destruction was indeed upon ‘the people of the coming Prince’ (i.e., the Jewish people who, whether they recognized it or not, were (at least, supposed-to-be) subjects of Prince/King Jesus (e.g., Luke 1:32; cf. Matt 2:2).

Now did EGW make this the all in all example of destructions?? It seems that your claim here is derived from your assumption that the Bible had said that God would actively do this destruction, but EGW claimed otherwise. However all that she says here, and that apparently because it could easily be seen that this was surely a direct judgement of God, is that it was rather the work of Satan after God had withdrawn His protection and permitted him to do so, as highlighted below

Quote:
Originally Posted By: SOP
“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.(ibid)


Originally Posted By: Tom
Their suffering are often presented as punishment visited upon them by God because Scripture presents these judgments as coming directly from God.

So if these judgments, which Scripture says come directly from God, are really the result of God's withdrawing His protection, then why not others?


So contrary to your assumed premise, I actually do not see that anywhere in the Bible, in the OT or NT that this was ever (matter-of-factly) said to be or described as “God’s direct judgement”. The closest statement to the sort is Christ’s completion of Isa 63:4 in Luke 21:22 as he says: ‘these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled’. Isa 63:5, 6 may be taken as a claim of “direct action of God” as it is indeed prophetically speaking of the Messiah, who after making a way of escape for Himself given the great rejection of the people (vs. 5), He seemingly directly acted to destroy, however the Hebrew syntax there indicates otherwise. That text literally says:

Originally Posted By: Bible Isa 63:6
I (naturally) trod down[Qal] the peoples in My anger And made them drunk[Piel] in My wrath, And I caused to be poured out[Hiphil] their lifeblood on the earth.
(cf. Isa 63:4)

As I explained before, I Jesus acting out Isa 6:9-13 as stated in Matt 13:10-17, Jesus had indeed set up the potential for this end result, which the Jews did indeed opt to follow. They were not aided to get a saving knowledge of the Gospel and the Kingdom plans of God and thus did not know better when the long ago prophesied time of judgement (Dan 9:26, 27) came for those who would come to reject the Messiah. So I do see that Christ fulfilled this in His own time when He figuratively (naturally) trod down these rebellious people through this key veiling during His ministry, and thus did indeed make them drunk with their own false teachings. However, as to pouring out their lifeblood, as the Hiphil verb fully allows for as it indicates, indirect and mediated action, that particular act, unlike the other two, was to be done by a third party. Christ was only to “indirectly cause”, indeed by what He had done to fulfill Isa 6:9-13. The imagery in Isa 63:3 shows that this was indeed to be a seemingly, directly faulting/responsible actions but it was not.

So the SOP is not actually ‘correcting’ the Bible, but indeed affirming this causal and indirect act of God in that destruction itself.

Indeed, even if done by Satan, it was, as is always the case in such judgements, at least an indirect act of God, as EGW does say that ‘Satan was permitted’, i.e., by God, even if it was by simply withdrawing that previously present restraining and shielding protection, and then looking on indifferently to what occurred. However as stated in the Bible, even if only in applicable partial fulfillment, ‘those days were cut short’ (Matt 24:22a; Mk 13:20a) and that is indeed why total physical and life destruction did not then occur, as it easily could and should. Surely Satan wanted to do this, so as not to give the Jewish nation any chance of ever coming to a saving knowledge of the Gospel in the future. As recorded in Josephus, Wars, 5:10.1 [#420]ff, there came to be a group of people who wanted to surrender/desert to the Romans, who other “rebels” wanted to fight on. And quite possibly for the sake of these ones, were these days cut short. Text:

Originally Posted By: Josephus, Wars 5:10.1 [#420
As Josephus was speaking thus with a loud voice, the seditious would neither yield to what he said, nor did they deem it safe for them to alter their conduct; but as for the people, they had a great inclination to desert to the Romans;


Perhaps the SOP says something along these lines. However, simply by pure Biblical equivocation, since many lives were spared, those days were indeed cut short as “none” should have survived but for that act, as stated by Christ.

So, in the light of the fact that the Bible (e.g., Gen 19:14, 24) and the SOP (e.g., GC 614.2) also unequivocally say that God does perform judgements Himself, directly and/or through commanded/commissioned angels, I had this problem of setting this up as the norm, if not the sole template, and not taken into account these other statements. Instead for these statement to be best understood, it has to be acknowledge that God indeed does use direct or indirect judgements and the Jerusalem one was an example of, even template for, the indirect ones, showing exactly how it comes to be behind the scenes.

So, also in answer to your prior objection, that is how I exegetically do “harmonize” seemingly divergent passages/statements on the same issue. And while its long and detailed explanation may make some to falsely think it must be false, that is just the cost and work involved when doing proper exegesis as such divergent passages incontrovertible require, because, in most cases, the correct harmonizing meaning has indeed been lost in translation.


Originally Posted By: Tom
In regards to "mind-set" you wrote:

Originally Posted By: NJK
-Sounds indeed like justified and deserving, Divine ‘wrathful’ judgements to me.
...
The way we view God impacts how we interpret spiritual statements, whether from Scripture or the SOP. To someone who views things the way you do, "Sounds indeed like justified and deserving, Divine ‘wrathful’ judgements to me" is what comes naturally to mind.


This was the SOP statement, cited by you, that I was commenting on:

Originally Posted By: SOP GC 628, 629
These plagues are not universal, or the inhabitants of the earth would be wholly cut off. Yet they will be the most awful scourges that have ever been known to mortals. All the judgments upon men, prior to the close of probation, have been mingled with mercy. The pleading blood of Christ has shielded the sinner from receiving the full measure of his guilt; but in the final judgment, wrath is poured out unmixed with mercy. {GC 628.2}
In that day, multitudes will desire the shelter of God's mercy which they have so long despised.


On solely a single point, out of the many other unequivocal, emphasized terms and statements of EGW above: How is r “wrath” not wrathful?

So I simply conversely pose this question to you and others:

Originally Posted By: Tom
Indeed, it sounds like this to you, but not to me, or APL, or kland, or many others. Why doesn't it sound like this to us, but it does to you? Because your mind-set is different than ours.


Indeed I similarly ask to you all: Why??! Perhaps the above “exhaustively comprehensive, harmonized” thus “proper” exegesis can help you answer this “why” here and also understand what the Biblical “mind-set” actually is.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Someone who views violence/killing/coercion/use of force to get ones way/etc. as contrary to God's character, sees something different happening.


Just reading the Bible along with the SOP as they themselves, non-contradictorily, say, and that distinctly in varying episodes, as either one of God’s two methods of executing judgement is judiciously selected and appropriately applied.

You also, at least effectively, spuriously and falsely keep on trying to make me say that I think and say that: ‘I believe/think that violence/killing/coercion/use of force to get ones way/etc is part of God's character and what He does.’ Instead of speculating on what you think I think/believe quote me where I supposedly said this. You above quote was at best a complete misconstruing of my direct and exegetically accurate conclusion of the SOP. I also don’t see how you APL, kland or anyone else can rightly claim that this is from my “brute force” and physical war in Heaven statements since you manifestly don’t’ even know how I substantiated that fact from my blog post on that topic. So that was indeed why I found this to be most annoying as it was clearly the underlying reason for your sudden barrage of such false accusations. It is your exegesis that is at full fault here, so my advice as before is get up to speed on all that I have pertinent said in regards to this topic, on top of engaging in proper exegesis before falsely accusing me. (John 18:19-23)

Originally Posted By: Tom
I'm not seeing what's offensive in saying this. I'm simply saying you see things in one way, because of your mind-set or paradigm, whereas others, because of their mind-set or paradigm, see things differently.


As I said, and shown in this response, your first need to engage in more substantively sound and deep exegesis, which shouldn’t be too hard for you a seminarian. That will, or should demonstrate what the Biblical mindset is, and there is only one, God is not dividable nor divided. That has been a foundational exegetical tenet of mine for now over 13 years and you’ll be shock how many Biblical statements, including in the SOP, that are harmonized into a full congruent truth, if not just rightly corrected, when this claim of “having a paradigm” is left out, letting the texts speak for themselves and state what the full view should be. So the Bible and SOP will not (normatively) contradict each other; and if they do, as they indeed, substantively do at times, then, as EGW counsels, the Bible is the final arbitrator.

That correct exegetical approach alone should lead you to properly perceive what is “offensive” in such Spiritual matters.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/05/11 12:27 PM

Notice: After a reading of the Bible and SOP, I see a valid problem with a belief that Satan is given the power to effectuate all of the Seven last plagues. That is mainly because the angels who are to commit these plagues are unequivocally said to be from the Temple of God (Rev 15:5-8). The argument can be made that ‘the SOP instead reveals that this will be the acts of Satan’ however, succinctly and harmonizingly said here after a cursory, but sufficient examination of these passages, I rather see that (SOP citations omitted): the first six plagues are done by these angels of God (Rev 16:1-15), that enrages the wicked and lead to the Armageddon Assembly (Rev 16:16). It is then that the seventh angel distinct throws his bowl of wrath “in the air”. (Rev 16:17a) It is then that I see that Satan, the prince and power of the air, is unleashed and permitted to do that seventh and last, multi-faceted plague. (vss. 17b-21). It is indeed so sever that, unlike the others, it leads the wicked to “blaspheme God” (i.e., conversely, attribute a work of Satan to God.) (vs. 21).

There is also a manifest difference between Christ ceasing His work of intercession and then His leaving of the Sanctuary. It is in this mean time, while He changes robes from His Priestly ones to ones of vengeance that the Time of Trouble begins and the plagues begin to be poured out. When He leaves, thus to begin His Return, the Seventh Plague commences, now under the granted control of Satan (see e.g., 1T 204). It is then that the cry is by Christ made: "It is done." Rev. 16:17 = {GC 636.2} Then Satan’s permitted destruction occurs after Christ makes this distinct and subsequent leaving move {GC 613.2-614.1}.

I’ll expand on this summary later and add the underlying SOP and Bible reference. I just wanted to make this observation as it can help to understand what is being harmoniously said in the Bible and SOP on these seven last plagues, and pertinently who exactly do which ones.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/05/11 04:38 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
I appreciate your effort to clarify/justify your position Tom, however I can only see that this blaming of my statements on, effectively, ‘a mind-set that is not in the Bible’ is further not justified, and is indeed due to you not having a due, harmonized understanding of such seemingly divergent Scriptures/SOP statements.


Everybody is impacted by their mind-set/paradigm. This is a chief pillar of the exegetical method. Why would you think this doesn't apply to yourself?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/05/11 04:55 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
First of all, where in Scripture is the destruction event of Jerusalem recorded?? It is only from the SOP account and Josephus that we have an account of that event.


It is in Scripture, and I quoted it for you.

Quote:
What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others.(Mark 12)


Quote:
When the King heard what had been done, he was very angry, and sent out his army to destroy the murderers, and burn up their city.(Matt. 22)


Quote:
T:Indeed, it sounds like this to you, but not to me, or APL, or kland, or many others. Why doesn't it sound like this to us, but it does to you? Because your mind-set is different than ours.

NJK:Indeed I similarly ask to you all: Why??! Perhaps the above “exhaustively comprehensive, harmonized” thus “proper” exegesis can help you answer this “why” here and also understand what the Biblical “mind-set” actually is.


Not at all. Your response was one of reaction. You didn't investigate what was happening, but merely read a text, and replied, "this sounds like such and such to me."

When you see certain statements, they immediately strike you a certain way. You then investigate if you think the way they strike you is what you think is correct.

My question was directed towards why the given statement strikes you in a certain way in the first place. It's because of your mind-set/paradigm, the same as for everyone else.

Quote:
You also, at least effectively, spuriously and falsely keep on trying to make me say that I think and say that: ‘I believe/think that violence/killing/coercion/use of force to get ones way/etc is part of God's character and what He does.’ Instead of speculating on what you think I think/believe quote me where I supposedly said this.


Why don't you start please? That is, please quote what specifically it is I'm saying here that you're taking exception to, and I'll look for evidence to support what I've asserted. What you quoted, that you are responding to, is this:

Quote:
Someone who views violence/killing/coercion/use of force to get ones way/etc. as contrary to God's character, sees something different happening.


Since you're reacting against *this* statement, which doesn't mention you at all, is it correct for me to understand that you wish to assert that you are a part of this group? In other words, you see yourself as believing that God doesn't use violence/killing/coercion/use of force to get His way? If this is what you wish to assert, simply say so please, and if I disagree with your assertion, I'll look for evidence to support why.

Quote:
As I said, and shown in this response, your first need to engage in more substantively sound and deep exegesis, which shouldn’t be too hard for you a seminarian. That will, or should demonstrate what the Biblical mindset is, and there is only one, God is not dividable nor divided. That has been a foundational exegetical tenet of mine for now over 13 years and you’ll be shock how many Biblical statements, including in the SOP, that are harmonized into a full congruent truth, if not just rightly corrected, when this claim of “having a paradigm” is left out, letting the texts speak for themselves and state what the full view should be. So the Bible and SOP will not (normatively) contradict each other; and if they do, as they indeed, substantively do at times, then, as EGW counsels, the Bible is the final arbitrator.


We're all doing this. We just use different foundational statements upon which to harmonize the others.

For example, you believe that God's primary characteristic is His power. I believe it's His love.

As another example, I believe that the primary revelation of God's character is Jesus Christ. I believe that all that we can know of God was revealed by Him. Therefore I don't need to go outside of Jesus Christ to know or understand God. This is an important foundational principle which I use in attempting to harmonize Scriptural statements, or statements by the SOP.

So we both agree that Scripture should harmonize with itself, as well as the SOP (should harmonize with itself, and Scripture), but disagree on what the foundational principles should be upon which to attempt the harmonization.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/05/11 06:35 PM

Originally Posted By: kland
K: NJK, is killing part of God's character?

N: Because God is Just in his character, judicious killing harmonizes with how He sees best to deal with the sin problem. The Theodicy Truth here is not determined by what I need my God to be, but what He has revealed and done in the Bible. God never acts out of Character as that would itself be sin, since He/His Character is already and unimprovingly perfect.

K: Would you say the only difference between God's character and satan's character (regarding killing), is that God's killing is considered "judicious" while satan's killing is not?

When Jesus withdraws His protection and gives Satan permission to kill sinners, because "they are worthy" (Rev 16:6), are we to assume Satan is acting injudiciously? Is he not, after all, acting in harmony with Jesus' will? If Satan were to refuse to mete out justice on Jesus' behalf who, pray tell, would punish the wicked? What good is law if no one is willing to enforce it? "God has a right to enforce the penalty of the law upon transgressors, for law without a penalty would be without force." {ST, July 14, 1890 par. 2}

"By His word God has bound Himself to execute the penalty of the law on all transgressors. Again and again men commit sin, and yet they do not seem to believe that they must suffer the penalty for breaking the law." {6BC 1095.4} "God has given in His word decisive evidence that He will punish the transgressors of His law." {GC 539.3} "The penalty for the least transgression of that law is death, and but for Christ, the sinner's Advocate, it would be summarily visited on every offender." {TDG 246.1}

Do you agree Jesus is required, by law, to execute justice and judgment, to punish the wicked according to their words and works? If so, do you believe it falls to Satan to punish them? If so, what if Satan refused to do it, who would administer the "ministry of wrath" on Jesus' behalf?

Quote:
With unerring accuracy, the Infinite One keeps a record of the impiety of nations and individuals. Long is his mercy tendered to them, with calls to repentance; but when their guilt reaches a certain limit, which he has fixed, then mercy ceases her pleadings, and the ministration of wrath begins. {LP 318.1}

This penalty Christ bore for the sins of the transgressor. He has borne the punishment for every man, and for this reason He can ransom every soul, however fallen his condition, if he will accept the law of God as his standard of righteousness. The cry of despair from the soul calls forth the tenderest love of God, and this is salvation to every one that believes. He who sees the guilt of his transgression, and understands the infinite sacrifice made in his behalf, will not continue in sin. But if men continue to resist light and evidence, they will cut themselves off from God's mercy, and then will come the ministry of wrath. God can not save the sinner in his sin. The love of God is immeasurable to those who repent, but His justice is firm and uncompromising to those who abuse his long-suffering love. {ST, November 15, 1899 par. 6}

Jesus earned the right on the cross to pardon and save penitent sinners. "For this reason He can ransom every soul." He saves them from the penalty of transgression, that is, intense emotional and physical suffering eventually ending in eternal death.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/05/11 07:30 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
M: She clearly says God was testing, proving Moses. Which plainly means He did not intend to destroy Israel.

T: There are other incidents in Scripture where this very thing happened. For example, God looked for someone to repair the breach of the wall. If He had found someone, things could have been different. In Moses, He did find someone, and things were different.

M: To what purpose was God testing, proving Moses?

T: To the end of revealing His character.

What attribute of character did Jesus reveal when He told Moses to let Him destroy Israel?

Also, what would have qualified as passing the test – letting Jesus destroy Israel or not letting Him destroy Israel? Would Moses have passed the test if he had let Jesus destroy Israel? And, would Jesus have passed the test if He had destroyed Israel?

“Let Me alone, that My wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation."

Quote:
M: Otherwise, if Moses had failed the test and God had destroyed Israel, it implies God would have raised up a nation through a man who failed the test of his faithfulness.

T: It does imply that. But people have failed tests of faithfulness and gone on to be great followers of God, of which Abraham, the very father of the people whom were discussing, is an example. The reason Israel wasn't destroyed was because of Moses' intercession. God wasn't kidding.

M: Why would God destroy a nation fathered by a failure only to replace it by another father of failure? “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

T: Any nation founded by any human being, other than the man Jesus Christ, is going to be founded upon someone flawed.

Which begs the question – Why destroy Israel and start over with Moses? How is that not “insane” (see definition above)?

Quote:
M: Also, why did God need Moses' permission to destroy Israel?

T: I don't understand why you're asking this. That is, why do you think God needed Moses' permission?

Because Jesus asked Moses to “let” Him destroy Israel.

Quote:
M: "If God had purposed to destroy Israel, who could plead for them?" Her use of the word "if" implies it was not God's intention to destroy Israel.

T: What's the context here? Just taking a single sentence, or portion of a sentence, isn't a good way of ascertaining what's going on, IMO.

It’s part of the quote you omitted when you responded to it. Here it is again:

Quote:
God's covenant with His people had been disannulled, and He declared to Moses, "Let Me alone, that My wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation." The people of Israel, especially the mixed multitude, would be constantly disposed to rebel against God. They would also murmur against their leader, and would grieve him by their unbelief and stubbornness, and it would be a laborious and soul-trying work to lead them through to the Promised Land. Their sins had already forfeited the favor of God, and justice called for their destruction. The Lord therefore proposed to destroy them, and make of Moses a mighty nation. {PP 318.1}

"Let Me alone, . . . that I may consume them," were the words of God. If God had purposed to destroy Israel, who could plead for them? How few but would have left the sinners to their fate! How few but would have gladly exchanged a lot of toil and burden and sacrifice, repaid with ingratitude and murmuring, for a position of ease and honor, when it was God Himself that offered the release. {PP 318.2}

But Moses discerned ground for hope where there appeared only discouragement and wrath. The words of God, "Let Me alone," he understood not to forbid but to encourage intercession, implying that nothing but the prayers of Moses could save Israel, but that if thus entreated, God would spare His people. He "besought the Lord his God, and said, Lord, why doth Thy wrath wax hot against Thy people, which Thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand?" {PP 318.3}

Was Jesus seeking Moses' permission to destroy Israel? Or, was He encouraging Moses to intercede on their behalf? "The words of God, 'Let Me alone,' he understood not to forbid but to encourage intercession . . ." If so, how could Jesus' words also mean He was intending to destroy Israel if only Moses would "let" Him?

Quote:
T: It seems to me that God acts according to certain "rules" in the Great Controversy. Prayer evidently enables Him to do things He couldn't do otherwise. Not that He couldn't do so if He chose to, of course, since God is all powerful, but God chooses not to intervene in such cases at times.

In the case of Jesus asking Moses to "let" Him destroy Israel, how did His "rules of engagement" play out?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/05/11 07:41 PM

NJK, please accept my response above as answer to the points you raised.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/05/11 07:48 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
T: Not everything that happens is for a purpose. There's a reason God has made the decisions that He has made, choosing to allow certain things to happen (like the Holocaust, for example) but this does not mean that God *purposed* for these things to happen. God's allowing certain things to happen, and purposing that they happen are very different things.

M: What were Jesus' options in cases like the Holocaust?

T: That's a pretty tall order for me, isn't it? That is, you're asking me to enumerate the options of divinity? I don't think I'm qualified to do that.

1. What factors does God weigh when choosing to allow things to play out the way they do?

2. Is God free to allow or disallow things like N&A being burned alive and the two bands of fifty being burned alive?

3. Or, are His hands tied?

4. Is Satan free to do as he pleases without limits?

5. Did Jesus, while here in the flesh (as opposed to after He returned to heaven), choose to allow things like ungodly people being burned alive?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/05/11 08:08 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
1. In the OT, why did Jesus command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle?

M: Seems to me you believe Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in battle because 1) the Jews failed to trust Jesus to defeat their enemies in a godly way, and 2) the Jews expected Him to think and behave like a pagan god.

Do you agree with my assessment of your view as it relates to the question above?

Was Jesus, while here in the flesh (as opposed to after He returned to heaven), forced to command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle?

Quote:
2. In the OT, why did Jesus command godly people to kill ungodly people through the execution of capital punishment?

M: Seems to me you believe Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people through the execution of capital punishment because 1) the Jews failed to trust Jesus to punish them in a godly way, and 2) the Jews expected Him to behave like a pagan god.

Do you agree with my assessment of your view as it relates to the question above?

Was Jesus, while here in the flesh (as opposed to after He returned to heaven), forced to command godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment?

Quote:
Exodus
22:20 He that sacrificeth unto [any] god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

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.

Deuteronomy
2:34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:
20:17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; [namely], the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:

Joshua
10:40 So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded.

Seems to me you believe Jesus was reluctantly willing to command the kinds of things described in the passages above for as long as it would take Him to teach the Jews how to "turn the other cheek"? Is this what you believe?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/05/11 08:26 PM

NJK, do you agree with Tom's view of the following passages:

Quote:
When He leaves the sanctuary, darkness covers the inhabitants of the earth. In that fearful time the righteous must live in the sight of a holy God without an intercessor. The restraint which has been upon the wicked is removed, and Satan has entire control of the finally impenitent. God's long-suffering has ended. The world has rejected His mercy, despised His love, and trampled upon His law. The wicked have passed the boundary of their probation; the Spirit of God, persistently resisted, has been at last withdrawn. Unsheltered by divine grace, they have no protection from the wicked one. Satan will then plunge the inhabitants of the earth into one great, final trouble. As the angels of God cease to hold in check the fierce winds of human passion, all the elements of strife will be let loose. The whole world will be involved in ruin more terrible than that which came upon Jerusalem of old. {GC 614.1}

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}

In particular, Tom believes the highlighted sentence above must be interpreted to mean holy angels exercise the same destructive power exercised by evil angels by withdrawing their protection and permitting evil angels to cause death and destruction. Do you agree with him?

He also believe the holy angels portrayed as causing the death and destruction described in Rev 16 must be interpreted to mean they have withdrawn their protection and are permitting evil angels to cause the death and destruction described in Rev 16. Do you agree with him?
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/05/11 09:33 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Originally Posted By: kland
Would you say the only difference between God's character and satan's character (regarding killing), is that God's killing is considered "judicious" while satan's killing is not?


Indeed that is my understanding and view. When these “judicious killing” of God are investigated to determine why He would have done/sanctioned/ordered such an act, the just reason can be seen. (The destruction and dispossession of the indigenous habitants of the land of Canaan is a perfect example of this. As seen in Gen 15:13 & 16, their freely committed sins, which were increasingly of the perverse kind, had not reached this life-threatening (= “complete”) level where death was the next, and inevitable, result (= James 1:15); but also putting other righteous people at risk.) That is indeed also why I see that Lucifer was not immediately destroyed in Heaven. This “justifying” evidence was not yet in.

One could further illustrate the difference between God and Satan’s ‘GC War’ and ‘killing policies’ here as: God using precision and forwarned strikes, while Satan uses terroristic and indiscriminate mass destructions, and that, in regards to Satan, like a terroristic group operating within the territorial jurisdiction of a State, by trying to place the blame on God as “Acts of God”.
...Now there may be a major source of questioning/examining of God’s judgement in the Millennium reviewing judgement!

So, like some others, would you say it depends upon the motive? I, in the above specific instance, was referring to the end result. Maybe I had the flood in mind that after an observer saw the destruction of the earth and the people, would he, without knowing anything aforehand, be able to determine whether satan did it or God did it? But, considering the actual action and motives in the acting of it, does that help any? Perhaps you think not that we are going to use the Millennium for determining God's (well, not character it seems you suggest as anything goes fits in here), but act as whether it was "judicious" or "injudicious". Am I understanding correctly that you view God as using a violent act, drowning people, to stop their violent acts, and that violence is not wrong, but we will spend a thousand years determining if that, and other violent acts, were "judicious" use of violence? But, is "judicious", as determined by you proper use in determining character as you then have what MM comes up with:
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/05/11 09:33 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
K: NJK, is killing part of God's character?

N: Because God is Just in his character, judicious killing harmonizes with how He sees best to deal with the sin problem. The Theodicy Truth here is not determined by what I need my God to be, but what He has revealed and done in the Bible. God never acts out of Character as that would itself be sin, since He/His Character is already and unimprovingly perfect.

K: Would you say the only difference between God's character and satan's character (regarding killing), is that God's killing is considered "judicious" while satan's killing is not?

M: When Jesus withdraws His protection and gives Satan permission to kill sinners, because "they are worthy" (Rev 16:6), are we to assume Satan is acting injudiciously? Is he not, after all, acting in harmony with Jesus' will? If Satan were to refuse to mete out justice on Jesus' behalf who, pray tell, would punish the wicked? What good is law if no one is willing to enforce it? "God has a right to enforce the penalty of the law upon transgressors, for law without a penalty would be without force." {ST, July 14, 1890 par. 2}
wow

Are you saying that both Jesus and Satan kill judiciously?

Quote:
who, pray tell, would punish the wicked?
Could that comment be a revealing of a problem with your view?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/05/11 11:08 PM

I know this was addressed to kland, but I found this an interesting post, so have replied to it.

Quote:
When Jesus withdraws His protection and gives Satan permission to kill sinners, because "they are worthy" (Rev 16:6), are we to assume Satan is acting injudiciously?


Yes.

Quote:
Is he not, after all, acting in harmony with Jesus' will?


No, of course not. Satan acts contrary to Jesus' will. That's his character. Satan is evil; Jesus is good. They have wills the one contrary to the other.

Quote:
If Satan were to refuse to mete out justice on Jesus' behalf who, pray tell, would punish the wicked?


This isn't a reasonable assumption here.

Quote:
What good is law if no one is willing to enforce it? "God has a right to enforce the penalty of the law upon transgressors, for law without a penalty would be without force." {ST, July 14, 1890 par. 2}


The following is from "The Great Controversy" discussing the destruction of Jerusalem:

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. (GC 36)


The law is enforced. GC 35-37 describes how it is enforced. It's not an arbitrarily imposed sentence, but by the law of cause and effect.

Quote:
"By His word God has bound Himself to execute the penalty of the law on all transgressors. Again and again men commit sin, and yet they do not seem to believe that they must suffer the penalty for breaking the law." {6BC 1095.4} "God has given in His word decisive evidence that He will punish the transgressors of His law." {GC 539.3} "The penalty for the least transgression of that law is death, and but for Christ, the sinner's Advocate, it would be summarily visited on every offender." {TDG 246.1}

Do you agree Jesus is required, by law, to execute justice and judgment, to punish the wicked according to their words and works?


This is the wrong way of looking at things, IMO, because it is phrasing things as if the law were an entity independent of God. The law is a transcript of God's character, so it suffices simply to say that God's character requires Him to do the things that He does, the defining characteristic of which is love.

Quote:
If so, do you believe it falls to Satan to punish them?


Disobedience to the law of itself brings punishment. It's a mistake to think that this must be arbitrarily imposed ("arbitrarily" as per its primary meaning; not "capricious" or "whimsical").

Quote:
If so, what if Satan refused to do it, who would administer the "ministry of wrath" on Jesus' behalf?


What Satan does doesn't matter as far as the certain of the punishment of the wicked is concerned.

Here's something to consider:

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. (GC 36)


The certain punishment that comes upon the wicked is exemplified by what happened in the destruction of Jerusalem. What happened there?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/05/11 11:23 PM

Tom, you seem to be referring to the first death, whereas in the quotes I posted Ellen is referring to the second death. The penalty for transgressing the law of God is the second death. Roman soldiers will not be employed by Satan to mete out the justice and judgment of God as in the case of Jerusalem's destruction in 70 AD.

By the way, what sin resulted in Satan employing Roman soldiers to kill the Jews in 70 AD? In what way was it not "arbitrary"?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/05/11 11:27 PM

Originally Posted By: kland
Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
K: NJK, is killing part of God's character?

N: Because God is Just in his character, judicious killing harmonizes with how He sees best to deal with the sin problem. The Theodicy Truth here is not determined by what I need my God to be, but what He has revealed and done in the Bible. God never acts out of Character as that would itself be sin, since He/His Character is already and unimprovingly perfect.

K: Would you say the only difference between God's character and satan's character (regarding killing), is that God's killing is considered "judicious" while satan's killing is not?

M: When Jesus withdraws His protection and gives Satan permission to kill sinners, because "they are worthy" (Rev 16:6), are we to assume Satan is acting injudiciously? Is he not, after all, acting in harmony with Jesus' will? If Satan were to refuse to mete out justice on Jesus' behalf who, pray tell, would punish the wicked? What good is law if no one is willing to enforce it? "God has a right to enforce the penalty of the law upon transgressors, for law without a penalty would be without force." {ST, July 14, 1890 par. 2}
wow

Are you saying that both Jesus and Satan kill judiciously?

Quote:
who, pray tell, would punish the wicked?
Could that comment be a revealing of a problem with your view?

You omitted most of my post. Why?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/05/11 11:30 PM

Tom, I addressed three posts to you after the one I posted to Kland (which you responded to above). Please respond to them. Thank you.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/06/11 01:31 AM

Really busy, MM. I'm doing my best.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/06/11 01:43 AM

Quote:
M: She clearly says God was testing, proving Moses. Which plainly means He did not intend to destroy Israel.

T: There are other incidents in Scripture where this very thing happened. For example, God looked for someone to repair the breach of the wall. If He had found someone, things could have been different. In Moses, He did find someone, and things were different.

M: To what purpose was God testing, proving Moses?

T: To the end of revealing His character.

M:What attribute of character did Jesus reveal when He told Moses to let Him destroy Israel?


Is this what you think God was doing? Or, let me ask it this way, what do you think was happening?

What I think was happening is that God wanted to be merciful, and this was the aspect of character He was revealing.

Quote:
Also, what would have qualified as passing the test – letting Jesus destroy Israel or not letting Him destroy Israel?


I understand that God was proving, or testing, Moses in the sense of revealing his character.

Quote:
Would Moses have passed the test if he had let Jesus destroy Israel? And, would Jesus have passed the test if He had destroyed Israel?


What test?

Quote:
“Let Me alone, that My wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation."


Remember that God's wrath is His hiding His face, withdrawing His protection. This is similar to other times in Scripture, when God looked from someone to intercede. In Moses He found a kindred spirit.

Quote:

M: Otherwise, if Moses had failed the test and God had destroyed Israel, it implies God would have raised up a nation through a man who failed the test of his faithfulness.

T: It does imply that. But people have failed tests of faithfulness and gone on to be great followers of God, of which Abraham, the very father of the people whom were discussing, is an example. The reason Israel wasn't destroyed was because of Moses' intercession. God wasn't kidding.

M: Why would God destroy a nation fathered by a failure only to replace it by another father of failure? “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

T: Any nation founded by any human being, other than the man Jesus Christ, is going to be founded upon someone flawed.

M:Which begs the question – Why destroy Israel and start over with Moses? How is that not “insane” (see definition above)?


Why couldn't the offspring of Moses have behaved differently?

Quote:

M: Also, why did God need Moses' permission to destroy Israel?

T: I don't understand why you're asking this. That is, why do you think God needed Moses' permission?

M:Because Jesus asked Moses to “let” Him destroy Israel.


I think God wanted Moses to intercede on behalf of Israel.

(More later)
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/06/11 03:34 AM

It seems Tom is right about this incident. This is what Ellen White says, and the interesting lesson she draws:

Quote:
"And the Lord said unto Moses, How long will this people provoke me? and how long will it be ere they believe me, for all the signs which I have showed among them? I will smite them with the pestilence, and disinherit them, and will make of thee a greater nation and mightier than they." {RH, October 3, 1893 par. 9}

Moses was then tested and proved of God. Forsake Israel? Come out from among them, and leave them in their rebellion and sin?--No, never. {RH, October 3, 1893 par. 10}

"And Moses said unto the Lord, Then the Egyptians shall hear it (for thou broughtest up this people in thy might from among them;), and they will tell it to the inhabitants of this land: for they have heard that thou Lord art among this people, that thou Lord art seen face to face, and that thy cloud standeth over them, and that thou goest before them, by daytime in a pillar of a cloud, and in a pillar of fire by night. Now if thou shalt kill all people as one man, then the nations that have heard the fame of thee will speak, saying, Because the Lord was not able to bring this people into the land which ye sware unto them, therefore he hath slain them in the wilderness. And now, I beseech thee, let the power of my Lord be great, according as thou hast spoken, saying, 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. Pardon, I beseech thee, the iniquity of this people according unto the greatness of thy mercy, and as thou hast forgiven this people, from Egypt until now. And the Lord said, I have pardoned according to thy word: but as truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord. Because all those men which have seen my glory, and my miracles, which I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and have tempted me now these ten times, and have not hearkened to my voice; surely they shall not see the land which I sware unto their fathers, neither shall any of them that provoked me see it." {RH, October 3, 1893 par. 11}

Mark the whole tenor of this chapter, and learn the lesson it conveys to modern Israel. These things are written for our ensamples upon whom the ends of the world are come. We see the unbelief, and the stout resistance of some who have had great light, and although evidence has been piled upon evidence, they have kept themselves in stubborn resistance. The Lord has sent messages of warning and entreaty, messages of reproof and rebuke, and they have not been in vain. But we have never had a message that the Lord would disorganize the church. We have never had the prophecy concerning Babylon applied to the Seventh-day Adventist Church, or been informed that the "loud cry" consisted in calling God's people to come out of her; for this is not God's plan concerning Israel. {RH, October 3, 1893 par. 12}

In the example of Moses pleading for the children of Israel, is represented the position that we should take in regard to the people of God, however erring, or weak, or defective they may be. {RH, October 3, 1893 par. 13}
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/06/11 03:53 AM

Originally Posted By: Rosangela
It seems Tom is right about this incident. This is what Ellen White says, and the interesting lesson she draws:

Quote:
"And the Lord said unto Moses, How long will this people provoke me? and how long will it be ere they believe me, for all the signs which I have showed among them? I will smite them with the pestilence, and disinherit them, and will make of thee a greater nation and mightier than they." {RH, October 3, 1893 par. 9}

Moses was then tested and proved of God. Forsake Israel? Come out from among them, and leave them in their rebellion and sin?--No, never. {RH, October 3, 1893 par. 10}

"And Moses said unto the Lord, Then the Egyptians shall hear it (for thou broughtest up this people in thy might from among them;), and they will tell it to the inhabitants of this land: for they have heard that thou Lord art among this people, that thou Lord art seen face to face, and that thy cloud standeth over them, and that thou goest before them, by daytime in a pillar of a cloud, and in a pillar of fire by night. Now if thou shalt kill all people as one man, then the nations that have heard the fame of thee will speak, saying, Because the Lord was not able to bring this people into the land which ye sware unto them, therefore he hath slain them in the wilderness. And now, I beseech thee, let the power of my Lord be great, according as thou hast spoken, saying, 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. Pardon, I beseech thee, the iniquity of this people according unto the greatness of thy mercy, and as thou hast forgiven this people, from Egypt until now. And the Lord said, I have pardoned according to thy word: but as truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord. Because all those men which have seen my glory, and my miracles, which I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and have tempted me now these ten times, and have not hearkened to my voice; surely they shall not see the land which I sware unto their fathers, neither shall any of them that provoked me see it." {RH, October 3, 1893 par. 11}

Mark the whole tenor of this chapter, and learn the lesson it conveys to modern Israel. These things are written for our ensamples upon whom the ends of the world are come. We see the unbelief, and the stout resistance of some who have had great light, and although evidence has been piled upon evidence, they have kept themselves in stubborn resistance. The Lord has sent messages of warning and entreaty, messages of reproof and rebuke, and they have not been in vain. But we have never had a message that the Lord would disorganize the church. We have never had the prophecy concerning Babylon applied to the Seventh-day Adventist Church, or been informed that the "loud cry" consisted in calling God's people to come out of her; for this is not God's plan concerning Israel. {RH, October 3, 1893 par. 12}

In the example of Moses pleading for the children of Israel, is represented the position that we should take in regard to the people of God, however erring, or weak, or defective they may be. {RH, October 3, 1893 par. 13}

"But we have never had a message that the Lord would disorganize the church." Which implies Jesus did not intend to destroy Israel and start over with Moses, not any more than Jesus intends to reject the SDA church and start over with another church.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/06/11 04:00 AM

Quote:
NJK: First of all, where in Scripture is the destruction event of Jerusalem recorded?? It is only from the SOP account and Josephus that we have an account of that event.


Tom:It is in Scripture, and I quoted it for you.

Originally Posted By: Bible

What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others.(Mark 12)

When the King heard what had been done, he was very angry, and sent out his army to destroy the murderers, and burn up their city.(Matt. 22)


That was part of my point, that was not a ‘matter-of fact account or straightforward fore-description of the destruction. It was a parable. Are we to take all of the elements used in a parable as literal descriptions. What then of e.g., the Rich Man and Lazarus.

In reality, did God send ‘His own army’ to do this destruction (which would literally have to be the Angels as He is the Lord of Hosts) or was it the Roman armies who came and did this. Still as God is sovereign over all of the earth, and does set up and remove earthly kings (Dan 2:21) and even ‘cause (= Hiphil) foreign kings/kingdoms to be ‘awaken/roused up/stirred up’ to effectuate His plans/judgements of destruction even when not in direct relation for or against His Israel (Isa 13:17). Indeed as shown in Isa 10:26, as the Lord of Host (=angels) He still does this work through earthly powers, even foreign armies as for the promised destruction of the Assyrians (cf. vs. 24-34). So I do not see Christ’s parable as being substantively contradictive to what was later revealed in the SOP. At the very least, it could only have been down by the allowance of the Sovereign God of this World.

Quote:
T:Indeed, it sounds like this to you, but not to me, or APL, or kland, or many others. Why doesn't it sound like this to us, but it does to you? Because your mind-set is different than ours.

NJK:Indeed I similarly ask to you all: Why??! Perhaps the above “exhaustively comprehensive, harmonized” thus “proper” exegesis can help you answer this “why” here and also understand what the Biblical “mind-set” actually is.

Tom: Not at all.


That’s really too bad. However I believe I made a substantive point. It is indeed, seriously, really “too bad” that you cannot even begin to see the, at least, hinted exegetical light here.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Your response was one of reaction. You didn't investigate what was happening, but merely read a text, and replied, "this sounds like such and such to me."


Then it should not be too hard for you to substantiate that claim of your with points that I made that were Biblically wrong and that because they were assumedly “not investigated.” If my, even off the theological cuff comments are so manifestly wrong, then you can easily shoot them down by posting a Bible and SOP statement against it. I cannot know what you are objecting to and I surely did not endeavor to knowingly post false/wrong statements. (By the way, I am not impressed by your customary, almost default, way of answering questions with questions or making vacuous one-liner replies. Now that, on it’s face, providing non-investigated replies.) So you are really here seeking to hold me responsible for something you all do and much worst. I know and would prefer to exhaust all exegetic resources before discussion however my time won’t allow me. Again, if you readily know something to be false, then point it out, otherwise, I think that, at the very least, I made a Biblically valid point. It all seems normal for a discussion, or else I personally would have to take ca. 6 months between answers while I first do/write a doctoral dissertation on a topic.

Originally Posted By: Tom
When you see certain statements, they immediately strike you a certain way. You then investigate if you think the way they strike you is what you think is correct.


The non-peripheral, quasi-obfuscating, substantive question still is how/where was I then wrong??! Given the constraint of my time, I indeed do not do deep exegesis to all text. Factually speaking, neither do you. The problem is that while I go on to support my view with deeper exegesis, even correcting it if need be, you all never allow such deeper exegesis to correct your view as they should, preferring to, for evidently, desired face-saving reasons, maintain your initial view. That is what I factually, and not purely pejoratively, see as “still seeing a forest despite all of the felled trees”.

Originally Posted By: Tom
My question was directed towards why the given statement strikes you in a certain way in the first place. It's because of your mind-set/paradigm, the same as for everyone else.


...And my answer was in regards to GC 628, because that is what the text says, (confirmed by what I subsequently exegetically observed in the Bible and SOP.) I.e., whether directly or indirectly effectuated, they were still God’s desire and His wrath. It indeed is not that God wanted to not punish these people to these extent but Satan overpowered Him, or convinced Him to let Him unmercifully scourge them!?? It is your paradigm that just won’t let you read, recognize and acknowledge that straightforward reality, as well as others to the sort, including in Christ ministry, to the point where you effectively say that Jesus was incorrect in His Vinedressers parable statement of destruction. That view, or even perception, alone sinks the validity of your paradigm.

Quote:

NJK: You also, at least effectively, spuriously and falsely keep on trying to make me say that I think and say that: ‘I believe/think that violence/killing/coercion/use of force to get ones way/etc is part of God's character and what He does.’ Instead of speculating on what you think I think/believe quote me where I supposedly said this.

Tom: Why don't you start please? That is, please quote what specifically it is I'm saying here that you're taking exception to, and I'll look for evidence to support what I've asserted. What you quoted, that you are responding to, is this:

Someone who views violence/killing/coercion/use of force to get ones way/etc. as contrary to God's character, sees something different happening.


Indeed, in that emboldened statement you actually have your contextually implied answer!

Originally Posted By: Tom
Since you're reacting against *this* statement, which doesn't mention you at all, is it correct for me to understand that you wish to assert that you are a part of this group? In other words, you see yourself as believing that God doesn't use violence/killing/coercion/use of force to get His way? If this is what you wish to assert, simply say so please, and if I disagree with your assertion, I'll look for evidence to support why.


Full quote:

Originally Posted By: Tom
The way we view God impacts how we interpret spiritual statements, whether from Scripture or the SOP. To someone who views things the way you do, "Sounds indeed like justified and deserving, Divine ‘wrathful’ judgements to me" is what comes naturally to mind. Someone who views violence/killing/coercion/use of force to get ones way/etc. as contrary to God's character, sees something different happening.


Okay then, I’ll mindlessly bite and assume that you had other people but me in mind here (I still don’t see why?? Especially since, as customary on your part, you never explicitly stated that you had abandoned your prior views and opposition of me for what you had though was my similar view. Indeed I cannot keep track of when you silently switch views.). So then simply state what in my view, as you seem, or should already have in mind before making this claim, that makes literal statements of ‘God’s just/judicious wrath, unmixed mercy, permitted or directly done destructions’ wrongly “God’s just/judicious wrath, unmixed mercy, permitted or directly done destructions”. As I said, you are trying to fault me for straightforwardly and comprehensively reading the Bible and SOP vs. your narrow, mutually exclusive approach!!? Who can win against that??! And once again, it has never been and nor is not my view. I do not conflate the “use of force” with “violence” or “compelling force”.

Quote:
NJK: As I said, and shown in this response, your first need to engage in more substantively sound and deep exegesis, which shouldn’t be too hard for you a seminarian. That will, or should demonstrate what the Biblical mindset is, and there is only one, God is not dividable nor divided. That has been a foundational exegetical tenet of mine for now over 13 years and you’ll be shock how many Biblical statements, including in the SOP, that are harmonized into a full congruent truth, if not just rightly corrected, when this claim of “having a paradigm” is left out, letting the texts speak for themselves and state what the full view should be. So the Bible and SOP will not (normatively) contradict each other; and if they do, as they indeed, substantively do at times, then, as EGW counsels, the Bible is the final arbitrator.

Tom: We're all doing this. We just use different foundational statements upon which to harmonize the others.


I rather see quite the different thing, as expounded upon above.

Originally Posted By: Tom
For example, you believe that God's primary characteristic is His power. I believe it's His love.


Here you go again misunderstanding, misrepresenting and/or misconstruing my views. I say that God’s prominently revealed characteristic is His power, as His many names to that end shows, and as explained in this other post, that is out of logical realities in this GC. So I do not see that God ‘“first” uses His power’. That is different from Him having to prominently use and convey as natural circumstances demanded it. Using Love for every circumstance, especially in the realities of this GC, would prove to impeachingly be Artificial and Hypocritical on God’s part.

Originally Posted By: Tom
As another example, I believe that the primary revelation of God's character is Jesus Christ. I believe that all that we can know of God was revealed by Him. Therefore I don't need to go outside of Jesus Christ to know or understand God. This is an important foundational principle which I use in attempting to harmonize Scriptural statements, or statements by the SOP.


I already addressed that above and again, I don’t see the OT God and Jesus to be mutually exclusive, as Jesus Himself said He was emulating the OT God (John 8:16, 28; 38; 10:37, 38). How were people to ascertain that what Jesus was doing was also what the Father would do if they were not to be looking at the records of the OT to see what the OT God had done??

Originally Posted By: Tom
So we both agree that Scripture should harmonize with itself, as well as the SOP (should harmonize with itself, and Scripture), but disagree on what the foundational principles should be upon which to attempt the harmonization.


My foundational scripture is all of Scriptures, and squarely Jesus confirms that approach. Nonetheless, when in doubt as to how the OT God had (justly) acted (which indeed is the only applicable question), then do look at Jesus and He will indeed reveal just how the Father had indeed (justly) acted in the OT, and that, not because, He would have exactly redone these very past acts (circumstances have changes), but because, when similar circumstances manifested themselves, Jesus then did something very similar. And in regards to this discussion, that includes judgement, even if working to aid the coming to pass of them (e.g, Matt 13:10-17 = Isa 6:9-13).

It is quite telling to me that you rarely address my cited texts of support as this (Matt 13:10-17 = Isa 6:9-13; also Matt 23). Instead making claims to your paradigm. However you should now and understand, as you apparently intellectually do, vs. practically, that an SOP quote, particularly an non “I was shown one” is not defaulty on the same level as the testimony of Scripture. So e.g., effectively saying that ‘“Matt 13:10-17 = Isa 6:9-13" is not an example of Jesus’ ministry of wrath, and that, self-contradictingly, because the SOP says that Jesus only reveals the Father, and circularly, that this must only be a Loving, non-judging, non-wrathful revelation’, is the wrong approach as it is highly subjective and textbook eisegesis.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/06/11 04:02 AM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Originally Posted By: kland
K: NJK, is killing part of God's character?

N: Because God is Just in his character, judicious killing harmonizes with how He sees best to deal with the sin problem. The Theodicy Truth here is not determined by what I need my God to be, but what He has revealed and done in the Bible. God never acts out of Character as that would itself be sin, since He/His Character is already and unimprovingly perfect.

K: Would you say the only difference between God's character and satan's character (regarding killing), is that God's killing is considered "judicious" while satan's killing is not?

When Jesus withdraws His protection and gives Satan permission to kill sinners, because "they are worthy" (Rev 16:6), are we to assume Satan is acting injudiciously? Is he not, after all, acting in harmony with Jesus' will? If Satan were to refuse to mete out justice on Jesus' behalf who, pray tell, would punish the wicked? What good is law if no one is willing to enforce it? "God has a right to enforce the penalty of the law upon transgressors, for law without a penalty would be without force." {ST, July 14, 1890 par. 2}

"By His word God has bound Himself to execute the penalty of the law on all transgressors. Again and again men commit sin, and yet they do not seem to believe that they must suffer the penalty for breaking the law." {6BC 1095.4} "God has given in His word decisive evidence that He will punish the transgressors of His law." {GC 539.3} "The penalty for the least transgression of that law is death, and but for Christ, the sinner's Advocate, it would be summarily visited on every offender." {TDG 246.1}

Do you agree Jesus is required, by law, to execute justice and judgment, to punish the wicked according to their words and works? If so, do you believe it falls to Satan to punish them? If so, what if Satan refused to do it, who would administer the "ministry of wrath" on Jesus' behalf?

Quote:
With unerring accuracy, the Infinite One keeps a record of the impiety of nations and individuals. Long is his mercy tendered to them, with calls to repentance; but when their guilt reaches a certain limit, which he has fixed, then mercy ceases her pleadings, and the ministration of wrath begins. {LP 318.1}

This penalty Christ bore for the sins of the transgressor. He has borne the punishment for every man, and for this reason He can ransom every soul, however fallen his condition, if he will accept the law of God as his standard of righteousness. The cry of despair from the soul calls forth the tenderest love of God, and this is salvation to every one that believes. He who sees the guilt of his transgression, and understands the infinite sacrifice made in his behalf, will not continue in sin. But if men continue to resist light and evidence, they will cut themselves off from God's mercy, and then will come the ministry of wrath. God can not save the sinner in his sin. The love of God is immeasurable to those who repent, but His justice is firm and uncompromising to those who abuse his long-suffering love. {ST, November 15, 1899 par. 6}

Jesus earned the right on the cross to pardon and save penitent sinners. "For this reason He can ransom every soul." He saves them from the penalty of transgression, that is, intense emotional and physical suffering eventually ending in eternal death.

Great SOP statements here on this issue Mountain Man. I see that these are indeed righteous and foundational parts of God’s Character and Jesus also perfectly emulated these in His Life and prominently His 3.5 year ministry.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/06/11 04:04 AM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
NJK, please accept my response above as answer to the points you raised.

I see now... Nonetheless, I believe that many of my prior answers had addressed some of these questions you pose here.

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
What attribute of character did Jesus reveal when He told Moses to let Him destroy Israel?


Since an unfaithful Israel was only preventing God’s redemptive plans for potentially billions of people to be saved, even putting a great risk the accomplishment of this if no one worthy was found, (though I see that God would then have to once again seek and call a half pagan man like Abraham was to start all over with His “Israel” plans), deservingly moving here to wipe out this obstruction of ca. 2,000,000 rebels to save a numerically unknown, but potential billions+, was at least an act of Justice and Love for these others. Indeed the waywardness of Israel, thus not permitting them to be a light to the world, as it could have fully been especially by the time of Christ, has caused many to go to their graves in condemning sins which they may have refrained from had this light shone upon them (e.g., the Ninivites and Noah cf. Luke 11:32)

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Also, what would have qualified as passing the test – letting Jesus destroy Israel or not letting Him destroy Israel? Would Moses have passed the test if he had let Jesus destroy Israel? And, would Jesus have passed the test if He had destroyed Israel?


I rather see that the test which pointedly concerned Moses was to see, as all of God’s tests are (see previous citations) what was in his heart. God needed the option of an intercessor and he could not have one in Moses if Moses actually did not freely want to do so. So it now seems to me that even if Moses had chosen to let God destroy Israel and start over with him, that would not have been a sin to him, but would just mean that no intercessor had been found to have an option of mercy. So God had to candidly test Moses to see if that is what he freely wanted to be for Israel and then it could fairly be used to have mercy on Israel. Or else the enemy could claim that God forgave people without any just grounds as intercession is in God’s redemption policies.

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Which begs the question – Why destroy Israel and start over with Moses? How is that not “insane” (see definition above)?


Actually destroying all of Israel then was the farthest thing from ‘insanity’ as leaving a remnant of those people up to 20 years old who had seen and been accustom to the waywardness of Israel, as well as the sinful Egyptians ways, was more risky than starting anew with descendants of Moses. Furthermore, with an recorded utter destruction here, that Moses generation, (which technically would still be descendants of Abraham) would have this striking object lesson of what can and likely will happen if they so rebelled. So they, like, relatively speaking, the generation that returned from the utter destruction of the Babylonian Captivity, would then have become ultra careful to do God’s will. Ultimately, barring the hypocrisies build up leading up to Christ’s time, that would have been an acceptable grounds to work with, even if based on the fear of God, but God really wanted a generation who freely and lovingly served Him and also knowingly would be choosing to remain faithful to Him, despite personally knowing of the evil and idolatrous ways of Egypt. Nonetheless, the deliberate 400 years of slavery, were meant to instill a fear of the promised consequences for disobedience thus offsetting this fear of a would be utter destruction with a Moses generation. So God had absolutely nothing for or against carrying out that judgement if Moses had not freely been found to be a willing intercessor for Israel.

Originally Posted By: Mountain
Because Jesus asked Moses to “let” Him destroy Israel.


I see, from the SOP God only as said “le” solely for the testing of Moses part. He was actually not asking for any “permission”. Instead Moses intercession with good points allowed and convinced Him, to have mercy. Case in point, not use of a “let” caveat in the similar Num 14 statement.

Originally Posted By: Mountain
Was Jesus seeking Moses' permission to destroy Israel? Or, was He encouraging Moses to intercede on their behalf? "The words of God, 'Let Me alone,' he understood not to forbid but to encourage intercession . . ." If so, how could Jesus' words also mean He was intending to destroy Israel if only Moses would "let" Him?


I rather see that the word used by God was meant to encourage Moses to seek the intercession option and that solely for that Moses testing purpose. Also, exegtically speaking, the Hebrew word nuach #05117, translated as “Let me alone”, literally involves stopping something or, colloquially today, “give it a rest” so God was really saying to Moses ‘don’t even begin to intercede’ i.e., even ‘give this interceding a rest’ to which, most naturally Moses would have thought: “stop interceding???, I have not even said anything....Ohhhhh!! Do you want me to intercede??...Then yeah, if that is what you think/know can be done in this case, I didn’t know I could....Then here goes my best arguments (as this apparently depends on how well I do this) {Exod 32:11-14}.’ Of course this may not have been so staged on Moses’ part but still may be reflective of His inner thoughts.

Quote:
T: It seems to me that God acts according to certain "rules" in the Great Controversy. Prayer evidently enables Him to do things He couldn't do otherwise. Not that He couldn't do so if He chose to, of course, since God is all powerful, but God chooses not to intervene in such cases at times.

MM: In the case of Jesus asking Moses to "let" Him destroy Israel, how did His "rules of engagement" play out?


I see the “rule” here as the one of needing an intercessor in order to forgive and undeserving other, even larger group of people (again = Jer 5:1; Ezek 22:30, 31; Isa 59:16).
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/06/11 04:06 AM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
NJK, do you agree with Tom's view of the following passages:

Quote:
When He leaves the sanctuary, darkness covers the inhabitants of the earth. In that fearful time the righteous must live in the sight of a holy God without an intercessor. The restraint which has been upon the wicked is removed, and Satan has entire control of the finally impenitent. God's long-suffering has ended. The world has rejected His mercy, despised His love, and trampled upon His law. The wicked have passed the boundary of their probation; the Spirit of God, persistently resisted, has been at last withdrawn. Unsheltered by divine grace, they have no protection from the wicked one. Satan will then plunge the inhabitants of the earth into one great, final trouble. As the angels of God cease to hold in check the fierce winds of human passion, all the elements of strife will be let loose. The whole world will be involved in ruin more terrible than that which came upon Jerusalem of old. {GC 614.1}

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}

In particular, Tom believes the highlighted sentence above must be interpreted to mean holy angels exercise the same destructive power exercised by evil angels by withdrawing their protection and permitting evil angels to cause death and destruction. Do you agree with him?

He also believe the holy angels portrayed as causing the death and destruction described in Rev 16 must be interpreted to mean they have withdrawn their protection and are permitting evil angels to cause the death and destruction described in Rev 16. Do you agree with him?


Indeed this is what Tom believes, but I don’t see this as being the case. I see that the Bible and SOP are not shy in explicitly stating who directly does a destruction whether God and good angels or Satan and evil angels (permitted by God).

E.g., How can Satan fear for His life in the flood destruction (PP 99.2) if that was being effectuated by angels under His command??!

Originally Posted By: SOP PP 99.2
Satan himself, who was compelled to remain in the midst of the warring elements, feared for his own existence.


And also who was (‘powerfully’) compelling Satan to remain withing those warring elements if it was not God??? Indeed as this was being done by manifestly remote force, this compelling force probably came directly from God, sparring the good angels being in the midst of these warring elements. In the same way, God will forcefully “chain” (i.e., a supernatural or psychological chain) Satan down to this desolate earth during the Millennium.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/06/11 04:08 AM

Originally Posted By: kland
So, like some others, would you say it depends upon the motive?


Generally speaking, i.e., not case specific, Yes. I.e., motives here would mean: For what Just reasons and/or towards what Just purpose.

Originally Posted By: kland
I, in the above specific instance, was referring to the end result. Maybe I had the flood in mind that after an observer saw the destruction of the earth and the people, would he, without knowing anything aforehand, be able to determine whether satan did it or God did it?


The reality in regards to the flood is that God had warned of it and caused it, and then made it to be recorded to say so. I also do not see how it realistically can be that someone would look at the result of the flood and the destruction and not know of the circumstances leading up to it that Noah had been preaching that the Creator God was going to do this. Indeed to choose between God and Satan that person would have to have a pretty knowledgeable understanding of the Bible and also the GC as Satan is, especially early, kept behind the scenes, if that is even actually applicable as it may factually be that he just did not have much chance (i.e., granted permission by God) to actively/directly effectuate such “supernatural” events of destruction.

Originally Posted By: kland
But, considering the actual action and motives in the acting of it, does that help any? Perhaps you think not that we are going to use the Millennium for determining God's ...


Originally Posted By: kland
(well, not character it seems you suggest as anything goes fits in here),


I do not understand what you meant in that statement. Please clarify.

Originally Posted By: kland
... but act as whether it was "judicious" or "injudicious".


I think I can, notwithstanding the not understood statement above, generally reply here that I see that the Millenium will be used for us to have a first hand knowledge that God has indeed been fair and just in all of, these, His final salvation decision both in those who He allowed in Heaven and those who He kept out.

Originally Posted By: kland
Am I understanding correctly that you view God as using a violent act, drowning people, to stop their violent acts, and that violence is not wrong, but we will spend a thousand years determining if that, and other violent acts, were "judicious" use of violence?


To avoid any misunderstanding here, I understand “violent” here as using force, even supernatural (= “high/higher science”) force to effectuate something that otherwise would not naturally transpire (e.g, the Flood, the raining of fire and Brimstone on Sodom and Egypt, the Red Sea opening, and the closing upon the delayed and hindered, the released to pursue, Egyptians. (Exod 14:19-21).

Originally Posted By: kland
But, is "judicious", as determined by you proper use in determining character as you then have what MM comes up with:


That statement and linking is a bit unclear, please rephrase/clarify.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/06/11 04:09 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
I know this was addressed to kland, but I found this an interesting post, so have replied to it.

Quote:
When Jesus withdraws His protection and gives Satan permission to kill sinners, because "they are worthy" (Rev 16:6), are we to assume Satan is acting injudiciously?


Yes.

Quote:
Is he not, after all, acting in harmony with Jesus' will?


No, of course not. Satan acts contrary to Jesus' will. That's his character. Satan is evil; Jesus is good. They have wills the one contrary to the other.

Quote:
If Satan were to refuse to mete out justice on Jesus' behalf who, pray tell, would punish the wicked?


This isn't a reasonable assumption here.

Quote:
What good is law if no one is willing to enforce it? "God has a right to enforce the penalty of the law upon transgressors, for law without a penalty would be without force." {ST, July 14, 1890 par. 2}


The following is from "The Great Controversy" discussing the destruction of Jerusalem:

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. (GC 36)


The law is enforced. GC 35-37 describes how it is enforced. It's not an arbitrarily imposed sentence, but by the law of cause and effect.

Quote:
"By His word God has bound Himself to execute the penalty of the law on all transgressors. Again and again men commit sin, and yet they do not seem to believe that they must suffer the penalty for breaking the law." {6BC 1095.4} "God has given in His word decisive evidence that He will punish the transgressors of His law." {GC 539.3} "The penalty for the least transgression of that law is death, and but for Christ, the sinner's Advocate, it would be summarily visited on every offender." {TDG 246.1}

Do you agree Jesus is required, by law, to execute justice and judgment, to punish the wicked according to their words and works?


This is the wrong way of looking at things, IMO, because it is phrasing things as if the law were an entity independent of God. The law is a transcript of God's character, so it suffices simply to say that God's character requires Him to do the things that He does, the defining characteristic of which is love.

Quote:
If so, do you believe it falls to Satan to punish them?


Disobedience to the law of itself brings punishment. It's a mistake to think that this must be arbitrarily imposed ("arbitrarily" as per its primary meaning; not "capricious" or "whimsical").

Quote:
If so, what if Satan refused to do it, who would administer the "ministry of wrath" on Jesus' behalf?


What Satan does doesn't matter as far as the certain of the punishment of the wicked is concerned.

Here's something to consider:

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. (GC 36)


The certain punishment that comes upon the wicked is exemplified by what happened in the destruction of Jerusalem. What happened there?


As a general comment on Mountain Man’s view about ‘Satan’s destruction’, I would say that he only wishes to, especially following the Cross, utterly destroy man, especially before the GC is complete which will further expose him so knowing that He has nothing to gain, when he has this destruction green light, he literally “tees-off” on these subjects, of course seeking to make this seems as God’s fault.

Since I Biblically see that God uses both direct and indirect (i.e., Satan permitted) destruction, it would interesting to make a listing for those tow categories, especially with the available SOP light. I.e., other than the Jerusalem destruction what other judgement stated in the Bible and SOP are also said to have been ‘under the direct control of Satan’ vs. God’s and His angels?
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/06/11 04:22 AM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Originally Posted By: Rosangela
It seems Tom is right about this incident. This is what Ellen White says, and the interesting lesson she draws:

Quote:
"And the Lord said unto Moses, How long will this people provoke me? and how long will it be ere they believe me, for all the signs which I have showed among them? I will smite them with the pestilence, and disinherit them, and will make of thee a greater nation and mightier than they." {RH, October 3, 1893 par. 9}

Moses was then tested and proved of God. Forsake Israel? Come out from among them, and leave them in their rebellion and sin?--No, never. {RH, October 3, 1893 par. 10}

"And Moses said unto the Lord, Then the Egyptians shall hear it (for thou broughtest up this people in thy might from among them;), and they will tell it to the inhabitants of this land: for they have heard that thou Lord art among this people, that thou Lord art seen face to face, and that thy cloud standeth over them, and that thou goest before them, by daytime in a pillar of a cloud, and in a pillar of fire by night. Now if thou shalt kill all people as one man, then the nations that have heard the fame of thee will speak, saying, Because the Lord was not able to bring this people into the land which ye sware unto them, therefore he hath slain them in the wilderness. And now, I beseech thee, let the power of my Lord be great, according as thou hast spoken, saying, 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. Pardon, I beseech thee, the iniquity of this people according unto the greatness of thy mercy, and as thou hast forgiven this people, from Egypt until now. And the Lord said, I have pardoned according to thy word: but as truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord. Because all those men which have seen my glory, and my miracles, which I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and have tempted me now these ten times, and have not hearkened to my voice; surely they shall not see the land which I sware unto their fathers, neither shall any of them that provoked me see it." {RH, October 3, 1893 par. 11}

Mark the whole tenor of this chapter, and learn the lesson it conveys to modern Israel. These things are written for our ensamples upon whom the ends of the world are come. We see the unbelief, and the stout resistance of some who have had great light, and although evidence has been piled upon evidence, they have kept themselves in stubborn resistance. The Lord has sent messages of warning and entreaty, messages of reproof and rebuke, and they have not been in vain. But we have never had a message that the Lord would disorganize the church. We have never had the prophecy concerning Babylon applied to the Seventh-day Adventist Church, or been informed that the "loud cry" consisted in calling God's people to come out of her; for this is not God's plan concerning Israel. {RH, October 3, 1893 par. 12}

In the example of Moses pleading for the children of Israel, is represented the position that we should take in regard to the people of God, however erring, or weak, or defective they may be. {RH, October 3, 1893 par. 13}

"But we have never had a message that the Lord would disorganize the church." Which implies Jesus did not intend to destroy Israel and start over with Moses, not any more than Jesus intends to reject the SDA church and start over with another church.

As I explain in greater detail in this blog post (search for “LDE 51"), EGW here does not mean that this will never be the case, just that, at that point it was never given as such. In 1SM 179 she states that this will only be the case when there is a tangible and incontrovertible need to do. So that God’s work will not/no longer be hindered by a stalled Church.

So I really do not see EGW’s comments on Moses here as being exgetically/prophetically based, but more pastorally applied with a lone extent in view. Indeed from what I posted here and other places, I do not see her statement here as having an “I was shown” force. Thus is seems more to be by permission, than by commission, and maybe out of emotional reasons given the great circumstances she was facing/addressing.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/06/11 05:01 AM

Quote:
"But we have never had a message that the Lord would disorganize the church." Which implies Jesus did not intend to destroy Israel and start over with Moses, not any more than Jesus intends to reject the SDA church and start over with another church.


God never intended to destroy Israel. Israel destroyed itself by persistently rejecting the Holy Spirit (GC 35-37).
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/06/11 05:08 AM

Quote:
M: What were Jesus' options in cases like the Holocaust?

T: That's a pretty tall order for me, isn't it? That is, you're asking me to enumerate the options of divinity? I don't think I'm qualified to do that.

1. What factors does God weigh when choosing to allow things to play out the way they do?


All the factors there are.

Quote:
2. Is God free to allow or disallow things like N&A being burned alive and the two bands of fifty being burned alive?


Did you think through this question? Aren't you asking if God was free to allow something to happen which He allowed to happen? That's not a question that makes sense, is it?

Quote:
3. Or, are His hands tied?


His hands can be tied, in general.

Quote:
4. Is Satan free to do as he pleases without limits?


Satan would destroy everyone, and there wouldn't be any Great Controversy, which is a point I've made many times, which you are aware of.

Quote:
5. Did Jesus, while here in the flesh (as opposed to after He returned to heaven), choose to allow things like ungodly people being burned alive?


Quote:
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen [doth gather] her brood under [her] wings, and ye would not!(Luke 13:34)
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/06/11 06:52 AM

Quote:
Tom, you seem to be referring to the first death, whereas in the quotes I posted Ellen is referring to the second death. The penalty for transgressing the law of God is the second death.


Penalty = result. I.e., the inevitable result of sin is death (DA 764). This is talking about the second death.

Quote:
Roman soldiers will not be employed by Satan to mete out the justice and judgment of God as in the case of Jerusalem's destruction in 70 AD.


??? No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

The Israelites persistently resisted the Holy Spirit until Satan was allowed to do with him what he wanted. What Satan did to them was evil, not justice.

Quote:
By the way, what sin resulted in Satan employing Roman soldiers to kill the Jews in 70 AD?


The sin of persistently resisting the Holy Spirit, spurning God's protection.

Quote:
In what way was it not "arbitrary"?


It what was was what not arbitrary? Or, to ask the question another way, what is it you think was arbitrary, and why?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/06/11 07:08 AM

Originally Posted By: MM
M:1. In the OT, why did Jesus command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle?

M: Seems to me you believe Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in battle because 1) the Jews failed to trust Jesus to defeat their enemies in a godly way, and 2) the Jews expected Him to think and behave like a pagan god.

Do you agree with my assessment of your view as it relates to the question above?


No, of course not. But surely you must know that.

Quote:
Was Jesus, while here in the flesh (as opposed to after He returned to heaven), forced to command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle?


What are the principles laid out in GC 35-37? That's the important question. Did Jesus Christ teach and embody these principles? Yes, He did.

Where we're disagreeing is in regards to what we think God is like. I believe God's character was revealed fully by Jesus Christ, and the best revelation was the cross. Rather than use force to get His way, Jesus Christ voluntarily submitted to torture and a horrible death from the very creatures He came to save. This is what God is like. Not just sometimes, but all the time.

The principles explained in GC 35-37 are in harmony with what Jesus Christ revealed. Your perceptions of God's character appear to me to be schizophrenic. Some of the time, as it appears to me you see things, He exhibits the qualities Jesus Christ embodied on earth, especially at the cross, but other times He acts indistinguishably from Satan, leaving us with no means to know who is acting.

Quote:
2. In the OT, why did Jesus command godly people to kill ungodly people through the execution of capital punishment?

You repeated yourself.

[quote]Was Jesus, while here in the flesh (as opposed to after He returned to heaven), forced to command godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment?


What's your argument here? That since Jesus Christ, while here in the flesh, wasn't forced to command godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment, it therefore follows that it's not the case that all that we can know of God was revealed by Him? I can't think of why you would ask this question otherwise.

Why not just set forth your argument?

Quote:
Seems to me you believe Jesus was reluctantly willing to command the kinds of things described in the passages above for as long as it would take Him to teach the Jews how to "turn the other cheek"? Is this what you believe?


I believe, as I've said so many times, that for us to properly interpret Scripture, we need to know God's character. I believe that the first order of business is to study the life and character of His Son, whose "whole purpose" was "the revelation of God."

What is it that Jesus Christ revealed? What was Jesus Christ like? How did He treat His enemies?

I don't believe that He acted any differently in the Old Testament than while here in the flesh. Do you?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/06/11 07:52 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
That was part of my point, that was not a ‘matter-of fact account or straightforward fore-description of the destruction.


Sure it was. Anybody listening to Jesus would have understood it as such. It's obvious. He will take the vineyard away, and kill the ones that killed his son. He was angry, and sent armies to burn their city. This is very direct language.

What in Scripture suggests that the destruction of Jerusalem should be interpreted the way Ellen White did?

Quote:
In reality, did God send ‘His own army’ to do this destruction (which would literally have to be the Angels as He is the Lord of Hosts) or was it the Roman armies who came and did this. Still as God is sovereign over all of the earth, and does set up and remove earthly kings (Dan 2:21) and even ‘cause (= Hiphil) foreign kings/kingdoms to be ‘awaken/roused up/stirred up’ to effectuate His plans/judgements of destruction even when not in direct relation for or against His Israel (Isa 13:17). Indeed as shown in Isa 10:26, as the Lord of Host (=angels) He still does this work through earthly powers, even foreign armies as for the promised destruction of the Assyrians (cf. vs. 24-34). So I do not see Christ’s parable as being substantively contradictive to what was later revealed in the SOP. At the very least, it could only have been down by the allowance of the Sovereign God of this World.


Sure, you can interpret the direct statements of Christ as involving passive action on the part of God, and thus not contradicting the SOP, but this is precisely my point. Scripture portrays God's actions as direct, but the SOP portrays it as passive. There are other examples of the same thing.

So if the Bible says God acts actively, but the SOP tells us God was actively passively, which do we believe?

Quote:
T:Indeed, it sounds like this to you, but not to me, or APL, or kland, or many others. Why doesn't it sound like this to us, but it does to you? Because your mind-set is different than ours.

NJK:Indeed I similarly ask to you all: Why??! Perhaps the above “exhaustively comprehensive, harmonized” thus “proper” exegesis can help you answer this “why” here and also understand what the Biblical “mind-set” actually is.

Tom: Not at all.


NJK:That’s really too bad. However I believe I made a substantive point. It is indeed, seriously, really “too bad” that you cannot even begin to see the, at least, hinted exegetical light here.


Your reaction wasn't exegetical, but off the cuff. It revealed our mind-set.

Quote:
Your response was one of reaction. You didn't investigate what was happening, but merely read a text, and replied, "this sounds like such and such to me."


Then it should not be too hard for you to substantiate that claim of your with points that I made that were Biblically wrong and that because they were assumedly “not investigated.”


I'm just talking about your reaction. You quoted a text, from "The Great Controversy" chapter 39, as I recall, and stated that this sounded like "justified and deserving, Divine ‘wrathful’ judgements to me."

Why do these words sound that way to you? Because of your mind set, your paradigm. That's the same reason words sound the way they sound to any of us.

This gets to a big problem God has. How does He teach us His ways, His thinking, His paradigm, when we're so set on our own, and interpret everything He says according to our own?

Quote:
Okay then, I’ll mindlessly bite and assume that you had other people but me in mind here (I still don’t see why?? Especially since, as customary on your part, you never explicitly stated that you had abandoned your prior views and opposition of me for what you had though was my similar view. Indeed I cannot keep track of when you silently switch views.)


What are you talking about? I've got no idea what you're trying to say here. Silently switch views? What views were silently switched? Or switched at all, silently or not?

Quote:
T:For example, you believe that God's primary characteristic is His power. I believe it's His love.

NJK:Here you go again misunderstanding, misrepresenting and/or misconstruing my views.


This is hardly fair. Here's what you wrote:

Quote:
Clearly God considers His Characteristic Attribute to be in His Power and Ability to (ultimately) accomplish His will against any odds, or human obstacles.


"His characteristic attribute" is synonymous with "His primary characteristic." For you to characterize me as taking what you wrote in this way as "misrepresenting" or "misconstruing" your view is in no way fair. You could rightly say I'm guilty of misunderstanding it, however, but that's only because I based my view upon what you wrote. I could just have readily as written, "You believe God's characteristic attribute is His power; I believe it is His love."

Quote:
Using Love for every circumstance, especially in the realities of this GC, would prove to impeachingly be Artificial and Hypocritical on God’s part.


God always uses love in each and every instance in which He acts. Love is not something He switches on and off, but is His character. "God is love."

Love is not in contrast to power or justice, or whatever it is you think that God is doing that is different than love. All the attributes of God's character fit under the umbrella of love.

Quote:
T:As another example, I believe that the primary revelation of God's character is Jesus Christ. I believe that all that we can know of God was revealed by Him. Therefore I don't need to go outside of Jesus Christ to know or understand God. This is an important foundational principle which I use in attempting to harmonize Scriptural statements, or statements by the SOP.

NJK:I already addressed that above and again, I don’t see the OT God and Jesus to be mutually exclusive, as Jesus Himself said He was emulating the OT God (John 8:16, 28; 38; 10:37, 38). How were people to ascertain that what Jesus was doing was also what the Father would do if they were not to be looking at the records of the OT to see what the OT God had done??


Not only are they not mutually exclusive, but they are identical. If you agree with this, you should also agree that it's not necessary to go outside of Jesus Christ to learn of God. This isn't to say there isn't value in studying God in other places where He is revealed (even in nature, we can do this) but the clearest revelation of God is Jesus Christ.

Certainly if we think we have found something about God which was not revealed in Jesus Christ, we're seeing something which isn't there.

Quote:
It is quite telling to me that you rarely address my cited texts of support as this (Matt 13:10-17 = Isa 6:9-13; also Matt 23). Instead making claims to your paradigm.


I don't recall you're having made a point in regards to these texts for me to respond to. What's your point, in regards to these texts?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/06/11 07:55 AM

Quote:
MM:In particular, Tom believes the highlighted sentence above must be interpreted to mean holy angels exercise the same destructive power exercised by evil angels by withdrawing their protection and permitting evil angels to cause death and destruction. Do you agree with him?


MM, are you not reading what NJK is writing? How could you be in doubt in regards to this point? Specifically, what is it that NJK wrote which caused your confusion? Haven't you noticed that NJK and I have been disputing this issue?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/06/11 08:00 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
Since I Biblically see that God uses both direct and indirect (i.e., Satan permitted) destruction ...


EGW writes that Satan is the author of sin and all its results. Given that destruction is a result of sin (surely before sin there was no need for God to destroy, right?), then it follows that God is utilizing something of which Satan is the author.

Why would God do that? Why wouldn't He rather act according to the principles of His own government?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/06/11 08:04 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
I do not see her statement here as having an “I was shown” force.


This is worthy of its own thread, but on what basis, given what she has written, do you distinguish between statements she has written to have greater or less force? In particular, where does she state that we should give her statements where she explicitly says, "I was shown" more weight than other statements where she doesn't?

I recall her saying that she never wrote for public consumption her private views. Do you disagree with this?
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/06/11 12:00 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
Originally Posted By: NJK
Since I Biblically see that God uses both direct and indirect (i.e., Satan permitted) destruction ...


EGW writes that Satan is the author of sin and all its results. Given that destruction is a result of sin (surely before sin there was no need for God to destroy, right?), then it follows that God is utilizing something of which Satan is the author.

Why would God do that? Why wouldn't He rather act according to the principles of His own government?


I think seeing sin and just punishment (and not an degree of violent/vindictive, wanton destruction) as being the same thing is completely false This is like saying that a judge justly sentencing someone to capital punishment (cf. Gn 9:5, 6) is acting just as criminally as that e.g, murderer. God judgement are not sin as they are all just. I think the follow SOP quotes fully support this Theological actuality.

Originally Posted By: SOP RH March 10, 1904
It is the glory of God to be merciful, full of forbearance, kindness, goodness, and truth. But the justice shown in punishing the sinner is as verily the glory of the Lord as is the manifestation of His mercy. {LDE 240.1}


Originally Posted By: SOP ST March 24, 1881
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}


Originally Posted By: SOP 12MR 207-209; 10MR 265 (1876)
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" (Psalm 50:21). They measure God by themselves. {LDE 240.5}

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? {LDE 241.3}
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/06/11 12:34 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
Originally Posted By: NJK
I do not see her statement here as having an “I was shown” force.


This is worthy of its own thread, but on what basis, given what she has written, do you distinguish between statements she has written to have greater or less force? In particular, where does she state that we should give her statements where she explicitly says, "I was shown" more weight than other statements where she doesn't?

I think the answer here can be succinctly seen in historical and analytical fact. Historically, EGW has had many times, to correct her previously expressed views, even where she was seemingly making I was shown statements. That is all well documented. Analytically, given this fact that EGW was not infallible in her understanding she may make a statement that is later, mainly through more indepth Biblical study, shown to be inaccurate. I.e, she did not have direct light on the matter but simply express things how she understood them at that time. This is distinct from statements where she says that she saw something in vision, and indeed as seen in her understanding of ‘God and the Future’ her direct revelation in EW 149.2 showed that the plan of salvation was established after the Fall of Man, yet she makes statements, based on how she read and understood Rev 13:8, that ‘it was not an afterthought, but established from eternity.’ (See back in this other thread post) Indeed as I am increasingly seeing with her understanding of who effectuates which of the seven last plagues, here direct revelations come to contradict some of her other non/not so-direct views. So when I notice such difference, also with the Bible, to which, her ‘I was shown’ statements have similar weight, I, again following her counsel, defer to the more Biblical revelations.

In this point case, I see that her statement her was emotionally influenced by her circumstances. Her no never statement seems a little to extreme since the Bible, as discussed thus far had left that possibility of utter destruction open. If, as she says, ‘nothing but the intercession of Moses could save Israel at that time’ then how could they ‘“never” have this chance to be utterly destroyed’?? Prophets are human too and do get emotionally caught up in things, speak more out of the heart and according to face, than out of spiritual/prayerful pondering. Ask, e.g., Samuel (1 Sam 16:6, 7) and Nathan (2 Sam 7:1-17).

Originally Posted By: Tom
I recall her saying that she never wrote for public consumption her private views. Do you disagree with this?


(Do you have the exact quote?) I actually do not see this as a “private view” but rather as a an honestly mistaken assumption. Just like Nathan view was not a private one, but just an honest mistake.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/06/11 06:22 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Originally Posted By: kland
K: NJK, is killing part of God's character?

N: Because God is Just in his character, judicious killing harmonizes with how He sees best to deal with the sin problem. The Theodicy Truth here is not determined by what I need my God to be, but what He has revealed and done in the Bible. God never acts out of Character as that would itself be sin, since He/His Character is already and unimprovingly perfect.

K: Would you say the only difference between God's character and satan's character (regarding killing), is that God's killing is considered "judicious" while satan's killing is not?

M: When Jesus withdraws His protection and gives Satan permission to kill sinners, because "they are worthy" (Rev 16:6), are we to assume Satan is acting injudiciously? Is he not, after all, acting in harmony with Jesus' will? If Satan were to refuse to mete out justice on Jesus' behalf who, pray tell, would punish the wicked? What good is law if no one is willing to enforce it? "God has a right to enforce the penalty of the law upon transgressors, for law without a penalty would be without force." {ST, July 14, 1890 par. 2}

"By His word God has bound Himself to execute the penalty of the law on all transgressors. Again and again men commit sin, and yet they do not seem to believe that they must suffer the penalty for breaking the law." {6BC 1095.4} "God has given in His word decisive evidence that He will punish the transgressors of His law." {GC 539.3} "The penalty for the least transgression of that law is death, and but for Christ, the sinner's Advocate, it would be summarily visited on every offender." {TDG 246.1}

Do you agree Jesus is required, by law, to execute justice and judgment, to punish the wicked according to their words and works? If so, do you believe it falls to Satan to punish them? If so, what if Satan refused to do it, who would administer the "ministry of wrath" on Jesus' behalf?

Quote:
With unerring accuracy, the Infinite One keeps a record of the impiety of nations and individuals. Long is his mercy tendered to them, with calls to repentance; but when their guilt reaches a certain limit, which he has fixed, then mercy ceases her pleadings, and the ministration of wrath begins. {LP 318.1}

This penalty Christ bore for the sins of the transgressor. He has borne the punishment for every man, and for this reason He can ransom every soul, however fallen his condition, if he will accept the law of God as his standard of righteousness. The cry of despair from the soul calls forth the tenderest love of God, and this is salvation to every one that believes. He who sees the guilt of his transgression, and understands the infinite sacrifice made in his behalf, will not continue in sin. But if men continue to resist light and evidence, they will cut themselves off from God's mercy, and then will come the ministry of wrath. God can not save the sinner in his sin. The love of God is immeasurable to those who repent, but His justice is firm and uncompromising to those who abuse his long-suffering love. {ST, November 15, 1899 par. 6}

Jesus earned the right on the cross to pardon and save penitent sinners. "For this reason He can ransom every soul." He saves them from the penalty of transgression, that is, intense emotional and physical suffering eventually ending in eternal death.

N: Great SOP statements here on this issue Mountain Man. I see that these are indeed righteous and foundational parts of God’s Character and Jesus also perfectly emulated these in His Life and prominently His 3.5 year ministry.

"Jesus is required, by law, to execute justice and judgment, to punish the wicked according to their words and works." In what way do you think Jesus revealed this integral part of God's character while He was here in the flesh?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/06/11 07:31 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
EGW writes that Satan is the author of sin and all its results. Given that destruction is a result of sin (surely before sin there was no need for God to destroy, right?), then it follows that God is utilizing something of which Satan is the author.

T:Why would God do that? Why wouldn't He rather act according to the principles of His own government?


NJKI think seeing sin and just punishment (and not an degree of violent/vindictive, wanton destruction) as being the same thing is completely false This is like saying that a judge justly sentencing someone to capital punishment (cf. Gn 9:5, 6) is acting just as criminally as that e.g, murderer. God judgement are not sin as they are all just. I think the follow SOP quotes fully support this Theological actuality.


I think these are good points to discuss, but you didn't address what I asked. So I'll try to make clear what I'm asking, and address the points you're making here.

The point I am addressing has specifically to do with destruction, and not punishment. What I am saying is that Satan is the author of sin and all its results (DA 471). One of the results of sin is destruction, so Satan is the author of destruction. Destruction is therefore a principle of Satan's government, not God's.

Before going on, you may disagree with this, and assert that destruction is a principle of God's government, that it wasn't invented by Satan, and we can discuss this. But for now I'm going under the assumption that you'll agree that destruction is the result of sin, and thus follows under Satan's domain.

So the question is, why would God, in dealing with sin, use an instrument invented by Satan?

Back to your points. You make the point that just punishment should not be equated with violent/vindictive, wanton destruction.

We disagree in regards to God's actions in regards to punishment. We both agree that God has the right to punish those who violate His law. Where we disagree is on the mechanism used.

You believe that God sometimes acts passively, and sometimes actively, in punishment, punishment here meaning things like Jerusalem being destroyed, with all that this incurred. I don't believe there's ever a need for God to actively cause destruction in order to punish, but that it's always sufficient for God to withdraw His protection to accomplish the job. The SOP writes that there are a thousand dangers from which God is constantly protecting us. These dangers include natural disasters, things that evil beings could do to us, health problems, all sorts of things.

So I think the mechanism is always one of God's "hiding His face" and allowing troubles to come upon those who have rejected Him, as described in Deuteronomy in several places. For example:

Quote:
17Then my anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall befall them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us, because our God is not among us?

18And I will surely hide my face in that day for all the evils which they shall have wrought, in that they are turned unto other gods. (Deut. 31:17,18)


Because sin is chose, God withdraws, which results in trouble; this is God's wrath. This is how punishment occurs. There are many such statements, equating anger/wrath with hiding the face, withdrawal, and resulting in trouble.

There's no doubt this is a mechanism which is commonly used by God. I believe this mechanism is sufficient. I see no reason for God to use any other mechanism, nor any reason why He would.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/06/11 07:39 PM


Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
"Jesus is required, by law, to execute justice and judgment, to punish the wicked according to their words and works." In what way do you think Jesus revealed this integral part of God's character while He was here in the flesh?


In His key decision to veil the kingdom truth away from rebellious Jews, particularly the leaders, (Matt 13:10-17 = Isa 6:9-13) he came to anchor that future physical destruction. Same goes for his pronouncements of Judgements in Matt 23. Green-lighting this sentence and then taking key measures ‘so that all such Divine vengeance will be fulfilled’ (Luke 21:22 | Matt 24:1ff) is just as contributive as the actions of the Jews themselves whose actions sealed them on this path of judgement. It mirrors the Fig Tree punishment parable which became withered at Christ’s word. (DA ch. 64). In the same way, Jesus, at a point in His Ministry, decided that ‘no one should no longer eat from Israel’s fruitless tree.’ In using this veiling approach Christ was removing the deficiency overlooking (= covering) “grace” that He had priorly given to these rebellious people and leaders (cf. DA 583.2).

I think Jesus did this more out of righteous zeal for God’s work than by Law. E.g. in the parable of the fig tree, there was not “law” that required his cursing of it. In fact he had bent the law in the unfruitful tree parable to give that tree a little more time to be fruitful. (DA 584.2ff = Luke 13:6-9).
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/06/11 07:52 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
M: She clearly says God was testing, proving Moses. Which plainly means He did not intend to destroy Israel.

T: There are other incidents in Scripture where this very thing happened. For example, God looked for someone to repair the breach of the wall. If He had found someone, things could have been different. In Moses, He did find someone, and things were different.

M: To what purpose was God testing, proving Moses?

T: To the end of revealing His character.

M: What attribute of character did Jesus reveal when He told Moses to let Him destroy Israel?

T: Is this what you think God was doing? Or, let me ask it this way, what do you think was happening? What I think was happening is that God wanted to be merciful, and this was the aspect of character He was revealing.

I also agree with you Jesus was demonstrating mercy and compassion, but perhaps not in the same way you seem to think. I believe Jesus was testing, proving Moses, giving him an opportunity to express and demonstrate his allegiance and faithfulness to Israel. The next 40 years were going to be terribly tedious putting up with Israel's complaining and conspiring to kill him. Giving him this opportunity, early on, to plead on their behalf would help him endure their ugliness and help him resist the temptation to blame God for hooking him up with Israel.

Quote:
M: Also, what would have qualified as passing the test – letting Jesus destroy Israel or not letting Him destroy Israel?

T: I understand that God was proving, or testing, Moses in the sense of revealing his character.

I don't understand how your response answers my question.

Quote:
M: Would Moses have passed the test if he had let Jesus destroy Israel? And, would Jesus have passed the test if He had destroyed Israel?

T: What test?

Regarding the “test” Ellen wrote:

Quote:
Here the Lord proved Moses. He knew that it was a laborious and soul-trying work to lead that rebellious people through to the promised land. He would test the perseverance, faithfulness and love of Moses, for such an erring and ungrateful people. {1SP 245.1}

God had proved his servant, he had tested his faithfulness and his love for that erring, ungrateful people, and nobly had Moses endured the trial. . . God was pleased with his faithfulness, his simplicity of heart, and his integrity, and he committed to him, as a faithful shepherd, the great charge of leading Israel to the promised land. {RH, February 11, 1909 par. 8}

As you can see, she supports what I said above about Jesus giving Moses an opportunity to express his love and allegiance and faithfulness to Israel. It was necessary for Moses to plead for Israel at this point in time, otherwise it would have been easy for him to abandon them. When tempted to abandon them he need only recall pleading for them, and it would serve to comfort and encourage him and to motivate him to manfully endure their complaining and conspiring ways.

However, my question remains - Would Moses have passed the test if he had “let” Jesus destroy Israel when Jesus said, “Let me alone . . . that I may consume them”?

And, would Jesus have destroyed Israel if Moses had “let” Him?

Quote:
“Let Me alone, that My wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation."

T: Remember that God's wrath is His hiding His face, withdrawing His protection. This is similar to other times in Scripture, when God looked from someone to intercede. In Moses He found a kindred spirit.

Would Jesus have destroyed Israel if Moses had not interceded? Does it sound like something Jesus would do, that is, destroy Israel within weeks of the Exodus and start over with Moses? Is there any evidence Jesus gives up and resorts to death and destruction so soon?

The idea that the only way Jesus causes death and destruction is by withdrawing His protection and permitting evil men and/or evil angels to cause death and destruction has not been proven or substantiated. At this point, it is merely a hypothesis. You seem to treat it as though it is an undeniable fact.

Quote:
M: Otherwise, if Moses had failed the test and God had destroyed Israel, it implies God would have raised up a nation through a man who failed the test of his faithfulness.

T: It does imply that. But people have failed tests of faithfulness and gone on to be great followers of God, of which Abraham, the very father of the people whom were discussing, is an example. The reason Israel wasn't destroyed was because of Moses' intercession. God wasn't kidding.

M: Why would God destroy a nation fathered by a failure only to replace it by another father of failure? “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

T: Any nation founded by any human being, other than the man Jesus Christ, is going to be founded upon someone flawed.

M: Which begs the question – Why destroy Israel and start over with Moses? How is that not “insane” (see definition above)?

T: Why couldn't the offspring of Moses have behaved differently?

What do we know about Moses’ two children? “The sons of Moses were, Gershom, and Eliezer. Of the sons of Gershom, Shebuel was the chief. And the sons of Eliezer were, Rehabiah the chief. And Eliezer had none other sons; but the sons of Rehabiah were very many.” That’s it.

However, the question remains – If the right and righteous thing to do was to destroy Israel and start over with Moses, why did Jesus refuse to destroy Israel?

Also, if Jesus had destroyed Israel, the tribe of Judah would have been wiped out, thus ending Jesus’ chances of fulfilling the prophecy concerning His being born of the tribe of Judah. Moses, as you know, was of the tribe of Levi.

Quote:
M: Also, why did God need Moses' permission to destroy Israel?

T: I don't understand why you're asking this. That is, why do you think God needed Moses' permission?

M: Because Jesus asked Moses to “let” Him destroy Israel.

T: I think God wanted Moses to intercede on behalf of Israel.

Jesus said, “Let me alone . . . that I may consume them." It is clear Ellen believed these words were designed to “encourage” Moses to plead for Israel. In His dialog with Moses, therefore, what did Jesus say that leads you to believe He was serious about wanting to destroy Israel and starting over with Moses?

Quote:
T: More later.

Thank you.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/06/11 08:06 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK Project

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
"Jesus is required, by law, to execute justice and judgment, to punish the wicked according to their words and works." In what way do you think Jesus revealed this integral part of God's character while He was here in the flesh?

In His key decision to veil the kingdom truth away from rebellious Jews, particularly the leaders, (Matt 13:10-17 = Isa 6:9-13) he came to anchor that future physical destruction. Same goes for his pronouncements of Judgements in Matt 23. Green-lighting this sentence and then taking key measures ‘so that all such Divine vengeance will be fulfilled’ (Luke 21:22 | Matt 24:1ff) is just as contributive as the actions of the Jews themselves whose actions sealed them on this path of judgement. It mirrors the Fig Tree punishment parable which became withered at Christ’s word. (DA ch. 64). In the same way, Jesus, at a point in His Ministry, decided that ‘no one should no longer eat from Israel’s fruitless tree.’ In using this veiling approach Christ was removing the deficiency overlooking (= covering) “grace” that He had priorly given to these rebellious people and leaders (cf. DA 583.2).

I think Jesus did this more out of righteous zeal for God’s work than by Law. E.g. in the parable of the fig tree, there was not “law” that required his cursing of it. In fact he had bent the law in the unfruitful tree parable to give that tree a little more time to be fruitful. (DA 584.2ff = Luke 13:6-9).

It is obvious Jesus often talked about executing justice and judgment in the future, however, my question pertains to while He was here in the flesh? That is, while here in the flesh did Jesus execute justice and judgment?

PS - The reason I ask is because at this point in this thread Tom is attempting to explain why Jesus, in the OT, commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in battle and why He commanded godly people to kill ungodly people though the execution of capital punishment. It is his firm belief we must interpret these two things in light of Jesus' earthly life and ministry. If Jesus did not command these two things while here in the flesh, we are forced to believe, says Tom, He did not command them in the OT.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/06/11 08:20 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
I think these are good points to discuss, but you didn't address what I asked. So I'll try to make clear what I'm asking, and address the points you're making here....


Interesting angle on this issue Tom, however this goes back to such a question that I had previously asked which you did not address:

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
How then did Sodom and Gomorrah and surrounding cities “naturally” get destroyed? The inhabitants ignored the customary “brimstone and fire” precipitation??? (Gen 19:14b, 24, 25). Same with the Flood, or the Egyptians in the Red Sea. I can name a plethora of Biblical examples along this “non-natural” [destruction] lines.


The SOP also says that Angels of God knocked down the wall of Jericho and slew 185,000 Assyrians. See LDE 243-244. Seems to me that your are knowingly and selectively opting to leave these clear episodes out to uphold your paradigm. Again all of Biblical testimony must contributively be included in one’s Theological paradigm.

I also see that in God removing the Tree of Life from Nature and access to man, a certain degree of natural destruction began to occur. E.g., Man increasingly degenerated health wise (not necessarily sickness, but ageing), the ground was cursed, Tree leaves died, etc.

Again “sin” (= transgressing God’s law/living outside of it) is not the same as an act of (just) destruction. God killing wicked people (= the Flood was not sin - Satan clearly did not do this destruction). This then would be like saying that the officer who carries out the judges capital punishment sentence on a criminal is a criminal himself for doing this. Such judgement destruction is within the law, as it righteously/justly is within God’s Law and Government. The previously cited SOP quote testify to this Theological fact.

---

I could make a statement on what I have observed in regards to what EGW says in GC 35-37 on God’s method of judgement based upon direct revelation she was shown in contextual regards to a certain Brother Stone 14MR 1-3. She was apparently shown this to present this priorly not prominently-seen second, indirect, way in which God effectuates judgements (and not to replace that prior understood direct way - which she does also uphold in GC 614.2). I however refrain for now until more in depth analysis. (Hint: Based on the Biblical and Direct SOP evidence on the Seven Last Plague, she may have blanketly overextended the application(s) of that newly revealed ‘second indirect judgement way’ and that may include the destruction of Jerusalem. Again the Bible is to be the final arbitrator!)

Also Tom, do list the other places in the Bible/SOP where you (explicitly(?)) see the indirect method being used.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/06/11 08:50 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
It is obvious Jesus often talked about executing justice and judgment in the future, however, my question pertains to while He was here in the flesh? That is, while here in the flesh did Jesus execute justice and judgment?

PS - The reason I ask is because at this point in this thread Tom is attempting to explain why Jesus, in the OT, commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in battle and why He commanded godly people to kill ungodly people though the execution of capital punishment. It is his firm belief we must interpret these two things in light of Jesus' earthly life and ministry. If Jesus did not command these two things while here in the flesh, we are forced to believe, says Tom, He did not command them in the OT.


Again going back to my fundamental Theological tenet that: ‘God is “Real”’, I do not see Him, nor Jesus, as doing anything just simply to do it. So in the OT, this just and real God did not destroyed the Amorites because there was no actual, nor just, reason to do so, -to that total extent. (Gen 15:13, 16). In Jesus’s ministry the time for (any) physical destruction had not yet come, so Jesus did not do so. However He did clearly indicate that it will come, and that to any disobeying person (e.g,. John 3:16-21). So that nonfeasance due solely to not yet actionable/fully developed rebellion did not mean that Jesus dispensed with this aspect of God’s government. Jesus, in incarnated Presence, did indeed in principle maintain that Just, Divine Authority.

And Tom has not yet addressed the many direct destruction of God in the OT as explicitly stated in both the Bible and SOP.

Interestingly enough, if Tom is saying that there is a substantive methodical difference between the “direct” destruction spoken of by Christ in parables in Matt 22:7 and Luke 20:16 and EGW statement on the destruction of Jerusalem, as expounded on in GC 35-37, then I see and understand that Jesus’ view should win out and God, as He can do (e.g., Isa 13:17), did indeed send even a foreign army (cf. Isa 46:11a) to effectuate this destruction. However as I have already said, since the prophetic statements of Dan 9:26b & 27b, that destruction was explicitly (through the Hebrew syntax) always said to be caused by the people, self-inflicted and indirectly effectuated (i.e., foreign armies). Still in an ultimate and sovereign sense, it was indeed God who permitted it (= ordered/summoned it).
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/06/11 10:52 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Originally Posted By: kland
Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
K: NJK, is killing part of God's character?

N: Because God is Just in his character, judicious killing harmonizes with how He sees best to deal with the sin problem. The Theodicy Truth here is not determined by what I need my God to be, but what He has revealed and done in the Bible. God never acts out of Character as that would itself be sin, since He/His Character is already and unimprovingly perfect.

K: Would you say the only difference between God's character and satan's character (regarding killing), is that God's killing is considered "judicious" while satan's killing is not?

M: When Jesus withdraws His protection and gives Satan permission to kill sinners, because "they are worthy" (Rev 16:6), are we to assume Satan is acting injudiciously? Is he not, after all, acting in harmony with Jesus' will? If Satan were to refuse to mete out justice on Jesus' behalf who, pray tell, would punish the wicked? What good is law if no one is willing to enforce it? "God has a right to enforce the penalty of the law upon transgressors, for law without a penalty would be without force." {ST, July 14, 1890 par. 2}
wow

Are you saying that both Jesus and Satan kill judiciously?

Quote:
who, pray tell, would punish the wicked?
Could that comment be a revealing of a problem with your view?

You omitted most of my post. Why?
It doesn't fit in the quote boxes. I thought you would remember what you said. Tom repeated it and so did NJK. Are you familiar with how commentaries work?

Quoting the rest of it doesn't change anything, does it?
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/06/11 11:20 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
k: I, in the above specific instance, was referring to the end result. Maybe I had the flood in mind that after an observer saw the destruction of the earth and the people, would he, without knowing anything aforehand, be able to determine whether satan did it or God did it?

NJK: The reality in regards to the flood is that God had warned of it and caused it, and then made it to be recorded to say so. I also do not see how it realistically can be that someone would look at the result of the flood and the destruction and not know of the circumstances leading up to it that Noah had been preaching that the Creator God was going to do this. Indeed to choose between God and Satan that person would have to have a pretty knowledgeable understanding of the Bible and also the GC as Satan is, especially early, kept behind the scenes, if that is even actually applicable as it may factually be that he just did not have much chance (i.e., granted permission by God) to actively/directly effectuate such “supernatural” events of destruction.

Sounds like you said, "No".

That one can only know whether an act is of satan or God is if he knew the full background.

Doesn't that seem.... unsatisfactory to you?

For example, if you should come upon a crime scene, where someone has been stabbed multiple times with their head severed, but you did not know the background of what happened, it sounds like you just said you wouldn't know whether it was done by a good or bad person.

Personally, I would find that unsatisfactory, to make an understatement.

Quote:
k: ... but act as whether it was "judicious" or "injudicious".

NJK:
I think I can, notwithstanding the not understood statement above, generally reply here that I see that the Millenium will be used for us to have a first hand knowledge that God has indeed been fair and just in all of, these, His final salvation decision both in those who He allowed in Heaven and those who He kept out.
Which I think you clarified the statement. That we will use the Millennium to determine if God used violence "judiciously" or "injudiciously".

Quote:
k: Am I understanding correctly that you view God as using a violent act, drowning people, to stop their violent acts, and that violence is not wrong, but we will spend a thousand years determining if that, and other violent acts, were "judicious" use of violence?

NJK: To avoid any misunderstanding here, I understand “violent” here as using force, even supernatural (= “high/higher science”) force to effectuate something that otherwise would not naturally transpire (e.g, the Flood, the raining of fire and Brimstone on Sodom and Egypt, the Red Sea opening, and the closing upon the delayed and hindered, the released to pursue, Egyptians. (Exod 14:19-21).
Sounds like we agree with what "violent" is.
So, would you say God used violence to stop violence?

Quote:
k: But, is "judicious", as determined by you proper use in determining character as you then have what MM comes up with:

NJK: That statement and linking is a bit unclear, please rephrase/clarify.
That made me smile. wink Perhaps I was getting too wordy.
I see I left out a comma and the sentence seems backwards and maybe including phrases within phrases. Let me try again.

Is the way you define what "judicious" is, the proper use in determining character? If so, then you have what MM came up with, that both satan and God are "judicious" in their use of violence. And if satan and God are both "judicious" in their use of power, why during the Millennium would we be able to determine which was .....(I don't know what adjective would go here).
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/07/11 01:14 AM

Quote:
Tom:I recall her saying that she never wrote for public consumption her private views. Do you disagree with this?


Rosangela or MM, could you help out here? I'm thinking of the quote where she says she never writes anything publicly of her own opinions, something like that. I think you'll know it, as it's pretty well known.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/07/11 01:28 AM

(Evidently I had not successfully posted this reply yesterday.)

Quote:
NJK: I appreciate your effort to clarify/justify your position Tom, however I can only see that this blaming of my statements on, effectively, ‘a mind-set that is not in the Bible’ is further not justified, and is indeed due to you not having a due, harmonized understanding of such seemingly divergent Scriptures/SOP statements.

Tom: Everybody is impacted by their mind-set/paradigm. This is a chief pillar of the exegetical method. Why would you think this doesn't apply to yourself?


This is self-manifest in our discussions thus far. My approach is to take passages as they exegetically read and use this a building blocks towards a Theology which will, when necessary self-produce such harmonization, so in a way, I am working from a bottom-up view. On the other hand, I see you working from a top down view citing Jesus Christ as the top view, seconded by EGW seemingly wholly supporting statements to the fact and thus you virtually ignore any revelation that may have been made in the OT. I do not see Jesus making such a claim, per se, of only considering what He has done to understand the Bible’s Theology. (e.g., John 5:39; Luke 24:27). I do not see the God of the OT, which in active form was Michael/Jesus, His actions, and statements as being mutually exclusive with the Revelation of the incarnate Christ. I rather see that both say exactly the same thing. Jesus did not come to do away with the Law and the Prophets (=OT) but to fulfill them. He, and where it was necessary, reinstituted these OT contributions where they were always meant to be.

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. I instead have the harmonizing view that Jesus came to provide redemption to man, to those who would accept this gift, and thus once again give us access to this Tree of Life so that we can live eternally (=Rev 2:7). You instead want to have the mutually exclusive stand of Jesus or the Tree of Life but not both. As I said, the two compliment each other, and it is manifestly from the Water of Life flowing from the Father’s throne that the needed, life perpetuating “supernatural power” is injected in the Fruit of the Tree of Life. However, without accepting Jesus, Fallen Man will not have access to that physical provision and thus not life eternally. So both Jesus’ statements to this end and the tangible reality of the Tree/Fruit of Life harmonizingly present the Theological Truth of how Man, and now Fallen Man, lives eternally.

So resuming here, I build my views on all of these building blocks as I see them all as being contributive and fulfillingly endorsed by Jesus. On the other hand I see you having a Jesus-and-nothing-else, even-if-it-is-stated-by-God/Jesus-in-the-OT, view. So it is in that sense that you do not see the wrath expressed in the OT as being part f Jesus nature, though He did utilize and apply fitting degrees of that judgement aspect of God. I do not see an endorsement for such an approach in the Bible, from Jesus or the SOP. EGW’s counsel is indeed to look at Jesus for the calibrating view however that does not mean that what God, even Jesus did in the OT was wrong. Rather Jesus shows us how what was then done was just. E.g., in citing Isa 6:9-13 in His chosen action in Matt 13:10-17; Jesus vindicated God’s OT action there showing that in such cases of persisted hypocrisy, endeavoring to make these people so drunk and settled in their wrong ways so that prophecies of deserved destruction will be fulfilled in in perfect harmony with the Perfect, Just and Wise Character of God. Jesus can to vindicate the Law and the Father and not to “show Him up”, and that as violent, wrong, unloving, coercive, spiteful, insane, irrational, etc. It is we who have to get up to speed on how exactly Jesus did that. What Jesus thus expounded on does not replace a jot or a tittle of the OT, but confirms it as having been a perfect expression of God’s Will and a Righteous and unimpeachable demonstration of His Character.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/07/11 01:38 AM

Quote:
NJK: That was part of my point, that was not a ‘matter-of fact account or straightforward fore-description of the destruction.

Tom:Sure it was. Anybody listening to Jesus would have understood it as such. It's obvious. He will take the vineyard away, and kill the ones that killed his son. He was angry, and sent armies to burn their city. This is very direct language.


I rather see this, and all of Christ’s parable as also being a deliberate veiled statement (Matt 13:10ff). There is nothing straightforward/literal to speak about the current Jewish Nation by instead using vineyard and tenant farmers and a king’s wedding feast. The only reason why the Jewish leaders came to understand that he was speaking to them (Matt 21:45a) with the two preceding parables (Matt 21:28-32 & 33-41) was because of Christ unique public explanatory details appended to these two related parables in vss. 42-44, especially vs. 43.

Also if Christ’s words are expressing directly effectuate judgement and EGW categorically says the complete opposite then Christ’s words/the Bible should win out and EGW views as “mistaken” (Isa 8:20). She would have simply missapplied this type of judgement here. However see next answer.

Originally Posted By: Tom
What in Scripture suggests that the destruction of Jerusalem should be interpreted the way Ellen White did?


As I said before, the syntax of the prophetic statement in Dan 9:26b & 27b. (See also my enjoined next (priorly post) statement.)

And whether directly or indirectly effectuated, God ultimately did, at the very least, allow it, So this all may actually be a substantively inconsequential difference, especially as, as I see it, in either way, God is blameless.

Quote:
NJK: In reality, did God send ‘His own army’ to do this destruction (which would literally have to be the Angels as He is the Lord of Hosts) or was it the Roman armies who came and did this. Still as God is sovereign over all of the earth, and does set up and remove earthly kings (Dan 2:21) and even ‘cause (= Hiphil) foreign kings/kingdoms to be ‘awaken/roused up/stirred up’ to effectuate His plans/judgements of destruction even when not in direct relation for or against His Israel (Isa 13:17). Indeed as shown in Isa 10:26, as the Lord of Host (=angels) He still does this work through earthly powers, even foreign armies as for the promised destruction of the Assyrians (cf. vs. 24-34). So I do not see Christ’s parable as being substantively contradictive to what was later revealed in the SOP. At the very least, it could only have been down by the allowance of the Sovereign God of this World.


Tom: Sure, you can interpret the direct statements of Christ as involving passive action on the part of God, and thus not contradicting the SOP, but this is precisely my point. Scripture portrays God's actions as direct, but the SOP portrays it as passive.


As I said above, in case of such a supposed “irreconcilable difference” the Bible should win out, even if by arbitrative decision (i.e., ‘I’ll just go by what the Bible says, despite the SOP emphasis’) That is also why making a parable have force over a Bible prophecy and/or plain statement (Dan 9:26 and 27b) is actually not proper exegesis (e.g., the Rich Man and Lazarus). In a parable some things can only be expressed in the natural/logical way in which the story allows for. It is not meant to stipulate precise doctrinal/theological/prophetic statements but illustrate a single, even detached point. That “point” is Christ’s parable was that the Jews would lose their land and feast invitation before God and others would receive it and, merely surfacely speaking, and not necessarily in explanatory details, they would both suffer physical destruction and death because of those disassociation actions. How that destruction is effectuate may not at all been the main, detailing concern of Christ in that parable. He was more concerned with making this most urgent point that: “the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people, producing the fruit of it. (Mat 21:43)”. I am sure you can go through most of Christ’s ’sermon illustration’ and find such points that are not fully the same as every single line of doctrinal and straightforward teaching.

Originally Posted By: Tom
There are other examples of the same thing.


Please do list at least 5 of these other examples.

Originally Posted By: Tom
So if the Bible says God acts actively, but the SOP tells us God was actively passively, which do we believe?


As I have been saying, clearly and easily the Bible. I have had to do this several times. I think EGW would agree and may actually be glad to have her would be honest mistake in such non-direct revelation commentary be pointed out to her and corrected.

Quote:
T:Indeed, it sounds like this to you, but not to me, or APL, or kland, or many others. Why doesn't it sound like this to us, but it does to you? Because your mind-set is different than ours.

NJK:Indeed I similarly ask to you all: Why??! Perhaps the above “exhaustively comprehensive, harmonized” thus “proper” exegesis can help you answer this “why” here and also understand what the Biblical “mind-set” actually is.

Tom: Not at all.


Tom, you still need to explain why the underlying text here of GC 628.2 is not speaking of God’s Wrath, irrespective of how it actually is effectuated. As I said this destruction is not against God’s will


Quote:
NJK:That’s really too bad. However I believe I made a substantive point. It is indeed, seriously, really “too bad” that you cannot even begin to see the, at least, hinted exegetical light here.

Your reaction wasn't exegetical, but off the cuff. It revealed our mind-set.


Then perhaps/manifestly my ‘“mind-set” off the cuff reaction’ was Theologically on point here, based on what I actually had in mind here. Indeed, the wrath of God is foundationally clearly expressed in that action. I was not actually addressing how it would be effectuated as this is besides the point. So the “exegetical hint” here is that whether done by God or Satan, it is still ‘God unmixed and merciless wrath.’ (= Rev 14:, 10|16:19) - Notice indeed, as my ongoing 7 Plagues deeper studies have revealed, that promised ‘unmixed wrathful wine cup’ judgement for the Mark of the Beast adherents (Rev 14:9, 10) is not actually effectuated until the 7th and last plague (Rev 16:19).

Originally Posted By: Tom
Your response was one of reaction. You didn't investigate what was happening, but merely read a text, and replied, "this sounds like such and such to me."


The plain reading of the text was all that was necessary to make that ‘sound’ observation. Again, how this judgement is effectuate is beyond the green lighting ‘Divine wrath’ point/issue.

Originally Posted By: Tom
NJK: Then it should not be too hard for you to substantiate that claim of your with points that I made that were Biblically wrong and that because they were assumedly “not investigated.”

Tom: I'm just talking about your reaction. You quoted a text, from "The Great Controversy" chapter 39, as I recall, and stated that this sounded like "justified and deserving, Divine ‘wrathful’ judgements to me." Why do these words sound that way to you? Because of your mind set, your paradigm. That's the same reason words sound the way they sound to any of us.


Contrary to what you may want to believe about me, and as my prior ending of this discussion on this point was based on, my reaction and statement here on this expression of ‘Divine Wrath’ was indeed directly and entirely derived from that plain textual expression. It is your paradigm that manifestly sees this wrath of God as sinful, and thus must somehow be wholly attributed to Satan, a point that EGW does not at all make in that passage, that is ‘eisegetically reactionary.’

Originally Posted By: Tom
This gets to a big problem God has. How does He teach us His ways, His thinking, His paradigm, when we're so set on our own, and interpret everything He says according to our own?


There is no “big problem” for those who engage in proper exegesis to study God’s word. All necessary resources to do this, especially in our day, are available and accessible by most, (especially SDA’s in Western/advance countries). I rather see your, what I see as a Top-down and selective approach to be incorrect exegesis. Jesus compliments the rest of the Bible and does not replace it.

Quote:
NJK: Okay then, I’ll mindlessly bite and assume that you had other people but me in mind here (I still don’t see why?? Especially since, as customary on your part, you never explicitly stated that you had abandoned your prior views and opposition of me for what you had though was my similar view. Indeed I cannot keep track of when you silently switch views.)

Tom: What are you talking about? I've got no idea what you're trying to say here. Silently switch views? What views were silently switched? Or switched at all, silently or not?


See the statement in this post which you have not addressed.

By the way, just to be sure, what exactly is your criteria respond to a question/comment or not? I.e., Time; Agree/Disagree, etc.

Quote:
T:For example, you believe that God's primary characteristic is His power. I believe it's His love.

NJK:Here you go again misunderstanding, misrepresenting and/or misconstruing my views.

Tom: This is hardly fair. Here's what you wrote:

Originally Posted By: NJK Project

Clearly God considers His Characteristic Attribute to be in His Power and Ability to (ultimately) accomplish His will against any odds, or human obstacles.


"His characteristic attribute" is synonymous with "His primary characteristic." For you to characterize me as taking what you wrote in this way as "misrepresenting" or "misconstruing" your view is in no way fair. You could rightly say I'm guilty of misunderstanding it, however, but that's only because I based my view upon what you wrote. I could just have readily as written, "You believe God's characteristic attribute is His power; I believe it is His love."


Fair enough, in regards to “misrepresentation” and “misconstrue.” To better explain my point, I’ll preface my comment here by:

“In/For this GC, God, as seen in the OT, clearly considers, by on the ground necessity, His Characteristic Attribute to be in His Power and Ability to (ultimately) accomplish His will against any odds, or human obstacles.

Also EGW begins and ends her Conflict of the Ages series with the statement ‘God is Love’ (PP 33.1 & GC 678.3), however notice that this is prominently freely said before and after this GC episode of sin:

Originally Posted By: SOP PP 33.1
"God is love." 1 John 4:16. His nature, His law, is love. It ever has been; it ever will be.


Originally Posted By: SOP GC 678.3
The great controversy is ended. Sin and sinners are no more. The entire universe is clean. One pulse of harmony and gladness beats through the vast creation. From Him who created all, flow life and light and gladness, throughout the realms of illimitable space. From the minutest atom to the greatest world, all things, animate and inanimate, in their unshadowed beauty and perfect joy, declare that God is love.


EGW interestingly has to pointedly add that:

Originally Posted By: SOP PP 33.3
The history of the great conflict between good and evil, from the time it first began in heaven to the final overthrow of rebellion and the total eradication of sin, is also a demonstration of God's unchanging love.


This is indeed true, however my point is that this was not prominently demonstrable during the GC because of the many varying circumstances that God had to deal with using His other Characteristic Attributes.

Towards this vindicating end I Theologically/Prophetically understand that this prominent demonstration that God is Love during the GC is greatly dependent on what His Professed People will allow Him to do, for without their participation, that attribute won’t be as prominently revealed as it should. Jesus began that needed reform and the Remnant Church is to finish it by applying all that Christ taught and mandated towards this end. So as you signature passage says:

Originally Posted By: SOP COL 415.5
“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.” (cf. COL 69.1)



Quote:
NJK: Using Love for every circumstance, especially in the realities of this GC, would prove to impeachingly be Artificial and Hypocritical on God’s part.

Tom: God always uses love in each and every instance in which He acts. Love is not something He switches on and off, but is His character. "God is love."


To use a concrete example: When destroying the antedelluvian, it was indeed a loving act for the righteous, but it also was not so loving, if at all for those who perished. So here both Love and Justice were demonstrated. Indeed as EGW says: ‘Love is not independent or divorceable for God’s other expressed attributes. E.g.:

Originally Posted By: SOP RH March 10, 1904
It is the glory of God to be merciful, full of forbearance, kindness, goodness, and truth. But the justice shown in punishing the sinner is as verily the glory of the Lord as is the manifestation of His mercy. {LDE 240.1}


Originally Posted By: Tom
Love is not in contrast to power or justice, or whatever it is you think that God is doing that is different than love. All the attributes of God's character fit under the umbrella of love.


From what I am reading of your view, it is you who is making this contrast here by saying e.g., that God does not effectuate direct judgement because that is sin. How does that view compare with Such SOP statements and many clear Bible demonstrations to the contrary.

Originally Posted By: Tom
"God is love"


As I have said elsewhere, God does have other names in the Bible. Indeed he is not called by a name that “God is Love” but has to be declared to be so, and that corroborates my understanding that this is because that has not been the prominent manifestation of Him in the Bible. Indeed without Jesus’ statements to the sort, subsequently echoed by NT writers, and then in the SOP writings, this Characteristic of God would continue to remain in the background.

So I see all of those emphasis on saying that “God is Love” only as necessary efforts to make this Character trait also prominent and not setting it up as a ‘chief umbrella trait’.
There is always a tendency and need to emphasize what is being overlooked and ignored, while the other much more prominent “traits” speak for themselves.

To use my concrete example of the Flood Destruction. On one hand God’s Love saved the righteous, but on the flip side, God’s Justice destroyed the antedulluvians. I do not see it as a ‘subset’ trait of Love but a same level one.

Quote:
T:As another example, I believe that the primary revelation of God's character is Jesus Christ. I believe that all that we can know of God was revealed by Him. Therefore I don't need to go outside of Jesus Christ to know or understand God. This is an important foundational principle which I use in attempting to harmonize Scriptural statements, or statements by the SOP.

NJK:I already addressed that above and again, I don’t see the OT God and Jesus to be mutually exclusive, as Jesus Himself said He was emulating the OT God (John 8:16, 28; 38; 10:37, 38). How were people to ascertain that what Jesus was doing was also what the Father would do if they were not to be looking at the records of the OT to see what the OT God had done??

Tom: Not only are they not mutually exclusive, but they are identical. If you agree with this, you should also agree that it's not necessary to go outside of Jesus Christ to learn of God. This isn't to say there isn't value in studying God in other places where He is revealed (even in nature, we can do this) but the clearest revelation of God is Jesus Christ.


As I see it ‘having the “clearest” revelation of God in Jesus’ is completely different from ‘it being not necessary to go outside of Jesus Christ to learn of God’. In the first situation if you want the clearest understanding than you can indeed go to Jesus who will indeed make obscure and ambiguous OT revelations clearer, however to have the full Revelation you do need to include the OT (and also God’s Creation.) So I see Jesus as being clarifyingly definitive and comprehensive, but not actually exhaustive (no slight of Jesus at all intended, as I Theologically clearly see that this is not/cannot be done by that understanding does not).

I see that Christ’s statement in John 14:9 are commonly, wrongly over applied to mean that ‘Jesus is the only, even only true, revelation of the Father.’ However in context, what Jesus was addressing was Philip’s actually entirely dismissive follow up request to Christ’s statement that: “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.” (Joh 14:7) to which Philip obstinately said: “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” (vs. 8) thus entirely bypassing any contribution to this knowing/understanding end that Jesus had been making (vs. 9-11). So I see it as Jesus counselling: ‘Do not so dismiss my revelation for it was in perfect emulation of God the Father.’ Still the revelation of the Father in the OT is to be an inseperable integral part of Christ’s revelation and be clarified, where needed in what Jesus said, did, revealed.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Certainly if we think we have found something about God which was not revealed in Jesus Christ, we're seeing something which isn't there.


This is an example of making Christ the only revelation about God, where e.g., most pertinent to this discussion, ‘since he did not directly/actively do any destructive judgement then, that must also be what happen in the OT with God.’ My expressed understanding above to this view is that those OT judgements said to be done by God, did not need any clarifying and also their was no justly actionable or present circumstance for which Christ to similarly do this. However passages imbued by Christ such as Isa 63:1-6 show that He did not consider this role a foreign to Him or the Father. So it is there in both the OT and NT. Case in point who struck dead Ananias and Sapphira. Did they both e.g., always have an extremely bad heart condition and God removed a protection that was keeping them from having a heart attack, or was it an externally-borne, direct and non-natural health wise (as ‘externally non-natural’ as a death by gunshot), ‘swift and terrible, meted out, wrathful punishment of God’ (= AA 72.2-76.1) and thus also not even one carried out by Satan?

Quote:
NJK: It is quite telling to me that you rarely address my cited texts of support as this (Matt 13:10-17 = Isa 6:9-13; also Matt 23). Instead making claims to your paradigm.

Tom: I don't recall you're having made a point in regards to these texts for me to respond to.


(See in this April 5 post (#132364)). Also in this mistakenly not posted reply (#132433).

Originally Posted By: Tom
What's your point, in regards to these texts?

M main point, as also later stated here is that Jesus deliberately acted to effectuate physical destruction on the Jewish nation. This drawing up of the plans and setting up the explosive charges is just as contributive to effectuating the destruction pressing the detonation button. It even amounts to trick the Jews here to obliviously go ahead and press that button themselves, allowing them to continue to think that it was for their good. Again all this I see as equally being Just and Righteous and Loving, Loving to the Gentiles living in oblivious darkness of God (= e.g., Matt 21:40, 41, 43).
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/07/11 02:01 AM

Originally Posted By: kland
K: NJK, is killing part of God's character?

N: Because God is Just in his character, judicious killing harmonizes with how He sees best to deal with the sin problem. The Theodicy Truth here is not determined by what I need my God to be, but what He has revealed and done in the Bible. God never acts out of Character as that would itself be sin, since He/His Character is already and unimprovingly perfect.

K: Would you say the only difference between God's character and satan's character (regarding killing), is that God's killing is considered "judicious" while satan's killing is not?

M: When Jesus withdraws His protection and gives Satan permission to kill sinners, because "they are worthy" (Rev 16:6), are we to assume Satan is acting injudiciously? Is he not, after all, acting in harmony with Jesus' will? If Satan were to refuse to mete out justice on Jesus' behalf who, pray tell, would punish the wicked? What good is law if no one is willing to enforce it? "God has a right to enforce the penalty of the law upon transgressors, for law without a penalty would be without force." {ST, July 14, 1890 par. 2}

"By His word God has bound Himself to execute the penalty of the law on all transgressors. Again and again men commit sin, and yet they do not seem to believe that they must suffer the penalty for breaking the law." {6BC 1095.4} "God has given in His word decisive evidence that He will punish the transgressors of His law." {GC 539.3} "The penalty for the least transgression of that law is death, and but for Christ, the sinner's Advocate, it would be summarily visited on every offender." {TDG 246.1}

Do you agree Jesus is required, by law, to execute justice and judgment, to punish the wicked according to their words and works? If so, do you believe it falls to Satan to punish them? If so, what if Satan refused to do it, who would administer the "ministry of wrath" on Jesus' behalf?

Quote:
With unerring accuracy, the Infinite One keeps a record of the impiety of nations and individuals. Long is his mercy tendered to them, with calls to repentance; but when their guilt reaches a certain limit, which he has fixed, then mercy ceases her pleadings, and the ministration of wrath begins. {LP 318.1}

This penalty Christ bore for the sins of the transgressor. He has borne the punishment for every man, and for this reason He can ransom every soul, however fallen his condition, if he will accept the law of God as his standard of righteousness. The cry of despair from the soul calls forth the tenderest love of God, and this is salvation to every one that believes. He who sees the guilt of his transgression, and understands the infinite sacrifice made in his behalf, will not continue in sin. But if men continue to resist light and evidence, they will cut themselves off from God's mercy, and then will come the ministry of wrath. God can not save the sinner in his sin. The love of God is immeasurable to those who repent, but His justice is firm and uncompromising to those who abuse his long-suffering love. {ST, November 15, 1899 par. 6}

M: Jesus earned the right on the cross to pardon and save penitent sinners. "For this reason He can ransom every soul." He saves them from the penalty of transgression, that is, intense emotional and physical suffering eventually ending in eternal death.

K: Are you saying that both Jesus and Satan kill judiciously? You wrote, "who, pray tell, would punish the wicked?" Could that comment be a revealing of a problem with your view?

M: You omitted most of my post. Why?

K: It doesn't fit in the quote boxes. I thought you would remember what you said. Tom repeated it and so did NJK. Are you familiar with how commentaries work? Quoting the rest of it doesn't change anything, does it?

Law and justice require impenitent sinners to “suffer punishment varying in duration and intensity, ‘according to their works,’ but finally ending in the second death.” {GC 544.2} “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} I do not believe the work of punishing impenitent sinners will fall to Satan. Nor do I believe impenitent sinners will somehow punish themselves. Ellen wrote:

Quote:
Justice demanded the sufferings of man; but Christ rendered the sufferings of a God. {7BC 913.2}

In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man's sin. {RH, March 3, 1874 par. 1}

Justice demanded not merely that sin be pardoned; the death penalty must be met. The Saviour has met this demand. His broken body, his gushing blood, satisfied the claims of the law. {YI, April 16, 1903 par. 6}

The divine government had been dishonored, and justice demanded that the penalty of transgression be paid. To save the race from eternal death, the Son of God volunteered to bear the punishment of disobedience. {1SM 308}

God, being the creditor, had a right to make any provision for the redemption of human beings. Justice demanded that a certain price be paid. The Son of God was the only One who could pay this price. {7ABC 468.7}

The penalty of transgression is always death. Christ averted the immediate execution of the death sentence by giving His life for man. . . . 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}

Justice and Mercy stood apart, in opposition to each other, separated by a wide gulf. The Lord our Redeemer clothed His divinity with humanity, and wrought out in behalf of man a character that was without spot or blemish. He planted His cross midway between heaven and earth, and made it the object of attraction which reached both ways, drawing both Justice and Mercy across the gulf. Justice moved from its exalted throne, and with all the armies of heaven approached the cross. There it saw One equal with God bearing the penalty for all injustice and sin. With perfect satisfaction Justice bowed in reverence at the cross, saying, It is enough.--General Conference Bulletin, Fourth Quarter, 1899, vol. 3, p. 102. {7ABC 469.3}

Christ's death proved God's administration and government to be without a flaw. Satan's charge in regard to the conflicting attributes of justice and mercy was forever settled beyond question. Every voice in heaven and out of heaven will one day testify to the justice, mercy, and exalted attributes of God. It was in order that the heavenly universe might see the conditions of the covenant of redemption that Christ bore the penalty in behalf of the human race.--Manuscript 128, 1897. {7ABC 470.1}

His [Christ's] object was to reconcile the prerogatives of justice and mercy, and let each stand separate in its dignity, yet united. His mercy was not weakness, but a terrible power to punish sin because it is sin; yet a power to draw to it the love of humanity. Through Christ Justice is enabled to forgive without sacrificing one jot of its exalted holiness.--General Conference Bulletin, Fourth Quarter, 1899, vol. 3, p. 102. {7ABC 470.2}

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.--Manuscript 50, 1900. {7ABC 470.3}

God bowed His head satisfied. Now justice and mercy could blend. Now He could be just, and yet the Justifier of all who should believe on Christ. He [God] looked upon the victim expiring on the cross, and said, "It is finished. The human race shall have another trial." The redemption price was paid, and Satan fell like lightning from heaven.--Youth's Instructor, June 21, 1900. {7ABC 470.4}

There are no saving properties in the law. It cannot pardon the transgressor. The penalty must be exacted. The Lord does not save sinners by abolishing His law, the foundation of His government in heaven and in earth. The punishment has been endured by the sinner's substitute. Not that God is cruel and merciless, and Christ so merciful that He died on Calvary's cross to abolish a law so arbitrary that it needed to be extinguished, crucified between two thieves. The throne of God must not bear one stain of crime, one taint of sin. In the councils of heaven, before the world was created, the Father and the Son covenanted together that if man proved disloyal to God, Christ, one with the Father, would take the place of the transgressor, and suffer the penalty of justice that must fall upon him (MS 145, 1897). {6BC 1070.4}

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

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}

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 law given to man in Eden is recorded, together with the penalty incurred because of its transgression. The record of our first parents is given as a warning to the children of men, that they may understand how strictly God requires his creatures to conform to all his requirements, and how surely his retributive justice follows disobedience. When the law of Sinai was proclaimed, how definite was the penalty annexed! how sure the punishment that followed its transgression! and how plain are the cases recorded in evidence of that fact! {RH, January 22, 1880 par. 6}

Since Satan is the originator of sin, the direct instigator of all the sins that caused the death of the Son of God, justice demands that Satan shall suffer the final punishment. Christ's work for the redemption of men and the purification of the universe from sin will be closed by the removal of sin from the heavenly sanctuary and the placing of these sins upon Satan, who will bear the final penalty. {PP 358.2}

“It is because He has borne the punishment that man can have a second probation.” {RH, May 28, 1901 par. 10} “Through this plan the great, the dreadful God can be just, and yet be the justifier of all who believe in Jesus, and who receive Him as their personal Saviour.” {5BC 1133.4} "My Father hath so loved you, that he even loves me more for giving my life to redeem you. In becoming your substitute and surety, by surrendering my life, by taking your liabilities, your transgressions, I am endeared to my Father; for by my sacrifice, his will is fulfilled, his law vindicated, and God can be just, and yet justify him who believes in Jesus." {ST, November 28, 1892 par. 1}
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/07/11 02:40 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
NJK, do you agree with Tom's view of the following passages:

Quote:
When He leaves the sanctuary, darkness covers the inhabitants of the earth. In that fearful time the righteous must live in the sight of a holy God without an intercessor. The restraint which has been upon the wicked is removed, and Satan has entire control of the finally impenitent. God's long-suffering has ended. The world has rejected His mercy, despised His love, and trampled upon His law. The wicked have passed the boundary of their probation; the Spirit of God, persistently resisted, has been at last withdrawn. Unsheltered by divine grace, they have no protection from the wicked one. Satan will then plunge the inhabitants of the earth into one great, final trouble. As the angels of God cease to hold in check the fierce winds of human passion, all the elements of strife will be let loose. The whole world will be involved in ruin more terrible than that which came upon Jerusalem of old. {GC 614.1}

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}

In particular, Tom believes the highlighted sentence above must be interpreted to mean holy angels exercise the same destructive power exercised by evil angels by withdrawing their protection and permitting evil angels to cause death and destruction. Do you agree with him?

He also believe the holy angels portrayed as causing the death and destruction described in Rev 16 must be interpreted to mean they have withdrawn their protection and are permitting evil angels to cause the death and destruction described in Rev 16. Do you agree with him?


Indeed this is what Tom believes, but I don’t see this as being the case. I see that the Bible and SOP are not shy in explicitly stating who directly does a destruction whether God and good angels or Satan and evil angels (permitted by God).

E.g., How can Satan fear for His life in the flood destruction (PP 99.2) if that was being effectuated by angels under His command??!

Originally Posted By: SOP PP 99.2
Satan himself, who was compelled to remain in the midst of the warring elements, feared for his own existence.


And also who was (‘powerfully’) compelling Satan to remain withing those warring elements if it was not God??? Indeed as this was being done by manifestly remote force, this compelling force probably came directly from God, sparring the good angels being in the midst of these warring elements. In the same way, God will forcefully “chain” (i.e., a supernatural or psychological chain) Satan down to this desolate earth during the Millennium.

Regarding the Flood, Tom believes God works to prevent the forces of nature from destroying the entire world. In the case of the Flood, God merely ceased preventing the forces of nature needful to cause the degree of death and damage He deemed necessary while continuing to work to prevent the remaining forces of nature from causing complete annihilation.

Tom agrees that the forces of nature are not "self-acting" and that they are totally dependent upon God to exist and act as they do. However, he rejects the idea that God "employed" the forces of nature as instruments to cause death and destruction.

But Ellen wrote, "The bowels of the earth were the Lord's arsenal, from which he drew forth the weapons he employed in the destruction of the old world. Waters in the bowels of the earth gushed forth, and united with the waters from heaven, to accomplish the work of destruction. Since the flood, God has used both water and fire in the earth as his agents to destroy wicked cities. {1SP 84.3}

She also wrote, "Many teach that matter possesses vital power. They hold that certain properties are imparted to matter, and it is then left to act through its own inherent power; and that the operations of nature are carried on in harmony with fixed laws, that God himself cannot interfere with. This is false science, and is sustained by nothing in the word of God. Nature is not self-acting; she is the servant of her Creator. God does not annul his laws nor work contrary to them; but he is continually using them as his instruments. Nature testifies of an intelligence, a presence, an active agency, that works in, and through, and above her laws. There is in nature the continual working of the Father and the Son. Said Christ, "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." {HL 290.1}
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/07/11 03:06 AM

Originally Posted By: kland
Sounds like you said, "No".

That one can only know whether an act is of satan or God is if he knew the full background.

Doesn't that seem.... unsatisfactory to you?


My answer and point actually is, using all of the actually applicable elements to this question, that if one is questioning whether an act was done by God or by Satan, then that can only imply a knowledge of God and of the GC. Case in point: an atheist/evolutionist would look at that destruction and say: it was a freak act of nature, a “rainstorm of the tens of millennias” just like they believe in an ice age or meteorites striking the earth to kill dinosaurs, (which, if they existed, perhaps direct concoctions of Satan (or even “amalgamations of animals” (i.e., ‘with other animals species’)) to explain such observed destruction which the Bible believer, believes came from the flood. So these Bible Believers would also know that God said that He was going to send this destruction and did indeed do it as recorded in the Bible.

As shown with the atheist/evolutionist, apart from a Biblical knowledge, which thus provides the answer itself, the question of whether it was God or Satan who did it is a non- or invalid, issue.
This would be like a Taoist today expecting me to know if e.g., the recent earthquake, Tsunami and Nuclear Meltdown in japan was caused by the Yin or the Yang! So for the Bible Believer the Biblical answer can only be “God did it’ and for the Remnant Church, SOP believer today, the fact that ‘Satan feared for his life during that destruction’ is further proof that God was actively/directly doing this destruction.

I think that all supernatural war victories, destructions, plagues, etc found in the Bible are explicitly attached to the responsible effectuating party (i.e, God or Satan) and the SOP also confirms the Biblical testimony.

Originally Posted By: kland
For example, if you should come upon a crime scene, where someone has been stabbed multiple times with their head severed, but you did not know the background of what happened, it sounds like you just said you wouldn't know whether it was done by a good or bad person.


To properly and fully compare with the Flood example, I would already know here that a policeman had been given the authority by the city mayor to fight crime undercover by any force necessary, including here “kill-on-sight”. So when he came across this known “cop-killer” he tried to arrest him, but when that serial killer, got hold of the cops gun, the officer pulled out his knife and first stabbed him multiple times as he could manage to, to try to neutralize him. The decapitation was actually an necessary act as the killer just would not go down with the other stabbings and was still pulling the gun trigger and firing shot (that were barely missing the officer). So the police officer, to deal with this still immediate and deadly menace, with that only deadly weapon he had, proceed to severe the killers head to effectuate a sure instant death.

Originally Posted By: kland
Personally, I would find that unsatisfactory, to make an understatement.


Again, and seriously kland, divorcing these concepts from their actual realities is what wrongly causes an ‘understating’ of the issue here.

Quote:
k: ... but act as whether it was "judicious" or "injudicious".

NJK: I think I can, notwithstanding the not understood statement above, generally reply here that I see that the Millenium will be used for us to have a first hand knowledge that God has indeed been fair and just in all of, these, His final salvation decision both in those who He allowed in Heaven and those who He kept out.

kland: Which I think you clarified the statement. That we will use the Millennium to determine if God used violence "judiciously" or "injudiciously".


Indeed, just like a police officer who kills someone in the line of duty (=God’s Final Decisions) is automatically, at least in my local jurisdiction, put under default investigation and that by a completely distinct police agency (e.g., Provincial vs. Municipal and vice verse) = (pre-advent review of God’s final decisions = e.g., Rev 15:3, 4; 19:1, 2). And if further question are still unresolved and/or there is (still) a public outcry-/decry -ing, then a public inquiry/investigation commission is called. (=the Millennium review of God’s Decisions by the redeemed). Of course, indeed, the Millennium will not entirely be for that area of questioning but also for saving and non-saving decisions of God.

Quote:
k: Am I understanding correctly that you view God as using a violent act, drowning people, to stop their violent acts, and that violence is not wrong, but we will spend a thousand years determining if that, and other violent acts, were "judicious" use of violence?

NJK: To avoid any misunderstanding here, I understand “violent” here as using force, even supernatural (= “high/higher science”) force to effectuate something that otherwise would not naturally transpire (e.g, the Flood, the raining of fire and Brimstone on Sodom and Egypt, the Red Sea opening, and the closing upon the delayed and hindered, the released to pursue, Egyptians. (Exod 14:19-21).

kland: Sounds like we agree with what "violent" is.


Back in this reply post to Tom, I had suggested/moved to abandon the use of violence with what God does, for the above mentioned “use of force”. That was not a fancifully frivolous request, but a substantively necessary one. In the light of your next question I formally make the same request for you in this discussion to indeed avoid confusions....

Originally Posted By: kland
So, would you say God used violence to stop violence?


...case in point, what is your question here, e.g., ‘does God use (physical? or supernatural?) force to stop the use of (physical? or supernatural?) force.’

How is the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the other surrounding cities for e.g., their sins of socio-economic indifference and oppression (Ezek 16:49); self-exaltation (i.e., God-ward - cf. Isa 14:4, 13, 14) and sexual perversion (e.g, vs. 50) a “use of (physical? or supernatural?) force” on their part??!

Quote:
Is the way you define what "judicious" is, the proper use in determining character? If so, then you have what MM came up with, that both satan and God are "judicious" in their use of violence.


I do not see how “judicious” is the same with God and Satan. I said that God allows and apparently only with the last plague in the end, will not then limit the destruction that Satan can do. As the SOP states, all prior judgement, and that even if/when Satan was allowed to carry them out, God mixed in mercy and limited the extent Satan could go to, indeed as stated in this post (keyword: “Josephus”), that was also the case in the 70 A.D. Jerusalem destruction judgement. So Satan is actually only made to be “judicious” by God’s limitations, except for the Final Plague, however I copiously read in the Bible and SOP that Satan would want nothing more than utterly and injudiciously destroyed all peoples, especially after the Cross as they potentially, until the Close of Probation in the end, have a relatively ‘simple’ chance to be saved (e.g, vs. OT peoples).

As these OT, even non-Judeo Christian NT, peoples had a chance to be saved if they lived right according to clear inherent laws of good (cf. Rom 1:20ff), Satan of course was there trying to get them to live as unnaturally perversely as possible.

Originally Posted By: kland
And if satan and God are both "judicious" in their use of power, why during the Millennium would we be able to determine which was .....(I don't know what adjective would go here).


As I said, I am not seeing them both as “judicious”, however the Millenium book’s review will be to concretely clarifying that the judgements of God, even when he would have allowed Satan to have his way, (with limits prior to last plague), were truly/fully deserved and fair (= “judicious”).
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/07/11 03:39 AM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Regarding the Flood, Tom believes God works to prevent the forces of nature from destroying the entire world. In the case of the Flood, God merely ceased preventing the forces of nature needful to cause the degree of death and damage He deemed necessary while continuing to work to prevent the remaining forces of nature from causing complete annihilation.

Tom agrees that the forces of nature are not "self-acting" and that they are totally dependent upon God to exist and act as they do. However, he rejects the idea that God "employed" the forces of nature as instruments to cause death and destruction.

But Ellen wrote, "The bowels of the earth were the Lord's arsenal, from which he drew forth the weapons he employed in the destruction of the old world. Waters in the bowels of the earth gushed forth, and united with the waters from heaven, to accomplish the work of destruction. Since the flood, God has used both water and fire in the earth as his agents to destroy wicked cities. {1SP 84.3}

She also wrote, "Many teach that matter possesses vital power. They hold that certain properties are imparted to matter, and it is then left to act through its own inherent power; and that the operations of nature are carried on in harmony with fixed laws, that God himself cannot interfere with. This is false science, and is sustained by nothing in the word of God. Nature is not self-acting; she is the servant of her Creator. God does not annul his laws nor work contrary to them; but he is continually using them as his instruments. Nature testifies of an intelligence, a presence, an active agency, that works in, and through, and above her laws. There is in nature the continual working of the Father and the Son. Said Christ, "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." {HL 290.1}


Those SOP quotes of ‘active and direct utilisation’ indeed calibrate this issue for me as the make the same point as the other SOP statements in this post which speak of other direct, supernatural, acts of God. Again Tom has yet to give his understanding/explanation for these (Bible)/SOP statements.

Scientifically speaking, Is this world that much in chaos that without the active hand of God it would go haywire?? I.e., if God does not break up storm clouds then they would accumulate enough water to produce a Global Flood?! Doesn’t it take an active ‘blowing of Winds’ (Rev 7:1-3) to (inclusively), suddenly, produce such cosmic/natural chaos?

Also was God actively preventing it from raining all of this time and this Flood Rain water was just accumulating in the sky for c. 1700 years? It scientifically/mathematically seems to me that a natural accumulation of rain for 1700 years without falling at all would produce much more than 40 days of non-stop rain. If so what happened to the remaining rain?

(Or as I geologically, hypothetize/believe, prior to the flood the land masses of the world were all in one area (Gen 1:9, 10) thus perhaps hindering or not being conducive to a normal (or far in land reaching? though - Gen 2:5) hydrological cycle, hence no rain fell from the sky until, naturally, after the Flood, which would have broken up these land masses as we see them today. The untilted earth axis may also have prevented this hydrological cycle.)

And, logically speaking, in regards to the claim of a ‘methodological difference when God withdraws His Safekeeping “Hand”’: if I am driving down the highway and decide to remove my hands from the steering wheel in order to cause an accident, then how am I not directly and actively causing that accident?? In further regards to Character disculpating claims, how would I not be charged for, at the very least reckless driving causing an accident? (Of course, God’s destruction action are all just and not that legally criminal.)

Etc.,
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/07/11 05:56 AM

Some key points for this discussion:

-The Greek word rendered as “wrath” is "thumos" (#2372) and actually only means “passion” it needs to be qualified by another term to specify what kind of passion.

-The Bible (thus) speaks of ‘Satan’s “Passion”’ (Rev 12:12); and that is later manifested in “anger” (Gr. orgizo - #3710) (Rev 12:17 = persecution of Christians; this not a judgement/punishment of God)

-God’s Endtime “Passion” (= ‘Passion for “Truth and Good”’ and not “anger”) is actually poured out in the end in just correspondence to the level of the widely and fully diffused ‘spiritual immoral/lawless “passion” of Revelation’s Babylon (Rev 14:8; 18:3)

So God’s passion is not necessarily something angry or “sinful/evil” in perception. It is actually just a desire to see good done that does not allow itself to be hindered or “bothered” by anything that wants to persist in sin and evil. It thus resembles Christ’s deliberately oblivious actions in Matt 13:10-17 = Isa 6:9-13, only focusing on educating and illuminating those who were sincere and wanted to and not wasting time with the other rebellious ones.

Also, Tom, How do you understand Christ’s saying in Matt 11:12:

Originally Posted By: Bible Matt 11:12
From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force. Mat 11:12

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/07/11 08:08 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
M: What were Jesus' options in cases like the Holocaust?

T: That's a pretty tall order for me, isn't it? That is, you're asking me to enumerate the options of divinity? I don't think I'm qualified to do that.

1. What factors does God weigh when choosing to allow things to play out the way they do?

T: All the factors there are.

What are Jesus' options in cases like the Holocaust? Is He free to intercede, without violating freedom of choice, and prevent such things? Or, is He forced to allow it?

Quote:
2. Is God free to allow or disallow things like N&A being burned alive and the two bands of fifty being burned alive?

T: Did you think through this question? Aren't you asking if God was free to allow something to happen which He allowed to happen? That's not a question that makes sense, is it?

Before it happens, is He free to allow it? Or, is He forced to allow it? Does He have any say so in such things? Are they going to happen with or without His consent?

Quote:
3. Or, are His hands tied?

T: His hands can be tied, in general.

Are His hands tied in the sense He isn’t free to prevent things like N&A being burned alive? Do such things happen with or without His consent?

Quote:
4. Is Satan free to do as he pleases without limits?

T: Satan would destroy everyone, and there wouldn't be any Great Controversy, which is a point I've made many times, which you are aware of.

Does Satan exercise self-control? Does he work to restrain himself? Who or what establishes and enforces the limits Satan does not exceed?

Quote:
5. Did Jesus, while here in the flesh (as opposed to after He returned to heaven), choose to allow things like ungodly people being burned alive?

T: O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen [doth gather] her brood under [her] wings, and ye would not! (Luke 13:34)

You seem to be suggesting Jesus allowed ungodly people to be killed while He was here in the flesh. Who was killed?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/07/11 08:12 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
M: "But we have never had a message that the Lord would disorganize the church." Which implies Jesus did not intend to destroy Israel and start over with Moses, not any more than Jesus intends to reject the SDA church and start over with another church.

T: God never intended to destroy Israel. Israel destroyed itself by persistently rejecting the Holy Spirit (GC 35-37).

Have you changed your mind? All along it has sounded like you are saying Jesus was very serious about destroying Israel and starting over with Moses. Now it sounds like you're saying it was never His intention to destroy Israel.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/07/11 09:19 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
1. In the OT, why did Jesus command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle?

M: Seems to me you believe Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in battle because 1) the Jews failed to trust Jesus to defeat their enemies in a godly way, and 2) the Jews expected Him to think and behave like a pagan god. Do you agree with my assessment of your view as it relates to the question above?

T: No, of course not. But surely you must know that.

Please elaborate.

Quote:
M: Was Jesus, while here in the flesh (as opposed to after He returned to heaven), forced to command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle?

T: What are the principles laid out in GC 35-37? That's the important question. Did Jesus Christ teach and embody these principles? Yes, He did. Where we're disagreeing is in regards to what we think God is like. I believe God's character was revealed fully by Jesus Christ, and the best revelation was the cross. Rather than use force to get His way, Jesus Christ voluntarily submitted to torture and a horrible death from the very creatures He came to save. This is what God is like. Not just sometimes, but all the time. The principles explained in GC 35-37 are in harmony with what Jesus Christ revealed. Your perceptions of God's character appear to me to be schizophrenic. Some of the time, as it appears to me you see things, He exhibits the qualities Jesus Christ embodied on earth, especially at the cross, but other times He acts indistinguishably from Satan, leaving us with no means to know who is acting.

I don’t understand how your response answers the question above.

Quote:
2. In the OT, why did Jesus command godly people to kill ungodly people through the execution of capital punishment?

T: You repeated yourself.

Why do you think so?

Quote:
M: Was Jesus, while here in the flesh (as opposed to after He returned to heaven), forced to command godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment?

T: What's your argument here? That since Jesus Christ, while here in the flesh, wasn't forced to command godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment, it therefore follows that it's not the case that all that we can know of God was revealed by Him? I can't think of why you would ask this question otherwise. Why not just set forth your argument?

You wrote, “Jesus Christ, while here in the flesh, wasn't forced to command godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment.” Is this your answer to the question above?

In response to your question, I believe the OT Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment, and the fact the NT Jesus did not do so makes it clear He did not demonstrate this attribute of God’s character while here in the flesh.

Quote:
Quote:
Exodus
22:20 He that sacrificeth unto [any] god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

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.

Deuteronomy
2:34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:
20:17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; [namely], the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:

Joshua
10:40 So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded.

M: Seems to me you believe Jesus was reluctantly willing to command the kinds of things described in the passages above for as long as it would take Him to teach the Jews how to "turn the other cheek"? Is this what you believe?

T: I believe, as I've said so many times, that for us to properly interpret Scripture, we need to know God's character. I believe that the first order of business is to study the life and character of His Son, whose "whole purpose" was "the revelation of God." What is it that Jesus Christ revealed? What was Jesus Christ like? How did He treat His enemies? I don't believe that He acted any differently in the Old Testament than while here in the flesh. Do you?

Do the scriptures above require interpretation? Ellen wrote, “The language of the Bible should be explained according to its obvious meaning, unless a symbol or figure is employed.” {GC 598.3} “If we would not build our hopes of heaven upon a false foundation we must accept the Bible as it reads and believe that the Lord means what He says.” {5T 171.1} You seem to be saying, no, we cannot take the passages above at faced value because . . . . If so, why not?
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/08/11 12:39 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
So the police officer, to deal with this still immediate and deadly menace, with that only deadly weapon he had, proceed to severe the killers head to effectuate a sure instant death.

I must illustratively add, kland, in that Police Officer vs. the (also) cop-killing serial killer that” ‘the officer is under investigation to see if the full decapitation that transpired was indeed warranted, or did the officer overreach here, or was it that his service knife was so sharp that it easily did this, or did he get caught up in the adrenaline/heat of the fight and blindly or even “passionately” did this.’

In the same way, the extent of God’s destruction at the flood may be an issue to be reviewed by some of the redeemed, if not, duly by all, at least required to attend and follow these review proceedings.
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/08/11 04:48 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Originally Posted By: kland
K: NJK, is killing part of God's character?

N: Because God is Just in his character, judicious killing harmonizes with how He sees best to deal with the sin problem. The Theodicy Truth here is not determined by what I need my God to be, but what He has revealed and done in the Bible. God never acts out of Character as that would itself be sin, since He/His Character is already and unimprovingly perfect.

K: Would you say the only difference between God's character and satan's character (regarding killing), is that God's killing is considered "judicious" while satan's killing is not?

M: When Jesus withdraws His protection and gives Satan permission to kill sinners, because "they are worthy" (Rev 16:6), are we to assume Satan is acting injudiciously? Is he not, after all, acting in harmony with Jesus' will? If Satan were to refuse to mete out justice on Jesus' behalf who, pray tell, would punish the wicked? What good is law if no one is willing to enforce it? "God has a right to enforce the penalty of the law upon transgressors, for law without a penalty would be without force." {ST, July 14, 1890 par. 2}

"By His word God has bound Himself to execute the penalty of the law on all transgressors. Again and again men commit sin, and yet they do not seem to believe that they must suffer the penalty for breaking the law." {6BC 1095.4} "God has given in His word decisive evidence that He will punish the transgressors of His law." {GC 539.3} "The penalty for the least transgression of that law is death, and but for Christ, the sinner's Advocate, it would be summarily visited on every offender." {TDG 246.1}

Do you agree Jesus is required, by law, to execute justice and judgment, to punish the wicked according to their words and works? If so, do you believe it falls to Satan to punish them? If so, what if Satan refused to do it, who would administer the "ministry of wrath" on Jesus' behalf?

Quote:
With unerring accuracy, the Infinite One keeps a record of the impiety of nations and individuals. Long is his mercy tendered to them, with calls to repentance; but when their guilt reaches a certain limit, which he has fixed, then mercy ceases her pleadings, and the ministration of wrath begins. {LP 318.1}

This penalty Christ bore for the sins of the transgressor. He has borne the punishment for every man, and for this reason He can ransom every soul, however fallen his condition, if he will accept the law of God as his standard of righteousness. The cry of despair from the soul calls forth the tenderest love of God, and this is salvation to every one that believes. He who sees the guilt of his transgression, and understands the infinite sacrifice made in his behalf, will not continue in sin. But if men continue to resist light and evidence, they will cut themselves off from God's mercy, and then will come the ministry of wrath. God can not save the sinner in his sin. The love of God is immeasurable to those who repent, but His justice is firm and uncompromising to those who abuse his long-suffering love. {ST, November 15, 1899 par. 6}

M: Jesus earned the right on the cross to pardon and save penitent sinners. "For this reason He can ransom every soul." He saves them from the penalty of transgression, that is, intense emotional and physical suffering eventually ending in eternal death.

K: Are you saying that both Jesus and Satan kill judiciously? You wrote, "who, pray tell, would punish the wicked?" Could that comment be a revealing of a problem with your view?

M: You omitted most of my post. Why?

K: It doesn't fit in the quote boxes. I thought you would remember what you said. Tom repeated it and so did NJK. Are you familiar with how commentaries work? Quoting the rest of it doesn't change anything, does it?

Law and justice require impenitent sinners to “suffer punishment varying in duration and intensity, ‘according to their works,’ but finally ending in the second death.” {GC 544.2} “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} I do not believe the work of punishing impenitent sinners will fall to Satan. Nor do I believe impenitent sinners will somehow punish themselves. Ellen wrote:

Quote:
Justice demanded the sufferings of man; but Christ rendered the sufferings of a God. {7BC 913.2}

In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man's sin. {RH, March 3, 1874 par. 1}

Justice demanded not merely that sin be pardoned; the death penalty must be met. The Saviour has met this demand. His broken body, his gushing blood, satisfied the claims of the law. {YI, April 16, 1903 par. 6}

The divine government had been dishonored, and justice demanded that the penalty of transgression be paid. To save the race from eternal death, the Son of God volunteered to bear the punishment of disobedience. {1SM 308}

God, being the creditor, had a right to make any provision for the redemption of human beings. Justice demanded that a certain price be paid. The Son of God was the only One who could pay this price. {7ABC 468.7}

The penalty of transgression is always death. Christ averted the immediate execution of the death sentence by giving His life for man. . . . 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}

Justice and Mercy stood apart, in opposition to each other, separated by a wide gulf. The Lord our Redeemer clothed His divinity with humanity, and wrought out in behalf of man a character that was without spot or blemish. He planted His cross midway between heaven and earth, and made it the object of attraction which reached both ways, drawing both Justice and Mercy across the gulf. Justice moved from its exalted throne, and with all the armies of heaven approached the cross. There it saw One equal with God bearing the penalty for all injustice and sin. With perfect satisfaction Justice bowed in reverence at the cross, saying, It is enough.--General Conference Bulletin, Fourth Quarter, 1899, vol. 3, p. 102. {7ABC 469.3}

Christ's death proved God's administration and government to be without a flaw. Satan's charge in regard to the conflicting attributes of justice and mercy was forever settled beyond question. Every voice in heaven and out of heaven will one day testify to the justice, mercy, and exalted attributes of God. It was in order that the heavenly universe might see the conditions of the covenant of redemption that Christ bore the penalty in behalf of the human race.--Manuscript 128, 1897. {7ABC 470.1}

His [Christ's] object was to reconcile the prerogatives of justice and mercy, and let each stand separate in its dignity, yet united. His mercy was not weakness, but a terrible power to punish sin because it is sin; yet a power to draw to it the love of humanity. Through Christ Justice is enabled to forgive without sacrificing one jot of its exalted holiness.--General Conference Bulletin, Fourth Quarter, 1899, vol. 3, p. 102. {7ABC 470.2}

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.--Manuscript 50, 1900. {7ABC 470.3}

God bowed His head satisfied. Now justice and mercy could blend. Now He could be just, and yet the Justifier of all who should believe on Christ. He [God] looked upon the victim expiring on the cross, and said, "It is finished. The human race shall have another trial." The redemption price was paid, and Satan fell like lightning from heaven.--Youth's Instructor, June 21, 1900. {7ABC 470.4}

There are no saving properties in the law. It cannot pardon the transgressor. The penalty must be exacted. The Lord does not save sinners by abolishing His law, the foundation of His government in heaven and in earth. The punishment has been endured by the sinner's substitute. Not that God is cruel and merciless, and Christ so merciful that He died on Calvary's cross to abolish a law so arbitrary that it needed to be extinguished, crucified between two thieves. The throne of God must not bear one stain of crime, one taint of sin. In the councils of heaven, before the world was created, the Father and the Son covenanted together that if man proved disloyal to God, Christ, one with the Father, would take the place of the transgressor, and suffer the penalty of justice that must fall upon him (MS 145, 1897). {6BC 1070.4}

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

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}

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 law given to man in Eden is recorded, together with the penalty incurred because of its transgression. The record of our first parents is given as a warning to the children of men, that they may understand how strictly God requires his creatures to conform to all his requirements, and how surely his retributive justice follows disobedience. When the law of Sinai was proclaimed, how definite was the penalty annexed! how sure the punishment that followed its transgression! and how plain are the cases recorded in evidence of that fact! {RH, January 22, 1880 par. 6}

Since Satan is the originator of sin, the direct instigator of all the sins that caused the death of the Son of God, justice demands that Satan shall suffer the final punishment. Christ's work for the redemption of men and the purification of the universe from sin will be closed by the removal of sin from the heavenly sanctuary and the placing of these sins upon Satan, who will bear the final penalty. {PP 358.2}

“It is because He has borne the punishment that man can have a second probation.” {RH, May 28, 1901 par. 10} “Through this plan the great, the dreadful God can be just, and yet be the justifier of all who believe in Jesus, and who receive Him as their personal Saviour.” {5BC 1133.4} "My Father hath so loved you, that he even loves me more for giving my life to redeem you. In becoming your substitute and surety, by surrendering my life, by taking your liabilities, your transgressions, I am endeared to my Father; for by my sacrifice, his will is fulfilled, his law vindicated, and God can be just, and yet justify him who believes in Jesus." {ST, November 28, 1892 par. 1}
MM, I have no idea what you believe. I have no idea if you contradicted what you said before or not. Could you please state clearly what you believe about whether God and/or satan kills judiciously?
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/08/11 04:52 PM

NJK, that was quite a fascinating analogy. I'm glad you clarified the sharpness of the knife, but still, I will assume you do not know much about cutting off heads and assume that I presume I do. I do not know that one could cut one's head off with a knife. I hear deer hunters use a saw or chainsaw to cut deer's heads off. But, needless to say, I do understand your attempt at illustration. Except for one issue.

I understand you to say the police officer stabbed and decapitated the killer as a means of self defense. Second, you used "killer" or "deadly menace" as opposed to someone who just disagrees with you. Does God feel threatened (with His life, even) and considers those who disagree with Him a deadly menace?

Quote:
k: So, would you say God used violence to stop violence?

NJK: ...case in point, what is your question here, e.g., ‘does God use (physical? or supernatural?) force to stop the use of (physical? or supernatural?) force.’

From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force. Mat 11:12

So if we whitewash it as in your definition we have:
From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers use of force, and forceful men take it by force.

I don't know, but sounds watered down and kind of like it disputes your definition. As in, can things be taken by force without violence?

But if force and violence are the same thing, is that just like what you imply God doing? What is violence? Could all cases be whitewashed with "force"? Why do you and/or MM feel the need to whitewash it -- is it because you do indeed see a problem?

It what way is your view of God's character different from other denominations'?
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/08/11 05:04 PM

Originally Posted By: RH, June 21, 1892 par. 3
There are many who have but an imperfect understanding of the character of God. They think of him as stern and arbitrary, and when the fact is presented that God is love, it is a difficult matter for these souls to lay aside their false conceptions of God. But if they do not let the word of truth in, rooting out the thorns, the briers will start up afresh, and choke out the good word of God; their religious experience will be dwarfed, for the evil of their hearts will overtop the tender plant of truth, and shut away the spiritual atmosphere. {RH, June 21, 1892 par. 3}
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/08/11 07:19 PM

Originally Posted By: kland
MM, I have no idea what you believe. I have no idea if you contradicted what you said before or not. Could you please state clearly what you believe about whether God and/or satan kills judiciously?

Jesus is sovereign King of the Universe. He is in control - not self, not sin, not the forces of nature, and certainly not Satan. Nothing happens by fate or chance. Everything happens by command or permission. True, we manage the choices, but Jesus manages the consequences, the outcome. Jesus has known from eternity every choice everyone will make. He also has known from eternity how He will work to ensure the outcome of every choice serve His ultimate will and desire.

Jesus decides when and if sinners will be punished for their sins in this lifetime, that is, before they pay the ultimate price for their sins - severe emotional and physical suffering lasting in duration and intensity according to their sinfulness eventually ending in eternal death. For example, Jesus determined N&A's sin warranted burning them alive. And in the case of the two bands of fifty, Jesus decided the circumstances required burning them alive.

There are times, however, when Jesus commands holy angels to mete out justice and judgment on His behalf. "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.” {GC 614.2}

There are also times when Jesus gives evil angels permission to mete out justice and judgment on His behalf. “The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits.” {GC 614.2} “God will use his enemies as instruments to punish those who have followed their own pernicious ways whereby the truth God has been misrepresented, misjudged, and dishonored. These enemies of God are living evidences of the truth of His word; they are fulfilling that which holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” {PC 136.3}

I do not believe Jesus acts injudiciously when He metes out justice and judgment.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/08/11 07:47 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
Also Tom, do list the other places in the Bible/SOP where you (explicitly(?)) see the indirect method being used.


The Bible says that God sent fiery serpents against the Israelites, but the SOP says they were there the whole time, but God withdrew His protection.

In Scripture Paul says that God would send strong delusion upon those who receive not the love of the truth, but the SOP says that God leaves them to the delusions they already have.

Those are a couple that come to me off the top of my head. There are many examples like this.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/08/11 08:14 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
And Tom has not yet addressed the many direct destruction of God in the OT as explicitly stated in both the Bible and SOP.


That's what I've been doing this whole thread.

All that we can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son. Therefore the God of the OT acted just like Jesus did. If we have a view of things that has the God of the OT acting differently than how Jesus acted, then what we're perceiving happened must not be what happened.

It's not necessary to look at each and every incident. They all follow the same principles. We can look at a few, and learn from those, and apply the principles to others.

The incident from the SOP that is covered in the most detail is the destruction of Jerusalem. She refers to that incident in the context of other indents, saying things like, for example, that the final scenes in earth's history will be like the destruction of Jerusalem.

Some foundational questions come to mind:

1.What is God like?
2.Does He use force to get His way?
3.Does He directly punish people by doing things like burning them alive? (Did Jesus act like this).
4.We know that there were certain things, like mercy and grace, which always existed in God's character, but weren't revealed until after sin came about. Should things like destruction be put in the same category?

These questions involve one's whole concept about what God is like and what He wants from us. Does He want unthinking, unquestioning obedience? Does He want us to do what He says, or else?

What is it that makes God happy? How does God act when He is not happy?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/08/11 08:49 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
My approach is to take passages as they exegetically read and use this a building blocks towards a Theology which will, when necessary self-produce such harmonization, so in a way, I am working from a bottom-up view.


I don't think this accurately describes what you do.

Quote:
On the other hand, I see you working from a top down view citing Jesus Christ as the top view,


I would say I use Jesus Christ as the foundation, as the building block, the corner stone, to build upon.

Quote:
seconded by EGW seemingly wholly supporting statements to the fact and thus you virtually ignore any revelation that may have been made in the OT. I do not see Jesus making such a claim, per se, of only considering what He has done to understand the Bible’s Theology.


I think you've misunderstood the point here. What I've been saying is that to correctly interpret the OT, we need to *first* have an understanding of God's character. Otherwise, we'll get it wrong.

I've said that Jesus Christ got it right, and that what He said and what He did was precisely what He say in the OT. So if we have any picture of what happened in the OT as being different than what Jesus Christ said and did, we're getting it wrong.

Also, if there is a disconnect between what we perceive happening in the OT, and what Jesus Christ said and did, then we're actually disagreeing with Jesus Christ's perception of what happened in the OT. We should defer to Jesus Christ's perception.

Quote:
(e.g., John 5:39; Luke 24:27). I do not see the God of the OT, which in active form was Michael/Jesus, His actions, and statements as being mutually exclusive with the Revelation of the incarnate Christ. I rather see that both say exactly the same thing.


But you have them acting very differently. There's a disconnect here.

Quote:
Jesus did not come to do away with the Law and the Prophets (=OT) but to fulfill them.


He did so by His life and teachings ("You have heard it said, 'an eye for an eye' ... but I say unto you, love your enemies," etc.).

Quote:
He, and where it was necessary, reinstituted these OT contributions where they were always meant to be.


He tried to correct the misconceptions what people had about the law.

Quote:
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.


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.

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.

Quote:
I instead have the harmonizing view that Jesus came to provide redemption to man, to those who would accept this gift, and thus once again give us access to this Tree of Life so that we can live eternally (=Rev 2:7).


Do you think that when we believe in Christ that we, at that moment, have eternal life?

Quote:
You instead want to have the mutually exclusive stand of Jesus or the Tree of Life but not both.


If you mean as pre-eminent, I agree, and have stated such. I haven't made any such statement in a general sense, like you are here.

Quote:
As I said, the two compliment each other, and it is manifestly from the Water of Life flowing from the Father’s throne that the needed, life perpetuating “supernatural power” is injected in the Fruit of the Tree of Life. However, without accepting Jesus, Fallen Man will not have access to that physical provision and thus not life eternally. So both Jesus’ statements to this end and the tangible reality of the Tree/Fruit of Life harmonizingly present the Theological Truth of how Man, and now Fallen Man, lives eternally.


I think this is getting a bit removed from the important question. The important question is, "Is there an organic relationship between sin and death?" (and similarly between faith and life).

If we don't perceive an organic relationship between sin and death, we will perceive what is happening in the final judgment very differently than if we do. We will see the second death as being the result of something God does to the wicked in justice as a punishment as opposed to something that the wicked have brought upon themselves by the choices they have made, and which God permits.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/09/11 01:19 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
If we don't perceive an organic relationship between sin and death, we will perceive what is happening in the final judgment very differently than if we do. We will see the second death as being the result of something God does to the wicked in justice as a punishment as opposed to something that the wicked have brought upon themselves by the choices they have made, and which God permits.

I would like to chime in on this point with some questions:

1. How do you define "organic relationship between sin and death"? Is it anything like gunshots to the head result in death?

2. Why don't sinners suffer the second death the instant they sin?

3. What enables sinners to live a life of sin without succumbing to the second death immediately?

4. What will enable sinners to live long enough to endure the judgment of their sins without succumbing to the second death immediately?

5. What will enable Satan to live long after sinners perish?

In light of these questions, Ellen wrote:

Quote:
The guilt of every sin pressed its weight upon the divine soul of the world's Redeemer. The evil thoughts, the evil words, the evil deeds of every son and daughter of Adam, called for retribution upon Himself; for He had become man's substitute. {FLB 101.3}

How little do they consider that their deeds and words are passing into judgment, and that every sin must have its retribution in the future! {RH, February 28, 1882 par. 4}

These sins in a short time will be revealed in just their enormity. God's eye does not slumber. He knows every sin that is hidden from mortal eye. The guilty know just what sins to confess that their souls may be clean before God. {1T 155.3}

Every man's work passes in review before God and is registered for faithfulness or unfaithfulness. Opposite each name in the books of heaven is entered with terrible exactness every wrong word, every selfish act, every unfulfilled duty, and every secret sin, with every artful dissembling. Heaven-sent warnings or reproofs neglected, wasted moments, unimproved opportunities, the influence exerted for good or for evil, with its far-reaching results, all are chronicled by the recording angel. {GC 482.1}

Though all nations are to pass in judgment before God, yet He will examine the case of each individual with as close and searching scrutiny as if there were not another being upon the earth. Everyone must be tested and found without spot or wrinkle or any such thing. {GC 489.3}

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}

Satan will be judged by his own idea of justice. It was his plea that every sin should meet its punishment. If God remitted the punishment, he said, He was not a God of truth or justice. Satan will meet the judgment which he said God should exercise (MS 111, 1897). {5BC 1087.4}

The quotes above make it clear sinners will revisit, during final judgment, each and "every sin which they have ever committed." Jesus will not lump their sins together.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/09/11 01:48 AM

Quote:
NJK: That was part of my point, that was not a ‘matter-of fact account or straightforward fore-description of the destruction.

Tom:Sure it was. Anybody listening to Jesus would have understood it as such. It's obvious. He will take the vineyard away, and kill the ones that killed his son. He was angry, and sent armies to burn their city. This is very direct language.


I rather see this, and all of Christ’s parable as also being a deliberate veiled statement (Matt 13:10ff). There is nothing straightforward/literal to speak about the current Jewish Nation by instead using vineyard


They knew what the vineyard reference was (Isa. 5). There's no way they could miss this.

Quote:
and tenant farmers and a king’s wedding feast. The only reason why the Jewish leaders came to understand that he was speaking to them (Matt 21:45a) with the two preceding parables (Matt 21:28-32 & 33-41) was because of Christ unique public explanatory details appended to these two related parables in vss. 42-44, especially vs. 43.


Even if your assertion were true, and this was the only reason they knew, the fact remains that Christ did say:

Quote:
Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.(Matt. 21:43)


Therefore this is a clear declaration of the destruction of Jerusalem being accomplished by God's acting directly.

Quote:
Also if Christ’s words are expressing directly effectuate judgement and EGW categorically says the complete opposite then Christ’s words/the Bible should win out and EGW views as “mistaken” (Isa 8:20). She would have simply missapplied this type of judgement here. However see next answer.


This is rather ironic. I've been asserting that Christ should be the foundation, that His revelation trumps any other, but never with the idea that something "worse" that Christ said should "win out" over the better, "mistaken," good news of Ellen White. It's always been the other way around for me.


Quote:
T:What in Scripture suggests that the destruction of Jerusalem should be interpreted the way Ellen White did?

NJK:As I said before, the syntax of the prophetic statement in Dan 9:26b & 27b. (See also my enjoined next (priorly post) statement.)

And whether directly or indirectly effectuated, God ultimately did, at the very least, allow it, So this all may actually be a substantively inconsequential difference, especially as, as I see it, in either way, God is blameless.


We're told the following:

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)


You're saying this may actually be a "substantively inconsequential difference." I see this is the essence of the Great Controversy. Satan is attempting to present God as being one way (like himself) when in reality He is another (like Jesus Christ).

Quote:
Tom: Sure, you can interpret the direct statements of Christ as involving passive action on the part of God, and thus not contradicting the SOP, but this is precisely my point. Scripture portrays God's actions as direct, but the SOP portrays it as passive.

NJK:As I said above, in case of such a supposed “irreconcilable difference” the Bible should win out, even if by arbitrative decision (i.e., ‘I’ll just go by what the Bible says, despite the SOP emphasis’)


The same argument can be made straight from Scripture. Sometimes the Bible portrays God as acting directly, and portrays God as acting passively, when describing the same incident. Do we have to have the second description (the passive one) to know that God is acting passively? Do we have to decide that God is actively actively if we don't have it? What's are rule of interpretation? God is acting actively, unless somewhere else it also says that He is acting passively?

Why can't we infer principles to use to apply to other circumstances?

For example, consider the Scripture that says that God will send strong delusion upon those who have not received the love of the truth. This portrays God as acting directly when the SOP tells us He is acting passively, giving them over the delusions they already had. Do we really need the Spirit of Prophecy to understand this? Or, without that comment from the SOP, would we think that God really sends strong delusion to people so that they will believe lives? Or, should we conclude this is one of the incidents where we can't trust the SOP, and Ellen White was "mistaken"?

What's your methodology here? Is it the following?

1.Determine the truth by exegetical analysis of the key passage(s).

2.If Ellen White agrees with that analysis, fine, but if not, then conclude she is mistaken.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/09/11 01:59 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
All that we can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son. Therefore the God of the OT acted just like Jesus did. If we have a view of things that has the God of the OT acting differently than how Jesus acted, then what we're perceiving happened must not be what happened.

You need to balance your favorite quote with the following insights:

Quote:
We can know of Him all that human beings can bear. {UL 347.6}

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}

God cannot be understood by men. His ways and works are past finding out. In regard to the revelations that He has made of Himself in His Word, we may talk, but other than this, let us say of Him, Thou art God, and Thy ways are past finding out. {6BC 1079.11}

Human talents and human conjecture have tried by searching to find out God. Many have trodden this pathway. The highest intellect may tax itself until it is wearied out, in conjectures regarding God, but the effort will be fruitless, and the fact will remain that man by searching cannot find out God. This problem has not been given us to solve. All that man needs to know and can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son, the Great Teacher. As we learn more and more of what man is, of what we ourselves are, in God's sight, we shall fear and tremble before Him. {MM 95.2}

In Christ Jesus is a revelation of the glory of the Godhead. All that the human agent can know of God to the saving of the soul, is the measure of the knowledge of the truth as it is in Jesus, to which he can attain; for Christ is he who represents the Father. The most wonderful truth to be grasped by men is the truth, "Immanuel, God with us." Christ is the wisdom of God. He is the great "I AM" to the world. As we contemplate the glory of the divine character as revealed in Christ, we are led to exclaim, "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!" This wisdom is displayed in the love that reaches out for the recovery of lost and ruined man. {ST, December 12, 1895 par. 5}

The Lord does not delight in vengeance, though he executes 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. Says the prophet Isaiah: "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." The work of wrath and destruction is indeed a strange, unwelcome work for Him who is infinite in love. {ST, August 24, 1882 par. 15}

The forbearance that God has exercised toward the wicked has emboldened 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." To our merciful God the act of punishment is a strange act. Yet He will "by no means clear the guilty." By terrible things in righteousness He will vindicate the authority of His downtrodden law. 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. {ST, January 25, 1910 par. 16}

His creative works are just as incomprehensible as his existence. {3SG 93.1}

"Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised, and his greatness is unsearchable." {3SG 93.2}

"Which doeth great things, past finding out; yea, and wonders without number." {3SG 93.3}

"Which doeth great things, and unsearchable; marvelous things without number." {3SG 93.4}

God thundereth marvelously with his voice. Great things doeth he, which we cannot comprehend." {3SG 93.5}

"O, the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counselor?" {3SG 93.6}

"God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Language is too feeble for us to attempt to portray the love of God. We believe it, we rejoice in it, but we cannot comprehend it. {18MR 337.2}

Yet the finite minds of men are inadequate fully to comprehend the plans and purposes of the Infinite One. We can never by searching find out God. We must not attempt to lift with presumptuous hand the curtain behind which He veils His majesty. The apostle exclaims: "How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!" Romans 11:33. We can so far comprehend His dealings with us, and the motives by which He is actuated, that we may discern boundless love and mercy united to infinite power. Our Father in heaven orders everything in wisdom and righteousness, and we are not to be dissatisfied and distrustful, but to bow in reverent submission. He will reveal to us as much of His purposes as it is for our good to know, and beyond that we must trust the Hand that is omnipotent, the Heart that is full of love. {DD 11.2}

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}

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

In the natural world we are constantly surrounded with mysteries that we cannot fathom. . . . Should we then be surprised to find that in the spiritual world also there are mysteries that we cannot fathom? {FLB 14.4}

The mysteries of the Bible . . . are among the strongest evidences of its divine inspiration. If it contained no account of God but that which we could comprehend; if His greatness and majesty could be grasped by finite minds, then the Bible would not, as now, bear the unmistakable evidences of divinity. . . . The more we search the Bible, the deeper is our conviction that it is the word of the living God, and human reason bows before the majesty of divine revelation. {FLB 14.5}

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}

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

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

We are not now sufficiently advanced in spiritual attainments to comprehend the mysteries of God. But when we shall compose the family of heaven, these mysteries will be unfolded before us. Of the members of that family John writes: "They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat. For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes." "And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads." {6BC 1091.7}

Then much will be revealed in explanation of matters upon which God now keeps silence because we have not gathered up and appreciated that which has been made known of the eternal mysteries. The ways of Providence will be made clear; the mysteries of grace through Christ will be unfolded. 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. Truth will be unfolded to the mind, free from obscurity, in a single line, and its brightness will be endurable. The heart will be made to sing for joy. Controversies will be forever ended, and all difficulties will be solved (ST Jan. 30, 1912). {6BC 1091.8}

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

Man cannot by searching find out God. Let none seek with presumptuous hand to lift the veil that conceals His glory. "Unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!" Romans 11:33. It is a proof of His mercy that there is the hiding of His power; for to lift the veil that conceals the divine presence is death. No mortal mind can penetrate the secrecy in which the Mighty One dwells and works. Only that which He sees fit to reveal can we comprehend of Him. Reason must acknowledge an authority superior to itself. Heart and intellect must bow to the great I AM. {8T 285.2}

God has not revealed everything there is to know about Himself. We are incapable of comprehending certain aspects of God. He has only revealed everything we "need to know" about Him. One of the many things He has not explained to us is "His strange act".
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/09/11 02:06 AM

Tom, I realize you are busy, but when you find the time please address 132454 thru 456. Thank you.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/09/11 02:24 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
Also, Tom, How do you understand Christ’s saying in Matt 11:12:

"From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force. Mat 11:12"


This isn't a verse I've studied. A couple of commentaries say:

Quote:
The tax-gatherers and heathens, whom the scribes and Pharisees think have no right to the kingdom of the Messiah, filled with holy zeal and earnestness, seize at once on the proffered mercy of the Gospel, and so take the kingdom as by force from those learned doctors who claimed for themselves the chiefest places in that kingdom. Christ himself said, The tax-gatherers and harlots go before you into the kingdom of God. See the parallel place, Luke 7:28-30. He that will take, get possession of the kingdom of righteousness, peace, and spiritual joy, must be in earnest: all hell will oppose him in every step he takes; and if a man be not absolutely determined to give up his sins and evil companions, and have his soul saved at all hazards, and at every expense, he will surely perish everlastingly. This requires a violent earnestness.


Quote:
Our Saviour here simply states a fact. He says there was a great rush or a crowd pressing to hear John. Multitudes went out to hear him, as if they were about to take the kingdom of heaven by force. See Matthew 3:5. So, he says, it has continued. Since "the kingdom of heaven," or "the gospel," has been preached, there has been a "rush" to it. People have been "earnest" about it; they have come "pressing" to obtain the blessing, as if they would take it by violence. There is allusion here to the manner in which cities were taken. Besiegers "pressed" upon them with violence and demolished the walls. With such "earnestness" and "violence," he says, people had pressed around him and John since they began to preach. There is no allusion here to the manner in which individual sinners seek salvation, but it is a simple record of the fact that multitudes had thronged around him and John to hear the gospel.


This was Adam Clarke and Barne's Notes respectively.

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.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/09/11 02:50 AM

Originally Posted By: MM
MM:I would like to chime in on this point with some questions:


Fine. I'm taking things out of order, so if I haven't responded to a previous post of yours, don't think I've overlooked it.

Quote:
1. How do you define "organic relationship between sin and death"? Is it anything like gunshots to the head result in death?


It means there's a cause and effect relationship, like planting carrot seeds results in carrots. By faith/obedience we plant seeds resulting in life, or by unbelief/sin we plan seeds which result in death. God alone is the source of life. By unbelief/sin the sinner separates himself from God, thus cutting himself off from life.

Quote:
2. Why don't sinners suffer the second death the instant they sin?


Had Adam and Eve died the moment they sinned, the human race would have perished, and could not participate in the Great Controversy. God didn't want this to happen, so enabled a means by which there would be a probationary period in which people could make decisions which would be enacted, if that's the right word, in the resurrection.

Quote:
3. What enables sinners to live a life of sin without succumbing to the second death immediately?


The grace of God.

Quote:
4. What will enable sinners to live long enough to endure the judgment of their sins without succumbing to the second death immediately?


Same.

Quote:
5. What will enable Satan to live long after sinners perish?


Satan's vital force it would seem to me. It seems that angels have significantly more vital force than humans, and that Satan, as the greatest of the angels (as originally created) has more vital force than the others. I don't have any SOP texts for this, but you asked me, so I'm answering what comes to mind.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/09/11 02:57 AM

Originally Posted By: MM
You need to balance your favorite quote with the following insights: ...

God has not revealed everything there is to know about Himself. We are incapable of comprehending certain aspects of God. He has only revealed everything we "need to know" about Him. One of the many things He has not explained to us is "His strange act".


This isn't linguistically viable. She wrote that all that man needs to know, or can know, of God was revealed in the life and character of His son. You're introducing exceptions to this, without any justification whatsoever.

She nowhere wrote that God's "strange act" wasn't revealed in the life and character of His Son. Your "balancing" is simply negating what she wrote. If what you're suggesting were true, then the following would also be true:

"All that man needs to know, or can know, of God was NOT revealed in the life and character of His son."

This is the direct opposite of what she actually wrote.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/09/11 03:20 AM

Originally Posted By: MM
M: What were Jesus' options in cases like the Holocaust?

T: That's a pretty tall order for me, isn't it? That is, you're asking me to enumerate the options of divinity? I don't think I'm qualified to do that.

1. What factors does God weigh when choosing to allow things to play out the way they do?

T: All the factors there are.

M:What are Jesus' options in cases like the Holocaust?


That's a pretty tall order for me, isn't it? That is, you're asking me to enumerate the options of divinity? I don't think I'm qualified to do that.

Quote:
Is He free to intercede, without violating freedom of choice, and prevent such things? Or, is He forced to allow it?


Same answer.

Quote:
2. Is God free to allow or disallow things like N&A being burned alive and the two bands of fifty being burned alive?

T: Did you think through this question? Aren't you asking if God was free to allow something to happen which He allowed to happen? That's not a question that makes sense, is it?

M:Before it happens, is He free to allow it? Or, is He forced to allow it? Does He have any say so in such things? Are they going to happen with or without His consent?


Same answer I gave. God allowed it to happen. Obviously He was free to do so, since He did. Not sure what you're wanting to ask here, since the question you're asking seems to be obviously true on the face of it.

Quote:

3. Or, are His hands tied?

T: His hands can be tied, in general.

M:Are His hands tied in the sense He isn’t free to prevent things like N&A being burned alive? Do such things happen with or without His consent?


Mike, God allowed it to happen. So obviously he was able to do so. Instead of asking questions like this which have only one answer, which is obvious, perhaps you could just write out what you're thinking.

Quote:

4. Is Satan free to do as he pleases without limits?

T: Satan would destroy everyone, and there wouldn't be any Great Controversy, which is a point I've made many times, which you are aware of.

M:Does Satan exercise self-control? Does he work to restrain himself? Who or what establishes and enforces the limits Satan does not exceed?


We get some idea of how this works from Job. I don't know that I'm aware of how things work beyond what's revealed there.

Quote:

5. Did Jesus, while here in the flesh (as opposed to after He returned to heaven), choose to allow things like ungodly people being burned alive?

T: O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen [doth gather] her brood under [her] wings, and ye would not! (Luke 13:34)

M:You seem to be suggesting Jesus allowed ungodly people to be killed while He was here in the flesh. Who was killed?


In what Jesus said, He expressed that He was willing, desiring even, to protect Jerusalem as a chicken would protect its chicks. He was very sorry they did not permit Him to do so. This is the principle enunciated in GC 35-37.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/09/11 03:23 AM

Quote:
M: "But we have never had a message that the Lord would disorganize the church." Which implies Jesus did not intend to destroy Israel and start over with Moses, not any more than Jesus intends to reject the SDA church and start over with another church.

T: God never intended to destroy Israel. Israel destroyed itself by persistently rejecting the Holy Spirit (GC 35-37).

M:Have you changed your mind?


No. I was speaking in direct voice here.

Quote:
All along it has sounded like you are saying Jesus was very serious about destroying Israel and starting over with Moses. Now it sounds like you're saying it was never His intention to destroy Israel.


Passive voice before; active voice previously. Should have been clear by the context, I think.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/09/11 02:36 PM

Originally Posted By: kland
NJK, that was quite a fascinating analogy. I'm glad you clarified the sharpness of the knife, but still, I will assume you do not know much about cutting off heads and assume that I presume I do. I do not know that one could cut one's head off with a knife. I hear deer hunters use a saw or chainsaw to cut deer's heads off. But, needless to say, I do understand your attempt at illustration.


From the start, in making that specific knife decapitation, I always knew that it would take decided and great effort to effectuate. From solely what I’ve heard, as others watching only main stream news media (vs. uncensored internet video full postings), as repeatedly demonstrated by the acts of Al-Quaeda, cutting a person’s head off, even when they are not offering any resistance, it still is a recursive “hack” job vs. an easy and smooth motion, and that using a machete. Hence my added specific point, though indeed still not perfect. Nonetheless, in my illustration, as this police-issued knife was meant as a back-up, capable defensive weapon, indeed directly replacing for that police agency, the common back up gun they usually carry on the side of their shin, and given the adrenaline rush of ultimate fear, for the near death instances with each near fired grazing gunshot from the perpetrator, probably having deafened the officer, making his use of force judgement become more impaired, he could have used “hacked” off that person’s head with that indeed sharp and capable knife. The whole point I was making in adding this was not that the decapitation was normative to happen, but that, always knowing the extra efforts that are needed to do this, the officer was indeed put under investigation to see if this full decapitation act was warranted or excusable as an “heat of the moment”, and/or a legally acceptable temporary ‘out-of-mindness’ defense. I think this all pointedly addresses your priorly stated underlying objecting comments/questions responded to here (post #132183) which foundationally explicitly and implicitly, implicated the issues of: ‘was the flood destruction, and scale-of-destruction, warranted, beneficial and not excessive.

Also, in the SOP made a statement that further showed me that God’s use of force here to effectuate this destruction was most judicious, fair and non-excessive as she states that he made it that areas of the earth that were not inhabited/populated suffered much less destruction than others that were. (See in 3SG 79). That indeed logically implies that the areas that were more populated required more burying of dead bodies after the Flood waters subsided, and this was done throne the use of earth relief overturning winds. (PP 107.4). That ‘weighted-destruction’ SOP point, unknown by me before, had priorly led me to defend a view, with several other independently quite conclusive points on themselves, that the flood was a locally restricted event and not a global one which explained why e.g., the Middle East and North Africa was this massive, barren, sand and crude oil abundant desert region vs. e.g., the fertile and green Americas, however the SOP’s point in 3SG 79 with a specific Bible statement served to make me switch back to the Global View. (see here).

Originally Posted By: kland
...Except for one issue. I understand you to say the police officer stabbed and decapitated the killer as a means of self defense. Second, you used "killer" or "deadly menace" as opposed to someone who just disagrees with you. Does God feel threatened (with His life, even) and considers those who disagree with Him a deadly menace?


The original reason why I had posted a comment on this thread was that I straightforwardly understood the title question of: “Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death?” as ‘For what reasons did God...’ as manifestly was the point of the thread starter Mountain Man, however that question has since become somewhat “loaded” to now mean: ‘Why did the OT God do this while the ‘NT God’ (= Jesus) did not?’ when Tom suggested that ‘the character of Jesus was the answer’ more pointedly around this post. My initial answer addressed your question here (see also in here. Indeed my Biblical/Theological understanding here was that God only effectuated such capital deaths/destruction only when a threat to life was occurring or sure/most likely to occur and not, as you have said here and apparently believe ‘when someone just disagrees with God and moreover, He feels ‘life threatened’ (as if that is even realistic/possible!) by that. (Then why did he not destroy the disagreeing and beligerent Lucifer in Heaven??? That was the most ‘clear and present “danger(??)”’ to God in this GC.

So my point has been from the start that God only uses the sentence of death when sin threatens life. Of course Tom (unbiblically, in my understanding) said and says that ‘sin organically always is life threatening’ however I see that, as God Himself has said, sinners can live forever if they had access to the Fruit of the Life (Gen 3:22-24; PP 60.3). So in the Flood destruction, as God said in Gen 6:5, 11, 12 that an extreme sinful state had been reached where ‘the sinners ‘ wickedness was great and their thoughts was towards evil continually, all flesh had corrupted their ways and the earth was filled with violence.’ We do not even see that in our world today, and largely due to various degree of, and derived forms of, Judeo-Christian civil values enforced in world societies. So God’s destruction at the Flood was because of a most tangible life threat to the righteous then and the possibility of prolonged civilization for the future, in the remaining needed time for this GC. That is indeed all fair since God did not even have to allow a GC period of 6000+ years, but could have destroyed sinners immediately, indeed for that ‘simply disagreeing reason of yours’.

Quote:
k: So, would you say God used violence to stop violence?

NJK: ...case in point, what is your question here, e.g., ‘does God use (physical? or supernatural?) force to stop the use of (physical? or supernatural?) force.’

kland [Bible]: From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force. Mat 11:12

kland; So if we whitewash it as in your definition we have:
From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers use of force, and forceful men take it by force.


It is not a matter of ‘“whitewashing” anything’ but using the proper meaning, especially as colloquially understood today. (See in this post for Matt 11:12)

Originally Posted By: kland
I don't know, but sounds watered down and kind of like it disputes your definition. As in, can things be taken by force without violence? But if force and violence are the same thing, is that just like what you imply God doing? What is violence? Could all cases be whitewashed with "force"?


I understand the difference between ‘use of force’ and violence to be in the object one is seeking to arrive at. If that object is itself just righteous, then the use of force is not categorized as violence, (e.g., self-defense, just war, justified capital punishment), if not then it is (e.g., robbery, rape, terrorism). This is even distinct from your previously cited “motives” as e.g., a homeless person who is hungry may decide that taken the purse/wallet of a passer by to get money to eat, even if he is only going to take money for that immediate meal and drop the wallet/purse as he is running away, is justified since he is hungry, even now ‘dying of hunger’ as he has not eaten in ca. 3 weeks. Though the object: ‘eat to save his life’ is independently justified, the motive of ‘robbing a passer by’ is not. If however that passer by had stolen money from that man, then using such “force” to get it, and that exactly, back, would be justified and not “violence”.

Originally Posted By: kland
Why do you and/or MM feel the need to whitewash it -- is it because you do indeed see a problem?


Since, as with the difference between ‘murder and killing’ (e.g., 6th Commandment), I understand the realistic difference between ‘violence and force’, as e.g., further explained above, then I personally do not (a) again, see any “whitewashing” here, nor (b) that there is any problem with God making use of force to effectuate judgement. (And not even to “compel” faith in/love of Him).

Originally Posted By: kland
It what way is your view of God's character different from other denominations'?


I assume that you are referring to Hell judgement. As it will be justly limited and post judgement, I see it as being full just. Also EGW states in 4SP 475.2/GC 660.4 that it is the redeemed righteous who will ‘mete out’ the punishment that the wicked will receive in their Hell judgement! How much fairer can that be. An Eternal, Perfect and Holy God who had never sinned, nor, in the likewise Jesus, succumbed to sin, (though Christ did feel the mental guilt anguish of man - cf. this post -that comment could open up a whole other side discussion. I think it is already treated elsewhere in this forum.), and thus does not know or understand why man has chosen to sin, would be likely to defaulty, automatically mete out eternally lasting punishment to any and all.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/09/11 02:37 PM

Originally Posted By: kland
Originally Posted By: SOP: RH, June 21, 1892 par. 3
There are many who have but an imperfect understanding of the character of God. They think of him as stern and arbitrary, and when the fact is presented that God is love, it is a difficult matter for these souls to lay aside their false conceptions of God. But if they do not let the word of truth in, rooting out the thorns, the briers will start up afresh, and choke out the good word of God; their religious experience will be dwarfed, for the evil of their hearts will overtop the tender plant of truth, and shut away the spiritual atmosphere. {RH, June 21, 1892 par. 3}


Since the operative terms here are indeed: “sternof a stern or strict bearing or demeanor; forbidding in aspect; not to be placated or appeased or moved by entreaty; severe and unremitting in making demands and “arbitrarybased on or subject to individual discretion or preference or sometimes impulse or caprice and I do not see, nor have ever seen, God as these term and what they actually mean, then I do not begin to see that, or how, this SOP counsel applies to my actual view of God. The Bible is filled with examples and verse that opposes such an understanding/view of God, starting with, e.g., Isa 1:18. In the Bible God is instead seen as: in pertinent traits here: fair, patient, just and understanding, (when non-hypocritically and non-rebelliously applicable).
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/09/11 02:38 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain
Jesus has known from eternity every choice everyone will make. He also has known from eternity how He will work to ensure the outcome of every choice serve His ultimate will and desire.


From what I Biblically/Theologically know, and can therefrom prove, that is not a Biblically correct statement! God only plans the non-existent future, declaring in advance what it ultimately will be, all revolving around, and subjected to, his GC purposes. (Isa 46:9-11; cf. Even Act 15:18 KJV though this may be a textual addition (cf. NASB).)

So I do not see this ‘certainly-known-future’ belief being responsible for why God’s/Jesus’ judicious actions are all and always judicious. His wisdom and His acting within His perfect law make this to always be the case.

(The invitation to join/continue the ongoing Biblical discussion on this topic in is, of course, freely/openly available.)
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/09/11 02:38 PM

Quote:
NJK: Also Tom, do list the other places in the Bible/SOP where you (explicitly(?)) see the indirect method being used.

Tom: The Bible says that God sent fiery serpents against the Israelites, but the SOP says they were there the whole time, but God withdrew His protection.


So... by removing His hand God allowed these always present fiery serpents to come against Israel. I see not difference here. The earth was always there were God caused it to open up and swallow up the rebelling ones under Korah, Dathan and Abiram, (Num 16:1-40) indeed giving a heads up to those who lived around their houses to clear out (vs. 24). I don’t supposed that you believe that God, knowing the future, had guided these rebellious ones to establish their tents above an always present sink hole which He was keeping from opening up until that very moment! It was an “entirely new thing” from God (vs. 30) Also sink holes do not close up after they have formed (vs. 33). God also sent “fire” to consume 250 men or was that the opportune waft of a, no longer diverted, highly combustible gas in the air that was suddenly ignited by only the censer of these rebellious ones?? God, at the renewed grumblings the next day wanted to destroy the whole congregation (vs. 45) and had begun a plague for that desired instant death (vs. 46). The SOP (PP 395-405) says nothing contrary to this. What’s you non-direct rationalisation for these direct acts??

Also as Deut 8:15 (quoted in PP 428.3) states there were the wilderness was also infested with scorpions. However, evidently only the serpents were allowed to attack the Israelites. Again this is a very specific judgement act of permission of God. (Perhaps they were not of the venomous type!)

Originally Posted By: Tom
In Scripture Paul says that God would send strong delusion upon those who receive not the love of the truth, but the SOP says that God leaves them to the delusions they already have.


Here the Bible (rightly translated):

Originally Posted By: Bible 2Th 2:11
For this reason God sends [present tense and not future] them [no “upon” preposition] an erroneous influence so that they will believe what is false,


and SOP:

Originally Posted By: SOP GC 431.1
As they reject the teachings of His word, God withdraws His Spirit and leaves them to the deceptions which they [already] love.


do not contradict each other as God will withdraw his hand that was restraining Satan from influencing these people, i.e., non-Catholics, to believe all of the teachings the antichrist power. Thus they too, since they already believe in e.g., an eternal soul and Sunday Sacredness and ascended dead people, will then surely be receiving and believing apparitions from Mary and other supposed “ascended” saints and dead loved ones, and through these working of miracles, culminated by Satan’s confirming impersonation of Christ, these Protestants and other non-Catholics, will allow themselves to come under the authority of the Papacy, indeed having absolutely no problem to observe Sunday. They will thus also accept all other lies of Catholicism found also in their unbiblical traditions.

So God will not be “sending” a new ‘erroneous influence’ but allow the one already at work, indeed with some supernatural power (2 Thess 2:6-10 - e.g, now, claims of Marian Apparitions) to increase this power and so take in those who believe the lies that make these manifestations seem true and biblical.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Those are a couple that come to me off the top of my head. There are many examples like this.


As I am, as always, looking for a substantive and weighty answer rather than a quick one, then whenever you remember, relocate, find these claimed others then do post them so that they can also be concretely attested and exegetically ascertained.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/09/11 02:40 PM

Quote:
NJK: And Tom has not yet addressed the many direct destruction of God in the OT as explicitly stated in both the Bible and SOP.

Tom: That's what I've been doing this whole thread.


Not the many major ones that I have cited thus far:
-Plagues of Egypt
-185,000 Assyrian
-Sodom and Gomorrah
-Jericho’s Walls
-the Egyptians in the Red Sea (God had directly acted to split it open)
-the not yet acceptably explained by you, Flood,
-Annanias and Sapphira

Originally Posted By: Tom
All that we can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son. Therefore the God of the OT acted just like Jesus did. If we have a view of things that has the God of the OT acting differently than how Jesus acted, then what we're perceiving happened must not be what happened.


That is at the very least a principle based truth and not a “episode-based” ledger. The OT principle that Jesus fully emulated was: ‘Ample warning, opportunity for change and deserved instruction’ first and then, if these are not heeded then judgement when sin has reached its fullness. (E.g., Gen 15:13, 16). So as God was not wantonly destroying people in the OT, then it is no surprised that Jesus also did not do that in the NT as their was no immediate and full, just reason to do so in His incarnate time.

Indeed according to your incorrectly limiting view due to various artificial reasons, the action of God in the NT Church with Annanias and Sapphira is of no consequence. So God is really to be limited to what was done by Christ between 27-31 A.D.!??

Originally Posted By: Tom
It's not necessary to look at each and every incident. They all follow the same principles. We can look at a few, and learn from those, and apply the principles to others.


You’ll first need to prove this “all follow” claim in, at the very least, the above cited episodes! Unless, seriously stated, its ‘all except these and any other examples that are not supported by that surface blanket claim!!

We will be looking at “everything” in Heaven, so why not now, especially as those who oppose our faith usually do so because they object to the fairness in most of these instances. To say to them to ‘look at Jesus’ only makes them dismiss the Bible and God (or, conveniently enough, only the OT) as the work of a out of control and mentally imbalanced God, to say the least.

Originally Posted By: Tom
The incident from the SOP that is covered in the most detail is the destruction of Jerusalem. She refers to that incident in the context of other indents, saying things like, for example, that the final scenes in earth's history will be like the destruction of Jerusalem.


[Tentatively speaking thus far for incomplete substantive reasons:

-As I indicated before, my studies thus far on the 7 Last Plagues, point to an SOP overstating of, what I also understand to be, this second indirect method that God uses to effectuate judgements, i.e., when He does not want to have mercy.

-Also I do not see that EGW was fully correct in applying what she was shown in 14MR 1-3 to this destruction of Jerusalem as God may indeed have work to send the Roman armies (as Jesus indicated) at least under Cestus, as it seems to me that He worked to cause that Cestus’s siege in 66 A.D. to suddenly and without any good reason, to so that Christians could escape Jerusalem. Also non-Christians Jews did survive the 70 A.D. destruction.

In other words, the Biblical evidence is too compelling of a direct and merciful action to be supplanted by EGW’s understanding of what is indirectly allowed to takes place when no mercy is to be shown.]

Originally Posted By: Tom
Some foundational questions come to mind:

1.What is God like?

I see the answer found in the whole Bible and not only in Jesus.

Originally Posted By: Tom
2.Does He use force to get His way?

That question is actually mootly irrelevant to me. God does not use for to “compel” anyone or anything. Miraculous signs to influence others to have faith in him and obey Him “Yes,” but “force to get His way” which implies that He surely will get His way by using this force: “Absolutely No.”)

Originally Posted By: Tom
3.Does He directly punish people by doing things like burning them alive?
Yes... as it was justified. (e.g., Sodom and Gomorrah)


Originally Posted By: Tom
(Did Jesus act like this).

No... as it was not yet justified, i.e., fully time for this. (e.g., Luke 13:6-8)

Originally Posted By: Tom
4.We know that there were certain things, like mercy and grace, which always existed in God's character, but weren't revealed until after sin came about. Should things like destruction be put in the same category?


As also being just and loving yes. “Just” because, as this GC will prove, a lawless life is not a viable alternative and put others at risk. And man apart from God cannot safely, healthily live forever. And that includes the “Supernatural God-derived” element that was removed from life and nature with the removal of the Tree of Life which contained and dispensed it. So the option of sinful man living completely apart from God, including not Tree of Life is not a viable option.

Originally Posted By: Tom
These questions involve one's whole concept about what God is like and what He wants from us. Does He want unthinking, unquestioning obedience? Does He want us to do what He says, or else?


I don’t see this as being revealed anywhere in the Bible. Quite to the contrary. Seeing otherwise is due to poor exegesis and eisegesis. So claiming a ‘Jesus only’ approach to try to avoid your suggested false understanding is also mootly irrelevant to me. So these question are factually. really just straw-men and red-herrings.

Originally Posted By: Tom
What is it that makes God happy?

Loving obedience, Faith and respect (=a healthy fear). E.g., you can really love the current U.S. President, but running up to him as he walks by and hugging him profusely may probably get you shot, or at the very least taken down by the Secret Service. God wants us to love Him but there is an inherent infinite greatness in Him that is to be respected so that we do what he says simply because he says so as he knows why it is, for real and ever present reasons, needing to be the case. Just ask Uzzah (2 Sam 6:1-11). The mindless/quibbling reader uses this episode to say that God is irrationally vindictive.

Originally Posted By: Tom
How does God act when He is not happy?

As any one who is happy will act. God however is also not hypocritical or becomes stoic when something displeases Him (e.g., Exod 4:14ff; 24-26; Num 16:41, 45). In all things God is real, and, foundationally, that is what (True) Love is all about.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/09/11 02:42 PM

Quote:
NJK: My approach is to take passages as they exegetically read and use this a building blocks towards a Theology which will, when necessary self-produce such harmonization, so in a way, I am working from a bottom-up view.

Tom: I don't think this accurately describes what you do.


Well, I know it accurate does and what I have been using for over 13 years now. You just are not seeing/comprehending this. I have thus “overturned” many incorrectly viewed positions. The bottom-up approach also emphasizes this thorough re-examination approach.

Quote:
NJK: On the other hand, I see you working from a top down view citing Jesus Christ as the top view,

Tom: I would say I use Jesus Christ as the foundation, as the building block, the corner stone, to build upon.


That may be you sincere intention however by not including all building blocks designed for that building (i.e, the entire Bible) in your construction, your “building” is literally full of holes and shaky.

Quote:
NJK: seconded by EGW seemingly wholly supporting statements to the fact and thus you virtually ignore any revelation that may have been made in the OT. I do not see Jesus making such a claim, per se, of only considering what He has done to understand the Bible’s Theology.

Tom: I think you've misunderstood the point here. What I've been saying is that to correctly interpret the OT, we need to *first* have an understanding of God's character.


And my bottom up approach is to understand God’s character within each of these building block episodes asking the right question based on given a default benefit of the doubt to God on the many expression of what His character is and of course believing that He is sinless, perfect, all-knowing and all-wise. So we e.g., look at the Flood and ask these proper question and will get the right answers. Same goes for e.g., Uzzah, the Plagues, Nadab and Abihu, etc. One does not need to overlook the entire OT revelation as If the God there is so haywire and “crazy” that He cannot be understood. You indeed wrongly see e.g., that since Jesus never execute a judgement in the NT then that must mean that God never did in the OT. That is not the purpose of EGW’s counsel here. It is rather to help us to indeed understand “why” God did those judgements in the OT and not merely if He did them or not. Indeed in Jesus we see the same principles resulting in utter physical judgement. So if. e.g., Jesus had stayed longer on Earth passed 31 A.D., then He probably would have been visibly shown to be the one who struck down Annanias and Sapphira a few years after His ascension.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Otherwise, we'll get it wrong.


You actually start on a “wrong” course when you don’t let God speak for Himself in the OT and then resume this starting with the Book of Acts right through the Book of Revelation (e.g., 7 Last Plagues and the distinct “anger and passion of God”.) I am not this form of Gospel-only Christian. Furthermore, with the SOP, there really should not be a issue today of not much better understanding God actions in the OT and other places outside of the Gospels.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I've said that Jesus Christ got it right, and that what He said and what He did was precisely what He say in the OT. So if we have any picture of what happened in the OT as being different than what Jesus Christ said and did, we're getting it wrong.


The problem with your view is that you also selective choose what you’ll allow Jesus to get right. You thus obliviously, summarily dismissively and mindlessly, self-justifyingly excise any that counters that view for also Christ’s statements and teachings, So it is not really Jesus who is being the arbitrator here, but you supposition of what a God is suppose to be like. I feel like I am dealing with the Gospel of Tom instead. And the SOP however sincere and well-meaning EGW was, is not that final arbitrator.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Also, if there is a disconnect between what we perceive happening in the OT, and what Jesus Christ said and did, then we're actually disagreeing with Jesus Christ's perception of what happened in the OT. We should defer to Jesus Christ's perception.


Christ perception is only objectively discernable when explicitly expressed. Otherwise we are dealing with the reader’s subjective view. Also the context of the New Covenant is to be kept in mind if any perceived different is seen. However I really only see a heightening of what was being said in the OT in Christ’s teaching and life. Also as God is no longer most tangibly and visibly present in the midst of a people in the NT era, is a major reason why some OT law are no longer enforced by God and certain thresholds for immediate judgements have been lessened.

Quote:
NJK: (e.g., John 5:39; Luke 24:27). I do not see the God of the OT, which in active form was Michael/Jesus, His actions, and statements as being mutually exclusive with the Revelation of the incarnate Christ. I rather see that both say exactly the same thing.

Tom: But you have them acting very differently. There's a disconnect here.


Basing this view also on Christ’s statement is fully valid as e.g, John 7:16; 14:10, 24 show. It is not also not opposing/contradicting Christ’s actions.

Also God had 4000 years in the OT to work with His OT people, even prior to Israel, (probably directly typologically related to the 4 days that the Passover Lamb had to live with a family before they sacrificed it (Exod 12:1, 6; 2 Pet 3:8)) Jesus had 3.5 years of ministry (4 years when Semitically inclusively reckoned), so it is not logical to expect to see, especially direct judgements for rejecting the Gospel during this short time of 3.5 years. That is what would be unlike God. Yet Jesus stated all of the pronouncement of future judgement, should this rejection of the Gospel continue, during that time. So, again, in principles, rather than the fallacious, seemingly fully-favoring, ‘actions-only’ stance, (as this also requires at least all of the same incidents from the OT to reoccur to have then been validated, -a logical and reality irrationality), is to be the guide here.

The OT Principle thus is clear in Christ’s full Revelation of both actions and words: ‘Persisted rebellion = physical destruction, temporal loss/dispossession and death.’

Quote:
Jesus did not come to do away with the Law and the Prophets (=OT) but to fulfill them.

Tom: He did so by His life and teachings ("You have heard it said, 'an eye for an eye' ... but I say unto you, love your enemies," etc.).


Your are quite wrongly causing a mixed up Christ’s statement here. Also where in the OT does it say to “hate your enemies’. It just says ““Love your Neighbor” as yourself” (Lev 19:18). So Christ here was apparently correcting an added teaching of the leaders of the day for Israel to ‘hate their enemies’. As God pointedly listed in Deut 23:3-6, it was with cause that Israel had to prevent Amorites and Moabites to join them, however only for a limited time. God also instructed them not to had the Edomites nor the Egyptians, go figure! (vs. 7, 8). So the ‘hate all your enemies’ teaching in his day, and that without any cause, was completely unbiblical. Also, as I have repeatedly said (see here), Matt 5:38-42 is for an “evil” person and the instruction not to confrontingly challenge them.

Quote:
NJK: He, and where it was necessary, reinstituted these OT contributions where they were always meant to be.

Tom: He tried to correct the misconceptions what people had about the law.


Indeed as you had knee-jerkly (i.e., through defaultly deferring to your paradigm) done in your objecting comments to the underlying laws addressed in Matt 5:38-47. As Christ implied in conclusion, God’s OT Law, when rightly restored to what it was always meant to be, is “”Perfect” (Matt 5:48; James 1:25) Indeed it thus “restores the soul’ (Gr. “psyche" Psa 19:7).

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.
Quote:


Fair enough, I perhaps did misunderstand your view. However you 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’. Even Jesus does not endorse your view (e.g., Rev 2:7 and many other SOP statements confirm this fact.)

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

Originally Posted By: Tom
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.


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.

[Quote]NJK: I instead have the harmonizing view that Jesus came to provide redemption to man, to those who would accept this gift, and thus once again give us access to this Tree of Life so that we can live eternally (=Rev 2:7).


Tom: Do you think that when we believe in Christ that we, at that moment, have eternal life?


The Bible [+SOP] fully teaches that with such a genuine faith, our sins are forgiven and will, in persisting in this faith, be all blotted out in the judgement, and thus we can have the unshakable assurance that Jesus will one day in the future let us enter into Heaven to access the Tree of Life so that we can ingest the life-perpetuating supernatural powers contained therein. However show the Second Coming tarry, we can and will die in this life.

Quote:
NJK: You instead want to have the mutually exclusive stand of Jesus or the Tree of Life but not both.

Tom: If you mean as pre-eminent, I agree, and have stated such. I haven't made any such statement in a general sense, like you are here.


Well I Biblically see and understand that they are inextricable. God imparts life in the Tree and Jesus has now guaranteed access to that Tree so mortal would not die.

I see that you understand a pre-eminence of Jesus as His sacrifice, while I wholly see this more of the Divine Nature. Then explain how sinless man was to live forever? And also the redeemed.

Quote:
NJK: As I said, the two compliment each other, and it is manifestly from the Water of Life flowing from the Father’s throne that the needed, life perpetuating “supernatural power” is injected in the Fruit of the Tree of Life. However, without accepting Jesus, Fallen Man will not have access to that physical provision and thus not life eternally. So both Jesus’ statements to this end and the tangible reality of the Tree/Fruit of Life harmonizingly present the Theological Truth of how Man, and now Fallen Man, lives eternally.

Tom: I think this is getting a bit removed from the important question. The important question is, "Is there an organic relationship between sin and death?" (and similarly between faith and life).


We’ve been down that road before. My explicitly citing Bible/SOP answer is “No”. Sinful man can live eternally with access to the Tree. So sin does not “organic” equal death. It is just a “provision/wage” (Rom 6:23 [#3800]; cf. Luke 3:14; 1 Cor 9:7; 2 Cor 11:8) (and not even a “price/cost”) that is rendered. I.e., Price/cost - “if you want to sin you have to pay this price/cost of death’ but ‘if you do the work of sin there is the option to receive a compensatory provision/monetary wage of death for those works however you,a s the worker, can potentially refuse it, but God, the employer here, will make this sin worker take this provision/wage for that done work,’ as seen since the removal of the Tree in Eden. And this ongoing GC has been to done to show that this decision of God, especially for possible (relatively) “good sinner” (i.e., last 6 commandment observers) are also supposed to be made to ‘accept this provision/wage of death.

Originally Posted By: Tom
If we don't perceive an organic relationship between sin and death, we will perceive what is happening in the final judgment very differently than if we do. We will see the second death as being the result of something God does to the wicked in justice as a punishment as opposed to something that the wicked have brought upon themselves by the choices they have made, and which God permits.


The Bible is clear that the destruction of the wicked in Hell, the Second Death, as well as the General First death at the second advent are both direct acts of God. As I say, I do not see a self-combusting death being depicted in the Bible at the end of the GC. EGW assumed this to be the case, but the Bible (e.g., Rev 19:20, 21 & 20:14). Furthermore, it is the redeemed who will be determining what the extent of the Hell punishment will be for each individual lost person. (4SP 475.2/GC 660.4)

Indeed as I have said before and as it was pointed out by Mountain Man in his subsequent comment, God will be directly acting to preserve all of the senses and life of the wicked so that they will fully be subjected to/serve their full meted out sentence.

So since your paradigm needs to go against, especially the Bible, and also in many other places the SOP, then I have absolutely no qualms with seeing it as unbiblical, no matter who you claim is at its head or foundation. (Even, e.g., Sunday-keeping churches called themselves “Christian.”)
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/09/11 02:49 PM

Quote:
NJK: That was part of my point, that was not a ‘matter-of fact account or straightforward fore-description of the destruction.

Tom:Sure it was. Anybody listening to Jesus would have understood it as such. It's obvious. He will take the vineyard away, and kill the ones that killed his son. He was angry, and sent armies to burn their city. This is very direct language.

NJK: I rather see this, and all of Christ’s parable as also being a deliberate veiled statement (Matt 13:10ff). There is nothing straightforward/literal to speak about the current Jewish Nation by instead using vineyard

Tom: They knew what the vineyard reference was (Isa. 5). There's no way they could miss this.


As the word vineyard exegetically is the same in the LXX of Isa 5 and this parable, that can lead to the conclusion that these leaders could have readily understood this. However it is still symbolic and thus liable of being not perceived. Especially if they obliviously believed, as they indeed demonstrated, that they did not think nothing wrong of their ways. So throughout the entire parable they would have remained oblivious to this relation. Indeed as seen in the SOP’s account:

Originally Posted By: SOP DA 596.3a
Jesus addressed all the people present; but the priests and rulers answered. "He will miserably destroy those wicked men," they said, "and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons." The speakers had not at first perceived the application of the parable, but they now [i.e., after vs. 41 thus vss. 42ff] saw that they had pronounced their own condemnation.


Indeed they would not have pompously/self-righteously answered this way if they had priorly even begun to understand the 2 parables, and that they were speaking in any way against them.

So they came to this realization shortly after that answering point, probably just before Jesus started to reply, as he then ‘looked with pity upon them while continuing’ (DA 597.1). Luke 20:16b seems to indicate that sudden realization and change of mind as they evidently suddenly changed their words and said: “May it never be”.

Also EGW challenges your view of Jesus not actively endeavoring to be an instrument in dooming of these leaders, as she says:

Originally Posted By: SOP DA 597.3
Christ designed that the Pharisees should answer as they did. He designed that they should condemn themselves. His warnings, failing to arouse them to repentance, would seal their doom, and He wished them to see that they had brought ruin on themselves. He designed to show them the justice of God in the withdrawal of their national privileges, which had already begun, and which would end, not only in the destruction of their temple and their city, but in the dispersion of the nation.


It was because Jesus “designed/wished” to have this due judgement justly and deservingly come upon the Jewish Nation and these leaders that he, throughout His ministry worked to veil, until it was inevitably too late, any element in his public teaching that may help to avert that destruction. (= Matt 13:10-17 = Isa 6:9-13). There thus was no warning look of pity prior to them before they had proceeded to speak their own doom. And really, fully in keeping with this most purposeful and calculated veil approach, Jesus did indeed not begin to speak plainly to them (as in vs. 42-43-44) that until after they have first understood this own their own, indeed showing here that he was not at all wishing for them to without any faith-based sorrow and repentance escape this deserved judgement.

So Jesus had ‘removed’ His protective hand from Israel right from the start of His, actual 3 full years of public ministry (see e.g. John 2:13:24) indeed then ‘rousing their hatred from the start’ (DA 167.2), leading to Nicodemus’s potential quasi-reconciliation attempt (John 3:1ff) given his moderating stance amongs the Jewish leader (DA 167.2) (see also his “we” praising statements); which Jesus unrelentedly initially met with, manifestly to also humble Nicodemus (see e.g. John 3:10; cf. DA 171.3) (if he was really sincere in this quest for spiritual understanding) a barrage of more veiled sayings and calculated pride cutting symbolisms. (vss. 1-15).

Quote:
NJK: and tenant farmers and a king’s wedding feast. The only reason why the Jewish leaders came to understand that he was speaking to them (Matt 21:45a) with the two preceding parables (Matt 21:28-32 & 33-41) was because of Christ unique public explanatory details appended to these two related parables in vss. 42-44, especially vs. 43.

Tom: Even if your assertion were true, and this was the only reason they knew, and it indeed was the fact remains that Christ did say:

Originally Posted By: Bible
Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.(Matt. 21:43)


[That is actually vs. 42;... and thus, the plain statement in vs. 43 would then not be ‘the only reason they would have understood the parables’!]
Anyway, the SOP indicates that their understanding came after their answer in vs. 41 and before the 42-44 bloc sealing addition of Christ which, as EGW adds, though as a side comment ‘made this now no longer questionable realization no less evident’ (DA 596.3).

Originally Posted By: Tom
Therefore this is a clear declaration of the destruction of Jerusalem being accomplished by God's acting directly.


The symbolism indeed indicates this. However Christ’s actively inducing “designs” as stated by EGW in DA 597.3 in leading these leaders to pronounce and seal their own doom and future destruction mirrors in principle EGW’s understanding of how Jerusalem was going to be destroyed. I.e., by these Jewish leaders having here spoken their own doom. So the future physical destruction could indeed have been sent by God, at least, in part at first and not really contradict the SOP view here. (However for the reasons cited in a prior ost my jury is still out on EGW’s application of this Second indirect destruction method on the 70 A.D. as well as all of the the 7 Last Plagues.

Quote:
NJK: Also if Christ’s words are expressing directly effectuate judgement and EGW categorically says the complete opposite then Christ’s words/the Bible should win out and EGW views as “mistaken” (Isa 8:20). She would have simply missapplied this type of judgement here. However see next answer.

Tom: This is rather ironic. I've been asserting that Christ should be the foundation, that His revelation trumps any other, but never with the idea that something "worse" that Christ said should "win out" over the better, "mistaken," good news of Ellen White. It's always been the other way around for me.


I don’t at all get your response here. A typo may have caused you to misunderstand me. I meant to say: ‘...and EGW’s view considered as “mistaken” (Isa 8:20). ” I don’t believe the SOP ever “corrects” the Bible. That “correction” element is only One Way. I.e., the Bible corrects the SOP. So if the Bible says something and the SOP says something that seems or is opposite to it, such as here that Christ indicated “direct judgement” and EGW “indirect judgement” then the SOP is always to be deemed as wrong. If that had not been the Staunch case among most SDA, they we would have had many false understandings of several Scriptures and EGW would also be above the Bible. So the subjective criteria of “better” vs. “worse” is also completely irrelevant here. On the factually substantive elements matter. Our personal preferences as to what we think God should do, should also not come to influence our arbitraring decisions in such case. As I said, the commenting application of EGW in GC 35-37 are thus highly debatable and may have been overstatingly misplaced along with its end times application, a least in ‘6/7th parts.’

Quote:
T:What in Scripture suggests that the destruction of Jerusalem should be interpreted the way Ellen White did?

NJK:As I said before, the syntax of the prophetic statement in Dan 9:26b & 27b. (See also my enjoined next (priorly post) statement.)


Strange. No comment of approval from you here! The Bible here is agreeing with EGW!

Quote:
NJK: And whether directly or indirectly effectuated, God ultimately did, at the very least, allow it, So this all may actually be a substantively inconsequential difference, especially as, as I see it, in either way, God is blameless.

Tom: We're told the following:

Originally Posted By: SOP
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)


While it may seems that I am saying that the destruction was both indirect (Dan 9:26b, 27b) and direct (Matt 22:7) it is because I see them as being both applicable.

Most ironically enough in the parable of the vineyard, it is not Jesus (as Matthew’s account is corroborated by the SOP shows) who says what will happen, but the Pharisees. So Jesus was not the one hear who first decreed what their judgement will be but they indeed condemned themselves. Then in ensuing parable Jesus used this recent self-determined judgement for His depiction of what will happen. I.e., they had decreed that they should be physically dispossessed and killed and thus included how that physical judgement will be done. So the Jews, at Christ goading, indeed had decreed their own doom and God now was going to work to make sure it occurs as stated, at the very least, if it came to be necessary. I.e., the Romans were not willing to even come and forcefully collect their taxes. So as I understand it also here with the future not being known, Jesus was here simply stating the most extreme case scenario that would be neededto make sure that judgement gets done, and when the time came, it, I.e., God’s direct effort, may not have been needed. However I see that God had intervene here, also limit the destruction, (Matt 24:22) and mainly because, time was not going to end here, given the equally abhorrent failures of the NT Church then. (cf. vs. 29ff). This topic validly get deeper all the time.

All prophecy contains these ‘worst case scenario elements, that can be and are usually cut short, until the full fulfillment can be achieved.

Originally Posted By: Tom
You're saying this may actually be a "substantively inconsequential difference." I see this is the essence of the Great Controversy. Satan is attempting to present God as being one way (like himself) when in reality He is another (like Jesus Christ).


I think you are actually missing the issue by solely focusing on the physical aspects of destruction rather than the spiritual cause. GC 35.3 seems to be emphasizing the reason for a destruction rather than the means. I.e., God does not decree destruction for not reason, but people come to decree this destruction by their own chosen course. However, when allowed to do destruction, particularly on individuals, aims to remain behind the scenes (as with Job) and let God take the blame. Satan aims to make it seem that God is acting without any valid/justified reason and arbitrarily decreed such judgements. So the emphasis may here be to show that such final judgements of God which require a singular “passionate” act to deny mercy, are not without self-inflicted reasons.

Quote:
Tom: Sure, you can interpret the direct statements of Christ as involving passive action on the part of God, and thus not contradicting the SOP, but this is precisely my point. Scripture portrays God's actions as direct, but the SOP portrays it as passive.

NJK:As I said above, in case of such a supposed “irreconcilable difference” the Bible should win out, even if by arbitrative decision (i.e., ‘I’ll just go by what the Bible says, despite the SOP emphasis’)


Tom: The same argument can be made straight from Scripture. Sometimes the Bible portrays God as acting directly, and portrays God as acting passively, when describing the same incident. Do we have to have the second description (the passive one) to know that God is acting passively? Do we have to decide that God is actively actively if we don't have it? What's are rule of interpretation? God is acting actively, unless somewhere else it also says that He is acting passively?[/quote]

The above cited difference in rendition of the parable of the vine dressers between Matthew and Luke may be an example of this, however that may all entirely be due to the incomplete understanding of Luke.

Still, I’ll first need to see concrete/definite examples of this claim in the Bible before making any statement on it.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Why can't we infer principles to use to apply to other circumstances?
For example, consider the Scripture that says that God will send strong delusion upon those who have not received the love of the truth. This portrays God as acting directly when the SOP tells us He is acting passively, giving them over the delusions they already had. Do we really need the Spirit of Prophecy to understand this? Or, without that comment from the SOP, would we think that God really sends strong delusion to people so that they will believe lives? Or, should we conclude this is one of the incidents where we can't trust the SOP, and Ellen White was "mistaken"?


That is a Bible vs. SOP example. And there is no need to infer any principles for such. The “Law” is that ‘the Bible is always above the SOP.’

Also, I have, I think satisfactorily, responded to this seeming contradiction in this above post.

Originally Posted By: Tom
What's your methodology here? Is it the following?

1.Determine the truth by exegetical analysis of the key passage(s).

2.If Ellen White agrees with that analysis, fine, but if not, then conclude she is mistaken.


1. Definitely, Yes. 2. Sadly, Yes.

The actual reason is not a Spiritual one (i.e., Bible writers were more inspired than EGW) but merely an impartial, pragmatic one. That is, simply said, Bible writers (obviously) lived in Bible Times, were Jews, Spoke fluent Greek, Hebrew/Aramaic, spoke and lived with Jesus, etc. Indeed most of the SOP mistakes are from these “natural” exegetical deficiencies which at times, in turn affect Theological issues: e.g., “God and the Future” Still the direct revelations EGW received from God, vs. her filling commenting, are, when accurate related, independently on the Inspirational level as the direct revelations and Divine communications Bible writers had. The rest of the writings in the Bible are of the similar commenting/historical/poetic nature, however they have the great advantage about not having to study about their own language, culture, recent/contemporary history/stories, etc. Moreover, these Bible writers actually knew what they meant, including in other “chapters” they had written. So they also have the key contextual great advantage here.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/09/11 02:49 PM

On: Mountain Man’s SOP quotes on ‘Fully Understanding God’:

My personal view which guides my Bible study is that we can fully understand about God what He has allowed to be revealed/recorded in Scripture and the SOP. I do not see that we have begun to either fully or rightly understand those revelation.

I also see that what has been revealed in the Bible and SOP is what is necessary for our redemption and GC victory. We are only responsible for what we can rightly ascertain about God in the Bible and not what cannot be known. So we should be diligent to understand these. The rest may come later in Heaven probably throughout eternity.

So I do not see that engaging in seeking to understand God fully according to these revelations as even being capable of making one seek to ‘understand what cannot be understood.’
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/09/11 02:51 PM

Quote:
NJK: Also, Tom, How do you understand Christ’s saying in Matt 11:12:

"From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force. Mat 11:12"

Tom: This isn't a verse I've studied.


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.

So here Christ was saying that the Kingdom of God until John was being overun by people with various bias against it in it purity. This indeed was seen the major and distinct factions presently in Israel as the Pharisees (Conservative), Sadducees (Liberal), Essenes (Separatists) and Zealots (Militants) [see this David Asscherick sermon [01:34:38-01:45:00] on this]. So Christ was inviting those with now his biased mindset for the true Kingdom “Good News” to actively, correspondingly act against these biases. In other words, those who wanted this True Kingdom to triumph had to now ‘steel their minds’ against these other stubborn and obstinate wrong ways of thinking. That was all indeed fully Biblical, =Ezek. 3:5-9, which was probably the basis of Christ’s statement here.

Originally Posted By: Tom
This was Adam Clarke and Barne's Notes respectively.


Seriously Tom??... Adam Clarke and Albert Barnes....Coming from a Seminarian Tom, I am frankly quite disappointed. I would rather expecting from you mentions from more exegetical commentaries such as the Word Biblical Commentary and/or the SDABC. Rather than, at lastest/best, scholastically speaking, respectively: ca. early (d. 1832), and ca. mid (d. 1870), 19th century works. Matter-of-factly speaking, I virtually chucked these works ‘out of my Windows’ 13 years ago, because no matter what they ‘so reverentially and sincerely express,’ it rarely if ever is, at least transparently exegetically demonstrated. So I personally feel that I merely reading personal opinions.

And the actual context of Christ statement, which they could have better grasped if exegesis had been used, is that John had just sent disciples of his to Jesus expressing his doubt about Christ as he was still imprisoned and probably sensing that he was going to be killed. So Jesus counsel here, after these disciples had left, probably because John needed to build and maintain his faith in Christ on the great evidence that he already had been given, was in this light this suffering and doubting of John. Thus from then on, the Kingdom needed people who would not be mentally dissuade by mere physical suffering. But who would through these adversities maintain a mind “biased” for the Kingdom according to Christ true Gospel. The same holds true today, especially in terms of the mental resolve.
Posted By: APL

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/09/11 05:17 PM

I read in Desire of Ages this morning chapter 51, "The Light of Life". While reading, I was reflecting on what has been written in this thread. Here are a few quotes from this chapter.
Originally Posted By: DA 466
In the work of redemption there is no compulsion. No external force is employed. Under the influence of the Spirit of God, man is left free to choose whom he will serve.
Originally Posted By: DA 469
With solemn dignity Jesus answered, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM." {DA 469.4}
Silence fell upon the vast assembly. The name of God, given to Moses to express the idea of the eternal presence, had been claimed as His own by this Galilean Rabbi. He had announced Himself to be the self-existent One, He who had been promised to Israel, "whose goings forth have been from of old, from the days of eternity." Micah 5:2, margin. {DA 469.5}
Jesus was God in the flesh. Everything that we need to know or can know about God was revealed by Christ.
Originally Posted By: DA 471
It was generally believed by the Jews that sin is punished in this life. Every affliction was regarded as the penalty of some wrongdoing, either of the sufferer himself or of his parents. It is true that all suffering results from the transgression of God's law, but this truth had become perverted. Satan, the author of sin and all its results, had led men to look upon disease and death as proceeding from God ,--as punishment arbitrarily inflicted on account of sin. Hence one upon whom some great affliction or calamity had fallen had the additional burden of being regarded as a great sinner. {DA 471.1}
Thus the way was prepared for the Jews to reject Jesus. He who "hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows" was looked upon by the Jews as "stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted;" and they hid their faces from Him. Isaiah 53:4, 3. {DA 471.2}
God had given a lesson designed to prevent this. The history of Job had shown that suffering is inflicted by Satan, and is overruled by God for purposes of mercy. But Israel did not understand the lesson. The same error for which God had reproved the friends of Job was repeated by the Jews in their rejection of Christ. {DA 471.3}
All suffering, all death, is the result of what Satan has done.
Originally Posted By: DA 473
The blind man answered, "Whether He be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see." {DA 473.3}
Then they questioned again, "What did He to thee? how opened He thine eyes?" With many words they tried to confuse him, so that he might think himself deluded.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/09/11 06:57 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
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.


This looks to agree with what I said.

Quote:
So Jesus counsel here, after these disciples had left, probably because John needed to build and maintain his faith in Christ on the great evidence that he already had been given, was in this light this suffering and doubting of John. Thus from then on, the Kingdom needed people who would not be mentally dissuade by mere physical suffering. But who would through these adversities maintain a mind “biased” for the Kingdom according to Christ true Gospel. The same holds true today, especially in terms of the mental resolve.


It seems that the issue of those falsely trying to obtain, such as the Pharisees, was a key point Jesus had in mind. I quoted the commentaries because they were easily available, being on line, and I found the following point interesting:

Quote:
People have been "earnest" about it; they have come "pressing" to obtain the blessing, as if they would take it by violence. There is allusion here to the manner in which cities were taken. Besiegers "pressed" upon them with violence and demolished the walls. With such "earnestness" and "violence," he says, people had pressed around him and John since they began to preach. There is no allusion here to the manner in which individual sinners seek salvation, but it is a simple record of the fact that multitudes had thronged around him and John to hear the gospel.


The idea here is that a figure of speech was being used, similar to the taking of a city.

My own idea, based on just reading the text, was similar to what you wrote, that Jesus was referring to a mental bias that people had.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/09/11 07:05 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
So my point has been from the start that God only uses the sentence of death when sin threatens life. Of course Tom (unbiblically, in my understanding) said and says that ‘sin organically always is life threatening’


I haven't said this. This doesn't mean I disagree with it, but the fact that you use quotes here is a bit confusing, since quote marks usually indicate that you're quoting someone. What I've said is that there is an organic relationship between sin and death; that the inevitable result of sin is death. As James puts it, sin, when it is finished, brings forth death. Also the sting of death is sin; the wages of sin is death; the soul that sins shall die; convey the same thought. God Himself said one of these, and inspired others to say the rest.

Quote:
however I see that, as God Himself has said, sinners can live forever if they had access to the Fruit of the Life (Gen 3:22-24; PP 60.3). So in the Flood destruction, as God said in Gen 6:5, 11, 12 that an extreme sinful state had been reached where ‘the sinners ‘ wickedness was great and their thoughts was towards evil continually, all flesh had corrupted their ways and the earth was filled with violence.’


If they are filled with violence, then they're killing others, and the Tree of Life is no help in this case. It doesn't resurrect the dead. Eventually only one would be left, the strongest, most cunning violent person (or the luckiest), and then that person would kill himself or herself. Given what we know to be the case about sin, this seems like a very plausible scenario. What prevents things like this from happening is not the Tree of Life, but the grace of God. Take away the grace of God, and the scenario I've traced out, or a worse one, would take place so fast it would be head-spinning.

We simply have no idea of the "sinfulness of sin," as EGW often said, not giving the credit we should to the grace/kindness/mercy of God, because we don't perceive its importance.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/09/11 07:09 PM

Quote:
NJK: Also Tom, do list the other places in the Bible/SOP where you (explicitly(?)) see the indirect method being used.

Tom: The Bible says that God sent fiery serpents against the Israelites, but the SOP says they were there the whole time, but God withdrew His protection.

NJK:So... by removing His hand God allowed these always present fiery serpents to come against Israel. I see no difference here.


You don't see the difference between an active action and a passive action? First of all, it's hard to believe that you don't see the difference between these two things. Secondly, if you don't see a difference, then why argue against my point of view? At the very least, if there's no difference, then my point of view, from your perspective, should be a possibility.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/09/11 07:12 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
T:Those are a couple that come to me off the top of my head. There are many examples like this.

NJK:As I am, as always, looking for a substantive and weighty answer rather than a quick one, then whenever you remember, relocate, find these claimed others then do post them so that they can also be concretely attested and exegetically ascertained.


It doesn't seem to matter. You said you don't see the difference. If you don't see the difference between God's sending poisonous serpents upon the Israelites, and God's permitting serpents which were already there to act, what difference would it make how many examples I provided?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/09/11 07:21 PM

Quote:
NJK: And Tom has not yet addressed the many direct destruction of God in the OT as explicitly stated in both the Bible and SOP.

Tom: That's what I've been doing this whole thread.

NJK:Not the many major ones that I have cited thus far:
-Plagues of Egypt
-185,000 Assyrian
-Sodom and Gomorrah
-Jericho’s Walls
-the Egyptians in the Red Sea (God had directly acted to split it open)
-the not yet acceptably explained by you, Flood,
-Annanias and Sapphira


We've spoken some about the plagues of Egypt. The traditional view is that God applied more and more force against Pharaoh until he finally capitulated. I've mentioned that this idea presents God as acting in a similar fashion to someone wanting protection money. Accidents, or plagues, keep happening until the one applying force gets his way.

Regarding the flood, a couple of quick thoughts. One is that models creation scientists have developed, the Bible, and the SOP, all agree that the waters of the flood were primarily under the earth. These waters exploded into the atmosphere, and that precipitated the flood. The amount of water released was nothing like any flood we've ever seen.

These waters, to explode into the atmosphere, must have been under tremendous pressure. Both of the following possibilities harmonizes with the ideas I've been presenting:

1.God knew the disaster was going to take place. He could have prevented it, and would have, given a favorable response to Noah's preaching.

2.God was preventing the disaster from occurring, but stopped doing so when His overtures were continually rejected, after the many years of preaching of Noah.

If God were acting directly to cause the flood, He would have had to cause the pressure in the first place, as well as not prevent the action from occurring.

But you wrote elsewhere that you don't seen any difference between God's sending fiery serpents upon the Israelites, and His withdrawing His protection, so why would you care here, or in the other incidents you mentioned, what happened?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/09/11 07:36 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
Indeed according to your incorrectly limiting view due to various artificial reasons, the action of God in the NT Church with Annanias and Sapphira is of no consequence. So God is really to be limited to what was done by Christ between 27-31 A.D.!??


You could mention Herod as well. I think if you have the idea that these incidents involve God's acting different than Jesus acted during His time here in the flesh (4BC - 31 A.D.), then these incidents are being misunderstood, just as much as any such OT incidents are.

Once again, given that you see no difference between God's sending fiery serpents and withdrawing His protection from serpents which were already there, why would you care how these incidents are perceived?

Quote:
T:It's not necessary to look at each and every incident. They all follow the same principles. We can look at a few, and learn from those, and apply the principles to others.

NJK:You’ll first need to prove this “all follow” claim in, at the very least, the above cited episodes!


No, this isn't necessary. If the underlying principles are understood, it's not necessary to apply them to any arbitrary list of incidents a person can mention. If this were the case, one would be constrained to go through all of them, as any arbitrary list is as good as another.

What I've been asserting is that there are certain principles at work, including:

1.All that can be known of God was revealed by the life and teachings of Jesus Christ during His earthly mission.
2.God is just like Jesus Christ in character.
3.Jesus Christ was not violent, and taught anti-violence.
4.There are thousand dangers from which God protects us constantly. Any degree of destruction is possible by God's simply withdrawing His protection. There is no need for God to act actively to produce destruction.
5.The use of force is contrary to the principles of God's government.

These are a few. Now if these are genuine principles, then there are always in effect. We don't have to consider cases where God acts according to these principles and cases where He doesn't, because there aren't any cases where He doesn't. Therefore understanding any situation which involves these principles is sufficient. The incident that we have the most information about is the destruction of Jerusalem, so that's the one I've spent the most time on.

Another incident which would bear great fruit to study is the cross. What happened there? Understanding the cross opens the door to understanding all the incidents you mentioned.

Quote:
In other words, the Biblical evidence is too compelling of a direct and merciful action to be supplanted by EGW’s understanding of what is indirectly allowed to takes place when no mercy is to be shown.]


This seems like you're putting your own understanding of things as the final arbiter of truth. God sends a prophet, who provides more information upon a subject, and if that information disagrees with what you think, you write that information off as the prophet being "mistaken." I don't believe I'm misrepresenting your position here, do you?

So you have more faith in your exegesis than in the words of the prophet.

Also you appear to have the understanding that divine inspiration worked completely differently for Ellen White than for Bible writers. I see the inspiration as being identical. Bible writers were just as prone to be "mistaken" as Ellen White was. Do you disagree?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/09/11 08:07 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
Some foundational questions come to mind:

1.What is God like?

I see the answer found in the whole Bible and not only in Jesus.


Do you see that it's necessary to look outside of Jesus to know what God is like?

Quote:
T:2.Does He use force to get His way?

NJK:That question is actually mootly irrelevant to me.


That's too bad. The Great Controversy is being fought regarding this and similar questions. It revolves around the question of God's character and the principles of His government.

Quote:
God does not use for to “compel” anyone or anything.


What do you think happened in the Egyptian plagues? How did God get Pharaoh to allow the Israelites to leave if He didn't use force?

Quote:
3.Does He directly punish people by doing things like burning them alive?
Yes... as it was justified. (e.g., Sodom and Gomorrah)


Originally Posted By: Tom
(Did Jesus act like this).

No... as it was not yet justified, i.e., fully time for this. (e.g., Luke 13:6-8)


Then Jesus didn't fully reveal God's character. That's a fair conclusion if what you're suggesting is the case, isn't it?

Quote:
T:4.We know that there were certain things, like mercy and grace, which always existed in God's character, but weren't revealed until after sin came about. Should things like destruction be put in the same category?

NJK:As also being just and loving yes. “Just” because, as this GC will prove, a lawless life is not a viable alternative and put others at risk.


I agree with your last sentence here.

Quote:
And man apart from God cannot safely, healthily live forever.


I agree that man, acting contrary to God's will, cannot live safely or healthfully. Apart from God, man cannot live even for an instant, let alone eternally.

Quote:
And that includes the “Supernatural God-derived” element that was removed from life and nature with the removal of the Tree of Life which contained and dispensed it. So the option of sinful man living completely apart from God, including not Tree of Life is not a viable option.


Not only not man, but no created being, can live for an instant apart from God. At every moment of one's life, whether human, bird, insect or amoeba, God's action is required for their to be life. Life apart from God does not exist.

Quote:
T:These questions involve one's whole concept about what God is like and what He wants from us. Does He want unthinking, unquestioning obedience? Does He want us to do what He says, or else?

NJK:I don’t see this as being revealed anywhere in the Bible.


See what? These are questions. You're saying you don't see these questions as being considered anywhere in Scripture? What's your point here?

Surely what God wants from us in an important consideration. I don't see how you could disagree with this.

Quote:
T:What is it that makes God happy?

NJK:Loving obedience, Faith and respect (=a healthy fear). E.g., you can really love the current U.S. President, but running up to him as he walks by and hugging him profusely may probably get you shot, or at the very least taken down by the Secret Service. God wants us to love Him but there is an inherent infinite greatness in Him that is to be respected so that we do what he says simply because he says so as he knows why it is, for real and ever present reasons, needing to be the case.


What were you just saying? It looked like you were saying that these questions weren't revealed anywhere in Scripture, and then you answered the question. How do you know the answer? Presumably from Scripture. In this case, they *are* considered in Scripture.

You say that God wants loving obedience. On what do you base this conclusion?

You seem to imply that God doesn't want us to get to close to Him, that if we do so, we'll get shot, like a person who tries too close to the president. You gave the example of hugging the president, as opposed to someone who had a threatening action in mind. Was it your intent to convey they idea that we better not try to get too close to God?

Quote:
How does God act when He is not happy?

As any one who is (un)happy will act. God however is also not hypocritical or becomes stoic when something displeases Him (e.g., Exod 4:14ff; 24-26; Num 16:41, 45). In all things God is real, and, foundationally, that is what (True) Love is all about.


I changed "happy" to "unhappy," as I think that's what you meant. You're saying here that when God is unhappy, He acts like human beings act when they are unhappy, correct? I assume that's what you mean by saying, "As any one who is unhappy will act."

Thanks for your answers here NJK. I found this exchange to be among the most helpful that we've had.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/09/11 11:41 PM

As these answers within that prior reply post may have been missed due to my formatting coding error, I repost them here:

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.


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

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

Originally Posted By: Tom
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.


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.

Quote:
NJK: I instead have the harmonizing view that Jesus came to provide redemption to man, to those who would accept this gift, and thus once again give us access to this Tree of Life so that we can live eternally (=Rev 2:7).

Tom: Do you think that when we believe in Christ that we, at that moment, have eternal life?


The Bible [+SOP] fully teaches that with such a genuine faith, our sins are forgiven and will, in persisting in this faith, be all blotted out in the judgement, and thus we can have the unshakable assurance that Jesus will one day in the future let us enter into Heaven to access the Tree of Life so that we can ingest the life-perpetuating supernatural powers contained therein. However show the Second Coming tarry, we can and will die in this life.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/10/11 04:40 AM

Quote:
NJK: My approach is to take passages as they exegetically read and use this a building blocks towards a Theology which will, when necessary self-produce such harmonization, so in a way, I am working from a bottom-up view.

Tom: I don't think this accurately describes what you do.

NJK:Well, I know it accurate does and what I have been using for over 13 years now. You just are not seeing/comprehending this. I have thus “overturned” many incorrectly viewed positions. The bottom-up approach also emphasizes this thorough re-examination approach.


It would be interesting to see how others on this thread view your approach.

Quote:
NJK: On the other hand, I see you working from a top down view citing Jesus Christ as the top view,

Tom: I would say I use Jesus Christ as the foundation, as the building block, the corner stone, to build upon.


NJK:That may be you sincere intention however by not including all building blocks designed for that building (i.e, the entire Bible) in your construction, your “building” is literally full of holes and shaky.


Jesus Christ is the corner stone for the building. All the Bible is included, but Jesus Christ is the corner stone. z
"All building blocks" isn't limited to just the Bible, as the Bible isn't the only means which God uses.

Quote:
NJK: seconded by EGW seemingly wholly supporting statements to the fact and thus you virtually ignore any revelation that may have been made in the OT. I do not see Jesus making such a claim, per se, of only considering what He has done to understand the Bible’s Theology.

Tom: I think you've misunderstood the point here. What I've been saying is that to correctly interpret the OT, we need to *first* have an understanding of God's character.

NJK:And my bottom up approach is to understand God’s character within each of these building block episodes asking the right question based on given a default benefit of the doubt to God on the many expression of what His character is and of course believing that He is sinless, perfect, all-knowing and all-wise.


If your "bottom up approach" winds up with a picture of God's character which looks very different than Jesus Christ, that's a big problem.

Jesus Christ said when we've seen Him, we've seen the Father. It can't be the case that what Jesus Christ said is true, and that the Father has a character different than Jesus Christ.

Quote:
You indeed wrongly see e.g., that since Jesus never execute a judgement in the NT then that must mean that God never did in the OT. That is not the purpose of EGW’s counsel here. It is rather to help us to indeed understand “why” God did those judgements in the OT and not merely if He did them or not. Indeed in Jesus we see the same principles resulting in utter physical judgement.


What I've been saying is that the character of God the Father was fully revealed by Jesus Christ. You say that Jesus Christ revealed the same principles resulting in physical judgment. I claim that Jesus Christ revealed principles stated by the SOP such as:

1.Force is contrary to the principles of God's government.
2.God does not stand before the sinner as an executioner, but leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves.

Where do you see that Jesus Christ revealed "the same principles resulting in utter physical judgment"?

Quote:
T:Otherwise, we'll get it wrong.

NJK:You actually start on a “wrong” course when you don’t let God speak for Himself in the OT and then resume this starting with the Book of Acts right through the Book of Revelation (e.g., 7 Last Plagues and the distinct “anger and passion of God”.) I am not this form of Gospel-only Christian. Furthermore, with the SOP, there really should not be a issue today of not much better understanding God actions in the OT and other places outside of the Gospels.


What I'm saying is that we need to first understand God's character in order to rightly interpret Scripture. I assume you agree with this.

Then I'm saying that in order to do this, we need to go to Jesus Christ. He is the corner-stone for our understanding. If we come up with a view of God's character which disagrees with what we see in Him, then we've got it wrong.

You don't disagree with this, do you?

A third thing I've asserted is that Jesus Christ is a full and complete revelation of the Father; that we don't need to go outside of Christ to know what God is like.

I think this is the point that you're disagreeing with. What you think is that we need to combine what Jesus Christ lived and taught with the rest of Scripture in order to come up with an accurate picture of God's character. Is this correct? That is, you agree with the first two points just mentioned above, but disagree with the third one?

Quote:
T:I've said that Jesus Christ got it right, and that what He said and what He did was precisely what He say in the OT. So if we have any picture of what happened in the OT as being different than what Jesus Christ said and did, we're getting it wrong.

NJK:The problem with your view is that you also selective choose what you’ll allow Jesus to get right. You thus obliviously, summarily dismissively and mindlessly, self-justifyingly excise any that counters that view for also Christ’s statements and teachings, So it is not really Jesus who is being the arbitrator here, but you supposition of what a God is suppose to be like. I feel like I am dealing with the Gospel of Tom instead. And the SOP however sincere and well-meaning EGW was, is not that final arbitrator.


I'm not the only one who holds the view I hold. We can take me out of the question here. Have you ever read any of Ty Gibson's books? My view is largely the same as his.

Robert Wieland is another who has taught principles related to God's character that I believe to be true.

In Ellen White's time, George Fifield eloquently expressed views I hold to be true.

There are thousands of people that hold the view I hold. I'm not arguing that this makes it right, but you write as if what I'm sharing is something that I just made up. The ideas I'm sharing are not original to me.

Regarding the final arbiter, that is God. He is the One who will judge how well we've understood His character, and how well we've treated one another. If our view of God's character does not lead to our treating one another as Christ did, it's not much good.

Quote:
T:Also, if there is a disconnect between what we perceive happening in the OT, and what Jesus Christ said and did, then we're actually disagreeing with Jesus Christ's perception of what happened in the OT. We should defer to Jesus Christ's perception.

NJK:Christ perception is only objectively discernable when explicitly expressed.


Christ did so by His words and teachings.

Quote:
Otherwise we are dealing with the reader’s subjective view. Also the context of the New Covenant is to be kept in mind if any perceived different is seen.


What do you mean by this?

Quote:
However I really only see a heightening of what was being said in the OT in Christ’s teaching and life. Also as God is no longer most tangibly and visibly present in the midst of a people in the NT era, is a major reason why some OT law are no longer enforced by God and certain thresholds for immediate judgements have been lessened.


You don't believe that Jesus Christ was a tangible and visibly present representation of God?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/10/11 04:55 AM

Quote:
NJK: Jesus did not come to do away with the Law and the Prophets (=OT) but to fulfill them.

Tom: He did so by His life and teachings ("You have heard it said, 'an eye for an eye' ... but I say unto you, love your enemies," etc.).

NJK:Your are quite wrongly causing a mixed up Christ’s statement here.


I was simply referring to the Sermon on the Mount. You didn't understand this?

Quote:
Also where in the OT does it say to “hate your enemies’.


The point is that the Old Testament was not understood. I've never said there was anything wrong with the Old Testament.

What I said was that if we see Jesus Christ acting or teaching differently than what we see in the OT, then there's something wrong. It doesn't sound like you're disagreeing with this, but simply repeating the same thing I said.

Quote:
NJK: He, and where it was necessary, reinstituted these OT contributions where they were always meant to be.

Tom: He tried to correct the misconceptions what people had about the law.


Indeed as you had knee-jerkly (i.e., through defaultly deferring to your paradigm) done in your objecting comments to the underlying laws addressed in Matt 5:38-47. As Christ implied in conclusion, God’s OT Law, when rightly restored to what it was always meant to be, is “”Perfect” (Matt 5:48; James 1:25) Indeed it thus “restores the soul’ (Gr. “psyche" Psa 19:7).


If this is the definition of "knee-jerkedly," then everything you write is also such. You can't get outside of your paradigm. You can allow your paradigm to change, however. And this is what Jesus Christ does. He is constantly challenging our paradigm. He presents a picture of God which is different than the one that we presently hold, always and forever. If we are willing, we can allow Him to mold our view of God to that it becomes more and more like what God is truly like.

The very first step in doing so is to recognize that our paradigm is faulty, and that we need His help. If we think we see, our blindness remains. If we think we are sound, we won't seek the help of a physician.

Quote:
Tom: Do you think that when we believe in Christ that we, at that moment, have eternal life?

NJK:The Bible [+SOP] fully teaches that with such a genuine faith, our sins are forgiven and will, in persisting in this faith, be all blotted out in the judgement, and thus we can have the unshakable assurance that Jesus will one day in the future let us enter into Heaven to access the Tree of Life so that we can ingest the life-perpetuating supernatural powers contained therein. However show the Second Coming tarry, we can and will die in this life.


Is this yes or no? Do you believe that when we believe in Jesus Christ we, at that moment, have eternal life?

Quote:
NJK: As I said, the two compliment each other, and it is manifestly from the Water of Life flowing from the Father’s throne that the needed, life perpetuating “supernatural power” is injected in the Fruit of the Tree of Life. However, without accepting Jesus, Fallen Man will not have access to that physical provision and thus not life eternally. So both Jesus’ statements to this end and the tangible reality of the Tree/Fruit of Life harmonizingly present the Theological Truth of how Man, and now Fallen Man, lives eternally.

Tom: I think this is getting a bit removed from the important question. The important question is, "Is there an organic relationship between sin and death?" (and similarly between faith and life).


NJK:We’ve been down that road before. My explicitly citing Bible/SOP answer is “No”. Sinful man can live eternally with access to the Tree.


This could only be the case if sin were a physical problem only. But sin involves more than the physical. It involves the mind, and the longer a person lives contrary to the principles of God's government, the principles of agape, the worse and worse he becomes, and this isn't something a tree can fix, but only Christ.

Quote:
T:If we don't perceive an organic relationship between sin and death, we will perceive what is happening in the final judgment very differently than if we do. We will see the second death as being the result of something God does to the wicked in justice as a punishment as opposed to something that the wicked have brought upon themselves by the choices they have made, and which God permits.

NJK:The Bible is clear that the destruction of the wicked in Hell, the Second Death, as well as the General First death at the second advent are both direct acts of God.


This is simply seconding what I wrote.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/10/11 05:11 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
(quoting EGW)Christ designed that the Pharisees should answer as they did. He designed that they should condemn themselves. His warnings, failing to arouse them to repentance, would seal their doom, and He wished them to see that they had brought ruin on themselves. He designed to show them the justice of God in the withdrawal of their national privileges, which had already begun, and which would end, not only in the destruction of their temple and their city, but in the dispersion of the nation.

NJK:It was because Jesus “designed/wished” to have this due judgement justly and deservingly come upon the Jewish Nation


That's not what EGW wrote! She didn't say that Jesus "designed/wish" to have this due judgment come upon the Jewish nation, but that He designed that His hearers respond the way they did. Surely you can see the different here, can't you?

In the quote she says exactly the same thing I've been saying all along:

Quote:
His warnings, failing to arouse them to repentance, would seal their doom, and He wished them to see that they had brought ruin on themselves.


The underlined portion is what He wished them to see, which is, again, what I've been saying all along.

Quote:
and these leaders that he, throughout His ministry worked to veil, until it was inevitably too late, any element in his public teaching that may help to avert that destruction.


You're saying that Christ wanted God to kill them, and He veiled the truth from them, so that God could kill them, rather than save them? The parable that Christ spoke to them said that God would kill them and given their land to another. So if what you're asserting were true, then my question at the beginning of this paragraph would follow.

Quote:
Therefore this is a clear declaration of the destruction of Jerusalem being accomplished by God's acting directly.


The symbolism indeed indicates this. However Christ’s actively inducing “designs” as stated by EGW in DA 597.3 in leading these leaders to pronounce and seal their own doom and future destruction mirrors in principle EGW’s understanding of how Jerusalem was going to be destroyed. I.e., by these Jewish leaders having here spoken their own doom. So the future physical destruction could indeed have been sent by God, at least, in part at first and not really contradict the SOP view here. (However for the reasons cited in a prior ost my jury is still out on EGW’s application of this Second indirect destruction method on the 70 A.D. as well as all of the the 7 Last Plagues.


Why do you think it's right for you to set yourself as a judge of Ellen White's writings? If God sent her as a prophet, shouldn't her writings judge you?

Quote:
NJK:I don’t believe the SOP ever “corrects” the Bible. That “correction” element is only One Way. I.e., the Bible corrects the SOP. So if the Bible says something and the SOP says something that seems or is opposite to it, such as here that Christ indicated “direct judgement” and EGW “indirect judgement” then the SOP is always to be deemed as wrong.


Where does she say this? Or is this an idea of yours? Or do you think the Scripture teaches this, that God's prophets should be correct by Scripture?

I don't see this taught at all. What I see is that God's prophets should be judged by Scripture, not corrected by it. That is, if a person is speaking for God, then that's person's teachings will be in harmony with Scripture, and will not need to be corrected by it. If the person's teachings are not in harmony with Scripture, then that person's teachings should be rejected, as well as the idea that this person was a prophet.

Quote:
T:What's your methodology here? Is it the following?

1.Determine the truth by exegetical analysis of the key passage(s).

2.If Ellen White agrees with that analysis, fine, but if not, then conclude she is mistaken.

NJK:1. Definitely, Yes. 2. Sadly, Yes.


Why not conclude that your exegesis may be wrong, or that you may be misunderstanding what she wrote?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/10/11 05:31 AM

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’.


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

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


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

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


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, 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. 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.

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.


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."

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.

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.

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).

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 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. 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.

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.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/10/11 07:27 AM

Originally Posted By: SOP DA 466
In the work of redemption there is no compulsion. No external force is employed. Under the influence of the Spirit of God, man is left free to choose whom he will serve.


That is indeed true. However I suspect this was quote because God’s judgements are confused as acts to compel obedience. People are always free to choose whether they will obey God or not. However that does not bar Him from executing due and timely judgements. He indeed amply has throughout the Bible and billions still have refused to believe in Him. OT Israel is the most prominent example. Just give them a generation, or even a day (e.g., Num 16:31, 32, 35, 41) Even acts of miraculous intervention do not affect this as seen with the Golden Calf debacle just after the Red Sea Crossing. In the “secular world” The earth changing event of the Flood did not “compel obedience”. Indeed with the Ark probably still intact and visitable, the people soon after the Flood, in order to continue to live against the will of God decided, to built a tower to escape the flood. (Not much can also be said of the conduct of Noah and his son some time after the flood.)

So God’s effectuated judgement are not for any compelling purposes as, as many examples have shown, it is only those who want to fear God, who will let these judgements bring them in line with His will, (e.g., Acts 5:11) soon leading, again if they further want to, to a more friendly/loving relationship with him.

I think, given the great advantage of the life and eternal life that God can and will give, that it is quite a loving act on his part to seek to fair impress fallen men who cannot see Him to seek to “fearfully” know him. Clearly God realizes that “blind dating” is not always, with all, realistic expectation for a chance at a relationship.

Originally Posted By: SOP DA 469
With solemn dignity Jesus answered, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM." {DA 469.4}
Silence fell upon the vast assembly. The name of God, given to Moses to express the idea of the eternal presence, had been claimed as His own by this Galilean Rabbi. He had announced Himself to be the self-existent One, He who had been promised to Israel, "whose goings forth have been from of old, from the days of eternity." Micah 5:2, margin. {DA 469.5}


Originally Posted By: APL
Jesus was God in the flesh. Everything that we need to know or can know about God was revealed by Christ.


Indeed Jesus is so, and that “everything” includes the ministry of Divine judgement/wrath/(zeal/passion)! Again all in realistic (i.e., non-manufactured simply to ‘explicitly replicate’) dealing with the circumstances and pointed and forbearing purposes then, especially during His ministry. But upon ample warning, given one’s level of knowledge, for waywardness, like the OT model and principle, judgement is deservingly allowed to happen, even directly done (cf. e.g., Acts 5:1-11).

Quote:
Originally Posted By: SOP DA 471
It was generally believed by the Jews that sin is punished in this life. Every affliction was regarded as the penalty of some wrongdoing, either of the sufferer himself or of his parents. It is true that all suffering results from the transgression of God's law, but this truth had become perverted. Satan, the author of sin and all its results, had led men to look upon disease and death as proceeding from God ,--as punishment arbitrarily inflicted on account of sin. Hence one upon whom some great affliction or calamity had fallen had the additional burden of being regarded as a great sinner. {DA 471.1}
Thus the way was prepared for the Jews to reject Jesus. He who "hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows" was looked upon by the Jews as "stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted;" and they hid their faces from Him. Isaiah 53:4, 3. {DA 471.2}
God had given a lesson designed to prevent this. The history of Job had shown that suffering is inflicted by Satan, and is overruled by God for purposes of mercy. But Israel did not understand the lesson. The same error for which God had reproved the friends of Job was repeated by the Jews in their rejection of Christ. {DA 471.3}

Originally Posted By: APL
All suffering, all death, is the result of what Satan has done.


I see/think that EGW had an “ultimate” sense in mind here, i.e., Satan as the author of sin, was ultimately responsible for ‘all the results of sin’. However there are a plethora of clear cut episodes in the Bible, and also the SOP, that show that God, in acts of judgement, effectuates punishment and death for sins. Even by simply commanding capital punishment for certain sin, that Israelites carried out, God had effectuated that death, yet the ultimate being responsible for it was Satan. So that text cannot be used as a platform to say that God never effectuates any death or suffering. The Flood also is another immovable example of this Theological/Biblical Fact. Satan, and this is what EGW was seeking to dispel, wants to make it seem that God is responsible for this, and as I understand it, all, vindictively, out of the fact that God had taken measure to prevent sinful man to live forever.

Originally Posted By: DA 473
The blind man answered, "Whether He be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see." {DA 473.3}
Then they questioned again, "What did He to thee? how opened He thine eyes?" With many words they tried to confuse him, so that he might think himself deluded.


No explanatory words from you at all here. It is thus hard to exactly understand what you mean with this quote?
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/10/11 07:29 AM

I do not see, at least, full agreement. Perhaps, in thematic part, only with Adam Clarke’s comment.

Albert Barnes’ point was way off the mark. It physically spoke of ‘a pressing of the throng/crowd to now hear Jesus’ and that merely because they surfacely wanted to obtain the supposed immediate blessing, (like Black Friday/Boxing Day shoppers).

How also would that “similar physicality’ be different from ‘what had occurred/been suffered up to John vs. the Kingdom proclamation now’, as Jesus put it?

My problem with such early “scholarly work” is exegesis in never documented, so one has to either do it on their own to validate that view or just take their word for it. That was fine for the 19th and early 20th century, but not today, at least not for me. I want to see the transparent and objective proof for any beliefs. So defaultly using such works really causes double work, at least for my interests.

Originally Posted By: Tom
My own idea, based on just reading the text, was similar to what you wrote, that Jesus was referring to a mental bias that people had.


Not this “own idea” of yours:

Originally Posted By: 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.


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

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/10/11 07:29 AM

Quote:
NJK: So my point has been from the start that God only uses the sentence of death when sin threatens life. Of course Tom (unbiblically, in my understanding) said and says that ‘sin organically always is life threatening’

Tom:I haven't said this. This doesn't mean I disagree with it, but the fact that you use quotes here is a bit confusing, since quote marks usually indicate that you're quoting someone. What I've said is that there is an organic relationship between sin and death; that the inevitable result of sin is death.


I follow the convention of using single quote for a paraphrase. Since it seemed to me that you had indeed said that ‘the sinner must die because of the “organic relationship between sin and death; that the inevitable result of sin is death”’, thus sin is also threatening to the sinner himself’, I added that understood understanding in that paraphrase.

Originally Posted By: Tom
As James puts it, sin, when it is finished, brings forth death.


As already said, I see this as fully blown/accomplished sin/sinful behavior. You are not giving the proper weight to the word “finished/completed” (Gr. #658 which is not ‘merely committed’ which was here expressed as “birthed”). Indeed the intended illustrative ‘development progression’ by James is: “conception” (#4815)... “birth” (#5088) and “finishing completion” (#658) = “fully lived and aged life” which, as it naturally really does, likewise then ends in a natural death; and all this stemming from the committed “union” act of ‘having given in to temptation’ (vs. 14).

-I also do not see in the Bible (or even in direct revelation in the SOP) a consuming fire type of destruction at the end of the 6000 years of GC.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Also the sting of death is sin; the wages of sin is death; the soul that sins shall die; convey the same thought. God Himself said one of these, and inspired others to say the rest.


Succinctly said, out of exegetical, and not your “proof-texting”, reasons:

the sting of death is sin - (1 Cor 15:56) = sin is the ‘sharp goading point’ reason that make it why death can occur in sinning created beings, and that by the barring of access to the Tree of Life!
the wages of sin is death - (Rom 6:23) = “wages” are optionally received - Already discussed here - Also implied ed in this verse: no work done at all to be due, actually outrightly “given”, a “gift”. So sin is also shown as being more taxing/demanding than God’s salvation.
the soul that sins shall die - (Ezek 18:20 (God )) = ‘the living being who has committed the wrong (= sin) will pointedly be held responsible and die. vs. a generalized/indiscriminate judgement (Ezek 18:1-32)

I don’t see these as ‘conveying your inevitable result thought’, but rather that sin is what makes death: possible (1 Cor 15:56); justly and pointedly deserved (Ezek 18:20); duly “collectible” (Rom 6:23); and when not externally carried out in judgement; self-inflictable at the reached end of its “completed/full blown” stage (James 1:15).

Quote:
NJK: however I see that, as God Himself has said, sinners can live forever if they had access to the Fruit of the Life (Gen 3:22-24; PP 60.3). So in the Flood destruction, as God said in Gen 6:5, 11, 12 that an extreme sinful state had been reached where ‘the sinners ‘ wickedness was great and their thoughts was towards evil continually, all flesh had corrupted their ways and the earth was filled with violence.’

Tom: If they are filled with violence, then they're killing others, and the Tree of Life is no help in this case. It doesn't resurrect the dead. Eventually only one would be left, the strongest, most cunning violent person (or the luckiest), and then that person would kill himself or herself. Given what we know to be the case about sin, this seems like a very plausible scenario. What prevents things like this from happening is not the Tree of Life, but the grace of God. Take away the grace of God, and the scenario I've traced out, or a worse one, would take place so fast it would be head-spinning.
...
We simply have no idea of the "sinfulness of sin," as EGW often said, not giving the credit we should to the grace/kindness/mercy of God, because we don't perceive its importance.


Those were conditions with sinning people after the tree of life was removed. As I already addressed here things could have been drastically different without that measure. And just as a comparison, why don’t you see that “killing everywhere” debacle in our world today?? (as I’ll later point out)

I have, during this discussion, come to ponder why God took that measure which seems unjustified vs. allowing sinful man to live on this planet without Him being present at all, but having access to the Tree of Life, as taking away the Tree and thus perpetual life solely because these are choosing to live apart of at least one of God’s law would seem like a petty: ‘...or else I’ll take my ball and go home’ act on the part of God, however in your response above, I have seen the reason why. You say it is the ‘grace of God’ that prevents a total debacle on the earth which could also be understood as “mercy”. So I see that God really had two option here:

Option #1 - Let sinning man indeed live on his own with the Tree of Life, but without His tempering Spirit and also under the full control of Satan, but also procreating. As I see it, it is because of the total absence of His Spirit then, that your scenario may indeed come to occur here. However I see it that Satan would have here his opportunity to grow his kingdom of rebellion, so he would not be, like he is now, seeking to vindictively lead these “subjects” to destruction, but would set himself up as a god over them and, ironically enough, probably have something similar as the last 6 commandments to maintain this needed life and livelihood, just as secular societies do today.

Also the GC war would go on as new territory and resources beyond this planet would come to be needed to and since Satan cannot created he would seek to overtake other worlds. So this would resemble “George Lucas’s Intergalactic Star Wars”. And for a fight to be considered as fair, it would have to be (Sinning) Humans vs. (Unfallen) Humans and not Angels vs. Humans. So other unfallen worlds would inevitably be drawn into this war and also their death, completely undeserved would then be likely to occur, despite having access to the Tree of Life. (That is another reason why I understand, derived from my understanding of Gen 3:22-24, that it is not sin itself that causes death but a forceful act is to be taken to effectuate (a deserved) death.

Option #2 - (Chosen option) Remove the Tree of Life and instead allow His Spirit to ‘strive with even sinful men, His outrightly undeserving creation’ (Gen 6:3a), until there, as it was the case by the Flood, no longer any redeemable “thoughts” in them for Him to work with (Gen 6:5). This option also allows for the fairer and safer demonstration of the GC. Hence God’s Choice was perfectly wise. And the only way in which this world will come into a total sinful debacle is when, in the utter, past probation end, in the last Plague, God will become indivisibly “empassioned” and thus no longer have any sort of grace/mercy while the 4 winds that affect human passions will also have been allowed to blow, culminating in the 7th Plague utter suffering and chaos.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/10/11 07:31 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
You don't see the difference between an active action and a passive action?

Indeed no, especially by now...

Originally Posted By: Tom
First of all, it's hard to believe that you don't see the difference between these two things.

The reason why is that both these active and passive actions by God directly come from God Himself or by His allowance. I therefore now see that the real difference is not in what God Himself actively or passively does, but rather what God (actively or passively) does vs. what, though He also allows it, Satan (actively or passively). I see that Satan acts “passively” when he merely inspires people to do wrong and they freely choose to act out those suggestion, then not having the Spirit of God to offset this evil spirit. So the real issue is between God vs. Satan actions. So e.g., God allowing the serpents was a passive act of God and not one of Satan. However, in the ultimate sense, the deadliness of the serpents goes back to author of sin, Satan. Unless taken control of by Satan, which may not be possible, serpents and any other animal are equal opportunity killers in regards to any human or other living creation.

So I do see many passive acts of Satan, especially on individuals, when allowed, as shown to EGW in 14MR 1-3. That of course can have a collective effect such as in the destruction of Jerusalem, at least in part because mercy was demonstrated there (Matt 24:22) So as brought forth by APL from DA 471.3:

Originally Posted By: SOP DA 471.3
The history of Job had shown that suffering is inflicted by Satan, and is overruled by God for purposes of mercy


That is why I see that the destruction of Jerusalem was not entirely under the total merciless “passion” of God principle, nor will it be for all of the Last Plagues.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Secondly, if you don't see a difference, then why argue against my point of view? At the very least, if there's no difference, then my point of view, from your perspective, should be a possibility.


On top of the specifying reasons that I have just related, I have a distinct difference and opposition to your view because it has thus far been wrongly, selectively oblivious. You unexegetically tried to make all judgements in the Bible fit your, at least passive view, which you then tried to claim that God was thus not at all responsible for the judgement, (e.g., your world in constant chaos argument for the Flood). As your view was going against the clear Word God never (upon closer study if necessary) actually opposed in the SOP, I did not see any light in it (Isa 8:20). That’s just the natural category for which it fit in for me.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/10/11 07:32 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
It doesn't seem to matter. You said you don't see the difference. If you don't see the difference between God's sending poisonous serpents upon the Israelites, and God's permitting serpents which were already there to act, what difference would it make how many examples I provided?


Interesting rationalization here, though substantively off issue/point. Since your view that ‘Jesus did no judgement so that must also be the case everywhere for the OT God’ then you need to demonstrate this to uphold your view!! That the only way to prove that it is valid!

[So do continue past your posted explanation of the Flood which I’ll address later. By the way, you could potentially say: God (scientifically) saw that it would happen for everything however: (A) that would not explain why the Bible and SOP say and describe God as actively doing many of these things and (b) if we indeed have free choices and the future is, at least to you, “Open”, (“inexistent” to me), the timeliness in the needed elements of Location, Time, Force, etc., in crucial combination to even spontaneous free choices.]
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/10/11 08:11 AM

By the Way the perfect Mercy and Justice of God in regards War is clearly stated in Deut 20:10-18. It states the reason why He allowed Israel to use military force for Canaan cities (vs. 18) and also how He tried to avert it with further cities (vs. 10ff).
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/10/11 09:26 AM

Quote:
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.


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


You wrote this:

Quote:
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.


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

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/10/11 10:00 AM

Quote:
NJK: So my point has been from the start that God only uses the sentence of death when sin threatens life. Of course Tom (unbiblically, in my understanding) said and says that ‘sin organically always is life threatening’

Tom:I haven't said this. This doesn't mean I disagree with it, but the fact that you use quotes here is a bit confusing, since quote marks usually indicate that you're quoting someone. What I've said is that there is an organic relationship between sin and death; that the inevitable result of sin is death.

NJK:I follow the convention of using single quote for a paraphrase. Since it seemed to me that you had indeed said that ‘the sinner must die because of the “organic relationship between sin and death; that the inevitable result of sin is death”’, thus sin is also threatening to the sinner himself’, I added that understood understanding in that paraphrase.


Ok.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Tom
As James puts it, sin, when it is finished, brings forth death.

NJK:As already said, I see this as fully blown/accomplished sin/sinful behavior. You are not giving the proper weight to the word “finished/completed” (Gr. #658 which is not ‘merely committed’ which was here expressed as “birthed”). Indeed the intended illustrative ‘development progression’ by James is: “conception” (#4815)... “birth” (#5088) and “finishing completion” (#658) = “fully lived and aged life” which, as it naturally really does, likewise then ends in a natural death; and all this stemming from the committed “union” act of ‘having given in to temptation’ (vs. 14).


Perhaps you could paraphrase what you think James meant. I think that he meant that sin, when finished, brings forth death, like an acorn, when finished, brings forth an oak tree.

I agree there's a process here, temptation => sin => death.

Quote:
NJK:-I also do not see in the Bible (or even in direct revelation in the SOP) a consuming fire type of destruction at the end of the 6000 years of GC.


How do you see that the wicked suffer the second death?

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Tom
Also the sting of death is sin; the wages of sin is death; the soul that sins shall die; convey the same thought. God Himself said one of these, and inspired others to say the rest.


Succinctly said, out of exegetical, and not your “proof-texting”, reasons:

the sting of death is sin - (1 Cor 15:56) = sin is the ‘sharp goading point’ reason that make it why death can occur in sinning created beings, and that by the barring of access to the Tree of Life!


There's no mention of, nor allusion to, the tree of life in the text. That's not exegesis.

The sting of death is sin means that sin is the thing which causes death.

Quote:
The sting of death - The sting which death bears; that with which he effects his purpose; that which is made use of to inflict death; or that which is the cause of death. There would be no death without sin.


From Barnes again. I'm quoting this because it was easily accessible.

Quote:
The sting of death is sin - The apostle explains himself particularly here: death could not have entered into the world if sin had not entered first; it was sin that not only introduced death, but has armed him with all his destroying force; the goad or dagger of death is sin; by this both body and soul are slain.


Clarke.

Quote:
The sting of death is sin,.... Death has a sting, and which was originally in it, and that is sin; sin is the cause of death, it is what has given rise and being to it; it entered into the world by it, and is supported in its empire through it; it gives it its resistless power, which reaches to all sorts of persons, young and old, rich and poor, high and low, bond and free; it gives it all its bitterness, agonies, and miseries; and it is by that it does all the hurt and mischief it does; and it may fitly be compared to a sting, for its poisonous and venomous nature:


Gills. Again, easy access, copy/paste. These are the first three I came across.

I'd be surprised if any commentary said something different. Do you have one that says that Paul is saying something other than that sin is the cause of death here? If so, please quote it.

Quote:
Tom: If they are filled with violence, then they're killing others, and the Tree of Life is no help in this case. It doesn't resurrect the dead. Eventually only one would be left, the strongest, most cunning violent person (or the luckiest), and then that person would kill himself or herself. Given what we know to be the case about sin, this seems like a very plausible scenario. What prevents things like this from happening is not the Tree of Life, but the grace of God. Take away the grace of God, and the scenario I've traced out, or a worse one, would take place so fast it would be head-spinning.
...
We simply have no idea of the "sinfulness of sin," as EGW often said, not giving the credit we should to the grace/kindness/mercy of God, because we don't perceive its importance.


NJK:Those were conditions with sinning people after the tree of life was removed. As I already addressed here things could have been drastically different without that measure.


I assume you're referring to the following:

Quote:
In the context of an existing “survival of the fittest” where Men could die from various causes, such violence was probably borne out of that, including mental imbalances. However in a perfect physical and mental state, many of the reasons for such violence may have been removed/not utilized from even a sinful, but, assuredly, perpetually living people. E.g., no need to basely covet your neighbor’s spouse if your own spouse is just as physically perfect.


The tree of life wouldn't restore man to a perfect mental state. The tree of life doesn't undo rebellion; it doesn't make the brain as if sin did not exist.

MM produced a quote on another thread from the SOP saying that impact of an act is a thousand times greater on the one doing the sin than on the one upon whom the sin is done. Here's the actual quote:

Quote:
Every sin, every unrighteous action, every transgression of the law of God, tells with a thousandfold more force upon the actor than the sufferer. (TDG 350)


The tree of life wouldn't undo this.

The problem of violence arises when one choose to act contrary to the principles of God's government. The tree of life doesn't fix this. Only repentance and faith in Christ can fix this.

Quote:
And just as a comparison, why don’t you see that “killing everywhere” debacle in our world today?? (as I’ll later point out)


Because Jesus Christ's coming has had an impact on this world. Things are better than they would have been had Christ not come.

Quote:
I have, during this discussion, come to ponder why God took that measure which seems unjustified vs. allowing sinful man to live on this planet without Him being present at all, but having access to the Tree of Life, as taking away the Tree and thus perpetual life solely because these are choosing to live apart of at least one of God’s law would seem like a petty:


The tree of life would have prolonged man's existence, and thus his suffering. God didn't want that.

Quote:
‘...or else I’ll take my ball and go home’ act on the part of God, however in your response above, I have seen the reason why. You say it is the ‘grace of God’ that prevents a total debacle on the earth which could also be understood as “mercy”.


The "grace of God" isn't the same concept as "mercy." One could say that God's grace was motivated by His mercy.

Quote:
So I see that God really had two option here:

Option #1 - Let sinning man indeed live on his own with the Tree of Life, but without His tempering Spirit and also under the full control of Satan, but also procreating. As I see it, it is because of the total absence of His Spirit then, that your scenario may indeed come to occur here. However I see it that Satan would have here his opportunity to grow his kingdom of rebellion, so he would not be, like he is now, seeking to vindictively lead these “subjects” to destruction, but would set himself up as a god over them and, ironically enough, probably have something similar as the last 6 commandments to maintain this needed life and livelihood, just as secular societies do today.

Also the GC war would go on as new territory and resources beyond this planet would come to be needed to and since Satan cannot created he would seek to overtake other worlds. So this would resemble “George Lucas’s Intergalactic Star Wars”. And for a fight to be considered as fair, it would have to be (Sinning) Humans vs. (Unfallen) Humans and not Angels vs. Humans. So other unfallen worlds would inevitably be drawn into this war and also their death, completely undeserved would then be likely to occur, despite having access to the Tree of Life. (That is another reason why I understand, derived from my understanding of Gen 3:22-24, that it is not sin itself that causes death but a forceful act is to be taken to effectuate (a deserved) death.


Just think of Nazi Germany. Under this option, Nazi Germany would be like heaven in comparison.

Quote:
Option #2 - (Chosen option) Remove the Tree of Life and instead allow His Spirit to ‘strive with even sinful men, His outrightly undeserving creation’ (Gen 6:3a), until there, as it was the case by the Flood, no longer any redeemable “thoughts” in them for Him to work with (Gen 6:5). This option also allows for the fairer and safer demonstration of the GC. Hence God’s Choice was perfectly wise. And the only way in which this world will come into a total sinful debacle is when, in the utter, past probation end, in the last Plague, God will become indivisibly “empassioned” and thus no longer have any sort of grace/mercy while the 4 winds that affect human passions will also have been allowed to blow, culminating in the 7th Plague utter suffering and chaos.


Had God not allowed man continued access to the tree of life, man's suffering would have been greatly prolonged. God's motivation here is the same that led to man's eating meat and having his lifetime, in mercy, cut short.

Quote:
That of course does not mean that no violence would exist, as it surely would, but that it probably may have been much less, indeed simply from the removal of that constant angst, stress, anxiety, pain, etc., to simply survive in a world that was naturally non-productive or cooperative, among other such hardships brought about by the removal of the fruit of life.


This isn't what we see in real life, either before the flood nor now. Before the flood, life was much easier than now, with precious metals easily obtainable, for example, trees that were much stronger than now, and other such advantages. Yet violence was greater then than now.

Also we see many violent people who have tremendous riches. It's not riches, or ease, which decreases violence, but the peace of mind which comes from knowing Christ.

Quote:
Also no need to fight for a would be “more favorable” geographical place to settle in.” etcs.


All this is ignoring the reality of sin. Sin is based on the principle of "me first." This is where violence comes from.

For example:

Quote:
1 Where do wars and fights come from among you? Do they not come from your desires for pleasure that war in your members? 2 You lust and do not have. You murder and covet and cannot obtain. You fight and war. (James 4)


Having access to the tree of life would not have fixed this problem.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/10/11 07:52 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
On: Mountain Man’s SOP quotes on ‘Fully Understanding God’:

My personal view which guides my Bible study is that we can fully understand about God what He has allowed to be revealed/recorded in Scripture and the SOP. I do not see that we have begun to either fully or rightly understand those revelation.

I also see that what has been revealed in the Bible and SOP is what is necessary for our redemption and GC victory. We are only responsible for what we can rightly ascertain about God in the Bible and not what cannot be known. So we should be diligent to understand these. The rest may come later in Heaven probably throughout eternity.

So I do not see that engaging in seeking to understand God fully according to these revelations as even being capable of making one seek to ‘understand what cannot be understood.’

I agree. As it pertains to "his strange act" we know Jesus is justified in punishing impenitent sinners.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/10/11 08:01 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
Originally Posted By: MM
MM:I would like to chime in on this point with some questions:


Fine. I'm taking things out of order, so if I haven't responded to a previous post of yours, don't think I've overlooked it.

Quote:
1. How do you define "organic relationship between sin and death"? Is it anything like gunshots to the head result in death?


It means there's a cause and effect relationship, like planting carrot seeds results in carrots. By faith/obedience we plant seeds resulting in life, or by unbelief/sin we plan seeds which result in death. God alone is the source of life. By unbelief/sin the sinner separates himself from God, thus cutting himself off from life.

Quote:
2. Why don't sinners suffer the second death the instant they sin?


Had Adam and Eve died the moment they sinned, the human race would have perished, and could not participate in the Great Controversy. God didn't want this to happen, so enabled a means by which there would be a probationary period in which people could make decisions which would be enacted, if that's the right word, in the resurrection.

Quote:
3. What enables sinners to live a life of sin without succumbing to the second death immediately?


The grace of God.

Quote:
4. What will enable sinners to live long enough to endure the judgment of their sins without succumbing to the second death immediately?


Same.

Quote:
5. What will enable Satan to live long after sinners perish?


Satan's vital force it would seem to me. It seems that angels have significantly more vital force than humans, and that Satan, as the greatest of the angels (as originally created) has more vital force than the others. I don't have any SOP texts for this, but you asked me, so I'm answering what comes to mind.

You say it's the grace of God that enables sinners to sin without immediately experiencing the second death, but then you say it's Satan's vital force that enables him to live with sin long after sinners perish in the lake of fire. What's the difference?

PS - Thank you for assuring me you will respond to 132454 thru 456.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/10/11 08:16 PM

Tom, the following quotes make it clear sinners will revisit, during final judgment, each and "every sin which they have ever committed." Jesus will not lump their sins together.

Quote:
The guilt of every sin pressed its weight upon the divine soul of the world's Redeemer. The evil thoughts, the evil words, the evil deeds of every son and daughter of Adam, called for retribution upon Himself; for He had become man's substitute. {FLB 101.3}

How little do they consider that their deeds and words are passing into judgment, and that every sin must have its retribution in the future! {RH, February 28, 1882 par. 4}

These sins in a short time will be revealed in just their enormity. God's eye does not slumber. He knows every sin that is hidden from mortal eye. The guilty know just what sins to confess that their souls may be clean before God. {1T 155.3}

Every man's work passes in review before God and is registered for faithfulness or unfaithfulness. Opposite each name in the books of heaven is entered with terrible exactness every wrong word, every selfish act, every unfulfilled duty, and every secret sin, with every artful dissembling. Heaven-sent warnings or reproofs neglected, wasted moments, unimproved opportunities, the influence exerted for good or for evil, with its far-reaching results, all are chronicled by the recording angel. {GC 482.1}

Though all nations are to pass in judgment before God, yet He will examine the case of each individual with as close and searching scrutiny as if there were not another being upon the earth. Everyone must be tested and found without spot or wrinkle or any such thing. {GC 489.3}

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}

Satan will be judged by his own idea of justice. It was his plea that every sin should meet its punishment. If God remitted the punishment, he said, He was not a God of truth or justice. Satan will meet the judgment which he said God should exercise (MS 111, 1897). {5BC 1087.4}

I bring this point up because I recall you once arguing there will not be time enough during final judgment for Jesus to judge every sin everyone committed. But the quotes above make it crystal clear Jesus will judge every sin ever committed by everyone. From this point, I am constrained to ask - Since revisiting even one sin during judgment is sufficient to cause intense emotional and physical suffering ending rather rapidly in eternal death, what, then, will God do to enable sinners to endure intense emotional and physical suffering for millions of sins without dying prematurely?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/10/11 08:36 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
M: You need to balance your favorite quote with the following insights: ... God has not revealed everything there is to know about Himself. We are incapable of comprehending certain aspects of God. He has only revealed everything we "need to know" about Him. One of the many things He has not explained to us is "His strange act".

T: This isn't linguistically viable. She wrote that all that man needs to know, or can know, of God was revealed in the life and character of His son. You're introducing exceptions to this, without any justification whatsoever. She nowhere wrote that God's "strange act" wasn't revealed in the life and character of His Son. Your "balancing" is simply negating what she wrote. If what you're suggesting were true, then the following would also be true: "All that man needs to know, or can know, of God was NOT revealed in the life and character of His son." This is the direct opposite of what she actually wrote.

Do you agree the following quotes make it clear we are incapable, in our sinful state, of knowing everything there is to know about God?

Quote:
We can know of Him all that human beings can bear. {UL 347.6}

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}

God cannot be understood by men. His ways and works are past finding out. In regard to the revelations that He has made of Himself in His Word, we may talk, but other than this, let us say of Him, Thou art God, and Thy ways are past finding out. {6BC 1079.11}

Human talents and human conjecture have tried by searching to find out God. Many have trodden this pathway. The highest intellect may tax itself until it is wearied out, in conjectures regarding God, but the effort will be fruitless, and the fact will remain that man by searching cannot find out God. This problem has not been given us to solve. All that man needs to know and can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son, the Great Teacher. As we learn more and more of what man is, of what we ourselves are, in God's sight, we shall fear and tremble before Him. {MM 95.2}

In Christ Jesus is a revelation of the glory of the Godhead. All that the human agent can know of God to the saving of the soul, is the measure of the knowledge of the truth as it is in Jesus, to which he can attain; for Christ is he who represents the Father. The most wonderful truth to be grasped by men is the truth, "Immanuel, God with us." Christ is the wisdom of God. He is the great "I AM" to the world. As we contemplate the glory of the divine character as revealed in Christ, we are led to exclaim, "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!" This wisdom is displayed in the love that reaches out for the recovery of lost and ruined man. {ST, December 12, 1895 par. 5}

The Lord does not delight in vengeance, though he executes 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. Says the prophet Isaiah: "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." The work of wrath and destruction is indeed a strange, unwelcome work for Him who is infinite in love. {ST, August 24, 1882 par. 15}

The forbearance that God has exercised toward the wicked has emboldened 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." To our merciful God the act of punishment is a strange act. Yet He will "by no means clear the guilty." By terrible things in righteousness He will vindicate the authority of His downtrodden law. 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. {ST, January 25, 1910 par. 16}

His creative works are just as incomprehensible as his existence. {3SG 93.1}

"Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised, and his greatness is unsearchable." {3SG 93.2}

"Which doeth great things, past finding out; yea, and wonders without number." {3SG 93.3}

"Which doeth great things, and unsearchable; marvelous things without number." {3SG 93.4}

God thundereth marvelously with his voice. Great things doeth he, which we cannot comprehend." {3SG 93.5}

"O, the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counselor?" {3SG 93.6}

"God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Language is too feeble for us to attempt to portray the love of God. We believe it, we rejoice in it, but we cannot comprehend it. {18MR 337.2}

Yet the finite minds of men are inadequate fully to comprehend the plans and purposes of the Infinite One. We can never by searching find out God. We must not attempt to lift with presumptuous hand the curtain behind which He veils His majesty. The apostle exclaims: "How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!" Romans 11:33. We can so far comprehend His dealings with us, and the motives by which He is actuated, that we may discern boundless love and mercy united to infinite power. Our Father in heaven orders everything in wisdom and righteousness, and we are not to be dissatisfied and distrustful, but to bow in reverent submission. He will reveal to us as much of His purposes as it is for our good to know, and beyond that we must trust the Hand that is omnipotent, the Heart that is full of love. {DD 11.2}

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}

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

In the natural world we are constantly surrounded with mysteries that we cannot fathom. . . . Should we then be surprised to find that in the spiritual world also there are mysteries that we cannot fathom? {FLB 14.4}

The mysteries of the Bible . . . are among the strongest evidences of its divine inspiration. If it contained no account of God but that which we could comprehend; if His greatness and majesty could be grasped by finite minds, then the Bible would not, as now, bear the unmistakable evidences of divinity. . . . The more we search the Bible, the deeper is our conviction that it is the word of the living God, and human reason bows before the majesty of divine revelation. {FLB 14.5}

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}

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

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

We are not now sufficiently advanced in spiritual attainments to comprehend the mysteries of God. But when we shall compose the family of heaven, these mysteries will be unfolded before us. Of the members of that family John writes: "They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat. For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes." "And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads." {6BC 1091.7}

Then much will be revealed in explanation of matters upon which God now keeps silence because we have not gathered up and appreciated that which has been made known of the eternal mysteries. The ways of Providence will be made clear; the mysteries of grace through Christ will be unfolded. 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. Truth will be unfolded to the mind, free from obscurity, in a single line, and its brightness will be endurable. The heart will be made to sing for joy. Controversies will be forever ended, and all difficulties will be solved (ST Jan. 30, 1912). {6BC 1091.8}

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

Man cannot by searching find out God. Let none seek with presumptuous hand to lift the veil that conceals His glory. "Unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!" Romans 11:33. It is a proof of His mercy that there is the hiding of His power; for to lift the veil that conceals the divine presence is death. No mortal mind can penetrate the secrecy in which the Mighty One dwells and works. Only that which He sees fit to reveal can we comprehend of Him. Reason must acknowledge an authority superior to itself. Heart and intellect must bow to the great I AM. {8T 285.2}

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"?

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"?

Also, do you think - "All that man needs to know, or can know, of God was revealed in the life and character of His son" - must be interpreted to mean "Jesus revealed everything there is to know about God while He was here in the flesh"?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/10/11 08:42 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
1. In the OT, why did Jesus command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle?

M: Seems to me you believe Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in battle because 1) the Jews failed to trust Jesus to defeat their enemies in a godly way, and 2) the Jews expected Him to think and behave like a pagan god. Do you agree with my assessment of your view as it relates to the question above?

T: No, of course not. But surely you must know that.

Please elaborate.

Quote:
M: Was Jesus, while here in the flesh (as opposed to after He returned to heaven), forced to command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle?

T: What are the principles laid out in GC 35-37? That's the important question. Did Jesus Christ teach and embody these principles? Yes, He did. Where we're disagreeing is in regards to what we think God is like. I believe God's character was revealed fully by Jesus Christ, and the best revelation was the cross. Rather than use force to get His way, Jesus Christ voluntarily submitted to torture and a horrible death from the very creatures He came to save. This is what God is like. Not just sometimes, but all the time. The principles explained in GC 35-37 are in harmony with what Jesus Christ revealed. Your perceptions of God's character appear to me to be schizophrenic. Some of the time, as it appears to me you see things, He exhibits the qualities Jesus Christ embodied on earth, especially at the cross, but other times He acts indistinguishably from Satan, leaving us with no means to know who is acting.

I don’t understand how your response answers the question above.

Quote:
2. In the OT, why did Jesus command godly people to kill ungodly people through the execution of capital punishment?

T: You repeated yourself.

Why do you think so?

Quote:
M: Was Jesus, while here in the flesh (as opposed to after He returned to heaven), forced to command godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment?

T: What's your argument here? That since Jesus Christ, while here in the flesh, wasn't forced to command godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment, it therefore follows that it's not the case that all that we can know of God was revealed by Him? I can't think of why you would ask this question otherwise. Why not just set forth your argument?

You wrote, “Jesus Christ, while here in the flesh, wasn't forced to command godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment.” Is this your answer to the question above?

In response to your question, I believe the OT Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment, and the fact the NT Jesus did not do so makes it clear He did not demonstrate this attribute of God’s character while here in the flesh.

Quote:
Quote:
Exodus
22:20 He that sacrificeth unto [any] god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

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.

Deuteronomy
2:34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:
20:17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; [namely], the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:

Joshua
10:40 So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded.

M: Seems to me you believe Jesus was reluctantly willing to command the kinds of things described in the passages above for as long as it would take Him to teach the Jews how to "turn the other cheek"? Is this what you believe?

T: I believe, as I've said so many times, that for us to properly interpret Scripture, we need to know God's character. I believe that the first order of business is to study the life and character of His Son, whose "whole purpose" was "the revelation of God." What is it that Jesus Christ revealed? What was Jesus Christ like? How did He treat His enemies? I don't believe that He acted any differently in the Old Testament than while here in the flesh. Do you?

Do the scriptures above require interpretation? Ellen wrote, “The language of the Bible should be explained according to its obvious meaning, unless a symbol or figure is employed.” {GC 598.3} “If we would not build our hopes of heaven upon a false foundation we must accept the Bible as it reads and believe that the Lord means what He says.” {5T 171.1} You seem to be saying, no, we cannot take the passages above at faced value because . . . . If so, why not?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/10/11 09:07 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
M: Are His hands tied in the sense He isn’t free to prevent things like N&A being burned alive? Do such things happen with or without His consent?

T: Mike, God allowed it to happen. So obviously he was able to do so. Instead of asking questions like this which have only one answer, which is obvious, perhaps you could just write out what you're thinking.

I had no idea it was obvious to you Jesus has options He chooses, at times, not to exercise. Now that I know what you believe I am in a position where I can ask the following question – When Jesus decided N&A and the two bands of fifty were worthy of death, who or what caused the fire that burned them alive?

Quote:
4. Is Satan free to do as he pleases without limits?

T: Satan would destroy everyone, and there wouldn't be any Great Controversy, which is a point I've made many times, which you are aware of.

M: Does Satan exercise self-control? Does he work to restrain himself? Who or what establishes and enforces the limits Satan does not exceed?

T: We get some idea of how this works from Job. I don't know that I'm aware of how things work beyond what's revealed there.

What do we learn from the story of Job that helps us understand who or what establishes and enforces the limits Satan does not exceed?

Quote:
5. Did Jesus, while here in the flesh (as opposed to after He returned to heaven), choose to allow things like ungodly people being burned alive?

T: O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen [doth gather] her brood under [her] wings, and ye would not! (Luke 13:34)

M: You seem to be suggesting Jesus allowed ungodly people to be killed while He was here in the flesh. Who was killed?

T: In what Jesus said, He expressed that He was willing, desiring even, to protect Jerusalem as a chicken would protect its chicks. He was very sorry they did not permit Him to do so. This is the principle enunciated in GC 35-37.

I don’t understand how your response answers my question.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/11/11 01:42 AM

Quote:
M: Are His hands tied in the sense He isn’t free to prevent things like N&A being burned alive? Do such things happen with or without His consent?

T: Mike, God allowed it to happen. So obviously he was able to do so. Instead of asking questions like this which have only one answer, which is obvious, perhaps you could just write out what you're thinking.

M:I had no idea it was obvious to you Jesus has options He chooses, at times, not to exercise.


Mike, you asked me if it was possible for God to make a choice He made. What kind of question is that? Or did I misunderstand your question? Isn't that what you asked?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/11/11 01:43 AM

Quote:
MM:You say it's the grace of God that enables sinners to sin without immediately experiencing the second death, but then you say it's Satan's vital force that enables him to live with sin long after sinners perish in the lake of fire. What's the difference?

PS - Thank you for assuring me you will respond to 132454 thru 456.


I was suggesting that Satan lived longer than other angels because of having a greater vital force than they have.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/11/11 01:49 AM

Originally Posted By: MM
I bring this point up because I recall you once arguing there will not be time enough during final judgment for Jesus to judge every sin everyone committed. But the quotes above make it crystal clear Jesus will judge every sin ever committed by everyone. From this point, I am constrained to ask - Since revisiting even one sin during judgment is sufficient to cause intense emotional and physical suffering ending rather rapidly in eternal death, what, then, will God do to enable sinners to endure intense emotional and physical suffering for millions of sins without dying prematurely?


Well, let's just do some math. Let's say a wicked person commits 1,000 sins in a day. Does that seem reasonable to you? If not, we can adjust it. In one year that's 365,000 sins. If the person lives a long life, that's 3,000,000 sins.

Let's say it takes 10 seconds to review a sin. Does that seem reasonable to you? If not, we can adjust it.

To review 3,000,000 sins at 10 seconds a sin would take 30,000,000 seconds, or a little over 57 years. I don't think the judgment will take 57 years. Do you?
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/11/11 01:57 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
We've spoken some about the plagues of Egypt. The traditional view is that God applied more and more force against Pharaoh until he finally capitulated. I've mentioned that this idea presents God as acting in a similar fashion to someone wanting protection money. Accidents, or plagues, keep happening until the one applying force gets his way.


As I subsequently responded and detailedly explained, plague by plague in this post, (to which you never answered!), that “traditional view” and assumption is not supported by the Biblical fact that God repeatedly worked to forcefully harden Pharaoh’s heart starting from the 6th plague and all that for a preplanned “mighty acts” demonstration purpose and to merely to make Pharaoh capitulate.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Regarding the flood, a couple of quick thoughts. One is that models creation scientists have developed, the Bible, and the SOP, all agree that the waters of the flood were primarily under the earth. These waters exploded into the atmosphere, and that precipitated the flood. The amount of water released was nothing like any flood we've ever seen.


To me, the SOP’s statement in PP 96.3; 99.1 that the seas and rivers were permitted to overflow their bank was key to the flooding. [Still, as I see it, God (“passively”) did this destruction (and not Satan).] Furthermore, the Hebrew of Gen 7:11 speaks of an inflicted destructive act and a “permissive” one. The word for “burst open” #01234 consistently speaks of something that was whole and was then forcefully divided, split open, torn apart, etc. It is also in the passive form (Niphal), meaning that they did not do this “splitting open” own their own but were acted upon by an external force. The same goes for the “floodgates in the sky” that were opened. Also, after the flood the water covering all of the earth highest mountains did not all evaporate as this would have oversaturated the atmosphere, but probably also with the winds sent by God, was force to return to their previous boundaries. So it seems to me that the water that formed into clouds had been prepared and stored up by God from the evaporation of ocean/sea waters, (and guided towards land for the flood), so that when this great flooding was ended, an excess of water on this planet and its atmosphere would not occur. And the indeed great amount of waters that came from the deeps probably could not be returned back there. So that may have caused more land masses to become flooded resulting in our current ca. 70% world surface coverage by waters whereas before it may have been much less.

The key thing here is that the Hebrew Grammar/Syntax of Gen 7:11 speaks of an externally acting, and intact constitution break up of the fountains of the deep as well as the floodgates in Heaven. And God also acted to allow the seas and rivers to overflow their banks. However, as seen today, rivers and seas only do so because of e.g., earthquakes under sea (= Tsunamis) and or an over abundance of rainfall. So I would see this allowing as being secondary to the caused flooding by the opening of the fountains of the deep and the rain fall. (I.e., e.g, Evaporated ocean waters being caused to fall inland as rain upon inland rivers and overflowing them.) In other words, God then did not act to prevent the in filling rivers and seas from not overflow their borders.

Originally Posted By: Tom
These waters, to explode into the atmosphere, must have been under tremendous pressure.


Where are you reading/deriving this ‘exploding into the atmosphere’ i.e., which is at least 6 km (3.5) in the air. Are you implying that this is what was the flood rain fall??


Originally Posted By: Tom
Both of the following possibilities harmonizes with the ideas I've been presenting

1.God knew the disaster was going to take place. He could have prevented it, and would have, given a favorable response to Noah's preaching.

2.God was preventing the disaster from occurring, but stopped doing so when His overtures were continually rejected, after the many years of preaching of Noah.


From the syntax of Gen 7:11, as well as the SOP quotes cited by Mountain Man on the flood earlier in this thread (maybe he can readily relocate them), I rather see pointedly active actions of God, [i[acting[/I] to cause these destructive agents/“weapons” from otherwise stable and inexistent elements.

Originally Posted By: Tom
If God were acting directly to cause the flood, He would have had to cause the pressure in the first place, as well as not prevent the action from occurring.


That’s pointedly what the exegetical Biblical evidence indicates!

Originally Posted By: Tom
But you wrote elsewhere that you don't seen any difference between God's sending fiery serpents upon the Israelites, and His withdrawing His protection, so why would you care here, or in the other incidents you mentioned, what happened?


(Already explained.) Also, assumedly here, we both fully view the Bible as the Inspired and Infallible Word of/from God and (doctrinally) inerrant. So if your view is Biblical, then I would accept it only when it is demonstrated from the Bible (and in secondary corroboration with the SOP, when it rightly does so.)
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/11/11 02:36 AM

Quote:
M: You need to balance your favorite quote with the following insights: ... God has not revealed everything there is to know about Himself. We are incapable of comprehending certain aspects of God. He has only revealed everything we "need to know" about Him. One of the many things He has not explained to us is "His strange act".

T: This isn't linguistically viable. She wrote that all that man needs to know, or can know, of God was revealed in the life and character of His son. You're introducing exceptions to this, without any justification whatsoever. She nowhere wrote that God's "strange act" wasn't revealed in the life and character of His Son. Your "balancing" is simply negating what she wrote. If what you're suggesting were true, then the following would also be true: "All that man needs to know, or can know, of God was NOT revealed in the life and character of His son." This is the direct opposite of what she actually wrote.

M:Do you agree the following quotes make it clear we are incapable, in our sinful state, of knowing everything there is to know about God?


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).

Quote:
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"?


I'm sure we can learn more about it.

Quote:
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"?


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.

Quote:
Also, do you think - "All that man needs to know, or can know, of God was revealed in the life and character of His son" - must be interpreted to mean "Jesus revealed everything there is to know about God while He was here in the flesh"?


Sure, of course. That's what it says. Well, the context is clearly dealing with Christ in His humanity, so if we accept that this is dealing with Christ's earthly mission, how else could it be read?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/11/11 02:41 AM

Quote:
M: Are His hands tied in the sense He isn’t free to prevent things like N&A being burned alive? Do such things happen with or without His consent?

T: Mike, God allowed it to happen. So obviously he was able to do so. Instead of asking questions like this which have only one answer, which is obvious, perhaps you could just write out what you're thinking.

M:I had no idea it was obvious to you Jesus has options He chooses, at times, not to exercise.


You asked if God was free to do things that He did. Obviously He was free to do so, which we know, since He did them. That's what I said. Why are you concluding something different than what I said?

I also suggested that rather than ask a question like this, which is obvious, that you simply set out what you're thinking. But rather than do this, you're just asking more questions.

Quote:
Now that I know what you believe I am in a position where I can ask the following question – When Jesus decided N&A and the two bands of fifty were worthy of death, who or what caused the fire that burned them alive?


This doesn't make any sense. You asked if God was free to do something which He did, which, of course, He was. I pointed out that this is obvious. That doesn't put you into any position where you weren't already.

Quote:
4. Is Satan free to do as he pleases without limits?

T: Satan would destroy everyone, and there wouldn't be any Great Controversy, which is a point I've made many times, which you are aware of.

M: Does Satan exercise self-control? Does he work to restrain himself? Who or what establishes and enforces the limits Satan does not exceed?

T: We get some idea of how this works from Job. I don't know that I'm aware of how things work beyond what's revealed there.

M:What do we learn from the story of Job that helps us understand who or what establishes and enforces the limits Satan does not exceed?


You've read Job. What does it say?

Quote:
5. Did Jesus, while here in the flesh (as opposed to after He returned to heaven), choose to allow things like ungodly people being burned alive?

T: O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen [doth gather] her brood under [her] wings, and ye would not! (Luke 13:34)

M: You seem to be suggesting Jesus allowed ungodly people to be killed while He was here in the flesh. Who was killed?

T: In what Jesus said, He expressed that He was willing, desiring even, to protect Jerusalem as a chicken would protect its chicks. He was very sorry they did not permit Him to do so. This is the principle enunciated in GC 35-37.

M:I don’t understand how your response answers my question.


My answer describes the principle at work.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/11/11 03:02 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
T:We've spoken some about the plagues of Egypt. The traditional view is that God applied more and more force against Pharaoh until he finally capitulated. I've mentioned that this idea presents God as acting in a similar fashion to someone wanting protection money. Accidents, or plagues, keep happening until the one applying force gets his way.

NJK:As I subsequently responded and detailedly explained, plague by plague in this post, (to which you never answered!),


I don't think I could possibly answer everything you write. If I don't answer something, just do as everyone else does when that happens, and bring it up again.

Quote:
that “traditional view” and assumption is not supported by the Biblical fact that God repeatedly worked to forcefully harden Pharaoh’s heart starting from the 6th plague and all that for a preplanned “mighty acts” demonstration purpose and to merely to make Pharaoh capitulate.


The Bible says that Paraoah hardened his own heart. God is often represented as doing that which He permits. This makes more sense to me than that God did something to influence Pharoah's free will to act contrary to his (i.e. Pharoah's) own best interests.

Quote:
T:Regarding the flood, a couple of quick thoughts. One is that models creation scientists have developed, the Bible, and the SOP, all agree that the waters of the flood were primarily under the earth. These waters exploded into the atmosphere, and that precipitated the flood. The amount of water released was nothing like any flood we've ever seen.

NJK:To me, the SOP’s statement in PP 96.3; 99.1 that the seas and rivers were permitted to overflow their bank was key to the flooding. [Still, as I see it, God (“passively”) did this destruction (and not Satan).] Furthermore, the Hebrew of Gen 7:11 speaks of an inflicted destructive act and a “permissive” one. The word for “burst open” #01234 consistently speaks of something that was whole and was then forcefully divided, split open, torn apart, etc. It is also in the passive form (Niphal), meaning that they did not do this “splitting open” own their own but were acted upon by an external force. The same goes for the “floodgates in the sky” that were opened. Also, after the flood the water covering all of the earth highest mountains did not all evaporate as this would have oversaturated the atmosphere, but probably also with the winds sent by God, was force to return to their previous boundaries. So it seems to me that the water that formed into clouds had been prepared and stored up by God from the evaporation of ocean/sea waters, (and guided towards land for the flood), so that when this great flooding was ended, an excess of water on this planet and its atmosphere would not occur. And the indeed great amount of waters that came from the deeps probably could not be returned back there. So that may have caused more land masses to become flooded resulting in our current ca. 70% world surface coverage by waters whereas before it may have been much less.


There weren't any oceans at this time, so this theory can't be right on the face of it.

If you look at the SOP writings, you'll see that she speaks about how the antediluvians believed a flood was impossible, because they didn't understand that there were great quantities of water underground. The key to the flood was in these underground waters. There had to be enough water to form the oceans, which did not exist at this time. This is an incomprehensible amount of water.

Quote:
The key thing here is that the Hebrew Grammar/Syntax of Gen 7:11 speaks of an externally acting, and intact constitution break up of the fountains of the deep as well as the floodgates in Heaven. And God also acted to allow the seas and rivers to overflow their banks. However, as seen today, rivers and seas only do so because of e.g., earthquakes under sea (= Tsunamis) and or an over abundance of rainfall. So I would see this allowing as being secondary to the caused flooding by the opening of the fountains of the deep and the rain fall. (I.e., e.g, Evaporated ocean waters being caused to fall inland as rain upon inland rivers and overflowing them.) In other words, God then did not act to prevent the in filling rivers and seas from not overflow their borders.


Once again, there weren't any oceans at this time.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Tom
These waters, to explode into the atmosphere, must have been under tremendous pressure.

NJK:Where are you reading/deriving this ‘exploding into the atmosphere’ i.e., which is at least 6 km (3.5) in the air. Are you implying that this is what was the flood rain fall??


Yes. This is how the creation science models work which I have seen, and I believe this agrees with Scripture and the SOP as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Tom
Both of the following possibilities harmonizes with the ideas I've been presenting

1.God knew the disaster was going to take place. He could have prevented it, and would have, given a favorable response to Noah's preaching.

2.God was preventing the disaster from occurring, but stopped doing so when His overtures were continually rejected, after the many years of preaching of Noah.


NJK:From the syntax of Gen 7:11, as well as the SOP quotes cited by Mountain Man on the flood earlier in this thread (maybe he can readily relocate them), I rather see pointedly active actions of God, [i[acting[/I] to cause these destructive agents/“weapons” from otherwise stable and inexistent elements.


The water from the depths below had to get in the atmosphere somehow.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Tom
If God were acting directly to cause the flood, He would have had to cause the pressure in the first place, as well as not prevent the action from occurring.

NJK:That’s pointedly what the exegetical Biblical evidence indicates!


This doesn't seem to make much sense. The waters would already be under great pressure simply by virtue of being there. God wouldn't have to do something special to make this happen, just like He doesn't need to do anything special to make gravity happen. To *prevent* destruction from occurring; that *this* would require special action on the part of God makes sense, just as God is presently at work preventing destruction.

This is God's character: He prevents destruction. The character of the enemy, called "the destroyer" in Scripture, is to destroy. Jesus Christ, the revelation of God, came not to destroy, but to save, manifest His character (and God's) as "God, the savior."

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Tom
But you wrote elsewhere that you don't seen any difference between God's sending fiery serpents upon the Israelites, and His withdrawing His protection, so why would you care here, or in the other incidents you mentioned, what happened?

NJK:(Already explained.) Also, assumedly here, we both fully view the Bible as the Inspired and Infallible Word of/from God and (doctrinally) inerrant. So if your view is Biblical, then I would accept it only when it is demonstrated from the Bible (and in secondary corroboration with the SOP, when it rightly does so.)


I don't understand on what basis you think that God acts directly as opposed to indirectly, given that there are cases where God is said to act directly when He didn't.

For example, in one place it says that God killed Saul, whereas in another, it says that Saul killed himself. Indeed, as I recall, the author of the respective books consistently presented God in these respective manners, with one attributing all evil to God (as Sovereign of the universe, God being presented as doing that which He permits), and the other not.

So given that God is often presented as doing that which He permits, when do you know when He is doing something, or permitting it?

What I'm suggesting is we can know that whenever evil occurs, it's never the case that God is actively doing it, but He is always permitting it. I imagine you would agree with this, but would disagree as to what evil is, arguing that if God does a thing, then it can't be evil, which just brings us back to where we were, as I believe acting violently (or what would be termed violently if anyone else were doing it besides God, as you would prefer some other term, but surely something like dousing someone with fire would be termed a violent action, in normal parlance) is evil, and contrary to God's character.

When Jesus Christ was urged to destroy, He responded, "You know not what spirit you are." "Spirit" here is representative of one's character. Jesus Christ responded as He did to the suggestion that He destroy ("The Son of Man came not to destroy but to save") because of His character.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/11/11 04:48 AM

Quote:
NJK: Indeed according to your incorrectly limiting view due to various artificial reasons, the action of God in the NT Church with Annanias and Sapphira is of no consequence. So God is really to be limited to what was done by Christ between 27-31 A.D.!??

Tom: You could mention Herod as well.


Good example! That make’s one more episode you need to show fits into your paradigm/view.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I think if you have the idea that these incidents involve God's acting different than Jesus acted during His time here in the flesh (4BC - 31 A.D.), then these incidents are being misunderstood, just as much as any such OT incidents are.


I see that God directly killed and/or had killed many people in the OT. Jesus had no prophetic/theological need/mandate to do that during His ministry. (Furthermore, him doing so may have been against the imposed Roman Laws of the time in regards to Capital Punishment, hence the ensnaring/cornering attempt in the Woman Caught in Adultery (see {DA 460.5})

[Btw, 8 B.C. is actually the most exgetically and substantively conclusive dating for Christ’s birth and not the popular 4 B.C. date. See here.]

Originally Posted By: Tom
Once again, given that you see no difference between God's sending fiery serpents and withdrawing His protection from serpents which were already there, why would you care how these incidents are perceived?


(Already addressed). And what was the health harm that God was always preventing in Herod. Evidently here, you want to use the blanket assumptions that God is actively preventing everyone from dying from some health malfunction!? Seems to me that much more violent and perverted sinners today need to suffer this judgement.

Quote:
T:It's not necessary to look at each and every incident. They all follow the same principles. We can look at a few, and learn from those, and apply the principles to others.

NJK:You’ll first need to prove this “all follow” claim in, at the very least, the above cited episodes!

Tom: No, this isn't necessary.


Yes it outrightly, incontrovertibly is.

Originally Posted By: Tom
If the underlying principles are understood, it's not necessary to apply them to any arbitrary list of incidents a person can mention.


You are claiming here to have baked a cake (principles) without any ingredients. One normatively, scientifically draws “principles” from concrete demonstration/experiment. Otherwise you do not have principles but mere opinions and opting to not demonstrate that they work in applied/real situation just proves that they were never founded nor valid. One just then has to mindlessly take your subjective word (= opinions) for it.

Since you believe that your “principles” apply to all incidents in the Bible, the how is any list of episodes from the Bible to show this “arbitrary”. Only the selection of incidents may be an arbitrary selection (i.e., from anywhere in Genesis to Revelation) however the incidents themselves are substantively not arbitrary.

Originally Posted By: Tom
If this were the case, one would be constrained to go through all of them, as any arbitrary list is as good as another.


Anyone can easily see that this claim is completely irrational. You do not necessarily to prove all of them. Indeed I have selected examples that clearly, in my view, contradict you view. So show that they do not. Perhaps you only think that such clearly contradicting examples are arbitrary. Furthermore, I see much more of such direct Divine judgements in the Bible than even what I now understand to be Divine passive ones.

Also to generally also address the commands of God for Israel to effectuate capital punishments or Wars where total populations were to be eradicated. How is that not a direct act of/from God. (vs. The teflon Mafia don who pleads not guilty because it was his capo soldier who had done the killing. Even fallen man saw that it just to draft R.I.C.O and Criminal Organization laws to close that loophole. Is God less just and fair??

Originally Posted By: Tom
What I've been asserting is that there are certain principles at work, including:


Let’s see if this “cake” is made up of any “cake ingredients”:

Originally Posted By: Tom
1.All that can be known of God was revealed by the life and teachings of Jesus Christ during His earthly mission.


Your stance here wants to preclude everything outside of the Gospel accounts. I do not see that this is what the SOP had in mind. Furthermore, you do not address the circumstantial realities, Gospel mandate and Legalities which all variously limited the extent of Christ actions on this earthly mission. Jesus also wanted to emphasize that the low and hypocritical level of righteousness amongst God’s people then made it that just/righteous judgements such as those involving capital punishment could not be enforced. (Cf. Matt 5:20) It indeed was the leaders who were deserving of these punishments. Also, these capital punishments may have been done during the 3.5 years of Christ public ministry, (that is of course if the Roman’s honored them, especially the more religious ones), yet you don’t read of Jesus going to such a probable public execution and saying that it should not be done, and that oddly enough, because ‘God does not condone such direct and inflicted killing which are done for Him and in His name by His People’!?

Originally Posted By: Tom
2.God is just like Jesus Christ in character.


I see that you are significantly looking at things reversedly. Many statements of Jesus say that He was imitating the Father. As such He also did not act unjustly and thus have someone killed just to demonstrate that the Father had done this in the OT. He rather did just like God and, not doing away with such capital punishment laws, insisted that it be done in a righteous way (John 7:24 - and a “righteous” judgement is not the same as a “just” as seen in the episode related by John in the next chapter.

Originally Posted By: Tom
3.Jesus Christ was not violent, and taught anti-violence.


If this “violence” means malicious acts, then that statement if fully true.

Originally Posted By: Tom
5.The use of force is contrary to the principles of God's government.


If it means “use force” then a statement like (Luke 22:35-38) could easily disprove this, indeed as the time for this use of capable force had now come. Jesus indeed used light force to exact, or seek to exact, just acts from His opposers and enemies. (E.g., ‘not arresting Him as he was indeed God‘ John 18:5, 6 - DA 695.1). Christ’s miracles were also a use of supernatural force to this similar effect (see e.g., John 11:4, 40-42). This is also just like God to use shades of light force to seek to instill an inceptive fear in man (e.g, Egypt Plagues Exod 7:3-5; 11:9), yet, as seen with Christ’s arresters, man is free to be compelled by this force or not.

Originally Posted By: Tom
4.There are thousand dangers from which God protects us constantly. Any degree of destruction is possible by God's simply withdrawing His protection. There is no need for God to act actively to produce destruction.


That possibly may, to an extent, be the case, however that blanket supposition is not what the Bible and SOP explicitly state in many, if not most, pertinent instances. And the passive destructions of God (God removing His hand from an already formed/present danger - which is not even leaving a person to follow (the destructive path) what they always wanted to follow as this contra-theologically imply that God is forcing people not do right), still do come from Him, i.e., His allowing of it. That is why I now see the God vs. Satan categories instead on seeing this as ‘an Active God vs. a Passive God.’

Indeed the presence and influence of God’s is not doing anything forceful, but is just whispering a Good alternative to the Satan’s evil suggestions. People are always entirely free to choose what they will follow. It is when they commit the unpardonable sin that God removes this good, suggestive influence and these people are barraged with a flood of only evil ideas, hence the spiral downwards into chaos with God then also not intervening to avert the natural consequence of the actions. That is all what is involved in the Four Winds event in the end (blowing upon human passions) as comes from the withdrawal of God’s balancing spirit (=Divine wind). In this way, these Four winds of Human Passions are no longer equally countered by the Wind of God’s Spirit and thus they figuratively are permitted to freely blow upon the earth.

Originally Posted By: Tom
These are a few. Now if these are genuine principles, then there are always in effect.


As transparently demonstrated above, they Substantively (=Biblically) and Theologically, even Prophetically not “genuine”. The have proven to just be eisegetical suppositions.

Originally Posted By: Tom
We don't have to consider cases where God acts according to these principles and cases where He doesn't, because there aren't any cases where He doesn't.


As I see it , that is loopingly, wildly circularly irrational.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Therefore understanding any situation which involves these principles is sufficient.


So you indeed do need to apply them to a, and according to you “any cases” claim, any situation to see/understand that they would/do work!?

Originally Posted By: Tom
The incident that we have the most information about is the destruction of Jerusalem, so that's the one I've spent the most time on.


EGW does not state this as an all and all situation, but just a major demonstration of what how man can and do come to cause their own destruction. Still I see that God had a hand in this to limit Satan’s permission here in just mercy. It that destruction had been to wrap up the world as it could have, and was planned to, were it but for the great under achievement of the NT Church as seen in the many reprimands by Paul, all of which is reflected in the message to the 7 Churches, God intervene to have mercy on the Jewish nation, leaving them a remnant, and a hope of future salvation as History continued. Indeed as demonstrated by Josephus, it was mostly/only the religious zealots (a completely unbiblical faction to redeem Israel) who naturally we killed in this war. The rest were allowed by God of a chance at future Salvation, by becoming Christians. (However they were in for more self-inflicted destruction by the next generation in the Bar Kokba Revolt. (ca. 125 A.D.))

Originally Posted By: Tom
Another incident which would bear great fruit to study is the cross. What happened there? Understanding the cross opens the door to understanding all the incidents you mentioned.


Although I see this as not being substantively applicable/contributive to this Theological issue, i.e., you’ll have to state the reasons why you think it is, I have Biblically delved more deeply on what happened at the Cross on my blog. See here.

Quote:
NJK: In other words, the Biblical evidence is too compelling of a direct and merciful action to be supplanted by EGW’s understanding of what is indirectly allowed to takes place when no mercy is to be shown.]

Tom: This seems like you're putting your own understanding of things as the final arbiter of truth.


I have gradually been stating the underlying points thus for this observation. And they indeed are, even it the current in exhaustive stage, quite explicitly compelling. Indeed my main task now is to see how the SOP aligns itself with these many Biblical facts, if it can/does.

Originally Posted By: Tom
God sends a prophet, who provides more information upon a subject, and if that information disagrees with what you think, you write that information off as the prophet being "mistaken." I don't believe I'm misrepresenting your position here, do you?


Yes you obliviously and misconstruingly, grossly are. You manifestly also seem to just be wanting to desperately believe this. As I know, and explicitly stated, my compelling evidence warranting this stance is from the Bible.

Originally Posted By: Tom
So you have more faith in your exegesis than in the words of the prophet.


Not defaultly. I examine EGW non-direct revelation statement, as they can be ascertained, even in, e.g., comparing what is written in the Conflict of the Ages series with her previous, substantively similar early works where she copiously and patently, explicitly made “I was Shown” statements (and refrained to do so for the C.A. books which were intended for general distribution. So when my Biblical exegesis conclusively points to a different understanding than non-direct SOP statements I go where the conclusive truth is. EGW also depended on her exegesis to make such claims. That is why she many times had to latter correct some earlier understandings that she had, as she later came to scholarly/exegetically better understand them. A classic example to me is the statement of Christ in John 20:16 which for years she expressed as “Touch Me Not” (quoting her Bible) until her vision on this seemingly only suggested to her that “Detain Me Not” was a better understanding. Yet, if you can handle it, as I now see it, more advanced exegesis, based upon the direct revelation statements in that vision, would seem to say that “Do not begin to so affectionately embrace”. The issue was not receiving worship and not being touched or temporally detained. Thought that act would have detained Christ, yet that really, as expressed by EGW, was not Christ’s main concern in doing this. (See in this post for more details)

Originally Posted By: Tom
Also you appear to have the understanding that divine inspiration worked completely differently for Ellen White than for Bible writers. I see the inspiration as being identical. Bible writers were just as prone to be "mistaken" as Ellen White was. Do you disagree?


There are indeed some mistake in the Bible, though I see them as peripheral. Such as attributing a statement to the wrong OT person. EGW also did the same by attributing a statement of Peter to Paul. There many be errors of numbers in the Bible, I have not examined all of them. I would see these as being clerical and also peripherally insignificant. As I have repeatedly disproven many claims of “Biblical errors” in the Bible through my bottom-up approach to Exegesis (the (conclusive) identity of “Darius the Mede” is an example), vs. there, which resembles yours, assumed top-down, one-size-should-surely-fit-all approach, if you know of a significant substantive, theological, even Historical error(s), then point out a (top) few. I see the substantial amount of errors in the SOP as being much more significant that the very few in SOP and as I said, most stem from a natural scholarly deficiency which is needed today to accustom ourselves and virtually recreate the contiguous world in which these Bible writers live in. Particularly for the Jewish nation itself. EGW herself repeatedly complained for not being a Biblical Scholar. Perhaps this was because of the great effort she had to take in writing her pertinent books and implicating counsels, mainly though filling in/couching in her 2000+ visions and direct revelations. She may have also had to scrap large portion of writings to start all over when she saw that she had made an exegetical error, indeed as seen by her documented/published corrections.

So my view on the inspiration of Bible writers is that it was the same as EGW when direct revelations were involved. However when it came to formulating derived doctrines and theological teachings and/or given counsels, even composing poems, even interpreting prophecies (not uttering prophecies), all of these were left to the best spiritual expression of the writer. God may have inceptively hinted at some aspect of these areas to suggest what the understanding should be, but the full development of them was left to the writer. And in this way where the divine is indeed mixed the human, these Jewish Writers had many natural and religio-cultural advantages over EGW. As I understand it, even in making some prophetic pronouncements, the Bible prophet at times, seeing certain circumstances and theologically/biblically knowing that God surely will not accept this, went ahead and made a Biblical pronouncement against, perhaps being simply moved to do so by the Holy Spirit but not told precisely what to say or even prophesy. The action of Elijah comes to mind in that, at least, the end of the drought would depend on his initiating word (it was not meant to be 3.5 years, but however long it should take). (1 Kgs 17:1 - Jame 5:17 - PK 119.1-121.1). Case in point here, James, knowing oral Jewish tradition may be correct in saying that it was Elijah who prayed for it not to rain, contra EGW in PK 120.1, 120.2 who implies that God told him of this pointed judgement or they may be harmonized with the understanding that God indicated to Elijah that his pointed request was going to be honoured and that He could go and pronounce this to Ahab (cf. his questionings PK 121.2).
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/11/11 09:33 AM

Quote:
NJK: Some foundational questions come to mind:

Tom 1.What is God like?

NJK: I see the answer found in the whole Bible and not only in Jesus.

Do you see that it's necessary to look outside of Jesus to know what God is like?


I see it as helpful, as Jesus only revealed in full detail what was logically applicable and explicitly mandated in His time. (cf. John 3:17-21). To expect Christ to go through every episode of the OT where God is revealed so that He could specifically set forth what the father’s Character there was is completely irrational and borne out of eisegesis (i.e., an externally imposed supposition) to me. Also Philip, in the often quoted text of John 14:8 for this view, wanted Jesus to have the Father be disclosed, even possibly physically presented. So Jesus’ response to that request (vs. 9) was on point in saying that “knowing” and “perceiving” what He had said was the same as having the father be disclosed/presented.

So this is not making a blanket, underlying statement that Jesus had even clarified (involving the sense of correcting) the Father. Jesus came to restore all things, especially the law, to the perfect standard that is used to be upon.

Quote:
T: 2.Does He use force to get His way?

NJK:That question is actually mootly irrelevant to me.

That's too bad. The Great Controversy is being fought regarding this and similar questions. It revolves around the question of God's character and the principles of His government.


It’s too bad you want to misconstrue what I said by interjecting a spurious by not letting my whole statement make my point. As I fully said, it is irrelevantly moot to me because “God does not use for to “compel” anyone or anything.” Thus He does not “use for to get His way”. As that expression “get His way” solely colloquially means. God rather uses necessary force to get certain GC-fairly allowed things done, and that includes, the execution of deserved and adjudged temporal judgements. So e.g., the conquering of Canaan by Israel using military force at the command of God was not a land grab, it was a judgement on deserving, perverted and probably sickly, at least spiritually, unredeemable, except through force, nations (see e.g., Gen 15:13, 16; Deut 20:16-18.) Using that needed force to convert them would be “using force to get His way”.

Quote:
NJK: God does not use for to “compel” anyone or anything.


Tom: What do you think happened in the Egyptian plagues? How did God get Pharaoh to allow the Israelites to leave if He didn't use force?


I priorly have responded to that stance of yours. Repeatedly. Look it up and at least read it

Quote:
Tom: 3.Does He directly punish people by doing things like burning them alive?

NJK: Yes... as it was justified. (e.g., Sodom and Gomorrah)

Tom: (Did Jesus act like this).

NJK: No... as it was not yet justified, i.e., fully time for this. (e.g., Luke 13:6-8)

Tom: Then Jesus didn't fully reveal God's character. That's a fair conclusion if what you're suggesting is the case, isn't it?


Jesus upheld the underlying principle of deserved temporal judgement, and when God decides it is best. And I see that “best time” always being, throughout this GC, when ‘sin has fully mature, [sometimes long] after it was conceived and birth.’ James 1:15 Indeed the life of that sin depends on how long it can live and it the various Light of Truth of God, when appropriately revealed, that come to judge and condemn it. (John 3:19-21).

Individual Jewish people were given until 70 A.D. to heed the light of the Gospel an join themselves to God’s New Covenant Israel. However they, with increasing conviction of its Truth, refused to do so.

Quote:
T:4.We know that there were certain things, like mercy and grace, which always existed in God's character, but weren't revealed until after sin came about. Should things like destruction be put in the same category?

NJK:As also being just and loving yes. “Just” because, as this GC will prove, a lawless life is not a viable alternative and put others at risk.

Tom: I agree with your last sentence here.


I still believe sinner could have lived forever as God said had they had access to the Tree of Life, however, the GC then would be that much more complex. So God here put everyone in this GC on the same level ground by making it that all humans since the fall die. So the demonstration of GC viability is really independent of death. Indeed by living according to God’s ways as seen in the 10 Commandments that even non (Judeo-)Christians observe in some parts, it is seen that God’s way is the better alternative than the “do whatever you please” lawless ways which does typical end up, when various life demand make it so, a survival of the fittest (now under Capitalism” “richest”), even mortal, feuding.

Quote:
NJK: And man apart from God cannot safely, healthily live forever.

Tom: I agree that man, acting contrary to God's will, cannot live safely or healthfully. Apart from God, man cannot live even for an instant, let alone eternally.


That’s not fully what I had meant, as my enjoined next statement (below) did specify. For man to truly live apart from God, that would me that God can take away His Fruit of Life which enclosed God’s Supernatural, Life Perpetuating Power. So sinful cannot have it both ways. And only by God’s grace/mercy does he now have a chance to regain this Life perpetuated ingredient.

Quote:
NJK: And that includes the “Supernatural God-derived” element that was removed from life and nature with the removal of the Tree of Life which contained and dispensed it. So the option of sinful man living completely apart from God, including not Tree of Life is not a viable option.

Tom: Not only not man, but no created being, can live for an instant apart from God. At every moment of one's life, whether human, bird, insect or amoeba, God's action is required for their to be life.


I’ll need to see explicit Biblical/SOP support for those assumptions (in bold). I see that man can at least live up to ca. 1000 years without the Life Perpetuating ingredient that comes from God through the Fruit of Life.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Life apart from God does not exist.


As I see it, once created, then, even variously, not as long (and perpetually) as it could have.

Quote:
T:These questions involve one's whole concept about what God is like and what He wants from us. Does He want unthinking, unquestioning obedience? Does He want us to do what He says, or else?

NJK:I don’t see this as being revealed anywhere in the Bible.

Tom: See what? These are questions. You're saying you don't see these questions as being considered anywhere in Scripture? What's your point here?


My, indeed pointed point was that I do not see that: ‘God wants unthinking, unquestioning obedience’ or that ‘He want us to do what He says, or else.’ As far as I am concerned, I see that those are spurious issues imposed on God and raised up by those who are seeking an excuse not to believe in Him. So since I do not begin to see this in the Bible, I personally do not see it as affecting my view at all. Perhaps it does yours, which would indeed explain the reasons for many of your implicated stances.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Surely what God wants from us in an important consideration. I don't see how you could disagree with this.


I think amongst especially SDA Christians, aware of the GC, and/through believing in the SOP, thus in this discussion, that should not be a crucial issue in the present discussion. I think it can be fairly, defaulty stipulated that God wants loving obedience from particularly His professed people, as it was priorly stated below.

Quote:
T:What is it that makes God happy?

NJK:Loving obedience, Faith and respect (=a healthy fear). E.g., you can really love the current U.S. President, but running up to him as he walks by and hugging him profusely may probably get you shot, or at the very least taken down by the Secret Service. God wants us to love Him but there is an inherent infinite greatness in Him that is to be respected so that we do what he says simply because he says so as he knows why it is, for real and ever present reasons, needing to be the case.

Tom: What were you just saying? It looked like you were saying that these questions weren't revealed anywhere in Scripture, and then you answered the question. How do you know the answer? Presumably from Scripture. In this case, they *are* considered in Scripture.


Those were succinct response to your 5 questions if you really needed them. What I was saying was that. It is a non-issue for me so I personally see no point on involving them in the present discussion. They may be raised by asking specific questions on a episode, however to generally discussion seems as overkill, at least, to me

Quote:
T: You say that God wants loving obedience. On what do you base this conclusion?


From a lifetime of healthy Christian Experience and reading about God in the Bible and SOP.

Originally Posted By: Tom
You seem to imply that God doesn't want us to get to close to Him, that if we do so, we'll get shot, like a person who tries too close to the president. You gave the example of hugging the president, as opposed to someone who had a threatening action in mind. Was it your intent to convey they idea that we better not try to get too close to God?


Succinctly said, given the perfect storm of various socio-political conditions, if one, even with only good intentions, thus unawarely, runs up to a President, e.g., during the midst of a manifestation against him, they could be defensively taken as a suicide-bomber or assassin and thus be, even neutralizingly, shot due to the believed threat against the President.

Quote:
T: How does God act when He is not happy?

NJK; As any one who is not happy will act. God [...]is [...]not hypocritical or becomes stoic when something displeases Him (e.g., Exod 4:14ff; 24-26; Num 16:41, 45). In all things God is real, and, foundationally, that is what (True) Love is all about.

Tom: I changed "happy" to "unhappy," as I think that's what you meant.


Thanks. I have edited that phrase in the quoting above [bold] to reflect what I had meant to say. I got mixed up.

Originally Posted By: Tom
You're saying here that when God is unhappy, He acts like human beings act when they are unhappy, correct? I assume that's what you mean by saying, "As any one who is unhappy will act."


Actually I meant to mean: only righteously, which involves God also being Just. I think Esau and His descendants can attest to this (Mal 1:2-5). With the power that God has, when He allows Himself to be filled with singular “Passion” to see right be done, no matter the consequence, it has the inevitable result of this justice occurring. In the case of Esau who should have had the birth right, he basely chose to trade it to readily satisfy his hunger need so God chose to indeed grant him the full effect of his trade, which indeed rightly would affect all of his descendants (vs. Jacob/Israel’s blessing). So He was deliberately not given a land flowing with milk and honey, as he actually indeed wanted so. Can’t blame God if he didn’t believe (i.e., at least, Isaac’s presence).

Originally Posted By: Tom
Thanks for your answers here NJK. I found this exchange to be among the most helpful that we've had.


Unfortunately we do not have the same approach, at least here, to arriving at the concrete Theological Truth on this issue. (I am sure you reciprocally feel the same way).
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/11/11 07:35 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
k: I don't know, but sounds watered down and kind of like it disputes your definition. As in, can things be taken by force without violence? But if force and violence are the same thing, is that just like what you imply God doing? What is violence? Could all cases be whitewashed with "force"?

NJK: I understand the difference between ‘use of force’ and violence to be in the object one is seeking to arrive at. If that object is itself just righteous, then the use of force is not categorized as violence, (e.g., self-defense, just war, justified capital punishment), if not then it is (e.g., robbery, rape, terrorism). This is even distinct from your previously cited “motives” as e.g., a homeless person who is hungry may decide that taken the purse/wallet of a passer by to get money to eat, even if he is only going to take money for that immediate meal and drop the wallet/purse as he is running away, is justified since he is hungry, even now ‘dying of hunger’ as he has not eaten in ca. 3 weeks. Though the object: ‘eat to save his life’ is independently justified, the motive of ‘robbing a passer by’ is not. If however that passer by had stolen money from that man, then using such “force” to get it, and that exactly, back, would be justified and not “violence”.
Yes, I was noticing that your supposed difference between violence and ... something else is similar to your such difference between killing and murder. And that is the intent. Or maybe, you could say, purpose of intent.

So, if I'm understand you correctly, two people could perform the same action and depending upon their intent or "the object one is seeking to arrive at", it could be considered violence or it could be considered "force".

So, would you say, that someone who fully and completely believed in Hitler, could justifiably say Hitler was not a man of violence but a man of force?


Quote:
k: It what way is your view of God's character different from other denominations'?

NJK: I assume that you are referring to Hell judgement. As it will be justly limited and post judgement, I see it as being full just. Also EGW states in 4SP 475.2/GC 660.4 that it is the redeemed righteous who will ‘mete out’ the punishment that the wicked will receive in their Hell judgement! How much fairer can that be. An Eternal, Perfect and Holy God who had never sinned, nor, in the likewise Jesus, succumbed to sin, (though Christ did feel the mental guilt anguish of man - cf. this post -that comment could open up a whole other side discussion. I think it is already treated elsewhere in this forum.), and thus does not know or understand why man has chosen to sin, would be likely to defaulty, automatically mete out eternally lasting punishment to any and all.
Nice. So you are saying God won't kill people at the end?
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/11/11 10:17 PM

Quote:
NJK: My approach is to take passages as they exegetically read and use this a building blocks towards a Theology which will, when necessary self-produce such harmonization, so in a way, I am working from a bottom-up view.

Tom: I don't think this accurately describes what you do.

NJK:Well, I know it accurate does and what I have been using for over 13 years now. You just are not seeing/comprehending this. I have thus “overturned” many incorrectly viewed positions. The bottom-up approach also emphasizes this thorough re-examination approach.

Tom: It would be interesting to see how others on this thread view your approach.


It actually would not make a difference to me as the proof is in the end result. In succinct summary, I absolutely don’t impose the common cookie cutter approaches to the Bible, but practically do virtually original exegesis of each passages. These includes lexis, grammar, syntax, context, etcs, and avoiding general philosophies such as chiastic structures, certain theologies etc. Of course when I am convince my original works, I tend to follow it in future application, so it is really that I found too many holes and inconsistencies in the exegetical, theological and philosophical rules and templates that were being passed down from particularly SDA higher religious education. So I did my original studies in these regards, including in understanding the SOP. It has paid off quite well so far.

Quote:
NJK: On the other hand, I see you working from a top down view citing Jesus Christ as the top view,

Tom: I would say I use Jesus Christ as the foundation, as the building block, the corner stone, to build upon.

NJK:That may be you sincere intention however by not including all building blocks designed for that building (i.e, the entire Bible) in your construction, your “building” is literally full of holes and shaky.

Tom: Jesus Christ is the corner stone for the building. All the Bible is included, but Jesus Christ is the corner stone.


My wholistic view is: “All the Bible is included, and Jesus Christ is the corner stone”. Jesus did say that: ‘the Scriptures (i.e., OT) testifies of Him’ (John 5:39; cf. Luke 24:44-45). Which to me means that it works both ways. Both revelations complete each other. (An example to illustrate this perfect reciprocal union is: in e.g., the U.S. political system, when the “perfect” situation occurs for a political party and the have a super majority in both houses of congress and their presidential nominee won the election, the “government” functions as one united voice. However when there are difference parties leading these three seats of government, things can get quite choatic and contradicting.) So in this way OT (=Congress) made up of the Law (Senate) and the Prophets (House) are joined in a united proclamation by Jesus (the President) who does not ‘abolish these “offices” but fulfill them’ (Matt 5:17). Thus Jesus executes and makes a tangible reality what the OT always wanted to do.

Originally Posted By: Tom
"All building blocks" isn't limited to just the Bible, as the Bible isn't the only means which God uses.


Of course such “passive/indirect revelation” of mainly Nature/Creation is quite arbitrary and “speechless” without the “direct revelation” given in the Bible. Perhaps in Bible times man did look at Nature and always think that a “god” of some sort must have done this, however since the view of Darwin, man has been conditioned to no longer have that natural perception thus literally shutting out that possible avenue of communication between God and any/all humans.

Quote:
NJK: seconded by EGW seemingly wholly supporting statements to the fact and thus you virtually ignore any revelation that may have been made in the OT. I do not see Jesus making such a claim, per se, of only considering what He has done to understand the Bible’s Theology.

Tom: I think you've misunderstood the point here. What I've been saying is that to correctly interpret the OT, we need to *first* have an understanding of God's character.

NJK:And my bottom up approach is to understand God’s character within each of these building block episodes asking the right question based on given a default benefit of the doubt to God on the many expression of what His character is and of course believing that He is sinless, perfect, all-knowing and all-wise.

Tom: If your "bottom up approach" winds up with a picture of God's character which looks very different than Jesus Christ, that's a big problem.


That would only be the case in a “divided government”. It seems to me that Jesus believe that the OT would of itself accurate depict and confirm Him and not just vice versa. What I foundationally see from Jesus is that He was loving but also real, among other explicit things he said and demonstrated, so when I read the OT and see clear cut episodes that a natural man would say is opposite to Jesus, such as God command Israel to do capital punishments or engage in military campaign and ‘take no prisoners’ rather than outrightly ignore them as I incomprehensibly see that you are doing, thus to me, discrediting your entire views as being subjectively controlled, I instead give the benefit of any doubt to God and try to see how He was candidly acting lovingly, just merciful in also this.

I think that is where we significantly differ and why I think/see that your approach knowingly leaves too many holes in the final construction. Indeed even with a cornerstone, it you think as a builder that you can complete the God building by outrightly leaving out those blocks, which again, you are doing in many cases, then your building will be completely unstable and worth-less as it will still be unfinished. (Much can even be learned about both God and Jesus from the ceremonial aspects the OT Laws that were indeed fulfilled by Christ. So they to should be part of the building where the rightly fit in the New Covenant context).

Originally Posted By: Tom
Jesus Christ said when we've seen Him, we've seen the Father. It can't be the case that what Jesus Christ said is true, and that the Father has a character different than Jesus Christ.


As I say it does not just work one way. That is why when I read the OT and God says he does something, I don’t close my eyes and repeat a mantra that “Jesus did not do this” “Jesus did not do this” (especially as I logically understand that Jesus could not have recreated everything that occurred in the OT), but since the Father and Jesus are One, the I try to see the good reasons and purposes that surely were involved in these OT actions. To me saying that ‘God passively allowed destruction and thus did not do it actually destroys the character of Love and Truthfulness, among others, of God. I rather seek to see and determine why and how this ‘act of God’, i.e., whether active or passive/direct or indirect, was done by God while still in perfect harmony with His expressed character which Jesus actually emulated.

-If you go by the “school” that only what Jesus did is determinative, then what is your view on meat eating, since Jesus ate at least fish, if not other clean meats. Indeed the Jews ate at least the Passover Lamb. That is why I see that having the “Real” view of God is quite significant in that He does not always reveal everything all at once. Revelation is indeed progressive an fitting of the times and circumstance, though never in contradiction of what had been said but either in fulfillment or improving complement. That is why the gift of Prophecy (= the SOP) is also enduring as a Spiritual gift. Because when times change God may need to have His message heightenedly adjusted to meet those GC challenges. So when, in the case above, clean meat eating started to become a health risk, God sent a message through his establish prophet that a meatless diet was a better choice from then on. Similarly, Jesus did not minister to gentiles (e.g., Matt 10:6-8; [15:24]; John ) however when that time came, as it was revealed many times in the OT, He appeared to Paul and instructed Him to do so. (Acts 9:15). Jesus knew that everything must be done in its appropriate time. (Acts 1:7). That is why I see that since Jesus did “design” for especially the Jewish leaders, who could and should have known better, to not understand his message and thus continue unenlightened on their path of destruction (Matt 13-10-17 = Isa 6:9-13) and then upheld those judgement predictions (e.g,. Matt 23; Luke 22:21), then I see that he did not do away with this aspect of God’s OT revelation. He indeed showed the great amount of justice involved in it. And it did involve direct and indirect actions of Jesus/God in i.e., veiling the saving/destruction averting messages (Luke 19:42) and then, when the time came, allowing the Jews to fully plunge into this destruction without His Spirit to help influence them to choose the right here. In fact, as I understand it, Jesus, in His parable also left open the option for God to ultimately, forcefully make this destruction occur if the passive approach did not of itself work out.

Quote:
NJK: You indeed wrongly see e.g., that since Jesus never execute a judgement in the NT then that must mean that God never did in the OT. That is not the purpose of EGW’s counsel here. It is rather to help us to indeed understand “why” God did those judgements in the OT and not merely if He did them or not. Indeed in Jesus we see the same principles resulting in utter physical judgement.

Tom: What I've been saying is that the character of God the Father was fully revealed by Jesus Christ. You say that Jesus Christ revealed the same principles resulting in physical judgment. I claim that Jesus Christ revealed principles stated by the SOP such as:

1.Force is contrary to the principles of God's government.


The problem here is you are blanketly conflating ‘God’s power in execution judgements’ with ‘a force to compel the will’. They are not one and the same thing same thing. In DA 759.1 EGW clearly is referring to the distinct “compelling force” as she says:

Originally Posted By: Tom
Compelling power is found only under Satan's government. The Lord's principles are not of this order.


Using destructive force at that point when the GC issues were not fully developed and understood would indeed have become this distinct “compelling force” as the surviving angels would have obeyed God simply to avoid being destroyed. However letting Satan and the rebel angels live out their view for a sufficient while and then destroying them in the end in Hell Fire after 6000+ years is indeed not force, though force to bind them and destroy them will then be used, as stated and depicted in the SOP.

Illustration: A Police agency that goes around as a policy and beats up gang members simply because they are gang members and in order to dissuade them to commit any crime that they most likely will do is using force to compel the will. However a police agency that uses even (defensive) deadly force to end a crime in progress by these gang members or to break into their “reinforced gang compound” (e.g., bikers) and arrest them is not using force to compel the will.

Originally Posted By: Tom
2.God does not stand before the sinner as an executioner, but leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves.


Here again you wrongly read what EGW said (GC 36.1). Immediately prior to saying:

Originally Posted By: SOP GC 36.1
“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.”

She says:

Originally Posted By: SOP GC 36.1
But when men pass the limits of divine forbearance, that restraint [i.e., “the cruel, malignant power of the evil one”] is removed.


In part here, the operative condition here is “when men pass the limits”. Though this may seem implausible to you, there may have been many instances in the Bible where men actually did not pass that limit. E.g., in Deut 20:10-15, an offering of peace was to be offered to a city that was going to be attack, if accepted, the destruction by God’s command would be abandoned, if not then partial destruction was permitted. So, as I theologically see it, God can step in even before a self-acting “critical mass” stage is reached by sinners to effectuate a destruction.

Yet it is also said in that same passage (Deut 20:16-18) that other nation were not to be shown any mercy by Israel’s armies. Here again, it can be seen that they people who had passed their limit of mercy could and would have remained for quite a while alive and thriving before they reached a “critical mass” stage where they naturally produced their own destruction. However God evidently saw that this was not the best option for the GC and thus actively stepped in through Israel’s armies and immediately bring about that destruction.

You have chosen to quasi-excisingly ignore such passages in the Bible, as if that can be done, however in such a case, I see that it is the SOP that needs to be adjusted to properly reflect what the Bible teaches and not vice versa. That is indeed why I see that this application of EGW if her revelation in 14MR 1-3 in GC 35-37 was variously overstated. Sorry but that is the hermeneutical approach that must be followed that the SOP is always subject to the Bible, especially in such EGW commenting and applications.

In some way, God stepping in to directly act in punishment even before self-destruction is done can be illustrated by a parent who disciplines their child as appropriate when they chose to behave waywardly. Indeed if that child is the responsibility of the parent, lives under their household and/or is destroying the family name/image then they’ll surely step in to right this wrong, especially when tangibly damaging to the family, (also whereas mere name dishonor may not be visited upon by judgements). As with Israel, this discipline occurs more with a child living in the parent house and then the mere dishonoring of the family name is also punished as it implies that these parents are incompetent, evidently having no authority and even legally negligent. Such an undiscipline child may alway lead to their removal from that irresponsible household, especially if it becomes a menace to society at large. So God did have to step in many times to discipline Israel, even using judgement force (again not actually/intentionally compelling force, indeed as it does not even defaulty produce that effect when people insist on being rebellious).

So in summary, that is why I see that God will have to intervene in this GC to effectuate judgements, as the self-actuating, critical mass, destruction stage would not have been reached to even have a combustible destruction by the mere glory of God.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Where do you see that Jesus Christ revealed "the same principles resulting in utter physical judgment"?


In e.g., His parable on the wedding invitation (Matt 22:7) where as I say, that would be God’s last direct resort if it came to be necessary. The Jews could easily have decided much earlier that saving their city and Temple, indeed as Titus had expected, was something they should never risk, and thus refuse to fight the Romans. In that case God would have ‘stirred up’ a reason (cf. Isa 13:17), even influencing the Jews, or having them influence to continue withholding their taxes, and thus force a physical confrontation. Other places involve His veiling of the Kingdom truths from Jewish leaders right from the start of their ministry as for them, as privilege leaders, their judgement had come. (God continues to work by that same principle.)

Quote:
T:Otherwise, we'll get it wrong.

NJK:You actually start on a “wrong” course when you don’t let God speak for Himself in the OT and then resume this starting with the Book of Acts right through the Book of Revelation (e.g., 7 Last Plagues and the distinct “anger and passion of God”.) I am not this form of Gospel-only Christian. Furthermore, with the SOP, there really should not be a issue today of not much better understanding God actions in the OT and other places outside of the Gospels.

Tom: What I'm saying is that we need to first understand God's character in order to rightly interpret Scripture. I assume you agree with this.


I do and that is indeed only feasible by letting God speak for Himself and giving Him the benefit of the doubt that He was acting lovingly, fairly, justly, responsibly, and with the best general interest in mind. After all nothing is done on this planet unless God allows it (e.g., Job’s sufferings), so the question of why did God let this happen, even if it goes back to the initial GC issue of letting sin have its course to demonstrate its character, must be considered.

Point it out to me if I have overlooked something, but as I have yet to see an episode in the Bible where God completely removed his mercy in the Bible and let Satan have his way unhindered (indeed even with Job God drew a line for Satan), I do not see that this singular “Passion of God” destruction where Satan acts without any restraint has occurred. I.e., Satan himself killing people. I rather see that God either lets natural consequences occur, like someone getting cancer because of cigarette smoking, or he himself, in works out a natural way, e.g., military confrontation, to punish evil doers.

I do not even see what E.g., says in GC 35-37 to have fully played out in the destruction of Jerusalem. For one thing, mercy was shown.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Then I'm saying that in order to do this, we need to go to Jesus Christ. He is the corner-stone for our understanding. If we come up with a view of God's character which disagrees with what we see in Him, then we've got it wrong. You don't disagree with this, do you?


I have previously address this and do indeed not see it as superceding letting God speak for Himself in the OT as He copiously explicitly does. I indeed see not justification or rationalization to have a view that imposes the notion that “God did/does not mean what He has said or said what He means. So I do disagree with your subjective emphasis on this approach which has as it foundation an unrealistic expectation to have everything stated or done in 4000 years of the OT revisited in 3.5 years of ministry. Furthermore as John says, many ‘other similar things’ that Jesus said and did were not recorded, (John 21:25), so He may have gone into more specifying details and examples of the times that were recording, including His endeavors to keep the Jewish leaders in the dark and thus on this path towards physical destruction (and all those who would follow them).

Originally Posted By: Tom
A third thing I've asserted is that Jesus Christ is a full and complete revelation of the Father; that we don't need to go outside of Christ to know what God is like.

I think this is the point that you're disagreeing with. What you think is that we need to combine what Jesus Christ lived and taught with the rest of Scripture in order to come up with an accurate picture of God's character. Is this correct?


As stated and shown above, Yes. Indeed Jesus’ “full and complete” revelation cannot be so, if OT things about God and what He said are outrightly left out!

Originally Posted By: Tom
That is, you agree with the first two points just mentioned above, but disagree with the third one?


Also as shown above, though your points may surfacely seem Spiritually sound, I think that your are including in them unwarranted and non-realistic requirements and expectation and thus I do not fully subscribe to them, indeed as I see you applying them. Again, ignoring explicit and clear Scriptures, particularly statement of God Himself, as you have repeatedly done, even if the SOP is stated as support, is a complete Theological non-starter for me, especially as the SOP is to be subject to the Bible, especially in non-direct revelation matters.

Quote:
T:I've said that Jesus Christ got it right, and that what He said and what He did was precisely what He say in the OT. So if we have any picture of what happened in the OT as being different than what Jesus Christ said and did, we're getting it wrong.

NJK:The problem with your view is that you also selective choose what you’ll allow Jesus to get right. You thus obliviously, summarily dismissively and mindlessly, self-justifyingly excise any that counters that view for also Christ’s statements and teachings, So it is not really Jesus who is being the arbitrator here, but you supposition of what a God is suppose to be like. I feel like I am dealing with the Gospel of Tom instead. And the SOP however sincere and well-meaning EGW was, is not that final arbitrator.

Tom:I'm not the only one who holds the view I hold. We can take me out of the question here. Have you ever read any of Ty Gibson's books? My view is largely the same as his.


Are ‘any”of Ty Gibson’s book all dealing with this subject?? If on the other hand you are meaning that this view of Gibson is philosophically foundational to all of his writings, then I can understand this as, and if you had read my blog post on the War in Heaven, I see that he thus has a completely unBiblical, including against the SOP, view on the War in Heaven, as you also do.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Robert Wieland is another who has taught principles related to God's character that I believe to be true.


I have Weiland’s “The 1888 Message” book in my library. In general I see that the 1888 message is being wrongly emphasized and it takes the place to the actual practical Gospel work for members and the Church to more fully do, or do at all which would naturally bring about this righteousness. To me the whole thing resembles Jesus’ work vs. the Pharisee’s work. Thus I do not see that Weiland view here, probably being influenced by His general ministry emphasis, is reflective of the true character of God.

Originally Posted By: Tom
In Ellen White's time, George Fifield eloquently expressed views I hold to be true.


I have downloaded Fifield work and others related to his views from this website since you brought him up. And I have to say, just upon a cursory overview that deep exegesis may be a critical issue here.

Originally Posted By: Tom
There are thousands of people that hold the view I hold. I'm not arguing that this makes it right,...


Due to too many bad experiences in the past, I do not defaultly or fully subscribe to any person’s or group’s view until I have done an original exegetical examination of it myself, and that Goes as high as SDA Scholars, SDA Pioneers, EGW* and Bible versions/translation. So to really convince me, I need to see the exegetically sound and transparently demonstrated, Biblical evidence, rather than someone’s view.

*In regards to EGW, I specifically consider the SOP as anything that she said that is either a direct revelation or concretely, fully agrees with the Bible revelation. So, e.g., when she wrote in 1882 about getting oysters to eat (MR852 2.3), I do not consider this as having been inspired by God’s Spirit!

Originally Posted By: Tom
but you write as if what I'm sharing is something that I just made up. The ideas I'm sharing are not original to me.


Frankly and seriously speaking, w here I am faulting you personally is that, as a Seminarian, you should be able to more deeply exegetically examine these pertinent Biblical issues on this topic, yet your repeatedly are showing to me that you, factually speaking, upon observation, are not competent in this regard, despite, manifestly having a graduate degree, which implies you are fully functional in Greek and Hebrew. I am now furthermore seeing this with the Plagues and with the Flood. So I do fault you for upholding and ignoring wrong issues that should have been corrected by you having done the exegesis. Instead I am seeing that you are letting a view control your exegesis, if any. Indeed what I was expecting from you if you do not think that something is exegetically accurate is not a total disregard of the exegetical point, but a countering, sound exegetical rebuttal as to why you think/see that it is wrong. Instead what I see is actually indifferent oblivious to exegesis, and especially in regards to you, being ‘educated and trained’ in this regards, that is not acceptable and actually speaks volumes against the validity of any view you advance because my question at least is, where else is exegesis being totally and indifferently, obliviously ignored. Even a supposed EGW over exegesis view that many SDA’s have, is completely unacceptable because that actually, wrongly puts EGW over the Bible.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Regarding the final arbiter, that is God. He is the One who will judge how well we've understood His character, and how well we've treated one another. If our view of God's character does not lead to our treating one another as Christ did, it's not much good.


Of course your are judging how I treat others by your understanding and not by what Christ actually did. Or are you also choosing to ignore these parts even found in the Gospel of Christ. The word of God is a two-edge sword and it thus sharply cuts, indeed both ways of uncompromising and full Truth and deserved/due Rebuke. Read the full Gospel including the SOP’s DA and allow yourself to get the complete story and not just what you subjectively prefer. Jesus was also Real as God the Father was and candidly dealt with situations in this way instead of acting hypocritically. (E.g, Matt 23:23, 24 -or do you also excise this (Gospel) chapter?! From the “Word”/Revelation of God - (John 1:1)).

Quote:
T:Also, if there is a disconnect between what we perceive happening in the OT, and what Jesus Christ said and did, then we're actually disagreeing with Jesus Christ's perception of what happened in the OT. We should defer to Jesus Christ's perception.

NJK:Christ perception is only objectively discernable when explicitly expressed.

Tom: Christ did so by His words and teachings.


That is what I had said/meant by “explicitly expressed”.

Quote:
NJK: Otherwise we are dealing with the reader’s subjective view. Also the context of the New Covenant is to be kept in mind if any perceived different is seen.

Tom: What do you mean by this?


As I had related (below), and have said prior to that, in the New Covenant, God was not going to be as close to His People (i.e., His Shakinah Glory in the Sanctuary, and the actually more shielding Temple, which God actually may not have wanted to occur too early as it indeed did hide Him from His people (cf. 2 Sam 7:4-7ff) resulting in an “out of sight out of mind” sin-permissive effect) so swift and powerful judgement are correspondingly not to be expected to be seen in the NT Church, though Annanias and Sapphira was probably a object-lesson reminder that God was tangibly still there.

Quote:
NJK: However I really only see a heightening of what was being said in the OT in Christ’s teaching and life. Also as God is no longer most tangibly and visibly present in the midst of a people in the NT era, is a major reason why some OT law are no longer enforced by God and certain thresholds for immediate judgements have been lessened.

Tom: You don't believe that Jesus Christ was a tangible and visibly present representation of God?


Is that a Spiritually substantively serious question or a spurious, halved-statement, ‘false witnessing’, impeachment attempt??? (cf. Matt 26:57-62ff)

(A) The NT era includes more that what occurred particularly between 27-31 A.D. Thus was Jesus tangibly present beyond 31 A.D. right through today??!

(B) Jesus was in a veiled form so that alone prevented this aspect of God from swiftly and powerfully effectuating judgements as it in some degree did when “divinity flashed through humanity” even if lightly. (cf. e.g., DA 162.3; 590.4; (694.5); 707.2)
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/11/11 10:21 PM

I'll summarize a portion of the post to which I'm responding, and respond to the rest in a more detailed fashion.

What I've said is that it's not necessary to investigate every individual case, that knowing the principles which apply are sufficient. You think it's necessary to investigate every incident which you list. It seems to me self-evident that if you agreed with the principles we're discussing, that takes care of the issue, so I'll deal with these.

Originally Posted By: NJK
T:
1.All that can be known of God was revealed by the life and teachings of Jesus Christ during His earthly mission.

NJK:Your stance here wants to preclude everything outside of the Gospel accounts.


First of all, it's not my stance. Secondly, the idea isn't to preclude anything, but to emphasize that everything necessary is contained in a certain place, which is in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

Quote:
I do not see that this is what the SOP had in mind.


I think she had in mind what she said, that everything that man needs to know, or can know, of God was revealed in the life and teachings of His Son. This seems very to the point and easy to understand to me.

Quote:
Furthermore, you do not address the circumstantial realities, Gospel mandate and Legalities which all variously limited the extent of Christ actions on this earthly mission.


This is irrelevant, unless it limited Christ's ability to reveal all that man needs to know or can know of God.

Quote:
Jesus also wanted to emphasize that the low and hypocritical level of righteousness amongst God’s people then made it that just/righteous judgements such as those involving capital punishment could not be enforced. (Cf. Matt 5:20) It indeed was the leaders who were deserving of these punishments. Also, these capital punishments may have been done during the 3.5 years of Christ public ministry, (that is of course if the Roman’s honored them, especially the more religious ones), yet you don’t read of Jesus going to such a probable public execution and saying that it should not be done, and that oddly enough, because ‘God does not condone such direct and inflicted killing which are done for Him and in His name by His People’!?


Did this impact Christ's ability to reveal the Father?

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Tom
2.God is just like Jesus Christ in character.

NJK:I see that you are significantly looking at things reversedly.


The "whole purpose" of Christ's earthly mission was "the revelation of God." (ST 1/20/90). From Scripture, John 1:18. "No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known."

The problem is that God's character wasn't known.

Both statements "Jesus Christ is just like God" and "God is just like Jesus Christ" are equally true. The problem lies more in the realm of misunderstanding God's character, however; hence the emphasis there.

Quote:
But turning from all lesser representations, we behold God in Jesus. Looking unto Jesus we see that it is the glory of our God to give. "I do nothing of Myself," said Christ; "the living Father hath sent Me, and I live by the Father." "I seek not Mine own glory," but the glory of Him that sent Me. John 8:28; 6:57; 8:50; 7:18. In these words is set forth the great principle which is the law of life for the universe. All things Christ received from God, but He took to give. So in the heavenly courts, in His ministry for all created beings: through the beloved Son, the Father's life flows out to all; through the Son it returns, in praise and joyous service, a tide of love, to the great Source of all. And thus through Christ the circuit of beneficence is complete, representing the character of the great Giver, the law of life.

In heaven itself this law was broken. Sin originated in self-seeking. Lucifer, the covering cherub, desired to be first in heaven. He sought to gain control of heavenly beings, to draw them away from their Creator, and to win their homage to himself. Therefore he misrepresented God, attributing to Him the desire for self-exaltation. With his own evil characteristics he sought to invest the loving Creator. Thus he deceived angels. Thus he deceived men. He led them to doubt the word of God, and to distrust His goodness. Because God is a God of justice and terrible majesty, Satan caused them to look upon Him as severe and unforgiving. Thus he drew men to join him in rebellion against God, and the night of woe settled down upon the world.

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 21, 22)



Quote:
Many statements of Jesus say that He was imitating the Father. As such He also did not act unjustly and thus have someone killed just to demonstrate that the Father had done this in the OT. He rather did just like God and, not doing away with such capital punishment laws, insisted that it be done in a righteous way (John 7:24 - and a “righteous” judgement is not the same as a “just” as seen in the episode related by John in the next chapter.


The point that you are responding to is that "God is just like Jesus Christ." Are you wishing to dispute this point? If so, I don't see how this last paragraph does so.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Tom
3.Jesus Christ was not violent, and taught anti-violence.

If this “violence” means malicious acts, then that statement if fully true.


It means "violent" in the ordinarily understood meaning of the term. An illustration of Christ's teachings are where He explained that His kingdom is not of this world, and if it were, His servants would fight.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Tom
5.The use of force is contrary to the principles of God's government.

NJK:If it means “use force” then a statement like (Luke 22:35-38) could easily disprove this,


If you would cite what the references say, it's easier on the reader. When Jesus said, "It is enough," your understanding of this is that Jesus Christ was teaching that violence, or force, should be used?

Quote:
indeed as the time for this use of capable force had now come. Jesus indeed used light force to exact, or seek to exact, just acts from His opposers and enemies. (E.g., ‘not arresting Him as he was indeed God‘ John 18:5, 6 - DA 695.1). Christ’s miracles were also a use of supernatural force to this similar effect (see e.g., John 11:4, 40-42). This is also just like God to use shades of light force to seek to instill an inceptive fear in man (e.g, Egypt Plagues Exod 7:3-5; 11:9), yet, as seen with Christ’s arresters, man is free to be compelled by this force or not.


You're saying the Egyptian Plagues were "light force"? Should the 7 last plagues also be deemed "light force."?

In the last plague, the eldest sons were killed. The implication is, if you don't do what God says, more will be killed. To suggest that this isn't compelling a decision isn't a credible suggestion.

If I kill a child of yours, and threaten to kill another one if you don't do what I say, sure, I can say you're free to do what you want, that I'm not compelling you, but that rings hollow. This is certainly an example of my using force to compel you to do my will.

Quote:

Originally Posted By: Tom
4.There are thousand dangers from which God protects us constantly. Any degree of destruction is possible by God's simply withdrawing His protection. There is no need for God to act actively to produce destruction.

NJK:That possibly may, to an extent, be the case, however that blanket supposition is not what the Bible and SOP explicitly state in many, if not most, pertinent instances.


I got the statement from the SOP. In the GC 35-37 passage she says something similar. We certainly grossly underestimate the extent to which we are dependent upon God for His protection.

Quote:
NJK:And the passive destructions of God (God removing His hand from an already formed/present danger - which is not even leaving a person to follow (the destructive path) what they always wanted to follow as this contra-theologically imply that God is forcing people not do right), still do come from Him, i.e., His allowing of it. That is why I now see the God vs. Satan categories instead on seeing this as ‘an Active God vs. a Passive God.’


I don't know what your point is here.

Regarding God's allowing things instead of preventing them, it's evil that is causing the things which God permits. God can't prevent all bad consequences of sin, or else no one would learn that sin results in misery, suffering, and death.

Quote:
NJK:Indeed the presence and influence of God’s is not doing anything forceful, but is just whispering a Good alternative to the Satan’s evil suggestions. People are always entirely free to choose what they will follow.


But they may lose a child if they don't. Or get burned alive.

Quote:
It is when they commit the unpardonable sin that God removes this good, suggestive influence and these people are barraged with a flood of only evil ideas, hence the spiral downwards into chaos with God then also not intervening to avert the natural consequence of the actions. That is all what is involved in the Four Winds event in the end (blowing upon human passions) as comes from the withdrawal of God’s balancing spirit (=Divine wind). In this way, these Four winds of Human Passions are no longer equally countered by the Wind of God’s Spirit and thus they figuratively are permitted to freely blow upon the earth.

Originally Posted By: Tom
These are a few. Now if these are genuine principles, then there are always in effect.


As transparently demonstrated above, they Substantively (=Biblically) and Theologically, even Prophetically not “genuine”. The have proven to just be eisegetical suppositions.


Here are the principles again:

1.All that can be known of God was revealed by the life and teachings of Jesus Christ during His earthly mission.

2.God is just like Jesus Christ in character.

3.Jesus Christ was not violent, and taught anti-violence.

4.There are thousand dangers from which God protects us constantly. Any degree of destruction is possible by God's simply withdrawing His protection. There is no need for God to act actively to produce destruction.

5.The use of force is contrary to the principles of God's government.

So you're saying you don't agree with any of these? (since none of them are "genuine").
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/12/11 12:10 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
M: Are His hands tied in the sense He isn’t free to prevent things like N&A being burned alive? Do such things happen with or without His consent?

T: Mike, God allowed it to happen. So obviously he was able to do so. Instead of asking questions like this which have only one answer, which is obvious, perhaps you could just write out what you're thinking.

M: I had no idea it was obvious to you Jesus has options He chooses, at times, not to exercise. Now that I know what you believe I am in a position where I can ask the following question – When Jesus decided N&A and the two bands of fifty were worthy of death, who or what caused the fire that burned them alive?

T: This doesn't make any sense. You asked if God was free to do something which He did, which, of course, He was. I pointed out that this is obvious. That doesn't put you into any position where you weren't already.

Perhaps my question was poorly worded. I apologize for the confusion. I now understand you believe Jesus is free to choose between such options as preventing death and destruction or permitting it. He takes everything and everyone into consideration and then decides whether to prevent or permit death and destruction. The choice is His. Nothing happens by chance or fate. As sovereign Lord and King, Jesus is ultimately in control – not sin, not sinners, and not Satan.

When Jesus decided N&A and the two bands of fifty were worthy of death, who or what caused the fire that burned them alive?

Quote:
M: Is Satan free to do as he pleases without limits?

T: Satan would destroy everyone, and there wouldn't be any Great Controversy, which is a point I've made many times, which you are aware of.

M: Does Satan exercise self-control? Does he work to restrain himself? Who or what establishes and enforces the limits Satan does not exceed?

T: We get some idea of how this works from Job. I don't know that I'm aware of how things work beyond what's revealed there.

M: What do we learn from the story of Job that helps us understand who or what establishes and enforces the limits Satan does not exceed?

T: You've read Job. What does it say?

Ellen wrote:

Quote:
All heaven seemed in commotion. The angels were marshaled in companies, each division with a higher commanding angel at its head. . . Then there was war in heaven. Angels were engaged in the battle; Satan wished to conquer the Son of God and those who were submissive to His will. But the good and true angels prevailed, and Satan, with his followers, was driven from heaven. {EW 145.2}

God wants intelligent Christians. He wants you to count the cost of the battle. He wants you to count whether you can war against Satan and his spiritual wickedness in high places. He wants you to see the plan of the battle, of the confederacy of evil, and then He wants you to see that angels are in the army, that the Captain of our salvation is at the head. It is they that do the warring. It is they that do the work, and we cooperate, coincide, and work with them. {1SAT 212.2}

We are told of the fall of the angels from their purity, of Lucifer their leader, the instigator of rebellion, of their confederacy and government, of their various orders, of their great intelligence and subtlety, and of their malicious designs against the innocence and happiness of men. We are told of One mightier than the fallen foe,--One by whose authority Satan's power is limited and controlled; and we are told, also, of the punishment prepared for the originator of iniquity. {4SP 331.1}

Man is Satan's captive and is naturally inclined to follow his suggestions and do his bidding. He has in himself no power to oppose effectual resistance to evil. It is only as Christ abides in him by living faith, influencing his desires and strengthening him with strength from above, that man may venture to face so terrible a foe. Every other means of defense is utterly vain. It is only through Christ that Satan's power is limited. This is a momentous truth that all should understand. Satan is busy every moment, going to and fro, walking up and down in the earth, seeking whom he may devour. But the earnest prayer of faith will baffle his strongest efforts. Then take "the shield of faith," brethren, "wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked." {5T 294.2}

When those words were spoken [It is finished], the plan was completed--the plan whereby Satan's power should be limited and broken, and whereby Christ should finally die. And when Christ rose from the dead His triumph was complete. Satan knew that his battle with Christ was lost, but yet he is at enmity with God. {1888 126.4}

If Satan sees that he is in danger of losing one soul, he will exert himself to the utmost to keep that one. And when the individual is aroused to his danger, and, with distress and fervor, looks to Jesus for strength, Satan fears that he will lose a captive, and he calls a reinforcement of his angels to hedge in the poor soul, and form a wall of darkness around him, that heaven's light may not reach him. But if the one in danger perseveres, and in his helplessness casts himself upon the merits of the blood of Christ, our Saviour listens to the earnest prayer of faith, and sends a reinforcement of those angels that excel in strength to deliver him. Satan cannot endure to have his powerful rival appealed to, for he fears and trembles before His strength and majesty. At the sound of fervent prayer, Satan's whole host trembles. He continues to call legions of evil angels to accomplish his object. And when angels, all-powerful, clothed with the armory of heaven, come to the help of the fainting, pursued soul, Satan and his host fall back, well knowing that their battle is lost. The willing subjects of Satan are faithful, active, and united in one object. And although they hate and war with one another, yet they improve every opportunity to advance their common interest. But the great Commander in heaven and earth has limited Satan's power. {1T 345.3}

Quotes like the ones posted above make it clear to me Jesus and holy angels work to ensure evil angels do not exceed the limitations imposed upon them. For this reason, Satan is not free to do as he pleases. It is Jesus, not Satan, who ultimately establishes and enforces the degree of punishment meted out. It must irritate Satan to know he is not free to exercise his powers as he sees fit. Like a chained lion, try as he might, he cannot tear to shreds the prey just out of reach. “Already nations are angry, already Satan is working with signs and lying wonders, and this will increase until the end. God will use his enemies as instruments to punish those who have followed their own pernicious ways whereby the truth God has been misrepresented, misjudged, and dishonored.” {PC 136.3}

Quote:
M: Did Jesus, while here in the flesh (as opposed to after He returned to heaven), choose to allow things like ungodly people being burned alive?

T: O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen [doth gather] her brood under [her] wings, and ye would not! (Luke 13:34)

M: You seem to be suggesting Jesus allowed ungodly people to be killed while He was here in the flesh. Who was killed?

T: In what Jesus said, He expressed that He was willing, desiring even, to protect Jerusalem as a chicken would protect its chicks. He was very sorry they did not permit Him to do so. This is the principle enunciated in GC 35-37.

M: I don’t understand how your response answers my question.

T: My answer describes the principle at work.

Is offering protection, while here in the flesh, from something that happened in 70 AD equivalent to Jesus allowing N&A and the two bands of fifty to be burned alive?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/12/11 12:33 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
M: Tom, the following quotes make it clear sinners will revisit, during final judgment, each and "every sin which they have ever committed." Jesus will not lump their sins together. . . [quotes omitted by Tom] I bring this point up because I recall you once arguing there will not be time enough during final judgment for Jesus to judge every sin everyone committed. But the quotes above make it crystal clear Jesus will judge every sin ever committed by everyone. From this point, I am constrained to ask - Since revisiting even one sin during judgment is sufficient to cause intense emotional and physical suffering ending rather rapidly in eternal death, what, then, will God do to enable sinners to endure intense emotional and physical suffering for millions of sins without dying prematurely?

T: Well, let's just do some math. Let's say a wicked person commits 1,000 sins in a day. Does that seem reasonable to you? If not, we can adjust it. In one year that's 365,000 sins. If the person lives a long life, that's 3,000,000 sins. Let's say it takes 10 seconds to review a sin. Does that seem reasonable to you? If not, we can adjust it. To review 3,000,000 sins at 10 seconds a sin would take 30,000,000 seconds, or a little over 57 years. I don't think the judgment will take 57 years. Do you?

I enjoyed your math. Nicely done. However, the following quotes, omitted in your response above, make it clear Jesus will judge every sin everyone has ever committed.

Quote:
The guilt of every sin pressed its weight upon the divine soul of the world's Redeemer. The evil thoughts, the evil words, the evil deeds of every son and daughter of Adam, called for retribution upon Himself; for He had become man's substitute. {FLB 101.3}

How little do they consider that their deeds and words are passing into judgment, and that every sin must have its retribution in the future! {RH, February 28, 1882 par. 4}

These sins in a short time will be revealed in just their enormity. God's eye does not slumber. He knows every sin that is hidden from mortal eye. The guilty know just what sins to confess that their souls may be clean before God. {1T 155.3}

Every man's work passes in review before God and is registered for faithfulness or unfaithfulness. Opposite each name in the books of heaven is entered with terrible exactness every wrong word, every selfish act, every unfulfilled duty, and every secret sin, with every artful dissembling. Heaven-sent warnings or reproofs neglected, wasted moments, unimproved opportunities, the influence exerted for good or for evil, with its far-reaching results, all are chronicled by the recording angel. {GC 482.1}

Though all nations are to pass in judgment before God, yet He will examine the case of each individual with as close and searching scrutiny as if there were not another being upon the earth. Everyone must be tested and found without spot or wrinkle or any such thing. {GC 489.3}

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}

Satan will be judged by his own idea of justice. It was his plea that every sin should meet its punishment. If God remitted the punishment, he said, He was not a God of truth or justice. Satan will meet the judgment which he said God should exercise (MS 111, 1897). {5BC 1087.4}

So we’re not accused of using human logic to undermine Inspiration, please post inspired passages that refute what she clearly stated above. In particular, note the following insight – “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.” It should be obvious that opening “the books of record” doesn’t take 57 years.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/12/11 12:52 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
M: You say it's the grace of God that enables sinners to sin without immediately experiencing the second death, but then you say it's Satan's vital force that enables him to live with sin long after sinners perish in the lake of fire. What's the difference?

T: I was suggesting that Satan lived longer than other angels because of having a greater vital force than they have.

Does vital force enable sinners to sin without immediately experiencing eternal death? Or, must God act to enable sinners to sin without immediately experiencing eternal death? Who or what is the origin of their source of life?

Also, who or what will act during final judgment to enable sinners to live long enough to suffer intense emotional and physical pain proportionate to their sinfulness? Ellen wrote:

Quote:
They suffer punishment varying in duration and intensity, "according to their works," but finally ending in the second death. {GC 544.2}

Some are destroyed as in a moment, while others suffer many days. All are punished "according to their deeds." The sins of the righteous having been transferred to Satan, he is made to suffer not only for his own rebellion, but for all the sins which he has caused God's people to commit. His punishment is to be far greater than that of those whom he has deceived. After all have perished who fell by his deceptions, he is still to live and suffer on. {GC 673.1}

Who or what is the origin of their source of life?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/12/11 12:55 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
1. In the OT, why did Jesus command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle?

M: Seems to me you believe Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in battle because 1) the Jews failed to trust Jesus to defeat their enemies in a godly way, and 2) the Jews expected Him to think and behave like a pagan god. Do you agree with my assessment of your view as it relates to the question above?

T: No, of course not. But surely you must know that.

Please elaborate.

Quote:
M: Was Jesus, while here in the flesh (as opposed to after He returned to heaven), forced to command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle?

T: What are the principles laid out in GC 35-37? That's the important question. Did Jesus Christ teach and embody these principles? Yes, He did. Where we're disagreeing is in regards to what we think God is like. I believe God's character was revealed fully by Jesus Christ, and the best revelation was the cross. Rather than use force to get His way, Jesus Christ voluntarily submitted to torture and a horrible death from the very creatures He came to save. This is what God is like. Not just sometimes, but all the time. The principles explained in GC 35-37 are in harmony with what Jesus Christ revealed. Your perceptions of God's character appear to me to be schizophrenic. Some of the time, as it appears to me you see things, He exhibits the qualities Jesus Christ embodied on earth, especially at the cross, but other times He acts indistinguishably from Satan, leaving us with no means to know who is acting.

I don’t understand how your response answers the question above.

Quote:
2. In the OT, why did Jesus command godly people to kill ungodly people through the execution of capital punishment?

T: You repeated yourself.

Why do you think so?

Quote:
M: Was Jesus, while here in the flesh (as opposed to after He returned to heaven), forced to command godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment?

T: What's your argument here? That since Jesus Christ, while here in the flesh, wasn't forced to command godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment, it therefore follows that it's not the case that all that we can know of God was revealed by Him? I can't think of why you would ask this question otherwise. Why not just set forth your argument?

You wrote, “Jesus Christ, while here in the flesh, wasn't forced to command godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment.” Is this your answer to the question above?

In response to your question, I believe the OT Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment, and the fact the NT Jesus did not do so makes it clear He did not demonstrate this attribute of God’s character while here in the flesh.

Quote:
Quote:
Exodus
22:20 He that sacrificeth unto [any] god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

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.

Deuteronomy
2:34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:
20:17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; [namely], the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:

Joshua
10:40 So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded.

M: Seems to me you believe Jesus was reluctantly willing to command the kinds of things described in the passages above for as long as it would take Him to teach the Jews how to "turn the other cheek"? Is this what you believe?

T: I believe, as I've said so many times, that for us to properly interpret Scripture, we need to know God's character. I believe that the first order of business is to study the life and character of His Son, whose "whole purpose" was "the revelation of God." What is it that Jesus Christ revealed? What was Jesus Christ like? How did He treat His enemies? I don't believe that He acted any differently in the Old Testament than while here in the flesh. Do you?

Do the scriptures above require interpretation? Ellen wrote, “The language of the Bible should be explained according to its obvious meaning, unless a symbol or figure is employed.” {GC 598.3} “If we would not build our hopes of heaven upon a false foundation we must accept the Bible as it reads and believe that the Lord means what He says.” {5T 171.1} You seem to be saying, no, we cannot take the passages above at faced value because . . . . If so, why not?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/12/11 01:55 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
M: You need to balance your favorite quote with the following insights [quotes omitted by Tom] God has not revealed everything there is to know about Himself. We are incapable of comprehending certain aspects of God. He has only revealed everything we "need to know" about Him. One of the many things He has not explained to us is "His strange act".

T: This isn't linguistically viable. She wrote that all that man needs to know, or can know, of God was revealed in the life and character of His son. You're introducing exceptions to this, without any justification whatsoever. She nowhere wrote that God's "strange act" wasn't revealed in the life and character of His Son. Your "balancing" is simply negating what she wrote. If what you're suggesting were true, then the following would also be true: "All that man needs to know, or can know, of God was NOT revealed in the life and character of His son." This is the direct opposite of what she actually wrote.

M: Do you agree the following quotes make it clear we are incapable, in our sinful state, of knowing everything there is to know about God?

Quote:
We can know of Him all that human beings can bear. {UL 347.6}

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}

God cannot be understood by men. His ways and works are past finding out. In regard to the revelations that He has made of Himself in His Word, we may talk, but other than this, let us say of Him, Thou art God, and Thy ways are past finding out. {6BC 1079.11}

Human talents and human conjecture have tried by searching to find out God. Many have trodden this pathway. The highest intellect may tax itself until it is wearied out, in conjectures regarding God, but the effort will be fruitless, and the fact will remain that man by searching cannot find out God. This problem has not been given us to solve. All that man needs to know and can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son, the Great Teacher. As we learn more and more of what man is, of what we ourselves are, in God's sight, we shall fear and tremble before Him. {MM 95.2}

In Christ Jesus is a revelation of the glory of the Godhead. All that the human agent can know of God to the saving of the soul, is the measure of the knowledge of the truth as it is in Jesus, to which he can attain; for Christ is he who represents the Father. The most wonderful truth to be grasped by men is the truth, "Immanuel, God with us." Christ is the wisdom of God. He is the great "I AM" to the world. As we contemplate the glory of the divine character as revealed in Christ, we are led to exclaim, "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!" This wisdom is displayed in the love that reaches out for the recovery of lost and ruined man. {ST, December 12, 1895 par. 5}

The Lord does not delight in vengeance, though he executes 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. Says the prophet Isaiah: "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." The work of wrath and destruction is indeed a strange, unwelcome work for Him who is infinite in love. {ST, August 24, 1882 par. 15}

The forbearance that God has exercised toward the wicked has emboldened 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." To our merciful God the act of punishment is a strange act. Yet He will "by no means clear the guilty." By terrible things in righteousness He will vindicate the authority of His downtrodden law. 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. {ST, January 25, 1910 par. 16}

His creative works are just as incomprehensible as his existence. {3SG 93.1}

"Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised, and his greatness is unsearchable." {3SG 93.2}

"Which doeth great things, past finding out; yea, and wonders without number." {3SG 93.3}

"Which doeth great things, and unsearchable; marvelous things without number." {3SG 93.4}

God thundereth marvelously with his voice. Great things doeth he, which we cannot comprehend." {3SG 93.5}

"O, the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counselor?" {3SG 93.6}

"God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Language is too feeble for us to attempt to portray the love of God. We believe it, we rejoice in it, but we cannot comprehend it. {18MR 337.2}

Yet the finite minds of men are inadequate fully to comprehend the plans and purposes of the Infinite One. We can never by searching find out God. We must not attempt to lift with presumptuous hand the curtain behind which He veils His majesty. The apostle exclaims: "How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!" Romans 11:33. We can so far comprehend His dealings with us, and the motives by which He is actuated, that we may discern boundless love and mercy united to infinite power. Our Father in heaven orders everything in wisdom and righteousness, and we are not to be dissatisfied and distrustful, but to bow in reverent submission. He will reveal to us as much of His purposes as it is for our good to know, and beyond that we must trust the Hand that is omnipotent, the Heart that is full of love. {DD 11.2}

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}

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

In the natural world we are constantly surrounded with mysteries that we cannot fathom. . . . Should we then be surprised to find that in the spiritual world also there are mysteries that we cannot fathom? {FLB 14.4}

The mysteries of the Bible . . . are among the strongest evidences of its divine inspiration. If it contained no account of God but that which we could comprehend; if His greatness and majesty could be grasped by finite minds, then the Bible would not, as now, bear the unmistakable evidences of divinity. . . . The more we search the Bible, the deeper is our conviction that it is the word of the living God, and human reason bows before the majesty of divine revelation. {FLB 14.5}

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}

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

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

We are not now sufficiently advanced in spiritual attainments to comprehend the mysteries of God. But when we shall compose the family of heaven, these mysteries will be unfolded before us. Of the members of that family John writes: "They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat. For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes." "And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads." {6BC 1091.7}

Then much will be revealed in explanation of matters upon which God now keeps silence because we have not gathered up and appreciated that which has been made known of the eternal mysteries. The ways of Providence will be made clear; the mysteries of grace through Christ will be unfolded. 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. Truth will be unfolded to the mind, free from obscurity, in a single line, and its brightness will be endurable. The heart will be made to sing for joy. Controversies will be forever ended, and all difficulties will be solved (ST Jan. 30, 1912). {6BC 1091.8}

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

Man cannot by searching find out God. Let none seek with presumptuous hand to lift the veil that conceals His glory. "Unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!" Romans 11:33. It is a proof of His mercy that there is the hiding of His power; for to lift the veil that conceals the divine presence is death. No mortal mind can penetrate the secrecy in which the Mighty One dwells and works. Only that which He sees fit to reveal can we comprehend of Him. Reason must acknowledge an authority superior to itself. Heart and intellect must bow to the great I AM. {8T 285.2}

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).

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.”

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.

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”?

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

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.

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.

Quote:
M: Also, do you think - "All that man needs to know, or can know, of God was revealed in the life and character of His son" - must be interpreted to mean "Jesus revealed everything there is to know about God while He was here in the flesh"?

T: Sure, of course. That's what it says. Well, the context is clearly dealing with Christ in His humanity, so if we accept that this is dealing with Christ's earthly mission, how else could it be read?

Why, then, did Jesus clearly say, “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”? 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}

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.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/12/11 04:18 AM

Originally Posted By: MM
Perhaps my question was poorly worded. I apologize for the confusion. I now understand you believe Jesus is free to choose between such options as preventing death and destruction or permitting it. He takes everything and everyone into consideration and then decides whether to prevent or permit death and destruction. The choice is His. Nothing happens by chance or fate.


Chance and fate are two very different things. I don't understand the purpose of this sentence. Indeed, everything you wrote above after "I not understand you believe ..." should read "I not understand I believe ..." as you're just repeating things you believe, is what it looks to me.

What *I* believe is that God has created beings with free will, and these often, on earth, unfortunately, have chosen to act contrary to God's will, and *that's* why bad things happen. And similarly for the unfaithful angelic beings.

Quote:
As sovereign Lord and King, Jesus is ultimately in control – not sin, not sinners, and not Satan.


Satan and his followers are responsible in every way, including ultimately, for sin an all its results. God is entirely innocent. God is not in control of sinners.

Quote:
When Jesus decided N&A and the two bands of fifty were worthy of death, who or what caused the fire that burned them alive?


I don't think it matters what the exact mechanism was. I believe the principles laid out in GC 35-37 were at work.

Quote:
T: You've read Job. What does it say?

Ellen wrote:


This seems like an odd response. I ask you what Job said, and you respond by saying, "Ellen wrote." Is "Ellen" a pseudonym of Job's? smile

Quote:
Quotes like the ones posted above make it clear to me Jesus and holy angels work to ensure evil angels do not exceed the limitations imposed upon them.


As I've often said, if permitted, Satan would destroy all human beings, which would not leave a Great Controversy to be fought.

Quote:
For this reason, Satan is not free to do as he pleases.


He is, to a great degree, which is evident in looking at our world. He has to be free to do as he pleases in order for there to be a Great Controversy. This agrees with your understanding, doesn't it?

Quote:
It is Jesus, not Satan, who ultimately establishes and enforces the degree of punishment meted out.


This is like saying it is Jesus, not Satan, who metes out and enforces the degree of punishment meted out when someone ignores the law of gravity. Sin causes misery, suffering, and death because of its nature. These things are what happen when one separates from God. It doesn't require an extra, unrelated, special action on the part of God for misery, suffering, and death to occur, but merely acting contrary to God's principles, and separating from Him, is sufficient. This is what "me first" does.

"Me first" can not end up in anything other than misery, suffering, and death. These things are the fruit of Satan's government, of choosing his principles.

Quote:
It must irritate Satan to know he is not free to exercise his powers as he sees fit.


Satan is free to exercise his powers as he sees fit, to a great degree, or else there would be no Great Controversy.

It's imperative that we understand that *all* the bad, all the evil, there is in the world, is the result of Satan, and none of it due to God.

Satan gets irritated when his plans are thwarted, which is what happens when one chooses to follow God instead of him.

Quote:
Like a chained lion, try as he might, he cannot tear to shreds the prey just out of reach. “Already nations are angry, already Satan is working with signs and lying wonders, and this will increase until the end. God will use his enemies as instruments to punish those who have followed their own pernicious ways whereby the truth God has been misrepresented, misjudged, and dishonored.” {PC 136.3}


They are used as GC 35-37 explains.

Quote:
M: Did Jesus, while here in the flesh (as opposed to after He returned to heaven), choose to allow things like ungodly people being burned alive?

T: O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen [doth gather] her brood under [her] wings, and ye would not! (Luke 13:34)

M: You seem to be suggesting Jesus allowed ungodly people to be killed while He was here in the flesh. Who was killed?

T: In what Jesus said, He expressed that He was willing, desiring even, to protect Jerusalem as a chicken would protect its chicks. He was very sorry they did not permit Him to do so. This is the principle enunciated in GC 35-37.

M: I don’t understand how your response answers my question.

T: My answer describes the principle at work.

M:Is offering protection, while here in the flesh, from something that happened in 70 AD equivalent to Jesus allowing N&A and the two bands of fifty to be burned alive?


The same principles are at work. Your question should be if offering protection in the one case is equivalent to offering protection in the other, as this would be apples to apples, and I would respond "yes" to such a question.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/12/11 04:25 AM

Quote:
T: Well, let's just do some math. Let's say a wicked person commits 1,000 sins in a day. Does that seem reasonable to you? If not, we can adjust it. In one year that's 365,000 sins. If the person lives a long life, that's 3,000,000 sins. Let's say it takes 10 seconds to review a sin. Does that seem reasonable to you? If not, we can adjust it. To review 3,000,000 sins at 10 seconds a sin would take 30,000,000 seconds, or a little over 57 years. I don't think the judgment will take 57 years. Do you?

M:I enjoyed your math. Nicely done. However, the following quotes, omitted in your response above, make it clear Jesus will judge every sin everyone has ever committed.


Not in the way you're apparently thinking, as the math makes clear.

Quote:
M:So we’re not accused of using human logic to undermine Inspiration, please post inspired passages that refute what she clearly stated above.


I have no desire to refute anything EGW wrote, which I'm sure you know, so your question is completely out of place. To refute how you're apparently thinking, I explained the math to you.

Quote:
In particular, note the following insight – “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.” It should be obvious that opening “the books of record” doesn’t take 57 years.


It should be obvious that a person cannot be conscious instantly of 3,000,000 individual sins. That cannot be her intent. The human mind simply does not have that capability.

Have you ever had a near death experience where your life passed before your eyes? If so, that could serve as an approximation for what's going on here.

Remember the EGW statement that says that God is pleased when we use common sense? That should be considered in interpreting statements such as these. There's advice from the EGW estate explaining this as well, to avoid coming to extreme interpretation of her statements, making her say something which was not her intent.

To review a person's entire life is clearly something that would take time. Not an extraordinary amount of time, like 57 years, if each individual sin were considered, but certainly much more than an instant. Just consider how much time is taken in earthly courts to consider things which involve the judging of a person.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/12/11 04:31 AM

Quote:
M: You say it's the grace of God that enables sinners to sin without immediately experiencing the second death, but then you say it's Satan's vital force that enables him to live with sin long after sinners perish in the lake of fire. What's the difference?

T: I was suggesting that Satan lived longer than other angels because of having a greater vital force than they have.

M:Does vital force enable sinners to sin without immediately experiencing eternal death?


Why would this be the case?

Quote:
Or, must God act to enable sinners to sin without immediately experiencing eternal death?


Haven't I said as much? Many times?

Quote:
Who or what is the origin of their source of life?


Don't you know? It's God!

Quote:
Also, who or what will act during final judgment to enable sinners to live long enough to suffer intense emotional and physical pain proportionate to their sinfulness?


I don't think this is a good way of looking at things. Actually, very bad.

Quote:
Ellen wrote:

Quote:
They suffer punishment varying in duration and intensity, "according to their works," but finally ending in the second death. {GC 544.2}

Some are destroyed as in a moment, while others suffer many days. All are punished "according to their deeds." The sins of the righteous having been transferred to Satan, he is made to suffer not only for his own rebellion, but for all the sins which he has caused God's people to commit. His punishment is to be far greater than that of those whom he has deceived. After all have perished who fell by his deceptions, he is still to live and suffer on. {GC 673.1}[

Who or what is the origin of their source of life?


Didn't you already ask this?

As to what I think the right way of looking at this:

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)


Note the overwhelming emphasis on the fate of the wicked being due to their own choice.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/12/11 05:16 AM

As the issues raised in this latest post may indeed be most foundational to our differences here, I’ll address them right away.

Originally Posted By: Tom
What I've said is that it's not necessary to investigate every individual case, that knowing the principles which apply are sufficient.


The principles indeed need to be valid. As stated your principles sound valid however the way in which you are applying them is destroying that achievable full validly

Originally Posted By: Tom
You think it's necessary to investigate every incident which you list.


As in any science, an hypothesis needs to be tested to demonstrate that it is valid. I needed to see that done with your principles with my list of prominent events, indeed discussed in both the Bible and SOP, to see if that is, as you claim, the way to come to understand all other OT. For the reasons I have stated many times, I do not substantively see the destruction of Jerusalem, as it collectively prophesied and brought about starting especially from Christ’s predicitons and how it transpired to be the all in all example of what will truly/fully happen when/whenever, if ever before, the “passion of God” is fully manifested.

Originally Posted By: Tom
It seems to me self-evident that if you agreed with the principles we're discussing, that takes care of the issue, so I'll deal with these.


Quite sincerely Tom, because, mainly I have to ignore many explicit statements of direct and active acts of God in the Bible in order to view things as you do, I do not see your even SOP supposed/derived view (i.e., believing the SOP is 100% accurate here) as being valid.


Quote:
T:1.All that can be known of God was revealed by the life and teachings of Jesus Christ during His earthly mission.

NJK:Your stance here wants to preclude everything outside of the Gospel accounts.

Tom:First of all, it's not my stance.


Fine, but only in conceding part because I see too many additions to this SOP stated statement. I.e., excising and editing the OT, even SOP, of explicit statements

Originally Posted By: Tom
Secondly, the idea isn't to preclude anything, but to emphasize that everything necessary is contained in a certain place, which is in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.


I understand this to be in term of principles in as you quoted:

Originally Posted By: SOP
With his own evil characteristics he sought to invest the loving Creator. Thus he deceived angels. Thus he deceived men. He led them to doubt the word of God, and to distrust His goodness. Because God is a God of justice and terrible majesty, Satan caused them to look upon Him as severe and unforgiving.


By you saying that God’s acts of Justice if said to be His, (despite the Bible clearly saying that), is saying that God is violent, then I think you are falling for the converse of that deception. Which is that God does not intervene to effectuate justice. Which indeed why e.g., many waywards things in the Church are left unrebuked and unjudged. You also summarily, even obliviously, deny the “brute force” war that took place in Heaven based on that slant on that SOP counsel/statement.

Quote:
NJK: I do not see that this is what the SOP had in mind.

Tom: I think she had in mind what she said, that everything that man needs to know, or can know, of God was revealed in the life and teachings of His Son. This seems very to the point and easy to understand to me.


You want this “everything” to be something tangibly substantive, whereas it is quite logically speaking of the greater principles at work. So since you don’t see Jesus marshalling an army to expand the territory of Israel, you somehow see that the OT must not have ever said this!?? However Jesus indeed demonstrate such part of the ministry of wrath/judgement principle of God. Indeed by defaulty opposing the Jewish leaders from the start, as shown in the parable of the fig tree, he played a part in, at least, keeping the Jewish nation on their path of destruction, if he also did not later stir up the Roman to come against the Jews. If I recall accurately, following the very early 66 aborted siege, in wasn’t until later 69 A.D. that the Romans returned. Perhaps God stirred them to return, so that they would not give up on the revolted Jews and just let them be. Indeed as Titus was then most reticent and regretful to use military force all the way through that conflict.

Quote:
NJK Furthermore, you do not address the circumstantial realities, Gospel mandate and Legalities which all variously limited the extent of Christ actions on this earthly mission.

Tom: This is irrelevant, unless it limited Christ's ability to reveal all that man needs to know or can know of God.


Based upon your requirements for your view, it certainly is not. Case in point, you also somehow outrightly ignore/deny OT, Divinely-mandated, acts of Capital Punishment. Well as I pointed out, Jesus could not do so, nor was he thus presented with more than one contrived and illegal opportunity to do so because the ROMAN LAW prevented Him to do so. Yet Jesus also did not abolish that Law of God in this regard in His response to that situation, as He easily could have. Thus the Roman Law would have “limited Christ's ability to reveal all that man needs to know or can know of God” in here, regards to Capital Punishment however Jesus non artificial point was that there was not a righteous witness to establish that case. Indeed He here heightened the Law to the Righteous Level that God always intended thus at the same time demonstrated the Character of God in this regards. That, by then hypocritically abused, law was also not abolished but elevated and made honorable. You instead, irrationally say and want me to believe that, based on this episode, the OT God then committed no Capital Punishment. It would be one thing to claim that from the NT time on, there should be not capital punishment, (though here your incident-requiring view would have to limit it to only cases of adultery), however it is a whole other incomprehensible thing to seek to rewrite God’s actions and commands towards this inflicted death end in the OT.

Quote:
NJK: Jesus also wanted to emphasize that the low and hypocritical level of righteousness amongst God’s people then made it that just/righteous judgements such as those involving capital punishment could not be enforced. (Cf. Matt 5:20) It indeed was the leaders who were deserving of these punishments. Also, these capital punishments may have been done during the 3.5 years of Christ public ministry, (that is of course if the Roman’s honored them, especially the more religious ones), yet you don’t read of Jesus going to such a probable public execution and saying that it should not be done, and that oddly enough, because ‘God does not condone such direct and inflicted killing which are done for Him and in His name by His People’!?

Tom: Did this impact Christ's ability to reveal the Father?


According to your concrete Gospel incidents-requirement view it should unless you are, as I observed just subjectively deciding what in the OT you yourself will allow Jesus to address and reveal. That’s what I call the “Gospel of Tom” and if anyone else who share such a view also do this then I say the same about them.

Quote:
Tom: 2.God is just like Jesus Christ in character.

NJK:I see that you are significantly looking at things reversedly.

Tom: The "whole purpose" of Christ's earthly mission was "the revelation of God." (ST 1/20/90). From Scripture, John 1:18. "No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known."

Tom: The problem is that God's character wasn't known.


I exegetically don’t jump to that “known” conclusion from even John 1:18 which literally speaks of “showing the way” or relating in order to explain. So God’s Character was known, however it was just misunderstood. Thus Jesus in His Life and Teaching “showed the way” to how it really was thus “explaining it” through these variously “related” (= recounted) actions and words.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Both statements "Jesus Christ is just like God" and "God is just like Jesus Christ" are equally true.


They are only reversibly true because Jesus perfectly imitated and emulated the Father the OT God which in many instances was Jesus Himself and at the very least, being the union of God, always reflected all of the Three members of the Godhead.

Originally Posted By: Tom
The problem lies more in the realm of misunderstanding God's character, however; hence the emphasis there.


That is indeed more, and significantly so, accurate. Indeed it was because it was “wrongly known” (e.g,. John 8:38-41) being actually Satan’s character, that these Jews were in error.

And as I said in regards to EGW mention of ‘compelling force’ it is in regards to ‘break Satan’s deceptive power’ and not, not to enforce due and deserved judgements.

Originally Posted By: SOP DA 22
That the gloomy shadows might be lightened, that the world might be brought back to God, Satan's deceptive power was to be broken.


It was this that “could not be done by force” for ‘the exercise of (compelling) force is contrary to the principles of God's government. And not judgement force. Nor miracle working power. I see that God justly offsets judgements which can lead to an inceptive fear with miracles which also influences one to believe in God.

Quote:
NJK: Many statements of Jesus say that He was imitating the Father. As such He also did not act unjustly and thus have someone killed just to demonstrate that the Father had done this in the OT. He rather did just like God and, not doing away with such capital punishment laws, insisted that it be done in a righteous way (John 7:24 - and a “righteous” judgement is not the same as a “just” as seen in the episode related by John in the next chapter.

Tom: The point that you are responding to is that "God is just like Jesus Christ." Are you wishing to dispute this point? If so, I don't see how this last paragraph does so.


My point here is that Jesus perfectly imitated the OT God by showing that even Capital Punishment, when done, in full keeping with the Law, must be a righteous judgement. So in this area, Jesus was also like God the Father.

Quote:
Tom: 3.Jesus Christ was not violent, and taught anti-violence.

NJK: If this “violence” means malicious acts, then that statement if fully true.

Tom: It means "violent" in the ordinarily understood meaning of the term.


Well if you wanted to see it as involving any force then you should have said so then you should have insisted so. To me, perhaps to 19th century people (as with the word “mischief”) violence has a more malicious connotation than mere use of force.

And, does EGW herself ever say that ‘God is not violent’ to mean God does not use any force. Otherwise you would be imposing your understandings on hers. Indeed all I see her saying is He does not use ‘force to compel’ and that service to him. Force to comply with an undisputable requirement that He is making in an acts of judgement as the Plagues after years of slavery seems to also not be a use of force to compel. Indeed God was not seeking for Pharaoh to love or “serve” him but to comply with the command to Let Israel go from Egypt.

Originally Posted By: Tom
An illustration of Christ's teachings are where He explained that His kingdom is not of this world, and if it were, His servants would fight.


That is really a proof-text example. All that Jesus is simply saying that He/His Servants are not engaging in military effort (like the Zealots) to establish His kingdom because it is not “out of” this world. Not that any force, such as to execute capital punishment, is never acceptable. Indeed, as veiledly stated, because Jesus was not seeking to establish a typical kingdom as those of, and in the manner of, the world’s methods to do so, military campaigns to seek to get lands to establish it was not necessary. So Pilate had no tangible threat in that regards That kingdom was instead going to be done by conquering hearts instead.

Quote:
Tom 5.The use of force is contrary to the principles of God's government.

NJK: If it means “use force” then a statement like (Luke 22:35-38) could easily disprove this,

Tom: If you would cite what the references say, it's easier on the reader.


I don’t think I can afford that extra effort. I also figure people will prefer to read their favorite version, vs. my default NASB, so I only cite the reference. Only when I see crucial exegetical improvements from the NASB do I quote the text with indicated improving edits.


Originally Posted By: Tom
When Jesus said, "It is enough," your understanding of this is that Jesus Christ was teaching that violence, or force, should be used?


Actually No. The context clearly says to me that the tow swords the disciples managed to find amongst themselves was enough.

Quote:
NJK: indeed as the time for this use of capable force had now come. Jesus indeed used light force to exact, or seek to exact, just acts from His opposers and enemies. (E.g., ‘not arresting Him as he was indeed God‘ John 18:5, 6 - DA 695.1). Christ’s miracles were also a use of supernatural force to this similar effect (see e.g., John 11:4, 40-42). This is also just like God to use shades of light force to seek to instill an inceptive fear in man (e.g, Egypt Plagues Exod 7:3-5; 11:9), yet, as seen with Christ’s arresters, man is free to be compelled by this force or not.

Tom: You're saying the Egyptian Plagues were "light force"? Should the 7 last plagues also be deemed "light force."?


Considering what God could have done to Egypt in even one plague, all of the limited and withdrawn plagues were relatively “light force”. God indeed could have completely blotted of the Egyptians and given everything left over to Israel, indeed the whole territory of Egypt also. Indeed the pointedness of the last plague deliberately demonstrated that God could kill only, even all Egyptians if He wanted to. (Cf. Exod 11:7)

Originally Posted By: Tom
In the last plague, the eldest sons were killed. The implication is, if you don't do what God says, more will be killed. To suggest that this isn't compelling a decision isn't a credible suggestion.

If I kill a child of yours, and threaten to kill another one if you don't do what I say, sure, I can say you're free to do what you want, that I'm not compelling you, but that rings hollow. This is certainly an example of my using force to compel you to do my will.


I most manifestly, even evidently, see here how your view actually is defaultly faulting and impeaching the Character of God. That is why you prefer to ignore or vainly explain away such OT passages. God was not saying to Egypt that I will kill more if you don’t obey me here. As exegesis clearly shows, God actually “(forcefully) hardened” Pharoah’s heart so that that Plague also can be done, indeed by the 6th plague exegesis shows that God was acting to harden Pharaoh’s heart when necessary. Your theology won’t allow for that exegetically plain reading, however it clearly is stated, and thus implied that God wanted Pharaoh to resist up through the 10th Plagues. As I said before, the reverential question here is to (hopefully “prayerfully”) as “why”. I did, and here is the Biblical answer I was impressed with, in succinct bullet points. (See especially Exod 1 and PP 241ff for most Biblical allusions)

-When God had began establishing Israel, He had no land to given them yet as no kingdom was yet fully deserving of being judged for their sins.

-Israel therefore had to settle in a place where they could relatively be safe as they were greatly and rapidly increased by God. So God sent them to Egypt through an act which made them favored at first.

-Indeed when they increased, and became a natural threat where they could also join an invading army against Egypt, the Egyptians enslaved them. Other nations would probably have sought to kill them if they had not been in a land (which really could not happen as all lands belonged a nation, especially the Great Power of Egypt).

-(Slavery was also an object lesson for Israel for their future to impress them to be obedient in order to avoid losing their freedom and land.)

-then when Israel still could not be controlled and loyalty assured despite enslavement, Egypt began to kill the males of Israel by throwing them into the Nile. That went on for at least three months in “full force” (PP 242.2). As Aaron was 3 years older than Moses (Exod 7:7), and Aaron was alive, then it may have been going on for up to these 3 years of difference. I further do not see any indication when, even if it ever ended up Israel’s Exodus, despite Moses having been rescued through a seemingly unique, and God-inspired, idea. (Point it out to me if you know). Indeed the Egyptians original threat was only increasing and God had not yet actively intervene in it. So this killing may have been going own for over 80 years until Moses returned to deliver Israel. That would mean that millions of Israelite male children were so killed during this time.

-So the Ten plagues, indeed sustained by God to their full extent, when Pharaoh wanted to concede by the 6th plague, was done on one side to make Egypt freely give Israel much substance as reparations for the years of enslavement and the Tenth Plague, to justly venge the death of potentially/probably millions of Hebrew Male Children. (Deut 32:35; Psa 94:1; cf. Rom 12:19; Heb 10:30, 31)

-Also the first-born was a sort of god to Egyptians so it also defeated that, probably most revered figment of a god of their.

So God was acting justly in all of this and that is why He was hardening Pharaoh’s heart through those 10 plagues as forcefully necessary. So Pharaoh did not even really have to option to refuse this 10 phase just judgement that God wanted to do. And if God had wanted to compel Egypt, that 10th plague directly (if not only) involving human death, would have been done first, then 2nd born for the second plague, etc.

Again the way to understand the Character of God is to defaultly give him the benefit of the doubt and then reverentially/prayerfully ask why. And the answer is indeed in His OT words and revelation, with Jesus also confirming that God is a God of justice.

Quote:
4.There are thousand dangers from which God protects us constantly. Any degree of destruction is possible by God's simply withdrawing His protection. There is no need for God to act actively to produce destruction.

NJK:That possibly may, to an extent, be the case, however that blanket supposition is not what the Bible and SOP explicitly state in many, if not most, pertinent instances.

Tom: I got the statement from the SOP. In the GC 35-37 passage she says something similar. We certainly grossly underestimate the extent to which we are dependent upon God for His protection.


True in part, though I would actually challenge rendering “many” as “thousand” in the sense as I logically see it as “thousands of different kinds of dangers. For example I believe that the world is getting old and thus many disaster such as earthquakes occur, but I do not think that God is e.g., actively keeping the Oxygen molecules in air from combusting or the hydrogen in water from splitting and causing a global atomic explosion. I see all natural threats as being age related. Indeed in the first 6 of the 7 last plagues with bowls of wrath being poured out by God Angels to various aspects of the planet and life show to me that God has to actively perform/mix in/inject something to nature to cause “supernatural” catastrophe, i.e., greater than the “natural” disaster that this ageing planet naturally produces.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I don't know what your point is here [below].


Sorry for the misunderstanding. Here is my statement edited, more clearly expressed and rearranged:

‘As you understand it, a passive destruction is ‘God removing His hand from an already formed/present danger (e.g., venomous serpents)’ and ‘leaving a person to follow the destructive path they always wanted to follow.’ However I do not see that Israel always wanted to be bitten by snakes in the desert and God was preventive this, their will, from occurring or being pursued. Indeed if He was preventing this, this would theologically wrongly imply that God is forcing people to do what is right, while here their will would be to be bitten by snakes.’

‘In other words in your even passive view, God is shown as having an “obey me or else” approach, and worst He, with the withheld snakes, does not warn of the dangers that would occur if Israel disobeyed.’ I don’t know if I’ve made it clear. It is just that I don’t see your passive view as removing any action from God, but really only making thing worst relationally and theologically. If it was instead a direct action such as if you want to continue smoking then you’ll naturally get cancer, then that something else, but Israel here did not want to be bitten by snakes, they simply did not want to obey God. So God is being shown as someone who says, if you obey me then I’ll protect you.

In fact, as I see it, in God sending rain on the just and unjust, is in many ways protecting everyone. Which is actually a natural act. Withholding rain on only the unjust would be supernatural. When God has to actively, supernaturally intervene for the accomplishment a course/mission that He has mandated (= crossing a wilderness with the serpents) then undoing this intervening act constitutes a direct act, indeed at the very least, the undoing of an active act. As I said a truly passive acts, what I see as a ‘Satan passive’ is Satan influencing a person to at least start, and then of themselves keep on smoking until they get cancer. Still I do not see very many Active acts of Satan in the GC to date. People chose their life courses and some knowingly chose to suffer and/or risk the consequences.

Quote:
NJK:And the passive destructions of God, still do come from Him, i.e., His allowing of it. That is why I now see the God vs. Satan categories instead on seeing this as ‘an Active God vs. a Passive God.’

Tom: Regarding God's allowing things instead of preventing them, it's evil that is causing the things which God permits.


This is pointedly where I see the ‘(ultimately) blame it on the author of sin (=Satan)’ issue/statement as applying.

Originally Posted By: Tom
God can't prevent all bad consequences of sin, or else no one would learn that sin results in misery, suffering, and death.


He actually can. But I rather see that He does not because of GC limitation and not for lessons inflicting reasons. I would see this as a form of using compelling force. Satan wanted God to let created being live apart from His laws and on their own choices, well that is what God has allowed including all of the natural consequences. Man now has to freely choose if they’ll want to have faith in God or not and God has been allowed/able to work with those who want to. Indeed also being a blessing, if those professed follower make it so, a rescue and blessing to the unfaithful. It all and always revolves around free choices.

Quote:
NJK: Indeed the presence and influence of God’s is not doing anything forceful, but is just whispering a Good alternative to the Satan’s evil suggestions. People are always entirely free to choose what they will follow.

Tom: But they may lose a child if they don't....


(I presume = Egypt’s first born): Only when (delayed) justice is to be rendered.

Originally Posted By: Tom
...or get burned alive.


(I presume = Sodom and Gomorrah, [though e.g., Num 16] same degree of relative opportunity*): Only when their sin has reached a certain life threatening level (e.g., developed epidemics and/or STD’s as such perverse acts may lead to.)

It is most telling to me that you manifestly see these acts of God as being totally baseless. It is no wonder that you prefer not to consider them. If you rightly had applied what your views should fully mean, you would look to Jesus who also spoke of Sodom and Gomorrah in deserving of judgement, and typifying, terms (Matt 10:15; 11:23, 24; Luke 17:28-30) and at the very least give God this Jesus-derived benefit of the doubt that that OT Judgement of God was a just and deserving one. Even people who lived and/or daily commune with Jesus and/or saw him understood this; (Jude 1:7; 2 Pet 2:6; Rom 9:29, respectively).

*Again the closer a people is allowed to get to God, in the fairest and also most just of ways, the swifter/non-delayed are deserved judgements.

Originally Posted By: Tom
These are a few. Now if these are genuine principles, then there are always in effect.


Because of your, factually, patent and pervasive, effectively, substantively, precluding/preclusive approach, which involves your not letting God testify for Him in the OT, and worse defaulty impeaching and/or ignoring His acts of judgement, which are always out of, at least, Justice and Fairneess, you are wholly undermine your otherwise noble principles.

So again “As transparently demonstrated above, they Substantively (=Biblically) and Theologically, even Prophetically not “genuine”. The have proven to just be eisegetical suppositions.”

To prove me wrong you’ll at least have to, even if it is somewhat distinct in theme, show how your view arrives at a Substantively (=Biblically),Theologically, even Prophetically, and also logically sound holistic view of God Character in e.g., the acts that I have listed.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Here are the principles again:

1.All that can be known of God was revealed by the life and teachings of Jesus Christ during His earthly mission.

2.God is just like Jesus Christ in character.

3.Jesus Christ was not violent, and taught anti-violence.

4.There are thousand dangers from which God protects us constantly. Any degree of destruction is possible by God's simply withdrawing His protection. There is no need for God to act actively to produce destruction.

5.The use of force is contrary to the principles of God's government.

So you're saying you don't agree with any of these? (since none of them are "genuine").


Effectively, so!
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/12/11 08:14 AM

Quote:
T:What I've said is that it's not necessary to investigate every individual case, that knowing the principles which apply are sufficient.

NJK:The principles indeed need to be valid. As stated your principles sound valid however the way in which you are applying them is destroying that achievable full validly.


I asked you at the end if you didn't agree with any of the principles, and you said indeed, you don't. I'll repeat them here.

Quote:
1.All that can be known of God was revealed by the life and teachings of Jesus Christ during His earthly mission.


This is a direct quote from the SOP.

Quote:
2.God is just like Jesus Christ in character.


This is basic Christianity. I could probably find a quote from the SOP that says this. It's surprising to me that a Christian would deny this.

Quote:
3.Jesus Christ was not violent, and taught anti-violence.


I don't know anyone who doesn't agree with this.

Quote:
4.There are thousand dangers from which God protects us constantly. Any degree of destruction is possible by God's simply withdrawing His protection. There is no need for God to act actively to produce destruction.


The first sentence is either a direct quote from the SOP, or very close to it. The other two follow from that. It should be evident that if it's the case that God really is protecting us from a thousand dangers, all of them unseen (this is actually what she says), that it would follow that any degree of destruction that God should desire, should He desire such a thing, would follow from that.

Quote:
5.The use of force is contrary to the principles of God's government.


A direct quote from the SOP.

Please state these principles in a way that you would consider genuine.

Quote:
T:You think it's necessary to investigate every incident which you list.

NJK:As in any science, an hypothesis needs to be tested to demonstrate that it is valid.


One doesn't need to investigate every incident to do so.

Quote:
I needed to see that done with your principles with my list of prominent events, indeed discussed in both the Bible and SOP, to see if that is, as you claim, the way to come to understand all other OT.


I disagree with this. I think what's necessary is to see God's character as revealed by Jesus Christ.

Quote:
For the reasons I have stated many times, I do not substantively see the destruction of Jerusalem, as it collectively prophesied and brought about starting especially from Christ’s predicitons and how it transpired to be the all in all example of what will truly/fully happen when/whenever, if ever before, the “passion of God” is fully manifested.


It's the incident that we have the most information regarding, not including the cross. The cross would be the best study, as it reveals God's character far better than any other incident.

Quote:
It seems to me self-evident that if you agreed with the principles we're discussing, that takes care of the issue, so I'll deal with these.


Quite sincerely Tom, because, mainly I have to ignore many explicit statements of direct and active acts of God in the Bible in order to view things as you do, I do not see your even SOP supposed/derived view (i.e., believing the SOP is 100% accurate here) as being valid.


That's because of your paradigm. Others with a different paradigm than you hold don't need to ignore these statements, but understand them differently than you do.

God is often presented as doing that which He permits in Scripture. For example, it says in Numbers that God sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites, but what actually happened is God removed His protection. It says in 1 Kings, that God sent lying spirits to Ahab, but what actually happened is God permitted. It says in Job that the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, but this was said by one who didn't know of Satan's existence. When the curtain is pulled away, we see that it was an enemy who caused the things which happened to Job.

Quote:
Christ never planted the seeds of death in the system. Satan planted these seeds when he tempted Adam to eat of the tree of knowledge which meant disobedience to God. Not one noxious plant was placed in the Lord’s great garden, but after Adam and Eve sinned, poisonous herbs sprang up. In the parable of the sower the question was asked the master, “Didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?” The master answered, “An enemy hath done this” (Matthew 13:27, 28). All tares are sown by the evil one. Every noxious herb is of his sowing, and by his ingenious methods of amalgamation he has corrupted the earth with tares. {2SM 288.2}


This principle has many applications!

Quote:
T:1.All that can be known of God was revealed by the life and teachings of Jesus Christ during His earthly mission.

NJK:Your stance here wants to preclude everything outside of the Gospel accounts.

Tom:First of all, it's not my stance.


NJK:Fine, but only in conceding part because I see too many additions to this SOP stated statement. I.e., excising and editing the OT, even SOP, of explicit statements


It's a very simple statement. Is simply says that all that we can know of God was revealed by Jesus Christ during His earthly mission. That's the context of the statement, and the context is very easy to understand. It doesn't need to be interpreted or edited or anything, but is easily understood simply as it reads.

Here's a similar statement from a different author:

Quote:
Whereas certain false teachers of his day (were) depicting Christ as one aspect of the display of God's fullness, Paul insists, as we have already seen, that "the whole fullness of deity" dwells in Christ (Col. 2:9). No aspect of God's fullness was withheld from the incarnation. All we can and need to know about God is found in Christ, for God fully dwells in and is revealed in Christ. (Boyd, "Is God to Blame?", p.34)


It's interesting how similar this is to the SOP statement.

Quote:
Tom: 3.Jesus Christ was not violent, and taught anti-violence.

NJK: If this “violence” means malicious acts, then that statement if fully true.

Tom: It means "violent" in the ordinarily understood meaning of the term.

NJK:Well if you wanted to see it as involving any force then you should have said so then you should have insisted so.


One can use force without being violent, such as force being necessary to lift a weight. But when force is used to achieve one's way, by threat, for example, then it's difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish this from violence. Also, if one considers an act, such as burning a person alive, it's difficult to see how this could be considered as other than a violent act.

Quote:
To me, perhaps to 19th century people (as with the word “mischief”) violence has a more malicious connotation than mere use of force.


"Force" is a term of physics, so can be a neutral term, but "violence" implies the intent to hurt someone or some thing, or to kill.

Quote:
And, does EGW herself ever say that ‘God is not violent’ to mean God does not use any force.


I don't know if she specifically says this, but she does say that the exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government.

Quote:
Otherwise you would be imposing your understandings on hers.


That's very poor logic. The absence of the use of a particular phrase doesn't prove anything, which I'm sure you're well aware of. Because Ellen White didn't use some specific phrase or sentence cannot possibly imply that I'm imposing my understand on hers, and it's difficult to see how you could assert such a thing, which is so obviously false.

Quote:
Indeed all I see her saying is He does not use ‘force to compel’ and that service to him.


If God says, "Do what I say, or I'll cause you to suffer unimaginable pain" or "Do what I say, or I'll kill your child," that's using 'force to compel.'

Quote:
Force to comply with an undisputable requirement that He is making in an acts of judgement as the Plagues after years of slavery seems to also not be a use of force to compel.


This isn't a very coherent sentence, but I think I understand what you're trying to say. Why are you saying such a thing? Surely threatening to kill someone's child if they don't do what the one threatening is insisting upon is an act of compulsion. There's no way this could not be the case.

Quote:
Indeed God was not seeking for Pharaoh to love or “serve” him but to comply with the command to Let Israel go from Egypt.


And, as you understand things (please correct me if this isn't the case), God threatened to kill his son if he didn't. Again, this is an act of compulsion.

Quote:
T:An illustration of Christ's teachings are where He explained that His kingdom is not of this world, and if it were, His servants would fight.

NJK:That is really a proof-text example.


It's a profound statement about the nature of Christ's kingdom.

Quote:
All that Jesus is simply saying that He/His Servants are not engaging in military effort (like the Zealots) to establish His kingdom because it is not “out of” this world.


That's not all He's saying. It's more profound than that.

Quote:
Not that any force, such as to execute capital punishment, is never acceptable. Indeed, as veiledly stated, because Jesus was not seeking to establish a typical kingdom as those of, and in the manner of, the world’s methods to do so, military campaigns to seek to get lands to establish it was not necessary. So Pilate had no tangible threat in that regards That kingdom was instead going to be done by conquering hearts instead.


The conquering of hearts is a good comment. That's indeed what the kingdom of Christ entails, and it should be easy to see that violence, or force, has no part in such conquering.

Quote:
Tom 5.The use of force is contrary to the principles of God's government.

NJK: If it means “use force” then a statement like (Luke 22:35-38) could easily disprove this,

Tom: If you would cite what the references say, it's easier on the reader.

NJK:I don’t think I can afford that extra effort.


I think you can. Other people do. If you list a series of texts, you wouldn't have to provide the text for each one, but at least one would be a kindness to your reader.

Quote:
I also figure people will prefer to read their favorite version, vs. my default NASB, so I only cite the reference.


A person's always free to consider another version, but it's a kindness to the reader to not have to go looking to see what a text says.

Quote:
Only when I see crucial exegetical improvements from the NASB do I quote the text with indicated improving edits.


This isn't the point. It would be the same thing if I quoted from the SOP, and you had to look up what it says. That's requiring extra work of you.

Quote:
T:When Jesus said, "It is enough," your understanding of this is that Jesus Christ was teaching that violence, or force, should be used?

NJK:Actually No. The context clearly says to me that the tow swords the disciples managed to find amongst themselves was enough.


Clarke:

Quote:
It is enough. The meaning probably is, there is enough said on the subject; as immediately after this he entered into his agony.


Gill:

Quote:
it is enough, it is very well, I perceive you do not understand my meaning, and I shall say no more at present.


Again quoted because of ease; these were the first ones I came across. I'm sure other commentaries make the same point.

That Christ had this meaning in mind is clear to me (I understood it this way before looking at any commentaries). To see this statement of Christ's as a recommendation for violence seems absurd to me.

Quote:
NJK: indeed as the time for this use of capable force had now come. Jesus indeed used light force to exact, or seek to exact, just acts from His opposers and enemies. (E.g., ‘not arresting Him as he was indeed God‘ John 18:5, 6 - DA 695.1). Christ’s miracles were also a use of supernatural force to this similar effect (see e.g., John 11:4, 40-42). This is also just like God to use shades of light force to seek to instill an inceptive fear in man (e.g, Egypt Plagues Exod 7:3-5; 11:9), yet, as seen with Christ’s arresters, man is free to be compelled by this force or not.

Tom: You're saying the Egyptian Plagues were "light force"? Should the 7 last plagues also be deemed "light force."?

NJK:Considering what God could have done to Egypt in even one plague, all of the limited and withdrawn plagues were relatively “light force”.


This would always be the case. God could always be more awful or horrible if He wanted to be, since He's omnipotent, but to describe the plagues in Egypt as "light force" seems like calling the holocaust "a minor evil."

(More separately)
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/12/11 08:44 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
T:In the last plague, the eldest sons were killed. The implication is, if you don't do what God says, more will be killed. To suggest that this isn't compelling a decision isn't a credible suggestion.

If I kill a child of yours, and threaten to kill another one if you don't do what I say, sure, I can say you're free to do what you want, that I'm not compelling you, but that rings hollow. This is certainly an example of my using force to compel you to do my will.

NJK:I most manifestly, even evidently, see here how your view actually is defaultly faulting and impeaching the Character of God.


I haven't found any fault whatsoever with God's character, but only your understanding of it. Where have I said anything negative at all regarding God's character, or found any fault with it?

I should add that, in saying that I find fault with your understanding of God's character, I don't wish to imply that my understanding of it is perfect; not by any means! However, I'm not aware of anything regarding my conception of God's character that another would find negative.

Quote:
That is why you prefer to ignore or vainly explain away such OT passages.


I'm understanding what is written according to the following principles:

1.God is often presented in Scripture as doing that which He permits.

2.Jesus Christ fully revealed God's character.

In particular, the second statement, when it really hit me what it was saying, had a profound impact upon how I saw things.

Quote:
God was not saying to Egypt that I will kill more if you don’t obey me here. As exegesis clearly shows, God actually “(forcefully) hardened” Pharoah’s heart so that that Plague also can be done, indeed by the 6th plague exegesis shows that God was acting to harden Pharaoh’s heart when necessary.


This doesn't help any. That is, it doesn't speak any better of God's character; worse, actually. At least, it appears you're saying that God undertook an action, the result of which was, that He would kill innocent children. Not only did God threaten to kill the innocent children if a given demand wasn't met, but God, worse than this, took steps to make sure that the demand wouldn't be met.

I sincerely hope I'm misunderstanding you here, but, if not, I cannot imagine why you would think such a representation of God's character is in the least appealing, nor of what you think it could have in common with the character Jesus Christ revealed.

Quote:
Your theology won’t allow for that exegetically plain reading, however it clearly is stated, and thus implied that God wanted Pharaoh to resist up through the 10th Plagues.


This isn't Scriptural.

Quote:
(The Lord is) not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. (2 Pet. 3:9; NASB)


Originally Posted By: NJK
As I said before, the reverential question here is to (hopefully “prayerfully”) as “why”.


"What?" would be a good question.

Quote:
I did, and here is the Biblical answer I was impressed with, in succinct bullet points. (See especially Exod 1 and PP 241ff for most Biblical allusions)

-When God had began establishing Israel, He had no land to given them yet as no kingdom was yet fully deserving of being judged for their sins.

-Israel therefore had to settle in a place where they could relatively be safe as they were greatly and rapidly increased by God. So God sent them to Egypt through an act which made them favored at first.

-Indeed when they increased, and became a natural threat where they could also join an invading army against Egypt, the Egyptians enslaved them. Other nations would probably have sought to kill them if they had not been in a land (which really could not happen as all lands belonged a nation, especially the Great Power of Egypt).

-(Slavery was also an object lesson for Israel for their future to impress them to be obedient in order to avoid losing their freedom and land.)


Do you think slavery was very successful at this? Ever? You're making it sound as if it were God's will that Israel should be made slaves. Isn't it evident that the powers of Egypt acted contrary to God's will in not remembering Joseph? Or do you think God is in favor of slavery, or that slavery is not an evil?

What I believe is that God permitted the slavery to occur, and that God is able to work blessings out of evil, but slavery is evil, and evil is never God's will.

Quote:
-then when Israel still could not be controlled and loyalty assured despite enslavement, Egypt began to kill the males of Israel by throwing them into the Nile. That went on for at least three months in “full force” (PP 242.2). As Aaron was 3 years older than Moses (Exod 7:7), and Aaron was alive, then it may have been going on for up to these 3 years of difference. I further do not see any indication when, even if it ever ended up Israel’s Exodus, despite Moses having been rescued through a seemingly unique, and God-inspired, idea.


This last phrase isn't a sentence.

Quote:
(Point it out to me if you know).


I don't know what you want me to point out. When what? I don't see that you explained what the "when" was referring to.

Quote:
Indeed the Egyptians original threat was only increasing and God had not yet actively intervene in it. So this killing may have been going own for over 80 years until Moses returned to deliver Israel. That would mean that millions of Israelite male children were so killed during this time.

-So the Ten plagues, indeed sustained by God to their full extent, when Pharaoh wanted to concede by the 6th plague, was done on one side to make Egypt freely give Israel much substance as reparations for the years of enslavement and the Tenth Plague, to justly venge the death of potentially/probably millions of Hebrew Male Children. (Deut 32:35; Psa 94:1; cf. Rom 12:19; Heb 10:30, 31)


It's hardly "freely" if done under duress. That's the opposite of "freely."

Quote:
-Also the first-born was a sort of god to Egyptians so it also defeated that, probably most revered figment of a god of their.

So God was acting justly in all of this and that is why He was hardening Pharaoh’s heart through those 10 plagues as forcefully necessary.


The following explains what true justice is:

Quote:
Thus has the LORD of hosts said, 'Dispense true justice and practice kindness and compassion each to his brother;(Zech: 7:9 (NASB)


Quote:
So Pharaoh did not even really have to option to refuse this 10 phase just judgement that God wanted to do.


Didn't have the option to refuse! So pharaoh didn't have free will. Again, this hardly helps in terms of presenting a defense of God's character.

Quote:
And if God had wanted to compel Egypt, that 10th plague directly (if not only) involving human death, would have been done first, then 2nd born for the second plague, etc.


One could argue that God, out of mercy, was trying to apply the least amount of force necessary, and only increased the force of the plagues because He wasn't getting His way with less force.

Quote:
Again the way to understand the Character of God is to defaultly give him the benefit of the doubt and then reverentially/prayerfully ask why.


The way to understand the character of God is to study Jesus Christ, who was sent for the very purpose of revealing God's character, which had be so sorely misunderstood.

Quote:
And the answer is indeed in His OT words and revelation, with Jesus also confirming that God is a God of justice.


Not just confirming God is a God of justice, but demonstrating the truth of God's justice:

Quote:
Thus has the LORD of hosts said, 'Dispense true justice and practice kindness and compassion each to his brother;(Zech. 7:9)


As well, Jesus Christ revealed the Father.

I appreciate your effort in writing all this, but it still remains that threatening to kill someone's child if they don't do what you're telling them to do is using force. If you say that Pharaoh wasn't threatened because God forced him to do what He wanted him to do by hardening his heart, that hardly helps the argument that God doesn't use force to get His way.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/12/11 10:27 AM

Originally Posted By: MM
MM:1. In the OT, why did Jesus command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle?

M: Seems to me you believe Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in battle because 1) the Jews failed to trust Jesus to defeat their enemies in a godly way, and 2) the Jews expected Him to think and behave like a pagan god. Do you agree with my assessment of your view as it relates to the question above?

T: No, of course not. But surely you must know that.

M:Please elaborate.


Consider the story of the father/hunter. What was the father's will in regards to his son? What did the father do and say to his son? Could his words be misconstrued by someone overhearing the conversation?

If you don't remember the story, I can refresh hour memory.

Quote:

M: Was Jesus, while here in the flesh (as opposed to after He returned to heaven), forced to command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle?

T: What are the principles laid out in GC 35-37? That's the important question. Did Jesus Christ teach and embody these principles? Yes, He did. Where we're disagreeing is in regards to what we think God is like. I believe God's character was revealed fully by Jesus Christ, and the best revelation was the cross. Rather than use force to get His way, Jesus Christ voluntarily submitted to torture and a horrible death from the very creatures He came to save. This is what God is like. Not just sometimes, but all the time. The principles explained in GC 35-37 are in harmony with what Jesus Christ revealed. Your perceptions of God's character appear to me to be schizophrenic. Some of the time, as it appears to me you see things, He exhibits the qualities Jesus Christ embodied on earth, especially at the cross, but other times He acts indistinguishably from Satan, leaving us with no means to know who is acting.

M:I don’t understand how your response answers the question above.


I explained the principles I felt your question was trying to get at. Your question was simply a yes/no question, of which a one-word answer wouldn't be very useful, I didn't feel.

You've asked many questions similar to the above, and each time it appears to me the motivation is to argue why the SOP statement that "all that man can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son" is false. You've already stated categorically that it doesn't include "His strange act." Perhaps your question above is another manifestation of this same point.

Well, we're simply in disagreement regarding this point. I think the statement that all we need to know, or can know, of God was revealed in the life and character of Jesus Christ is 100% true, including "His strange act," or anything else regarding God's character that one can think of.

Quote:

2. In the OT, why did Jesus command godly people to kill ungodly people through the execution of capital punishment?

T: You repeated yourself.

Why do you think so?


Because you asked the same question twice! Look at your post.

Quote:

M: Was Jesus, while here in the flesh (as opposed to after He returned to heaven), forced to command godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment?

T: What's your argument here? That since Jesus Christ, while here in the flesh, wasn't forced to command godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment, it therefore follows that it's not the case that all that we can know of God was revealed by Him? I can't think of why you would ask this question otherwise. Why not just set forth your argument?

M:You wrote, “Jesus Christ, while here in the flesh, wasn't forced to command godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment.”


It's really confusing to read something like this. I didn't write this. You wrote this.

Quote:
Is this your answer to the question above?


No.

Quote:
In response to your question, I believe the OT Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment, and the fact the NT Jesus did not do so makes it clear He did not demonstrate this attribute of God’s character while here in the flesh.


Ok, you disagree with Ellen White's statement. I agree with it, and disagree with you. I think you're misunderstanding what an attribute of God's character is. At "attribute" is

Quote:
A quality or feature regarded as a characteristic or inherent part of someone or something.


In regards to God's character, these would be things like "mercy, compassion, integrity" and so forth.

Quote:
Exodus
22:20 He that sacrificeth unto [any] god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

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.

Deuteronomy
2:34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:
20:17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; [namely], the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:

Joshua
10:40 So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded.

M: Seems to me you believe Jesus was reluctantly willing to command the kinds of things described in the passages above for as long as it would take Him to teach the Jews how to "turn the other cheek"? Is this what you believe?

T: I believe, as I've said so many times, that for us to properly interpret Scripture, we need to know God's character. I believe that the first order of business is to study the life and character of His Son, whose "whole purpose" was "the revelation of God." What is it that Jesus Christ revealed? What was Jesus Christ like? How did He treat His enemies? I don't believe that He acted any differently in the Old Testament than while here in the flesh. Do you?

M:Do the scriptures above require interpretation? Ellen wrote, “The language of the Bible should be explained according to its obvious meaning, unless a symbol or figure is employed.” {GC 598.3} “If we would not build our hopes of heaven upon a false foundation we must accept the Bible as it reads and believe that the Lord means what He says.” {5T 171.1} You seem to be saying, no, we cannot take the passages above at faced value because . . . . If so, why not?


She also counseled us to compare Scripture with Scripture. She wrote a lot about how erroneous ideas can be obtained in regards to Scripture. She wrote a lot in regards to the importance of understanding God's character. I've stated many times that a proper understanding of God's character is paramount to properly understanding Scripture. Do you disagree with this?

Assuming you don't, this begs the question of how we should obtain an knowledge of God's character. I believe the foundation must be Jesus Christ.

Ellen White wrote it would be well for us to spend a thoughtful hour each day meditating upon the life of Christ, taking each scene point by point, especially the last scenes. Why? So that we may understand God's character.

Everything hinges on this point. This is what the whole Great Controversy is about.

Quote:
The most important aspect of faith is our mental picture of God...(O)ur actual picture of God, not our theoretical knowledge about God, most influences how we feel about Him. It's impossible to enjoy a genuinely passionate and loving relationship with God when our mental picture of Him doesn't inspire passionate love.

Our picture of God not only influences our emotional response to God, it strongly influences our understanding of everything else in our life. (Boyd; "Is God to Blame?" p. 21)


Also it strongly influences our understanding of Scripture.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/12/11 10:33 AM

Quote:
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.”


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.

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”?


Truth is progressive.

Quote:
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”?


Same response.

Quote:
By the way, if this is indeed what happened, did God give His enemies access to the most holy place?


This question doesn't make sense to me.

Quote:
And, where did they obtain the fire they used to burn N&A alive?


Nor this.

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


Those who hate God are God's enemies (but God is still their friend).

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.


No, I disagree. You're original question wasn't well stated, and I misread it. Here's what you asked:

Quote:
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.

Quote:

M: Also, do you think - "All that man needs to know, or can know, of God was revealed in the life and character of His son" - must be interpreted to mean "Jesus revealed everything there is to know about God while He was here in the flesh"?

T: Sure, of course. That's what it says. Well, the context is clearly dealing with Christ in His humanity, so if we accept that this is dealing with Christ's earthly mission, how else could it be read?

M:Why, then, did Jesus clearly say, “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”?


Yes, but this doesn't contradict the idea that Jesus Christ revealed all that man needs to know or can know of God, as I explained above.

Quote:
Ellen wrote:

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}

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


No, she said the opposite.

Quote:
You seem to disagree.


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!


Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/12/11 04:56 PM

NJK, would you say it should be written as:

1. All Most that can be known of God was revealed by the life and teachings of Jesus Christ during His earthly mission.

or

1. All Some that can be known of God was revealed by the life and teachings of Jesus Christ during His earthly mission.

or

1. All Part of that can be known of God was revealed by the life and teachings of Jesus Christ during His earthly mission.

or

1. All A little that can be known of God was revealed by the life and teachings of Jesus Christ during His earthly mission.


Are you opposed to looking at Jesus to see what God is like instead of looking at the building to see what the corner stone is like?
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/12/11 07:55 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
I asked you at the end if you didn't agree with any of the principles, and you said indeed, you don't. I'll repeat them here.


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. Restating my substantively unaddressed points also is not necessary for me.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Please state these principles in a way that you would consider genuine.


Summarizing my already stated points based not merely on the SOP, but the Greater (both in content and rank) Testimony of the entire word of God (2 Tim 3:16, 17):

Tom: 1.All that can be known of God was revealed by the life and teachings of Jesus Christ during His earthly mission.

NJK: What was revealed about God by Jesus serves to understand why God acted and said what he did in the OT. No need to reword/repaint anything.

----

Tom: 2.God is just like Jesus Christ in character.

NJK: Jesus perfectly emulated the Father, substantively, as it actually applicable, spiritually, in manifesting the same Character principles.

----

Tom: 3.Jesus Christ was not violent, and taught anti-violence.

NJK: The God head does not use force to compel love or service but to necessarily and timely execute judgements and to instill a inceptive healthy fear, all to permit this GC to be fully fulfilled by the end of the feasibly self-capable allotted time.

----

Tom: 4.There are thousand dangers from which God protects us constantly. Any degree of destruction is possible by God's simply withdrawing His protection. There is no need for God to act actively to produce destruction.

NJK: God uses “supernatural” force to produce judgements and miracles when the natural elements, even threats in nature would not even if not restrained do so, and if eventually so, then not in the needed timely way.

----

Tom: 5.The use of force is contrary to the principles of God's government.

NJK: The use of for to compel love and service is contrary to the principles of God's government. The use of (mostly) ambivalently attributable and relatively/comparatively light force for a necessary preventive/protective/pre-emptive deterrent, and so that greater and more destructive force will not be used is part of God’s government in order to keep the playing field level in this GC, particularly for His faithful people vs. particularly ruthless and lawless enemies.

Quote:
T:You think it's necessary to investigate every incident which you list.

NJK:As in any science, an hypothesis needs to be tested to demonstrate that it is valid.

Tom: One doesn't need to investigate every incident to do so.


Indeed not. Just the one’s I’ve listed should be enough!

Quote:
NJK: I needed to see that done with your principles with my list of prominent events, indeed discussed in both the Bible and SOP, to see if that is, as you claim, the way to come to understand all other OT.

Tom: I disagree with this. I think what's necessary is to see God's character as revealed by Jesus Christ.


Then let’s throw out everything other than the Gospels since even what we “guidingly” learn from Christ does not need to be applied elsewhere in God’s Revelations.

Quote:
NJK:For the reasons I have stated many times, I do not substantively see the destruction of Jerusalem, as it collectively prophesied and brought about starting especially from Christ’s predicitons and how it transpired to be the all in all example of what will truly/fully happen when/whenever, if ever before, the “passion of God” is fully manifested.

Tom: It's the incident that we have the most information regarding, not including the cross. The cross would be the best study, as it reveals God's character far better than any other incident.


Still not substantively conclusive to me, even as expounded upon and applied by EGW. The plain and exegetical Biblical evidence against these EGW applications are too compelling. So I’ll follow the SOP’s counsel here.

Quote:
NJK:It seems to me self-evident that if you agreed with the principles we're discussing, that takes care of the issue, so I'll deal with these.

Quite sincerely Tom, because, mainly I have to ignore many explicit statements of direct and active acts of God in the Bible in order to view things as you do, I do not see your even SOP supposed/derived view (i.e., believing the SOP is 100% accurate here) as being valid.

Tom: That's because of your paradigm. Others with a different paradigm than you hold don't need to ignore these statements, but understand them differently than you do.


Engaging in actually exegetically rewording the Bible to fit an EGW statement is not Biblically acceptable to me, nor is it endorsed by the SOP. I’ll instead let the Bible decide when EGW was correct. I’ve done so many before with the consistent result of arrive at greater Biblical light, ironically enough thanks to perceived and confirmed inconsistencies between the Bible and the SOP and/or the EGW vs. the SOP. If your “paradigm” doesn’t allow for this then I see it as foundationally, Biblically, flawed. In all things, including EGW’s (vs. the SOP) comment: Isa 8:20.

Originally Posted By: Tom
God is often presented as doing that which He permits in Scripture. For example, it says in Numbers that God sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites, but what actually happened is God removed His protection.


As I see it, by first preventing this danger and then allowing it when Israel rebelled God did indeed send the serpents. It’s like flipping on the fusebox’s power switch while you know someone is still rewiring the water heaters circuitry. So the Bible is Theologically correct. How God performs a judgement whether in active or passive means makes no different.

Originally Posted By: Tom
It says in 1 Kings, that God sent lying spirits to Ahab, but what actually happened is God permitted.


1 Kgs 22:19-23 - In the Bible itself, in a vision that was shown to Micaiah, the Bible does indicate that God actually desired to do this and accepted to hear the offer of an evil spirit and upon ascertaining exactly how it would be done, he ‘commanded’ that Spirit to do this. (vs. 22b) So God did not merely passively permit this but indeed ordered it.

Originally Posted By: Tom
It says in Job that the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, but this was said by one who didn't know of Satan's existence. When the curtain is pulled away, we see that it was an enemy who caused the things which happened to Job.


Job 1:8-12 - Here also it was God who actively told exactly what should be done to Job, even if it had been suggested by Satan. So God, through what he told Satan he could do did indeed took away what He had given. So the Bible is also accurate here.

These indeed are the only three examples that people cite for this view however I do not see any mandate or permission to reengineer everything in the Bible. Telling enough, you make no statement on Israel’s war and the executing of Capital Punishment

Quote:
SOP: “Christ never planted the seeds of death in the system. Satan planted these seeds when he tempted Adam to eat of the tree of knowledge which meant disobedience to God. Not one noxious plant was placed in the Lord’s great garden, but after Adam and Eve sinned, poisonous herbs sprang up. In the parable of the sower the question was asked the master, “Didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?” The master answered, “An enemy hath done this” (Matthew 13:27, 28). All tares are sown by the evil one. Every noxious herb is of his sowing, and by his ingenious methods of amalgamation he has corrupted the earth with tares. {2SM 288.2}”

Tom: This principle has many applications!


This is not a mandate to reword the Bible. The “system” is not ‘God’s action’. Indeed God uses these death elements to execute judgement on sin. Other times He supernaturally orchestrates His own.

Quote:
T:1.All that can be known of God was revealed by the life and teachings of Jesus Christ during His earthly mission.

NJK:Your stance here wants to preclude everything outside of the Gospel accounts.

Tom:First of all, it's not my stance.

NJK:Fine, but only in conceding part because I see too many additions to this SOP stated statement. I.e., excising and editing the OT, even SOP, of explicit statements

Tom: It's a very simple statement. Is simply says that all that we can know of God was revealed by Jesus Christ during His earthly mission. That's the context of the statement, and the context is very easy to understand. It doesn't need to be interpreted or edited or anything, but is easily understood simply as it reads.


Since it leads you to reword the rest of the Bible and/or outrightly ignore parts of it, I see no “Light” in how you are apply it.

Quote:
Tom: Here's a similar statement from a different author:

Originally Posted By: Boyd ("Is God to Blame?", p.34)
Whereas certain false teachers of his day (were) depicting Christ as one aspect of the display of God's fullness, Paul insists, as we have already seen, that "the whole fullness of deity" dwells in Christ (Col. 2:9). No aspect of God's fullness was withheld from the incarnation. All we can and need to know about God is found in Christ, for God fully dwells in and is revealed in Christ.


Still no mandate to reword the rest of the Bible and/or outrightly ignore parts of it.

Originally Posted By: Tom
It's interesting how similar this is to the SOP statement.


Literary thought borrowing could easily be the reason. Don’t expect him (or the ca. 40% of other American pastors in general who cite EGW as their most commonly read authors) to explicitly cite the SOP in his notes/bibliography.

Quote:
Tom: 3.Jesus Christ was not violent, and taught anti-violence.

NJK: If this “violence” means malicious acts, then that statement if fully true.

Tom: It means "violent" in the ordinarily understood meaning of the term.

NJK:Well if you wanted to see it as involving any force then you should have said so then you should have insisted so.

Tom: One can use force without being violent, such as force being necessary to lift a weight. But when force is used to achieve one's way, by threat, for example, then it's difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish this from violence.


I don’t see God being “violent” in the Bible in any act of judgement and/or necessary defense. It is indeed difficult for man, not knowing all that God does, however it is only fair to God. Indeed just like a judge ordering death by lethal injection (or even other utilized means), nor the officer effectuating this sentence are being violent.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Also, if one considers an act, such as burning a person alive, it's difficult to see how this could be considered as other than a violent act.


The Bible still says that God did do such things at times in judgements and the SOP fully enjoins. And Israel was not commanded to throw sponge balls during capital punishments or tickle their enemies to death in war. Somehow you don’t see God as being responsible (in the non-impeaching sense) for commanding these actions to be done, in His name and to uphold His Law.

Indeed God calls such judgements actions His “Strange Acts”, warningly typify the final Hell judgement execution. Or do you also not/can’t believe in Hell where people may indeed be maintain alive in full sensory health for e.g., 57 years. (By the way did you even consider Christ’s “wish” in Luke 12:49)

And burning people alive was actually a scientifically and spiritually necessary means to actually cleanse/purge an evil vs. having to bury all the, even sickly infected, corpses.

Quote:
NJK: To me, perhaps to 19th century people (as with the word “mischief”) violence has a more malicious connotation than mere use of force.

Tom: "Force" is a term of physics, so can be a neutral term, but "violence" implies the intent to hurt someone or some thing, or to kill.


That’s what I have said and had in mind in requesting to use “force” instead of violence.

Quote:
NJK: And, does EGW herself ever say that ‘God is not violent’ to mean God does not use any force.

Tom: I don't know if she specifically says this, but she does say that the exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government.


Which, since it is “compelling force” that she means and not ‘(supernatural) force to execute judgment’ is not relatable nor synonymous with “violence.”

Quote:
NJK: Otherwise you would be imposing your understandings on hers.

Tom: That's very poor logic. The absence of the use of a particular phrase doesn't prove anything, which I'm sure you're well aware of. Because Ellen White didn't use some specific phrase or sentence cannot possibly imply that I'm imposing my understand on hers, and it's difficult to see how you could assert such a thing, which is so obviously false.


My logic had always been as expressed above. You, at the very least, did not see this.

Quote:
NJK: Indeed all I see her saying is He does not use ‘force to compel’ and that service to him.

Tom: If God says, "Do what I say, or I'll cause you to suffer unimaginable pain" or "Do what I say, or I'll kill your child," that's using 'force to compel.'


Have you ever read e.g., Deut 28:20ff, or is that also to be reword and excised. By your understanding just “saying” irrespective of how the promised judgements will be carried out is ‘compelling force’. Or is it, as you do elsewhere, that since it was Moses who said this then God is not “responsible”.

Quote:
NJK: Force to comply with an undisputable requirement that He is making in an acts of judgement as the Plagues after years of slavery seems to also not be a use of force to compel.

Tom: This isn't a very coherent sentence, but I think I understand what you're trying to say. Why are you saying such a thing? Surely threatening to kill someone's child if they don't do what the one threatening is insisting upon is an act of compulsion. There's no way this could not be the case.


Let’s stick to Biblical examples though God did makes such threats of inflicted capital death for disobedience including upon future generations.

Quote:
NJK: Indeed God was not seeking for Pharaoh to love or “serve” him but to comply with the command to Let Israel go from Egypt.

Tom: And, as you understand things (please correct me if this isn't the case), God threatened to kill his son if he didn't. Again, this is an act of compulsion.


Indeed I’ll correct you as the Bible exegetically indicates. God wanted to kill the first born of Egypt in the planned tenth plague as retribution for Israelite infant death and probably millions of more premature death during the life damaging physical oppressions over decades of hard slavery. Death to livestock first born probably venged the damage and privation of slavery upon Israel’s own livestock livelihood. God keeps a most accurate judicial record and ledger which also scientifically includes what normatively could have been over that given time.

Quote:
T:An illustration of Christ's teachings are where He explained that His kingdom is not of this world, and if it were, His servants would fight.

NJK:That is really a proof-text example.

Tom: It's a profound statement about the nature of Christ's kingdom.

NJK: All that Jesus is simply saying that He/His Servants are not engaging in military effort (like the Zealots) to establish His kingdom because it is not “out of” this world.

Tom: That's not all He's saying. It's more profound than that.


Exegetically, i.e., in strict context, Yes, as seconded by the SOP:

Originally Posted By: SOP DA 727.3
Christ affirmed that His word was in itself a key which would unlock the mystery to those who were prepared to receive it. It had a self-commending power, and this was the secret of the spread of His kingdom of truth.


The rest is “sermonic license” which is actually not synonymous with being Biblical.

Quote:
NJK: Not that any force, such as to execute capital punishment, is never acceptable. Indeed, as veiledly stated, because Jesus was not seeking to establish a typical kingdom as those of, and in the manner of, the world’s methods to do so, military campaigns to seek to get lands to establish it was not necessary. So Pilate had no tangible threat in that regards That kingdom was instead going to be done by conquering hearts instead.

Tom: The conquering of hearts is a good comment. That's indeed what the kingdom of Christ entails, and it should be easy to see that violence, or force, has no part in such conquering.


That has always been my point as the Bible, throughout, including the Gospels, copiously shows. Only when justice and judgement demand it is force and supernatural power used. And the includes miracle working power to, at the very least, merely forcefully overcome a GC-crucial, unjust evil.

Quote:
Tom 5.The use of force is contrary to the principles of God's government.

NJK: If it means “use force” then a statement like (Luke 22:35-38) could easily disprove this,

Tom: If you would cite what the references say, it's easier on the reader.

NJK: I don’t think I can afford that extra effort.

Tom: I think you can. Other people do. If you list a series of texts, you wouldn't have to provide the text for each one, but at least one would be a kindness to your reader.


It’s neither hard nor time consuming to open your Bible. I’ll only make the extra effort when it is exegetically necessary.

Quote:
NJK: I also figure people will prefer to read their favorite version, vs. my default NASB, so I only cite the reference.

Tom: A person's always free to consider another version...


Indeed though the truth actually lies in what the underlying original languages say and not surfacely what another version says.

Originally Posted By: Tom
but it's a kindness to the reader to not have to go looking to see what a text says.


Sanctimoniously paint it as you need to, it is still remains time consuming for me. People will do whatever they consider important to them. So I cannot be held responsible nor over burdened by that. Reading a post and looking up referenced text is far less time consuming as writing it and pasting texts. Looking them up to reference them, which is something you commonly don’t even bother to do, is time consuming enough. So if this is a quibbling excuse for you or anyone else to not read these Biblical references, then be my guest! Starting/continuing with this reference John 6:60, 61.

Quote:
NJK: Only when I see crucial exegetical improvements from the NASB do I quote the text with indicated improving edits.

Tom: This isn't the point. It would be the same thing if I quoted from the SOP, and you had to look up what it says. That's requiring extra work of you.


Well that’s my point and main concern! Perhaps if people, including you, put more and deeper thought, and did more exegetical efforts before responding to my post, I would have more time to post the text of Biblical references!

Quote:
T:When Jesus said, "It is enough," your understanding of this is that Jesus Christ was teaching that violence, or force, should be used?

NJK:Actually No. The context clearly says to me that the tow swords the disciples managed to find amongst themselves was enough.

Tom:
Originally Posted By: Clarke
It is enough. The meaning probably is, there is enough said on the subject; as immediately after this he entered into his agony.


Originally Posted By: Gill
it is enough, it is very well, I perceive you do not understand my meaning, and I shall say no more at present.


Again quoted because of ease; these were the first ones I came across.


So “ease” is a satisfactory criteria for you in this much more crucial area vs. seeking and ascertaining the best exegetical answer, especially despite being a Seminary graduate. (Matt 23:24)

Originally Posted By: Tom
I'm sure other commentaries make the same point.


How are you sure of that???? Because you want it to be so???

Clarke and Gill are exegetically unfounded, including the fact that Luke usually plainly expresses any veiled comments/references in his gospel account to his Gentile (Roman Officer) Theophilus. Such background info is also key to exegesis. And again, “sermonic license”, and needlessly defensive whitewashing at that, does not equate/trump exegetical correctness. And the word translated “enough” more literally means sufficient/considerable.

Originally Posted By: Tom
That Christ had this meaning in mind is clear to me (I understood it this way before looking at any commentaries). To see this statement of Christ's as a recommendation for violence seems absurd to me.


Of course, to you... Truth is exegetically and not subjectively determined.

Quote:
NJK: indeed as the time for this use of capable force had now come. Jesus indeed used light force to exact, or seek to exact, just acts from His opposers and enemies. (E.g., ‘not arresting Him as he was indeed God‘ John 18:5, 6 - DA 695.1). Christ’s miracles were also a use of supernatural force to this similar effect (see e.g., John 11:4, 40-42). This is also just like God to use shades of light force to seek to instill an inceptive fear in man (e.g, Egypt Plagues Exod 7:3-5; 11:9), yet, as seen with Christ’s arresters, man is free to be compelled by this force or not.

Tom: You're saying the Egyptian Plagues were "light force"? Should the 7 last plagues also be deemed "light force."?

NJK:Considering what God could have done to Egypt in even one plague, all of the limited and withdrawn plagues were relatively “light force”.

This would always be the case. God could always be more awful or horrible if He wanted to be, since He's omnipotent, but to describe the plagues in Egypt as "light force" seems like calling the holocaust "a minor evil."


(A) God is never horrible. Executing due and deserved Justice is not being horrible. Just a necessary/natural means to an end. ‘Awe-ful’, yes.

(B) Indeed as my point was, if Hitler had nuclear weapons, then the Holocaust might relatively be called so vs. hundreds of millions instantly vaporized in e.g., the U.K., France, Russia, The U.S., Canada, etc.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/12/11 07:58 PM

Originally Posted By: kland
NJK, would you say it should be written as:

1. All Most that can be known of God was revealed by the life and teachings of Jesus Christ during His earthly mission.

or

1. All Some that can be known of God was revealed by the life and teachings of Jesus Christ during His earthly mission.

or

1. All Part of that can be known of God was revealed by the life and teachings of Jesus Christ during His earthly mission.

or

1. All A little that can be known of God was revealed by the life and teachings of Jesus Christ during His earthly mission.


Are you opposed to looking at Jesus to see what God is like instead of looking at the building to see what the corner stone is like?



See in my latest post to Tom (#132364). The cornerstone does not cause the assembled e.g., marble building blocks to be switched for foam props, but merely serves to anchor them for the always intended solid building, as planned long ago (= OT). Jesus completed that plan. (Perfectly Imitating/Emulating God the Father, comprehensively in all ways). There is no mandate, as Tom arbitrarily does, for selective excising of the Bible.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/12/11 10:47 PM

Quote:
T:In the last plague, the eldest sons were killed. The implication is, if you don't do what God says, more will be killed. To suggest that this isn't compelling a decision isn't a credible suggestion.

If I kill a child of yours, and threaten to kill another one if you don't do what I say, sure, I can say you're free to do what you want, that I'm not compelling you, but that rings hollow. This is certainly an example of my using force to compel you to do my will.

NJK:I most manifestly, even evidently, see here how your view actually is defaultly faulting and impeaching the Character of God.

Tom: I haven't found any fault whatsoever with God's character, but only your understanding of it. Where have I said anything negative at all regarding God's character, or found any fault with it?


In the opening statement which you ‘implied’ must be a ‘baseless and deadly extorting, compelling act.’

Originally Posted By: Tom
I should add that, in saying that I find fault with your understanding of God's character, I don't wish to imply that my understanding of it is perfect; not by any means! However, I'm not aware of anything regarding my conception of God's character that another would find negative.


The problem is your understanding is not strictly and objectively guided b exegesis but subjectively by whatever fits your view and that includes, effectively placing EGW above the Biblical revelation.

Quote:
NJK: That is why you prefer to ignore or vainly explain away such OT passages.

Tom: I'm understanding what is written according to the following principles:

1.God is often presented in Scripture as doing that which He permits.


In the 3 examples you have cited for this, God still “acted” to permit something and/or ordered that it be done. He did not have to accept the devils offers for Job or Ahab. A truly ‘God-less’/“natural”act would not involve any action of God. Such as a person getting cancer from smoking. And claiming chaotic nature everywhere is not Biblically sound. Our once perfect creation was meant to be self-sustained with periodic “therapy” and not to instantly devolve into damaged chaos, where, as it were, God had to effectively hold millions of shattered pieces of a crystal ball, when the tree of life was removed.

Furthermore, withheld dangers of God, such as the fiery serpents, can be objectively seen anything else would need to involve the supernatural. That is why e.g., fire from heaven destroy Sodom and Gomorrah was not a natural event or withheld natural chaos but a supernatural act of God.

Originally Posted By: Tom
2.Jesus Christ fully revealed God's character.

In particular, the second statement, when it really hit me what it was saying, had a profound impact upon how I saw things.


You don’t see that Jesus imitated the OT God and indeed similarly wished for instant destruction (Luke 12:49). It just was not the time nor His given mandate (vs. 50).

Quote:
NJK: God was not saying to Egypt that I will kill more if you don’t obey me here. As exegesis clearly shows, God actually “(forcefully) hardened” Pharoah’s heart so that that Plague also can be done, indeed by the 6th plague exegesis shows that God was acting to harden Pharaoh’s heart when necessary.

Tom: This doesn't help any. That is, it doesn't speak any better of God's character; worse, actually. At least, it appears you're saying that God undertook an action, the result of which was, that He would kill innocent children. Not only did God threaten to kill the innocent children if a given demand wasn't met, but God, worse than this, took steps to make sure that the demand wouldn't be met.

Tom: I sincerely hope I'm misunderstanding you here, but, if not, I cannot imagine why you would think such a representation of God's character is in the least appealing,...


It does not need to “help” anything. God is God and that is what the Bible reveals He did. You, as all uniformed created being, need to come in line with that, especially clearly expressed will. Ignoring exegesis to fit your view is completely preposterous, to say the least. I repeatedly subject myself to what proper exegesis reveals and that has its consequences, particularly with the EGW where she was not exegetically accurate.

Originally Posted By: Tom
... nor of what you think it could have in common with the character Jesus Christ revealed.


OT Isa 6:91-3 NT (and emulating Jesus) Matt 13:10-17.

Quote:
NJK: Your theology won’t allow for that exegetically plain reading, however it clearly is stated, and thus implied that God wanted Pharaoh to resist up through the 10th Plagues.

Tom: This isn't Scriptural.

Originally Posted By: Bible
(The Lord is) not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. (2 Pet. 3:9; NASB)


It certainly is when proper exegesis is used:
-Immediate context God said so and was pointedly shown to so.

-This was not, as you can only see it: ‘a compelling attempt to force Pharaoh to “repent” and believe in Him, but the execution of judgement for years of slavery, murder, dispossession, oppression, etc. And since not all Israel was killed by Pharaoh nor entirely dispossessed, God’s exacting judgement here, only achievable in all 10 plagues, was thus perfectly match.

Quote:
NJK: As I said before, the reverential question here is to (hopefully “prayerfully”) as “why”.

Tom: "What?" would be a good question.


We have already been told/shown in both the Bible and SOP, you don’t want to accept it and futilely seek to explain it away or outrightly ignore it instead of seeking to find out “why”/“for what reason(s)” did God do these “why”.


Quote:
NJK: I did, and here is the Biblical answer I was impressed with, in succinct bullet points. (See especially Exod 1 and PP 241ff for most Biblical allusions)

-When God had began establishing Israel, He had no land to given them yet as no kingdom was yet fully deserving of being judged for their sins.

-Israel therefore had to settle in a place where they could relatively be safe as they were greatly and rapidly increased by God. So God sent them to Egypt through an act which made them favored at first.

-Indeed when they increased, and became a natural threat where they could also join an invading army against Egypt, the Egyptians enslaved them. Other nations would probably have sought to kill them if they had not been in a land (which really could not happen as all lands belonged a nation, especially the Great Power of Egypt).

-(Slavery was also an object lesson for Israel for their future to impress them to be obedient in order to avoid losing their freedom and land.)

Tom: Do you think slavery was very successful at this? Ever?


It should have been. As God’s Wisdom saw. Who in their right minds would want to return to be slaves??

Originally Posted By: Tom
You're making it sound as if it were God's will that Israel should be made slaves. Isn't it evident that the powers of Egypt acted contrary to God's will in not remembering Joseph?


God told this would (surely) happen to Abraham. That is indeed what happens to a nation without a homeland. What was permitted to be done through Joseph was just to delay that inevitability as long as naturally possible.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Or do you think God is in favor of slavery, or that slavery is not an evil? What I believe is that God permitted the slavery to occur, and that God is able to work blessings out of evil, but slavery is evil, and evil is never God's will.


It’s ironic that you are not seeing here from your view that “God only permitted it”. What’s the difference between that and: allowing Job to be variously struck, including death to His children; permitting a lying spirit to deceive Ahab; or removing your protection to have snake bit Israel. Indeed as with righteous Job, Israel then had done nothing wrong for God to permit the Egyptians to enslave them.

Quote:
NJK: -then when Israel still could not be controlled and loyalty assured despite enslavement, Egypt began to kill the males of Israel by throwing them into the Nile. That went on for at least three months in “full force” (PP 242.2). As Aaron was 3 years older than Moses (Exod 7:7), and Aaron was alive, then it may have been going on for up to these 3 years of difference. I further do not see any indication when, even if it ever ended up Israel’s Exodus, despite Moses having been rescued through a seemingly unique, and God-inspired, idea.

Tom: This last phrase isn't a sentence.


It was. Just not properly worded/expressed: “I further do not see any indication when it ever ended, if it ever did, right up to Israel’s Exodus, despite Moses having been rescued through a seemingly unique, and God-inspired, idea.” I.e., Moses’ rescue by Pharaoh’s daughter (and through that unique method), did not necessarily mean that the killing method of Pharaoh was ended. Indeed saving Moses and adopting him meant that he could be made to surely be on Pharaoh and his army’s side. Still their envisioned Israelite military might threat had to continue to be kept in check and so the killing probably did indeed continue unabated.

Quote:
NJK: (Point it out to me if you know).

Tom: I don't know what you want me to point out. When what? I don't see that you explained what the "when" was referring to.


“When” the killing ended. (Seems like what I later said would, in defining context, indicate what was being said here.)

Quote:
NJK: Indeed the Egyptians original threat was only increasing and God had not yet actively intervene in it. So this killing may have been going own for over 80 years until Moses returned to deliver Israel. That would mean that millions of Israelite male children were so killed during this time.

-So the Ten plagues, indeed sustained by God to their full extent, when Pharaoh wanted to concede by the 6th plague, was done on one side to make Egypt freely give Israel much substance as reparations for the years of enslavement and the Tenth Plague, to justly venge the death of potentially/probably millions of Hebrew Male Children. (Deut 32:35; Psa 94:1; cf. Rom 12:19; Heb 10:30, 31)

Tom: It's hardly "freely" if done under duress. That's the opposite of "freely."


It actually is if it’s not an explicit “duressive”: ‘give me your money or else (more plagues)’. All Israel had to do was to ask and the Egyptians, relatively, freely complied, and out of “favor”. Indeed God wanted to plunder the Egyptians. (Exod 3:21, 22; 12:36)

Quote:
NJK: -Also the first-born was a sort of god to Egyptians so it also defeated that, probably most revered figment of a god of their.

So God was acting justly in all of this and that is why He was hardening Pharaoh’s heart through those 10 plagues as forcefully necessary.

Tom: The following explains what true justice is:

Originally Posted By: Bible
Thus has the LORD of hosts said, 'Dispense true justice and practice kindness and compassion each to his brother;(Zech: 7:9 (NASB)


No it is not ‘explaining’ it. ‘Dispense true justice’ is a distinct required action from ‘practicing kindness and compassion each to his brother.’ Indeed one can distinctly ‘prosecute and rightly/fairly adjudge crime’ and ‘act kindly and compassion towards their neighbor.’ And this “listing” of what need to be reformed in Israel continues in vs. 10. A text without its context in not exegesis.

Quote:
NJK: So Pharaoh did not even really have to option to refuse this 10 phase just judgement that God wanted to do.

Tom: Didn't have the option to refuse! So pharaoh didn't have free will.


He did and the Bible clearly shows that he freely exercised it in the first 5 plagues. However in plagues #6, 8, 9 and 10 God overruled it by hardening his heart.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Again, this hardly helps in terms of presenting a defense of God's character.


Subjectively based human “helping” is of no consequence. God’s manifested Character here was Justice. So the adjudged criminal here, Pharaoh, was not to have any overturningly determinative say against the intended full sentencing. This indeed was not even a Parole hearing.

Quote:
NJK: And if God had wanted to compel Egypt, that 10th plague directly (if not only) involving human death, would have been done first, then 2nd born for the second plague, etc.

Tom: One could argue that God, out of mercy, was trying to apply the least amount of force necessary, and only increased the force of the plagues because He wasn't getting His way with less force.


Not when you allow God and the Bible to plainly, and also exegetically, speak for Himself/itself.

Quote:
NJK: Again the way to understand the Character of God is to defaultly give him the benefit of the doubt and then reverentially/prayerfully ask why.

Tom: The way to understand the character of God is to study Jesus Christ, who was sent for the very purpose of revealing God's character, which had be so sorely misunderstood.


Yes... as you are selectively doing I suppose (e.g., Luke 12:49; 22:38; Matt 23, etc). You don’t even (truly) practice what you claim/preach.

Quote:
NJK: And the answer is indeed in His OT words and revelation, with Jesus also confirming that God is a God of justice.

Tom: Not just confirming God is a God of justice, but demonstrating the truth of God's justice


Indeed, as I pointedly said, “confirm” E.g, Matt 13:10-17 confirms God’s default Justice action against Pharaoh right from the start, just a Jesus defaultly did with the Jewish leaders.

Rather than think that you are fighting me, I recommend you engage in actual exegesis, as you supposedly should be able to soundly do!

Originally Posted By: Tom

Originally Posted By: Bible
Thus has the LORD of hosts said, 'Dispense true justice and practice kindness and compassion each to his brother;(Zech. 7:9)


Already demonstrated Proof-text.

Originally Posted By: Tom
As well, Jesus Christ revealed the Father.


Which is much more than what you are letting Him reveal in your view.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I appreciate your effort in writing all this, but it still remains that threatening to kill someone's child if they don't do what you're telling them to do is using force. If you say that Pharaoh wasn't threatened because God forced him to do what He wanted him to do by hardening his heart, that hardly helps the argument that God doesn't use force to get His way.


(A) God was not actually really asking Pharaoh for anything. Just wanted him to think so, and that for his own good so that when he would surely fail, he won’t vindictively think that God had tricked him and seek blind revenge. Indeed God had to force him to go after Israel after they had left eventhough Pharaoh was seethingly and agitatedly seeing this great opportunity for “recovery”! (Exod 14:3&5-7 vs. 4&8; cf. vs. 17) And God also needed some spacing time before this would be done.

(B) Just faithfully (i.e., exegetically) relating Scripture and letting it determine what my view of God is to be.

This discussion would be much more constructive if you utilized proper and, as due, objective exegesis.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/12/11 11:11 PM


Quote:
k: I don't know, but sounds watered down and kind of like it disputes your definition. As in, can things be taken by force without violence? But if force and violence are the same thing, is that just like what you imply God doing? What is violence? Could all cases be whitewashed with "force"?

NJK: I understand the difference between ‘use of force’ and violence to be in the object one is seeking to arrive at. If that object is itself just righteous, then the use of force is not categorized as violence, (e.g., self-defense, just war, justified capital punishment), if not then it is (e.g., robbery, rape, terrorism). This is even distinct from your previously cited “motives” as e.g., a homeless person who is hungry may decide that taken the purse/wallet of a passer by to get money to eat, even if he is only going to take money for that immediate meal and drop the wallet/purse as he is running away, is justified since he is hungry, even now ‘dying of hunger’ as he has not eaten in ca. 3 weeks. Though the object: ‘eat to save his life’ is independently justified, the motive of ‘robbing a passer by’ is not. If however that passer by had stolen money from that man, then using such “force” to get it, and that exactly, back, would be justified and not “violence”.

kland: Yes, I was noticing that your supposed difference between violence and ... something else is similar to your such difference between killing and murder. And that is the intent. Or maybe, you could say, purpose of intent.

kland: So, if I'm understand you correctly, two people could perform the same action and depending upon their intent or "the object one is seeking to arrive at", it could be considered violence or it could be considered "force".


Yes in part as I further consider that “object” to be “objectively” as righteous cause. Thus using force is the only option and not one where other lessor options have been leapfrogged. So that Homeless man would have tried all other law enforcement/judicial recourse to get his money back but because he was poor and a social outcast, he thus could not afford the court fees and was not taken seriously by law enforcement. His option was to die. (Getting food elsewhere was also not an option and no one wanted to give him money for now over 3 weeks)

Originally Posted By: kland
So, would you say, that someone who fully and completely believed in Hitler, could justifiably say Hitler was not a man of violence but a man of force?


No. His “object” of pointedly e.g., killing Jews and stealing Russia’s national wealth/resources was “objectively” not a just cause. However, engaging in war to regain what had been lost in WWI, arguably was, especially as it had been taken in war and the powers then were surely not going to hand it back to him.

Quote:
k: It what way is your view of God's character different from other denominations'?

NJK: I assume that you are referring to Hell judgement. As it will be justly limited and post judgement, I see it as being full just. Also EGW states in 4SP 475.2/GC 660.4 that it is the redeemed righteous who will ‘mete out’ the punishment that the wicked will receive in their Hell judgement! How much fairer can that be. An Eternal, Perfect and Holy God who had never sinned, nor, in the likewise Jesus, succumbed to sin, (though Christ did feel the mental guilt anguish of man - cf. this post -that comment could open up a whole other side discussion. I think it is already treated elsewhere in this forum.), and thus does not know or understand why man has chosen to sin, would be likely to defaulty, automatically mete out eternally lasting punishment to any and all.

kland: Nice. So you are saying God won't kill people at the end?


Call off the party kland!! ‘Meting something out’ is not synonymous with ‘executing it’
‘Meting’ = fixely determining or ‘administer/bestow, in Hell’s case, individual specific punishment sentences.’ So once the redeemed have done so, God will execute it by making each wicked live through their individual, meted out sentence.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/13/11 06:58 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
T:Please state these principles in a way that you would consider genuine.

Summarizing my already stated points based not merely on the SOP, but the Greater (both in content and rank) Testimony of the entire word of God (2 Tim 3:16, 17):

Tom: 1.All that can be known of God was revealed by the life and teachings of Jesus Christ during His earthly mission.

NJK: What was revealed about God by Jesus serves to understand why God acted and said what he did in the OT.


This is greatly reduced in scope from what I wrote (actually, what Ellen White wrote).

Quote:
No need to reword/repaint anything.


What are you referring to? I didn't reword anything, I simply quoted it. I don't recognize it as a quote from anything. Did you repaint something?

Quote:
Tom: 2.God is just like Jesus Christ in character.

NJK: Jesus perfectly emulated the Father, substantively, as it actually applicable, spiritually, in manifesting the same Character principles.


This isn't nearly as clear as what I wrote. Does it mean anything different?

Quote:
Tom: 3.Jesus Christ was not violent, and taught anti-violence.

NJK: The God head does not use force to compel love or service but to necessarily and timely execute judgements and to instill a inceptive healthy fear, all to permit this GC to be fully fulfilled by the end of the feasibly self-capable allotted time.


How is acting from "healthy fear" not forcing or compelling service?

Quote:
Tom: 4.There are thousand dangers from which God protects us constantly. Any degree of destruction is possible by God's simply withdrawing His protection. There is no need for God to act actively to produce destruction.

NJK: God uses “supernatural” force to produce judgements and miracles when the natural elements, even threats in nature would not even if not restrained do so, and if eventually so, then not in the needed timely way.


Don't know what this is trying to say. Do you disagree with what I wrote, that God protects us from many unseen dangers?

Quote:
Tom: 5.The use of force is contrary to the principles of God's government.

NJK: The use of force to compel love and service is contrary to the principles of God's government.


You wrote elsewhere that Pharaoh had no choice but to do what God wanted Him to do. Isn't this an example of God's compelling service?

Quote:
The use of (mostly) ambivalently attributable and relatively/comparatively light force for a necessary preventive/protective/pre-emptive deterrent, and so that greater and more destructive force will not be used is part of God’s government in order to keep the playing field level in this GC, particularly for His faithful people vs. particularly ruthless and lawless enemies.


I think what you're trying to say here is that God uses comparatively light force as a deterrent, in order to keep the playing field level in the Great Controversy, particularly to protect His faithful people against ruthless enemies. Given that God is constantly protecting all from a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, wouldn't it be sufficient for God to simply remove His protection from these unseen dangers to accomplish the same effect?

Consider Jesus Christ. No one was ever as faithful as He. God had to protect Christ on many occasions. Did He ever resort to this comparatively light force you're speaking of? (i.e., things like the plagues in Egypt, or burning people alive)

Quote:
Quote:
T:You think it's necessary to investigate every incident which you list.

NJK:As in any science, an hypothesis needs to be tested to demonstrate that it is valid.

Tom: One doesn't need to investigate every incident to do so.

NJK:Indeed not. Just the one’s I’ve listed should be enough!


I don't think it would be enough, as evidenced by your comment below, saying that only three episodes are cited, even though I've already cited more than this.

Quote:

NJK: I needed to see that done with your principles with my list of prominent events, indeed discussed in both the Bible and SOP, to see if that is, as you claim, the way to come to understand all other OT.

Tom: I disagree with this. I think what's necessary is to see God's character as revealed by Jesus Christ.

NJK:Then let’s throw out everything other than the Gospels since even what we “guidingly” learn from Christ does not need to be applied elsewhere in God’s Revelations.


This would be a possible suggestion if the only purpose for Scripture was to learn of God's character.

Quote:

NJK:For the reasons I have stated many times, I do not substantively see the destruction of Jerusalem, as it collectively prophesied and brought about starting especially from Christ’s predicitons and how it transpired to be the all in all example of what will truly/fully happen when/whenever, if ever before, the “passion of God” is fully manifested.

Tom: It's the incident that we have the most information regarding, not including the cross. The cross would be the best study, as it reveals God's character far better than any other incident.

NJK:Still not substantively conclusive to me, even as expounded upon and applied by EGW.


The cross isn't substantively conclusive to you?

Quote:
The plain and exegetical Biblical evidence against these EGW applications are too compelling. So I’ll follow the SOP’s counsel here.


The evidence against the EGW applications is too compelling, so you'll follow EGW's counsel?

Quote:

NJK:It seems to me self-evident that if you agreed with the principles we're discussing, that takes care of the issue, so I'll deal with these.

Quite sincerely Tom, because, mainly I have to ignore many explicit statements of direct and active acts of God in the Bible in order to view things as you do, I do not see your even SOP supposed/derived view (i.e., believing the SOP is 100% accurate here) as being valid.

Tom: That's because of your paradigm. Others with a different paradigm than you hold don't need to ignore these statements, but understand them differently than you do.

NJK:Engaging in actually exegetically rewording the Bible to fit an EGW statement is not Biblically acceptable to me, nor is it endorsed by the SOP.


This is no different than what you do with subjects such as the state of the death or God's foreknowledge. One needs to consider a subject in its entirety.

Quote:
I’ll instead let the Bible decide when EGW was correct.


Why not let both the Bible and EGW decide when you're correct?

Quote:
I’ve done so many before with the consistent result of arrive at greater Biblical light, ironically enough thanks to perceived and confirmed inconsistencies between the Bible and the SOP and/or the EGW vs. the SOP. If your “paradigm” doesn’t allow for this then I see it as foundationally, Biblically, flawed.


Do you perceive your view of God's character to be appealing? Or just accurate?

Quote:
In all things, including EGW’s (vs. the SOP) comment: Isa 8:20.

Originally Posted By: Tom
God is often presented as doing that which He permits in Scripture. For example, it says in Numbers that God sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites, but what actually happened is God removed His protection.


NJK:As I see it, by first preventing this danger and then allowing it when Israel rebelled God did indeed send the serpents.


The serpents were already present. No serpents were sent anywhere.

Quote:
It’s like flipping on the fusebox’s power switch while you know someone is still rewiring the water heaters circuitry.


It's like ceasing to restrain a bully who would do someone else harm.

Quote:
So the Bible is Theologically correct.


God is often presented as doing that which He permits. The Bible is indeed theologically correct.

Quote:
How God performs a judgement whether in active or passive means makes no different.


Then why all the argument against the idea that it's passive?

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Tom
It says in 1 Kings, that God sent lying spirits to Ahab, but what actually happened is God permitted.


NJK:1 Kgs 22:19-23 - In the Bible itself, in a vision that was shown to Micaiah, the Bible does indicate that God actually desired to do this and accepted to hear the offer of an evil spirit and upon ascertaining exactly how it would be done, he ‘commanded’ that Spirit to do this. (vs. 22b) So God did not merely passively permit this but indeed ordered it.


This sounds like Calvinism. This is not Adventism in any way. Are you familiar with our tradition, or the works of the 19th century?

Returning to the concept of God's character, the Bible says that God cannot lie. If God were to order someone to lie as a means of fulfilling His will, God would be responsible for the lie. The assertion that God cannot lie would be false.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Tom
It says in Job that the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, but this was said by one who didn't know of Satan's existence. When the curtain is pulled away, we see that it was an enemy who caused the things which happened to Job.

NJK:Job 1:8-12 - Here also it was God who actively told exactly what should be done to Job, even if it had been suggested by Satan. So God, through what he told Satan he could do did indeed took away what He had given. So the Bible is also accurate here.


All the evil performed against Job was done so by Satan. None by God. God does no evil.

Quote:
NJK:These indeed are the only three examples that people cite for this view however I do not see any mandate or permission to reengineer everything in the Bible.


I've already quoted other examples.

Quote:
Telling enough, you make no statement on Israel’s war and the executing of Capital Punishment.


Perhaps kland would engage you in this conversation.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/13/11 05:44 PM

Once again Tom, as typical, and it is quite telling to me, out of the many things I countered in your previously expressed objections (too many to take the time to even simply, transparently, relist here), you only respond to what you think you have an answer for, and once again, also as typical, with spurious, irrelevant and peripheral argument. Yet you still see a dense forest. I really just don’t get this baselessly indifferent attitude to exegesis. It frankly really is quite infantile, especially Spiritually. You manifestly really think/believe that these non-substantive and inconsequential quibbling knee-jerk answers prove anything to the validity of your view vs. the other substantive counters to your views that you should have been bothering to defend. Or is it really that you view is correct irrespective of full, if any, Biblical support? Suit yourself. I am certainly not impressed, to say the least.

Quote:
T:Please state these principles in a way that you would consider genuine.

NJK: Summarizing my already stated points based not merely on the SOP, but the Greater (both in content and rank) Testimony of the entire word of God (2 Tim 3:16, 17):

Tom: 1.All that can be known of God was revealed by the life and teachings of Jesus Christ during His earthly mission.

NJK: What was revealed about God by Jesus serves to understand why God acted and said what he did in the OT.

Tom: This is greatly reduced in scope from what I wrote (actually, what Ellen White wrote).


That is because it is pointedly addressing how this Revelation of Christ principles applies to this discussion.

Quote:
NJK No need to reword/repaint anything.

Tom: What are you referring to? I didn't reword anything, I simply quoted it. I don't recognize it as a quote from anything. Did you repaint something?


Effectively “rewording” (even ignoring) the Hebrew and Greek original languages to fit your view and thus “repainting” what God had revealed in the Bible and all out of your incorrect understanding and also, substantively speaking, misapplication/overstatement of EGW in regards to God’s judgements(i.e., her GC 35-37 comments)

Quote:
Tom: 2.God is just like Jesus Christ in character.

NJK: Jesus perfectly emulated the Father, substantively, as it actually applicable, spiritually, in manifesting the same Character principles.

Tom: This isn't nearly as clear as what I wrote. Does it mean anything different?


Absolutely! Succinctly said then: Jesus perfectly imitated/emulated the OT God in every form of way.

Quote:
Tom: 3.Jesus Christ was not violent, and taught anti-violence.

NJK: The God head does not use force to compel love or service but to necessarily and timely execute judgements and to instill a inceptive healthy fear, all to permit this GC to be fully fulfilled by the end of the feasibly self-capable allotted time.

Tom: How is acting from "healthy fear" not forcing or compelling service?


Because men still have the free choice to believe in those actions or not, just as equally as they could be marvelled by God’s supernatural signs/miracles and believe or not. These both can produce a “healthy fear” if the observer does not choose to harden their hearts.

Quote:
Tom: 4.There are thousand dangers from which God protects us constantly. Any degree of destruction is possible by God's simply withdrawing His protection. There is no need for God to act actively to produce destruction.

NJK: (edited) God uses “supernatural” force to produce judgements and miracles when the natural elements, even present/real threats in nature, would not, even if not restrained, do so, and if eventually they would do so, still not in the needed timely way.

Tom: Don't know what this is trying to say. Do you disagree with what I wrote, that God protects us from many unseen dangers?


Perhaps a simple Bible example (which you indifferently avoid) will help. When God needed to instantly destroy Sodom and Gomorrah instead of naturally letting them die off on their own, which may not totally happen and/or may have taken much more time, then He supernaturally intervened to cause fire and brimstones to rain down from Heaven pointedly on the 5 cities in that valley. There was nothing natural that He could have allowed to naturally take place here to timely effectuate that instant judgement. His power supernaturally assembled all the needed elements for that judgement.

Quote:
Tom: 5.The use of force is contrary to the principles of God's government.

NJK: The use of force to compel love and service is contrary to the principles of God's government.

Tom: You wrote elsewhere that Pharaoh had no choice but to do what God wanted Him to do. Isn't this an example of God's compelling service?


As I also said there. It was because this was the execution of a judgement and not a “trial.” Pharaoh’s, even murderous, oppression and abuses of Israel was being judged and Pharaoh was not actually really given a choice to avert this. God Himself in the Bible is unequivocally clear that all 10 plagues were going to be fulfilled no matter how Pharaoh responded to Moses’ requests.

Quote:
NJK: The use of (mostly) ambivalently attributable and relatively/comparatively light force for a necessary preventive/protective/pre-emptive deterrent, and so that greater and more destructive force will not be used is part of God’s government in order to keep the playing field level in this GC, particularly for His faithful people vs. particularly ruthless and lawless enemies.

Tom: I think what you're trying to say here is that God uses comparatively light force as a deterrent, in order to keep the playing field level in the Great Controversy, particularly to protect His faithful people against ruthless enemies. Given that God is constantly protecting all from a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, wouldn't it be sufficient for God to simply remove His protection from these unseen dangers to accomplish the same effect?


He does do so but only when it is naturally feasible to the extent and timeliness of the action/judgement He wants to implement. Otherwise He has to supernaturally act to produce this with the force, precision and time that He wants it to happen.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Consider Jesus Christ. No one was ever as faithful as He. God had to protect Christ on many occasions. Did He ever resort to this comparatively light force you're speaking of? (i.e., things like the plagues in Egypt, or burning people alive)


As already stated, the angel standing between Christ and the arresting mob was an example. Indeed any angelic intervention, even if unseen is an example of this use of light force to keep the playing field even vs. such utterly lawlessness/unrighteous attempts.

Quote:
T:You think it's necessary to investigate every incident which you list.

NJK:As in any science, an hypothesis needs to be tested to demonstrate that it is valid.

Tom: One doesn't need to investigate every incident to do so.

NJK: Indeed not. Just the one’s I’ve listed should be enough!

Tom: I don't think it would be enough, as evidenced by your comment below, saying that only three episodes are cited, even though I've already cited more than this.


That is clearly a LOL cop out to me. How would you know without even trying. It is clear to me that you just cannot Biblically do so. My comment below is no “evidence” at all but just an excuse. I have not seen the other ones you’ve listed. Just like you have “not seen” my detailed exegetical exposition on the Plagues though repeatedly referred and/or linked to!?? If you are going to arbitrarily and/or spuriously decide things for me what I think then this discussion is pointless and surely not worth my time and effort. Simply fancifully convince yourself however it is fitting for you.

Quote:
NJK: I needed to see that done with your principles with my list of prominent events, indeed discussed in both the Bible and SOP, to see if that is, as you claim, the way to come to understand all other OT.

Tom: I disagree with this. I think what's necessary is to see God's character as revealed by Jesus Christ.

NJK:Then let’s throw out everything other than the Gospels since even what we “guidingly” learn from Christ does not need to be applied elsewhere in God’s Revelations.

Tom: This would be a possible suggestion if the only purpose for Scripture was to learn of God's character.


Candidly, but most perplexingly, interesting!! So that is indeed the only other purpose of the rest of Scripture for you. This confirms that you really do not see the revelations of God in the OT as having any self-spoken/acting contribution to His Character!

Quote:
NJK: For the reasons I have stated many times, I do not substantively see the destruction of Jerusalem, as it collectively prophesied and brought about starting especially from Christ’s predicitons and how it transpired to be the all in all example of what will truly/fully happen when/whenever, if ever before, the “passion of God” is fully manifested.

Tom: It's the incident that we have the most information regarding, not including the cross. The cross would be the best study, as it reveals God's character far better than any other incident.

NJK: Still not substantively conclusive to me, even as expounded upon and applied by EGW.

Tom: The cross isn't substantively conclusive to you?


(This is the perfect example of the knee-jerk, subjectively selective, partial responses that I patently see in your replies). I was pointedly referring to the Jerusalem Destruction. Still, in regards to the Cross: Not in the ‘all in all’ sense that you wrongly see it for this Theological Issue. The rest of the Bible to me is substantively just as contributive. The Cross culminatively confirmed the rest of that Revelation of God’s Character, still there is much more to be confirmedly revealed in the ca. 2000 years since.

Quote:
NJK: The plain and exegetical Biblical evidence against these EGW applications are too compelling. So I’ll follow the SOP’s counsel here.

Tom: The evidence against the EGW applications is too compelling, so you'll follow EGW's counsel?


I said the “SOP’s counsel” as I do not see all comments by EGW as being the SOP. And the “SOP’s counsel” is to let the Bible be the final arbitrator. (Somehow I suspect you understood this distinction in that response already. Hence the sly need to misquote what I had written.)

Quote:
Tom: It seems to me self-evident that if you agreed with the principles we're discussing, that takes care of the issue, so I'll deal with these.

NJK: Quite sincerely Tom, because, mainly I have to ignore many explicit statements of direct and active acts of God in the Bible in order to view things as you do, I do not see your even SOP supposed/derived view (i.e., believing the SOP is 100% accurate here) as being valid.

Tom: That's because of your paradigm. Others with a different paradigm than you hold don't need to ignore these statements, but understand them differently than you do.

NJK:Engaging in actually exegetically rewording the Bible to fit an EGW statement is not Biblically acceptable to me, nor is it endorsed by the SOP.

Tom: This is no different than what you do with subjects such as the state of the death or God's foreknowledge. One needs to consider a subject in its entirety.


I know I don’t do this in any topic so you’ll have to remove me form this “you” if it was a plural/general expression and especially if it was pointed addressed to me. Trying to find the precise nuanced wording out of Syntactical possibilities is not the same as, as you are scholastically indiferrently and/or obliviously doing so far, making e.g., an active verb become passive, an intensive verb become simple/natural tense, or outrightly ignoring any exegesis.

Quote:
NJK: I’ll instead let the Bible decide when EGW was correct.

Tom: Why not let both the Bible and EGW decide when you're correct?


(A) Because I would have first done the exegetical work in the Bible, as usual. (That answer also is the same for your previous similar question from a post of yours that I have not yet replied to.)

(B) Because by saying “EGW” here, I was pointedly referring to her non-directly inspired comments vs. the SOP/Testimony (=Her visions and (direct) revelations).

Quote:
NJK: I’ve done so many before with the consistent result of arrive at greater Biblical light, ironically enough thanks to perceived and confirmed inconsistencies between the Bible and the SOP and/or the EGW vs. the SOP. If your “paradigm” doesn’t allow for this then I see it as foundationally, Biblically, flawed.

Tom: Do you perceive your view of God's character to be appealing? Or just accurate?


Accurate. I am not in the public relation business but in the Truth preaching. God’s Character is Wise/Perfect/Loving/Just/Merciful/Good/Compassion, etc enough as candidly self related and demonstrated throughout the Bible to let Him speak for Himself. Only those who understand His Truth will ever find Him appealing in any whole way that He manifests Himself.

Quote:
NJK: In all things, including EGW’s (vs. the SOP) comment: Isa 8:20.

Tom: God is often presented as doing that which He permits in Scripture. For example, it says in Numbers that God sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites, but what actually happened is God removed His protection.

NJK:As I see it, by first preventing this danger and then allowing it when Israel rebelled God did indeed send the serpents.

Tom:The serpents were already present. No serpents were sent anywhere.


That’s mere, Theologically-irrelevant, peripheral semantics. Does not counter anything.

Quote:
NJK: It’s like flipping on the fusebox’s power switch while you know someone is still rewiring the water heaters circuitry.

Tom: It's like ceasing to restrain a bully who would do someone else harm.


No. Since the bully may not necessarily do this. It’s more directly/actively correlated as deliberately letting go of the rope while your friend is still climbing it on the side of a 2000 ft cliff. Try to claim you didn’t actively do anything here!

Quote:
NJK: So the Bible is Theologically correct.

Tom: God is often presented as doing that which He permits. The Bible is indeed theologically correct.


You rather are trying to present God as not being responsible for, or even doing, what He legislates, commands, directly or indirectly executes/permits, like some Teflon Don. The fact is you have yet to actually see in the Bible a truly “passionate” judgement of God where He is 100% not implicated in the judgement. He set boundaries in Job’s episodes. He was merciful in the Destruction of Jerusalem, and He told the lying spirit precisely what he could do. (He even provided a way of escape for the snake-bitten Israelites). That “passionate” judgement (commonly, though wrongly called the “wrath of God” won’t occur until the 7th endtime Plague.

Quote:
NJK: How God performs a judgement whether in active or passive means makes no different.

Tom: Then why all the argument against the idea that it's passive?


Because now you are maintainedly confusing a truly fully permitted/unrestricted, Satan active or even passive, judgement, with a God active/passive judgement. In the Satan judgement, God is completely uninvolved and absolutely no mercy is shown. Again I have seen no example of this in the Bible yet. That is why God is rightly related as being involved in all Biblical judgements thus far.

Quote:
Tom: It says in 1 Kings, that God sent lying spirits to Ahab, but what actually happened is God permitted.

NJK:1 Kgs 22:19-23 - In the Bible itself, in a vision that was shown to Micaiah, the Bible does indicate that God actually desired to do this and accepted to hear the offer of an evil spirit and upon ascertaining exactly how it would be done, he ‘commanded’ that Spirit to do this. (vs. 22b) So God did not merely passively permit this but indeed ordered it.

Tom: This sounds like Calvinism. This is not Adventism in any way. Are you familiar with our tradition, or the works of the 19th century?


As I don’t care for nor ascribe to any Theological system, but get my views directly from the Bible or SDA “traditions”, and especially 19th century Theologies, I know that it is none of what you “pigeon-hole” need it to be. 1 Kgs 22:22b is unequivocal of God’s sovereignly empowering commission to that lying spirit. How else was that evil spirit to ‘surely, naturally “prevail” #3201 (cf. Gen 32:25).’

Originally Posted By: Tom
Returning to the concept of God's character, the Bible says that God cannot lie. If God were to order someone to lie as a means of fulfilling His will, God would be responsible for the lie. The assertion that God cannot lie would be false.


That vision reveals that this was like God allowing Satan to make his claims in the Tree of the Knowledge of God and Evil. That lying spirit was to try to “entice” Ahab and that by becoming a lying spirit it the (already) false prophets. God did not originally create this evil path he just allowed it to reach its full course. (James 1:13-15). So this consistently like God ‘sending a deluding influence so that those faithful to the antichrist power will believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness. (2Th 2:11, 112).’ Still this is an actively permitted, passive judgement of God and not one entirely relinquished to Satan.

Indeed had these prophets been God’s prophets vs. the false prophets that they were and that Ahab fully knew they were (cf.1 Kgs 22:5, 6 & 14-18), then God would have been tempting Ahab with evil/lie. (contra. James 1:13).

Quote:
Tom: It says in Job that the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, but this was said by one who didn't know of Satan's existence. When the curtain is pulled away, we see that it was an enemy who caused the things which happened to Job.

NJK:Job 1:8-12 - Here also it was God who actively told exactly what should be done to Job, even if it had been suggested by Satan. So God, through what he told Satan he could do did indeed took away what He had given. So the Bible is also accurate here.

Tom: All the evil performed against Job was done so by Satan. None by God. God does no evil.


He still allowed it. And not even for judging reasons. I simply accept that incontrovertible fact and it does serve, as with many other people, to understand that even when bad things may be allowed to happen to a righteously living person, it does not mean that God has rejected/abandoned you. And faithfulness in that trial may have great GC implications. So I thank God for having (singularly) done this through Job, as an object-lesson for millions of believer throughout this ongoing GC. So in God’s perfect wisdom He did not see/consider this as “doing evil”, as your theological paradigm constrains you to narrow-mindedly do, but testing Job as it candidly/truly could only be done.

Quote:
NJK: These indeed are the only three examples that people cite for this view however I do not see any mandate or permission to reengineer everything in the Bible.

Tom: I've already quoted other examples.


Great. Please do point them out (e.g., post #’s) or list them so that I can analyse them.

Quote:
NJK: Telling enough, you make no statement on Israel’s war and the executing of Capital Punishment.

Tom: Perhaps kland would engage you in this conversation.


I don’t see how kland's expressed view that ‘there is no difference between killing and murder’ implying that ‘all killing is murder and thus should not be done’ helps your case. But suit yourself. It certainly does not come to erase any of those Israel divinely-legislated and executed capital punishments or its God spoken commands to go to war and e.g., also completely kill all surviving inhabitants, and that through a victory that was actively sustained by God’s supernatural power. (E.g, Exod 17:8-16; Deut 3:3, 6; 2 Kgs 19:35; cf. DA 700.5, PK 361.2|GC 117.1|511.3 - I think in this last work of EGW (PK) she would have by then got it clear that “the Angel of the Lord” had not killed 185,000 Assyrians on the battle field.)
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/13/11 07:03 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
1. In the OT, why did Jesus command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle?

M: Seems to me you believe Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in battle because 1) the Jews failed to trust Jesus to defeat their enemies in a godly way, and 2) the Jews expected Him to think and behave like a pagan god. Do you agree with my assessment of your view as it relates to the question above?

T: No, of course not. But surely you must know that.

M: Please elaborate.

T: Consider the story of the father/hunter. What was the father's will in regards to his son? What did the father do and say to his son? Could his words be misconstrued by someone overhearing the conversation? If you don't remember the story, I can refresh hour memory.

In the humane hunter illustration the father raised his son to abhor killing animals. Later on, when the son craved to kill animals, the father taught him how to kill animals in the most humane manner. Those who would have overheard the father teaching his son how to kill animals humanely would have heard him mingling pleading with his son not to do it and the son begging his father to let him do it. Or, are you assuming the father would not have mingled teaching his son how to hunt humanely with gently reminding him it is contrary to his will and wishes?

Now, let’s take two common stories from the Bible and apply the principle of the humane hunter. Story One: Fire blazed out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned N&A alive. Story Two: Elijah prayed twice for fire to consume two separate bands of fifty and twice “the fire of God came down from heaven” and burned them alive. Please apply the principles of the humane hunter to these two stories.

Quote:
M: Was Jesus, while here in the flesh (as opposed to after He returned to heaven), forced to command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle?

T: What are the principles laid out in GC 35-37? That's the important question. Did Jesus Christ teach and embody these principles? Yes, He did. Where we're disagreeing is in regards to what we think God is like. I believe God's character was revealed fully by Jesus Christ, and the best revelation was the cross. Rather than use force to get His way, Jesus Christ voluntarily submitted to torture and a horrible death from the very creatures He came to save. This is what God is like. Not just sometimes, but all the time. The principles explained in GC 35-37 are in harmony with what Jesus Christ revealed. Your perceptions of God's character appear to me to be schizophrenic. Some of the time, as it appears to me you see things, He exhibits the qualities Jesus Christ embodied on earth, especially at the cross, but other times He acts indistinguishably from Satan, leaving us with no means to know who is acting.

M: I don’t understand how your response answers the question above.

T: I explained the principles I felt your question was trying to get at. Your question was simply a yes/no question, of which a one-word answer wouldn't be very useful, I didn't feel. You've asked many questions similar to the above, and each time it appears to me the motivation is to argue why the SOP statement that "all that man can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son" is false. You've already stated categorically that it doesn't include "His strange act." Perhaps your question above is another manifestation of this same point. Well, we're simply in disagreement regarding this point. I think the statement that all we need to know, or can know, of God was revealed in the life and character of Jesus Christ is 100% true, including "His strange act," or anything else regarding God's character that one can think of.

It is obvious Jesus did not, while here in the flesh, command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle. Nobody in their right mind would argue otherwise. With this in mind I am compelled to ask – Why did the OT Jesus command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle?

I have no idea what your answer is to this question. I’m not even sure if you agree Jesus did so. Your continual reference to the humane hunter illustration implies you do, which suggests you believe Jesus did in fact command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle. If so, according to your view of God, doesn’t it mean Jesus commanded them to do something diametrically opposed to the will of God?

Quote:
2. In the OT, why did Jesus command godly people to kill ungodly people through the execution of capital punishment?

T: You repeated yourself.

M: Why do you think so?

T: Because you asked the same question twice! Look at your post.

Here are the two questions I asked above:

Quote:
1. In the OT, why did Jesus command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle?

Was Jesus, while here in the flesh (as opposed to after He returned to heaven), forced to command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle?

Why do you think these questions are a repetition of the one above? Do you believe killing enemy soldiers in battle and killing citizens through the execution of capital punishment are the same things?

Quote:
M: Was Jesus, while here in the flesh (as opposed to after He returned to heaven), forced to command godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment?

T: What's your argument here? That since Jesus Christ, while here in the flesh, wasn't forced to command godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment, it therefore follows that it's not the case that all that we can know of God was revealed by Him? I can't think of why you would ask this question otherwise. Why not just set forth your argument?

M: You wrote, “Jesus Christ, while here in the flesh, wasn't forced to command godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment.”

T: It's really confusing to read something like this. I didn't write this. You wrote this.

M: Is this your answer to the question above?

T: No.

No one in their right mind would argue Jesus, while here in the flesh, commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment.

Quote:
M: In response to your question, I believe the OT Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment, and the fact the NT Jesus did not do so makes it clear He did not demonstrate this attribute of God’s character while here in the flesh.

T: Ok, you disagree with Ellen White's statement. I agree with it, and disagree with you. I think you're misunderstanding what an attribute of God's character is. At "attribute" is “a quality or feature regarded as a characteristic or inherent part of someone or something.” In regards to God's character, these would be things like "mercy, compassion, integrity" and so forth.

You are jumping to conclusions. Just because I believe Jesus, while here in the flesh, never commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment, it doesn’t mean I believe He opposed capital punishment. He often spoke about it. “Cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth when the Son of man shall come in his glory.”

Quote:
Exodus
22:20 He that sacrificeth unto [any] god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

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.

Deuteronomy
2:34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:
20:17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; [namely], the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:

Joshua
10:40 So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded.

M: Seems to me you believe Jesus was reluctantly willing to command the kinds of things described in the passages above for as long as it would take Him to teach the Jews how to "turn the other cheek"? Is this what you believe?

T: I believe, as I've said so many times, that for us to properly interpret Scripture, we need to know God's character. I believe that the first order of business is to study the life and character of His Son, whose "whole purpose" was "the revelation of God." What is it that Jesus Christ revealed? What was Jesus Christ like? How did He treat His enemies? I don't believe that He acted any differently in the Old Testament than while here in the flesh. Do you?

M: Do the scriptures above require interpretation? Ellen wrote, “The language of the Bible should be explained according to its obvious meaning, unless a symbol or figure is employed.” {GC 598.3} “If we would not build our hopes of heaven upon a false foundation we must accept the Bible as it reads and believe that the Lord means what He says.” {5T 171.1} You seem to be saying, no, we cannot take the passages above at face value because . . . . If so, why not?

T: She also counseled us to compare Scripture with Scripture. She wrote a lot about how erroneous ideas can be obtained in regards to Scripture. She wrote a lot in regards to the importance of understanding God's character. I've stated many times that a proper understanding of God's character is paramount to properly understanding Scripture. Do you disagree with this? Assuming you don't, this begs the question of how we should obtain an knowledge of God's character. I believe the foundation must be Jesus Christ. Ellen White wrote it would be well for us to spend a thoughtful hour each day meditating upon the life of Christ, taking each scene point by point, especially the last scenes. Why? So that we may understand God's character. Everything hinges on this point. This is what the whole Great Controversy is about.

Quote:
The most important aspect of faith is our mental picture of God...(O)ur actual picture of God, not our theoretical knowledge about God, most influences how we feel about Him. It's impossible to enjoy a genuinely passionate and loving relationship with God when our mental picture of Him doesn't inspire passionate love.

Our picture of God not only influences our emotional response to God, it strongly influences our understanding of everything else in our life. (Boyd; "Is God to Blame?" p. 21)

Also it strongly influences our understanding of Scripture.

I also believe a proper understanding of God's character, especially through the life and teachings of Jesus, is paramount to properly understanding the Bible, especially as it pertains to all the killing and destruction. The passages I posted above are too plainly worded to assume they mean something other than what they obviously mean. Jesus did indeed command the things described in those passages. There is no doubt about it. No one in their right mind would argue otherwise. The question is – Why did Jesus command such things? Why did a loving, merciful, compassionate Savior command godly people to kill ungodly people?
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/13/11 08:28 PM

Quote:
NJK: Jesus did not come to do away with the Law and the Prophets (=OT) but to fulfill them.

Tom: He did so by His life and teachings ("You have heard it said, 'an eye for an eye' ... but I say unto you, love your enemies," etc.).

NJK:Your are quite wrongly causing a mixed up Christ’s statement here.

Tom: I was simply referring to the Sermon on the Mount. You didn't understand this?


What you quote was only Matt 5:38-44a. So I logically, certainly did not see the entire Sermon on the Mount here by this thematical curtailing attempt, but indeed an attempt to make two distinct counsels, in two distinct sections falsely seem to be complimentary of each other.

Quote:
NJK: Also where in the OT does it say to “hate your enemies’.

Tom: The point is that the Old Testament was not understood. I've never said there was anything wrong with the Old Testament.


That’s not what I logically got from your pointedly curtailed quoting above. It simply said to me that the OT was teaching retribution/vengeance\hate ad Jesus was teaching otherwise. Hence my question to point this out in the OT.

Originally Posted By: Tom
What I said was that if we see Jesus Christ acting or teaching differently than what we see in the OT, then there's something wrong. It doesn't sound like you're disagreeing with this, but simply repeating the same thing I said.


Your selective quoting does not indicate that. It, as you foundationally believe, hence my direct correlation, aims to suggest/imply that ‘Jesus provided a better picture of God than what was shown in the OT.’ Hence this manifest attempt to implicitly demonstrate that OT Laws on legal retributions were not the right revelation of the Character of God. The indeed were as it was His Character of Justice, and simultaneously of Love for the victim here, even pre-emptively deterring protective Love against such irreparable bodily harms.

Quote:
NJK: He, and where it was necessary, reinstituted these OT contributions where they were always meant to be.

Tom: He tried to correct the misconceptions what people had about the law.

NJK: Indeed as you had knee-jerkly (i.e., through defaultly deferring to your paradigm) done in your objecting comments to the underlying laws addressed in Matt 5:38-47. As Christ implied in conclusion, God’s OT Law, when rightly restored to what it was always meant to be, is “”Perfect” (Matt 5:48; James 1:25) Indeed it thus “restores the soul’ (Gr. “psyche" Psa 19:7).

Tom: If this is the definition of "knee-jerkedly," then everything you write is also such. You can't get outside of your paradigm.


My paradigm is what the Bible exegetically, straightforwardly expresses, even above EGW’s comments. So I remain within that Biblical paradigm.

Originally Posted By: Tom
You can allow your paradigm to change, however. And this is what Jesus Christ does. He is constantly challenging our paradigm. He presents a picture of God which is different than the one that we presently hold, always and forever. If we are willing, we can allow Him to mold our view of God to that it becomes more and more like what God is truly like.


This is proof that you indeed wanted to show that there was something wrong with Jesus speaking of the OT retributive laws. His point was not to become hateful and spiteful even in exercising the legally permitted acts of justice. That’s how he fulfilled that law. That also probably, with cause, came to allow for many pardons where the harm committed had not been done intentionally.

Originally Posted By: Tom
The very first step in doing so is to recognize that our paradigm is faulty, and that we need His help. If we think we see, our blindness remains. If we think we are sound, we won't seek the help of a physician.


The actual first step to arriving at the Biblical paradigm is to prayerfully endeavor to uphold all of Scripture, as exegetically accurate, and not only choose those which privately seem better to use, as you indifferently patently do to defend your view, especially in regards to the OT. Thus, as done here, this involves also upholding Christ’s introductory statement that: ‘He had not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.’ (Mat 5:17, 18 [NASB])

Quote:
Tom: Do you think that when we believe in Christ that we, at that moment, have eternal life?

NJK: The Bible [+SOP] fully teaches that with such a genuine faith, our sins are forgiven and will, in persisting in this faith, be all blotted out in the judgement, and thus we can have the unshakable assurance that Jesus will one day in the future let us enter into Heaven to access the Tree of Life so that we can ingest the life-perpetuating supernatural powers contained therein. However show the Second Coming tarry, we can and will die in this life.

Tom: Is this yes or no? Do you believe that when we believe in Jesus Christ we, at that moment, have eternal life?


Yes...but fully as the Bible reveals this realistically happens.

Quote:
NJK: As I said, the two compliment each other, and it is manifestly from the Water of Life flowing from the Father’s throne that the needed, life perpetuating “supernatural power” is injected in the Fruit of the Tree of Life. However, without accepting Jesus, Fallen Man will not have access to that physical provision and thus not life eternally. So both Jesus’ statements to this end and the tangible reality of the Tree/Fruit of Life harmonizingly present the Theological Truth of how Man, and now Fallen Man, lives eternally.

Tom: I think this is getting a bit removed from the important question. The important question is, "Is there an organic relationship between sin and death?" (and similarly between faith and life).

NJK:We’ve been down that road before. My explicitly citing Bible/SOP answer is “No”. Sinful man can live eternally with access to the Tree.

Tom: This could only be the case if sin were a physical problem only. But sin involves more than the physical. It involves the mind, and the longer a person lives contrary to the principles of God's government, the principles of agape, the worse and worse he becomes, and this isn't something a tree can fix, but only Christ.


I’ll go by God’s word that sinner could live forever over your comparatively greatly uninformed and merely speculative human reasonings and rationalization. And simply restating your previously Biblically disproven claims on Sin and the Tree/Fruit of Life does not suddenly make them true.

Indeed it is the God-injected supernatural elements in the Fruit of Life that can make a sinner live forever as the Creator God knows/believes. And I correspondingly see and understand the Fruit/Tree of Life vs. the God injected power in it to be as neutrally inconsequential as a bottle for medicine tablets. It is what God conveys through the Tree of Life that produces this spiritually independent life-perpetuating ability. And Jesus came to make the Spiritual requirement to access that supernatural power accessible again to redeem Man (Rev 2:7). And that will also involve having our minds also purged of sin (indeed tangibly by selective brainwashing) to be truly eligible to be granted access to this transmitted life-perpetuating power.

Quote:
T:If we don't perceive an organic relationship between sin and death, we will perceive what is happening in the final judgment very differently than if we do. We will see the second death as being the result of something God does to the wicked in justice as a punishment as opposed to something that the wicked have brought upon themselves by the choices they have made, and which God permits.

NJK:The Bible is clear that the destruction of the wicked in Hell, the Second Death, as well as the General First death at the second advent are both direct acts of God.

Tom: This is simply seconding what I wrote.


I don’t see so. As I understood you here and from your previous statement on this. You believe that the second death is “something that the wicked have brought upon themselves by the choices they have made, and which God permits.” I instead see it as ‘the result of something God does to the wicked in justice as a punishment’ as depicted in the Bible. The wicked life choice do condemn themselves however the execution of the condemnation is depicted to be from direct acts of God in both their First Death smiting (e.g., Rev 19:20, 21) and their supernaturally sustained surviving in the Sin Sufferings for their Second Death (e.g., Rev 20:13-15).
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/13/11 08:33 PM


Quote:
Tom: (quoting EGW) “Christ designed that the Pharisees should answer as they did. He designed that they should condemn themselves. His warnings, failing to arouse them to repentance, would seal their doom, and He wished them to see that they had brought ruin on themselves. He designed to show them the justice of God in the withdrawal of their national privileges, which had already begun, and which would end, not only in the destruction of their temple and their city, but in the dispersion of the nation.”

NJK:It was because Jesus “designed/wished” to have this due judgement justly and deservingly come upon the Jewish Nation.

Tom: That's not what EGW wrote! She didn't say that Jesus "designed/wish" to have this due judgment come upon the Jewish nation, but that He designed that His hearers respond the way they did. Surely you can see the different here, can't you?


You are not seeing this because you are narrowly only seeing what your view allows you to selectively see. And that by ignoring the opposing Scriptural testimony to your view. EGW also said there:

Originally Posted By: SOP
“He designed to show them the justice of God in the withdrawal of their national privileges, which had already begun, and which would end, not only in the destruction of their temple and their city, but in the dispersion of the nation.”


As I had went on to say (see below), Jesus did indeed pointedly design/wish this throughout His ministry, and did endeavor to have this physical Judgement become the reality for these leaders and the Jewish nation, and that by not helping them/these out of their Spiritual darkness (Matt 13:10-17 = Isa 6:9-13), and that, defaulty, from the very start of His ministry (John 2:13ff & 3:3ff). Indeed Jesus did not suddenly come up with that design/wish at this final moment of His Ministry but had justly laid the foundation towards this end right from its start.

Originally Posted By: Tom
In the quote she says exactly the same thing I've been saying all along:
Originally Posted By: SOP
His warnings, failing to arouse them to repentance, would seal their doom, and He wished them to see that they had brought ruin on themselves.

Tom: The underlined portion is what He wished them to see, which is, again, what I've been saying all along.


And that could not have been done without Him actively working to keep them in the dark (Matt 13:10-17 = Isa 6:9-13), as I had stated (see below).

Quote:
NJK: and these leaders that he, throughout His ministry worked to veil, until it was inevitably too late, any element in his public teaching that may help to avert that destruction.

Tom: You're saying that Christ wanted God to kill them, and He veiled the truth from them, so that God could kill them, rather than save them?


That is what the Bible says Jesus said and endeavored to do, and righteously in due judgement (Matt 13:10-17), indeed just like He had seen the Father say, commission and endeavor in the OT (Isa 6:9-13). ‘These saving/elucidating mysteries of God’s Kingdom had justly not been granted to these.’

Originally Posted By: Tom
The parable that Christ spoke to them said that God would kill them and given their land to another. So if what you're asserting were true, then my question at the beginning of this paragraph would follow.


I don’t get this reasoning and thus do not see what your applicable question is here. And since it is Christ’s parable that is saying this then why am I wrong to take Him at His word compared to subscribing to your view, even if it is foundationally based upon the comments of EGW in GC 35-37. The Bible is the final arbitrator here and thus Christ’s statement here, and as I substantively believe so, supplant EGW’s comments. Even if solely in the consistent veilings of Christ during His ministry then God did indeed actively work to effectuate the judgement on these rebellious leaders and destroy their city.

Quote:
NJK: Therefore this is a clear declaration of the destruction of Jerusalem being accomplished by God's acting directly.

NJK: The symbolism indeed indicates this. However Christ’s actively inducing “designs” as stated by EGW in DA 597.3 in leading these leaders to pronounce and seal their own doom and future destruction mirrors in principle EGW’s understanding of how Jerusalem was going to be destroyed. I.e., by these Jewish leaders having here spoken their own doom. So the future physical destruction could indeed have been sent by God, at least, in part at first and not really contradict the SOP view here. (However for the reasons cited in a prior ost my jury is still out on EGW’s application of this Second indirect destruction method on the 70 A.D. as well as all of the the 7 Last Plagues.

Tom: Why do you think it's right for you to set yourself as a judge of Ellen White's writings? If God sent her as a prophet, shouldn't her writings judge you?


Succinctly said. The Greater Light in especially Biblical exegesis. This ascertained light is judging her own, non-directly inspired comments, as they are just like any spiritual commenting by any religious Christian leader/person. Indeed EGW got/borrowed many of such insights from other Christian authors as infamously known in some cases. So I analyse and judged such EGW comments and thought by the Word of God just like a do for/with such others writers. (Isa 8:20)

Quote:
NJK: I don’t believe the SOP [i.e., EGW] ever “corrects” the Bible. That “correction” element is only One Way. I.e., the Bible corrects the SOP. So if the Bible says something and the SOP [i.e., EGW] says something that seems or is opposite to it, such as here that Christ indicated “direct judgement” and EGW “indirect judgement” then the SOP [i.e., EGW] is always to be deemed as wrong.

Tom: Where does she say this? Or is this an idea of yours? Or do you think the Scripture teaches this, that God's prophets should be correct by Scripture?


My above specification and differentiation (in bold) between EGW (i.e., the (human) person) and the SOP (the direct revelations of God) should clarify what I actually meant here and thus also answer your question. It is only in direct revelations that EGW’s comment constitute the Spirit of Prophecy and was thus on par with the Inspiration of the Bible. Isa 8:20 states this rule as does EGW’s counsel to make the Bible the Greater and Infallible Authority in Biblical matters. And as I said before, Bible writers had a considerable natural advantage over EGW in commenting matters as they lived in the pertinent Biblical context. The Bible also shows that not everything that comes out of a prophets mouth is the “Word/Will of God/Spirit of Prophecy” (e.g., Samuel (1 Sam 16:6, 7) and Nathan (2 Sam 7:1-17)).

Originally Posted By: Tom
I don't see this taught at all. What I see is that God's prophets should be judged by Scripture, not corrected by it.


Claiming, as you are, not having a choice that ‘Jesus spoke of a direct destruction’ but EGW spoke of an indirect one, and upholding EGW’s claim over Christ’s statement is making EGW “correct” Christ here. I rather easily see that it is EGW who is wrong here, especially as these are mere expositional/expounding comments of hers and not directly inspired, “I was shown” statements.

Originally Posted By: Tom
That is, if a person is speaking for God, then that's person's teachings will be in harmony with Scripture, and will not need to be corrected by it. If the person's teachings are not in harmony with Scripture, then that person's teachings should be rejected, as well as the idea that this person was a prophet.


That would make a prophet have to be infallible and inerrant. That is not expected by God for any human that He prophetically works with. That prophet is rather to exercise extreme caution to not speak forth in the name of God except He is certain that God has given that message (cf. Deut 18:18-22).

Quote:
T:What's your methodology here? Is it the following?

1.Determine the truth by exegetical analysis of the key passage(s).

2.If Ellen White agrees with that analysis, fine, but if not, then conclude she is mistaken.

NJK:1. Definitely, Yes. 2. Sadly, Yes.

Tom: Why not conclude that your exegesis may be wrong, or that you may be misunderstanding what she wrote?


Because I endeavor to make those choices after I have ascertained that my pertinent exegesis is well-founded. Some exegetical points indeed leave no opportunity of a misunderstanding mistake. And if/when I make an exegetical mistake, I have not problem correcting this with EGW comments/statements as my sole aim is to arrive at and have Biblical truth, and even, as it really only “One Way” can, as I understand it, if that comes to mean not ascribing to a then provedly mistaken comment of EGW.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/13/11 10:36 PM

Quote:
T:In the last plague, the eldest sons were killed. The implication is, if you don't do what God says, more will be killed. To suggest that this isn't compelling a decision isn't a credible suggestion.

If I kill a child of yours, and threaten to kill another one if you don't do what I say, sure, I can say you're free to do what you want, that I'm not compelling you, but that rings hollow. This is certainly an example of my using force to compel you to do my will.

NJK:I most manifestly, even evidently, see here how your view actually is defaultly faulting and impeaching the Character of God.

Tom: I haven't found any fault whatsoever with God's character, but only your understanding of it. Where have I said anything negative at all regarding God's character, or found any fault with it?


NJK:In the opening statement which you ‘implied’ must be a ‘baseless and deadly extorting, compelling act.’


You know this isn't my view, right? It would be very disappointing if, after all this conversation, you didn't recognize this.

Quote:
T:I should add that, in saying that I find fault with your understanding of God's character, I don't wish to imply that my understanding of it is perfect; not by any means! However, I'm not aware of anything regarding my conception of God's character that another would find negative.

NJK:The problem is your understanding is not strictly and objectively guided b exegesis but subjectively by whatever fits your view and that includes, effectively placing EGW above the Biblical revelation.


It's important that our understanding be guided by the Holy Spirit.

The point I made above is that I'm not aware of anything in my view of God's character that someone else would find negative. It seems to me this is an important consideration. If we have a view of God's character which is negative, that should sound alarms.

In your view, God, for reasons of judgment, hardens Pharaoh's heart, so that Pharaoh has no option in the matter, so that He can inflict judgments of "light force" against him, including killing his son. I don't see how one could find this view of God's character to be appealing. It's important to God that His character be seen as appealing.

Quote:
He desires that the creatures of His hands shall love Him because He is worthy of love. He would have them obey Him because they have an intelligent appreciation of His wisdom, justice, and benevolence. And all who have a just conception of these qualities will love Him because they are drawn toward Him in admiration of His attributes. (GC 541)
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/13/11 10:43 PM

Quote:
T:We've spoken some about the plagues of Egypt. The traditional view is that God applied more and more force against Pharaoh until he finally capitulated. I've mentioned that this idea presents God as acting in a similar fashion to someone wanting protection money. Accidents, or plagues, keep happening until the one applying force gets his way.

NJK:As I subsequently responded and detailedly explained, plague by plague in this post, (to which you never answered!),

Tom: I don't think I could possibly answer everything you write. If I don't answer something, just do as everyone else does when that happens, and bring it up again.


I have and will. However, as I see that does not make any difference as you either don’t read them or respond to them. I cannot know when you are doing either one so it is only when you continue to advance a previously addressed and countered point that I manifestly see to be the case either way.

Quote:
NJK: that “traditional view” and assumption is not supported by the Biblical fact that God repeatedly worked to forcefully harden Pharaoh’s heart starting from the 6th plague and all that for a preplanned “mighty acts” demonstration purpose and to merely to make Pharaoh capitulate.

Tom: The Bible says that Paraoah hardened his own heart. God is often represented as doing that which He permits. This makes more sense to me than that God did something to influence Pharoah's free will to act contrary to his (i.e. Pharoah's) own best interests.


This is the perfect case of what I just stated above. You manifestly did not even click on the provided link above in regards to the Plagues exposition. So manifestly, even obviously, you prefer to state your view independent of what I may have said there (as with the pertinelty related “War in Heaven” exposition on my blog) So, as I have already thoroughly addressed the Plagues issue and showed that this view you have on it is not exegetically accurate, indeed despite EGW claim/comments vs. the Bible, then I won’t restate these here again.

Quote:
T:Regarding the flood, a couple of quick thoughts. One is that models creation scientists have developed, the Bible, and the SOP, all agree that the waters of the flood were primarily under the earth. These waters exploded into the atmosphere, and that precipitated the flood. The amount of water released was nothing like any flood we've ever seen.

NJK:To me, the SOP’s statement in PP 96.3; 99.1 that the seas and rivers were permitted to overflow their bank was key to the flooding. [Still, as I see it, God (“passively”) did this destruction (and not Satan).] Furthermore, the Hebrew of Gen 7:11 speaks of an inflicted destructive act and a “permissive” one. The word for “burst open” #01234 consistently speaks of something that was whole and was then forcefully divided, split open, torn apart, etc. It is also in the passive form (Niphal), meaning that they did not do this “splitting open” own their own but were acted upon by an external force. The same goes for the “floodgates in the sky” that were opened. Also, after the flood the water covering all of the earth highest mountains did not all evaporate as this would have oversaturated the atmosphere, but probably also with the winds sent by God, was force to return to their previous boundaries. So it seems to me that the water that formed into clouds had been prepared and stored up by God from the evaporation of ocean/sea waters, (and guided towards land for the flood), so that when this great flooding was ended, an excess of water on this planet and its atmosphere would not occur. And the indeed great amount of waters that came from the deeps probably could not be returned back there. So that may have caused more land masses to become flooded resulting in our current ca. 70% world surface coverage by waters whereas before it may have been much less.

Tom: There weren't any oceans at this time, so this theory can't be right on the face of it.


What we call seas, the people in Bible times considered as their oceans, indeed not being aware of the greater bodies of water. However that does not mean that these larger bodies of water did not exist. And as the Bible says that the land mass was gathered all in one place (Gen 1:9, 10), then it is most scientifically logical to see that the rest of this planet was one large ocean. So that theory stands and your inherently strange attempt to spuriously discount it is what is obviously and unequivocally not right.

Originally Posted By: Tom
If you look at the SOP writings, you'll see that she speaks about how the antediluvians believed a flood was impossible, because they didn't understand that there were great quantities of water underground. The key to the flood was in these underground waters. There had to be enough water to form the oceans, which did not exist at this time. This is an incomprehensible amount of water.


The SOP reference, at the very least, would help here. I cannot find what you are claiming. The Bible is clear that there was both a land mass and waters covering the Earth then (Gen 1:9, 10). Those “seas” included the larger, even if unknown, oceans.

Quote:
NJK: The key thing here is that the Hebrew Grammar/Syntax of Gen 7:11 speaks of an externally acting, and intact constitution break up of the fountains of the deep as well as the floodgates in Heaven. And God also acted to allow the seas and rivers to overflow their banks. However, as seen today, rivers and seas only do so because of e.g., earthquakes under sea (= Tsunamis) and or an over abundance of rainfall. So I would see this allowing as being secondary to the caused flooding by the opening of the fountains of the deep and the rain fall. (I.e., e.g, Evaporated ocean waters being caused to fall inland as rain upon inland rivers and overflowing them.) In other words, God then did not act to prevent the in filling rivers and seas from not overflow their borders.

Tom: Once again, there weren't any oceans at this time.


Nice, though puzzling, discredit attempt but your are Biblically and scientifically wrong. Furthermore it is probably the flood that split and spread the earth land mass which was in one place before (Gen 1:9) into their present dispersed locations.

Quote:
Tom: These waters, to explode into the atmosphere, must have been under tremendous pressure.

NJK:Where are you reading/deriving this ‘exploding into the atmosphere’ i.e., which is at least 6 km (3.5) in the air. Are you implying that this is what was the flood rain fall??

Tom: Yes. This is how the creation science models work which I have seen, and I believe this agrees with Scripture and the SOP as well.


I had misread that website reference. The atmosphere actually starts on the earth surface and varyingly expands from 6-20 km (3.5-12 mi) from there (for the first layer from earth - the Troposphere). So to get into the atmosphere they only had to overcome the force of gravity and flow onto the surface. That can easily be done by creating a vacuum if the bore hole is already present. Rain water could easily have been gathered up from the Seas and Oceans. A model that claims no oceans is unbiblical.



Quote:
Tom: Both of the following possibilities harmonizes with the ideas I've been presenting

1.God knew the disaster was going to take place. He could have prevented it, and would have, given a favorable response to Noah's preaching.

2.God was preventing the disaster from occurring, but stopped doing so when His overtures were continually rejected, after the many years of preaching of Noah.

NJK:From the syntax of Gen 7:11, as well as the SOP quotes cited by Mountain Man on the flood earlier in this thread (maybe he can readily relocate them), I rather see pointedly active actions of God, [i[acting[/I] to cause these destructive agents/“weapons” from otherwise stable and inexistent elements.

Tom: The water from the depths below had to get in the atmosphere somehow.


The only had to get to the surface and flood the Earth that way. Simple creations of holes and either pointed vaccuum in these areas or enough water pressure to overcome the force of gravty, which is not that much, would suffice to cause these ground waters to spring up.

Since the SOP says in PP 99.1 that the springing up fountains of the deep were so forceful that large/heavy rocks were hurled hundreds of feet in the air, then I see that God, as Gen 7:11 exegetically says, actively burst those previously closed fountains open by creating this needed tremendous water pressure as it also had to bore a hole to the surface. Once that opening was forcefully created, then they just continued to flow naturally flooding the earth from the surface up, i.e., from flowing up to the ground surface.

There is also no Biblical/Scientific/Logical reason to believe that these waters were always under such pressures and God was actively preventing them from bursting. God would really have to have been doing that since creation, as the removal of the tree of life logically did not result in instant fragility chaos as such. Instead the earth has gradually become weakened. At best the pressure of these waters is jsut as high as those seen in naturally formed geysers.

Quote:
Tom: If God were acting directly to cause the flood, He would have had to cause the pressure in the first place, as well as not prevent the action from occurring.

NJK: That’s pointedly what the exegetical Biblical evidence indicates!

Tom: This doesn't seem to make much sense. The waters would already be under great pressure simply by virtue of being there. God wouldn't have to do something special to make this happen, just like He doesn't need to do anything special to make gravity happen. To *prevent* destruction from occurring; that *this* would require special action on the part of God makes sense, just as God is presently at work preventing destruction.


It circularly does not make sense to you because of your view that the world is in ecological/geological chaos, sort of like a gas filled room waiting needing only a small spark to explode. I rather see that, though under some pressure, (though not necessarily as seen by the fact that ground water, unlike crude oil reservoirs, usually needs to be pumped up from the ground to the surface), the geological condition of the Earth then, indeed before the great flood pervasive damages, was sound enough to contain those (pressurized) fountains. God therefore would not have been actively preventing them to burst, and that from the very instant that man fell. That is not a Biblical view of the effect of sin upon Creation. “Ageing” is not “damaging” nor “unstable chaos.” So God would just have increased these pressure to indeed actively burst them open as Gen 7:11 exegetically indicates.

Originally Posted By: Tom
This is God's character: He prevents destruction. The character of the enemy, called "the destroyer" in Scripture, is to destroy. Jesus Christ, the revelation of God, came not to destroy, but to save, manifest His character (and God's) as "God, the savior."


That equation does not provide a Biblically sound scientific view of sin effect on Creation even after the Fall.

And where are you seeing that the Devil called “the destroyer”? Rev 9:11? Some quite sound interpretation would easily challenge that view.

I also see the that name of “Satan” means “adversary”. I also don’t see that Satan has power to wantonly, even at all damage/effect the geology of this planet. He may however concoct various noxious amalgamations in his laboratories and indeed sow them in nature. However I do not see Him having the power to create geological damages. I see that God reserves that power to ensure that life on this earth can go on with any major supernatural interference, thus keeping the field level in this GC. Indeed since God does not act to e.g., provide a warm climate for believers who live in a cold climate place, then Satan does not have the power to so affect nature.

And the reason why Satan can use already existing creation and mix up something noxious and even sow it into creation, is manifestly because God at times similarly “supernaturally” (=higher than humanly known science) acts to favor the agriculture of His faithful people. So that allowance to the devil, probably since right after the fall, was probably in the light of the fact that God had planned to so favor his people when needed, as when living in a place where the climate/weather is not favorable to agriculture.

Quote:
Tom: But you wrote elsewhere that you don't seen any difference between God's sending fiery serpents upon the Israelites, and His withdrawing His protection, so why would you care here, or in the other incidents you mentioned, what happened?

NJK:(Already explained.) Also, assumedly here, we both fully view the Bible as the Inspired and Infallible Word of/from God and (doctrinally) inerrant. So if your view is Biblical, then I would accept it only when it is demonstrated from the Bible (and in secondary corroboration with the SOP, when it rightly does so.)

Tom: I don't understand on what basis you think that God acts directly as opposed to indirectly, given that there are cases where God is said to act directly when He didn't.


Perhaps this, on top of what I have already said by now, could also help. Because God is also responsible for what He allows to be done in His name, including indirectly. This however is distinct from Him mercilessly acting in full “passion” and not even stipulating what can or cannot be done. In such distinct cases He turn things entirely over to Satan and the result are direct or indirect acts of Satan.

I would Theologically/Prophetically say that even the 2 Thess 2:11, 12 is partly an indirect and God-responsible action of at first as it is an endeavor to have the people subject to it come to a stage where they can be judged by ever deeper following and believing their lies. It does mirrors Christ action to keep the Jewish leaders in their Spiritual darkness so that they can be judged. (Matt 13:10-17 = Isa 6:9-13).

Originally Posted By: Tom
For example, in one place it says that God killed Saul, whereas in another, it says that Saul killed himself. Indeed, as I recall, the author of the respective books consistently presented God in these respective manners, with one attributing all evil to God (as Sovereign of the universe, God being presented as doing that which He permits), and the other not.


You’ll have to give the references where you have seen this with Saul as I don’t see or know of those statements. All I see is that there are two seemingly contradicting account of how Saul died. 1 Sam 31:4 says he fell on his own sword, killing himself while in 2 Sam 1:8-10 an Amalekite claims that he did is. Succinctly said here, I see that the Amalekite came to David with a made up story to get some favor, but that backfired as it enraged David and he was killed for it (2 Sam 1:13-16). So no contradiction here in this.

Originally Posted By: Tom
So given that God is often presented as doing that which He permits, when do you know when He is doing something, or permitting it?


I see it as Justice for God to carry out a deserved death sentence Himself, so I see no problem when the Bible says He does so whether directly or in permitting it. However I do see that if mercy or any limits are to be shown in a judgement, then He will remain in at least ultimate control, overseeing that the judgement is fairly carried out, even if indirectly. He only relinquishes the entire judgement to Satan when no mercy is to be shown.

Ironically enough, upon further pondering, it very well may be because God injunctively intended to effectuate a merciful Judgement on Jerusalem, indeed preserving the life of hundreds of thousands, given that the end of the world was not to occur then, as it could have if the NT Church had fully and faithfully finished their work, that he was in control of it and counterintuitively in Him sending the Roman armies under the most patient and merciful Titus in late 69 A.D. In other words, the first siege attempt under Cestus could have been a natural consequence for the Jews withholding their taxes. However God intervened to have that siege/war suddenly end. He then would have wait for the noble Titus to be in position to lead this expeditions so that it would be done in mercy thus not actually ending in total destruction and the loss of all life.

Originally Posted By: Tom
What I'm suggesting is we can know that whenever evil occurs, it's never the case that God is actively doing it, but He is always permitting it. I imagine you would agree with this, but would disagree as to what evil is, arguing that if God does a thing, then it can't be evil, which just brings us back to where we were, as I believe acting violently (or what would be termed violently if anyone else were doing it besides God, as you would prefer some other term, but surely something like dousing someone with fire would be termed a violent action, in normal parlance) is evil, and contrary to God's character.


I indeed see that when God does something it is because it is not evil. As I said elsewhere, burning someone alive with fire may seem “violent” however I see it as a just method if total cleansing and purging of a sin is necessary. Sure the person suffers a little, however that is the just consequence of sin in general. So that person may up to then have live a sinful life in physically and mentally “painless” ease and guilt-free, as many sinners do today, however in the momentary suffering in the fire, God caused that person to suffer the due physical and mental pain that his life of sin should have wrought, and would have it that sinful course had been allowed to even more fully ripen and be finished completed (James 1:15) vs. the necessary premature judgement intervention by God.

Originally Posted By: Tom
When Jesus Christ was urged to destroy, He responded, "You know not what spirit you are." "Spirit" here is representative of one's character. Jesus Christ responded as He did to the suggestion that He destroy ("The Son of Man came not to destroy but to save") because of His character.


That was indeed not His mission/mandate then. So that was indeed not the “Spirit” of God suggesting this to the disciples (cf. Matt 16:15-17 vs. 21-23). And, being exegetically faithful/responsible, the word “Spirit” (Gr. “pneuma” #4151) is not actually what is one’s character. The Greek word “psyche” (#5590) would indicate that. The “Spirit” instead is only a blowing influence. The devil, as prince and power of the air (Eph 2:2) also has a similar blowing influence. A person’s character (= psyche) comes to be shaped by whichever of these blowing influences he allows himself to be pushed along by.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/13/11 11:21 PM

Quote:
T:In the last plague, the eldest sons were killed. The implication is, if you don't do what God says, more will be killed. To suggest that this isn't compelling a decision isn't a credible suggestion.

If I kill a child of yours, and threaten to kill another one if you don't do what I say, sure, I can say you're free to do what you want, that I'm not compelling you, but that rings hollow. This is certainly an example of my using force to compel you to do my will.

NJK:I most manifestly, even evidently, see here how your view actually is defaultly faulting and impeaching the Character of God.

Tom: I haven't found any fault whatsoever with God's character, but only your understanding of it. Where have I said anything negative at all regarding God's character, or found any fault with it?

NJK:In the opening statement which you ‘implied’ must be a ‘baseless and deadly extorting, compelling act.’

Tom: You know this isn't my view, right? It would be very disappointing if, after all this conversation, you didn't recognize this.


Actually no. On one hand you never expressed your view on the Plagues and only quote ‘what people generally believe’ Then you tried to oppose my view with this scenario. So I logically assume that this is your view of the Plagues and why, as with most other episodes in my suggested listing, you indifferently choose not to consider it to understand God’s character. So if you actually and clearly stated your view, instead of remaining defensive, then any misunderstanding here would not have been caused. I can only go by what I read here. Any disappointment here is due to such incomprehensible indifference not to deal with the whole testimony of Scripture from your part.

Quote:
T:I should add that, in saying that I find fault with your understanding of God's character, I don't wish to imply that my understanding of it is perfect; not by any means! However, I'm not aware of anything regarding my conception of God's character that another would find negative.

NJK:The problem is your understanding is not strictly and objectively guided b exegesis but subjectively by whatever fits your view and that includes, effectively placing EGW above the Biblical revelation.

It's important that our understanding be guided by the Holy Spirit.


Guess what, the Holy Spirit lead to all Truth, and that involves guidance when doing exegetical analysis. Unless one begins to engages in this as they can, the Spirit is quit limited as to what He can impress one with in this quest for truth. 13 years of experiences in this Spiritual reality have made this concretely and crucially clear to me. Indeed, as the Bible and SOP say, it is only as one expends, invests and uses what they have towards the quest for concrete truth, blowing away much of the rubbish that have been piled on by men who have variously refused to walk in God’s advancing light of truth, that more “Light”, Spiritual Insight, and “Treasure” will be added, given and found.

Originally Posted By: Tom
The point I made above is that I'm not aware of anything in my view of God's character that someone else would find negative. It seems to me this is an important consideration. If we have a view of God's character which is negative, that should sound alarms.


As I have suspected here, your view aims to pleas the masses rather than be as Biblical as possible. That is why you factually don’t take everything into it due consideration, if at all. I am not aim to keep anyone from seeing something negative as I cannot force them to see the actual Biblical light. People will always find something to quibble with God. Just as the criminal hates the police and the judge, well the sinner hates the Legal and Justice aspects and manifestations of God’s Character. Can’t rewrite the Bible, (indeed as some paraphrase versions do) to please them nor ignore Biblical exegesis.

Originally Posted By: Tom
In your view, God, for reasons of judgment, hardens Pharaoh's heart, so that Pharaoh has no option in the matter, so that He can inflict judgments of "light force" against him, including killing his son.


As I have detailedly brought forth that is what the Bible reveals. God’s full Justice and Love for His people also demanded retribution for the murder of Israelites (Gen 9:5, 6). You only care to see one side of the matter here when the other side is undeniably manifest in the Bible and SOP.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I don't see how one could find this view of God's character to be appealing. It's important to God that His character be seen as appealing.


Seriously, Spiritually/Biblically-stated, if that means ignoring scripture, then that cannot my Biblical concern. I am not selling anything here. Biblical Truth is not for sale. If you don’t understand this, then it is easy to see why you won’t let Biblical exegesis, which indeed disprove your views be the final arbitrator here, as objectively ascertainable. Marke-haggling, subjective selectivity is not the Biblical answer.

Originally Posted By: SOP
He desires that the creatures of His hands shall love Him because He is worthy of love. He would have them obey Him because they have an intelligent appreciation of His wisdom, justice, and benevolence. And all who have a just conception of these qualities will love Him because they are drawn toward Him in admiration of His attributes. (GC 541)


Only sound Biblical exegesis, which innately will not partition the Word of God, ignore some parts, will produce this, indeed, foundationally pivotal “intelligent appreciation of His wisdom, justice, and benevolence”. (cf. 2 Tim 3:16, 17).
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/14/11 01:55 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
NJK:Once again Tom, as typical, and it is quite telling to me, out of the many things I countered in your previously expressed objections (too many to take the time to even simply, transparently, relist here), you only respond to what you think you have an answer for, and once again, also as typical, with spurious, irrelevant and peripheral argument. Yet you still see a dense forest.


I'm very busy. You don't write at all concisely, and repeat yourself a lot. I'm trying to cover the main points you make. If I miss something, you're always free to bring it to my attention again.

Summarizing main points would help. Also, there's a lot of name-calling, accusations, in what you write. I don't see how anything good can come responding to such things.

Quote:

T:Please state these principles in a way that you would consider genuine.

NJK: Summarizing my already stated points based not merely on the SOP, but the Greater (both in content and rank) Testimony of the entire word of God (2 Tim 3:16, 17):

Tom: 1.All that can be known of God was revealed by the life and teachings of Jesus Christ during His earthly mission.

NJK: What was revealed about God by Jesus serves to understand why God acted and said what he did in the OT.

Tom: This is greatly reduced in scope from what I wrote (actually, what Ellen White wrote).

NJK:That is because it is pointedly addressing how this Revelation of Christ principles applies to this discussion.


How it fits in is that Jesus Christ fully revealed the Father's character, so we know that the Father, in all circumstances, acts in harmony with how Jesus Christ acted.

Quote:
Quote:
NJK No need to reword/repaint anything.

Tom: What are you referring to? I didn't reword anything, I simply quoted it. I don't recognize it as a quote from anything. Did you repaint something?

NJK:Effectively “rewording” (even ignoring) the Hebrew and Greek ...


The context here was me quoting from Ellen White, so this doesn't apply.

Quote:
Quote:
Tom: 2.God is just like Jesus Christ in character.

NJK: Jesus perfectly emulated the Father, substantively, as it actually applicable, spiritually, in manifesting the same Character principles.

Tom: This isn't nearly as clear as what I wrote. Does it mean anything different?

NJK:Absolutely! Succinctly said then: Jesus perfectly imitated/emulated the OT God in every form of way.


He "revealed" or "declared" God. That's what Scripture and the SOP state. John 1:18 says that Jesus Christ "declared" God. John 17 says:

Quote:
4I have glorified You down here on the earth by completing the work that You gave Me to do....

6I have manifested Your Name [I have revealed Your very Self, Your real Self] to the people whom You have given Me out of the world. They were Yours, and You gave them to Me, and they have obeyed and kept Your word.(amplified version)


The SOP comments on this as follows:

Quote:
Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,—to set men right through the revelation of God. In Christ was arrayed before men the paternal grace and the matchless perfections of the Father. 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. {ST January 20, 1890, par. 9}


Quote:
Quote:
Tom: 3.Jesus Christ was not violent, and taught anti-violence.

NJK: The God head does not use force to compel love or service but to necessarily and timely execute judgements and to instill a inceptive healthy fear, all to permit this GC to be fully fulfilled by the end of the feasibly self-capable allotted time.

Tom: How is acting from "healthy fear" not forcing or compelling service?

NJK:Because men still have the free choice to believe in those actions or not,


This is contradictory. "Free" means there's no pressure being applied against you to make a choice. "Healthy fear" means there *is* pressure being applied against you to make a choice. That's not free.

Quote:
just as equally as they could be marvelled by God’s supernatural signs/miracles and believe or not. These both can produce a “healthy fear” if the observer does not choose to harden their hearts.


Perhaps you mean something different from "healthy fear" than being afraid of what God will do to you if you don't do what He says(?). Otherwise, the choice is being made under duress, so is not free.

That God does not compel a free choice does not mean that God infiltrates the person's mind to force the person to think and to do certain things, but that external pressure by means of threats and such like are not being applied.

Quote:
Quote:
Tom: 4.There are thousand dangers from which God protects us constantly. Any degree of destruction is possible by God's simply withdrawing His protection. There is no need for God to act actively to produce destruction.

NJK: (edited) God uses “supernatural” force to produce judgements and miracles when the natural elements, even present/real threats in nature, would not, even if not restrained, do so, and if eventually they would do so, still not in the needed timely way.

Tom: Don't know what this is trying to say. Do you disagree with what I wrote, that God protects us from many unseen dangers?

NJK:Perhaps a simple Bible example (which you indifferently avoid) will help.


I've given several Biblical examples. I've spoken about the destruction of Jerusalem at length. I've suggested the cross as a fine example. We could talk about that.

Please don't make false accusations like this. Name calling and accusations add nothing to the discussion. It just makes the person reading what you wrote want to do the same thing back to you.

Quote:
When God needed to instantly destroy Sodom and Gomorrah instead of naturally letting them die off on their own, which may not totally happen and/or may have taken much more time, then He supernaturally intervened to cause fire and brimstones to rain down from Heaven pointedly on the 5 cities in that valley. There was nothing natural that He could have allowed to naturally take place here to timely effectuate that instant judgement. His power supernaturally assembled all the needed elements for that judgement.


This is your opinion, but others have a different opinion. For example:

Quote:
"This remarkable happening is stated matter-of-factly, with no suggestion that it was a special miracle or divine judgment. Lot’s wife "looked back" (the phrase might even be rendered "returned back" or "lagged back") seeking to cling to her luxurious life in Sodom (note Christ’s reference to this in Luke 17:32,33) and was destroyed in the "overthrow" (Genesis 19:25,29) of the city. There are many great deposits of rock salt in the region, probably formed by massive precipitation from thermal brines upwelling from the earth’s deep mantle during the great Flood. Possibly the overthrow buried her in a shower of these salt deposits blown skyward by the explosions. There is also the possibility that she was buried in a shower of volcanic ash, with her body gradually being converted into "salt" over the years following through the process of petrifaction, in a manner similar to that experienced by the inhabitants of Pompeii and Herculaneum in the famous eruption of Mount Vesuvius.
- Henry Morris (taken from: "The Defenders Study Bible")(http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/lotswife.html)


Many feel that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was due to a volcano or some other natural disaster.

Quote:

Quote:
Tom: 5.The use of force is contrary to the principles of God's government.

NJK: The use of force to compel love and service is contrary to the principles of God's government.

Tom: You wrote elsewhere that Pharaoh had no choice but to do what God wanted Him to do. Isn't this an example of God's compelling service?

NJK:As I also said there. It was because this was the execution of a judgement and not a “trial.” Pharaoh’s, even murderous, oppression and abuses of Israel was being judged and Pharaoh was not actually really given a choice to avert this.


Unfortunately I don't have time right now to comment on this, but I'd like to discuss this in more detail when I can. I'm interested in your thought process here. I know you've written on this, and I read that, but what I'm interested in finding out more about is how you see what's happening here as speaking in any way positively in regards to God's character.

Originally Posted By: NJK
God Himself in the Bible is unequivocally clear that all 10 plagues were going to be fulfilled no matter how Pharaoh responded to Moses’ requests.


I disagree. Hope we can discuss this later.

(More later).
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/14/11 03:09 AM

Quote:
NJK: As I also said there. It was because this was the execution of a judgement and not a “trial.” Pharaoh’s, even murderous, oppression and abuses of Israel was being judged and Pharaoh was not actually really given a choice to avert this.

Tom: Unfortunately I don't have time right now to comment on this, but I'd like to discuss this in more detail when I can. I'm interested in your thought process here. I know you've written on this, and I read that, but what I'm interested in finding out more about is how you see what's happening here as speaking in any way positively in regards to God's character.

NJK: God Himself in the Bible is unequivocally clear that all 10 plagues were going to be fulfilled no matter how Pharaoh responded to Moses’ requests.

Tom: I disagree. Hope we can discuss this later.

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?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/14/11 08:26 AM

Originally Posted By: 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?


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

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/14/11 09:01 AM

Originally Posted By: MM
1. In the OT, why did Jesus command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle?

M: Seems to me you believe Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in battle because 1) the Jews failed to trust Jesus to defeat their enemies in a godly way, and 2) the Jews expected Him to think and behave like a pagan god. Do you agree with my assessment of your view as it relates to the question above?

T: No, of course not. But surely you must know that.

M: Please elaborate.

T: Consider the story of the father/hunter. What was the father's will in regards to his son? What did the father do and say to his son? Could his words be misconstrued by someone overhearing the conversation? If you don't remember the story, I can refresh hour memory.

M:In the humane hunter illustration the father raised his son to abhor killing animals. Later on, when the son craved to kill animals, the father taught him how to kill animals in the most humane manner. Those who would have overheard the father teaching his son how to kill animals humanely would have heard him mingling pleading with his son not to do it and the son begging his father to let him do it. Or, are you assuming the father would not have mingled teaching his son how to hunt humanely with gently reminding him it is contrary to his will and wishes?


The father was giving the son counsel in regards to something which was not his ideal will. Someone overhearing the conversation could think that the father was giving counsel in regards to something which was his will.

Quote:
Now, let’s take two common stories from the Bible and apply the principle of the humane hunter. Story One: Fire blazed out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned N&A alive.


This doesn't apply.

Quote:
Story Two: Elijah prayed twice for fire to consume two separate bands of fifty and twice “the fire of God came down from heaven” and burned them alive. Please apply the principles of the humane hunter to these two stories.


This doesn't either.

The story applies to incidents where God is giving counsel, counsel which could be understood as being His ideal will, when it is not really. We see God's ideal will revealed in Jesus Christ.

Quote:
M: I don’t understand how your response answers the question above.

T: I explained the principles I felt your question was trying to get at. Your question was simply a yes/no question, of which a one-word answer wouldn't be very useful, I didn't feel. You've asked many questions similar to the above, and each time it appears to me the motivation is to argue why the SOP statement that "all that man can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son" is false. You've already stated categorically that it doesn't include "His strange act." Perhaps your question above is another manifestation of this same point. Well, we're simply in disagreement regarding this point. I think the statement that all we need to know, or can know, of God was revealed in the life and character of Jesus Christ is 100% true, including "His strange act," or anything else regarding God's character that one can think of.

M:It is obvious Jesus did not, while here in the flesh, command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle. Nobody in their right mind would argue otherwise. With this in mind I am compelled to ask – Why did the OT Jesus command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle?

I have no idea what your answer is to this question.


Please consider the story of the father of the hunter son.

Quote:
I’m not even sure if you agree Jesus did so. Your continual reference to the humane hunter illustration implies you do, which suggests you believe Jesus did in fact command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle.


Do you think the father of the hunter commanded his son to hunt? Is this what you understand the story to be saying? This is why you say my reference to this story suggests I believe Jesus did in fact command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle?

Quote:
If so, according to your view of God, doesn’t it mean Jesus commanded them to do something diametrically opposed to the will of God?


Did the father of the hunter command his son to do something contrary to his will?

Quote:

2. In the OT, why did Jesus command godly people to kill ungodly people through the execution of capital punishment?

T: You repeated yourself.

M: Why do you think so?

T: Because you asked the same question twice! Look at your post.

Here are the two questions I asked above:


In the post in which I made the statement that you had repeated yourself, you had repeated the same question twice. It's not a big deal. I just pointed this out.

Quote:
M: Was Jesus, while here in the flesh (as opposed to after He returned to heaven), forced to command godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment?

T: What's your argument here? That since Jesus Christ, while here in the flesh, wasn't forced to command godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment, it therefore follows that it's not the case that all that we can know of God was revealed by Him? I can't think of why you would ask this question otherwise. Why not just set forth your argument?

M: You wrote, “Jesus Christ, while here in the flesh, wasn't forced to command godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment.”

T: It's really confusing to read something like this. I didn't write this. You wrote this.

M: Is this your answer to the question above?

T: No.

M:No one in their right mind would argue Jesus, while here in the flesh, commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment.


I asked you the following:

Quote:
What's your argument here? That since Jesus Christ, while here in the flesh, wasn't forced to command godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment, it therefore follows that it's not the case that all that we can know of God was revealed by Him? I can't think of why you would ask this question otherwise. Why not just set forth your argument?


Please respond.


Quote:

M: In response to your question, I believe the OT Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment, and the fact the NT Jesus did not do so makes it clear He did not demonstrate this attribute of God’s character while here in the flesh.

T: Ok, you disagree with Ellen White's statement. I agree with it, and disagree with you. I think you're misunderstanding what an attribute of God's character is. At "attribute" is “a quality or feature regarded as a characteristic or inherent part of someone or something.” In regards to God's character, these would be things like "mercy, compassion, integrity" and so forth.

M:You are jumping to conclusions. Just because I believe Jesus, while here in the flesh, never commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment, it doesn’t mean I believe He opposed capital punishment.


??????? I didn't say you said anything like this!

Quote:
He often spoke about it. “Cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth when the Son of man shall come in his glory.”


Did you read something from some other post, and respond to it here by mistake? I don't see any connection between what you're writing here and what I said. Here's what I said:

Quote:
Ok, you disagree with Ellen White's statement. I agree with it, and disagree with you. I think you're misunderstanding what an attribute of God's character is. At "attribute" is “a quality or feature regarded as a characteristic or inherent part of someone or something.” In regards to God's character, these would be things like "mercy, compassion, integrity" and so forth.


Where do you see anything here about you're beliefs regarding Christ's view of capital punishment?

Quote:
I also believe a proper understanding of God's character, especially through the life and teachings of Jesus, is paramount to properly understanding the Bible, especially as it pertains to all the killing and destruction. The passages I posted above are too plainly worded to assume they mean something other than what they obviously mean.


The Bible statement that says that "God killed Saul" is just as plainly worded! So is the one that says God sent fiery serpents. So is the one that says that God sent lying spirits to Ahab. So is the one that says that God would send his armies to burn their city (Jerusalem). So is the one that says that God would send strong delusion to those who received not the love of the truth. So is the one that says that the Lord given and the Lord taketh away.

Quote:
Jesus did indeed command the things described in those passages. There is no doubt about it.


I disagree with the approach you're taking. That it doesn't work is evident in a number of ways.

First of all, it's inconsistent. I've cited a number of examples which are stated just as clearly as the ones you cited, yet you interpret them differently than the ones you cited. Why don't you interpret them all the same? They're all worded the same.

Secondly it leads to the rejection of other ideas, such as that all that we need to know of God, or can know of Him, was revealed by His Son while here in the flesh. The whole purpose of Christ's earthly mission was the revelation of God.

The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government. Compelling power is found only under Satan's government.

God does not stand as an executioner of the sentence against the transgressor, but leaves him to experience the result of his choice.

There are a lot of these.

If we simply consider the cross, we can see from that what God's true character is, and what His principles are.

How does God treat His enemies? Do He turn the other cheek?

Quote:
No one in their right mind would argue otherwise. The question is – Why did Jesus command such things? Why did a loving, merciful, compassionate Savior command godly people to kill ungodly people?


What I believe is the right approach is to consider God's character and the principles of His government. These were fully, wonderfully, and completely revealed by His Son. This is why we are counseled to spend a thoughtful hour each day meditating upon his life, especially the latter scenes.

Having Christ as a foundation gives us a chance to rightly understand the more difficult passages in Scripture, which appear to have God acting out of harmony with what Jesus Christ revealed. Otherwise we may wind up with a schizophrenic picture of God, acting one way in the OT, and another in the Gospels.

God always acted the same way! He *always* acted like Jesus Christ acted during His earthly mission. He's never acted any other way, nor will He. He always returns good for evil, and always goes around doing good.

Not understand that there is an organic relationship between sin and its results, such as misery, suffering, destruction of all types, and death, I think is another error that may lead us to wrong conclusions. If we don't see these as related (i.e., sin and its results), we'll conclude that God must have done these things as judgments and/or punishments, as opposed to permitting them to happen.

The whole concept that God destroys, sometimes in this way, and sometimes in that, is off base, I believe. Jesus said He came not to destroy, but to save, and this is God's character. Jesus wasn't demonstrating just one aspect of God, the aspect that saves but doesn't destroy, but was revealing God in His fullness. In Jesus Christ dwelt the *fullness* of the godhead bodily.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/14/11 02:40 PM

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.’
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/14/11 03:50 PM

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.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/14/11 04:43 PM

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!
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/14/11 05:37 PM

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.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/14/11 05:41 PM

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??”
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/14/11 07:34 PM

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.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/14/11 08:08 PM

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.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/14/11 08:48 PM

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.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/14/11 09:09 PM

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."
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/14/11 10:05 PM

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?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/14/11 10:17 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
M: Perhaps my question was poorly worded. I apologize for the confusion. I now understand you believe Jesus is free to choose between such options as preventing death and destruction or permitting it. He takes everything and everyone into consideration and then decides whether to prevent or permit death and destruction. The choice is His. Nothing happens by chance or fate.

T: Chance and fate are two very different things. I don't understand the purpose of this sentence. Indeed, everything you wrote above after "I not understand you believe ..." should read "I not understand I believe ..." as you're just repeating things you believe, is what it looks to me. What *I* believe is that God has created beings with free will, and these often, on earth, unfortunately, have chosen to act contrary to God's will, and *that's* why bad things happen. And similarly for the unfaithful angelic beings.

Do you believe Jesus is free to choose between such options as preventing death and destruction or permitting it, that He takes everything and everyone into consideration and then decides whether to prevent or permit death and destruction, that the choice is His, that nothing happens by chance or fate (the “or” denotes a difference)?

Quote:
M: As sovereign Lord and King, Jesus is ultimately in control – not sin, not sinners, and not Satan.

T: Satan and his followers are responsible in every way, including ultimately, for sin an all its results. God is entirely innocent. God is not in control of sinners.

If God is not in control of sinners, who, then, is protecting them? Yes, Satan is in control of what God permits, but he is not free to do as he pleases, otherwise, as you say, he would destroy everyone and everything. It’s not a question of whether or not God is innocent; it’s a question of whether or not He is in control. Of course He is innocent. He created free moral agents. They are free to obey and live or disobey and die. If they choose to sin and rebel, they are, ultimately, choosing capital punishment.

Quote:
M: When Jesus decided N&A and the two bands of fifty were worthy of death, who or what caused the fire that burned them alive?

T: I don't think it matters what the exact mechanism was. I believe the principles laid out in GC 35-37 were at work.

It matters if sincere seekers of truth wrongly conclude (from your perspective) Jesus employed fire to burn them alive. In the case of N&A, the fire blazed out from the presence of God in the most holy place. And, in the case of the two bands of fifty, fire rained down from God in heaven. To say Jesus simply withdrew His protection and permitted (you have yet to say who) to cause fire to burn them alive begs the question – Why were His enemies in the most holy places in heaven and earth?

Quote:
T: You've read Job. What does it say?

M: Ellen wrote [quotes omitted by Tom] Quotes like the ones posted above make it clear to me Jesus and holy angels work to ensure evil angels do not exceed the limitations imposed upon them.

T: This seems like an odd response. I ask you what Job said, and you respond by saying, "Ellen wrote." Is "Ellen" a pseudonym of Job's? As I've often said, if permitted, Satan would destroy all human beings, which would not leave a Great Controversy to be fought.

M: For this reason, Satan is not free to do as he pleases.

T: He is, to a great degree, which is evident in looking at our world. He has to be free to do as he pleases in order for there to be a Great Controversy. This agrees with your understanding, doesn't it?

I hope you don’t mind me allowing Ellen to weigh in on the discussion. I trust her insights. Based on what I’ve read in the Bible and the SOP, I am convinced Satan is only as free as Jesus permits. Whatever he does is done by permission. All heaven, however, works to ensure he does not exceed the limitations Jesus imposes on evil men and angels.

Quote:
M: It is Jesus, not Satan, who ultimately establishes and enforces the degree of punishment meted out.

T: This is like saying it is Jesus, not Satan, who metes out and enforces the degree of punishment meted out when someone ignores the law of gravity. Sin causes misery, suffering, and death because of its nature. These things are what happen when one separates from God. It doesn't require an extra, unrelated, special action on the part of God for misery, suffering, and death to occur, but merely acting contrary to God's principles, and separating from Him, is sufficient. This is what "me first" does. "Me first" can not end up in anything other than misery, suffering, and death. These things are the fruit of Satan's government, of choosing his principles.

Yes, sinning results in unrest and unhappiness. But whether or not it results in death and destruction is entirely up to Jesus. Yes, we manage the choices, but Jesus manages the consequences so far as things like death and destruction is concerned. For example, whether or not jumping off a cliff results in death is not up to gravity; instead, it’s up to Jesus. If He intercedes, death does not occur; otherwise, it does. But this example does not speak to the issues concerning capital punishment. In the cases of N&A and the two bands of fifty, there was no natural cause and effect law at work. Sinning does not result in fire blazing out from the presence of God in holy places and burning sinners alive. Fire is not self-acting. Neither is gravity. The laws of nature act the way they do because Jesus acts the way He does, that is, nature is a weapon in the arsenal of Jesus and does whatever He wields it to do. He employs nature to mete out capital punishment. But not always; sometimes He uses His enemies, evil men and angels, to punish impenitent sinners.

Quote:
M: It must irritate Satan to know he is not free to exercise his powers as he sees fit.

T: Satan is free to exercise his powers as he sees fit, to a great degree, or else there would be no Great Controversy. It's imperative that we understand that *all* the bad, all the evil, there is in the world, is the result of Satan, and none of it due to God. Satan gets irritated when his plans are thwarted, which is what happens when one chooses to follow God instead of him.

Amen! However, what qualifies as evil or bad? Was it evil or bad when fire blazed out from the presence of God in holy places and burned sinners alive? Is death and destruction always deemed evil or bad? Or, are their times when it counts as divine justice and judgment? For example, when Jesus commanded Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to death, was it evil or bad?

Quote:
M: Like a chained lion, try as he might, he cannot tear to shreds the prey just out of reach. “Already nations are angry, already Satan is working with signs and lying wonders, and this will increase until the end. God will use his enemies as instruments to punish those who have followed their own pernicious ways whereby the truth God has been misrepresented, misjudged, and dishonored.” {PC 136.3}

T: They are used as GC 35-37 explains.

I agree; always have. But the point is – It was Jesus who used evil angels and Roman soldiers as instruments to punish the impenitent Jews. Again, there was no natural cause and effect law at work. It was entirely arbitrary, imposed, meted out. Sinning does not result in soldiers killing sinners, at least not in the same sense cancer results in tissue damage and death. Also, is it a sin, evil, or bad when evil angels and soldiers kill impenitent sinners when God is using them as instruments to punish?

Quote:
M: Did Jesus, while here in the flesh (as opposed to after He returned to heaven), choose to allow things like ungodly people being burned alive?

T: O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen [doth gather] her brood under [her] wings, and ye would not! (Luke 13:34)

M: You seem to be suggesting Jesus allowed ungodly people to be killed while He was here in the flesh. Who was killed?

T: In what Jesus said, He expressed that He was willing, desiring even, to protect Jerusalem as a chicken would protect its chicks. He was very sorry they did not permit Him to do so. This is the principle enunciated in GC 35-37.

M: I don’t understand how your response answers my question.

T: My answer describes the principle at work.

M: Is offering protection, while here in the flesh, from something that happened in 70 AD equivalent to Jesus allowing N&A and the two bands of fifty to be burned alive?

T: The same principles are at work. Your question should be if offering protection in the one case is equivalent to offering protection in the other, as this would be apples to apples, and I would respond "yes" to such a question.

Seems to me the cases of N&A and the two bands of fifty and the death of Jews in 70 AD are similar in the sense Jesus, from your perspective, would have simply withdrew His protection and permitted His enemies to cause the resulting death and destruction. If so, what protection was Jesus providing, until He withdrew it, in the cases of N&A and the two bands of fifty? Does fire lie in wait until Jesus gives it permission to selectively burn sinners alive? If so, doesn’t it imply fire is self-acting? If not, who, then, employed the fire that killed them?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/14/11 11:32 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
NJK: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.


NJK:(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,


Where do you think I state this? I asked you to provide quotes to support your idea of what I'm saying, but you haven't done so. Please do so.

Quote:
however you do not explain/point out how mortal man is supposed to live eternally.


If man had not sinned, why would he die? If he doesn't die, he continues to live, as long as God gives him life.

Quote:
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.


Your single quote has no matching single quote. What is it you are trying to paraphrase? Please provide a direct quote.

Quote:
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.


You made a claim that I had a certain view. I denied your claim. I asked you to provide a quote of what I said to support your claim.

I continue to deny your claim. Please provide direct quotes to support your assertion that as to what I'm claiming.

Please do not claim as my positions positions which I have not asserted.

Quote:
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.

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


Left from what? You haven't quoted anything I've said. What are you reasoning from? You're not providing any context here.

Quotes please!

Quote:
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,...

NJK: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.


You're saying, then, that God does need the Tree of Life to give us life, that God had no other way of providing us life other than that. How could God, the Creator of the Universe, and the tree, of course, in the first place, be dependent upon it to give life to another creature?

Quote:
Where are you seeing that ‘this is obvious’??


1.God created all things.
2.God is life, and gives life, to who He wants in whatever manner He chooses.
3.God created the tree of life.

Given these facts, it is obvious to me that God doesn't need the Tree of Life to give us life.

This isn't obvious to you? If not, please explain why not.

Quote:
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.

NJK: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.


This point is moot if you don't understand why it's obvious that God is not dependent upon a tree to give us life.

Quote:
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.

NJK:That is a circular reasoning based upon a Biblical and scientific fallacy.


No, this isn't circular reasoning. It's reasoning from premise to conclusion. You don't agree with the premise, but that doesn't make the argument circular.

What you should have asserted instead is that the argument is not true, because the premise if false.

Quote:
Therefore it does not begin to be true/valid.


This is wrong too. An argument's being valid has to do with the logic of the argument, not whether or not it is true. You could rightly assert the argument is false, because the premise is false, but it would still be valid, because the logic is sound.

Quote:
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.


To do this you should provide some support from either the Bible or the SOP that God could not have provided us life in any other way than by means of a tree.

(more later)
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/15/11 01:34 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
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.


That’s indeed the difference I Theologically understand between the Spirit of Prophecy that God gives to a human vs. that human’s still fully present own thoughts. It can also be seen, especially by comparative/developmental analysis of repeated passage/statements of EGW if that segment it had been a direct revelation or not. Especially in early works such as e.g, SG, SP she mainly related such direct revelations, with the statement: “I was shown” being copiously stated there, then later she began to insert comments of her Biblical/Theological understandings to pastorally enlarge these works, seeking to have practical applications/understandings to the various circumstances of the readers life.

Originally Posted By: Tom
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.


I have yet to see be the case. I would say that this would be the case if it had been mis-written, however that is really hard to do unless one is being dishonest. The closest thing to this is when EGW describe the Christ she had seen in the vision on the Plan of Salvation as having been ‘troubled’ in 1SG 22.2 (1858), 1SP 45.1 (1870); but later changed that (as far as I know, lone) word in that vision to “doubt” EW 149.2 (1882). (I reconcile the two as ‘a doubt that had caused Christ to become troubled, thus troubling doubt’ and EGW probably wanted to make more clear why Jesus had appeared/been shown as “troubled” to her in that vision.)

I must all emphasize that I strongly believe that any mistake that are found in EGW’s own comments were all honest mistakes derived mostly from limited scholarly understandings. I also do not believe, as commonly assumed that whenever she consulted the works of other people to find material and insights to include in her works, that she was always guided by the Holy Spirit to select only what was accurate. Her quoting verbatim John 20:16 from KJV translators (i.e., the “Touch Me not” phrase) is a perfect example of that. Only much later (ca. DA 1898) did she realize that “Detain Me Not” was a more accurate reading. So she could have restated the inaccurate understandings of other authors. I indeed see that she, when not directly impressed by God, as it probably was the case, selected from those other writings what she understood was in harmony with her main set of what would end up being ca. 2000 revelations over her lifetime (if that figure has been substantively accurately reckoned by the EGW estate).

So in summary, “I was shown” type of statements can be ascertained to indeed be direct revelations and when there is no evidence that they had been mis-recorded/written then it should not be discarded. The Biblical principle is clear: ‘Test all prophesying and hold on to what is good’ (1 Thess 5:19-21).
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/15/11 01:37 AM

Quote:
NJK: In this case, No, as the “Greater Light of the Bible” unequivocally states otherwise and the two views are not reconcilable.

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


Not it is not, for substantive, exegetical reasons. You’re defaulty assuming that these scholars have done a proper exegesis of this passage. Perhaps they, like you, are just approaching in it from a philosophical view that ‘(a) this was not an act of judgement, therefore (b) God could not have been forcing Pharaoh to not obey Him.’ However the exegesis of that passage clearly indicates the complete opposite for both of these assumptions.

The difference of verbal tenses used, even with Pharaoh’s own choices were at times he acted naturally and at other times he had to take decided efforts to do so, (and when he didn’t do any of these himself, God stepped in and did it to/for him), it too black-on-white, clear to be exegetically ignore or indifferently dismissed. I have encountered many errors by scholars and don’t take my word for it, but just see how many times scholars correct other “scholars” on even what should have been objective truths. Usually this is because of the erroneous scholars not having delve deep enough in the study/topic/issue.

Originally Posted By: Tom
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.


As I see by seeing other uses of that Hebrew word #2388 - “to strengthen” is indeed the basic meaning, however since the text here shows that Pharaoh could naturally ‘strengthen his heart’ without any intensive action (Qal tense) but in 4 occasions in only the plagues, not only did he no do it as in the other 6, but God did it, and had to use intensive action to “forcefully” make it so (Piel) then that, especially in combination here, unequivocally clear to me of a forceful overturning of Pharaoh heart/will.

Furthermore why would God have to say from the start that He was going to do this? If that then involved solely what EGW had described then why would the text make explicit mentions in the latter half of the Plagues, and when indeed Pharaoh was/felt defeated/helpless. Indeed that all seemed from the start as a heads up to Moses to ‘not be surprised when Pharaoh refuses to obey you because I will, when need be, working to harden his heart.

Present all of this to a (also a non-SDA) scholar and see if they do not agree.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/15/11 01:39 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
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??”


Originally Posted By: Tom
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."


That may have come to be what you later came to understand after reading my answer, however my entire point in all of this was that your initial point said nothing in regards to mental bias. In fact you were apparently speaking against what you manifestly had believed was the use of “physically violent” force. Thus your emphasis that ‘seeking to get the Kingdom of heaven through such force’ was what Jesus was speaking against.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/15/11 01:40 AM

Originally Posted By: kland
Looks like you confirmed I was correct on your views, but maybe I'm wrong about the Inquisition.


Seems to me that you are simply patting yourself on your back here kland. What precisely do you think is my views? I have debunked all of the false conceptions of my actual view that you keep fancifully conjecturing, (for lack of less descriptive terms for what you are patently, defaulty doing with what I say)!

Originally Posted By: kland
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?


The Papacy was not anything close to being compose of ‘God-fearing men’. They knew right from the start that they were teaching Biblical error and instituting unbiblical traditions. Their knowing, official changing of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, which occurred long before the ca. 12th century and onwards Inquisitions, completely destroyed any association that God may have continued to have with the mainstream NT Church, So, especially by the 12th century, God was certainly not inspiring any of them to do any of their warring/inquisitive actions. Furthermore all of this was mainly being done to instill false fear upon Church members, and those carry out these Papal orders had no choice but to obey, lest they also be considered as a heretic and suffer that penalty of death.

And the difference I see in what the catholic Church did vs. what God legislated and commanded in the OT and also what Jesus taught in the NT was that God did not command that capital actions be taken against people who did not simply believe like He instructed but who had acted in tangibly variously socially threatening ways in Israel. That certainly was the case for people foreign to Israel who were not forced to join Israel as the Catholic Church was doing, but were to only be kept out unless they freely chose to believe. And the OT’s probationary restrictions for these foreigners was removed in the NT. Also Jesus similarly instructed that those who did not believe be kicked out the main body and not put to death. (E.g., Matt 18:15-18). So the Catholic Church had no Biblical basis for their murderous campaign against mere intellectual heretics. And also their union with the Roman State, which forced millions of intellectual opposers to falsely become part of their ‘ecclesiastical jurisdiction’ was also complete contrary to God’s ways.

So I see that their overall misconception of God the Father and Jesus and the ways that had been stated and clarified in the Bible ended up in this aberration. That’s really what Revelation’s Babylon, vs. God Biblical Israel, can only end up doing.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/15/11 01:41 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
Originally Posted By: NJK
NJK: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.


NJK:(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,


Where do you think I state this? I asked you to provide quotes to support your idea of what I'm saying, but you haven't done so. Please do so.

Quote:
however you do not explain/point out how mortal man is supposed to live eternally.


If man had not sinned, why would he die? If he doesn't die, he continues to live, as long as God gives him life.

Quote:
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.


Your single quote has no matching single quote. What is it you are trying to paraphrase? Please provide a direct quote.

Quote:
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.


You made a claim that I had a certain view. I denied your claim. I asked you to provide a quote of what I said to support your claim.

I continue to deny your claim. Please provide direct quotes to support your assertion that as to what I'm claiming.

Please do not claim as my positions positions which I have not asserted.

Quote:
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.

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


Left from what? You haven't quoted anything I've said. What are you reasoning from? You're not providing any context here.

Quotes please!

Quote:
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,...

NJK: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.


You're saying, then, that God does need the Tree of Life to give us life, that God had no other way of providing us life other than that. How could God, the Creator of the Universe, and the tree, of course, in the first place, be dependent upon it to give life to another creature?

Quote:
Where are you seeing that ‘this is obvious’??


1.God created all things.
2.God is life, and gives life, to who He wants in whatever manner He chooses.
3.God created the tree of life.

Given these facts, it is obvious to me that God doesn't need the Tree of Life to give us life.

This isn't obvious to you? If not, please explain why not.

Quote:
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.

NJK: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.


This point is moot if you don't understand why it's obvious that God is not dependent upon a tree to give us life.

Quote:
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.

NJK:That is a circular reasoning based upon a Biblical and scientific fallacy.


No, this isn't circular reasoning. It's reasoning from premise to conclusion. You don't agree with the premise, but that doesn't make the argument circular.

What you should have asserted instead is that the argument is not true, because the premise if false.

Quote:
Therefore it does not begin to be true/valid.


This is wrong too. An argument's being valid has to do with the logic of the argument, not whether or not it is true. You could rightly assert the argument is false, because the premise is false, but it would still be valid, because the logic is sound.

Quote:
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.


To do this you should provide some support from either the Bible or the SOP that God could not have provided us life in any other way than by means of a tree.

(more later)

I am not going to waste my time to respond to these quibbling, vexatious answers of yours because I had made my points contextually and sequiturly clear in that post. You made your spurious objecting answers simply by mindlessly and wrongfully splitting and isolating points and thoughts. So carefully re-read what I had said to get the answers. I suggest this careful reading for any other answers, as well as substantive arguments vs. quibbling, obfuscating, spurious and/or peripheral ones, as you’ll just get the same reply as this one.

----

This is the only segment in your reply that I had found to be substantively valid and not previously answered, thus worth my time:

Quote:
NJK: Where are you seeing that ‘this is obvious’??

Tom:
1.God created all things.
2.God is life, and gives life, to who He wants in whatever manner He chooses.
3.God created the tree of life.

Given these facts, it is obvious to me that God doesn't need the Tree of Life to give us life.

This isn't obvious to you? If not, please explain why not.

Statement 1 & 3 are Biblical Facts. Statement #2 is at best a philosophical assumption. The Bible and SOP show that God gives life to Man, indeed all nature by an ingestation of the Tree of Life. The only switch I see is that in Heaven, humans will be ingested the supernatural power in the Tree of Life aromatically. And what we breathe in does tangibly get into our blood and entire body. So the tangible ingestation is the same. So according to Bible and SOP the Tree of Life is squarely still in the Perpetual Life picture. So that is what I am convinced to go by and not your rational about God and/or what God should do.

Perhaps God can implant a perpetual fruit of life gene in us, indeed e.g., replace one of our kidneys with a fruit of life secreting organ. However since what will have to be implanted in that secreting organ will have to perpetually have life in itself and also never be consume/die, then that amounts to man having immortality in themselves. To me that perpetual power in itself is something that man cannot enclose in themselves. So God has to first couch it in something that we can safely ingest, lest He first has to create us with a make up like His to be able to do this, then we too would become gods, and then what???, i.e., if a free moral agent decides to rebel. Angels, with us being a little lower than them, have a bodily constitution greater than our, literally, earthen one, yet they too are not immortal. How God enables them to live perpetually has not been revealed, however it clearly has been for created man. And I only see that we are limited to that provision/method. And Angels may be using actually using the higher method of aromatically breathing in the Fruit of Life, and without it, they can only live ca. 10,000 years vs. (lower) Man’s ca. 1,000 years.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/15/11 03:05 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
T: Well, let's just do some math. Let's say a wicked person commits 1,000 sins in a day. Does that seem reasonable to you? If not, we can adjust it. In one year that's 365,000 sins. If the person lives a long life, that's 3,000,000 sins. Let's say it takes 10 seconds to review a sin. Does that seem reasonable to you? If not, we can adjust it. To review 3,000,000 sins at 10 seconds a sin would take 30,000,000 seconds, or a little over 57 years. I don't think the judgment will take 57 years. Do you?

M: I enjoyed your math. Nicely done. However, the following quotes, omitted in your response above, make it clear Jesus will judge every sin everyone has ever committed.

T: Not in the way you're apparently thinking, as the math makes clear.

M: So we’re not accused of using human logic to undermine Inspiration, please post inspired passages that refute what she clearly stated above.

T: I have no desire to refute anything EGW wrote, which I'm sure you know, so your question is completely out of place. To refute how you're apparently thinking, I explained the math to you.

M: In particular, note the following insight – “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.” It should be obvious that opening “the books of record” doesn’t take 57 years.

T: It should be obvious that a person cannot be conscious instantly of 3,000,000 individual sins. That cannot be her intent. The human mind simply does not have that capability. Have you ever had a near death experience where your life passed before your eyes? If so, that could serve as an approximation for what's going on here. Remember the EGW statement that says that God is pleased when we use common sense? That should be considered in interpreting statements such as these. There's advice from the EGW estate explaining this as well, to avoid coming to extreme interpretation of her statements, making her say something which was not her intent. To review a person's entire life is clearly something that would take time. Not an extraordinary amount of time, like 57 years, if each individual sin were considered, but certainly much more than an instant. Just consider how much time is taken in earthly courts to consider things which involve the judging of a person.

“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.” I suppose we can join you in rejecting the obvious meaning of this passage (and the other passages you omitted which say the same thing), or we can take it at face value and assume she actually said precisely what she meant to say. Otherwise, how could she have stated it more plainly if that’s what she intended to say? I’m surprised you believe Jesus is incapable of causing the wicked to be “conscious of every sin which they have ever committed . . . as soon as the books of record are opened.”
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/15/11 03:31 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
M: You say it's the grace of God that enables sinners to sin without immediately experiencing the second death, but then you say it's Satan's vital force that enables him to live with sin long after sinners perish in the lake of fire. What's the difference?

T: I was suggesting that Satan lived longer than other angels because of having a greater vital force than they have.

M: Does vital force enable sinners to sin without immediately experiencing eternal death?

T: Why would this be the case?

M: Or, must God act to enable sinners to sin without immediately experiencing eternal death?

T: Haven't I said as much? Many times?

M: Who or what is the origin of their source of life?

T: Don't you know? It's God!

It sounds as though you believe it is God, and not vital force, that acts to enable sinners to sin without immediately experiencing eternal death. I agree.

Quote:
M: Also, who or what will act during final judgment to enable sinners to live long enough to suffer intense emotional and physical pain proportionate to their sinfulness? Ellen wrote:

Quote:
They suffer punishment varying in duration and intensity, "according to their works," but finally ending in the second death. {GC 544.2}

Some are destroyed as in a moment, while others suffer many days. All are punished "according to their deeds." The sins of the righteous having been transferred to Satan, he is made to suffer not only for his own rebellion, but for all the sins which he has caused God's people to commit. His punishment is to be far greater than that of those whom he has deceived. After all have perished who fell by his deceptions, he is still to live and suffer on. {GC 673.1}

M: Who or what is the origin of their source of life?

T: I don't think this is a good way of looking at things. Actually, very bad. As to what I think the right way of looking at this:

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)

T: Note the overwhelming emphasis on the fate of the wicked being due to their own choice.

Yes, absolutely, they will be punished because they refused to embrace Jesus as their Lord and personal Savior. Jesus doesn’t arbitrarily decide to impose the death penalty. He worked very hard to woo and win them. They are deserving of punishment and eternal death. They are reaping what they have sown, namely, capital punishment. They knew the stakes - obey and live, disobey and die. His “very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them.” “Some are destroyed as in a moment, while others suffer many days.” To this end Jesus will resurrect them. He enables them to live long enough to pay for their sins; otherwise, they would die prematurely. Or, do you know of some other source of life that enables them to live past the first few seconds of judgment let alone “many days”?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/15/11 04:00 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
T: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.

NJK:That’s indeed the difference I Theologically understand between the Spirit of Prophecy that God gives to a human vs. that human’s still fully present own thoughts.


Is this different than Scripture?

Wouldn't the reception of the vision, as well as its presentation, also involve the human element?

Quote:
It can also be seen, especially by comparative/developmental analysis of repeated passage/statements of EGW if that segment it had been a direct revelation or not. Especially in early works such as e.g, SG, SP she mainly related such direct revelations, with the statement: “I was shown” being copiously stated there, then later she began to insert comments of her Biblical/Theological understandings to pastorally enlarge these works, seeking to have practical applications/understandings to the various circumstances of the readers life.


She wrote that nothing she wrote were merely hew own ideas.

Why do you think there should be a difference of weight placed between statements which say "I was shown" and those that don't? She never made this suggestion. She said none of her writings were merely her own ideas.

Quote:
I must all emphasize that I strongly believe that any mistake that are found in EGW’s own comments were all honest mistakes derived mostly from limited scholarly understandings.


Is this different than Scripture? Most of the Bible writers weren't scholars any more than she was, were they?
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/15/11 05:33 AM

Summarily said right at the top, which has been the basis for my approach here, EGW’s counsel is to make the Bible the final arbitrator/authority. That is perfectly in step with Biblical counsel Isa 8:20 & 1 Thess 5:19-21; cf. Acts 17:11.

Quote:
T: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.

NJK:That’s indeed the difference I Theologically understand between the Spirit of Prophecy that God gives to a human vs. that human’s still fully present own thoughts.

Tom: Is this different than Scripture?


Not its not, however, as explained before the Bible writers had many natural advantages that kept them from making exegetical errors with all that is involved here, namely, lexis/vocabulary, syntax, context, culture, custom, history, eye-witness/first hand experiences, etc.


Quote:
Wouldn't the reception of the vision, as well as its presentation, also involve the human element?


I Biblically understand that the human elements kicks in once the vision/revelation is completed. Prior to that God had been directly supernaturally working. It also may take supernatural power to accurately record that revelation in the receivers own words. The prophet Daniel did not understand his own visions and also God chooses to use veiled symbols when relating to a prophet (Num 12:6-8), probably so that it can be related in this veiled from, thus not leaving this work to even a prophet. So it then is not surprising, nor even unbiblical if EGW did not properly understand a vision that she had been given. And as Peter pointed out Paul said some things which are considered as Scripture, that many people could not understand.

Quote:
NJK: It can also be seen, especially by comparative/developmental analysis of repeated passage/statements of EGW if that segment it had been a direct revelation or not. Especially in early works such as e.g, SG, SP she mainly related such direct revelations, with the statement: “I was shown” being copiously stated there, then later she began to insert comments of her Biblical/Theological understandings to pastorally enlarge these works, seeking to have practical applications/understandings to the various circumstances of the readers life.

Tom: She wrote that nothing she wrote were merely hew own ideas.


I would like to see her precise statement, and in context. I would say that she was right in the sense that she was not advancing what she honestly did not think was her own ideas, however just by her simple self corrections it can be seen that this did not mean that everything she said was inerrant or directly inspired.

Case in point: Christ’s response to His Mother at the Cana Feast (Thompson, Inspiration, p. 291), at first in 2SP 101, 102 (1877) she had said that ‘Christ had rebuked His mother as He similar does to present such idolatrous ways’ however by 21 years later for DA 146.1 (1898) she completely flips that statement to imply that it was far from a rebuke but “ in accordance with Oriental custom”. So she may have made that switch upon reading up on this in e.g., the works of others who had written on the life of Christ.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Why do you think there should be a difference of weight placed between statements which say "I was shown" and those that don't? She never made this suggestion. She said none of her writings were merely her own ideas.


See opening summary statement above. Everything must be tested, including what Bible writers have written/said. As far as I see, they have passed the test in terms of Theological soundness. EGW is not above that OT & NT Biblical Testing requirement.

In fact, as it was shown to her in vision, the Apocrypha also must be tested for it contains some truths, even veiled truths key for the last days.

Quote:
NJK: I must all emphasize that I strongly believe that any mistake that are found in EGW’s own comments were all honest mistakes derived mostly from limited scholarly understandings.

Tom: Is this different than Scripture? Most of the Bible writers weren't scholars any more than she was, were they?


I see that Bible writers remained within their capability. E.g., Luke did not presume to try to make Theological statements. He just remained within his capability of being a precise historian. Also he faithfully recorded the theological teachings experiences of the early Church pioneers.

The fact that EGW complained/“lamented”/wished that she was more of a scholar loudly speaks to her realized crucial deficiency in this exegetical regard.

So since I see that what she claims of the plagues contradicts the exegetical testimony, both linguistically and textually, I see that the Biblical view is not affected by her view.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/15/11 06:30 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
Summarily said right at the top, which has been the basis for my approach here, EGW’s counsel is to make the Bible the final arbitrator/authority. That is perfectly in step with Biblical counsel Isa 8:20 & 1 Thess 5:19-21; cf. Acts 17:11.


Not in the sense you are saying. She said that the Bible should be used as a means to settle issues such as the law in Galatians, for example, as opposed to relying upon her to make pronouncements. But she never said when there were disagreements between her and Scripture that what Scripture says should be chosen instead of what she said. Rather, she asserted that what she said agreed with Scripture.

Quote:

T: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.

NJK:That’s indeed the difference I Theologically understand between the Spirit of Prophecy that God gives to a human vs. that human’s still fully present own thoughts.

Tom: Is this different than Scripture?

NJK:Not its not, however, as explained before the Bible writers had many natural advantages that kept them from making exegetical errors with all that is involved here, namely, lexis/vocabulary, syntax, context, culture, custom, history, eye-witness/first hand experiences, etc.


What about those who relied upon the Septuagint?


Quote:
T:
Wouldn't the reception of the vision, as well as its presentation, also involve the human element?

NJK:I Biblically understand that the human elements kicks in once the vision/revelation is completed.


What about during the vision itself? Doesn't that depend upon the human element? After all, it's a human being who is perceiving what God is communicating. Wouldn't that have to involve the human brain?

Quote:
Prior to that God had been directly supernaturally working.


And the human being was also working, not supernaturally, but humanly.

Quote:
It also may take supernatural power to accurately record that revelation in the receivers own words.


Accuracy isn't the issue I'm getting at. Perception is. A human being perceives things as a human being, not as God. No matter how accurately a revelation is recorded, it's still going to be the record of the perception of a human being.

Quote:
The prophet Daniel did not understand his own visions and also God chooses to use veiled symbols when relating to a prophet (Num 12:6-8), probably so that it can be related in this veiled from, thus not leaving this work to even a prophet.


Leaving what work? The prophet would be doing the same thing regardless of whether "veiled symbols" are used or not in regards to relating the vision. So "this work" is left to the prophet in either case (whether a "veiled symbol" is used or not).

Quote:
So it then is not surprising, nor even unbiblical if EGW did not properly understand a vision that she had been given.


But it would be surprising of Ellen White said what the vision meant, claiming that she did so under direct guidance from God, and was not presenting merely her own ideas, if this was not the case.

Quote:
And as Peter pointed out Paul said some things which are considered as Scripture, that many people could not understand.


Peter said some of the things Paul said were difficult to understand.

Quote:
NJK: It can also be seen, especially by comparative/developmental analysis of repeated passage/statements of EGW if that segment it had been a direct revelation or not. Especially in early works such as e.g, SG, SP she mainly related such direct revelations, with the statement: “I was shown” being copiously stated there, then later she began to insert comments of her Biblical/Theological understandings to pastorally enlarge these works, seeking to have practical applications/understandings to the various circumstances of the readers life.

Tom: She wrote that nothing she wrote were merely hew own ideas.

NJK:I would like to see her precise statement, and in context.


Try 3SM around page 50. There's a whole section around there which speaks to her understanding of her own writings.

Quote:
I would say that she was right in the sense that she was not advancing what she honestly did not think was her own ideas, however just by her simple self corrections it can be seen that this did not mean that everything she said was inerrant or directly inspired.


What you're saying in regards to "inerrant" agrees with her thought, but regarding "divinely inspired," it disagrees with her thought.

Quote:
Case in point: Christ’s response to His Mother at the Cana Feast (Thompson, Inspiration, p. 291), at first in 2SP 101, 102 (1877) she had said that ‘Christ had rebuked His mother as He similar does to present such idolatrous ways’


What does the phrase inside single quotes mean? Especially "as He similar does to present such idolatrous ways." I have no idea what this means.

Quote:
however by 21 years later for DA 146.1 (1898) she completely flips that statement to imply that it was far from a rebuke but “ in accordance with Oriental custom”.


I don't see what was flipped.

Quote:
So she may have made that switch upon reading up on this in e.g., the works of others who had written on the life of Christ.


I'm not seeing from what you wrote what was switched. If you could present what Thompson wrote, that would be great. I should get his book.

Quote:
T:Why do you think there should be a difference of weight placed between statements which say "I was shown" and those that don't? She never made this suggestion. She said none of her writings were merely her own ideas.

NJK:See opening summary statement above. Everything must be tested, including what Bible writers have written/said. As far as I see, they have passed the test in terms of Theological soundness. EGW is not above that OT & NT Biblical Testing requirement.


This has nothing to do with why "I was shown" statements should have more weight than other inspired statements she wrote.

Quote:
In fact, as it was shown to her in vision, the Apocrypha also must be tested for it contains some truths, even veiled truths key for the last days.


Same comment.

Quote:

NJK: I must all emphasize that I strongly believe that any mistake that are found in EGW’s own comments were all honest mistakes derived mostly from limited scholarly understandings.

Tom: Is this different than Scripture? Most of the Bible writers weren't scholars any more than she was, were they?

NJK:I see that Bible writers remained within their capability. E.g., Luke did not presume to try to make Theological statements. He just remained within his capability of being a precise historian. Also he faithfully recorded the theological teachings experiences of the early Church pioneers.


Ellen White wrote over 100,000 pages, so it's to be expected that she would write about many subjects which wasn't within her category, which would be what anyway? Housewife?

Let's consider the health message. She wasn't a physician. Is it your belief that her counsels regarding health were mistaken?

Quote:
The fact that EGW complained/“lamented”/wished that she was more of a scholar loudly speaks to her realized crucial deficiency in this exegetical regard.


Please quote what she said. I'm not aware of her complaining, or lamenting, not being more of a scholar. That doesn't sound like her to me. Feel free to prove me wrong here please.

Quote:
So since I see that what she claims of the plagues contradicts the exegetical testimony, both linguistically and textually, I see that the Biblical view is not affected by her view.


I see that what you believe in regards to the plagues contradicts both Scripture and her writings, and that you perceive the contradiction between your views and hers, but not between your views and Scripture. I believe she and Scripture are correct.

Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/15/11 07:48 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
I see that what you believe in regards to the plagues contradicts both Scripture and her writings, and that you perceive the contradiction between your views and hers, but not between your views and Scripture. I believe she and Scripture are correct.


I don’t see that a discussion on Inspiration is pertinent or crucial to this issue here. The substance is in the exegetical analysis itself. The facts are clear that EGW made mistakes and even corrected herself. And the Bible is provedly the Final authority over EGW’s writings, even when she had stated something on a Biblical passage in question. I have seen way too much evidence of this to not objectively understand this, nor see this as not possible/applicable in the Plagues.

So contrary to your view stated above, I see that her views does not agree with the Testimony of Scripture. Therefore, I choose the Bible.

By the way, how exactly do you hold your view on ‘God and the Future’ in the light of what you claim here to believe about EGW writings?? EGW clearly believed that God knew the future.

Also, as seen in this thread, you don’t even follow what EGW says about e.g., the death of Nadab and Abijuh, the War in Heaven and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (seeing here a validity in a volcano view from a non-inspired writer, as if EGW couldn’t see that if that was the case, as she patently does when such “third parties” are involved), etc, then I concretely see that it is the view of God that you privately have and want to have that is the final arbitrator for you and not Scripture or the EGW/SOP. There therefore is no need to continue a discussion on this topic with this unbiblical basis.
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/15/11 04:20 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
kland: 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?

NJK: The Papacy was not anything close to being compose of ‘God-fearing men’......
As you'll notice from my question, I wasn't talking about the Papacy, but the people or members. True, once it's in place, whether the Papacy or Hitler, it's hard to go against it. But I was asking, how did it come about? Are you able to explain how the people, how the members, allowed such a thing? 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?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/15/11 10:02 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
I don’t see that a discussion on Inspiration is pertinent or crucial to this issue here.


Why not?

Quote:
The substance is in the exegetical analysis itself. The facts are clear that EGW made mistakes and even corrected herself. And the Bible is provedly the Final authority over EGW’s writings, even when she had stated something on a Biblical passage in question.


What's your last sentence mean? She writes something under divine inspiration in regards to a passage of Scripture, but that has no authority if you disagree with what she says? For example, she writes point blank, 'The apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is referring to the moral law' in regards to a dispute in Galatians which was going on in the 1890's (I'm using your convention of single quotes indicating a paraphrase). Are we to understand she might be wrong here, and Paul didn't really have the moral law in mind?

Quote:
I have seen way too much evidence of this to not objectively understand this, nor see this as not possible/applicable in the Plagues.


Or anything else, I suppose.

Quote:
So contrary to your view stated above, I see that her views does not agree with the Testimony of Scripture. Therefore, I choose the Bible.


That's what I said.

1.(You believe) you agree with the Bible, and disagree with Ellen White, and that I disagree with the Bible, but agree with Ellen White.
2.(I believe) I agree with the Bible and Ellen White.

Quote:
By the way, how exactly do you hold your view on ‘God and the Future’ in the light of what you claim here to believe about EGW writings?? EGW clearly believed that God knew the future.


God does know the future. He knows it as it is, which is Open. She has a number of statements which make this evident, including the one you cited in Early Writings.

In DA 49, she says that God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss. If God saw the future as is traditionally understood, she couldn't have said that. In DA 131 she says something similar, that Christ "He not only became an exile from the heavenly courts, but for us took the risk of failure and eternal loss." In COL somewhere she writes that Christ risked all, and that heaven itself was imperiled for our redemption. So this is a number of statements which disagree with the traditional view.

Quote:
Also, as seen in this thread, you don’t even follow what EGW says about e.g., the death of Nadab and Abijuh, the War in Heaven and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (seeing here a validity in a volcano view from a non-inspired writer,


What I quoted didn't have to do with a volcano view. I just said there were people who saw that as a possibility. Many see that Sodom and Gomorrah could have been a natural disaster.

Quote:
as if EGW couldn’t see that if that was the case, as she patently does when such “third parties” are involved), etc, then I concretely see that it is the view of God that you privately have and want to have that is the final arbitrator for you and not Scripture or the EGW/SOP.


Anybody's view of God is a final arbiter in how thy interpret inspired writings. I've been saying this all along. Our view of God influences how we perceive things.

The question is, how should our view of God be obtained? I've been saying that Jesus Christ is the revelation of God, and what He revealed should be the foundation of our view of God's character.

Quote:
There therefore is no need to continue a discussion on this topic with this unbiblical basis.


It's completely Biblical. I realize the following is from the SOP, but it's based on John 17, and explains the Biblical basis eloquently, so I'll quote it here:

Quote:
Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,—to set men right through the revelation of God. In Christ was arrayed before men the paternal grace and the matchless perfections of the Father. 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. {ST January 20, 1890, par. 9}


Also, from the same article:

Quote:
The very attributes that belonged to the character of Satan, the evil one represented as belonging to the character of God. Jesus came to teach men of the Father, to correctly represent him before the fallen children of earth. Angels could not fully portray the character of God, but Christ, who was a living impersonation of God, could not fail to accomplish the work. The only way in which he could set and keep men right was to make himself visible and familiar to their eyes. That men might have salvation he came directly to man, and became a partaker of his nature. {ST January 20, 1890, par. 6}


John, in particular, has the theme throughout his Gospel of Jesus Christ as the revelation of God, even referring to Him as "the Word of God," God's thought made audible.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/16/11 03:11 AM

I could easily refute all of the points you have raised up Tom however you just continue on the same frustrating method of obfuscating whatever you have no answer to or entirely ignoring them, including exegesis, which as a (purported) seminarian you have no valid excuse to do so, yet still claiming to see a ‘dense forest.’ Perhaps if you address the key points that I mentioned in that post, I consider that you are being sincere in this discussion. And EGW makes other definite statements on the future and citing the ‘possible view’ of someone does not actually address the issue or answer the question at hand.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/16/11 03:17 AM

Originally Posted By: kland
As you'll notice from my question, I wasn't talking about the Papacy, but the people or members. True, once it's in place, whether the Papacy or Hitler, it's hard to go against it. But I was asking, how did it come about? Are you able to explain how the people, how the members, allowed such a thing? 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?


As usual kland you need to think things thoroughly through and go to the realistic truth and source. It was all about the Papacy then, and in these Dark Ages, the generally uneduacated/unlearned laity had no choice but to believe as the absolute truth whatever the clergy taught and told them was true. That ascertainable, underlying incontrovertible, commonly known social/religious/historical fact should have answered your questions here.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/16/11 08:20 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
NJK:I could easily refute all of the points you have raised up Tom however you just continue on the same frustrating method of obfuscating whatever you have no answer to or entirely ignoring them, including exegesis, which as a (purported) seminarian you have no valid excuse to do so, yet still claiming to see a ‘dense forest.’


"Purported"? I went to Andrews in 1990-1992. Why would you write such a thing? You write many mean-spirited things. I don't know if you do this on purpose, or you don't realize how the things you write will be taken, or what, but this is a forum where Christians from the same church meet together to discuss spiritual things. Please bear in mind that the people you are addressing have feelings, and that, as Christians, we bear the name of Christ.

Quote:
Perhaps if you address the key points that I mentioned in that post, I consider that you are being sincere in this discussion.


What key points?

Quote:
And EGW makes other definite statements on the future and citing the ‘possible view’ of someone does not actually address the issue or answer the question at hand.


Possible view? I cited the actual quotes. That's not a "possible view," but an actual view.

"All heaven was imperiled for our redemption." How could this possibly be true under the traditional view?
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/16/11 05:33 PM

Succinctly said:

-“Purported” - I have not seen evidence in your responses that you are exegetically cognisant, functional or knowledgeable/competent, for lack of more descriptive term.

-Key points - try the pertinently related ‘War in Heaven’, which you always ignore, as well virtually all exegetical points, as if you cannot understand/deal with them. Quoting the Amplified Bible is not tantamount to exegesis. (I’ll pass on Nadad & Abihu given your discussion with MM). Re-read that post for more. The same thing has been patently occurring in literally every other posts you’ve made in response to mine in this thread!!

By the way did you even read the SOP references for the Cana Feast statements before answering?? By your replies, it does not seem so

-EGW and Future - look up EGW’s: ‘opened the future’ type of statements

-‘possible view’ - Your reply to why you did not go by EGW’s account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire being sent by God was the ‘possible volcano view’ of a non-inspired source (i.e., vs. the Bible and SOP). How does become the authoritative source. As I said, I go by the Bible (exegetically), and EGW if/when she agrees/harmonizes with the Bible; and not, as you resort to do, against and/or oblivious to, both of them, even for the suppositions of Man. It is most clear to me that it is the view you want to have of God that leads to this haphazard and subjective selectiveness. How can a Bible-based, SDA Theology, discussion be conducted with that basis??
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/16/11 10:38 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
NJK:Succinctly said:

-“Purported” - I have not seen evidence in your responses that you are exegetically cognisant, functional or knowledgeable/competent, for lack of more descriptive term.


One would think someone as critical as you are could write sentences that have at least reasonably proper grammar and correct spelling. It's really amazing that someone who writes as poorly as you do is as critical as you are.

I love discussing the issues being discussed on the threads I'm participating in. Sure, I would like it if everybody agreed with me, but that's not reality. My hope in these discussions isn't to try to convince others to agree with me (although when that happens, rare that it may be, that's nice), but to try to understand the point of view of others better, and to sharpen my own understanding of issues.

Quote:
-Key points - try the pertinently related ‘War in Heaven’, which you always ignore,


I don't "always ignore" anything. Whatever points one makes, I'll address. There's no call for you to make an accusation like this.

Your writing is both voluminous and difficult to parse. I've tried to address key points you make, and keep up with what you've written, and have repeatedly said that if I miss something, to please just repeat it. Anything I'm not addressing is not by design, but due to just missing it through the sheer volume, or not understanding what you're trying to say, due to poor writing.

Quote:
as well virtually all exegetical points, as if you cannot understand/deal with them. Quoting the Amplified Bible is not tantamount to exegesis.


Of course I made no such claim.

Quote:
(I’ll pass on Nadad & Abihu given your discussion with MM). Re-read that post for more.


For more what?

Quote:
The same thing has been patently occurring in literally every other posts you’ve made in response to mine in this thread!!


The same what thing? Your just rambling all over the place. Place be clear in what you're talking about, or what it is that you want. You're not making any points that have to do with our discussion.

Quote:
By the way did you even read the SOP references for the Cana Feast statements before answering??


Before answering what?

Quote:
By your replies, it does not seem so


Replies to what?

Quote:
-EGW and Future - look up EGW’s: ‘opened the future’ type of statements


This is extremely vague, but I'll take a shot here. My understanding of the future is that it is comprised of possibilities, all of which God foresees. The future doesn't become a reality until it occurs. Agents with free will have the ability to choose to act how they wish, so that what specifically will happen cannot be known as fact, given there is an actual possibility that the given agent will make either this choice, or that one.

Also, in reference to future events that God is Himself to actively take place in, it's trivial for Him to foresee His own actions.

Even we humans, with our puny intelligence compared to God, can foresee the future in certain contexts. That the future is open to God is to be expected. The problem with the traditional view is that asserts that there is one specific future which God sees, which causes logical problems.

Quote:
-‘possible view’ - Your reply to why you did not go by EGW’s account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire being sent by God was the ‘possible volcano view’ of a non-inspired source (i.e., vs. the Bible and SOP).


I never said anything like this! I never said, "The reason I do not go by EGW's account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire being sent by God was (anything)."

I made no comment whatsoever about Ellen White's account.

You are continually inaccurate in what your claiming I'm saying. I've asked you to quote things I've said. Please do so, or be less dogmatic about your statements as to what I'm saying. If you're going to be dogmatic, please support your assertions with evidence.

Quote:
How does become the authoritative source.


This is missing a noun. How does what become the authoritative source?

Quote:
As I said, I go by the Bible (exegetically), and EGW if/when she agrees/harmonizes with the Bible; and not, as you resort to do, against and/or oblivious to, both of them, even for the suppositions of Man.


This is incoherent.

Quote:
It is most clear to me that it is the view you want to have of God that leads to this haphazard and subjective selectiveness. How can a Bible-based, SDA Theology, discussion be conducted with that basis??


I didn't start with a view of God that I wanted to have. I evolved into the view of God that I have over many years by reading things and meditating upon themes.

The Great Controversy theme made a huge impact upon me as a young man. It led, to a great degree, to my becoming a Seventh-day Adventist.

The 1888 message had a tremendous impact on my thinking.

The Desire of Ages had a tremendous impact, as well as the Great Controversy.

George Fifield had a tremendous impact.

Jesus Christ's words, "When you've seen me, you've seen the Father" had a tremendous impact.

Ty Gibson as well.

I read different things, and sometimes they impress me, especially things which cause me to consider God in a more positive light. I believe the truth about God is better than we can imagine, that we are always on the side of thinking of Him as less gracious, humble, kind, wonderful, loving than He really is, and that Christ has given us but the briefest glimpse, not because of any lack on Christ's part, but because our senses are so dim.

Here's something from Ty:

Quote:
Who we are in character acts as in internal lens that colors our discernment of God's character...

When, with sincere desire to know God, we allow our characters to be shaped by the light He gives, we place ourselves i a spiritual condition that makes further discernment of God's character possible....Our perception of Him and our growing likeness to Him dovetail as one process.

In His wise providence, God has allowed the Scriptures to be composed in such a way that those who search its pages with an honest desire to know Him will see His true character shining through. Conversely, the same source of light is a snare of delusion to those who would rather fashion God in their own image in order to evade their personal need to be fashioned into His. (See With New Eyes; p. 46, 47)
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/16/11 10:48 PM

Tom, shall I assume you will respond to my posts when you have the time?
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/17/11 04:11 AM

Thanks Tom. End of discussion here for me, with pointedly you. You are irreparably too selectively oblivious and obfuscating, not to mention non-exegetical, to be worthwhile for me. There increasingly is nothing substantive and/or pertinently relevant to answer in your replies. (And as I had said, my errors are out of typos due to non-proof reading. I figured 99% correctly expressed text is better than ca. 65% text because of less time taken to proof read.) (Cf. Matt 23:23, 24)
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/17/11 05:23 PM

NJK, to study with Tom it requires tact, finesse, humility, and a lot of patients. He is very intelligent. He is also very kind and accommodating. Seek to discover what he believes. Share what you believe, but make your posts short and sweet. Long responses can be tedious. But don't give up. Hang in there. Studying with Tom and will help you grow in the graces of God.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/18/11 04:13 AM

I can understand your advice here Mountain Man, but such a discussion with Tom is way too One-Way for me and “facts” are subjectively to be only what he’ll allow himself, from his ‘unimpeachable view’, to begin to recognize! Don’t need let my exegetical facts get in the way of that approach, and that, at my waste of time and effort! And anything else that has been brought up in this discussion instead of a head on answer to a question/comment, has really just been defensive, peripheral diversions.

And, in regards to Truth, I focus on the ‘substantive internals’, rather than the ‘indeterminative externals’. (Matt 23:25, 26). It is this ‘Truth that will set one free’, and not ‘polished externals’ or else we should all be, e.g., LDS by now.

Perhaps Tom will now have more time to answer/address your own points head on here!?

P.S. “Intelligence” can be objectively, substantively ascertain/measured/determined as patently done on e.g., various tests were only the correct answer along with the demonstration of mastering the subject do so prove that point.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/18/11 08:55 AM

Quote:
Tom, shall I assume you will respond to my posts when you have the time?


Yes. And thanks for the kind words on the other post.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/18/11 09:03 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
Thanks Tom. End of discussion here for me, with pointedly you.


You could discuss things with kland, if he's willing. He sees things very similarly to how I do. APL also shares some similarities as well.

Quote:
You are irreparably too selectively oblivious and obfuscating, not to mention non-exegetical, to be worthwhile for me. There increasingly is nothing substantive and/or pertinently relevant to answer in your replies.


I don't think you're reading very carefully, to make a statement like this.

Quote:
(And as I had said, my errors are out of typos due to non-proof reading. I figured 99% correctly expressed text is better than ca. 65% text because of less time taken to proof read.)


The problem is not typos, but improper use of words, improper grammar, and, primarily, writing incoherently. Typos are obvious and easy to figure out, but when you leave out nouns, and verbs, and use one word when you really mean another, it makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to figure out what you're trying to say. I don't know if the difficulty is due to a lack of ability to write clearly, or a lack of desire. Whichever it is, the adage about not throwing stones when living in a glass house certainly applies.

It really is incredible that one who writes so poorly would be so critical. Your posts are an extreme example of the pot calling the kettle black.

Quote:
(Cf. Matt 23:23, 24)


This is a good example of what I'm talking about.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/18/11 09:42 AM

Quote:
M: Perhaps my question was poorly worded. I apologize for the confusion. I now understand you believe Jesus is free to choose between such options as preventing death and destruction or permitting it. He takes everything and everyone into consideration and then decides whether to prevent or permit death and destruction. The choice is His. Nothing happens by chance or fate.

T: Chance and fate are two very different things. I don't understand the purpose of this sentence. Indeed, everything you wrote above after "I not understand you believe ..." should read "I not understand I believe ..." as you're just repeating things you believe, is what it looks to me. What *I* believe is that God has created beings with free will, and these often, on earth, unfortunately, have chosen to act contrary to God's will, and *that's* why bad things happen. And similarly for the unfaithful angelic beings.

M:Do you believe Jesus is free to choose between such options as preventing death and destruction or permitting it, that He takes everything and everyone into consideration and then decides whether to prevent or permit death and destruction, that the choice is His, that nothing happens by chance or fate (the “or” denotes a difference)?


I agree that nothing happens by fate. I disagree that nothing happens by chance. If Jesus, or God, permits something to occur which happens by chance, that doesn't mean that the thing permitted to occur did not happen by chance. I believe there are things which happen by chance. For example, tossing a fair coin is an example. By chance it will be heads or tails. Many such examples could be given.

Quote:
M: As sovereign Lord and King, Jesus is ultimately in control – not sin, not sinners, and not Satan.

T: Satan and his followers are responsible in every way, including ultimately, for sin an all its results. God is entirely innocent. God is not in control of sinners.

M:If God is not in control of sinners, who, then, is protecting them?


By "in control of" I assume you mean "controlling." Or do you mean something else? If by "in control of" you mean "protecting," then I may agree with what you mean, if not what you're saying. That is, I certainly agree that God is protecting sinners.

Quote:
Yes, Satan is in control of what God permits, but he is not free to do as he pleases, otherwise, as you say, he would destroy everyone and everything.


This is a bad misstatement here, IMO. Let's say you have a child, but don't permit that child to stay out past 2:00am. Would it be fair for you to say that your child is not free to do as (s)he pleases?

Quote:
It’s not a question of whether or not God is innocent; it’s a question of whether or not He is in control.


The big question is if God is innocent, as God has been accused, and the Great Controversy in effect for this purpose.

Quote:
Of course He is innocent. He created free moral agents. They are free to obey and live or disobey and die. If they choose to sin and rebel, they are, ultimately, choosing capital punishment.


Neither Scripture nor the SOP state that by choosing sin they choose capital punishment. Both state that if they choose sin they are choosing death. The SOP states that the inevitable result of sin is death.

If evil comes about as a result of God's controlling actions, then He is not innocent of its happening.

Quote:

M: When Jesus decided N&A and the two bands of fifty were worthy of death, who or what caused the fire that burned them alive?

T: I don't think it matters what the exact mechanism was. I believe the principles laid out in GC 35-37 were at work.

M:It matters if sincere seekers of truth wrongly conclude (from your perspective) Jesus employed fire to burn them alive.


I assume you mean that from my perspective, the mechanism matters, if sincere seekers of truth wrongly conclude that Jesus employs fire to burn people alive. If this is what you mean, I still don't agree that the mechanism matters. I believe it's the principle that matters. A sincere seeker of truth, from my perspective, will not make conclusions about the mechanism involved which are not in harmony with God's character or the principles of His government, if he gets the principles right.

Quote:
In the case of N&A, the fire blazed out from the presence of God in the most holy place. And, in the case of the two bands of fifty, fire rained down from God in heaven. To say Jesus simply withdrew His protection and permitted (you have yet to say who) to cause fire to burn them alive begs the question – Why were His enemies in the most holy places in heaven and earth?


I disagree that it begs this question.

Quote:

T: You've read Job. What does it say?

M: Ellen wrote [quotes omitted by Tom] Quotes like the ones posted above make it clear to me Jesus and holy angels work to ensure evil angels do not exceed the limitations imposed upon them.

T: This seems like an odd response. I ask you what Job said, and you respond by saying, "Ellen wrote." Is "Ellen" a pseudonym of Job's? As I've often said, if permitted, Satan would destroy all human beings, which would not leave a Great Controversy to be fought.

M: For this reason, Satan is not free to do as he pleases.

T: He is, to a great degree, which is evident in looking at our world. He has to be free to do as he pleases in order for there to be a Great Controversy. This agrees with your understanding, doesn't it?

M:I hope you don’t mind me allowing Ellen to weigh in on the discussion. I trust her insights. Based on what I’ve read in the Bible and the SOP, I am convinced Satan is only as free as Jesus permits. Whatever he does is done by permission. All heaven, however, works to ensure he does not exceed the limitations Jesus imposes on evil men and angels.


You didn't answer my question. I'll repeat it.

Satan is free to do his will, to a great degree, which is evident in looking at our world. He has to be free to do as he pleases in order for there to be a Great Controversy. This agrees with your understanding, doesn't it?


Quote:

M: It is Jesus, not Satan, who ultimately establishes and enforces the degree of punishment meted out.

T: This is like saying it is Jesus, not Satan, who metes out and enforces the degree of punishment meted out when someone ignores the law of gravity. Sin causes misery, suffering, and death because of its nature. These things are what happen when one separates from God. It doesn't require an extra, unrelated, special action on the part of God for misery, suffering, and death to occur, but merely acting contrary to God's principles, and separating from Him, is sufficient. This is what "me first" does. "Me first" can not end up in anything other than misery, suffering, and death. These things are the fruit of Satan's government, of choosing his principles.

M:Yes, sinning results in unrest and unhappiness. But whether or not it results in death and destruction is entirely up to Jesus.


As stated, this is entirely untrue. The will of the sinner has to be given weight.

Quote:
Yes, we manage the choices, but Jesus manages the consequences so far as things like death and destruction is concerned.


Again, poorly stated. This makes it sound like God is responsible for evil. Permitting an evil thing to occur is not the same as causing it. Again, the will of the sinner must be given weight.

Quote:
For example, whether or not jumping off a cliff results in death is not up to gravity; instead, it’s up to Jesus.


Gravity plays a part. If a person is careless, and dies due to falling, it would be a terrible mistake to blame this on Jesus, or to suggest this was His will, or say anything which in any way would imply that He was to any degree in any way responsible.

Quote:
If He intercedes, death does not occur; otherwise, it does. But this example does not speak to the issues concerning capital punishment. In the cases of N&A and the two bands of fifty, there was no natural cause and effect law at work.


As you see things.

Quote:
Sinning does not result in fire blazing out from the presence of God in holy places and burning sinners alive. Fire is not self-acting. Neither is gravity. The laws of nature act the way they do because Jesus acts the way He does, that is, nature is a weapon in the arsenal of Jesus and does whatever He wields it to do.


I can think of few statements that I disagree with more adamantly than this. The fact that the phrase "weapon in the arsenal of Jesus" enters your thinking I find unfortunate.

Quote:
He employs nature to mete out capital punishment.


Same comment. I'm sorry you think this way.

Quote:
But not always; sometimes He uses His enemies, evil men and angels, to punish impenitent sinners.


Same comment. I'm sorry you view Jesus Christ is this way, as one using using different weapons in his arsenal to destroy; as a destroyer.

Quote:

M: It must irritate Satan to know he is not free to exercise his powers as he sees fit.

T: Satan is free to exercise his powers as he sees fit, to a great degree, or else there would be no Great Controversy. It's imperative that we understand that *all* the bad, all the evil, there is in the world, is the result of Satan, and none of it due to God. Satan gets irritated when his plans are thwarted, which is what happens when one chooses to follow God instead of him.

M:Amen! However, what qualifies as evil or bad?


Anything contrary to God's character qualifies. The law is a transcript of God's character. Also, Jesus Christ fully revealed the Father, so anything contrary to the revelation of Jesus Christ qualifies.

Quote:
Was it evil or bad when fire blazed out from the presence of God in holy places and burned sinners alive?


Burning people alive is a bad thing.

Quote:
Is death and destruction always deemed evil or bad?


Satan is the author of sin and all its results. Destruction and death are the results of sin, and hence, of Satan. I'm not sure if your question has a philosophical aspect to it. If a person has a terrible disease, death could be a blessing. Are you trying to get at this?

Quote:
Or, are their times when it counts as divine justice and judgment? For example, when Jesus commanded Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to death, was it evil or bad?


We're going around in circles here. What I have said over and over again, dozens of times, is that to understand these event one must *first* (I emphasize "first" here, as in, before, or previous to) have a correct understanding of God's character. From my perspective, your misunderstanding the events because you're misunderstanding God's character.

I believe you perceive the events in a way that in contrary to that which Jesus Christ revealed, and hence, even the questions you ask don't make sense.

You and I completely disagree in regards to what's the cart and the horse here. What I think you think is that to correctly understand God's character, it's necessary to consider these events you're asking questions about in addition to considering the life and character of Jesus Christ, and then add these together, and this combination gives a correct understanding of God's character. What I'm saying is first Christ, then look at the other. As opposed to, look at Christ and the other events both at the same time.

Quote:

M: Like a chained lion, try as he might, he cannot tear to shreds the prey just out of reach. “Already nations are angry, already Satan is working with signs and lying wonders, and this will increase until the end. God will use his enemies as instruments to punish those who have followed their own pernicious ways whereby the truth God has been misrepresented, misjudged, and dishonored.” {PC 136.3}

T: They are used as GC 35-37 explains.

M:I agree; always have. But the point is – It was Jesus who used evil angels and Roman soldiers as instruments to punish the impenitent Jews.


To assert this is to not read what GC 35-37 actually says, it seems very clear to me. For example:

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 35)


I'm not sure how she could have stated the reverse of what you are asserting more clearly than this.

Quote:
Again, there was no natural cause and effect law at work. It was entirely arbitrary, imposed, meted out.


Same comment.

Quote:
Sinning does not result in soldiers killing sinners, at least not in the same sense cancer results in tissue damage and death.


Again, if you actually read what GC 35-37 says, I don't see how one conclude the things you are concluding.

Quote:
Also, is it a sin, evil, or bad when evil angels and soldiers kill impenitent sinners when God is using them as instruments to punish?


I think this is a FOTAP question (fallacy of the assumed premise).

Quote:

M: Did Jesus, while here in the flesh (as opposed to after He returned to heaven), choose to allow things like ungodly people being burned alive?

T: O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen [doth gather] her brood under [her] wings, and ye would not! (Luke 13:34)

M: You seem to be suggesting Jesus allowed ungodly people to be killed while He was here in the flesh. Who was killed?

T: In what Jesus said, He expressed that He was willing, desiring even, to protect Jerusalem as a chicken would protect its chicks. He was very sorry they did not permit Him to do so. This is the principle enunciated in GC 35-37.

M: I don’t understand how your response answers my question.

T: My answer describes the principle at work.

M: Is offering protection, while here in the flesh, from something that happened in 70 AD equivalent to Jesus allowing N&A and the two bands of fifty to be burned alive?

T: The same principles are at work. Your question should be if offering protection in the one case is equivalent to offering protection in the other, as this would be apples to apples, and I would respond "yes" to such a question.

M:Seems to me the cases of N&A and the two bands of fifty and the death of Jews in 70 AD are similar in the sense Jesus, from your perspective, would have simply withdrew His protection and permitted His enemies to cause the resulting death and destruction. If so, what protection was Jesus providing, until He withdrew it, in the cases of N&A and the two bands of fifty? Does fire lie in wait until Jesus gives it permission to selectively burn sinners alive? If so, doesn’t it imply fire is self-acting? If not, who, then, employed the fire that killed them?


There are a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which God protects us. These include ourselves (our actions, health issues), others (angelic or human), and natural disasters, to name three that come to me quickly. What I see you doing is think of incidents where you don't see any way the principles of GC 35-37 could apply. But I, and I'm sure kland, can easily think of ways. I'm not sure what kland would think of would agree with what I think, but it wouldn't matter to either of us, because we're both convinced of the principles which we see always apply. This is what I mean when I say the exact mechanism doesn't matter, as long as the principles hold fast. We're convinced of the principles because we're convinced regarding God's character.

What I've found most interesting in regards to this present post is that you appear to view what happened in the destruction very differently than I do. For example, you state that " the point is – It was Jesus who used evil angels and Roman soldiers as instruments to punish the impenitent Jews," when the point, as I see it, is that the Jews forged their own fetters, and that while many view God as punishing the impenitent Jews, it is the Great Deceiver who actually caused their destruction, hiding his own work by making others think it was God.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/18/11 09:43 AM

Still really busy, MM. I took a long time with this last post, and don't know when I'll have this much time again in the near future, but if you'll tell me of any other posts you have which I haven't responded to, I'll give it a shot as I can.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/18/11 02:47 PM

(1) I long had figured the kland and APL possibility....

(2) When you do everything and anything but answer the issue head on, as in this answer itself, you are being: ‘selectively oblivious, defensive, obfuscating, non-exegetical, increasingly insubstantive and/or non-pertinently relevant, among other diversionary tactics of yours. In a court of law, you’d be charged with “contempt of court” following a plethora of various applicable “objections.” Your arguments are as substantively vacuous and diversionary as saying that: ‘despite the scientific rain forecast for this afternoon, it usurely won’t rain because of the present beautiful blue sky’!!?

(3) Knowing my traditional typing ordeal and considering my final products, I know it all stems from ‘thinking much faster than I can type’ and also ‘still thinking something through while I am typing’ which results in certain confusions at times = typos. So what you have been reading were really my brainstorming rough draft. And by your own condemnatory self-imposed standard here: I guess you really believe that “Place” means “Please” (post #132728)???? And I am not responsible for what you just did not/would not understand!

(4) Matt 23:23, 24 does stand because proper Biblical exegesis is infinitely more important than a polished final draft, but you probably really do not/cannot see or understand that fact...and do try the entire chapter of Matt 23 instead!!! Quite fitting for an SDA Seminarian. You really are a fine product of the SDA Theological Seminary. Can’t hold it against you for that!!
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/18/11 06:33 PM

Quote:
(1) I long had figured the kland and APL possibility....


I like reading their posts. Hope that works out.

Quote:
(2) When you do everything and anything but answer the issue head on, as in this answer itself, you are being: ‘selectively oblivious, defensive, obfuscating, non-exegetical, increasingly insubstantive and/or non-pertinently relevant, among other diversionary tactics of yours. In a court of law, you’d be charged with “contempt of court” following a plethora of various applicable “objections.” Your arguments are as substantively vacuous and diversionary as saying that: ‘despite the scientific rain forecast for this afternoon, it usurely won’t rain because of the present beautiful blue sky’!!?


There are many questions you've ignored/not addressed/not answered, however you want to characterize it, but no one has accused you of whatever. There are many posts to wade through, and it's easy to overlook something. The thing to do when this happens is to repeat the thing you wish the other person would consider. You'll notice that MM and I do this routinely, and without calling each other names or making rash accusations.

Quote:
(3) Knowing my traditional typing ordeal and considering my final products, I know it all stems from ‘thinking much faster than I can type’ and also ‘still thinking something through while I am typing’ which results in certain confusions at times = typos. So what you have been reading were really my brainstorming rough draft. And by your own condemnatory self-imposed standard here: I guess you really believe that “Place” means “Please” (post #132728)???? And I am not responsible for what you just did not/would not understand!


This really is a beam vs. speck thing here. Your posts are just horrendous to read. There's no way you can compare your posts to mine in this regard. Sure I can miss a word here and there, but there's no comparison here. There are people that avoid discussing things with you just because they can't understand what you're saying.

You do many things inconsiderate of your reader. You don't quote Scripture texts, because that's too much work for you. You don't proof-read what you write. And you insult people. All this points to the fact that you consider yourself more highly than others. You've said as much. Your time is more important, others are "worthwhile" to deal with, and so forth. None of this speaks well to any views you hold. The admonition of Scripture is that we put others more highly than ourselves.

Quote:
(4) Matt 23:23, 24 does stand because proper Biblical exegesis is infinitely more important than a polished final draft, but you probably really do not/cannot see or understand that fact...and do try the entire chapter of Matt 23 instead!!!


Another insult. That's fitting.

Quote:
Quite fitting for an SDA Seminarian.


And another.

Quote:
You really are a fine product of the SDA Theological Seminary.


And another.

Quote:
Can’t hold it against you for that!!


And another.

I don't understand why you think insulting other people is OK. I also don't understand why you prefer to do this rather than deal with the issues involved. I also don't understand why you are unable to deal with the issues involved without insulting others.
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/18/11 09:15 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Originally Posted By: kland
As you'll notice from my question, I wasn't talking about the Papacy, but the people or members. True, once it's in place, whether the Papacy or Hitler, it's hard to go against it. But I was asking, how did it come about? Are you able to explain how the people, how the members, allowed such a thing? 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?


As usual kland you need to think things thoroughly through and go to the realistic truth and source. It was all about the Papacy then, and in these Dark Ages, the generally uneduacated/unlearned laity had no choice but to believe as the absolute truth whatever the clergy taught and told them was true. That ascertainable, underlying incontrovertible, commonly known social/religious/historical fact should have answered your questions here.

No it doesn't. But let's pretend it does. The assumption is that you are more educated/learned than they were. How do we know that Tom isn't more educated/learned than you are? It appears to me that your view is very similar to the people under the papacy which you are calling uneducated/unlearned. How do we know that Tom's view of God isn't at a more educated/learned level than your view?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/18/11 09:48 PM

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.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/18/11 09:57 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
1. In the OT, why did Jesus command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle?

M: Seems to me you believe Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in battle because 1) the Jews failed to trust Jesus to defeat their enemies in a godly way, and 2) the Jews expected Him to think and behave like a pagan god. Do you agree with my assessment of your view as it relates to the question above?

T: No, of course not. But surely you must know that.

M: Please elaborate.

T: Consider the story of the father/hunter. What was the father's will in regards to his son? What did the father do and say to his son? Could his words be misconstrued by someone overhearing the conversation? If you don't remember the story, I can refresh hour memory.

In the humane hunter illustration the father raised his son to abhor killing animals. Later on, when the son craved to kill animals, the father taught him how to kill animals in the most humane manner. Those who would have overheard the father teaching his son how to kill animals humanely would have heard him mingling pleading with his son not to do it and the son begging his father to let him do it. Or, are you assuming the father would not have mingled teaching his son how to hunt humanely with gently reminding him it is contrary to his will and wishes?

Now, let’s take two common stories from the Bible and apply the principle of the humane hunter. Story One: Fire blazed out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned N&A alive. Story Two: Elijah prayed twice for fire to consume two separate bands of fifty and twice “the fire of God came down from heaven” and burned them alive. Please apply the principles of the humane hunter to these two stories.

Quote:
M: Was Jesus, while here in the flesh (as opposed to after He returned to heaven), forced to command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle?

T: What are the principles laid out in GC 35-37? That's the important question. Did Jesus Christ teach and embody these principles? Yes, He did. Where we're disagreeing is in regards to what we think God is like. I believe God's character was revealed fully by Jesus Christ, and the best revelation was the cross. Rather than use force to get His way, Jesus Christ voluntarily submitted to torture and a horrible death from the very creatures He came to save. This is what God is like. Not just sometimes, but all the time. The principles explained in GC 35-37 are in harmony with what Jesus Christ revealed. Your perceptions of God's character appear to me to be schizophrenic. Some of the time, as it appears to me you see things, He exhibits the qualities Jesus Christ embodied on earth, especially at the cross, but other times He acts indistinguishably from Satan, leaving us with no means to know who is acting.

M: I don’t understand how your response answers the question above.

T: I explained the principles I felt your question was trying to get at. Your question was simply a yes/no question, of which a one-word answer wouldn't be very useful, I didn't feel. You've asked many questions similar to the above, and each time it appears to me the motivation is to argue why the SOP statement that "all that man can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son" is false. You've already stated categorically that it doesn't include "His strange act." Perhaps your question above is another manifestation of this same point. Well, we're simply in disagreement regarding this point. I think the statement that all we need to know, or can know, of God was revealed in the life and character of Jesus Christ is 100% true, including "His strange act," or anything else regarding God's character that one can think of.

It is obvious Jesus did not, while here in the flesh, command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle. Nobody in their right mind would argue otherwise. With this in mind I am compelled to ask – Why did the OT Jesus command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle?

I have no idea what your answer is to this question. I’m not even sure if you agree Jesus did so. Your continual reference to the humane hunter illustration implies you do, which suggests you believe Jesus did in fact command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle. If so, according to your view of God, doesn’t it mean Jesus commanded them to do something diametrically opposed to the will of God?

Quote:
2. In the OT, why did Jesus command godly people to kill ungodly people through the execution of capital punishment?

T: You repeated yourself.

M: Why do you think so?

T: Because you asked the same question twice! Look at your post.

Here are the two questions I asked above:

Quote:
1. In the OT, why did Jesus command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle?

Was Jesus, while here in the flesh (as opposed to after He returned to heaven), forced to command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle?

Why do you think these questions are a repetition of the one above? Do you believe killing enemy soldiers in battle and killing citizens through the execution of capital punishment are the same things?

Quote:
M: Was Jesus, while here in the flesh (as opposed to after He returned to heaven), forced to command godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment?

T: What's your argument here? That since Jesus Christ, while here in the flesh, wasn't forced to command godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment, it therefore follows that it's not the case that all that we can know of God was revealed by Him? I can't think of why you would ask this question otherwise. Why not just set forth your argument?

M: You wrote, “Jesus Christ, while here in the flesh, wasn't forced to command godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment.”

T: It's really confusing to read something like this. I didn't write this. You wrote this.

M: Is this your answer to the question above?

T: No.

No one in their right mind would argue Jesus, while here in the flesh, commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment.

Quote:
M: In response to your question, I believe the OT Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment, and the fact the NT Jesus did not do so makes it clear He did not demonstrate this attribute of God’s character while here in the flesh.

T: Ok, you disagree with Ellen White's statement. I agree with it, and disagree with you. I think you're misunderstanding what an attribute of God's character is. At "attribute" is “a quality or feature regarded as a characteristic or inherent part of someone or something.” In regards to God's character, these would be things like "mercy, compassion, integrity" and so forth.

You are jumping to conclusions. Just because I believe Jesus, while here in the flesh, never commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment, it doesn’t mean I believe He opposed capital punishment. He often spoke about it. “Cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth when the Son of man shall come in his glory.”

Quote:
Exodus
22:20 He that sacrificeth unto [any] god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

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.

Deuteronomy
2:34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:
20:17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; [namely], the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:

Joshua
10:40 So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded.

M: Seems to me you believe Jesus was reluctantly willing to command the kinds of things described in the passages above for as long as it would take Him to teach the Jews how to "turn the other cheek"? Is this what you believe?

T: I believe, as I've said so many times, that for us to properly interpret Scripture, we need to know God's character. I believe that the first order of business is to study the life and character of His Son, whose "whole purpose" was "the revelation of God." What is it that Jesus Christ revealed? What was Jesus Christ like? How did He treat His enemies? I don't believe that He acted any differently in the Old Testament than while here in the flesh. Do you?

M: Do the scriptures above require interpretation? Ellen wrote, “The language of the Bible should be explained according to its obvious meaning, unless a symbol or figure is employed.” {GC 598.3} “If we would not build our hopes of heaven upon a false foundation we must accept the Bible as it reads and believe that the Lord means what He says.” {5T 171.1} You seem to be saying, no, we cannot take the passages above at face value because . . . . If so, why not?

T: She also counseled us to compare Scripture with Scripture. She wrote a lot about how erroneous ideas can be obtained in regards to Scripture. She wrote a lot in regards to the importance of understanding God's character. I've stated many times that a proper understanding of God's character is paramount to properly understanding Scripture. Do you disagree with this? Assuming you don't, this begs the question of how we should obtain an knowledge of God's character. I believe the foundation must be Jesus Christ. Ellen White wrote it would be well for us to spend a thoughtful hour each day meditating upon the life of Christ, taking each scene point by point, especially the last scenes. Why? So that we may understand God's character. Everything hinges on this point. This is what the whole Great Controversy is about.

Quote:
The most important aspect of faith is our mental picture of God...(O)ur actual picture of God, not our theoretical knowledge about God, most influences how we feel about Him. It's impossible to enjoy a genuinely passionate and loving relationship with God when our mental picture of Him doesn't inspire passionate love.

Our picture of God not only influences our emotional response to God, it strongly influences our understanding of everything else in our life. (Boyd; "Is God to Blame?" p. 21)

Also it strongly influences our understanding of Scripture.

I also believe a proper understanding of God's character, especially through the life and teachings of Jesus, is paramount to properly understanding the Bible, especially as it pertains to all the killing and destruction. The passages I posted above are too plainly worded to assume they mean something other than what they obviously mean. Jesus did indeed command the things described in those passages. There is no doubt about it. No one in their right mind would argue otherwise. The question is – Why did Jesus command such things? Why did a loving, merciful, compassionate Savior command godly people to kill ungodly people?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/19/11 01:22 AM

Quote:
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.

M:“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.


The statement says that whatever man is able to know about God was revealed by Jesus Christ.

Quote:
Therefore, Jesus only revealed what we “need to know” to appreciate the love of God, experience rebirth, and inherit eternal life.


What she said is that "all" (not "only") that we a)need to know OR b)are able to know, was revealed in the life and character of Jesus Christ. It wasn't a limiting statement, as "only" would make it, but a non-limiting statement.

You're basically reversing what she said.

Quote:
Fortunately for us, by the grace of God, we “can know,” that is, we are capable of comprehending, what we “need to know.”


Whatever we are capable of knowing is what Jesus Christ revealed.

Quote:
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.


This is another way of stating something different than the EGW statement.

Quote:
The idea that Jesus revealed everything there is to know about God
This part is OK.

Quote:
and that we are just too dense and dimwitted to discern it contradicts what Jesus Himself said.


This you just made up. The statement doesn't say anything like this or about this.

Quote:
More on this point at the end of this post.


Ok.

You didn't deal with the point of logic I brought up. That is, this:

Quote:
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.


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.

M: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?


GC 35-37 isn't limited to actions of God's enemies. There are a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which God protects us.

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).

M: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.


Why do you think I said this?

Quote:
Were these particular enemies evil angels? If not, who were they?


Please quote something I've said. I don't know where you're getting these ideas from.

Quote:
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.


We're not capable in any state of knowing everything there is to know about God. Can we be glad to agree on this point as well?

Regarding the second point, when you say, "'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," you mean the same thing as "it is not possible for man to know everything about God?" In which case you're echoing what I said?

Basically you asked a question implying these were related, and I said these are independent things, so that your question didn't really make sense. You're saying you agree with me on this point? If so, I'm glad we agree too.

Quote:
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!

M: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.”


I've already explained why this doesn't contradict what she said.

Quote:
“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.


You keep changing things that were said. She didn't say "to experience rebirth" but simply "all that man needs to know, or can know."

At any rate, as I previously explained, the fact that there were things which Jesus could not reveal to them at that time does not imply that all that man can know of God was not revealed by Jesus Christ. This isn't a valid argument.

Quote:
Obviously this means Jesus did not, could not reveal everything there is to know about God while He was here in the flesh.


No, it doesn't mean this! Your assertion would only be true if the things which Jesus Christ couldn't tell them were things about God's character which He did not reveal elsewhere.

Quote:
This is not to say, however, Jesus hasn’t revealed everything there is to know about the character and kingdom of God.


Right! Jesus, during his earthly mission, revealed all that man needs to know or can know of God.

Quote:
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.


This is your opinion, but not what Ellen White wrote. Looking at the context of her statement, it is clear that she is speaking of Jesus Christ while here in the flesh.

I disagree with the idea that to learn of God we should supplement what Jesus Christ taught with what other sources teach us, and then add them together to get a full or true or complete picture. I believe Jesus Christ *is* the full/complete/picture of God's character, and that it is His revelation only which enables us to rightly understand other lesser revelations of God.

I think this is a chief disagreement we have. I see Jesus Christ in human flesh as superior to all other revelations of God.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/19/11 01:32 AM

#132770 looks like #132651 which I responded to in #132664.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/19/11 04:32 AM

Tom: I guess you are also selectively oblivious to this fact also, when I had repeated what you’d overlooked, you just outrightly ignored them yet again. What’s the point then?!!

-I don’t consider your peripheral questions comment as being worthy of a response

-And my endeavors to help save the lives of would be aborted infants is factually most worthwhile to me thus the inferior place of this discussion.

-And...What’s that word that Jesus fittingly used throughout Matt 23....oh yeah “blind...”
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/19/11 04:35 AM

Originally Posted By: kland
Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Originally Posted By: kland
As you'll notice from my question, I wasn't talking about the Papacy, but the people or members. True, once it's in place, whether the Papacy or Hitler, it's hard to go against it. But I was asking, how did it come about? Are you able to explain how the people, how the members, allowed such a thing? 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?


As usual kland you need to think things thoroughly through and go to the realistic truth and source. It was all about the Papacy then, and in these Dark Ages, the generally uneduacated/unlearned laity had no choice but to believe as the absolute truth whatever the clergy taught and told them was true. That ascertainable, underlying incontrovertible, commonly known social/religious/historical fact should have answered your questions here.

No it doesn't. But let's pretend it does. The assumption is that you are more educated/learned than they were. How do we know that Tom isn't more educated/learned than you are? It appears to me that your view is very similar to the people under the papacy which you are calling uneducated/unlearned. How do we know that Tom's view of God isn't at a more educated/learned level than your view?

Quite predictable slant for a response kland, from you. I don’t have time for that either. Sorry. Can’t state the facts any other way or rewrite Church history to please you! You can deal with your own version of reality, including how you choose to view the exegetical facts I presented throughout this discussion.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/19/11 05:30 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
M: Perhaps my question was poorly worded. I apologize for the confusion. I now understand you believe Jesus is free to choose between such options as preventing death and destruction or permitting it. He takes everything and everyone into consideration and then decides whether to prevent or permit death and destruction. The choice is His. Nothing happens by chance or fate.

T: Chance and fate are two very different things. I don't understand the purpose of this sentence. Indeed, everything you wrote above after "I not understand you believe ..." should read "I not understand I believe ..." as you're just repeating things you believe, is what it looks to me. What *I* believe is that God has created beings with free will, and these often, on earth, unfortunately, have chosen to act contrary to God's will, and *that's* why bad things happen. And similarly for the unfaithful angelic beings.

M: Do you believe Jesus is free to choose between such options as preventing death and destruction or permitting it, that He takes everything and everyone into consideration and then decides whether to prevent or permit death and destruction, that the choice is His, that nothing happens by chance or fate (the “or” denotes a difference)?

T: I agree that nothing happens by fate. I disagree that nothing happens by chance. If Jesus, or God, permits something to occur which happens by chance, that doesn't mean that the thing permitted to occur did not happen by chance. I believe there are things which happen by chance. For example, tossing a fair coin is an example. By chance it will be heads or tails. Many such examples could be given.

Do you believe Jesus is free to choose between such options as preventing death and destruction or permitting it, that He takes everything and everyone into consideration and then decides whether to prevent or permit death and destruction, that the choice is His? Or, do you believe chance dictates whether or not He is free to choose between preventing or permitting death and destruction? Is Christ in control or is chance?

Quote:
M: As sovereign Lord and King, Jesus is ultimately in control – not sin, not sinners, and not Satan.

T: Satan and his followers are responsible in every way, including ultimately, for sin an all its results. God is entirely innocent. God is not in control of sinners.

M: If God is not in control of sinners, who, then, is protecting them?

T: By "in control of" I assume you mean "controlling." Or do you mean something else? If by "in control of" you mean "protecting," then I may agree with what you mean, if not what you're saying. That is, I certainly agree that God is protecting sinners.

Do you believe God is not in control of sinners? If so, and I assume you do, what do you mean by it? As for me, I believe Jesus is, as sovereign Lord and King, ultimately in control of the outcome of the great controversy – not sin, not sinners, and not Satan. That is, sin does not determine how the GC will play out, neither do sinners, nor does Satan. Whether or not this or that choice plays out this or that way is entirely up to Jesus - not sin, not sinners, and not Satan. True, His options are limited. He isn’t free to manage the outcome irrespective of the choice. For example, Jesus wasn’t free to manage Judas’ choice to betray Him in a way that would result in him sitting on the right or left hand of Jesus in the New Jerusalem.

Quote:
M: Yes, Satan is in control of what God permits, but he is not free to do as he pleases, otherwise, as you say, he would destroy everyone and everything.

T: This is a bad misstatement here, IMO. Let's say you have a child, but don't permit that child to stay out past 2:00am. Would it be fair for you to say that your child is not free to do as (s)he pleases?

Children are, of course, free to disobey their parents and stay out as late they please. However, there would be consequences after the fact. But in the case of evil angels, things are very much different. Jesus cannot afford to punish them after the fact, especially as it relates to hurting us or tempting us beyond Jesus’ established limits. He must impose limits on them and then work to enforce His limits to guarantee they do not ever, ever disobey. In this sense, evil angels are not free; indeed, they are very much shackled.

Quote:
M: It’s not a question of whether or not God is innocent; it’s a question of whether or not He is in control.

T: The big question is if God is innocent, as God has been accused, and the Great Controversy in effect for this purpose.

M: Of course He is innocent. He created free moral agents. They are free to obey and live or disobey and die. If they choose to sin and rebel, they are, ultimately, choosing capital punishment.

T: Neither Scripture nor the SOP state that by choosing sin they choose capital punishment. Both state that if they choose sin they are choosing death. The SOP states that the inevitable result of sin is death. If evil comes about as a result of God's controlling actions, then He is not innocent of its happening.

Jesus established the laws regulating capital punishment. He commanded godly people like Moses to kill ungodly people. In final judgment, the radiant glory of God’s person and presence will cause the wicked to suffer in duration and intensity proportionate to their sinfulness. The presence of God’s radiant glory is required for the wicked to experience the emotional and physical suffering that ends in eternal death, otherwise, they would merely live and die as they did Jesus resurrected them.

Quote:
M: When Jesus decided N&A and the two bands of fifty were worthy of death, who or what caused the fire that burned them alive?

T: I don't think it matters what the exact mechanism was. I believe the principles laid out in GC 35-37 were at work.

M: It matters if sincere seekers of truth wrongly conclude (from your perspective) Jesus employed fire to burn them alive.

T: I assume you mean that from my perspective, the mechanism matters, if sincere seekers of truth wrongly conclude that Jesus employs fire to burn people alive. If this is what you mean, I still don't agree that the mechanism matters. I believe it's the principle that matters. A sincere seeker of truth, from my perspective, will not make conclusions about the mechanism involved which are not in harmony with God's character or the principles of His government, if he gets the principles right.

What would they conclude? Would it suffice them to know Jesus didn’t burn them alive? Thus satisfied it wouldn’t occur to them to care who or what caused the fire that burned them alive?

Quote:
M: In the case of N&A, the fire blazed out from the presence of God in the most holy place. And, in the case of the two bands of fifty, fire rained down from God in heaven. To say Jesus simply withdrew His protection and permitted (you have yet to say who) to cause fire to burn them alive begs the question – Why were His enemies in the most holy places in heaven and earth?

T: I disagree that it begs this question.

Does it matter to you, Tom, where Jesus’ enemies were when He, according to you, permitted them to make fire blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burn them alive? It matters very much to me. That’s why I believe Jesus employed fire to burn them alive. “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. . . Since the flood, God has used both water and fire in the earth as his agents to destroy wicked cities. {1SP 84.3}

Quote:
T: You've read Job. What does it say?

M: Ellen wrote [quotes omitted by Tom] Quotes like the ones posted above make it clear to me Jesus and holy angels work to ensure evil angels do not exceed the limitations imposed upon them.

T: This seems like an odd response. I ask you what Job said, and you respond by saying, "Ellen wrote." Is "Ellen" a pseudonym of Job's? As I've often said, if permitted, Satan would destroy all human beings, which would not leave a Great Controversy to be fought.

M: For this reason, Satan is not free to do as he pleases.

T: He is, to a great degree, which is evident in looking at our world. He has to be free to do as he pleases in order for there to be a Great Controversy. This agrees with your understanding, doesn't it?

M: I hope you don’t mind me allowing Ellen to weigh in on the discussion. I trust her insights. Based on what I’ve read in the Bible and the SOP, I am convinced Satan is only as free as Jesus permits. Whatever he does is done by permission. All heaven, however, works to ensure he does not exceed the limitations Jesus imposes on evil men and angels.

T: You didn't answer my question. I'll repeat it. Satan is free to do his will, to a great degree, which is evident in looking at our world. He has to be free to do as he pleases in order for there to be a Great Controversy. This agrees with your understanding, doesn't it?

No, I disagree. Satan is not free to do as he pleases. Jesus is in control of the outcome of our choices. He doesn’t leave it up to Satan to decide how best to punish evildoers. True, in the case of Job, Jesus left it up to Satan to decide, within very strict perimeters, what to do. However, in the cases of the wicked, Jesus does not leave it up to Satan.

Quote:
M: It is Jesus, not Satan, who ultimately establishes and enforces the degree of punishment meted out.

T: This is like saying it is Jesus, not Satan, who metes out and enforces the degree of punishment meted out when someone ignores the law of gravity. Sin causes misery, suffering, and death because of its nature. These things are what happen when one separates from God. It doesn't require an extra, unrelated, special action on the part of God for misery, suffering, and death to occur, but merely acting contrary to God's principles, and separating from Him, is sufficient. This is what "me first" does. "Me first" can not end up in anything other than misery, suffering, and death. These things are the fruit of Satan's government, of choosing his principles.

M: Yes, sinning results in unrest and unhappiness. But whether or not it results in death and destruction is entirely up to Jesus.

T: As stated, this is entirely untrue. The will of the sinner has to be given weight.

M: Yes, we manage the choices, but Jesus manages the consequences so far as things like death and destruction is concerned.

T: Again, poorly stated. This makes it sound like God is responsible for evil. Permitting an evil thing to occur is not the same as causing it. Again, the will of the sinner must be given weight.

M: For example, whether or not jumping off a cliff results in death is not up to gravity; instead, it’s up to Jesus.

T: Gravity plays a part. If a person is careless, and dies due to falling, it would be a terrible mistake to blame this on Jesus, or to suggest this was His will, or say anything which in any way would imply that He was to any degree in any way responsible.
M: If He intercedes, death does not occur; otherwise, it does. But this example does not speak to the issues concerning capital punishment. In the cases of N&A and the two bands of fifty, there was no natural cause and effect law at work.

T: As you see things.

M: Sinning does not result in fire blazing out from the presence of God in holy places and burning sinners alive. Fire is not self-acting. Neither is gravity. The laws of nature act the way they do because Jesus acts the way He does, that is, nature is a weapon in the arsenal of Jesus and does whatever He wields it to do.

T: I can think of few statements that I disagree with more adamantly than this. The fact that the phrase "weapon in the arsenal of Jesus" enters your thinking I find unfortunate.

M: He employs nature to mete out capital punishment.

T: Same comment. I'm sorry you think this way.

M: But not always; sometimes He uses His enemies, evil men and angels, to punish impenitent sinners.

T: Same comment. I'm sorry you view Jesus Christ is this way, as one using using different weapons in his arsenal to destroy; as a destroyer.

“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. . . Since the flood, God has used both water and fire in the earth as his agents to destroy wicked cities. {1SP 84.3}

Quote:
M: It must irritate Satan to know he is not free to exercise his powers as he sees fit.

T: Satan is free to exercise his powers as he sees fit, to a great degree, or else there would be no Great Controversy. It's imperative that we understand that *all* the bad, all the evil, there is in the world, is the result of Satan, and none of it due to God. Satan gets irritated when his plans are thwarted, which is what happens when one chooses to follow God instead of him.

M: Amen! However, what qualifies as evil or bad?

T: Anything contrary to God's character qualifies. The law is a transcript of God's character. Also, Jesus Christ fully revealed the Father, so anything contrary to the revelation of Jesus Christ qualifies.

M: Was it evil or bad when fire blazed out from the presence of God in holy places and burned sinners alive?

T: Burning people alive is a bad thing.

M: Is death and destruction always deemed evil or bad?

T: Satan is the author of sin and all its results. Destruction and death are the results of sin, and hence, of Satan. I'm not sure if your question has a philosophical aspect to it. If a person has a terrible disease, death could be a blessing. Are you trying to get at this?

M: Or, are their times when it counts as divine justice and judgment? For example, when Jesus commanded Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to death, was it evil or bad?

T: We're going around in circles here. What I have said over and over again, dozens of times, is that to understand these event one must *first* (I emphasize "first" here, as in, before, or previous to) have a correct understanding of God's character. From my perspective, your misunderstanding the events because you're misunderstanding God's character. I believe you perceive the events in a way that in contrary to that which Jesus Christ revealed, and hence, even the questions you ask don't make sense. You and I completely disagree in regards to what's the cart and the horse here. What I think you think is that to correctly understand God's character, it's necessary to consider these events you're asking questions about in addition to considering the life and character of Jesus Christ, and then add these together, and this combination gives a correct understanding of God's character. What I'm saying is first Christ, then look at the other. As opposed to, look at Christ and the other events both at the same time.

We’ve tried doing it your way, Tom. However, the discussion died out. You ended your discourse on the character of God without explaining why Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people. Is that the fruit of your view of God? If so, it comes woefully short of explaining some very difficult aspects of the Bible.

I’m curious, Tom, do you even believe Jesus commanded Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to death? I cannot recall you ever answering this question. I get the impression you believe Moses misunderstood what Jesus told him. Please, Tom, don’t go off on a tangent here and ignore directly answering my question. I realize you haven’t said anything specifically about whether or not Moses misunderstood Jesus. So please, don’t use this comment as excuse to ignore answering my question. Please answer it. Thank you.

Quote:
M: Like a chained lion, try as he might, he cannot tear to shreds the prey just out of reach. “Already nations are angry, already Satan is working with signs and lying wonders, and this will increase until the end. God will use his enemies as instruments to punish those who have followed their own pernicious ways whereby the truth God has been misrepresented, misjudged, and dishonored.” {PC 136.3}

T: They are used as GC 35-37 explains.

M: I agree; always have. But the point is – It was Jesus who used evil angels and Roman soldiers as instruments to punish the impenitent Jews.

T: To assert this is to not read what GC 35-37 actually says, it seems very clear to me. For example: “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 35) I'm not sure how she could have stated the reverse of what you are asserting more clearly than this.

M: Again, there was no natural cause and effect law at work. It was entirely arbitrary, imposed, meted out.

T: Same comment.

M: Sinning does not result in soldiers killing sinners, at least not in the same sense cancer results in tissue damage and death.

T: Again, if you actually read what GC 35-37 says, I don't see how one conclude the things you are concluding.

Again, Ellen wrote - “Already nations are angry, already Satan is working with signs and lying wonders, and this will increase until the end. God will use his enemies as instruments to punish those who have followed their own pernicious ways whereby the truth God has been misrepresented, misjudged, and dishonored.” {PC 136.3} In what sense do you believe Jesus “used His enemies as instruments to punish” the Jews in 70 AD? By simply withdrawing His protection and permitting evil men and evil angels to kill them? If so, don’t you think expressing it the way she did in PC 136 is unnecessarily confusing? Would you ever express it in those terms?

Quote:
M: Also, is it a sin, evil, or bad when evil angels and soldiers kill impenitent sinners when God is using them as instruments to punish?

T: I think this is a FOTAP question (fallacy of the assumed premise).

No assumptions necessary. Ellen very clearly said – “Already nations are angry, already Satan is working with signs and lying wonders, and this will increase until the end. God will use his enemies as instruments to punish those who have followed their own pernicious ways whereby the truth God has been misrepresented, misjudged, and dishonored.” {PC 136.3} My question is valid. Unless, of course, we assume as you do we cannot take her at her word, that we must interpret her words to mean something other than what they plainly say.

Quote:
M: Did Jesus, while here in the flesh (as opposed to after He returned to heaven), choose to allow things like ungodly people being burned alive?

T: O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen [doth gather] her brood under [her] wings, and ye would not! (Luke 13:34)

M: You seem to be suggesting Jesus allowed ungodly people to be killed while He was here in the flesh. Who was killed?

T: In what Jesus said, He expressed that He was willing, desiring even, to protect Jerusalem as a chicken would protect its chicks. He was very sorry they did not permit Him to do so. This is the principle enunciated in GC 35-37.

M: I don’t understand how your response answers my question.

T: My answer describes the principle at work.

M: Is offering protection, while here in the flesh, from something that happened in 70 AD equivalent to Jesus allowing N&A and the two bands of fifty to be burned alive?

T: The same principles are at work. Your question should be if offering protection in the one case is equivalent to offering protection in the other, as this would be apples to apples, and I would respond "yes" to such a question.

M: Seems to me the cases of N&A and the two bands of fifty and the death of Jews in 70 AD are similar in the sense Jesus, from your perspective, would have simply withdrew His protection and permitted His enemies to cause the resulting death and destruction. If so, what protection was Jesus providing, until He withdrew it, in the cases of N&A and the two bands of fifty? Does fire lie in wait until Jesus gives it permission to selectively burn sinners alive? If so, doesn’t it imply fire is self-acting? If not, who, then, employed the fire that killed them?

T: There are a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which God protects us. These include ourselves (our actions, health issues), others (angelic or human), and natural disasters, to name three that come to me quickly. What I see you doing is think of incidents where you don't see any way the principles of GC 35-37 could apply. But I, and I'm sure kland, can easily think of ways. I'm not sure what kland would think of would agree with what I think, but it wouldn't matter to either of us, because we're both convinced of the principles which we see always apply. This is what I mean when I say the exact mechanism doesn't matter, as long as the principles hold fast. We're convinced of the principles because we're convinced regarding God's character. What I've found most interesting in regards to this present post is that you appear to view what happened in the destruction very differently than I do. For example, you state that " the point is – It was Jesus who used evil angels and Roman soldiers as instruments to punish the impenitent Jews," when the point, as I see it, is that the Jews forged their own fetters, and that while many view God as punishing the impenitent Jews, it is the Great Deceiver who actually caused their destruction, hiding his own work by making others think it was God.

It appears to me you agree with the first sentence in my response above, namely, “Seems to me the cases of N&A and the two bands of fifty and the death of Jews in 70 AD are similar in the sense Jesus, from your perspective, would have simply withdrew His protection and permitted His enemies to cause the resulting death and destruction. “ Do you agree?

If so, what protection was Jesus providing, until He withdrew it, in the cases of N&A and the two bands of fifty? Does fire lie in wait until Jesus gives it permission to selectively burn sinners alive? If so, doesn’t it imply fire is self-acting? If not, who, then, employed the fire that killed them? Please take your time and answer these questions in detail. Thank you.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/19/11 08:24 AM

Quote:
Tom: I guess you are also selectively oblivious to this fact also, when I had repeated what you’d overlooked, you just outrightly ignored them yet again. What’s the point then?!!

-I don’t consider your peripheral questions comment as being worthy of a response

-And my endeavors to help save the lives of would be aborted infants is factually most worthwhile to me thus the inferior place of this discussion.

-And...What’s that word that Jesus fittingly used throughout Matt 23....oh yeah “blind...”


If you feel you have better use of your time, why do you come here to hurl insults? You really don't see anything wrong here?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/19/11 08:57 AM

Quote:
T: I agree that nothing happens by fate. I disagree that nothing happens by chance. If Jesus, or God, permits something to occur which happens by chance, that doesn't mean that the thing permitted to occur did not happen by chance. I believe there are things which happen by chance. For example, tossing a fair coin is an example. By chance it will be heads or tails. Many such examples could be given.

M:Do you believe Jesus is free to choose between such options as preventing death and destruction or permitting it, that He takes everything and everyone into consideration and then decides whether to prevent or permit death and destruction, that the choice is His?


You're mixing too many things together here, and then asking a yes or no question. That's not cricket.

I think all evil is not the choice of Jesus Christ, and evil only occurs when beings choose to act contrary to His will.

Quote:
Or, do you believe chance dictates whether or not He is free to choose between preventing or permitting death and destruction?


Things happen by chance, if that's what you mean.

Quote:
Is Christ in control or is chance?


Things happen by chance, if that's what you're asking. Again, chance being in control isn't a logical construct.

Quote:
M: If God is not in control of sinners, who, then, is protecting them?

T: By "in control of" I assume you mean "controlling." Or do you mean something else? If by "in control of" you mean "protecting," then I may agree with what you mean, if not what you're saying. That is, I certainly agree that God is protecting sinners.

M:Do you believe God is not in control of sinners?


Not when they sin.

Quote:
If so, and I assume you do, what do you mean by it?


I mean that sinners, when they sin, choose to exercise their free will to act contrary to the will of Jesus Christ.

Quote:
As for me, I believe Jesus is, as sovereign Lord and King, ultimately in control of the outcome of the great controversy – not sin, not sinners, and not Satan.


The Great Controversy is not a contest that can be decided by sovereignty; it's decided by evidence. God has been accused of certain things, things involving His character and the principles of His government. To make His case that He has been unjustly accused, God has chosen to allow things to play out, that His character may be seen in contrast with that of His accuser, as well as the principles of His government in contrast to the principles of his adversary's government.

Quote:
That is, sin does not determine how the GC will play out, neither do sinners, nor does Satan.


Sinners and Satan have a part, as do all sentient beings.

Quote:
Whether or not this or that choice plays out this or that way is entirely up to Jesus - not sin, not sinners, and not Satan.


No, this isn't the case. When a rapist chooses to rape, and that plays out in a rape victim being raped, that's not "entirely up to Jesus." You don't see the problem in asserting this?

Quote:
True, His options are limited. He isn’t free to manage the outcome irrespective of the choice. For example, Jesus wasn’t free to manage Judas’ choice to betray Him in a way that would result in him sitting on the right or left hand of Jesus in the New Jerusalem.


This doesn't seem to be a related point to the discussion.

Quote:

M: Yes, Satan is in control of what God permits, but he is not free to do as he pleases, otherwise, as you say, he would destroy everyone and everything.

T: This is a bad misstatement here, IMO. Let's say you have a child, but don't permit that child to stay out past 2:00am. Would it be fair for you to say that your child is not free to do as (s)he pleases?

M:Children are, of course, free to disobey their parents and stay out as late they please. However, there would be consequences after the fact. But in the case of evil angels, things are very much different. Jesus cannot afford to punish them after the fact, especially as it relates to hurting us or tempting us beyond Jesus’ established limits. He must impose limits on them and then work to enforce His limits to guarantee they do not ever, ever disobey. In this sense, evil angels are not free; indeed, they are very much shackled.


To state that evil angels never disobey Jesus Christ is not a fair accusation to make upon Christ. Of course they disobey Him, whenever they do evil. To think that evil angels are shackled so they only obey Christ's will is, I'm having difficulty coming up with words that aren't too strong here, I'll just say not fair to Christ. Also, it's not fair to them, as well, as, if they are not to a great extent free to do their will, then the Great Controversy is a sham. Finally, if they are not free to do their will, how do you explain the evil there is in the world?

Quote:

M: It’s not a question of whether or not God is innocent; it’s a question of whether or not He is in control.

T: The big question is if God is innocent, as God has been accused, and the Great Controversy in effect for this purpose.

M: Of course He is innocent. He created free moral agents. They are free to obey and live or disobey and die. If they choose to sin and rebel, they are, ultimately, choosing capital punishment.

T: Neither Scripture nor the SOP state that by choosing sin they choose capital punishment. Both state that if they choose sin they are choosing death. The SOP states that the inevitable result of sin is death. If evil comes about as a result of God's controlling actions, then He is not innocent of its happening.

M:Jesus established the laws regulating capital punishment.


How do you know they didn't already exist? That is, that they weren't already a part of the culture of the Hebrews and their contemporaries?

Quote:
He commanded godly people like Moses to kill ungodly people. In final judgment, the radiant glory of God’s person and presence will cause the wicked to suffer in duration and intensity proportionate to their sinfulness. The presence of God’s radiant glory is required for the wicked to experience the emotional and physical suffering that ends in eternal death, otherwise, they would merely live and die as they did Jesus resurrected them.


I'm sorry you feel this way. DA 764 tells us that if God had allowed Satan and his followers to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished, but it would not have been apparent that the inevitable result of sin is death. I'm sorry you don't see the relationship between sin and death. I think not seeing this connections leads to many errors, all of which portray God negatively.

Quote:
T: I assume you mean that from my perspective, the mechanism matters, if sincere seekers of truth wrongly conclude that Jesus employs fire to burn people alive. If this is what you mean, I still don't agree that the mechanism matters. I believe it's the principle that matters. A sincere seeker of truth, from my perspective, will not make conclusions about the mechanism involved which are not in harmony with God's character or the principles of His government, if he gets the principles right.

M:What would they conclude? Would it suffice them to know Jesus didn’t burn them alive? Thus satisfied it wouldn’t occur to them to care who or what caused the fire that burned them alive?


I don't think it matters much to one who is convinced in regards to God's character. For example, let's say someone is killed in your house by a fire. It's possible that your wife set them on fire and burned them alive. But you know your wife, and know she isn't capable of that sort of behavior. So how did the person die? Insofar as your wife's setting them on fire is concerned, you don't much care, because you know however the person died, it wasn't because your wife set them on fire.

Quote:
M: In the case of N&A, the fire blazed out from the presence of God in the most holy place. And, in the case of the two bands of fifty, fire rained down from God in heaven. To say Jesus simply withdrew His protection and permitted (you have yet to say who) to cause fire to burn them alive begs the question – Why were His enemies in the most holy places in heaven and earth?

T: I disagree that it begs this question.

M:Does it matter to you, Tom, where Jesus’ enemies were when He, according to you, permitted them to make fire blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burn them alive? It matters very much to me. That’s why I believe Jesus employed fire to burn them alive.


I addressed this just above, in the illustration about your wife setting people on fire.

Quote:
T: You didn't answer my question. I'll repeat it. Satan is free to do his will, to a great degree, which is evident in looking at our world. He has to be free to do as he pleases in order for there to be a Great Controversy. This agrees with your understanding, doesn't it?

M:No, I disagree. Satan is not free to do as he pleases.


Then there's no Great Controversy. If God does His will, and Satan does God's will, there's no controversy at all; there's only God's will. If all that happens is God's will, that begs the question of what sort of God would will the sort of horror we see on this planet?

Quote:
Jesus is in control of the outcome of our choices. He doesn’t leave it up to Satan to decide how best to punish evildoers. True, in the case of Job, Jesus left it up to Satan to decide, within very strict perimeters, what to do. However, in the cases of the wicked, Jesus does not leave it up to Satan.


This seems a bit confused, in regards to the subject of discussion here. Are you talking about the final judgment? If not, none of this really makes sense. The punishment of the wicked isn't until the resurrection.

If you're talking about the final judgment, then it doesn't make sense to suggest that Jesus Christ leaves their punishment up to Satan. That's just a red herring.

Quote:
“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. . . Since the flood, God has used both water and fire in the earth as his agents to destroy wicked cities. {1SP 84.3}


Scripture, and the SOP, often present God as doing that which He permits.

Quote:
T: We're going around in circles here. What I have said over and over again, dozens of times, is that to understand these event one must *first* (I emphasize "first" here, as in, before, or previous to) have a correct understanding of God's character. From my perspective, your misunderstanding the events because you're misunderstanding God's character. I believe you perceive the events in a way that in contrary to that which Jesus Christ revealed, and hence, even the questions you ask don't make sense. You and I completely disagree in regards to what's the cart and the horse here. What I think you think is that to correctly understand God's character, it's necessary to consider these events you're asking questions about in addition to considering the life and character of Jesus Christ, and then add these together, and this combination gives a correct understanding of God's character. What I'm saying is first Christ, then look at the other. As opposed to, look at Christ and the other events both at the same time.

M:We’ve tried doing it your way, Tom.


No, we never have. You've always injected your agenda into the discussion. My way would be to consider the character of Christ on its own merits. You just ask questions like, "How did Christ's character reveal why He did this or that thing that I think He did"?

Quote:
However, the discussion died out.


It never got started.

Quote:
You ended your discourse on the character of God without explaining why Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people.


This was never my agenda; it was yours. "My way," as I stated, would be to examine the character of Christ on its own merits.

Quote:
Is that the fruit of your view of God? If so, it comes woefully short of explaining some very difficult aspects of the Bible.


Again, "my way" would be to examiner the character of Jesus Christ on its own merits. The "whole purpose" of His earthly mission was "the revelation of God," which was the only way men could be set right and kept right with God. I think this would be wonderful fruit, don't you?

Quote:
I’m curious, Tom, do you even believe Jesus commanded Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to death? I cannot recall you ever answering this question. I get the impression you believe Moses misunderstood what Jesus told him. Please, Tom, don’t go off on a tangent here and ignore directly answering my question. I realize you haven’t said anything specifically about whether or not Moses misunderstood Jesus. So please, don’t use this comment as excuse to ignore answering my question. Please answer it. Thank you.


The best way I know to answer your question is with the story of the father of the hunter son. Did the father of the hunter son command his son to do the things he told him to do? What would neighbors who overheard their conversation have thought?

Also, do you think Moses knew God and His will as well as Jesus Christ did? Was it Moses' job to perfectly reveal the character of the Father? Isn't it true that God's character was misunderstood until Christ completed His job of revealing it? If so, wouldn't it stand to reason that Moses' understanding of it was imperfect?

Can there be any better way of understanding God's character than to examine the life and teachings of Christ? (No, there can't be).

(More later)
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/19/11 09:04 AM

Quote:
T: They are used as GC 35-37 explains.

M: I agree; always have. But the point is – It was Jesus who used evil angels and Roman soldiers as instruments to punish the impenitent Jews.

T: To assert this is to not read what GC 35-37 actually says, it seems very clear to me. For example: “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 35) I'm not sure how she could have stated the reverse of what you are asserting more clearly than this.

M: Again, there was no natural cause and effect law at work. It was entirely arbitrary, imposed, meted out.

T: Same comment.

M: Sinning does not result in soldiers killing sinners, at least not in the same sense cancer results in tissue damage and death.

T: Again, if you actually read what GC 35-37 says, I don't see how one conclude the things you are concluding.

M:Again, Ellen wrote - “Already nations are angry, already Satan is working with signs and lying wonders, and this will increase until the end. God will use his enemies as instruments to punish those who have followed their own pernicious ways whereby the truth God has been misrepresented, misjudged, and dishonored.” {PC 136.3} In what sense do you believe Jesus “used His enemies as instruments to punish” the Jews in 70 AD? By simply withdrawing His protection and permitting evil men and evil angels to kill them? If so, don’t you think expressing it the way she did in PC 136 is unnecessarily confusing? Would you ever express it in those terms?


We were discussing GC 35-37. You stated:

Quote:
But the point is – It was Jesus who used evil angels and Roman soldiers as instruments to punish the impenitent Jews.


Whereas Ellen White wrote:

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.


What you're saying contradicts what she said.

Quote:

M: Also, is it a sin, evil, or bad when evil angels and soldiers kill impenitent sinners when God is using them as instruments to punish?

T: I think this is a FOTAP question (fallacy of the assumed premise).

M:No assumptions necessary.


You're assuming that God was using soldiers to kill impenitent sinners when Jerusalem was destroyed. This is the false assumption, which is evident by the fact that Ellen White attributes this work to Satan, saying that he hides his own work by having others believe that God was responsible.

Quote:
Ellen very clearly said – “Already nations are angry, already Satan is working with signs and lying wonders, and this will increase until the end. God will use his enemies as instruments to punish those who have followed their own pernicious ways whereby the truth God has been misrepresented, misjudged, and dishonored.” {PC 136.3} My question is valid. Unless, of course, we assume as you do we cannot take her at her word, that we must interpret her words to mean something other than what they plainly say.


We were discussing GC 35-37. You're trying to refute Ellen White's own words written in one place by quoting other words of hers from another. That's not going to work.

The following is very clear:

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.


This says:

1.The Jews had forged their own fetters.
2.They had filled for themselves the cup of vengeance.
3.In all the destruction that happened, they were but reaping the harvest which their own hands had sown.
4.Says the prophet: "O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself;" "for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity."
5." "for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity." Hosea 13:9; 14:1. 6.Their sufferings are often represented as a punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God. BUT
7.It is thus that the great deceiver seeks to conceal his own work.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/19/11 09:34 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
Quote:
Tom: I guess you are also selectively oblivious to this fact also, when I had repeated what you’d overlooked, you just outrightly ignored them yet again. What’s the point then?!!

-I don’t consider your peripheral questions comment as being worthy of a response

-And my endeavors to help save the lives of would be aborted infants is factually most worthwhile to me thus the inferior place of this discussion.

-And...What’s that word that Jesus fittingly used throughout Matt 23....oh yeah “blind...”


If you feel you have better use of your time, why do you come here to hurl insults? You really don't see anything wrong here?

Once again, you opt to obliviously be patently, substantively besides the point. And.... it’s quite ironic and funny, in this discussion’s context, that you find the statements/expression of Jesus in Matt 23 as “insults”. That all indeed speaks volumes of what your view is all about, because, as also seen in prior circumventing remarks and/or non-responses of yours, even Jesus Himself it to fall in line with it. And I am just applying them where they indeed do also pointedly fit. You’re shoddy approach to Biblical Exegesis self-warrants this application. (PK 139.3-142.2).

And since you really need to know, I thought that a proper/Biblical understanding of God here would lead people to seek to help these very least, i.e., infants that are daily being murder. I guess I should not have presumed that!
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/19/11 05:17 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
kland: As you'll notice from my question, I wasn't talking about the Papacy, but the people or members. True, once it's in place, whether the Papacy or Hitler, it's hard to go against it. But I was asking, how did it come about? Are you able to explain how the people, how the members, allowed such a thing? 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?

NJK: As usual kland you need to think things thoroughly through and go to the realistic truth and source. It was all about the Papacy then, and in these Dark Ages, the generally uneduacated/unlearned laity had no choice but to believe as the absolute truth whatever the clergy taught and told them was true. That ascertainable, underlying incontrovertible, commonly known social/religious/historical fact should have answered your questions here.

kland: No it doesn't. But let's pretend it does. The assumption is that you are more educated/learned than they were. How do we know that Tom isn't more educated/learned than you are? It appears to me that your view is very similar to the people under the papacy which you are calling uneducated/unlearned. How do we know that Tom's view of God isn't at a more educated/learned level than your view?

NJK: Quite predictable slant for a response kland, from you. I don’t have time for that either. Sorry. Can’t state the facts any other way or rewrite Church history to please you! You can deal with your own version of reality, including how you choose to view the exegetical facts I presented throughout this discussion.


I wasn't asking you to rewrite history. I'm not sure what you thought I disagreed with what you said was history. In fact, I thought I was giving the idea I agreed with you fully of the history.

You basically said the people of history had an ignorant view of God. What I was asking is how does one determine which of your or Tom's view is more educated/learned. Your view is similar to those you called ignorant. Tom's view of God is quite the opposite of those of the history, wouldn't you say so?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/19/11 06:16 PM

NJK:It doesn't seem to me that it should be necessary to explain to you why the following is an insult.

Quote:
-And...What’s that word that Jesus fittingly used throughout Matt 23....oh yeah “blind...”


This is obviously sarcastic. This is evident from the "And...What's ..." "oh yeah 'blind...'" comment.

If you had meant to write something which wasn't an insult, you wouldn't have used a construct that goes "what's the ..." followed by "oh yeah," which is a mocking expression.

The Golden Rule is to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If you proofread your posts, looking for tone, you should be able to see that many of your posts have things written in them which you, assuming you're normal in this regard, wouldn't like to see addressed to yourself.

I understand it's easy to be upset when involved in these conversations, but it's not necessary to send the first draft you write. You can go through what you write, and ask the question if this is really the tone you want to have in your post. That's the beauty of posting on the internet; there's time to get things right.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/19/11 07:05 PM

It is self-manifest Tom, that your “have not/can’t done/do any/no wrong” attitude is not only limited to your view. That tone was meant to, if ever possible, snap you out of that skewed belief which is all derived from an incorrect and unexegetical approach to Biblical Study. Indeed it is obvious from your responses that you think you and your view know better than even Bible writer, which is why you outrightly ignore whatever they, including Jesus, say that contradict your selective and one-sided view. I only know of one way to awaken someone who is sound asleep, and even dreaming, in a Fire. (Matt 5:17-20). But it is indeed your self-blinding to Biblical facts that also prevents you from seeing any of this as “insults”. And... Jesus made fitting use of sarcasm throughout Matt 23, even the entire gospels when addressing these religious leaders, for those reasons, and it probably had its “awakening” effect soon after (e.g, Acts 6:7|DA 265.4)
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/19/11 07:06 PM

Originally Posted By: kland
Originally Posted By: NJK Project
kland: As you'll notice from my question, I wasn't talking about the Papacy, but the people or members. True, once it's in place, whether the Papacy or Hitler, it's hard to go against it. But I was asking, how did it come about? Are you able to explain how the people, how the members, allowed such a thing? 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?

NJK: As usual kland you need to think things thoroughly through and go to the realistic truth and source. It was all about the Papacy then, and in these Dark Ages, the generally uneduacated/unlearned laity had no choice but to believe as the absolute truth whatever the clergy taught and told them was true. That ascertainable, underlying incontrovertible, commonly known social/religious/historical fact should have answered your questions here.

kland: No it doesn't. But let's pretend it does. The assumption is that you are more educated/learned than they were. How do we know that Tom isn't more educated/learned than you are? It appears to me that your view is very similar to the people under the papacy which you are calling uneducated/unlearned. How do we know that Tom's view of God isn't at a more educated/learned level than your view?

NJK: Quite predictable slant for a response kland, from you. I don’t have time for that either. Sorry. Can’t state the facts any other way or rewrite Church history to please you! You can deal with your own version of reality, including how you choose to view the exegetical facts I presented throughout this discussion.


I wasn't asking you to rewrite history. I'm not sure what you thought I disagreed with what you said was history. In fact, I thought I was giving the idea I agreed with you fully of the history.

You basically said the people of history had an ignorant view of God. What I was asking is how does one determine which of your or Tom's view is more educated/learned. Your view is similar to those you called ignorant. Tom's view of God is quite the opposite of those of the history, wouldn't you say so?

Frankly and seriously kland, I am annoyedly tired of having to do the thinking for you while you just quasi-vexatiously, mindlessly, spout off whatever spurious surface objection that first crosses your mind. Your responses seem more mischievous to me than serious/sincere. And it does concern me, as it takes up my time.

Originally Posted By: kland
I wasn't asking you to rewrite history. I'm not sure what you thought I disagreed with what you said was history.


Your resolute premise of: “let’s pretend...”. despite the incontrovertible historical facts.

Originally Posted By: kland
In fact, I thought I was giving the idea I agreed with you fully of the history.


Well you fooled me! There further is no sequitur link between that Historical reality and my discussion here. If the laity then had come to their view on their own, then you would have a thematic link here, however they did not as they outrightly could not. So it was whatever the clergy told them was truth that they followed.

Originally Posted By: kland
You basically said the people of history had an ignorant view of God.

No....history says that they had the clergy’s view of God, thus only the clergy is at issue here, not the ‘compelled at the threat of death’ laity.

Originally Posted By: kland
What I was asking is how does one determine which of your or Tom's view is more educated/learned.


Re-read this thread using the Acts 17:11 principle/example.

Originally Posted By: kland
Your view is similar to those you called ignorant.


Wrong on two counts: (1) My view does not call for compelling people to believe in God and killing them if they do not. It is just relating the wholly Just judgement actions of God when a wrong course has been freely chosen and taken to an unacceptable point/end. (2) The Papacy (I can only deal with historical fact, and not wishful reality) was not “ignorant”, just completely and knowingly unbiblical.

Originally Posted By: kland
Tom's view of God is quite the opposite of those of the history, wouldn't you say so?


Actually it is opposite/indifferent to Biblical Facts/History. And in terms of being Biblical, by only selecting portions of the Bible that agree with its view, it is of the same type of unbiblical methodology and shaky constitution as the approach and assumptions of the Papacy. Biblical Truth is not what one wants or needs it to be, but what it (exegetically) is. We are the ones who have to align ourselves and theology with that Truth and not vice versa.

Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/19/11 11:21 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
kland: As you'll notice from my question, I wasn't talking about the Papacy, but the people or members. True, once it's in place, whether the Papacy or Hitler, it's hard to go against it. But I was asking, how did it come about? Are you able to explain how the people, how the members, allowed such a thing? 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?

NJK: As usual kland you need to think things thoroughly through and go to the realistic truth and source. It was all about the Papacy then, and in these Dark Ages, the generally uneduacated/unlearned laity had no choice but to believe as the absolute truth whatever the clergy taught and told them was true. That ascertainable, underlying incontrovertible, commonly known social/religious/historical fact should have answered your questions here.

kland: No it doesn't. But let's pretend it does. The assumption is that you are more educated/learned than they were. How do we know that Tom isn't more educated/learned than you are? It appears to me that your view is very similar to the people under the papacy which you are calling uneducated/unlearned. How do we know that Tom's view of God isn't at a more educated/learned level than your view?

NJK: Quite predictable slant for a response kland, from you. I don’t have time for that either. Sorry. Can’t state the facts any other way or rewrite Church history to please you! You can deal with your own version of reality, including how you choose to view the exegetical facts I presented throughout this discussion.

kland: I wasn't asking you to rewrite history. I'm not sure what you thought I disagreed with what you said was history. In fact, I thought I was giving the idea I agreed with you fully of the history.

You basically said the people of history had an ignorant view of God. What I was asking is how does one determine which of your or Tom's view is more educated/learned. Your view is similar to those you called ignorant. Tom's view of God is quite the opposite of those of the history, wouldn't you say so?


Originally Posted By: NJK
Originally Posted By: kland
I wasn't asking you to rewrite history. I'm not sure what you thought I disagreed with what you said was history.


Your resolute premise of: “let’s pretend...”. despite the incontrovertible historical facts.
You said it should have answered my question. I said it doesn't, but let's pretend it does. Which involved the comparison of how learned/unlearned you are. Nothing about rewriting history.

Quote:

Originally Posted By: kland
In fact, I thought I was giving the idea I agreed with you fully of the history.

Well you fooled me! There further is no sequitur link between that Historical reality and my discussion here. If the laity then had come to their view on their own, then you would have a thematic link here, however they did not as they outrightly could not. So it was whatever the clergy told them was truth that they followed.
I was referring to your and their view of the character of God. Would you be saying your view is similar to what the clergy told them?

Quote:

Originally Posted By: kland
You basically said the people of history had an ignorant view of God.

No....history says that they had the clergy’s view of God, thus only the clergy is at issue here, not the ‘compelled at the threat of death’ laity.
Sounds like it.

Quote:

Originally Posted By: kland
What I was asking is how does one determine which of your or Tom's view is more educated/learned.


Re-read this thread using the Acts 17:11 principle/example.
Trying my best

Quote:

Originally Posted By: kland
Your view is similar to those you called ignorant.

Wrong on two counts: (1) My view does not call for compelling people to believe in God and killing them if they do not. It is just relating the wholly Just judgement actions of God when a wrong course has been freely chosen and taken to an unacceptable point/end. (2) The Papacy (I can only deal with historical fact, and not wishful reality) was not “ignorant”, just completely and knowingly unbiblical.
We were talking about comparison view of the character of God. Did their view..... Maybe if you state what you think their view of the character of God is would be helpful in this conversation.

Quote:

Originally Posted By: kland
Tom's view of God is quite the opposite of those of the history, wouldn't you say so?


Actually it is opposite/indifferent to Biblical Facts/History.
Yes, I do agree it is quite opposite of the history of the papacy view of God's character.

Quote:

And in terms of being Biblical, by only selecting portions of the Bible that agree with its view, it is of the same type of unbiblical methodology and shaky constitution as the approach and assumptions of the Papacy. Biblical Truth is not what one wants or needs it to be, but what it (exegetically) is. We are the ones who have to align ourselves and theology with that Truth and not vice versa.
I believe he has pointed out things which it appears you ignore and that you only keep selected portions. So by you saying "selecting portions of the Bible that agree with its view" suggests that some portions do agree with his view. Therefore one could only conclude that you are merely selecting other portions, right? I've never heard Tom say he was not using the Bible exegetically, and in fact goes to extra effort to show the Bible and Ellen White supports otherwise to what you are saying it says. Which brings us back to how does one know which of your views is correct?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/20/11 05:30 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
It is self-manifest Tom, that your “have not/can’t done/do any/no wrong” attitude is not only limited to your view.


Certainly not. It's very evident in yours! smile

Quote:
That tone was meant to, if ever possible, snap you out of that skewed belief which is all derived from an incorrect and unexegetical approach to Biblical Study.


Have you found sarcasm to be an effective technique for helping others? Have you found them to respond favorably to such treatment?

Is this how you yourself would like to be treated? I'm sure there are those in this forum who view your ideas as negatively as you view mine. Would you like them to insult you and treat you sarcastically to 'snap you out of it'?

Quote:
Indeed it is obvious from your responses that you think you and your view know better than even Bible writer, which is why you outrightly ignore whatever they, including Jesus, say that contradict your selective and one-sided view.


Ask kland or APL if this is how they perceive how I think. If it is obvious this is the case, then it should be evident to everyone.

I have many faults, I'll readily admit, but one strength I have, by the grace of God, is the willingness to embrace new ideas when presented with evidence that they are correct. How I think now is miles apart from how I thought years ago, notwithstanding I was as sure I was correct in my thinking as you are that you are correct.

Often our thinking is wrong. I know there are errors in my thinking, which is one of the reasons I participate in these discussions. Jesus Christ constantly challenges our paradigm. The new wine needs new wine skins.

Quote:
I only know of one way to awaken someone who is sound asleep, and even dreaming, in a Fire.


And that's by insulting them, and being sarcastic?

Quote:
(Matt 5:17-20).


If you quoted the reference, that would be a kindness to your reader. (Their time is more valuable than yours, should be your thinking. "Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others." Phil. 2:4)

Quote:
17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.


You had to look up the text to know the reference. How much effort is it to copy and paste it?

Ok, this is what the text says. How does it justify insulting people and being sarcastic to them?

Quote:
But it is indeed your self-blinding to Biblical facts that also prevents you from seeing any of this as “insults”.


If I were prevented from seeing your writing as insults, I wouldn't be bring your insults to your attention, would I?

Quote:
And... Jesus made fitting use of sarcasm throughout Matt 23, even the entire gospels when addressing these religious leaders, for those reasons, and it probably had its “awakening” effect soon after (e.g, Acts 6:7|DA 265.4)


Here's the Acts reference:

Quote:
And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.


I don't see anything about a fitting use of sarcasm here. I also looked up the Desire of Ages text, and there was no mention of sarcasm there either. I won't quote this one, as it's rather long. Rather than having to read large amount of text, and try to guess your intent, it would be a kindness to your reader to quote the text, and state what you're thinking.

Here are some statements regarding "sarcasm" I found from the SOP:

Quote:
When in your discourses, you denounce with bitter sarcasm that which you wish to condemn, you sometimes offend your hearers, and their ears are turned from hearing you further. Carefully avoid any severity of speech that might give offense to those you desire to save from error; for it will be difficult to overcome the feelings of antagonism thus aroused.... If you will weed out the tares from your discourses, your influence for good will be increased.—Letter 366, 1906.(ellipsis original, EV 304)


Quote:
There are some who indulge in levity, sarcasm, and even mockery toward those who differ with them. Others present an array of objections to any new view; and when these objections are plainly answered by the words of Scripture, they do not acknowledge the evidence presented, nor allow themselves to be convinced. Their questioning is not for the purpose of arriving at truth, but was intended merely to confuse the minds of others. {GW92 128.1}


Quote:
Because of the men who engage in them, there are few discussions that it is possible to conduct upon right principles. Sharp thrusts are too frequently given, personalities are indulged in, and often both parties descend to sarcasm and witticism. The love of souls is lost in the greater desire for the mastery. Prejudice, deep and bitter, is often the result.... {GW 378.2}


Quote:
It was very painful to Christ that His nearest relatives should so dimly understand His mission, and should entertain 1136the ideas suggested by His enemies. But the Saviour did not answer the cruel sarcasm with words of like character. He pitied the spiritual ignorance of His brethren, and longed to give them a clear understanding of His mission (MS 33, 1911). {5BC 1135.10}


Quote:
He who yields to this spirit of self-exaltation places himself under the control of the enemy. If ministers of the gospel cannot harmonize with all his ideas and imaginings, he turns from them and speaks against them, pouring out the sarcasm and bitterness in his heart upon ministers and ministry. {TDG 192.4}


This is enough. I couldn't fine a single reference to "sarcasm" which is positive in its nature. I couldn't find a single suggestion that sarcasm is a tool of Christ. Every reference was negative; every reference suggesting sarcasm is a tool of the enemy.

Why do you view sarcasm as a positive thing?
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/20/11 07:15 AM

Tom, kland, nice, respectively: peripheral/selective, and irrational/redundant, as obliviously usual, tries, but... Neh 6:3!!!
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/20/11 06:26 PM

NJK, you say you have not the time to respond. But an observer would notice that you are the top poster of the last 30 days. And if he should look at your posts, many are not short ones but take up page after page. I think he would reasonably conclude that it would be incorrect to believe that you have not the time to respond to a simple question regarding a key comparison of the views of the character of God and how it compares to the papacy and the people under it.

But at the same time, after refusal these multiple times, it would be reasonable for him to conclude you will not answer it. But why no answer? The only conclusion that I can come up with is that the views of the character of God held by those of history, either ignorantly or forcefully, compare similarly to your view of the character of God. Which you do find disturbing. Rather than ignore it, why not reconsider if the view of those past was the correct view or if it's a coerced view of those trying to get their way.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/20/11 07:10 PM

kland, try either one of those 2 realities: (1) I no longer have the window of time I could, albeit still sacrificially, set aside of recent months [just like a baker has time to do other things while their cakes are baking in the oven], particularly when no longer substantively worthwhile; and (2) I have already stated the answer to your questions. Manifestly you don’t want to accept them, what else can I do.

You are free to, even publicly, insinuatively, “deduce”/believe whatever you fancy. It does not affect the Truth nor change the pertinent facts and reality. (cf. Neh 6:5-8)

And I’ll add, as I have factually observed, that you and Tom don’t have an issue with me, but with how God has been revealed in the Bible, especially (supposedly, according to your views) everywhere else but the Gospels, and even Jesus Himself when that suits your views! And why... ‘because EGW (supposedly) says so’??! Talk about being completely unbiblical here. The contact info for that issue is in a way other Department (Try the top most floor).

(That is indeed precisely why I do not presently engage in discussions with e.g., Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Romans Catholic and/or Atheists - because the Bible is of no final authority to them vs. their, respectively prophet, various views, traditions and/or humanistic philosophies.)

P.S. And if all of these fail, (as they probably will somehow tangentially/peripherally be made to) do consider this as, at least in part, the ‘“Passion” of the NJK Project’ (cf. Post #132443 - Matt 13:10-17 - Isa 6:9-13; cf. John 16:25, 29-31), -“in part” because I am still bothering to provide substantively, referential/indicative answers.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/21/11 08:57 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
And I’ll add, as I have factually observed, that you and Tom don’t have an issue with me, but with how God has been revealed in the Bible ...


Actually it's the other way around. You don't have any issue with us, but with how God has been revealed in the Bible and the SOP.

Do you find these sorts of comments helpful?
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/21/11 09:52 PM

They should be....and just re-read the factual record showing how you outrightly avoid the exegetically incontrovertible and explicit revelations of God in both the Bible and the SOP that don’t fit within your view. You can try to spin this however you will, your own words/actions speak against you. And claiming/implying that the Bible/SOP are wrong does not you make you and your view (circularly) correct.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/22/11 04:27 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
They should be.


No, they shouldn't, as they're so obviously naive and arrogant. It's arrogant to think *I'm* the only one who can interpret the Bible properly, because only I do exegesis correctly.

The naive part is that everybody who voices an opinion thinks there opinion is correct. No one is going to express an opinion regarding the interpretation of Scripture that they think is contrary to Scripture. So there's no point in opining that "my view is correct, and yours is wrong." This is just a gratuitous assertion, and has no value whatsoever.

There's a difference between you and me on this point. I have not made the assertion that my view is correct and yours is wrong, or that I have the truth and you don't, or anything else like that. I view my understanding of the issues we're discussing as a work in progress. I've evolved in my thinking so much in the past, I have no reason to think that won't continue to happen. I'm merely sharing ideas which have been a blessing to me, hoping they will be a blessing to others as well. I invite any comments that lead to my understanding things better.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/22/11 10:18 AM

Talk about arrogant... It rather is quite arrogant, and also naive, on your part to think that you have me all figured out. Keep trying if you have time and effort to waste! And do try another standard than yourself, because I am not at all impressed nor ascribe to the “Mr. Nice Guy” moreoverly, “just looking for his lost, adorable puppy” act, especially when, “colloquially” so to speak, ‘all your trying to do is get my into your car.’ (= your, pointedly non-exegetical and unbiblical approach to Bible study which selectively ignores what the Bible and SOP actually state.) The real problem is that you are just so oblivious to yourself and see absolutely nothing wrong with what you’ve done/are doing. And when you may have finally come to snap out of yourself and manifestly begin to hear the ‘warning calls of fire,’ you vexatiously try to blame the one who was trying to wake you out of your preferred snooze. That won’t work with me. I have never accepted to become anyone’s “(vexatious) whipping boy”, no matter the “price”, and certainly won’t start with you, And again here, the prima facie record speaks clearly against all of the “whitewashing” claim attempts you have made here.... I don’t know from where you think that you know more than the Godhead (i.e., the OT God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit) and/or could have done a better job than him in managing this GC. Frankly it all sounds like Isa 13:13, 14, -the ideological locus of the Papacy. (Dan 7:25) all vs. Matt 5:17-20). It always starts with a man thinking that he knows better than God, and that belief also always starts with an incorrect understanding and application of a Scripture. Papacy = Matt 16:18, 19; 18:18; You = selectively and sectarianly overstated EGW comments including GC 35-37 which do not even historically/exegetically/prophetically/Biblically check out, as per the Isa 8:20/Acts 17:11/1Thess 5:21 Biblical principles.

And the Bible is interpreted correctly through proper exegesis! Sorry that your view cannot allow this to be the case. Your default and deliberate ignoring exegesis, starting with, when “convenient”, dismissing the explicit text itself, does not begin to pass as exegesis. And when this is being done by an Andrews Seminary Graduate, the only sequitur conclusion that, at least I, knowingly see is either stubborn indifference and/or gross incompetence. And what makes this worse is that your degree here makes you a default leader in the Church and others, as in this thread, may be fooled to think that you are actually advancing something that is scholarly sound. And by the way, that was the exact background setting for Christ’s public denunciation for Matt 23. Try reading it also in DA 610.1-614.1ff!!
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/22/11 08:16 PM

NJK, you say you don't have time to respond to the points being made, but you're writing very long posts, so you do have time. It's just that you choose to use your time with insults and sarcasm rather than discussing issues in a friendly way.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

If you change you mind, and would like to discuss issues in a friendly way, I'd be happy to do so with you. I'm interested in your opinions and your way of thinking.

I don't need to have you all figured out to know that the statement that 'Those who disagree with me don't have issues with me, but with God,' is both arrogant and naive.
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/22/11 08:19 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Indeed it is obvious from your responses that you think you and your view know better than even Bible writer, which is why you outrightly ignore whatever they, including Jesus, say that contradict your selective and one-sided view.
I'm afraid I have not found Tom to give that impression to me.

Originally Posted By: NJK
And I’ll add, as I have factually observed, that you and Tom don’t have an issue with me, but with how God has been revealed in the Bible ...

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
They should be....and just re-read the factual record showing how you outrightly avoid the exegetically incontrovertible and explicit revelations of God in both the Bible and the SOP that don’t fit within your view. You can try to spin this however you will, your own words/actions speak against you. And claiming/implying that the Bible/SOP are wrong does not you make you and your view (circularly) correct.

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
And when you may have finally come to snap out of yourself and manifestly begin to hear the ‘warning calls of fire,’ you vexatiously try to blame the one who was trying to wake you out of your preferred snooze.

Now I may be mistaken, but it sounds to me that you are saying Tom and/or I do not interpret the Bible correctly but you indeed do.

As an additional observation, I believe it was the pope, whether honestly or dishonestly, which presented himself to the people as the only one who could properly interpret the Bible. Do you see why I see similarities as to which view is most similar to what allowed the papacy to come into being and why such will happen in the future?

Would you say your view of God's character matches the majority's, whether adventist or non-adventist? Will a proper understanding of God's character play a role in the last days? Do you think the majority will have it correct?
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/22/11 08:25 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
And again here, the prima facie record speaks clearly against all of the “whitewashing” claim attempts you have made here
Tell me if I'm mistaken, but "whitewashing" is when you are taking something bad and trying to make it sound good.

Where has Tom done this?

Saying God is going to kill you personally before you die as a result of your own choices and then saying that shows His love sounds more like "whitewashing" to me.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/22/11 09:01 PM

Tom: You’ve advanced no reason for me to “change my mind.” So why should I?? Deal with the substance and not the eternal. (Matt 23:23, 24). When you’re ready to engage Biblical exegesis, let me know. Indeed re-read my posts to see exactly what I won’t expend time on. And when you, even implicitly, treat the Godhead as if they can be senile geezers, because they don’t stoically/indifferently/“open-mindedly” deal with things like you, you do have a issue squarely with the Godhead.

Funny that you claim that ‘you are interested in how I think’, but you won’t read my blog!?? Talk about a vacuous/facade/“pietistic show” statement!!

kland: You’re still not thinking things through, especially Spiritually.... Since I don’t “babysit” SDA’s, I won’t help you here. (Nothing personal, just my general policy). You don’t want a “pope,” but you sure act like a Roman Catholic who needs a priest to tell them what the Bible says/means.

Answer to both of you: Neh 6:3.

(And if either of you think this here takes any substantial time or effort, your just wishfully fancying yourselves. The annoying aggravation... that’s something else...)
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/25/11 05:57 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
You don’t want a “pope,” but you sure act like a Roman Catholic who needs a priest to tell them what the Bible says/means.
I guess what I was objecting to was the suggestion that you are that vicar of pope.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/25/11 11:36 PM

Quote:
Tom: You’ve advanced no reason for me to “change my mind.”


This isn't accurate. I've given several reasons, but you've rejected them. That's not the same thing.

For example, I've pointed out that if you have an idea that nobody else has had, that should at least make you skeptical. Also, I've suggested reasons for why you shouldn't use sarcasm and insults. I wrote a long post on this, with many inspired statements, but you just brushed off the post.

Quote:
So why should I??


It depends upon what we're talking about here. If it's just theological issues, I wasn't so much attempting to get you to change your mind as to try to understand why you were thinking the way you were. If we're talking about not using sarcasm and insults, or quoting texts that you cite, then you should change your mind out of consideration for others.

Quote:
Deal with the substance and not the eternal. (Matt 23:23, 24).


This is a good example. This is a cryptic statement, followed by a reference, without the text. So to figure out what you mean, which may well be an insult anyway, I'd have to look up the text, and decipher what you wrote. And this is because it's not "worthwhile" to you to clearly write out what you're thinking, and to quote a text.

Quote:
When you’re ready to engage Biblical exegesis, let me know. Indeed re-read my posts to see exactly what I won’t expend time on.


Apparently anything having to do with substance, as opposed to insults or sarcasm.

Quote:
And when you, even implicitly, treat the Godhead as if they can be senile geezers, because they don’t stoically/indifferently/“open-mindedly” deal with things like you, you do have a issue squarely with the Godhead.


This is completely out of line. I've said nothing negative about the Godhead in any way, whether implicitly or otherwise. For you to construe a disagreement I have with how *you* understand something as my, I can't even repeat what you wrote, it's so disrespectful, is the sort of thing I was referring to in my earlier comments.

Quote:
Funny that you claim that ‘you are interested in how I think’, but you won’t read my blog!??


I've read some of your blog. I have a limited amount of time. When it's on point to some issue we're discussing, I would read that. I would read it now, if you want to provide a link to some topic we've been discussing here.

Quote:
Talk about a vacuous/facade/“pietistic show” statement!!


It's too bad you have such an apparently negative view of others. Why wouldn't I be interested in how you think?

For one thing, how you think is probably not unique. So in learning how you think, I am learning how others think as well.

For example, in regards to the tree of life issue, where sin is not organically related to death, I've come across others with a similar idea. This is an idea which has never made sense to me, so I was interested in at least trying to understand how you're thinking when you come to the conclusions that you do.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/26/11 02:25 AM

kland: My suggestion, as necessarily usual: Try dealing with reality (i.e., what I actually said and meant), then you won’t have such circular misunderstanding.

Tom: I could easily debunk every point that you’ve advanced, but that would be an utter waste of my time as I have already address the more substantive issues and would simply be restating those points. As for the peripheral issues, there no use wasting time dealing with your spurious spins. Btw, have you yet read my here, issue pertinent, “War in Heaven” blog post??? That is indeed foundational to my view here. And it is actually too bad that you’ve opted to, and continue to obfuscate in this discussion, and that quite spuriously!! And if you need to take what I have said derogatively, instead of honestly understanding why they are statements of factual depictions, then I really can’t help you. And if applicably quoting Jesus is, “(derogative) sarcasm and insults” then we’re all in trouble!??
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/26/11 03:17 AM

NJK, if you have in mind the points I've made regarding insults and sarcasm, and being considerate of others, I'm sure you couldn't debunk these points. If you'd like to try, please start by responding to post which had the quotations from the Spirit of Prophecy. You'll note in that post that she points outs that Christ *resisted* the temptation to use sarcasm in His treatment of others.

I was unable to find any reference in her writings that referenced either sarcasm or insulting others as a positive thing, in any circumstance. I was interested in your assertion that Christ used these methods, which leads me to believe that perhaps you view these methods in a positive light. If you'd like to defend this idea, that using sarcasm on others and insulting them is a method approved by heaven, and is an effective way of dealing with others in regards to spiritual things, I'd be interested in reading this.

I can't think of any points I made other than these, so if you had something else in mind, you'd have to point out what it is.

If you'll post the link to your blog post, I'd be happy to take a look at it.

Regarding discussing substantial issues, the ball is in your court. I've responded to several of your posts, and am waiting for a response to them. If you'll respond, I'll respond in kind. Or I'll await the link to your war in heaven post, and respond to that.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/26/11 11:24 AM

Btw perhaps fixing the typo in the following previous statement may diffuse this “perfect example” attempt of yours here:

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Deal with the substance and not the external. (Matt 23:23, 24).


And, really/seriously, what’s the substantive difference between quoting a verse vs. citing its reference, (other than taking more of my time). As I said, I’ll take the time to state the text when there is a significant exegetical adjustment to make.

While on this Matt 23:24 issue here (which also involves your completely ignoring of the many Scriptures/passages that your view cannot explain away), why don’t you, e.g., at the very least, provide the verse reference where you claim to have seen that “God killed Saul” vs. ‘something to the contrary’!?

--------

Perhaps the term “sarcasm” only can connote: ‘witty language used to convey insults or scorn’ and that is either what I meant nor what I believed Christ used. Hence I do not see my statements as such. Along the lines of Christ’s figurative, even at times extreme language to convey a truth (and the Truth does hurt at times when indeed true), my comments were intended to convey such, especially ‘thought out truths’, i.e., ideas/positions taken to their incontrovertible truthful/natural extreme. So e.g., when you (1) just ignore comments which address God’s legislation of Capital Punishment and depopulating/dispossessing wars (2) imply that Christ’s direct judgement parable on the destruction of Jerusalem was wrong vs. EGW statements (3) choose to dismiss points made in the Bible and also SOP, even ‘preferring’ the mere speculations of men (e.g., ‘Sodom and Gomorrah’s volcano’), among many other examples that can be cited here, then that is tantamount to “implying that ‘any member of this united Godhead can be like old senile geezer’ as people who are deemed and or clinically diagnosed as such are similarly just so ignored and dismissed by “sane” people as they are seen as people who don’t know/mean what they are saying and/or eccentrically overreact, among other slightings to them. (And, also in keeping with the Truth of Matt 23:24, I consider (your) obfuscating [= (a form of) lying] to be much more “condemnable” that my use of figurative speech to actually also accentuate that self-justified waywardness (Matt 7:1-5)).

As I already illustratively said, it was with this extreme cautioning that I made my comments as (a) other substantive approaches were quite self-evidently so obliviously and/or indifferently being chucked aside (b) a completely unbiblical approach of not making the Bible the final authority/arbitrator was not being used. And if one really understands this ‘non- pejorative but figurative summary warning statements’ you also realize that they are, if you choose to accept them, a better alternative than the cutting truth of plain statements. However, as in Christ’s time, people will always opt to only see what they can surfacely claim to find fault with and thus seek to save face. So, also as with Christ’s doing such figures of speech will either constructive illumine one in the dark, or confrontatingly blind them, all depending on how one wants to “use/approach” them.

Once again, here’s the link to the “War in Heaven” Post.

My records show that I have not responded to only two posts of yours which I had considered to be substantive. Namely Posts #132660 & #132682. After that, your posts insisted on dealing with non-substantive and peripheral things. I thus saw no point in continuing to respond to your prior posts, especially as these also had, in my opinion, objections that were non-exegetical, obfuscating and “spins”, all of which you could have honestly answered for yourself, especially as a Seminarian.

Btw, as a general principle/statement, Christ could only “imitate” the Father, and perfectly at that, by what He read in the Law and the Prophets (=OT). That was the major source of His revelation of the Father, if not the only source other than what He stated He was shown (e.g., Luke 10:18 or some other SOP indications of this. (Other non-visionary revelations are actually related in the Gospels (e.g., Matt 17:1-13). So to not take into consideration all of the acts of God in the OT, as they have been revealed by God’s Spirit through His prophets and other authors (cf. 2 Pet 1:20, 21 & 2 Tim 3:16), is doubly unbiblical.

And you are overlooking all of the ‘balls of substantive points’ that are strewn in your court which you just did not bother to hit back during this discussion. Indeed it completely myths me how you claim to not see those substantive points, while many times, you quibbling addressed a peripheral comment right next to it, or worst, spun that substantive point into a completely irrelevant tangent. You can retrace your points of departures throughout this discussion if you now want to answer these issues head on, otherwise, I had made my point, which includes my mere reference citations of supporting Bible texts, and most honest reader would have already clearly see that. Patently, not addressing them when they were later restated just confirmed your modus operandi here. So the discussion onus is entirely upon you here.

---

Another general/foundational point here, my view, as I had initially stated in my first post in this thread, of God’s capital punishment for sin is that some of them were flagrantly high-handed and if allowed to mature to their fullness who immediately threaten the life of even righteous people. That is how/why I see that God intervenes/legislates to justly bring about “premature” deaths. You instead claim a supposed ‘organic link between sin and death’, then if that is to be the answer here, why weren’t every single sin legislated to be deserving of Capital Punishment and why didn’t God instruct Israel to destroy and depopulate all of the surrounding sinful nations against, including those not close to them (Deut 20:10-18)?? Under your view, God actually cannot be fair, merciful nor just if ‘all sin is to be equally, organically deadly’.
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/26/11 03:25 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
why don’t you, e.g., at the very least, provide the verse reference where you claim to have seen that “God killed Saul” vs. ‘something to the contrary’!?
MM didn't know there was something contrary to God killing Saul. If I have correctly deciphered your statement, would you be saying you are not aware of a contrary statement either? And if such a statement can be shown, does that mean other places, where you are ignorant of other statements, there could, in fact, be such statements? Taking it further, does that mean not being aware of something doesn't make it false?

(Try looking at the first part of the relevant chapter)
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/26/11 06:36 PM

kland,

-It is I, NJK Project, who made that comment,

-I don’t begin to understand what point you are trying to make,

-Tom likely will as he made that comment.

My approach here, as normative, is to first ascertain what the concrete reality is before speculating.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/27/11 02:33 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
NJK:Btw perhaps fixing the typo in the following previous statement may diffuse this “perfect example” attempt of yours here:

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Deal with the substance and not the external. (Matt 23:23, 24).


And, really/seriously, what’s the substantive difference between quoting a verse vs. citing its reference, (other than taking more of my time).


That's the main difference, indeed. You feel that your time is more valuable than your readers, but Scripture enjoins us to consider the interests of others as more valuable than our own. This is how God Himself treats us, and if ever there was anyone who had time which was more valuable than our own, it was God's. But look how generous Christ was with His time.

I'm sure some of the time you know the text by heart, in which case it would indeed take more of your time to look it up and copy/paste it. However, there may be many people who read these posts, so if there's 10 people who spend a minute to look up the text, this is 10 minutes you could have saved of other people's time by simply quoting it yourself.

And if there are cases where you look up the text yourself online, it doesn't make any sense at all not to copy/paste it, as you're right there anyway.

Quote:
As I said, I’ll take the time to state the text when there is a significant exegetical adjustment to make.

While on this Matt 23:24 issue here (which also involves your completely ignoring of the many Scriptures/passages that your view cannot explain away), why don’t you, e.g., at the very least, provide the verse reference where you claim to have seen that “God killed Saul” vs. ‘something to the contrary’!?


Is it possible for you to make comments or requests without throwing insults at the same time? If it is, please control yourself, and do so. It makes it very unpleasant to read your posts. Don't you think that engaging in a discussion of spiritual matters should be a pleasant activity?

Quote:
and did not inquire of the LORD. Therefore He killed him and turned the kingdom to David the son of Jesse. (1 Chron. 10:14; NASB)


This says that the LORD killed Saul.

Quote:
So Saul took his sword and fell on it.


This says Saul committed suicide.

Quote:
Perhaps the term “sarcasm” only can connote: ‘witty language used to convey insults or scorn’ and that is either what I meant nor what I believed Christ used. Hence I do not see my statements as such.


I assume you mean "neither what I meant nor what I believed Christ used."

Here's an example of what your sarcasm:

Quote:
-And...What’s that word that Jesus fittingly used throughout Matt 23....oh yeah “blind...”


I can't believe you don't understand both that this is sarcastic, and why it's sarcastic. It's also difficult for me to believe that you would think that Christ would use language and tactics like this.

Quote:
Along the lines of Christ’s figurative, even at times extreme language to convey a truth (and the Truth does hurt at times when indeed true)


If the truth hurts when true, then it doesn't make sense to add insults or sarcasm on top of that. The truth itself causes enough pain. So it should be administered as gently as possible, and this is exactly what I see in Christ.

Here's a good example of this. In the feast at Simon's house, Simon said to himself, "If this man were a prophet (referring to Christ), he would know what manner of woman this was (referring to his niece, Mary Magdalene)." Now it was Simon himself who had led Mary into sin, so he was being extremely hypocritical here. Christ knew exactly what was going on, and dealt with things in such a way that only Simon understood what was going on. That is, only Simon understood that Christ knew of Simon's hypocrisy, and that Christ was explaining this to Simon in the parable He told. The SOP tells us that had Christ not been so gentle and tactful, Simon would have been eternally lost. Instead, because of Christ's gentleness and care, a soul was one for the kingdom.

Quote:
, my comments were intended to convey such, especially ‘thought out truths’, i.e., ideas/positions taken to their incontrovertible truthful/natural extreme.


It doesn't come across like this at all. It just seems like your lashing out because your angry.

Quote:
So e.g., when you (1) just ignore comments which address God’s legislation of Capital Punishment and depopulating/dispossessing wars (2) imply that Christ’s direct judgement parable on the destruction of Jerusalem was wrong vs. EGW statements


Regarding (1), I didn't ignore these comments, but commented on them. Regarding (2), you misunderstood the point here. The point wasn't that Christ's direct judgment parable was wrong (which a little thought should show is an impossible idea), but that the language was directly attributing to God that which God permitted. This really shouldn't have been misunderstood, since this is exactly the point I made, and the language that I used.

The context was supporting the idea that inspiration often presents God as doing that which He permits. I gave several examples of this, of which the above was one.

Quote:
(3) choose to dismiss points made in the Bible and also SOP, even ‘preferring’ the mere speculations of men (e.g., ‘Sodom and Gomorrah’s volcano’)


It's a common idea, if you look at commentaries, that a natural disaster of some sort occurred in the 5 cities on the plain. There's nothing in either Scripture nor the SOP that precludes this idea. The idea cited is no more speculative than your own.

Quote:
, among many other examples that can be cited here, then that is tantamount to “implying that ‘any member of this united Godhead can be like old senile geezer’


This is an example of something that shouldn't be written. This is disrespectful to God, in addition to myself. I'm really not understanding how you don't perceive this.

Quote:
as people who are deemed and or clinically diagnosed as such are similarly just so ignored and dismissed by “sane” people as they are seen as people who don’t know/mean what they are saying and/or eccentrically overreact, among other slightings to them. (And, also in keeping with the Truth of Matt 23:24, I consider (your) obfuscating [= (a form of) lying] to be much more “condemnable” that my use of figurative speech to actually also accentuate that self-justified waywardness (Matt 7:1-5)).


This was very unclear. Perhaps shorter sentences would be clearer.

Quote:
As I already illustratively said, it was with this extreme cautioning that I made my comments as (a) other substantive approaches were quite self-evidently so obliviously and/or indifferently being chucked aside (b) a completely unbiblical approach of not making the Bible the final authority/arbitrator was not being used.


There's nothing denoting caution in your writing. It just comes across as spiteful and angry. Please feel free to get the opinion of others reading what you wrote if you disagree.

Quote:
And if one really understands this ‘non- pejorative but figurative summary warning statements’ you also realize that they are, if you choose to accept them, a better alternative than the cutting truth of plain statements.


When you write something like, "-And...What’s that word that Jesus fittingly used throughout Matt 23....oh yeah 'blind...'," it's clear what's going on.

Quote:
However, as in Christ’s time, people will always opt to only see what they can surfacely claim to find fault with and thus seek to save face.


This is another example of the type of thing I was referring to earlier. It's a delusion to think that you're playing the role of Christ with your insults and sarcasm. I realize it's difficult, if not impossible, for you to accept such comments from me, since you're angry at me, so I ask you to take counsel from someone you trust. Ask someone else to read your posts, someone whom you trust to be objective, and ask them what they think of your tone.

Quote:
So, also as with Christ’s doing such figures of speech will either constructive illumine one in the dark, or confrontatingly blind them, all depending on how one wants to “use/approach” them.

Once again, here’s the link to the “War in Heaven” Post.


Thanks. I'll take a look.

Quote:
My records show that I have not responded to only two posts of yours which I had considered to be substantive.


How could anyone disagree with you over what posts you consider to be substantive?

Quote:
Namely Posts #132660 & #132682. After that, your posts insisted on dealing with non-substantive and peripheral things.


I am responding to what you wrote. I'm dealing with the things you're choosing to talk about.

Quote:
I thus saw no point in continuing to respond to your prior posts, especially as these also had, in my opinion, objections that were non-exegetical, obfuscating and “spins”, all of which you could have honestly answered for yourself, especially as a Seminarian.


You're not dealing with the real issues involved, IMO. This is a reason I've suggested dialoging with kland. I perceive he's been trying to make the same point.

Quote:
Btw, as a general principle/statement, Christ could only “imitate” the Father, and perfectly at that, by what He read in the Law and the Prophets (=OT). That was the major source of His revelation of the Father, if not the only source other than what He stated He was shown (e.g., Luke 10:18 or some other SOP indications of this.


This is exactly the point I was making. So if we perceive a difference between what Christ revealed in the Gospels, and what Christ read in the Law and the Prophets, then we are perceiving a difference which Christ Himself did not perceive, since He revealed that which He perceived. So by considering what Christ revealed, we see not only what Christ did and said, but what Christ perceived God to be saying and doing in the Law and the Prophets.

Quote:
(Other non-visionary revelations are actually related in the Gospels (e.g., Matt 17:1-13). So to not take into consideration all of the acts of God in the OT, as they have been revealed by God’s Spirit through His prophets and other authors (cf. 2 Pet 1:20, 21 & 2 Tim 3:16), is doubly unbiblical.

And you are overlooking all of the ‘balls of substantive points’ that are strewn in your court which you just did not bother to hit back during this discussion. Indeed it completely myths me how you claim to not see those substantive points, while many times, you quibbling addressed a peripheral comment right next to it, or worst, spun that substantive point into a completely irrelevant tangent. You can retrace your points of departures throughout this discussion if you now want to answer these issues head on, otherwise, I had made my point, which includes my mere reference citations of supporting Bible texts, and most honest reader would have already clearly see that. Patently, not addressing them when they were later restated just confirmed your modus operandi here. So the discussion onus is entirely upon you here.


Your writing is verbose and difficult to understand at times. I have a limited amount of time, but have tried to respond as best I can, given the above limitations. I have repeatedly suggested if there is some point I have missed, to please restate it. Instead of doing so, you keep insulting me, but these insults ring hollow. Why not simply restate what point it is you are wishing to make, or whatever question you have? As I've pointed out, this is what MM and I do with each other. We've been discussing things for years. Often one of us feels like a point or question isn't being addressed, and we bring that up, often time repeatedly, until we feel it's been resolved. We don't feel the need to level charges against the other in so doing.

Quote:
Another general/foundational point here, my view, as I had initially stated in my first post in this thread, of God’s capital punishment for sin is that some of them were flagrantly high-handed and if allowed to mature to their fullness who immediately threaten the life of even righteous people. That is how/why I see that God intervenes/legislates to justly bring about “premature” deaths. You instead claim a supposed ‘organic link between sin and death’, then if that is to be the answer here, why weren’t every single sin legislated to be deserving of Capital Punishment and why didn’t God instruct Israel to destroy and depopulate all of the surrounding sinful nations against, including those not close to them (Deut 20:10-18)?? Under your view, God actually cannot be fair, merciful nor just if ‘all sin is to be equally, organically deadly’.


The organic relationship between sin and death is dealing with the second death. Before the resurrection, there's bound to be much injustice, because we live in a world where Satan has a great deal of sway.

Regarding events of judgment, a key point I have been making is that there are thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which God guards us. It's simply unnecessary for God to directly use violence to judge others, as it's more than sufficient for Him to remove His protection to enable whatever destructive act one might desire (I'm speaking here in the language of men, as men understand things, as God does not desire any evil to come across anyone, and these things which God permits to occur, He does so with great remorse).
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/27/11 06:07 AM

Quote:
NJK: Btw perhaps fixing the typo in the following previous statement may diffuse this “perfect example” attempt of yours here:

NJK: Deal with the substance and not the external. (Matt 23:23, 24).

NJK: And, really/seriously, what’s the substantive difference between quoting a verse vs. citing its reference, (other than taking more of my time).

Tom: That's the main difference, indeed. You feel that your time is more valuable than your readers, but Scripture enjoins us to consider the interests of others as more valuable than our own. This is how God Himself treats us, and if ever there was anyone who had time which was more valuable than our own, it was God's. But look how generous Christ was with His time.

Tom: I'm sure some of the time you know the text by heart, in which case it would indeed take more of your time to look it up and copy/paste it. However, there may be many people who read these posts, so if there's 10 people who spend a minute to look up the text, this is 10 minutes you could have saved of other people's time by simply quoting it yourself.

Tom: And if there are cases where you look up the text yourself online, it doesn't make any sense at all not to copy/paste it, as you're right there anyway.


I know I am using those key saved moments from not doing the work of pointedly selecting/copying/special pasting/spacing/numbering/formatting/coding Bible texts [from my Bibleworks] (which people will probably read in their own favorite version) to work on my humanitarian works project, including saving the lives of would be aborted infants. So I consider these more than particularly non-aiding SDAs and also myself here. That procedure is not going to change so no need to try to make an issue out of it. (And it probably would take over 10X more time for me to do so with texts, especially the many texts I cite, than someone looking it up. And saving other people time is a non-factor here as our time is individually, applicably distinct and not cumulative.)

Quote:
NJK: As I said, I’ll take the time to state the text when there is a significant exegetical adjustment to make.

NJK: While on this Matt 23:24 issue here (which also involves your completely ignoring of the many Scriptures/passages that your view cannot explain away), why don’t you, e.g., at the very least, provide the verse reference where you claim to have seen that “God killed Saul” vs. ‘something to the contrary’!?

Tom: Is it possible for you to make comments or requests without throwing insults at the same time? If it is, please control yourself, and do so. It makes it very unpleasant to read your posts.


Applicably citing Matt 23:24 or anyone other such factual comments of Christ such as ‘blind” are not insults. Sorry you can’t “see” (pun intended) the applicable fact here. And to render moot the “reaction”, become conscious of the offensive “action” and seek to avoid it. As I said before, I don’t suffer for, or “take it” for other peoples misdeeds or errors, especially when baseless and/or indifferent, (cf. John 18:22, 23), except when paramountly, Spiritually purposeful (Matt 26:59-63ff; 27:12-14).

Originally Posted By: Tom
Don't you think that engaging in a discussion of spiritual matters should be a pleasant activity?


It is indeed because of the Great Spiritual implications of this discussion, at least possibly, that such quibblingly majoring on minor issues indeed upsets and annoys me. I know I am not merely aiming to ‘have a good time” here but to get at that achievable absolute Truth. (Cf. 1 Sam 17:28-30). So the ignoring of exegesis, especially from those who can, or should be able to, engage it, is moreoverly more “mystifying” to me.

Quote:
Bible: and did not inquire of the LORD. Therefore He killed him and turned the kingdom to David the son of Jesse. (1 Chron. 10:14; NASB)

Tom: This says that the LORD killed Saul.

Bible: So Saul took his sword and fell on it.

Tom: This says Saul committed suicide.


1 Chron 10:14 uses a Hiphil tense to say “killed”, meaning that God’s killing action would be ‘indirect and mediated’. So by God not doing anything to protect Saul’s life in that war, as he normatively did when any Israelite went out to fight, and then with Saul being captured and about to be put to death, before he pre-empted this and did it himself, there, exegetically is no contradiction here. 1 Chron 10:14 already was indicating that this would be done through an indirect and mediated action of God.

Quote:
NJK: Perhaps the term “sarcasm” only can connote: ‘witty language used to convey insults or scorn’ and that is neither what I meant nor what I believed Christ used. Hence I do not see my statements as such.

Tom: I assume you mean "neither what I meant nor what I believed Christ used."

Tom: Here's an example of what your sarcasm:

Originally Posted By: NJK Project

-And...What’s that word that Jesus fittingly used throughout Matt 23....oh yeah “blind...”


Tom: I can't believe you don't understand both that this is sarcastic, and why it's sarcastic. It's also difficult for me to believe that you would think that Christ would use language and tactics like this.


Again being (spiritually) blind is not sarcasm nor an insult and indeed here based upon factual/substantive observations. Claiming this is an insult impinges Christ’s use of it. So the issue here is that you are the one who is not “seeing” the applicability here and not that it is sarcasm or an insult.

Quote:
NJK: Along the lines of Christ’s figurative, even at times extreme language to convey a truth (and the Truth does hurt at times when indeed true)

Tom: If the truth hurts when true, then it doesn't make sense to add insults or sarcasm on top of that. The truth itself causes enough pain. So it should be administered as gently as possible, and this is exactly what I see in Christ.


I actually have not added any “insults or sarcasm” to the factual observation (=Truth) statements I made to you. You simply are not taking them as I factually and non pejoratively meant them.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Here's a good example of this. In the feast at Simon's house, Simon said to himself, "If this man were a prophet (referring to Christ), he would know what manner of woman this was (referring to his niece, Mary Magdalene)." Now it was Simon himself who had led Mary into sin, so he was being extremely hypocritical here. Christ knew exactly what was going on, and dealt with things in such a way that only Simon understood what was going on. That is, only Simon understood that Christ knew of Simon's hypocrisy, and that Christ was explaining this to Simon in the parable He told. The SOP tells us that had Christ not been so gentle and tactful, Simon would have been eternally lost. Instead, because of Christ's gentleness and care, a soul was one for the kingdom.


Manifestly if Simon, the Pharisee had immediately proceeded to audibly condemn Christ with these blind thoughts, he would been met/treated as Christ usually dealt with those Jewish leaders, however he partly swallowed his pride here, which warranted this merciful treatment. Also Christ would be dealing with unexpressed thoughts, so, as to not compel faith here, he had to veiledly address this opposition, as He mercifully deemed it necessary.

Quote:
NJK: , my comments were intended to convey such, especially ‘thought out truths’, i.e., ideas/positions taken to their incontrovertible truthful/natural extreme.

Tom: It doesn't come across like this at all. It just seems like your lashing out because your angry.


As stated above, I am, with cause, upset, annoyed and angry, pointedly because it is causing an unnecessary and wasteful consumption of time on my part. Indeed nothing like e.g., shoddy exegesis from one who could, or should be able to, do better to cause this. The ignorance of Biblical statements similarly also causes this. Seriously speaking, I see it as “righteous indignation” and there “righteously” is plenty of that in the Bible (e.g., Neh 13:25; Matt 3:7) even with Jesus Himself (e.g., twice forcefully cleansing the Temple.) [Of course, you are surely going to object to that reaction of mine here, however seek to substantively deal with the implicated facts here.]

Quote:
NJK: So e.g., when you (1) just ignore comments which address God’s legislation of Capital Punishment and depopulating/dispossessing wars (2) imply that Christ’s direct judgement parable on the destruction of Jerusalem was wrong vs. EGW statements

Regarding (1), I didn't ignore these comments, but commented on them.


Do point me to the posts where you have commented on, especially my comments to you on God-Ordained Capital Punishment. I have not see those responses.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Regarding (2), you misunderstood the point here. The point wasn't that Christ's direct judgment parable was wrong (which a little thought should show is an impossible idea), but that the language was directly attributing to God that which God permitted. This really shouldn't have been misunderstood, since this is exactly the point I made, and the language that I used.

The context was supporting the idea that inspiration often presents God as doing that which He permits. I gave several examples of this, of which the above was one.


Your view that the Bible shows God doing things that are only permitted is not tenable, as I see that God also does what he directly allows. (E.g, the ‘serpents in the wilderness’) Also the other examples you have cited thus far (Saul, Destruction of Jerusalem) do not check out. The former here was demonstrated above, the latter in that Christ made His predictive parable statements stating a direct implication of God. And historically, great mercy was involved in that 70 A.D. judgement which automatically showed that God did not enitrely leave it up to the control of Satan, if he had any control in it at all. As I have stated, this is because the end of the world would not come to occur then as it could have. Also EGW application of that second method of destruction here does not check out on my levels and points. I thus have not seen that those inserted EGW comments/applications in the GC account, pp. 35-37, to be validly done.

You are also, from my exegetical methodology perspective, wrongly using a handful of supposed, and actually not conclusive examples, to define all other examples. That is not proper exegesis. The whole foundation of your view is not solid to me for you to be going ahead and building a high rise building on it.

So, quite seriously speaking, I see not valid, even viable Biblical, even SOP basis for your ‘wholesale, indirect Divine judgements’ view.

Quote:
NJK: (3) choose to dismiss points made in the Bible and also SOP, even ‘preferring’ the mere speculations of men (e.g., ‘Sodom and Gomorrah’s volcano’)

Tom: It's a common idea, if you look at commentaries, that a natural disaster of some sort occurred in the 5 cities on the plain. There's nothing in either Scripture nor the SOP that precludes this idea. The idea cited is no more speculative than your own.


I’ve never heard of it before, at all in neither Christian or SDA circles. Commentaries don’t begin to make any significant statement here as they are merely speculating. The clear Bible and SOP statements do not leave opportunity this view as they both say that God cause the fire and brimstone to come down from Heaven and EGW would have easily been shown this. Also it can easily be verified if a volcano exists on that archeological site. Volcanoes just don’t disappear. And how does a supposed Flood Salt rock eruption come to affect that S&G destruction hundreds of years later?

Quote:
NJK:, among many other examples that can be cited here, then that is tantamount to “implying that ‘any member of this united Godhead can be like old senile geezer’

Tom: This is an example of something that shouldn't be written. This is disrespectful to God, in addition to myself. I'm really not understanding how you don't perceive this.


How does this come to be disrespectful to/of God. It’s not even remotely true and is indeed not aimed at all at God! That statement is only speaking of what your view is doing to the Godhead. So the equivocating attempt here is completely spurious and diversionary. Indeed I wrote this in order to end this optional/backseat, non-authoritative treatment of the Godhead done from your view. And, as with all other views where God is so slighted, this all stems from, factually speaking, poor exegesis and shoddy/unscientific exegetical methods.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: NJK Project
as people who are deemed and or clinically diagnosed as such are similarly just so ignored and dismissed by “sane” people as they are seen as people who don’t know/mean what they are saying and/or eccentrically overreact, among other slightings to them.

(And, also in keeping with the Truth of Matt 23:24, I consider (your) obfuscating [= (a form of) lying] to be much more “condemnable” that my use of figurative speech to actually also accentuate that self-justified waywardness (Matt 7:1-5)).


Tom: This was very unclear. Perhaps shorter sentences would be clearer.


Actually your summary response here is very unclear. Upon re-reading it still seems perfectly clear to me. I see no need to restate/edit it. Try reading it slowly.

Quote:
NJK: As I already illustratively said, it was with this extreme cautioning that I made my comments as (a) other substantive approaches were quite self-evidently so obliviously and/or indifferently being chucked aside (b) a completely unbiblical approach of not making the Bible the final authority/arbitrator was not being used.

Tom: There's nothing denoting caution in your writing. It just comes across as spiteful and angry. Please feel free to get the opinion of others reading what you wrote if you disagree.


This issue has already been addressed in various answers above. An objective, responsible attitude on your part would heed the cautioning warnings here instead of disregarding them. But of course since you are not seeing anything wrong with your approach/view then that probably can’t begin to be cautioning, Like, surfacely being viewed, a cross-guard holding up his Stop Sign at an intersection on a late Sunday evening.

Quote:
NJK: And if one really understands this ‘non- pejorative but figurative summary warning statements’ you also realize that they are, if you choose to accept them, a better alternative than the cutting truth of plain statements.

Tom: When you write something like, "-And...What’s that word that Jesus fittingly used throughout Matt 23....oh yeah 'blind...'," it's clear what's going on.


As I already, substantiatively, said , I am indeed upset/annoyed/angry. And to me, deferring to Christ’s use of “blind” here is quite commendable, even I may be the only saying so. Truth is not a popularity contest. I am used by now to people vexatiously spuriously/tangentially/peripherally quibbling/obfuscating/ with my substantive/factual/exegetical statements which they cannot answer head on and/or counter.

Quote:
NJK: However, as in Christ’s time, people will always opt to only see what they can surfacely claim to find fault with and thus seek to save face. So, also as with Christ’s doing such figures of speech will either constructive illumine one in the dark, or confrontatingly blind them, all depending on how one wants to “use/approach” them.

Tom: This is another example of the type of thing I was referring to earlier. It's a delusion to think that you're playing the role of Christ with your insults and sarcasm. I realize it's difficult, if not impossible, for you to accept such comments from me, since you're angry at me, so I ask you to take counsel from someone you trust. Ask someone else to read your posts, someone whom you trust to be objective, and ask them what they think of your tone.


Applying the Bible where pertinently applicable is not in any way a delusion. And one does not have to be, or think to be Christ to validly do that. Again deal with the substantive implicated issues if you really want to make any valid countering/explanative/disculpating point here.

Quote:
NJK: My records show that I have not responded to only two posts of yours which I had considered to be substantive. Namely Posts #132660 & #132682.

Tom: How could anyone disagree with you over what posts you consider to be substantive?


Easy... through substantive and factual answers/arguments. Indeed the issues addressed in those posts objectively show what was “substantive” vs. ‘what was only dealing with anything else but the substantive.’

Quote:
NJK: After that, your posts insisted on dealing with non-substantive and peripheral things.

Tom: I am responding to what you wrote. I'm dealing with the things you're choosing to talk about.


As I see it, you have quite slyly tried to deal with anything and everything else that was not pointedly relevant to the topical substance of this discussion, indeed many times, as it can easily be seen, “leap frogging” substantive points to deal instead with the peripheral. The ironic things is that if you had chosen to deal with the substantive, including engaging exegesis, these side issues would not even have become a factor. You can easily look over this discussion and causally see where and why these side/peripheral issues came to be.

Quote:
NJK:I thus saw no point in continuing to respond to your prior posts, especially as these also had, in my opinion, objections that were non-exegetical, obfuscating and “spins”, all of which you could have honestly answered for yourself, especially as a Seminarian.

Tom: You're not dealing with the real issues involved, IMO. This is a reason I've suggested dialoging with kland. I perceive he's been trying to make the same point.


IMO, the issues you are claiming are either not: biblically substantiated, exegetically valid and/or not pointedly pertinent/relevant.

Quote:
NJK: Btw, as a general principle/statement, Christ could only “imitate” the Father, and perfectly at that, by what He read in the Law and the Prophets (=OT). That was the major source of His revelation of the Father, if not the only source other than what He stated He was shown (e.g., Luke 10:18 or some other SOP indications of this.

NJK: (Other non-visionary revelations are actually related in the Gospels (e.g., Matt 17:1-13). So to not take into consideration all of the acts of God in the OT, as they have been revealed by God’s Spirit through His prophets and other authors (cf. 2 Pet 1:20, 21 & 2 Tim 3:16), is doubly unbiblical.

Tom: This is exactly the point I was making. So if we perceive a difference between what Christ revealed in the Gospels, and what Christ read in the Law and the Prophets, then we are perceiving a difference which Christ Himself did not perceive, since He revealed that which He perceived. So by considering what Christ revealed, we see not only what Christ did and said, but what Christ perceived God to be saying and doing in the Law and the Prophets.


The fundamental/crucial/pivotal problem is that you, incomprehensibly, “selectively” do not see that Christ did not e.g., do away with Capital Punishment, legal restitution, desire to immediately send Hell Fire on Earth, use physical force to immediately execute his desire (Temple cleansings); designed to keep the Jewish leaders in their Spiritual, and that, defaultly, darkness from the start, and so that judgement and physical destruction would be achieved, spoke of these judgements as acts effectuated by God Himself, among many other such examples where Christ did indeed uphold the righteous judgement acts of God of the OT. You only see what your view one-sidedly aims to see. I therefore see no difference at all between the OT God and Jesus, whereas you do, hence the need of your view to seek to, effectively, “whitewash”, the OT factual accounts.

Quote:
NJK: And you are overlooking all of the ‘balls of substantive points’ that are strewn in your court which you just did not bother to hit back during this discussion. Indeed it completely myths me how you claim to not see those substantive points, while many times, you quibbling addressed a peripheral comment right next to it, or worst, spun that substantive point into a completely irrelevant tangent. You can retrace your points of departures throughout this discussion if you now want to answer these issues head on, otherwise, I had made my point, which includes my mere reference citations of supporting Bible texts, and most honest reader would have already clearly see that. Patently, not addressing them when they were later restated just confirmed your modus operandi here. So the discussion onus is entirely upon you here.

Tom: Your writing is verbose and difficult to understand at times. I have a limited amount of time, but have tried to respond as best I can, given the above limitations. I have repeatedly suggested if there is some point I have missed, to please restate it. Instead of doing so, you keep insulting me, but these insults ring hollow. Why not simply restate what point it is you are wishing to make, or whatever question you have? As I've pointed out, this is what MM and I do with each other. We've been discussing things for years. Often one of us feels like a point or question isn't being addressed, and we bring that up, often time repeatedly, until we feel it's been resolved. We don't feel the need to level charges against the other in so doing.


My "verbosity", which merely is explaining a single point in many words, does not explain why you have entirely not responded to that actual point at all, or instead found some tangential side issue in the response to focus upon.

As I said here, as I moreoverly have already made my points, then if you want to defend yourself then you do this retracing work as it is stemming from you having overlooked those stated points. I don’t need to keep repeating/restating myself. Time is also a factor for me and I don’t see this as a worthwhile expending of it. I also do not see your excuse here as honest/valid as you do select from these posts what you want to answer and just overlook the rest.

Quote:
NJK: Another general/foundational point here, my view, as I had initially stated in my first post in this thread, of God’s capital punishment for sin is that some of them were flagrantly high-handed and if allowed to mature to their fullness who immediately threaten the life of even righteous people. That is how/why I see that God intervenes/legislates to justly bring about “premature” deaths. You instead claim a supposed ‘organic link between sin and death’, then if that is to be the answer here, why weren’t every single sin legislated to be deserving of Capital Punishment and why didn’t God instruct Israel to destroy and depopulate all of the surrounding sinful nations against, including those not close to them (Deut 20:10-18)?? Under your view, God actually cannot be fair, merciful nor just if ‘all sin is to be equally, organically deadly’.

Tom: The organic relationship between sin and death is dealing with the second death. Before the resurrection, there's bound to be much injustice, because we live in a world where Satan has a great deal of sway.


So then, according to your specification here, there should not be the objection of yours to my point on my God instituted capital punishment, wars, divine judgements which all bring about this “First death”!? Yet from the very start, and throughout this discussion, up to this answer here, you were stating this as the main objection to my view, indeed suddenly ‘insisting’ that my initial response in this thread come to involve this “Second Death”. By the way, and as I said before, I do not see anything different between the first and second death in regards to sin. In fact God also supernaturally acts to make the Second Death involved full and prolonged sufferings.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Regarding events of judgment, a key point I have been making is that there are thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which God guards us. It's simply unnecessary for God to directly use violence to judge others, as it's more than sufficient for Him to remove His protection to enable whatever destructive act one might desire (I'm speaking here in the language of men, as men understand things, as God does not desire any evil to come across anyone, and these things which God permits to occur, He does so with great remorse).


As I said, your view does not exegetically check out for none of the examples you have brought up. To have to exegetically, literally reword the Bible to make every related direct action speculatively mean something other than what the Bible or SOP states is a complete non-starter for me, especially as it indeed has no valid basis. I’ll go by what they Bible and SOP clearly state vs. your, man-speculatively-opining, unproven/unsubstantiated theory. In case you are not noticing this, that is how men come to actually undermine and make void the word of God, because now its truthfulness is dependent on the quite limited understandings, uniformed, and subjectiveness of man, and, moreover, now Western men living 2000+ years after the first handedly observed and recorded facts.

It is that Spiritually logical to me, and a very easy choice to make.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/27/11 04:50 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
T: They are used as GC 35-37 explains.

M: I agree; always have. But the point is – It was Jesus who used evil angels and Roman soldiers as instruments to punish the impenitent Jews.

T: To assert this is to not read what GC 35-37 actually says, it seems very clear to me. For example: “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 35) I'm not sure how she could have stated the reverse of what you are asserting more clearly than this.

M: Again, there was no natural cause and effect law at work. It was entirely arbitrary, imposed, meted out.

T: Same comment.

M: Sinning does not result in soldiers killing sinners, at least not in the same sense cancer results in tissue damage and death.

T: Again, if you actually read what GC 35-37 says, I don't see how one conclude the things you are concluding.

M: Again, Ellen wrote - “Already nations are angry, already Satan is working with signs and lying wonders, and this will increase until the end. God will use his enemies as instruments to punish those who have followed their own pernicious ways whereby the truth God has been misrepresented, misjudged, and dishonored.” {PC 136.3} In what sense do you believe Jesus “used His enemies as instruments to punish” the Jews in 70 AD? By simply withdrawing His protection and permitting evil men and evil angels to kill them? If so, don’t you think expressing it the way she did in PC 136 is unnecessarily confusing? Would you ever express it in those terms?

T: We were discussing GC 35-37. You stated: “But the point is – It was Jesus who used evil angels and Roman soldiers as instruments to punish the impenitent Jews.” Whereas Ellen White wrote: “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.” What you're saying contradicts what she said.

In those cases where she plainly says God “used His enemies as instruments to punish” impenitent sinners, can it be said “their sufferings are . . . a punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God”?

Quote:
M: Also, is it a sin, evil, or bad when evil angels and soldiers kill impenitent sinners when God is using them as instruments to punish?

T: I think this is a FOTAP question (fallacy of the assumed premise).

M: No assumptions necessary.

T: You're assuming that God was using soldiers to kill impenitent sinners when Jerusalem was destroyed. This is the false assumption, which is evident by the fact that Ellen White attributes this work to Satan, saying that he hides his own work by having others believe that God was responsible.

M: Ellen very clearly said – “Already nations are angry, already Satan is working with signs and lying wonders, and this will increase until the end. God will use his enemies as instruments to punish those who have followed their own pernicious ways whereby the truth God has been misrepresented, misjudged, and dishonored.” {PC 136.3} My question is valid. Unless, of course, we assume as you do we cannot take her at her word, that we must interpret her words to mean something other than what they plainly say.

T: We were discussing GC 35-37. You're trying to refute Ellen White's own words written in one place by quoting other words of hers from another. That's not going to work. The following is very clear: “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.” This says:

1.The Jews had forged their own fetters.
2.They had filled for themselves the cup of vengeance.
3.In all the destruction that happened, they were but reaping the harvest which their own hands had sown.
4.Says the prophet: "O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself;" "for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity."
5." "for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity." Hosea 13:9; 14:1. 6.Their sufferings are often represented as a punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God. BUT
7.It is thus that the great deceiver seeks to conceal his own work.

Obviously the phrase “punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God” does not contradict what she wrote in the PC 136 quote posted above. I believe the phrase “punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God” conveys the idea that Jesus had no justifiable reason for withdrawing His protection and permitting His enemies to punish the Jews in 70 AD. The truth is, Jesus was justified.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/27/11 04:53 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
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.

M: “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.

T: The statement says that whatever man is able to know about God was revealed by Jesus Christ.

M: Therefore, Jesus only revealed what we “need to know” to appreciate the love of God, experience rebirth, and inherit eternal life.

T: What she said is that "all" (not "only") that we a)need to know OR b)are able to know, was revealed in the life and character of Jesus Christ. It wasn't a limiting statement, as "only" would make it, but a non-limiting statement. You're basically reversing what she said.

M: Fortunately for us, by the grace of God, we “can know,” that is, we are capable of comprehending, what we “need to know.”

T: Whatever we are capable of knowing is what Jesus Christ revealed.

M: 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.

T: This is another way of stating something different than the EGW statement.

M: The idea that Jesus revealed everything there is to know about God . . .

T: This part is OK.

M: . . . and that we are just too dense and dimwitted to discern it contradicts what Jesus Himself said.

T: This you just made up. The statement doesn't say anything like this or about this.

“Needs to know” makes it clear it doesn’t include everything there is to know about God.

Quote:
M: More on this point at the end of this post.

T: Ok. You didn't deal with the point of logic I brought up. That is, this: “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.

“Elsewhere” refers to the OT and the NT (excluding the Gospels).

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.

M: 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?

T: GC 35-37 isn't limited to actions of God's enemies. There are a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which God protects us.

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).

M: 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.

T: Why do you think I said this?

M: Were these particular enemies evil angels? If not, who were they?

T: Please quote something I've said. I don't know where you're getting these ideas from.

Are you refusing to address questions relating to N&A and the two bands of fifty? It was Ellen who said so. You agreed with her.

Quote:
M: 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.

T: We're not capable in any state of knowing everything there is to know about God. Can we be glad to agree on this point as well? Regarding the second point, when you say, "'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," you mean the same thing as "it is not possible for man to know everything about God?" In which case you're echoing what I said? Basically you asked a question implying these were related, and I said these are independent things, so that your question didn't really make sense. You're saying you agree with me on this point? If so, I'm glad we agree too.

I said 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: 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!

M: 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.”

T: I've already explained why this doesn't contradict what she said.

M: “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.

T: You keep changing things that were said. She didn't say "to experience rebirth" but simply "all that man needs to know, or can know." At any rate, as I previously explained, the fact that there were things which Jesus could not reveal to them at that time does not imply that all that man can know of God was not revealed by Jesus Christ. This isn't a valid argument.

M: Obviously this means Jesus did not, could not reveal everything there is to know about God while He was here in the flesh.

T: No, it doesn't mean this! Your assertion would only be true if the things which Jesus Christ couldn't tell them were things about God's character which He did not reveal elsewhere.

M: This is not to say, however, Jesus hasn’t revealed everything there is to know about the character and kingdom of God.

T: Right! Jesus, during his earthly mission, revealed all that man needs to know or can know of God.

M: 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.

T: This is your opinion, but not what Ellen White wrote. Looking at the context of her statement, it is clear that she is speaking of Jesus Christ while here in the flesh. I disagree with the idea that to learn of God we should supplement what Jesus Christ taught with what other sources teach us, and then add them together to get a full or true or complete picture. I believe Jesus Christ *is* the full/complete/picture of God's character, and that it is His revelation only which enables us to rightly understand other lesser revelations of God. I think this is a chief disagreement we have. I see Jesus Christ in human flesh as superior to all other revelations of God.

Please refer to the many passages I posted earlier (omitted by you). As a whole they make clear the point.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/27/11 04:55 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
T: I agree that nothing happens by fate. I disagree that nothing happens by chance. If Jesus, or God, permits something to occur which happens by chance, that doesn't mean that the thing permitted to occur did not happen by chance. I believe there are things which happen by chance. For example, tossing a fair coin is an example. By chance it will be heads or tails. Many such examples could be given.

M: Do you believe Jesus is free to choose between such options as preventing death and destruction or permitting it, that He takes everything and everyone into consideration and then decides whether to prevent or permit death and destruction, that the choice is His?

T: You're mixing too many things together here, and then asking a yes or no question. That's not cricket. I think all evil is not the choice of Jesus Christ, and evil only occurs when beings choose to act contrary to His will.

M: Or, do you believe chance dictates whether or not He is free to choose between preventing or permitting death and destruction?

T: Things happen by chance, if that's what you mean.

M: Is Christ in control or is chance?

T: Things happen by chance, if that's what you're asking. Again, chance being in control isn't a logical construct.

M: If God is not in control of sinners, who, then, is protecting them?

T: By "in control of" I assume you mean "controlling." Or do you mean something else? If by "in control of" you mean "protecting," then I may agree with what you mean, if not what you're saying. That is, I certainly agree that God is protecting sinners.

M: Do you believe God is not in control of sinners?

T: Not when they sin.

M: If so, and I assume you do, what do you mean by it?

T: I mean that sinners, when they sin, choose to exercise their free will to act contrary to the will of Jesus Christ.

Yes, of course, sinners are free to choose to sin. But I’m referring to the resulting outcomes, consequences. For example, N&A were free to choose to employ strange fire. The various outcomes, consequences of their choice was entirely up to Jesus – not chance, not sin, not Satan. Jesus chose to employ fire to burn them alive. So far, you have refused to say who or what employed the fire that killed them.

Quote:
M: As for me, I believe Jesus is, as sovereign Lord and King, ultimately in control of the outcome of the great controversy – not sin, not sinners, and not Satan.

T: The Great Controversy is not a contest that can be decided by sovereignty; it's decided by evidence. God has been accused of certain things, things involving His character and the principles of His government. To make His case that He has been unjustly accused, God has chosen to allow things to play out, that His character may be seen in contrast with that of His accuser, as well as the principles of His government in contrast to the principles of his adversary's government.

M: That is, sin does not determine how the GC will play out, neither do sinners, nor does Satan.

T: Sinners and Satan have a part, as do all sentient beings.

M: Whether or not this or that choice plays out this or that way is entirely up to Jesus - not sin, not sinners, and not Satan.

T: No, this isn't the case. When a rapist chooses to rape, and that plays out in a rape victim being raped, that's not "entirely up to Jesus." You don't see the problem in asserting this?

M: True, His options are limited. He isn’t free to manage the outcome irrespective of the choice. For example, Jesus wasn’t free to manage Judas’ choice to betray Him in a way that would result in him sitting on the right or left hand of Jesus in the New Jerusalem.

T: This doesn't seem to be a related point to the discussion.

Whether or not this or that choice plays out this or that way is entirely up to Jesus - not sin, not sinners, and not Satan. Evil choices usually end in evil consequences. Exactly which evil consequence plays out is up to Jesus. Not that He makes it play out that way. But He does manage things so that they do not play out some other way. He either causes, commands, or permits.

Quote:
M: Yes, Satan is in control of what God permits, but he is not free to do as he pleases, otherwise, as you say, he would destroy everyone and everything.

T: This is a bad misstatement here, IMO. Let's say you have a child, but don't permit that child to stay out past 2:00am. Would it be fair for you to say that your child is not free to do as (s)he pleases?

M: Children are, of course, free to disobey their parents and stay out as late they please. However, there would be consequences after the fact. But in the case of evil angels, things are very much different. Jesus cannot afford to punish them after the fact, especially as it relates to hurting us or tempting us beyond Jesus’ established limits. He must impose limits on them and then work to enforce His limits to guarantee they do not ever, ever disobey. In this sense, evil angels are not free; indeed, they are very much shackled.

T: To state that evil angels never disobey Jesus Christ is not a fair accusation to make upon Christ. Of course they disobey Him, whenever they do evil. To think that evil angels are shackled so they only obey Christ's will is, I'm having difficulty coming up with words that aren't too strong here, I'll just say not fair to Christ. Also, it's not fair to them, as well, as, if they are not to a great extent free to do their will, then the Great Controversy is a sham. Finally, if they are not free to do their will, how do you explain the evil there is in the world?

As explained above, Jesus is in control – not sin, not sinners, and not Satan. Evil angels are only as free as Jesus allows. 1 Cor 10:13 is an example.

Quote:
M: It’s not a question of whether or not God is innocent; it’s a question of whether or not He is in control.

T: The big question is if God is innocent, as God has been accused, and the Great Controversy in effect for this purpose.

M: Of course He is innocent. He created free moral agents. They are free to obey and live or disobey and die. If they choose to sin and rebel, they are, ultimately, choosing capital punishment.

T: Neither Scripture nor the SOP state that by choosing sin they choose capital punishment. Both state that if they choose sin they are choosing death. The SOP states that the inevitable result of sin is death. If evil comes about as a result of God's controlling actions, then He is not innocent of its happening.

M: Jesus established the laws regulating capital punishment.

T: How do you know they didn't already exist? That is, that they weren't already a part of the culture of the Hebrews and their contemporaries?

M: He commanded godly people like Moses to kill ungodly people. In final judgment, the radiant glory of God’s person and presence will cause the wicked to suffer in duration and intensity proportionate to their sinfulness. The presence of God’s radiant glory is required for the wicked to experience the emotional and physical suffering that ends in eternal death, otherwise, they would merely live and die as they did before Jesus resurrected them.

T: I'm sorry you feel this way. DA 764 tells us that if God had allowed Satan and his followers to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished, but it would not have been apparent that the inevitable result of sin is death. I'm sorry you don't see the relationship between sin and death. I think not seeing this connections leads to many errors, all of which portray God negatively.

Jesus established the laws regulating capital punishment. It doesn’t matter if such laws existed. And, the connection between sin and eternal death is real. Sin and sinners cannot abide in the presence of God. The radiant light of His glory consumes sinners with their sins. You seem to think it is sin, not the light of God’s radiant glory, that will consume sinners in final judgment.

Quote:
T: I assume you mean that from my perspective, the mechanism matters, if sincere seekers of truth wrongly conclude that Jesus employs fire to burn people alive. If this is what you mean, I still don't agree that the mechanism matters. I believe it's the principle that matters. A sincere seeker of truth, from my perspective, will not make conclusions about the mechanism involved which are not in harmony with God's character or the principles of His government, if he gets the principles right.

M: What would they conclude? Would it suffice them to know Jesus didn’t burn them alive? Thus satisfied it wouldn’t occur to them to care who or what caused the fire that burned them alive?

T: I don't think it matters much to one who is convinced in regards to God's character. For example, let's say someone is killed in your house by a fire. It's possible that your wife set them on fire and burned them alive. But you know your wife, and know she isn't capable of that sort of behavior. So how did the person die? Insofar as your wife's setting them on fire is concerned, you don't much care, because you know however the person died, it wasn't because your wife set them on fire.

Did my wife withdraw her protection and permit her enemies to burn them alive? You seem to think it doesn’t matter.

Quote:
M: In the case of N&A, the fire blazed out from the presence of God in the most holy place. And, in the case of the two bands of fifty, fire rained down from God in heaven. To say Jesus simply withdrew His protection and permitted (you have yet to say who) to cause fire to burn them alive begs the question – Why were His enemies in the most holy places in heaven and earth?

T: I disagree that it begs this question.

M: Does it matter to you, Tom, where Jesus’ enemies were when He, according to you, permitted them to make fire blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burn them alive? It matters very much to me. That’s why I believe Jesus employed fire to burn them alive.

T: I addressed this just above, in the illustration about your wife setting people on fire.

Who did Jesus permit to employ the fire that killed them? Please don’t say it doesn’t matter. Please answer this question.

Quote:
T: You didn't answer my question. I'll repeat it. Satan is free to do his will, to a great degree, which is evident in looking at our world. He has to be free to do as he pleases in order for there to be a Great Controversy. This agrees with your understanding, doesn't it?

M: No, I disagree. Satan is not free to do as he pleases.

T: Then there's no Great Controversy. If God does His will, and Satan does God's will, there's no controversy at all; there's only God's will. If all that happens is God's will, that begs the question of what sort of God would will the sort of horror we see on this planet?

M: Jesus is in control of the outcome of our choices. He doesn’t leave it up to Satan to decide how best to punish evildoers. True, in the case of Job, Jesus left it up to Satan to decide, within very strict perimeters, what to do. However, in the cases of the wicked, Jesus does not leave it up to Satan.

T: This seems a bit confused, in regards to the subject of discussion here. Are you talking about the final judgment? If not, none of this really makes sense. The punishment of the wicked isn't until the resurrection. If you're talking about the final judgment, then it doesn't make sense to suggest that Jesus Christ leaves their punishment up to Satan. That's just a red herring.

M: “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. . . Since the flood, God has used both water and fire in the earth as his agents to destroy wicked cities. {1SP 84.3}

T: Scripture, and the SOP, often present God as doing that which He permits.

The GC concerns us as much as it does God. Jesus will not let Satan tempt us beyond His ability to empower us to resist. This ensures the GC is fair. Very clearly Satan is not free to do whatever he’d like to do. He must obtain permission from Jesus to tempt us or to harm us. What happens is by permission. There are times, though, when Jesus Himself acts to punish impenitent sinners. Ellen wrote: “The bowels of the earth were the Lord's arsenal, from which he drew forth the weapons he employed in the destruction of the old world. . . Since the flood, God has used both water and fire in the earth as his agents to destroy wicked cities. {1SP 84.3}

Quote:
T: We're going around in circles here. What I have said over and over again, dozens of times, is that to understand these event one must *first* (I emphasize "first" here, as in, before, or previous to) have a correct understanding of God's character. From my perspective, your misunderstanding the events because you're misunderstanding God's character. I believe you perceive the events in a way that in contrary to that which Jesus Christ revealed, and hence, even the questions you ask don't make sense. You and I completely disagree in regards to what's the cart and the horse here. What I think you think is that to correctly understand God's character, it's necessary to consider these events you're asking questions about in addition to considering the life and character of Jesus Christ, and then add these together, and this combination gives a correct understanding of God's character. What I'm saying is first Christ, then look at the other. As opposed to, look at Christ and the other events both at the same time.

M: We’ve tried doing it your way, Tom.

T: No, we never have. You've always injected your agenda into the discussion. My way would be to consider the character of Christ on its own merits. You just ask questions like, "How did Christ's character reveal why He did this or that thing that I think He did"?

M: However, the discussion died out.

T: It never got started.

M: You ended your discourse on the character of God without explaining why Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people.

T: This was never my agenda; it was yours. "My way," as I stated, would be to examine the character of Christ on its own merits.

M: Is that the fruit of your view of God? If so, it comes woefully short of explaining some very difficult aspects of the Bible.

T: Again, "my way" would be to examiner the character of Jesus Christ on its own merits. The "whole purpose" of His earthly mission was "the revelation of God," which was the only way men could be set right and kept right with God. I think this would be wonderful fruit, don't you?[quote]
Earlier you agreed, even promised, to answer the three questions after establishing what the Father is like through a deep and meaningful study of the life and teachings of Jesus while He was here in the flesh. It was NJK, not me, who interjected comments and questions which caused you to deviate from your lesson. You actually did answer one of the three questions by saying Jesus did indeed withdraw His protection and gave His enemies permission to kill the Jews in 70 AD. However, you never clarified why you believe this counts as Jesus doing it while here in the flesh (as you know Jesus returned to heaven in 31 AD). You have steadfastly refused to answer the other two questions by insisting we need to study the life and teachings of Jesus before we can rightly understand them. It would be nice if you would resume your lesson so we can answer the other two questions.

[quote]M: I’m curious, Tom, do you even believe Jesus commanded Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to death? I cannot recall you ever answering this question. I get the impression you believe Moses misunderstood what Jesus told him. Please, Tom, don’t go off on a tangent here and ignore directly answering my question. I realize you haven’t said anything specifically about whether or not Moses misunderstood Jesus. So please, don’t use this comment as excuse to ignore answering my question. Please answer it. Thank you.

T: The best way I know to answer your question is with the story of the father of the hunter son. Did the father of the hunter son command his son to do the things he told him to do? What would neighbors who overheard their conversation have thought? Also, do you think Moses knew God and His will as well as Jesus Christ did? Was it Moses' job to perfectly reveal the character of the Father? Isn't it true that God's character was misunderstood until Christ completed His job of revealing it? If so, wouldn't it stand to reason that Moses' understanding of it was imperfect? Can there be any better way of understanding God's character than to examine the life and teachings of Christ? (No, there can't be).

Do you believe it when it says in the Bible that Jesus commanded Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to death? Or, do you suspect Moses misunderstood what Jesus said? For example, in the Bible it says:

“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.”

“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. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.”

Also, do you think the father teaching his son how to hunt humanely is the same thing as Jesus commanding Moses to stone to death the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer? Is hunting animals and killing humans equal in the eyes of God? Did the father command his son to hunt humanely?
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/27/11 05:06 PM

Quote:
Tom: I'm sure some of the time you know the text by heart, in which case it would indeed take more of your time to look it up and copy/paste it. However, there may be many people who read these posts, so if there's 10 people who spend a minute to look up the text, this is 10 minutes you could have saved of other people's time by simply quoting it yourself.

Tom: And if there are cases where you look up the text yourself online, it doesn't make any sense at all not to copy/paste it, as you're right there anyway.


NJK: I know I am using those key saved moments from not doing the work of pointedly selecting/copying/special pasting/spacing/numbering/formatting/coding Bible texts [from my Bibleworks] (which people will probably read in their own favorite version) to work on my humanitarian works project, including saving the lives of would be aborted infants. So I consider these more than particularly non-aiding SDAs and also myself here. That procedure is not going to change so no need to try to make an issue out of it. (And it probably would take over 10X more time for me to do so with texts, especially the many texts I cite, than someone looking it up. And saving other people time is a non-factor here as our time is individually, applicably distinct and not cumulative.)
I don't see how that addressed his statements. Why would it take you 10X more time to copy and paste a text right in front of you than it would take for someone to look it up from scratch?
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/27/11 05:17 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Also, do you think the father teaching his son how to hunt humanely is the same thing as Jesus commanding Moses to stone to death the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer? Is hunting animals and killing humans equal in the eyes of God? Did the father command his son to hunt humanely?
Why do you think that is what Tom is comparing?
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/27/11 08:03 PM

Quote:
I don't see how that addressed his statements. Why would it take you 10X more time to copy and paste a text right in front of you than it would take for someone to look it up from scratch?

Re-read what I actually had said kland and you’ll see that it involves much more than simply “copying and pasting.” If you’re familiar with the Bibleworks interface, you’ll understand the added steps involved here, especially as I am first pasting that copied verse it in a Word Processor. That’s the recursive reality that I would have to repeatedly deal with to meet that optional preference of/for Tom.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/27/11 09:47 PM

Quote:
MM: Jesus established the laws regulating capital punishment.

Tom: How do you know they didn't already exist? That is, that they weren't already a part of the culture of the Hebrews and their contemporaries?

-------

MM: Jesus established the laws regulating capital punishment. It doesn’t matter if such laws existed.


It seems Biblically clear to me from Gen 9:5, 6 (NASB) that God Himself instituted Capital Punishment. It may even not have existed as such in the Antediluvian World, and if it did in some form, it was probably purely vindictive, (or merely seen as vindictive) so God here showed that He considered it to be lawful and just. So as Mountain Man said, God later only further regulated it, including the city of refuge provision to make sure that it was always done for a valid reason. And with only 8 people alive on earth when God (formally) instituted it right after the Flood, perhaps in a, at least formally/legally, first instance, then He effectively was saying that this is what He wanted for all those who would descend from these eight people, thus the entire world. At the very least, it shows, as later seen in Formal Israel, that this is what He expects to be the norm amongst His Righteous People.

Also God’s would be, first instance instituting of Capital Punishment is not ‘at odds with Him’ as, as the Bible and SOP clearly state, He was the one who had also made use of ‘brute force War’ to immediately and decidedly settle the initial Battle in the GC conflict in that began in Heaven.
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/27/11 11:46 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Quote:
I don't see how that addressed his statements. Why would it take you 10X more time to copy and paste a text right in front of you than it would take for someone to look it up from scratch?

Re-read what I actually had said kland and you’ll see that it involves much more than simply “copying and pasting.” If you’re familiar with the Bibleworks interface, you’ll understand the added steps involved here, especially as I am first pasting that copied verse it in a Word Processor. That’s the recursive reality that I would have to repeatedly deal with to meet that optional preference of/for Tom.
No, I am not familiar with the Bibleworks interface. Why did you assume I was? I went back and read what you wrote and maybe your verbosity, with which you seem to have no issue in reducing the amount of time spent doing it, and making it harder for others to read and comprehend what you are saying (much like this statement with phrases within phrases), got in the way from you saying you copy and paste in a different way than normal people do. Why, I still do not know. What is so unusual of this interface which makes it so cumbersome to use?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/28/11 01:29 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
NJK:why don’t you, e.g., at the very least, provide the verse reference where you claim to have seen that “God killed Saul” vs. ‘something to the contrary’!?

kland:MM didn't know there was something contrary to God killing Saul. If I have correctly deciphered your statement, would you be saying you are not aware of a contrary statement either? And if such a statement can be shown, does that mean other places, where you are ignorant of other statements, there could, in fact, be such statements? Taking it further, does that mean not being aware of something doesn't make it false?

NJK:-It is I, NJK Project, who made that comment,


What comment?

Quote:
-I don’t begin to understand what point you are trying to make,


I think I understand kland's point, which I'll explain later.

Quote:
-Tom likely will as he made that comment.


You just said you made the comment.

Quote:
My approach here, as normative, is to first ascertain what the concrete reality is before speculating.


What does this mean? That is, what are you talking about?

Regarding kland's point, you asked me for quotes stating something contrary to the idea that God killed Saul. This could be taken to mean that you weren't aware of any such statements, since you were asking for one to be cited. That was kland's point #1.

Kland's point #2 was that if you weren't aware of any such statements in regards to Saul, then you could also not be aware of other similar statements in regards to other incidents where it says "God did X."

Kland's point #3 was that not being aware of these statements means that the statement you thought was true, the way you were thinking of it, may actually be false.

I'll explain, starting with the statement "God killed Saul." Let's say you're not aware of statements elsewhere explaining that God didn't directly kill Saul, but that he died by some other means (such as taking His own life). The language used, "God did X," sounds as if God did X, when, in reality, God permitted X.

Now if there's some other statement, saying "God did Y," then it's also possible that should also be interpreted "God permitted Y."

You've been arguing all along that since the Bible says "God did X" then that must mean that God did X, as opposed to God's having merely permitted X to occur. We've been pointing out that there are places in Scripture that says "God did X" when, in reality, God permitted X. We've been asking that if in some places in Scripture "God did X" means "God permitted X," why not in others? Also if "God did X" doesn't necessarily mean that God did X, your argument isn't very persuasive.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/28/11 01:33 AM

Originally Posted By: kland
No, I am not familiar with the Bibleworks interface. Why did you assume I was? I went back and read what you wrote and maybe your verbosity, with which you seem to have no issue in reducing the amount of time spent doing it, and making it harder for others to read and comprehend what you are saying (much like this statement with phrases within phrases), got in the way from you saying you copy and paste in a different way than normal people do. Why, I still do not know. What is so unusual of this interface which makes it so cumbersome to use?


-“If” is for a conditional statement, and not a ‘believed assumption.’ I certainly, for manifested reasons, do not see a need to presume that you are experientially familiar with Bibleworks, the leading exegetical Biblical software resource.

-My verbosity, which is distinct from protracted sentences*, is intended to avoid such follow up question, notwithstanding that your question here was unnecessary as I had already stated all that is involved in including the text of verses.

-For the sake of my time I’ll skip detailing what is involved in copying from Bibleworks, especially as this here will not make difference in my opting not to include texts or not.

-To you, and also Tom, do consider this my last response on this side show issue.

-(And if further in doubt, when actually applicable, do try Isa 6:9-13|Matt 13:10-17, among other related texts.)

*My protracted sentences mainly come from the way in which I am responding to certain posts. Proofreading would edit these sentences, however I consider it more worthwhile to use that time to include more substantive/supporting information than ‘cleaning/polishing the outside of a cup’ (cf. Matt 23:25, 26) and that does not seem to be a problem as I get very little requests, even if only valid ones are considered, to edit a incomprehensible sentence. Probably just as much, if not less than for you kland. (Indeed, from what I read from and to you, to the contrary, you seem to expect people to read your mind and/or always comprehend your substituting attempts at “wit” instead of substantive/straightforward statements. And not including the texts of verse also provides me more time to focus on added substantivity.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/28/11 01:51 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
Originally Posted By: NJK
NJK:why don’t you, e.g., at the very least, provide the verse reference where you claim to have seen that “God killed Saul” vs. ‘something to the contrary’!?

kland:MM didn't know there was something contrary to God killing Saul. If I have correctly deciphered your statement, would you be saying you are not aware of a contrary statement either? And if such a statement can be shown, does that mean other places, where you are ignorant of other statements, there could, in fact, be such statements? Taking it further, does that mean not being aware of something doesn't make it false?

NJK:-It is I, NJK Project, who made that comment,


What comment?

Quote:
-I don’t begin to understand what point you are trying to make,


I think I understand kland's point, which I'll explain later.

Quote:
-Tom likely will as he made that comment.


You just said you made the comment.

Quote:
My approach here, as normative, is to first ascertain what the concrete reality is before speculating.


What does this mean? That is, what are you talking about?

Regarding kland's point, you asked me for quotes stating something contrary to the idea that God killed Saul. This could be taken to mean that you weren't aware of any such statements, since you were asking for one to be cited. That was kland's point #1.

Kland's point #2 was that if you weren't aware of any such statements in regards to Saul, then you could also not be aware of other similar statements in regards to other incidents where it says "God did X."

Kland's point #3 was that not being aware of these statements means that the statement you thought was true, the way you were thinking of it, may actually be false.

I'll explain, starting with the statement "God killed Saul." Let's say you're not aware of statements elsewhere explaining that God didn't directly kill Saul, but that he died by some other means (such as taking His own life). The language used, "God did X," sounds as if God did X, when, in reality, God permitted X.

Now if there's some other statement, saying "God did Y," then it's also possible that should also be interpreted "God permitted Y."

You've been arguing all along that since the Bible says "God did X" then that must mean that God did X, as opposed to God's having merely permitted X to occur. We've been pointing out that there are places in Scripture that says "God did X" when, in reality, God permitted X. We've been asking that if in some places in Scripture "God did X" means "God permitted X," why not in others? Also if "God did X" doesn't necessarily mean that God did X, your argument isn't very persuasive.

It is quite hilariously LOL comical Tom to see that you have time for such spurious and irrelevant issues which substantively do absolutely nothing to validate your view since, now that you’ve cited your reference, it has been exegetically by that fact that a Hiphil has been used. Take such time to try to deal with that substantive reality instead. All of those hypothetical and philosophical arguments, factually mean/resolve nothing. And you wonder why I can only see that Matt 23:23, 24 fully applies to your case.

And after such an elaborate intervention for kland’s view which he did not bother to defend, what makes you think that your right. Perhaps kland realized that it was a moot point following my provided exegetical element. Indeed your indirect view is thus far based on now two refuted examples (Saul & the Wilderness Serpents, which actually uses a Piel stems to say that ‘God sent the serpents’ (Num 21:6) so, As I exegetically see it, at a certain level, EGW may not have the precise understanding here. Indeed serpents do not usually attack unless they feel threatened so God may have also injected a default “threatened notion” in their “minds”.)

And reread kland’s post carefully to see ‘what comment’ I was referring to.

It is either you think I will come to be swayed or impressed by your emphasis on the peripherals or you really do believe that they being to be paramount and/or determinative in any way. As a serious warning, which can be quite time saving for you, from now on, I will only address what is actually substantive points in your post, indeed as my present time agenda requires it. You’re no the less free to comment on anything you like, just don’t expect an answer from me.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/28/11 02:53 AM

Quote:
I know I am using those key saved moments from not doing the work of pointedly selecting/copying/special pasting/spacing/numbering/formatting/coding Bible texts [from my Bibleworks] (which people will probably read in their own favorite version) to work on my humanitarian works project, including saving the lives of would be aborted infants. So I consider these more than particularly non-aiding SDAs and also myself here. That procedure is not going to change so no need to try to make an issue out of it. (And it probably would take over 10X more time for me to do so with texts, especially the many texts I cite, than someone looking it up. And saving other people time is a non-factor here as our time is individually, applicably distinct and not cumulative.)


How long did it take to type this? You could have copied and pasted 10 texts in the amount of time it took you to explain why you don't take the time to copy/paste texts. When you add the other times you've been explaining why you don't copy/paste, it could be a hundred texts you could have copied/pasted. If 10 people are reading this posts, and it takes a minute to read each one, that's 1000 minutes, over 16 hours, that could have been saved.

Think of all the trees that could have been saved.

Quote:
Applicably citing Matt 23:24 or anyone other such factual comments of Christ such as ‘blind” are not insults. Sorry you can’t “see” (pun intended) the applicable fact here. And to render moot the “reaction”, become conscious of the offensive “action” and seek to avoid it. As I said before, I don’t suffer for, or “take it” for other peoples misdeeds or errors, especially when baseless and/or indifferent, (cf. John 18:22, 23), except when paramountly, Spiritually purposeful (Matt 26:59-63ff; 27:12-14).


The "oh yeah" is where the sarcasm is made most clear.

Quote:
T:Don't you think that engaging in a discussion of spiritual matters should be a pleasant activity?

NJK:It is indeed because of the Great Spiritual implications of this discussion, at least possibly, that such quibblingly majoring on minor issues indeed upsets and annoys me. I know I am not merely aiming to ‘have a good time” here but to get at that achievable absolute Truth. (Cf. 1 Sam 17:28-30).


If this is your goal, you should address others respectfully and treat them kindly, and with consideration.

Quote:
So the ignoring of exegesis, especially from those who can, or should be able to, engage it, is moreoverly more “mystifying” to me.


Rather than complaining over and over again in a vague way which cannot possibly be addressed, you could simply state whatever point it is you think is being ignored.

Quote:
1 Chron 10:14 uses a Hiphil tense to say “killed”, meaning that God’s killing action would be ‘indirect and mediated’. So by God not doing anything to protect Saul’s life in that war, as he normatively did when any Israelite went out to fight, and then with Saul being captured and about to be put to death, before he pre-empted this and did it himself, there, exegetically is no contradiction here. 1 Chron 10:14 already was indicating that this would be done through an indirect and mediated action of God.


If the indication of the grammar was that God was doing something indirectly, then some translation should have made reference to this. I'll cite a few:

Quote:
therefore he slew him KJV
therefore He killed him NKJV
therefore He killed him NASB
He putteth him to death YLT
por esta causa lo mató Reina-Valera Antigua
alors l'Éternel le fit mourir Louis Segond
pelo que ele o matou João Ferreira de Almeida Atualizada
per questo il Signore lo fece morire Conferenza Episcopale Italiana


Regarding hiphil:

Quote:
One of the binyanim or forms of Hebrew verbs. Often the hiphil has a causative meaning e.g. "to make someone do something"

www.bible.gen.nz/amos/glossary/hiphil.htm


Quote:
According to Jenni, the Piel signifies "to bring about a state," and the Hiphil, to cause an event.

(An Introduction to biblical Hebrew syntax, by Bruce K. Waltke, Michael Patrick O'Connor)


Quote:
B) Hiphil

1) Hiphil usually expresses the "causative" action of Qal -

http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/hebrew_grammar.htm


These are all saying that God caused the event of Saul's death, both in the translations, and in the explanation of the grammar.

Quote:
As stated above, I am, with cause, upset, annoyed and angry, pointedly because it is causing an unnecessary and wasteful consumption of time on my part. Indeed nothing like e.g., shoddy exegesis from one who could, or should be able to, do better to cause this. The ignorance of Biblical statements similarly also causes this. Seriously speaking, I see it as “righteous indignation” and there “righteously” is plenty of that in the Bible (e.g., Neh 13:25; Matt 3:7) even with Jesus Himself (e.g., twice forcefully cleansing the Temple.) [Of course, you are surely going to object to that reaction of mine here, however seek to substantively deal with the implicated facts here.]


What's going on in your comments is obvious to anyone reading this thread. Post #132332 makes this clear, for example.

It's common for people to try to hide behind their unfortunate actions as "righteous indignation," but the reality is that we should treat each other in a kind, Christian manner. In the 1888 era, when these sort of actions took place on the part of those resisting the message sent by God through His messengers Jones and Waggoner, EGW offered this sort of counsel countless times. Never was any support given for any contentious sort of response.

There are a couple of events in Christ's life, the cursing of the fig tree and the cleansing of the temple, which are often misinterpreted as if He were acting in a manner such as you are trying to attribute to Him as a means of justifying your own actions. Reading the accounts in "The Desire of Ages" makes clear that what is being attributed to Christ doesn't correspond to the reality of what happened.

Even if, for the sake of argument, one were to believe that Christ acted in the unfortunate manner being suggested, it would still be the case that 99% of the time Christ acted as a gentleman, with kindness, tact, and consideration. So perhaps we could aim for that same figure here.

Quote:
NJK:Manifestly if Simon, the Pharisee had immediately proceeded to audibly condemn Christ with these blind thoughts, he would been met/treated as Christ usually dealt with those Jewish leaders,


First of all, let's consider how Christ usually dealt with the Jewish leaders. In the beginning of Christ's ministry, Christ was open in His teachings. It was only when He met with opposition that He resorted to less direct methods, such as the parables. The whole time He was doing everything He could to reach the Jewish leaders.

He did this for two reasons. The first was that He loved them, and wanted to save them. The second reason was that He knew if He could reach them, that was the secret to saving the nation.

The majority of the time Christ treated the Jewish leaders with respect, and avoided confrontation with them.

Secondly, the point here is that Christ treated Simon gently and with tact not because Simon acted in one manner rather than another (i.e., by means of thinking rather than speaking), but because Christ loved him and wanted to save him.

Quote:
however he partly swallowed his pride here, which warranted this merciful treatment.


What "warranted this merciful treatment" was not any action on Simon's part, but Christ's character. Christ is merciful, so He treated Simon with mercy. Mercy is akin to grace in that it's *unmerited* (or "unwarranted") favor, given by one to another not because the other deserves it, but out of the kindness of the one granting it.

Quote:
Also Christ would be dealing with unexpressed thoughts, so, as to not compel faith here, he had to veiledly address this opposition, as He mercifully deemed it necessary.


This sentence doesn't make sense. At any rate, Christ's motivation was the salvation of Simon.

Quote:
NJK: (3) choose to dismiss points made in the Bible and also SOP, even ‘preferring’ the mere speculations of men (e.g., ‘Sodom and Gomorrah’s volcano’)

Tom: It's a common idea, if you look at commentaries, that a natural disaster of some sort occurred in the 5 cities on the plain. There's nothing in either Scripture nor the SOP that precludes this idea. The idea cited is no more speculative than your own.

NJK:I’ve never heard of it before, at all in neither Christian or SDA circles.


This is from the first place I looked at that spoke of "brimstone"

Quote:
"Brimstone," possibly the ancient name for sulphur, evokes the acrid odor of volcanic activity. (www.answers.com)


This is a pretty well-known idea.

Quote:
Commentaries don’t begin to make any significant statement here as they are merely speculating.


They're doing the same thing you are doing, which is trying to figure out what the text means.

Quote:
The clear Bible and SOP statements do not leave opportunity this view as they both say that God cause the fire and brimstone to come down from Heaven and EGW would have easily been shown this.


"Heaven" is "the sky." If brimstone is "evoking the acrid odor of volcanic activity" then the idea that this is referring to volcanic activity follows immediately.

Quote:
Also it can easily be verified if a volcano exists on that archeological site. Volcanoes just don’t disappear. And how does a supposed Flood Salt rock eruption come to affect that S&G destruction hundreds of years later?


Quote:
Certain aspects of the biblical story of the Cities of the Plain have in recent years become widely accepted. Among them is the placing of those cities in the southern basin of the Dead Sea, the assumption that those cities are now covered by Dead Sea water and, in particular, the belief that their destruction was due to catastrophic geological causes, such as an earthquake. The Bible emphasizes the agricultural richness of the Jordan plain prior to the upheaval of Sodom and Gomorrah and its catastrophic transformation into a wasteland. Thus, stripped of ethical and religious overtones, the scenario is that of a rapid climatic change that converted a densely inhabited and richly watered area into an infertile salt playa. The region northeast and southeast of Jericho, which today is quite barren as a result of the upward movement of salty ground water but which contains some of the World's earliest known agricultural settlements, fits such a picture. (http://www.springerlink.com/content/l8243r611174n710/)


I saw this snipped from the google search, but couldn't get more:

Quote:
other Cities of the Plain were destroyed by volcanic activity (presumably initiated by divine intervention) which ignited the sulfur and bitumen lying under


I could find more by searching some more, but this should be enough to make the point that's it's an idea that's widely known.

(more later)
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/28/11 03:45 AM

Originally Posted By: Post #132121 (March 25, 2011)
NJK: Indeed if they had just heeded Christ counsel to ‘pay Caesar what belongs to him’, this whole catastrophe would probably have been averted.

Tom: A good insight.

NJK: Promotion: That was taken from my book on the 70 Weeks.


Just a slight, but discussion-significant specification to a statement that I had made variously in this thread, having recently actually looked into that part of my manuscript on the Seventy Weeks and recollecting exactly what I had written along with further studies:

The issue of the Jews withholding their and the cause of their war with the Romans was actually a thematically related converse issue. It was rather that “the High Priest Eleazar had suddenly decided that the Jews should not receive any gift or sacrifice for any foreigner and persuaded those in the Temple services to go along with this policy. Josephus adds that “this was the true beginning of our war with the Romans; for they rejected the sacrifice of Caesar on this account. (Josephus, War of the Jews, 2:17.2 [#409])”. The ‘converse relation’ here was that it was harmless to continue to ‘offer this thing belonging to Caesar to Caesar and (distinctly) the things of God to God’ (Matt 22:21).

Also related to this, in terms of the poll-tax, (which I had mistakenly conflated in my previous statements in this thread) the remote relation is that the Jewish Zealot movement, which as Josephus states, pointedly led to this militaristic confrontation with the Romans, origniated from the time when some Jews, later called Zealots, decided not to pay the poll(= census)-tax (cf. Acts 5:37 & Josephus, Antiquities, 18:1.1[#4-#9]; 18:2.6[#23-#25]; 20:5.2 [#102]; War, 2:8.1 [#118]; 2:17.8 [#433-#440]).
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/28/11 03:55 AM

Quote:
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.

M: “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.

T: The statement says that whatever man is able to know about God was revealed by Jesus Christ.

M: Therefore, Jesus only revealed what we “need to know” to appreciate the love of God, experience rebirth, and inherit eternal life.

T: What she said is that "all" (not "only") that we a)need to know OR b)are able to know, was revealed in the life and character of Jesus Christ. It wasn't a limiting statement, as "only" would make it, but a non-limiting statement. You're basically reversing what she said.

M: Fortunately for us, by the grace of God, we “can know,” that is, we are capable of comprehending, what we “need to know.”

T: Whatever we are capable of knowing is what Jesus Christ revealed.

M: 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.

T: This is another way of stating something different than the EGW statement.

M: The idea that Jesus revealed everything there is to know about God . . .

T: This part is OK.

M: . . . and that we are just too dense and dimwitted to discern it contradicts what Jesus Himself said.

T: This you just made up. The statement doesn't say anything like this or about this.

M:“Needs to know” makes it clear it doesn’t include everything there is to know about God.


EGW started out by saying that all that man needs to know of God was revealed by the life and character of His Son, and had she only written that, one might have been possible to misunderstand what she wrote along the lines you are suggesting, but she clarified her thought, by adding "or can know," making it clear that she was not limiting her thought merely to what needs to be known.

Quote:
M: More on this point at the end of this post.

T: Ok. You didn't deal with the point of logic I brought up. That is, this: “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.

M:“Elsewhere” refers to the OT and the NT (excluding the Gospels).


No, this wouldn't make sense given the logical point being made. "Elsewhere" in context must refer to Christ's earthly mission.

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.

M: 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?

T: GC 35-37 isn't limited to actions of God's enemies. There are a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which God protects us.

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).

M: 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.

T: Why do you think I said this?

M: Were these particular enemies evil angels? If not, who were they?

T: Please quote something I've said. I don't know where you're getting these ideas from.

M:Are you refusing to address questions relating to N&A and the two bands of fifty?


No, I'm asking you to please quote something I've said, because I don't understand where you're getting your ideas from. That isn't clear to you?

Quote:
It was Ellen who said so. You agreed with her.


Here's our conversation:

Quote:
M: 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.

T: Why do you think I said this?

M: Were these particular enemies evil angels? If not, who were they?

T: Please quote something I've said. I don't know where you're getting these ideas from.

Are you refusing to address questions relating to N&A and the two bands of fifty? It was Ellen who said so. You agreed with her.


You're suggesting that Ellen White said these particular enemies were evil agents?

Quote:
T: We're not capable in any state of knowing everything there is to know about God. Can we be glad to agree on this point as well? Regarding the second point, when you say, "'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," you mean the same thing as "it is not possible for man to know everything about God?" In which case you're echoing what I said? Basically you asked a question implying these were related, and I said these are independent things, so that your question didn't really make sense. You're saying you agree with me on this point? If so, I'm glad we agree too.

M:I said 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.


This doesn't make any sense. It's like saying, "I'm glad we agree that chocolate bananas and yellow cars aren't the same thing."

Quote:
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!

M: 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.”

T: I've already explained why this doesn't contradict what she said.

M: “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.

T: You keep changing things that were said. She didn't say "to experience rebirth" but simply "all that man needs to know, or can know." At any rate, as I previously explained, the fact that there were things which Jesus could not reveal to them at that time does not imply that all that man can know of God was not revealed by Jesus Christ. This isn't a valid argument.

M: Obviously this means Jesus did not, could not reveal everything there is to know about God while He was here in the flesh.

T: No, it doesn't mean this! Your assertion would only be true if the things which Jesus Christ couldn't tell them were things about God's character which He did not reveal elsewhere.

M: This is not to say, however, Jesus hasn’t revealed everything there is to know about the character and kingdom of God.

T: Right! Jesus, during his earthly mission, revealed all that man needs to know or can know of God.

M: 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.

T: This is your opinion, but not what Ellen White wrote. Looking at the context of her statement, it is clear that she is speaking of Jesus Christ while here in the flesh. I disagree with the idea that to learn of God we should supplement what Jesus Christ taught with what other sources teach us, and then add them together to get a full or true or complete picture. I believe Jesus Christ *is* the full/complete/picture of God's character, and that it is His revelation only which enables us to rightly understand other lesser revelations of God. I think this is a chief disagreement we have. I see Jesus Christ in human flesh as superior to all other revelations of God.

M:Please refer to the many passages I posted earlier (omitted by you). As a whole they make clear the point.


Ellen White wrote that all that man needs to know of God, or can know of Him, was revealed in the life and character of Jesus Christ, while here in the flesh. Somehow you've construed this to mean:

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


Just to be clear, here's what she said word for word:

Quote:
Christ's Revelation of God (Section title in book)

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}

"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. {8T 286.2}

Taking humanity upon Him, Christ came to be one with humanity and at the same time to reveal our heavenly Father to sinful human beings. He was in all things made like unto His brethren. He became flesh, even as we are. He was hungry and thirsty and weary. He was sustained by food and refreshed by sleep. He shared the lot of men, and yet He was the blameless Son of God. He was a stranger and sojourner on the earth--in the world, but not of the world; tempted and tried as men and women today are tempted and tried, yet living a life free from sin. {8T 286.3}

Tender, compassionate, sympathetic, ever considerate of others, He represented the character of God, and was constantly engaged in service for God and man. {8T 286.4}


Please explain to me how this can mean that NOT every thing man needs to know, or can know, of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son, when He "took humanity upon Him."
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/28/11 04:33 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
Your view that the Bible shows God doing things that are only permitted is not tenable, as I see that God also does what he directly allows. (E.g, the ‘serpents in the wilderness’)


God presents Himself as doing that which He directly allows, so seeing Him as doing so is OK. It should be clear that He's not actually doing these things, however.

Quote:
Also the other examples you have cited thus far (Saul, Destruction of Jerusalem) do not check out.


Sure they do. The Scripture says that "God killed Saul," although he took his own life. Regarding the destruction of Jerusalem:

Quote:
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 (GC 35)


This is exactly the point I've been making. Indeed, this is where I got the idea from.

Quote:
The former here was demonstrated above, the latter in that Christ made His predictive parable statements stating a direct implication of God. And historically, great mercy was involved in that 70 A.D. judgement which automatically showed that God did not enitrely leave it up to the control of Satan, if he had any control in it at all. As I have stated, this is because the end of the world would not come to occur then as it could have. Also EGW application of that second method of destruction here does not check out on my levels and points. I thus have not seen that those inserted EGW comments/applications in the GC account, pp. 35-37, to be validly done.


Ok, if you disagree with Ellen White, that's your prerogative.

Quote:
You are also, from my exegetical methodology perspective, wrongly using a handful of supposed, and actually not conclusive examples, to define all other examples.


From the Spirit of Prophecy, I used, not just any example, but the example of which there is the most detail. She makes the same applications to the French Revolution. I could present some of her statements regarding this event as well.

Quote:
That is not proper exegesis.


If we're dealing with a subject, and an author devotes many pages to the subject, and the example the author gives is the one of which (s)he supplies the most detail, that's perfectly proper.

Quote:
The whole foundation of your view is not solid to me for you to be going ahead and building a high rise building on it.


The foundation of the view is Jesus Christ. The purpose of His mission was the revelation of God. He is the rock upon which high rise buildings may be safely built.

Quote:
So, quite seriously speaking, I see not valid, even viable Biblical, even SOP basis for your ‘wholesale, indirect Divine judgements’ view.


You rejected what the SOP said, so you *did* see the SOP basis for what I was saying. Otherwise you wouldn't have felt the need to reject it.

Quote:
...How does this come to be disrespectful to/of God. It’s not even remotely true and is indeed not aimed at all at God! That statement is only speaking of what your view is doing to the Godhead. So the equivocating attempt here is completely spurious and diversionary. Indeed I wrote this in order to end this optional/backseat, non-authoritative treatment of the Godhead done from your view. And, as with all other views where God is so slighted, this all stems from, factually speaking, poor exegesis and shoddy/unscientific exegetical methods.


First of all, my view doesn't do this. This is a misunderstanding on your part. You could make clear that your understanding is that my view would have the Godhead be such and such, and that would be better (less disrespectful), but, in any context, IMO it's not good to refer to God as you did.

Also, you claim:

Quote:
Indeed I wrote this in order to end this optional/backseat, non-authoritative treatment of the Godhead done from your view.


Your statement here is both naive and ridiculous. If I say to you that your view of the Godhead (put in something disrespectful here, that ridicules your position, and says something unkind about God), your reaction would simply be to become upset. It wouldn't cause you in any way to want you to change your view.

Surely you can see this.

Name-calling and insults just provokes the party you are insulting to want to do the same thing to you.

Quote:
As I see it, you have quite slyly tried to deal with anything and everything else that was not pointedly relevant to the topical substance of this discussion, indeed many times, as it can easily be seen, “leap frogging” substantive points to deal instead with the peripheral. The ironic things is that if you had chosen to deal with the substantive, including engaging exegesis, these side issues would not even have become a factor. You can easily look over this discussion and causally see where and why these side/peripheral issues came to be.


Again, I repeat, I am responding to what *you write*. If you wish to partake of something substantive, than write something substantive! If you choose to focus on the peripheral, and I respond to that, don't blame me for dealing with the peripheral. Write something that's not peripheral, but substantive, so that when I respond to that, I'm also dealing with something substantive.

Quote:
Tom: The organic relationship between sin and death is dealing with the second death. Before the resurrection, there's bound to be much injustice, because we live in a world where Satan has a great deal of sway.

NJK:So then, according to your specification here, there should not be the objection of yours to my point on my God instituted capital punishment, wars, divine judgements which all bring about this “First death”!?


No, this doesn't logically follow. You should be able to see that. If you don't, I'll point out why.

Quote:
Yet from the very start, and throughout this discussion, up to this answer here, you were stating this as the main objection to my view, indeed suddenly ‘insisting’ that my initial response in this thread come to involve this “Second Death”.


No, this isn't the case. There are different issues being discussed here.

The context of my first making the comment that sin and death are organically related, as I recall, was in reference to the Tree of Life discussion. I asserted that man dies (the second death) because of sin, and you said it's because he is denied access to the Tree of Life.

The other discussion, in regards to God's use of violence, I have been meeting with arguments in regards to God's character, not that sin and death are organically related. I've been consistent in how I've been dealing with these themes.

Quote:
By the way, and as I said before, I do not see anything different between the first and second death in regards to sin.


That doesn't mean others don't. In particular, I do, and I have been consistently dealing with these subjects accordingly.

Quote:
In fact God also supernaturally acts to make the Second Death involved full and prolonged sufferings.


I'm very sorry you see God in this way.

The following is from DA 764:

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.


This says over and over again that it is NOT God who is causing these things to occur. For example:

Quote:
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.


How could it be more clearly stated that this is an action on the part of the wicked?

Again:

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.


This is clearly not God acting supernaturally "to make the Second Death involved full and prolonged sufferings."

That you perceive of God as "also" 'acting supernaturally' "to make the Second Death involved full and prolonged sufferings," is distressing. Jesus came for the purpose of revealing the Father. He said, 'When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father.' Do you perceive Jesus Christ as 'acting supernaturally to cause' (whatever) "involved full and prolonged sufferings'?

There was an incident where Jesus Christ was urged to destroy His enemies by calling down fire from heaven to destroy them. He responded to those so urging Him that they knew not of what spirit they were. He explained that He came not to destroy, but to save.

This is the wonderful character of God! It's not a way that God sometimes is, but other times acting supernaturally to impose full and prolonged suffering. No, no! God is not cruel in any way, ever. Not even at the judgment.

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. (GC 542)


God doesn't impose full and prolonged suffering upon the wicked, but their own actions cause their suffering. They form characters which cause them to suffer simply by having anything at all to do with God. He doesn't have to do anything to make them suffer. They suffer because of what they have done.

Note:

Quote:
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.


What causes them suffering? Purity, holiness, and peace! That should make it clear that the problem is sin. How could purity, holiness and peace be "torture" to a person who wasn't wrecked by sin?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/28/11 05:04 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
-My verbosity, which is distinct from protracted sentences*, is intended to avoid such follow up question, notwithstanding that your question here was unnecessary as I had already stated all that is involved in including the text of verses.


This is a run-on sentence. It should be obvious in writing such a sentence that this is happening. An inner voice should go off, saying, "I need to stop and start a new sentence!"

Quote:
-To you, and also Tom, do consider this my last response on this side show issue.


It's not a side show issue. Writing as you do makes it very difficult to understand what you're saying, so much so that some, for this very reason alone, choose not to interact with you.

Quote:
-(And if further in doubt, when actually applicable, do try Isa 6:9-13|Matt 13:10-17, among other related texts.)


This has something to do with run on sentences?

Quote:
*My protracted sentences mainly come from the way in which I am responding to certain posts.


No, it doesn't. It has to do with how you think. You write the way you think, and the way you think is unclear, so this comes across in your writing.

Quote:
Proofreading would edit these sentences, however I consider it more worthwhile to use that time to include more substantive/supporting information than ‘cleaning/polishing the outside of a cup’ (cf. Matt 23:25, 26) and that does not seem to be a problem as I get very little requests, even if only valid ones are considered, to edit a incomprehensible sentence.


It's not just cleaning/polishing the outside of a cup, but the inside. It's making what's in the cup palatable. Just look at the sentence I'm responding to, for example. It's over 50 words long.

If you get very few requests, it's because the audience is very small.

Quote:
Probably just as much, if not less than for you kland. (Indeed, from what I read from and to you, to the contrary, you seem to expect people to read your mind and/or always comprehend your substituting attempts at “wit” instead of substantive/straightforward statements. And not including the texts of verse also provides me more time to focus on added substantivity.


I'll agree that at times kland can be somewhat difficult to understand, but not in any way comparable to you. kland's "problem," if anything, is that he's too terse. But that's an easy problem to deal with, as one can just ask him to explain in more detail. You're extremely detailed, but unclear at the same time. There are many words, but little understandable content. And when people make suggestions to you (similar to a request to kland to explain in more detail), rather than complying (as kland would), you refuse.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/28/11 05:18 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
It is quite hilariously LOL comical Tom to see that you have time for such spurious and irrelevant issues which substantively do absolutely nothing to validate your view since, now that you’ve cited your reference, it has been exegetically by that fact that a Hiphil has been used.


What? I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Perhaps shorter sentences would help.

Quote:
Take such time to try to deal with that substantive reality instead. All of those hypothetical and philosophical arguments, factually mean/resolve nothing. And you wonder why I can only see that Matt 23:23, 24 fully applies to your case.


You're not saying anything helpful here.

Quote:
And after such an elaborate intervention for kland’s view which he did not bother to defend, what makes you think that your right.


I have no idea what you're referring here. Quoting something would help.

Quote:
Perhaps kland realized that it was a moot point following my provided exegetical element.


Maybe he didn't understand what you were saying. It's not easy.

Quote:
Indeed your indirect view is thus far based on now two refuted examples (Saul & the Wilderness Serpents, which actually uses a Piel stems to say that ‘God sent the serpents’ (Num 21:6) so, As I exegetically see it, at a certain level, EGW may not have the precise understanding here. Indeed serpents do not usually attack unless they feel threatened so God may have also injected a default “threatened notion” in their “minds”.)


If you're intent on seeing God as acting violently, it's certainly possible to subject that point of view on any incident in Scripture. Indeed, you've done so on a number of occasions.

We're on opposite ends of the spectrum here. I'm intent on seeing God not acting violently, and my reason for so doing is the revelation of Jesus Christ. I see, revealed in Christ, a certain picture of God. Given this picture, I see that certain statements, if understood a certain way, do not fit. So I look for another way to understand the statements, which harmonizes with the picture of God that Jesus Christ revealed.

I expect this is the same for kland as well.

Many others have seen the same thing; that Jesus Christ is *the* revelation of God, the key to understanding God.

Now why you take the other perspective, wanting to see God as acting directly to do something violent (like making serpents feel threatened so that they will attack) is a bit puzzling. This would seem to be as diametrically opposed to what Christ revealed as possible.

We have, on the one hand:

1.A statement saying that God sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites.
2.A desire on the part of some to understand this statement in a way that would harmonize with Jesus Christ's revelation of God.
3.An actual statement from an inspired writer that the serpents were there the whole time, that God did not sent them, but withdrew His protection from the Israelites.

On the other hand:

1.A statement saying that God sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites.
2.A desire to see God as wanting to cause suffering on the Israelites.
3.A questioning of an inspired statement because it does agree with 2.

Quote:
And reread kland’s post carefully to see ‘what comment’ I was referring to.


Which post? Where in the post? Why not just quote the comment?

Quote:
It is either you think I will come to be swayed or impressed by your emphasis on the peripherals or you really do believe that they being to be paramount and/or determinative in any way.


This sentence doesn't make sense. "that they being to be paramount" doesn't make any sense.

Quote:
As a serious warning, which can be quite time saving for you, from now on, I will only address what is actually substantive points in your post, indeed as my present time agenda requires it. You’re no the less free to comment on anything you like, just don’t expect an answer from me.


I would be very pleased if you wrote something substantive.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/28/11 07:45 AM


----
“Save Trees”???? Don’t buy printed Bible to “save trees” here and/or have the ones you have recycled, or sent to a poor country since you have (presumably) ready access to at least the Bible on the Internet!! I am not preventing you from looking up my references on a Bible software or the internet!?! Instead of quibbling for spurious rationales here, do yourself a favor and jsut drop that futile attempt for an issue here.

And don`t mistake me for a tree-hugger, I am to save lives and not firstly trees. As an easily naturally renewable resource, trees are not in daner of extinction. If you all would use this falsely supposed ‘saved, cumulative time’ to work to save the lives of aborted infants, as the NJK Project plans, I would consider your proposition as collectively beneficial. Just taking the time to respond to couple of supposed supporting examples to your view, which actually would not even affect the majority of opposite examples, as proper exegetical methods require, it increasingly being deemed as not worthwhile and time wasting by me. Perhaps it will help other people than you to see that actually already black-on-white clear Biblical light on this issue.

(And my NJK Project plan to ‘be more efficient in regards to publishing’ is to provide an ebook/“i-Pad”-type device to NJK Citizens (see here) and in the NJK Economy, they won’t cost, or “need to cost” $500+).
----

Quote:
NJK: 1 Chron 10:14 uses a Hiphil tense to say “killed”, meaning that God’s killing action would be ‘indirect and mediated’. So by God not doing anything to protect Saul’s life in that war, as he normatively did when any Israelite went out to fight, and then with Saul being captured and about to be put to death, before he pre-empted this and did it himself, there, exegetically is no contradiction here. 1 Chron 10:14 already was indicating that this would be done through an indirect and mediated action of God.

Tom: If the indication of the grammar was that God was doing something indirectly, then some translation should have made reference to this.

I'll cite a few:

Originally Posted By: Bible Versions

therefore he slew him KJV
therefore He killed him NKJV
therefore He killed him NASB
He putteth him to death YLT
por esta causa lo mató Reina-Valera Antigua
alors l'Éternel le fit mourir Louis Segond
pelo que ele o matou João Ferreira de Almeida Atualizada
per questo il Signore lo fece morire Conferenza Episcopale Italiana


That is what the Hebrew Grammatical identification states and, more precisely here, what the Syntax intends to convey. For (presumably) reasons/preferences of fluency these notions are not woodenly expresses in mainstream Bible versions. People complained about the begats in the KJV, well they would complain about all of the e.g.,: “caused to” (Hiphil) and “made to” (Piel) in these verbs were rendered as they were literally meant to. The scholarship attempt to try to express this nuance by using different words in English actually has done injury to this Hebrew Language element as it can be easily seen by the fact that the Hebrew tenses, depending on the context in which they are found, actually confusedly need to use those intended distinct English words.

(Though I am fluent in French and conversant/functional in Spanish, I think we could stick to the major English version, (the NIV, RSV/NRSV, JB/NJB should also be consulted cited, though I do not see version comparison as being determinative since the underlying syntax is not always properly rendered.)

The NJB (New Jerusalem Bible (hint hint) accurately has: “He had not consulted Yahweh, who therefore caused his death”

Indeed OT Hebrew Textbooks (as well as NT Greek ones) usually makes numerous Scriptural citations where they rendered texts in ways that are not found in any Bible version. (E.g, Waltke and O’Connor’s work (IBHS) has over 4100 Scriptural references, most of these being of this unique and more precise rendition kind.

Quote:
Tom: Regarding hiphil:

Quote:
One of the binyanim or forms of Hebrew verbs. Often the hiphil has a causative meaning e.g. "to make someone do something"

www.bible.gen.nz/amos/glossary/hiphil.htm


Quote:
According to Jenni, the Piel signifies "to bring about a state," and the Hiphil, to cause an event.

(An Introduction to biblical Hebrew syntax, by Bruce K. Waltke, Michael Patrick O'Connor)


What’s your page number for the IBHS citation here??

Quote:
B) Hiphil

1) Hiphil usually expresses the "causative" action of Qal -

http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/hebrew_grammar.htm

These are all saying that God caused the event of Saul's death, both in the translations, and in the explanation of the grammar.


(Just a note, I personally trust the quite comprehensive and more recent work of IBHS over other printed grammars, and especially over internet sources.)

These are indeed rightly emphasizing the causative notion contained in the Hiphil. (Perhaps you do not fully understand the grammatical/syntactical implications here.) As further explained in IBHS, (which can be accessed in Google Books) this “causation” is quite distinctly in action than the Piel or the Qal, among others tenses. Indeed as expressed in IBHS, 355:

Originally Posted By: IBHS 355
An English verb which can be intrinsically causative, such as ‘to cook,’ avoids the extra baggage of the causation auxiliary construction. It thus comes closer to the morphological causation forms of Hebrew. Roughly stated, it is our proposal that the verb ‘cooked’ in the sentence ‘John cooked the cabbage’ in the sense ‘John made the cabbage cooked’ would be rendered in Hebrew by the Piel, and in the sense ‘John caused the cabbage to cook’ by the Hiphil. Piel tends to signify causation with a patiency nuance, and Hiphil causation notion with an agency nuance. The two types of causation forms differ from one another with reference to the status of the subject being acted upon by the main verb, that is, the voice associated with the undersubject or secondary subject.


Piel - patiency nuance = “The semantic role of an entity that is not the agent but is directly involved in or affected by the happening denoted by the verb in the clause”

Hiphil - agency nuance - The semantic role of the animate entity that instigates or causes the happening denoted by the verb in the clause. How a result is obtained or an end is achieved

However, more than just the piel is involved when direct action is intended by the subject in regards to the verb “to kill” (#04191). The Hebrew Polel form (derived from the Piel) is used. Indeed with a notion here of pointed aim and/with endeavor, using a “special energy”, it thus speaks of ‘actively and directly putting someone to death’ (Jud 9:54; 1 Sam 14:13; 17:51; Psa 34:22; 109:16); indeed in relation to Saul himself (2 Sam 1:9, 10, 16), and also when God is to directly do it (Jer 20:17). (cf. GKC (Gesenius Hebrew Grammar) 55c:

Originally Posted By: GKC 55c
Po’el proper (as distinguished from the corresponding conjugations of verbs &#1506;&#1524;&#1506; § 67 l and &#1506;&#1524;&#1493;&#1468; § 72 m, which take the place of the ordinary causative Pi&#703;&#275;) expresses an aim or endeavour to perform the action, especially with hostile intent, and is hence called, by Ewald, the stem expressing aim (Zielstamm), endeavour (Suche-stamm) or attack (Angriffs-stamm); cf. the examples given above from Jb 9:15, Ps 101:5, and &#1506;&#1493;&#1465;&#1497;&#1461;&#1503; 1 S 18:9 Qerê (probably for &#1502;&#1456;&#1506;&#1493;&#1465;&#1497;&#1461;&#1503;, cf. § 52 s; § 55 f: seeking to cast an evil eye).


Originally Posted By: Tom
There are a couple of events in Christ's life, the cursing of the fig tree and the cleansing of the temple, which are often misinterpreted as if He were acting in a manner such as you are trying to attribute to Him as a means of justifying your own actions. Reading the accounts in "The Desire of Ages" makes clear that what is being attributed to Christ doesn't correspond to the reality of what happened.


The DA account of Christ’s incontrovertible use of physical force to twice clear/cleanse the Temple moreoverly, clearly indicate to me what was really going on here. Christ was indeed righteously indignant. That fact cannot be futilely excised/ignored from the Bible and SOP. The fig tree could be passed off as an acted parable, however the surprised reaction of the disciples shows that this was also not within the normative action/conduct of Christ. However it is the intrinsic part of God’s Ministry of judgement/Wrath and as usually, it is always for a greater good and not out of any baseless/reactionary vindictiveness.

Quote:
Even if, for the sake of argument, one were to believe that Christ acted in the unfortunate manner being suggested, it would still be the case that 99% of the time Christ acted as a gentleman, with kindness, tact, and consideration. So perhaps we could aim for that same figure here.


There is nothing “unfortunate” about ‘Righteous Indignation for a greater good’. You are the one who cannot understand this just aspect of God’s Character. I personally thank God for this judicious, even forceful, intervention especially when it so does confront the abuses of people in positions of power/leadership, especially (religious) leadership in His People/Church. (Cf. Rev 6:9, 10) And I aim to be a 100% follower of Christ. It was because it was not Christ’s mandate then to judge Israel, but to first instruct/redress them and complete the plan of salvation (cf. Luke 49, 50) that more of these deserved acts of judgement were not done.

And in regards to Christ’s expressed ‘great wish’ in Luke 12:49, if he indeed had not ‘greatly constrained himself’ but done that act of bringing about Hell Fire on the earth, that would have trumped all of the “meted” actions of judgements by God in the OT put together, including the Flood destruction.

Quote:
NJK: Manifestly if Simon, the Pharisee had immediately proceeded to audibly condemn Christ with these blind thoughts, he would been met/treated as Christ usually dealt with those Jewish leaders,

Tom: First of all, let's consider how Christ usually dealt with the Jewish leaders. In the beginning of Christ's ministry, Christ was open in His teachings.


Cite a couple of Examples. I rather see that he spoke veiledly to them from the start (e.g., John 2:19ff & 3:3ff), indeed, as already stated, ‘rousing their hatred’ (DA 167.2) in the first act of His ministry in the Clearing/Cleansing of the Temple (John 2:13ff).

Quote:
It was only when He met with opposition that He resorted to less direct methods, such as the parables. The whole time He was doing everything He could to reach the Jewish leaders.


Christ made himself meet with this opposition right from the start by himself initiating the confrontation in the Temple. The veiled statements also started right then. Barring an actual substantiation here, your view here would actually be wishful thinking.

Originally Posted By: Tom
He did this for two reasons. The first was that He loved them, and wanted to save them. The second reason was that He knew if He could reach them, that was the secret to saving the nation.


The Biblical Truth is that Jesus wanted to judge them from the start. You don’t awake love by doing actions that arouse hatred. Further Biblically speaking that was all in line with his “designs”to bring about deserved judgement on this leaders who should have known and done better, as they were pretentious purporting.

(For some reason you think that just claiming “love” resolves everything. At best this was tough love manifested by Christ, nonetheless “tough love” explanatorily seeks to avoid sustained hatred against the disciplinary actions taken, and perhaps this was only done in the first statements made in John 2:16, yet after his overthrowing acts. Still that initial statement should have been enough to enlighten these “knowledgeable” leaders (cf. The disciples own understanding in John 2:17). I rather see that Christ had love for those who were being swindled, misled and oppressed. From the start, these Jewish leaders collectively had reach the stage of unrevokable judgement. They effectively lost their position to Christ. There only solution was to align themselves with what Christ’s leadership, and they manifestly fully understood this implication, however they basely wanted an ‘external sign’ John 2:18, rather than heed the substantive Biblical truth (John 2:16, 17)

Originally Posted By: Tom
The majority of the time Christ treated the Jewish leaders with respect, and avoided confrontation with them.


Expressing truth, even if force has to be used is not disrespect. The wayward and unbiblical actions and statements of these did not deserve any respect, lest Christ be thus complicit in their waywardness, or worse, emboldened then through this “respect” in this wrong, unBiblical and vitally dangerous path.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Secondly, the point here is that Christ treated Simon gently and with tact not because Simon acted in one manner rather than another (i.e., by means of thinking rather than speaking), but because Christ loved him and wanted to save him.


Your underlying points did not hold up to the actual light of God’s word including the SOP. So this conclusion is thus baseless. The fact that Simon, a Pharisee had already manifested interest in Christ and had in thanks for his healing organized this public known feast was reason enough for Christ to be patient with him and his growing faith. That mere public association, indeed vs. Nicodemus covert one, almost automatically put Simon at odds with the rest of the other Jewish leaders. As EGW says:

Originally Posted By: SOP DA 557.1
Simon of Bethany was accounted a disciple of Jesus. He was one of the few Pharisees who had openly joined Christ's followers. He acknowledged Jesus as a teacher, and hoped that He might be the Messiah, but he had not accepted Him as a Saviour. His character was not transformed; his principles were unchanged.


So Christ had ample tangible reasons to be most patient with this relatively brave and faith action. Thus Christ indeed wanted to save him and excused his wayward thought here, as he similarly repeatedly did for his own disciples. However an outspoken condemnatory denunciation would have brought a corresponding, at the very least, indicative correction. Cf. Matt 16:21-23).

Quote:
NJK: however he partly swallowed his pride here, which warranted this merciful treatment.

Tom: What "warranted this merciful treatment" was not any action on Simon's part, but Christ's character. Christ is merciful, so He treated Simon with mercy. Mercy is akin to grace in that it's *unmerited* (or "unwarranted") favor, given by one to another not because the other deserves it, but out of the kindness of the one granting it.


This view of your has already been disproven by how Jesus actually dealt with prideful objectors throughout his minsitry, including defaulty with Jewish leaders from the very start of his ministry. In fact the only, relatively, “plain” statement I see Christ making to, inclusively some of these leaders during his ministry, before the Matt 23 plain statements, was in Luke 4:21, which was in contrast to the reading of Isa 61:1, 2 which had been ‘well received’ (vs. 22; cf. DA 236.4-237.2) however Christ immediately enjoined this spiritually glib reception with cutting words that led these people to become filled with murderous rage vss. 23-30. (Cf. DA 237.3ff)

Quote:
NJK: Also Christ would be dealing with unexpressed thoughts, so, as to not compel faith here, he had to veiledly address this opposition, as He mercifully deemed it necessary.

Tom: This sentence doesn't make sense. At any rate, Christ's motivation was the salvation of Simon.


It does when you carefully read it. Mercy was being shown because these sharply objecting thoughts were nonetheless suppressed by Simon. Mercy is what leads to salvation for people at fault like Simon was here. And Simon, who should have known better, did not deserve this patient treatment. He shouldhave even inward gave deference to Christ’s judgement and wisdom inaccepting this gift of Mary. As EGW says of Simon Character: “he had not accepted Him [Jesus] as a Saviour. His character was not transformed; his principles were unchanged.” So at best he was just as deprived in character as the other Jewish leaders, hence why he could not perceive the Spiritual/Prophetic import of this accepted act by Christ.

Quote:
NJK: (3) choose to dismiss points made in the Bible and also SOP, even ‘preferring’ the mere speculations of men (e.g., ‘Sodom and Gomorrah’s volcano’)

Tom: It's a common idea, if you look at commentaries, that a natural disaster of some sort occurred in the 5 cities on the plain. There's nothing in either Scripture nor the SOP that precludes this idea. The idea cited is no more speculative than your own.


Where am I “speculating” here, as implied, or anywhere else for that matter. Do point out a couple of examples, if true! My statements are painstakingly, exegetically derived from the Bible with, when agreeing, the SOP. (I address this volcano notion below).

Quote:
NJK:I’ve never heard of it before, at all in neither Christian or SDA circles.

Tom: This is from the first place I looked at that spoke of "brimstone"

Quote:
"Brimstone," possibly the ancient name for sulphur, evokes the acrid odor of volcanic activity. (www.answers.com)


This is a pretty well-known idea.

-----

NJK: The clear Bible and SOP statements do not leave opportunity this view as they both say that God cause the fire and brimstone to come down from Heaven and EGW would have easily been shown this.

Tom: "Heaven" is "the sky." If brimstone is "evoking the acrid odor of volcanic activity" then the idea that this is referring to volcanic activity follows immediately.


You need to seek for a natural explanation as to how “sulfur stones” could rain down from heaven. In your view they had to be projected from a volcano to seem like they can from Heaven. I rather see that when the Bible and the SOP clearly say that they Fire was “from Yahweh” and “out of the heaven/sky” this double specification does preclude a “natural” (i.e., already supposed to occur) occurrence here. It indeed does not say: ‘from a volcano nearby’ which indeed had to be very near. I rather see that God caused, i.e., through His working angels, His active agents for most destructions, this fire to fall straight down from Heaven (i.e., beyond our atmosphere) by e.g., gathering the brimstones from the sulfuric volcanic moon of Jupiter.

Your ‘natural volcano supposition’ here has the added problem of timeliness here. Did God first wait for a nearby volcano to be about to erupt before making this trip to Earth for this destruction, (which also has the implied notion that God is subservient to nature to timely effectuate his will).

Also the SOP statements that:

“Here the angels left them, a turned back to Sodom to accomplish their work of destruction*” and “The storm of divine judgment was only waiting that these poor fugitives might make their escape” (PP 160.2) and “Again the solemn command was given to hasten, for the fiery storm would be delayed but little longer” (PP 161.2) all show that God was playing a most active part in this destruction. Even simply no longer controlling a volcano involves an action of God.

*(The manifest needed presence of these angels near the cities to be destroyed may have been scientifically as necessary as a Military’s need at times today of Marines to be on the ground, close that a target, to “paint” it with a laser to accurately guide an incoming missile. Indeed those cities would need more targeted hits than the rest of the plain to physically destroy them.)

Also God’s sparing of Bela/Zoar at Lot’s entreaty (PP 161.1) shows that God could “whimsically” control where the brimstone and fire went.

EGW repeatedly refers to this destruction as a “storm/tempest”. Clearly there was notion/indication in here visionary view here that this was merely a volcanic eruption.

And the actual mathematical science for a volcano to destroy five cities and an entire valley, and not by lava flow, but sulfur stone, most of which are relatively small, is, to my knowledge, naturally not attested or logically feasible.

Quote:
NJK: Commentaries don’t begin to make any significant statement here as they are merely speculating.

Tom: They're doing the same thing you are doing, which is trying to figure out what the text means.


I base my Biblical conclusion on careful exegesis of the Bible and SOP and not outright, even illogical third-party speculation. Your view needs to preclude that God and/or through His angels, actively does these acts, and that defaulty makes your conclusions foundations shaky, especially when they are not explicitly suggested in either the texts of the Bible or SOP.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Also it can easily be verified if a volcano exists on that archeological site. Volcanoes just don’t disappear. And how does a supposed Flood Salt rock eruption come to affect that S&G destruction hundreds of years later?


Quote:
Certain aspects of the biblical story of the Cities of the Plain have in recent years become widely accepted. Among them is the placing of those cities in the southern basin of the Dead Sea, the assumption that those cities are now covered by Dead Sea water and, in particular, the belief that their destruction was due to catastrophic geological causes, such as an earthquake. The Bible emphasizes the agricultural richness of the Jordan plain prior to the upheaval of Sodom and Gomorrah and its catastrophic transformation into a wasteland. Thus, stripped of ethical and religious overtones, the scenario is that of a rapid climatic change that converted a densely inhabited and richly watered area into an infertile salt playa. The region northeast and southeast of Jericho, which today is quite barren as a result of the upward movement of salty ground water but which contains some of the World's earliest known agricultural settlements, fits such a picture. (http://www.springerlink.com/content/l8243r611174n710/)


Volcanoes are usually in some type of mountainous forms. (Only volcanic fissure vents are flat but when erupting have no explosive activity.) So for it to be covered by the Dead Sea, which is not that deep, especially at its indeed S&G southern end which does not exceed 16 ft (see SDABD 1051) would not cover a volcano. So to prove your theory here you need to pinpoint where that volcano, and or its remains are. (Try Google Earth). And for brimstones to be hurled at a great distance, an quite high volcano dome would be needed to provide the required ground clearance when propelled.

Also this volcanic sulfur stone propelling would oddly have to be onsided instead of concentrically circular, unless that supposed volcano was in the midst of this valley. Then it should not be hard to pinpoint it in even in the 16ft covered depth of the Southern part

Originally Posted By: Tom
I saw this snipped from the google search, but couldn't get more:

Quote:
other Cities of the Plain were destroyed by volcanic activity (presumably initiated by divine intervention) which ignited the sulfur and bitumen lying under


The Bible and SOP, and that unlike the Flood account with the mention of “fountains of the deep” make no mention of ‘contributing underground activity’. Only projectiles from the Sky/Heaven are related. So I don’t see this supposition as Biblically viable/valid.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I could find more by searching some more, but this should be enough to make the point that's it's an idea that's widely known.


Widely, and contra-Biblically, presumed, at best! I have no need to go outside of Biblical Testimony to have the truth of what happened then. No view of mine is forcing me to ignore the clear Biblical account here. Again, at the very least Bible writers living much closer to these times, and even EGW would have known, been shown, that a volcano and underground eruptions were used for this destruction. Indeed that would have served to prevent an unbeliever later claiming that there was nothing supernatural that occurred in that observable, and widely renowned, valley and cities destruction, as “it was just a volcano that had erupted.

Originally Posted By: Tom
(more later)


Hope it is more Biblically substantive and exegetically engaging/tenable that these replies!
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/28/11 08:16 AM

I could easily debunk all of your arguments in your latest post, including the peripheral one, but I won’t even succinctly begin to do so as this discussion is no longer worthwhile for me, especially in having to restate and/or having to unspin and remake clear what you have spinned and obfuscatedly made unclear in order to have a peg upon which to hang your objecting points. A careful and logical reading of what I had said should sustain my points. The lack of actually proper exegesis, which also includes EGW’s subordination to the Bible, also makes this discussion more complicated than it needs to be.

My only option here is to let it play out and in the end we will see who had the Biblical view. And I judiciously choose to exercise it now. I’ll have to answer for this wasting of time. So long Tom, at least, for this discussion.

(Still “can’t” find time to read my blog post on the fundamental “War in Heaven” exposition. Seems like an ostrich move to me so that you can “oblivious” (actually “indifferently”) continue to seek to impinge me with ‘having a violent/force view, and for, God’. LOL!)

Hell Doctrine Riddle: How does a person live for more than a couple minutes, indeed days, if not “ages”, in a Lake of Fire. By a Just, “full life-sustaining” Act of God (and not by their sinfulness)!!

Oh yeah... for the Second death- organic sin issue, see your response in #13081, which was addressing my initial post in this thread at #130766. I only later made a mention of the Tree of Life in #130887.
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/28/11 04:39 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Originally Posted By: kland
No, I am not familiar with the Bibleworks interface. Why did you assume I was? I went back and read what you wrote and maybe your verbosity, with which you seem to have no issue in reducing the amount of time spent doing it, and making it harder for others to read and comprehend what you are saying (much like this statement with phrases within phrases), got in the way from you saying you copy and paste in a different way than normal people do. Why, I still do not know. What is so unusual of this interface which makes it so cumbersome to use?


-“If” is for a conditional statement, and not a ‘believed assumption.’ I certainly, for manifested reasons, do not see a need to presume that you are experientially familiar with Bibleworks, the leading exegetical Biblical software resource.

-For the sake of my time I’ll skip detailing what is involved in copying from Bibleworks, especially as this here will not make difference in my opting not to include texts or not.

I understand conditional sentences. Except I was referring to your previous statement, or lack thereof, of your assumption that I was familiar with it. Now that you have confirmed that I am indeed not familiar with it, why do you not explain why this software is so much harder to use. It would save you precious time from having to read yet another request for the same thing. Instead, you come across as puffed up.

With nothing more to go on, I suspect you need to take a computer course on how to copy and paste.


Quote:
And after such an elaborate intervention for kland’s view which he did not bother to defend, what makes you think that your right. Perhaps kland realized that it was a moot point following my provided exegetical element.
Perhaps kland had no comprehension, and certainly saw no sign of exegetical, of what you were talking about and figured it was another tactic to blow him off since he had made a good point and you had nothing with which to object to it.
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/28/11 04:44 PM

Quote:
(actually “indifferently”) continue to seek to impinge me with ‘having a violent/force view, and for, God’. LOL!)
Could you give an example of a view that would be a violent/force view, and for, God?
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/28/11 05:38 PM

Originally Posted By: kland
Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Originally Posted By: kland
No, I am not familiar with the Bibleworks interface. Why did you assume I was? I went back and read what you wrote and maybe your verbosity, with which you seem to have no issue in reducing the amount of time spent doing it, and making it harder for others to read and comprehend what you are saying (much like this statement with phrases within phrases), got in the way from you saying you copy and paste in a different way than normal people do. Why, I still do not know. What is so unusual of this interface which makes it so cumbersome to use?


-“If” is for a conditional statement, and not a ‘believed assumption.’ I certainly, for manifested reasons, do not see a need to presume that you are experientially familiar with Bibleworks, the leading exegetical Biblical software resource.

-For the sake of my time I’ll skip detailing what is involved in copying from Bibleworks, especially as this here will not make difference in my opting not to include texts or not.

I understand conditional sentences. Except I was referring to your previous statement, or lack thereof, of your assumption that I was familiar with it. Now that you have confirmed that I am indeed not familiar with it, why do you not explain why this software is so much harder to use. It would save you precious time from having to read yet another request for the same thing. Instead, you come across as puffed up.

With nothing more to go on, I suspect you need to take a computer course on how to copy and paste.


Quote:
And after such an elaborate intervention for kland’s view which he did not bother to defend, what makes you think that your right. Perhaps kland realized that it was a moot point following my provided exegetical element.
Perhaps kland had no comprehension, and certainly saw no sign of exegetical, of what you were talking about and figured it was another tactic to blow him off since he had made a good point and you had nothing with which to object to it.


You’re the one who chose to unbelievingly (as if I am so defeated by you that I need to lie to you, LOL) truncate my explanation of the steps involved to simply ‘copy and paste’. Hence my: “If you’re familiar...” (or it should have been: ‘If you were familiar...’). And if making this request so bothers you, then don’t ask it again. Like I said, it won’t change anything. (And... and I can’t believe I am even remotely honoring this ignorant statement of yours, a “course in copy/pasting” won’t help. In fact the more formal way of copying a pasting in Bibleworkis more time consuming, and is actually better for the copying of large amounts of varying texts and/or from various Bible versions.)

By the way, I actually don’t see that ‘you had made a good point.’ Most of them are irrational and illogical to me, particular as they are usually hypothetical and that based on false realities. So that assumption of yours here is only your personal esteem of your statements.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/28/11 05:39 PM

Originally Posted By: kland
Quote:
(actually “indifferently”) continue to seek to impinge me with ‘having a violent/force view, and for, God’. LOL!)
Could you give an example of a view that would be a violent/force view, and for, God?


I thought this was made clear in the discussions with Tom, (at least from what he “noticed/recalled” to respond to):

-Since I first posted it, my “War in Heaven” blog post Theological View;
-The Inevitable Ten Plague, retributive Judgement
-The 2 Clearing/Cleansings of the Temple by Jesus;
-The “days” even “age” lasting of the wicked in Hell’s Fire;
-God wanting to punish Israel for their sins and thus acting to send a swarm of venomous serpents to immediately, and at a large scale, achieve that punishment;
-Christ’s Great Wish in Luke 12:49;
-Christ’s Ministry-wide designings against the Jewish leaders (cf. Matt 13:10-17 = Isa 6:9-13);
etc.
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/29/11 12:13 AM

Quote:
You’re the one who chose to unbelievingly, extraneous parenthetical, truncate my explanation of the steps involved to simply ‘copy and paste’.
I wish there was a way to make notes on these forums. I'll try to remember, but MM wants the whole quote quoted rather than the relevant portion and now it looks like you do to.

So for MM and NJK:
Click to reveal..
Originally Posted By: kland
Originally Posted By: NJK Project
kland: No, I am not familiar with the Bibleworks interface. Why did you assume I was? I went back and read what you wrote and maybe your verbosity, with which you seem to have no issue in reducing the amount of time spent doing it, and making it harder for others to read and comprehend what you are saying (much like this statement with phrases within phrases), got in the way from you saying you copy and paste in a different way than normal people do. Why, I still do not know. What is so unusual of this interface which makes it so cumbersome to use?

NJK: -“If” is for a conditional statement, and not a ‘believed assumption.’ I certainly, for manifested reasons, do not see a need to presume that you are experientially familiar with Bibleworks, the leading exegetical Biblical software resource.

-For the sake of my time I’ll skip detailing what is involved in copying from Bibleworks, especially as this here will not make difference in my opting not to include texts or not.

I understand conditional sentences. Except I was referring to your previous statement, or lack thereof, of your assumption that I was familiar with it. Now that you have confirmed that I am indeed not familiar with it, why do you not explain why this software is so much harder to use. It would save you precious time from having to read yet another request for the same thing. Instead, you come across as puffed up.

With nothing more to go on, I suspect you need to take a computer course on how to copy and paste.


Quote:
And after such an elaborate intervention for kland’s view which he did not bother to defend, what makes you think that your right. Perhaps kland realized that it was a moot point following my provided exegetical element.
Perhaps kland had no comprehension, and certainly saw no sign of exegetical, of what you were talking about and figured it was another tactic to blow him off since he had made a good point and you had nothing with which to object to it.


You’re the one who chose to unbelievingly (as if I am so defeated by you that I need to lie to you, LOL) truncate my explanation of the steps involved to simply ‘copy and paste’. Hence my: “If you’re familiar...” (or it should have been: ‘If you were familiar...’). And if making this request so bothers you, then don’t ask it again. Like I said, it won’t change anything. (And... and I can’t believe I am even remotely honoring this ignorant statement of yours, a “course in copy/pasting” won’t help. In fact the more formal way of copying a pasting in Bibleworkis more time consuming, and is actually better for the copying of large amounts of varying texts and/or from various Bible versions.)

By the way, I actually don’t see that ‘you had made a good point.’ Most of them are irrational and illogical to me, particular as they are usually hypothetical and that based on false realities. So that assumption of yours here is only your personal esteem of your statements.

Now everyone else can join in:
Quote:
my explanation of the steps involved to simply ‘copy and paste’.
I wasn't asking what the steps were as you explained how cumbersome it was. I was asking, why? Why isn't it normal? If it isn't normal, maybe it's not so great of software. But seriously, I would be surprised that you can't do a normal copy and paste. Have you tried? I would have hoped so. Is it a Windows program and are you using Windows?
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/29/11 12:17 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Originally Posted By: kland
Quote:
(actually “indifferently”) continue to seek to impinge me with ‘having a violent/force view, and for, God’. LOL!)
Could you give an example of a view that would be a violent/force view, and for, God?


I thought this was made clear in the discussions with Tom, (at least from what he “noticed/recalled” to respond to):

-Since I first posted it, my “War in Heaven” blog post Theological View;
-The Inevitable Ten Plague, retributive Judgement
-The 2 Clearing/Cleansings of the Temple by Jesus;
-The “days” even “age” lasting of the wicked in Hell’s Fire;
-God wanting to punish Israel for their sins and thus acting to send a swarm of venomous serpents to immediately, and at a large scale, achieve that punishment;
-Christ’s Great Wish in Luke 12:49;
-Christ’s Ministry-wide designings against the Jewish leaders (cf. Matt 13:10-17 = Isa 6:9-13);
etc.
So do you or not have a violent/force view, and for, God? Because I thought that was what he was saying you had of God. If you don't believe your view is a violent/force view, then could you give an example of a view that would be a violent/force view, and for, God?
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/29/11 12:38 AM

Originally Posted By: kland
Quote:
You’re the one who chose to unbelievingly, extraneous parenthetical, truncate my explanation of the steps involved to simply ‘copy and paste’.
I wish there was a way to make notes on these forums. I'll try to remember, but MM wants the whole quote quoted rather than the relevant portion and now it looks like you do to.

So for MM and NJK:
Click to reveal..
Originally Posted By: kland
Originally Posted By: NJK Project
kland: No, I am not familiar with the Bibleworks interface. Why did you assume I was? I went back and read what you wrote and maybe your verbosity, with which you seem to have no issue in reducing the amount of time spent doing it, and making it harder for others to read and comprehend what you are saying (much like this statement with phrases within phrases), got in the way from you saying you copy and paste in a different way than normal people do. Why, I still do not know. What is so unusual of this interface which makes it so cumbersome to use?

NJK: -“If” is for a conditional statement, and not a ‘believed assumption.’ I certainly, for manifested reasons, do not see a need to presume that you are experientially familiar with Bibleworks, the leading exegetical Biblical software resource.

-For the sake of my time I’ll skip detailing what is involved in copying from Bibleworks, especially as this here will not make difference in my opting not to include texts or not.

I understand conditional sentences. Except I was referring to your previous statement, or lack thereof, of your assumption that I was familiar with it. Now that you have confirmed that I am indeed not familiar with it, why do you not explain why this software is so much harder to use. It would save you precious time from having to read yet another request for the same thing. Instead, you come across as puffed up.

With nothing more to go on, I suspect you need to take a computer course on how to copy and paste.


Quote:
And after such an elaborate intervention for kland’s view which he did not bother to defend, what makes you think that your right. Perhaps kland realized that it was a moot point following my provided exegetical element.
Perhaps kland had no comprehension, and certainly saw no sign of exegetical, of what you were talking about and figured it was another tactic to blow him off since he had made a good point and you had nothing with which to object to it.


You’re the one who chose to unbelievingly (as if I am so defeated by you that I need to lie to you, LOL) truncate my explanation of the steps involved to simply ‘copy and paste’. Hence my: “If you’re familiar...” (or it should have been: ‘If you were familiar...’). And if making this request so bothers you, then don’t ask it again. Like I said, it won’t change anything. (And... and I can’t believe I am even remotely honoring this ignorant statement of yours, a “course in copy/pasting” won’t help. In fact the more formal way of copying a pasting in Bibleworkis more time consuming, and is actually better for the copying of large amounts of varying texts and/or from various Bible versions.)

By the way, I actually don’t see that ‘you had made a good point.’ Most of them are irrational and illogical to me, particular as they are usually hypothetical and that based on false realities. So that assumption of yours here is only your personal esteem of your statements.

Now everyone else can join in:
Quote:
my explanation of the steps involved to simply ‘copy and paste’.
I wasn't asking what the steps were as you explained how cumbersome it was. I was asking, why? Why isn't it normal? If it isn't normal, maybe it's not so great of software. But seriously, I would be surprised that you can't do a normal copy and paste. Have you tried? I would have hoped so. Is it a Windows program and are you using Windows?

(Factually spurious justifying attempt (backtrack to initial post), and a waste of my time.)
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/29/11 12:42 AM

Originally Posted By: kland
Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Originally Posted By: kland
Quote:
(actually “indifferently”) continue to seek to impinge me with ‘having a violent/force view, and for, God’. LOL!)
Could you give an example of a view that would be a violent/force view, and for, God?


I thought this was made clear in the discussions with Tom, (at least from what he “noticed/recalled” to respond to):

-Since I first posted it, my “War in Heaven” blog post Theological View;
-The Inevitable Ten Plague, retributive Judgement
-The 2 Clearing/Cleansings of the Temple by Jesus;
-The “days” even “age” lasting of the wicked in Hell’s Fire;
-God wanting to punish Israel for their sins and thus acting to send a swarm of venomous serpents to immediately, and at a large scale, achieve that punishment;
-Christ’s Great Wish in Luke 12:49;
-Christ’s Ministry-wide designings against the Jewish leaders (cf. Matt 13:10-17 = Isa 6:9-13);
etc.



Originally Posted By: kland
So do you or not have a violent/force view, and for, God? Because I thought that was what he was saying you had of God. If you don't believe your view is a violent/force view, then could you give an example of a view that would be a violent/force view, and for, God?


In the sense that God uses force (“violence”) to compel people to obey him “NO”

In the sense that God uses force (“violence”) to effectuate a judgement/punishment, (as in my examples cited) which itself is fully deserved and just then “Yes”.

In Tom’s view, God can’t do such judgement acts in any way as that would be “evil”. Ironically enough, it is actually only “evil” (not in regards to God as actually He never has been required to curtail His '"passion" for truth' in order to be merciful towards sinners) when God just lets Satan freely and fully have his way.

I understand EGW statement in GC 35.3 to mean that God does not force (i.e., by a freewill violating decree) people who otherwise would not, experience a judgement. Their own waywardness brought that judgement upon them. Satan however tries to make it seem that the people who are suffering have done nothing to deserve this and this is just an unjust act of God. However I don’t see this to mean that God will never work/design to have that distinctly deserved punishment to come to pass, even if it is by simply withdrawing his protection. So it is again when he allows Satan to have full control that Satan could act wantonly and of course unmercifully and therein cause these people to receive specific undeserved punishments.

Indeed EGW’s “forging your fetters” implying ‘making yourself remain in jail for a wrong more than you should have’ and also “filling the cup of vengeance’ involves/implies this cup (God’s cup Jer 25:15; Rev 14:10; cf. 16:19) had always been there and the wine in it is actually the wrong doer’s own deserved concoction. So God does not have to invent an irrelevant method of punishment. Even in e.g, the Sodom and Gomorrah destruction, it was a type of people “burning in their (fleshly) desire” (Rom 1:27) and thus reaping what the full effect of that behavior when God will cast all sinners in Hell Fire who could, at a certain point, also be naturally self-combustedly destroyed by just His Presence.
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/29/11 06:00 PM

Click to reveal..

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Originally Posted By: kland
Originally Posted By: NJK Project
[quote=kland]
Quote:
(actually “indifferently”) continue to seek to impinge me with ‘having a violent/force view, and for, God’. LOL!)
Could you give an example of a view that would be a violent/force view, and for, God?


I thought this was made clear in the discussions with Tom, (at least from what he “noticed/recalled” to respond to):

-Since I first posted it, my “War in Heaven” blog post Theological View;
-The Inevitable Ten Plague, retributive Judgement
-The 2 Clearing/Cleansings of the Temple by Jesus;
-The “days” even “age” lasting of the wicked in Hell’s Fire;
-God wanting to punish Israel for their sins and thus acting to send a swarm of venomous serpents to immediately, and at a large scale, achieve that punishment;
-Christ’s Great Wish in Luke 12:49;
-Christ’s Ministry-wide designings against the Jewish leaders (cf. Matt 13:10-17 = Isa 6:9-13);
etc.



Originally Posted By: kland
So do you or not have a violent/force view, and for, God? Because I thought that was what he was saying you had of God. If you don't believe your view is a violent/force view, then could you give an example of a view that would be a violent/force view, and for, God?


In the sense that God uses force (“violence”) to compel people to obey him “NO”

In the sense that God uses force (“violence”) to effectuate a judgement/punishment, (as in my examples cited) which itself is fully deserved and just then “Yes”.

In Tom’s view, God can’t do such judgement acts in any way as that would be “evil”. Ironically enough, it is actually only “evil” (not in regards to God as actually He never has been required to curtail His '"passion" for truth' in order to be merciful towards sinners) when God just lets Satan freely and fully have his way.

I understand EGW statement in GC 35.3 to mean that God does not force (i.e., by a freewill violating decree) people who otherwise would not, experience a judgement. Their own waywardness brought that judgement upon them. Satan however tries to make it seem that the people who are suffering have done nothing to deserve this and this is just an unjust act of God. However I don’t see this to mean that God will never work/design to have that distinctly deserved punishment to come to pass, even if it is by simply withdrawing his protection. So it is again when he allows Satan to have full control that Satan could act wantonly and of course unmercifully and therein cause these people to receive specific undeserved punishments.

Indeed EGW’s “forging your fetters” implying ‘making yourself remain in jail for a wrong more than you should have’ and also “filling the cup of vengeance’ involves/implies this cup (God’s cup Jer 25:15; Rev 14:10; cf. 16:19) had always been there and the wine in it is actually the wrong doer’s own deserved concoction. So God does not have to invent an irrelevant method of punishment. Even in e.g, the Sodom and Gomorrah destruction, it was a type of people “burning in their (fleshly) desire” (Rom 1:27) and thus reaping what the full effect of that behavior when God will cast all sinners in Hell Fire who could, at a certain point, also be naturally self-combustedly destroyed by just His Presence.
[/quote]

Quote:
I understand EGW statement in GC 35.3 to mean that God does not force...people who otherwise would not, experience a judgement.

, even if it is by simply withdrawing his protection. So it is again when he allows Satan to have full control
How do you see this different than what Tom has been saying?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/29/11 06:01 PM

Originally Posted By: kland
M: Also, do you think the father teaching his son how to hunt humanely is the same thing as Jesus commanding Moses to stone to death the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer? Is hunting animals and killing humans equal in the eyes of God? Did the father command his son to hunt humanely?

K: Why do you think that is what Tom is comparing?

What did Tom say? Please include the entire exchange. Thank you.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/29/11 07:55 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK Project (originally partially quoted by kland)
I understand EGW statement in GC 35.3 to mean that God does not force...people who otherwise would not, experience a judgement.

, even if it is by simply withdrawing his protection. So it is again when he allows Satan to have full control


Originally Posted By: kland
How do you see this different than what Tom has been saying?


For all of the reasons that you spuriously selectively left out in your shoddy quoting!!? Rather than arbitrarily and uniformedly leaving out texts which distort my statement, why don’t you just quote the whole thing and highlight the text that you want to have considered however leaving them in their defining context. Indeed your editing really has no beneficial worthwhileness other than revealing your actual attitude here.* And even if you don’t agree with and/or want to accept my, even parenthetically, supplied explanation it does not give you the discretionary authority to excise/correct them to have your own version of reality.

*Indeed you are really something else kland. And your manifest utter obliviousness to this really is even moreoverly “taking the cake”. I perceive and inherent, default and fundamental rebelliousness to anything that claims to be authoritative above humanistic reasoning. At the very least, do allow other people, or at least me to speak for myself and according to my view. With those methods of yours it is really hard for me to figure out if your being sincere and honest in your objections and question, or actually just vexatiously, impishly mischievous, and thus if it is even worthwhile to take you seriously.

So after re-reading all that I had collectively said in regards to this issue, if you then have a valid and realistic objection vs. your spuriously manufactured ones, them I’ll respond to it.

(And what’s with the “Yikes my eyes” quip, let alone the calculated push-bottom gimmick??? Is it referring to content or format. Why not simply and straightforwardly say so rather than make these ambiguously vacuous statements.?!!)
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/29/11 11:51 PM

Click to reveal.. (NJK)

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Originally Posted By: NJK Project (originally partially quoted by kland)
I understand EGW statement in GC 35.3 to mean that God does not force...people who otherwise would not, experience a judgement.

, even if it is by simply withdrawing his protection. So it is again when he allows Satan to have full control


Originally Posted By: kland
How do you see this different than what Tom has been saying?


For all of the reasons that you spuriously selectively left out in your shoddy quoting!!? Rather than arbitrarily and uniformedly leaving out texts which distort my statement, why don’t you just quote the whole thing and highlight the text that you want to have considered however leaving them in their defining context. Indeed your editing really has no beneficial worthwhileness other than revealing your actual attitude here.* And even if you don’t agree with and/or want to accept my, even parenthetically, supplied explanation it does not give you the discretionary authority to excise/correct them to have your own version of reality.

*Indeed you are really something else kland. And your manifest utter obliviousness to this really is even moreoverly “taking the cake”. I perceive and inherent, default and fundamental rebelliousness to anything that claims to be authoritative above humanistic reasoning. At the very least, do allow other people, or at least me to speak for myself and according to my view. With those methods of yours it is really hard for me to figure out if your being sincere and honest in your objections and question, or actually just vexatiously, impishly mischievous, and thus if it is even worthwhile to take you seriously.

So after re-reading all that I had collectively said in regards to this issue, if you then have a valid and realistic objection vs. your spuriously manufactured ones, them I’ll respond to it.

(And what’s with the “Yikes my eyes” quip, let alone the calculated push-bottom gimmick??? Is it referring to content or format. Why not simply and straightforwardly say so rather than make these ambiguously vacuous statements.?!!)

[/quote]

Quote:
spuriously selectively left out in your shoddy quoting
I don't believe I left out anything. What did I leave out?
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/30/11 01:45 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted By: kland
Click to reveal.. (NJK)

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Originally Posted By: NJK Project (originally partially quoted by kland)
I understand EGW statement in GC 35.3 to mean that God does not force...people who otherwise would not, experience a judgement.

, even if it is by simply withdrawing his protection. So it is again when he allows Satan to have full control


Originally Posted By: kland
How do you see this different than what Tom has been saying?


For all of the reasons that you spuriously selectively left out in your shoddy quoting!!? Rather than arbitrarily and uniformedly leaving out texts which distort my statement, why don’t you just quote the whole thing and highlight the text that you want to have considered however leaving them in their defining context. Indeed your editing really has no beneficial worthwhileness other than revealing your actual attitude here.* And even if you don’t agree with and/or want to accept my, even parenthetically, supplied explanation it does not give you the discretionary authority to excise/correct them to have your own version of reality.

*Indeed you are really something else kland. And your manifest utter obliviousness to this really is even moreoverly “taking the cake”. I perceive and inherent, default and fundamental rebelliousness to anything that claims to be authoritative above humanistic reasoning. At the very least, do allow other people, or at least me to speak for myself and according to my view. With those methods of yours it is really hard for me to figure out if your being sincere and honest in your objections and question, or actually just vexatiously, impishly mischievous, and thus if it is even worthwhile to take you seriously.

So after re-reading all that I had collectively said in regards to this issue, if you then have a valid and realistic objection vs. your spuriously manufactured ones, them I’ll respond to it.

(And what’s with the “Yikes my eyes” quip, let alone the calculated push-bottom gimmick??? Is it referring to content or format. Why not simply and straightforwardly say so rather than make these ambiguously vacuous statements.?!!)



Quote:
spuriously selectively left out in your shoddy quoting
I don't believe I left out anything. What did I leave out?

Seriously kland... ‘you didn’t leave out anything in your quoting’????
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/30/11 08:54 AM

NJK, why don't you just answer the question? kland is asking you how your view differs from mine. What he quoted doesn't matter; just explain how you perceive your view of GC 35.3 to be different than my view.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/30/11 09:01 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
In Tom’s view, God can’t do such judgement acts in any way as that would be “evil”.


This, of course, begs the question of what "evil" means in this context. I have argued against the idea that God acts violently, by doing such things as burning people alive, to punish them. I have said that there are a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which God is constantly protecting us, and that it is sufficient, in terms of explaining and judgments that have occurred, for God to have simply withdrawn His protection, as explained in GC 35-37. There is no need for God to have acted in any way different than how Jesus Christ acted while here with us in the flesh.

Jesus said, "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father," and that means fully/completely. God is *always* like Jesus Christ was; He knows no other way to act than by agape. God is far more gentle, kind, patient, humble, merciful and compassionate than we can imagine. The enemy is Satan and sin, which is far more powerful to corrupt and destroy than people have any idea of. Not having an idea of sin's power, people feel the necessity to attribute the bad things that happen due to that people to the power of another.

Quote:
Ironically enough, it is actually only “evil” (not in regards to God as actually He never has been required to curtail His '"passion" for truth' in order to be merciful towards sinners) when God just lets Satan freely and fully have his way.


So if God acts violently, contrary to how Jesus Christ lived or taught, that's not evil, but if God acts precisely according to the explanation of GC 35-37, that is evil. That seems backwards.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/30/11 09:06 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
-Christ’s Ministry-wide designings against the Jewish leaders (cf. Matt 13:10-17 = Isa 6:9-13);
etc.


This caught my attention, due to the choice of words. You write of "designings against the Jewish leaders," as if Christ were out to get them, or against them. But Jesus Christ loved them, and didn't have designings against them, but for them.

Christ taught in parables for their benefit, as well as for others. When He first started to teach, He taught openly, but because of opposition, He changed tactics. Christ was always interested in reaching the Jewish leaders, both for the sake of their own souls, and as a means of saving the nation. When they opposed Him, He resorted to teaching in parables.

The reason that teaching in parables was for their benefit as well was they were in no state of mind to receive that which He was preaching, had He continued in a direct non-parable way. By teaching in parables, He was able to present truths to them in a non-threatening way, that they could ponder at their leisure. It was a means of trying to overcome prejudice.

Also, in your quote of Isaiah, and how you have expressed things, it gives the impression that God either desired that those who were rejecting Him not see, or caused it, or both. But it was their own actions, and their own desires, that caused their blindness. God did nothing but give them light, as He does for all. Jesus Christ is the true light that lightens everyone who comes into the world.

Quote:
"And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive." {RH, September 26, 1899 par. 10}

Did Christ blind the eyes so that the people could not discern? He gave them great light, and from time to time added to the light by the exposition of prophecy. What, then, eclipsed the light?--The answer is given: "For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear. For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them." {RH, September 26, 1899 par. 11}

In heaven it was said, by the ministering angels, The ministry we were commissioned to perform, we have done. We pressed back the army of evil angels. We sent brightness and light into the souls of men, quickening their memory of the love of God expressed in Jesus. He attracted their eyes to the cross of Calvary. Their souls were deeply moved by the sense of the sin that crucified the Son of God. They were convicted. They saw the steps to be taken in conversion; they felt the power of the gospel; their hearts were made tender as they saw the sweetness of the love of God. In all this they heard the Father's call, but it was in vain. Their hearts were given to covetousness; they loved the associations of the world more than they loved their God. {RH, September 26, 1899 par. 12}
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/30/11 09:21 AM

Regarding the war in heaven, here is a statement from the SOP involving Revelation 12:

Quote:
Could one sin have been found in Christ, had He in one particular yielded to Satan to escape the terrible torture, the enemy of God and man would have triumphed. Christ bowed His head and died, but He held fast His faith and His submission to God. "And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night." Rev. 12:10.

Satan saw that his disguise was torn away. His administration was laid open before the unfallen angels and before the heavenly universe. He had revealed himself as a murderer. By shedding the blood of the Son of God, he had uprooted himself from the sympathies of the heavenly beings. Henceforth his work was restricted. Whatever attitude he might assume, he could no longer await the angels as they came from the heavenly courts, and before them accuse Christ's brethren of being clothed with the garments of blackness and the defilement of sin. The last link of sympathy between Satan and the heavenly world was broken. (DA 761)


From your post:

Quote:
The critical point Heaven broke out in war not a war of fists but of competing philosophies not a war of missiles but of dueling minds an intergalactic struggle launched by a rebel angel named Lucifer against the throne of God and Christ Himself portrayed in apocalyptic symbols as the dragon vs. Michael.(Dwight Nelson)


Quote:
It was not a war of violence with swords or guns, but a war of ideas, of words, of accusations against God on the part of Satan and vindication of God on the part of Michael.(Ty Gibson and James Rafferty)


These statements seem to be in harmony with what Ellen White wrote above. Satan was not defeated by violence, or force, but by the cross. The cross is the power of God. It is the "foolishness" which defeats the wisdom of Satan, and the "weakness" which defeats his power (cf. 1 Cor. 1:25).

Indeed, a little before the above cited reference, Ellen White wrote:

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)
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/30/11 09:26 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
I understand EGW statement in GC 35.3 to mean that God does not force (i.e., by a freewill violating decree) people who otherwise would not, experience a judgement. Their own waywardness brought that judgement upon them. Satan however tries to make it seem that the people who are suffering have done nothing to deserve this and this is just an unjust act of God.


Ellen White wrote:

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.

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. (GC 35-36; for ease of reading, I broke this up into several paragraphs.)


I don't see how one could read this and come to the conclusion you did. Could you explain that please?
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/30/11 03:07 PM


Originally Posted By: Tom
NJK, why don't you just answer the question? kland is asking you how your view differs from mine. What he quoted doesn't matter; just explain how you perceive your view of GC 35.3 to be different than my view.


Because, as I already said in response to kland, I already did, including as you quote below in post #133066. (Really why can’t/won’t you both understand and/or accept that??1) Such a quasi-“playing dumb” tactic does not work with me; especially not from kland who has no benefit of the doubt in this regard from me. kland chose to editorially, excisingly ignore my explanatory comments. Seems that it took more time and space to create his convoluted push-button quoting than to quote my statement in its entirety. (Try reading my unread by you comments/posting in their entirety before posting questions. This quasi-gotcha approach just wastes time, at least mine).
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/30/11 03:08 PM

Quote:
NJK: In Tom’s view, God can’t do such judgement acts in any way as that would be “evil”.

Tom: This, of course, begs the question of what "evil" means in this context.

As I had said, I define evil, and indeed in that context as anything in which God is not in some way, even through imposing limitations, involved. Thus acts of Satan that are unrestricted which again I have seen no evidence of I the Bible yet, and do not see so until the 7th Last Plague, is pure evil. All other acts of adversity are just and merciful, even loving, in regards to the victim, judgements of God.

I have argued against the idea that God acts violently, by doing such things as burning people alive, to punish them.


I have seen absolutely nothing wrong/unjust/undeserved either with the acts of judgement themselves or with God doing them either directly (Fire from God) indirectly (through His Angels) and/or actively (His being executively involved) or passively (allowing nature to naturally [i.e., e.g., not the Flood] take its course and/or permitting Satan to do the judgement.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I have said that there are a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which God is constantly protecting us, and that it is sufficient, in terms of explaining and judgments that have occurred, for God to have simply withdrawn His protection, as explained in GC 35-37.


That is what I see as a “passive act of God”.

Originally Posted By: Tom
There is no need for God to have acted in any way different than how Jesus Christ acted while here with us in the flesh.


That view of yours is easily refuted by e.g., the fact that Jesus twice did use physical force to clear/cleanse His Temple of ‘merchandising robbers and thieves’. Not surprisingly that Gospel episode fact also, and that obliviously, if not indifferently, does not “catch your attention.”

Furthermore that persistent “reverse Theology” of ‘the OT God (which was also Jesus Himself as Michael/The Angel of the Lord) acting like the incarnate Jesus’ is substantively illogical to me. I rather see that Jesus, upon reading and studying the scrolls of the OT for at least up to 35 years (8 B.C. birth) came to understand how God had justly acted in those inspired records and sought out to emulate God as He had read. Which is why, e.g., (which are comments you patently ignore, yet still insist on making your claims), Jesus had not qualms about become upset due to the Israel-wide, copiously encountered pervasive religious hypocrisy (Luke 12:1-12), mindless selfish greed (vss. 13-21), lack of faith in the power and faithfulness of God (vss. 22-34) and sloughful indifference towards the Glory and Triumph of God’s Kingdom (35-40) and wasteful stewardship of God resources (vss. 41-48) was greatly desiring to effectuate Hell Fire judgement before His Atoning Sacrifice (vss. 49, 50) since that would surely overturn things (cf. 51-53) though without any opportunity for mercy.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Jesus said, "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father," and that means fully/completely. God is *always* like Jesus Christ was; He knows no other way to act than by agape. God is far more gentle, kind, patient, humble, merciful and compassionate than we can imagine. The enemy is Satan and sin, which is far more powerful to corrupt and destroy than people have any idea of. Not having an idea of sin's power, people feel the necessity to attribute the bad things that happen due to that people to the power of another.


It is God’s Love for primarily the just and righteous which leads Him to, when absolutely necessary, to do supernatural acts to beneficially, timely, protectively and efficiently effectuate a deserved judgement. It is even, in some case, as object lesson, out of a love for other less sinful peoples that God selects the worst group from these sinful peoples to effectuate a judgement. (These non-judged, though also lesserly deserving, others are then free to choose whether to let that judgement lead them to begin to have a healthy fear of God or not.)

Quote:
NJK: Ironically enough, it is actually only “evil” (not in regards to God, as actually He never has been required to curtail His '"passion" for truth' in order to be merciful towards sinners) when God just lets Satan freely and fully have his way.

Tom: So if God acts violently, contrary to how Jesus Christ lived or taught, that's not evil, but if God acts precisely according to the explanation of GC 35-37, that is evil. That seems backwards.


God’s use of force (=your violently), or even effectuating judgements (which are actually meant to serve as a deterrent from other people, if not also in some cases, a tangible necessity, e.g., thorough cleansing by fire) is not evil. God’s allowing of what is describe in GC 35-37 to take place, which in some level does not have to involve direct actions of the devil, as EGW originally was shown in 14MR 1-3, but is just allowing nature to unrestrictively take its course, is by definition evil, as it is the natural consequence of the evil that Satan’s sinful schemes and concoction have brought into the world. The evil, especially in the Greater GC context, is also not necessarily in the action itself but the circumstance making it necessary. Case in point God’s choice for a War in Heaven was not evil, but the best way to resolve that conflict. Similarly Israel’s Wars at the command and supernatural assistance of God was not an act of evil. So the key here is not merely looking at the act, but the wider reasons/motives behind the act.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/30/11 03:09 PM

Quote:
NJK: -Christ’s Ministry-wide designings against the Jewish leaders (cf. Matt 13:10-17 = Isa 6:9-13);
etc.

Tom: This caught my attention, due to the choice of words. You write of "designings against the Jewish leaders," as if Christ were out to get them, or against them. But Jesus Christ loved them, and didn't have designings against them, but for them.


As usual you are paramount attracted by the externals and thus do not susbtantively engage the other points listed prior to this one, as already pointed out.
I had already expounded on the ‘designing’ issue here in a prior post. Jesus deliberate “designs” against these leader was in order to get them to suffer the punishment for the wayward course, (should they obstinately freely choose to remain on it), which they, as the most educated and privileged in Israel then had ample opportunity to not only change course but also help the people under their leadership. They selfishly and indifferently chose not to, for indeed doing so now would come to undoing all of the spurious platform their false teachings and ways had raised up.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Christ taught in parables for their benefit, as well as for others.


You’ll need to quote either Scripture or the SOP to validate this manifest subjective assumption of yours. Indeed based on the (paramount) testimony of Scripture in Matt 13:1-3, 10ff, I have to adjust my view to include all peoples, and not just the Jewish leaders as to why Jesus taught in parables. And it was because: ‘To Christ disciples it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to non-believing/following crowd it had not been granted.’ (vs. 11; cf. 12-17)

Originally Posted By: Tom
When He first started to teach, He taught openly, but because of opposition, He changed tactics. Christ was always interested in reaching the Jewish leaders, both for the sake of their own souls, and as a means of saving the nation. When they opposed Him, He resorted to teaching in parables.

The reason that teaching in parables was for their benefit as well was they were in no state of mind to receive that which He was preaching, had He continued in a direct non-parable way. By teaching in parables, He was able to present truths to them in a non-threatening way, that they could ponder at their leisure. It was a means of trying to overcome prejudice.


Again this all seems like a subjective assumption of yours. Cite Bible and/or SOP to validate it.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Also, in your quote of Isaiah, and how you have expressed things, it gives the impression that God either desired that those who were rejecting Him not see, or caused it, or both. But it was their own actions, and their own desires, that caused their blindness. God did nothing but give them light, as He does for all. Jesus Christ is the true light that lightens everyone who comes into the world.


It was by them choosing to persist in their wayward course, [even by simply saying: ‘this guy does not teach “plainly” as the other Jewish leaders so He must either be telling tales or have something to hid (it must e.g., be, (hint hint) because of his “illegitimate” birth)’], that this light, which he indeed did (freely) “give” to them, though a dimmed/veiled form, actually came to blind rather than guide these defaultly quibblingly objecting, faithless, hypocritical and self-serving ones. That is exactly how I see EGW understood it in your quoted RH, September 26, 1899 par. 10-12. Only those who stepped out in faith to walk with Jesus, versus just being part of a gathering crowd to here a good sermon, similar to how the Greeks gathered to watch a play), would be given the keys to unlocking and understanding the truths in these deliberately veiled sayings.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/30/11 03:10 PM

Quote:
Tom: Regarding the war in heaven, here is a statement from the SOP involving Revelation 12:

Originally Posted By: SOP
Could one sin have been found in Christ, had He in one particular yielded to Satan to escape the terrible torture, the enemy of God and man would have triumphed. Christ bowed His head and died, but He held fast His faith and His submission to God. "And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night." Rev. 12:10.

Satan saw that his disguise was torn away. His administration was laid open before the unfallen angels and before the heavenly universe. He had revealed himself as a murderer. By shedding the blood of the Son of God, he had uprooted himself from the sympathies of the heavenly beings. Henceforth his work was restricted. Whatever attitude he might assume, he could no longer await the angels as they came from the heavenly courts, and before them accuse Christ's brethren of being clothed with the garments of blackness and the defilement of sin. The last link of sympathy between Satan and the heavenly world was broken. (DA 761)


Tom: From your post:

Quote:
The critical point Heaven broke out in war not a war of fists but of competing philosophies not a war of missiles but of dueling minds an intergalactic struggle launched by a rebel angel named Lucifer against the throne of God and Christ Himself portrayed in apocalyptic symbols as the dragon vs. Michael.(Dwight Nelson)


Quote:
It was not a war of violence with swords or guns, but a war of ideas, of words, of accusations against God on the part of Satan and vindication of God on the part of Michael.(Ty Gibson and James Rafferty)


Tom: These statements seem to be in harmony with what Ellen White wrote above. Satan was not defeated by violence, or force, but by the cross. The cross is the power of God. It is the "foolishness" which defeats the wisdom of Satan, and the "weakness" which defeats his power (cf. 1 Cor. 1:25)


Congratulation on the reading of that blog post, though you obviously also borught along your one-sidedly selective mindset. Didn’t you read the exegetical points and direct EGW revelations beyond my opening quoting of SDA preacher who have the Biblically wrong view on this topic???

The SOP, based on the Bible, is clear that there were two casting out of Satan from Heaven. The first from within Heaven itself using brute force to decided the issue and then further force to effectuate the casting out; the Second at the Cross from where Satan use to “await the angels as they came from the heavenly courts”. You are quoting comments made in regard to the Second Casting out above which, as I see it just required the angels just to completely ignore Satan, which then made it quite futile to even show up there as he had before. Exegesis also applies to the writings of EGW, especially the contextual aspects of it!

By the way, as I noted on my blog post, Dwight Nelson may have changed his view on this topic. Indeed in a response to an email I had sent him on this, he had said that he saw the difference expressed there involving “polemos”.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Indeed, a little before the above cited reference, Ellen White wrote:

Originally Posted By: SOP
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)


Again you resort, given your advanced (i.e., Seminary) education, to poor/shoody/arbitrary “exegesis”:

(1) You left out EGW’s qualifying statements to those comments which were just before them, that: “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.” This speaks of actions to “destroy” Satan and his sympathizers and also cast them out without a chance to defend their position. It does not preclude the war that God instead used to give them this chance to win this GC indeed merely by brute force if they could. In fact the war itself was probably limited to be non-lethal.

Furthermore, even when force used to cast Satan out, it was not strong enough to caused them to crash down to earth and die indeed “as easily as one [a man] can cast a pebble to the earth”.

(2) As I have repeatedly said, EGW speaks here of “compelling power”. I.e., using force to cause Satan to believe, or actually make the other angels believe that God is right without the GC opportunity to let both sides demonstrate their view.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/30/11 03:13 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
Originally Posted By: NJK
I understand EGW statement in GC 35.3 to mean that God does not force (i.e., by a freewill violating decree) people who otherwise would not, experience a judgement. Their own waywardness brought that judgement upon them. Satan however tries to make it seem that the people who are suffering have done nothing to deserve this and this is just an unjust act of God.


Ellen White wrote:

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.

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. (GC 35-36; for ease of reading, I broke this up into several paragraphs.)


I don't see how one could read this and come to the conclusion you did. Could you explain that please?


I already did, in Post #133034. Engage those already posted answering comments.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/30/11 04:28 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
Originally Posted By: NJK
In Tom’s view, God can’t do such judgement acts in any way as that would be “evil”.


This, of course, begs the question of what "evil" means in this context. I have argued against the idea that God acts violently, by doing such things as burning people alive, to punish them. I have said that there are a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which God is constantly protecting us, and that it is sufficient, in terms of explaining and judgments that have occurred, for God to have simply withdrawn His protection, as explained in GC 35-37. There is no need for God to have acted in any way different than how Jesus Christ acted while here with us in the flesh.

Jesus said, "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father," and that means fully/completely. God is *always* like Jesus Christ was; He knows no other way to act than by agape. God is far more gentle, kind, patient, humble, merciful and compassionate than we can imagine. The enemy is Satan and sin, which is far more powerful to corrupt and destroy than people have any idea of. Not having an idea of sin's power, people feel the necessity to attribute the bad things that happen due to that people to the power of another.

Quote:
Ironically enough, it is actually only “evil” (not in regards to God as actually He never has been required to curtail His '"passion" for truth' in order to be merciful towards sinners) when God just lets Satan freely and fully have his way.


So if God acts violently, contrary to how Jesus Christ lived or taught, that's not evil, but if God acts precisely according to the explanation of GC 35-37, that is evil. That seems backwards.

Up to now, everything that has happened has been tempered with mercy. That is, not until the seven last plagues will Jesus pull out all the stops - "unmixed with mercy". All along Jesus has held back, that is, He has established and enforced limits, limits which neither holy angels nor evil angels have been allowed to exceed. Jesus (not sin, not sinners, not Satan) is the one who determines when, where, and how impenitent sinners will be punished. It is not up to Satan to determine. "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/30/11 04:32 PM

Tom, when you get a chance, please address 132,979, 980, and 981. Thank you. Happy Sabbath.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/30/11 11:24 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Originally Posted By: Tom
Originally Posted By: NJK
In Tom’s view, God can’t do such judgement acts in any way as that would be “evil”.


This, of course, begs the question of what "evil" means in this context. I have argued against the idea that God acts violently, by doing such things as burning people alive, to punish them. I have said that there are a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which God is constantly protecting us, and that it is sufficient, in terms of explaining and judgments that have occurred, for God to have simply withdrawn His protection, as explained in GC 35-37. There is no need for God to have acted in any way different than how Jesus Christ acted while here with us in the flesh.

Jesus said, "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father," and that means fully/completely. God is *always* like Jesus Christ was; He knows no other way to act than by agape. God is far more gentle, kind, patient, humble, merciful and compassionate than we can imagine. The enemy is Satan and sin, which is far more powerful to corrupt and destroy than people have any idea of. Not having an idea of sin's power, people feel the necessity to attribute the bad things that happen due to that people to the power of another.

Quote:
Ironically enough, it is actually only “evil” (not in regards to God as actually He never has been required to curtail His '"passion" for truth' in order to be merciful towards sinners) when God just lets Satan freely and fully have his way.


So if God acts violently, contrary to how Jesus Christ lived or taught, that's not evil, but if God acts precisely according to the explanation of GC 35-37, that is evil. That seems backwards.

Up to now, everything that has happened has been tempered with mercy. That is, not until the seven last plagues will Jesus pull out all the stops - "unmixed with mercy". All along Jesus has held back, that is, He has established and enforced limits, limits which neither holy angels nor evil angels have been allowed to exceed. Jesus (not sin, not sinners, not Satan) is the one who determines when, where, and how impenitent sinners will be punished. It is not up to Satan to determine. "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

Agreed, Mountain Man. Great (Isa 45:7) citing! However, I understand God as “creating the evil” through what He permits the Devil to do. (Cf. James 1:13).

I also see a form of God’s mercy in the first six plagues because ‘they are not [yet] universal’ GC 628.2 and it is only when an angel of God throws his bowl in the air, (Rev 16:17 - perhaps accompanied by a subsequent, and manifestly heightened, “It is done” pronouncement, which EGW may have conflated) which premeatively, freely and easily affects every part of earthly life, that the ‘Hell-like cup of God’s passion = ‘unmixed with mercy’’, which was previously mentioned/prepared in Rev 14:10 is then poured out (Rev 16:19).
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 04/30/11 11:41 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
T:NJK, why don't you just answer the question? kland is asking you how your view differs from mine. What he quoted doesn't matter; just explain how you perceive your view of GC 35.3 to be different than my view.

NJK:Because, as I already said in response to kland, I already did, including as you quote below in post #133066.


This doesn't make sense. This was what kland was asking you to explain. You can't just refer back to that.

That is, you made a post. kland asked you a question in regards to that post, which is how you see what you're saying to be different than what I have been saying. It doesn't make sense to refer back to the post that kland is asking you about.

Quote:
(Really why can’t/won’t you both understand and/or accept that??1)


kland asked you a question, and you haven't answered it. We accept that.

Quote:
Such a quasi-“playing dumb” tactic does not work with me; especially not from kland who has no benefit of the doubt in this regard from me.


Not understanding what you write doesn't necessitate playing dumb. You're writing is difficult to understand. You should recognize this, especially as you've admitted to refusing to proofread or edit what you write. Even the things you have proof-read and edited (presumably, referring to what you've posted on the web) are difficult to read.

Quote:
kland chose to editorially, excisingly ignore my explanatory comments.


I don't know why you choose to impute people's motives. kland is trying to understand what you are saying, and also trying to engage your mind. He wants you to think about what different aspects of your thoughts lead to.

Quote:
Seems that it took more time and space to create his convoluted push-button quoting than to quote my statement in its entirety. (Try reading my unread by you comments/posting in their entirety before posting questions. This quasi-gotcha approach just wastes time, at least mine).


He's not trying to "gotcha" you, but to get you to think about certain things. This can be an effective way to get us to see things we hadn't seen before.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/01/11 12:04 AM

Tom, re-read that sub-thread in question. It will answer all your objections here. If you had, it, as usual, would have saved you the time and effort for this spurious, impinging attempt, spiel. Kland chose to ignore and indeed selectively excise my explanatory response and then wants me to re-state those explanations again as if he could not understand them!?!? Not my problem! Deal with the determinative facts instead on your subjective/fanciful perceptions.

And not everything on my blog is thoroughly proof-read, indeed for there, mainly, the applicable Isa 6:10 principle, (as well as time) for those who would “prefer” it so.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/01/11 12:39 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
By the way, as I noted on my blog post, Dwight Nelson may have changed his view on this topic. Indeed in a response to an email I had sent him on this, he had said that he saw the difference expressed there involving “polemos”.


I apparently did not included that manifest Dwight Nelson change stated in a sermon after our email communications (can’t re-access the content of that email which was from my previous, other ISP). As I now recollect and retrace, I had only made a note of it in my blog post notebook. The reason why I indeed had chosen not to include that note in the post, and expressed this here as “may have”, is because in that subsequent sermon, (see his 2010-03-27 Sermon at 24:47-26:08ff), Dwight Nelson only emphatically, and tellingly, said “WAR”, with a protracted stress, in reading Rev 12:7, without adding any explanations as he had done before. That statement was relatively too ambiguous, and in context, wrongly ambivalent, for me to give it a benefit of the doubt. It should have been more explicitly correcting for his wide audience, even wider during Net ‘98, especially if that was actually the intention here.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/01/11 05:06 AM

Quote:
NJK: In Tom’s view, God can’t do such judgement acts in any way as that would be “evil”.

Tom: This, of course, begs the question of what "evil" means in this context.

(This was actually NJK):As I had said, I define evil, and indeed in that context as anything in which God is not in some way, even through imposing limitations, involved. Thus acts of Satan that are unrestricted which again I have seen no evidence of I the Bible yet, and do not see so until the 7th Last Plague, is pure evil. All other acts of adversity are just and merciful, even loving, in regards to the victim, judgements of God.

T:I have argued against the idea that God acts violently, by doing such things as burning people alive, to punish them.

NJK:I have seen absolutely nothing wrong/unjust/undeserved either with the acts of judgement themselves or with God doing them either directly (Fire from God) indirectly (through His Angels) and/or actively (His being executively involved) or passively (allowing nature to naturally [i.e., e.g., not the Flood] take its course and/or permitting Satan to do the judgement.


Ok. I'll state what I perceive to be our areas of disagreement here. This is in regards to judgments during this life, not the final judgment.

I perceive what happens is that the judgments which occur do so because the people involved have persistently resisted the Holy Spirit, leading to God's withdrawing His protection, which is the manifestation of His wrath. I see God as acting passively here, against His will, as He would prefer to protect, as Jesus' lamentation regarding Jerusalem -- "But ye would not!" -- illustrates.

I believe your perception is that it is God's will to cause suffering, or death, to those who have disobeyed Him, and that He does so by different means, including acting both passively and actively.

Quote:
T:I have said that there are a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which God is constantly protecting us, and that it is sufficient, in terms of explaining and judgments that have occurred, for God to have simply withdrawn His protection, as explained in GC 35-37.

NJK:That is what I see as a “passive act of God”.


Agreed.

Quote:
T:There is no need for God to have acted in any way different than how Jesus Christ acted while here with us in the flesh.

NJK:That view of yours is easily refuted by e.g., the fact that Jesus twice did use physical force to clear/cleanse His Temple of ‘merchandising robbers and thieves’.


I disagree with this for two reasons. One is logical, and the other factual.

The logical objection is that what I stated is there is no necessity for God to act any differently than how Jesus Christ acted while here in the flesh. To adduce an action of Jesus Christ's which involves physical force is not a logical thing to do here. If your assertion were true, this would only serve to broaden the things which God can do, making it more likely, not less, that my assertion is true.

The factual objection is that Christ did not use physical force to drive out the money changers. It was their consciences which forced them to leave, both times.

Quote:
Not surprisingly that Gospel episode fact also, and that obliviously, if not indifferently, does not “catch your attention.”


Those who hold the point of view that you do regarding God's character most often cite two incidents: 1)The cleansing of the temple 2)The cursing of the fig tree. So it's not surprising that I'm well familiar with them, which you should have expected. However, these incidents do not involve Jesus Christ acting in a manner contrary to the principles I, and kland, have been bringing up. If you look at the descriptions of these events in "The Desire of Ages," this is very clear. There are also indications of this in the Gospel accounts themselves.

Quote:
Furthermore that persistent “reverse Theology” of ‘the OT God (which was also Jesus Himself as Michael/The Angel of the Lord) acting like the incarnate Jesus’ is substantively illogical to me. I rather see that Jesus, upon reading and studying the scrolls of the OT for at least up to 35 years (8 B.C. birth) came to understand how God had justly acted in those inspired records and sought out to emulate God as He had read.


This has been my point, as I've explained several times. Christ both said and did the things He perceived the OT God to be doing. To put that another way, what He perceived the OT God to have done is what He did. Therefore if you postulate the OT God to have acted contrary to how Christ acted, you're creating a contradiction.

Quote:
Which is why, e.g., (which are comments you patently ignore, yet still insist on making your claims),


This is an unfair comment. I'm going through your posts line by line. The only comments you have made that I haven't answered are either because I didn't understand what you were saying, or just the length of the posts written during a time when I didn't have the time to spare.

I've pointed this out several times to you now. I'd appreciate some consideration on this point. If I'm taking the time to go through your posts line by line, you should acknowledge that, rather than accusing me of "patently ignoring" you.

Quote:
Jesus had not qualms about become upset due to the Israel-wide, copiously encountered pervasive religious hypocrisy (Luke 12:1-12), mindless selfish greed (vss. 13-21), lack of faith in the power and faithfulness of God (vss. 22-34) and sloughful indifference towards the Glory and Triumph of God’s Kingdom (35-40) and wasteful stewardship of God resources (vss. 41-48) was greatly desiring to effectuate Hell Fire judgement before His Atoning Sacrifice (vss. 49, 50) since that would surely overturn things (cf. 51-53) though without any opportunity for mercy.


Wow! What a sentence. This is way too long, and includes references without quotes. Please use shorted sentences, proof-read what you read to make sure it makes sense, and copy/paste any texts you wish to be considered. If texts you don't copy/paste are not commented on, please recognize this as a short-coming on your part, which it is.

In short, what you wrote above doesn't make sense (I mean grammatically).

Quote:
T:Jesus said, "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father," and that means fully/completely. God is *always* like Jesus Christ was; He knows no other way to act than by agape. God is far more gentle, kind, patient, humble, merciful and compassionate than we can imagine. The enemy is Satan and sin, which is far more powerful to corrupt and destroy than people have any idea of. Not having an idea of sin's power, people feel the necessity to attribute the bad things that happen due to that people to the power of another.

NJK:It is God’s Love for primarily the just and righteous which leads Him to, when absolutely necessary, to do supernatural acts to beneficially, timely, protectively and efficiently effectuate a deserved judgement.


God loves both the just and the unjust. God loves righteousness (or justice), and hates unrighteousness (injustice), but it is God's love, while unjust, that draws us to Him and leads us to repentance.

Quote:
NJK:It is even, in some case, as object lesson, out of a love for other less sinful peoples that God selects the worst group from these sinful peoples to effectuate a judgement. (These non-judged, though also lesserly deserving, others are then free to choose whether to let that judgement lead them to begin to have a healthy fear of God or not.)


God is not the problem here. It is not God's will that we fear Him, and do things to please Him, so that He will not smite us. Such "obedience" is not obedience at all.

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


Quote:
It is not the fear of punishment, or the hope of everlasting reward, that leads the disciples of Christ to follow Him. They behold the Saviour's matchless love, revealed throughout His pilgrimage on earth, from the manger of Bethlehem to Calvary's cross, and the sight of Him attracts, it softens and subdues the soul. Love awakens in the heart of the beholders. They hear His voice, and they follow Him. (DA 480)



Quote:
NJK: Ironically enough, it is actually only “evil” (not in regards to God, as actually He never has been required to curtail His '"passion" for truth' in order to be merciful towards sinners) when God just lets Satan freely and fully have his way.

Tom: So if God acts violently, contrary to how Jesus Christ lived or taught, that's not evil, but if God acts precisely according to the explanation of GC 35-37, that is evil. That seems backwards.

NJK:God’s use of force (=your violently), or even effectuating judgements (which are actually meant to serve as a deterrent from other people, if not also in some cases, a tangible necessity, e.g., thorough cleansing by fire) is not evil. God’s allowing of what is describe in GC 35-37 to take place, which in some level does not have to involve direct actions of the devil, as EGW originally was shown in 14MR 1-3, but is just allowing nature to unrestrictively take its course, is by definition evil, as it is the natural consequence of the evil that Satan’s sinful schemes and concoction have brought into the world.


This looks to be agreeing with what I said, in characterizing your viewpoint. When God acts violently, such as by setting people to burn alive (according to your point of view), that is not evil. But "God’s allowing of what is describe(sic) in GC 35-37 to take place" is by definition evil.

Quote:
The evil, especially in the Greater GC context, is also not necessarily in the action itself but the circumstance making it necessary.


Then what you wrote above is incorrect. You didn't mean that God's allowing of what is described in GC 35-37 to take place was evil, but that the evil which He allowed was evil. That looks to be your meaning, at any rate. If you really meant what you said, that God's allowing of the events that took place was evil, feel free to assert that again.

Quote:
Case in point God’s choice for a War in Heaven was not evil, but the best way to resolve that conflict.


The War in Heaven was not God's choice. God's choice was for peace. War has no place in either God's character nor the principles of His government. He is not a violent God.

Quote:
Similarly Israel’s Wars at the command and supernatural assistance of God was not an act of evil. So the key here is not merely looking at the act, but the wider reasons/motives behind the act.


What do you think were Israel's reasons/motivations in going their wars? Where do you think think they got their weapons from? Do you think it was God's will that they make their gains by military conquest, the same as nations do that have gone to war throughout history?

During the times when the Israelites followed God's directions, not one soul was lost. Had they followed God's directions throughout, no Israelite would have died in a military battle.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/01/11 05:36 AM

Quote:
NJK: -Christ’s Ministry-wide designings against the Jewish leaders (cf. Matt 13:10-17 = Isa 6:9-13);
etc.

Tom: This caught my attention, due to the choice of words. You write of "designings against the Jewish leaders," as if Christ were out to get them, or against them. But Jesus Christ loved them, and didn't have designings against them, but for them.

NJK:As usual you are paramount attracted by the externals and thus do not susbtantively engage the other points listed prior to this one, as already pointed out.


I find fault with your comment for two reasons. One is the lack of civility. This tone is inappropriate for this sort of discourse.

I used to write in a similar fashion to how you write, and a seminary professor, with whom I greatly disagreed, brought it to my attention. Fortunately, although we had differing points of view, I had the good sense to take heed to his comments. Perhaps something similar will happen here. Being able to treat others respectfully with whom you disagree would speak well of both you and your viewpoint.

The second reason is that this comment seemed to me to strike to the core of your thinking, which is why I wanted to pursue it further.

Quote:
I had already expounded on the ‘designing’ issue here in a prior post. Jesus deliberate “designs” against these leader was in order to get them to suffer the punishment for the wayward course,


Jesus' designs for the leaders was not "against" them, as you put it, but for them. Jesus loved them as much as others, and wanted to save them. Indeed, several of the Jewish leaders became followers of His, which was due to Jesus' love and work in their behalf.

Quote:
(should they obstinately freely choose to remain on it), which they, as the most educated and privileged in Israel then had ample opportunity to not only change course but also help the people under their leadership. They selfishly and indifferently chose not to, for indeed doing so now would come to undoing all of the spurious platform their false teachings and ways had raised up.


I agree that they chose freely to remain on their wayward course, but disagree with the idea that Jesus Christ was designing punishment for them. Jesus was clear regarding His mission, which was not to destroy, but to save. The suffering which came as a result of not taking heed to His words were because His words were the way of salvation.

Suppose there is a bridge out on a road, and I warn you not to go forward, and you insist, and suffer as a result. This is analogous to what was happening in the case of Jesus Christ and those who rejected Him, and continues to be the case to this day. Jesus Christ went about doing good, encouraging others to also do so, and warning of the consequences of doing evil, which consequences are the result of sin.

Quote:
T:Christ taught in parables for their benefit, as well as for others.

NJK:You’ll need to quote either Scripture or the SOP to validate this manifest subjective assumption of yours.


Just an understanding of God's character makes this clear. God causes the rain to fall on the just and the unjust. Even the final judgment in the second resurrection is for the benefit of those who are judged (that I know the reference for off the top of my head, should you desire it. If the final judgment is for the benefit of the wicked, it shouldn't be difficult to believe that His telling of parables was for their benefit as well.)

Quote:
NJK: Indeed based on the (paramount) testimony of Scripture in Matt 13:1-3, 10ff, I have to adjust my view to include all peoples, and not just the Jewish leaders as to why Jesus taught in parables. And it was because: ‘To Christ disciples it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to non-believing/following crowd it had not been granted.’ (vs. 11; cf. 12-17)


Certainly there were other reasons as to why Jesus taught in parables. The beginning of "Christ's Object Lessons" discusses this.

Quote:
T:When He first started to teach, He taught openly, but because of opposition, He changed tactics. Christ was always interested in reaching the Jewish leaders, both for the sake of their own souls, and as a means of saving the nation. When they opposed Him, He resorted to teaching in parables.

The reason that teaching in parables was for their benefit as well was they were in no state of mind to receive that which He was preaching, had He continued in a direct non-parable way. By teaching in parables, He was able to present truths to them in a non-threatening way, that they could ponder at their leisure. It was a means of trying to overcome prejudice.

NJK:Again this all seems like a subjective assumption of yours.


You really don't see that Jesus Christ taught in parables because of the opposition of the Jewish rulers? It seems pretty obvious to me. It's not a "subjective assumption," but follows from a reading of what happened. Christ taught openly in the beginning of His ministry, was brought opposition, and then began to teach in parables.

Here's something I found quickly on the web:

Quote:
Jesus spoke in parables for two reasons. First, He wanted to stimulate questions about His kingdom. He knew that sincere people who really wanted to know what was right, would not rest until they had searched out the meaning of the truths He taught. These parables acted like an alarm clock, arousing the sleeping minds of the vast audiences who heard Him.

Second, Christ found it necessary to teach certain truths in symbols, because the Jewish leaders were watching His words to find some cause to arrest and condemn Him. As opposition against Him grew, Jesus used parables more and more to convey His warnings to Israel. If He had spoken more plainly and frankly, His ministry would have been cut short much sooner. Let's begin our booklet with the best known of all Christ's parables.(http://languages.bibleschools.com/guides/lotw/lotwsg18.htm)


This isn't adduced as proof that what I'm saying was correct, but merely that it is not a "subjective assumption" of mine.

Before I go further, do you disagree with what I quoted here?

Quote:
T:Also, in your quote of Isaiah, and how you have expressed things, it gives the impression that God either desired that those who were rejecting Him not see, or caused it, or both. But it was their own actions, and their own desires, that caused their blindness. God did nothing but give them light, as He does for all. Jesus Christ is the true light that lightens everyone who comes into the world.

NJK:It was by them choosing to persist in their wayward course, [even by simply saying: ‘this guy does not teach “plainly” as the other Jewish leaders so He must either be telling tales or have something to hid (it must e.g., be, (hint hint) because of his “illegitimate” birth)’], that this light, which he indeed did (freely) “give” to them, though a dimmed/veiled form, actually came to blind rather than guide these defaultly quibblingly objecting, faithless, hypocritical and self-serving ones.


This is a long and difficult to understand sentence, but it looks like you're saying the same thing that I was saying, that the cause of their blindness was due to their own actions, as opposed to something God did to them. You wrote, "It was by them(sic) choosing to persist in their wayward course" etc.

So if I'm understanding you correctly, that their blindness was a result of their own actions, then I agree.

Quote:
That is exactly how I see EGW understood it in your quoted RH, September 26, 1899 par. 10-12. Only those who stepped out in faith to walk with Jesus, versus just being part of a gathering crowd to here a good sermon, similar to how the Greeks gathered to watch a play), would be given the keys to unlocking and understanding the truths in these deliberately veiled sayings.


I would put it this way. It's not that God was withholding something from them, but they, because of their own actions, were unable to see or understand that which was before them. They heard the same words as those who believed, but did not understand the words, because they refused to respond to the Holy Spirit, and without the Holy Spirit, they could not understand.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/01/11 05:45 AM

Fitting succinct and summary response to you Tom: Substantively and “peripherally”, utterly frivolous, indeed on all levels, for both your posts actually. Nothing deservingly “salvageable” here. Keep up this obfuscating work!! You’re not fooling, nor impressing, at least, me....

Again I make the Bible my final authority and not the opinions of men. The statements of EGW is also subject to this Biblical hierarchy.

And to, as here, I substantively take my orders from the word and Spirit of God and certainly not from the “substantively base and quibbling preferences of men”. You, more crucially, lack truthfulness, including Biblical Truth. Keep quibbling away...
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/01/11 06:00 AM

Quote:
Congratulation on the reading of that blog post, though you obviously also borught along your one-sidedly selective mindset.


It would be a good thing for you to be civil in your posts. Insulting your readers isn't a good strategy for anything I can think of.

The blog post is too long to comment on it all, so I'm bringing up something I found to be of interest. I should be free to do so without being insulted.

It would be a good idea for you to proof-read your posts, not just for content, but for tone.

Quote:
Didn’t you read the exegetical points and direct EGW revelations beyond my opening quoting of SDA preacher who have the Biblically wrong view on this topic???


Same comment as above. I read everything, and chose what I wanted to pursue further. If you wish to call a different portion of what you wrote to my attention, and pursue that further, you're free to do so.

Also the point of view of the author was correct, even if the "polemos" comment was flawed. The Great Controversy is involves God's character and the principles of His government. It is not a battle which can be won by physical force.

Quote:
NJK:The SOP, based on the Bible, is clear that there were two casting out of Satan from Heaven. The first from within Heaven itself using brute force to decided the issue and then further force to effectuate the casting out; the Second at the Cross from where Satan use to “await the angels as they came from the heavenly courts”. You are quoting comments made in regard to the Second Casting out above which, as I see it just required the angels just to completely ignore Satan, which then made it quite futile to even show up there as he had before.


Required in what sense?

Quote:
Exegesis also applies to the writings of EGW, especially the contextual aspects of it!


You're not giving a context to your comments here. What is it that you think is my point of view in regards to Ellen White's comments? What is it that you are taking issue with?

Quote:
By the way, as I noted on my blog post, Dwight Nelson may have changed his view on this topic. Indeed in a response to an email I had sent him on this, he had said that he saw the difference expressed there involving “polemos”.


You mean Dwight Nelson no longer views the was as being one of ideas? Or just that he changed his mind regarding "polemos"?

Quote:
T:Indeed, a little before the above cited reference, Ellen White wrote:

Originally Posted By: SOP
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)

NJK:Again you resort, given your advanced (i.e., Seminary) education, to poor/shoody/arbitrary “exegesis”:


Again, proof-reading your posts, and improving the tone, would be a good thing to do. A lack of civility does nothing to help our arguments. It neither speaks well of you, nor your point of view. Indeed, it casts doubt upon it. If, at every turn, you feel the need to resort to sarcasm and insults, that speaks to a feeling of inferiority, a sense of doubt.

Quote:
(1) You left out EGW’s qualifying statements to those comments which were just before them, that: “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.”


I suppose I could have quoted the whole chapter, to avoid such accusations. The point she was making was that compelling power is found only under Satan's government, and that rebellion was not to be overcome by force. My including the above sentence would have altered this point in any way. Its meaning is clear, as I stated it.

Quote:
This speaks of actions to “destroy” Satan and his sympathizers and also cast them out without a chance to defend their position.


What I quoted speaks to the methodology used. This could not be clearer. She wrote that compelling power is to be found only under Satan's government, which is speaking to a difference of principles involved in the two governments.

Quote:
It does not preclude the war that God instead used to give them this chance to win this GC indeed merely by brute force if they could.


This is a bit difficult to understand, but I think I have it. I think you're trying to say that God gave the rebels a chance to win the war by force, if they were able to do so, but that He would not win the war in that manner by destroying them. Assuming this is what you meant, I see two problems with this idea.

First of all, she writes that rebellion was not to be overcome by force. That would be an ironic to thing to write if what had just happened is that rebellion was overcome by force.

Secondly, and more importantly to this discussion, she wrote that compelling power is only to be found under Satan's government. This is a far-reaching statement, dealing with the principles of the governments involved. It would be akin to saying something like, "Deceit is only to be found under Satan's government." It is speaking of a principle which God does not use.

Quote:
NJK:In fact the war itself was probably limited to be non-lethal.

Furthermore, even when force used to cast Satan out, it was not strong enough to caused them to crash down to earth and die indeed “as easily as one [a man] can cast a pebble to the earth”.


If rebellion was not to be overcome by force, and compelling power is found only under Satan's government, it stands to reason that God did not use compelling power to cast Satan out.

Quote:
(2) As I have repeatedly said, EGW speaks here of “compelling power”. I.e., using force to cause Satan to believe, or actually make the other angels believe that God is right without the GC opportunity to let both sides demonstrate their view.


She said nothing about forcing the angels to believe anything. She did not limit her comment that compelling power is found only under Satan's government in any way. She did not say, "Compelling power is only found under Satan's government when it involves compelling someone to believe in a certain way."
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/01/11 06:06 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
I already did, in Post #133034. Engage those already posted answering comments.


You did the same thing as before in regards to kland's question. You're asked a question about something you wrote, and then, instead of answering the question, you refer back to the post which caused the question!

Post #133034 is exactly what I'm asking about. Ellen White wrote:

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.

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. (GC 35-36; for ease of reading, I broke this up into several paragraphs.)


You wrote (and this is from post #133034)

Quote:
I understand EGW statement in GC 35.3 to mean that God does not force (i.e., by a freewill violating decree) people who otherwise would not, experience a judgement. Their own waywardness brought that judgement upon them. Satan however tries to make it seem that the people who are suffering have done nothing to deserve this and this is just an unjust act of God.


I understand that you wrote this. There is no need to refer back to this. I'm asking how you arrived at your conclusion.

I don't see anything in Ellen White's writings that would suggest anything you are concluding. I don't even see enough similarity to ask you some specific question about what she wrote. So I'm asking you to please explain your reasoning. Not what you believe, but why. Based on what Ellen White wrote, how do you arrive at the conclusion that you stated?
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/01/11 06:09 AM

Nothing that passes a “valid objection/response here either. Just more obliviousness, quibblings, arbitrary selectiveness and, of course, mindless obfuscating. You just can’t take all pertinent issues/elements into consideration when defending your view, but must remain indifferently one-sided.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/01/11 06:13 AM

If you can't see why post #133034, and, logically in its fuller context than just that first explaining paragraph, resolves this issue here then you're are at least clinically blind. Can't help you there. Or... as self-evident, you just slight-of-handly obliviously switched the actual issue at hand here which was stemming from kland’s excising mal-quoting.

By the way, you can email Dwight Nelson yourself from the PMChurch.tv website and ask him to clarify his current view on the War in Heaven topic.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/01/11 07:15 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
If, at every turn, you feel the need to resort to sarcasm and insults, that speaks to a feeling of inferiority, a sense of doubt.


As they say, “ignorance is bliss” and as, at least, you don’t care to engage in thorough and proper exegesis, it does not bother you to glibly respond to issues here. It does to me, especially when your shallow reasoning, readings and comments just add layers of dirt upon the issue, that I then have to waste my time unspinning and clearing up. That, fundamentally is the source of all of my frustrations in this discussion with you and why this conversation is both aggravating and frustrating to me; and thus, recursively, whenever this substantive indifference and obliviousness from your side once again manifests itself" no longer [worthwhile[/u]. The fact that you are a Seminarian, and thus should be able to properly engage exegesis causes me to be suckered back into this discussion “black hole” in regards pointedly your responses. I’ll just have to defaultly discount that ‘beautiful fig leaves’ facade, for my own “sanity's” sake... Indeed my head hurts from it repeatedly having been slam against this suddenly recurring wall. It’s all as futile as thinking to solve a calculus problem with 8th grade algebra. Of course, I don’t expect you to see/admit to/agree with this, but since I do, I cannot again go against my conscience here. Your amnesic “dense forest despite all of the felled trees” attitude, if not, "posturing", is what really irks me the most.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/01/11 07:25 AM

Originally Posted By: MM
Up to now, everything that has happened has been tempered with mercy. That is, not until the seven last plagues will Jesus pull out all the stops - "unmixed with mercy". All along Jesus has held back, that is, He has established and enforced limits, limits which neither holy angels nor evil angels have been allowed to exceed. Jesus (not sin, not sinners, not Satan) is the one who determines when, where, and how impenitent sinners will be punished. It is not up to Satan to determine. "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."


It's a huge mistake to view God as responsible for these things.

Quote:
It was generally believed by the Jews that sin is punished in this life. Every affliction was regarded as the penalty of some wrongdoing, either of the sufferer himself or of his parents. It is true that all suffering results from the transgression of God's law, but this truth had become perverted. Satan, the author of sin and all its results, had led men to look upon disease and death as proceeding from God,--as punishment arbitrarily inflicted on account of sin. Hence one upon whom some great affliction or calamity had fallen had the additional burden of being regarded as a great sinner.

Thus the way was prepared for the Jews to reject Jesus. He who "hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows" was looked upon by the Jews as "stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted;" and they hid their faces from Him. Isa. 53:4, 3.

God had given a lesson designed to prevent this. The history of Job had shown that suffering is inflicted by Satan, and is overruled by God for purposes of mercy. But Israel did not understand the lesson. The same error for which God had reproved the friends of Job was repeated by the Jews in their rejection of Christ. (DA 471)
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/01/11 07:54 AM

Originally Posted By: MM
In those cases where she plainly says God “used His enemies as instruments to punish” impenitent sinners, can it be said “their sufferings are . . . a punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God”?


No.

Quote:
Obviously the phrase “punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God” does not contradict what she wrote in the PC 136 quote posted above. I believe the phrase “punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God” conveys the idea that Jesus had no justifiable reason for withdrawing His protection and permitting His enemies to punish the Jews in 70 AD.


I don't understand what this means. Jesus had no justifiable reason for withdrawing His protection?

Quote:
The truth is, Jesus was justified.


Oh I see what you're saying. Actually the phrase, "punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God” conveys the idea that the punishment visited upon them was not due to a direct decree of God. This means it wasn't God's will. Also, the context makes clear what was happening. She repeats, over and over again (reminiscent of DA 764) that the things that happened were NOT due to something God did, but to the actions of others. Indeed, one wonders how she could have made this clearer.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/01/11 08:01 AM

Originally Posted By: MM
Tom, when you get a chance, please address 132,979, 980, and 981. Thank you. Happy Sabbath.


I responded to one post, and started to work on another, but was pretty sure I had already responded to it, so I stopped. Could you double check which posts you want me to respond to?

Thanks for the Happy Sabbath wish. Hope you had a good Sabbath as well.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/01/11 08:10 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
Nothing that passes a “valid objection/response here either. Just more obliviousness, quibblings, arbitrary selectiveness and, of course, mindless obfuscating. You just can’t take all pertinent issues/elements into consideration when defending your view, but must remain indifferently one-sided.


This is a typical response. Whenever the discussion turns to something substantive, you resort to insults, sarcasm, and such like. I responded to every word you wrote, and this is your response.

Disappointing, but not unexpected.

Quote:
If you can't see why post #133034, and, logically in its fuller context than just that first explaining paragraph, resolves this issue here then you're are at least clinically blind.


I expected this as well. There's nothing in what Ellen White wrote that would lead to the conclusion you wrote. She said nothing along the lines of what you wrote, so of course you can't explain it.

Quote:
Can't help you there. Or... as self-evident, you just slight-of-handly obliviously switched the actual issue at hand here which was stemming from kland’s excising mal-quoting.


There's no explanation possible to your statement, which explains why you dodge the question.


Quote:
T:If, at every turn, you feel the need to resort to sarcasm and insults, that speaks to a feeling of inferiority, a sense of doubt.

NJK:As they say, “ignorance is bliss” and as, at least, you don’t care to engage in thorough and proper exegesis, it does not bother you to glibly respond to issues here.


Same comment as above. You have no answer to the questions asked, so you resort to dodging, name-calling, sarcasm, insults, etc. Too bad.

Quote:
It does to me, especially when your shallow reasoning, readings and comments just add layers of dirt upon the issue, that I then have to waste my time unspinning and clearing up. That, fundamentally is the source of all of my frustrations in this discussion with you and why this conversation is both aggravating and frustrating to me; and thus, recursively, whenever this substantive indifference and obliviousness from your side once again manifests itself" no longer [worthwhile[/u]. The fact that you are a Seminarian, and thus should be able to properly engage exegesis causes me to be suckered back into this discussion “black hole” in regards pointedly your responses. I’ll just have to defaultly discount that ‘beautiful fig leaves’ facade, for my own “sanity's” sake... Indeed my head hurts from it repeatedly having been slam against this suddenly recurring wall. It’s all as futile as thinking to solve a calculus problem with 8th grade algebra. Of course, I don’t expect you to see/admit to/agree with this, but since I do, I cannot again go against my conscience here. Your amnesic “dense forest despite all of the felled trees” attitude, if not, "posturing", is what really irks me the most.


This is more of the same. Not one point made in any way regarding what we're discussing. Not one. Just childish name-calling, ranting, etc. Why do you bother posting this rubbish?

If you decide you would like to post civilly, and either make points having to do with what we're discussing, or ask questions, or respond to questions, I'll be happy to participate in such a discussion with you. Otherwise you can see if you have better luck discussing things with kland, or someone else. But the same thing will apply there, as well. Anyone you converse with will want you to

1.Be civil.
2.Avoid insults and sarcasm.
3.Write clearly.
4.Address questions.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/01/11 08:36 AM

As usual, it's whatever you can/want to see/understand. How you choose to view/characterize my reaction/response does not change anything from their underlying reasons/causes. Again it's best to cut off this source of my aggravations here.

As it can easily be copiously demonstrated, I paramountly expect people to be Exegetical in a Biblical discussion, and all that this exhaustively entails. It's too bad you can't/won't.

It is also quite comical that you are accusing me of ‘dodging your substantive questions’ (which are actually glib obfuscations at best) when you just patently ignore my exegetical points. Whatever.... As usual you can do nothing wrong.

I hear the potential millions of people who will be glad I stopped wasting my time with you in this actually not really/prominently worthwhile discussion, and I am glad to indeed do so at the risk of letting your false accusations even begin to seem plausible.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/01/11 09:53 PM

Quote:
[Whenever the discussion turns to something substantive, you resort to insults, sarcasm, and such like.]

...As per your “reminder”, you have not provided a response to the key substantive and exegetical point made in Post #133009.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/01/11 10:01 PM

Quote:
NJK: In Tom’s view, God can’t do such judgement acts in any way as that would be “evil”.

Tom: This, of course, begs the question of what "evil" means in this context.

NJK: As I had said, I define evil, and indeed in that context as anything in which God is not in some way, even through imposing limitations, involved. Thus acts of Satan that are unrestricted which again I have seen no evidence of I the Bible yet, and do not see so until the 7th Last Plague, is pure evil. All other acts of adversity are just and merciful, even loving, in regards to the victim, judgements of God.

T:I have argued against the idea that God acts violently, by doing such things as burning people alive, to punish them.

NJK:I have seen absolutely nothing wrong/unjust/undeserved either with the acts of judgement themselves or with God doing them either directly (Fire from God) indirectly (through His Angels) and/or actively (His being executively involved) or passively (allowing nature to naturally [i.e., e.g., not the Flood] take its course and/or permitting Satan to do the judgement.

Tom: Ok. I'll state what I perceive to be our areas of disagreement here. This is in regards to judgments during this life, not the final judgment.


From your previous sin-organic comment such as in Post #130881 which was responding to my Capital Sins judgment view in Post #130766 it is apparent that you have believed that all judgements, whether in this life or in the Second Death (Hell), must involve an ‘organic sin’ issue. I.e., God does not have to do anything but let the result of sin take its course.

I do not see this as being realistically feasible in the sense that sin is not always allowed to reach its ‘“full life” which then results in self inflicted natural death’, indeed as an old person naturally dies of old age (James 1:15). God instead chooses to intervene at some stages to effectuate a death causing judgement in order to end this manifestly sure to get worse sin development. And to do this, i.e., in this timely way, He has had to use supernatural force.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I perceive what happens is that the judgments which occur do so because the people involved have persistently resisted the Holy Spirit, leading to God's withdrawing His protection, which is the manifestation of His wrath.


All of the examples you have tried to demonstrate for this have been transparently, exegetically shown to be acts of God. I.e., God either actively did the action (Piel) or he caused it (Hiphil) through His pointedly commissioned angels. All your ‘natural third party self-acting agents’ claims have been shown to both be exegetically not supported (including by the SOP testimony) and/or not naturally realistic. You have not provided objectively valid, if actually any, countering reasons why they should continue to be considered as you originally claimed them to be.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I see God as acting passively here, against His will, as He would prefer to protect, as Jesus' lamentation regarding Jerusalem -- "But ye would not!" -- illustrates.


In Jesus’s predictions of the destruction of Jerusalem, he not only speaks of God removing His protection but ‘commandingly involved in the destruction event” (Matt 22:7) indeed just as the Jews before had said it should be done (Matt 21:40, 41). As I understand it, the fact that God was involved and that this was never intended to be an action entirely controlled and achieved by the Devil, even if through the Roman armies, was that, as Jesus later pointed out, God wanted to have mercy in this event and cut these days short (cf. Matt 24:22) so that some of the Jews could survive. As I now more precisely understand it. It was because God then had planned ca. 20 more years before the Second Coming could occur and perhaps this judgement would help to make these surviving, ‘pacific Jews’ realize their sin and seek Gospel/New Covenant repentance.

EGW comments in GC 35-37 are not in opposition to these exegetical and exegetically derived facts as her point was that God does not ‘decree punishments’ in the sense that He violates the freewill of people and makes suffer a punishment that they did not unlawfully act to deserve. Hence her pivotal phrase “direct decree of God” (GC 35.3). Indeed it extends to even a judgement that was fully warranted, as with the Jews, their 70 A.D. destruction which was for the rejection and murder of their Messiah did not have to be as if God had decreed it to be irreversible. It was because they continued in unbelief and rejection during the 40 years since, and in the light and testimony of the Gospel message that they suffered the natural end results of God not protecting them. Still, as Jesus had indicated in Matt 22:7, it was God who, just like He had done with Babylon in the OT, sent the Romans against the Jews to effectuate this judgement, even though they were clearly pondered and reluctant to do so. And as I see it, it was so that this judgement could here timely be done to allow for enough time (ca. 20 years) for the rest of Christ Olivet Discourse prophecy to be fully fulfilled and thus culminating in the Second Coming. However the Christian Church proved not faithful to this charge as seen in the messages to the 7 Churches, which was indeed based on literal developments and which God then typologically used as capital points that He would object to in the now to be Historically developed NT Church.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I believe your perception is that it is God's will to cause suffering, or death, to those who have disobeyed Him, and that He does so by different means, including acting both passively and actively.


I do not believe that “it is God’s will to cause suffering, or death, to those who have disobeyed Him”. That view fits in the mold of what EGW decried as ‘Satan’s claim of God’s direct decree’. By illustration, that is like a judge wanting a person who simply got a speeding ticket to get the death penalty and acting irrespective of facts to “decree” that this be the case. God instead is exercising just justice and the capital punishment death penalties that He rules through full and transparent justice are all warranted sentences. The more light and thus opportunities to avert the sin resulting in this death, the more delayed that punishment is. Still that punishment is not set in stone for those who genuinely want to repent. It is only by them persisting in their wayward course that these “forge the fetters” that cause them to indeed receive that associated or necessitated punishment and through whatever expedient or as-natural-as-possible means it needs to be done.

Quote:
T:I have said that there are a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which God is constantly protecting us, and that it is sufficient, in terms of explaining and judgments that have occurred, for God to have simply withdrawn His protection, as explained in GC 35-37.

NJK:That is what I see as a “passive act of God”.

Tom: Agreed.


As I understand your view, you are only ‘agreeing’ with the “passive” portion but not my “of God” portion as I understand this to mean that God was actually involved in such cases. You instead think God is completely removed in such cases and natural acts, even in self-acting, even as it is required, self-directing way and/or the devil is in full control and is administering the judgement. I, on the other hand, have yet to see a Biblical/SOP case where the devil has been given this green light, even, a particularly in, the Destruction of Jerusalem, and only see that this will be the case in the 7th and Final Plague.

Quote:
T:There is no need for God to have acted in any way different than how Jesus Christ acted while here with us in the flesh.

NJK:That view of yours is easily refuted by e.g., the fact that Jesus twice did use physical force to clear/cleanse His Temple of ‘merchandising robbers and thieves’.

Tom: I disagree with this for two reasons. One is logical, and the other factual.

NJK: The logical objection is that what I stated is there is no necessity for God to act any differently than how Jesus Christ acted while here in the flesh. To adduce an action of Jesus Christ's which involves physical force is not a logical thing to do here. If your assertion were true, this would only serve to broaden the things which God can do, making it more likely, not less, that my assertion is true.


I see this as a circular argument, especially as (1) it is entirely based on your view, (which, in my view is reversedly making ‘the OT God act like the incarnate Jesus’ (which is chronologically not possible), instead of the logical vice versa, and (2) it is being stated here as the first reasons instead of a second one. I.e., logic must be based upon/flow out of concrete facts.

Originally Posted By: Tom
The factual objection is that Christ did not use physical force to drive out the money changers. It was their consciences which forced them to leave, both times.


This is not a realistic nor logical conclusion. Had Jesus just walked into the Temple and simply looked at these thieves and robbers and they and then suddenly scurriedly bolted out of the Temple leaving most, if not all of their commodities behind, or even taking them with them, then that would have been a passive act or Jesus. (Indeed “passive” as He was physically present but had just looked at them). But the account didn’t end with Jesus just looking at them as seen in DA 157.4. That only caused a hushed silence. The Bible and SOP then clearly say that:

-divinity flash through the garb of humanity (DA 158.1a = a “stern and godlike demeanor” DA 589.1)
-a divine light illuminates His countenance (DA 158.1b)
-to the sellers of doves He (first) tells them to “take these things hence” (DA 158.1c cf. John 2:16)
-He then, effectively menacingly, and as a “flaming sword”, raises his scourge of cords (DA 158.2)
-and then begins over thrown the money-changer’s table
-it is then, after these physical acts that “Officers of the temple, speculating priests, brokers and cattle traders, with their sheep and oxen, rush from the place, with the one thought of escaping from the condemnation of His presence. {DA 158.2}”

To say that Jesus did not use force here is not exegetically realistic. It was a degree of force, and proportional/reasonable force at that, but by incontrovertible definition, force non the less. To say the contrary is like saying that a police officer does not use force at all to do a traffic stop. By merely flicking on his lights, a first stage/degree of law enforcing force is used. If that is being resisted by the law violator, then that forces is increased namely to a siren blasting, a parallel/side visible indication, a police chase, a spin out, a nail carpet, shooting out the tires, and so on. In fact the first stage of force to comply to the law is, if that was the case, to immediately slow down to the speed limit particularly when passing a police office who is engaged in speeding control. Furthermore, more pertinently, complete non-force with the effectuation of a judgement here, would that law offender pulling over on their own at the mere noticing of a police car and then convincing the police officer to write them a ticket becasuse they had exceeded the speeding limit, even 10 miles before.

Similarly, in the case of Christ, the inceptive stage of force was when He stepped into the Temple and began to glare at them. As they immediately knew something was wrong, they should have immediately complied with what God’s Law/principle actually was for this circumstance, which they fully knew of. Instead subsequent degrees of force came to be used as listed above with:

-divinity flashing through the garb of humanity (stern and godlike) = revealing that Jesus was a Divine “Law Enforcer” here and means to end this violation of the Law.
-a divine light illuminates His countenance = Jesus was flashing His “pull over lights”
-Orders to “take these things hence” = visible/audible “command/indication to comply”
-A raised his scourge of cords = Christ menacingly “chasing them out”
-and then begins over thrown the money-changer’s table = Christ physically removing/ending the elements that made the resistance “possible or justified”
-then the object of this Law Enforcing intervention was begun to be realized with the violators having been “neutralized”

Second Clearing/Cleansing
The second clearing cleansing (Matt 21:12, 13; Mar 11:15-17; Luke 19:45, 46; DA 589.1-591.1) similarly also involved all of the degrees of force as in the first one, including physical overturnings (Matt 21:12b/Mark 11:15b which EGW does not mention in her account DA (590.4-591.1)).

Quote:
NJK: Not surprisingly that Gospel episode fact also, and that obliviously, if not indifferently, does not “catch your attention.”

Tom: ...So it's not surprising that I'm well familiar with them, which you should have expected...


You are here, in context, (manifestly) trying to imply that you responded to my mention of Christ’s Clearing of the Temple out of my listing of 7 others from this list when the truth/facts actually are, as transparently seen in Post #133064 that my “catch your attention” allusion was referring to your singling out of my “-Christ’s Ministry-wide designings against the Jewish leaders (cf. Matt 13:10-17 = Isa 6:9-13);” point. How could I “should have” expected something that you had never discussed in detail or even mentioned in support of your view before??? The facts clearly show that you just ‘switched topic’ here, and that to make your, factually speaking, spurious (i.e., “plausible but false” objecting and impeaching point.

Furthermore, though you may be familiar with that single incident out of that listing that does not justify only addressing that one and not the other. Indeed you should have addressed that one, but not leave the other unaddressed. Especially as you then claim/insist that you have the correct view based upon (a supposed) 1 out of 7 correctness. That is mathematically (i.e., scientifically), and (thus) logically, not realistic.

(Also when you make a reply to a post click the reply button from that post itself and not the last post in that thread as this helps to easily back track back to that post when verifying what you were responding to.)

Originally Posted By: Tom
Those who hold the point of view that you do regarding God's character most often cite two incidents: 1)The cleansing of the temple 2)The cursing of the fig tree. [...]
However, these incidents do not involve Jesus Christ acting in a manner contrary to the principles I, and kland, have been bringing up. If you look at the descriptions of these events in "The Desire of Ages," this is very clear.


Ironically enough, for either ones of these to fit within your ‘natural (third-party) self-acting’ view Jesus would have to not have even condemningly looked at these offenders but even just walk into the Temple mid his own business and these offenders would still have bolted out overturning their own tables and leaving being their money (= causing damage to themselves). Clearly that is not the case. Thus this was a direct judgement of Jesus/God and thus emulates the similar acts of intervening judgement of God found throughout the Bible, pointedly with the OT God that Jesus was here perfectly emulating, especially by using the reasonable force needed to fully effectuate that judgement and its desired outcome. The money remaining behind was indeed rightfully to be made available from those who had been defrauded.

Originally Posted By: Tom
There are also indications of this in the Gospel accounts themselves.


Transparently substantiated that conclusion(?)/claim.

Quote:
NJK: Furthermore that persistent “reverse Theology” of ‘the OT God (which was also Jesus Himself as Michael/The Angel of the Lord) acting like the incarnate Jesus’ is substantively illogical to me. I rather see that Jesus, upon reading and studying the scrolls of the OT for at least up to 35 years (8 B.C. birth) came to understand how God had justly acted in those inspired records and sought out to emulate God as He had read.

Tom: This has been my point, as I've explained several times. Christ both said and did the things He perceived the OT God to be doing. To put that another way, what He perceived the OT God to have done is what He did. Therefore if you postulate the OT God to have acted contrary to how Christ acted, you're creating a contradiction.


The problem with the enjoined full extent/implication of “your point” (= your view of this emulating) is that it does not, even manifestly, must not, involve all of the exegetically actual/realistic elements in Christ actions. E.g.:

-As shown above, a degree of force was used in the clearing of the Temple, indeed with Christ himself being the one who actively administered that Law Enforcing force.
-Jesus greatly wished to interveningly bring about Hell Fire to end the GC Luke 12:49-50 in the light of all of the pervasive abuses taking place (12:1-48).
-Jesus said that God would be the one to cause the destruction event of Jerusalem (Matt 22:7)
-Like the OT God (Isa 6:9-13) Christ veiled the things that would have facilitated the averting of Jerusalem’s physical destruction, only providing the explanatory keys to His disciples. (Matt 13:10-17) All that everyone else heard was a story which they had to then, at their own peril precisely figure out what actual reality they were conveying. Clearly most of these people never came to accurately decipher and understand these veiled sayings.
-Jesus defaultly acted to rouse the hatred of Jewish leaders, e.g., in the first temple cleansing (DA 167.2) and in His synagogue sermon (DA 237.3ff). Your claim of ‘only later resorting to this is both Biblically unsubstantiated, and also opposing your view since in your view, God is not supposed to do anything to contribute to the demise of those who oppose him. SO Jesus was suppose to continue to speak “plainly” to them vs. this “veiled” approach and they were to then knowingly reject what he was teaching and not believe in Him. In fact, as John 16:25-31 shows that Christ figurative/veiled speaking even caused his own disciples to doubt him.
-etc.

Quote:
NJK: Which is why, e.g., (which are comments you patently ignore, yet still insist on making your claims),

Tom: This is an unfair comment. I'm going through your posts line by line. The only comments you have made that I haven't answered are either because I didn't understand what you were saying, or just the length of the posts written during a time when I didn't have the time to spare.


You excuses here just prove that this was indeed a pointedly fair comment. First of all I am referring to outrightly ignored/left out comments. Indeed I consider a ‘I don’t understand this as an answer vs. not mentioning nothing at all. And if I consider that non-understanding to be substantively valid, i.e., not a substantively void ‘too long a sentence’ quibble (?!?) I make the appropriate editing/restating correction.

I could easily list the litany of things you have outrightly ignored, especially when it involved Biblical exegesis. Also making an answer and not taking into consideration or opposingly counter all the points that had substantiated my point is considered as this selective ignoring. These standing facts do not disappear just because you did not address or mention them in your response.

And the “too long a response” excuse does not nullify the fact that you still did not respond to those points. Indeed by responding to something vs. a distinct other, you are just showing that you are using selectiveness in your responses. It is also clear that you are only responding to what you think you have an answer to. However this obviously does not make what you chose not to answer not be true.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I've pointed this out several times to you now. I'd appreciate some consideration on this point. If I'm taking the time to go through your posts line by line, you should acknowledge that, rather than accusing me of "patently ignoring" you.


As it can easily be when I do restate those points, you just ignore them again, or as seen in the “War in Heaven” issue, you selectively only address what you think you have an answer to and ignore the other points that you manifestly cannot counter

Quote:
Originally Posted By: NJK Project (edited, {mainly for format})
Jesus had not qualms about becoming upset due to the Israel-wide, copiously encountered waywardness. Namely:

-pervasive religious hypocrisy (Luke 12:1-12);
-mindless selfish greed (vss. 13-21);
-lack of faith in the power and faithfulness of God (vss. 22-34);
-sloughful indifference towards the Glory and Triumph of God’s Kingdom (35-40);
-and wasteful stewardship of God resources (vss. 41-48);

As a result He was greatly desiring to effectuate Hell Fire judgement, and that, before His Atoning Sacrifice (see vss. 49, 50) as this action would surely overturn these wayward things (cf. 51-53), though then, without any opportunity for mercy.


Originally Posted By: Tom
Wow! What a sentence. This is way too long, and includes references without quotes. Please use shorted sentences, proof-read what you read to make sure it makes sense, and copy/paste any texts you wish to be considered. If texts you don't copy/paste are not commented on, please recognize this as a short-coming on your part, which it is.

In short, what you wrote above doesn't make sense (I mean grammatically).


That, mainly format, editing should remove your ‘grammatical non-sense’ objection. And since “grammar” was your objection here, that obviously does not affect the “substance” presented. So you could have engaged that substance.

Quote:
T:Jesus said, "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father," and that means fully/completely. God is *always* like Jesus Christ was; He knows no other way to act than by agape. God is far more gentle, kind, patient, humble, merciful and compassionate than we can imagine. The enemy is Satan and sin, which is far more powerful to corrupt and destroy than people have any idea of. Not having an idea of sin's power, people feel the necessity to attribute the bad things that happen due to that people to the power of another.

NJK:It is God’s Love for primarily the just and righteous which leads Him to, when absolutely necessary, to do supernatural acts to beneficially, timely, protectively and efficiently effectuate a deserved judgement.

Tom: God loves both the just and the unjust. God loves righteousness (or justice), and hates unrighteousness (injustice), but it is God's love, while unjust, that draws us to Him and leads us to repentance.


The non-glib fact that, as the Bible clearly teaches, God acts to destroy the wicked when they reach a certain point of sinfulness, even favoring, tangibly aiding Israel in wars, shows that He loves those who a faithful to Him more than those who reject him and indeed tangibly acts upon, and towards to effectuating of, those emotions. (E.g., Jacob vs. Esau - Mal 1:1-5). God’s love for people is not stoically indifferent to their response. I.e., e.g., He indeed does not bless those who don’t return that love by obey Him and His Law (e.g., Exod 20:5, 6; Deut 7:9, 10 (Neh 1:5; Dan 9:4); John 14:15; 21; 15:10)

Quote:
NJK:It is even, in some case, as object lesson, out of a love for other less sinful peoples that God selects the worst group from these sinful peoples to effectuate a judgement. (These non-judged, though also lesserly deserving, others are then free to choose whether to let that judgement lead them to begin to have a healthy fear of God or not.)

Tom: God is not the problem here. It is not God's will that we fear Him, and do things to please Him, so that He will not smite us. Such "obedience" is not obedience at all.


As already stated, the Bible throughout approvingly speaks of having a “healthy fear of God”. Yet this is only a beginning and not to be the motivation throughout. In fact that fear is distinct from the desired loving and faith relationship that should normatively ensue. E.g., the Ninevites became fearful of God and repented, however there is no indication that they went on to pursue/deepen a relationship with the God of Israel, i.e., becoming a satellite Jewish Tribe/Nation. They only had a “fear of punishment” (Jon 3:9) but not a ‘relationship-building “love of God”.’

Indeed this fear that God seeks to instill through such acts of judgements upon a selected most deserved party is to serve to abruptly end a sinful course that is developing and not to be the basis for a relationship. Indeed just like threatening someone to enter into a relationship with you at the threat of death is not a relationship based on/involving love.

God’s acts of judgement are thus to immediately end a threatening course and not even to begin a relationship. The person outside of his will is however free to use this instilled fear try to get to know this God better, or not. That fully offset the fact that God’s miracle can and do foster belief and faith, but again, only if the witnessing party wants this to be a result.

That is what your SOP quotes (MS 20, 1897 & DA 480) are also saying and indeed my view was not what you had supposed, despite the many times that I have already stated so. (E.g., as shown below, you won’t allow for my distinction between ‘judgement effectuation force’ vs. ‘belief compelling force’.)

Quote:
NJK: Ironically enough, it is actually only “evil” (not in regards to God, as actually He never has been required to curtail His '"passion" for truth' in order to be merciful towards sinners) when God just lets Satan freely and fully have his way.

Tom: So if God acts violently, contrary to how Jesus Christ lived or taught, that's not evil, but if God acts precisely according to the explanation of GC 35-37, that is evil. That seems backwards.

NJK:God’s use of force (=your violently), or even effectuating judgements (which are actually meant to serve as a deterrent from other people, if not also in some cases, a tangible necessity, e.g., thorough cleansing by fire) is not evil. God’s allowing of what is describe in GC 35-37 to take place, which in some level does not have to involve direct actions of the devil, as EGW originally was shown in 14MR 1-3, but is just allowing nature to unrestrictively take its course, is by definition evil, as it is the natural consequence of the evil that Satan’s sinful schemes and concoction have brought into the world.

Tom: This looks to be agreeing with what I said, in characterizing your viewpoint. When God acts violently, such as by setting people to burn alive (according to your point of view), that is not evil. But "God’s allowing of what is describe(sic) in GC 35-37 to take place" is by definition evil.


(A) God e.g., using various appropriate elements to effectuate a judgement, especially as these are inherently object lessons, as any sin should result in the immediate Hell Fire destruction of anyone, is not evil. Even if simply for that object lesson reason as it serves to preserve the life of literally billions of other people. E.g., who knows for crucially how long the striking and widely “noteworthy” Judgement on Sodom and Gomorrah, served to prevent their Capital sins from spreading and being engaged in. Also, if not for that judgement, one would see many more cases, as widely seen today, of people professing to be Christian while practising the abominable lifestyle of Sodom and Gomorrah. And as that sin is clearly condemned elsewhere in the Bible, even if, as some want to spuriously suppose, that was not a sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, it still served as a deterrent for that Biblically condemned practice.

(B) What is described in GC 35-37 is (1) a natural end result which must be as “organically” natural as smoking causing lung cancer (and not “disobedience” resulting in a snake attacking you. E.g., Why didn’t the venomous scorpions also attach Israel??); and (2) a judgement where Satan has full and unrestricted/unlimited control. Those two are natural and manufactured “evil”. God’s bringing about a death sentence, however, he deems is appropriate, is not evil. In fact, not doing so, in the light of the adverse effect that this would then have/result in (e.g., persisted and further advanced sin), makes this a justified and righteous act. Indeed just like a police officer stopping a murderous act in progress using any pertinently necessary deadly force is not the “evil” of murder.

Quote:
NJK: The evil, especially in the Greater GC context, is also not necessarily in the action itself but the circumstance making it necessary.

Tom: Then what you wrote above is incorrect. You didn't mean that God's allowing of what is described in GC 35-37 to take place was evil, but that the evil which He allowed was evil. That looks to be your meaning, at any rate. If you really meant what you said, that God's allowing of the events that took place was evil, feel free to assert that again.


As already explained above, (and as I had gone on to illustrate), you indeed misconstrued what I had said and meant. Succinctly summarized: God’s effectuating of death, and that even as a most striking object lesson is not “evil” or “murder”. God’s not intervening to timely, thoroughly and efficiently (i.e., produce the Law Abiding effect) effectuate this judgment would be evil. Appropriately responding to that ‘GC circumstance’ is not.

Quote:
NJK: Case in point God’s choice for a War in Heaven was not evil, but the best way to resolve that conflict.

Tom: The War in Heaven was not God's choice. God's choice was for peace.


(1) The fact that God indeed did not want war but peace, (though this was not his “choice” as if it had been, it would have been the case as nothing could have prevented him from making it so).

(2) As quote from the SOP on my blog, which you, for lack of a more comprehensible term, “ignored”, it is clear that it was God who decided that a war was to be the way to resolve the conflict:

Originally Posted By: SOP 1SP 21.1
“The loyal angels hasten speedily to the Son of God, and acquaint him with what is taking place among the angels. They find the Father in conference with his beloved Son, to determine the means by which, for the best good of the loyal angels, the assumed authority of Satan could be forever put down. The great God could at once have hurled this arch deceiver from Heaven; but this was not his purpose. He would give the rebellious an equal chance to measure strength and might with his own Son and his loyal angels. In this battle every angel would choose his own side, and be manifested to all.”


Furthermore it is only after that war stipulation that:

Originally Posted By: SOP 1SP 21.2
Then Satan exultingly pointed to his sympathizers, comprising nearly one half of all the angels, and exclaimed, These are with me! Will you expel these also, and make such a void in Heaven? He then declared that he was prepared to resist the authority of Christ, and to defend his place in Heaven by force of might, strength against strength.


The fact that you would just ignore such SOP direct revelation statements, that you supposedly had read since your first visit of my blog post, was most mind-boggling to me. Indeed you did not even dare mention them, as if that made them fade into insignificance.

Originally Posted By: Tom
War has no place in either God's character nor the principles of His government. He is not a violent God.


You view-biased, “maxim points” here also do not hold up to actual Biblical evidence.

Inspired Bible Writers like Moses, praising God, explicitly said, after God had worked to force the Egyptian armies to chase after Israel and then pursue them in the Red Sea (Exod 14:3&5-7 vs. 4&8; cf. vs. 17*): “God is a Warrior/Man of War” (Exod 15:3; cf. vs. 1, 2, 4ff)

(Indeed this will be part of the song that will be sung in the end by the 144,000 ad Great Multitude, based upon their similar experience (Rev 15:2, 3) And Hint- the Sea of Glass standing can occur, as reveal here, before the 7 last Plagues are poured out.

[And as this will be an understood aspect of the experience of the Triumphant, Remnant Generation, it thus correspondingly entails that a view that claims that ‘God does not/cannot/must not/will not use military means/force to defend His Righteous People’, as seen in how you view Israel’s OT wars (all “just wars”), will come to place its holder on the wrong side of Prophetic Fulfillment, even to the point of siding with those who are warring against God’s People. This discussion is just a microcosm of the result of that unbiblical stance.]

*As done before, I have restated that prior exegetical point that I had made, which you did not pointedly address. So instead of ignoring it again, do address it, because whether or not I ‘beg’ you to answer it, as manifestly needs to be the case in a discussion with you, it has still been stated and you can just as easily address it head on as you address whatever you selectively do preferentially choose to address.

Quote:
NJK: Similarly Israel’s Wars at the command and supernatural assistance of God was not an act of evil. So the key here is not merely looking at the act, but the wider reasons/motives behind the act.

Tom: What do you think were Israel's reasons/motivations in going their wars?


As God explicitly said many times, as I have also cited before: ‘to effectuate judgement on peoples who by then had passed an unacceptable limit of sinfulness. And at the same time, for Israel to occupy this then vacated/depopulated land, indeed instead of leaving it for other surrounding and also evil nations, (who should similarly have been wiped out and dispossessed), to gain this land. (See e.g., Deut 20:10-18).’ That is all why Israel was made to go into Egypt for 400 years (Gen 15:13, 16).

Originally Posted By: Tom
Where do you think think they got their weapons from?


What difference is that suppose to make?? In fact when they did not have the weapons or force to stand against their enemies, God used supernatural forces and event do defeat these enemies for Israel. E.g., Egyptian Army and the Read Sea, Jericho’s Walls, the 185,000 Assyrians, etc.,) Israel could a=only make lawful use of these weapons of war upon God’s explicit command/permission.

I see that God permitted natural warfare and weaponry most the time so as to not cause people to believe in Him merely to avert such sure defeat in war and thus, effectively, lead to a spurious, self-serving “relationship”. At best it should have serve to prevent Israel’s enemies from ever confronting Israel in war, however if these foreign people persisted in their sins, God used Israel to effectuate deserved judgement on them. Particularly in relation to the territorial conquest of Canaan.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Do you think it was God's will that they make their gains by military conquest, the same as nations do that have gone to war throughout history?


Yes, in the sense that his is what he told them to tangibly do. No, in the sense that this was an underserved/unjust action as the Biblical evidence clearly testify against. God used the self-established and developed fact that these foreign nation had reached a point where they were beyond salvageability, indeed probably violating all healthful and human, natural laws, to provide a land for his people. If is “will” had defaultly been dispossession, he would have begun to do so 430 years before when he called Abraham.

Originally Posted By: Tom
During the times when the Israelites followed God's directions, not one soul was lost. Had they followed God's directions throughout, no Israelite would have died in a military battle.


As I see it, that point is completely besides the issue here. The loss of Israeli life is not at issue here, but the loss of the people fought against. Israel’s victories also, and in my view always involved God’s supernatural power. (E.g., Exod 17:8-16; the conquest of Canaan) Indeed they could easily lose a war to even an inferior enemy (as with Ai). Their being faithful to God was what allowed to be victorious, hence God was in a sense actively fighting for them.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/02/11 03:25 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
Originally Posted By: MM
Tom, when you get a chance, please address 132,979, 980, and 981. Thank you. Happy Sabbath.


I responded to one post, and started to work on another, but was pretty sure I had already responded to it, so I stopped. Could you double check which posts you want me to respond to?

Thanks for the Happy Sabbath wish. Hope you had a good Sabbath as well.

Yes, thank you, you did respond to all except the following one:

Originally Posted By: Tom
T: I agree that nothing happens by fate. I disagree that nothing happens by chance. If Jesus, or God, permits something to occur which happens by chance, that doesn't mean that the thing permitted to occur did not happen by chance. I believe there are things which happen by chance. For example, tossing a fair coin is an example. By chance it will be heads or tails. Many such examples could be given.

M: Do you believe Jesus is free to choose between such options as preventing death and destruction or permitting it, that He takes everything and everyone into consideration and then decides whether to prevent or permit death and destruction, that the choice is His?

T: You're mixing too many things together here, and then asking a yes or no question. That's not cricket. I think all evil is not the choice of Jesus Christ, and evil only occurs when beings choose to act contrary to His will.

M: Or, do you believe chance dictates whether or not He is free to choose between preventing or permitting death and destruction?

T: Things happen by chance, if that's what you mean.

M: Is Christ in control or is chance?

T: Things happen by chance, if that's what you're asking. Again, chance being in control isn't a logical construct.

M: If God is not in control of sinners, who, then, is protecting them?

T: By "in control of" I assume you mean "controlling." Or do you mean something else? If by "in control of" you mean "protecting," then I may agree with what you mean, if not what you're saying. That is, I certainly agree that God is protecting sinners.

M: Do you believe God is not in control of sinners?

T: Not when they sin.

M: If so, and I assume you do, what do you mean by it?

T: I mean that sinners, when they sin, choose to exercise their free will to act contrary to the will of Jesus Christ.

Yes, of course, sinners are free to choose to sin. But I’m referring to the resulting outcomes, consequences. For example, N&A were free to choose to employ strange fire. The various outcomes, consequences of their choice was entirely up to Jesus – not chance, not sin, not Satan. Jesus chose to employ fire to burn them alive. So far, you have refused to say who or what employed the fire that killed them.

Quote:
M: As for me, I believe Jesus is, as sovereign Lord and King, ultimately in control of the outcome of the great controversy – not sin, not sinners, and not Satan.

T: The Great Controversy is not a contest that can be decided by sovereignty; it's decided by evidence. God has been accused of certain things, things involving His character and the principles of His government. To make His case that He has been unjustly accused, God has chosen to allow things to play out, that His character may be seen in contrast with that of His accuser, as well as the principles of His government in contrast to the principles of his adversary's government.

M: That is, sin does not determine how the GC will play out, neither do sinners, nor does Satan.

T: Sinners and Satan have a part, as do all sentient beings.

M: Whether or not this or that choice plays out this or that way is entirely up to Jesus - not sin, not sinners, and not Satan.

T: No, this isn't the case. When a rapist chooses to rape, and that plays out in a rape victim being raped, that's not "entirely up to Jesus." You don't see the problem in asserting this?

M: True, His options are limited. He isn’t free to manage the outcome irrespective of the choice. For example, Jesus wasn’t free to manage Judas’ choice to betray Him in a way that would result in him sitting on the right or left hand of Jesus in the New Jerusalem.

T: This doesn't seem to be a related point to the discussion.

Whether or not this or that choice plays out this or that way is entirely up to Jesus - not sin, not sinners, and not Satan. Evil choices usually end in evil consequences. Exactly which evil consequence plays out is up to Jesus. Not that He makes it play out that way. But He does manage things so that they do not play out some other way. He either causes, commands, or permits.

Quote:
M: Yes, Satan is in control of what God permits, but he is not free to do as he pleases, otherwise, as you say, he would destroy everyone and everything.

T: This is a bad misstatement here, IMO. Let's say you have a child, but don't permit that child to stay out past 2:00am. Would it be fair for you to say that your child is not free to do as (s)he pleases?

M: Children are, of course, free to disobey their parents and stay out as late they please. However, there would be consequences after the fact. But in the case of evil angels, things are very much different. Jesus cannot afford to punish them after the fact, especially as it relates to hurting us or tempting us beyond Jesus’ established limits. He must impose limits on them and then work to enforce His limits to guarantee they do not ever, ever disobey. In this sense, evil angels are not free; indeed, they are very much shackled.

T: To state that evil angels never disobey Jesus Christ is not a fair accusation to make upon Christ. Of course they disobey Him, whenever they do evil. To think that evil angels are shackled so they only obey Christ's will is, I'm having difficulty coming up with words that aren't too strong here, I'll just say not fair to Christ. Also, it's not fair to them, as well, as, if they are not to a great extent free to do their will, then the Great Controversy is a sham. Finally, if they are not free to do their will, how do you explain the evil there is in the world?

As explained above, Jesus is in control – not sin, not sinners, and not Satan. Evil angels are only as free as Jesus allows. 1 Cor 10:13 is an example.

Quote:
M: It’s not a question of whether or not God is innocent; it’s a question of whether or not He is in control.

T: The big question is if God is innocent, as God has been accused, and the Great Controversy in effect for this purpose.

M: Of course He is innocent. He created free moral agents. They are free to obey and live or disobey and die. If they choose to sin and rebel, they are, ultimately, choosing capital punishment.

T: Neither Scripture nor the SOP state that by choosing sin they choose capital punishment. Both state that if they choose sin they are choosing death. The SOP states that the inevitable result of sin is death. If evil comes about as a result of God's controlling actions, then He is not innocent of its happening.

M: Jesus established the laws regulating capital punishment.

T: How do you know they didn't already exist? That is, that they weren't already a part of the culture of the Hebrews and their contemporaries?

M: He commanded godly people like Moses to kill ungodly people. In final judgment, the radiant glory of God’s person and presence will cause the wicked to suffer in duration and intensity proportionate to their sinfulness. The presence of God’s radiant glory is required for the wicked to experience the emotional and physical suffering that ends in eternal death, otherwise, they would merely live and die as they did before Jesus resurrected them.

T: I'm sorry you feel this way. DA 764 tells us that if God had allowed Satan and his followers to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished, but it would not have been apparent that the inevitable result of sin is death. I'm sorry you don't see the relationship between sin and death. I think not seeing this connections leads to many errors, all of which portray God negatively.

Jesus established the laws regulating capital punishment. It doesn’t matter if such laws existed. And, the connection between sin and eternal death is real. Sin and sinners cannot abide in the presence of God. The radiant light of His glory consumes sinners with their sins. You seem to think it is sin, not the light of God’s radiant glory, that will consume sinners in final judgment.

Quote:
T: I assume you mean that from my perspective, the mechanism matters, if sincere seekers of truth wrongly conclude that Jesus employs fire to burn people alive. If this is what you mean, I still don't agree that the mechanism matters. I believe it's the principle that matters. A sincere seeker of truth, from my perspective, will not make conclusions about the mechanism involved which are not in harmony with God's character or the principles of His government, if he gets the principles right.

M: What would they conclude? Would it suffice them to know Jesus didn’t burn them alive? Thus satisfied it wouldn’t occur to them to care who or what caused the fire that burned them alive?

T: I don't think it matters much to one who is convinced in regards to God's character. For example, let's say someone is killed in your house by a fire. It's possible that your wife set them on fire and burned them alive. But you know your wife, and know she isn't capable of that sort of behavior. So how did the person die? Insofar as your wife's setting them on fire is concerned, you don't much care, because you know however the person died, it wasn't because your wife set them on fire.

Did my wife withdraw her protection and permit her enemies to burn them alive? You seem to think it doesn’t matter.

Quote:
M: In the case of N&A, the fire blazed out from the presence of God in the most holy place. And, in the case of the two bands of fifty, fire rained down from God in heaven. To say Jesus simply withdrew His protection and permitted (you have yet to say who) to cause fire to burn them alive begs the question – Why were His enemies in the most holy places in heaven and earth?

T: I disagree that it begs this question.

M: Does it matter to you, Tom, where Jesus’ enemies were when He, according to you, permitted them to make fire blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burn them alive? It matters very much to me. That’s why I believe Jesus employed fire to burn them alive.

T: I addressed this just above, in the illustration about your wife setting people on fire.

Who did Jesus permit to employ the fire that killed them? Please don’t say it doesn’t matter. Please answer this question.

Quote:
T: You didn't answer my question. I'll repeat it. Satan is free to do his will, to a great degree, which is evident in looking at our world. He has to be free to do as he pleases in order for there to be a Great Controversy. This agrees with your understanding, doesn't it?

M: No, I disagree. Satan is not free to do as he pleases.

T: Then there's no Great Controversy. If God does His will, and Satan does God's will, there's no controversy at all; there's only God's will. If all that happens is God's will, that begs the question of what sort of God would will the sort of horror we see on this planet?

M: Jesus is in control of the outcome of our choices. He doesn’t leave it up to Satan to decide how best to punish evildoers. True, in the case of Job, Jesus left it up to Satan to decide, within very strict perimeters, what to do. However, in the cases of the wicked, Jesus does not leave it up to Satan.

T: This seems a bit confused, in regards to the subject of discussion here. Are you talking about the final judgment? If not, none of this really makes sense. The punishment of the wicked isn't until the resurrection. If you're talking about the final judgment, then it doesn't make sense to suggest that Jesus Christ leaves their punishment up to Satan. That's just a red herring.

M: “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. . . Since the flood, God has used both water and fire in the earth as his agents to destroy wicked cities. {1SP 84.3}

T: Scripture, and the SOP, often present God as doing that which He permits.

The GC concerns us as much as it does God. Jesus will not let Satan tempt us beyond His ability to empower us to resist. This ensures the GC is fair. Very clearly Satan is not free to do whatever he’d like to do. He must obtain permission from Jesus to tempt us or to harm us. What happens is by permission. There are times, though, when Jesus Himself acts to punish impenitent sinners. Ellen wrote: “The bowels of the earth were the Lord's arsenal, from which he drew forth the weapons he employed in the destruction of the old world. . . Since the flood, God has used both water and fire in the earth as his agents to destroy wicked cities. {1SP 84.3}

Quote:
T: We're going around in circles here. What I have said over and over again, dozens of times, is that to understand these event one must *first* (I emphasize "first" here, as in, before, or previous to) have a correct understanding of God's character. From my perspective, your misunderstanding the events because you're misunderstanding God's character. I believe you perceive the events in a way that in contrary to that which Jesus Christ revealed, and hence, even the questions you ask don't make sense. You and I completely disagree in regards to what's the cart and the horse here. What I think you think is that to correctly understand God's character, it's necessary to consider these events you're asking questions about in addition to considering the life and character of Jesus Christ, and then add these together, and this combination gives a correct understanding of God's character. What I'm saying is first Christ, then look at the other. As opposed to, look at Christ and the other events both at the same time.

M: We’ve tried doing it your way, Tom.

T: No, we never have. You've always injected your agenda into the discussion. My way would be to consider the character of Christ on its own merits. You just ask questions like, "How did Christ's character reveal why He did this or that thing that I think He did"?

M: However, the discussion died out.

T: It never got started.

M: You ended your discourse on the character of God without explaining why Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people.

T: This was never my agenda; it was yours. "My way," as I stated, would be to examine the character of Christ on its own merits.

M: Is that the fruit of your view of God? If so, it comes woefully short of explaining some very difficult aspects of the Bible.

T: Again, "my way" would be to examiner the character of Jesus Christ on its own merits. The "whole purpose" of His earthly mission was "the revelation of God," which was the only way men could be set right and kept right with God. I think this would be wonderful fruit, don't you?[quote]
Earlier you agreed, even promised, to answer the three questions after establishing what the Father is like through a deep and meaningful study of the life and teachings of Jesus while He was here in the flesh. It was NJK, not me, who interjected comments and questions which caused you to deviate from your lesson. You actually did answer one of the three questions by saying Jesus did indeed withdraw His protection and gave His enemies permission to kill the Jews in 70 AD. However, you never clarified why you believe this counts as Jesus doing it while here in the flesh (as you know Jesus returned to heaven in 31 AD). You have steadfastly refused to answer the other two questions by insisting we need to study the life and teachings of Jesus before we can rightly understand them. It would be nice if you would resume your lesson so we can answer the other two questions.

[quote]M: I’m curious, Tom, do you even believe Jesus commanded Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to death? I cannot recall you ever answering this question. I get the impression you believe Moses misunderstood what Jesus told him. Please, Tom, don’t go off on a tangent here and ignore directly answering my question. I realize you haven’t said anything specifically about whether or not Moses misunderstood Jesus. So please, don’t use this comment as excuse to ignore answering my question. Please answer it. Thank you.

T: The best way I know to answer your question is with the story of the father of the hunter son. Did the father of the hunter son command his son to do the things he told him to do? What would neighbors who overheard their conversation have thought? Also, do you think Moses knew God and His will as well as Jesus Christ did? Was it Moses' job to perfectly reveal the character of the Father? Isn't it true that God's character was misunderstood until Christ completed His job of revealing it? If so, wouldn't it stand to reason that Moses' understanding of it was imperfect? Can there be any better way of understanding God's character than to examine the life and teachings of Christ? (No, there can't be).

Do you believe it when it says in the Bible that Jesus commanded Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to death? Or, do you suspect Moses misunderstood what Jesus said? For example, in the Bible it says:

“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.”

“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. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.”

Also, do you think the father teaching his son how to hunt humanely is the same thing as Jesus commanding Moses to stone to death the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer? Is hunting animals and killing humans equal in the eyes of God? Did the father command his son to hunt humanely?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/02/11 03:47 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
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.

M: 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?

T: GC 35-37 isn't limited to actions of God's enemies. There are a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which God protects us.

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).

M: 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.

T: Why do you think I said this?

M: Were these particular enemies evil angels? If not, who were they?

T: Please quote something I've said. I don't know where you're getting these ideas from.

M: Are you refusing to address questions relating to N&A and the two bands of fifty?

T: No, I'm asking you to please quote something I've said, because I don't understand where you're getting your ideas from. That isn't clear to you?

M: It was Ellen who said so. You agreed with her.

T: You're suggesting that Ellen White said these particular enemies were evil agents?

Inspiration makes it clear the fire that burned N&A alive blazed out from the presence of God in the most holy place. Similarly, fire flashed from heaven in response to Elijah’s prayers to burn alive the two different bands of fifty. Do you believe Jesus withdrew His protection and permitted His enemies to burn them alive? So far you have not answered this question plainly. Please do so.

Quote:
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!

M: 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.”

T: I've already explained why this doesn't contradict what she said.

M: “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.

T: You keep changing things that were said. She didn't say "to experience rebirth" but simply "all that man needs to know, or can know." At any rate, as I previously explained, the fact that there were things which Jesus could not reveal to them at that time does not imply that all that man can know of God was not revealed by Jesus Christ. This isn't a valid argument.

M: Obviously this means Jesus did not, could not reveal everything there is to know about God while He was here in the flesh.

T: No, it doesn't mean this! Your assertion would only be true if the things which Jesus Christ couldn't tell them were things about God's character which He did not reveal elsewhere.

M: This is not to say, however, Jesus hasn’t revealed everything there is to know about the character and kingdom of God.

T: Right! Jesus, during his earthly mission, revealed all that man needs to know or can know of God.

M: 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.

T: This is your opinion, but not what Ellen White wrote. Looking at the context of her statement, it is clear that she is speaking of Jesus Christ while here in the flesh. I disagree with the idea that to learn of God we should supplement what Jesus Christ taught with what other sources teach us, and then add them together to get a full or true or complete picture. I believe Jesus Christ *is* the full/complete/picture of God's character, and that it is His revelation only which enables us to rightly understand other lesser revelations of God. I think this is a chief disagreement we have. I see Jesus Christ in human flesh as superior to all other revelations of God.

M: Please refer to the many passages I posted earlier (omitted by you). As a whole they make clear the point.

T: Ellen White wrote that all that man needs to know of God, or can know of Him, was revealed in the life and character of Jesus Christ, while here in the flesh. Somehow you've construed this to mean: "She plainly says Jesus did not, could not, reveal everything there is to know about God while He was here in the flesh." Just to be clear, here's what she said word for word:

Quote:
Christ's Revelation of God (Section title in book)

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}

"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. {8T 286.2}

Taking humanity upon Him, Christ came to be one with humanity and at the same time to reveal our heavenly Father to sinful human beings. He was in all things made like unto His brethren. He became flesh, even as we are. He was hungry and thirsty and weary. He was sustained by food and refreshed by sleep. He shared the lot of men, and yet He was the blameless Son of God. He was a stranger and sojourner on the earth--in the world, but not of the world; tempted and tried as men and women today are tempted and tried, yet living a life free from sin. {8T 286.3}

Tender, compassionate, sympathetic, ever considerate of others, He represented the character of God, and was constantly engaged in service for God and man. {8T 286.4}

T: Please explain to me how this can mean that NOT every thing man needs to know, or can know, of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son, when He "took humanity upon Him."

Please refer to the many passages I posted earlier (omitted by you). As a whole they make clear the point. Do not make the mistake of basing your idea on one passage. Also, “needs to know” is not the same thing as “everything there is to know”.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/02/11 03:49 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
Originally Posted By: MM
Up to now, everything that has happened has been tempered with mercy. That is, not until the seven last plagues will Jesus pull out all the stops - "unmixed with mercy". All along Jesus has held back, that is, He has established and enforced limits, limits which neither holy angels nor evil angels have been allowed to exceed. Jesus (not sin, not sinners, not Satan) is the one who determines when, where, and how impenitent sinners will be punished. It is not up to Satan to determine. "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."


It's a huge mistake to view God as responsible for these things.

Quote:
It was generally believed by the Jews that sin is punished in this life. Every affliction was regarded as the penalty of some wrongdoing, either of the sufferer himself or of his parents. It is true that all suffering results from the transgression of God's law, but this truth had become perverted. Satan, the author of sin and all its results, had led men to look upon disease and death as proceeding from God,--as punishment arbitrarily inflicted on account of sin. Hence one upon whom some great affliction or calamity had fallen had the additional burden of being regarded as a great sinner.

Thus the way was prepared for the Jews to reject Jesus. He who "hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows" was looked upon by the Jews as "stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted;" and they hid their faces from Him. Isa. 53:4, 3.

God had given a lesson designed to prevent this. The history of Job had shown that suffering is inflicted by Satan, and is overruled by God for purposes of mercy. But Israel did not understand the lesson. The same error for which God had reproved the friends of Job was repeated by the Jews in their rejection of Christ. (DA 471)

I do not understand how your response addresses my comments.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/02/11 03:55 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
Originally Posted By: MM
In those cases where she plainly says God “used His enemies as instruments to punish” impenitent sinners, can it be said “their sufferings are . . . a punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God”?

No.

Quote:
Obviously the phrase “punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God” does not contradict what she wrote in the PC 136 quote posted above. I believe the phrase “punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God” conveys the idea that Jesus had no justifiable reason for withdrawing His protection and permitting His enemies to punish the Jews in 70 AD.

I don't understand what this means. Jesus had no justifiable reason for withdrawing His protection?

Quote:
The truth is, Jesus was justified.

Oh I see what you're saying. Actually the phrase, "punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God” conveys the idea that the punishment visited upon them was not due to a direct decree of God. This means it wasn't God's will. Also, the context makes clear what was happening. She repeats, over and over again (reminiscent of DA 764) that the things that happened were NOT due to something God did, but to the actions of others. Indeed, one wonders how she could have made this clearer.

Jesus was forced to withdraw His protection and to permit His enemies to inflict punishment upon the Jews in 70 AD. Said punishment was inflicted because Jesus permitted it. He also worked to prevent His enemies from exceeding the limits He imposed on them. In essence Jesus orchestrated the outcome.
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/02/11 05:36 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
I'll agree that at times kland can be somewhat difficult to understand, but not in any way comparable to you. kland's "problem," if anything, is that he's too terse.
Yep.
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/02/11 05:44 PM

I guess, actually not a guess, but more of a statement, I see no need, or otherwise, no necessity, or implied implication, to have a dozen, or so, but not exact, as the word dozen is a round about number, but not to be confused with a baker's dozen, though which term may not be familiar with most people of today's age, not saying their chronological age, but age of modernization, though it may be a step back rather than a step forward, parenthetical phrases, or parts of sentences, included, or embedded, or otherwise to the point of being lost, within one another when one can say it with few, or at least, fewer, words.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/02/11 10:32 PM

Originally Posted By: kland
T:I'll agree that at times kland can be somewhat difficult to understand, but not in any way comparable to you. kland's "problem," if anything, is that he's too terse.

k:Yep.


Cute. (Although perhaps "Y." would have worked.)
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/02/11 10:35 PM

Originally Posted By: kland
I guess, actually not a guess, but more of a statement, I see no need, or otherwise, no necessity, or implied implication, to have a dozen, or so, but not exact, as the word dozen is a round about number, but not to be confused with a baker's dozen, though which term may not be familiar with most people of today's age, not saying their chronological age, but age of modernization, though it may be a step back rather than a step forward, parenthetical phrases, or parts of sentences, included, or embedded, or otherwise to the point of being lost, within one another when one can say it with few, or at least, fewer, words.


Agreed.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/02/11 11:05 PM

Quote:
Tom: Ok. I'll state what I perceive to be our areas of disagreement here. This is in regards to judgments during this life, not the final judgment.

NJK:From your previous sin-organic comment such as in Post #130881 which was responding to my Capital Sins judgment view in Post #130766 it is apparent that you have believed that all judgements, whether in this life or in the Second Death (Hell), must involve an ‘organic sin’ issue. I.e., God does not have to do anything but let the result of sin take its course.


I haven't put it this way, nor would I, as this seems ambiguous.

The final judgment involves direct actions on the part of God to the point of having all be aware of the issues involved in the Great Controversy, especially in their own lives. This is necessary that they may render judgment. Every knee will bow, voluntarily, and every tongue confess, voluntarily, acknowledging the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and that He (and God, or the Godhead) have been just/fair/merciful/gracious/etc. in all of their dealings throughout the Great Controversy.

Regarding judgments during this life, one could perhaps say that some aspect of sin has been allowed to run its course, but not that sin, in general, has been allowed to run its course.

Quote:
I do not see this as being realistically feasible in the sense that sin is not always allowed to reach its ‘“full life” which then results in self inflicted natural death’, indeed as an old person naturally dies of old age (James 1:15).


Again, this isn't a phrase I have used, nor a concept I have articulated (that sin is allowed to run its course).

Quote:
God instead chooses to intervene at some stages to effectuate a death causing judgement in order to end this manifestly sure to get worse sin development.


This isn't very clear, but I think what you're wanting to say is that God intervenes in order to prevent something worse to occur. If that's the point, I have no qualms with this, provide that God's intervention is understood along the lines of that explained in GC 35-37.

Quote:
And to do this, i.e., in this timely way, He has had to use supernatural force.


He could just remove His protection from the thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which He protects us.

Quote:
T:I perceive what happens is that the judgments which occur do so because the people involved have persistently resisted the Holy Spirit, leading to God's withdrawing His protection, which is the manifestation of His wrath.

NJK:All of the examples you have tried to demonstrate for this have been transparently, exegetically shown to be acts of God.


I don't think any have.

Quote:
I.e., God either actively did the action (Piel) or he caused it (Hiphil) through His pointedly commissioned angels.


Examples suggested include:

1.Saul's death.
2.Fiery serpents sent upon the Israelites.
3.Lying spirits sent to Ahab.
4.Job's sufferings.
5.The destruction of Jerusalem.
6.Those who received not the love of the truth being sent delusions.
7.Jesus making those who reject Him blind so they not see, and deaf so they not hear.

Every one of these in the SOP was explained along the lines of what I have been asserting. None of these involves God's taking direct action to cause the thing to occur, nor His using His own angels to bring out the action described.

Quote:
All your ‘natural third party self-acting agents’ claims have been shown to both be exegetically not supported (including by the SOP testimony) and/or not naturally realistic. You have not provided objectively valid, if actually any, countering reasons why they should continue to be considered as you originally claimed them to be.


I don't have time to repeat all of these, but here are a few.

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. By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them...(GC 35)


Quote:
Shielded by divine power, they had not realized the countless dangers by which they were surrounded. In their unbelief they 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 their sting, it causing violent inflammation and speedy death. As the protecting hand of God was removed, great numbers of the people were attacked by these venomous creatures. {EP 301.1}


The first sentence in particular echoes the point I've been making. We do not realize the countless dangers which surround us, from which we are protected. When God's protection is removed, that may be perceived as God's taking direct action to cause the given thing.

Quote:
Especially solemn is the apostle’s statement regarding those who should refuse to receive “the love of the truth.” “For this cause,” he declared of all who should deliberately reject the messages of truth, “God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” Men cannot with impunity reject the warnings that God in mercy sends them. From those who persist in turning from these warnings, God withdraws His Spirit, leaving them to the deceptions that they love. {AA 266.2}


(More later)
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/03/11 01:36 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
T:I see God as acting passively here, against His will, as He would prefer to protect, as Jesus' lamentation regarding Jerusalem -- "But ye would not!" -- illustrates.

NJK:In Jesus’s predictions of the destruction of Jerusalem, he not only speaks of God removing His protection but ‘commandingly involved in the destruction event” (Matt 22:7) indeed just as the Jews before had said it should be done (Matt 21:40, 41). As I understand it, the fact that God was involved and that this was never intended to be an action entirely controlled and achieved by the Devil, even if through the Roman armies, was that, as Jesus later pointed out, God wanted to have mercy in this event and cut these days short (cf. Matt 24:22) so that some of the Jews could survive. As I now more precisely understand it. It was because God then had planned ca. 20 more years before the Second Coming could occur and perhaps this judgement would help to make these surviving, ‘pacific Jews’ realize their sin and seek Gospel/New Covenant repentance.

EGW comments in GC 35-37 are not in opposition to these exegetical and exegetically derived facts as her point was that God does not ‘decree punishments’ in the sense that He violates the freewill of people and makes suffer a punishment that they did not unlawfully act to deserve.


This wasn't her point. Her point was that the judgments are often presented as divine decrees of God, but this is how Satan hides his own work. This also agrees with Jesus' desire to protect them as a chicken would protect its chicks. It doesn't make sense that Jesus would be desiring to protect them against God, as this would have Jesus and God working at cross purposes.

You've made this statement a couple of times (I'll put it quotes)

Quote:
her point was that God does not ‘decree punishments’ in the sense that He violates the freewill of people and makes suffer a punishment that they did not unlawfully act to deserve.


but without any justification. If one reads what she wrote, there is nothing to suggest this interpretation. She says nothing anywhere in the context, or in the chapter, in regards to the violation of the freewill of people, nor of God's making decrees to cause people to suffer punishments they do not deserve. I've been asking you how you come to this conclusion, since there is nothing in the text which states or suggests what you are asserting. Instead, the text makes the points I've been making, which is that the Jews brought what happened upon themselves by resisting the Holy Spirit and refusing the protection God was offering them.

Quote:
Hence her pivotal phrase “direct decree of God” (GC 35.3). Indeed it extends to even a judgement that was fully warranted, as with the Jews, their 70 A.D. destruction which was for the rejection and murder of their Messiah did not have to be as if God had decreed it to be irreversible. It was because they continued in unbelief and rejection during the 40 years since, and in the light and testimony of the Gospel message that they suffered the natural end results of God not protecting them. Still, as Jesus had indicated in Matt 22:7, it was God who, just like He had done with Babylon in the OT, sent the Romans against the Jews to effectuate this judgement, even though they were clearly pondered and reluctant to do so.


God neither sent the Babylonians nor the Romans. They acted on their own accord, for their own purposes, and God permitted it. Why would God send armies to attack other people? This speaks of a government which God does not have.

Quote:
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)


Again, it doesn't make sense that Jesus would be longing to protect the Jews against an action that God was looking to undertake, as this would have Jesus and God acting at cross purposes. *Both* God and Jesus longed to protect the Jews. God's protection was *caused* to be removed by the actions of the Jews. This is the point EGW makes in the GC 35-37 passage.

Quote:
By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them... (GC 35)


The Jews caused the protection of God to be withdrawn.

Quote:
And as I see it, it was so that this judgement could here timely be done to allow for enough time (ca. 20 years) for the rest of Christ Olivet Discourse prophecy to be fully fulfilled and thus culminating in the Second Coming. However the Christian Church proved not faithful to this charge as seen in the messages to the 7 Churches, which was indeed based on literal developments and which God then typologically used as capital points that He would object to in the now to be Historically developed NT Church.

T:I believe your perception is that it is God's will to cause suffering, or death, to those who have disobeyed Him, and that He does so by different means, including acting both passively and actively.

NJK:I do not believe that “it is God’s will to cause suffering, or death, to those who have disobeyed Him”. That view fits in the mold of what EGW decried as ‘Satan’s claim of God’s direct decree’. By illustration, that is like a judge wanting a person who simply got a speeding ticket to get the death penalty and acting irrespective of facts to “decree” that this be the case. God instead is exercising just justice and the capital punishment death penalties that He rules through full and transparent justice are all warranted sentences. The more light and thus opportunities to avert the sin resulting in this death, the more delayed that punishment is. Still that punishment is not set in stone for those who genuinely want to repent. It is only by them persisting in their wayward course that these “forge the fetters” that cause them to indeed receive that associated or necessitated punishment and through whatever expedient or as-natural-as-possible means it needs to be done.


It is not clear to me what you are disagreeing with. It looks like you are taking odds with the idea that God would demand the death penalty for something like a speeding ticket. That is, you are arguing against the idea that it would be God's will to cause suffering and death if that were unwarranted. So let's consider the situation where such is warranted (I'm speaking from your point of view throughout here).

So, supposing that the "just justice" of God is a "warranted sentence," do you disagree that you believe that it is God's will that those who disobey Him (in this context) suffer and die? Or is your disagreement involving some other point? (It looks to me what you addressed was the concept of an unwarranted sentence).

Quote:
T:I have said that there are a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which God is constantly protecting us, and that it is sufficient, in terms of explaining and judgments that have occurred, for God to have simply withdrawn His protection, as explained in GC 35-37.

NJK:That is what I see as a “passive act of God”.

Tom: Agreed.

NJK:As I understand your view, you are only ‘agreeing’ with the “passive” portion but not my “of God” portion as I understand this to mean that God was actually involved in such cases.


I'm agreeing with your statement, "That is what I see as a “passive act of God”," which was in reference to my speaking of God's withdrawing His protection.

Quote:
You instead think God is completely removed in such cases and natural acts, even in self-acting, even as it is required, self-directing way and/or the devil is in full control and is administering the judgement.


What do you mean by "even in self-acting," or "self-directing way"? I think the idea that the devil is in full control and administering the judgment doesn't make any sense.

What I see as happening is that God's protection has been rejected, so God permits some danger, from the thousand unseen dangers from which God protects us, to occur. I see that when this happens, it is not God's will that anyone suffer or die, but Satan desires these things. Satan likes to cause suffering and death because that is in harmony with his character and the principles of his government.

Quote:
I, on the other hand, have yet to see a Biblical/SOP case where the devil has been given this green light, even, a particularly in, the Destruction of Jerusalem, and only see that this will be the case in the 7th and Final Plague.


I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. From "The Destruction of Jerusalem":

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 35)


Why doesn't this qualify as the type of statement you say you have not seen?

(More later)
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/03/11 02:03 AM

Quote:
T:There is no need for God to have acted in any way different than how Jesus Christ acted while here with us in the flesh.

NJK:That view of yours is easily refuted by e.g., the fact that Jesus twice did use physical force to clear/cleanse His Temple of ‘merchandising robbers and thieves’.

Tom: I disagree with this for two reasons. One is logical, and the other factual.

The logical objection is that what I stated is there is no necessity for God to act any differently than how Jesus Christ acted while here in the flesh. To adduce an action of Jesus Christ's which involves physical force is not a logical thing to do here. If your assertion were true, this would only serve to broaden the things which God can do, making it more likely, not less, that my assertion is true.


You put "NJK:" in front of this last paragraph, but I actually wrote that paragraph.

Quote:
NJK:I see this as a circular argument, especially as (1) it is entirely based on your view, (which, in my view is reversedly making ‘the OT God act like the incarnate Jesus’ (which is chronologically not possible), instead of the logical vice versa, and (2) it is being stated here as the first reasons instead of a second one. I.e., logic must be based upon/flow out of concrete facts.


You appear to have missed the point. I said:

Quote:
There is no need for God to have acted in any way different than how Jesus Christ acted while here with us in the flesh.


You replied:

Quote:
That view of yours is easily refuted by e.g., the fact that Jesus twice did use physical force to clear/cleanse His Temple of ‘merchandising robbers and thieves’.


Even if you were correct in your view of how Jesus were acting, this would not serve to prove that there was no need for God to act contrary to how Jesus Christ were acting. Indeed, it would serve to prove the reverse.

The more Jesus acts like your view of how God acted, the *less* need there is for God to act differently than how Jesus acted.

Quote:
T:The factual objection is that Christ did not use physical force to drive out the money changers. It was their consciences which forced them to leave, both times.

NJK:This is not a realistic nor logical conclusion. Had Jesus just walked into the Temple and simply looked at these thieves and robbers and they and then suddenly scurriedly bolted out of the Temple leaving most, if not all of their commodities behind, or even taking them with them, then that would have been a passive act or Jesus. (Indeed “passive” as He was physically present but had just looked at them). But the account didn’t end with Jesus just looking at them as seen in DA 157.4. That only caused a hushed silence. The Bible and SOP then clearly say that:

-divinity flash through the garb of humanity (DA 158.1a = a “stern and godlike demeanor” DA 589.1)
-a divine light illuminates His countenance (DA 158.1b)
-to the sellers of doves He (first) tells them to “take these things hence” (DA 158.1c cf. John 2:16)
-He then, effectively menacingly, and as a “flaming sword”, raises his scourge of cords (DA 158.2)
-and then begins over thrown the money-changer’s table
-it is then, after these physical acts that “Officers of the temple, speculating priests, brokers and cattle traders, with their sheep and oxen, rush from the place, with the one thought of escaping from the condemnation of His presence. {DA 158.2}”

To say that Jesus did not use force here is not exegetically realistic. It was a degree of force, and proportional/reasonable force at that, but by incontrovertible definition, force non the less. To say the contrary is like saying that a police officer does not use force at all to do a traffic stop.

By merely flicking on his lights, a first stage/degree of law enforcing force is used. If that is being resisted by the law violator, then that forces is increased namely to a siren blasting, a parallel/side visible indication, a police chase, a spin out, a nail carpet, shooting out the tires, and so on. In fact the first stage of force to comply to the law is, if that was the case, to immediately slow down to the speed limit particularly when passing a police office who is engaged in speeding control. Furthermore, more pertinently, complete non-force with the effectuation of a judgement here, would that law offender pulling over on their own at the mere noticing of a police car and then convincing the police officer to write them a ticket becasuse they had exceeded the speeding limit, even 10 miles before.

Similarly, in the case of Christ, the inceptive stage of force was when He stepped into the Temple and began to glare at them. As they immediately knew something was wrong, they should have immediately complied with what God’s Law/principle actually was for this circumstance, which they fully knew of. Instead subsequent degrees of force came to be used as listed above with:

-divinity flashing through the garb of humanity (stern and godlike) = revealing that Jesus was a Divine “Law Enforcer” here and means to end this violation of the Law.
-a divine light illuminates His countenance = Jesus was flashing His “pull over lights”
-Orders to “take these things hence” = visible/audible “command/indication to comply”
-A raised his scourge of cords = Christ menacingly “chasing them out”
-and then begins over thrown the money-changer’s table = Christ physically removing/ending the elements that made the resistance “possible or justified”
-then the object of this Law Enforcing intervention was begun to be realized with the violators having been “neutralized”

Second Clearing/Cleansing
The second clearing cleansing (Matt 21:12, 13; Mar 11:15-17; Luke 19:45, 46; DA 589.1-591.1) similarly also involved all of the degrees of force as in the first one, including physical overturnings (Matt 21:12b/Mark 11:15b which EGW does not mention in her account DA (590.4-591.1)).


This is from the Desire of Ages:

Quote:
Overpowered with terror, the priests and rulers had fled from the temple court, and from the searching glance that read their hearts. In their flight they met others on their way to the temple, and bade them turn back, telling them what they had seen and heard. Christ looked upon the fleeing men with yearning pity for their fear, and their ignorance of what constituted true worship. In this scene He saw symbolized the dispersion of the whole Jewish nation for their wickedness and impenitence.

And why did the priests flee from the temple? Why did they not stand their ground? He who commanded them to go was a carpenter's son, a poor Galilean, without earthly rank or power. Why did they not resist Him? Why did they leave the gain so ill acquired, and flee at the command of One whose outward appearance was so humble?

Christ spoke with the authority of a king, and in His appearance, and in the tones of His voice, there was that which they had no power to resist. At the word of command they realized, as they had never realized before, their true position as hypocrites and robbers. (DA 162)


Note:

1.Overpowered with terror, the priests and rulers had fled from the temple court, and from the searching glance that read their hearts.

2.At the word of command they realized, as they had never realized before, their true position as hypocrites and robbers.

Here is the definition of "physical force":

Quote:
The plain meaning of physical force is power, violence, or pressure directed against a person consisting in a physical act. A person cannot make physical contact — particularly of an insulting or provoking nature — with another without exerting some level of physical force. (United States Court of Appeals)


Clearly this is not what happened in the cleansing of the temple.

Those who fled did so in terror. Why? Because of "the searching glance that read their hearts." This is in harmony with I asserted, that it was their consciences which caused them to flee.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/03/11 02:10 AM

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.

M: 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?

T: GC 35-37 isn't limited to actions of God's enemies. There are a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which God protects us.

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).

M: 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.

T: Why do you think I said this?

M: Were these particular enemies evil angels? If not, who were they?

T: Please quote something I've said. I don't know where you're getting these ideas from.

M: Are you refusing to address questions relating to N&A and the two bands of fifty?

T: No, I'm asking you to please quote something I've said, because I don't understand where you're getting your ideas from. That isn't clear to you?

M: It was Ellen who said so. You agreed with her.

T: You're suggesting that Ellen White said these particular enemies were evil agents?

M:Inspiration makes it clear the fire that burned N&A alive blazed out from the presence of God in the most holy place. Similarly, fire flashed from heaven in response to Elijah’s prayers to burn alive the two different bands of fifty. Do you believe Jesus withdrew His protection and permitted His enemies to burn them alive? So far you have not answered this question plainly. Please do so.


You haven't answered my questions. Please any my questions, which I asked first.

Quote:
Christ's Revelation of God (Section title in book)

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}

"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. {8T 286.2}

Taking humanity upon Him, Christ came to be one with humanity and at the same time to reveal our heavenly Father to sinful human beings. He was in all things made like unto His brethren. He became flesh, even as we are. He was hungry and thirsty and weary. He was sustained by food and refreshed by sleep. He shared the lot of men, and yet He was the blameless Son of God. He was a stranger and sojourner on the earth--in the world, but not of the world; tempted and tried as men and women today are tempted and tried, yet living a life free from sin. {8T 286.3}

Tender, compassionate, sympathetic, ever considerate of others, He represented the character of God, and was constantly engaged in service for God and man. {8T 286.4}

T: Please explain to me how this can mean that NOT every thing man needs to know, or can know, of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son, when He "took humanity upon Him."

M:Please refer to the many passages I posted earlier (omitted by you). As a whole they make clear the point. Do not make the mistake of basing your idea on one passage. Also, “needs to know” is not the same thing as “everything there is to know”.


Let's just deal with one passage. Please cite the passage which you think most clearly articulates the idea that NOT everything that man needs to know, or can know, of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son, and we can discuss that passage.

I'm not aware of any passage which contradicts this idea. I didn't see any such contradiction or implication in any passage you cited.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/03/11 02:24 AM

Quote:
T: I agree that nothing happens by fate. I disagree that nothing happens by chance. If Jesus, or God, permits something to occur which happens by chance, that doesn't mean that the thing permitted to occur did not happen by chance. I believe there are things which happen by chance. For example, tossing a fair coin is an example. By chance it will be heads or tails. Many such examples could be given.

M: Do you believe Jesus is free to choose between such options as preventing death and destruction or permitting it, that He takes everything and everyone into consideration and then decides whether to prevent or permit death and destruction, that the choice is His?

T: You're mixing too many things together here, and then asking a yes or no question. That's not cricket. I think all evil is not the choice of Jesus Christ, and evil only occurs when beings choose to act contrary to His will.

M: Or, do you believe chance dictates whether or not He is free to choose between preventing or permitting death and destruction?

T: Things happen by chance, if that's what you mean.

M: Is Christ in control or is chance?

T: Things happen by chance, if that's what you're asking. Again, chance being in control isn't a logical construct.

M: If God is not in control of sinners, who, then, is protecting them?

T: By "in control of" I assume you mean "controlling." Or do you mean something else? If by "in control of" you mean "protecting," then I may agree with what you mean, if not what you're saying. That is, I certainly agree that God is protecting sinners.

M: Do you believe God is not in control of sinners?

T: Not when they sin.

M: If so, and I assume you do, what do you mean by it?

T: I mean that sinners, when they sin, choose to exercise their free will to act contrary to the will of Jesus Christ.

M:Yes, of course, sinners are free to choose to sin. But I’m referring to the resulting outcomes, consequences. For example, N&A were free to choose to employ strange fire. The various outcomes, consequences of their choice was entirely up to Jesus – not chance, not sin, not Satan. Jesus chose to employ fire to burn them alive. So far, you have refused to say who or what employed the fire that killed them.


We spoke of this in detail in the past. I have no desire to repeat that conversation. I'll reiterate that I believe that the principles of GC 35-37 hold in all such cases, and that the specifics of how God removes His protection (whether in regards to evil agents, oneself, natural disasters, health, accidents, or anything else) is not important.

Quote:
M: As for me, I believe Jesus is, as sovereign Lord and King, ultimately in control of the outcome of the great controversy – not sin, not sinners, and not Satan.

T: The Great Controversy is not a contest that can be decided by sovereignty; it's decided by evidence. God has been accused of certain things, things involving His character and the principles of His government. To make His case that He has been unjustly accused, God has chosen to allow things to play out, that His character may be seen in contrast with that of His accuser, as well as the principles of His government in contrast to the principles of his adversary's government.

M: That is, sin does not determine how the GC will play out, neither do sinners, nor does Satan.

T: Sinners and Satan have a part, as do all sentient beings.

M: Whether or not this or that choice plays out this or that way is entirely up to Jesus - not sin, not sinners, and not Satan.

T: No, this isn't the case. When a rapist chooses to rape, and that plays out in a rape victim being raped, that's not "entirely up to Jesus." You don't see the problem in asserting this?

M: True, His options are limited. He isn’t free to manage the outcome irrespective of the choice. For example, Jesus wasn’t free to manage Judas’ choice to betray Him in a way that would result in him sitting on the right or left hand of Jesus in the New Jerusalem.

T: This doesn't seem to be a related point to the discussion.

M:Whether or not this or that choice plays out this or that way is entirely up to Jesus - not sin, not sinners, and not Satan.
Evil choices usually end in evil consequences. Exactly which evil consequence plays out is up to Jesus. Not that He makes it play out that way. But He does manage things so that they do not play out some other way. He either causes, commands, or permits.


So if a little child is abused, that's "entirely up to Jesus" (not sin, not sinners, and not Satan)?

IMO, this is exactly backwards.

Quote:
T: To state that evil angels never disobey Jesus Christ is not a fair accusation to make upon Christ. Of course they disobey Him, whenever they do evil. To think that evil angels are shackled so they only obey Christ's will is, I'm having difficulty coming up with words that aren't too strong here, I'll just say not fair to Christ. Also, it's not fair to them, as well, as, if they are not to a great extent free to do their will, then the Great Controversy is a sham. Finally, if they are not free to do their will, how do you explain the evil there is in the world?

M:As explained above, Jesus is in control – not sin, not sinners, and not Satan. Evil angels are only as free as Jesus allows. 1 Cor 10:13 is an example.


This doesn't address my question. My question is, if evil agents are not free to do their will, how do you explain the evil there is in the world? Please answer this question. For example, "The evil which exists in the world exists because ..."

In particular, whose will is involved when evil occurs?

Quote:
M: He commanded godly people like Moses to kill ungodly people. In final judgment, the radiant glory of God’s person and presence will cause the wicked to suffer in duration and intensity proportionate to their sinfulness. The presence of God’s radiant glory is required for the wicked to experience the emotional and physical suffering that ends in eternal death, otherwise, they would merely live and die as they did before Jesus resurrected them.

T: I'm sorry you feel this way. DA 764 tells us that if God had allowed Satan and his followers to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished, but it would not have been apparent that the inevitable result of sin is death. I'm sorry you don't see the relationship between sin and death. I think not seeing this connections leads to many errors, all of which portray God negatively.

M:Jesus established the laws regulating capital punishment. It doesn’t matter if such laws existed.


It does matter. For example, if polygamy existed, and it was permitted to continue, that's not the same as if there were no polygamy, and God instructed that they should have multiple wives.

Quote:
M:And, the connection between sin and eternal death is real. Sin and sinners cannot abide in the presence of God. The radiant light of His glory consumes sinners with their sins. You seem to think it is sin, not the light of God’s radiant glory, that will consume sinners in final judgment.


I think the main difference between us in regards to what you just wrote in this paragraph is that you perceive the issue to be primarily physical, whereas I see it to be a spiritual matter involving one's character. For example, we read:

Quote:
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. (DA 764)


This, as it reads, states what I've been asserting. I don't understand how you get a physical idea out of this. It speaks of the wicked developing characters and revealing their principles. It says they receive the results of their choice, which, in context, is referring to their characters and principles. It says they are so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. This has to do with their character. It says the glory of Him who is love will destroy them. This also has to do with character. The glory of God is His character, and God's defining attribute is love. She refers to the "glory of Him who is love." From beginning to end, this is dealing with character. (More later)
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/03/11 02:44 AM

Quote:
T: I assume you mean that from my perspective, the mechanism matters, if sincere seekers of truth wrongly conclude that Jesus employs fire to burn people alive. If this is what you mean, I still don't agree that the mechanism matters. I believe it's the principle that matters. A sincere seeker of truth, from my perspective, will not make conclusions about the mechanism involved which are not in harmony with God's character or the principles of His government, if he gets the principles right.

M: What would they conclude? Would it suffice them to know Jesus didn’t burn them alive? Thus satisfied it wouldn’t occur to them to care who or what caused the fire that burned them alive?

T: I don't think it matters much to one who is convinced in regards to God's character. For example, let's say someone is killed in your house by a fire. It's possible that your wife set them on fire and burned them alive. But you know your wife, and know she isn't capable of that sort of behavior. So how did the person die? Insofar as your wife's setting them on fire is concerned, you don't much care, because you know however the person died, it wasn't because your wife set them on fire.

M:Did my wife withdraw her protection and permit her enemies to burn them alive? You seem to think it doesn’t matter.


Of course it matters:

Quote:
By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them ... (GC 35)


If your wife were caused to withdraw her protection, as opposed to freely choosing to do so without being caused to do so, that would matter.

Back to my analogy. You understand the point, right? You would know your wife, in the analogy, didn't cause the fire, because you know her character.

Quote:
M: In the case of N&A, the fire blazed out from the presence of God in the most holy place. And, in the case of the two bands of fifty, fire rained down from God in heaven. To say Jesus simply withdrew His protection and permitted (you have yet to say who) to cause fire to burn them alive begs the question – Why were His enemies in the most holy places in heaven and earth?

T: I disagree that it begs this question.

M: Does it matter to you, Tom, where Jesus’ enemies were when He, according to you, permitted them to make fire blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burn them alive? It matters very much to me. That’s why I believe Jesus employed fire to burn them alive.

T: I addressed this just above, in the illustration about your wife setting people on fire.

M:Who did Jesus permit to employ the fire that killed them? Please don’t say it doesn’t matter. Please answer this question.


Jesus permitted the fire to occur for the same reasons explained in GC 35-37.

I think where you and I are having the biggest disagreement is that you perceive Jesus' character to be such that He will employ fire to burn people alive when it suits Him. I don't believe Jesus' character is such that He uses fire to burn people alive. I gave the analogy of your wife in the burning house to illustrate this.

Quote:
T: You didn't answer my question. I'll repeat it. Satan is free to do his will, to a great degree, which is evident in looking at our world. He has to be free to do as he pleases in order for there to be a Great Controversy. This agrees with your understanding, doesn't it?

M: No, I disagree. Satan is not free to do as he pleases.

T: Then there's no Great Controversy. If God does His will, and Satan does God's will, there's no controversy at all; there's only God's will. If all that happens is God's will, that begs the question of what sort of God would will the sort of horror we see on this planet?

M: Jesus is in control of the outcome of our choices. He doesn’t leave it up to Satan to decide how best to punish evildoers. True, in the case of Job, Jesus left it up to Satan to decide, within very strict perimeters, what to do. However, in the cases of the wicked, Jesus does not leave it up to Satan.

T: This seems a bit confused, in regards to the subject of discussion here. Are you talking about the final judgment? If not, none of this really makes sense. The punishment of the wicked isn't until the resurrection. If you're talking about the final judgment, then it doesn't make sense to suggest that Jesus Christ leaves their punishment up to Satan. That's just a red herring.

M: “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. . . Since the flood, God has used both water and fire in the earth as his agents to destroy wicked cities. {1SP 84.3}

T: Scripture, and the SOP, often present God as doing that which He permits.

M:The GC concerns us as much as it does God. Jesus will not let Satan tempt us beyond His ability to empower us to resist. This ensures the GC is fair. Very clearly Satan is not free to do whatever he’d like to do. He must obtain permission from Jesus to tempt us or to harm us. What happens is by permission.


Clearly God must limit the evil which Satan does, or else he would destroy everyone, and there wouldn't be a Great Controversy. However, this must not be twisted around so one concludes that the evil which happens is God's will.

Quote:
There are times, though, when Jesus Himself acts to punish impenitent sinners. Ellen wrote: “The bowels of the earth were the Lord's arsenal, from which he drew forth the weapons he employed in the destruction of the old world. . . Since the flood, God has used both water and fire in the earth as his agents to destroy wicked cities. {1SP 84.3}


Scripture, and the SOP, often present God as doing that which He permits.

Quote:
M: I’m curious, Tom, do you even believe Jesus commanded Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to death? I cannot recall you ever answering this question. I get the impression you believe Moses misunderstood what Jesus told him. Please, Tom, don’t go off on a tangent here and ignore directly answering my question. I realize you haven’t said anything specifically about whether or not Moses misunderstood Jesus. So please, don’t use this comment as excuse to ignore answering my question. Please answer it. Thank you.

T: The best way I know to answer your question is with the story of the father of the hunter son. Did the father of the hunter son command his son to do the things he told him to do? What would neighbors who overheard their conversation have thought? Also, do you think Moses knew God and His will as well as Jesus Christ did? Was it Moses' job to perfectly reveal the character of the Father? Isn't it true that God's character was misunderstood until Christ completed His job of revealing it? If so, wouldn't it stand to reason that Moses' understanding of it was imperfect? Can there be any better way of understanding God's character than to examine the life and teachings of Christ? (No, there can't be).

M:Do you believe it when it says in the Bible that Jesus commanded Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to death? Or, do you suspect Moses misunderstood what Jesus said? For example, in the Bible it says:

“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.”

“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. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.”

Also, do you think the father teaching his son how to hunt humanely is the same thing as Jesus commanding Moses to stone to death the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer? Is hunting animals and killing humans equal in the eyes of God? Did the father command his son to hunt humanely?


There's a pattern in our conversations where you pass over my questions, and simply ask me more questions. For example, I asked you seven questions, and you didn't answer any of them.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/03/11 02:57 AM

Originally Posted By: MM
Up to now, everything that has happened has been tempered with mercy. That is, not until the seven last plagues will Jesus pull out all the stops - "unmixed with mercy". All along Jesus has held back, that is, He has established and enforced limits, limits which neither holy angels nor evil angels have been allowed to exceed. Jesus (not sin, not sinners, not Satan) is the one who determines when, where, and how impenitent sinners will be punished. It is not up to Satan to determine. "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."


T:It's a huge mistake to view God as responsible for these things.

Quote:
It was generally believed by the Jews that sin is punished in this life. Every affliction was regarded as the penalty of some wrongdoing, either of the sufferer himself or of his parents. It is true that all suffering results from the transgression of God's law, but this truth had become perverted. Satan, the author of sin and all its results, had led men to look upon disease and death as proceeding from God,--as punishment arbitrarily inflicted on account of sin. Hence one upon whom some great affliction or calamity had fallen had the additional burden of being regarded as a great sinner.

Thus the way was prepared for the Jews to reject Jesus. He who "hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows" was looked upon by the Jews as "stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted;" and they hid their faces from Him. Isa. 53:4, 3.

God had given a lesson designed to prevent this. The history of Job had shown that suffering is inflicted by Satan, and is overruled by God for purposes of mercy. But Israel did not understand the lesson. The same error for which God had reproved the friends of Job was repeated by the Jews in their rejection of Christ. (DA 471)

M:I do not understand how your response addresses my comments.


You wrote as if God were responsible for the things you were speaking of. I addressed that by pointing out that it would be a huge mistake to view God as responsible, and cited texts to explain why.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/03/11 03:05 AM

Originally Posted By: MM
T:Oh I see what you're saying. Actually the phrase, "punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God” conveys the idea that the punishment visited upon them was not due to a direct decree of God. This means it wasn't God's will. Also, the context makes clear what was happening. She repeats, over and over again (reminiscent of DA 764) that the things that happened were NOT due to something God did, but to the actions of others. Indeed, one wonders how she could have made this clearer.

M:Jesus was forced to withdraw His protection and to permit His enemies to inflict punishment upon the Jews in 70 AD.


To inflict suffering and death would be clearer, I think.

Quote:
Said punishment was inflicted because Jesus permitted it.


This isn't very clear either, IMO. It can convey the false impression that Jesus was somehow behind the suffering that occurred. The way the SOP puts it is like this:

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 ... (GC 35)


This is clearer, IMO.

Quote:
He also worked to prevent His enemies from exceeding the limits He imposed on them. In essence Jesus orchestrated the outcome.


I can't think of a worse way of putting it that this! This is pretty much saying exactly the reverse of what Ellen White said. Here's the GC passage:

Quote:
(1)The Jews had forged their own fetters; they had filled for themselves the cup of vengeance. (2)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. (3)Says the prophet: "O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself;" "for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity." Hosea 13:9; 14:1. (4)Their sufferings are often represented as a punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God. (5)It is thus that the great deceiver seeks to conceal his own work. (6)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. (7)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. (8)It is the restraining power of God that prevents mankind from passing fully under the control of Satan. (9)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. (10)But when men pass the limits of divine forbearance, that restraint is removed. (11)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. (12)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. (GC 35-37)


I added the numbers, obviously. I count 12 statements at odds with your assertion. Clearly if Jesus Christ were orchestrating the whole thing, the following, for example, could not be true:

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 were orchestrating the execution of the sentence, then He *would* be standing toward the sinner as an executioner of their sentence. I don't see how this could be more clearly stated.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/03/11 04:03 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
T:Those who hold the point of view that you do regarding God's character most often cite two incidents: 1)The cleansing of the temple 2)The cursing of the fig tree. [...]
However, these incidents do not involve Jesus Christ acting in a manner contrary to the principles I, and kland, have been bringing up. If you look at the descriptions of these events in "The Desire of Ages," this is very clear.

NJK:Ironically enough, for either ones of these to fit within your ‘natural (third-party) self-acting’ view Jesus would have to not have even condemningly looked at these offenders but even just walk into the Temple mid his own business and these offenders would still have bolted out overturning their own tables and leaving being their money (= causing damage to themselves).


The following states how Christ looked at them:

Quote:
Christ looked upon the fleeing men with yearning pity for their fear, and their ignorance of what constituted true worship. (DA 162)


Nothing says Christ looked at them "condemningly". It says that felt condemned by His presence. This is the result of sin. It acts upon our conscience, causing us to feel condemned in the presence of God.

Christ could not leave the scene without addressing the situation because, as the Scripture says, zeal for God's house consumed Him. The whole temple was meant as an object lesson of Christ. What was going on was leading would be followers of God away from Christ, rather than to Him.

Quote:
NJK:Clearly that is not the case. Thus this was a direct judgement of Jesus/God and thus emulates the similar acts of intervening judgement of God found throughout the Bible, pointedly with the OT God that Jesus was here perfectly emulating, especially by using the reasonable force needed to fully effectuate that judgement and its desired outcome. The money remaining behind was indeed rightfully to be made available from those who had been defrauded.


The "force" that was used was that sinners felt condemned by the presence of Christ, and so fled in terror. This was the result of sin acting upon their mind. Not everybody fled. Only those with a guilty conscience fled.

Quote:
NJK: Furthermore that persistent “reverse Theology” of ‘the OT God (which was also Jesus Himself as Michael/The Angel of the Lord) acting like the incarnate Jesus’ is substantively illogical to me. I rather see that Jesus, upon reading and studying the scrolls of the OT for at least up to 35 years (8 B.C. birth) came to understand how God had justly acted in those inspired records and sought out to emulate God as He had read.

Tom: This has been my point, as I've explained several times. Christ both said and did the things He perceived the OT God to be doing. To put that another way, what He perceived the OT God to have done is what He did. Therefore if you postulate the OT God to have acted contrary to how Christ acted, you're creating a contradiction.

NJK:The problem with the enjoined full extent/implication of “your point” (= your view of this emulating) is that it does not, even manifestly, must not, involve all of the exegetically actual/realistic elements in Christ actions. E.g.:


You wrote this (above):

Quote:
I rather see that Jesus, upon reading and studying the scrolls of the OT for at least up to 35 years (8 B.C. birth) came to understand how God had justly acted in those inspired records and sought out to emulate God as He had read.


So if Jesus was emulating how God acted, then it must have been the case that what Jesus said and did corresponded to what He perceived the OT God to have been saying and doing, correct?

Quote:
-As shown above, a degree of force was used in the clearing of the Temple, indeed with Christ himself being the one who actively administered that Law Enforcing force.


As shown above, the money-changers fled in terror because of the impact upon their conscience.

Quote:
-Jesus greatly wished to interveningly bring about Hell Fire to end the GC Luke 12:49-50 in the light of all of the pervasive abuses taking place (12:1-48).


The Godhead longs for sin to come to an end.

Quote:
-Jesus said that God would be the one to cause the destruction event of Jerusalem (Matt 22:7)


Which was my point! We know, from the SOP, that what happened was that God *permitted* Satan to do his work, and that Satan was responsible for what happened. So even though the language was direct, the actions were not. God is often presented in Scripture as doing that which He permits.

Quote:
-Like the OT God (Isa 6:9-13) Christ veiled the things that would have facilitated the averting of Jerusalem’s physical destruction, only providing the explanatory keys to His disciples.


As the SOP explained, the blindness was due to the rejection on the part of those who rejected Christ refusing to heed the light that Christ shed their way. Christ is the light that lightens everyone who comes into the world. The SOP makes the explicit point that those who rejected Christ were given light, and their blindness was of their own choosing.

Quote:
(Matt 13:10-17) All that everyone else heard was a story which they had to then, at their own peril precisely figure out what actual reality they were conveying. Clearly most of these people never came to accurately decipher and understand these veiled sayings.


Because they resisted the Holy Spirit who was drawing them to repentance, and longing to give them understanding.

Quote:
-Jesus defaultly acted to rouse the hatred of Jewish leaders, e.g., in the first temple cleansing (DA 167.2) and in His synagogue sermon (DA 237.3ff).


Christ was not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to a knowledge of the truth. He didn't seek to arouse hatred from anyone, but only love.

God so loved the world, including those who reject Him, that He gave the greatest possible gift of His Son. Christ reflected the same spirit.

Quote:
Your claim of ‘only later resorting to this is both Biblically unsubstantiated, and also opposing your view since in your view, God is not supposed to do anything to contribute to the demise of those who oppose him.


God contributes to the demise of those who oppose Him by being good and loving them.

Quote:
17Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.

18If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

19Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

20Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.

21Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.(Romans 12)


This describes how God acts. He asks us to do no differently than He Himself does. "Love your enemy, and do go to those who despitefully treat you." This is Christ's teaching, and how Christ acted.

Quote:
SO Jesus was suppose to continue to speak “plainly” to them vs. this “veiled” approach and they were to then knowingly reject what he was teaching and not believe in Him.


What does this mean?

Quote:
In fact, as John 16:25-31 shows that Christ figurative/veiled speaking even caused his own disciples to doubt him.


The disciples had unbelief on a number of occasions, but in no case was this due to a desire or action on Christ's part.

Quote:
NJK: Which is why, e.g., (which are comments you patently ignore, yet still insist on making your claims),

Tom: This is an unfair comment. I'm going through your posts line by line. The only comments you have made that I haven't answered are either because I didn't understand what you were saying, or just the length of the posts written during a time when I didn't have the time to spare.

NJK:You excuses here just prove that this was indeed a pointedly fair comment. First of all I am referring to outrightly ignored/left out comments.


I've been answering every line.

Quote:
Indeed I consider a ‘I don’t understand this as an answer vs. not mentioning nothing at all. And if I consider that non-understanding to be substantively valid, i.e., not a substantively void ‘too long a sentence’ quibble (?!?) I make the appropriate editing/restating correction.

I could easily list the litany of things you have outrightly ignored, especially when it involved Biblical exegesis. Also making an answer and not taking into consideration or opposingly counter all the points that had substantiated my point is considered as this selective ignoring. These standing facts do not disappear just because you did not address or mention them in your response.


Again, I'm answering every line you write.

Quote:
And the “too long a response” excuse does not nullify the fact that you still did not respond to those points.


I've spent over 3 hours(!) the last two days answering your posts. I don't always have that kind of time.

Quote:
Indeed by responding to something vs. a distinct other, you are just showing that you are using selectiveness in your responses.


Again, I'm responding to every line.

Quote:
It is also clear that you are only responding to what you think you have an answer to. However this obviously does not make what you chose not to answer not be true.


Again, I'm responding to every line.

Quote:
T:I've pointed this out several times to you now. I'd appreciate some consideration on this point. If I'm taking the time to go through your posts line by line, you should acknowledge that, rather than accusing me of "patently ignoring" you.

NJK:As it can easily be when I do restate those points, you just ignore them again, or as seen in the “War in Heaven” issue, you selectively only address what you think you have an answer to and ignore the other points that you manifestly cannot counter


That was a blog post! Of course I'm not going to respond to every line of that. That's not a reasonable complaint.

If you wish to restate some of the blog in a specific context here, I would respond to that.

Quote:
T:Wow! What a sentence. This is way too long, and includes references without quotes. Please use shorted sentences, proof-read what you read to make sure it makes sense, and copy/paste any texts you wish to be considered. If texts you don't copy/paste are not commented on, please recognize this as a short-coming on your part, which it is.

In short, what you wrote above doesn't make sense (I mean grammatically).

NJK:That, mainly format, editing should remove your ‘grammatical non-sense’ objection.


This doesn't make sense (I mean grammatically; that is, what you're trying to say isn't clear).

Quote:
And since “grammar” was your objection here, that obviously does not affect the “substance” presented.


Of course it affects the substance. That's the whole point! Grammar involves the syntax and morphology of a language, which is to say, the ability to understand what one attempting to use the language is trying to say. If the "substance" cannot be understood, it cannot be addressed.

Quote:
So you could have engaged that substance.


If I could have understood it, I could have.

Quote:
T:Jesus said, "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father," and that means fully/completely. God is *always* like Jesus Christ was; He knows no other way to act than by agape. God is far more gentle, kind, patient, humble, merciful and compassionate than we can imagine. The enemy is Satan and sin, which is far more powerful to corrupt and destroy than people have any idea of. Not having an idea of sin's power, people feel the necessity to attribute the bad things that happen due to that people to the power of another.

NJK:It is God’s Love for primarily the just and righteous which leads Him to, when absolutely necessary, to do supernatural acts to beneficially, timely, protectively and efficiently effectuate a deserved judgement.

Tom: God loves both the just and the unjust. God loves righteousness (or justice), and hates unrighteousness (injustice), but it is God's love, while unjust, that draws us to Him and leads us to repentance.

NJK:The non-glib fact that, as the Bible clearly teaches, God acts to destroy the wicked when they reach a certain point of sinfulness, even favoring, tangibly aiding Israel in wars, shows that He loves those who a faithful to Him more than those who reject him and indeed tangibly acts upon, and towards to effectuating of, those emotions. (E.g., Jacob vs. Esau - Mal 1:1-5). God’s love for people is not stoically indifferent to their response. I.e., e.g., He indeed does not bless those who don’t return that love by obey Him and His Law (e.g., Exod 20:5, 6; Deut 7:9, 10 (Neh 1:5; Dan 9:4); John 14:15; 21; 15:10)


God loves those who are faithful to Him more than those who reject Him? Really?

That would make an interesting topic of discussion. I'd be interested to see if anyone else shares this point of view.

So, evidently, you believe that when you are obedient to God, He loves you more than when you are not. So you, in effect, earn His love by your obedience. (More later)
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/03/11 05:12 AM

Quote:
NJK:It is even, in some case, as object lesson, out of a love for other less sinful peoples that God selects the worst group from these sinful peoples to effectuate a judgement. (These non-judged, though also lesserly deserving, others are then free to choose whether to let that judgement lead them to begin to have a healthy fear of God or not.)

Tom: God is not the problem here. It is not God's will that we fear Him, and do things to please Him, so that He will not smite us. Such "obedience" is not obedience at all.


NJK:As already stated, the Bible throughout approvingly speaks of having a “healthy fear of God”.


Where are you thinking of? You don't think that "fear" in these cases means something like "awe" "reverence"

Quote:
Yet this is only a beginning and not to be the motivation throughout. In fact that fear is distinct from the desired loving and faith relationship that should normatively ensue. E.g., the Ninevites became fearful of God and repented, however there is no indication that they went on to pursue/deepen a relationship with the God of Israel, i.e., becoming a satellite Jewish Tribe/Nation. They only had a “fear of punishment” (Jon 3:9) but not a ‘relationship-building “love of God”.’

Indeed this fear that God seeks to instill through such acts of judgements upon a selected most deserved party is to serve to abruptly end a sinful course that is developing and not to be the basis for a relationship. Indeed just like threatening someone to enter into a relationship with you at the threat of death is not a relationship based on/involving love.

God’s acts of judgement are thus to immediately end a threatening course and not even to begin a relationship. The person outside of his will is however free to use this instilled fear try to get to know this God better, or not. That fully offset the fact that God’s miracle can and do foster belief and faith, but again, only if the witnessing party wants this to be a result.

That is what your SOP quotes (MS 20, 1897 & DA 480) are also saying and indeed my view was not what you had supposed, despite the many times that I have already stated so. (E.g., as shown below, you won’t allow for my distinction between ‘judgement effectuation force’ vs. ‘belief compelling force’.)


How do you understand the well-known text, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom?"

Quote:
NJK: Ironically enough, it is actually only “evil” (not in regards to God, as actually He never has been required to curtail His '"passion" for truth' in order to be merciful towards sinners) when God just lets Satan freely and fully have his way.

Tom: So if God acts violently, contrary to how Jesus Christ lived or taught, that's not evil, but if God acts precisely according to the explanation of GC 35-37, that is evil. That seems backwards.

NJK:God’s use of force (=your violently), or even effectuating judgements (which are actually meant to serve as a deterrent from other people, if not also in some cases, a tangible necessity, e.g., thorough cleansing by fire) is not evil. God’s allowing of what is describe in GC 35-37 to take place, which in some level does not have to involve direct actions of the devil, as EGW originally was shown in 14MR 1-3, but is just allowing nature to unrestrictively take its course, is by definition evil, as it is the natural consequence of the evil that Satan’s sinful schemes and concoction have brought into the world.

Tom: This looks to be agreeing with what I said, in characterizing your viewpoint. When God acts violently, such as by setting people to burn alive (according to your point of view), that is not evil. But "God’s allowing of what is describe(sic) in GC 35-37 to take place" is by definition evil.

NJK:(A) God e.g., using various appropriate elements to effectuate a judgement, especially as these are inherently object lessons, as any sin should result in the immediate Hell Fire destruction of anyone, is not evil. Even if simply for that object lesson reason as it serves to preserve the life of literally billions of other people. E.g., who knows for crucially how long the striking and widely “noteworthy” Judgement on Sodom and Gomorrah, served to prevent their Capital sins from spreading and being engaged in. Also, if not for that judgement, one would see many more cases, as widely seen today, of people professing to be Christian while practising the abominable lifestyle of Sodom and Gomorrah. And as that sin is clearly condemned elsewhere in the Bible, even if, as some want to spuriously suppose, that was not a sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, it still served as a deterrent for that Biblically condemned practice.

(B) What is described in GC 35-37 is (1) a natural end result which must be as “organically” natural as smoking causing lung cancer (and not “disobedience” resulting in a snake attacking you. E.g., Why didn’t the venomous scorpions also attach Israel??);


I don't see the sense here. What is described in GC 35-37 is God was caused to remove His protection, and they Jews were attacked. What is described in Numbers is God was caused to remove His protection, and the Jews were attacked. What's the difference? Why do you call one organic, but not the other?

Regarding scorpions attacking the Jews, it seems reasonable that this could have happened. It doesn't make much sense that God removed His protection against snakes but not against scorpions. Rather, God withdrew His protection, but the snakes were what were right there, so that's where the danger came from, so that's what was mentioned.

Quote:
and (2) a judgement where Satan has full and unrestricted/unlimited control. Those two are natural and manufactured “evil”. God’s bringing about a death sentence, however, he deems is appropriate, is not evil. In fact, not doing so, in the light of the adverse effect that this would then have/result in (e.g., persisted and further advanced sin), makes this a justified and righteous act. Indeed just like a police officer stopping a murderous act in progress using any pertinently necessary deadly force is not the “evil” of murder.


Above you wrote:

Quote:
God’s allowing of what is describe in GC 35-37 to take place, which in some level does not have to involve direct actions of the devil, as EGW originally was shown in 14MR 1-3, but is just allowing nature to unrestrictively take its course, is by definition evil, as it is the natural consequence of the evil that Satan’s sinful schemes and concoction have brought into the world.


Leaving out some of the peripheral parts, this comes to:

Quote:
God’s allowing of what is describe in GC 35-37 to take place ... is by definition evil, as it is the natural consequence of the evil that Satan’s sinful schemes and concoction have brought into the world.


Do you really mean to say that God's allowing something to occur is by definition evil? This doesn't make sense to me, because God's allowing of something occurring is an action on God's part, so this statement is attributing evil to God. I don't think this is what you mean, is it?

Quote:
NJK: The evil, especially in the Greater GC context, is also not necessarily in the action itself but the circumstance making it necessary.

Tom: Then what you wrote above is incorrect. You didn't mean that God's allowing of what is described in GC 35-37 to take place was evil, but that the evil which He allowed was evil. That looks to be your meaning, at any rate. If you really meant what you said, that God's allowing of the events that took place was evil, feel free to assert that again.

NJK:As already explained above, (and as I had gone on to illustrate), you indeed misconstrued what I had said and meant. Succinctly summarized: God’s effectuating of death, and that even as a most striking object lesson is not “evil” or “murder”. God’s not intervening to timely, thoroughly and efficiently (i.e., produce the Law Abiding effect) effectuate this judgment would be evil. Appropriately responding to that ‘GC circumstance’ is not.


God doesn't always intervene; for example, the holocaust. (More later)
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/03/11 05:21 AM

Quote:
NJK: Case in point God’s choice for a War in Heaven was not evil, but the best way to resolve that conflict.

Tom: The War in Heaven was not God's choice. God's choice was for peace.

NJK:(1) The fact that God indeed did not want war but peace, (though this was not his “choice” as if it had been, it would have been the case as nothing could have prevented him from making it so).


The will of those who don't want peace prevent God from having peace. This still happens today. Indeed, whenever there is a lack of peace, it is because someone is acting contrary to God's will. God cannot force peace to happen. It will be brought about at the end of the Great Controversy when every knee shall bow and every tongue confess to the righteousness of God, not because God has forced His way, but because of the force of evidence and truth.

Quote:
(2) As quote from the SOP on my blog, which you, for lack of a more comprehensible term, “ignored”, it is clear that it was God who decided that a war was to be the way to resolve the conflict:

Originally Posted By: SOP 1SP 21.1
“The loyal angels hasten speedily to the Son of God, and acquaint him with what is taking place among the angels. They find the Father in conference with his beloved Son, to determine the means by which, for the best good of the loyal angels, the assumed authority of Satan could be forever put down. The great God could at once have hurled this arch deceiver from Heaven; but this was not his purpose. He would give the rebellious an equal chance to measure strength and might with his own Son and his loyal angels. In this battle every angel would choose his own side, and be manifested to all.”


Furthermore it is only after that war stipulation that:

Originally Posted By: SOP 1SP 21.2
Then Satan exultingly pointed to his sympathizers, comprising nearly one half of all the angels, and exclaimed, These are with me! Will you expel these also, and make such a void in Heaven? He then declared that he was prepared to resist the authority of Christ, and to defend his place in Heaven by force of might, strength against strength.


The fact that you would just ignore such SOP direct revelation statements, that you supposedly had read since your first visit of my blog post, was most mind-boggling to me. Indeed you did not even dare mention them, as if that made them fade into insignificance.


Here is more on what happened:

Quote:
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. 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.

It was God's purpose to place things on an eternal basis of security, and in the councils of heaven it was decided that time must be given for Satan to develop the principles which were the foundation of his system of government. He had claimed that these were superior to God's principles. Time was given for the working of Satan's principles, that they might be seen by the heavenly universe. (DA 759)


It seems evident from what you quoted that God's intent was to give all the opportunity to choose sides. This makes clear the following, in the context of this battle, that:

1.Rebellion was not to be overcome by force.
2.Compelling power is found only under Satan's government.
3.The Lord's principles are not of this order.
4.His authority rests upon goodness, mercy, and love; and the presentation of these principles is the means to be used.
5.God's government is moral, and truth and love are to be the prevailing power.

which are all points I have been asserting.

The means of winning the war was to allow both sides to manifest their principles and character.

The war came about entirely by Satan's choosing. God did all He could to prevent Satan's rebellion. He tried in many ways, and for a long time, to convince Satan of the errors of his ways, and induce him to repent. (More later)
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/03/11 08:09 AM

[“Reminder”: You have not answered the substantive and foundational key exegetical points in Post #133009]

Quote:
Tom: Ok. I'll state what I perceive to be our areas of disagreement here. This is in regards to judgments during this life, not the final judgment.

NJK:From your previous sin-organic comment such as in Post #130881 which was responding to my Capital Sins judgment view in Post #130766 it is apparent that you have believed that all judgements, whether in this life or in the Second Death (Hell), must involve an ‘organic sin’ issue. I.e., God does not have to do anything but let the result of sin take its course.

Tom: I haven't put it this way, nor would I, as this seems ambiguous.

Tom: The final judgment involves direct actions on the part of God to the point of having all be aware of the issues involved in the Great Controversy, especially in their own lives. This is necessary that they may render judgment. Every knee will bow, voluntarily, and every tongue confess, voluntarily, acknowledging the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and that He (and God, or the Godhead) have been just/fair/merciful/gracious/etc. in all of their dealings throughout the Great Controversy.

Tom: Regarding judgments during this life, one could perhaps say that some aspect of sin has been allowed to run its course, but not that sin, in general, has been allowed to run its course.


I don’t have time to retrace all your statements on pointedly this issues, but it seemed/seems to me that you don’t see God needing to ever be directly involved in any judgement, especially in the executory part of Hell judgement as, as I recall, you believe this will merely be a self-combusting event, (perhaps with instantaneous consummation vs. The Bible’s and SOP’s ‘(varyingly) many days’).

Quote:
NJK: I do not see this as being realistically feasible in the sense that sin is not always allowed to reach its ‘“full life” which then results in self inflicted natural death’, indeed as an old person naturally dies of old age (James 1:15).

Tom: Again, this isn't a phrase I have used, nor a concept I have articulated (that sin is allowed to run its course).


I infer this from your consistenly expressed “reap its full reward” view of sin and death. In any case, that is what the Bible actually teaches. In a prior post you had inaccurately curtailed James 1:14, 15 to:

“temptation => sin => death”

however the Bible is exegetically clear in saying that it is rather, i.e., more fully/protractedly:

“temptation => lust => sin => fully developed/accomplished sin => death

From the Bible’s:

‘intercourse’ => “conception” (Strong’s #4815) => “birth” (#5088) => “finishing/completion” (#658) [= “fully lived and aged life”] => natural death.

Quote:
NJK (edited): God instead chooses to intervene at some stages to effectuate a death-causing judgement in order to end this manifestly, sure-to-get-worse, sin development.

Tom: This isn't very clear, but I think what you're wanting to say is that God intervenes in order to prevent something worse to occur. If that's the point, I have no qualms with this, provide that God's intervention is understood along the lines of that explained in GC 35-37.


I address your view of GC 35-37 later in indeed these intervene events, but how is it actually “intervention” as this is defined as: “the act or fact of interposing one thing between or among others”. A “withdrawal/absenteeing” action is not an interposition/intervention.

Quote:
NJK: And to do this, i.e., in this timely way, He has had to use supernatural force.

Tom: He could just remove His protection from the thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which He protects us.


To me, on one hand, “removing” his protection in not synonymous with “intervening” and on the other hand, to me, this allowing of something dangerous to affect someone involves the same ultimate responsibility. Thus this “passive” act is still a judgement-contributing act. I.e., this judgement cannot occur unless God does this.

Quote:
T:I perceive what happens is that the judgments which occur do so because the people involved have persistently resisted the Holy Spirit, leading to God's withdrawing His protection, which is the manifestation of His wrath.

NJK:All of the examples you have tried to demonstrate for this have been transparently, exegetically shown to be acts of God.

Tom: I don't think any have.

NJK: I.e., God either actively did the action (Piel) or he caused it (Hiphil) through His pointedly commissioned angels.


I’ll, first of all, also add: “natural” actions = (Qal), which are actions that God does not have to involve any causation, but simply “allow to naturally happen”

Originally Posted By: Tom
Examples suggested include:

1.Saul's death.
2.Fiery serpents sent upon the Israelites.
3.Lying spirits sent to Ahab.
4.Job's sufferings.
5.The destruction of Jerusalem.
6.Those who received not the love of the truth being sent delusions.
7.Jesus making those who reject Him blind so they not see, and deaf so they not hear.


(A) my exegetical approach is that the Bible has the final word, and that over EGW’s comments, which again I don’t defaultly consider to be direct revelations (i.e., SOP revelations)

Thus, point by point, based on previous exegetical contributions and discussions:

1.Saul's death. The Bible uses a Hiphil to say that God would cause Saul’s death. That therefore does not mean that God has to be the agent which causes that death. As Polel tense would pointedly say, indeed be used to convey that notion, even in regards to God. Therefore Saul killing himself, perhaps by the now absence of God’s soothing/comforting/hope filling Spirit, and thus out of utter despair, fulfills this agency notion invovled with a Hiphil

2.Fiery serpents sent upon the Israelites. As it says in e.g., this Wikipedia entry:

Originally Posted By: Wikipedia (Snake Bites)
“Snakes do not ordinarily prey on humans, and most will not attack humans unless the snake is startled or injured, preferring instead to avoid contact.”


Therefore God’s “protective hand/action” here may have been to make a snake feel a peace with the passing Israelite if ever they would feel threatened. God may also have been heightening the snakes innate desire to “avoid contact”. However when Israel acted rebelliously and God wanted to punish them for this, as the Hebrew of Num 21:6 and also as seen in vs. 8 (NASB):

(a) vs. 6: the serpents were ‘made to be sent (Piel) in [the midst of] the people, as [Heb *et preposition IBHS, 195]: ‘accompaniment/companionship/fellowship’ and/or with ‘“helping” interest’, etc).

Then (b) as seen in verse 8, the request was to “remove”/cause to turn aside (Hiphil) from amongst them this companionship of these serpent.

So it was not as if Israel was walking in the midst of serpents and they were not biting them by the power of God, but that God was actually making these serpents remain naturally fearful of these humans and seeking to avoid any contact with them. Indeed as snake innately, naturally do, because they know humans can easily, and are more like to, kill them than vice versa. As a Piel tense is also used for “the serpents biting the people” (vs. 6b), it is also seen that this was a forced action. So this does not even qualify as a passive action of God. Indeed, as I see it, the serpents may have been naturally staying away, and God withdrew his protection by making them no longer naturally want to avoid contact with the Israelites. So the Bible is not saying something different than EGW when is says that God ‘made the serpents come into the midst of the people.’ Indeed this was an active action of God which involved the withdrawing of his protective hand.

As I understand it, what God does and what God permits under his ultimate control are both equally the same. It is when God allows the Devil to decide and do whatever he wants, that a judgement is not at all from/of God.

3.Lying spirits sent to Ahab.

As already present, the Bible is revelatorily clear that it was God who green lighted a suggestion of a lying spirit, and even pronounced that this lying spirit ‘will prevail.’ Given God’s omnipotence, this “prevailing guarantee” can only be involved if God is at the helm of this action. So this also is an action in which God is involved. Indeed it would be equivalent to God sending a good angel to do a deed on the earth.

4.Job's sufferings.

Also as already discussed, and like in #3 above, God was in final authority of what could and could not be done to Job, even if Satan himself was to do it. So Job was not wrong (in 1:21) to think that God was doing this as God was indeed doing so. Even a good angel could have done the same thing instead of Satan, indeed simply to test Job. Even the death of Job’s children was warranted given their blantant and personally non-repentant waywardness.

5.The destruction of Jerusalem.

Here Jesus said that it was God who would send “armies” to do this judgement (Matt 22:7), in the line of what the the Jews themselves a priorly seen fit (Matt 21:41). The Devil may have been allowed to play a part in the destruction once these God summoned agents were on the scene, however God was ultimately in control of this destruction as many (relatively righteous) people (mainly non-zealots and/or zealot-minded) survived it (=Matt 24:22), as I understand it, so that they can have another chance to seek the truth. Again, as I see it, when God is involved in a judgement, it is ultimately an act of his. That occurs in all judgements except the 7th Plague. So as I said before, EGW may have overstated this in regards to this destruction and also to the extent in which she applied it in all of the 7 Last Plagues. So, once again, since the Biblical testimony evidence, does not support the extent to which EGW sought to apply her distinct revelation in 14MR 1-3, I have to subscribe to the extent and God-implication indicated in the Bible over EGW’s comment. The fact that EGW says her “It is thus that the great deceiver seeks to conceal his own work” does not make this pass as a direct revelation of hers in regards to the Destruction of Jerusalem. This is only the case in her 14MR 1-3 revelation, but that does not mean that it must have been the case with this judgement. God only permitted Satan to play one of the parts in this destruction event, but ultimately God had remained in control of what could and could not be done here.

6.Those who received not the love of the truth being sent delusions.

As I discussed in Post #132508, there is effectively no “sending vs. withdrawing” contradiction between the Bible and the SOP on this issue. By God withdraw his countering and balancing SPirit and allowing the devil to work in order to confirm these rebellious ones into the lies and, foundationally, hatred of truth, that they already adhere to, it is tantamount to ‘allowing an evil influence to fully enter this vacated space” thus = “sending”. Also if there is a contradiction here, then I go by the would be irreconciable notion of “sending” that the Bible is saying. Furthermore, as I see it, God allowing something (=EGW’s withdrawing) is still and action of God (=The Bible’s “sending”)

7.Jesus making those who reject Him blind so they not see, and deaf so they not hear.

I am assuming that you are referring to Matt 13:7-13. My understanding here is that everyone defaultly, initially recieved the same “parables” and veiled sayings “treatment”. However for those who chose to continue to seek understanding from Jesus, He went on to reveal the meaning of these statements (= the unloking “keys” Matt 13:11). So there was a double purpose to parables and depending on how people wanted to receive/use this light, it either served to blind them in persisted opposition or enlighten them and cause them to seek out new light. So Christ actually gave everyone the same opportunity to receive His “Light”. Whether they did or not depended on how they indeed handled it when they came across it.

However in regards to the Jewish leaders, Christ made default use of veiled/cryptic sayings, even unexplained quotings of the OT. (E.g, John 2:19ff; 8:56) As Jewish leaders they should have been able to figure these out. However, in general discourse, i.e., those involving common people, parables were used, which indeed could either “illustrate” a perceivable truth or be deemed as inconclusive, as many people, especially the Jewish leaders chose to deem them.

Ironically enough, this “blinding” was probably out of their paramount pride, feeling insulted that Christ was speaking to them as little children in parables, however when Christ was more “direct” with them, even by straightforwardly quoting/alluding to Scriptures, they still could not/did not “get it.” So by not getting the Truth-illustrating, parable messages they proved that they were not Spiritually in tune with God’s (natural/basic) Truth and by not getting the Biblical allusions and quotings they proved that their great knowledge of the Scripture was actually Spiritually bankrupt.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Every one of these in the SOP was explained along the lines of what I have been asserting. None of these involves God's taking direct action to cause the thing to occur, nor His using His own angels to bring out the action described.


As the Bible says in all of these actions that God casued, made to happen, allowed, and/or was in ultimate and overuling control of all of these actions, (even with Christ making his veiled/parable statements), these were all in some form an action of God. The way I understand that you are understanding GC 35-37, GOd has to be completely uninvolved for it to be, what you consider, a “passive action”. That is however not the substantive, exegetical and/or spiritual/theoligical case in any the 7 ‘prime’ examples of yours to support your claim.

So as I had said below (next), to refute this observation, you’ll have to substantively and exegetically engage these respective elements involved in these Biblical examples/cases.

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
All your ‘natural third party self-acting agents’ claims have been shown to both be exegetically not supported (including by the SOP testimony) and/or not naturally realistic. You have not provided objectively valid, if actually any, countering reasons why they should continue to be considered as you originally claimed them to be.


Quote:
Originally Posted By: Tom
I don't have time to repeat all of these, but here are a few.


Originally Posted By: SOP
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...(GC 35)


Originally Posted By: SOP
Shielded by divine power, they had not realized the countless dangers by which they were surrounded. In their unbelief they 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 their sting, it causing violent inflammation and speedy death. As the protecting hand of God was removed, great numbers of the people were attacked by these venomous creatures. {EP 301.1}


As stated before, if their is a perceived difference between the Bible and EGW’s comments, indeed non-direct revelation comments as manifestly likely for these above two statements, then they, at the very least, must be made to seek to reconcile themselves with the superior Biblical testimony. And if this cannot be done, then the Biblical testimony is to prevail.

I think my view on both of these achieve this non-contradictory reconciliation/harmonization, whereas your view makes you claim that “the Bible says one thing, but EGW reveals something else’, indeed “else” as it can exegetically only be concluded, because to “make/cause something to happen” (=Piel/Hiphil) can only involve, “involved” action either as truly actively or passively, and not “absently” (= your understanding of “withdrawn”) as in/for your view.

Originally Posted By: Tom
The first sentence in particular echoes the point I've been making. We do not realize the countless dangers which surround us, from which we are protected. When God's protection is removed, that may be perceived as God's taking direct action to cause the given thing.


As Biblically seen in the fiery serpent example, these countless dangers do not necessarily meant that they are self acting. God had to forcefully “send” the serpents in the midst of the people. A “countless danger” may indeed be a dormant one until GOd awakens/stimulates/stirs its “dangerous” aspect. Case in point, God calling Babylon to destroy Judah (Jer 1:13-16; 4:16) who may not have had any interest/desire to attack them. The same thing can be seen with Titus who, as Josephus records was most reluctant to inflict damage on Jerusalem throughout the War.

Originally Posted By: SOP
Especially solemn is the apostle’s statement regarding those who should refuse to receive “the love of the truth.” “For this cause,” he declared of all who should deliberately reject the messages of truth, “God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” Men cannot with impunity reject the warnings that God in mercy sends them. From those who persist in turning from these warnings, God withdraws His Spirit, leaving them to the deceptions that they love. {AA 266.2}


As explained above, God’s ‘Spirit withdrawing’ act is tantamount to sending, as it creates a vacuum that naturally is “filled in” by the Devil. Indeed by God’s implied permission. In actuality, just the absence of a countering Godly influence is sufficient.
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/03/11 04:59 PM

Click to reveal.. (NJK)
Originally Posted By: NJK Project
[“Reminder”: You have not answered the substantive and foundational key exegetical points in Post #133009]

Quote:
Tom: Ok. I'll state what I perceive to be our areas of disagreement here. This is in regards to judgments during this life, not the final judgment.

NJK:From your previous sin-organic comment such as in Post #130881 which was responding to my Capital Sins judgment view in Post #130766 it is apparent that you have believed that all judgements, whether in this life or in the Second Death (Hell), must involve an ‘organic sin’ issue. I.e., God does not have to do anything but let the result of sin take its course.

Tom: I haven't put it this way, nor would I, as this seems ambiguous.

Tom: The final judgment involves direct actions on the part of God to the point of having all be aware of the issues involved in the Great Controversy, especially in their own lives. This is necessary that they may render judgment. Every knee will bow, voluntarily, and every tongue confess, voluntarily, acknowledging the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and that He (and God, or the Godhead) have been just/fair/merciful/gracious/etc. in all of their dealings throughout the Great Controversy.

Tom: Regarding judgments during this life, one could perhaps say that some aspect of sin has been allowed to run its course, but not that sin, in general, has been allowed to run its course.


I don’t have time to retrace all your statements on pointedly this issues, but it seemed/seems to me that you don’t see God needing to ever be directly involved in any judgement, especially in the executory part of Hell judgement as, as I recall, you believe this will merely be a self-combusting event, (perhaps with instantaneous consummation vs. The Bible’s and SOP’s ‘(varyingly) many days’).

Quote:
NJK: I do not see this as being realistically feasible in the sense that sin is not always allowed to reach its ‘“full life” which then results in self inflicted natural death’, indeed as an old person naturally dies of old age (James 1:15).

Tom: Again, this isn't a phrase I have used, nor a concept I have articulated (that sin is allowed to run its course).


I infer this from your consistenly expressed “reap its full reward” view of sin and death. In any case, that is what the Bible actually teaches. In a prior post you had inaccurately curtailed James 1:14, 15 to:

“temptation => sin => death”

however the Bible is exegetically clear in saying that it is rather, i.e., more fully/protractedly:

“temptation => lust => sin => fully developed/accomplished sin => death

From the Bible’s:

‘intercourse’ => “conception” (Strong’s #4815) => “birth” (#5088) => “finishing/completion” (#658) [= “fully lived and aged life”] => natural death.

Quote:
NJK (edited): God instead chooses to intervene at some stages to effectuate a death-causing judgement in order to end this manifestly, sure-to-get-worse, sin development.

Tom: This isn't very clear, but I think what you're wanting to say is that God intervenes in order to prevent something worse to occur. If that's the point, I have no qualms with this, provide that God's intervention is understood along the lines of that explained in GC 35-37.


I address your view of GC 35-37 later in indeed these intervene events, but how is it actually “intervention” as this is defined as: “the act or fact of interposing one thing between or among others”. A “withdrawal/absenteeing” action is not an interposition/intervention.

Quote:
NJK: And to do this, i.e., in this timely way, He has had to use supernatural force.

Tom: He could just remove His protection from the thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which He protects us.


To me, on one hand, “removing” his protection in not synonymous with “intervening” and on the other hand, to me, this allowing of something dangerous to affect someone involves the same ultimate responsibility. Thus this “passive” act is still a judgement-contributing act. I.e., this judgement cannot occur unless God does this.

Quote:
T:I perceive what happens is that the judgments which occur do so because the people involved have persistently resisted the Holy Spirit, leading to God's withdrawing His protection, which is the manifestation of His wrath.

NJK:All of the examples you have tried to demonstrate for this have been transparently, exegetically shown to be acts of God.

Tom: I don't think any have.

NJK: I.e., God either actively did the action (Piel) or he caused it (Hiphil) through His pointedly commissioned angels.


I’ll, first of all, also add: “natural” actions = (Qal), which are actions that God does not have to involve any causation, but simply “allow to naturally happen”

Originally Posted By: Tom
Examples suggested include:

1.Saul's death.
2.Fiery serpents sent upon the Israelites.
3.Lying spirits sent to Ahab.
4.Job's sufferings.
5.The destruction of Jerusalem.
6.Those who received not the love of the truth being sent delusions.
7.Jesus making those who reject Him blind so they not see, and deaf so they not hear.


(A) my exegetical approach is that the Bible has the final word, and that over EGW’s comments, which again I don’t defaultly consider to be direct revelations (i.e., SOP revelations)

Thus, point by point, based on previous exegetical contributions and discussions:

1.Saul's death. The Bible uses a Hiphil to say that God would cause Saul’s death. That therefore does not mean that God has to be the agent which causes that death. As Polel tense would pointedly say, indeed be used to convey that notion, even in regards to God. Therefore Saul killing himself, perhaps by the now absence of God’s soothing/comforting/hope filling Spirit, and thus out of utter despair, fulfills this agency notion invovled with a Hiphil

2.Fiery serpents sent upon the Israelites. As it says in e.g., this Wikipedia entry:

Originally Posted By: Wikipedia (Snake Bites)
“Snakes do not ordinarily prey on humans, and most will not attack humans unless the snake is startled or injured, preferring instead to avoid contact.”


Therefore God’s “protective hand/action” here may have been to make a snake feel a peace with the passing Israelite if ever they would feel threatened. God may also have been heightening the snakes innate desire to “avoid contact”. However when Israel acted rebelliously and God wanted to punish them for this, as the Hebrew of Num 21:6 and also as seen in vs. 8 (NASB):

(a) vs. 6: the serpents were ‘made to be sent (Piel) in [the midst of] the people, as [Heb *et preposition IBHS, 195]: ‘accompaniment/companionship/fellowship’ and/or with ‘“helping” interest’, etc).

Then (b) as seen in verse 8, the request was to “remove”/cause to turn aside (Hiphil) from amongst them this companionship of these serpent.

So it was not as if Israel was walking in the midst of serpents and they were not biting them by the power of God, but that God was actually making these serpents remain naturally fearful of these humans and seeking to avoid any contact with them. Indeed as snake innately, naturally do, because they know humans can easily, and are more like to, kill them than vice versa. As a Piel tense is also used for “the serpents biting the people” (vs. 6b), it is also seen that this was a forced action. So this does not even qualify as a passive action of God. Indeed, as I see it, the serpents may have been naturally staying away, and God withdrew his protection by making them no longer naturally want to avoid contact with the Israelites. So the Bible is not saying something different than EGW when is says that God ‘made the serpents come into the midst of the people.’ Indeed this was an active action of God which involved the withdrawing of his protective hand.

As I understand it, what God does and what God permits under his ultimate control are both equally the same. It is when God allows the Devil to decide and do whatever he wants, that a judgement is not at all from/of God.

3.Lying spirits sent to Ahab.

As already present, the Bible is revelatorily clear that it was God who green lighted a suggestion of a lying spirit, and even pronounced that this lying spirit ‘will prevail.’ Given God’s omnipotence, this “prevailing guarantee” can only be involved if God is at the helm of this action. So this also is an action in which God is involved. Indeed it would be equivalent to God sending a good angel to do a deed on the earth.

4.Job's sufferings.

Also as already discussed, and like in #3 above, God was in final authority of what could and could not be done to Job, even if Satan himself was to do it. So Job was not wrong (in 1:21) to think that God was doing this as God was indeed doing so. Even a good angel could have done the same thing instead of Satan, indeed simply to test Job. Even the death of Job’s children was warranted given their blantant and personally non-repentant waywardness.

5.The destruction of Jerusalem.

Here Jesus said that it was God who would send “armies” to do this judgement (Matt 22:7), in the line of what the the Jews themselves a priorly seen fit (Matt 21:41). The Devil may have been allowed to play a part in the destruction once these God summoned agents were on the scene, however God was ultimately in control of this destruction as many (relatively righteous) people (mainly non-zealots and/or zealot-minded) survived it (=Matt 24:22), as I understand it, so that they can have another chance to seek the truth. Again, as I see it, when God is involved in a judgement, it is ultimately an act of his. That occurs in all judgements except the 7th Plague. So as I said before, EGW may have overstated this in regards to this destruction and also to the extent in which she applied it in all of the 7 Last Plagues. So, once again, since the Biblical testimony evidence, does not support the extent to which EGW sought to apply her distinct revelation in 14MR 1-3, I have to subscribe to the extent and God-implication indicated in the Bible over EGW’s comment. The fact that EGW says her “It is thus that the great deceiver seeks to conceal his own work” does not make this pass as a direct revelation of hers in regards to the Destruction of Jerusalem. This is only the case in her 14MR 1-3 revelation, but that does not mean that it must have been the case with this judgement. God only permitted Satan to play one of the parts in this destruction event, but ultimately God had remained in control of what could and could not be done here.

6.Those who received not the love of the truth being sent delusions.

As I discussed in Post #132508, there is effectively no “sending vs. withdrawing” contradiction between the Bible and the SOP on this issue. By God withdraw his countering and balancing SPirit and allowing the devil to work in order to confirm these rebellious ones into the lies and, foundationally, hatred of truth, that they already adhere to, it is tantamount to ‘allowing an evil influence to fully enter this vacated space” thus = “sending”. Also if there is a contradiction here, then I go by the would be irreconciable notion of “sending” that the Bible is saying. Furthermore, as I see it, God allowing something (=EGW’s withdrawing) is still and action of God (=The Bible’s “sending”)

7.Jesus making those who reject Him blind so they not see, and deaf so they not hear.

I am assuming that you are referring to Matt 13:7-13. My understanding here is that everyone defaultly, initially recieved the same “parables” and veiled sayings “treatment”. However for those who chose to continue to seek understanding from Jesus, He went on to reveal the meaning of these statements (= the unloking “keys” Matt 13:11). So there was a double purpose to parables and depending on how people wanted to receive/use this light, it either served to blind them in persisted opposition or enlighten them and cause them to seek out new light. So Christ actually gave everyone the same opportunity to receive His “Light”. Whether they did or not depended on how they indeed handled it when they came across it.

However in regards to the Jewish leaders, Christ made default use of veiled/cryptic sayings, even unexplained quotings of the OT. (E.g, John 2:19ff; 8:56) As Jewish leaders they should have been able to figure these out. However, in general discourse, i.e., those involving common people, parables were used, which indeed could either “illustrate” a perceivable truth or be deemed as inconclusive, as many people, especially the Jewish leaders chose to deem them.

Ironically enough, this “blinding” was probably out of their paramount pride, feeling insulted that Christ was speaking to them as little children in parables, however when Christ was more “direct” with them, even by straightforwardly quoting/alluding to Scriptures, they still could not/did not “get it.” So by not getting the Truth-illustrating, parable messages they proved that they were not Spiritually in tune with God’s (natural/basic) Truth and by not getting the Biblical allusions and quotings they proved that their great knowledge of the Scripture was actually Spiritually bankrupt.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Every one of these in the SOP was explained along the lines of what I have been asserting. None of these involves God's taking direct action to cause the thing to occur, nor His using His own angels to bring out the action described.


As the Bible says in all of these actions that God casued, made to happen, allowed, and/or was in ultimate and overuling control of all of these actions, (even with Christ making his veiled/parable statements), these were all in some form an action of God. The way I understand that you are understanding GC 35-37, GOd has to be completely uninvolved for it to be, what you consider, a “passive action”. That is however not the substantive, exegetical and/or spiritual/theoligical case in any the 7 ‘prime’ examples of yours to support your claim.

So as I had said below (next), to refute this observation, you’ll have to substantively and exegetically engage these respective elements involved in these Biblical examples/cases.

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
All your ‘natural third party self-acting agents’ claims have been shown to both be exegetically not supported (including by the SOP testimony) and/or not naturally realistic. You have not provided objectively valid, if actually any, countering reasons why they should continue to be considered as you originally claimed them to be.


Quote:
Originally Posted By: Tom
I don't have time to repeat all of these, but here are a few.


Originally Posted By: SOP
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...(GC 35)


Originally Posted By: SOP
Shielded by divine power, they had not realized the countless dangers by which they were surrounded. In their unbelief they 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 their sting, it causing violent inflammation and speedy death. As the protecting hand of God was removed, great numbers of the people were attacked by these venomous creatures. {EP 301.1}


As stated before, if their is a perceived difference between the Bible and EGW’s comments, indeed non-direct revelation comments as manifestly likely for these above two statements, then they, at the very least, must be made to seek to reconcile themselves with the superior Biblical testimony. And if this cannot be done, then the Biblical testimony is to prevail.

I think my view on both of these achieve this non-contradictory reconciliation/harmonization, whereas your view makes you claim that “the Bible says one thing, but EGW reveals something else’, indeed “else” as it can exegetically only be concluded, because to “make/cause something to happen” (=Piel/Hiphil) can only involve, “involved” action either as truly actively or passively, and not “absently” (= your understanding of “withdrawn”) as in/for your view.

Originally Posted By: Tom
The first sentence in particular echoes the point I've been making. We do not realize the countless dangers which surround us, from which we are protected. When God's protection is removed, that may be perceived as God's taking direct action to cause the given thing.


As Biblically seen in the fiery serpent example, these countless dangers do not necessarily meant that they are self acting. God had to forcefully “send” the serpents in the midst of the people. A “countless danger” may indeed be a dormant one until GOd awakens/stimulates/stirs its “dangerous” aspect. Case in point, God calling Babylon to destroy Judah (Jer 1:13-16; 4:16) who may not have had any interest/desire to attack them. The same thing can be seen with Titus who, as Josephus records was most reluctant to inflict damage on Jerusalem throughout the War.

Originally Posted By: SOP
Especially solemn is the apostle’s statement regarding those who should refuse to receive “the love of the truth.” “For this cause,” he declared of all who should deliberately reject the messages of truth, “God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” Men cannot with impunity reject the warnings that God in mercy sends them. From those who persist in turning from these warnings, God withdraws His Spirit, leaving them to the deceptions that they love. {AA 266.2}


As explained above, God’s ‘Spirit withdrawing’ act is tantamount to sending, as it creates a vacuum that naturally is “filled in” by the Devil. Indeed by God’s implied permission. In actuality, just the absence of a countering Godly influence is sufficient.


Quote:
1.Saul's death. The Bible uses a Hiphil to say that God would cause Saul’s death. That therefore does not mean that God has to be the agent which causes that death.
Would that be like God hardening Pharaoh's heart?


Quote:
Originally Posted By: Wikipedia (Snake Bites)
“Snakes do not ordinarily prey on humans, and most will not attack humans unless the snake is startled or injured, preferring instead to avoid contact.”

Of the land snakes, the most
dangerous is the Taipan, since it will attack unprovoked.
http://stason.org/TULARC/travel/australia/9-5-4-Venomous-Fauna.html

however, they [Bushmasters] are one of only a few snakes in the world with reputations for unprovoked attacks on people.
http://books.google.com/books?id=MOfaTpk...ked&f=false

The chief and city attorney reviewed local ordinances and determined the snake is a vicious animal because of its propensity to commit an unprovoked attack.
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/581/817/Woman_Pried_From_The_Mouth_Of_Python.html


Quote:
Indeed, as I see it, the serpents may have been naturally staying away, and God withdrew his protection by making them no longer naturally want to avoid contact with the Israelites.
Withdrew means make? Really?

Quote:
As I understand it, what God does and what God permits under his ultimate control are both equally the same. It is when God allows the Devil to decide and do whatever he wants, that a judgement is not at all from/of God.
Would you be saying that allowing the devil is different than permitting him?
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/03/11 06:29 PM

Quote:
NJK: 1.Saul's death. The Bible uses a Hiphil to say that God would cause Saul’s death. That therefore does not mean that God has to be the agent which causes that death.

kland: Would that be like God hardening Pharaoh's heart?


No since, as revealed and discussed repeatedly before, a Pile stem, which involves a notion of patiency (See Post #133009) by the subject is used for all of God’s hardening of Pharaoh.

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Originally Posted By: Wikipedia (Snake Bites)
“Snakes do not ordinarily prey on humans, and most will not attack humans unless the snake is startled or injured, preferring instead to avoid contact.”


Originally Posted By: kland
Of the land snakes, the most
dangerous is the Taipan, since it will attack unprovoked.
http://stason.org/TULARC/travel/australia/9-5-4-Venomous-Fauna.html

however, they [Bushmasters] are one of only a few snakes in the world with reputations for unprovoked attacks on people.
http://books.google.com/books?id=MOfaTpk...ked&f=false

The chief and city attorney reviewed local ordinances and determined the snake is a vicious animal because of its propensity to commit an unprovoked attack.
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/581/817/Woman_Pried_From_The_Mouth_Of_Python.html


Seems to me your sources are ambivalent on this issue. Probably researching and quoting the first 10 sources on this would continue this trend. Furthermore it is not known precisely what type snakes were in the Sinai wilderness.

The Hebrew contributions in Num 21:6-8, as already discussed, convince me that these were ‘defaultly a people-avoiding type of snake.’

Quote:
NJK: Indeed, as I see it, the serpents may have been naturally staying away, and God withdrew his protection by making them no longer naturally want to avoid contact with the Israelites.

kland: Withdrew means make? Really?


It does here if EGW’s comments are to be reconciled with the Bible’s exegetical Piel use in saying ‘God made to be sent’ (Num 21:6). Otherwise, if a “difference” is seen, then, according to the exegetical methodology/principles that I go by the Biblical testimony is to supercede EGW comments.

However it seems clear to me that EGW also fully was aware of this “sending” notion here as she made her “withdrawing” notion as she says:

Originally Posted By: SOP 19MR 280.2
The same Hand that kept the fiery serpents of the wilderness from entering the camp of the Israelites until God's chosen people provoked Him with their constant murmurs and complaints, is today guarding the honest in heart. Were this restraining Hand withdrawn, the enemy of our souls would at once begin the work of destruction that he has so long desired to accomplish.


Relatedly, see also:

1SP 315.1 - “To punish them for their ingratitude[/u], and complaining against God, the Lord [b]permitted fiery serpents to bite them.”

And PP 428.3 - “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.”

Seems to me, contrary to Tom’s view, that some notion of “punishment” and even “suggestive compelling” from God were also involved here. (Indeed all similar to what had happened with Moses (Exod 4:24-26 - PP 255.5))

Quote:
NJK: As I understand it, what God does and what God permits under his ultimate control are both equally the same. It is when God allows the Devil to decide and do whatever he wants, that a judgement is not at all from/of God.

kland: Would you be saying that allowing the devil is different than permitting him?


They seem to mean the same thing to me, with perhaps “permit” being more formal than “allow”.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/04/11 05:11 PM

NJK, thank you for bringing my attention to this post I missed. I've responded to the first part of it. I have to divide my time as best I can, so I'm not sure what I'll be responding to next. If you have some preference, you can present it (such as continuing to respond to this post, or to respond to the more recent ones).

Originally Posted By: NJK
“Save Trees”????


That was a joke, of course. Copy/paste won't save any trees. I got a kick out of it.

Quote:
Don’t buy printed Bible to “save trees” here and/or have the ones you have recycled, or sent to a poor country since you have (presumably) ready access to at least the Bible on the Internet!! I am not preventing you from looking up my references on a Bible software or the internet!?! Instead of quibbling for spurious rationales here, do yourself a favor and jsut drop that futile attempt for an issue here.


I'm hoping you'll listen to me and others and start quoting texts. Just quoting one would be good. One quoted text is better than 10 references without quotes.

Quote:
And don`t mistake me for a tree-hugger, I am to save lives and not firstly trees. As an easily naturally renewable resource, trees are not in daner of extinction. If you all would use this falsely supposed ‘saved, cumulative time’ to work to save the lives of aborted infants, as the NJK Project plans, I would consider your proposition as collectively beneficial. Just taking the time to respond to couple of supposed supporting examples to your view, which actually would not even affect the majority of opposite examples, as proper exegetical methods require, it increasingly being deemed as not worthwhile and time wasting by me. Perhaps it will help other people than you to see that actually already black-on-white clear Biblical light on this issue.


You should realize that just quoting references is pretty much a waste of time. Few people are going to look them up. After all, if you, the poster, don't feel them important enough to copy/paste, the reader is not likely to view them more important then you do.

Quote:
That is what the Hebrew Grammatical identification states and, more precisely here, what the Syntax intends to convey. For (presumably) reasons/preferences of fluency these notions are not woodenly expresses in mainstream Bible versions. People complained about the begats in the KJV, well they would complain about all of the e.g.,: “caused to” (Hiphil) and “made to” (Piel) in these verbs were rendered as they were literally meant to. The scholarship attempt to try to express this nuance by using different words in English actually has done injury to this Hebrew Language element as it can be easily seen by the fact that the Hebrew tenses, depending on the context in which they are found, actually confusedly need to use those intended distinct English words.

(Though I am fluent in French and conversant/functional in Spanish, I think we could stick to the major English version, (the NIV, RSV/NRSV, JB/NJB should also be consulted cited, though I do not see version comparison as being determinative since the underlying syntax is not always properly rendered.)

The NJB (New Jerusalem Bible (hint hint) accurately has: “He had not consulted Yahweh, who therefore caused his death”

Indeed OT Hebrew Textbooks (as well as NT Greek ones) usually makes numerous Scriptural citations where they rendered texts in ways that are not found in any Bible version. (E.g, Waltke and O’Connor’s work (IBHS) has over 4100 Scriptural references, most of these being of this unique and more precise rendition kind.


I don't know what languages you know (except for French, of course), but consulted languages I was familiar with. The point was that every translation I could find, in any language I was familiar with, translated the text the same way. God caused the death of Saul; that's the idea. Although the text states this, what actually happened is that God permitted the death of Saul. This is an example of the principle that Scripture presents God as doing that which He permits.


Quote:
(And my NJK Project plan to ‘be more efficient in regards to publishing’ is to provide an ebook/“i-Pad”-type device to NJK Citizens (see here) and in the NJK Economy, they won’t cost, or “need to cost” $500+)....


What’s your page number for the IBHS citation here??


Page 433.

Quote:
(Just a note, I personally trust the quite comprehensive and more recent work of IBHS over other printed grammars, and especially over internet sources.)

These are indeed rightly emphasizing the causative notion contained in the Hiphil. (Perhaps you do not fully understand the grammatical/syntactical implications here.) As further explained in IBHS, (which can be accessed in Google Books) this “causation” is quite distinctly in action than the Piel or the Qal, among others tenses. Indeed as expressed in IBHS, 355: ...

Piel - patiency nuance = “The semantic role of an entity that is not the agent but is directly involved in or affected by the happening denoted by the verb in the clause”

Hiphil - agency nuance - The semantic role of the animate entity that instigates or causes the happening denoted by the verb in the clause. How a result is obtained or an end is achieved

However, more than just the piel is involved when direct action is intended by the subject in regards to the verb “to kill” (#04191). The Hebrew Polel form (derived from the Piel) is used. Indeed with a notion here of pointed aim and/with endeavor, using a “special energy”, it thus speaks of ‘actively and directly putting someone to death’ (Jud 9:54; 1 Sam 14:13; 17:51; Psa 34:22; 109:16); indeed in relation to Saul himself (2 Sam 1:9, 10, 16), and also when God is to directly do it (Jer 20:17). (cf. GKC (Gesenius Hebrew Grammar) 55c: ...

[quote]T:There are a couple of events in Christ's life, the cursing of the fig tree and the cleansing of the temple, which are often misinterpreted as if He were acting in a manner such as you are trying to attribute to Him as a means of justifying your own actions. Reading the accounts in "The Desire of Ages" makes clear that what is being attributed to Christ doesn't correspond to the reality of what happened.

NJK:The DA account of Christ’s incontrovertible use of physical force to twice clear/cleanse the Temple moreoverly, clearly indicate to me what was really going on here.


He didn't use force on people, but on animals and chairs. This doesn't explain why the people left. Were they physically afraid of Christ? Of course not. They had Christ greatly outnumbered. It was "divinity flashing through humanity," that "forced" them away; their guilty consciences condemned them. They felt as if they were in the presence of the Great Judge.

This is what the Desire of Ages explains. It says nothing about Christ using physical force against them.

Quote:
Christ was indeed righteously indignant. That fact cannot be futilely excised/ignored from the Bible and SOP.


Righteous indignation is fine. We see, from the DA account, that Christ longed with pity over those who were ignorant of true worship. He still loved them. His anger was directed against what they were doing, in leading others away from the Plan of Salvation, but He felt no anger or malice against the individuals involved, but rather pure love, the love which led Him to be crucified at their hands.

Quote:
NJK:The fig tree could be passed off as an acted parable, however the surprised reaction of the disciples shows that this was also not within the normative action/conduct of Christ.


Of course, and this is note-worthy. The acted parable is in reference to God's removing His protection against the Israelites.

Quote:
However it is the intrinsic part of God’s Ministry of judgement/Wrath and as usually, it is always for a greater good and not out of any baseless/reactionary vindictiveness.


I think our difference in opinion in these incidents is more in terms of the mechanism used than the motivation. I believe the mechanism of removing protection is sufficient to cause any level of destruction. There is no need for God to act in any other way than this, since this mechanism is sufficient. Indeed, one would wonder why, given this mechanism is sufficient, God would act in any other way. It could only be because God wanted to be seen as a destroyer, but everything in Christ's mission argues against this idea.

Quote:
T:Even if, for the sake of argument, one were to believe that Christ acted in the unfortunate manner being suggested, it would still be the case that 99% of the time Christ acted as a gentleman, with kindness, tact, and consideration. So perhaps we could aim for that same figure here.

NJK:There is nothing “unfortunate” about ‘Righteous Indignation for a greater good’. You are the one who cannot understand this just aspect of God’s Character. I personally thank God for this judicious, even forceful, intervention especially when it so does confront the abuses of people in positions of power/leadership, especially (religious) leadership in His People/Church. (Cf. Rev 6:9, 10) And I aim to be a 100% follower of Christ. It was because it was not Christ’s mandate then to judge Israel, but to first instruct/redress them and complete the plan of salvation (cf. Luke 49, 50) that more of these deserved acts of judgement were not done.

And in regards to Christ’s expressed ‘great wish’ in Luke 12:49, if he indeed had not ‘greatly constrained himself’ but done that act of bringing about Hell Fire on the earth, that would have trumped all of the “meted” actions of judgements by God in the OT put together, including the Flood destruction.


There's no problem with Christ's righteous indignation, of course; the "unfortunate manner" being suggested, that I referred to, was your picturing Christ as acting as you have acted. Christ, in His righteous indignation, had tears in His voice when He uttered His scathing comments, and longed with pity over those He loved, willing to give His life for them.

Quote:
Tom: First of all, let's consider how Christ usually dealt with the Jewish leaders. In the beginning of Christ's ministry, Christ was open in His teachings.

NJK:Cite a couple of Examples. I rather see that he spoke veiledly to them from the start (e.g., John 2:19ff & 3:3ff), indeed, as already stated, ‘rousing their hatred’ (DA 167.2) in the first act of His ministry in the Clearing/Cleansing of the Temple (John 2:13ff).


If you wish me to respond to some reference you are citing, please quote more than 3 words (in the case of the SOP), or more than 0 words (in the case of Scripture).

You may note that when I reference things, I quote them for you. When I quote Scripture, I usually use the NASB, because that is a version you said you liked.

The healing of the paralytic comes to mind. That's at the beginning of Mark. The sermon on the mount, Matthew 5-7, also comes to mind.

Quote:
T:It was only when He met with opposition that He resorted to less direct methods, such as the parables. The whole time He was doing everything He could to reach the Jewish leaders.

NJK:Christ made himself meet with this opposition right from the start by himself initiating the confrontation in the Temple. The veiled statements also started right then. Barring an actual substantiation here, your view here would actually be wishful thinking.


What I'm sharing is by no means an idea original to myself. Indeed, I found reference to the idea in the first place I randomly looked.

Quote:
T:He did this for two reasons. The first was that He loved them, and wanted to save them. The second reason was that He knew if He could reach them, that was the secret to saving the nation.

NJK:The Biblical Truth is that Jesus wanted to judge them from the start.


You don't think He wanted to save them? You don't think He wanted to reach them that He might save the nation?

Quote:
NJK:You don’t awake love by doing actions that arouse hatred.


That depends. Consider Nicodemus. In him we see the pride of the Pharisee battling against the honest seeker of truth. If hatred comes because pride has been rebuked, that could indeed be a means of awakening love, because that's the road to repentance. Especially when one considers the character of the One doing the rebuking.

What motivated Christ was inestimable love, and those who met Him sensed that. So while pride hates to be rebuked, there's also a part of the person who wants to be healed from it.

It was never Christ's desire to arouse hatred in anyone. He wanted to provoke faith and love.

Quote:
NJK:Further Biblically speaking that was all in line with his “designs”to bring about deserved judgement on this leaders who should have known and done better, as they were pretentious purporting.


Christ's designs were the salvation of human beings. I don't understand the lack of perceiving this. Christ taught "love your enemies." He *gave His life* for those who hated Him. Look how He treated Nicodemus, Simon, the thief on the cross. Even those completely intransigent; look how He treated them.

Christ's designs were that those entrapped by sin be led to repentance, and He did all He could to bring that to pass.

Quote:
(For some reason you think that just claiming “love” resolves everything.


Resolves what? What does "claiming love" mean? Does this mean "claiming that Christ loved others," or something else?

Quote:
At best this was tough love manifested by Christ, nonetheless “tough love” explanatorily seeks to avoid sustained hatred against the disciplinary actions taken, and perhaps this was only done in the first statements made in John 2:16, yet after his overthrowing acts. Still that initial statement should have been enough to enlighten these “knowledgeable” leaders (cf. The disciples own understanding in John 2:17). I rather see that Christ had love for those who were being swindled, misled and oppressed.


Again, Christ taught: "Love your enemies." Christ had love for His enemies, otherwise His teaching would be hypocrisy.

Quote:
From the start, these Jewish leaders collectively had reach the stage of unrevokable judgement.


You don't know that. In Nicodemus the pride of the pharisee fought against the honest seeker for truth. You don't know that others weren't in the same boat as Nicodemus. Perhaps they experienced a similar fight, but chose poorly (in favor of pride), and it was only after making this choice that they had reached the stage of "unrevokable judgment."

It seems much more reasonable to assume that they were taken aback by Christ's first actions, not knowing what exactly to make of it, as they hadn't seen Him before or heard Him. Then they made decisions, one way or another. Those who chose to open their hearts were walking in the path of repentance and salvation. Those who steeled their hearts against Christ, in the path of "unrevokable judgment," but there's no reason to assume they started out this way from the beginning.

Even Judas(!), who started as poorly as one could start in relation to Christ, almost repented, as his heard thrilled within Him when Christ washed his feet.

Quote:
They effectively lost their position to Christ.


This doesn't happen in an instant. The Holy Spirit keeps trying. It takes time to harden one's heart against the Lord.

Quote:
There only solution was to align themselves with what Christ’s leadership, and they manifestly fully understood this implication, however they basely wanted an ‘external sign’ John 2:18, rather than heed the substantive Biblical truth (John 2:16, 17)


Many reacted this way, while some others repented. But even after starting out poorly, there was still time to change (e.g. Simon).

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Tom
The majority of the time Christ treated the Jewish leaders with respect, and avoided confrontation with them.

NJK:Expressing truth, even if force has to be used is not disrespect.


How do you mean force being used? You don't mean insults and sarcasm, do you? You've been civil in recent posts, which I appreciate, but when I wrote this, some time ago, it was in reference to these sorts of comments. I don't perceive Christ ever acting in this sort of way.

Quote:
NJK:The wayward and unbiblical actions and statements of these did not deserve any respect, lest Christ be thus complicit in their waywardness, or worse, emboldened then through this “respect” in this wrong, unBiblical and vitally dangerous path.


Witness how Paul treated the high priest.

The respect with which Christ treated others was not due to their actions, but to Christ's character. This is the way our wonderful God is! We are nothing, full of wretchedness, rotting bones underneath a white-washed sepulcher, but God treats us with unbelievable kindness, patience, tact, and respect. It's unbelievable how well God treats us, who are *so* undeserving!

He doesn't treat us well because we deserve to be treated well, because we don't. He treats us well because He is God, and it is His nature, His character, to treat others well.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Tom
Secondly, the point here is that Christ treated Simon gently and with tact not because Simon acted in one manner rather than another (i.e., by means of thinking rather than speaking), but because Christ loved him and wanted to save him.

NJK:Your underlying points did not hold up to the actual light of God’s word including the SOP.


??? Christ didn't want to save Simon? The SOP points out that Simon would have been lost, if it weren't for how well Christ treated him.

How could you possibly think that Christ was not motivated to save Simon? What is it you think Christ was doing?

Quote:
So this conclusion is thus baseless. The fact that Simon, a Pharisee had already manifested interest in Christ and had in thanks for his healing organized this public known feast was reason enough for Christ to be patient with him and his growing faith.


The public feast was something Simon did out of obligation. Simon didn't even thank Christ when he was healed. He was still filled with hypocrisy. It was he who had led his niece into sin. When she was lavishing her love for Him, by means of the perfume (a years salary being the cost) she anointed Him with, he wasn't touched.

Christ won Simon's love and devotion by how He treated him at that feast. He converted an enemy into a friend, and life-long follower by His love, tact, and gentleness.

Quote:
That mere public association, indeed vs. Nicodemus covert one, almost automatically put Simon at odds with the rest of the other Jewish leaders. As EGW says:

Originally Posted By: SOP DA 557.1
Simon of Bethany was accounted a disciple of Jesus. He was one of the few Pharisees who had openly joined Christ's followers. He acknowledged Jesus as a teacher, and hoped that He might be the Messiah, but he had not accepted Him as a Saviour. His character was not transformed; his principles were unchanged.


So Christ had ample tangible reasons to be most patient with this relatively brave and faith action.


You're thinking Christ would have said, "Off with you! Go ahead and be eternally damned!" if He had not had these "tangible reasons?" I really don't understand your thinking here. You think Christ works to save some, because of their actions, but others He leaves to be lost?

Consider the words of Paul: It is a saying worthy of acceptance that Christ came to save sinners, of whom I am chief. This is how I feel. I'm sure it's how Simon felt, and Nicodemus, and anyone else who has been saved by Christ. I hope it's how you feel.

Quote:
NJK:Thus Christ indeed wanted to save him and excused his wayward thought here, as he similarly repeatedly did for his own disciples. However an outspoken condemnatory denunciation would have brought a corresponding, at the very least, indicative correction. Cf. Matt 16:21-23).


So if Simon had spoken out load, instead of inwardly, Christ would have responded, "Enough of you! Be lost!" and not worked to save him?

Quote:

NJK: however he partly swallowed his pride here, which warranted this merciful treatment.

Tom: What "warranted this merciful treatment" was not any action on Simon's part, but Christ's character. Christ is merciful, so He treated Simon with mercy. Mercy is akin to grace in that it's *unmerited* (or "unwarranted") favor, given by one to another not because the other deserves it, but out of the kindness of the one granting it.

NJK:This view of your has already been disproven by how Jesus actually dealt with prideful objectors throughout his minsitry, including defaulty with Jewish leaders from the very start of his ministry.


No sir! Christ *died* for these "prideful objectors," a most horrible death. This is how He "dealt" with them. He loved them, and gave His life for them.

Quote:
In fact the only, relatively, “plain” statement I see Christ making to, inclusively some of these leaders during his ministry, before the Matt 23 plain statements, was in Luke 4:21, which was in contrast to the reading of Isa 61:1, 2 which had been ‘well received’ (vs. 22; cf. DA 236.4-237.2) however Christ immediately enjoined this spiritually glib reception with cutting words that led these people to become filled with murderous rage vss. 23-30. (Cf. DA 237.3ff)


You didn't quote anything here, so I have no comment.

How did Christ treat Saul? (who would become Paul)

Quote:

NJK: Also Christ would be dealing with unexpressed thoughts, so, as to not compel faith here, he had to veiledly address this opposition, as He mercifully deemed it necessary.

Tom: This sentence doesn't make sense. At any rate, Christ's motivation was the salvation of Simon.

NJK:It does when you carefully read it.


How so? How would Christ be compelling faith?

Quote:
NJK:Mercy was being shown because these sharply objecting thoughts were nonetheless suppressed by Simon.


Mercy is not merited! Mercy was shown because Christ is merciful. That is His character, as proclaimed to Moses.

Quote:
NJK:Mercy is what leads to salvation for people at fault like Simon was here. And Simon, who should have known better, did not deserve this patient treatment.


Right! Simon did not deserve the treatment he received from Christ, which is why it was mercy. And neither do we deserve the treatment we receive from Christ.

Quote:
He shouldhave even inward gave deference to Christ’s judgement and wisdom inaccepting this gift of Mary. As EGW says of Simon Character: “he had not accepted Him [Jesus] as a Saviour. His character was not transformed; his principles were unchanged.” So at best he was just as deprived in character as the other Jewish leaders, hence why he could not perceive the Spiritual/Prophetic import of this accepted act by Christ.


Until one is converted, no one can understand the spiritual/prophetic import of Christ's actions.

(More later, perhaps).
Posted By: kland

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/04/11 06:23 PM

Click to reveal..
Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Quote:
NJK: 1.Saul's death. The Bible uses a Hiphil to say that God would cause Saul’s death. That therefore does not mean that God has to be the agent which causes that death.

kland: Would that be like God hardening Pharaoh's heart?


No since, as revealed and discussed repeatedly before, a Pile stem, which involves a notion of patiency (See Post #133009) by the subject is used for all of God’s hardening of Pharaoh.

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Originally Posted By: Wikipedia (Snake Bites)
“Snakes do not ordinarily prey on humans, and most will not attack humans unless the snake is startled or injured, preferring instead to avoid contact.”


Originally Posted By: kland
Of the land snakes, the most
dangerous is the Taipan, since it will attack unprovoked.
http://stason.org/TULARC/travel/australia/9-5-4-Venomous-Fauna.html

however, they [Bushmasters] are one of only a few snakes in the world with reputations for unprovoked attacks on people.
http://books.google.com/books?id=MOfaTpk...ked&f=false

The chief and city attorney reviewed local ordinances and determined the snake is a vicious animal because of its propensity to commit an unprovoked attack.
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/581/817/Woman_Pried_From_The_Mouth_Of_Python.html


Seems to me your sources are ambivalent on this issue. Probably researching and quoting the first 10 sources on this would continue this trend. Furthermore it is not known precisely what type snakes were in the Sinai wilderness.

The Hebrew contributions in Num 21:6-8, as already discussed, convince me that these were ‘defaultly a people-avoiding type of snake.’

Quote:
NJK: Indeed, as I see it, the serpents may have been naturally staying away, and God withdrew his protection by making them no longer naturally want to avoid contact with the Israelites.

kland: Withdrew means make? Really?


It does here if EGW’s comments are to be reconciled with the Bible’s exegetical Piel use in saying ‘God made to be sent’ (Num 21:6). Otherwise, if a “difference” is seen, then, according to the exegetical methodology/principles that I go by the Biblical testimony is to supercede EGW comments.

However it seems clear to me that EGW also fully was aware of this “sending” notion here as she made her “withdrawing” notion as she says:

Originally Posted By: SOP 19MR 280.2
The same Hand that kept the fiery serpents of the wilderness from entering the camp of the Israelites until God's chosen people provoked Him with their constant murmurs and complaints, is today guarding the honest in heart. Were this restraining Hand withdrawn, the enemy of our souls would at once begin the work of destruction that he has so long desired to accomplish.


Relatedly, see also:

1SP 315.1 - “To punish them for their ingratitude[/u], and complaining against God, the Lord [b]permitted fiery serpents to bite them.”

And PP 428.3 - “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.”

Seems to me, contrary to Tom’s view, that some notion of “punishment” and even “suggestive compelling” from God were also involved here. (Indeed all similar to what had happened with Moses (Exod 4:24-26 - PP 255.5))

Quote:
NJK: As I understand it, what God does and what God permits under his ultimate control are both equally the same. It is when God allows the Devil to decide and do whatever he wants, that a judgement is not at all from/of God.

kland: Would you be saying that allowing the devil is different than permitting him?


They seem to mean the same thing to me, with perhaps “permit” being more formal than “allow”.



Quote:
Furthermore it is not known precisely what type snakes were in the Sinai wilderness.
The point I was making is that some snakes do attack.



Quote:
NJK: As I understand it, what God does and what God permits under his ultimate control are both equally the same. It is when God allows the Devil to decide and do whatever he wants, that a judgement is not at all from/of God.

kland: Would you be saying that allowing the devil is different than permitting him?

NJK: They seem to mean the same thing to me, with perhaps “permit” being more formal than “allow”.
So, Allow=Permit.

Substituting in we have:
As I understand it, what God does and what God allows under his ultimate control are both equally the same. It is when God allows the Devil to decide and do whatever he wants, that a judgement is not at all from/of God.

Does that lack of contrast make logical sense to you? That is, what God does and allows is from Him, but what God allows the Devil to do is not from Him?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/05/11 05:39 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
I don’t have time to retrace all your statements on pointedly this issues, but it seemed/seems to me that you don’t see God needing to ever be directly involved in any judgement, especially in the executory part of Hell judgement as, as I recall, you believe this will merely be a self-combusting event, (perhaps with instantaneous consummation vs. The Bible’s and SOP’s ‘(varyingly) many days’).


Regarding judgements in general, I believe God is involved, but the mechanism is one of withdrawal/permitting vs. directly causing suffering/death by doing things like setting people on fire.

Regarding the final judgement, I believe those who have sinned more will suffer more than those who have sinned less, according to the light they have received, as EGW explained.

Quote:
Tom: Again, this isn't a phrase I have used, nor a concept I have articulated (that sin is allowed to run its course).

NJK:I infer this from your consistenly expressed “reap its full reward” view of sin and death.

T:Regarding sin running its course, I wrote:

[quote]I haven't put it this way, nor would I, as this seems ambiguous.

The final judgment involves direct actions on the part of God to the point of having all be aware of the issues involved in the Great Controversy, especially in their own lives. This is necessary that they may render judgment. Every knee will bow, voluntarily, and every tongue confess, voluntarily, acknowledging the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and that He (and God, or the Godhead) have been just/fair/merciful/gracious/etc. in all of their dealings throughout the Great Controversy.

Regarding judgments during this life, one could perhaps say that some aspect of sin has been allowed to run its course, but not that sin, in general, has been allowed to run its course.


Quote:
NJK:In any case, that is what the Bible actually teaches.


What's "that"?

Quote:
In a prior post you had inaccurately curtailed James 1:14, 15 to:

“temptation => sin => death”

however the Bible is exegetically clear in saying that it is rather, i.e., more fully/protractedly:

“temptation => lust => sin => fully developed/accomplished sin => death

From the Bible’s:

‘intercourse’ => “conception” (Strong’s #4815) => “birth” (#5088) => “finishing/completion” (#658) [= “fully lived and aged life”] => natural death.


James described a process wherein temptation leads to sin, which, when finished, results in death. This is accurate.

Quote:
NJK (edited): God instead chooses to intervene at some stages to effectuate a death-causing judgement in order to end this manifestly, sure-to-get-worse, sin development.

Tom: This isn't very clear, but I think what you're wanting to say is that God intervenes in order to prevent something worse to occur. If that's the point, I have no qualms with this, provide that God's intervention is understood along the lines of that explained in GC 35-37.

NJK:I address your view of GC 35-37 later in indeed these intervene events, but how is it actually “intervention” as this is defined as: “the act or fact of interposing one thing between or among others”. A “withdrawal/absenteeing” action is not an interposition/intervention.


Job describes a similar circumstance. Do you see that God didn't intervene in what happened to Job?

Quote:
NJK: And to do this, i.e., in this timely way, He has had to use supernatural force.

Tom: He could just remove His protection from the thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which He protects us.


NJK:To me, on one hand, “removing” his protection in not synonymous with “intervening” and on the other hand, to me, this allowing of something dangerous to affect someone involves the same ultimate responsibility.


Not if the person in question is caused to remove the protection. Then the responsibility lies with the one causing the protection to be removed. This is the whole point of the GC 35-37 passage. If the responsibility did not lie with the Jews, it could not be said that the Jews forged their own fetters.

Quote:
NJK:Thus this “passive” act is still a judgement-contributing act. I.e., this judgement cannot occur unless God does this.


Here's the passage in question:

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. By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them ... (GC 35;emphasis mine)


I don't see how Ellen White could have more clearly articulated who was and was not responsible for what was happening here.

Quote:
T:I perceive what happens is that the judgments which occur do so because the people involved have persistently resisted the Holy Spirit, leading to God's withdrawing His protection, which is the manifestation of His wrath.

NJK:All of the examples you have tried to demonstrate for this have been transparently, exegetically shown to be acts of God.

Tom: I don't think any have.

NJK: I.e., God either actively did the action (Piel) or he caused it (Hiphil) through His pointedly commissioned angels.


I’ll, first of all, also add: “natural” actions = (Qal), which are actions that God does not have to involve any causation, but simply “allow to naturally happen”

Originally Posted By: Tom
Examples suggested include:

1.Saul's death.
2.Fiery serpents sent upon the Israelites.
3.Lying spirits sent to Ahab.
4.Job's sufferings.
5.The destruction of Jerusalem.
6.Those who received not the love of the truth being sent delusions.
7.Jesus making those who reject Him blind so they not see, and deaf so they not hear.


(A) my exegetical approach is that the Bible has the final word, and that over EGW’s comments, which again I don’t defaultly consider to be direct revelations (i.e., SOP revelations)


I'll get to the points your listing later, but I really don't get these comments in regards to Ellen White. If Ellen White is an inspired writer, then surely what she wrote in regards to how her writings should be used should be given weight, yet you are acting contrary to her counsel, doing what she said should not be done. In this case you might as well just reject her entirely. In another post, you argued with Elle, because she *wasn't* taking into account what Ellen White wrote.

Ellen White wrote that everything she wrote for public consumption (or spoke) was not of herself, but she only wrote what God impressed her to write (or speak). She does not allow for the selective grabbing of what she wrote that you are doing.

You have no basis from any inspired writing to treat her writings the way that you are.

What I'm arguing is that the way you are understanding Scripture is incorrect. I demonstrate this by citing inspired references from Ellen White. When you disagree with what Ellen White wrote, then, rather than modifying your view in regards to what Scripture is saying, you reject what she wrote as not inspired. That's not cricket.

I don't know if you are aware of this or not, but this is what happened in the 1888 era.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/05/11 09:47 PM


Originally Posted By: Tom
I'll get to the points your listing later, but I really don't get these comments in regards to Ellen White.


To immediately address this apparent hang up here, I had actually addressed it earlier (see starting at the end of this post (#132576), (see also here (#132696) indeed without a pertinent need to go into the wider subject of inspiration. Again, EGW was not inerrant, did not speak/write ex-cathedra and was not infallible, so all that she claims can and must be tested, and that by the Greater light of Scripture. The proof of the veracity of her statements is if it harmonizes with the Theological nature and substantive testimony of already given Revelation (i.e., the Bible). (Isa 8:20; 1 Thess 5:19-21; cf. Acts 17:11)

Originally Posted By: Tom
If Ellen White is an inspired writer, then surely what she wrote in regards to how her writings should be used should be given weight, yet you are acting contrary to her counsel, doing what she said should not be done.


If EGW had said she was infallible, then you would have an incontrovertible argument here. But she never made such a claim for herself and made it transparently clear that she sought to complement her direct revelations with her Theological and Spiritual/Experiential understandings, which at times she corrected, even wrongly.

Originally Posted By: Tom
In this case you might as well just reject her entirely.


I have never seen nor felt that need, however, quite to the contrary, I have been implicitly impressed to ‘test what she has said and hold on to what is good’, 1 Thess 5:19-21 indeed when I first, and quite shockingly started to discover some of the exegetical deficiencies in her writings.

Originally Posted By: Tom
In another post, you argued with Elle, because she *wasn't* taking into account what Ellen White wrote.


That is indeed what I feel. I actually have a problem pointedly with how you either wrongly and/or selectively, even ignoringly, treat her writings, and that without bothering to give any explanation, and all of that, when a statement she made does not agree with the parts of her writings which you claim support your view. I on the other hand take all of her writings/statements into full consideration, and do transparently object to some for substantive reasons. I also give more weight to her direct revelations over the ones that were not from such a directly inspired source.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Ellen White wrote that everything she wrote for public consumption (or spoke) was not of herself, but she only wrote what God impressed her to write (or speak).


You have not provided the reference for that claimed statement. Perhaps this dedicated thread for that purpose could help.

If true and strictly applied, that would mean that all of her writings were (directly) inspired. That would lead to several problems in regards to her corrections and errors, among other applicable problematic areas.

As I said, I only see EGW making honest mistakes, as these were based upon her actual knowledge of the Bible.

Originally Posted By: Tom
She does not allow for the selective grabbing of what she wrote that you are doing.


That is actually what you are, at least effectively, doing. E.g., the Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, The Flood, Nadab and Abihu, among many others. [“Reminder”: Don’t forget the remainder of this pertinent post (#133009b) which you have not yet fully answered (See here (#133207)) and apparently left open to not answering (= your “more later perhaps”??). Answer that part of that would/should transparently explain why you are also not seeing EGW’s view on these events as she says they occurred.]

Again, as Biblically instructed, I am ‘holding on to what actually checks of against the Greater Light of the Bible.’

Originally Posted By: Tom
You have no basis from any inspired writing to treat her writings the way that you are.


Indeed I do, OT & NT: Isa 8:20; 1 Thess 5:19-21 among others.

Originally Posted By: Tom
What I'm arguing is that the way you are understanding Scripture is incorrect. I demonstrate this by citing inspired references from Ellen White.


That is not the way it is to be done. Scripture is to be exegetically ascertained, (and that does not only involve original language) and the writings of EGW are to be subject to this exegetical light.

Originally Posted By: Tom
When you disagree with what Ellen White wrote, then, rather than modifying your view in regards to what Scripture is saying, you reject what she wrote as not inspired. That's not cricket[sic].


That is because EGW’s writing is not my Bible. The Bible is. You are the one who is opting to disregard Biblical exegesis and in those 7 prime examples of yours, except, partly in terms of extent, 5. The Destruction of Jerusalem, I do not see a difference between the Bible and SOP. In fact in regards to that destruction event, I see (as my other responses will document) that it may have partly transpired to the extent EGW says only from the time that Titus became indignant, at the very end of the war in 70 A.D. and ordered that no more mercy be shown and that the entire city be destroyed. Prior to this, throughout the first ca. 4 years of the War, God had a hand in both tempering His vessels of destruction and allowing for merciful, life sparing acts. That is similarly what I see in the Bible and SOP occurring in 6 of the 7 Last Plagues.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I don't know if you are aware of this or not, but this is what happened in the 1888 era.


As I see/understand that 1888 difference, the problems/errors their could have been averted if proper exegesis was used and/or given its proper weight. So in this way, their shortcoming is not applicable/attributable to me. Quite to the contrary. That message was also, and has also, been blown out of its actual intent/proportion.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/06/11 04:50 AM

Quote:
T:I see God as acting passively here, against His will, as He would prefer to protect, as Jesus' lamentation regarding Jerusalem -- "But ye would not!" -- illustrates.

NJK:In Jesus’s predictions of the destruction of Jerusalem, he not only speaks of God removing His protection but ‘commandingly involved in the destruction event” (Matt 22:7) indeed just as the Jews before had said it should be done (Matt 21:40, 41). As I understand it, the fact that God was involved and that this was never intended to be an action entirely controlled and achieved by the Devil, even if through the Roman armies, was that, as Jesus later pointed out, God wanted to have mercy in this event and cut these days short (cf. Matt 24:22) so that some of the Jews could survive. As I now more precisely understand it. It was because God then had planned ca. 20 more years before the Second Coming could occur and perhaps this judgement would help to make these surviving, ‘pacific Jews’ realize their sin and seek Gospel/New Covenant repentance.

NJK: EGW comments in GC 35-37 are not in opposition to these exegetical and exegetically derived facts as her point was that God does not ‘decree punishments’ in the sense that He violates the freewill of people and makes suffer a punishment that they did not unlawfully act to deserve.

Tom: This wasn't her point. Her point was that the judgments are often presented as divine decrees of God, but this is how Satan hides his own work. This also agrees with Jesus' desire to protect them as a chicken would protect its chicks. It doesn't make sense that Jesus would be desiring to protect them against God, as this would have Jesus and God working at cross purposes.

Tom: You've made this statement a couple of times (I'll put it quotes)

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
her point was that God does not ‘decree punishments’ in the sense that He violates the freewill of people and makes suffer a punishment that they did not unlawfully act to deserve.


Tom: but without any justification. If one reads what she wrote, there is nothing to suggest this interpretation. She says nothing anywhere in the context, or in the chapter, in regards to the violation of the freewill of people, nor of God's making decrees to cause people to suffer punishments they do not deserve. I've been asking you how you come to this conclusion, since there is nothing in the text which states or suggests what you are asserting. Instead, the text makes the points I've been making, which is that the Jews brought what happened upon themselves by resisting the Holy Spirit and refusing the protection God was offering them.


I am seeking to reconcile the SOP with the exegetical Biblical testimony as much as possible. And from what I also read in the SOP, indeed what EGW went on to write later in that GC book, namely GC 614.2, she did not see a need to reconsider all OT destruction/judgement events as being natural, and non-God involved acts.

In relation to her “decree statement” as I went on to say, the “fetters” and “cup of vengeance” show me that God does have a provision for rebellion against His ways, but it is only the “stubborn” persistence of evildoers that result in them suffering those punishments.

There is also an added dimension in this issue that has not been emphasized. That is that the judgement spoken of here is pointedly for people who God had actively engaged to protect. Indeed I do not see in the Bible of SOP that God equally, actively engages in protecting everyone as He does His professed People. So, e.g., if the Amalekites had wanted to sojourn and stay in the Sinai wilderness, they would have surely been defaultly bitten by these venomous creatures. Also Satan concentrates his efforts to destroy people on those who are opposing him, and God therefore has to intervene to protect His followers. However it is when they stubbornly reject him that he no longer commissions His angels to protect these rebellious ones and, unless He intends the punishment for an opportunity to change their ways (e.g., snakes in wilderness) He then permits Satan to do as he wishes. For many reasons, including the fact that hundreds of thousands may have escaped Jerusalem alive, I see God as having been quite present in that destruction. It very well may be until the utter end of the War, when then only rebellious and militaristic Jews were left in the city, that God permitted Satan to have his way as, Titus, out of “great indignation” at the prideful refusal of an offer for peace, then commanded His armies to ‘have no mercy’. He even refused to accept any deserters. (see Josephus, Wars 6:6.3 #352)

So I fully understands EGW “Divine Decree” statement to include more than just that ‘judgement is deserved’ but also that it is speaking against a notion that ‘people can’t but suffer this deserved judgement’. Her “stubborn, fetters, ‘wine poured into cup of vengeance’ are contributive to this fuller view for me. Also Satan want to make it seem that and adverse action that he does is along these lines that it is because it is God who must have it so. E.g., the Holocaust. Had the Jews believed in the Messiah Jesus Christ as they easily could have, they would not have been dispersed to all these surrounding nations. So it was this persistent rejection that, in a way, set up that 20th century evil-inspired act of Nazism, however Satan has convinced many people that this occurred was because God wanted it so.

Quote:
NJK: Hence her pivotal phrase “direct decree of God” (GC 35.3). Indeed it extends to even a judgement that was fully warranted, as with the Jews, their 70 A.D. destruction which was for the rejection and murder of their Messiah did not have to be as if God had decreed it to be irreversible. It was because they continued in unbelief and rejection during the 40 years since, and in the light and testimony of the Gospel message that they suffered the natural end results of God not protecting them. Still, as Jesus had indicated in Matt 22:7, it was God who, just like He had done with Babylon in the OT, sent the Romans against the Jews to effectuate this judgement, even though they were clearly pondered and reluctant to do so.

Tom: God neither sent the Babylonians nor the Romans. They acted on their own accord, for their own purposes, and God permitted it. Why would God send armies to attack other people? This speaks of a government which God does not have.


As posted elsewhere, because the Bible says so. God use of physical fighting and war to settle conflicts in the GC is attested from Heaven. It is your view that does not allow these incontrovertible facts of Bible and supporting SOP.

Originally Posted By: SOP
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)


The comes a point where, out of love for those who want to do what is right, that God has to utilize physical force to push back and/or eliminate and overstepping and unlawful act of the Devil and/or his followers.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Again, it doesn't make sense that Jesus would be longing to protect the Jews against an action that God was looking to undertake, as this would have Jesus and God acting at cross purposes. *Both* God and Jesus longed to protect the Jews. God's protection was *caused* to be removed by the actions of the Jews. This is the point EGW makes in the GC 35-37 passage.
Originally Posted By: SOP
By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them... (GC 35)


I rather see that both God and Jesus wanted to punish the waywardness of the Jews, indeed to also serve as a lesson for those, especially new Israel, that would follow, as it was indeed typologically applicable to them. Those who were to be punished entirely depended on personal, “stubborn” choices, that brought themselves beyond these ‘bounds of God’s mercy’ and thus automatically into His ministry of wrath. And God decides, based upon His ultimate plans/intentions just how this judgement will be performed.

Originally Posted By: Tom
The Jews caused the protection of God to be withdrawn.


God also decides when this limit is reached, as it all depends on how much light and opportunities one has had.

Quote:
NJK: And as I see it, it was so that this judgement could here timely be done to allow for enough time (ca. 20 years) for the rest of Christ Olivet Discourse prophecy to be fully fulfilled and thus culminating in the Second Coming. However the Christian Church proved not faithful to this charge as seen in the messages to the 7 Churches, which was indeed based on literal developments and which God then typologically used as capital points that He would object to in the now to be Historically developed NT Church.

T:I believe your perception is that it is God's will to cause suffering, or death, to those who have disobeyed Him, and that He does so by different means, including acting both passively and actively.

NJK:I do not believe that “it is God’s will to cause suffering, or death, to those who have disobeyed Him”. That view fits in the mold of what EGW decried as ‘Satan’s claim of God’s direct decree’. By illustration, that is like a judge wanting a person who simply got a speeding ticket to get the death penalty and acting irrespective of facts to “decree” that this be the case. God instead is exercising just justice and the capital punishment death penalties that He rules through full and transparent justice are all warranted sentences. The more light and thus opportunities to avert the sin resulting in this death, the more delayed that punishment is. Still that punishment is not set in stone for those who genuinely want to repent. It is only by them persisting in their wayward course that these “forge the fetters” that cause them to indeed receive that associated or necessitated punishment and through whatever expedient or as-natural-as-possible means it needs to be done.

Tom: It is not clear to me what you are disagreeing with. It looks like you are taking odds with the idea that God would demand the death penalty for something like a speeding ticket. That is, you are arguing against the idea that it would be God's will to cause suffering and death if that were unwarranted. So let's consider the situation where such is warranted (I'm speaking from your point of view throughout here).

Tom: So, supposing that the "just justice" of God is a "warranted sentence," do you disagree that you believe that it is God's will that those who disobey Him (in this context) suffer and die? Or is your disagreement involving some other point? (It looks to me what you addressed was the concept of an unwarranted sentence).


My point was that all and any sin is fully deserving of immediate, Hell Fire obliterating, death. However God has chosen not to make this so in this life. He instead reserves this immediate capital judgement and death for high handed acts of sin and rebellion. Even in the final judgement, some committed sins will cause some people to burn more than others indeed in direct proportion to the light one had (Luke 12:47, 48).

Quote:
T:I have said that there are a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which God is constantly protecting us, and that it is sufficient, in terms of explaining and judgments that have occurred, for God to have simply withdrawn His protection, as explained in GC 35-37.

NJK:That is what I see as a “passive act of God”.

Tom: Agreed.

NJK:As I understand your view, you are only ‘agreeing’ with the “passive” portion but not my “of God” portion as I understand this to mean that God was actually involved in such cases.

Tom: I'm agreeing with your statement, "That is what I see as a “passive act of God”," which was in reference to my speaking of God's withdrawing His protection.


As I said elsewhere, indeed also next, I am seeing that what I understand as “passive” you understand as ‘completely absent’ in regards to God’s involvement. I therefore don’t see that my understanding agrees with yours here.

Quote:
NJK You instead think God is completely removed in such cases and natural acts, even in self-acting, even as it is required, self-directing way and/or the devil is in full control and is administering the judgement.

Tom: What do you mean by "even in self-acting," or "self-directing way"? I think the idea that the devil is in full control and administering the judgment doesn't make any sense.


“self-acting” = does not need to be caused/done by God, with which I also do not include God’s permitting of this act by removing a protection that was keeping it from occurring.

“Self-directing” = case in point, your S&G volcano which, unless it was right in the middle of that valley, would have to self-direct its eruption only towards the valley of these 5 cities.

Originally Posted By: Tom
What I see as happening is that God's protection has been rejected, so God permits some danger, from the thousand unseen dangers from which God protects us, to occur. I see that when this happens, it is not God's will that anyone suffer or die, but Satan desires these things. Satan likes to cause suffering and death because that is in harmony with his character and the principles of his government.


If God permits Satan to effectuate death, then it is God’s will. That is an incontrovertible and also non-impeaching fact in regards to God. It is his “strange act” as that is not what he would prefer if circumstances (e.g., genuine repentance of the guilty party) had permitted him to “rule”/act otherwise. God does not “like” these judgement that he either himself does or allows, however his love for those who want to live righteously is, and with substantively validating reasons, greater. Why let someone who is wantonly murdering people freely live. That would not be “love” at all. Indeed as mootly inapplicable to the killer (i.e., a blatant offender), unless God “loves” murder, and especially not to the victims or potential future victims. So since the only way to make these serial murder stop is to have that murderer either incarcerated or put to death, then God Love here makes him act to bring about this result. Also, as with God’s other Capital Punishment provisions, this will serve to prevent others from engaging in this blatant and life threatening sin, and thus preserve the life of many others.

Quote:
NJK: I, on the other hand, have yet to see a Biblical/SOP case where the devil has been given this green light, even, a particularly in, the Destruction of Jerusalem, and only see that this will be the case in the 7th and Final Plague.

Tom: I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. From "The Destruction of Jerusalem":

Originally Posted By: SOP
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 35)


Tom: Why doesn't this qualify as the type of statement you say you have not seen?


As I substantively see that there substantively was a mixture of mercy and judgement in the ca. 4 year War and Destruction of Jerusalem, then I do not see that Satan was entirely in control of it. God played a part to temper these developments where he could. If not, the city would have been destroyed from the very first siege of Cestius in 66 A.D. and not a single Jew would have escaped/survived. Surely Satan wanted to kill all of the Jews, however I see that God made it possible for those who surrendered to this manifest judgement, were spared (cf. Jer 27:7-11). Like I said above, Satan, (like in the final Plague) was permitted to have full control when Titus became indignant. As expressed in that Josephus passage, it was indeed out of Religious pride, which implied that God had not entered in judgement against them that was fueling that continued rebellion. Of course the ultimate purpose in the preservation of the lives of Jews who did not want to continue to oppose the Romans, was the potential and quite possible chance that they would then find and accept the Gospel Message. It is also similar to the 7 Last plagues where God aims to not have all flesh perish before the end, though of course, there then would not be a chance to change sides. Or perhaps there can/may be; hence the imperative “wish” of Rev 22:11.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/06/11 04:54 AM

Quote:
T:There is no need for God to have acted in any way different than how Jesus Christ acted while here with us in the flesh.

NJK:That view of yours is easily refuted by e.g., the fact that Jesus twice did use physical force to clear/cleanse His Temple of ‘merchandising robbers and thieves’.

Tom: I disagree with this for two reasons. One is logical, and the other factual.

Tom: The logical objection is that what I stated is there is no necessity for God to act any differently than how Jesus Christ acted while here in the flesh. To adduce an action of Jesus Christ's which involves physical force is not a logical thing to do here. If your assertion were true, this would only serve to broaden the things which God can do, making it more likely, not less, that my assertion is true.

Tom: You put "NJK:" in front of this last paragraph, but I actually wrote that paragraph.

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
I see this as a circular argument, especially as (1) it is entirely based on your view, (which, in my view is reversedly making ‘the OT God act like the incarnate Jesus’ (which is chronologically not possible), instead of the logical vice versa, and (2) it is being stated here as the first reasons instead of a second one. I.e., logic must be based upon/flow out of concrete facts.


Tom: You appear to have missed the point. I said:

Originally Posted By: Tom
There is no need for God to have acted in any way different than how Jesus Christ acted while here with us in the flesh.


Tom: You replied:

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
That view of yours is easily refuted by e.g., the fact that Jesus twice did use physical force to clear/cleanse His Temple of ‘merchandising robbers and thieves’.


Tom: Even if you were correct in your view of how Jesus were acting, this would not serve to prove that there was no need for God to act contrary to how Jesus Christ were acting. Indeed, it would serve to prove the reverse.


You have actually lost me in the rationalizing, which again I see as Theologically circular. And I indeed see it as circular because in saying “God to have acted” you are manifestly leaving an opening to actually exegetically reword the OT according to this understanding. That is probably why you manifestly see no contribution by the various Hebrew tenses being used to variously relate God’s actions in to OT. I don’t both see this exegesis-overstepping reconsideration or substantive episode re-viewing, as I sequiturly see that Jesus, as realistically possible, fully emulated that OT actions.

Indeed I linearly see that Jesus was incarnated with a “empty slate” indeed having “emptied Himself” (Phil 2:7). And he ‘filled in that slate’ by reading the OT Scriptures along with/in the light of the various revelations, especially surrounding His birth. Christ then saw that there was no need to change a jot or tittle from the OT record but that the righteousness in this recorded acts and laws had to be upheld and/or restored.

Originally Posted By: Tom
The more Jesus acts like your view of how God acted, the *less* need there is for God to act differently than how Jesus acted.


I don’t get what you are trying to say here. Please restate/rephrase/explain.

Originally Posted By: NJK
T:The factual objection is that Christ did not use physical force to drive out the money changers. It was their consciences which forced them to leave, both times.

NJK:This is not a realistic nor logical conclusion. Had Jesus just walked into the Temple and simply looked at these thieves and robbers and they and then suddenly scurriedly bolted out of the Temple leaving most, if not all of their commodities behind, or even taking them with them, then that would have been a passive act or Jesus. (Indeed “passive” as He was physically present but had just looked at them). But the account didn’t end with Jesus just looking at them as seen in DA 157.4. That only caused a hushed silence. The Bible and SOP then clearly say that:

-divinity flash through the garb of humanity (DA 158.1a = a “stern and godlike demeanor” DA 589.1)
-a divine light illuminates His countenance (DA 158.1b)
-to the sellers of doves He (first) tells them to “take these things hence” (DA 158.1c cf. John 2:16)
-He then, effectively menacingly, and as a “flaming sword”, raises his scourge of cords (DA 158.2)
-and then begins over thrown the money-changer’s table
-it is then, after these physical acts that “Officers of the temple, speculating priests, brokers and cattle traders, with their sheep and oxen, rush from the place, with the one thought of escaping from the condemnation of His presence. {DA 158.2}”

NJK: To say that Jesus did not use force here is not exegetically realistic. It was a degree of force, and proportional/reasonable force at that, but by incontrovertible definition, force non the less. To say the contrary is like saying that a police officer does not use force at all to do a traffic stop.

NJK: By merely flicking on his lights, a first stage/degree of law enforcing force is used. If that is being resisted by the law violator, then that forces is increased namely to a siren blasting, a parallel/side visible indication, a police chase, a spin out, a nail carpet, shooting out the tires, and so on. In fact the first stage of force to comply to the law is, if that was the case, to immediately slow down to the speed limit particularly when passing a police office who is engaged in speeding control. Furthermore, more pertinently, complete non-force with the effectuation of a judgement here, would that law offender pulling over on their own at the mere noticing of a police car and then convincing the police officer to write them a ticket because they had exceeded the speeding limit, even 10 miles before.

NJK: Similarly, in the case of Christ, the inceptive stage of force was when He stepped into the Temple and began to glare at them. As they immediately knew something was wrong, they should have immediately complied with what God’s Law/principle actually was for this circumstance, which they fully knew of. Instead subsequent degrees of force came to be used as listed above with:

-divinity flashing through the garb of humanity (stern and godlike) = revealing that Jesus was a Divine “Law Enforcer” here and means to end this violation of the Law.
-a divine light illuminates His countenance = Jesus was flashing His “pull over lights”
-Orders to “take these things hence” = visible/audible “command/indication to comply”
-A raised his scourge of cords = Christ menacingly “chasing them out”
-and then begins over thrown the money-changer’s table = Christ physically removing/ending the elements that made the resistance “possible or justified”
-then the object of this Law Enforcing intervention was begun to be realized with the violators having been “neutralized”

Second Clearing/Cleansing
NJK: The second clearing cleansing (Matt 21:12, 13; Mar 11:15-17; Luke 19:45, 46; DA 589.1-591.1) similarly also involved all of the degrees of force as in the first one, including physical overturnings (Matt 21:12b/Mark 11:15b which EGW does not mention in her account DA (590.4-591.1)).


Originally Posted By: Tom
This is from the Desire of Ages:

Originally Posted By: SOP
Overpowered with terror, the priests and rulers had fled from the temple court, and from the searching glance that read their hearts. In their flight they met others on their way to the temple, and bade them turn back, telling them what they had seen and heard. Christ looked upon the fleeing men with yearning pity for their fear, and their ignorance of what constituted true worship. In this scene He saw symbolized the dispersion of the whole Jewish nation for their wickedness and impenitence.

And why did the priests flee from the temple? Why did they not stand their ground? He who commanded them to go was a carpenter's son, a poor Galilean, without earthly rank or power. Why did they not resist Him? Why did they leave the gain so ill acquired, and flee at the command of One whose outward appearance was so humble?

Christ spoke with the authority of a king, and in His appearance, and in the tones of His voice, there was that which they had no power to resist. At the word of command they realized, as they had never realized before, their true position as hypocrites and robbers. (DA 162)


Originally Posted By: Tom
Note: 1.Overpowered with terror, the priests and rulers had fled from the temple court, and from the searching glance that read their hearts.

2.At the word of command they realized, as they had never realized before, their true position as hypocrites and robbers.

Here is the definition of "physical force":

[Quote=USCA]The plain meaning of physical force is power, violence, or pressure directed against a person consisting in a physical act. A person cannot make physical contact — particularly of an insulting or provoking nature — with another without exerting some level of physical force. (United States Court of Appeals)


Clearly this is not what happened in the cleansing of the temple.

Those who fled did so in terror. Why? Because of "the searching glance that read their hearts." This is in harmony with I asserted, that it was their consciences which caused them to flee.


My entire point was that a degree of force of force was used by Christ and it did include physical force. (Religious) Psychological Force (i.e., guilt-convicting force) was also used by Jesus,

In (case) law there indeed is a valid Tort provision for e.g., “Psychological False/Wrongful Imprisonment” where you do not even have to physical restrain someone to be found guilty but merely use something that you know can effectuate this physically realized confinement.

[See e.g., R. v. Mann, 2004 SCC 52,: ‘the constitutional right recognized in Section 9 of the Charter is engaged in situations that involve significant psychological restraints.’]

This included type of force was addedly stemming from Christ’s ‘indignant demeanor’ which was enjoined by physical acts of this vehement opposition. All of this contributed to the fear that was both instilled and developed in these offenders resulting in their choice to flee.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/06/11 05:03 AM

Quote:
T: Those who hold the point of view that you do regarding God's character most often cite two incidents: 1)The cleansing of the temple 2)The cursing of the fig tree. [...]
However, these incidents do not involve Jesus Christ acting in a manner contrary to the principles I, and kland, have been bringing up. If you look at the descriptions of these events in "The Desire of Ages," this is very clear.

NJK: Ironically enough, for either ones of these to fit within your ‘natural (third-party) self-acting’ view Jesus would have to not have even condemningly looked at these offenders but even just walk into the Temple mid his own business and these offenders would still have bolted out overturning their own tables and leaving being their money (= causing damage to themselves).

Tom: The following states how Christ looked at them:

Originally Posted By: SOP
Christ looked upon the fleeing men with yearning pity for their fear, and their ignorance of what constituted true worship. (DA 162)


That was sequentially, Christ’s look when they reacted by fleeing, after he had finished applying his (religiously) psychological and physical force on them and this situation. The “piercing” look before this was no doubt in full congruence with his stern, indignant demeanor. This pity was manifestly that they had chosen to flee rather than stay and seek to be corrected. Indeed a merely a sincere and whole look of “pity” does ‘strike one with terror’ And while these offenders felt guilty, they manifestly did not feel sorry, as their future recommitting of this showed. And so this is what Jesus was ‘yearningly pitying’ for rather than have them flee, he would have preferred them to stay, right their wrongs and seek to find out what should indeed be done here. Indeed as EGW says, and as Christ was surely fully aware of, ‘they did not yield to the convicting power of the Holy Spirit here and repent, but rather chose to run.’ DA 162.3-4.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Nothing says Christ looked at them "condemningly". It says that felt condemned by His presence. This is the result of sin. It acts upon our conscience, causing us to feel condemned in the presence of God.


That is implied in the initial way that Christ was manifestly looking at them prior to them choosing to flee. When a perceived “Judge” has a ‘stern and indignant demeanor’ towards you because of what you are doing, it is normatively and non-hypocritically conveyed through a “condemning” look.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Christ could not leave the scene without addressing the situation because, as the Scripture says, zeal for God's house consumed Him. The whole temple was meant as an object lesson of Christ. What was going on was leading would be followers of God away from Christ, rather than to Him.


I didn’t say his other option was to do nothing. I said that according your not-any-force view, Christ would have effectuated this desired cleansing result by merely walking in the Temple and, as if completely unconcerned, just look about and not even ever directly at these offenders and the exact same terror-struck guilt and frantic fleeing would have occurred.

Quote:
NJK: Clearly that is not the case. Thus this was a direct judgement of Jesus/God and thus emulates the similar acts of intervening judgement of God found throughout the Bible, pointedly with the OT God that Jesus was here perfectly emulating, especially by using the reasonable force needed to fully effectuate that judgement and its desired outcome. The money remaining behind was indeed rightfully to be made available from those who had been defrauded.

Tom: The "force" that was used was that sinners felt condemned by the presence of Christ, and so fled in terror. This was the result of sin acting upon their mind. Not everybody fled. Only those with a guilty conscience fled.


I rather see in the Bible and SOP that it was also Christ’s words, demeanor and action that caused them to flee and not resist/stand their ground. Indeed in DA 162, EGW answers here questions on this by saying:

Originally Posted By: SOP DA 162.3
Christ spoke with the authority of a king, and in His appearance, and in the tones of His voice, there was that which they had no power to resist. At the word of command they realized, as they had never realized before, their true position as hypocrites and robbers. 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. For a time they were convinced that Christ was a prophet; and many believed Him to be the Messiah. The Holy Spirit flashed into their minds the utterances of the prophets concerning Christ. Would they yield to this conviction?


It was the factual case that they were also (i.e., additionally, and not your impliedly understood ‘solely’) trying to flee from ‘Christ’s heart searching glance’. That thus all does not mean that they fled ‘solely because they felt guilty.’ Christ many acts and degrees of force contributed to their felt need to run.

Quote:
NJK: Furthermore that persistent “reverse Theology” of ‘the OT God (which was also Jesus Himself as Michael/The Angel of the Lord) acting like the incarnate Jesus’ is substantively illogical to me. I rather see that Jesus, upon reading and studying the scrolls of the OT for at least up to 35 years (8 B.C. birth) came to understand how God had justly acted in those inspired records and sought out to emulate God as He had read.

Tom: This has been my point, as I've explained several times. Christ both said and did the things He perceived the OT God to be doing. To put that another way, what He perceived the OT God to have done is what He did. Therefore if you postulate the OT God to have acted contrary to how Christ acted, you're creating a contradiction.

NJK: The problem with the enjoined full extent/implication of “your point” (= your view of this emulating) is that it does not, even manifestly, must not, involve all of the exegetically actual/realistic elements in Christ actions. E.g.:

Tom: You wrote this (above):

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
I rather see that Jesus, upon reading and studying the scrolls of the OT for at least up to 35 years (8 B.C. birth) came to understand how God had justly acted in those inspired records and sought out to emulate God as He had read.


Tom: So if Jesus was emulating how God acted, then it must have been the case that what Jesus said and did corresponded to what He perceived the OT God to have been saying and doing, correct?


The problem with this is that (1) you somehow think that this will include all of the actions of God from the OT, which is not the realistic case for 3.5 years of Christ public ministry which was moreoverly only limitedly recorded in the Gospels. (2) only re-manifested events from the OT can be explicitly compared.

Like I said many times before, I do not see Christ acting differently from the OT God in especially terms of Justice and Judgement in the Gospel, as His paramount mandate allowed (Luke 12:49, 50).

So e.g., in the case of the woman caught in adultery, Jesus acted exactly like the OT God Spiritually fully intended, and effectively said that ‘she indeed should stoned for this sin of adultery by worthy witnesses and executioners.’ As this was not done only because their was not such a worthy witness/executioner. They were probably all guilty of unconfessed or even confessed but not punished, capital sins.

Quote:
NJK: -As shown above, a degree of force was used in the clearing of the Temple, indeed with Christ himself being the one who actively administered that Law Enforcing force.

Tom: As shown above, the money-changers fled in terror because of the impact upon their conscience.


That claim has been disproven by what the Bible and SOP fully and actually say. Indeed they fled because of the various ‘terror-striking’ visible and physical manifestation of Christ blended with, if not directly causing this Religious psychological force. A simple sternly condemning look towards a person, whereas no one else is doing so, indeed doing the exact opposite, automatically leads one to believe that your are reading their thoughts and wrong intentions. And a resulting fear of being publicly exposed and thus humiliated can cause someone to flee.

Quote:
NJK: -Jesus greatly wished to interveningly bring about Hell Fire to end the GC Luke 12:49-50 in the light of all of the pervasive abuses taking place (12:1-48).

Tom: The Godhead longs for sin to come to an end.


Indeed it does, which is why Jesus wanted to bring Hell Fire right then and there in judgement of all of those sins and waywardness He had just spoken against. That would have doomed everyone to Hell as the Plan of Salvation would have not been complete. And these were not just empty expressions by Christ as He said He had to ‘greatly constrain Himself so that this desired immediate judgement is not done.’

Quote:
NJK: -Jesus said that God would be the one to cause the destruction event of Jerusalem (Matt 22:7)

Tom: Which was my point! We know, from the SOP, that what happened was that God *permitted* Satan to do his work, and that Satan was responsible for what happened. So even though the language was direct, the actions were not. God is often presented in Scripture as doing that which He permits.


That ‘doing what he permit’ rationalization of yours actually does not have actual Biblical substantiation as the refutation of your 7 prime examples show. God is either direct or indirectly (=actively or passively) rather involved in his judgement and not “absent”. He either ‘“makes” these happen” or ‘“causes” them to happen’. Or, when possible, “naturally” (“Qal”) allows something to occur. However, I have thus far see only Hiphil and Piel type of actions.

Quote:
NJK: -Like the OT God (Isa 6:9-13) Christ veiled the things that would have facilitated the averting of Jerusalem’s physical destruction, only providing the explanatory keys to His disciples.

Tom: As the SOP explained, the blindness was due to the rejection on the part of those who rejected Christ refusing to heed the light that Christ shed their way. Christ is the light that lightens everyone who comes into the world. The SOP makes the explicit point that those who rejected Christ were given light, and their blindness was of their own choosing.


That may be the chosen case, but Jesus still use veiled language and statements, especially with the Jewish leaders.

Quote:
NJK: (Matt 13:10-17) All that everyone else heard was a story which they had to then, at their own peril precisely figure out what actual reality they were conveying. Clearly most of these people never came to accurately decipher and understand these veiled sayings.

Tom: Because they resisted the Holy Spirit who was drawing them to repentance, and longing to give them understanding.


Again they were still deliberate veiled sayings of Christ. He withheld the keys.

Quote:
NJK: -Jesus defaultly acted to rouse the hatred of Jewish leaders, e.g., in the first temple cleansing (DA 167.2) and in His synagogue sermon (DA 237.3ff).

Tom: Christ was not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to a knowledge of the truth. He didn't seek to arouse hatred from anyone, but only love.

Tom: God so loved the world, including those who reject Him, that He gave the greatest possible gift of His Son. Christ reflected the same spirit.


Those citings actually circumvents the actual issue, (=my intended point) here. In doing this ‘hatred rousing’ Christ was acting out of deserved judgement upon these Jewish leaders. However, like Nicodemus went on to do, they could have taken this deserved rebuke and seek correcting light. But most preferred to continue in prideful opposition.


Furthermore it was out of Christ’s justified greater love for those who were being misled, oppressed and entrenched in unrighteousness that Christ was acting to openly and publicly rebuke and destroy this false religious platform of these Jewish leaders. That was a tangible overturning work of reform that had to be done, regardless of whoever it came to clingingly implicate. In fact Christ’s public denunciation acts was more to show the people that these leaders were not beyond any reproach nor should they be blindly believed.

Quote:
NJK: Your claim of ‘only later resorting to this is both Biblically unsubstantiated, and also opposing your view since in your view, God is not supposed to do anything to contribute to the demise of those who oppose him.

Tom: God contributes to the demise of those who oppose Him by being good and loving them.

Originally Posted By: Bible
17Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.

18If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

19Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

20Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.

21Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.(Romans 12)


Tom: This describes how God acts. He asks us to do no differently than He Himself does. "Love your enemy, and do go to those who despitefully treat you." This is Christ's teaching, and how Christ acted.


That is an eisegetical view of this passage. Paul, quoting Solomon (Pro 25:21, 22) had said to leave all vengeance to God and not repay evil with evil but honest deeds. Therefore this is not a method for how either man or God is to take vengeance upon an evil person. The Bible is copiously clear that when God takes vengeance for a wrong done to His people, it is definitely not, and far from, in favoring acts. But rather through deserved acts of Justice. I.e., whatever is deserved/required to exact just vengeance.

This counselled “doing good” response for men is only an intermediary step until God acts in vengeance. And its purpose is actually, calculatedly practical as such acts of ‘good towards evil ones’ will either cause that evil person to “melt” and thus cease their evil, or become so furiously “hot under the collar” that they cannot “get to you” that they would much prefer to completely avoid you. (Indeed, from the probable real life circumstance from which this illustration was drawn, in that hot and arid desert climate, the last thing one wanted was even more heat. Also ‘ice to cool them down’ vs. ‘coal to melt them’ was not a known possibility and/or ready feasibility in those days. Hence thus the use of ‘coal to melt’).

This ‘good-for-evil’ method was also an opportunity for these evil persons to save themselves, if they so chose, from God’s pending and sure vengeance judgement.

Quote:
Tom: SO Jesus was suppose to continue to speak “plainly” to them vs. this “veiled” approach and they were to then knowingly reject what he was teaching and not believe in Him.

Tom: What does this mean?


As seen in the sequitur context, I was here expressing what your view is suppose to entail. I.e., Jesus was only suppose to always speak plainly to people and never in any veiled way and they were to knowingly reject those plain statements.

Quote:
NJK: In fact, as John 16:25-31 shows that Christ figurative/veiled speaking even caused his own disciples to doubt him.

Tom: The disciples had unbelief on a number of occasions, but in no case was this due to a desire or action on Christ's part.


I did not say that this is what Jesus wanted to do, though he indeed did deliberately use figurative language (John 16:25). And that naturally, repeatedly caused confusion in the disciples leading them to ask many questions (vs. 30) as indeed seen through the Gospels (e.g., Matt 13:36|Mar 4:13; 15:15; cf. 24:32)

Quote:
T:Jesus said, "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father," and that means fully/completely. God is *always* like Jesus Christ was; He knows no other way to act than by agape. God is far more gentle, kind, patient, humble, merciful and compassionate than we can imagine. The enemy is Satan and sin, which is far more powerful to corrupt and destroy than people have any idea of. Not having an idea of sin's power, people feel the necessity to attribute the bad things that happen due to that people to the power of another.

NJK:It is God’s Love for primarily the just and righteous which leads Him to, when absolutely necessary, to do supernatural acts to beneficially, timely, protectively and efficiently effectuate a deserved judgement.

Tom: God loves both the just and the unjust. God loves righteousness (or justice), and hates unrighteousness (injustice), but it is God's love, while unjust, that draws us to Him and leads us to repentance.

NJK:The non-glib fact that, as the Bible clearly teaches, God acts to destroy the wicked when they reach a certain point of sinfulness, even favoring, tangibly aiding Israel in wars, shows that He loves those who a faithful to Him more than those who reject him and indeed tangibly acts upon, and towards to effectuating of, those emotions. (E.g., Jacob vs. Esau - Mal 1:1-5). God’s love for people is not stoically indifferent to their response. I.e., e.g., He indeed does not bless those who don’t return that love by obey Him and His Law (e.g., Exod 20:5, 6; Deut 7:9, 10 (Neh 1:5; Dan 9:4); John 14:15; 21; 15:10)]

Tom: God loves those who are faithful to Him more than those who reject Him? Really? That would make an interesting topic of discussion. I'd be interested to see if anyone else shares this point of view.


As I documented, that’s what the Bible says. And other probably will if the take the Bible as it clearly says in such passages. E.g., what don’t you accept what God said and did in Mal 1:1-5??

Originally Posted By: Tom
So, evidently, you believe that when you are obedient to God, He loves you more than when you are not.


According to the ‘Law and the Testimony’ (Isa 8:20), Yes.

Originally Posted By: Tom
So you, in effect, earn His love by your obedience.


You don’t earn God love, you come to benefit from His available/obtainable love. God does not dispense more than the basic life necessities upon those who hate and/or rebel against him. And, as seen in the Egypt Plagues, He could make darkness come upon only some people and not others close by, then that manifestly could be such basic natural aspects. But not, e.g., abundant rain, fertile soil, tempered winds, etc.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/06/11 05:08 AM

Quote:
NJK:It is even, in some case, as object lesson, out of a love for other less sinful peoples that God selects the worst group from these sinful peoples to effectuate a judgement. (These non-judged, though also lesserly deserving, others are then free to choose whether to let that judgement lead them to begin to have a healthy fear of God or not.)

Tom: God is not the problem here. It is not God's will that we fear Him, and do things to please Him, so that He will not smite us. Such "obedience" is not obedience at all.

NJK: As already stated, the Bible throughout approvingly speaks of having a “healthy fear of God”.

Tom: Where are you thinking of? You don't think that "fear" in these cases means something like "awe" "reverence"


As stated in this earlier post
Originally Posted By: NJK Project (Post #132115)
It seems that doing, an even cursory, word study on the word “fear” in relation to God in the Bible (OT #03372a & NT #5399) will corroborate exactly what “healthy fear” I am referring to. (E.g, OT: Gen 22:12; Job 1:1; 8, 9; 2 Chr 6:31; - NT: Matt 10:28; Heb 4:1; Rev 11:18; 14:7; 19:5, etc)


The various Hebrew words that are translated as “awe” and “reverence” also involve: being afraid, dread, fear, trembling/shaking.

Same as in the Greek phobos (#5401) e.g., Acts 2:43.
Heb 12:28 deos (#1190a) from deido

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Yet this is only a beginning and not to be the motivation throughout. In fact that fear is distinct from the desired loving and faith relationship that should normatively ensue. E.g., the Ninevites became fearful of God and repented, however there is no indication that they went on to pursue/deepen a relationship with the God of Israel, i.e., becoming a satellite Jewish Tribe/Nation. They only had a “fear of punishment” (Jon 3:9) but not a ‘relationship-building “love of God”.’

Indeed this fear that God seeks to instill through such acts of judgements upon a selected most deserved party is to serve to abruptly end a sinful course that is developing and not to be the basis for a relationship. Indeed just like threatening someone to enter into a relationship with you at the threat of death is not a relationship based on/involving love.

God’s acts of judgement are thus to immediately end a threatening course and not even to begin a relationship. The person outside of his will is however free to use this instilled fear try to get to know this God better, or not. That fully offset the fact that God’s miracle can and do foster belief and faith, but again, only if the witnessing party wants this to be a result.

That is what your SOP quotes (MS 20, 1897 & DA 480) are also saying and indeed my view was not what you had supposed, despite the many times that I have already stated so. (E.g., as shown below, you won’t allow for my distinction between ‘judgement effectuation force’ vs. ‘belief compelling force’.)


Originally Posted By: Tom
How do you understand the well-known text, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom?"


Succinctly said: It makes one wise to truly believe that there is a God, as their life will then be lived according to God’s Wise/Wiser ways.

Quote:
NJK: Ironically enough, it is actually only “evil” (not in regards to God, as actually He never has been required to curtail His '"passion" for truth' in order to be merciful towards sinners) when God just lets Satan freely and fully have his way.

Tom: So if God acts violently, contrary to how Jesus Christ lived or taught, that's not evil, but if God acts precisely according to the explanation of GC 35-37, that is evil. That seems backwards.

NJK: God’s use of force (=your violently), or even effectuating judgements (which are actually meant to serve as a deterrent from other people, if not also in some cases, a tangible necessity, e.g., thorough cleansing by fire) is not evil. God’s allowing of what is describe in GC 35-37 to take place, which in some level does not have to involve direct actions of the devil, as EGW originally was shown in 14MR 1-3, but is just allowing nature to unrestrictively take its course, is by definition evil, as it is the natural consequence of the evil that Satan’s sinful schemes and concoction have brought into the world.

Tom: This looks to be agreeing with what I said, in characterizing your viewpoint. When God acts violently, such as by setting people to burn alive (according to your point of view), that is not evil. But "God’s allowing of what is describe(sic) in GC 35-37 to take place" is by definition evil.

NJK: (A) God e.g., using various appropriate elements to effectuate a judgement, especially as these are inherently object lessons, as any sin should result in the immediate Hell Fire destruction of anyone, is not evil. Even if simply for that object lesson reason as it serves to preserve the life of literally billions of other people. E.g., who knows for crucially how long the striking and widely “noteworthy” Judgement on Sodom and Gomorrah, served to prevent their Capital sins from spreading and being engaged in. Also, if not for that judgement, one would see many more cases, as widely seen today, of people professing to be Christian while practising the abominable lifestyle of Sodom and Gomorrah. And as that sin is clearly condemned elsewhere in the Bible, even if, as some want to spuriously suppose, that was not a sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, it still served as a deterrent for that Biblically condemned practice.

NJK: (B) What is described in GC 35-37 is (1) a natural end result which must be as “organically” natural as smoking causing lung cancer (and not “disobedience” resulting in a snake attacking you. E.g., Why didn’t the venomous scorpions also attack Israel??);

Tom: I don't see the sense here. What is described in GC 35-37 is God was caused to remove His protection, and they Jews were attacked. What is described in Numbers is God was caused to remove His protection, and the Jews were attacked. What's the difference? Why do you call one organic, but not the other?


I actually said that the type of judgement that EGW described in GC 35-37 (and not the Destruction of Jerusalem itself) must involve an organic, cause-to-direct-effect, act. As I see it, if God acts to prevent something, which only occurs when he stops this protection, then it really is not “organic.” That also includes what Satan pushes men to do. Case in point, since the Roman were idolatrous peoples why didn’t another nation destroy them.

That is why I find this “organic” requirement to be “stringently” artificial to this theological issue as it is clear that God judiciously chooses which sins he will permit to be immediately visited by its ultimate end result of death. That is why, as I said in my first post in this thread, all sins in Israel were not to be capitally punished.

Also in regards to EGW saying:

Originally Posted By: SOP GC 36.1
“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.”


I see that this only applies, as she qualifies, “when men pass the limits of divine forbearance” and “that restraint is removed”. That then involves God not seeking to do any acts of mercy in a judgement. However, as seen in e.g., the Flood, the fiery serpents, the destruction of Sodom, the first destruction of Jerusalem, the most part of the War of the Jews, etc. God actually wanted to have and show mercy to anyone who would repent. Also in some case, He wanted to limit/control the extent of destruction. (That is also reversedly present in the final Hell Fire judgement). So He was there standing as the administrator and executioner of this sentence, as EGW also understood (see also her later comments in GC 614.2). You want this to apply to every judgement mentioned in the Bible but I don’t see this as being the intention of this EGW statement. I see it only applicable to pointed “absolutely no mercy” situations.

It also seems to me that when a natural destruction can’t or won’t occur in a timely way, then God intervenes to supernaturally bring that destruction about. I.e., not every sinful action will not lead to an “immediate” and even “organic” result. The penalty of all sin is death however not every sin tangibly, immediately has this physical consequence of a ‘naturally resulting death.’ Hence God’s capital punishment provision for some of those sins.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Regarding scorpions attacking the Jews, it seems reasonable that this could have happened. It doesn't make much sense that God removed His protection against snakes but not against scorpions. Rather, God withdrew His protection, but the snakes were what were right there, so that's where the danger came from, so that's what was mentioned.


I don’t see this in either Bible and SOP. Furthermore, as stated here in Post #133189 the snake had to ‘be made to sent into the camp, in the midst of the people and with (biting) interest’. And the symbolic healing figure that was to be built was only a serpent and not also a scorpion. So it is clear to me that this was a targeted punishment.

Quote:
NJK: and (2) a judgement where Satan has full and unrestricted/unlimited control. Those two are natural and manufactured “evil”. God’s bringing about a death sentence, however, he deems is appropriate, is not evil. In fact, not doing so, in the light of the adverse effect that this would then have/result in (e.g., persisted and further advanced sin), makes this a justified and righteous act. Indeed just like a police officer stopping a murderous act in progress using any pertinently necessary deadly force is not the “evil” of murder.

Tom: Above you wrote:

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
God’s allowing of what is describe in GC 35-37 to take place, which in some level does not have to involve direct actions of the devil, as EGW originally was shown in 14MR 1-3, but is just allowing nature to unrestrictively take its course, is by definition evil, as it is the natural consequence of the evil that Satan’s sinful schemes and concoction have brought into the world.


Tom: Leaving out some of the peripheral parts, this comes to:

Originally Posted By: NJK Project (Redacted)
God’s allowing of what is describe in GC 35-37 to take place ... is by definition evil, as it is the natural consequence of the evil that Satan’s sinful schemes and concoction have brought into the world.


Tom: Do you really mean to say that God's allowing something to occur is by definition evil? This doesn't make sense to me, because God's allowing of something occurring is an action on God's part, so this statement is attributing evil to God. I don't think this is what you mean, is it?


Again by saying “GC 35-37” I am referring to the extent of secondary judgment mentioned there where God is not at all involved in the act. That thus is by definition evil, again not implicating God and His allowance of it, but because then it is either the devil who is directly acting, and that in full control or man is suffering a natural consequence of the evil that Satan has concocted (e.g,, overdosing on drugs, getting cancer from smoking).

It is not an evil act of God in precisely same way that though He “permitted sin” (cf. PP Chapter 1), He is not the author of it. That is how I understand He “creates evil” (Isa 45:7). Indeed as seen with Ahab, God was at a loss when He needed someone to be a lying Spirt to Ahab until a Evil Spirit came forth and God permitted that element for this overall beneficial and deserved judgement purpose here. In a sense it is like Police claiming to have evidence in order to make a criminal confess to a crime, except that God would permit someone else to do this lying and also as such a confession would probably be contested in court (if coercion was used), but could lead to the obtainment of admissible evidence through this creation of an actionable, reasonable suspicion and probable cause for this “evidence of a guilty mind”.

Quote:
NJK: The evil, especially in the Greater GC context, is also not necessarily in the action itself but the circumstance making it necessary.

Tom: Then what you wrote above is incorrect. You didn't mean that God's allowing of what is described in GC 35-37 to take place was evil, but that the evil which He allowed was evil. That looks to be your meaning, at any rate. If you really meant what you said, that God's allowing of the events that took place was evil, feel free to assert that again.

NJK: As already explained above, (and as I had gone on to illustrate), you indeed misconstrued what I had said and meant. Succinctly summarized: God’s effectuating of death, and that even as a most striking object lesson is not “evil” or “murder”. God’s not intervening to timely, thoroughly and efficiently (i.e., produce the Law Abiding effect) effectuate this judgment would be evil. Appropriately responding to that ‘GC circumstance’ is not.

Tom: God doesn't always intervene; for example, the holocaust.


That is the common example, however what makes the Holocaust more deserving of God’s intervention than any of the following:

-the death of 25 million Russians (with ca. 14 million being civilians deaths) due to WWII at also the hands of the Nazis.
-the civilian death in the Nuclear Bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima
-the various systematic murders of Communist Leaders such as Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot
-the 1994 genoicide in Rwanda
-the more recent slaughter in Sudan and the Darfur Region
-the ongoing legalized and/or committed 65,000,000+ million abortions per year

All of these are the natural effects of man hatred toward their fellow man, as was the Holocaust, and not actually a judgement of God. The fact that the Holocaust is commonly brought is only because it is believed that the were a Special people of God. They officially lost that status in the Fall of 34 A.D.

My point is that God’s not intervening when GC necessary to defend, judge avenge a Biblically Righteous and Faithful People would be evil. Indeed, where is the “GC circumstance” in the Holocaust. Citing the persecution of Christians during Church History is the pertinently applicable example, but here God had a much greater, anc crucial good in mind. I.e., the potential billions of Christians in the future, or even the Remnant few, who would be encouraged to faithfulness by these martyrdom. Even Church growth was fostered by the faithfulness in the face of death demonstrated by these “martyrs” as this indeed gave great “testimony” that what they believed was true.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/06/11 05:16 AM


Quote:
NJK: Case in point God’s choice for a War in Heaven was not evil, but the best way to resolve that conflict.

Tom: The War in Heaven was not God's choice. God's choice was for peace.

NJK: (1) The fact that God indeed did not want war but peace, (though this was not his “choice” as if it had been, it would have been the case as nothing could have prevented him from making it so).

Tom: The will of those who don't want peace prevent God from having peace. This still happens today. Indeed, whenever there is a lack of peace, it is because someone is acting contrary to God's will. God cannot force peace to happen. It will be brought about at the end of the Great Controversy when every knee shall bow and every tongue confess to the righteousness of God, not because God has forced His way, but because of the force of evidence and truth.


In terms of free will, that is plausible but not the case. Satan willed to remain in Heaven, even after his defeat in the organized War, but God overrode that will and cast him out of Heaven. That resulted in a relative peace in Heaven.

Quote:
NJK: (2) As quote from the SOP on my blog, which you, for lack of a more comprehensible term, “ignored”, it is clear that it was God who decided that a war was to be the way to resolve the conflict:

Originally Posted By: SOP 1SP 21.1
“The loyal angels hasten speedily to the Son of God, and acquaint him with what is taking place among the angels. They find the Father in conference with his beloved Son, to determine the means by which, for the best good of the loyal angels, the assumed authority of Satan could be forever put down. The great God could at once have hurled this arch deceiver from Heaven; but this was not his purpose. He would give the rebellious an equal chance to measure strength and might with his own Son and his loyal angels. In this battle every angel would choose his own side, and be manifested to all.”


NJK: Furthermore it is only after that war stipulation that:

Originally Posted By: SOP 1SP 21.2
Then Satan exultingly pointed to his sympathizers, comprising nearly one half of all the angels, and exclaimed, These are with me! Will you expel these also, and make such a void in Heaven? He then declared that he was prepared to resist the authority of Christ, and to defend his place in Heaven by force of might, strength against strength.


NJK: The fact that you would just ignore such SOP direct revelation statements, that you supposedly had read since your first visit of my blog post, was most mind-boggling to me. Indeed you did not even dare mention them, as if that made them fade into insignificance.

Tom: Here is more on what happened:

Originally Posted By: SOP
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. 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.

It was God's purpose to place things on an eternal basis of security, and in the councils of heaven it was decided that time must be given for Satan to develop the principles which were the foundation of his system of government. He had claimed that these were superior to God's principles. Time was given for the working of Satan's principles, that they might be seen by the heavenly universe. (DA 759)


Tom: It seems evident from what you quoted that God's intent was to give all the opportunity to choose sides.


As I stated on my blog, if choosing sides was the only intent, the a physical conflict was not needed after these sides had been chosen. And “room” was no longer found in Heaven only after Satan lost that War, not after they had chosen sides. God had given them an opportunity to exclusively remain in Heaven through his brute force War, if they could!

Originally Posted By: Tom
This makes clear the following, in the context of this battle, that:

1.Rebellion was not to be overcome by force.


This is speaking of ending the greater ideological rebellion and not who could remain in the Universe HQ of Heaven. That ideological aspect is required “time” (i.e. 6000+ years) (= DA 759.2) and the Battle for Heaven therefore needed to be settled as God could not cohabit, even co-rule with the usurping Satan during all of this time. Indeed as the SOP says:

Originally Posted By: SOP 1SP 21.1
They find the Father in conference with his beloved Son, to determine the means by which, for the best good of the loyal angels, the assumed authority of Satan could be forever put down. The great God could at once have hurled this arch deceiver from Heaven; but this was not his purpose. He would give the rebellious an equal chance to measure strength and might with his own Son and his loyal angels. In this battle every angel would choose his own side, and be manifested to all.


Originally Posted By: Tom
2.Compelling power is found only under Satan's government.


Once, again this speaks of compelling power to ascribe to God’s view. That was not what the War in Heaven was for.

Originally Posted By: Tom
3.The Lord's principles are not of this order.


In regards to belief. In regards to effectuating just and deserved judgement God see nothing wrong with using the necessary force.

Originally Posted By: Tom
4.His authority rests upon goodness, mercy, and love; and the presentation of these principles is the means to be used.


To settle the greater ideological GC Conflict and not the Occupancy of Heaven Battle.

Originally Posted By: Tom
5.God's government is moral, and truth and love are to be the prevailing power.


Indeed. However this is distinct from timely effectuating key judgements. Indeed the reason why there were a number of ‘subsequent’ capital punishments in Israel, was because it was not meant to compel belief. People still freely chose to commit these capital sins or not. However God made provision to justly deal with them for the Greater good of keeping the rest of a Righteous people pure and thus capable of having His presence in their midst.

Originally Posted By: Tom
which are all points I have been asserting.


Unfortunately from a substantively stubborn one-sided viewpoint vs. what the Bible and SOP fully reveal in e.g,. 1SP 17-24. I suspect that you are doing this in regards to that SOP passage because you believe that what EGW wrote in DA 759ff somehow either corrects or supercedes her earlier, even if, direct revelation account. Is that the case?

Originally Posted By: Tom
The means of winning the war was to allow both sides to manifest their principles and character.


These are the means for Great GC War, not the War for Heaven.

Originally Posted By: Tom
The war came about entirely by Satan's choosing. God did all He could to prevent Satan's rebellion. He tried in many ways, and for a long time, to convince Satan of the errors of his ways, and induce him to repent.


1SP 21.1-2 clear reveals that it was God who decided this solution of a physical confrontation and that Satan only later agreed by saying that he would indeed defend his stance physically.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/06/11 05:37 AM


Quote:
NJK, thank you for bringing my attention to this post I missed. I've responded to the first part of it. I have to divide my time as best I can, so I'm not sure what I'll be responding to next. If you have some preference, you can present it (such as continuing to respond to this post, or to respond to the more recent ones).

NJK: “Save Trees”????

Tom: That was a joke, of course. Copy/paste won't save any trees. I got a kick out of it.


(I personally find a joke to be ‘funny’ when they are realistic and sequitur.)

Quote:
NJK: Don’t buy printed Bible to “save trees” here and/or have the ones you have recycled, or sent to a poor country since you have (presumably) ready access to at least the Bible on the Internet!! I am not preventing you from looking up my references on a Bible software or the internet!?! Instead of quibbling for spurious rationales here, do yourself a favor and just drop that futile attempt for an issue here.

Tom: I'm hoping you'll listen to me and others and start quoting texts.


That probably won’t occur given what I see as only being needlessly time consuming to me. If you or anyone else didn’t have a Bible, then that would be a justified and needed request.

By the way, again, as you are continuing to do this. Clicking on the “Reply” link at the end of the actual post you are responding do will be beneficial to everyone as it allows for easy backtracking to that post to follow the background of the discussion when needed, especially as you do leave some things out in your responses.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Just quoting one would be good. One quoted text is better than 10 references without quotes.


Not in actuality as it depends on the actual content of the texts referred to.

Quote:
NJK: And don`t mistake me for a tree-hugger, I am to save lives and not firstly trees. As an easily naturally renewable resource, trees are not in daner of extinction. If you all would use this falsely supposed ‘saved, cumulative time’ to work to save the lives of aborted infants, as the NJK Project plans, I would consider your proposition as collectively beneficial. Just taking the time to respond to couple of supposed supporting examples to your view, which actually would not even affect the majority of opposite examples, as proper exegetical methods require, it increasingly being deemed as not worthwhile and time wasting by me. Perhaps it will help other people than you to see that actually already black-on-white clear Biblical light on this issue.

Tom: You should realize that just quoting references is pretty much a waste of time. Few people are going to look them up. After all, if you, the poster, don't feel them important enough to copy/paste, the reader is not likely to view them more important then you do.


That’s all simply how you and/or others are choosing to peripherally view this. Simply quoting references actually allow me more time to search for more supporting passages and post them. That is substantively more crucial to me as I don’t like to build a teaching on just one verse. And as I said, I only post the text when it involves translational tweaking. I certainly know that it has absolutely nothing to do with the supporting weight I give to that text.

Quote:
NJK: That is what the Hebrew Grammatical identification states and, more precisely here, what the Syntax intends to convey. For (presumably) reasons/preferences of fluency these notions are not woodenly expresses in mainstream Bible versions. People complained about the begats in the KJV, well they would complain about all of the e.g.,: “caused to” (Hiphil) and “made to” (Piel) in these verbs were rendered as they were literally meant to. The scholarship attempt to try to express this nuance by using different words in English actually has done injury to this Hebrew Language element as it can be easily seen by the fact that the Hebrew tenses, depending on the context in which they are found, actually confusedly need to use those intended distinct English words.

NJK: (Though I am fluent in French and conversant/functional in Spanish, I think we could stick to the major English version, (the NIV, RSV/NRSV, JB/NJB should also be consulted cited, though I do not see version comparison as being determinative since the underlying syntax is not always properly rendered.)

NJK: The NJB (New Jerusalem Bible (hint hint) accurately has: “He had not consulted Yahweh, who therefore caused his death”

NJK: Indeed OT Hebrew Textbooks (as well as NT Greek ones) usually makes numerous Scriptural citations where they rendered texts in ways that are not found in any Bible version. (E.g, Waltke and O’Connor’s work (IBHS) has over 4100 Scriptural references, most of these being of this unique and more precise rendition kind.

Tom: I don't know what languages you know (except for French, of course), but consulted languages I was familiar with. The point was that every translation I could find, in any language I was familiar with, translated the text the same way.


My point is that English is not only most readily understood, but I’ll also add more translationally reliable than other translations of the Bible in other languages. At least, as I can tell, in regards to French.

Originally Posted By: Tom
God caused the death of Saul; that's the idea. Although the text states this, what actually happened is that God permitted the death of Saul. This is an example of the principle that Scripture presents God as doing that which He permits.


The Bible says that God “caused” it which points to his involvement through an agency. So God may e.g., commissioned an angel to convince Saul that all hope was lost and God was indeed truly, not going to forgive him for this latest waywardness. The ensuing despair then led Saul to take his life. The point of the Hebrew Hiphil here is that God someone actively orchestrated this through an agency.

Quote:
(Corrected discussion thread) Tom: According to Jenni, the Piel signifies "to bring about a state," and the Hiphil, to cause an event.
(An Introduction to biblical Hebrew syntax, by Bruce K. Waltke, Michael Patrick O'Connor)

NJK: What’s your page number for the IBHS citation here??

Tom: Page 433.


Thanks. That tense distinguishing line is actually highlighted in my copy of IBHS. Again this is emphasizing the nuance being the type of causation involved in the Piel and Hiphil. Furthermore IBHS clarifies this difference by saying:

Originally Posted By: IBHS 435
With the Piel, the object is transposed passively into a new state or condition. Philosophers would refer to this transposition as ?accidental? because the object makes no contribution to the verbal notion. With the Hiphil, however, the object participates in the event expressed by the verbal root.

...

Whereas the Piel represents the subject as transposing an object into the state or condition corresponding to the notion expressed by the verbal root, the Hiphil represents the subject as causing an object to participate indirectly as a second subject in the notion expressed by the verbal root. In fact, this notion probably accounts for the Hiphil’s distinctive form. The Hiphil stem’s characteristic h preformative, derived from a third person personal pronoun, reflects a designation of a second subject’s participation in the action. In E. A. Speiser?s view the Hiphil originally signified: ‘X (the subject) caused that Y (the second subject) be or do something.’


Originally Posted By: NJK Project
(Just a note, I personally trust the quite comprehensive and more recent work of IBHS over other printed grammars, and especially over internet sources.)

These are indeed rightly emphasizing the causative notion contained in the Hiphil. (Perhaps you do not fully understand the grammatical/syntactical implications here.) As further explained in IBHS, (which can be accessed in Google Books) this “causation” is quite distinctly in action than the Piel or the Qal, among others tenses. Indeed as expressed in IBHS, 355: ...

Piel - patiency nuance = “The semantic role of an entity that is not the agent but is directly involved in or affected by the happening denoted by the verb in the clause”

Hiphil - agency nuance - The semantic role of the animate entity that instigates or causes the happening denoted by the verb in the clause. How a result is obtained or an end is achieved

However, more than just the piel is involved when direct action is intended by the subject in regards to the verb “to kill” (#04191). The Hebrew Polel form (derived from the Piel) is used. Indeed with a notion here of pointed aim and/with endeavor, using a “special energy”, it thus speaks of ‘actively and directly putting someone to death’ (Jud 9:54; 1 Sam 14:13; 17:51; Psa 34:22; 109:16); indeed in relation to Saul himself (2 Sam 1:9, 10, 16), and also when God is to directly do it (Jer 20:17). (cf. GKC (Gesenius Hebrew Grammar) 55c: ...


No comment on, or even objection to, these also key exegetical elements?? Why?

Quote:
T:There are a couple of events in Christ's life, the cursing of the fig tree and the cleansing of the temple, which are often misinterpreted as if He were acting in a manner such as you are trying to attribute to Him as a means of justifying your own actions. Reading the accounts in "The Desire of Ages" makes clear that what is being attributed to Christ doesn't correspond to the reality of what happened.

NJK: The DA account of Christ’s incontrovertible use of physical force to twice clear/cleanse the Temple moreoverly, clearly indicate to me what was really going on here.

Tom: He didn't use force on people, but on animals and chairs. This doesn't explain why the people left. Were they physically afraid of Christ? Of course not. They had Christ greatly outnumbered. It was "divinity flashing through humanity," that "forced" them away; their guilty consciences condemned them. They felt as if they were in the presence of the Great Judge.


It was indeed because of many such perceivable and visible physical manifestations of anger from Christ that these people fled. In fact they were later ashamed because of this. Their guilty conscience resulting from Christ’s effectuated penetrating psychological force did indeed condemn them, but Christ’s angry physical demeanor and outburst did indeed literally spook them and made them run.

Originally Posted By: Tom
This is what the Desire of Ages explains. It says nothing about Christ using physical force against them.


As recently pointed out elsewhere, it actually is not saying that. They were caused to flee out of sheer fear. Indeed fear of receiving the punishment for the sins they have been made to feel most guilty of by Christ’s distinct “Spiritual, psychological” force .

Quote:
NJK: Christ was indeed righteously indignant. That fact cannot be futilely excised/ignored from the Bible and SOP.

Tom: Righteous indignation is fine. We see, from the DA account, that Christ longed with pity over those who were ignorant of true worship. He still loved them. His anger was directed against what they were doing, in leading others away from the Plan of Salvation, but He felt no anger or malice against the individuals involved, but rather pure love, the love which led Him to be crucified at their hands.


That does not make Theological sense to me. The sinner who clings to his since receives the “wrath” of God. And Christ’s pity was actually because the chose to flee rather than repent.

Quote:
NJK: However it is the intrinsic part of God’s Ministry of judgement/Wrath and as usually, it is always for a greater good and not out of any baseless/reactionary vindictiveness.

Tom: I think our difference in opinion in these incidents is more in terms of the mechanism used than the motivation. I believe the mechanism of removing protection is sufficient to cause any level of destruction. There is no need for God to act in any other way than this, since this mechanism is sufficient. Indeed, one would wonder why, given this mechanism is sufficient, God would act in any other way. It could only be because God wanted to be seen as a destroyer, but everything in Christ's mission argues against this idea.


I (1) rather see that God removing his shielding hand is itself and “act of judgement of God” and (2) these dangers are not necessarily self acting. They are simply something that could happen. Therefore in cases where God was protecting, as in the serpents, he may also need to further make it happen, especially if a timely judgement is needed. Indeed Babylon was always present, but God worked to call it in war against His rebellious people. The same thing manifestly, according to Christ’s view, occurred for the 66-70 A.D. war.

There are however cases, as with the Flood, S&G, the Rebellion of Korah, Dathan and Abiram, where God has to supernaturally act to effectuate a timely judgement. In fact if he had even simply led them to the place where a sinkhole was surely about to form, then I still would consider this as His acting. However I do not see this as Theologically tenable as it implies that God knows the future freewill decisions of people and that in moreover a timely precise way. I personally do not see Biblical support for that view.

Quote:
T: Even if, for the sake of argument, one were to believe that Christ acted in the unfortunate manner being suggested, it would still be the case that 99% of the time Christ acted as a gentleman, with kindness, tact, and consideration. So perhaps we could aim for that same figure here.

NJK: There is nothing “unfortunate” about ‘Righteous Indignation for a greater good’. You are the one who cannot understand this just aspect of God’s Character. I personally thank God for this judicious, even forceful, intervention especially when it so does confront the abuses of people in positions of power/leadership, especially (religious) leadership in His People/Church. (Cf. Rev 6:9, 10) And I aim to be a 100% follower of Christ. It was because it was not Christ’s mandate then to judge Israel, but to first instruct/redress them and complete the plan of salvation (cf. Luke 12:49, 50) that more of these deserved acts of judgement were not done.

NJK: And in regards to Christ’s expressed ‘great wish’ in Luke 12:49, if he indeed had not ‘greatly constrained himself’ but done that act of bringing about Hell Fire on the earth, that would have trumped all of the “meted” actions of judgements by God in the OT put together, including the Flood destruction.

Tom: There's no problem with Christ's righteous indignation, of course; the "unfortunate manner" being suggested, that I referred to, was your picturing Christ as acting as you have acted. Christ, in His righteous indignation, had tears in His voice when He uttered His scathing comments, and longed with pity over those He loved, willing to give His life for them.


Christ’s pity came after, as, and because they were fleeing. That’s what the SOP clearly reveals and is not my subjective view. And despite a possible ‘tearful voice’ here it was nonetheless a “scathing rebuke” (cf. DA 353.1). Both tone and message could equally and fully be conveyed. And the offender had thus a choice to make between the two. So that is why Christ pitied them when they only would perceive the indignant rebuke message. Indeed in the same way as you choose to see my, even merely Bible quoting and/or references, as “sarcasm and insults” rather than seek out the underlying substantive reason/cause that made them applicable and “needed” (DA 353.1).

Quote:
Tom: First of all, let's consider how Christ usually dealt with the Jewish leaders. In the beginning of Christ's ministry, Christ was open in His teachings.

NJK:Cite a couple of Examples. I rather see that he spoke veiledly to them from the start (e.g., John 2:19ff & 3:3ff), indeed, as already stated, ‘rousing their hatred’ (DA 167.2) in the first act of His ministry in the Clearing/Cleansing of the Temple (John 2:13ff).

Tom: If you wish me to respond to some reference you are citing, please quote more than 3 words (in the case of the SOP), or more than 0 words (in the case of Scripture).

Tom: You may note that when I reference things, I quote them for you. When I quote Scripture, I usually use the NASB, because that is a version you said you liked.


If you feel that you can defend your point(s) view without reading my supporting references, then go ahead. That’s entirely up to you. Just don’t be surprised if/when this non-looed at evidence disproves your points. (I had also mentioned the SOP statement earlier).

Originally Posted By: Tom
The healing of the paralytic comes to mind. That's at the beginning of Mark. The sermon on the mount, Matthew 5-7, also comes to mind.


The inclusion of the Scripture reference for the healing of the paralytic (Matt 9:1-8|Mar 2:1-12|Luke 5:17:26) would have been doubly pertinently necessary here as chronological sequence is key. My (reliable) Harmony of the Gospel has that episode came after the Temple Cleansing incident. (John 2:13-25); the meeting with Nicodemus (John 3:1-21); Jesus leaving Judea (when John was captured, in the light of potential similar opposition to him by the Jewish leaders (Matt 4:12|Mar 1:14a|Luke 3:19, 20; 4:14a|John 4:1-4)). It seems to me that Jesus’s pointed veilings was in direct proportion to the level of opposition unbelief. To those who accepted him He spoke more openly, but to those with some doubts, even His own disciples, He also included veiled sayings.

I see that Christ’s statements during the healing of the paralytic was keyly veiled in Christ using the term “Son of Man” instead of “I”. Indeed as He did throughout his ministry. The fact that this was meant to be cryptic, and just enough to cloud to otherwise quite pointed statement is see in all three Gospels as Jesus does not specifically say: ‘...forgives sins, I therefor say:’ but ends his statement by just straightly (cf. DA 269.2) commanding the paralytic. This third person approach therefore left open room for interpretation. (Cf. Paul’s similar concealing usage in 2 Cor 12:1-7ff.) Indeed there is still some debate if Paul is actually referring to his own experience. (Which I see/believe he is). Similarly in Christ’s case, that circuitous statement could lead to the question of is He speaking of Himself or in behalf of another, through which He could do such miracles. Their natural question then should have been: “who is the Son of Man”. But manifestly their pride, lest the answer corroborated by these miracles, should prove to be even more incontrovertible to them, they chose to abstain from receiving further light. And thus this light served to blind them. They nonetheless knew that Jesus was speaking in pointed reference to Himself (cf. DA 270.4) and so by this abstaining, which they probably felt was a good thing, they therefore did not have the ‘actionable, first-hand, and even “widely witnessed”’ proof that Jesus had committed a supposed blasphemy. (Cf. Christ’s ‘other/additional (concurrent) reason’ for such ‘veiled pronouncements’ in COL 22.1).

The subject matter also played a significant part in determining if what He was going to say should be veiled, even if only in key areas. Thus in the sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7) which really was the key exposition of the nature of His Theology, the only thing that He said that I see could have been more substantively veiled was in Matt 5:20. However He “double-ententely” could be (inoffensively) construed as saying that the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees was very high and/or, at least that the one of these people was inferior to theirs. So that pointed being ambiguous, was actually effectively veiled. (= COL 22.1's other reason).

Quote:
T: It was only when He met with opposition that He resorted to less direct methods, such as the parables. The whole time He was doing everything He could to reach the Jewish leaders.

NJK:Christ made himself meet with this opposition right from the start by himself initiating the confrontation in the Temple. The veiled statements also started right then. Barring an actual substantiation here, your view here would actually be wishful thinking.

Tom: What I'm sharing is by no means an idea original to myself. Indeed, I found reference to the idea in the first place I randomly looked.
...
T:He did this for two reasons. The first was that He loved them, and wanted to save them. The second reason was that He knew if He could reach them, that was the secret to saving the nation.

NJK: The Biblical Truth is that Jesus wanted to judge them from the start.

Tom: You don't think He wanted to save them? You don't think He wanted to reach them that He might save the nation?


These leaders had more privilege than the rest of the people so they had no default margin for mercy, and if they chose to quibbling rebel, then they got the corresponding veiled treatment from Jesus. Indeed as seen in their first encounter in John 2:13ff and also subsequent ones, including the ones you mentioned above.

Jesus also wanted to paramountly break the hold of false teaching and spiritual pressure that these leaders were oppressively and self-servingly exerting upon the people. So if they chose to continue in these ways then they were also to be so uprooted and overturned. Jesus went directly to the people and not to these leaders to seek to teach and implement His kingdom. That “snubbing” which indeed automatically set Him at odds with these leaders, speaks volumes, especially in these times and its hierarchal customs, to what He taught of these wayward leaders. It also, indeed cut at their foundational, abusive pride that God could not do anything in Israel except by going through them.

Quote:
NJK: You don’t awake love by doing actions that arouse hatred.

Tom: That depends. Consider Nicodemus. In him we see the pride of the Pharisee battling against the honest seeker of truth.


Nicodemus, relatively, singularly humbled himself just enough to come to Jesus for more light based upon what he had subsequently studied out in the Bible. (DA 168.1) Yet Jesus proceeded to humble him even more, which Nicodemus humbly took (DA 173.4). Still this was only all done upon the same “veiled information” and background that all of those rebuked religious leaders had. The chose to persist in their ‘roused hatred’.

Originally Posted By: Tom
If hatred comes because pride has been rebuked, that could indeed be a means of awakening love, because that's the road to repentance. Especially when one considers the character of the One doing the rebuking.


That emboldened part (and thus also what follows) does not make sequitur sense to me. God is straightforward and real in his dealing and does not seek to obtain love by acts that arouse hatred. Indeed to do so he would have to engage in acts of judgement and adverse overturnings/destruction (as all seen in the Temple cleansing), and that would only be trying to compel love, and that through fear of punishment. As you apparently fully know, God does not work in this way.

Originally Posted By: Tom
What motivated Christ was inestimable love, and those who met Him sensed that. So while pride hates to be rebuked, there's also a part of the person who wants to be healed from it.


And that is not done by acts that should entrench this pride or arouse hatred. Clearly Jesus was entering into deserved judgement with these leaders. How they chose to respond (i.e., flee, and that to regroup, or seek repentance) is entirely up to them. They self-servingly were sinning against light and they fully knew it, and that is what Jesus found fault with and justly dealt with. They then chose to ‘hate rebuke and the rebuker’ hold on to their wayward ways.

Originally Posted By: Tom
It was never Christ's desire to arouse hatred in anyone. He wanted to provoke faith and love.


Christ here wanted to first, and fittingly, provoke contrite repentance through a confrontation with the weight of this sin. The “collateral damage” for this needed pointed action was almost automatically “hatred” however only if these leaders so chose. And as seen with the also similarly rebuked Nicodemus, it was indeed a choice.

Quote:
NJK: Further Biblically speaking that was all in line with his “designs”to bring about deserved judgement on this leaders who should have known and done better, as they were pretentious purporting.

Tom: Christ's designs were the salvation of human beings. I don't understand the lack of perceiving this. Christ taught "love your enemies." He *gave His life* for those who hated Him. Look how He treated Nicodemus, Simon, the thief on the cross. Even those completely intransigent; look how He treated them.


I am pointedly speaking of Christ’s dealing with the Jewish leaders and how he dealt with those who actually allowed themselves to be corrected (i.e., Nicodemus, Simon, the thief on the cross) is on a different, subsequent level.

Christ's designs were that those entrapped by sin be led to repentance, and He did all He could to bring that to pass.

Quote:
NJK: (For some reason you think that just claiming “love” resolves everything.

Tom: Resolves what? What does "claiming love" mean? Does this mean "claiming that Christ loved others," or something else?


Also “Agape” love is not unconditional, but (realistically) faithful, even if “70x7” times of forgiveness have to first be “faithfully” exhausted. Thus it is only “faithfully” applied, i.e., whenever there is a “benefit-of-the-doubt” reason to do so, thus being “faithful”. Indeed agape love is not illogically also present when God executes His judgements. His “Wrath” stemming out of His “Passion” is in full effect here.

Quote:
NJK: At best this was tough love manifested by Christ, nonetheless “tough love” explanatorily seeks to avoid sustained hatred against the disciplinary actions taken, and perhaps this was only done in the first statements made in John 2:16, yet after his overthrowing acts. Still that initial statement should have been enough to enlighten these “knowledgeable” leaders (cf. The disciples own understanding in John 2:17). I rather see that Christ had love for those who were being swindled, misled and oppressed.

Tom: Again, Christ taught: "Love your enemies." Christ had love for His enemies, otherwise His teaching would be hypocrisy.


“Love your enemies” does not mean being a doormat to them and ‘letting something adverse and detrimental that can be prevented continue. In this case Christ chose to treat these leaders as they deserved, yet with a chance to be corrected, if they so chose, in order to rescue those suffering under their oppressions. With that ‘opportunity for correction’ Christ was indeed abiding by His teachings as He was still doing good to them. In fact not making them see the sinfulness of their ways, or acting as if what they had been doing was perfectly acceptable would not be “love” as it would only approvingly facilitate their waywardness.

These leaders also would not have accepted a non-rebuking reproach as their belief was that they were unimpeachably superior, so that stance had to be “faithfully” and truthfully (i.e., non-hypocritically) dealt with. Jesus was indeed faithful in doing this and not water-down truth to seek to be accepted or pleasing to the baseness of men.

Quote:
NJK: From the start, these Jewish leaders collectively had reach the stage of unrevokable judgement.

Tom: You don't know that.


I am basing this on how Jesus chose to, in judgement, deal with them right from the start. Indeed He did not go into the temple and seek to reason with them, giving them a benefit of a doubt, and/or given them a Bible study. But instead He immediately, unequivocally “forcefully” rebuked them.

Originally Posted By: Tom
In Nicodemus the pride of the pharisee fought against the honest seeker for truth. You don't know that others weren't in the same boat as Nicodemus. Perhaps they experienced a similar fight, but chose poorly (in favor of pride), and it was only after making this choice that they had reached the stage of "unrevokable judgment."


The fact that they did not act like Nicodemus, even as they easily could have by choosing to hold a formal hearing with Jesus, indeed if (many) others were also like Nicodemus, speak volumes to their spiritual condition and decision.

In terms of this “unrevokable judgment” I mean that their various unbiblical actions were going to be judged. If they chose to persist in them they so would they. Jesus indeed continually rebuked these wrong and detrimental actions and did not overlook them.

Originally Posted By: Tom
It seems much more reasonable to assume that they were taken aback by Christ's first actions, not knowing what exactly to make of it, as they hadn't seen Him before or heard Him. Then they made decisions, one way or another. Those who chose to open their hearts were walking in the path of repentance and salvation. Those who steeled their hearts against Christ, in the path of "unrevokable judgment," but there's no reason to assume they started out this way from the beginning.


They were of course, quite naturally, “taken aback” as Jesus here inceptively confronted them in scathing judgement. And as EGW says that following this first encounter their response was hatred, then I see that they immediately chose ‘what to make of this’. It substantively was Christ’s Biblical words against what actually they fully knew was an unbiblical practice that was crucially pertinent here and not the “peripheral” fact that ‘they had never met or heard Jesus before.’ (Cf. John 12:47-48ff) Indeed what difference does that make. That is indeed the reasoning that made them reject the substantive words and actions of Jesus (John 2:18; cf. Matt 21:23), and that throughout His ministry. (cf. Matt 12:38, 39ff).

Originally Posted By: Tom
Even Judas(!), who started as poorly as one could start in relation to Christ, almost repented, as his heard thrilled within Him when Christ washed his feet.


“Almost” obviously does not avail to anything. Judas chose to maintain the wrong intentions and motivations he always had from the very first day, and indeed for the reason why, he had volunteered his “service” to the cause of Christ.

Quote:
NJK: They effectively lost their position to Christ.

Tom: This doesn't happen in an instant. The Holy Spirit keeps trying. It takes time to harden one's heart against the Lord.


That Holy Spirit’s working in an individual is besides the point. The fact that Jesus set up his “Independent Ministry”, and that from the start, which indeed flustered them, shows this ‘position revocation’ belief and judgement of Christ.

Quote:
NJK: There only solution was to align themselves with what Christ’s leadership, and they manifestly fully understood this implication, however they basely wanted an ‘external sign’ John 2:18, rather than heed the substantive Biblical truth (John 2:16, 17)

Tom: Many reacted this way, while some others repented. But even after starting out poorly, there was still time to change (e.g. Simon).


On the individual level, there was indeed time for them to change, but that obviously did not result in Christ joining their sect. These repenting ones had to join his. The leadership system was corrupt and maintain in this way by a vast majority. So there was no practical way in which they could not but be institutionally judged by Christ.

Quote:
Tom: The majority of the time Christ treated the Jewish leaders with respect, and avoided confrontation with them.

NJK: Expressing truth, even if force has to be used is not disrespect.


The only interaction with the priests I see are when they confronted Him in seeking to oppose His work. And these confrontation are marked by either a barrage of wholly or keyly veiled pronouncements and/or scathing rebuke (e.g., John 8:12-59; Matt 23) I certainly don’t see where you supposedly see these ‘majority of the time’ nor even ‘respect’.

Furthermore, the fact that, on top of setting up an independent ministry, continually implying that they were teaching the Truth, Jesus did not at all go and “confront” these Teachers, but only responded when they came to Him to question him, further shows that He did not mind that they remained in darkness. Indeed he could have easily sought them out and/or requested a meeting with them to “respectfully” plainly and, peripherally most significantly/facilitatively, privately, explain His Truths to them, but deliberately chose not do that.


Originally Posted By: Tom
How do you mean force being used? You don't mean insults and sarcasm, do you? You've been civil in recent posts, which I appreciate, but when I wrote this, some time ago, it was in reference to these sorts of comments. I don't perceive Christ ever acting in this sort of way.


A) As it is seen this post (#133001), your comments were pointedly in regards to my statement:

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Manifestly if Simon, the Pharisee had immediately proceeded to audibly condemn Christ with these blind thoughts, he would been met/treated as Christ usually dealt with those Jewish leaders,


Your desire and attempt to try to attribute this understanding to ‘my fault’ is substantively spurious. Jesus fittingly/correspondingly responded to his open and confrontational opposers which cutting words of substantive/factual truth. These are not “insults or sarcasm” nor is my applicable quoting or referencing of them. Biblical truth, being as sharp as a two-edge sword, naturally hurts someone/something who opposes it as it cuts into especially ones pride and entrenched skin and sinew of “preferred” beliefs. I see that you are “conveniently” confusing/conflating that Truth cutting effect with, supposedly, me personally.

Quote:
NJK: The wayward and unbiblical actions and statements of these did not deserve any respect, lest Christ be thus complicit in their waywardness, or worse, emboldened then through this “respect” in this wrong, unBiblical and vitally dangerous path.

Tom: Witness how Paul treated the high priest.


[Again the [Acts 23:1-5] Scriptural reference would help]. Paul was also pointedly addressing the “inhuman command” (AA 411.1). And since it indeed was ‘a Truth that Ananias was a whitewashed sepulcher’ (AA 414.1), it thus was not an insult, but a factual description.

Also this clearly was not how Christ, Paul’s ‘imitated Master’, treated the leaders of His day as Jesus had no qualm about calling them, with reason, among many other things, “whitewashed” (Matt 23:27). Manifestly Paul had a different intention/purpose here. Indeed it all seems to me that Paul’s response was carefully and “courteously” calculated to be diplomatic. He only said in excuse that ‘he did not know that Ananias was in the position of the High Priest’ though he clearly was a priest. And indeed used this calculated peace fostering appeasement, to instead cause this trial to fath through a sure-to-work diversion (Acts 23:6-10 = Matt 10:16). Yet nothing said here was a lie since Paul indeed may not have known that Ananias was made the High Priest.)

Originally Posted By: Tom
The respect with which Christ treated others was not due to their actions, but to Christ's character. This is the way our wonderful God is! We are nothing, full of wretchedness, rotting bones underneath a white-washed sepulcher, but God treats us with unbelievable kindness, patience, tact, and respect. It's unbelievable how well God treats us, who are *so* undeserving! He doesn't treat us well because we deserve to be treated well, because we don't. He treats us well because He is God, and it is His nature, His character, to treat others well.


Your claim of (default) “respect” towards the Jewish leaders needs to be substantiated.

God only treats sinners with agape love when there is an actual valid reason to do so, as he easily can know. Even a seemingly vile sinner, may be doing so out of the weighed but sure belief that ‘there is no God, who moreover has an authority on his life.’ However God never “respect” hypocrisy, but realistically deals with it in corresponding proportion to which it has been allowed to be entrenched. The religious leaders had knowingly made God’s Law subservient to their self-serving desires and God/Jesus had absolutely no “respect” for that hypocrisy, especially as it was tangibly, oppressively exerted upon Spiritually, even economically, helpless victim. So when I see Jesus treat someone in those cutting and scathingly rebuking ways and terms, then I know that there is a just actionable reason from Him to “real-ly” do so, and that usually is various forms of hypocrisy, especially, as it actually only is, indifferent hypocrisy (= lying).

Quote:
Tom: Secondly, the point here is that Christ treated Simon gently and with tact not because Simon acted in one manner rather than another (i.e., by means of thinking rather than speaking), but because Christ loved him and wanted to save him.

NJK: Your underlying points did not hold up to the actual light of God’s word including the SOP.

Tom: ??? Christ didn't want to save Simon? The SOP points out that Simon would have been lost, if it weren't for how well Christ treated him.


In the SOP’s statement as in DA 567.5, I rather only see that Simon, like David, would not have realized the great guilt of his sin in relation to Mary, -a sin which he may have already asked and even received forgiveness of. Yet he was still holding an air of superiority here and that is what Jesus sought to pointedly address here. That then in turn, but distinctly, addressed Simon’s apparently personally genuine, but Spiritually spurious, opposition that Jesus was not a prophet since He “obviously” didn’t know that Mary was a (former) adulteress.

Relatedly, how do you think it made the proud and boastful Peter think when Jesus implied that he was, (most utterly despicable) ‘a mouthpiece for Satan’??! (Matt 16:23). Christ surely wanted Peter to be saved (cf. Luke 22:31, 32) but that did not prevent him from pointedly and fittingly addressing his Spiritually bankrupt and wrong expressed, and actually still publicly (Mk. 8:33?), “rebuke”. (At least, Matthew apparently heard it first-hand here! Unless Peter was later forthcoming in recounting it). It surely would have been a difference response if Peter had instead sought to ask deferential questions.

Originally Posted By: Tom
How could you possibly think that Christ was not motivated to save Simon? What is it you think Christ was doing?


Indeed because I see that Christ method of response here was pointedly because Simon had not pridefully spoken out against Jesus based upon what he actually genuinely felt. So in a way, he actually felt that he was respecting Jesus, even to his own loss because he did not see how he could not openly bring this issue up with Jesus without revealing that he no longer believed in him. (The issue of his and Mary past sin may indeed have been a completely forgiven issue in itself.) So Jesus “correspondingly” responded to that “courteous” however Theologically/Spiritually misguided it actually was. Indeed Simon’s natural reaction, as this was not a hypocritical act by him, should have been to immediately stand up and kick Jesus out for having pretended to be a prophet all of this time. Instead he opted to “suffer in silence”, not even by giving Jesus a benefit-of-the-doubt, but out of pure, now host’s courteously. Jesus was fully aware of all of this and responded in due kind, also endeavoring to set things right here. Indeed after this correction ‘Simon now began to see himself in a new light.’ (DA 567.1)

Quote:
NJK: So this conclusion is thus baseless. The fact that Simon, a Pharisee had already manifested interest in Christ and had in thanks for his healing organized this public known feast was reason enough for Christ to be patient with him and his growing faith.

Tom: The public feast was something Simon did out of obligation. Simon didn't even thank Christ when he was healed. He was still filled with hypocrisy. It was he who had led his niece into sin. When she was lavishing her love for Him, by means of the perfume (a years salary being the cost) she anointed Him with, he wasn't touched.

Tom: Christ won Simon's love and devotion by how He treated him at that feast. He converted an enemy into a friend, and life-long follower by His love, tact, and gentleness.


Where are you reading that Mary was Simon’s niece?
Where also are you reading that the feast was an “obligation”? Did everyone who Christ heal have an “obligation” to hold a feast of thanks for this??

I also read that Simon “desired to show his gratitude” (DA 557.2) and apparently did so in a feast at the first occasion he got. Indeed with Jesus travelling around, that was not an occasion he could easily have and such a (fitting) feast was not thrown over night. So by time he figured to do so, even overcoming his fear of his Pharisee colleague, Jesus may have been long gone, and for a undetermined while.

(I recall something along the ‘initial non-thanking’ lines of Simon’, but can’t specifically relocate it at the moment. If you know the specific SOP reference, please let me know.)

Also, from the fact that Simon was still a Pharisee, I see that this indeed was in itself a most courageous, and thus noteworthy public act. Indeed the Pharisee hated Jesus pointed because of the miracles He was doing that were attesting to the veracity of Himself and Ministry, both exposing and opposing them and theirs. So the last thing that a Pharisee wanted to do was (a) throw a feast indicating public acceptance of Jesus, and (b) for a claimed/observed miracle. Though the Pharisee let Simon continue in his function, thus admitting that he was wholly healed, the certainly did not want to make a public spectacle of this, especially if they knew it was Jesus who had done it, as they probably did.

Quote:
Quote:
NJK: That mere public association, indeed vs. Nicodemus covert one, almost automatically put Simon at odds with the rest of the other Jewish leaders. As EGW says:

Originally Posted By: SOP DA 557.1
Simon of Bethany was accounted a disciple of Jesus. He was one of the few Pharisees who had openly joined Christ's followers. He acknowledged Jesus as a teacher, and hoped that He might be the Messiah, but he had not accepted Him as a Saviour. His character was not transformed; his principles were unchanged.


NJK: So Christ had ample tangible reasons to be most patient with this relatively brave and faith action.

Tom: You're thinking Christ would have said, "Off with you! Go ahead and be eternally damned!" if He had not had these "tangible reasons?" I really don't understand your thinking here.


{...}

Quote:
NJK: Thus Christ indeed wanted to save him and excused his wayward thought here, as he similarly repeatedly did for his own disciples. However an outspoken condemnatory denunciation would have brought a corresponding, at the very least, indicative correction. Cf. Matt 16:21-23).

Tom: So if Simon had spoken out load, instead of inwardly, Christ would have responded, "Enough of you! Be lost!" and not worked to save him?


Uhhh... No.. That’s is what you can only think that I would/should think here. Like Peter in Matt 16:23|Mark 8 33, Christ would have just fittingly, openly, if that was the case with Simon, exposed his sin and hypocrisy. What Simon chose to do with that shaming rebuke, like Peter, (and any other similarly deserving person in Christ’s ministry) was entirely up to him.

Originally Posted By: Tom
You think Christ works to save some, because of their actions, but others He leaves to be lost?


From many examples in the Bible, God|Jesus treats each person individually, according to the light they had. So e.g., in Moses’s case (Exod 4:24-26), a pagan could live a peaceful life despite not having circumcised his sons, but for Moses that was an eminent, now confronting, life or death issue. God read hearts, as Jesus was Spiritually empowered to do, and thus His pointed responses are always judiciously fitting and deserved, and individually tailored.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Consider the words of Paul: It is a saying worthy of acceptance that Christ came to save sinners, of whom I am chief. This is how I feel. I'm sure it's how Simon felt, and Nicodemus, and anyone else who has been saved by Christ. I hope it's how you feel.


Not to take anything away from that Biblical Truth, that actually sidesteps the present issue that God’s fitting dealings with forwardly manifested, indifferent hypocrisy. God’s love of the sinner, does not excuse, nor certainly, “respect”, such heightened level of sinfulness.

Quote:
Quote:
NJK: however he partly swallowed his pride here, which warranted this merciful treatment.

Tom: What "warranted this merciful treatment" was not any action on Simon's part, but Christ's character. Christ is merciful, so He treated Simon with mercy.


{...}

Quote:
NJK: Mercy was being shown because these sharply objecting thoughts were nonetheless suppressed by Simon.

Tom: Mercy is not merited! Mercy was shown because Christ is merciful. That is His character, as proclaimed to Moses.


Like the OT God, and how He actually revealed it to Moses, ‘Christ exercises this mercy on whoever He chooses to have mercy.’ (Exod 33:19). If God ‘has to be merciful’ it is no longer mercy, but an obligation. And furthermore, that means that He can never not be merciful, i.e., deal/allow judgement.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Mercy is akin to grace in that it's *unmerited* (or "unwarranted") favor, given by one to another not because the other deserves it, but out of the kindness of the one granting it.


Mercy|grace|forgiveness is granted to only those who seek it. And in Simon’s deferential approach, despite feeling otherwise, Jesus saw that he was deserving of this discreet approach, eventhough that unexpressed hypocrisy still had to be rebuked. So Simon only fittingly obtained “mercy/grace” for the manner in which He was to be rebuked.

Quote:
NJK: This view of your has already been disproven by how Jesus actually dealt with prideful objectors throughout his minsitry, including defaulty with Jewish leaders from the very start of his ministry.

Tom: No sir! Christ *died* for these "prideful objectors," a most horrible death. This is how He "dealt" with them. He loved them, and gave His life for them.


Just emphatically saying “No” does not change the substantive text. (cf. also Deut 7:9-11; 1 Kgs 8:23) Christ effectively died for everyone, but what actually made Him fully go through with is were His ‘faithful friends’ (John 15:13, 14); “following sheep” (John 10:11) and the many sinners who would accept this sacrifice. (AA 601.2). Giving everything up and engaging in finding the ‘lost sheep/coin’ is pointedly speaking of Christ’s incarnation, but not necessarily of His “baptism of blood” death (DA 690.3) which indeed was an entirely different ordeal. And that was indeed a “decision” (DA 693.1) that He had to take and not ‘just naturally do it’ (cf. Luke 12:49, 50). So in a most realistic way, those who ‘pridefully objected’ to Jesus only benefited from the fact that ‘Jesus had “friends” who depended on Him to “go all the way,”’ including a throng of dead OT saints. That fact indeed made the cross effectively entirely bearable for Him.

Quote:
NJK: In fact the only, relatively, “plain” statement I see Christ making to, inclusively some of these leaders during his ministry, before the Matt 23 plain statements, was in Luke 4:21, which was in contrast to the reading of Isa 61:1, 2 which had been ‘well received’ (vs. 22; cf. DA 236.4-237.2) however Christ immediately enjoined this spiritually glib reception with cutting words that led these people to become filled with murderous rage vss. 23-30. (Cf. DA 237.3ff)

Tom: You didn't quote anything here, so I have no comment.


That’s again is just an excuse, and the Truth from that passage still stands. Let’s just say, you, at least, and anyone else who may subscribing to this “excusing”, will be the one(s) who will not be aware of the revealed Truth here.

Quote:
Tom: How did Christ treat Saul? (who would become Paul)


As I see it, indeed as discussed in this one (#132406), Jesus found enough genuine and non-hypocritical honesty in this most gifted and “electable” vessel of Saul, to present Him a fitting (and actually faith cementing) “opportunity” to from then live a life of utter trials for the sake of the Gospel.

Quote:
NJK: Also Christ would be dealing with unexpressed thoughts, so, as to not compel faith here, he had to veiledly address this opposition, as He mercifully deemed it necessary.

Tom: This sentence doesn't make sense. At any rate, Christ's motivation was the salvation of Simon.

NJK: It does when you carefully read it.

Tom: How so? How would Christ be compelling faith?


Christ was dealing with Simon disbelief that Jesus was a prophet in regards to His non-objecting to Mary. So if Christ had explicitly said: “I am reading from your thoughts Simon that...” then Simon would really have no other choice than to be compelled to believe. But by not letting on as if he had read Simon thoughts, Simon was still left to accept this in faith, on top of first accepting it as a just rebuke, as he could have easily vexatiously discounted it.

Quote:
NJK: Mercy is what leads to salvation for people at fault like Simon was here. And Simon, who should have known better, did not deserve this patient treatment.

Tom: Right! Simon did not deserve the treatment he received from Christ, which is why it was mercy. And neither do we deserve the treatment we receive from Christ.


Like I had been saying/meant all along, Simon exercised suppressing option is pointedly what warranted the discreet manner of this response. The issue of Simon sin of hypocrisy is a distinct matter.

Originally Posted By: Tom
(More later, perhaps).


Why, as logically impliable: ‘“Perhaps” ‘not more’’ in regards to the substantive remainder of my post (#133009)??
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/06/11 05:54 AM

Quote:
NJK: Furthermore it is not known precisely what type snakes were in the Sinai wilderness.

kland: The point I was making is that some snakes do attack.


Okay. I couldn’t tell with certainty. A few categorizing/qualifying words my have helped.

Quote:
NJK: As I understand it, what God does and what God permits under his ultimate control are both equally the same. It is when God allows the Devil to decide and do whatever he wants, that a judgement is not at all from/of God.

kland: Would you be saying that allowing the devil is different than permitting him?

NJK: They seem to mean the same thing to me, with perhaps “permit” being more formal than “allow”.

kland: So, Allow=Permit.


Seems to be possibly so from the dictionaries I have consulted. In fact my printed Webster’s Dictionary comically has as first definitions:

-Allow: “to permit”
-Permit: “to allow”

Quote:
kland: Substituting in we have:
As I understand it, what God does and what God allows under his ultimate control are both equally the same. It is when God allows the Devil to decide and do whatever he wants, that a judgement is not at all from/of God.


kland: Does that lack of contrast make logical sense to you? That is, what God does and allows is from Him, but what God allows the Devil to do is not from Him?

I colloquially had seen something more formal in “permit” I.e., ‘People get a driving “permit” (which allows them to drive on public roads).’

Probably the second definitions should be understood here

-Allow: “to acknowledge, admit, concede”
-Permit: “to give opportunity”

So with “allow” it seems to me that you are aware that something is happening or will happen and you just let it be. While with “permit” you weighingly, formally give one this opportunity (but with specific conditions restrictions), and even in your care/name.

That is indeed (or actually) what I had said and meant by saying:

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
As I understand it, what God does and what God permits under his ultimate control are both equally the same. It is when God allows the Devil to decide and do whatever he wants, that a judgement [i.e., what takes place in/towards that judgement] is not at all from/of God.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/06/11 06:00 AM


Quote:
NJK: I don’t have time to retrace all your statements on pointedly this issues, but it seemed/seems to me that you don’t see God needing to ever be directly involved in any judgement, especially in the executory part of Hell judgement as, as I recall, you believe this will merely be a self-combusting event, (perhaps with instantaneous consummation vs. The Bible’s and SOP’s ‘(varyingly) many days’).

Tom: Regarding judgements in general, I believe God is involved, but the mechanism is one of withdrawal/permitting vs. directly causing suffering/death by doing things like setting people on fire.


I substantively see that your view here, pointedly with Fire, (among others) is squarely at odds with many examples in the Bible and SOP, namely Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19:24|PP PP 162.2), Ahab’s two groups of 50 soldiers (2 Kgs 1:10, 12|PK 208.3), rebellious princes during the D-K-A rebellion (Num 16:35; 4aSG 32.1|PP 401.1); Nadab and Abihu (Num 26:61; PP 359.2). Both the Bible and SOP indicate that these fires were judgements from/of God.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Regarding the final judgement, I believe those who have sinned more will suffer more than those who have sinned less, according to the light they have received, as EGW explained.


And my still unanswered question is “How??” How does a person/sinner live more than a few seconds in a Lake fo Fire?? Indeed it is but for the supernatural life-sustaining act of God, who alone has the power to impart life, let alone death resisting life.

Quote:
Tom: Again, this isn't a phrase I have used, nor a concept I have articulated (that sin is allowed to run its course).

NJK:I infer this from your consistenly expressed “reap its full reward” view of sin and death.

T:Regarding sin running its course, I wrote:

Tom: I haven't put it this way, nor would I, as this seems ambiguous.

Tom: The final judgment involves direct actions on the part of God to the point of having all be aware of the issues involved in the Great Controversy, especially in their own lives. This is necessary that they may render judgment. Every knee will bow, voluntarily, and every tongue confess, voluntarily, acknowledging the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and that He (and God, or the Godhead) have been just/fair/merciful/gracious/etc. in all of their dealings throughout the Great Controversy.


That is only in regards to the White Throne judgement which occurs just before the Hell Fire execution of the sentence of that Judgement. That White Throne serves to inform the lost why they are about to be punished as they “thoroughly, but justly” will be.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Regarding judgments during this life, one could perhaps say that some aspect of sin has been allowed to run its course, but not that sin, in general, has been allowed to run its course.


That is actually only because of the offsetting influence for good exerted through fiathful followers of God.

Quote:
NJK:In any case, that is what the Bible actually teaches.

Tom: What's "that"?


Base on what I had responded:

Originally Posted By: NJK Project (#133185)
I do not see this as being realistically feasible in the sense that sin is not always allowed to reach its ‘“full life” which then results in self inflicted natural death’, indeed as an old person naturally dies of old age (James 1:15).


Thus for sin to naturally cause an “organic” death, it first has to live out its full destructive life. However that cannot always be allowed by God to be the case and He must at times intervene to “prematurely” end the “life” of a sinful course.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: NJK Project
In a prior post you had inaccurately curtailed James 1:14, 15 to:

“temptation => sin => death”

however the Bible is exegetically clear in saying that it is rather, i.e., more fully/protractedly:

“temptation => lust => sin => fully developed/accomplished sin => death

From the Bible’s:

‘intercourse’ => “conception” (Strong’s #4815) => “birth” (#5088) => “finishing/completion” (#658) [= “fully lived and aged life”] => natural death.


Originally Posted By: Tom
James described a process wherein temptation leads to sin, which, when finished, results in death. This is accurate.


I rather see that you are again curtailing this deliberate “ana-logical” illustration. Especially in the light of your previous expressed view that ‘all sins “organically” bring death’. It is instead shown here that ‘stages of life’, included a distinct “fully live life” are pointedly described here. Natural death, i.e., “from old age” is thus also being implied. But sin first needs to reached that fully matured stage to, of itself cause death.

Quote:
NJK (edited): God instead chooses to intervene at some stages to effectuate a death-causing judgement in order to end this manifestly, sure-to-get-worse, sin development.

Tom: This isn't very clear, but I think what you're wanting to say is that God intervenes in order to prevent something worse to occur. If that's the point, I have no qualms with this, provide that God's intervention is understood along the lines of that explained in GC 35-37.

NJK: I address your view of GC 35-37 later in indeed these intervene events, but how is it actually “intervention” as this is defined as: “the act or fact of interposing one thing between or among others”. A “withdrawal/absenteeing” action is not an interposition/intervention.

Tom: Job describes a similar circumstance. Do you see that God didn't intervene in what happened to Job?


No, since it was God who had permitted these trials. If Satan had outrightly engaged in making Job suffer and God had then sent angels to protect Job, then that would have been an intervention.

I also don’t see this as either a judgement on Job, nor, especially not, an “absentee action” of God. God was always present in that permit trial by limiting what the Devil could do. So this example does not even qualify as an example of ‘God’s judgement on people who have exceeded His mercy’, which are typically, if not only, His former people vs. people who were never followers of God.

Quote:
NJK: And to do this, i.e., in this timely way, He has had to use supernatural force.

Tom: He could just remove His protection from the thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which He protects us.

NJK: To me, on one hand, “removing” his protection in not synonymous with “intervening” and on the other hand, to me, this allowing of something dangerous to affect someone involves the same ultimate responsibility.

Tom: Not if the person in question is caused to remove the protection. Then the responsibility lies with the one causing the protection to be removed.


This protection removal is always a choice of God. God indeed no longer commission angels (14MR 3.1) or His Spirit to “protect”. God justly chooses to no longer have mercy on those people (Exod 33:19). He thus ultimate holds the responsibility for what occurs but not the fault/blame.

Originally Posted By: Tom
This is the whole point of the GC 35-37 passage. If the responsibility did not lie with the Jews, it could not be said that the Jews forged their own fetters.


The Jews ‘forged their fetters’ not by committing a simple sin of initial unbelief that automatically put them in this jailhouse of God but actually by their ensuing “stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy” (GC 35.3) that led them to reject, and then in the NT Church era, continue to reject, Jesus their Messiah. Jesus’ death had broken that jailhouse wide open. But the Jews forced themselves to be trapped in it by the own fetters they had forged.

Even more pointedly, by then likewise rejecting the many offers of peace and mercy by Titus, the also ‘forged their fetters’ and tough Titus had enter in war judgement against them for their effective, and then full-blown, revolt against Rome, this utter destruction end was indeed their fault, though it was Titus who resolutely ordered it to be so.

Quote:
NJK: Thus this “passive” act is still a judgement-contributing act. I.e., this judgement cannot occur unless God does this.

Tom: Here's the passage in question:

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. By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them ... (GC 35;emphasis mine)


Tom: I don't see how Ellen White could have more clearly articulated who was and was not responsible for what was happening here.


Again I now further see a two-part aspect to the Destruction of Jerusalem, even intermixed. The First/A part being from the start of the war, with the first siege of Cestius through to after Titus’s campaign, and a second when Titus decided no longer to have mercy. Many surrendering Jews were indeed saved, some fleeing, in the first part, but the obstinate ones that incited Titus’ wrath were mostly killed in the merciless sacking of the city.

Because of the mercy shown/“allowed” in the first part I see God’s hand in it. I’ll however concede that the utter destruction end God was there/then completely withdrawn.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/06/11 07:33 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
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.

M: 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?

T: GC 35-37 isn't limited to actions of God's enemies. There are a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which God protects us.

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).

M: 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.

T: Why do you think I said this?

M: Were these particular enemies evil angels? If not, who were they?

T: Please quote something I've said. I don't know where you're getting these ideas from.

M: Are you refusing to address questions relating to N&A and the two bands of fifty?

T: No, I'm asking you to please quote something I've said, because I don't understand where you're getting your ideas from. That isn't clear to you?

M: It was Ellen who said so. You agreed with her.

T: You're suggesting that Ellen White said these particular enemies were evil agents?

M: Inspiration makes it clear the fire that burned N&A alive blazed out from the presence of God in the most holy place. Similarly, fire flashed from heaven in response to Elijah’s prayers to burn alive the two different bands of fifty. Do you believe Jesus withdrew His protection and permitted His enemies to burn them alive? So far you have not answered this question plainly. Please do so.

T: You haven't answered my questions. Please any my questions, which I asked first.

To answer your question ("Why do you think I said this") you haven't actually stated who or what you believe caused the fire that blazed out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned N&A alive. Would you mind answering the question?

Quote:
Christ's Revelation of God (Section title in book)

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}

"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. {8T 286.2}

Taking humanity upon Him, Christ came to be one with humanity and at the same time to reveal our heavenly Father to sinful human beings. He was in all things made like unto His brethren. He became flesh, even as we are. He was hungry and thirsty and weary. He was sustained by food and refreshed by sleep. He shared the lot of men, and yet He was the blameless Son of God. He was a stranger and sojourner on the earth--in the world, but not of the world; tempted and tried as men and women today are tempted and tried, yet living a life free from sin. {8T 286.3}

Tender, compassionate, sympathetic, ever considerate of others, He represented the character of God, and was constantly engaged in service for God and man. {8T 286.4}

T: Please explain to me how this can mean that NOT every thing man needs to know, or can know, of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son, when He "took humanity upon Him."

M: Please refer to the many passages I posted earlier (omitted by you). As a whole they make clear the point. Do not make the mistake of basing your idea on one passage. Also, “needs to know” is not the same thing as “everything there is to know”.

T: Let's just deal with one passage. Please cite the passage which you think most clearly articulates the idea that NOT everything that man needs to know, or can know, of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son, and we can discuss that passage. I'm not aware of any passage which contradicts this idea. I didn't see any such contradiction or implication in any passage you cited.

You wrote, "Let's just deal with one passage." Is this right or wise? Doesn't such an idea fly in the face of everything we believe about arriving at the truth?

I believe the passage in 8T 286 makes it clear Jesus revealed what we need to know about God. However, as stated before, "needs to know" is not the same thing as "everything there is to know". It is impossible to establish the 28 fundamental beliefs based solely on what Jesus said and did while here in the flesh.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/06/11 08:43 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
T: I agree that nothing happens by fate. I disagree that nothing happens by chance. If Jesus, or God, permits something to occur which happens by chance, that doesn't mean that the thing permitted to occur did not happen by chance. I believe there are things which happen by chance. For example, tossing a fair coin is an example. By chance it will be heads or tails. Many such examples could be given.

M: Do you believe Jesus is free to choose between such options as preventing death and destruction or permitting it, that He takes everything and everyone into consideration and then decides whether to prevent or permit death and destruction, that the choice is His?

T: You're mixing too many things together here, and then asking a yes or no question. That's not cricket. I think all evil is not the choice of Jesus Christ, and evil only occurs when beings choose to act contrary to His will.

M: Or, do you believe chance dictates whether or not He is free to choose between preventing or permitting death and destruction?

T: Things happen by chance, if that's what you mean.

M: Is Christ in control or is chance?

T: Things happen by chance, if that's what you're asking. Again, chance being in control isn't a logical construct.

M: If God is not in control of sinners, who, then, is protecting them?

T: By "in control of" I assume you mean "controlling." Or do you mean something else? If by "in control of" you mean "protecting," then I may agree with what you mean, if not what you're saying. That is, I certainly agree that God is protecting sinners.

M: Do you believe God is not in control of sinners?

T: Not when they sin.

M: If so, and I assume you do, what do you mean by it?

T: I mean that sinners, when they sin, choose to exercise their free will to act contrary to the will of Jesus Christ.

M: Yes, of course, sinners are free to choose to sin. But I’m referring to the resulting outcomes, consequences. For example, N&A were free to choose to employ strange fire. The various outcomes, consequences of their choice was entirely up to Jesus – not chance, not sin, not Satan. Jesus chose to employ fire to burn them alive. So far, you have refused to say who or what employed the fire that killed them.

T: We spoke of this in detail in the past. I have no desire to repeat that conversation. I'll reiterate that I believe that the principles of GC 35-37 hold in all such cases, and that the specifics of how God removes His protection (whether in regards to evil agents, oneself, natural disasters, health, accidents, or anything else) is not important.

You’re unwillingness to plainly state who caused fire to blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place to burn N&A alive is suspicious. We both agree fire is not self-acting; therefore, someone employed it to burn N&A alive. Both the Bible and the SOP plainly say it was Jesus who employed fire to burn N&A alive. Nowhere does it say otherwise. Assuming, as you do, the principles outlined in GC 35-37 apply to N&A smacks of “private interpretation” in light of the fact both the Bible and the SOP plainly say it was Jesus who employed fire to burn N&A alive. Assuming, as you do, it is “not important” who killed N&A also smacks of “private interpretation”.

Quote:
M: As for me, I believe Jesus is, as sovereign Lord and King, ultimately in control of the outcome of the great controversy – not sin, not sinners, and not Satan.

T: The Great Controversy is not a contest that can be decided by sovereignty; it's decided by evidence. God has been accused of certain things, things involving His character and the principles of His government. To make His case that He has been unjustly accused, God has chosen to allow things to play out, that His character may be seen in contrast with that of His accuser, as well as the principles of His government in contrast to the principles of his adversary's government.

M: That is, sin does not determine how the GC will play out, neither do sinners, nor does Satan.

T: Sinners and Satan have a part, as do all sentient beings.

M: Whether or not this or that choice plays out this or that way is entirely up to Jesus - not sin, not sinners, and not Satan.

T: No, this isn't the case. When a rapist chooses to rape, and that plays out in a rape victim being raped, that's not "entirely up to Jesus." You don't see the problem in asserting this?

M: True, His options are limited. He isn’t free to manage the outcome irrespective of the choice. For example, Jesus wasn’t free to manage Judas’ choice to betray Him in a way that would result in him sitting on the right or left hand of Jesus in the New Jerusalem.

T: This doesn't seem to be a related point to the discussion.

M: Whether or not this or that choice plays out this or that way is entirely up to Jesus - not sin, not sinners, and not Satan. Evil choices usually end in evil consequences. Exactly which evil consequence plays out is up to Jesus. Not that He makes it play out that way. But He does manage things so that they do not play out some other way. He either causes, commands, or permits.

T: So if a little child is abused, that's "entirely up to Jesus" (not sin, not sinners, and not Satan)? IMO, this is exactly backwards.

What do you believe? You haven’t been forthcoming. Do you think it’s up to sin? Or, up to sinners? Or, up to Satan? Does Jesus have any say so? Does He have the right to intervene and prevent it (the abuse you specified above)? Or, is He required to sit back and do nothing?

Quote:
T: To state that evil angels never disobey Jesus Christ is not a fair accusation to make upon Christ. Of course they disobey Him, whenever they do evil. To think that evil angels are shackled so they only obey Christ's will is, I'm having difficulty coming up with words that aren't too strong here, I'll just say not fair to Christ. Also, it's not fair to them, as well, as, if they are not to a great extent free to do their will, then the Great Controversy is a sham. Finally, if they are not free to do their will, how do you explain the evil there is in the world?

M: As explained above, Jesus is in control – not sin, not sinners, and not Satan. Evil angels are only as free as Jesus allows. 1 Cor 10:13 is an example.

T: This doesn't address my question. My question is, if evil agents are not free to do their will, how do you explain the evil there is in the world? Please answer this question. For example, "The evil which exists in the world exists because ..." In particular, whose will is involved when evil occurs?

Evil angels are not free to tempt, torment, or terminate people at will. What they are allowed to do is tightly regulated by Jesus. The reason evil angels tempt, torment, and terminate people is because they are evil. The resulting evil that exists in our world is due to the fact evil angels act within the perimeters Jesus permits and controls.

Quote:
M: He commanded godly people like Moses to kill ungodly people. In final judgment, the radiant glory of God’s person and presence will cause the wicked to suffer in duration and intensity proportionate to their sinfulness. The presence of God’s radiant glory is required for the wicked to experience the emotional and physical suffering that ends in eternal death, otherwise, they would merely live and die as they did before Jesus resurrected them.

T: I'm sorry you feel this way. DA 764 tells us that if God had allowed Satan and his followers to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished, but it would not have been apparent that the inevitable result of sin is death. I'm sorry you don't see the relationship between sin and death. I think not seeing this connections leads to many errors, all of which portray God negatively.

M: Jesus established the laws regulating capital punishment. It doesn’t matter if such laws existed.

T: It does matter. For example, if polygamy existed, and it was permitted to continue, that's not the same as if there were no polygamy, and God instructed that they should have multiple wives.

M: And, the connection between sin and eternal death is real. Sin and sinners cannot abide in the presence of God. The radiant light of His glory consumes sinners with their sins. You seem to think it is sin, not the light of God’s radiant glory, that will consume sinners in final judgment.

T: I think the main difference between us in regards to what you just wrote in this paragraph is that you perceive the issue to be primarily physical, whereas I see it to be a spiritual matter involving one's character. For example, we read: “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. (DA 764) This, as it reads, states what I've been asserting. I don't understand how you get a physical idea out of this. It speaks of the wicked developing characters and revealing their principles. It says they receive the results of their choice, which, in context, is referring to their characters and principles. It says they are so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. This has to do with their character. It says the glory of Him who is love will destroy them. This also has to do with character. The glory of God is His character, and God's defining attribute is love. She refers to the "glory of Him who is love." From beginning to end, this is dealing with character. (More later)

Comparing laws regulating and requiring capital punishment is not the same as laws regulating and permitting polygamy. There multiple places in the Bible where Jesus commanded godly people to execute ungodly people in accordance with the laws regulating and requiring capital punishment. The laws regulating and requiring capital punishment are symbolic of final judgment. Punishment ending in eternal death is both physical and psychological. “His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy the” – not sin, not self, not Satan. The light radiating from the person and presence of God will cause the wicked to suffer emotionally and physically according to their sinfulness eventually ending in eternal death. You have yet to plainly explain what you think will cause the wicked to suffer emotionally and physically according to their sinfulness. Please do so. Thank you.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/06/11 10:23 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
T: I assume you mean that from my perspective, the mechanism matters, if sincere seekers of truth wrongly conclude that Jesus employs fire to burn people alive. If this is what you mean, I still don't agree that the mechanism matters. I believe it's the principle that matters. A sincere seeker of truth, from my perspective, will not make conclusions about the mechanism involved which are not in harmony with God's character or the principles of His government, if he gets the principles right.

M: What would they conclude? Would it suffice them to know Jesus didn’t burn them alive? Thus satisfied it wouldn’t occur to them to care who or what caused the fire that burned them alive?

T: I don't think it matters much to one who is convinced in regards to God's character. For example, let's say someone is killed in your house by a fire. It's possible that your wife set them on fire and burned them alive. But you know your wife, and know she isn't capable of that sort of behavior. So how did the person die? Insofar as your wife's setting them on fire is concerned, you don't much care, because you know however the person died, it wasn't because your wife set them on fire.

M: Did my wife withdraw her protection and permit her enemies to burn them alive? You seem to think it doesn’t matter.

T: Of course it matters: “By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them ... (GC 35) If your wife were caused to withdraw her protection, as opposed to freely choosing to do so without being caused to do so, that would matter. Back to my analogy. You understand the point, right? You would know your wife, in the analogy, didn't cause the fire, because you know her character.

My wife, though a kind and caring and compassionate person, is, nevertheless, a sinner like everyone else. I would reserve judgment until forensics proved who or what caused the fire that killed the person. In the case of N&A, however, forensics prove it was Jesus who employed fire to burn them alive. You, on the other hand, seem to think it doesn’t matter who burned them alive.

Quote:
M: In the case of N&A, the fire blazed out from the presence of God in the most holy place. And, in the case of the two bands of fifty, fire rained down from God in heaven. To say Jesus simply withdrew His protection and permitted (you have yet to say who) to cause fire to burn them alive begs the question – Why were His enemies in the most holy places in heaven and earth?

T: I disagree that it begs this question.

M: Does it matter to you, Tom, where Jesus’ enemies were when He, according to you, permitted them to make fire blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burn them alive? It matters very much to me. That’s why I believe Jesus employed fire to burn them alive.

T: I addressed this just above, in the illustration about your wife setting people on fire.

M: Who did Jesus permit to employ the fire that killed them? Please don’t say it doesn’t matter. Please answer this question.

T: Jesus permitted the fire to occur for the same reasons explained in GC 35-37. I think where you and I are having the biggest disagreement is that you perceive Jesus' character to be such that He will employ fire to burn people alive when it suits Him. I don't believe Jesus' character is such that He uses fire to burn people alive. I gave the analogy of your wife in the burning house to illustrate this.

I know you believe Jesus permitted His enemies to employ fire to burn N&A alive. My question to you is – Who employed the fire that killed them? And, how did they make it blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place?

Quote:
T: You didn't answer my question. I'll repeat it. Satan is free to do his will, to a great degree, which is evident in looking at our world. He has to be free to do as he pleases in order for there to be a Great Controversy. This agrees with your understanding, doesn't it?

M: No, I disagree. Satan is not free to do as he pleases.

T: Then there's no Great Controversy. If God does His will, and Satan does God's will, there's no controversy at all; there's only God's will. If all that happens is God's will, that begs the question of what sort of God would will the sort of horror we see on this planet?

M: Jesus is in control of the outcome of our choices. He doesn’t leave it up to Satan to decide how best to punish evildoers. True, in the case of Job, Jesus left it up to Satan to decide, within very strict perimeters, what to do. However, in the cases of the wicked, Jesus does not leave it up to Satan.

T: This seems a bit confused, in regards to the subject of discussion here. Are you talking about the final judgment? If not, none of this really makes sense. The punishment of the wicked isn't until the resurrection. If you're talking about the final judgment, then it doesn't make sense to suggest that Jesus Christ leaves their punishment up to Satan. That's just a red herring.

M: “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. . . Since the flood, God has used both water and fire in the earth as his agents to destroy wicked cities. {1SP 84.3}

T: Scripture, and the SOP, often present God as doing that which He permits.

M: The GC concerns us as much as it does God. Jesus will not let Satan tempt us beyond His ability to empower us to resist. This ensures the GC is fair. Very clearly Satan is not free to do whatever he’d like to do. He must obtain permission from Jesus to tempt us or to harm us. What happens is by permission.

T: Clearly God must limit the evil which Satan does, or else he would destroy everyone, and there wouldn't be a Great Controversy. However, this must not be twisted around so one concludes that the evil which happens is God's will.

M: There are times, though, when Jesus Himself acts to punish impenitent sinners. Ellen wrote: “The bowels of the earth were the Lord's arsenal, from which he drew forth the weapons he employed in the destruction of the old world. . . Since the flood, God has used both water and fire in the earth as his agents to destroy wicked cities. {1SP 84.3}

T: Scripture, and the SOP, often present God as doing that which He permits.

If what Jesus permits evil angels to do is not His will, what, pray tell, is it? Is it Jesus’ will to prevent evil angels from exceeding the limits He imposes on them? Yes, there are places in the Bible where it portrays Jesus doing the things He permits His enemies to do; however, it smacks of “private interpretation” to assume passages like the ones in my last comment above must be forced to mean something they obviously do not specifically say. Also, the absence of even one passage that applies the withdraw-permit principle of punishment to the passages posted in my last comment above is evidence against your point.

Quote:
M: I’m curious, Tom, do you even believe Jesus commanded Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to death? I cannot recall you ever answering this question. I get the impression you believe Moses misunderstood what Jesus told him. Please, Tom, don’t go off on a tangent here and ignore directly answering my question. I realize you haven’t said anything specifically about whether or not Moses misunderstood Jesus. So please, don’t use this comment as excuse to ignore answering my question. Please answer it. Thank you.

T: The best way I know to answer your question is with the story of the father of the hunter son. Did the father of the hunter son command his son to do the things he told him to do? What would neighbors who overheard their conversation have thought? Also, do you think Moses knew God and His will as well as Jesus Christ did? Was it Moses' job to perfectly reveal the character of the Father? Isn't it true that God's character was misunderstood until Christ completed His job of revealing it? If so, wouldn't it stand to reason that Moses' understanding of it was imperfect? Can there be any better way of understanding God's character than to examine the life and teachings of Christ? (No, there can't be).

M: Do you believe it when it says in the Bible that Jesus commanded Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to death? Or, do you suspect Moses misunderstood what Jesus said? For example, in the Bible it says: “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.” “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. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.” Also, do you think the father teaching his son how to hunt humanely is the same thing as Jesus commanding Moses to stone to death the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer? Is hunting animals and killing humans equal in the eyes of God? Did the father command his son to hunt humanely?

T: There's a pattern in our conversations where you pass over my questions, and simply ask me more questions. For example, I asked you seven questions, and you didn't answer any of them.

Here’s the answers to your questions:

1. Did the father of the hunter son command his son to do the things he told him to do? No.
2. What would neighbors who overheard their conversation have thought? They would have been impressed the father was willing to help his son hunt humanely even though the father was not in favor of it.
3. Also, do you think Moses knew God and His will as well as Jesus Christ did? No.
4. Was it Moses' job to perfectly reveal the character of the Father? No.
5. Isn't it true that God's character was misunderstood until Christ completed His job of revealing it? Yes.
6. If so, wouldn't it stand to reason that Moses' understanding of it was imperfect? Yes.
7. Can there be any better way of understanding God's character than to examine the life and teachings of Christ? If people were forced to choose only one of the many different ways God has revealed Himself to learn the truth about Him, then no, there is no one way better than studying the life and teachings of Jesus while He was here in the flesh.

Now, please answer my questions. Thank you.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/06/11 10:30 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
M: Up to now, everything that has happened has been tempered with mercy. That is, not until the seven last plagues will Jesus pull out all the stops - "unmixed with mercy". All along Jesus has held back, that is, He has established and enforced limits, limits which neither holy angels nor evil angels have been allowed to exceed. Jesus (not sin, not sinners, not Satan) is the one who determines when, where, and how impenitent sinners will be punished. It is not up to Satan to determine. "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

T: It's a huge mistake to view God as responsible for these things.

Quote:
It was generally believed by the Jews that sin is punished in this life. Every affliction was regarded as the penalty of some wrongdoing, either of the sufferer himself or of his parents. It is true that all suffering results from the transgression of God's law, but this truth had become perverted. Satan, the author of sin and all its results, had led men to look upon disease and death as proceeding from God,--as punishment arbitrarily inflicted on account of sin. Hence one upon whom some great affliction or calamity had fallen had the additional burden of being regarded as a great sinner.

Thus the way was prepared for the Jews to reject Jesus. He who "hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows" was looked upon by the Jews as "stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted;" and they hid their faces from Him. Isa. 53:4, 3.

God had given a lesson designed to prevent this. The history of Job had shown that suffering is inflicted by Satan, and is overruled by God for purposes of mercy. But Israel did not understand the lesson. The same error for which God had reproved the friends of Job was repeated by the Jews in their rejection of Christ. (DA 471)

M: I do not understand how your response addresses my comments.

T: You wrote as if God were responsible for the things you were speaking of. I addressed that by pointing out that it would be a huge mistake to view God as responsible, and cited texts to explain why.

Of course Jesus was responsible for ensuring evil angels did not exceed the limits He imposed on them. That is, Jesus did not let them cause more death and destruction than He was willing to permit. Do you agree?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/06/11 10:46 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
T: Oh I see what you're saying. Actually the phrase, "punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God” conveys the idea that the punishment visited upon them was not due to a direct decree of God. This means it wasn't God's will. Also, the context makes clear what was happening. She repeats, over and over again (reminiscent of DA 764) that the things that happened were NOT due to something God did, but to the actions of others. Indeed, one wonders how she could have made this clearer.

M: Jesus was forced to withdraw His protection and to permit His enemies to inflict punishment upon the Jews in 70 AD.

T: To inflict suffering and death would be clearer, I think.

M: Said punishment was inflicted because Jesus permitted it.

T: This isn't very clear either, IMO. It can convey the false impression that Jesus was somehow behind the suffering that occurred. The way the SOP puts it is like this: “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 ... (GC 35) This is clearer, IMO.

M: He also worked to prevent His enemies from exceeding the limits He imposed on them. In essence Jesus orchestrated the outcome.

T: I can't think of a worse way of putting it that this! This is pretty much saying exactly the reverse of what Ellen White said. Here's the GC passage:

Quote:
(1)The Jews had forged their own fetters; they had filled for themselves the cup of vengeance. (2)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. (3)Says the prophet: "O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself;" "for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity." Hosea 13:9; 14:1. (4)Their sufferings are often represented as a punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God. (5)It is thus that the great deceiver seeks to conceal his own work. (6)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. (7)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. (8)It is the restraining power of God that prevents mankind from passing fully under the control of Satan. (9)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. (10)But when men pass the limits of divine forbearance, that restraint is removed. (11)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. (12)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. (GC 35-37)

I added the numbers, obviously. I count 12 statements at odds with your assertion. Clearly if Jesus Christ were orchestrating the whole thing, the following, for example, could not be true: “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 were orchestrating the execution of the sentence, then He *would* be standing toward the sinner as an executioner of their sentence. I don't see how this could be more clearly stated.

Do you agree Jesus worked to prevent evil men and evil angels from inflicting more death and destruction than He was willing to permit? Or, do you think evil men and evil angels willingly restrained themselves in order not to displease God and exceed Jesus’ limits?

Also, did evil men and evil angels do anything Jesus' wasn't willing to permit?

Did Jesus force evil men and evil angels to inflict the death and destruction He deemed right and necessary?

Were evil men and evil angels free to refuse to inflict the death and destruction Jesus deemed right and necessary?

Who would have inflicted the death and destruction Jesus deemed right and necessary if the Roman soldiers and evil angels had refused to do it?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/07/11 02:05 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
T:I'll get to the points your listing later, but I really don't get these comments in regards to Ellen White.

NJK:To immediately address this apparent hang up here, I had actually addressed it earlier (see starting at the end of this post (#132576), (see also here (#132696) indeed without a pertinent need to go into the wider subject of inspiration. Again, EGW was not inerrant, did not speak/write ex-cathedra and was not infallible, so all that she claims can and must be tested, and that by the Greater light of Scripture. The proof of the veracity of her statements is if it harmonizes with the Theological nature and substantive testimony of already given Revelation (i.e., the Bible). (Isa 8:20; 1 Thess 5:19-21; cf. Acts 17:11)


This is the test of whether she is a prophet. This is a pass/fail test. If she doesn't agree with Scripture, she is to be rejection, which rejection would include *all* of her work.

Quote:
To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. (Isa. 8:20)


Both she and Scripture taught the same thing. Examiner closely the claim of being a prophet (or, in EGW's case, of being divinely inspired, since she didn't use the title "prophet" to describe her work), and come to a conclusion one way or another if the person is inspired. If the answer is yes, then the writings are accept; it not, they are rejected.

There is no such thing as a person being divinely inspired some of the time, like for this article, but not that one, or is (s)he says, "I was shown," but not is (s)he doesn't say the magic words.

Quote:

Originally Posted By: Tom
If Ellen White is an inspired writer, then surely what she wrote in regards to how her writings should be used should be given weight, yet you are acting contrary to her counsel, doing what she said should not be done.

NJK:If EGW had said she was infallible, then you would have an incontrovertible argument here.


Her claiming to write under inspiration from God is sufficient for the argument. I believe she wrote infallibility pertain to God alone. Yes, here's an example:

Quote:
We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and Heaven alone are infallible. Those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed. As long as we hold to our own ideas and opinions with determined persistency, we cannot have the unity for which Christ prayed. {CET 203.2}


Quote:
NJK:But she never made such a claim for herself and made it transparently clear that she sought to complement her direct revelations with her Theological and Spiritual/Experiential understandings, which at times she corrected, even wrongly.


Here are some typical statements of hers:

Quote:
I cannot at my own impulse take up a work and launch out into it. I have to be impressed by the Spirit of God. I cannot write unless the Holy Spirit helps me. Sometimes I cannot write at all. Then again I am aroused at eleven, twelve, and one o’clock; and I can write as fast as my hand can move over the paper.—Letter 11, 1903. {3SM 49.1}


Quote:
Sister White is not the originator of these books. They contain the instruction that during her lifework God has been giving her. They contain the precious, comforting light that God has graciously given his servant to be given to the world.—Colporteur Ministry, 125. {3SM 50.4}


Quote:
I do not write one article in the paper expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision—the precious rays of light shining from the throne.—Testimonies for the Church 5:67. {3SM 50.5}


Quote:
Originally Posted By: Tom
In this case you might as well just reject her entirely.

NJK:I have never seen nor felt that need, however, quite to the contrary, I have been implicitly impressed to ‘test what she has said and hold on to what is good’, 1 Thess 5:19-21 indeed when I first, and quite shockingly started to discover some of the exegetical deficiencies in her writings.


You've seen what she claimed from what I quoted above.

Do you think inspiration worked differently for her than for the Bible writers? I think, if I recall correctly, you wrote previously that you don't see inspiration as working differently, but that she was more prone to errors because of living in a time and culture further removed from previously written Scripture than other Scripture authors were. Am I correctly representing your view here?

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Tom
In another post, you argued with Elle, because she *wasn't* taking into account what Ellen White wrote.

NJK:That is indeed what I feel. I actually have a problem pointedly with how you either wrongly and/or selectively, even ignoringly, treat her writings, and that without bothering to give any explanation, and all of that, when a statement she made does not agree with the parts of her writings which you claim support your view. I on the other hand take all of her writings/statements into full consideration, and do transparently object to some for substantive reasons. I also give more weight to her direct revelations over the ones that were not from such a directly inspired source.


I accept her statements to be as inspired as Scripture. I have often made the point that all she says needs to be taken into account when discussing a subject. I'm sure you've read me saying that.

I think the thing to do is to try to understand the big picture, the "core" of the writer. That makes it less likely to incorrectly understand the writer's intent.

In relation to our present discussion, Ellen White makes certain statements in regards to God's character and how God works. This makes it often possible for me to anticipate what she'll say on a given subject before finding the quote. I know, based on things she's written elsewhere, if she speaks on the subject she'll say X; so it's just a question if she said anything about that particular subject.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Tom
Ellen White wrote that everything she wrote for public consumption (or spoke) was not of herself, but she only wrote what God impressed her to write (or speak).

NJK:You have not provided the reference for that claimed statement.


Yes I have. I've also repeated it here.

Section 2 of 3SM has many chapters on inspiration, and Chapter 7 speaks directly to this subject.

Quote:
Perhaps this dedicated thread for that purpose could help.


That would be fine, if you wanted to open such a thread. By the way, I opened a thread based on a statement you wrote, regarding God loving some people more than others, if you wish to comment.

Quote:
NJK:If true and strictly applied, that would mean that all of her writings were (directly) inspired.


This was her understanding, as you can verify in the 3SM chapters.

Quote:
That would lead to several problems in regards to her corrections and errors, among other applicable problematic areas.


This was not her understanding.

Quote:
As I said, I only see EGW making honest mistakes, as these were based upon her actual knowledge of the Bible.


Which would be the same in regards to other inspired writers, correct?

Quote:

Originally Posted By: Tom
She does not allow for the selective grabbing of what she wrote that you are doing.

NJK:That is actually what you are, at least effectively, doing. E.g., the Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, The Flood, Nadab and Abihu, among many others. [“Reminder”: Don’t forget the remainder of this pertinent post (#133009b) which you have not yet fully answered (See here (#133207)) and apparently left open to not answering (= your “more later perhaps”??).


I'm not going to have time to address everything. I'm responding to things as I have time. This is why I asked you for direction. If you'd prefer that I continue responding to 133009 before looking at these more recent posts, I'll be happy to do so.

Quote:
Answer that part of that would/should transparently explain why you are also not seeing EGW’s view on these events as she says they occurred.]


The person in vision records what was seen in vision. The understanding of what that means develops over time, which can be seen in her writings. In Early Writings, she writes out visions, with "I was shown," etc. In later writings, she writes things based on the same vision, but using different words ("I was shown" is left out, for example). But it's still the same vision being described (although she may have had additional visions in the mean time).

The "Desire of Ages" is a good example of this. What she wrote on the life of Christ was developed from earlier writings from many different sources, including "Early Writings," "The Spirit of Prophecy," "Spiritual Gifts," magazine articles, and so forth. These were compiled together in the book, "The Desire of Ages," and sometimes changed or added to (in terms of working and explanations).

So if she writes she saw this occur, or that occur, it could be completely accurate, with her words appearing to convey a thought different to that expressed elsewhere. For example, if she wrote she say such and such destroyed, then that's what she saw, and this is accurate, but there's no way to tell what the mechanism was, in terms of God's having caused the thing to occur or having permitted it to occur. Also, we recall that God often presents Himself in Scripture as doing that which He permits. There's no reason to assume that He wouldn't similarly present Himself to Ellen White.

So how do we know what's going on? By looking at the big picture, but considering the principles involved. For example, when she writes:

Quote:
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. 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)


this provides information as to how God runs His government, and gives clues as to what's happening.

I'll have to get the rest of this later.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/07/11 08:55 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
T:You think Christ works to save some, because of their actions, but others He leaves to be lost?

NJK:From many examples in the Bible, God|Jesus treats each person individually, according to the light they had. So e.g., in Moses’s case (Exod 4:24-26), a pagan could live a peaceful life despite not having circumcised his sons, but for Moses that was an eminent, now confronting, life or death issue. God read hearts, as Jesus was Spiritually empowered to do, and thus His pointed responses are always judiciously fitting and deserved, and individually tailored.


This doesn't look to address my question, which is, "You think Christ works to save some, because of their actions, but others He leaves to be lost?"

I believe God is working to save all, without exception.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Tom
Consider the words of Paul: It is a saying worthy of acceptance that Christ came to save sinners, of whom I am chief. This is how I feel. I'm sure it's how Simon felt, and Nicodemus, and anyone else who has been saved by Christ. I hope it's how you feel.

NJK:Not to take anything away from that Biblical Truth, that actually sidesteps the present issue that God’s fitting dealings with forwardly manifested, indifferent hypocrisy. God’s love of the sinner, does not excuse, nor certainly, “respect”, such heightened level of sinfulness.


This doesn't seem responsive either.

Here's what I wrote in context:

Quote:
NJK:That mere public association, indeed vs. Nicodemus covert one, almost automatically put Simon at odds with the rest of the other Jewish leaders. As EGW says:

Originally Posted By: SOP DA 557.1
Simon of Bethany was accounted a disciple of Jesus. He was one of the few Pharisees who had openly joined Christ's followers. He acknowledged Jesus as a teacher, and hoped that He might be the Messiah, but he had not accepted Him as a Saviour. His character was not transformed; his principles were unchanged.

So Christ had ample tangible reasons to be most patient with this relatively brave and faith action.

T:You're thinking Christ would have said, "Off with you! Go ahead and be eternally damned!" if He had not had these "tangible reasons?" I really don't understand your thinking here. You think Christ works to save some, because of their actions, but others He leaves to be lost?

Consider the words of Paul: It is a saying worthy of acceptance that Christ came to save sinners, of whom I am chief. This is how I feel. I'm sure it's how Simon felt, and Nicodemus, and anyone else who has been saved by Christ. I hope it's how you feel.


When you wrote, "So Christ had ample tangible reasons to be most patient with this relatively brave and faith action," the implication is that Christ would not have been patient had He not had ample reason. Given Simon's hypocrisy, in actual fact, Christ had reason not to be patient. But Christ is patient, as such is His character.

I pointed out from the SOP that had Christ not been so tactful and gentle with Simon, Simon would have been lost. What I'm getting at is that your position seems to be had Simon uttered his thoughts out loud, then Simon would have been lost, because in this case Christ would not have been patient with him. I see no sense in this position, given the importance of a soul to Christ.

Quote:
Quote:
NJK: however he partly swallowed his pride here, which warranted this merciful treatment.

Tom: What "warranted this merciful treatment" was not any action on Simon's part, but Christ's character. Christ is merciful, so He treated Simon with mercy.


{...}

Quote:
NJK: Mercy was being shown because these sharply objecting thoughts were nonetheless suppressed by Simon.

Tom: Mercy is not merited! Mercy was shown because Christ is merciful. That is His character, as proclaimed to Moses.

NJK:Like the OT God, and how He actually revealed it to Moses, ‘Christ exercises this mercy on whoever He chooses to have mercy.’ (Exod 33:19). If God ‘has to be merciful’ it is no longer mercy, but an obligation. And furthermore, that means that He can never not be merciful, i.e., deal/allow judgement.


This doesn't look responsive either. My point was that mercy is not merited, that God is not merciful because we deserve it, but on the basis of His own character, which is merciful. It's true that God is merciful to whomever He choose to have mercy on, but God is not a respecter of persons, and He chooses to be merciful to anyone who sincerely desires mercy.

I'm reminded of the following:

Quote:
“No man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto Me.” None will ever come to Christ, save those who respond to the drawing of the Father’s love. But God is drawing all hearts unto Him, and only those who resist His drawing will refuse to come to Christ. {DA 387.4}


If the reason why I'm reminded of this quote isn't clear, I'll explain why.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Tom
Mercy is akin to grace in that it's *unmerited* (or "unwarranted") favor, given by one to another not because the other deserves it, but out of the kindness of the one granting it.

NJK:Mercy|grace|forgiveness is granted to only those who seek it.


Which is anyone who doesn't refuse the drawing of God, as per the above quote.

Quote:
And in Simon’s deferential approach, despite feeling otherwise, Jesus saw that he was deserving of this discreet approach, eventhough that unexpressed hypocrisy still had to be rebuked.


No, Simon wasn't deserving of mercy. That's a contradiction in terms. Simon didn't even want mercy. He wasn't seeking it. He was just complaining in his heart against Christ. It was *Christ* who, by His love and the way He treated Simon, moved Simon to repent. Simon was in no way being deferential in his approach.

Quote:
But it was Simon’s ignorance of God and of Christ that led him to think as he did. He did not realize that God’s Son must act in God’s way, with compassion, tenderness, and mercy. Simon’s way was to take no notice of Mary’s penitent service. Her act of kissing Christ’s feet and anointing them with ointment was exasperating to his hardheartedness. He thought that if Christ were a prophet, He would recognize sinners and rebuke them. {DA 566.3}...

Simon’s coldness and neglect toward the Saviour showed how little he appreciated the mercy he had received. He had thought he honored Jesus by inviting Him to his house. But he now saw himself as he really was. While he thought himself reading his Guest, his Guest had been reading him. He saw how true Christ’s judgment of him was. His religion had been a robe of Pharisaism. He had despised the compassion of Jesus. He had not recognized Him as the representative of God. While Mary was a sinner pardoned, he was a sinner unpardoned. The rigid rule of justice he had desired to enforce against her condemned him. {DA 567.4}
The Desire of Ages, p. 567.5 (EGW)

Simon was touched by the kindness of Jesus in not openly rebuking him before the guests. He had not been treated as he desired Mary to be treated. He saw that Jesus did not wish to expose his guilt to others, but sought by a true statement of the case to convince his mind, and by pitying kindness to subdue his heart. Stern denunciation would have hardened Simon against repentance, but patient admonition convinced 568him of his error. He saw the magnitude of the debt which he owed his Lord. His pride was humbled, he repented, and the proud Pharisee became a lowly, self-sacrificing disciple. {DA 567.5}


This explains the points I've been making. On the part of Christ, "compassion, tenderness, and mercy." On the part of Simon, a hard heart, lack of appreciation, coldness, etc. But he was moved to repentance by how Christ treated him.

Quote:
NJK:So Simon only fittingly obtained “mercy/grace” for the manner in which He was to be rebuked.


"He" is Christ? Christ was to be rebuked?

Quote:
Quote:
NJK: This view of your has already been disproven by how Jesus actually dealt with prideful objectors throughout his minsitry, including defaulty with Jewish leaders from the very start of his ministry.

Tom: No sir! Christ *died* for these "prideful objectors," a most horrible death. This is how He "dealt" with them. He loved them, and gave His life for them.

NJK:Just emphatically saying “No” does not change the substantive text.


There are three sentences after the emphatic no. Characterizing the above as "Just emphatically saying 'No'" is clearly off base.

Quote:
(cf. also Deut 7:9-11; 1 Kgs 8:23)


If you wish texts to be considered, please cite what the texts way. Otherwise don't bother, as what's the point?

Quote:
Christ effectively died for everyone, but what actually made Him fully go through with is were His ‘faithful friends’ (John 15:13, 14);


His friends deserted Him when He most needed them in Gethsemane. They wouldn't even stay awake to pray in His hour of greatest need.

Quote:
“following sheep” (John 10:11) and the many sinners who would accept this sacrifice. (AA 601.2).


What possible reason could you have for not citing the text of AA 601.2? Surely the "Bible works" excuse doesn't work here. I'm sure you don't have AA 601.2 memorized. You had to have had it front of you to know what it said. You looked for it, found it, and had it in front of you, but couldn't be bothered to copy/paste it?

How long did it take you to find this text? I'd guess at least a minute, probably several. Certainly a good portion of a minute, at least. How long would it take to copy/paste the text? 5 seconds?

It's really difficult to understand why you won't copy/paste these texts that are right in front of you.

Quote:
NJK:Giving everything up and engaging in finding the ‘lost sheep/coin’ is pointedly speaking of Christ’s incarnation, but not necessarily of His “baptism of blood” death (DA 690.3) which indeed was an entirely different ordeal. And that was indeed a “decision” (DA 693.1) that He had to take and not ‘just naturally do it’ (cf. Luke 12:49, 50). So in a most realistic way, those who ‘pridefully objected’ to Jesus only benefited from the fact that ‘Jesus had “friends” who depended on Him to “go all the way,”’ including a throng of dead OT saints. That fact indeed made the cross effectively entirely bearable for Him.


Here's what I wrote:

Quote:
Christ *died* for these "prideful objectors," a most horrible death. This is how He "dealt" with them. He loved them, and gave His life for them.


You're disagreeing with this? Your point in the last few paragraphs is to demonstrate that what I wrote here is not the case?

Quote:
Quote:
NJK: In fact the only, relatively, “plain” statement I see Christ making to, inclusively some of these leaders during his ministry, before the Matt 23 plain statements, was in Luke 4:21, which was in contrast to the reading of Isa 61:1, 2 which had been ‘well received’ (vs. 22; cf. DA 236.4-237.2) however Christ immediately enjoined this spiritually glib reception with cutting words that led these people to become filled with murderous rage vss. 23-30. (Cf. DA 237.3ff)


I cited several examples of plain statements.

Quote:
Tom: You didn't quote anything here, so I have no comment.

NJK:That’s again is just an excuse, and the Truth from that passage still stands.


If you wish to have things considered, take the time to copy/paste them. And you should also explain why you think the text being referenced applies to the point you're making. Just quoting something like "AA 601.2" is pointless.

Quote:
NJK:Let’s just say, you, at least, and anyone else who may subscribing to this “excusing”, will be the one(s) who will not be aware of the revealed Truth here.


If you want someone to be aware of something, make that something clear by citing the text, as others do (all others, excepting you).

Quote:
Quote:
Tom: How did Christ treat Saul? (who would become Paul)

NJK:As I see it, indeed as discussed in this one (#132406), Jesus found enough genuine and non-hypocritical honesty in this most gifted and “electable” vessel of Saul, to present Him a fitting (and actually faith cementing) “opportunity” to from then live a life of utter trials for the sake of the Gospel.


Paul was persecuting Christ. Christ saw someone who, if presented the Gospel, might respond to it, so He did so. Christ's behavior was not based on anything meritorious on Paul's part, as persecuting Christ does not constitute merit, but on the basis of His own gracious character.

Quote:
Quote:
NJK: Also Christ would be dealing with unexpressed thoughts, so, as to not compel faith here, he had to veiledly address this opposition, as He mercifully deemed it necessary.

Tom: This sentence doesn't make sense. At any rate, Christ's motivation was the salvation of Simon.

NJK: It does when you carefully read it.

Tom: How so? How would Christ be compelling faith?

NJK:Christ was dealing with Simon disbelief that Jesus was a prophet in regards to His non-objecting to Mary. So if Christ had explicitly said: “I am reading from your thoughts Simon that...” then Simon would really have no other choice than to be compelled to believe.


That wouldn't have made Simon believe. It would have done the reverse, causing him not to believe. This is explained in the DA passage. It was because Christ did NOT speak explicitly, but in a way hidden to others, that Simon believed.

Quote:
NJK:But by not letting on as if he had read Simon thoughts, Simon was still left to accept this in faith, on top of first accepting it as a just rebuke, as he could have easily vexatiously discounted it.

Quote:
NJK: Mercy is what leads to salvation for people at fault like Simon was here. And Simon, who should have known better, did not deserve this patient treatment.

Tom: Right! Simon did not deserve the treatment he received from Christ, which is why it was mercy. And neither do we deserve the treatment we receive from Christ.

NJK:Like I had been saying/meant all along, Simon exercised suppressing option is pointedly what warranted the discreet manner of this response.


Simon did not warrant the discreet manner of the response, and even he was aware of that (see the DA passage). It was Christ's lovingkindness that led Christ to treat Simon as he did. It is entirely to Christ's credit, none belonging to Simon, that Christ treated him as he did.

And this is the case for all upon whom Christ extends mercy. It's always unwarranted, from the standpoint of the one receiving mercy. We deserve nothing but death. We don't deserve mercy. Not a one of us. Not Simon, not Saul, not anybody.

Quote:
The issue of Simon sin of hypocrisy is a distinct matter.

Originally Posted By: Tom
(More later, perhaps).


Why, as logically impliable: ‘“Perhaps” ‘not more’’ in regards to the substantive remainder of my post (#133009)??


As I explained, I don't have unlimited time. I've asked for guidance on our part as to how I should prioritize my responses to you.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/07/11 11:31 AM

Tom: Though I can "debunkingly" respond your comments/arguments in both posts #133310 & #133319, I am seeing them as side issues for now. So, and also for the sake of my time, I'll forebear responding to them, at least for now and/or for quite a while. (Notwithstanding, succinctly said about EGW, there is substantive and inspired counsel to indeed test what she has written against the Bible. She of course did not aim to speak her own thoughts/opinions, but she did make, and even correct her own, mistakes. If what she had written only what the Holy Spirit was showing/telling her to write then that would not have happened. So she did base some views/comments on her various Biblical understanding at/up to that time.)*

I see that the “proof” of this discussion is in more directly pointedly pertinent issues than these. So do start by responding to the remaining part of #133009. (Same goes for Post #133185) I thought that my prior two bold reminders of this, actually clearly meant this!? Why don’t/won’t you bindingly see such statements that way??

*In regards to Paul, I Theologically see and believe that God “elects” the relatively best candidates, as He sees fit, especially in firstfruit circumstances. It was thus that Jesus chose 11, from a larger group of “disciples”.

Also, I personally don’t require that you answer my posts right away. You can take a month or how ever long you require. That would allow you to respond to everything I post (and same thing for me.) If you entirely won’t answer a specific post then indicate so. Then I’ll know when your responses have ended.

Also, again, clicking the pertinent reply links would be most helpful, at least to me. Why don’t/won’t you do this?? Absolutely no reference is being generated/indicated by your current ‘latest thread post’ practice.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/09/11 07:28 PM

Quote:
M: 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.

T: Why do you think I said this?

M: Were these particular enemies evil angels? If not, who were they?

T: Please quote something I've said. I don't know where you're getting these ideas from.

M: Are you refusing to address questions relating to N&A and the two bands of fifty?

T: No, I'm asking you to please quote something I've said, because I don't understand where you're getting your ideas from. That isn't clear to you?

M: It was Ellen who said so. You agreed with her.

T: You're suggesting that Ellen White said these particular enemies were evil agents?

M: Inspiration makes it clear the fire that burned N&A alive blazed out from the presence of God in the most holy place. Similarly, fire flashed from heaven in response to Elijah’s prayers to burn alive the two different bands of fifty. Do you believe Jesus withdrew His protection and permitted His enemies to burn them alive? So far you have not answered this question plainly. Please do so.

T: You haven't answered my questions. Please any my questions, which I asked first.

M:To answer your question ("Why do you think I said this") you haven't actually stated who or what you believe caused the fire that blazed out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned N&A alive.


Then why did you write, "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."

Notice you wrote, "who you say caused fire to blaze out ..." Why did you write this?

Quote:
M:Would you mind answering the question?


We discussed this at length in the past. I have no desire to repeat the conversation. I've explained why in detail as well.

Quote:
Christ's Revelation of God (Section title in book)

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}

"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. {8T 286.2}

Taking humanity upon Him, Christ came to be one with humanity and at the same time to reveal our heavenly Father to sinful human beings. He was in all things made like unto His brethren. He became flesh, even as we are. He was hungry and thirsty and weary. He was sustained by food and refreshed by sleep. He shared the lot of men, and yet He was the blameless Son of God. He was a stranger and sojourner on the earth--in the world, but not of the world; tempted and tried as men and women today are tempted and tried, yet living a life free from sin. {8T 286.3}

Tender, compassionate, sympathetic, ever considerate of others, He represented the character of God, and was constantly engaged in service for God and man. {8T 286.4}

T: Please explain to me how this can mean that NOT every thing man needs to know, or can know, of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son, when He "took humanity upon Him."

M: Please refer to the many passages I posted earlier (omitted by you). As a whole they make clear the point. Do not make the mistake of basing your idea on one passage. Also, “needs to know” is not the same thing as “everything there is to know”.

T: Let's just deal with one passage. Please cite the passage which you think most clearly articulates the idea that NOT everything that man needs to know, or can know, of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son, and we can discuss that passage. I'm not aware of any passage which contradicts this idea. I didn't see any such contradiction or implication in any passage you cited.

M:You wrote, "Let's just deal with one passage." Is this right or wise? Doesn't such an idea fly in the face of everything we believe about arriving at the truth?


It's better to have a passage explained, with some point, then to quote a whole bunch of passages with no point explained.

Quote:
M:I believe the passage in 8T 286 makes it clear Jesus revealed what we need to know about God. However, as stated before, "needs to know" is not the same thing as "everything there is to know".


She said both. She said, "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 last part, and cited many passages to establish this point. I'm asking you to cite whichever one you think makes the point most clearly (or 2 or 3 if you wish is fine), and explain what that point is.

Quote:
M:It is impossible to establish the 28 fundamental beliefs based solely on what Jesus said and did while here in the flesh.


Why are you asking this question? When you ask questions like this, which look to be unrelated to our conversation, please explain why you're asking them.

Also, please answer the questions put to you which are related to our conversation.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/09/11 08:33 PM

Quote:
T: We spoke of this in detail in the past. I have no desire to repeat that conversation. I'll reiterate that I believe that the principles of GC 35-37 hold in all such cases, and that the specifics of how God removes His protection (whether in regards to evil agents, oneself, natural disasters, health, accidents, or anything else) is not important.

M:You’re unwillingness to plainly state who caused fire to blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place to burn N&A alive is suspicious.


We spoke of this in detail in the past.

Quote:
We both agree fire is not self-acting; therefore, someone employed it to burn N&A alive. Both the Bible and the SOP plainly say it was Jesus who employed fire to burn N&A alive.


Actually neither says, "It was Jesus who employed fire to burn N&A alive."

Quote:
Nowhere does it say otherwise.


There are principles which disagree with the interpretation you're giving to the event.

Quote:
Assuming, as you do, the principles outlined in GC 35-37 apply to N&A smacks of “private interpretation” in light of the fact both the Bible and the SOP plainly say it was Jesus who employed fire to burn N&A alive.


GC 35-37 is a "private interpretation"?

Quote:
Assuming, as you do, it is “not important” who killed N&A also smacks of “private interpretation”.


The mechanism is not important. The principles are. if by killing them, you mean God's taking a direct action to cause them to die as opposed to permitting them to die, according to the principles of GC 35-37, and elsewhere, that would be important.

Quote:
M: As for me, I believe Jesus is, as sovereign Lord and King, ultimately in control of the outcome of the great controversy – not sin, not sinners, and not Satan.

T: The Great Controversy is not a contest that can be decided by sovereignty; it's decided by evidence. God has been accused of certain things, things involving His character and the principles of His government. To make His case that He has been unjustly accused, God has chosen to allow things to play out, that His character may be seen in contrast with that of His accuser, as well as the principles of His government in contrast to the principles of his adversary's government.

M: That is, sin does not determine how the GC will play out, neither do sinners, nor does Satan.

T: Sinners and Satan have a part, as do all sentient beings.

M: Whether or not this or that choice plays out this or that way is entirely up to Jesus - not sin, not sinners, and not Satan.

T: No, this isn't the case. When a rapist chooses to rape, and that plays out in a rape victim being raped, that's not "entirely up to Jesus." You don't see the problem in asserting this?

M: True, His options are limited. He isn’t free to manage the outcome irrespective of the choice. For example, Jesus wasn’t free to manage Judas’ choice to betray Him in a way that would result in him sitting on the right or left hand of Jesus in the New Jerusalem.

T: This doesn't seem to be a related point to the discussion.

M: Whether or not this or that choice plays out this or that way is entirely up to Jesus - not sin, not sinners, and not Satan. Evil choices usually end in evil consequences. Exactly which evil consequence plays out is up to Jesus. Not that He makes it play out that way. But He does manage things so that they do not play out some other way. He either causes, commands, or permits.

T: So if a little child is abused, that's "entirely up to Jesus" (not sin, not sinners, and not Satan)? IMO, this is exactly backwards.

M:What do you believe? You haven’t been forthcoming.


This seems backwards to me. It seems to me I've been forthcoming, but you haven't. I've said exactly what I believe happens, and trying to find out what you believe.

What I believe is simple. Sentient beings have free will and use that free will to act contrary to God's will.

Quote:
M:Do you think it’s up to sin? Or, up to sinners? Or, up to Satan? Does Jesus have any say so? Does He have the right to intervene and prevent it (the abuse you specified above)? Or, is He required to sit back and do nothing?


This is typical. I asked you a question, but rather than answer it, you ask me 6 more.

Here's my question to you:

Quote:
So if a little child is abused, that's "entirely up to Jesus" (not sin, not sinners, and not Satan)? IMO, this is exactly backwards.


Please address the question before asking me six new questions, and, on top of that, state that *I'm* not being forthcoming.

Quote:
T: To state that evil angels never disobey Jesus Christ is not a fair accusation to make upon Christ. Of course they disobey Him, whenever they do evil. To think that evil angels are shackled so they only obey Christ's will is, I'm having difficulty coming up with words that aren't too strong here, I'll just say not fair to Christ. Also, it's not fair to them, as well, as, if they are not to a great extent free to do their will, then the Great Controversy is a sham. Finally, if they are not free to do their will, how do you explain the evil there is in the world?

M: As explained above, Jesus is in control – not sin, not sinners, and not Satan. Evil angels are only as free as Jesus allows. 1 Cor 10:13 is an example.

T: This doesn't address my question. My question is, if evil agents are not free to do their will, how do you explain the evil there is in the world? Please answer this question. For example, "The evil which exists in the world exists because ..." In particular, whose will is involved when evil occurs?

M:Evil angels are not free to tempt, torment, or terminate people at will. What they are allowed to do is tightly regulated by Jesus. The reason evil angels tempt, torment, and terminate people is because they are evil. The resulting evil that exists in our world is due to the fact evil angels act within the perimeters Jesus permits and controls.


Who's responsible for the evil in the world? Jesus? Or evil beings?

The way you phrase things sounds as if you believe God is responsible. I'm trying to give you every opportunity to correct this impression.

Quote:
M: And, the connection between sin and eternal death is real. Sin and sinners cannot abide in the presence of God. The radiant light of His glory consumes sinners with their sins. You seem to think it is sin, not the light of God’s radiant glory, that will consume sinners in final judgment.

T: I think the main difference between us in regards to what you just wrote in this paragraph is that you perceive the issue to be primarily physical, whereas I see it to be a spiritual matter involving one's character. For example, we read: “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. (DA 764) This, as it reads, states what I've been asserting. I don't understand how you get a physical idea out of this. It speaks of the wicked developing characters and revealing their principles. It says they receive the results of their choice, which, in context, is referring to their characters and principles. It says they are so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. This has to do with their character. It says the glory of Him who is love will destroy them. This also has to do with character. The glory of God is His character, and God's defining attribute is love. She refers to the "glory of Him who is love." From beginning to end, this is dealing with character. (More later)

M:Comparing laws regulating and requiring capital punishment is not the same as laws regulating and permitting polygamy. There multiple places in the Bible where Jesus commanded godly people to execute ungodly people in accordance with the laws regulating and requiring capital punishment. The laws regulating and requiring capital punishment are symbolic of final judgment. Punishment ending in eternal death is both physical and psychological. “His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy the” – not sin, not self, not Satan.


But it is sin. That's stated right in the context, in the sentence immediately preceding the one you are quoting. And the one before that as well, and before that, and before that. The whole paragraph is making the point you are denying.

It's amazing that you would take a phrase from a sentence and have it say the opposite of the intent of the author, divorcing it from its context, and what she had been communicating through great repetition. She could not have stated more clearly that the wicked die due to their own actions, as opposed to actions on the part of God, then what she stated. Yet you still interpret her to be saying the opposite.

It's similar to when she writes that all that man needs to know or can know of God was revealed in the life and character of her son, and you state that NOT all that man can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son.

Quote:
The light radiating from the person and presence of God will cause the wicked to suffer emotionally and physically according to their sinfulness eventually ending in eternal death.


Their character is the problem, as she states.

Quote:
You have yet to plainly explain what you think will cause the wicked to suffer emotionally and physically according to their sinfulness. Please do so. Thank you.


What?! I wrote pages and pages on this. For you to state I haven't addressed this is ridiculous. Please comment on what I've written.

We discussed this over a period of many months. How could you possibly have forgotten this?

If you want to bring this up again, please start a topic. I'd discuss it again if you want.

Don't say I haven't explained this, though. That's not fair.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/09/11 09:57 PM

Quote:
T: Of course it matters: “By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them ... (GC 35) If your wife were caused to withdraw her protection, as opposed to freely choosing to do so without being caused to do so, that would matter. Back to my analogy. You understand the point, right? You would know your wife, in the analogy, didn't cause the fire, because you know her character.

M:My wife, though a kind and caring and compassionate person, is, nevertheless, a sinner like everyone else.


She still has a character.

Quote:
M:I would reserve judgment until forensics proved who or what caused the fire that killed the person.


Really? You don't know your wife well enough to know she wouldn't burn people alive? And this is because she's a sinner? You're serious here?

Quote:
M:In the case of N&A, however, forensics prove it was Jesus who employed fire to burn them alive. You, on the other hand, seem to think it doesn’t matter who burned them alive.


Why do you think this? Please quote something I've written.

It seems to me you're doing a poor job reading what I'm writing. This is why I'm asking you to quote something. I'm sure what you're saying is not what I wrote.

Quote:
M:I know you believe Jesus permitted His enemies to employ fire to burn N&A alive.


Why do you think you know this? That is, what did I write to cause you to think you know this?

Quote:
My question to you is – Who employed the fire that killed them? And, how did they make it blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place?


I responded to this.

Quote:
M: “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. . . Since the flood, God has used both water and fire in the earth as his agents to destroy wicked cities. {1SP 84.3}

T: Scripture, and the SOP, often present God as doing that which He permits.

M: The GC concerns us as much as it does God. Jesus will not let Satan tempt us beyond His ability to empower us to resist. This ensures the GC is fair. Very clearly Satan is not free to do whatever he’d like to do. He must obtain permission from Jesus to tempt us or to harm us. What happens is by permission.

T: Clearly God must limit the evil which Satan does, or else he would destroy everyone, and there wouldn't be a Great Controversy. However, this must not be twisted around so one concludes that the evil which happens is God's will.

M: There are times, though, when Jesus Himself acts to punish impenitent sinners. Ellen wrote: “The bowels of the earth were the Lord's arsenal, from which he drew forth the weapons he employed in the destruction of the old world. . . Since the flood, God has used both water and fire in the earth as his agents to destroy wicked cities. {1SP 84.3}

T: Scripture, and the SOP, often present God as doing that which He permits.

M:If what Jesus permits evil angels to do is not His will, what, pray tell, is it?


Really? You think if Jesus permits an evil being to do something evil, that's His will? So if a child is abused, or killed, it's because that was Jesus' will?

You don't see a problem with this?

To answer your question, what, pray tell, is Jesus' will are things which are in harmony with His character, things expressing the principles of agape, the sorts of things Jesus taught and said and did while here in the flesh.

Quote:
Is it Jesus’ will to prevent evil angels from exceeding the limits He imposes on them?


It's His will they do no evil at all.

Quote:
Yes, there are places in the Bible where it portrays Jesus doing the things He permits His enemies to do; however, it smacks of “private interpretation” to assume passages like the ones in my last comment above must be forced to mean something they obviously do not specifically say.


This is pretty circular reasoning. "The Lord slew Saul" obviously says specifically something, as does "The Lord sent fiery serpents upon the Isarelites," and the other obvious, specific, examples which do not mean what they obviously specifically say. So what you're suggesting is simply not the case.

Quote:
Also, the absence of even one passage that applies the withdraw-permit principle of punishment to the passages posted in my last comment above is evidence against your point.


You're missing the whole point. In Scripture there are instances where it obviously specifically says something, but the obvious specific thing does not mean what it obviously specifically says. Sometime Scripture explains the meaning elsewhere. Sometimes the SOP explains it.

Someone who understands the principles involved, does not need the explanation else, because the principles are understood. The explanations elsewhere simply serve to back up what was already understood.

So, for example, the statement about those who received not the love of the truth being left to their own wrong ideas from the SOP, I knew to be the case before finding the statement. I knew she either said what she said, or didn't comment on it, because God does not cause people to believe lies; that's not His character.

The fact that you're wanting to find passages that state what is obviously specifically stated to not be the case is exactly the approach I've been arguing against for years.

Your approach is:

1.If the Scripture obviously specifically says something, then that must be the case

UNLESS

2.Either the Scripture or the SOP says it isn't somewhere else.

I've argued that this isn't a viable methodology of interpretation, which I think should be, to coin a word, "obvious."

I believe a better methodology is to look for the principles involved, and apply those principles when interpreting passages. That you think a certain passage should be interpreted a certain way (God burned people alive) is predicated on your believing God is a certain way (God burns people alive), or that His principles are a certain way (God's principles involve burning people alive).

I'm arguing that God's principles are a different way (It is contrary to God's principles to burn people alive), and that God is a certain way (e.g., God is not cruel; God is like Jesus Christ). Therefore, regardless of whether a specific given passage ("The Lord sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites") has some other explanation specifically stated by Scripture or the SOP, we can still know that the thing specifically and obvious stated did not happen in a certain way (e.g., God did not cause poisonous serpents to bite the Israelites).
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/09/11 10:13 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
Also, again, clicking the pertinent reply links would be most helpful, at least to me. Why don’t/won’t you do this?? Absolutely no reference is being generated/indicated by your current ‘latest thread post’ practice.


It's more difficult to work this way, as you can't see what's written on the page when you do this. That means you have to open a second browser, or copy/paste what you wrote and repost it with the "Reply." But I'll try to do what you're asking. (This is quite a lot more work than copying/paste a Scripture or SOP reference, by the way).
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/09/11 10:29 PM

(Sorry, I forgot to use the "Reply." This is in reply to a statement in post #133276.)

Originally Posted By: NJK
God does not dispense more than the basic life necessities upon those who hate and/or rebel against him.


Why do you think this? God is not stingy when it comes to blessings.

A couple of statements come to mind.

Quote:
The words spoken in indignation, “To what purpose is this waste?” brought vividly before Christ the greatest sacrifice ever made,—the gift of Himself as the propitiation for a lost world. The Lord would be so bountiful to His human family that it could not be said of Him that He could do more. In the gift of Jesus, God gave all heaven. From a human point of view, such a sacrifice was a wanton waste. To human reasoning the whole plan of salvation is a waste of mercies and resources. Self-denial and wholehearted sacrifice meet us everywhere. Well may the heavenly host look with amazement upon the human family who refuse to be uplifted and enriched with the boundless love expressed in Christ. Well may they exclaim, Why this great waste? {DA 565.4}
But the atonement for a lost world was to be full, abundant, and complete. Christ’s offering was exceedingly abundant to reach every soul that God had created. It could not be restricted so as not to exceed the number who would accept the great Gift. All men are not saved; yet the plan of redemption is not a waste because it does not accomplish all that its liberality has provided for. There must be enough and to spare. {DA 565.5}


Quote:
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. (GC 36)


Certainly the atonement is more than a basic life necessity. God provides this blessing to all, although many spurn it.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/10/11 12:55 AM

Quote:
M: He also worked to prevent His enemies from exceeding the limits He imposed on them. In essence Jesus orchestrated the outcome.

T: I can't think of a worse way of putting it that this! This is pretty much saying exactly the reverse of what Ellen White said. Here's the GC passage:

Quote:
(1)The Jews had forged their own fetters; they had filled for themselves the cup of vengeance. (2)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. (3)Says the prophet: "O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself;" "for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity." Hosea 13:9; 14:1. (4)Their sufferings are often represented as a punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God. (5)It is thus that the great deceiver seeks to conceal his own work. (6)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. (7)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. (8)It is the restraining power of God that prevents mankind from passing fully under the control of Satan. (9)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. (10)But when men pass the limits of divine forbearance, that restraint is removed. (11)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. (12)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. (GC 35-37)

I added the numbers, obviously. I count 12 statements at odds with your assertion. Clearly if Jesus Christ were orchestrating the whole thing, the following, for example, could not be true: “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 were orchestrating the execution of the sentence, then He *would* be standing toward the sinner as an executioner of their sentence. I don't see how this could be more clearly stated.

M:Do you agree Jesus worked to prevent evil men and evil angels from inflicting more death and destruction than He was willing to permit? Or, do you think evil men and evil angels willingly restrained themselves in order not to displease God and exceed Jesus’ limits?

Also, did evil men and evil angels do anything Jesus' wasn't willing to permit?

Did Jesus force evil men and evil angels to inflict the death and destruction He deemed right and necessary?

Were evil men and evil angels free to refuse to inflict the death and destruction Jesus deemed right and necessary?

Who would have inflicted the death and destruction Jesus deemed right and necessary if the Roman soldiers and evil angels had refused to do it?


What I'm taking issue with is your statement that, "In essence Jesus orchestrated the outcome." Your logic seems to be this:

1.God (or Jesus) did not permit X from happening.
2.Therefore He, in essence, orchestrated X.

The GC 35-37 statements make perfectly clear that God did not orchestrate X.

Also, just a little thought, should make it clear that to permit something to occur is not to orchestrate it. For example, a child is permitted to cross a street by its parent, and a bicyclist hits it. By your logic, the parent orchestrated this event.

Where do you get the idea that permitting an event to occur is, in essence, orchestrating it?

Also, the GC 35-37 statements, which I numbered, speak contrary to the orchestrating idea.

I also don't understand why you are phrasing the questions the way you are. For example:

Quote:
Were evil men and evil angels free to refuse to inflict the death and destruction Jesus deemed right and necessary?


Where in the GC 35-37 passage do you see any idea that the destruction happened because Jesus deemed it right and necessary? Really, how could she have communicated the reverse of these ideas any more clearly than she did?

Let me ask the question this way. What do you think her intent was in GC 35-37 in writing that these things happened because God withdrew His protection, as opposed to by means of a direct decree on His part?
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/10/11 06:14 AM

Quote:
NJK - Also, again, clicking the pertinent reply links would be most helpful, at least to me. Why don’t/won’t you do this?? Absolutely no reference is being generated/indicated by your current ‘latest thread post’ practice.

Tom: It's more difficult to work this way, as you can't see what's written on the page when you do this. That means you have to open a second browser, or copy/paste what you wrote and repost it with the "Reply." But I'll try to do what you're asking.


I don’t understand what your “difficulty” is here. I don’t see how you can reply to a post e.g,. 4 days before, by clicking on the latest post’s Reply link and not have two different posts opened. You do have to get the text of the post you are replying to from its original location, and either by copying the posted or after having clicked on its pertinent “Quote” link. Perhaps your replying process is different.

Originally Posted By: Tom
(This is quite a lot more work than copying/paste a Scripture or SOP reference, by the way).


Actually, factually, No. If I have a copious amount of Bible/SOP texts, e.g., 10+, as I normatively, corroboratingly endeavor to do in my posts, it is much more time consuming and involved to explicitly post each of them, than to only click on that pertinent “Reply” link! Just trying to relocate, page by page, which post you were reply from was in itself time consuming.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/10/11 06:28 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
(Sorry, I forgot to use the "Reply." This is in reply to a statement in post #133276.)


Actually you pertinently replied/posted here!

Quote:
NJK:God does not dispense more than the basic life necessities upon those who hate and/or rebel against him.

Tom: Why do you think this?


From the many miracles in the Bible that God did for His faithful people but not for those who “hated” Him. Indeed He actually acted adversarially for many of them, especially when timely and/or “object-lessonly” necessary, e.g., Mal 1:1-5.

Originally Posted By: Tom
God is not stingy when it comes to blessings.


You’ll need to quote a Bible text or SOP passage which says that God blesses the wicked. A As I see/understand it, a “blessing” is giving more than what can be naturally obtained, and usually through a supernatural act/intervention by God. Interestingly enough, in our day, people usually defaultly associate wealth with a blessing from God, e.g., ‘God Blessing America’. That relative worldly wealth actually is mostly self-generated from the Capitalistic game that the whole world is playing. Notwithstanding, I think that God had blessed the many pioneers of science in ca. the 1800's who laid the foundations for the great technological advances and derived wealth that we see today, by probably inspiring these mostly born again Christians with quite “far-out” ideas. Most of what is being developed today are just the perfecting of these ideas and application of the Sciences, virtually conceived by these sincere and genuine “Christian” minds. So in a way, the whole world is benefiting/being blessed by what God was able to do through such faithful people (). God’s Judeo-Christian heritage, established by God through Moses, is another currently still enjoyed “Blessing” of God to, originally, His faithful people.


Originally Posted By: Tom
A couple of statements come to mind.

Originally Posted By: SOP
The words spoken in indignation, “To what purpose is this waste?” brought vividly before Christ the greatest sacrifice ever made,—the gift of Himself as the propitiation for a lost world. The Lord would be so bountiful to His human family that it could not be said of Him that He could do more. In the gift of Jesus, God gave all heaven. From a human point of view, such a sacrifice was a wanton waste. To human reasoning the whole plan of salvation is a waste of mercies and resources. Self-denial and wholehearted sacrifice meet us everywhere. Well may the heavenly host look with amazement upon the human family who refuse to be uplifted and enriched with the boundless love expressed in Christ. Well may they exclaim, Why this great waste? {DA 565.4}
But the atonement for a lost world was to be full, abundant, and complete. Christ’s offering was exceedingly abundant to reach every soul that God had created. It could not be restricted so as not to exceed the number who would accept the great Gift. All men are not saved; yet the plan of redemption is not a waste because it does not accomplish all that its liberality has provided for. There must be enough and to spare. {DA 565.5}


Quote:
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. (GC 36)


Certainly the atonement is more than a basic life necessity. God provides this blessing to all, although many spurn it.


Actually: (1) humans who do not accept this Atonement provision, do not, and cannot, enjoy it or its “blessings”. Although those who are rejecting it, are actually enjoying derived blessings which are bestowed upon the faithful, as detailed above.

(2) Salvation is something Spiritual/Eternal. I was speaking of physical/material/temporal things that God “leads/gifts” people to tangibly and concretely have. Again, as seen throughout Ancient and New Israel’s History, even through the Remnant Church, God does not bless the wicked, -as I see it, at all, unless it is for a pointed GC/Prophecy fulfilling purpose. (E.g., Isa 45:1-4; cf. 46:11a). Indeed the SDA Church, were it but for God’s blessings through the guidance of the SOP, would not be as relatively, globally “wealthy” as it is today. E.g., comparable institutionally to the 1+ billion member Catholic Denomination, while itself having ca. 25 million people (including non-baptized children). In fact, the SDA Church is easily capable of being even much more wealthy, if it more faithfully and closely adhered to all of God’s wise and knowing counsels and timeless socio-economic principles. (E.g, Isa 58:10, 11).

So this blessing is freely and equally made available to all, but it is only enjoyed by those who accept/receive it, as you seem to also understand. However, until received, and thus actualized, it does not become an actual blessing to the “spurner”.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/10/11 08:46 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
Actually: (1) humans who do not accept this Atonement provision, do not, and cannot, enjoy it or its “blessings”.


Yes they do (not all of them, of course, but there are blessings from the atonement which all enjoy). This was a strong point of the 1888 message.

Originally Posted By: NJK
Although those who are rejecting it, are actually enjoying derived blessings which are bestowed upon the faithful, as detailed above.

(2) Salvation is something Spiritual/Eternal. I was speaking of physical/material/temporal things that God “leads/gifts” people to tangibly and concretely have. Again, as seen throughout Ancient and New Israel’s History, even through the Remnant Church, God does not bless the wicked, -as I see it, at all, unless it is for a pointed GC/Prophecy fulfilling purpose.


I'm not sure what you're wanting to say here. You said originally that God does not bless the wicked, except for basic life necessities. I don't know what you're including under this heading.

Let's consider someone who wins an Olympic gold medal. That's not a basic life necessity, I wouldn't think, but they obtain their medals due to blessings from God (and their own effort, of course).

Or if a person obtains wealth, they've obtained blessings from God to do so, including health and intelligence.

God affords the wicked with the blessings of protection, as the GC statement points out.

Quote:
(E.g., Isa 45:1-4; cf. 46:11a). Indeed the SDA Church, were it but for God’s blessings through the guidance of the SOP, would not be as relatively, globally “wealthy” as it is today. E.g., comparable institutionally to the 1+ billion member Catholic Denomination, while itself having ca. 25 million people (including non-baptized children). In fact, the SDA Church is easily capable of being even much more wealthy, if it more faithfully and closely adhered to all of God’s wise and knowing counsels and timeless socio-economic principles. (E.g, Isa 58:10, 11).

So this blessing is freely and equally made available to all, but it is only enjoyed by those who accept/receive it, as you seem to also understand. However, until received, and thus actualized, it does not become an actual blessing to the “spurner”.


You write "so this blessing is freely and equally available to all" after a paragraph talking about the wealth of the SDA church. I'm not following what "this blessing" is speaking of.

Here's a statement which deals with blessings of the atonement which are available to all:

Quote:
Our Lord has said, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. . . . For My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed." John 6:53-55. This is true of our physical nature. To the death of Christ we owe even this earthly life. The bread we eat is the purchase of His broken body. The water we drink is bought by His spilled blood. Never one, saint or sinner, eats his daily food, but he is nourished by the body and the blood of Christ. The cross of Calvary is stamped on every loaf. It is reflected in every water spring. All this Christ has taught in appointing the emblems of His great sacrifice. The light shining from that Communion service in the upper chamber makes sacred the provisions for our daily life. The family board becomes as the table of the Lord, and every meal a sacrament. (DA 660)
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/10/11 09:04 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
(This is quite a lot more work than copying/paste a Scripture or SOP reference, by the way).

Actually, factually, No.


Actually, factually, Yes. On a page, I can see all the texts for several posts, and go back and forth and copy/paste. If I do the "Reply" I lose that ability. I have to use some other source to copy/paste to, or do a preliminary run through, and then go back, and reply. Copy/paste a SOP reference that you're looking at is trivial compared to that.

Quote:
If I have a copious amount of Bible/SOP texts, e.g., 10+, as I normatively, corroboratingly endeavor to do in my posts, it is much more time consuming and involved to explicitly post each of them, than to only click on that pertinent “Reply” link! Just trying to relocate, page by page, which post you were reply from was in itself time consuming.


If you already have a list of texts, I can see that, but if it's something you're looking up, say an SOP reference, you're already there, so why not copy/paste it?

Also, if you just included the text of one reference, that would be helpful. You don't have to do all of them. Just the one you think best makes your post. Then leave it to the reader to follow up on the others; that would be reasonable.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/11/11 12:35 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
T:How do you understand the well-known text, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom?"

NJK:Succinctly said: It makes one wise to truly believe that there is a God, as their life will then be lived according to God’s Wise/Wiser ways.


Nicely put.

Quote:
NJK:I actually said that the type of judgement that EGW described in GC 35-37 (and not the Destruction of Jerusalem itself) must involve an organic, cause-to-direct-effect, act. As I see it, if God acts to prevent something, which only occurs when he stops this protection, then it really is not “organic.” That also includes what Satan pushes men to do. Case in point, since the Roman were idolatrous peoples why didn’t another nation destroy them.

That is why I find this “organic” requirement to be “stringently” artificial to this theological issue as it is clear that God judiciously chooses which sins he will permit to be immediately visited by its ultimate end result of death. That is why, as I said in my first post in this thread, all sins in Israel were not to be capitally punished.


The organic relationship I have in mind is that all bad things result from sin. If God were not involved at all, a being would sin, and death would follow immediately. This would not provide the opportunity for a being to see the (non-death) consequences of their choices. So God gives beings the opportunity to develop a character, that may or may not be in harmony with His own. I see DA 764 is talking about this:

Quote:
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. (DA 764)


The organic relationship is choose sin and die. This is expressed several times here, in different ways. If God were to allow this, a person wouldn't have the opportunity to develop a character. So God permits a person to sin and not die right away, so as to to develop a character, and have an opportunity to make the right decision.

There are a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which God protects us. We're not aware of most of these dangers, just a very, very small percentage, so do not recongize just how dangerous a thing sin is, nor to what extent we are dependent upon God and His protection.

Quote:
NJK: Also in regards to EGW saying:

Originally Posted By: SOP GC 36.1
“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.”

I see that this only applies, as she qualifies, “when men pass the limits of divine forbearance” and “that restraint is removed”. That then involves God not seeking to do any acts of mercy in a judgement. However, as seen in e.g., the Flood, the fiery serpents, the destruction of Sodom, the first destruction of Jerusalem, the most part of the War of the Jews, etc. God actually wanted to have and show mercy to anyone who would repent.


God always wants to have and to show mercy. We see this just as much in the destruction of Jersualem in A.D. 70. For example, the lamentation of Christ shows this.

Quote:
Also in some case, He wanted to limit/control the extent of destruction. (That is also reversedly present in the final Hell Fire judgement). So He was there standing as the administrator and executioner of this sentence, as EGW also understood (see also her later comments in GC 614.2).


You mean just the one sentence taken out of context, right? The rest of the paragraph is echoing what I've been saying:

Quote:
When He leaves the sanctuary, darkness covers the inhabitants of the earth. In that fearful time the righteous must live in the sight of a holy God without an intercessor. The restraint which has been upon the wicked is removed, and Satan has entire control of the finally impenitent. God's long-suffering has ended. The world has rejected His mercy, despised His love, and trampled upon His law. The wicked have passed the boundary of their probation; the Spirit of God, persistently resisted, has been at last withdrawn. Unsheltered by divine grace, they have no protection from the wicked one. Satan will then plunge the inhabitants of the earth into one great, final trouble. As the angels of God cease to hold in check the fierce winds of human passion, all the elements of strife will be let loose. The whole world will be involved in ruin more terrible than that which came upon Jerusalem of old.


This is not only making the same point, but referring to the same event! So one could hardly argue she's making a contrast here between her comments in GC 35-37 and what she's saying here.

Let's take a look at her comment from GC chapter one, that you're referring to:

Quote:
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.[/qutoe]

You're saying that you see the executioner comment as being limited to specifically when men pass the limits of divine forbearance, in which case the restraint is removed. I'm not understanding what you're wanting to contrast this with. In any case where judgment is involved, wouldn't it be the case that the limits of divine forbearance have been passed? You'd have to argue something along the lines that sometimes when this happens, God removes a restraint, and other times He does something Himself to cause the guilty party to suffer and/or die, wouldn't you? I don't see any difference in what causes the judgment to occur in the first place (the limits of divine forbeance have been passed).

[quote]NJK:You want this to apply to every judgement mentioned in the Bible but I don’t see this as being the intention of this EGW statement. I see it only applicable to pointed “absolutely no mercy” situations.


I'm not understanding this. The flood is a "no mercy" situation, right? So this would mean you see the principle as applying tot he flood then? I would agree with this, that the principle applies here, being what you call a "no mercy" situation, but I wouldn't think you would agree with this.

Also, what constitutes a "mercy" situation, as opposed to a "no mercy" situation?

The seven last plagues are a "no mercy" situation too. So you see the GC 35-37 description as applying to the seven last plagues as well?

Quote:
NJK:It also seems to me that when a natural destruction can’t or won’t occur in a timely way, then God intervenes to supernaturally bring that destruction about.


This presupposes that it is not necessary for God, as a general principle, to act to prevent natural disasters from occuring. I think we have a large disagreement here. The SOP tells us that God's intervention is needed to even keep the earth in proper orbit. I think sin has messed things up to the extent that God's intervention is needed to prevent the earth from destruction. When He ceases, then destruction occurs.

Quote:
NJK: I.e., not every sinful action will not lead to an “immediate” and even “organic” result.


All sin has selfishness as its root, which, apart from God's intervention, would lead to the result described above in the DA 764 quote.

Quote:
NJK:The penalty of all sin is death however not every sin tangibly, immediately has this physical consequence of a ‘naturally resulting death.’


Againg, the DA 764 statement looks to disagree with this.

Quote:
NJK:Hence God’s capital punishment provision for some of those sins.


So you're saying God doesn't have a capital punishment provsion for sins which *do* have organic consequences?

You seem to have the underlying idea that sin, of itself, is, at least in general, not very destructive to the one practicing it. So God must impose penalities to punish it, or it would go unpunished.

On the other hand, I see that sin is extremely destructive, and that we vastly underestimate to what extent, so that we consequently vastly underestimate God's activity in protecting us, and preventing its destructive work.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/11/11 01:04 AM

Quote:
NJK: Actually: (1) humans who do not accept this Atonement provision, do not, and cannot, enjoy it or its “blessings”.

Tom: Yes they do (not all of them, of course, but there are blessings from the atonement which all enjoy).

{...}

Tom:Here's a statement which deals with blessings of the atonement which are available to all:

Originally Posted By: SOP
Our Lord has said, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. . . . For My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed." John 6:53-55. This is true of our physical nature. To the death of Christ we owe even this earthly life. The bread we eat is the purchase of His broken body. The water we drink is bought by His spilled blood. Never one, saint or sinner, eats his daily food, but he is nourished by the body and the blood of Christ. The cross of Calvary is stamped on every loaf. It is reflected in every water spring. All this Christ has taught in appointing the emblems of His great sacrifice. The light shining from that Communion service in the upper chamber makes sacred the provisions for our daily life. The family board becomes as the table of the Lord, and every meal a sacrament. (DA 660)


I don’t see that in the DA 660 statement you quoted below. Life, Bread and Water are the very “basic necessities of (temporal) life” which indeed Christ’s death allows us to have. Especially in terms of Life. And also the “sun and rain” (Matt 5:45), which allow to grow food and obtain freshwater, on both the just and the unjust, as God could easily have not made it so, as seen in the Plagues of Egypt.

Originally Posted By: Tom
This was a strong point of the 1888 message.


Do cite some of those 1888 references.

Quote:
NJK: Although those who are rejecting it, are actually enjoying derived blessings which are bestowed upon the faithful, as detailed above.

NJK:(2) Salvation is something Spiritual/Eternal.

I was speaking of physical/material/temporal things that God “leads/gifts” people to tangibly and concretely have. Again, as seen throughout Ancient and New Israel’s History, even through the Remnant Church, God does not bless the wicked, -as I see it, at all, unless it is for a pointed GC/Prophecy fulfilling purpose. (E.g., Isa 45:1-4; cf. 46:11a).

Tom: I'm not sure what you're wanting to say here. You said originally that God does not bless the wicked, except for basic life necessities. I don't know what you're including under this heading.


The format correction above should show that I had made a summarizing topical shift, which addressed what I had meant by “basic necessities of [temporal] life”.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Let's consider someone who wins an Olympic gold medal. That's not a basic life necessity, I wouldn't think, but they obtain their medals due to blessings from God (and their own effort, of course).

Or if a person obtains wealth, they've obtained blessings from God to do so, including health and intelligence.


Or, along these surface lines, we can add, as it is popularly done, the vile entertainer who “Thanks God” for having won an award and who does have talent, was actually specifically blessed by God in both talent and success!!??

Completely contrary to this popular opinion, I don’t talent as a “blessing” from God, but just a naturally forming ability which can be dedicated to God. However, in the fact that nature can come to form such ability in a humans, then it so ultimately does originate with God. I rather see that, at times, especially in firstfruit circumstances, God searches the earth for people who have such naturally forming talents and seeks to get them to use them for His Glory.

So I don’t see “talents” as a specific blessings from God. They are indeed only “specifically” so when they are a gift of the Holy Spirit (COL 327.1).

Originally Posted By: Tom
God affords the wicked with the blessings of protection, as the GC statement points out.


I am assuming that you are referring to GC 35-37, however like I had said in Post #133274, (which you have not yet responded to), I see that the GC 35-37 is pointedly reserved for God’s once faithful professed people who have come to rebel against Him and not actually to the wicked. The “organic” possibility of utter destruction is seen with this group as the Devil actively does want to destroy them and God has to continually send/commission angels to protect them. (From the underlying 14MR 3.1).

So I don’t see that passage as speaking of ‘a blessing of protection to the wicked’.

Quote:
NJK:Indeed the SDA Church, were it but for God’s blessings through the guidance of the SOP, would not be as relatively, globally “wealthy” as it is today. E.g., comparable institutionally to the 1+ billion member Catholic Denomination, while itself having ca. 25 million people (including non-baptized children). In fact, the SDA Church is easily capable of being even much more wealthy, if it more faithfully and closely adhered to all of God’s wise and knowing counsels and timeless socio-economic principles. (E.g, Isa 58:10, 11).

NJK: So this blessing is freely and equally made available to all, but it is only enjoyed by those who accept/receive it, as you seem to also understand. However, until received, and thus actualized, it does not become an actual blessing to the “spurner”.

Tom: You write "so this blessing is freely and equally available to all" after a paragraph talking about the wealth of the SDA church. I'm not following what "this blessing" is speaking of.


I was summarily referring back to the “atonement blessing” in general.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/11/11 01:12 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
Originally Posted By: NJK
(This is quite a lot more work than copying/paste a Scripture or SOP reference, by the way).

Actually, factually, No.


Actually, factually, Yes. On a page, I can see all the texts for several posts, and go back and forth and copy/paste. If I do the "Reply" I lose that ability. I have to use some other source to copy/paste to, or do a preliminary run through, and then go back, and reply. Copy/paste a SOP reference that you're looking at is trivial compared to that.

Quote:
If I have a copious amount of Bible/SOP texts, e.g., 10+, as I normatively, corroboratingly endeavor to do in my posts, it is much more time consuming and involved to explicitly post each of them, than to only click on that pertinent “Reply” link! Just trying to relocate, page by page, which post you were reply from was in itself time consuming.


If you already have a list of texts, I can see that, but if it's something you're looking up, say an SOP reference, you're already there, so why not copy/paste it?

Also, if you just included the text of one reference, that would be helpful. You don't have to do all of them. Just the one you think best makes your post. Then leave it to the reader to follow up on the others; that would be reasonable.


-I don’t get your responding process, seems somewhat convoluted to me, but your Copy and paste process would not have to involve special pasting, reformatting and coding, whereas mine does.

-I have already stated my reasons why for not including all texts. And wider context is also important to Bible and SOP statements.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/11/11 03:52 AM


Quote:
NJK: I actually said that the type of judgement that EGW described in GC 35-37 (and not the Destruction of Jerusalem itself) must involve an organic, cause-to-direct-effect, act. As I see it, if God acts to prevent something, which only occurs when he stops this protection, then it really is not “organic.” That also includes what Satan pushes men to do. Case in point, since the Roman were idolatrous peoples why didn’t another nation destroy them.

NJK: That is why I find this “organic” requirement to be “stringently” artificial to this theological issue as it is clear that God judiciously chooses which sins he will permit to be immediately visited by its ultimate end result of death. That is why, as I said in my first post in this thread, all sins in Israel were not to be capitally punished.

Tom: The organic relationship I have in mind is that all bad things result from sin. If God were not involved at all, a being would sin, and death would follow immediately. This would not provide the opportunity for a being to see the (non-death) consequences of their choices. So God gives beings the opportunity to develop a character, that may or may not be in harmony with His own. I see DA 764 is talking about this:

Originally Posted By: SOP
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. (DA 764)


I see the key to understanding EGW’s statement here, echoing the ‘fully lived life and then natural death’ analogy in James 1:15, is: “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.”

That is why I see that some sins were to be capitally punished as they more quickly came to this result of self-inflicted, naturally-derived, death when fully “lived” out, while others did not and could be normatively atoned for once a year.

Originally Posted By: Tom
The organic relationship is choose sin and die. This is expressed several times here, in different ways.


I see that this “organic relationship” for all, particularly Satan’s sins which at first, in Heaven, not necessarily “capital types of sins”, did indeed necessitate this time so that they could be self-revealed.

Originally Posted By: Tom
If God were to allow this, a person wouldn't have the opportunity to develop a character. So God permits a person to sin and not die right away, so as to to develop a character, and have an opportunity to make the right decision.


I don’t understand how you are involving the formation of one’s character in this. I rather see that time is permitted so that people can understand why God’s ways are indeed, now transparently better, and based on this choose either sin or God.

Originally Posted By: Tom
There are a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which God protects us. We're not aware of most of these dangers, just a very, very small percentage, so do not recongize just how dangerous a thing sin is, nor to what extent we are dependent upon God and His protection.


As I see it, these fall under the “basic necessities of life” that God equally provides for everyone, indeed all in protection against the harmful results of sin. However there are many Satan-caused dangers that God has to pointedly and constantly protect His people against, as long as He actually can, i.e., if they are faithful.

Quote:
NJK: Also in regards to EGW saying:

Originally Posted By: SOP GC 36.1

“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.”


NJK: I see that this only applies, as she qualifies, “when men pass the limits of divine forbearance” and “that restraint is removed”. That then involves God not seeking to do any acts of mercy in a judgement. However, as seen in e.g., the Flood, the fiery serpents, the destruction of Sodom, the first destruction of Jerusalem, the most part of the War of the Jews, etc. God actually wanted to have and show mercy to anyone who would repent.

Tom: God always wants to have and to show mercy. We see this just as much in the destruction of Jersualem in A.D. 70. For example, the lamentation of Christ shows this.


God’s/Jesus’s “wanting” to do something is completely distinct from what He ultimately/eventually “chooses” to do (even when allowing/permitting). Case in point, as I substantively see and understand it, at some point, late into the Jewish War, God no longer chose to have mercy and let Titus respond as He should have a long time ago, and no longer have mercy. Indeed the reason why Titus chose to no longer have mercy was not even substantive, i.e., the Jews were physically fighting back, but because he became insulted by the Jews presuming to dictate the terms of surrender. (Josephus, Wars 6:6.3 [#352]) If he became so indignant for that, then it can be seen that his previous patience and mercy when suffering losses in actual battle was surely God influenced.

Quote:
NJK: Also in some case, He wanted to limit/control the extent of destruction. (That is also reversedly present in the final Hell Fire judgement). So He was there standing as the administrator and executioner of this sentence, as EGW also understood (see also her later comments in GC 614.2).

Tom: You mean just the one sentence taken out of context, right?


Are you referring to a “textual sentence” or a “judgement sentence” here? I am not sure by what you are implying here, especially as I don’t see the “executioner” sentence to be out of context, particularly spiritually.

Originally Posted By: Tom
The rest of the paragraph is echoing what I've been saying:

Originally Posted By: SOP 614.1
When He leaves the sanctuary, darkness covers the inhabitants of the earth. In that fearful time the righteous must live in the sight of a holy God without an intercessor. The restraint which has been upon the wicked is removed, and Satan has entire control of the finally impenitent. God's long-suffering has ended. The world has rejected His mercy, despised His love, and trampled upon His law. The wicked have passed the boundary of their probation; the Spirit of God, persistently resisted, has been at last withdrawn. Unsheltered by divine grace, they have no protection from the wicked one. Satan will then plunge the inhabitants of the earth into one great, final trouble. As the angels of God cease to hold in check the fierce winds of human passion, all the elements of strife will be let loose. The whole world will be involved in ruin more terrible than that which came upon Jerusalem of old.


Tom: This is not only making the same point, but referring to the same event! So one could hardly argue she's making a contrast here between her comments in GC 35-37 and what she's saying here.


My point was that in GC 614.2, EGW says that God did some judgements in the OT through Holy Angels. The first 4 plagues, though unmixed with mercy in themselves, are actually said to ‘not be universal, or the inhabitants of the earth would be wholly cut off.’ (GC 628.2)

Then in the Fifth Plague, God judges the “throne of the Beast” (Rev 16:10), and in the Sixth Plague God acts against the “life-blood” of this apostate movement (Rev 16:12). It is only after that, that the whole world is gathered together to war against God due to falling for supernatural miracles (Rev 16:13-16) and why I see that it is only in the Seventh Plague that this now global Babylon Congregation all suffer the unmixed fierce wrath judgement of God (Rev 16:19).

So, like in the War of the Jews event, I see a gradual withdrawal of God’s judgement culminating in an utter ended of unmixed wrathful judgement for those who persist in rebellion until the end. Interestingly enough, it is because, some may want to switch sides to avoid this punishment, with some, e.g., former SDA’s who knew that they would come, that Jesus makes the applicable imperative statement in Rev 22:11 just prior to the beginning of the Plagues, as seen in the SOP account.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Let's take a look at her comment from GC chapter one, that you're referring to:

Originally Posted By: SOP GC 36.1
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.


Tom: You're saying that you see the executioner comment as being limited to specifically when men pass the limits of divine forbearance, in which case the restraint is removed. I'm not understanding what you're wanting to contrast this with.


As explained above, I see that there is mercy involved even within/during the execution of a judgement by God, right up to an utter end, where God allows the Devil to then fully have his way.

Originally Posted By: Tom
In any case where judgment is involved, wouldn't it be the case that the limits of divine forbearance have been passed? You'd have to argue something along the lines that sometimes when this happens, God removes a restraint, and other times He does something Himself to cause the guilty party to suffer and/or die, wouldn't you? I don't see any difference in what causes the judgment to occur in the first place (the limits of divine forbeance have been passed).


(I’ll address this through concrete Biblical examples next.)

Quote:
NJK: You want this to apply to every judgement mentioned in the Bible but I don’t see this as being the intention of this EGW statement. I see it only applicable to pointed “absolutely no mercy” situations.

Tom: I'm not understanding this. The flood is a "no mercy" situation, right? So this would mean you see the principle as applying tot he flood then? I would agree with this, that the principle applies here, being what you call a "no mercy" situation, but I wouldn't think you would agree with this.


The Flood judgement was decreed 120 years before it occurred. It was going to happen, and with only the one ark being planned, God clearly understood that many of these people, who were actually acting against great light and knowledge (unlike the Ninevites) would not seize the granted opportunity for mercy. Most in fact quibbled with the fact that it had never rained, rather than humbly, substantively seeing that their lives were contrary to God’s clear and known will. Noah was indeed a preacher of “righteousness” (2 Pet 2:5), because his generation were not “doing what was right”. Like the Pharisees later on, many of them, i.e., people who even professed to be followers of God, probably found all kinds of loopholes in God’s Ten Commandments in which to practise their sins.

So mercy was present in the decreed Flood judgement until the door in the ark was closed. God did not have to instruct Noah to preach repentance at all, but just him build the ark and let people suffer their deserved consequence for their sins. Then it would have been a “no mercy” judgement from the start.

In a similar way, for most of the Jewish War, which was long ago showed by God to be the utter judgement of faithless Israel, there was ample opportunity for mercy and even to escape death. However those who snubbed that provision and persisted in fighting and then rebellion to the end, suffered the fate of death. However, apparently millions (i.e., ca. 1 million out of a possible 2.1 million present in the city then when the war started during the Feast of Unleaven Bread) escaped.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Also, what constitutes a "mercy" situation, as opposed to a "no mercy" situation?


Simply said, where people are allowed to escape the actual utter judgement that God intends. If God did not want them to escape/survive, even be saved, this surely would not have been the case at all. So even in a judgement, there is usually a last chance, ‘mercy provision’ and then a ‘no-more-mercy’ stage.

Originally Posted By: Tom
The seven last plagues are a "no mercy" situation too. So you see the GC 35-37 description as applying to the seven last plagues as well?


Though “saving mercy” will, actually not be granted by God once the plagues are started, which is why Jesus greatly wishes that no one would seek it then (Rev 22:11), mercy is implicitly present as ‘not all flesh is cutoff’ from the start. So this “non-saving mercy”, somewhat like for the 1st Century Jews, will be for an opportunity for everyone to make a knowing decision during this time, against God before they all suffer the full effects of their sins.

Indeed it seems that the first 4 plagues are poured out before the Final Global rebellious movement is fully established. I.e., many people in ‘non-Christian’ countries may not have subscribed to a New World Order under the leadership of the U.S./West and Papacy.

Quote:
NJK:It also seems to me that when a natural destruction can’t or won’t occur in a timely way, then God intervenes to supernaturally bring that destruction about.

Tom: This presupposes that it is not necessary for God, as a general principle, to act to prevent natural disasters from occuring. I think we have a large disagreement here. The SOP tells us that God's intervention is needed to even keep the earth in proper orbit. I think sin has messed things up to the extent that God's intervention is needed to prevent the earth from destruction. When He ceases, then destruction occurs.


[Please provide the direct quote and/or reference for your SOP statement above on the “orbits” Indeed I cannot really comment here without first reading/analyzing it for myself.]

Nonetheless, I can understand that God can limit how many natural disasters are allowed to strike the earth. Perhaps in direct proportion to the “righteousness level” on earth, and thus this is indirectly a part of the Four Winds that He is holding back, as the faithfulness of may people allow Him to restrain “outlaw” human passions, which, when no longer restrained, would warrant the proportionate withdrawing of His protection.

Quote:
NJK: I.e., not every sinful action will not lead to an “immediate” and even “organic” result.

Tom: All sin has selfishness as its root, which, apart from God's intervention, would lead to the result described above in the DA 764 quote.


Still all sins do not have the same “life span” up to their death. Some sins have a faster track to this natural death end, and that is why I understand that their utter, and relatively soon results were to be capitally preempted/curtailed when committed. In, how I see, God choosing to fairly deal with various branches of sin in this judicious way, I think it indeed reveals the Justice and even Merciful aspects of God’s character, rather than blanketly making all sins result in immediate death. That is why I Theologically see that it is the end result of sin, through a “life of rebellion” that is death and not sin itself. Indeed this result has to be allowed to grow, and not only “sown”, to be naturally vs. declaratory, even artificially, “reaped”. Hence this GC’s time.

Quote:
NJK:The penalty of all sin is death however not every sin tangibly, immediately has this physical consequence of a ‘naturally resulting death.’

Tom: Againg, the DA 764 statement looks to disagree with this.


For the many reasons previously stated on this SOP passage in this thread, indeed also involving Gen 3:22's Truth, and the further ones above, I do not see that it Substantively nor Theologically does. Indeed I see that in this GC, it will only be shown that sin is deserving of death, and that, as in capital judgements, for the sake of those who do not want to live a life of sin. This is indeed why I see this entire GC is necessary. I.e., not merely so that man can naturally reap the natural consequences of sin, but as God has done through the removal of the Tree of Life, to demonstrate to all that God has not reason at all to, effectively, “sponsor” sin and sinners and let them live, as they either will eventually destroy themselves after much suffering and/or involve sinless worlds and being in continual strife.

Quote:
NJK:Hence God’s capital punishment provision for some of those sins.

Tom: So you're saying God doesn't have a capital punishment provsion for sins which *do* have organic consequences?


Temporally speaking, isn’t that easily seen in Israel’s laws. Indeed the Passover Ordinance was the provision for the sins of people that were not to be capitally punished.

Originally Posted By: Tom
You seem to have the underlying idea that sin, of itself, is, at least in general, not very destructive to the one practicing it.


As stated above and throughout this thread, that is what God’s statement in Gen 3:22 indicates.

Originally Posted By: Tom
So God must impose penalities to punish it, or it would go unpunished.


In some cases, it indeed would as Satan would surely not do it himself and not all sins have this immediate consequence of death, if ever. That is why God must preemptively/“prematurely” act to keep certain sins in check, even those that would seem to “organically” lead to death. And these interventions are for the sake and well-being of the righteous.

Originally Posted By: Tom
On the other hand, I see that sin is extremely destructive, and that we vastly underestimate to what extent, so that we consequently vastly underestimate God's activity in protecting us, and preventing its destructive work.


I agree with this though only in part, as I Theologically see and understand from the Bible and SOP that this is all only the case because God chose to bar the Tree of Life for both nature and created beings. So the Planet has since then come to develop these destructive effects. However, as it can be seen in the Garden of Eden that remained until the Flood and still had the benefits of the Tree of Life, it was in its perfect state while the rest of the earth was suffering these destructive results of sin.

Your refusal to accept that plain Bible and SOP possible fact is what is keeping you from understanding this directly derived Theological Truth.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/13/11 12:44 AM

Quote:
NJK: Actually: (1) humans who do not accept this Atonement provision, do not, and cannot, enjoy it or its “blessings”.

Tom: Yes they do (not all of them, of course, but there are blessings from the atonement which all enjoy).

{...}

Tom:Here's a statement which deals with blessings of the atonement which are available to all:

Originally Posted By: SOP
Our Lord has said, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. . . . For My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed." John 6:53-55. This is true of our physical nature. To the death of Christ we owe even this earthly life. The bread we eat is the purchase of His broken body. The water we drink is bought by His spilled blood. Never one, saint or sinner, eats his daily food, but he is nourished by the body and the blood of Christ. The cross of Calvary is stamped on every loaf. It is reflected in every water spring. All this Christ has taught in appointing the emblems of His great sacrifice. The light shining from that Communion service in the upper chamber makes sacred the provisions for our daily life. The family board becomes as the table of the Lord, and every meal a sacrament. (DA 660)


NJK:I don’t see that in the DA 660 statement you quoted below.


By your comments, it looks like you do see it.

Quote:
Life, Bread and Water are the very “basic necessities of (temporal) life” which indeed Christ’s death allows us to have.


Which makes these blessings of the atonement.

Quote:
Especially in terms of Life. And also the “sun and rain” (Matt 5:45), which allow to grow food and obtain freshwater, on both the just and the unjust, as God could easily have not made it so, as seen in the Plagues of Egypt.

T:This was a strong point of the 1888 message.

NJK:Do cite some of those 1888 references.


Sure, if you're interested, I can find some of these. I have many at home (where I am not right now). I'll see if I can find at least one right now.

Quote:
God has wrought out salvation for every man, and has given it to him, but the majority spurn it and throw it away. The judgment will reveal the fact that full salvation was given to every man and that the lost have deliberately thrown away their birthright possession (Waggoner, The Glad Tidings, p. 14).


Quote:
Now [Christ] has done all that freely. For how many people did He do this? Every soul? [Congregation: "Yes, sir."] Gave all the blessings He has to every soul in this world... A.T. Jones GCB 1893, Sermon 17)


There's two. Let me know if you'd like to see more.

Quote:
T:Let's consider someone who wins an Olympic gold medal. That's not a basic life necessity, I wouldn't think, but they obtain their medals due to blessings from God (and their own effort, of course).

Or if a person obtains wealth, they've obtained blessings from God to do so, including health and intelligence.

NJK:Or, along these surface lines, we can add, as it is popularly done, the vile entertainer who “Thanks God” for having won an award and who does have talent, was actually specifically blessed by God in both talent and success!!??


Talent, surely. Success, not necessarily.

Quote:
Completely contrary to this popular opinion, I don’t talent as a “blessing” from God, but just a naturally forming ability which can be dedicated to God.


Certainly it's a blessing from God. We can't control our DNA. If we have some special aptitude, say for art or music or whatever, that's a blessing from God.

Quote:
However, in the fact that nature can come to form such ability in a humans, then it so ultimately does originate with God.


Which makes it a blessing from God. Nature isn't self-acting.

Quote:
I rather see that, at times, especially in firstfruit circumstances, God searches the earth for people who have such naturally forming talents and seeks to get them to use them for His Glory.


These "natural forming talents" were given by God. Every good thing comes from above.

Quote:
So I don’t see “talents” as a specific blessings from God. They are indeed only “specifically” so when they are a gift of the Holy Spirit (COL 327.1).


Do you know this reference by heart? That is, COL 327.1. You must have had it right in front of you, ready to copy/paste, right? It's a whole paragraph. Why can't you just quote the part of the paragraph you're interested it? How much effort is it to copy/paste this?

Quote:
The talents that Christ entrusts to His church represent especially the gifts and blessings imparted by the Holy Spirit. "To one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; to another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: but all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as He will." 1 Cor. 12:8-11. All men do not receive the same gifts, but to every servant of the Master some gift of the Spirit is promised. COL 327.1


This says the talents are "especially the gifts and blessings imparted by the Holy Spirit," which makes sense. However it neither says nor implies that it does not include other gifts and blessings. Indeed, the wording implies these talents are included (just not "especially).

And, indeed, a little further along we read:

Quote:
The special gifts of the Spirit are not the only talents represented in the parable. It includes all gifts and endowments, whether original or acquired, natural or spiritual. (COL 328)


So it's not the case that only gifts of the Holy Spirit are "specifically" talents. That are "especially" talents, but not "only 'specifically'" talents.

Quote:
T:God affords the wicked with the blessings of protection, as the GC statement points out.

NJK:I am assuming that you are referring to GC 35-37,


Yes.

Quote:
however like I had said in Post #133274, (which you have not yet responded to),


I probably won't have time to frown. Just the little bit I'm trying to keep up with is all I'll likely be able to manage.

Quote:
I see that the GC 35-37 is pointedly reserved for God’s once faithful professed people who have come to rebel against Him and not actually to the wicked.


She applies the same concept to specifically the wicked, as already cited in the GC 614 passage. Not only does she apply the same principle, she refers specifically to the destruction of Jerusalem in so doing.

Quote:
The “organic” possibility of utter destruction is seen with this group as the Devil actively does want to destroy them and God has to continually send/commission angels to protect them. (From the underlying 14MR 3.1).


She writes:

Quote:
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. (GC 36)


This is specifically speaking of "the disobedient," which is, by definition, the wicked. The whole point is that even those who are disobedient are protect by God from Satan's "malignant power."

Quote:
NJK: So this blessing is freely and equally made available to all, but it is only enjoyed by those who accept/receive it, as you seem to also understand. However, until received, and thus actualized, it does not become an actual blessing to the “spurner”.

Tom: You write "so this blessing is freely and equally available to all" after a paragraph talking about the wealth of the SDA church. I'm not following what "this blessing" is speaking of.

NJK:I was summarily referring back to the “atonement blessing” in general.


Ok; this has been discussed above, so I won't comment further here.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/13/11 01:41 AM

Tom: The Talents and blessings issue is an interesting one, but one that is pertinently off topic to this discussion. I would have to study out the issue more deeply and fully to comment further, but that is beyond my available time and pressing agenda.

-I was expecting quotes from EGW. Nothing per se against Waggoner and Jones, but I do not (defaultly) consider them as an authoritative or inspired source, even on this topic.

-‘No Time...’ Seriously/Truthfully Tom!??? As it is patently the usual case with you, you evidently have ample “time” for everything else than what you manifestly do not think/know to have a plausible and/or valid answer to. Again, rather than expending your time on such peripheral issue, why don’t/won’t you expend it on the substantive ones that you have chosen not to answer.

-In regards to GC 614, in the end, ‘the whole world will be religious’, and quite genuinely, thinking to be even born again Christians. Some from a life of being Christians others by recent conversion. So EGW comments there, like with the 1st Century Jews, applies to a former professed People of God who think themselves to still be so, and not to outrightly wicked people. Indeed even God’s people can become “disobedient and unthankful” = wicked.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/13/11 02:28 AM

Originally Posted By: SOP GC 36.1
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.


I also see two concurrent but distinct notions being expounded on/expressed here by EGW.

(1) ‘sinning mankind’ being allowed to only have the influence of Satan “blow upon them”

(2) God permitting Satan to execute judgements upon former professed People of God.

So I don’t see Satan a doing judgements when God no longer allows His Spirit to temper mankind, but instead, as Satan always wanted, mankind is allowed to fully live according to how they always wanted, which would surely end in eventual self-destruction, whereas in regards to people who claim the name of Christ, Satan actively wants to destroy them and it is only the angelic protective power of God that is preventing these direct/active Satanic attacks. However in Divinely permitted judgements, these will be allowed.

Interestingly enough, in the end, to add to the actual deception of those times, the whole world will want to be Christians, and Satan will have no other choice but to act along these lines. However he will still be destroying the law of God by undermining the Sabbath. This is also why I see that it is God, through angels who will administer the first 6 plagues against those nominal Christians and not the Devil. But in the Last Plague, he will be allowed to, apparently in pure vindictive wrath, seeing then that all is lost.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/13/11 02:40 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
-I don’t get your responding process, seems somewhat convoluted to me, but your Copy and paste process would not have to involve special pasting, reformatting and coding, whereas mine does.


Not from the SOP it wouldn't. Just copy/paste, assuming you're looking up stuff online.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/13/11 03:46 AM

Quote:
Tom: The organic relationship I have in mind is that all bad things result from sin. If God were not involved at all, a being would sin, and death would follow immediately. This would not provide the opportunity for a being to see the (non-death) consequences of their choices. So God gives beings the opportunity to develop a character, that may or may not be in harmony with His own. I see DA 764 is talking about this:

Originally Posted By: SOP
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. (DA 764)

NJK:I see the key to understanding EGW’s statement here, echoing the ‘fully lived life and then natural death’ analogy in James 1:15, is: “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.”

That is why I see that some sins were to be capitally punished as they more quickly came to this result of self-inflicted, naturally-derived, death when fully “lived” out, while others did not and could be normatively atoned for once a year.


I don't see what you're getting at, in relation to DA 764. Those paragraphs bring out that the death of the wicked (i.e., the second death), is due to their own actions, as opposed to an action God takes against them.

Quote:
T:The organic relationship is choose sin and die. This is expressed several times here, in different ways.

NJK:I see that this “organic relationship” for all, particularly Satan’s sins which at first, in Heaven, not necessarily “capital types of sins”, did indeed necessitate this time so that they could be self-revealed.


This should be several sentences. I can't parse out what you're trying to say here.

DA 764 isn't dealing with capital punishment, but with the destruction of the wicked.

Quote:
T:If God were to allow this, a person wouldn't have the opportunity to develop a character. So God permits a person to sin and not die right away, so as to to develop a character, and have an opportunity to make the right decision.

NJK:I don’t understand how you are involving the formation of one’s character in this. I rather see that time is permitted so that people can understand why God’s ways are indeed, now transparently better, and based on this choose either sin or God.


Regarding character development, I was referring to this:

Quote:
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. (DA 764)


This, by the way, I believe is a good explanation of God's wrath; giving a person over to the results of their choice.

Quote:
T:There are a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which God protects us. We're not aware of most of these dangers, just a very, very small percentage, so do not recongize just how dangerous a thing sin is, nor to what extent we are dependent upon God and His protection.

NJK:As I see it, these fall under the “basic necessities of life” that God equally provides for everyone, indeed all in protection against the harmful results of sin.


That's an awfully broad characterization of "basic necessities of life."

Quote:
However there are many Satan-caused dangers that God has to pointedly and constantly protect His people against, as long as He actually can, i.e., if they are faithful.


These are included in the "thousand dangers, all of them unseen."

Quote:
NJK: I see that this only applies, as she qualifies, “when men pass the limits of divine forbearance” and “that restraint is removed”. That then involves God not seeking to do any acts of mercy in a judgement. However, as seen in e.g., the Flood, the fiery serpents, the destruction of Sodom, the first destruction of Jerusalem, the most part of the War of the Jews, etc. God actually wanted to have and show mercy to anyone who would repent.

Tom: God always wants to have and to show mercy. We see this just as much in the destruction of Jersualem in A.D. 70. For example, the lamentation of Christ shows this.

NJK:God’s/Jesus’s “wanting” to do something is completely distinct from what He ultimately/eventually “chooses” to do (even when allowing/permitting).


You wrote, "God actually wanted to have and show mercy to anyone who would repent." Since you spoke of what God "actually wanted," this is what I commented on. God "actually wants" to show mercy on anyone who repents all the time.

I don't know why you're bringing up a distinction between what God wants and chooses to do, as you weren't speaking to this, nor did I.

Quote:
Case in point, as I substantively see and understand it, at some point, late into the Jewish War, God no longer chose to have mercy and let Titus respond as He should have a long time ago, and no longer have mercy. Indeed the reason why Titus chose to no longer have mercy was not even substantive, i.e., the Jews were physically fighting back, but because he became insulted by the Jews presuming to dictate the terms of surrender. (Josephus, Wars 6:6.3 [#352]) If he became so indignant for that, then it can be seen that his previous patience and mercy when suffering losses in actual battle was surely God influenced.


I don't see why you're pointing this out. That is, how does this tie into our discussion?

I believe the only reason God chooses not to have mercy on someone is that they do not desire it (I'm speaking in the true sense of the term, meaning that they desire mercy from a sense of having done wrong -- i.e. truly repentant --, but not merely that they don't want to suffer the consequences of what they did).

Quote:
NJK: Also in some case, He wanted to limit/control the extent of destruction. (That is also reversedly present in the final Hell Fire judgement). So He was there standing as the administrator and executioner of this sentence, as EGW also understood (see also her later comments in GC 614.2).

Tom: You mean just the one sentence taken out of context, right?


Are you referring to a “textual sentence” or a “judgement sentence” here? I am not sure by what you are implying here, especially as I don’t see the “executioner” sentence to be out of context, particularly spiritually.


I was referring to the sentence in GC 614.2 that you had in mind.

Quote:
Tom: This is not only making the same point, but referring to the same event! So one could hardly argue she's making a contrast here between her comments in GC 35-37 and what she's saying here.


My point was that in GC 614.2, EGW says that God did some judgements in the OT through Holy Angels. The first 4 plagues, though unmixed with mercy in themselves, are actually said to ‘not be universal, or the inhabitants of the earth would be wholly cut off.’ (GC 628.2)

Then in the Fifth Plague, God judges the “throne of the Beast” (Rev 16:10), and in the Sixth Plague God acts against the “life-blood” of this apostate movement (Rev 16:12). It is only after that, that the whole world is gathered together to war against God due to falling for supernatural miracles (Rev 16:13-16) and why I see that it is only in the Seventh Plague that this now global Babylon Congregation all suffer the unmixed fierce wrath judgement of God (Rev 16:19).

So, like in the War of the Jews event, I see a gradual withdrawal of God’s judgement culminating in an utter ended of unmixed wrathful judgement for those who persist in rebellion until the end. Interestingly enough, it is because, some may want to switch sides to avoid this punishment, with some, e.g., former SDA’s who knew that they would come, that Jesus makes the applicable imperative statement in Rev 22:11 just prior to the beginning of the Plagues, as seen in the SOP account.


Focusing on this sentence:

Quote:
So, like in the War of the Jews event, I see a gradual withdrawal of God’s judgement culminating in an utter ended of unmixed wrathful judgement for those who persist in rebellion until the end.


I agree with this. In the case of the destruction of Jerusalem, the unmixed wrathful judgment was caused by God's completely His withdrawal of protection against Satan.

Quote:
As explained above, I see that there is mercy involved even within/during the execution of a judgement by God, right up to an utter end, where God allows the Devil to then fully have his way.


Ok, I wasn't understanding this. I agree with this. (More later)
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/13/11 06:05 AM

Quote:
Tom: The organic relationship I have in mind is that all bad things result from sin. If God were not involved at all, a being would sin, and death would follow immediately. This would not provide the opportunity for a being to see the (non-death) consequences of their choices. So God gives beings the opportunity to develop a character, that may or may not be in harmony with His own. I see DA 764 is talking about this:

Originally Posted By: SOP
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. (DA 764)


NJK: I see the key to understanding EGW’s statement here, echoing the ‘fully lived life and then natural death’ analogy in James 1:15, is: “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.”

NJK: That is why I see that some sins were to be capitally punished as they more quickly came to this result of self-inflicted, naturally-derived, death when fully “lived” out, while others did not and could be normatively atoned for once a year.

Tom: I don't see what you're getting at, in relation to DA 764. Those paragraphs bring out that the death of the wicked (i.e., the second death), is due to their own actions, as opposed to an action God takes against them.


As I have said and substantively explained/defended before, many times, I see no difference in the first and second death. It is still “normative death”. Only the sustainedly allowed suffering in before the Second Death is allowed to be effectuated, is what somewhat distinguishes them, though, as I see it, it does not change the (ultimate), identical, “death” factor involved. So that guides my understandings here. And I do see capital punishment as being a microcosm of what will occur in Hell where I also see that sin and sinners will be eradicated by an act of God (Rev 20:11-15 (cf. GC 672.2-673.1; EW 294.1ff) = 19:17-21) and not by “critical mass”/ “self-combustion”. Indeed I see EGW’s “consuming fire” statement to actually be more figurative than literal. As per example, in this statement:

Originally Posted By: SOP GC 673.3
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.


As I explained before, I think both the 7000 years and the way in which this GC was allowed to develop where God did not defaultly abandon those who sinned against Him to their own way, but allowed them to get a saving knowledge of the Gospel, resulting in the end that all will claim the name of Christ and really only be violating the letter of a single commandment, that, what I term, a “critical mass” stage of sin will not occur at the end of these 7000 years. Perhaps if God removed all of the righteous then and left these rebellious “Christians” on earth to live ca. 3000 more years, where now they knew that they actually were not Christians/approved by God and also that they had no chance of salvation, that these will then live out a life that comes to be ‘so out of harmony with God’, i.e., deliberately violating the spirit and letter of all of the Ten Commandments, that they indeed would self-combust in the mere presence of God. As also explained before, I still see that this would become the case only if God allows this to be and this is naturally done by Him not finding any actionable element in a person upon which He can have mercy. Indeed even in the situation with Satan coming into the presence of God and “surviving”/living it was evidently because the GC issues were not yet transparently self-demonstrated, as it will even more fully be at the end of the allotted ca. 7000 years.

Quote:
T:The organic relationship is choose sin and die. This is expressed several times here, in different ways.

NJK (edited): I see that this “organic relationship” for all sins, particularly Satan’s sins, (which at first, in Heaven, were not necessarily “capital sins”), did indeed necessitate this time so that their death consequence could be self-revealed.

Tom: This should be several sentences. I can't parse out what you're trying to say here.


This editing/clarifying should help.

Originally Posted By: Tom
DA 764 isn't dealing with capital punishment, but with the destruction of the wicked.


As I said above, I see the final destruction as the ultimate/anti-typical “Capital Punishment” for sin, and then all and any sins, since the conclusive, though not necessarily exhaustive, self-evidence will be in/available then. Indeed since God knew that sinner can live a very long time, even eternally as sinners if their physical body/health was “therapeutically maintained” by the Tree of Life, these 7000 years, as seen in the symbology of 7 (vs. 10) is only a perfect representation/sampling of a much larger possible whole.

Quote:
T:If God were to allow this, a person wouldn't have the opportunity to develop a character. So God permits a person to sin and not die right away, so as to to develop a character, and have an opportunity to make the right decision.

NJK:I don’t understand how you are involving the formation of one’s character in this. I rather see that time is permitted so that people can understand why God’s ways are indeed, now transparently better, and based on this choose either sin or God.

Tom: Regarding character development, I was referring to this:

Originally Posted By: SOP
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. (DA 764)


Tom: This, by the way, I believe is a good explanation of God's wrath; giving a person over to the results of their choice.


What confused me is that you didn’t specify “character” here and it could go either way, good or bad. I also sequitur saw that you had meant ‘good character’ with your ‘leading to making the right decision’ qualifying, which I further do not see as being achieved by God by permitting someone to sin. EGW, as seen in DA 763.3, foundationally has in mind either ‘good or bad character’ (= “two classes”), but it is the ‘developed bad character’ that she is exclusively focusing on throughout DA 764.1.

Quote:
T:There are a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which God protects us. We're not aware of most of these dangers, just a very, very small percentage, so do not recongize just how dangerous a thing sin is, nor to what extent we are dependent upon God and His protection.

NJK: As I see it, these fall under the “basic necessities of life” that God equally provides for everyone, indeed all in protection against the harmful results of sin.

Tom: That's an awfully broad characterization of "basic necessities of life."


I don’t think so. I think you are seeing it as broad as you include in this judgements that God actively done. I.e., Fires from heaven/cloud/Most Holy Place, the Flood, the Plagues. I understand that you see the world in a state of chaos that need the constant actions by God. I rather see that the Earth can come to “skewly” develop a catastrophic problem and God, when this is about to occur, intervenes to avert it at times, especially if it will result in a, relatively speaking, not proportionally deserved destruction/loss of life. But sometimes he lets them happen, hence “natural disasters”.

So God’s (would be, i.e., if EGW actually said/revealed this) keeping the planet in its proper orbit is a basic necessity for sustained life. Indeed most of these “thousand dangers” may be of this “basic necessity type” which all should have occurred as a result of sin.

Quote:
NJK: However there are many Satan-caused dangers that God has to pointedly and constantly protect His people against, as long as He actually can, i.e., if they are faithful.

Tom: These are included in the "thousand dangers, all of them unseen."


Probably, though I have a harder time of understanding them as “dangers,” which I see more to be “natural obstacles” than caused/attempted-attacks by Satan. They may however be “traps” set by Satan for God’s people which they can be harmed by when God justly no longer prevents them from walking into them.

Quote:
NJK: I see that this only applies, as she qualifies, “when men pass the limits of divine forbearance” and “that restraint is removed”. That then involves God not seeking to do any acts of mercy in a judgement. However, as seen in e.g., the Flood, the fiery serpents, the destruction of Sodom, the first destruction of Jerusalem, the most part of the War of the Jews, etc. God actually wanted to have and show mercy to anyone who would repent.

Tom: God always wants to have and to show mercy. We see this just as much in the destruction of Jersualem in A.D. 70. For example, the lamentation of Christ shows this.

NJK: God’s/Jesus’s “wanting” to do something is completely distinct from what He ultimately/eventually “chooses” to do (even when allowing/permitting).

Tom: You wrote, "God actually wanted to have and show mercy to anyone who would repent." Since you spoke of what God "actually wanted," this is what I commented on. God "actually wants" to show mercy on anyone who repents all the time.

Tom: I don't know why you're bringing up a distinction between what God wants and chooses to do, as you weren't speaking to this, nor did I.


Well then I had “misunderstood” you, (according to your wider view) to mean: ‘God always wants to have mercy, therefore He never does, nor is involved in, judgements.’ Therefore my distinction was to emphasize, as I more widely theologically understand it, God may want/prefer to have mercy, but in some case he is left with no other choice but to enter into judgement, which He most times, Himself does/administers/executes, even when mixed with mercy. I.e., even with some mercy involved, it can still be a devastating judgement (e.g., Judah’s (2 tribes) Babylonian Captivity (vs. Israel’s (10 tribes) Assyrian Captivity)).

Quote:
NJK: Case in point, as I substantively see and understand it, at some point, late into the Jewish War, God no longer chose to have mercy and let Titus respond as He should have a long time ago, and no longer have mercy. Indeed the reason why Titus chose to no longer have mercy was not even substantive, i.e., the Jews were physically fighting back, but because he became insulted by the Jews presuming to dictate the terms of surrender. (Josephus, Wars 6:6.3 [#352]) If he became so indignant for that, then it can be seen that his previous patience and mercy when suffering losses in actual battle was surely God influenced.

Tom: I don't see why you're pointing this out. That is, how does this tie into our discussion?


When God wanted to have mercy in the first parts of the war, permitting both Christians and then also Jews to freely escape alive from this judgement through repeated war haltings/“cutting shorts” (cf. Matt 24:22), I see that His Spirit influenced the Romans and later Titus to take actions towards this merciful end. However late in the war, when God no longer wanted to have mercy, as He actually could not, Titus was permitted to become indignant, and that over something substantively insignificant, and the actual “Destruction of Jerusalem” occurred then.

So I see this development as being typical of God and indeed what will occur in the 7 Last Plagues with some, though non-salvific, mercy for the first 6 and no mercy in the last one.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I believe the only reason God chooses not to have mercy on someone is that they do not desire it (I'm speaking in the true sense of the term, meaning that they desire mercy from a sense of having done wrong -- i.e. truly repentant --, but not merely that they don't want to suffer the consequences of what they did).


Of course a genuine repentance is key in this act of God. And God cannot grant something that is not genuinely requested. In the War of the Jews, those who wanted to surrender peacefully to the Romans did so probably out of a desire to prevent further destruction to what they considered God’s property. And that in itself was/would be relatively noble. I can only see that God’s hand and mercy was involved up to the utter destruction end phase, because the entire residents/occupants of Jerusalem then (ca. 2 million people) were to all suffer death in that war. (= Matt 22:7)

Quote:
NJK: Also in some case, He wanted to limit/control the extent of destruction. (That is also reversedly present in the final Hell Fire judgement). So He was there standing as the administrator and executioner of this sentence, as EGW also understood (see also her later comments in GC 614.2).

Tom: You mean just the one sentence taken out of context, right?

NJK: Are you referring to a “textual sentence” or a “judgement sentence” here? I am not sure by what you are implying here, especially as I don’t see the “executioner” sentence to be out of context, particularly spiritually.

Tom: I was referring to the sentence in GC 614.2 that you had in mind.


I am actually still confused. So explicitly state/quote the ‘sentence from GC 614.2 that you thought I had in mind.’

Quote:
Tom: This is not only making the same point, but referring to the same event! So one could hardly argue she's making a contrast here between her comments in GC 35-37 and what she's saying here.

NJK: My point was that in GC 614.2, EGW says that God did some judgements in the OT through Holy Angels. The first 4 plagues, though unmixed with mercy in themselves, are actually said to ‘not be universal, or the inhabitants of the earth would be wholly cut off.’ (GC 628.2)

NJK: Then in the Fifth Plague, God judges the “throne of the Beast” (Rev 16:10), and in the Sixth Plague God acts against the “life-blood” of this apostate movement (Rev 16:12). It is only after that, that the whole world is gathered together to war against God due to falling for supernatural miracles (Rev 16:13-16) and why I see that it is only in the Seventh Plague that this now global Babylon Congregation all suffer the unmixed fierce wrath judgement of God (Rev 16:19).

NJK (edited): So, like in the War of the Jews event, I see a gradual withdrawal of God’s mercy culminating in an utter ended of unmixed wrathful judgement for those who persist in rebellion until the end. Interestingly enough, it is because, some may want to switch sides to avoid this punishment, with some, e.g., former SDA’s who knew that they would come, that Jesus makes the applicable imperative statement in Rev 22:11 just prior to the beginning of the Plagues, as seen in the SOP account.

Tom: Focusing on this sentence:

Originally Posted By: NJK (edited)
So, like in the War of the Jews event, I see a gradual withdrawal of God’s mercy culminating in an utter ended of unmixed wrathful judgement for those who persist in rebellion until the end.


Tom: I agree with this. In the case of the destruction of Jerusalem, the unmixed wrathful judgment was caused by God's completely His withdrawal of protection against Satan.


As I understand your view, you see this withdrawal of mercy for the entire war period (namely 66-70 A.D.). I actually see this as not the case for this entire war judgement, but like in the 7 Last Plagues, only in the final part, i.e., after Titus became indignant (sometime in 70 A.D.) and proceed to both unmercifully kill the remaining Jews and also deliberately aim to destroy the city. Perhaps as you had said below, you agree with this two-part judgement view...

Quote:
NJK: As explained above, I see that there is mercy involved even within/during the execution of a judgement by God, right up to an utter end, where God allows the Devil to then fully have his way.

Tom: Ok, I wasn't understanding this. I agree with this. (More later)


...however I do not see how this reconciled with your sustainedly expressed view that God is not involved in a judgement at all but that things naturally and independently developed on their own. Under such a view, God cannot be acting to influence Titus to restrain himself, nor have His own angels delve out first 6 plagues (Rev 16:1-16) and even initiated the final one (vs. 17, 18) which is then allowed to be executed by Satan (vs. 19-21/ GC 614.2-615.1)
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/13/11 11:35 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
T:In any case where judgment is involved, wouldn't it be the case that the limits of divine forbearance have been passed? You'd have to argue something along the lines that sometimes when this happens, God removes a restraint, and other times He does something Himself to cause the guilty party to suffer and/or die, wouldn't you? I don't see any difference in what causes the judgment to occur in the first place (the limits of divine forbeance have been passed).


NJK:(I’ll address this through concrete Biblical examples next.)

Quote:
NJK: You want this to apply to every judgement mentioned in the Bible but I don’t see this as being the intention of this EGW statement. I see it only applicable to pointed “absolutely no mercy” situations.

Tom: I'm not understanding this. The flood is a "no mercy" situation, right? So this would mean you see the principle as applying tot he flood then? I would agree with this, that the principle applies here, being what you call a "no mercy" situation, but I wouldn't think you would agree with this.


NJK:The Flood judgement was decreed 120 years before it occurred. It was going to happen, and with only the one ark being planned, God clearly understood that many of these people, who were actually acting against great light and knowledge (unlike the Ninevites) would not seize the granted opportunity for mercy. Most in fact quibbled with the fact that it had never rained, rather than humbly, substantively seeing that their lives were contrary to God’s clear and known will. Noah was indeed a preacher of “righteousness” (2 Pet 2:5), because his generation were not “doing what was right”. Like the Pharisees later on, many of them, i.e., people who even professed to be followers of God, probably found all kinds of loopholes in God’s Ten Commandments in which to practise their sins.

So mercy was present in the decreed Flood judgement until the door in the ark was closed. God did not have to instruct Noah to preach repentance at all, but just him build the ark and let people suffer their deserved consequence for their sins. Then it would have been a “no mercy” judgement from the start.

In a similar way, for most of the Jewish War, which was long ago showed by God to be the utter judgement of faithless Israel, there was ample opportunity for mercy and even to escape death. However those who snubbed that provision and persisted in fighting and then rebellion to the end, suffered the fate of death. However, apparently millions (i.e., ca. 1 million out of a possible 2.1 million present in the city then when the war started during the Feast of Unleaven Bread) escaped.


These last paragraphs were well written in terms of the sentence structure. Much easier to understand, which is appreciated.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Tom
Also, what constitutes a "mercy" situation, as opposed to a "no mercy" situation?

NJK:Simply said, where people are allowed to escape the actual utter judgement that God intends. If God did not want them to escape/survive, even be saved, this surely would not have been the case at all. So even in a judgement, there is usually a last chance, ‘mercy provision’ and then a ‘no-more-mercy’ stage.


I wouldn't say that God intends judgment, but repentance. Judgment occurs only when people refuse to repent, and that judgment is a result of people refusing the protection which God offers them. The "no-more-mercy" stage is when people have made their final decision not to repent.

A key, significant phrase to keep in mind, used by the SOP in the description of the destruction of Jerusalem, is that God was *caused* to remove His protection. What happened was this:

1.God is protecting, showing mercy, urging repentance.
2.While the heart is not completely hardened, this continues.
3.There is simultaneous action going on:
a.God being caused to remove His protection.
b.God continuing to protect.

While the heart is not completely hardened, b>a. At a certain point, after so much resistance to the pleading of the Holy Spirit, a>b, and disaster occurs.

For example:

Quote:
17Then my anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall befall them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us, because our God is not among us?

18And I will surely hide my face in that day for all the evils which they shall have wrought, in that they are turned unto other gods. (Deut 31)


Anger (or wrath) equates to forsaking/hiding of face, which results in trouble.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Tom
The seven last plagues are a "no mercy" situation too. So you see the GC 35-37 description as applying to the seven last plagues as well?

NJK:Though “saving mercy” will, actually not be granted by God once the plagues are started, which is why Jesus greatly wishes that no one would seek it then (Rev 22:11),


This is a very well known text. Couldn't you at least give a hint, like "he who is filthy, let him remain filthy?"

It's certainly not the case that Jesus "greatly wishes that no one would seek it then." That makes no sense. Jesus is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to a knowledge of the truth. He only gives up on people when they give on Him, and that is with no feeling of malice, but a sad acceptance of the choice that has been made, as in His lamentation over Jerusalem.

He would gladly show mercy on whomever he could, but people disqualify themselves from being able to receive mercy by hardening their own hearts. The mercy needed is not mercy to protect against what God will do if you don't what He says, but to protect from the results of disobedience of the law. When a person continues to say, "Leave me alone!," eventually God will do just that, which is His no longer showing mercy, and they suffer the consequences.

Quote:
mercy is implicitly present as ‘not all flesh is cutoff’ from the start. So this “non-saving mercy”, somewhat like for the 1st Century Jews, will be for an opportunity for everyone to make a knowing decision during this time, against God before they all suffer the full effects of their sins.


I agree with this.

Quote:
Indeed it seems that the first 4 plagues are poured out before the Final Global rebellious movement is fully established. I.e., many people in ‘non-Christian’ countries may not have subscribed to a New World Order under the leadership of the U.S./West and Papacy.

Quote:
NJK:It also seems to me that when a natural destruction can’t or won’t occur in a timely way, then God intervenes to supernaturally bring that destruction about.

Tom: This presupposes that it is not necessary for God, as a general principle, to act to prevent natural disasters from occuring. I think we have a large disagreement here. The SOP tells us that God's intervention is needed to even keep the earth in proper orbit. I think sin has messed things up to the extent that God's intervention is needed to prevent the earth from destruction. When He ceases, then destruction occurs.


NJK:[Please provide the direct quote and/or reference for your SOP statement above on the “orbits” Indeed I cannot really comment here without first reading/analyzing it for myself.]


I'll look for it when I can. It's in Ministry of Healing, in the section talking about nature.

Quote:
Nonetheless, I can understand that God can limit how many natural disasters are allowed to strike the earth.


Good.

Quote:
Perhaps in direct proportion to the “righteousness level” on earth, and thus this is indirectly a part of the Four Winds that He is holding back, as the faithfulness of may people allow Him to restrain “outlaw” human passions, which, when no longer restrained, would warrant the proportionate withdrawing of His protection.


This sounds similar to my thinking.

Quote:
Quote:
NJK: I.e., not every sinful action will not lead to an “immediate” and even “organic” result.

Tom: All sin has selfishness as its root, which, apart from God's intervention, would lead to the result described above in the DA 764 quote.

NJK:Still all sins do not have the same “life span” up to their death. Some sins have a faster track to this natural death end, and that is why I understand that their utter, and relatively soon results were to be capitally preempted/curtailed when committed. In, how I see, God choosing to fairly deal with various branches of sin in this judicious way, I think it indeed reveals the Justice and even Merciful aspects of God’s character, rather than blanketly making all sins result in immediate death. That is why I Theologically see that it is the end result of sin, through a “life of rebellion” that is death and not sin itself. Indeed this result has to be allowed to grow, and not only “sown”, to be naturally vs. declaratory, even artificially, “reaped”. Hence this GC’s time.


I'm not following this.

Quote:
Quote:
NJK:The penalty of all sin is death however not every sin tangibly, immediately has this physical consequence of a ‘naturally resulting death.’

Tom: Againg, the DA 764 statement looks to disagree with this.

NJK:For the many reasons previously stated on this SOP passage in this thread, indeed also involving Gen 3:22's Truth, and the further ones above, I do not see that it Substantively nor Theologically does. Indeed I see that in this GC, it will only be shown that sin is deserving of death, and that, as in capital judgements, for the sake of those who do not want to live a life of sin.


It's not that sin is deserving of death, but that sin results in death. DA 764 makes this clear. It would have had to have been written with many NOTs to be the other way around.

For example, she writes:

Quote:
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.


This is describing the result of an action, not that death is deserved because of sin.

Again:

Quote:
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.


Same point. It's not that they deserve that God be a consuming fire to them, but God is what He is by nature; He is the same, the "everlasting burnings" of Isaiah. But the wicked, because of their own actions, cannot abide His presence.

Again:

Quote:
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.


This doesn't say:

Quote:
Satan, because of his actions, deserved to die. But had God executed him, it would not have been understood that God's actions were just. Therefore God gave him time to develop his principles, so that when it came time for Satan to be executed, no one would question that God was acting justly.


The above paragraph is how many seem to understand the final judgment, but this isn't even close to what was actually written above.

Quote:
This is indeed why I see this entire GC is necessary. I.e., not merely so that man can naturally reap the natural consequences of sin, but as God has done through the removal of the Tree of Life, to demonstrate to all that God has not reason at all to, effectively, “sponsor” sin and sinners and let them live, as they either will eventually destroy themselves after much suffering and/or involve sinless worlds and being in continual strife.


I would say that the GC is necessary to make clear:

a.The truth about God; His character and government.
b.The truth about Satan/sin; his character and government.

That's basically it. Once the truth is seen, there is no longer any reason for God to allow sin to continue, as all sin has ever done is to bring suffering, misery and death. Once all sentient beings understand this, and understand that God is love, and has always acted in the best interested of His creatures, there is no longer any reason for sin or sinners to continue to exist.

Quote:
Quote:
NJK:Hence God’s capital punishment provision for some of those sins.

Tom: So you're saying God doesn't have a capital punishment provsion for sins which *do* have organic consequences?

NJK:Temporally speaking, isn’t that easily seen in Israel’s laws. Indeed the Passover Ordinance was the provision for the sins of people that were not to be capitally punished.

Originally Posted By: Tom
You seem to have the underlying idea that sin, of itself, is, at least in general, not very destructive to the one practicing it.

NJK:As stated above and throughout this thread, that is what God’s statement in Gen 3:22 indicates.


Even looking at things from your perspective, I don't see how this would follow. From your perspective, the tree of life would reverse that destructive elements of sin 100%, so people would be immortal, if they had access to the tree of life. God, by removing the tree of life, would allow the destructive elements of sin to occur. This wouldn't show that sin does not have destructive elements to it.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Tom
So God must impose penalities to punish it, or it would go unpunished.

NJK:In some cases, it indeed would as Satan would surely not do it himself and not all sins have this immediate consequence of death, if ever.


Quoting again from DA 764:

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.


I don't see how any sin would be exempt here.

Quote:
That is why God must preemptively/“prematurely” act to keep certain sins in check, even those that would seem to “organically” lead to death. And these interventions are for the sake and well-being of the righteous.

Originally Posted By: Tom
On the other hand, I see that sin is extremely destructive, and that we vastly underestimate to what extent, so that we consequently vastly underestimate God's activity in protecting us, and preventing its destructive work.

NJK:I agree with this though only in part, as I Theologically see and understand from the Bible and SOP that this is all only the case because God chose to bar the Tree of Life for both nature and created beings.


The Tree of Life would not fix the problems stated just above, in DA 764, which is a character related issue. The Tree of Life does not fix character.

Quote:
So the Planet has since then come to develop these destructive effects. However, as it can be seen in the Garden of Eden that remained until the Flood and still had the benefits of the Tree of Life, it was in its perfect state while the rest of the earth was suffering these destructive results of sin.

Your refusal to accept that plain Bible and SOP possible fact is what is keeping you from understanding this directly derived Theological Truth.


I could just as easily say that your refusal to accept plain SOP statements, such as the chapter "It Is Finished" in "The Desire of Ages" or "The Destruction of Jerusalem" in "The Great Controversy" or Bible statements such as "the sting of death is sin" is what is keeping you from understanding this directly derived Theological Truth.

But I don't think this is accurate. I think it's your view of God's character which prevents you from seeing the truths we're discussing. Since the truths themselves are dealing with God's character, this leads to a Catch 22; i.e. seeing God's character as you do prevents you from interpreting texts which speak of God's character in another light.

However, although we do see things differently, I appreciate your taking the time to explain your views, especially in a more friendly manner, as you have been doing lately. I still haven't gotten completely where you're coming from, which leads to errors in my part at times in correctly representing your thoughts, but I believe I'm getting closer.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/14/11 03:39 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
These last paragraphs were well written in terms of the sentence structure. Much easier to understand, which is appreciated.


Sometimes, even in my “brainstorming responses, as my time only allows for, for this discussion, some things do come out clearer than others, not actually through any special effort on my part. As I have said, proofreading would have made other statements just as clear but I can’t afford that review process.

Quote:
Tom: Also, what constitutes a "mercy" situation, as opposed to a "no mercy" situation?

NJK: Simply said, where people are allowed to escape the actual utter judgement that God intends. If God did not want them to escape/survive, even be saved, this surely would not have been the case at all. So even in a judgement, there is usually a last chance, ‘mercy provision’ and then a ‘no-more-mercy’ stage.

Tom: I wouldn't say that God intends judgment, but repentance. Judgment occurs only when people refuse to repent, and that judgment is a result of people refusing the protection which God offers them. The "no-more-mercy" stage is when people have made their final decision not to repent.


Though I get your well-meaning attempt here to effectively, “defend” God, I Biblically actually see that it is “judgement” that is still being prominently applicable in such “judgement” cases as it is a blameless part of God’s Character: = His Justice. So when God decides to enter into judgement with someone, though repentance may be, and usually is, a possible outcome in the judgement, indeed there always seems to be a last granted opportunity to repent (= Isa 1:18-20), it is judgement that is the prominent action. Using judgements to seek repentance would make God compel repentance through force.

Originally Posted By: Tom
A key, significant phrase to keep in mind, used by the SOP in the description of the destruction of Jerusalem, is that God was *caused* to remove His protection. What happened was this:

1.God is protecting, showing mercy, urging repentance.
2.While the heart is not completely hardened, this continues.
3.There is simultaneous action going on:
a.God being caused to remove His protection.
b.God continuing to protect.

While the heart is not completely hardened, b>a. At a certain point, after so much resistance to the pleading of the Holy Spirit, a>b, and disaster occurs.


I Biblically see/understand that from the time when God allowed the Roman armies to approach and surround Jerusalem, indeed as He/Jesus had pointedly specified that it would be the case in judgement (e.g., Matt 22:7; Luke 19:41-44; 21:20-22). The judgement of Jerusalem started with the 66 A.D. siege yet mercy was still extended/demonstrated for the most part of that 4-year war.

Originally Posted By: Tom
For example:

Originally Posted By: Bible Deut 31:17, 18
17Then my anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall befall them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us, because our God is not among us?

18And I will surely hide my face in that day for all the evils which they shall have wrought, in that they are turned unto other gods. (Deut 31)


Based on what I understand “the face” to symbolically mean/represent in the Bible, indeed as it is being figuratively spoken of in this passage, I see that this “hiding of His Face” involves God not allowing/facilitating a rebellious people/group to “see/understand/recognize/perceive” the things of God that would ‘make for their peace’. That is indeed one of the major reasons why Jesus spoke in parables (Matt 13:10-17 = Isa 6:9-13).

Originally Posted By: Tom
Anger (or wrath) equates to forsaking/hiding of face, which results in trouble.


I rather see that it is God’s anger and wrath which leads to this distinctively destructive/detrimental action of Him hiding His face. That is only one manifestation of His anger/wrath, and pointedly when dealing with His former people who had ample opportunity to ‘seek/see His Face’ and thus understand Him and His Ways. (2 Chr 7:14; Hos 5:15; cf. e.g., Psa 24:1-6).

Indeed, especially compared to the access and manifestation in Israel, God’s does hide His face from heathen peoples yet they do not naturally encounter troubles, indeed, as David says, many of them do “flourish” (Psa 92:7)

Ironically it is when/if God would reveal/show His Face to the wicked that they would be liable of immediate judgement just as Israel was whenever it acted like, and even worse than, these heathen nations “in the Face of God”. These heathens would then, like Israel has shown, not necessarily repent with this newly confronted “perception/knowledge” of God, especially if no explicit threat of judgement accompanies this revelation, but would continue to sin, now with knowledge of the Truth, and thus be duly judged. So God’s non-revelation to them, opting rather for this to be done through His People, serves to preserve the lives of these heathens. And if all fails and they never come to a saving knowledge of God and their actions and life had violated clear natural laws (i.e., last 6 commandments), then as David says, God would have “lovingly” allowed them to relatively thrive because ‘this is the only life they’ll ever be able to enjoy’ (Psa 92:7b)

Quote:
Tom: The seven last plagues are a "no mercy" situation too. So you see the GC 35-37 description as applying to the seven last plagues as well?

NJK:Though “saving mercy” will, actually not be granted by God once the plagues are started, which is why Jesus greatly wishes that no one would seek it then (Rev 22:11),

Tom: This is a very well known text. Couldn't you at least give a hint, like "he who is filthy, let him remain filthy?"

Tom: It's certainly not the case that Jesus "greatly wishes that no one would seek it then." That makes no sense. Jesus is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to a knowledge of the truth. He only gives up on people when they give on Him, and that is with no feeling of malice, but a sad acceptance of the choice that has been made, as in His lamentation over Jerusalem.


It exegetically actually certain is the case that “Jesus greatly wishes that no one would seek it then.” I had discussed that exegetical point earlier in this thread, in a discussion with Mountain Man. (See here Post #131708 and here Post #131748) and others. Perhaps you did not read it, or forgot it. It is from there that I derive the Theological “wishes” notion.

For me, it is such exhaustively comprehensive exegesis that set/determine my Theological Views/Understandings. So to validly object to my view here, you’ll have to directly engage those founding exegetical points.

Originally Posted By: Tom
He would gladly show mercy on whomever he could, but people disqualify themselves from being able to receive mercy by hardening their own hearts. The mercy needed is not mercy to protect against what God will do if you don't what He says, but to protect from the results of disobedience of the law. When a person continues to say, "Leave me alone!," eventually God will do just that, which is His no longer showing mercy, and they suffer the consequences.


As God directly does most of actions of judgement in the Bible (and I actually see not valid reason not to say ‘“all” except for the final portion of Jerusalem’s destruction), then it would not be logical for His mercy not to be ‘a protection against what He will do if [since] you don't [didn’t] do what He says/had said’. Mercy is indeed always for a due punishment which is actually the result of disobedience, whether direct or indirect | active or passive | engendered or natural.

Quote:
NJK: mercy is implicitly present as ‘not all flesh is cutoff’ from the start. So this “non-saving mercy”, somewhat like for the 1st Century Jews, will be for an opportunity for everyone to make a knowing decision during this time, against God before they all suffer the full effects of their sins.

Tom: I agree with this.


I do not leave it beyond the feasibility of God, to grant mercy for genuine repentance during that time, but since He has been making sure that the work of the Gospel (which includes the Three Angels Message) will be fully and actually done/finished by then, everyone would have had a clear knowledge of what God’s will and the Truth is by then. That is indeed another reason why I see that God will not allow Final Events to unravel, as they will be when the end is to occur, until this Warning and Instructing work is first actually and properly done/finished. Then Rev 22:11 will indeed be able to transpire as prophesied and any plea for mercy then will justly not be granted.

Quote:
NJK: Indeed it seems that the first 4 plagues are poured out before the Final Global rebellious movement is fully established. I.e., many people in ‘non-Christian’ countries may not have subscribed to a New World Order under the leadership of the U.S./West and Papacy.

NJK:It also seems to me that when a natural destruction can’t or won’t occur in a timely way, then God intervenes to supernaturally bring that destruction about.

Tom: This presupposes that it is not necessary for God, as a general principle, to act to prevent natural disasters from occuring. I think we have a large disagreement here. The SOP tells us that God's intervention is needed to even keep the earth in proper orbit. I think sin has messed things up to the extent that God's intervention is needed to prevent the earth from destruction. When He ceases, then destruction occurs.

NJK:[Please provide the direct quote and/or reference for your SOP statement above on the “orbits” Indeed I cannot really comment here without first reading/analyzing it for myself.]

Tom: I'll look for it when I can. It's in Ministry of Healing, in the section talking about nature.


That book reference should have helped to relocate it, but as “orbit” is apparently not an explicit keyword, it doesn’t help me at all, also not being familiar at all with that statement. Awaiting your “relocating”!

Quote:
NJK: Nonetheless, I can understand that God can limit how many natural disasters are allowed to strike the earth.

Tom: Good.


Don’t “over-understate/understand” this statement of mine, as I suspect you may here, based on matching past occurrences. I always understood that natural disasters were both prevented and allowed as God saw fit. Yet I still see that He uses nature to bring about certain judgement, and not always in a “natural way”. E.g., the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was not ‘“naturally” by a nearby volcano that ‘it just happened’ was supposed to erupt at that very time when judgement was due, but an active and direct working of God from heaven/space-borne source.

Quote:
NJK: Perhaps in direct proportion to the “righteousness level” on earth, and thus this is indirectly a part of the Four Winds that He is holding back, as the faithfulness of may people allow Him to restrain “outlaw” human passions, which, when no longer restrained, would warrant the proportionate withdrawing of His protection.

Tom: This sounds similar to my thinking.


I have had no problem with God ‘withdrawing His protection’ to let a judgement occur. In regards to organic/natural results, this I see as a secondary way in which God effectuates His judgements when it indeed is so naturally possible/timely. I have just had a categorical problem with you claiming that this type of judgement applies to every single judgement mentioned in the Bible as this goes against clear and explicit Biblical exegesis and EGW herself never made that claimed or even made such indications in her relating of Biblical judgements. So also, e.g., where you see her ‘protection withdrawal’ for the fiery serpents to mean ‘God was not involved in that judgement” I don’t see claim in her account nor paramountly, exegetically, in the Biblical text. Quite to the contrary. And for me, if the SOP was to seemingly be opposing the Bible, as with ‘God’s heart hardening of Pharaoh’ then I go by what the Bible is revealing.

Quote:
NJK: I.e., not every sinful action will not lead to an “immediate” and even “organic” result.

Tom: All sin has selfishness as its root, which, apart from God's intervention, would lead to the result described above in the DA 764 quote.

NJK: Still all sins do not have the same “life span” up to their death. Some sins have a faster track to this natural death end, and that is why I understand that their utter, and relatively soon results were to be capitally preempted/curtailed when committed. In, how I see, God choosing to fairly deal with various branches of sin in this judicious way, I think it indeed reveals the Justice and even Merciful aspects of God’s character, rather than blanketly making all sins result in immediate death. That is why I Theologically see that it is the end result of sin, through a “life of rebellion” that is death and not sin itself. Indeed this result has to be allowed to grow, and not only “sown”, to be naturally vs. declaratory, even artificially, “reaped”. Hence this GC’s time.

Tom: I'm not following this.


The succinct indicative summary, which you can use to reread that paragraph, which is from the larger context of what I understand with this issue, is: ‘The full life of rebellion of the sinner is what self-inflictingly ends up killing him barring no intervention by God and not a mere presence/commitance of sin. And for sin to be self-combustible in the presence of God, that fully grown sinfulness would have to be developed. It indeed would then be a stage where the sin is being done in full knowledge of its sinfulness and thus God’s mercy would not be able to prevent this immediate destruction. For God to have done this immediately with Lucifer would have entailed that God would have outrightly “passed over” the Merciful aspect of His Character. Though this is something that He Righteously, Justly can and could have done. (Exod 33:19). But the everlasting question that would have lingeringly remained would be: Was that fair? Even, objectively-speaking, was it “deserved”’?.

Quote:
NJK:The penalty of all sin is death however not every sin tangibly, immediately has this physical consequence of a ‘naturally resulting death.’

Tom: Againg, the DA 764 statement looks to disagree with this.

NJK: For the many reasons previously stated on this SOP passage in this thread, indeed also involving Gen 3:22's Truth, and the further ones above, I do not see that it Substantively nor Theologically does. Indeed I see that in this GC, it will only be shown that sin is deserving of death, and that, as in capital judgements, for the sake of those who do not want to live a life of sin.

Originally Posted By: Tom
It's not that sin is deserving of death, but that sin results in death. DA 764 makes this clear. It would have had to have been written with many NOTs to be the other way around.

For example, she writes:

Originally Posted By: SOP
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.


This is describing the result of an action, not that death is deserved because of sin.

Again:

Originally Posted By: SOP
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.


Same point. It's not that they deserve that God be a consuming fire to them, but God is what He is by nature; He is the same, the "everlasting burnings" of Isaiah. But the wicked, because of their own actions, cannot abide His presence.

Again:

Originally Posted By: SOP
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.


This doesn't say:

Originally Posted By: Tom
Satan, because of his actions, deserved to die. But had God executed him, it would not have been understood that God's actions were just. Therefore God gave him time to develop his principles, so that when it came time for Satan to be executed, no one would question that God was acting justly.


The above paragraph is how many seem to understand the final judgment, but this isn't even close to what was actually written above.


I’ll grant you that EGW does not say “deserved” in that passage, but I am not limiting my understanding of the GC to only this statement of hers, but to all that she says that contribute to this understanding. And the Tree of Life Issue and that sinners could live forever is from where I get and make this “deserved” qualification. SO I do see this as being underlyingly implied in those GC 764 statements.

Quote:
NJK: This is indeed why I see this entire GC is necessary. I.e., not merely so that man can naturally reap the natural consequences of sin, but as God has done through the removal of the Tree of Life, to demonstrate to all that God has not reason at all to, effectively, “sponsor” sin and sinners and let them live, as they either will eventually destroy themselves after much suffering and/or involve sinless worlds and being in continual strife.

Tom: I would say that the GC is necessary to make clear:

a.The truth about God; His character and government.
b.The truth about Satan/sin; his character and government.

That's basically it. Once the truth is seen, there is no longer any reason for God to allow sin to continue, as all sin has ever done is to bring suffering, misery and death. Once all sentient beings understand this, and understand that God is love, and has always acted in the best interested of His creatures, there is no longer any reason for sin or sinners to continue to exist.


I more widely/deeply see/understand that this “GC Truth” cannot be conclusively seen without also justifying why God barred access to the Tree of Life, and thus perpetual Life, to people who chose not to live according His Laws, particularly, as it was more pointedly brought to the GC floor, the first 3 Commandments, and since the formation of the Remnant Church, the Fourth Commandments. Indeed the last 6 Commandments are rather quite explanatory, especially by now after 6000 years of human “demonstration/experience”.

Quote:
NJK: Hence God’s capital punishment provision for some of those sins.

Tom: So you're saying God doesn't have a capital punishment provsion for sins which *do* have organic consequences?

NJK:Temporally speaking, isn’t that easily seen in Israel’s laws. Indeed the Passover Ordinance was the provision for the sins of people that were not to be capitally punished.

Tom: You seem to have the underlying idea that sin, of itself, is, at least in general, not very destructive to the one practicing it.

NJK: As stated above and throughout this thread, that is what God’s statement in Gen 3:22 indicates.

Tom: Even looking at things from your perspective, I don't see how this would follow. From your perspective, the tree of life would reverse that destructive elements of sin 100%, so people would be immortal, if they had access to the tree of life. God, by removing the tree of life, would allow the destructive elements of sin to occur. This wouldn't show that sin does not have destructive elements to it.


Again we differ in that you see sin as being “organically” destructive. I Biblically see it as being something that is so contrary to the character of God that He can choose/allows for it and the sinner to be destroyed when in His presence. Yet that does not necessarily have to be the case. As Gen 3:22 indicates a sinner can live forever with the fruit of Life. You are not actually/properly engaging that Biblical and SOP fact in your view. I understand that the Fruit of Life would prevent/heal any harmful/detrimental effect that a sinful psyche (=character) would cause the human body produce.

So my view is that sin must be shown to be a completely spurious alternative, not only that it will most likely result in a miserable life, particularly emotionally, even including non-health related deaths, but it will ultimately, surely also come to infringe upon the happiness and freedom of those who do not want to subscribe to it. And furthermore, God would have to go completely against His Character and actually “sponsor” and “accommodate” it and sinners.

Quote:
Tom: So God must impose penalities to punish it, or it would go unpunished.

NJK:In some cases, it indeed would as Satan would surely not do it himself and not all sins have this immediate consequence of death, if ever.

Tom: Quoting again from DA 764:

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.


Tom: I don't see how any sin would be exempt here.


As I say, some sins would take much longer than others to result in producing natural, or even, forced deaths (e.g, vexatiously killing someone for having lied to you and embarrassed you). Then there is also the issue of ‘God presence’ here. God could have made it that sinners were banished in a remote world away from His presence, indeed just like the circumstances for this Planet in Rebellion.

So while a Last man/tribe/clan scenario would likely play out with ‘eternal sinners’, God wants to demonstrate that it is not even worth it to take a risk, affecting everyone, with an ‘immortalizing of sin’, even if for a long while, in a wishful hope that this would not ultimately occur.

Quote:
NJK: That is why God must preemptively/“prematurely” act to keep certain sins in check, even those that would seem to “organically” lead to death. And these interventions are for the sake and well-being of the righteous.

Tom: On the other hand, I see that sin is extremely destructive, and that we vastly underestimate to what extent, so that we consequently vastly underestimate God's activity in protecting us, and preventing its destructive work.

NJK:I agree with this though only in part, as I Theologically see and understand from the Bible and SOP that this is all only the case because God chose to bar the Tree of Life for both nature and created beings.

Tom: The Tree of Life would not fix the problems stated just above, in DA 764, which is a character related issue. The Tree of Life does not fix character.


Of course the Tree of Life does not fix character (= the sinner’s sinful “psyche”). I indeed don’t believe so, but that is, as I Biblically wholly understand it here, not actually a part of the issue of sin and perpetual life. The tree of Life would prevent this sinful psyche to produce natural deadly results/consequence in one’s body and also in nature.

Quote:
NJK: So the Planet has since then come to develop these destructive effects. However, as it can be seen in the Garden of Eden that remained until the Flood and still had the benefits of the Tree of Life, it was in its perfect state while the rest of the earth was suffering these destructive results of sin.

Tom: Your refusal to accept that plain Bible and SOP possible fact is what is keeping you from understanding this directly derived Theological Truth.

Tom: I could just as easily say that your refusal to accept plain SOP statements, such as the chapter "It Is Finished" in "The Desire of Ages" or "The Destruction of Jerusalem" in "The Great Controversy" or Bible statements such as "the sting of death is sin" is what is keeping you from understanding this directly derived Theological Truth.


You certainly, especially freely, could. But/So the real issue here is can you (truly) Biblically substantiate what you are claiming!

Originally Posted By: Tom
But I don't think this is accurate. I think it's your view of God's character which prevents you from seeing the truths we're discussing. Since the truths themselves are dealing with God's character, this leads to a Catch 22; i.e. seeing God's character as you do prevents you from interpreting texts which speak of God's character in another light.

As I said above, my view of Theological Views of God’s is set/determined by what the Bible, and SOP (when it is proven valid) fully/comprehensively/exhaustively teach. As I can easily substantiate, you patently do not include all pertinent/contributive points in forming your views. That is the case with the Plagues, the War in Heave, God’s Love of the Righteous vs.. the Sinners; God’s method of judgements. Jesus is also partially upheld by this selective, one-sided approach/methodology of yours.

Originally Posted By: Tom
However, although we do see things differently, I appreciate your taking the time to explain your views, especially in a more friendly manner, as you have been doing lately. I still haven't gotten completely where you're coming from, which leads to errors in my part at times in correctly representing your thoughts, but I believe I'm getting closer.


Succinctly said, believe me, the only reason for this is that I have learned to ‘serenely accept the things that I obviously/clearly will not change’ with you, however Biblically, logically and self-evidently justified and required they are. And since this is all just resulting in taking more of my time from me to have to continue to deal with things that should have been conclusively settled a long time ago, I am also taking the necessary measures so that my time and schedule is actually not detrimentally disrupted. Perhaps one day you “come around” and, at the very least, truly and properly involve Biblical Exegesis in your understandings, as you, technically-speaking, can, and should, do being a Seminarian.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/16/11 11:55 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
As I have said and substantively explained/defended before, many times, I see no difference in the first and second death. It is still “normative death”. Only the sustainedly allowed suffering in before the Second Death is allowed to be effectuated, is what somewhat distinguishes them, though, as I see it, it does not change the (ultimate), identical, “death” factor involved. So that guides my understandings here. And I do see capital punishment as being a microcosm of what will occur in Hell where I also see that sin and sinners will be eradicated by an act of God (Rev 20:11-15 (cf. GC 672.2-673.1; EW 294.1ff) = 19:17-21) and not by “critical mass”/ “self-combustion”. Indeed I see EGW’s “consuming fire” statement to actually be more figurative than literal. As per example, in this statement:

Originally Posted By: SOP GC 673.3
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.

As I explained before, I think both the 7000 years and the way in which this GC was allowed to develop where God did not defaultly abandon those who sinned against Him to their own way, but allowed them to get a saving knowledge of the Gospel, resulting in the end that all will claim the name of Christ and really only be violating the letter of a single commandment, that, what I term, a “critical mass” stage of sin will not occur at the end of these 7000 years. Perhaps if God removed all of the righteous then and left these rebellious “Christians” on earth to live ca. 3000 more years, where now they knew that they actually were not Christians/approved by God and also that they had no chance of salvation, that these will then live out a life that comes to be ‘so out of harmony with God’, i.e., deliberately violating the spirit and letter of all of the Ten Commandments, that they indeed would self-combust in the mere presence of God. As also explained before, I still see that this would become the case only if God allows this to be and this is naturally done by Him not finding any actionable element in a person upon which He can have mercy. Indeed even in the situation with Satan coming into the presence of God and “surviving”/living it was evidently because the GC issues were not yet transparently self-demonstrated, as it will even more fully be at the end of the allotted ca. 7000 years.


I couldn't follow this last paragraph.

Regarding the above, a couple of questions come to mind. One if if you believe that God executed His Son through capital punishment. The other question is why you see the consuming fire statements to be figurative.

Hopefully I'll get to more later.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/17/11 01:27 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
T:DA 764 isn't dealing with capital punishment, but with the destruction of the wicked.

NJK:As I said above, I see the final destruction as the ultimate/anti-typical “Capital Punishment” for sin, and then all and any sins, since the conclusive, though not necessarily exhaustive, self-evidence will be in/available then.


I see the cross as more of an indication as to the character of the final destruction.

Quote:
Indeed since God knew that sinner can live a very long time, even eternally as sinners if their physical body/health was “therapeutically maintained” by the Tree of Life, these 7000 years, as seen in the symbology of 7 (vs. 10) is only a perfect representation/sampling of a much larger possible whole.


This looks to be a big difference we have. You appear to view sin is primarily, or only, a physical problem, where I see it as a spiritual problem. If sin were only a physical problem, then the tree of life could conceivably fix that, so I can see, given this presupposition, why you would think that a sinner could live eternally. Indeed, above, you only mention body/health as what needs to be “therapeutically maintained."

I see that the deeper issues of sin, the issues which cause death, have to due with the mind and the soul. This is what DA 764 is getting at, where it brings out that the wicked form characters so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire, and that His glory (which is His character) destroys them. How does it destroy them? The following helps to understand how:

Quote:
Those who have chosen Satan as their leader and have been controlled by his power are not prepared to enter the presence of God. Pride, deception, licentiousness, cruelty, have become fixed in their characters. Can they enter heaven to dwell forever with those whom they despised and hated on earth?

Truth will never be agreeable to a liar; meekness will not satisfy self-esteem and pride; purity is not acceptable to the corrupt; disinterested love does not appear attractive to the selfish. What source of enjoyment could heaven offer to those who are wholly absorbed in earthly and selfish interests?

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. (GC 542-543)


None of this is anything the Tree of Life can fix. The problem is one of character, as the above points out. Note:

Quote:
They would welcome destruction, that they might be hidden from the face of Him who died to redeem them.


Again, this is not something the Tree of Life can fix. Also:

Quote:
Its purity, holiness, and peace would be torture to them; the glory of God would be a consuming fire.


What is purity, holiness and peace to the wicked? It's "torture." Imagine "peace"(!) being torture! But such is the effect of sin.

Going back to the chapter "It Is Finished" for a moment, we see in this chapter, which deals with the effects of Christ's death on the cross, perhaps the most detailed explanation as to the principles involved in the destruction of the wicked. I don't think this is coincidence. I don't think we can understand the destruction of the wicked without understanding the cross.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/17/11 02:11 AM

Quote:
T:If God were to allow this, a person wouldn't have the opportunity to develop a character. So God permits a person to sin and not die right away, so as to to develop a character, and have an opportunity to make the right decision.

NJK:I don’t understand how you are involving the formation of one’s character in this. I rather see that time is permitted so that people can understand why God’s ways are indeed, now transparently better, and based on this choose either sin or God.

Tom: Regarding character development, I was referring to this:

Originally Posted By: SOP
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. (DA 764)


Tom: This, by the way, I believe is a good explanation of God's wrath; giving a person over to the results of their choice.

NJK:What confused me is that you didn’t specify “character” here and it could go either way, good or bad. I also sequitur saw that you had meant ‘good character’ with your ‘leading to making the right decision’ qualifying, which I further do not see as being achieved by God by permitting someone to sin. EGW, as seen in DA 763.3, foundationally has in mind either ‘good or bad character’ (= “two classes”), but it is the ‘developed bad character’ that she is exclusively focusing on throughout DA 764.1.


I'm not following your point here. My point was this:

Quote:
:If God were to allow this, a person wouldn't have the opportunity to develop a character. So God permits a person to sin and not die right away, so as to to develop a character, and have an opportunity to make the right decision.


This seems quite clear to me.

Quote:
T:There are a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which God protects us. We're not aware of most of these dangers, just a very, very small percentage, so do not recongize just how dangerous a thing sin is, nor to what extent we are dependent upon God and His protection.

NJK: As I see it, these fall under the “basic necessities of life” that God equally provides for everyone, indeed all in protection against the harmful results of sin.

Tom: That's an awfully broad characterization of "basic necessities of life."

NJK:I don’t think so. I think you are seeing it as broad as you include in this judgements that God actively done. I.e., Fires from heaven/cloud/Most Holy Place, the Flood, the Plagues. I understand that you see the world in a state of chaos that need the constant actions by God. I rather see that the Earth can come to “skewly” develop a catastrophic problem and God, when this is about to occur, intervenes to avert it at times, especially if it will result in a, relatively speaking, not proportionally deserved destruction/loss of life. But sometimes he lets them happen, hence “natural disasters”.

So God’s (would be, i.e., if EGW actually said/revealed this) keeping the planet in its proper orbit is a basic necessity for sustained life.


This is hard to follow. I understood this part:

Quote:
I understand that you see the world in a state of chaos that need the constant actions by God.


And I agree with this characterization of my understanding. I didn't understand your statement, however, other than that I take it you disagree.

Here's the statement from "The Ministry of Healing" I was thinking of:

Quote:
It is not by inherent power that year by year the earth yields its bounties and continues its march around the sun. The hand of the Infinite One is perpetually at work guiding this planet. It is God’s power continually exercised that keeps the earth in position in its rotation. It is God who causes the sun to rise in the heavens. He opens the windows of heaven and gives rain. {MH 416.3}


Quote:
NJK:Indeed most of these “thousand dangers” may be of this “basic necessity type” which all should have occurred as a result of sin.


The context of our discussion here is the blessings that God provides to the wicked. Your statement seemed to be indicating that God's blessings to the wicked were very limited, including only the "basic necessity type."

I pointed out that the thousands of dangers from which God protects us, all of them unseen, included the wicked. You included this as a part of the "basic necessity type," which would have you agreeing with me in terms of what God is including in terms of blessing the wicked, it seems to me, just that you apply to them what appears to me to be an odd title.

As to what these thousand blessings included, this is the context:

Quote:
They are preserved from a thousand dangers, all to them unseen.... I was shown that the judgments of God would not come directly out from the Lord upon them, but in this way: They place themselves beyond His protection. He warns, corrects, reproves, and points out the only path of safety; then if those who have been the objects of His special care will follow their own course independent of the Spirit of God, after repeated warnings, if they choose their own way, then He does not commission His angels to prevent Satan’s decided attacks upon them. It is Satan’s power that is at work at sea and on land, bringing calamity and distress, and sweeping off multitudes to make sure of his prey. And storm and tempest both by sea and land will be, for Satan has come down in great wrath. He is at work. He knows his time is short and, if he is not restrained, we shall see more terrible manifestations of his power than we have ever dreamed of. {14MR 3.1}


Quote:
NJK: However there are many Satan-caused dangers that God has to pointedly and constantly protect His people against, as long as He actually can, i.e., if they are faithful.

Tom: These are included in the "thousand dangers, all of them unseen."

NJK:Probably, though I have a harder time of understanding them as “dangers,” which I see more to be “natural obstacles” than caused/attempted-attacks by Satan. They may however be “traps” set by Satan for God’s people which they can be harmed by when God justly no longer prevents them from walking into them.


I don't know what you're referring to here. It seems to me the dangers being referred to are like those in Job.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/17/11 02:35 AM

Quote:
NJK: I see that this only applies, as she qualifies, “when men pass the limits of divine forbearance” and “that restraint is removed”. That then involves God not seeking to do any acts of mercy in a judgement. However, as seen in e.g., the Flood, the fiery serpents, the destruction of Sodom, the first destruction of Jerusalem, the most part of the War of the Jews, etc. God actually wanted to have and show mercy to anyone who would repent.

Tom: God always wants to have and to show mercy. We see this just as much in the destruction of Jersualem in A.D. 70. For example, the lamentation of Christ shows this.

NJK: God’s/Jesus’s “wanting” to do something is completely distinct from what He ultimately/eventually “chooses” to do (even when allowing/permitting).

Tom: You wrote, "God actually wanted to have and show mercy to anyone who would repent." Since you spoke of what God "actually wanted," this is what I commented on. God "actually wants" to show mercy on anyone who repents all the time.

Tom: I don't know why you're bringing up a distinction between what God wants and chooses to do, as you weren't speaking to this, nor did I.

NJK:Well then I had “misunderstood” you, (according to your wider view) to mean: ‘God always wants to have mercy, therefore He never does, nor is involved in, judgements.’ Therefore my distinction was to emphasize, as I more widely theologically understand it, God may want/prefer to have mercy, but in some case he is left with no other choice but to enter into judgement, which He most times, Himself does/administers/executes, even when mixed with mercy. I.e., even with some mercy involved, it can still be a devastating judgement (e.g., Judah’s (2 tribes) Babylonian Captivity (vs. Israel’s (10 tribes) Assyrian Captivity)).


I think God is involved in judgments, and these judgements are as described here:

Quote:
They place themselves beyond His protection. He warns, corrects, reproves, and points out the only path of safety; then if those who have been the objects of His special care will follow their own course independent of the Spirit of God, after repeated warnings, if they choose their own way, then He does not commission His angels to prevent Satan’s decided attacks upon them. It is Satan’s power that is at work at sea and on land, bringing calamity and distress, and sweeping off multitudes to make sure of his prey. And storm and tempest both by sea and land will be, for Satan has come down in great wrath. He is at work. He knows his time is short and, if he is not restrained, we shall see more terrible manifestations of his power than we have ever dreamed of. {14MR 3.1}


Quote:
NJK: Case in point, as I substantively see and understand it, at some point, late into the Jewish War, God no longer chose to have mercy and let Titus respond as He should have a long time ago, and no longer have mercy. Indeed the reason why Titus chose to no longer have mercy was not even substantive, i.e., the Jews were physically fighting back, but because he became insulted by the Jews presuming to dictate the terms of surrender. (Josephus, Wars 6:6.3 [#352]) If he became so indignant for that, then it can be seen that his previous patience and mercy when suffering losses in actual battle was surely God influenced.

Tom: I don't see why you're pointing this out. That is, how does this tie into our discussion?

NJK:When God wanted to have mercy in the first parts of the war, permitting both Christians and then also Jews to freely escape alive from this judgement through repeated war haltings/“cutting shorts” (cf. Matt 24:22), I see that His Spirit influenced the Romans and later Titus to take actions towards this merciful end. However late in the war, when God no longer wanted to have mercy, as He actually could not, Titus was permitted to become indignant, and that over something substantively insignificant, and the actual “Destruction of Jerusalem” occurred then.

So I see this development as being typical of God and indeed what will occur in the 7 Last Plagues with some, though non-salvific, mercy for the first 6 and no mercy in the last one.


No mercy means God permitted Satan to do his will? E.g.

Quote:
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.


So "no mercy" was when this state was reached. Before this state, God had not been caused to remove His protection, so mercy was still being applied. It seems pretty clear that this is what was happening here, correct?

So, to related this to final plagues, God, in the first 6 plagues, was still protecting, to differing degrees, but when the 7th arrives, He has removed His protection completely; is this the idea?
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/17/11 02:47 AM

I have a couple of discussion general questions for you Tom:

(1) Why do you selectively respond to some parts of a post and not to its other parts? Time of course is not the issue here since you do respond to some parts. My question is why not the other parts instead? Particularly those which you manifestly realized have disproved your previous objections.

(2) Do you still think that your prior objections are still right despite not having responding to the responses that disprove them?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/17/11 02:51 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
T:I believe the only reason God chooses not to have mercy on someone is that they do not desire it (I'm speaking in the true sense of the term, meaning that they desire mercy from a sense of having done wrong -- i.e. truly repentant --, but not merely that they don't want to suffer the consequences of what they did).

NJK:Of course a genuine repentance is key in this act of God. And God cannot grant something that is not genuinely requested. In the War of the Jews, those who wanted to surrender peacefully to the Romans did so probably out of a desire to prevent further destruction to what they considered God’s property. And that in itself was/would be relatively noble. I can only see that God’s hand and mercy was involved up to the utter destruction end phase, because the entire residents/occupants of Jerusalem then (ca. 2 million people) were to all suffer death in that war. (= Matt 22:7)


You're agreeing or disagreeing with what I said?

Quote:
NJK: Also in some case, He wanted to limit/control the extent of destruction. (That is also reversedly present in the final Hell Fire judgement). So He was there standing as the administrator and executioner of this sentence, as EGW also understood (see also her later comments in GC 614.2).

Tom: You mean just the one sentence taken out of context, right?

NJK: Are you referring to a “textual sentence” or a “judgement sentence” here? I am not sure by what you are implying here, especially as I don’t see the “executioner” sentence to be out of context, particularly spiritually.

Tom: I was referring to the sentence in GC 614.2 that you had in mind.

NJK:I am actually still confused. So explicitly state/quote the ‘sentence from GC 614.2 that you thought I had in mind.’


I think I'll defer to you her. What comments of hers did you have in mind? Or, if you don't think is important, just skip it.

Quote:
Tom: Focusing on this sentence:

Originally Posted By: NJK (edited)
So, like in the War of the Jews event, I see a gradual withdrawal of God’s mercy culminating in an utter ended of unmixed wrathful judgement for those who persist in rebellion until the end.


Tom: I agree with this. In the case of the destruction of Jerusalem, the unmixed wrathful judgment was caused by God's completely His withdrawal of protection against Satan.

NJK:As I understand your view, you see this withdrawal of mercy for the entire war period (namely 66-70 A.D.). I actually see this as not the case for this entire war judgement, but like in the 7 Last Plagues, only in the final part, i.e., after Titus became indignant (sometime in 70 A.D.) and proceed to both unmercifully kill the remaining Jews and also deliberately aim to destroy the city. Perhaps as you had said below, you agree with this two-part judgement view...


I hadn't really gotten into this aspect at all, but was only commenting more generally, that the Jews had caused God to remove His protection from them, which is what the judgment consisted of.

Quote:
NJK: As explained above, I see that there is mercy involved even within/during the execution of a judgement by God, right up to an utter end, where God allows the Devil to then fully have his way.

Tom: Ok, I wasn't understanding this. I agree with this. (More later)

NJK:...however I do not see how this reconciled with your sustainedly expressed view that God is not involved in a judgement at all but that things naturally and independently developed on their own.


I've not said this. God is involved in the judgment, certainly, as the judgment consists of God's removing His protection, which is something that God does. God removes His protection; He orders His angels to "release" (e.g., release the winds of strife); these are things that God does.

Quote:
Under such a view, God cannot be acting to influence Titus to restrain himself, nor have His own angels delve out first 6 plagues (Rev 16:1-16) and even initiated the final one (vs. 17, 18) which is then allowed to be executed by Satan (vs. 19-21/ GC 614.2-615.1)


I don't see why, under such a view, God could not have been acting to influence Titus to restrain himself. Indeed, I would imagine that God was doing so the whole time. Perhaps for awhile Titus responded to the Holy Spirit, and then stopped; I don't know.

Regarding the 7 last plagues, I see that what EGW wrote in 14 MR 3 applies, which I already quoted twice recently, so won't do so again.

Your point of view appears to be that God initiates judgment, by means of the holy angels, and then permits Satan to execute the final one? So they are pretty much working hand in hand here? Or I'm misunderstanding you here?

I don't things this way. I see that God is constantly acting contrary to Satan, protecting the wicked, as much as He can, from Satan's attacks. As God is caused to remove His protection, the attacks occur, all contrary to God's will.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/17/11 03:34 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
T:These last paragraphs were well written in terms of the sentence structure. Much easier to understand, which is appreciated.

NJK:Sometimes, even in my “brainstorming responses, as my time only allows for, for this discussion, some things do come out clearer than others, not actually through any special effort on my part. As I have said, proofreading would have made other statements just as clear but I can’t afford that review process.


If I have to keep asking you what you mean half a dozen times, are you really saving any time over if you had just written your thoughts clearly the first time? Surely not, right?

Quote:
Tom: I wouldn't say that God intends judgment, but repentance. Judgment occurs only when people refuse to repent, and that judgment is a result of people refusing the protection which God offers them. The "no-more-mercy" stage is when people have made their final decision not to repent.

NJK:Though I get your well-meaning attempt here to effectively, “defend” God, I Biblically actually see that it is “judgement” that is still being prominently applicable in such “judgement” cases as it is a blameless part of God’s Character: = His Justice. So when God decides to enter into judgement with someone, though repentance may be, and usually is, a possible outcome in the judgement, indeed there always seems to be a last granted opportunity to repent (= Isa 1:18-20), it is judgement that is the prominent action. Using judgements to seek repentance would make God compel repentance through force.


I see that the judgment occurs when God is caused to remove His protection, which is not something that He intends, but is caused to do. Regarding your last sentence, that's an interesting point. If it were God's purpose to coerce repentance by means of judgment, I would agree with you. But the Bible says that it is God's goodness which leads us to repentance, Romans 2:3,4. So the way I could see this would work would be if when God removes His protection, it is seen what God had been doing (i.e., protecting), and this opening of the eyes to God's goodness (His protection) leads one to repentance.

Quote:
A key, significant phrase to keep in mind, used by the SOP in the description of the destruction of Jerusalem, is that God was *caused* to remove His protection. What happened was this:

1.God is protecting, showing mercy, urging repentance.
2.While the heart is not completely hardened, this continues.
3.There is simultaneous action going on:
a.God being caused to remove His protection.
b.God continuing to protect.

While the heart is not completely hardened, b>a. At a certain point, after so much resistance to the pleading of the Holy Spirit, a>b, and disaster occurs.

NJK:I Biblically see/understand that from the time when God allowed the Roman armies to approach and surround Jerusalem, indeed as He/Jesus had pointedly specified that it would be the case in judgement (e.g., Matt 22:7; Luke 19:41-44; 21:20-22). The judgement of Jerusalem started with the 66 A.D. siege yet mercy was still extended/demonstrated for the most part of that 4-year war.


This seems to be a bit orthogonal to what I wrote. I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I'm not sure how that relates to what I wrote.


Quote:

For example:

Originally Posted By: Bible Deut 31:17, 18
17Then my anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall befall them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us, because our God is not among us?

18And I will surely hide my face in that day for all the evils which they shall have wrought, in that they are turned unto other gods. (Deut 31)


Based on what I understand “the face” to symbolically mean/represent in the Bible, indeed as it is being figuratively spoken of in this passage, I see that this “hiding of His Face” involves God not allowing/facilitating a rebellious people/group to “see/understand/recognize/perceive” the things of God that would ‘make for their peace’. That is indeed one of the major reasons why Jesus spoke in parables (Matt 13:10-17 = Isa 6:9-13).


God's will is that all understand the truth and come to repentance.

Quote:
9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (2 Pet. 3:9)


Every time she SOP deals with this subject, we see something like this:

Quote:
As a pall of death they covered their souls with error; and though Christ presented to them the inner meaning of the Jewish economy, that they might discern that he was the great Antitype, they closed their eyes, that they might not perceive, and hardened their hearts, that they might not understand. {ST November 7, 1892, par. 4}


The context here is quoting Isa. 6:9 and following.

We see that they closed their eyes, that they might not perceive, and hardened their hearts, that they might not understand. What God did in this process was to give them light.

This is simply another example of God's being presented as doing that which He permits.

Spiritual things are spiritually understood. It's not that God undertakes some special action to prevent unspiritual people from understanding spiritual things, but such is simply not possible. The natural man does not comprehend the things of God. In order to understand spiritual things, one must become spiritual. This requires a response to Christ, by means of the Holy Spirit.

Quote:
T:Anger (or wrath) equates to forsaking/hiding of face, which results in trouble.

NJK:I rather see that it is God’s anger and wrath which leads to this distinctively destructive/detrimental action of Him hiding His face.


The hiding of His face is His wrath; these aren't different things, just multiple ways of expressing the same thing, which is common in Hebrew writing (EGW uses this device often as well).

Quote:
NJK:That is only one manifestation of His anger/wrath, and pointedly when dealing with His former people who had ample opportunity to ‘seek/see His Face’ and thus understand Him and His Ways. (2 Chr 7:14; Hos 5:15; cf. e.g., Psa 24:1-6).


This is His wrath. God's wrath does not consist of His getting piqued, as humans do, but in His reluctantly being caused to withdraw.

Quote:
Indeed, especially compared to the access and manifestation in Israel, God’s does hide His face from heathen peoples yet they do not naturally encounter troubles, indeed, as David says, many of them do “flourish” (Psa 92:7)


The same principle applies to the heathen; when God hides His face, troubles come. David wrote that they appeared to him to flourish, until he went to the sanctuary. Appearances can be deceiving. The life of the wicked is full of troubles. There are plenty of Scriptures to establish this (e.g. "The way of the transgressor is hard.").

Quote:
Ironically it is when/if God would reveal/show His Face to the wicked that they would be liable of immediate judgement just as Israel was whenever it acted like, and even worse than, these heathen nations “in the Face of God”. These heathens would then, like Israel has shown, not necessarily repent with this newly confronted “perception/knowledge” of God, especially if no explicit threat of judgement accompanies this revelation, but would continue to sin, now with knowledge of the Truth, and thus be duly judged. So God’s non-revelation to them, opting rather for this to be done through His People, serves to preserve the lives of these heathens. And if all fails and they never come to a saving knowledge of God and their actions and life had violated clear natural laws (i.e., last 6 commandments), then as David says, God would have “lovingly” allowed them to relatively thrive because ‘this is the only life they’ll ever be able to enjoy’ (Psa 92:7b)


I think I may agree with the last sentence here. Would you expand your thought here please? (More later)
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/17/11 08:34 AM

Quote:
NJK: As I have said and substantively explained/defended before, many times, I see no difference in the first and second death. It is still “normative death”. Only the sustainedly allowed suffering in before the Second Death is allowed to be effectuated, is what somewhat distinguishes them, though, as I see it, it does not change the (ultimate), identical, “death” factor involved. So that guides my understandings here. And I do see capital punishment as being a microcosm of what will occur in Hell where I also see that sin and sinners will be eradicated by an act of God (Rev 20:11-15 (cf. GC 672.2-673.1; EW 294.1ff) = 19:17-21) and not by “critical mass”/ “self-combustion”. Indeed I see EGW’s “consuming fire” statement to actually be more figurative than literal. As per example, in this statement:

Originally Posted By: SOP GC 673.3
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.


NJK: As I explained before, I think both the 7000 years and the way in which this GC was allowed to develop where God did not defaultly abandon those who sinned against Him to their own way, but allowed them to get a saving knowledge of the Gospel, resulting in the end that all will claim the name of Christ and really only be violating the letter of a single commandment, that, what I term, a “critical mass” stage of sin will not occur at the end of these 7000 years. Perhaps if God removed all of the righteous then and left these rebellious “Christians” on earth to live ca. 3000 more years, where now they knew that they actually were not Christians/approved by God and also that they had no chance of salvation, that these will then live out a life that comes to be ‘so out of harmony with God’, i.e., deliberately violating the spirit and letter of all of the Ten Commandments, that they indeed would self-combust in the mere presence of God. As also explained before, I still see that this would become the case only if God allows this to be and this is naturally done by Him not finding any actionable element in a person upon which He can have mercy. Indeed even in the situation with Satan coming into the presence of God and “surviving”/living it was evidently because the GC issues were not yet transparently self-demonstrated, as it will even more fully be at the end of the allotted ca. 7000 years.

Tom: I couldn't follow this last paragraph.


I think it was sufficiently clear, all things considered. Take it one sentence/thought at a time. And as I said, ‘I had explained this before’. So see back e.g., in here Post #132171 (Section for DA 764.3) for more.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Regarding the above, a couple of questions come to mind. One if if you believe that God executed His Son through capital punishment.


Since Jesus did not self-combust on the Cross but died of a broken heart because God caused Him to become this “sick” (Isa 53:10) through “extreme mental anguish” (see here for more), then I believe He was “non-naturally” put to death (=Capital Punishment), let alone through the Roman’s “Capital Punishment” method of crucifixion.

Originally Posted By: Tom
The other question is why you see the consuming fire statements to be figurative.


I see EGW’s statement as figurative because (1) I don’t see the destruction of the wicked as depicted as such in the Bible or in the SOP in regards to the Hell Fire Judgement. Indeed, as I said before (see here Post #132118 and here Post #132254), I also see EGW’s understand of what she though 2 Thess 2:8 as being out of a wrong translation. The wicked are destroyed in their first (pre-millennium) and Second Death (Hell) by active actions of God.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/17/11 08:36 AM

Quote:
T:DA 764 isn't dealing with capital punishment, but with the destruction of the wicked.

NJK:As I said above, I see the final destruction as the ultimate/anti-typical “Capital Punishment” for sin, and then all and any sins, since the conclusive, though not necessarily exhaustive, self-evidence will be in/available then.

Tom: I see the cross as more of an indication as to the character of the final destruction.


I can see how your view would need this to be the sequence, but it is logically clear that Jesus endured the pain and suffering that the redeemed and the lost would have to endure in Hell at the end. So the Cross was logically a substitutionary (for the Saved) and representational (for the wicked) of that future due judgement.

Also there was no Hell Fire at the Cross. So while a mental suffering may have been undergone by Christ, a physical suffering of the Fire of Hell apparently was not effectuated....

Quote:
NJK: Indeed since God knew that sinner can live a very long time, even eternally as sinners if their physical body/health was “therapeutically maintained” by the Tree of Life, these 7000 years, as seen in the symbology of 7 (vs. 10) is only a perfect representation/sampling of a much larger possible whole.

Tom: This looks to be a big difference we have. You appear to view sin is primarily, or only, a physical problem, where I see it as a spiritual problem. If sin were only a physical problem, then the tree of life could conceivably fix that, so I can see, given this presupposition, why you would think that a sinner could live eternally. Indeed, above, you only mention body/health as what needs to be “therapeutically maintained."


...And this is where, as I expressed before, I see that Jesus took care of the mental aspects of sins which then allows for God to excise it from the redeemed sinners psyche/mentality/mind. Something that the Tree of Life would not do. However the Tree of Life does serve to “upkeep” the new bodies that the redeemed will be given as a total replacement of the prior on (unlike one’s mind/character) by God.

I base my Theology of ‘Every Word that proceeds out of the mouth of God’ and not, as you opt to do, only on what fancies your view. That is indeed the one-sided/selective method that Satan tried to use to deceive Christ (Matt 4:5-7). So, once again, since the Creator God said that a sinner could live eternally, with a sinful mentality, just by eating of the Tree of Life, then my Theological View/Understanding here can’t but include this God-expressed, and thus, incontrovertible fact. Anything less, even basing it on what one understands from EGW, is forming another Gospel (2 Cor 11:3-6). Indeed the same deception principle of selective/partial/imcomplete “quoting of God” was used to deceive Eve (Gen 3:4, 5).

So frankly and seriously Tom, your approach of deficient Biblical exegesis, has placed you on enchantingly deceptive grounds. (Cf. 1 Tim 2:14) Indeed building a doctrine on only selective passages on a topic (like done with the teachings of Eternal Hell Torment, Eternal Soul, the Secret Rapture, etc), is tantamount to weaving a “fanstasy.” Those are just the hard facts of the matter!

Originally Posted By: Tom
I see that the deeper issues of sin, the issues which cause death, have to due with the mind and the soul. This is what DA 764 is getting at, where it brings out that the wicked form characters so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire, and that His glory (which is His character) destroys them. How does it destroy them? The following helps to understand how:

Originally Posted By: SOP GC 542-543
Those who have chosen Satan as their leader and have been controlled by his power are not prepared to enter the presence of God. Pride, deception, licentiousness, cruelty, have become fixed in their characters. Can they enter heaven to dwell forever with those whom they despised and hated on earth?

Truth will never be agreeable to a liar; meekness will not satisfy self-esteem and pride; purity is not acceptable to the corrupt; disinterested love does not appear attractive to the selfish. What source of enjoyment could heaven offer to those who are wholly absorbed in earthly and selfish interests?

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. (GC 542-543)


The operative action/development in this SOP quote is ‘bringing that so-out-of-harmony’ sinner into the immediate presence of God and Godly things. However, as I said, God could easily made it that sinners never be subjected to this. Indeed just like humans in this world live apart from God’s presence. So the fact that God has to make it that the sinner come into His presence to suffer this automatic destruction when it is actually feasible (i.e., in a critical mass type of way) involves an active action of God either in going to where the sinner (on Earth = Second Coming) is or making the sinner come to where He is (in Heaven/Post Millennium Destruction in sight of the New Jerusalem).

Originally Posted By: Tom
None of this is anything the Tree of Life can fix. The problem is one of character, as the above points out. Note:

Originally Posted By: SOP
They would welcome destruction, that they might be hidden from the face of Him who died to redeem them.


Again, this is not something the Tree of Life can fix. Also:

Originally Posted By: SOP
Its purity, holiness, and peace would be torture to them; the glory of God would be a consuming fire.


What is purity, holiness and peace to the wicked? It's "torture." Imagine "peace"(!) being torture! But such is the effect of sin.


As explained above, Christ’s suffering and death takes care of mental/psychological (= “soul”) aspects of the effects of sin. Yet we still then will not be given character traits that we had not priorly developed in this life, but will have to develop them for ourselves in Heaven, probably all during the Millennium period. Indeed many will be saved who were not even explicit/knowing believers in God/Christ.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Going back to the chapter "It Is Finished" for a moment, we see in this chapter, which deals with the effects of Christ's death on the cross, perhaps the most detailed explanation as to the principles involved in the destruction of the wicked. I don't think this is coincidence. I don't think we can understand the destruction of the wicked without understanding the cross.


It indeed helps one to understand the mental aspects of that destruction.

So in summary, my view is that the Tree of Life indeed deals with the health and body of Man, while Christ’s death deals with the mental aspects. Still by the wounds that Jesus suffered, the price was paid for the redeemed sinner to receive an entirely new, replacement body free of all of the physical damages of sin (Isa 53:5b).
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/17/11 08:42 AM


Quote:
T:If God were to allow this, a person wouldn't have the opportunity to develop a character. So God permits a person to sin and not die right away, so as to to develop a character, and have an opportunity to make the right decision.

NJK:I don’t understand how you are involving the formation of one’s character in this. I rather see that time is permitted so that people can understand why God’s ways are indeed, now transparently better, and based on this choose either sin or God.

Tom: Regarding character development, I was referring to this:

Originally Posted By: SOP
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. (DA 764)


Tom: This, by the way, I believe is a good explanation of God's wrath; giving a person over to the results of their choice.

NJK (edited):What confused me is that you didn’t specify “character” here and it could go either way, good or bad. I also sequiturly saw that you had meant ‘good character’ with your ‘leading to making the right decision’ qualifying, which I further do not see as being achieved by God by permitting someone to sin. EGW, as seen in DA 763.3, foundationally has in mind either ‘good or bad character’ (= “two classes”), but it is the ‘developed bad character’ that she is exclusively focusing on throughout DA 764.1.

Tom: I'm not following your point here. My point was this:

Originally Posted By: Tom
:If God were to allow this, a person wouldn't have the opportunity to develop a character. So God permits a person to sin and not die right away, so as to to develop a character, and have an opportunity to make the right decision.


Tom: This seems quite clear to me.


And my point was/is that EGW is pointedly speaking of an ‘evil character’ which logically does not lead one to “have an opportunity to make the right decision”. How does an chance to continue sinning make one form a “good (i.e., right-decision-making) Character”??

Quote:
T:There are a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which God protects us. We're not aware of most of these dangers, just a very, very small percentage, so do not recongize just how dangerous a thing sin is, nor to what extent we are dependent upon God and His protection.

NJK: As I see it, these fall under the “basic necessities of life” that God equally provides for everyone, indeed all in protection against the harmful results of sin.

Tom: That's an awfully broad characterization of "basic necessities of life."

NJK (edited):I don’t think so. I think you are seeing it as broad as you also include in this judgements that God actively did. I.e., Fires from heaven/cloud/Most Holy Place, the Flood, the Plagues. I understand that you see the world in a state of chaos that need the constant actions by God. I rather see that the Earth can come to “skewly” develop a catastrophic problem and God, when this is about to occur, intervenes to avert it at times, especially if it will result in a, relatively speaking, not proportionally deserved destruction/loss of life. But sometimes he lets them happen, hence “natural disasters”.

NJK: So God’s (would be, i.e., if EGW actually said/revealed this) keeping the planet in its proper orbit is a basic necessity for sustained life.

Tom: This is hard to follow.


Seems clear to me. Try it again with the minor editing. An examples is a hurricane. The world is not “chaotically” averting hurricanes every second. But at times a wind can, due to various atmospheric differences in weather/climate, and that caused by the axis-shifting destruction during the Flood, result in this wind forming into a hurricane, then God may choose to send angels to either divert the hurricane from hitting a populated areas and/or lessen it force before it hits land. This is what I understand by skewly vs. chaotic. I.e., “it can naturally develop” vs. “it is threateningly and eminently ever-present”.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I understood this part:

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
I understand that you see the world in a state of chaos that need the constant actions by God.


Tom: And I agree with this characterization of my understanding. I didn't understand your statement, however, other than that I take it you disagree.

Tom: Here's the statement from "The Ministry of Healing" I was thinking of:

Originally Posted By: SOP MH 416.3
It is not by inherent power that year by year the earth yields its bounties and continues its march around the sun. The hand of the Infinite One is perpetually at work guiding this planet. It is God’s power continually exercised that keeps the earth in position in its rotation. It is God who causes the sun to rise in the heavens. He opens the windows of heaven and gives rain. {MH 416.3}


It seems to me from the wider context of that MH 416.3 statement that this active role of God is not something that is limited to/a consequence of a post-sin state, but something that He must do with all of His created world. As seen below it is speaking of God’s Creation in general, irrespective of sin.

Originally Posted By: SOP MH 416.1
God is constantly employed in upholding and using as His servants the things that He has made. He works through the laws of nature, using them as His instruments. They are not self-acting. Nature in her work testifies of the intelligent presence and active agency of a Being who moves in all things according to His will.


So the world is not being spoken of here as being in “chaos,” but in needing an active energy and guidance to operate it. Sort of like a bicycle vs. a moped. The bicycle needs to be humanly powered to move forward while the moped is powered/propelled by a motor.

So this active impetus/energy from God for His Creation would indeed be part of His generally provided “basic necessities of/for life”. Still it is not necessarily acting because of ‘sin-caused “chaos”’. It is just the way nature was only meant to, indeed by logical implication given God’s power, could only work.

Quote:
NJK:Indeed most of these “thousand dangers” may be of this “basic necessity type” which all should have occurred as a result of sin.

Tom: The context of our discussion here is the blessings that God provides to the wicked. Your statement seemed to be indicating that God's blessings to the wicked were very limited, including only the "basic necessity type."


Indeed, especially in what is necessary to preserve/sustain normal/basic life.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I pointed out that the thousands of dangers from which God protects us, all of them unseen, included the wicked.


It seems to me that you had actually wrongly conflated God’s active actions to “operate” nature with/as “judgement dangers”. The two are not the same. One is evidently always present in God Creation, the other is the direct result/consequence of sin.

Originally Posted By: Tom
You included this as a part of the "basic necessity type," which would have you agreeing with me in terms of what God is including in terms of blessing the wicked, it seems to me, just that you apply to them what appears to me to be an odd title.


As Gen 18:23ff shows, God does not ‘destroy the righteous with the wicked. And so, as this world involves the righteous living where the wicked also live, then that may be the reason why God averts many potential destructions. However in the time of Plagues, as also in Egypt, God can act to judge the wicked because the righteous have heedinly been withdrawn from among them.

Originally Posted By: Tom
As to what these thousand blessings included, this is the context:

Originally Posted By: SOP 14MR 3.1
They are preserved from a thousand dangers, all to them unseen.... I was shown that the judgments of God would not come directly out from the Lord upon them, but in this way: They place themselves beyond His protection. He warns, corrects, reproves, and points out the only path of safety; then if those who have been the objects of His special care will follow their own course independent of the Spirit of God, after repeated warnings, if they choose their own way, then He does not commission His angels to prevent Satan’s decided attacks upon them. It is Satan’s power that is at work at sea and on land, bringing calamity and distress, and sweeping off multitudes to make sure of his prey. And storm and tempest both by sea and land will be, for Satan has come down in great wrath. He is at work. He knows his time is short and, if he is not restrained, we shall see more terrible manifestations of his power than we have ever dreamed of. {14MR 3.1}


Again here context (i.e., from proper exegesis) is key. As stated before, this is speaking of (as in its later application in GC 35-37) God’s dealing with formerly righteous people (as this Elder Stone was and the “they” referred to here) who He had been actively protecting against pointed attacks of the Devil and not to wicked people in general. These are Righteous people who have chosen to act/become wicked. Just like Satan does not act righteously against himself (Matt 12:25, 26; Mar 3:24-26) he logically also does not act wickedly against himself, shooting himself in the foot, unless he either can gain a greater advantage against the cause of God by such a “sacrificial acts and/or he possibly has nothing left to gain.

Quote:
NJK: However there are many Satan-caused dangers that God has to pointedly and constantly protect His people against, as long as He actually can, i.e., if they are faithful.

Tom: These are included in the "thousand dangers, all of them unseen."

NJK: Probably, though I have a harder time of understanding them as “dangers,” which I see more to be “natural obstacles” than caused/attempted-attacks by Satan. They may however be “traps” set by Satan for God’s people which they can be harmed by when God justly no longer prevents them from walking into them.

Tom: I don't know what you're referring to here. It seems to me the dangers being referred to are like those in Job.


Did you read what events led to Job’s dispossession and loss??

-(Job 1:14, 15) An enemy Sabeans attack taking oxen and donkeys.
-(Job 1:16) Fire from the sky burning up the sheep. (It was deemed from God, but evidently from Satan as permitted by God (Job 1:11, 12). Indeed as EGW says in PK 150.1 with the Mount Carmel episode, Satan has the power to make fire (via lightning) come down from the sky if God permits (cf. Rev 13:13). As seen today when lightning strikes people, lightning does cause what is still seen today as (fatal) “burns”.)
-(Job 1:17) A raid by three bands of Chaldeans taking the camels.
-(Job 1:18, 19) A great wind from the “wilderness”(??) which knocked down the house where all of Job’s children were partying.
-On top of this, these attacks killed many, if not all of Job’s servants.
-(Job 2:4-7) Later sore boils caused by Satan.

So all of these damages were done by direct actions of men or Satan and all clearly inspired/influenced by Satan and with no angels of God deliberately being sent to defend Job. The Sabeans and Chaldeans may never have wanted to do a raid on Job until Satan would have here inspired them. Satan can also easily generate a strong, tornado type destructive wind.

That is what I see as a difference be “natural dangers” vs. “artificially” created harm.

(By the way, do you know where EGW has a full account of the Job episode. I do not see it in PP or in my EGW Scriptural Index).
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/17/11 08:43 AM

Quote:
NJK: I see that this only applies, as she qualifies, “when men pass the limits of divine forbearance” and “that restraint is removed”. That then involves God not seeking to do any acts of mercy in a judgement. However, as seen in e.g., the Flood, the fiery serpents, the destruction of Sodom, the first destruction of Jerusalem, the most part of the War of the Jews, etc. God actually wanted to have and show mercy to anyone who would repent.

Tom: God always wants to have and to show mercy. We see this just as much in the destruction of Jersualem in A.D. 70. For example, the lamentation of Christ shows this.

NJK: God’s/Jesus’s “wanting” to do something is completely distinct from what He ultimately/eventually “chooses” to do (even when allowing/permitting).

Tom: You wrote, "God actually wanted to have and show mercy to anyone who would repent." Since you spoke of what God "actually wanted," this is what I commented on. God "actually wants" to show mercy on anyone who repents all the time.

Tom: I don't know why you're bringing up a distinction between what God wants and chooses to do, as you weren't speaking to this, nor did I.

NJK:Well then I had “misunderstood” you, (according to your wider view) to mean: ‘God always wants to have mercy, therefore He never does, nor is involved in, judgements.’ Therefore my distinction was to emphasize, as I more widely theologically understand it, God may want/prefer to have mercy, but in some case he is left with no other choice but to enter into judgement, which He most times, Himself does/administers/executes, even when mixed with mercy. I.e., even with some mercy involved, it can still be a devastating judgement (e.g., Judah’s (2 tribes) Babylonian Captivity (vs. Israel’s (10 tribes) Assyrian Captivity)).

Tom: I think God is involved in judgments, and these judgements are as described here:

Quote:
They place themselves beyond His protection. He warns, corrects, reproves, and points out the only path of safety; then if those who have been the objects of His special care will follow their own course independent of the Spirit of God, after repeated warnings, if they choose their own way, then He does not commission His angels to prevent Satan’s decided attacks upon them. It is Satan’s power that is at work at sea and on land, bringing calamity and distress, and sweeping off multitudes to make sure of his prey. And storm and tempest both by sea and land will be, for Satan has come down in great wrath. He is at work. He knows his time is short and, if he is not restrained, we shall see more terrible manifestations of his power than we have ever dreamed of. {14MR 3.1}


I see God’s “involvement” in a judgement as being actionably determinative of what takes place and even ‘preventing angels to continue/provide a protection’ is an executive action of God. What takes place after that protection is prevented/withdrawn is a whole other and distinct level of Judgement. So GC 35-37 and 14MR 1-3 describe those judgements where God is no longer involved. So your claim of “involvement” here would “misnomerly” mean that God is doing those types of judgements.

Quote:
NJK: Case in point, as I substantively see and understand it, at some point, late into the Jewish War, God no longer chose to have mercy and let Titus respond as He should have a long time ago, and no longer have mercy. Indeed the reason why Titus chose to no longer have mercy was not even substantive, i.e., the Jews were physically fighting back, but because he became insulted by the Jews presuming to dictate the terms of surrender. (Josephus, Wars 6:6.3 [#352]) If he became so indignant for that, then it can be seen that his previous patience and mercy when suffering losses in actual battle was surely God influenced.

Tom: I don't see why you're pointing this out. That is, how does this tie into our discussion?

NJK:When God wanted to have mercy in the first parts of the war, permitting both Christians and then also Jews to freely escape alive from this judgement through repeated war haltings/“cutting shorts” (cf. Matt 24:22), I see that His Spirit influenced the Romans and later Titus to take actions towards this merciful end. However late in the war, when God no longer wanted to have mercy, as He actually could not, Titus was permitted to become indignant, and that over something substantively insignificant, and the actual “Destruction of Jerusalem” occurred then.

NJK: So I see this development as being typical of God and indeed what will occur in the 7 Last Plagues with some, though non-salvific, mercy for the first 6 and no mercy in the last one.

Tom: No mercy means God permitted Satan to do his will? E.g.

Quote:
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.


“No mercy” is when God no longer involves anything that can prevent a natural course or created one from taking place, which thus also includes Satan’s desire and attempts to inflict damage upon people who had previously been opposing his kingdom and in a way continue to surfacely do so even while actually doing his will. I.e., the Jews would seem to other pagan nations as the people of God though their ways were actually corrupt and evil.

Originally Posted By: Tom
So "no mercy" was when this state was reached. Before this state, God had not been caused to remove His protection, so mercy was still being applied. It seems pretty clear that this is what was happening here, correct?


That is clearly what was the case in the Jewish War. Until late 70 A.D., Titus was actually resolutely not seeking to inflict the damage that he went on to do to Jerusalem.

Originally Posted By: Tom
So, to related this to final plagues, God, in the first 6 plagues, was still protecting, to differing degrees, but when the 7th arrives, He has removed His protection completely; is this the idea?


I would say “protecting” in the sense of ““limiting” the extent of the Plagues’. And, as I said before, because it is not until during the 6th plague (Rev 16:13-16) that the needed supernatural influence is permitted to compel people throughout the world to accept the western led “Christian” New World Order.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/17/11 08:49 AM


Quote:
T:I believe the only reason God chooses not to have mercy on someone is that they do not desire it (I'm speaking in the true sense of the term, meaning that they desire mercy from a sense of having done wrong -- i.e. truly repentant --, but not merely that they don't want to suffer the consequences of what they did).

NJK:Of course a genuine repentance is key in this act of God. And God cannot grant something that is not genuinely requested. In the War of the Jews, those who wanted to surrender peacefully to the Romans did so probably out of a desire to prevent further destruction to what they considered God’s property. And that in itself was/would be relatively noble. I can only see that God’s hand and mercy was involved up to the utter destruction end phase, because the entire residents/occupants of Jerusalem then (ca. 2 million people) were to all suffer death in that war. (= Matt 22:7)

Tom: You're agreeing or disagreeing with what I said?


I am agreeing, just trying to further see how/why God could have had this manifested mercy with these Jews.

Quote:
NJK: Also in some case, He wanted to limit/control the extent of destruction. (That is also reversedly present in the final Hell Fire judgement). So He was there standing as the administrator and executioner of this sentence, as EGW also understood (see also her later comments in GC 614.2).

Tom: You mean just the one sentence taken out of context, right?

NJK: Are you referring to a “textual sentence” or a “judgement sentence” here? I am not sure by what you are implying here, especially as I don’t see the “executioner” sentence to be out of context, particularly spiritually.

Tom: I was referring to the sentence in GC 614.2 that you had in mind.

NJK:I am actually still confused. So explicitly state/quote the ‘sentence from GC 614.2 that you thought I had in mind.’

Tom: I think I'll defer to you her. What comments of hers did you have in mind? Or, if you don't think is important, just skip it.


It is actually important to this theological topic and I thus do indeed include it to arrive at the proper understanding. From the start I had in mind EGW’s statement of ‘God actively effectuated judgements in the Bible’ related in all of GC 614.2 as:

Originally Posted By: SOP GC 614.2 (delineation supplied)
-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.


So in the light of what I had in mind and said, I could not understand what you meant by: “You mean just the one sentence taken out of context, right?”

Quote:
Tom: Focusing on this sentence:

NJK: So, like in the War of the Jews event, I see a gradual withdrawal of God’s mercy culminating in an utter ended of unmixed wrathful judgement for those who persist in rebellion until the end.

Tom: I agree with this. In the case of the destruction of Jerusalem, the unmixed wrathful judgment was caused by God's completely His withdrawal of protection against Satan.

NJK: As I understand your view, you see this withdrawal of mercy for the entire war period (namely 66-70 A.D.). I actually see this as not the case for this entire war judgement, but like in the 7 Last Plagues, only in the final part, i.e., after Titus became indignant (sometime in 70 A.D.) and proceed to both unmercifully kill the remaining Jews and also deliberately aim to destroy the city. Perhaps as you had said below, you agree with this two-part judgement view...

Tom: I hadn't really gotten into this aspect at all, but was only commenting more generally, that the Jews had caused God to remove His protection from them, which is what the judgment consisted of.


Understood. However that aspect is still an inherent part of this topic and thus must be included.

Quote:
NJK: As explained above, I see that there is mercy involved even within/during the execution of a judgement by God, right up to an utter end, where God allows the Devil to then fully have his way.

Tom: Ok, I wasn't understanding this. I agree with this. (More later)

NJK:...however I do not see how this reconciled with your sustainedly expressed view that God is not involved in a judgement at all but that things naturally and independently developed on their own.

Tom: I've not said this. God is involved in the judgment, certainly, as the judgment consists of God's removing His protection, which is something that God does. God removes His protection; He orders His angels to "release" (e.g., release the winds of strife); these are things that God does.


I actually see that you, as you have done before, are back peddling on your prior stance. As I said before. You are now saying that God’s withdrawal action is a judgement action of God, whereas before you were saying that even this is not a judgement from God but simply a “passive” natural occurrence.

Quote:
NJK: Under such a view, God cannot be acting to influence Titus to restrain himself, nor have His own angels delve out first 6 plagues (Rev 16:1-16) and even initiated the final one (vs. 17, 18) which is then allowed to be executed by Satan (vs. 19-21/ GC 614.2-615.1)

Tom: I don't see why, under such a view, God could not have been acting to influence Titus to restrain himself. Indeed, I would imagine that God was doing so the whole time. Perhaps for awhile Titus responded to the Holy Spirit, and then stopped; I don't know.


I am only speaking from what your view had always been before you made this sly slight switch here, and retroactively have tried to apply it to your prior position. Indeed under your prior position in the War of the Jews, God had removed his protection from even before the Romans came to Jerusalem. I.e., He removed His protection and all of a sudden the Roman felt and urge to go and destroy Jerusalem. So I don’t see how you suddenly now claim that God was protecting the Jews during the actual 66-70 A.D. War!!? According to your prior stance God’s Spirit was completely removed from this judgement long before the 70 A.D. decision by Titus for utter destruction.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Regarding the 7 last plagues, I see that what EGW wrote in 14 MR 3 applies, which I already quoted twice recently, so won't do so again.


The Bible is clear that the first 6 plagues are done by Holy angels in order to only be pointedly and thus limitedly effectuated, and the 7th is initiated by God. It is only after then that 14MR3.1 applies within the development of that Last Plague. I have no problem with what EGW says, just how you are indiscriminately understanding/applying it. It only applies to “no-more-mercy” situations which indeed usually have an extended “merciful” lead up.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Your point of view appears to be that God initiates judgment, by means of the holy angels, and then permits Satan to execute the final one? So they are pretty much working hand in hand here? Or I'm misunderstanding you here?


It is apparently your understanding that judgment is evil which leads to this derogative “hand-in-hand” aspersion here. God’s Justice includes Him executing judgements Himself. And to fairly and justly do so, indeed as either Satan “fairly” won’t do so, or “justly” won’t even begin to a judgement at all (e.g, the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah), I see in the Bible and SOP that most of these times, God Himself has had to entirely do a judgement. Yet he still involves an extended period of mercy before proceeding to completely apply the deserved punishment. It is only when God either no longer wants to have any mercy at all and/or does not care to what extent the destruction is done that He then completely removes Himself and thus allows Satan to have his way. And Satan does proceed to effectuate these judgements because they are indeed against former People of God who he passionately hates and wants to destroy. That is the case with utterly rebellious individuals (14 MR 1-3) and in the end, when Satan will have nothing left to gain, with the inhabitants of the world.

In fact, this Last Plague judgement by Satan may be done again these people who are actually serving him so that they will not come to switch sides in actual genuine repentance, but instead spitefully seek to “blaspheme God” (Rev 16:21). Therefore God’s decision to Himself entirely effectuate the first 6 plagues, through His commissioned angels, was so that this “blaspheming” of God does not prematurely occur. I.e., before these “wicked” people have had the self-generate chance to themselves clear see and understand that they have chosen the wrong side and are lost because of their own unbiblical choices.

God is not “collaborating” with Satan but actually, as throughout this GC, actually just using him to make His perfect will be gloriously self-demonstrated and self-vindicated. And, like in a chess match, that is all because God is infinitely so much more wiser than Satan, so the “moves” he permits Satan to naturally do, or “corners” him to do, only serve to accomplish God’s perfect will. That is also how I see prophecies are ultimately fulfilled as Satan cannot even act to defeat them by not doing what God said would be done, (e.g, persecuting the Saints (Dan 7:25) as this would result in great damage to his cause.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I don't things this way. I see that God is constantly acting contrary to Satan, protecting the wicked, as much as He can, from Satan's attacks. As God is caused to remove His protection, the attacks occur, all contrary to God's will.


As I said before quoting e.g, Mar 3-24-26, Satan does not “defaulty/constantly” so act against himself, thus ‘constantly seeking to destroy people who are actually serving him.’ He rather is glad when people choose to live however they wish to live, apart from God’s law, even if it is self-destructive, as this was what he wanted to occur from the start of this GC.

Also 14MR 1-3 and GC 35-37 are not speaking of the “wicked” but former followers of God.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/17/11 08:53 AM

Quote:
T:These last paragraphs were well written in terms of the sentence structure. Much easier to understand, which is appreciated.

NJK:Sometimes, even in my “brainstorming responses, as my time only allows for, for this discussion, some things do come out clearer than others, not actually through any special effort on my part. As I have said, proofreading would have made other statements just as clear but I can’t afford that review process.

Tom: If I have to keep asking you what you mean half a dozen times, are you really saving any time over if you had just written your thoughts clearly the first time? Surely not, right?


Wrong, and surely “Yes.”

As I only do this restating when substantively valid then: Yes.

And since I am not sure what you get or not get then also: Yes and again this objection is then substantively weighed to see if it is not frivolous.

Also most of these things had already been explained before.

Quote:
Tom: I wouldn't say that God intends judgment, but repentance. Judgment occurs only when people refuse to repent, and that judgment is a result of people refusing the protection which God offers them. The "no-more-mercy" stage is when people have made their final decision not to repent.

NJK:Though I get your well-meaning attempt here to effectively, “defend” God, I Biblically actually see that it is “judgement” that is still being prominently applicable in such “judgement” cases as it is a blameless part of God’s Character: = His Justice. So when God decides to enter into judgement with someone, though repentance may be, and usually is, a possible outcome in the judgement, indeed there always seems to be a last granted opportunity to repent (= Isa 1:18-20), it is judgement that is the prominent action. Using judgements to seek repentance would make God compel repentance through force.

Tom: I see that the judgment occurs when God is caused to remove His protection, which is not something that He intends, but is caused to do.


Succinctly said, as it is Biblically so obvious, as seen in e.g, Exod 33:19; “King Saul vs. King David” & Ezek 36:22-38) God is never “caused” in the sense of forced to remove His mercy/protection from anyone. He only does so when He wants it to be so, for whatever greater reason He has seen as fit. Indeed God legislating that some sins be capitally punished while others are not is another example of this choice of God.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Regarding your last sentence, that's an interesting point. If it were God's purpose to coerce repentance by means of judgment, I would agree with you. But the Bible says that it is God's goodness which leads us to repentance, Romans 2:3,4. So the way I could see this would work would be if when God removes His protection, it is seen what God had been doing (i.e., protecting), and this opening of the eyes to God's goodness (His protection) leads one to repentance.


Glad you Biblically corrected/clarified yourself here. You (LOL) are not “agreeing” with me as this is not my view at all. I was only stating what your prior objection entailed prior to your Biblical correction/clarification. Again, it seem here that you, as patently, also embarrasedly “slyly” switched views now, but tried to retroactively attribute it to ‘the view you always had.’ Even seeking to make me be the one holding that view!?? Nice try. Not fooling me.

The prior “goodness” of God is indeed seen when His judgements are manifested, but only when the people being judged see/understand that their ways had been evil. If not these judgements only serve to vexatiously harden people against God and/or seek spurious punishment-avoiding mercy.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Tom
A key, significant phrase to keep in mind, used by the SOP in the description of the destruction of Jerusalem, is that God was *caused* to remove His protection. What happened was this:

1.God is protecting, showing mercy, urging repentance.
2.While the heart is not completely hardened, this continues.
3.There is simultaneous action going on:
a.God being caused to remove His protection.
b.God continuing to protect.

While the heart is not completely hardened, b>a. At a certain point, after so much resistance to the pleading of the Holy Spirit, a>b, and disaster occurs.


NJK (edited): I Biblically see/understand that from the time when God allowed the Roman armies to approach and surround Jerusalem, indeed as He/Jesus had pointedly specified that it would be the case in judgement (e.g., Matt 22:7; Luke 19:41-44; 21:20-22), the judgement of Jerusalem started with the 66 A.D. siege, yet mercy was still extended/demonstrated for the most part of that 4-year war.

Tom: This seems to be a bit orthogonal to what I wrote. I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I'm not sure how that relates to what I wrote.


It is actually seeking to squarely “oppose” what you had said above because, once again your view up to then had been that the withdrawal of God’s mercy had occurred before the approach of the Roman armies in 66 A.D. Prior to that you had never made any statement in regards to any “simultaneous actions”. (If you think so then do state the post reference). So it is your sudden, and non-explicitly stated, but sly retroactively applied, switching of view here is what is causing confusion here. When you switch views, just honestly/truthfully state so. This sly tactic only speaks volumes against you, actually corroborating the arbitrarily “dishonest” approach to Scripture/Exegesis that I greatly suspect (to say the least) in/with you..

And how is this actually substantively not pertinent to what you had just said if this is what you meant by the “simulatenous actions” of “a.God being caused to remove His protection”
and “b.God continuing to protect.”??? How did this jointly occur before 66 A.D. act-of-war siege??!

Quote:
Tom: For example:

Originally Posted By: Bible Deut 31:17, 18
17Then my anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall befall them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us, because our God is not among us?

18And I will surely hide my face in that day for all the evils which they shall have wrought, in that they are turned unto other gods. (Deut 31)


NJK: Based on what I understand “the face” to symbolically mean/represent in the Bible, indeed as it is being figuratively spoken of in this passage, I see that this “hiding of His Face” involves God not allowing/facilitating a rebellious people/group to “see/understand/recognize/perceive” the things of God that would ‘make for their peace’. That is indeed one of the major reasons why Jesus spoke in parables (Matt 13:10-17 = Isa 6:9-13).

Tom: God's will is that all understand the truth and come to repentance.

Originally Posted By: Bible
9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (2 Pet. 3:9)


That is indeed true but that does not change the fact that God still acts to keep people in darkness and/or effectuate premature, non-natural capital judgements on them. Israel destroying surrounding nations even before giving them a chance to repent or telling them of the Truth (e.g., Deut 20:16-18), are examples of this.

Again a Theological views is not to be built upon a select passages from only one side. That is the choice tactic of the Devil to deceive. You seem to only want to focus on passages which you deem “good” and “Godly” and ignore anything else. Even that “sanctifying” premise does not result in having a Biblical View. All of the Bible is equally inspired by God and profitable for Doctrine (2 Tim 3:16).

Originally Posted By: Tom
Every time she SOP deals with this subject, we see something like this:

Originally Posted By: SOP
As a pall of death they covered their souls with error; and though Christ presented to them the inner meaning of the Jewish economy, that they might discern that he was the great Antitype, they closed their eyes, that they might not perceive, and hardened their hearts, that they might not understand. {ST November 7, 1892, par. 4}


The context here is quoting Isa. 6:9 and following.

We see that they closed their eyes, that they might not perceive, and hardened their hearts, that they might not understand. What God did in this process was to give them light.


The SOP is not the final interpreter of Scripture, and as with the Plagues and God’s hardening of Pharaoh, EGW may not have had to exegetically accurate/complete understanding here. There are many cases of this in her writings. You can choose to limit you understanding of the Bible to what she knew and wrote, I don’t (Pro 4:18). There is indeed much more to be learn from God’s word that was not “present truth” or even pragmatically needed for EGW’s “age of faith” days vs. our current fully blown “age of reason” even “age of unreason” age. I.e., as our times are becoming more and more like the pagan peoples that Israel had to deal with when coming out of Egypt, God allows us to better understand His wise and just dealings in and for these times and circumstances. The emphasis on the discovery of God’s Love greatly by EGW in her ministry does not supplant or discard the prior revelations of God’s Justice. All of His manifested character attributes are equally pertinent and blameless.

Originally Posted By: Tom
This is simply another example of God's being presented as doing that which He permits.


This is the perfect example of what I have meant when saying that ‘you continue to see a dense forest despite all of the felled tree.’ You just mantra-likely repeated this statement as if the 7 prime examples you had advanced to substantiate it had not long ago been all shown to be spurious. Furthermore, you have chosen not to respond to those substantively debunking responses. Yet this is still a ‘concrete truth’ to you?!? How exactly?!! Frankly, and factually-speaking, that borders on being intellectually delusional! At the very least: irresponsible if not also “dishonest”.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Spiritual things are spiritually understood. It's not that God undertakes some special action to prevent unspiritual people from understanding spiritual things, but such is simply not possible. The natural man does not comprehend the things of God. In order to understand spiritual things, one must become spiritual. This requires a response to Christ, by means of the Holy Spirit.


If God is “permitting”(??) people not to understand the Truth in veiled sayings, which implies that were it but for this act they would have naturally understood them, then how is this not a “doing” action of God. To do this, he clearly has to either obstruct the rational thought-process of people and/or prevent His Spirit from making any elucidating contribution.

And again, as seen with Christ’s own inner circle of disciples, just using parables and veiled saying is quite sufficient to cause this non-comprehension even with people who want to know and do the Truth. Evidently EGW missed that exegetical, (i.e., wider context) fact. As seen with her initial take on Christ’s response to Mary at Cana, EGW is not immune from making purely defensive expositions on a issue. Indeed a prophet was not immune from making such human-minded mistakes.

EGW infamous, and wholly not logically reconcilable “amalgamation statement” (especially in regards to “the many races of the earth”) may be along these false, personal beliefs/understanding lines of her times. Indeed just as eating oyster was despite her having received the Health Message revelation years before. Again the Bible is to be the final judge of what is truly/fully Biblical and not the writing of EGW.


Quote:
T:Anger (or wrath) equates to forsaking/hiding of face, which results in trouble.

NJK:I rather see that it is God’s anger and wrath which leads to this distinctively destructive/detrimental action of Him hiding His face.

Tom: The hiding of His face is His wrath; these aren't different things, just multiple ways of expressing the same thing, which is common in Hebrew writing (EGW uses this device often as well).


To you and your understanding they are not. But according to my wider and more specific exegetical understanding, they substantively are. (EGW use of a ‘literary device’ does not automatically translate into meaning that ‘God also used such a literary device’!??)

Quote:
NJK:That is only one manifestation of His anger/wrath, and pointedly when dealing with His former people who had ample opportunity to ‘seek/see His Face’ and thus understand Him and His Ways. (2 Chr 7:14; Hos 5:15; cf. e.g., Psa 24:1-6).

Tom: This is His wrath. God's wrath does not consist of His getting piqued, as humans do, but in His reluctantly being caused to withdraw.


The Bible is unequivocally clear that God’s wrath first become “piqued” i.e., “burns” (Psa 78:38; Exod 32:10-12; Deut 7:14; etc.); and then related, up to full, concrete judgement ensues, if He further wants to. (2 Chr 12:12; Hos 11:9; Psa 95:10, 11, etc.)

(It would be beneficial to you that when you make such maxim statement about what you think about God, to back it up with Scripture. Then they at least can be seen to been based/derived from something. I am sure your are over-confident that your view is correct, but only the Bible determines if this is true or not.)

Quote:
NJK: Indeed, especially compared to the access and manifestation in Israel, God’s does hide His face from heathen peoples yet they do not naturally encounter troubles, indeed, as David says, many of them do “flourish” (Psa 92:7)

Tom: The same principle applies to the heathen; when God hides His face, troubles come. David wrote that they appeared to him to flourish, until he went to the sanctuary. Appearances can be deceiving. The life of the wicked is full of troubles. There are plenty of Scriptures to establish this (e.g. "The way of the transgressor is hard.").


[Do state the reference for your (until then) supposed Biblical references] E.g., where exactly is this “sanctuary” allusion. As I had said, Psa 92:7 says that the wicked are allowed to flourish ‘so that they might be destroyed forevermore’, which I understand to mean, not so that their sinfulness will destroy them, but mercifully, because this will be the only life that they will be allowed to have. Just inour present world, many wealthy non-believers life quite comfortable lives, joyful and healthy lives, while many believers are poor and have to daily struggle to survive. Some even die as the rest of the world’s poor. That expression “The life of the wicked is full of troubles” is not always the case. Sounds great, even encouraging, but not always the truth. As I had said below, I see that David, under inspiration, clearly saw and understood that fact.

Even, Spiritually speaking, as seen in our world today, the absence of deeply felt guilt for sinful practices many times does not come to affect the wicked in this life. This will only be the case in the Second Death Judgement.

Quote:
NJK: Ironically it is when/if God would reveal/show His Face to the wicked that they would be liable of immediate judgement just as Israel was whenever it acted like, and even worse than, these heathen nations “in the Face of God”. These heathens would then, like Israel has shown, not necessarily repent with this newly confronted “perception/knowledge” of God, especially if no explicit threat of judgement accompanies this revelation, but would continue to sin, now with knowledge of the Truth, and thus be duly judged. So God’s non-revelation to them, opting rather for this to be done through His People, serves to preserve the lives of these heathens. And if all fails and they never come to a saving knowledge of God and their actions and life had violated clear natural laws (i.e., last 6 commandments), then as David says, God would have “lovingly” allowed them to relatively thrive because ‘this is the only life they’ll ever be able to enjoy’ (Psa 92:7b)

Tom: I think I may agree with the last sentence here. Would you expand your thought here please?


Perhaps/probably my above statements did this expanding.

---

Don’t forget to answer Post #133507
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/17/11 08:12 PM

Quote:
NJK: As I explained before, I think both the 7000 years and the way in which this GC was allowed to develop where God did not defaultly abandon those who sinned against Him to their own way, but allowed them to get a saving knowledge of the Gospel, resulting in the end that all will claim the name of Christ and really only be violating the letter of a single commandment, that, what I term, a “critical mass” stage of sin will not occur at the end of these 7000 years. Perhaps if God removed all of the righteous then and left these rebellious “Christians” on earth to live ca. 3000 more years, where now they knew that they actually were not Christians/approved by God and also that they had no chance of salvation, that these will then live out a life that comes to be ‘so out of harmony with God’, i.e., deliberately violating the spirit and letter of all of the Ten Commandments, that they indeed would self-combust in the mere presence of God. As also explained before, I still see that this would become the case only if God allows this to be and this is naturally done by Him not finding any actionable element in a person upon which He can have mercy. Indeed even in the situation with Satan coming into the presence of God and “surviving”/living it was evidently because the GC issues were not yet transparently self-demonstrated, as it will even more fully be at the end of the allotted ca. 7000 years.

Tom: I couldn't follow this last paragraph.

NJK:I think it was sufficiently clear, all things considered. Take it one sentence/thought at a time. And as I said, ‘I had explained this before’. So see back e.g., in here Post #132171 (Section for DA 764.3) for more.


I don't see the same things being discussed. The other post you talked about not seeing sin as being self-destructive (you used the term "self-combustible destruction")

You say to take it one sentence at a time, but here's an example of a sentence:

Quote:
As I explained before, I think both the 7000 years and the way in which this GC was allowed to develop where God did not defaultly abandon those who sinned against Him to their own way, but allowed them to get a saving knowledge of the Gospel, resulting in the end that all will claim the name of Christ and really only be violating the letter of a single commandment, that, what I term, a “critical mass” stage of sin will not occur at the end of these 7000 years.


This is the first sentence. This should be several sentences.

Quote:
Perhaps if God removed all of the righteous then and left these rebellious “Christians” on earth to live ca. 3000 more years, where now they knew that they actually were not Christians/approved by God and also that they had no chance of salvation, that these will then live out a life that comes to be ‘so out of harmony with God’, i.e., deliberately violating the spirit and letter of all of the Ten Commandments, that they indeed would self-combust in the mere presence of God.


This is the second sentence. I don't know what you're trying to say here. This should be several sentences.

What's the single commandment you have in mind? What's the idea of critical mass you're trying to get at? What's the self-combust idea? Why would 3000 years be necessary?

Quote:
T:Regarding the above, a couple of questions come to mind. One if if you believe that God executed His Son through capital punishment.

NJK:Since Jesus did not self-combust on the Cross but died of a broken heart because God caused Him to become this “sick” (Isa 53:10) through “extreme mental anguish” (see here for more), then I believe He was “non-naturally” put to death (=Capital Punishment), let alone through the Roman’s “Capital Punishment” method of crucifixion.


I don't know where the "self-combust" idea comes from. I've never used this term, nor has anything I've quoted used the term.

I agree that Christ died of a broken heart, and this was because He took our sin upon Him. The same thing will happen to the wicked, who bear their own sin. I don't see why you would believe this would be non-naturally being put to death, or capital punishment. DA 764 describes the process:

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.


If it were non-natural, then the first sentence of the first paragraph would be false, and so would the rest that follows, as these are explaining that topic sentence.

The whole point is that it's not a "non-natural" process, but something that the wicked bring upon themselves by their sin. We need to be healed from sin, so that we won't die. This is what the Gospel is about; this is why we need Christ.

Quote:
T:The other question is why you see the consuming fire statements to be figurative.

NJK:I see EGW’s statement as figurative because (1) I don’t see the destruction of the wicked as depicted as such in the Bible or in the SOP in regards to the Hell Fire Judgement.


If we accept the cross as an example of what happens at the second death, then what she wrote would seem to follow. That is, what you are considering as figurative seems to be an accurate description of what one would expect to happen, given what happened to Christ at the cross.

Quote:
Indeed, as I said before (see here Post #132118 and here Post #132254), I also see EGW’s understand of what she though 2 Thess 2:8 as being out of a wrong translation.


That's extremely unlikely. Her understanding was based primarily on visions she had. She wrote:

Quote:
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. (DA 108)


This makes clear the issue involved is a spiritual one, and not something due to an arbitrary act of power on the part of God, to use her DA 764 phrase.

The glory of God is His character. The "light" of this glory refers to revelation. The "light of the glory of God" is the revelation of His character. Note how this fits in perfectly with the next sentence:

Quote:
Christ was about to appear as the revealer of the character of God.


Christ was about to appear as the revealer of the character of God (aka "light of the glory of God.). "His very presence would make manifest to men their sin." This is what destroys the wicked in the end. They have no place to hide from the revelation of Christ.

Quote:
The wicked are destroyed in their first (pre-millennium) and Second Death (Hell) by active actions of God.


The active action of God is the revelation of Christ. In the description of the Great Controversy of the final judgment, she describes this revelation. DA 764 refers to this saying the "glory of Him who is love will destroy them," the "who is love" making clear this is a reference to His character (as does the previous sentence).

The issue is all along a spiritual one, having to do with character. Sin wrecks our character, which makes it impossible for us to live in God's presence. God veils His presence during this life, temporarily, as a probation, so that we can develop a character, but He cannot veil His presence forever. When He stops veiling Himself, then those who have chosen Christ will be overjoyed, while those who have chosen Satan/sin will be destroyed by the glory (character) of Him who is love.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/18/11 02:22 AM

Quote:
T:DA 764 isn't dealing with capital punishment, but with the destruction of the wicked.

NJK:As I said above, I see the final destruction as the ultimate/anti-typical “Capital Punishment” for sin, and then all and any sins, since the conclusive, though not necessarily exhaustive, self-evidence will be in/available then.

Tom: I see the cross as more of an indication as to the character of the final destruction.

NJK:I can see how your view would need this to be the sequence, but it is logically clear that Jesus endured the pain and suffering that the redeemed and the lost would have to endure in Hell at the end. So the Cross was logically a substitutionary (for the Saved) and representational (for the wicked) of that future due judgement.

Also there was no Hell Fire at the Cross. So while a mental suffering may have been undergone by Christ, a physical suffering of the Fire of Hell apparently was not effectuated.


I agree with the first paragraph, but not the second. There would be no second death without hell fire, and Christ experienced the second death on the cross. Christ exclaimed, "My heart melts like wax." God is a consuming fire to sin, which Christ experienced when He who knew no sin became sin for us.

Also, you write, "So the Cross was logically a substitutionary (for the Saved) and representational (for the wicked) of that future due judgement." It seems to me I agree with this more than you do, as I agree that the cross was representational for the wicked (also substitutionary, by the way), but I don't see how you could think so, except in some superficial way.

Quote:
NJK: Indeed since God knew that sinner can live a very long time, even eternally as sinners if their physical body/health was “therapeutically maintained” by the Tree of Life, these 7000 years, as seen in the symbology of 7 (vs. 10) is only a perfect representation/sampling of a much larger possible whole.

Tom: This looks to be a big difference we have. You appear to view sin is primarily, or only, a physical problem, where I see it as a spiritual problem. If sin were only a physical problem, then the tree of life could conceivably fix that, so I can see, given this presupposition, why you would think that a sinner could live eternally. Indeed, above, you only mention body/health as what needs to be “therapeutically maintained."

NJK:...And this is where, as I expressed before, I see that Jesus took care of the mental aspects of sins which then allows for God to excise it from the redeemed sinners psyche/mentality/mind.


Please explain what you have in mind here. What is God excising? How does this work? Why was what Christ did necessary in order for this to work?

Quote:
NJK:Something that the Tree of Life would not do. However the Tree of Life does serve to “upkeep” the new bodies that the redeemed will be given as a total replacement of the prior on (unlike one’s mind/character) by God.


The body part is trivial compared to the mind/soul/character. This should be clear.

Quote:
NJK:I base my Theology of ‘Every Word that proceeds out of the mouth of God’ and not, as you opt to do, only on what fancies your view.


You are not doing anything differently than me, or anyone else here, is doing. There's nothing special about you that would make you different.

You are, of course, basing your interpretations on "what fancies your view," as you put it, just like everybody else does. Why would you think you're somehow special here?

A more charitable way of putting this is that you interpret things base on how you understand things; how you understand the world, God's character, English (or whatever language you're reading in), your understanding of other doctrines, etc. etc., all go together to form a paradigm. You understand things on the basis of your world view, your paradigm, just like everybody else. And, just like everybody else, you see to harmonize the things you read according to that paradigm.

As an example, your paradigm assigns a lesser view to EGW's writings that you disagree with if you think they are based on a poor translation, or some exegetical error, or whatever criteria you have for rejecting what she says. This is hardly an example of basing your theology on ‘Every Word that proceeds out of the mouth of God’!

We should view our ideas with skepticism, examining them with an open mind, willing to adjust our thinking on the basis of evidence.

Quote:
NJK:That is indeed the one-sided/selective method that Satan tried to use to deceive Christ (Matt 4:5-7). So, once again, since the Creator God said that a sinner could live eternally, with a sinful mentality, just by eating of the Tree of Life, then my Theological View/Understanding here can’t but include this God-expressed, and thus, incontrovertible fact.


This is the same sort of argument people use to "prove" that people will suffer in hell for all eternity, because it says the smoke of their torment will rise "forever." We are counseled that God is pleased for us to use common sense in our interpretations. If we have an idea that leads to an extreme view, or a view which contradicts other teachings of Scripture, we should view our idea with skepticism.

Quote:
Anything less, even basing it on what one understands from EGW, is forming another Gospel (2 Cor 11:3-6).


No, this isn't at all Paul's idea. The Gospel isn't a sentence, but a narrative, a narrative about Christ. The Good News concerns Jesus Christ. Paul wasn't saying if you get some sentence wrong, or if you don't base your entire theology based on some quoted sentence, that was cause for being accursed, but if you preached some other Gospel than the true Gospel. And the reason for this is simple. There's only one way to be saved, which is through Jesus Christ. To teach someone that there is some other way is akin to tossing an anchor to someone who is drowning instead of a life jacked.

Quote:
Indeed the same deception principle of selective/partial/imcomplete “quoting of God” was used to deceive Eve (Gen 3:4, 5).


This isn't the issue here either. What Satan was doing was causing Eve to view God's character incorrectly, so she would doubt Him. Satan led her to think that God did not have her best interests at heart, to think that God was selfish. Satan vested God with His own attributes, which is how he obtains power, by misrepresenting God's character.

The issue is more serious than getting a sentence wrong.

Quote:
So frankly and seriously Tom, your approach of deficient Biblical exegesis, has placed you on enchantingly deceptive grounds. (Cf. 1 Tim 2:14) Indeed building a doctrine on only selective passages on a topic (like done with the teachings of Eternal Hell Torment, Eternal Soul, the Secret Rapture, etc), is tantamount to weaving a “fanstasy.” Those are just the hard facts of the matter!


It's ironic that you would give these as examples, since you're using the same basic argument they are regarding "forever." The methodology I am using is what led me to become an SDA in the first place. I used to believe the examples you gave, Eternal Hell Torment, Eternal Soul, the Secret Rapture, but no longer do. Why not? Because I was interested in knowing the truth, and willing learn it. When I saw that the Adventist teachings brought out a view God's character more in harmony with what I perceived in Scripture and Jesus Christ, I embraced it. If you presented a better view of God's character than what I currently hold, I would embrace that as well, by the grace of God.

Do you find the point of view you hold in regards to God's character to be appealing? Or merely accurate? Do you even care if it's appealing? If you do find it appealing, what do you find appealing about it (other than being accurate)?

Quote:
The operative action/development in this SOP quote is ‘bringing that so-out-of-harmony’ sinner into the immediate presence of God and Godly things. However, as I said, God could easily made it that sinners never be subjected to this.


Not without setting up an artificial environment, where God's glory did not exist.

Quote:
NJK:Indeed just like humans in this world live apart from God’s presence.


This is an artificial situation, a world full of sin. This isn't a viable world for eternity. Already creation groans under the weight of sin.

Quote:
So the fact that God has to make it that the sinner come into His presence to suffer this automatic destruction when it is actually feasible


Why would God have to do anything? DA 764 tells us that the wicked form characters so out of harmony with God that His mere presence is to them a consuming fire. The whole point of the paragraph is that God is NOT doing anything to make the sinner suffer.

Quote:
(i.e., in a critical mass type of way)


Meaning?

Quote:
involves an active action of God either in going to where the sinner (on Earth = Second Coming) is or making the sinner come to where He is (in Heaven/Post Millennium Destruction in sight of the New Jerusalem).


This is a spiritual issue having to do with the revelation of truth. As long as God veils His glory (i.e., does not reveal the truth about Himself, about His character), then sinners can temporarily exist. But that's just a temporary thing, so they have a chance to make choices in regards to their character. (More later)
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/18/11 12:00 PM

Quote:
NJK: As I explained before, I think both the 7000 years and the way in which this GC was allowed to develop where God did not defaultly abandon those who sinned against Him to their own way, but allowed them to get a saving knowledge of the Gospel, resulting in the end that all will claim the name of Christ and really only be violating the letter of a single commandment, that, what I term, a “critical mass” stage of sin will not occur at the end of these 7000 years. Perhaps if God removed all of the righteous then and left these rebellious “Christians” on earth to live ca. 3000 more years, where now they knew that they actually were not Christians/approved by God and also that they had no chance of salvation, that these will then live out a life that comes to be ‘so out of harmony with God’, i.e., deliberately violating the spirit and letter of all of the Ten Commandments, that they indeed would self-combust in the mere presence of God. As also explained before, I still see that this would become the case only if God allows this to be and this is naturally done by Him not finding any actionable element in a person upon which He can have mercy. Indeed even in the situation with Satan coming into the presence of God and “surviving”/living it was evidently because the GC issues were not yet transparently self-demonstrated, as it will even more fully be at the end of the allotted ca. 7000 years.

Tom: I couldn't follow this last paragraph.

NJK: I think it was sufficiently clear, all things considered. Take it one sentence/thought at a time. And as I said, ‘I had explained this before’. So see back e.g., in here Post #132171 (Section for DA 764.3) for more.

Tom: I don't see the same things being discussed. The other post you talked about not seeing sin as being self-destructive (you used the term "self-combustible destruction")


That prior Post, (#132171), is saying in more detail what I had restated above. I used the term “self-combustible” not to refer to the sinful stage that a sinner needs to reach where he would come to burn just by being exposed to the glory of God. As I also see, that is because God cannot at all find any honestly redeemable quality in that person’s life and so His glory has this tangible self-combusting effect on the life of that ‘so-out-of-harmony’ sinner. And that takes quite a far out sinfulness. Even with people today who use their selfishly obtained wealth to do some charitable acts, it can be seen that they still have some redeemable, even God-like, qualities. It is such people that I do not see as being capable of “self-combusting” in God’s presence.

Originally Posted By: Tom
You say to take it one sentence at a time, but here's an example of a sentence:

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
As I explained before, I think both the 7000 years and the way in which this GC was allowed to develop where God did not defaultly abandon those who sinned against Him to their own way, but allowed them to get a saving knowledge of the Gospel, resulting in the end that all will claim the name of Christ and really only be violating the letter of a single commandment, that, what I term, a “critical mass” stage of sin will not occur at the end of these 7000 years.


Tom: This is the first sentence. This should be several sentences.

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Perhaps if God removed all of the righteous then and left these rebellious “Christians” on earth to live ca. 3000 more years, where now they knew that they actually were not Christians/approved by God and also that they had no chance of salvation, that these will then live out a life that comes to be ‘so out of harmony with God’, i.e., deliberately violating the spirit and letter of all of the Ten Commandments, that they indeed would self-combust in the mere presence of God.


Tom: This is the second sentence. I don't know what you're trying to say here. This should be several sentences.


I deliberately had said: “Take it one sentence/thought at a time”. So if/since you need to, do this “thought” breaking up of that sentence yourself. To me that statement is understandable and thus your actually peripheral ‘too long a sentence’ objection frivolous.

Originally Posted By: Tom
What's the single commandment you have in mind?


Really you don’t know this common SDA understanding??

Originally Posted By: Tom
What's the idea of critical mass you're trying to get at?


Analogically borrowed the Nuclear Fission world where it refers to the smallest amount of fissile material needed for a sustained nuclear chain reaction....

Originally Posted By: Tom
What's the self-combust idea?


....In a similar way, one needs to reach a level of sinning which no longer has any redeemable qualities to reach this, what I see as tangibly literal, self-combusting, “critical mass” stage.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Why would 3000 years be necessary?


That was explained in Post #132171.

Quote:
T:Regarding the above, a couple of questions come to mind. One if if you believe that God executed His Son through capital punishment.

NJK:Since Jesus did not self-combust on the Cross but died of a broken heart because God caused Him to become this “sick” (Isa 53:10) through “extreme mental anguish” (see here for more), then I believe He was “non-naturally” put to death (=Capital Punishment), let alone through the Roman’s “Capital Punishment” method of crucifixion.

Tom: I don't know where the "self-combust" idea comes from. I've never used this term, nor has anything I've quoted used the term.


This concrete origins of that term, of also my own illustrative preference, was explained above.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I agree that Christ died of a broken heart, and this was because He took our sin upon Him. The same thing will happen to the wicked, who bear their own sin. I don't see why you would believe this would be non-naturally being put to death, or capital punishment.


Given that this actually medical condition of a broken/ruptured heart, seeking to adequately respond to extreme emotional stresses, was forced upon Christ, then I do not see it as natural for him. Given that the wicked will be made to also be confronted with the guilt of their sin, I also do not see it as a natural act. So just like capital punishment death is not a naturally occurring one, but one that is force, even if it is a consequence of wrong actions, then I see the action/processed as a whole as not being natural, but judicially forced.

Originally Posted By: Tom
DA 764 describes the process:

Originally Posted By: SOP
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.


Tom: If it were non-natural, then the first sentence of the first paragraph would be false, and so would the rest that follows, as these are explaining that topic sentence.

Tom: The whole point is that it's not a "non-natural" process, but something that the wicked bring upon themselves by their sin. We need to be healed from sin, so that we won't die. This is what the Gospel is about; this is why we need Christ.


As proper (SOP) exegesis shows, this DA 764 exposition is referring to the possible, natural physical First Death as a consequence of full blown sin. The guilt-inculcating involved in the Second Hell Death is a distinct process and event. Indeed the wicked have to be raised again from their first death to experience that distinct Second, suffering-based Death....

Quote:
T:The other question is why you see the consuming fire statements to be figurative.

NJK:I see EGW’s statement as figurative because (1) I don’t see the destruction of the wicked as depicted as such in the Bible or in the SOP in regards to the Hell Fire Judgement.

Tom: If we accept the cross as an example of what happens at the second death, then what she wrote would seem to follow. That is, what you are considering as figurative seems to be an accurate description of what one would expect to happen, given what happened to Christ at the cross.


....Furthermore, in the Hell Judgements, sinners will not die ‘when their mental guilt causes their pumping heart to physically fail and rupture,’ but only when they have suffered their judiciously meted out sentence. And God will fully and wholly sustain their life until this is done.

Also, as already stated, the Bible and SOP is clear that the wicked are thrown into a Lake of Fire (Rev 20:15) apparently created by Fire that comes down from God out of Heaven upon the wicked surrounding the descended New Jerusalem.

Quote:
NJK: Indeed, as I said before (see here Post #132118 and here Post #132254), I also see EGW’s understand of what she though 2 Thess 2:8 as being out of a wrong translation.

Tom: That's extremely unlikely. Her understanding was based primarily on visions she had. She wrote:

Originally Posted By: SOP
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. (DA 108)


Tom: This makes clear the issue involved is a spiritual one, and not something due to an arbitrary act of power on the part of God, to use her DA 764 phrase.


1) Biblical exegesis proves EGW’s view to be inaccurate here and that is authoritatively determinative to me. Indeed as I also now Theologically see what is Biblically more fully involved in that DA 764 ‘possible self-combusting destruction’. It was not present truth for EGW understand and teach that more than 7000 years could be involved in the GC, yet she knew that God was not limited by time.

2) I actually find it indicative of this statement not being from a vision with EGW’s deferring to the verbatim quoting of Scripture here. Indeed it is somewhat odd if she was relating what she had seen.

3) EGW historical corrective amendments for Christ’s statement in John 20:17 shows that she was indeed dependent on what her Bible version said when not having a personal revelation of the event. Indeed for years she had no problem saying “Touch me Not...” for John 20:17.

Originally Posted By: Tom
The glory of God is His character. The "light" of this glory refers to revelation. The "light of the glory of God" is the revelation of His character. Note how this fits in perfectly with the next sentence:

Quote:
Christ was about to appear as the revealer of the character of God.


Tom: Christ was about to appear as the revealer of the character of God (aka "light of the glory of God.). "His very presence would make manifest to men their sin." This is what destroys the wicked in the end. They have no place to hide from the revelation of Christ.


I do not find your quasi-acrostic here to be exegetically founded, and as shown in Post #131957, dealing with the usually cited Exod 33:17-23, God’s glory is not His character traits but His distinct tangible physical “emanence.” That is indeed what was enclosed in the Most Holy Place. And Moses and God seem to understand that Moses request to see His Face was to see that physical glory which God said He could not do. He instead showed Moses other, actually more pertinent, aspects of God such as His Goodness leading to His Compassion and only showed Him the backside of His Glory/Face.

Quote:
NJK: The wicked are destroyed in their first (pre-millennium) and Second Death (Hell) by active actions of God.

Tom: The active action of God is the revelation of Christ. In the description of the Great Controversy of the final judgment, she describes this revelation. DA 764 refers to this saying the "glory of Him who is love will destroy them," the "who is love" making clear this is a reference to His character (as does the previous sentence).


For the various reasons stated above, including the fact that it is the “First Death” that is being expounded upon in DA 764, I do not see this reasoning as being Biblically/Exegetically founded.

Originally Posted By: Tom
The issue is all along a spiritual one, having to do with character. Sin wrecks our character, which makes it impossible for us to live in God's presence. God veils His presence during this life, temporarily, as a probation, so that we can develop a character, but He cannot veil His presence forever. When He stops veiling Himself, then those who have chosen Christ will be overjoyed, while those who have chosen Satan/sin will be destroyed by the glory (character) of Him who is love.


I do not see/know of any Biblical support for this view. God clearly still veils His Glory in the perfect realm of Heaven where only Jesus and (other) Mighty Angels are capable of entering within that “unapproachable light”. (See in this post (search “Raphael”)). Jesus apparently more than these other Mighty Angels. Seraphims also have to be specially outfitted to physically represent angels within God glory. God just cannot ever fully physically reveal Himself to His Creation.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/18/11 12:19 PM

Quote:
T:DA 764 isn't dealing with capital punishment, but with the destruction of the wicked.

NJK:As I said above, I see the final destruction as the ultimate/anti-typical “Capital Punishment” for sin, and then all and any sins, since the conclusive, though not necessarily exhaustive, self-evidence will be in/available then.

Tom: I see the cross as more of an indication as to the character of the final destruction.

NJK:I can see how your view would need this to be the sequence, but it is logically clear that Jesus endured the pain and suffering that the redeemed and the lost would have to endure in Hell at the end. So the Cross was logically a substitutionary (for the Saved) and representational (for the wicked) of that future due judgement.

NJK: Also there was no Hell Fire at the Cross. So while a mental suffering may have been undergone by Christ, a physical suffering of the Fire of Hell apparently was not effectuated.

Tom: I agree with the first paragraph, but not the second. There would be no second death without hell fire, and Christ experienced the second death on the cross. Christ exclaimed, "My heart melts like wax." God is a consuming fire to sin, which Christ experienced when He who knew no sin became sin for us.


Where in the world are you reading: “Christ exclaimed, "My heart melts like wax."”???

Christ did not burn in any fire on the Cross. That is just the hard fact. The Bible and EGW is clear that his suffering from God’s hand was mental, in terms of guilt. His physical suffering, which EGW says He actually forgot for a while during the time when God imposed His mental suffering, was all coming from what the Romans were doing to Him.

The consuming fire of God is a tangible reality and can only be literally physically manifested when it is effectuated. Also God did not need Jesus to die prematurely, so sin was not permitted to “self-combust” here. In fact it may have been Christ perfect life and character that made it possible to fully offset that full blown imposition of sin on Him and thus prevent this “self-combustion”.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Also, you write, "So the Cross was logically a substitutionary (for the Saved) and representational (for the wicked) of that future due judgement." It seems to me I agree with this more than you do, as I agree that the cross was representational for the wicked (also substitutionary, by the way), but I don't see how you could think so, except in some superficial way.


My view here is that what Christ experienced does not have to be ultra-literalistic to be valid. Indeed I don’t Theologically see how every actually committed sin of the future, from an unknown number of people to yet be born, could be justly accounted for in 31 A.D. Also with your addition, you actually have a different view than what I have and also didn’t see as Theologically applicable. Christ’s death is not substitutionary to the lost/wicked as they never allowed it to be so applied for them. They therefore only will face the type of judgement that Christ had already suffered for them.

Quote:
NJK: Indeed since God knew that sinner can live a very long time, even eternally as sinners if their physical body/health was “therapeutically maintained” by the Tree of Life, these 7000 years, as seen in the symbology of 7 (vs. 10) is only a perfect representation/sampling of a much larger possible whole.

Tom: This looks to be a big difference we have. You appear to view sin is primarily, or only, a physical problem, where I see it as a spiritual problem. If sin were only a physical problem, then the tree of life could conceivably fix that, so I can see, given this presupposition, why you would think that a sinner could live eternally. Indeed, above, you only mention body/health as what needs to be “therapeutically maintained."

NJK:...And this is where, as I expressed before, I see that Jesus took care of the mental aspects of sins which then allows for God to excise it from the redeemed sinners psyche/mentality/mind.

Tom: Please explain what you have in mind here. What is God excising? How does this work? Why was what Christ did necessary in order for this to work?


I already did back in Posts #131545; #131667; #131670.

Quote:
NJK:Something that the Tree of Life would not do. However the Tree of Life does serve to “upkeep” the new bodies that the redeemed will be given as a total replacement of the prior on (unlike one’s mind/character) by God.

Tom: The body part is trivial compared to the mind/soul/character. This should be clear.


Only in your view. God saw that sinful man can have a perfectly healthy body despite having a sinful minded psyche.

Quote:
NJK: I base my Theology of ‘Every Word that proceeds out of the mouth of God’ and not, as you opt to do, only on what fancies your view.

Tom: You are not doing anything differently than me, or anyone else here, is doing. There's nothing special about you that would make you different. ... Why would you think you're somehow special here?


When you begin to be exegetically responsible you will begin to understand from where I am making this substantiated statement.

Originally Posted By: Tom
You are, of course, basing your interpretations on "what fancies your view," as you put it, just like everybody else does.


Uhhhhh. No. I am basing my interpretations upon Biblical exegesis which involves EGW’s comments being subject to the accurate Biblical understanding.

Originally Posted By: Tom
A more charitable way of putting this is that you interpret things base on how you understand things; how you understand the world, God's character, English (or whatever language you're reading in), your understanding of other doctrines, etc. etc., all go together to form a paradigm. You understand things on the basis of your world view, your paradigm, just like everybody else. And, just like everybody else, you see to harmonize the things you read according to that paradigm.


I make this comment pointedly to you because you have actually lost any honesty and exegetical responsibility credit with me. I endeavor to test all things, i.e., Biblical translations, and also EGW statements, and hold on to what harmonizes with the proper Biblical light. You on the other hand believe you have license to outrightly ignore whatever, i.e., Bible and SOP opposes your personally/publicly “appealing” view.

Originally Posted By: Tom
As an example, your paradigm assigns a lesser view to EGW's writings that you disagree with if you think they are based on a poor translation, or some exegetical error, or whatever criteria you have for rejecting what she says. This is hardly an example of basing your theology on ‘Every Word that proceeds out of the mouth of God’!


(A) I do not consider everything EGW wrote to be the Word of God. Neither does she for that matter.

(B) My subordination of EGW’s writing to the Bible is both a Theologically required fact and a corroborating, recommended counsel of hers. If you won’t do this, then frankly good luck in regards to accepting and believe errors she herself corrected. Indeed you can start by recommending others, and yourself, to feast on an order of oysters!

It was because of EGW’s, and others in her day, linguistic and cultural differences and misunderstanding with the Bible and Jewish culture that they did not understand at first that the oyster was an unclean meat. As I repeatedly said most of her errors are along these “exegetical” lines.

Originally Posted By: Tom
We should view our ideas with skepticism, examining them with an open mind, willing to adjust our thinking on the basis of evidence.


I actually, explicitly do (minus the would be, in most cases, false humility of (default) “skepticism”) and have absolutely no problem doing so because my aim is arriving at the Biblical Truth. You factually don’t. Indeed you won’t allow facts to ‘adjust your initially expressed view’, especially opposing facts. You only, and slyly at that, allow facts that support the valid parts of your view to be included, and that “slyly” by acting as if f that is what you always believed, when this threads facts clearly expose that untruth.

Quote:
NJK: That is indeed the one-sided/selective method that Satan tried to use to deceive Christ (Matt 4:5-7). So, once again, since the Creator God said that a sinner could live eternally, with a sinful mentality, just by eating of the Tree of Life, then my Theological View/Understanding here can’t but include this God-expressed, and thus, incontrovertible fact.

Tom: This is the same sort of argument people use to "prove" that people will suffer in hell for all eternity, because it says the smoke of their torment will rise "forever." We are counseled that God is pleased for us to use common sense in our interpretations. If we have an idea that leads to an extreme view, or a view which contradicts other teachings of Scripture, we should view our idea with skepticism.


I don’t know why you are again bringing up this spurious argument here. I had already responded to this baseless objection back in Post #130933. It seems to me that this, effectively, selective amnesia of yours is a naturally occurring “fruit” of you manifestly outrightly ignoring/not engaging the parts of a post that oppose your view/objections and for which you have no answer to. That preferred “out-of-sight-out-of-mind” approach of yours is only keeping you, literally, in the dark, though “blissfully” of course.

Quote:
NJK: Anything less, even basing it on what one understands from EGW, is forming another Gospel (2 Cor 11:3-6).

Tom: No, this isn't at all Paul's idea. The Gospel isn't a sentence, but a narrative, a narrative about Christ. The Good News concerns Jesus Christ. Paul wasn't saying if you get some sentence wrong, or if you don't base your entire theology based on some quoted sentence, that was cause for being accursed, but if you preached some other Gospel than the true Gospel. And the reason for this is simple. There's only one way to be saved, which is through Jesus Christ. To teach someone that there is some other way is akin to tossing an anchor to someone who is drowning instead of a life jacked.


I was not actually saying/implying that the Gospel was stake here, per se, but the belief that a prophet can come to change what God Himself had said. EGW did not even have your view of the Gen 3:22-24 statement of God, but the (=mine) “eternally living sinner” one. You just can’t admit that fact and just ignore it.

Those eternally living sinners would not be “saved”, i.e., redeemed of their sinful state, but would be living as sinners eternally. It is only because God made them subject to death by removing their access to the Tree of Life that they became subject to death. Sorry if your selective Biblical view won’t allow for the inclusion of that fact.

Quote:
NJK: Indeed the same deception principle of selective/partial/incomplete “quoting of God” was used to deceive Eve (Gen 3:4, 5).

Tom: This isn't the issue here either. What Satan was doing was causing Eve to view God's character incorrectly, so she would doubt Him. Satan led her to think that God did not have her best interests at heart, to think that God was selfish. Satan vested God with His own attributes, which is how he obtains power, by misrepresenting God's character.


My here point actually was, to even do/achieve this misrepresentation Satan had to misrepresent God word. I’ll correctively concede that it was actually done by adding to the word of God which is just as equally detrimental and which you also do by effectively claiming that ‘the rest of the Bible outside of the Gospels contains an imperfect revelation of God and that Bible writers like Moses detrimentally had this incorrect understanding which was reflected in His writings. So these portions of the Bible can be ignored if they contradict your view.’ Ironically enough, even Jesus Himself is subject to this redactive/editorial approach of yours.

Originally Posted By: Tom
The issue is more serious than getting a sentence wrong.


Well that just the “straw man” premise that you need to spuriously posit. I (LOL) never had that in mind nor even implied this by what I said. And the Biblical fact remains that man will not live forever without partaking of the fruit of life, no matter how mentally perfect and sinless they are.

Quote:
NJK: So frankly and seriously Tom, your approach of deficient Biblical exegesis, has placed you on enchantingly deceptive grounds. (Cf. 1 Tim 2:14) Indeed building a doctrine on only selective passages on a topic (like done with the teachings of Eternal Hell Torment, Eternal Soul, the Secret Rapture, etc), is tantamount to weaving a “fanstasy.” Those are just the hard facts of the matter!

Tom: It's ironic that you would give these as examples, since you're using the same basic argument they are regarding "forever."


Already disproven, a long time ago.

Originally Posted By: Tom
The methodology I am using is what led me to become an SDA in the first place. I used to believe the examples you gave, Eternal Hell Torment, Eternal Soul, the Secret Rapture, but no longer do. Why not? Because I was interested in knowing the truth, and willing learn it. When I saw that the Adventist teachings brought out a view God's character more in harmony with what I perceived in Scripture and Jesus Christ, I embraced it.


Seems clear to me that your methodology is to find what you personally prefer vs. what is actually the Truth.

Originally Posted By: Tom
If you presented a better view of God's character than what I currently hold, I would embrace that as well, by the grace of God.


I factually have: Emphasizing a Real, Just, non-hypocritical, Genuine, Protective, Faithful, Fair, etc., God, all variously demonstrating His Love. Love without e.g, Justice for the victim is not Love at all, but is only a self-serving semblance.

You are not accepting it because of the actions that are necessary to establish/execute these Character traits. This GC is not bloodless. It is a War which God Himself has had to fight in from the very beginning in Heaven, though there, in regards to Himself (virtually), but not for His Angels. Of course, you and others who hold this view of yours, cannot accept e.g,. that Biblical/SOP Physical War in Heaven fact also.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Do you find the point of view you hold in regards to God's character to be appealing? Or merely accurate? Do you even care if it's appealing? If you do find it appealing, what do you find appealing about it (other than being accurate)?


Being ‘appealing is (a) not my main concern and (b) being accurate is not distinct from being appealing. The Truth is not “for sale” and it is what it is, and that is what I find appealing as it is the Truth. I however to find what surfacely appears to not be, according to human wisdom and knowledge, not “appealing” to actually gloriously be, when I ask the ‘why did God do that question”, as it was originally posed in this thread. I then see that what God did was indeed the very best way to deal with/resolve a situation in this GC.

Quote:
NJK: The operative action/development in this SOP quote is ‘bringing that so-out-of-harmony’ sinner into the immediate presence of God and Godly things. However, as I said, God could easily made it that sinners never be subjected to this.

Tom: Not without setting up an artificial environment, where God's glory did not exist.


It does not have to be “artificial” just a world, like our present one, where God would accept/allow for Him not to gloriously manifest Himself. In fact, as stated above, I do not see that God ever fully manifests Himself to His Creation, especially humans, including those in other worlds. It is Michael/The Angel of the Lord/Jesus Christ who makes these manifestations of God as with Adam before the Fall and then throughout the OT. So this “artificial environment” requirement by you is simply an unbiblical and circularly manufactured one.

Quote:
NJK: Indeed just like humans in this world live apart from God’s presence.

Tom: This is an artificial situation, a world full of sin. This isn't a viable world for eternity. Already creation groans under the weight of sin.

Tom: A World full of sin is not something artificial but something that could exist. God simply won’t allow it and, as seen by the forced Flood destruction, life-limiting death allows to keep this from fully being the case.


Creation groans because, on one hand, God removed the Tree of Life. He would then have to “sponsor” sin, if as I see it, He has to be actively involved in regulation some aspects of nature/Creation. I.e., orbits. As this is being done today, that shows that it can be done in a sinful world and also there is no automatic fact that says that human left to live eternally as sinners would ever come to be entirely sinful and not have any redeemable qualities in them. Indeed as many non-believers are today. Again God said that a sinner can live forever which implies that they would have a viable world in which to do this “eternal living”. So my understanding here is based on this word of God and not your private suppositions. (cf. Acts 5:29)

Quote:
NJK: So the fact that God has to make it that the sinner come into His presence to suffer this automatic destruction when it is actually feasible

Tom: Why would God have to do anything? DA 764 tells us that the wicked form characters so out of harmony with God that His mere presence is to them a consuming fire. The whole point of the paragraph is that God is NOT doing anything to make the sinner suffer.


You are mixing up notions here. The “approaching action” mentioned here is distinct from the resulting, ensuing (First Death) destruction action of DA 764. Indeed the reality is that God has to make the sinner come into that unapproachable light presence to suffer that fate. He can easily forever avoid this to be the case if he wants to.

Quote:
NJK: (i.e., in a critical mass type of way)

Tom: Meaning?


This was explained in its derived immediate context, and also in this post above.

Quote:
NJK: involves an active action of God either in going to where the sinner (on Earth = Second Coming) is or making the sinner come to where He is (in Heaven/Post Millennium Destruction in sight of the New Jerusalem).

Tom: This is a spiritual issue having to do with the revelation of truth. As long as God veils His glory (i.e., does not reveal the truth about Himself, about His character), then sinners can temporarily exist. But that's just a temporary thing, so they have a chance to make choices in regards to their character.


That is a convoluted Theological supposition to me. Indeed, according to your view here, God simply has never reveal His Truth to sinners, as He can do. Indeed the final White Throne judgement revelation will only occur because God wants it to. It does not have to. God could have easily let this planet in rebellion live a life of sin and as I more widely see it, the GC question is why not?? I.e., why not let sinful man live forever as they actually can as God Himself stated! I see that God has endeavored to answer that question by showing that since He created us, He has this right to decide what life he is going to sponsor since this is what he would have to do with sinners. So He endeavored to show that without His various “sponsoring” sin actually is not a viable option, and also, in itself, not the best way that man can live, or will want to live, when all of the demonstrative evidence is in.


Again, don’t forget to answer Post #133507
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/18/11 09:17 PM

Tom, you say that in the past you have plainly stated who caused fire to blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned N&A alive. For the life of me I cannot recall what you said about it. For the record, would you please state it again here and now. I know you believe Jesus withdraws His protection and permits His enemies, within the limits He imposes on them, to punish and destroy impenitent sinners. But in the case of N&A I have absolutely no idea who you believe caused fire to blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned them alive.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/18/11 09:21 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
M: I’m curious, Tom, do you even believe Jesus commanded Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to death? I cannot recall you ever answering this question. I get the impression you believe Moses misunderstood what Jesus told him. Please, Tom, don’t go off on a tangent here and ignore directly answering my question. I realize you haven’t said anything specifically about whether or not Moses misunderstood Jesus. So please, don’t use this comment as excuse to ignore answering my question. Please answer it. Thank you.

T: The best way I know to answer your question is with the story of the father of the hunter son. Did the father of the hunter son command his son to do the things he told him to do? What would neighbors who overheard their conversation have thought? Also, do you think Moses knew God and His will as well as Jesus Christ did? Was it Moses' job to perfectly reveal the character of the Father? Isn't it true that God's character was misunderstood until Christ completed His job of revealing it? If so, wouldn't it stand to reason that Moses' understanding of it was imperfect? Can there be any better way of understanding God's character than to examine the life and teachings of Christ? (No, there can't be).

M: Do you believe it when it says in the Bible that Jesus commanded Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to death? Or, do you suspect Moses misunderstood what Jesus said? For example, in the Bible it says: “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.” “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. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.” Also, do you think the father teaching his son how to hunt humanely is the same thing as Jesus commanding Moses to stone to death the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer? Is hunting animals and killing humans equal in the eyes of God? Did the father command his son to hunt humanely?

T: There's a pattern in our conversations where you pass over my questions, and simply ask me more questions. For example, I asked you seven questions, and you didn't answer any of them.

Here’s the answers to your questions:

1. Did the father of the hunter son command his son to do the things he told him to do? No.
2. What would neighbors who overheard their conversation have thought? They would have been impressed the father was willing to help his son hunt humanely even though the father was not in favor of it.
3. Also, do you think Moses knew God and His will as well as Jesus Christ did? No.
4. Was it Moses' job to perfectly reveal the character of the Father? No.
5. Isn't it true that God's character was misunderstood until Christ completed His job of revealing it? Yes.
6. If so, wouldn't it stand to reason that Moses' understanding of it was imperfect? Yes.
7. Can there be any better way of understanding God's character than to examine the life and teachings of Christ? If people were forced to choose only one of the many different ways God has revealed Himself to learn the truth about Him, then no, there is no one way better than studying the life and teachings of Jesus while He was here in the flesh.

Now, please answer my questions. Thank you.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/18/11 09:22 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
M: Up to now, everything that has happened has been tempered with mercy. That is, not until the seven last plagues will Jesus pull out all the stops - "unmixed with mercy". All along Jesus has held back, that is, He has established and enforced limits, limits which neither holy angels nor evil angels have been allowed to exceed. Jesus (not sin, not sinners, not Satan) is the one who determines when, where, and how impenitent sinners will be punished. It is not up to Satan to determine. "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

T: It's a huge mistake to view God as responsible for these things.

Quote:
It was generally believed by the Jews that sin is punished in this life. Every affliction was regarded as the penalty of some wrongdoing, either of the sufferer himself or of his parents. It is true that all suffering results from the transgression of God's law, but this truth had become perverted. Satan, the author of sin and all its results, had led men to look upon disease and death as proceeding from God,--as punishment arbitrarily inflicted on account of sin. Hence one upon whom some great affliction or calamity had fallen had the additional burden of being regarded as a great sinner.

Thus the way was prepared for the Jews to reject Jesus. He who "hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows" was looked upon by the Jews as "stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted;" and they hid their faces from Him. Isa. 53:4, 3.

God had given a lesson designed to prevent this. The history of Job had shown that suffering is inflicted by Satan, and is overruled by God for purposes of mercy. But Israel did not understand the lesson. The same error for which God had reproved the friends of Job was repeated by the Jews in their rejection of Christ. (DA 471)

M: I do not understand how your response addresses my comments.

T: You wrote as if God were responsible for the things you were speaking of. I addressed that by pointing out that it would be a huge mistake to view God as responsible, and cited texts to explain why.

1. Of course Jesus was responsible for ensuring evil angels did not exceed the limits He imposed on them. That is, Jesus did not let them cause more death and destruction than He was willing to permit. Do you agree?

2. Do you agree Jesus worked to prevent evil men and evil angels from inflicting more death and destruction than He was willing to permit? Or, do you think evil men and evil angels willingly restrained themselves in order not to displease God and exceed Jesus’ limits?

3. Also, did evil men and evil angels do anything Jesus' wasn't willing to permit?

4. Did Jesus force evil men and evil angels to inflict the death and destruction He deemed right and necessary?

5. Were evil men and evil angels free to refuse to inflict the death and destruction Jesus deemed right and necessary?

6. Who would have inflicted the death and destruction Jesus deemed right and necessary if the Roman soldiers and evil angels had refused to do it?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/18/11 10:48 PM

Quote:
T: The best way I know to answer your question is with the story of the father of the hunter son. Did the father of the hunter son command his son to do the things he told him to do? What would neighbors who overheard their conversation have thought? Also, do you think Moses knew God and His will as well as Jesus Christ did? Was it Moses' job to perfectly reveal the character of the Father? Isn't it true that God's character was misunderstood until Christ completed His job of revealing it? If so, wouldn't it stand to reason that Moses' understanding of it was imperfect? Can there be any better way of understanding God's character than to examine the life and teachings of Christ? (No, there can't be).

M: Do you believe it when it says in the Bible that Jesus commanded Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to death? Or, do you suspect Moses misunderstood what Jesus said? For example, in the Bible it says: “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.” “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. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.” Also, do you think the father teaching his son how to hunt humanely is the same thing as Jesus commanding Moses to stone to death the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer? Is hunting animals and killing humans equal in the eyes of God? Did the father command his son to hunt humanely?

T: There's a pattern in our conversations where you pass over my questions, and simply ask me more questions. For example, I asked you seven questions, and you didn't answer any of them.

Here’s the answers to your questions:

1. Did the father of the hunter son command his son to do the things he told him to do? No.
2. What would neighbors who overheard their conversation have thought? They would have been impressed the father was willing to help his son hunt humanely even though the father was not in favor of it.


Or they might have thought the son was doing the father's will by hunting.

Quote:
3. Also, do you think Moses knew God and His will as well as Jesus Christ did? No.
4. Was it Moses' job to perfectly reveal the character of the Father? No.
5. Isn't it true that God's character was misunderstood until Christ completed His job of revealing it? Yes.
6. If so, wouldn't it stand to reason that Moses' understanding of it was imperfect? Yes.
7. Can there be any better way of understanding God's character than to examine the life and teachings of Christ? If people were forced to choose only one of the many different ways God has revealed Himself to learn the truth about Him, then no, there is no one way better than studying the life and teachings of Jesus while He was here in the flesh.


If the best way is studying the life and teachings of Jesus Christ while here in the flesh, then how should other revelations be treated? I think this is an area of disagreement between the differing points of view here.

Those who hold the point of view I hold generally believe that the revelation of Jesus Christ supersedes all other revelation, so that any other revelation should be made to harmonize with that one. Those who disagree tend to put the different revelations side by side, and have the other revelations in addition to the revelation of Jesus Christ, so we Jesus Christ's revelation plus others. This would mean that Jesus Christ's revelation was not full and complete, which looks to be an area of disagreement we have had.[/quote]

Quote:
Now, please answer my questions. Thank you.


Quote:
M: Do you believe it when it says in the Bible that Jesus commanded Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to death? Or, do you suspect Moses misunderstood what Jesus said? For example, in the Bible it says: “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.” “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. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.” Also, do you think the father teaching his son how to hunt humanely is the same thing as Jesus commanding Moses to stone to death the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer? Is hunting animals and killing humans equal in the eyes of God? Did the father command his son to hunt humanely?


I think the issue is similar to other incidents where God's ideal is not that to which the counsel applies, such as polygamy and slavery. God had to deal with the people's mindset as it was. We see little glimpses of the people acting in harmony with God's will, and when this happened, there was no killing involved, but for the most part, it was a stubborn "stiff-necked" people God was dealing with, and we don't see His ideal will expressed.

If we take the point of view that God is pleased to have Sabbath-breakers killed, why wouldn't we kill them now? Is it just because we're not living in a theocracy?

The question of killing law-breakers is an important issue coming up in the last days before Christ's second coming. We know that Satan will use this very argument against those who keep God's commandments, that they should be killed.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/18/11 10:56 PM

Originally Posted By: MM
T: You wrote as if God were responsible for the things you were speaking of. I addressed that by pointing out that it would be a huge mistake to view God as responsible, and cited texts to explain why.

M:1. Of course Jesus was responsible for ensuring evil angels did not exceed the limits He imposed on them. That is, Jesus did not let them cause more death and destruction than He was willing to permit. Do you agree?


What would a disagreement to this look like? That Jesus let them cause more death and destruction than He was willing to permit?

Quote:
2. Do you agree Jesus worked to prevent evil men and evil angels from inflicting more death and destruction than He was willing to permit?


I believe that Jesus worked to prevent evil men and evil angels from inflicting death and destruction in general.

Quote:
Or, do you think evil men and evil angels willingly restrained themselves in order not to displease God and exceed Jesus’ limits?


This can't be a serious question.

Quote:
3. Also, did evil men and evil angels do anything Jesus' wasn't willing to permit?


I don't see the sense in this one either. God is omnipotent, right? So anything that happens can only happen if He permits it to happen, isn't that right?

Quote:
4. Did Jesus force evil men and evil angels to inflict the death and destruction He deemed right and necessary?


I don't see any sense in this question either. No, of course not, to answer the question. First of all, the exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government. Secondly, Jesus would hardly force people to do something contrary to the principles of his government, like inflicting death and destruction; that's Satan's job. Satan is the destroyer, Christ is the restorer. So your question is asking if Jesus would use a principle contrary to the principles of His government to bring about more consequences also contrary to the principles of His government.

Quote:
5. Were evil men and evil angels free to refuse to inflict the death and destruction Jesus deemed right and necessary?


I don't agree with your premise here. Jesus doesn't deem death and destruction as right and necessary, but as evil, which it is.

Quote:
6. Who would have inflicted the death and destruction Jesus deemed right and necessary if the Roman soldiers and evil angels had refused to do it?


Again, I disagree with the premise here.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/19/11 05:54 AM

Tom: I’ll make a response to these statements as they also involve our own discussion.

Originally Posted By: Tom
If the best way is studying the life and teachings of Jesus Christ while here in the flesh, then how should other revelations be treated? I think this is an area of disagreement between the differing points of view here.

Those who hold the point of view I hold generally believe that the revelation of Jesus Christ supersedes all other revelation, so that any other revelation should be made to harmonize with that one. Those who disagree tend to put the different revelations side by side, and have the other revelations in addition to the revelation of Jesus Christ, so we Jesus Christ's revelation plus others.


I have previously variously defended and substantiated in this thread that Jesus’s Revelation was in perfect harmony in all point with what God had actually intended in the OT. There is also the fact that not everything that Jesus said and did was recorded, and also the realism that not everything could be candidly “redone” by Jesus in 3 years of public ministry, though the principle for all of these OT actions of God/Him were all represented and perfectly upheld.

There is also the issue that I see that it is wrongly believed that Biblical writers themselves had a wrong view of the character of God while it seems evident to me that this statement speaks of how Israel in general came to view God. E.g., there was a perfect typological law of blood sacrifices represent what God would have to do to redeem man for their sins, however the people understood this to mean that God was bloodthirsty. This is what probably led them to seek other gods who were not so (seemingly) death and blood “demanding” and/or even espouse gods like Molech who required child sacrifices. So the misunderstanding was in the mind of the people but not with the Biblical writer. Indeed God’s Spirit would not led such a misconception be recorded as Scripture/The Word of God.

You also often say that OT people had an incorrect understand of who was doing an action in the Bible, and while that substantively only applies to the episode of Job, where God permitted Satan to do the destruction, these inspired Bible writers (Moses for the book of Job) actually rightly understood that if something was done against God’s people it ultimately was because God had permitted it, even if a different agency was employed to carry out that action.

So I see it as Jesus pointedly said, He did not come to change anything from the OT but bring them out more fully. And by implication that includes helping the people of His time and also today, understand why God did certain acts in the OT and the vindication of God’s Perfect Character in these. The SOP also does the same thing. Indeed just reading Rev 12:7-9's account of the War in Heaven which exegetically clearly speaks of ‘physical fighting’ one would not understand just how just and fair this choice of a physical war was to settle that ‘Heaven Occupation’ issue for the remaining allotted time of this GC.

Originally Posted By: Tom
This would mean that Jesus Christ's revelation was not full and complete, which looks to be an area of disagreement we have had.


When you draw put and focus on the principles brought forth by Christ and which were recorded in the Gospels, it is easily seen that Jesus’ Revelation was comprehensively “full and complete”. This includes the Divine principles involved in the “ministry of judgement/wrath”, the “Rules of/for Capital Judgement/Destructions” as it were. Jesus also perfectly demonstrated that such judgement for high-handed sin and destruction is always either done or not done in the light of the greater good involved/implicated. That is why He decided to permit Himself to receive His Baptism of Blood vs. calling down Hell Fire on Earth before that was accomplished. (E.g., Luke 12:49, 50)

Originally Posted By: Tom
I think the issue is similar to other incidents where God's ideal is not that to which the counsel applies, such as polygamy and slavery. God had to deal with the people's mindset as it was.


As a working thesis, I do not see that God had a problem with “polygamy” when it was relatively justified, as with the Patriarchs. Indeed the only objection I see of God is when a “multiplication of wives” is being done, as kings easily could given their greater name/ancestral power, yet with kings this seemed to all be in regards to the marrying of many “foreign” wives. (Deut 17:17). It seems to me that women who married a man as an additional wive did it freely and knew what they were getting into. There was no abuse/slavery/coercion involved, but actually genuine love and desire for marital association. Of course the ideal was ‘one man one wife’ and as this was not seen much in the history of Israel, once it became established, except in a couple of situations, (which may have been tangible necessities), it seems evident to me that this was always done out of, indeed, a tangible necessity. Particularly for having offsprings and that in a genuine and moral family context.

Originally Posted By: Tom
We see little glimpses of the people acting in harmony with God's will, and when this happened, there was no killing involved, but for the most part, it was a stubborn "stiff-necked" people God was dealing with, and we don't see His ideal will expressed.


Of course when there is no offense of God’s capital laws, there is no reason to effectuate their judgements. I would also add, as stated before, that it was when Israel as a whole was a (relatively) righteous society that the people actually bothered/cared to fully uphold the laws of God, including capital punishments. When they were not, I see that even righteous people did not venture to do so, not only as they probably would not be able to, not having the support of Israel’s “Law Enforcement” (judges, priests, people), but also because, as seen with Elijah (1 Kgs 19:1-3, 14), they would then become the targets of vindictive murderous efforts. Indeed in Elijah episode, there were 7000 righteous ones, that God was going to help him spare during the judgements that he was to continue to do (1 Kgs 19:15-18) who evidently remained in the background and did not act openly and zealously for God’s Truth as did Elijah.

Originally Posted By: Tom
If we take the point of view that God is pleased to have Sabbath-breakers killed, why wouldn't we kill them now? Is it just because we're not living in a theocracy?

(First and foremost, if any has a view that God was “pleased” with the death of e.g,. Sabbath-breakers, though He had legislated this to be the default case, they themselves have a wrong view of God as he clearly says for Himself that he takes no pleasure in the destruction/death of the wicked. (Ezek 18:23; 33:11). Yet that does not mean that He does not execute such needed and deserved judgements.)

Indeed since Rome took over control of the world, including Israel, they prevented peoples under them to effectuate capital punishment. (Probably as this would affect their ability to raise taxes based on census results). So since ca. 168 B.C. this was no longer a right that Israel had, right through Christ’s time and the NT Church and up to our day. (Indeed that is why I see that it was God who effectuated the just capital death of Annanias and Sapphira for the NT Church, and that actually as a preempting object lesson for the NT Church (Acts 5:11).

Indeed the NT Israel has never become a theocracy which would now surely have to involve having a distinct territorial jurisdiction. SO just as “honor killings” are judged as murders in western societies, executing the capital punishment sentences that God had prescribed with reason in the OT for much more than murders, would also be judged as criminal acts.

Also, in regards pointedly to the Sabbath, in the time of the Temporal Rule of the Catholic Church, the killed people who they thought did not keep the/their Sabbath (e.g, the Waldenses). Yet it clearly was not the doing of God’s actual will.

In regards to the Sabbath today, given what God actually, fully expects as proper Sabbath Observance (e.g, Isa 58) not too many, if any, including especially SDA’s are keeping the Spirit of that Law. So to execute Capital punishment for the breaking of the letter of the law would be similarly denounced as unrighteousness and hypocrisy as demonstrated by Christ in His dealing with the woman caught in adultery. Indeed not too many, if any, can actually cast a first stone here.

Originally Posted By: Tom
The question of killing law-breakers is an important issue coming up in the last days before Christ's second coming. We know that Satan will use this very argument against those who keep God's commandments, that they should be killed.


Of course, if it is not God’s actual will and/or not done righteously, then it is mootly not contributive to understanding what God’s will is in this matter. Furthermore, to see why Sabbath breakers were rightly to be put to death, as seen in God’s knowledge of what His Sabbath was to do (Isa 58) , i.e., meet the vital needs of people and thus not even let them suffer, let alone let them, as nonchalantly and normatively done in our day, die of curable and preventable causes, including abortion which is mainly done for socio-economic “convenience” reasons, it is easily seen and understood how the violation of God’s sabbatic principles, all encapsulated in the 4th Commandment, involves the selfish and indifferent murder of others. Thus its capital punishment is indeed fully justified. Nonetheless, if today, a theocratic society of God were to exist, this capital sentence could be “commuted” as either life in prison or a banishment/force emigration from that righteous society to go live like the other nations of the world who violate this life sustaining law, and naturally suffer their ‘survival of the richest’ consequence.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/19/11 09:14 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
M: 1. Did the father of the hunter son command his son to do the things he told him to do? No.
2. What would neighbors who overheard their conversation have thought? They would have been impressed the father was willing to help his son hunt humanely even though the father was not in favor of it.

T: Or they might have thought the son was doing the father's will by hunting.

I don’t think so.

Quote:
M: 3. Also, do you think Moses knew God and His will as well as Jesus Christ did? No.
4. Was it Moses' job to perfectly reveal the character of the Father? No.
5. Isn't it true that God's character was misunderstood until Christ completed His job of revealing it? Yes.
6. If so, wouldn't it stand to reason that Moses' understanding of it was imperfect? Yes.
7. Can there be any better way of understanding God's character than to examine the life and teachings of Christ? If people were forced to choose only one of the many different ways God has revealed Himself to learn the truth about Him, then no, there is no one way better than studying the life and teachings of Jesus while He was here in the flesh.

T: If the best way is studying the life and teachings of Jesus Christ while here in the flesh, then how should other revelations be treated? I think this is an area of disagreement between the differing points of view here. Those who hold the point of view I hold generally believe that the revelation of Jesus Christ supersedes all other revelation, so that any other revelation should be made to harmonize with that one. Those who disagree tend to put the different revelations side by side, and have the other revelations in addition to the revelation of Jesus Christ, so we Jesus Christ's revelation plus others. This would mean that Jesus Christ's revelation was not full and complete, which looks to be an area of disagreement we have had.

I agree with Ellen’s view of it. She wrote, “The Saviour is revealed in the Old Testament as clearly as in the New.” “The Bible is . . . a complete revelation of the attributes and will of God in the person of Jesus Christ”. Again, it is impossible to establish the 28 fundamental beliefs based solely on what Jesus said and did while here in the flesh. His revelation of God is not limited to the Gospels.

Quote:
M: Do you believe it when it says in the Bible that Jesus commanded Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to death? Or, do you suspect Moses misunderstood what Jesus said? For example, in the Bible it says: “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.” “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. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.” Also, do you think the father teaching his son how to hunt humanely is the same thing as Jesus commanding Moses to stone to death the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer? Is hunting animals and killing humans equal in the eyes of God? Did the father command his son to hunt humanely?

T: I think the issue is similar to other incidents where God's ideal is not that to which the counsel applies, such as polygamy and slavery. God had to deal with the people's mindset as it was. We see little glimpses of the people acting in harmony with God's will, and when this happened, there was no killing involved, but for the most part, it was a stubborn "stiff-necked" people God was dealing with, and we don't see His ideal will expressed. If we take the point of view that God is pleased to have Sabbath-breakers killed, why wouldn't we kill them now? Is it just because we're not living in a theocracy? The question of killing law-breakers is an important issue coming up in the last days before Christ's second coming. We know that Satan will use this very argument against those who keep God's commandments, that they should be killed.

Tom, I don’t understand how your response answers my questions. Here they are again:

1. Do you believe it when it says in the Bible that Jesus commanded Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to death?
2. Or, do you suspect Moses misunderstood what Jesus said? For example, in the Bible it says: “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.” “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. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.”
3. Also, do you think the father teaching his son how to hunt humanely is the same thing as Jesus commanding Moses to stone to death the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer?
4. Is hunting animals and killing humans equal in the eyes of God?
5. Did the father command his son to hunt humanely?

Quote:
T: If we take the point of view that God is pleased to have Sabbath-breakers killed, why wouldn't we kill them now?

Interesting you bring this point up. Ellen wrote, “In our day there are many who reject the creation Sabbath as a Jewish institution and urge that if it is to be kept, the penalty of death must be inflicted for its violation; but we see that blasphemy received the same punishment as did Sabbathbreaking. Shall we therefore conclude that the third commandment also is to be set aside as applicable only to the Jews? Yet the argument drawn from the death penalty applies to the third, the fifth, and indeed to nearly all the ten precepts, equally with the fourth. Though God may not now punish the transgression of His law with temporal penalties, yet His word declares that the wages of sin is death; and in the final execution of the judgment it will be found that death is the portion of those who violate His sacred precepts. {PP 409.2}

Again, the question is – When Moses inquired of Jesus what to do in the cases of the Sabbath-breaker and the Blasphemer, why did Jesus “command” him to stone them to death? Why didn’t He take the opportunity to explain things as you see them?

Where in the OT did Jesus explain to the Jews things as you see them (as they relate to the title of this thread)?

Where in the NT did Jesus categorically condemn capital punishment?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/19/11 09:25 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
Originally Posted By: MM
T: You wrote as if God were responsible for the things you were speaking of. I addressed that by pointing out that it would be a huge mistake to view God as responsible, and cited texts to explain why.

M:1. Of course Jesus was responsible for ensuring evil angels did not exceed the limits He imposed on them. That is, Jesus did not let them cause more death and destruction than He was willing to permit. Do you agree?


What would a disagreement to this look like? That Jesus let them cause more death and destruction than He was willing to permit?

Quote:
2. Do you agree Jesus worked to prevent evil men and evil angels from inflicting more death and destruction than He was willing to permit?


I believe that Jesus worked to prevent evil men and evil angels from inflicting death and destruction in general.

Quote:
Or, do you think evil men and evil angels willingly restrained themselves in order not to displease God and exceed Jesus’ limits?


This can't be a serious question.

Quote:
3. Also, did evil men and evil angels do anything Jesus' wasn't willing to permit?


I don't see the sense in this one either. God is omnipotent, right? So anything that happens can only happen if He permits it to happen, isn't that right?

Quote:
4. Did Jesus force evil men and evil angels to inflict the death and destruction He deemed right and necessary?


I don't see any sense in this question either. No, of course not, to answer the question. First of all, the exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government. Secondly, Jesus would hardly force people to do something contrary to the principles of his government, like inflicting death and destruction; that's Satan's job. Satan is the destroyer, Christ is the restorer. So your question is asking if Jesus would use a principle contrary to the principles of His government to bring about more consequences also contrary to the principles of His government.

Quote:
5. Were evil men and evil angels free to refuse to inflict the death and destruction Jesus deemed right and necessary?


I don't agree with your premise here. Jesus doesn't deem death and destruction as right and necessary, but as evil, which it is.

Quote:
6. Who would have inflicted the death and destruction Jesus deemed right and necessary if the Roman soldiers and evil angels had refused to do it?


Again, I disagree with the premise here.

I have no idea what your answers are to my questions.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/19/11 10:14 PM

Tom, you say that in the past you have plainly stated who caused fire to blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned N&A alive. For the life of me I cannot recall what you said about it. For the record, would you please state it again here and now?

I know you believe Jesus withdraws His protection and permits His enemies, within the limits He imposes on them, to punish and destroy impenitent sinners. But in the case of N&A I have absolutely no idea who you believe caused fire to blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned them alive.

Regarding the punishment and death of N&A, Ellen wrote:

Quote:
"God consumed them by fire for their positive disregard of His express directions."

"This was a transgression of God's express command, and his judgment speedily followed."

"For this sin, a fire went out from the Lord, and devoured them in the sight of the people."

"Nadab and Abihu were slain by the fire of God's wrath for their intemperance in the use of wine."

"Fire from his presence destroyed them in their sin."

"By the offering of "strange fire," they disregarded God's command, and they were slain by His judgments."

"A fire blazed out from the holy of holies and consumed them."

"God visited them with His wrath; fire went forth from His presence and destroyed them."

"God forbade any manifestation of grief for Nadab and Abihu, even on the part of their nearest relatives, "lest ye die," he said, "and lest wrath come upon all the people: but let your brethren, the whole house of Israel, bewail the burning which the Lord hath kindled."

Nowhere does she say or imply anyone other than Jesus burned N&A alive. In fact, the following testimony presents a view very different than the one you are advocating:

Quote:
God is exact to mark iniquity. Sins of thoughtlessness, negligence, forgetfulness, and even ignorance, have been visited by some of the most wonderfully marked manifestations of his displeasure. Many who have suffered terrible punishment for their sins, might have pleaded as plausibly as do those of today who fall into similar errors, that they meant no harm, and some would even say that they thought they were doing God service; but the light shone on them, and they disregarded it. {ST, July 17, 1884 par. 7}

Let us look at some of the examples found in sacred history. Assisted by his sons, Aaron had offered the sacrifices that God required; and he lifted up his hands and blessed the people. All had been done as God commanded, and he accepted the sacrifice, and revealed his glory in a most remarkable manner; for fire came from the Lord, and consumed the offering upon the altar. The people looked upon this wonderful manifestation of divine power with awe and intense interest. They saw in it a token of his glory and his favor, and they raised a universal shout of praise and adoration, and fell on their faces, as if in the immediate presence of Jehovah. {ST, July 17, 1884 par. 8}

As the prayers and praise of the people were ascending before God, two of the sons of Aaron took each his censer, and burned fragrant incense thereon, to arise as a sweet odor before God. But they had partaken too freely of wine, and used strange fire, contrary to the Lord's commandment. And the wrath of God was kindled against Nadab and Abihu for their disobedience, and a fire went out from the Lord, and devoured them in the sight of the people. By this judgment God designed to teach the people that they must approach him with reverence and awe, and in his own appointed manner. He is not pleased with partial obedience. It was not enough that in this solemn season of worship nearly everything was done as he commanded. {ST, July 17, 1884 par. 9}

The Lord sent Samuel to King Saul with a special message. "Go," he said, "and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." Saul was faithful and zealous in performing a part of his commission. He smote the Amalekites with a great slaughter; but he took the proposition of the people before the command of God, and spared Agag, the king, and "the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good." {ST, July 17, 1884 par. 10}

The Lord commanded Saul to "utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them until they be consumed." The Lord knew that this wicked nation would, if it were possible, blot out his people and his worship from the earth; and for this reason he had commanded that even the little children should be cut off. But Saul had spared the king, the most wicked and merciless of them all; one who had hated and destroyed the people of God, and whose influence had been strongest to promote idolatry. {ST, July 17, 1884 par. 11}

Saul thought he had done all that was essential of that which the Lord commanded him to do. Perhaps he even flattered himself that he was more merciful than his Maker, as do some unbelievers in our day. He met Samuel with the salutation, "Blessed be thou of the Lord; I have performed the commandment of the Lord." But when the prophet asked what meant the bleating of the sheep and the lowing of the oxen which he heard, Saul was obliged to confess that the people had taken of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the chief of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice to the Lord in Gilgal. {ST, July 17, 1884 par. 12}

Did the Lord accept this justification of Saul's conduct? Was he pleased with this partial obedience, and willing to pass over the trifle that had been neglected out of so good a motive? Saul did what he thought was best, and would not the Lord commend such excellent judgment? No. Said Samuel, "Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king." {ST, July 17, 1884 par. 13}

These instances show how God looks upon his professed people when they obey part of his commandments while in other respects they follow a course of their own choosing. Let no one flatter himself that a part of God's requirements are nonessential. He has placed no command in his word that men may obey or disobey at will, and not suffer the consequences. If men choose any other path than that of strict obedience, they will find that "the end thereof are the ways of death."
{ST, July 17, 1884 par. 14}

You seem to be making the same argument King Saul did, namely, that by sparing the life of Agag he was being merciful the way he imagined Jesus preferred. But Jesus punished him for being presumptuous.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/20/11 03:09 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
Tom: I’ll make a response to these statements as they also involve our own discussion.


Ok.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Tom
If the best way is studying the life and teachings of Jesus Christ while here in the flesh, then how should other revelations be treated? I think this is an area of disagreement between the differing points of view here.

Those who hold the point of view I hold generally believe that the revelation of Jesus Christ supersedes all other revelation, so that any other revelation should be made to harmonize with that one. Those who disagree tend to put the different revelations side by side, and have the other revelations in addition to the revelation of Jesus Christ, so we Jesus Christ's revelation plus others.

NJK:I have previously variously defended and substantiated in this thread that Jesus’s Revelation was in perfect harmony in all point with what God had actually intended in the OT.


That's not the issue. The problem is not with what had been revealed in the OT, but with people's perception of that revelation, which was, and still is, different then Jesus Christ's. So when we look at the OT, we see one thing, but when Jesus Christ looked at it, He saw another. What Jesus Christ saw is what He revealed. So, given that we see things different than Jesus Christ did, we should defer to what Jesus Christ saw. That's been the point I've been making.

Quote:
NJK:There is also the fact that not everything that Jesus said and did was recorded, and also the realism that not everything could be candidly “redone” by Jesus in 3 years of public ministry, though the principle for all of these OT actions of God/Him were all represented and perfectly upheld.


Evidently the time that Jesus had was sufficient for Him to accomplish His mission.

Quote:
Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,—to set men right through the revelation of God. In Christ was arrayed before men the paternal grace and the matchless perfections of the Father. 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. {ST January 20, 1890, par. 9}


This is a very interesting quote. Note these points:

1.The whole purpose of Christ's mission on earth was to set men right through the revelation of God.

2.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.

So Christ accomplished the revelation of the character of the Father to the world. If this had already been done, Christ would not have had to have come, since the whole purpose of His mission was the revelation of God.

Quote:
NJK:There is also the issue that I see that it is wrongly believed that Biblical writers themselves had a wrong view of the character of God while it seems evident to me that this statement speaks of how Israel in general came to view God.


They certainly didn't have as clear a view of the character of God as Jesus Christ.

Quote:
NJK:E.g., there was a perfect typological law of blood sacrifices represent what God would have to do to redeem man for their sins, however the people understood this to mean that God was bloodthirsty.


Which people? Why do you think they thought that? I think they thought of the sacrifices in general very, very differently to how we, who have been very heavily influenced by Anselm, do.

Quote:
NJK:This is what probably led them to seek other gods who were not so (seemingly) death and blood “demanding” and/or even espouse gods like Molech who required child sacrifices.


You're saying they viewed Jehovah to be more bloodthirsty than Molech, who demanded child sacrifices, which is why they turned to Molech? I think they more likely turned to Molech for reasons analogous to why people turn to Catholicism.

Quote:
NJK:So the misunderstanding was in the mind of the people but not with the Biblical writer. Indeed God’s Spirit would not led such a misconception be recorded as Scripture/The Word of God.


I assume "led" here means "let."

Light is progressive. We need to bear in mind that at the time the OT was written, Christ had not yet come. The coming of Christ shed a great deal of light.

Quote:
NJK:You also often say that OT people had an incorrect understand of who was doing an action in the Bible,


Actually I've never said this.

Quote:
and while that substantively only applies to the episode of Job,


What is "that" here?

Quote:
where God permitted Satan to do the destruction, these inspired Bible writers (Moses for the book of Job) actually rightly understood that if something was done against God’s people it ultimately was because God had permitted it,


Everybody has already understood this. God is omnipotent, which has always been understood, so that if something happens, it's because God permitted it.

Here's the issue:

Quote:
It was generally believed by the Jews that sin is punished in this life. Every affliction was regarded as the penalty of some wrongdoing, either of the sufferer himself or of his parents. It is true that all suffering results from the transgression of God's law, but this truth had become perverted. Satan, the author of sin and all its results, had led men to look upon disease and death as proceeding from God,--as punishment arbitrarily inflicted on account of sin. Hence one upon whom some great affliction or calamity had fallen had the additional burden of being regarded as a great sinner. {DA 471.1}

[quote]even if a different agency was employed to carry out that action.


If the same agency was employed, which would be God, then, of course, it would be understood that God permitted the action.

Quote:
NJK:So I see it as Jesus pointedly said, He did not come to change anything from the OT but bring them out more fully.


No one has argued that Jesus came to change anything from the OT. Jesus came to reveal the Father.

Quote:
NJK:And by implication that includes helping the people of His time and also today, understand why God did certain acts in the OT and the vindication of God’s Perfect Character in these.


Or to understand God's character, which helps to understand what happened.

I think a vital point that's not being addressed is that Satan was at work for the purpose of misrepresenting God's character. Who God was, and what He was doing, was NOT understood. The why wasn't the big problem, but the what. For example:

Quote:
In heaven itself this law was broken. Sin originated in self-seeking. Lucifer, the covering cherub, desired to be first in heaven. He sought to gain control of heavenly beings, to draw them away from their Creator, and to win their homage to himself. Therefore he misrepresented God,
Page 22
attributing to Him the desire for self-exaltation. With his own evil characteristics he sought to invest the loving Creator. Thus he deceived angels. Thus he deceived men. He led them to doubt the word of God, and to distrust His goodness. Because God is a God of justice and terrible majesty, Satan caused them to look upon Him as severe and unforgiving. Thus he drew men to join him in rebellion against God, and the night of woe settled down upon the world.

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 21,22)


1.Satan desired power.
2.So he misrepresented God's character.
3.He did so by vesting God with his own attributes of character.
4.Only Christ could make clear God's true character.

When we look at Christ's life and teachings, we don't see explanations as to why God was violent, but, rather, the revelation of God who is NOT violent.

Jesus said, "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father." What is it we see when we look at Jesus? A violent being who explains the necessary of violence? Or a non-violent Being who explains why violence is not the way of truth?

Quote:
NJK:The SOP also does the same thing. Indeed just reading Rev 12:7-9's account of the War in Heaven which exegetically clearly speaks of ‘physical fighting’ one would not understand just how just and fair this choice of a physical war was to settle that ‘Heaven Occupation’ issue for the remaining allotted time of this GC.


This is an explanation of the war in Revelation 12:

Quote:
Could one sin have been found in Christ, had He in one particular yielded to Satan to escape the terrible torture, the enemy of God and man would have triumphed. Christ bowed His head and died, but He held fast His faith and His submission to God. "And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night." Rev. 12:10.

Satan saw that his disguise was torn away. His administration was laid open before the unfallen angels and before the heavenly universe. He had revealed himself as a murderer. By shedding the blood of the Son of God, he had uprooted himself from the sympathies of the heavenly beings. Henceforth his work was restricted. Whatever attitude he might assume, he could no longer await the angels as they came from the heavenly courts, and before them accuse Christ's brethren of being clothed with the garments of blackness and the defilement of sin. The last link of sympathy between Satan and the heavenly world was broken. (DA 761)


What caused Satan to be cast down? Was it physical force? Indeed not. Just a little earlier we read:

Quote:
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. 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. (ibid 759)


We see from this:

1.Rebellion was not to be overcome by force.
2.Compelling power is found only under Satan's government.
3.The Lord's principles are not of this order.
4.God's authority rests upon goodness, mercy, and love; and the presentation of these principles is the means to be used.
5.God's government is moral, and truth and love are to be the prevailing power.

I really don't know how to state the ideas I've been trying to share more clearly than this. These five points are exactly what I've been trying to say.

When we look at the passage dealing with Satan's being cast down, we see that what happened is referring to a loss of influence on Satan's part. The point of contention of the Great Controversy has never been who is more powerful, but who has the better way of doing things. Satan has one way, and God has another. The cross made clear to the angels that God's way was the superior way, and who had been telling the truth. Satan could still physically go to heaven to make his claims, but there was no longer anyone to even listen to him. That had had enough. They would simply turn their backs. Thus Satan was "cast down" because he had utterly lost any influence whatsoever upon heavenly beings to even have an audience upon which to make his claims.

The same thing will happen in the final judgment. This is how God wins the Great Controversy; by making clear to all sentient beings what His true character is, as well as the principles of His government, in contrast to the claims of the enemy.

When we consider the other accounts of the war in heaven, we need to keep in mind the principles revealed here. We can't simply take one account of an event as if the author had not written about the event elsewhere. The even I'm talking about here is the Great Controversy.

It really doesn't make sense that in regards to one battle, where Satan is cast down, that EGW would make the points that:

1.Rebellion was not to be overcome by force.
2.Compelling power is only found in Satan's government.
3.The Lord's principles are not of this order.

while for another batter, also resulting in Satan's being cast down, that it would be the case that.

1.Rebellion was overcome by force.
2.Compelling power was found in God's government.
3.The Lord's principles were of this order.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Tom
This would mean that Jesus Christ's revelation was not full and complete, which looks to be an area of disagreement we have had.

NJK:When you draw put and focus on the principles brought forth by Christ and which were recorded in the Gospels, it is easily seen that Jesus’ Revelation was comprehensively “full and complete”.


Agreed. Therefore it's not a question of Jesus Christ's revelation plus other revelation, in terms of understanding God's character. Rather Jesus Christ becomes the prism by which we understand all other revelation.

Quote:
NJK:This includes the Divine principles involved in the “ministry of judgement/wrath”, the “Rules of/for Capital Judgement/Destructions” as it were.


What in the Gospels are you thinking of here?

Quote:
NJK:Jesus also perfectly demonstrated that such judgement for high-handed sin and destruction is always either done or not done in the light of the greater good involved/implicated.


I cannot think of a single instance where Jesus Christ referred to any destruction which had occurred, or bad thing of any sort, that He did not attribute to Satan. That is, is there any such event (an even where people became sick, or were killed) which occurred in Jesus' time to which he referred, some event which had already taken place, that he attributed to God?

Quote:
NJK:That is why He decided to permit Himself to receive His Baptism of Blood vs. calling down Hell Fire on Earth before that was accomplished. (E.g., Luke 12:49, 50)


Did He attribute this to God?

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Tom
I think the issue is similar to other incidents where God's ideal is not that to which the counsel applies, such as polygamy and slavery. God had to deal with the people's mindset as it was.

NJK:As a working thesis, I do not see that God had a problem with “polygamy” when it was relatively justified, as with the Patriarchs.


From the SOP:

Quote:
Polygamy had become so widespread that it had ceased to be regarded as a sin, but it was no less a violation of the law of God, and was fatal to the sacredness and peace of the family relation.... {CTr 82.2}


Quote:
Polygamy was practiced at an early date. It was one of the sins that brought the wrath of God upon the antediluvian world.... It was Satan’s studied effort to pervert the marriage institution, to weaken its obligations and lessen its sacredness; for in no surer way could he deface the image of God in man and open the door to misery and vice. {CC 36.5}(ellipsis original)


Quote:
The polygamy so common in that time was directly opposed to the law of Jehovah.{BEcho August 29, 1898, par. 5}


Quote:
God has not sanctioned polygamy in a single instance. It was contrary to his will. He knew that the happiness of man would be destroyed by it.{ST March 27, 1879, par. 3}


This last quote is particularly clear.

Quote:
NJK:Indeed the only objection I see of God is when a “multiplication of wives” is being done, as kings easily could given their greater name/ancestral power, yet with kings this seemed to all be in regards to the marrying of many “foreign” wives. (Deut 17:17). It seems to me that women who married a man as an additional wive did it freely and knew what they were getting into. There was no abuse/slavery/coercion involved, but actually genuine love and desire for marital association. Of course the ideal was ‘one man one wife’ and as this was not seen much in the history of Israel, once it became established, except in a couple of situations, (which may have been tangible necessities), it seems evident to me that this was always done out of, indeed, a tangible necessity. Particularly for having offsprings and that in a genuine and moral family context.


From the SOP quotes, we see God's view of polygamy, that He never sanctioned it, that it was contrary to His law, and contrary to His will. Nevertheless, it was permitted. So we see that God will give counsel in regards to acts which are contrary to His will.

We also see this in relation to slavery.

Israel's desire for a king is another example.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Tom
We see little glimpses of the people acting in harmony with God's will, and when this happened, there was no killing involved, but for the most part, it was a stubborn "stiff-necked" people God was dealing with, and we don't see His ideal will expressed.

NJK:Of course when there is no offense of God’s capital laws, there is no reason to effectuate their judgements. I would also add, as stated before, that it was when Israel as a whole was a (relatively) righteous society that the people actually bothered/cared to fully uphold the laws of God, including capital punishments. When they were not, I see that even righteous people did not venture to do so, not only as they probably would not be able to, not having the support of Israel’s “Law Enforcement” (judges, priests, people), but also because, as seen with Elijah (1 Kgs 19:1-3, 14), they would then become the targets of vindictive murderous efforts. Indeed in Elijah episode, there were 7000 righteous ones, that God was going to help him spare during the judgements that he was to continue to do (1 Kgs 19:15-18) who evidently remained in the background and did not act openly and zealously for God’s Truth as did Elijah.

Originally Posted By: Tom
If we take the point of view that God is pleased to have Sabbath-breakers killed, why wouldn't we kill them now? Is it just because we're not living in a theocracy?

NJK:(First and foremost, if any has a view that God was “pleased” with the death of e.g,. Sabbath-breakers, though He had legislated this to be the default case, they themselves have a wrong view of God as he clearly says for Himself that he takes no pleasure in the destruction/death of the wicked. (Ezek 18:23; 33:11).


Agreed.

Quote:
NJK:Yet that does not mean that He does not execute such needed and deserved judgements.)


You men God kills people who break the Sabbath? Or has them killed? They deserve to be killed?

Quote:
NJK:Indeed since Rome took over control of the world, including Israel, they prevented peoples under them to effectuate capital punishment. (Probably as this would affect their ability to raise taxes based on census results).


I think more likely because they would see it as an affront to their power. I can't think of any government, even today, that allows it's citizen's to carry out capital punishment. If they did, that would be tantamount to a rejection to the government's authority.

Quote:
NJK:So since ca. 168 B.C. this was no longer a right that Israel had, right through Christ’s time and the NT Church and up to our day. (Indeed that is why I see that it was God who effectuated the just capital death of Annanias and Sapphira for the NT Church, and that actually as a preempting object lesson for the NT Church (Acts 5:11).


It seems clear to me that what happened with Ananias and Sapphira was that they were doing their evil deeds in the presence of great light, the Holy Spirit working mightily in their midst, and when the revelation of the truth hit them, it was too much for them. I think this is similar to what will happen in the final judgment. Our conscience cannot bear the reality of our guilt. God, in mercy, veils our guilt. We can be healed of our guilt, if we so choose, by Jesus Christ.

If we take the viewpoint that God is in favor of capital punishment in His church, it's hard to see how this wouldn't lead to violence in the church.

Quote:
NJK:Indeed the NT Israel has never become a theocracy which would now surely have to involve having a distinct territorial jurisdiction. SO just as “honor killings” are judged as murders in western societies, executing the capital punishment sentences that God had prescribed with reason in the OT for much more than murders, would also be judged as criminal acts.


Should they be? That is, if there was a territorial jurisdiction where NT Israel existed, would it be proper to put to death people who didn't keep the Sabbath?

Quote:
NJK:Also, in regards pointedly to the Sabbath, in the time of the Temporal Rule of the Catholic Church, the killed people who they thought did not keep the/their Sabbath (e.g, the Waldenses). Yet it clearly was not the doing of God’s actual will.


Why is this clearly not God's will? Because they had the wrong day in mind?

Quote:
NJK:In regards to the Sabbath today, given what God actually, fully expects as proper Sabbath Observance (e.g, Isa 58) not too many, if any, including especially SDA’s are keeping the Spirit of that Law. So to execute Capital punishment for the breaking of the letter of the law would be similarly denounced as unrighteousness and hypocrisy as demonstrated by Christ in His dealing with the woman caught in adultery. Indeed not too many, if any, can actually cast a first stone here.


What if they could? Should Sabbath-breakers be put to death by them?

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Tom
The question of killing law-breakers is an important issue coming up in the last days before Christ's second coming. We know that Satan will use this very argument against those who keep God's commandments, that they should be killed.

NJK:Of course, if it is not God’s actual will and/or not done righteously, then it is mootly not contributive to understanding what God’s will is in this matter.


If it's not God's actual will, then it is "mootly not contributive" to understand what God's will is in this matter? What? If it's not God's actual will, then, of course, it's not God's will. What's the point in stating this?

This only leaves the done righteously part. So if it's not done righteously, then it's not God's will. Let's assume it's done righteously then.

Quote:
NJK:Furthermore, to see why Sabbath breakers were rightly to be put to death, as seen in God’s knowledge of what His Sabbath was to do (Isa 58) , i.e., meet the vital needs of people and thus not even let them suffer, let alone let them, as nonchalantly and normatively done in our day, die of curable and preventable causes, including abortion which is mainly done for socio-economic “convenience” reasons, it is easily seen and understood how the violation of God’s sabbatic principles, all encapsulated in the 4th Commandment, involves the selfish and indifferent murder of others.


This is too long a sentence. The main point here looks to be that the violation of God's Sabbath principles involve selfishness and being indifferent to the murder of others is easily seen. How so?

Quote:
NJK:Thus its capital punishment is indeed fully justified.


So capital punishment is fully justified for breaking the Sabbath because it involves selfishness and being indifferent to the murder of others. If this is the justification for capital punishment of this act, then it should apply to other similar acts as well. Anyone who is selfish or indifferent to the murder of others should be killed.

Quote:
NJK:Nonetheless, if today, a theocratic society of God were to exist, this capital sentence could be “commuted” as either life in prison or a banishment/force emigration from that righteous society to go live like the other nations of the world who violate this life sustaining law, and naturally suffer their ‘survival of the richest’ consequence.


Would this be preferable? If so, why?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/20/11 03:55 AM

Originally Posted By: =MM
M: 1. Did the father of the hunter son command his son to do the things he told him to do? No.
2. What would neighbors who overheard their conversation have thought? They would have been impressed the father was willing to help his son hunt humanely even though the father was not in favor of it.

T: Or they might have thought the son was doing the father's will by hunting.

M:I don’t think so.


Assuming they didn't already know the father's feelings in regards to hunting, it would certainly be a natural conclusion that the father was in favor of hunting, if they heard him giving counsel on how to hunt.

Quote:
T: If the best way is studying the life and teachings of Jesus Christ while here in the flesh, then how should other revelations be treated? I think this is an area of disagreement between the differing points of view here. Those who hold the point of view I hold generally believe that the revelation of Jesus Christ supersedes all other revelation, so that any other revelation should be made to harmonize with that one. Those who disagree tend to put the different revelations side by side, and have the other revelations in addition to the revelation of Jesus Christ, so we Jesus Christ's revelation plus others. This would mean that Jesus Christ's revelation was not full and complete, which looks to be an area of disagreement we have had.

M:I agree with Ellen’s view of it.


Good! She wrote:

Quote:
It would be well for us to spend a thoughtful hour each day in contemplation of the life of Christ. We should take it point by point, and let the imagination grasp each scene, especially the closing ones.(DA 83)


Quote:
MM:She wrote, “The Saviour is revealed in the Old Testament as clearly as in the New.” “The Bible is . . . a complete revelation of the attributes and will of God in the person of Jesus Christ”. Again, it is impossible to establish the 28 fundamental beliefs based solely on what Jesus said and did while here in the flesh. His revelation of God is not limited to the Gospels.


None of this is germane to the points I've been making. I just made the same points in the post to NJK, right above this one, so I won't repeat the quotes involved, but basically the whole purpose of Christ's mission was the revelation of God, which was a work only He could do. Obviously if this work had already been done, He would not have had to have come, given this was the whole purpose of His mission.

Ellen White wrote that all that man needs to know of God, or can know, was revealed in the life and character of His Son, not that all the 28 fundamental beliefs were revealed in the life and character of His son. Why are you speaking of the 28 fundamental beliefs?

Quote:
T: I think the issue is similar to other incidents where God's ideal is not that to which the counsel applies, such as polygamy and slavery. God had to deal with the people's mindset as it was. We see little glimpses of the people acting in harmony with God's will, and when this happened, there was no killing involved, but for the most part, it was a stubborn "stiff-necked" people God was dealing with, and we don't see His ideal will expressed. If we take the point of view that God is pleased to have Sabbath-breakers killed, why wouldn't we kill them now? Is it just because we're not living in a theocracy? The question of killing law-breakers is an important issue coming up in the last days before Christ's second coming. We know that Satan will use this very argument against those who keep God's commandments, that they should be killed.

Tom, I don’t understand how your response answers my questions. Here they are again:


Your first two questions I addressed in my response.

Here are the last three:

Quote:
3. Also, do you think the father teaching his son how to hunt humanely is the same thing as Jesus commanding Moses to stone to death the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer?


They are obviously not exactly the same thing. I obviously thought they were similar in character, right? Or else, I wouldn't have offered the story as an explanation, right?

Quote:
4. Is hunting animals and killing humans equal in the eyes of God?


Why would you ask a question like this? It's ridiculous. You know the answer to this.

You must have something else in mind, like, since hunting animals is not the same thing as killing humans (whatever your point it).

Please don't ask questions like this. Just make whatever point you wish to make.

There's no need to establish that hunting animals and killing humans are not equal in the eyes of God. You have got to be thinking, "Since hunting animals is not the same thing as killing humans in the eyes of God, it follows that (something)." Please just articulate what you're thinking.

Quote:
5. Did the father command his son to hunt humanely?


The father gave counsel to the son regarding how to hunt, but it was not his will that his son should hunt. Given he was going to hunt, the father commanded he should hunt humanely.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/20/11 04:19 AM

Originally Posted By: MM
MM:You seem to be making the same argument King Saul did, namely, that by sparing the life of Agag he was being merciful the way he imagined Jesus preferred. But Jesus punished him for being presumptuous.


Regarding Saul's purpose, we read:

Quote:
This victory over the Amalekites was the most brilliant victory that Saul had ever gained, and it served to rekindle the pride of heart that was his greatest peril. The divine edict devoting the enemies of God to utter destruction was but partially fulfilled. Ambitious to heighten the honor of his triumphal return by the presence of a royal captive, Saul ventured to imitate the customs of the nations around him and spared Agag, the fierce and warlike king of the Amalekites. The people reserved for themselves the finest of the flocks, herds, and beasts of burden, excusing their sin on the ground that the cattle were reserved to be offered as sacrifices to the Lord. It was their purpose, however, to use these merely as a substitute, to save their own cattle. {CC 156.3}


This points out that Saul's purpose was selfish and proud. To think that Saul's argument here was the same as mine would seem to indicate you're either misunderstanding Saul's argument or mine.

Here is mine:

1.All that we can know of God was revealed by Jesus Christ.
2.The whole purpose of His mission was the revelation of God.
3.Jesus Christ did not reveal God as One who uses force to get His way, or compelling power, or One who burns people alive to punish them for not doing His will.

Here's an issue I see with your way of thinking. You appear to believe that it's OK to kill people who are not doing God's will, if you believe God is telling you to do so. I think that's dangerous, especially given the fact that this is exactly what's going to happen during the last plagues (i.e., people will try to kill those whom they think are not doing God's will, and will think they are doing God's will by so doing).

What in Jesus' life or character would lead you to believe that He wants to burn people alive if they don't do what He says? Where did He ever do anything even remotely similar to this? How did He respond when it was suggested He do so?

Where during His mission did Jesus ever even physically harm any person, even in the slightest manner?
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/20/11 12:16 PM

(Again Tom, don’t forget to answer Post #133507)

-Also, as it is also generally pertinent to this discussion, you have said (back in Post #131319) that you “majored in Theology, and studied several years at the seminary”. Did you graduate (i.e., obtain a degree)?

-And did you take (and complete) courses in Biblical Languages, namely Biblical Hebrew and NT Greek?

Quote:
Tom: If the best way is studying the life and teachings of Jesus Christ while here in the flesh, then how should other revelations be treated? I think this is an area of disagreement between the differing points of view here.

Tom: Those who hold the point of view I hold generally believe that the revelation of Jesus Christ supersedes all other revelation, so that any other revelation should be made to harmonize with that one. Those who disagree tend to put the different revelations side by side, and have the other revelations in addition to the revelation of Jesus Christ, so we Jesus Christ's revelation plus others.

NJK: I have previously variously defended and substantiated in this thread that Jesus’s Revelation was in perfect harmony in all point with what God had actually intended in the OT.

Tom: That's not the issue. The problem is not with what had been revealed in the OT, but with people's perception of that revelation, which was, and still is, different then Jesus Christ's.


I don’t from where you are making/justifying your objection here because what you stated: “not with what had been revealed in the OT, but with people's perception of that revelation” is exactly what I had expressed by saying “what God had actually intended in the OT”. Because the OT People and also those in Christ’s times had a wrong perception of that revelation they therefore did not see nor understand what God had actually intended in what He had said or done.

E.g., the Sabbath was not a day to selfishly not do any work, per se, but to variously, pervasively provide God’s rest to others, and as Jesus showed, by “doing good” and “save life” (Mark 3:4). So “work” was really what was done to selfishly gratify/convenience oneself, including not doing the feasible pre-Sabbath “preparations”. (In an applicable way, the Church today won’t engage in the actually feasible ‘“work” needed to save millions of lives’ and all in the Pharisaical sanctimony that ‘God’s Sabbath rest is “at the door”, so effectively, they fully subscribe to the Capitalist ‘live and let die’ tenet.)

Originally Posted By: Tom
So when we look at the OT, we see one thing, but when Jesus Christ looked at it, He saw another. What Jesus Christ saw is what He revealed. So, given that we see things different than Jesus Christ did, we should defer to what Jesus Christ saw. That's been the point I've been making.


In terms of substantive things, Jesus read and thus “saw” the same thing that anyone in his day could see. I see that you are here trying to impose your own view for Christ’s here and claim that e.g., He did not see God actively doing the Destructions and judgements of the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, Nadad and Abihu, Dothan, Korah and Abiram, and all these other examples. That premise to me is completely irrational. Jesus did not engage in restating these acts of God as if God had not actually done them as the OT record unequivocally states. Even EGW did not see this in her Revelations of these episode. It is circularly only your view that needs this to be the case with Jesus and EGW, despite the clear testimony to the contrary, including Christ’s applicable “jot and tittle’ statement.

Furthermore, Christ’s non-contradicting ‘fulfilling of the OT’, just as with EGW OT episodes revelations, only confirmed and even made it more clear that God was indeed involved in those actions. Jesus, and also EGW, only made these revelations more “palpable”/understandable to their applicable generations.

So it is you who is engaging in changing ‘jots and tittles’, even, redactively, whole phrases and statements of God. Your approach, however strongly/“blindly” you effectively think ‘Jesus also did this’ is just ‘a house built without deep, if any, foundations.’

Quote:
NJK: There is also the fact that not everything that Jesus said and did was recorded, and also the realism that not everything could be candidly “redone” by Jesus in 3 years of public ministry, though the principle for all of these OT actions of God/Him were all represented and perfectly upheld.

Tom: Evidently the time that Jesus had was sufficient for Him to accomplish His mission.


Not necessarily, in terms of either ‘doing everything’, or your view-implied imposition ‘redoing/restating everything’. Jesus had to deal with the reality of the state of readiness and receptivity of those He dealt with. (E.g., John 16:12-15). Indeed just like in this ongoing GC, as documentedly revealed especially for OT Israel, God’s plans and intentions can be temporarily, and even greatly, delayed, curtailed and frustrated by the way people come to react to it.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Originally Posted By: SOP
Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,—to set men right through the revelation of God. In Christ was arrayed before men the paternal grace and the matchless perfections of the Father. 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. {ST January 20, 1890, par. 9}


This is a very interesting quote. Note these points:

1.The whole purpose of Christ's mission on earth was to set men right through the revelation of God.

2.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.

So Christ accomplished the revelation of the character of the Father to the world. If this had already been done, Christ would not have had to have come, since the whole purpose of His mission was the revelation of God.


Christ did this “whole accomplishing” by furthering the standing OT revelation. And this “OT revelation” does not include the unbiblical “traditions” and “precepts of men” that Jewish leaders added to this “Word of God” (Matt 15:1-9) I.e. what had been not fully said (i.e, what Paul later referred to as “mysteries” = “hidden truths” (cf. in this post #132603, indeed the ‘mysteries of God’s Kingdom), and “misunderstood” by the people, which included.

Furthermore, the Character of God inclusively includes Justice, as indeed seen throughout the OT. So that was to also be involved in Christ whole/complete revelation. Christ’s revelation reforms in this regard involved the perfect righteousness that is to be involved when Justice/Judgement is done, as seen in the episode of the Woman caught in adultery.

Quote:
NJK: There is also the issue that I see that it is wrongly believed that Biblical writers themselves had a wrong view of the character of God while it seems evident to me that this statement speaks of how Israel in general came to view God.

Tom: They certainly didn't have as clear a view of the character of God as Jesus Christ.


That is besides the point. The revelation of these (OT) Bible writers, set out in writing under the inspiration of God’s Spirit was precisely what God wanted to be fully understood then. Later in Jesus Christ, God only ‘made more full’ what He had previously said, legislated and inspired. And again, as per the focus of this thread, this fuller revelation in Christ did not change the actual substance of “historical” OT episodes, indeed as they are properly recorded. To make this apply to your view, you need to show statements from Christ which e.g., change the substantive/historical records of OT events. And again, the misperception of people in Christ day was not on what had occurred, but the wrong conclusion they drew from what had occurred. As in your case, you read of Nadab and Abihu being burnt alive by a Fire from God and you, effectively, wrongly conclude that this “would” show/mean that God is violent. The principles in Christ’s revelation, which profusely included the teaching of Hell Fire judgement by Him/God (e.g., sLuke 12: 49, 50; cf. Rev 20:14) and its “fiery” physical torment (e.g., Matt 10:28; Mark 9:42-50/Matt 18:7-11).

So like these misguided first century Jews, you need to allow/trust Jesus’ teaching and revelations that the OT was not “violent” in doing those judgement, nor in doing them again in the NT Era through the end of this GC. God was rather quite Just and indeed, all things taken into proper consideration, Loving. Indeed many will be eternally saved because of these most strikingly, deserving, warning, ‘object lesson actions/judgement of God. (Cf. 2 Pet 2:5, 6).

Quote:
NJK: E.g., there was a perfect typological law of blood sacrifices represent what God would have to do to redeem man for their sins, however the people understood this to mean that God was bloodthirsty.

Tom: Which people? Why do you think they thought that? I think they thought of the sacrifices in general very, very differently to how we, who have been very heavily influenced by Anselm, do.


By explicit and implicit implication, the people of God who thought that God was “pleased,” or ‘to be pleased,’ by merely offering sacrifices. Pointedly: Judah/Jerusalem (e.g., Isa 1:10-13a ff; Jer 20:6b): “Zion” (Psa 50:13, 14; 23; cf. Heb 13:16); ‘Israel’ (Mal 1:10; 1 Sam 15:20-22; cf. DA 509.1-2).

Quote:
NJK: This is what probably led them to seek other gods who were not so (seemingly) death and blood “demanding” and/or even espouse gods like Molech who required child sacrifices.

Tom: You're saying they viewed Jehovah to be more bloodthirsty than Molech, who demanded child sacrifices, which is why they turned to Molech?


No actually. Molech was in a distinct ‘type of God’ context. I had said that Israel probably turned to some foreign gods which required no sacrifices compared to their own God. Indeed, as the same underlying principle is posited today, it was “economically” more logical to obey a god that e.g., did not require one to make sacrifices from quite valuable livestock. The same personal wealth amassing excuse is used by many people, e.g., in regards to tithing, or conversely going along with Capitalism vs. God’s socio-economic principles.

In regards to Molech, I meant that Israel, who had a wrong understanding that God was “bloodthirsty” and was merely pleased with the shedding of blood in sacrifice, probably thus surfacely saw Molech as being a “greater god” by requiring the “blood” of their own children.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I think they more likely turned to Molech for reasons analogous to why people turn to Catholicism.


Do elaborate/explain. I don’t see the correlation. Catholic rituals don’t include child sacrifices, in fact no (actual) sacrifices at all.

Quote:
NJK (edited): So the misunderstanding was in the mind of the people but not with the Biblical writer. Indeed God’s Spirit would not let such a misconception be recorded as Scripture/The Word of God.

Tom: Light is progressive. We need to bear in mind that at the time the OT was written, Christ had not yet come. The coming of Christ shed a great deal of light.


As this is all in relation to e.g., who actually did destructions in the OT, I see no Biblical, I.e., later OT, NT, SOP) evidence that contradict what had priorly revealed as taking place. Further revelations in such regards only confirmed, and that with greater details, what had been previously expressed by these Inspired Bible Writers. The direct statements of God are not subject to such future enlightening as the Bible writers then just recorded what they had “heard”. This is synonymous with EGW’s “I was shown” revelations in which she many times heard direct statements from God. In fact, I see that the revelation of these OT writers were probably identical to the direct ones given to EGW in that they “heard” many of these statements in those divine visions and dreams and recorded it. They also may have more clearly “heard” the voice of God while fully awake/conscious and proceed to record verbatim, what they had heard/been told.

Quote:
NJK: You also often say that OT people had an incorrect understanding of who was doing an action in the Bible,

Tom: Actually I've never said this.


Perhaps not verbatim, but you have actually meant this. That is indeed what I understood by your repeat (though unsubstantiated) statement: that ‘the Bible often presents God doing that which He permits’ (e.g., the latest in Post #133509). Clearly that logically means to you that ‘these Bible writers had written that God had done something when He had actually only permitted it to be done, and that by someone/something else, moreover independent of His effectuating energy.’

Quote:
NJK: and while that substantively only applies to the episode of Job,

Tom: What is "that" here?


As I went on to (disprovingly) say (see below): “where God permitted Satan to do the destruction”, that “that” clearly refers to this notion of ‘God being said to do something which he had only permitted to be done’.

Quote:
NJK: where God permitted Satan to do the destruction, these inspired Bible writers (Moses for the book of Job) actually rightly understood that if something was done against God’s people it ultimately was because God had permitted it,

Tom: Everybody has already understood this. God is omnipotent, which has always been understood, so that if something happens, it's because God permitted it.


Really|Seriously|Truthfully|Honestly, Tom!??? Another sly, retroactive switch of views on your part here???? If your really believe/always believed so, then why do you keep on insisting on citing Job 1:21 as ‘a mistake of understanding by Bible writers.’ E.g.:

Originally Posted By: Tom Post #132613
“God is often presented as doing that which He permits in Scripture. For example... It says in Job that the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, but this was said by one who didn't know of Satan's existence. When the curtain is pulled away, we see that it was an enemy who caused the things which happened to Job.”


(Obviously you also did not at all mean in regards to “cause” that: ‘Satan “caused” and God actually physically “did”’.)

Indeed the truth was always that both Job and Moses knew exactly what they were talking about here when Job said, and then Moses later faithfully related, that Job 1:21 statement.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Here's the issue:

Originally Posted By: SOP
It was generally believed by the Jews that sin is punished in this life. Every affliction was regarded as the penalty of some wrongdoing, either of the sufferer himself or of his parents. It is true that all suffering results from the transgression of God's law, but this truth had become perverted. Satan, the author of sin and all its results, had led men to look upon disease and death as proceeding from God,--as punishment arbitrarily inflicted on account of sin. Hence one upon whom some great affliction or calamity had fallen had the additional burden of being regarded as a great sinner. {DA 471.1}


The issue here, without using the method of building a teaching on a single verse/passage, was that affliction and calamity were not always, and that arbitrarily, a judgement of God, but many times simply the natural results of sin and also disobedience to God’s laws which served to avert many of these adversities. Yet that does not isolatively mean that God never directly inflict the punishment of disease and death. As I see Biblically clearly it, when God needs to deservingly/judiciously effectuate such a punishment, and there is no immediate natural/organic consequence for the sin, He then either does it Himself, or commissions His Angels to do it, or stirs up foreign nations/powers, or even permits Satan and/or his angels, to do it. Indeed even EGW who made this DA 471.1 statement, did not see this as you do, as in e.g., GC 614.2.

Also by God legislating that some sins should be capital punished wile others were not, He Himself had clearly shown that not all sins would immediately result in a divinely ordained consequence of death.

Quote:
NJK: even if a different agency was employed to carry out that action.

Tom: If the same agency was employed, which would be God, then, of course, it would be understood that God permitted the action.


I don’t get your point here. The Bible is indeed full of such ‘same Divine agency’ examples. Indeed I rationally see that when the Bible says/shows that God directly did something, then it not only means that ‘He permitted it’ but also that He did it. That is however slightly different in cases where the Bible says that God had commissioned an Angel to do the work of judgement. In such cases, God did not actually directly do the action. Still it is generally considered as a Divinely-done judgement.

Quote:
NJK:So I see it as Jesus pointedly said, He did not come to change anything from the OT but bring them out more fully.

Tom: No one has argued that Jesus came to change anything from the OT. Jesus came to reveal the Father.


That what you, by entailing implication, are indeed arguing in statements to try to substantiate your view. Indeed according to your arguments, when we read e.g., that ‘fire came from God’ in the OT, we are to read, and that ‘because of Jesus’ revelation’, effectively, anything else but that clear statement.

Quote:
NJK: And by implication that includes helping the people of His time and also today, understand why God did certain acts in the OT and the vindication of God’s Perfect Character in these.

Tom: Or to understand God's character, which helps to understand what happened.


Same difference. Once one understand that God is Just, they won’t see His judgement actions in the OT as “violent” acts, as you do. It is because you do not understand this “justice” that you privately, indeed without any Scriptural or SOP mandate, need to redact/reword/“whitewash” the OT of such statements and acts. The SOP statement quoted by Mountain Man above from ST, July 17, 1884 par. 7-14 indeed applies to your stance and its underlying false justification. The fact that the same rationale is used by those who keep Sunday as the NT Sabbath, speaks volume of the actual source of this unbiblical approach.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I think a vital point that's not being addressed is that Satan was at work for the purpose of misrepresenting God's character. Who God was, and what He was doing, was NOT understood. The why wasn't the big problem, but the what.


The “what” is crystal clear. The “why” is indeed the issue and asking this “why” involves an implicit trust that “what” was done was according to God’s will and in harmony with His Character. So what is left to be understood was “why” was this the case.

Originally Posted By: Tom
For example:

Originally Posted By: SOP DA 21, 22
In heaven itself this law was broken. Sin originated in self-seeking. Lucifer, the covering cherub, desired to be first in heaven. He sought to gain control of heavenly beings, to draw them away from their Creator, and to win their homage to himself. Therefore he misrepresented God,
Page 22
attributing to Him the desire for self-exaltation. With his own evil characteristics he sought to invest the loving Creator. Thus he deceived angels. Thus he deceived men. He led them to doubt the word of God, and to distrust His goodness. Because God is a God of justice and terrible majesty, Satan caused them to look upon Him as severe and unforgiving. Thus he drew men to join him in rebellion against God, and the night of woe settled down upon the world.

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 21,22)


1.Satan desired power.
2.So he misrepresented God's character.
3.He did so by vesting God with his own attributes of character.
4.Only Christ could make clear God's true character.

When we look at Christ's life and teachings, we don't see explanations as to why God was violent, but, rather, the revelation of God who is NOT violent.


The main/general/foundational problem with this position of yours here is that you are using modern/human understanding/view of “violent” and imposing that notion on the actions of God. Therefore if the OT is to be taken as it plainly reads, these action are to only be seen as “violent”. That is like saying that Law Enforcement today is inevitably “violent”, even in using reasonable force. Despite your supposed good intentions, you are conversely still doing the same work that Lucifer had done. Indeed, similarly, ‘because God is a God of justice and terrible majesty, you are causing His OT actions to be deemed “violent” and murderous.’ Furthermore, your are also casting discredit upon most of the Bible. I.e., it cannot be taken for what it plainly says. You are also doing this with the SOP in regards to passages that does not support your view. Of course, you may claim that I do that with the SOP, except, you won’t engage the superior Biblical reasons I always present when I do not accept comments of EGW as being in harmony with the Bible.

And as I have already addressed, God’s use of necessary force to effectuate a judgement is not Him using force to compel people to not rebel against Him. Indeed as seen in the Bible, even those judgement did not compel obedience. At times open rebellion persisted even on the heels of a clear act of judgement of God (Num 16:28-35 vs. 41-45ff).

Originally Posted By: Tom
Jesus said, "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father." What is it we see when we look at Jesus? A violent being who explains the necessary of violence? Or a non-violent Being who explains why violence is not the way of truth?


Your questions do not deal with the full issue at hand. Jesus correctively taught and showed that the use of varying force was only actually just when in complete righteousness was involved. And that included giving the judged person the full opportunity to properly understand the Truth. Indeed as repeatedly done, as relatively required, by the OT God. Jesus however did not at all do away with the use of “righteously justified” force. You are the one who only can but see, even this, as (cruel) “violence”.

Quote:
NJK:The SOP also does the same thing. Indeed just reading Rev 12:7-9's account of the War in Heaven which exegetically clearly speaks of ‘physical fighting’ one would not understand just how just and fair this choice of a physical war was to settle that ‘Heaven Occupation’ issue for the remaining allotted time of this GC.

Tom: This is an explanation of the war in Revelation 12:

Originally Posted By: SOP DA 761
Could one sin have been found in Christ, had He in one particular yielded to Satan to escape the terrible torture, the enemy of God and man would have triumphed. Christ bowed His head and died, but He held fast His faith and His submission to God. "And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night." Rev. 12:10.

Satan saw that his disguise was torn away. His administration was laid open before the unfallen angels and before the heavenly universe. He had revealed himself as a murderer. By shedding the blood of the Son of God, he had uprooted himself from the sympathies of the heavenly beings. Henceforth his work was restricted. Whatever attitude he might assume, he could no longer await the angels as they came from the heavenly courts, and before them accuse Christ's brethren of being clothed with the garments of blackness and the defilement of sin. The last link of sympathy between Satan and the heavenly world was broken. (DA 761)


Tom: What caused Satan to be cast down? Was it physical force? Indeed not. Just a little earlier we read:

Originally Posted By: SOP
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. 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. (ibid 759)


We see from this:

1.Rebellion was not to be overcome by force.
2.Compelling power is found only under Satan's government.
3.The Lord's principles are not of this order.
4.God's authority rests upon goodness, mercy, and love; and the presentation of these principles is the means to be used.
5.God's government is moral, and truth and love are to be the prevailing power.

I really don't know how to state the ideas I've been trying to share more clearly than this. These five points are exactly what I've been trying to say.

When we look at the passage dealing with Satan's being cast down, we see that what happened is referring to a loss of influence on Satan's part. The point of contention of the Great Controversy has never been who is more powerful, but who has the better way of doing things. Satan has one way, and God has another. The cross made clear to the angels that God's way was the superior way, and who had been telling the truth. Satan could still physically go to heaven to make his claims, but there was no longer anyone to even listen to him. That had had enough. They would simply turn their backs. Thus Satan was "cast down" because he had utterly lost any influence whatsoever upon heavenly beings to even have an audience upon which to make his claims.

The same thing will happen in the final judgment. This is how God wins the Great Controversy; by making clear to all sentient beings what His true character is, as well as the principles of His government, in contrast to the claims of the enemy.

When we consider the other accounts of the war in heaven, we need to keep in mind the principles revealed here. We can't simply take one account of an event as if the author had not written about the event elsewhere. The even I'm talking about here is the Great Controversy.

It really doesn't make sense that in regards to one battle, where Satan is cast down, that EGW would make the points that:

1.Rebellion was not to be overcome by force.
2.Compelling power is only found in Satan's government.
3.The Lord's principles are not of this order.

while for another batter, also resulting in Satan's being cast down, that it would be the case that.

1.Rebellion was overcome by force.
2.Compelling power was found in God's government.
3.The Lord's principles were of this order.


Surfacely interesting, even plausible view, but is substantively and exegetically still is spurious and futile. In the light of the many responses already given to these arguments, these are simply obliviously-nondisturbed, restatement of your prior views on the War in Heaven. When you will responsibly engage the exegetical comments that I have made which have disproven all of your arguments/objections here you’ll have the Biblical answers and view of this episode, pointedly the pre-Creation one. Indeed it is only by shoddy exegesis and selectively, falsely giving some SOP statements more weight than others that you continue to hold this wrong and unbiblical view on this War in Heaven.

You clearly believe that your view makes the Bible and EGW not actually say that a physical battle took place??! How then do you read those clear statements in relating this physical battle in 1 SP 21, 22?? Or do you, as usual, just ignore them.

The Bible and SOP are harmoniously, unequivocally, clear that there was a physical war in the Pre-Creation application of Rev 12:7-9. And also that it was not a war to decide the GC, by “compelling” the rebelling angels to view things as God does, but to simply decide the Occupancy of Heaven for this GC.

Quote:
Tom: This would mean that Jesus Christ's revelation was not full and complete, which looks to be an area of disagreement we have had.

NJK:When you draw put and focus on the principles brought forth by Christ and which were recorded in the Gospels, it is easily seen that Jesus’ Revelation was comprehensively “full and complete”.

Tom: Agreed. Therefore it's not a question of Jesus Christ's revelation plus other revelation, in terms of understanding God's character. Rather Jesus Christ becomes the prism by which we understand all other revelation.


That’s not what I meant. Only, the people who had/have an incorrect understanding of the actions of God in the OT needed to be corrected by the teachings and principles of Jesus. If one just accepts the Bible as it reads, as Jesus did, then you can directly read and understand what the OT God did by that OT record and revelation. And approaching this OT revelation with the humble and deferential attitude that “God is Perfect, Wise and Holy” in all He does will just as easily lead on to find out the righteousness and justice in those OT passages. Indeed, e.g., similarly as the fact that first Century Jews did not understand the goodness of God, you and others like you today, cannot see any “goodness” in those directly executed Ot & NT judgements of God. Indeed as it is consistently found, and ascertainable, throughout this GC, -from the “War in Heaven” right through to the Hell Judgement in the end.

Quote:
NJK: This includes the Divine principles involved in the “ministry of judgement/wrath”, the “Rules of/for Capital Judgement/Destructions” as it were.

Tom: What in the Gospels are you thinking of here?


Pointedly the great, quasi-“end of the world”, event in the complete physical destruction of the Temple and the City of Jerusalem and virtually OT Israel. Just as in the OT, God summoned a foreign power to execute this punishment on His rebellious People.

As I also see it, Christ’s actions in Matt 13:10-17, were similar to God’s in Isa 6:9-13 with both “designing” that this deserved judgement would come to pass if the rebellious ways were persisted in.

Quote:
NJK: Jesus also perfectly demonstrated that such judgement for high-handed sin and destruction is always either done or not done in the light of the greater good involved/implicated.

Tom: I cannot think of a single instance where Jesus Christ referred to any destruction which had occurred, or bad thing of any sort, that He did not attribute to Satan. That is, is there any such event (an even where people became sick, or were killed) which occurred in Jesus' time to which he referred, some event which had already taken place, that he attributed to God?


That ‘“attributive” slant’ was not my point at all. As I went on to say, I was referring to Jesus decision in Luke 12:49, 50 which implicated the Cross.

Notwithstanding, try e.g., Matt 22:7. Furthermore, this “attributive” necessity seems to only be required for your view. When e.g., Jesus spoke of the Flood, or the Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as pointed types(Luke 17:26-30; cf. 2 Pet 2:5 & 6 which says that ‘God did those two events’)) of the judgement at His Glorious Coming (cf. Jude 14, 15), He did not have to, nor evidently feel a need to (falsely) claim that Satan or Nature, had done them. These were active acts of God just as the destruction of the wicked in the end will be (cf. Matt 25:31-34, 41, 46)

Quote:
NJK: That is why He decided to permit Himself to receive His Baptism of Blood vs. calling down Hell Fire on Earth before that was accomplished. (E.g., Luke 12:49, 50)

Tom: Did He attribute this to God?


Again that was not the point of my statement. Again, notwithstanding, if Jesus was going to be the one to bring down this Hell Fire right then and there, then He clearly understood it to be His Own/God’s act. Indeed, is the devil in charge of Hell Fire???? (Matt 25:41; cf. Jude 6)

Quote:
Tom: I think the issue is similar to other incidents where God's ideal is not that to which the counsel applies, such as polygamy and slavery. God had to deal with the people's mindset as it was.

NJK: As a working thesis, I do not see that God had a problem with “polygamy” when it was relatively justified, as with the Patriarchs.

Tom: From the SOP:

Originally Posted By: SOP
Polygamy had become so widespread that it had ceased to be regarded as a sin, but it was no less a violation of the law of God, and was fatal to the sacredness and peace of the family relation.... {CTr 82.2}


Originally Posted By: SOP
Polygamy was practiced at an early date. It was one of the sins that brought the wrath of God upon the antediluvian world.... It was Satan’s studied effort to pervert the marriage institution, to weaken its obligations and lessen its sacredness; for in no surer way could he deface the image of God in man and open the door to misery and vice. {CC 36.5}(ellipsis original)


Originally Posted By: SOP
The polygamy so common in that time was directly opposed to the law of Jehovah.{BEcho August 29, 1898, par. 5}


Originally Posted By: SOP
God has not sanctioned polygamy in a single instance. It was contrary to his will. He knew that the happiness of man would be destroyed by it.{ST March 27, 1879, par. 3}


Tom: This last quote is particularly clear.


Interesting SOP statements, however, as I had said, this was a “working thesis,” and for several reasons, I actually challenge the SOP statements here. In pointedly that polygamy was a “sin.” I rather see much Biblical support for the view that God dealt with it more specifically, in a marriage case by marriage case issue and there may indeed have been valid/justifying reasons why some people were not reprimanded for additionally marrying another (or more) woman/en. It indeed is quite indicative to me that God would become enraged against e.g., Moses and David for certain sins which he made known to them as sins and explicitly reproved and judged them for it, but not do the same with these men having more than one wife. Furthermore, in the light of this would be, unconfessed, unrepented of and unabandoned, would be, “sins”, speak most approvingly of e.g., Abraham, Moses, and David, and e.g., answer the prayer from the “sinful household of” Elkanah, granting the request of his other wife, with the birth of Samuel. (1 Sam 1:1, 2ff).

Quote:
NJK: Indeed the only objection I see of God is when a “multiplication of wives” is being done, as kings easily could given their greater name/ancestral power, yet with kings this seemed to all be in regards to the marrying of many “foreign” wives. (Deut 17:17). It seems to me that women who married a man as an additional wive did it freely and knew what they were getting into. There was no abuse/slavery/coercion involved, but actually genuine love and desire for marital association. Of course the ideal was ‘one man one wife’ and as this was not seen much in the history of Israel, once it became established, except in a couple of situations, (which may have been tangible necessities), it seems evident to me that this was always done out of, indeed, a tangible necessity. Particularly for having offsprings and that in a genuine and moral family context.

Tom: From the SOP quotes, we see God's view of polygamy, that He never sanctioned it, that it was contrary to His law, and contrary to His will. Nevertheless, it was permitted. So we see that God will give counsel in regards to acts which are contrary to His will.


I really don’t see this Theological rationale of yours as being Biblical nor Divinely-feasible. Indeed as shown below, your other “supporting examples” actually do not substantiate that conclusion.

Originally Posted By: Tom
We also see this in relation to slavery.


God only permitted indentured servitude within Israel, and in regards to procuring foreign slaves, I have previously addressed that issue here (Post #131229); here (Post #131393), and here (Post #131484).

Originally Posted By: Tom
Israel's desire for a king is another example.


I also have addressed the issue of a King for Israel here (Post #133434) .

And in regards to all of these three (polygamy, indentured and (quasi-adoptive) slavery, and a king for Israel, I see that since God made legislation on them in His “perfect” Law then it certainly was not against His will, though not a recommended practice, but, as I understand it, one that was permitted in certain extraordinary circumstances (= slavery and polygamy). Polygamy, perhaps for offspring purposes. (See e.g, Deut 21:15 for the law on polygamy).

If currently only in terms of getting Biblical information on the issue of polygamy, I found this website to be helpful. I have not read through everything posted there.)

(I hope these issue of polygamy, slaves and a king will not become the main issue here as they are not really determinative to this thread’s topic.)

Quote:
NJK:Yet that does not mean that He does not execute such needed and deserved judgements.)

Tom: You men God kills people who break the Sabbath? Or has them killed? They deserve to be killed?


Yes... and since God has said that this is what should be done, then I trust that it was/is a deserved judgement.

Quote:
NJK: Indeed since Rome took over control of the world, including Israel, they prevented peoples under them to effectuate capital punishment. (Probably as this would affect their ability to raise taxes based on census results).

Tom: I think more likely because they would see it as an affront to their power. I can't think of any government, even today, that allows it's citizen's to carry out capital punishment. If they did, that would be tantamount to a rejection to the government's authority.


That too, especially as it implies that there is a civil encroaching law that is greater than theirs, but, given the love of money in men, I see the underlying/intertwined reason as also being for census-revenue purposes.

Quote:
NJK: So since ca. 168 B.C. this was no longer a right that Israel had, right through Christ’s time and the NT Church and up to our day. (Indeed that is why I see that it was God who effectuated the just capital death of Annanias and Sapphira for the NT Church, and that actually as a preempting object lesson for the NT Church (Acts 5:11).

Tom: It seems clear to me that what happened with Ananias and Sapphira was that they were doing their evil deeds in the presence of great light, the Holy Spirit working mightily in their midst, and when the revelation of the truth hit them, it was too much for them. I think this is similar to what will happen in the final judgment. Our conscience cannot bear the reality of our guilt. God, in mercy, veils our guilt. We can be healed of our guilt, if we so choose, by Jesus Christ.


That reasoning doesn’t pass the Biblical test as they dropped dead, not when they conspiratorily conceived and decided to lie (Acts 5:1, 2, 4b), and also in full knowledge of the truth of the Power in the NT Church, suppressing their feeling of guilt, but upon Peter’s summary statements of these already fully known and understood acts of deception (vs. 5, 7-10).

Originally Posted By: Tom
If we take the viewpoint that God is in favor of capital punishment in His church, it's hard to see how this wouldn't lead to violence in the church.


Like in Israel, even in Capital Punishment today, “violence” as in unfair acts, is not involved, but this process is done through a judicious process and possibly “humane” execution. And of course, like with Israel in the times of Rome, this cannot presently be done in the Church which are under the laws of temporal powers. However a sovereign country is free to implement the Laws and punishment it deems fit. That is why e.g., treason in the U.S. is subject to capital punishment and conversely, also, e.g., why there is no capital punishment in the U.S’s northern neighbor, Canada.

Quote:
NJK:Indeed the NT Israel has never become a theocracy which would now surely have to involve having a distinct territorial jurisdiction. SO just as “honor killings” are judged as murders in western societies, executing the capital punishment sentences that God had prescribed with reason in the OT for much more than murders, would also be judged as criminal acts.

Tom: Should they be? That is, if there was a territorial jurisdiction where NT Israel existed, would it be proper to put to death people who didn't keep the Sabbath?


I, humanly speaking would knee-jerkly say no, however, in a truly Godly society, such an act would be as high handed as it was in the OT, indeed also in the very presence of God, and so I would see that such just laws of God would continue to apply. Only by truly and fully understanding “why this was deemed as justified by God can it be seen as indeed Just and Biblical.” It then is not seen as an act for “breaking the Sabbath” but for all of the potential, literal death that this violation can lead to, including Atheism. Indeed if Israel had faithfully observed the interelated Sabbath, other sabbaths, and God’s socio-economic sabbatical principles, they would have been a glorious light to the world (Isa 58:13; 14) and would thus have helped saved the temporal and eternal life of many, many people in darkness (cf. Isa 60:1-3).

As Jesus did with the Woman caught in adultery, when God’s law is not understood/violated, there really is no justification for a person also violating it to exercise its punishments on another.

Quote:
NJK:Also, in regards pointedly to the Sabbath, in the time of the Temporal Rule of the Catholic Church, they killed people who they thought did not keep the/their Sabbath (e.g, the Waldenses). Yet it clearly was not the doing of God’s actual will.

Tom: Why is this clearly not God's will? Because they had the wrong day in mind?


Indeed. For the exact same reason that e.g., France will not execute someone who violated a Muslim Law. It’s all or nothing with God’s Law and Sunday sacredness does not begin to be God’s Sabbath Law, especially as the Catholic Church fully knows that they switched the day for their Church.


Quote:
NJK:In regards to the Sabbath today, given what God actually, fully expects as proper Sabbath Observance (e.g, Isa 58) not too many, if any, including especially SDA’s are keeping the Spirit of that Law. So to execute Capital punishment for the breaking of the letter of the law would be similarly denounced as unrighteousness and hypocrisy as demonstrated by Christ in His dealing with the woman caught in adultery. Indeed not too many, if any, can actually cast a first stone here.

Tom: What if they could? Should Sabbath-breakers be put to death by them?


That’s what Jesus implied (=taught).

Quote:
Tom: The question of killing law-breakers is an important issue coming up in the last days before Christ's second coming. We know that Satan will use this very argument against those who keep God's commandments, that they should be killed.

NJK: Of course, if it is not God’s actual will and/or not done righteously, then it is mootly not contributive to understanding what God’s will is in this matter.

Tom: If it's not God's actual will, then it is "mootly not contributive" to understand what God's will is in this matter? What? If it's not God's actual will, then, of course, it's not God's will.


That therefore should have self-suppressed your objection/question here!

Originally Posted By: Tom
What's the point in stating this?


Indeed my point is that it is not God’s will that people be put to death for violating Sunday. So there mootly is no point trying to apply the portion of God’s Law permitting this to, effectively Satan’s law.

Originally Posted By: Tom
This only leaves the done righteously part. So if it's not done righteously, then it's not God's will. Let's assume it's done righteously then.


Then as Jesus taught, it is God’s will. Not popular of course, but that’s the truth, Church discipline in the SDA Church is also not popular and largely just ignored when it only involves censures or loss of membership.

Quote:
NJK: Furthermore, to see why Sabbath breakers were rightly to be put to death, as seen in God’s knowledge of what His Sabbath was to do (Isa 58) , i.e., meet the vital needs of people and thus not even let them suffer, let alone let them, as nonchalantly and normatively done in our day, die of curable and preventable causes, including abortion which is mainly done for socio-economic “convenience” reasons, it is easily seen and understood how the violation of God’s sabbatic principles, all encapsulated in the 4th Commandment, involves the selfish and indifferent murder of others.

Tom: This is too long a sentence. The main point here looks to be that the violation of God's Sabbath principles involve selfishness and being indifferent to the murder of others is easily seen. How so?


For the ‘live and let the vitally needy die/be aborted’ reasons stated in that long sentence. That should be straightforwardly seen/understood?! See EGW’s Welfare Ministry 28-65ff for more.

Quote:
NJK:Thus its capital punishment is indeed fully justified.

Tom: So capital punishment is fully justified for breaking the Sabbath because it involves selfishness and being indifferent to the murder of others. If this is the justification for capital punishment of this act, then it should apply to other similar acts as well. Anyone who is selfish or indifferent to the murder of others should be killed.


It already does because, as seen in Isa 58, God’s sabbath is the underlying template/basis for other laws which have such a harmful socio-economic impact.

Quote:
NJK:Nonetheless, if today, a theocratic society of God were to exist, this capital sentence could be “commuted” as either life in prison or a banishment/force emigration from that righteous society to go live like the other nations of the world who violate this life sustaining law, and naturally suffer their ‘survival of the richest’ consequence.

Tom: Would this be preferable? If so, why?


Before I address this question, notwithstanding my prior, would then be, hypothetical answers on this issue, where in the Bible does it actually state, i.e., as a Law, that Sabbath-Breakers should be put to death?? I only see an episode in Number 15:32-36 where a Sabbath breaker was caught in the act, brought before Moses and Aaron and since ‘it had not been declared what should be done’, manifestly for a Sabbath Breaking violation, he was put in custody by Moses and Aaron until God spoke on it. (vs. 34) It is then that God declared, by manifestly injunctive decision, that this person should be put to death. (vs. 35, 36). Yet even in the ensuing, related directives of God (vss. 37-41) God did not make this injunctive, judicial decision either the Statutory Law, nor the “Case Law”. Seems to me therefore that the penalty for Sabbath breaking was not death, especially not automatically, but at best custody until God judiciously decides the fitting punishment.

By extension I would say that, in a Biblical society that fully implements God’s Sabbatical principles, the violation of not only the Sabbath, but these principles can indeed result in tangible harm and therefore should indeed be subject to fitting custodial penalty, just as defrauding someone of their money would.

I also would see this forced (i.e., encouraged and facilitated) emigration to any other country) vs. the alternative domestic sole option of, if applicable, long-term/life imprisonment as equivalent to the “cutting off from Israel” punishment notion in the OT which did not necessarily mean death.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/20/11 01:41 PM

Quote:
I have a couple of discussion general questions for you Tom:

(1) Why do you selectively respond to some parts of a post and not to its other parts? Time of course is not the issue here since you do respond to some parts.


Usually it's time, if I respond to the first part, and not to the rest. If I respond to a post that's not addressed to me, I'll often just respond to a some portion of the post. Other than that, it's likely to be an oversight.

Quote:
My question is why not the other parts instead? Particularly those which you manifestly realized have disproved your previous objections.


I can't think of any like this.

Quote:
(2) Do you still think that your prior objections are still right despite not having responding to the responses that disprove them?


I can't think of any like this.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/20/11 02:36 PM

Quote:
NJK: I have a couple of discussion general questions for you Tom:

(1) Why do you selectively respond to some parts of a post and not to its other parts? Time of course is not the issue here since you do respond to some parts.

Tom: Usually it's time, if I respond to the first part, and not to the rest. If I respond to a post that's not addressed to me, I'll often just respond to a some portion of the post. Other than that, it's likely to be an oversight.


Well obviously, factual contents taking into consideration, it indeed is not time, since you respond to some parts of a post skippings some points in between. In regards to parts of a post, you may begin to selectively answer part of a post, then not the rest, but then respond to another post after that, or e.g., the third post after that. So manifestly only answer what you think you have an answer to.

And how is time an issue when, as I told you before, you can take as long as necessary (e.g, a month) to answer a post?? You clearly are just choosing not to answer them at all.

Quote:
NJK: My question is why not the other parts instead? Particularly those which you manifestly realized have disproved your previous objections.

Tom: I can't think of any like this.


They still are there and can easily be demonstrated. I don’t have the time to do this recollection and factual demonstration, but these facts and “ignored” content speak for themself. Indeed by simply the “logic” of your response, you then agree with everything that I said in e.g, my past three wholly unanswered posts which disproved your latest arguments!?? Or perhaps, as I suspect, you obliviously consider you view to be true irrespective of the facts!?!

Quote:
NJK: (2) Do you still think that your prior objections are still right despite not having responding to the responses that disprove them?

Tom: I can't think of any like this.


Again the facts speak again you hear despite what ‘you can’t think of’.

Either this amnesic forgetfulness is clinical on your part, including a possible (subconscious) psychological block to whatever opposes your view, or you are, as I suspect with you being “guileful.” Given that you view was the basis for your conversion to Adventism, I can see why/how it could subconsciously “psychologically” affect you.
Being careless and irresponsible, especially given your supposed training, or pulling an “ostrich move”, or (like the Jews of Christ’s time), effectively ‘blocking your eyes and ears’ (Isa 6:9ff), and making oblivious, mantra repetitions, is not an excuse/justification for being guileful.

Of course you are going to find a way to peripherally object to this, but one thing I can’t stand is a liar, in any related degree/form/measure. As does the Godhead by the way (e.g, Rev 14:5; Acts 5:4; cf. Num 23:19).

Don’t forget the Seminary related questions, and that info can be duly lawfully verified.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/20/11 02:39 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
(Again Tom, don’t forget to answer Post #133507)

-Also, as it is also generally pertinent to this discussion, you have said (back in Post #131319) that you “majored in Theology, and studied several years at the seminary”. Did you graduate (i.e., obtain a degree)?

-And did you take (and complete) courses in Biblical Languages, namely Biblical Hebrew and NT Greek?


Wow, this is a huge post! I'll respond as several posts.

I responded to the post you mentioned. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

I graduated with honors in my undergraduate degree. I completed the coursework for the graduate degree, but did not graduate. I took Biblical languages. I have taken a lot more Greek than Hebrew (I had already studied classical Greek).

Quote:
Tom: If the best way is studying the life and teachings of Jesus Christ while here in the flesh, then how should other revelations be treated? I think this is an area of disagreement between the differing points of view here.

Tom: Those who hold the point of view I hold generally believe that the revelation of Jesus Christ supersedes all other revelation, so that any other revelation should be made to harmonize with that one. Those who disagree tend to put the different revelations side by side, and have the other revelations in addition to the revelation of Jesus Christ, so we Jesus Christ's revelation plus others.

NJK: I have previously variously defended and substantiated in this thread that Jesus’s Revelation was in perfect harmony in all point with what God had actually intended in the OT.

Tom: That's not the issue. The problem is not with what had been revealed in the OT, but with people's perception of that revelation, which was, and still is, different then Jesus Christ's.

NJK:I don’t from where you are making/justifying your objection here because what you stated: “not with what had been revealed in the OT, but with people's perception of that revelation” is exactly what I had expressed by saying “what God had actually intended in the OT”.


What God had actually intended in the OT is what was revealed. I pointed out that this is not the issue, but people's perception of this.

Quote:
NJK:Because the OT People and also those in Christ’s times had a wrong perception of that revelation they therefore did not see nor understand what God had actually intended in what He had said or done.


Right, and still today people perceive the revelation incorrectly.

Quote:
NJK:E.g., the Sabbath was not a day to selfishly not do any work, per se, but to variously, pervasively provide God’s rest to others, and as Jesus showed, by “doing good” and “save life” (Mark 3:4). So “work” was really what was done to selfishly gratify/convenience oneself, including not doing the feasible pre-Sabbath “preparations”. (In an applicable way, the Church today won’t engage in the actually feasible ‘“work” needed to save millions of lives’ and all in the Pharisaical sanctimony that ‘God’s Sabbath rest is “at the door”, so effectively, they fully subscribe to the Capitalist ‘live and let die’ tenet.)

T:So when we look at the OT, we see one thing, but when Jesus Christ looked at it, He saw another. What Jesus Christ saw is what He revealed. So, given that we see things different than Jesus Christ did, we should defer to what Jesus Christ saw. That's been the point I've been making.

NJK:In terms of substantive things, Jesus read and thus “saw” the same thing that anyone in his day could see.


They could have seen these things if they were as sinless as He, as insightful, and listened to and understood the Holy Spirit as He did.

Quote:
NJK: I see that you are here trying to impose your own view for Christ’s here and claim that e.g., He did not see God actively doing the Destructions and judgements of the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, Nadad and Abihu, Dothan, Korah and Abiram, and all these other examples.


This is a good example of the principle I'm addressing. You're seeing something which isn't there (i.e., you see that I'm trying to impose my own view for Christ's here. What I'm actually doing is arguing that Christ's view is represented by His life and character).

Quote:
That premise to me is completely irrational.


You're not identifying the premise correctly. The premise is that Christ revealed what He heard and saw.

Quote:
NJK:Jesus did not engage in restating these acts of God as if God had not actually done them as the OT record unequivocally states. Even EGW did not see this in her Revelations of these episode. It is circularly only your view that needs this to be the case with Jesus and EGW, despite the clear testimony to the contrary, including Christ’s applicable “jot and tittle’ statement.


This is again not identifying the argument correctly.

The argument is that Christ revealed that which He saw and heard of God in His study of the Scriptures. So the picture we see of God that Christ revealed is in harmony with how Christ perceived God to have acted. What did Christ reveal of God? That answers the question of what Christ perceived of God's character. That's one argument.

Another argument is that God is often presented as doing that which He permits. There are many examples of this in the writings of Ellen White. I've already mentioned a few, including the destruction of Jerusalem, the serpents in the wilderness, those who love not the truth being sent delusions, and others. So, given that God is often presented as doing that which He permits, how do we know if the thing God is presented as doing is something He permitted as opposed to something He actively did?

One way would be to simply assume this must be what happened, unless there is some other statement elsewhere which presents a different point of view. So if there were simply the statement that God slew Saul, without the details, it would be assumed that God actively killed Saul. Or, without the statement from the SOP, it would be assumed that God sent fiery serpents to harm the Israelites, as opposed to removing His protection.

Another way is to perceive the principle involved, that there are a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which God protects us, and that it is both contrary to God's character to sent serpents to harm others, and unnecessary as a means by which God can effect judgments. Given an understanding of this principle, a corroborating statement from the SOP is unnecessary.

Quote:
NJK:Furthermore, Christ’s non-contradicting ‘fulfilling of the OT’, just as with EGW OT episodes revelations, only confirmed and even made it more clear that God was indeed involved in those actions. Jesus, and also EGW, only made these revelations more “palpable”/understandable to their applicable generations.


What do you have in mind here? Especially the "palpable" part. What's an example of Jesus making a revelation of this type more "palpable"? Also, what EGW statement did you have in mind?

Quote:
NJK:So it is you who is engaging in changing ‘jots and tittles’, even, redactively, whole phrases and statements of God. Your approach, however strongly/“blindly” you effectively think ‘Jesus also did this’ is just ‘a house built without deep, if any, foundations.’


I can't tell if you're missing the points I'm making entirely, or simply avoiding commenting on them, but you're not responding to points I've actually made. You're just responding to your own ideas regarding things I've said. This reminds me of when Huss, I think it was, was ordered to recant certain things he had supposedly taught, and his response was he couldn't recant things he had never said.

Also, you're citing anything specific here. If you're going to make an accusation like this, it would be good to quote something I've said. Otherwise it just becomes a pointless exchange of accusations and denials.

Quote:
NJK: There is also the fact that not everything that Jesus said and did was recorded, and also the realism that not everything could be candidly “redone” by Jesus in 3 years of public ministry, though the principle for all of these OT actions of God/Him were all represented and perfectly upheld.

Tom: Evidently the time that Jesus had was sufficient for Him to accomplish His mission.

NJK:Not necessarily, in terms of either ‘doing everything’, or your view-implied imposition ‘redoing/restating everything’.


??? I don't know what you have in mind here. I haven't suggested Jesus Christ did either of these things. I quoted many paragraphs explaining what I had in mind, as well as commenting on them. Why not respond to that?

Quote:
NJK:Jesus had to deal with the reality of the state of readiness and receptivity of those He dealt with. (E.g., John 16:12-15).


Which is what? Say what it was, or quote the text. Don't just cite a Scripture text you're not going to quote. That's pointless.

Quote:
NJK:Indeed just like in this ongoing GC, as documentedly revealed especially for OT Israel, God’s plans and intentions can be temporarily, and even greatly, delayed, curtailed and frustrated by the way people come to react to it.


How does this relate to the point that Christ had enough time accomplish His mission? Really, I don't see why you would think you have any grounds of disagreeing with this claim. Do you really doubt that Christ had enough time to accomplish His mission?

As regards to what Christ's mission was, it was the revelation of God, which I stated and quoted from the SOP to support (who, in turn, quoted from John 17).

Quote:
This is a very interesting quote. Note these points:

1.The whole purpose of Christ's mission on earth was to set men right through the revelation of God.

2.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.

So Christ accomplished the revelation of the character of the Father to the world. If this had already been done, Christ would not have had to have come, since the whole purpose of His mission was the revelation of God.

NJK:Christ did this “whole accomplishing”


"Whole accomplishing?" Why is this in double quotes? No one used this expression. That's an odd thing to do. I understand you use single quotes to indicate a paraphrase, but don't you use double quotes to refer to an exact statement? If not, what is their purpose?

What Ellen White actually said was "whole purpose." The "whole purpose" of Christ's mission was the revelation of God is what she wrote.

Quote:
NJK: by furthering the standing OT revelation.


He accomplished His mission by living the life that He did.

Quote:
NJK: And this “OT revelation” does not include the unbiblical “traditions” and “precepts of men” that Jewish leaders added to this “Word of God” (Matt 15:1-9) I.e. what had been not fully said (i.e, what Paul later referred to as “mysteries” = “hidden truths” (cf. in this post #132603, indeed the ‘mysteries of God’s Kingdom), and “misunderstood” by the people, which included.


Why are you making this point?

Quote:
NJK:Furthermore, the Character of God inclusively includes Justice, as indeed seen throughout the OT. So that was to also be involved in Christ whole/complete revelation.


Yes, but justice is often misunderstood as involving violence and/or vengeance (as human's think of it). Is this what we see in Christ's life and character? Or do we see justice as explained here:

Quote:
“Thus says the LORD of hosts:


‘ Execute true justice,
Show mercy and compassion
Everyone to his brother.
10 Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless,
The alien or the poor.
Let none of you plan evil in his heart
Against his brother.’ (Zech. 9:7;NJKV)


Quote:
NJK:Christ’s revelation reforms in this regard involved the perfect righteousness that is to be involved when Justice/Judgement is done, as seen in the episode of the Woman caught in adultery. Indeed not too many, if any, can actually cast a first stone here.


I don't see what this has to do with the point I made. This is the point I made, to which you are responding here:

Quote:
So Christ accomplished the revelation of the character of the Father to the world. If this had already been done, Christ would not have had to have come, since the whole purpose of His mission was the revelation of God.


How does what you're saying relate to this point?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/20/11 04:10 PM

Quote:
NJK: There is also the issue that I see that it is wrongly believed that Biblical writers themselves had a wrong view of the character of God while it seems evident to me that this statement speaks of how Israel in general came to view God.

Tom: They certainly didn't have as clear a view of the character of God as Jesus Christ.

NJK:That is besides the point.


No it's not. The point is that the whole purpose of Christ's earthly mission was the revelation of God, and that had this revelation already been accomplished, Christ need not have come. That's the context of the discussion. So that the Bible writers did not has a clear a view of God's character as Christ did is to the point.

Quote:
NJK: The revelation of these (OT) Bible writers, set out in writing under the inspiration of God’s Spirit was precisely what God wanted to be fully understood then. Later in Jesus Christ, God only ‘made more full’ what He had previously said, legislated and inspired. And again, as per the focus of this thread, this fuller revelation in Christ did not change the actual substance of “historical” OT episodes, indeed as they are properly recorded. To make this apply to your view, you need to show statements from Christ which e.g., change the substantive/historical records of OT events. And again, the misperception of people in Christ day was not on what had occurred, but the wrong conclusion they drew from what had occurred.


On what do you base this assertion? How do you know there wasn't a misunderstanding as to what had occurred?

Quote:
As in your case, you read of Nadab and Abihu being burnt alive by a Fire from God and you, effectively, wrongly conclude that this “would” show/mean that God is violent. The principles in Christ’s revelation, which profusely included the teaching of Hell Fire judgement by Him/God (e.g., sLuke 12: 49, 50; cf. Rev 20:14) and its “fiery” physical torment (e.g., Matt 10:28; Mark 9:42-50/Matt 18:7-11).

So like these misguided first century Jews, you need to allow/trust Jesus’ teaching and revelations that the OT was not “violent” in doing those judgement, nor in doing them again in the NT Era through the end of this GC. God was rather quite Just and indeed, all things taken into proper consideration, Loving. Indeed many will be eternally saved because of these most strikingly, deserving, warning, ‘object lesson actions/judgement of God. (Cf. 2 Pet 2:5, 6).


When Christ was urged to destroy the Samaritans, how did He respond? This statement is really odd:

Quote:
So like these misguided first century Jews, you need to allow/trust Jesus’ teaching and revelations that the OT was not “violent” in doing those judgement...


The misguided first century Jews needed to trust Jesus' teaching that OT was not "violent"? You think that they perceived these events like I do?

Quote:
Quote:
NJK: E.g., there was a perfect typological law of blood sacrifices represent what God would have to do to redeem man for their sins, however the people understood this to mean that God was bloodthirsty.

Tom: Which people? Why do you think they thought that? I think they thought of the sacrifices in general very, very differently to how we, who have been very heavily influenced by Anselm, do.

NJK:By explicit and implicit implication, the people of God who thought that God was “pleased,” or ‘to be pleased,’ by merely offering sacrifices. Pointedly: Judah/Jerusalem (e.g., Isa 1:10-13a ff; Jer 20:6b): “Zion” (Psa 50:13, 14; 23; cf. Heb 13:16); ‘Israel’ (Mal 1:10; 1 Sam 15:20-22; cf. DA 509.1-2).


You said the blood sacrifices led the people to thing God was bloodthirsty. I asked you why you think this. You responded by saying that the people thought that God was pleased merely by offering sacrifices. I don't see why you would think this meant the people viewed God as bloodthirsty. Why wouldn't it mean that they viewed that God was pleased by their offering sacrifices? Not all sacrifices involved blood. What do you think the meaning of sacrifice was in Hebrew culture?

Quote:
Quote:
NJK: This is what probably led them to seek other gods who were not so (seemingly) death and blood “demanding” and/or even espouse gods like Molech who required child sacrifices.

Tom: You're saying they viewed Jehovah to be more bloodthirsty than Molech, who demanded child sacrifices, which is why they turned to Molech?

NJK:No actually. Molech was in a distinct ‘type of God’ context. I had said that Israel probably turned to some foreign gods which required no sacrifices compared to their own God. Indeed, as the same underlying principle is posited today, it was “economically” more logical to obey a god that e.g., did not require one to make sacrifices from quite valuable livestock. The same personal wealth amassing excuse is used by many people, e.g., in regards to tithing, or conversely going along with Capitalism vs. God’s socio-economic principles.


So you're saying that a god who would require merely the sacrifice of one's own children was preferred to One who required the heavier sacrifice of cattle? So you believe the Hebrews viewed cattle as more valuable than their children? And that's why the preferred Molech?

Quote:
NJK:In regards to Molech, I meant that Israel, who had a wrong understanding that God was “bloodthirsty” and was merely pleased with the shedding of blood in sacrifice, probably thus surfacely saw Molech as being a “greater god” by requiring the “blood” of their own children.


Wouldn't this mean this god was requiring a greater sacrifice? But above you said they turned to foreign gods which required less sacrifice than theirs did.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Tom
I think they more likely turned to Molech for reasons analogous to why people turn to Catholicism.

NJK:Do elaborate/explain. I don’t see the correlation. Catholic rituals don’t include child sacrifices, in fact no (actual) sacrifices at all.


Catholicism has rites which enable the practitioner to continue in sin, while soothing the conscience. The true religion of Christ involves a doing away with sin. People will choose religions systems, which have a yoke which is heavy, over the yoke of Christ, which is light.

Quote:
NJK (edited): So the misunderstanding was in the mind of the people but not with the Biblical writer. Indeed God’s Spirit would not let such a misconception be recorded as Scripture/The Word of God.

Tom: Light is progressive. We need to bear in mind that at the time the OT was written, Christ had not yet come. The coming of Christ shed a great deal of light.

NJK:As this is all in relation to e.g., who actually did destructions in the OT, I see no Biblical, I.e., later OT, NT, SOP) evidence that contradict what had priorly revealed as taking place.



The contradiction is not with what had been previously been revealed, but with people's perceptions of what had been revealed. I've made this point repeatedly.

Quote:
NJK:Further revelations in such regards only confirmed, and that with greater details, what had been previously expressed by these Inspired Bible Writers.


Same comment.

Quote:
NJK:The direct statements of God are not subject to such future enlightening as the Bible writers then just recorded what they had “heard”. This is synonymous with EGW’s “I was shown” revelations in which she many times heard direct statements from God. In fact, I see that the revelation of these OT writers were probably identical to the direct ones given to EGW in that they “heard” many of these statements in those divine visions and dreams and recorded it. They also may have more clearly “heard” the voice of God while fully awake/conscious and proceed to record verbatim, what they had heard/been told.


What a person perceives is colored by their mind-set, their world view, their paradigm, etc. No inspired writer perceived things as clearly as Christ did, and none could reveal God's character as clearly as He.

Quote:
Quote:
NJK: You also often say that OT people had an incorrect understanding of who was doing an action in the Bible,

Tom: Actually I've never said this.

NJK:Perhaps not verbatim, but you have actually meant this.


No, this isn't what I meant, or mean.

Quote:
NJK:That is indeed what I understood by your repeat (though unsubstantiated) statement: that ‘the Bible often presents God doing that which He permits’ (e.g., the latest in Post #133509). Clearly that logically means to you that ‘these Bible writers had written that God had done something when He had actually only permitted it to be done, and that by someone/something else, moreover independent of His effectuating energy.’


This involves the action being done, not simply who is doing it. For example, consider the case of God's sending fiery serpents upon the Israelites. What actually happened was God permitted the serpents who were already there to harm the Israelites, which action He had been actively preventing until that point. So the problem was not with who was doing the action (clearly it was the snakes), but with what action was taking place (God was permitting them to attack the Israelites, as opposed to sending the snakes to attack them).

Quote:
Quote:
NJK: and while that substantively only applies to the episode of Job,

Tom: What is "that" here?

NJK:As I went on to (disprovingly) say (see below): “where God permitted Satan to do the destruction”, that “that” clearly refers to this notion of ‘God being said to do something which he had only permitted to be done’.


You're saying that the notion of God being said to do something which He only permitted to be done, in terms of Satan being permitted to cause destruction, applies only to the episode in Job? That is, at no other time did this occur?

Quote:
NJK: where God permitted Satan to do the destruction, these inspired Bible writers (Moses for the book of Job) actually rightly understood that if something was done against God’s people it ultimately was because God had permitted it,

Tom: Everybody has already understood this. God is omnipotent, which has always been understood, so that if something happens, it's because God permitted it.

NJK:Really|Seriously|Truthfully|Honestly, Tom!??? Another sly, retroactive switch of views on your part here???? If your really believe/always believed so, then why do you keep on insisting on citing Job 1:21 as ‘a mistake of understanding by Bible writers.’ E.g.:

Originally Posted By: Tom Post #132613
“God is often presented as doing that which He permits in Scripture. For example... It says in Job that the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, but this was said by one who didn't know of Satan's existence. When the curtain is pulled away, we see that it was an enemy who caused the things which happened to Job.”


(Obviously you also did not at all mean in regards to “cause” that: ‘Satan “caused” and God actually physically “did”’.)

Indeed the truth was always that both Job and Moses knew exactly what they were talking about here when Job said, and then Moses later faithfully related, that Job 1:21 statement.


I've got no idea what your point here is. You wrote:

Quote:
if something was done against God’s people it ultimately was because God had permitted it,


Isn't this patently obvious? Who doesn't believe this to be the case? Why would you characterize my pointing out how obvious this is as

Quote:
Another sly, retroactive switch of views on your part here????


I've always viewed this as obvious, and think anyone would, and don't know anyone who doesn't, and have no idea why you would think my pointing this out would be a switch of views, let alone worthy of an insult.

Do you have no concept of how insulting your writing is? Do you do this on purpose, or out of ignorance?

If you're going to accuse me of something ugly, please have the common decency of at least substantiating your ugly claim with some morsel of evidence. Where have I switched a view?

I've been consistently saying the same things over and over again.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Tom
Here's the issue:

Originally Posted By: SOP
It was generally believed by the Jews that sin is punished in this life. Every affliction was regarded as the penalty of some wrongdoing, either of the sufferer himself or of his parents. It is true that all suffering results from the transgression of God's law, but this truth had become perverted. Satan, the author of sin and all its results, had led men to look upon disease and death as proceeding from God,--as punishment arbitrarily inflicted on account of sin. Hence one upon whom some great affliction or calamity had fallen had the additional burden of being regarded as a great sinner. {DA 471.1}

NJK:The issue here, without using the method of building a teaching on a single verse/passage, was that affliction and calamity were not always, and that arbitrarily, a judgement of God, but many times simply the natural results of sin and also disobedience to God’s laws which served to avert many of these adversities. Yet that does not isolatively mean that God never directly inflict the punishment of disease and death. As I see Biblically clearly it, when God needs to deservingly/judiciously effectuate such a punishment, and there is no immediate natural/organic consequence for the sin, He then either does it Himself, or commissions His Angels to do it, or stirs up foreign nations/powers, or even permits Satan and/or his angels, to do it. Indeed even EGW who made this DA 471.1 statement, did not see this as you do, as in e.g., GC 614.2.


From GC 614:

Quote:
When He leaves the sanctuary, darkness covers the inhabitants of the earth. In that fearful time the righteous must live in the sight of a holy God without an intercessor. The restraint which has been upon the wicked is removed, and Satan has entire control of the finally impenitent. God's long-suffering has ended. The world has rejected His mercy, despised His love, and trampled upon His law. The wicked have passed the boundary of their probation; the Spirit of God, persistently resisted, has been at last withdrawn. Unsheltered by divine grace, they have no protection from the wicked one. Satan will then plunge the inhabitants of the earth into one great, final trouble. As the angels of God cease to hold in check the fierce winds of human passion, all the elements of strife will be let loose. The whole world will be involved in ruin more terrible than that which came upon Jerusalem of old.


This is bringing out the same points I have been. This is the context of GC 614.2.

Regarding the issue, what EGW points out is that Satan has induced people to view when bad things happen to people that this is a punishment from God, as opposed to an action originating from him (Satan), or a consequence of sin. Given that sin has bad consequences, it is not necessary for God to impose artificial bad consequences of His own. It's sufficient for Him to allow the bad consequences already inherent in a sinful world to effect any desired judgments.

Quote:
Also by God legislating that some sins should be capital punished wile others were not, He Himself had clearly shown that not all sins would immediately result in a divinely ordained consequence of death.

Quote:
NJK: even if a different agency was employed to carry out that action.

Tom: If the same agency was employed, which would be God, then, of course, it would be understood that God permitted the action.


NJK:I don’t get your point here.


You wrote:

Quote:
You also often say that OT people had an incorrect understand of who was doing an action in the Bible, and while that substantively only applies to the episode of Job, where God permitted Satan to do the destruction, these inspired Bible writers (Moses for the book of Job) actually rightly understood that if something was done against God’s people it ultimately was because God had permitted it, even if a different agency was employed to carry out that action.


That's an awfully long sentence, by the way.

You said that if something was done against God’s people, it ultimately was because God had permitted it, even if a different agency was employed to carry out that action. Consider the first part of this:

If something was done against God’s people, it ultimately was because God had permitted it.

Now if God was the agency involved, then of course God permitted it, because the agency would be Himself in this case. In other words, what your saying doesn't make sense. You say, "even if a different agency was employed," when it only makes sense that a different agency was employed.

Quote:
NJK:The Bible is indeed full of such ‘same Divine agency’ examples. Indeed I rationally see that when the Bible says/shows that God directly did something, then it not only means that ‘He permitted it’ but also that He did it.


So when it says God killed Saul, God did that. And when God sent fiery serpents against the Israelites, God did that. And when God "took away" from Job, God did that. And when God sent strong delusion against those who love not the truth, God did that too.

So whenever God acts indirectly, you see this as God acting directly? That seems to be what you're saying.

Quote:
NJK:That is however slightly different in cases where the Bible says that God had commissioned an Angel to do the work of judgement. In such cases, God did not actually directly do the action. Still it is generally considered as a Divinely-done judgement.


Generally? When would it not be considered as such?

(More later)
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/20/11 08:55 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
Originally Posted By: MM
T: You wrote as if God were responsible for the things you were speaking of. I addressed that by pointing out that it would be a huge mistake to view God as responsible, and cited texts to explain why.

M:1. Of course Jesus was responsible for ensuring evil angels did not exceed the limits He imposed on them. That is, Jesus did not let them cause more death and destruction than He was willing to permit. Do you agree?


What would a disagreement to this look like? That Jesus let them cause more death and destruction than He was willing to permit?

Quote:
2. Do you agree Jesus worked to prevent evil men and evil angels from inflicting more death and destruction than He was willing to permit?


I believe that Jesus worked to prevent evil men and evil angels from inflicting death and destruction in general.

Quote:
Or, do you think evil men and evil angels willingly restrained themselves in order not to displease God and exceed Jesus’ limits?


This can't be a serious question.

Quote:
3. Also, did evil men and evil angels do anything Jesus' wasn't willing to permit?


I don't see the sense in this one either. God is omnipotent, right? So anything that happens can only happen if He permits it to happen, isn't that right?

Quote:
4. Did Jesus force evil men and evil angels to inflict the death and destruction He deemed right and necessary?


I don't see any sense in this question either. No, of course not, to answer the question. First of all, the exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government. Secondly, Jesus would hardly force people to do something contrary to the principles of his government, like inflicting death and destruction; that's Satan's job. Satan is the destroyer, Christ is the restorer. So your question is asking if Jesus would use a principle contrary to the principles of His government to bring about more consequences also contrary to the principles of His government.

Quote:
5. Were evil men and evil angels free to refuse to inflict the death and destruction Jesus deemed right and necessary?


I don't agree with your premise here. Jesus doesn't deem death and destruction as right and necessary, but as evil, which it is.

Quote:
6. Who would have inflicted the death and destruction Jesus deemed right and necessary if the Roman soldiers and evil angels had refused to do it?


Again, I disagree with the premise here.

I have no idea what your answers are to my questions. Please elaborate. Thank you.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/20/11 08:57 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
M: 1. Did the father of the hunter son command his son to do the things he told him to do? No.
2. What would neighbors who overheard their conversation have thought? They would have been impressed the father was willing to help his son hunt humanely even though the father was not in favor of it.

T: Or they might have thought the son was doing the father's will by hunting.

M: I don’t think so.

T: Assuming they didn't already know the father's feelings in regards to hunting, it would certainly be a natural conclusion that the father was in favor of hunting, if they heard him giving counsel on how to hunt.

I doubt it. His distaste of hunting would have been written all over his face and demeanor.

Quote:
T: If the best way is studying the life and teachings of Jesus Christ while here in the flesh, then how should other revelations be treated? I think this is an area of disagreement between the differing points of view here. Those who hold the point of view I hold generally believe that the revelation of Jesus Christ supersedes all other revelation, so that any other revelation should be made to harmonize with that one. Those who disagree tend to put the different revelations side by side, and have the other revelations in addition to the revelation of Jesus Christ, so we Jesus Christ's revelation plus others. This would mean that Jesus Christ's revelation was not full and complete, which looks to be an area of disagreement we have had.

M: I agree with Ellen’s view of it.

T: Good! She wrote: “It would be well for us to spend a thoughtful hour each day in contemplation of the life of Christ. We should take it point by point, and let the imagination grasp each scene, especially the closing ones.(DA 83)

M: She wrote, “The Saviour is revealed in the Old Testament as clearly as in the New.” “The Bible is . . . a complete revelation of the attributes and will of God in the person of Jesus Christ”. Again, it is impossible to establish the 28 fundamental beliefs based solely on what Jesus said and did while here in the flesh. His revelation of God is not limited to the Gospels.

T: None of this is germane to the points I've been making. I just made the same points in the post to NJK, right above this one, so I won't repeat the quotes involved, but basically the whole purpose of Christ's mission was the revelation of God, which was a work only He could do. Obviously if this work had already been done, He would not have had to have come, given this was the whole purpose of His mission. Ellen White wrote that all that man needs to know of God, or can know, was revealed in the life and character of His Son, not that all the 28 fundamental beliefs were revealed in the life and character of His son. Why are you speaking of the 28 fundamental beliefs?

The 28 fundamental beliefs are an expression of the character and kingdom of God. I assume you agree. If so, then to get a clear picture of God we must necessarily understand the 28 fundamental beliefs. To do this, we must view Jesus’ complete revelation of God including the OT and the NT and not limit ourselves to the Gospels.

Quote:
T: I think the issue is similar to other incidents where God's ideal is not that to which the counsel applies, such as polygamy and slavery. God had to deal with the people's mindset as it was. We see little glimpses of the people acting in harmony with God's will, and when this happened, there was no killing involved, but for the most part, it was a stubborn "stiff-necked" people God was dealing with, and we don't see His ideal will expressed. If we take the point of view that God is pleased to have Sabbath-breakers killed, why wouldn't we kill them now? Is it just because we're not living in a theocracy? The question of killing law-breakers is an important issue coming up in the last days before Christ's second coming. We know that Satan will use this very argument against those who keep God's commandments, that they should be killed.

M: Tom, I don’t understand how your response answers my questions. Here they are again:
1. Do you believe it when it says in the Bible that Jesus commanded Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to death?
2. Or, do you suspect Moses misunderstood what Jesus said? For example, in the Bible it says: “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.” “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. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.”

T: Your first two questions I addressed in my response.

I have no idea what you believe. Please answer the two questions above in the simplest terms possible. Thank you.

Quote:
3. Also, do you think the father teaching his son how to hunt humanely is the same thing as Jesus commanding Moses to stone to death the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer?

T: They are obviously not exactly the same thing. I obviously thought they were similar in character, right? Or else, I wouldn't have offered the story as an explanation, right?

I don’t even know if you believe Jesus did indeed command Moses to stone to death the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer, so, how can I determine what you believe?

Quote:
4. Is hunting animals and killing humans equal in the eyes of God?

T: Why would you ask a question like this? It's ridiculous. You know the answer to this. You must have something else in mind, like, since hunting animals is not the same thing as killing humans (whatever your point it). Please don't ask questions like this. Just make whatever point you wish to make. There's no need to establish that hunting animals and killing humans are not equal in the eyes of God. You have got to be thinking, "Since hunting animals is not the same thing as killing humans in the eyes of God, it follows that (something)." Please just articulate what you're thinking.

I have learned studying with you there is no such thing as a ridiculous question. I have no idea what you believe; hence, the questions which seem ridiculous. Above you wrote, “There's no need to establish that hunting animals and killing humans are not equal in the eyes of God.” Do you believe hunting animals and killing humans are not equal in the eyes of God? I’m sorry if the question seems ridiculous. As you know, there are plenty of people who believe they are equal in the eyes of God. If so, then the comparison is legitimate. If not, it isn’t.

Quote:
5. Did the father command his son to hunt humanely?

T: The father gave counsel to the son regarding how to hunt, but it was not his will that his son should hunt. Given he was going to hunt, the father commanded he should hunt humanely.

How does this compare to Jesus commanding godly people to kill ungodly people?

Quote:
T: If we take the point of view that God is pleased to have Sabbath-breakers killed, why wouldn't we kill them now?

Interesting you bring this point up. Ellen wrote, “In our day there are many who reject the creation Sabbath as a Jewish institution and urge that if it is to be kept, the penalty of death must be inflicted for its violation; but we see that blasphemy received the same punishment as did Sabbathbreaking. Shall we therefore conclude that the third commandment also is to be set aside as applicable only to the Jews? Yet the argument drawn from the death penalty applies to the third, the fifth, and indeed to nearly all the ten precepts, equally with the fourth. Though God may not now punish the transgression of His law with temporal penalties, yet His word declares that the wages of sin is death; and in the final execution of the judgment it will be found that death is the portion of those who violate His sacred precepts. {PP 409.2}

1. When Moses inquired of Jesus what to do in the cases of the Sabbath-breaker and the Blasphemer, why did Jesus “command” him to stone them to death? Why didn’t He take the opportunity to explain things as you see them?

2. Where in the OT did Jesus explain to the Jews things as you see them (as they relate to the title of this thread)?

3. Where in the NT did Jesus categorically condemn capital punishment?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/20/11 09:52 PM

Tom, you say that in the past you have plainly stated who caused fire to blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned N&A alive. For the life of me I cannot recall what you said about it. For the record, would you please state it again here and now? I know you believe Jesus withdraws His protection and permits His enemies, within the limits He imposes on them, to punish and destroy impenitent sinners. But in the case of N&A I have absolutely no idea who you believe caused fire to blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned them alive. Regarding the punishment and death of N&A, Ellen wrote:

Quote:
"God consumed them by fire for their positive disregard of His express directions."

"This was a transgression of God's express command, and his judgment speedily followed."

"For this sin, a fire went out from the Lord, and devoured them in the sight of the people."

"Nadab and Abihu were slain by the fire of God's wrath for their intemperance in the use of wine."

"Fire from his presence destroyed them in their sin."

"By the offering of "strange fire," they disregarded God's command, and they were slain by His judgments."

"A fire blazed out from the holy of holies and consumed them."

"God visited them with His wrath; fire went forth from His presence and destroyed them."

"God forbade any manifestation of grief for Nadab and Abihu, even on the part of their nearest relatives, "lest ye die," he said, "and lest wrath come upon all the people: but let your brethren, the whole house of Israel, bewail the burning which the Lord hath kindled."

Nowhere does she say or imply anyone other than Jesus burned N&A alive. And yet you seem to think she believed Jesus did not cause fire to blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned N&A alive. Isn’t it obvious to you, based on all the quotes I posted above, that she clearly, plainly said it was Jesus who employed the fire that burned N&A alive? If not, where does she specifically say otherwise?

Quote:
M: In fact, the following testimony presents a view very different than the one you are advocating:

Quote:
God is exact to mark iniquity. Sins of thoughtlessness, negligence, forgetfulness, and even ignorance, have been visited by some of the most wonderfully marked manifestations of his displeasure. Many who have suffered terrible punishment for their sins, might have pleaded as plausibly as do those of today who fall into similar errors, that they meant no harm, and some would even say that they thought they were doing God service; but the light shone on them, and they disregarded it. {ST, July 17, 1884 par. 7}

Let us look at some of the examples found in sacred history. Assisted by his sons, Aaron had offered the sacrifices that God required; and he lifted up his hands and blessed the people. All had been done as God commanded, and he accepted the sacrifice, and revealed his glory in a most remarkable manner; for fire came from the Lord, and consumed the offering upon the altar. The people looked upon this wonderful manifestation of divine power with awe and intense interest. They saw in it a token of his glory and his favor, and they raised a universal shout of praise and adoration, and fell on their faces, as if in the immediate presence of Jehovah. {ST, July 17, 1884 par. 8}

As the prayers and praise of the people were ascending before God, two of the sons of Aaron took each his censer, and burned fragrant incense thereon, to arise as a sweet odor before God. But they had partaken too freely of wine, and used strange fire, contrary to the Lord's commandment. And the wrath of God was kindled against Nadab and Abihu for their disobedience, and a fire went out from the Lord, and devoured them in the sight of the people. By this judgment God designed to teach the people that they must approach him with reverence and awe, and in his own appointed manner. He is not pleased with partial obedience. It was not enough that in this solemn season of worship nearly everything was done as he commanded. {ST, July 17, 1884 par. 9}

The Lord sent Samuel to King Saul with a special message. "Go," he said, "and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." Saul was faithful and zealous in performing a part of his commission. He smote the Amalekites with a great slaughter; but he took the proposition of the people before the command of God, and spared Agag, the king, and "the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good." {ST, July 17, 1884 par. 10}

The Lord commanded Saul to "utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them until they be consumed." The Lord knew that this wicked nation would, if it were possible, blot out his people and his worship from the earth; and for this reason he had commanded that even the little children should be cut off. But Saul had spared the king, the most wicked and merciless of them all; one who had hated and destroyed the people of God, and whose influence had been strongest to promote idolatry. {ST, July 17, 1884 par. 11}

Saul thought he had done all that was essential of that which the Lord commanded him to do. Perhaps he even flattered himself that he was more merciful than his Maker, as do some unbelievers in our day. He met Samuel with the salutation, "Blessed be thou of the Lord; I have performed the commandment of the Lord." But when the prophet asked what meant the bleating of the sheep and the lowing of the oxen which he heard, Saul was obliged to confess that the people had taken of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the chief of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice to the Lord in Gilgal. {ST, July 17, 1884 par. 12}

Did the Lord accept this justification of Saul's conduct? Was he pleased with this partial obedience, and willing to pass over the trifle that had been neglected out of so good a motive? Saul did what he thought was best, and would not the Lord commend such excellent judgment? No. Said Samuel, "Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king." {ST, July 17, 1884 par. 13}

These instances show how God looks upon his professed people when they obey part of his commandments while in other respects they follow a course of their own choosing. Let no one flatter himself that a part of God's requirements are nonessential. He has placed no command in his word that men may obey or disobey at will, and not suffer the consequences. If men choose any other path than that of strict obedience, they will find that "the end thereof are the ways of death."
{ST, July 17, 1884 par. 14}

M: You seem to be making the same argument King Saul did, namely, that by sparing the life of Agag he was being merciful the way he imagined Jesus preferred. But Jesus punished him for being presumptuous.

T: Regarding Saul's purpose, we read: “This victory over the Amalekites was the most brilliant victory that Saul had ever gained, and it served to rekindle the pride of heart that was his greatest peril. The divine edict devoting the enemies of God to utter destruction was but partially fulfilled. Ambitious to heighten the honor of his triumphal return by the presence of a royal captive, Saul ventured to imitate the customs of the nations around him and spared Agag, the fierce and warlike king of the Amalekites. The people reserved for themselves the finest of the flocks, herds, and beasts of burden, excusing their sin on the ground that the cattle were reserved to be offered as sacrifices to the Lord. It was their purpose, however, to use these merely as a substitute, to save their own cattle. {CC 156.3} This points out that Saul's purpose was selfish and proud. To think that Saul's argument here was the same as mine would seem to indicate you're either misunderstanding Saul's argument or mine. Here is mine:

1.All that we can know of God was revealed by Jesus Christ.
2.The whole purpose of His mission was the revelation of God.
3.Jesus Christ did not reveal God as One who uses force to get His way, or compelling power, or One who burns people alive to punish them for not doing His will.

Here's an issue I see with your way of thinking. You appear to believe that it's OK to kill people who are not doing God's will, if you believe God is telling you to do so. I think that's dangerous, especially given the fact that this is exactly what's going to happen during the last plagues (i.e., people will try to kill those whom they think are not doing God's will, and will think they are doing God's will by so doing). What in Jesus' life or character would lead you to believe that He wants to burn people alive if they don't do what He says? Where did He ever do anything even remotely similar to this? How did He respond when it was suggested He do so? Where during His mission did Jesus ever even physically harm any person, even in the slightest manner?

In the ST July 17, 1884 passage I quoted above she makes it clear it was Jesus who employed fire to burn N&A alive. Nothing she said implies it was someone else who did it. It also clear she believed it was Jesus who commanded King Saul to utterly kill every man, woman, child, and infant and then rejected him as king because he refused to obey every detail of the command. According to you, however, this isn’t something Jesus would do. To answer your questions:

1. What in Jesus' life or character would lead you to believe that He wants to burn people alive if they don't do what He says? Jesus said, “The angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.”

2. Where did He ever do anything even remotely similar to this? He didn’t burn anyone alive while here in the flesh.

3. How did He respond when it was suggested He do so? He rebuked them.

4. Where during His mission did Jesus ever even physically harm any person, even in the slightest manner? He didn’t. But He clearly taught He will, at the end of time, punish impenitent sinners with everlasting, unquenchable fire. “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire. I will burn you up with unquenchable fire.”
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/21/11 12:04 AM

What is it you aren't understanding? I've answered the questions twice now. Please give some feedback.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/21/11 02:47 AM

Quote:
M: 1. Did the father of the hunter son command his son to do the things he told him to do? No.
2. What would neighbors who overheard their conversation have thought? They would have been impressed the father was willing to help his son hunt humanely even though the father was not in favor of it.

T: Or they might have thought the son was doing the father's will by hunting.

M: I don’t think so.

T: Assuming they didn't already know the father's feelings in regards to hunting, it would certainly be a natural conclusion that the father was in favor of hunting, if they heard him giving counsel on how to hunt.

M:I doubt it. His distaste of hunting would have been written all over his face and demeanor.


That would be rather hard to hear.

Quote:

Quote:
T: If the best way is studying the life and teachings of Jesus Christ while here in the flesh, then how should other revelations be treated? I think this is an area of disagreement between the differing points of view here. Those who hold the point of view I hold generally believe that the revelation of Jesus Christ supersedes all other revelation, so that any other revelation should be made to harmonize with that one. Those who disagree tend to put the different revelations side by side, and have the other revelations in addition to the revelation of Jesus Christ, so we Jesus Christ's revelation plus others. This would mean that Jesus Christ's revelation was not full and complete, which looks to be an area of disagreement we have had.

M: I agree with Ellen’s view of it.

T: Good! She wrote: “It would be well for us to spend a thoughtful hour each day in contemplation of the life of Christ. We should take it point by point, and let the imagination grasp each scene, especially the closing ones.(DA 83)

M: She wrote, “The Saviour is revealed in the Old Testament as clearly as in the New.” “The Bible is . . . a complete revelation of the attributes and will of God in the person of Jesus Christ”. Again, it is impossible to establish the 28 fundamental beliefs based solely on what Jesus said and did while here in the flesh. His revelation of God is not limited to the Gospels.

T: None of this is germane to the points I've been making. I just made the same points in the post to NJK, right above this one, so I won't repeat the quotes involved, but basically the whole purpose of Christ's mission was the revelation of God, which was a work only He could do. Obviously if this work had already been done, He would not have had to have come, given this was the whole purpose of His mission. Ellen White wrote that all that man needs to know of God, or can know, was revealed in the life and character of His Son, not that all the 28 fundamental beliefs were revealed in the life and character of His son. Why are you speaking of the 28 fundamental beliefs?

M:The 28 fundamental beliefs are an expression of the character and kingdom of God.


There are an expression of what Seventh-day Adventists believe to be essential points of faith (or, at least, a group of people designated to perform such a task for the group as a whole).

Quote:
M:I assume you agree.


Only in a secondary sense. This wasn't the purpose of the list of beliefs.

Quote:
If so, then to get a clear picture of God we must necessarily understand the 28 fundamental beliefs.


This logic is not valid. If A is a type of X, it does not follow that to get a clear picture of X, you must necessarily understand A, which is what you are asserting.

For example, Clemente was a composer in the Classical era. It doesn't follow that to understand Classical music, one must understand Clemente.

Quote:
M:To do this, we must view Jesus’ complete revelation of God including the OT and the NT and not limit ourselves to the Gospels.


I've already pointed out the weak link in this argument.

Here's a valid argument:

1.All that man can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son.
2.Therefore understanding the life and character of His Son is sufficient to understanding God's character.

Quote:

Quote:
T: I think the issue is similar to other incidents where God's ideal is not that to which the counsel applies, such as polygamy and slavery. God had to deal with the people's mindset as it was. We see little glimpses of the people acting in harmony with God's will, and when this happened, there was no killing involved, but for the most part, it was a stubborn "stiff-necked" people God was dealing with, and we don't see His ideal will expressed. If we take the point of view that God is pleased to have Sabbath-breakers killed, why wouldn't we kill them now? Is it just because we're not living in a theocracy? The question of killing law-breakers is an important issue coming up in the last days before Christ's second coming. We know that Satan will use this very argument against those who keep God's commandments, that they should be killed.

M: Tom, I don’t understand how your response answers my questions. Here they are again:
1. Do you believe it when it says in the Bible that Jesus commanded Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to death?
2. Or, do you suspect Moses misunderstood what Jesus said? For example, in the Bible it says: “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.” “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. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.”

T: Your first two questions I addressed in my response.

I have no idea what you believe. Please answer the two questions above in the simplest terms possible. Thank you.


Please respond to my response, and ask me questions about that.

Quote:
Quote:
3. Also, do you think the father teaching his son how to hunt humanely is the same thing as Jesus commanding Moses to stone to death the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer?

T: They are obviously not exactly the same thing. I obviously thought they were similar in character, right? Or else, I wouldn't have offered the story as an explanation, right?

M:I don’t even know if you believe Jesus did indeed command Moses to stone to death the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer, so, how can I determine what you believe?


I don't think it matters what I believe about this incident to understand what I believe. I believe the following:

1.All that we need to know or can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son.
2.God is often portrayed in inspiration as doing that which He permits.
3.God in the OT acted similarly (actually identically) to how Jesus Christ acted while here in the flesh, when the whole purpose of His mission was the revelation of God.
4.Jesus Christ revealed what He heard and saw in the OT in His life, character, and teachings. If we perceive some disconnect between the two (i.e., between some incident in the OT involving behavior on the part of God) and Jesus Christ's life/teaching/character, we should defer to the revelation of Jesus Christ.
5.Force is contrary to the principles of God's government. Compelling power is found only under the government of the enemy.
6.Satan is hard at work seeking to vest God with his own attributes of character, and to make it appear that God's principles of government are like his.
7.There are a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which God protects us. It is sufficient for God to effect an judgments desires simply by withdrawing that protection. There is no need for God to do otherwise.

I've been saying all along that I disagree with the road you insist on taking, which is to examiner Old Testament incidents and ask questions about this. You've been doing this for years. I've answered hundreds, if not thousands, of these questions, all the time under protest. I've spent a thousand times longer discussing this issue according to how you think it should be studied as opposed to how I think it should.

Quote:

Quote:
4. Is hunting animals and killing humans equal in the eyes of God?

T: Why would you ask a question like this? It's ridiculous. You know the answer to this. You must have something else in mind, like, since hunting animals is not the same thing as killing humans (whatever your point it). Please don't ask questions like this. Just make whatever point you wish to make. There's no need to establish that hunting animals and killing humans are not equal in the eyes of God. You have got to be thinking, "Since hunting animals is not the same thing as killing humans in the eyes of God, it follows that (something)." Please just articulate what you're thinking.

M:I have learned studying with you there is no such thing as a ridiculous question.


What you asked is an example of one. What could you have been thinking when you asked it? There is no conceivable way that you could think that I think that God views hunting an animal as equal to killing a human being. I'd have to be a fanatic of PETA or something like that to have a view like this. In our years of studying, and thousands of posts, I've not written anything to give you the slightest inkling that I would have such a thought. It would be like me asking you if you think God has big blue elephant ears.

Quote:
M:I have no idea what you believe;


Well you should! We've been studying this issue for years, and I've been repeating the same things over and over and over again. You should, at a very minimum, at least know that I believe these things I've been repeating over and over and over again, don't you think?

Quote:
hence, the questions which seem ridiculous.


This would be a ridiculous question to ask of any Christian, don't you think? Really, can you give any scenario under which not just I, but any person on this forum, could conceivably believe that God views hunting animals as equal to killing humans?

Jesus Christ fished. You know that don't you? If God viewed hunting animals as equal to killing humans, Jesus Christ wouldn't have fished, would He? Well, since you think Christ killed "billions" of humans, maybe *you* could think God sees these as equal, but I certainly couldn't, could I?

Quote:
M:Above you wrote, “There's no need to establish that hunting animals and killing humans are not equal in the eyes of God.” Do you believe hunting animals and killing humans are not equal in the eyes of God? I’m sorry if the question seems ridiculous.


Do you think God has big blue elephant ears?

Quote:
M:As you know, there are plenty of people who believe they are equal in the eyes of God.


I can't think of a single Christian who believes this, not one. Nor can I conceive of such a thing being possible.

Quote:
M:If so, then the comparison is legitimate. If not, it isn’t.


Legitimate because why? Because the "plenty of people" you know are humans? Do you know any one on this forum that believes this?

I've mentioned Jones, Waggoner, George Fifield, and Ty Gibson as writers whose thoughts have resonated with me. Do you know any fans of these writers who believes this?

Or any fans of Ellen White?

Quote:
Quote:
5. Did the father command his son to hunt humanely?

T: The father gave counsel to the son regarding how to hunt, but it was not his will that his son should hunt. Given he was going to hunt, the father commanded he should hunt humanely.

M:How does this compare to Jesus commanding godly people to kill ungodly people?


It's analogous.

Quote:

Quote:
T: If we take the point of view that God is pleased to have Sabbath-breakers killed, why wouldn't we kill them now?

M:Interesting you bring this point up. Ellen wrote, “In our day there are many who reject the creation Sabbath as a Jewish institution and urge that if it is to be kept, the penalty of death must be inflicted for its violation; but we see that blasphemy received the same punishment as did Sabbathbreaking. Shall we therefore conclude that the third commandment also is to be set aside as applicable only to the Jews? Yet the argument drawn from the death penalty applies to the third, the fifth, and indeed to nearly all the ten precepts, equally with the fourth. Though God may not now punish the transgression of His law with temporal penalties, yet His word declares that the wages of sin is death; and in the final execution of the judgment it will be found that death is the portion of those who violate His sacred precepts. {PP 409.2}


This doesn't address my question. I haven't made the argument if the Sabbath needs to be kept, then Sabbath-breakers should be killed.

Quote:
M:1. When Moses inquired of Jesus what to do in the cases of the Sabbath-breaker and the Blasphemer, why did Jesus “command” him to stone them to death?


Have you considered the story of the father/hunter?

Quote:
Why didn’t He take the opportunity to explain things as you see them?


Why didn't He explain the truth about polygamy?

Quote:
M:2. Where in the OT did Jesus explain to the Jews things as you see them (as they relate to the title of this thread)?


Where did He explain the truth in the OT about slavery or polygamy or divorce?

Quote:
3. Where in the NT did Jesus categorically condemn capital punishment?


I haven't made any general comments about capital punishment.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/21/11 05:25 PM

[Your “Reply” Posting is incorrect here. Your are replying to yourself]

Quote:
NJK: (Again Tom, don’t forget to answer Post #133507)

Tom: I responded to the post you mentioned. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.


Why didn’t you answer it before; -i.e., 3 reminders ago, since its initial May 16 posting (4 days ago)??

Quote:
NJK: -Also, as it is also generally pertinent to this discussion, you have said (back in Post #131319) that you “majored in Theology, and studied several years at the seminary”. Did you graduate (i.e., obtain a degree)?

NJK: -And did you take (and complete) courses in Biblical Languages, namely Biblical Hebrew and NT Greek?

Tom: I graduated with honors in my undergraduate degree.


Just to be clear, was is your undergraduate major that was in Theology?

Originally Posted By: Tom
I completed the coursework for the graduate degree, but did not graduate.


I don’t get how one can complete coursework and not graduate. When I was at Andrews (1997-2000) the policy was that to audit a class, the person still had to pay to credit fees. So did you complete this coursework on your own, i.e., buying the syllabus and textbooks and doing the work on your own, or did you attend the seminary classes, do all the “coursework” (as implied by “completed”), but did not graduate?

Also was this completed coursework formally graded? There is indeed the possibility that one can complete all a courses’ work and not graduate because that completed work was not acceptable for passing and earning a degree. (Perhaps it can even be possible to take a next course without having passed the previous one(s). E.g., while I was studying Electrical Engineering, (before going to Andrews and switching to Theology), I completed and passed mathematics classes up through Calculus III and Differential Equations (including the derived “Physics for Engineers”), however I never passed, though I “completed”, my first semester Calculus I class. As long as your willing to pay for these classes, the people at the SDA Seminary may object, but ultimately its all is up to you how you go about completing your education.)

Also what was that graduate degree course? (E.g., MA in Religion).

Originally Posted By: Tom
I took Biblical languages. I have taken a lot more Greek than Hebrew (I had already studied classical Greek).


Did you “complete” all of the Seminary courses in (NT) Greek and Biblical Hebrew?

Quote:
Tom: If the best way is studying the life and teachings of Jesus Christ while here in the flesh, then how should other revelations be treated? I think this is an area of disagreement between the differing points of view here.

Tom: Those who hold the point of view I hold generally believe that the revelation of Jesus Christ supersedes all other revelation, so that any other revelation should be made to harmonize with that one. Those who disagree tend to put the different revelations side by side, and have the other revelations in addition to the revelation of Jesus Christ, so we Jesus Christ's revelation plus others.

NJK: I have previously variously defended and substantiated in this thread that Jesus’s Revelation was in perfect harmony in all point with what God had actually intended in the OT.

Tom: That's not the issue. The problem is not with what had been revealed in the OT, but with people's perception of that revelation, which was, and still is, different then Jesus Christ's.

NJK:I don’t from where you are making/justifying your objection here because what you stated: “not with what had been revealed in the OT, but with people's perception of that revelation” is exactly what I had expressed by saying “what God had actually intended in the OT”.

Tom: What God had actually intended in the OT is what was revealed. I pointed out that this is not the issue, but people's perception of this.


Well then the issue is that we have a completely different understanding of the word “intend”. I lexically understand it to mean: “Have in mind as a purpose; Design or destine; Mean or intend to express or convey; Denote or connote”. By saying: “What God had actually intended in the OT is what was revealed” to mean what was done and recorded in the OT record. I see you understanding as being false.

A simple example, someone could see me swimming at the beach with another person and then see me suddenly knock another person out with a punch to the face and call police claiming I was criminally trying to hurt them, i.e., assault them, when the fact of the matter was that this person was suddenly caught in a rip current, was beginning to uncontrollably panic, refusing to heed my urgent advice and calm down, and since they were much bigger than I, the only way I could quickly rescue them before they began to drift away was by knocking them out cold. So my action here was indeed forceful, even seemingly violent, however my intention was to save their life. And that was really the only way to do this, especially in the crucial timely way, lest furthermore, not only they drown, but they also cause me to drown if I tried to rescue them while they were panicked.

Similarly, succinctly said, God’s judgements in the Bible are to effectuate a timely judgement that serves, as object lessons, to save other people’s lives, on top of the one being judged/punished, if mercy can be applied to their situation. If also, e.g., they chose to swim in that section of waters knowing, through many warning sign posts, the dangers of rip currents, then I cannot be faulted for not swimming in after them and rescuing them, even if I could have saved them.

So as I said. “What” was revealed in the OT was clear. The why was not. E.g., it is not seen, as it Biblical can, that the Plagues of Egypt was a deliberately intended full process of deserved judgement on Egypt and that the slaying of the first born was to avenge the many wrongful deaths caused to, and inflicted upon, of Israel by Egypt during the years of slavery. So here the “perception” of people not seeing this is wrong (indeed seeing something else that cannot be exegetically supported by the Bible’s account of what transpired here), but what took place (God slew the Egyptian firstborn) is clearly known by anyone who reads the text, especially if reading it in the Hebrew (or even OT LXX), as could the Jews people living in Christ’s time.

Quote:
NJK: Because the OT People and also those in Christ’s times had a wrong perception of that revelation they therefore did not see nor understand what God had actually intended in what He had said or done.

Tom: Right, and still today people perceive the revelation incorrectly.


Since you say “Right” here, then you agree with my expressed understanding that what God “said or done” can be distinctly/differently perceived than/from what He had actually “intended”. That does not seem to agree with your prior statement. What was “revealed” in the OT, especially for those living in Christ’s day, is what is recorded in the text of the OT. What is “perceived” is something distinct and is what is mentally thought about what is “revealed”. In many ways, God did not detailedly reveal His intentions during the OT era. His people really had to accept him in faith then. During the NT era, many of these intentions, as also seen with the SOP, came to be revealed. Yet those further revelations, do not change the substance of what was concretely revealed in the OT record. Just the derived perception of what the intent/purpose/design was to be corrected wherever applicable/necessary.

Quote:
NJK: E.g., the Sabbath was not a day to selfishly not do any work, per se, but to variously, pervasively provide God’s rest to others, and as Jesus showed, by “doing good” and “save life” (Mark 3:4). So “work” was really what was done to selfishly gratify/convenience oneself, including not doing the feasible pre-Sabbath “preparations”. (In an applicable way, the Church today won’t engage in the actually feasible ‘“work” needed to save millions of lives’ and all in the Pharisaical sanctimony that ‘God’s Sabbath rest is “at the door”, so effectively, they fully subscribe to the Capitalist ‘live and let die’ tenet.)

T:So when we look at the OT, we see one thing, but when Jesus Christ looked at it, He saw another. What Jesus Christ saw is what He revealed. So, given that we see things different than Jesus Christ did, we should defer to what Jesus Christ saw. That's been the point I've been making.

NJK: In terms of substantive things, Jesus read and thus “saw” the same thing that anyone in his day could see.

Tom: They could have seen these things if they were as sinless as He, as insightful, and listened to and understood the Holy Spirit as He did.


I am speaking of the concrete text Jesus and other around Him read from. Seeing the intents of God is a different things that reading what was stated.

The fact that Jesus Spiritually saw many things that other did not see was not because He was sinless, but because He remained in constant and unbroken communion with God’s Spirit. This, as virtually, as by product, helped Him to remain sinless, however, that unbroken communion with God’s Spirit allowed Him to continue to receive insightful light from Heaven. He also aimed and succeeded to do God’s will and for such, more Heavenly light was continually given to Him.

This Biblical principle could work with anyone who, like Jesus aims to both do God’s will and remain obedient to His Spirit. Indeed we see that God told Solomon that he would be the wisest and most knowledgeable person who ever lived (1 Kgs 3:12; 1 Chr 1:11, 12). However Solomon sinful and “foolish” life made this promise not possible to be fulfilled, which is why I see that the Incarnate Jesus, (who did not have any extraordinarily given Spiritual advantage or power over any other man), could say the ‘one greater than Solomon, (i.e. in terms of wisdom and knowledge) is here. (Matt 12:42).

Jesus achieved His great wisdom and knowledge by merely being obedient in all ways to God’s will and to the voice of the Holy Spirit. He was not given a better understanding of the Holy Spirit merely because He was sinless, but merely additional insightful light from God as He was faithful in obeying, using and disseminating, when applicable the prior given light from God. Many fail in this regard by being disobedient and misusing the previous manifestation of this gift of God (cf. e.g, TM 399.1; 507.1)

Quote:
NJK: I see that you are here trying to impose your own view for Christ’s here and claim that e.g., He did not see God actively doing the Destructions and judgements of the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, Nadad and Abihu, Dothan, Korah and Abiram, and all these other examples.

Tom: This is a good example of the principle I'm addressing. You're seeing something which isn't there (i.e., you see that I'm trying to impose my own view for Christ's here. What I'm actually doing is arguing that Christ's view is represented by His life and character).


The facts of your prior claims in regards to those cited examples are clear that you are, contrary to the Bible’s and SOP’s testimony, “seeing” that: ‘God did not actively do the destruction judgements of the “Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, Nadad and Abihu, Dothan, Korah and Abiram.’ So that factually is “impose your own view for Christ’s” and claiming that because of this view, as you say ‘which was Christ’s own’, the accounts of these OT episodes should not be understood as they read in either the Bible and SOP. So e.g., ‘it was a volcano [for which there is not geological evidence of it existence], (and moreover, one that was always supposed to erupt on that very day), and not God, that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.

Quote:
NJK: That premise to me is completely irrational.

Tom: You're not identifying the premise correctly. The premise is that Christ revealed what He heard and saw.


I did. The sequitur and logical premise, from what you claim/believe “Christ revealed [from] what He heard and saw” was that the OT accounts were not accurately expressed. So you e.g., believe that Jesus saw a volcano for Sodom and Gomorrah as He read Gen 19:24.

Quote:
NJK: Jesus did not engage in restating these acts of God as if God had not actually done them as the OT record unequivocally states. Even EGW did not see this in her Revelations of these episode. It is circularly only your view that needs this to be the case with Jesus and EGW, despite the clear testimony to the contrary, including Christ’s applicable “jot and tittle’ statement.

Tom: This is again not identifying the argument correctly.


Based on the comprehensive facts involved in your view, your argument was correctly identified. As I detailedly pointed out before in Post #133280, your view in themselves are quite acceptable, indeed as they are cited almost verbatim from the SOP, but the meaning and/or extent to which you claim they have and should apply is overeachingly unbiblical. In other words your are understanding them incorrectly and claiming things for them that neither EGW, nor Jesus intended.

Originally Posted By: Tom
The argument is that Christ revealed that which He saw and heard of God in His study of the Scriptures. So the picture we see of God that Christ revealed is in harmony with how Christ perceived God to have acted. What did Christ reveal of God? That answers the question of what Christ perceived of God's character. That's one argument.


I clearly see that Christ revealed, in at least principles, the same Character of the OT God and so e.g., in the face of blatant hypocrisy (Luke 1-48), He similarly wanted to effectuate immediate destruction through Hell Fire (Luke 12:49, 50), but because of a greater purpose/good, He refrained from executing such a destruction then. The same thing occurred twice with God in the OT with Israel in the wilderness (Exod 32), and then on the borders of Canaan (Num 14), and it was only for the greater purpose/good as pointed out by Moses, of how this would seem in the eyes/mind of other nations, that God relented from that all but one, then all but 3, destruction. A smaller and more pointed judgement was then decided. Just as the smaller and more pointed judgement of the destruction of Jerusalem was done by God/Jesus instead of the Hell Fire one.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Another argument is that God is often presented as doing that which He permits.


This continuous claim of yours has been exegetically disproven to only have occurred in the episode of Job. Indeed your prime 7 examples have long been exegetically debunked. Deal with that current state of exegetical affairs.

Originally Posted By: Tom
There are many examples of this in the writings of Ellen White.


Then for this “many”, cite 7 more, other than your already debunked ones of course.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I've already mentioned a few, including the destruction of Jerusalem, the serpents in the wilderness, those who love not the truth being sent delusions, and others.


Like I said, these have all been exegetically debunked. You just have chosen not to respond to the Biblical/exegetical disproving/debunking statements.

Originally Posted By: Tom
So, given that God is often presented as doing that which He permits,


That is indeed therefore an unsubstantiated, invalid and vacuous claim.

Originally Posted By: Tom
how do we know if the thing God is presented as doing is something He permitted as opposed to something He actively did?


Only in the episode of Job did the unknowing Job, as faithfully recorded by Moses, say in Job 1:21, that it was God who had taken away. However Moses had already clearly related that it was Satan who had done the destruction. So there is no ‘unknown’ or ‘not pointedly identified agent’ here.

The other examples says and show (i.e., in the SOP) that there was a Divine hand/agency involved in doing the act of destruction/judgement.

Originally Posted By: Tom
One way would be to simply assume this must be what happened, unless there is some other statement elsewhere which presents a different point of view.


You have not cited a valid Biblical situation where this should apply. And as you say here, in the episode of Job, the agency was already clearly identified by Moses. So there is no need to assume anything in this, actually, would be lone supporting example.

Originally Posted By: Tom
So if there were simply the statement that God slew Saul, without the details, it would be assumed that God actively killed Saul.


The Bible was exegetically clear that God was acting through an agent to do this. You are the one who is not understanding this.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Or, without the statement from the SOP, it would be assumed that God sent fiery serpents to harm the Israelites, as opposed to removing His protection.


As I said before, I see that you are here overstating what EGW said. You claim that it means that God did not act here, but EGW does not say that. God removing His protective hand is the same as Him acting to effectuate this judgement. Indeed in 1SP 314.2 EGW has no problem stating exactly what the Bible emphatically says in regards to ‘God forcefully acting’ here to effectuate this death. And if EGW’s statement was here differing from what the Bible, (which I do not see that she does), the what the Bible exegetically, and thus accurately, said should be upheld as the correct view of this event.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Another way is to perceive the principle involved, that there are a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which God protects us,


And when God judiciously decides to allow one of these many previously averted dangers to harm people, it is therefore an act of His. Only when the Devil is acting to do a destruction is God or His Angels not actively involved in it. And when God gives Satan the permission to do as He will, without any restraints or limitations, then God is not at all involved in judgement, or actually, that specific (final) part of a judgement that God had actually initiated and started to executed (e.g, as in the Destruction of Jerusalem and the 7 Last Plagues). Other than those two, I do not see a judgement in the Bible where God has given/will give this authority to Satan.

Originally Posted By: Tom
and that it is both contrary to God's character to sent serpents to harm others,


The Bible shows that this judgement is in perfect harmony with the aspect of Justice in God’s character. In fact the use of serpents was in order to serve as an object lesson to Israel that God was the one who was responsible for their safety. That is why God did not sent a judgement of ‘fire from Heaven’ here, or the earth opening up, as this crucial lesson would not have been learned by Israel. As EGW says:

Originally Posted By: SOP PP 428.3
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.


Originally Posted By: Tom
and unnecessary as a means by which God can effect judgments.


As also seen in that PP 428.3 quote, that judgement was done by God in an attempt to lead Israel to “return to Him with repentance and humiliation”. So it was a “necessary means” for God and indeed one calculatedly used to this end by Him.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Given an understanding of this principle, a corroborating statement from the SOP is unnecessary.


I don’t see how this is true since one would then have to blindly take your word for it. Indeed even in the light of an SOP account corroborating the Biblical testimony. Again as an examples, the Bible and Sop say that it was God who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. but you want people to rather believe that it was a naturally erupting volcano. Clearly your view requires one to ignore what the Bible and also the SOP say, and, as with the volcano, trust the wisdom and supposition of uninspired sources.

You also actually don’t have valid Biblical proofs/examples for your claimed principles

Quote:
NJK: Furthermore, Christ’s non-contradicting ‘fulfilling of the OT’, just as with EGW OT episodes revelations, only confirmed and even made it more clear that God was indeed involved in those actions. Jesus, and also EGW, only made these revelations more “palpable”/understandable to their applicable generations.

Tom: What do you have in mind here? Especially the "palpable" part. What's an example of Jesus making a revelation of this type more "palpable"? Also, what EGW statement did you have in mind?


From particularly the SOP we can read of the way Jesus explained the OT to His various audiences and thus made them “capable of being perceived”.

-Luke 17:26-30 = Flood and S&G destruction
-Luke 21:20, 22 (=Matt 24:15|Mark 13:14) = Isa 61:2; cf. 63:1-6
-Matt 13:10-17 = Isa 6:9-13

[By the way, you have not answered the question: “Where in the world are you reading: “Christ exclaimed, "My heart melts like wax."”???”]

Quote:
NJK: So it is you who is engaging in changing ‘jots and tittles’, even, redactively, whole phrases and statements of God. Your approach, however strongly/“blindly” you effectively think ‘Jesus also did this’ is just ‘a house built without deep, if any, foundations.’

Tom: I can't tell if you're missing the points I'm making entirely, or simply avoiding commenting on them, but you're not responding to points I've actually made. You're just responding to your own ideas regarding things I've said.


Talk about, what is psychologically known as a “projection.” As I had already pointed out from my answers to your prime 7 examples, there is no point to even get from those examples. You are the one who has been avoiding answering my statements that have debunked your supposed corroborating examples for your view. So you indeed are just haphazardly trying to reword the Bible to fit your view (e.g, S&G’s “volcano”).

Originally Posted By: Tom
This reminds me of when Huss, I think it was, was ordered to recant certain things he had supposedly taught, and his response was he couldn't recant things he had never said.


It already is clear to me that you avoid addressing things that oppose your view for which you have no plausible response, and that you ignore such statements, also in the Bible and SOP. Well it seems that this also applies to what you say. I.e., you limit your view to what your statements mean to you and not to what they logically/sequiturly/Biblically fully, actually entail/imply. So of course, in this way, you can defensively and actually, half-truthfully, ‘deny not saying something.’ However, truth is not limited to what you understand, want to understand, and/or can understand. I deal with all pertinent and contributive facts involved. Feel free to join this logical and scientific realm of reality at any time.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Also, you're citing anything specific here. If you're going to make an accusation like this, it would be good to quote something I've said. Otherwise it just becomes a pointless exchange of accusations and denials.


I repeatedly have. You have just ignored them and then, or amnesically in order to, later make such a claim of ‘citing anything specific here’. Indeed not “here” but many times before. Look it up! Why do people always have to repeat themselves with/for you. That is not normal human behavior except, in regards to the “forgetter” in medical cases of amnesia and/or psychological mental blanking/blocks. If you seriously want to have a discussion then responsibly try making, on your own, mental and/or written notes of things people have said. Others, at least, I, am not your personal secretary.

Quote:
NJK: There is also the fact that not everything that Jesus said and did was recorded, and also the realism that not everything could be candidly “redone” by Jesus in 3 years of public ministry, though the principle for all of these OT actions of God/Him were all represented and perfectly upheld.

Tom: Evidently the time that Jesus had was sufficient for Him to accomplish His mission.

NJK:Not necessarily, in terms of either ‘doing everything’, or your view-implied imposition ‘redoing/restating everything’.

Tom: ??? I don't know what you have in mind here. I haven't suggested Jesus Christ did either of these things.


That’s what your view, with its spurious, ‘if we don’t see Jesus doing something then it did not occur in the OT’ tenet, implies/entails

Originally Posted By: Tom
I quoted many paragraphs explaining what I had in mind, as well as commenting on them. Why not respond to that?


Because your quoting of EGW’s “revelation of God’s character” mission of Christ does not mean, as you impose on those statements ,that: ‘if we don’t see Jesus doing something then it did not occur in the OT’. Case in point, where did someone in the Gospels offer strange fire before God (or Jesus) as with Nadab and Abihu??

Quote:
NJK:Jesus had to deal with the reality of the state of readiness and receptivity of those He dealt with. (E.g., John 16:12-15).

Tom: Which is what?


Read the cited text!

Originally Posted By: Tom
Say what it was, or quote the text.


Only in your most fanciful fantasy. Open your Bible and read it!

Originally Posted By: Tom
Don't just cite a Scripture text you're not going to quote.


Really... “Just watch me!!” [You’d probably have to be Canadian to get the full implication of this quote here.]

Originally Posted By: Tom
That's pointless.


“Pointless”??? Only according to you. And... that’s just you’re (manufactured) “problem.” What the Word of God says is not lessened in any way simply because you refuse to read it in your Bible. You just can’t be rightmindedly serious, in this regards!!??? I can see that how this serves as the perfect, self-justifying excuse for an ‘never-in-sight|never-in-mind’ “ostrich move” for you.

Quote:
NJK: Indeed just like in this ongoing GC, as documentedly revealed especially for OT Israel, God’s plans and intentions can be temporarily, and even greatly, delayed, curtailed and frustrated by the way people come to react to it.

Tom: How does this relate to the point that Christ had enough time accomplish His mission? Really, I don't see why you would think you have any grounds of disagreeing with this claim. Do you really doubt that Christ had enough time to accomplish His mission?


You should have looked up and read that cited text. Then you would have “seen” something. Oh yeah... you probably did not want to see any contradicting thing. Talk about the childish “shutting the eyes and stopping of one’s ears, with mantra, self-justified, “I can’t see anything” repetitions” (= Isa 6:9ff; cf. Acts 7:54, 57)

Originally Posted By: Tom
As regards to what Christ's mission was, it was the revelation of God, which I stated and quoted from the SOP to support (who, in turn, quoted from John 17).

This is a very interesting quote. Note these points:

1.The whole purpose of Christ's mission on earth was to set men right through the revelation of God.

2.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.

So Christ accomplished the revelation of the character of the Father to the world. If this had already been done, Christ would not have had to have come, since the whole purpose of His mission was the revelation of God.


Perhaps EGW overstated/misstated her “whole purpose” because it is Biblically clear that the revelation of God’s character was only a part of Christ’s mission. It was a most significant part, yet just a part. His “Baptism of Blood” in dying for the sins of the world was another part. (Cf. Luke 12:49, 50) Hence the actual need for Christ’s coming. If Israel did not have a need to understand God’s character due to the piled on misconceptions by men, and not because of the OT’s written record, then Jesus would still have to come and die to make the Atonement for the sins of the world.

Teaching doctrinal truths, in regards to the Kingdom of God and its conversion from the OT Covenant to the NT Covenant. That was limited by the people’s readiness and receptivity. As I had commented on earlier, that is what John 16:12-15 reveals (cf. Matt 13:58/Mark 6:5).

Quote:
NJK: Christ did this “whole accomplishing”

Tom: "Whole accomplishing?" Why is this in double quotes? No one used this expression. That's an odd thing to do. I understand you use single quotes to indicate a paraphrase, but don't you use double quotes to refer to an exact statement? If not, what is their purpose?


I think one simple, explanation-asking question here would have sufficed as quotes are also used for/in other ways, such as to coin an expression, as I was doing here.

Originally Posted By: Tom
What Ellen White actually said was "whole purpose." The "whole purpose" of Christ's mission was the revelation of God is what she wrote.


Great! That’s not what I had in mind. My “whole accomplishing” involves ‘the accomplishing of all of the above stated aspects of Christ mission: Character Revelation, Doctrinal Teaching and (anti-typical) Sacrificial Atonement.

I therefore Biblically do not see EGW’s view as completely accurate here.

Quote:
NJK: by furthering the standing OT revelation.

Tom: He accomplished His mission by living the life that He did.


That’s just for one part. He also had to Speak/Teach and be “Baptized in Blood” (= Die) to fulfill the other two.

Quote:
NJK (edited): And this “OT revelation” does not include the unbiblical “traditions” and “precepts of men” that Jewish leaders added to this “Word of God” (Matt 15:1-9). It does however include what had been not fully said (i.e, what Paul later referred to as “mysteries” = “hidden truths” (cf. in this post #132603, indeed the ‘mysteries of God’s Kingdom), and “misunderstood” by the people.

Tom: Why are you making this point?


Because on the one hand, as I fully see it, indeed as seen in your comment below, you are, in your view, by implication conflating what the OT revelation itself (i.e., the OT in its written form) actually was, with what men had come to think it was. On the other hand, this “OT revelation” already included the elements of the New Covenant “Gospel” that Paul was going to more fully preach. Indeed Paul repeatedly used to OT to preach His New Covenant message.

Quote:
NJK: Furthermore, the Character of God inclusively includes Justice, as indeed seen throughout the OT. So that was to also be involved in Christ whole/complete revelation.

Tom: Yes, but justice is often misunderstood as involving violence and/or vengeance (as human's think of it).


You are here conflatingly applying what man think to what God had revealed in the OT. Again, God’s use of force for judgement, or to win a war/battle is not “violence.” And God, who clearly says “vengeance is mine” (Lev 26:25; Num 31:1-3; Deut 32:35 [=Rom 12:19, Heb 10:30], 41, 43; Judge 11:36; Isa 34:8; 35:4; 47:3; 59:17; 61:2; 63:1-6; Jer 20:12; 46:10; 50:15; 50:28; 51:6, 11; Psa 18:47; 94:1; Ezek 24:8; 25:12-17; Mic 5:15; cf. Exod 15:1-21) justly exacts retributive justice (= vengeance Jer 11:20; 51:36) on those who have caused damaged to Him and/or His people.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Is this what we see in Christ's life and character?


As Luke 18:7, 8; 21:22=(Isa 61:2; 63:1-6); cf. 2 Thess 1:7, 8 show, Jesus didn’t have your unbiblical problem with ‘Divine vengeance’.

I form my Theological View by what God said and accurately revealed through these inspired men, including Jesus Himself.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Or do we see justice as explained here:

Originally Posted By: Bible
“Thus says the LORD of hosts:

‘ Execute true justice,
Show mercy and compassion
Everyone to his brother.
10 Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless,
The alien or the poor.
Let none of you plan evil in his heart
Against his brother.’ (Zech. 9:7;NJKV)


That text is actually Zech 7:9, 10; and for many exegetical reasons the NASB has the more accurate translation here. Most significantly, the word “mercy” in the NKJV is actually “lovingkindness” (and thus not “judicial mercy”). True, justice, as God has said, shown/legislated and done, involves exacting due retribution which can simply be in the form of paying a fine and/or for actual damages. And verse 9 & 10 is not an ‘explanation of justice’. It is a distinct and self-contained single and stipulation. The NASB’s better translation bring this out better.

Did you involve any exegesis here in choosing the NKJV over the NASB or did you just choose what you saw best support your view??!

Quote:
NJK: Christ’s revelation reforms in this regard involved the perfect righteousness that is to be involved when Justice/Judgement is done, as seen in the episode of the Woman caught in adultery. Indeed not too many, if any, can actually cast a first stone here.

Tom: I don't see what this has to do with the point I made. This is the point I made, to which you are responding here:

Originally Posted By: Tom
So Christ accomplished the revelation of the character of the Father to the world. If this had already been done, Christ would not have had to have come, since the whole purpose of His mission was the revelation of God.


Tom: How does what you're saying relate to this point?


Simple: (A) I was completing my statement that “the Character of God inclusively includes Justice.”

(B) The revelation of God’s Justice is part of what Jesus revealed and established in righteousness for judicious measures that God’s people had to execute themselves.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/21/11 05:37 PM

[Your “Reply” Posting is incorrect here again. Your are again replying to yourself. It can be a great time waster to someone not familiar with this thread sequence.]

Quote:
NJK: There is also the issue that I see that it is wrongly believed that Biblical writers themselves had a wrong view of the character of God while it seems evident to me that this statement speaks of how Israel in general came to view God.

Tom: They certainly didn't have as clear a view of the character of God as Jesus Christ.

NJK: That is besides the point.

Tom: No it's not. The point is that the whole purpose of Christ's earthly mission was the revelation of God, and that had this revelation already been accomplished, Christ need not have come. That's the context of the discussion. So that the Bible writers did not has a clear a view of God's character as Christ did is to the point.


It substantively is besides the point for the substantiating reasons that went on to state. The OT revelation was perfect in itself. The people’s added misconceptions are what need to be addressed and Christ added furthering and fulfilling revelations. The Inspired Bible writers got God’s revelation right. It was the people who misunderstood that revelation. And to say that these Bible writers got it wrong, implies that God Himself wrongly expressed, legislated and/or otherwise reveal it. I am not going down that slippery slope!

Quote:
NJK: The revelation of these (OT) Bible writers, set out in writing under the inspiration of God’s Spirit was precisely what God wanted to be fully understood then. Later in Jesus Christ, God only ‘made more full’ what He had previously said, legislated and inspired. And again, as per the focus of this thread, this fuller revelation in Christ did not change the actual substance of “historical” OT episodes, indeed as they are properly recorded. To make this apply to your view, you need to show statements from Christ which e.g., change the substantive/historical records of OT events. And again, the misperception of people in Christ day was not on what had occurred, but the wrong conclusion they drew from what had occurred.

Tom: On what do you base this assertion? How do you know there wasn't a misunderstanding as to what had occurred?


Seriously??? Well then, simply said, because these OT writers would copiously preface their statements with qualifiers along the lines of: ‘The Lord said’; by Jesus’ full endorsement of the OT as well as other NT writers, never engaging to correct its accounts, and passages like 2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:20. I’ll go by these: “Thus says the Lord” than by anything man may fancifully suppose.

Quote:
NJK: As in your case, you read of Nadab and Abihu being burnt alive by a Fire from God and you, effectively, wrongly conclude that this “would” show/mean that God is violent. The principles in Christ’s revelation, which profusely included the teaching of Hell Fire judgement by Him/God (e.g., sLuke 12: 49, 50; cf. Rev 20:14) and its “fiery” physical torment (e.g., Matt 10:28; Mark 9:42-50/Matt 18:7-11).

NJK: So like these misguided first century Jews, you need to allow/trust Jesus’ teaching and revelations that the OT was not “violent” in doing those judgement, nor in doing them again in the NT Era through the end of this GC. God was rather quite Just and indeed, all things taken into proper consideration, Loving. Indeed many will be eternally saved because of these most strikingly, deserving, warning, ‘object lesson actions/judgement of God. (Cf. 2 Pet 2:5, 6).

Tom: When Christ was urged to destroy the Samaritans, how did He respond?


A simple exegetical Biblical study here clearly shows that Jesus’ rebuking answer was in the light of the fact that the Gospel had deliberately not been preached, as it duly, fully, should be, throughout Samaria (cf. Matt 10:5; Acts 1:8; cf. Matt 1:22-24); (perhaps only in Sychar (John 4:4, 5, 28, 39-42)). So calling fire down from Heaven to destroy these probably Gospel unaware Samaritans of Luke 9:52 who were indeed only surfacely rejecting Christ because He was traveling towards Jerusalem (vs. 53) was in keeping with the OT God who did not execute a destruction until relatively sufficient “saving/sparing” light had first be properly given. So that action would indeed be against God’s Spirit, indeed including the OT God.

In the episode of Elijah (2 Kgs 1:1-16) that the disciples were seeking to use as a basis Amaziah, the son of Ahab, was acting idolatrously and thus clearly in full light, especially after the reform of Ahab. So when he, being vexed as Elijah’s original condemnatory and intercepting answer sent an army contingent to effectively force Ahab to come to him and, by implication, make a favorable prophetic pronouncement at the risk of his life, (as if it worked that way) Elijah was fully in accordance with God’s Spirit to twice call down fire upon the army contingent that came to him, innately threateningly ordering him to follow them in the name of the (already condemned) king. Evidently Amaziah haughtily thought that God’s prophet could only say something valid/binding upon him when he had first called upon “his services.” Also by calling Elijah “man of God”, the army commanders showed that they fully knew who Elijah was. Indeed, as God responded to Elijah’s request, it was all in perfect harmony with the Spirit of God.

On the other hand these Samaritans were not acting in the light of such knowledge and also not pointedly against Jesus with a general or personal knowledge that He was God’s Messiah. So a fire judgement here would-be an undeserved judgement for, moreoverly an unaware of wrong, -something that God never does. (cf. Jon 4:1,2, 4, 9-11).

Originally Posted By: Tom
This statement is really odd:

Originally Posted By: NJK
So like these misguided first century Jews, you need to allow/trust Jesus’ teaching and revelations that the OT was not “violent” in doing those judgement...


The misguided first century Jews needed to trust Jesus' teaching that OT was not "violent"? You think that they perceived these events like I do?


Expressional “typo.” I actually meant that: ‘like these misguided first century Jews, you need to trust the wisdom and knowledge Jesus. And in regards to pointedly to you that is to allow/trust Jesus’ teaching and revelations that the OT God was not “violent” in doing those judgement. Indeed Jesus never spoke anything against those OT actions.

Quote:
NJK: E.g., there was a perfect typological law of blood sacrifices represent what God would have to do to redeem man for their sins, however the people understood this to mean that God was bloodthirsty.

Tom: Which people? Why do you think they thought that? I think they thought of the sacrifices in general very, very differently to how we, who have been very heavily influenced by Anselm, do.

NJK: By explicit and implicit implication, the people of God who thought that God was “pleased,” or ‘to be pleased,’ by merely offering sacrifices. Pointedly: Judah/Jerusalem (e.g., Isa 1:10-13a ff; Jer 20:6b): “Zion” (Psa 50:13, 14; 23; cf. Heb 13:16); ‘Israel’ (Mal 1:10; 1 Sam 15:20-22; cf. DA 509.1-2).

Tom: You said the blood sacrifices led the people to thing God was bloodthirsty. I asked you why you think this. You responded by saying that the people thought that God was pleased merely by offering sacrifices. I don't see why you would think this meant the people viewed God as bloodthirsty.


In the texts I cited, the shedding of blood was often, (and that incontrovertibly, synonymously) disgusteldy spoken of by God in trying to show the people that this did not please/appease Him as they thought. Indeed during feasts like the Passover, blood flowed from the Temple in streams.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Why wouldn't it mean that they viewed that God was pleased by their offering sacrifices? ... Not all sacrifices involved blood.


Indeed because all sacrifices involved the shedding of blood. An animal “offering” was not a “sacrifice”. And just like one ‘cannot make an omelet without breaking an egg’, an animal was not, and cannot be, “sacrificed” without first being killed and thus shedding its blood. Sacrificial animals were not (oxymoronically) “sacrificed alive”.

Originally Posted By: Tom
What do you think the meaning of sacrifice was in Hebrew culture?


What the Bible teaches about/for an animal sacrifice. The question actually is what do you think???

Quote:
NJK: This is what probably led them to seek other gods who were not so (seemingly) death and blood “demanding” and/or even espouse gods like Molech who required child sacrifices.

Tom: You're saying they viewed Jehovah to be more bloodthirsty than Molech, who demanded child sacrifices, which is why they turned to Molech?

NJK: No actually. Molech was in a distinct ‘type of God’ context. I had said that Israel probably turned to some foreign gods which required no sacrifices compared to their own God. Indeed, as the same underlying principle is posited today, it was “economically” more logical to obey a god that e.g., did not require one to make sacrifices from quite valuable livestock. The same personal wealth amassing excuse is used by many people, e.g., in regards to tithing, or conversely going along with Capitalism vs. God’s socio-economic principles.

Tom: So you're saying that a god who would require merely the sacrifice of one's own children was preferred to One who required the heavier sacrifice of cattle? So you believe the Hebrews viewed cattle as more valuable than their children? And that's why the preferred Molech?


I don’t see what ‘heaviness’/weight has to do with it. The value of a creature was not a matter of its weight. Thus children were technically more valuable than a cattle, and so, I see that in the minds of people who obviously had a ‘my god knows best view’ a God that required the extreme sacrifice of a child would be seen as being ready/willing to do much more for its worshipper than the God of Israel who require an animal.

Economically speaking, offering a child, which actually would be done ca. 1 per year vs. the panoply of sacrifices, and other offerings, that were require by the God of Israel could be seen a less costly given that all these animals would economically cost much more than a newborn child. Let alone the cost of not having to care for this newborn for next 20 years and virtually the rest of its life through the due “living inheritance” of farmland.

Quote:
NJK: In regards to Molech, I meant that Israel, who had a wrong understanding that God was “bloodthirsty” and was merely pleased with the shedding of blood in sacrifice, probably thus surfacely saw Molech as being a “greater god” by requiring the “blood” of their own children.

Tom: Wouldn't this mean this god was requiring a greater sacrifice? But above you said they turned to foreign gods which required less sacrifice than theirs did.


When the economic realities are taken into account, it could easily be seen, as today, that sacrificing a newborn child instead of spending money and wealth on the child, and also on many livestock sacrifices and various wealth offerings every year for years, was a much better “religious deal.” That indeed is the underlying economic reason for abortions, endorsed even by professed Christians, including the SDA Church in regards to “elective” abortions. (I.e., For SDA’s: it is better to have an abortion for a woman that will not be “psychologically” be able to deal with that child, than to let it be born and take it, or give it into adoption or raise it in an orphanage.

Quote:
Tom: I think they more likely turned to Molech for reasons analogous to why people turn to Catholicism.

NJK: Do elaborate/explain. I don’t see the correlation. Catholic rituals don’t include child sacrifices, in fact no (actual) sacrifices at all.

Tom: Catholicism has rites which enable the practitioner to continue in sin, while soothing the conscience. The true religion of Christ involves a doing away with sin. People will choose religions systems, which have a yoke which is heavy, over the yoke of Christ, which is light.


Understood. I get that derived view of yours here now.

Quote:
NJK (edited): So the misunderstanding was in the mind of the people but not with the Biblical writer. Indeed God’s Spirit would not let such a misconception be recorded as Scripture/The Word of God.

Tom: Light is progressive. We need to bear in mind that at the time the OT was written, Christ had not yet come. The coming of Christ shed a great deal of light.

NJK: As this is all in relation to e.g., who actually did destructions in the OT, I see no Biblical, I.e., later OT, NT, SOP) evidence that contradict what had priorly revealed as taking place.

Tom: The contradiction is not with what had been previously been revealed, but with people's perceptions of what had been revealed. I've made this point repeatedly.


So then why are you (exegetically) ignoring and/or rewording what has been revealed. The facts here show that this has not been the point you have been making. As I said before, you may think you are, with such benign assertions/statement of principles, but in actual practice that is not what you are doing, therefore, at the very least, not what your view of your claim actually, concretely means when applied by you.

Quote:
NJK: Further revelations in such regards only confirmed, and that with greater details, what had been previously expressed by these Inspired Bible Writers.

Tom: Same comment.


Well then: same answer.

Quote:
NJK: The direct statements of God are not subject to such future enlightening as the Bible writers then just recorded what they had “heard”. This is synonymous with EGW’s “I was shown” revelations in which she many times heard direct statements from God. In fact, I see that the revelation of these OT writers were probably identical to the direct ones given to EGW in that they “heard” many of these statements in those divine visions and dreams and recorded it. They also may have more clearly “heard” the voice of God while fully awake/conscious and proceed to record verbatim, what they had heard/been told.

Tom: What a person perceives is colored by their mind-set, their world view, their paradigm, etc. No inspired writer perceived things as clearly as Christ did, and none could reveal God's character as clearly as He.


They did not have to merely write what they perceived. In many ways like it was seen with EGW, what they wrote from solely what they had perceived, was based upon the many various direct statements and revelations of God in the OT. An a historical account is not a perception. And Jesus did not contradict anything that these Biblical writers had written. As I said earlier, I only see Moses making a further clarification of what Job had not fully perceived as the only partially applicable incident for this claim of yours. Yet Moses Himself did that “further specifying”. Indeed this shows how faithful he was to record things exactly as they were revealed and/or told to him, as he could easily have edited Job’s statement in Job 1:21.

Quote:
NJK: You also often say that OT people had an incorrect understanding of who was doing an action in the Bible,

Tom: Actually I've never said this.

NJK: Perhaps not verbatim, but you have actually meant this.

Tom: No, this isn't what I meant, or mean.


As I substantiated with your own words, that is what, at the very least, was straightforwardly understood by what you had said.

Quote:
NJK: That is indeed what I understood by your repeat (though unsubstantiated) statement: that ‘the Bible often presents God doing that which He permits’ (e.g., the latest in Post #133509). Clearly that logically means to you that ‘these Bible writers had written that God had done something when He had actually only permitted it to be done, and that by someone/something else, moreover independent of His effectuating energy.’

Tom: This involves the action being done, not simply who is doing it.


As I straightforwardly/logically see it, this is just the secondary meaning to your statement.

Originally Posted By: Tom
For example, consider the case of God's sending fiery serpents upon the Israelites. What actually happened was God permitted the serpents who were already there to harm the Israelites,


No. The Bible, not contradicted by EGW’s “protection withdrawal” statement, says that God forcefully made the serpents go in the midst of the people, and with “forced interest”. Responsibly deal with those exegetical facts, instead of ignoring them.

Originally Posted By: Tom
which action He had been actively preventing until that point.


Which is why ‘not preventing’ it any more is an act of His, and this scientifically would involve him putting a threatened fear of the people in these serpents even causing them in this way to go in the midst of the camp. However God may have distinctly done this drawing act.

Originally Posted By: Tom
So the problem was not with who was doing the action (clearly it was the snakes),


Clearly... but not in how you are understanding this “doing”. The doing was an active act of God.

Originally Posted By: Tom
but with what action was taking place (God was permitting them to attack the Israelites, as opposed to sending the snakes to attack them).


That was just the means for God to do this act of judgement. God actually “forcefully” made them do it.

Quote:
NJK: and while that substantively only applies to the episode of Job,

Tom: What is "that" here?

NJK: As I went on to (disprovingly) say (see below): “where God permitted Satan to do the destruction”, that “that” clearly refers to this notion of ‘God being said to do something which he had only permitted to be done’.

Tom: You're saying that the notion of God being said to do something which He only permitted to be done, in terms of Satan being permitted to cause destruction, applies only to the episode in Job?


Right.

Originally Posted By: Tom
That is, at no other time did this occur?


I don’t see any other. Cite others if you can, and like I said, not the prime 7 you have cited which have been exegetically disproven/debunked.

Quote:
NJK: where God permitted Satan to do the destruction, these inspired Bible writers (Moses for the book of Job) actually rightly understood that if something was done against God’s people it ultimately was because God had permitted it,

Tom: Everybody has already understood this. God is omnipotent, which has always been understood, so that if something happens, it's because God permitted it.

NJK: Really|Seriously|Truthfully|Honestly, Tom!??? Another sly, retroactive switch of views on your part here???? If your really believe/always believed so, then why do you keep on insisting on citing Job 1:21 as ‘a mistake of understanding by Bible writers.’ E.g.:

Originally Posted By: Tom Post #132613
“God is often presented as doing that which He permits in Scripture. For example... It says in Job that the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, but this was said by one who didn't know of Satan's existence. When the curtain is pulled away, we see that it was an enemy who caused the things which happened to Job.”


NJK: (Obviously you also did not at all mean in regards to “cause” that: ‘Satan “caused” and God actually physically “did”’.)

NJK: Indeed the truth was always that both Job and Moses knew exactly what they were talking about here when Job said, and then Moses later faithfully related, that Job 1:21 statement.

Tom: I've got no idea what your point here is.


You prior points had been that Bible writers, in this case Moses and Job was wrong in Job 1:21 in saying that ‘God was “doing” while we know that God was not “doing”. Your point here has always been to support your view that Bible writers understood such things wrongly so this is an example where Jesus’ revelation later help us to see that God was not ‘doing’ as it was indicated in the Bible there, but had only permitted. You never attributed this notion correctness to Moses or even Job themselves. That is what I did in my reply and then you ensued by claiming that this is what you actually always believed, when in fact your claims had been that both Moses and Job were completely wrong here, without any notion of permitting here.

Quote:
Tom: You wrote:

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
if something was done against God’s people it ultimately was because God had permitted it,


Tom: Isn't this patently obvious? Who doesn't believe this to be the case?


No... Furthermore and pertinently, not to Israel. Many times why they persisted in sin was because they did not see a destruction, loss or damage as being either from God Himself and/or if done by a foreign entity/agency, as a judgement permitted by God. That is e.g., why they refused to surrender to Babylon as God had commanded through Jeremiah, hence 3 subsequent destructive campaigns; and also the actionable reason why Jerusalem was completely destroyed in 70 A.D. The same spirit existed in the time of EGW with the Sanitarium and Review and Herald Publishing house fires. Indeed those people, along the implicated lines of your view, merely saw these judgement as something natural, normal and/or man-made and not at all from God in any way/part.

That is also something that Jesus had to design in order for it to be clearly realized by the Jewish leaders of his day.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Why would you characterize my pointing out how obvious this is as


For the reasons sated above.

And, while this was obvious to “these Bible writers” which included the many prophetic/inspired people who God would raise up to point out/emphasize this Divine origin, not everyone in God’s own people throughout Biblical History) had/has already understood this’. So it is not ‘obvious to everyone,’ and that even with people today. And that is indeed the effectively/ultimately “no fault” mindset that Bible writers had to constantly speak against.

Quote:
NJK: Another sly, retroactive switch of views on your part here????

Tom: I've always viewed this as obvious, and think anyone would, and don't know anyone who doesn't, and have no idea why you would think my pointing this out would be a switch of views, let alone worthy of an insult.


Because that is not what you were “obviously” saying about Job’s statement before. You were just saying he was plain wrong in saying God was doing when, outsiders, and that people today, knew that it was involving God permittance. When I said it was Moses, and even Job, who had that notion in mind, you now claimed that this was pointedly always your view.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Do you have no concept of how insulting your writing is?


As usual Pointing out your misdoings is not an insult. And it was just building upon the previous sly switching you had done as pointed out in a previous post and that you just did not answer. I assume that you did read it though. So it stands as factually shown that you had acted slyly there. Why do you expect that I should just accept such things from you?? I always have been reacting to your quite disrespectful action, however you just can’t see/believe/admit/accept that you can’t ever do any wrong and so whoever matter-of-factly points out your trespasses and wrong is just being “uncivilized” and “insulting”. You indifferently think way too highly of yourself.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Do you do this on purpose, or out of ignorance?


Why is pointing out that you are acting slyly be ignorant. Take the time, however long it takes, to make truthful statements, and to answer especially such factually pointed out “slyness”. Otherwise, your really have no credit, nor could/should be given any benefit of the doubt. Indeed you could have answered those prior posts prior to answering this later ones. But your actually disrespectful non-answers made worse by the repeating of your there disproven, but later repeated claims, are supposed to be silently accepted by me, as also seen in your dealings with others. Seems indeed clear to me that you have a problem with pride, on top of mindless/indifferent guilefulness, as seen with your spurious “no time” excuses and selective answering practices. You clearly have time for what you want to answer. I.e., what you think you can answer.

Originally Posted By: Tom
If you're going to accuse me of something ugly, please have the common decency of at least substantiating your ugly claim with some morsel of evidence.


What the problem here... By citing your previous statement I did not do this ‘common decency evidentiary substantiation’??? You clearly saw this cited “morsel of evidence” here. If you don’t think it is, then that is a completely different story. I think that it supported and supports my accusation against you. As also done in the prior cases of your view switching “slyness”. (And do look them up for yourself. I am not your personal secretary. I stated them once, you make a note of it and/or retrace them yourself.)

Originally Posted By: Tom
Where have I switched a view?


As quoted above between what you had said in Post #132613 and what you said in Post #133594

Originally Posted By: Tom
I've been consistently saying the same things over and over again.


Not with this ‘intrinsic correct/corrected view’ sense.

Quote:
Tom: Here's the issue:

Originally Posted By: SOP DA 471.1
It was generally believed by the Jews that sin is punished in this life. Every affliction was regarded as the penalty of some wrongdoing, either of the sufferer himself or of his parents. It is true that all suffering results from the transgression of God's law, but this truth had become perverted. Satan, the author of sin and all its results, had led men to look upon disease and death as proceeding from God,--as punishment arbitrarily inflicted on account of sin. Hence one upon whom some great affliction or calamity had fallen had the additional burden of being regarded as a great sinner.


NJK: The issue here, without using the method of building a teaching on a single verse/passage, was that affliction and calamity were not always, and that arbitrarily, a judgement of God, but many times simply the natural results of sin and also disobedience to God’s laws which served to avert many of these adversities. Yet that does not isolatively mean that God never directly inflict the punishment of disease and death. As I see Biblically clearly it, when God needs to deservingly/judiciously effectuate such a punishment, and there is no immediate natural/organic consequence for the sin, He then either does it Himself, or commissions His Angels to do it, or stirs up foreign nations/powers, or even permits Satan and/or his angels, to do it. Indeed even EGW who made this DA 471.1 statement, did not see this as you do, as in e.g., GC 614.2.

Tom: From GC 614:

Originally Posted By: SOP
When He leaves the sanctuary, darkness covers the inhabitants of the earth. In that fearful time the righteous must live in the sight of a holy God without an intercessor. The restraint which has been upon the wicked is removed, and Satan has entire control of the finally impenitent. God's long-suffering has ended. The world has rejected His mercy, despised His love, and trampled upon His law. The wicked have passed the boundary of their probation; the Spirit of God, persistently resisted, has been at last withdrawn. Unsheltered by divine grace, they have no protection from the wicked one. Satan will then plunge the inhabitants of the earth into one great, final trouble. As the angels of God cease to hold in check the fierce winds of human passion, all the elements of strife will be let loose. The whole world will be involved in ruin more terrible than that which came upon Jerusalem of old.


Tom: This is bringing out the same points I have been. This is the context of GC 614.2.

Tom: Regarding the issue, what EGW points out is that Satan has induced people to view when bad things happen to people that this is a punishment from God, as opposed to an action originating from him (Satan), or a consequence of sin. Given that sin has bad consequences, it is not necessary for God to impose artificial bad consequences of His own. It's sufficient for Him to allow the bad consequences already inherent in a sinful world to effect any desired judgments.


You are confusing the issues/statements here. In GC 614.2 EGW is not saying that the OT judgements that she relates ‘were done by an executioner other than God/His Angels as spoken of as a secondary executionary possibility in GC 35-37.’ She is speaking of God’s power to do such judgements, and that against either Israel or foreign peoples. She is just now saying that Evil Angels also have this power when God allows them to exercise it. Indeed she is only seeing this type of Satan done judgement during the 7 Last Plagues. (The Bible however indicates that this will only be during the last of those Plagues.) And so she is seeing the same means of judgement execution that was seen for the utter destruction f Jerusalem as also being applicable in those 7 Last Plague (again actually only during the 7th).

Indeed if EGW was blanketly applying the secondary method of judgement execution, i.e., either when God does not want to control how things turn out and/or not have mercy or do a destruction on a people that Satan surely will not accept to destroy himself as they were in his devoted service, then she would have made in those GC 614.2 events the kind of substitutions for “natural events” that you are seeking to blanketly make.

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Also by God legislating that some sins should be capital punished wile others were not, He Himself had clearly shown that not all sins would immediately result in a divinely ordained consequence of death.


[No comment by your here??]

Quote:
NJK: even if a different agency was employed to carry out that action.

Tom: If the same agency was employed, which would be God, then, of course, it would be understood that God permitted the action.

NJK: I don’t get your point here.

Tom: You wrote:

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
You also often say that OT people had an incorrect understand of who was doing an action in the Bible, and while that substantively only applies to the episode of Job, where God permitted Satan to do the destruction, these inspired Bible writers (Moses for the book of Job) actually rightly understood that if something was done against God’s people it ultimately was because God had permitted it, even if a different agency was employed to carry out that action.


Tom: That's an awfully long sentence, by the way.

Tom: You said that if something was done against God’s people, it ultimately was because God had permitted it, even if a different agency was employed to carry out that action. Consider the first part of this:

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
If something was done against God’s people, it ultimately was because God had permitted it.


Tom: Now if God was the agency involved, then of course God permitted it, because the agency would be Himself in this case. In other words, what your saying doesn't make sense. You say, "even if a different agency was employed," when it only makes sense that a different agency was employed.


I see that you have confused my point with your own added ‘obvious application’ which actually is not even being needed to be mentioned. Indeed I did not even think of it, as it is not logically valid, but circularly non-rationale. I.e., If God is actively doing something, it cannot even be logically said that He is “permitting” it, since he is doing. That also here implies unfair/undeserved action especially as it is being done “despite” one self.

I was only focusing on the logical circumstance when the agency is not seen/concretely known by the “patient” to be God and/or is a foreign entity. In such cases, the “patient” or Bible writer, especially when a faithful believer in God, as Job was, will defaulty see God as permitting it, despite not actually knowing for sure, even at all.

Quote:
NJK: The Bible is indeed full of such ‘same Divine agency’ examples. Indeed I rationally see that when the Bible says/shows that God directly did something, then it not only means that ‘He permitted it’ but also that He did it.

Tom: So when it says God killed Saul, God did that.


You are seriously still thinking and asking/making that question/statement. As I already pointed out, the Bible exegetically clearly says, in using a Hiphil, that God was indirectly involved in this, using an agency to do this killing. Probably a commissioned angel.

Originally Posted By: Tom
And when God sent fiery serpents against the Israelites, God did that.


Again you need to engage Biblical exegesis. The Bible is clear that God did this, and that here “forcefully and directly”. EGW may have missed this point, though she does quote the Bible’s “God sent” in her writings, yet her ‘protection withdrawal’ no way contradicts this. Also God wanted to do an object lesson here and thus involve mercy and limits. So he surely was directly involved.

Originally Posted By: Tom
And when God "took away" from Job, God did that.


Moses had correctly revealed what Job did not know but had ultimately still rightly claimed.

Originally Posted By: Tom
And when God sent strong delusion against those who love not the truth, God did that too.


Already discussed. Nothing more to add.

Originally Posted By: Tom
So whenever God acts indirectly, you see this as God acting directly? That seems to be what you're saying.


That’s not what the Bible is exegetically saying in all of those situations. Sometimes God acted directly, sometimes through an agency. It is clear on those agency distinctions.

Quote:
NJK: That is however slightly different in cases where the Bible says that God had commissioned an Angel to do the work of judgement. In such cases, God did not actually directly do the action. Still it is generally considered as a Divinely-done judgement.

Tom: Generally?


Yes “generally.” Whether God directly does the destruction (Fire from heaven) or through a commissioned angel (the slaughter of the Assyrians, judgements for David’s sin) they both fall under the “general heading” of a “Divinely-done judgement” (I.e., through an Heavenly Being, whether God Himself or an Angel(s))....

Originally Posted By: Tom
When would it not be considered as such?


.....vs. when done through/by an Earthly agency.

Originally Posted By: Tom
(More later)


I’ve heard that many times before... We’ll see...
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/21/11 07:04 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
Originally Posted By: MM
T: You wrote as if God were responsible for the things you were speaking of. I addressed that by pointing out that it would be a huge mistake to view God as responsible, and cited texts to explain why.

M:1. Of course Jesus was responsible for ensuring evil angels did not exceed the limits He imposed on them. That is, Jesus did not let them cause more death and destruction than He was willing to permit. Do you agree?


What would a disagreement to this look like? That Jesus let them cause more death and destruction than He was willing to permit?

Quote:
2. Do you agree Jesus worked to prevent evil men and evil angels from inflicting more death and destruction than He was willing to permit?


I believe that Jesus worked to prevent evil men and evil angels from inflicting death and destruction in general.

Quote:
Or, do you think evil men and evil angels willingly restrained themselves in order not to displease God and exceed Jesus’ limits?


This can't be a serious question.

Quote:
3. Also, did evil men and evil angels do anything Jesus' wasn't willing to permit?


I don't see the sense in this one either. God is omnipotent, right? So anything that happens can only happen if He permits it to happen, isn't that right?

Quote:
4. Did Jesus force evil men and evil angels to inflict the death and destruction He deemed right and necessary?


I don't see any sense in this question either. No, of course not, to answer the question. First of all, the exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government. Secondly, Jesus would hardly force people to do something contrary to the principles of his government, like inflicting death and destruction; that's Satan's job. Satan is the destroyer, Christ is the restorer. So your question is asking if Jesus would use a principle contrary to the principles of His government to bring about more consequences also contrary to the principles of His government.

Quote:
5. Were evil men and evil angels free to refuse to inflict the death and destruction Jesus deemed right and necessary?


I don't agree with your premise here. Jesus doesn't deem death and destruction as right and necessary, but as evil, which it is.

Quote:
6. Who would have inflicted the death and destruction Jesus deemed right and necessary if the Roman soldiers and evil angels had refused to do it?


Again, I disagree with the premise here.

I have no idea what your answers are to my questions. Please elaborate. Thank you.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/21/11 07:07 PM

Tom, you say that in the past you have plainly stated who caused fire to blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned N&A alive. For the life of me I cannot recall what you said about it. For the record, would you please state it again here and now? I know you believe Jesus withdraws His protection and permits His enemies, within the limits He imposes on them, to punish and destroy impenitent sinners. But in the case of N&A I have absolutely no idea who you believe caused fire to blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned them alive. Regarding the punishment and death of N&A, Ellen wrote:

Quote:
"God consumed them by fire for their positive disregard of His express directions."

"This was a transgression of God's express command, and his judgment speedily followed."

"For this sin, a fire went out from the Lord, and devoured them in the sight of the people."

"Nadab and Abihu were slain by the fire of God's wrath for their intemperance in the use of wine."

"Fire from his presence destroyed them in their sin."

"By the offering of "strange fire," they disregarded God's command, and they were slain by His judgments."

"A fire blazed out from the holy of holies and consumed them."

"God visited them with His wrath; fire went forth from His presence and destroyed them."

"God forbade any manifestation of grief for Nadab and Abihu, even on the part of their nearest relatives, "lest ye die," he said, "and lest wrath come upon all the people: but let your brethren, the whole house of Israel, bewail the burning which the Lord hath kindled."

Nowhere does she say or imply anyone other than Jesus burned N&A alive. And yet you seem to think she believed Jesus did not cause fire to blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned N&A alive. Isn’t it obvious to you, based on all the quotes I posted above, that she clearly, plainly said it was Jesus who employed the fire that burned N&A alive? If not, where does she specifically say otherwise?

Quote:
M: In fact, the following testimony presents a view very different than the one you are advocating:

Quote:
God is exact to mark iniquity. Sins of thoughtlessness, negligence, forgetfulness, and even ignorance, have been visited by some of the most wonderfully marked manifestations of his displeasure. Many who have suffered terrible punishment for their sins, might have pleaded as plausibly as do those of today who fall into similar errors, that they meant no harm, and some would even say that they thought they were doing God service; but the light shone on them, and they disregarded it. {ST, July 17, 1884 par. 7}

Let us look at some of the examples found in sacred history. Assisted by his sons, Aaron had offered the sacrifices that God required; and he lifted up his hands and blessed the people. All had been done as God commanded, and he accepted the sacrifice, and revealed his glory in a most remarkable manner; for fire came from the Lord, and consumed the offering upon the altar. The people looked upon this wonderful manifestation of divine power with awe and intense interest. They saw in it a token of his glory and his favor, and they raised a universal shout of praise and adoration, and fell on their faces, as if in the immediate presence of Jehovah. {ST, July 17, 1884 par. 8}

As the prayers and praise of the people were ascending before God, two of the sons of Aaron took each his censer, and burned fragrant incense thereon, to arise as a sweet odor before God. But they had partaken too freely of wine, and used strange fire, contrary to the Lord's commandment. And the wrath of God was kindled against Nadab and Abihu for their disobedience, and a fire went out from the Lord, and devoured them in the sight of the people. By this judgment God designed to teach the people that they must approach him with reverence and awe, and in his own appointed manner. He is not pleased with partial obedience. It was not enough that in this solemn season of worship nearly everything was done as he commanded. {ST, July 17, 1884 par. 9}

The Lord sent Samuel to King Saul with a special message. "Go," he said, "and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." Saul was faithful and zealous in performing a part of his commission. He smote the Amalekites with a great slaughter; but he took the proposition of the people before the command of God, and spared Agag, the king, and "the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good." {ST, July 17, 1884 par. 10}

The Lord commanded Saul to "utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them until they be consumed." The Lord knew that this wicked nation would, if it were possible, blot out his people and his worship from the earth; and for this reason he had commanded that even the little children should be cut off. But Saul had spared the king, the most wicked and merciless of them all; one who had hated and destroyed the people of God, and whose influence had been strongest to promote idolatry. {ST, July 17, 1884 par. 11}

Saul thought he had done all that was essential of that which the Lord commanded him to do. Perhaps he even flattered himself that he was more merciful than his Maker, as do some unbelievers in our day. He met Samuel with the salutation, "Blessed be thou of the Lord; I have performed the commandment of the Lord." But when the prophet asked what meant the bleating of the sheep and the lowing of the oxen which he heard, Saul was obliged to confess that the people had taken of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the chief of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice to the Lord in Gilgal. {ST, July 17, 1884 par. 12}

Did the Lord accept this justification of Saul's conduct? Was he pleased with this partial obedience, and willing to pass over the trifle that had been neglected out of so good a motive? Saul did what he thought was best, and would not the Lord commend such excellent judgment? No. Said Samuel, "Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king." {ST, July 17, 1884 par. 13}

These instances show how God looks upon his professed people when they obey part of his commandments while in other respects they follow a course of their own choosing. Let no one flatter himself that a part of God's requirements are nonessential. He has placed no command in his word that men may obey or disobey at will, and not suffer the consequences. If men choose any other path than that of strict obedience, they will find that "the end thereof are the ways of death."
{ST, July 17, 1884 par. 14}

M: You seem to be making the same argument King Saul did, namely, that by sparing the life of Agag he was being merciful the way he imagined Jesus preferred. But Jesus punished him for being presumptuous.

T: Regarding Saul's purpose, we read: “This victory over the Amalekites was the most brilliant victory that Saul had ever gained, and it served to rekindle the pride of heart that was his greatest peril. The divine edict devoting the enemies of God to utter destruction was but partially fulfilled. Ambitious to heighten the honor of his triumphal return by the presence of a royal captive, Saul ventured to imitate the customs of the nations around him and spared Agag, the fierce and warlike king of the Amalekites. The people reserved for themselves the finest of the flocks, herds, and beasts of burden, excusing their sin on the ground that the cattle were reserved to be offered as sacrifices to the Lord. It was their purpose, however, to use these merely as a substitute, to save their own cattle. {CC 156.3} This points out that Saul's purpose was selfish and proud. To think that Saul's argument here was the same as mine would seem to indicate you're either misunderstanding Saul's argument or mine. Here is mine:

1.All that we can know of God was revealed by Jesus Christ.
2.The whole purpose of His mission was the revelation of God.
3.Jesus Christ did not reveal God as One who uses force to get His way, or compelling power, or One who burns people alive to punish them for not doing His will.

Here's an issue I see with your way of thinking. You appear to believe that it's OK to kill people who are not doing God's will, if you believe God is telling you to do so. I think that's dangerous, especially given the fact that this is exactly what's going to happen during the last plagues (i.e., people will try to kill those whom they think are not doing God's will, and will think they are doing God's will by so doing). What in Jesus' life or character would lead you to believe that He wants to burn people alive if they don't do what He says? Where did He ever do anything even remotely similar to this? How did He respond when it was suggested He do so? Where during His mission did Jesus ever even physically harm any person, even in the slightest manner?

In the ST July 17, 1884 passage I quoted above she makes it clear it was Jesus who employed fire to burn N&A alive. Nothing she said implies it was someone else who did it. It also clear she believed it was Jesus who commanded King Saul to utterly kill every man, woman, child, and infant and then rejected him as king because he refused to obey every detail of the command. According to you, however, this isn’t something Jesus would do. To answer your questions:

1. What in Jesus' life or character would lead you to believe that He wants to burn people alive if they don't do what He says? Jesus said, “The angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.”

2. Where did He ever do anything even remotely similar to this? He didn’t burn anyone alive while here in the flesh.

3. How did He respond when it was suggested He do so? He rebuked them.

4. Where during His mission did Jesus ever even physically harm any person, even in the slightest manner? He didn’t. But He clearly taught He will, at the end of time, punish impenitent sinners with everlasting, unquenchable fire. “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire. I will burn you up with unquenchable fire.”
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/21/11 08:31 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
1. Did the father of the hunter son command his son to do the things he told him to do? No.
2. What would neighbors who overheard their conversation have thought? They would have been impressed the father was willing to help his son hunt humanely even though the father was not in favor of it.

T: Or they might have thought the son was doing the father's will by hunting.

M: I don’t think so.

T: Assuming they didn't already know the father's feelings in regards to hunting, it would certainly be a natural conclusion that the father was in favor of hunting, if they heard him giving counsel on how to hunt.

M:I doubt it. His distaste of hunting would have been written all over his face and demeanor.

T: That would be rather hard to hear.

Good one. It would have also been obvious in the tone of his voice (for those listening but who could not see his face). What is your point?

Quote:
T: If the best way is studying the life and teachings of Jesus Christ while here in the flesh, then how should other revelations be treated? I think this is an area of disagreement between the differing points of view here. Those who hold the point of view I hold generally believe that the revelation of Jesus Christ supersedes all other revelation, so that any other revelation should be made to harmonize with that one. Those who disagree tend to put the different revelations side by side, and have the other revelations in addition to the revelation of Jesus Christ, so we Jesus Christ's revelation plus others. This would mean that Jesus Christ's revelation was not full and complete, which looks to be an area of disagreement we have had.

M: I agree with Ellen’s view of it.

T: Good! She wrote: “It would be well for us to spend a thoughtful hour each day in contemplation of the life of Christ. We should take it point by point, and let the imagination grasp each scene, especially the closing ones.(DA 83)

M: She wrote, “The Saviour is revealed in the Old Testament as clearly as in the New.” “The Bible is . . . a complete revelation of the attributes and will of God in the person of Jesus Christ”. Again, it is impossible to establish the 28 fundamental beliefs based solely on what Jesus said and did while here in the flesh. His revelation of God is not limited to the Gospels.

T: None of this is germane to the points I've been making. I just made the same points in the post to NJK, right above this one, so I won't repeat the quotes involved, but basically the whole purpose of Christ's mission was the revelation of God, which was a work only He could do. Obviously if this work had already been done, He would not have had to have come, given this was the whole purpose of His mission. Ellen White wrote that all that man needs to know of God, or can know, was revealed in the life and character of His Son, not that all the 28 fundamental beliefs were revealed in the life and character of His son. Why are you speaking of the 28 fundamental beliefs?

M: The 28 fundamental beliefs are an expression of the character and kingdom of God.

T: There are an expression of what Seventh-day Adventists believe to be essential points of faith (or, at least, a group of people designated to perform such a task for the group as a whole).

M:I assume you agree.

T: Only in a secondary sense. This wasn't the purpose of the list of beliefs.

M: If so, then to get a clear picture of God we must necessarily understand the 28 fundamental beliefs.

T: This logic is not valid. If A is a type of X, it does not follow that to get a clear picture of X, you must necessarily understand A, which is what you are asserting. For example, Clemente was a composer in the Classical era. It doesn't follow that to understand Classical music, one must understand Clemente.

M:To do this, we must view Jesus’ complete revelation of God including the OT and the NT and not limit ourselves to the Gospels.

T: I've already pointed out the weak link in this argument. Here's a valid argument:

1.All that man can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son.
2.Therefore understanding the life and character of His Son is sufficient to understanding God's character.

Jesus 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.” I hear you saying the truths Jesus did not share with the disciples did not lessen His revelation of God’s character. If this is what you believe, I strongly disagree. I believe “all truth” is essential to a full and complete understanding of the character and kingdom of God.

Quote:
M: Tom, I don’t understand how your response answers my questions. Here they are again:

1. Do you believe it when it says in the Bible that Jesus commanded Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to death?

2. Or, do you suspect Moses misunderstood what Jesus said? For example, in the Bible it says: “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.” “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. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.”

T: Your first two questions I addressed in my response.

I have no idea what you believe. Please answer the two questions above in the simplest terms possible. Thank you.

Quote:
T: I think the issue is similar to other incidents where God's ideal is not that to which the counsel applies, such as polygamy and slavery. God had to deal with the people's mindset as it was. We see little glimpses of the people acting in harmony with God's will, and when this happened, there was no killing involved, but for the most part, it was a stubborn "stiff-necked" people God was dealing with, and we don't see His ideal will expressed. If we take the point of view that God is pleased to have Sabbath-breakers killed, why wouldn't we kill them now? Is it just because we're not living in a theocracy? The question of killing law-breakers is an important issue coming up in the last days before Christ's second coming. We know that Satan will use this very argument against those who keep God's commandments, that they should be killed.

God always fulfills His “ideal will”. He never sits back and allows the chips to fall wherever they may helter-skelter. Keep in mind I’m talking about what God Himself chooses to do based on the time and circumstances in response to the choices FMAs make. That is, God never causes or permits anything to happen in response to the choices FMAs make that isn’t His will. To say otherwise suggests there are times when God causes or permits something to happen in response to the choices FMAs make that is evil or wrong or less than ideal (under the time and circumstances).

The fact Satan will influence Sunday-keepers in future to kill Sabbath-keepers is not an argument against the fact Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people.

Quote:
3. Also, do you think the father teaching his son how to hunt humanely is the same thing as Jesus commanding Moses to stone to death the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer?

T: They are obviously not exactly the same thing. I obviously thought they were similar in character, right? Or else, I wouldn't have offered the story as an explanation, right?

M:I don’t even know if you believe Jesus did indeed command Moses to stone to death the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer, so, how can I determine what you believe?

T: I don't think it matters what I believe about this incident to understand what I believe. I believe the following:

1.All that we need to know or can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son.
2.God is often portrayed in inspiration as doing that which He permits.
3.God in the OT acted similarly (actually identically) to how Jesus Christ acted while here in the flesh, when the whole purpose of His mission was the revelation of God.
4.Jesus Christ revealed what He heard and saw in the OT in His life, character, and teachings. If we perceive some disconnect between the two (i.e., between some incident in the OT involving behavior on the part of God) and Jesus Christ's life/teaching/character, we should defer to the revelation of Jesus Christ.
5.Force is contrary to the principles of God's government. Compelling power is found only under the government of the enemy.
6.Satan is hard at work seeking to vest God with his own attributes of character, and to make it appear that God's principles of government are like his.
7.There are a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which God protects us. It is sufficient for God to effect an judgments desires simply by withdrawing that protection. There is no need for God to do otherwise.

I've been saying all along that I disagree with the road you insist on taking, which is to examiner Old Testament incidents and ask questions about this. You've been doing this for years. I've answered hundreds, if not thousands, of these questions, all the time under protest. I've spent a thousand times longer discussing this issue according to how you think it should be studied as opposed to how I think it should.

Thank you for succinctly summarizing your view of God. However, nothing you said about God actually addresses my questions about God. Again, do you believe Jesus commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer? Nothing you’ve said about God thus far provides enough insight or information for me to deduce your answer to this question. I have in the past attempted to draw a conclusion based on what you’ve said about God (as it relates to this question) but with fatal results and strong disapproval from you.

By the way, there appears to be a contradiction between point 2 and points 3 and 4. For example, did the Gospels ever portray Jesus causing death and destruction that in reality He merely permitted others to do? I make this observation and ask this question because you say the Father behaved in the OT in the exact same way Jesus did in the Gospels and vice versa. But where in the Gospels did Jesus ever command godly people to kill ungodly people?

Quote:
4. Is hunting animals and killing humans equal in the eyes of God?

T: Why would you ask a question like this? It's ridiculous. You know the answer to this. You must have something else in mind, like, since hunting animals is not the same thing as killing humans (whatever your point it). Please don't ask questions like this. Just make whatever point you wish to make. There's no need to establish that hunting animals and killing humans are not equal in the eyes of God. You have got to be thinking, "Since hunting animals is not the same thing as killing humans in the eyes of God, it follows that (something)." Please just articulate what you're thinking.

M:I have learned studying with you there is no such thing as a ridiculous question.

T: What you asked is an example of one. What could you have been thinking when you asked it? There is no conceivable way that you could think that I think that God views hunting an animal as equal to killing a human being. I'd have to be a fanatic of PETA or something like that to have a view like this. In our years of studying, and thousands of posts, I've not written anything to give you the slightest inkling that I would have such a thought. It would be like me asking you if you think God has big blue elephant ears.

M:I have no idea what you believe . . .

T: Well you should! We've been studying this issue for years, and I've been repeating the same things over and over and over again. You should, at a very minimum, at least know that I believe these things I've been repeating over and over and over again, don't you think?

M: . . . hence, the questions which seem ridiculous.

T: This would be a ridiculous question to ask of any Christian, don't you think? Really, can you give any scenario under which not just I, but any person on this forum, could conceivably believe that God views hunting animals as equal to killing humans? Jesus Christ fished. You know that don't you? If God viewed hunting animals as equal to killing humans, Jesus Christ wouldn't have fished, would He? Well, since you think Christ killed "billions" of humans, maybe *you* could think God sees these as equal, but I certainly couldn't, could I?

M:Above you wrote, “There's no need to establish that hunting animals and killing humans are not equal in the eyes of God.” Do you believe hunting animals and killing humans are not equal in the eyes of God? I’m sorry if the question seems ridiculous.

T: Do you think God has big blue elephant ears?

M:As you know, there are plenty of people who believe they are equal in the eyes of God.

T: I can't think of a single Christian who believes this, not one. Nor can I conceive of such a thing being possible.

M:If so, then the comparison is legitimate. If not, it isn’t.

T: Legitimate because why? Because the "plenty of people" you know are humans? Do you know any one on this forum that believes this? I've mentioned Jones, Waggoner, George Fifield, and Ty Gibson as writers whose thoughts have resonated with me. Do you know any fans of these writers who believes this? Or any fans of Ellen White?

Again, I’m sorry you found the question so disturbing; but, thank you for answering it so emphatically. You leave no doubt in my mind what you believe about it. And, no, I don’t know of anyone who believes God views killing animals and humans as equal. I only wish you would answer the following question with as much emphasis and enthusiasm - Do you believe Jesus commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer?

Also, I don’t see a legitimate comparison between Jesus commanding godly people to kill ungodly people and the anti-hunting father commanding his pro-hunting son to kill animals humanely. Are you somehow hinting at the idea that Jesus did indeed command Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer?

Quote:
5. Did the father command his son to hunt humanely?

T: The father gave counsel to the son regarding how to hunt, but it was not his will that his son should hunt. Given he was going to hunt, the father commanded he should hunt humanely.

M:How does this compare to Jesus commanding godly people to kill ungodly people?

T: It's analogous.

I don’t understand what you mean. Please elaborate. Thank you.

Quote:
T: If we take the point of view that God is pleased to have Sabbath-breakers killed, why wouldn't we kill them now?

M:Interesting you bring this point up. Ellen wrote, “In our day there are many who reject the creation Sabbath as a Jewish institution and urge that if it is to be kept, the penalty of death must be inflicted for its violation; but we see that blasphemy received the same punishment as did Sabbathbreaking. Shall we therefore conclude that the third commandment also is to be set aside as applicable only to the Jews? Yet the argument drawn from the death penalty applies to the third, the fifth, and indeed to nearly all the ten precepts, equally with the fourth. Though God may not now punish the transgression of His law with temporal penalties, yet His word declares that the wages of sin is death; and in the final execution of the judgment it will be found that death is the portion of those who violate His sacred precepts. {PP 409.2}

T: This doesn't address my question. I haven't made the argument if the Sabbath needs to be kept, then Sabbath-breakers should be killed.

Your question seems to imply God isn’t in favor of executing Sabbath-breakers in accordance with the laws regulating and requiring capital punishment. However, the passage quoted above makes it clear that He is. Also, the point begs the question, a question you have thus far refused to answer, namely, do you believe Jesus commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer?

Quote:
1. When Moses inquired of Jesus what to do in the cases of the Sabbath-breaker and the Blasphemer, why did Jesus “command” him to stone them to death? Why didn’t He take the opportunity to explain things as you see them?

T: Have you considered the story of the father/hunter? Why didn't He explain the truth about polygamy?

2. Where in the OT did Jesus explain to the Jews things as you see them (as they relate to the title of this thread)?

T: Where did He explain the truth in the OT about slavery or polygamy or divorce?

3. Where in the NT did Jesus categorically condemn capital punishment?

T: I haven't made any general comments about capital punishment.

I have no idea what your answers are to the three questions above. Please elaborate. Thank you.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/24/11 01:25 AM

Originally Posted By: MM
T: You wrote as if God were responsible for the things you were speaking of. I addressed that by pointing out that it would be a huge mistake to view God as responsible, and cited texts to explain why.

M:1. Of course Jesus was responsible for ensuring evil angels did not exceed the limits He imposed on them. That is, Jesus did not let them cause more death and destruction than He was willing to permit. Do you agree?

T:What would a disagreement to this look like? That Jesus let them cause more death and destruction than He was willing to permit?


This is a question to you, asking for clarification. Actually two questions.

Quote:
Quote:
2. Do you agree Jesus worked to prevent evil men and evil angels from inflicting more death and destruction than He was willing to permit?

T:I believe that Jesus worked to prevent evil men and evil angels from inflicting death and destruction in general.


I don't know what you would want me to elaborate on here. I don't see what you wouldn't be understanding here.

Quote:
Quote:
M:Or, do you think evil men and evil angels willingly restrained themselves in order not to displease God and exceed Jesus’ limits?

T:This can't be a serious question.


This seems self-explanatory. What sense would it make for an evil person to restrain themselves in order not to displease God? Doesn't being evil presuppose that one is displeasing God?

Why would you think a question like this makes sense? Better yet, why would you ask such a question? What were you thinking when you asked it? If you write out what you were thinking, perhaps we could discuss that, as what you were thinking probably makes some sense.

Quote:
Quote:
3. Also, did evil men and evil angels do anything Jesus' wasn't willing to permit?

T:I don't see the sense in this one either. God is omnipotent, right? So anything that happens can only happen if He permits it to happen, isn't that right?


This seems self-explanatory too. I don't see how you could not understand what I'm saying here.

Quote:
Quote:
4. Did Jesus force evil men and evil angels to inflict the death and destruction He deemed right and necessary?

T:I don't see any sense in this question either. No, of course not, to answer the question. First of all, the exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government. Secondly, Jesus would hardly force people to do something contrary to the principles of his government, like inflicting death and destruction; that's Satan's job. Satan is the destroyer, Christ is the restorer. So your question is asking if Jesus would use a principle contrary to the principles of His government to bring about more consequences also contrary to the principles of His government.


Ditto.

Quote:
Quote:
5. Were evil men and evil angels free to refuse to inflict the death and destruction Jesus deemed right and necessary?

T:I don't agree with your premise here. Jesus doesn't deem death and destruction as right and necessary, but as evil, which it is.


This seems very clear to me. Your question has a premise, with which I disagree. I pointed out the premise in question, and why I disagree with it.

Quote:
Quote:
6. Who would have inflicted the death and destruction Jesus deemed right and necessary if the Roman soldiers and evil angels had refused to do it?

T:Again, I disagree with the premise here.


The premise is that you speak of "death and destruction" which "Jesus deemed right and necessary." I disagree with your premise that Jesus Christ was so deeming.

Quote:
M:I have no idea what your answers are to my questions. Please elaborate. Thank you.


I've tried to elaborate, but it's a bit difficult, as what I wrote seems very clear already to me. If you would write out what it is you're not understanding or have questions about, that could help.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/24/11 02:16 AM

Originally Posted By: MM
1. Did the father of the hunter son command his son to do the things he told him to do? No.
2. What would neighbors who overheard their conversation have thought? They would have been impressed the father was willing to help his son hunt humanely even though the father was not in favor of it.

T: Or they might have thought the son was doing the father's will by hunting.

M: I don’t think so.

T: Assuming they didn't already know the father's feelings in regards to hunting, it would certainly be a natural conclusion that the father was in favor of hunting, if they heard him giving counsel on how to hunt.

M:I doubt it. His distaste of hunting would have been written all over his face and demeanor.

T: That would be rather hard to hear.

Good one. It would have also been obvious in the tone of his voice (for those listening but who could not see his face). What is your point?


I was giving this as an analogy to the counsels given by God. God has given counsels in relation to things which were not His idea will. God's giving this counsel can be misconstrued as His giving approval to the given event. For example, we are having discussions in this forum regarding polygamy on this very point.

Quote:
M:I assume you agree.

T: Only in a secondary sense. This wasn't the purpose of the list of beliefs.

M: If so, then to get a clear picture of God we must necessarily understand the 28 fundamental beliefs.

T: This logic is not valid. If A is a type of X, it does not follow that to get a clear picture of X, you must necessarily understand A, which is what you are asserting. For example, Clemente was a composer in the Classical era. It doesn't follow that to understand Classical music, one must understand Clemente.

M:To do this, we must view Jesus’ complete revelation of God including the OT and the NT and not limit ourselves to the Gospels.

T: I've already pointed out the weak link in this argument. Here's a valid argument:

1.All that man can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son.
2.Therefore understanding the life and character of His Son is sufficient to understanding God's character.

M:Jesus 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.” I hear you saying the truths Jesus did not share with the disciples did not lessen His revelation of God’s character. If this is what you believe, I strongly disagree. I believe “all truth” is essential to a full and complete understanding of the character and kingdom of God.


When you make an invalid argument, and this is pointed out to you, it would be good form to recognize this fact.

Given that what Sister White wrote is true, that all that we need to know or can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son, then it would have to follow that this applies to the disciples. So the things which they could not bear for Christ to tell them at that time would have had to have been included in other things Christ did tell them. Otherwise what Ellen White wrote would be false, rather than true.

It seems to me you are simply putting forth an argument as to why you don't agree with the Ellen White wrote.

We disagree on this point.

In regards to what Christ could not tell them at that point, don't you think it is evident this had to do with the cross? They witnessed Christ's death on the cross, so what they could not bear at the point referenced by Christ, He did in fact reveal to them. So nothing necessary for them to know was left out, and there's no reason to doubt that what Ellen White wrote, that all they needed to know or could know of God was revealed by the life and character of Jesus Christ, is true.

Quote:
M: Tom, I don’t understand how your response answers my questions. Here they are again:

1. Do you believe it when it says in the Bible that Jesus commanded Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to death?

2. Or, do you suspect Moses misunderstood what Jesus said? For example, in the Bible it says: “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.” “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. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.”

T: Your first two questions I addressed in my response.

I have no idea what you believe. Please answer the two questions above in the simplest terms possible. Thank you.


I've got several responses going on this. Please choose one of them to respond to, and state whatever it is you're not understanding or have a question about.

Quote:
T: I think the issue is similar to other incidents where God's ideal is not that to which the counsel applies, such as polygamy and slavery. God had to deal with the people's mindset as it was. We see little glimpses of the people acting in harmony with God's will, and when this happened, there was no killing involved, but for the most part, it was a stubborn "stiff-necked" people God was dealing with, and we don't see His ideal will expressed. If we take the point of view that God is pleased to have Sabbath-breakers killed, why wouldn't we kill them now? Is it just because we're not living in a theocracy? The question of killing law-breakers is an important issue coming up in the last days before Christ's second coming. We know that Satan will use this very argument against those who keep God's commandments, that they should be killed.

M:God always fulfills His “ideal will”.


No He doesn't. For example, His ideal will is that none should perish, but all come to a knowledge of the truth.

Quote:
M:He never sits back and allows the chips to fall wherever they may helter-skelter.


It's true He never "sits back," if that implies doing nothing, but it's not true that He doesn't allow things to happen contrary to His ideal will. Anytime someone suffers is an example of this.

Quote:
M:Keep in mind I’m talking about what God Himself chooses to do based on the time and circumstances in response to the choices FMAs make. That is, God never causes or permits anything to happen in response to the choices FMAs make that isn’t His will.


Sure He does. The holocaust is an example. The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 is another.

Quote:
M:To say otherwise suggests there are times when God causes or permits something to happen in response to the choices FMAs make that is evil or wrong or less than ideal (under the time and circumstances).


Of course God allows evil things to happen in response to the choices FMA's make. That's the whole point of GC 35-37. Evil, in general, is *always* contrary to God's will, and always in response to choices FMA's have made contrary to God's will. How could it be otherwise?

Quote:
M:The fact Satan will influence Sunday-keepers in future to kill Sabbath-keepers is not an argument against the fact Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people.


I didn't ask this. Here's what I asked:

Quote:
If we take the point of view that God is pleased to have Sabbath-breakers killed, why wouldn't we kill them now? Is it just because we're not living in a theocracy? The question of killing law-breakers is an important issue coming up in the last days before Christ's second coming. We know that Satan will use this very argument against those who keep God's commandments, that they should be killed.


Quote:
M:I don’t even know if you believe Jesus did indeed command Moses to stone to death the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer, so, how can I determine what you believe?

T: I don't think it matters what I believe about this incident to understand what I believe. I believe the following:

1.All that we need to know or can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son.
2.God is often portrayed in inspiration as doing that which He permits.
3.God in the OT acted similarly (actually identically) to how Jesus Christ acted while here in the flesh, when the whole purpose of His mission was the revelation of God.
4.Jesus Christ revealed what He heard and saw in the OT in His life, character, and teachings. If we perceive some disconnect between the two (i.e., between some incident in the OT involving behavior on the part of God) and Jesus Christ's life/teaching/character, we should defer to the revelation of Jesus Christ.
5.Force is contrary to the principles of God's government. Compelling power is found only under the government of the enemy.
6.Satan is hard at work seeking to vest God with his own attributes of character, and to make it appear that God's principles of government are like his.
7.There are a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which God protects us. It is sufficient for God to effect an judgments desires simply by withdrawing that protection. There is no need for God to do otherwise.

I've been saying all along that I disagree with the road you insist on taking, which is to examiner Old Testament incidents and ask questions about this. You've been doing this for years. I've answered hundreds, if not thousands, of these questions, all the time under protest. I've spent a thousand times longer discussing this issue according to how you think it should be studied as opposed to how I think it should.

M:Thank you for succinctly summarizing your view of God. However, nothing you said about God actually addresses my questions about God.


Yes it does. That you don't see this is probably the problem we're having.

Quote:
M:Again, do you believe Jesus commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer?


It doesn't appear that you read what I just wrote above.

Quote:
M:Nothing you’ve said about God thus far provides enough insight or information for me to deduce your answer to this question.


I suggest re-reading what I just wrote.

Quote:
M:I have in the past attempted to draw a conclusion based on what you’ve said about God (as it relates to this question) but with fatal results and strong disapproval from you.


Why not conclude what I wrote?

Quote:
M:By the way, there appears to be a contradiction between point 2 and points 3 and 4. For example, did the Gospels ever portray Jesus causing death and destruction that in reality He merely permitted others to do? I make this observation and ask this question because you say the Father behaved in the OT in the exact same way Jesus did in the Gospels and vice versa. But where in the Gospels did Jesus ever command godly people to kill ungodly people?


Exactly!!!

Quote:
Again, I’m sorry you found the question so disturbing; but, thank you for answering it so emphatically. You leave no doubt in my mind what you believe about it. And, no, I don’t know of anyone who believes God views killing animals and humans as equal.


So why ask the question?

Quote:
I only wish you would answer the following question with as much emphasis and enthusiasm - Do you believe Jesus commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer?


I've responded to this at great, great length. The many posts in regards to the father/hunter relate to this question.

Quote:
M:Also, I don’t see a legitimate comparison between Jesus commanding godly people to kill ungodly people and the anti-hunting father commanding his pro-hunting son to kill animals humanely.


Ok, this is a good follow-up. The reason it is a legitimate comparison is because in both cases there is the question of the will of the person speaking being misunderstood.

Quote:
Are you somehow hinting at the idea that Jesus did indeed command Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer?


There's no hinting here at anything.

Quote:
5. Did the father command his son to hunt humanely?

T: The father gave counsel to the son regarding how to hunt, but it was not his will that his son should hunt. Given he was going to hunt, the father commanded he should hunt humanely.

M:How does this compare to Jesus commanding godly people to kill ungodly people?

T: It's analogous.

M:I don’t understand what you mean. Please elaborate. Thank you.


It was not the father's ideal will that his son should hunt. But if his son was determined to hunt, the father would give him counsel on how to do so in a way that was in harmony with his will. Similarly God has given counsel in regards to many things which are not according to His ideal will. He still does so today.

Quote:
T: If we take the point of view that God is pleased to have Sabbath-breakers killed, why wouldn't we kill them now?

M:Interesting you bring this point up. Ellen wrote, “In our day there are many who reject the creation Sabbath as a Jewish institution and urge that if it is to be kept, the penalty of death must be inflicted for its violation; but we see that blasphemy received the same punishment as did Sabbathbreaking. Shall we therefore conclude that the third commandment also is to be set aside as applicable only to the Jews? Yet the argument drawn from the death penalty applies to the third, the fifth, and indeed to nearly all the ten precepts, equally with the fourth. Though God may not now punish the transgression of His law with temporal penalties, yet His word declares that the wages of sin is death; and in the final execution of the judgment it will be found that death is the portion of those who violate His sacred precepts. {PP 409.2}

T: This doesn't address my question. I haven't made the argument if the Sabbath needs to be kept, then Sabbath-breakers should be killed.

M:Your question seems to imply God isn’t in favor of executing Sabbath-breakers in accordance with the laws regulating and requiring capital punishment.


God isn't in favor of executing anybody. He is in favor of saving them. He gave His Son to save them.

Quote:
However, the passage quoted above makes it clear that He is.


Jesus Christ made clear God's will was to save.

Quote:
M:Also, the point begs the question, a question you have thus far refused to answer, namely, do you believe Jesus commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer?


I pointed out to you that you didn't address my question, and you utter falsehoods, and continue not to address the question.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/24/11 06:23 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
[Your “Reply” Posting is incorrect here again. Your are again replying to yourself. It can be a great time waster to someone not familiar with this thread sequence.]


It's a lot more work to do it this way, but I'll try to do it the way you like.

Quote:
NJK: There is also the issue that I see that it is wrongly believed that Biblical writers themselves had a wrong view of the character of God while it seems evident to me that this statement speaks of how Israel in general came to view God.

Tom: They certainly didn't have as clear a view of the character of God as Jesus Christ.

NJK: That is besides the point.

Tom: No it's not. The point is that the whole purpose of Christ's earthly mission was the revelation of God, and that had this revelation already been accomplished, Christ need not have come. That's the context of the discussion. So that the Bible writers did not has a clear a view of God's character as Christ did is to the point.

NJK:It substantively is besides the point for the substantiating reasons that went on to state.


From what you are saying here, it looks right on point, getting to the critical issue (at least, a critical issue).

Quote:
NJK:The OT revelation was perfect in itself.


Only as they left God's mind. Once human beings got involved, they were no longer perfect, as the Scriptures neither represent the logic nor the language of God. (See Selected Messages on inspiration).

Quote:
NJK:The people’s added misconceptions are what need to be addressed and Christ added furthering and fulfilling revelations. The Inspired Bible writers got God’s revelation right. It was the people who misunderstood that revelation. And to say that these Bible writers got it wrong, implies that God Himself wrongly expressed, legislated and/or otherwise reveal it.


It dosn't imply this.

Quote:
The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God’s mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God’s penmen, not His pen. {1SM 21.1}


On the other hand, Jesus Christ was God's pen! Jesus Christ was God's thought expressed audible, the perfect representation of God. His was the greatest revelation.

Quote:
1God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son. (Hebrews 1:1,2;KJV)


Quote:
I am not going down that slippery slope!


I think you're going down a different one. Namely, replacing the revelation of Jesus Christ with ideas which are not in harmony with what He lived and taught.

Quote:
NJK: The revelation of these (OT) Bible writers, set out in writing under the inspiration of God’s Spirit was precisely what God wanted to be fully understood then. Later in Jesus Christ, God only ‘made more full’ what He had previously said, legislated and inspired. And again, as per the focus of this thread, this fuller revelation in Christ did not change the actual substance of “historical” OT episodes, indeed as they are properly recorded. To make this apply to your view, you need to show statements from Christ which e.g., change the substantive/historical records of OT events. And again, the misperception of people in Christ day was not on what had occurred, but the wrong conclusion they drew from what had occurred.

Tom: On what do you base this assertion? How do you know there wasn't a misunderstanding as to what had occurred?

NJK:Seriously???


??? What is is you think we're disagreeing about???

Quote:
NJK:Well then, simply said, because these OT writers would copiously preface their statements with qualifiers along the lines of: ‘The Lord said’; by Jesus’ full endorsement of the OT as well as other NT writers, never engaging to correct its accounts, and passages like 2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:20. I’ll go by these: “Thus says the Lord” than by anything man may fancifully suppose.


So when you said, "this fuller revelation in Christ did not change the actual substance of 'historical' OT episodes," you had only specifically the actual words of God in mind? If so, that's not very clear.

If you had more than the actual words of God in mind, then we are dealing with what actually happened, right? And even with the words of God, there are questions, as God often presented Himself as doing what He permits. For example, consider the episode of the fiery serpents. What happened there? Isn't this was our disagreement entails? I believe the serpents were already there, and that God had been protecting the Israelites from them the whole time, and He merely ceased doing so for a time. This is despite the direct language used.

Quote:
NJK: As in your case, you read of Nadab and Abihu being burnt alive by a Fire from God and you, effectively, wrongly conclude that this “would” show/mean that God is violent. The principles in Christ’s revelation, which profusely included the teaching of Hell Fire judgement by Him/God (e.g., sLuke 12: 49, 50; cf. Rev 20:14) and its “fiery” physical torment (e.g., Matt 10:28; Mark 9:42-50/Matt 18:7-11).

NJK: So like these misguided first century Jews, you need to allow/trust Jesus’ teaching and revelations that the OT was not “violent” in doing those judgement, nor in doing them again in the NT Era through the end of this GC. God was rather quite Just and indeed, all things taken into proper consideration, Loving. Indeed many will be eternally saved because of these most strikingly, deserving, warning, ‘object lesson actions/judgement of God. (Cf. 2 Pet 2:5, 6).

Tom: When Christ was urged to destroy the Samaritans, how did He respond?


A simple exegetical Biblical study here clearly shows that Jesus’ rebuking answer was in the light of the fact that the Gospel had deliberately not been preached, as it duly, fully, should be, throughout Samaria (cf. Matt 10:5; Acts 1:8; cf. Matt 1:22-24); (perhaps only in Sychar (John 4:4, 5, 28, 39-42)). So calling fire down from Heaven to destroy these probably Gospel unaware Samaritans of Luke 9:52 who were indeed only surfacely rejecting Christ because He was traveling towards Jerusalem (vs. 53) was in keeping with the OT God who did not execute a destruction until relatively sufficient “saving/sparing” light had first be properly given. So that action would indeed be against God’s Spirit, indeed including the OT God.


This is in inadequate response for two reasons. One is that the Jews were in at least as great a darkness as the Samaritans, as Elijah couldn't even think of anyone else besides himself who was a follower of God. Secondly, and more importantly, it's missing the whole point of Christ's sadness!

Quote:
It is no part of Christ’s mission to compel men to receive Him. It is Satan, and men actuated by his spirit, that seek to compel the conscience. Under a pretense of zeal for righteousness, men who are confederate with evil angels bring suffering upon their fellow men, in order to convert them to their ideas of religion; but Christ is ever showing mercy, ever seeking to win by the revealing of His love. He can admit no rival in the soul, nor accept of partial service; but He desires only voluntary service, the willing surrender of the heart under the constraint of love. There can be no more conclusive evidence that we possess the spirit of Satan than the disposition to hurt and destroy those who do not appreciate our work, or who act contrary to our ideas. {DA 487.3}


It was the spirit that would have one destroy another, that would seek to compel another, to use force; this spirit is what Christ condemned.

Quote:
In the episode of Elijah (2 Kgs 1:1-16) that the disciples were seeking to use as a basis Amaziah, the son of Ahab, was acting idolatrously and thus clearly in full light, especially after the reform of Ahab. So when he, being vexed as Elijah’s original condemnatory and intercepting answer sent an army contingent to effectively force Ahab to come to him and, by implication, make a favorable prophetic pronouncement at the risk of his life, (as if it worked that way) Elijah was fully in accordance with God’s Spirit to twice call down fire upon the army contingent that came to him, innately threateningly ordering him to follow them in the name of the (already condemned) king. Evidently Amaziah haughtily thought that God’s prophet could only say something valid/binding upon him when he had first called upon “his services.” Also by calling Elijah “man of God”, the army commanders showed that they fully knew who Elijah was. Indeed, as God responded to Elijah’s request, it was all in perfect harmony with the Spirit of God.

On the other hand these Samaritans were not acting in the light of such knowledge and also not pointedly against Jesus with a general or personal knowledge that He was God’s Messiah. So a fire judgement here would-be an undeserved judgement for, moreoverly an unaware of wrong, -something that God never does. (cf. Jon 4:1,2, 4, 9-11).


This is clever theory, but it doesn't fit. Christ was saddened because the disciples did not understand God's character nor the principles of His government.

Quote:
This statement is really odd:

Originally Posted By: NJK
So like these misguided first century Jews, you need to allow/trust Jesus’ teaching and revelations that the OT was not “violent” in doing those judgement...


The misguided first century Jews needed to trust Jesus' teaching that OT was not "violent"? You think that they perceived these events like I do?


NJK:Expressional “typo.” I actually meant that: ‘like these misguided first century Jews, you need to trust the wisdom and knowledge Jesus.


This is what we've been disagreeing about. I've been advocating this very thing all along, that all we can or need to know of God was revealed in the life and teachings of His Son. It was Christ's "whole purpose" to reveal the Father, and, indeed, we need to truth His wisdom and knowledge.

Quote:
NJK:And in regards to pointedly to you that is to allow/trust Jesus’ teaching and revelations that the OT God was not “violent” in doing those judgement.


This is what I've been saying all along. The judgments were not violent. This is why I disagree with what you've been saying, as you have been presenting ideas of violence.

Quote:
NJK:Indeed Jesus never spoke anything against those OT actions.


Why would He? He understood what happened. (All for now)
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/24/11 11:48 PM


Quote:
NJK: There is also the issue that I see that it is wrongly believed that Biblical writers themselves had a wrong view of the character of God while it seems evident to me that this statement speaks of how Israel in general came to view God.

Tom: They certainly didn't have as clear a view of the character of God as Jesus Christ.

NJK: That is besides the point.

Tom: No it's not. The point is that the whole purpose of Christ's earthly mission was the revelation of God, and that had this revelation already been accomplished, Christ need not have come. That's the context of the discussion. So that the Bible writers did not has a clear a view of God's character as Christ did is to the point.

NJK:It substantively is besides the point for the substantiating reasons that I went on to state.

Tom: From what you are saying here, it looks right on point, getting to the critical issue (at least, a critical issue).


Now that I understand your point of view more clearly based on what you have finally forthrightly/clearly stated below, I can actually now see/understand how and why this is “right on point for you, in your view. That is because you believe that OT writers themselves had, actually, a wrong view of God. I would only see that this applies to the parts of the Bible, where these writers were “free” to purely express their own thoughts, derived from their own experiences with God, e.g., the “Writings” of the OT (e.g., Psa/Pro/Eccl), however I also do see that much of the “free” statements by writers was derived from things that God had actually said.

So I also only see that in some parts, Bible writers had an incomplete understanding of God, due to what God could only reveal to them, due to their own failings, revelation frustrating and other shortcomings. Yet what was revealed was quite sufficient for them to come to that full understanding of God. E.g., Moses, after his 40 days up on the mountain had a perfect understanding of God’s Law and also of the Plan of Salvation in the current OT Religious Economy symbols (PP 330.2). I believe Jesus came to this fuller and more complete revelation using this exact “text”, combined with the ever guiding help of the Spirit because of His unwavering, self-initiated, perfect walk in God’s ways and constant obedience to the various promptings of God’s Spirit. So what could not be revealed to people in the OT because of their own shortcomings, could, and was revealed to Christ, particularly as He variously “advanced” and “kept on course” in God’s will.

Israel, by necessity, indeed just as NT Believer have faith in Jesus, and are to be faithful and obedient to Him to remain in harmony with the Father’s will, OT Believers had to do the same thing with the Law.

Quote:
NJK:The OT revelation was perfect in itself.

Tom: Only as they left God's mind. Once human beings got involved, they were no longer perfect, as the Scriptures neither represent the logic nor the language of God. (See Selected Messages on inspiration).


I do see that the Inspiration of Bible writers was very much like what was seen with EGW. They primarily wrote upon what they had seen in visions and dreams and “heard” from God. Similarly most of EGW “early writings’ were such direct revelations. Then she began to derive testimony from such direct revelations and additional ones. Bible writers similarly did the same thing. However I see that they had a much closer experience with God than did EGW (e.g., Moses’ in person meetings with God.) Indeed God was tangibly in the midst of Israel for many centuries, even right through periods of apostasy, though no additional revelation and (advancing/visionary prophetic) light was given.

Quote:
NJK: The people’s added misconceptions are what need to be addressed and Christ added furthering and fulfilling revelations. The Inspired Bible writers got God’s revelation right. It was the people who misunderstood that revelation. And to say that these Bible writers got it wrong, implies that God Himself wrongly expressed, legislated and/or otherwise reveal it.

Tom: It dosn't imply this.


Previously I had said that a misunderstanding in Bible writers could have occurred in their actual “ad lib” writings, i.e., vs. writing what God had “directly” revealed. And I do not actually see an example of this “misunderstanding” in the Bible. I understand that you do with, e.g., every instance where it says that ‘God took judgement actions on someone/ a group of people.’ For the many reasons already expressed in this thread, including especially the ones that show that your understanding of what EGW revealed in 14MR 1-3|GC 35-37 was only a secondary way to effectuate judgements, namely “no (more) mercy” judgements, I indeed do see that you are quite wrongly and overreachingly misapplying that view.

Originally Posted By: SOP 1SM 21.1
The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God’s mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God’s penmen, not His pen.


Indeed some expression may seem and are ungodly.(None come to mind actually) However I see that the substance itself is not affected by the mode of expression. I also think that the Bible is substantively perfectly revealed in what is prescritive and also, by being truthful, in what it describes. I also think that whenever it relates that God did something, then that is indeed what occurred. (Of course you do see so).

Again, I really cannot think of any theologically substantive error/wrong view in the Bible. Indeed I do not see your view on God’s judgements as being examples of a wrong view.

Quote:
Tom: On the other hand, Jesus Christ was God's pen! Jesus Christ was God's thought expressed audible, the perfect representation of God. His was the greatest revelation.

Originally Posted By: Bible Hebrews 1:1, 2 (KJV)
1God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son. (Hebrews 1:1, 2;KJV)


This text clearly is just saying that “in the same way God had variously spoken through prophets in the past, now spoke through His Son Jesus Christ.” Still it was God who was doing this speaking. Only a different spokesperson was used. Interestingly enough, I only see two times in the Bible where God had to correct a prophets, and that for relatively benign reasons, namely Nathan (2 Sam 7:1-17) and Samuel (1 Sam 16:6, 7). Seems to me they were quite faithful in correctly transmitting what had been revealed/said to them. So I do not see a basis here that what was recorded in the OT from God was wrongly done.

Quote:
NJK: I am not going down that slippery slope!

Tom: I think you're going down a different one. Namely, replacing the revelation of Jesus Christ with ideas which are not in harmony with what He lived and taught.


That is of course because you are viewing/judging things by your view, which I do not see what you are basing it on saying or requiring what you are doing. Even EGW who “would have” expressed it, did not do/say what you are requiring when writing her commenting books on Biblical episodes, namely the Conflict of the Ages series. As seen in e.g, GC 614.2, she also saw and understood that God had done acts of judgement and destructions in the OT and also NT.

EGW’s treatise on the “City of Refuge” in ST, January 20, 1881 is a good example of the perfect mixture of God’s justice and his mercy.

Quote:
NJK: The revelation of these (OT) Bible writers, set out in writing under the inspiration of God’s Spirit was precisely what God wanted to be fully understood then. Later in Jesus Christ, God only ‘made more full’ what He had previously said, legislated and inspired. And again, as per the focus of this thread, this fuller revelation in Christ did not change the actual substance of “historical” OT episodes, indeed as they are properly recorded. To make this apply to your view, you need to show statements from Christ which e.g., change the substantive/historical records of OT events. And again, the misperception of people in Christ day was not on what had occurred, but the wrong conclusion they drew from what had occurred.

Tom: On what do you base this assertion? How do you know there wasn't a misunderstanding as to what had occurred?

NJK: Seriously???

Tom: ??? What is is you think we're disagreeing about???


Now that I finally understand your full view of the OT, I can see why you don’t get my incredulity here. I see that the Bible writers did not have a misunderstanding with what had occurred, indeed as confirmed by the similar views of EGW. Of course, you don’t, and think that everywhere that is said that God did something was a misunderstanding and must be restated. I find no Biblical example or support, including from Jesus Himself, for this rewriting of the Biblical text. As I understand the why’s of God’s timely OT judgements, indeed as He did need to timely act to check free developments that, I believed, He did not always anticipate as a concrete possibility (cf. Isa 5:4). All of these acts of judgement are also microcosms and warnings of what the Final Hell destruction will be.

Quote:
NJK: Well then, simply said, because these OT writers would copiously preface their statements with qualifiers along the lines of: ‘The Lord said’; by Jesus’ full endorsement of the OT as well as other NT writers, never engaging to correct its accounts, and passages like 2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:20. I’ll go by these: “Thus says the Lord” than by anything man may fancifully suppose.

Tom: So when you said, "this fuller revelation in Christ did not change the actual substance of 'historical' OT episodes," you had only specifically the actual words of God in mind? If so, that's not very clear.


No. These “thus says the Lord” are a distinct portion of the Biblical Text, which I see a paramount in God’s revelation. Similarly to how I see the SOP’s “I was shown” statements. And in matters of history, these Bible writers straightforwardly and matter of factly related what had occurred and I do not see Jesus changing these accounts. Indeed if your view was the Truth, I would think Jesus would be systematically engaging in recorded statements of, e.g.,: ‘you have read “God rained fire on Sodom”, but I say on to you God never does a judgement Himself, and this was actually a volcano that was always supposed to erupt then.’ etc. Seems to me that this work would be quite crucial to Christ reforms, indeed as it would similarly be correcting misconceptions about the, here, History and Prophets, of the OT, just like He had done with the Law and how people came to view it.

Originally Posted By: Tom
If you had more than the actual words of God in mind, then we are dealing with what actually happened, right? And even with the words of God, there are questions, as God often presented Himself as doing what He permits. For example, consider the episode of the fiery serpents. What happened there? Isn't this was our disagreement entails? I believe the serpents were already there, and that God had been protecting the Israelites from them the whole time, and He merely ceased doing so for a time. This is despite the direct language used.


This is where I see that you are being finally being forthcoming about what you actually think of Biblical exegesis. Evidently you see it as irrelevant. Had I known this earlier it would have saved me much aggravation because I just could not understand how you would not take exegetical points into proper consider. Indeed throughout this discussion. Manifestly your outright dismissal of whatever points exegesis makes is derived from your view that these writers had it wrong. So there is really no way one can argue against this “double-whammy”, contra-Bible view. I would say that ‘EGW’s writings are effectively, your “Bible”, but as you clearly only subscribe to her statements when she agrees with your claimed view, (i.e., you understood her supposed view better than she did) then I can only see that you are really your own Bible and Biblical Authority. Can’t logically/“sanely” compete with/against that “private” method. Case in point, with the fiery serpents. Indeed rather than respond to the many substantive arguments that I have made debunking from various valid exegetical angles, your “private” view, you here simply claim that ‘exegesis is irrelevant’. Indeed now I finally, head shakingly, understand why you did not bother to answer exegetical points that completely disproved your claims and supposition. All that I can say is: Good Luck with that view. I really don’t understand why, with such an obliviously non-exegetical mindset, you would invest in attending a Seminary and ‘completing its coursework.’

Quote:
NJK: As in your case, you read of Nadab and Abihu being burnt alive by a Fire from God and you, effectively, wrongly conclude that this “would” show/mean that God is violent. The principles in Christ’s revelation, which profusely included the teaching of Hell Fire judgement by Him/God (e.g., Luke 12: 49, 50; cf. Rev 20:14) and its “fiery” physical torment (e.g., Matt 10:28; Mark 9:42-50/Matt 18:7-11).

NJK: So like these misguided first century Jews, you need to allow/trust Jesus’ teaching and revelations that the OT was not “violent” in doing those judgement, nor in doing them again in the NT Era through the end of this GC. God was rather quite Just and indeed, all things taken into proper consideration, Loving. Indeed many will be eternally saved because of these most strikingly, deserving, warning, ‘object lesson actions/judgement of God. (Cf. 2 Pet 2:5, 6).

Tom: When Christ was urged to destroy the Samaritans, how did He respond?

NJK: A simple exegetical Biblical study here clearly shows that Jesus’ rebuking answer was in the light of the fact that the Gospel had deliberately not been preached, as it duly, fully, should be, throughout Samaria (cf. Matt 10:5; Acts 1:8; cf. Matt 1:22-24); (perhaps only in Sychar (John 4:4, 5, 28, 39-42)). So calling fire down from Heaven to destroy these probably Gospel unaware Samaritans of Luke 9:52 who were indeed only surfacely rejecting Christ because He was traveling towards Jerusalem (vs. 53) was in keeping with the OT God who did not execute a destruction until relatively sufficient “saving/sparing” light had first be properly given. So that action would indeed be against God’s Spirit, indeed including the OT God.

Tom: This is in inadequate response for two reasons. One is that the Jews were in at least as great a darkness as the Samaritans, as Elijah couldn't even think of anyone else besides himself who was a follower of God.


Well given that this is what you think of Elijah, as it is popularly done, I can see why you have this “inadequacy” belief. I have debunked this popular disparaging “misconstruing” of Elijah’s character on this post in my blog (Note #5).

Indeed Elijah was not a mind reader and could not possibly be faulted for not knowing about these 7000 “silent” ones. He was indeed by now the only one openly, courageously denouncing and opposing apostasy in Israel.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Secondly, and more importantly, it's missing the whole point of Christ's sadness!


First of all, EGW actually says that Christ was “pained” (DA 487.2) which may not be necessarily out of sadness. The fact that these disciples of His had manifested a ‘Spirit of Satan’ here, as He rebuked them, was frustratingly ‘paining enough,’ given that these were the ones who were suppose to continue His work, yet they still had not understood the emphasis of His mission.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: SOP DA 487.3
It is no part of Christ’s mission to compel men to receive Him. It is Satan, and men actuated by his spirit, that seek to compel the conscience. Under a pretense of zeal for righteousness, men who are confederate with evil angels bring suffering upon their fellow men, in order to convert them to their ideas of religion; but Christ is ever showing mercy, ever seeking to win by the revealing of His love. He can admit no rival in the soul, nor accept of partial service; but He desires only voluntary service, the willing surrender of the heart under the constraint of love. There can be no more conclusive evidence that we possess the spirit of Satan than the disposition to hurt and destroy those who do not appreciate our work, or who act contrary to our ideas.

Tom: It was the spirit that would have one destroy another, that would seek to compel another, to use force; this spirit is what Christ condemned.


And, just like in the War in Heaven, my point here, as stated below, was that this was not an issue of deserved judgement, as in Elijah’s case. If it was, then I see that Jesus would not have rebuked His disciples, even if that judgement was to be delayed (e.g, Matt 11:20-24), given the actual paramount mandate He had in this present mission as expressed in Luke 12:49, 50. So I do not see that my wider exegetical point contradicts what EGW had expressed. They both contribute to the actual issues at hand here.

Quote:
NJK: In the episode of Elijah (2 Kgs 1:1-16) that the disciples were seeking to use as a basis Amaziah, the son of Ahab, was acting idolatrously and thus clearly in full light, especially after the reform of Ahab. So when he, being vexed as Elijah’s original condemnatory and intercepting answer sent an army contingent to effectively force Ahab to come to him and, by implication, make a favorable prophetic pronouncement at the risk of his life, (as if it worked that way) Elijah was fully in accordance with God’s Spirit to twice call down fire upon the army contingent that came to him, innately threateningly ordering him to follow them in the name of the (already condemned) king. Evidently Amaziah haughtily thought that God’s prophet could only say something valid/binding upon him when he had first called upon “his services.” Also by calling Elijah “man of God”, the army commanders showed that they fully knew who Elijah was. Indeed, as God responded to Elijah’s request, it was all in perfect harmony with the Spirit of God.

NJK: On the other hand these Samaritans were not acting in the light of such knowledge and also not pointedly against Jesus with a general or personal knowledge that He was God’s Messiah. So a fire judgement here would-be an undeserved judgement for, moreoverly an unaware of wrong, -something that God never does. (cf. Jon 4:1,2, 4, 9-11).

Tom: This is clever theory, but it doesn't fit. Christ was saddened because the disciples did not understand God's character nor the principles of His government.


It is not a “theory”, it is what proper and responsible Biblical exegesis fully reveals, as it takes into consider all contributive points (cf. Isa 28:10). Biblical understanding is also not limited to what EGW says. The Bible is the Greater Light. So I see that here, she only emphasized a part of the actual fuller issue involved here, as seen by Christ’s reaction just one chapter later in Matt 11:20-24|Luke 10:10-16 under different “knowledge” circumstances.

And, indeed, as EGW states, an act of “judgement” here, at this stage, would only be a ‘forceful act to compel’. However the notion of compelling is not what is at the forefront when deserved and necessary judgement is being executed. The necessity of the judgement trumps the potential compelling that can occur if those observing freely choose do use it as such.

Quote:
Tom: This statement is really odd:

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
So like these misguided first century Jews, you need to allow/trust Jesus’ teaching and revelations that the OT was not “violent” in doing those judgement...


Tom: The misguided first century Jews needed to trust Jesus' teaching that OT was not "violent"? You think that they perceived these events like I do?

NJK: Expressional “typo.” I actually meant that: ‘like these misguided first century Jews, you need to trust the wisdom and knowledge Jesus.

Tom: This is what we've been disagreeing about. I've been advocating this very thing all along, that all we can or need to know of God was revealed in the life and teachings of His Son. It was Christ's "whole purpose" to reveal the Father, and, indeed, we need to truth His wisdom and knowledge.


And I do not see that Jesus revelation made it that what was expressed in the OT needed to be understood differently. The problem with you is that you cannot transparently substantiate the validity of your view. I.e., in what it fully implies and tangibly necessitate. This also includes what you are claiming for EGW’s statements. I am rather guided by transparent exegesis, which I understand can and does correct EGW. So the only choice I have with your view is to actually accept what you (privately) think and I just won’t, even really can’t do that since I instead paramountly follow the Bible. So this issue of “Actual and Final Authority” is really what we foundationally are in disagreement over.

Also my Trust of Jesus includes all of His statements, whereas, as by now copiously substantiated during this discussion, I see that you are selectively viewing some as weighty, even valid. I.e., only when they harmonize with your view. Again I cannot subscribe to what I can only factually see as, (effectively), being: “the Gospel of/according Tom”. And like other “non-canonical” gospel works E.g., the Gospel of Thomas, it only includes certain, even rephrased sayings of Jesus that harmonize with an overarching private view. In the case of the author of the Gospel of Thomas, this was Gnosticism.

Quote:
NJK: And in regards to pointedly to you that is to allow/trust Jesus’ teaching and revelations that the OT God was not “violent” in doing those judgement.

Tom: This is what I've been saying all along. The judgments were not violent. This is why I disagree with what you've been saying, as you have been presenting ideas of violence.


Of course you want to be strictly saying her that ‘they did not involve any forceful or even paining action from God Himself. This is where I am not seeing any Biblical support for you. Indeed as easily seen by the fact that God Himself legislated capital punishment. Even e.g., injunctively ordering, after apparently some tangible deliberation on the issue, that a person who had been caught violating the Sabbath be stoned to death (Num 15:32-36). To accept your view as valid and subscribe to it necessitates that any such, even direct statements of God be either outrightly ignored/dismissed or deemed as errors. One then really does not have a Bible left to have faith in. Let alone seeing it as the Inspired Word of God, containing a substantively correct message.

Quote:
NJK:Indeed Jesus never spoke anything against those OT actions.

Tom: Why would He? He understood what happened. (All for now)


Well for one thing to explicitly help people to have the proper understanding as He explicitly did with misconceptions of the Law. Indeed this would mean that even His own disciples were never privately instructed as to what really had happened in OT episodes, as they continued to refer to them just as they read in the OT. The episode with James and John would also have been te perfect occasion to set the substantive record straight as to what really happened when the OT says/implies that God granted the request of Elijah and fire came down from Heaven right then and there. Even EGW did not “understand” the correct view here, according to your understanding.

These persisted misunderstanding would contradictorily imply that Jesus did not complete the revelation of the Father that He was to do, either with His disciples, or later through EGW.

Your view is indeed full of such inconsistencies due to its subjectivity and selectiveness resulting in a one-sided stacking. That is indeed why you manifestly believe that ‘a more “attractive” view could/should be the right one vs. what is actually the Biblical truth. Again one just cannot win against such a mindset. At the very least you should have been more forthright about that, especially as you touted that you were a Seminarian, which logically/“prima facie” implies a person who takes Biblical exegesis seriously.

This “selective methodology” of yours also explains why you just don’t answer/acknowledge any type of point for which you do not have an answer. Indeed I should have long ago got the cue from your statement that you are involved in a discussion simply to bolster your view. Clearly you won’t let the facts, exegetical or scientific, get in the way of that objective.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/25/11 06:18 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
T: You wrote as if God were responsible for the things you were speaking of. I addressed that by pointing out that it would be a huge mistake to view God as responsible, and cited texts to explain why.

M: Of course Jesus was responsible for ensuring evil angels did not exceed the limits He imposed on them. That is, Jesus did not let them cause more death and destruction than He was willing to permit. Do you agree?

T: What would a disagreement to this look like? That Jesus let them cause more death and destruction than He was willing to permit? This is a question to you, asking for clarification. Actually two questions.

Why disagree with it? Just say, Yes, of course, I agree. Jesus was responsible for ensuring evil angels did not exceed the limits He imposed on them, that is, He did not let them cause more death and destruction than He was willing to permit.

Quote:
M: Do you agree Jesus worked to prevent evil men and evil angels from inflicting more death and destruction than He was willing to permit?

T: I believe that Jesus worked to prevent evil men and evil angels from inflicting death and destruction in general. I don't know what you would want me to elaborate on here. I don't see what you wouldn't be understanding here.

Your response seems to imply you believe Jesus works to prevent them from causing any and all forms of death and destruction. If so, did He fail? That is, did He fail at preventing them and it accounts for why they caused so much death and destruction? If so, why wasn’t Jesus successful?

Quote:
M: Or, do you think evil men and evil angels willingly restrained themselves in order not to displease God and exceed Jesus’ limits?

T: This can't be a serious question. This seems self-explanatory. What sense would it make for an evil person to restrain themselves in order not to displease God? Doesn't being evil presuppose that one is displeasing God? Why would you think a question like this makes sense? Better yet, why would you ask such a question? What were you thinking when you asked it? If you write out what you were thinking, perhaps we could discuss that, as what you were thinking probably makes some sense.

Do you believe Jesus worked to prevent them from exceeding His limits because otherwise they would?

Quote:
M: Also, did evil men and evil angels do anything Jesus' wasn't willing to permit?

T: I don't see the sense in this one either. God is omnipotent, right? So anything that happens can only happen if He permits it to happen, isn't that right? This seems self-explanatory too. I don't see how you could not understand what I'm saying here.

Why didn’t they exceed the limits Jesus imposed on them?

Quote:
M: Did Jesus force evil men and evil angels to inflict the death and destruction He deemed right and necessary?

T: I don't see any sense in this question either. No, of course not, to answer the question. First of all, the exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government. Secondly, Jesus would hardly force people to do something contrary to the principles of his government, like inflicting death and destruction; that's Satan's job. Satan is the destroyer, Christ is the restorer. So your question is asking if Jesus would use a principle contrary to the principles of His government to bring about more consequences also contrary to the principles of His government.

What criteria did Jesus use to determine how and what punishment would be inflicted? Did the punishment He envisioned require the involvement of evil men and evil angels?

Quote:
M: Were evil men and evil angels free to refuse to inflict the death and destruction Jesus deemed right and necessary?

T: I don't agree with your premise here. Jesus doesn't deem death and destruction as right and necessary, but as evil, which it is. This seems very clear to me. Your question has a premise, with which I disagree. I pointed out the premise in question, and why I disagree with it.

What motivated Jesus to withdraw His protection and permit evil men and evil angels to inflict the punishment He determined was appropriate and worked to ensure they did not exceed?

Quote:
M: Who would have inflicted the death and destruction Jesus deemed right and necessary if the Roman soldiers and evil angels had refused to do it?

T:Again, I disagree with the premise here. The premise is that you speak of "death and destruction" which "Jesus deemed right and necessary." I disagree with your premise that Jesus Christ was so deeming.

Who, then, if not Jesus, determined the limits of punishment to be inflicted on them?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/25/11 06:20 PM

Tom, you say that in the past you have plainly stated who caused fire to blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned N&A alive. For the life of me I cannot recall what you said about it. For the record, would you please state it again here and now? I know you believe Jesus withdraws His protection and permits His enemies, within the limits He imposes on them, to punish and destroy impenitent sinners. But in the case of N&A I have absolutely no idea who you believe caused fire to blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned them alive. Regarding the punishment and death of N&A, Ellen wrote:

Quote:
"God consumed them by fire for their positive disregard of His express directions."

"This was a transgression of God's express command, and his judgment speedily followed."

"For this sin, a fire went out from the Lord, and devoured them in the sight of the people."

"Nadab and Abihu were slain by the fire of God's wrath for their intemperance in the use of wine."

"Fire from his presence destroyed them in their sin."

"By the offering of "strange fire," they disregarded God's command, and they were slain by His judgments."

"A fire blazed out from the holy of holies and consumed them."

"God visited them with His wrath; fire went forth from His presence and destroyed them."

"God forbade any manifestation of grief for Nadab and Abihu, even on the part of their nearest relatives, "lest ye die," he said, "and lest wrath come upon all the people: but let your brethren, the whole house of Israel, bewail the burning which the Lord hath kindled."

Nowhere does she say or imply anyone other than Jesus burned N&A alive. And yet you seem to think she believed Jesus did not cause fire to blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned N&A alive. Isn’t it obvious to you, based on all the quotes I posted above, that she clearly, plainly said it was Jesus who employed the fire that burned N&A alive? If not, where does she specifically say otherwise?

Quote:
M: In fact, the following testimony presents a view very different than the one you are advocating:

Quote:
God is exact to mark iniquity. Sins of thoughtlessness, negligence, forgetfulness, and even ignorance, have been visited by some of the most wonderfully marked manifestations of his displeasure. Many who have suffered terrible punishment for their sins, might have pleaded as plausibly as do those of today who fall into similar errors, that they meant no harm, and some would even say that they thought they were doing God service; but the light shone on them, and they disregarded it. {ST, July 17, 1884 par. 7}

Let us look at some of the examples found in sacred history. Assisted by his sons, Aaron had offered the sacrifices that God required; and he lifted up his hands and blessed the people. All had been done as God commanded, and he accepted the sacrifice, and revealed his glory in a most remarkable manner; for fire came from the Lord, and consumed the offering upon the altar. The people looked upon this wonderful manifestation of divine power with awe and intense interest. They saw in it a token of his glory and his favor, and they raised a universal shout of praise and adoration, and fell on their faces, as if in the immediate presence of Jehovah. {ST, July 17, 1884 par. 8}

As the prayers and praise of the people were ascending before God, two of the sons of Aaron took each his censer, and burned fragrant incense thereon, to arise as a sweet odor before God. But they had partaken too freely of wine, and used strange fire, contrary to the Lord's commandment. And the wrath of God was kindled against Nadab and Abihu for their disobedience, and a fire went out from the Lord, and devoured them in the sight of the people. By this judgment God designed to teach the people that they must approach him with reverence and awe, and in his own appointed manner. He is not pleased with partial obedience. It was not enough that in this solemn season of worship nearly everything was done as he commanded. {ST, July 17, 1884 par. 9}

The Lord sent Samuel to King Saul with a special message. "Go," he said, "and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." Saul was faithful and zealous in performing a part of his commission. He smote the Amalekites with a great slaughter; but he took the proposition of the people before the command of God, and spared Agag, the king, and "the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good." {ST, July 17, 1884 par. 10}

The Lord commanded Saul to "utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them until they be consumed." The Lord knew that this wicked nation would, if it were possible, blot out his people and his worship from the earth; and for this reason he had commanded that even the little children should be cut off. But Saul had spared the king, the most wicked and merciless of them all; one who had hated and destroyed the people of God, and whose influence had been strongest to promote idolatry. {ST, July 17, 1884 par. 11}

Saul thought he had done all that was essential of that which the Lord commanded him to do. Perhaps he even flattered himself that he was more merciful than his Maker, as do some unbelievers in our day. He met Samuel with the salutation, "Blessed be thou of the Lord; I have performed the commandment of the Lord." But when the prophet asked what meant the bleating of the sheep and the lowing of the oxen which he heard, Saul was obliged to confess that the people had taken of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the chief of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice to the Lord in Gilgal. {ST, July 17, 1884 par. 12}

Did the Lord accept this justification of Saul's conduct? Was he pleased with this partial obedience, and willing to pass over the trifle that had been neglected out of so good a motive? Saul did what he thought was best, and would not the Lord commend such excellent judgment? No. Said Samuel, "Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king." {ST, July 17, 1884 par. 13}

These instances show how God looks upon his professed people when they obey part of his commandments while in other respects they follow a course of their own choosing. Let no one flatter himself that a part of God's requirements are nonessential. He has placed no command in his word that men may obey or disobey at will, and not suffer the consequences. If men choose any other path than that of strict obedience, they will find that "the end thereof are the ways of death."
{ST, July 17, 1884 par. 14}

M: You seem to be making the same argument King Saul did, namely, that by sparing the life of Agag he was being merciful the way he imagined Jesus preferred. But Jesus punished him for being presumptuous.

T: Regarding Saul's purpose, we read: “This victory over the Amalekites was the most brilliant victory that Saul had ever gained, and it served to rekindle the pride of heart that was his greatest peril. The divine edict devoting the enemies of God to utter destruction was but partially fulfilled. Ambitious to heighten the honor of his triumphal return by the presence of a royal captive, Saul ventured to imitate the customs of the nations around him and spared Agag, the fierce and warlike king of the Amalekites. The people reserved for themselves the finest of the flocks, herds, and beasts of burden, excusing their sin on the ground that the cattle were reserved to be offered as sacrifices to the Lord. It was their purpose, however, to use these merely as a substitute, to save their own cattle. {CC 156.3} This points out that Saul's purpose was selfish and proud. To think that Saul's argument here was the same as mine would seem to indicate you're either misunderstanding Saul's argument or mine. Here is mine:

1.All that we can know of God was revealed by Jesus Christ.
2.The whole purpose of His mission was the revelation of God.
3.Jesus Christ did not reveal God as One who uses force to get His way, or compelling power, or One who burns people alive to punish them for not doing His will.

Here's an issue I see with your way of thinking. You appear to believe that it's OK to kill people who are not doing God's will, if you believe God is telling you to do so. I think that's dangerous, especially given the fact that this is exactly what's going to happen during the last plagues (i.e., people will try to kill those whom they think are not doing God's will, and will think they are doing God's will by so doing). What in Jesus' life or character would lead you to believe that He wants to burn people alive if they don't do what He says? Where did He ever do anything even remotely similar to this? How did He respond when it was suggested He do so? Where during His mission did Jesus ever even physically harm any person, even in the slightest manner?

In the ST July 17, 1884 passage I quoted above she makes it clear it was Jesus who employed fire to burn N&A alive. Nothing she said implies it was someone else who did it. It also clear she believed it was Jesus who commanded King Saul to utterly kill every man, woman, child, and infant and then rejected him as king because he refused to obey every detail of the command. According to you, however, this isn’t something Jesus would do. To answer your questions:

1. What in Jesus' life or character would lead you to believe that He wants to burn people alive if they don't do what He says? Jesus said, “The angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.”

2. Where did He ever do anything even remotely similar to this? He didn’t burn anyone alive while here in the flesh.

3. How did He respond when it was suggested He do so? He rebuked them.

4. Where during His mission did Jesus ever even physically harm any person, even in the slightest manner? He didn’t. But He clearly taught He will, at the end of time, punish impenitent sinners with everlasting, unquenchable fire. “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire. I will burn you up with unquenchable fire.”
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/25/11 07:56 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
M: “What would neighbors who overheard their conversation have thought?” They would have been impressed the father was willing to help his son hunt humanely even though the father was not in favor of it.

T: Or they might have thought the son was doing the father's will by hunting.

M: I don’t think so.

T: Assuming they didn't already know the father's feelings in regards to hunting, it would certainly be a natural conclusion that the father was in favor of hunting, if they heard him giving counsel on how to hunt.

M:I doubt it. His distaste of hunting would have been written all over his face and demeanor.

T: That would be rather hard to hear.

M: Good one. It would have also been obvious in the tone of his voice (for those listening but who could not see his face). What is your point?

T: I was giving this as an analogy to the counsels given by God. God has given counsels in relation to things which were not His idea will. God's giving this counsel can be misconstrued as His giving approval to the given event. For example, we are having discussions in this forum regarding polygamy on this very point.

Actually, on this thread, I am interested in your answer as it applies to Jesus commanding Moses to kill ungodly people. What was Jesus’ ideal will in the cases of the Sabbath-breaker and the Blasphemer? Please post inspired passages to support your view, that is, passages which speak directly to these two cases (as opposed to you citing other examples and insisting the “principle” applies). Thank you.

Quote:
M:I assume you agree.

T: Only in a secondary sense. This wasn't the purpose of the list of beliefs.

M: If so, then to get a clear picture of God we must necessarily understand the 28 fundamental beliefs.

T: This logic is not valid. If A is a type of X, it does not follow that to get a clear picture of X, you must necessarily understand A, which is what you are asserting. For example, Clemente was a composer in the Classical era. It doesn't follow that to understand Classical music, one must understand Clemente.

M:To do this, we must view Jesus’ complete revelation of God including the OT and the NT and not limit ourselves to the Gospels.

T: I've already pointed out the weak link in this argument. Here's a valid argument:

1.All that man can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son.
2.Therefore understanding the life and character of His Son is sufficient to understanding God's character.

M: Jesus 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.” I hear you saying the truths Jesus did not share with the disciples did not lessen His revelation of God’s character. If this is what you believe, I strongly disagree. I believe “all truth” is essential to a full and complete understanding of the character and kingdom of God.

T: When you make an invalid argument, and this is pointed out to you, it would be good form to recognize this fact. Given that what Sister White wrote is true, that all that we need to know or can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son, then it would have to follow that this applies to the disciples. So the things which they could not bear for Christ to tell them at that time would have had to have been included in other things Christ did tell them. Otherwise what Ellen White wrote would be false, rather than true. It seems to me you are simply putting forth an argument as to why you don't agree with the Ellen White wrote. We disagree on this point. In regards to what Christ could not tell them at that point, don't you think it is evident this had to do with the cross? They witnessed Christ's death on the cross, so what they could not bear at the point referenced by Christ, He did in fact reveal to them. So nothing necessary for them to know was left out, and there's no reason to doubt that what Ellen White wrote, that all they needed to know or could know of God was revealed by the life and character of Jesus Christ, is true.

“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 explanation I gave regarding this insight is valid. It does not disagree with her point. The idea that “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now” should be interpreted to mean Jesus “did in fact reveal to them” everything there is to know about God’s character and kingdom seems rather contradictory.

Quote:
M: Tom, I don’t understand how your response answers my questions. Here they are again:

1. Do you believe it when it says in the Bible that Jesus commanded Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to death?

2. Or, do you suspect Moses misunderstood what Jesus said? For example, in the Bible it says: “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.” “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. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.”

T: Your first two questions I addressed in my response.

M: I have no idea what you believe. Please answer the two questions above in the simplest terms possible. Thank you.

T: I've got several responses going on this. Please choose one of them to respond to, and state whatever it is you're not understanding or have a question about.

In particular, do you believe Jesus commanded Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to death? Or, do you suspect Moses misunderstood what Jesus said? I ask these questions because in the Bible it says:

1. “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.”

2. “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. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.”

Is there any reason why we cannot take the Bible as it reads? That is, are we not obligated to read these two passages and logically conclude Jesus did indeed “command” Moses to kill them? Please don’t misunderstand the question. I’m not asking what Jesus’ ideal will was in these two cases. Hopefully you will address this aspect of the situation in the first response above.

Quote:
T: I think the issue is similar to other incidents where God's ideal is not that to which the counsel applies, such as polygamy and slavery. God had to deal with the people's mindset as it was. We see little glimpses of the people acting in harmony with God's will, and when this happened, there was no killing involved, but for the most part, it was a stubborn "stiff-necked" people God was dealing with, and we don't see His ideal will expressed. If we take the point of view that God is pleased to have Sabbath-breakers killed, why wouldn't we kill them now? Is it just because we're not living in a theocracy? The question of killing law-breakers is an important issue coming up in the last days before Christ's second coming. We know that Satan will use this very argument against those who keep God's commandments, that they should be killed.

M:God always fulfills His “ideal will”.

T: No He doesn't. For example, His ideal will is that none should perish, but all come to a knowledge of the truth.

M: He never sits back and allows the chips to fall wherever they may helter-skelter.

T: It's true He never "sits back," if that implies doing nothing, but it's not true that He doesn't allow things to happen contrary to His ideal will. Anytime someone suffers is an example of this.

M: Keep in mind I’m talking about what God Himself chooses to do based on the time and circumstances in response to the choices FMAs make. That is, God never causes or permits anything to happen in response to the choices FMAs make that isn’t His will.

T: Sure He does. The holocaust is an example. The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 is another.

M:To say otherwise suggests there are times when God causes or permits something to happen in response to the choices FMAs make that is evil or wrong or less than ideal (under the time and circumstances).

T: Of course God allows evil things to happen in response to the choices FMA's make. That's the whole point of GC 35-37. Evil, in general, is *always* contrary to God's will, and always in response to choices FMA's have made contrary to God's will. How could it be otherwise?

No one suffered or died in ways not permitted by Jesus in the examples you cited above. More to the point, Jesus worked hard to ensure evil men and evil angels did not exceed the limits He imposed on them. Consequently, they suffered and died in the ways they did because it was Jesus’ ideal will (under the times and circumstances) as opposed to them suffering and dying in other ways. Of all the ways people can suffer and die, Jesus chose which ways He was willing to permit evil men and evil angels to cause them to suffer and die. Which begs the question – Why didn’t Jesus work to prevent it? There are a million ways Jesus could have employed, without violating freewill, to prevent the cases of suffering and death you named above.

Quote:
M:The fact Satan will influence Sunday-keepers in future to kill Sabbath-keepers is not an argument against the fact Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people.

T: I didn't ask this. Here's what I asked: “1. If we take the point of view that God is pleased to have Sabbath-breakers killed, why wouldn't we kill them now? 2. Is it just because we're not living in a theocracy? 3. The question of killing law-breakers is an important issue coming up in the last days before Christ's second coming. 4. We know that Satan will use this very argument against those who keep God's commandments, that they should be killed.”

1. Because Jesus no longer requires it. 2. I suspect that is partly why. 3. True. 4. True.

What is your point as it relates to Jesus commanding Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker?

Quote:
M:I don’t even know if you believe Jesus did indeed command Moses to stone to death the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer, so, how can I determine what you believe?

T: I don't think it matters what I believe about this incident to understand what I believe. I believe the following:

1.All that we need to know or can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son.
2.God is often portrayed in inspiration as doing that which He permits.
3.God in the OT acted similarly (actually identically) to how Jesus Christ acted while here in the flesh, when the whole purpose of His mission was the revelation of God.
4.Jesus Christ revealed what He heard and saw in the OT in His life, character, and teachings. If we perceive some disconnect between the two (i.e., between some incident in the OT involving behavior on the part of God) and Jesus Christ's life/teaching/character, we should defer to the revelation of Jesus Christ.
5.Force is contrary to the principles of God's government. Compelling power is found only under the government of the enemy.
6.Satan is hard at work seeking to vest God with his own attributes of character, and to make it appear that God's principles of government are like his.
7.There are a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which God protects us. It is sufficient for God to effect an judgments desires simply by withdrawing that protection. There is no need for God to do otherwise.

I've been saying all along that I disagree with the road you insist on taking, which is to examiner Old Testament incidents and ask questions about this. You've been doing this for years. I've answered hundreds, if not thousands, of these questions, all the time under protest. I've spent a thousand times longer discussing this issue according to how you think it should be studied as opposed to how I think it should.

M:Thank you for succinctly summarizing your view of God. However, nothing you said about God actually addresses my questions about God.

T: Yes it does. That you don't see this is probably the problem we're having.

M:Again, do you believe Jesus commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer?

T: It doesn't appear that you read what I just wrote above.

M:Nothing you’ve said about God thus far provides enough insight or information for me to deduce your answer to this question.

T: I suggest re-reading what I just wrote.

M:I have in the past attempted to draw a conclusion based on what you’ve said about God (as it relates to this question) but with fatal results and strong disapproval from you.

T: Why not conclude what I wrote?

Do you really think insisting that I read between the lines will ensure I arrive at the correct conclusion? Please, Tom, for the millioneth time, do you believe Jesus commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer?

Quote:
M:By the way, there appears to be a contradiction between point 2 and points 3 and 4. For example, did the Gospels ever portray Jesus causing death and destruction that in reality He merely permitted others to do? I make this observation and ask this question because you say the Father behaved in the OT in the exact same way Jesus did in the Gospels and vice versa. But where in the Gospels did Jesus ever command godly people to kill ungodly people?

T: Exactly!!!

Your enthusiatic response does not help me understand your answer to the question – Did Jesus, while here in the flesh, command godly people to kill ungodly people? If not, why did He do so in the OT?

Quote:
M: Again, I’m sorry you found the question so disturbing; but, thank you for answering it so emphatically. You leave no doubt in my mind what you believe about it. And, no, I don’t know of anyone who believes God views killing animals and humans as equal.

T: So why ask the question?

M: I only wish you would answer the following question with as much emphasis and enthusiasm - Do you believe Jesus commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer?

T: I've responded to this at great, great length. The many posts in regards to the father/hunter relate to this question.

None of your responses provide enough insight for me to correctly conclude what you believe. Please plainly state what you believe. The humane hunter story does not help me understand why Jesus commanded Moses to kill ungodly people. I suspect you believe, yes, Jesus did indeed command Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer. Is this what you believe? Or, have I somehow misunderstood what you believe? Please explain. Thank you.

Quote:
M:Also, I don’t see a legitimate comparison between Jesus commanding godly people to kill ungodly people and the anti-hunting father commanding his pro-hunting son to kill animals humanely.

T: Ok, this is a good follow-up. The reason it is a legitimate comparison is because in both cases there is the question of the will of the person speaking being misunderstood.

M: Are you somehow hinting at the idea that Jesus did indeed command Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer?

T: There's no hinting here at anything.

Was it Jesus’ will for Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer? If not, why, then, did He “command” Moses to kill them?

Quote:
M: Did the father command his son to hunt humanely?

T: The father gave counsel to the son regarding how to hunt, but it was not his will that his son should hunt. Given he was going to hunt, the father commanded he should hunt humanely.

M:How does this compare to Jesus commanding godly people to kill ungodly people?

T: It's analogous.

M:I don’t understand what you mean. Please elaborate. Thank you.

T: It was not the father's ideal will that his son should hunt. But if his son was determined to hunt, the father would give him counsel on how to do so in a way that was in harmony with his will. Similarly God has given counsel in regards to many things which are not according to His ideal will. He still does so today.

Was Moses determined to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the Blasphemer? If so, why did he inquire of Jesus as to the right and righteous way to punish them? And, why didn’t Jesus express His ideal will when Moses was uncertain what to do?

Quote:
T: If we take the point of view that God is pleased to have Sabbath-breakers killed, why wouldn't we kill them now?

M:Interesting you bring this point up. Ellen wrote, “In our day there are many who reject the creation Sabbath as a Jewish institution and urge that if it is to be kept, the penalty of death must be inflicted for its violation; but we see that blasphemy received the same punishment as did Sabbathbreaking. Shall we therefore conclude that the third commandment also is to be set aside as applicable only to the Jews? Yet the argument drawn from the death penalty applies to the third, the fifth, and indeed to nearly all the ten precepts, equally with the fourth. Though God may not now punish the transgression of His law with temporal penalties, yet His word declares that the wages of sin is death; and in the final execution of the judgment it will be found that death is the portion of those who violate His sacred precepts. {PP 409.2}

T: This doesn't address my question. I haven't made the argument if the Sabbath needs to be kept, then Sabbath-breakers should be killed.

M:Your question seems to imply God isn’t in favor of executing Sabbath-breakers in accordance with the laws regulating and requiring capital punishment.

T: God isn't in favor of executing anybody. He is in favor of saving them. He gave His Son to save them.

M: However, the passage quoted above makes it clear that He is.

T: Jesus Christ made clear God's will was to save.

Yes, of course, it is God’s will and desire to save everyone. "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness; but is long-suffering to usward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.”

You and I both know and believe the majority will not be saved. What is unclear to me is if you believe Jesus commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the Blasphemer. Jesus “will by no means clear the guilty.”

Quote:
M:Also, the point begs the question, a question you have thus far refused to answer, namely, do you believe Jesus commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer?

T: I pointed out to you that you didn't address my question, and you utter falsehoods, and continue not to address the question.

The title of this thread is – “Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death?” I have no idea what your answer is to this question. The only thing you’ve said so far is that the Bible often portrays Jesus saying or doing something which is contrary to His will and desire. From this insight you insist that I deduce your answer to the question that serves as title for this thread. It would save a lot time and energy if you would simply, clearly, plainly answer the question (rather than relying on me to deduce what you believe based on the clues you've posted thus far).

Quote:
1. Where in the OT did Jesus explain to the Jews things as you see them (as they relate to the title of this thread)?

2. Where in the NT did Jesus categorically condemn capital punishment?

Please answer the two questions posted above. Thank you.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/25/11 11:08 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
NJK: E.g., there was a perfect typological law of blood sacrifices represent what God would have to do to redeem man for their sins, however the people understood this to mean that God was bloodthirsty.

Tom: Which people? Why do you think they thought that? I think they thought of the sacrifices in general very, very differently to how we, who have been very heavily influenced by Anselm, do.

NJK: By explicit and implicit implication, the people of God who thought that God was “pleased,” or ‘to be pleased,’ by merely offering sacrifices. Pointedly: Judah/Jerusalem (e.g., Isa 1:10-13a ff; Jer 20:6b): “Zion” (Psa 50:13, 14; 23; cf. Heb 13:16); ‘Israel’ (Mal 1:10; 1 Sam 15:20-22; cf. DA 509.1-2).

Tom: You said the blood sacrifices led the people to thing God was bloodthirsty. I asked you why you think this. You responded by saying that the people thought that God was pleased merely by offering sacrifices. I don't see why you would think this meant the people viewed God as bloodthirsty.

NJK:In the texts I cited, the shedding of blood was often, (and that incontrovertibly, synonymously) disgusteldy spoken of by God in trying to show the people that this did not please/appease Him as they thought. Indeed during feasts like the Passover, blood flowed from the Temple in streams.


What I'm saying is that it could be the case that the people were viewing the act of sacrifice (performing of some rite) as pleasing God (like going to church would, or some act of penance), and not that God was necessarily being viewed as blood-thirsty.

Quote:
Why wouldn't it mean that they viewed that God was pleased by their offering sacrifices? ... Not all sacrifices involved blood.


Indeed because all sacrifices involved the shedding of blood. An animal “offering” was not a “sacrifice”. And just like one ‘cannot make an omelet without breaking an egg’, an animal was not, and cannot be, “sacrificed” without first being killed and thus shedding its blood. Sacrificial animals were not (oxymoronically) “sacrificed alive”.


Grain could be used if an animal could not be afforded.

Quote:
T:What do you think the meaning of sacrifice was in Hebrew culture?

NJK:What the Bible teaches about/for an animal sacrifice. The question actually is what do you think???


What do you think the meaning of sacrifice was in Hebrew culture? It should be possible to express this succinctly.

Quote:
NJK: This is what probably led them to seek other gods who were not so (seemingly) death and blood “demanding” and/or even espouse gods like Molech who required child sacrifices.

Tom: You're saying they viewed Jehovah to be more bloodthirsty than Molech, who demanded child sacrifices, which is why they turned to Molech?

NJK: No actually. Molech was in a distinct ‘type of God’ context. I had said that Israel probably turned to some foreign gods which required no sacrifices compared to their own God. Indeed, as the same underlying principle is posited today, it was “economically” more logical to obey a god that e.g., did not require one to make sacrifices from quite valuable livestock. The same personal wealth amassing excuse is used by many people, e.g., in regards to tithing, or conversely going along with Capitalism vs. God’s socio-economic principles.

Tom: So you're saying that a god who would require merely the sacrifice of one's own children was preferred to One who required the heavier sacrifice of cattle? So you believe the Hebrews viewed cattle as more valuable than their children? And that's why the preferred Molech?

NJK:I don’t see what ‘heaviness’/weight has to do with it. The value of a creature was not a matter of its weight.


It doesn't sound like you're trying to make a joke here, so I take it you're not familiar with the expression. A heavier sacrifice has nothing to do with mass, but with how onerous the sacrifice is.

Quote:
NJK:Thus children were technically more valuable than a cattle,


Not "a cattle," but "cattle."

Quote:
and so, I see that in the minds of people who obviously had a ‘my god knows best view’ a God that required the extreme sacrifice of a child would be seen as being ready/willing to do much more for its worshipper than the God of Israel who require an animal.

Economically speaking, offering a child, which actually would be done ca. 1 per year vs. the panoply of sacrifices, and other offerings, that were require by the God of Israel could be seen a less costly given that all these animals would economically cost much more than a newborn child. Let alone the cost of not having to care for this newborn for next 20 years and virtually the rest of its life through the due “living inheritance” of farmland.


It can't be both ways. Either the child is a greater sacrifice, in which case Molech was demanding more, not less, or it was a lesser sacrifice, in which case Jehovah was more demanding.

Quote:
NJK: In regards to Molech, I meant that Israel, who had a wrong understanding that God was “bloodthirsty” and was merely pleased with the shedding of blood in sacrifice, probably thus surfacely saw Molech as being a “greater god” by requiring the “blood” of their own children.

Tom: Wouldn't this mean this god was requiring a greater sacrifice? But above you said they turned to foreign gods which required less sacrifice than theirs did.


NJK:When the economic realities are taken into account, it could easily be seen, as today, that sacrificing a newborn child instead of spending money and wealth on the child, and also on many livestock sacrifices and various wealth offerings every year for years, was a much better “religious deal.” That indeed is the underlying economic reason for abortions, endorsed even by professed Christians, including the SDA Church in regards to “elective” abortions. (I.e., For SDA’s: it is better to have an abortion for a woman that will not be “psychologically” be able to deal with that child, than to let it be born and take it, or give it into adoption or raise it in an orphanage.


This seems to have nothing to do with whatever point you were making in regards to Molech.

Quote:
Tom: I think they more likely turned to Molech for reasons analogous to why people turn to Catholicism.

NJK: Do elaborate/explain. I don’t see the correlation. Catholic rituals don’t include child sacrifices, in fact no (actual) sacrifices at all.

Tom: Catholicism has rites which enable the practitioner to continue in sin, while soothing the conscience. The true religion of Christ involves a doing away with sin. People will choose religions systems, which have a yoke which is heavy, over the yoke of Christ, which is light.

NJK:Understood. I get that derived view of yours here now.


Ok.

Quote:
Quote:
NJK (edited): So the misunderstanding was in the mind of the people but not with the Biblical writer. Indeed God’s Spirit would not let such a misconception be recorded as Scripture/The Word of God.

Tom: Light is progressive. We need to bear in mind that at the time the OT was written, Christ had not yet come. The coming of Christ shed a great deal of light.

NJK: As this is all in relation to e.g., who actually did destructions in the OT, I see no Biblical, I.e., later OT, NT, SOP) evidence that contradict what had priorly revealed as taking place.

Tom: The contradiction is not with what had been previously been revealed, but with people's perceptions of what had been revealed. I've made this point repeatedly.

NJK:So then why are you (exegetically) ignoring and/or rewording what has been revealed.


People's perceptions is a part of exegesis; this can't be ignored.

Quote:
NJK:The facts here show that this has not been the point you have been making.


It is the same point. I summarized the main points I've been making, and that was one of the points.

Quote:
NJK: As I said before, you may think you are, with such benign assertions/statement of principles, but in actual practice that is not what you are doing, therefore, at the very least, not what your view of your claim actually, concretely means when applied by you.


I've been making this point all along. I've said that if we see something in the OT that looks different than what we see in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ while here in the flesh, then our perceptions of the OT are different than what Jesus Christ's was, since He spoke what He heard and lived what He say in the OT.

Quote:
Quote:
NJK: Further revelations in such regards only confirmed, and that with greater details, what had been previously expressed by these Inspired Bible Writers.

Tom: Same comment.


Well then: same answer.

Quote:
NJK: The direct statements of God are not subject to such future enlightening as the Bible writers then just recorded what they had “heard”. This is synonymous with EGW’s “I was shown” revelations in which she many times heard direct statements from God. In fact, I see that the revelation of these OT writers were probably identical to the direct ones given to EGW in that they “heard” many of these statements in those divine visions and dreams and recorded it. They also may have more clearly “heard” the voice of God while fully awake/conscious and proceed to record verbatim, what they had heard/been told.

Tom: What a person perceives is colored by their mind-set, their world view, their paradigm, etc. No inspired writer perceived things as clearly as Christ did, and none could reveal God's character as clearly as He.

NJK:They did not have to merely write what they perceived. In many ways like it was seen with EGW, what they wrote from solely what they had perceived, was based upon the many various direct statements and revelations of God in the OT. An a historical account is not a perception.


The historical account is processed by the brain. The processing of what is recorded involves one's perceptions, world view, paradigm, etc. The inspired writers are God's penmen, not His pen.

Quote:
NJK:And Jesus did not contradict anything that these Biblical writers had written.


Indeed. Why is why if we have a view of what the Bible writers wrote which is violent, for example, or contrary to what Jesus taught in some other way, that view is suspect.

Quote:
NJK: As I said earlier, I only see Moses making a further clarification of what Job had not fully perceived as the only partially applicable incident for this claim of yours.


That's not the case. The story was meant to bring out a lesson, and that lesson would not be understood, if only applied to Job.

Quote:
Satan, the author of sin and all its results, had led men to look upon disease and death as proceeding from God,—as punishment arbitrarily inflicted on account of sin. Hence one upon whom some great affliction or calamity had fallen had the additional burden of being regarded as a great sinner. {DA 471.1}...

God had given a lesson designed to prevent this. The history of Job had shown that suffering is inflicted by Satan, and is overruled by God for purposes of mercy. But Israel did not understand the lesson. The same error for which God had reproved the friends of Job was repeated by the Jews in their rejection of Christ. {DA 471.3}


If this was a one-time incident, it could hardly have accomplished the purpose God had intended, showing that Satan is the author of sin and all its results.

Quote:
NJK:Yet Moses Himself did that “further specifying”. Indeed this shows how faithful he was to record things exactly as they were revealed and/or told to him, as he could easily have edited Job’s statement in Job 1:21.

Quote:
NJK: You also often say that OT people had an incorrect understanding of who was doing an action in the Bible,

Tom: Actually I've never said this.

NJK: Perhaps not verbatim, but you have actually meant this.

Tom: No, this isn't what I meant, or mean.

NJK:As I substantiated with your own words, that is what, at the very least, was straightforwardly understood by what you had said.


It sounds like you're commenting before you're read what was written. You should wait to comment until the point has been made.

Quote:
Quote:
NJK: That is indeed what I understood by your repeat (though unsubstantiated) statement: that ‘the Bible often presents God doing that which He permits’ (e.g., the latest in Post #133509). Clearly that logically means to you that ‘these Bible writers had written that God had done something when He had actually only permitted it to be done, and that by someone/something else, moreover independent of His effectuating energy.’

Tom: This involves the action being done, not simply who is doing it.

NJK:As I straightforwardly/logically see it, this is just the secondary meaning to your statement.


Same comment. You'd be better off reading first. Then comment.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Tom
For example, consider the case of God's sending fiery serpents upon the Israelites. What actually happened was God permitted the serpents who were already there to harm the Israelites,

NJK:No. The Bible, not contradicted by EGW’s “protection withdrawal” statement, says that God forcefully made the serpents go in the midst of the people, and with “forced interest”. Responsibly deal with those exegetical facts, instead of ignoring them.


This doesn't make sense. Here's the statement by Ellen White:

Quote:
How was it with the children of Israel in the wilderness?—They were protected on every side; the pillar of cloud by day and of fire by night was over them; but they did not appreciate the blessings they enjoyed. They murmured and complained, and God finally permitted the serpents to bite them, that they might be brought to a realizing sense of his care and protection. It was the power of God that had before kept the venomous serpents of the wilderness from stinging them.{RH February 26, 1889, par. 9}


This is exactly what I've been saying. How is this not contrary to your view?

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Tom
which action He had been actively preventing until that point.

NJK:Which is why ‘not preventing’ it any more is an act of His,


Sure, it's the act of withdrawing His protection, which is how God destroys. That's the point that's been made all along.

Quote:
and this scientifically would involve him putting a threatened fear of the people in these serpents even causing them in this way to go in the midst of the camp.


There's no implication of this. Please take another look at the Ellen White statement quoted above.

The serpents weren't the only danger God was protecting the people from. He was protecting them from all sorts of dangers. All He had to do was withdraw His protection. There was no need for some other action to make the snakes be more snake-like.

Quote:
However God may have distinctly done this drawing act.


God simply withdrew His protection, as stated. If you add something to this, you take away from the force of the inspired writer's point. Ellen White's point was that God withdrew His protection.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Tom
So the problem was not with who was doing the action (clearly it was the snakes),

NJK:Clearly... but not in how you are understanding this “doing”. The doing was an active act of God.


Here's how I understand the doing:

Quote:
How was it with the children of Israel in the wilderness?—They were protected on every side; the pillar of cloud by day and of fire by night was over them; but they did not appreciate the blessings they enjoyed. They murmured and complained, and God finally permitted the serpents to bite them, that they might be brought to a realizing sense of his care and protection.


I don't know how to put it any more clearly than this.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Tom
but with what action was taking place (God was permitting them to attack the Israelites, as opposed to sending the snakes to attack them).

NJK:That was just the means for God to do this act of judgement. God actually “forcefully” made them do it.


First of all, there is no hint of this in what was written. Secondly, if what you are postulating were true, it would contradict what actually was written, which should be easy to see.

Think about it. If it was God's purpose that the Israelites recognize the protection He was constantly providing against the snakes, it makes no sense to say that God *provoked* the snakes to attack the Israelites. In this case, God would not have been protecting the Israelites against the snakes at all!

If God could remove His protection, and nothing would have happened against the Israelites, then His protection was unnecessary to begin with, and removing it would not teach the Israelites that His protection was necessary.

Quote:
Quote:
NJK: and while that substantively only applies to the episode of Job,

Tom: What is "that" here?

NJK: As I went on to (disprovingly) say (see below): “where God permitted Satan to do the destruction”, that “that” clearly refers to this notion of ‘God being said to do something which he had only permitted to be done’.

Tom: You're saying that the notion of God being said to do something which He only permitted to be done, in terms of Satan being permitted to cause destruction, applies only to the episode in Job?

NJK:Right.


This isn't a viable idea, as explained above.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Tom
That is, at no other time did this occur?

NJK:I don’t see any other. Cite others if you can, and like I said, not the prime 7 you have cited which have been exegetically disproven/debunked.


The ones I have cited certainly haven't been debunked. We have the plain statements regarding the serpents above, so that stands. Also the destruction of Jerusalem. This is certainly clear:

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. By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them... GC 35)


I'm not sure what the other 5 are. I mentioned it saying that God killed Saul, when Saul actually took his own life. That's clear.

Another one that comes to mind is God's sending strong delusion upon those who love not the truth. EGW explains this as God's turning them over to the delusions they already had.

I've quoted from Deut. 32, as I recall. There are a number of similar statements throughout Deut, in the early 30's, that are similar (regarding God's wrath viz a viz His hiding His face, and permitting troubles to come upon them).

Ellen White has statements regarding the hardening of Pharaoh's heart (e.g. "But Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also ... (1T 292).

She spoke of the spies that were sent (Scripture says "And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, "Send men to spy out the land of Canaan." EGW: "Here it was proposed by the people that spies be sent to survey the country. The matter was presented before the Lord by Moses, and permission was granted." (PP 387)

In Job we read "God said to Satan, 'You incited Me against him, to destroy him without cause (Job 2:3). EGW: "The history of Job had shown that suffering is inflicted by Satan." (DA 471)

David's numbering of Israel is sometimes attributes to God (2 Sam. 24:1) and sometimes to Satan (1 Chron. 21:1)

Regarding Israel's being invaded: "By their transgression of God's law, the people of Judah had forfeited His protection. (5T 749)

Regarding David's punishment Scripture says "I will raise up evil against the out of thing own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto they neighbor" (2 Sam 12:11,12).

EGW: "Not that God prompted these acts of wickedness, but because of David's sin He did not exercise His power to prevent them" (PP 739).

So there are quite a few examples of God presenting Himself as doing that which He permits.

(All for now).
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/26/11 03:21 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
So there are quite a few examples of God presenting Himself as doing that which He permits.

And there are quite a few accounts of Jesus actually doing what the Bible said He did (I'm referring to accounts of death and destruction). For example, Jesus really did "command" Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the Blasphemer.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/26/11 04:42 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
NJK: There is also the issue that I see that it is wrongly believed that Biblical writers themselves had a wrong view of the character of God while it seems evident to me that this statement speaks of how Israel in general came to view God.

Tom: They certainly didn't have as clear a view of the character of God as Jesus Christ.

NJK: That is besides the point.

Tom: No it's not. The point is that the whole purpose of Christ's earthly mission was the revelation of God, and that had this revelation already been accomplished, Christ need not have come. That's the context of the discussion. So that the Bible writers did not has a clear a view of God's character as Christ did is to the point.

NJK:It substantively is besides the point for the substantiating reasons that I went on to state.

Tom: From what you are saying here, it looks right on point, getting to the critical issue (at least, a critical issue).

NJK:Now that I understand your point of view more clearly based on what you have finally forthrightly/clearly stated below, I can actually now see/understand how and why this is “right on point for you, in your view. That is because you believe that OT writers themselves had, actually, a wrong view of God.


I don't think this is the right way of thinking about this. God is infinite, so no human (besides Jesus Christ) could have a view of God that was complete. What I said was, "They certainly didn't have as clear a view of the character of God as Jesus Christ."

Quote:
NJK:I would only see that this applies to the parts of the Bible, where these writers were “free” to purely express their own thoughts, derived from their own experiences with God, e.g., the “Writings” of the OT (e.g., Psa/Pro/Eccl), however I also do see that much of the “free” statements by writers was derived from things that God had actually said.


All throughout the Bible the Bible writers are communicating their thoughts. They are God's penmen, not His pen.

Quote:
NJK:So I also only see that in some parts, Bible writers had an incomplete understanding of God, due to what God could only reveal to them, due to their own failings, revelation frustrating and other shortcomings. Yet what was revealed was quite sufficient for them to come to that full understanding of God. E.g., Moses, after his 40 days up on the mountain had a perfect understanding of God’s Law and also of the Plan of Salvation in the current OT Religious Economy symbols (PP 330.2). I believe Jesus came to this fuller and more complete revelation using this exact “text”, combined with the ever guiding help of the Spirit because of His unwavering, self-initiated, perfect walk in God’s ways and constant obedience to the various promptings of God’s Spirit. So what could not be revealed to people in the OT because of their own shortcomings, could, and was revealed to Christ, particularly as He variously “advanced” and “kept on course” in God’s will.

Israel, by necessity, indeed just as NT Believer have faith in Jesus, and are to be faithful and obedient to Him to remain in harmony with the Father’s will, OT Believers had to do the same thing with the Law.


I'm not sure what your point is here. It sounds like you're agreeing with me in regards to what I said about Jesus Christ.

What I have been saying is that Jesus Christ was the clearest revelation of God. It was the whole purpose of His mission to reveal God. This was necessary because of the work Satan had been doing to misrepresent God's character. Until the cross, even holy angels were impacted by Satan's misrepresentations.

Quote:
NJK:The OT revelation was perfect in itself.

Tom: Only as they left God's mind. Once human beings got involved, they were no longer perfect, as the Scriptures neither represent the logic nor the language of God. (See Selected Messages on inspiration).

NJK:I do see that the Inspiration of Bible writers was very much like what was seen with EGW. They primarily wrote upon what they had seen in visions and dreams and “heard” from God. Similarly most of EGW “early writings’ were such direct revelations. Then she began to derive testimony from such direct revelations and additional ones. Bible writers similarly did the same thing. However I see that they had a much closer experience with God than did EGW (e.g., Moses’ in person meetings with God.) Indeed God was tangibly in the midst of Israel for many centuries, even right through periods of apostasy, though no additional revelation and (advancing/visionary prophetic) light was given.


Ok.

Quote:
NJK: The people’s added misconceptions are what need to be addressed and Christ added furthering and fulfilling revelations. The Inspired Bible writers got God’s revelation right. It was the people who misunderstood that revelation. And to say that these Bible writers got it wrong, implies that God Himself wrongly expressed, legislated and/or otherwise reveal it.

Tom: It dosn't imply this.

NJK:Previously I had said that a misunderstanding in Bible writers could have occurred in their actual “ad lib” writings, i.e., vs. writing what God had “directly” revealed. And I do not actually see an example of this “misunderstanding” in the Bible.


What you wrote was stronger than this. You wrote, "to say that these Bible writers got it wrong, implies that God Himself wrongly expressed, legislated and/or otherwise reveal it." Again, I wouldn't say that the Bible writers got it wrong, but that God is infinite, and they are human. God as a writer is not expressed in Scripture in terms of rhetoric or logic is what I recall the EGW quote to say.

Quote:
NJK: I understand that you do with, e.g., every instance where it says that ‘God took judgement actions on someone/ a group of people.’ For the many reasons already expressed in this thread, including especially the ones that show that your understanding of what EGW revealed in 14MR 1-3|GC 35-37 was only a secondary way to effectuate judgements, namely “no (more) mercy” judgements, I indeed do see that you are quite wrongly and overreachingly misapplying that view.


She never said that this was a secondary way to bring about judgments. This is simply an assumption you have, and one which is contrary to various principles she articulated, including, to name a few:

1.The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government.
2.Compelling power is found only under the government of Satan.
3.All that we need to know, or can know, of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son.
4.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.
5.Sickness, suffering, and death are work of an antagonistic power. Satan is the destroyer; God is the restorer.

You've never adduced any evidence that what she has said above is a "secondary way to effectuate judgments." That there is such a thing, as multiple ways to bring about judgments, is under dispute. The way that I have said that God brings about judgments is in harmony with the principles laid out above. If God had some other way of bringing about judgments, not in harmony with the above judgments, that would be problematic. God's character is consistent.

Quote:
EGW:The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God’s mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God’s penmen, not His pen.

NJK:Indeed some expression may seem and are ungodly.(None come to mind actually) However I see that the substance itself is not affected by the mode of expression.


Certainly one's understanding of what another communicates, which is what we're talking about, is impacted by the mode of expression.

Quote:
NJK:I also think that the Bible is substantively perfectly revealed in what is prescritive and also, by being truthful, in what it describes. I also think that whenever it relates that God did something, then that is indeed what occurred. (Of course you do see so).


The Bible often presents God as doing that which He permits. This is a principle, like "forever" does not necessarily mean "for all eternity." So when we say something occurred, like God killed Saul, what does that mean? It might mean that Saul took His own life. Or when it says that God sent fiery serpents against the Israelites, what does that mean? It might mean that God did nothing more than remove His protection. Or when God sent strong delusion against those who received not the love of the truth, that might mean that God left to them to their own delusions.

There are all sorts of examples like this.

Quote:
NJK:Again, I really cannot think of any theologically substantive error/wrong view in the Bible. Indeed I do not see your view on God’s judgements as being examples of a wrong view.


You don't see my view on God's judgments as being examples of a wrong view? So you see my view on God's judgments as being examples of a correct view?

Quote:
Tom: On the other hand, Jesus Christ was God's pen! Jesus Christ was God's thought expressed audible, the perfect representation of God. His was the greatest revelation.

Originally Posted By: Bible Hebrews 1:1, 2 (KJV)
1God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son. (Hebrews 1:1, 2;KJV)

NJK:This text clearly is just saying that “in the same way God had variously spoken through prophets in the past, now spoke through His Son Jesus Christ.”


I don't know anybody who interprets this text this way. I've never heard this idea until now.

Quote:
The Highest of All Revelations Is Given Us Now in the Son of God, Who Is Greater than the Angels, and Who, Having Completed Redemption, Sits Enthroned at God's Right Hand.(Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary)


Quote:
God spake to his ancient people at sundry times, through successive generations, and in divers manners, as he thought proper; sometimes by personal directions, sometimes by dreams, sometimes by visions, sometimes by Divine influences on the minds of the prophets. The gospel revelation is excellent above the former; in that it is a revelation which God has made by his Son. In beholding the power, wisdom, and goodness of the Lord Jesus Christ, we behold the power, wisdom, and goodness of the Father, Joh 14:7; the fulness of the Godhead dwells, not typically, or in a figure, but really, in him. (Matthew Henry)


These were chosen because they're easy to find. I hadn't read what these had said, but just looked for *any* commentary, because this explanation is the only I've ever heard, and seems clear just by reading the text.

Quote:
Still it was God who was doing this speaking. Only a different spokesperson was used.


The point is that Jesus Christ is greater. This is the theme of Hebrews in a nutshell.

Quote:
NJK:Interestingly enough, I only see two times in the Bible where God had to correct a prophets, and that for relatively benign reasons, namely Nathan (2 Sam 7:1-17) and Samuel (1 Sam 16:6, 7). Seems to me they were quite faithful in correctly transmitting what had been revealed/said to them. So I do not see a basis here that what was recorded in the OT from God was wrongly done.


What are your responding to here? Where have I said that anything was wrongly done? Haven't I been saying that the problem is with how what was written has been perceived?

Quote:
NJK: I am not going down that slippery slope!

Tom: I think you're going down a different one. Namely, replacing the revelation of Jesus Christ with ideas which are not in harmony with what He lived and taught.

NJK:That is of course because you are viewing/judging things by your view,


Of course. And you are viewing/judging things by your view, which is why you say the things you say.

Quote:
which I do not see what you are basing it on saying or requiring what you are doing. Even EGW who “would have” expressed it, did not do/say what you are requiring when writing her commenting books on Biblical episodes, namely the Conflict of the Ages series. As seen in e.g, GC 614.2, she also saw and understood that God had done acts of judgement and destructions in the OT and also NT.


From GC 614:

Quote:
When He leaves the sanctuary, darkness covers the inhabitants of the earth. In that fearful time the righteous must live in the sight of a holy God without an intercessor. The restraint which has been upon the wicked is removed, and Satan has entire control of the finally impenitent. God's long-suffering has ended. The world has rejected His mercy, despised His love, and trampled upon His law. The wicked have passed the boundary of their probation; the Spirit of God, persistently resisted, has been at last withdrawn. Unsheltered by divine grace, they have no protection from the wicked one. Satan will then plunge the inhabitants of the earth into one great, final trouble. As the angels of God cease to hold in check the fierce winds of human passion, all the elements of strife will be let loose. The whole world will be involved in ruin more terrible than that which came upon Jerusalem of old.


These are the same ideas I've been sharing. This is the context of the text you're referencing.

Quote:
EGW’s treatise on the “City of Refuge” in ST, January 20, 1881 is a good example of the perfect mixture of God’s justice and his mercy.


The most detailed explanation I've see in the first chapter of the Desire of Ages. The chapter on the revolution in France also is pretty detailed, and is along the same lines as the first chapter.

It's helpful to note principles involved. I've already articulated some. We know that at times God works as explained in GC chapter 1, and that this example has God working things out in harmony with the principles articulated before. Does He sometimes work differently, according to other principles? I don't see that you've made any such case.

Quote:
NJK: The revelation of these (OT) Bible writers, set out in writing under the inspiration of God’s Spirit was precisely what God wanted to be fully understood then. Later in Jesus Christ, God only ‘made more full’ what He had previously said, legislated and inspired. And again, as per the focus of this thread, this fuller revelation in Christ did not change the actual substance of “historical” OT episodes, indeed as they are properly recorded. To make this apply to your view, you need to show statements from Christ which e.g., change the substantive/historical records of OT events. And again, the misperception of people in Christ day was not on what had occurred, but the wrong conclusion they drew from what had occurred.

Tom: On what do you base this assertion? How do you know there wasn't a misunderstanding as to what had occurred?

NJK: Seriously???

Tom: ??? What is is you think we're disagreeing about???

NJK:Now that I finally understand your full view of the OT,


It doesn't appear that you do. If you could articulate my position in a way that I would agree with, I would agree that you understand my view. Are you able to do so?

Quote:
I can see why you don’t get my incredulity here. I see that the Bible writers did not have a misunderstanding with what had occurred,


The issue is not with the Bible writers!

Quote:
indeed as confirmed by the similar views of EGW. Of course, you don’t, and think that everywhere that is said that God did something was a misunderstanding and must be restated.


You're being inaccurate here. What I've said is that God is often presented as doing that which He permits, and I've given many examples of this, both from Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy.

Quote:
NJK:I find no Biblical example or support, including from Jesus Himself, for this rewriting of the Biblical text.


I've given over a dozen examples of what I asserted.

Quote:
NJK:As I understand the why’s of God’s timely OT judgements, indeed as He did need to timely act to check free developments that, I believed, He did not always anticipate as a concrete possibility (cf. Isa 5:4). All of these acts of judgement are also microcosms and warnings of what the Final Hell destruction will be.


I haven't been discussing with you as to why the judgments occurred, but the mechanism involved in the judgments.

Quote:
NJK: Well then, simply said, because these OT writers would copiously preface their statements with qualifiers along the lines of: ‘The Lord said’; by Jesus’ full endorsement of the OT as well as other NT writers, never engaging to correct its accounts, and passages like 2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:20. I’ll go by these: “Thus says the Lord” than by anything man may fancifully suppose.

Tom: So when you said, "this fuller revelation in Christ did not change the actual substance of 'historical' OT episodes," you had only specifically the actual words of God in mind? If so, that's not very clear.

NJK:No. These “thus says the Lord” are a distinct portion of the Biblical Text, which I see a paramount in God’s revelation. Similarly to how I see the SOP’s “I was shown” statements. And in matters of history, these Bible writers straightforwardly and matter of factly related what had occurred and I do not see Jesus changing these accounts.


Yet again, this is not the issue.

Jesus Christ said what He heard, and lived what He saw, of God as revealed in the Old Testament. He read the same accounts as everybody else, so the problem is not with the accounts!

The problem is with one's perceptions of what was written. These perceptions are often at odds with what Jesus Christ revealed in His life and teachings.

Quote:
NJK:Indeed if your view was the Truth, I would think Jesus would be systematically engaging in recorded statements of, e.g.,: ‘you have read “God rained fire on Sodom”, but I say on to you God never does a judgement Himself, and this was actually a volcano that was always supposed to erupt then.’ etc.


Light is progressive. Jesus Christ spoke of the things which He felt were most pressing at the time. There are all sorts of things which are true of which Jesus Christ did not address directly.

Quote:
Seems to me that this work would be quite crucial to Christ reforms, indeed as it would similarly be correcting misconceptions about the, here, History and Prophets, of the OT, just like He had done with the Law and how people came to view it.


I think what Ellen White wrote here addresses the issue you are raising:

Quote:
Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,—to set men right through the revelation of God. In Christ was arrayed before men the paternal grace and the matchless perfections of the Father. 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. {ST January 20, 1890, par. 9}


The whole purpose of Christ's mission was the revelation of God. He revealed the principles I'm articulating; love your enemies, turn the other cheek, walk the second mile. Christ gave His life for His enemies. He never recommended violence, and when it was suggested He burn them, He rebuked those who thus suggested because they did not know what spirit they were of. He died the most horrible death at the hands of those who hated Him. He returned kindness for cruelty.

Quote:
T:If you had more than the actual words of God in mind, then we are dealing with what actually happened, right? And even with the words of God, there are questions, as God often presented Himself as doing what He permits. For example, consider the episode of the fiery serpents. What happened there? Isn't this was our disagreement entails? I believe the serpents were already there, and that God had been protecting the Israelites from them the whole time, and He merely ceased doing so for a time. This is despite the direct language used.

NJK:This is where I see that you are being finally being forthcoming about what you actually think of Biblical exegesis. Evidently you see it as irrelevant.


How does what you're saying here in any way tie into the points that I just made? Or questions I asked?

Quote:
NJK:Had I known this earlier it would have saved me much aggravation because I just could not understand how you would not take exegetical points into proper consider.


You're not being responsive to what I wrote.

Quote:
NJK:Indeed throughout this discussion. Manifestly your outright dismissal of whatever points exegesis makes is derived from your view that these writers had it wrong.


This is also not responsive. You're also misrepresenting my view.

Quote:
So there is really no way one can argue against this “double-whammy”, contra-Bible view.


You can argue as you are, but misrepresenting the view of the person you are discussing things with, and then argue against that.

Quote:
NJK:I would say that ‘EGW’s writings are effectively, your “Bible”, but as you clearly only subscribe to her statements when she agrees with your claimed view, (i.e., you understood her supposed view better than she did) then I can only see that you are really your own Bible and Biblical Authority. Can’t logically/“sanely” compete with/against that “private” method. Case in point, with the fiery serpents. Indeed rather than respond to the many substantive arguments that I have made debunking from various valid exegetical angles, your “private” view, you here simply claim that ‘exegesis is irrelevant’. Indeed now I finally, head shakingly, understand why you did not bother to answer exegetical points that completely disproved your claims and supposition. All that I can say is: Good Luck with that view. I really don’t understand why, with such an obliviously non-exegetical mindset, you would invest in attending a Seminary and ‘completing its coursework.’


These are just insults and name-calling. I've surprised you either don't recognize this, or don't realize there is no value in this. You're not addressing points made, nor answering questions. You're simply misrepresenting my view and hurling insults my way.

I'll stop here.

If you wish to dialog regarding ideas, I'm happy to do so, but I don't have a desire to engage in mud-slinging.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/27/11 12:00 AM


Quote:
NJK: E.g., there was a perfect typological law of blood sacrifices represent what God would have to do to redeem man for their sins, however the people understood this to mean that God was bloodthirsty.

Tom: Which people? Why do you think they thought that? I think they thought of the sacrifices in general very, very differently to how we, who have been very heavily influenced by Anselm, do.

NJK: By explicit and implicit implication, the people of God who thought that God was “pleased,” or ‘to be pleased,’ by merely offering sacrifices. Pointedly: Judah/Jerusalem (e.g., Isa 1:10-13a ff; Jer 20:6b): “Zion” (Psa 50:13, 14; 23; cf. Heb 13:16); ‘Israel’ (Mal 1:10; 1 Sam 15:20-22; cf. DA 509.1-2).

Tom: You said the blood sacrifices led the people to thing God was bloodthirsty. I asked you why you think this. You responded by saying that the people thought that God was pleased merely by offering sacrifices. I don't see why you would think this meant the people viewed God as bloodthirsty.

NJK: In the texts I cited, the shedding of blood was often, (and that incontrovertibly, synonymously) disgusteldy spoken of by God in trying to show the people that this did not please/appease Him as they thought. Indeed during feasts like the Passover, blood flowed from the Temple in streams.

Tom: What I'm saying is that it could be the case that the people were viewing the act of sacrifice (performing of some rite) as pleasing God (like going to church would, or some act of penance), and not that God was necessarily being viewed as blood-thirsty.


And my point is that since sacrifices involved blood, and as shown in those cited verses, God pointedly objected to this shedding of blood, He evidently perceived this thought amongst His people continuing to offer these sacrifices. I’ll exegetically go by what God noticed.

Quote:
Why wouldn't it mean that they viewed that God was pleased by their offering sacrifices? ... Not all sacrifices involved blood.

NJK: Indeed because all sacrifices involved the shedding of blood. An animal “offering” was not a “sacrifice”. And just like one ‘cannot make an omelet without breaking an egg’, an animal was not, and cannot be, “sacrificed” without first being killed and thus shedding its blood. Sacrificial animals were not (oxymoronically) “sacrificed alive”.


Grain could be used if an animal could not be afforded.

(1) Cite the (some key) references.

(2) Then (a) it was not a “sacrifice” and (b) given the socio-economic laws of Israel, there was not many poor amongst them. So the vast majority of these religious (generally speaking) offerings were “sacrifices”. So the objecting statements were made in the factual light of that ‘vast majority reality and norm.’

Quote:
T:What do you think the meaning of sacrifice was in Hebrew culture?

NJK:What the Bible teaches about/for an animal sacrifice. The question actually is what do you think???

Tom: What do you think the meaning of sacrifice was in Hebrew culture? It should be possible to express this succinctly.


It actually is not since sacrifices had different meanings and purposes. Furthermore, what I think their meanings were is actually irrelevant to the fact that blood was being shed when they were offered and also to the point that God abhorred the mindlessness and mere routine way in which this was being done, as if this physically and Theologically prominently involved ‘shedding of blood’ (Heb 9:22) is what God wanted.

Indeed still today, people most prominently and disgustedly notice blood in deaths. Which is a major reason why crime scenes are so visibly restricted and non-mediatized, but funeral viewings are widely “acceptable”. It’s the same dead body, minus especially, the spilt and splattered blood.

Quote:
NJK: This is what probably led them to seek other gods who were not so (seemingly) death and blood “demanding” and/or even espouse gods like Molech who required child sacrifices.

Tom: You're saying they viewed Jehovah to be more bloodthirsty than Molech, who demanded child sacrifices, which is why they turned to Molech?

NJK: No actually. Molech was in a distinct ‘type of God’ context. I had said that Israel probably turned to some foreign gods which required no sacrifices compared to their own God. Indeed, as the same underlying principle is posited today, it was “economically” more logical to obey a god that e.g., did not require one to make sacrifices from quite valuable livestock. The same personal wealth amassing excuse is used by many people, e.g., in regards to tithing, or conversely going along with Capitalism vs. God’s socio-economic principles.

Tom: So you're saying that a god who would require merely the sacrifice of one's own children was preferred to One who required the heavier sacrifice of cattle? So you believe the Hebrews viewed cattle as more valuable than their children? And that's why the preferred Molech?

NJK: I don’t see what ‘heaviness’/weight has to do with it. The value of a creature was not a matter of its weight.

Tom: It doesn't sound like you're trying to make a joke here, so I take it you're not familiar with the expression. A heavier sacrifice has nothing to do with mass, but with how onerous the sacrifice is.


Well in context, your choice of word here was, and actually still itself remains, indeed quite confusing to me, indeed given the involved pun. Can’t blame me for straightforwardly seeing that a “heavier” sacrifice has everything to do with mass.

Quote:
NJK:Thus children were technically more valuable than a cattle,

Tom: Not "a cattle," but "cattle."


Great! A million thanks! My Biblical understanding on this topic is assured now!?? Wish you were so particular about what substantively matters such as proper Biblical Exegesis, which you, as “claimed” should “completely” know about.

Quote:
NJK: and so, I see that in the minds of people who obviously had a ‘my god knows best view’ a God that required the extreme sacrifice of a child would be seen as being ready/willing to do much more for its worshipper than the God of Israel who require an animal.

NJK: Economically speaking, offering a child, which actually would be done ca. 1 per year vs. the panoply of sacrifices, and other offerings, that were require by the God of Israel could be seen a less costly given that all these animals would economically cost much more than a newborn child. Let alone the cost of not having to care for this newborn for next 20 years and virtually the rest of its life through the due “living inheritance” of farmland.

Tom: It can't be both ways. Either the child is a greater sacrifice, in which case Molech was demanding more, not less, or it was a lesser sacrifice, in which case Jehovah was more demanding.


My statement does not imply that ‘it is both ways’. Since the life of a human/child was “technically” though intangibly understood to be more valuable than cattle, and since a single sacrifice of this life was tangibly less costly than that of animals per year on top of tangibly caring for that still alive child then it was synonymously seen that a child sacrifice was a better and more valuable sacrifice than an animal. Indeed both cases, it would be understood that the sacrifice of the child was evidently more valuable than what God required.

Quote:
NJK: In regards to Molech, I meant that Israel, who had a wrong understanding that God was “bloodthirsty” and was merely pleased with the shedding of blood in sacrifice, probably thus surfacely saw Molech as being a “greater god” by requiring the “blood” of their own children.

Tom: Wouldn't this mean this god was requiring a greater sacrifice? But above you said they turned to foreign gods which required less sacrifice than theirs did.


NJK: When the economic realities are taken into account, it could easily be seen, as today, that sacrificing a newborn child instead of spending money and wealth on the child, and also on many livestock sacrifices and various wealth offerings every year for years, was a much better “religious deal.” That indeed is the underlying economic reason for abortions, endorsed even by professed Christians, including the SDA Church in regards to “elective” abortions. (I.e., For SDA’s: it is better to have an abortion for a woman that will not be “psychologically” be able to deal with that child, than to let it be born and take it, or give it into adoption or raise it in an orphanage.

Tom: This seems to have nothing to do with whatever point you were making in regards to Molech.


Only if you must not see so. And such spiritual things are only spiritually discerned.

Quote:
NJK (edited): So the misunderstanding was in the mind of the people but not with the Biblical writer. Indeed God’s Spirit would not let such a misconception be recorded as Scripture/The Word of God.

Tom: Light is progressive. We need to bear in mind that at the time the OT was written, Christ had not yet come. The coming of Christ shed a great deal of light.

NJK: As this is all in relation to e.g., who actually did destructions in the OT, I see no Biblical, I.e., later OT, NT, SOP) evidence that contradict what had priorly revealed as taking place.

Tom: The contradiction is not with what had been previously been revealed, but with people's perceptions of what had been revealed. I've made this point repeatedly.

NJK:So then why are you (exegetically) ignoring and/or rewording what has been revealed.

Tom: People's perceptions is a part of exegesis; this can't be ignored.


So, as I said, you are here saying that what these Bible writers “exegetically” wrote down, (i.e., using various Hebrew grammatical forms and syntactical arrangements), needs to be corrected because they wrongly perceived things. So in that case the Bible really cannot be exegetically studied. It instead has to be ideologically reconsidered. That inclusively clearly changes much more than the ‘jots and tittles’ of the OT text that Jesus had approvingly spoken of. (Matt 5:17, 18).

Indeed with Jesus saying here that He would not change what had been written, and then going on to address the misconceptions of people prove to me that the OT is to be textually exegetically studied. And that includes proper contextualizing, which indeed is the basis of Christ’s ‘perception correcting’ work.

Furthermore, the copious use of the LXX by NT writers is proof to me what was recorded in the OT was not in any way seen as misperceived and misrecorded by these post Christ NT Writers, because they then were primarily working from what had been perceived of the OT Hebrew text than additionally what had also been textually recorded.

Quote:
NJK: The facts here show that this has not been the point you have been making.

Tom: It is the same point. I summarized the main points I've been making, and that was one of the points.


Well I do not see your supposed ‘ideology over textual exegesis’ to be Biblically valid/validated.

Quote:
NJK: As I said before, you may think you are, with such benign assertions/statement of principles, but in actual practice that is not what you are doing, therefore, at the very least, not what your view of your claim actually, concretely means when applied by you.

Tom: I've been making this point all along. I've said that if we see something in the OT that looks different than what we see in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ while here in the flesh, then our perceptions of the OT are different than what Jesus Christ's was, since He spoke what He heard and lived what He say in the OT.


For the many reasons and examples that I have stated from the Life of Christ most of which you have either completely ignored or stopped responding to when your latest objections/arguments were disproven/debunked, then I indeed do not see that Jesus did not ever act in any way that they OT God did as it is straightforwardly, exegetically read. And like I have also said many times before, it was not in Christ’s mandate to effectuate physical judgements, however justified they would have been (Luke 12:49, 50; Matt 11:20-24; 23.)

Furthermore, as seen in my Greek New Testament (Nestle-Aland 27th|UBS 4), the following non-bold portion of Luke 9:55, 56 is disputed and did not appear in early NT Greek manuscripts. (Cf. NIV, NJB, RSV/NRSV which do not include them at all. NASB only includes it in square brackets with an doubtfulness note):

Originally Posted By: Bible Luke 9:55, 56
But He turned and rebuked them, and said, "You do not know what kind of spirit you are of; for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." And they went on to another village.


And EGW’s copious commenting on this disputed portion in her writings (e.g,. DA 487.2; 582.2; COL 212.1) is not a necessarily proof that it was valid. Still if, similarly as the NASB’s bracketed inclusion (vs. a complete non-inclusion) is allowing as a possibility, this is only saying and substantiating that it was not in Christ’s mission then to ‘destroy the life of men’. However that will be different when He puts on the robe of vengeance (cf. Isa 63:1-6).

So for such exegetical reasons, I do not at all see here your “perceived difference-caused” need for reconsidering the OT.

Quote:
NJK: Further revelations in such regards only confirmed, and that with greater details, what had been previously expressed by these Inspired Bible Writers.

Tom: Same comment.

Tom: Well then: same answer.

NJK: The direct statements of God are not subject to such future enlightening as the Bible writers then just recorded what they had “heard”. This is synonymous with EGW’s “I was shown” revelations in which she many times heard direct statements from God. In fact, I see that the revelation of these OT writers were probably identical to the direct ones given to EGW in that they “heard” many of these statements in those divine visions and dreams and recorded it. They also may have more clearly “heard” the voice of God while fully awake/conscious and proceed to record verbatim, what they had heard/been told.

Tom: What a person perceives is colored by their mind-set, their world view, their paradigm, etc. No inspired writer perceived things as clearly as Christ did, and none could reveal God's character as clearly as He.

NJK: They did not have to merely write what they perceived. In many ways like it was seen with EGW, what they wrote from solely what they had perceived, was based upon the many various direct statements and revelations of God in the OT. An a historical account is not a perception.

Tom: The historical account is processed by the brain. The processing of what is recorded involves one's perceptions, world view, paradigm, etc. The inspired writers are God's penmen, not His pen.


That would potentially only apply in cases where they say ‘God did or said something’ in their historical writings. However those accounts were based on first hand observations that were significantly enough reinforced by God’s prophetic voices then. I.e., by men under direct inspiration of God. Indeed the writing of OT Biblical books are typically the putting into a historical/story context the first hand memoirs of people who were known to be directly/prophetically inspired and quoting verbatim what they had said and heard from God. (E.g., the composition of the book of Daniel in here (Section: The Sealed Scroll of Daniel)).

Moreover, many of these related acts of God were fulfillment so what God had revealed to such inspired prophets that He would do. So even in Historical portions, your supposition does not check out.

And as seen in the book of Job and Genesis which Moses wrote, it was God Himself who gave Moses visions and inspirations of what had occurred. So, e.g., in the case of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Moses was not shown a volcano as you do/claim.

Quote:
NJK: And Jesus did not contradict anything that these Biblical writers had written.

Tom: Indeed. Why is why if we have a view of what the Bible writers wrote which is violent, for example, or contrary to what Jesus taught in some other way, that view is suspect.


This ‘violent viewing’ is only a supposition of yours. The OT Bible, as confirmed by Jesus is clear that God uses force, and that to any deemed just extent, to effectuate judgements.

You simply do let all of Jesus’ statements contribute to what taught/said/did. Perhaps you here also believe that NT Gospel writers such as Matthew, Mark/Peter, Luke and John also had the similar misperception problem as OT writers did in recording what Jesus said and did??

Quote:
NJK: As I said earlier, I only see Moses making a further clarification of what Job had not fully perceived as the only partially applicable incident for this claim of yours.

Tom: That's not the case. The story was meant to bring out a lesson, and that lesson would not be understood, if only applied to Job.

Originally Posted By: SOP DA 471.1 & 471.3
Satan, the author of sin and all its results, had led men to look upon disease and death as proceeding from God,—as punishment arbitrarily inflicted on account of sin. Hence one upon whom some great affliction or calamity had fallen had the additional burden of being regarded as a great sinner. {DA 471.1}...

God had given a lesson designed to prevent this. The history of Job had shown that suffering is inflicted by Satan, and is overruled by God for purposes of mercy. But Israel did not understand the lesson. The same error for which God had reproved the friends of Job was repeated by the Jews in their rejection of Christ. {DA 471.3}


Your point does not address my remark. I was not speaking of why Moses wrote the book of Job, or what is to be the purpose of the book, but said that Moses’ independently copiously supplied accounts in pointedly chapters 1 & 2 served to prefacingly give the Historical/GC background context for the rest of the book which is mostly the direct words of Job and his friends.

What is understandably/pastorally derived, as done by EGW, from what Moses had supplied is a distinct issue. What God revealed to Moses served to make this clarification, showing us what really happened, and from their such Theological understanding of purpose can then be made.

Originally Posted By: Tom
If this was a one-time incident, it could hardly have accomplished the purpose God had intended, showing that Satan is the author of sin and all its results.


Job’s case was indeed a situation of “suffering” as Job did not do anything deserving of judgement. So that example indeed shows, and clearly at that, even if it is the only demonstration of that (as EGW “a lesson” seems to imply), showing that God indeed does not cause “sufferings”. However an act of judgement is not ‘causing sufferings’ even if it involves physical sufferings. It is because you cannot see the Justice of God’s character in what He either did or commanded to be done in judgement that you are not making any difference here. The lesson of Job is not that God does not (actively and forcefully) do judgements.

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Yet Moses Himself did that “further specifying”. Indeed this shows how faithful he was to record things exactly as they were revealed and/or told to him, as he could easily have edited Job’s statement in Job 1:21.


[No answer here?]

Quote:
NJK: You also often say that OT people had an incorrect understanding of who was doing an action in the Bible,

Tom: Actually I've never said this.

NJK: Perhaps not verbatim, but you have actually meant this.

Tom: No, this isn't what I meant, or mean.

NJK: As I substantiated with your own words, that is what, at the very least, was straightforwardly understood by what you had said.

Tom: It sounds like you're commenting before you're read what was written. You should wait to comment until the point has been made.


As shown above and as I already understood from your view, that is what your view entails especially as it also includes direct statements and actions of God. Your view is simply not Biblically realistic.

Quote:
NJK: That is indeed what I understood by your repeat (though unsubstantiated) statement: that ‘the Bible often presents God doing that which He permits’ (e.g., the latest in Post #133509). Clearly that logically means to you that ‘these Bible writers had written that God had done something when He had actually only permitted it to be done, and that by someone/something else, moreover independent of His effectuating energy.’

Tom: This involves the action being done, not simply who is doing it.

NJK: As I straightforwardly/logically see it, this is just the secondary meaning to your statement.

Tom: Same comment. You'd be better off reading first. Then comment.


Same answer as above.

You actually need to be more forthcoming with what you believe instead of dodging and ignoring direct questions on points that would plainly explain/state your view. It is clear to me that you are not comfortable with what your view actually necessitates and thus either defensively, partially and/or diversionarily address, when you actually do, questions on it and/or comments that rebutt/disprove it.

As your approach is not at all exegetical, but (spuriously) merely ideological, it is quite normal that you do not consider all contributive points and implications involved with your view.

Quote:
Tom: For example, consider the case of God's sending fiery serpents upon the Israelites. What actually happened was God permitted the serpents who were already there to harm the Israelites,

NJK: No. The Bible, is not contradicted by EGW’s “protection withdrawal” statement, says that God forcefully made the serpents go in the midst of the people, and with “forced interest”. Responsibly deal with those exegetical facts, instead of ignoring them.

Tom: This doesn't make sense.


Really only through/in your non-exegetical approach and resulting “world”.

Quote:
Tom: Here's the statement by Ellen White:

Originally Posted By: SOP RH February 26, 1889, par. 9
How was it with the children of Israel in the wilderness?—They were protected on every side; the pillar of cloud by day and of fire by night was over them; but they did not appreciate the blessings they enjoyed. They murmured and complained, and God finally permitted the serpents to bite them, that they might be brought to a realizing sense of his care and protection. It was the power of God that had before kept the venomous serpents of the wilderness from stinging them.


Tom: This is exactly what I've been saying. How is this not contrary to your view?


(1) One because for me EGW is not the final authority here. Biblical Exegesis is.

(2) God’s permitting can also involve Him acting to do what He permits. So this removal of protection, naturally and scientifically, as corroborated by Biblical Exegesis was manifestly an act of both attracting these snakes within the camp and “making” to be feel threatened. The snakes just coming into the camp did not guarantee that they would be fearful of the people walking by/around them. God’s power was probably simply to appease any sense of threat that these serpents may have developed, whenever He saw that they arose.

Furthermore, this is only a part of what EGW fully said on the topic and, as shown before, what she said then agrees with the exegetical notions of the Bible.

Quote:
Tom: which action He had been actively preventing until that point.

NJK:Which is why ‘not preventing’ it any more is an act of His,

Tom: Sure, it's the act of withdrawing His protection, which is how God destroys. That's the point that's been made all along.


And I have said all along in response to this view of yours is that I only see an action where Satan is tangibly doing something as not being an action of God. Satan was not involved at all in this judgement and as the Bible says God sent these snakes amongst the people and that to bite them. I just do not ascribe to either your non-exegetical view here nor seeking to, and that partially, make EGW the final authority here.

Because of your non-exegetical approach which self-justifies your repeating of exegetically debunked points, you are just causing me to go around in circles here on those already discussed points.

Quote:
NJK: and this scientifically would involve him putting a threatened fear of the people in these serpents even causing them in this way to go in the midst of the camp.

Tom: There's no implication of this. Please take another look at the Ellen White statement quoted above.


There exegetically is in the Bible Of course your approach does not require that you ever take such exegetical points into consideration. How convenient.

Originally Posted By: Tom
The serpents weren't the only danger God was protecting the people from. He was protecting them from all sorts of dangers. All He had to do was withdraw His protection.


That’s besides the points since snakes was the method of punishment chosen by God. Indeed why not also scorpions? I understand the reason to be because of the object lesson that He wanted to teach Israel. Fire from Heaven, as in other cases, would not make this lesson that they needed to depend on Him for protection from such existing dangers clear.

Originally Posted By: Tom
There was no need for some other action to make the snakes be more snake-like.


As stated before, there scientifically is as most snakes “naturally” do not attack humans, or even venture near them, if they could avoid this.

Quote:
NJK: However God may have distinctly done this drawing act.

Tom: God simply withdrew His protection, as stated. If you add something to this, you take away from the force of the inspired writer's point. Ellen White's point was that God withdrew His protection.


And my point, using the Bible as the final authority in such matters of seeming difference with the SOP, is that the Bible pointedly indicates otherwise. So I harmonize the SOP revelation with what the Bible says and indeed do not see a contradiction between those two testimonies. So I indeed see that this ‘withdrawal of protection’ involved the forcefully ‘drawing’ and ‘interesting’ (i.e., feelings of an imminent threat) with these snakes. I do not have an either or approach with the Bible and SOP, especially when it means that what the Bible exegetically reveals has to be discounted in any way or outrightly ignored.

Quote:
Tom: So the problem was not with who was doing the action (clearly it was the snakes),

NJK: Clearly... but not in how you are understanding this “doing”. The doing was an active act of God.

Tom: Here's how I understand the doing:

Originally Posted By: SOP RH February 26, 1889, par. 9
How was it with the children of Israel in the wilderness?—They were protected on every side; the pillar of cloud by day and of fire by night was over them; but they did not appreciate the blessings they enjoyed. They murmured and complained, and God finally permitted the serpents to bite them, that they might be brought to a realizing sense of his care and protection.


Already/also answered above.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I don't know how to put it any more clearly than this.


Use an exegetical approach, and subject this EGW statement to the Greater (exegetical) Light of the Bible, indeed as counseled by EGW herself.

Quote:
Tom: but with what action was taking place (God was permitting them to attack the Israelites, as opposed to sending the snakes to attack them).

NJK: That was just the means for God to do this act of judgement. God actually “forcefully” made them do it.

Tom: First of all, there is no hint of this in what was written.


Then EGW did not have/state the full Biblical revelation here. She was just given additional details of what had occurred. Her other statement however do involved the Bible’s “sent” notions though she does not make exegetical explanations. However she did not see a need to not quote the/her Bible as it read here, indeed as she did with Jesus’ statement in John 20:17.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Secondly, if what you are postulating were true, it would contradict what actually was written, which should be easy to see.


It does not if/since the protection involved was manifestly ‘keeping these snakes from feeling threatened whenever this became necessary.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Think about it. If it was God's purpose that the Israelites recognize the protection He was constantly providing against the snakes, it makes no sense to say that God *provoked* the snakes to attack the Israelites.


Israel would not know this difference. All they saw was that there was no snakes around them. So just making these snake come and bit them would have conveyed that notion irrespective of how God went about to do it. The Bible writers did not have this problem in rightly indicating that God had forcefully done this. Indeed Israel still learned the lesson through this accurate depiction of what had occurred. You are the one who does think this can be done.

Originally Posted By: Tom
In this case, God would not have been protecting the Israelites against the snakes at all!


He was doing so as the natural need was.

Originally Posted By: Tom
If God could remove His protection, and nothing would have happened against the Israelites, then His protection was unnecessary to begin with, and removing it would not teach the Israelites that His protection was necessary.


As I said, the removal of His protection involved both no longer appeasing those feelings of fear when they would now naturally occur and also forcefully injecting it in them Himself with those that did not naturally develop them.

Indeed God manifestly may conversely first have made the snakes feel perfectly comfortable with these humans, thus resulting them in now coming into the camp, and no longer staying away as before, but then also then feeling threatened once in the midst of the
people “defensively” beginning to attack the people.


Quote:
NJK: and while that substantively only applies to the episode of Job,

Tom: What is "that" here?

NJK: As I went on to (disprovingly) say (see below): “where God permitted Satan to do the destruction”, that “that” clearly refers to this notion of ‘God being said to do something which he had only permitted to be done’.

Tom: You're saying that the notion of God being said to do something which He only permitted to be done, in terms of Satan being permitted to cause destruction, applies only to the episode in Job?

NJK: Right.

Tom: This isn't a viable idea, as explained above.


It substantively is, as explained above, for a matter of “sufferings” (vs. judgement) which dobly is not your ‘no pain at all, even in Divine judgements’ view.

Quote:
Tom: That is, at no other time did this occur?

NJK: I don’t see any other. Cite others if you can, and like I said, not the prime 7 you have cited which have been exegetically disproven/debunked.


The ones I have cited certainly haven't been debunked.[/quote]

Yes they have. It is only your non-exegetical method that circularly enables them to be impervious to the Biblical exegesis that debunks them.

Originally Posted By: Tom
We have the plain statements regarding the serpents above, so that stands.


And I have the more authoritative statements of the Bible. And it is your partializing view that does not “stand”, as I indeed do not see that EGW’s statement is contradicting the Bible.

Quote:
Tom: Also the destruction of Jerusalem. This is certainly clear:

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. By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them... GC 35)


Already fully dealt with, and again your, factually speaking partializing and exegetically-indifferent view is what does not stand here.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I'm not sure what the other 5 are.


Look them up. It there in this threads record.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I mentioned it saying that God killed Saul, when Saul actually took his own life. That's clear.


Only through/in your non-exegetical view with its supposed ‘incorrect understanding’ basis. I see that this writer God it right and God somehow indirectly psychologically acted to cause Saul to kill himself on that very day as He wanted it to timely occur.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Another one that comes to mind is God's sending strong delusion upon those who love not the truth. EGW explains this as God's turning them over to the delusions they already had.


Already explained. Why won’t you address what I have said in response??

Originally Posted By: Tom
I've quoted from Deut. 32, as I recall.


I neither retrace nor recall. Indeed state precisely the post, and/or even which one of the 52 verses of Deut 32 you have in mind.

Originally Posted By: Tom
There are a number of similar statements throughout Deut, in the early 30's, that are similar (regarding God's wrath viz a viz His hiding His face, and permitting troubles to come upon them).


I already commented on your ‘hiding face’ comments. You just stopped discussing it when you manifestly did not have an answer to my latest comment against your claimed view here.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Ellen White has statements regarding the hardening of Pharaoh's heart (e.g. "But Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also ... (1T 292).


Already addressed. Obviously exegesis means nothing substantive to you and you also believe that Moses understood God wrong when God said that this is what He was going to deliberately do to Pharoah. Indeed this was a warning to Moses so that Moses would not lose heart when God would make Pharaoh refuse to obey Him.

Originally Posted By: Tom
She spoke of the spies that were sent (Scripture says "And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, "Send men to spy out the land of Canaan." EGW: "Here it was proposed by the people that spies be sent to survey the country. The matter was presented before the Lord by Moses, and permission was granted." (PP 387)


And???? How does this support your view??

Originally Posted By: Tom
In Job we read "God said to Satan, 'You incited Me against him, to destroy him without cause (Job 2:3).


The word “incite” (#05496) has the basic meaning of: ‘move, persuade’. Nothing in it is ineherently evil. Also the NASB reading of “to ruin him without cause” is more accurate here. From the more literal reading is “to engulf him (in ruin) without cause.”

It indeed proves that this was not an act of judgement by God. God’s judgements are, even through postponing (Gen 15:13, 16) always ‘with (fully corresponding) cause’.

Originally Posted By: Tom
EGW: "The history of Job had shown that suffering is inflicted by Satan." (DA 471)


Again this is non-judgement sufferings.

Originally Posted By: Tom
David's numbering of Israel is sometimes attributes to God (2 Sam. 24:1) and sometimes to Satan (1 Chron. 21:1)


I have addressed those passages in this post. I’ll further exegetically amend that 2 Sam 24:1 should accurately read as:

Originally Posted By: Bible 2 Sam 24:1
And he (i.e., Satan (2 Chr 21:1) caused to be added (Hiphil) the anger of the LORD for even a burning (infinitive construct) in Israel, when he moved/persuaded/incited/instigated David against them to say, "Go, number Israel and Judah."


Indeed it is not logical for God to be both the object and subject of this sentence. The statement would have then rather said: The LORD caused His (possessive pronoun) anger to be added....”

Also it may have been those non-specified, but known, “he’s” in the prior 2 Sam 24:1 account that prompted the writer of 2 Chr to editorially specify this person as Satan.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Regarding Israel's being invaded: "By their transgression of God's law, the people of Judah had forfeited His protection. (5T 749)


Full EGW statement:

Originally Posted By: SOP 5T 749.2
Disaster was threatening his country. By their transgression of God's law the people of Judah had forfeited His protection, and the Assyrian forces were about to come against the kingdom of Judah. But the danger from their enemies was not the greatest trouble. It was the perversity of the people that brought upon the Lord's servant the deepest depression. By their apostasy and rebellion they were inviting the judgments of God.


(1) That is only one instance of invasion vs. the many others that occurred by God’s drawing/stirring up action. E.g., Babylon.

(2) Assyria apparently had of themselves decided to go and invade Israel and Judah and God seeing this risen threat sent Isaiah to Judah to seek to get them back in state where they can be protected by Him in warfare and thus avert this looming disaster. The Kingdom of Israel did not survive this ever present Assyrian threat. (2 Kgs 17:6, 23)

Also, as seen in Isaiah 10:1-19; God evidently sees no difference in his ‘forfeiting/withdrawing’ His protection in regards to the Assyrians and Him doing acts of destruction through them.

Still based on what EGW fully said in 5T 749 in regards to ‘judgement of God due to perversity’ and God indicating in e.g, Isa 10:5, 6, 12, 15 that He was variously sending and using Assyria at will and for His purposes, I see that God could easily force Assyria, through rumors/insinuations (e.g, Isa 37:7), to attack Judah in judgement. So either way, i.e., either through an “organic” self-willed attack by Assyria or by a Divinely-caused one, God could have effectuate a judgement when He saw fit.

And as seen in Isaiah 36 & 37 it was only because God, apparently chose to have mercy on Judah, and that for the sake of David (Isa 37:35) that He, at the last minute used Hezekiah’s prayer as a reason to have mercy on the entire kingdom (Isa 37:21ff).

And as seen in Isa 37:36 & in the SOP (GC 614.2) God sent an angel to kill these Assyrians.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Regarding David's punishment Scripture says "I will raise up evil against the out of thing own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto they neighbor" (2 Sam 12:11,12).

EGW: "Not that God prompted these acts of wickedness, but because of David's sin He did not exercise His power to prevent them" (PP 739).


This indirect notion is indicated in the Bible by the use of a Hiphil. Had a Piel stem been used here, this would have proven your point. Simply by God not quenching a desire for such evil by His Spirit, would have accomplished this. The same thing may have occurred with Saul if organically possible/present. As with the lying spirit sent to King Ahab, an evil spirit may have also been allowed and/or left unchecked to influence this wrong course with Absalom. EGW may not have had the full/visionary light on this and may just have made this comment in passing, as it were, based upon what she thought might have occurred here. But the Bible reveals that God could have Himself greenlighted a judgement-feasing agency, even if from the side of the adversary, as it probably would be for this tempting.

Originally Posted By: Tom
So there are quite a few examples of God presenting Himself as doing that which He permits.


For all of the previous reasons I stated against your prime 7 (just restating them does not suddenly make them valid) and these added examples of yours here, I do not see that your claim is either Biblically sound, nor that it serves to overrule the many clear examples where both the SOP and the Bible say that God did an act of judgement Himself.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/27/11 12:02 AM

Originally Posted By: MM
T: You wrote as if God were responsible for the things you were speaking of. I addressed that by pointing out that it would be a huge mistake to view God as responsible, and cited texts to explain why.

M: Of course Jesus was responsible for ensuring evil angels did not exceed the limits He imposed on them. That is, Jesus did not let them cause more death and destruction than He was willing to permit. Do you agree?

T: What would a disagreement to this look like? That Jesus let them cause more death and destruction than He was willing to permit? This is a question to you, asking for clarification. Actually two questions.

M:Why disagree with it? Just say, Yes, of course, I agree.


It looks like a tautology.

Quote:
M:Jesus was responsible for ensuring evil angels did not exceed the limits He imposed on them, that is, He did not let them cause more death and destruction than He was willing to permit.


The second part here looks like a tautology. The first part seems somewhat poorly phrased, perhaps giving the impression that the evil angels were fulfilling Christ's will, as opposed to acting contrary to His will. I would want to make clear that the evil angels are acting contrary to Christ's will.

Quote:
Quote:
M: Do you agree Jesus worked to prevent evil men and evil angels from inflicting more death and destruction than He was willing to permit?

T: I believe that Jesus worked to prevent evil men and evil angels from inflicting death and destruction in general. I don't know what you would want me to elaborate on here. I don't see what you wouldn't be understanding here.

M:Your response seems to imply you believe Jesus works to prevent them from causing any and all forms of death and destruction.


Yes, this is what Jesus does by default.

Quote:
M:If so, did He fail? That is, did He fail at preventing them and it accounts for why they caused so much death and destruction? If so, why wasn’t Jesus successful?


Well, let's look at what we've been told:

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. (GC 35)


This seems clear. The Jews "cause the protection of God to be withdrawn from them."

Quote:
Quote:
M: Or, do you think evil men and evil angels willingly restrained themselves in order not to displease God and exceed Jesus’ limits?

T: This can't be a serious question. This seems self-explanatory. What sense would it make for an evil person to restrain themselves in order not to displease God? Doesn't being evil presuppose that one is displeasing God? Why would you think a question like this makes sense? Better yet, why would you ask such a question? What were you thinking when you asked it? If you write out what you were thinking, perhaps we could discuss that, as what you were thinking probably makes some sense.

M:Do you believe Jesus worked to prevent them from exceeding His limits because otherwise they would?


What limits are you talking about? Is this something specific, or a general question?

Quote:
Quote:
M: Also, did evil men and evil angels do anything Jesus' wasn't willing to permit?

T: I don't see the sense in this one either. God is omnipotent, right? So anything that happens can only happen if He permits it to happen, isn't that right? This seems self-explanatory too. I don't see how you could not understand what I'm saying here.

M:Why didn’t they exceed the limits Jesus imposed on them?


What limits are you talking about?

The general concept is simple. God is constantly protecting us (and not just us, but the wicked as well) from a thousand dangers, all of them unseen. God can be caused to remove His protection. When this happens, bad things may happen (although it's also possible Satan may favor certain ones for his purposes).

Quote:
Quote:
M: Did Jesus force evil men and evil angels to inflict the death and destruction He deemed right and necessary?

T: I don't see any sense in this question either. No, of course not, to answer the question. First of all, the exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government. Secondly, Jesus would hardly force people to do something contrary to the principles of his government, like inflicting death and destruction; that's Satan's job. Satan is the destroyer, Christ is the restorer. So your question is asking if Jesus would use a principle contrary to the principles of His government to bring about more consequences also contrary to the principles of His government.

M:What criteria did Jesus use to determine how and what punishment would be inflicted?


What makes you think He was doing this?

Quote:
M:Did the punishment He envisioned require the involvement of evil men and evil angels?


Same question.

I don't understand how you're thinking here. Here's how I'm thinking. God protects people. They cause Him to remove His protection. Bad things may happen as a result.

Quote:
Quote:
M: Were evil men and evil angels free to refuse to inflict the death and destruction Jesus deemed right and necessary?

T: I don't agree with your premise here. Jesus doesn't deem death and destruction as right and necessary, but as evil, which it is. This seems very clear to me. Your question has a premise, with which I disagree. I pointed out the premise in question, and why I disagree with it.

M:What motivated Jesus to withdraw His protection and permit evil men and evil angels to inflict the punishment He determined was appropriate and worked to ensure they did not exceed?


Same question as before. Why are you thinking that Jesus is determining punishment here, as opposed to that God was caused to remove His protection?

Quote:
Quote:
M: Who would have inflicted the death and destruction Jesus deemed right and necessary if the Roman soldiers and evil angels had refused to do it?

T:Again, I disagree with the premise here. The premise is that you speak of "death and destruction" which "Jesus deemed right and necessary." I disagree with your premise that Jesus Christ was so deeming.

M:Who, then, if not Jesus, determined the limits of punishment to be inflicted on them?


This whole concept of "punishment to be inflicted on them" is foreign to what I'm seeing in the description of the destruction that took place to Jerusalem. In all of Jesus' ministry, not once did He attribute any evil which occurred as punishment being inflicted upon the suffering person. Not one time. In every instance, every one, He attributed their suffering to either sin or Satan. I share this way of thinking. As Jesus Christ did, I also attribute all suffering to the evil one, and the consequences of sin.

Quote:
...all suffering results from transgression of God's law....suffering is inflicted by Satan (DA 471).


Quote:
Sickness, suffering, and death are work of an antagonistic power. Satan is the destroyer; God is the restorer....When Christ healed disease, He warned many of the afflicted ones, "Sin no more, lets a worst thing come unto thee' John 5:14. Thus He taught that they had brought disease upon themselves by transgressing the laws of God, and that health could be preserved only by obedience (MH 113).


Quote:
We are to observe carefully every lesson Christ has given us throughout His life and teaching; He does not destroy. He improves whatever He touches.


I'd like to discuss this last quote a bit, because I think it hits at a heart of the difference between how we view things. I see this last quote as a condensed explanation of the main issue involved in the Great Controversy. Here's the reality:

1.Christ (or God) does not destroy.
2.Christ (or God) improves whatever He touched.

Here is Satan's claim:

1.Christ (or God) does destroy.
2.Christ (or God) does not improve whatever He touches.

Note what we are exhorted to do:

Quote:
We are to observe carefully every lesson Christ has given us throughout His life and teaching(1SM 118).


Why are we exhorted to do so? To learn that:

1.Christ (or God) does not destroy.
2.Christ (or God) improves whatever He touched.

How I see you to perceive things is that Christ (or God) does destroy, and we could not observe carefully every lesson Christ has given us throughout His life and teaching to see that He does not destroy, nor improves everything He touches, because that isn't the case.

I'd like to bring into to attention that we are exhorted to "observe carefully *every lesson* Christ has given us throughout His life. Every lesson. Why every lesson? Because the whole purpose of His mission was the revelation of God. *Everything* He did was for this purpose, and so it follows that *every lesson* should be observed, to learn two things:

1.God does not destroy.
2.God improves everything He touches.

And this is wonderful and beautiful truth.

When these truths dawn on our consciousness, it changes our whole paradigm! As Acts says, Christ went about doing good. This is how He revealed the Father. He improved everything He touched, thus revealing that God improves everything He touches. So all we need to is allow God to touch us, and He will improve us.

Understanding that God improves everything He touches takes our fear away. We don't need to worry about what God will do to us if we don't do what He says, because God improves everything He touches; He does not destroy. Our fear should only be what will happen to us if we do not allow God to touch us. This is because we need improvement, and that is because of how Satan and sin have wrecked us.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/27/11 12:13 AM


Quote:
NJK: There is also the issue that I see that it is wrongly believed that Biblical writers themselves had a wrong view of the character of God while it seems evident to me that this statement speaks of how Israel in general came to view God.

Tom: They certainly didn't have as clear a view of the character of God as Jesus Christ.

NJK: That is besides the point.

Tom: No it's not. The point is that the whole purpose of Christ's earthly mission was the revelation of God, and that had this revelation already been accomplished, Christ need not have come. That's the context of the discussion. So that the Bible writers did not has a clear a view of God's character as Christ did is to the point.

NJK: It substantively is besides the point for the substantiating reasons that I went on to state.

Tom: From what you are saying here, it looks right on point, getting to the critical issue (at least, a critical issue).

NJK: Now that I understand your point of view more clearly based on what you have finally forthrightly/clearly stated below, I can actually now see/understand how and why this is “right on point for you, in your view. That is because you believe that OT writers themselves had, actually, a wrong view of God.

Tom: I don't think this is the right way of thinking about this. God is infinite, so no human (besides Jesus Christ) could have a view of God that was complete. What I said was, "They certainly didn't have as clear a view of the character of God as Jesus Christ."


Your expressed statements and practices in regards to your view clearly show that you have much more than ‘complete comprehension’ in mind. According to your view, one has to not believe the Bible when it says that God said, commanded or did something. If you can dichotomize your view as you please then great for you. I just cannot comprehensively see from your that one understanding (Christ’s greater revelation) does not involve the other (not taking even the God-quoting OT writers at their words). Which is why you just don’t answer questions that deal with such direct statements of God. That is a major red flag for me, as I don’t one-sidedly build my Theology on just a selective set of passages, but seek to harmonize everything that has been said on the topic. This is indeed where we foundationally differ.

Quote:
NJK: I would only see that this applies to the parts of the Bible, where these writers were “free” to purely express their own thoughts, derived from their own experiences with God, e.g., the “Writings” of the OT (e.g., Psa/Pro/Eccl), however I also do see that much of the “free” statements by writers was derived from things that God had actually said.

Tom: All throughout the Bible the Bible writers are communicating their thoughts.


Not “all throughout” but generally speaking, only in certain part. I.e., not when they were either quoting God’s own words or making statements directly derived from these direct statements. As I said later and you agreed, the same thing was involved in EGW’s writings.

Originally Posted By: Tom
They are God's penmen, not His pen.


That does not involve/include thing that were directly, through various prophetic revelations (Heb 1:1) stated by, and heard from, God.

Quote:
NJK: So I also only see that in some parts, Bible writers had an incomplete understanding of God, due to what God could only reveal to them, due to their own failings, revelation frustrating and other shortcomings. Yet what was revealed was quite sufficient for them to come to that full understanding of God. E.g., Moses, after his 40 days up on the mountain had a perfect understanding of God’s Law and also of the Plan of Salvation in the current OT Religious Economy symbols (PP 330.2). I believe Jesus came to this fuller and more complete revelation using this exact “text”, combined with the ever guiding help of the Spirit because of His unwavering, self-initiated, perfect walk in God’s ways and constant obedience to the various promptings of God’s Spirit. So what could not be revealed to people in the OT because of their own shortcomings, could, and was revealed to Christ, particularly as He variously “advanced” and “kept on course” in God’s will.

NJK: Israel, by necessity, indeed just as NT Believer have faith in Jesus, and are to be faithful and obedient to Him to remain in harmony with the Father’s will, OT Believers had to do the same thing with the Law.

Tom: I'm not sure what your point is here. It sounds like you're agreeing with me in regards to what I said about Jesus Christ.


Not in the sense of your ‘He caused the OT to be reworded where: ‘God did not actually say or do what it says he did or do’, but OT writers always misunderstood Him. What I am saying is that they had ample revelation in the OT to get the same understanding that Jesus got. Jesus did not make his extra-biblical misconception corrections from direct revelations from God but by what He “exegetically” (i.e., especially including the greater Theological and substantive context) understood from those same OT writings.

Originally Posted By: Tom
What I have been saying is that Jesus Christ was the clearest revelation of God. It was the whole purpose of His mission to reveal God. This was necessary because of the work Satan had been doing to misrepresent God's character.


And he achieved this mainly by variously causing people to doubt the Word of God, such as this not trusting that even direct revelations were accurate. I can see how doubting God’s Character Justice does bolster the devil’s work. Indeed that is why people persist in rebellion today, not seeing/believing that God will enter into judgement with them.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Until the cross, even holy angels were impacted by Satan's misrepresentations.


What are you basing this on? I rather see that they were not yet convinced that the alternate way that Satan had proposed was deserving of the completely eradicating judgement that God wanted to effectuate on it.

Quote:
NJK: The OT revelation was perfect in itself.

Tom: Only as they left God's mind. Once human beings got involved, they were no longer perfect, as the Scriptures neither represent the logic nor the language of God. (See Selected Messages on inspiration).

NJK: I do see that the Inspiration of Bible writers was very much like what was seen with EGW. They primarily wrote upon what they had seen in visions and dreams and “heard” from God. Similarly most of EGW “early writings’ were such direct revelations. Then she began to derive testimony from such direct revelations and additional ones. Bible writers similarly did the same thing. However I see that they had a much closer experience with God than did EGW (e.g., Moses’ in person meetings with God.) Indeed God was tangibly in the midst of Israel for many centuries, even right through periods of apostasy, though no additional revelation and (advancing/visionary prophetic) light was given.

Tom: Ok.


So e.g., when the Bible says that God commanded Moses to kill the person violating the Sabbath, there was no misunderstanding involved here right? As with the many other God-quoting, God-commanded and/or God-directly-effectuated judgements in the Bible right? Your typical “God permits” reason here has been further shown to be invalid and would also only be addressing some episodes of such effectuated judgements.

Quote:
NJK: The people’s added misconceptions are what need to be addressed and Christ added furthering and fulfilling revelations. The Inspired Bible writers got God’s revelation right. It was the people who misunderstood that revelation. And to say that these Bible writers got it wrong, implies that God Himself wrongly expressed, legislated and/or otherwise reveal it.

Tom: It dosn't imply this.

NJK: Previously I had said that a misunderstanding in Bible writers could have occurred in their actual “ad lib” writings, i.e., vs. writing what God had “directly” revealed. And I do not actually see an example of this “misunderstanding” in the Bible.

Tom: What you wrote was stronger than this. You wrote, "to say that these Bible writers got it wrong, implies that God Himself wrongly expressed, legislated and/or otherwise reveal it."


I don’t see so given what those particular statement involve. Again you are spuriously trying to dichotomize your view.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Again, I wouldn't say that the Bible writers got it wrong, but that God is infinite, and they are human. God as a writer is not expressed in Scripture in terms of rhetoric or logic is what I recall the EGW quote to say.


So then, as Mountain Man also asks for, pointedly explain, once and for all, how you see that someone in the Bible writing a: “Thus says the Lord” is expressing an imperfect statement and will of God!!??

Quote:
NJK: I understand that you do with, e.g., every instance where it says that ‘God took judgement actions on someone/ a group of people.’ For the many reasons already expressed in this thread, including especially the ones that show that your understanding of what EGW revealed in 14MR 1-3|GC 35-37 was only a secondary way to effectuate judgements, namely “no (more) mercy” judgements, I indeed do see that you are quite wrongly and overreachingly misapplying that view.

Tom: She never said that this was a secondary way to bring about judgments. This is simply an assumption you have,


That’s is what all inclusive, proper exegesis reveals. If you were doing so you would be seeing this. Indeed those two methods are pointedly seen in the destruction of Jerusalem. One for the first allowed mercy part and the second for the utter end, no-more mercy part. The same thing occurs with the 7 Last Plagues.

Originally Posted By: Tom
and one which is contrary to various principles she articulated, including, to name a few:

1.The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government.
2.Compelling power is found only under the government of Satan.
3.All that we need to know, or can know, of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son.
4.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.
5.Sickness, suffering, and death are work of an antagonistic power. Satan is the destroyer; God is the restorer.


Simply restating these points does not make them mean what you claim they mean. Deal with the many already stated points that show that they are not implying what you understand.

Originally Posted By: Tom
You've never adduced any evidence that what she has said above is a "secondary way to effectuate judgments." That there is such a thing, as multiple ways to bring about judgments, is under dispute.


As cited above I indeed have.

Originally Posted By: Tom
The way that I have said that God brings about judgments is in harmony with the principles laid out above.


You are understanding these principles in an overreachingly different way than what EGW intended.

Originally Posted By: Tom
If God had some other way of bringing about judgments, not in harmony with the above judgments, that would be problematic.


You are the one who is choosing to only look at one aspect of God’s judgement-effectuating. And the substantive Biblical record is what is to stipulate ‘hermeneutic rules of understanding’ not isolatively/merely EGW. That’s an unbiblical approach.

Originally Posted By: Tom
God's character is consistent.


Which is why He allows for mercy even when effectuating judgement. Indeed many people in Jerusalem may not have themselves rejected Christianity. So God allowed for them to escape the destruction and have a further chance merely by remaining alive to get this saving knowledge of this Truth.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: SOP
The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God’s mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God’s penmen, not His pen.


NJK: Indeed some expression may seem and are ungodly.(None come to mind actually) However I see that the substance itself is not affected by the mode of expression.

Tom: Certainly one's understanding of what another communicates, which is what we're talking about, is impacted by the mode of expression.


(A) Not when “quoting” a source. The source itself would have to make the “ungodly expression” It is because you view all acts of judgement as evil and violent that you spuriously posit that God was in such direct statement cases always being misunderstood and misquoted.

(B) Again, while this may generally be true in life, I myself don’t actually see this occurring in the Bible. EGW saying: “Men will often say such an expression is not like God.” does not mean that this is the case.

Indeed, when one reads that SOP statement in full context, EGW is actually supporting the understanding that Biblical writers did not have a misconception about God. They wrote under thought inspiriation. She is simply saying that what they wrote in applicable, non direct quoting places, was not literally, i.e., verbatim the words, logic and rhetoric of God, as in a ‘verbal inspirational’ way. She also personally dealt with those same issues. Her full statement:

Originally Posted By: SOP 1SM 21.2
It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the man's words or his expressions but on the man himself, who, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is imbued with thoughts. But the words receive the impress of the individual mind. The divine mind is diffused. The divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will; thus the utterances of the man are the word of God.-- Manuscript 24, 1886 (written in Europe in 1886).


So for any misunderstanding to have patently been occurring, as you are claiming. These writers would have to be constantly misconstruing the inspired thought that God’s Spirit was continually putting in their heads.

That is indeed all part of the actual point EGW had in mind in making these “objection to the Bible” statements 1SM 19-21.

Quote:
NJK:I also think that the Bible is substantively perfectly revealed in what is prescritive and also, by being truthful, in what it describes. I also think that whenever it relates that God did something, then that is indeed what occurred. (Of course you do see so).

Tom: The Bible often presents God as doing that which He permits.


Again this is not a substantiated claim. God is either directly or indirectly acting is those situations which are not necessarily always “permitting”. Indeed only in Job’s case do I see it applying as you claim. Otherwise I can easily see that God acted through an agency.

Originally Posted By: Tom
This is a principle, like "forever" does not necessarily mean "for all eternity."


I have already shown that this is only when the context implies this. Why won’t you substantively address this instead of, as usual just repeating what you had previously said??!

Originally Posted By: Tom
So when we say something occurred, like God killed Saul, what does that mean? It might mean that Saul took His own life. Or when it says that God sent fiery serpents against the Israelites, what does that mean? It might mean that God did nothing more than remove His protection. Or when God sent strong delusion against those who received not the love of the truth, that might mean that God left to them to their own delusions.


All repeatedly, exegetically, addressed and disproven/debunked

Originally Posted By: Tom
There are all sorts of examples like this.


You’ll have to cite new ones than the ones you have as they have been disproven and/or address the points that disprove them.

Quote:
NJK: Again, I really cannot think of any theologically substantive error/wrong view in the Bible. Indeed I do not see your view on God’s judgements as being examples of a wrong view.

Tom: You don't see my view on God's judgments as being examples of a wrong view? So you see my view on God's judgments as being examples of a correct view?


I meant, in context, that: ‘I do not see your examples trying to support your view on God’s judgements as being examples that show that I have a wrong view’

Quote:
Tom: On the other hand, Jesus Christ was God's pen! Jesus Christ was God's thought expressed audible, the perfect representation of God. His was the greatest revelation.

Originally Posted By: Bible Hebrews 1:1, 2 (KJV)
1God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son. (Hebrews 1:1, 2;KJV)


NJK: This text clearly is just saying that “in the same way God had variously spoken through prophets in the past, now spoke through His Son Jesus Christ.”

Tom: I don't know anybody who interprets this text this way. I've never heard this idea until now.


That does not mean that it is not valid. It exegetically indeed is. It is the same Spirit that was prophetically speaking. It was just able to achieve more through Jesus. And what was later revealed in Jesus did not in any way contradict what God’s Spirit had previously revealed.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
The Highest of All Revelations Is Given Us Now in the Son of God, Who Is Greater than the Angels, and Who, Having Completed Redemption, Sits Enthroned at God's Right Hand.


Originally Posted By: Matthew Henry
God spake to his ancient people at sundry times, through successive generations, and in divers manners, as he thought proper; sometimes by personal directions, sometimes by dreams, sometimes by visions, sometimes by Divine influences on the minds of the prophets. The gospel revelation is excellent above the former; in that it is a revelation which God has made by his Son. In beholding the power, wisdom, and goodness of the Lord Jesus Christ, we behold the power, wisdom, and goodness of the Father, Joh 14:7; the fulness of the Godhead dwells, not typically, or in a figure, but really, in him.


Tom: These were chosen because they're easy to find. I hadn't read what these had said, but just looked for *any* commentary, because this explanation is the only I've ever heard, and seems clear just by reading the text.


I exegetically see this as the sole/limiting understanding here. God’s Spirit did not reveal unbiblical things in the past. Also notice e.g., that it was Christ Revelation to Paul ca. 4 years after Jesus’s ascension showed that the keeping of OT ceremonial laws was no longer required. Similar to this, further, more pointed revelation, all of what Jesus revealed was already hinted in the revelations of the OT, just not with “executive” force then.

Quote:
NJK: Still it was God who was doing this speaking. Only a different spokesperson was used.

Tom: The point is that Jesus Christ is greater. This is the theme of Hebrews in a nutshell.


The book of Hebrews served to complete the types to Anti-type transition in Christ. The issue of judgements in the OT is not subject to this type/anti-type development, and indeed, it was not hinted that OT statements of judgements would be so “changed” (= reworded) in the NT. So this is really a proof text to support your view. Indeed, at best, a similar “replacing” revelation by Christ for judgements, given their incontrovertible substantive occurrence in the OT, like e.g., ceremonial practices, would come to only mean that such judgements would now no longer be done by God in this way in the NT era.

Quote:
NJK: Interestingly enough, I only see two times in the Bible where God had to correct a prophets, and that for relatively benign reasons, namely Nathan (2 Sam 7:1-17) and Samuel (1 Sam 16:6, 7). Seems to me they were quite faithful in correctly transmitting what had been revealed/said to them. So I do not see a basis here that what was recorded in the OT from God was wrongly done.

Tom: What are your responding to here? Where have I said that anything was wrongly done?


The OT quotings of God being what He actually had in mind. These two examples show that when a prophet misconceived, misunderstood something about God, God then immediately intervened to correct him. So that is why I do not that this was not at all the case with any statement of the OT. God’s Spirit evidently so made sure that what was written was in full harmony with the Intention and Will of God. E.g., God would have intervene to prevent Israel from stoning someone to death or going to war as this would not have been what He had ordered. Indeed David was not permitted to build the Temple because his own hand (and not Israel in general) had shed much blood, even if that was “before God” (1 Chr 22:8). Though these were necessary actions, God wanted a non-warrior to build His Temple. Indeed, correspondingly. though God does such great judgement actions, He only wants a worship of Him that is not based upon these acts. Still such effectuated Justice is a necessary and righteous part of God Character. If not, He would never have directly commanded David to engage in any of these wars. (E.g. 1 Chr 14:9, 10 versus 13-16).

Originally Posted By: Tom
Haven't I been saying that the problem is with how what was written has been perceived?


I do not sequiturly/fully see that from what you have been saying. Indeed the problem is that you are also including direct statements of God in this view of yours. You may be not explicitly saying/intending that, but your OT revisionism and non-answers, say otherwise. Indeed you won’t answer anything that has to do with direct statements of God ordering war, capital punishment and judgement.

(You are actually seeming, by those non-answers, to be trying to buy time until you can find an even plausible answer for them. As with other similar issues, you should indeed clearly answer those direct questions to avoid this resulting logical/rational perception.)

Quote:
NJK: I am not going down that slippery slope!

Tom: I think you're going down a different one. Namely, replacing the revelation of Jesus Christ with ideas which are not in harmony with what He lived and taught.

NJK: That is of course because you are viewing/judging things by your view,

Tom: Of course. And you are viewing/judging things by your view, which is why you say the things you say.


Well you need to do a better job of proving your view, indeed by engaging the many points that are showing that it is not in harmony with the Bible. Selectively only using some texts for a view is the patent way of establishing a teaching that is not actually Biblical. It is only plausibly so when only those partial selection of text are used. Still, the texts that you are claiming in support do not in themselves support your view as they are accurately understood when considered in the greater context of all applicable texts, if not simply through proper exegesis.

Quote:
NJK: which I do not see what you are basing it on saying or requiring what you are doing. Even EGW who “would have” expressed it, did not do/say what you are requiring when writing her commenting books on Biblical episodes, namely the Conflict of the Ages series. As seen in e.g, GC 614.2, she also saw and understood that God had done acts of judgement and destructions in the OT and also NT.

Tom: From GC 614:

Originally Posted By: SOP
When He leaves the sanctuary, darkness covers the inhabitants of the earth. In that fearful time the righteous must live in the sight of a holy God without an intercessor. The restraint which has been upon the wicked is removed, and Satan has entire control of the finally impenitent. God's long-suffering has ended. The world has rejected His mercy, despised His love, and trampled upon His law. The wicked have passed the boundary of their probation; the Spirit of God, persistently resisted, has been at last withdrawn. Unsheltered by divine grace, they have no protection from the wicked one. Satan will then plunge the inhabitants of the earth into one great, final trouble. As the angels of God cease to hold in check the fierce winds of human passion, all the elements of strife will be let loose. The whole world will be involved in ruin more terrible than that which came upon Jerusalem of old.


Tom: These are the same ideas I've been sharing. This is the context of the text you're referencing.


What’s the real issue/problem here Tom, as with other similar occurrences elsewhere??? I have already answered this objection of yours. Why won’t engage what I have already said in response? Did you not see that post? Or did you not bother to read it?? Or did you forget what you had read??? Or does it not matter what I had said???? Which one is it????? And then you vexatiously complain when I get upset by this patent disrespectful discussion snubbing as if I have to silently taken this from you? What’s the deal here??

Quote:
NJK: EGW’s treatise on the “City of Refuge” in ST, January 20, 1881 is a good example of the perfect mixture of God’s justice and his mercy.

Tom: The most detailed explanation I've see in the first chapter of the Desire of Ages. The chapter on the revolution in France also is pretty detailed, and is along the same lines as the first chapter.


Well wherever EGW does expound on this “perfect mixture”, she rightly understands that they both simultaneously exists and are distinctly manifested.

Originally Posted By: Tom
It's helpful to note principles involved. I've already articulated some.


Your articulated principles do not extent to what you claim of them.

Originally Posted By: Tom
We know that at times God works as explained in GC chapter 1, and that this example has God working things out in harmony with the principles articulated before. Does He sometimes work differently, according to other principles? I don't see that you've made any such case.


My point, as stated in that Signs article is that God does not wholly dispense with Justice for the sake of Mercy. Because God is merciful, He still does not do away with the justice elements in His Law and Character. So He statutorily instituted in Israel that a murdered person should be avenged (=Gen 9:5, 6). (You have not responded to that Genesis statement by God).

Quote:
NJK: The revelation of these (OT) Bible writers, set out in writing under the inspiration of God’s Spirit was precisely what God wanted to be fully understood then. Later in Jesus Christ, God only ‘made more full’ what He had previously said, legislated and inspired. And again, as per the focus of this thread, this fuller revelation in Christ did not change the actual substance of “historical” OT episodes, indeed as they are properly recorded. To make this apply to your view, you need to show statements from Christ which e.g., change the substantive/historical records of OT events. And again, the misperception of people in Christ day was not on what had occurred, but the wrong conclusion they drew from what had occurred.

Tom: On what do you base this assertion? How do you know there wasn't a misunderstanding as to what had occurred?

NJK: Seriously???

Tom: ??? What is is you think we're disagreeing about???

NJK: Now that I finally understand your full view of the OT,

Tom: It doesn't appear that you do. If you could articulate my position in a way that I would agree with, I would agree that you understand my view. Are you able to do so?


Easy. You see that nothing that is written in the OT can be defaultly said to be a correct perception of God’s ideas, will and ways.

Quote:
NJK: I can see why you don’t get my incredulity here. I see that the Bible writers did not have a misunderstanding with what had occurred,

Tom: The issue is not with the Bible writers!


Really, so according to you who is it with then in pointedly direct quoting of God? It seems quite clear to me that we should not take what these statement say as accurate representation of God’s will. Then who is responsible for this supposed misperception and misquoting of God?

(And if that is what you don’t think you said, then do spare me a terse: ‘that not what I said’ reply, and do quote or articulate for yourself what you said or meant. As seen below, (bold) you can do this when you think you have, at least, a seemingly plausible answer.)

Quote:
NJK: indeed as confirmed by the similar views of EGW. Of course, you don’t, and think that everywhere that is said that God did something was a misunderstanding and must be restated.

Tom: You're being inaccurate here. What I've said is that God is often presented as doing that which He permits, and I've given many examples of this, both from Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy.

NJK: I find no Biblical example or support, including from Jesus Himself, for this rewriting of the Biblical text.

Tom: I've given over a dozen examples of what I asserted.


By now all disproven a Biblically valid examples. At the very least, try new ones or address the standing objections.

Quote:
NJK: As I understand the why’s of God’s timely OT judgements, indeed as He did need to timely act to check free developments that, I believed, He did not always anticipate as a concrete possibility (cf. Isa 5:4). All of these acts of judgement are also microcosms and warnings of what the Final Hell destruction will be.

Tom: I haven't been discussing with you as to why the judgments occurred, but the mechanism involved in the judgments.


That what/how is clear to me. And as my statement emphasized, it is the involved “why” that make Him use these direct and active methods for reasons of timeliness and also due, full and proper effectuations. Again these issues are not “dichotomizable” to me.

Quote:
NJK: Well then, simply said, because these OT writers would copiously preface their statements with qualifiers along the lines of: ‘The Lord said’; by Jesus’ full endorsement of the OT as well as other NT writers, never engaging to correct its accounts, and passages like 2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:20. I’ll go by these: “Thus says the Lord” than by anything man may fancifully suppose.

Tom: So when you said, "this fuller revelation in Christ did not change the actual substance of 'historical' OT episodes," you had only specifically the actual words of God in mind? If so, that's not very clear.

NJK: No. These “thus says the Lord” are a distinct portion of the Biblical Text, which I see a paramount in God’s revelation. Similarly to how I see the SOP’s “I was shown” statements. And in matters of history, these Bible writers straightforwardly and matter of factly related what had occurred and I do not see Jesus changing these accounts.

Tom: Yet again, this is not the issue.


It is if all of what is being said in the Bible is to be questioned as to its both verbal substance and meaning.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Jesus Christ said what He heard, and lived what He saw, of God as revealed in the Old Testament. He read the same accounts as everybody else, so the problem is not with the accounts!

The problem is with one's perceptions of what was written. These perceptions are often at odds with what Jesus Christ revealed in His life and teachings.


As typical with your answers on this issue, it is substantively partial and logically simplistic. What is written is clear, especially in direct quotings of God. You are just systematically ignoring these statements to sustain a surface validity of your view. You effectively and evidently clearly do not believe “the problem is not with the accounts!”. Indeed won’t even let them exegetically speak for themselves as they pointedly do. With you, exegesis is to be ignored, especially as you see that these writers perceptions affected their exegesis, making say things that were not really what happened!?! How does that stated view of yours support your claim here.

Quote:
NJK: Indeed if your view was the Truth, I would think Jesus would be systematically engaging in recorded statements of, e.g.,: ‘you have read “God rained fire on Sodom”, but I say on to you God never does a judgement Himself, and this was actually a volcano that was always supposed to erupt then.’ etc.

Tom: Light is progressive. Jesus Christ spoke of the things which He felt were most pressing at the time. There are all sorts of things which are true of which Jesus Christ did not address directly.


So how then did He reveal everything, especially with such a crucial view of an OT episode that He used as the illustrative basis for His own end time judgement. He did not receive the full light on this???

This is a prime and most indicative example of you also making Jesus be subject to your view.

Quote:
NJK: Seems to me that this work would be quite crucial to Christ reforms, indeed as it would similarly be correcting misconceptions about the, here, History and Prophets, of the OT, just like He had done with the Law and how people came to view it.

Tom: I think what Ellen White wrote here addresses the issue you are raising:

Originally Posted By: SOP ST January 20, 1890, par. 9
Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,—to set men right through the revelation of God. In Christ was arrayed before men the paternal grace and the matchless perfections of the Father. 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.


The whole purpose of Christ's mission was the revelation of God. He revealed the principles I'm articulating; love your enemies, turn the other cheek, walk the second mile. Christ gave His life for His enemies. He never recommended violence, and when it was suggested He burn them, He rebuked those who thus suggested because they did not know what spirit they were of. He died the most horrible death at the hands of those who hated Him. He returned kindness for cruelty.


And, as copiously seen throughout His Ministry, He mostly did this by explaining misunderstood OT passages/episode. So why not also with this crucial S&G episode which manifestly was still “misunderstood” by NT writers? Indeed Teaching on the Scriptures was a major part of His Ministry.

Quote:
T: If you had more than the actual words of God in mind, then we are dealing with what actually happened, right? And even with the words of God, there are questions, as God often presented Himself as doing what He permits. For example, consider the episode of the fiery serpents. What happened there? Isn't this was our disagreement entails? I believe the serpents were already there, and that God had been protecting the Israelites from them the whole time, and He merely ceased doing so for a time. This is despite the direct language used.

NJK: This is where I see that you are being finally being forthcoming about what you actually think of Biblical exegesis. Evidently you see it as irrelevant.

Tom: How does what you're saying here in any way tie into the points that I just made? Or questions I asked?


I am dealing with the paramount “This is despite the direct language used.” Which means: “Exegesis is irrelevant to understanding the Bible.” And also “Bible writers did not relate things accurately.” As for your other points, that had been already dealt with, long ago, and through this exgetical method, so there was no point to restate those patently ignored answers, especially, as now revealed here by you, ‘exegetical facts do not matter’.

Quote:
NJK: Had I known this earlier it would have saved me much aggravation because I just could not understand how you would not take exegetical points into proper consider.

Tom: You're not being responsive to what I wrote.


There was absolutely no reason to respond to what you had just obliviously restated. Indeed you’ll clearly just go on ignoring those answers again.

Quote:
NJK:Indeed throughout this discussion. Manifestly your outright dismissal of whatever points exegesis makes is derived from your view that these writers had it wrong.

Tom: This is also not responsive. You're also misrepresenting my view.


Nothing new to respond to. Exegetically and logically think your view through (if you’re allowed) and you’ll see that this is what it fully entails

Quote:
NJK: So there is really no way one can argue against this “double-whammy”, contra-Bible view.

Tom: You can argue as you are, but misrepresenting the view of the person you are discussing things with, and then argue against that.


I am not exegetically limited/“handicapped” as you choose to be. Facts and Truth are just what they fully are.

Quote:
NJK:I would say that ‘EGW’s writings are effectively, your “Bible”, but as you clearly only subscribe to her statements when she agrees with your claimed view, (i.e., you understood her supposed view better than she did) then I can only see that you are really your own Bible and Biblical Authority. Can’t logically/“sanely” compete with/against that “private” method. Case in point, with the fiery serpents. Indeed rather than respond to the many substantive arguments that I have made debunking from various valid exegetical angles, your “private” view, you here simply claim that ‘exegesis is irrelevant’. Indeed now I finally, head shakingly, understand why you did not bother to answer exegetical points that completely disproved your claims and supposition. All that I can say is: Good Luck with that view. I really don’t understand why, with such an obliviously non-exegetical mindset, you would invest in attending a Seminary and ‘completing its coursework.’

Tom: These are just insults and name-calling. I've surprised you either don't recognize this, or don't realize there is no value in this. You're not addressing points made, nor answering questions. You're simply misrepresenting my view and hurling insults my way.


It is just too bad that you want to/can only see these factually based/derived “constructive criticism” statements as “insults”. Indeed try Prov 27:5, 6 instead. And also what “name-calling”? Substantiate your claim.

And if you want respect then earn it by ceasing from your disrespecting response-ignoring ways while, moreoverly just restating your previous, already answered claims. If you really think that my answers don’t matter at all, as your louder than word actions (or non-actions) are saying then do openly refute my standing arguments!

And why didn’t you answer the Seminary questions. Since your are touting this ‘completed professional education’ (whatever that actually means) as an asset, it is a matter of public/“pointed audience” regard/interest. You brought up your ‘seminary attendance’, I am just pointing out that what you have claimed about it does not make logical sense. So do clarify the would be issues of confusion as posed in my questioned.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I’ll stop here


Of course you will.

Originally Posted By: Tom
If you wish to dialog regarding ideas, I'm happy to do so, but I don't have a desire to engage in mud-slinging.


Despite what you evidently prefer to believe, you’re ideas are not divorceable from their natural, logical and Spiritual implications. Try thinking them through and not just subjectively stop at what you are comfortable with.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/27/11 04:35 PM

Tom, out of “Truth” necessity, here is a succinct commentary for/on what literally is a ‘one-isolated-line-of-a-quote’ theology in your above post reply to Mountain Man.

First of all the full statement of that quote points out what EGW was meaning:

Originally Posted By: SOP 1SM 117, 118
The Lord permits circumstances to come that call for the exercise of the passive graces, which increase in purity and efficiency as we endeavor to give back to the Lord His own in tithes and offerings. You know something of what it means to pass through trials. These have given you the opportunity of trusting in God, of seeking Him in earnest prayer, that you may believe in Him, and rely upon Him with simple faith. It is by suffering that our virtues are tested, and our faith tried. It is in the day of trouble that we feel the preciousness of Jesus. You will be given opportunity to say, "Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him" (Job 13:15). Oh, it is so precious to think that opportunities are afforded us to confess our faith in the face of danger, and amid sorrow, sickness, pain, and death. . . . {1SM 117.4}

With us, everything depends on how we accept the Lord's terms. As is our spirit, so will be the moral result upon our future life and character. Each individual soul has victories to gain, but he must realize that he cannot have things just as he wants them. We are to observe carefully every lesson Christ has given throughout His life and teaching. He does not destroy; He improves whatever He touches.--Letter 135, 1897. {1SM 118.1}


(1) It seems clear to me that in this context of “God permitting trials to e.g., ‘try one’s virtue and faith’, etc, what EGW meant in that last statement here was that God/Jesus’s aim in all of this is not to destroy the person that he permits to be so tested, indeed like Job, as seen in here quote there, but so that He can, through this permitted trial, which like Job is not necessarily out of deserved reasons of wrongdoing, ‘improve them who He has touched’.

So the intent of that statement seem to clearly mean to me that God can permit a person to be “touched” by trials in their life. Yet His aim here in not to cause their destruction. Indeed as EGW says: “Each individual soul has victories to gain, [b]but he must realize that he cannot have things just as he wants them[b/].” Meaning that God sometimes has to allow trials virtually, like Job, out of the blue, in order to build that person’s spirit, and thus future life and character. (= e.g. Heb 2:10-18; cf. Acts 14:22). And the recorded demonstration/example in the life of Job affords believers today to understand that such sufferings are for a greater purpose and helps one to endure it and remain faithful as God permissively works to “improvingly” shape them. And He does this through whatever way He knows is best, and which will not always please us. Unless one understand’s this, as Job innately did, then when God makes this beneficial use of sufferings, that person will most likely just ‘curse God and die’. It is only by allowing God to be God and do whatever He knows is best that we like Job can say in perfect trust and faith: “The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away. Blessed be the name of the LORD.”

Under your view Tom that implies that God would only permits such “sufferings” when one causes his protection to be withdrawn because of living in persisted rebellion to Him, then, if like Job that actually indeed righteous living person suddenly finds themself experiencing all of these same utter calamities, I don’t see how they won’t straightly and only see this as a betrayal act of God and indeed just curse Him for having so, and unfairly, permitted the devil to “judge” them.

(2) Like I said in my post above, God indeed does not directly do “sufferings” to someone but can and does “permit it” for a greater good, again as perfectly demonstrated with Job, and explained in the above SOP statement. However such “sufferings” and “judgements” are two distinct things.

(3) A theology, i.e., an entire theology, such as this extrapolated one of yours involving God’s Justice, is never to be built on one passage, let alone “proof-textedly” on an isolated sentence from as quote, as you did here. It is indeed quite clear in the Bible and SOP that God does acts of judgement either Himself, through His commissioned angels of destruction, or when no more mercy is capable of being granted, at the Devil’s own hands. And as stated above such “judgements” are distinct from “sufferings”. And, e.g., burning someone alive falls under the category of “judgement” because God is not just seeking to make the person suffer, and that for no reason. It is a deserved act of fitting judgement.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/27/11 05:21 PM

duplicate post
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/27/11 05:38 PM

NJK, first of all, the point of each of the quotes was the same, in pointing out that sickness, suffering and death are the work of an antagonistic power, and that God (or Christ) works against this. On one side we have the author of sin and all its results, which includes sin itself, sickness, disease, suffering, and death. On the other side we have Christ, obedience, and all the blessings that come from obedience. There is a battle involve, which each side has its weapons and characteristics.

Regarding the specific quote in question, you'll notice she uses language speaking of circumstances which are permitted to come.

Quote:
Under your view Tom that implies that God would only permits such “sufferings” when one causes his protection to be withdrawn because of living in persisted rebellion to Him


Not so! And Job is a perfect illustration of this.

The context of our conversations has been destructive acts which have taken place against the wicked. I have pointed out that these are due to their (the wicked) causing God's protection to be withdrawn.

The question of why the *righteous* suffer is an altogether different question (one we haven't been discussing) and this is where Job comes into play.

Quote:
It was generally believed by the Jews that sin is punished in this life. Every affliction was regarded as the penalty of some wrongdoing, either of the sufferer himself or of his parents. It is true that all suffering results from the transgression of God’s law, but this truth had become perverted. Satan, the author of sin and all its results, had led men to look upon disease and death as proceeding from God,—as punishment arbitrarily inflicted on account of sin. Hence one upon whom some great affliction or calamity had fallen had the additional burden of being regarded as a great sinner. {DA 471.1}


This quote, which has been cited several times, deals with Job, and brings out that:

1.All suffering results from the transgression of God’s law.
2.Satan, the author of sin and all its results, had led men to look upon disease and death as proceeding from God.
3.He led men to look at disease and death as punishment arbitrarily inflicted on account of sin.

This is precisely the viewpoint I've been arguing against.

Quote:
(2) Like I said in my post above, God indeed does not directly do “sufferings” to someone but can and does “permit it” for a greater good, again as perfectly demonstrated with Job, and explained in the above SOP statement. However such “sufferings” and “judgements” are two distinct things.


Yes, they are two different things, but the truths we have been discussing apply to both cases. That is, regardless of whether we are dealing with the suffering of the wicked or the righteous, it is the case that:

1.All suffering results from the transgression of God’s law.
2.Satan, the author of sin and all its results, had led men to look upon disease and death as proceeding from God.
3.He led men to look at disease and death as punishment arbitrarily inflicted on account of sin.

It is also the case that:

4.We are to observe carefully every lessons Christ has given us throughout His life and teaching; He does not destroy.
5.Christ improves whatever He touches.

Quote:
(3) A theology, i.e., an entire theology, such as this extrapolated one of yours involving God’s Justice, is never to be built on one passage, let alone “proof-textedly” on an isolated sentence from as quote, as you did here.


An interesting application of the pot calling the kettle black! Your doing what you are accusing me of is what I've been pointedly arguing against. You do this with your ideas of the Tree of Life, ignoring whole paragraphs and books dealing with the pre-eminence of Christ, and would effectively replace His importance with a tree. And this is all because of focusing your entire theology and an extrapolation built on an isolated sentence from a quote.

However, this is not what I'm doing. I presented many quotes, not just one sentence from one quote.

It's always good to consider the context of a statement, but in this case the context does not alter the point which was made, which is:

1.We are to observe carefully every lessons Christ has given us throughout His life and teaching; He does not destroy.
2.Christ improves whatever He touches.

She applies these truths to the situation of the righteous suffering, but there would be nothing to apply if these truths weren't the case.

Quote:
NJK:It is indeed quite clear in the Bible and SOP that God does acts of judgement either Himself, through His commissioned angels of destruction, or when no more mercy is capable of being granted, at the Devil’s own hands.


How can God do acts of destruction, or commission angels to do acts of destruction, if every lesson Christ has given us throughout His life and teaching teaches us that He does not destroy?

"Sickness, suffering and death are the work of an antagonistic power." This is clear enough, right? So if it is God who is inflicting these things as punishments, then God is doing the work of an antagonistic power. Furthermore it has been Satan's studied purpose to get people to view suffering as punishments inflicted by God, whereas EGW writes that suffering is inflicte by Satan (not as a special circumstance, but as a general principle: "all suffering results from transgression of God's law....suffering is inflicted by Satan (DA 471).")

So if God were doing these things, not only would He be doing the work of an antagonistic power, but Satan's whole purpose of causing God to be viewed as inflicting suffering as punishment for disobedience would be vindicated.

Quote:
And as stated above such “judgements” are distinct from “sufferings”. And, e.g., burning someone alive falls under the category of “judgement” because God is not just seeking to make the person suffer, and that for no reason. It is a deserved act of fitting judgement.


The point is that *all* suffering is the result of disobedience to the law, and *all* suffering is attributed to Satan, the author of sin. Suffering is inflicted by Satan. God may permit it, but He is not the cause.

Obviously if God were to burn someone alive, or strike him with a disease, that would cause suffering.

By the way, an examination of Christ's life and teachings echoes this point, as in not a single instance did Christ attribute the suffering of anyone He healed or spoke of, whether righteous or not, to God.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/27/11 07:47 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
NJK, first of all, the point of each of the quotes was the same, in pointing out that sickness, suffering and death are the work of an antagonistic power, and that God (or Christ) works against this.


I objectively, clearly and certainly do not see so in that SOP statement. She is clearly trying to make the point that ‘God permits such sufferings, indeed actively done by the devil and/or a natural consequence of sin, in order shape someone’s life for the best’. It is in that context that she says, right after quoting Job’s statement:

Originally Posted By: SOP 1SM 117.4
Oh, it is so precious to think that opportunities are afforded us [i.e., by God’s permitted trials] to confess our faith in the face of danger, and amid sorrow, sickness, pain, and death.


Originally Posted By: Tom
On one side we have the author of sin and all its results, which includes sin itself, sickness, disease, suffering, and death. On the other side we have Christ, obedience, and all the blessings that come from obedience. There is a battle involve, which each side has its weapons and characteristics.


That is not the point of that SOP statement, but only your view additions.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Regarding the specific quote in question,


That is indeed what is in question here and the pointed subject that it actually is saying and expounding on.

Originally Posted By: Tom
you'll notice she uses language speaking of circumstances which are permitted to come.


In the case of ‘suffering”, which are not “judgements”, then like in Job’s case, God permits adverse circumstances from the devil and/or natural life and does not Himself act to directly cause or do them.

Quote:
NJK: Under your view Tom that implies that God would only permits such “sufferings” when one causes his protection to be withdrawn because of living in persisted rebellion to Him

Tom: Not so! And Job is a perfect illustration of this.

The context of our conversations has been destructive acts which have taken place against the wicked. I have pointed out that these are due to their (the wicked) causing God's protection to be withdrawn.


As I have been saying, the episode of Job is not one of “judgement,” but such God-permitted “sufferings”. I.e., for no actual personal wrong. Notice also that God made it that Job would not die in this suffering. This is how he would not be “destroyed” in this trial, (Psa 118:18) but only improved, as rewardingly, tangibly confirmed by his doubling of blessings after the trial. Only Job’s wicked children were permitted to die in this episode as that was out of deserved judgement for persisted sins.

Originally Posted By: Tom
The question of why the *righteous* suffer is an altogether different question (one we haven't been discussing) and this is where Job comes into play.


Indeed so. Which is why EGW cites in her brief exposition here on God permitted, character shaping “sufferings”.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Originally Posted By: SOP DA 471.1
It was generally believed by the Jews that sin is punished in this life. Every affliction was regarded as the penalty of some wrongdoing, either of the sufferer himself or of his parents. It is true that all suffering results from the transgression of God’s law, but this truth had become perverted. Satan, the author of sin and all its results, had led men to look upon disease and death as proceeding from God,—as punishment arbitrarily inflicted on account of sin. Hence one upon whom some great affliction or calamity had fallen had the additional burden of being regarded as a great sinner.


It is not clear to me that this SOP quote is dealing with this same distinct categories of “sufferings”, (though here not necessarily “God-permitted”, i.e., for improving, character shaping, even life-saving (cf. Pro 19:18) reasons), and not “judgements.” As I now see it being implied in that SOP quote, when God does an act of judgement for sin, even when it results in death, it is not an ‘arbitrary punishment’.

Originally Posted By: Tom
This quote, which has been cited several times, deals with Job,


Indeed as “suffering” and not “judgement” is the pointed issue here.

Originally Posted By: Tom
and brings out that:

1.All suffering results from the transgression of God’s law.
2.Satan, the author of sin and all its results, had led men to look upon disease and death as proceeding from God.
3.He led men to look at disease and death as punishment arbitrarily inflicted on account of sin.


All true in regards solely to “sufferings”.

Originally Posted By: Tom
This is precisely the viewpoint I've been arguing against.


It is not applicable in “judgement” as seen in the doctrine of Hell, where it will be God who will be in charge of it, and will execute, through even ‘full life sustaining power’ the sentence that had been determined by the righteous.

Quote:
NJK: (2) Like I said in my post above, God indeed does not directly do “sufferings” to someone but can and does “permit it” for a greater good, again as perfectly demonstrated with Job, and explained in the above SOP statement. However such “sufferings” and “judgements” are two distinct things.

Tom: Yes, they are two different things, but the truths we have been discussing apply to both cases.


The Bible and SOP clearly reveals that it is not always the case for “judgement” which God does.

Originally Posted By: Tom
That is, regardless of whether we are dealing with the suffering of the wicked or the righteous,


Only in cases of “sufferings”. Indeed the differentiating issue, as it applies to our discussion has rather been whether the act is in the context of a “merciful” or “no more mercy” judgement.

Originally Posted By: Tom
it is the case that:

1.All suffering results from the transgression of God’s law.
2.Satan, the author of sin and all its results, had led men to look upon disease and death [generic reference] as proceeding from God.
3.He led men to look at disease and death as punishment arbitrarily inflicted on account of sin.


As highlighted here, only in the case of “sufferings”.

Originally Posted By: Tom
It is also the case that:

4.We are to observe carefully every lessons Christ has given us throughout His life and teaching; He does not destroy.
5.Christ improves whatever He touches.


The context and intent of EGW’s statement does not use those phrases with the intent that you are.

Quote:
NJK: (3) A theology, i.e., an entire theology, such as this extrapolated one of yours involving God’s Justice, is never to be built on one passage, let alone “proof-textedly” on an isolated sentence from as quote, as you did here.

Tom: An interesting application of the pot calling the kettle black! Your doing what you are accusing me of is what I've been pointedly arguing against. You do this with your ideas of the Tree of Life, ignoring whole paragraphs and books dealing with the pre-eminence of Christ, and would effectively replace His importance with a tree. And this is all because of focusing your entire theology and an extrapolation built on an isolated sentence from a quote.


This is only true for you when you amnesically, probably willfully vs. clinically, forget that I have long ago fully included the preeminence of Christ in the Tree of Life teaching, which is actually, as shown in many posted quotes, copiously discussed as I have been emphasizing in the SOP, “bookended” by Biblical statements in Genesis and Revelation. So you just need to keep up with posted facts and developments.

Originally Posted By: Tom
However, this is not what I'm doing.


It is evident to me that you are determined not to let any fact at all and in any degree get in the way of your view. I rather let facts shape my theology. You rather seem to have the view that you can’t do no wrong and must never admit that you have been corrected. In the light of all of the standing facts against your view, which you just choose to outrightly ignore, that is certainly not being “honest”, to say the least.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I presented many quotes, not just one sentence from one quote.


You attempt here to make this SOP statement, and all other SOP statements speaking pointedly on the distinct issue of “suffering” is just “proof-texting”. And do include all quotes on a issue, not just those that support only an aspect of an issue. Indeed you view is proven to be false as it is not what the Bible and SOP wholly say on this issue of God Justice, which includes Judgements, even smaller, preliminary ones (cf. Jer 10:24).

Originally Posted By: Tom
It's always good to consider the context of a statement, but in this case the context does not alter the point which was made, which is:

1.We are to observe carefully every lessons Christ has given us throughout His life and teaching; He does not destroy.
2.Christ improves whatever He touches.


Any objective and honest read can and will surely see that it is definitely not making the “also judgement” point that you are.

Originally Posted By: Tom
She applies these truths to the situation of the righteous suffering,


So you did see that this is her point!!?

Originally Posted By: Tom
but there would be nothing to apply if these truths weren't the case.


That is because God does not actively act to merely better the life and character of a wicked person (cf. Jer 2:19) as, since He would then be dealing with a wicked person, it would inherently be an act of judgement. And when He does this, thus ‘non-arbitrary’ acts of judgement on righteous people for their sins, it is hopefully on for both punishing and corrective purposes, as EGW states with the fiery serpent episode:

Originally Posted By: SOP PP 428.3
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.


Indeed as God/Jesus says:

Originally Posted By: Bible Rev 3:19
“Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent.” (cf. Deu 8:5; Psa 39:11; 94:12; Jer 30:11; 46:28)


Quote:
NJK: It is indeed quite clear in the Bible and SOP that God does acts of judgement either Himself, through His commissioned angels of destruction, or when no more mercy is capable of being granted, at the Devil’s own hands.


Tom: How can God do acts of destruction, or commission angels to do acts of destruction, if every lesson Christ has given us throughout His life and teaching teaches us that He does not destroy?[/quote]

Simple: Because the Bible and SOP do not have your “suffering” and “judgement” category conflation issue.

Originally Posted By: Tom
"Sickness, suffering and death are the work of an antagonistic power." This is clear enough, right?


Indeed so when kept in its distinct context.

Originally Posted By: Tom
So if it is God who is inflicting these things as punishments, then God is doing the work of an antagonistic power.


For “sufferings” it would be. Not for “judgement” when God so decides.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Furthermore it has been Satan's studied purpose to get people to view suffering as punishments inflicted by God, whereas EGW writes that suffering is inflicte by Satan (not as a special circumstance, but as a general principle: "all suffering results from transgression of God's law....suffering is inflicted by Satan (DA 471).")


I don’t see a general principle being applied here, keep in mind that EGW relates God and His angels as directly doing judgements themselves. So that evidently is not what she had in mind here.

Originally Posted By: Tom
So if God were doing these things, not only would He be doing the work of an antagonistic power, but Satan's whole purpose of causing God to be viewed as inflicting suffering as punishment for disobedience would be vindicated.


Same ‘category distinguishing’ observations as before. I’ll add that God does apparently out of double necessity as, on one hand, Satan would not want to punish those who serve him and on the other hand, Satan would work to completely destroy, especially rather than “improve” or ‘provide an opportunity to improve’, with those who God is only endeavoring to mercifully punish/chasten/correct/redress.

Quote:
NJK: And as stated above such “judgements” are distinct from “sufferings”. And, e.g., burning someone alive falls under the category of “judgement” because God is not just seeking to make the person suffer, and that for no reason. It is a deserved act of fitting judgement.

Tom: The point is that *all* suffering is the result of disobedience to the law, and *all* suffering is attributed to Satan, the author of sin. Suffering is inflicted by Satan. God may permit it, but He is not the cause.


Given the Bible and SOP examples showing the contrary, as seen also in the Doctrine of Hell that Jesus Himself concretely established and detailed, that is an overreaching application of the statement here. This “all” only applies to “sufferings”. Furthermore the judgements that God do, usually are for reasons of timeliness and an accelerated end result, all for a greater good.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Obviously if God were to burn someone alive, or strike him with a disease, that would cause suffering.


That is why ‘burning someone alive’ in judgement is ‘His strange/foreign/alien act’ (Isa 28:21) and ‘arbitrary punishment for sin as having or (naturally) being struck with a disease’ is not his active/direct act at all. When suffering is not ‘arbitrary’ then it is a judgement and can be from God is so necessary.

Originally Posted By: Tom
By the way, an examination of Christ's life and teachings echoes this point, as in not a single instance did Christ attribute the suffering of anyone He healed or spoke of, whether righteous or not, to God.


Again the key word, is the distinct one of “suffering”. Jesus had no qualm/problem with Divine vengeance and judgement, including Hell Judgement.

By the way, you also have not addressed the posted points of 'Jesus/Divine Vengeance.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/27/11 09:17 PM

Quote:
MM:To answer your questions:

1. What in Jesus' life or character would lead you to believe that He wants to burn people alive if they don't do what He says? Jesus said, “The angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.”


I recall you're saying that you didn't believe this was literal. That is, this isn't an example of people being burned alive. So this doesn't seem to be an adequate answer, given even you don't believe this is speaking of people literally being burnt alive.

Quote:
M:2. Where did He ever do anything even remotely similar to this? He didn’t burn anyone alive while here in the flesh.


The way you've put this together, it's a little difficult to see who's who. I assume up to the question mark is me, and after that is you? So I asked where He did anything even remotely similar to this, and you replied He didn't do precisely this. So you didn't answer the question. I should infer from your lack of response that you can't think of anything?

Quote:
3. How did He respond when it was suggested He do so? He rebuked them.

4. Where during His mission did Jesus ever even physically harm any person, even in the slightest manner? He didn’t. But He clearly taught He will, at the end of time, punish impenitent sinners with everlasting, unquenchable fire. “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire. I will burn you up with unquenchable fire.”


Which you don't believe is setting people on fire to burn alive. So this doesn't apply. Can you think of something which does apply?

Regarding N&A, we spent a lot of time discussing this, and I don't see that anything positive came out of it, and have no desire to repeat the episode. Indeed, in general, it has been your approach to discuss isolated incidents, and I have said over and over again I don't see this to be an effective way of going about discussing the issue, but have done so, against my judgment, for a number of years, and it seems to me my judgment was correct. I think a more productive route would be to consider principles involved, and we can speak of certain incidents to illustrate principles.

I've done so with the destruction of Jerusalem. I've articulated a number of principles, and used that as an example. Here are some principles I've discussed:

1.What Jesus perceived of the OT is what He revealed.

This is a really important one, in my view. Christ spoke what He heard of His Father, and did what He saw. So He serves as a reference as to how the Old Testament should be understood. We can either:

a.Consider Christ's lessons: "We are to observe carefully every lesson Christ has given us throughout His life and teaching; He does not destroy."

OR

b.Consider the Old Testament.

These should be equivalent. To the extent that these are not equivalent in our way of seeing things, how we see things varies from how Christ saw things.

2.All that we can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son.

This means that there is nothing any revelation from the Old Testament can add in terms of telling us something about God that we wouldn't already know from looking to Christ.

3.Sickness, suffering, and death are the work of an antagonistic power. Satan is the destroyer; God is the restorer.

4.The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government. Compelling power is found only under Satan's government.

5.There are a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which God protects us.

6.God often presents Himself as doing that which He permits.

You have not stated things in terms of principles. You seem not to think in terms of principles, which I think explains some of our disconnect. You seem to think in terms of individual incidents.

I'll see if I can infer some principles, as you see things:

1.God destroys in many ways. Permitting destruction is simply one way.

2.The principles listed above (my list above), are of limited scope. So when it says that "sickness, suffering, and death are the work of an antagonistic power," that means some of the time. Similarly when it says, "It is true that all suffering results from the transgression of God’s law," that means some of the time.

Another principle that seems important to you is that God is the one inflicting the suffering.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/27/11 09:28 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
NJK, first of all, the point of each of the quotes was the same, in pointing out that sickness, suffering and death are the work of an antagonistic power, and that God (or Christ) works against this.


I objectively, clearly and certainly do not see so in that SOP statement. She is clearly trying to make the point that ‘God permits such sufferings, indeed actively done by the devil and/or a natural consequence of sin, in order shape someone’s life for the best’. It is in that context that she says, right after quoting Job’s statement:

Originally Posted By: SOP 1SM 117.4
Oh, it is so precious to think that opportunities are afforded us [i.e., by God’s permitted trials] to confess our faith in the face of danger, and amid sorrow, sickness, pain, and death.


Originally Posted By: Tom
On one side we have the author of sin and all its results, which includes sin itself, sickness, disease, suffering, and death. On the other side we have Christ, obedience, and all the blessings that come from obedience. There is a battle involve, which each side has its weapons and characteristics.


That is not the point of that SOP statement, but only your view additions.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Regarding the specific quote in question,


That is indeed what is in question here and the pointed subject that it actually is saying and expounding on.


It's evident that you're reading through the post, without any intent to understand what's being said, but just wanting to argue, it looks like. I'm not interested in arguing for argument's sake.

You didn't even read to the end of the sentence to see what point was being made here, let alone read the post.

Please read the entire post first, then go back and make whatever comments you wish to make, hopefully after thinking some. It would also be good if you went over what you wrote too. We could have shorter, better quality posts, which deal more with the issues involved. That would enable me to get to more posts too.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/27/11 10:22 PM

It looks like you're just making one point here, so I'll address that point. The point is that the quotes have to do with suffering, and not judgments. However, this isn't a viable explanation of the quotes, which is evident by simply considering that they say. For example:

Quote:
We are to observe carefully every lesson, Christ has given us throughout His life and teaching;He does not destroy. He improves whatever He touches.


If what you were suggesting were true, we'd have to re-write this to say something like:

Quote:
We are to observe carefully every lesson which deals with suffering (but not lessons which don't deal with suffering; only lessons dealing with suffering should be considered), Christ has given us throughout His life and teaching;He does not destroy. He improves whatever He touches.


This clearly isn't viable. She emphasizes that "every lesson Christ has given us throughout His life and teaching" brought out the point that "He does not destroy." Trying to limit this to deal with only some subset would destroy the point she is making.

Another example:

Quote:
Sickness, suffering, and death are the work of an antagonistic power. Satan is the destroyer; God is the restorer.(MH 113)


This would have to be rewritten:

Quote:
Sickness, suffering, and death are the work of an antagonistic power (sometimes, when sufferings are the issue; but not judgments). Satan is the destroyer (sometimes; other times it's God); God is the restorer(sometimes; when He's not the destroyer).


Your post does not deal with the overreaching point, which goes beyond sufferings or judgments, and that is what the whole Great Controversy is dealing with. There are to different powers at work, one the "antagonistic power," and the other is Christ. One went about doing good, and the other brings about suffering, sickness, and death.

The two powers are contrary the one against the other.

Quote:
They [heavenly beings] marked the work of...Satan constantly pressing darkness, sorrow, and suffering upon the race, and Christ counteracting it" (PP 69).


One last point is that invariably when the SOP mentions God's judgments, it is brought out, either immediately preceding or following, God's "withdrawal" or "release" or "giving over" of the fighting against God into the enemy's power.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/28/11 03:10 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
It's evident that you're reading through the post, without any intent to understand what's being said,


It spuriously is only “evident” for you. I know that is never the case.

Originally Posted By: Tom
but just wanting to argue, it looks like. I'm not interested in arguing for argument's sake.


I know I have better things to do than that. The issue is that your “sectional” view “sum” is made up of independently defective “parts.” (As also done in this present post). So I address them point by point to demonstrate this, and also rather than say everything at the end. I think this approach is being more transparent as it detailedly shows why the “sum” is not valid.

Originally Posted By: Tom
You didn't even read to the end of the sentence to see what point was being made here, let alone read the post.


That’s just your assumption. I went back to point out the independent deficiency in a premising phrase, when that is the case. You also seemed to me to have expanded your understanding in that post to partially include what EGW was actually saying there, hence the need to distinctly address your prior “non-inclusive” statements.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Please read the entire post first,


I always do.

Originally Posted By: Tom
then go back


Also what I always do.

Originally Posted By: Tom
and make whatever comments you wish to make,


Really... then what are you complaining about as....

Originally Posted By: Tom
hopefully after thinking some.


...this permissively seems to be still optional for you. I don’t subscribe to that approach. I say whatever I think is true/valid.

Originally Posted By: Tom
It would also be good if you went over what you wrote too.


I’ll be the first to know so, however I can’t afford to expend that discussion overhead.

Originally Posted By: Tom
We could have shorter, better quality posts, which deal more with the issues involved.


In this approach I actually get to better corroborate/support my points with details that I think best explains them. As I see it , it’s actually merely a: ‘substantive quantity over external quality issue’. Indeed you can just ignore whatever you don’t personally think is pertinent, however don’t be surprised when I continue to use them to support my points, as it initially was the case.

Originally Posted By: Tom
That would enable me to get to more posts too.


That’s counterintuitive to me.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/28/11 03:11 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
It looks like you're just making one point here, so I'll address that point. The point is that the quotes have to do with suffering, and not judgments.


Indeed it is, by necessity, due to the exegetical reasons of understanding what E.G. White meant in “corpus-wide context”.

Originally Posted By: Tom
However, this isn't a viable explanation of the quotes, which is evident by simply considering that they say. For example:

Originally Posted By: SOP 1SM 118.1
We are to observe carefully every lesson, Christ has given us throughout His life and teaching; He does not destroy. He improves whatever He touches.


If what you were suggesting were true, we'd have to re-write this to say something like:

Quote:
We are to observe carefully every lesson which deals with suffering (but not lessons which don't deal with suffering; only lessons dealing with suffering should be considered), Christ has given us throughout His life and teaching;He does not destroy. He improves whatever He touches.


This clearly isn't viable. She emphasizes that "every lesson Christ has given us throughout His life and teaching" brought out the point that "He does not destroy." Trying to limit this to deal with only some subset would destroy the point she is making.


It is only your re-wording is what makes absolutely no sense. So that is a straw man and circular argument on your part. When one reads what E.G. White said earlier, as well as elsewhere, I see that my understanding of here statement is not only viable, but her actual and only intent. Indeed she is pointing out that the reason why: “We are to observe carefully every lesson Christ has given throughout His life and teaching. He does not destroy; He improves whatever He touches” is so that when one is clearly seeing that He is suffering for no wrong in his life, “not having things just as he wants them”, i.e., (even) in Spiritual/Righteous pursuits and/or ‘Soul victories’, and thus clearly so suffering by God’s permission, they are to study “every lesson of Christ” and see that “he is working, and will work this out, for our good’ (Rom 8:28).

Originally Posted By: Tom
Another example:

Quote:
Sickness, suffering, and death are the work of an antagonistic power. Satan is the destroyer; God is the restorer.(MH 113)


This would have to be rewritten:

Quote:
Sickness, suffering, and death are the work of an antagonistic power (sometimes, when sufferings are the issue; but not judgments). Satan is the destroyer (sometimes; other times it's God); God is the restorer(sometimes; when He's not the destroyer).


That “point premise” again is just your “straw man” and circular view. You’re really just arguing with yourself.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Your post does not deal with the overreaching point, which goes beyond sufferings or judgments, and that is what the whole Great Controversy is dealing with. There are to different powers at work, one the "antagonistic power," and the other is Christ. One went about doing good, and the other brings about suffering, sickness, and death.


It actually clearly did, as restated below.

Originally Posted By: Tom
The two powers are contrary the one against the other.


As I had said, that is why God has to take on the duty of (timely) executing necessary judgement Himself. Satan has generally caused sin, suffering and death for all, however there are many instances when there are no natural cause and effect (= organic consequences) for a needed, object lesson and timely judgement. Indeed the last thing Satan wants is to do something that will make people think twice before continuing on a path of sin. So God has to do this work out of Justice.

Quote:
They [heavenly beings] marked the work of...Satan constantly pressing darkness, sorrow, and suffering upon the race, and Christ counteracting it" (PP 69).


The main issue is that “suffering” is not synonymous with “judgement”. Satan also does not want to do any judgement, just merely cause suffering. He is indeed aiming for utter lawlessness and anarchy. Which is why God must do it Himself, and that to: protect/defend the Righteous, keep the playing field level and maintain the pure cause of truth whenever He is permitted to have a foothold, (e.g., ironically enough when Israel still claiming/believing to be His people while living in open sin (cf. Dan 9:18)).

Originally Posted By: Tom
One last point is that invariably when the SOP mentions God's judgments, it is brought out, either immediately preceding or following, God's "withdrawal" or "release" or "giving over" of the fighting against God into the enemy's power.


I am not sure I get your point here. Please restate and also cite a couple of examples to see exactly what your are meaning. And God’s judgements include what He injuctively said or legislated to occur, as in capital punishments.


By the way, I noticed your “principles” statement above to Mountain Man. I’ll just say that I think that principles are exegetically derived, and that includes the SOP. And I see that this is done by examining all pertinent examples and statements. So I don’t subscribe to using a single statement by EGW as a principle. In fact since I would mainly, if not effectively only, draw such principles for the Bible, so I subject EGW’s seeming one-liner principles to the test of the Bible. I.e., do they check out in all situations as they should if they were indeed a singular principle. So even if EGW has made what seems to be a principle, I subject it to a thorough Biblical test. Indeed all in line with the “Greater Light, Rule of/for faith and Doctrine” approach she had clearly and most deliberately counseled.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/28/11 08:13 PM

Addressing your points.

I.What I wrote in terms of my rewording of her statement is a straw man.

Here's what I wrote:

Quote:
We are to observe carefully every lesson which deals with suffering (but not lessons which don't deal with suffering; only lessons dealing with suffering should be considered), Christ has given us throughout His life and teaching;He does not destroy. He improves whatever He touches.


In what way does this not accurately represent your thought?

You make the argument that her statement is in the context of suffering, which is fine, but I made the point this doesn't change the truth of her assertions, which are:

1.Christ does not destroy.
2.He improves everything He touches.

We are to observe all His lessons throughout His life and teachings to learn these two things. Then we apply these two things to the subject of the suffering of the righteous. That's what she's doing.

Your thought seems to be that these two statements were intended to apply *only* in the case of sufferings, which is what my rewording of her statement is doing.

So again I ask, how is this not accurately reflecting your thought?

II.You made the same point in regards to this rewording:

Quote:
Sickness, suffering, and death are the work of an antagonistic power (sometimes, when sufferings are the issue; but not judgments). Satan is the destroyer (sometimes; other times it's God); God is the restorer(sometimes; when He's not the destroyer).


This is, this point:

Quote:
That “point premise” again is just your “straw man” and circular view. You’re really just arguing with yourself.


But the rest of what you wrote looks to be once again justifying this rewording. This is, it accurately reflects your thought, as far as I can tell. You say that you disagree with the rewording, but the rest of your post agrees with the points of the rewording. So I ask the same question in regards to this rewording as to the other one, which is in what way is it not accurately reflecting your thought?

III.You write:

Quote:
Satan has generally caused sin, suffering and death for all, however there are many instances when there are no natural cause and effect (= organic consequences) for a needed, object lesson and timely judgement. Indeed the last thing Satan wants is to do something that will make people think twice before continuing on a path of sin. So God has to do this work out of Justice.


This is probably the crux of our disagreement. You see sin as basically innocuous, or, at least, some sins. Since there is not negative consequence (that's not imposed, like God's eventually killing the one who sins), God must impose an artificial consequence (killing someone in this lifetime), so that a person will think twice about continuing on a path of sin. This is what God has to do this work out of Justice.

So your argument is as follows:

1.Sin (at least some sins) does not naturally have negative consequences.
2.There are imposed negative consequences in the final judgment.
3.God imposes negative consequence in the here and now so that people will wake up to the fact that there are imposed negative consequences in the hereafter.

My argument is as follows:

1.All sin has negative consequences.
2.Therefore it is not necessary for God to impose any negative consequences to sin, but simply reveal what the negative consequences are.

I see the cross as essential to this last point. That is, the cross revealed, as nothing else, what the negative consequences of sin are.

So if sin is innocuous, then your reasoning follows, but if it's not, then it doesn't. Our disagreement, to a large extent, comes down to this point.

Regarding the last point I made, that when the SOP mentions God's judgment, it is brought out either immediately preceding or following, God's "withdrawal" or "release" or "giving over" of the one fighting against God, I don't understand the difficulty in getting this point. I've simply pointing out that when she speaks of God's judgments, she usually brings out that God was withdrawing etc. in the immediate context.

Here are some examples:

Quote:
God’s money is needed. It is hoarded and buried in the world, while multitudes are starving for temporal food and spiritual knowledge. It is spent in foolish amusements, in dissipating games and sports and idolatrous practises. God says, “Shall I not visit for these things?” Already he is sending his judgments upon the earth. Terrible plagues are visiting our world, in famines, in floods, in calamities by sea and land, in earthquakes in divers places. And because of men’s wickedness the Lord does not restrain the destroying power. {RH December 8, 1896, par. 12}


Quote:
[W]e remembered that we were living in a time similar to the time preceding the judgments which fell upon the old world. The Spirit of God is now withdrawing from the people of the earth. Men, wrapped up in prosperity, seeking and getting gain, have placed their affections upon earthly things. Few have recognized the long-suffering mercy of God. Few have realized or acknowledged his protecting care. Few have appreciated his goodness and love, although he has kept them from dire disaster and death. As in the days that were before the flood, there has been a strange forgetfulness of God.{RH August 13, 1889, par. 8}


Quote:
By their transgression of God's law the people of Judah had forfeited His protection...By their apostasy and rebellion they were inviting the judgments of God (5T 749).


Quote:
With these words of light and truth before them, how dare men neglect so plain a duty? How dare they disobey God when obedience to His requirements means His blessing in both temporal and spiritual things, and disobedience means the curse of God? Satan is the 389destroyer. God cannot bless those who refuse to be faithful stewards. All He can do is to permit Satan to accomplish his destroying work. We see calamities of every kind and in every degree coming upon the earth, and why? The Lord’s restraining power is not exercised. The world has disregarded the word of God. They live as though there were no God. Like the inhabitants of the Noachic world, they refuse to have any thought of God. Wickedness prevails to an alarming extent, and the earth is ripe for the harvest. {6T 388.3}


IV.Finally, in regards to the point about principles needing to be exegetically derived, of course context is important when considering any statement. But a statement like the following:

Quote:
All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son. {8T 286.1}


is clear of itself.

Here's the context:

Quote:
All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son. {8T 286.1}
Testimonies for the Church Volume 8, p. 286.2 (EGW)
“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. {8T 286.2}
Testimonies for the Church Volume 8, p. 286.3 (EGW)
Taking humanity upon Him, Christ came to be one with humanity and at the same time to reveal our heavenly Father to sinful human beings. He was in all things made like unto His brethren. He became flesh, even as we are. He was hungry and thirsty and weary. He was sustained by food and refreshed by sleep. He shared the lot of men, and yet He was the blameless Son of God. He was a stranger and sojourner on the earth—in the world, but not of the world; tempted and tried as men and women today are tempted and tried, yet living a life free from sin. {8T 286.3}
Testimonies for the Church Volume 8, p. 286.4 (EGW)
Tender, compassionate, sympathetic, ever considerate of others, He represented the character of God, and was constantly engaged in service for God and man. {8T 286.4}
Testimonies for the Church Volume 8, p. 286.5 (EGW)
“The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, ...full of grace and truth.” Verse 14. {8T 286.5}
Testimonies for the Church Volume 8, p. 286.6 (EGW)
“Unto the men whom Thou gavest Me out of the world,” He said, “I manifested Thy name,” “that the love wherewith Thou hast loved Me may be in them.” John 17:6, A. R. V., 26. {8T 286.6}
Testimonies for the Church Volume 8, p. 286.7 (EGW)
“Love your enemies,” He bade them; “bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven;” “for He is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.” “He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” “Be ye therefore merciful, as 287your Father also is merciful.” Matthew 5:44, 45; Luke 6:35, 36. {8T 286.7}


The context changes nothing. The principle is exactly as one would expect it to be, just by reading the sentence.

Now if there is some statement which you think is unclear taken by itself, without the context, so that the principle is misstated, please point out which ones these are, and how the principle should be correctly stated. This is what I was doing in the rewording above, putting the principles according to your view of things. If you disagree with how I put it, please put the principle the way you think it should be put.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/29/11 12:31 AM


Originally Posted By: Tom
Addressing your points.

I. What I wrote in terms of my rewording of her statement is a straw man.

Here's what I wrote:

Quote:
We are to observe carefully every lesson which deals with suffering (but not lessons which don't deal with suffering; only lessons dealing with suffering should be considered), Christ has given us throughout His life and teaching;He does not destroy. He improves whatever He touches.


In what way does this not accurately represent your thought?

You make the argument that her statement is in the context of suffering, which is fine, but I made the point this doesn't change the truth of her assertions, which are:

1.Christ does not destroy.
2.He improves everything He touches.

We are to observe all His lessons throughout His life and teachings to learn these two things. Then we apply these two things to the subject of the suffering of the righteous. That's what she's doing.

Your thought seems to be that these two statements were intended to apply *only* in the case of sufferings, which is what my rewording of her statement is doing.

So again I ask, how is this not accurately reflecting your thought?


I myself never saw a need to pointedly make “Christ’s lessons” be limited to only sufferings. I rather see that they include reasons in regards to suffering, but are not limited to only those. Other things that ‘Christ touched to improve’ did not need to go through suffering, as seen in many miracles. However in the applicable episode with Peter’s and the disciple’s testing, they were permitted to suffer in order to come out as better Apostles on the other end. (Luke 22:31, 32) Apparently Satan asked Jesus Himself to so touch the disciples. Another example of this is Lazarus who was permitted to die by Christ for the glory of God and also Lazarus’s healing and resurrection.

Originally Posted By: Tom
II.You made the same point in regards to this rewording:

Originally Posted By: Tom
Sickness, suffering, and death are the work of an antagonistic power (sometimes, when sufferings are the issue; but not judgments). Satan is the destroyer (sometimes; other times it's God); God is the restorer(sometimes; when He's not the destroyer).


Tom: This is, this point:

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
That “point premise” again is just your “straw man” and circular view. You’re really just arguing with yourself.


Tom: But the rest of what you wrote looks to be once again justifying this rewording. This is, it accurately reflects your thought, as far as I can tell. You say that you disagree with the rewording, but the rest of your post agrees with the points of the rewording. So I ask the same question in regards to this rewording as to the other one, which is in what way is it not accurately reflecting your thought?


Because the condition of “sometimes” is moot to me here as this “Sickness, suffering and death” are only applying in context to non-judgements. The Bible is clear that God uses sickness, suffering and death in judgements, so I defaultly saw that there was no need to make the distinction here as I see that it is naturally understood to not include acts of judgements. It is as mootly useless as trying to justify the ways in which Law Enforcement and the Judicial Systems in western societies normatively enforce and preserve Law and Order. Your description is only applicable to Criminals. Lumping God’s actions as these acts of (non-judgement) sickness, suffering and death is innate wrong to me as His actions are always non-arbitrary and Just, eventhough they involve applicable force. God cannot be labelled as a “Destroyer” as He is acting out of Justice. Just like a policeman is not a felon, or a murderer even when he may have (justly) been speeding and crossing red lights, or killed someone in the line of duty.

So in both cases, I had not seen a need, in any way, to make your textual amendments. I indeed saw that those distinctions were contextually/theologically understood. There was therefore no need to so restate if for those statements. You, viewing things from your point of view, of course only saw the contrary and this need to explicitly differentiate.

Originally Posted By: Tom
III.You write:

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Satan has generally caused sin, suffering and death for all, however there are many instances when there are no natural cause and effect (= organic consequences) for a needed, object lesson and timely judgement. Indeed the last thing Satan wants is to do something that will make people think twice before continuing on a path of sin. So God has to do this work out of Justice.


This is probably the crux of our disagreement. You see sin as basically innocuous, or, at least, some sins. Since there is not negative consequence (that's not imposed, like God's eventually killing the one who sins), God must impose an artificial consequence (killing someone in this lifetime), so that a person will think twice about continuing on a path of sin. This is what God has to do this work out of Justice.

So your argument is as follows:

1.Sin (at least some sins) does not naturally have negative consequences.
2.There are imposed negative consequences in the final judgment.
3.God imposes negative consequence in the here and now so that people will wake up to the fact that there are imposed negative consequences in the hereafter.

My argument is as follows:

1.All sin has negative consequences.
2.Therefore it is not necessary for God to impose any negative consequences to sin, but simply reveal what the negative consequences are.

I see the cross as essential to this last point. That is, the cross revealed, as nothing else, what the negative consequences of sin are.

So if sin is innocuous, then your reasoning follows, but if it's not, then it doesn't. Our disagreement, to a large extent, comes down to this point.


The problem is that whenever this difference is brought up and discussed, you outrightly ignore or suddenly end discussing/responding to the latest points, even involving the Bible and SOP on key issues such as legislated and effectuated capital punishments, acts of judgement destruction done by God Himself, Divine Vengeance, the Tree of Life, etc. Your view needs to be “shielded”, from the clear statements made against it in the Bible and SOP, and that with a teflon-coated brick wall where nothing, however Biblical and factual they actually are, can neither stick or get through. This “stone-walling” to engaging all points is not conducive to a constructive and truth-arriving discussion. So if you really want to continue discussing these ‘fundamental’ discussion issues, then go back to where you stopped responding to my points and begin from their by answering those points.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Regarding the last point I made, that when the SOP mentions God's judgment, it is brought out either immediately preceding or following, God's "withdrawal" or "release" or "giving over" of the one fighting against God, I don't understand the difficulty in getting this point.


Well until those present examples, I had no idea what you were saying. If you understand something, it does not automatically mean that I would or should. Hence the request for clarification and concrete, corroborating/illustrating examples.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I've simply pointing out that when she speaks of God's judgments, she usually brings out that God was withdrawing etc. in the immediate context.


That restatement itself is much more clear than the previous confusingly, somewhat, (indeed just enough), periphrastic and muddled:

Originally Posted By: Tom
One last point is that invariably when the SOP mentions God's judgments, it is brought out, either immediately preceding or following, God's "withdrawal" or "release" or "giving over" of the fighting against God into the enemy's power.


Originally Posted By: Tom
Here are some examples:

Originally Posted By: SOP RH December 8, 1896, par. 12
God’s money is needed. It is hoarded and buried in the world, while multitudes are starving for temporal food and spiritual knowledge. It is spent in foolish amusements, in dissipating games and sports and idolatrous practises. God says, “Shall I not visit for these things?” Already he is sending his judgments upon the earth. Terrible plagues are visiting our world, in famines, in floods, in calamities by sea and land, in earthquakes in divers places. And because of men’s wickedness the Lord does not restrain the destroying power.


In a sequitur way, the ‘non-restraining of the destroyer’, with is “And because...” opening, seems to be in addition to the effectuation of the prior “Divinely-sent plagues”, and that for plausibly added wickedness than the previously listed acts of selfishness. Interestingly enough this resembles, if not is in the template of: the first 6 Last Plagues being at God’s doing, through His Angels, with the 7th involving the unrestrained destroying power of, presumably, but not necessarily, here, Satan.

Indeed the destroying power could be the judgement destroying power that God Himself can wield. These destructions can easily be made to occur by not tempering or quenching a naturally formed disaster which does not have to be pointed created/done by Satan.

Originally Posted By: SOP RH August 13, 1889, par. 8
[W]e remembered that we were living in a time similar to the time preceding the judgments which fell upon the old world. The Spirit of God is now withdrawing from the people of the earth. Men, wrapped up in prosperity, seeking and getting gain, have placed their affections upon earthly things. Few have recognized the long-suffering mercy of God. Few have realized or acknowledged his protecting care. Few have appreciated his goodness and love, although he has kept them from dire disaster and death. As in the days that were before the flood, there has been a strange forgetfulness of God.


God’s withdrawing His Spirit from people is not what causes disasters which God had been protecting them of. Again these could be normally forming disasters, (e.g., unsteady fault lines, formed hurricanes, Tornado producing weather conditions, belching or active volcanoes, gathering abundant rain cloud capable of causing floods, etcs). All are natural formations that God may indeed be, unseenly working to variously disrupt and prematurely end. So by Him instead allowing them to fully follow their development and/or destruction course He Himself would be effectively sending these destructions. Satan really is not actively involved here, even if those adverse elements are ultimately all the result of the sin he had authored. Interestingly enough, as in the case of e.g, the Flood and S&G, as well as other acts of judgements by God, He needs something more potent and timely to effectuate “undelayed and striking Justice” and so much develop His weapons of destruction himself.

Originally Posted By: 5T 749
By their transgression of God's law the people of Judah had forfeited His protection...By their apostasy and rebellion they were inviting the judgments of God.


In this case, their was indeed an organic threat in the Assyrians present to do the destruction. Though, as I had said, God can also stir up/summons a foreign power to do this work of destruction when it is not “organically” intending/desiring to. Furthermore the ‘forfeiting of God’s protection here’ straightforwardly entails that ‘in the event of an attack by Assyria, God then could not protect Judah.’ God ‘forfeiture’ did not result in the Assyrians being drawn to fight Judah. It just assured their victory in the case that such a war took place. And as seen in that episode’s history, when Hezekiah prayed later, God was able to protect them against an already drawn opposing army.

Originally Posted By: SOP 6T 388.3
With these words of light and truth before them, how dare men neglect so plain a duty? How dare they disobey God when obedience to His requirements means His blessing in both temporal and spiritual things, and disobedience means the curse of God? Satan is the 389destroyer. God cannot bless those who refuse to be faithful stewards. All He can do is to permit Satan to accomplish his destroying work. We see calamities of every kind and in every degree coming upon the earth, and why? The Lord’s restraining power is not exercised. The world has disregarded the word of God. They live as though there were no God. Like the inhabitants of the Noachic world, they refuse to have any thought of God. Wickedness prevails to an alarming extent, and the earth is ripe for the harvest.


In a Theological way, I see this as involving indirect/passive participance by Satan. I.e,. the effectuated destructions are from naturally forming disasters that God does not act to prevent. In other words, I don’t see that every natural disaster is an active act of Satan. Indeed if that was true in those days of EGW, then how much more today. I rather see that Satan would love to prevent all those catastrophe so that men may live care-free and not have any notion of judgements.

Nonetheless, it must also be seen that in especially her day which was largely an “Age of Faith” most people would see these acts as “acts of God”. And as they saw nothing wrong in their lifestyle and practices, they would only be susceptible to “cursing God” for “unfairly” punishing them. So Satan would have some incentive to cause such natural disasters.

Similarly, in the Age of Unbelief and Unreason that we live today, when, as with e.g., Katrina was said to be God’s judgement on New Orleans for its lifestyle, it caused much more people to become upset at the people making these claims, than cause genuine repentance. So Satan does indeed do things that advantage him, and God may have no better option than to allow these things to at least tangibly build up/confirm the faith and awareness of the righteous. (Cf. Dan 12:10)

Originally Posted By: Tom
IV.Finally, in regards to the point about principles needing to be exegetically derived, of course context is important when considering any statement. But a statement like the following:

Quote:
All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son. {8T 286.1}


is clear of itself.

Here's the context:

Quote:
All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son. {8T 286.1}
Testimonies for the Church Volume 8, p. 286.2 (EGW)
“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. {8T 286.2}
Testimonies for the Church Volume 8, p. 286.3 (EGW)
Taking humanity upon Him, Christ came to be one with humanity and at the same time to reveal our heavenly Father to sinful human beings. He was in all things made like unto His brethren. He became flesh, even as we are. He was hungry and thirsty and weary. He was sustained by food and refreshed by sleep. He shared the lot of men, and yet He was the blameless Son of God. He was a stranger and sojourner on the earth—in the world, but not of the world; tempted and tried as men and women today are tempted and tried, yet living a life free from sin. {8T 286.3}
Testimonies for the Church Volume 8, p. 286.4 (EGW)
Tender, compassionate, sympathetic, ever considerate of others, He represented the character of God, and was constantly engaged in service for God and man. {8T 286.4}
Testimonies for the Church Volume 8, p. 286.5 (EGW)
“The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, ...full of grace and truth.” Verse 14. {8T 286.5}
Testimonies for the Church Volume 8, p. 286.6 (EGW)
“Unto the men whom Thou gavest Me out of the world,” He said, “I manifested Thy name,” “that the love wherewith Thou hast loved Me may be in them.” John 17:6, A. R. V., 26. {8T 286.6}
Testimonies for the Church Volume 8, p. 286.7 (EGW)
“Love your enemies,” He bade them; “bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven;” “for He is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.” “He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” “Be ye therefore merciful, as 287your Father also is merciful.” Matthew 5:44, 45; Luke 6:35, 36. {8T 286.7}


The context changes nothing. The principle is exactly as one would expect it to be, just by reading the sentence.


As I have said before, and indeed in the case of this point, it is not the point/principle itself that has a problem, but how you understand them and/or what you think applies to it. In this case here you won’t include the fact e.g., that Jesus did not do away with capital punishment, despite a perfect chance to do so, also spoke of Divine Vengeance, and did not do some things, such as Hell Fire destruction, only because that was not in His mandate, though He both amply and most descriptively spoke about it and also justly greatly wanted to bring it about (Luke 12:49, 50). So the issue is not with the principle themselves but squarely with your understanding of them and the selective and artificial parameters/limitations that you impose on them.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Now if there is some statement which you think is unclear taken by itself, without the context, so that the principle is misstated, please point out which ones these are, and how the principle should be correctly stated. This is what I was doing in the rewording above, putting the principles according to your view of things. If you disagree with how I put it, please put the principle the way you think it should be put.


I have already copiously dealt with your view of the principles you list. But as stated in this post, whenever the discussion reaches a point where you do not have an answer to my points, you just ignore them and/or isolatively deal with another topic, if not raise a side issue and never return to the prior topic. Yet you continue to maintain that your view is perfect. In this way, how can you but continue to see this. Indeed this present topic is another instance of this topic shifting, with many other posts and prior points left completely unanswered by you. Non-“insultingly” speaking, as usual from me, this is like ‘“clinical” discussion ADHD.’
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/29/11 06:26 AM

Quote:
NJK: Now that I understand your point of view more clearly based on what you have finally forthrightly/clearly stated below, I can actually now see/understand how and why this is “right on point for you, in your view. That is because you believe that OT writers themselves had, actually, a wrong view of God.

Tom: I don't think this is the right way of thinking about this. God is infinite, so no human (besides Jesus Christ) could have a view of God that was complete. What I said was, "They certainly didn't have as clear a view of the character of God as Jesus Christ."

NJK:Your expressed statements and practices in regards to your view clearly show that you have much more than ‘complete comprehension’ in mind. According to your view, one has to not believe the Bible when it says that God said, commanded or did something.


We should allow Scripture to interpret itself. God often presents Himself as doing that which He permits. This doesn't mean "one has to not believe the Bible when it says that God said, commanded or did something."

For example, Scripture says that "God killed Saul." But, in actuality, Saul took his own life.

Another example is that Scripture says that God sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites, but the serpents were there the whole time; God simply removed His protection from them.

Quote:
If you can dichotomize your view as you please then great for you. I just cannot comprehensively see from your that one understanding (Christ’s greater revelation) does not involve the other (not taking even the God-quoting OT writers at their words). Which is why you just don’t answer questions that deal with such direct statements of God. That is a major red flag for me, as I don’t one-sidedly build my Theology on just a selective set of passages, but seek to harmonize everything that has been said on the topic. This is indeed where we foundationally differ.


Why question have you asked me that I haven't answer?

Where we fundamentally differ is in how we view God's character, and how we view sin.

Quote:
NJK: I would only see that this applies to the parts of the Bible, where these writers were “free” to purely express their own thoughts, derived from their own experiences with God, e.g., the “Writings” of the OT (e.g., Psa/Pro/Eccl), however I also do see that much of the “free” statements by writers was derived from things that God had actually said.

Tom: All throughout the Bible the Bible writers are communicating their thoughts.


NJK:Not “all throughout” but generally speaking, only in certain part. I.e., not when they were either quoting God’s own words or making statements directly derived from these direct statements.


A couple of problems here.

It is certainly the case that the writers are communicating their thoughts when they are making statements directly derived from statements they heard from God. This is completely obvious. Just think about what is happening. They hear God say something, and then write about what they heard. It's impossible that this would not involve their communicating their thoughts.

Even in the case where they are recording something which they directly heard or saw, they are *still* communicating their thoughts. There's never a time when a Bible writer is not communicating his thoughts. He things something, and writes it down.

When EGW writes that the language of God is not recorded in Scripture, it is precisely that the Bible writings are communicating their thoughts which is being said. This is what stating that God is not represented as a writer in Scripture means. This is what it means to say that God is speaking to men in the language of men.

Another problem is that "all throughout" does not mean "without exception." Even if we allowed as an exception those cases where a Bible writer is recording what he heard God say (which isn't an exception to the statement that God as a writer is not represented in Scripture), it would still be the case that over 99% of the time Bible writers were communicating their thoughts, so to say this happens "all throughout" is completely accurate.

Quote:
As I said later and you agreed, the same thing was involved in EGW’s writings.


I don't know what this is in reference to.

Quote:
T:They are God's penmen, not His pen.

NJK:That does not involve/include thing that were directly, through various prophetic revelations (Heb 1:1) stated by, and heard from, God.


Yes it does. This is made clear from the quote from which this sentence was taken. That is, that God, as a writer, is not represented in Scripture; that God communicating in the language of men; etc.

Quote:
NJK:Not in the sense of your ‘He caused the OT to be reworded where: ‘God did not actually say or do what it says he did or do’, but OT writers always misunderstood Him.


I've said people have misunderstood the OT writers. I didn't say the OT writers "always misunderstood Him."

It doesn't help a discussion to misrepresent another's view like this. Especially doing so repeatedly, after one has already been corrected, is unhelpful. I've already stated on numerous occasions that the problem is not with what was written, but with the understanding of what was written.

Quote:
NJK:What I am saying is that they had ample revelation in the OT to get the same understanding that Jesus got. Jesus did not make his extra-biblical misconception corrections from direct revelations from God but by what He “exegetically” (i.e., especially including the greater Theological and substantive context) understood from those same OT writings.


I said that Christ had a clearer understanding of God's character than the OT writers. Do you really disagree with this?

Quote:
T:What I have been saying is that Jesus Christ was the clearest revelation of God. It was the whole purpose of His mission to reveal God. This was necessary because of the work Satan had been doing to misrepresent God's character.

NJK:And he achieved this mainly by variously causing people to doubt the Word of God, such as this not trusting that even direct revelations were accurate.


Please provide some evidence to support your idea here. I say Satan did so primarily by vesting God with his own attributes (cf. DA chapter 1).

I'd say that Satan does use doubting Scripture as a way of influencing us in our view of God's character. Since through Scripture is God's primary means of communicating with us, if we doubt Scripture, we're doubting God's ability to communicate with us, and if we doubt that, how can we trust Him?

Quote:
NJK:I can see how doubting God’s Character Justice does bolster the devil’s work. Indeed that is why people persist in rebellion today, not seeing/believing that God will enter into judgement with them.


People enter into rebellion against God because they prefer sin to God, or because they do not love or trust God. They don't enter into rebellion because they don't believe God will enter into judgment with them. This idea doesn't make sense.

If what you are suggesting were true, then it would follow that all that would be necessary to not be in rebellion with God is to believe He will enter into judgment with them. But surely you can see this isn't the problem. The problem is that one is not right with God; one fears Him; one doesn't trust Him. The problem is to reconcile an estranged relationship. This takes place when the rebels heart is melted by the revelation of the love of God shining from the cross:

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 176world.” 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. (DA 175)


Quote:
T:Until the cross, even holy angels were impacted by Satan's misrepresentations.

NJK:What are you basing this on?


The SOP.

Quote:
NJK:I rather see that they were not yet convinced that the alternate way that Satan had proposed was deserving of the completely eradicating judgement that God wanted to effectuate on it.


I haven't seen any evidence this was ever an issue for the angels. Can you quote anything to substantiate this idea?

Here's a statement from the SOP speaking to the impact of the cross on the angels:

Quote:
That which alone can effectually restrain from sin in this world of darkness, will prevent sin in heaven. The significance of the death of Christ will be seen by saints and angels. Fallen men could not have a home in the paradise of God without the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Shall we not then exalt the cross of Christ? The angels ascribe honor and glory to Christ, for even they are not secure except by looking to the sufferings of the Son of God. It is through the efficacy of the cross that the angels of heaven are guarded from apostasy. Without the cross they would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the fall of Satan.(ST 12/30/89)


The chapter "It Is Finished" from "The Desire of Ages" goes into detail about how the cross impacted the holy angels.

Quote:
So e.g., when the Bible says that God commanded Moses to kill the person violating the Sabbath, there was no misunderstanding involved here right? As with the many other God-quoting, God-commanded and/or God-directly-effectuated judgements in the Bible right? Your typical “God permits” reason here has been further shown to be invalid and would also only be addressing some episodes of such effectuated judgements.


Do you remember what Christ said to the disciples in regards to marriage? That because of the hardness of man's heart, God permitted divorce, but from the beginning it was not so? And the disciples replied tragicomically, "His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with [his] wife, it is not good to marry." (Matt. 19:10)

This gives some idea of just how far from God's ideal will things had gotten. Christ explained what God's ideal will was, and the disciples responded that if God's ideal will is true, it's better not to marry.

Divorce is not the only area where God's ideal will was not understood. There wasn't any misunderstanding of the communication from Moses to the Israelites in regards to the divorce laws, but Christ saw further. He understood what God's ideal will was, and communicated that.

The same thing is true in other areas as well.

All that we can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son. The whole purpose of Christ's mission was the revelation of God. Christ fully and completely communicated God's ideal will. We do not need to supplement Christ's revelation.

If we have views based on our reading of the OT which do not agree with Christ's revelation of God's ideal will, we should go with Christ's revelation, as that's the clearest revelation. Evidently there's something we're not understanding correctly if we see discrepancies.

Quote:
NJK: The people’s added misconceptions are what need to be addressed and Christ added furthering and fulfilling revelations. The Inspired Bible writers got God’s revelation right. It was the people who misunderstood that revelation. And to say that these Bible writers got it wrong, implies that God Himself wrongly expressed, legislated and/or otherwise reveal it.

Tom: It dosn't imply this.

NJK: Previously I had said that a misunderstanding in Bible writers could have occurred in their actual “ad lib” writings, i.e., vs. writing what God had “directly” revealed. And I do not actually see an example of this “misunderstanding” in the Bible.

Tom: What you wrote was stronger than this. You wrote, "to say that these Bible writers got it wrong, implies that God Himself wrongly expressed, legislated and/or otherwise reveal it."

I don’t see so given what those particular statement involve. Again you are spuriously trying to dichotomize your view.


What are you talking about? I directly quoted you! You're finding fault with my directly quoting you?!

Quote:
Again, I wouldn't say that the Bible writers got it wrong, but that God is infinite, and they are human. God as a writer is not expressed in Scripture in terms of rhetoric or logic is what I recall the EGW quote to say.


So then, as Mountain Man also asks for, pointedly explain, once and for all, how you see that someone in the Bible writing a: “Thus says the Lord” is expressing an imperfect statement and will of God!!??


Here I'm quoting Ellen White. I've given you the reference (Selected Messages, vol. 1).

Quote:
NJK: I understand that you do with, e.g., every instance where it says that ‘God took judgement actions on someone/ a group of people.’ For the many reasons already expressed in this thread, including especially the ones that show that your understanding of what EGW revealed in 14MR 1-3|GC 35-37 was only a secondary way to effectuate judgements, namely “no (more) mercy” judgements, I indeed do see that you are quite wrongly and overreachingly misapplying that view.

Tom: She never said that this was a secondary way to bring about judgments. This is simply an assumption you have,

NJK:That’s is what all inclusive, proper exegesis reveals.


No it doesn't. For example, she writes:

Quote:
I was shown that the judgments of God would not come directly out from the Lord upon them, but in this way: They place themselves beyond His protection. He warns, corrects, reproves, and points out the only path of safety; then if those who have been the objects of His special care will follow their own course independent of the Spirit of God, after repeated warnings, if they choose their own way, then He does not commission His angels to prevent Satan’s decided attacks upon them. It is Satan’s power that is at work at sea and on land, bringing calamity and distress, and sweeping off multitudes to make sure of his prey. And storm and tempest both by sea and land will be, for Satan has come down in great wrath. He is at work. He knows his time is short and, if he is not restrained, we shall see more terrible manifestations of his power than we have ever dreamed of. {14MR 3.1}


If you don't see this as an adequate explanation of how God brings about judgments, it's incumbent upon you to produce an argument as to why not.

Quote:
If you were doing so you would be seeing this. Indeed those two methods are pointedly seen in the destruction of Jerusalem. One for the first allowed mercy part and the second for the utter end, no-more mercy part.


Here's what she wrote:

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. 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

36

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,

37

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.

But in that day, as in the time of Jerusalem's destruction, God's people will be delivered, everyone that shall be found written among the living. Isaiah 4:3. Christ has declared that He will come the second time to gather His faithful ones to Himself: "Then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And He shall send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other." Matthew 24:30, 31. 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. 2 Thessalonians 2:8. 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.


Where is even one sentence here that is out of harmony with what I've been sharing? Where is there any hint of God's working in two different ways here?

Quote:
The same thing occurs with the 7 Last Plagues.


I'm curious about something here. Ellen White writes that these last plagues were similar in character to the Egyptian plagues. So do you see the same thing happening with the Egyptian plagues? (i.e., God working in two different ways).

Quote:
1.The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government.
2.Compelling power is found only under the government of Satan.
3.All that we need to know, or can know, of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son.
4.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.
5.Sickness, suffering, and death are work of an antagonistic power. Satan is the destroyer; God is the restorer.


Simply restating these points does not make them mean what you claim they mean. Deal with the many already stated points that show that they are not implying what you understand.


These are simple statements which anyone can understand. Take the last one as just one example:

Quote:
Sickness, suffering, and death are work of an antagonistic power. Satan is the destroyer; God is the restorer.


There's nothing difficult here. "Sickness, suffering, and death are work of an antagonistic power." What do you think this means? Indeed, how can this be misunderstood?

Quote:
T:You've never adduced any evidence that what she has said above is a "secondary way to effectuate judgments." That there is such a thing, as multiple ways to bring about judgments, is under dispute.

NJK:As cited above I indeed have.


You've just made the claim. That's not the same thing as adducing evidence. I've provided the quote from "The Destruction of Jerusalem." Go ahead and make the case that she has to different mechanisms in mind there. Produce some evidence to support your claim.

Quote:
T:The way that I have said that God brings about judgments is in harmony with the principles laid out above.

NJK:You are understanding these principles in an overreachingly different way than what EGW intended.


Make an argument to support your claim. You have the quote in front of you.

Quote:
T:If God had some other way of bringing about judgments, not in harmony with the above judgments, that would be problematic.

NJK:You are the one who is choosing to only look at one aspect of God’s judgement-effectuating. And the substantive Biblical record is what is to stipulate ‘hermeneutic rules of understanding’ not isolatively/merely EGW. That’s an unbiblical approach.


Provide some evidence to support your claims.

Quote:
T:God's character is consistent.

NJK:Which is why He allows for mercy even when effectuating judgement.


This much is true.

Quote:
Indeed many people in Jerusalem may not have themselves rejected Christianity. So God allowed for them to escape the destruction and have a further chance merely by remaining alive to get this saving knowledge of this Truth.


I agree with this, but this isn't what we were disputing. I was disputing your idea that GC 35-37 has to mechanisms at work, that God is using two different methods of effecting judgment, one where He directly destroys/causes suffering/etc., and another where He permits Satan to do these things.

Quote:
The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God’s mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God’s penmen, not His pen.


NJK: Indeed some expression may seem and are ungodly.(None come to mind actually) However I see that the substance itself is not affected by the mode of expression.

Tom: Certainly one's understanding of what another communicates, which is what we're talking about, is impacted by the mode of expression.


(A) Not when “quoting” a source. The source itself would have to make the “ungodly expression” It is because you view all acts of judgement as evil and violent that you spuriously posit that God was in such direct statement cases always being misunderstood and misquoted.

(B) Again, while this may generally be true in life, I myself don’t actually see this occurring in the Bible. EGW saying: “Men will often say such an expression is not like God.” does not mean that this is the case.

Indeed, when one reads that SOP statement in full context, EGW is actually supporting the understanding that Biblical writers did not have a misconception about God. They wrote under thought inspiriation. She is simply saying that what they wrote in applicable, non direct quoting places, was not literally, i.e., verbatim the words, logic and rhetoric of God, as in a ‘verbal inspirational’ way. She also personally dealt with those same issues. Her full statement:

Originally Posted By: SOP 1SM 21.2
It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the man's words or his expressions but on the man himself, who, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is imbued with thoughts. But the words receive the impress of the individual mind. The divine mind is diffused. The divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will; thus the utterances of the man are the word of God.-- Manuscript 24, 1886 (written in Europe in 1886).


So for any misunderstanding to have patently been occurring, as you are claiming. These writers would have to be constantly misconstruing the inspired thought that God’s Spirit was continually putting in their heads.


First of all, the problem is not with that Bible writers, but with the understanding of what they wrote.

Secondly, you wrote that the substance of what is being written is not impacted by the mode of expression, but that this is false is evident on the face of it. For example, you use a mode of expression that's very difficult to decipher, as you write in exceedingly long sentences and don't proof-read what you write. That certainly impacts the substance you are trying to communicate.

Different languages have strengths and weaknesses. One cannot always say the same things in one language that one can say in another. God chose to communicate in Hebrew, since that was the language that those to whom God was speaking spoke. But Hebrew is not God's language, and, of course, His choosing to communicate in Hebrew had an impact in what He was saying.

But, this is a minor point. The major point is that our world view, our paradigm, our understanding of God's character impacts our understanding of what has been written. In order to make things as clear as possible, God sent His Son.

Quote:
By coming to dwell with us, Jesus was to reveal God both to men and to angels. He was the Word of God,—God’s thought made audible...

But turning from all lesser representations, we behold God in Jesus.(DA 19, 21)


Quote:
NJK:I also think that the Bible is substantively perfectly revealed in what is prescritive and also, by being truthful, in what it describes. I also think that whenever it relates that God did something, then that is indeed what occurred. (Of course you do see so).

Tom: The Bible often presents God as doing that which He permits.


NJK:Again this is not a substantiated claim.


Sure it is. I've given many examples of this. Hardening of Pharaoh's heart, the sending of spies, fiery serpents, killing of Saul, sending strong delusion, sending lying spirits, destruction of Jerusalem, the cross, Job, are a few of these. Here's a new one:

Quote:
He cast upon them the fierceness of his anger, wrath, and indignation, and trouble, by sending evil angels among them. (Psalm 78:49)


God didn't send evil angels among them, but permitted the evil angels to go.

Quote:
NJK:God is either directly or indirectly acting is those situations which are not necessarily always “permitting”. Indeed only in Job’s case do I see it applying as you claim. Otherwise I can easily see that God acted through an agency.


Ok, let's consider a couple of these.

First the hardening of Pharaoh's heart.

Quote:
But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and did not heed them, as the Lord had said....But Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also neither would he let the people go...Satan wrought...in a manner calculated to harden the heart of Pharaoh" (1T 292)


So what did God do if not permit this to occur?

Regarding the fiery serpents, we read:

Quote:
Shielded by divine power, they had not realized the countless dangers by which they were surrounded. In their unbelief they 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 their sting, it causing violent inflammation and speedy death. As the protecting hand of God was removed, great numbers of the people were attacked by these venomous creatures. {EP 301.1}


This is stating my position as clearly as is possible to do so. "The Lord permitted death to come upon them." There's no hint of anything at all going on here other than what it says: "the protecting hand of God was removed."

The destruction of Jerusalem is another one. I've quoted at length regarding this above, so just a short quote here:

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...(GC 35)


This is not only clear that what happened here is that God's protection was caused to be removed, but that Satan seeks to conceal "his own work" by causing others to view this as a punishment visited upon them by God.

I won't go through all of these, but the point has been decidedly made that God is presented as doing that which He permits, in the clearest language possible.

Quote:
T:This is a principle, like "forever" does not necessarily mean "for all eternity."

NJK:I have already shown that this is only when the context implies this.


This doesn't make sense. To understand what "forever" means we need to go outside the immediate context, considering all that Scripture has to say. For example:

Quote:
10And 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. (Rev. 20:10)


The context here doesn't tell us what "forever" means here. It's by comparing Scripture with Scripture that we know that "forever" means for as long as the given event is applicable.

Quote:
NJK: Why won’t you substantively address this instead of, as usual just repeating what you had previously said??!


I keep repeating things I've said because you keep misrepresenting my view. Value comes from a discourse like this when each party can correctly represent the view of the other. If you correctly represent my view, and offer arguments against that view, I can strengthen my view in meeting the arguments, or adjust the view, or disregard it, in response to counter arguments. But you if misrepresent my view, then there's no value in your arguments, since they aren't hitting anything I'm saying. So I keep repeating the same things in the hope that you'll address what I'm actually saying.

Quote:
So when we say something occurred, like God killed Saul, what does that mean? It might mean that Saul took His own life. Or when it says that God sent fiery serpents against the Israelites, what does that mean? It might mean that God did nothing more than remove His protection. Or when God sent strong delusion against those who received not the love of the truth, that might mean that God left to them to their own delusions.

All repeatedly, exegetically, addressed and disproven/debunked


??? This certainly isn't the case. I can't think of a single one of these examples that's not applicable. For example, here's the last one:

Quote:
Especially solemn is the apostle’s statement regarding those who should refuse to receive “the love of the truth.” “For this cause,” he declared of all who should deliberately reject the messages of truth, “God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” Men cannot with impunity reject the warnings that God in mercy sends them. From those who persist in turning from these warnings, God withdraws His Spirit, leaving them to the deceptions that they love. {AA 266.2}


How has this been "debunked"? Scripture says, "“God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:" This is presenting God as doing something He permits. Here's where it says God is permitting:

Quote:
From those who persist in turning from these warnings, God withdraws His Spirit, leaving them to the deceptions that they love.


This is clear, right? In one case we have "God shall send them strong delusion." This is God being presented as doing something. In the other we have "God withdraws His Spirit, leaving them to the deceptions that they love." This is God being presented as permitting that which He had been presented as doing.

Quote:
T:There are all sorts of examples like this.

NJK:You’ll have to cite new ones than the ones you have as they have been disproven and/or address the points that disprove them.


I can't imagine what you're thinking here. You don't have a leg to stand on here. We have in one case, direct language "God sends, etc." and in the other "God permits." This proves the assertion.

Quote:
NJK: This text clearly is just saying that “in the same way God had variously spoken through prophets in the past, now spoke through His Son Jesus Christ.”

Tom: I don't know anybody who interprets this text this way. I've never heard this idea until now.

NJK:That does not mean that it is not valid.


Actually, it does. It could conceivably be the case that your unique point of view could be true, but it's inconceivable that the text is clearly just saying something if you're the only human being who sees this.

Quote:
NJK:It exegetically indeed is. It is the same Spirit that was prophetically speaking. It was just able to achieve more through Jesus.


The "more through Jesus" is the point that was made.

Quote:
And what was later revealed in Jesus did not in any way contradict what God’s Spirit had previously revealed.


Of course not. This is not the point. The point is that Jesus Christ was the clearest revelation of the Father.

Quote:
Tom: These were chosen because they're easy to find. I hadn't read what these had said, but just looked for *any* commentary, because this explanation is the only I've ever heard, and seems clear just by reading the text.


I exegetically see this as the sole/limiting understanding here. God’s Spirit did not reveal unbiblical things in the past. Also notice e.g., that it was Christ Revelation to Paul ca. 4 years after Jesus’s ascension showed that the keeping of OT ceremonial laws was no longer required. Similar to this, further, more pointed revelation, all of what Jesus revealed was already hinted in the revelations of the OT, just not with “executive” force then.


This doesn't look to be responsive to the point, which is:

Quote:
The Highest of All Revelations Is Given Us Now in the Son of God, Who Is Greater than the Angels, and Who, Having Completed Redemption, Sits Enthroned at God's Right Hand.


Quote:
Tom: The point is that Jesus Christ is greater. This is the theme of Hebrews in a nutshell.


The book of Hebrews served to complete the types to Anti-type transition in Christ. The issue of judgements in the OT is not subject to this type/anti-type development, and indeed, it was not hinted that OT statements of judgements would be so “changed” (= reworded) in the NT. So this is really a proof text to support your view. Indeed, at best, a similar “replacing” revelation by Christ for judgements, given their incontrovertible substantive occurrence in the OT, like e.g., ceremonial practices, would come to only mean that such judgements would now no longer be done by God in this way in the NT era.


Again, this isn't responsive to the point, which is that Jesus Christ is the greatest revelation of the Father.

NJK: Interestingly enough, I only see two times in the Bible where God had to correct a prophets, and that for relatively benign reasons, namely Nathan (2 Sam 7:1-17) and Samuel (1 Sam 16:6, 7). Seems to me they were quite faithful in correctly transmitting what had been revealed/said to them. So I do not see a basis here that what was recorded in the OT from God was wrongly done.

Tom: What are your responding to here? Where have I said that anything was wrongly done?

NJK:The OT quotings of God being what He actually had in mind. These two examples show that when a prophet misconceived, misunderstood something about God, God then immediately intervened to correct him.[/quote]

Although this is outside from our discussion, from the point of logic, this is an invalid conclusion. That God corrected a viewpoint in one or two instances does not imply that no prophet anywhere at any time had a viewpoint that was incorrect.

Quote:
So that is why I do not that this was not at all the case with any statement of the OT.


This doesn't make sense.

Quote:
God’s Spirit evidently so made sure that what was written was in full harmony with the Intention and Will of God. E.g., God would have intervene to prevent Israel from stoning someone to death or going to war as this would not have been what He had ordered.


This is poor logic as well. The cases of slavery, divorce, and polygamy disprove this idea.

Quote:
Indeed David was not permitted to build the Temple because his own hand (and not Israel in general) had shed much blood, even if that was “before God” (1 Chr 22:8). Though these were necessary actions, God wanted a non-warrior to build His Temple. Indeed, correspondingly. though God does such great judgement actions, He only wants a worship of Him that is not based upon these acts. Still such effectuated Justice is a necessary and righteous part of God Character. If not, He would never have directly commanded David to engage in any of these wars. (E.g. 1 Chr 14:9, 10 versus 13-16).


I don't see that you responded to my question above. I asked, "What are your responding to here? Where have I said that anything was wrongly done?" and you didn't answer.

Quote:
T:Haven't I been saying that the problem is with how what was written has been perceived?

NJK:I do not sequiturly/fully see that from what you have been saying.


Ok, then I'll continue to repeat it, until you can sequiturly/fully see it.

Quote:
NJK:Indeed the problem is that you are also including direct statements of God in this view of yours. You may be not explicitly saying/intending that, but your OT revisionism and non-answers, say otherwise. Indeed you won’t answer anything that has to do with direct statements of God ordering war, capital punishment and judgement.


I may have written over a thousand posts on this topic (several hundred for sure) which is more posts than you've written at all. So I could just as well claim that you haven't posted anything.

Quote:
(You are actually seeming, by those non-answers, to be trying to buy time until you can find an even plausible answer for them. As with other similar issues, you should indeed clearly answer those direct questions to avoid this resulting logical/rational perception.)


You simply don't know what you're talking about. I have over 14,000 posts, and many of these posts are on this topic.

Quote:
NJK: That is of course because you are viewing/judging things by your view,

Tom: Of course. And you are viewing/judging things by your view, which is why you say the things you say.

NJK:Well you need to do a better job of proving your view,


To someone who is unwilling, it's not possible to prove it. All I can hope is to do a good job expressing it, and that it can at least be understood and correctly represented.

Quote:
NJK: indeed by engaging the many points that are showing that it is not in harmony with the Bible. Selectively only using some texts for a view is the patent way of establishing a teaching that is not actually Biblical. It is only plausibly so when only those partial selection of text are used. Still, the texts that you are claiming in support do not in themselves support your view as they are accurately understood when considered in the greater context of all applicable texts, if not simply through proper exegesis.


This is pointless. It's just a claim without evidence.

Quote:
What’s the real issue/problem here Tom, as with other similar occurrences elsewhere??? I have already answered this objection of yours. Why won’t engage what I have already said in response? Did you not see that post? Or did you not bother to read it?? Or did you forget what you had read??? Or does it not matter what I had said???? Which one is it????? And then you vexatiously complain when I get upset by this patent disrespectful discussion snubbing as if I have to silently taken this from you? What’s the deal here??


I'd say the main deal is your lack of either ability or desire to write clearly and succinctly. You go on and on and on, and make very few points, and there's just so much to sift through that's it's hardly surprising that I might miss something. I'm going through everything in this post, but I won't often have time to do so.

I suggest you try to write in a summary post what your main ideas are in regards to the topic we are discussing, and what you see my main ideas are. So far the main ideas I've been able to gather from you are that there is not an organic relationship between sin and death, and that God executed judgments in more than one way, sometimes permitting sickness/suffering/destruction to occur, and sometimes causing these things Himself.

Quote:
Tom: The most detailed explanation I've see in the first chapter of the Desire of Ages. The chapter on the revolution in France also is pretty detailed, and is along the same lines as the first chapter.


Well wherever EGW does expound on this “perfect mixture”, she rightly understands that they both simultaneously exists and are distinctly manifested.


In Scripture, these are not in conflict. For example:

Quote:
“Thus says the LORD of hosts:

‘ Execute true justice,
Show mercy and compassion
Everyone to his brother. (Zech. 7:9;NJKV)


Justice is effected by means of mercy.

Quote:
T:It's helpful to note principles involved. I've already articulated some.

NJK:Your articulated principles do not extent to what you claim of them.


Yes they do (Gratuitous assertions my be gratuitously denied).

Quote:
T:We know that at times God works as explained in GC chapter 1, and that this example has God working things out in harmony with the principles articulated before. Does He sometimes work differently, according to other principles? I don't see that you've made any such case.

NJK:My point, as stated in that Signs article is that God does not wholly dispense with Justice for the sake of Mercy.


Justice means killing, and inflicting disease, things like that, against those who are disobedient?

Quote:
NJK: Because God is merciful, He still does not do away with the justice elements in His Law and Character.


So if God weren't merciful, He would do away with the justice elements of His Law and Character? I guess what you mean is that even though God is merciful, He does not do away with the justice elements of His law and character.

I think you're seeing justice as punishment here, but this isn't how justice was viewed in the Old Testament. Justice has to do with the restoration of the community to shalom.

Quote:
So He statutorily instituted in Israel that a murdered person should be avenged (=Gen 9:5, 6). (You have not responded to that Genesis statement by God).


What sort of response are you looking for?

Quote:
Tom: It doesn't appear that you do. If you could articulate my position in a way that I would agree with, I would agree that you understand my view. Are you able to do so?

NJK:Easy. You see that nothing that is written in the OT can be defaultly said to be a correct perception of God’s ideas, will and ways.


I guess this is your idea of a joke. But mine was a serious question. Can you articulate my position in a way I would agree with?

Please note that the key point of this request is that you articulate my position "in a way I would agree with."

Quote:
NJK: I can see why you don’t get my incredulity here. I see that the Bible writers did not have a misunderstanding with what had occurred,

Tom: The issue is not with the Bible writers!

NJK:Really, so according to you who is it with then in pointedly direct quoting of God? It seems quite clear to me that we should not take what these statement say as accurate representation of God’s will. Then who is responsible for this supposed misperception and misquoting of God?


There's no misquoting here. Simply bear in mind that God often presents Himself as doing that which He permits. The misperception occurs when this principle is not grasped.

Quote:
(And if that is what you don’t think you said, then do spare me a terse: ‘that not what I said’ reply, and do quote or articulate for yourself what you said or meant. As seen below, (bold) you can do this when you think you have, at least, a seemingly plausible answer.)


Just quote something I said. You don't have a leg to stand on here. If you misstate a position I say once, that could be due to a misunderstanding. But after I correct you, and you persist, that's on you; you're doing it on purpose.

So just stop. Don't purposely misrepresent the positions of people with whom you disagree. That's just not right.

Quote:
NJK: I find no Biblical example or support, including from Jesus Himself, for this rewriting of the Biblical text.

Tom: I've given over a dozen examples of what I asserted.


By now all disproven a Biblically valid examples. At the very least, try new ones or address the standing objections.


I've cited several in this thread. What's an example of a case where I've cited an example of God being presented as doing something He permits when this isn't what was happening?

Quote:
NJK: As I understand the why’s of God’s timely OT judgements, indeed as He did need to timely act to check free developments that, I believed, He did not always anticipate as a concrete possibility (cf. Isa 5:4). All of these acts of judgement are also microcosms and warnings of what the Final Hell destruction will be.

Tom: I haven't been discussing with you as to why the judgments occurred, but the mechanism involved in the judgments.

NJK:That what/how is clear to me. And as my statement emphasized, it is the involved “why” that make Him use these direct and active methods for reasons of timeliness and also due, full and proper effectuations. Again these issues are not “dichotomizable” to me.


This isn't well written, but I'll address what I think your point is. If we accept the principle that God is constantly protecting us from a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, then the why need not be impacted by the mechanism. The "why" involved is that God permitted an evil to occur (i.e., "evil" in the sense of an unfortunate event), to prevent a great evil from occurring. The mechanism could either be that God directly did something, or that He permitted something, in order to accomplish this. So the "why" would be the same, although the mechanism involved differed.

Quote:
NJK: No. These “thus says the Lord” are a distinct portion of the Biblical Text, which I see a paramount in God’s revelation. Similarly to how I see the SOP’s “I was shown” statements. And in matters of history, these Bible writers straightforwardly and matter of factly related what had occurred and I do not see Jesus changing these accounts.

Tom: Yet again, this is not the issue.

NJK:It is if all of what is being said in the Bible is to be questioned as to its both verbal substance and meaning.


God is often presented as doing that which He permits. This occurs both by means of direct quotes, and otherwise. There's no need to question anything. There's just a principle of interpretation to grasp.

Quote:
T:Jesus Christ said what He heard, and lived what He saw, of God as revealed in the Old Testament. He read the same accounts as everybody else, so the problem is not with the accounts!

The problem is with one's perceptions of what was written. These perceptions are often at odds with what Jesus Christ revealed in His life and teachings.

NJK:As typical with your answers on this issue, it is substantively partial and logically simplistic. What is written is clear, especially in direct quotings of God.


Then why are there thousands of denominations? Surely somebody somewhere isn't understanding something correctly.

Quote:
NJK:You are just systematically ignoring these statements to sustain a surface validity of your view.


What statements?

You write as if the viewpoint I have is something I wanted to have, and went about obtaining it. What I believe is simply the result of my trying to ascertain truth. My original background was anti-SDA Calvinism. If my disposition were what you are suggesting, I would have just stayed as I was, as systematically ignoring statement to sustain a surface validity is something anti-SDA Calvinists are very capable of doing.

Quote:
NJK:You effectively and evidently clearly do not believe “the problem is not with the accounts!”.


It seems clear to me from this post that the problem involves the principle that God is often presented as doing that which He permits.

Quote:
NJK:Indeed won’t even let them exegetically speak for themselves as they pointedly do. With you, exegesis is to be ignored, especially as you see that these writers perceptions affected their exegesis, making say things that were not really what happened!?! How does that stated view of yours support your claim here.


Again, I think the issue has to do with the above mentioned principle. You seem to be denying this principle, with the single exception of Job. Even though my position in regards to what occurred in many of these incidents is a minority view, I think you're the only one who disagrees with this particular principle. The position that everyone else has who disagrees with me is that yes, God is often presented as doing that which He permits, but that doesn't mean that God isn't sometimes doing the things He is presented as doing.

Quote:
NJK: Indeed if your view was the Truth, I would think Jesus would be systematically engaging in recorded statements of, e.g.,: ‘you have read “God rained fire on Sodom”, but I say on to you God never does a judgement Himself, and this was actually a volcano that was always supposed to erupt then.’ etc.

Tom: Light is progressive. Jesus Christ spoke of the things which He felt were most pressing at the time. There are all sorts of things which are true of which Jesus Christ did not address directly.

NJK:So how then did He reveal everything, especially with such a crucial view of an OT episode that He used as the illustrative basis for His own end time judgement. He did not receive the full light on this???

This is a prime and most indicative example of you also making Jesus be subject to your view.


You asked why Jesus didn't explain all this. I said there were many things He didn't explain. You're response is, ":So how then did He reveal everything..." So you're asserting that Jesus actually did reveal everything?

Quote:
T:The whole purpose of Christ's mission was the revelation of God. He revealed the principles I'm articulating; love your enemies, turn the other cheek, walk the second mile. Christ gave His life for His enemies. He never recommended violence, and when it was suggested He burn them, He rebuked those who thus suggested because they did not know what spirit they were of. He died the most horrible death at the hands of those who hated Him. He returned kindness for cruelty.

NJK:And, as copiously seen throughout His Ministry, He mostly did this by explaining misunderstood OT passages/episode.


I assume "this" here is the revelation of God. If so, what you are asserting here is not the case. He mostly revealed God's character by how He lived (i.e., His deeds of kindness, healing, ministry, etc.)

Quote:
NJK:So why not also with this crucial S&G episode which manifestly was still “misunderstood” by NT writers?


I disagree with your assertion here. I believe the NT writers understood that God is often presented as doing that which He permits, and they did so themselves.

Quote:
Indeed Teaching on the Scriptures was a major part of His Ministry.


It wasn't His purpose to correct every conceivable error a person might have had in regards to what Scripture taught about God's character. Indeed, that would have been impossible. Light is progressive. God takes people where they are, and through revelation, moves them closer to the truth. This doesn't happen all at once.

Just think of where they were coming from. They had a militaristic view of God's kingdom, where the Messiah would come and physically rescue them from their enemies. They didn't understand the spiritual nature of Christ's kingdom. Christ had a lot to deal with.

Quote:
T: If you had more than the actual words of God in mind, then we are dealing with what actually happened, right? And even with the words of God, there are questions, as God often presented Himself as doing what He permits. For example, consider the episode of the fiery serpents. What happened there? Isn't this was our disagreement entails? I believe the serpents were already there, and that God had been protecting the Israelites from them the whole time, and He merely ceased doing so for a time. This is despite the direct language used.

NJK: This is where I see that you are being finally being forthcoming about what you actually think of Biblical exegesis. Evidently you see it as irrelevant.

Tom: How does what you're saying here in any way tie into the points that I just made? Or questions I asked?

NJK:I am dealing with the paramount “This is despite the direct language used.” Which means: “Exegesis is irrelevant to understanding the Bible.”


(post truncated here by software. next post continues)
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/29/11 06:29 AM

I have made the point that God is often presented as doing that which He permits. Scripture uses direct language that God sent fiery serpents against the Israelites. This is explained by the SOP as meaning that God removed His protection from the serpents which were already there. Your conclusion to this is that "Exegesis is irrelevant to understanding the Bible." I'm incredulous to this response.

I'll point out once again that you're on your own here. That is, while my understanding of certain incidents is at odds with many posting here, that the principle is true that God is often presented as doing that which He permits is agreed to by everyone here besides you. That means, to be consistent, your assertion that "Exegesis is irrelevant to understanding the Bible" applies to everyone else here as well.

Quote:
NJK: And also “Bible writers did not relate things accurately.”


Why is this in double quotes? Who are you quoting? Certainly not me.

Quote:
NJK:As for your other points, that had been already dealt with, long ago, and through this exgetical method, so there was no point to restate those patently ignored answers, especially, as now revealed here by you, ‘exegetical facts do not matter’.


If you're talking about the snakes, you're on your own here also. You have some fanciful idea that God did something to instill fear in the snakes so they would attack, but this isn't anything even resembling exegesis.

Here again is the EGW statement:

Quote:
Shielded by divine power, they had not realized the countless dangers by which they were surrounded. In their unbelief they 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 their sting, it causing violent inflammation and speedy death. As the protecting hand of God was removed, great numbers of the people were attacked by these venomous creatures. {EP 301.1}


That God's action here consisted of His removing His protection to allow the Israelites to be exposed to a danger which was already existing is incontrovertible.

Ok, this is everything, except for insults at the end of the post, which I'll skip.

I decided to answer this entire post, as you seem to complain if I don't do so. However, I'm simply not going to have time to do so on a regular basis. I spent something like 4 hours on this post.

Much of what is written here is redundant. What seems to be the main bone of contention here is the assertion that God is often presented as doing that which He permits. My understanding of our position is that you see the principle of God doing that which He permits as being applicable only to Job, and, I would extrapolate, to other similar incidents where God permits Satan to cause sufferings to a righteous person. Other than this case, you believe that whenever it says that God did something, that God took direct action to bring about the thing which it says He did. Is this your position?
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/30/11 07:39 PM

Quote:
NJK: Now that I understand your point of view more clearly based on what you have finally forthrightly/clearly stated below, I can actually now see/understand how and why this is “right on point for you, in your view. That is because you believe that OT writers themselves had, actually, a wrong view of God.

Tom: I don't think this is the right way of thinking about this. God is infinite, so no human (besides Jesus Christ) could have a view of God that was complete. What I said was, "They certainly didn't have as clear a view of the character of God as Jesus Christ."

NJK: Your expressed statements and practices in regards to your view clearly show that you have much more than ‘complete comprehension’ in mind. According to your view, one has to not believe the Bible when it says that God said, commanded or did something.

Tom: We should allow Scripture to interpret itself. God often presents Himself as doing that which He permits. This doesn't mean "one has to not believe the Bible when it says that God said, commanded or did something."


This assumption/assertion that “God often presents Himself as doing that which He permits.” is one that is bourne out of poor exegesis. The Bible is exegetically clear and non-ambiguous/ambivalent when ‘God permits something’ or ‘directly or indirectly does something through Himself or through a Divine agency. That is why and how all of your examples to try to substantiate this claim have been exegetically disproven and debunked. You do not see this because you are not given these exegetical points their due weight, still that does not render them invalid or vacuous of any meaning. The Hebrew Language has several verbal stems and tenses and each has its pointed and distinct meaning and connotation. It is by the careful use of these that Bible writers variously expressed how they understood God did various action. There is no linguistic justification to lump all of these distinct verbal expressions into one bland and blanket category of ‘they are all saying that “God often presents Himself as doing that which He permits.”’ Hebrew writers clearly and correctly understood the contrary and carefully related these differences in their writings. You need to get up to speed with that widely, if not unanimously understood/taught scholarly fact, even if solely at the teaching level. Students, even Seminary students are free to apply or not apply what they have learned in Seminary, however that does not make them right.

Originally Posted By: Tom
For example, Scripture says that "God killed Saul." But, in actuality, Saul took his own life.


The Bible incontrovertibly, exegetically says that “God caused the death of Saul.” Exactly how, i.e., what agency was used to achieve this is not specified, however this exegetical indication implies/involves that Saul was somehow, perhaps psychologically, as he was susceptible to (1 Sam 16:14-18), to take his own life. God wanted it to be done that day, and through the use of an “(unspecified) agent” made sure that it was done. However, as Satan surely did not want Saul to die and thus turn over the throne to the more Spiritual and clearly more competent David (E.g., the slaying of Goliath; also 1 Sam 18:6-9), then he probably did not even volunteer his “services” here to be God’s agent. Indeed it was in the interest of Satan to provide an evil spirit to terrorize Saul as God’s desired as he then could influence Saul to make bad decisions that would be detrimental to Israel, as it was indeed the case. So more than likely, a God-commissioned angel acted in pushing Saul to take his own life.

And that “evil spirit from God” (1 Sam 16:14-18) was, though not indicated here, sent through the same process that was revealed in the Ahab episode. That is God “opened the floor” to ‘agents of terror’ here and an evil Spirt from Satan’s camp volunteered his services. God also probably then also limited what that spirit could or could not do, as also seen with Job. So it was indeed “from God,” i.e., ‘from God’s mandating/commissioning.’ Indeed, the underlying Hebrew has the notion of “by reason of the interest/intent of Yahweh”.

I had also pointed out the that, unlike in this episode, the Bible uses a Polel verb when speaking of a direct killing by God, yet you just chose to completely ignore that exegetical fact.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Another example is that Scripture says that God sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites, but the serpents were there the whole time; God simply removed His protection from them.


For the many points that I have stated against this claim of yours, (which you have not answered head on, but simply restated this claim), this also in not what the Bible says, or what the SOP fully intended in meaning. Together, as exegetically due, they reveal that this withdrawing of God’s protection was in the form of Him acting to cause the serpents to come in the camp and also bit the people.

Quote:
NJK: If you can dichotomize your view as you please then great for you. I just cannot comprehensively see from your that one understanding (Christ’s greater revelation) does not involve the other (not taking even the God-quoting OT writers at their words). Which is why you just don’t answer questions that deal with such direct statements of God. That is a major red flag for me, as I don’t one-sidedly build my Theology on just a selective set of passages, but seek to harmonize everything that has been said on the topic. This is indeed where we foundationally differ.

Tom: Why question have you asked me that I haven't answer?


“Questions that deal with such direct statements of God” More specifically, statements where God told Israel to effectuate capital punishment, render equivalent justice, go to war against other cities/nation and completely wipe them out; statements expression God’s intent to effectuate vengeance, etc.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Where we fundamentally differ is in how we view God's character, and how we view sin.


That is resolved by proper exegesis and not eisegetical impositions of principles, even if it is EGW who is making them.

Quote:
NJK: I would only see that this applies to the parts of the Bible, where these writers were “free” to purely express their own thoughts, derived from their own experiences with God, e.g., the “Writings” of the OT (e.g., Psa/Pro/Eccl), however I also do see that much of the “free” statements by writers was derived from things that God had actually said.

Tom: All throughout the Bible the Bible writers are communicating their thoughts.

NJK: Not “all throughout” but generally speaking, only in certain part. I.e., not when they were either quoting God’s own words or making statements directly derived from these direct statements.

Tom: A couple of problems here.

Tom: It is certainly the case that the writers are communicating their thoughts when they are making statements directly derived from statements they heard from God. This is completely obvious. Just think about what is happening. They hear God say something, and then write about what they heard. It's impossible that this would not involve their communicating their thoughts.


That is not what I had in mind. I meant them hearing e.g., Moses quoting God and relating that God said (as Paul in the NT also exactly understood - Rom 12:19), through Moses in Deut 32:35: ‘Vengeance is Mine, and retribution,’ and then David later expressing the derived, and thus also inspired thought: “O LORD, God of vengeance, God of vengeance, shine forth! Rise up, O Judge of the earth, Render recompense to the proud.” (Psa 94:1, 2) This involved a first and basis part where what God had said was quoted and then the distinct statement by David based on what He had read God had said.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Even in the case where they are recording something which they directly heard or saw, they are *still* communicating their thoughts. There's never a time when a Bible writer is not communicating his thoughts. He things something, and writes it down.


The Bible clearly say that such quotings are ‘thoughts which are of divine origin.’

Originally Posted By: Bible 2 Pet 2:20, 21
But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes to be one's own explanation (#1955 - Gr. epilusis; cf. #1956), for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.


This text is saying in the context of the statement from God on the mount of Transfiguration making the OT prophetic word even more sure (vss. 17-19) that no prophetic utterance at all were ever a matter of personal interpretation. This “prophetic” word does not only included statements such as in Dan 8:14, but also any word that is said to be stated by God Himself. Thus any “Thus says the Lord”. The “prophet” was indeed the spokesperson of God and did not only accomplish this task by making “event prophecies” but also by relating what the Spirit of God had told him to say. So Peter is saying that “no such “prophetic (i.e. “God-spoken”) word in Scripture is left to any man to privately explain. There are to be taken just as they say. So here when the voice of God said that Jesus was His Son, then that was not left to any human reasoning or interpretation. It is just as it says, and indeed confirmed what God had previously said in OT (event/classical) prophecies. So I see that explaining something that “God spoke” to mean anything less/else than what is pointedly said going against this Biblical understanding. So when God says He will do something or has done something, or commands that something should be done, that is because, as He has said, He will indeed do it. The Bible is also very specific through incontrovertible and precise grammar and syntax to indicate the exact mode of feasance, e.g., whether direct or indirect.

EGW, by implication, supports this as she says:

Originally Posted By: SOP 1 SM 21.2
Inspiration acts not on the man's words or his expressions but on the man himself, who, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is imbued with thoughts. But the words receive the impress of the individual mind.


She is echoing this Biblical understanding that the thoughts from which Bible writers wrote were themself inspired by God’s Spirit. And I further see that this is pointedly speaking of instances where there is not a quoting of God involved, as in the quotings, as seen in EGW’s vision, these men who were receiving this communication through some form of vision, trance or dream, only had to faithfully record what they had then heard. Indeed this is demonstrated in EGW’s many “said the angel...” or “I heard (quote of Divine-utterance)”. There was no need, nor room for “interpreting” anything during those direct quoting instances. Only a faithful verbatim relating of what was said need to be done. However when, e.g., Solomon wrote His proverbs, God inspired him with Divine thoughts and he expressed them in the best human knowledge he could. That was indirectly similar seen in EGW’s many “words fail me...” statements. Indeed I see that EGW’s statement that: “The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God's mode of thought and expression” applies to this non-quoting/non-“prophetic” (as Peter put it) part of Scripture.

Originally Posted By: Tom
When EGW writes that the language of God is not recorded in Scripture, it is precisely that the Bible writings are communicating their thoughts which is being said. This is what stating that God is not represented as a writer in Scripture means. This is what it means to say that God is speaking to men in the language of men.


As explained above this only applies to non-quoting/non-“prophetic” parts. These prophetic parts are indeed what God understood as “putting His words in that prophet’s mouth” (Deut 18:18; cf. Isa 51:16). See a possible difference between the two forms of communication, i.e., Spirit (inidrect) mouth (direct) in Isa 59:21

Originally Posted By: Tom
Another problem is that "all throughout" does not mean "without exception."


That’s definitional, even colloquial, news to me. To me the double/redundant emphasis of “all” and “throughout” is to emphatically mean ‘no exceptions at all’. (cf. in the SOP 2SM 399.3)

Originally Posted By: Tom
Even if we allowed as an exception those cases where a Bible writer is recording what he heard God say (which isn't an exception to the statement that God as a writer is not represented in Scripture),


I actually is since God is not doing the writing there either. Only the Ten Commandments could make this claim, but I do not see that is not the technical intent of this “God writing” statement. As stated above, I see this statement as generically referring to ad-lib compositions by Bible writers and not verbatim transcribings.

Originally Posted By: Tom
it would still be the case that over 99% of the time Bible writers were communicating their thoughts, so to say this happens "all throughout" is completely accurate.


Specifically speaking, from just the hits for the following distinct statements I get a figure of 97.1% (888 out of 31103 verses) and less

“Thus says the LORD” - 419
“The LORD said” - 233
“Says the LORD” - 84
“God said” - 46
“the word of the LORD came” - 102
“the word of the God came” - 4

Furthermore: (1) the text of prophetic visions are not included (e.g., Dan 11); (2) entire or large portions of chapters are many times non-introducedly the statements of God (e.g., Isa 58 (see vs. 14); Jer 5:20-31); and (3) those “thus say the Lord intro’s many times only say so for the first part of sections of texts quoting God (e.g, Ezek 45:9, 18). And as it is generally understood that ca. 25% of the Bible is prophecy, and this may include all of the God-said statements, as in a “Red-Letter” OT, this total is conceivably easily 25% and more.

The key thing here is that this minority percentage of factually 25% the Biblical corpus is more than enough, as the rest of the Bible is greatly derived from those direct statements of God. The same is seen in the writings of EGW where a very small percentage of “I was shown” type of statements and other visions/revelations served as a basis for her writings.

So, “all throughout” not only does not involve exceptions for me, unless this is explicitly specified, but I really don’t see it applying in such a situation where only 75% and less of the whole is affected.

Quote:
NJK: As I said later and you agreed, the same thing was involved in EGW’s writings.

Tom: I don't know what this is in reference to.


I was referring to this later exchange in that post:

Originally Posted By: Post #133790
NJK: I do see that the Inspiration of Bible writers was very much like what was seen with EGW. They primarily wrote upon what they had seen in visions and dreams and “heard” from God. Similarly most of EGW “early writings’ were such direct revelations. Then she began to derive testimony from such direct revelations and additional ones. Bible writers similarly did the same thing. However I see that they had a much closer experience with God than did EGW (e.g., Moses’ in person meetings with God.) Indeed God was tangibly in the midst of Israel for many centuries, even right through periods of apostasy, though no additional revelation and (advancing/visionary prophetic) light was given.

Tom: Ok.


As you apparently read through a post before answering, you should have noticed it.

Quote:
T:They are God's penmen, not His pen.

NJK: That does not involve/include thing that were directly, through various prophetic revelations (Heb 1:1) stated by, and heard from, God.

Tom: Yes it does. This is made clear from the quote from which this sentence was taken. That is, that God, as a writer, is not represented in Scripture; that God communicating in the language of men; etc.


As explained above, a for reasons of being truthful, I do not see that when a Bible Writer was quoting God, he took the liberty, though he was at, to paraphrase God. I see that they were faithful to write exactly what they had heard. And it must be kept in mind that the communication between God and man was much more frequent, clear and pronounced in Bible Times. Indeed God spoke with Moses “mouth to mouth.” (Num 12:6-8). As Moses also was a prophet (Deut 18:15-18) the statement in this verse to other prophets apparently only spoke of any other person who may be raised as a prophet, as God then saw, (as Exod 32 & Num 14 showed), that only Moses was ‘most faithful’ in all of Israel then. However I see that when God could find such another faithful person, he spoke to him ‘mouth to mouth’ as with Moses, as Moses indeed manifestly understood (Deut 18:15, 18).

Quote:
NJK: Not in the sense of your ‘He caused the OT to be reworded where: ‘God did not actually say or do what it says he did or do’, but OT writers always misunderstood Him.

Tom: I've said people have misunderstood the OT writers. I didn't say the OT writers "always misunderstood Him."


That’s not what I got from your previous responses, which includes what is “undivorceably” also implicated.

Originally Posted By: Tom
It doesn't help a discussion to misrepresent another's view like this. Especially doing so repeatedly, after one has already been corrected, is unhelpful. I've already stated on numerous occasions that the problem is not with what was written, but with the understanding of what was written.


First of all, no need to put this in a generic voice here, speak only for what you think is happening with you. Secondly, I am not representing anything just involving all that your assertions entail and that through proper exegesis, (as it is responsibly and scientifically/Theologically due), which, as seen in your statements below, you foundationally see as being void of any distinctive or determinative meaning.

Here is a representative recent discussion history of what you have been saying:

Originally Posted By: Post #133784
NJK: As this is all in relation to e.g., who actually did destructions in the OT, I see no Biblical, I.e., later OT, NT, SOP) evidence that contradict what had priorly revealed as taking place.

Tom: The contradiction is not with what had been previously been revealed, but with people's perceptions of what had been revealed. I've made this point repeatedly.

NJK: So then why are you (exegetically) ignoring and/or rewording what has been revealed.

Tom: People's perceptions is a part of exegesis; this can't be ignored.


Originally Posted By: Post #133790
T:If you had more than the actual words of God in mind, then we are dealing with what actually happened, right? And even with the words of God, there are questions, as God often presented Himself as doing what He permits. For example, consider the episode of the fiery serpents. What happened there? Isn't this was our disagreement entails? I believe the serpents were already there, and that God had been protecting the Israelites from them the whole time, and He merely ceased doing so for a time. This is despite the direct language used.

NJK: This is where I see that you are being finally being forthcoming about what you actually think of Biblical exegesis. Evidently you see it as irrelevant.


If, as you claim: “the contradiction is not with what had been previously been revealed, but with people's perceptions of what had been revealed,” that therefore me that what had been revealed was, as you think, ‘God had not directly acted to forcefully send the snakes’ but that is what these Bible writers understood. Ergo my observation of your view that “the Bible writers got it wrong.” I.e., they had been revealed something, which implies through a supernatural means, even if solely by ‘thoughts imbued God’s Spirit’ (1 Sam 21.2), however they went on to relate something that is actually contrary to what was revealed. E.g., ‘God actively acted to do something’ when He had only “permitted” it by a protection withdrawing move. This can only involve those Bible writers getting something, effectively total wrong. And if they did so with every instance where you similarly claim that “God only permitted something to happen”, yet they used varying verb tenses to relate those instances which are all supposed to be the same. Therefore that can also mean that they were greatly confused and it really depended on not only who the writer was, but as a writer can use two verb form for different acts of God in the same book, then it practically depends on the subjectivity and whim of the writer. I.e., how he was personally viewing God.

Your exegesis-denying view here is quite circularly based on your claim that “God often presented Himself as doing what He permits”. I have shown that there is no valid example of this in the Bible as exegesis is clear that God is varyingly involved in those actions. I see that EGW is to be subject to the Biblical revelation, and if a difference is seen, the Bible wins out, however I have seen that when this does not occur, her statements actually are indeed not contradicting what the Bible reveals.

So I see that the problem with your view is foundationally that you are placing the writings of EGW over the Bible and through this justifying rendering Biblical exegesis completely void of any meaning. I really don’t know what to say here. Even continuing this conversation is not worthwhile as your approach lack any Bible or SOP basis. We really don’t have the same Final Arbitrator/Authority, which should be the Bible, as EGW counseled, which implies its exegetical contributions, so it is virtually impossible that we’ll agree here.

Quote:
NJK:What I am saying is that they had ample revelation in the OT to get the same understanding that Jesus got. Jesus did not make his extra-biblical misconception corrections from direct revelations from God but by what He “exegetically” (i.e., especially including the greater Theological and substantive context) understood from those same OT writings.

Tom: I said that Christ had a clearer understanding of God's character than the OT writers. Do you really disagree with this?


Yes in that I see that Christ had a fuller understanding. “Clearer” implies not seeing something as it is. My “fuller” involves not having all the pieces of the puzzle yet, however what later came with Jesus only completed the puzzle and did not take anything (i.e., any jot or tittle) from the OT. So e.g., the was no problem with Capital Punishment, just the need to actually restore it back to the righteous level that it was always suppose to be on from the start.

Quote:
T:What I have been saying is that Jesus Christ was the clearest revelation of God. It was the whole purpose of His mission to reveal God. This was necessary because of the work Satan had been doing to misrepresent God's character.

NJK: And he achieved this mainly by variously causing people to doubt the Word of God, such as this not trusting that even direct revelations were accurate.

Tom: Please provide some evidence to support your idea here. I say Satan did so primarily by vesting God with his own attributes (cf. DA chapter 1).


Every time a false prophet rose up to pointedly speak against a pronouncement that a prophet of God, or even the Biblical writings were saying. (E.g., Jeremiah’s ordeals)

That is also seen today with people dealing with the Bible and also within SDA Circles with direct revelations of EGW (as they are explicitly ascertainable).

Originally Posted By: Tom
I'd say that Satan does use doubting Scripture as a way of influencing us in our view of God's character. Since through Scripture is God's primary means of communicating with us, if we doubt Scripture, we're doubting God's ability to communicate with us, and if we doubt that, how can we trust Him?


I think it does not need to go higher than disbelieving that was is written is either accurate and/or actually the “Word of God”. Indeed that is why most people who do not believe in God don’t even consider the character of God. They simply reject the claim that they Bible is true and/or is God’s Word. Even believers engage in unbiblical path by doubting that a part of God’s word that condemns their ways is either true, binding, accurate/applicable, authoritative or consequential (as seen in e.g., same-sex relationships; premarital relations, Sunday Sacredness, etc.). And those people will usually be the first to claim that their unbiblical behavior is acceptable because “God is Love/Merciful” (cf. Jude 1:4). So they actually do not have a negative view of God’s Character per se, just “His Word”.

Quote:
NJK: I can see how doubting God’s Character Justice does bolster the devil’s work. Indeed that is why people persist in rebellion today, not seeing/believing that God will enter into judgement with them.

Tom: People enter into rebellion against God because they prefer sin to God, or because they do not love or trust God. They don't enter into rebellion because they don't believe God will enter into judgment with them. This idea doesn't make sense.


Perhaps not to you but, it makes perfect Theological/Biblical sense to me. Show me a criminal who will commit a crime with a group of 10 uniformed police officers standing around him. It is only because they can clearly see that they won’t get away with their crime that they refrain from doing it while these cops are present. However when they are gone and out of sight, thus they are more likely not to face Justice for it, then they go ahead and do it. (That is also e.g., why people who are driving over the speed limit normatively slow down when the pass a police car.) So it is with sinners vs. God. If one knows with absolute concrete certainty that your are surely going to suffer punishment for committing a sin(s) then they’ll surely refrain from doing it. However this ‘absolute certainty’ would, with men, actually require that they see God face to face and also see Him doing the judgement on others. Because people have not had such concrete proof. Even in Bible times, as God did not concretely manifest Himself to even His People but only through various forms that could actually be explained away as something else, people have this sense of security that no God will actually punish them for violating what He claims is His Law. So the sin, and that openly without hesitation or shame. Indeed as the world is becoming more and more “atheistic” and unbelieving, including with “nominal” Believers, this boldness in sin is clearly being seen. That is indeed all what God intended to convey and what Moses understood just after relating God’s Law (Exod 20:18-20; cf. Job 1:8)

Originally Posted By: Tom
If what you are suggesting were true, then it would follow that all that would be necessary to not be in rebellion with God is to believe He will enter into judgment with them.


Well it is true and it is because that God does not want a relationship based/developed merely upon such a fear, though foundational and healthy for fallen man, that He many times deliberately masked His actions of judgement as something that could be perceived as only natural, especially as time has advanced.

Originally Posted By: Tom
But surely you can see this isn't the problem.


Why don’t you let me determine what I ‘surely can or cannot see’ in/from my own view!!?

Originally Posted By: Tom
The problem is that one is not right with God; one fears Him; one doesn't trust Him. The problem is to reconcile an estranged relationship. This takes place when the rebels heart is melted by the revelation of the love of God shining from the cross:


One is not ‘right with God; nor fear Him; nor does not trust Him’ (only if they actually know of God), because they indeed either don’t know God or believe that there is any such thing as God. To such atheist, the Cross and Jesus death on it was simply the just execution of a delusional deceiver. If your “rebels heart is melted by the revelation of the love of God shining from the cross” claim was all that it took, then all the people and many “rebels” (cf. DA 760.4) looking on at the Cross would have, on that very same Friday, before the sun set and surely long before the Resurrection, instantaneously become Believers in Christ. They actually “believed” in God but despisingly rejected Jesus. The only issue here was that they did not believe in Jesus.

Furthermore your “reconcile an estranged relationship” is only, tangibly, applicable to someone who actually had a “relationship” with God/Christ in their past. The ethereal view that this means Man in general actually does not follow through in practical, individual-by-individual reality.

Originally Posted By: SOP DA 175.5
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 176world.” 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.


Persisting non-believers in the Cross are, when actually confronted with its Story and Truth, indeed are not drawn because they defaultly or subsequently refuse to believe in it. This issue is not mere looking/gazing/contemplating as, at the very least, the Jews in Christ’s day showed, especially during the crucifixion, but believes. (= John 3:14-20)

Quote:
T:Until the cross, even holy angels were impacted by Satan's misrepresentations.

NJK: What are you basing this on?

Tom: The SOP.


Great. My question was “where exactly”?? I.e., page and paragraph #.

Quote:
NJK: I rather see that they were not yet convinced that the alternate way that Satan had proposed was deserving of the completely eradicating judgement that God wanted to effectuate on it.

Tom: I haven't seen any evidence this was ever an issue for the angels. Can you quote anything to substantiate this idea?


If you just want to see evidence, then go back in this thread where I have defended this view that I merely summarily stated here. If you do not accept that presented evidence then that is a different story, and you then need to address the points that I made in establishing this view.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Here's a statement from the SOP speaking to the impact of the cross on the angels:

Originally Posted By: SOP ST 12/30/89
That which alone can effectually restrain from sin in this world of darkness, will prevent sin in heaven. The significance of the death of Christ will be seen by saints and angels. Fallen men could not have a home in the paradise of God without the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Shall we not then exalt the cross of Christ? The angels ascribe honor and glory to Christ, for even they are not secure except by looking to the sufferings of the Son of God. It is through the efficacy of the cross that the angels of heaven are guarded from apostasy. Without the cross they would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the fall of Satan.


This is only tangibly (i.e., in actual/realistic process) possible with someone/a Being who first/actually, in some actionable/inceptive degree “believes” in God/Christ. For the unbeliever the cross defaultly has no significance to him, and so a deeper look/contemplation will never be done. Also it was clearly and soberingly seen at the Cross that God, despite His great Love and Mercy, will surely not let sin go unpunished. (The SOP somewhere says something along these lines).

Originally Posted By: Tom
The chapter "It Is Finished" from "The Desire of Ages" goes into detail about how the cross impacted the holy angels.


Where exactly? All I am reading in that Chapter is that they came to understand Satan’s character and in DA 764.4 that: “though they did not then understand all, they knew that the destruction of sin and Satan was forever made certain, that the redemption of man was assured, and that the universe was made eternally secure”

Quote:
NJK: So e.g., when the Bible says that God commanded Moses to kill the person violating the Sabbath, there was no misunderstanding involved here right? As with the many other God-quoting, God-commanded and/or God-directly-effectuated judgements in the Bible right? Your typical “God permits” reason here has been further shown to be invalid and would also only be addressing some episodes of such effectuated judgements.

Tom: Do you remember what Christ said to the disciples in regards to marriage? That because of the hardness of man's heart, God permitted divorce, but from the beginning it was not so? And the disciples replied tragicomically, "His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with [his] wife, it is not good to marry." (Matt. 19:10) ...
Christ explained what God's ideal will was, and the disciples responded that if God's ideal will is true, it's better not to marry.


In the allowance by God in the Law of Moses, I rather see an act of great caring, just as, as previously explained, God permitting Israel to buy as many foreign slaves as they could afford. In those two cases, the woman and those slaves were going to be miserably treated as unwanted people. So to guard against the injustices and hardships that they would surely endure for the rest of their lives, God permitted divorce for the woman and the taking in by Israel for the foreign slave. They then would have a better life, and if another man loved and accepted that woman, then it can be seen that the reason claimed for the divorce was only a subjective one to that first husband. God preferred to not have unhappy marriages with the woman suffering at the hand of the husband and also inviting temptations for fornication and adultery and thus granted divorces in such case, despite greatly hating it as He clearly said in Mal 2:16. So as God’s intention for His laws is for the best of one’s life, He had no problem allowing for a clearly hated relationship to continue.

I see that Jesus only addressed the portion of that law that was being abused. I.e., as the questioners of Jesus revealed, Deut 24:1 “indecency/defilement” was being abused as ‘any subjective/frivolous dislike’ (= “any reason” Matt 19:3). So as with Christ’s other Law magnifying statements, Jesus only specified that this reason of “defilement” was only applicable to issue of adultery. He therefore narrowed it down to one issue, indeed not even doing away with divorce, despite the perfect plan that God had for marriage in Eden.

It is in the light of this “lone permissible reason” vs. the previous “any reason at all” that the disciples made their, I think/see quite serious statement that, since that is indeed the intent of that Law, i.e., with marital unions being really quite binding and not whimsically/frivolously dispensable, it was then better to not marry at all. Christ indeed to their statement seriously as he went on to warn that this was not recommended for all men and really only a eunuch (whether naturally or by physical “preempting” force) could ‘successfully” endure this lifelong privation. He then also indicated that becoming a eunuch for the kingdom of God, as Paul later would do (1 Cor 7:7-9), was the only viable alternative for a “healthy” man choosing to live like this. (19:11-13).

So in summary, Jesus did not annul or change anything here in the OT. He just closed a loophole by specifying what that “indecency/defilement” was all about. It could even be that, as Christ said, Moses, and that because of the hardness of the hearts of men, saw it better to grant divorces for reasons beyond this one which probably indeed may have been the only initial one intended by God.

Originally Posted By: Tom
This gives some idea of just how far from God's ideal will things had gotten.


While God’s ideal was for no diviorce, He Himself did allow for divorces for the same reason he allowed for capital punishment. To deal with an issue of high handed sin. For divorce itself that was adultery. And for e.g, murders, capital punishment served to also bring justice to the situation. (Gen 9:5, 6). It was the people who abused that Law and Moses under inspiration granted them these frivolous divorces so as to avoid sufferings in marriages and also temptations for adultery. So it was for a greater good. As with the other views of the law that Jesus corrected, it was the people who caused to occur any great divergence from God’s ideal. In marriage God’s ideal is for a loving and faithful relationship and divorce allows for this ideal to be protected in genuine cases. Indeed a person usually cannot forgive or trust an adulterous spouse.

Notwithstanding, as the penalty for adultery was death, then the “defilement reason” allowed by God may have been for something less then divorce. And as a man could be tricked or not know of such defilement in advance then God allowed for this, effectively, ‘marriage-back guarantee’. So this provision worked both ways. This was also in perfect harmony with God’s law which would preclude a man ever knowing in advance of those defilement. Indeed in such cases it was up to the woman to be honest enough to make this be factually be known.

It must also be kept in mind that in Eden, when God had instituted marriage, he was dealing with perfect being. They therefore would be free from ever having any “indecency”. So this provision was fairly made by God in the light of the reality of Fallen and subject to sickness and disease, men. Yet to honor God’s ideal and seek to work back to the perfection of Eden, even now, after the fall, then the counsel of Jesus is best. Just as counsels on diet are, though the post-fall/flood Biblical revelation allows for the eating of clean meats.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Divorce is not the only area where God's ideal will was not understood. There wasn't any misunderstanding of the communication from Moses to the Israelites in regards to the divorce laws, but Christ saw further. He understood what God's ideal will was, and communicated that.


As stated above I don’t see it as a misunderstanding, just an abuse and loophole that needed to be ended and closed. There is also the Theological issue, as I understand it within the context of Man’s free will and a not yet existent future that sometimes men do things that God did not think that they would do. (cf. Isa 5:1-4). So this gross abuse of the “indecency/defilement” clause by man may have been another example of this. (I believe that the sexual perversion and misconduct of Sodom & Gomorrah and other surrounding cities was another such occurrence of this which is why, apparently Yahweh Himself can to earth to (incredulously) verify if the rumors He was hearing in Heaven was the actual case (Gen 18:1, 20, 21)). So Jesus acted to fix this unforeseen development.

Originally Posted By: Tom
The same thing is true in other areas as well.


I assume you mean what I actually had expected you to directly comment on. Namely capital punishment. I didn’t see you claims for divorce as being valid with your belief that: “There wasn't any misunderstanding of the communication from Moses to the Israelites in regards to the divorce laws”. Again they abused this God-given permission to then mean “any reason at all”. It was pointedly this that Jesus corrected.

It is also exegetically crucially important that Jesus really pointedly spoke of a right to remarry. He therefore closed the loophole that the general reasons of indecency allowed one to remarry, but specified that it should only be applicable in cases when a valid “indecency reason” is for reasons of adultery. This would all be like Jesus saying then that Christians should become vegan-vegetarians however Christ did not do this, yet this is what the SOP clearly is emphasizing now.

Originally Posted By: Tom
All that we can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son. The whole purpose of Christ's mission was the revelation of God. Christ fully and completely communicated God's ideal will. We do not need to supplement Christ's revelation.


I don’t see a strong support from your ‘divorce’ examples for this claim here. And as just mentioned above, this view would mean that believers today do not have to be vegan-vegetarians! How does that fit in your view?? I personally have not problem with that because my view is that Jesus only dealt with what was within His mandate. The rest of God’s revelations to men was going to be done through other “prophetic” mouthpieces/spokesperson that God would raise up. Starting with Paul.

Originally Posted By: Tom
If we have views based on our reading of the OT which do not agree with Christ's revelation of God's ideal will, we should go with Christ's revelation, as that's the clearest revelation. Evidently there's something we're not understanding correctly if we see discrepancies.


In regards to Justice/judgement, I, through due proper exegesis, see no difference/discrepancies at all.

Quote:
NJK: The people’s added misconceptions are what need to be addressed and Christ added furthering and fulfilling revelations. The Inspired Bible writers got God’s revelation right. It was the people who misunderstood that revelation. And to say that these Bible writers got it wrong, implies that God Himself wrongly expressed, legislated and/or otherwise reveal it.

Tom: It dosn't imply this.

NJK: Previously I had said that a misunderstanding in Bible writers could have occurred in their actual “ad lib” writings, i.e., vs. writing what God had “directly” revealed. And I do not actually see an example of this “misunderstanding” in the Bible.

Tom: What you wrote was stronger than this. You wrote, "to say that these Bible writers got it wrong, implies that God Himself wrongly expressed, legislated and/or otherwise reveal it."

NJK: I don’t see so given what those particular statement involve. Again you are spuriously trying to dichotomize your view.

Tom: What are you talking about? I directly quoted you! You're finding fault with my directly quoting you?!


No. I am stating again that I only say it possible that a misunderstanding could have occurred in the portions of the Bible that do not involve quoting God. That is why only revelations of God (i.e., ‘expression, legislations and/or other revelations by God Himself’) was included for that statement. You claim that this was stronger than that, presumably the to include the entire Bible vs. my ‘particular various statement from/of God Himself’ is due to you not understanding what I had said. So the fault is entirely on you.

Quote:
Tom: Again, I wouldn't say that the Bible writers got it wrong, but that God is infinite, and they are human. God as a writer is not expressed in Scripture in terms of rhetoric or logic is what I recall the EGW quote to say.

NJK: So then, as Mountain Man also asks for, pointedly explain, once and for all, how you see that someone in the Bible writing a: “Thus says the Lord” is expressing an imperfect statement and will of God!!??

Tom: Here I'm quoting Ellen White. I've given you the reference (Selected Messages, vol. 1).


And, as previously said and explained above, in pointed regards to that statement, I do not see that EGW’s statement applies to those ‘Thus says the Lord’ direct statements of God in the Bible.

Quote:
NJK: I understand that you do with, e.g., every instance where it says that ‘God took judgement actions on someone/ a group of people.’ For the many reasons already expressed in this thread, including especially the ones that show that your understanding of what EGW revealed in 14MR 1-3|GC 35-37 was only a secondary way to effectuate judgements, namely “no (more) mercy” judgements, I indeed do see that you are quite wrongly and overreachingly misapplying that view.

Tom: She never said that this was a secondary way to bring about judgments. This is simply an assumption you have,

NJK: That’s is what all inclusive, proper exegesis reveals.

Tom: No it doesn't. For example, she writes:

Originally Posted By: SOP 14MR 3.1
I was shown that the judgments of God would not come directly out from the Lord upon them, but in this way: They place themselves beyond His protection. He warns, corrects, reproves, and points out the only path of safety; then if those who have been the objects of His special care will follow their own course independent of the Spirit of God, after repeated warnings, if they choose their own way, then He does not commission His angels to prevent Satan’s decided attacks upon them. It is Satan’s power that is at work at sea and on land, bringing calamity and distress, and sweeping off multitudes to make sure of his prey. And storm and tempest both by sea and land will be, for Satan has come down in great wrath. He is at work. He knows his time is short and, if he is not restrained, we shall see more terrible manifestations of his power than we have ever dreamed of.


Tom: If you don't see this as an adequate explanation of how God brings about judgments, it's incumbent upon you to produce an argument as to why not.


As I had stated before in exegetical detail from the context of that SOP statement, (points which you also did not respond to), (1) this type of judgement applies to people who had once been followers of God but rebelled; (2) this is for an utter, no more mercy end scenario.

In regards to a secondary method. This is exegtically evident when one understand that God Himself does direct judgements, as exegetically seen in the Bible and SOP. So when there is not this organic option and/or when Satan has no incentive to do this “shooting-himself-in-the-foot” judgement, the God does it, also for reasons of proper punishement/justice, striking and memorable object-lesson; applicable mercy and timeliness.

Quote:
NJK: If you were doing so you would be seeing this. Indeed those two methods are pointedly seen in the destruction of Jerusalem. One for the first allowed mercy part and the second for the utter end, no-more mercy part.

Tom: Here's what she wrote:

Originally Posted By: SOP GC 35-37
The Jews. ... .consuming fire.


Tom: Where is even one sentence here that is out of harmony with what I've been sharing? Where is there any hint of God's working in two different ways here?


I’ve thoroughly dealt with that SOP passage throughout this thread. And whenever our discussion reaches a point where you do not have an answer you just stop responding to that line of discussion, and as typical, just restate your initial arguments as if it had never been discussed before. This is starting to be quite comical on your part. If you really think your view is valid here as your oblivious restatement are manifestly trying to indicate then refute, and that head on, all of my standing arguments against it. That’s the only way, as most logical, you’ll convince me that ‘you’re still right.’

Quote:
NJK: The same thing occurs with the 7 Last Plagues.

Tom: I'm curious about something here. Ellen White writes that these last plagues were similar in character to the Egyptian plagues. So do you see the same thing happening with the Egyptian plagues? (i.e., God working in two different ways).


Firstly, the only SOP quote I found was:

Originally Posted By: SOP LDE 244.1
The plagues upon Egypt when God was about to deliver Israel, were similar in character to those more terrible and extensive judgments which are to fall upon the world just before the final deliverance of God's people.


Clearly she is refering to the plagues themselves and not to the method/process in which God was going to administer it. In fact their force/extent is not even included in this character as the Final Plagues will be “more terrible and extensive judgments”. Indeed by solely their reach of potentially the whole world they will be so.

Secondly, there was mercy found in God’s judgement of Egypt, as God would end a plague when Pharaoh, even if temporarily felt sorry, thus limiting the damage that was being done. However that was to no actionable end (i.e., ending the succession of plagues since God was determined to bring about all 10. And God only limited the exacting of justice to what was retributive and not, as I understand it, in excess of the various loss and damages that Israel had incurred.

Thirdly, there is a Theologically/Exegetically significant reason why the Egyptians Plagues were 10 and the Last Plagues are 7. The number 10 is fitting for a judgement while 7 is only for a representational one. As I had said, the Egyptian plagues was indeed to exact complete judgement upon Egypt for all that it had tangibly done to Israel over those years of slavery. The 7 Last Plagues in only a partial judgement. The full judgement of the wicked, and the full outpouring of the wrath of God upon them will occur later during the Hell Fire judgement. Indeed the 7 Last Plagues which is only felt by those living before Christ returns is pointedly for the sins under the end time, antichrist power. They will pay for the sin and harm done during pointedly that reign.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/30/11 07:52 PM

Quote:
Tom: 1.The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government.
2.Compelling power is found only under the government of Satan.
3.All that we need to know, or can know, of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son.
4.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.
5.Sickness, suffering, and death are work of an antagonistic power. Satan is the destroyer; God is the restorer.

NJK: Simply restating these points does not make them mean what you claim they mean. Deal with the many already stated points that show that they are not implying what you understand.

Tom: These are simple statements which anyone can understand.


I have already responded to them and shown why I do not see that they mean or extend to what you understand in them. Deal with those standing objection if your serious about having a discussion. Otherwise this is just a way one conversation with you not responding to my questioning/disproving/debunking objections. And of course, you are right in both doing this and undisturbedly maintaining your initial view.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Tom: Take the last one as just one example:

Originally Posted By: SOP
Sickness, suffering, and death are work of an antagonistic power. Satan is the destroyer; God is the restorer.


Tom: There's nothing difficult here. "Sickness, suffering, and death are work of an antagonistic power." What do you think this means? Indeed, how can this be misunderstood?


By applying the exegetical parameter of: a writer’s context, including, when applicable and as EGW suggests elsewhere (if I recall correctly) the pertinent parts of her writings dealing with this. Indeed applying this responsible, exegetical method one can easily seen that his is speaking of non-judgements. If you want to object to my understanding here, then address it head on, follow through all the standing points made supporting it rather than arbitrarily yourself resetting that already started line of discussion and just restating what you had initially said as if nothing at all had been said since your first advancement of that thought.

Quote:
T:You've never adduced any evidence that what she has said above is a "secondary way to effectuate judgments." That there is such a thing, as multiple ways to bring about judgments, is under dispute.

NJK: As cited above I indeed have.

Tom: You've just made the claim. That's not the same thing as adducing evidence.


I copiously have in past posts, exegetical evidence, which includes the wider context of EGW’s writings and also her other accounts of God’s judgements which, as proper exegesis reveals show that God directly does judgement Himself. Hence that first method, and this, pointedly in regards to His own previous followers, the second method.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I've provided the quote from "The Destruction of Jerusalem." Go ahead and make the case that she has to different mechanisms in mind there. Produce some evidence to support your claim.


I have. “Go ahead” and look it up!! And as stated above I have already responded, and that long ago, to your GC 35-37 claim. Address those standing arguments against it. (You really think this derisive “go ahead”, “gas-lighting” egging on would make me not realize that it is you who had not responded to those already posted countering points!??)

Quote:
T:The way that I have said that God brings about judgments is in harmony with the principles laid out above.

NJK: You are understanding these principles in an overreachingly different way than what EGW intended.

Tom: Make an argument to support your claim. You have the quote in front of you.


I already have. Respond to those posted unanswered point in this thread!! As usually advised by me, take as much time as you need.

Quote:
T:If God had some other way of bringing about judgments, not in harmony with the above judgments, that would be problematic.

NJK: You are the one who is choosing to only look at one aspect of God’s judgement-effectuating. And the substantive Biblical record is what is to stipulate ‘hermeneutic rules of understanding’ not isolatively/merely EGW. That’s an unbiblical approach.

Tom: Provide some evidence to support your claims.


Look back on the record of this thread, indeed what you have chosen not to answer and you’ll surely find those evidences that you have ignored.

Quote:
T: God's character is consistent.

NJK: Which is why He allows for mercy even when effectuating judgement.

Tom: This much is true.


How is it true for you in your view since, God step away and turns over judgements to either natural consequence or the devil?? According to your understanding of this passage there is no longer any mercy to be involved as, e.g, :

GC 35.3 - “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 36.1 - “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.”

GC 36.1 - “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 36.1 - “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....”

GC 36.2 - 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.

Seems evident to me that “you [merely] want to have your cake and eat it too”! Or is that a tenet aspect of/justified by your ‘having a more attractive view’ foundational basis.

Quote:
NJK: Indeed many people in Jerusalem may not have themselves rejected Christianity. So God allowed for them to escape the destruction and have a further chance merely by remaining alive to get this saving knowledge of this Truth.

Tom: I agree with this, but this isn't what we were disputing.


Again how in your GC 35-37 view since when God’s judgement occurs the people being judged have already the point where they are ‘so [i.e., irreconcilably] out of harmony with God’. This granting of mercy would mean that God had turned over this judgement prematurely and those previously, supposedly all utterly wicked people, would only have repented in the face/fear of the present consequence. That would mean that God permitted Satan to do the full and unrestrained judgement, as you understand GC 35-37 but at some point during the judgement, when people were fearful of these consequences told Satan to back off so they could be forgiven. I don’t see how your view of GC 35-37 allows for this.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I was disputing your idea that GC 35-37 has to mechanisms at work, that God is using two different methods of effecting judgment, one where He directly destroys/causes suffering/etc., and another where He permits Satan to do these things.


And as my answer fully entails/involves, the God effectuate judgement is many times because He wants to have mercy when applicable. If given over to Satan in such cases of judgement, as inherently involved, it is a previously well thought-through decision and God does not have to go back on His decision. And as shown in the 7 Last Plagues, He indeed won’t, as already discussed (Rev 22:11).

Quote:
SOP: The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God’s mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God’s penmen, not His pen.

NJK: Indeed some expression may seem and are ungodly.(None come to mind actually) However I see that the substance itself is not affected by the mode of expression.

Tom: Certainly one's understanding of what another communicates, which is what we're talking about, is impacted by the mode of expression.


And when it is God who is doing the speaking, there is no room for any misunderstanding, especially as God knows exactly which words, imagery, symbols and expression to use with an individual engage in this “prophetic communication” to get then to unmistakeably and perrfectly understand what He is saying and means.

Quote:
NJK: (A) Not when “quoting” a source. The source itself would have to make the “ungodly expression” It is because you view all acts of judgement as evil and violent that you spuriously posit that God was in such direct statement cases always being misunderstood and misquoted.

NJK: (B) Again, while this may generally be true in life, I myself don’t actually see this occurring in the Bible. EGW saying: “Men will often say such an expression is not like God.” does not mean that this is the case.

NJK: Indeed, when one reads that SOP statement in full context, EGW is actually supporting the understanding that Biblical writers did not have a misconception about God. They wrote under thought inspiriation. She is simply saying that what they wrote in applicable, non direct quoting places, was not literally, i.e., verbatim the words, logic and rhetoric of God, as in a ‘verbal inspirational’ way. She also personally dealt with those same issues. Her full statement:

Originally Posted By: SOP 1SM 21.2
It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the man's words or his expressions but on the man himself, who, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is imbued with thoughts. But the words receive the impress of the individual mind. The divine mind is diffused. The divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will; thus the utterances of the man are the word of God.-- Manuscript 24, 1886 (written in Europe in 1886).


NJK: So for any misunderstanding to have patently been occurring, as you are claiming. These writers would have to be constantly misconstruing the inspired thought that God’s Spirit was continually putting in their heads.

Tom: First of all, the problem is not with that Bible writers, but with the understanding of what they wrote.


In matters of direct Divine-quoting (+25% of the Bible), since they did not misunderstand, in term of recording/relating verbatim what they had heard, there was not problem there.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Secondly, you wrote that the substance of what is being written is not impacted by the mode of expression, but that this is false is evident on the face of it. For example, you use a mode of expression that's very difficult to decipher, as you write in exceedingly long sentences and don't proof-read what you write. That certainly impacts the substance you are trying to communicate.


Your example from my writing does not apply at all since I did not write a single word in the Bible. The only way it would is if you believe that Bible writers: ‘(1) use a mode of expression that's very difficult to decipher, (2) wrote in exceedingly long sentences, and (3) didn't proof-read what you write.’ I don’t see none of these three factors applying at all in the Bible. Indeed as (1) the Bible was initially and even later until things were written down mainly orally passed down, then what was so anecdotally, though deliberately precisely passed on was readily understood by the recipient; (2) did not have proof reading syntax issues and (3) as seen in the meticulous work of the ca. 8th-9th century A.D. Masoretes, carrying on the work of previous scribes, they carefully transmitted the Biblical texts.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Different languages have strengths and weaknesses. One cannot always say the same things in one language that one can say in another.


As the Jews were speaking to Jews, they did not have this issue in transmission. As their Hebrew text is much more than less, thanks to the careful scribes and Masoretes available today. It can be thoroughly, and crucially, comparatively studied out, especially in our modern computer age, to achieve translational precision.

Originally Posted By: Tom
God chose to communicate in Hebrew, since that was the language that those to whom God was speaking spoke. But Hebrew is not God's language, and, of course, His choosing to communicate in Hebrew had an impact in what He was saying.


Really???!! God can have problems perfectly relaying His will in Hebrew. The fact that God could easily corroborate His words with various visual revelations does away with any possibility of being misunderstood. Indeed with Moses, He simply brought him up to view a template for Israel’s Sanctuary. No chance of misunderstanding here. Same thing with the 10 Commandment expanding Laws found in the books of Moses.

Originally Posted By: Tom
But, this is a minor point.


I see a foundationally major as it shockingly reveals where you consider a source of misunderstanding could occur. Indeed here in statements involving God Himself directly, prophetically communicating. If that “secure line” is capable of having merely message relaying errors, then we are in serious trouble.

Originally Posted By: Tom
The major point is that our world view, our paradigm, our understanding of God's character impacts our understanding of what has been written. In order to make things as clear as possible, God sent His Son.


God’s direct revelation, indeed which was so “securely/directly” dome because Divine things had to be crucially accurately revealed to Man (vs. merely thoughts inspiring), has no room for such errors.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Originally Posted By: SOP DA 19.2
By coming to dwell with us, Jesus was to reveal God both to men and to angels. He was the Word of God,—God’s thought made audible...


When God wanted His thoughts to known heard in to OT He clearly and perfectly spoke it to prophets and ‘put it in their mouths’

Originally Posted By: Tom
Originally Posted By: SOP DA 21.2
But turning from all lesser representations, we behold God in Jesus.


Contrary to what you “... above implies these two quotes are not the continuation of the same thought. Here in DA 21.2 EGW has shifted to speak of the Divine Law of Giving and Unselfishness. To this theme/end, in the preceding paragraphs 20.2 & 21.1 examples in nature and then with God’s Heavenly Beings. It is to these “lesser representations” that she is referring to. She is not saying that God’s revelations in the OT were lesser representations. Indeed God’s own “prophetically expressed” word in the OT are not lesser as they are His perfect words. Even His thought inspired revelations in the rest of the OT are not “lesser representations”. ‘All Scripture is Inspired and profitable... ’ (2 Tim 3:16) And there was no Gospels or New Testament yet then.

Quote:
NJK: I also think that the Bible is substantively perfectly revealed in what is prescritive and also, by being truthful, in what it describes. I also think that whenever it relates that God did something, then that is indeed what occurred. (Of course you do see so).

Tom: The Bible often presents God as doing that which He permits.

NJK: Again this is not a substantiated claim.

Tom: Sure it is. I've given many examples of this. Hardening of Pharaoh's heart, the sending of spies, fiery serpents, killing of Saul, sending strong delusion, sending lying spirits, destruction of Jerusalem, the cross, Job, are a few of these.


Sure. And they al have unresponded to, standing arguments against them that disprove and debunk them. Thus they are “unsubtantiated.”

Originally Posted By: Tom
Here's a new one:

Originally Posted By: Bible Psalm 78:49
He cast upon them the fierceness of his anger, wrath, and indignation, and trouble, by sending evil angels among them.


God didn't send evil angels among them, but permitted the evil angels to go.


On what/From where are you basing this assertion??

Exegetically speaking, which is why I go by:

(1) the “send” verb is in the Piel Stem, so it was a forceful and direct action by God;

(2) this Psalm is retelling from vs. 42-51 of the Egyptian deliverance and in vss. 49-51 it is focusing on the slaying of the Firstborn;

(3) these “Angels of Evil” or more colloquially, “Angels of Calamity” (cf. Word Biblical Commentary); “Destroying Angels” (NASB) are evidently synonymous with the ‘Angel of Death’; the “Destroying Angel” spoken of in the Bible. (Exod 12:23)

(4) The Bible and the SOP are clear that is was God who was going to do this work of destruction. (Exod 11:4, 5, 7; 12:23, 27, 29; Num 3:13; PP 273.1-274.2; 279.3-4). In GC 614.2, EGW is distinguishing what God’s Angel have done in acts of judgement vs. what Satan’s Angel could do when permitted and she puts the work of this “Destroying Angel” with God’s Divine Agents of Destruction.

Originally Posted By: SOP GC 614.2
A single angel destroyed all the first-born of the Egyptians and filled the land with mourning.


Indeed EGW only saw this “destroying Angel” as God’s agent and so she clearly did not understand her own ‘Satan is the destroyer” statement to mean that this Angel were evil angels.

E.g.,
Originally Posted By: SOP ST, March 25, 1880 par. 3-4
That when the destroying angel went forth in the night to slay the first-born of man, and the first-born of beast, he passed over their houses, and not one of the Hebrews that had the token of blood upon their door-posts was slain. {ST, March 25, 1880 par. 3}
The people bowed their heads and worshiped, grateful for this remarkable memorial given to preserve to their children the remembrance of God's care for his people. There were quite a number of the Egyptians who were led to acknowledge, by the manifestations of the signs and wonders shown in Egypt, that the gods whom they had worshiped were without knowledge, and had no power to save or to destroy, and that the God of the Hebrews was the only true God. They begged to be permitted to come to the houses of the Israelites with their families upon that fearful night when the angel of God should slay the first-born of the Egyptians.


Cf.:
Originally Posted By: SOP CL 8.6-9.1
While at Loma Linda, Calif., April 16, 1906, there passed before me a most wonderful representation. During a vision of the night, I stood on an eminence, from which I could see houses shaken like a reed in the wind. Buildings, great and small, were falling to the ground. Pleasure resorts, theaters, hotels, and the homes of the wealthy were shaken and shattered. Many lives were blotted out of existence, and the air was filled with the shrieks of the injured and the terrified. {CL 8.6}
The destroying angels of God were at work. One touch, and buildings so thoroughly constructed that men regarded them as secure against every danger, quickly became heaps of rubbish. There was no assurance of safety in any place. I did not feel in any special peril, but the awfulness of the scenes that passed before me I cannot find words to describe. It seemed that the forbearance of God was exhausted, and that the judgment day had come. {CL 9.1}


Satan really had no personal incentive to do this work of destruction on Egypt and spare Israelites. As EGW says “Satan was unwilling to have the people of Israel released from Egyptian servitude that they might serve God.” (1T 292.1) God cannot force Satan to do His work just like He cannot force love and indeed obedience from him.

(5) The only issue of difference here is the mention of plural angels in the Bible vs. the mention of a lone angel in the SOP and also implied in the Exod 11 &12 account. I resolve this apparent contradiction by understanding that though one angel was being prominently spoken of, additional light may have been given to the writer of Psa 78 showing that more than one angel (= ‘a band/deputation of destroying angels’) had been involved in the execution of this task under the leadership of one authoritative/commanding angel.

In a similar way EGW constantly speaks of the destruction in Ezek 9 as being the work of a destroying angel and also the preceding sealing work as the work of an angel (e.g., 4BC 1161.5 - Letter 12, 1886; cf. EW 279.2). However in Ezek 9 both this “sealer” and the “6 destroyers” are depicted as men (Ezek 9:1, 2). So it may be quite similar to what occurred in Egypt were a commanding ‘seal-verifying’ angel went first and indicated to perhaps also ‘a band of 6 following destroying angels’ which households to enter and execute judgement.

Quote:
NJK:God is either directly or indirectly acting is those situations which are not necessarily always “permitting”. Indeed only in Job’s case do I see it applying as you claim. Otherwise I can easily see that God acted through an agency.

Tom: Ok, let's consider a couple of these.

Tom: First the hardening of Pharaoh's heart.

Originally Posted By: SOP 1T 292.1
But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and did not heed them, as the Lord had said....But Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also neither would he let the people go...Satan wrought...in a manner calculated to harden the heart of Pharaoh" (1T 292)


Tom: So what did God do if not permit this to occur?


It is only through shoddy and/or completely absent exegesis that you contrive this conclusion here. The full SOP quote without you calculated edits reads as:

Originally Posted By: SOP 1T 292.1
Pharaoh called for the magicians to work with their enchantments. They also showed signs and wonders, for Satan came to their aid to work through them. Yet even here the work of God was shown to be superior to the power of Satan, for the magicians could not perform all those miracles which God wrought through Moses. Only a few of them could they do. The magicians' rods did become serpents, [SEE APPENDIX.] but Aaron's rod swallowed them up. After the magicians sought to produce the lice, and could not, they were compelled by the power of God to acknowledge even to Pharaoh, saying: "This is the finger of God." Satan wrought through the magicians in a manner calculated to harden the heart of the tyrant Pharaoh against the miraculous manifestations of God's power. Satan thought to stagger the faith of Moses and Aaron in the divine origin of their mission, and then his instruments, the magicians, would prevail. Satan was unwilling to have the people of Israel released from Egyptian servitude that they might serve God. The magicians failed to produce the miracle of the lice, and could no more imitate Moses and Aaron. God would not suffer Satan to proceed further, and the magicians could not save themselves from the plagues. "And the magicians could not stand before Moses because of the boils; for the boil was upon the magicians, and upon all the Egyptians." Exodus 9:11.


(1) Clearly this is speaking of the ‘turning of the rod into a snake’ (Exod 7:8-13) which occurred even before the first plague of ‘Water into Blood’ occurred (Exod 7:14ff). It is in that sign that “Satan wrought through the magicians in a manner calculated to harden the heart of the tyrant Pharaoh”. And indeed as exegesis shows it is not said in that exchange that ‘God forced the heart of Pharaoh to be hardened (Piel)’ but that Pharaoh’s heart was naturally hardened (Qal), and that because of this Satan induced counterfeit.

(2) EGW clearly goes on to say as the Bible does that the magicians soon were no longer able to stand before Moses at God’s preventing hand, so this “wroughting” of Satan clearly does not apply to all the plagues and all of the ‘heart hardening’ instances.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Regarding the fiery serpents, we read:

Originally Posted By: SOP EP 301.1
Shielded by divine power, they had not realized the countless dangers by which they were surrounded. In their unbelief they 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 their sting, it causing violent inflammation and speedy death. As the protecting hand of God was removed, great numbers of the people were attacked by these venomous creatures. {EP 301.1}


This is stating my position as clearly as is possible to do so. "The Lord permitted death to come upon them." There's no hint of anything at all going on here other than what it says: "the protecting hand of God was removed."


My exegetical points against your view here still stand and this EGW notion of ‘permitting death’ is harmonized with the Bible’s account of how it transpired -by the direct action of God. God Himself acted to effectuate this permitting. For me the Bible always has the last word over EGW.

Originally Posted By: Tom
The destruction of Jerusalem is another one. I've quoted at length regarding this above, so just a short quote here:

Originally Posted By: SOP GC 35.3
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...(GC 35)


This is not only clear that what happened here is that God's protection was caused to be removed, but that Satan seeks to conceal "his own work" by causing others to view this as a punishment visited upon them by God.


Just repeating things over and over does not make them so. Address the standing point against them. And since God does allow Satan to effectuate these no more mercy destructions, it is quite logical for him to mask his work then as seeming to be God’s own and make God seem like the bad guy. This is just like the United State “extra-ordinarily rendering” a detainee to a country where torture is allowed so that they can not seem like a law violating nation. Conversely here, there is a due judgement to be done and since God cannot do it without mercy, then there is no point for Him to do so and Satan is permitted to act. As I said, this is why this is pointedly shown to be done with people who formerly people of God as Satan then has this vengeful and public shaming incentive to do this destruction. Even in the end, the Beast worshipper will be, surfacely, Christ-claiming Christians. And so to shame them and take spiteful vengeance on Jesus when then Satan will have nothing left to gain, he will surely do such work of no-mercy destruction during the Last/7th Plague.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I won't go through all of these,


There is no point to anyway. Deal with the standing arguments against them.

Originally Posted By: Tom
but the point has been decidedly made that God is presented as doing that which He permits, in the clearest language possible.


As further shown above, your claim continues to be unsubstantiated.

Quote:
T:This is a principle, like "forever" does not necessarily mean "for all eternity."

NJK: I have already shown that this is only when the context implies this.

Tom: This doesn't make sense.

Tom: To understand what "forever" means we need to go outside the immediate context, considering all that Scripture has to say. For example:

Originally Posted By: Bible
10And 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. (Rev. 20:10)


Tom: The context here doesn't tell us what "forever" means here. It's by comparing Scripture with Scripture that we know that "forever" means for as long as the given event is applicable.


(1) Succinctly said, and part of my working thesis on this, the Greek literally means “for ages of the ages”. So it is literally only generically speaking of an indefinitely known period of time, and that relatively or unforeseeably long time.

(2) The immediate context helps one to see what is being speaking of. And since this is shown to be Hell here, we can then go to the rest of the Bible and see that the destruction of the wicked is shown to end in death. So the forever here will ultimately have a limit.

(3) In the case of Gen 3:22-24's “forever”, which EGW understood as “eternally” (PP 60.3), the wider context of the Bible and the SOP on this show that even in Heaven the redeemed will need to partake of the Tree of Life to live forever, and that periodically. So it clearly necessary even when sin is not present, indeed as seen in Eden. So it clearly has a life perpetuating element that, as God said in Gen 3:22-24 works even when sin is present in the person. Indeed if that was not the case, then their would be no need to so forcefully bar Adam and Eve from accessing it, and so that ‘the sinner would not live forever’. The presence of sin alone in man would have brought about their death.

Quote:
NJK: Why won’t you substantively address this instead of, as usual just repeating what you had previously said??!

Tom: I keep repeating things I've said because you keep misrepresenting my view.


Clearly that is not the issue. You repeating things because you think they are still right, despite the standing arguments against them which you just ignore. And I am dealing with what the Bible and SOP actually teach and not merely your view. So when you just refuse to let facts have their due weight, I don’t so subjectively and artificially limit my understandings. This is like having a discussion with someone who does not want to recognize that abortion the murdering of a viable human life but just want to see it as ‘a personal choice’ and that to ‘to simply terminate a pregnancy’.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Value comes from a discourse like this when each party can correctly represent the view of the other. If you correctly represent my view, and offer arguments against that view, I can strengthen my view in meeting the arguments, or adjust the view, or disregard it, in response to counter arguments. But you if misrepresent my view, then there's no value in your arguments, since they aren't hitting anything I'm saying. So I keep repeating the same things in the hope that you'll address what I'm actually saying.


So if you really think I am misrepresenting your view then correct my supposed “misrepresentation” rather than merely repeating what you had said and which was already debunked. Address those standing points that render you view spurious and worthless. You seem to be going by the tenet that ‘your view is to be correct no matter what the facts and arguments against it are.’ And just bringing up new (yet thus far still spurious) claims is not an answer against distinct prior one. Those trees are still felled and your initial forest is not as dense as when you first presented it, if in existence now at all.

Quote:
Tom: So when we say something occurred, like God killed Saul, what does that mean? It might mean that Saul took His own life. Or when it says that God sent fiery serpents against the Israelites, what does that mean? It might mean that God did nothing more than remove His protection. Or when God sent strong delusion against those who received not the love of the truth, that might mean that God left to them to their own delusions.

NJK: All repeatedly, exegetically, addressed and disproven/debunked

Tom: ??? This certainly isn't the case.


To an honest, exegetical and facts-guided person it is.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I can't think of a single one of these examples that's not applicable.


Well then read back through this thread, including these latest posts. Focus on what you have ignored/not answered.

Originally Posted By: Tom
For example, here's the last one:

Originally Posted By: SOP AA 262.2
Especially solemn is the apostle’s statement regarding those who should refuse to receive “the love of the truth.” “For this cause,” he declared of all who should deliberately reject the messages of truth, “God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” Men cannot with impunity reject the warnings that God in mercy sends them. From those who persist in turning from these warnings, God withdraws His Spirit, leaving them to the deceptions that they love. {AA 266.2}


Tom: How has this been "debunked"? Scripture says, "“God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:" This is presenting God as doing something He permits. Here's where it says God is permitting:

Quote:
From those who persist in turning from these warnings, God withdraws His Spirit, leaving them to the deceptions that they love.


Tom: This is clear, right? In one case we have "God shall send them strong delusion." This is God being presented as doing something. In the other we have "God withdraws His Spirit, leaving them to the deceptions that they love." This is God being presented as permitting that which He had been presented as doing.


Go back and address my posted arguments against your repeated claims here. And if all else fails, to me the Bible has the final word on this so, at the very least what EGW describes involves God’s sending act.

Quote:
T:There are all sorts of examples like this.

NJK: You’ll have to cite new ones than the ones you have as they have been disproven and/or address the points that disprove them.

Tom: I can't imagine what you're thinking here.


You don’t have to “imagine” anything. Just read and address my standing, exegetically based points against them. If you won’t and/or can’t do that then there is no point of continuing this discussion.

Originally Posted By: Tom
You don't have a leg to stand on here. We have in one case, direct language "God sends, etc." and in the other "God permits."


In those standing points, I have already explained how these notions of “sending” and “permitting” are harmonized. Permitting does not necessarily preclude an action to “send”, it just focuses on the decision process involved vs. the executive action that needs to be taken to effectuate it.

Originally Posted By: Tom
This proves the assertion.


When proper exegesis is involved, it takes much more than one element in a point to establish/prove an assertion. With the Bible and SOP there is much harmonization vs. “either/or” (and not favoring the SOP over the Bible) work that needs to be done to uphold the Spirit of God in both sets of revelations. And, if there is an actual irreconcilability, the Bible has the final say.

Quote:
NJK: This text clearly is just saying that “in the same way God had variously spoken through prophets in the past, now spoke through His Son Jesus Christ.”

Tom: I don't know anybody who interprets this text this way. I've never heard this idea until now.

NJK: That does not mean that it is not valid.

Tom: Actually, it does. It could conceivably be the case that your unique point of view could be true, but it's inconceivable that the text is clearly just saying something if you're the only human being who sees this.


It still is just clearly saying that. I am not responsible for the preconceptions that others bring into the text.

Quote:
NJK: It exegetically indeed is. It is the same Spirit that was prophetically speaking. It was just able to achieve more through Jesus.

Tom: The "more through Jesus" is the point that was made.


More is not necessarily the same as “clearer”. My added point is that there was no need for God to correct/clear up His OT Revelation, just provide more through the incarnate Christ.A nd still there was much more to be added after that. (E.g. ‘Paul’s Gospel’; the prophecies of Revelation, even the SOP/EGW’s revelations.). My point has always been that those revelation were only given on a need-basis which is why the incarnate Jesus did not either reveal all those things, nor tangibly do everything from the OT. Still He virtually covered all aspects of the OT including God’s Ministry of Wrath, Divine Vengeance and Judgement.

Quote:
NJK: And what was later revealed in Jesus did not in any way contradict what God’s Spirit had previously revealed.

Tom: Of course not. This is not the point. The point is that Jesus Christ was the clearest revelation of the Father.


I have the view of ‘addition/completion’ vs. ‘clearing up.’

Quote:
Tom: These were chosen because they're easy to find. I hadn't read what these had said, but just looked for *any* commentary, because this explanation is the only I've ever heard, and seems clear just by reading the text.

NJK: I exegetically see this as the sole/limiting understanding here. God’s Spirit did not reveal unbiblical things in the past. Also notice e.g., that it was Christ Revelation to Paul ca. 4 years after Jesus’s ascension showed that the keeping of OT ceremonial laws was no longer required. Similar to this, further, more pointed revelation, all of what Jesus revealed was already hinted in the revelations of the OT, just not with “executive” force then.

Tom: This doesn't look to be responsive to the point, which is:

Originally Posted By: Tom
The Highest of All Revelations Is Given Us Now in the Son of God, Who Is Greater than the Angels, and Who, Having Completed Redemption, Sits Enthroned at God's Right Hand.


It is if you duly take into consideration all of the contributing exegetical points here. In order to validate the theme of OT Covenant to NT Covenant switch that was going to be done in the book of Hebrew, apparently written for Jews, most probably newly converted Jewish Christians, this Authority of Christ over all things had to be first emphasized. The it was shown how Jesus completes the OT Revelations by being the anti-Type of these OT types.

Quote:
Tom: The point is that Jesus Christ is greater. This is the theme of Hebrews in a nutshell.

NJK: The book of Hebrews served to complete the types to Anti-type transition in Christ. The issue of judgements in the OT is not subject to this type/anti-type development, and indeed, it was not hinted that OT statements of judgements would be so “changed” (= reworded) in the NT. So this is really a proof text to support your view. Indeed, at best, a similar “replacing” revelation by Christ for judgements, given their incontrovertible substantive occurrence in the OT, like e.g., ceremonial practices, would come to only mean that such judgements would now no longer be done by God in this way in the NT era.

Tom: Again, this isn't responsive to the point, which is that Jesus Christ is the greatest revelation of the Father.


Well again, it does, for the same reasons as above.

Quote:
NJK: Interestingly enough, I only see two times in the Bible where God had to correct a prophets, and that for relatively benign reasons, namely Nathan (2 Sam 7:1-17) and Samuel (1 Sam 16:6, 7). Seems to me they were quite faithful in correctly transmitting what had been revealed/said to them. So I do not see a basis here that what was recorded in the OT from God was wrongly done.

Tom: What are your responding to here? Where have I said that anything was wrongly done?

NJK: The OT quotings of God being what He actually had in mind. These two examples show that when a prophet misconceived, misunderstood something about God, God then immediately intervened to correct him.

Tom: Although this is outside from our discussion, from the point of logic, this is an invalid conclusion. That God corrected a viewpoint in one or two instances does not imply that no prophet anywhere at any time had a viewpoint that was incorrect.


It does to me as it became part of the Biblical record. It is those Bible statements that are of pertinent relevance to this discussion on the “Word of God”. Other instances of that could have been corrected by God in the prophet long before that prophet made it publically known.

Quote:
NJK: So that is why I do not that this was not at all the case with any statement of the OT.

Tom: This doesn't make sense.


It sequiturly and logically makes sense to me especially as I am pointeldy dealing with “prophetic utterances”: I.e., not such Divine-corrections of what was recorded in the Bible implies that God did not see a need to correct the person speaking/writing in a prophetic context. So those “prophetic” statements were all perfectly transmitted to, and related by, these “spokespersons” of God an and reflects His perfect will.

Quote:
NJK: God’s Spirit evidently so made sure that what was written was in full harmony with the Intention and Will of God. E.g., God would have intervene to prevent Israel from stoning someone to death or going to war as this would not have been what He had ordered.

Tom: This is poor logic as well. The cases of slavery, divorce, and polygamy disprove this idea.


Not to me: I priorly have already responded to your claims involving slavery and polygamy. Deal with those standing points/arguments instead of just making this claim again as if I had not said anything. Above in these latest posts, I have dealt with your claims involving divorce. All of these were within God will for those post-fall and GC circumstances, which actually, to me shows how understanding and fair God is. It also speaks volumes to me against the then existing non-ideal practices that God did not at all permit to be done. Namely/Chiefly homosexuality. (See in this post for more on this topic - “Homosexual Lifestyle” section). God is indeed a God of Justice and justice acts to uphold any valid/truth-based argument, which, evidently homosexuality is not at all to God.

Quote:
NJK: Indeed David was not permitted to build the Temple because his own hand (and not Israel in general) had shed much blood, even if that was “before God” (1 Chr 22:8). Though these were necessary actions, God wanted a non-warrior to build His Temple. Indeed, correspondingly. though God does such great judgement actions, He only wants a worship of Him that is not based upon these acts. Still such effectuated Justice is a necessary and righteous part of God Character. If not, He would never have directly commanded David to engage in any of these wars. (E.g. 1 Chr 14:9, 10 versus 13-16).

Tom: I don't see that you responded to my question above. I asked, "What are your responding to here? Where have I said that anything was wrongly done?" and you didn't answer.


I had in the above answer then. It all involved/implied in your claim that even OT quotings of God are subject to being mistransmitted, misunderstood, misconceived and even misconstrued. My point was that those “prophetic” revelations were not or else God would have corrected them.

Quote:
T: Haven't I been saying that the problem is with how what was written has been perceived?

NJK: I do not sequiturly/fully see that from what you have been saying.

Tom: Ok, then I'll continue to repeat it, until you can sequiturly/fully see it.


That’s your preference/prerogative, though substantively/constructively useless. It won’t change the facts involved/implied or address my standing arguments against your view. You just don’t take into consideration all what your assertions sequiturly/fully entail. That is all the natural fruit of your subjective, non-exegetical and selective approach to ascertaining Biblical Truth. I, on the other hand, don’t spuriously limit myself and allow the Truth to freely lead where it actually does. Understanding that the “Word of God”, the Bible, (i.e., over EGW’s writings) is the Final Authority in matters of Faith and Doctrine is the cornerstone of Biblical Truth.

Quote:
NJK: Indeed the problem is that you are also including direct statements of God in this view of yours. You may be not explicitly saying/intending that, but your OT revisionism and non-answers, say otherwise. Indeed you won’t answer anything that has to do with direct statements of God ordering war, capital punishment and judgement.

Tom: I may have written over a thousand posts on this topic (several hundred for sure) which is more posts than you've written at all. So I could just as well claim that you haven't posted anything.


That argument is clearly merely vexatious and mindless. I wasn’t aware of your other posts. Why didn’t you just point me to exactly where you begin to do so?? You think I first read all your posts before engaging in this discussion?!

Quote:
NJK: (You are actually seeming, by those non-answers, to be trying to buy time until you can find an even plausible answer for them. As with other similar issues, you should indeed clearly answer those direct questions to avoid this resulting logical/rational perception.)

Tom: You simply don't know what you're talking about. I have over 14,000 posts, and many of these posts are on this topic.


Oh I do. Your reply here does not justify your non-answer and no posts references to my objections. Nice gas-lighting attempt. Doesn’t impress nor work with me. Quite to the contrary.

And even more factually clearly, beyond the above logical reasons involved, this is not a problem with me as in this thread Mountain Man, who has been studying with you for years also did not know of/recall what your view is/was on Capital Punishment. So start looking squarely at yourself and the fact that, at the very least, you are not pointing people to where you answers on this are.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/30/11 08:04 PM

Quote:
NJK: That is of course because you are viewing/judging things by your view,

Tom: Of course. And you are viewing/judging things by your view, which is why you say the things you say.

NJK:Well you need to do a better job of proving your view,

Tom: To someone who is unwilling, it's not possible to prove it. All I can hope is to do a good job expressing it, and that it can at least be understood and correctly represented.


Unwilling to what... accepting your unscholarly, unbiblical and irresponsible basis which helps your view merely run on, now, gas fumes?? I have to check my brain at the door to accept your view and its spurious and non-exegetical “proofs”. Much more than the peripheral ‘doing a good job expressing it’ you need to first do a good job with the validity of the substance you would then lastly need to properly convey.

Quote:
NJK: indeed by engaging the many points that are showing that it is not in harmony with the Bible. Selectively only using some texts for a view is the patent way of establishing a teaching that is not actually Biblical. It is only plausibly so when only those partial selection of text are used. Still, the texts that you are claiming in support do not in themselves support your view as they are accurately understood when considered in the greater context of all applicable texts, if not simply through proper exegesis.

Tom: This is pointless. It's just a claim without evidence.


The evidence of feasance of yours is strewn throughout this thread, with each point you have decided to ignore. But as you have a ‘view over exegesis’ belief, it can easily be seen why you don’t understand this foundational and paramount substantive and exegetical necessity.

Quote:
NJK: What’s the real issue/problem here Tom, as with other similar occurrences elsewhere??? I have already answered this objection of yours. Why won’t engage what I have already said in response? Did you not see that post? Or did you not bother to read it?? Or did you forget what you had read??? Or does it not matter what I had said???? Which one is it????? And then you vexatiously complain when I get upset by this patent disrespectful discussion snubbing as if I have to silently taken this from you? What’s the deal here??

Tom: I'd say the main deal is your lack of either ability or desire to write clearly and succinctly. You go on and on and on, and make very few points, and there's just so much to sift through that's it's hardly surprising that I might miss something. I'm going through everything in this post, but I won't often have time to do so.


I am merely substantiating my major points. In the end of such a point all you need to do is state whether you agree or not and pointedly why. I.e., which sub-/supporting points you do not find to be accurate and provide the evidence against for why. Furthermore, even, as done in these latest posts, it is pointed out that you didn’t respond to a prior point, you just ignore that indication/“reminder” again. It is clear to me that you only insist on ignoring that point, and quite manifestly because you cannot disprove its evidence against your view.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I suggest you try to write in a summary post what your main ideas are in regards to the topic we are discussing, and what you see my main ideas are.


That would be both redundant, and you’ll still need to address the underlying sub-points that were given to support that sectional view.

Originally Posted By: Tom
So far the main ideas I've been able to gather from you are that there is not an organic relationship between sin and death,


Correct, for the many reasons I have given to support it.

Originally Posted By: Tom
and that God executed judgments in more than one way, sometimes permitting sickness/suffering/destruction to occur, and sometimes causing these things Himself.


I’d say the vast majority of times except for the utter end in the War of the Jews with the actual destruction of Jerusalem, and in the future during the Final Plague. In between this may have occurred with individuals as shown in 14MR 1-3. Other than that I only see variously involved acts of judgement by God even when the SOP relates Him “permitting” something to occur. As the Biblical record pointedly, exegetically relates, this “permitting” also involves His executing/effectuating action.

Quote:
Tom: The most detailed explanation I've see in the first chapter of the Desire of Ages. The chapter on the revolution in France also is pretty detailed, and is along the same lines as the first chapter.

NJK: Well wherever EGW does expound on this “perfect mixture”, she rightly understands that they both simultaneously exists and are distinctly manifested.

Tom: In Scripture, these are not in conflict. For example:

Quote:
“Thus says the LORD of hosts:

‘ Execute true justice,
Show mercy and compassion
Everyone to his brother. (Zech. 7:9;NJKV)


Tom: Justice is effected by means of mercy.


I have already and exegetically responded to the presentation of this text as a supporting argument by you. Did you forget? No need to repeat things here. Answer my posted responses head on.

Quote:
T: It's helpful to note principles involved. I've already articulated some.

NJK:Your articulated principles do not extent to what you claim of them.

Tom: Yes they do (Gratuitous assertions my be gratuitously denied).


You are the one who thinks they are gratuitous. Evidently not being exegetically responsible blissfully frees you. I can’t do anything more in the light of this non-recognition/comprehension by you.

Quote:
T: We know that at times God works as explained in GC chapter 1, and that this example has God working things out in harmony with the principles articulated before. Does He sometimes work differently, according to other principles? I don't see that you've made any such case.

NJK: My point, as stated in that Signs article is that God does not wholly dispense with Justice for the sake of Mercy.

Tom: Justice means killing, and inflicting disease, things like that, against those who are disobedient?


Based on copious Biblical examples and statement of God, yes. It is a necessity, even if for quite beneficial, future life sparing object-lesson/exemplary reasons. (1 Cor 10:5-11)

Quote:
NJK: Because God is merciful, He still does not do away with the justice elements in His Law and Character.

Tom: So if God weren't merciful, He would do away with the justice elements of His Law and Character? I guess what you mean is that even though God is merciful, He does not do away with the justice elements of His law and character.


“Miswriting”. The “eventhough” correction is accurate.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I think you're seeing justice as punishment here, but this isn't how justice was viewed in the Old Testament. Justice has to do with the restoration of the community to shalom.


And... I am just supposed to accept this claim on mere pronouncement and/or face value?? Cite some texts that substantiate it.

It is instead clear to me that justice can only involve the punishment of the wicked whether in Israel or other nations (e.g., Psa 59:5; Jer 46:25; 50:18, 31)

Quote:
NJK: So He statutorily instituted in Israel that a murdered person should be avenged (=Gen 9:5, 6). (You have not responded to that Genesis statement by God).

Tom: What sort of response are you looking for?


Well as previously, repeatedly asked, how to you deal in your view with this (contradicting) fact that God Himself ordered right after the flood that Capital Punishment for murder should be done.

Quote:
Tom: It doesn't appear that you do. If you could articulate my position in a way that I would agree with, I would agree that you understand my view. Are you able to do so?

NJK: Easy. You see that nothing that is written in the OT can be defaultly said to be a correct perception of God’s ideas, will and ways.

Tom: I guess this is your idea of a joke. But mine was a serious question.


No. You are the one who thinks it is.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Can you articulate my position in a way I would agree with?


I already did as it fully entails. (= the fully involved “abortion is murder” vs. ‘it’s a personal, pregnancy-ending, choice’ opposing views). If you disagree with how I understand your view, then that’s a complete different issue and does not fall within my responsibility. And when you stop ignoring my posted points that disprove your views and/or show that this is indeed what it all entails, then will literally be on the same discussion page.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Please note that the key point of this request is that you articulate my position "in a way I would agree with."


That involves ignoring facts. You can do that yourself. Your view is not valid if its supporting points have all been disproven and debunked as it currently is the case.

Quote:
NJK: I can see why you don’t get my incredulity here. I see that the Bible writers did not have a misunderstanding with what had occurred,

Tom: The issue is not with the Bible writers!

NJK: Really, so according to you who is it with then in pointedly direct quoting of God? It seems quite clear to me that we should not take what these statement say as accurate representation of God’s will. Then who is responsible for this supposed misperception and misquoting of God?

Tom: There's no misquoting here. Simply bear in mind that God often presents Himself as doing that which He permits. The misperception occurs when this principle is not grasped.


As there is not exegetical proof for that claim, as further demonstrated in these latest posts, there nothing factual/valid to (view-controllingly) “keep in mind” here.

Quote:
NJK: (And if that is what you don’t think you said, then do spare me a terse: ‘that not what I said’ reply, and do quote or articulate for yourself what you said or meant. As seen below, (bold) you can do this when you think you have, at least, a seemingly plausible answer.)

Tom: Just quote something I said. You don't have a leg to stand on here. If you misstate a position I say once, that could be due to a misunderstanding. But after I correct you, and you persist, that's on you; you're doing it on purpose.


I already explained why this is what is incontrovertibly involved in your view above, in these latest posts.

Originally Posted By: Tom
So just stop. Don't purposely misrepresent the positions of people with whom you disagree. That's just not right.


I only “purposely” deal with what is Truth and all that is exegetically involved or entailed by an assertion/view. You just arbitrarily and subjectively/fancifully choose to not follow your views to their full/complete end.

Quote:
NJK: I find no Biblical example or support, including from Jesus Himself, for this rewriting of the Biblical text.

Tom: I've given over a dozen examples of what I asserted.

NJK: By now all disproven a Biblically valid examples. At the very least, try new ones or address the standing objections.

Tom: I've cited several in this thread. What's an example of a case where I've cited an example of God being presented as doing something He permits when this isn't what was happening?


For my cited exegetical reasons which you have not responded to, in all of those examples.

Even in the example of Job, as it was dealing with Job ad-libbing and candid statement, it was not a Biblical “revelation” per se. Moses had already set the record straight in that account.

Furthermore it was not a judgement of God so it is not an example of these judgements we are discussing.

And as God was involved, limiting Satan, it was ultimately an act of His. Just through a different, but directly “employed”, agency.

And, exegetically speaking (i.e., the use of Qal verbs in Job 1:21 except for the last “be (forcefully) blessed”)], Job’s comment was more to indicate that God has a right to naturally take away what He had priorly naturally given, and was not actually a commentary of how, (i.e, the “mechanism of”) this loss had occurred. That was not his concern as he wholly trusted/believed in the goodness of God no matter what happened to him.

Quote:
NJK: As I understand the why’s of God’s timely OT judgements, indeed as He did need to timely act to check free developments that, I believed, He did not always anticipate as a concrete possibility (cf. Isa 5:4). All of these acts of judgement are also microcosms and warnings of what the Final Hell destruction will be.

Tom: I haven't been discussing with you as to why the judgments occurred, but the mechanism involved in the judgments.

NJK: That what/how is clear to me. And as my statement emphasized, it is the involved “why” that make Him use these direct and active methods for reasons of timeliness and also due, full and proper effectuations. Again these issues are not “dichotomizable” to me.

Tom: This isn't well written, but I'll address what I think your point is. If we accept the principle that God is constantly protecting us from a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, then the why need not be impacted by the mechanism. The "why" involved is that God permitted an evil to occur (i.e., "evil" in the sense of an unfortunate event), to prevent a great evil from occurring. The mechanism could either be that God directly did something, or that He permitted something, in order to accomplish this. So the "why" would be the same, although the mechanism involved differed.


Since I have the view that God is still doing the action whether he “creates something new” (the earth opening up, the Flood, fire and brimstone on S&G) or uses a present organic means which he had been acting to protect against before, they still both are acts of God, then I see, as I understand the thread-starting question of this topic to be: What is the justifying reason why God allowed, pointedly the forms of personal acts for capital punishment to take place? I think to that can be added why does God Himself use acts that we would see as “violent” to effectuate such judgements/punishments. I.e., e.g., why not just let some peacefully die in their sleep as a judgement?

The “why” answer to me is that this was all for object-lesson reasons, and when organic consequences are used, it is indeed, as with the fiery serpents, so that Israel can understand that without Him and His protective care, they would not survive. The end goal is to try to instill that obedience to Him is the best option and the best way of doing this is through such natural consequences. However to deal with sudden situations to which there is no organic, natural remedy, then something fitting and new has to be done.

There is also the ultimate Theological reality that in the end, in order to be personally purged for having supported sin, God will have to expend His wrath upon sin and sinner. For the saved person, this was, as much as possible, representatively done to/upon Christ, but for the unsaved person, they’ll have to bear that wrath themselves in Hell Fire. So these “harsh” judgements for high handed sins was to serve as a tangibly and intendedly deterring reminder to that end reality that any rebellious person will have to suffer.

Quote:
NJK: No. These “thus says the Lord” are a distinct portion of the Biblical Text, which I see a paramount in God’s revelation. Similarly to how I see the SOP’s “I was shown” statements. And in matters of history, these Bible writers straightforwardly and matter of factly related what had occurred and I do not see Jesus changing these accounts.

Tom: Yet again, this is not the issue.

NJK:It is if all of what is being said in the Bible is to be questioned as to its both verbal substance and meaning.

Tom: God is often presented as doing that which He permits. This occurs both by means of direct quotes, and otherwise.


Only when the SOP is viewed in isolation of the Bible message that is to actually complete, correct and/or override it.

Originally Posted By: Tom
There's no need to question anything. There's just a principle of interpretation to grasp.


Only with this isolative approach of yours, I rightly/duly harmonize EGW’s comments to the Biblical testimony. Direct revelations of EGW when rightly understood and kept in their proper SOP-exegetical context are also, but still secondarily authoritative.

Quote:
T:Jesus Christ said what He heard, and lived what He saw, of God as revealed in the Old Testament. He read the same accounts as everybody else, so the problem is not with the accounts!

Tom: The problem is with one's perceptions of what was written. These perceptions are often at odds with what Jesus Christ revealed in His life and teachings.

NJK: As typical with your answers on this issue, it is substantively partial and logically simplistic. What is written is clear, especially in direct quotings of God.

Tom: Then why are there thousands of denominations? Surely somebody somewhere isn't understanding something correctly.


As I have seen in my past 13+ years of deeper and more scholarly studies, because of poor, deficient, shoddy and/or completely absent Biblical exegesis, including in the SDA Church and at the highest of religious educational level, namely its Seminaries. That is why our message is both not “fully” understood and also not convincingly/“credibly” shared.

Quote:
NJK:You are just systematically ignoring these statements to sustain a surface validity of your view.

Tom: What statements?


The Direct Quotes/statements of God e.g, ordering (“violent”) Capital Punishment, “offensive” Wars, population decimations, etc.

Originally Posted By: Tom
You write as if the viewpoint I have is something I wanted to have, and went about obtaining it. What I believe is simply the result of my trying to ascertain truth.


That may be your objective but your non-exegetical approach is what is the problem and why your view come across as fanciful and subjective. Indeed, in Biblical terms, the choice to make EGW’s writing authoritative over the Bible is in itself a personal preference given EGW’s own counsels against this.

Originally Posted By: Tom
My original background was anti-SDA Calvinism. If my disposition were what you are suggesting, I would have just stayed as I was, as systematically ignoring statement to sustain a surface validity is something anti-SDA Calvinists are very capable of doing.


Good start. It seems to me that you stopped this course and got of track. Pro 4:18 Pointedly when you decided that Biblical exegesis was not determinative or authoritative. That is doublyhard for me to understand from you given your claimed ‘Seminary education’, whatever that actually/really involved. (What you have claimed in regards to your “completion of coursework” does not make logical sense.)

Quote:
NJK:You effectively and evidently clearly do not believe “the problem is not with the accounts!”.

Tom: It seems clear to me from this post that the problem involves the principle that God is often presented as doing that which He permits.


To me that exegtically is not a valid claim at all.

Quote:
NJK:Indeed won’t even let them exegetically speak for themselves as they pointedly do. With you, exegesis is to be ignored, especially as you see that these writers perceptions affected their exegesis, making say things that were not really what happened!?! How does that stated view of yours support your claim here.

Tom: Again, I think the issue has to do with the above mentioned principle. You seem to be denying this principle, with the single exception of Job.


Indeed and as specified above, not even Job, particularly for the distinct “judgement” issue.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Even though my position in regards to what occurred in many of these incidents is a minority view, I think you're the only one who disagrees with this particular principle.


As I have seen for a fact proper/deeper/more exhaustive exegesis has a way of doing this as others spuriously refuse to do it.

Originally Posted By: Tom
The position that everyone else has who disagrees with me is that yes, God is often presented as doing that which He permits, but that doesn't mean that God isn't sometimes doing the things He is presented as doing.


Well to me, improper exegesis is most likely the reason. Indeed it arrives at that similar (spurious/non validly substantiated) claim and indeed your posted arguments are generally not disputed by these others, and that despite my exegetical facts/points against them. So evidently that view is also being “beleived” despite the standing facts against it and as I see it, as with you, it is to not engage the exegetical issues involve. I can surfacely understand this for others, but not for you as you (supposedly) are ‘/“ formally seminary educated”/’.

Quote:
NJK: Indeed if your view was the Truth, I would think Jesus would be systematically engaging in recorded statements of, e.g.,: ‘you have read “God rained fire on Sodom”, but I say on to you God never does a judgement Himself, and this was actually a volcano that was always supposed to erupt then.’ etc.

Tom: Light is progressive. Jesus Christ spoke of the things which He felt were most pressing at the time. There are all sorts of things which are true of which Jesus Christ did not address directly.

NJK:So how then did He reveal everything, especially with such a crucial view of an OT episode that He used as the illustrative basis for His own end time judgement. He did not receive the full light on this???

NJK: This is a prime and most indicative example of you also making Jesus be subject to your view.

Tom: You asked why Jesus didn't explain all this. I said there were many things He didn't explain. You're response is, ":So how then did He reveal everything..." So you're asserting that Jesus actually did reveal everything?


And my question was/is :How then did He, according to your understanding “reveal everything” if he didn’t explain everything. By natural sense “explaining” only involves things that need to be explained. So that would mean that Jesus would have left many OT things not explained and so HE would not have “revealed everything”. So my questions still remain. I.e. I do not see how you can claim that Jesus revealed everything if:

“Light is progressive.”

“Jesus Christ spoke of the things which He felt were most pressing at the time.”

There are all sorts of things which are true of which Jesus Christ did not address directly.”

And eve if these ‘not directly addressed things’ were not included in the Gospel accounts, by natural implication your “revealed everything” claim would mean that they were actually addressed but just not recorded. Which would be quite possible as John 21:25 can allow for.

To be quite frank with you, (and do correct me if I am wrong), I can only see this another sly view switching of you on your part following my pointing out of the John 16:12-15 evidence (also pointed out by Mountain Man) which you did not respond to me (or as I recall, neither to Mountain Man) but instead, with me, only peripherally quibbled about me not having included the words of the text in that post and so (as you apparently wanted to convey then) you were just going to ignore it as “pointless.” Manifestly you did not and used it to change your previous claim/stance on that pointed issue.

Quote:
T: The whole purpose of Christ's mission was the revelation of God. He revealed the principles I'm articulating; love your enemies, turn the other cheek, walk the second mile. Christ gave His life for His enemies. He never recommended violence, and when it was suggested He burn them, He rebuked those who thus suggested because they did not know what spirit they were of. He died the most horrible death at the hands of those who hated Him. He returned kindness for cruelty.

NJK: And, as copiously seen throughout His Ministry, He mostly did this by explaining misunderstood OT passages/episode.

Tom: I assume "this" here is the revelation of God.


Correct.

Originally Posted By: Tom
If so, what you are asserting here is not the case. He mostly revealed God's character by how He lived (i.e., His deeds of kindness, healing, ministry, etc.)


Ohhhh... really. I rather see that if Jesus had not made a copious amounts of statements surrounding His miracles, as pointedly and selectively recorded in the Gospel, this full revelation of God would not have been perceived, indeed as seen in the fact that his actions were being misunderstood by many (e.g., Mark 9:6; Luke 13:18).

Indeed even despite all of the miracles and acts of kindness during His ministry, His own disciples, strangely enough, did not ‘believe that He was from God’ until He finally, defaultly started to speak plainly to them (John 16:25-31), as just done in that Last Supper feast (John 14:1-16:24). Keep in mind that they are not saying this because they knew His ministry was about to end. They did not even awarely register, let alone, understand this soon drastic ending. SO it really was because, as this meeting Jesus had openly and straightforwardly spoken to them on divine truths concerning Himself.

So such explanatory teachings, and that throughout His Ministry, was indeed fundamentally crucial, “public relation/comprehension-wise” to His Ministry.

Quote:
NJK:So why not also with this crucial S&G episode which manifestly was still “misunderstood” by NT writers?

Tom: I disagree with your assertion here. I believe the NT writers understood that God is often presented as doing that which He permits,


Well you’ll need to substantiate this claim. I don’t see this notion expressed in their writings, including with Jesus teachings. (e.g., Matt 22:7; Luke 12:47-50; 2 Pet 2:4-6, 9; cf. Rom 12:19).

Originally Posted By: Tom
and they did so themselves.


Did what (else) themselves?? Your view does not have to be theirs. For starters, as discussed in previous recent posts, I see that they had a different view of the Inspiration of Scripture than you as it concerns the perfect transmission of direct revelations from God (2 Per 1:17-21).

Quote:
NJK: Indeed Teaching on the Scriptures was a major part of His Ministry.

Tom: It wasn't His purpose to correct every conceivable error a person might have had in regards to what Scripture taught about God's character. Indeed, that would have been impossible.


I am not making that so self-evidently “impossible” extreme “every conceivable error a person might have had” claim. He (1) only need to focused on major views which were that of the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenses and Zealots, (2) people then, unlike today, and that for mainly various cultural reasons, did not normatively have individual/private views outside of what their followed teachers had. So dealing with those 4 views would virtually have included all other views.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Light is progressive. God takes people where they are, and through revelation, moves them closer to the truth. This doesn't happen all at once.


I see that Jesus only dealt with issue within His Plan of Redemption/New Covenant confirming and Character of God revelation mandate and this would involve doing explanatory teaching on all prominently espoused views which especially misrepresent the Character of God.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Just think of where they were coming from. They had a militaristic view of God's kingdom, where the Messiah would come and physically rescue them from their enemies. They didn't understand the spiritual nature of Christ's kingdom. Christ had a lot to deal with.


His Teachings on the Character of God would be a key part of these topics here. So they would not have been detrimental to His full pertinent teachings objectives.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 05/30/11 08:05 PM

Quote:
T: If you had more than the actual words of God in mind, then we are dealing with what actually happened, right? And even with the words of God, there are questions, as God often presented Himself as doing what He permits. For example, consider the episode of the fiery serpents. What happened there? Isn't this was our disagreement entails? I believe the serpents were already there, and that God had been protecting the Israelites from them the whole time, and He merely ceased doing so for a time. This is despite the direct language used.

NJK: This is where I see that you are being finally being forthcoming about what you actually think of Biblical exegesis. Evidently you see it as irrelevant.

Tom: How does what you're saying here in any way tie into the points that I just made? Or questions I asked?

NJK:I am dealing with the paramount “This is despite the direct language used.” Which means: “Exegesis is irrelevant to understanding the Bible.”

Tom: I have made the point that God is often presented as doing that which He permits. Scripture uses direct language that God sent fiery serpents against the Israelites. This is explained by the SOP as meaning that God removed His protection from the serpents which were already there. Your conclusion to this is that "Exegesis is irrelevant to understanding the Bible." I'm incredulous to this response.


Why would it be. Irrespective of the fact that your “permit” claim was then, and still is, spurious, hence the complete ignorance of it here, your view controllingly necessitates that Biblical exegesis be considered as not really meaning anything. Hence, despite the various grammatical and syntactical uses made by Bible writers, these are all irrelevant. That is the straightforward and only conclusion that can be made here. You then also come to involve direct-quotings of God in this view. You need to both think you views through and allow all applicable points to be involved in the validity weighing of it.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I'll point out once again that you're on your own here. That is, while my understanding of certain incidents is at odds with many posting here, that the principle is true that God is often presented as doing that which He permits is agreed to by everyone here besides you. That means, to be consistent, your assertion that "Exegesis is irrelevant to understanding the Bible" applies to everyone else here as well.


Well again, that is only because I am being exegetically responsible. That’s just the natural result of this more precise scholarly approach. I, by now, am well used to, for such deeper work reasons, “stand alone.” That is alone with God and His “fuller” truth. Look through the Bible and Church History and you’ll see that Truth is never determined by numbers but by the actual Biblical facts.

Quote:
NJK: And also “Bible writers did not relate things accurately.”

Tom: Why is this in double quotes? Who are you quoting? Certainly not me.


As this summarily loudly expresses what your view fully entails, those quotes fully apply for me.

Quote:
NJK: As for your other points, that had been already dealt with, long ago, and through this exgetical method, so there was no point to restate those patently ignored answers, especially, as now revealed here by you, ‘exegetical facts do not matter’.

Tom: If you're talking about the snakes, you're on your own here also. You have some fanciful idea that God did something to instill fear in the snakes so they would attack, but this isn't anything even resembling exegesis.


It’s not a fanciful idea. It is using factual natural science to corroborate what was exegetically revealed in the Bible. Indeed I foundational believe that always uses some form/degree of Science to accomplish things. On the other hand, your Bible and SOP completely opposing/contradicting claim that a volcanic eruption is what destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah and not God tangibly working through His own angels is what is “fanciful”.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Here again is the EGW statement:

Originally Posted By: SOP EP 301.1
Shielded by divine power, they had not realized the countless dangers by which they were surrounded. In their unbelief they 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 their sting, it causing violent inflammation and speedy death. As the protecting hand of God was removed, great numbers of the people were attacked by these venomous creatures.


That God's action here consisted of His removing His protection to allow the Israelites to be exposed to a danger which was already existing is incontrovertible.


Already responded above. As Biblical exegesis is irrelevant to you and as this SOP account seems to corroborate your claim, it is not surprising to me that you fickly only choose the SOP account here, which is actually just a part of what fully happened with the Bible indicating the rest, all corroborated by what occurs in nature.

Indeed you just fancifully jump to whatever you think corroborates your view (namely either the Bible or SOP or something else (e.g., “volcanoes for S&G”)) to the exclusion of all other opposing statements, even within that source itself. So clearly, at least to me, it is your view that is the final authority as to what Truth Is.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Ok, this is everything, except for insults at the end of the post, which I'll skip.


“Insults”??! What is “insulting” about, pointedly, asking you to:

-substantiate your “name-calling” claim,

-answer my points instead of ignoring them,
-explain the illogicalities in ‘seminary education’ claim,

and:

-pointing out you non-exegetical ways and practices,

-pointing out that you need to think your views through,

-highlighting that you manifestly end answering a post whenever you no longer have valid answers. (Of course you are wanting to make this seem as a non-discriminatory ending, but just reading either what you left out or where you ended reveals your tactic here. And, as already pointed out time is really not the issue here. You can take as much time as necessary to full make the response to my substantive points. Indeed you usually prefer to quibble with non-substantive issue rather than substantive ones, of course when that suits you, or as done here, try to pass off all of these questions/points as “insults” and so not answer them.)

At the very least, you should be able to easily defend the “rightness” and truth in all of these.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I decided to answer this entire post,


Great. One down, 10+ both fully, and also partially, unanswered posts to go.

Originally Posted By: Tom
as you seem to complain if I don't do so.


No misunderstanding here, I do and still am complaining, and that with cause, way beyond discussion/views respect. Indeed as you are quite obviously only doing this with what you cannot answer yet continue to maintain that these disproven points are still contributing to making your view the supposedly right/Biblical one!??

And the issue is not merely answering a post completely, per se, but at the very least addressing all of the substantive points made in their against your view. So you still have many other such unanswered points left to address.

Originally Posted By: Tom
However, I'm simply not going to have time to do so on a regular basis.


Your loss/detriment/problem. My facts disproven your view will still stand as they rightfully self-deserve to against your view. But of course you’ll blissfully go on thinking and claiming that you are right.

Again time is not a reason here as you can take as long as necessary. You just don’t want to.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I spent something like 4 hours on this post.


And I had said that you could have, i.e., e.g., here taken 8 minutes per day over the next month to make this response. So time is not the issue. You manifestly just want to appear to be confident and sure of your view by posting replies, and difficulty-avoiding, selective ones at that, to my posts. That does not impress me. Just, as seen in your shallow response, shows that you have not involved proper, if any exegesis in your answers and have no intention to do so.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Much of what is written here is redundant.


Due mainly to your blind repetitions of already disproven claims.

Originally Posted By: Tom
What seems to be the main bone of contention here is the assertion that God is often presented as doing that which He permits. My understanding of your position is that you see the principle of God doing that which He permits as being applicable only to Job,


This has been further explained above. I indeed don’t see it as the lone/possible example anymore.

Originally Posted By: Tom
and, I would extrapolate, to other similar incidents where God permits Satan to cause sufferings to a righteous person.


Correct though I do not see any example in the Bible where this is said or related as ‘God permitting what He is doing.’ As seen in Luke 22:31, 32 it was clearly stated that Satan would do this, and with Lazarus, I see that it was understood that this was not a direct act of God.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Other than this case, you believe that whenever it says that God did something, that God took direct action to bring about the thing which it says He did.


Not exactly. If a Hiphil class of verbs were used then it was through some “agency”. If a Piel class then through “patiency”.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 06/02/11 01:36 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
T:Much of what is written here is redundant.

NJK:Due mainly to your blind repetitions of already disproven claims.


No, this is totally on you. I have many conversations with many people, and this has never been an issue. You're not organizing your thoughts in any systematic way.

If you could come up with a list of what you see to be the important principles involved, the could be helpful.

Also a list of what you see to be the differences in our points of view that has to do with content rather than methodology, that would be helpful (i.e., don't write something like, "I just accept what the Bible teaches, while you hold to your own ideas regardless of what Scripture says").
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 06/02/11 01:55 AM

Quote:
T:Until the cross, even holy angels were impacted by Satan's misrepresentations.

NJK: What are you basing this on?

Tom: The SOP.


Great. My question was “where exactly”?? I.e., page and paragraph #.


I pointed out in a previous post that it would good if you read the post, and then responded, as opposed to just responding on the fly without seeing what's coming first. You often do this in the middle of a sentence even.

You said this is indeed what you do, that you read the whole post first. If this is the case, I can't imagine why you would write the sorts of things you do. Like here you are write, "Great. My question was “where exactly”?? I.e., page and paragraph #." when I did this very thing just afterwards.

Surely if you had read the post, you would have seen that I cited the reference, and there would have been no need for this comment.

These sorts of comments are all over the place, and make the task of dialog much more difficult than it need be.

I've made a note of a number of issues that I'll ask you about, and hopefully you'll be interested in pursuing further. I can't possibly go through all of this, and it doesn't appear to me that there are really that many issues that we're discussing, but that there's a lot of repetition.

If there's any particular thing you'd like to discuss, I'd invite you to make reference to that.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 06/02/11 02:24 AM

NJK, you appear to have a viewpoint that has God responsible for all that happens. I may be reading you wrong, however, so I'd like to have you elaborate.

Here's a specific case to examine:

Quote:
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."(Isa. 45:7)


How do you understand this verse, particularly in reference to the Lord creating evil?

Following along this same path, you wrote:

Quote:
The Bible incontrovertibly, exegetically says that “God caused the death of Saul.” Exactly how, i.e., what agency was used to achieve this is not specified, however this exegetical indication implies/involves that Saul was somehow, perhaps psychologically, as he was susceptible to (1 Sam 16:14-18), to take his own life. God wanted it to be done that day, and through the use of an “(unspecified) agent” made sure that it was done.


Here you are saying that God wanted Saul dead, and that God did something, not specified, to cause Saul to take his own life. I don't see how this harmonizes with the thought that God is not willing that any should perish and takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. It seems much more in harmony with Scripture that God did NOT want Saul to die, but rather wanted him to repent. And certainly God would not act to bring about someone's suicide. How does that harmonize with Christ's character?

Be that as it may, I'm wondering if this viewpoint extends to all incidents in general. For example, when a natural disaster occurs, such as the earthquake in Haiti, to mention one at random, do you see this as being God's will? In a similar way that the suicide of Saul was God's will? Do you see that God wanted that earthquake to occur, and that God took action to see that it would happen that very day, because He wanted it done? Do you see that things can happen which are contrary to God's will?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 06/02/11 03:14 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
T:Value comes from a discourse like this when each party can correctly represent the view of the other. If you correctly represent my view, and offer arguments against that view, I can strengthen my view in meeting the arguments, or adjust the view, or disregard it, in response to counter arguments. But you if misrepresent my view, then there's no value in your arguments, since they aren't hitting anything I'm saying. So I keep repeating the same things in the hope that you'll address what I'm actually saying.

NJK:So if you really think I am misrepresenting your view then correct my supposed “misrepresentation” rather than merely repeating what you had said and which was already debunked.


First of all, I can't think of anything that has been debunked. The context here has to do with God's being presented in inspiration as doing that which He permits. You admit that there is inspired language depicting God as doing both of these things, and only differ with me, as far as I can tell, in terms of intent. That is, both you and I agree that inspiration says regarding the same event that God is send to have permitted the act, and to have caused the act. The difference between our views is that you view God's intent to be that the act occur, even when the "permit" language is used.

But my claim was simply that inspiration often presents God as doing that which He permits, which you are agreeing to, so that's hardly "debunking" the claim.

Quote:
Address those standing points that render you view spurious and worthless. You seem to be going by the tenet that ‘your view is to be correct no matter what the facts and arguments against it are.’ And just bringing up new (yet thus far still spurious) claims is not an answer against distinct prior one. Those trees are still felled and your initial forest is not as dense as when you first presented it, if in existence now at all.


This whole thing here is totally unresponsive. What I said was this:

Quote:
Value comes from a discourse like this when each party can correctly represent the view of the other. If you correctly represent my view, and offer arguments against that view, I can strengthen my view in meeting the arguments, or adjust the view, or disregard it, in response to counter arguments. But you if misrepresent my view, then there's no value in your arguments, since they aren't hitting anything I'm saying.


So what's being pointed out is the importance of being able to represent my view in a way I can agree to. You're not addressing this point.

I've asked you to present a summary of my view that I would agree to, and so far, you haven't done so.

Please do so.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 06/02/11 03:25 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
T:Regarding the fiery serpents, we read:

Originally Posted By: SOP EP 301.1
Shielded by divine power, they had not realized the countless dangers by which they were surrounded. In their unbelief they 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 their sting, it causing violent inflammation and speedy death. As the protecting hand of God was removed, great numbers of the people were attacked by these venomous creatures. {EP 301.1}

T:This is stating my position as clearly as is possible to do so. "The Lord permitted death to come upon them." There's no hint of anything at all going on here other than what it says: "the protecting hand of God was removed."

NJK:My exegetical points against your view here still stand and this EGW notion of ‘permitting death’ is harmonized with the Bible’s account of how it transpired -by the direct action of God. God Himself acted to effectuate this permitting. For me the Bible always has the last word over EGW.


You write, "God Himself acted to effectuate this permitting." Of course God Himself acted to effectuate this permitting, since God was the one doing the permitting! How does this assertion help "debunk" the point that God is presented in Scripture as doing that which He permitted?

Considering the EGW statement, we see the following:

"Shielded by divine power, they had not realized the countless dangers by which they were surrounded."

Now if God had to act to cause the serpents to attack the Israelites, then it wouldn't be the case that they were really in any danger, and it wouldn't be the case that God was protecting the Israelites against danger. The only way that God's removing His protecting hand could bring to the Israelites' attention the protecting care of God would be if God were actually protecting them.

If God caused the serpents to act against the Israelites, then He wouldn't be removing His protecting hand, but using the serpents as an agent by which to accomplish an event which would not have occurred unless God took that course of action.

There are two different things being considered here:

1.God's removing His protecting hand from the countless dangers surrounding the Israelites, including the venomous serpents.

2.God causing the serpents to act in a certain way, which they otherwise would not have acted, to accomplish a purpose.

These two things aren't in harmony. If the serpents would not have attacked the Israelites had God not caused them to do so, then the Israelites were not understand any danger by the serpents, but only by God. God would have been simply removing His protecting hand against Himself in this case, as the serpents would merely be an agency of the danger that God Himself presented to the Israelites.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 06/02/11 03:31 AM

NJK, regarding the destruction of Jerusalem, I want to see if I have your view correct.

You believe there were two phases to the destruction of Jerusalem, a "mercy" stage, and a "no mercy" stage. In the "mercy" stage, God Himself was causing the destruction. In this stage, God limited the destruction involved. In the "no mercy" stage, God was not causing the destruction, but permitted it to occur.

So the difference of the "mercy" stage and the "no mercy" stage is two-fold:

1.God Himself was causing the destruction in the former.
2.The former was less destructive than the latter.

In the "no mercy" stage, Satan sought to mask what he was doing, to make God appear to be the "bad guy." In the mercy stage, Satan did not so work, since God really was the "bad guy."
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 06/02/11 03:34 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
T:Here's a new one:

Originally Posted By: Bible Psalm 78:49
He cast upon them the fierceness of his anger, wrath, and indignation, and trouble, by sending evil angels among them.


T:God didn't send evil angels among them, but permitted the evil angels to go.


NJK:On what/From where are you basing this assertion??

Exegetically speaking, which is why I go by:

(1) the “send” verb is in the Piel Stem, so it was a forceful and direct action by God;

(2) this Psalm is retelling from vs. 42-51 of the Egyptian deliverance and in vss. 49-51 it is focusing on the slaying of the Firstborn;

(3) these “Angels of Evil” or more colloquially, “Angels of Calamity” (cf. Word Biblical Commentary); “Destroying Angels” (NASB) are evidently synonymous with the ‘Angel of Death’; the “Destroying Angel” spoken of in the Bible. (Exod 12:23)

(4) The Bible and the SOP are clear that is was God who was going to do this work of destruction. (Exod 11:4, 5, 7; 12:23, 27, 29; Num 3:13; PP 273.1-274.2; 279.3-4). In GC 614.2, EGW is distinguishing what God’s Angel have done in acts of judgement vs. what Satan’s Angel could do when permitted and she puts the work of this “Destroying Angel” with God’s Divine Agents of Destruction.


Just to be clear here, you're saying that the "evil angels" of Psalm 78 were actually "holy angels," correct? (i.e., God's own angels).
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 06/02/11 03:52 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK


EGW:With these words of light and truth before them, how dare men neglect so plain a duty? How dare they disobey God when obedience to His requirements means His blessing in both temporal and spiritual things, and disobedience means the curse of God? Satan is the destroyer. God cannot bless those who refuse to be faithful stewards. All He can do is to permit Satan to accomplish his destroying work. We see calamities of every kind and in every degree coming upon the earth, and why? The Lord’s restraining power is not exercised....


Let's consider this much of the quote. Here we see the following points made:

1.Obedience means blessings; disobedience means the curse of God.
2.The curse of God is explained as follows:
a.Satan is the destroyer.
b.God permits the destroyer to accomplish his destroying work.
3.We see calamities of all sorts occurring. Why? Because the destroyer's work is not restrained.

Your comments:

Quote:
In a Theological way, I see this as involving indirect/passive participance by Satan. I.e,. the effectuated destructions are from naturally forming disasters that God does not act to prevent.


The EGW quote says:

Quote:
All He can do is to permit Satan to accomplish his destroying work. We see calamities of every kind and in every degree coming upon the earth, and why? The Lord’s restraining power is not exercised.


From this we see that Satan is destroying (active work on Satan's part), while God is restraining (actively preventing destruction). Yet you see this as indirect/passive work on the part of Satan. How so? What in the language used ("All He can do is to permit Satan to accomplish his destroying work." "Satan is the destroyer.") indicates passivity on the part of Satan?


Quote:
In other words, I don’t see that every natural disaster is an active act of Satan.


The point is the natural disasters referred to in the EGW quote were active acts of Satan.

Quote:
Indeed if that was true in those days of EGW, then how much more today. I rather see that Satan would love to prevent all those catastrophe so that men may live care-free and not have any notion of judgements.


What in the EGW quote gives this idea?

Quote:
Nonetheless, it must also be seen that in especially her day which was largely an “Age of Faith” most people would see these acts as “acts of God”. And as they saw nothing wrong in their lifestyle and practices, they would only be susceptible to “cursing God” for “unfairly” punishing them. So Satan would have some incentive to cause such natural disasters.

Similarly, in the Age of Unbelief and Unreason that we live today, when, as with e.g., Katrina was said to be God’s judgement on New Orleans for its lifestyle, it caused much more people to become upset at the people making these claims, than cause genuine repentance. So Satan does indeed do things that advantage him,


What "things" are you talking about here? (i.e., in relation to Katrina).

Quote:
and God may have no better option than to allow these things to at least tangibly build up/confirm the faith and awareness of the righteous. (Cf. Dan 12:10)


Your view of Katrina is that this was a natural disaster, not caused by Satan, and God permitted it to occur to "at least tangibly build up/confirm the faith and awareness of the righteous."? Or is "these things" referring to something Satan is doing?

Do you view that Katrina occurring was God's will? (i.e., something that God desired happen, as opposed to something that He merely permitted).
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 06/02/11 04:32 AM

Quote:
T:Much of what is written here is redundant.

NJK:Due mainly to your blind repetitions of already disproven claims.

Tom: No, this is totally on you. I have many conversations with many people, and this has never been an issue. You're not organizing your thoughts in any systematic way.


Just repsonding to your arguments as they come. Indeed that is all because I have to answer the same arguments that you keep remaking such as your pervasive ‘God permits’ one. I aim to address all your objections head on and if you had actually fully taken into consideration what I had said, I would need to spin my tires and repeat myself but rather build upon those already made points. The discussion so far with you is e.g., ‘we reach level 4 and then all of a sudden as you cannot make additional countering arguments, you return back to level 1’. It is that reoccurrence that is causing me to have to repeat myself.

Originally Posted By: Tom
If you could come up with a list of what you see to be the important principles involved, the could be helpful.


Really I don’t have a creedal set of principles. Indeed this can only be done from SOP statements. I let the text itself and pertinent wider exegesis guide me to what the understanding should be knowingly trusting that God and His Spirit does not and will not contradict itself. Still if you want my pointed response to your listing of “principles” look back in earlier posts. (I had already referenced them twice for you.)

Originally Posted By: Tom
Also a list of what you see to be the differences in our points of view that has to do with content rather than methodology, that would be helpful (i.e., don't write something like, "I just accept what the Bible teaches, while you hold to your own ideas regardless of what Scripture says").


Chiefly in this discussion, I believe that, if necessary, God directly does actions of judgement through whatever method the texts says occurs. Only when there is a situation of no mercy, even intermediarily, God then allows Satan to do this judgement, one which Satan actually wants to do out of personal incentive. I let you explain for yourself what you think in regards to this.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 06/02/11 04:33 AM

Quote:
T:Until the cross, even holy angels were impacted by Satan's misrepresentations.

NJK: What are you basing this on?

Tom: The SOP.

NJK: Great. My question was “where exactly”?? I.e., page and paragraph #.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I pointed out in a previous post that it would good if you read the post, and then responded, as opposed to just responding on the fly without seeing what's coming first. You often do this in the middle of a sentence even.

You said this is indeed what you do, that you read the whole post first. If this is the case, I can't imagine why you would write the sorts of things you do. Like here you are write, "Great. My question was “where exactly”?? I.e., page and paragraph #." when I did this very thing just afterwards.

Surely if you had read the post, you would have seen that I cited the reference, and there would have been no need for this comment.

These sorts of comments are all over the place, and make the task of dialog much more difficult than it need be.


I am $1,000,000 richer because I bet with myself that you would make this spurious claim. Didn’t you see my further comments which explained why I wanted a specific page and paragraph #. You “It is Finished” referencing is way to broad especially, as I said, I do not see your specific claim “throughout” the chapter. Hence this request to specify exactly where you had seen this.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I've made a note of a number of issues that I'll ask you about, and hopefully you'll be interested in pursuing further. I can't possibly go through all of this, and it doesn't appear to me that there are really that many issues that we're discussing, but that there's a lot of repetition.


Still don’t be surprise if I just make simple redirecting comments for statements that I had already responded to. I can’t be endlessly restating myself and reduplicate my efforts for your convenience.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 06/02/11 04:34 AM

Quote:
Tom: NJK, you appear to have a viewpoint that has God responsible for all that happens. I may be reading you wrong, however, so I'd like to have you elaborate.

Here's a specific case to examine:

Originally Posted By: Bible
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."(Isa. 45:7)


Tom: How do you understand this verse, particularly in reference to the Lord creating evil?


I already explained my view here earlier in this thread. See that response.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Following along this same path, you wrote:

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
The Bible incontrovertibly, exegetically says that “God caused the death of Saul.” Exactly how, i.e., what agency was used to achieve this is not specified, however this exegetical indication implies/involves that Saul was somehow, perhaps psychologically, as he was susceptible to (1 Sam 16:14-18), to take his own life. God wanted it to be done that day, and through the use of an “(unspecified) agent” made sure that it was done.


Tom: Here you are saying that God wanted Saul dead, and that God did something, not specified, to cause Saul to take his own life. I don't see how this harmonizes with the thought that God is not willing that any should perish and takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. It seems much more in harmony with Scripture that God did NOT want Saul to die, but rather wanted him to repent. And certainly God would not act to bring about someone's suicide. How does that harmonize with Christ's character?


Simply said Saul had passed the point of no return. His delving in necromancy was probably the nail in the coffin as legislated by law. So since Saul survived the next days fighting, God took it into his own hands execute that capital punishment sentence. And who says God took pleasure in doing this. I certainly grieved Him, however, for the good of Israel it was something that had to be done and God indeed waited until there was such a Capital sin to thus justly do this. All the while mercy was being extended to Saul. However the committance of this inexcusable and moreover, God/Israel-shaming, Capital Sin could not be left unpunished. That all what proper exegesis reveals, i.e., letting the Scriptures speak for themselves, which includes the fact that “God, through an agency, caused Saul to die.” And doing this through suicide, indeed probably being suggested as the best option to Saul was the least further shaming way that this could be done, as Saul himself understood, though he was probably personally seeing it as an act of honor.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Be that as it may, I'm wondering if this viewpoint extends to all incidents in general. For example, when a natural disaster occurs, such as the earthquake in Haiti, to mention one at random, do you see this as being God's will? In a similar way that the suicide of Saul was God's will? Do you see that God wanted that earthquake to occur, and that God took action to see that it would happen that very day, because He wanted it done? Do you see that things can happen which are contrary to God's will?


Since I do not know the GC/Behind the Scene details with the Haiti earthquake I do not know if God simply allow it or He e.g., sent an angel to move that fault line for some deemed deserved judgement. However in the Bible, as well as in the SOP we do see those behind the scenes details and thus know how directly/deliberately involve God was or not. So again, in regards to the Bible, I can only make such comments as the Bible/SOP exegetical supply those unseen developments. That is indeed why I don’t aim to have a set of ‘creedal principles’ that dictate how I should be interpreting a passage (such as you not given exegesis its due indicative weight). Exegesis requires that the text itself speak for itself.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 06/02/11 04:37 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
T:Value comes from a discourse like this when each party can correctly represent the view of the other. If you correctly represent my view, and offer arguments against that view, I can strengthen my view in meeting the arguments, or adjust the view, or disregard it, in response to counter arguments. But you if misrepresent my view, then there's no value in your arguments, since they aren't hitting anything I'm saying. So I keep repeating the same things in the hope that you'll address what I'm actually saying.

NJK:So if you really think I am misrepresenting your view then correct my supposed “misrepresentation” rather than merely repeating what you had said and which was already debunked.

Tom: First of all, I can't think of anything that has been debunked.


You will when you allow for proper exegesis. Anyone who truly does easily will.

Originally Posted By: Tom
The context here has to do with God's being presented in inspiration as doing that which He permits. You admit that there is inspired language depicting God as doing both of these things, and only differ with me, as far as I can tell, in terms of intent.


I actually reconciled EGW statements of permit to involve the actions described in the Bible. In short my view is that what EGW says, rather glibly in my understanding, that ‘God permits to happen’ does not mean the He completely removes Himself but acts to effectuate this, as the Bible actually exegetically specifies.

Originally Posted By: Tom
That is, both you and I agree that inspiration says regarding the same event that God is send to have permitted the act, and to have caused the act.


Again I do not see EGW’s use of “permit” to be “loaded” to mean God is no longer involved. And, by the way, I only view EGW as having made an “inspired” comment so far as it agrees with or can be reconciled with what the Bible says. That is why I don’t see her view on the hardening of Pharaoh heart as being a ‘statement by commission’ as it does not agree with what the Bible exegetically says. That is a substantially occurring deficiency in the writing of EGW.

Originally Posted By: Tom
The difference between our views is that you view God's intent to be that the act occur, even when the "permit" language is used.


Not actually. Intent is secondary to whether God does the act or not. My view is even when He permits something to occur, He sometimes needs to actively act to bring it about. Just like a father permit his teenager to go to a school activity after much plea may require him having to drive him/her to the location of the event, particular in a last minute decision when taking public transportation will cause the teenager to be late. So e.g., God’s permitting something adverse to occur to Israel as a rectifying lesson (thus mercy is involved) may require Him to take full control of what is to transpire out of various GC realities, including the absence of no natural/organic consequence. Thus with the fiery serpents, these had to be attracted to, and then feel threatened by, the people for this permitted calamity to timely and strikingly forcely come to pass so that Israel can learn its key lesson.

Originally Posted By: Tom
But my claim was simply that inspiration often presents God as doing that which He permits, which you are agreeing to, so that's hardly "debunking" the claim.


It is because you have not been taking my arguments into full consideration and weight, if you are even reading them, that you think that we have the same view here in regards to ‘God permitting something.’ As I understand it, you then see God as completely non-involved in such claimed cases. I do not at all. See all of my prior views on this which indeed differentiatigly debunk your view of things here.

Quote:
NJK: Address those standing points that render you view spurious and worthless. You seem to be going by the tenet that ‘your view is to be correct no matter what the facts and arguments against it are.’ And just bringing up new (yet thus far still spurious) claims is not an answer against distinct prior one. Those trees are still felled and your initial forest is not as dense as when you first presented it, if in existence now at all.

Tom: This whole thing here is totally unresponsive. What I said was this:

Originally Posted By: Tom
Value comes from a discourse like this when each party can correctly represent the view of the other. If you correctly represent my view, and offer arguments against that view, I can strengthen my view in meeting the arguments, or adjust the view, or disregard it, in response to counter arguments. But you if misrepresent my view, then there's no value in your arguments, since they aren't hitting anything I'm saying.


Tom: So what's being pointed out is the importance of being able to represent my view in a way I can agree to. You're not addressing this point.


[Because you incorrectly link your post reply here (responding to yourself) I had to waste time just to retrace exactly where you were quoting from. If you had been doing this properly from the beginning you would find that retracing your steps to find the comments of mine that you omitted would be just a matter of a few clicks.]

In regards to your restated comment here, my answer is still the same:

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
So if you really think I am misrepresenting your view then correct my supposed “misrepresentation” rather than merely repeating what you had said and which was already debunked....


You are only not seeing ‘no relevance to your points’ because you are outrightly ignoring my points. I am correcting what you had said. If you don’t think that is a valid correction then point out with, engaging the specific arguments made, rather than just repeating your prior point. And, as I said, truth is not limited to what you can or want to understand. You need to get up to speed on particularly proper exegesis.

The rest of my statement was, as I apparently need to spell this out for you, in regards to how you just ignore my points which counter your view. I am not responsible for your mistakes. Apparently you believe that when your view hits a wall, it is my fault. As if your view is not suppose to be wrong. That makes no sense to me and indeed is just stubborn bias. There no ‘discourse value’ in this mentality. Just defend your view however you think it is and you do the work needed to substantiate and present it. I’ll keep on stating why I agree or do not agree with it and you’ll make the necessary adjustments and better restate it if still applicable/valid.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I've asked you to present a summary of my view that I would agree to, and so far, you haven't done so.

Please do so.


I don’t see how that would change anything but just reset this discussion thus forcing me to have to remake the same arguments again. So I won’t do so. You nonetheless still need to respond to all of my point which show how and why your view or methodology is deficient, improper and/or wrong. So focus on addressing those standing point if you want this discussion to constructively go on, if at all.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 06/02/11 05:03 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
Addressing your points.

I. What I wrote in terms of my rewording of her statement is a straw man.

Here's what I wrote:

Quote:
We are to observe carefully every lesson which deals with suffering (but not lessons which don't deal with suffering; only lessons dealing with suffering should be considered), Christ has given us throughout His life and teaching;He does not destroy. He improves whatever He touches.


In what way does this not accurately represent your thought?

You make the argument that her statement is in the context of suffering, which is fine, but I made the point this doesn't change the truth of her assertions, which are:

1.Christ does not destroy.
2.He improves everything He touches.

We are to observe all His lessons throughout His life and teachings to learn these two things. Then we apply these two things to the subject of the suffering of the righteous. That's what she's doing.

Your thought seems to be that these two statements were intended to apply *only* in the case of sufferings, which is what my rewording of her statement is doing.

So again I ask, how is this not accurately reflecting your thought?


I myself never saw a need to pointedly make “Christ’s lessons” be limited to only sufferings. I rather see that they include reasons in regards to suffering, but are not limited to only those. Other things that ‘Christ touched to improve’ did not need to go through suffering, as seen in many miracles. However in the applicable episode with Peter’s and the disciple’s testing, they were permitted to suffer in order to come out as better Apostles on the other end. (Luke 22:31, 32) Apparently Satan asked Jesus Himself to so touch the disciples. Another example of this is Lazarus who was permitted to die by Christ for the glory of God and also Lazarus’s healing and resurrection.


The context of the rewording was contrasting sufferings to judgments. So the reworded statement:

Quote:
We are to observe carefully every lesson which deals with suffering (but not lessons which don't deal with suffering[i.e. judgments]; only lessons dealing with suffering should be considered[not judgments]), Christ has given us throughout His life and teaching;He does not destroy. He improves whatever He touches.


is dealing with sufferings, as opposed to judgments. You don't agree with the points that "He does not destroy. He improves whatever He touches." as, in general, true, from what you've said.

Originally Posted By: NJK
T:II.You made the same point in regards to this rewording:

Originally Posted By: Tom
Sickness, suffering, and death are the work of an antagonistic power (sometimes, when sufferings are the issue; but not judgments). Satan is the destroyer (sometimes; other times it's God); God is the restorer(sometimes; when He's not the destroyer).


Tom: This is, this point:

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
That “point premise” again is just your “straw man” and circular view. You’re really just arguing with yourself.


Tom: But the rest of what you wrote looks to be once again justifying this rewording. This is, it accurately reflects your thought, as far as I can tell. You say that you disagree with the rewording, but the rest of your post agrees with the points of the rewording. So I ask the same question in regards to this rewording as to the other one, which is in what way is it not accurately reflecting your thought?

NJK:Because the condition of “sometimes” is moot to me here as this “Sickness, suffering and death” are only applying in context to non-judgements.


Which agrees with what I said. That is, you believe:

Quote:
Sickness, suffering, and death are the work of an antagonistic power (sometimes, when sufferings are the issue; but not judgments). Satan is the destroyer (sometimes; other times it's God); God is the restorer(sometimes; when He's not the destroyer).


If the word "sometimes" is not necessary, it's not inaccurate, given your point of view. That is, the reworded statement is correctly reflecting your point of view.

Quote:
NJK:The Bible is clear that God uses sickness, suffering and death in judgements, so I defaultly saw that there was no need to make the distinction here as I see that it is naturally understood to not include acts of judgements.


This is circular reasoning, but, regardless, doesn't counter the point that the above reworded statement accurately reflects your view. You don't believe that sickness, suffering, and death are necessarily the work of an antagonistic power. Sometimes they are, and sometimes they aren't.

Quote:
NJK:It is as mootly useless as trying to justify the ways in which Law Enforcement and the Judicial Systems in western societies normatively enforce and preserve Law and Order. Your description is only applicable to Criminals.


What description?

Quote:
Lumping God’s actions as these acts of (non-judgement) sickness, suffering and death is innate wrong to me as His actions are always non-arbitrary and Just, eventhough they involve applicable force. God cannot be labelled as a “Destroyer” as He is acting out of Justice. Just like a policeman is not a felon, or a murderer even when he may have (justly) been speeding and crossing red lights, or killed someone in the line of duty.


This seems to have nothing to do with the fact that the reworded statement accurately reflects your view.

Quote:
NJK:So in both cases, I had not seen a need, in any way, to make your textual amendments.


I'm clarifying your thought. When I read that sickness, suffering and death are the work of an antagonistic power, I read this as saying these things are the product of Satan. You read this as saying something else, which the reworded statement explains.

Quote:
NJK:I indeed saw that those distinctions were contextually/theologically understood. There was therefore no need to so restate if for those statements. You, viewing things from your point of view, of course only saw the contrary and this need to explicitly differentiate.


The statement says one thing, which you understand as another, which the reworded statement makes clear.

Quote:
T:So your argument is as follows:

1.Sin (at least some sins) does not naturally have negative consequences.
2.There are imposed negative consequences in the final judgment.
3.God imposes negative consequence in the here and now so that people will wake up to the fact that there are imposed negative consequences in the hereafter.

My argument is as follows:

1.All sin has negative consequences.
2.Therefore it is not necessary for God to impose any negative consequences to sin, but simply reveal what the negative consequences are.

I see the cross as essential to this last point. That is, the cross revealed, as nothing else, what the negative consequences of sin are.

So if sin is innocuous, then your reasoning follows, but if it's not, then it doesn't. Our disagreement, to a large extent, comes down to this point.


NJK:The problem is that whenever this difference is brought up and discussed, you outrightly ignore or suddenly end discussing/responding to the latest points, even involving the Bible and SOP on key issues such as legislated and effectuated capital punishments, acts of judgement destruction done by God Himself, Divine Vengeance, the Tree of Life, etc. Your view needs to be “shielded”, from the clear statements made against it in the Bible and SOP, and that with a teflon-coated brick wall where nothing, however Biblical and factual they actually are, can neither stick or get through. This “stone-walling” to engaging all points is not conducive to a constructive and truth-arriving discussion. So if you really want to continue discussing these ‘fundamental’ discussion issues, then go back to where you stopped responding to my points and begin from their by answering those points.


This isn't responsive to my point. I listed what our arguments are, and the differences between our points of view. If you agree with how I have characterized our differences is the question being raised here.

Quote:
Here are some examples:

Originally Posted By: SOP RH December 8, 1896, par. 12
God’s money is needed. It is hoarded and buried in the world, while multitudes are starving for temporal food and spiritual knowledge. It is spent in foolish amusements, in dissipating games and sports and idolatrous practises. God says, “Shall I not visit for these things?” Already he is sending his judgments upon the earth. Terrible plagues are visiting our world, in famines, in floods, in calamities by sea and land, in earthquakes in divers places. And because of men’s wickedness the Lord does not restrain the destroying power.


In a sequitur way, the ‘non-restraining of the destroyer’, with is “And because...” opening, seems to be in addition to the effectuation of the prior “Divinely-sent plagues”, and that for plausibly added wickedness than the previously listed acts of selfishness.


That doesn't work. She would have had to have written, "And because of men’s wickedness the Lord also does not restrain the destroying power." The "and" here is simply a conjunction.

Quote:
NJK:Interestingly enough this resembles, if not is in the template of: the first 6 Last Plagues being at God’s doing, through His Angels, with the 7th involving the unrestrained destroying power of, presumably, but not necessarily, here, Satan.

Indeed the destroying power could be the judgement destroying power that God Himself can wield. These destructions can easily be made to occur by not tempering or quenching a naturally formed disaster which does not have to be pointed created/done by Satan.


Not quenching a naturally formed disaster is fine. This fits the principle of the Lord's being described as doing that which He permits.

Regarding the 7th plague, you're saying here you're not sure if this is Satan or not?

Quote:
T:(quoting EGW)[W]e remembered that we were living in a time similar to the time preceding the judgments which fell upon the old world. The Spirit of God is now withdrawing from the people of the earth. Men, wrapped up in prosperity, seeking and getting gain, have placed their affections upon earthly things. Few have recognized the long-suffering mercy of God. Few have realized or acknowledged his protecting care. Few have appreciated his goodness and love, although he has kept them from dire disaster and death. As in the days that were before the flood, there has been a strange forgetfulness of God.

NJK:God’s withdrawing His Spirit from people is not what causes disasters which God had been protecting them of.


That this is the case looks to be the intent of the quote. "Few have appreciated his goodness and love, although he has kept them from dire disaster and death."

Quote:
NJK:Again these could be normally forming disasters, (e.g., unsteady fault lines, formed hurricanes, Tornado producing weather conditions, belching or active volcanoes, gathering abundant rain cloud capable of causing floods, etcs). All are natural formations that God may indeed be, unseenly working to variously disrupt and prematurely end. So by Him instead allowing them to fully follow their development and/or destruction course He Himself would be effectively sending these destructions.


This is fine. This would again be God's being presented as doing that which He permits.

Quote:
NJK:Satan really is not actively involved here, even if those adverse elements are ultimately all the result of the sin he had authored.


Either way, the principle would apply.

Quote:
NJK:Interestingly enough, as in the case of e.g, the Flood and S&G, as well as other acts of judgements by God, He needs something more potent and timely to effectuate “undelayed and striking Justice” and so much develop His weapons of destruction himself.


These could be the same principle as well. Indeed, considering the Flood, given the description of the event, God must have been preventing the waters beneath the earth from exploding into the atmosphere until all the animals and people had entered the ark.

Quote:
T(quoting EGW):By their transgression of God's law the people of Judah had forfeited His protection...By their apostasy and rebellion they were inviting the judgments of God.

NJK:In this case, their was indeed an organic threat in the Assyrians present to do the destruction. Though, as I had said, God can also stir up/summons a foreign power to do this work of destruction when it is not “organically” intending/desiring to.


This highlights what I've stated as the fundamental difference in our points of view. You view God as capable of acting in such a manner, whereas I see no hint of this capability in Christ's revelation of God's character. You recognize that there is a potential organic relationship between the removal of God's protection and the destructive power of an invading foreign power, but postulate that God could spur them on in their destructive action.

Quote:
NJK:Furthermore the ‘forfeiting of God’s protection here’ straightforwardly entails that ‘in the event of an attack by Assyria, God then could not protect Judah.’ God ‘forfeiture’ did not result in the Assyrians being drawn to fight Judah. It just assured their victory in the case that such a war took place.


This is the whole point. God was protecting them. They caused God to remove their protection, and then disaster came, the same as with the destruction of Jerusalem.

Quote:
T:The context changes nothing. The principle is exactly as one would expect it to be, just by reading the sentence.

NJK:As I have said before, and indeed in the case of this point, it is not the point/principle itself that has a problem, but how you understand them and/or what you think applies to it. In this case here you won’t include the fact e.g., that Jesus did not do away with capital punishment, despite a perfect chance to do so, also spoke of Divine Vengeance, and did not do some things, such as Hell Fire destruction, only because that was not in His mandate, though He both amply and most descriptively spoke about it and also justly greatly wanted to bring it about (Luke 12:49, 50). So the issue is not with the principle themselves but squarely with your understanding of them and the selective and artificial parameters/limitations that you impose on them.


The statement tells us that all that man can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son. This means that it is not necessary to go outside of Christ to obtain a perfect revelation of the Father. That's simple logic. There is nothing unsound in applying the principle in this manner.

Quote:
I have already copiously dealt with your view of the principles you list. But as stated in this post, whenever the discussion reaches a point where you do not have an answer to my points, you just ignore them and/or isolatively deal with another topic, if not raise a side issue and never return to the prior topic. Yet you continue to maintain that your view is perfect. In this way, how can you but continue to see this. Indeed this present topic is another instance of this topic shifting, with many other posts and prior points left completely unanswered by you. Non-“insultingly” speaking, as usual from me, this is like ‘“clinical” discussion ADHD.’


I'm just going to comment on one thing here, and that's the following:

Quote:
Yet you continue to maintain that your view is perfect.


I've made no such claim, and that you have such an idea is evidence that you're not paying attention very well to what I've been writing.

Quote:
We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and Heaven alone are infallible. Those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed. As long as we hold to our own ideas and opinions with determined persistency, we cannot have the unity for which Christ prayed. {CET 203.2}


I've quoted this several times.

My view of things has been evolving since I became a Christian. I have no reason to think that it wouldn't continue to do so. Indeed, I've also said repeatedly that Jesus Christ is constantly challenging our paradigm, and that God is infinite, and that our understanding of His character is imperfect. Only Jesus Christ have a view that is perfect. Our goal should be to have a view which is harmony with his.

You're the one who appears to think he has an infallible view. I readily admit that there are flaws to my way of thinking. Do you admit the same?

I'm simply sharing how I understand things, what I believe to be true, and why. I've been willing to change my view in the past, and have done so, and am still willing to do so, given the presentation of evidence which makes sense to me.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 06/02/11 05:44 AM

Quote:
T:Regarding the fiery serpents, we read:

Originally Posted By: SOP EP 301.1
Shielded by divine power, they had not realized the countless dangers by which they were surrounded. In their unbelief they 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 their sting, it causing violent inflammation and speedy death. As the protecting hand of God was removed, great numbers of the people were attacked by these venomous creatures. {EP 301.1}


T:This is stating my position as clearly as is possible to do so. "The Lord permitted death to come upon them." There's no hint of anything at all going on here other than what it says: "the protecting hand of God was removed."

NJK:My exegetical points against your view here still stand and this EGW notion of ‘permitting death’ is harmonized with the Bible’s account of how it transpired -by the direct action of God. God Himself acted to effectuate this permitting. For me the Bible always has the last word over EGW.

You write, "God Himself acted to effectuate this permitting." Of course God Himself acted to effectuate this permitting, since God was the one doing the permitting! How does this assertion help "debunk" the point that God is presented in Scripture as doing that which He permitted?


What I meant was: ‘God Himself acted to effectuate the judgement that He was allowing/permitting to occur’

Originally Posted By: Tom
Considering the EGW statement, we see the following:

"Shielded by divine power, they had not realized the countless dangers by which they were surrounded."

Tom: Now if God had to act to cause the serpents to attack the Israelites, then it wouldn't be the case that they were really in any danger, and it wouldn't be the case that God was protecting the Israelites against danger. The only way that God's removing His protecting hand could bring to the Israelites' attention the protecting care of God would be if God were actually protecting them.

If God caused the serpents to act against the Israelites, then He wouldn't be removing His protecting hand, but using the serpents as an agent by which to accomplish an event which would not have occurred unless God took that course of action.

There are two different things being considered here:

1.God's removing His protecting hand from the countless dangers surrounding the Israelites, including the venomous serpents.

2.God causing the serpents to act in a certain way, which they otherwise would not have acted, to accomplish a purpose.

These two things aren't in harmony. If the serpents would not have attacked the Israelites had God not caused them to do so, then the Israelites were not understand any danger by the serpents, but only by God. God would have been simply removing His protecting hand against Himself in this case, as the serpents would merely be an agency of the danger that God Himself presented to the Israelites.


As stated before this all revolves around the natural tendencies of serpents. So as the Bible relates God acted to override this. Still occasional bites could have occurred but God had shieldingly acted to prevent any serpent bites. Also to effectuate a striking and timely judgement, this forceful action would indeed have been needed.

So my understand here involving, and in that order, the contributions of the Bible, SOP and nature: With simply a removal of this shielding. Some occasional bites would occur (e.g, 1-2 per day) with God’s added elements of feeling of threat: (100+ per day). All so that a timely and forceful judgement can be made, overriding what would lesserly, naturally occur.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 06/02/11 05:44 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
NJK, regarding the destruction of Jerusalem, I want to see if I have your view correct.

You believe there were two phases to the destruction of Jerusalem, a "mercy" stage, and a "no mercy" stage. In the "mercy" stage, God Himself was causing the destruction. In this stage, God limited the destruction involved. In the "no mercy" stage, God was not causing the destruction, but permitted it to occur.

So the difference of the "mercy" stage and the "no mercy" stage is two-fold:

1.God Himself was causing the destruction in the former.
2.The former was less destructive than the latter.

In the "no mercy" stage, Satan sought to mask what he was doing, to make God appear to be the "bad guy." In the mercy stage, Satan did not so work, since God really was the "bad guy."


No. In the no mercy stage, as there was a present organic cause to effect agent, God was only acting to temper things so that things don’t blow over. All the while mercy was variously being obtained by some Jews. Then as things obstinately further developed, God removed Himself and let Satan take over. That is indeed when Titus lost his temper, probably under Satan direct influence and order that the city and its remaining inhabitants be mercilessly dealt with.

All that I see God actively doing in regards to destruction in that first phase was, as Jesus had said in Matt 22:7 sent/draw the Romans, as He indeed can, especially to return under Titus after a brief hiatus.

So in case where the destruction is organic, present and (fittingly) sufficient, God does not have to actively cause the destruction. Otherwise, for reason of necessary justice, he does.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 06/02/11 05:45 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
Just to be clear here, you're saying that the "evil angels" of Psalm 78 were actually "holy angels," correct? (i.e., God's own angels).


As shown in my detailing, I said that ‘evil angels” was not a fitting translation and that these were indeed ‘destroying angels of God’ as functionally attested in the Bible and SOP.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 06/02/11 05:48 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted By: SOP
With these words of light and truth before them, how dare men neglect so plain a duty? How dare they disobey God when obedience to His requirements means His blessing in both temporal and spiritual things, and disobedience means the curse of God? Satan is the destroyer. God cannot bless those who refuse to be faithful stewards. All He can do is to permit Satan to accomplish his destroying work. We see calamities of every kind and in every degree coming upon the earth, and why? The Lord’s restraining power is not exercised....


Let's consider this much of the quote. Here we see the following points made:

1.Obedience means blessings; disobedience means the curse of God.
2.The curse of God is explained as follows:
a.Satan is the destroyer.
b.God permits the destroyer to accomplish his destroying work.
3.We see calamities of all sorts occurring. Why? Because the destroyer's work is not restrained.

Your comments:

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
In a Theological way, I see this as involving indirect/passive participance by Satan. I.e,. the effectuated destructions are from naturally forming disasters that God does not act to prevent.


The EGW quote says:

Originally Posted By: SOP
All He can do is to permit Satan to accomplish his destroying work. We see calamities of every kind and in every degree coming upon the earth, and why? The Lord’s restraining power is not exercised.


From this we see that Satan is destroying (active work on Satan's part), while God is restraining (actively preventing destruction). Yet you see this as indirect/passive work on the part of Satan. How so? What in the language used ("All He can do is to permit Satan to accomplish his destroying work." "Satan is the destroyer.") indicates passivity on the part of Satan?


One statement of EGW does not establish a theology and indeed sometimes it may only be an incomplete/partial expression of her understanding of that issue. Given what EGW says elsewhere about ‘God and/or His angel doing acts of destruction’ a theology cannot be made upon on Statement in regards to tithing. Indeed God action in the flood is the perfect example. That is not proper exegesis of the SOP. That is why I made a more general statement on this with a large GC view in mind rather than limiting my understanding to one quote.

Nonetheless, I see here that she is speaking of not necessarily judgement actions, but just day to day circumstances where God has to daily act to prevent natural calamities. The GC rules probably limit Him to only certain preventions and when His people are not faithful in tithing, He then has no justification for extraordinarily acting to protect them against an approaching calamity.

Quote:
NJK: In other words, I don’t see that every natural disaster is an active act of Satan.

Tom: The point is the natural disasters referred to in the EGW quote were active acts of Satan.


It must also be kept in mind that as it was very likely that the end could have occurred in EGW’s day, Satan seeing this, probably step things up to cause as many natural disasters as possible. Seeing/believing then that he had nothing left to gain, he therefore was wrathfully acting to do these ‘supernatural’ (also in terms of frequency) disasters. (Cf. 3MR 318.2) So EGW was probably injunctively given special light on this new, potential/possible end time, development. Indeed Satan does not know when the end will be, so, and by God’s permission, as this can indeed be the end, is allowed to act in this way, especially, as the SOP reveals, this will serve to establish the Mark of the Beast and cause billions to be lost.

Quote:
NJK: Indeed if that was true in those days of EGW, then how much more today. I rather see that Satan would love to prevent all those catastrophe so that men may live care-free and not have any notion of judgements.

Tom: What in the EGW quote gives this idea?


Nothing specifically. Just furthering my related GC/Theological observation/understanding here.

Quote:
NJK: Nonetheless, it must also be seen that in especially her day which was largely an “Age of Faith” most people would see these acts as “acts of God”. And as they saw nothing wrong in their lifestyle and practices, they would only be susceptible to “cursing God” for “unfairly” punishing them. So Satan would have some incentive to cause such natural disasters.

NJK: Similarly, in the Age of Unbelief and Unreason that we live today, when, as with e.g., Katrina was said to be God’s judgement on New Orleans for its lifestyle, it caused much more people to become upset at the people making these claims, than cause genuine repentance. So Satan does indeed do things that advantage him,

Tom: What "things" are you talking about here? (i.e., in relation to Katrina).


I had only cited the Katrina event to illustrate the reactions of people to claims of Gods judgement against them from the occurrence of a natural disaster. I was not making a claim on the veracity of those God-judgement or Satan-action claim. Thus I meant: ‘Satan generally does indeed (generally speaking) do things (favoring or destroying acts) that advantage him.’

Quote:
NJK: and God may have no better option than to allow these things to at least tangibly build up/confirm the faith and awareness of the righteous. (Cf. Dan 12:10)

Tom: Your view of Katrina is that this was a natural disaster, not caused by Satan, and God permitted it to occur to "at least tangibly build up/confirm the faith and awareness of the righteous."?


Correct, as I have no specific knowledge of the behind the scenes actions surrounding Katrina.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Or is "these things" referring to something Satan is doing?


“These things” means ‘such naturally occurring disasters, uncaused by either Satan or God but of course the derived result of Satan’s destructive course.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Do you view that Katrina occurring was God's will? (i.e., something that God desired happen, as opposed to something that He merely permitted).


He just permitted it to occur, not hindering it in any way, however, he didn’t have a good overriding reason to prevent it, as He surely has been able to do in other worthy conditions, indeed not even allowing the natural disaster to form. We may also be impressed to see e.g., how many named, thus formed hurricanes which subsided was at the direct hand of God. Leaving however just enough of a threat to help people keep things in their proper perspective - those who act wisely enough to fearfully perceive His gracious warnings here.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 06/02/11 06:02 AM

Quote:
NJK:My exegetical points against your view here still stand and this EGW notion of ‘permitting death’ is harmonized with the Bible’s account of how it transpired -by the direct action of God. God Himself acted to effectuate this permitting. For me the Bible always has the last word over EGW.

T:You write, "God Himself acted to effectuate this permitting." Of course God Himself acted to effectuate this permitting, since God was the one doing the permitting! How does this assertion help "debunk" the point that God is presented in Scripture as doing that which He permitted?


NJK:What I meant was: ‘God Himself acted to effectuate the judgement that He was allowing/permitting to occur’


Why is this an important point? How is this different than saying, for example, that the judgments occurred because God removed His protecting hand?

Quote:
Tom: Now if God had to act to cause the serpents to attack the Israelites, then it wouldn't be the case that they were really in any danger, and it wouldn't be the case that God was protecting the Israelites against danger. The only way that God's removing His protecting hand could bring to the Israelites' attention the protecting care of God would be if God were actually protecting them.

If God caused the serpents to act against the Israelites, then He wouldn't be removing His protecting hand, but using the serpents as an agent by which to accomplish an event which would not have occurred unless God took that course of action.

There are two different things being considered here:

1.God's removing His protecting hand from the countless dangers surrounding the Israelites, including the venomous serpents.

2.God causing the serpents to act in a certain way, which they otherwise would not have acted, to accomplish a purpose.

These two things aren't in harmony. If the serpents would not have attacked the Israelites had God not caused them to do so, then the Israelites were not understand any danger by the serpents, but only by God. God would have been simply removing His protecting hand against Himself in this case, as the serpents would merely be an agency of the danger that God Himself presented to the Israelites.


NJK:As stated before this all revolves around the natural tendencies of serpents. So as the Bible relates God acted to override this.


You mean because the Bible says God send fiery serpents upon the Israelites? This means God acted to override the natural tendency of serpents? This certainly seems to be reading a lot into the text.

Quote:
NJK:Still occasional bites could have occurred but God had shieldingly acted to prevent any serpent bites. Also to effectuate a striking and timely judgement, this forceful action would indeed have been needed.

So my understand here involving, and in that order, the contributions of the Bible, SOP and nature: With simply a removal of this shielding. Some occasional bites would occur (e.g, 1-2 per day) with God’s added elements of feeling of threat: (100+ per day). All so that a timely and forceful judgement can be made, overriding what would lesserly, naturally occur.


This doesn't address the point made. According the SOP, God had protecting the people from constant dangers. God removed His protecting hand so that His protection could be seen. If God *caused* the dangerous event to happen, then the serpents weren't the danger; *God* was.

Here's what's written:

Quote:
Shielded by divine power, they had not realized the countless dangers by which they were surrounded. In their unbelief they 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 their sting, it causing violent inflammation and speedy death. As the protecting hand of God was removed, great numbers of the people were attacked by these venomous creatures. {EP 301.1}


How do you get from this that God *caused* the attacks to occur? She writes:

Quote:
As the protecting hand of God was removed, great numbers of the people were attacked by these venomous creatures.


She writes "the protecting hand of God was removed, great numbers of the people were attacked by these venomous creatures."
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 06/02/11 06:10 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
No. In the no mercy stage, as there was a present organic cause to effect agent, God was only acting to temper things so that things don’t blow over.


This is the same as the no mercy stage then, except that God was acting to temper things. God is not acting as a direct agent.

Quote:
NJK:All the while mercy was variously being obtained by some Jews. Then as things obstinately further developed, God removed Himself and let Satan take over. That is indeed when Titus lost his temper, probably under Satan direct influence and order that the city and its remaining inhabitants be mercilessly dealt with.

All that I see God actively doing in regards to destruction in that first phase was, as Jesus had said in Matt 22:7 sent/draw the Romans, as He indeed can, especially to return under Titus after a brief hiatus.


So the Romans would not have wanted to tax the Jews, except for God's inducement? What exactly do you see God doing here?

Originally Posted By: NJK
So in case where the destruction is organic, present and (fittingly) sufficient, God does not have to actively cause the destruction. Otherwise, for reason of necessary justice, he does.


But if there are a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, God *never* has to actively cause the destruction. It's always sufficient for God to simply remove His protecting hand.

Do you see the destruction of Jerusalem as due to a direct decree on the part of God?

I noticed you mentioned Matthew as justification for the idea that God sent the Roman armies. What about Mark's account?

Quote:
What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others. Haven't you read this scripture: 'The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes'? Then they looked for a way to arrest him because they knew he had spoken the parable against them. But they were afraid of the crowd; so they left him and went away." (Mark 12)


To be consistent, don't we need to say that God killed the Jews and gave their land to others? That is, if we're going to say that God "sent" the Romans because of Matthew, then, by the same token, we should say that God "killed" the Jews, because of Mark.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 06/02/11 07:45 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
T:Just to be clear here, you're saying that the "evil angels" of Psalm 78 were actually "holy angels," correct? (i.e., God's own angels).


NJK:As shown in my detailing, I said that ‘evil angels” was not a fitting translation and that these were indeed ‘destroying angels of God’ as functionally attested in the Bible and SOP.


It looks like the word is used over 200 times, and only once translated "destroying" by the NASB. Overwhelmingly the word is translated "evil." You referenced the Word Critical Commentary. What does it say?

Regarding "send," you wrote:

Quote:
(1) the “send” verb is in the Piel Stem, so it was a forceful and direct action by God;


So does this mean "send" (in the Piel Stem) is never used in conjunction with evil angels?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 06/02/11 07:57 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
I am $1,000,000 richer because I bet with myself that you would make this spurious claim.


It sounds like you knew your comment was bogus as you made it. You must have been aware of what you were doing, or why would have made yourself a bet?

Here's the post:

Quote:
T:Until the cross, even holy angels were impacted by Satan's misrepresentations.

NJK:What are you basing this on?


The SOP.

Quote:
NJK:I rather see that they were not yet convinced that the alternate way that Satan had proposed was deserving of the completely eradicating judgement that God wanted to effectuate on it.


I haven't seen any evidence this was ever an issue for the angels. Can you quote anything to substantiate this idea?

Here's a statement from the SOP speaking to the impact of the cross on the angels:

Quote:
That which alone can effectually restrain from sin in this world of darkness, will prevent sin in heaven. The significance of the death of Christ will be seen by saints and angels. Fallen men could not have a home in the paradise of God without the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Shall we not then exalt the cross of Christ? The angels ascribe honor and glory to Christ, for even they are not secure except by looking to the sufferings of the Son of God. It is through the efficacy of the cross that the angels of heaven are guarded from apostasy. Without the cross they would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the fall of Satan.(ST 12/30/89)


How could you have missed, "Here's a statement from the SOP speaking to the impact of the cross on the angels:" along with the cite? This could hardly have been more immediate, and so, hardly a "spurious" claim.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 06/02/11 08:11 AM

Quote:
T:Much of what is written here is redundant.

NJK:Due mainly to your blind repetitions of already disproven claims.

Tom: No, this is totally on you. I have many conversations with many people, and this has never been an issue. You're not organizing your thoughts in any systematic way.

NJK:Just repsonding to your arguments as they come. Indeed that is all because I have to answer the same arguments that you keep remaking such as your pervasive ‘God permits’ one. I aim to address all your objections head on and if you had actually fully taken into consideration what I had said, I would need to spin my tires and repeat myself but rather build upon those already made points. The discussion so far with you is e.g., ‘we reach level 4 and then all of a sudden as you cannot make additional countering arguments, you return back to level 1’. It is that reoccurrence that is causing me to have to repeat myself.


I'll just repeat myself and say that I've had a great deal of conversations with many people, and this has never been an issue with anyone else. Others follow the same technique of responding to comments, without this being a problem.

Quote:
T:If you could come up with a list of what you see to be the important principles involved, the could be helpful.

NJK:Really I don’t have a creedal set of principles. Indeed this can only be done from SOP statements. I let the text itself and pertinent wider exegesis guide me to what the understanding should be knowingly trusting that God and His Spirit does not and will not contradict itself. Still if you want my pointed response to your listing of “principles” look back in earlier posts. (I had already referenced them twice for you.)


I think your not thinking in terms of principles leads to the sort of rambling disorganized posts I've pointed out. Indeed, your thinking of principles as "creedal" seems to indicate a sort of bias against thinking in terms of principles.

Quote:
T:Also a list of what you see to be the differences in our points of view that has to do with content rather than methodology, that would be helpful (i.e., don't write something like, "I just accept what the Bible teaches, while you hold to your own ideas regardless of what Scripture says").

NJK:Chiefly in this discussion, I believe that, if necessary, God directly does actions of judgement through whatever method the texts says occurs. Only when there is a situation of no mercy, even intermediarily, God then allows Satan to do this judgement, one which Satan actually wants to do out of personal incentive. I let you explain for yourself what you think in regards to this.


You're saying there are two situations, one of mercy, and one of no mercy. Only in the latter case will God allow Satan to do the judgment indicated.

So never in a "mercy" situation is Satan involved. This is your contention? How does one determine a "mercy" situation? Can you define it in some other way than a situation in which Satan is not involved?

In the "no mercy" situations, is it your contention that God always acts indirectly, and that the text indicates this is taking place?

We haven't discussed the cross, I don't think. What do think God's action was here? Was it a direct one of judgment, or an indirect one of permitting Christ's suffering?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 06/02/11 08:35 AM

Quote:
Tom: How do you understand this verse, particularly in reference to the Lord creating evil?

NJK:I already explained my view here earlier in this thread. See that response.


I assume you're referring to this:

Quote:
NJK:However, I understand God as “creating the evil” through what He permits the Devil to do. (Cf. James 1:13).


So you see here that God is presented as doing that which He permits. Ok.

How do you see that James 1:13 ties into this?

Quote:
NJK:Simply said Saul had passed the point of no return. His delving in necromancy was probably the nail in the coffin as legislated by law. So since Saul survived the next days fighting, God took it into his own hands execute that capital punishment sentence.


By driving Saul to suicide? How? Going inside of Saul's head and manipulating his thoughts?

Quote:
And who says God took pleasure in doing this.


That God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked means that their death is not His will, in which case one could hardly expect Him to drive one to suicide.

Quote:
I certainly grieved Him, however, for the good of Israel it was something that had to be done and God indeed waited until there was such a Capital sin to thus justly do this. All the while mercy was being extended to Saul. However the committance of this inexcusable and moreover, God/Israel-shaming, Capital Sin could not be left unpunished. That all what proper exegesis reveals, i.e., letting the Scriptures speak for themselves, which includes the fact that “God, through an agency, caused Saul to die.”


There's something suspect with your exegetical methodology if it leads you to conclusions such as this.

Quote:
All through his course of rebellion Saul had been flattered and deceived by Satan. It is the tempter’s work to belittle sin, to make the path of transgression easy and inviting, to blind the mind to the warnings and threatenings of the Lord. Satan, by his bewitching power, had led Saul to justify himself in defiance of Samuel’s reproofs and warning. But now, in his extremity, he turned upon him, presenting the enormity of his sin and the hopelessness of pardon, that he might goad him to desperation. Nothing could have been better chosen to destroy his courage 681and confuse his judgment, or to drive him to despair and self-destruction. {PP 680.4}
Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 681.1 (EGW)


It was Satan driving Saul to despair, not God!

Quote:
Oppressed by the horror of despair, it would be impossible for him to inspire his army with courage. Separated from the Source of strength, he could not lead the minds of Israel to look to God as their helper. Thus the prediction of evil would work its own accomplishment. {PP 681.3}


Saul brought about his problems by separating himself from God.

Quote:
Escape was impossible, and determined not to be taken alive by the Philistines, he bade his armor-bearer, “Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith.” When the man refused to lift his hand 682against the Lord’s anointed, Saul took his own life by falling upon his sword. {PP 681.4}
Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 682.1 (EGW)

Thus the first king of Israel perished, with the guilt of self-murder upon his soul. His life had been a failure, and he went down in dishonor and despair, because he had set up his own perverse will against the will of God. {PP 682.1}


Saul would hardly have been guilty of self-murder if his death were due to an action on God's part.

Originally Posted By: NJK
Since I do not know the GC/Behind the Scene details with the Haiti earthquake I do not know if God simply allow it or He e.g., sent an angel to move that fault line for some deemed deserved judgement.


Or allowed Satan to do so?

Quote:
However in the Bible, as well as in the SOP we do see those behind the scenes details and thus know how directly/deliberately involve God was or not. So again, in regards to the Bible, I can only make such comments as the Bible/SOP exegetical supply those unseen developments.


It seems wherever the SOP suggests God permitted an action (except for Job), you take issue with this and say you take the Bible over her words. In the Bible you say this only occurred in Job (or perhaps you amended this slightly). So it sounds rather more like you have a mind-set that leads you in a certain direction, and causes you to interpret/harmonize different statements in a certain way (the way that agrees with your mind set).

Quote:
That is indeed why I don’t aim to have a set of ‘creedal principles’ that dictate how I should be interpreting a passage (such as you not given exegesis its due indicative weight). Exegesis requires that the text itself speak for itself.


Clearly there are principles that guide how you interpret things, you just don't know how to articulate them.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 06/02/11 09:05 AM

Quote:
T:Value comes from a discourse like this when each party can correctly represent the view of the other. If you correctly represent my view, and offer arguments against that view, I can strengthen my view in meeting the arguments, or adjust the view, or disregard it, in response to counter arguments. But you if misrepresent my view, then there's no value in your arguments, since they aren't hitting anything I'm saying. So I keep repeating the same things in the hope that you'll address what I'm actually saying.

NJK:So if you really think I am misrepresenting your view then correct my supposed “misrepresentation” rather than merely repeating what you had said and which was already debunked.

Tom: First of all, I can't think of anything that has been debunked.

NJK:You will when you allow for proper exegesis. Anyone who truly does easily will.


Anyone who allows for proper exegesis will agree with you is what you're saying, right? Always?

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Tom
The context here has to do with God's being presented in inspiration as doing that which He permits. You admit that there is inspired language depicting God as doing both of these things, and only differ with me, as far as I can tell, in terms of intent.

NJK:I actually reconciled EGW statements of permit to involve the actions described in the Bible.


Why would you do this? The Bible says God sent fiery serpents against the Israelites. Ellen White writes:

Quote:
Shielded by divine power, they had not realized the countless dangers by which they were surrounded. In their unbelief they 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 their sting, it causing violent inflammation and speedy death. As the protecting hand of God was removed, great numbers of the people were attacked by these venomous creatures. {EP 301.1}


Why would you think that God's removing His protecting hand would involve His sending serpents?

Quote:
NJK: In short my view is that what EGW says, rather glibly in my understanding, that ‘God permits to happen’ does not mean the He completely removes Himself but acts to effectuate this, as the Bible actually exegetically specifies.


It's clear that according to her the danger was there all along, and God simply removed His protecting hand. Indeed, He did so in order to make evident to them that the *was* danger, and that He had been protecting them from that danger. He could hardly have done so if He Himself were causing the danger.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Tom
That is, both you and I agree that inspiration says regarding the same event that God is send to have permitted the act, and to have caused the act.

NJK:Again I do not see EGW’s use of “permit” to be “loaded” to mean God is no longer involved.


God was involved. His involvement consisted of His removing His protecting hand, subjecting the Israelites to the danger He had been protecting them from.

Quote:
NJK: And, by the way, I only view EGW as having made an “inspired” comment so far as it agrees with or can be reconciled with what the Bible says.


If she was inspired by the Holy Spirit, how do see her writing things contrary to the Bible? Would the Holy Spirit inspire one write to write things contradictory to that of another writer He had inspired? A house divided against itself cannot stand.

Quote:
NJK:That is why I don’t see her view on the hardening of Pharaoh heart as being a ‘statement by commission’ as it does not agree with what the Bible exegetically says.


There are many scholars who disagree with you on this point. Indeed, only Calvinists, as far as I'm aware of, take this point of view. I believe the critical commentaries take the viewpoint that God strengthened Pharaoh to do what was already in his heart, and that's how to reconcile the 6 statements (as I recall, there are 6) that God hardened Pharaoh's heart with the 6 statements that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. This point of view has the added benefit of not making one inspired writer contradict another.

Quote:
NJK:That is a substantially occurring deficiency in the writing of EGW.


What is? What's a "statement of commission"?

You've said several times that you view "I was shown" statements differently than other statements. Do you have this in mind here? Do you recognize that your view her regarding her writings differs from her own?

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Tom
The difference between our views is that you view God's intent to be that the act occur, even when the "permit" language is used.


NJK:Not actually. Intent is secondary to whether God does the act or not. My view is even when He permits something to occur, He sometimes needs to actively act to bring it about.


This is self-contradictory. Your example doesn't fit. A parent taking a child to an event he is permitting to the child to go to isn't comparable to God's permitting a disaster to occur that He Himself is causing.

These are two contrasting concepts her. If God permits the disaster to occur, He is not causing it to occur.

Quote:
Just like a father permit his teenager to go to a school activity after much plea may require him having to drive him/her to the location of the event, particular in a last minute decision when taking public transportation will cause the teenager to be late. So e.g., God’s permitting something adverse to occur to Israel as a rectifying lesson (thus mercy is involved) may require Him to take full control of what is to transpire out of various GC realities, including the absence of no natural/organic consequence. Thus with the fiery serpents, these had to be attracted to, and then feel threatened by, the people for this permitted calamity to timely and strikingly forcely come to pass so that Israel can learn its key lesson.


Israel could not learn the lesson that God had been protecting them from dangers if they weren't in danger.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Tom
But my claim was simply that inspiration often presents God as doing that which He permits, which you are agreeing to, so that's hardly "debunking" the claim.

NJK:It is because you have not been taking my arguments into full consideration and weight, if you are even reading them, that you think that we have the same view here in regards to ‘God permitting something.’


You just said that there was a natural disaster which Satan wasn't involved in which God permitted to occur. That's an example of 'God permitting something.'

Quote:
NJK:As I understand it, you then see God as completely non-involved in such claimed cases. I do not at all. See all of my prior views on this which indeed differentiatigly debunk your view of things here.


I've said that God doesn't cause these things, not that He is not involved (if "involved" means anything different than "caused.")

Quote:
Quote:
NJK: Address those standing points that render you view spurious and worthless. You seem to be going by the tenet that ‘your view is to be correct no matter what the facts and arguments against it are.’ And just bringing up new (yet thus far still spurious) claims is not an answer against distinct prior one. Those trees are still felled and your initial forest is not as dense as when you first presented it, if in existence now at all.

Tom: This whole thing here is totally unresponsive. What I said was this:

Originally Posted By: Tom
Value comes from a discourse like this when each party can correctly represent the view of the other. If you correctly represent my view, and offer arguments against that view, I can strengthen my view in meeting the arguments, or adjust the view, or disregard it, in response to counter arguments. But you if misrepresent my view, then there's no value in your arguments, since they aren't hitting anything I'm saying.


Tom: So what's being pointed out is the importance of being able to represent my view in a way I can agree to. You're not addressing this point.


[Because you incorrectly link your post reply here (responding to yourself) I had to waste time just to retrace exactly where you were quoting from. If you had been doing this properly from the beginning you would find that retracing your steps to find the comments of mine that you omitted would be just a matter of a few clicks.]

In regards to your restated comment here, my answer is still the same:

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
So if you really think I am misrepresenting your view then correct my supposed “misrepresentation” rather than merely repeating what you had said and which was already debunked....


You are only not seeing ‘no relevance to your points’ because you are outrightly ignoring my points. I am correcting what you had said. If you don’t think that is a valid correction then point out with, engaging the specific arguments made, rather than just repeating your prior point. And, as I said, truth is not limited to what you can or want to understand. You need to get up to speed on particularly proper exegesis.

The rest of my statement was, as I apparently need to spell this out for you, in regards to how you just ignore my points which counter your view. I am not responsible for your mistakes. Apparently you believe that when your view hits a wall, it is my fault. As if your view is not suppose to be wrong. That makes no sense to me and indeed is just stubborn bias. There no ‘discourse value’ in this mentality. Just defend your view however you think it is and you do the work needed to substantiate and present it. I’ll keep on stating why I agree or do not agree with it and you’ll make the necessary adjustments and better restate it if still applicable/valid.


You still aren't responding to the point, which has to do with the importance of being able to represent the view of another in such a way that that person would agree with that representation.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Tom
I've asked you to present a summary of my view that I would agree to, and so far, you haven't done so.

Please do so.

NJK:I don’t see how that would change anything but just reset this discussion thus forcing me to have to remake the same arguments again.


You've never done so. That is, you've never presented my view in a way that I would agree to. So I'm not asking you to repeat anything, but to do something you haven't done.

Please stated what you think my view is in a way that I would agree with it.

Quote:
So I won’t do so.


You're "so" here doesn't apply, since you've not done what I've asked, so you wouldn't be repeating anything. So please do so.

Quote:
NJK:You nonetheless still need to respond to all of my point which show how and why your view or methodology is deficient, improper and/or wrong. So focus on addressing those standing point if you want this discussion to constructively go on, if at all.


If you can't represent my view in a way that I agree with, then I simply don't agree with your presuppositions regarding my view, so there's nothing for me to respond to.

I've been suggesting ways to make the discussion easier to pursue. If you present something organized, that's much easier to respond to. I don't have time to go hunting all over the place to look for things to respond to.

My goal here is not to convince you of anything. You have shown no indication of being capable of changing your mind regarding anything we are talking about. My goal is to try to understand your thinking. This is why I'm asking you to present things in an organized fashion, and in terms of principles.

If you are unable to do so, that helps me indirectly understand your thought process.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 06/02/11 09:17 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
One statement of EGW does not establish a theology and indeed sometimes it may only be an incomplete/partial expression of her understanding of that issue. Given what EGW says elsewhere about ‘God and/or His angel doing acts of destruction’ a theology cannot be made upon on Statement in regards to tithing. Indeed God action in the flood is the perfect example. That is not proper exegesis of the SOP. That is why I made a more general statement on this with a large GC view in mind rather than limiting my understanding to one quote.


It's not just one quote, but a whole bunch of quotes.

There's a mind-set involved. One can guess what she's going to say about a subject without having read it. For example, I knew she would disagree with your idea regarding Saul's death, before I looked it up. She points out that Satan drove Saul to despair, not God. Of course! That reflects Satan's character, not God's.

So I agree with your contention that a large view of the GC must be kept in mind, but we have very different ideas as to what that entails. I believe it entails the following:

Quote:
In heaven itself this law was broken. Sin originated in self-seeking. Lucifer, the covering cherub, desired to be first in heaven. He sought to gain control of heavenly beings, to draw them away from their Creator, and to win their homage to himself. Therefore he misrepresented God, 22attributing to Him the desire for self-exaltation. With his own evil characteristics he sought to invest the loving Creator. Thus he deceived angels. Thus he deceived men. (DA 21)


The GC is about undoing this.

Quote:
NJK:Nonetheless, I see here that she is speaking of not necessarily judgement actions, but just day to day circumstances where God has to daily act to prevent natural calamities. The GC rules probably limit Him to only certain preventions and when His people are not faithful in tithing, He then has no justification for extraordinarily acting to protect them against an approaching calamity.


She says, "Satan is the destroyer" in the quote. That's part of the context. Also, a day to day circumstance that involves one of the thousand dangers from which God constantly protects us becomes a judgment as soon as God ceases protecting us from it. For example, the Israelites were constantly subject to danger, and as soon as God removed His protecting hand, that became a judgment.

Regarding the rest of the post, thanks for the clarifications. I just have a question regarding this phrase:

Quote:
those who act wisely enough to fearfully perceive His gracious warnings here.


What do you mean by "fearfully?" That is, what should be being feared?
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 06/02/11 06:20 PM

Quote:
Tom: Addressing your points.

I. What I wrote in terms of my rewording of her statement is a straw man.

Here's what I wrote:

Quote:
We are to observe carefully every lesson which deals with suffering (but not lessons which don't deal with suffering; only lessons dealing with suffering should be considered), Christ has given us throughout His life and teaching;He does not destroy. He improves whatever He touches.


In what way does this not accurately represent your thought?

You make the argument that her statement is in the context of suffering, which is fine, but I made the point this doesn't change the truth of her assertions, which are:

1.Christ does not destroy.
2.He improves everything He touches.

We are to observe all His lessons throughout His life and teachings to learn these two things. Then we apply these two things to the subject of the suffering of the righteous. That's what she's doing.

Your thought seems to be that these two statements were intended to apply *only* in the case of sufferings, which is what my rewording of her statement is doing.

So again I ask, how is this not accurately reflecting your thought?


My answer was/is, I do not see the need to reword that sentence to emphasize that distinction because I see that it is already understood/implied in the overall immediate context and in EGW Theological understanding of this topic. This rewording may help you, but I don’t see it as necessary as being redundant.

Quote:
NJK: I myself never saw a need to pointedly make “Christ’s lessons” be limited to only sufferings. I rather see that they include reasons in regards to suffering, but are not limited to only those. Other things that ‘Christ touched to improve’ did not need to go through suffering, as seen in many miracles. However in the applicable episode with Peter’s and the disciple’s testing, they were permitted to suffer in order to come out as better Apostles on the other end. (Luke 22:31, 32) Apparently Satan asked Jesus Himself to so touch the disciples. Another example of this is Lazarus who was permitted to die by Christ for the glory of God and also Lazarus’s healing and resurrection.

Tom: The context of the rewording was contrasting sufferings to judgments. So the reworded statement:

Quote:
We are to observe carefully every lesson which deals with suffering (but not lessons which don't deal with suffering[i.e. judgments]; only lessons dealing with suffering should be considered[not judgments]), Christ has given us throughout His life and teaching;He does not destroy. He improves whatever He touches.


Tom: is dealing with sufferings, as opposed to judgments. You don't agree with the points that "He does not destroy. He improves whatever He touches." as, in general, true, from what you've said.


If this is what you need to understand the distinction then great for you. I don’t see the need to do so. It’s already present in the context.

Quote:
T:II.You made the same point in regards to this rewording:

Quote:
Sickness, suffering, and death are the work of an antagonistic power (sometimes, when sufferings are the issue; but not judgments). Satan is the destroyer (sometimes; other times it's God); God is the restorer(sometimes; when He's not the destroyer).


Tom: This is, this point:

NJK: That “point premise” again is just your “straw man” and circular view. You’re really just arguing with yourself.

Tom: But the rest of what you wrote looks to be once again justifying this rewording. This is, it accurately reflects your thought, as far as I can tell. You say that you disagree with the rewording, but the rest of your post agrees with the points of the rewording. So I ask the same question in regards to this rewording as to the other one, which is in what way is it not accurately reflecting your thought?

NJK: Because the condition of “sometimes” is moot to me here as this “Sickness, suffering and death” are only applying in context to non-judgements.

Tom: Which agrees with what I said. That is, you believe:

Quote:
Sickness, suffering, and death are the work of an antagonistic power (sometimes, when sufferings are the issue; but not judgments). Satan is the destroyer (sometimes; other times it's God); God is the restorer(sometimes; when He's not the destroyer).


Tom: If the word "sometimes" is not necessary, it's not inaccurate, given your point of view. That is, the reworded statement is correctly reflecting your point of view.


It’s already defined from the context. You are understanding this to refer to all “Sickness, suffering, and death” that is why you need to make that explicit distinction. To me it is just overstating the already understood.

Quote:
NJK: The Bible is clear that God uses sickness, suffering and death in judgements, so I defaultly saw that there was no need to make the distinction here as I see that it is naturally understood to not include acts of judgements.

Tom: This is circular reasoning, but, regardless,


Only when, as you are doing, exegesis and plain statements are ignored or eisegetically rendered void of any actual precise meaning. In that case you can have a perfect fictional world/GC where God never has to do any acts of judgement.

Originally Posted By: Tom
doesn't counter the point that the above reworded statement accurately reflects your view.


Again its not something that needs to be stated. The context is already defining what is to be understood by the mention of these actions. It is because you are not seeing that wider context that you need to insert those aiding qualifiers.

Originally Posted By: Tom
You don't believe that sickness, suffering, and death are necessarily the work of an antagonistic power. Sometimes they are, and sometimes they aren't.


Only in cases of non-judgement. Thus in normal day-to-day life. Then they are either natural or Satan inflicted, and either way they are the work of Satan. It is indeed because no judgement was involved in Job’s case that God had to let Satan himself act against him.

Quote:
NJK: It is as mootly useless as trying to justify the ways in which Law Enforcement and the Judicial Systems in western societies normatively enforce and preserve Law and Order. Your description is only applicable to Criminals.

Tom: What description?


That is, your added statements trying to make a distinction between what God doesn’t do in cases of non-judgement and what Satan instead does, or can do.

Quote:
NJK: Lumping God’s actions as these acts of (non-judgement) sickness, suffering and death is innate wrong to me as His actions are always non-arbitrary and Just, eventhough they involve applicable force. God cannot be labelled as a “Destroyer” as He is acting out of Justice. Just like a policeman is not a felon, or a murderer even when he may have (justly) been speeding and crossing red lights, or killed someone in the line of duty.

Tom: This seems to have nothing to do with the fact that the reworded statement accurately reflects your view.


It is just a crutch for you. I don’t see a need for it.

Quote:
NJK: So in both cases, I had not seen a need, in any way, to make your textual amendments.

Tom: I'm clarifying your thought. When I read that sickness, suffering and death are the work of an antagonistic power, I read this as saying these things are the product of Satan. You read this as saying something else, which the reworded statement explains.


The context already is defining/specifying this distinction.

Quote:
NJK: I indeed saw that those distinctions were contextually/theologically understood. There was therefore no need to so restate if for those statements. You, viewing things from your point of view, of course only saw the contrary and this need to explicitly differentiate.

Tom: The statement says one thing, which you understand as another, which the reworded statement makes clear.


If you also naturally keep EGW’s other pertinent statements on this issue which clear say and show that God does destructions instead of ignoring them, then you won’t be misconstruing this statement to be a blanket statement against all adverse actions, but will defaulty see that she is understanding a distinct category of non-judgements. Since I had that responsible exegetical approach I did not come to this isolative conclusion here.

Quote:
T:So your argument is as follows:

1.Sin (at least some sins) does not naturally have negative consequences.
2.There are imposed negative consequences in the final judgment.
3.God imposes negative consequence in the here and now so that people will wake up to the fact that there are imposed negative consequences in the hereafter.

My argument is as follows:

1.All sin has negative consequences.
2.Therefore it is not necessary for God to impose any negative consequences to sin, but simply reveal what the negative consequences are.


I did/do not say that sins do not have negative consequences. They do, just not naturally life taking ones. And the Tree of Life can override most of those sins. So a “good sinner” can indeed live eternally whereas a physically detrimental sinner can e.g., overdose on drugs and die.

You can only make these claims by misunderstanding or ignoring clear statements and actions in the Bible such as the fact that God said sinners can live “eternally” with the Tree of life, as EGW also understood; the fact that only some sins were to be capitally punished and when they were done, those sinners went on living; God has to take actions to effectuate some judgements as the fitting “organic” consequence may not be present at all or too remote to be timely, or even “too natural seeming” so that I won’t seem like a judgement of God and thus would not serve to warn unbelievers. The Red Sea destruction of Egypt is a perfect example.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I see the cross as essential to this last point. That is, the cross revealed, as nothing else, what the negative consequences of sin are.


The Cross revealed that the sinner living with the tree of life will die, even if a “good sinner” and also, to be saved at last and have access to that tree of life where they can ingest the ingredient that perpetuates their life, someone had to bear their sins and pay their penalty of death.

Originally Posted By: Tom
So if sin is innocuous, then your reasoning follows, but if it's not, then it doesn't.


That is what the Bible teaches in regards to a sinner being capable of living eternally and the SOP understood it. It is quite telling to me that you never address/addressed EGW’s statement in PP 60.3 as well as other SOP statements head on. Indeed that is your patent practice: “find an, especially SOP statement that seems to concretely confirm your view and hold it up at the forefront and then ignore anything else that speak against your view of it. That is not being exegtically responsible. I instead aim to harmonize “every word” that is said on the topic and that is how I arrive at my wider and “Biblical” view here.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Our disagreement, to a large extent, comes down to this point.


In regards to the Tree of Life and sinners, as pointed out before, you seem to be the only person from those who have posted in this thread, (though I am still not sure about kland), not to understand/accept the Biblical truth that a sinner can live eternally.

Quote:
NJK: The problem is that whenever this difference is brought up and discussed, you outrightly ignore or suddenly end discussing/responding to the latest points, even involving the Bible and SOP on key issues such as legislated and effectuated capital punishments, acts of judgement destruction done by God Himself, Divine Vengeance, the Tree of Life, etc. Your view needs to be “shielded”, from the clear statements made against it in the Bible and SOP, and that with a teflon-coated brick wall where nothing, however Biblical and factual they actually are, can neither stick or get through. This “stone-walling” to engaging all points is not conducive to a constructive and truth-arriving discussion. So if you really want to continue discussing these ‘fundamental’ discussion issues, then go back to where you stopped responding to my points and begin from their by answering those points.

Tom: This isn't responsive to my point.


Well let’s see what happens from what I’ve answered above. And for someone who just patently ignores what you cannot answer, you really are “shamelessly prideful” to want me to respond head on to what you post. Why do you be responsive to the many comments of my that you have just ignored. Like most people with your Mr. Nice Guy facade, you think that ignoring something justifies your non-action. As long as your conscience is clear and that is to be done by ignoring anything that would call you to responsibility. (That is indeed patently how/the same mentality/rationalizing of e.g., those who have the means to make a difference in the world justify not doing anything. Out of sight out of mind and thus out of responsibility.)

Originally Posted By: Tom
I listed what our arguments are, and the differences between our points of view. If you agree with how I have characterized our differences is the question being raised here.


And my point was you are only still holding on to your view by being stubbornly selective in what you will allow to contribute to your theology. And as seen in what you have chosen to respond in those past threads, you don’t admit/recognize your pointed out and debunked errors, but just continue on with your belief that your view is perfect despite all of those pointed out non-biblical imperfections as if your view is to be true even when it does not have any proof or the proofs you have claimed actually don’t support. It is to be true no matter what.

Quote:
Here are some examples:

Originally Posted By: SOP RH December 8, 1896, par. 12
God’s money is needed. It is hoarded and buried in the world, while multitudes are starving for temporal food and spiritual knowledge. It is spent in foolish amusements, in dissipating games and sports and idolatrous practises. God says, “Shall I not visit for these things?” Already he is sending his judgments upon the earth. Terrible plagues are visiting our world, in famines, in floods, in calamities by sea and land, in earthquakes in divers places. And because of men’s wickedness the Lord does not restrain the destroying power.


NJK: In a sequitur way, the ‘non-restraining of the destroyer’, with is “And because...” opening, seems to be in addition to the effectuation of the prior “Divinely-sent plagues”, and that for plausibly added wickedness than the previously listed acts of selfishness.

Tom: That doesn't work. She would have had to have written, "And because of men’s wickedness the Lord also does not restrain the destroying power." The "and" here is simply a conjunction.


Along the same lines of my prior observation, and to confirm what I had already stated, I see that the first mentioned ones are all direct/active “judgements” of God, just as the Plagues of Egypt. And the added ones involving the “destroying power” can actually be “destroying angels” of God, as it was in Egypt, and will be during the last plagues. Nonetheless, though only at an ultimate, no more mercy, end, Satan can have a part in this destruction.

Quote:
NJK: Interestingly enough this resembles, if not is in the template of: the first 6 Last Plagues being at God’s doing, through His Angels, with the 7th involving the unrestrained destroying power of, presumably, but not necessarily, here, Satan.

NJK: Indeed the destroying power could be the judgement destroying power that God Himself can wield. These destructions can easily be made to occur by not tempering or quenching a naturally formed disaster which does not have to be pointed created/done by Satan.

Tom: Not quenching a naturally formed disaster is fine.


What is this “is fine” suppose to mean/imply??? Is my only purpose/worthwhileness to reconcile myself to your view???

Originally Posted By: Tom
This fits the principle of the Lord's being described as doing that which He permits.


Only for your view/understanding. I see the “doing” as completely distinct from “permitting” in that God can take concrete action to Himself “do” what He is permitting. What I went on to state as an example above is only one side of the “permitting” coin, the passive judgement side, with the other “doing” one being the actively self-done permitted judgement.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Regarding the 7th plague, you're saying here you're not sure if this is Satan or not?


Perhaps it is but only from the point where God’s angel has apparently “seeded” chaos in nature by throwing his bowl of Plagues in the air (Rev 16:17a). Satan will apparently then will be unrestrained to make use of that natural instability as he pleases and with him knowing then that all is lost and the end of his war is near, he will surely engage in these acts of sabotage and destruction on those who had actually been doing his will. His purpose here is also to hardened people in rebellion against God and also since the whole world will be “Christian”, at least nominally, to escape the Mark of the Beast consequences, then this will serve to make most of these people who had perhaps somewhat genuinely thought to be followers of God, here knowingly turn against God, even not repenting of their wrong course at all. So Satan does have personal interest to do this, back to the wall, end of the line 7th plague judgement, whereas in the previous six he really did not.

Quote:
T:(quoting EGW)[W]e remembered that we were living in a time similar to the time preceding the judgments which fell upon the old world. The Spirit of God is now withdrawing from the people of the earth. Men, wrapped up in prosperity, seeking and getting gain, have placed their affections upon earthly things. Few have recognized the long-suffering mercy of God. Few have realized or acknowledged his protecting care. Few have appreciated his goodness and love, although he has kept them from dire disaster and death. As in the days that were before the flood, there has been a strange forgetfulness of God.

NJK: God’s withdrawing His Spirit from people is not what causes disasters which God had been protecting them of.

Tom: That this is the case looks to be the intent of the quote. "Few have appreciated his goodness and love, although he has kept them from dire disaster and death."


I rather see that this Spirit withdrawal, which EGW understands as the releasing of the Four winds of human passion, will lead men to act even more wickedly, not have a voice to suggest/impress them to do better and that they can heed. And by this added, free will blatant wickedness there will then be actionable reasons to inflict various judgements on them.

“Dire disaster and death” are extreme conditions and as I see it, ones that can also be done by actions of either God in direct judgement or Satan in permitted judgement. And by God allowing for these dire conditions to take place, as I see it, that at the very least makes it a passive judgement of God. Only when it is Satan who is directly doing this is it not an action of God in any form.

Quote:
NJK: Again these could be normally forming disasters, (e.g., unsteady fault lines, formed hurricanes, Tornado producing weather conditions, belching or active volcanoes, gathering abundant rain cloud capable of causing floods, etcs). All are natural formations that God may indeed be, unseenly working to variously disrupt and prematurely end. So by Him instead allowing them to fully follow their development and/or destruction course He Himself would be effectively sending these destructions.

Tom: This is fine.


Again what’s with the condescending “is fine” remark. Am I in your classroom and you are grading my work????

Originally Posted By: Tom
This would again be God's being presented as doing that which He permits.


Not as I understand the still present actions here and term distinctions involved here. “Permitting” is not synonymous with “doing”. The first just leads to the second which still requires action as exegtically indicated/specified in the Bible. Again, I do not see EGW’s “permitting” comments as precluding direct actions of God to effectuate what he is allowing/permitting to occur.

Quote:
NJK: Satan really is not actively involved here, even if those adverse elements are ultimately all the result of the sin he had authored.

Tom: Either way, the principle would apply.


Not as you understand it. God would then be acting passively, yet He would still be “acting” to do what He is permitting. Just like letting go a rope that someone is hiking a cliff with.

Quote:
NJK:Interestingly enough, as in the case of e.g, the Flood and S&G, as well as other acts of judgements by God, He needs something more potent and timely to effectuate “undelayed and striking Justice” and so much develop His weapons of destruction himself.

Tom: These could be the same principle as well. Indeed, considering the Flood, given the description of the event, God must have been preventing the waters beneath the earth from exploding into the atmosphere until all the animals and people had entered the ark.


I have already addressed your belief here. You just have not responded to my statements then and as usual, just, indifferently for spurious reasons of guiltless obliviousness, make the same “Level 1” argument again!??!

Quote:
Tom (quoting EGW):By their transgression of God's law the people of Judah had forfeited His protection...By their apostasy and rebellion they were inviting the judgments of God.

NJK: In this case, their was indeed an organic threat in the Assyrians present to do the destruction. Though, as I had said, God can also stir up/summons a foreign power to do this work of destruction when it is not “organically” intending/desiring to.

Tom: This highlights what I've stated as the fundamental difference in our points of view. You view God as capable of acting in such a manner, whereas I see no hint of this capability in Christ's revelation of God's character.


Because you are misunderstanding and misapply what EGW said in this regard. And when you ignore exegesis as you do and also claim that either God did not or could not accurately reveal things, apparently due to a claimed ‘language barrier’ (as if God could not add the explanatory details to make His point of how these things occurred clear), or claim that Bible writer miswrote what God had perfectly revealed, or spuriously claim that people were misreading what was written as if they did not understand their own language and we still exegetically do not (or what ever your latest backpedalling ‘explanatory/correcting’ supposition spuriously is), then it is obliviously easy to make and maintain this vacuous and selective claim.

Originally Posted By: Tom
You recognize that there is a potential organic relationship between the removal of God's protection and the destructive power of an invading foreign power, but postulate that God could spur them on in their destructive action.


That is not what I said nor meant. I had instead said and meant that Assyria was an organic threat and even if God was protecting Israel they could still come up against Israel in war, as many nations did. The only difference was that God would protect Israel in that war. His removal of his protection is not what made Assyria come to fight Israel. It is just what would allow Assyria to win if they ever chose to fight. And my added observation was that if those foreign powers did not have any plans or desire to ever come against Israel in war, than as stated in e.g., Isa 13:17 (cf. 46:11a) then God could “stir/summon” then to do so, as it was done with Babylon, as already documented.

Quote:
NJK: Furthermore the ‘forfeiting of God’s protection here’ straightforwardly entails that ‘in the event of an attack by Assyria, God then could not protect Judah.’ God ‘forfeiture’ did not result in the Assyrians being drawn to fight Judah. It just assured their victory in the case that such a war took place.

Tom: This is the whole point. God was protecting them. They caused God to remove their protection, and then disaster came, the same as with the destruction of Jerusalem.


Already explained above and as Jesus understood and said in regards to Jerusalem in Matt 22:7, it was God who would draw the Romans against Jerusalem. Indeed as seen by Titus, the Roman had no intentions at all to war against them. If that was the case they would have waged unrelenting war from the start. They were only hoping to have Jerusalem reason themselves to compliance but God apparently made them take an army along instead of mere diplomatic envoys.

Quote:
T: The context changes nothing. The principle is exactly as one would expect it to be, just by reading the sentence.

NJK: As I have said before, and indeed in the case of this point, it is not the point/principle itself that has a problem, but how you understand them and/or what you think applies to it. In this case here you won’t include the fact e.g., that Jesus did not do away with capital punishment, despite a perfect chance to do so, also spoke of Divine Vengeance, and did not do some things, such as Hell Fire destruction, only because that was not in His mandate, though He both amply and most descriptively spoke about it and also justly greatly wanted to bring it about (Luke 12:49, 50). So the issue is not with the principle themselves but squarely with your understanding of them and the selective and artificial parameters/limitations that you impose on them.

Tom: The statement tells us that all that man can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son. This means that it is not necessary to go outside of Christ to obtain a perfect revelation of the Father.


This “revelation” is not only limited to actions but also involves the Truth and Teachings (cf. John 16:12-15). And without the added revelations of God through e.g., Paul and later John the Revelator, there quite easily would be no Christian Church today. So it is not only imperative to go outside of the ‘Gospels’ for the full revelation but also in the OT. And in regards to the OT, Jesus upheld what God had revealed there and did not change anything at all nor did he imply that what was said was mistaken in any way, whether as you suggest, from God or from Bible writers.

Originally Posted By: Tom
That's simple logic. There is nothing unsound in applying the principle in this manner.


You view/understanding of what was said is what is at fault here, which is ‘the OT cannot be understood as it straightforwardly/exegetical reads’ (i.e., in the Hebrew).

Quote:
NJK: I have already copiously dealt with your view of the principles you list. But as stated in this post, whenever the discussion reaches a point where you do not have an answer to my points, you just ignore them and/or isolatively deal with another topic, if not raise a side issue and never return to the prior topic. Yet you continue to maintain that your view is perfect. In this way, how can you but continue to see this. Indeed this present topic is another instance of this topic shifting, with many other posts and prior points left completely unanswered by you. Non-“insultingly” speaking, as usual from me, this is like ‘“clinical” discussion ADHD.’

Tom: I'm just going to comment on one thing here, and that's the following:

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Yet you continue to maintain that your view is perfect.


Tom: I've made no such claim, and that you have such an idea is evidence that you're not paying attention very well to what I've been writing.

Quote:
We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and Heaven alone are infallible. Those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed. As long as we hold to our own ideas and opinions with determined persistency, we cannot have the unity for which Christ prayed. {CET 203.2}


Tom: I've quoted this several times.

Tom: My view of things has been evolving since I became a Christian. I have no reason to think that it wouldn't continue to do so. Indeed, I've also said repeatedly that Jesus Christ is constantly challenging our paradigm, and that God is infinite, and that our understanding of His character is imperfect. Only Jesus Christ have a view that is perfect. Our goal should be to have a view which is harmony with his.


Your actions and non-actions speak much more loudly than your words and professions. You clearly are ignoring whatever debunks your view so that you can continue to uphold it as the Truth. Thus and only in this oblivious way do you effectively “continue to maintain that your view is perfect”. And of course, you’ll never explicitly say this. And not “saying” this means to you that whatever you do then must not imply/involve this.

Originally Posted By: Tom
You're the one who appears to think he has an infallible view.


That transparently does not “appear” so to me given the various corrections I made in just this thread of my prior views, let alone other thread.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I readily admit that there are flaws to my way of thinking.


Another example where you think that ‘just saying something must mean that this is what you are doing’. The record of this forum is clear that you always ignore things that have incontrovertibly debunk a prior point of yours and many times just bring up that initial point again later.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Do you admit the same?


Not in this superficial facade way of yours. I tangibly do so in my response to valid corrective points. You just completely ignore them and worse just restate that debunked point again later.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I'm simply sharing how I understand things, what I believe to be true, and why. I've been willing to change my view in the past, and have done so, and am still willing to do so, given the presentation of evidence which makes sense to me.


When one ignores the pertinent and applicable underlying exegetical facts and evidence (indeed exegesis as a whole) on/for an issue that determine what the proper understanding is, it is easy to continue to believe that an opposing view does not make sense.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 06/02/11 08:30 PM

Tom, please respond to 133773 and 774. Thank you.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 06/03/11 01:40 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
T: You wrote as if God were responsible for the things you were speaking of. I addressed that by pointing out that it would be a huge mistake to view God as responsible, and cited texts to explain why.

M: Of course Jesus was responsible for ensuring evil angels did not exceed the limits He imposed on them. That is, Jesus did not let them cause more death and destruction than He was willing to permit. Do you agree?

T: What would a disagreement to this look like? That Jesus let them cause more death and destruction than He was willing to permit? This is a question to you, asking for clarification. Actually two questions.

M:Why disagree with it? Just say, Yes, of course, I agree.

T: It looks like a tautology.

M:Jesus was responsible for ensuring evil angels did not exceed the limits He imposed on them, that is, He did not let them cause more death and destruction than He was willing to permit.

T: The second part here looks like a tautology. The first part seems somewhat poorly phrased, perhaps giving the impression that the evil angels were fulfilling Christ's will, as opposed to acting contrary to His will. I would want to make clear that the evil angels are acting contrary to Christ's will.

Tautology defined means “needless repetition of an idea, statement, or word.” Isn’t it obvious we need to avoid taking anything for granted, that stating the obvious is often needed? We can’t be too careful can we? When impenitent sinners cross the line they forfeit Jesus’ protection and He gives evil angels permission to cause death and destruction within the limits He Himself establishes and enforces. The resulting death and destruction does not violate Jesus’ will. You seem to think it does. I disagree.

Quote:
M: Do you agree Jesus worked to prevent evil men and evil angels from inflicting more death and destruction than He was willing to permit?

T: I believe that Jesus worked to prevent evil men and evil angels from inflicting death and destruction in general. I don't know what you would want me to elaborate on here. I don't see what you wouldn't be understanding here.

M:Your response seems to imply you believe Jesus works to prevent them from causing any and all forms of death and destruction.

T: Yes, this is what Jesus does by default.

M:If so, did He fail? That is, did He fail at preventing them and it accounts for why they caused so much death and destruction? If so, why wasn’t Jesus successful?

T: Well, let's look at what we've been told: “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. (GC 35) This seems clear. The Jews "cause the protection of God to be withdrawn from them."

I don’t see how the passage you quoted above address my concern and question. It sounded as though you said Jesus works to prevent evil angels from causing death and destruction. Now it sounds like you’re saying, no, Jesus doesn’t always do that, sometimes He lets it happen. Please explain.

Quote:
M: Or, do you think evil men and evil angels willingly restrained themselves in order not to displease God and exceed Jesus’ limits?

T: This can't be a serious question. This seems self-explanatory. What sense would it make for an evil person to restrain themselves in order not to displease God? Doesn't being evil presuppose that one is displeasing God? Why would you think a question like this makes sense? Better yet, why would you ask such a question? What were you thinking when you asked it? If you write out what you were thinking, perhaps we could discuss that, as what you were thinking probably makes some sense.

M:Do you believe Jesus worked to prevent them from exceeding His limits because otherwise they would?

T: What limits are you talking about? Is this something specific, or a general question?

We are discussing the death and destruction of Jews and Jerusalem in 70 AD. Do you think evil men and evil angels exercised self-control so as not to exceed the limits Jesus imposed on them? Or, did Jesus have to work to ensure they didn’t exceed His limits?

Quote:
M: Also, did evil men and evil angels do anything Jesus' wasn't willing to permit?

T: I don't see the sense in this one either. God is omnipotent, right? So anything that happens can only happen if He permits it to happen, isn't that right? This seems self-explanatory too. I don't see how you could not understand what I'm saying here.

M:Why didn’t they exceed the limits Jesus imposed on them?

T: What limits are you talking about? The general concept is simple. God is constantly protecting us (and not just us, but the wicked as well) from a thousand dangers, all of them unseen. God can be caused to remove His protection. When this happens, bad things may happen (although it's also possible Satan may favor certain ones for his purposes).

You and I both believe Jesus never fully withdraws His protection. He establishes and enforces limits, perimeters within which He permits evil men and evil angels to work. In the case of Jews and Jerusalem in 70 AD the limits Jesus imposed prohibited them from causing more death and destruction than what we read about. It’s unlikely they caused less death and destruction than what Jesus was willing to permit. The point is it was Jesus, not evil men or evil angels, who determined how much death and destruction counted as just and righteous punishment.

Quote:
M: Did Jesus force evil men and evil angels to inflict the death and destruction He deemed right and necessary?

T: I don't see any sense in this question either. No, of course not, to answer the question. First of all, the exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government. Secondly, Jesus would hardly force people to do something contrary to the principles of his government, like inflicting death and destruction; that's Satan's job. Satan is the destroyer, Christ is the restorer. So your question is asking if Jesus would use a principle contrary to the principles of His government to bring about more consequences also contrary to the principles of His government.

M:What criteria did Jesus use to determine how and what punishment would be inflicted? Did the punishment He envisioned require the involvement of evil men and evil angels?

T: What makes you think He was doing this? I don't understand how you're thinking here. Here's how I'm thinking. God protects people. They cause Him to remove His protection. Bad things may happen as a result.

Yes, bad things happen when Jesus withdraws His protection. However, you seem to think it’s up to evil men and evil angels to determine the extent of punishment. I disagree. It is entirely up to Jesus to determine the perimeters within which evil men and evil angels work to cause death and destruction. It is also entirely up to Jesus to ensure they do not exceed His limits.

Quote:
M: Were evil men and evil angels free to refuse to inflict the death and destruction Jesus deemed right and necessary?

T: I don't agree with your premise here. Jesus doesn't deem death and destruction as right and necessary, but as evil, which it is. This seems very clear to me. Your question has a premise, with which I disagree. I pointed out the premise in question, and why I disagree with it.

M:What motivated Jesus to withdraw His protection and permit evil men and evil angels to inflict the punishment He determined was appropriate and worked to ensure they did not exceed?

T: Same question as before. Why are you thinking that Jesus is determining punishment here, as opposed to that God was caused to remove His protection?

The two go hand-in-hand, that is, impenitent sinners forfeit His protection and Jesus works to ensure the resulting punishment does not exceed the limits He Himself establishes. At what point does Jesus withdraw His protection? What criteria does He use to determine the limits of punishment? How much is too much? And, are evil men and evil angels free to withhold causing death and destruction? Again, I’m referring to Jews and Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Quote:
M: Who would have inflicted the death and destruction Jesus deemed right and necessary if the Roman soldiers and evil angels had refused to do it?

T:Again, I disagree with the premise here. The premise is that you speak of "death and destruction" which "Jesus deemed right and necessary." I disagree with your premise that Jesus Christ was so deeming.

M:Who, then, if not Jesus, determined the limits of punishment to be inflicted on them?

T: This whole concept of "punishment to be inflicted on them" is foreign to what I'm seeing in the description of the destruction that took place to Jerusalem. In all of Jesus' ministry, not once did He attribute any evil which occurred as punishment being inflicted upon the suffering person. Not one time. In every instance, every one, He attributed their suffering to either sin or Satan. I share this way of thinking. As Jesus Christ did, I also attribute all suffering to the evil one, and the consequences of sin. “...all suffering results from transgression of God's law....suffering is inflicted by Satan (DA 471). “Sickness, suffering, and death are work of an antagonistic power. Satan is the destroyer; God is the restorer....When Christ healed disease, He warned many of the afflicted ones, "Sin no more, lets a worst thing come unto thee' John 5:14. Thus He taught that they had brought disease upon themselves by transgressing the laws of God, and that health could be preserved only by obedience (MH 113). “We are to observe carefully every lesson Christ has given us throughout His life and teaching; He does not destroy. He improves whatever He touches.” I'd like to discuss this last quote a bit, because I think it hits at a heart of the difference between how we view things. I see this last quote as a condensed explanation of the main issue involved in the Great Controversy. Here's the reality:

1.Christ (or God) does not destroy.
2.Christ (or God) improves whatever He touched.

Here is Satan's claim:

1.Christ (or God) does destroy.
2.Christ (or God) does not improve whatever He touches.

Note what we are exhorted to do: “We are to observe carefully every lesson Christ has given us throughout His life and teaching(1SM 118).” Why are we exhorted to do so? To learn that:

1.Christ (or God) does not destroy.
2.Christ (or God) improves whatever He touched.

How I see you to perceive things is that Christ (or God) does destroy, and we could not observe carefully every lesson Christ has given us throughout His life and teaching to see that He does not destroy, nor improves everything He touches, because that isn't the case. I'd like to bring into to attention that we are exhorted to "observe carefully *every lesson* Christ has given us throughout His life. Every lesson. Why every lesson? Because the whole purpose of His mission was the revelation of God. *Everything* He did was for this purpose, and so it follows that *every lesson* should be observed, to learn two things:

1.God does not destroy.
2.God improves everything He touches.

And this is wonderful and beautiful truth. When these truths dawn on our consciousness, it changes our whole paradigm! As Acts says, Christ went about doing good. This is how He revealed the Father. He improved everything He touched, thus revealing that God improves everything He touches. So all we need to is allow God to touch us, and He will improve us. Understanding that God improves everything He touches takes our fear away. We don't need to worry about what God will do to us if we don't do what He says, because God improves everything He touches; He does not destroy. Our fear should only be what will happen to us if we do not allow God to touch us. This is because we need improvement, and that is because of how Satan and sin have wrecked us.

Amen. Jesus does not destroy; He restores. The death and destruction of Jews and Jerusalem in 70 AD is an example of this truth. There was nothing arbitrary or random about the death and destruction they suffered. It was an act of punishment. Jesus visited vengeance and retribution upon them. He executed justice and vindicated the kingdom and character of God. He didn’t merely withdraw His protection and allow things to run its natural course as if sin metes out justice in defense of the honor and glory of God. "In the retribution inflicted upon the ungrateful husbandmen was portrayed the doom of those who should put Christ to death." {DA 596.3} Ellen wrote:

Quote:
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}

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}

The execution of justice and judgment is an act of punishment Jesus metes out in vengeance and retribution. “While He does not delight in vengeance, He will execute judgment upon the transgressors of His law.” “By terrible things in righteousness He will vindicate the authority of His downtrodden law.”

Quote:
There are those who will question God's love and His justice in visiting so severe punishment for words spoken in the heat of passion. But both love and justice require it to be shown that utterances prompted by malice against God are a great sin. The retribution visited upon the first offender would be a warning to others, that God's name is to be held in reverence. {PP 408.2}

We need just such lessons as the Bible gives us, for with the revelation of sin is recorded the retribution which follows. The sorrow and penitence of the guilty, and the wailing of the sin-sick soul, come to us from the past, telling us that man was then, as now, in need of the pardoning mercy of God. It teaches us that while He is a punisher of crime, He pities and forgives the repenting sinner. {4T 12.3}

Though the Lord in mercy withholds for a time the retribution of their sin, as in the days of Jeremiah, He will not always stay His hand, but will visit iniquity with righteous judgment. {4T 165.1}

The retribution to come upon Jerusalem could be delayed only a short time; and as Christ's eye rested upon the doomed city, he saw not merely its destruction, but the destruction of a world. He saw that as Jerusalem was given up to destruction, so the world will be given up to its doom. He saw the retribution that will be visited on the adversaries of God. The scenes that were transacted at the destruction of Jerusalem will be repeated at the great and terrible day of the Lord, but in a more fearful manner. {RH, December 7, 1897 par. 9}

While [Jesus] tells us of the love of God, he also pictures the awful scenes of the Judgment and the retribution that shall be visited upon the wicked. 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. {ST, March 24, 1881 par. 2}

You, on the other hand, seem to think Jesus accomplishes all these things by simply withdrawing His protection and allowing sin to run its course. Such an idea credits sin with vindicating the law and kingdom and character of God.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 06/03/11 08:59 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom
I've quoted this [CET 203.2] several times.


By the way, my records and a forum wide search has you quoting CET 203.2 only once in the past.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 06/03/11 09:10 AM


Quote:
NJK: My exegetical points against your view here still stand and this EGW notion of ‘permitting death’ is harmonized with the Bible’s account of how it transpired -by the direct action of God. God Himself acted to effectuate this permitting. For me the Bible always has the last word over EGW.

T:You write, "God Himself acted to effectuate this permitting." Of course God Himself acted to effectuate this permitting, since God was the one doing the permitting! How does this assertion help "debunk" the point that God is presented in Scripture as doing that which He permitted?

NJK: What I meant was: ‘God Himself acted to effectuate the judgement that He was allowing/permitting to occur’

Tom: Why is this an important point? How is this different than saying, for example, that the judgments occurred because God removed His protecting hand?


Because it ultimately depends on how exactly that judgement occurred. At times God needs to act to do that permitted judgements, as the Bible exegetical indicates, other times, when a present and organic/natural consequence if fully/fittingly there then the removal of his protective hand is enough to accomplish the task. No further/additional action is needed, unlike what the Bible exegetically indicates was for the fiery serpent.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Tom
Now if God had to act to cause the serpents to attack the Israelites, then it wouldn't be the case that they were really in any danger, and it wouldn't be the case that God was protecting the Israelites against danger. The only way that God's removing His protecting hand could bring to the Israelites' attention the protecting care of God would be if God were actually protecting them.

If God caused the serpents to act against the Israelites, then He wouldn't be removing His protecting hand, but using the serpents as an agent by which to accomplish an event which would not have occurred unless God took that course of action.

There are two different things being considered here:

1.God's removing His protecting hand from the countless dangers surrounding the Israelites, including the venomous serpents.

2.God causing the serpents to act in a certain way, which they otherwise would not have acted, to accomplish a purpose.

These two things aren't in harmony. If the serpents would not have attacked the Israelites had God not caused them to do so, then the Israelites were not understand any danger by the serpents, but only by God. God would have been simply removing His protecting hand against Himself in this case, as the serpents would merely be an agency of the danger that God Himself presented to the Israelites.


NJK: As stated before this all revolves around the natural tendencies of serpents. So as the Bible relates God acted to override this.

Tom: You mean because the Bible says God send fiery serpents upon the Israelites?


Correct. By the way EGW also quote the Bible’s “sent” statement in 1SP 314.2. If she saw it as incorrect she would have edited it, as she did for John 20:17, as she went on to make her “permitted” statement (1SP 315.1). So to me that indicates that she did not see what she was going to say as contradicting the Bible.

Originally Posted By: Tom
This means God acted to override the natural tendency of serpents? This certainly seems to be reading a lot into the text.


Its just what proper exegesis entails. Indeed it serves as an anchoring basis for looking into God’s other book, Nature, to get the fuller story.

Perhaps this semi-personal illustration will help. My parent live in a developing community in Florida where there are, if I recount exactly, 4 houses on their street section, but vacant lots for several others, perhaps up to 20. That is the same for many other street sections in that community. Because of this abundance of vacant “wild” surrounding lots, the constantly have an everpresent threat of encountering a snake. Earlier on they would encounter various snake in their yard, despite it being well-maintained at least once a week. Furthermore, they were more likely to encounter those snakes in the less frequented portions of the backyard than around their house or the front yard. And when they would go away for vacation, there immediate fear, and indeed the actual reality upon returning, was that they were going to encounter several snakes. However when they got a dog about 3 years in, this frequency has dropped to once every two. The natural fact of the matter is that the ever presence of the dog is causing most of these snakes to stay away, indeed literally beyond the delineating mesh fence surrounding their yard, in the bushy surrounding lots. Yet when they would go on vacation after having had the dog, but would send the dog then to another place until they got back, the yard would have several snakes present upon their return. So evidently those snake know that they are susceptible to being seen and killed by the dog, who indeed always makes a noticeable fuss, when he finds a snake and after killing it parades it around in his mouth and toys around with it, flipping it in the air until my parents eventually take and throw it away. So the fact that most snakes, even venomous ones seek to avoid open spaces where especially humans or other larger creatures are present is a concrete reality.

So as I have stated before, the Bible is exegetically specific that God had to act bring the snakes into the camp with“interest” and also that these serpents forcefully acted to bite the people. That points to both a drawing action and then an injected threatened feeling done by God.

Quote:
NJK: Still occasional bites could have occurred but God had shieldingly acted to prevent any serpent bites. Also to effectuate a striking and timely judgement, this forceful action would indeed have been needed.

NJK: So my understanding here involving, and in that order, the contributions of the Bible, SOP and nature: With simply a removal of this shielding. Some occasional bites would occur (e.g, 1-2 per day) with God’s added elements of feeling of threat: (100+ per day). All so that a timely and forceful judgement can be made, overriding what would lesserly, naturally occur.

Tom: This doesn't address the point made. According the SOP, God had protecting the people from constant dangers. God removed His protecting hand so that His protection could be seen. If God *caused* the dangerous event to happen, then the serpents weren't the danger; *God* was.


Yes it did. You are just limiting yourself to a narrow view here. I am saying that the removal of God’s protection would not have guaranteed the necessary elevated rate of bites to fittingly and timely effectuate this judgement. God’s protection was to assure 100% security. Without it, given the natural tendencies of most snakes, Israel would have been circa 98% secure. The snakes would mostly have stayed away. However God not only removed that protection, a part of this judgement that EGW sought to emphasize, but, as the Bible says, acted to heighten the danger so that Israel could strikingly see and realize that they could be susceptible to snake bites, even if it would be, under purely natural circumstances, 1-2 bites per day. God protection made sure it was always zero.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Here's what's written:

Originally Posted By: SOP
Shielded by divine power, they had not realized the countless dangers by which they were surrounded. In their unbelief they 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 their sting, it causing violent inflammation and speedy death. As the protecting hand of God was removed, great numbers of the people were attacked by these venomous creatures. {EP 301.1}


How do you get from this that God *caused* the attacks to occur? She writes:

Originally Posted By: SOP
As the protecting hand of God was removed, great numbers of the people were attacked by these venomous creatures.


She writes "the protecting hand of God was removed, great numbers of the people were attacked by these venomous creatures."


I do not limit myself to what EGW said and indeed see that she only presented part of the view. The Bible itself reveals God’s, not even “causing”, exegetically speaking, (=Hiphil) but “forcefully doing/making” (=Piel).

I find it quite comical for you to keep harping on how EGW should be taken word for word when you only do so when she seems to be agreeing with your view. Otherwise you just ignore her. Quite duplicitous.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 06/03/11 09:12 AM


Quote:
NJK: No. In the no mercy stage, as there was a present organic cause to effect agent, God was only acting to temper things so that things don’t blow over.

Tom: This is the same as the no mercy stage then, except that God was acting to temper things. God is not acting as a direct agent.


No it is not. In the no more mercy stage. God either lets a present/fitting/organic consequence fully have its way or lets Satan do the destructive act. Either way God is not at all involved their either limiting nature, man or Satan, whatever the destuctive actor is then.

In the mercy stage God is present to make these limitations, even when working through an agency which can include the restricted works of Satan.

Quote:
NJK: All the while mercy was variously being obtained by some Jews. Then as things obstinately further developed, God removed Himself and let Satan take over. That is indeed when Titus lost his temper, probably under Satan direct influence and order that the city and its remaining inhabitants be mercilessly dealt with.

NJK: All that I see God actively doing in regards to destruction in that first phase was, as Jesus had said in Matt 22:7 sent/draw the Romans, as He indeed can, especially to return under Titus after a brief hiatus.

Tom: So the Romans would not have wanted to tax the Jews, except for God's inducement? What exactly do you see God doing here?


As I had posted before, the historical fact is, as documented by Josephus, that the Romans first came simply because the Jews suddenly stopped receiving any gift or making sacrifices for any foreigner, which included Caesar. I see that God impressed the Romans to be greatly alarmed by this sudden shift and convince them to send a contingent under Cestus to Jerusalem. The Jews may not even have gone on to withhold their taxes, but the Romans were convinced that this was a most threatening gesture. So as with the fiery serpents, God may have injected this substantively “baseless” fear in the Romans. E.g. if a Church decides to remove their country’s flag from their platform, or stop accepting a government subsidy, that does not sequiturly necessarily mean that they are going to, where applicable, stop paying taxes.

Quote:
NJK: So in case where the destruction is organic, present and (fittingly) sufficient, God does not have to actively cause the destruction. Otherwise, for reason of necessary justice, he does.

Tom: But if there are a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, God *never* has to actively cause the destruction. It's always sufficient for God to simply remove His protecting hand.


I Biblically see that God making use of any of those dangers to effectuate a judgement is still an action of his. And it is not always the case that one of these dangers is sufficient for judgement. God indeed uses nature as an arsenal of weapons for destruction. So those thousands of unseen dangers are part of this, his arsenal. He is just also protecting His people from those very same judgement implements.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Do you see the destruction of Jerusalem as due to a direct decree on the part of God?


No. The unbelief of the Jews cause it to be decreed and thus fulfill Dan 9:27. As verse 26 had said: “the people [i.e., the unbelieving Jews] of the Prince who is to come [i.e., Jesus the Messiah] will cause [Hiphil] the city and the sanctuary to be destroyed.”

Originally Posted By: Tom
I noticed you mentioned Matthew as justification for the idea that God sent the Roman armies. What about Mark's account?

Originally Posted By: Mark 12:9-12
What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others. Haven't you read this scripture: 'The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes'? Then they looked for a way to arrest him because they knew he had spoken the parable against them. But they were afraid of the crowd; so they left him and went away." (Mark 12)


To be consistent, don't we need to say that God killed the Jews and gave their land to others?


I have absolutely no problem/qualm about allow the being so exegetically consistent, especially in regards to the Bible. You seem to be dismayed by having to face this incontrovertible, Biblical and Jesus Himself-spoken reality.

Originally Posted By: Tom
That is, if we're going to say that God "sent" the Romans because of Matthew, then, by the same token, we should say that God "killed" the Jews, because of Mark.


Exegetically speaking, and given the fact that Jesus probably spoke this in Aramaic, which is cognate to Hebrew, He probably used a Hiphil type of verb to indicate an indirect action by the land owner. That is a notion that does not always accurately translation from those Semitic languages to Greek. Nonetheless the logical context implies that the owner of the vineyard would have needed assistance to carry this out, indeed being greatly outnumbered, and that by already proven murders. And they knew that when they killed the owners son, they had passed a point of no more mercy. And since they wanted the vineyards as theirs (vs. 7) and knowing, given the laws of these probable Jewish characters, the owner, the next of kin to the son had legal right to kill them on site, that this owner was not coming to them in peace, they would have defaultly been on their guards against him and even preemptively acted offensively against him. So he more than likely knowingly did go to them alone but hired or rounded up amongst friends the necessary physical force to confront they resolute thieves and murderers. Indeed Jesus does not hint that ‘the owner decided to go to them and seek to reason with them.’ That is what intended to be done by the sending of the son. From the start, following the murder of his son, that owner only had (lawful) vengeance on his mind in going to them. And even despite the assistance, he likely would not have done the killings himself with all of the murders rounded up and held. These murders were probably armed and fought back from the start and so whoever confronted them had to kill them in justified self defence, indeed as in a kill or be killed “war” situation.

So Jesus’s statement was probably linguistically specific in including this “agency” notion in its original language. All of this can indeed easily be seen when proper exegetical method are involved which includes harmonizing different passages and also this Aramaic original language reality.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 06/03/11 09:16 AM

Quote:
T:Just to be clear here, you're saying that the "evil angels" of Psalm 78 were actually "holy angels," correct? (i.e., God's own angels).

NJK: As shown in my detailing, I said that ‘evil angels” was not a fitting translation and that these were indeed ‘destroying angels of God’ as functionally attested in the Bible and SOP.

Tom: It looks like the word is used over 200 times, and only once translated "destroying" by the NASB. Overwhelmingly the word is translated "evil."


That’s how they say it best fit in context. I prefer ‘angels of calamity”. Indeed in reading through the Theological Wordbook OT explanation, I perceive/deduce that the terms involves at its root some sort/form of “adversity.” Here are some translational usages in the NASB of related forms of this root.

#07451a - 228X - bad(23), bad*(2), badly(1), deadly(1), defamed*(1), defames*(1), defect*(1), destroying(1), displease*(1), displeased(1), displeasing(1), distressing(1), evil(124), evil man(3), evil men(4), evil things(4), evildoer(1), evildoers*(1), evils(1), great(1), grievous(4), harm*(1), harmful(3), man(1), miserable(1), misfortune*(1), sad(4), selfish*(1), serious(1), severe(2), sore(2), threats*(1), treacherous(1), trouble*(1), troubled(1), ugly(6), unpleasant(1), what is evil(2), what was evil(5), which is evil(3), wicked(15), wicked women(1), wild(5), worst(1), wretched(1).

#07451b - 117X = adversity(7), calamity(4), disaster(2), evil(94), harm(2), harmful(1), hurt(1), ruin(3), surely(1), trouble(2), unpleasant(1), wickedly(1), wickedness(1).

#07455 - 19X = evil(10), rottenness(4), sad(1), sadness(1), ugliness(1), wickedness(2).

Though the common translation is (simply) evil, it is evident that it has various nuances. So “destroying angels” or “angels of calamity/adversity” is evidently what the context, including the Bible and SOP account of who was doing this Plague destruction necessitate that translation/understanding. (Cf. Exod 23:23; 2 Sam 24:16; 1 Chr 21:12, 15; 2 Chr 32:21). This may be a band of angels who ‘excel in destruction’ (= God’s “Special Force” for destruction; vs. ‘angels that excel in strength’ Psa 103:20; TA 70.3; 262.1; HP 188.6; CC 336.5; RH, September 30, 1873 par. 7, etc. Not all angels necessarily have this capability.)

Originally Posted By: Tom
You referenced the Word Critical Commentary. What does it say?


That’s “Word Biblical Commentary” (WBC)

Translation: “He sent his burning anger against them: fury and indignation and distress; a band of angels* of calamity,”

*Note: lit., “a sending of messengers/angels” (construct of &#1502;&#1513;&#1500;&#1495;&#1514;), a word that refers to “sending out/ discharge” (Eccl 8:8); thus it means “detachment/deputation/band.” Exod 12:23.

Comment: The death of the Egyptian firstborn in v 51 is the climax of the dramatic description of the sending of a band of angels to prepare the way for the anger of God )vv 45–50(. This passage has similarities to the account of the Destroyer (&#1492;&#1502;&#1513;&#1495;&#1497;&#1514;) who is not allowed to enter houses with blood on the lintel and doorposts in Exod 12:23 (Exod 12:13; 2 Sam 24:16; 2 Kgs 19:35; Ezek 9:1–7; Heb 11:28).

Quote:
Tom: Regarding "send," you wrote:

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
(1) the “send” verb is in the Piel Stem, so it was a forceful and direct action by God;


Tom: So does this mean "send" (in the Piel Stem) is never used in conjunction with evil angels?


Not necessarily though I don’t see such an explicit use this “send” notion at all in the Bible. However I presume that this is involved in some actions, as seen with the lying Spirits permissively ‘sent/given’ (by God) to Ahab. (1 Kgs 22:22, 23)
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 06/03/11 09:18 AM

Quote:
NJK: I am $1,000,000 richer because I bet with myself that you would make this spurious claim.

Tom: It sounds like you knew your comment was bogus as you made it. You must have been aware of what you were doing, or why would have made yourself a bet?


(Another $1,000,000 for you commenting on this.) You are the one who is thinking that it was bogus. You should have rather focused on actually answering the question where it still needed to be. This is quite typical of you, you get all flustered and “distracted” by the peripherals and do not address the pointed substance, particularly when you don’t have an answer for this substantive.

Quote:
Here's the post:

Quote:
T:Until the cross, even holy angels were impacted by Satan's misrepresentations.

NJK:What are you basing this on?

Tom: The SOP.

NJK: I rather see that they were not yet convinced that the alternate way that Satan had proposed was deserving of the completely eradicating judgement that God wanted to effectuate on it.


Tom: I haven't seen any evidence this was ever an issue for the angels. Can you quote anything to substantiate this idea?

Tom: Here's a statement from the SOP speaking to the impact of the cross on the angels:

Originally Posted By: SOP
That which alone can effectually restrain from sin in this world of darkness, will prevent sin in heaven. The significance of the death of Christ will be seen by saints and angels. Fallen men could not have a home in the paradise of God without the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Shall we not then exalt the cross of Christ? The angels ascribe honor and glory to Christ, for even they are not secure except by looking to the sufferings of the Son of God. It is through the efficacy of the cross that the angels of heaven are guarded from apostasy. Without the cross they would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the fall of Satan.(ST 12/30/89)


Tom: How could you have missed, "Here's a statement from the SOP speaking to the impact of the cross on the angels:" along with the cite?


(Again, retracing the history of this discussion abruptly ends to be just a matter of clicking a link at Post #133985 due to your past wrong post reply linking.)

I didn’t miss anything, I pointedly made that statement in regards to your general reference to the DA chapter. Having discussed as a whole before, I did not see how what was said was in contextual harmony with your original point namely:

Originally Posted By: Tom Post #133790
What I have been saying is that Jesus Christ was the clearest revelation of God. It was the whole purpose of His mission to reveal God. This was necessary because of the work Satan had been doing to misrepresent God's character. Until the cross, even holy angels were impacted by Satan's misrepresentations.


I relatedly understood this to be in reference to your view. That is why I could not/cannot see how the angels would have need a revelation of God’s character through Jesus Christ. I see that their questioned all revolved on whether or not Satan’s “No Law” alternate way should be allowed to exist. As I said, I see that the question with the last 6 Commandments was fully demonstrated by the Flood; the first 3 through OT Israel and the Fourth will be when these years since the Cross end. So I see that their issue was not with misrepresentations of God by Satan but pointedly with the validity of His view. In other words, these angels who had remained loyal to God always believed that God was just a He said He was, however they just found Satan suggested way itself to have some plausibility. At the Cross I see that they suddenly saw that Satan was actually mainly acting out of murderous hatred and jealousy for Christ, something that Satan had carefully concealed from them, and for that reason alone they chose to no longer interact with him. However the GC issues he had brought up still remained, not more than ever focusing on the Fourth Commandment, and so it still remains. Indeed the real answer lies with humans. I.e., can (now) people live a truly righteous life while disregarding God’s Sabbath, which actually includes much more than just observing the correct day in the correct way.

So I wanted/want you to specify where exactly in that DA chapter you were seeing the support for your ‘misrepresentations’ view. And I also did/do not see it in your ST quote. It is merely saying, as I understand it, that what transpired at the cross is efficacious enough to keep angels from ever going the way of Satan. The depth of Satan evil was indeed manifest at the Cross and it shocked the angels. (Can’t wait to see that video.)

Originally Posted By: Tom
This could hardly have been more immediate, and so, hardly a "spurious" claim.


Your response was “plausible but false” because only one of your claimed supporting sources was precisely referenced. You should have specifically documented both, especially in/by your follow up reply here.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 06/03/11 09:24 AM

Quote:
T:Much of what is written here is redundant.

NJK:Due mainly to your blind repetitions of already disproven claims.

Tom: No, this is totally on you. I have many conversations with many people, and this has never been an issue. You're not organizing your thoughts in any systematic way.

NJK:Just repsonding to your arguments as they come. Indeed that is all because I have to answer the same arguments that you keep remaking such as your pervasive ‘God permits’ one. I aim to address all your objections head on and if you had actually fully taken into consideration what I had said, I would need to spin my tires and repeat myself but rather build upon those already made points. The discussion so far with you is e.g., ‘we reach level 4 and then all of a sudden as you cannot make additional countering arguments, you return back to level 1’. It is that reoccurrence that is causing me to have to repeat myself.

Tom: I'll just repeat myself and say that I've had a great deal of conversations with many people, and this has never been an issue with anyone else. Others follow the same technique of responding to comments, without this being a problem.


I am just addressing the defective parts of your sum, as they come, to point out exactly why your ending conclusion is false. I can easily do this at the end of a post but you’ll have more trouble retracing what I am referring to. And unlike I didn’t come into this discussion with a systematic view. I just let each text say what it says for itself and contribute as the do to the theology in general. Your approach is to selectively take some thoughts expressed by EGW and then view the Bible through what you think it means. I work from collective concrete Biblical examples and individual texts (and their (if) non-contradicting SOP statements) towards a theology, your work from a selective and isolative particularly SOP quote and if it harmonizes with your view then you use it as a template to literally (exegetically) reword the Biblical text. The Biblie is my “canon” i.e., rule of faith and doctrine, not EGW. However sincere she was, she was not inerrant and infallible in regards to, nor had complete understanding of, the Bible.

Quote:
T:If you could come up with a list of what you see to be the important principles involved, the could be helpful.

NJK:Really I don’t have a creedal set of principles. Indeed this can only be done from SOP statements. I let the text itself and pertinent wider exegesis guide me to what the understanding should be knowingly trusting that God and His Spirit does not and will not contradict itself. Still if you want my pointed response to your listing of “principles” look back in earlier posts. (I had already referenced them twice for you.)

Tom: I think your not thinking in terms of principles leads to the sort of rambling disorganized posts I've pointed out. Indeed, your thinking of principles as "creedal" seems to indicate a sort of bias against thinking in terms of principles.


It is “creedal”, and I am indeed against this sort of approach, in the sense, and for the reasons, that: (1) these are paramountly SOP statements which need to be verified by the Bible and (2) they impose an artificial limitation on what exegesis can reveal. You have the fundamental view and need to “fix” what is said in the Bible, I on the other hand have the view that there is nothing to fix in the Bible, but just to exegetically bring out and build a theology from those building blocks.

Quote:
T: Also a list of what you see to be the differences in our points of view that has to do with content rather than methodology, that would be helpful (i.e., don't write something like, "I just accept what the Bible teaches, while you hold to your own ideas regardless of what Scripture says").

NJK: Chiefly in this discussion, I believe that, if necessary, God directly does actions of judgement through whatever method the texts says occurs. Only when there is a situation of no mercy, even intermediarily, God then allows Satan to do this judgement, one which Satan actually wants to do out of personal incentive. I let you explain for yourself what you think in regards to this.

Tom: You're saying there are two situations, one of mercy, and one of no mercy. Only in the latter case will God allow Satan to do the judgment indicated.

Tom: So never in a "mercy" situation is Satan involved. This is your contention?


That’s not an accurate understanding on your part. Satan is never given full unrestricted control of a judgement in a judgement, or part of a judgement, intend for, or involving, mercy.

Originally Posted By: Tom
How does one determine a "mercy" situation?


By looking at how things transpire and/or what the stated object-lesson objective is.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Can you define it in some other way than a situation in which Satan is not involved?


When people who are deserving capital judgement are incomprehensibly spared. For if God declares death to all the rebellious ones, if whenthe judgement comes some are spared, as with Jerusalem, then surely it is not Satan overpowering God, but God allowing it. Similary (and my approach necesitates that I work from what is exegetically revealed in cocnrete examples) in the last plagues, not all, though all deserving, are made universally subject to them. I see in the Bible/SOP that out of e.g, 100 large scale judgements, God was somehow involved in 98 of them. Hence they were judgements, that at least in some part involved God control. In fact the only two exceptions I see are Jerusalem and the Last Plagues, however only for the utter end part of those judgements. So I see that God is involved in all judgements in the Bible. In regards to individual, as the revelation in 14MR 1-3 was pointedly for, I see that EGW was shown what occurs when God no longer has mercy, thus an utter end judgement, as prior to that it can be seen that God was mercifully striviing for the person to repent even if threatening judgement.

In short/summary you can illustratively compare all of this to a police pulling out his gun in order to subdue a life threatening criminal (= mercy part of a judgements) and when that person refuses and continues to tangibly threaten life, the office has no other choice left but to use deadly force (= no more mercy part).

So all of God’s judgements are evidently at first all merciful but when the person being judged persists in continuing in rebellion, then the judgement shifts to its no more mercy phase.

Originally Posted By: Tom
In the "no mercy" situations, is it your contention that God always acts indirectly, and that the text indicates this is taking place?


It all depends on if God has a present and organic way of doing that phase of judgement, including Satan’s willingness to do the judgement. If He does not, as with the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah and Egypt’s plague, then He acts to do it. In thoses case He directly and/or indirectly did so, i.e., through His angels, as the Bible (and the SOP) say/reveal. Satan was not used for those judgements.

Originally Posted By: Tom
We haven't discussed the cross, I don't think. What do think God's action was here? Was it a direct one of judgment, or an indirect one of permitting Christ's suffering?


I don’t see the cross as a judgement, per se. It was a process to atone for sin through the “sacrifice” of a blameless person. Jesus just was paying a penalty not being judged. Those who refuse this payment will have their sins remain and thus be judged for them. Nonetheless, as expounded on in this blog post, I see in e.g, Isa 53 that it was God who was exacting the various penalties for sin upon the ransoming Christ.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 06/03/11 09:27 AM


Quote:
Tom: How do you understand this verse, particularly in reference to the Lord creating evil?

NJK:I already explained my view here earlier in this thread. See that response.

Tom: I assume you're referring to this:

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
However, I understand God as “creating the evil” through what He permits the Devil to do. (Cf. James 1:13).


Tom: So you see here that God is presented as doing that which He permits. Ok.


(When you make a reference to a post other than the current one you are responding to, do state that other post’s reference number so it can be easily relocated)

No I did not. He would have had ultimate say in what was to be created as e.g., with Ahab’s lying Spirit episode. So Satan would have been His employed agency and thus this would ultimately be a work of God.

However, upon further revision of the word translated here as “evil” as I now understand it as “adversity/calamity/ruin|destruction”, I pun intended, no longer see anything “evil” in it. And so I see that God can and does create such actions, indeed as pertinently seen in His judgement actions.

Originally Posted By: Tom
How do you see that James 1:13 ties into this?


My relatable view here was that God would not use something that was inherently of Satan, however God acts of judgement and what is necessary to do it are different from the gratuitous “Sickness, suffering and death” that Satan does and takes pleasure in doing in non-judgement situations.

Quote:
NJK:Simply said Saul had passed the point of no return. His delving in necromancy was probably the nail in the coffin as legislated by law. So since Saul survived the next days fighting, God took it into his own hands execute that capital punishment sentence.

Tom: By driving Saul to suicide? How? Going inside of Saul's head and manipulating his thoughts?


No. As I had suggested by reinforcing Saul’s (life long) psychological troubles and also not offering an appeasing alternative.

Quote:
NJK: And who says God took pleasure in doing this.

Tom: That God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked means that their death is not His will, in which case one could hardly expect Him to drive one to suicide.


It is not His will that the sinner dies, but God still puts them to death when circumstances justly necessitates it. (Cf. Ee.g., Exod 23:23)

Quote:
NJK: It certainly grieved Him, however, for the good of Israel it was something that had to be done and God indeed waited until there was such a Capital sin to thus justly do this. All the while mercy was being extended to Saul. However the committance of this inexcusable and moreover, God/Israel-shaming, Capital Sin could not be left unpunished. That all what proper exegesis reveals, i.e., letting the Scriptures speak for themselves, which includes the fact that “God, through an agency, caused Saul to die.”

Tom: There's something suspect with your exegetical methodology if it leads you to conclusions such as this.


Really??? That is only your ‘only conclusion’ as you do not include full/proper exegesis in/for your view. Case in point, have you never read the pertinently related Law in Lev 20:6, 27; cf. 1 Sam 28:9? And who in Israel would volunteer/dare execute this Capital Punishment on the King, the one selected and anointed by God Himself, through His prophet, unlike most later kings. Even David fully understood this. God indeed would have to somehow see that this is done Himself.

Given how you don’t give weight to even the words of Jesus if they do not harmonize with your view, it is surely not surprising that you could think that God would not be justified in enforcing His own laws, as if He is expecting people to do something that He knows is wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: SOP
All through his course of rebellion Saul had been flattered and deceived by Satan. It is the tempter’s work to belittle sin, to make the path of transgression easy and inviting, to blind the mind to the warnings and threatenings of the Lord. Satan, by his bewitching power, had led Saul to justify himself in defiance of Samuel’s reproofs and warning. But now, in his extremity, he turned upon him, presenting the enormity of his sin and the hopelessness of pardon, that he might goad him to desperation. Nothing could have been better chosen to destroy his courage 681and confuse his judgment, or to drive him to despair and self-destruction. {PP 680.4}
Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 681.1 (EGW)


Tom: It was Satan driving Saul to despair, not God!


Great!!! Now it can be known through such Biblical corroboration what agency God had used to effectuate this killing, as the Bible had been exegetically indicating.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: SOP
Oppressed by the horror of despair, it would be impossible for him to inspire his army with courage. Separated from the Source of strength, he could not lead the minds of Israel to look to God as their helper. Thus the prediction of evil would work its own accomplishment. {PP 681.3}


Tom: Saul brought about his problems by separating himself from God.


From what is stated in 1 Sam 16:14, 15, I see that God acted to sent this consequence for Saul rebellious attitude. Evidently all to set up the transition to David, (vss. 16ff) allowing David to come to the palace and gain valuable experience while he was waiting in the wings. (Cf. PP 643.1) That evil spirit also made it more likely for an earlier self-inflicted or caused death by Saul, thus a quicker transition to the anointed David.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: SOP
Escape was impossible, and determined not to be taken alive by the Philistines, he bade his armor-bearer, “Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith.” When the man refused to lift his hand 682against the Lord’s anointed, Saul took his own life by falling upon his sword. {PP 681.4} Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 682.1 (EGW)

Thus the first king of Israel perished, with the guilt of self-murder upon his soul. His life had been a failure, and he went down in dishonor and despair, because he had set up his own perverse will against the will of God. {PP 682.1}


Tom: Saul would hardly have been guilty of self-murder if his death were due to an action on God's part.


As the Bible specifies that the agency God used was Satan, then, as in most other case of suicide, then he was indeed guilty of this act. Yet if a good angel had been responsible for this acts, the SOP would have an incorrect understanding here. So what she reveals in indeed in full harmony with the agency notion in the Bible.

Quote:
NJK: Since I do not know the GC/Behind the Scene details with the Haiti earthquake I do not know if God simply allow it or He e.g., sent an angel to move that fault line for some deemed deserved judgement.

Tom: Or allowed Satan to do so?


Quite possible, if necessary.

Quote:
NJK: However in the Bible, as well as in the SOP we do see those behind the scenes details and thus know how directly/deliberately involve God was or not. So again, in regards to the Bible, I can only make such comments as the Bible/SOP exegetical supply those unseen developments.

Tom: It seems wherever the SOP suggests God permitted an action (except for Job), you take issue with this and say you take the Bible over her words.


No. I take issue with what you are understanding by this “permitting.” I actually see that EGW is not contradicting the Bible in those instances as God can actively do what he has decided to permit, if the judgement action requires that assistance. No need there to view EGW as being in error vs. what the Bible says. It is only you who does not understand and thus cannot reconcile those two notion. Both are involved in certain actions, as the effectuating need is.

Originally Posted By: Tom
In the Bible you say this only occurred in Job (or perhaps you amended this slightly).


I don’t see this at all involved in Job. Indeed even Job’s 1:21 statement does not seem to be descriptive of what (he thought) was happening but only proverbial/philosophical: I.e., ‘God can do whatever He wants for all things are his anyway’. Indeed with this view, Job is expressing that He would not even care if God Himself was doing this to him.

Originally Posted By: Tom
So it sounds rather more like you have a mind-set that leads you in a certain direction, and causes you to interpret/harmonize different statements in a certain way (the way that agrees with your mind set).


No. Exegesis does. By you not giving the Bible (even through the Gospel and also Jesus) and (its) exegesis its proper place and weight you clearly have a, non-pejoratively speaking, mind-set. Which is, the Bible in general is not an accurate documentation of God and His will, even when “prophetic” utterances are made.

Quote:
NJK: That is indeed why I don’t aim to have a set of ‘creedal principles’ that dictate how I should be interpreting a passage (such as you not given exegesis its due indicative weight). Exegesis requires that the text itself speak for itself.

Tom: Clearly there are principles that guide how you interpret things, you just don't know how to articulate them.


Not principles, but proper exegesis which bring out building block points from all pertinent verses on an issue and thus self-construct the Theology to be drawn. That is also how I arrived at my “God and the Future” Theological understanding. So it is proper exegesis that is guiding my view and since I cannot unbiasedly say what a not yet studied text will exegetically reveal, I do not approach it with, and impose upon it, a set of principles, but let it speak for itself and take that puzzle piece” and insert it my Theological puzzle, wherever it fits allowing it to complete the part of the picture that it was intended to do. You on the other hand first cut your puzzle pieces into a preferred shape and build a puzzle this way. As you leave out many piece, and cut parts of the pieces you have selected out, it is not surprising that your puzzle is full of various holes, with large missing portions and thus does not reveal a ‘Biblically recognizable’ picture of God. Only your preferred picture is being shown.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 06/03/11 09:35 AM

Quote:
T:Value comes from a discourse like this when each party can correctly represent the view of the other. If you correctly represent my view, and offer arguments against that view, I can strengthen my view in meeting the arguments, or adjust the view, or disregard it, in response to counter arguments. But you if misrepresent my view, then there's no value in your arguments, since they aren't hitting anything I'm saying. So I keep repeating the same things in the hope that you'll address what I'm actually saying.

NJK: So if you really think I am misrepresenting your view then correct my supposed “misrepresentation” rather than merely repeating what you had said and which was already debunked.

Tom: First of all, I can't think of anything that has been debunked.

NJK: You will when you allow for proper exegesis. Anyone who truly does easily will.

Tom: Anyone who allows for proper exegesis will agree with you is what you're saying, right? Always?


The key/operative words are “proper” and “truly”. A person can always prefer to be dishonest in the face of exegetical facts or due/proper methodology. Given your claimed Seminary education, that is what I see in your “exegetical”, if any, treatment of the Bible.

Quote:
Tom: The context here has to do with God's being presented in inspiration as doing that which He permits. You admit that there is inspired language depicting God as doing both of these things, and only differ with me, as far as I can tell, in terms of intent.

NJK:I actually reconciled EGW statements of permit to involve the actions described in the Bible.

Tom: Why would you do this?


Because that is what proper exegesis and proper exegetical methodology demands.

Originally Posted By: Tom
The Bible says God sent fiery serpents against the Israelites. Ellen White writes:

Quote:
Shielded by divine power, they had not realized the countless dangers by which they were surrounded. In their unbelief they 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 their sting, it causing violent inflammation and speedy death. As the protecting hand of God was removed, great numbers of the people were attacked by these venomous creatures. {EP 301.1}


Tom: Why would you think that God's removing His protecting hand would involve His sending serpents?


I have already answer that question, many times. See and deal with my responses. You evidently just don’t want to accept it, as it diffuses your view and so try to reset the question here returning back to Level 1. My explanations are still the same.

Quote:
NJK: In short my view is that what EGW says, rather glibly in my understanding, that ‘God permits to happen’ does not mean the He completely removes Himself but acts to effectuate this, as the Bible actually exegetically specifies.

Tom: It's clear that according to her the danger was there all along, and God simply removed His protecting hand. Indeed, He did so in order to make evident to them that the *was* danger, and that He had been protecting them from that danger. He could hardly have done so if He Himself were causing the danger.


Already answered and addressed in my prior and latest responses.

Quote:
Tom: That is, both you and I agree that inspiration says regarding the same event that God is send to have permitted the act, and to have caused the act.

NJK: Again I do not see EGW’s use of “permit” to be “loaded” to mean God is no longer involved.

Tom: God was involved. His involvement consisted of His removing His protecting hand, subjecting the Israelites to the danger He had been protecting them from.


That’s your view. I see, as the Bible says, that He acted to heightened the natural danger for reasons of timely and striking judgement. He effectively had to overridingly takeover control of “nature” (i.e., the natural tendencies and behavior of the serpents) to fittingly execute a large-scale and immediate judgement.

Quote:
NJK: And, by the way, I only view EGW as having made an “inspired” comment so far as it agrees with or can be reconciled with what the Bible says.

Tom: If she was inspired by the Holy Spirit, how do see her writing things contrary to the Bible?


I already addressed this. Not everything she wrote was directly inspired. E.g., her approval of eating oysters long after the Health Message revelation was contrary to what the Bible actually taught. As shown in a prior referred to post, her altering of the ascension of Christ account for DA for what she had previously written in SP is another example. Among many other.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Would the Holy Spirit inspire one write to write things contradictory to that of another writer He had inspired? A house divided against itself cannot stand.


Indeed this is not what will happen. So since error and Bible contradiction occur in EGW’s writings, which she even corrected in other/later writings, when she became aware of them then that is proof in itself that not everything EGW said was under direct inspiration. Paul also understood this (1 Cor 7:6 for “counsels” given in vs. 1-5) even while writing what others considered part of “Scripture” (2 Pet 3:16). Indeed this was not necessarily “prophecy” (2 Pet 1:20).

And if you actually believe this yourself, you would not be denying Biblical exegesis its weight as if those writer had not written things as God had impressed their thought with. Or worst even claiming that God Himself could not accurately reveal this, however preposterous that actually claim is.

Quote:
NJK:That is why I don’t see her view on the hardening of Pharaoh heart as being a ‘statement by commission’ as it does not agree with what the Bible exegetically says.

Tom: There are many scholars who disagree with you on this point.


Many do not follow the Advanced Syntax Studies in Waltke and O’Connor’s books. Hte y prefer to hold on to the prior views that they have been teaching. I personally have repeatedly come across this with some scholars starting at Andrews and with the Seminary while doing my research and writing work on the 70 Weeks. So as always I believe what is demonstrated to be true and not what someone merely thinks is true.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Indeed, only Calvinists, as far as I'm aware of, take this point of view.


I do not even think that they Calvinist view here was founded, or is based on, a deep exegesis of the text, but merely a Theological view. My view is purely exegetical. Though in the end it is correct in seeing that God was acting to harden Pharaoh heart in those instances.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I believe the critical commentaries take the viewpoint that God strengthened Pharaoh to do what was already in his heart, and that's how to reconcile the 6 statements (as I recall, there are 6) that God hardened Pharaoh's heart with the 6 statements that Pharaoh hardened his own heart.


That still involves God doing something. Indeed all of those instances, which only started, and interspersely occurred during the latter part of the Plague and onward, show that Pharaoh was about to capitulate, but God stepped into harden His heart so that this Plague judgement could continue to the end.

And God surely did use something within Pharaoh to do this, e.g., his pride, so that He would not tip off Pharaoh to what was really occurring. As I understand it, Pharaoh could have acted to resist this hardening influence, especially if he perceived that Moses’ God was deliberately influencing to refuse and that to cause further loss to Egypt. So only by making this seem as Pharaoh’s own/great idea and feeling a peace with it could this hardening be successful.

Originally Posted By: Tom
This point of view has the added benefit of not making one inspired writer contradict another.


While that is a great end result, it is not a paramount one. The Bible is to determined if EGW was correct in expressing a view.

Quote:
NJK:That is a substantially occurring deficiency in the writing of EGW.

Tom: What is? What's a "statement of commission"?


Statements which are merely her understanding of a Bible issue/episode/teaching/subject but not actually from a direct revelation of God. That bold part is what is a “statement from commission or command” (1 Cor 7:6). I.e., ‘God revealed this to me”

Originally Posted By: Tom
You've said several times that you view "I was shown" statements differently
than other statements. Do you have this in mind here?


Indeed.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Do you recognize that your view her regarding her writings differs from her own?


Can’t “recognize” something that is not the actual, nor evident, case. It is clear that even if the Spirit moved her to write on a topic, he did not dictate the very words to her. And she had to do much studying in the Bible and other Biblical works for her work. And as e.g., seen with her rendering of John 20:17, the Holy Spirit also did not always tell of the exact translation/understanding of a Biblical text. Apparently this only later done for this text.

Quote:
Tom: The difference between our views is that you view God's intent to be that the act occur, even when the "permit" language is used.

NJK: Not actually. Intent is secondary to whether God does the act or not. My view is even when He permits something to occur, He sometimes needs to actively act to bring it about.

Tom: This is self-contradictory. Your example doesn't fit. A parent taking a child to an event he is permitting to the child to go to isn't comparable to God's permitting a disaster to occur that He Himself is causing.

Tom: These are two contrasting concepts her. If God permits the disaster to occur, He is not causing it to occur.

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Just like a father permit his teenager to go to a school activity after much plea may require him having to drive him/her to the location of the event, particular in a last minute decision when taking public transportation will cause the teenager to be late. So e.g., God’s permitting something adverse to occur to Israel as a rectifying lesson (thus mercy is involved) may require Him to take full control of what is to transpire out of various GC realities, including the absence of no natural/organic consequence. Thus with the fiery serpents, these had to be attracted to, and then feel threatened by, the people for this permitted calamity to timely and strikingly forcely come to pass so that Israel can learn its key lesson.


I don’t see any self-contradiction in either my theological understanding or my supplied illustration (not actually an “example” as it is fictitious). Had the teenager taken public transportation then the father would not be involved in effectuating what he had permitted. But by Himself driving the child to that event, indeed as public transportation was not timeliness-wise, not adequate/“fitting” here, then the father came to do the actions needed to effectuate what he had permitted.

Quote:
Tom: Israel could not learn the lesson that God had been protecting them from dangers if they weren't in danger.


They were in danger by the snakes. There was just a need to heighten that danger for properly/adequately/fittingly effectuating that judgement.

Quote:
Tom: But my claim was simply that inspiration often presents God as doing that which He permits, which you are agreeing to, so that's hardly "debunking" the claim.

NJK: It is because you have not been taking my arguments into full consideration and weight, if you are even reading them, that you think that we have the same view here in regards to ‘God permitting something.’

Tom: You just said that there was a natural disaster which Satan wasn't involved in which God permitted to occur. That's an example of 'God permitting something.'


You are referring to the fiery serpents as this ‘just said natural disaster’, right? If not what exactly? If so, God both permitted (SOP contribution) and acted to do (Bible contribution) that judgement. Satan was not involved for Theological reason, namely given the sole lesson teaching and redemptive purposes of God here. God never intended to take that judgement beyond an merciful stage, though it could have if circumstances necessitated it, i.e., if Israel continued this episode of murmuring (Num 21:4, 5). (And this is all quite remarkable as God was also dealing with a generation that condemned to (somehow) die in the wilderness. However, as previously pointed out by Moses, a mass slaughter was not in God’s best interest.)

Quote:
NJK:As I understand it, you then see God as completely non-involved in such claimed cases. I do not at all. See all of my prior views on this which indeed differentiatigly debunk your view of things here.

Tom: I've said that God doesn't cause these things, not that He is not involved (if "involved" means anything different than "caused.")


So then, I if I get your nuancing correctly, you would see that by God being “involved” he can “cause” something to occurred. And this is relating to being involved in the action, either by doing it Himself or permitting a agent to do it under His orders/directive and/or restrictions/control.

Quote:
NJK: Address those standing points that render you view spurious and worthless. You seem to be going by the tenet that ‘your view is to be correct no matter what the facts and arguments against it are.’ And just bringing up new (yet thus far still spurious) claims is not an answer against distinct prior one. Those trees are still felled and your initial forest is not as dense as when you first presented it, if in existence now at all.

Tom: This whole thing here is totally unresponsive. What I said was this:

Originally Posted By: Tom
Value comes from a discourse like this when each party can correctly represent the view of the other. If you correctly represent my view, and offer arguments against that view, I can strengthen my view in meeting the arguments, or adjust the view, or disregard it, in response to counter arguments. But you if misrepresent my view, then there's no value in your arguments, since they aren't hitting anything I'm saying.


Tom: So what's being pointed out is the importance of being able to represent my view in a way I can agree to. You're not addressing this point.


Why won’t you accept what I say about your view as my actual understanding of your view. If you want to make sure it is agreeable to you then correct it yourself when necessary. And I won’t divorce myself for the realities and (exegetical) facts that are implicated in your view, hence I present my understanding of your views in their attached wider implications. If you don’t see that this should or correctly apply then explain why, i.e., why those factual elements don’t affect your view.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: NJK Project
[Because you incorrectly link your post reply here (responding to yourself) I had to waste time just to retrace exactly where you were quoting from. If you had been doing this properly from the beginning you would find that retracing your steps to find the comments of mine that you omitted would be just a matter of a few clicks.]

In regards to your restated comment here, my answer is still the same:

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
So if you really think I am misrepresenting your view then correct my supposed “misrepresentation” rather than merely repeating what you had said and which was already debunked....


You are only not seeing ‘no relevance to your points’ because you are outrightly ignoring my points. I am correcting what you had said. If you don’t think that is a valid correction then point out with, engaging the specific arguments made, rather than just repeating your prior point. And, as I said, truth is not limited to what you can or want to understand. You need to get up to speed on particularly proper exegesis.

The rest of my statement was, as I apparently need to spell this out for you, in regards to how you just ignore my points which counter your view. I am not responsible for your mistakes. Apparently you believe that when your view hits a wall, it is my fault. As if your view is not suppose to be wrong. That makes no sense to me and indeed is just stubborn bias. There no ‘discourse value’ in this mentality. Just defend your view however you think it is and you do the work needed to substantiate and present it. I’ll keep on stating why I agree or do not agree with it and you’ll make the necessary adjustments and better restate it if still applicable/valid.


Tom: You still aren't responding to the point, which has to do with the importance of being able to represent the view of another in such a way that that person would agree with that representation.


I see that I have been. You just don’t want to accept my stance on this issue.

Quote:
Tom: I've asked you to present a summary of my view that I would agree to, and so far, you haven't done so.

Tom: Please do so.

NJK: I don’t see how that would change anything but just reset this discussion thus forcing me to have to remake the same arguments again.

Tom: You've never done so.


Who said I did?? I didn’t say: “I didn’t see how...” But “I don’t see how...” I.e., This is a present, and forward-looking, observation.

Originally Posted By: Tom
That is, you've never presented my view in a way that I would agree to. So I'm not asking you to repeat anything, but to do something you haven't done.


And my answer had been that I don’t presently or futurely see “how that would change anything but just reset this discussion thus forcing me to have to remake the same arguments again.” I have already made arguments against your view and what I think your view is and/or fully entails. Deal with those arguments which indeed are making me see no value in your and in that logical way, I’ll then actually see or better see what your view is.

You obviously are convinced that you can make you claims in a vacuum. So e.g., If Bible writer made exegetically vacuous statements with even direct revelations from God, then that does not involve the making errors. Think you claims through before making them. I am not going to, literally dumb myself down, as clearly required, for your view. Defend the integrity of your view yourself in the face of those debunking implications.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Please stated what you think my view is in a way that I would agree with it.


No matter how many times you ask this, or how surfacely “nicely” you do, it won’t fool me to go against what I see as an illogical and wasteful request. Keep making your own assertions/statements and I’ll, when applicable, keep saying why I do not see them as valid. I have not idea what you fully think, especially given your tentative approach to make your view fully known, as with the case with the irrelevance of exegesis. So I am surely not going to wsate my time in a trial and error mind-reading and guessing odyssey.

Quote:
NJK: So I won’t do so.

Tom: You're "so" here doesn't apply, since you've not done what I've asked, so you wouldn't be repeating anything. So please do so.


My “so” is for the fact that I do not see this suggested/requested approach as being worthwhile, therefore I won’t indeed begin to do so.

You apparently have a “your wish is to be my command” belief here, and so you just can’t accept that I am saying that: ‘this is just not going to happen.’

Quote:
NJK:You nonetheless still need to respond to all of my point which show how and why your view or methodology is deficient, improper and/or wrong. So focus on addressing those standing point if you want this discussion to constructively go on, if at all.

Tom: If you can't represent my view in a way that I agree with, then I simply don't agree with your presuppositions regarding my view, so there's nothing for me to respond to.


What is impossible to understand here?? What I say in my responses is understanding of what your view is. Deal with those statements. Substantively it is actually just what you are requesting. Which is why I see my restating then as mere repetitions because I just say the exact same things about your view.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I've been suggesting ways to make the discussion easier to pursue. If you present something organized, that's much easier to respond to. I don't have time to go hunting all over the place to look for things to respond to.


If you had been responding to all of my point as I made them you would not have to now “hunt” for anything as they would have been right in front of you, in that then current post. So you are a victim of your own ignoring and oblivious way of discussing things. That’s not to be my problem and responsibility now.

Originally Posted By: Tom
My goal here is not to convince you of anything. You have shown no indication of being capable of changing your mind regarding anything we are talking about.


If you were dealing with exegetical facts you would see that there’s nothing to change on my part from what you have posited. I do change when I am presented with valid conclusions and exegetical facts.

Originally Posted By: Tom
My goal is to try to understand your thinking.


Then engage all that I have posted. Stating them here would be merely reduplicating my already expended efforts. You should have taken measures to keep up.

Originally Posted By: Tom
This is why I'm asking you to present things in an organized fashion, and in terms of principles.


I just don’t work that way. I follow the exegetical trail of all pertinent passages to a subject.

Originally Posted By: Tom
If you are unable to do so, that helps me indirectly understand your thought process.


My thought process is an exegetical one and not a set of pre-defined (SOP) rules/principles being imposed upon the Biblical text. Deal with that actual approach of mine. I don’t have to adopt your approach, especially as I do not see it as valid. And since I don’t go by this creedal principles approach then indeed engage my approach. I know I have to in regards to you.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 06/03/11 09:37 AM


Quote:
NJK: One statement of EGW does not establish a theology and indeed sometimes it may only be an incomplete/partial expression of her understanding of that issue. Given what EGW says elsewhere about ‘God and/or His angel doing acts of destruction’ a theology cannot be made upon on Statement in regards to tithing. Indeed God action in the flood is the perfect example. That is not proper exegesis of the SOP. That is why I made a more general statement on this with a large GC view in mind rather than limiting my understanding to one quote.

Tom: It's not just one quote, but a whole bunch of quotes.


Do list the references and if you have done so before point me to that specific post. I don’t recall this.

Originally Posted By: Tom
There's a mind-set involved.


Not for me I am just reading and accepting the Bible as it exegetically reads. I see you view as externally insisting that this should not be done, even having to render exegesis as null and void.

Originally Posted By: Tom
One can guess what she's going to say about a subject without having read it.


That’s doesn’t prove anything as it does not necessarily mean that she is Biblically accurate. That may just be the limitations of what she understood. The Bible’s testimony completes the picture.

Originally Posted By: Tom
For example, I knew she would disagree with your idea regarding Saul's death, before I looked it up. She points out that Satan drove Saul to despair, not God. Of course! That reflects Satan's character, not God's.


I was only musingly speculating as to who the “agency” of God was in this killing of Saul. EGW statement only disagreed with those musings but not with fact that an agent was used. So she confirms the exegetical testimony of the Bible.

Originally Posted By: Tom
So I agree with your contention that a large view of the GC must be kept in mind, but we have very different ideas as to what that entails. I believe it entails the following:

Originally Posted By: DA 21
In heaven itself this law was broken. Sin originated in self-seeking. Lucifer, the covering cherub, desired to be first in heaven. He sought to gain control of heavenly beings, to draw them away from their Creator, and to win their homage to himself. Therefore he misrepresented God, 22attributing to Him the desire for self-exaltation. With his own evil characteristics he sought to invest the loving Creator. Thus he deceived angels. Thus he deceived men. (DA 21)


The GC is about undoing this.


That’s just part of it. As already detailed there is much, much more than just time issue. You are limiting yourself to that. I see that the Justice of God is also at issue, all stemming from the issue of why can’t sinners be allowed to perpetually live eternally.

Quote:
NJK: Nonetheless, I see here that she is speaking of not necessarily judgement actions, but just day to day circumstances where God has to daily act to prevent natural calamities. The GC rules probably limit Him to only certain preventions and when His people are not faithful in tithing, He then has no justification for extraordinarily acting to protect them against an approaching calamity.

Tom: She says, "Satan is the destroyer" in the quote. That's part of the context. Also, a day to day circumstance that involves one of the thousand dangers from which God constantly protects us becomes a judgment as soon as God ceases protecting us from it. For example, the Israelites were constantly subject to danger, and as soon as God removed His protecting hand, that became a judgment.

Tom: Regarding the rest of the post, thanks for the clarifications.


You’re welcome. Wish I could likewise ‘thank you’ for having addressed/answered my standing objections to your points in/for your view.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I just have a question regarding this phrase:

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
those who act wisely enough to fearfully perceive His gracious warnings here.


Tom: What do you mean by "fearfully?" That is, what should be being feared?


That is echoing the thoughts/counsel copiously made in the Bibles such as in passages like Job 28:28; Psa 11:10; Pro 1:7; 9:10; 15:33; Isa 11:2; 33:6. ‘Those who allow themselves to ‘take God seriously’ in even those averted potential natural disasters and thus use this to set off on a path to get to know and understand this God. Thus these won’t just blow this off a natural aversion, but would allow themselves to see the gracious hand of God in this and pursue a knowledge and wisdom of Him.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 06/04/11 08:16 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK Project (In Post #132662 on Page 71)
As I also said there. It was because this was the execution of a judgement and not a “trial.” Pharaoh’s, even murderous, oppression and abuses of Israel was being judged and Pharaoh was not actually really given a choice to avert this.


As it can be seen with the 7 Last Plagues (see Rev 16:5-7; cf. 15:4 & 16:9b), “Plagues” are an execution of “deserved” (=Rev 16:6b) acts of judgement by God and surely, not merely acts to make people ‘sick, suffer and/or die’. Thus it can be exegetically understood that the same had been done in Egypt’s Plague as that event actually serves as the Biblical background and basis for the 7 Last Plagues.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 06/06/11 04:29 PM

Tom, please respond to 133773 and 774. Thank you.

Originally Posted By: Tom
T: You wrote as if God were responsible for the things you were speaking of. I addressed that by pointing out that it would be a huge mistake to view God as responsible, and cited texts to explain why.

M: Of course Jesus was responsible for ensuring evil angels did not exceed the limits He imposed on them. That is, Jesus did not let them cause more death and destruction than He was willing to permit. Do you agree?

T: What would a disagreement to this look like? That Jesus let them cause more death and destruction than He was willing to permit? This is a question to you, asking for clarification. Actually two questions.

M:Why disagree with it? Just say, Yes, of course, I agree.

T: It looks like a tautology.

M:Jesus was responsible for ensuring evil angels did not exceed the limits He imposed on them, that is, He did not let them cause more death and destruction than He was willing to permit.

T: The second part here looks like a tautology. The first part seems somewhat poorly phrased, perhaps giving the impression that the evil angels were fulfilling Christ's will, as opposed to acting contrary to His will. I would want to make clear that the evil angels are acting contrary to Christ's will.

Tautology defined means “needless repetition of an idea, statement, or word.” Isn’t it obvious we need to avoid taking anything for granted, that stating the obvious is often needed? We can’t be too careful can we? When impenitent sinners cross the line they forfeit Jesus’ protection and He gives evil angels permission to cause death and destruction within the limits He Himself establishes and enforces. The resulting death and destruction does not violate Jesus’ will. You seem to think it does. I disagree.

Quote:
M: Do you agree Jesus worked to prevent evil men and evil angels from inflicting more death and destruction than He was willing to permit?

T: I believe that Jesus worked to prevent evil men and evil angels from inflicting death and destruction in general. I don't know what you would want me to elaborate on here. I don't see what you wouldn't be understanding here.

M:Your response seems to imply you believe Jesus works to prevent them from causing any and all forms of death and destruction.

T: Yes, this is what Jesus does by default.

M:If so, did He fail? That is, did He fail at preventing them and it accounts for why they caused so much death and destruction? If so, why wasn’t Jesus successful?

T: Well, let's look at what we've been told: “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. (GC 35) This seems clear. The Jews "cause the protection of God to be withdrawn from them."

I don’t see how the passage you quoted above address my concern and question. It sounded as though you said Jesus works to prevent evil angels from causing death and destruction. Now it sounds like you’re saying, no, Jesus doesn’t always do that, sometimes He lets it happen. Please explain.

Quote:
M: Or, do you think evil men and evil angels willingly restrained themselves in order not to displease God and exceed Jesus’ limits?

T: This can't be a serious question. This seems self-explanatory. What sense would it make for an evil person to restrain themselves in order not to displease God? Doesn't being evil presuppose that one is displeasing God? Why would you think a question like this makes sense? Better yet, why would you ask such a question? What were you thinking when you asked it? If you write out what you were thinking, perhaps we could discuss that, as what you were thinking probably makes some sense.

M:Do you believe Jesus worked to prevent them from exceeding His limits because otherwise they would?

T: What limits are you talking about? Is this something specific, or a general question?

We are discussing the death and destruction of Jews and Jerusalem in 70 AD. Do you think evil men and evil angels exercised self-control so as not to exceed the limits Jesus imposed on them? Or, did Jesus have to work to ensure they didn’t exceed His limits?

Quote:
M: Also, did evil men and evil angels do anything Jesus' wasn't willing to permit?

T: I don't see the sense in this one either. God is omnipotent, right? So anything that happens can only happen if He permits it to happen, isn't that right? This seems self-explanatory too. I don't see how you could not understand what I'm saying here.

M:Why didn’t they exceed the limits Jesus imposed on them?

T: What limits are you talking about? The general concept is simple. God is constantly protecting us (and not just us, but the wicked as well) from a thousand dangers, all of them unseen. God can be caused to remove His protection. When this happens, bad things may happen (although it's also possible Satan may favor certain ones for his purposes).

You and I both believe Jesus never fully withdraws His protection. He establishes and enforces limits, perimeters within which He permits evil men and evil angels to work. In the case of Jews and Jerusalem in 70 AD the limits Jesus imposed prohibited them from causing more death and destruction than what we read about. It’s unlikely they caused less death and destruction than what Jesus was willing to permit. The point is it was Jesus, not evil men or evil angels, who determined how much death and destruction counted as just and righteous punishment.

Quote:
M: Did Jesus force evil men and evil angels to inflict the death and destruction He deemed right and necessary?

T: I don't see any sense in this question either. No, of course not, to answer the question. First of all, the exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government. Secondly, Jesus would hardly force people to do something contrary to the principles of his government, like inflicting death and destruction; that's Satan's job. Satan is the destroyer, Christ is the restorer. So your question is asking if Jesus would use a principle contrary to the principles of His government to bring about more consequences also contrary to the principles of His government.

M:What criteria did Jesus use to determine how and what punishment would be inflicted? Did the punishment He envisioned require the involvement of evil men and evil angels?

T: What makes you think He was doing this? I don't understand how you're thinking here. Here's how I'm thinking. God protects people. They cause Him to remove His protection. Bad things may happen as a result.

Yes, bad things happen when Jesus withdraws His protection. However, you seem to think it’s up to evil men and evil angels to determine the extent of punishment. I disagree. It is entirely up to Jesus to determine the perimeters within which evil men and evil angels work to cause death and destruction. It is also entirely up to Jesus to ensure they do not exceed His limits.

Quote:
M: Were evil men and evil angels free to refuse to inflict the death and destruction Jesus deemed right and necessary?

T: I don't agree with your premise here. Jesus doesn't deem death and destruction as right and necessary, but as evil, which it is. This seems very clear to me. Your question has a premise, with which I disagree. I pointed out the premise in question, and why I disagree with it.

M:What motivated Jesus to withdraw His protection and permit evil men and evil angels to inflict the punishment He determined was appropriate and worked to ensure they did not exceed?

T: Same question as before. Why are you thinking that Jesus is determining punishment here, as opposed to that God was caused to remove His protection?

The two go hand-in-hand, that is, impenitent sinners forfeit His protection and Jesus works to ensure the resulting punishment does not exceed the limits He Himself establishes. At what point does Jesus withdraw His protection? What criteria does He use to determine the limits of punishment? How much is too much? And, are evil men and evil angels free to withhold causing death and destruction? Again, I’m referring to Jews and Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Quote:
M: Who would have inflicted the death and destruction Jesus deemed right and necessary if the Roman soldiers and evil angels had refused to do it?

T:Again, I disagree with the premise here. The premise is that you speak of "death and destruction" which "Jesus deemed right and necessary." I disagree with your premise that Jesus Christ was so deeming.

M:Who, then, if not Jesus, determined the limits of punishment to be inflicted on them?

T: This whole concept of "punishment to be inflicted on them" is foreign to what I'm seeing in the description of the destruction that took place to Jerusalem. In all of Jesus' ministry, not once did He attribute any evil which occurred as punishment being inflicted upon the suffering person. Not one time. In every instance, every one, He attributed their suffering to either sin or Satan. I share this way of thinking. As Jesus Christ did, I also attribute all suffering to the evil one, and the consequences of sin. “...all suffering results from transgression of God's law....suffering is inflicted by Satan (DA 471). “Sickness, suffering, and death are work of an antagonistic power. Satan is the destroyer; God is the restorer....When Christ healed disease, He warned many of the afflicted ones, "Sin no more, lets a worst thing come unto thee' John 5:14. Thus He taught that they had brought disease upon themselves by transgressing the laws of God, and that health could be preserved only by obedience (MH 113). “We are to observe carefully every lesson Christ has given us throughout His life and teaching; He does not destroy. He improves whatever He touches.” I'd like to discuss this last quote a bit, because I think it hits at a heart of the difference between how we view things. I see this last quote as a condensed explanation of the main issue involved in the Great Controversy. Here's the reality:

1.Christ (or God) does not destroy.
2.Christ (or God) improves whatever He touched.

Here is Satan's claim:

1.Christ (or God) does destroy.
2.Christ (or God) does not improve whatever He touches.

Note what we are exhorted to do: “We are to observe carefully every lesson Christ has given us throughout His life and teaching(1SM 118).” Why are we exhorted to do so? To learn that:

1.Christ (or God) does not destroy.
2.Christ (or God) improves whatever He touched.

How I see you to perceive things is that Christ (or God) does destroy, and we could not observe carefully every lesson Christ has given us throughout His life and teaching to see that He does not destroy, nor improves everything He touches, because that isn't the case. I'd like to bring into to attention that we are exhorted to "observe carefully *every lesson* Christ has given us throughout His life. Every lesson. Why every lesson? Because the whole purpose of His mission was the revelation of God. *Everything* He did was for this purpose, and so it follows that *every lesson* should be observed, to learn two things:

1.God does not destroy.
2.God improves everything He touches.

And this is wonderful and beautiful truth. When these truths dawn on our consciousness, it changes our whole paradigm! As Acts says, Christ went about doing good. This is how He revealed the Father. He improved everything He touched, thus revealing that God improves everything He touches. So all we need to is allow God to touch us, and He will improve us. Understanding that God improves everything He touches takes our fear away. We don't need to worry about what God will do to us if we don't do what He says, because God improves everything He touches; He does not destroy. Our fear should only be what will happen to us if we do not allow God to touch us. This is because we need improvement, and that is because of how Satan and sin have wrecked us.

Amen. Jesus does not destroy; He restores. The death and destruction of Jews and Jerusalem in 70 AD is an example of this truth. There was nothing arbitrary or random about the death and destruction they suffered. It was an act of punishment. Jesus visited vengeance and retribution upon them. He executed justice and vindicated the kingdom and character of God. He didn’t merely withdraw His protection and allow things to run its natural course as if sin metes out justice in defense of the honor and glory of God. "In the retribution inflicted upon the ungrateful husbandmen was portrayed the doom of those who should put Christ to death." {DA 596.3} Ellen wrote:

Quote:
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}

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}

The execution of justice and judgment is an act of punishment Jesus metes out in vengeance and retribution. “While He does not delight in vengeance, He will execute judgment upon the transgressors of His law.” “By terrible things in righteousness He will vindicate the authority of His downtrodden law.”

Quote:
There are those who will question God's love and His justice in visiting so severe punishment for words spoken in the heat of passion. But both love and justice require it to be shown that utterances prompted by malice against God are a great sin. The retribution visited upon the first offender would be a warning to others, that God's name is to be held in reverence. {PP 408.2}

We need just such lessons as the Bible gives us, for with the revelation of sin is recorded the retribution which follows. The sorrow and penitence of the guilty, and the wailing of the sin-sick soul, come to us from the past, telling us that man was then, as now, in need of the pardoning mercy of God. It teaches us that while He is a punisher of crime, He pities and forgives the repenting sinner. {4T 12.3}

Though the Lord in mercy withholds for a time the retribution of their sin, as in the days of Jeremiah, He will not always stay His hand, but will visit iniquity with righteous judgment. {4T 165.1}

The retribution to come upon Jerusalem could be delayed only a short time; and as Christ's eye rested upon the doomed city, he saw not merely its destruction, but the destruction of a world. He saw that as Jerusalem was given up to destruction, so the world will be given up to its doom. He saw the retribution that will be visited on the adversaries of God. The scenes that were transacted at the destruction of Jerusalem will be repeated at the great and terrible day of the Lord, but in a more fearful manner. {RH, December 7, 1897 par. 9}

While [Jesus] tells us of the love of God, he also pictures the awful scenes of the Judgment and the retribution that shall be visited upon the wicked. 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. {ST, March 24, 1881 par. 2}

You, on the other hand, seem to think Jesus accomplishes all these things by simply withdrawing His protection and allowing sin to run its course. Such an idea credits sin with vindicating the law and kingdom and character of God.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 06/06/11 04:46 PM

Originally Posted By: MM
T:So there are quite a few examples of God presenting Himself as doing that which He permits.

M:And there are quite a few accounts of Jesus actually doing what the Bible said He did...


You mean as a contrast to the accounts where Jesus *didn't* actually do what the Bible said He did?!

If not, it's difficult to understand what you mean here. If this is indeed your intent, I don't think this is well put. I think always Jesus did what the Bible says He did, and that often He is said to have done that which He permits is a better way of putting this.

Perhaps what you mean is sometimes God does these things directly (by permission), whereas other times it's directly (God does them Himself, or by means of angels). If this is what you mean, how would you distinguish between these two incidents? (direct ones and indirect ones).
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 06/06/11 04:48 PM

Tom, I was thinking and praying about these things this morning and the following came to mind. When time and circumstances force Jesus to withdraw His protection and permit His enemies to cause death and destruction (within the limits He Himself establishes and and works to ensure is not exceeded) it raises questions:

1. Is it a form of "justice and judgment" when Jesus implements the withdraw and permit principle of punishment?

2. Were the enemies of God guilty of evildoing when they meted out the punishment Jesus was willing to permit?

3. Was Moses guilty of evildoing when he meted out the punishment Jesus was willing to command?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 06/06/11 05:06 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom
T:So there are quite a few examples of God presenting Himself as doing that which He permits.

M:And there are quite a few accounts of Jesus actually doing what the Bible said He did.

T: You mean as a contrast to the accounts where Jesus *didn't* actually do what the Bible said He did?! If not, it's difficult to understand what you mean here. If this is indeed your intent, I don't think this is well put. I think always Jesus did what the Bible says He did, and that often He is said to have done that which He permits is a better way of putting this. Perhaps what you mean is sometimes God does these things directly (by permission), whereas other times it's directly (God does them Himself, or by means of angels). If this is what you mean, how would you distinguish between these two incidents? (direct ones and indirect ones).

No, I don't think the two different means of meting out punishment represent "contrasts" per se. "The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits." {GC 614.2} Regarding the plagues, she also wrote:

Quote:
This is the sharpest experience I have ever had in a carriage in a storm. . . . I thought of the day when the judgment of God would be poured out upon the world, when blackness and horrible darkness would clothe the heavens as sackcloth of hair. . . . My imagination anticipated what it must be in that period when the Lord's mighty voice shall give commission to His angels, "Go your ways, and pour out the vials of the wrath of God upon the earth." {Mar 284.4}

Already God's angels are at work in judgment, and the Spirit of God is gradually leaving the world. . . To His angels He gives the commission to execute His judgments. . . The command is, "Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at My sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house." Saith God, "I will recompense their way upon their head." {TM 431.3}

The words will soon be spoken, "Go your ways, and pour out the vials of the wrath of God upon the earth." One of the ministers of vengeance declares. "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." These heavenly beings, in executing the mandate of God, ask no questions, but do as they are bid. Jehovah of hosts, the Lord God Almighty, the just, the true, and the holy, has given them their work to do. With unswerving fidelity they go forth panoplied in pure white linen, having their breasts girded with golden girdles. And when their task is done, when the last vial of God's wrath is poured out, they return and lay their emptied vials at the feet of the Lord. {TM 432.1}

It is clear in these passages it is holy angels who will cause the death and destruction portrayed by the seven last plagues. Seems to me though you believe Ellen intended for us to interpret these kinds of passages to mean holy angels will permit evil angels to pour out the vials of God's wrath and that all they do is work to ensure they do not exceed the limits established by Jesus.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 06/06/11 05:27 PM

Originally Posted By: MM
Tom, you say that in the past you have plainly stated who caused fire to blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned N&A alive. For the life of me I cannot recall what you said about it. For the record, would you please state it again here and now? I know you believe Jesus withdraws His protection and permits His enemies, within the limits He imposes on them, to punish and destroy impenitent sinners. But in the case of N&A I have absolutely no idea who you believe caused fire to blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned them alive. Regarding the punishment and death of N&A, Ellen wrote:


I've said quite a few times I don't think this matters, that looking at all these incidents one by one isn't fruitful. Regarding this one, either:

1.God actively set them on fire, as a punishment, because they worshiped Him in a way which He didn't approve of.

2.They couldn't abide God's physical presence, and burst into flames, in such a way as you perceive the wicked will be destroyed by Jesus' coming (i.e., your idea that sinful flesh cannot stand the radiant light of God's glory; I forget just how you put it).

3.Something unspecified happened, and God was presented as doing that which He permitted.

Consider this statement by EGW, for example:

Quote:
Nadab and Abihu were slain by the fire of God's wrath for their intemperance in the use of wine.


This certainly looks like type 3. I don't know anyone who thinks that God it was God's direct purpose to destroy N&A by fire chiefly or solely because of their intemperance in the use of wine.

Quote:
M:In the ST July 17, 1884 passage I quoted above she makes it clear it was Jesus who employed fire to burn N&A alive. Nothing she said implies it was someone else who did it.


Often God is presented in inspiration as doing that which He permits. The whole point in my making the point is that since this is the case, the mere fact that God is presented as directly doing something does not mean that God is necessarily actively doing that thing He is presented as doing.

Quote:
M:It also clear she believed it was Jesus who commanded King Saul to utterly kill every man, woman, child, and infant and then rejected him as king because he refused to obey every detail of the command. According to you, however, this isn’t something Jesus would do.


Here we get to the same point, again, that God is often presented as doing that which He permits. I would say that genocide is not God's ideal will. Do you disagree?

Quote:
M:To answer your questions:

1. What in Jesus' life or character would lead you to believe that He wants to burn people alive if they don't do what He says? Jesus said, “The angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.”


Since even you don't believe this is literal, unless you've changed your mind, it doesn't make sense that this statement of Jesus would lead you to believe that Jesus wants to burn people alive if they don't do what He says.

Quote:
2. Where did He ever do anything even remotely similar to this? He didn’t burn anyone alive while here in the flesh.


I take this as "nowhere."

Given that the "whole purpose" of Jesus' earthly mission was the revelation of God, and nowhere did He even remotely do anything similar to A, we should be able to conclude, given that everything we can know about God was revealed by Jesus Christ, that, at a minimum, A is not according to God's ideal will.

Quote:
3. How did He respond when it was suggested He do so? He rebuked them.

4. Where during His mission did Jesus ever even physically harm any person, even in the slightest manner? He didn’t. But He clearly taught He will, at the end of time, punish impenitent sinners with everlasting, unquenchable fire. “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire. I will burn you up with unquenchable fire.”


To respond succinctly, it looks to me that to have the viewpoint you are espousing, one would need an inconsistent view of Jesus' ministry, where He lived in one way, but taught another. But Ellen White wrote:

Quote:
What He taught, He lived. “I have given you an example,” He said to His disciples, “that ye should do as I have done.” “I have kept my Father’s commandments.” John 13:15; 15:10. Thus in His life, Christ’s words had perfect illustration and support. And more than this; what He taught, He was. His words were the expression, not only of His own life experience, but of His own character. Not only did He teach the truth, but He was the truth. It was this that gave His teaching power. {PM 266.4}


Let's look at this last part:

Quote:
(W)hat He taught, He was. His words were the expression, not only of His own life experience, but of His own character. Not only did He teach the truth, but He was the truth. It was this that gave His teaching power.


Given this, and given the fact that all we can know of God was revealed by Jesus Christ, plus that this was the purpose of His earthly mission, it's clear that simply by considering the life of Jesus Christ we can determine:

1.The truth.
2.His own character.
3.What He taught.

and by extrapolation, God's character.

For example:

Quote:
We are to observe carefully every lesson Christ has given throughout His life and teaching. He does not destroy; He improves whatever He touches.—Letter 135, 1897. {1SM 118.1}


Every lesson Christ gave throughout His life taught two things:

1.He does not destroy.
2.He improves everything He touches.

We have many examples of this. For example, in order for Lazarus to die, it was necessary for Christ to depart. This echoes the thought that sickness, suffering and death are the work of an antagonistic power.

To reiterate the above, there is a consistency between what Jesus lived and taught. What He taught, He was. So simply looking at what Jesus was is sufficient to know that truth about God.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 06/06/11 10:52 PM

Quote:
M: Good one. It would have also been obvious in the tone of his voice (for those listening but who could not see his face). What is your point?

T: I was giving this as an analogy to the counsels given by God. God has given counsels in relation to things which were not His idea will. God's giving this counsel can be misconstrued as His giving approval to the given event. For example, we are having discussions in this forum regarding polygamy on this very point.

M:Actually, on this thread, I am interested in your answer as it applies to Jesus commanding Moses to kill ungodly people.


I don't think this is a good approach, for reasons I've explained on numerous occasions.

Quote:
What was Jesus’ ideal will in the cases of the Sabbath-breaker and the Blasphemer?


How did Jesus treat the woman caught in adultery?

Quote:
Please post inspired passages to support your view, that is, passages which speak directly to these two cases (as opposed to you citing other examples and insisting the “principle” applies). Thank you.


I disagree with the approach you are suggesting.

When Jesus Christ came, the whole purpose of His mission was the revelation of God. It is by studying what He lived and taught during His mission that we arrive at the truth as to what God is like.

The difference in how we view things is in how we view God, and we view God differently because of the approach we take here (this isn't the only reason we view God differently, but it is a reason).

My belief is that we arrive at the truth about God by observing what Christ lived and taught, not by looking at OT incidents. Given this is my belief, why would I want to look at OT incidents? I don't believe this will get the job done.

How Jesus Christ treated the woman caught in adultery is a clear revelation of God's will in regards to the incidents you are asking about.

Quote:
“All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son.” {8T 286.1} The explanation I gave regarding this insight is valid.


What explanation? Why does this statement need explanation? It seems very clear.

Quote:
M:It does not disagree with her point.


Then why make it? Why not just accept her statement?

Quote:
The idea that “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now” should be interpreted to mean Jesus “did in fact reveal to them” everything there is to know about God’s character and kingdom seems rather contradictory.


Why? You seem to be totally contradicting yourself.

We have a clear statement, at least, it seems clear to me, that all that man can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son. You bring up this statement by Jesus Christ, that there were things which He could not say to the disciples before He died because they could not bear them. I don't see what this statement has to do with anything. How does this statement shed any light on the fact that all that we can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son?

All I can see in what you're writing is that:

A.You disagree with what Ellen White wrote.
B.You are explaining why.

Your explanation runs like this:

1.Jesus said to His disciples that there were things He had to say to them which they could not bear.
2.Therefore Jesus Christ did not reveal all that they could know of God.
3.Therefore Ellen White's statement needs to be amended.

If this isn't your line of reasoning, then what is?

Also, I gave an explanation of why there is no contradiction here, by pointing out that Jesus' words had to do with His death, and that His revelation of God includes His death. So by referring to words stated *before* Christ's death, you're leaving out a key part of His revelation, which isn't fair.

You didn't respond to this.

Quote:
In particular, do you believe Jesus commanded Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to death? Or, do you suspect Moses misunderstood what Jesus said? I ask these questions because in the Bible it says:

1. “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.”

2. “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. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.”

Is there any reason why we cannot take the Bible as it reads? That is, are we not obligated to read these two passages and logically conclude Jesus did indeed “command” Moses to kill them? Please don’t misunderstand the question. I’m not asking what Jesus’ ideal will was in these two cases. Hopefully you will address this aspect of the situation in the first response above.


I don't think an examination of incidents in the OT is the way to go about understanding God's character. I've explained why.

Quote:
T: Of course God allows evil things to happen in response to the choices FMA's make. That's the whole point of GC 35-37. Evil, in general, is *always* contrary to God's will, and always in response to choices FMA's have made contrary to God's will. How could it be otherwise?

M:No one suffered or died in ways not permitted by Jesus in the examples you cited above.


Why does this need to be mentioned?

Quote:
M:More to the point, Jesus worked hard to ensure evil men and evil angels did not exceed the limits He imposed on them.


What in the GC text gives you this idea?

Quote:
M:Consequently, they suffered and died in the ways they did because it was Jesus’ ideal will (under the times and circumstances) as opposed to them suffering and dying in other ways.


What in the GC text gives you this idea? In actual fact, it wasn't Jesus' ideal will that they suffer or die at all. This was His permissive will.

Quote:
M:Of all the ways people can suffer and die, Jesus chose which ways He was willing to permit evil men and evil angels to cause them to suffer and die.


"Permit" = permissive will.

Quote:
M:Which begs the question – Why didn’t Jesus work to prevent it?


We know why. The text tells us why. The Jews caused God to remove His protection.

Quote:
There are a million ways Jesus could have employed, without violating freewill, to prevent the cases of suffering and death you named above.


There's no hint of this in the text. Why do you think what you are asserting is the case?

The difficulty I see with how you see things is the perspective, which looks to have God as responsible for what happened. It appears to me this is necessary to your view, because otherwise God wouldn't be "in control," which looks to be very important to you.

How I perceive things is how GC 35-37 reads; which is that God was caused to remove His protection, and Satan sought, and seeks, to hide his own work by blaming God for what he himself is doing. I see the whole GC boils down to Satan's attempt to misrepresent God's character as being his own. Satan needs to be in control, is concerned with his own glory, has a dark side, has hidden agendas, is severe and harsh, and not concerned with the interests of others. God, on the other hand, is none of these things, but completely selfless and humble. Because God is so un-like ourselves, we have great difficulty understanding Him and His purposes, ascribing things to Him which aren't there, because of how we ourselves would act if we were in His place.

In Jesus Christ, we see how God really is; how selfless, disinterested, harmless, and humble He is ("disinterested" means not concerned with His own interests).

Quote:
M:The fact Satan will influence Sunday-keepers in future to kill Sabbath-keepers is not an argument against the fact Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people.

T: I didn't ask this. Here's what I asked: “1. If we take the point of view that God is pleased to have Sabbath-breakers killed, why wouldn't we kill them now? 2. Is it just because we're not living in a theocracy? 3. The question of killing law-breakers is an important issue coming up in the last days before Christ's second coming. 4. We know that Satan will use this very argument against those who keep God's commandments, that they should be killed.”

1. Because Jesus no longer requires it. 2. I suspect that is partly why. 3. True. 4. True.

What is your point as it relates to Jesus commanding Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker?


My point was that the point of view we take in regards to this question influences what actions we may take now, and in the future.

Quote:
Do you really think insisting that I read between the lines will ensure I arrive at the correct conclusion? Please, Tom, for the millioneth time, do you believe Jesus commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer?


You're looking for a simple answer to what's not a simple question. Say one were to ask if the father in the father/hunter story was commanding his son to hunt humanely, how would you answer that?

Quote:
For example, did the Gospels ever portray Jesus causing death and destruction that in reality He merely permitted others to do? I make this observation and ask this question because you say the Father behaved in the OT in the exact same way Jesus did in the Gospels and vice versa. But where in the Gospels did Jesus ever command godly people to kill ungodly people?

T: Exactly!!!

M:Your enthusiatic response does not help me understand your answer to the question


Really? Why not? If Jesus never commanded godly people to kill ungodly people during His earthly mission, the whole purpose of which was the revelation of God, why wouldn't this help you understand the answer to your question? It seems to me it should.

Quote:
Did Jesus, while here in the flesh, command godly people to kill ungodly people? If not, why did He do so in the OT?


If Jesus didn't do so in the NT, why would you think He would do so in the Old?

Quote:
T: I've responded to this at great, great length. The many posts in regards to the father/hunter relate to this question.

M:None of your responses provide enough insight for me to correctly conclude what you believe.


I believe Jesus illustrated God's ideal will. See how He dealt with the woman caught in adultery.

Quote:
M:Please plainly state what you believe. The humane hunter story does not help me understand why Jesus commanded Moses to kill ungodly people.


Why not? It's an analogous situation.

Quote:
M:I suspect you believe, yes, Jesus did indeed command Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer. Is this what you believe? Or, have I somehow misunderstood what you believe? Please explain. Thank you.


I asked you above how you would answer the question if the father in the father/hunter story was commanding his son to hunt humanely. I'll see how you answer that.

Quote:
M:Also, I don’t see a legitimate comparison between Jesus commanding godly people to kill ungodly people and the anti-hunting father commanding his pro-hunting son to kill animals humanely.

T: Ok, this is a good follow-up. The reason it is a legitimate comparison is because in both cases there is the question of the will of the person speaking being misunderstood.

M: Are you somehow hinting at the idea that Jesus did indeed command Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer?

T: There's no hinting here at anything.

M:Was it Jesus’ will for Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer? If not, why, then, did He “command” Moses to kill them?


Jesus' will was demonstrated in how He dealt with the woman caught in adultery. Regarding the "why not," consider the cases of polygamy, divorce, and slavery.

Quote:
M:Was Moses determined to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the Blasphemer? If so, why did he inquire of Jesus as to the right and righteous way to punish them? And, why didn’t Jesus express His ideal will when Moses was uncertain what to do?


For the same reason He didn't do so for the cases of slavery, polygamy and divorce.

Quote:
T: If we take the point of view that God is pleased to have Sabbath-breakers killed, why wouldn't we kill them now?

M:Interesting you bring this point up. Ellen wrote, “In our day there are many who reject the creation Sabbath as a Jewish institution and urge that if it is to be kept, the penalty of death must be inflicted for its violation; but we see that blasphemy received the same punishment as did Sabbathbreaking. Shall we therefore conclude that the third commandment also is to be set aside as applicable only to the Jews? Yet the argument drawn from the death penalty applies to the third, the fifth, and indeed to nearly all the ten precepts, equally with the fourth. Though God may not now punish the transgression of His law with temporal penalties, yet His word declares that the wages of sin is death; and in the final execution of the judgment it will be found that death is the portion of those who violate His sacred precepts. {PP 409.2}

T: This doesn't address my question. I haven't made the argument if the Sabbath needs to be kept, then Sabbath-breakers should be killed.

M:Your question seems to imply God isn’t in favor of executing Sabbath-breakers in accordance with the laws regulating and requiring capital punishment.

T: God isn't in favor of executing anybody. He is in favor of saving them. He gave His Son to save them.

M: However, the passage quoted above makes it clear that He is.

T: Jesus Christ made clear God's will was to save.

Yes, of course, it is God’s will and desire to save everyone. "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness; but is long-suffering to usward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.”

You and I both know and believe the majority will not be saved. What is unclear to me is if you believe Jesus commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the Blasphemer. Jesus “will by no means clear the guilty.”


You still haven't answered my question (See above, first sentence).

M:Also, the point begs the question, a question you have thus far refused to answer, namely, do you believe Jesus commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer?

T: I pointed out to you that you didn't address my question, and you utter falsehoods, and continue not to address the question.

Quote:
M:The title of this thread is – “Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death?” I have no idea what your answer is to this question. The only thing you’ve said so far is that the Bible often portrays Jesus saying or doing something which is contrary to His will and desire. From this insight you insist that I deduce your answer to the question that serves as title for this thread. It would save a lot time and energy if you would simply, clearly, plainly answer the question (rather than relying on me to deduce what you believe based on the clues you've posted thus far).

Quote:
1. Where in the OT did Jesus explain to the Jews things as you see them (as they relate to the title of this thread)?

2. Where in the NT did Jesus categorically condemn capital punishment?

Please answer the two questions posted above. Thank you.


1.Throughout His ministry. For example, on the Sermon on the Mount. Also Jesus Christ's treatment of the woman caught in adultery. Also His response to the disciples urging Him to destroy the Samaritans.

2.To see God's ideal will, see Christ's treatment of the woman caught in adultery. Also please note that I've made no statements regarding capital punishment in general, just statements in regards to God's character and actions in regards to His using violence as a means of accomplishing His will.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 06/07/11 01:09 AM

Tom, thank you for the two responses above. Before I address them, however, I'll give you a chance to catch up:

134194
134196
134197
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 06/11/11 07:14 PM

Bump for Tom.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 06/19/11 08:30 AM

More Biblical evidence/testimony that the Plagues of Egypt was a formal and compensatory/retributive judgement (i.e, both a criminal and civil procedure):

Originally Posted By: Bible Gen 15:13 & 14
God said to Abram, "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, where they will be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years.
But I will also judge the nation whom they will serve, and afterward they will come out with many possessions.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 07/04/11 05:27 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK Project (Post #133586)
where in the Bible does it actually state, i.e., as a Law, that Sabbath-Breakers should be put to death??


I have just found the answer to this previous question of mine... Exod 31:14, 15. Still the Num 15:32-36 episode occurred after this Law and both Moses and then God deliberated before enforcing this penalty. The reason manifestly is, based on the following verses in Num 15:37-41 because this person had apparently forgotten this penalty, and may have been doing this stick gathering out of an emergency need, not having properly prepared on “Friday”, and apparently to avert this nonetheless costly forgetfulness in the future, then here also instructed Israel through Moses to make ‘blue law-reminding tassels’ (cf. Deut 22:12).

Thus, as the death penalty for Sabbath Breaking was legislatively binding, then my two, thus now non-hypothetical comments in that Post #133586 is indeed the one that is Biblically valid.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 07/04/11 07:04 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Originally Posted By: NJK Project (Post #133586)
where in the Bible does it actually state, i.e., as a Law, that Sabbath-Breakers should be put to death??


I have just found the answer to this previous question of mine... Exod 31:14, 15. Still the Num 15:32-36 episode occurred after this Law and both Moses and then God deliberated before enforcing this penalty. The reason manifestly is, based on the following verses in Num 15:37-41 because this person had apparently forgotten this penalty, and may have been doing this stick gathering out of an emergency need, not having properly prepared on “Friday”, and apparently to avert this nonetheless costly forgetfulness in the future, then here also instructed Israel through Moses to make ‘blue law-reminding tassels’ (cf. Deut 22:12).

Thus, as the death penalty for Sabbath Breaking was legislatively binding, then my two, thus now non-hypothetical comments in that Post #133586 is indeed the one that is Biblically valid.


NJK,

The Sabbath breaker in the wilderness who was stoned had not "forgotten" the Sabbath. Not at all.

Originally Posted By: Ellen White
Soon after the return into the wilderness, an instance of Sabbath violation occurred, under circumstances that rendered it a case of peculiar guilt. The Lord's announcement that He would disinherit Israel had roused a spirit of rebellion. One of the people, angry at being excluded from Canaan, and determined to show his defiance of God's law, ventured upon the open transgression of the fourth commandment by going out to gather sticks upon the Sabbath. During the sojourn in the wilderness the kindling of fires upon the seventh day had been strictly prohibited. The prohibition was not to extend to the land of Canaan, where the severity of the climate would often render fires a necessity; but in the wilderness, fire was not needed for warmth. The act of this man was a willful and deliberate violation of the fourth commandment--a sin, not of thoughtlessness or ignorance, but of presumption. {PP 408.4}

He was taken in the act and brought before Moses. It had already been declared that Sabbathbreaking should be punished with death, but it had not yet been revealed how the penalty was to be inflicted. The case was brought by Moses before the Lord, and the direction was given, "The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp." Numbers 15:35. The sins of blasphemy and willful Sabbathbreaking received the same punishment, being equally an expression of contempt for the authority of God. {PP 409.1}

In our day there are many who reject the creation Sabbath as a Jewish institution and urge that if it is to be kept, the penalty of death must be inflicted for its violation; but we see that blasphemy received the same punishment as did Sabbathbreaking. Shall we therefore conclude that the third commandment also is to be set aside as applicable only to the Jews? Yet the argument drawn from the death penalty applies to the third, the fifth, and indeed to nearly all the ten precepts, equally with the fourth. Though God may not now punish the transgression of His law with temporal penalties, yet His word declares that the wages of sin is death; and in the final execution of the judgment it will be found that death is the portion of those who violate His sacred precepts. {PP 409.2}


Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 07/04/11 07:58 PM

Interesting EGW “support.” I did not notice/know that she said this. However it is actually not “final”/definite. As stated in my post, I am paramountly trying to reconcile the Biblical fact of a deliberation by both Moses and then God on what should have been a clear cut and “sure” death sentence issue. To me this EGW statement may simply have been “with/according to her understanding” and not necessarily “by Divine commission/authority.” (Cf. in this post for explanation of this potentially applicable difference). I’ve seen several corrections by EGW for even such seemingly authoritative pronouncements.

Nonetheless, harmonizing the Biblical data and EGW, this “presumption” may have been from having forgotten to make the needed preparations the day before and so he “presumed” to go and gather this wood on that Sabbath. Or it may have been just after the sun had set on Friday evening and he “presumed” he could do this last chores/task despite the Sabbath time having already started.

As this may have been his cited excuse to Moses, that may be why Moses opted to consult God on this, nonetheless, Sabbath violation and God in turn would have deliberated on this, judicially deciding on the death penalty, even if merely for an object lesson reason. Interestingly enough, I don’t hear of another case like with at least that wilderness generation. (The people of Sodom and Gomorrah were similarly also destroyed for object lesson reasons, as seen by the fact that God has not repeated that judgement though the sin is still practised.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 07/04/11 08:22 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Interesting EGW “support.” I did not notice/know that she said this. However it is actually not “final”/definite. As stated in my post, I am paramountly trying to reconcile the Biblical fact of a deliberation by both Moses and then God on what should have been a clear cut and “sure” death sentence issue. To me this EGW statement may simply have been “with/according to her understanding” and not necessarily “by Divine commission/authority.” (Cf. in this post for explanation of this potentially applicable difference). I’ve seen several corrections by EGW for even such seemingly authoritative pronouncements.

Nonetheless, harmonizing the Biblical data and EGW, this “presumption” may have been from having forgotten to make the needed preparations the day before and so he “presumed” to go and gather this wood on that Sabbath. Or it may have been just after the sun had set on Friday evening and he “presumed” he could do this last chores/task despite the Sabbath time having already started.

As this may have been his cited excuse to Moses, that may be why Moses opted to consult God on this, nonetheless, Sabbath violation and God in turn would have deliberated on this, judicially deciding on the death penalty, even if merely for an object lesson reason. Interestingly enough, I don’t hear of another case like with at least that wilderness generation. (The people of Sodom and Gomorrah were similarly also destroyed for object lesson reasons, as seen by the fact that God has not repeated that judgement though the sin is still practised.
I see. So, EGW is right so long as she agrees with what you have already stated, and you are right once you have stated it, making her "presumptuous" from then on. It is just as she herself has said.

Originally Posted By: Ellen White
Our Words Influence Us.--The words are more than an indication of character; they have power to react on the character. Men are influenced by their own words. Often under a momentary impulse, prompted by Satan, they give utterance to jealousy or evil surmising, expressing that which they do not really believe; but the expression reacts on the thoughts. They are deceived by their words and come to believe that true which was spoken at Satan's instigation. Having once expressed an opinion or decision, they are often too proud to retract it, and try to prove themselves in the right, until they come to believe that they are. {2MCP 575.2}


Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 07/04/11 08:28 PM

Save me the vitriolic spiel, Green Cochoa and learn proper Biblical exegesis!!! I answer paramountly to the Bible. If you validly don’t think that what I have stated is Biblical, then address it substantively. I have absolutely no problem retracting what I concretely see is not the Biblical truth. (Based on your recent direct answers, you seem to suddenly have got a personal/targeted agenda/vendetta against me. What (I gather) in my recent discussions pricked this, I wonder??!?) As I say to any such challenger, get Biblical instead!!
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 07/05/11 04:17 AM

NJK,

There was no vitriol in what I said. Nor am I specially targeting you. I am simply speaking to the issues and sharing my perspective based on the Spirit of Prophecy.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 07/05/11 05:45 AM

I saw/see (hidingly) using an SOP quote which speaks of ‘the evil in maintaining a personal opinion’ which by implication is: ‘against valid facts', as indeed being vitriolic and personally targeting. Point out why you think is incorrect in my exegetical view rather than surfacely/peripherally mischaracterizing me for, effectively, ultimately, maintaining that EGW did not have the full light here, as implied by the Bible’s testimony, which is to be fully taken into consideration. EGW, as she herself states, is not the full nor final word in regards to beliefs and understanding.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 07/05/11 05:53 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
...Point out why you think is incorrect in my exegetical view ...

Do you really want me to do this? Would you feel open to understanding what I perceive if I should share it?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? - 07/05/11 06:13 AM

Why ask... just "do" it! It makes no difference what you privately/personally think in advance of your views, as repeatedly seen in our Abortion discussion. Why do you need to pre-emptively try to paint me in this negative “exegetical facts-opposing” light??! Just transparently make your claim and we’ll see whose right and wrong!
© 2024 Maritime 2nd Advent Christian Believers OnLine Forums Consisting Mainly of Both Members & Friends of the SDA (Seventh-day Adventist) Church