What does it mean - The wrath and vengeance of "an offfended God"?

Will young men now humble their hearts before God and give themselves to His service? Will they not accept the holy trust, and become light-bearers to a world ready to be consumed by the wrath of an offended God? {CME 38.1}

All around him the apostle beheld witnesses to the Flood that had deluged the earth because the inhabitants ventured to transgress the law of God. The rocks thrown up from the great deep and from the earth by the breaking forth of the waters, brought vividly to his mind the terrors of that awful outpouring of God's wrath. In the voice of many waters--deep calling unto deep--the prophet heard the voice of the Creator. The sea, lashed to fury by the merciless winds, represented to him the wrath of an offended God. {AA 572.1}

As Jesus moved out of the most holy place, I heard the tinkling of the bells upon His garment; and as He left, a cloud of darkness covered the inhabitants of the earth. There was then no mediator between guilty man and an offended God. While Jesus had been standing between God and guilty man, a restraint was upon the people; but when He stepped out from between man and the Father, the restraint was removed and Satan had entire control of the finally impenitent. {EW 280.2}

In the rent altar, in the palsied arm, and in the terrible fate of the one who dared disobey an express command of Jehovah, Jeroboam should have discerned the swift displeasure of an offended God, and these judgments should have warned him not to persist in wrongdoing. {PK 107.1}

The prophet was safe from the malice of the king whose sins had brought upon the land the denunciation of an offended God. {PK 126.2}

The heavy judgments that were to befall the impenitent, --war, exile, oppression, the loss of power and prestige among the nations,--all these were to come in order that those who would recognize in them the hand of an offended God might be led to repent. {PK 309.1}

How intense was the desire of the humanity of Christ to escape the displeasure of an offended God, how His soul longed for relief, is revealed in the words, "O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done." {5BC 1103.8}

In earnest, agonizing prayer they call for God to pass them not by. The kings, the mighty men, the lofty, the proud, the mean man, alike bow together under a pressure of woe, desolation, misery inexpressible; heart-anguished prayers are wrung from their lips. Mercy! mercy! Save us from the wrath of an offended God! A voice answers them with terrible distinctness, sternness, and majesty: "Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out My hand, and no man regarded; but ye have set at nought all My counsel, and would none of My reproof: I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh." {2T 41.2}

If you much longer pursue the course you are now following, you will become infidel in regard to the truth and in regard to the word of God. Watch and pray always. Dedicate yourself unreservedly to the Lord, and it will not then be difficult to serve Him. You have a divided heart. This is the reason that darkness, instead of light, encircles you. The last message of mercy is now going forth. It is a token of the long-suffering and compassion of God. Come, is the invitation now given. Come, for all things are now ready. This is mercy's last call. Next will come the vengeance of an offended God. {2T 225.1}

Satan will oppose every effort they may make. He will present the world before them in its most attractive light, as he did to the Saviour of the world when he tempted Him forty days in the wilderness. Christ overcame all the temptations of Satan, and so may your children. They are serving a hard master. The wages of sin is death. They cannot afford to sin. They will find it expensive business. They will meet with eternal loss in the end. They will lose the mansions Jesus has gone to prepare for those who love Him, and will lose that life which measures with the life of God. And this is not all. They must suffer the wrath of an offended God for having withheld from Him their service and given all their efforts to His worst enemy. Your children have not yet had the clear light, and condemnation only follows the rejection of light. {2T 286.2}

Here we see that the church--the Lord's sanctuary--was the first to feel the stroke of the wrath of God. The ancient men, those to whom God had given great light and who had stood as guardians of the spiritual interests of the people, had betrayed their trust. They had taken the position that we need not look for miracles and the marked manifestation of God's power as in former days. Times have changed. These words strengthen their unbelief, and they say: The Lord will not do good, neither will He do evil. He is too merciful to visit His people in judgment. Thus "Peace and safety" is the cry from men who will never again lift up their voice like a trumpet to show God's people their transgressions and the house of Jacob their sins. These dumb dogs that would not bark are the ones who feel the just vengeance of an offended God. Men, maidens, and little children all perish together. {5T 211.2}

Our work must be an earnest one. We are not to fight as those that beat the air. The ministry, the pulpit, and the press demand men like Caleb, who will do and dare, men whose eyes are single to detect the truth from error, whose ears are consecrated to catch the words from the faithful Watcher. And the Spirit from the throne of God will make itself felt upon a degenerate Christianity, a corrupt world, ready to be consumed by the long-deferred judgments of an offended God. {TM 407.2}

I think the meaning is best described by Chapter 1 of "The Great Controversy," which is, by far, the most detailed explanation EGW gave on this theme.

Here's a portion from that chapter:

Tom, what does "the direct decree of God" mean to you, as opposed to "Satan was permitted to rule them according to his will."

Where did Satan get his permission to demonstrate his "vindictive power over those who yield to his control."

Also, where in this passage does Sister White refer to this event as the wrath or vengeance of an offended God?

"Direct decree" means something that God specifically willed, as opposed to something God permitted to happen, only after His Spirit had been rejected for centuries, and there was nothing else God could do. Regarding Sister White's use of "wrath" in the chapter, she uses it 5 times. Since we're dealing with concepts, and not the choice of some particular word, that the phrase "offended God" does not appear is moot. The concept is explained in great detail in the chapter.

Isn't the portrayal of God, or God's wrath, in GC chapter 1 very appealing?

The idea of the wrath of God in Scripture is not that God has fits of pique because He loses His patience. His wrath is not like the wrath of men. His wrath is His giving up the object of His desire up. This is seen in many places throughout Scripture. I'll quote one example from the New Testament:



In this passage we see how God's wrath is described in terms of the giving up of His creatures to the results of their decision.

The wrath of God in terms of Christ is described the same way. God "delivered Him up" as Paul and Peter put it (in Romans and Acts respectively).

Sin results in eternal death, not because God kills those who don't do what He says (God doesn't violate His own commandments, which are a transcript of His character), but because sin is itself lethal. God works to free us from sin. But there's a problem, which is that sin has polluted our minds, and deceived us as to God's true character. Instead of perceiving God to be like Jesus Christ was in the flesh, we perceive Him to be different, One who is severe, and will destroy those who cross Him; One who will rejoice when then wicked are destroyed (as opposed to weeping over them, as Jesus did over Jerusalem).

In order to heal us from out distorted ideas as to His character, God sent His Son to reveal God to us, in order that we might be reconciled to Him. We are reconciled when we believe the truth, which is that God is like Jesus Christ; compassionate, merciful, patient, peaceful, gentle, courteous, kind, considerate, loving, gracious, non-condemning, forgiving, self-sacrificing, humble, and all the other wonderful things Jesus Christ revealed in His life and teachings.

When Jesus taught things such as "if someone smites you one the cheek, turn the other cheek," He wasn't just mouthing words, but He was enunciating the very principles of His life, and more than that, the life of the One He came to reveal. Similarly when He said to "love your enemies," we learn that God is like that. When Jesus took up a towel to wash the feet of His disciples, saying that the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, we learn that God is like that.

If we will allow ourselves to appreciate the beauty of God's character revealed by Jesus Christ, our hearts will thrill. God longs for the intelligent, willing worship of His creatures who admire His character.

Tom, what you say about God's loving character is true. Thank you. I doubt anyone would disagree. However, your description of God's wrath and vengeance seems a bit lopsided. This thread concerns the wrath and vengeance of an offended God.

You've described the wrath and vengeance of an offended God in terms of having to reluctantly give up on unpardonable sinners, of having to permit evil angels to punish and destroy them. You seem to think this explains the wrath and vengeance of an offended God. But it sounds more like a parent grieving a court decision to execute their child.

If your view is correct, it is horribly cruel, misleading at best, to use words like "wrath" and "vengeance" to describe a grieving Father. I am offended. However, the truth is more meaningful, more understandable. It describes a loving heavenly Father punishing unpardonable sinners, even though it causes Him unimaginable grief and sorrow, because it is the right and best thing to do.

God employs one of three ways to either permanently punish or to administratively discipline sinners. Either 1) He does it Himself, 2) He commands holy angels to do it, or 3) He permits evil angels to do it. The results are the same in either case, namely, the right and best thing is accomplished.

Tom, do you agree that the following passages describe God killing people with fire?

Leviticus
10:1 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not.
10:2 And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.

Numbers
11:1 And [when] the people complained, it displeased the LORD: and the LORD heard [it]; and his anger was kindled; and the fire of the LORD burnt among them, and consumed [them that were] in the uttermost parts of the camp.

Numbers
16:35 And there came out a fire from the LORD, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense.
16:46 And Moses said unto Aaron, Take a censer, and put fire therein from off the altar, and put on incense, and go quickly unto the congregation, and make an atonement for them: for there is wrath gone out from the LORD; the plague is begun.

2 Kings
1:10 And Elijah answered and said to the captain of fifty, If I [be] a man of God, then let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty. And there came down fire from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty.
1:11 Again also he sent unto him another captain of fifty with his fifty. And he answered and said unto him, O man of God, thus hath the king said, Come down quickly.
1:12 And Elijah answered and said unto them, If I [be] a man of God, let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty. And the fire of God came down from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty.

NOTE: Compare this fire with the following fire:

Leviticus
9:24 And there came a fire out from before the LORD, and consumed upon the altar the burnt offering and the fat: [which] when all the people saw, they shouted, and fell on their faces.

1 Kings
18:38 Then the fire of the LORD fell, and consumed the burnt sacrifice, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and licked up the water that [was] in the trench.

I find it very ironic that you are "offended" because my idea of God's wrath is not vengeful enough for you, one who has labeled God as "bloodthirsty."

Here's something from an Eastern Orthodox cite:



When one refuses to follow God's ways, eventually God will give them up.







The following is from a sermon I found on line:



What this speaker pointed out is correct. The wrath of God is His "turning over to judgment," His "giving up" or "delivering up" the one upon whom His wrath is visited.

We see this same exact thing described in the Spirit of Prophecy. For example:



You appear to have the mistaken impression that if the wrath of God is as is being here described, that this would somehow make God soft on sin. But according to the SOP, never was there given a decisive testimony to God's hatred of sin and to the certain punishment than will fall upon the guilty than his turning Jerusalem over to judgment, to use the above quoted speaker's words, or to use EGW's words:



What's happening here is very clear. The Jews, by their action, caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them. They were visited by God's wrath. God gave them up.

TE: I find it very ironic that you are "offended" because my idea of God's wrath is not vengeful enough for you ....

MM: What did I post that gave you this impression?

TE: You appear to have the mistaken impression that if the wrath of God is as is being here described, that this would somehow make God soft on sin.

MM: What did I post that gave you this impression?

Tom, do you agree that the following passages describe God killing people with fire?

Leviticus
10:1 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not.
10:2 And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.

Numbers
11:1 And [when] the people complained, it displeased the LORD: and the LORD heard [it]; and his anger was kindled; and the fire of the LORD burnt among them, and consumed [them that were] in the uttermost parts of the camp.

Numbers
16:35 And there came out a fire from the LORD, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense.
16:46 And Moses said unto Aaron, Take a censer, and put fire therein from off the altar, and put on incense, and go quickly unto the congregation, and make an atonement for them: for there is wrath gone out from the LORD; the plague is begun.

2 Kings
1:10 And Elijah answered and said to the captain of fifty, If I [be] a man of God, then let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty. And there came down fire from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty.
1:11 Again also he sent unto him another captain of fifty with his fifty. And he answered and said unto him, O man of God, thus hath the king said, Come down quickly.
1:12 And Elijah answered and said unto them, If I [be] a man of God, let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty. And the fire of God came down from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty.

NOTE: Compare the fire above with the fire below:

Leviticus
9:24 And there came a fire out from before the LORD, and consumed upon the altar the burnt offering and the fat: [which] when all the people saw, they shouted, and fell on their faces.

1 Kings
18:38 Then the fire of the LORD fell, and consumed the burnt sacrifice, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and licked up the water that [was] in the trench.

There was another point I wanted to make about this, which is that if you look at the life of Christ, you see that when He wasn't wanted, He simply departed. When asked to rain fire from heaven, according to the mistaken idea that his disciples had (and you as well(?)) He replied that they did not know what spirit they were of in desiring this.

When we look at the life of Christ, we see clearly that He was non-violent.

According to Ellen White, "all that man can know" about God was revealed in the life and teachings of Christ during His earthly ministry. Where do we see the picture you have in mind of God? We don't. Anywhere.

Numbers
11:33 And while the flesh [was] yet between their teeth, ere it was chewed, the wrath of the LORD was kindled against the people, and the LORD smote the people with a very great plague.

Numbers
25:4 And the LORD said unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel.

Deuteronomy
9:19 For I was afraid of the anger and hot displeasure, wherewith the LORD was wroth against you to destroy you. But the LORD hearkened unto me at that time also.

2 Chronicles
29:8 Wherefore the wrath of the LORD was upon Judah and Jerusalem, and he hath delivered them to trouble, to astonishment, and to hissing, as ye see with your eyes.

Psalm
78:31 The wrath of God came upon them, and slew the fattest of them, and smote down the chosen [men] of Israel.

Isaiah
13:9 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.
13:13 Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the LORD of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger.

Isaiah
28:21 For the LORD shall rise up as [in] mount Perazim, he shall be wroth as [in] the valley of Gibeon, that he may do his work, his strange work; and bring to pass his act, his strange act.

Jeremiah
49:37 For I will cause Elam to be dismayed before their enemies, and before them that seek their life: and I will bring evil upon them, [even] my fierce anger, saith the LORD; and I will send the sword after them, till I have consumed them:

Lamentations
4:11 The LORD hath accomplished his fury; he hath poured out his fierce anger, and hath kindled a fire in Zion, and it hath devoured the foundations thereof.

Zephaniah
3:8 Therefore wait ye upon me, saith the LORD, until the day that I rise up to the prey: for my determination [is] to gather the nations, that I may assemble the kingdoms, to pour upon them mine indignation, [even] all my fierce anger: for all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy.

John
3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Ephesians
5:6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

Revelation
6:16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
6:17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

Revelation
14:9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive [his] mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
14:10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

Revelation
15:1 And I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvellous, seven angels having the seven last plagues; for in them is filled up the wrath of God.

Revelation
19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
19:16 And he hath on [his] vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

Matthew
8:11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
8:12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew
10:32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
10:33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Matthew
22:13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast [him] into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
22:14 For many are called, but few [are] chosen.

Matthew
24:50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for [him], and in an hour that he is not aware of,
24:51 And shall cut him asunder, and appoint [him] his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew
25:29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
25:30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Luke
13:27 But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity.
13:28 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you [yourselves] thrust out.

Tom, do you agree that the following passages describe God killing people with fire?

Leviticus
10:1 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not.
10:2 And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.

Numbers
11:1 And [when] the people complained, it displeased the LORD: and the LORD heard [it]; and his anger was kindled; and the fire of the LORD burnt among them, and consumed [them that were] in the uttermost parts of the camp.

Numbers
16:35 And there came out a fire from the LORD, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense.
16:46 And Moses said unto Aaron, Take a censer, and put fire therein from off the altar, and put on incense, and go quickly unto the congregation, and make an atonement for them: for there is wrath gone out from the LORD; the plague is begun.

2 Kings
1:10 And Elijah answered and said to the captain of fifty, If I [be] a man of God, then let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty. And there came down fire from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty.
1:11 Again also he sent unto him another captain of fifty with his fifty. And he answered and said unto him, O man of God, thus hath the king said, Come down quickly.
1:12 And Elijah answered and said unto them, If I [be] a man of God, let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty. And the fire of God came down from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty.

NOTE: Compare the fire above with the fire below:

Leviticus
9:24 And there came a fire out from before the LORD, and consumed upon the altar the burnt offering and the fat: [which] when all the people saw, they shouted, and fell on their faces.

1 Kings
18:38 Then the fire of the LORD fell, and consumed the burnt sacrifice, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and licked up the water that [was] in the trench.

MM, you have made posts in the past state that God was "bloodthirsty" and "vengeful." I had these in mind, not anything you posted in this particular thread.

I don't see that you responded to my posts.

I seen many of your posts that don't seem to be making any points, so I have nothing to respond to.

Rather than start a new thread on this topic, couldn't we just bring up the old one? That would be a lot easier, as it would have the Scripture texts, SOP texts, etc. already there.

Tom, please reference a quote where I say God is "bloodthirsty".

Also, I have posted dozen of inspired quotes describe the wrath of vengeance of God. Have you nothing to say about them?

Romans
12:19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but [rather] give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance [is] mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

MM: Tom, this is the third or forth time I've posted these quotes and questions. Please, give me an answer. Actually, I already know your answer. But I was unable to find it on MSDAOL. What I really want to know is if you've changed your mind.

Do you still believe God Himself used fire to kill people?

I've moved and don't have my quotes of yours readily available, I'm sorry. However, perhaps you can find it if you search for it. You should know what you had in mind by bloodthirsty. Also, I've quoted it for you before.

I had the quotes you mentioned in mind in what I wrote. What did you think I was talking about? What I wrote was for the purpose of explaining what God's wrath and vengeance are. I'm a bit confused how you could read what I wrote and not get that.

Regarding God's killing people with fire, or in any other way, I note that one of the commands states:



I also note that Christ was the express image of the Father, and that all that we can know about God was revealed by Him. I don't recall Him killing anyone.

However, I do recall that He was asked specifically what He thought about the idea of killing people with fire, and His response was:



I think Jesus was right.

It sounds like you've changed your mind. I remember you saying you believe the fire that killed people in the quotes I posted above came from God. What makes you think God didn't kill them with fire?

Why do you think I changed my mind? When Jesus was urged to destroy those who were rejecting Him with fire, He replied, "You know not of what spirit you are. The Son of Man came not to destroy man's lives, but to save them."

I doubt I'm going to continue this conversation, as we've discussed this at length in the past. I don't know anyone who believes in penal substitution who doesn't believe God kills. That's probably not possible. However, I know quite a few who don't believe in penal substitution, and yet believe that God kills. So probably just discussing penal substitution is sufficient.

Wait a minute. Please state your position clearly. Do you believe God used fire in the passages I quoted to kill sinners? A simple yes or no will suffice.

MM, we have a thread on this that went on for a couple hundred posts. How can you not even remember the basic positions?

I wrote this:



This answer seems to me to be very clear. I don't see the need to amend this. I also am quite sure it is no different than the what I stated when we had this discussion before.

However, I'll post another post after this one which may be helpful, in response to your request to state my position.

There are those who think that the position that God does not kill requires one to explain away many Bible stories. I don't think it's a matter of explaining away all of the Bible Stories, but of understanding a general principle that can be applied to other circumstances. For example, in Scripture were read that God sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites because of their bickering, and that many died because of this. So this certainly sounds like God was killing them by way of snakes. But from the Spirit of Prophecy we discover that actually what happened is that God withdrew His protection. He didn't send any snakes anywhere. The snakes were already there.

God removed His protection and people died. That's the principle.

Another example of this would be the destruction of Jerusalem. Scripture tells us that God was responsible for the destruction of Jerusalem, that He took vengeance, and "killed" those who killed His Son. Yet from "The Great Controversy" we read:



Ok, here's the point. In Scripture, there's absolutely no record that these two events took place by way of God's withdrawing His protection. But we know this was the case from the Spirit of Prophecy. Was she "explaining away" these stories? I don't think so. I think she was enunciating a general principle that can be applied elsewhere, also without explaining away any stories any more than in these examples.

Why do we suppose that if God is being portrayed as violent, that there *isn't* an explanation? It seems like the hermeneutic being used here is "if the Bible says God is being violent, then He is, unless Ellen White says He's not, in which case He's not."

Another difficulty I have with the idea that God is violent is that is so contrasts from Jesus' life. Where was Jesus violent? Where did He kill anyone? I don't see how if this is the case (that God resorts to violence, when needed) that we could say that God is like Jesus Christ, if Jesus Christ never resorted to violence, no matter what. These seem like two different modus operandi. How could we say that "all that man can know about God" was revealed by the life and teachings of His Son in this case? It seems to me like a very important thing that we should know about God was left out in this case.

Here's one last objection. From the Spirit of Prophecy we read:




Now if we take the position that God does not ordinarily resort to violence, or force, but as a last resort will do so, is He not acting like "false religion"? Why point out that force is the last resort of every false religion if it's the last resort of true religion as well?

Tom, thank you for the thoughts you shared. Indeed, there are times when Jesus gives Satan permission to destroy sinners. Clearly, though, it saddens Him when circumstances force Him to allow it. Destroying sinners is the last thing He wants to do. He lives to save, not to destroy.

By the way, when Jesus gives Satan permission to destroy sinners is he doing the work of God? Why does Jesus have to give Satan permission to do things that would happen without him? The snakes would have bitten the sinners, the Romans would have killed the Jews, etc.

But you still haven't addressed the Scriptures I have in mind. Here they are again. Do you agree that the following passages describe Jesus using fire to kill people? Or, do you believe Jesus gave Satan permission to destroy them with fire?

Leviticus
10:1 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not.
10:2 And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.

Numbers
11:1 And [when] the people complained, it displeased the LORD: and the LORD heard [it]; and his anger was kindled; and the fire of the LORD burnt among them, and consumed [them that were] in the uttermost parts of the camp.

Numbers
16:35 And there came out a fire from the LORD, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense.
16:46 And Moses said unto Aaron, Take a censer, and put fire therein from off the altar, and put on incense, and go quickly unto the congregation, and make an atonement for them: for there is wrath gone out from the LORD; the plague is begun.

2 Kings
1:10 And Elijah answered and said to the captain of fifty, If I [be] a man of God, then let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty. And there came down fire from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty.
1:11 Again also he sent unto him another captain of fifty with his fifty. And he answered and said unto him, O man of God, thus hath the king said, Come down quickly.
1:12 And Elijah answered and said unto them, If I [be] a man of God, let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty. And the fire of God came down from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty.

NOTE: Compare the fire above with the fire below:

Leviticus
9:24 And there came a fire out from before the LORD, and consumed upon the altar the burnt offering and the fat: [which] when all the people saw, they shouted, and fell on their faces.

1 Kings
18:38 Then the fire of the LORD fell, and consumed the burnt sacrifice, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and licked up the water that [was] in the trench.

Well said!



No.





If God did not put a hedge around us, to use the expression in Job, we'd all be destroyed. We have no idea of the dangers that Christ is constantly protecting us from (GC 36). Jesus has to "give permission," to use your expression, because not giving permission must be the norm, in order to keep us alive.



In brief, what I believe is that GC 35-37 lays out the principles of what happens when God's wrath is poured out, and these principles apply equally to whatever incidents one wishes to consider where God is described as killing someone or some group of people, whether by fire, or any other means.

We've spoken about this at great length in the past. If you want more detail, please find the thread where this was discussed and take a look at that.

Who or what would destroy sinners if God did not protect us? Snakes and Romans?

In the cases involving fire (quoted above) are you saying Satan used fire to kill people?

Who or what would destroy sinners if God did not protect us? Snakes and Romans?

Here's the GC quote:



In the cases involving fire (quoted above) are you saying Satan used fire to kill people?

Yes, indirectly.

Snakes, Romans, fire, etc, is Satan killing people? Is that what you're saying?

Why does Jesus need to give Satan permission to kill people if it is the natural consequence of sinning? Why is Satan necessary at all if it happens naturally the moment God withdraws His protection?

Satan certainly isn't necessary to destroy people, if that's what you're thinking.

It seems to me the GC 36 statement is very clear. I'm not getting what the confusion is.

God protects us from all sorts of dangers, many of which we don't know. When people reject Him, eventually He will give them over to the results of their choice. Don't you think this is a fair reading of GC 36?

GC 36 explains one of the methods God uses to punish and destroy sinners. But it doesn't explain the other ways. The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands is exercised by evil angels when He permits.

It is a messy distortion of the facts to read the fire quotes (posted above) and conclude God gave Satan permission to punish and destroy sinners with fire. God forbade the fathers to publicly lament the death of their boys.


GC 614
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}

Duplicate post.

Hmm. I already answered this, but I don't see my answer. You have a duplicate post and I have a disappeared post.

Consider in Numbers where it says that God sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites because of their complaining. Some, or many, of the Israelites died because of this. From Scripture, we would understand that God killed the Israelites, using snakes. But that's not what happened.

Similarly, we look at the destruction of Jerusalem, and from Scripture we see that God is portrayed as killing those who rejected His Son in more than one place. But that's not what happened.

In both cases, what actually happened is that God withdrew His protection. We see this same model in Scripture, of which I've quoted many texts to you in the past, so I won't repeat that here.

Ok, so the basic question is, what hermaneutic (that is, theological rule) do we use for understanding the principle Ellen White is setting forth. There are two possibilities:

1)The principle she laid out is a general principle, which can be applied to other cases.

2)We should consider each incident in Scripture on a case by case basis. If Scripture says that God killed someone, then God killed them (unless the Spirit of Prophecy revises that, like in the case of the snakes and the destruction of Jerusalem.

I just can't make any sense out of 2). I don't see how the principle that we accept what Scripture says, unless Ellen White says something different than Scripture, can possibly be right. It seems much more likely that Ellen White is giving us a principle whereby we can better understand Scripture as a whole. IOW, it's not a case by case thing, but a general principle thing.

That's one point, probably the second most important. The most important thing is God's character. This is the issue of issues. This is what the Great Controversy is all about. The primary reason Christ came was to reveal God's character. When Christ comes again, the message that will prepare His coming is the message of God's character of love. (I've quoted these to you before many times as well, so I'll skip it, but can supply the quotes if you want).

So what is God's character like? Jesus answered that question when He said, "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father." The truth is that God is, in reality, like Jesus Christ in the flesh was. Jesus was not putting on a show, acting different than normal, but was simply being Himself, or, more accurately, being God's self, since Christ did nothing of Himself but revealed the Father in all that He said and did.

So in Christ, we see the truth about God. Not a partial truth that needs to be supplemented by wrath and violence imported from the Old Testament or anywhere else, but the whole truth, a complete revelation.

When I first read the statement from the SOP that all that we can know about God was revealed in the life and character of His Son, that had a profound impact on me. In particular, the word "all" surprised me. All that I can know about God is what I see revealed in Christ. What an amazing thought! It brings life to the suggestion that it would be good for us to spend a thoughtful hour each day meditating on the life of Christ, especially the latter scenes. As we do so, we learn about God.

In addition to God's character, closely related we have His government, and the principles by which His government is run. The Spirit of Prophecy tells us in a number of places that force is not a principle of God's government. When we look at Christ's life, we see that Christ did not use force, we see the truth about EGW's statement about the principles of God's government.

Now fire coming down from heaven and destroying people, or water coming upon people and drowning them, is violence, no matter how you slice it. Throwing in the word "justice" does not change the reality of the situation. People were violently killed. Over 1,000 incidents of violence are attributed to God in the Old Testament. But in the New we see that Jesus was totally non-violent, or, better yet, anti-violent, preferring the death of the cross to violence. So how to we reconcile these things?

It's easy if we recognize the truth, which is that violence is of the devil. It's a by-product of sin. It's foreign to God, foreign to His character, and foreign to His government. Once we recognize this it's easy to see that the only explanation which makes sense is the one that EGW provided in "The Great Controversy". Understanding the truth about violence would allow us to correct interpret these stories without her having written a word.

GC 36 explains one of the methods God uses to punish and destroy sinners. But it doesn't explain the other ways. The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands is exercised by evil angels when He permits.

GC 614
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}

Tom, even if you were right, even if God simply withdrew His protection and allowed Satan to send fire from the most holy place and destoy Nadab and Abihu, we still have the fact it was God who did something that resulted in killing sinners. How does that make God less culpable? It reminds me of someone releasing a pack of mad dogs in order to kill people, and then ordering the parents not to mourn their death.

Let's say you have a son, and he wants to do drugs. For awhile, you keep him at home, not allowing him out of his room, with no access to drugs. You warn him of the dangers of drugs. You do all you can to convince him not to use them.

Eventually you allow your son to do what he wants to do. He chooses to do drugs. He dies as a result. This is one scenario.

The second scenario is you catch your son doing drugs, and get angry at him, and stab him with a knife and kill him.

Are you equally culpable in both scenarios?



It's too bad that you look at things in this way. It's like you can only look at what happened in a way that God is doing something bad. Either He is doing the killing Himself, or He is releasing a pack of mad dogs.

I reject both of your scenarios. God was acting like Jesus Christ did. Here's a perfect example:



What did Jesus do when He was rejected? He "went to another village."

This is what God does when He is rejected. He departs, leaving the one rejecting him to his own devices.

The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands is exercised by evil angels when He permits. God is in control. He takes responsibility. He decides when we reap what we sow. In the lake of fire, He decides when sinners die. They suffer in proportion to their sinfulness.

The biggest weakness of your position I see, MM, is that it makes Christ's life and character during His ministry on earth an incomplete revelation of God. To put it another way, it makes God unlike Christ.

The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands is exercised by evil angels when He permits. Jesus spoke of impending punishment and destruction.

Matthew
8:12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
13:42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
13:49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,
13:50 And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
22:13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast [him] into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
24:51 And shall cut him asunder, and appoint [him] his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
25:30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew
3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and [with] fire:
3:12 Whose fan [is] in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

John
3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

But what does this mean? You have the idea of man's justice, that God does something *to* them. But that's not the case. Satan is the destroyer. He is the one that destroys.



You have the idea that sometimes God's wrath is manifest as described here, but this is just one of the ways God destroys. But this would makes Jesus' testimony untrue. Jesus never revealed this.

The bottom line is that you believe that Jesus Christ, in His life and character during His mission on earth, did not fully reveal God.

Tom, the context of your quote reveals only one of the ways God has punished and destroyed sinners. Withdrawing protection and giving evil angels permission to destroy is only one way.

The following quotes describe other ways:


The following quotes make it clear we should not go around saying God does not directly punish or destroy sinners:

The following EGW excerpts are taken from the quotes posted above.

---

EGW: Under God the angels are all-powerful. On one occasion, in obedience to the command of Christ, they slew of the Assyrian army in one night one hundred and eighty-five thousand men.

MM: Tom, do you really believe this passage describes Jesus giving evil angels permission to destroy sinners?

---

EGW: The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands ....

MM: Tom, do you really believe this passage describes holy angels stepping aside and allowing evil angels to destroy sinners?

---

EGW: These judgments are sent that those who lightly regard God's law and trample upon His authority may be led to tremble before His power and to confess His just sovereignty.

MM: Tom, do you really believe passage describes Jesus giving evil angels permission to destroy sinners?

---

EGW: God controls all these elements; they are his instruments to do his will; he calls them into action to serve his purpose. These fiery issues have been, and will be his agents to blot out from the earth very wicked cities.

MM: Tom, do you really believe this passage describes Jesus giving evil angels permission to destroy sinners?

---

EGW: These manifestations bear the special marks of God's power, and are designed to cause the people of the earth to tremble before him, and to silence those, who like Pharaoh would proudly say, "Who is the Lord that I should obey his voice?"

MM: Tom, do you really believe this passage describes Jesus giving evil angels permission to destroy sinners?

---

EGW: God will plague the wicked inhabitants of the earth until they are destroyed from off it.

MM: Tom, do you really believe this passage describes Jesus giving evil angels permission to destroy sinners?

---

EGW: God's love is represented in our day as being of such a character as would forbid His destroying the sinner

MM: Tom, do you really believe this passage describes Jesus giving evil angels permission to destroy sinners?

MM, my response to your last two posts would be what I wrote in post #93900.

Summarizing:

1)I don't think your piece-meal approach makes sense. It leads to the idea that we believe what Scripture says in regards to God's killing someone, unless Ellen White says something else. I don't think this hermeneutic makes sense.

2)Given that EGW wrote of Christ's ministry on earth: "all that man can know about God was revealed in the life and character of His Son," I don't see how your ideas regarding this subject can be true.

3)Basically, you think that God has multiple ways of destroying, but I see just one principle involved, the one laid out in GC 35-37. This makes for a hermeneutic that makes sense, and is in harmony with EGW's statement that all that we can know about God was revealed by Christ's incarnation.

4)Regarding not saying that God destroys or punishes sinners, I agree. However, how does God punish and destroy? By the means laid out in GC 35-37.

Tom, based on your post above I have taken the liberty to answer the following questions on your behalf. If you disagree with any of the answers, please explain why. Thank you.

---

The following EGW excerpts are taken from the quotes posted above.

---

EGW: Under God the angels are all-powerful. On one occasion, in obedience to the command of Christ, they slew of the Assyrian army in one night one hundred and eighty-five thousand men.

MM: Tom, do you really believe this passage describes Jesus giving evil angels permission to destroy sinners?

TE: Yes, absolutely. It is the only thing that makes hermeneutical sense.

---

EGW: The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands ....

MM: Tom, do you really believe this passage describes holy angels stepping aside and allowing evil angels to destroy sinners?

TE: Yes, absolutely. It is the only thing that makes hermeneutical sense.

---

EGW: These judgments are sent that those who lightly regard God's law and trample upon His authority may be led to tremble before His power and to confess His just sovereignty.

MM: Tom, do you really believe passage describes Jesus giving evil angels permission to destroy sinners?

TE: Yes, absolutely. It is the only thing that makes hermeneutical sense.

---

EGW: God controls all these elements; they are his instruments to do his will; he calls them into action to serve his purpose. These fiery issues have been, and will be his agents to blot out from the earth very wicked cities.

MM: Tom, do you really believe this passage describes Jesus giving evil angels permission to destroy sinners?

TE: Yes, absolutely. It is the only thing that makes hermeneutical sense.

---

EGW: These manifestations bear the special marks of God's power, and are designed to cause the people of the earth to tremble before him, and to silence those, who like Pharaoh would proudly say, "Who is the Lord that I should obey his voice?"

MM: Tom, do you really believe this passage describes Jesus giving evil angels permission to destroy sinners?

TE: Yes, absolutely. It is the only thing that makes hermeneutical sense.

---

EGW: God will plague the wicked inhabitants of the earth until they are destroyed from off it.

MM: Tom, do you really believe this passage describes Jesus giving evil angels permission to destroy sinners?

TE: Yes, absolutely. It is the only thing that makes hermeneutical sense.

---

EGW: God's love is represented in our day as being of such a character as would forbid His destroying the sinner.

MM: Tom, do you really believe this passage describes Jesus giving evil angels permission to destroy sinners?

TE: Yes, absolutely. It is the only thing that makes hermeneutical sense.

You arguing both your own and Toms part now Mike? Surely that would lead to a quick resolution to your debate, dont you think?

Thomas, Tom has been unwilling to plainly answer my questions. I am trying to pin point what he believes so we can resume studying the issues related to this thread. Do you have any suggestions?

MM, regarding your questions and answers, I just wrote this:



It seems to me that you are trying to take an approach which is too scattered. Rather than trying to understand the underlying principles involved, you look for proof texts. I don't think this approach is wise.

In particular, I'd invite you to look at my comment above regarding 1). If you want do continue this discussion, we could discuss this point 1), which is what you're basically violating in the questions/answers you're answering on my behalf.

On this question, I dont know what to think. On the one hand, Jesus is our best example of whom God is and what His character is like. And as Tom has pointed out, Jesus didnt kill anyone. However, on the second hand we have a flood, a case of burning sulphur from heaven, ten plagues hitting Egypt but only after Moses had given message from God giving information about the characteristics of each plague in advance and other alike examples before Jesus. After Jesus we have a couple professing to give generously to the church while in secret being somewhat less generous falling dead. We also have Jesus predicting suffering and death for sinners as recorded in the gospels and we have Jesus predicting death by fire for the devil and all evil angels and humans in the judgement as recorded in revelation.

Well, how are these two reconciled? Where does the image of God who does not kill and is known for selfsacraficing love meet the image of God who does at times send death and destruction on sinners?

If the answer is as Tom has suggested that only the first image of God is correct, how did the destruction the bible attributes to God take place? Did the devil send the flood and rain burning sulphur on Sodom and Gomorrah? Why didn't the devil in such case try to destroy humanity in a different way when he saw that God led Noah to build a boat? Or if it is not nesessarily the devil who does the killing but sin itself, how? If one says that sin kills by leading its captives to suicide, that doesnt explain any fire from heaven or earthquakes opening up under the sinners feet. Does sin have a substance that like nitroglycerin is likely to explode as soon as the precautions to keep it under control are removed? Or was it the glory of God who destroyed sin and sinners like fire? But would this not suggest that the glory of God comes with a scent of sulphur? Wouldnt that be ironic in such case? And truly, if God decides to shine His glory on a couple of cities while continuing to shield the rest of the world from it, how is it more than semantics to say that God did not destroy those cities?

Simply, more questions than answers.

Well put, Thomas. It is hard to believe Satan would do something that is specifically calculated to honor and glorify God. For example, consider the following insights:

EGW: These judgments are sent that those who lightly regard God's law and trample upon His authority may be led to tremble before His power and to confess His just sovereignty.

EGW: These manifestations bear the special marks of God's power, and are designed to cause the people of the earth to tremble before him, and to silence those, who like Pharaoh would proudly say, "Who is the Lord that I should obey his voice?"

EGW: God's love is represented in our day as being of such a character as would forbid His destroying the sinner.

Tom, you seem to be guilty of doing this very thing.

Good questions, Thomas. Sounds pretty much like the thinking I went through when I first had the thought that perhaps God was not the killer that most perceive Him to be. Of course, the question comes out, how does one explain the many incidents (over 1,000 in the Old Testament alone!) that portray God as a violent God.

Not only are there so many accounts of violence attributed to God, but there are many motives attributed as well. Oftentimes God kills because He is jealous or angry. Certainly the idea that you better not cross God comes across loud and clear, because if you do, He will violently put an end to you.

This goes along with the idea of God's violently bringing an end to the wicked at the judgment as well. A God who kills "billions" of men, women and children, as MM puts it. With so much evidence, how can we escape the conclusion that God is a killer, and violence is the hallmark of His government?

I think the first step may be a conviction that something is wrong. That is, we see in Jesus Christ One who was as non-violent or anti-violent as one could imagine. Not only did Jesus never kill anyone, He never lost His temper, or even yelled at anyone. One might thing of His scathing denouncements of the pharisees as contradicting this idea, but Jesus was in full control, only said what He said as a warning to those influenced by the pharisees, after years of trying to reach them, doing everything He could not to offend them (this is why He took to teaching in parables, when He saw the resistance that came His speaking directly; He also departed on many occasions in order to avoid controversy). We are told that there were tears in His voice as He rebuked the pharisees.

So how does one reconcile this wonderfully kind, patient, gentle man with the angry, jealous smiting God of the Old Testament?

There are two general approaches it seems to me that one can take. One approach is that both pictures must be correct. Somehow, on the one hand, God is like Jesus Christ, and sometimes (hopefully much of the time) kind, patient, gentle and non-violent like Jesus was. However, besides being merciful, God is also justice (we hear), meaning that He will visit with violent retribution those who would dare to cross Him. In order to keep this second picture, we resort to justifications of God's temper, jealousy and actions.

The other approach is based on the conviction that if God really is like Jesus Christ, there must be some other explanation for the violent episodes that are attributed to God. In most cases, there are alternative explanations that are easy to find. God is often presented in Scripture as doing that which He permits, and that alone explains many episodes.

Some episodes are not so easy to explain. However, it is also not easy to explain how God, on the one hand, can be like Jesus Christ, and, on the other hand, be totally unlike Him. So we get to choose which difficulty we want to keep.

Regarding sin being like nitroglycerin, that's not a bad image to have. I suppose you said it in jest, but it's a good picture of reality. If we view sin as being exceedingly dangerous, able to smite through the direct workings of Satan, or indirectly through natural disasters, then it's easy to see what sort of havoc is sure to happen the moment God releases control. Here are some statements from the Spirit of Prophecy which help understand this principle:



There are many important points in this paragraph, but I chose to highlight just one. We cannot know how much we owe to Christ for the peace and prosperity we enjoy. Why not? Because to us it doesn't seem like He's doing anything. We just take it for granted that we aren't in any danger. Going along with nothing happening to us is normal, so we don't imagine that we are actually being protected, always.



This quote brings out that God is actively involved in keeping things in order, which, of course, is not what we naturally perceive.



It's not my intent here to present overwhelming evidence for my given point of view. I don't believe that's possible. I'm just trying to put forth a few ideas that allow for the *possibility* of a given point of view.

If we asked the question, if it were possible to explain the accounts in Scripture which portray God as acting violently, would that be something desirable, if the answer is "no," then there's no point in continuing the study. However, if the answer is "yes," we can pursue principles which allow for this interpretation.

Regarding the specific question about this event or that one, there's simply too many to go through each one (there's over 1,000!), however, the same principles can be applied to similar cases.

I'll address three episodes: 1)Sodom and Gomorrah 2)The flood 3)The Egyptian plagues

Sodom and Gomorrah could well have been the result of a volcano. Here's a web site that discusses this possibility: http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi58.htm

One might ask, "What about Lot's wife turning into a pillar of salt." That doesn't seem like it could have been the result of a natural disaster.



This is from Henry Morris, a well known creationist. (http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/lotswife.html)

Regarding the flood, everything points to the flood having been precipitated by waters from the ocean exploding into the atmosphere. The Spirit of Prophecy says this explicitly, the Scriptural account strongly suggests this, and scientists who believe in the flood have modeled this, believing this is what precipitated the flood.

These waters would have had to have been under tremendous pressure. There are at least two possibilities for the flood which do not have God initiating the violence. One is that God knew when the earth would give way, and Noah's preaching was a warning to what would happen if God did not intervene. God could have intervened, as He did in the case of Nineveh, if Noah's preaching had been heeded.

A second possibility is that God had been consistently holding back these pressures, and simply stopped doing so when Noah's preaching was not heeded.

Regarding the Egyptian plagues, first of all, if we suppose that God was applying more and more pressure, greater and greater violence, until He finally got His way, then God would be acting like a mafia protection thug. Pay for protection, or something bad might happen to you. The store owner refuses the protection, and worse and worse things happen to the store, until finally the store owner capitulates. Is this how God accomplishes His will?



There are many similar statements regarding God's not using force to compel the conscience. However, if the traditional view of the plagues were true, one could hardly imagine a better example of compelling the conscience than that.

EGW writes that the plagues of Egypt were similar in character to the final plagues to fall in Revelation. Of these plagues from Revelation we read:



I'll stop here. Basically, repeating what I said earlier, it seems to me there are issues one needs to deal with regardless of which position one takes on this issue, but I think the issues are less onerous in the non-violent God view.

I suppose a superficial reading of what she wrote could give this impression, however, looking more carefully, we see she writes things like this:



When Ellen White warns about those teaching God does not punish sin, she is arguing against the idea that one can sin with impunity.

The destruction of Jerusalem is the most decisive testimony to the certain punishment that befalls the wicked. How did God destroy Jerusalem?

That was a massive post Tom. Lets see about some comments on it. You wrote:
While Jesus never killed anyone or lost His temper, we are told that He hunted the vendors of the cult sacrafices out of the temple at least once.

Regarding the two paths one have to choose from, you are propably right that many of these 1000 events are things that God allowed but I still fail to see how all of them could be thus "explained away" without doing irreparable damage to the message of these books. If God did not do what we are told He did, how can we then trust the rest of the message around these events? If God did not cause the flood, what is the promise signified by the rainbow that God would never do it again worth? Promising to never do again what He didnt do in the first place anyhow?

I agree that sin is exceedingly dangerous, but im not sure it is a cause of spontaneous combustion as it would have to be for the devil to be destroyed in fire after the judgement wihtout God being involved in it.

Of course I agree that God is in the buisness of creating order where disorder is.

The question I have about the volcanoe at Santorini causing the burning of Sodom and Gomorrah is that the closest way between the mountain and the Jordan valley goes right over the hill country where Abraham was standing in safety and towards which Lot was running for safety. If the burning ash cloud took the roundabout way, it would have left a trail of death and destruction simmilar to Sodom all the way through Lebannon and over Gennesaret down the valley, not just those 5 cities. Such a massive destruction would have been heard of from many other sources besides the bible.

Regarding the plauges of Egypt, Moses hit the waters of the Nile with his staff and immediately its contents of blood rose to such a high level that the fish in the river suffocated and the ground water was tainted by the blood. If God did not turn the water into blood, or allowed the devil to turn water into blood (if the devil even has such powers of alchemy) there would have to have been a massive depopulation of Ethiopia around this time. Can you imagen the amount of lives that would have to be spilled to compleately saturate one of the worlds greatest rivers with blood? Once again, such a depopulation of an entire region would not go unheard of.

Maybe there is a third option other than God either being compleately unassociated with any of this or God being the great Al Capone in the sky. Would it be worth an effort to search for such a solution?

Regarding the post, I spent quite a bit of today working on it. I'm hoping it will be of some value to you.

I think the third option is what I've been suggesting. God was not completely unassociated. He took the actions to allow the flood to happen, or Sodom and Gomorrah or whatever of the incidents we want to consider. So much so that the Bible gives Him "full credit". The Bible simply says God did these things.

However, the Bible often portrays God as doing that which He permits. For example, the Bible says that God killed Saul. The Bible says God sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites. The Bible says God destroyed Jerusalem. Yet we read that the "great deceiver" was really the one responsible for the destruction of Jerusalem! We read that the great deceiver does these things in order to hide his own work. Could it be that the great deceiver has been so successful at this that we can't conceive of the idea that God really didn't do these things?

The problem is not of explaining away events in Scripture, but of understanding them correctly in the first place. First we need to start with Christ. When the question is asked, where in Christ's life do we see anything along the lines of what God supposedly did in the Old Testament there are always two events that come to mind. One is the cursing of the fig tree, and the other is the cleansing of the temple. What really happened in these events? Was Christ really acting violently?

There's plenty of material available to study from the Spirit of Prophecy (most specifically, the Desire of Ages), so I'll let you look into this yourself. If you look into this, you'll find that Christ was not acting violently in these episodes, which is carefully explained.

Here's another thing to consider. Christ said that what He heard His Father say, He (Christ) said, and what He saw His Father do, He did. Where did Christ hear and see His Father? From Scripture, of course, which would have been the Old Testament, since that's all there was.

So Christ was basically saying, "If you want to know what I think of the Old Testament God, look at Me!" Christ's life and character was the acting out of what Christ saw the Old Testament God to be.

So where is the violence? How did Christ miss that? Or could it be that Christ's picture is actually correct, and we, with our violent ideas regarding God are actually the ones that have it wrong?

The way the Spirit of Prophecy puts it is that "all that man can know about God was revealed in the life and character of His Son." In other words, Christ was a complete revelation. What about the part about God where He will violently destroy you if you cross Him in the least detail? How is it that Christ left that part out?

The Spirit of Prophecy tells us that force is not a principle of God's government, that He does not compel the conscience. Yet the plagues of Egypt, as traditionally understood, are the poster child for compelling the conscience. What better example could be given? Just keep upping the violence until you get your way, and who better to do that than an all-powerful God?

The Spirit of Prophecy tells us



How can it be that true religion is the same as false?

The GC quote I cited earlier states:



I believe this is the principle by which God destroys, and there is no need for additional principles which incorporate violence. Violence is not a part of God's government, which is simply another way of saying that God is not violent. God is like Jesus Christ, which is to say, non-violent. More than that, God is anti-violent.

Violence and God have nothing to do with one another.

The bottom line in considering this topic is, "Who is God?" I believe that to rightly divide Scripture, we must take the position that Jesus Christ has revealed fully and completely what God is like, and let that be our bedrock. Questions may come up, but if we stick to this axiom, they will clear up.

What then about Jesus teaching? In Matthew 7, Jesus says that we will recognise false prophets on their bad fruit. A good tree has good fruit and a bad tree has bad fruit, and a tree that bears bad fruit will be cut down and thrown on a fire.

In chapter 13 Jesus explains his parable about the weeds saying that at harvest time, the son of man (ie Jesus himself) will send angels to gather up those who lead others to fall and live lawlessly and throw them into a burning furnance where they will cry.

In chapter 21, Jesus tells the story of some wineyard workers. The owner of the wineyard sent servants to collect his due from the wineyard but the tenants manhandled them all in different ways. Then the owner sent his son, whom the tenants killed. What will the owner do?
The next parable tells of a king throwing a wedding party. The king sends invitations but they are refused. How does the king react? He sends his troops and sacks the city of those who refused to come. Then the king invites any beggar or farmer his servants can find on the roads and the festive room was filled. All but one had found and dressed in wedding clothes, and the one who had neglected the proper attire was bound and thrown out.

The we have the judgement tale in chapter 25 where some are judged good and invited to eternal life and others are judged bad and condemned to eternal punishment.

Where does Jesus teaching about the judgement fit in?

Concerning the plagues of Egypt, most sermons I heard on it did not try to say that God increased the pressure until He got what He wanted but rather that He showed one by one that the Egyptian gods were powerless against Him. Like, you pray to the nile? the nile bleeds when I hit it. you pray to the god of the flies? flies will haunt you on my word. you pray to the sun? the sun will hide its face from you for three days on my command. etc.

Another thing that concerns me I think will be made clear from some examples. In Numbers 16, we read about Korah, Datan and Abiram making a riot against the leadership of Moses. They all gathered outside the tabernacle and God showed Himself at its door. God then told Moses to separate himself and Aron from the rebellious group. Moses then tells the people to go away from the tents of Korah and have nothing to do with them. Then he tells Korah that if Korah dies in another way than by the ground opening up under his feet, swallowing him and his family, God has not sent Moses. Once Moses finnished talking, the ground did open up under the feet of Korah and he and his family was swallowed up alive by the earth. Then a fire from the Lord burned up the remaining 250 accomplices of Korah.

Now, there are four possibilities here. Either we accept that Moses and God acted in mutual agreement and that the ground did open up by an act of God to validate Moses leadership.
Or we say that God did not act in any of this except allowing it to happen, but that the devil was so eager to kill Korah and his family that he didnt care that he at the same time validated Moses as Gods approved leader.
Or then we say that God did not do it beyond allowing it, but neither was the devil involved in it. What really happened was that Korah had the missfortune of having put up his tent on the only spot of land in the area that was instable and prone to open up under his feet and all that had saved him until that moment was God miraculously holding the earth solid so as to spare his life.
And lastly, we can simply say that none of this ever happened in reality and that it is in the bible because some teacher thought it usefull for teaching spiritual lessons.

Only the first option is supported by the text in its entierity. For the following three options we have to deny the truthfullness of the text to a lesser or a greater extent. If for instance it was the devil who was the real actor, Moses attributed acts of the devil to God, an accusation not to different from the one that caused Jesus to speak about the sin against the Holy Spirit.

Also, if we accept here that the text says one thing but what really happened was something different, then how are we to say anything when others do the same in for instance genesis 1-6? Sure the text says that God created earth in 6 literal days, but what happened in reality was... And in this parable Moses whom we attribute as the author was personally involved in the event whereas he was not at creation. If he was not aware of what really happened in an event that he was a major player in, what credibility does he have of knowing what took place before he was born?

Jesus did not walk around judging people when He walked around on earth some 2000 years ago, but at the same time He prophecied both that Jerusalem would fall aswell as that He would return to judge the world. Jerusalem did fall, so who are we to say that Jesus will not return to judge?

Thank you for your thoughts, Thomas.

You didn't really deal with the points I was making, so I would invite you once again to consider those points, which deal primarily with God's character. Is God violent? That's a key question to consider. When we look at Christ's life, we say no. When we look at the Old Testament, the answer appears to be, very much so, as in your interpretation of the Egyptian plagues. You want to pray to another God?! I'll show you!!

Regarding Jesus' teachings, I think you have misunderstood them. One thing to bear in mind is that Jesus met people where they were, and often communicated with people in ways they could understood, to make a certain point. The key point Jesus was wanting to communicate should be born in mind. If you simply look at Jesus' life, it's easy to see that He was against violence.

I'll give you an example of what I mean. In the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, Christ spoke of Lazarus and the rich man being together in the after life. The people he was speaking to had the idea that the soul was immortal. Christ used that idea to communicate an idea, which was that even if He should rise from the dead, if they did not believe Moses, they would not believe Him, which is, of course, exactly what happened.

Now one could look at the parable and say, "See, Jesus believed the soul is immortal!" However, Jesus was simply communicating with them in their own language. His words can be misapplied to obtain the wrong message.

Similarly, to consider one of the examples you gave, regarding the parable of the murdered son (the vineyard parable).



In looking at this parable, we see that it was actually the hearers of the parable that pronounced the sentence against themselves. They were the ones who saw God as vindictive and violent. Christ did not correct their picture of God, similar to not correcting His hearers ideas regarding the state of the dead in the Lazarus parable. Instead He used their ideas to communicate a truth they were ready to hear:



Now what actually happened in the event prophesied by Christ? Did God act the way Christ's hearers had envisioned? Not at all!



Here was see what really happened. So it's evident that Christ was not teaching that God is violent in the parable you cited.

What is God like? That's the key question to be considered. When I look at Christ, I see One who is kind, gentle, patient, gracious, merciful, courteous, and not violent, to name just a few characteristics. In 1 Cor. 13 we read:



This is a picture of Christ.

I believe God is just like Jesus Christ: kind, gentle, patient, gracious, merciful, courteous, and not violent. God is like the picture of love described in 1 Cor. 13.

It's possible to understand the events in Scripture in a way by which God is not violent. Christ evidently understood God that way, because He said the works He did were the works He saw His Father doing, and none of Christ's works were violent.

To give an example, in the event of Korah being swallowed up by the earth, a possibility you didn't mention is that God simply knew that was going to happen. That is, that there was going to be an earthquake, and Korah would be swallowed up by it. God could have taken measures to prevent it, but didn't.

It's not difficult to come up with alternative explanations for the stories in Scripture which preserve the picture of God's being like Jesus Christ, being non-violent. The main question is one of motivation. Do we see any need to do so? Or is the picture of a violent God just fine with us?

If we have no problems with God's resorting to violence in order to accomplish His will, then it's easy to read Scripture to support that idea.

To give a short answer rigth away, what I am looking for is not a violent God but Gods holiness. This is a true characteristic of God and one that I do not think is diminished in the person or teaching of Jesus.

No on is disputing that God is holy. What is there even to discuss?

Is violence a characteristic of God's kingdom? Of His character?

[quote=the cross of christ]
The holy love of God

What has this to do with the atonement? Just that the way God chooses to forgive sinners and reconcile them to himself must, first and foremost, be fully consistent with his own character. It is not only that he must overthrow and disarm the devil in order to rescue his captives. It is not even only that he must satisfy his law, his honour, his justice or the moral order: it is that he muyst satisfy himself. Those other formulations rightly insist that at least one expression of himself must be satisfied, either his law or honour or justice or moral order; the merit of this further formulation is that it insists on the satisfaction of God himself in every aspect of his being, including both his justice and his love.

But when we thus distinguish between the attributes of God, and set one over against another, and even refer to a divine 'problem' or 'dilemma' on account of this conflict, are we not in danger of going beyoond Scripture? Was P. T. Forsyth correct in writing that 'there is nothing in the Bible about the strife of attributes'? I do not think he was. To be sure, talk about 'strife' or 'conflict' in God is very anthropomorphic language. But then the Bible is not afraid of anthropomorphisms. All parents know the costliness of love, and what it means to be 'torn apart' by conflicting emotions, especially when there is a need to punish the children. Perhaps the boldest of all human models of God in Scripture is the pain of parenthood which is attributed to him in Hosea, chapter 11. He refers to Israel as his 'child', his 'son' (v.1), whom he had taught to walk, taking him in his arms (v.3) and bending down to feed him (v.4). Yet his son proved wayward and did not recognize his Father's tender love. Israel was determined to turn from him in rebellion (vv.5-7). He therefore deserved to be punished. But can his own father bring himself to punish him? So Yahweh soliloquizes:



Here surely is a conflict of emotions, a strife of attributes, within God. The four questions beginning with the words 'how can I...?' bear witness to a struggle between what Yahweh ought to do because of his righteousness and what he cannot do because of his love. And what is the 'change of heart' within him but an inner rension between his 'compassion' and his 'fierce anger'?

The Bible includes a number of other phrases which in different ways express this 'duality' within God. He is 'the compassionate and gracious God... Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished'; in him 'love and faithfulness meet together; righteousness and peace kiss each other'; he announces himself as 'a righteous God and a Saviour', besides whom there is no other; and in wrath he remembers mercy. John describes the Word made flesh, the Father's one and only Son, as 'full of grace and truth'; and Paul, contemplating God's dealings with both Jews and Gentiles, invites us to consider 'the kindness and sternness of God'. In relation to the cross and to salvation Paul also writes of God demonstrating his justice 'so as to the just and the one who justifies the man who has faith in Jesus', and he finds nothing anomalous about juxtaposing references to God's 'wrath' and God's 'love', while John assures us that, if we confess our sins, God will be 'faithful and just' to forgive us. Here are nine couplets, in each of which two complementary truths about God are brought together, as if to remind us that we must beware of speaking of one aspect of God's character without remembering its counterpart. (Ex. 34:6-7; Ps. 85:10; Is. 45:21; Hab. 3:2; Mi. 7:18; Jn. 1: 14; Rom. 11:22; 3:26; Eph. 2:3-4; 1 Jn. 1:9)

Emil Brunner in The Mediator did not hesitate to write of God's 'dual nature' as 'the central mystery of the Christian revelation' (p.519). For 'God is not simply Love. The nature of God cannot be exhaustively stated in one single word' (pp. 281-282). Indeed, modern opposition to forensic language in relation to the cross in mainly 'due to the fact that the idea of the Divine Holiness has been swallowed up in that of the Divine love; this means that the biblical idea of God, in which the decisive element is this twofold nature of holiness and love, is being replacedd by the modern, unilateral, monistic idea of God' (p.467). Yet 'the dualism of holiness and love, ... of mercy and wrath cannot be dissolved, changed into one synthetic conception, without at the same time destroying the seriousness of the biblical knowledge of God, the reality and the mystery of revelation and atonement.... Here arises the "dialectic" of all genuine Christain theology, which simply aims at expressing in terms of thought the indissoluble nature of this dualism' (p. 519, footnote). So then, the cross of Christ 'is the event in which God makes known his holiness and his love simultaneously, in one event, in an absolute manner' (p. 450). 'The cross is the only place where the loving, forgiving merciful God is revealed in such a way that we perceive that his holiness and his love are equally infinite' (p. 470). In fact, 'the objective aspect of the atonement ... may be summed up thus: it consists in the combination of inflexible righteousness, with its penalties, and transcendent love' (p. 520).

At the same time, we must never think of this duality within God's being as irreconcilable. For God is not at odds with himself, however much it may appear to us that he is. He is 'the God of peace', of inner tranquillity not turmoil. True, we find it difficult to hold in our minds simultaneously the images of God as the Judge who must punish evil-doers and the Lover who must find a way to forgive them. Yet he is both, and at the same time. In the words of G.C. Berkouwer, 'in the cross of Christ God's justice and love are simultaneously revealed', while Calvin, echoing Augustine, was even bolder. He wrote of God that 'in a marvellous and divine way he loved us even when he hated us'. Indeed, the two are more than simultaneous, they are identical, or at least alternative expressions of the same reality. For 'the wrath of God is the love of God', Brunner wrote in a daring sentence, 'in the form in which the man who has turned away from God and turned against God experiences it'.

One theologian who has struggled with this tension is P. T. Forsyth, who coined - or at least popularized - the expression 'the holy love of God'.


Again,

Yet again,

This vision of God's holy love will deliver us from caricatures of him. We must picture him neither as an indulgent God who compromises his holiness in order to spare and spoil us, nor as a harsh, vindicative God who suppresses his love in order to crush and destroy us. How then can God express his holiness without consuming us, an his love without condoning our sins? How can God satisfy his holy love? How can he save us and satisfy himself simultaneously? We reply at this point only that, in order to satisfy himself, he sacrificed - indeed substituted - himself for us. What that meant will be our concern in the next chapter to understand.

-end quote

What do you think of this Tom? Especially the two paragraphs where I underlined the first sentences. All other italics and fat style text is as found in the book.

There's some interesting points here, Thomas. I can't comment at detail now (at work), but will when I get a chance. One quick comment is that there is a common misconception of what "justice" means in the Old Testament. Here's a web site that discusses "justice" which I have found very helpful. (http://www.sharktacos.com/God/cross1.html, in particular the "justice and mercy" part).

Interesting concepts indeed you provided Tom.

I have some time, it turns out.

I read through this again, and I see some of the point being made, but not other. For example, it says, "For 'God is not simply Love. The nature of God cannot be exhaustively stated in one single word' " yet John did precisely this not once but twice, in declaring that "God is love."

I agree with the idea of conflict expressed, although I don't think "dualism" is necessarily the right way of expressing it. "Dualism" has to do with good and evil, and, indeed, the Old Testament has dualistic aspects attributing both good and evil to God. That God has two dualistic natures, namely love and holiness, seems to me would be difficult to support from Scripture.

Let's consider one of the conflicts mentioned, the one in Hosea. The way I see the conflict is that God, on the one hand, would like to always pardon; that's His nature. However, if God never allows sin to have any consequences, then how is the sinner to know the true nature of sin?

This is a constant dilemma God faces. If God did nothing, we would be utterly consumed by sin. If God does too much, then it appears like sin is nothing, not a problem at all. So to what extent does God allow sinners (whether nations or individuals) to experience the consequence of sin? That's the conflict I see that God has. I don't see that it's an internal conflict involving His holiness, but a practical conflict about how best to deal with the sin problem, how best to heal His creatures which so desperately need healing.

God's natural inclination is to completely shield us from the effects of sin, as God is kind and gracious, merciful and compassionate. However, His always giving in to that inclination might not be a good thing for us. Sometimes the school of hard knocks is just what is needed. In the case of Hosea, the hard knocks school was vetoed in favor of mercy.

The author writes that God must satisfy Himself, in some sense in contrast to Anselm's idea and the penal substitution idea. I don't think this is correct. God is selfless, and has no need to satisfy Himself. I suppose what the author really means is that God must act in a way which is consistent with His character, which, of course, everyone agrees with. Everyone can also agree that the sacrifice of Christ was necessary in order for God to act in a way which is consistent with His character. This is obvious, because if the sacrifice of Christ were not consistent with God's character, He wouldn't have allowed it. So to say that God must satisfy Himself, meaning, as I take the meaning to be, act in a way that is consistent with His own character, seems to me not to add anything meaningful.

We're back at square one. *Why* was the sacrifice of Christ necessary? *Why* was this sacrifice consistent with God's character?

One of the ideas of justice in the Old Testament (not brought out, I'm pretty sure, by the web site I mentioned) is that God is satisfied by justice, which, in the Old Testament is understood as righteous acts (i.e. good, merciful acts, such as feeding the hungry, taking care of the widow). For example:



So doing righteousness and justice satisfies God, or, in other words, God is satisfied by justice.

So how does the sacrifice of Christ fit in? Well, clearly this is the whole question, but to mention one aspect, the sacrifice of Christ is an act of righteousness and justice on the part of God, because in giving His Son for us, allowing Him to die for our sins, God is exercising mercy and compassion upon us.

One final comment is that the Hebrew understanding of sacrifice, as I understand it, is exactly what Paul set out in Romans 12:1



The NIV has



which brings out that sacrifice is a "spiritual act of worship," which I understand is the idea in the Greek of the word translated "reasonable."

So sacrifice was seen by the Hebrews, and other cultures as well, as a sign of dedication on the part of the one offering the sacrifice to his deity. I'm not aware that the Jews had any concept that the sacrifice was for the purpose of satisfying some aspect of God's character, such as holiness. However, God was certainly satisfied by sacrifice, when offered in faith, because this was a sign that reconciliation was being accomplished, which was the whole point of the sacrifice.

I too agree that there is some truth in what this author of the webpage you suggested has written. However, I do not think it covers the full truth. It is one side of the multifaseted diamond and Stotts book covers one or several other angles.

I think you are defining the word "dualism" to narrowly. I have seen it used regarding humans, humans having a dualistic nature with both body and soul. The good and bad is just one way of using the word.

Quoting some other, shorter, passages from the same book.

Under the headline, Looking below the surface:

In conclusion, the cross enforece three truths - about ourselves, about God and about Jesus Christ.
First, our sin must be extremely horrible. Nothing reveals the gravity of sin like the cross. For ultimately what sent Christ there was neither the greed of Judas, nor the envy of the priests, nor the vacillating cowardice of Pilate, but our own greed, envy, cowardice and other sins, and Christ's resove in love and mercy to bear their judgment and so put them away. It is impossible for us to face Christ's cross with integrity and not to feel ashamed of ourselves. Apathy, selfishness and complacency blossom everywhere in the world except at the cross. There these noxious weeds shrivel and die. They are seen for the tatty, poisonous thing they are. For if there was no way by which the rightoues God could righteously forgive our unrighteousness, except that he should bear it himself in Christ, it must be serious indeed. It is only when we see this that, stripped of our self-righteousness and self-satisfaction, we are ready to put our trust in Jesus Christ as the Saviour we urgently need.

Secondly, God's love must be wonderful beyond comprehension. God could quite justly have abandoned us to our fate. He could have left us alone to reap the fruit of our wrongdoing and to perish in our sins. It is what we deserved. But he did not. Because he loved us, he came after us in Christ. He pursued us even to the desolate anguish of the cross, where he bore our sin, guilt, judgment and death. It takes a hard and stony heart to remain unmoved by love like that. It is more than love, Its promer name is 'grace', which is love to the underserving.

Thirdly, Christ's salvation must be a free gift. He 'purchased' it for us at the high price of his own life-blood. So what is there left for us to pay? Nothing! Since he claimed that all was now 'finished', there is nothing for us to contribute. Not of course that we now have a licence to sin and can always count on God's forgiveness. On the contrary, the same cross of Christ, which is the ground of a free salvation , is also the most powerful incentive to a holy life. But this new life follows. First, we have to to humble ourselves at the foot of the cross, confess that we have sinned and deserve nothing at his hand but judgment, thank him that he loved us and died for us, and receive from him a full and free forgiveness. Against this self-humbling our ingrained pride rebels. We resent the idea that we cannot earn - or even contribute to - our own salvation. So we stumble, as Paul put it, over the stumbling-block of the cross.


Under the headline "the problem of forgiveness":

All five metaphors illustrate the utter incompatibility of divine holiness and human sin. Height and distance, light, fire and vomiting all say that God cannot be in the presence of sin, and that if it approaches him too closely it is repudiated or consumed. Yet these notions are foreign to modern man. The kind of God who appeals to most people today would be easygoing in his tolerance of our offences. He would be gentle, kind, accommodating, and would have no violent reactions. Unhappily, even in the church we seem to have lost the vision of the majesty of God.

......

The essential background to the cross, therefore, is a balanced understanding of the gravity of sin and the majesty of God. If we diminish either, we thereby diminish the cross. If we reinterpret sin as a lapse instead of a rebellion, and God as indulgent instead of indignant, then naturally the cross appears superfluous. But to dethrone God and enthrone ourselves not only dispenses with the cross; it also degrades both God and man. A biblical view of God and ourselves, however, that is, of our sin and of God's wrath, honours both. It honours human beings by affirming them as responsible for their own actions. It honours God by affirming him as having moral character.

So we come back to where we began this chapter, namely that forgiveness is for God the profoundest of problems. As Bishop B. F. Westcott expressed it, 'nothing superficially seems simpler than forgivenss', whereas 'nothing if we look deeply is more mysterious or more difficult'. Sin and wrath stand in the way. God must notonly respect us as the responsible beings we are, but he must also respect himself as the holy God he is. Before the holy God can forgive us, some kind of 'satisfaction' is necessary.
end quote

What I read from the webpage you refered to earlier, I wonder if it is not written in reaction to a strawman of evangelical thought on the subject. I note here that I do not know if it is a strawman that was made up by the author or by lay people among the evangelicals themselves. But what I read in this evangelical book I been quoting from is much to rich to be hurt by such a poor critique as is presented in this webpage, at least as far as I have seen it.

I don't see what there is to disagree with regarding the section I asked you to look at "justice and mercy." Were you disagreeing with this, or something else?



I wasn't defining it. I was just saying this is the dualism I see in regards to God. I don't see the holiness vs. love dualism going on. What I wrote in regards to Hosea makes more sense to me.



I agree with this, and think it is excellent, except for the following unnecessary sentence.



Leave this out, and I think the rest is great.



This is great.



This is good too.



This doesn't make sense to me. Christ was God. He didn't become any less God by becoming man. How close did He come to sin?

The problem is not that God cannot approach sin, but that sinners cannot approach God. The problem is caused by what sin does to our minds. That God can come close to sin and sinners is obvious simply by looking at Christ.



It looks to me like the author is not recognizing the reality that sin results in death. Once we understand this point, there is no need to comment on God's being easygoing. God cannot be easygoing because sin really does cause death. It would be like someone not taking any action to warn a smoker of the consequences of smoking.



I think this is really missing the mark in regards to God. If we want to see God's feelings regarding sin and sinners, all we have to do is look at Christ. Christ was God. How He related to sin and sinners is how God relates to sin and sinners.

As Christ did not need the cross in order to interact with us, neither does God. Christ is as holy as God.

I agree with the part about sin being rebellion as opposed to a lapse. However, it's not necessary to have the ideas the author has regarding God in order to be "serious about sin." Indeed, once we recognize what a lethal thing sin is, that takes care of this issue.

An issue that goes hand in hand with the atonement/cross is the final judgment. If we view the judgment as the outpowering of the wrath or an indignant God, then it makes more sense to view the cross as an appeasement of that righteous indignation. However, if we view the final judgment as God's giving the wicked up to the result of their choice, which is sin, then there is no need to appease God. The need is to save the sinner from sin. The cross accomplishes this purpose by reconciling us to God.



This seems totally contrary to the reality of Christ's life and teaching. When did sin or wrath get in the way of Christ's forgiving anyone?

A big problem I see in this philosophy is that it drives a wedge between Christ and God. Christ freely forgives, without needing payment, and without there being a problem of sin or wrath. But not God. This doesn't make sense. Again, Christ is as holy as God is.



Why? Why would God require satisfaction in order to respect Himself?

Let's say you do something bad to me, like strike me on the face. Assume I am a holy, righteous person, as holy as Christ What should I do? If my being holy means I should demand satisfaction, then I should insist on striking his cheek before I forgive him. Instead, Christ taught us to turn the other cheek.



I haven't met the author personally, but I've "spoken" to him on the internet, and he seems to be very knowledgeable on the subject, and to have researched things out a great deal.

If one is accustomed to thinking of things forensically, it's definitely not easy to think of things non-forensically. I know for myself it was a process of steps which took at least a decade. Reading Jones and Waggoner was helpful to sort of "set the table." George Fifield (a contemporary of Jones and Waggoner) was the best though, for anyone of that time period.

For a modern day explanation, I think Ty Gibson does an excellent job. I would highly recommend his books "See With New Eyes" and "Shades of Grace" (hope I got those titles right; that's at lease close). The "Shades of Grace" book directly discusses the atonement. The other book provides a framework in which the discussions of the atonement make sense.

I was refering to the entire page, and have since read some of the following pages aswell. This author is not as thorrough as one would wish since he is writing a book on the subject. God is refered to by different bible authors in the terms mentioned here. The preceding paragraphs which lays out what the quoted paragraph summarises is supported by two dozen biblepassages. Ironically enough, I think in this case Stott is viewing sin in relational terms while you are viewing it more in a disease terms. When you view sin as a breach of relationship between God and man, God could choose to be easygoing towards it. But if sin is viewed as a terminal disease, there is no room for such considerations. So, if knowledge of the glory of God is unessential, why does God make so much effort making sure we are aware of it?The concept of the judgment day as a day of reconing before God, is this another idea that several of the authors of the bible simply missunderstood and got wrong? God is in the buisness of saving sinners, as much is quite clear from the bible. But God is also at the same time in a war against sin. Notice the difference, the enemy is not the sinner but the sin. Why didnt Jesus simply forgive everyone before the cross and take the less painfull road from getsemane? Why didn't God simply forgive everyone without even having to meet the pains of living a human life? What and why made the difference that we can be told in revelation that out of all beings in the entire universe, only Jesus, the lamb that was slain is worthy to open the scroll of history?As Christ is God, I dont see how there could be a wedge. God saw it necessary to give Himself up for the sin problem to be solved. God needed to make it chrystal clear to everyone what sin leads to, the death of God if sin would have its way. God also make it equally clear that He would let nothing stand between Himself and a humanity redemed from sin. So God took the path of incarnation and death, laid down His life for all to see before taking it again and returning to plan for the final stages of the rescue mission. There can be no wedges within God. What is sin? What is holiness? Why is sin incompatibe with holiness? Indeed, is sin incompatible with holiness or is this some kind of party line we have been feed?
What I meant by strawman is that what he argues against is not the same thing that I would argue for. Nor do I think it is what Stott argues for in the book quoted above. It propably is part of the reason I thought him less than knowledgeable that he adresses a position I do not know anyone trying to defend.

I do think that I have some understanding of the Christus Victor view of the cross, and I think it has some merits. Where I differ from you it would seem is that I also recognise some merits to at least some brands of the forensic thought aswell. Both are describeing the same event and both start out of different starting points. What I do doubt is that either of them in any way is exhaustive in its presentation of the cross.

Tom, is it wise or right to assume everything God says He did literally means He either allowed sin or nature or Satan to do it? Even if it were true, how does that make God less culpable? Calling it "violence", whether God did it or allow it, is akin to calling good evil, isn't it?

Isaiah
5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
5:25 Therefore is the anger of the LORD kindled against his people, and he hath stretched forth his hand against them, and hath smitten them: and the hills did tremble, and their carcases [were] torn in the midst of the streets. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand [is] stretched out still.

Tom, if what you're saying is true, that God gives Satan permission to destroy sinners according to His will, aren't you in essence saying Satan does the very thing that is calculated to motivate people to love and obey God? Why would he do such a thing? “And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end.”

Also, if what you're saying is true, it implies that the destruction Satan causes are “evidences of God’s power”, that they are the “special marks of God's power”. Is that true? Is the destruction Satan causes a demonstration of God’s power? How can that be?

EGW: God controls all these elements; they are his instruments to do his will; he calls them into action to serve his purpose. These fiery issues have been, and will be his agents to blot out from the earth very wicked cities. Like Korah, Dathan and Abiram they go down alive into the pit. These are evidences of God's power.

EGW: These judgments are sent that those who lightly regard God's law and trample upon His authority may be led to tremble before His power and to confess His just sovereignty.

EGW: These manifestations bear the special marks of God's power, and are designed to cause the people of the earth to tremble before him, and to silence those, who like Pharaoh would proudly say, "Who is the Lord that I should obey his voice?"

He's writing a book on the subject? How do you know that? Did he mention that somewhere on the site?

This is the most thorough treatment of the subject I'm aware of on the internet. I'd certainly be interested in knowing about some more thorough site if there is one.



But this is easily seen to be false by the fact that Christ is God, and this didn't happen to Christ.



One could be easygoing about it if it didn't destroy the relationship and the relationship were not necessary to sustain life. But sin does destroy our relationship with God (because of what it does to us) and we do need a relationship with God in order to live. In fact, eternal life is exactly this.



What?! Where is there any connection between what I wrote and your question? I'm very confused here.

Of course we need a knowledge of the glory of God. The glory of God is His character, and knowing God is life eternal. (John 17:3) God makes to much effort to make sure we are aware of this because He doesn't want us to perish, but to live eternally.



We are the ones who get things wrong. Here's what I wrote, to which you responded:



There is absolutely nothing here about there not being a day of judgment or reckoning.



This is correct. And the way that God wars against sin is by making known the truth, which is revealed by Jesus Christ.



These are good questions, and get at the heart of the very issue.



Without the death of Christ, the truth could not be seen. Even holy angels, who have no need to be redeemed, did not realize the truth until beholding Christ's death!



If holy angels and unfallen worlds did not see the truth apart from Christ's death, what hope would we have of seeing it?



This is my point. If Christ acts differently than God does, than there is a wedge, which can't be, since Christ is God. Therefore it makes no sense to say that God is so holy that He cannot bear the presence of sin or sinners without death because Christ is just as holy as God is, and He didn't require death in order to be in the presence of sin or sinners.



True.



Also true.



This is all true. There is no need to believe in penal substitution to believe any of these things.



Which is why penal substitution cannot be true.

Perhaps we could discuss some of the issues raised by the web site. I'm not seeing where you're dealing with any of the points that were made there. That might be interesting.

It's a challenge to see things non-forensically when one is used to thinking in forensic terms, so it may take a while to understand what is actually being said.

I inadvertently did not respond to the entire post. Here's the rest:



The phrase "is this some kind of party line we have been fed" is, I think, unhelpful to use in a dialog. It's pejorative.

I'm not understanding how what you wrote relates to what I wrote. That is, I'm not seeing that you understood what I was saying. Perhaps you could summarize my point, and then respond with your point, and I may be able to follow what you're trying to say.



Could you quote specifically what you are referring to?

The basic tenants of penal substitution are well understood. Because of God's holiness and justice, He cannot legally forgive sin without a penalty being paid.



"Forensic" just means "legal," and the atonement was certainly in accordance with law. The particular issue I have been taking issue with is that God needed Christ's death in order to have the legal right to forgive.

From the Spirit of Prophecy, it is easy to see this isn't true. God offered to pardon Satan "again and again," without Christ's death being necessary in order to do so.

From Scripture, we see that Christ freely forgave on numerous occasions, and He didn't require death in order to have the legal right to do so. In the parables that Christ taught, for example, the parable of the prodigal son, we also see the idea of forgiveness freely offered, not a forgiveness dependent upon a penalty being paid. In fact, the parable teaches the exact opposite of this idea.

Where, in all the life of Christ, do we see the idea communicated that God needed Christ's death in order to be able to forgive?



Of course no model of the atonement could be exhaustive, as it's a subject that will be studied throughout eternity. I think the best model is the Great Controversy model, which Ty Gibson does an excellent job of explaining in the books I mentioned. Of the classic models, I believe Christus Victor comes the closest, without the shortcomings that other models have. The only thing that seems lacking to me, off the top of my head, in regards to the Christus Victor model is that the core issues is God's character.

A fundamental issue with the penal substitution model is that it makes God dependent upon violence in order to forgive. It should be clear that there are philosophical and theological problems with this idea.

I don't think you've ever dealt with an issue that I've made a number of times, which is that in Scripture we read that God sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites, and that God would destroy Jerusalem, and kill those who murdered His Son. But that's not what happened.

What principle do you use for interpreting Scripture? Scripture which depicts God as killing should be understood as God's killing, unless Ellen White suggests otherwise?

You haven't addressed this point.

When you say "everything" you obviously don't mean "everything," sin, of course, the nonviolent things which God did are not caused by sin or Satan. So, assuming by "everything" you mean the violent things God is portrayed as doing, I believe it is wise to apply the principle so well laid out by EGW in the first chapter of "The Great Controversy" to these episodes.



Well, let's take a look at the principle:



Here we see the violence which came upon Jerusalem as the Israel destroying itself. How is God culpable for Israel destroying itself?



No, it's akin to calling evil evil. Violence is evil. God permits evil to happen, but He does not perform evil.

This is another FOTAP question. I never said, "God gives Satan permission to destroy sinners according to His will".



I never said He did such a thing.



The destructive powers of nature are demonstrations of God's power because God created these powerful forces.

You can read about his book project here. http://www.sharktacos.com/God/index.shtml
I dont know about other websites concerning this. But before websites, there were books. I should have realised that a partial quote would not do. Here comes the rest:

What is common to the biblical concepts of the holiness and the wrath of God is the truth that they cannot coexist with sin. God's holiness exposes sin; his wrath opposes it. So sin cannoth approach God, and God cannot tolerate sin. Several vivid metaphors are used in Scriputure to illustrate this stubborn fact.

The first is height. Frequently in the Bible the God of creation and covenant is called 'the Most High God', and is presonally addressed in several Psalms as 'Yahweh Most High'. (Gn. 14:18-22; Pss. 7:17; 9:2; 21:7; 46:4; 47:2; 57:2; 83:18; 92:8; 93:4; 113:4; Dn. 3:26; 4:2, 17, 24-25, 32, 34; 5:18-21; 7:18-27;Ho. 7:16; 11:7; Mi. 6:6.) His lofty exaltation expresses both his sovereignty over the nations, the earth and 'all gods', (Pss. 97:9 and 99:2)and also his inaccessibility to sinners. True, his throne is called 'the throne of grace' and is encircled by the rainbow of his covenant promise. Nevertheless, it is 'high and exalted' and he himself is 'the high and lofty One', who does not live in manmade temples, since heaven is his throne and the earth his footstool; so sinners should not presume. (Heb. 4:16; Rev. 4:3; Is. 6:1; 57:15; Acts 7:48-49;) True again, he condescends to the contrite and lowly, who find security in his shadow. But proud sinners he knows only 'from afar', and he cannot stand the high and haughty looks of the arrogant. (Is. 57:15; Pss. 91:1, 9; 138:6; Pr. 21:4; Is. 10:12;)

The 'high' exaltation of God is not literal, of course, and was never meant to be taken literally. The recent hue and cry about abandoning a God 'up there' was largely superfluous. The biblical writers used height as a symbol of transcendence, just as we do. It is more expressive than depth. 'The Ground of Being' may speak of ultimate reality to some people, but 'the hight and lofty One' conveys God's otherness more explicitly. When thinking of the great and living God, it is better to look up than down, and outside than inside ourselves.

The second picture is that of distance. God is not only 'high above' us, but 'far away' from us also. We dare not approach too close. Indeed, many are the biblical injunctions to keep our distance. 'Do not come any closer,' God said to Moses out of the burning bush. So it was that the arrangements for Israel's worship expressed the complementary truths of his nearness to them because of his covenant and his separation from them because of his holiness. Even as he came down to them at Mount Sinai to reveal himself to them, he told Moses to put limits for the people around the base of the mountain and to urge them not to come near. Similarly, when God gave instructions for the building of the Tabernacle (and later the Temple), he both promised to live among his people and yet warned them to erect a curtain before the inner sanctuary as a permanent sign that he was out of reach to sinners. Nobody was permitted to penetrate the veil, on pain of death, except the high priest, and then only once a year on the Day of Atonement, and then only if he took with him the blood of sacrifice. (Ex. 3:5; 19:3-25 (cf. Heb. 12:18-21); 20:24; 25-40, especially 29:45-46; Lv. 16 (cf. Heb. 9:7-8)) And when the Israelites were about to cross the Jordan into the promised land, they were given this precise command: 'Keep a distance of about a thousand yards between you and the ark; do not go near it' (Jos. 3:4). It is against the background of this plain teaching about God's holiness and about the perils of presumption that the story of Uzzah's death must be understood. When the oxen carrying the ark stumbled, he reached out and took hold of it. But 'the LORD's anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act', and he died. Commentators tend to protest at this 'primitive' Old Testament understanding of God's wrath as 'fundamentally an irrational and in the last resort inexplicable thing which broke out with enigmatic, mysterious amnd primal force' and which bordered closely on 'caprice'. But no, there is nothing inexplicable about God's wrath: its explanation is always the presence of evil in some form or another. Sinners cannoth approach the all-holy God with impunity. On the last day, those who have not found refuge and cleanisng in Christ will hear those most terrible of all words: 'Deart from me'.(E.g. Mt. 7:23:41.)

The third and fourth pictures of the holy God's unapproachability to sinners are those of light and fire: 'God is light', and 'our God is a consuming fire'. Both discourage, indeed inhibit, too close an approach. Bright light is blinding; our eyes cannot endure its brilliance, and in the heat of the fire everything shrivels up and is destroyed. So God 'lives in unapproachable light'; 'noone has seen or can see' him. And those who deliberately reject the truth have 'only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.... It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.(1 Jn. 1:5; Heb.12:29 (cf.Dt. 4:24); 1 Tim. 6:16; Heb. 10:27, 31.)

The fifth metaphor is the most dramatic of all. It indicates that the holy God's rejection of evil is as decisive as the human body's rejection of poison by vomiting. Vomiting is probably the body's most violent of all reactions. The immoral and idolatrous practices of the Canaanites were so disgusting, it is written, that 'the land vomited out its inhabitants', and the Israelites were warned that if they commiteted the same offences, the land would vomit them out as well. Moreover what is said to the the land's repudiation of evil was in reality the Lord's. For in the same contet he is represented as declaring that he 'abhored' the Canaanites because of thier evil doings. The identical Hebrew word is used of him in relation to the stubborn disobedience of Israel in the wilderness: 'For forty years I was angry with (literally 'loathed') that generation.' Here too the verb probably alludes to nauseating food, as it does in the statement, 'we detest this miserable food!' Our delicate upbringing may find this earthy metaphor distinctly embarrassing. Yet it continues in the New Testament. When Jesus threatens to 'spit' the lukewarm Laodicean church people out of his mouth, the Greek verb literally means to 'vomit' (emeo). The picture may be shocking, but its meaning is clear. God cannoth tolerate or 'digest' sin and hypocrisy. They cause him not distaste merely, but disgust. They are so repulsive to him that he must rid himself of them. He must spit or vomit them out. (Lv. 18:25-28; 20:22-23 Ps. 95:10; Nu. 21:5; Rev. 3:16)
end quote;

So, you can disagree with this but not without at the same time disagreeing with the experiences of a whole bunch of people who wrote things that ended up in the bible, some of whom had walked with Jesus as His diciples during His life on earth. The part I quoted said that we need a balanced understanding of both the gravity of sin and the majesty of God. You disagreed with this, claiming that we only need to know about sin. This is the connection and what I responded against.Except the difference in concept were it looks like you view the judgment day as the day when God finaly has to accept His failiure to save everyone while Jesus in His teaching consistently view it as the day when God separates those who are His from those who are not and gives both groups the revards they are due. Yes, and to atempt to turn this into a discussion in positive terms, what are your answers to them?Some might argue that people like Moses and Elija had seen this truth, even though they lived and died hundreds to thousands of years before Jesus came to earth. And yet it would seem that Abraham saw enough of the truth for it to change his life. What more could anyone ask for?But it is God Himself who tells us this. When we know things that even God does not know, we must be knowledgeable indeed.
I also wonder if it would be possible that the holy glory which consumes sin was among those things which Jesus left in heaven. (Phil 2)But neither do they exclude the penal concept. It would also merit a thread of its own.

I wrote as I did because I do not think that me hitting you on your face (or the other way around) is at all comparable with what sin is to God. If you slap me, that would be annoying but it isn't something that you would have to die for doing. But we are told that sin leads to death. Maybe some sort of comparasion could be made if you had instead said that I was pouring gas on your children while playing with matches. Still assuming you were the holy and righteous person, just as holy as Christ was. Would you still sit and watch doing nothing? I may be going on a limb here, but I do not think you would do that. I think you would do anything except sit still turning the other cheek, whatever it took to get your children cleaned up and away from the madman playing with their lives. The specifics would have to go into the thread devoted to the blogg.

In Romans 5, Paul writes that we are justified by Jesus blood.
In Ephesians 1, he writes that we have our redemption through the blood.
And in Hebrews he writes that according to the law, there is no forgiveness without the sheding of blood. But what does Paul know about these things?I dont know about the life of Christ, but as early as in Acts 5, the Peter preached to the Sanhedrin saying: "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree. 31 Him God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins."
In Romans 3, Paul suggests that Christ has enabled grace through a purchase. And that God has made Christ a throne of grace through the blood.
And in chapter 5, Paul writes something that looks suspiciously like substitution, that Christ died in our place. In the following chapter he suggests that we recieve the new life through partaking in His death and subsequent resurection.

Yes, but it's hard to copy and past from books!

Thanks for the reference!



I don't disagree with any of the references, of course, which are all from Scripture. The conclusion that I draw from these metaphors is that we cannot come close to God because we cannot stand His glory, which is His character.

With Moses, for example, when he requested to see God, God said for him to hide in the cleft of the rock, and He would allow Him to see His backside. Then, in one of the most beautiful passages in Scripture, it says:



"Name", as I'm sure you know, designates "character." Moses asked to see God's glory, and God responded by revealing His character to him.

Now why could Moses only see God's backside? Because Moses could not bear to see God fully revealed. Note the issue was not that God could not come close to Moses, but that Moses was unable to bear God's glory. So Christ, God in the flesh, shrouded His glory so that we could behold God's character in a way that we could bear.

Just as Christ was able to come close to sin and sinners, so is God. Just as Christ did not need someone to be sacrificed in order for Him to come close to us, neither does God. But we need the sacrifice of Christ in order to be reconciled to God.



Looking back at what I wrote, it seems like I wrote this:



If you read this as my saying we don't need a balanced understanding of the gravity of sin and the majesty of God, then you misunderstood my point. My point was that it looks to me like the author is not recognizing the lethality of sin.

Was is this statement of mine you had in mind? Or something else?



Thomas, it doesn't look to me like you're reading what I'm writing very carefully. I'm not said anything remotely resembling that God finally has to accept His failure so save everyone. Of course Jesus taught that God separates the saved and the wicked into two groups. Why would you think I don't believe this?



Right after where I wrote "These are good questions, and get at the heart of the very issue." I proceeded to address them.



Moses and Elijah saw the truth that the holy angels couldn't see until Christ's death? I doubt it.



One could ask for enough truth to bring sin to an end, to end the Great Controversy.



No He doesn't! God nowhere tells us that He cannot bear the presence of sin or sinners without death. Where do you think He says this?



Or, one could say, when we know God says things He does not say we must be confused.

However, statements like this don't really help to create the right spirit for a friendly dialog, do they? Perhaps we could refrain from pejorative statements, and just deal with the issues in a friendly way?



This is essentially saying the same thing that God shrouded His glory so that we could stand to be in His presence. God has no difficulty approaching sin or sinners. It is sinners who could not stand to be in God's presence, so God shrouded His glory so that they could.



That's a moot point.

Say I have a theory of the atonement, which is that God is so angry at sinners that His wrath must be propitiated in order to calm Him down (a theory which is obviously not true, and not one that you believe).

You ask me to show this theory from Scripture. I present a bunch of Scripture, and you respond, "None of these Scriptures supports your theory" and I respond "They don't disprove it either." This is a moot point.

It's like saying they don't disprove that the moon is made of green cheese.

You're suggesting a theory of the atonement. The onus is on you to provide evidence for what you believe, not present evidence that doesn't disprove what you believe.



There is already a thread for that (and actually, our conversation here would fit well there), called "is penal substitution Biblical?"

Ok, we'll use this as an analogy, but really, we're dealing about an act that's already occurred, not in on progress. The question has to do with forgiveness, which assumes a completed wrong act has already occurred.

Say some terrible act occurs where a loved one of ours is murdered. What do we do? Do we seek revenge? Or do we forgive? Do we make forgiveness conditional upon someone's dying to make up for the murder of our loved one?

Do we choose "eye for eye" or "turn the other cheek"? It's admittedly, not an easy thing to do, but this is exactly what Christ, and God, did.



Of course blood was necessary. No theory of the atonement denies that. The whole question is why the blood was necessary.

To argue, "See, Paul says that blood is necessary! Therefore my theory of the atonement is true!" is not a valid way to argue. You need to show that the meaning of the blood for Paul is what you claim it is.



It's inconceivable to me that a subject as important as the death of Christ, the cornerstone of the Gospel, is one on which Christ Himself would not have carefully explained, adequately enough for us to understand the truth about it from that alone. It's important to understand what the teachings of Christ are, as it is these very teachings that Paul taught. Paul did not invent new theology, but simply explained the teachings of Christ in His own words.

I see you mentioned several Scriptures, but none of the Scriptures say anything resembling the idea that God needed the death of Christ in order to be able to legally forgive us. People believed for centuries that Christ died in our place, and that we were purchased by His blood, without any hint of penal substitution. The Eastern Orthodox church has believed these thing for 2,000 years, without any idea of penal substitution.

You are used to looking at these concepts through the lens of penal substitution, but that doesn't mean the concepts themselves are penal, just because you happen to view them that way. The question is, how did the writers of the concepts view them?

Historically, the idea of penal substitution did not come into being until many centuries after the New Testament was writing. This meaning of blood did not exist in the world of Paul.

The Eastern Orthodox church split from the Roman Catholic church in the eleventh century, but before Anselm's influence. The Eastern Orthodox church never obtained the penal substitution idea as a result. If that theory of the atonement had existed at the time of Paul's writing and shortly afterwards, they would have gotten it too, the only alternative to this being that somehow the true idea of penal substitution died off extremely quickly, only to be recovered by a Catholic monk at the height of the dark ages.

MM: I assumed you agreed with Sister White. You often say, “I believe it is wise to apply the principle so well laid out by EGW.” Again, here is what she wrote about the will of God as it relates to God destroying sinners:

3SG 80
God controls all these elements; they are his instruments to do his will; he calls them into action to serve his purpose. These fiery issues have been, and will be his agents to blot out from the earth very wicked cities. Like Korah, Dathan and Abiram they go down alive into the pit. These are evidences of God's power.


MM: Thank you for answering my question, Tom. From this, I understand you believe God has never directly killed a sinner. It is true, at least in the following case, that Jesus did not kill the man Himself. Instead, He commanded Moses and the congregation to do it. But I suspect this isn’t what you had in mind.

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.

Tom, does this situation symbolize God giving sin or Satan or nature permission to kill sinners? I'm having a hard time understanding how stories like this one fit into the model you advocate.


MM: Is the following case an example of evil violence or justice?


Also, are we to assume that “by the hands of the apostles” means Ananias and Sapphira were killed by the apostles? If not, who or what killed them? And why? To what purpose were they killed? BTW, it doesn't say God took away the ghost; instead, it says they "gave up the ghost".

AA 74
Infinite Wisdom saw that this signal manifestation of the wrath of God was necessary to guard the young church from becoming demoralized. Their numbers were rapidly increasing. The church would have been endangered if, in the rapid increase of converts, men and women had been added who, while professing to serve God, were worshiping mammon. This judgment testified that men cannot deceive God, that He detects the hidden sin of the heart, and that He will not be mocked. It was designed as a warning to the church, to lead them to avoid pretense and hypocrisy, and to beware of robbing God. {AA 73.4}

While Gods responce to sin is an act that has already occured, from our perspective, sin itself is still an act in progress. Maybe you could tell me what purpose the blood had. Since my suggestions are wrong, there is really no reason to rehearse them is there?Yes, if we go only after what Jesus preached about, it would seem his death was not a cornerstone at all. Jesus mentions his death a couple of times but doesnt speak much about it, the institution of the communion meal propably being the single most informative time. The true cornerstone of Jesus preaching is the Kingdom that had come and the Kingdom that will come and how people like you and I are to relate to this Kingdom. It is in the epistles that we read that Jesus death is what grants us access to this Kingdom. So, how did the authors view it?

And why can we not stand His glory? What is it about either us or Gods glory that forces us to keep our distance? Why could Moses not bear to see God fully revealed? Does it have anything to do with sintainted humans not being able to survive such an encounter? If no, then what?One of these days I will have to learn not to quote books that all participants of a discussion have not read. You have not read the book and I can for obvious reasons not quote it in its entierity. So what comes out as a solid argument in its context can be picked apart when you only have to deal with the fragments I can type in for this discussion. I will have to leave this part of the discussion.The "recieve their due" part is missing in your restating the issue. Howcome? So maybe it is possible to come from earth and walk with God and be brought to heaven without understanding the depth of Gods love or His character? I ask this because both Moses and Elijah evidently walked with God and where recieved at His throne before Jesus had become incarnate. Yet if Gods love and character could not be understood even by angels until after the cross, Moses and Elijah could obviously not have understood it. In such case, a relationship with God can not require understanding of these issues and must be based on something else. Then again, if our relationship with God is to be based on something different than understanding His character and love, what is it?And 2000 years later we are still waiting. So we phrase it your way. God can stand both the presence of sin and sinners, but both sin and sinners disintegrate as soon as God reveals His full glory before them. So the open meeting between God and sin/sinners still results in the destruction of one part. The mechanics work a little differently but the end result is the same, the universe is not large enough to harbor both God and sin, and God is eternal. The end result is still the same. God's glory had to be shrouded before a meeting could take place. My wrong for stating my case badly. I posted arguments which you agreed with and concluded that they could support alternative views aswell. The simple summary is that the arguments support both views.

Terrific question! There's probably multiple reasons, but I'll mention here the first one that popped into mind. A revelation of God's character brings with it a simultaneous revelation of ourselves, which we can't bear. We get of glimpse of this in the cleansing of the temple, where a glance of Christ ("divinity flashed through humanity" EGW) was too much for the guilty money-changers to bear. They couldn't run away fast enough. The second time they were determined to hold their ground, but they ran away even faster than the first time.



I think it has to do with character. I think the 144,000 will be able to stand God fully revealed.



Why do you think I haven't read the book?



Ok.



No reason. I didn't copy and past the quote. "Receive their due" is accurate in terms of the wicked. In terms of the righteous, I myself would think of it more in terms of receiving that which God is gracious enough to give. I would not think of my receiving my due.



That the angels didn't fully understand is brought out the quote from the Desire of Ages that I cited. That Elijah and Moses could understand fully the issues of the Great Controversy without the cross, as well as holy angels did after seeing the cross, seems impossible to me.



It almost happened in 1888. More important than our waiting, Christ is still waiting.



There's a big difference between the two views. The mechanics, as you put it, as hugely different. In the one case, God is working to eliminate sin, by revealing the truth. We become motivated as we understand His character, understand what He is trying to do, and choose to cooperate with Him. There is no element of our doing what God tells us to do because we are afraid of what He will do to us if we don't.



If the issue is that we could not bear to see God's glory because of our sinfulness, not that God cannot be around sin without death, that makes a difference to how we view the meaning of Christ's death.



I agree. There are definitely some good things, many good things, in fact, that those who believe in penal substitution bring out.

John suggested that Jesus used a whip He had made out of rope, and John was after all an eyewitness. One would think he would know.As the 144000 are also mentioned as the huge group that noone could count, which was standing before Gods throne, I would agree. I also think that Moses will be one member of this group. However, does not the question still remain for sintainted humans?Nothing in your comments this far have suggested you had read the book. Something they must have understood considering their track record and what we know about their whereabouts for the last thousands of years. I also notice that what they failed to understand cannot have been critical for their relationship with God.

Please avoid sarcasm.

I've read the account. Did I write something that would lead you to believe I was implying that Jesus did not use a whip? I'm not really understanding why you're making this point.

The rope for was moving the animals. Animals have thick skins, and Jesus was not being at all cruel in so doing.





Moses a part of the group? Elijah could be too then, right? An interesting idea!



I don't think so. They won't be tainted (at least, not as Ellen White uses the term. You may have some other meaning in mind though).



What would a comment look like that would suggest I had read the book?



I'm sure they understood a great deal. I just doubt they understood things that the holy angels had not been able to understand until they saw the cross. The angels knew God well, and knew all about His love and character, so in saying that I doubt that Moses and Elijah knew more than the angels I'm not limiting Moses or Elijah. Men were created a little lower than angels. The angels, in addition to being more intelligent than we are, have lived in the presence of God for millennia.



Certainly not, but the quote I cited from DA is not dealing with merely a human's relationship with God, but with the Great Controversy.

MM: I assumed you agreed with Sister White. You often say, “I believe it is wise to apply the principle so well laid out by EGW.” Again, here is what she wrote about the will of God as it relates to God destroying sinners:

3SG 80
God controls all these elements; they are his instruments to do his will; he calls them into action to serve his purpose. These fiery issues have been, and will be his agents to blot out from the earth very wicked cities. Like Korah, Dathan and Abiram they go down alive into the pit. These are evidences of God's power.


MM: Thank you for answering my question, Tom. From this, I understand you believe God has never directly killed a sinner. It is true, at least in the following case, that Jesus did not kill the man Himself. Instead, He commanded Moses and the congregation to do it. But I suspect this isn’t what you had in mind.

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.

Tom, does this situation symbolize God giving sin or Satan or nature permission to kill sinners? I'm having a hard time understanding how stories like this one fit into the model you advocate.


MM: Is the following case an example of evil violence or justice?


Also, are we to assume that “by the hands of the apostles” means Ananias and Sapphira were killed by the apostles? If not, who or what killed them? And why? To what purpose were they killed? BTW, it doesn't say God took away the ghost; instead, it says they "gave up the ghost".

AA 74
Infinite Wisdom saw that this signal manifestation of the wrath of God was necessary to guard the young church from becoming demoralized. Their numbers were rapidly increasing. The church would have been endangered if, in the rapid increase of converts, men and women had been added who, while professing to serve God, were worshiping mammon. This judgment testified that men cannot deceive God, that He detects the hidden sin of the heart, and that He will not be mocked. It was designed as a warning to the church, to lead them to avoid pretense and hypocrisy, and to beware of robbing God. {AA 73.4}

I am trying to limit myself. Seems you are on me for it like a piece of old duct tape. :pYour quote suggested that Jesus did not use a whip to drive out the peddlers. Your second quote here below along with your comment on it suggests that Jesus only used the whip for the cattle. I would never have got any of those ideas from Johns account. Yes, I think that is a safe bet. It all depends on wether you want to see the 144000 as some group in the very last hours of earths history who manage to achieve something that noone else in the history of our planet (including Jesus) have managed to do, or if you choose to view them as the invisible church through the ages, first the church militant in facing the battles of this controversy and later the church triumphant having seen the last enemy conquered and bowed before Jesus.They or we? Are we tainted with sin and does the question apply to you and me?You could for instance have made comments that showed you understood what the point made was, or have said wether you had read the book or not. If you have read the book and maybe even have a copy within reach, you would have saved me lots of typing.So now you write that the holy angels knew God well and knew all about His love and character. Having said that, what did they learn from the cross?
But we must maily relate to the controversy from the God-human relationship point of view, if for no other reason that we know next to nothing about any other points of view that exist.

Actually, I just let it go by the first couple of times, but it was bothering me, so I thought I'd let you know.

In person, it's not so bad, since you can hear a person's tone of voice, but on-line it's not so pleasant.

Thanks!




Probably from not being familiar with the actual situation. Many people conceive of the area involved as being a small area, so they picture in their minds that there was Jesus and the money changers in close proximity. But the actual area involved was huge!

Imagine a football stadium, with the football field covered with people, with money changers throughout the stadium. Imagine Jesus on the 50 yard line, flipping over a table with a cord in His hand. Why would someone hundreds of feet away flee in fear? EGW's account makes sense.

Also, in John's account, he notes that not everyone fled. Immediately after cleansing the temple, Christ ministered to the sick and to children. So not everyone was afraid. This also agrees with the idea that it wasn't physical coercion that was going on.



I've heard this idea before. For example, James Raferty, who works with Ty Gibson, has this idea (I don't know if Ty does). I haven't heard it fleshed out though.



They, unless we are a part of the 144,000. Again, this is from EGW's view.



I went to the seminary, and have read quite a lot of books, perhaps that one (it's been some time now, and I honestly don't remember) and am very familiar with the concepts involved. However, I moved and can't find many of my books. I really appreciate your doing all that typing.

Even though I don't agree with the penal substitution idea, there were some real good observations made. For example, the dualistic idea regarding God is very good, as it gets into the fact that the Eastern conception of things is different than the Western idea. I was trying to get at this point in regards to justice.

The Western idea is that justice is retributive, and one thinks of vengeance, just desserts, debt repayment, and things like that. The Biblical idea is that justice is restorative and redemptive. Justice is feeding the hungry, caring for the widow and orphan, feeding the naked, and is manifest by acts of mercy and kindness.

For example:





Read the chapter "It Is Finished" from "The Desire of Ages" (which is on line, if you don't have the book. You can google "EGW wais" and get it quickly.



The issue is bigger than just us, though, and an understanding of that helps to correctly understand things. This idea is in Scripture. For example, from Col. 1.:



The things in heaven are not inanimate things, but heavenly beings. How can heavenly beings be reconciled? This is dealing with a finer appreciation of God's character and love, given though the cross. Paul's thought looks to be that the cross brought even heavenly angels closer to God.

MM: I assumed you agreed with Sister White. You often say, “I believe it is wise to apply the principle so well laid out by EGW.” Again, here is what she wrote about the will of God as it relates to God destroying sinners:

3SG 80
God controls all these elements; they are his instruments to do his will; he calls them into action to serve his purpose. These fiery issues have been, and will be his agents to blot out from the earth very wicked cities. Like Korah, Dathan and Abiram they go down alive into the pit. These are evidences of God's power.


MM: Thank you for answering my question, Tom. From this, I understand you believe God has never directly killed a sinner. It is true, at least in the following case, that Jesus did not kill the man Himself. Instead, He commanded Moses and the congregation to do it. But I suspect this isn’t what you had in mind.

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.

Tom, does this situation symbolize God giving sin or Satan or nature permission to kill sinners? I'm having a hard time understanding how stories like this one fit into the model you advocate.


MM: Is the following case an example of evil violence or justice?


Also, are we to assume that “by the hands of the apostles” means Ananias and Sapphira were killed by the apostles? If not, who or what killed them? And why? To what purpose were they killed? BTW, it doesn't say God took away the ghost; instead, it says they "gave up the ghost".

AA 74
Infinite Wisdom saw that this signal manifestation of the wrath of God was necessary to guard the young church from becoming demoralized. Their numbers were rapidly increasing. The church would have been endangered if, in the rapid increase of converts, men and women had been added who, while professing to serve God, were worshiping mammon. This judgment testified that men cannot deceive God, that He detects the hidden sin of the heart, and that He will not be mocked. It was designed as a warning to the church, to lead them to avoid pretense and hypocrisy, and to beware of robbing God. {AA 73.4}

One needs to consider all she wrote on a subject. For example, she wrote:



Or, a much short one, "All that man needs to know, or can know, of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son."

We should be able to find, assuming this is true, our ideas regarding God revealed in the life and character of His Son, while here with us in the flesh.



"Jesus" was a human being, who did not exist until His incarnation. It was not "Jesus" who commanded Moses, but Yahweh. The purpose of Jesus was to explain Yahweh to man, as John points out:



Paul point out the same thing (Heb. 1:1-3) and Ellen White (already quoted, plus DA 22, and many other places).

It's really a wrong technique you are applying in going to the Old Testament to understand what Jesus Christ was teaching in the New! This CANNOT HELP but lead to confusion. Even holy angels were confused, as DA 758 points out. MM is not going to avoid being confused by that which was unclear to angels.

OTOH, MM can be illuminated by Jesus Christ, as the holy angels were.

Ananias and Sophira were another example of the principle laid out in GC 35-37.

I didn't understand you point that is doesn't say God took away the ghost but they gave up the ghost.





This is more difficult, as I explained to Arnold, I'll pass on discussing this.

TE: Or, a much short one, "All that man needs to know, or can know, of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son." We should be able to find, assuming this is true, our ideas regarding God revealed in the life and character of His Son, while here with us in the flesh.

MM: Did Jesus, while here in the flesh, command people to kill sinners?

Oh dear. I answered this and I don't see it.

Oh well.

I guess second time around you'll get a much shorter answer! I would say that if we see God doing something in the Old Testament which is different, in principle, to what we see Jesus Christ doing in the Gospels, then we're missing something.

The starting point should be Christ in the Gospels. From that we learn what God is like. *Then* we can go to the Old, and try to determine how the different episodes in the Old correspond to what Jesus did in the Gospels.

1. Jesus commanded people in the OT to kill people. See Numbers 15:35.

2. Jesus commanded people in the NT to kill people. See John 8:7.

PS - It was Jesus Christ who commanded the Jews in the OT.

1 Corinthians
10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

You read this as a command by Jesus Christ to kill people?

OK. Given this is how you interpret Scripture, there may not be much point in continuing this discussion. (Most people see this as a wonderful example of forgiveness, yet you view it as a command to kill.)

What did Jesus mean when He said, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."

What did Jesus mean when He said, "The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp."

DA 460, 461
Their pretended reverence veiled a deep-laid plot for His ruin. They had seized upon this opportunity to secure His condemnation, thinking that whatever decision He might make, they would find occasion to accuse Him. Should He acquit the woman, He might be charged with despising the law of Moses. Should He declare her worthy of death, He could be accused to the Romans as one who was assuming authority that belonged only to them. ... {DA 460}

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. He had not set aside the law given through Moses, nor infringed upon the authority of Rome. {DA 461}

Ok, how do you get out of this a command to kill?

Let's answer the questions in the order in which they were posted.

1. What did Jesus mean when He said, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."

"He had not set aside the law given through Moses, nor infringed upon the authority of Rome." {DA 461}

2. What did Jesus mean when He said, "The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp."

Jesus Christ *forgave* the woman caught in adultery. He did not kill her, nor command that she be killed. Obviously.

1. What did Jesus mean when He said, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."

TE: He did not ... command that she be killed.

MM: So, you believe, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her", does not mean Jesus gave them permission to stone her death? If that's what it means why didn't He say so?

Sister White wrote that - "He had not set aside the law given through Moses ...." {DA 461} The law required stoning to death people who committed adultery. His words make it clear He was not setting aside the law.

Please answer the second question. Thank you.

2. What did Jesus mean when He said, "The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp."

I'm not seeing any point in continuing this discussion. If you perceive that Jesus Christ, in pardoning the woman caught in adultery, was actually commanding that she be killed, then this is a view that is so far removed from what I perceive corresponds to reality, I don't know how to continue.

You still haven't explained what Jesus meant when He said, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."

Jesus said, "... let him first cast a stone at her." Did He mean it? Or, did He mean something else? Was He setting aside the law of Moses?

Also, you are running and hiding from the second question. Why? What are you afraid of?

2. What did Jesus mean when He said, "The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp."

Id be more interested in how God can still be the righteous judge with Tom's view. For obviously not all are going to recieve an absolving decision. And while I imagen there is no disagreemet concerning the reward of those who accept Gods invitation, I still have not heard any good and biblically sound explanation for Gods dealings with those who mock and spit on the invitation.

I'm not sure what exactly you're getting at, so I'll give a brief answer. I can go in more detail as I understand the question better.

Each one will receive what they have chosen. Those who have chosen Christ will receive eternal life. Those who have rejected Christ, choosing sin, will receive eternal death. This is because Christ is life, so in choosing Christ, one chooses life. The wages of sin is death (or as some versions put it more clearly, sin pages its wages: death), so those who choose sin choose death.

God is a righteous judge because He sees to it that each one receives that which they have chosen.

And how does God make sure all sinners die without killing them? Humans die after a while but humanity has thus far showed no signs of dying out, and angels? As far as we know, the devil is as old as humanity or more. What would it take for sin to pay its wages to the devils?

No beings have life in and of themselves. All life comes from God, and needs God's active involvement to sustain it. If God simply stops sustaining someone's life, they would cease to exist. I suppose someone could think of this as God's "killing" someone, but this isn't usually what is meant when people say this; they using having in mind God's taking some sort of violent action, like raining fire upon them, to cause their death violently. The former case would be more like putting someone to sleep, nevermore to awake.

Tom, if sin kills sinners, why, then, did Jesus command people in the OT and the NT to stone sinners to death? Also, why did He have to ban sinners from eating of the tree of life?

1.I assume by "if sin kills sinners" you mean "if sin results in death." Is that correct?

2.Jesus did not command people in the NT to stone sinners. That you could come up with such an idea is odd.

3.What are sinners? Do you mean people with fallen natures? Or people who sin?

1. What is the difference?

2. Jesus said, "... let him first cast a stone at her." Did He mean it? Or, did He mean something else? Was He setting aside the law of Moses?

3. Sinners are people who have fallen natures and who sin.

4. Also, why did He have to ban sinners from eating of the tree of life?

5. What did Jesus mean when He said, "The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp."

It depends on what you meant. If you say, "what's the difference?" I take that to mean that you mean that sin results in death.



You've read the account, right? Those who hated Jesus were trying to trick Him, putting Him into a situation where He had no outs, or so they thought. They tried this on many occasions. But Jesus knew what they were up.

It was Jesus' intent to pardon the woman, obviously. He obviously was not intending that she be killed, right?



You mean "sinners" has these two meanings, or "sinners" refers only to people who have both of these characteristics?



For a similar reason that God allowed meat to be eaten after the flood.



Well, Jesus didn't say that in the first place. "Jesus" refers to the human being, who did not exist at that time.

In the second place, I'm not interested in discussing this at this time.

In the third place, the point that I've been making is that you're approach here is backwards, and I think continuing to ask these Old Testament questions just makes the same point I'm making over and over again.

Jesus Christ (correct usage here!) was a *full* revelation of God. *All* that man needs to know or can know about God was revealed in His life and character. Therefore it is not necessary to ask questions regarding things outside of His life and teachings in order to learn new or additional things about God. Indeed, if what Ellen White wrote is accurate and correct, it should be easy to see that this is not necessary.

One might ask, then why do we need the Old Testament at all? The reason for the Old Testament is to point us to Christ, in whom we find life, as Jesus said, "Ye search the Scriptures, that ye might have life, but they are they which testify of Me."

1. No. Sin is not what causes sinners to die. It is because they have sinned that God punishes and destroys sinners.

2. "He obviously was not intending that she be killed, right?" Why, then, did He say, "... let him first cast a stone at her"? Was He setting aside the law of Moses?

3. Sinners are people. They sin. They have fallen natures.

4. "For a similar reason that God allowed meat to be eaten after the flood." I assume you mean so that they would die and not live forever. But, according to you, sin is what causes sinners to die, not what they eat or don't eat.

5. "Well, Jesus didn't say that in the first place. 'Jesus' refers to the human being, who did not exist at that time." Not according to Paul. Christ was the one who led the Jews in the OT.

"In the second place, I'm not interested in discussing this at this time." Fair enough. But it is preventing us from studying the truth about Jesus and the Father.

"All that man needs to know or can know about God was revealed in His life and character." This is not true.

"Indeed, if what Ellen White wrote is accurate and correct, it should be easy to see that this is not necessary." You are not taking into account everything she wrote about Jesus and the Father. You are forcing her words to mean something more than she intended. She never meant for us to ignore Jesus in the OT, or to assume whatever we learn about Jesus in the OT must be forced to agree with His NT example.

In the NT, Jesus never commanded people to kill sinners. In the NT, Jesus didn't create the world, or thunder on Sinai, or give the ten commandments, or rain down fire in answer to prayer, or threaten to curse on condition of disobedience, etc, etc, etc. How do you explain these differences?

Death is the punishment for sin. It is "not an arbitrary act of power on the part of God." As the quote points out:





This sounds like what the Pharisees were arguing! Jesus' plan all along was to pardon the woman. You agree with that, don't you? Let's start here.



MM, your original statement was vague. I was asking for clarification. I gave the two possible things you could have meant. All you had to do was pick one, but instead you didn't clarify the ambiguity, and I don't even remember what your original point was anymore.



It's not according to me! All of Scripture teaches that sin results in death. To live in harmony with the principles of God's law is life. To do the opposite is death.

There is no life in living selfishly.



The law of self-renouncing love is the law of life. The law of selfishness is the law of death.



Where did Paul say that "Jesus" led the Jews in the OT? (Please note, I didn't say he said "Christ" wasn't the one who led the Jews, but "Jesus." Your error was speaking of "Jesus" as doing things in the OT. Paul didn't make this error, did he? If so, where?)



No it's not. According to the Spirit of Prophecy, all that man needs to know, or can know, of God was revealed in the life and teachings of Jesus. So we can study everything we need from looking there.



Well, you're free to disagree with Ellen White's statement, but I think it's true. I guess there's not much more to say about that.



I think she meant what she said, which is very clear.



She writes, "Only that which He sees fit to reveal can we comprehend of Him." and then "All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son." So it's easy to see she is saying that God has seen fit to reveal all that we need to know, or can know, of Him through His Son.

She quotes John speaking to the same subject. Paul also makes this point. Christ removes the veil.



I would look for the underlying principles of the events described, and find things in the life and character of Jesus Christ where these same principles apply. Please note that Ellen White's quote says that in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ is everything that man needs to know or can know of God. This does not imply that Christ did everything in His life that God has done, which He couldn't have, being a man who lived for 33 years or so. However, Christ revealed in His ministry everything that we need to know of God, or can know of God.

So really, you're not asking the right question. The right question is, "What did Jesus Christ during His ministry reveal about God through His life and character?"

Ensuring the survival of humanity as a species?
It sounds like you would acctually support the statement that the purpose of the Law is to show us how desperately we are in need of a saviour.

No, I was thinking of the statement by EGW that God permitted man to eat meat, knowing that this would diminish man's life span, which would result in less for a man during his lifetime. It was rather a cryptic reference. I knew MM was familiar with it, so wasn't very clear.



Sure, why not? Actually, I wouldn't say "the purpose," but definitely a purpose, and a very important one at that.

If God wanted to limmit mans lifespan by meateating, who are we to work against God's purposes by refusing to eat that which God ordained for making sure our lives are suitably short? Is that not a case of us kicking against the pricks? Oh, just because this option usually is viewed as heresy by many SDA.

I'm not following this. Could you clarify what you're saying here please? What is it that those SDA who view this as heresy believe?

Well, you could not possibly teach that the law is what we will perfectly abide by in order to stand flawless before God and at the same time say that the law shows us our own inadequacy to stand flawless before God.

Tom, we cannot take what Sister White said about Jesus in the NT in the quote you posted and ignore everything else she said about Christ in the OT. They all say the same thing. Christ in the OT and Jesus in the NT are one and the same Being. In the NT Jesus Christ upheld the law of Moses, including the ones that require the death penalty. He did not set it aside.

Why not *believe* what she said in the NT quote, and then *apply* that to the OT statements?



Christ's setting aside the law of Moses is not an issue. Understand God's character is the issue. How do we do so? According to EGW, all that we need to know or can know about God was revealed in the life and character of His Son. Therefore, if we desire to learn about God, it makes sense to study Christ. In fact, this is exactly what she suggests we do:

TE: Why not *believe* what she said in the NT quote, and then *apply* that to the OT statements?

MM: Again, you are assuming her thoughts require us to read the law of Moses to mean something different than what it obviously means. When Christ commanded Moses to kill sinners, we learn something about God.

I'm not assuming anything one way or the other. I'm suggesting we apply a methodology, which is to believe what EGW said, that *all* that we can know about God was revealed in the life and character of His Son, and apply that to our understanding of the Old Testament.



Since all that we can know about God was revealed in the life and character of His Son during His ministry with us here on earth, where do you see that happening in Christ's ministry? What is it that you think you are learning about God? What is it that you think Jesus Christ was trying to teach us about God?

In what ways do you see that Jesus Christ during His ministry on earth and the God of the Old Testament are similar?

Don't want to interfere with this topic, however, I haven't seen Mountain Man on here since he last posted here, therefore, I am wondering if anybody here knows whether he might be away somewhere for a few weeks?

I assume so, since he hasn't been posting, but I don't know anything.

I sent Tom a PM about my absence, but I should have posted it here.

My bad. MM went on a trip. He'll post when he can.

Tom, while away I was listening to the Bible on MP3, and the story of David and Uriah touches on something I'd like to discuss. If Sister White's comment (all that we can know about God ...) means Jesus destroys sinners by withdrawing His protection and allowing evil angels to kill them, what about the story of David and Uriah?

David ordered Joab to send Uriah into battle and then withdraw the troops leaving Uriah exposed to danger and death. Nathan accused David of killing Uriah with the sword of the Ammonites.

1. How is this different than what you've been saying about Jesus killing sinners?

2. Also, when did Jesus, while here, withdraw His protection and permit others to kill sinners?

2 Samuel
12:9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife [to be] thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.

"1. How is this different than what you've been saying about Jesus killing sinners?"

I haven't been saying anything about Jesus killing sinners. Jesus doesn't kill sinners. Jesus restores. Satan destroys.



"2. Also, when did Jesus, while here, withdraw His protection and permit others to kill sinners?"

This is from GC 21, 22:



If Israel had responded to Jesus Christ, He would have "gathered them up" -- in other words, they would have been protected, safe. But they despised His protection, and were destroyed.

In the parable about building your house on the rock, as opposed to the sand, Christ taught this same truth. When we build upon the rock, we are protected, safe. But if we reject the rock, and build upon the sand, we will be destroyed.

Tom, if Sister White's comment (all that we can know about God ...) means Jesus destroys sinners by withdrawing His protection and allowing evil angels to kill them, what about the story of David and Uriah? David ordered Joab to send Uriah into battle and then withdraw the troops leaving Uriah exposed to danger and death. Nathan accused David of killing Uriah with the sword of the Ammonites.

1. Does her comment include the meaning - "Jesus destroys sinners by withdrawing His protection and allowing evil angels to kill them"?

2. Does the story of David and Uriah illustrate this point? If not, in what way is it different?

3. Again, when did Jesus, while here in the flesh, destroy sinners by withdrawing His protection and allowing others to kill them? The quote you posted above does not address this question.

This is a FOTAP question. Sister White's comment that all that we can need to know about God, or can know about God, was revealed in the life and character of His Son, means that Jesus Christ revealed, during His ministry on earth (the whole purpose of which, according to another statement, was the revelation of God) all that we need or can know about God. It doesn't mean that Jesus destroys sinners.

Jesus doesn't destroy. Satan destroys.



No, the story of David and Uriah don't illustrate the point. You're asking what's different. David sent Uriah out, for the person of getting him killed. David murdered Uriah. You would agree with that, wouldn't you? But God doesn't murder, right? So that's different.

Regarding the third question, if you consider the principles involved in the quote I provided, I think you should be able to see how it applies. Jesus said he would have protected Jerusalem as a hen protects her chicks. Jerusalem refused, and was destroyed. This is how God "destroys".

As Ellen White comments, Jesus is the restorer. Satan is the destroyer.

Tom, you quote her comment to prove Jesus never destroyed sinners in the OT, that He destroys sinners by simply withdrawing His protection and giving evil angels permission to destroy them.

If David killed Uriah by withdrawing protection, then Jesus kills sinners by withdrawing protection. It result is the same - withdrawing protection leads to death.

And, your quote does not prove Jesus killed sinners, while here in the flesh, by withdrawing His protection. Jerusalem was destroyed 40 years after He went back to heaven.

So, my question remains - when did Jesus kill sinners, while here in the flesh, by withdrawing His protection? If you cannot provide a quote, then your theory doesn't stand (that Jesus did nothing different while here in the flesh than He did in the OT).

Could you quote something I've written please?



I quoted from Ellen White, who said that all that man needs to know or can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son (in context, she is speaking of while He was here in the flesh).

What is it you think my theory is? Why don't you quote something I've written? Perhaps I stated something unclearly. From what you're writing here, it sure sounds like you are attributing things to me I've never said. So quotes please! If I've misspoken, I'll correct it, but I don't recall ever having said what you're attributing to me here.

I don't want to take the time to search MSDAOL to find a statement from you. I would prefer it if you would simply state what you believe. If I've misunderstood your position, please restate it clearly. Thank you.

All along I've been saying that the quotes regarding the wrath and vengeance of an offended God mean there are times when the limits of God's mercy and forbearance are exceeded and He is forced to punish sinners in various ways in proportion to the crime and transgression.

You counter this observation by quoting Sister White's comments regarding Jesus' mission while here in the flesh. You reason that if all we can know about God was demonstrated by Jesus while here in the flesh that it means Christ never killed anyone in the OT because He never killed anyone in the NT. Did I misunderstand you? If so, please set the record straight. Thank you.

------------
I am reposting the following:

If David killed Uriah by withdrawing protection, then Jesus kills sinners by withdrawing protection. The result is the same - withdrawing protection leads to death.

And, your quote does not prove Jesus killed sinners, while here in the flesh, by withdrawing His protection. Jerusalem was destroyed 40 years after He went back to heaven.

So, my question remains - when did Jesus kill sinners, while here in the flesh, by withdrawing His protection?

If you cannot provide a quote, then your theory doesn't stand (that Jesus did nothing different while here in the flesh than He did in the OT).

We're having a conversation. You don't have to do a search about something I've written in the past. Just pay attention to the conversation. For example, here's what you just wrote that I asked you substantiate:



I've not quoted her comment to establish any of these things, have I? If so, where?

If you're going to make the statement that so and so made a certain statement or argument, the onus is on *you* to be accurate.



My argument has been that if all that we can know about God was revealed in the life and character of His Son, this means that there is no information in the Old Testament which tells us something about God which is not revealed in the New. That's simple logic, right?

My point has been that for any event in the OT, there should be some corresponding event in Christ's life, or some teaching, which reveals whatever it is that is referenced in the OT in relation to knowing something about God.



This isn't a valid argument. You are arguing, if A does B by way of C, then D does E by way of C. It should be easy to see this isn't a valid argument. The conclusion does not follow from the premise. Maybe D doesn't do E at all. Maybe D does E by some other way than C. There's no demonstrated causality between A's doing something and D's doing something.



Why does this matter? What point are you wishing to make?



Why are you expecting a proof for something I've not asserted?



I've never claimed that Jesus killed sinners while her in the flesh. I've repeatedly pointed this out to you.

He doesn't; He saves sinners. As He pointed out, when asked to kill, "You know not of what spirit you are. The Son of Man came not to destroy men's lives, but to save them." To Nicodemus Jesus said, "God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved."

In pointing this out to you (that I've not been saying that Jesus kills sinners) I quoted from Ellen White who wrote, "Satan is destroyer. Christ is the restorer." You've passed over these statements I've made, and repeated the same thing that I've been saying that Jesus kills sinners in different ways.



Where did I say that Jesus did nothing different while here in the flesh than He did in the OT?

You asked me to correct you if you misstate what I've been trying to say, and to state it correctly. I stated my position above, but for your convenience, I'll repeat it here. The following has been my point:

If all that we can know about God was revealed in the life and character of His Son, this means that there is no information in the Old Testament which tells us something about God which is not revealed in the New. That's simple logic.

For any event in the OT, there should be some corresponding event in Christ's life, or some teaching, which reveals whatever it is that is referenced in the OT in relation to knowing something about God.

I remember that we have pointed out where Jesus thaught about the judgement of the wicked and their painfull demise (remember, they will be outside crying and gnashing teeth because they were thrown out), but you have disregarded it because it does not fit your view of God. As you wrote in the passage below, Jesus Himself told us that He came the first time to save the lost, but He also told us that He will come again and this time as a judge. He will judge the saints(saints as used by Paul) guiltless and He will judge the sinners guilty. He will administer to each a reward in accordance with their verdict. While you mention the first part, you (conveniently?) forget to mention the second part.

I think your memory may be faulty. Perhaps you could quote something I wrote?



I don't believe in Universalism, which is what it seems you are implying. I don't disagree that there were be a judgment. I just don't think the punishments are arbitrary or artificial or imposed, whichever word you prefer.

I believe the punishment for sin in the judgment is inherent in the judgment itself. The judgment involves the searching of the conscience, being made known of every wrong you have committed, becoming aware of what you missed out on in not going to heaven, being aware of the impact of your bad actions on others, aware of the impact upon God, and so forth. This punishment is real, and causes pain and suffering.

But this pain and suffering is not something imposed upon the wicked arbitrarily by God as a means to make them suffer for what they did. They do not suffer because God arbitrarily causes them pain by burning them with fire, supernaturally keeping them alive to do so. I'm not saying you necessarily believe this, but there are some who do.

Back to your recollection about having a conversation where I rejected something Jesus said about God because it didn't fit in with my view of God. That's a rather extraordinary thing to accuse one of, don't you think? Do you have any evidence to support that idea? I certainly reject how you have characterized my actions, and deny having done any such thing.

I've been arguing that God is like Jesus Christ, and that all that we can know of Him was revealed in His life and teachings. It would hardly be reasonable for me to argue this at the same time that I rejected His teachings. My whole point has been that we should consider His life and teachings, and use that as the basis for our beliefs about God (as opposed to taking what Jesus lived and taught, and *adding* that on top of what we see of God in the Old Testament).

My evidence is your introduction of the word "arbitary" into your post. I wrote: "He will administer to each a reward in accordance with their verdict". That you then feel a need to qualify between the rewards calling one set "arbitary" is clear enough I think.

That's pretty flimsy evidence! Your claim is this:



and your evidence is that I use the word "arbitrary"?

Actually, Ellen White used the word "arbitrary" in the DA quote I provided (DA 764), and I'm simply repeating it, because I think it's accurate.

As I recall, I'm the one who brought out the statements from Jesus regarding the weeping and gnashing of teeth! I'm certainly not disregarding something I myself brought out.

This is how I have understood the situation. If I for instance say that God will judge the wicked by burning them in fire, based for instance on Jesus saying that an unfruitfull tree will be cast in fire, or on Peter writing that God will in the end judge the world in fire as He in anicent days judged it in water. Then you will say something like, 'surely God would do no such thing. Just look at Jesus, never harmed a fly did He'. This is in my opinion in disregard of what we know about Jesus comming in a different mission the first time than the one He will have the second time.

Therefore, when I say "He will administer to each a reward in accordance with their verdict", and you feel the need to qualify it with a "arbitary", I understand you to be saying as follows. My statement means that God will come in glory and in power and finally answer the questions "why does bad things happen to good people and why does good things happen to bad people" by giving rewards of life to those whom are His children, and giving punishments to those whom have rejected Him and spit on His offer to be their Father. God will do each of these by His choise and design. What I understand your objection to mean is that God comes in power and in glory to give eternal life to His children, and outch, the unlucky rebells died in action. Thus that God gives rewards to the saints by design and choise while whatever happens to the rebells is just an unlucky accident on God's part, though not so on the part of those who chose to stay rebells of course.

Therefore, if I have understood your part correctly, there is nothing flimsy in using your word "arbitary" as evidence. Just like the comma in Luke 23:43 it takes a sentence and changes its contents from one thing to something very different.

There's a number of issues to consider here. First of all, I've not disputed that the wicked will be cast into fire, so your first assertion here is wrong. There is no doubt the wicked will be destroyed by fire, and I have asserted this very thing many times. So there's a misunderstanding which is taking place here, and I'm not sure why. You're attributing something to me I've never said, whereas I've said the reverse many times.

Secondly, the issue I've been dealing with is one of *character*. One can perform different missions, which will result in one doing different things, but one's character does not change. I have been arguing that Jesus Christ is a full revelation of God's *character*. Thus God, or Jesus Himself, will not do, nor ever has done, anything which reveals a different character than what Jesus Christ revealed while here with us in the flesh.



I don't think what happens to either the saints or the wicked is arbitrary.



This treats what happens to the righteous. The DA 764 quote treats what happens to the wicked, and points out that their destruction is not due to an arbitrary act of power on God's part, but is rather the result of their own choice. Similarly the rewards of the righteous are not due to an arbitrary act of God, but are the result of their own choice, the result of character.

In Isaiah we read:



God does not change, but is fire for both groups. The wicked, by ruining their character, unfit themselves to abide in His presence. The righteous, by not ruining their character, but rather responding to God's grace and His Spirit, walk righteously and are able to abide in God's presence, and, indeed, desire nothing more than to do so.

From the Spirit of Prophecy:



This presents the same idea. God is not acting differently, arbitrarily favoring one group over another, arbitrarily destroying one group but not another. Rather, one group receives life from the light of God's glory, while the other group is slain by it.

The meaning of "arbitrary" as I am using the word (and as Ellen White was using it in the quotes I cited) is Webster's primary definition for it, which is:





Again, the use of the word "arbitrary" is not mine, in regards to both the righteous and the wicked, but borrowed by me from Ellen White, whom I believe was using the word properly and accurately. Also, it does not appear to me that you have understood my position correctly. I hope this post will help in that regard.

I think, rather than make accusations like this:



it would be better to *first* understand what the position with which you are finding fault actually is.

In that case, what is your disagreement with Mike and Rosangela all about? Hot air?So what character did Jesus reveal on earth? It is popular these days to think of Jesus as the teddy bear saviour. Hugg him when you feel bad and everything will be all right. Is this His true character? What would you suggest?I notice that in Peters version, not only humans but all of earth will be burned clean by this fire. You can argue that God's presence will burn away sin, but to say that God's mere presence would cause sulphuric acid to disappear from our lakes and heavy metals to disapear from our farm soil and our pesticides to disapear from everywhere between the two poles is different. (And considering the flood thread, you would be arguing that God's presence would burn away the thorns on roses and all the thistles in the world while leaving the rest of the plants unharmed). 10Now when Jesus heard this, He marveled and said to those who were following, "Truly I say to you, I have not found such great faith with anyone in Israel.
11"I say to you that many will come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven;
12but the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

41"The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness,
42and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

49"So it will be at the end of the age; the angels will come forth and take out the wicked from among the righteous,
50and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Friend, how did you come in here without wedding clothes?' And the man was speechless.
13"Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'
14"For many are called, but few are chosen."

In each parable or other teaching, God is active in what is going on. The sons of Israel do not want to be cast out, the stumbling blocks and the lawless ones do not want to make closer aquintance with the furnace of fire, the man did very much want to participate in the wedding feast. If I take your sentence above and remove the word "arbitarily", then its direct opposite becomes true.

"God is acting differently, favoring one group over another, destroying one group but not another. "
I told you what your position looks like from my vantage point. Now I think that maybe we are not talking about the same thing at all, when the surface coating is removed.

No, Thomas, and there's no need for sarcasm. We've all three written quite a lot on this, so you could read it and see.

My take on things is that I don't see a lot of difference between Rosangela's position and mine. I see a great deal of difference between MM's position and mine, and between MM's position and hers. Rosangela views her position as being between MM's and mine. MM hasn't voiced his opinion on this.

The thing that I must strenuously disagree with is the idea that God will supernaturally keep the wicked alive so that he can burn them to make them suffer in punishment for their sins.

Another issue that has been discussed (regarding which both MM and Rosangela disagree with me) has to do with whether the punishments of the wicked are natural consequences or are imposed upon them by God. I view them as natural consequences. Rosangela seems to view them as imposed, although when you get down to the nitty gritty of what actually happens to the wicked, it seems to me that we are in agreement.



I'm not seen a Teddy Bear Savior being suggested by anyone. Where have you seen this? Can you quote something?

To give a brief answer regarding the character that Jesus revealed, I would say take a look at how He treated His enemies.



I agree with this. John seems to say the same thing.



I haven't suggested this, but Rosangela has (or something similar) and her ideas seem reasonable to me.



You seem to have very confused ideas in regards to what I'm saying. I don't know why. Why do you think I would argue such a thing as you are suggesting? Rather than just heap up accusations one upon another, perhaps you could form some sort of argument or foundation for the things you are claiming. Like, for example, quote something I wrote, and make some sort of argument, with steps of reasoning, and the there would be something with some meat that I could respond to.

Failing that, all I can do is comment that you seem to be confused as to what I'm saying.



These are good points, and will take some time to address adequately. I'll try to do so later tonight.



Your telling me what my position looks like from your vantage point is well and good. I have absolutely no problem with your not agreeing with me. However, to write something like this:



is completely uncalled for, especially without any evidence for such an accusation.

Have you read Bonhoeffers "Dicipleship"? The contrasts that he paints in this book might illuminate some on this question. It was previously argued that God did not create thorns and thistles but that these were a consequence of sin. If they are not part of God's creation but a result of sin, then naturally they would have to be removed just like all other things caused by sin. My view that God created roses with thorns and thistles was challenged then, but maybe things are different now.
Look, to provide you with a full case of this, I would have to read the discussions you have had with others on this topic one or two years back. I have neither the time nor the inclination to do such a laborous work with less than a good payment for my efforts.

I'm not really following what this has to do with anything, but I agree with EGW's comments on this:



This makes perfect sense to me.



Just don't make groundless accusations, and you can save yourself work. If you do make an accusation that is without merit, admit you were wrong, and retract your statement. To say you're too lazy to back up an accusation like this is not a reasonable course of action. If you just avoid accusations in the first place, that avoids the whole issue.

One of the basic principles in interpreting a parable is that a parable is given to make some specific point, and the rest of the parable should not be used to make theological arguments. For example, we have the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man. The point of this parable had to do with there being consequences in the hereafter to one's actions in this life. There are those who would prove that the soul is immortal because of this parable, but that is not a proper interpretation.

Similarly, in the parables that you cite, the point is that there are consequences in the hereafter to one's actions in this life.

I agree with your point that God is active in the judgment, and that the parable teaches this. After all, it is God who resurrects the wicked, so it is pretty obvious that God is actively involved.

The question I have been raising has to do with whether the punishments that befall the wicked are imposed or not, and I don't think the parables you cited can be properly cited to support this point.

I would once again bring up Isaiah 33:14, 15 which brings out that the "everlasting burnings" is God Himself. As Ellen White points out, these everlasting burnings ("the light of the glory of God" are her actual words) impart life to the righteous, while slaying the wicked. Thus it is clear that the death of the wicked is caused not by some imposed action by God, but as a consequence of their own decisions.

Yes, parables teach specific points. I would like to point out, that the quoted passages are specificly from the part in the end where Jesus sums up what he is teaching. This is especially apparent in this case:

49"So it will be at the end of the age; the angels will come forth and take out the wicked from among the righteous,
50and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Jesus tells a parable and then says the quote above. This is not a peripherical point, it is The point of the parable. No, the point is not simply a vague comment on there being consequences for what one does. It is much more specific into the nature of the consequences than that. There will be fire involved, and people in the fire will be suffering. That there will be suffering is the common thread in all of these examples. We can argue that immortality of the soul is peripherical to the Lazarus parable, but had this been something Jesus had returned to regularily, then our case would have been much, much weaker, maybe nonexistant. And this is where paradigms come in. You chose to see the parables as not supporting an imposed judgement while many others chose to see them as supporting an imposed judgement, all based on what presuppositions one brings to it. We have come another full round in this but I predict that you will deny this being the case this time aswell. Let me then bring up Isaiah 2:
12For the LORD of hosts will have a day of reckoning
Against everyone who is proud and lofty
And against everyone who is lifted up,
That he may be abased.
13And it will be against all the cedars of Lebanon that are lofty and lifted up,
Against all the oaks of Bashan,
14Against all the lofty mountains,
Against all the hills that are lifted up,
15Against every high tower,
Against every fortified wall,
16Against all the ships of Tarshish
And against all the beautiful craft.
17The pride of man will be humbled
And the loftiness of men will be abased;
And the LORD alone will be exalted in that day,
18But the idols will completely vanish.
19Men will go into caves of the rocks
And into holes of the ground
Before the terror of the LORD
And the splendor of His majesty,
When He arises to make the earth tremble.
20In that day men will cast away to the moles and the bats
Their idols of silver and their idols of gold,
Which they made for themselves to worship,
21In order to go into the caverns of the rocks and the clefts of the cliffs
Before the terror of the LORD and the splendor of His majesty,
When He arises to make the earth tremble.
22Stop regarding man, whose breath of life is in his nostrils;
For why should he be esteemed?

66: 15For behold, the LORD will come in fire
And His chariots like the whirlwind,
To render His anger with fury,
And His rebuke with flames of fire.
16For the LORD will execute judgment by fire
And by His sword on all flesh,
And those slain by the LORD will be many.

Relying on parables to establish theology is the weakest possible argument. As to you comment that we have come another full round in this, I don't know what you're trying to say.

Perhaps you would be kind enough to spell out for me what it is you think will happen in the judgment. Do you think that angels will cast humans into fire so that they will suffer? That seems to be what you are saying. If so, I have a few questions.

1)Do the people cast in fire by angels suffer for long periods of time, or do the die right away?
2)If they do not die right away, why not? Since they don't have resurrection bodies, they should.

Rather than bringing up new points, would you please address the points I've brought up first?

You accused me of disregarding Jesus' teaching because it didn't fit in with my view of God, and when I asked for evidence, you cited my use of the word "arbitrary." However, I demonstrated that I simply borrowed the word from Ellen White, who used it in pointing out that neither the suffer of the wicked nor the reward of the righteous is arbitrary. So it seems your accusation is totally without merit. You have not addressed either the quotes I brought up from Ellen White, nor Isaiah 33.

You cited some Scripture with no commentary, so I don't know what point you are trying to make, so I cannot comment.

When one gets caught in a discussion, points get made back and forth, but one's actual position can be lost in the shuffle. So I'd like to take the opportunity in this post to present a position without reference to points being discussed elsewhere in this thread. Specifically, I'd like to make some observations regarding the judgment.

I have been heavily influenced in my views by Ellen White's writings in "The Great Controversy" pages 541-543. I first read these pages many years ago and they had a profound impact on me then, and still do.

The first point that struck me was this:



I found the idea that God desires that we obey Him because we have an intelligent appreciation and admiration of His attributes of character to be very appealing.

Following this, she writes:



A number of points are made here:
1)The principles of kindness, mercy and love are manifest in the judgment.
2)God executes judgment upon the wicked for the good of all, including the wicked themselves.
3)God would make the wicked happy if they could.

Going on:



Here we see that
4)The purity, holiness, and peace of heaven is torture to the wicked.
5)The glory of God is a consuming fire to the wicked.
6)The wicked welcome destruction, as this is preferable to seeing the face of their Redeemer.
7)Their exclusion from heaven is voluntary with themselves.
8)Their exclusion from heaven is just *and merciful* on the part of God.

In considering this description, we see that God acts in harmony with His own character, the character which Jesus Christ revealed, of loving His enemies, acting in mercy, seeking to good for them, giving them what they want.

It seems that many miss the point that the wicked to not wish to be in heaven. God gives them what they want, although it causes Him great sorrow to do so.

Another point which should be brought out is that God does not act cruelly. Cruelty is Satanic. A bit earlier we read:



God does not, in the judgment, don a different character than what Jesus Christ revealed. He does not all of a sudden act cruelly, but He acts consistent with the attributes of His character of love and mercy, and acting the best interests of His loved ones. The judgment is not an event where the wicked are treated cruelly, nor given an eternal destiny against their will.

1: Jesus saw fit to do much of His teaching in parables, but now you say that Jesus parables are unreliable for understanding truth about God. Theology = God knowledge.

2: The way you treat Jesus teaching in these parables, saying they are unfit for theology, why should I pay attention to what you say about commentaries (ie Ellens book) when you treat the original which the commentaries speak about like you do here?

3: What I meant by "another full round" is that I now have your posts concerning these teaching by Jesus to add to the evidence of your use of the word "arbitary". And as I thought, you are not agreeing.

4: Do I think that angels will cast humans into fire and they will suffer through this? It seems this is what the bible teaches. It would be presumtious of me to claim that what the bible teaches is not really the truth about this.

5: Do people cast into this lake of fire suffer for long periods of time? Have no idea. We are not told how long they suffer, only that they will have time to do just that.

6: Why doesnt these people die right away since thats what humans usually do when in contact with lakes of fire? Have no idea, no more so than I have any idea of how Jesus could walk on water or feed 5000 men and maybe their families with one single lunch package.

7: I cited some scripture? Did I forget to add the info about where the scripture come from? No, didn't think so. You cite some scripture and hope that it will be enough to close the case. Not quite so fast. Isaiah 33:14-15 is not the only thing Isaiah has to say about the terrible day of the Lord. This is shown by the two quotes I made. You read the text as to say that God himself is the consuming fire giving life to the righteous while slaying the wicked. Was this what Isaiah himself had in mind? In chapter 2 he writes about God taking action to humble the haugty and proud, and in chapter 66 he wrote that God will execute judgement by fire. And even in chapter 33, if you start from the first verse. There you read about the suffering and chaos in the land, being plundered by both grashoppers and bandits. The people implore the Lord for deliverance, and in verse ten we read: "Now I will arise," says the LORD, "Now I will be exalted, now I will be lifted up. How will the Lord do this we may ask. "You have conceived chaff, you will give birth to stubble; My breath will consume you like a fire. "The peoples will be burned to lime, Like cut thorns which are burned in the fire. "You who are far away, hear what I have done; And you who are near, acknowledge My might." And so we finally ask, what will be the result of this act from the Lord. The wicked: Sinners in Zion are terrified; Trembling has seized the godless "Who among us can live with the consuming fire? Who among us can live with continual burning?" And the righteous will answer this question in this way: He who walks righteously and speaks with sincerity, He who rejects unjust gain And shakes his hands so that they hold no bribe; He who stops his ears from hearing about bloodshed And shuts his eyes from looking upon evil; He will dwell on the heights, His refuge will be the impregnable rock; His bread will be given him, His water will be sure. Your eyes will see the King in His beauty; They will behold a far-distant land. Have we read the same Isaiah 33?
This also reminds of the question we read about in Revelation 6:9-11. There also the saints are imploring for justice to be done and Revelation also assures us that it will be done in time.

When Jesus started His ministry, He spoke plainly, without parables. But meeting resistance from the Pharisees and other Jewish leaders, He switched to parables. The parables were used specifically to teach truths in a indirect way, so that Jesus could continue teaching in the open.

Jesus spent much of His time teaching without the use of parables, so we can corroborate His teaching with other direct statements. There is no need to rely solely on the use of a parable in order to establish a doctrine, and, indeed, this is not a proper use of such. Not a single denomination, including ours, relies upon parables in order to establish points of doctrine.

As you are using the parable to establish that angels will cast human beings into a literal fire so that they can suffer by being burnt by a literal fire, so others have used the exact same parable to teach that there suffering will continue forever. For example, here is one such commentary:



This is using the same methodology you are using, which goes to demonstrate its flaw. This methodology can be used to establish many different ideas. How do we know the wicked will not suffer eternally? We have to consider *all* of what Scripture teaches, not simply look at a portion of a parable.



You should pay attention because what I cited from Ellen White destroys your argument, unless you wish to level the same accusations against her as you have against me. You have accused me of disregarding what Jesus taught about the judgment because I used the word "arbitrary." I demonstrated that I merely reused the word, which I borrowed from Ellen White. So if your accusations have any weight against me, they bear equally heavily against Ellen White, which was the point of my argument. So if I am disregarding what Jesus taught on this subject, so is she.

Regarding the treatment of the original, I am treating the original as it should be treated, which is to consider all of what Scripture teaches, and not rely unduly upon a parable to establish doctrine.



You haven't established this. You haven't stated what you think Jesus is teaching, nor how I am agreeing.



So I take it you also believe that Lazurus and the rich man can converse with each other in hell?



If they are suffering because there are being burned alive, why is their weeping and gnashing of teeth? Their should be shouts and shrieks of pain. Your idea doesn't make sense. The weeping and gnashing of teeth speaks of remorse, not of physical pain.



The people don't die right away because they aren't being burned by a literal fire. That should be clear. The only way around they could continue to live would be if God did something supernatural to keep them alive, which perhaps is what you had in mind by citing Jesus' walking on water. So let's clarify this.

By citing Jesus' walking on water, is what you're saying is that God does something miraculous to keep them alive, but you don't know how this works any more than you know how Jesus was able to walk on water?



What I wrote is that you cited Scripture with no commentary without responding to what I had written, which is exactly what you did. Also, I did not simply cite some Scripture hoping that would settle the case, but presented a well reasoned argument of which the citing of the Scripture was a part.



There are other texts which speak to God's being a consuming fire. For example Deut 4:24; 9:3; Heb 12:29, as well as being compared to such in Exod 24:17; Isa 30:27, 30, as well as other places.

If you wish to take issue with my interpretation of Isa. 33, the following is clear enough:



Now you have accused me of disregarding the teaching of Jesus because it doesn't fit in with my view of God, but if we accept Ellen White's writings as being representative of Seventh-day Adventist teaching, then my ideas are representative of Seventh-day Adventist teaching, and I am no more disregarding Jesus' teaching that she is.

Also, if one does not use one's view of God to understand Scripture, what does one use? That is, if you read some text in Scripture, and you're trying to understand what it means, what is your basis for doing so? Do you not consider what it says about God? Do you simply set aside what you believe about God to be true, and read the text as if you knew nothing about God?

This would be much more enjoyable if you were to acctually pay attention to what I write. If Jesus main point of His parables cannot be used for teaching, then we may aswell take some scissors and remove every single one of them. ...I cannot make the willfully blind to see...Sigh...Remorse? Are you arguing that someone will be repenting in the face of eternal death? Would God really kill someone who was truly repenting of their sin, even at the very last moment? I wrote that I do not know how it works and by that I intended to mean that I do not know how it works. Nothing more complicated than that.
It would seem proper to me to let scripture guide ones understanding of God. Having done that it is fitting to do as you propose here.

I paid attention to what you wrote, and made the point that following the same methodology you are using, others come up with the doctrine that Jesus taught that the wicked will suffer forever in an eternally burning hell. In order to counteract this, one would need to consider what Scripture has to say as a whole.



I hear this! It's hard enough to get people just to look.



Not repenting, remorse. That's what "weeping and gnashing of teeth" refers to. Or do you disagree with this? Do you think "weeping and gnashing of teeth" means something other than remorse?

If the wicked were truly repentant, I agree with you that they would not be destroyed. One can suffer remorse without being repentant. Judas is a textbook example of this.



You don't know how what works? What is it that you believe? You've been very vague on this, but this is precisely the point that needs to be explained, as this is precisely the point that I've been taking issue with. That is, I have been arguing against the idea that God will cause the wicked to suffer for many hours, or many days, by supernaturally keeping them alive so that they will suffer physical pain while being burned. It is not clear to me that you believe this, so what I've been arguing against may be something that doesn't even apply to what you believe.



It sounds like we are in agreement here, if I have understood you correctly. So I would come back to your original accusation, which is that I have disregarded Jesus' teaching because it does not fit into my view of God, an accusation you supported because of my use of the word "arbitrary."

In defense, I pointed out that I borrowed that term from Ellen White, because I thought her use of it was accurate. If your accusation stands against me, then it stands against her as well. Do you agree with this? If not, please explain how what I'm saying is different than what she is saying. If you don't disagree with this, but think that both she and I are disregarding what Jesus taught, then please make that point clear.

Maybe you misstook my methodology for someone elses?I clearly misstook the meaning of this word "remorse".It is like the trinity. I do not know how it works, I only know that this is where Gods selfrevelation leads us and therefore I believe it is true. Because I see Jesus teaching that God will have justice and in another scripture a prophet wrote, "mine is the vengence says the Lord". I see you saying that vengence is not something God would be about so therefore I see a conflict between your position and the bibles position. If I have missunderstood this... your telling me so has drowned in the details of how God would have His vengence. I have not considered your referals to Ellens writing. What she wrote is secondary to the scripture we are studying.

I'm speaking of the methodology of trying to develop a theology solely on the basis of parables. For example, I see no difference between the reasoning you are using to establish that angels literally throw human beings into literal fire where they literally suffer in literal flames, and the reasoning those who use this parable to establish that they wicked will literally be burned forever.

They would say, and do say, the Bible says they burn forever, so I believe it, which sounds like the same thing you are saying.



So we're in agreement on this point?



I would question that God's self revelation leads us here. God has revealed Himself in Christ, fully and completely. If some interpretation of a parables leads us to a conclusion which is contrary to what we see revealed in Jesus Christ, we have to question whether our interpretation is correct.

If we want to see how God treats His enemies, all we need to do is look at how Jesus treated His enemies. This is God's self revelation.



People have a presupposition as to what it means to take vengeance. For us to take vengeance means eye for eye and tooth for tooth. This is how we see justice being served. But Jesus presents another picture. His way of dispensing justice is to turn the other cheek, walk the second mile, give the shirt off his back.

If you've read Les Miserable, Victor Hugo does a nice job describing a similar process. The fellow chasing the protagonist is led to commit suicide because he cannot deal with the mental conflict between the justice of God (represented by the kindness of the protagonist) and the justice of man (represented by the fellow pursuing him). But I digress.

In terms of vengeance, in Romans 12 where Paul speaks of "vengeance is mine" he quotes from the Old Testament, Proverbs I think, where it says that if your enemy thirsts, to give him drink, because in so doing you heap coals of fire upon his head. This is how God gets vengeance. This is the same theme that Jesus spoke of in the sermon on the mount.

Judas is also an illustration of the principle. Like the character in Les Miserable, Judas was destroyed by the love (which is the glory) of Jesus Christ. The love of God is such a powerful force that either we open our hearts to it and are transformed by it, or our own selfishness leads to our destruction in our inability to deal with God's unselfishness.



You accused me of disregarding what "we" had said (I don't know who we is) regarding Jesus' teaching of the judgment, and when I asked for evidence, you pointed to my use of the word "arbitrary." I think your accusation was totally out of line. A better "accusation" would be simply to have a dialog with the hopes of coming to a better understanding of what is being said, regardless of whether you agree with it or not. There's no need to throw out accusations.

I have been pointing out that the use of the word "arbitrary" is borrowed from Ellen White. It seems to me that it would be prudent of you to be open to at least the possibility that she was correct in what she wrote, and perhaps the use of the word "arbitrary" does not constitute a rejection of Jesus' teaching.

And here I thought we had reviewed both things written by Isaiah and the apostles in addition to the parables, where one of the "parables" was not even a parable. Maybe you are so focused on the parables thread that you missed these other bible passages?Jesus forgave His enemies. So if everything we can know about God can be learned by what Jesus did while on earth, we may conclude that there will be no lost people, because there will be no enemies of God because once God has forgiven somebody, this person is no longer an enemy of God, and we know that God always forgives His enemies. Did we just slip into universalism? Judas was destroyed by love? Taking a swift look for these two words occuring together in the bible, I found the following from another person who appears to have missunderstood God's character:Psalm 145

20The LORD keeps all who love Him,
But all the wicked He will destroy. We who are studying, ie you and me. You sure have a hard time moving on from that "arbitary" thing. And i wish I had know you wore your nevers upon your skin before writing that first post...I have learned is prudent is to not take anyones single paragraph (no Mike, a train of single paragraphs are none better) with an "Ellen said" attached to it as the final say on anything. More often than not it isn't even an honest quote. (Notice that this is not an attack on you).

Why don't we start from scratch here. I invite you to present your case that man will be punished for his sin by being cast into literal fire, and that he will be suffering because of being burnt by literal fire. Use whichever Scriptures you would like, and I'll respond.

In this point here I was addressing your use of the parable. You seem to think we're discussing something else, so let's back off a bit and start over.



If forgiveness saved a person without their response being important, what you wrote here would be true. But forgiveness involves two parties. From the part of God, you are correct, Jesus did forgive His enemies, and God, in answer to Jesus' prayer "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." has forgiven each of us. Indeed, we can only live physically because God has forgiven us. Every breath we take was paid for by the blood of the lamb.

However, while God has forgiven us, that doesn't mean we have experienced forgiveness. In order to experience forgiveness, we must repent. This isn't an imposed condition, but is a reality. If you and are are in a fight, and you have wronged me, and I forgive you in my heart and offer you forgiveness, in order for our relationship to be healed and us to be brought into harmony, you must recognize your wrongdoing (i.e. repent) and accept my forgiveness. Otherwise we remain estranged.

Now if you don't feel you've done anything wrong, but, in reality, I'm the one at fault, it's likely you will never accept my offer of forgiveness, because you don't think you need it, and you probably don't think much of me either.

Well, this is precisely God's problem. Man doesn't like God, and doesn't feel like he should have to humble himself and accept God's forgiveness. It's takes the love of God to melt the heart, and then comes thankfulness for that love, and an appreciation for the forgiveness offered, and its terrible cost.



Judas chose not to live rather than repent. He was driven to suicide by his refusal to respond positively to God's love.



What you wrote was that when "we" presented Jesus' teaching on the judgment, you (meaning me) disregarded it because it didn't fit in with your view of God. This is rather strong, IMO. It's a bit surprising to me that you would think my taking offense at this is my wearing my nerves upon my skin. I'm actually rather thick-skinned because I get quite a lot of abuse. However, I was rather surprised to read this from you because up until now you've struck me as being quite reasonable.

When I asked you to either retract your statement or produce evidence for it, *you* were the one who cited my use of "arbitrary" as evidence. When I protested that this was flimsy evidence, you argued that it wasn't. I supported my position by pointing out that I simply borrowed the use of the word from Ellen White, doing so because I believed her use of the term was accurate. So if simply the use of the word "arbitrary" is enough for being indicted for rejecting Jesus' teaching on the judgment, then you are indicting her as well as me. This is what I've been pointing out.

If you will retract your accusation, I won't have any difficulty "moving on" from arbitrary.



Thank you for the qualification here. I agree with you that her writings are often misused. Of course, the same thing could be said regarding Scripture.

I believe it's important that we develop a view of whatever, the judgment, the atonement, whatever the subject is, that makes sense. God says, "come let us reason together."

As I mentioned earlier, one of the things that made a profound impression on me was EGW's statement that God would have us worship Him because we have an intelligent appreciation of His character, and because we admire Him. I just love this! I love that God would be this way, desiring our fellowship not because of who He is, in the sense of being powerful and almighty, number One, the creator and so forth, but because of who He is in the sense of His character. Because God is so supremely unselfish, kind, patient, humble, compassionate, just plain good, it is an honor and a privilege to be able to have anything to do with Him, let alone contribute to His cause.

I don't believe God wishes that we believe something that doesn't make sense to us, simply because He said it. I'm not saying "doesn't make sense" in the sense of not knowing how He does something (like how He fed the 5,000, or created the worlds by speaking them into existence) but doesn't make sense in that it doesn't fit with our view of reality, and specifically, with our view about Him.

It may be the case, when presented with evidence, that we need to revisit our perception of reality, and our perception of Him (which is, indeed, what I'm inviting you to do), but these changes in perception do not happen in a moment. They are the process of much thought. Nor would God expect that we willy-nilly change all of our idea just because we came across some new Scripture or whatever that we hadn't seen before.

Sorry about being long-winded here, but, to summarize, I don't believe that God wants us to believe something that doesn't make sense to us (again, in the sense of not fitting in with our view of reality, or of Him) simply because someone said so, even Him. He's not interested in servitude base on authority, but on our being genuine friends of His because we are inspired by His character. We will only admire His character insofar as we understand it.

What does God's forgiveness mean in perspective of those who refuse to acknowledge it? God opens his arms in forgiveness and some people respond by throwin stones at Him. What then? You say that forgiveness requires both to agree on the need for forgiveness and then for one to give it and for the other to recieve it. What about those who crucify Christ anew?

Lets use a human example. Person A and person B are friends. Then person A insults B publicly. Person B becomes angry and their relationship is strained. Person A then says to B, "I forgive you". B is not at all happy with the situation as it implies that it is B who has done something wrong. B refuses to recognise any "wrongdoing" and accept A's offer of "forgiveness". Is it B's fault that the relationship remains strained? (this ought not be taken as a summary of any real event but merely as an example)

Besides, Jesus words of forgiveness from the cross did not wait for any concent from His enemies standing on the ground all around. If forgiveness requires mutual concent to be of any value, those words of Jesus had little value for the people who heard them spoken. So I strike you as somewhat less reasonable when I disagree with you then I do when I agree with you? Hmm?
Seriously though, not that you would take offense at it, but that you would linger upon it for this long. I made my statement in light of everything I read you write in your endless discussions with Mike and others regarding these issues. I realise that such is not evidence that would hold in court, or in a scientific paper but it is non the less what I am about here. Reading someone speak on a subject from different points of view over a lengthy period of time, but without taking notes (therefore requiring me to reread it all again in order to make a watertight case) creates a view of how the land lays.
If I read everything the apostle John has written in the bible and conclude that his main thing is speaking about the love of God, if I then got an oportunity to speak with him and he would deny this being the case, this would be a somewhat suprising turn of events. If he then would go on speaking of the love of God in his denial of him speaking about the love of God, well... This is somewhat how I experience this discussion. When your argument goes like this "I request that you retract the accusations you made about me saying that I do not believe God punishes sinners at the judgement day of the Lord, and by the way, those verses over there which you say mean that God punishes sinners, they say nothing of the sort". Every other post is about me taking back my words and the rest contain confirmation that what I intended to say is what you acctually believe. How can I take back my words under these circumstances without creating a lie?The diffence of course is that Scripture contains some 2000 pages and the average book or letter is much much shorter than that. Some of Ellens major books are by themselves that large and if someone would want to get an overview of everything Ellen wrote on a subject, this person would have maybe 20 000 pages rather than 2000 to read. It is much easier to misuse Ellens work based on this. Creation as explained in genesis does not make sence to a lot of people, so I expect God would then not require these people to believe it just because. I read in John Stott's "the Cross of Christ" that God's character has two major parts. His love and His holiness. His love cannot stand the death of creation and His holiness cannot stand the presence of sin. (By the way, before you give a reply considering the details here, notice that a summary is always just that, and you would be adviced to read the chapter itself if you are inclined to critique it.)I guess the issues start when we (both you and I) make the assumptions that if something makes sence to me it should also make sence to everyone else. I have noticed that this is almost never the case. If I got a $ for every time that something which spoke to me also was meaningfull to someone I tried to share it with, im not sure I could order a McD burger meal with the money.

I'm splitting this up. First post.



Our sin has broken our relationship with God. God, from His end, has forgiven us, but our relationship remains broken if we don't repent and accept His forgiveness.

We need a relationship with God in order to survive. In the judgment, those who have refused to respond to God's efforts to heal them will suffer and die, because we need a relationship with God in order to be healthy, in order to live.



No, it's not B's fault, and this is actually quite a good example as "B" in the example represents God (except that God does not become angry, or respond in any selfishly, because He has been insulted.). God, even though He is the One who has been wrong, and by all rights could demand restitution, doesn't. Instead, He forgives, although, again, He is the one who has been wronged. As Psalm 69, depicting Christ's death on the cross put it, "I restored that which I took not away."

Here's another human example. Say you're dating a woman, and she gets upset at you without cause. You realize she is upset, so you take a day off work, and visit her accompanied with flowers and chocolates, or whatever it is that she likes. She unexpected sees you with flowers in hand, and her whole mood changes. She sees from your sacrifice that she has misjudged you and repents (changes her mind; changes from being angry at you to no longer being angry), and you and she live happily ever after.

Even though we are the ones in the wrong, we are the ones who are angry, and we are the ones who need to be fixed. God fixes us by healing us with His love, by revealing the truth about Himself and the truth about ourselves.



The whole point is that Jesus did not wait. God forgives. His forgiveness is unconditional, from His side. He doesn't wait.

However, in order for us to be healed, we need to receive that forgiveness. So in the case of Jesus' enemies, the ones who did not respond, were forgiven, but not healed.

By the way, we receive great value from God's forgiveness, even if we refuse it. We owe our physical lives, and all our possessions, to God's forgiveness. We, like the prodigal son, may receive these blessing, our inheritance, as it were, to selfishly live for ourselves, in which case God's forgiveness will only be of use for us for this life. Or we, like the prodigal son in the story, may choose to respond to the Father's love, and while we are still a long ways off He will receive us.



This is interesting. You acknowledge that I am right not to take offense at your accusation, but find it odd that I'm lingering with it. Well, if you agree that I am correct in taking offense, then you should agree that I am correct in requesting that you retract it.

However, regardless of what you choose to do, it's led to an interesting discussion, and you've been pleasant since then, so I won't bring it up again (unless I'm responding to something you say).

Second (and final) part.



Because you don't know that what you said is true. You accused me of disregarding what you (plural) were presenting in regards to Jesus' teaching of the judgment because it didn't fit in with my view of God. You have no way of knowing that this is true. (in particular, although you may perceive me as disregarding Jesus' teaching, you have no way of knowing, and no reason to state, that I am doing so because it doesn't fit my view of God; that's the particularly offensive part).

You could, instead of making an unsubstantiated accusation like this, which is out of place in a forum among friends, to simply state that you disagree with what I said, and leave it at that.



I think it's pretty easy to misuse Scripture, and that practically everyone does. Probably everyone does, to some extant. Our big problem is that we don't know God, which causes us to misunderstand and misapply His attempts to communicate with us. In general, Scripture is used as a club to hit people over the head with (and people do exactly the same thing with Ellen White, of course) as opposed to a means by which good news can be shared.

We let our own paradigmns get in the way of what God is really saying to us. Knowing and recognizing that we do this is a first step to really understanding what He's trying to tell us.



I agree with this, given the premise. I don't think God expects us to believe things "just because." However, I would question the premise because Romans 1 tells us:



This seems to be saying that God has revealed Himself clearly enough that they know who He is, to the extent that He created things, and they should be thankful to Him.



I don't have the opportunity to read the chapter, so I am constrained to respond in ignorance. I think that God's holiness is an outspringing of His love, and do not believe there is tension between these attributes.

It's very interesting that you should mention this because I just heard a sermon regarding God's holiness. The preacher presented it as *the* defining attribute of God. This got me to thinking, and it seemed to me that the defining attribute of God is love, of course ("God is love" we read; not "God is holiness") and I wondered how we should understand God's holiness as something tangible and meaningful.

I got to thinking of Jesus Christ. Was He holy? As holy as God? Even while here with us in the flesh? Of course, we would say. What is it that constituted His holiness? It seemed to me that it was the fact that He was in perfect harmony with the law of God. Jesus was holy because He never sinned.

Now the law of God is a law of love, so it follows that holiness is defined by love. If we love (speaking of agape here), then we are holy. God is holy because He loves.



Well that's what makes things such a challenge, isn't it? Jesus seemed to have just the right way of reaching each one. Most of what Jesus taught and believed made little sense to those He came in contact with. Jesus said, "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father," and almost nobody believes that, even though just about any Christian would affirm that they do.

We can share with each other what makes sense to us, and through our discussing there may be a meeting of the minds as the Spirit leads us into all truth.

One final comment is that I find internet discussions to be a very difficult place to achieve consensus. It's much easy to do so when dealing with someone in person. One of my best friends, in fact the person I would say most closely sees things to the way I do, is someone with whom I "fought" on the internet for years. When on the net still most of the time when I comment on something he wrote it's because of something I'm not seeing the same. That just seems to be what happens.

However, when we speak on the phone we almost never disagree about subjects, but have a much more edifying conversation.

Just an observation.

TE: If all that we can know about God was revealed in the life and character of His Son, this means that there is no information in the Old Testament which tells us something about God which is not revealed in the New. That's simple logic.

For any event in the OT, there should be some corresponding event in Christ's life, or some teaching, which reveals whatever it is that is referenced in the OT in relation to knowing something about God. (#95622)

MM: In the OT, Jesus withdrew His protection and allowed evil angels and/or evil men to kill sinners. I assume you agree with this point. Where in the NT do we find Jesus, while here in teh flesh, demonstrating this behavior?

What's your point, MM? Is it:

a)Jesus never demonstrated this behavior.
b)Therefore, there are things about God that Jesus did not reveal.

My question is - Is it true Jesus demonstrated this behavior in the OT but not in the NT? If so, why not, that is, why didn't Jesus demonstrate this behavior in the NT (while here in the flesh)?

My question was, what's your point? Is it:

a)Jesus never demonstrated this behavior (in the flesh)
b)Therefore, there are things about God that Jesus did not reveal (in the flesh).

I'm asking you my question because I'm trying to understand your point of view. I'm not trying to make a point. I'm not sure what you believe about it. Please help me out. Thank you.

If you have no point to make, let's just move on.

Regarding my point of view, it is that all that we need to know of God, or can know of Him, was revealed in the life and character of Jesus Christ while here with us in the flesh.

So if we take some act that God commited, we should be interpret that act in the light of what we see in Jesus Christ's life and character. This seems very simple to me, MM. I don't understand why you're wanting to find something in the OT and look for the same thing in the NT. I find that very confusing, which is why I've been asking what your point is.

Certainly God has done different things in history than what Jesus Christ did here in the flesh, but none of these things reveals to us something new about God that Jesus didn't reveal. That's the point.

TE: Certainly God has done different things in history than what Jesus Christ did here in the flesh, but none of these things reveals to us something new about God that Jesus didn't reveal. That's the point.

MM: In light of what you believe about Jesus revealing the truth about our Father's character and kingdom, I do not understand how you can also say there are things "God" did in the OT that Jesus did not do in the NT, namely - withdrawing divine protection and giving evil angels permission to kill sinners.

In other words, I hear you saying "God" (which I take to mean the Father and not Jesus, please correct if I've misunderstood you) is the type of being whose mercy eventually runs out, withdraws protection, and gives evil angels permission to punish and/or kill sinners within defined limits.

So, again, here's my question - If this is true about "God", and if Jesus, while here in the flesh, demonstrated everything we can know about our Father's character and kingdom, where do we find Jesus, while here in the flesh, demonstrating this particular aspect of our Father?

If we do not find Jesus, while here in the flesh, demonstrating this aspect of our Father, do we dare believe such a thing about Him? Using your theory, would we not rather reject it wholesale?

TE: Certainly God has done different things in history than what Jesus Christ did here in the flesh, but none of these things reveals to us something new about God that Jesus didn't reveal. That's the point.

MM: In light of what you believe about Jesus revealing the truth about our Father's character and kingdom, I do not understand how you can also say there are things "God" did in the OT that Jesus did not do in the NT[/quote]

Jesus was alive for about 30 years. The history of the OT goes on for thousands of years. Jesus could hardly do all these same things in a mere 30 years, for one thing. For another, Jesus lived as a man during His life here in the flesh. So there's no reason to expect, in the first place, that Jesus would be doing the same things.

This isn't even an issue.

Ellen White did not write that Jesus *did* everything that God has ever done, but that all that we can know of God was revealed in the life and character of Jesus Christ while here in the flesh.



I've not said this.



First of all, I wouldn't say what you said is true about God. Secondly, what Ellen White wrote is that all that we can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son, while here in the flesh. So if there's something you're interested in knowing about God, you should be able to find that revealed in Jesus' life and character.

You should be just as able to find such a thing as I.



If we think we have some theory about God's character, and that theory is not reflected in Jesus' life or character while here in the flesh, I think one should question that theory. Either that, or look some more at Jesus' life and character. Certainly the theory regarding God, and the reality demonstrated by Jesus Christ should match.

The following quotes teach us that there is a limit to God's mercy. Eventually He permits us to reap what we have sown. "God will not be trifled with. He may bear long with men, but He will visit their transgressions and render to every man as his works have been" {3T 444.1}


Do you agree with me that there are times when circumstances force God to withdraw His protection and give evil angels permission to punish and destroy sinners?

If so, do you also agree it teaches us very important things about God, about what He is like, about His character and kingdom?

If so, doesn't it stand to reason that if all we can know about God was demonstrated by Jesus that we should be able to read about it in His earthly life?

If so, where do we find this aspect of God's character and kingdom demonstrated in the earthly life of Jesus?

If it is absent, why is it absent? Why would Jesus neglect to demonstrate such an important aspect of God's character and kingdom?

Regarding the first question, I wouldn't put it that way. EGW puts it like this:



I'd put it along these lines.

I agree this statement tells us important things about God. I agree that it stands to reason that if all we can know about God was revealed in the life and character of His Son, then Jesus revealed the above in regards to God's character.

How about you? What do you think?

Great. It sounds like we're on the same page, at least for now. The following passage from COL Chapter 14 "Shall Not God avenge His Own" makes it clear that there is a limit to God's mercy, at which time He arises to execute judgment upon the rejecters of His grace and mercy.


Again, the Bible and SOP are clear about it.


So, the question is - Did Jesus demonstrate this aspect of God's character and kingdom during His earthly life? Did Jesus ever reach a point when the limits of His grace and mercy were exceeded, when He withdrew His divine protection, when He gave evil angels permission to destroy sinners?

Not that I know of; not during His earthly sojourn. He did things that hinted at it; for example, the cleansing of the temple on two different occasions, and other times when divinity flashed through humanity and people feared for their lives. And, He told the Jewish leaders, in so many words, that if they continued to reject Him until the day their 490 year probation period ended that He would withdraw His protection and allow the Roman armies to destroy them.

Do you know of anything Jesus did that demonstrates the fact God withdraws His protection and gives evil angels permission to destroy sinners?

Again, in the last paragraph, you're putting things differently than I would. As I stated, I would put it like this:



I'm not sure why you don't want to put it this way. I prefer it. You'll notice it says, "the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them." This is an important point that your version does not bring out.

Regarding how Jesus revealed this thing about God (I'm saying "thing" to leave it purposely vague for a moment; we can come back to it later) can we agree that Jesus must have done something to reveal it, given that all that we can know of God was revealed in His life and character while here in the flesh?

That is, you might not be seeing it, but it must be there, given that Ellen White's statement is correct. I'm asking if we can agree regarding this point. Assuming we can agree on this, we can go together looking for it.

"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."

---

TE: I'm not sure why you don't want to put it this way. I prefer it. You'll notice it says, "the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them." This is an important point that your version does not bring out.

MM: I'm not sure how my version differs. Again, here's what I wrote: "Did Jesus ever reach a point when the limits of His grace and mercy were exceeded, when He withdrew His divine protection, when He gave evil angels permission to destroy sinners?" "Do you know of anything Jesus did that demonstrates the fact God withdraws His protection and gives evil angels permission to destroy sinners?"

She also states it this way: "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}

---

TE: That is, you might not be seeing it, but it must be there, given that Ellen White's statement is correct. I'm asking if we can agree regarding this point. Assuming we can agree on this, we can go together looking for it.

MM: It makes sense that her statement would take into account this aspect of God. I assume my suggestions, posted again below, are unsatisfactory.

"He did things that hinted at it; for example, the cleansing of the temple on two different occasions, and other times when divinity flashed through humanity and people feared for their lives. And, He told the Jewish leaders, in so many words, that if they continued to reject Him until the day their 490 year probation period ended that He would withdraw His protection and allow the Roman armies to destroy them."

Your version doesn't point out that the Jews cause the protection of God to be withdrawn from them.



It's not clear to me that you are agreeing with what I said. It seems like you might be. Are you?



These seem like good observations.

TE: Your version doesn't point out that the Jews cause the protection of God to be withdrawn from them.

MM: Here's what I asked you earlier: Do you agree with me that there are times when circumstances force God to withdraw His protection and give evil angels permission to punish and destroy sinners?

So, yes, I understand it to mean that God does not arbitrarily withdraw His protection. It is only after His mercy and grace have been slighted to the point it would serve sin to continue protecting them from evil angels.

---

TE: It's not clear to me that you are agreeing with what I said. It seems like you might be. Are you?

MM: I don't know. In principle I think Jesus demonstrated it; but I don't know if He actually withdrew His protection and gave evil angels permission to destroy sinners while He was here in the flesh. He certainly said He would do it later on, while He was in heaven, if the Jews failed to comply with the covenant conditions, but does this count?

I'm asking if you agree regarding this:

"That is, you might not be seeing it, but it must be there, given that Ellen White's statement is correct."

Well, I'm not sure I can say with confidence - "it MUST be there". Because, honestly, I cannot think of any time or circumstance where Jesus, while here in the flesh, was forced to withdrew His protection and gave evil angels permission to destroy sinners. So, I don't know if I can say, with absolute certainty, that Jesus demonstrated every single aspect of God's character and kingdom while He was here in the flesh.

Then what does the statement "All that man needs to know, or can know, of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son" while here in the flesh mean?

It seems to me that if her statement is correct, then what you are proposing as something we know of God must be revealed in Christ's life and character while here in the flesh. If it's not revealed by Christ's life and character while here in the flesh, then her statement is incorrect.

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}

This statement does not necessarily mean that Jesus demonstrated everything there is to know about God. It simply says everything we need to know or can know of God was revealed in the life and character of Jesus.

This statement leaves room for things about God that are hard to understand, that Jesus chose not to reveal because we cannot comprehend it at this time. Some of these things Jesus said the Holy Spirit would make clear after His departure. But other things will not be made clear until well into eternity.

John
16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
16:13 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: and he will show you things to come.
16:14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show [it] unto you.
16:15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall show [it] unto you.

1 Corinthians
13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Hebrews
5:11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.

2 Peter
3:16 As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Perhaps one of those things about God that Jesus chose not to reveal while He was here is the fact God withdraws His protection and gives evil angels permission to destroy sinners when circumstances force Him. It is called His strange act".

Isaiah
28:21 For the LORD shall rise up as [in] mount Perazim, he shall be wroth as [in] the valley of Gibeon, that he may do his work, his strange work; and bring to pass his act, his strange act.


Apparently, we do not need to understand, not can we understand, the "strange act" of God as evidenced by the fact Jesus chose not to reveal this aspect of God's character and kingdom.

I'll respond to the rest of your post later, as I have time, but for now, what's the difference between "demonstrate" and "reveal"?

As I used them above they mean the same thing. I mean it as opposed to Jesus merely talking about it (i.e., in the future He will withdraw His protection and give evil angels permission to destroy Jews in Jerusalem).

If "demonstrate" means the same thing as "reveal" then what you said becomes this:



This doesn't seem to make any sense. In the above, you're saying that the statement that Jesus revealed everything there is to know about God does not necessarily mean that Jesus revealed everything there is to know about God.

I'm not seeing this. That statement says that "all" that man needs to know, or can know, of God was revealed. It doesn't say "all we can know of God, except things that are difficult to understand." How are you reading into the statement a qualification? It seems as unqualified as it could possibly be.



I would argue the reverse, which is that since all that we can know of God was revealed in the life and character of Jesus, then He must have revealed this. Either that, or what you're suggesting is not something we can know of God.

Really, the statement "all" man can know of God was revealed by the life and character of His Son, doesn't allow for any other interpretation, right? What you're suggesting would make "all" not mean "all," but "some" or "much."

In the Bible, the word "all" is often qualified. I'm sure you know what I mean. In the case of her statement in 8T 286 I think it is possible that "all" refers to those things we can, in our present state of dullness, grasp and comprehend. But it cannot possibly refer to everything there is to know about God for the simple reason eternity isn't long enough to know everything about God.

There is too much to know about God for Jesus to have demonstrated "all" of it during His short sojourn here. Certainly you can agree with this insight. She said Jesus revealed everything we "need" to know, which is also everything we "can" know at this time. Of course, everything we "can" know is everything we "need" to know in order to get saved and to stay saved, that is, to be like Jesus. Whatever Jesus did not demonstrate while here in the flesh was, evidently, not needful to know for salvation.

Remember, Jesus said, I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. So, what did He leave unsaid, unrevealed? Obviously there were certain things Jesus could not demonstrate while here in the flesh because the disciples, and we, were/are unable to bear it, unable to grasp it. Could it be that one of those things is the "strange act" of God spoken of in the Bible, and demonstrated throughout the OT, and prophesied in the NT?

I don't dispute the fact that we will continually be learning new things about God throughout eternity, but I believe whatever we learn was revealed in the life and character of Christ, as the EGW statement says.

Tom, I find it hard to believe that you, of all people, are content to believe that Jesus demonstrated (revealed) everything there is to know about God. What about Jesus' statement, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now."

I've quoted the statement often from Ellen White. I'll trying quoting the same thought from a different author, and see if that makes sense to you.



I find it amazing that a non-SDA can see these things, but perhaps I shouldn't be, as these thoughts are all in Scripture. I just hadn't seen anyone not familiar with the Spirit of Prophecy present them before.

Perhaps this explanation makes sense?

Yes, it is interesting to find the same insight expressed by a non-SDA author. I hope you realize I am not arguing against it. It's just that I understand it differently than you do.

But let's see if we can move on. Maybe an example of Jesus demonstrating the aspect of God in question will settle the matter. Do you know of one?

The incident with the pigs jumping over the cliff seems to illustrate the principle.

I suppose. But giving evil angels permission to drive pigs over a cliff is addressing a different aspect of God's character, isn't it?

I don't think so. It seems to be the same principle. If one gives oneself over to the control of Satan, the pigs running off the cliff is an illustration of what happens.

Jerusalem is another example. Jesus cried out how He would have gathered them up as a hen gathers her chicks, but they didn't allow that. Jesus wept for their fate. Their destruction was a result of their refusing the presence and protection of God.

Lazarus' sickness and death also illustrate the principle, in a way. As long as Jesus was near Lazarus, he couldn't get sick and die. So Jesus went away, so that he could die, and Jesus could resurrect him.

To the paralytic, Jesus warned, "Do not sin, lest a worse thing come upon you" which is illustrating the principle in a broad context.

When a structure fell and killed a number of people, Jesus pointed out that their death was not due to God, but warned that unless His hearers repented, something likewise could happen to them. If God wasn't causing the destruction, then someone or something else was. The implication was that if they did not repent, then they would forfeit God's protection, and they could suffer disaster as those who were killed by the structure falling did.

These are a few that come to mind. There are probably others.

The point is that if EGW's statement that all that we can know of God was revealed in the life and teachings of Christ is true, then whatever aspect of God's character we're interested in studying, it must be revealed in Christ. That doesn't mean we don't have to hunt for it.

Well, I guess if you're going to use loose interpreting techniques, we might be able to stretch the illustrations you gave as examples of Jesus being forced to withdraw His protection and giving evil angels permission to punish and destroy stubborn, unrepentant sinners. But, I must admit, it's a hard sell. Except for the Jerusalem example, which actually applies to after Jesus returned to heaven and not to while He was here in the flesh, the other ones miss the mark.

If the statement that all we can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son is true, then whatever we know to be true of God must be there. That's just simple logic. We may have to hunt to find it. We may have to think. The statement doesn't say that all that we can need of God was spelled out in such a way that you don't have to look to see it, or think about it. It says that all that we can know of God was revealed.

True, but "hunting" and "stretching" are two different methods, right?

I suppose it depends upon how clearly you see it.

Which one of the examples you gave clearly demonstrates God being forced by circumstances to withdraw His protection from stubborn sinners and giving evil angels permission to punish and destroy them?

That's not how I would put it. I like how EGW puts it.



There are a number of points brought out here, and I think the episodes I suggested bring out these points. There's also the parables Jesus taught which should be considered. There may be some good examples there. I'd have to think about it.

"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."

Tom, please explain to me how this statement and my statement are different. Thank you.

Also, the following insights are helpful:

I think the first paragraph is speaking along the same lines. Actually, the second one two, although it's easily misunderstood.

Regarding the difference between your statement and hers, it's the emphasis. Her statement in GC 35, 36 emphasizes that fact that the Jews forged their own fetters, forced the Spirit of God to withdraw, and that their calamity was due to their own action, which led them to be under Satan's control, who has presented his own evil work as the work of God. Your statement doesn't really bring out any of these points, and makes the destruction of the wicked (as I read your intent) as something that God wants or desires to happen. I must admit, however, that I am influenced in my interpretation of things by knowing the many other statements you have made, so that may be coloring my reading of this particular statement of yours.

Given the emphasis you appreciate in the quotes you've posted - where do we see this demonstrated in the earthly life of Jesus? The examples you've already given come short of demonstrating it.

If you don't like my examples, find your own. We know they're there!

Good hunting!

But I don't know they are there. That's why I suspect her statement means something different than you have concluded. Jesus only demonstrated those aspects of God's character and kingdom that we "can know", that our dull minds can grasp and comprehend, which is also what we "need to know" to get saved and to stay saved. Since Jesus did not clearly demonstrate the aspect we're discussing here, it most likely means we are unable to grasp it and that it is not necessary to get saved or stay saved.

Boy, that's reading an awful lot into a really easy to understand statement!



I don't see anything unclear about this, certainly not that Jesus only revealed what we need to be saved.

I think it is your conclusion that must be wrong, that this aspect of God's character was not revealed by Christ. I think the problem involved not properly defining what the aspect of God's character is.

Here is the statement from the SOP we've been discussing:



What aspect of God's character is being revealed here? It is that God's can be forced to withdraw, leaving those from whom He withdraws under the control of the evil one. Surely you should be able to see this principles revealed in the life and character of Jesus Christ as He lived here with us in the flesh.

So, to conclude, I think EGW's statement is very clear as it reads (it doesn't need to be redone), and that if you properly define the aspect of God's character you are interested in, you can find it revealed by Jesus Christ.

I hear you saying Jesus demonstrated the meaning of - The wrath and vengeance of an offended God.

I wasn't thinking this as I was writing, but I agree with what you said ("Jesus demonstrated ....")

Which examples do you have in mind that demonstrate it?

The ones already mentioned, of course. Also there may be some parables which apply. I still haven't thought about it.

I really I am surprised you are willing to cite them as examples since they don't even get close to it, in my book.

When we were discussing whether Lucifer had sinned before his final decision, Rosangela, found this statement:



You responded to this statement by saying that "sin" meant something different in this case than it ordinarily means.

Ellen White's statement is clear:



The statement I provided from a non-SDA, using, interestingly enough, the same logic Ellen White uses (i.e., Satan misrepresented God's character, and in so doing, led man into sin; Christ revealed the truth about God to counteract the lies of the evil one) is equally clear.



If you choose to disagree with the statement that all we can know or need to know about God was revealed in Christ, that's your privilege.

I believe the statement. But, what does mankind "need to know"? And, what "can" we know about God? We are obviously capable of knowing everything we need to know about God. However, you seem convinced that this statement encompasses everything there is to know about God, rather than what we "can" and "need" to know about Him. On this we disagree.

Consider the following insights:

By the way, I changed my observations regarding 4SP 319. Apparently, you don't remember.

No, I don't know where you would get this idea. I've never said that all that man can know about God is all that can be known about God. That would be silly. God is infinite.

The statement says that all that *man* can know about God was revealed in Christ, not all that can be known about God.

We will be learning about God for all eternity. But everything we learn was revealed in Christ.

Pretty cool when you think about it.

No, I wasn't aware you had changed. It seemed to me you were repeating the same thing. In what way did you change? That is, what was your view before it changed, and what is it now? Thanks for pointing this out to me.

Did you change your mind about "sin" meaning something different than we understand it to mean? If so, that's very good, because it's a lot easier to discuss topics if you don't have your own unique definitions for words.

TE: The statement says that all that *man* can know about God was revealed in Christ, not all that can be known about God.

MM: I agree. Jesus did not reveal "all that can be known about God." He only revealed what we are capable of understanding, which is what we need to know to get save and to stay saved.

TE: We will be learning about God for all eternity. But everything we learn was revealed in Christ.

MM: Again, we disagree. Because of our dullness, Jesus was unable to reveal "everything" we will ever learn about God throughout eternity. He said, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now."

1. It is impossible for finite minds fully to comprehend the character or the works of the Infinite One.

2. We can understand as much of His purposes as it is for our good to know; and beyond this we must still trust the hand that is omnipotent, the heart that is full of love.

3. The word of God, like the character of its divine Author, presents mysteries that can never be fully comprehended by finite beings.

4. The difficulty lies solely in the weakness and narrowness of the human mind.

There are a couple of errors here. First of all, we are in agreement that the statement "Christ revealed all that man can know about God" does not mean that Christ revealed everything there is to know about God.

Let's call everything that can be know about God the set "U", which is infinite. We'll call the set "C" that which man can know about God. Clearly what man can know about God is finite, and we can also reasonably assume that Christ, in a finite amount of time, revealed a finite amount about God. Let's call what Christ revealed about God, the set "R".

C < R < U. Christ revealed R, so Christ revealed *more* than what man can know about God, but not as much as there is to know about God. So the first error is in saying that Christ "only" revealed what we are capable of understanding. The mistake is with the "only." That's not the case at all. That would imply that C = R, which in no way follows from the statement that C was revealed by Christ. That is, the set of what Christ revealed has a subset of C, so C is a subset of R. This follows from her statement, but not that C = R.

The second error is the idea that Christ only revealed what we need to be saved. There's a greater issue at stake than simply yours or my salvation, which is the Great Controversy. What Christ revealed settled the Great Controversy, so it was not simply enough for man to be saved, but also included the settling of issues that holy angels and unfallen men had.

Ok, so you're interpreting the statement to mean "All that man can know about God now, in His present sinful state, was revealed by Christ's life and character." So you think there will be new things to learn about God that we have no idea what they even are now, and that Christ did not reveal. Is this what you're saying?

What I'm primarily concerned about is regarding that all that *we*, right now, can know about God was revealed in Christ's life and character, not what we in a resurrected state might be able to learn about God.

U = what God knows about His kingdom and character

C = what we "can" and "need" to know about God now

R = what Jesus revealed about God while here

TE: Christ revealed R, so Christ revealed *more* than what man can know about God, but not as much as there is to know about God.

MM: Where did this assumption come from? It makes more sense to me, in light of what Jesus said, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now", to conclude C and R represent the same truths about God's character and kingdom.

---

TE: What Christ revealed settled the Great Controversy ....

MM: Not entirely; otherwise, heaven and earth would be celebrating over 2,000 years of life without sin or sinners.

---

TE: So you think there will be new things to learn about God that we have no idea what they even are now, and that Christ did not reveal. Is this what you're saying?

MM: I get the feeling if I simply answer, Yes, you're going to say, How can you be sure we won't learn something about God's character and kingdom we find objectionable?

With this in mind, I am reposting the following quotes:

1. It is impossible for finite minds fully to comprehend the character or the works of the Infinite One.

2. We can understand as much of His purposes as it is for our good to know; and beyond this we must still trust the hand that is omnipotent, the heart that is full of love.

3. The word of God, like the character of its divine Author, presents mysteries that can never be fully comprehended by finite beings.

4. The difficulty lies solely in the weakness and narrowness of the human mind.

This is obvious. Christ revealed all that man can know about God, but there's no reason to think that Christ revealed exactly this and nothing else. That wouldn't make any sense.

Secondly, besides being obvious, we are told by the Spirit of Prophecy that what Christ revealed settled the Great Controversy for angels and unfallen worlds. So Christ didn't simply reveal all that man can know, but, in addition to that, revealed things to holy angels and unfallen worlds.



This doesn't follow.



From EGW:



The GC has been settled. It hasn't ended yet, because of man, but it's been settled for holy angels and unfallen worlds.



No, this idea would not enter my mind. Why would you think we would find something objectionable about God? Your statements didn't address my question, I don't think. I was just curious as to if what I said is how you were interpreting the statement, and why you were saying that not everything that man can know about God was revealed by Christ. IOW, you were making the point that not everything that man will ever know about God was revealed by Christ.

However, I take it you would agree that everything that man can know about God now, at the very least, was revealed by Christ.

TE: This is obvious.

MM: Not to me.

TE: The GC has been settled.

MM: Aren't you leaving out an important quote?

TE: IOW, you were making the point that not everything that man will ever know about God was revealed by Christ.

MM: Correct. Jesus only revealed what we "can" and "need" to know. I'm not buying the idea that He also revealed things unfallen beings needed to know.

What I said regarding the Great Controversy being settled by the cross is true without or without a quote. But since you asked for one, here's a couple:



Another one on a similar theme:





There's simply no reason to think that Jesus only revealed what human beings can or need to know. It's not even possible that He could do such a thing. For example, there are things that angels can see in Christ that we can't see, simply by virtue of the fact that they are angels and we aren't, in addition to being more intelligent than we are.

TE: What I said regarding the Great Controversy being settled by the cross is true without or without a quote.

MM: If all the issues and accusations were "settled" at the cross, why are we still here, why is the GC still going on, why hasn't Jesus returned yet? Also, why haven't you quoted the following:

"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}

---

TE: There's simply no reason to think that Jesus only revealed what human beings can or need to know.

MM: Why not? It's exactly what she said. "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}

Although the issues have been settled for holy angels and unfallen worlds, man still has not made a decision.



No, it's not. If I say to you, "every state of the U.S. is part of U.S. territory" that's does not mean the same thing as saying "any part of U.S. territory is a state."

She didn't say "Only that which can be known by man about God was revealed."

I suggest you reconsider the following:



This is correct, and should be understandable.

TE: Although the issues have been settled for holy angels and unfallen worlds, man still has not made a decision.

MM: But it isn't settled in their minds. Not yet. Please read the DA 761 quote I posted above. Thank you.

---

TE: For example, there are things that angels can see in Christ that we can't see, simply by virtue of the fact that they are angels and we aren't, in addition to being more intelligent than we are.

MM: There is no evidence this is true. Her statement doesn't say so. It simply says Jesus revealed all we can know and need to know about God. She didn't include the angels in this statement.

That quote doesn't say it's not settled in their minds.



Just simple logic and a little common sense is enough to see that what I wrote is true. I gave you a simple example: "All states are a part of U. S. territory" does not mean "All U.S. territory is comprised of states."

That Christ revealed all that man can know simply does not mean, and cannot mean, that Christ only revealed what man can know. I explained one reason why. Angels, by virtue of being angles and not men, can see things revealed in Christ that men cannot see.

I don't know why you're wanting to argue about this. It doesn't really have anything to do about what we were talking about, does it? At any rate, if you can't see this is true, after these explanations, I think we'll just have to drop it.

TE: Just simple logic and a little common sense is enough to see that what I wrote is true.

MM: Tom, this may be enough for you, but please understand it isn't enough for me. I need a plain "Thus saith the Lord" upon which to build my faith and hope.

Also, it is obvious to me in the context of DA 761 that something is not settled in the minds of angels. Yes, they are convinced Satan is messed up and wrong about God, but they still have questions that need to be answered. The fact the GC did not end at the cross is evidence there are still issues and accusations that need to be addressed, that need to be settled. Check it out:

DA 761-763 (selected sentences)

1. The last link of sympathy between Satan and the heavenly world was broken.

2. Yet Satan was not then destroyed. The angels did not even then understand all that was involved in the great controversy.

3. The principles at stake were to be more fully revealed. And for the sake of man, Satan's existence must be continued.

4. Another deception was now to be brought forward.

5. Here will come the last conflict of the great controversy between Christ and Satan.

6. That the law which was spoken by God's own voice is faulty, that some specification has been set aside, is the claim which Satan now puts forward.

7. By substituting human law for God's law, Satan will seek to control the world. This work is foretold in prophecy.

8. Men will surely set up their laws to counterwork the laws of God. They will seek to compel the consciences of others, and in their zeal to enforce these laws they will oppress their fellow men.

9. There will be but two classes.

10. Then the end will come.

11. God will vindicate His law and deliver His people.

12. Satan and all who have joined him in rebellion will be cut off.

13. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them.

14. At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this.

15. But not so when the great controversy shall be ended.

16. 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.

It appears that there are still unsettled questions about the law and the extermination of sin and sinners. Had Jesus destroyed the evil angels at the cross, before these questions are settled, they would not have understood the justice of God. They would have feared Him, and their fear would have turned into rebellion and their eventual destruction.

Regarding the first point, the statement says, "All that man can know about God was revealed in the life and character of His Son." This *is* a "Thus saith the Lord."

At first, you seemed to be disputing that "all" means "all." Now you are wanting to add an "only" to the sentence which is not there. She did not write "Only that which man can know about God was revealed". There's no "only" in the sentence. You are adding that. Simple logic and common sense are enough to see that your added "only" doesn't fit.

Regarding the GC being settled, she wrote that the angels had things to learn, not that there was anything unsettled in their mind. The GC was about whether or not Satan's accusations had any merit. The holy angels have no doubt about that. Satan's deceptions were laid open. This is made clear in the same chapter you've been quoting from:



Note that the last link of sympathy was broken. There was no more doubt regarding who was telling the truth, and thus the GC was settled. The only party for whom it is unsettled, and the only reason that time goes on, is because of man.

However, though the last link of sympathy has been broken, and the universe has been eternally secured by the sacrifice of Christ, this does not mean there are not things the angels can learn.

TE: Regarding the first point, the statement says, "All that man can know about God was revealed in the life and character of His Son." This *is* a "Thus saith the Lord."

MM: Tom, do you have a reference this quote? I can't find it in my database. Thank you.

---

TE: Note that the last link of sympathy was broken. There was no more doubt regarding who was telling the truth, and thus the GC was settled. The only party for whom it is unsettled, and the only reason that time goes on, is because of man.

MM: That's not what it means to me. Yes, the last link of sympathy was severed; but this doesn't also mean that all of the accusations he raised were settled in their minds. According to DA 761-763 they still have questions about the law and the extermination of sinners with their sins in the lake of fire.

---

The following quote does not teach that these things were settled or accomplished at the cross. It is written in the future tense. Surely you agree our redemption was not completed at the cross.

"Christ alone can do this. His gospel in the hearts and hands of His followers is the power [1] which is to accomplish this great work. "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!" By Himself becoming subject to Satan's misrepresentations, Christ made it possible for the work of redemption [2] to be accomplished. [3] Thus was Satan to show himself to be the cause of disloyalty in God's universe. [4] Thus was to be forever settled the great controversy between Christ and Satan. {6T 238.1}

The holy angels were ready and willing for the GC to end long before the death of Christ on the cross. On several occasions they were ready and willing to destroy the evil angels along with evil humans. At the cross, though, they were even more ready and willing to do it. But, Father knows best. They will not be truly ready for the extermination of sinners with their sins in the lake of fire until after the 144,000 make their final stand.

1.Reference = 8T 286 "All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son."


2.


I think that's just what it means. This is why she quotes Revelations in saying that the devil was cast down. He no longer has any power in heaven. The GC is done. Satan is kaput.

Nothing is mentioned in DA (or anywhere else that I'm aware of) about the angels still having questions.

3.The future tense is in relation to what Christ was about to do in becoming a human being. The GC was settled because Satan showed himself to be the cause of disloyalty in God's universe. This is what the issue was, and it's been settled, as the DA chapter "It Is Finished" makes clear.

Your last paragraph is not dealing with the real issue, which was in regards to who was telling the truth, God or Satan. The holy angels and unfallen worlds had doubts about this until the cross. After that, the doubts were done away with, the meaning of Revelation's saying that Satan was cast down, as EGW explains in "It Is Finished". What was finished? Satan's influence to deceive; IOW, the GC was settled.

TE: Reference = 8T 286 "All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son."

MM: No, I was talking about the other quote you posted without a reference. Where is that one found. The reason I ask is because it leaves out an important element which is found the quote you posted above (8T 286).

---

TE: Nothing is mentioned in DA (or anywhere else that I'm aware of) about the angels still having questions.

MM: According to DA 761-763 they still have questions about the law and the extermination of sinners with their sins in the lake of fire. Here it is (I’ve enumerated her statements):

I checked the whole chapter, and there's nothing in that chapter that says anything about the angels having questions. There's nothing in your enumerated statements that say anything about them having questions.

TE: I checked the whole chapter, and there's nothing in that chapter that says anything about the angels having questions. There's nothing in your enumerated statements that say anything about them having questions.

MM: Please consider the following insight:

2. Yet Satan was not then destroyed. The angels did not even then understand all that was involved in the great controversy.

TE: Regarding the first point, the statement says, "All that man can know about God was revealed in the life and character of His Son." This *is* a "Thus saith the Lord."

MM: Tom, do you have a reference for this quote? I can't find it in my database. Thank you.

TE: Reference = 8T 286 "All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son."

MM: No, I was talking about the other quote you posted without a reference. Where is that one found? The reason I ask is because it leaves out an important element which is found the quote you posted above (8T 286).

I've been mentioning this. The holy angels had things to learn. However, the questions they had had were resolved at the cross, as EGW explains in detail.

The questions that they had had to do with who was right, Satan or God. The loyal angels chose to take the side of God, but there was some doubt as to who was right, because Satan was very clever in hiding his true character and designs. But the cross made all that clear.

Satan was cast down, as she points out, because he had no more influence with the holy angels, because he had revealed his true character, thus answering any questions they had about who was right.

Tom, I'm still waiting for that reference. Please.

8T 286.

Here is the actual quote:



The quote I cited without a reference was from memory. It was not meant to be taken as a direct quote, which is why I didn't include the reference, but I was simply indicating what quote I was talking about. Since I had already quoted it dozens of times, and since we were talking about it, I thought that would be sufficient.

I haven't read through this entire thread, so forgive me if I'm mentioning something already brought up.

This comes from The Story of Redemption, pg 415: My attention was again directed to the earth. The wicked had been destroyed, and their dead bodies were lying on its surface. The wrath of God in the seven last plagues had been visited upon the inhabitants of the earth, causing them to gnaw their tongues from pain and to curse God. The false shepherds had been the signal objects of Jehovah's wrath. Their eyes had consumed away in their holes, and their tongues in their mouths, while they stood upon their feet. After the saints had been delivered by the voice of God, the wicked multitude turned their rage upon one another. The earth seemed to be deluged with blood, and dead bodies were from one end of it to the other. {SR 415.1}

It is interesting that those slain by the brightness of Christ 2nd coming still had enough life in them to turn their rage upon one another. What's also interesting is that the same situation occurs at the end of the 1000 years. Very similar also to what happened to Baal's prophets on Mt. Carmel.

Tom, the sentence you placed in quotation marks left out an important part, namely, "All that man needs to know or can know ...." Jesus demonstrated what we "can know" about God's kingdom and character, which also happens to be all we "need" to know. Everything else there is to know about God was left for later.

So, what were the determining factors that dictated what Jesus demonstrated while He was here, what we needed to know, and what He left unrevealed for us to discover later on?

Dave, the paragraph you quoted is difficult, isn't it? But it is also typical of the times. Nowadays we separate such paragraphs to make it easier to tell we are going back to the beginning of an event. Above, I have done just that. The word "after" is the clue that she went back to the beginning of the event.

Besides this, the quote provides gruesome details about the effect of God's glory upon the flesh of the unsaved sinners.

This is completely irrelevant to my point! We were discussing that question of whether Christ revealed all that man can know about God. I quoted the salient part of the quote.



"Can know" and "need to know" are two different things. There's no reason to equate them. If I said you to, "I'll teach you all that you need to know about the book of Galatians." that's not the same as if I said "I'll teach you all that can know about the book of Galatians."

The amazing part of her quote is the "can know" part. If she had simply said, "All that man needs to know of God was revealed by the life and character of His Son," that gives the impression that there may have been some things left out. But when she adds "or can know" Whoa!!, that idea goes out the window.

Nothing was left out. Jesus Christ life and character was a full and complete revelation of God, all that man "can know."



Here's the quote, MM;



There's no need to refashion it into something else.

The whole purpose of Jesus' mission was to reveal the Father, so that man could be set right with God. So the criteria was to reveal the Father. John expressed the same idea:

Tom, "needs to know" and "can know" go hand-in-hand. "Can know" means capable of knowing now, in this present darkness. It is wonderful to learn we are capable of knowing what we need to know. Which implies saving knowledge.

Do we need to understand everything there is to know about God's "strange act" to experience salvation? The answer is obviously - No. Otherwise, Jesus would have demonstrated this aspect of God's kingdom and character while He was here in the flesh.

The wrath of God is loving, just, and good. It satisfies the demands of law and justice. It also involves venegeance.

"Can know" is much, much stronger than "needs to know." If I say, "I'll teach you all the math that you can know" that's MUCH more math than "I'll teach you all the math you need to know." I'd say, depending on your math ability, more than 100 times more.



"Can know" means "capable of knowing." That's it.



There's more involved than salvation. If one were to interpret "needs to know" as "needs to know in order to bring the GC to an end" *that* would be a lot close to "can know."



Good! You've shown that "can know" includes a lot more than "needs to know." Well done!



"This aspect"?



Not human vengeance, though. Human vengeance is "eye for eye" and "tooth for tooth." Divine vengeance is not of this order. God does not overcome His enemies by force. Force is not a principle of God's government.

All right. Now let's move on.

What does it mean - The wrath and vengeance of "an offended God"?

It's easy to find "wrath" and "vengeance" in Scripture, in relation to God, and I'll quote some things on that in a moment. Regarding "an offended God," this is an SOP phrase. Here's a couple of Scripture which deal with the first two concepts:



There are tons of like Scriptures, which illustrate the principle that God's wrath is manifest in His "giving up" the object of His wrath.

Regarding "vengeance," the following illustrates the principle:



God's vengeance is to overcome evil with good.

The SOP speaks of the vengeance of God here:



This is easily seen to be the same concept of wrath illustrated from Romans 1.

Regarding an "offended God," I think GC chapter 1 is a great illustration of this concept as well.

I think a problem comes up when we make God such as one as ourselves, petty, and so forth, and so understand "offended" in a petty, small way, as if we ourselves were offended by something someone else does. God is completely selfless, so He cannot be offended like we are, because self is slighted. Instead, God is offended by sin, because of the damage that sin does to His loved ones.

Tom, from what you've posted above I get the distinct impression you believe God has never expressed wrath or vengeance in any other way. Did I understand your position correctly?

I think God always responds by overcoming evil with good, yes.

1. What is good? Is punishing and destroying sinners good?

2. Has God ever destroyed sinners Himself?

3. Or, does He only withdraw His protection and give evil angels permission to destroy sinners?

4. What was the origin of the following fire:

Leviticus
9:24 And there came a fire out from before the LORD, and consumed upon the altar the burnt offering and the fat: [which] when all the people saw, they shouted, and fell on their faces.

5. What was the origin of the following fire:

Leviticus
10:1 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not.
10:2 And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.

Numbers
16:35 And there came out a fire from the LORD, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense.

6. What was the origin of the following fire:

Genesis
19:24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

7. And, what is the origin of the following fire:

Revelation
20:9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

What Jesus did was good. He fully revealed God, which is to say, He fully revealed what good is.



As pointed out in GC chapter 1, yes.



No. Destruction is not always caused by evil angels, at least not directly. Indirectly all destruction is due to Satan, since he originated sin.

Regarding the origin of fire, we've discussed all of these incidents, haven't we? I'd come back to the same question I've been raising, and that is, where do you see Jesus acting as you think God acted, in terms of destroying people with fire. When Jesus was asked to destroy his enemies with fire, His response was, "You know not of what spirit you are." Why do you think He said that?

He continued, "The Son of Man came not to destroy men's lives, but to save them." I perceive God to be acting consistently in harmony with this principle.

TE: What Jesus did was good. He fully revealed God, which is to say, He fully revealed what good is.

MM: No, Jesus didn't fully reveal God. For example, Jesus never rained down fire to consume an animal sacrifice. He never asked a father to sacrifice his son. He never withdrew His protection and gave evil angels permission to destroy sinners. He never created a planet or a race of FMAs by simply speaking a word.

TE: "Has God ever destroyed sinners Himself?" As pointed out in GC chapter 1, yes.

MM: What are you referring to? How did God destroy sinners by himself?

TE: When Jesus was asked to destroy his enemies with fire, His response was, "You know not of what spirit you are." Why do you think He said that?

MM: Because Jesus did not come as a conquering king. Instead, He came to show us to live in harmony with the law, and to die on the cross as our Substitute.

Jesus also said:

Matthew
10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Luke
12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
12:52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.
12:53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

We'll just have to disagree about this. I believe Jesus Christ fully revealed God.



I think Dr. Boyd has this exactly right. Note how close this is to Ellen White's words: "All we can and need to know about God is found in Christ."

Dr. Boyd gives the reason: "for God fully dwells in and is revealed in Christ."



It's explained in the chapter, especially around pages 35-37.



Jesus came to show us what God is like, so we could be set right with Him.





The division you speak of arises when one resists the picture of God's character which Jesus gave.

But those are things God has done. Did Jesus come to reveal who God is or what God can do? If Jesus came to reveal what God can do, then you are right, He did not do that. If Jesus came to reveal who God is, then I believe John got it right when he testified: 'the Word who was God became flesh and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.'

I listed several things He did in the OT that He didn't do while here in the flesh. Surely you agree Jesus didn't do those things while here, right?


Again, this insight cannot mean Jesus revealed or demonstrated everything there is to know about God, or even everything we read about God in the OT. Jesus said certain things about Himself and His Father would have to wait until revealed by the Holy Spirit because the disciples weren't ready to see it:

John
16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
16:13 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: and he will show you things to come.
16:14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show [it] unto you.
16:15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall show [it] unto you.

What things, which truths, was Jesus unable to reveal because the disciples were unable to bear it? Which things and truths about God did the Holy Spirit reveal later on that Jesus didn't reveal early on? Can you name any of them?


What is explained? How did God destroy sinners Himself? What did He do to them that caused them to die?


If Jesus came to reveal to us what the Father is like, why, then, didn't He explain, while here in the flesh, why and how God destroyed sinners in the OT? All those OT stories cause people to fear God, right? Why didn't Jesus sit His disciples down and explain it to them in plain words?

Instead, Jesus seems to have exacerbated the problem by telling stories of His own that depict God punishing and destroying sinners at the end of time. "There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

The OT is all about what God has done. We understand what God is like from He did, right? One of the most obvious things in the OT is all the sinners God killed: the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Ten Plagues of Egypt, the Extermination of the Canaanites, etc. Why didn't Jesus explain this aspect of God's character and kingdom while He was here in the flesh? Instead, He told "weeping and gnashing of teeth" stories. Why?

He did explain it, but not everyone understands what He taught.



The "instead" is out of place here.

How many times did Jesus refer to God as "judge"? 0.

How many times did Jesus refer to God as "Father"? Something like 170 times.

Jesus said, "When you've seen Me, You've seen the Father." However, you seem to be saying, "No, you haven't!"