does God punish?

i am very curious as to how different people view this issue of God "punishing" people.

does God punish us in our daily lives, or at the end of the 1000 years?

how is the how, what, when, where and why understood?

our

Is that an either/or? What if God is love and like in Job. Its not God that punishes us but Satan that messes with us.

Pretend your dad is a doctor. And he tells you dont smoke. Well you start smoking and get lung cancer. Did your father give you lung cancer? Now what if He can give you a new lung and you can be cured. The sad part is He dies without a lung. He is willing to do it anyway. Now what if you dont let him give you a new lung and you die. Is it him that kills you?

It depends on what you mean by "punish."

There's punishment for the purpose of inflicting pain in return for harm done. Then there's punishment as a tool to teach that sin causes pain. There may be others.

Yes, God punishes sinners now and again in the lake of fire at the end of time. He accomplishes His purposes in the following ways: 1) directly, and 2) indirectly. The following quote supports this insight.

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}

sorry, no, that wasnt really meant as an either/or. just wanting to get different peoples thinking on the subject, and i thank you for your contribution.

thank you arnold for pointing out the different ways we could look at "punish". it could also help to look at the original word and its meaning(s).

Aaron, I liked your example.

Let's modify that a little.

Let's say your dad catches you with cigarette in your mouth. He then gives you a pack of cigarettes, puts you in the closet, and says you must finish the pack before he will let you out. So you breathe 1st-, 2nd-, 3rd-, 4th- .... hand smoke for a few hours until you are done. You slip and slide through the vomit to get out. You are sick for a couple of weeks, until your body is finally able to get most of the junk out. For the rest of your life you feel like throwing up whenever you even think about tobacco. And you never get lung cancer.

Did your dad punish you? Absolutely!

That's the perspective of a parent who knows what "this hurts me more than it hurts you" really means, and would still do it any time it is needed.

That example is from Dr. Tim Jennings. His website is comeandreason.com and his ss classes are on audio and worth checking out. He is a part of the Good News Tour.

thats a good example!

but i can think of some variables.

for one, there is a parent who reasons with their child from day one, and the child pretty much listens. but he/she still decides to experiment. parent catches child, sits down and reasons with him/her, about the effects of smoking, possible pointing real people and what happened to them. child figures those are some pretty good reasons and stops.

another one, is child already decides he/she is not liking it anyway and has already decided not to do it again.

another, reasonable parent, strong-willed child, etc.

Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child. It is rare to find one who will give it up without needing the rod of correction.


That works out pretty well if there is such a case. But I doubt you will find a wise parent who will trust that his child's likes/dislikes constitute a safe guide.

Are you familiar with Good News Tour, Aaron?

Men flatter themselves that God is too good to punish the transgressor. {PP 420.2}

God has given in His word decisive evidence that He will punish the transgressors of His law. Those who flatter themselves that He is too merciful to execute justice upon the sinner, have only to look to the cross of Calvary. {GC 539.3}

If we lived in a dispensation of immediate retribution, offenses against God would not occur so often. But though delayed, the punishment is none the less certain. {3BC 1166.1}

Very few realize the sinfulness of sin; they flatter themselves that God is too good to punish the offender. But the cases of Miriam, Aaron, David, and many others show that it is not a safe thing to sin against God in deed, in word, or even in thought. God is a being of infinite love and compassion, but He also declares Himself to be a "consuming fire, even a jealous God" (RH Aug. 14, 1900). {3BC 1166.2}

Every offense against God's law, however minute, is set down in the reckoning, and when the sword of justice is taken in hand, it will do the work for impenitent transgressors that was done to the divine Sufferer. Justice will strike; for God's hatred of sin is intense and overwhelming (MS 58, 1897). {3BC 1166.3}

When God had said that the iniquity of the Amalekites was full, and had commanded him to destroy them utterly, he thought himself too compassionate to execute the divine sentence, and he spared that which was devoted to destruction. . . {CC 167.5}

The plea may be made that a loving Father would not see His children suffering the punishment of God by fire while He had the power to relieve them. But God would, for the good of His subjects and for their safety, punish the transgressor. God does not work on the plan of man. He can do infinite justice that man has no right to do before his fellow man. Noah would have displeased God to have drowned one of the scoffers and mockers that harassed him, but God drowned the vast world. Lot would have had no right to inflict punishment on his sons-in-law, but God would do it in strict justice. {LDE 241.2}

Who will say God will not do what He says He will do?--12MR 207-209; 10MR 265 (1876). {LDE 241.3}

hi arnold,

i mentioned the variables because of the variety of people ive met.

extremely rare is the first example where there was a trust thing between parent and child and believe it or not, according to the now adult child that was what happened. i didnt have that parent/child trust thing so it was alien to me.

i also know adult children who experimented and didnt like it, so they didnt take it on. parents didnt catch them, tho.

and then there are the other variables. i either popped out head-strong, or became that way to survive, dont know. so would sticking me in a closet have worked? maybe. it didnt happen. or would i have just determined not to get caught again?

That's the big difference between a parent and a prison warden. One wants to mold character, while one wants compliant actions.

BTW, if you dig deeper into the experience of that "trusting" child, you will probably find that he wasn't that way at birth, and the trust was built over time.

my point. different variables, therefore different approaches to the problem.

Tom,

I am familiar with the Tour. I have listened to the 2006 presentation from Redlands, CA. It had Brad Cole, Ty Gibson, Marco Belmonte, and Tim Jennings, and a few others. They came through TN this year but I didnt get a catch to go. Dr. Jennings teaches a SS class here in my town and I would encourage anyone to download at least the lesson on 1844 and the Judgement on comeandreason.com. Also Im sure this quarterly's comments will be great as well. I really like what these guys are doing. I think the Tour was brought on up this forum when Boyd posted in his blog about it because the Tour used a picture of Jesus washing the feet of world leaders and bin Laden was in the picture. One thing I like about Jennings is he basically throws out penal substitution.

Aaron

Tom, Aaron, and Teresaq - Do you agree with the following insights?


"Who will say God will not do what He says He will do?" What do you hear God saying in these quotes that He will do?

id be interested in hearing how you read them, first. we might not be that far apart in understanding.

MM, you appear to be reading the statements you are citing in a way that would have God arbitrarily dispensing judgment upon those He deems worthy of such, as opposed to God's permitting those who reject Him and His principles to experience the result of their choice.















The statements you are citing need to be interpreted in a way which is in harmony with these principles. A simple way to do this is to understand that God's punishment is not something He arbitrarily does to certain people, but is rather His withdrawing His Spirit from those who have rejecting them, and leaving them to the consequences.

Note, in particular, the following:



How does God show He is "the living God"? By permitting Satan to destroy.

If your looking at it from the point that its God's fault for allowing sin to work it self out or for even creating beings that had the possibility of sinning then I can somehow see how you think it's God that destroys. However, I would rather look at it a different way. I think its our job to show the world that God is NOT how MM is trying to describe Him. I think MM's idea of God is the very reason why the penal substitution model isnt the best. Some would say it came from pegan thought.

If its God that punishes us and not the result of sin. Then Satan is right when He says the problem is God. If the only thing wrong with sin is that it goes against what God has asked us not to do then God should just stop giving us these annoying rules we are supposed to live by.

Lets say your brother is married with three kids. One day his coworker tells him lies about his wife. The coworker claims the milk man as been having an affair with the wife for years. In fact, he says, the children are the milk mans. So the husband goes to his other coworkers and confides in them and some side with him and some side with his wife saying there was no way the wife would do that. His wife of course denys the affair. But the trust is broken anyway. Now the husband is so upset that he goes out and sleeps with a prostitute and gets infected with HIV. Meanwhile, his wife still loves him and has done nothing wrong the whole time. Finally the wife's son decides to shed his own blood and take a blood test to prove that the mom wasnt lying. So why is it the wife's fault that her husband believed the lies and got HIV?

Why was eating the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil fatal? Was the fruit inherently poisonous? Did Satan make it poisonous? Or was it something else that made eating it fatal to man?

Same question as to Aaron. Why was eating the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil fatal?

Regarding the question as to why eating of the forbidden fruit was fatal:



This brings out that Satan misrepresented God's character, attributing to God the desire for self-exaltation, investing Him with his own evil characteristics. This is how he deceived man, and drew him into rebellion.

Also from the same DA passage:



Some examples of this "circuit of beneficence" from nature:



Here's an explanation of why the wicked die:



From the above, we see two principles.

1.The law of life, which is based on self-sacrificing love.
2.Another law, which leads to death, which is selfishness.

When Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit, they acted in accordance with DA 764, separating themselves from God, and cutting themselves off from life. What led them to do so was believing the lies of the enemy, who misrepresented God's character. Believing these lies led them to doubt God, which led to their rebellion.

Since the root cause of their downfall was believing lies in regards to God's character, it follows that the root for man's being rescued is to believe the truth about God. And thus we read:



The whole purpose of Christ's mission on earth was the revelation of God, which makes sense, given the above.

I think this is right on. If sin is innocuous, then the reason not to do it is to avoid punishment. The wrath of God becomes what we need to avoid.

OTOH, if sin has fatal effects, from which God seeks to save us, regardless of the cost to Himself, sin is rightly seen as the problem, and we perceive God as a self-sacrificing Savior.

That's an interesting analogy, Aaron.

"Why was eating the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil fatal?"

Are you asking if I think God's law is imposed? Imagine a loving parent who tells his child not to touch the pesticides in the garage. Even saying the day you eat of this you will surely die. Well one day the kid goes out and eats it and from the toxins develops a terminal cancer from it. What does justice demand? Does justice require that the parent beats the child to death for disobeying? Is trying to save the child just even though you already warned them they would die if they got into it?


Here are some texts that might explore how sinners are destroyed.


“There is no faithfulness, no kindness, no knowledge of God in your land.... My people are being destroyed because they don’t know me. It is all your fault, you priests, for you yourselves refuse to know me... They have exchanged the glory of God for the disgrace of idols.” (Hosea 4:1,6,7 – NLT)

“My anger will flame up like fire and burn everything on earth. It will reach to the world below and consume the roots of the mountains. I will bring on them endless disasters and use all my arrows against them.” (Deuteronomy 32:22,23 – GN)

Strong words here but what does He do?

“They fail to see why they were defeated; they cannot understand what happened. Why were a thousand defeated by one, and ten thousand by only two? The Lord, their God, had abandoned them; their mighty God had given them up” (Deuteronomy 32:29,30 – GN)


“They angered him with their heathen places of worship, and with their idols they made him furious. God was angry when he saw it, so he rejected his people completely. He abandoned his tent in Shiloh, the home where he had lived among us. He allowed our enemies to capture the Covenant Box, the symbol of his power and glory.” (Psalm 78:58-61 – GN)


Tom, I really like this........

"Since the root cause of their downfall was believing lies in regards to God's character, it follows that the root for man's being rescued is to believe the truth about God."

This is from our (i.e. SDA) official web page:



We have been given a wonderful gift by God by means of "The Great Controversy" theme which pervades the Spirit of Prophecy. It's wonderful to see this emphasis being given on our official home page!



This is a great translation. Especially the last sentence is striking.

what if God is trying to prevent natural consequences from happening to us?

how would He do that?

Depending upon how one defines "natural consequences," He is doing this all the time:

I think they mean there are times when circumstances force God to punish impenitent sinners. There are 5 different ways He accomplishes this:

1. He employs the forces of nature.
2. He withdraws the breath of life.
3. He commands holy angels.
4. He commands humans.
5. He permits evil angels.

Tom, as you know, I agree with you that God punishes and destroys impenitent sinners by withdrawing His protection and permitting evil angels to punish and destroy them. But there are 4 other ways He does it (which you interpret to agree with the one way).

Also, you seem to think permitting evil angels to wreak havoc is not arbitrary. But what is so natural about the way in which the 185,000 Assyrians died? "And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the LORD went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses." (2 Kings 19:35) In what way did their sins cause them to die?


"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.
{DA 700.5} How is this not arbitrary (using your definition)?

"A single angel destroyed all the first-born of the Egyptians and filled the land with mourning. When David offended against God by numbering the people, one angel caused that terrible destruction by which his sin was punished." {GC 614.2} How is this not arbitrary (using your definition)?

Aaron, yes, God does indeed punish and destroy impenitent sinners by withdrawing His protection and allowing them to suffer the natural cause and effect consequences of their sinful choices. But that's not the only means He uses to accomplish His purposes. Please refer to my posts above. Also, not all sins causes suffering and death. As Arnold pointed out - eating the forbidden fruit did not cause A&E to suffer and die.

BTW, why do we say God punishes sinners when they suffer as a result of their sinful choices? Neither God nor sin causes this kind of suffering. The natural cause and effect consequences of their sinful choices and behavior is what causes them to suffer. For example, smoking causes cancer not God and not sin.

I'll ask you same questions I've asked others: How did sin cause the first-born in Egypt to die? How did sin cause the 185,000 Assyrian soldiers to die?

Means by which God punishes (MM):



Regarding 1, nature is not self-acting. It requires the guiding hand of God to function correctly. I'll post an illustration of this principle separately.

The general principle is that when God destroys, whatever comes upon the sinner is the outworking of the forces of death which he himself has set in motion.

Regarding 2, I can't think of an instance where God did this in terms of His punishing someone.

Regarding 3, the holy angels protect us from forces that would destroy us. They destroy by releasing their protection.



Now if the holy angels destroy, then they are acting in harmony with Satan, the destroyer, as opposed to Christ, the restorer. As representatives of Christ, they must act in harmony with Him, restoring, not destroying.

Regarding Christ, when it was suggested that He destroy, He replied:



Holy angels must have the same attitude as their Commander.

Ellen White wrote:



Now if God had holy angels kill rebellious people, this would certainly be overcoming rebellion by force. It would also have God using force as a principle of His government, a principle which EGW claims is found only under Satan's government.

A key principle to consider is whether the forces of death need to be held back, and if they are sufficient to cause destruction if not restrained.



This suggests the answer is overwhelmingly "yes." There are powerful forces which would destroy us, if not for the constant protection which Christ affords us. If Christ withdraws His protections, suffering and death may approach is in a number of different ways, but the principles involved are the same. God's protection is withdrawn, and destruction follows.

There is no need for another mechanism of destruction, as this is sufficient. If God were to actively destroy, then:

a.He would be acting just like Satan.
b.He would be employing force to put down rebellion.
c.Force would be a principle of His government.
d.He would be a destroyer.
e.God would be acting schizophrenically, sometimes in harmony with how Christ acted in the flesh while hear on earth, and sometimes completely differently.
f.It could not be said that Christ in the flesh was a complete revelation of the Father.

Regarding 4, the same principles would apply as above. In addition, the principles illustrated by "The Ever Loving Father" story come into play.

Regarding 5, we agree on this point.

(The following is an analogy, from "Behold Your God," which illustrates a principle by which God uses nature to destroy.)

Let us suppose that there is an atomic power plant located in the midst of a small township of two thousand people. The nature of this power plant is such that an operator must continually be in the control room to monitor the controls. Should this post be left unattended for several hours or more, the nuclear fission will run out of control and blossom into a holocaust of destruction.

The situation arises where every technician but one is taken away and the full responsibility rests upon this man. No one else in the whole area has the training, knowledge, or skill, to operate this volatile equipment.

This creates no special problem, for the man is healthy, very conscientious, and does his work with great faithfulness day and night. He is able to take sufficient rest between check times to enable him to carry on indefinitely.

But, there enters the area an arch-enemy of the technician who determines to run him out of town. To accomplish this, he circulates lying reports until a hate complex is generated among the villagers. They begin to persecute the technician in every imaginable way with increasing intensity. For a very long time he patiently endures the attacks in the hope that they will subside and with the realization that if he does forsake his post it will be disastrous for the village.

Finally his patience runs out. "I have had enough of this," he cries. "I have gone the second and the third mile. These people have shown that they do not deserve to live. I am leaving."
Whereupon he walks out of the control room and drives far away. Several hours elapse and he is safe beyond the reach of the explosion when it occurs. The village and all in it are utterly destroyed.

While it is true that in a certain sense the villagers destroyed themselves, it is equally true that this technician destroyed them for he left them knowing that his departure would bring those sure and certain results. This is the picture which many have of God.

The situation faced by this man is the same as that faced by God. He is the great "Technician" who is in charge of the power house of nature. When He lets go of those powers, there is no one else who can control them and keep them from exploding in a horror of destruction. An enemy has come in and a hate complex has been generated against God.

Many believe this truth and then see God coming to the end of His patience, as in our illustration, and voluntarily withdrawing to leave men to perish in the cataclysm of destruction which inevitably follows.

If this is the true picture of God, then, unquestionably, we would have to agree that He is, after all, a destroyer. [130]
But it is not. God is a very different person from this.
Let us retell the story as it would provide a true picture of God's character.

Here is the same technician, the same control room, the same situation, the same village and the same enemy stirring up trouble.

This time the technician never thinks of leaving. No matter what they do to him, all he can see is their situation. He knows that if he leaves them, they will all be dead men so he stays on. His patience is not in question for he is not thinking of himself at all.

But the persecution becomes more and more intense until the people begin to demand that he go. He protests that if he does, they will perish and for their sakes, not his own, he desires to stay. They, in their hateful blindness, being ignorant of their real danger and over-confident of their own ability to handle the control room anyway, laugh derisively at him and shout for his departure.

With deepest concern for them he holds on and fulfils his work as faithfully as ever. Every time he thinks of them, a pang of fear and pain sweeps through him, and he considers most earnestly how he can win their love and confidence so that he might preserve them alive. Not one thought is for himself—every thought is for them and their need.

But every day they become more hateful and violent until they invade the control room and angrily shout at him to leave. They jostle him out through the door and down to his car. They put him into it and direct him to drive away. There is no choice left. Slowly, he drives out of the village and mounts the first hill beyond. He stops the car, climbs out and looks back toward the angry knot of people gathered to witness that he is truly gone. He spreads his hands in one last loving appeal. The instant response is agitated signals conveying to him their unchanged demand that he go.

What more can he do?

Nothing! Every possible source open to him to save those people is exhausted and with the heaviest of hearts he turns his car into the distance and is gone forever. Several hours pass and then the atomic fireball blasts the village and the villagers out of existence.

No one can say that this man is a destroyer. He acted out the character of a saviour only. He could not and did not save them because they would not let him.

This is the true picture of the character of God.

re #105245

hi brother mm. first i have to say that i am studying and learning, and hopefully growing. i havent bought into anyones book or thinking, unless i already read something similar in the bible and/or egw.

as for your quotes, i dont read them as "proof" that God will punish, as in, daddy/mommy is going to spank you if.... they seem to read more in line with consequences will happen. a serial killer may think he is getting away with something, but it will catch up with him one way or another.

they also have to be read with the "balancing" statements.



this statement above, for me, is the key. God hates pain and suffering and at some point He has to act to stop it. but at the same time He loves the sinner, and is doing all in His power to reach him/us.

do we want to torture that serial killer, or stop him/her?

Smoking is the sin which causes cancer.

Someone else's smoking sin can also cause cancer.

Elsewhere of holy angels you wrote – “They were eager *before* understanding the cross to destroy because they hadn't seen the cross, and didn't understand the Plan of Salvation. The Plan of Salvation was a surprise to them. They were amazed by it. Their previous idea to destroy was *incorrect*. (http://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forum...true#Post103755) You wrote these words in response to the following passages:

Tom, as you know, I agree with you that God punishes and destroys impenitent sinners by withdrawing His protection and permitting evil angels to punish and destroy them. But there are 4 other ways He does it (which you interpret to agree with the one way).

Also, you seem to think permitting evil angels to wreak havoc is not arbitrary. But what is so natural about the way in which the 185,000 Assyrians died? "And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the LORD went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses." (2 Kings 19:35) In what way did their sins cause them to die?

"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.
{DA 700.5}

How is this not arbitrary (using your definition)?

"A single angel destroyed all the first-born of the Egyptians and filled the land with mourning. When David offended against God by numbering the people, one angel caused that terrible destruction by which his sin was punished." {GC 614.2}

Again, how is this not arbitrary (using your definition)?

Please consider another story:

Genesis
6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also [is] flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them, the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown.
6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.
6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
6:9 These [are] the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man [and] perfect in his generations, [and] Noah walked with God.
6:10 And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.


"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. . . infidels and blasphemers have been constrained to acknowledge the infinite power of God."

Tom, I hear you saying Satan is the one who does things that cause "infidels and blasphemers" to "tremble before His power and to confess His just sovereignty" and to "acknowledge the infinite power of God." Why would Satan do such a thing?

When people accused Jesus of casting out devils by the prince of devils, He replied, "If Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?"

It seems to strange to me to credit Satan with actions calculated to cause sinners to "confess His just sovereignty" and to "acknowledge the infinite power of God." Why would Satan do such a thing?

"how do we know that the single angel didnt smite the assyrians in the same way as this account?" If it had happened that way it stands to reason the Bible writers would have said so. The fact they didn't implies it didn't happen that way. Again, listen to how Ellen talks about angels, and note that she doesn't attribute the destruction of the 185,000 Assyrian soldiers to humans :


BTW, the title "angel of the Lord" in the OT sometimes referred to the Son of God. Listen: "And I said, Let them set a fair miter upon his head. So they [the angels of God] set a fair miter upon his head, and clothed him with garments. And the Angel of the Lord stood by [Jesus their Redeemer]. {TM 40.1} (brackets are original)

thank you for reminding me, but i already knew the quotes from egw, as well as the fact that "the angel of the Lord sometimes refers to Jesus".

my thinking was more along these lines.


two apparently different accounts of the same event.



they died of pestilence yet it says the angel had a drawn sword.

There are many examples of this, 2 explanations of the same event, one where God is apparently acting arbitrarily, not unlike a Hitler one (kland has been making this analogy), and another explanation which draws the curtain away from the scene, so we can see what is really happening. Although we have a lot of these examples, there are thousands of accounts of violence in Scripture; most of these episodes do not have a second description.

We need to ask the question, could it be that in these places where we don't have the second description, that there is a similar explanation to the ones that do have the description? This is my conviction.

I may not know exactly what happened, since the second description has not been given, but I can form the conviction, based on the times a second description was given, that there is *some* description, which would be similar to the example teresaq has given here, for every such event in Scripture, for the simple reason that this is required in order for "God to be God." That is, the character of God requires that He always act in harmony with what Jesus Christ revealed about Him during His earthly mission.

The approach MM is suggesting is that if there is another explanation, fine, go with that, but if there is no other description, then the description, which has God (or a surrogate) acting violently, given must be accepted as is. I ask why the principles seen in other like examples cannot be applied to these other descriptions as well.

duplicate post

The following passage describes two entirely different means and methods God has employed to punish and destroy sinners:

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, I hear you saying the underlined part above describes the same thing, namely, God commanding holy angels to step aside and permit evil angels to wreak havoc. But the specific sentence structure totally disallows this interpretation.

Tom, I addressed three different posts to you at the top of th is page (assuming our pages are still the same on our computers). Please respond to them. Thank you.

Teresaq, it seems reasonable to me to say God permitted Satan to tempt David to number the people. God tempts no one, but He does allow Satan to tempt people. However, Satan cannot tempt people above God's ability to empower them to resist it unto His honor and glory. See 1 Cor 10:13. The purpose of allowing Satan to tempt people is to afford them an opportunity to trust God and to grow in grace.

The angel of the Lord, with sword drawn, employed the forces of nature to cause the pestilence that killed 70,000 people. Apparently the angel didn't use His sword to cause the pestilence. Neither did God permit Satan to cause the pestilence. God offered David three choices, only one of which involved the angel of the Lord directly.

David said, "Let me fall now into the hand of the LORD; for very great are his mercies: but let me not fall into the hand of man." In other words, he chose "three days the sword of the LORD, even the pestilence, in the land, and the angel of the LORD destroying throughout all the coasts of Israel." He specifically requested that God mete out the punishment and not his enemies, which must necessarily include evil angels. This makes it clear to me that God did not permit Satan to do it.

the problem with that is that the last i heard God does not create disease and pestilence is disease.

david wanting to fall into the hands of God instead of man just means to me that God would control how much could be done whereas man has no control in his evil heart.

Regarding #105657, if you read my statement in context, there's no contradiction.

Regarding #105658, if the events you cite occurred they way you believe they did, I would agree with your characterization of them as arbitrary, according to Webster's view.

Why do you keep attributing this definition to me? I've already pointed out to you several times that this is Webster's definition, not mine. It is Webster's primary definition that I have cited.

At any rate, I believe the events you cite occurred according to the principles I stated, which are:

a)All that we can know of God was revealed by Jesus Christ in His earthly mission, which is to say that Jesus Christ was a full revelation of God's character, or, to put it another way, God never acted contrary to how Christ acted.

b)Scripture often presents God as doing that which He permits.

c)The principles laid out in GC chapter 1 were intended to be applied to other events.

d)Satan is the destroyer. The Lord is the restorer.

e)Rebellion was not to be overcome by force.

f)The Lord's principles are not that of force and violence. He does not win by wiping out His enemy's by physical force.

Basically your interpretations have God acting in a way that I believe would be both out of character for Him, and not in accordance with the principles of His government. You see that it's OK if God uses force and violence to get His way. I disagree.



No, I'm not saying this.



Satan is working to misrepresent God's character.



I really don't know what you're talking about here.

I have the same problem. I wonder what makes you (MM) think that God is capable of doing things like this. Given that Jesus Christ correctly revealed God, where did Christ do something like create pestilence and disease? Instead Christ spent His time healing others of diseases.

Christ often attributed to Satan the diseases that the victims He healed had. How many times did He attribute these diseases to God? None.

Satan is the one who afflicts people with disease. God is the one who heals them.

Here's an example of the principle:



This principle, "An enemy hath done this," applies to all evil.

True, Satan is normally the one credited with creating thorns and disease. However, God can, of course, do it, too. For example, when Moses hesitated to believe, God infected his hand with leprosy. Later on God infected Miriam with leprosy because she questioned Moses' authority.

Exodus
4:6 And the LORD said furthermore unto him, Put now thine hand into thy bosom. And he put his hand into his bosom: and when he took it out, behold, his hand [was] leprous as snow.

Numbers
12:9 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them; and he departed.
12:10 And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam [became] leprous, [white] as snow: and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and, behold, [she was] leprous.

It is hard to imagine Satan cooperating with God and infecting Moses and Miriam with leprosy considering the fact God was teaching them to trust and obey Him. Why would Satan cooperate with God under such circumstances? Wouldn't it be self-defeating? Can we conclude, therefore, that God's reasons for infecting people with disease serves a higher purpose than when He permits Satan to infect people with disease?

Do you still believe the holy angels held incorrect views before the cross about destroying sinners?


Executing justice is not God using force or violence to get His way. It is neither forceful nor violent. You seem to have no problem with God withdrawing His protection and leaving sinners to the whims and wrath of Satan. You also seem to see nothing arbitrary about what Satan is permitted to do. But please explain to me how it isn’t arbitrary. I see no natural connection, that is, not like when a person ingests lethal poison and dies (there is nothing arbitrary about dying in this case; there is a natural connection). But what is the natural connection in the way the 185,000 soldiers died, in the way the first-born of Egypt died, and in the way the 70,000 died? What is not arbitrary about these cases?


My comments and question assume you believe Satan caused the judgments referred to in the PP 109 quote. If this is true, why, then, would Satan do something calculated and engineered by God to cause sinners to "confess His just sovereignty" and to "acknowledge the infinite power of God." Wouldn't it be self-defeating for Satan?

---

Also, the following passage describes two entirely different means and methods God has employed to punish and destroy sinners:

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, I hear you saying the underlined part above describes the same thing, namely, God commanding holy angels to step aside and permit evil angels to wreak havoc. But the specific sentence structure totally disallows this interpretation. Do you see what I mean?

i dont see it as satan cooperating with God. i see it as God holding satan back.

wouldnt satan have wanted to wipe out the israelites any chance he got to prevent the redeemer from coming?

I think teresaq's comment applies here as well:



Disease doesn't come from God.

This is really simple. There are good things and bad things. The good things come from God, and the bad things come from the evil one.



This wasn't my idea. I quoted the following:





I agree. God does not use force or violence to get His way. This is why I disagree with your ideas in regards to these different events we've spoken of.



This is a weird way of putting it, but we are in the middle of a Great Controversy, and as the SOP explains:



To answer your question, no, I don't have a problem with what Ellen White explained here.



I've never argued Satan isn't arbitrary. I've argued that God is not arbitrary.



You asked the same thing about the destruction of Jersualem. Are you satisfied that the destruction of Jerusalem was not arbitrary?



Satan does things which are self-defeating. For example, he inspired the crucifixion of Christ.



Yes, I understand your difficulty with the above text. I disagree with your conclusion, because of things she wrote elsewhere, such as that force is not a principle of God's government, or that rebellion will be overcome by force, or that Jesus revealed all man can know about God, to name three.

In the cases of Moses and Miriam, in what way did God hold Satan back when they were infected with leprosy? Are you thinking it was Satan who infected them with leprosy?

Also, are you suggesting God was holding Satan back to prevent him from totally wiping out the Jews (which would serve to prevent the birth of Christ)? If so, then I doubt it. There was a time when God Himself would have wiped out the Jews if Moses hadn't pleaded on their behalf. Besides, Satan was quite successful in his efforts to thwart God's plans and purposes in the way he worked through the children of Israel.

just dealing with this for now.

is that true? would God have wiped them out? was that ellen whites view of the scene?

Are you suggesting Satan is the one who infected Moses and Miriam with leprosy?


So, do you believe the holy angels held incorrect views, before the cross, about destroying sinners?


So, do you think God left it up to the whims and wrath of Satan to decide how to destroy the Jews? Or, do you think God set restrictions on what Satan could and couldn't do?


So, are you implying that what happened to the Jews in 70 AD was arbitrary?


It depends on how you answer my last question - "So, are you implying that what happened to the Jews in 70 AD was arbitrary?"

Actually, I would prefer it would you address the following questions separately: "What is the natural connection in the way the 185,000 soldiers died, in the way the first-born of Egypt died, and in the way the 70,000 died? What is not arbitrary about these cases?"


Are you implying Jesus died because Satan inspired sinners to crucify Him? If so, isn't this implying Jesus would not have paid our sin debt of death if Satan hadn't inspired sinners to crucify Him?

Also, do you agree God is the one who engineers and orchestrates the outcomes described in the quote below for the express purpose of causing sinners to "confess His just sovereignty" and to "acknowledge the infinite power of God."

Here's the quote: "The depths of the earth are the Lord's arsenal, whence were drawn weapons to be employed in the destruction of the old world. Waters gushing from the earth united with the waters from heaven to accomplish the work of desolation. Since the Flood, fire as well as water has been God's agent to destroy very wicked cities. These judgments are sent that those who lightly regard God's law and trample upon His authority may be led to tremble before His power and to confess His just sovereignty. As men have beheld burning mountains pouring forth fire and flames and torrents of melted ore, drying up rivers, overwhelming populous cities, and everywhere spreading ruin and desolation, the stoutest heart has been filled with terror and infidels and blasphemers have been constrained to acknowledge the infinite power of God. {PP 109.1}


Here's the sentence in question: "The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits."

Ellen says nothing about God employing force to overcome rebellion. She is simply talking about holy angels and evil angels exercising the "same destructive power". The point is - The objectives and outcome are the same whether holy angels or evil angels exercise the same destructive power in response to God's command or permission.

You believe Jesus revealed all that we can know about God during earthly ministry, and yet it is clear Jesus never commanded holy angels to exercise destructive power. Nor did He ever withdraw His protection and permit evil angels to exercise the same destructive power. Another thing God did in the OT that Jesus never did while He was here, is He never commanded people to kill sinners. So, obviously, there are things Jesus did not reveal about God while He was here.

i dont think that is Gods purpose. at least that isnt how i understood it when reading on my own. i dont think God does it to manipulate people into recognizing Him as God, but as a means to get their attention. to try and get them see beyond their/our little world.

Was God serious about destroying Israel? Or, was He testing and proving Moses? If so, would God have actually destroyed Israel and started over with Moses if he had failed the test?

Exodus
32:9 And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it [is] a stiffnecked people:
32:10 Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.

"He proposed to Moses to consume them, and make of him a great nation. Here the Lord proved Moses. He knew that it was a laborious and soul-trying work to lead that rebellious people through to the promised land. He would test the perseverance, faithfulness and love of Moses, for such an erring and ungrateful people. But Moses would not consent to have Israel destroyed. {3SG 276.2}

PS - In the cases of Moses and Miriam, in what way did God hold Satan back when they were infected with leprosy? Are you thinking it was Satan who infected them with leprosy?

It sounds like you are saying the same thing, though. Here's what I mean. Ellen wrote, "These judgments are sent . . ." Why? So that sinners ". . . may be led to tremble before His power and to confess His just sovereignty."

You're right, God doesn't do it to "manipulate" them but rather to "lead" and to "constrain" them to (1) "tremble before His power" and to (2) "confess His just sovereignty" and to (3) "acknowledge the infinite power of God."

Again, it doesn't make sense to me to say Satan is the one actually doing it. The reason why is that the intended and actual outcome serves the kingdom of God. Why would the Devil consent to do something that serves to undermine everything else he is seeking to accomplish?

thats going on the assumption that satan would be knowingly cooperating with God.

why did satan want to attack job?

which would seem to tie in with richards point of did satan mean to kill Jesus.

we can read this in a superficial manner or we can see the "heart" of it.

was God testing moses? or was God showing-and recording-moses love for Gods people, which was a faint representation of Gods love for us all?

when that was pointed out to me it makes me really step back and take stock. i have the patience of a gnat. there are some people on these forums, that maybe i dont wish them any harm, but if they disappeared that would be nice.

those people provoked moses all day every day, yet moses still interceded for them time after time, til the day of his death.

wow!! that sure shows me where i lack in the love department!

Teresaq, yes, it certainly appears that God was testing and proving Moses' love and patience for the people of God. And, like you, I desire to be more and more loving and patient.

On another note, referring to one of your previous posts on this thread, in the cases of Moses and Miriam, in what way did God hold Satan back when they were infected with leprosy? Are you thinking it was Satan who infected them with leprosy?

Are you suggesting Satan is the one who infected Moses and Miriam with leprosy?


So, do you believe the holy angels held incorrect views, before the cross, about destroying sinners?


So, do you think God left it up to the whims and wrath of Satan to decide how to destroy the Jews? Or, do you think God set restrictions on what Satan could and couldn't do?


So, are you implying that what happened to the Jews in 70 AD was arbitrary?


It depends on how you answer my last question - "So, are you implying that what happened to the Jews in 70 AD was arbitrary?"

Actually, I would prefer it would you address the following questions separately: "What is the natural connection in the way the 185,000 soldiers died, in the way the first-born of Egypt died, and in the way the 70,000 died? What is not arbitrary about these cases?"


Are you implying Jesus died because Satan inspired sinners to crucify Him? If so, isn't this implying Jesus would not have paid our sin debt of death if Satan hadn't inspired sinners to crucify Him?

Also, do you agree God is the one who engineers and orchestrates the outcomes described in the quote below for the express purpose of causing sinners to "confess His just sovereignty" and to "acknowledge the infinite power of God."

Here's the quote: "The depths of the earth are the Lord's arsenal, whence were drawn weapons to be employed in the destruction of the old world. Waters gushing from the earth united with the waters from heaven to accomplish the work of desolation. Since the Flood, fire as well as water has been God's agent to destroy very wicked cities. These judgments are sent that those who lightly regard God's law and trample upon His authority may be led to tremble before His power and to confess His just sovereignty. As men have beheld burning mountains pouring forth fire and flames and torrents of melted ore, drying up rivers, overwhelming populous cities, and everywhere spreading ruin and desolation, the stoutest heart has been filled with terror and infidels and blasphemers have been constrained to acknowledge the infinite power of God. {PP 109.1}


Here's the sentence in question: "The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits."

Ellen says nothing about God employing force to overcome rebellion. She is simply talking about holy angels and evil angels exercising the "same destructive power". The point is - The objectives and outcome are the same whether holy angels or evil angels exercise the same destructive power in response to God's command or permission.

You believe Jesus revealed all that we can know about God during earthly ministry, and yet it is clear Jesus never commanded holy angels to exercise destructive power. Nor did He ever withdraw His protection and permit evil angels to exercise the same destructive power. Another thing God did in the OT that Jesus never did while He was here, is He never commanded people to kill sinners. So, obviously, there are things Jesus did not reveal about God while He was here.

when it comes to every specific case i try not to speculate. the bible says what it says period. i have not made up my mind one way or the other here and may never make up my mind on this subject this side of eternity as it may seem too dangerous to do so.

but in general, it would seem quite possible, since we are dealing with the mind of God, that we dont have all the info and should walk with care.

its like the "wrath of God". when we read that in the bible we get that God is angry and acting in vengence. but looking deeper, at what we were overlooking before, we see that is not the case at all.

I agree with Teresaq's comments very much in regards to not having all the info, so we should walk with care.

Regarding leprosy, Satan invented it, not God. It is a disease which Satan invented that God permitted them to obtain.

Regarding, "So, do you believe the holy angels held incorrect views, before the cross, about destroying sinners?" you cut off my quote, so it's difficult to follow here. You're saying, "so," but not providing the context of the "so."



Did Ellen White say that? No, right? So know, that's not what I'm agreeing to. As I stated, yours is a weird way of putting it, and I agree with what Ellen White said, which I quoted.

Regarding if I'm implying A.D. 70 is arbitrary, no.



My answer is no.



I don't wish to address the questions separately, as I believe the same principles are at work in these instances as with Jerusalem, that latter being something that we have a great deal of information regarding, a whole chapter of over twenty pages.



From "It Is Finished"



If so, isn't this implying Jesus would not have paid our sin debt of death if Satan hadn't inspired sinners to crucify Him?[/quote]



No, I don't think so. I think evil men would have crucified Christ, even without Satan's help. By the way, it's worthy of note that the SOP says that Satan shed the blood of the Son of God.

Regarding if I agree with the SOP, I do.



The underlined portion has God and evil angels acting in such a way that's it's impossible to distinguish one from the other. This is something I find particular dangerous in regards to your theory, in particular given that Satan will impersonate Christ.



Yes, I believe this, because this is what the SOP said in 8T 286.



So the logical conclusion is that neither has God.



I disagree with this assertion. We see what happened when Jesus allowed the demons power of the pigs. When Jesus left Lazarus, he became sick and died, which is directly tied in Scripture to Jesus' actions. And there's the example of Jerusalem, where Jesus said He would gather them as a hen gathers its checks, but they didn't want that, so their house was left to them desolate. There are also dozens of examples of Jesus' healing the victims of Satan of their diseases. Whenever anyone dies of disease, which happened in Jesus' lifetime (whenever He wasn't around, as with Lazarus) this is example of the principle.



Here's what Ellen White wrote:



I agree with her and disagree with you.

The "wrath of God" is often referred to as "righteous indignation". I agree we shouldn't read sinful human feelings into the passages that portray as God being angry and vengeful. When God experiences anger, it is nothing like when fallen humans get angry. There is no comparison. Yes, the Bible says, "Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath." But even sinless human anger comes short of the glory of God.

God gets angry, there is no doubt about it. God is vengeful, there is no doubt about it. I see no reason to deny it or to marginalize it. But, as you said, we should be extremely careful not to attach sinful human feelings to it. God can do things that would be wrong and unrighteous for us to do. Once again, Ellen states it very nicely:

The plea may be made that a loving Father would not see His children suffering the punishment of God by fire while He had the power to relieve them. But God would, for the good of His subjects and for their safety, punish the transgressor. God does not work on the plan of man. He can do infinite justice that man has no right to do before his fellow man. Noah would have displeased God to have drowned one of the scoffers and mockers that harassed him, but God drowned the vast world. Lot would have had no right to inflict punishment on his sons-in-law, but God would do it in strict justice. {LDE 241.2}

Too bad the Bible portrays God doing things Satan actually did. No wonder there as so many skeptics. In truth, I do not agree the Bible does this. I take God at His word. Since it says God inflicted Moses and Miriam with leprosy I believe it. I feel no need to interpret it to mean something it clearly did not say.


Do you believe the holy angels held incorrect views about destroying sinners before the cross? NOTE: I know you do, at least I know you did. I'm asking again because your hesitancy to answer my question leads me to believe you may have changed your mind.


Which of the two questions are you saying no to? In case you're unclear as to which two questions I'm referring to, here they are again: Do you think God left it up to the whims and wrath of Satan to decide how to destroy the Jews? Or, do you think God set restrictions on what Satan could and couldn't do?


What part of it was not arbitrary? The part about God handing the Jews over to Satan for rejecting Jesus? Or, the part about the Romans besieging and destroying the Jews because they rebelled against Roman occupation and rule? NOTE: Please note that I asked two opposing questions. I would appreciate it if you would address both separately. Thank you.


I assume by "same principles" you mean God withdrew His protection and permitted evil angels to destroy the different groups of people mentioned in my questions above. Is that right? If so, then I don't see the natural cause and effect relation in these events. That is, how did their sins cause them to die the way they did? If it was as natural as you seem to believe why, then, did it require evil angels to make it happen? Would they have died in the same way if the evil angels did nothing to make it happen?


No. It doesn't imply any such thing. Jesus was going to pay our sin debt one way or another. And, no one killed Him. He laid down and took up His own life. This isn't Hollywood. Jesus didn't happen to get lucky and announce His death seconds before He died. The reason He died immediately after saying, It is finished, is because He laid down His life.


The SOP also says we all shed His blood on the cross. Obviously none of us were there in person, so it means something very much different. Also, no one could have laid a finger on Jesus if it hadn't been His will. Not even Satan. Especially not the Jews or Romans. Jesus could have gone home in the twinkling of an eye if He wanted to. But it was His and desire to pay our sin debt of death.


Her words are too clear to twist to mean the opposite of she wrote. It would be interesting to ask a hundred English teachers to explain the meaning of her words. I have no doubt they would agree with me and not you. There is no hint whatsoever of your view in this sentence or in the paragraph from which it comes.


Logic has nothing to do with it, Tom. Logic is not the judge of truth.

----

Gotta run, so I'll finish addressing this post later on:

Not really. There are times you don't do what you're claiming. For example:



Do you "take God at His word" here? Do you believe God sent fiery serpent among the people? Or do you believe that the serpents were there already, and God simply withdrew His protection?



Did God kill Saul?





And here you have direct evidence that the Bible presents God as doing that which Satan does.

Another example would be Jerusalem in AD 70. The Bible says God destroyed Jerusalem, yet the SOP says:



I know you said "too bad" in a sarcastic way, but in a sense it *is* too bad Scripture has to be this way. But, if you think about it, there's no way around it. God is Sovereign of the Universe, so in some sense He is responsible for all that happens in it, since without Him there would be no Universe. So this is one factor.

Another factor is that Satan is very clever. He has fooled all of us at one time or another with his impersonations of God, and many of us don't even recognize this fact!

If you think about how the GC started, Satan presented himself as being reasonable, simply honestly questioning whether God's ways were right or not, if they were reasonable, if there wasn't a better path to follow. But he had an ulterior motive, which was the exaltation of self.

Satan said that God didn't have the best interests of His creatures at heart, that He was a sever and harsh dictator who would punish anyone who in the least defied His will, that He was selfish and sought His own glory.

How was God to answer these charges? If He said, "No, you are the one who is selfish. You are the one with ulterior motives. You are the one seeking to exalt himself. You are the one who doesn't have the best interest of others in mind. You are the severe and harsh dictator who punishes anyone who defies your will in the least way." what good would it have done? No good at all.

The only way to resolve the conflict was to allow the two governments to develop, so the principles of the two protagonists could be clearly seen. So clever was Satan, that it wasn't until the cross that Satan's true character was made clear:



Satan is such a clever antagonist, it's not a simple thing to determine who is doing what. There was great misunderstanding regarding God's character, so God sent His Son:



The "whole purpose" of Christ's earthly mission was the revelation of God, to set men right.

No, I haven't changed my mind. I still believe the EGW quotes I have been using to reply to this question are true.



You asked a question. I answered it. You asked it again. I answered it again. I'm referring to the question which you asked, which I said was a weird way of putting it. As I stated, I agree with what Ellen White wrote about it, which I think was well put. For example:





I don't know what you're asking. The point I have made is that God is not arbitrary. God did not do something arbitrary to punish the Jews. God allowed the Jews to have their choice of leader, and all the bad things that happened resulted from that choice. This is what I'm saying is not arbitrary.

Regarding the same principles question and evil angels, the same principle is that God withdraws His protection, and then bad things happen. There may be different agents which cause the bad things (nature, evil angels, people), but it's the same general principle involved.

More later.

This get messed up. You asked the question, "If so, isn't this implying Jesus would not have paid our sin debt of death if Satan hadn't inspired sinners to crucify Him?" not me, as it looks like from the quote. And then you answered your own question.

Here's how I answered your question:



It's interesting that you say "no one killed him" but Scripture says that evil men "put him to death" and the SOP says that Satan "shed the blood of the Son of God." Your statement that no one could have harmed Jesus had He not permitted is correct, and this was Jesus' point in saying that He laid down His life, that no one took it from Him against His will. He was a willing sacrifice.



Apparently her words are not too clear to twist to mean the opposite of what she wrote when she writes, "Satan shed the blood of the Son of God."

Here are some other examples of her words not being too clear to twist:





When it suits you, you have no qualms about "twisting" her words (to use your word). This is really a case of the pot calling the kettle black!

Back to the subject at hand. Here's what I said:



You didn't respond to the point being made. If your view of things were correct, then you would have God and evil angels working in a way that is indistinguishable from one to the other. You would have God acting like a dictator. This is the same point that kland has been making on another thread.

But God and Satan are different. Their characters are different, and they have different objectives and outcomes, as well as different principles, and different methodologies to bring about their objectives.

For example, force is not a principle of God's government. The SOP says this. You agree with this, since EGW said it, but you define "force" in such away to exclude anything God does. So in your view, God can do something which would be force if anyone else were doing it, but because it is God doing it, it is not force. This makes her statement of no force.



What?

Another "factor" is the fact God can start and stop anything, that is, nothing happens without His consent. Satan is not at liberty to do as he pleases. He is bound by the rules of engagement as set forth and upheld by God.

You are stretching it, Tom. Did the Bible or the SOP ever draw the same conclusion you have regarding the events you named, namely, that these events demonstrate the one and only principle of destruction you are advocating?


Wh....er! There you go again. You are implying it wasn't God who commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer. What is about the following commands that make you think it wasn't God who commanded them?

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

Numbers
15:35, 36 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

There's a whole chapter of over 20 pages in the SOP which explains exactly this description of the principle.



This looks like a swear word that cut off.



MM, we're going at this two ways. I am saying:

1.Christ revealed all man can know about God.
2.If you see something in the OT, or elsewhere, which does not agree with what Christ revealed, then what you see isn't right.

You are saying:

1.Christ didn't reveal man can know about God.
2.The proof of this is (you give different examples here).

If you have the conviction that "something is wrong" with your understanding, you will, of yourself, come up with an explanation which makes sense, which harmonizes with what Christ revealed of God. You don't need me to do this.

OTOH if you are convinced that there is nothing wrong with your understanding, you would reject any explanation I could possibly give, so what's the point?

We've been over and over these things. We have different convictions. My conviction is that Christ revealed all man can know of God.

Greg Boyd wrote something nice about this. I'll see if I can find it.

I keep having Deja-vu. So I thought I would share what I heard from a Creation-Evolution talk.

Data are facts. Everyone can look at the data. It is not up for dispute. However, everyone has underlying base assumptions. They use these assumptions to interpret the facts and come to different conclusions.


There have been cases of people changing their underlying base assumptions. But it is very difficult for them. It requires them to admit they were wrong. To themselves. But, it is possible. Some evolutionists have become, if not a believer in God, at least open to the idea of an intelligent designer. But there are many who ignore the facts, then attribute creationists to ignoring the facts. It all has to do with how one fits those facts into their base assumptions.

With evolutionists, their base assumptions permit them to not feel accountable to anyone besides themselves. However, as I have failed to find out, I do not know why someone would reject a "nice" view of God (I realize the words "loving and kind" has been rejected, but nothing has been suggested in it's place).

The only thing I can come up with is similar to when I was in grade school and some kids would be mean to me. I took great pleasure in the satisfaction of thinking God would make them suffer. I realize now, that is not a kind and loving thought.

been there, done that, until very recently. it has been dawning on me more and more that God is into saving everyone He can, including those that hurt me. which means He is not into "vengence". so that means my job is to figure out how to help Him.....

Amen, teresaq. Here's one of my favorite texts on vengeance:



How does God get His vengeance? By turning the other cheek, walking the second mile, giving His shirt; in short, by loving His enemies. In so doing He "heaps coals of fire on his head," and God calls on us to do the same. We participate in His vengeance by loving our enemies, by overcoming evil with good.

So was there something about the fruit that inherently separated them from God? Did God make a fruit that was so poisonous that it caused eternal death?

So you're saying that God made a poisonous fruit, then told A&E to stay away from it lest they be poisoned? And we're not even talking just physically poisoned, but one that causes eternal death? Is this your view of what happened to cause human mortality?

God always destroys His enemies. It's up to us what kind of destruction we want to experience.

Sin originated in self-seeking. Lucifer, the covering cherub, desired to be first in heaven. He sought to gain control of heavenly beings, to draw them away from their Creator, and to win their homage to himself. Therefore he misrepresented God, attributing to Him the desire for self-exaltation. With his own evil characteristics he sought to invest the loving Creator. Thus he deceived angels. Thus he deceived men. He led them to doubt the word of God, and to distrust His goodness. Because God is a God of justice and terrible majesty, Satan caused them to look upon Him as severe and unforgiving. Thus he drew men to join him in rebellion against God, and the night of woe settled down upon the world. (DA 21, 22)

Satan misrepresented God's character, deceiving man, and so led him into rebellion, separating himself from God, the only source of life. The fruit was not the issue, but believing Satan's misrepresentations about God's character. Because this is what led man into rebellion, the solution to man's predicament must be the revelation of God as He is in truth, so that man, by believing, may be set right. This is why the whole purpose of Christ's mission on earth was the revelation of God.

If the fruit wasn't the issue, why did God say that eating it would be fatal? He could have said, "Believing Satan's misrepresentations about Me would be bad, but go ahead and eat the fruit." But He didn't. He said, "If you eat the fruit, you will die."

You're not yet seeing the connection.

God didn't give them that fruit to eat. They were embarking on Satan's principles, which leads to death. They took for themselves that which God had not given them. The principle of life is to receive from the hand of God, and give to others. They broke the "circuit of beneficence" which is the principle of life. By rebelling against God, they separated themselves from God, the source of life. The eating of the fruit was an act of rebellion, which is why it was fatal. If there were some way to eat the fruit without rebelling, it wouldn't have been fatal. The fruit itself was not poisonous.

I bring up the point of misrepresentation of God's character, because this is how Satan led man to distrust God, and go into rebellion. The solution to man's problem must involve believing the truth about God, which leads to faith, and harmony with God and the principles of His government.

If God did not want them to eat that fruit, then who put it there in the middle of a garden full of fruit to eat? And how can eating a fruit, fruit that is not even poisonous, be an act of rebellion? How was Satan able to use the fruit to dupe man into rebellion?

This question makes no sense to me. What's your thinking behind this question? That is, I'm not seeing the connection here, between the "if" and the "then."



The fruit wasn't theirs to eat. They took that which was not theirs. The principle of life of the universe is to receive from the hand of God, and give to others from that which one has received. This is the "circuit of benefiscence" spoken of by EGW in DA 21 or so. Satan broke this circuit, choosing to exalt self instead. Adam and Eve joined this rebellion when they also chose to bypass the circuit of benefiscence.



By insinuating that God was withholding something from them which was for their benefit. He lied in regards to God's character, deceiving man, and in so doing led him into rebellion.

You're still not getting it, Tom.

Who put the forbidden fruit - edible fruit - in the middle of a garden full of fruit? It's a very simple and straightforward question. Or do you refrain from answering until you are convinced that I have a good reason for asking?

And how were A&E supposed to know that it wasn't for them to eat, since the serpent told them it was OK, and Eve saw it was good for food, and able to make one wise? And exactly what was it that they were rebelling against?

BTW, did they know about the "circuit of beneficence" that EGW articulated 6000 years later?

Are you sure it's me?



I think I've answered every question you've asked. I don't recall your asking this question. I recall this question:



which I asked for clarification on, which I haven't received. By the way, I would like to know the answer to my question, which is why you asked the question you actually did ask, which is if God did not want them to eat of the fruit, then who put it there. The way this question is posed, it seems to imply that God wanted them to eat of the fruit, since obviously He put it there. However, it seems most unlikely to me that you believe that God wanted them to eat of the fruit, so this is why I'm asking for clarification.

Rather than ascribe an unfortunate motive to a question you perceive to be unanswered, wouldn't it be well to assume a more charitable reason? In this particular case, I don't believe you have even asked the question you are accusing me of refraining to answer.



They knew the fruit wasn't theirs to eat because they had been told they could eat the fruit of all the trees except for one.



They were created in the image of God, so yes, they must have known it.

Now you're finally getting it. They knew they could not eat it because they were told they could not eat it. Period. God's word is law. Even He though did not explain to them why, it was still true that they would die from eating the fruit.

Then Satan came along and told them something different. He said they would not die. And there was no evidence otherwise. The fruit was, in fact, not harmful of itself.

So, why was it fatal for them to eat it? Because God said not to eat it. It's that simple. Disregarding God's expressed will is the most lethal thing there is.

The problem was not that the fruit was harmful. The problem was that their lack of faith in God, evidenced by their disregard of His plain command, cut them off from the Source of life. And without life, all they had left is death.

Their death was not the result of eating the fruit, per se, but because they disbelieved God's word, as manifested in their disobedience. (Unbelief is always accompanied by disobedience. See Hebrews 3.)

So, in this one case, we find some important concepts:

1) God can forbid something that is not inherently harmful.

2) If you disregard His word on the matter, even if the act itself is not inherently harmful, your lack of trust in Him and His word will prove eternally fatal.

3) Even without explanation, disregarding God's expressed will is very harmful.

So, does God punish?

If you are disobedient, that is proof of your unbelief. That path leads to eternal death, and is filled with suffering all along the way.

If you are a wise parent, and you see your child taking a path that results in untold misery and woe, would you do anything about it? Would you do something that may be painful in the meantime, for the sake of avoiding much greater pain later on? Would you give him a taste of the pain that disobedience always brings, before the eternal death sets in?

God is a wise parent.

BTW, sometimes I give my children commands, not because doing the opposite is inherently harmful, but I want to train them to hear my voice and follow. If they learn to discern my voice and implicitly follow, then I can take them to dangerous places and still keep them safe. But if the staff is not sufficient, I'm not afraid to use the rod.

That's what Moses needed to learn before he was ready to go back to Egypt.

Are you sure it's me?



There are a number of similarities with this and what I wrote. Some differences I see between what I said and what you said is that you left out the following points:

a.Adam and Eve disregarded the circuit of beneficence, which is "the law of life for the universe."

b.The tree was not theirs to eat of. It's true that they would not have known of this except God told them (of course!, how else would they know?) but there is a deeper principle at work than simply what you outlined above.

c.The key lies that Satan told had to do with God's character, which is what the Great Controversy is about.

Regarding your conclusions, these are all based on the premise that there was nothing inherently harmful in partaking of the forbidden fruit. It's true that the fruit was not poisonous, but does the fact that it was not poisonous mean it was inherently not harmful to partake of it?



The context of this is dealing with the temptation of Adam and Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit. From this, we see that eating of this fruit was contrary to the moral law of God. It's easy to see that, since the fruit was not theirs, by eating of the fruit they would be guilty of breaking the first, eighth and tenth commandments (not to mention others). Is there something inherently harmful in breaking these commandments?

So, to consider one of the conclusions, you write that, "If you disregard His word on the matter, even if the act itself is not inherently harmful, your lack of trust in Him and His word will prove eternally fatal." But here the act itself involves theft, so unless theft is not inherently harmful, the assumption here is untrue (which, of course, doesn't mean the conclusion is false).

Also your last point implies that there was no explanation involved in God's command not to eat of the forbidden tree. What's your basis for asserting this? In reading through the PP, I saw quite a bit of explanation referred to.

Regarding 106316, I agree. Regarding 106317, isn't the problem Moses had over reliance on the rod?

Great! There are those who don't believe that God punishes, even for the purpose of avoiding greater pain.


No, that's not what I was talking about. He may have used the rod too much in his younger days, which sent him away from Egypt the first time, but he swung quite a bit the other way. He used neither the staff nor the rod in neglecting to obey God's instructions regarding his son's circumcision. Until he was ready to obey everything God said, he was not safe.

The same is true for us.

Eating fruit is not inherently against God's law. Eating THAT fruit was against God's law. Why? Because God told them not to eat it. That was their sin.


What made them transgressors?

1) distrust of God's goodness
2) disbelief of His word
3) rejection of His authority

Those were the three steps to sin that I outlined in my last sermon. And all of this stems from the fact that God told them not to eat it, but they did anyway.

If you're not sure of that, ask yourself this: If God told them nothing about the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, would it have been sin for A&E to eat it?

BTW, your points - a, b, and c - all stem from the fact that God told them not to eat it, but they did anyway.

Here's what happens to your points if God didn't say anything about that fruit:

a - How can they break the circuit of beneficence? God didn't tell them not to eat it. They thought it was just like every other tree in the garden.

b - Same as a. How could they know that it wasn't theirs to eat? God didn't say anything about it.

c - How would Satan have made his accusations?
Satan: Did God say you must not eat from any tree in the garden?
Eve: No. He said we could eat any fruit; He didn't forbid anything.
Satan: Oh..... Never mind.
Eve: Hey, Adam! Check out this crazy snake over here...

Of course God had to tell them not to eat of the fruit. How else would they have known? I don't understand why you think this is a point worth making.

Yes, as EGW pointed out, distrusting God's goodness was the foundational problem. When they believed the serpent's lie regarding God's character, that led them to distrust God, which led to disobedience and rebellion.

Regarding the punishment, this is certainly something God does. The fiery serpents God "sent" is a perfect illustration of this.

Let me refresh your memory. From post #105304:



Here's the noteworthy sentence from Aaron: If the only thing wrong with sin is that it goes against what God has asked us not to do then God should just stop giving us these annoying rules we are supposed to live by.

Do you still think that is "right on"?

If God didn't give that "annoying rule" of not eating that fruit, would there have been a problem with eating that fruit?

Yes, Aaron is right on.

The tree was not theirs (Adam and Eve's). It didn't belong to them. By eating of it, they were violating the principle of respecting the property of another. What sort of society would heaven be if people did not respect that which belongs to somebody else?

Now the only way that Adam and Eve could know what was theirs and what wasn't was if someone told them.

I still don't know why you asked this question:



I've asked you for clarification about this a couple of times now. What were you thinking when you wrote this?

You are implying it wasn't God who commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer. What is about the following commands that make you think it wasn't God who commanded them?

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

Numbers
15:35, 36 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

MM, we've been through this many times.

What I'm saying is that all that we can know about God was revealed by Jesus Christ. If we think we see something different than what Jesus Christ revealed, then what we think is wrong, not what Jesus Christ revealed. That's been my point. Rather than modify our view of who Christ is by our misunderstandings, we should modify our misunderstandings by what we see revealed in Christ.

The "God" of the Old Testament WAS Jesus Christ. Since the Fall, all communication from heaven has been through Jesus. So what we find in the OT is a revelation of Jesus/God as well as the record in the NT.

So God put it there, in the middle of the smorgasbord so to speak, but not for them to eat. OK, I can live with that.

But Aaron said much more than that.


I'll ask the question again, to help you see what Aaron said: If God didn't give that "annoying rule" of not eating that fruit, would there have been a problem with eating that fruit?


I was thinking that you might notice that God put it there for a purpose other than eating. And the risk involved much more than indigestion. We'll see if we can get there from here.

The God of the Old Testament was misunderstood:



Jesus Christ came to clear away the cobwebs.



The whole purpose of Christ's earthly mission was the revelation of God.



The problem is that man has a different view of the God of the OT and Jesus Christ. When people usually do is try to form a composite image of God, one-half OT God, which they see as severe and harsh, exacting revenge on those who dare to defy His will in the least respect, and one-half Jesus Christ, whom is seen in a more positive way. Rather than allowing the image of Jesus Christ modify the "misapprehension" of the OT God, one's image of God becomes a melange.

A:Here's the noteworthy sentence from Aaron: If the only thing wrong with sin is that it goes against what God has asked us not to do then God should just stop giving us these annoying rules we are supposed to live by.

Do you still think that is "right on"?

T:Yes, Aaron is right on.

A:So God put it there, in the middle of the smorgasbord so to speak, but not for them to eat. OK, I can live with that.

But Aaron said much more than that.[/quote]

You asked me if I "still" agreed with this: "If the only thing wrong with sin is that it goes against what God has asked us not to do then God should just stop giving us these annoying rules we are supposed to live by."

I don't know why you put in the word "still," but I answered your question, which is yes, I agree.



Arnold, this is condescending. I understood what Aaron said, and I agree with it, and I explained why (a critical point in my explanation being that more is involved than the simple breaking of a rule).

Here's a similar explanation by Ty Gibson:



This is what I heard Aaron saying, and I agree with his point (as well with what Ty Gibson wrote here).



Arnold, this is condescending too. Have I been condescending to you? Do you think this is OK?



Your question seems odd to me. Here's a similar question:



Isn't the implication that I wanted you to read this? When you asked:



then is not the implication that God wanted them to eat that fruit? Is this what you meant to imply?

That may be so. But I don't believe that Samuel the prophet was mistaken when he said Saul was in trouble with God for not killing all the Amalekites. Do you think Samuel was correct?

I think Samuel was correct, but that this story, and many others (there's a lot of violence in the OT) are misunderstood, not being interpreted in the light of what Christ has revealed in regards to God's character.

Tom, your whole theory about God commanding people to kill sinners and Jesus' revelation of God fails to address the truth. Ellen's insight about Jesus' revelation of God was never intended to prove your point, namely, that it wasn't God who commanded people to kill sinners, or that unfavorable circumstances forced Him, against His will and desire, to command people to kill sinners. The idea that God compromised the truth to accommodate the perverted desires of sinners is absurd. The Bible is too plainly worded to be mistaken or misunderstood. Listen to what Ellen said about it:

The truths most plainly revealed in the Bible have been involved in doubt and darkness by learned men, who, with a pretense of great wisdom, teach that the Scriptures have a mystical, a secret, spiritual meaning not apparent in the language employed. These men are false teachers. It was to such a class that Jesus declared: "Ye know not the Scriptures, neither the power of God." Mark 12:24. The language of the Bible should be explained according to its obvious meaning, unless a symbol or figure is employed. Christ has given the promise: "If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine." John 7:17. If men would but take the Bible as it reads, if there were no false teachers to mislead and confuse their minds, a work would be accomplished that would make angels glad and that would bring into the fold of Christ thousands upon thousands who are now wandering in error. {GC 598.3}

You believe Jesus revealed everything we can know about God, and yet Jesus Himself testified, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." He deferred certain things to the Holy Spirit. But not even the Holy Spirit can reveal to sinners all there is to know about God. Sinners are simply incapable of comprehending certain things about God. One of them is what God must refer to as His "strange acts" for the simple and obvious reason sinners lack the ability to understand His "strange acts".

At times, it is God's will and purpose to employ the elements of nature to cause death and destruction: Listen:

God controls all these elements; they are his instruments to do his will; he calls them into action to serve his purpose. These fiery issues have been, and will be his agents to blot out from the earth very wicked cities. Like Korah, Dathan and Abiram they go down alive into the pit. These are evidences of God's power. Those who have beheld these burning mountains have been struck with terror at the grandeur of the scene-- pouring forth fire, and flame, and a vast amount of melted ore, drying up rivers and causing them to disappear. They have been filled with awe as though they were beholding the infinite power of God. These manifestations bear the special marks of God's power, and are designed to cause the people of the earth to tremble before him, and to silence those, who like Pharaoh would proudly say, "Who is the Lord that I should obey his voice?" {3SG 80}

You, however, believe Satan caused these things to happen, that they are evidences of his power, that he designed them to make God look bad, and that anyone who believes God caused them to happen, or that it was God's will and purpose for them to happen, is deceived. Your basis for disregarding the obvious meaning of what Ellen wrote about it is the fact Jesus, while He was here, never commanded anyone to kill sinners and never employed the element of nature to cause death and destruction. It amazes me you do this. It even amazes me even more that you insist Ellen expects us to interpret passages like this one the way you do.

PS - Tom, please resist the temptation to simply reject what I said about what you believe, and focus on how I always misrepresent your view, and then walk away from the discussion without setting the record straight. If I have misrepresented what you believe, then, please, by all means, take the time to clearly spell out what you do believe. Do not waste time complaining how I never quote anything you actually say, and then take up precious space and time instructing me in the fine art of discussing the truth. Blah, blah, blah. If you clearly spell out your view here and now I will never have to guess again what you believe. Please, Tom, just state your position clearly once and forever. Let it be your Christmas present to this forum.

You think my idea is that God compromised the truth to accommodate the perverted desires of sinners?



Am I wrong? Ellen White wrote:



Am I wrong to believe this?



It appears you are presenting an argument that it is not true that Christ revealed all we can know of God. Is this correct?



This is a flat out lie.



I think kland explained things well with his analogy of creationism and evolutionism. Both people look at the same data and interpret it according to their paradigm.

You have a paradigm which incorporates seeing God in a certain way. Because you see God the way you do, you see Him as capable of performing certain actions, such as burning people alive to make them pay for their sins, which others, including myself, do not believe God to be capable of.

Ellen White counseled us to do the same thing with her writings as we should to with Scripture, which is to compare what she has written in one place with what she has written in another. I read the first chapter of "The Great Controversy," which is by far the most detailed account of how God destroys, and do as she suggested, comparing other things she wrote taking that into account. I see that chapter as laying out broad principles of how destruction works:

a.There are powerful destructive forces from which God protects us.
b.When the Spirit of God is persistently resisted and spurned, eventually God gives the rebel up, withdrawing His protection.

You don't see this as a general principle, but as simply one of the ways God destroys. He might choose this way to destroy, or might choose some other way.

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. The SOP tells us that the Lord is the restorer, and Satan is the destroyer. You have no qualms about having God be the destroyer. My paradigm doesn't allow for this; I'm constrained to agree with the SOP's pronouncement that Satan is the destroyer, and the Lord the restorer.

So basically our differences come down to our having very different perspectives as to God's character. I see God's character as being like Jesus Christ's when He dwelt with us in the flesh. Jesus Christ washed the feet of His disciples. He was humble, and a servant. I see God this way.

When Jesus Christ was urged to destroy those with fire who would reject Him, He rebuked the suggestion, saying those suggested it did not know of what spirit they were. I see God this way.

When Jesus Christ was threatened with violence, rather than overcoming it with greater violence, He submitted to it. I find it unbelievable that God could be like this, but there you have it; God in the flesh did this very thing.

When Jesus Christ was spit upon, mocked, tortured, He prayed "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." I see God like this.

It's not simply that Jesus Christ when here in the flesh did not do certain things, like kill people or command that they be killed. It's that He presented a broad portrait of what God is like. Jesus Christ revealed God's character. From seeing what Jesus Christ was like, we see what God is like. From knowing Christ, we get an idea as to what sorts of things God is and is not capable of doing.

Thank you for sharing this important discussion. I struggled with this for many years and yet I still find myself going to the other camp when presented with scriptures that seems to paint God as a destroyer to bring justice or "punish" us. I believe my sins makes me view and read things this way. Notice EGW says "sinners are simply incapable of comprehending... "His Strange acts""

I really appreciate the points, SOP, scriptures brought here and helped me go back to Jn 3:16.

I didn't read the whole thread and most of these posts on this forum, so please forgive me if I repeat things that has already been discuss, but I would like to share some personal thoughts (other than our guilt comdemning us) about why it's so hard for us to understand :

1. Accountability Language: God takes responsibility of sin because he is the creator and created the angels and man with freedom of choice. Therefore, at times in the Bible God speaks in such a way that denote that accountability. For example, He said he hardened Pharaoh's heart(Ex 9:12; 10:1,20, 27), but in reality we know that Pharaoh hardened his own heart(Ex 8:15, 32; 9:34; 11:9). So we see this language at various places in the Bible.

2. His omniscient(all knowing, foreknowledge of future): Because of this foreknowledge of sin and events, He uses another form of language denoting this like in Ex 10:1-2. It is a form of warning so we can exercise our power of choice. Despite his foreknowledge of events, He doesn’t use it to control our power of choice for selfish reason like to keep Himself on the throne, but uses it to insure that His universe will be an everlasting harmonious and wonderful place for all His children. His perfect ways of dealing with sin with the cross being at the center of it will be for us an everlasting study.


3. He allows judgment to come from different sources : for example he calls Nebuchadnezzar his servant because His judgment came through him. Somewhere in the Bible which I can’t locate where he calls Lucifer his servant also for the same reason, to bring Judgment. Isn’t God’s Judgment already pronounce before he created the worlds? That whosoever believeth in Him shall have everlasting life….He that doesn’t believe, is already judged... John 3:16,18. I believe God reluctantly withdraws his protection(often warns before hand many time what's coming ahead to give us a chance to exercise our power of choice) and allows our enemies, natural disasters, course of events to take it’s course, which is often referred in the Bible as God’s Judgment. Again, it is a dimension of accountability, foreknowledge, and warning language employed to let us know what's coming.


4. This one is quite fascinating to me in regards the choice of word God uses to describes the destruction of Satan :

This is the way I understand this: God holds all our being together(molecules, protons, neutrons, quartz, etc…) These maintained high forces baffle physicist because it breaks the law of entropy(energy disperse over time)but we know from Col 1:17 that Jesus holds all things together. At the end of the millennium, those who choose not to be with God, Jesus will grant their request and withdraw his power in holding their being together. The tremendous release of energy from all the different levels of forces(at the level of protons and neutrons of all matter, theirs even more forces that holds quartz together that compose the neutrons and protons, and any other forces that holds our being together will be released)will be like fire. As far as I see it, that day the destruction will come "from the midst of" their(the rebellious) being.

Q: Any thoughts for why God uses words like "thrown in the lake of fire"?

I believe we need to paint many Bible texts talking about destructions with the blood of Jesus to behold God's true character and not let our sins fashion a false image.

Great thoughts, Elle! I think I see your second point differently than you do, but I see the other points as you have laid out. I really, really liked this insight:



Tremendous insight! I think this is exactly right.

Our own characters filter how we see God's character.

your last point was really good, elle.

i think one thing we forget-i know i do-is how long it takes to go from one way of thinking to another. put on top of that our often faulty, lacking way of getting the point across....
what may seem so clear to us, or to the other side, is just foggy nonsense to someone else.

sometimes we forget to wait on the Lord. i know i do.

What do you believe in relation to this quote? Please answer the following questions in relation to this quote:

1. Is it God's will and purpose?
2. Does God cause it to happen?
3. Is it an evidence of God's power?
4. Does God do it to cause people to tremble before Him?

And, another question: Did Jesus ever do it while here in the flesh?

Please answer these questions as thoroughly as you can. Thank you.

does God punish or discipline?

what would be the ideal in our penal system? to punish, or to get criminals to not want to be criminals? do we want to get even with them for what they did? or would the ideal be to motivate them into different more constructive behavior?

Elle, Tom was quoting me not Ellen White. Sorry for the confusion. But I agree that in our present, earthly, unglorified state we are incapable of understanding how a loving, compassionate heavenly Father can employ various means and methods to punish and destroy impenitent sinners. It truly is a "strange act".

I also agree with you that God's foreknowledge enables Him to manage the outcome of the great controversy in a way that does not infringe upon the freedoms of free moral agents. For example, Pharaoh's heart was already hardened when God called Moses to deliver the children of Israel. And He managed the hardness of his heart so as to maximize Israel's success in wresting the Promised Land from the Canaanites.

This required God doing "strange" things to impress the world with His power and goodness. However, God also knew Israel would fail to fulfill their purpose as His chosen people. But His management of things also serve to instruct us today. "Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come."

Nothing God does is wasted. His interaction with sinners and saints as recorded in the Bible was designed to best serve not only those who played a part but also those of us who read it and learn about God. And one of the things we learn about God is the fact circumstances often forced Him to resort to extreme measures. Such things are so unlike God that it seems He is at a loss for words to explain it to us. So He simply refers to it as His "strange act".

It makes me feel sorry for God. I wish everyone would love and obey God so He can put this mess behind Him. No one is looking more forward to the restoration of paradise than is God. Even so, come Lord Jesus.

I believe God does both, that is, sometimes circumstances force Him to punish and destroy (e.g. the Flood), whereas sometimes He is able to discipline and restore (e.g. King David).

Also, so far as human systems are concerned, it depends on the offense. In cases where discipline would result in criminals becoming law abiding citizens then such action is desirable. However, in cases where capital punishment is appropriate it serves to motivate others to obey the law.

My thinking on this subject took probably 30 years to develop. It's still developing.



This is a good point. When we're dealing with a shift in paradigm, that's always tricky. First of all, it's difficult in general to shift one's paradigm. Secondly, sometimes one way of explaining things will work, when another doesn't work at all. Jesus Christ was a master of knowing just the right thing to say. Christ's parable to Simon as his feast is a wonderful example of this.

Hopefully these discussions will help us improve our ability to communicate.

This is an interesting discussion. Retributive vs. Restorative Justice. Howard Zehr developed a model dealing with this. Here's one place that discusses it: http://www.topekacpj.org/vomp/rest_vs_retr.htm

yeah, i dont know about you, but too often i will find myself pushing harder and harder if someone doesnt get what im saying. or i will go to the other extreme and just kiss it off.

i wouldnt count too much on the discussions helping anything, but God sure is amazing, dont you think?

None of the things you asserted above are things I've ever said. I've repeatedly asked you to quote things I've said for that reason.

Regarding your questions, I believe God withdrew His protection which accounted for the earthquake, and did so for the reasons pointed out. Regarding while Jesus was here in the flesh, the cleansing of the temple seems to bring out similar principles in terms of "trembling before Him."

Do you disagree with the idea that all that man can know of God was revealed by the life and character of Jesus Christ during His time with us in the flesh?

Luke 16:20- "And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus,"

Tom, what happened to the quote? Here it is again:

God controls all these elements; they are his instruments to do his will; he calls them into action to serve his purpose. These fiery issues have been, and will be his agents to blot out from the earth very wicked cities. Like Korah, Dathan and Abiram they go down alive into the pit. These are evidences of God's power. Those who have beheld these burning mountains have been struck with terror at the grandeur of the scene-- pouring forth fire, and flame, and a vast amount of melted ore, drying up rivers and causing them to disappear. They have been filled with awe as though they were beholding the infinite power of God. These manifestations bear the special marks of God's power, and are designed to cause the people of the earth to tremble before him, and to silence those, who like Pharaoh would proudly say, "Who is the Lord that I should obey his voice?" {3SG 80}

What do you believe in relation to this quote? Please answer the following questions in relation to this quote:

1. Is it God's will and purpose?
2. Does God cause it to happen?
3. Is it an evidence of God's power?
4. Does God do it to cause people to tremble before Him?

I didn't see where you answered these questions. Also, regarding what I wrote which you called a "flat out lie" I would like to ask the following questions:

1. Do you believe Satan has ever caused these kinds of things to happen?
2. If so, do you believe they are evidences of his power?
3. Do you believe he ever designed such things to make God look bad?
4. Do you believe anyone who believes God caused them to happen, or that it was God's will and purpose for them to happen, is deceived?

On a different note you wrote, "Regarding while Jesus was here in the flesh, the cleansing of the temple seems to bring out similar principles in terms of "trembling before Him." This example in no way resembles what God did in the quote I posted above. Nothing happened that even remotely resembles sinners being buried alive. Please name a time when Jesus withdrew His protection and sinners perished inn the aftermath.

Finally, you asked, "Do you disagree with the idea that all that man can know of God was revealed by the life and character of Jesus Christ during His time with us in the flesh?" No. But I do agree with the following insight: "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}

Kland, I take it you mean to say this parable is an example of God compromising the truth to accommodate the perverted desires of sinners. If so, please explain how. Thank you.

apparently we have an either/or scenario. either it is the scenario above which cancels out the scenario below, or vice versa.



or we have something that explains how both are true.

What I called a flat-out lie was this statement:



There is no reason for you to write any of this. This was an awful thing to do.

Regarding the questions you wrote, numbered 1 through 4, I already answered them.

Regarding the other 4 questions, I think the following answers them:



Regarding trembling before God, if you don't see this principle revealed in the cleansing of the temple, that's fine, you don't see it.

Regarding your following request of that paragraph ("Please name a time ...", you've asked this many times, and my answer is the same as those other many times.



Previously you agreed with my question, as posed. Here's why I posed it this way.



There's no doubt she is talking about Christ's revelation of God during His time with us in the flesh (note the underlined part).

I'm sorry, I intended it to be obvious. Maybe your key word is "perverted desires"?

Otherwise, is the truth:
"In hell, where he was in torment,"
"he looked up and saw Abraham far away,"
"So he called to him,"
"send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue,"

Is there hell? Can people in hell look up and see heaven? and communicate with them? Can people in heaven travel to hell? Can water cool their tongues?

Were those the views of some of the people of that day Jesus was addressing? If Jesus didn't accommodate their views, would they have listened to the point of the parable?

Teresaq, excellent quotes. Thank you for posting them. They make it clear to me that several agencies are at work in preventing and causing death and destruction. We are truly at the mercies of a loving and long-suffering heavenly Father.

The facts of the parable you listed here are accurate. Jesus told the parable exactly as you have described it. Of course Jesus wasn't explaining the truth about hell or heaven. The point of the parable was to impress upon His listeners the importance of getting it right with God now before death overtakes us, that there is no future probation to get it right in the afterlife.

Yes, the operative word in my question is "perverted desires". Can you think of an example of God compromising the truth to temporarily accommodate the perverted desires of sinners? Please keep in mind I'm asking this question in light of the idea God caved in to the perverted desires of the COI and commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer. From what you know about God does this sound like something He would do? If not, how, then do you explain why God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer?

PS - I'm not accusing anyone on this forum of believing the idea that God caved in to the perverted desires of the COI and commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer. I'm simply asking how you explain why God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer? Thank you.

MM, kland quoted the parable to answer your question. The people believed an error, and Christ accommodated the error in their thinking with the parable. That was kland's point, which answers your question in the affirmative. Yes, God has accommodated wrong thinking, and the parable is an example of that.

Btw "wrong thinking" as opposed to "perverted desires" strikes to the core of the issue better, as the issue has to do with one's paradigm. How God is perceived to be, and what He is perceived to do or to have done is influenced by one's paradigm.

God has expressed Himself as doing that which He permits, for example. So when it says that God killed Saul, some, because of their paradigm, would interpret that to mean that God took violent action against Saul which caused His death, whereas others, also because of their paradigm, would interpret this to mean that God permitted Saul to die.

Mat 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.


2Sa 12:8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

Deu 21:15 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:

You wrote, “Regarding the questions you wrote, numbered 1 through 4, I already answered them.” Are you referring to this comment, “Regarding your questions, I believe God withdrew His protection which accounted for the earthquake, and did so for the reasons pointed out”? If so, then please go through each one and answer them clearly (so I don’t have to guess what you mean). And then I would like to respond to each of your detailed answers. Here are the questions again (bear in mind they relate specifically to the 3SG 80 quote posted above):

1. Is it God's will and purpose?
2. Does God cause it to happen?
3. Is it an evidence of God's power?
4. Does God do it to cause people to tremble before Him?

You also wrote, “Regarding the other 4 questions, I think the following answers them: 'Their sufferings are often represented as a punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God. It is thus that the great deceiver seeks to conceal his own work.'” If so, then I’m still not clear on your answer to all four questions. So, I’ll answer them for you and then you can explain why it’s wrong or right. Okay? Here goes (bear in mind these questions relate specifically to the 3SG 80 quote posted above and my answers on your behalf incorporate the GC 35 quote you posted):

1. Do you believe Satan has ever caused these kinds of things to happen? Yes.
2. If so, do you believe they were evidences of his power? Yes.
3. Do you believe he has ever designed such things to make God look bad? Yes.
4. Do you believe anyone who believes God caused them to happen, or that it was God's will and purpose for them to happen, is deceived? Yes.

How did I do? If we agree on my answers to these questions on your behalf, then we should also be able to agree with the following observations (again, as they relate to the questions and answers above): “You believe Satan caused these things to happen, that they are evidences of his power, that he designed them to make God look bad, and that anyone who believes God caused them to happen, or that it was God's will and purpose for them to happen, is deceived.” Do you agree? NOTE: I understand you were offended when I said you apply these observations to the 3SG 80 quote posted above. But now I’m asking something totally different.

I have another question in relation to the 3SG 80 quote posted above. Do you think Ellen mentioned anything or described any disasters in that quote which you believe Satan caused rather than God? If so, please explain why. If not, please explain why not. Thank you.


I agree Jesus did things that caused the caviling cowards to tremble, but my question has nothing to with sinners trembling before God. I’m asking about the natural disasters described in 3SG 80. When Jesus cleansed the temple nothing happened that even remotely resembled sinners “going down alive in the pit” or “fiery issues” burning up large and sinful cities when God withdrew His protection. So again, please name a time when Jesus, while here, withdrew His protection and sinners perished in the kinds of disasters described in 3SG 80. NOTE: So far you haven’t provided an example that actually addresses my question. If you think you already have, then please restate it here for the sake of convenience. Thank you.


Yes, I agree she is talking about Jesus while He was here in the flesh. That’s why I disagree with what you posted above, namely, “. . . all that man can know of God was revealed by the life and character of Jesus Christ during His time with us in the flesh.” In this paraphrase you leave out a key point which is a part of her original statement. Here is her statement with the part you left out underlined. “All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son." Do you see the difference? If so, then please explain it.

By the way, the phrase "can know" in her statement is referring to man's ability to comprehend. Thus, her meaning is clear, namely, taking into consideration our limited ability to comprehend God, Jesus, while here, revealed everything we need to know about our heavenly Father so that the Holy Spirit can, in turn, empower us to experience rebirth, abide in Jesus, partake of the divine nature, and mature in the fruits of the Spirit. Of course, we need to lay this insight alongside what Jesus told His disciples the night before He died on the cross. Listen:

"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you."

Jesus is saying He hadn't revealed everything to them. There was more He wanted to tell them. But it would have to wait until later, at which time He would reveal it to them through the Holy Spirit. We can deduce what Jesus was unable to reveal to them during His time here by comparing what we learn about God in the OT with what we learn about throughout the rest of the NT and the SOP. So far in my studies, it is evident to me that Jesus did not reveal the wrath of God while He was here. He never withdrew His protection and allowed sinners to suffer and die. Nor did He ever command people to kill sinners. There are other things too.

Teresaq, thank you. Your examples prove that God permitted divorce and polygamy to accommodate their perverted desires. Now, do you think we can apply this principle elsewhere? For example, based on the passages you posted, can we deduce that God must have commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to accommodate their perverted desires?

In the case of Saul, no guess work is necessary to understand the truth. During the heat of battle God did not protect Saul from his enemies. An arrow wounded him and he took his life rather than suffer himself to be captured and tortured. None of which would have happened had God protected him.

PS - What you said above about "wrong thinking" is interesting. Are you implying God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to accommodate their perverted desires on account of their wrong thinking? If so, please explain why. If not, please explain why not. Thank you.

i forgot one of the most important ones.

1Sa 8:5 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.
1Sa 8:7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.


Jdg 17:6 In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
Jdg 21:25 In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

1Sa 8:9 Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.
1Sa 8:10 And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king.
1Sa 8:11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.
1Sa 8:12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.
1Sa 8:13 And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.
1Sa 8:14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.
1Sa 8:15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.
1Sa 8:16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.
1Sa 8:17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.
1Sa 8:18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.

is there any possiblity that it is possible? that is probably the most pertinent question. is "perverted desires" the most appropriate description? how about "perverted thinking"?

when God said to not steal, should He have spelled it out like He did with not coveting?

Regarding the 4 questions, and additional 4 questions, what I think is that God protects us from the evil effects of sin, which can take different forms, including natural disasters, one's own passions (as you pointed out in regards to the Jews in GC1), evil angels, accidents, protection from one's enemies (e.g. Romans, Babylonians, etc.; or personal enemies, e.g. Pharisees/Sadducees and Jesus). These are some that come to mind. We need God's protection for many reasons.

In the case of natural disasters, the power of nature is tremendous. Anyone who can control such power must Himself be very powerful. God regularly controls nature, causing it to run on a proper course, and its power is kept under control. If God were to release His control, nature's power would cause terrible results.

In regards to Korah, it says the earth swallowed him up. Many think this was an earthquake that did this. For example:



Regarding the question if Satan can do the things mentioned in 3SG 80, sure, he could in general, which I'm sure you know. I don't know what you're asking this, since in the context of 3SG 80, he didn't.

Regarding the withdrawal of Jesus' protection and bad things happening, I've already addressed this. There's no need to tie this to the events of SG. The general principle expressed in GC 36 is enough:



This includes peace and protection of all kinds. That this principle was illustrated by Christ in general is enough; it wasn't necessary that every possible permutation of protection withdrawn => trouble comes be shown.



Here's an example to help you understand that what I wrote is completely accurate. Consider the set of numbers divisible by 5, less than or equal to 100 (i.e. 5, 10, 15, 20, etc.). Consider all the set 10, 20, 30 etc. up to 100. The first set represent "all that man can know about God." The second set represent "all that man needs to know about God." If I said, "all that man needs to know about numbers divisible by 5 and less than or equal 100 is contained in the second set" that might be true (Suppose man doesn't need to know, for some reason, about numbers divisible by 5 which end in 0). However, the statement "all that man can know about numbers divisible by 5 and less than or equal to 100 is contained in the second set" would not be true. But it would be true to say "all that man can know about numbers divisible by 5 and less than or equal to 100 is contained in the first set."

The first set is a superset of the second set. Similarly the statement "all that man can know of God" is a superset of the statement "all that man needs to know of God." That is, there is nothing that man needs to know about God which is not included in those things which man can know about God. So to say that Jesus Christ revealed all that man can know about God is sufficient.



Here's what she said:



This seems clear to me. I don't think by writing this that she meant "All that man needed to know at the time of Christ, or could know at that time, but not things which man could know at some later time, were revealed by Christ." Otherwise Christ's revelation would not be sufficient, and she would have been honor bound to explain that. She would have had to have written, "NOT all that man needs to know about God was revealed by Christ. In addition to Christ, one should also consider the following to learn what needs to be known of God. (list of items)"

We have a fundamental difference of opinion here. I believe that Christ was a full and complete revelation of God. Even had she not said this here I would believe this. Jesus Christ Himself taught this. What Ellen White said here is no different than what Jesus was saying in John 14 or John 17.

On the other hand, you do not believe Jesus Christ, while here in the flesh, was a full and complete revelation of God. You see Him as a partial revelation of God. So God is sometimes like what Jesus was like while here in the flesh, and sometimes not like that.

This is our disagreement.

There's no guess work necessary to understand the truth in other cases either. God is the same yesterday, today and forever, and He fully revealed Himself in Christ.



If their thinking had been correct, there would have been no necessity to deal with Sabbath-breakers in this way. You don't think we should deal with Sabbath-breakers this way, do you?

I suppose you might answer, "Well we're not in a theocracy." That's true, but I don't think that's the reason the Sabbath-breakers were to dealt with in so draconian a fashion. It was because of the Israelite's ignorance that these draconian measures came up.

In Jesus' time Israel was still a theocracy, and Jesus steadfastly refused any sort of violence of this sort.

you ever wonder about that mist coming up from the ground that watered the earth? did the earth have like pores or something?

was it Gods controlled "watering system" like underground sprinklers?

That's an interesting question. Over 10 years ago I saw a video made from a scientist/creationist who was presenting 7 day creation. He said that today they can compress water as into a form as hard as steel.



He used this fact to say that the firmament/expanse of day 2 of creation was a shield of compressed water as hard as steel that surrounded the earth like a bubble, that had many function like maintaining the temperature on earth even, filtering unwanted rays, bringing up dew from the ground as you see inside a greenhouse, etc...


Since this subject is about "Does God Punish?". Later on he explains that the water from the flood came from this shield. It was broken by a force that decompressed that water and it fell on the earth as rain. Heavy rain that is. He also elaborated on how the shield was broken, it came from two factors :
#1 The mind of practically all human was continously in disharmony(sin) with the heavenly family. The unification of earths sinful mind created a type of wavelenght that crashed(like thunderstorm (+) with (-)) with the wavelenght of the heavenly wavelenght. (please excuse my poor explaination here, but it's been a long time I saw this video)
#2. He brought out a text which I thought was in Peter, but can't seem to find it. Something to do with the springs under the foundation of the earth broke? I don't remember this very well, but remember the picture which he showed a type of geyser of water that hit the compressed shield of water.

#1 and #2 combined broke the sheild and the water fell on the earth.

I don't want to get into proving the validity of his presentation, but it gave me a strong impression that brings my #5 point:

#5. there's lots of things in nature and it's laws governing this world and the consequencial effect of sin, is beyond our knowledge today. EGW says, God never brakes a law of nature, but he use them for the purpose of eternity.



Tom, you mentioned that you disagree partially with what I said in #2. God's omniscient. I would like to hear it and if there's no post started on this subject, some time in the futur, I would like to discuss about it. But right now, I have enough on my plate.

thats interesting because we seem to have a contradiction in these two verses.

Rev 20:9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

Ez 28:18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.

is it one or the other, or does one explain the other?

I think if we think of these things as literal fire, yes, there would be a contradiction. However, if we understand that these visions may involve symbolism, and the prophets simply recorded what they saw, there need not be any contradiction.

Ok. There are some threads on this subject here. Maybe someone will resurrect one. In the meantime, take a look at the last paragraph or two of "The Desire of Ages" page 49 when you have time, and we can use that as a starting off point whenever you'd like to discuss this.

God spelled it out a long time before Samuel. Having a king would have been a blessing if he had followed in the footsteps of Moses. Here's what He instructed Moses about it:

Deuteronomy
17:14 When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that [are] about me;
17:15 Thou shalt in any wise set [him] king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: [one] from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which [is] not thy brother.
17:16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.
17:17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.
17:18 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of [that which is] before the priests the Levites:
17:19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them:
17:20 That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, [to] the right hand, or [to] the left: to the end that he may prolong [his] days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel.

I'm asking you. I've made my position clear. My answer is, No, to the question - "Based on the passages you posted, can we deduce that God must have commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to accommodate their perverted desires?"


It depends on how you answer the question above. From my perspective there was nothing perverted about the thinking or the desires of the Jews in these two specific cases (e.g. the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer). They came to Moses because they were not sure what to do? Unlike the Jews who brought the woman caught in the act of adultery to Jesus, it was not in their mind or heart to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer.


In essence He spelled out more clearly all ten commandments in the Law of Moses. Here's how Ellen put it:

But He did not stop with giving them the precepts of the Decalogue. The people had shown themselves so easily led astray that He would leave no door of temptation unguarded. Moses was commanded to write, as God should bid him, judgments and laws giving minute instruction as to what was required. These directions relating to the duty of the people to God, to one another, and to the stranger were only the principles of the Ten Commandments amplified and given in a specific manner, that none need err. They were designed to guard the sacredness of the ten precepts engraved on the tables of stone. {PP 364.1}

Ellen wrote:

God controls all these elements; they are his instruments to do his will; he calls them into action to serve his purpose. These fiery issues have been, and will be his agents to blot out from the earth very wicked cities. Like Korah, Dathan and Abiram they go down alive into the pit. These are evidences of God's power. Those who have beheld these burning mountains have been struck with terror at the grandeur of the scene-- pouring forth fire, and flame, and a vast amount of melted ore, drying up rivers and causing them to disappear. They have been filled with awe as though they were beholding the infinite power of God. These manifestations bear the special marks of God's power, and are designed to cause the people of the earth to tremble before him, and to silence those, who like Pharaoh would proudly say, "Who is the Lord that I should obey his voice?" {3SG 80} End Quote.

Tom, I have detailed questions based on this passage.


Tom, thank you for the partial answer to my questions, however, in overlooking the rest of them you failed to address the aspects most important to me. Had you addressed all of my questions you would have avoided this problem.

In response to the first of my four detailed questions, you wrote, “We need God's protection for many reasons.” While I agree with this insight, it has nothing to do with the questions I asked. Please go back over the questions and them answer them in detail so I can ponder your answers. Thank you.

In response to the next of my four detailed questions, you wrote, “Regarding the question if Satan can do the things mentioned in 3SG 80, sure, he could in general, which I'm sure you know.” Are saying here that you agree with how I answered the questions on your behalf, and that you agree with the comment I made afterward?

You also wrote, “I don't know what you're asking this, since in the context of 3SG 80, he didn't.” I made it ridiculously clear that “I understand you were offended when I said you apply these observations to the 3SG 80 quote posted above. But now I’m asking something totally different.”

Above I asked, “I have another question in relation to the 3SG 80 quote posted above. Do you think Ellen mentioned anything or described any disasters in that quote which you believe Satan caused rather than God?” Are you saying, No?


I wasn’t asking you to post quotes which depict Jesus demonstrating “every possible permutation of protection withdrawn” that happened in the OT. I’m simply asking for a single instance of it. You keep insisting that what happened in 70 AD is an example of Jesus withdrawing His protection while He was here in the flesh. But I keep insisting it didn’t happen while He was here in the flesh. I assume we both agree Jesus returned to heaven in 31 AD. Declaring, “Your house is left unto desolate” in no way demonstrates Jesus withdrawing His protection and “bad things happening”, as you put it. Don’t you think it is time you admit that Jesus did not demonstrate this aspect of God’s character and kingdom while He was here in the flesh?


You wrote, “So to say that Jesus Christ revealed all that man can know about God is sufficient.” Unless, of course, you are not correctly defining the phrase “can know”.


You wrote, “Otherwise Christ's revelation would not be sufficient, and she would have been honor bound to explain that.” I find this answer interesting in light of your argument elsewhere, namely, that absence of something is not an argument for or against it. You apply this to the “God offered to pardon Lucifer” discussion.

At any rate, no, she is not “honor bound” to say what you said in the immediate context of her statement. As you like to say, we must gather up everything she wrote about it and then formulate a conclusion. This is exactly what I did above. Besides, here statement as it appears in 8T 216 says exactly what I concluded above if we define “can know” in the way I do.

We also have Jesus’ own testimony about it. "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you."

Jesus is saying He hadn't revealed everything to them. There was more He wanted to tell them. But it would have to wait until later, at which time He would reveal it to them through the Holy Spirit. We can deduce what Jesus was unable to reveal to them during His time here by comparing what we learn about God in the OT with what we learn about throughout the rest of the NT and the SOP.

So far in my studies, it is evident to me that Jesus did not reveal the wrath of God while He was here. He never withdrew His protection and allowed sinners to suffer and die. Nor did He ever command people to kill sinners. Of course, there are other things, too.

"To understand the truth in other cases" you believe we must insert details that do not exist in the text. God warned us against doing this very thing. "If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book."


I believe God ordered Moses to execute them because they were guilty of sinning willfully, presumptuously. Presumptuousness is incurable. It must be avoided at all cost. Capital punishment serves as a necessary deterrent. "And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously." But capital punishment also serves another purpose. It testifies that at the end of time God will execute justice and judgment upon sinners. "While He does not delight in vengeance, He will execute judgment upon the transgressors of His law."

You wrote, "If their thinking had been correct, there would have been no necessity to deal with Sabbath-breakers in this way. It was because of the Israelite's ignorance that these draconian measures came up." You are implying God caved in to their erroneous ideas and ordered them to execute capital punishment contrary to His will. But the evidence suggests otherwise. They came to Moses seeking the truth. They genuinely wanted to know what would be the right and righteous thing to do. What God told them to do was the truth as it is in Jesus. "The Lord is coming to execute judgment upon all who obey not the gospel."

You asked, What should we do nowadays with Sabbath-breakers? Yes, of course, things are different since we are no longer under a theocracy. This matters very much. Most of what was required under the OC ended at the cross. I believe executing capital punishment was one of them. Actually, the Jews lost this right under Roman rule.

In the place of capital punishment, Jesus gave the church the authority to disfellowship sinners, which is essentially a death sentence. "Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

You wrote, "In Jesus' time Israel was still a theocracy, and Jesus steadfastly refused any sort of violence of this sort." Not because capital punishment when administered under a theocracy is evil or violent, but because the Jewish leaders were deserving of capital punishment themselves. None of them were "without sin", therefore, not one of them was qualified to cast the first stone.

Of course, there was also the matter of Roman law which did not allow Jews to execute capital punishment. Jesus complied with Roman law. Not to comply would have constituted a sin and Satan would have won the GC. "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 460.5}

PS - Tom, I still don't know why you think God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer. I can guess why, but you hate it when I guess. So just tell me plainly. Please.

This doesn't seem like much of a problem. Just point out the things you want addressed. I'm not going to re-read questions in a post I've already answered. If I missed a post, I'll address that. If I've already addressed the post, I'll address any concerns you have regarding that, which you spell out. Or if you think I didn't address some question at all, I'll address that if you repost it.

In regards to the comment you made following the questions which I said Satan was capable of doing, as I said I was sure you knew, I assume you mean this one:



I wouldn't want to touch this with a 10 foot pole. You took a passage that the SOP wrote and inserted "Satan" in the place of "God." I don't feel any need to go beyond inspiration, and certainly not to do something like this.

What Ellen White wrote in GC 35, 36 is clear enough for me. Quoting just a bit:



I believe this same principle applies to the other forces which destroy men, such as natural forces, one's enemies (whether individuals or nations) or whatever. All of these things are indirectly the result of Satan's activities, because Satan is the "author of sin, and of all of its results." (DA 471). However, not all of these things are of necessity the *direct* results of Satan's activities. Here's the DA statement:



I believe this applies to all destructive actions, not just disease. That is, all destruction results as a result of sin. Satan leads men to look at these things as being punishment arbitrarily inflicted on account of sin, which is how I perceive you look upon many of these destructive activities. What I believe is that God does not inflict punishments because of sin, but that sin has the punishments wrapped up in itself, and that God usually shields us from these punishments, but sometimes withdraws His protection, as per GC 36.

I don't believe that sometimes destruction comes because God is inflicting punishments Himself, and sometimes because He withdraws His protections allowing the destructive power of sin to be manifest in some way, but that God never arbitrarily inflicts these punishments (where "arbitrarily" is Webster's primary definition, not "whimsical" or "capricious").

I believe that often God's actions have been misunderstood, as pointed out here:



I don't believe this is simply dealing with the destruction of Jerusalem, but there are many other instances where the "great deceiver" has successfully deceived. I think often you perceive God as doing the things the great deceiver has been responsible for, in part because you do not perceive this statement as representing a general principle, but as representing a specific case.

Indeed, my paradigm is much different than yours. I see God as communicating principles to us, and we are to learn these principles, which explain how we should govern our lives and how God runs the universe. You seem to have a paradigm which relies not on general principles but on studying episodes case by case, which is probably why you ask me what about this case, what about that one, what about that one, and so forth. Also this would explain why you want a list of sins which the Holy Spirit waits to reveal later (your words, not mine), or why you think that God's character is such that He would have us do things without our understanding why.

So my approach is to try to understand the general principles, and apply them to a case or two to see how they work. I have no desire to look through each and every case, nor does my paradigm require that. I see sufficient evidence upon which to base my faith, which is that:

a.God is not the destroyer, Satan is.
b.Force is not a principle of God's kingdom.
c.God does not overcome rebellion by force.
d.God was fully revealed by Jesus Christ while here in the flesh. (i.e. God is just like Jesus Christ).
e.God's wrath is manifest by His withdrawing His protections.

In the case of the quote dealing with Korah, etc., I believe God's power was manifest in that He controls nature. Nature is tremendously powerful, and it takes a being more powerful that it to control it. God uses nature to do his bidding, which at times involves His permitting its power to be manifest in destructive ways. But God would always prefer to be able to protect us. Unfortunately, sometimes this is not possible, either for reasons of the GC (such as Job), or because people have "caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them."

I see that there are two general classes of destruction in Scripture. One is where God withdraws His protection. I think these are easier to understand. Scripture often presents God as doing that which He permits.

The other class is more difficult to understand, and involves cases where God is recorded as having told someone else to destroy. Regarding this more difficult situation, I have given the hunter father analogy. You say you don't see how this applies. Ok, you don't see it. I don't see what is to be gained trying to get you to see something you don't see, especially when you don't see things which are much easier to see than this (I'm speaking from my perspective, of course; I'm not meaning to be putting you down here at all; just pointing out that there are things which I perceive which you do not perceive in the same way).

In the case of Moses and the Sabbath-breaker, I believe the hunter father analogy applies. It's not simply that the individual Jews who approached Moses were uncertain how to proceed, but there was the mindset of the whole nation to consider. God had to work with an entire nation of ignorant, backward folks (who had to be told to do things like bury their dung) who had just been slaves, so God did the best He could given the circumstances He was in.

I see your whole approach here is completely off base and fruitless. You're trying to do the very thing which I'm arguing against, which is to understand God on the basis of the OT, without having this study filtered by what Christ revealed about God while here in the flesh (btw, you come up with some nice acronymns, such as "FMA"; do you have a suggestion for how to communicate "Jesus Christ while here in the flesh" in a shorter way?).

So what I'm suggesting is if you want to understand the situation with Moses and the Sabbath-breaker, go to the life of Christ, and look for episodes which deal with similar concepts, and understand God's actions on the basis of what the study of God's character as revealed in Christ revealed.

Regarding Jesus' revealing the principle that when God withdraws His protection, bad things happen:

1.Since we've been told that everything that man can know about God was revealed by Jesus Christ while here in the flesh, then Jesus must have revealed this principle somewhere, right? The only alternative to this would be that the principle is not true. Or Ellen White was mistaken that Christ revealed everything that man can know about God.

2.Regarding Jerusalem, Jesus said He would have gathered them up as a hen gathers its chicks. This is in the present tense that He spoke. He wasn't speaking about something He was going to do in the future. He would have protected them right then. They refused the protection, and their house was left to them desolate.

From the first point, we know there must be *some* example of this principle. If you don't like the example I've suggesting, you're free to suggest a better one.



I think everyone knows what "can know" means.



This isn't an absence here. She made the clear statement that everything that man can know about God was revealed by Christ. This is a positive assertion, not the absence of something.

Regarding your assertion that Christ did not reveal the wrath of God, I think you're mistaken. First of all, all man can know about God was revealed by Jesus Christ. The wrath of God is certainly something that one can know about God. Regarding where Jesus Christ revealed this, above all He did so on the cross.

Hmm. I wrote a post about capital punishment, and it just disappeared. So here's a shorter version.



Since no one was ever without sin except Jesus, by this logic capital punishment should never happen, since Jesus elected not to do so, and He's the only one who could, by your logic.



If God's law had conflicted with Roman law, Jesus would not have complied with Roman law. So if it had been God's will that the woman be stoned, Jesus would certainly have done that. God's will was that the woman be saved, not destroyed.

the da quote above sounds so contradictory to the context that i had to post the context.

i missed the part where it was supposed to turn out to be a blessing. perhaps you could point it out. whatever might have been meant how does that change the fact that God gave the israelites what they wanted and not what was His will?

so for you there is no possibility. that was the question. the passages i posted was in regard to 106907 and your statement here:

i merely provided more examples of how God gave people what they wanted even tho it was not His will.




that is your issue. it has nothing to do with me. "perverted desires" is your invention, also, according to how you view things.



how did you see this as answering my question about the specific commandments against stealing and coveting?

Besides the example I gave you,
you said,
Would you be saying that at first you thought it was absurd whereas now you think your comment has been proven wrong?

Teresaq, in light of the topic of this thread, do you see a contradiction in the way Jesus handled the situation in relation to the woman caught in the act of adultery and the way He handled the situation in relation to Moses and the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer? If not, please explain why. Thank you.

Here's the part that sounds like a blessing to me. Having such a king leading the people would be nearly identical to Moses.

17:19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them:
17:20 That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, [to] the right hand, or [to] the left: to the end that he may prolong [his] days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel.

You asked, "Whatever might have been meant how does that change the fact that God gave the israelites what they wanted and not what was His will?" I don't see God compromising with sin in this case. Wanting a godly king to lead them was not a sin. Or, do you know of a quote that says otherwise. I know it wasn't God's ideal for them, but was having a king a sin in and of itself?

kland said it wasn't God's will. "God gave the Israelites what they wanted and not what was His will."

He didn't say anything about sin. If you want to ask a question about sin, that's fine, but why not answer the question that you were asked on the way to asking your question?

(Please pardon my butting in, MM. I didn't think you would mind.)

No one has suggested this. The idea that has been suggested is that God meets people where they are, at times acceding to what they want rather than insisting on what He wants ("at times" is a very conservative way of putting this), as well as tailoring His plans to meet the reality of the hearts and mind-sets of the people He is dealing with. Such actions on God's part to not represent His ideal will. We see His ideal will expressed in Christ.

Some examples that have been mentioned in regards to this are polygamy, divorce, and the granting of a king. None of these things were God's will, yet He permitted them.

i repeat:
the da quote above sounds so contradictory to the context that i had to post the context.

is going against Gods will a sin?



is rejecting God to reign over them a sin?

he was answering me, bro.

Tom, are you suggesting polygamy was not a sin?

Would you mind answering the question anyhow?

My question precisely. Here's the answer I submitted above:


What do you think?

Actually, I do not believe permitting divorce and polygamy are examples of God compromising the truth to accommodate the perverted desires of sinners. I'm not sure why I posted the above comment to Teresaq. Do you think they are examples of it?

Tom, are you suggesting commanding Moses to bury his dung explains why God commanded him to kill sinners?

Where in the Gospels did Jesus command someone to bury their dung or to kill a sinner?

On the cross, it was God who withdrew His protection, who manifested His wrath - not Jesus. The cross is not an example of Jesus withdrawing His protection and sinners dying as a result, nor is it an example of Jesus commanding someone to bury their dung or to kill a sinner.

You still haven't provided examples for these two attributes of God's character. Please stop insisting that Jesus demonstrated either one of these traits when He said, Your house is left unto you desolate. They still had three and half years of probation to go to get it right.

hi mm, im really confused as to how you could draw your question from the point tom was making.

I don't understand your question, or, rather, why you are asking this question. What I wrote was the things I mentioned are examples of things which God permitted which are not His ideal will.

Regarding your first two questions, of 107432, they don't make any sense to me.



It's an example of God's wrath.



Regarding the dung, I guess you're making a joke. Regarding Jerusalem, Jesus said He longed to gather them as a hen protects its chicks. That was present tense. Christ would have protected them, had they been willing. He longed for that. They refused.

Regarding Christ's revealing God's character, John writes:



According to Ellen White, this was the whole purpose of Christ's mission on earth.



Her motivation for writing this was John 17, which is evident by reading the context of what I quoted from here.

And, of course, there's the statement that all that man can know of God was revealed by Christ.

There are other texts too, such as Heb. 1:1-3, which tell us that Christ was the exact image of the Father.

Jesus said, "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father."

What all the above tells us is that God is like Jesus Christ. So to understand the OT correctly, we need an interpretation which agrees with what we see that Jesus Christ revealed.

We've discussed this elsewhere and you argued Ellen said polygamy is a sin. You quoted the following passage to prove your point: "Polygamy . . . was no less a violation of the law of God . . ." {PP 145.1} Do you agree polygamy is a sin? If so, do you also believe God permitted it in the law of Moses?

I underlined what you wrote above about dung. You gave the answer above in response to my question as to why you think God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer. Burying dung and executing sinners should have been obvious to them. However, Moses and the Jews were so ignorant and sin hardened that, according to you, it forced God to explain things as simple as burying their dung and stoning sinners to death. But in so doing God ran the risk of being misunderstood by the onlooking nations (you cited your humane hunter story as proof). If this isn’t what you meant, then please explain what burying dung has to do with why you think God commanded Moses to kill the sinners. Thank you.


Yes, it is. But that’s not what I’m asking you. My question has nothing to do with examples of God manifesting His wrath. I am specifically looking for examples of Jesus employing the “withdraw and permit” method of causing death and destruction while He was here in the flesh. So far you haven’t posted an example. For awhile you were insisting that Jesus declaring, “Your house is left unto you desolate” is an example of this attribute of God’s character, but declaring such a thing is not the same as thousands of people dying.

Elsewhere on this forum it is being argued that Jesus merely repeated Ezekiel’s prophecy that the temple would be destroyed in 40 years after Jesus' death. As such, the prophecy predated Jesus’ incarnation by 500 years. It would not, therefore, be an example of Jesus demonstrating how God employed the “withdraw and permit” method of causing death and destruction. It would be an example of Jesus simply saying what God has promised to do, but it is not an explanation of why God did such things in the past, nor is it a demonstration of how He did such things.

I don't know what his point is or how it addresses the question. Do you?

Would you mind answering the question anyhow? If you do mind, then please let me know. Thank you.

My question precisely. Here's the answer I submitted above:


What do you think? Have you arrived at a conclusion yet?

from 107308




so you dont see "going against Gods will" or, "rejecting God to reign over them" a sin, is what you are saying?

from 107439












ok.

What?



What?



No, this isn't what I meant. I don't see how you could possibly come up with such an idea. Doesn't what you're suggesting seem rather odd?

My comment about dung was parenthetical, literally. Here's what I said, with the parenthetical portion removed:



Somehow you seem to have fixated on the parenthetical comment, and that impacted your understanding of what I was saying. That certainly wasn't my intent. Anyway, here's the thought again, without the parenthetical comment, which hopefully is clear.



I've posted several examples on different occasions.

MM, if you disagree with what's being said, that fine, you have that right, of course. But to assert that an example is not being given when one has been isn't fair. I not only posted Jerusalem as an example, but I posted other examples as well. You disagree with the underlying principle. How could you possibly agree with the examples of a principle you disagree with?

You've asked me this question several dozen times. I haven't ignored your question, but answered it. You didn't agree with my examples. That's fine. But don't assert I didn't address your question. Also, what's the point in continuing to ask a question that's been answered a couple of dozen times?

You're whole way of putting things is foreign to anything I've been communicating. Like this:



I've never said anything like this. I've said this:



I've simply said that the principles enunciated here apply to other cases besides Jerusalem. I've also said that behind any disaster, or bad thing happening, ascribed to God, the general principles spoken of here apply.

We've been over this many times. First of all, do you disagree that "a violation of the law of God" is "sin"? Doesn't this follow from the fact that "sin is the transgression of the law"?

There is also the statement from Ellen White God never sanctioned polygamy even once.

As to God's permitting it, this is exactly my point. God has permitted things which are contrary to His will.

Regarding the question of God's permitting it specifically in the law of Moses, there is debate as to this point. Even Jews argue in regards to the levirate marriage.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Please see my comments above. Thank you.

It amazes me you believe this is an example of Jesus withdrawing His protection and permitting sinners to suffer and die while He was here in the flesh. They didn't suffer and die until 40 years after He returned to heaven. He was not here in the flesh when they suffered and died.

Your pig illustration is closer to the point. Jesus permitted evil angels to enter pigs and drown them in the lake. Why do you think Jesus was capable of allowing such a cruel thing?

Also, your humane hunter story does not explain why God commanded Moses to kill sinners. Unlike the son, the Jews did not know God's will and desire.

"God has permitted things which are contrary to His will." I hear you saying, yes, God compromises with sinners and gives them permission to sin. But why does He do this?

As I'm explained quite a number of times now, Jesus said, in the present tense, that He longed to gather them up (i.e. protect them) as a hen gathers her chicks, but they refused. Refusing protection is exactly the principle involved.



Why do you characterize this as Jesus being cruel, as opposed to the demons who performed the cruelty? I don't understand your attempts to portray God's actions, or Jesus' actions, in as negative a light as possible.



The point of the story is to illustrate how the counsel of someone can be misconstrued as indicating the will of the purpose giving the counsel. On another thread we're discussing this same point. In Christ, God's will was perfectly revealed.




How do you hear "God compromises with sinners" when what is said is "God has permitted things which are contrary to His will"? I don't understand that.

You didn't address my question.

1.Do you disagree that "a violation of the law of God" is "sin"? Doesn't this follow from the fact that "sin is the transgression of the law"?

Another question is if you agree that God has permitted things contrary to His will.

If Jesus is none other than God of the Old Testament, it seems to me that you are saying when Jesus was here in the flesh, He acts differently than when He is in heaven -- that location matters. But yet, He has forever maintained some aspects of having taken the form of flesh. Could you explain your above statement in terms of this?

In the NT Jesus died on the cross. He didn't die on the cross in the OT. This is but one example of how Jesus behaved differently in the two testaments.

Are you saying Jesus withdrew His protection at this time? If so, that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking for an example of Jesus employing the "withdraw and permit" method of causing death and destruction while He was here in the flesh, before He died on the cross and returned to heaven.


I don't understand why you attempt to twist my question into a negative light.


The point of the story, then, does not address the point of the question. The son did not misunderstand the will of the father. The Jews, however, did not understand God's will concerning the sinners, which why is they asked Him. Your story does not reflect these fasts. You cannot hide behind your story as if you've answered the question.


You seem to be saying, yes, polygamy is a sin, and yes, God permitted the Jews to practice polygamy.

No, yes, and yes to your questions.

I've not suggested that Jesus employed the "withdraw and permit" method of causing death and destruction.



You did that yourself. You asked, "Jesus permitted evil angels to enter pigs and drown them in the lake. Why do you think Jesus was capable of allowing such a cruel thing?" You suggested that Jesus did "such a cruel thing."



I think you're misunderstanding the issue. I think the real issue involved is as I've described, and that the father/hunter story applies.

God's will concerning sinners is not to destroy them. Jesus Christ made that clear:





I don't understand what you're saying here. Regarding what I said, I quoted Ellen White, who said that God never sanctioned polygamy even one, and that polygamy is a violation of God's will. Given that polygamy is a violation of God's will, it is sin. Given that He never sanctioned polygamy even once, He certainly didn't do so in the law of Moses, which appears to me to be your position.

The point in mentioning polygamy, divorce and Israel's having their own king was to illustrate that God permits things to happen contrary to His will.

Location. Location. Location.

Is that what you are saying?

Would you also say that we can never trust Jesus for if in heaven and He should turn His back, visit another planet, someone else walks into the room/planet He could exhibit a very different character than ever seen before?

I know this wasn't for me, but I didn't understand this question, and I don't think I'm the only one who would have difficulties with this. Could you try it again please?

Seems completely clear to me!

Oh well. I'll try to explain.
MM said, through several posts, that before Jesus came in the flesh, that same Jesus was the one acting in the Old Testament. The one killing, slaughtering, flooding, commanding to be killed, maiming, torturing men, women and children. Then, Jesus came in the flesh and He was always kind, gentle, peace loving, and self-sacrificing. Then, Jesus went back to heaven where 40 years later He let Jerusalem suffer and perish by withdrawing His protection with the implication that it was His will or just another means in His arsenal to inflict pain and death upon others.

Hence my question. Jesus seems to be affected by His environment. Sometimes He is vengeful and hateful. Other times He is loving and kind. So, if we are in Heaven and everything is going along fine, then something different should happen (my example of going to a different location), suddenly we see, and not just see but may experience, His dark side. And, depending upon the location or circumstances, it could be very much worse than ever seen before.

Can we trust Jesus if we have the view that location matters to His character?

(Is that clear?)

Regarding whether God punishes or not, I came across the following in 6T, page 369- which I thought could apply in concept.

It is talking about health reform:

A question that I believe the answer is quite apparent:
If I allow my appetite to control what I put in my body, the temple of God, who is going to punish or penalize me?

Yes, I think your explanation is clear.

In your last post, just above mine, you're getting at an issue I've brought up often. It's the question of arbitrariness on the part of God. Fifield spoke a lot about this in the 1890's. There is someone else who spoke of this in the 1870's as well, but I don't know the name.

One way of looking at things is that there is a law of cause and effect involved, and God works to educate us to how these laws work. When we understand the laws, we can perceive God to be acting in harmony with how Jesus acted while here with us in the flesh, and yet have these bad things happen to people.

Another way of looking at things is that God is superseding the laws of cause and effect. This is what MM is suggesting. There is not natural connection between A and B, but God punishes those who do A by doing B to them, for just reasons. If there is no cause and effect, then God's doing B is arbitrary.

"Arbitrary" is the best word for this, since it accurately conveys the idea or principle involved. Unfortunately, many people do not understand the primary meaning of "arbitrary," and understand it simply to mean "capricious" or "whimsical," as opposed to "imposed," which is precisely what happens if God does B to those who do A, and there is no cause and effect relationship between A and B.

israel said "we have no king but caesar" and "his blood be upon us and our children" it would be hardly fair to blame Jesus who spent his life trying to avoid such a result;when caesar destroyed jerusalem he was their chosen king

That's a good point.

while he walked this earth Jesus left us an example of how we are to be just and merciful.As our creator His dealings are merciful and just.we cannot read the heart {which scripture says is "desperately wicked"}however hebrews 4;12 tells us God reads the secrets of mens hearts.As at the flood when sin reigned in mens minds they would not repent so their lives were taken that others may have an opportunity which they spurned.you will notice that as iniquity increases the lives of men women and children become more miserable,this is how satan would have it he is miserable ,his angels are miserable they argue and fight,only in the destruction of good are they united;when God ends an existance that will only become more miserable and spread its taint all over He is just and merciful

Did He employ it in the OT? If so, why didn’t He do it in the NT?


The evil angels sought Jesus’ permission. His consent resulted in pigs drowning; otherwise, the pigs would not have died. Jesus is culpable.


Are you arguing that your story illustrates that the Jews understood God’s will concerning the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer? If so, why did they tell Moses to inquire of God? And, why did God command the Jews to kill them?


Again, you seem to be saying, yes, polygamy is a sin, and yes, God permitted the Jews to practice polygamy contrary to His will.

It requires both the OT and NT to fully understand God's self-revelation. However, there is much we cannot understand about God because of our finite, sinful state. I fully expect to discover new and exciting things about God in heaven and throughout eternity.

Romans
11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
11:34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?

PS - Can you think of anything Jesus did in the OT that He didn't do while here in the flesh?

The Jews did not suffer and die until Jesus withdrew His protection and permitted evil angels to inspire the Romans to wipe them out. They could have lingered on “forever” if Jesus had continued prohibiting the evil angels and the Romans from destroying the Jews.


I agree. It is God who ends their existence. And His actions are merciful and justifiable. He employs many and varied ways of causing death and destruction. Listen:

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}

Your questions are predicated on the assumption that God causes death and destruction, which I think is a false assumption. As EGW points out:





By the same logic, God is culpable of all evil. Is this what you think?



No, I'm not saying the story illustrates that the Jews understood God's will concerning the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer. I explained what I think the story is addressing.



Again, I quoted Ellen White. Here was my main point:



Do you agree with this?

An example of this method of causing death and destruction is the Flood. Their sins did not cause water above and below the earth to burst forth and kill everyone and everything. God, of course, employs other methods of causing death and destruction. He is not limited to one method.

You view God as employing different methods of causing death and destruction. You see God's actions as portrayed in GC chapter 1 as one of the methods God uses.

I see some difficulties with this idea. First of all, it doesn't take into account principles like the following:

1.God does not use force to overcome rebellion.
2.Force is not a principle of God's government.
3.Force is the last resort of every false religion.
4.Jesus Christ revealed all that man can know about God.
5.God is the restorer; Satan is the destroyer.

The whole idea that God is the One who causes death and destruction is false. God restores and Satan destroys. Satan is the author of sin and all of its results, which include death and destruction. Death and destruction come as a result of choosing Satan's ways over God's.

Correct.


My views are in total harmony with these principles.


I disagree. The Flood is an example of God causing death and destruction. Someone might argue that the forces of nature destroyed the world and killed sinners, which, of course, is true. However, someone else could falsely argue that it was the bullet that killed the thief not the vigilante. The point is - God wields the forces of nature that cause death and destruction. Listen:

The depths of the earth are the Lord's arsenal, whence were drawn weapons to be employed in the destruction of the old world. Waters gushing from the earth united with the waters from heaven to accomplish the work of desolation. Since the Flood, fire as well as water has been God's agent to destroy very wicked cities. {PP 109.1}

The bowels of the earth were the Lord's arsenal, from which he drew forth the weapons he employed in the destruction of the old world. Waters in the bowels of the earth gushed forth, and united with the waters from Heaven, to accomplish the work of destruction. Since the flood, God has used both water and fire in the earth as his agents to destroy wicked cities. {3SG 82.2}

As he called forth the waters in the earth at the time of the flood, as weapons from his arsenal to accomplish the destruction of the antediluvian race, so at the end of the one thousand years he will call forth the fires in the earth as his weapons which he has reserved for the final destruction, not only of successive generations since the flood, but the antediluvian race who perished by the flood. {3SG 87.1}


Are you suggesting evil angels are responsible for causing all the death and destruction recorded throughout the Bible?

In what sense was God acting as a “restorer” when He withdrew His protection and permitted the forces of nature to destroy the world and to kill sinners? Was He “restoring” the world to its former state of righteousness by allowing the Flood to rid the world of sinners?


One point at a time, please. Do you agree the pigs were safe until Jesus gave evil angels permission to drown them? Or, do you think the evil angels killed the pigs in violation Jesus’ command not to do so?


My question concerns why you think God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer. Your story illustrates God taking the risk of being misunderstood but it doesn’t explain why God commanded Moses to kill those two guys.

So, again, here are my questions – Why do you think God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer? Why did He take the risk of being misunderstood? Why didn’t He take the risk of sharing His true feelings about capital punishment? What would have happened if God had simply told them the truth about capital punishment instead of commanding Moses to kill sinners?


I do not believe God ever caved in to pressure and permitted sinners to practice sin contrary to His will and law. The fact God permitted the Jews to practice polygamy, get divorced, and to have a king is evidence such things are not sinful in and of themselves. They were, nevertheless, contrary to God’s ideal will and desire for them. Do you agree?

Or, do you think God permitted the Jews to practice sin contrary to His ideal will and desire for them? If so, why would He do such a thing? Was it to make Himself look better? Listen:

Romans
3:7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?
3:8 And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.

It's pretty amazing to me that you can think so. For example, you believe exactly that God used force to overcome rebellion, even violent force. Regarding principle #4, you've been denying this the whole time. Regarding #5, you say that God uses various methods to cause destruction. Causing destruction makes one a destroyer.



Right, we disagree on this. I see God as the restorer, and Satan as the destroyer. You see God as using multiple ways to cause death and destruction.



In the sense that Satan is the author of sin and all its results, yes. One of the purposes of the GC is to reveal that God is not responsible for any evil that happens.



I'm not sure what you mean by "its former state of righteousness," but this was basically what God was doing. Justice in Scripture has to do with restoring the covenant community to shalom. However, the context in which God is described as "restorer" has to do with His restoring those who desire such, as God highly respects free will.

MM, I'm interested in how you will address Tom's above questions. For I too am speechless how you can say you agree God causes death and destruction, yet say "My views are in total harmony with these principles" relating to the above 5 list especially emphasizing the word "force". Could you describe how someone could cause death and destruction without force?

The way I see it, it is the same as I mentioned relating to "Brave New World", which you never said if you had read or not. If not, you won't know what I'm talking about. The idea is called, "double-speak". Maybe you've heard of that.

I do not believe God used violent force to overcome rebellion. I do not deny #4. Nor am I at odds with #5. Your translation of my views is biased and inaccurate which explains why you feel the way you do about my views.


What are you labeling as “evil”? Are you suggesting things like the Flood are evil? Are you suggesting Satan is the one who employed the forces of nature to cause the death and destruction related to the Flood? Are you suggesting sin is what caused the forces of nature to destroy the planet and to kill sinners? Are you suggesting God had nothing to do with the Flood? What do you mean when you say Satan is responsible for causing all the death and destruction recorded in the Bible?


Again, in what sense was God acting as a “restorer” when He withdrew His protection and permitted the forces of nature to destroy the world and to kill sinners? What did He restore? What was restored when the planet was destroyed and when sinners were killed?

One point at a time, please. Do you agree the pigs were safe until Jesus gave evil angels permission to drown them? Or, do you think the evil angels killed the pigs in violation Jesus’ command not to do so?


My question concerns why you think God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer. Your story illustrates God taking the risk of being misunderstood but it doesn’t explain why God commanded Moses to kill those two guys.

So, again, here are my questions – Why do you think God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer? Why did He take the risk of being misunderstood? Why didn’t He take the risk of sharing His true feelings about capital punishment? What would have happened if God had simply told them the truth about capital punishment instead of commanding Moses to kill sinners?


I do not believe God ever caved in to pressure and permitted sinners to practice sin contrary to His will and law. The fact God permitted the Jews to practice polygamy, get divorced, and to have a king is evidence such things are not sinful in and of themselves. They were, nevertheless, contrary to God’s ideal will and desire for them. Do you agree?

Or, do you think God permitted the Jews to practice sin contrary to His ideal will and desire for them? If so, why would He do such a thing? Was it to make Himself look better? Listen:

Romans
3:7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?
3:8 And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.

Punishment is not considered force. Nor is it considered violence or murder. Listen:

Genesis
6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Leviticus
26:28 Then I will walk contrary unto you also in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins.
26:29 And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.
26:30 And I will destroy your high places, and cut down your images, and cast your carcases upon the carcases of your idols, and my soul shall abhor you.

Isaiah
42:13 The LORD shall go forth as a mighty man, he shall stir up jealousy like a man of war: he shall cry, yea, roar; he shall prevail against his enemies.
42:14 I have long time holden my peace; I have been still, [and] refrained myself: [now] will I cry like a travailing woman; I will destroy and devour at once.
42:15 I will make waste mountains and hills, and dry up all their herbs; and I will make the rivers islands, and I will dry up the pools.

Ezekiel
25:7 Behold, therefore I will stretch out mine hand upon thee, and will deliver thee for a spoil to the heathen; and I will cut thee off from the people, and I will cause thee to perish out of the countries: I will destroy thee; and thou shalt know that I [am] the LORD.

just dealing with the polygamy part for the moment, it is interesting that you do not consider it a sin.
Exo 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.

just because i might be legally married to 10 men at the same time, how do you figure i didnt committ adultery starting with the second husband, not to mention the thought that preceded the act? committing adultery is a sin, is it not? or do we humans decide what sin is? or is that an ok sin in Gods sight?

just curious how the reasoning goes here.

But you do. You've quoted the flood to support this idea.



We haven't spoken much of 5, but we have spoken of 4 in detail, and you have said on several occasions that there are things about God which Jesus Christ did not reveal.



Anything contrary to God's character, or the principles of His law, the principle of love, is evil. Anything contrary to the principles which Jesus Christ taught and lived is evil.



I said simply, "In the sense that Satan is the author of sin and all its results, yes. One of the purposes of the GC is to reveal that God is not responsible for any evil that happens." Since Satan is the author of sin and all its results, and since death and destruction are results of sin, it follows that Satan is the author of death and destruction, and thus responsible for it.



It looks to me like you're simply re-asking what you asked above. My answer is right above your questions.

I'm a bit curious here. I have been asserting that I believe God is the restorer. Is it your point of view that this idea is incorrect, and you are citing the Flood as evidence that this idea is incorrect?

Ok, since we're doing one point at a time, let's start with the one I raised. If Jesus is culpable for the destruction of the pigs, because He permitted the evil angels to do what they did to the pigs, then, by the same logic, God is culpable for all evil, since no evil occurs except as God gives permission.

Regarding Moses and the sabbath-breakers, it appears to me that you and I both agree that your view of what happened in the OT is contrary to what Jesus did during His mission on earth. We differ on how to resolve this apparent (or, it seems you would say, actual) contradiction. What I'm suggesting is that if we see Jesus acting during His mission on earth in a way that we perceive to be different than how God acted in the OT, then our view of what God was doing is likely to be wrong. What you are suggesting, it appears to me, is that if we see a contradiction like this what it means is that Jesus Christ did not reveal all that man can know of God.



This is a red herring, since nobody believe God "caved in" to pressure. And I'm sure you know this is a red herring as well, since you are aware that no one here is suggesting that God "caved in to pressure." Let's leave out the red herrings, OK?



No, not at all. It seemed to me that you had the idea that because God permits something means the thing permitted is not sin. In order to disprove this idea, I brought out these examples known to be sin.

We know, for example, that divorce (if not on the grounds of unfaithfulness) is sin. We also know that idolatry is sin, which is what the Israelites were essentially guilty of in wanting to have some other king than God. They were guilty of breaking the first commandment as well. Also the tenth. And that polygamy is sin made clear by the SOP statements cited previously, such as the one stating that polygamy is a violation of God's law (which is the definition of sin).



Jesus answered this question, which has be cited for you many times:

M: I do not believe God used violent force to overcome rebellion.

Which, if your past comments reflect current comments, you mean to say that God does use force to overcome rebellion, just not violent force. Is that a reasonable qualifier?



MM, I didn't say anything about "punishment", neither did any of your quotes.

Why did you throw in the word, punishment?

The reasoning goes like this - God permitted polygamy in the law of Moses, therefore, when practiced in accordance with the law it was not a sin. Adultery happens when a married person has sex with a married person they're not married to.

God did not employ violent force to put down rebellion when He used a Flood to punish sinners. Satan uses force and violence - not God.


#4 allows for the fact Jesus didn’t demonstrate everything there is to know about God. He only revealed that which man could comprehend at the time, which means there was plenty about God that man could not understand about God. Jesus plainly said so. “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.”


I do not understand how your answer addresses the following questions:

1. Are you suggesting things like the Flood are evil?
2. Are you suggesting Satan is the one who employed the forces of nature to cause the death and destruction related to the Flood?
3. Or, are you suggesting sin is what caused the forces of nature to destroy the planet and to kill sinners?
4. And, are you suggesting God had nothing to do with the Flood?


I do not understand how your answer addresses the following questions:

1. In what sense was God acting as a “restorer” when He withdrew His protection and permitted the forces of nature to destroy the world and to kill sinners?
2. What did He restore?
3. What was restored when the planet was destroyed and when sinners were killed?


You and I interpret and apply Ellen’s insight regarding the “restorer”. Yes, I totally believe God is a restorer in the sense He is longsuffering and not willing that any should perish unnecessarily. He leaves no stone unturned in His tireless efforts to woo sinners to Jesus, to embrace Him as their personal Friend and Savior. But there is a limit, a threshold beyond which sinners cannot pass and still be savable. When that point is reached, when they fill up the cup of wrath, God is compelled to act. In the Bible such acts are referred to as – “His strange act”. But God is not a destroyer in the same sense Satan is. Listen:

Genesis
6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Ezekiel
28:16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.

Let’s back up even further because I still don’t know what you believe about it. Please answer the following question so I can begin to understand your point of view. Were the pigs safe and sound before Jesus gave the evil angels permission to drown them?


I agree with your explanation above, however, it does not answer my questions. Unless, of course, you are implying God did not command Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer. Is this what you are saying? If not, then please answer the following questions:

1. Why do you think God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer?
2. Why did He take the risk of being misunderstood?
3. Why didn’t He take the risk of sharing His true feelings about capital punishment?
4. What would have happened if God had simply told them the truth about capital punishment instead of commanding Moses to kill sinners?


I did not intend for my question to constitute a red herring. I’m offended by your accusation. Nevertheless, I’ll rephrase the comment and question. I do not believe God ever gave sinners permission to practice things contrary to His law. Do you agree?


Are you suggesting God gave the Jews permission to transgress the law when He allowed them to have more than one wife and to have a king?


Are you implying that, yes, God gave them permission to sin because of the hardness of their hearts?

No.


It is a qualifier. Listen:

Matthew
25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Hebrews
10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

God used a non-violent, non-forceful flood?



#4 says "Jesus Christ revealed all that man can know about God," so what you're writing is clearly false, unless you're somehow distinguishing between "revealed" and "demonstrated."



"Jesus Christ revealed all that man can know about God" does not mean "Jesus Christ only revealed that which man could comprehend at the time."



“I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.” does not mean "I have not revealed everything man can know about God."



I said one thing, and you asked questions which as far as I can tell had nothing to do with what I said, so I restated what I said. It doesn't seem to me that I wasn't discussing the things you asked about.



I think we're at a dead end here. You're asked me questions. I answered the questions. You reasked them. I pointed out I answered them. You're asking them again. Maybe we should skip this point, as it doesn't look like we're getting anywhere.

Are you asking these questions because you don't believe God was acting as a restorer in doing these things?



This isn't at all what "restorer" means. What you've written has nothing at all to do with restoration. Restore means " to bring back to or put back into a former or original state."



"Satan is the destroyer. The Lord is the restorer." does not mean "God is the destroyer, but not in the same sense as Satan."



I was pointing out that by your logic (this is irrespective of my beliefs) if Jesus was culpable for the destruction of the pigs (because He permitted it to happen) then God is culpable for all evil (because He permitted it to happen).



If you agree with my explanation, then there's no need for me to answer your questions. My explanation explains this. The point of the explanation is that I don't agree with your whole approach. Rather than coming to the conclusion that your ideas must be mistaken, because they lead to the conclusion that Jesus Christ is not a full and complete revelation of God, that Jesus Christ did not reveal all that God can know about God, that Jesus Christ is not just like the God of the OT, you conclude that Jesus Christ did not reveal all that man can be known about God.

What I'm saying is that if we have an idea, and that idea conflicts with what Jesus Christ revealed (i.e., what He lived and taught) then our idea must be mistaken. Once we are convinced our idea is mistaken, *then* steps can be taken to ascertain as to why. It's the conviction that the idea is mistaken that's the important thing, not the reason why it's mistaken.



I didn't say anything about your question being a red herring. I said your statement that you do not believe that God caved in to pressure is a red herring. It is a red herring because nobody believes that God caved into pressure, and you know this to be the case, so there's no reason for you to make this statement.



Do you mean like saying, "It's OK if you break My law? I don't mind?" Are you suggesting someone thinks this?



I didn't say anything whatsoever about God's giving permission to transgress the law. I didn't speak of "giving permission" at all. I spoke of God's permitting it. This is what the Scripture says:





Same comment.

i would suggest, my brother, that you are getting on very dangerous ground here.

God allows us to live. does that mean that we do not sin?
God keeps the serial killer alive, does that mean that He does not see what the serial killer is doing as of the most heinous of sins?

"Does God Punish?"

I truly do not understand why Adventists would need to spend so much time debating whether or not God punishes. The Bible says He does in about as many words. What's more, no one needs to claim that God punishes "nicely," because punishment would not be punishment if it were plush treatment. No one is supposed to enjoy it. That's why we call it punishment!



The first murderer was punished by God, as evidenced here by his own admission, and he thought it unbearable.



Sodom was punished. Iniquity is punished. Is there anyone here brave enough to say Sodom was not punished by God? And if so, who punished Sodom?



These were Jesus' own words. There is only one Being capable of inflicting an "everlasting" punishment, for He only is everlasting. God declares that vengeance is His. This final punishment is just that. It is the final act of vengeance of a God named "Jealous."



Those texts teach that God is jealous for our worship. Those who do not worship God will ultimately be destroyed.



Enough texts already. There are scores of texts in the Bible speaking of God's capacity, willingness, duty, and promises to punish those who depart from Him and from His commandments.

So, in answer to the question of this thread--Yes. God does indeed punish. This is such a clear fact, that it appears those who would deny it are but seeking an escape from guilty conscience. Such a retreat from reality will, unfortunately, prove short-lived.

You can deny it for a time, but you cannot prevent it. "For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil." (Ecclesiastes 12:14, KJV)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Here is the initial post of the thread, by the one who opened it:



So the title is perhaps a bit misleading. No one is questioning whether or not punishment takes place, but the details. For example, is punishment something imposed by God (i.e. something God does to guilty people to make them suffer) or is it the consequence of decisions which have been made, which God allows to happen.

GC, Tom believes that God punishes full-cup sinners by withdrawing His protection and permitting one of the following results to play out:

1. God, who must actively prevent the forces of nature from imploding upon itself and killing sinners in the process, is compelled to withdraw His protection and to permit the forces of nature to run its natural course and kill targeted sinners.

2. God commands the holy angels to withdraw their protection and to permit evil angels to cause the death and destruction of targeted sinners and places.

3. God withdraws His protection and permits evil men and empires to cause the death and destruction of targeted sinners and places.

And, on another note, Tom also believes God withdraws His protection and permits evil men and angels to cause the suffering and death of His chosen people.

Thank you for the gentle warning about getting on very dangerous ground. I need all the help I can get.


In light of what I posted above I'm not sure what you mean here. Please elaborate. Thank you.


I believe God is very aware of the heinous things serial killers do. But I'm not sure I understand your point in light of what I wrote above. Please explain how it ties in. Thank you.


Again, I don't understand how this text ties in to my comments above. Please explain. Thank you.

Nothing God does can be perceived as force or violence. He is, after all, God, and “God is love”. Which means the wrath of God is love.


The phrase “can know” can imply “is capable of comprehending”.


Here’s the actual quote; “All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son.” {8T 286.1} What I’m suggesting is implied here, if not expressively stated.


It certainly can. And I think it does. I realize you don’t, but you haven’t explained what you think it does mean.


Tom, this volley began with the following two posts (also posted above in context): T: God restores and Satan destroys. Satan is the author of sin and all of its results, which include death and destruction. Death and destruction come as a result of choosing Satan's ways over God's. M: Are you suggesting evil angels are responsible for causing all the death and destruction recorded throughout the Bible?

Throughout the volley above I have been addressing the following comment – “Satan is the author of sin and all of its results, which include death and destruction.” Instead of discussing your comment in nebulous terms I introduced the Flood as a case in point. Since then you have been steering away from my questions related to your original comment. I’m trying to understand how your comment plays out in real world situations like the Flood. So, please, humor me and answer the questions I posted above. Thank you.


Here is the answer you gave: “I'm not sure what you mean by "its former state of righteousness," but this was basically what God was doing. Justice in Scripture has to do with restoring the covenant community to shalom. However, the context in which God is described as "restorer" has to do with His restoring those who desire such, as God highly respects free will.”

I don’t understand your answer. In light of the 3 enumerated questions posted above please elaborate on your answer to them. Thank you.


I agree. But in what sense was God acting as a “restorer” when He withdrew His protection and permitted the forces of nature to kill targeted sinners?


The passages posted above clearly teach that there are times when God does indeed destroy. Do these passages imply God is a “destroyer” in the same sense Satan is? No, of course not! Nor do they imply, as you seem to think, that Satan is the one who causes the destruction referred to in these passages.

Before I respond to your comment I need to know your answer to the following question – “Were the pigs safe and sound before Jesus gave the evil angels permission to drown them?”


I understand you believe we must interpret everything we read about God in the OT in light of everything we read about Jesus in the NT, and if we come across an apparent contradiction between God in the OT and Jesus in the NT we must interpret it in light of the loving and nonviolent behavior Jesus demonstrated in the NT. With this in mind, please demonstrate this method of interpreting the OT by answering the 4 questions I posted above. Thank you.


Tom, please resist the temptation to tell me what I should and shouldn’t post as we discuss various truths. Please simply answer the questions. Here they are again:

1. You seem to be saying, yes, polygamy is a sin, and yes, God permitted the Jews to practice polygamy contrary to His will and law. Is this what you believe? If not, please explain.

2. I believe God has never give sinners permission to practice things contrary to His law. Do you agree? If not, please explain.


No. But do you think God has ever said anything like this? In other words, do you think God told the Jews, “Having a king is a sin, but I’m going to allow you to have one any way. I will even help you select the best kings possible.”


In light of my questions above, do you think it was a sin for the Jews to want and to have a king and more than one wife?


Why did God permit them to have a king and more than one wife if having them is a sin?

Tom,

Has Mike summarized your thoughts accurately here?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Not exactly. From the SOP I read:



What I have said is that this principle is not limited simply to what Satan does, but also applies to natural disasters, evil that other human beings would to do one another, and even at times to evil that human beings would do to themselves. I believe that sin in general is sufficiently destructive and deadly of itself that God does not need to add to it in order to cause death and destruction to occur.

If you say that God caused death and destruction by means of a Flood, that can certainly be perceived as force or violence.



I agree with this point, and agree that the phrase the SOP wrote could be phrased with this language. In other words, one could say



would not materially change what Ellen White wrote.

You are interpreting "man" here as just certain individuals, those to whom Jesus was speaking when He said, "I have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now," which is what I was taking issue with. When she writes "man" I think she means "man" or "mankind" not "a few individuals."



It doesn't look to me like it's implied in the least that Ellen White was wishing her comment to be taken in the very limited way you are suggesting. For example, a bit later from the same testimony she wrote:



This looks to me to be speaking of Christ's work for all men, not just a few individuals.



Yes, I have explained what I think it means. I think the meaning is self-evident. There were things Jesus Christ could have told them, but He chose not too, because they weren't ready to here these things. You extrapolate from this that it must follow that Jesus Christ did not fully reveal God's character. I think this is not a valid inference. I think the only thing we can infer is that there were things which Jesus Christ could have told them, but chose not to, because they were not ready to bear them.



Ok, this is clear. If you had written something like this at first, that would have been clear. Instead when I wrote, "od restores and Satan destroys. Satan is the author of sin and all of its results, which include death and destruction. Death and destruction come as a result of choosing Satan's ways over God's." and you ask me if I'm suggesting certain specific things about the Flood, it doesn't make much sense to me.

In answer to your questions about the Flood, no, I'm not suggesting the things you asked about. What I said does not touch upon the questions you asked, as far as I can tell. I wrote, "Satan is the author of sin and all of its results, which include death and destruction." What I meant by this is that is the author of sin and all its results, meaning he is the creator of these things, or, to state it another way, were it not for Satan, these things would not exist. Since death and destruction are the result of sin, these things would not exist, but for Satan.



Here's a statement from the SOP:



This speaks of God's work of restoration. God is constantly trying to bring an end to sin, to restore humanity to its state in Eden. The flood was a part of this plan, not as something God intended or desired should happen, but as a necessity in view of the choices man had made.



This isn't something I have said God does (i.e. "kill targeted sinners").



I think the following explains what happens:



The Bible says that "God killed Saul." This is true in the sense that God permitted Saul to be killed (Saul actually killed Himself). In the same sense, God destroys. But God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression, nor as a Destroyer; this is Satan's work (which is why he is called "the Destroyer").

Sin/Satan are destructive; they are destroyers. God is the restorer; He restores. However, His restorative work can result in destruction if one refuses to respond to the principles of love, and chooses death instead. For example:



The light of the glory of God, which is the revelation of His character, results in life for the righteous (their restoration) but the death of the wicked (their destruction). Why? Because God works as Restorer for one group of people, but Destroyer to the other? No, but because one group embraces His restorative work, whereas the other rejects it, embracing destruction instead.

In regards to God's destroying differently than Satan, I agree one could characterize things in this way. However, you do not seem to view God as actually doing anything different from Satan when He destroys. For example, their are statements which state that plagues of the end are caused by Satan. You agree that Satan causes some plagues, the ones these statements are referring to, but that God causes other plagues. So you see God and Satan doing the same thing. In fact, you have no way of distinguishing, based on their behavior, whether Satan or God is doing some destructive or deadly act.

I don't see why. I was just pointing out your statement that Jesus is culpable for death of the pigs, given the logic you used to come to this conclusion implies, by the same logic, that God is responsible for all evil.



I think the first step would be the conviction that the actions can be explained in some way that has God acting in harmony with how Jesus acted during His earthly mission. I've already explained the general principles I believe are involved in these types of events. I see basically two. One is that God is often presented as doing that which He permits. The second is the principle illustrated by the father/hunter analogy. To put the second in other ways, because of the hardness of people's hearts, God permits things which are contrary to His ideal will. I don't believe God's ideal will is that Sabbath-breakers should be put to death.



Please resist the temptation to post red herrings. You know that nobody here believes that God "caved in to pressure and permitted sinners to practice sin contrary to His will and law."



I believe that polygamy is a sin. I also believe God allowed polygamy to occur.



If by giving permission you mean something like God's saying, "I give you permission to break my law," I agree. Breaking God's law results in death, because it involves acting contrary to the principles of the "law of life for the universe," which is self-sacrificing love.



I think God said akin to this:





As I stated, I think the Jews were breaking the first and second commandments. They having having a king an idol, and they were guilty of having a god before God. Had they not been guilty of breaking the first commandment, they would have done God's will.

Regarding having more than one wife, this is adultery, which is a sin.



For the same reason He allows us to sin. If we insist on having our own way, (generally) God allows us to do what we want.

Tom, please explain how the following views misrepresent or come short of what you believe. Thank you.

1. God, who must actively prevent the forces of nature from imploding upon itself and killing sinners in the process, is compelled to withdraw His protection and to permit the forces of nature to run its natural course and kill targeted sinners.

2. God commands the holy angels to withdraw their protection and to permit evil angels to cause the death and destruction of targeted sinners and places.

3. God withdraws His protection and permits evil men and empires to cause the death and destruction of targeted sinners and places.

4. God withdraws His protection and permits evil men and angels to cause the suffering and death of His chosen people.

Perceived, yes, but it is not so in reality. We need to view things as God’s sees them, not as ill informed sinners see them. God has never done anything that He considers violent or forceful.


I hear you saying Jesus demonstrated, while here in the flesh, everything there is to know about God’s character and kingdom. If this is what you’re saying, why, then, didn’t Jesus demonstrate creating a planet populated people, plants, and animals? Why didn’t He demonstrate commanding the leader of Israel to kill sinners? Why didn’t He withdraw His protection and permit fire from the sanctuary to kill unholy priests? Why didn’t He allow the earth to open up and swallow a host of treasonous sinners? Why didn’t He assist a young man in slaying a blasphemous giant with a sling and stone?

I suspect you are going to dismiss these pointed questions by saying something like – We need to interpret the bad things you named above in light of what we know about Jesus. Well, what we know about Jesus is that He never did these things while here in the flesh, therefore, do you expect us to conclude that these did not actually happen? BTW, I’m not sure how you will explain why Jesus didn’t demonstrate creating a world. How do you explain why He didn’t do this in light of the fact you believe He demonstrated everything there is to know about God?


Please cite examples of things Jesus couldn’t share with His disciples while He was here in the flesh.


Thank you for answering my questions.


I agree with “were it not for Satan, these things [i.e. like the Flood] would not exist.” In the case of the Flood I apply this insight to mean God would not have had to destroy the world if sinners had obeyed Him. But because they obeyed Satan, God was compelled to destroy the world with a Flood.


I appreciate this insight, but I still don’t know how you would answer the 3 questions above. I’ll answer them for you and you can tell me how my answer differs from yours:

1. In what sense was God acting as a “restorer” when He withdrew His protection and permitted the forces of nature to destroy the world and to kill sinners? He acted as a “restorer” in that He eliminated sinners and the sinful effect they had upon the planet, thereby, restoring, at least partly, the world to its pre-sin state.

2. What did He restore? He restored, at least partly, the planet and its population to its pre-sin state.

3. What was restored when the planet was destroyed and when sinners were killed? The pre-sin state.


I didn’t say you did. I was merely asking a question. BTW, what do you believe about God permitting certain sinners to die and not allowing others standing nearby to be killed (i.e. as in the case of Korah and clan)? Would you say Korah and clan were targeted by God and the others weren’t? Please explain.


You wrote – “However, His restorative work can result in destruction if one refuses to respond to the principles of love, and chooses death instead.” I think the Flood is a better example of God acting as a restorer. The firelight of God’s glory acts indiscriminately upon sinful flesh. For example, while here even Jesus was unable to appear in the unveiled presence of God because the firelight of His glory and presence would have consumed Jesus in His sinful flesh.


Please explain to me how you think the way God destroys is different than how Satan destroys. For example, when Satan kills sinners with a flood, how is it different than when God did it?


When God and Satan employ the forces of nature, and sinners are killed, the results are, as you say, indistinguishable, namely, sinners suffer and die. You see God withdrawing His protection and permitting the forces of nature to cause death and destruction. You see sinners reaping what they sowed (i.e. sinning forces God to allow the forces of nature to kill sinners). In this sense, you feel God is innocent of the results. However, you see Satan manipulating the forces of nature, when God permits, to kill sinners (i.e. sinning forces God to permit Satan to use the forces of nature to kill sinners). In this sense, you feel Satan is guilty of the results.

Question – Since the results are the same, why doesn’t God cut out the middle man (i.e. Satan) and simply allow the forces of nature to kill sinners? Why is it necessary to include Satan in the process?

Please humor me and answer the question. Were the pigs safe and sound before Jesus gave the evil angels permission to drown them?


1. Actions can be explained in some way that has God acting in harmony with how Jesus acted during His earthly mission.
2. God is often presented as doing that which He permits.
3. Because of the hardness of people's hearts, God permits things which are contrary to His ideal will.

Thank you for the clarification. With these principles in mind, please demonstrate this method of interpreting the OT by answering the 4 questions I posted above. Thank you.


I never accused anyone here of believing this. I simply stated what some people believe. Does this mean you are not going to honor my request that you not tell me how and what to post?


Do you distinguish between God allowing polygamy to occur and God allowing other sins to occur? Please explain.


How does “"I give you permission to break my law” differ from God “allowing polygamy to occur”? Also, does sinning result in death when God permits it (as in polygamy)? Or, does it only result in death when God forbids it?


I agree wanting and having a king is contrary to God’s will.


Are you suggesting wanting a king and having a king were both contrary to God’s will and a sin? And, above you wrote, “God allowed polygamy to occur” and here you say polygamy is adultery. Are you suggesting God allowed adultery to occur? If so, in what sense do you mean it?


This goes along with the question I asked above, namely, do you distinguish between God allowing polygamy to occur and God allowing other sins to occur? Please explain. IOW, does God allow people to commit other sins in the same way He allowed polygamy, divorce, and having a king? Or, does He have criteria that disallow Him to permit certain sins to occur? Please explain.

On these you speak of the destruction of targeted sinners and places, which implies God is behind these things happening; that is, that these are designs of His.



I don't know what this means. Do you mean like Job?

What you wrote was that nothing God does can be perceived as force or violence. So I understand you're agreeing this is incorrect?



The way you perceive God to have acted, most people would consider violent. The way God actually acted, however, is not violent. That is, I don't think God has done the violent/forceful things you think he has ("violent/forceful" hear meaning violent/forceful in the eyes of most people).



Christ made wine out of water, which demonstrates God's creative power. His healing miracles could be understood as demonstrating God's creative power as well.

What we are told is that all that man can know of God was revealed by Jesus Christ. It seems clear to me this is referring to God as a Being, as He is in His essence. That is, we can fully know God by the revelation given us by Jesus Christ.

Regarding your questions in general, I think you're still missing my point. My point is if you perceive God as doing something which Jesus Christ did not reveal, especially if it something different in character to what Jesus Christ did reveal, the conclusion should not be that the statement that Jesus Christ revealed all that man can know of God really doesn't mean that, but means something else like Jesus Christ revealed all that a few individuals at a given time could know of God, but should instead be that things which you perceive God to have done He didn't really do.



Where is there a record of these things?



I don't disagree with this, but would add that I believe God destroyed the world in a way which is in harmony with His character, in harmony with what Jesus Christ revealed, in harmony with the EGW statements in GC chapter 1, which is to say by withdrawing His protection. Sin/Satan is powerful enough to do all the destruction necessary. It is sufficient for any level of destruction desired to take place by means of God's withdrawing.



This is fine, except for the part saying that God eliminated sinners.



Yes, but in a FOTAP way, a common occurrence. Like, "have you stopped beating your wife?" The way the question is asked assumes a premise. I can't answer the question without tacitly accepting the premise.



Here's another example. I've not said that Korah and clan were targeted by God.



Better than what? I think Jesus Christ is a better example of God acting as a restorer. His teachings, His healing miracles, His generosity, humility, self-sacrifice; these are better examples of God acting as a restorer.



Do you mean like in Raiders of the Lost Ark? Where do you get this idea?



You've often asserted this, but adduced no proof.



The following touches on this:



God destroys by withdrawing His protection. This is also called God's wrath.



Satan kills actively. When God destroys it is by allowing sin/Satan to have its destructive consequences.



Excellent! This is an excellent representation of what I believe, the best I can recall seeing from you. It's great to be able to say yes, this is what I believe.



In answer to the first question, there's faulty reasoning in that because the results are something should follow from this. The fact that two results are the same does not mean the causes are the same.

In answer to the second question, there's a faulty assumption here, which is that it is necessary to include Satan in the process. I think what you're really want to ask is why Satan is involved in the process, since God could kill people without Satan by just using nature. Is this what you have in mind?

Jesus didn't give the evil angels permission to drown them.



It says Jesus gave the demons permission to go into them. It doesn't say Jesus gave the demons permission to drown them.



If you write something in response to a post, the implication is you're responding to the post, not just making general comments that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. For example, if I wrote, "It's better to avoid posting red herrings" it would be natural of you to assume I was speaking of you. Say you took exception to this, and I responded, "Oh, did you think I was speaking of you? No, this was just a general statement. I was just speaking of what some people do."



No. I don't know what there is to explain here.



It's less clear. To give someone permission may be understood as tacit agreement with the given action, whereas saying that God allowed something to happen has no such implication.



You're using "permits" and "forbids" in a confusing manner here. God has always forbidden polygamy.



God permitted polygamy in the sense that teresaq pointed out:





The Lord said:



Now if the people were rejecting God, choosing that God should not reign over them, isn't this sin?



I mean in the same sense that God allows any sin to occur. If you choose to lie, for example, and God does not prevent you from doing so, then he has allowed you to lie.



No.



Yes.



No, not in general.