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

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

Click Here To Read Legal Notice & Disclaimer
Suggested a One Time Yearly $20 or Higher Donation Accepted Here to Help Cover the Yearly Expenses of Operating & Upgrading. We need at least $20 X 10 yearly donations.
Donations accepted: Here
ShoutChat Box
Newest Members
ekoorb1030, jibb555, MBloomfield, Dina, Nelson
1323 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums118
Topics9,189
Posts195,525
Members1,323
Most Online5,850
Feb 29th, 2020
Seventh-day Adventist Church In Canada Links
Seventh-day Adventist Church in Canada

Newfoundland & Labrador Mission

Maritime Conference

Quebec Conference

Ontario Conference

Manitoba-Saskatchewan Conference

Alberta Conference

British Columbia Conference

7 Top Posters(30 Days)
Rick H 16
kland 15
Daryl 4
March
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Member Spotlight
Kevin H
Kevin H
New York
Posts: 625
Joined: November 2004
Show All Member Profiles 
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Live Space Station Tracking
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
Last 7 Pictures From Photo Gallery Forums
He hath set an harvest for thee
Rivers Of Living Water
He Leads Us To Green Pastures
Remember What God Has Done
Remember The Sabbath
"...whiter than snow..."
A Beautiful Spring Day
Who's Online
3 registered members (Karen Y, 2 invisible), 2,795 guests, and 4 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 53 of 71 1 2 51 52 53 54 55 70 71
Re: The Covenants [Re: Tom] #107242
01/07/09 02:40 AM
01/07/09 02:40 AM
teresaq  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2024

Very Dedicated Member
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,984
CA, USA
Originally Posted By: Tom
My question regarding teresaq and 11th hour was a joke (I was tempted to say "evil twin," but didn't want to offend anyone) based on the fact that teresaq doesn't use capitals when she writes, whereas 11th hour uses nothing but.


that was cute!! i hope my "sister" sees it that way, also. smile


Psa 64:5 ...an evil matter: they commune of laying snares privily; they say, Who shall see them?

Psa 7:14 Behold, he travaileth with iniquity, and hath conceived mischief, and brought forth falsehood. 15 He made a pit, and digged it, and is fallen into the ditch which he made. 16 His mischief (and his violent dealing) shall return upon his own head.

Psa 7:17 I will praise the LORD according to his righteousness: and will sing praise to the name of the LORD most high.
Re: The Covenants [Re: kland] #107243
01/07/09 02:47 AM
01/07/09 02:47 AM
teresaq  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2024

Very Dedicated Member
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,984
CA, USA
Originally Posted By: kland
You see, with your quotes, I can say they're the same as with Saul, even though God accepted responsibility for killing Saul, He wasn't directly the executioner. (That is, to "say" in my mind, whether you agree or not) Accepting responsibility is one thing, for if God is in charge, He could control and prevent all things. I do agree, that without God's "permission", nothing can happen. But that has the potential to digress into another topic....so, back to what's at hand.


this is the first time i knew what was meant when i hear "God accepts responsibility". thank you. smile


Psa 64:5 ...an evil matter: they commune of laying snares privily; they say, Who shall see them?

Psa 7:14 Behold, he travaileth with iniquity, and hath conceived mischief, and brought forth falsehood. 15 He made a pit, and digged it, and is fallen into the ditch which he made. 16 His mischief (and his violent dealing) shall return upon his own head.

Psa 7:17 I will praise the LORD according to his righteousness: and will sing praise to the name of the LORD most high.
Re: The Covenants [Re: Tom] #107302
01/08/09 03:34 PM
01/08/09 03:34 PM
Mountain Man  Offline
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019

20000+ Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
Originally Posted By: teresaq
M: But I'm still interested in learning what makes sense to you today as it relates to the following question - Why did God command Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer? If you think you have already answered this question, then please restate it here so I don't have to spend time searching for it. I'm sorry for the inconvenience.

t: i havent come to any conclusions about those situations.

Okay. Thank you for the though provoking questions. It opens up avenues to consider and study.

Re: The Covenants [Re: Tom] #107305
01/08/09 07:01 PM
01/08/09 07:01 PM
Mountain Man  Offline
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019

20000+ Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
Originally Posted By: Tom
M: You insist we must interpret all the places in the Bible where it says God killed or commanded others to kill to mean that God freely forgives, that He turns the other cheek, that He goes the extra mile, that He never resorts to force or violence, that it actually means He withdrew His protection and gave them over to their own fierce passions and over to the unrestrained control of Satan.

T: Not quite, but pretty close! I agree with the part in italics. The underlined part I would put like this: "and gave them over the to results of their choice." What those results are need not be limited to the two things you mentioned.

M: In light of all the places in the Bible where it says God killed, or God commanded others to kill, in what way do you think they demonstrate that God:

1. Freely forgives
2. Turns the other cheek
3. Goes the extra mile
4. Never resorts to force or violence

T: I haven't been arguing that the OT fully revealed God, but that Christ did. Christ revealed the things you've listed.

M: You didn’t answer my question. Or, is this a cryptic way of saying all the places in the Bible where it says God killed, or God commanded others to kill, do not demonstrate the four things named above?

T: Your question was based on a false assumption, so I addressed that.

I included the whole history of this point in the box above. Your first response seemed to say you agreed with me. But now I can see you were saying the four attributes named above apply to God at all times except in the context I applied it. You seem to be saying such an application is based on a false premise. So, I ask again, are you saying all the places in the Bible where it says God killed, or God commanded others to kill, are not demonstrations of the four attributes named above? If so, then please explain which attributes of God they do demonstrate.

Quote:
M: Also, are you saying the OT does not fully reveal the character and kingdom of God?

T: Even holy angels did not correctly understand the OT. It wasn't until the revelation of Christ that their eternal security was established. Apart from Christ's revelation, there were no more secure than angels were before Satan started his rebellion (which wasn't very secure at all!).

We’ve discussed this theory before but I don’t remember arriving at a satisfactory conclusion. Seems to me you interpreted certain SOP statements regarding loyal angels not fully understanding until the cross Satan’s side of the GC to mean they ignorantly assumed throughout the OT that it was God’s will and desire to punish and destroy full-cup sinners, but at the cross it finally dawned on them that they had been dead wrong about God.

With this theory in mind you believe since loyal angels developed dead wrong ideas about God it is insane at best and arrogant at worst to think we can read the OT and not draw worse conclusions. But you are confusing issues. First, yes, the loyal angels were unclear about Satan but, no, they were not unclear about God. Second, yes, sinners are prone to formulate false views about God when they read the Bible but, no, this does not apply to the OT only, it also happens when they read the NT.

For example, Ellen wrote, “Men flatter themselves that God is too good to punish the transgressor.” (PP 420) It is unlikely they get this false impression of God from reading the OT. Most likely they get it from reading the NT and in particular the Synoptic Gospels. Even the loyal angels, more than two millennia after Jesus died on the cross, believe it is God’s will and desire to punish and destroy full-cup sinners. Listen:

Quote:
Revelation
16:5 And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus.
16:6 For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy.
16:7 And I heard another out of the altar say, Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous [are] thy judgments.
18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
18:5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.
18:6 Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.
18:7 How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.
18:8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong [is] the Lord God who judgeth her.

You seem to think Satan is the one responsible for the death and destruction the loyal angels view as righteous and praiseworthy. I find it hard to believe, though, that the angels would praise God for something Satan does. These prophecies (posted above) do not depict the loyal angels praising God for permitting Satan to cause death and destruction; instead, they very clearly show them praising God for causing death and destruction. How do you reconcile this attitude and senitment with what you wrote above?

Quote:
T: I just mentioned a whole list of things, like yesterday.

M: Are you referring to the fact God also employed the forces of nature to cause death and disease and destruction in consequence of sin?

T: That was one of about 6 things I mentioned.

M: If so, then it sounds like we are in agreement that God does not always leave it up to Satan to accomplish His “will and purpose”, that there are times when He takes matters into His own hands.

T: If by "take matters into His own hands" you mean "remove His protection," then yes, we are in agreement on this.

Yes, that too, but mostly I was referring to the part about it being His “will and purpose”. Do you agree that, given the circumstances, it is God’s “will and purpose” to employ (as opposed to withdraw and permit) the forces of nature to kill full-cup sinners? Of course we both agree God wishes things hadn’t gotten to such a point. He would prefer not having to kill them. He would prefer it if the circumstances were such that He could bring them home safe and sound.

Quote:
M: However, I would like to say I have integrated what Ellen wrote about force and what she wrote about punishment. The purpose of punishment is not to force sinners to obey Him or to do anything else; instead, it is out of respect for and in obedience to the just and loving requirements of law and justice. Justice requires God to execute justice and judgment upon sinners. Death must happen in consequence of sin. Not to quell rebellion, not to coerce compliance, not to enforce obedience, but to uphold the honor and integrity of law and order. This speaks very well of God. It makes FMAs feel safe and secure knowing God values and enforces law and order.

T: It's not that death must happen, as if there were some choice in the matter, as if death were an arbitrarily imposed penalty, but death *does* happen in consequence of sin. As Waggoner puts it: “Sin has death wrapped up in it. Without sin death would be impossible, for "the sting of death is sin." (The Glad Tidings)

The SOP says that death is "the inevitable result of sin." James says that sin, when it is finished, brings forth death. I've quoted Ty Gibson who points out that even a casual perusal of these Scripture shows there is an organic relationship between sin and death. Somehow you don't see this. I don't understand how. It seems to me that death "is the inevitable result of sin" is very clear in saying that sin causes death. If thing B is the inevitable result of thing A, that means thing A causes thing B.

When you say that God enforces the law, this gives the impression that death results not in consequence of sin, but in consequence of enforcing a sentence. The law of God is *descriptive*. It *describes* actions which are self-destructive, such as putting something above God, stealing, lying, and so forth. All of these actions are the fruit of selfishness, the opposite of self-sacrificing love, which is the law of life for the universe. When one breaks this law, one dies, not because God kills you, but because only the principle of life can give life! To think that God must kill those who do not practice the principle of life is to not understand the principle of life.

I think this may be a missing point in your thinking. It's not simply that sin is innocuous, but that there is such a thing as a principle of life, which is to receive from the hand of life and give to others from that which one has received.

The justice of God demands death for sin. Why would God demand something if it happens naturally anyhow? Also, why didn’t He demand pardon for sin instead of demanding death? Besides, demanding that something happen that happens naturally anyhow is like me or you demanding that an arrow return to earth after we shoot it with a bow. Sounds ludicrous, doesn’t it? And yet that’s what you would have us believe about God, that He goes around demanding things happen that happen naturally.

Regarding your comments about the “principle of life” I’m not sure I follow you. Here’s what Ellen wrote about it: “All things both in heaven and in earth declare that the great law of life is a law of service . . . each takes to give.” (Ed 103) Are you saying the source of unending life is taking from God to give to others? If so, then I disagree. Yes, it affects the quality of life, but it is not the source of life. The breath God breathed into Adam is the source of life, and regularly eating from the tree of life is what perpetuates it. Death occurs when the breath of life returns to God. The same is true for both the first and second deaths.

Quote:
You wrote, “That circumstances constrained God to act in a certain way does not mean that God is violent, or uses force to get His way . . .” Amen!!! I couldn’t agree more.

T: The difference between what we are saying is that you see God as using force and doing violent things, but just don't call these things "force" or "violence." However, as Shakespeare said, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Force and violence by some other name is still force and violence.

How is what you said above any different than what you’re accusing me of? Again, you wrote, “That circumstances constrained God to act in a certain way does not mean that God is violent, or uses force to get His way . . .” Are you saying that the things God was constrained to do were not acts of force and violence? If so, then I agree with you. For example, what happened to Sodom was certainly horrific, but it is no way means God used force or violence. Instead, it was an act of power on His part. There was nothing arbitrary or forceful or violent about it. Such terms apply to the history Hitler not God despite the similarities.

Quote:
M: That God did indeed do such things is clearly described in the Bible. There is no reason to assume He didn’t do them. We just need to understand the reasons behind why He does “strange acts”. There is limitless evidence to prove God is love, and that whatever He does, therefore, must be interpreted in the context of love – no matter how “strange” His “acts” seem to us.

T: There is reason to deduce that God permitted these things, as opposed to actively doing them. First of all, we have such examples in Scripture which speak of God as sending fiery serpents, or sending a lie, or destroying Jerusalem. Secondly we have the revelation of Jesus Christ. Thirdly we are told that God is love, and that love is patient and kind, keeps no record of wrong, etc. (1 Cor. 13)

All of the above is true. God both caused and permitted such things to happen. In either case the outcome is the same, namely, full-cup sinners are punished and killed. The “will and purpose” of God is served.

Quote:
M: You seem to be hinting that their perverted desires forced God, against His will and desire, to command Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer, that His only options were to 1) reject the COI altogether or to 2) stick it out and command Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer. Why do you think these were His only two options? If so, how do you explain the fact they were uncertain what to do?

There is no evidence they were eager to kill them, or that they were looking for excuses or justification to kill them. Because of their conundrum, they came to Moses for guidance and understanding. Seems to me this would have been the perfect opportunity for God to demonstrate His ultimate will and desire, as you understand it, and yet He commanded them to stone the sinners to death – a slow and painful way to go, unless the first stone knocks you out and you die in your sleep. Could it be that God, given the circumstances, did indeed express His will and desire? Is there any reason to think otherwise?

T: Regarding Moses and the Sabbath-breaking, if you look at the SOP you will see lengthy explanations as to why God gave the counsel He did in this and like episodes, such as when the Levites killed those who worshiped the golden calf. The OT is a very violent book. There's no doubt that God, on the surface, appears to be violent and to use force to get His way. However, I don't believe this fits with what we know about God's character, and that we need to bring to bear certain principles of interpretation, such as that God is often presented as doing that which He permits, and that God is sometimes put in the position of the father of the hunter in the story presented, where He gives counsel which may be misinterpreted.

As you have pointed out, God's counsel was the best possible counsel given the situation. He was in a circumstance where He could either give the counsel He did, or allow Israel to fall apart, for reasons the SOP details. That circumstances constrained God to act in a certain way does not mean that God is violent, or uses force to get His way, any more than the counsel the father gave to his hunter son implies these things about him.

M: You wrote, “Regarding Moses and the Sabbath-breaking, if you look at the SOP you will see lengthy explanations as to why God gave the counsel He did in this and like episodes.” Yes, this is what I’ve been waiting to hear from you. But where are all these explanations? So far you have only alluded to them. Please post two or three of them so we can discuss them. And, use the ones that speak directly to the issue and not the ones that require inductive or deductive reasoning. Thank you.

T: Regarding your request to quote something from the SOP discussing why God allowed certain judgments to come upon the Israelites, here's one such place:

Quote:
Notwithstanding the hardships they had endured, there was not a feeble one in all their ranks. Their feet had not swollen in their long journeys, neither had their clothes grown old. God had subdued before them the fierce beasts of prey and the venomous reptiles of the forest and the desert. If with all these tokens of His love the people still continued to complain, the Lord would withdraw His protection until they should be led to appreciate His merciful care, and return to Him with repentance and humiliation. {PP 428.3}

Because they had been shielded by divine power they had not realized the countless dangers by which they were continually surrounded. In their ingratitude and unbelief they had anticipated death, and now the Lord permitted death to come upon them. The poisonous serpents that infested the wilderness were called fiery serpents, on account of the terrible effects produced by their sting, it causing violent inflammation and speedy death. As the protecting hand of God was removed from Israel, great numbers of the people were attacked by these venomous creatures. {PP 429.1}

Tom, this passage doesn’t address my question. Here it is again:

Quote:
You seem to be hinting that their perverted desires forced God, against His will and desire, to command Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer, that His only options were to 1) reject the COI altogether or to 2) stick it out and command Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer. Why do you think these were His only two options? If so, how do you explain the fact they were uncertain what to do?

There is no evidence they were eager to kill them, or that they were looking for excuses or justification to kill them. Because of their conundrum, they came to Moses for guidance and understanding. Seems to me this would have been the perfect opportunity for God to demonstrate His ultimate will and desire, as you understand it, and yet He commanded them to stone the sinners to death – a slow and painful way to go, unless the first stone knocks you out and you die in your sleep. Could it be that God, given the circumstances, did indeed express His will and desire? Is there any reason to think otherwise?

The passage you posted deals with God withdrawing His protection and allowing them to be defeated in battle and attacked by fiery serpents. But it doesn’t explain why God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker or the blasphemer. Neither one of these cases involved God withdrawing His protection and allowing the forces of man and nature to run their courses unimpeded. Do you know of any inspired passages that explain why God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer?

Re: The Covenants [Re: Tom] #107317
01/08/09 09:04 PM
01/08/09 09:04 PM
Mountain Man  Offline
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019

20000+ Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
Originally Posted By: Tom
T: Why do you think God intervened? Also, when God makes a choice, why do you think there's necessarily only one right choice available? Why could there not at times be two or more equally good choices, and God simply chose any one of those?

M: That God intervened is evidenced by the fact things didn’t play out worse than they did.

T: Saul died. We were talking about Saul. What worse thing would have happened to Saul had God not intervened? Also, how do you think that God intervened in the death of Saul?

M: In theory there are an infinite number of options available to God, but in reality only one of them is the best one. Why? Because God is perfect; He is the epitome of absolute perfection. Everything He does is perfect, which, by definition and default, renders all other ways inferior and substandard. He settles for nothing less than best.

T: You didn't answer my question. My question was not about God, but about the choices that God makes. I asked why you think there can only be one right choice. Why can't there be two perfect choices, or more? For example, do you know what a perfect number is? It's a number the sum of whose factors is equal to the product of the same. So 6 is a perfect number because 1 + 2 + 3 = 1 x 2 x 3. Similarly 28 is a perfect number. Because one number is perfect does not mean another can't also be. Similarly, it's possible for one choice to be equally as viable as another. The fact that God is perfect doesn't impact this.

Here's an example. Say there are two roads which go to a certain destination which are mirror images of one another, the same in every way. The two choices are equivalent. God could choose either one.

I am a former Special Forces soldier and I can testify that things could have turned out far worse for King Saul. God intervened in that He permitted an arrow to wound him, but not so bad that he couldn’t do something to avoid falling into the cruel and barbarous hands of the enemy, which is far worse than suicide.

You asked, “Why can't there be two perfect choices, or more?” The definition of “absolute perfection”, in the context of divinity, doesn’t allow for it. There is only one way that leads to heaven. All others lead to hell. There is only one God. All others are pretenders. Similarly, there can be only one right way to handle a given situation because God is the epitome of “absolute perfection”. There are too many variables for there to be more than one absolute perfect way to handle it. The idea there are two or more absolute perfect ways is counterintuitive. It eliminates the idea of absolute perfection.

Quote:
M: In cases where sinners fill up the cup of woe, God employs many and varied ways to punish them. He tailors the punishment to fit the crime. There is nothing generic about what God does. Listen as Ellen describes it:

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. {3SG 80.2}

T: I don't understand why you think God does these things. You perceive God as capable of being the way you present Him as being, which I see as impossible, for the reason that He would not be acting in accordance with how Jesus Christ revealed Him to be, how Scripture and Ellen White describe Him of being, or in accordance with love.

M: You wrote, “I don't understand why you think God does these things.” Are you backpedaling? I ask this question because on a different thread you confirmed your belief that 3SG 80 describes things God did and does. You were offended when I suggested you believe 3SG 80 describes the work of Satan.

T: You took her quote and substituted "God" with "Satan," and said that was what I believed. Do you think it is odd that I would find fault with you're doing that?

I included the history of this point in the box above. I quoted 3SG 80 and said God did and does these kinds of things, to which you replied, “I don't understand why you think God does these things.” Do you agree with me that God does indeed do these kinds of things? NOTE: I’m not here referring to when I suggested elsewhere you credit Satan with doing them; instead, I’m referring to what we said here (in the first two posts in the box above).

Quote:
M: You asked, “Can you name a circumstance where suffering comes upon someone who rejects God that is not a result of God's actively willing that result to come upon them?” Yes, the destruction of Jews and Jerusalem in 70 AD. In this case, God withdrew His protection and gave them over to their unbridled fierce passions. The atrocities perpetrated against one another sounds more horrific to me than what happened when the Romans broke through the walls and killed them. God did not actively cause these things to happen; instead, He closely managed it. He also foresaw it, but He did not cause it to play out the way it did. He didn’t have to.

T: So in this circumstance you do not believe that God willed them to suffer? This seems contrary to what you have written elsewhere. I've understood you as believing that nothing happens that God does not actively will. Am I mistaken in this? That is, you believe there are times when things happen which God does not will to happen? ("will" here = "actively will")

M: I also happen to believe it would have played out the way it did without the presence or involvement of evil angels.

T: Why? She wrote: “By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them, and Satan was permitted to rule them according to his will. The horrible cruelties enacted in the destruction of Jerusalem are a demonstration of Satan's vindictive power over those who yield to his control. (GC 36)

This wouldn't seem to allow for the conclusion you have reached, that Satan's activity made no difference. She describes as what happened as a "demonstration of Satan's vindictive power," yet you say his involvement made no difference. Is there some reason other than what she wrote that led you to this conclusion? (since what she wrote doesn't suggest this).

Yes, it was God’s “will and purpose” to withdraw His protection and permit the Jews to suffer and die the way they did; otherwise, He would have managed the outcome differently. Just because God withdraws His protection it does not mean He isn’t actively involved. He is very actively involved in making sure things play out according to His absolute perfect “will and purpose”.

“I also happen to believe it would have played out the way it did without the presence or involvement of evil angels.” By this I mean God is not dependent on Satan for things to play out according to His “will and purpose”. God is perfectly capable of making sure things play out according to the one and only right and perfect way without Satan’s presence or involvement. Do you agree? Or, do you believe God is dependent on Satan? I feel weird asking this question.

Quote:
M: You wrote, “By the phrase "actively willing," I'm distinguishing this from the idea that God "permits a desire He would prefer did not happen," which is what I believe God does when He punishes those who reject Him.” We agree that God does indeed punish sinners. Yes, there are times when God permits things to play out a certain way, and there are times when He causes things to play out a certain way. Either way, Jesus takes full responsibility for the outcome; He micromanages everything. He leaves nothing to chance or Satan. Otherwise, things would play out contrary to God’s "will and purpose", in a way not conducive to a favorable outcome of the GC.

T: You seem to be totally contradicting yourself here. Ok, let's start with a point of agreement. God takes full responsibility for what happens. I agree with this, which is why God is often presented as doing that which He permits.

The statement "He micromanages everything" I completely disagree with, as "micromanage" means: “To direct or control in a detailed, often meddlesome manner (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/micromanage).

When you say He leaves nothing to chance or Satan, I think this is as wrong as can be. The entire book of Job was to disprove this idea. God did leave Job to Satan. It was Satan's will, not God's, that he loose his children, his possessions, be covered with painful sores, etc.

Perhaps “micromanage” means what you quoted in certain cases, but it certainly doesn’t mean this in the case of God. Sometimes we have to make distinctions between sinners and God. For example, God is said to be a “jealous God”, but elsewhere we read, “Jealousy is cruel as the grave.” Obviously we cannot apply the same meaning to both cases, right? Actually, though, the definition you posted above would be fine if we delete the phrase “often meddlesome”. Unless, of course, we choose to define “meddlesome” in a positive sense, in which case it also reads fine.

Do you really believe that when God withdraws His protection that He relinquishes all control, that God does nothing to ensure Satan works within the limits and boundaries He has established? For example, whose will was it for Job not to die – God’s or Satan’s? As I recall the story, it was God who brought up Job in the first place. And, it was God who set limits on what Satan could do and not do. Holy angels were on hand to make sure Satan worked within the limits and boundaries established by God. I assume Satan took things to the limit.

I realize you believe it was “Satan's will, not God's, that he lose his children, his possessions, be covered with painful sores, etc”, but do you agree with me that holy angles made sure Satan worked within the limits and boundaries established by God?

By the way, do you think it was God’s “will and purpose” to allow Satan to test Job? Or, did God have any choice in the matter? Was He bound by the rules of engagement to permit Satan to attack Job? Similarly, was it God’s “will and purpose” to allow John the Baptist to suffer and die the way he did? And what about Jesus and Peter and Paul and John, etc? Was it God’s “will and purpose” to allow them to suffer and die the way they did? If not, please explain why. Thank you.

Re: The Covenants [Re: 11thhourworker] #107318
01/08/09 09:10 PM
01/08/09 09:10 PM
Mountain Man  Offline
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019

20000+ Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
Originally Posted By: 11thhourworker
GOD HAS MANY PERFECT CHOICES ,HIS WAYS ARE HIGHER THAN OURS ,HIS WISDOM IS GREATER THAN OURS ,I SEE HIS HAND IN MY LIFE ,SOMETIMES ALLOWING BAD THINGS ,BUT THE END RESULT IS GOOD AND I LOOK BACK AND SEE ,HE HAD ME IN MIND ALL THE TIME ,I FOUND IT BEST NOT TO ANALYSE EVERYTHING ,IT MAKES ONE CRAZY ,GIVE IT TO GOD ,'PRAYER IS THE ANSWER TO EVERY PROBLEM IN LIFE ,EVERY ,

GOD HAS ALREADY SEEN THE FUTURE ,ALL OF ETERNITY ,THAT IS HOW GREAT HE IS ,YES GOD DOES ALLOW SATAN TO DO THINGS ,BUT ONLY TO MOLD AND PURIFY US ,JUST SURRENDER YOUR SELF ,TRUST ,ITS HARD, BUT THATS FAITH ,OF A LITTLE CHILD,HES KNOWS EVERY PERFECT THING..

Amen! Yes, God knows the end from the beginning. He knows all the choices and all the possible outcomes and He works very hard to ensure everything plays out according to His "will and purpose". God is good - all the time!

Re: The Covenants [Re: kland] #107319
01/08/09 10:02 PM
01/08/09 10:02 PM
Mountain Man  Offline
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019

20000+ Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
Originally Posted By: kland
M: "God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown. (GC 35-37)

K: Thank you for requoting what I wanted to hear your comments on. But, you seem to have answered it by giving what appears to be a contradictory quote.

You see, with your quotes, I can say they're the same as with Saul, even though God accepted responsibility for killing Saul, He wasn't directly the executioner. (That is, to "say" in my mind, whether you agree or not) Accepting responsibility is one thing, for if God is in charge, He could control and prevent all things. I do agree, that without God's "permission", nothing can happen. But that has the potential to digress into another topic....so, back to what's at hand.

In gathering other quotes which speak to God "executing justice and judgment upon sinners" I meant to demonstrate there are other facets to consider. I do not see them as contradicting what she wrote in GC 36. God is not an "executioner" in the sense He isn't the guy lopping off heads with an axe or guillotine. She explains how God has executed justice and judgment in the past and how He will do it at the end of time. The last chapter in the GC describes the final execution of justice and judgment in graphic detail. God will employ three different sources of fire to punish and destroy sinners in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness - 1) the firelight of His glory, 2) fire rained down from above, and 3) fire raised up from below.

Quote:
K: However, there is a difference in allowing and causing something to happen. From future posts, I'm not sure you understand that. There's no point in going on if you don't understand that even though God said He killed Saul, something different, much much different really, happened than how it was worded. Therefore, when you say, " in light of all the places in the Bible where it says God killed, or God commanded others to kill", I'm not sure you are agreeing.

Today I posted responses regarding King Saul. Hopefully I made it clear God withdrew His protection and permitted King Saul's situation to play out as it did. Otherwise, yes, I agree there is no point in going on.

Quote:
K: By understanding some basic foundations and not jumping in the middle of some other topic, we can understand that sometimes what God says He does, may not be the same as what man may read to mean or mean when they say in like circumstances.

However, how would you justify the above quoted GC sentence to mean that really God does stand towards the sinner as an executioner? (That is, in your mind, whether I agree or not) Do you think it fair to justify it by saying, [sometimes] [once in a while] [often] [rarely] or whatever qualifier you wish to insert?

Hopefully my response above addresses this question sufficiently. If not, I can try and spell out my position more clearly.

Quote:
M: He was left with the miserable task of managing Saul's death in the one and only right and righteous way.

K: 1) Do you not think there may be a more humane way of "managing Saul's death"? 2) Or is " right and righteous" different than humane? 3) Do you hear what I'm trying to ask?
4) Did having an arrow maim him, resulting in a conversation with his armor bearer, only then having to fall on his own sword accomplish some sort of "punishment"? 5) And what about his armor bearer?

1. No. God is the epitome of absolute perfection, therefore, the way He managed King Saul's outcome was the one and only right way.
2. No. They are one and the same thing.
3. I think so. If not, please help me out.
4. Yes. King Saul's punishment played out according to God's absolute perfect "will and purpose" (3SG 80).
5. The armor bearer did what any good armor bearer would do. His choices were very limited. God took all these things into consideration in the way He managed the outcome. There is a good chance we'll see him in heaven. He was loyal and faithful to the "Lord's anointed". Heaven is made for such souls.

Quote:
M: Yes, there are times when God permits things to play out a certain way, and there are times when He causes things to play out a certain way.

K: Why? Why do you think God permits some things to play out and other times He has to cause things to happen since the natural result (punishment?) would not happen?

There is nothing natural about the consequences we suffer in this lifetime as it relates to the "wages of sin". The wages of sin is immediate and eternal death, not a lifetime of sinning and suffering.

Quote:
M: Otherwise, things would play out contrary to God’s "will and purpose", in a way not conducive to a favorable outcome of the GC.

K: Would you be saying then, that He has to continually manipulate things to make it come out "right"? That his law and character cannot stand on its own unless He keeps adjusting it or things?

Yes, but the word "manipulate" infers a negative connotation. That's why I like to use the word "manage" or "orchestrate" instead. For example, if God had not intervened with a Flood the world would have fallen under Satan's undisputed control. The same thing applies to the Tower of Babel. Had God not acted not one righteous soul would have remained. For a similar reason He will cut things short during the time of the end.

Re: The Covenants [Re: Mountain Man] #107332
01/09/09 06:41 AM
01/09/09 06:41 AM
Tom  Offline OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
Quote:
Are you saying all the places in the Bible where it says God killed, or God commanded others to kill, are not demonstrations of the four attributes named above? If so, then please explain which attributes of God they do demonstrate.


I don't understand what you're trying to get at. Please state your point.

Quote:
We’ve discussed this theory before but I don’t remember arriving at a satisfactory conclusion. Seems to me you interpreted certain SOP statements regarding loyal angels not fully understanding until the cross Satan’s side of the GC to mean they ignorantly assumed throughout the OT that it was God’s will and desire to punish and destroy full-cup sinners, but at the cross it finally dawned on them that they had been dead wrong about God.


I've never put it that way. That is, I've never used the words "ignorantly assumed" or "finally dawned." I think for carrying on discussions like this it would be a lot better to avoid these kind of pejorative descriptions, and stick to more neutral ones (and I freely admit I may be guilty of the same thing at times, although I do a lot of editing to weed these things out!).

The way I would put it is that that until the cross, the angels did not fully understand certain things, one of them being that death is the inevitable result of sin. For example:

Quote:
Notwithstanding this terrible lesson, men had no sooner begun to multiply once more, than rebellion and vice became widespread. Satan seemed to have taken control of the world. The time came that a change must be made, or the image of God would be wholly obliterated from the hearts of the beings He had created. All heaven watched the movements of God with intense interest. Would He once more manifest His wrath? Would He destroy the world by fire? The angels thought that the time had come to strike the blow of justice, when, lo, to their wondering vision was unveiled the plan of salvation. Wonder, O heavens, and be astonished, O earth! God sent His only begotten Son into the world to save the world! Amazing grace! "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins." (1888 Mat. 569)


Quote:
With this theory in mind you believe since loyal angels developed dead wrong ideas about God it is insane at best and arrogant at worst to think we can read the OT and not draw worse conclusions.


There you go again! Please, see if you can stay closer to what I've written, or, here's a thought! smile *Quote* something I've actually said! Anyway, this particular characterization is so far off, I'll pass on commenting.

Quote:
But you are confusing issues. First, yes, the loyal angels were unclear about Satan but, no, they were not unclear about God.


This is impossible. There are two protagonists in the Great Controversy. To be confused in regards to one is to be confused in regards to the other. This is because Satan's whole game is to vest God with his own attributes, and to pawn himself off as being reasonable in regards to his own actions, and complaints about God. Think about it; if someone gives credence to what Satan is saying about God, it must follow that one is suffering some doubts in regards to God, because that's the very thing Satan was raising doubts about.

Anway, the above 1888 Mat. quote shows that the angels did indeed suffer some confusion in regards to God's plans, in particular, in regards to what we've been discussing.

Quote:
Second, yes, sinners are prone to formulate false views about God when they read the Bible but, no, this does not apply to the OT only, it also happens when they read the NT.


Sure, one can happen to NT writings as well. But this is beside the point I've been making, which is that Jesus Christ is a full revelation of God's character. When we've seen Him, we've seen the Father. All that we can know about God was revealed by Him.

Quote:
For example, Ellen wrote, “Men flatter themselves that God is too good to punish the transgressor.” (PP 420) It is unlikely they get this false impression of God from reading the OT. Most likely they get it from reading the NT and in particular the Synoptic Gospels. Even the loyal angels, more than two millennia after Jesus died on the cross, believe it is God’s will and desire to punish and destroy full-cup sinners.


Of course not. God Himself says, "I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked." Paul tells us that God is *not* willing that any should perish. Angels know this of course. When Christ was urged to destroy, He said, "You know not of what spirit you are. For the Son of Man came not do destroy man's lives but to say them." Jesus Christ revealed God's will, which is not to destroy, but to save. As the SOP points out:

Quote:
Satan is the destroyer; the Lord is the Restorer.(Christ Triumphant 239)


Quote:
These prophecies (posted above) do not depict the loyal angels praising God for permitting Satan to cause death and destruction; instead, they very clearly show them praising God for causing death and destruction. How do you reconcile this attitude and sentiment with what you wrote above?


I think you're wrong. The angels are not praising God for causing death and destruction. God does not cause death and destruction. Satan is the author of sin and all its results (DA 471). Death and destruction of the results of sin. We are told Satan is the destroyer, not the Lord, who is "the restorer."

I think the idea that the angels praise God for causing death and destruction is awful. Also not pleasant is the idea that God Himself would desire being view as wishing praise for such things.

Quote:
Do you agree that, given the circumstances, it is God’s “will and purpose” to employ (as opposed to withdraw and permit) the forces of nature to kill full-cup sinners?


No. I believe GC 35, 36 explain God's will and purpose.

Quote:
Of course we both agree God wishes things hadn’t gotten to such a point. He would prefer not having to kill them.


He would prefer that they not choose death. Ty Gibson brings out this point nicely:

Quote:
God does not threaten, “If you keep sinning, I will kill you.” Rather, He warns, “If you continue in sin, you will die,” for “sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.” And so He pleads, “I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die …? (Ezek. 33:11). We’re caught off guard by a question like this from God. We are more inclined to ask Him, “Why do You kill?” But He points to our sin and asks us, “Why do you choose death?”


Quote:
He would prefer it if the circumstances were such that He could bring them home safe and sound.


I agree with this. He would rather the choose life than death.

(More later)


Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
Re: The Covenants [Re: Tom] #107333
01/09/09 07:43 AM
01/09/09 07:43 AM
Tom  Offline OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
Quote:
T:T: It's not that death must happen, as if there were some choice in the matter, as if death were an arbitrarily imposed penalty, but death *does* happen in consequence of sin. As Waggoner puts it: “Sin has death wrapped up in it. Without sin death would be impossible, for "the sting of death is sin." (The Glad Tidings)

The SOP says that death is "the inevitable result of sin." James says that sin, when it is finished, brings forth death. I've quoted Ty Gibson who points out that even a casual perusal of these Scripture shows there is an organic relationship between sin and death. Somehow you don't see this. I don't understand how. It seems to me that death "is the inevitable result of sin" is very clear in saying that sin causes death. If thing B is the inevitable result of thing A, that means thing A causes thing B.

M:The justice of God demands death for sin. Why would God demand something if it happens naturally anyhow? Also, why didn’t He demand pardon for sin instead of demanding death? Besides, demanding that something happen that happens naturally anyhow is like me or you demanding that an arrow return to earth after we shoot it with a bow. Sounds ludicrous, doesn’t it? And yet that’s what you would have us believe about God, that He goes around demanding things happen that happen naturally.


I'm not following how what you wrote is a response to what I wrote.

Quote:
Regarding your comments about the “principle of life” I’m not sure I follow you. Here’s what Ellen wrote about it: “All things both in heaven and in earth declare that the great law of life is a law of service . . . each takes to give.” (Ed 103) Are you saying the source of unending life is taking from God to give to others?


No, I didn't say this. I said it was the "law of life." Actually, I didn't say it. Ellen White said it. I quoted her.

Quote:
If so, then I disagree. Yes, it affects the quality of life, but it is not the source of life.


God is the source of life. That's what I've said in relation to "source of life."

Quote:
The breath God breathed into Adam is the source of life, and regularly eating from the tree of life is what perpetuates it.


I think this is a simplistic view. Your suggesting a mechanism which is perpetuated, not needing help from God. Indeed, that's what you said, that God need not do anything, right? (given that one at of the tree of life). You have a theory of life which leaves God out of the picture, at least not directly in the picture.

Quote:
The mechanism of the human body cannot be fully understood; it presents mysteries that baffle the most intelligent. It is not as the result of a mechanism, which, once set in motion, continues its work, that the pulse beats and breath follows breath. In God we live and move and have our being. The beating heart, the throbbing pulse, every nerve and muscle in the living organism, is kept in order and activity by the power of an ever-present God. (MH 417)


I don't see that presents the same picture you are suggesting.

Quote:
Death occurs when the breath of life returns to God. The same is true for both the first and second deaths.


It's the other way around. That is, when death occurs, the breath of life returns to God.

Quote:
T: The difference between what we are saying is that you see God as using force and doing violent things, but just don't call these things "force" or "violence." However, as Shakespeare said, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Force and violence by some other name is still force and violence.

M:How is what you said above any different than what you’re accusing me of? Again, you wrote, “That circumstances constrained God to act in a certain way does not mean that God is violent, or uses force to get His way . . .” Are you saying that the things God was constrained to do were not acts of force and violence?


Yes. GC 35, 36 explains the principle. She says:

Quote:
By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them, and Satan was permitted to rule them according to his will. The horrible cruelties enacted in the destruction of Jerusalem are a demonstration of Satan's vindictive power over those who yield to his control. (GC 35, 36)


God is caused to withdraw His protection, which results in violence to happen to the victims who eschew God's protection. God is not violent. He doesn't use force.

Quote:
Rebellion was not to be overcome by force. Compelling power is found only under Satan's government. The Lord's principles are not of this order. His authority rests upon goodness, mercy, and love; and the presentation of these principles is the means to be used. God's government is moral, and truth and love are to be the prevailing power. (DA 759)


I don't see how your ideas fit with the principles expressed here.

Quote:
If so, then I agree with you. For example, what happened to Sodom was certainly horrific, but it in no way means God used force or violence. Instead, it was an act of power on His part.
There was nothing arbitrary or forceful or violent about it.


You're simply repeating the point I responded to with the Shakepeare quote. You believe God used violence and force, but call it a different name. "Power". But changing the name of what you call it doesn't change how you think God acted.

Quote:
Such terms apply to the history Hitler not God despite the similarities.


Not just the terms, but the actions, apply to Hitler rather than God. This is a point kland has been making.

(More later)


Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
Re: The Covenants [Re: Tom] #107334
01/09/09 08:18 AM
01/09/09 08:18 AM
Tom  Offline OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
Regarding your question regarding Moses and the Sabbath-breaker, no, I don't know of any.

Quote:
You asked, “Why can't there be two perfect choices, or more?” The definition of “absolute perfection”, in the context of divinity, doesn’t allow for it. There is only one way that leads to heaven. All others lead to hell. There is only one God. All others are pretenders. Similarly, there can be only one right way to handle a given situation because God is the epitome of “absolute perfection”. There are too many variables for there to be more than one absolute perfect way to handle it. The idea there are two or more absolute perfect ways is counterintuitive. It eliminates the idea of absolute perfection.


The perfection of God doesn't imply there can be choices which are equally good. There's no reason why this should be the case. A perfect person will never make a choice worse than another choice, but that doesn't mean there can't be two or more choices which are equally good.

Quote:
M: You wrote, “I don't understand why you think God does these things.” Are you backpedaling? I ask this question because on a different thread you confirmed your belief that 3SG 80 describes things God did and does. You were offended when I suggested you believe 3SG 80 describes the work of Satan.

T: You took her quote and substituted "God" with "Satan," and said that was what I believed. Do you think it is odd that I would find fault with you're doing that?

M:I included the history of this point in the box above. I quoted 3SG 80 and said God did and does these kinds of things, to which you replied, “I don't understand why you think God does these things.” Do you agree with me that God does indeed do these kinds of things? NOTE: I’m not here referring to when I suggested elsewhere you credit Satan with doing them; instead, I’m referring to what we said here (in the first two posts in the box above).


You skipped the most important part, where you took her quote and replaced "God" with "Satan."

Quote:
Yes, it was God’s “will and purpose” to withdraw His protection and permit the Jews to suffer and die the way they did; otherwise, He would have managed the outcome differently. Just because God withdraws His protection it does not mean He isn’t actively involved. He is very actively involved in making sure things play out according to His absolute perfect “will and purpose”.

“I also happen to believe it would have played out the way it did without the presence or involvement of evil angels.” By this I mean God is not dependent on Satan for things to play out according to His “will and purpose”. God is perfectly capable of making sure things play out according to the one and only right and perfect way without Satan’s presence or involvement. Do you agree? Or, do you believe God is dependent on Satan? I feel weird asking this question.


You ideas here are Augustinian. I disagree with this concept of God's will, which is far closer to Calvinism than Adventism. This idea would merit a thread of its own.

By way of clarification, do you believe that God's will is always done?

Quote:
Perhaps “micromanage” means what you quoted in certain cases, but it certainly doesn’t mean this in the case of God.


MM, words mean what they mean. It seems like you feel that words have no objective meanings; they're simply whatever you feel like what they should mean. "Micromanage" means what it means. It doesn't matter who the subject is.

You chose the use of the word. I'm simply cited what its meaning is. If you don't like what the word means, why don't you choose another word?

Regarding God's setting boundaries, yes, of course, otherwise Satan would kill everybody.

Regarding if it was God's purpose that Paul or Peter or others be killed, no, it wasn't. However, out of the evil that others do, God is still able to achieve His purpose, which is the revelation of His character. When one returns good for evil, God accomplishes His purpose.


Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
Page 53 of 71 1 2 51 52 53 54 55 70 71

Moderator  dedication, Rick H 

Sabbath School Lesson Study Material Link
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
Most Recent Posts From Selected Public Forums
Seven Trumpets reconsidered
by Karen Y. 03/27/24 09:35 AM
Are the words in the Bible "imperfect"?
by Kevin H. 03/24/24 09:02 PM
The Story of David and Goliath
by ProdigalOne. 03/23/24 08:06 PM
Global Warming Farce
by kland. 03/22/24 10:17 AM
Carbon Dioxide What's so Bad about It?
by kland. 03/21/24 12:34 PM
The Value of Bible Types
by TruthinTypes. 03/17/24 06:22 PM
Orion Which Every One on the Globe Can See
by Rick H. 03/16/24 06:26 PM
'Prophet' Summons UFOs
by ProdigalOne. 03/16/24 02:19 AM
Will You Take The Wuhan Virus Vaccine?
by dedication. 03/11/24 06:31 PM
Get That Razor Wire Up!
by kland. 03/05/24 12:49 PM
Messages for This Time
by ProdigalOne. 03/04/24 05:54 AM
The Lake of Fire is Hell
by Rick H. 03/02/24 05:01 PM
Adventist Agriculture
by kland. 02/29/24 12:33 PM
Most Recent Posts From Selected Private Forums of MSDAOL
The Wound Is Healed! The Mark Is Forming!
by Rick H. 03/27/24 10:36 PM
Are we seeing a outpouring of the Holy Spirit?
by Rick H. 03/24/24 06:50 PM
Time Is Short!
by Rick H. 03/24/24 06:45 PM
Climate Change and the Sunday Law
by Rick H. 03/24/24 06:42 PM
WHAT IS THE VERY END-TIME PROPHECY?
by Rick H. 03/23/24 06:03 PM
Digital Identity Control
by Rick H. 03/23/24 02:08 PM
A.I. - The New God?
by Rick H. 03/23/24 01:59 PM
Christian Nationalism/Sunday/C
limate Change

by ProdigalOne. 03/16/24 08:38 PM
Perils of the Emerging Church Movement
by Rick H. 03/16/24 06:30 PM
Is There A Connection Between WO & LGBTQ?
by Kevin H. 03/12/24 09:20 PM
A Second American Civil War?
by Daryl. 03/04/24 06:14 PM
Forum Announcements
Visitors by Country Since February 11, 2013
Flag Counter
Google Maritime SDA OnLine Public Forums Site Search & Google Translation Service
Google
 
Web www.maritime-sda-online.com

Copyright 2000-Present
Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine (formerly Maritime SDA OnLine).

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

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

"And He saith unto them, follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men." Matt. 4:19
MARITIME 2ND ADVENT BELIEVERS ONLINE (FORMERLY MARITIME SDA ONLINE) CONSISTING MAINLY OF BOTH MEMBERS & FRIENDS
OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH,
INVITES OTHER MEMBERS & FRIENDS OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD WHO WISHES TO JOIN US!
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1