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 61 of 105 1 2 59 60 61 62 63 104 105
Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: Tom] #132424
04/06/11 05:20 PM
04/06/11 05:20 PM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
Originally Posted By: Tom
I think these are good points to discuss, but you didn't address what I asked. So I'll try to make clear what I'm asking, and address the points you're making here....


Interesting angle on this issue Tom, however this goes back to such a question that I had previously asked which you did not address:

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
How then did Sodom and Gomorrah and surrounding cities “naturally” get destroyed? The inhabitants ignored the customary “brimstone and fire” precipitation??? (Gen 19:14b, 24, 25). Same with the Flood, or the Egyptians in the Red Sea. I can name a plethora of Biblical examples along this “non-natural” [destruction] lines.


The SOP also says that Angels of God knocked down the wall of Jericho and slew 185,000 Assyrians. See LDE 243-244. Seems to me that your are knowingly and selectively opting to leave these clear episodes out to uphold your paradigm. Again all of Biblical testimony must contributively be included in one’s Theological paradigm.

I also see that in God removing the Tree of Life from Nature and access to man, a certain degree of natural destruction began to occur. E.g., Man increasingly degenerated health wise (not necessarily sickness, but ageing), the ground was cursed, Tree leaves died, etc.

Again “sin” (= transgressing God’s law/living outside of it) is not the same as an act of (just) destruction. God killing wicked people (= the Flood was not sin - Satan clearly did not do this destruction). This then would be like saying that the officer who carries out the judges capital punishment sentence on a criminal is a criminal himself for doing this. Such judgement destruction is within the law, as it righteously/justly is within God’s Law and Government. The previously cited SOP quote testify to this Theological fact.

---

I could make a statement on what I have observed in regards to what EGW says in GC 35-37 on God’s method of judgement based upon direct revelation she was shown in contextual regards to a certain Brother Stone 14MR 1-3. She was apparently shown this to present this priorly not prominently-seen second, indirect, way in which God effectuates judgements (and not to replace that prior understood direct way - which she does also uphold in GC 614.2). I however refrain for now until more in depth analysis. (Hint: Based on the Biblical and Direct SOP evidence on the Seven Last Plague, she may have blanketly overextended the application(s) of that newly revealed ‘second indirect judgement way’ and that may include the destruction of Jerusalem. Again the Bible is to be the final arbitrator!)

Also Tom, do list the other places in the Bible/SOP where you (explicitly(?)) see the indirect method being used.


“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: Mountain Man] #132425
04/06/11 05:50 PM
04/06/11 05:50 PM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
It is obvious Jesus often talked about executing justice and judgment in the future, however, my question pertains to while He was here in the flesh? That is, while here in the flesh did Jesus execute justice and judgment?

PS - The reason I ask is because at this point in this thread Tom is attempting to explain why Jesus, in the OT, commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in battle and why He commanded godly people to kill ungodly people though the execution of capital punishment. It is his firm belief we must interpret these two things in light of Jesus' earthly life and ministry. If Jesus did not command these two things while here in the flesh, we are forced to believe, says Tom, He did not command them in the OT.


Again going back to my fundamental Theological tenet that: ‘God is “Real”’, I do not see Him, nor Jesus, as doing anything just simply to do it. So in the OT, this just and real God did not destroyed the Amorites because there was no actual, nor just, reason to do so, -to that total extent. (Gen 15:13, 16). In Jesus’s ministry the time for (any) physical destruction had not yet come, so Jesus did not do so. However He did clearly indicate that it will come, and that to any disobeying person (e.g,. John 3:16-21). So that nonfeasance due solely to not yet actionable/fully developed rebellion did not mean that Jesus dispensed with this aspect of God’s government. Jesus, in incarnated Presence, did indeed in principle maintain that Just, Divine Authority.

And Tom has not yet addressed the many direct destruction of God in the OT as explicitly stated in both the Bible and SOP.

Interestingly enough, if Tom is saying that there is a substantive methodical difference between the “direct” destruction spoken of by Christ in parables in Matt 22:7 and Luke 20:16 and EGW statement on the destruction of Jerusalem, as expounded on in GC 35-37, then I see and understand that Jesus’ view should win out and God, as He can do (e.g., Isa 13:17), did indeed send even a foreign army (cf. Isa 46:11a) to effectuate this destruction. However as I have already said, since the prophetic statements of Dan 9:26b & 27b, that destruction was explicitly (through the Hebrew syntax) always said to be caused by the people, self-inflicted and indirectly effectuated (i.e., foreign armies). Still in an ultimate and sovereign sense, it was indeed God who permitted it (= ordered/summoned it).


“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: Mountain Man] #132428
04/06/11 07:52 PM
04/06/11 07:52 PM
K
kland  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2024

5500+ Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,416
Midland
Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Originally Posted By: kland
Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
K: NJK, is killing part of God's character?

N: Because God is Just in his character, judicious killing harmonizes with how He sees best to deal with the sin problem. The Theodicy Truth here is not determined by what I need my God to be, but what He has revealed and done in the Bible. God never acts out of Character as that would itself be sin, since He/His Character is already and unimprovingly perfect.

K: Would you say the only difference between God's character and satan's character (regarding killing), is that God's killing is considered "judicious" while satan's killing is not?

M: When Jesus withdraws His protection and gives Satan permission to kill sinners, because "they are worthy" (Rev 16:6), are we to assume Satan is acting injudiciously? Is he not, after all, acting in harmony with Jesus' will? If Satan were to refuse to mete out justice on Jesus' behalf who, pray tell, would punish the wicked? What good is law if no one is willing to enforce it? "God has a right to enforce the penalty of the law upon transgressors, for law without a penalty would be without force." {ST, July 14, 1890 par. 2}
wow

Are you saying that both Jesus and Satan kill judiciously?

Quote:
who, pray tell, would punish the wicked?
Could that comment be a revealing of a problem with your view?

You omitted most of my post. Why?
It doesn't fit in the quote boxes. I thought you would remember what you said. Tom repeated it and so did NJK. Are you familiar with how commentaries work?

Quoting the rest of it doesn't change anything, does it?

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: kland] #132430
04/06/11 08:20 PM
04/06/11 08:20 PM
K
kland  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2024

5500+ Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,416
Midland
Originally Posted By: NJK
k: I, in the above specific instance, was referring to the end result. Maybe I had the flood in mind that after an observer saw the destruction of the earth and the people, would he, without knowing anything aforehand, be able to determine whether satan did it or God did it?

NJK: The reality in regards to the flood is that God had warned of it and caused it, and then made it to be recorded to say so. I also do not see how it realistically can be that someone would look at the result of the flood and the destruction and not know of the circumstances leading up to it that Noah had been preaching that the Creator God was going to do this. Indeed to choose between God and Satan that person would have to have a pretty knowledgeable understanding of the Bible and also the GC as Satan is, especially early, kept behind the scenes, if that is even actually applicable as it may factually be that he just did not have much chance (i.e., granted permission by God) to actively/directly effectuate such “supernatural” events of destruction.

Sounds like you said, "No".

That one can only know whether an act is of satan or God is if he knew the full background.

Doesn't that seem.... unsatisfactory to you?

For example, if you should come upon a crime scene, where someone has been stabbed multiple times with their head severed, but you did not know the background of what happened, it sounds like you just said you wouldn't know whether it was done by a good or bad person.

Personally, I would find that unsatisfactory, to make an understatement.

Quote:
k: ... but act as whether it was "judicious" or "injudicious".

NJK:
I think I can, notwithstanding the not understood statement above, generally reply here that I see that the Millenium will be used for us to have a first hand knowledge that God has indeed been fair and just in all of, these, His final salvation decision both in those who He allowed in Heaven and those who He kept out.
Which I think you clarified the statement. That we will use the Millennium to determine if God used violence "judiciously" or "injudiciously".

Quote:
k: Am I understanding correctly that you view God as using a violent act, drowning people, to stop their violent acts, and that violence is not wrong, but we will spend a thousand years determining if that, and other violent acts, were "judicious" use of violence?

NJK: To avoid any misunderstanding here, I understand “violent” here as using force, even supernatural (= “high/higher science”) force to effectuate something that otherwise would not naturally transpire (e.g, the Flood, the raining of fire and Brimstone on Sodom and Egypt, the Red Sea opening, and the closing upon the delayed and hindered, the released to pursue, Egyptians. (Exod 14:19-21).
Sounds like we agree with what "violent" is.
So, would you say God used violence to stop violence?

Quote:
k: But, is "judicious", as determined by you proper use in determining character as you then have what MM comes up with:

NJK: That statement and linking is a bit unclear, please rephrase/clarify.
That made me smile. wink Perhaps I was getting too wordy.
I see I left out a comma and the sentence seems backwards and maybe including phrases within phrases. Let me try again.

Is the way you define what "judicious" is, the proper use in determining character? If so, then you have what MM came up with, that both satan and God are "judicious" in their use of violence. And if satan and God are both "judicious" in their use of power, why during the Millennium would we be able to determine which was .....(I don't know what adjective would go here).

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: Tom] #132432
04/06/11 10:14 PM
04/06/11 10:14 PM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
Quote:
Tom:I recall her saying that she never wrote for public consumption her private views. Do you disagree with this?


Rosangela or MM, could you help out here? I'm thinking of the quote where she says she never writes anything publicly of her own opinions, something like that. I think you'll know it, as it's pretty well known.


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: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: Tom] #132433
04/06/11 10:28 PM
04/06/11 10:28 PM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
(Evidently I had not successfully posted this reply yesterday.)

Quote:
NJK: I appreciate your effort to clarify/justify your position Tom, however I can only see that this blaming of my statements on, effectively, ‘a mind-set that is not in the Bible’ is further not justified, and is indeed due to you not having a due, harmonized understanding of such seemingly divergent Scriptures/SOP statements.

Tom: Everybody is impacted by their mind-set/paradigm. This is a chief pillar of the exegetical method. Why would you think this doesn't apply to yourself?


This is self-manifest in our discussions thus far. My approach is to take passages as they exegetically read and use this a building blocks towards a Theology which will, when necessary self-produce such harmonization, so in a way, I am working from a bottom-up view. On the other hand, I see you working from a top down view citing Jesus Christ as the top view, seconded by EGW seemingly wholly supporting statements to the fact and thus you virtually ignore any revelation that may have been made in the OT. I do not see Jesus making such a claim, per se, of only considering what He has done to understand the Bible’s Theology. (e.g., John 5:39; Luke 24:27). I do not see the God of the OT, which in active form was Michael/Jesus, His actions, and statements as being mutually exclusive with the Revelation of the incarnate Christ. I rather see that both say exactly the same thing. Jesus did not come to do away with the Law and the Prophets (=OT) but to fulfill them. He, and where it was necessary, reinstituted these OT contributions where they were always meant to be.

For example, (and correct me if I mis-restated your view) in our discussion on the Fruit of Life, I see and say that in God’s perfect plan (i.e., before sin was ever a factor in anything), we were meant to live forever by our partaking of the Fruit of Life. You categorically say no and point to the post-sin provision made by Christ on the Cross as the only means to live eternally, and that the Tree of Life was only a substantively vacuous object lesson of that. I instead have the harmonizing view that Jesus came to provide redemption to man, to those who would accept this gift, and thus once again give us access to this Tree of Life so that we can live eternally (=Rev 2:7). You instead want to have the mutually exclusive stand of Jesus or the Tree of Life but not both. As I said, the two compliment each other, and it is manifestly from the Water of Life flowing from the Father’s throne that the needed, life perpetuating “supernatural power” is injected in the Fruit of the Tree of Life. However, without accepting Jesus, Fallen Man will not have access to that physical provision and thus not life eternally. So both Jesus’ statements to this end and the tangible reality of the Tree/Fruit of Life harmonizingly present the Theological Truth of how Man, and now Fallen Man, lives eternally.

So resuming here, I build my views on all of these building blocks as I see them all as being contributive and fulfillingly endorsed by Jesus. On the other hand I see you having a Jesus-and-nothing-else, even-if-it-is-stated-by-God/Jesus-in-the-OT, view. So it is in that sense that you do not see the wrath expressed in the OT as being part f Jesus nature, though He did utilize and apply fitting degrees of that judgement aspect of God. I do not see an endorsement for such an approach in the Bible, from Jesus or the SOP. EGW’s counsel is indeed to look at Jesus for the calibrating view however that does not mean that what God, even Jesus did in the OT was wrong. Rather Jesus shows us how what was then done was just. E.g., in citing Isa 6:9-13 in His chosen action in Matt 13:10-17; Jesus vindicated God’s OT action there showing that in such cases of persisted hypocrisy, endeavoring to make these people so drunk and settled in their wrong ways so that prophecies of deserved destruction will be fulfilled in in perfect harmony with the Perfect, Just and Wise Character of God. Jesus can to vindicate the Law and the Father and not to “show Him up”, and that as violent, wrong, unloving, coercive, spiteful, insane, irrational, etc. It is we who have to get up to speed on how exactly Jesus did that. What Jesus thus expounded on does not replace a jot or a tittle of the OT, but confirms it as having been a perfect expression of God’s Will and a Righteous and unimpeachable demonstration of His Character.


“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: Tom] #132434
04/06/11 10:38 PM
04/06/11 10:38 PM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
Quote:
NJK: That was part of my point, that was not a ‘matter-of fact account or straightforward fore-description of the destruction.

Tom:Sure it was. Anybody listening to Jesus would have understood it as such. It's obvious. He will take the vineyard away, and kill the ones that killed his son. He was angry, and sent armies to burn their city. This is very direct language.


I rather see this, and all of Christ’s parable as also being a deliberate veiled statement (Matt 13:10ff). There is nothing straightforward/literal to speak about the current Jewish Nation by instead using vineyard and tenant farmers and a king’s wedding feast. The only reason why the Jewish leaders came to understand that he was speaking to them (Matt 21:45a) with the two preceding parables (Matt 21:28-32 & 33-41) was because of Christ unique public explanatory details appended to these two related parables in vss. 42-44, especially vs. 43.

Also if Christ’s words are expressing directly effectuate judgement and EGW categorically says the complete opposite then Christ’s words/the Bible should win out and EGW views as “mistaken” (Isa 8:20). She would have simply missapplied this type of judgement here. However see next answer.

Originally Posted By: Tom
What in Scripture suggests that the destruction of Jerusalem should be interpreted the way Ellen White did?


As I said before, the syntax of the prophetic statement in Dan 9:26b & 27b. (See also my enjoined next (priorly post) statement.)

And whether directly or indirectly effectuated, God ultimately did, at the very least, allow it, So this all may actually be a substantively inconsequential difference, especially as, as I see it, in either way, God is blameless.

Quote:
NJK: In reality, did God send ‘His own army’ to do this destruction (which would literally have to be the Angels as He is the Lord of Hosts) or was it the Roman armies who came and did this. Still as God is sovereign over all of the earth, and does set up and remove earthly kings (Dan 2:21) and even ‘cause (= Hiphil) foreign kings/kingdoms to be ‘awaken/roused up/stirred up’ to effectuate His plans/judgements of destruction even when not in direct relation for or against His Israel (Isa 13:17). Indeed as shown in Isa 10:26, as the Lord of Host (=angels) He still does this work through earthly powers, even foreign armies as for the promised destruction of the Assyrians (cf. vs. 24-34). So I do not see Christ’s parable as being substantively contradictive to what was later revealed in the SOP. At the very least, it could only have been down by the allowance of the Sovereign God of this World.


Tom: Sure, you can interpret the direct statements of Christ as involving passive action on the part of God, and thus not contradicting the SOP, but this is precisely my point. Scripture portrays God's actions as direct, but the SOP portrays it as passive.


As I said above, in case of such a supposed “irreconcilable difference” the Bible should win out, even if by arbitrative decision (i.e., ‘I’ll just go by what the Bible says, despite the SOP emphasis’) That is also why making a parable have force over a Bible prophecy and/or plain statement (Dan 9:26 and 27b) is actually not proper exegesis (e.g., the Rich Man and Lazarus). In a parable some things can only be expressed in the natural/logical way in which the story allows for. It is not meant to stipulate precise doctrinal/theological/prophetic statements but illustrate a single, even detached point. That “point” is Christ’s parable was that the Jews would lose their land and feast invitation before God and others would receive it and, merely surfacely speaking, and not necessarily in explanatory details, they would both suffer physical destruction and death because of those disassociation actions. How that destruction is effectuate may not at all been the main, detailing concern of Christ in that parable. He was more concerned with making this most urgent point that: “the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people, producing the fruit of it. (Mat 21:43)”. I am sure you can go through most of Christ’s ’sermon illustration’ and find such points that are not fully the same as every single line of doctrinal and straightforward teaching.

Originally Posted By: Tom
There are other examples of the same thing.


Please do list at least 5 of these other examples.

Originally Posted By: Tom
So if the Bible says God acts actively, but the SOP tells us God was actively passively, which do we believe?


As I have been saying, clearly and easily the Bible. I have had to do this several times. I think EGW would agree and may actually be glad to have her would be honest mistake in such non-direct revelation commentary be pointed out to her and corrected.

Quote:
T:Indeed, it sounds like this to you, but not to me, or APL, or kland, or many others. Why doesn't it sound like this to us, but it does to you? Because your mind-set is different than ours.

NJK:Indeed I similarly ask to you all: Why??! Perhaps the above “exhaustively comprehensive, harmonized” thus “proper” exegesis can help you answer this “why” here and also understand what the Biblical “mind-set” actually is.

Tom: Not at all.


Tom, you still need to explain why the underlying text here of GC 628.2 is not speaking of God’s Wrath, irrespective of how it actually is effectuated. As I said this destruction is not against God’s will


Quote:
NJK:That’s really too bad. However I believe I made a substantive point. It is indeed, seriously, really “too bad” that you cannot even begin to see the, at least, hinted exegetical light here.

Your reaction wasn't exegetical, but off the cuff. It revealed our mind-set.


Then perhaps/manifestly my ‘“mind-set” off the cuff reaction’ was Theologically on point here, based on what I actually had in mind here. Indeed, the wrath of God is foundationally clearly expressed in that action. I was not actually addressing how it would be effectuated as this is besides the point. So the “exegetical hint” here is that whether done by God or Satan, it is still ‘God unmixed and merciless wrath.’ (= Rev 14:, 10|16:19) - Notice indeed, as my ongoing 7 Plagues deeper studies have revealed, that promised ‘unmixed wrathful wine cup’ judgement for the Mark of the Beast adherents (Rev 14:9, 10) is not actually effectuated until the 7th and last plague (Rev 16:19).

Originally Posted By: Tom
Your response was one of reaction. You didn't investigate what was happening, but merely read a text, and replied, "this sounds like such and such to me."


The plain reading of the text was all that was necessary to make that ‘sound’ observation. Again, how this judgement is effectuate is beyond the green lighting ‘Divine wrath’ point/issue.

Originally Posted By: Tom
NJK: Then it should not be too hard for you to substantiate that claim of your with points that I made that were Biblically wrong and that because they were assumedly “not investigated.”

Tom: I'm just talking about your reaction. You quoted a text, from "The Great Controversy" chapter 39, as I recall, and stated that this sounded like "justified and deserving, Divine ‘wrathful’ judgements to me." Why do these words sound that way to you? Because of your mind set, your paradigm. That's the same reason words sound the way they sound to any of us.


Contrary to what you may want to believe about me, and as my prior ending of this discussion on this point was based on, my reaction and statement here on this expression of ‘Divine Wrath’ was indeed directly and entirely derived from that plain textual expression. It is your paradigm that manifestly sees this wrath of God as sinful, and thus must somehow be wholly attributed to Satan, a point that EGW does not at all make in that passage, that is ‘eisegetically reactionary.’

Originally Posted By: Tom
This gets to a big problem God has. How does He teach us His ways, His thinking, His paradigm, when we're so set on our own, and interpret everything He says according to our own?


There is no “big problem” for those who engage in proper exegesis to study God’s word. All necessary resources to do this, especially in our day, are available and accessible by most, (especially SDA’s in Western/advance countries). I rather see your, what I see as a Top-down and selective approach to be incorrect exegesis. Jesus compliments the rest of the Bible and does not replace it.

Quote:
NJK: Okay then, I’ll mindlessly bite and assume that you had other people but me in mind here (I still don’t see why?? Especially since, as customary on your part, you never explicitly stated that you had abandoned your prior views and opposition of me for what you had though was my similar view. Indeed I cannot keep track of when you silently switch views.)

Tom: What are you talking about? I've got no idea what you're trying to say here. Silently switch views? What views were silently switched? Or switched at all, silently or not?


See the statement in this post which you have not addressed.

By the way, just to be sure, what exactly is your criteria respond to a question/comment or not? I.e., Time; Agree/Disagree, etc.

Quote:
T:For example, you believe that God's primary characteristic is His power. I believe it's His love.

NJK:Here you go again misunderstanding, misrepresenting and/or misconstruing my views.

Tom: This is hardly fair. Here's what you wrote:

Originally Posted By: NJK Project

Clearly God considers His Characteristic Attribute to be in His Power and Ability to (ultimately) accomplish His will against any odds, or human obstacles.


"His characteristic attribute" is synonymous with "His primary characteristic." For you to characterize me as taking what you wrote in this way as "misrepresenting" or "misconstruing" your view is in no way fair. You could rightly say I'm guilty of misunderstanding it, however, but that's only because I based my view upon what you wrote. I could just have readily as written, "You believe God's characteristic attribute is His power; I believe it is His love."


Fair enough, in regards to “misrepresentation” and “misconstrue.” To better explain my point, I’ll preface my comment here by:

“In/For this GC, God, as seen in the OT, clearly considers, by on the ground necessity, His Characteristic Attribute to be in His Power and Ability to (ultimately) accomplish His will against any odds, or human obstacles.

Also EGW begins and ends her Conflict of the Ages series with the statement ‘God is Love’ (PP 33.1 & GC 678.3), however notice that this is prominently freely said before and after this GC episode of sin:

Originally Posted By: SOP PP 33.1
"God is love." 1 John 4:16. His nature, His law, is love. It ever has been; it ever will be.


Originally Posted By: SOP GC 678.3
The great controversy is ended. Sin and sinners are no more. The entire universe is clean. One pulse of harmony and gladness beats through the vast creation. From Him who created all, flow life and light and gladness, throughout the realms of illimitable space. From the minutest atom to the greatest world, all things, animate and inanimate, in their unshadowed beauty and perfect joy, declare that God is love.


EGW interestingly has to pointedly add that:

Originally Posted By: SOP PP 33.3
The history of the great conflict between good and evil, from the time it first began in heaven to the final overthrow of rebellion and the total eradication of sin, is also a demonstration of God's unchanging love.


This is indeed true, however my point is that this was not prominently demonstrable during the GC because of the many varying circumstances that God had to deal with using His other Characteristic Attributes.

Towards this vindicating end I Theologically/Prophetically understand that this prominent demonstration that God is Love during the GC is greatly dependent on what His Professed People will allow Him to do, for without their participation, that attribute won’t be as prominently revealed as it should. Jesus began that needed reform and the Remnant Church is to finish it by applying all that Christ taught and mandated towards this end. So as you signature passage says:

Originally Posted By: SOP COL 415.5
“The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.” (cf. COL 69.1)



Quote:
NJK: Using Love for every circumstance, especially in the realities of this GC, would prove to impeachingly be Artificial and Hypocritical on God’s part.

Tom: God always uses love in each and every instance in which He acts. Love is not something He switches on and off, but is His character. "God is love."


To use a concrete example: When destroying the antedelluvian, it was indeed a loving act for the righteous, but it also was not so loving, if at all for those who perished. So here both Love and Justice were demonstrated. Indeed as EGW says: ‘Love is not independent or divorceable for God’s other expressed attributes. E.g.:

Originally Posted By: SOP RH March 10, 1904
It is the glory of God to be merciful, full of forbearance, kindness, goodness, and truth. But the justice shown in punishing the sinner is as verily the glory of the Lord as is the manifestation of His mercy. {LDE 240.1}


Originally Posted By: Tom
Love is not in contrast to power or justice, or whatever it is you think that God is doing that is different than love. All the attributes of God's character fit under the umbrella of love.


From what I am reading of your view, it is you who is making this contrast here by saying e.g., that God does not effectuate direct judgement because that is sin. How does that view compare with Such SOP statements and many clear Bible demonstrations to the contrary.

Originally Posted By: Tom
"God is love"


As I have said elsewhere, God does have other names in the Bible. Indeed he is not called by a name that “God is Love” but has to be declared to be so, and that corroborates my understanding that this is because that has not been the prominent manifestation of Him in the Bible. Indeed without Jesus’ statements to the sort, subsequently echoed by NT writers, and then in the SOP writings, this Characteristic of God would continue to remain in the background.

So I see all of those emphasis on saying that “God is Love” only as necessary efforts to make this Character trait also prominent and not setting it up as a ‘chief umbrella trait’.
There is always a tendency and need to emphasize what is being overlooked and ignored, while the other much more prominent “traits” speak for themselves.

To use my concrete example of the Flood Destruction. On one hand God’s Love saved the righteous, but on the flip side, God’s Justice destroyed the antedulluvians. I do not see it as a ‘subset’ trait of Love but a same level one.

Quote:
T:As another example, I believe that the primary revelation of God's character is Jesus Christ. I believe that all that we can know of God was revealed by Him. Therefore I don't need to go outside of Jesus Christ to know or understand God. This is an important foundational principle which I use in attempting to harmonize Scriptural statements, or statements by the SOP.

NJK:I already addressed that above and again, I don’t see the OT God and Jesus to be mutually exclusive, as Jesus Himself said He was emulating the OT God (John 8:16, 28; 38; 10:37, 38). How were people to ascertain that what Jesus was doing was also what the Father would do if they were not to be looking at the records of the OT to see what the OT God had done??

Tom: Not only are they not mutually exclusive, but they are identical. If you agree with this, you should also agree that it's not necessary to go outside of Jesus Christ to learn of God. This isn't to say there isn't value in studying God in other places where He is revealed (even in nature, we can do this) but the clearest revelation of God is Jesus Christ.


As I see it ‘having the “clearest” revelation of God in Jesus’ is completely different from ‘it being not necessary to go outside of Jesus Christ to learn of God’. In the first situation if you want the clearest understanding than you can indeed go to Jesus who will indeed make obscure and ambiguous OT revelations clearer, however to have the full Revelation you do need to include the OT (and also God’s Creation.) So I see Jesus as being clarifyingly definitive and comprehensive, but not actually exhaustive (no slight of Jesus at all intended, as I Theologically clearly see that this is not/cannot be done by that understanding does not).

I see that Christ’s statement in John 14:9 are commonly, wrongly over applied to mean that ‘Jesus is the only, even only true, revelation of the Father.’ However in context, what Jesus was addressing was Philip’s actually entirely dismissive follow up request to Christ’s statement that: “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.” (Joh 14:7) to which Philip obstinately said: “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” (vs. 8) thus entirely bypassing any contribution to this knowing/understanding end that Jesus had been making (vs. 9-11). So I see it as Jesus counselling: ‘Do not so dismiss my revelation for it was in perfect emulation of God the Father.’ Still the revelation of the Father in the OT is to be an inseperable integral part of Christ’s revelation and be clarified, where needed in what Jesus said, did, revealed.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Certainly if we think we have found something about God which was not revealed in Jesus Christ, we're seeing something which isn't there.


This is an example of making Christ the only revelation about God, where e.g., most pertinent to this discussion, ‘since he did not directly/actively do any destructive judgement then, that must also be what happen in the OT with God.’ My expressed understanding above to this view is that those OT judgements said to be done by God, did not need any clarifying and also their was no justly actionable or present circumstance for which Christ to similarly do this. However passages imbued by Christ such as Isa 63:1-6 show that He did not consider this role a foreign to Him or the Father. So it is there in both the OT and NT. Case in point who struck dead Ananias and Sapphira. Did they both e.g., always have an extremely bad heart condition and God removed a protection that was keeping them from having a heart attack, or was it an externally-borne, direct and non-natural health wise (as ‘externally non-natural’ as a death by gunshot), ‘swift and terrible, meted out, wrathful punishment of God’ (= AA 72.2-76.1) and thus also not even one carried out by Satan?

Quote:
NJK: It is quite telling to me that you rarely address my cited texts of support as this (Matt 13:10-17 = Isa 6:9-13; also Matt 23). Instead making claims to your paradigm.

Tom: I don't recall you're having made a point in regards to these texts for me to respond to.


(See in this April 5 post (#132364)). Also in this mistakenly not posted reply (#132433).

Originally Posted By: Tom
What's your point, in regards to these texts?

M main point, as also later stated here is that Jesus deliberately acted to effectuate physical destruction on the Jewish nation. This drawing up of the plans and setting up the explosive charges is just as contributive to effectuating the destruction pressing the detonation button. It even amounts to trick the Jews here to obliviously go ahead and press that button themselves, allowing them to continue to think that it was for their good. Again all this I see as equally being Just and Righteous and Loving, Loving to the Gentiles living in oblivious darkness of God (= e.g., Matt 21:40, 41, 43).


“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: kland] #132435
04/06/11 11:01 PM
04/06/11 11:01 PM
Mountain Man  Offline OP
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019

20000+ Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
Originally Posted By: kland
K: NJK, is killing part of God's character?

N: Because God is Just in his character, judicious killing harmonizes with how He sees best to deal with the sin problem. The Theodicy Truth here is not determined by what I need my God to be, but what He has revealed and done in the Bible. God never acts out of Character as that would itself be sin, since He/His Character is already and unimprovingly perfect.

K: Would you say the only difference between God's character and satan's character (regarding killing), is that God's killing is considered "judicious" while satan's killing is not?

M: When Jesus withdraws His protection and gives Satan permission to kill sinners, because "they are worthy" (Rev 16:6), are we to assume Satan is acting injudiciously? Is he not, after all, acting in harmony with Jesus' will? If Satan were to refuse to mete out justice on Jesus' behalf who, pray tell, would punish the wicked? What good is law if no one is willing to enforce it? "God has a right to enforce the penalty of the law upon transgressors, for law without a penalty would be without force." {ST, July 14, 1890 par. 2}

"By His word God has bound Himself to execute the penalty of the law on all transgressors. Again and again men commit sin, and yet they do not seem to believe that they must suffer the penalty for breaking the law." {6BC 1095.4} "God has given in His word decisive evidence that He will punish the transgressors of His law." {GC 539.3} "The penalty for the least transgression of that law is death, and but for Christ, the sinner's Advocate, it would be summarily visited on every offender." {TDG 246.1}

Do you agree Jesus is required, by law, to execute justice and judgment, to punish the wicked according to their words and works? If so, do you believe it falls to Satan to punish them? If so, what if Satan refused to do it, who would administer the "ministry of wrath" on Jesus' behalf?

Quote:
With unerring accuracy, the Infinite One keeps a record of the impiety of nations and individuals. Long is his mercy tendered to them, with calls to repentance; but when their guilt reaches a certain limit, which he has fixed, then mercy ceases her pleadings, and the ministration of wrath begins. {LP 318.1}

This penalty Christ bore for the sins of the transgressor. He has borne the punishment for every man, and for this reason He can ransom every soul, however fallen his condition, if he will accept the law of God as his standard of righteousness. The cry of despair from the soul calls forth the tenderest love of God, and this is salvation to every one that believes. He who sees the guilt of his transgression, and understands the infinite sacrifice made in his behalf, will not continue in sin. But if men continue to resist light and evidence, they will cut themselves off from God's mercy, and then will come the ministry of wrath. God can not save the sinner in his sin. The love of God is immeasurable to those who repent, but His justice is firm and uncompromising to those who abuse his long-suffering love. {ST, November 15, 1899 par. 6}

M: Jesus earned the right on the cross to pardon and save penitent sinners. "For this reason He can ransom every soul." He saves them from the penalty of transgression, that is, intense emotional and physical suffering eventually ending in eternal death.

K: Are you saying that both Jesus and Satan kill judiciously? You wrote, "who, pray tell, would punish the wicked?" Could that comment be a revealing of a problem with your view?

M: You omitted most of my post. Why?

K: It doesn't fit in the quote boxes. I thought you would remember what you said. Tom repeated it and so did NJK. Are you familiar with how commentaries work? Quoting the rest of it doesn't change anything, does it?

Law and justice require impenitent sinners to “suffer punishment varying in duration and intensity, ‘according to their works,’ but finally ending in the second death.” {GC 544.2} “Some were many days consuming, and just as long as there was a portion of them unconsumed, all the sense of suffering remained. Said the angel, ‘The worm of life shall not die; their fire shall not be quenched as long as there is the least particle for it to prey upon." {EW 294.1} I do not believe the work of punishing impenitent sinners will fall to Satan. Nor do I believe impenitent sinners will somehow punish themselves. Ellen wrote:

Quote:
Justice demanded the sufferings of man; but Christ rendered the sufferings of a God. {7BC 913.2}

In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man's sin. {RH, March 3, 1874 par. 1}

Justice demanded not merely that sin be pardoned; the death penalty must be met. The Saviour has met this demand. His broken body, his gushing blood, satisfied the claims of the law. {YI, April 16, 1903 par. 6}

The divine government had been dishonored, and justice demanded that the penalty of transgression be paid. To save the race from eternal death, the Son of God volunteered to bear the punishment of disobedience. {1SM 308}

God, being the creditor, had a right to make any provision for the redemption of human beings. Justice demanded that a certain price be paid. The Son of God was the only One who could pay this price. {7ABC 468.7}

The penalty of transgression is always death. Christ averted the immediate execution of the death sentence by giving His life for man. . . . Justice requires that men shall have light, and it also requires that he who refuses to walk in the Heaven-given light, the giving of which cost the death of the Son of God, must receive punishment. It is a principle of justice that the guilt of the sinner shall be proportionate to the knowledge given, but not used, or used in a wrong way. {HP 153.3}

Justice and Mercy stood apart, in opposition to each other, separated by a wide gulf. The Lord our Redeemer clothed His divinity with humanity, and wrought out in behalf of man a character that was without spot or blemish. He planted His cross midway between heaven and earth, and made it the object of attraction which reached both ways, drawing both Justice and Mercy across the gulf. Justice moved from its exalted throne, and with all the armies of heaven approached the cross. There it saw One equal with God bearing the penalty for all injustice and sin. With perfect satisfaction Justice bowed in reverence at the cross, saying, It is enough.--General Conference Bulletin, Fourth Quarter, 1899, vol. 3, p. 102. {7ABC 469.3}

Christ's death proved God's administration and government to be without a flaw. Satan's charge in regard to the conflicting attributes of justice and mercy was forever settled beyond question. Every voice in heaven and out of heaven will one day testify to the justice, mercy, and exalted attributes of God. It was in order that the heavenly universe might see the conditions of the covenant of redemption that Christ bore the penalty in behalf of the human race.--Manuscript 128, 1897. {7ABC 470.1}

His [Christ's] object was to reconcile the prerogatives of justice and mercy, and let each stand separate in its dignity, yet united. His mercy was not weakness, but a terrible power to punish sin because it is sin; yet a power to draw to it the love of humanity. Through Christ Justice is enabled to forgive without sacrificing one jot of its exalted holiness.--General Conference Bulletin, Fourth Quarter, 1899, vol. 3, p. 102. {7ABC 470.2}

Justice demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed. God, in the gift of His only begotten Son, met both these requirements. By dying in man's stead, Christ exhausted the penalty and provided a pardon.--Manuscript 50, 1900. {7ABC 470.3}

God bowed His head satisfied. Now justice and mercy could blend. Now He could be just, and yet the Justifier of all who should believe on Christ. He [God] looked upon the victim expiring on the cross, and said, "It is finished. The human race shall have another trial." The redemption price was paid, and Satan fell like lightning from heaven.--Youth's Instructor, June 21, 1900. {7ABC 470.4}

There are no saving properties in the law. It cannot pardon the transgressor. The penalty must be exacted. The Lord does not save sinners by abolishing His law, the foundation of His government in heaven and in earth. The punishment has been endured by the sinner's substitute. Not that God is cruel and merciless, and Christ so merciful that He died on Calvary's cross to abolish a law so arbitrary that it needed to be extinguished, crucified between two thieves. The throne of God must not bear one stain of crime, one taint of sin. In the councils of heaven, before the world was created, the Father and the Son covenanted together that if man proved disloyal to God, Christ, one with the Father, would take the place of the transgressor, and suffer the penalty of justice that must fall upon him (MS 145, 1897). {6BC 1070.4}

What did God command Moses to do with those who were guilty of adultery? They should be stoned to death. Does the punishment end there? No, they are to die the second death. The stoning system has been done away, but the penalty for transgressing God's law is not done away. If the transgressor does not heartily repent, he will be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord. {TSB 131.3}

In no kingdom or government is it left to the lawbreakers to say what punishment is to be executed against those who have broken the law. All we have, all the bounties of His grace which we possess, we owe to God. The aggravating character of sin against such a God cannot be estimated any more than the heavens can be measured with a span. God is a moral governor as well as a Father. He is the Lawgiver. He makes and executes His laws. Law that has no penalty is of no force. {LDE 241.1}

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

But those who have not, through repentance and faith, secured pardon, must receive the penalty of transgression--"the wages of sin." They suffer punishment varying in duration and intensity, "according to their works," but finally ending in the second death. {GC 544.2}

The law given to man in Eden is recorded, together with the penalty incurred because of its transgression. The record of our first parents is given as a warning to the children of men, that they may understand how strictly God requires his creatures to conform to all his requirements, and how surely his retributive justice follows disobedience. When the law of Sinai was proclaimed, how definite was the penalty annexed! how sure the punishment that followed its transgression! and how plain are the cases recorded in evidence of that fact! {RH, January 22, 1880 par. 6}

Since Satan is the originator of sin, the direct instigator of all the sins that caused the death of the Son of God, justice demands that Satan shall suffer the final punishment. Christ's work for the redemption of men and the purification of the universe from sin will be closed by the removal of sin from the heavenly sanctuary and the placing of these sins upon Satan, who will bear the final penalty. {PP 358.2}

“It is because He has borne the punishment that man can have a second probation.” {RH, May 28, 1901 par. 10} “Through this plan the great, the dreadful God can be just, and yet be the justifier of all who believe in Jesus, and who receive Him as their personal Saviour.” {5BC 1133.4} "My Father hath so loved you, that he even loves me more for giving my life to redeem you. In becoming your substitute and surety, by surrendering my life, by taking your liabilities, your transgressions, I am endeared to my Father; for by my sacrifice, his will is fulfilled, his law vindicated, and God can be just, and yet justify him who believes in Jesus." {ST, November 28, 1892 par. 1}

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: NJK Project] #132437
04/06/11 11:40 PM
04/06/11 11:40 PM
Mountain Man  Offline OP
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019

20000+ Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
NJK, do you agree with Tom's view of the following passages:

Quote:
When He leaves the sanctuary, darkness covers the inhabitants of the earth. In that fearful time the righteous must live in the sight of a holy God without an intercessor. The restraint which has been upon the wicked is removed, and Satan has entire control of the finally impenitent. God's long-suffering has ended. The world has rejected His mercy, despised His love, and trampled upon His law. The wicked have passed the boundary of their probation; the Spirit of God, persistently resisted, has been at last withdrawn. Unsheltered by divine grace, they have no protection from the wicked one. Satan will then plunge the inhabitants of the earth into one great, final trouble. As the angels of God cease to hold in check the fierce winds of human passion, all the elements of strife will be let loose. The whole world will be involved in ruin more terrible than that which came upon Jerusalem of old. {GC 614.1}

A single angel destroyed all the first-born of the Egyptians and filled the land with mourning. When David offended against God by numbering the people, one angel caused that terrible destruction by which his sin was punished. The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits. There are forces now ready, and only waiting the divine permission, to spread desolation everywhere. {GC 614.2}

In particular, Tom believes the highlighted sentence above must be interpreted to mean holy angels exercise the same destructive power exercised by evil angels by withdrawing their protection and permitting evil angels to cause death and destruction. Do you agree with him?

He also believe the holy angels portrayed as causing the death and destruction described in Rev 16 must be interpreted to mean they have withdrawn their protection and are permitting evil angels to cause the death and destruction described in Rev 16. Do you agree with him?


Indeed this is what Tom believes, but I don’t see this as being the case. I see that the Bible and SOP are not shy in explicitly stating who directly does a destruction whether God and good angels or Satan and evil angels (permitted by God).

E.g., How can Satan fear for His life in the flood destruction (PP 99.2) if that was being effectuated by angels under His command??!

Originally Posted By: SOP PP 99.2
Satan himself, who was compelled to remain in the midst of the warring elements, feared for his own existence.


And also who was (‘powerfully’) compelling Satan to remain withing those warring elements if it was not God??? Indeed as this was being done by manifestly remote force, this compelling force probably came directly from God, sparring the good angels being in the midst of these warring elements. In the same way, God will forcefully “chain” (i.e., a supernatural or psychological chain) Satan down to this desolate earth during the Millennium.

Regarding the Flood, Tom believes God works to prevent the forces of nature from destroying the entire world. In the case of the Flood, God merely ceased preventing the forces of nature needful to cause the degree of death and damage He deemed necessary while continuing to work to prevent the remaining forces of nature from causing complete annihilation.

Tom agrees that the forces of nature are not "self-acting" and that they are totally dependent upon God to exist and act as they do. However, he rejects the idea that God "employed" the forces of nature as instruments to cause death and destruction.

But Ellen wrote, "The bowels of the earth were the Lord's arsenal, from which he drew forth the weapons he employed in the destruction of the old world. Waters in the bowels of the earth gushed forth, and united with the waters from heaven, to accomplish the work of destruction. Since the flood, God has used both water and fire in the earth as his agents to destroy wicked cities. {1SP 84.3}

She also wrote, "Many teach that matter possesses vital power. They hold that certain properties are imparted to matter, and it is then left to act through its own inherent power; and that the operations of nature are carried on in harmony with fixed laws, that God himself cannot interfere with. This is false science, and is sustained by nothing in the word of God. Nature is not self-acting; she is the servant of her Creator. God does not annul his laws nor work contrary to them; but he is continually using them as his instruments. Nature testifies of an intelligence, a presence, an active agency, that works in, and through, and above her laws. There is in nature the continual working of the Father and the Son. Said Christ, "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." {HL 290.1}

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: kland] #132438
04/07/11 12:06 AM
04/07/11 12:06 AM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
Originally Posted By: kland
Sounds like you said, "No".

That one can only know whether an act is of satan or God is if he knew the full background.

Doesn't that seem.... unsatisfactory to you?


My answer and point actually is, using all of the actually applicable elements to this question, that if one is questioning whether an act was done by God or by Satan, then that can only imply a knowledge of God and of the GC. Case in point: an atheist/evolutionist would look at that destruction and say: it was a freak act of nature, a “rainstorm of the tens of millennias” just like they believe in an ice age or meteorites striking the earth to kill dinosaurs, (which, if they existed, perhaps direct concoctions of Satan (or even “amalgamations of animals” (i.e., ‘with other animals species’)) to explain such observed destruction which the Bible believer, believes came from the flood. So these Bible Believers would also know that God said that He was going to send this destruction and did indeed do it as recorded in the Bible.

As shown with the atheist/evolutionist, apart from a Biblical knowledge, which thus provides the answer itself, the question of whether it was God or Satan who did it is a non- or invalid, issue.
This would be like a Taoist today expecting me to know if e.g., the recent earthquake, Tsunami and Nuclear Meltdown in japan was caused by the Yin or the Yang! So for the Bible Believer the Biblical answer can only be “God did it’ and for the Remnant Church, SOP believer today, the fact that ‘Satan feared for his life during that destruction’ is further proof that God was actively/directly doing this destruction.

I think that all supernatural war victories, destructions, plagues, etc found in the Bible are explicitly attached to the responsible effectuating party (i.e, God or Satan) and the SOP also confirms the Biblical testimony.

Originally Posted By: kland
For example, if you should come upon a crime scene, where someone has been stabbed multiple times with their head severed, but you did not know the background of what happened, it sounds like you just said you wouldn't know whether it was done by a good or bad person.


To properly and fully compare with the Flood example, I would already know here that a policeman had been given the authority by the city mayor to fight crime undercover by any force necessary, including here “kill-on-sight”. So when he came across this known “cop-killer” he tried to arrest him, but when that serial killer, got hold of the cops gun, the officer pulled out his knife and first stabbed him multiple times as he could manage to, to try to neutralize him. The decapitation was actually an necessary act as the killer just would not go down with the other stabbings and was still pulling the gun trigger and firing shot (that were barely missing the officer). So the police officer, to deal with this still immediate and deadly menace, with that only deadly weapon he had, proceed to severe the killers head to effectuate a sure instant death.

Originally Posted By: kland
Personally, I would find that unsatisfactory, to make an understatement.


Again, and seriously kland, divorcing these concepts from their actual realities is what wrongly causes an ‘understating’ of the issue here.

Quote:
k: ... but act as whether it was "judicious" or "injudicious".

NJK: I think I can, notwithstanding the not understood statement above, generally reply here that I see that the Millenium will be used for us to have a first hand knowledge that God has indeed been fair and just in all of, these, His final salvation decision both in those who He allowed in Heaven and those who He kept out.

kland: Which I think you clarified the statement. That we will use the Millennium to determine if God used violence "judiciously" or "injudiciously".


Indeed, just like a police officer who kills someone in the line of duty (=God’s Final Decisions) is automatically, at least in my local jurisdiction, put under default investigation and that by a completely distinct police agency (e.g., Provincial vs. Municipal and vice verse) = (pre-advent review of God’s final decisions = e.g., Rev 15:3, 4; 19:1, 2). And if further question are still unresolved and/or there is (still) a public outcry-/decry -ing, then a public inquiry/investigation commission is called. (=the Millennium review of God’s Decisions by the redeemed). Of course, indeed, the Millennium will not entirely be for that area of questioning but also for saving and non-saving decisions of God.

Quote:
k: Am I understanding correctly that you view God as using a violent act, drowning people, to stop their violent acts, and that violence is not wrong, but we will spend a thousand years determining if that, and other violent acts, were "judicious" use of violence?

NJK: To avoid any misunderstanding here, I understand “violent” here as using force, even supernatural (= “high/higher science”) force to effectuate something that otherwise would not naturally transpire (e.g, the Flood, the raining of fire and Brimstone on Sodom and Egypt, the Red Sea opening, and the closing upon the delayed and hindered, the released to pursue, Egyptians. (Exod 14:19-21).

kland: Sounds like we agree with what "violent" is.


Back in this reply post to Tom, I had suggested/moved to abandon the use of violence with what God does, for the above mentioned “use of force”. That was not a fancifully frivolous request, but a substantively necessary one. In the light of your next question I formally make the same request for you in this discussion to indeed avoid confusions....

Originally Posted By: kland
So, would you say God used violence to stop violence?


...case in point, what is your question here, e.g., ‘does God use (physical? or supernatural?) force to stop the use of (physical? or supernatural?) force.’

How is the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the other surrounding cities for e.g., their sins of socio-economic indifference and oppression (Ezek 16:49); self-exaltation (i.e., God-ward - cf. Isa 14:4, 13, 14) and sexual perversion (e.g, vs. 50) a “use of (physical? or supernatural?) force” on their part??!

Quote:
Is the way you define what "judicious" is, the proper use in determining character? If so, then you have what MM came up with, that both satan and God are "judicious" in their use of violence.


I do not see how “judicious” is the same with God and Satan. I said that God allows and apparently only with the last plague in the end, will not then limit the destruction that Satan can do. As the SOP states, all prior judgement, and that even if/when Satan was allowed to carry them out, God mixed in mercy and limited the extent Satan could go to, indeed as stated in this post (keyword: “Josephus”), that was also the case in the 70 A.D. Jerusalem destruction judgement. So Satan is actually only made to be “judicious” by God’s limitations, except for the Final Plague, however I copiously read in the Bible and SOP that Satan would want nothing more than utterly and injudiciously destroyed all peoples, especially after the Cross as they potentially, until the Close of Probation in the end, have a relatively ‘simple’ chance to be saved (e.g, vs. OT peoples).

As these OT, even non-Judeo Christian NT, peoples had a chance to be saved if they lived right according to clear inherent laws of good (cf. Rom 1:20ff), Satan of course was there trying to get them to live as unnaturally perversely as possible.

Originally Posted By: kland
And if satan and God are both "judicious" in their use of power, why during the Millennium would we be able to determine which was .....(I don't know what adjective would go here).


As I said, I am not seeing them both as “judicious”, however the Millenium book’s review will be to concretely clarifying that the judgements of God, even when he would have allowed Satan to have his way, (with limits prior to last plague), were truly/fully deserved and fair (= “judicious”).


“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Page 61 of 105 1 2 59 60 61 62 63 104 105

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