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 & Chat Rooms
(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
Donations accepted: Here
ShoutChat Box
Newest Members
Knowreason, Jeff Wickham, michaeljav, Nrothe, Theophilus
1300 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums118
Topics8,847
Posts190,199
Members1,300
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 60
kland 44
Daryl 23
APL 20
April
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
Member Spotlight
Green Cochoa
Green Cochoa
The Orient
Posts: 6,812
Joined: April 2008
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
11 registered members (Daryl, dedication, Wendell Slattery, D R, ProdigalOne, Karen Y, 5 invisible), 682 guests, and 10 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 94 of 105 1 2 92 93 94 95 96 104 105
Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: Tom] #133533
05/18/11 09:00 AM
05/18/11 09:00 AM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
Quote:
NJK: As I explained before, I think both the 7000 years and the way in which this GC was allowed to develop where God did not defaultly abandon those who sinned against Him to their own way, but allowed them to get a saving knowledge of the Gospel, resulting in the end that all will claim the name of Christ and really only be violating the letter of a single commandment, that, what I term, a “critical mass” stage of sin will not occur at the end of these 7000 years. Perhaps if God removed all of the righteous then and left these rebellious “Christians” on earth to live ca. 3000 more years, where now they knew that they actually were not Christians/approved by God and also that they had no chance of salvation, that these will then live out a life that comes to be ‘so out of harmony with God’, i.e., deliberately violating the spirit and letter of all of the Ten Commandments, that they indeed would self-combust in the mere presence of God. As also explained before, I still see that this would become the case only if God allows this to be and this is naturally done by Him not finding any actionable element in a person upon which He can have mercy. Indeed even in the situation with Satan coming into the presence of God and “surviving”/living it was evidently because the GC issues were not yet transparently self-demonstrated, as it will even more fully be at the end of the allotted ca. 7000 years.

Tom: I couldn't follow this last paragraph.

NJK: I think it was sufficiently clear, all things considered. Take it one sentence/thought at a time. And as I said, ‘I had explained this before’. So see back e.g., in here Post #132171 (Section for DA 764.3) for more.

Tom: I don't see the same things being discussed. The other post you talked about not seeing sin as being self-destructive (you used the term "self-combustible destruction")


That prior Post, (#132171), is saying in more detail what I had restated above. I used the term “self-combustible” not to refer to the sinful stage that a sinner needs to reach where he would come to burn just by being exposed to the glory of God. As I also see, that is because God cannot at all find any honestly redeemable quality in that person’s life and so His glory has this tangible self-combusting effect on the life of that ‘so-out-of-harmony’ sinner. And that takes quite a far out sinfulness. Even with people today who use their selfishly obtained wealth to do some charitable acts, it can be seen that they still have some redeemable, even God-like, qualities. It is such people that I do not see as being capable of “self-combusting” in God’s presence.

Originally Posted By: Tom
You say to take it one sentence at a time, but here's an example of a sentence:

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
As I explained before, I think both the 7000 years and the way in which this GC was allowed to develop where God did not defaultly abandon those who sinned against Him to their own way, but allowed them to get a saving knowledge of the Gospel, resulting in the end that all will claim the name of Christ and really only be violating the letter of a single commandment, that, what I term, a “critical mass” stage of sin will not occur at the end of these 7000 years.


Tom: This is the first sentence. This should be several sentences.

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Perhaps if God removed all of the righteous then and left these rebellious “Christians” on earth to live ca. 3000 more years, where now they knew that they actually were not Christians/approved by God and also that they had no chance of salvation, that these will then live out a life that comes to be ‘so out of harmony with God’, i.e., deliberately violating the spirit and letter of all of the Ten Commandments, that they indeed would self-combust in the mere presence of God.


Tom: This is the second sentence. I don't know what you're trying to say here. This should be several sentences.


I deliberately had said: “Take it one sentence/thought at a time”. So if/since you need to, do this “thought” breaking up of that sentence yourself. To me that statement is understandable and thus your actually peripheral ‘too long a sentence’ objection frivolous.

Originally Posted By: Tom
What's the single commandment you have in mind?


Really you don’t know this common SDA understanding??

Originally Posted By: Tom
What's the idea of critical mass you're trying to get at?


Analogically borrowed the Nuclear Fission world where it refers to the smallest amount of fissile material needed for a sustained nuclear chain reaction....

Originally Posted By: Tom
What's the self-combust idea?


....In a similar way, one needs to reach a level of sinning which no longer has any redeemable qualities to reach this, what I see as tangibly literal, self-combusting, “critical mass” stage.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Why would 3000 years be necessary?


That was explained in Post #132171.

Quote:
T:Regarding the above, a couple of questions come to mind. One if if you believe that God executed His Son through capital punishment.

NJK:Since Jesus did not self-combust on the Cross but died of a broken heart because God caused Him to become this “sick” (Isa 53:10) through “extreme mental anguish” (see here for more), then I believe He was “non-naturally” put to death (=Capital Punishment), let alone through the Roman’s “Capital Punishment” method of crucifixion.

Tom: I don't know where the "self-combust" idea comes from. I've never used this term, nor has anything I've quoted used the term.


This concrete origins of that term, of also my own illustrative preference, was explained above.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I agree that Christ died of a broken heart, and this was because He took our sin upon Him. The same thing will happen to the wicked, who bear their own sin. I don't see why you would believe this would be non-naturally being put to death, or capital punishment.


Given that this actually medical condition of a broken/ruptured heart, seeking to adequately respond to extreme emotional stresses, was forced upon Christ, then I do not see it as natural for him. Given that the wicked will be made to also be confronted with the guilt of their sin, I also do not see it as a natural act. So just like capital punishment death is not a naturally occurring one, but one that is force, even if it is a consequence of wrong actions, then I see the action/processed as a whole as not being natural, but judicially forced.

Originally Posted By: Tom
DA 764 describes the process:

Originally Posted By: SOP
This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 8:36. God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them.

At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this. Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin. A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe.


Tom: If it were non-natural, then the first sentence of the first paragraph would be false, and so would the rest that follows, as these are explaining that topic sentence.

Tom: The whole point is that it's not a "non-natural" process, but something that the wicked bring upon themselves by their sin. We need to be healed from sin, so that we won't die. This is what the Gospel is about; this is why we need Christ.


As proper (SOP) exegesis shows, this DA 764 exposition is referring to the possible, natural physical First Death as a consequence of full blown sin. The guilt-inculcating involved in the Second Hell Death is a distinct process and event. Indeed the wicked have to be raised again from their first death to experience that distinct Second, suffering-based Death....

Quote:
T:The other question is why you see the consuming fire statements to be figurative.

NJK:I see EGW’s statement as figurative because (1) I don’t see the destruction of the wicked as depicted as such in the Bible or in the SOP in regards to the Hell Fire Judgement.

Tom: If we accept the cross as an example of what happens at the second death, then what she wrote would seem to follow. That is, what you are considering as figurative seems to be an accurate description of what one would expect to happen, given what happened to Christ at the cross.


....Furthermore, in the Hell Judgements, sinners will not die ‘when their mental guilt causes their pumping heart to physically fail and rupture,’ but only when they have suffered their judiciously meted out sentence. And God will fully and wholly sustain their life until this is done.

Also, as already stated, the Bible and SOP is clear that the wicked are thrown into a Lake of Fire (Rev 20:15) apparently created by Fire that comes down from God out of Heaven upon the wicked surrounding the descended New Jerusalem.

Quote:
NJK: Indeed, as I said before (see here Post #132118 and here Post #132254), I also see EGW’s understand of what she though 2 Thess 2:8 as being out of a wrong translation.

Tom: That's extremely unlikely. Her understanding was based primarily on visions she had. She wrote:

Originally Posted By: SOP
At the second advent of Christ the wicked shall be consumed "with the Spirit of His mouth," and destroyed "with the brightness of His coming." 2 Thess. 2:8. The light of the glory of God, which imparts life to the righteous, will slay the wicked.

In the time of John the Baptist, Christ was about to appear as the revealer of the character of God. His very presence would make manifest to men their sin. Only as they were willing to be purged from sin could they enter into fellowship with Him. Only the pure in heart could abide in His presence. (DA 108)


Tom: This makes clear the issue involved is a spiritual one, and not something due to an arbitrary act of power on the part of God, to use her DA 764 phrase.


1) Biblical exegesis proves EGW’s view to be inaccurate here and that is authoritatively determinative to me. Indeed as I also now Theologically see what is Biblically more fully involved in that DA 764 ‘possible self-combusting destruction’. It was not present truth for EGW understand and teach that more than 7000 years could be involved in the GC, yet she knew that God was not limited by time.

2) I actually find it indicative of this statement not being from a vision with EGW’s deferring to the verbatim quoting of Scripture here. Indeed it is somewhat odd if she was relating what she had seen.

3) EGW historical corrective amendments for Christ’s statement in John 20:17 shows that she was indeed dependent on what her Bible version said when not having a personal revelation of the event. Indeed for years she had no problem saying “Touch me Not...” for John 20:17.

Originally Posted By: Tom
The glory of God is His character. The "light" of this glory refers to revelation. The "light of the glory of God" is the revelation of His character. Note how this fits in perfectly with the next sentence:

Quote:
Christ was about to appear as the revealer of the character of God.


Tom: Christ was about to appear as the revealer of the character of God (aka "light of the glory of God.). "His very presence would make manifest to men their sin." This is what destroys the wicked in the end. They have no place to hide from the revelation of Christ.


I do not find your quasi-acrostic here to be exegetically founded, and as shown in Post #131957, dealing with the usually cited Exod 33:17-23, God’s glory is not His character traits but His distinct tangible physical “emanence.” That is indeed what was enclosed in the Most Holy Place. And Moses and God seem to understand that Moses request to see His Face was to see that physical glory which God said He could not do. He instead showed Moses other, actually more pertinent, aspects of God such as His Goodness leading to His Compassion and only showed Him the backside of His Glory/Face.

Quote:
NJK: The wicked are destroyed in their first (pre-millennium) and Second Death (Hell) by active actions of God.

Tom: The active action of God is the revelation of Christ. In the description of the Great Controversy of the final judgment, she describes this revelation. DA 764 refers to this saying the "glory of Him who is love will destroy them," the "who is love" making clear this is a reference to His character (as does the previous sentence).


For the various reasons stated above, including the fact that it is the “First Death” that is being expounded upon in DA 764, I do not see this reasoning as being Biblically/Exegetically founded.

Originally Posted By: Tom
The issue is all along a spiritual one, having to do with character. Sin wrecks our character, which makes it impossible for us to live in God's presence. God veils His presence during this life, temporarily, as a probation, so that we can develop a character, but He cannot veil His presence forever. When He stops veiling Himself, then those who have chosen Christ will be overjoyed, while those who have chosen Satan/sin will be destroyed by the glory (character) of Him who is love.


I do not see/know of any Biblical support for this view. God clearly still veils His Glory in the perfect realm of Heaven where only Jesus and (other) Mighty Angels are capable of entering within that “unapproachable light”. (See in this post (search “Raphael”)). Jesus apparently more than these other Mighty Angels. Seraphims also have to be specially outfitted to physically represent angels within God glory. God just cannot ever fully physically reveal Himself to His Creation.


“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] #133534
05/18/11 09:19 AM
05/18/11 09:19 AM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
Quote:
T:DA 764 isn't dealing with capital punishment, but with the destruction of the wicked.

NJK:As I said above, I see the final destruction as the ultimate/anti-typical “Capital Punishment” for sin, and then all and any sins, since the conclusive, though not necessarily exhaustive, self-evidence will be in/available then.

Tom: I see the cross as more of an indication as to the character of the final destruction.

NJK:I can see how your view would need this to be the sequence, but it is logically clear that Jesus endured the pain and suffering that the redeemed and the lost would have to endure in Hell at the end. So the Cross was logically a substitutionary (for the Saved) and representational (for the wicked) of that future due judgement.

NJK: Also there was no Hell Fire at the Cross. So while a mental suffering may have been undergone by Christ, a physical suffering of the Fire of Hell apparently was not effectuated.

Tom: I agree with the first paragraph, but not the second. There would be no second death without hell fire, and Christ experienced the second death on the cross. Christ exclaimed, "My heart melts like wax." God is a consuming fire to sin, which Christ experienced when He who knew no sin became sin for us.


Where in the world are you reading: “Christ exclaimed, "My heart melts like wax."”???

Christ did not burn in any fire on the Cross. That is just the hard fact. The Bible and EGW is clear that his suffering from God’s hand was mental, in terms of guilt. His physical suffering, which EGW says He actually forgot for a while during the time when God imposed His mental suffering, was all coming from what the Romans were doing to Him.

The consuming fire of God is a tangible reality and can only be literally physically manifested when it is effectuated. Also God did not need Jesus to die prematurely, so sin was not permitted to “self-combust” here. In fact it may have been Christ perfect life and character that made it possible to fully offset that full blown imposition of sin on Him and thus prevent this “self-combustion”.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Also, you write, "So the Cross was logically a substitutionary (for the Saved) and representational (for the wicked) of that future due judgement." It seems to me I agree with this more than you do, as I agree that the cross was representational for the wicked (also substitutionary, by the way), but I don't see how you could think so, except in some superficial way.


My view here is that what Christ experienced does not have to be ultra-literalistic to be valid. Indeed I don’t Theologically see how every actually committed sin of the future, from an unknown number of people to yet be born, could be justly accounted for in 31 A.D. Also with your addition, you actually have a different view than what I have and also didn’t see as Theologically applicable. Christ’s death is not substitutionary to the lost/wicked as they never allowed it to be so applied for them. They therefore only will face the type of judgement that Christ had already suffered for them.

Quote:
NJK: Indeed since God knew that sinner can live a very long time, even eternally as sinners if their physical body/health was “therapeutically maintained” by the Tree of Life, these 7000 years, as seen in the symbology of 7 (vs. 10) is only a perfect representation/sampling of a much larger possible whole.

Tom: This looks to be a big difference we have. You appear to view sin is primarily, or only, a physical problem, where I see it as a spiritual problem. If sin were only a physical problem, then the tree of life could conceivably fix that, so I can see, given this presupposition, why you would think that a sinner could live eternally. Indeed, above, you only mention body/health as what needs to be “therapeutically maintained."

NJK:...And this is where, as I expressed before, I see that Jesus took care of the mental aspects of sins which then allows for God to excise it from the redeemed sinners psyche/mentality/mind.

Tom: Please explain what you have in mind here. What is God excising? How does this work? Why was what Christ did necessary in order for this to work?


I already did back in Posts #131545; #131667; #131670.

Quote:
NJK:Something that the Tree of Life would not do. However the Tree of Life does serve to “upkeep” the new bodies that the redeemed will be given as a total replacement of the prior on (unlike one’s mind/character) by God.

Tom: The body part is trivial compared to the mind/soul/character. This should be clear.


Only in your view. God saw that sinful man can have a perfectly healthy body despite having a sinful minded psyche.

Quote:
NJK: I base my Theology of ‘Every Word that proceeds out of the mouth of God’ and not, as you opt to do, only on what fancies your view.

Tom: You are not doing anything differently than me, or anyone else here, is doing. There's nothing special about you that would make you different. ... Why would you think you're somehow special here?


When you begin to be exegetically responsible you will begin to understand from where I am making this substantiated statement.

Originally Posted By: Tom
You are, of course, basing your interpretations on "what fancies your view," as you put it, just like everybody else does.


Uhhhhh. No. I am basing my interpretations upon Biblical exegesis which involves EGW’s comments being subject to the accurate Biblical understanding.

Originally Posted By: Tom
A more charitable way of putting this is that you interpret things base on how you understand things; how you understand the world, God's character, English (or whatever language you're reading in), your understanding of other doctrines, etc. etc., all go together to form a paradigm. You understand things on the basis of your world view, your paradigm, just like everybody else. And, just like everybody else, you see to harmonize the things you read according to that paradigm.


I make this comment pointedly to you because you have actually lost any honesty and exegetical responsibility credit with me. I endeavor to test all things, i.e., Biblical translations, and also EGW statements, and hold on to what harmonizes with the proper Biblical light. You on the other hand believe you have license to outrightly ignore whatever, i.e., Bible and SOP opposes your personally/publicly “appealing” view.

Originally Posted By: Tom
As an example, your paradigm assigns a lesser view to EGW's writings that you disagree with if you think they are based on a poor translation, or some exegetical error, or whatever criteria you have for rejecting what she says. This is hardly an example of basing your theology on ‘Every Word that proceeds out of the mouth of God’!


(A) I do not consider everything EGW wrote to be the Word of God. Neither does she for that matter.

(B) My subordination of EGW’s writing to the Bible is both a Theologically required fact and a corroborating, recommended counsel of hers. If you won’t do this, then frankly good luck in regards to accepting and believe errors she herself corrected. Indeed you can start by recommending others, and yourself, to feast on an order of oysters!

It was because of EGW’s, and others in her day, linguistic and cultural differences and misunderstanding with the Bible and Jewish culture that they did not understand at first that the oyster was an unclean meat. As I repeatedly said most of her errors are along these “exegetical” lines.

Originally Posted By: Tom
We should view our ideas with skepticism, examining them with an open mind, willing to adjust our thinking on the basis of evidence.


I actually, explicitly do (minus the would be, in most cases, false humility of (default) “skepticism”) and have absolutely no problem doing so because my aim is arriving at the Biblical Truth. You factually don’t. Indeed you won’t allow facts to ‘adjust your initially expressed view’, especially opposing facts. You only, and slyly at that, allow facts that support the valid parts of your view to be included, and that “slyly” by acting as if f that is what you always believed, when this threads facts clearly expose that untruth.

Quote:
NJK: That is indeed the one-sided/selective method that Satan tried to use to deceive Christ (Matt 4:5-7). So, once again, since the Creator God said that a sinner could live eternally, with a sinful mentality, just by eating of the Tree of Life, then my Theological View/Understanding here can’t but include this God-expressed, and thus, incontrovertible fact.

Tom: This is the same sort of argument people use to "prove" that people will suffer in hell for all eternity, because it says the smoke of their torment will rise "forever." We are counseled that God is pleased for us to use common sense in our interpretations. If we have an idea that leads to an extreme view, or a view which contradicts other teachings of Scripture, we should view our idea with skepticism.


I don’t know why you are again bringing up this spurious argument here. I had already responded to this baseless objection back in Post #130933. It seems to me that this, effectively, selective amnesia of yours is a naturally occurring “fruit” of you manifestly outrightly ignoring/not engaging the parts of a post that oppose your view/objections and for which you have no answer to. That preferred “out-of-sight-out-of-mind” approach of yours is only keeping you, literally, in the dark, though “blissfully” of course.

Quote:
NJK: Anything less, even basing it on what one understands from EGW, is forming another Gospel (2 Cor 11:3-6).

Tom: No, this isn't at all Paul's idea. The Gospel isn't a sentence, but a narrative, a narrative about Christ. The Good News concerns Jesus Christ. Paul wasn't saying if you get some sentence wrong, or if you don't base your entire theology based on some quoted sentence, that was cause for being accursed, but if you preached some other Gospel than the true Gospel. And the reason for this is simple. There's only one way to be saved, which is through Jesus Christ. To teach someone that there is some other way is akin to tossing an anchor to someone who is drowning instead of a life jacked.


I was not actually saying/implying that the Gospel was stake here, per se, but the belief that a prophet can come to change what God Himself had said. EGW did not even have your view of the Gen 3:22-24 statement of God, but the (=mine) “eternally living sinner” one. You just can’t admit that fact and just ignore it.

Those eternally living sinners would not be “saved”, i.e., redeemed of their sinful state, but would be living as sinners eternally. It is only because God made them subject to death by removing their access to the Tree of Life that they became subject to death. Sorry if your selective Biblical view won’t allow for the inclusion of that fact.

Quote:
NJK: Indeed the same deception principle of selective/partial/incomplete “quoting of God” was used to deceive Eve (Gen 3:4, 5).

Tom: This isn't the issue here either. What Satan was doing was causing Eve to view God's character incorrectly, so she would doubt Him. Satan led her to think that God did not have her best interests at heart, to think that God was selfish. Satan vested God with His own attributes, which is how he obtains power, by misrepresenting God's character.


My here point actually was, to even do/achieve this misrepresentation Satan had to misrepresent God word. I’ll correctively concede that it was actually done by adding to the word of God which is just as equally detrimental and which you also do by effectively claiming that ‘the rest of the Bible outside of the Gospels contains an imperfect revelation of God and that Bible writers like Moses detrimentally had this incorrect understanding which was reflected in His writings. So these portions of the Bible can be ignored if they contradict your view.’ Ironically enough, even Jesus Himself is subject to this redactive/editorial approach of yours.

Originally Posted By: Tom
The issue is more serious than getting a sentence wrong.


Well that just the “straw man” premise that you need to spuriously posit. I (LOL) never had that in mind nor even implied this by what I said. And the Biblical fact remains that man will not live forever without partaking of the fruit of life, no matter how mentally perfect and sinless they are.

Quote:
NJK: So frankly and seriously Tom, your approach of deficient Biblical exegesis, has placed you on enchantingly deceptive grounds. (Cf. 1 Tim 2:14) Indeed building a doctrine on only selective passages on a topic (like done with the teachings of Eternal Hell Torment, Eternal Soul, the Secret Rapture, etc), is tantamount to weaving a “fanstasy.” Those are just the hard facts of the matter!

Tom: It's ironic that you would give these as examples, since you're using the same basic argument they are regarding "forever."


Already disproven, a long time ago.

Originally Posted By: Tom
The methodology I am using is what led me to become an SDA in the first place. I used to believe the examples you gave, Eternal Hell Torment, Eternal Soul, the Secret Rapture, but no longer do. Why not? Because I was interested in knowing the truth, and willing learn it. When I saw that the Adventist teachings brought out a view God's character more in harmony with what I perceived in Scripture and Jesus Christ, I embraced it.


Seems clear to me that your methodology is to find what you personally prefer vs. what is actually the Truth.

Originally Posted By: Tom
If you presented a better view of God's character than what I currently hold, I would embrace that as well, by the grace of God.


I factually have: Emphasizing a Real, Just, non-hypocritical, Genuine, Protective, Faithful, Fair, etc., God, all variously demonstrating His Love. Love without e.g, Justice for the victim is not Love at all, but is only a self-serving semblance.

You are not accepting it because of the actions that are necessary to establish/execute these Character traits. This GC is not bloodless. It is a War which God Himself has had to fight in from the very beginning in Heaven, though there, in regards to Himself (virtually), but not for His Angels. Of course, you and others who hold this view of yours, cannot accept e.g,. that Biblical/SOP Physical War in Heaven fact also.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Do you find the point of view you hold in regards to God's character to be appealing? Or merely accurate? Do you even care if it's appealing? If you do find it appealing, what do you find appealing about it (other than being accurate)?


Being ‘appealing is (a) not my main concern and (b) being accurate is not distinct from being appealing. The Truth is not “for sale” and it is what it is, and that is what I find appealing as it is the Truth. I however to find what surfacely appears to not be, according to human wisdom and knowledge, not “appealing” to actually gloriously be, when I ask the ‘why did God do that question”, as it was originally posed in this thread. I then see that what God did was indeed the very best way to deal with/resolve a situation in this GC.

Quote:
NJK: The operative action/development in this SOP quote is ‘bringing that so-out-of-harmony’ sinner into the immediate presence of God and Godly things. However, as I said, God could easily made it that sinners never be subjected to this.

Tom: Not without setting up an artificial environment, where God's glory did not exist.


It does not have to be “artificial” just a world, like our present one, where God would accept/allow for Him not to gloriously manifest Himself. In fact, as stated above, I do not see that God ever fully manifests Himself to His Creation, especially humans, including those in other worlds. It is Michael/The Angel of the Lord/Jesus Christ who makes these manifestations of God as with Adam before the Fall and then throughout the OT. So this “artificial environment” requirement by you is simply an unbiblical and circularly manufactured one.

Quote:
NJK: Indeed just like humans in this world live apart from God’s presence.

Tom: This is an artificial situation, a world full of sin. This isn't a viable world for eternity. Already creation groans under the weight of sin.

Tom: A World full of sin is not something artificial but something that could exist. God simply won’t allow it and, as seen by the forced Flood destruction, life-limiting death allows to keep this from fully being the case.


Creation groans because, on one hand, God removed the Tree of Life. He would then have to “sponsor” sin, if as I see it, He has to be actively involved in regulation some aspects of nature/Creation. I.e., orbits. As this is being done today, that shows that it can be done in a sinful world and also there is no automatic fact that says that human left to live eternally as sinners would ever come to be entirely sinful and not have any redeemable qualities in them. Indeed as many non-believers are today. Again God said that a sinner can live forever which implies that they would have a viable world in which to do this “eternal living”. So my understanding here is based on this word of God and not your private suppositions. (cf. Acts 5:29)

Quote:
NJK: So the fact that God has to make it that the sinner come into His presence to suffer this automatic destruction when it is actually feasible

Tom: Why would God have to do anything? DA 764 tells us that the wicked form characters so out of harmony with God that His mere presence is to them a consuming fire. The whole point of the paragraph is that God is NOT doing anything to make the sinner suffer.


You are mixing up notions here. The “approaching action” mentioned here is distinct from the resulting, ensuing (First Death) destruction action of DA 764. Indeed the reality is that God has to make the sinner come into that unapproachable light presence to suffer that fate. He can easily forever avoid this to be the case if he wants to.

Quote:
NJK: (i.e., in a critical mass type of way)

Tom: Meaning?


This was explained in its derived immediate context, and also in this post above.

Quote:
NJK: involves an active action of God either in going to where the sinner (on Earth = Second Coming) is or making the sinner come to where He is (in Heaven/Post Millennium Destruction in sight of the New Jerusalem).

Tom: This is a spiritual issue having to do with the revelation of truth. As long as God veils His glory (i.e., does not reveal the truth about Himself, about His character), then sinners can temporarily exist. But that's just a temporary thing, so they have a chance to make choices in regards to their character.


That is a convoluted Theological supposition to me. Indeed, according to your view here, God simply has never reveal His Truth to sinners, as He can do. Indeed the final White Throne judgement revelation will only occur because God wants it to. It does not have to. God could have easily let this planet in rebellion live a life of sin and as I more widely see it, the GC question is why not?? I.e., why not let sinful man live forever as they actually can as God Himself stated! I see that God has endeavored to answer that question by showing that since He created us, He has this right to decide what life he is going to sponsor since this is what he would have to do with sinners. So He endeavored to show that without His various “sponsoring” sin actually is not a viable option, and also, in itself, not the best way that man can live, or will want to live, when all of the demonstrative evidence is in.


Again, don’t forget to answer Post #133507


“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: NJK Project] #133547
05/18/11 06:17 PM
05/18/11 06:17 PM
Mountain Man  Offline OP
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019

20000+ Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
Tom, you say that in the past you have plainly stated who caused fire to blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned N&A alive. For the life of me I cannot recall what you said about it. For the record, would you please state it again here and now. I know you believe Jesus withdraws His protection and permits His enemies, within the limits He imposes on them, to punish and destroy impenitent sinners. But in the case of N&A I have absolutely no idea who you believe caused fire to blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned them alive.

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: Mountain Man] #133548
05/18/11 06:21 PM
05/18/11 06:21 PM
Mountain Man  Offline OP
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019

20000+ Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
Originally Posted By: Tom
M: I’m curious, Tom, do you even believe Jesus commanded Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to death? I cannot recall you ever answering this question. I get the impression you believe Moses misunderstood what Jesus told him. Please, Tom, don’t go off on a tangent here and ignore directly answering my question. I realize you haven’t said anything specifically about whether or not Moses misunderstood Jesus. So please, don’t use this comment as excuse to ignore answering my question. Please answer it. Thank you.

T: The best way I know to answer your question is with the story of the father of the hunter son. Did the father of the hunter son command his son to do the things he told him to do? What would neighbors who overheard their conversation have thought? Also, do you think Moses knew God and His will as well as Jesus Christ did? Was it Moses' job to perfectly reveal the character of the Father? Isn't it true that God's character was misunderstood until Christ completed His job of revealing it? If so, wouldn't it stand to reason that Moses' understanding of it was imperfect? Can there be any better way of understanding God's character than to examine the life and teachings of Christ? (No, there can't be).

M: Do you believe it when it says in the Bible that Jesus commanded Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to death? Or, do you suspect Moses misunderstood what Jesus said? For example, in the Bible it says: “And Moses spake to the children of Israel, that they should bring forth him that had cursed out of the camp, and stone him with stones. And the children of Israel did as the LORD commanded Moses.” “And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.” Also, do you think the father teaching his son how to hunt humanely is the same thing as Jesus commanding Moses to stone to death the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer? Is hunting animals and killing humans equal in the eyes of God? Did the father command his son to hunt humanely?

T: There's a pattern in our conversations where you pass over my questions, and simply ask me more questions. For example, I asked you seven questions, and you didn't answer any of them.

Here’s the answers to your questions:

1. Did the father of the hunter son command his son to do the things he told him to do? No.
2. What would neighbors who overheard their conversation have thought? They would have been impressed the father was willing to help his son hunt humanely even though the father was not in favor of it.
3. Also, do you think Moses knew God and His will as well as Jesus Christ did? No.
4. Was it Moses' job to perfectly reveal the character of the Father? No.
5. Isn't it true that God's character was misunderstood until Christ completed His job of revealing it? Yes.
6. If so, wouldn't it stand to reason that Moses' understanding of it was imperfect? Yes.
7. Can there be any better way of understanding God's character than to examine the life and teachings of Christ? If people were forced to choose only one of the many different ways God has revealed Himself to learn the truth about Him, then no, there is no one way better than studying the life and teachings of Jesus while He was here in the flesh.

Now, please answer my questions. Thank you.

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: Mountain Man] #133549
05/18/11 06:22 PM
05/18/11 06:22 PM
Mountain Man  Offline OP
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019

20000+ Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
Originally Posted By: Tom
M: Up to now, everything that has happened has been tempered with mercy. That is, not until the seven last plagues will Jesus pull out all the stops - "unmixed with mercy". All along Jesus has held back, that is, He has established and enforced limits, limits which neither holy angels nor evil angels have been allowed to exceed. Jesus (not sin, not sinners, not Satan) is the one who determines when, where, and how impenitent sinners will be punished. It is not up to Satan to determine. "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

T: It's a huge mistake to view God as responsible for these things.

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

Thus the way was prepared for the Jews to reject Jesus. He who "hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows" was looked upon by the Jews as "stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted;" and they hid their faces from Him. Isa. 53:4, 3.

God had given a lesson designed to prevent this. The history of Job had shown that suffering is inflicted by Satan, and is overruled by God for purposes of mercy. But Israel did not understand the lesson. The same error for which God had reproved the friends of Job was repeated by the Jews in their rejection of Christ. (DA 471)

M: I do not understand how your response addresses my comments.

T: You wrote as if God were responsible for the things you were speaking of. I addressed that by pointing out that it would be a huge mistake to view God as responsible, and cited texts to explain why.

1. Of course Jesus was responsible for ensuring evil angels did not exceed the limits He imposed on them. That is, Jesus did not let them cause more death and destruction than He was willing to permit. Do you agree?

2. Do you agree Jesus worked to prevent evil men and evil angels from inflicting more death and destruction than He was willing to permit? Or, do you think evil men and evil angels willingly restrained themselves in order not to displease God and exceed Jesus’ limits?

3. Also, did evil men and evil angels do anything Jesus' wasn't willing to permit?

4. Did Jesus force evil men and evil angels to inflict the death and destruction He deemed right and necessary?

5. Were evil men and evil angels free to refuse to inflict the death and destruction Jesus deemed right and necessary?

6. Who would have inflicted the death and destruction Jesus deemed right and necessary if the Roman soldiers and evil angels had refused to do it?

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: Mountain Man] #133557
05/18/11 07:48 PM
05/18/11 07:48 PM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
Quote:
T: The best way I know to answer your question is with the story of the father of the hunter son. Did the father of the hunter son command his son to do the things he told him to do? What would neighbors who overheard their conversation have thought? Also, do you think Moses knew God and His will as well as Jesus Christ did? Was it Moses' job to perfectly reveal the character of the Father? Isn't it true that God's character was misunderstood until Christ completed His job of revealing it? If so, wouldn't it stand to reason that Moses' understanding of it was imperfect? Can there be any better way of understanding God's character than to examine the life and teachings of Christ? (No, there can't be).

M: Do you believe it when it says in the Bible that Jesus commanded Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to death? Or, do you suspect Moses misunderstood what Jesus said? For example, in the Bible it says: “And Moses spake to the children of Israel, that they should bring forth him that had cursed out of the camp, and stone him with stones. And the children of Israel did as the LORD commanded Moses.” “And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.” Also, do you think the father teaching his son how to hunt humanely is the same thing as Jesus commanding Moses to stone to death the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer? Is hunting animals and killing humans equal in the eyes of God? Did the father command his son to hunt humanely?

T: There's a pattern in our conversations where you pass over my questions, and simply ask me more questions. For example, I asked you seven questions, and you didn't answer any of them.

Here’s the answers to your questions:

1. Did the father of the hunter son command his son to do the things he told him to do? No.
2. What would neighbors who overheard their conversation have thought? They would have been impressed the father was willing to help his son hunt humanely even though the father was not in favor of it.


Or they might have thought the son was doing the father's will by hunting.

Quote:
3. Also, do you think Moses knew God and His will as well as Jesus Christ did? No.
4. Was it Moses' job to perfectly reveal the character of the Father? No.
5. Isn't it true that God's character was misunderstood until Christ completed His job of revealing it? Yes.
6. If so, wouldn't it stand to reason that Moses' understanding of it was imperfect? Yes.
7. Can there be any better way of understanding God's character than to examine the life and teachings of Christ? If people were forced to choose only one of the many different ways God has revealed Himself to learn the truth about Him, then no, there is no one way better than studying the life and teachings of Jesus while He was here in the flesh.


If the best way is studying the life and teachings of Jesus Christ while here in the flesh, then how should other revelations be treated? I think this is an area of disagreement between the differing points of view here.

Those who hold the point of view I hold generally believe that the revelation of Jesus Christ supersedes all other revelation, so that any other revelation should be made to harmonize with that one. Those who disagree tend to put the different revelations side by side, and have the other revelations in addition to the revelation of Jesus Christ, so we Jesus Christ's revelation plus others. This would mean that Jesus Christ's revelation was not full and complete, which looks to be an area of disagreement we have had.[/quote]

Quote:
Now, please answer my questions. Thank you.


Quote:
M: Do you believe it when it says in the Bible that Jesus commanded Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to death? Or, do you suspect Moses misunderstood what Jesus said? For example, in the Bible it says: “And Moses spake to the children of Israel, that they should bring forth him that had cursed out of the camp, and stone him with stones. And the children of Israel did as the LORD commanded Moses.” “And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.” Also, do you think the father teaching his son how to hunt humanely is the same thing as Jesus commanding Moses to stone to death the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer? Is hunting animals and killing humans equal in the eyes of God? Did the father command his son to hunt humanely?


I think the issue is similar to other incidents where God's ideal is not that to which the counsel applies, such as polygamy and slavery. God had to deal with the people's mindset as it was. We see little glimpses of the people acting in harmony with God's will, and when this happened, there was no killing involved, but for the most part, it was a stubborn "stiff-necked" people God was dealing with, and we don't see His ideal will expressed.

If we take the point of view that God is pleased to have Sabbath-breakers killed, why wouldn't we kill them now? Is it just because we're not living in a theocracy?

The question of killing law-breakers is an important issue coming up in the last days before Christ's second coming. We know that Satan will use this very argument against those who keep God's commandments, that they should be killed.


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] #133559
05/18/11 07:56 PM
05/18/11 07:56 PM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
Originally Posted By: MM
T: You wrote as if God were responsible for the things you were speaking of. I addressed that by pointing out that it would be a huge mistake to view God as responsible, and cited texts to explain why.

M:1. Of course Jesus was responsible for ensuring evil angels did not exceed the limits He imposed on them. That is, Jesus did not let them cause more death and destruction than He was willing to permit. Do you agree?


What would a disagreement to this look like? That Jesus let them cause more death and destruction than He was willing to permit?

Quote:
2. Do you agree Jesus worked to prevent evil men and evil angels from inflicting more death and destruction than He was willing to permit?


I believe that Jesus worked to prevent evil men and evil angels from inflicting death and destruction in general.

Quote:
Or, do you think evil men and evil angels willingly restrained themselves in order not to displease God and exceed Jesus’ limits?


This can't be a serious question.

Quote:
3. Also, did evil men and evil angels do anything Jesus' wasn't willing to permit?


I don't see the sense in this one either. God is omnipotent, right? So anything that happens can only happen if He permits it to happen, isn't that right?

Quote:
4. Did Jesus force evil men and evil angels to inflict the death and destruction He deemed right and necessary?


I don't see any sense in this question either. No, of course not, to answer the question. First of all, the exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government. Secondly, Jesus would hardly force people to do something contrary to the principles of his government, like inflicting death and destruction; that's Satan's job. Satan is the destroyer, Christ is the restorer. So your question is asking if Jesus would use a principle contrary to the principles of His government to bring about more consequences also contrary to the principles of His government.

Quote:
5. Were evil men and evil angels free to refuse to inflict the death and destruction Jesus deemed right and necessary?


I don't agree with your premise here. Jesus doesn't deem death and destruction as right and necessary, but as evil, which it is.

Quote:
6. Who would have inflicted the death and destruction Jesus deemed right and necessary if the Roman soldiers and evil angels had refused to do it?


Again, I disagree with the premise here.


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] #133564
05/19/11 02:54 AM
05/19/11 02:54 AM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
Tom: I’ll make a response to these statements as they also involve our own discussion.

Originally Posted By: Tom
If the best way is studying the life and teachings of Jesus Christ while here in the flesh, then how should other revelations be treated? I think this is an area of disagreement between the differing points of view here.

Those who hold the point of view I hold generally believe that the revelation of Jesus Christ supersedes all other revelation, so that any other revelation should be made to harmonize with that one. Those who disagree tend to put the different revelations side by side, and have the other revelations in addition to the revelation of Jesus Christ, so we Jesus Christ's revelation plus others.


I have previously variously defended and substantiated in this thread that Jesus’s Revelation was in perfect harmony in all point with what God had actually intended in the OT. There is also the fact that not everything that Jesus said and did was recorded, and also the realism that not everything could be candidly “redone” by Jesus in 3 years of public ministry, though the principle for all of these OT actions of God/Him were all represented and perfectly upheld.

There is also the issue that I see that it is wrongly believed that Biblical writers themselves had a wrong view of the character of God while it seems evident to me that this statement speaks of how Israel in general came to view God. E.g., there was a perfect typological law of blood sacrifices represent what God would have to do to redeem man for their sins, however the people understood this to mean that God was bloodthirsty. This is what probably led them to seek other gods who were not so (seemingly) death and blood “demanding” and/or even espouse gods like Molech who required child sacrifices. So the misunderstanding was in the mind of the people but not with the Biblical writer. Indeed God’s Spirit would not led such a misconception be recorded as Scripture/The Word of God.

You also often say that OT people had an incorrect understand of who was doing an action in the Bible, and while that substantively only applies to the episode of Job, where God permitted Satan to do the destruction, these inspired Bible writers (Moses for the book of Job) actually rightly understood that if something was done against God’s people it ultimately was because God had permitted it, even if a different agency was employed to carry out that action.

So I see it as Jesus pointedly said, He did not come to change anything from the OT but bring them out more fully. And by implication that includes helping the people of His time and also today, understand why God did certain acts in the OT and the vindication of God’s Perfect Character in these. The SOP also does the same thing. Indeed just reading Rev 12:7-9's account of the War in Heaven which exegetically clearly speaks of ‘physical fighting’ one would not understand just how just and fair this choice of a physical war was to settle that ‘Heaven Occupation’ issue for the remaining allotted time of this GC.

Originally Posted By: Tom
This would mean that Jesus Christ's revelation was not full and complete, which looks to be an area of disagreement we have had.


When you draw put and focus on the principles brought forth by Christ and which were recorded in the Gospels, it is easily seen that Jesus’ Revelation was comprehensively “full and complete”. This includes the Divine principles involved in the “ministry of judgement/wrath”, the “Rules of/for Capital Judgement/Destructions” as it were. Jesus also perfectly demonstrated that such judgement for high-handed sin and destruction is always either done or not done in the light of the greater good involved/implicated. That is why He decided to permit Himself to receive His Baptism of Blood vs. calling down Hell Fire on Earth before that was accomplished. (E.g., Luke 12:49, 50)

Originally Posted By: Tom
I think the issue is similar to other incidents where God's ideal is not that to which the counsel applies, such as polygamy and slavery. God had to deal with the people's mindset as it was.


As a working thesis, I do not see that God had a problem with “polygamy” when it was relatively justified, as with the Patriarchs. Indeed the only objection I see of God is when a “multiplication of wives” is being done, as kings easily could given their greater name/ancestral power, yet with kings this seemed to all be in regards to the marrying of many “foreign” wives. (Deut 17:17). It seems to me that women who married a man as an additional wive did it freely and knew what they were getting into. There was no abuse/slavery/coercion involved, but actually genuine love and desire for marital association. Of course the ideal was ‘one man one wife’ and as this was not seen much in the history of Israel, once it became established, except in a couple of situations, (which may have been tangible necessities), it seems evident to me that this was always done out of, indeed, a tangible necessity. Particularly for having offsprings and that in a genuine and moral family context.

Originally Posted By: Tom
We see little glimpses of the people acting in harmony with God's will, and when this happened, there was no killing involved, but for the most part, it was a stubborn "stiff-necked" people God was dealing with, and we don't see His ideal will expressed.


Of course when there is no offense of God’s capital laws, there is no reason to effectuate their judgements. I would also add, as stated before, that it was when Israel as a whole was a (relatively) righteous society that the people actually bothered/cared to fully uphold the laws of God, including capital punishments. When they were not, I see that even righteous people did not venture to do so, not only as they probably would not be able to, not having the support of Israel’s “Law Enforcement” (judges, priests, people), but also because, as seen with Elijah (1 Kgs 19:1-3, 14), they would then become the targets of vindictive murderous efforts. Indeed in Elijah episode, there were 7000 righteous ones, that God was going to help him spare during the judgements that he was to continue to do (1 Kgs 19:15-18) who evidently remained in the background and did not act openly and zealously for God’s Truth as did Elijah.

Originally Posted By: Tom
If we take the point of view that God is pleased to have Sabbath-breakers killed, why wouldn't we kill them now? Is it just because we're not living in a theocracy?

(First and foremost, if any has a view that God was “pleased” with the death of e.g,. Sabbath-breakers, though He had legislated this to be the default case, they themselves have a wrong view of God as he clearly says for Himself that he takes no pleasure in the destruction/death of the wicked. (Ezek 18:23; 33:11). Yet that does not mean that He does not execute such needed and deserved judgements.)

Indeed since Rome took over control of the world, including Israel, they prevented peoples under them to effectuate capital punishment. (Probably as this would affect their ability to raise taxes based on census results). So since ca. 168 B.C. this was no longer a right that Israel had, right through Christ’s time and the NT Church and up to our day. (Indeed that is why I see that it was God who effectuated the just capital death of Annanias and Sapphira for the NT Church, and that actually as a preempting object lesson for the NT Church (Acts 5:11).

Indeed the NT Israel has never become a theocracy which would now surely have to involve having a distinct territorial jurisdiction. SO just as “honor killings” are judged as murders in western societies, executing the capital punishment sentences that God had prescribed with reason in the OT for much more than murders, would also be judged as criminal acts.

Also, in regards pointedly to the Sabbath, in the time of the Temporal Rule of the Catholic Church, the killed people who they thought did not keep the/their Sabbath (e.g, the Waldenses). Yet it clearly was not the doing of God’s actual will.

In regards to the Sabbath today, given what God actually, fully expects as proper Sabbath Observance (e.g, Isa 58) not too many, if any, including especially SDA’s are keeping the Spirit of that Law. So to execute Capital punishment for the breaking of the letter of the law would be similarly denounced as unrighteousness and hypocrisy as demonstrated by Christ in His dealing with the woman caught in adultery. Indeed not too many, if any, can actually cast a first stone here.

Originally Posted By: Tom
The question of killing law-breakers is an important issue coming up in the last days before Christ's second coming. We know that Satan will use this very argument against those who keep God's commandments, that they should be killed.


Of course, if it is not God’s actual will and/or not done righteously, then it is mootly not contributive to understanding what God’s will is in this matter. Furthermore, to see why Sabbath breakers were rightly to be put to death, as seen in God’s knowledge of what His Sabbath was to do (Isa 58) , i.e., meet the vital needs of people and thus not even let them suffer, let alone let them, as nonchalantly and normatively done in our day, die of curable and preventable causes, including abortion which is mainly done for socio-economic “convenience” reasons, it is easily seen and understood how the violation of God’s sabbatic principles, all encapsulated in the 4th Commandment, involves the selfish and indifferent murder of others. Thus its capital punishment is indeed fully justified. Nonetheless, if today, a theocratic society of God were to exist, this capital sentence could be “commuted” as either life in prison or a banishment/force emigration from that righteous society to go live like the other nations of the world who violate this life sustaining law, and naturally suffer their ‘survival of the richest’ consequence.


“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] #133570
05/19/11 06:14 PM
05/19/11 06:14 PM
Mountain Man  Offline OP
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019

20000+ Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
Originally Posted By: Tom
M: 1. Did the father of the hunter son command his son to do the things he told him to do? No.
2. What would neighbors who overheard their conversation have thought? They would have been impressed the father was willing to help his son hunt humanely even though the father was not in favor of it.

T: Or they might have thought the son was doing the father's will by hunting.

I don’t think so.

Quote:
M: 3. Also, do you think Moses knew God and His will as well as Jesus Christ did? No.
4. Was it Moses' job to perfectly reveal the character of the Father? No.
5. Isn't it true that God's character was misunderstood until Christ completed His job of revealing it? Yes.
6. If so, wouldn't it stand to reason that Moses' understanding of it was imperfect? Yes.
7. Can there be any better way of understanding God's character than to examine the life and teachings of Christ? If people were forced to choose only one of the many different ways God has revealed Himself to learn the truth about Him, then no, there is no one way better than studying the life and teachings of Jesus while He was here in the flesh.

T: If the best way is studying the life and teachings of Jesus Christ while here in the flesh, then how should other revelations be treated? I think this is an area of disagreement between the differing points of view here. Those who hold the point of view I hold generally believe that the revelation of Jesus Christ supersedes all other revelation, so that any other revelation should be made to harmonize with that one. Those who disagree tend to put the different revelations side by side, and have the other revelations in addition to the revelation of Jesus Christ, so we Jesus Christ's revelation plus others. This would mean that Jesus Christ's revelation was not full and complete, which looks to be an area of disagreement we have had.

I agree with Ellen’s view of it. She wrote, “The Saviour is revealed in the Old Testament as clearly as in the New.” “The Bible is . . . a complete revelation of the attributes and will of God in the person of Jesus Christ”. Again, it is impossible to establish the 28 fundamental beliefs based solely on what Jesus said and did while here in the flesh. His revelation of God is not limited to the Gospels.

Quote:
M: Do you believe it when it says in the Bible that Jesus commanded Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to death? Or, do you suspect Moses misunderstood what Jesus said? For example, in the Bible it says: “And Moses spake to the children of Israel, that they should bring forth him that had cursed out of the camp, and stone him with stones. And the children of Israel did as the LORD commanded Moses.” “And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.” Also, do you think the father teaching his son how to hunt humanely is the same thing as Jesus commanding Moses to stone to death the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer? Is hunting animals and killing humans equal in the eyes of God? Did the father command his son to hunt humanely?

T: I think the issue is similar to other incidents where God's ideal is not that to which the counsel applies, such as polygamy and slavery. God had to deal with the people's mindset as it was. We see little glimpses of the people acting in harmony with God's will, and when this happened, there was no killing involved, but for the most part, it was a stubborn "stiff-necked" people God was dealing with, and we don't see His ideal will expressed. If we take the point of view that God is pleased to have Sabbath-breakers killed, why wouldn't we kill them now? Is it just because we're not living in a theocracy? The question of killing law-breakers is an important issue coming up in the last days before Christ's second coming. We know that Satan will use this very argument against those who keep God's commandments, that they should be killed.

Tom, I don’t understand how your response answers my questions. Here they are again:

1. Do you believe it when it says in the Bible that Jesus commanded Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to death?
2. Or, do you suspect Moses misunderstood what Jesus said? For example, in the Bible it says: “And Moses spake to the children of Israel, that they should bring forth him that had cursed out of the camp, and stone him with stones. And the children of Israel did as the LORD commanded Moses.” “And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.”
3. Also, do you think the father teaching his son how to hunt humanely is the same thing as Jesus commanding Moses to stone to death the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer?
4. Is hunting animals and killing humans equal in the eyes of God?
5. Did the father command his son to hunt humanely?

Quote:
T: If we take the point of view that God is pleased to have Sabbath-breakers killed, why wouldn't we kill them now?

Interesting you bring this point up. Ellen wrote, “In our day there are many who reject the creation Sabbath as a Jewish institution and urge that if it is to be kept, the penalty of death must be inflicted for its violation; but we see that blasphemy received the same punishment as did Sabbathbreaking. Shall we therefore conclude that the third commandment also is to be set aside as applicable only to the Jews? Yet the argument drawn from the death penalty applies to the third, the fifth, and indeed to nearly all the ten precepts, equally with the fourth. Though God may not now punish the transgression of His law with temporal penalties, yet His word declares that the wages of sin is death; and in the final execution of the judgment it will be found that death is the portion of those who violate His sacred precepts. {PP 409.2}

Again, the question is – When Moses inquired of Jesus what to do in the cases of the Sabbath-breaker and the Blasphemer, why did Jesus “command” him to stone them to death? Why didn’t He take the opportunity to explain things as you see them?

Where in the OT did Jesus explain to the Jews things as you see them (as they relate to the title of this thread)?

Where in the NT did Jesus categorically condemn capital punishment?

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: Tom] #133571
05/19/11 06:25 PM
05/19/11 06:25 PM
Mountain Man  Offline OP
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019

20000+ Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
Originally Posted By: Tom
Originally Posted By: MM
T: You wrote as if God were responsible for the things you were speaking of. I addressed that by pointing out that it would be a huge mistake to view God as responsible, and cited texts to explain why.

M:1. Of course Jesus was responsible for ensuring evil angels did not exceed the limits He imposed on them. That is, Jesus did not let them cause more death and destruction than He was willing to permit. Do you agree?


What would a disagreement to this look like? That Jesus let them cause more death and destruction than He was willing to permit?

Quote:
2. Do you agree Jesus worked to prevent evil men and evil angels from inflicting more death and destruction than He was willing to permit?


I believe that Jesus worked to prevent evil men and evil angels from inflicting death and destruction in general.

Quote:
Or, do you think evil men and evil angels willingly restrained themselves in order not to displease God and exceed Jesus’ limits?


This can't be a serious question.

Quote:
3. Also, did evil men and evil angels do anything Jesus' wasn't willing to permit?


I don't see the sense in this one either. God is omnipotent, right? So anything that happens can only happen if He permits it to happen, isn't that right?

Quote:
4. Did Jesus force evil men and evil angels to inflict the death and destruction He deemed right and necessary?


I don't see any sense in this question either. No, of course not, to answer the question. First of all, the exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government. Secondly, Jesus would hardly force people to do something contrary to the principles of his government, like inflicting death and destruction; that's Satan's job. Satan is the destroyer, Christ is the restorer. So your question is asking if Jesus would use a principle contrary to the principles of His government to bring about more consequences also contrary to the principles of His government.

Quote:
5. Were evil men and evil angels free to refuse to inflict the death and destruction Jesus deemed right and necessary?


I don't agree with your premise here. Jesus doesn't deem death and destruction as right and necessary, but as evil, which it is.

Quote:
6. Who would have inflicted the death and destruction Jesus deemed right and necessary if the Roman soldiers and evil angels had refused to do it?


Again, I disagree with the premise here.

I have no idea what your answers are to my questions.

Page 94 of 105 1 2 92 93 94 95 96 104 105

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
Should Churches Close Because Of Pandemic?
by kland. 04/02/20 11:21 AM
Why Bible Believers Should Oppose Vaccines
by kland. 04/02/20 11:05 AM
Coronavirus - potential impacts
by kland. 04/02/20 11:01 AM
The Constitution Is Being Repudiated!
by ProdigalOne. 03/31/20 01:36 AM
Seven Trumpets reconsidered
by Karen Y. 03/30/20 10:47 PM
Vaccine Credibility
by kland. 03/30/20 11:49 AM
It Is Time To Repair The Breach!
by dedication. 03/29/20 11:57 AM
Meeting People Online: Current Tools
by kland. 03/27/20 11:24 AM
The Simple Cure for Coronavirus: COVID-19
by Rick H. 03/25/20 03:20 PM
Money in the Bank
by Rick H. 03/15/20 05:30 AM
The Lost Sanctuary Bible Study Guide
by dedication. 03/14/20 09:59 PM
Fires, fires and more fires
by Rick H. 03/14/20 07:32 AM
Music before probation closes
by Rick H. 03/09/20 08:12 PM
Most Recent Posts From Selected Private Forums of MSDAOL
Church Closure Puts Latter Rain on Hold
by kland. 04/02/20 11:13 AM
::S:: Nihar Justins dreams
by Rick H. 03/31/20 09:33 AM
What is the daily in Daniel 8:11?
by dedication. 03/30/20 01:29 AM
An Experience With a False Prophet
by Rick H. 03/28/20 06:55 PM
What is the Time of Jacob's Trouble
by Rick H. 03/23/20 12:57 PM
Ten Kings - One Hour
by dedication. 03/21/20 09:31 PM
Pioneers' Beliefs about the Godhead
by APL. 03/20/20 12:16 PM
Churches Closing
by APL. 03/19/20 04:02 PM
Walter Veith Discusses Religious Freedom Movement
by ProdigalOne. 03/13/20 12:15 PM
Understanding the 1,260-year Prophecy
by kland. 03/11/20 12:36 PM
Pope Francis Is in Control
by Wendell Slattery. 03/07/20 10:00 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