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
Rick H
Rick H
Florida, USA
Posts: 2,493
Joined: January 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), 689 guests, and 10 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 95 of 105 1 2 93 94 95 96 97 104 105
Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: Mountain Man] #133572
05/19/11 07:14 PM
05/19/11 07:14 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.

Regarding the punishment and death of N&A, Ellen wrote:

Quote:
"God consumed them by fire for their positive disregard of His express directions."

"This was a transgression of God's express command, and his judgment speedily followed."

"For this sin, a fire went out from the Lord, and devoured them in the sight of the people."

"Nadab and Abihu were slain by the fire of God's wrath for their intemperance in the use of wine."

"Fire from his presence destroyed them in their sin."

"By the offering of "strange fire," they disregarded God's command, and they were slain by His judgments."

"A fire blazed out from the holy of holies and consumed them."

"God visited them with His wrath; fire went forth from His presence and destroyed them."

"God forbade any manifestation of grief for Nadab and Abihu, even on the part of their nearest relatives, "lest ye die," he said, "and lest wrath come upon all the people: but let your brethren, the whole house of Israel, bewail the burning which the Lord hath kindled."

Nowhere does she say or imply anyone other than Jesus burned N&A alive. In fact, the following testimony presents a view very different than the one you are advocating:

Quote:
God is exact to mark iniquity. Sins of thoughtlessness, negligence, forgetfulness, and even ignorance, have been visited by some of the most wonderfully marked manifestations of his displeasure. Many who have suffered terrible punishment for their sins, might have pleaded as plausibly as do those of today who fall into similar errors, that they meant no harm, and some would even say that they thought they were doing God service; but the light shone on them, and they disregarded it. {ST, July 17, 1884 par. 7}

Let us look at some of the examples found in sacred history. Assisted by his sons, Aaron had offered the sacrifices that God required; and he lifted up his hands and blessed the people. All had been done as God commanded, and he accepted the sacrifice, and revealed his glory in a most remarkable manner; for fire came from the Lord, and consumed the offering upon the altar. The people looked upon this wonderful manifestation of divine power with awe and intense interest. They saw in it a token of his glory and his favor, and they raised a universal shout of praise and adoration, and fell on their faces, as if in the immediate presence of Jehovah. {ST, July 17, 1884 par. 8}

As the prayers and praise of the people were ascending before God, two of the sons of Aaron took each his censer, and burned fragrant incense thereon, to arise as a sweet odor before God. But they had partaken too freely of wine, and used strange fire, contrary to the Lord's commandment. And the wrath of God was kindled against Nadab and Abihu for their disobedience, and a fire went out from the Lord, and devoured them in the sight of the people. By this judgment God designed to teach the people that they must approach him with reverence and awe, and in his own appointed manner. He is not pleased with partial obedience. It was not enough that in this solemn season of worship nearly everything was done as he commanded. {ST, July 17, 1884 par. 9}

The Lord sent Samuel to King Saul with a special message. "Go," he said, "and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." Saul was faithful and zealous in performing a part of his commission. He smote the Amalekites with a great slaughter; but he took the proposition of the people before the command of God, and spared Agag, the king, and "the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good." {ST, July 17, 1884 par. 10}

The Lord commanded Saul to "utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them until they be consumed." The Lord knew that this wicked nation would, if it were possible, blot out his people and his worship from the earth; and for this reason he had commanded that even the little children should be cut off. But Saul had spared the king, the most wicked and merciless of them all; one who had hated and destroyed the people of God, and whose influence had been strongest to promote idolatry. {ST, July 17, 1884 par. 11}

Saul thought he had done all that was essential of that which the Lord commanded him to do. Perhaps he even flattered himself that he was more merciful than his Maker, as do some unbelievers in our day. He met Samuel with the salutation, "Blessed be thou of the Lord; I have performed the commandment of the Lord." But when the prophet asked what meant the bleating of the sheep and the lowing of the oxen which he heard, Saul was obliged to confess that the people had taken of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the chief of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice to the Lord in Gilgal. {ST, July 17, 1884 par. 12}

Did the Lord accept this justification of Saul's conduct? Was he pleased with this partial obedience, and willing to pass over the trifle that had been neglected out of so good a motive? Saul did what he thought was best, and would not the Lord commend such excellent judgment? No. Said Samuel, "Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king." {ST, July 17, 1884 par. 13}

These instances show how God looks upon his professed people when they obey part of his commandments while in other respects they follow a course of their own choosing. Let no one flatter himself that a part of God's requirements are nonessential. He has placed no command in his word that men may obey or disobey at will, and not suffer the consequences. If men choose any other path than that of strict obedience, they will find that "the end thereof are the ways of death."
{ST, July 17, 1884 par. 14}

You seem to be making the same argument King Saul did, namely, that by sparing the life of Agag he was being merciful the way he imagined Jesus preferred. But Jesus punished him for being presumptuous.

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: Mountain Man] #133576
05/20/11 12:09 AM
05/20/11 12:09 AM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
Originally Posted By: NJK
Tom: I’ll make a response to these statements as they also involve our own discussion.


Ok.

Quote:
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.

NJK: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.


That's not the issue. The problem is not with what had been revealed in the OT, but with people's perception of that revelation, which was, and still is, different then Jesus Christ's. So when we look at the OT, we see one thing, but when Jesus Christ looked at it, He saw another. What Jesus Christ saw is what He revealed. So, given that we see things different than Jesus Christ did, we should defer to what Jesus Christ saw. That's been the point I've been making.

Quote:
NJK: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.


Evidently the time that Jesus had was sufficient for Him to accomplish His mission.

Quote:
Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,—to set men right through the revelation of God. In Christ was arrayed before men the paternal grace and the matchless perfections of the Father. In his prayer just before his crucifixion, he declared, “I have manifested thy name.” “I have glorified thee on the earth; I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.” When the object of his mission was attained,—the revelation of God to the world,—the Son of God announced that his work was accomplished, and that the character of the Father was made manifest to men. {ST January 20, 1890, par. 9}


This is a very interesting quote. Note these points:

1.The whole purpose of Christ's mission on earth was to set men right through the revelation of God.

2.When the object of his mission was attained,—the revelation of God to the world,—the Son of God announced that his work was accomplished, and that the character of the Father was made manifest to men.

So Christ accomplished the revelation of the character of the Father to the world. If this had already been done, Christ would not have had to have come, since the whole purpose of His mission was the revelation of God.

Quote:
NJK: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.


They certainly didn't have as clear a view of the character of God as Jesus Christ.

Quote:
NJK: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.


Which people? Why do you think they thought that? I think they thought of the sacrifices in general very, very differently to how we, who have been very heavily influenced by Anselm, do.

Quote:
NJK: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.


You're saying they viewed Jehovah to be more bloodthirsty than Molech, who demanded child sacrifices, which is why they turned to Molech? I think they more likely turned to Molech for reasons analogous to why people turn to Catholicism.

Quote:
NJK: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.


I assume "led" here means "let."

Light is progressive. We need to bear in mind that at the time the OT was written, Christ had not yet come. The coming of Christ shed a great deal of light.

Quote:
NJK:You also often say that OT people had an incorrect understand of who was doing an action in the Bible,


Actually I've never said this.

Quote:
and while that substantively only applies to the episode of Job,


What is "that" here?

Quote:
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,


Everybody has already understood this. God is omnipotent, which has always been understood, so that if something happens, it's because God permitted it.

Here's the issue:

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. {DA 471.1}

[quote]even if a different agency was employed to carry out that action.


If the same agency was employed, which would be God, then, of course, it would be understood that God permitted the action.

Quote:
NJK:So I see it as Jesus pointedly said, He did not come to change anything from the OT but bring them out more fully.


No one has argued that Jesus came to change anything from the OT. Jesus came to reveal the Father.

Quote:
NJK: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.


Or to understand God's character, which helps to understand what happened.

I think a vital point that's not being addressed is that Satan was at work for the purpose of misrepresenting God's character. Who God was, and what He was doing, was NOT understood. The why wasn't the big problem, but the what. For example:

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

The earth was dark through misapprehension of God. That the gloomy shadows might be lightened, that the world might be brought back to God, Satan's deceptive power was to be broken. This could not be done by force. The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government; He desires only the service of love; and love cannot be commanded; it cannot be won by force or authority. Only by love is love awakened. To know God is to love Him; His character must be manifested in contrast to the character of Satan. This work only one Being in all the universe could do. Only He who knew the height and depth of the love of God could make it known. Upon the world's dark night the Sun of Righteousness must rise, "with healing in His wings." Mal. 4:2. (DA 21,22)


1.Satan desired power.
2.So he misrepresented God's character.
3.He did so by vesting God with his own attributes of character.
4.Only Christ could make clear God's true character.

When we look at Christ's life and teachings, we don't see explanations as to why God was violent, but, rather, the revelation of God who is NOT violent.

Jesus said, "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father." What is it we see when we look at Jesus? A violent being who explains the necessary of violence? Or a non-violent Being who explains why violence is not the way of truth?

Quote:
NJK: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.


This is an explanation of the war in Revelation 12:

Quote:
Could one sin have been found in Christ, had He in one particular yielded to Satan to escape the terrible torture, the enemy of God and man would have triumphed. Christ bowed His head and died, but He held fast His faith and His submission to God. "And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night." Rev. 12:10.

Satan saw that his disguise was torn away. His administration was laid open before the unfallen angels and before the heavenly universe. He had revealed himself as a murderer. By shedding the blood of the Son of God, he had uprooted himself from the sympathies of the heavenly beings. Henceforth his work was restricted. Whatever attitude he might assume, he could no longer await the angels as they came from the heavenly courts, and before them accuse Christ's brethren of being clothed with the garments of blackness and the defilement of sin. The last link of sympathy between Satan and the heavenly world was broken. (DA 761)


What caused Satan to be cast down? Was it physical force? Indeed not. Just a little earlier we read:

Quote:
God could have destroyed Satan and his sympathizers as easily as one can cast a pebble to the earth; but He did not do this. Rebellion was not to be overcome by force. Compelling power is found only under Satan's government. The Lord's principles are not of this order. His authority rests upon goodness, mercy, and love; and the presentation of these principles is the means to be used. God's government is moral, and truth and love are to be the prevailing power. (ibid 759)


We see from this:

1.Rebellion was not to be overcome by force.
2.Compelling power is found only under Satan's government.
3.The Lord's principles are not of this order.
4.God's authority rests upon goodness, mercy, and love; and the presentation of these principles is the means to be used.
5.God's government is moral, and truth and love are to be the prevailing power.

I really don't know how to state the ideas I've been trying to share more clearly than this. These five points are exactly what I've been trying to say.

When we look at the passage dealing with Satan's being cast down, we see that what happened is referring to a loss of influence on Satan's part. The point of contention of the Great Controversy has never been who is more powerful, but who has the better way of doing things. Satan has one way, and God has another. The cross made clear to the angels that God's way was the superior way, and who had been telling the truth. Satan could still physically go to heaven to make his claims, but there was no longer anyone to even listen to him. That had had enough. They would simply turn their backs. Thus Satan was "cast down" because he had utterly lost any influence whatsoever upon heavenly beings to even have an audience upon which to make his claims.

The same thing will happen in the final judgment. This is how God wins the Great Controversy; by making clear to all sentient beings what His true character is, as well as the principles of His government, in contrast to the claims of the enemy.

When we consider the other accounts of the war in heaven, we need to keep in mind the principles revealed here. We can't simply take one account of an event as if the author had not written about the event elsewhere. The even I'm talking about here is the Great Controversy.

It really doesn't make sense that in regards to one battle, where Satan is cast down, that EGW would make the points that:

1.Rebellion was not to be overcome by force.
2.Compelling power is only found in Satan's government.
3.The Lord's principles are not of this order.

while for another batter, also resulting in Satan's being cast down, that it would be the case that.

1.Rebellion was overcome by force.
2.Compelling power was found in God's government.
3.The Lord's principles were of this order.

Quote:
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.

NJK: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”.


Agreed. Therefore it's not a question of Jesus Christ's revelation plus other revelation, in terms of understanding God's character. Rather Jesus Christ becomes the prism by which we understand all other revelation.

Quote:
NJK:This includes the Divine principles involved in the “ministry of judgement/wrath”, the “Rules of/for Capital Judgement/Destructions” as it were.


What in the Gospels are you thinking of here?

Quote:
NJK: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.


I cannot think of a single instance where Jesus Christ referred to any destruction which had occurred, or bad thing of any sort, that He did not attribute to Satan. That is, is there any such event (an even where people became sick, or were killed) which occurred in Jesus' time to which he referred, some event which had already taken place, that he attributed to God?

Quote:
NJK: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)


Did He attribute this to God?

Quote:
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.

NJK:As a working thesis, I do not see that God had a problem with “polygamy” when it was relatively justified, as with the Patriarchs.


From the SOP:

Quote:
Polygamy had become so widespread that it had ceased to be regarded as a sin, but it was no less a violation of the law of God, and was fatal to the sacredness and peace of the family relation.... {CTr 82.2}


Quote:
Polygamy was practiced at an early date. It was one of the sins that brought the wrath of God upon the antediluvian world.... It was Satan’s studied effort to pervert the marriage institution, to weaken its obligations and lessen its sacredness; for in no surer way could he deface the image of God in man and open the door to misery and vice. {CC 36.5}(ellipsis original)


Quote:
The polygamy so common in that time was directly opposed to the law of Jehovah.{BEcho August 29, 1898, par. 5}


Quote:
God has not sanctioned polygamy in a single instance. It was contrary to his will. He knew that the happiness of man would be destroyed by it.{ST March 27, 1879, par. 3}


This last quote is particularly clear.

Quote:
NJK: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.


From the SOP quotes, we see God's view of polygamy, that He never sanctioned it, that it was contrary to His law, and contrary to His will. Nevertheless, it was permitted. So we see that God will give counsel in regards to acts which are contrary to His will.

We also see this in relation to slavery.

Israel's desire for a king is another example.

Quote:
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.

NJK: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?

NJK:(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).


Agreed.

Quote:
NJK:Yet that does not mean that He does not execute such needed and deserved judgements.)


You men God kills people who break the Sabbath? Or has them killed? They deserve to be killed?

Quote:
NJK: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).


I think more likely because they would see it as an affront to their power. I can't think of any government, even today, that allows it's citizen's to carry out capital punishment. If they did, that would be tantamount to a rejection to the government's authority.

Quote:
NJK: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).


It seems clear to me that what happened with Ananias and Sapphira was that they were doing their evil deeds in the presence of great light, the Holy Spirit working mightily in their midst, and when the revelation of the truth hit them, it was too much for them. I think this is similar to what will happen in the final judgment. Our conscience cannot bear the reality of our guilt. God, in mercy, veils our guilt. We can be healed of our guilt, if we so choose, by Jesus Christ.

If we take the viewpoint that God is in favor of capital punishment in His church, it's hard to see how this wouldn't lead to violence in the church.

Quote:
NJK: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.


Should they be? That is, if there was a territorial jurisdiction where NT Israel existed, would it be proper to put to death people who didn't keep the Sabbath?

Quote:
NJK: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.


Why is this clearly not God's will? Because they had the wrong day in mind?

Quote:
NJK: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.


What if they could? Should Sabbath-breakers be put to death by them?

Quote:
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.

NJK: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.


If it's not God's actual will, then it is "mootly not contributive" to understand what God's will is in this matter? What? If it's not God's actual will, then, of course, it's not God's will. What's the point in stating this?

This only leaves the done righteously part. So if it's not done righteously, then it's not God's will. Let's assume it's done righteously then.

Quote:
NJK: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.


This is too long a sentence. The main point here looks to be that the violation of God's Sabbath principles involve selfishness and being indifferent to the murder of others is easily seen. How so?

Quote:
NJK:Thus its capital punishment is indeed fully justified.


So capital punishment is fully justified for breaking the Sabbath because it involves selfishness and being indifferent to the murder of others. If this is the justification for capital punishment of this act, then it should apply to other similar acts as well. Anyone who is selfish or indifferent to the murder of others should be killed.

Quote:
NJK: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.


Would this be preferable? If so, why?


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: Mountain Man] #133580
05/20/11 12:55 AM
05/20/11 12:55 AM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
Originally Posted By: =MM
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.

M:I don’t think so.


Assuming they didn't already know the father's feelings in regards to hunting, it would certainly be a natural conclusion that the father was in favor of hunting, if they heard him giving counsel on how to hunt.

Quote:
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.

M:I agree with Ellen’s view of it.


Good! She wrote:

Quote:
It would be well for us to spend a thoughtful hour each day in contemplation of the life of Christ. We should take it point by point, and let the imagination grasp each scene, especially the closing ones.(DA 83)


Quote:
MM: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.


None of this is germane to the points I've been making. I just made the same points in the post to NJK, right above this one, so I won't repeat the quotes involved, but basically the whole purpose of Christ's mission was the revelation of God, which was a work only He could do. Obviously if this work had already been done, He would not have had to have come, given this was the whole purpose of His mission.

Ellen White wrote that all that man needs to know of God, or can know, was revealed in the life and character of His Son, not that all the 28 fundamental beliefs were revealed in the life and character of His son. Why are you speaking of the 28 fundamental beliefs?

Quote:
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:


Your first two questions I addressed in my response.

Here are the last three:

Quote:
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?


They are obviously not exactly the same thing. I obviously thought they were similar in character, right? Or else, I wouldn't have offered the story as an explanation, right?

Quote:
4. Is hunting animals and killing humans equal in the eyes of God?


Why would you ask a question like this? It's ridiculous. You know the answer to this.

You must have something else in mind, like, since hunting animals is not the same thing as killing humans (whatever your point it).

Please don't ask questions like this. Just make whatever point you wish to make.

There's no need to establish that hunting animals and killing humans are not equal in the eyes of God. You have got to be thinking, "Since hunting animals is not the same thing as killing humans in the eyes of God, it follows that (something)." Please just articulate what you're thinking.

Quote:
5. Did the father command his son to hunt humanely?


The father gave counsel to the son regarding how to hunt, but it was not his will that his son should hunt. Given he was going to hunt, the father commanded he should hunt humanely.


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] #133581
05/20/11 01:19 AM
05/20/11 01:19 AM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
Originally Posted By: MM
MM:You seem to be making the same argument King Saul did, namely, that by sparing the life of Agag he was being merciful the way he imagined Jesus preferred. But Jesus punished him for being presumptuous.


Regarding Saul's purpose, we read:

Quote:
This victory over the Amalekites was the most brilliant victory that Saul had ever gained, and it served to rekindle the pride of heart that was his greatest peril. The divine edict devoting the enemies of God to utter destruction was but partially fulfilled. Ambitious to heighten the honor of his triumphal return by the presence of a royal captive, Saul ventured to imitate the customs of the nations around him and spared Agag, the fierce and warlike king of the Amalekites. The people reserved for themselves the finest of the flocks, herds, and beasts of burden, excusing their sin on the ground that the cattle were reserved to be offered as sacrifices to the Lord. It was their purpose, however, to use these merely as a substitute, to save their own cattle. {CC 156.3}


This points out that Saul's purpose was selfish and proud. To think that Saul's argument here was the same as mine would seem to indicate you're either misunderstanding Saul's argument or mine.

Here is mine:

1.All that we can know of God was revealed by Jesus Christ.
2.The whole purpose of His mission was the revelation of God.
3.Jesus Christ did not reveal God as One who uses force to get His way, or compelling power, or One who burns people alive to punish them for not doing His will.

Here's an issue I see with your way of thinking. You appear to believe that it's OK to kill people who are not doing God's will, if you believe God is telling you to do so. I think that's dangerous, especially given the fact that this is exactly what's going to happen during the last plagues (i.e., people will try to kill those whom they think are not doing God's will, and will think they are doing God's will by so doing).

What in Jesus' life or character would lead you to believe that He wants to burn people alive if they don't do what He says? Where did He ever do anything even remotely similar to this? How did He respond when it was suggested He do so?

Where during His mission did Jesus ever even physically harm any person, even in the slightest manner?


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] #133586
05/20/11 09:16 AM
05/20/11 09:16 AM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
(Again Tom, don’t forget to answer Post #133507)

-Also, as it is also generally pertinent to this discussion, you have said (back in Post #131319) that you “majored in Theology, and studied several years at the seminary”. Did you graduate (i.e., obtain a degree)?

-And did you take (and complete) courses in Biblical Languages, namely Biblical Hebrew and NT Greek?

Quote:
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.

Tom: 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.

NJK: 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.

Tom: That's not the issue. The problem is not with what had been revealed in the OT, but with people's perception of that revelation, which was, and still is, different then Jesus Christ's.


I don’t from where you are making/justifying your objection here because what you stated: “not with what had been revealed in the OT, but with people's perception of that revelation” is exactly what I had expressed by saying “what God had actually intended in the OT”. Because the OT People and also those in Christ’s times had a wrong perception of that revelation they therefore did not see nor understand what God had actually intended in what He had said or done.

E.g., the Sabbath was not a day to selfishly not do any work, per se, but to variously, pervasively provide God’s rest to others, and as Jesus showed, by “doing good” and “save life” (Mark 3:4). So “work” was really what was done to selfishly gratify/convenience oneself, including not doing the feasible pre-Sabbath “preparations”. (In an applicable way, the Church today won’t engage in the actually feasible ‘“work” needed to save millions of lives’ and all in the Pharisaical sanctimony that ‘God’s Sabbath rest is “at the door”, so effectively, they fully subscribe to the Capitalist ‘live and let die’ tenet.)

Originally Posted By: Tom
So when we look at the OT, we see one thing, but when Jesus Christ looked at it, He saw another. What Jesus Christ saw is what He revealed. So, given that we see things different than Jesus Christ did, we should defer to what Jesus Christ saw. That's been the point I've been making.


In terms of substantive things, Jesus read and thus “saw” the same thing that anyone in his day could see. I see that you are here trying to impose your own view for Christ’s here and claim that e.g., He did not see God actively doing the Destructions and judgements of the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, Nadad and Abihu, Dothan, Korah and Abiram, and all these other examples. That premise to me is completely irrational. Jesus did not engage in restating these acts of God as if God had not actually done them as the OT record unequivocally states. Even EGW did not see this in her Revelations of these episode. It is circularly only your view that needs this to be the case with Jesus and EGW, despite the clear testimony to the contrary, including Christ’s applicable “jot and tittle’ statement.

Furthermore, Christ’s non-contradicting ‘fulfilling of the OT’, just as with EGW OT episodes revelations, only confirmed and even made it more clear that God was indeed involved in those actions. Jesus, and also EGW, only made these revelations more “palpable”/understandable to their applicable generations.

So it is you who is engaging in changing ‘jots and tittles’, even, redactively, whole phrases and statements of God. Your approach, however strongly/“blindly” you effectively think ‘Jesus also did this’ is just ‘a house built without deep, if any, foundations.’

Quote:
NJK: 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.

Tom: Evidently the time that Jesus had was sufficient for Him to accomplish His mission.


Not necessarily, in terms of either ‘doing everything’, or your view-implied imposition ‘redoing/restating everything’. Jesus had to deal with the reality of the state of readiness and receptivity of those He dealt with. (E.g., John 16:12-15). Indeed just like in this ongoing GC, as documentedly revealed especially for OT Israel, God’s plans and intentions can be temporarily, and even greatly, delayed, curtailed and frustrated by the way people come to react to it.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Originally Posted By: SOP
Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,—to set men right through the revelation of God. In Christ was arrayed before men the paternal grace and the matchless perfections of the Father. In his prayer just before his crucifixion, he declared, “I have manifested thy name.” “I have glorified thee on the earth; I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.” When the object of his mission was attained,—the revelation of God to the world,—the Son of God announced that his work was accomplished, and that the character of the Father was made manifest to men. {ST January 20, 1890, par. 9}


This is a very interesting quote. Note these points:

1.The whole purpose of Christ's mission on earth was to set men right through the revelation of God.

2.When the object of his mission was attained,—the revelation of God to the world,—the Son of God announced that his work was accomplished, and that the character of the Father was made manifest to men.

So Christ accomplished the revelation of the character of the Father to the world. If this had already been done, Christ would not have had to have come, since the whole purpose of His mission was the revelation of God.


Christ did this “whole accomplishing” by furthering the standing OT revelation. And this “OT revelation” does not include the unbiblical “traditions” and “precepts of men” that Jewish leaders added to this “Word of God” (Matt 15:1-9) I.e. what had been not fully said (i.e, what Paul later referred to as “mysteries” = “hidden truths” (cf. in this post #132603, indeed the ‘mysteries of God’s Kingdom), and “misunderstood” by the people, which included.

Furthermore, the Character of God inclusively includes Justice, as indeed seen throughout the OT. So that was to also be involved in Christ whole/complete revelation. Christ’s revelation reforms in this regard involved the perfect righteousness that is to be involved when Justice/Judgement is done, as seen in the episode of the Woman caught in adultery.

Quote:
NJK: 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.

Tom: They certainly didn't have as clear a view of the character of God as Jesus Christ.


That is besides the point. The revelation of these (OT) Bible writers, set out in writing under the inspiration of God’s Spirit was precisely what God wanted to be fully understood then. Later in Jesus Christ, God only ‘made more full’ what He had previously said, legislated and inspired. And again, as per the focus of this thread, this fuller revelation in Christ did not change the actual substance of “historical” OT episodes, indeed as they are properly recorded. To make this apply to your view, you need to show statements from Christ which e.g., change the substantive/historical records of OT events. And again, the misperception of people in Christ day was not on what had occurred, but the wrong conclusion they drew from what had occurred. As in your case, you read of Nadab and Abihu being burnt alive by a Fire from God and you, effectively, wrongly conclude that this “would” show/mean that God is violent. The principles in Christ’s revelation, which profusely included the teaching of Hell Fire judgement by Him/God (e.g., sLuke 12: 49, 50; cf. Rev 20:14) and its “fiery” physical torment (e.g., Matt 10:28; Mark 9:42-50/Matt 18:7-11).

So like these misguided first century Jews, you need to allow/trust Jesus’ teaching and revelations that the OT was not “violent” in doing those judgement, nor in doing them again in the NT Era through the end of this GC. God was rather quite Just and indeed, all things taken into proper consideration, Loving. Indeed many will be eternally saved because of these most strikingly, deserving, warning, ‘object lesson actions/judgement of God. (Cf. 2 Pet 2:5, 6).

Quote:
NJK: 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.

Tom: Which people? Why do you think they thought that? I think they thought of the sacrifices in general very, very differently to how we, who have been very heavily influenced by Anselm, do.


By explicit and implicit implication, the people of God who thought that God was “pleased,” or ‘to be pleased,’ by merely offering sacrifices. Pointedly: Judah/Jerusalem (e.g., Isa 1:10-13a ff; Jer 20:6b): “Zion” (Psa 50:13, 14; 23; cf. Heb 13:16); ‘Israel’ (Mal 1:10; 1 Sam 15:20-22; cf. DA 509.1-2).

Quote:
NJK: 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.

Tom: You're saying they viewed Jehovah to be more bloodthirsty than Molech, who demanded child sacrifices, which is why they turned to Molech?


No actually. Molech was in a distinct ‘type of God’ context. I had said that Israel probably turned to some foreign gods which required no sacrifices compared to their own God. Indeed, as the same underlying principle is posited today, it was “economically” more logical to obey a god that e.g., did not require one to make sacrifices from quite valuable livestock. The same personal wealth amassing excuse is used by many people, e.g., in regards to tithing, or conversely going along with Capitalism vs. God’s socio-economic principles.

In regards to Molech, I meant that Israel, who had a wrong understanding that God was “bloodthirsty” and was merely pleased with the shedding of blood in sacrifice, probably thus surfacely saw Molech as being a “greater god” by requiring the “blood” of their own children.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I think they more likely turned to Molech for reasons analogous to why people turn to Catholicism.


Do elaborate/explain. I don’t see the correlation. Catholic rituals don’t include child sacrifices, in fact no (actual) sacrifices at all.

Quote:
NJK (edited): So the misunderstanding was in the mind of the people but not with the Biblical writer. Indeed God’s Spirit would not let such a misconception be recorded as Scripture/The Word of God.

Tom: Light is progressive. We need to bear in mind that at the time the OT was written, Christ had not yet come. The coming of Christ shed a great deal of light.


As this is all in relation to e.g., who actually did destructions in the OT, I see no Biblical, I.e., later OT, NT, SOP) evidence that contradict what had priorly revealed as taking place. Further revelations in such regards only confirmed, and that with greater details, what had been previously expressed by these Inspired Bible Writers. The direct statements of God are not subject to such future enlightening as the Bible writers then just recorded what they had “heard”. This is synonymous with EGW’s “I was shown” revelations in which she many times heard direct statements from God. In fact, I see that the revelation of these OT writers were probably identical to the direct ones given to EGW in that they “heard” many of these statements in those divine visions and dreams and recorded it. They also may have more clearly “heard” the voice of God while fully awake/conscious and proceed to record verbatim, what they had heard/been told.

Quote:
NJK: You also often say that OT people had an incorrect understanding of who was doing an action in the Bible,

Tom: Actually I've never said this.


Perhaps not verbatim, but you have actually meant this. That is indeed what I understood by your repeat (though unsubstantiated) statement: that ‘the Bible often presents God doing that which He permits’ (e.g., the latest in Post #133509). Clearly that logically means to you that ‘these Bible writers had written that God had done something when He had actually only permitted it to be done, and that by someone/something else, moreover independent of His effectuating energy.’

Quote:
NJK: and while that substantively only applies to the episode of Job,

Tom: What is "that" here?


As I went on to (disprovingly) say (see below): “where God permitted Satan to do the destruction”, that “that” clearly refers to this notion of ‘God being said to do something which he had only permitted to be done’.

Quote:
NJK: 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,

Tom: Everybody has already understood this. God is omnipotent, which has always been understood, so that if something happens, it's because God permitted it.


Really|Seriously|Truthfully|Honestly, Tom!??? Another sly, retroactive switch of views on your part here???? If your really believe/always believed so, then why do you keep on insisting on citing Job 1:21 as ‘a mistake of understanding by Bible writers.’ E.g.:

Originally Posted By: Tom Post #132613
“God is often presented as doing that which He permits in Scripture. For example... It says in Job that the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, but this was said by one who didn't know of Satan's existence. When the curtain is pulled away, we see that it was an enemy who caused the things which happened to Job.”


(Obviously you also did not at all mean in regards to “cause” that: ‘Satan “caused” and God actually physically “did”’.)

Indeed the truth was always that both Job and Moses knew exactly what they were talking about here when Job said, and then Moses later faithfully related, that Job 1:21 statement.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Here's the issue:

Originally Posted By: SOP
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. {DA 471.1}


The issue here, without using the method of building a teaching on a single verse/passage, was that affliction and calamity were not always, and that arbitrarily, a judgement of God, but many times simply the natural results of sin and also disobedience to God’s laws which served to avert many of these adversities. Yet that does not isolatively mean that God never directly inflict the punishment of disease and death. As I see Biblically clearly it, when God needs to deservingly/judiciously effectuate such a punishment, and there is no immediate natural/organic consequence for the sin, He then either does it Himself, or commissions His Angels to do it, or stirs up foreign nations/powers, or even permits Satan and/or his angels, to do it. Indeed even EGW who made this DA 471.1 statement, did not see this as you do, as in e.g., GC 614.2.

Also by God legislating that some sins should be capital punished wile others were not, He Himself had clearly shown that not all sins would immediately result in a divinely ordained consequence of death.

Quote:
NJK: even if a different agency was employed to carry out that action.

Tom: If the same agency was employed, which would be God, then, of course, it would be understood that God permitted the action.


I don’t get your point here. The Bible is indeed full of such ‘same Divine agency’ examples. Indeed I rationally see that when the Bible says/shows that God directly did something, then it not only means that ‘He permitted it’ but also that He did it. That is however slightly different in cases where the Bible says that God had commissioned an Angel to do the work of judgement. In such cases, God did not actually directly do the action. Still it is generally considered as a Divinely-done judgement.

Quote:
NJK:So I see it as Jesus pointedly said, He did not come to change anything from the OT but bring them out more fully.

Tom: No one has argued that Jesus came to change anything from the OT. Jesus came to reveal the Father.


That what you, by entailing implication, are indeed arguing in statements to try to substantiate your view. Indeed according to your arguments, when we read e.g., that ‘fire came from God’ in the OT, we are to read, and that ‘because of Jesus’ revelation’, effectively, anything else but that clear statement.

Quote:
NJK: 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.

Tom: Or to understand God's character, which helps to understand what happened.


Same difference. Once one understand that God is Just, they won’t see His judgement actions in the OT as “violent” acts, as you do. It is because you do not understand this “justice” that you privately, indeed without any Scriptural or SOP mandate, need to redact/reword/“whitewash” the OT of such statements and acts. The SOP statement quoted by Mountain Man above from ST, July 17, 1884 par. 7-14 indeed applies to your stance and its underlying false justification. The fact that the same rationale is used by those who keep Sunday as the NT Sabbath, speaks volume of the actual source of this unbiblical approach.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I think a vital point that's not being addressed is that Satan was at work for the purpose of misrepresenting God's character. Who God was, and what He was doing, was NOT understood. The why wasn't the big problem, but the what.


The “what” is crystal clear. The “why” is indeed the issue and asking this “why” involves an implicit trust that “what” was done was according to God’s will and in harmony with His Character. So what is left to be understood was “why” was this the case.

Originally Posted By: Tom
For example:

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

The earth was dark through misapprehension of God. That the gloomy shadows might be lightened, that the world might be brought back to God, Satan's deceptive power was to be broken. This could not be done by force. The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government; He desires only the service of love; and love cannot be commanded; it cannot be won by force or authority. Only by love is love awakened. To know God is to love Him; His character must be manifested in contrast to the character of Satan. This work only one Being in all the universe could do. Only He who knew the height and depth of the love of God could make it known. Upon the world's dark night the Sun of Righteousness must rise, "with healing in His wings." Mal. 4:2. (DA 21,22)


1.Satan desired power.
2.So he misrepresented God's character.
3.He did so by vesting God with his own attributes of character.
4.Only Christ could make clear God's true character.

When we look at Christ's life and teachings, we don't see explanations as to why God was violent, but, rather, the revelation of God who is NOT violent.


The main/general/foundational problem with this position of yours here is that you are using modern/human understanding/view of “violent” and imposing that notion on the actions of God. Therefore if the OT is to be taken as it plainly reads, these action are to only be seen as “violent”. That is like saying that Law Enforcement today is inevitably “violent”, even in using reasonable force. Despite your supposed good intentions, you are conversely still doing the same work that Lucifer had done. Indeed, similarly, ‘because God is a God of justice and terrible majesty, you are causing His OT actions to be deemed “violent” and murderous.’ Furthermore, your are also casting discredit upon most of the Bible. I.e., it cannot be taken for what it plainly says. You are also doing this with the SOP in regards to passages that does not support your view. Of course, you may claim that I do that with the SOP, except, you won’t engage the superior Biblical reasons I always present when I do not accept comments of EGW as being in harmony with the Bible.

And as I have already addressed, God’s use of necessary force to effectuate a judgement is not Him using force to compel people to not rebel against Him. Indeed as seen in the Bible, even those judgement did not compel obedience. At times open rebellion persisted even on the heels of a clear act of judgement of God (Num 16:28-35 vs. 41-45ff).

Originally Posted By: Tom
Jesus said, "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father." What is it we see when we look at Jesus? A violent being who explains the necessary of violence? Or a non-violent Being who explains why violence is not the way of truth?


Your questions do not deal with the full issue at hand. Jesus correctively taught and showed that the use of varying force was only actually just when in complete righteousness was involved. And that included giving the judged person the full opportunity to properly understand the Truth. Indeed as repeatedly done, as relatively required, by the OT God. Jesus however did not at all do away with the use of “righteously justified” force. You are the one who only can but see, even this, as (cruel) “violence”.

Quote:
NJK: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.

Tom: This is an explanation of the war in Revelation 12:

Originally Posted By: SOP DA 761
Could one sin have been found in Christ, had He in one particular yielded to Satan to escape the terrible torture, the enemy of God and man would have triumphed. Christ bowed His head and died, but He held fast His faith and His submission to God. "And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night." Rev. 12:10.

Satan saw that his disguise was torn away. His administration was laid open before the unfallen angels and before the heavenly universe. He had revealed himself as a murderer. By shedding the blood of the Son of God, he had uprooted himself from the sympathies of the heavenly beings. Henceforth his work was restricted. Whatever attitude he might assume, he could no longer await the angels as they came from the heavenly courts, and before them accuse Christ's brethren of being clothed with the garments of blackness and the defilement of sin. The last link of sympathy between Satan and the heavenly world was broken. (DA 761)


Tom: What caused Satan to be cast down? Was it physical force? Indeed not. Just a little earlier we read:

Originally Posted By: SOP
God could have destroyed Satan and his sympathizers as easily as one can cast a pebble to the earth; but He did not do this. Rebellion was not to be overcome by force. Compelling power is found only under Satan's government. The Lord's principles are not of this order. His authority rests upon goodness, mercy, and love; and the presentation of these principles is the means to be used. God's government is moral, and truth and love are to be the prevailing power. (ibid 759)


We see from this:

1.Rebellion was not to be overcome by force.
2.Compelling power is found only under Satan's government.
3.The Lord's principles are not of this order.
4.God's authority rests upon goodness, mercy, and love; and the presentation of these principles is the means to be used.
5.God's government is moral, and truth and love are to be the prevailing power.

I really don't know how to state the ideas I've been trying to share more clearly than this. These five points are exactly what I've been trying to say.

When we look at the passage dealing with Satan's being cast down, we see that what happened is referring to a loss of influence on Satan's part. The point of contention of the Great Controversy has never been who is more powerful, but who has the better way of doing things. Satan has one way, and God has another. The cross made clear to the angels that God's way was the superior way, and who had been telling the truth. Satan could still physically go to heaven to make his claims, but there was no longer anyone to even listen to him. That had had enough. They would simply turn their backs. Thus Satan was "cast down" because he had utterly lost any influence whatsoever upon heavenly beings to even have an audience upon which to make his claims.

The same thing will happen in the final judgment. This is how God wins the Great Controversy; by making clear to all sentient beings what His true character is, as well as the principles of His government, in contrast to the claims of the enemy.

When we consider the other accounts of the war in heaven, we need to keep in mind the principles revealed here. We can't simply take one account of an event as if the author had not written about the event elsewhere. The even I'm talking about here is the Great Controversy.

It really doesn't make sense that in regards to one battle, where Satan is cast down, that EGW would make the points that:

1.Rebellion was not to be overcome by force.
2.Compelling power is only found in Satan's government.
3.The Lord's principles are not of this order.

while for another batter, also resulting in Satan's being cast down, that it would be the case that.

1.Rebellion was overcome by force.
2.Compelling power was found in God's government.
3.The Lord's principles were of this order.


Surfacely interesting, even plausible view, but is substantively and exegetically still is spurious and futile. In the light of the many responses already given to these arguments, these are simply obliviously-nondisturbed, restatement of your prior views on the War in Heaven. When you will responsibly engage the exegetical comments that I have made which have disproven all of your arguments/objections here you’ll have the Biblical answers and view of this episode, pointedly the pre-Creation one. Indeed it is only by shoddy exegesis and selectively, falsely giving some SOP statements more weight than others that you continue to hold this wrong and unbiblical view on this War in Heaven.

You clearly believe that your view makes the Bible and EGW not actually say that a physical battle took place??! How then do you read those clear statements in relating this physical battle in 1 SP 21, 22?? Or do you, as usual, just ignore them.

The Bible and SOP are harmoniously, unequivocally, clear that there was a physical war in the Pre-Creation application of Rev 12:7-9. And also that it was not a war to decide the GC, by “compelling” the rebelling angels to view things as God does, but to simply decide the Occupancy of Heaven for this GC.

Quote:
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.

NJK: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”.

Tom: Agreed. Therefore it's not a question of Jesus Christ's revelation plus other revelation, in terms of understanding God's character. Rather Jesus Christ becomes the prism by which we understand all other revelation.


That’s not what I meant. Only, the people who had/have an incorrect understanding of the actions of God in the OT needed to be corrected by the teachings and principles of Jesus. If one just accepts the Bible as it reads, as Jesus did, then you can directly read and understand what the OT God did by that OT record and revelation. And approaching this OT revelation with the humble and deferential attitude that “God is Perfect, Wise and Holy” in all He does will just as easily lead on to find out the righteousness and justice in those OT passages. Indeed, e.g., similarly as the fact that first Century Jews did not understand the goodness of God, you and others like you today, cannot see any “goodness” in those directly executed Ot & NT judgements of God. Indeed as it is consistently found, and ascertainable, throughout this GC, -from the “War in Heaven” right through to the Hell Judgement in the end.

Quote:
NJK: This includes the Divine principles involved in the “ministry of judgement/wrath”, the “Rules of/for Capital Judgement/Destructions” as it were.

Tom: What in the Gospels are you thinking of here?


Pointedly the great, quasi-“end of the world”, event in the complete physical destruction of the Temple and the City of Jerusalem and virtually OT Israel. Just as in the OT, God summoned a foreign power to execute this punishment on His rebellious People.

As I also see it, Christ’s actions in Matt 13:10-17, were similar to God’s in Isa 6:9-13 with both “designing” that this deserved judgement would come to pass if the rebellious ways were persisted in.

Quote:
NJK: 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.

Tom: I cannot think of a single instance where Jesus Christ referred to any destruction which had occurred, or bad thing of any sort, that He did not attribute to Satan. That is, is there any such event (an even where people became sick, or were killed) which occurred in Jesus' time to which he referred, some event which had already taken place, that he attributed to God?


That ‘“attributive” slant’ was not my point at all. As I went on to say, I was referring to Jesus decision in Luke 12:49, 50 which implicated the Cross.

Notwithstanding, try e.g., Matt 22:7. Furthermore, this “attributive” necessity seems to only be required for your view. When e.g., Jesus spoke of the Flood, or the Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as pointed types(Luke 17:26-30; cf. 2 Pet 2:5 & 6 which says that ‘God did those two events’)) of the judgement at His Glorious Coming (cf. Jude 14, 15), He did not have to, nor evidently feel a need to (falsely) claim that Satan or Nature, had done them. These were active acts of God just as the destruction of the wicked in the end will be (cf. Matt 25:31-34, 41, 46)

Quote:
NJK: 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)

Tom: Did He attribute this to God?


Again that was not the point of my statement. Again, notwithstanding, if Jesus was going to be the one to bring down this Hell Fire right then and there, then He clearly understood it to be His Own/God’s act. Indeed, is the devil in charge of Hell Fire???? (Matt 25:41; cf. Jude 6)

Quote:
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.

NJK: As a working thesis, I do not see that God had a problem with “polygamy” when it was relatively justified, as with the Patriarchs.

Tom: From the SOP:

Originally Posted By: SOP
Polygamy had become so widespread that it had ceased to be regarded as a sin, but it was no less a violation of the law of God, and was fatal to the sacredness and peace of the family relation.... {CTr 82.2}


Originally Posted By: SOP
Polygamy was practiced at an early date. It was one of the sins that brought the wrath of God upon the antediluvian world.... It was Satan’s studied effort to pervert the marriage institution, to weaken its obligations and lessen its sacredness; for in no surer way could he deface the image of God in man and open the door to misery and vice. {CC 36.5}(ellipsis original)


Originally Posted By: SOP
The polygamy so common in that time was directly opposed to the law of Jehovah.{BEcho August 29, 1898, par. 5}


Originally Posted By: SOP
God has not sanctioned polygamy in a single instance. It was contrary to his will. He knew that the happiness of man would be destroyed by it.{ST March 27, 1879, par. 3}


Tom: This last quote is particularly clear.


Interesting SOP statements, however, as I had said, this was a “working thesis,” and for several reasons, I actually challenge the SOP statements here. In pointedly that polygamy was a “sin.” I rather see much Biblical support for the view that God dealt with it more specifically, in a marriage case by marriage case issue and there may indeed have been valid/justifying reasons why some people were not reprimanded for additionally marrying another (or more) woman/en. It indeed is quite indicative to me that God would become enraged against e.g., Moses and David for certain sins which he made known to them as sins and explicitly reproved and judged them for it, but not do the same with these men having more than one wife. Furthermore, in the light of this would be, unconfessed, unrepented of and unabandoned, would be, “sins”, speak most approvingly of e.g., Abraham, Moses, and David, and e.g., answer the prayer from the “sinful household of” Elkanah, granting the request of his other wife, with the birth of Samuel. (1 Sam 1:1, 2ff).

Quote:
NJK: 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.

Tom: From the SOP quotes, we see God's view of polygamy, that He never sanctioned it, that it was contrary to His law, and contrary to His will. Nevertheless, it was permitted. So we see that God will give counsel in regards to acts which are contrary to His will.


I really don’t see this Theological rationale of yours as being Biblical nor Divinely-feasible. Indeed as shown below, your other “supporting examples” actually do not substantiate that conclusion.

Originally Posted By: Tom
We also see this in relation to slavery.


God only permitted indentured servitude within Israel, and in regards to procuring foreign slaves, I have previously addressed that issue here (Post #131229); here (Post #131393), and here (Post #131484).

Originally Posted By: Tom
Israel's desire for a king is another example.


I also have addressed the issue of a King for Israel here (Post #133434) .

And in regards to all of these three (polygamy, indentured and (quasi-adoptive) slavery, and a king for Israel, I see that since God made legislation on them in His “perfect” Law then it certainly was not against His will, though not a recommended practice, but, as I understand it, one that was permitted in certain extraordinary circumstances (= slavery and polygamy). Polygamy, perhaps for offspring purposes. (See e.g, Deut 21:15 for the law on polygamy).

If currently only in terms of getting Biblical information on the issue of polygamy, I found this website to be helpful. I have not read through everything posted there.)

(I hope these issue of polygamy, slaves and a king will not become the main issue here as they are not really determinative to this thread’s topic.)

Quote:
NJK:Yet that does not mean that He does not execute such needed and deserved judgements.)

Tom: You men God kills people who break the Sabbath? Or has them killed? They deserve to be killed?


Yes... and since God has said that this is what should be done, then I trust that it was/is a deserved judgement.

Quote:
NJK: 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).

Tom: I think more likely because they would see it as an affront to their power. I can't think of any government, even today, that allows it's citizen's to carry out capital punishment. If they did, that would be tantamount to a rejection to the government's authority.


That too, especially as it implies that there is a civil encroaching law that is greater than theirs, but, given the love of money in men, I see the underlying/intertwined reason as also being for census-revenue purposes.

Quote:
NJK: 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).

Tom: It seems clear to me that what happened with Ananias and Sapphira was that they were doing their evil deeds in the presence of great light, the Holy Spirit working mightily in their midst, and when the revelation of the truth hit them, it was too much for them. I think this is similar to what will happen in the final judgment. Our conscience cannot bear the reality of our guilt. God, in mercy, veils our guilt. We can be healed of our guilt, if we so choose, by Jesus Christ.


That reasoning doesn’t pass the Biblical test as they dropped dead, not when they conspiratorily conceived and decided to lie (Acts 5:1, 2, 4b), and also in full knowledge of the truth of the Power in the NT Church, suppressing their feeling of guilt, but upon Peter’s summary statements of these already fully known and understood acts of deception (vs. 5, 7-10).

Originally Posted By: Tom
If we take the viewpoint that God is in favor of capital punishment in His church, it's hard to see how this wouldn't lead to violence in the church.


Like in Israel, even in Capital Punishment today, “violence” as in unfair acts, is not involved, but this process is done through a judicious process and possibly “humane” execution. And of course, like with Israel in the times of Rome, this cannot presently be done in the Church which are under the laws of temporal powers. However a sovereign country is free to implement the Laws and punishment it deems fit. That is why e.g., treason in the U.S. is subject to capital punishment and conversely, also, e.g., why there is no capital punishment in the U.S’s northern neighbor, Canada.

Quote:
NJK: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.

Tom: Should they be? That is, if there was a territorial jurisdiction where NT Israel existed, would it be proper to put to death people who didn't keep the Sabbath?


I, humanly speaking would knee-jerkly say no, however, in a truly Godly society, such an act would be as high handed as it was in the OT, indeed also in the very presence of God, and so I would see that such just laws of God would continue to apply. Only by truly and fully understanding “why this was deemed as justified by God can it be seen as indeed Just and Biblical.” It then is not seen as an act for “breaking the Sabbath” but for all of the potential, literal death that this violation can lead to, including Atheism. Indeed if Israel had faithfully observed the interelated Sabbath, other sabbaths, and God’s socio-economic sabbatical principles, they would have been a glorious light to the world (Isa 58:13; 14) and would thus have helped saved the temporal and eternal life of many, many people in darkness (cf. Isa 60:1-3).

As Jesus did with the Woman caught in adultery, when God’s law is not understood/violated, there really is no justification for a person also violating it to exercise its punishments on another.

Quote:
NJK:Also, in regards pointedly to the Sabbath, in the time of the Temporal Rule of the Catholic Church, they 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.

Tom: Why is this clearly not God's will? Because they had the wrong day in mind?


Indeed. For the exact same reason that e.g., France will not execute someone who violated a Muslim Law. It’s all or nothing with God’s Law and Sunday sacredness does not begin to be God’s Sabbath Law, especially as the Catholic Church fully knows that they switched the day for their Church.


Quote:
NJK: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.

Tom: What if they could? Should Sabbath-breakers be put to death by them?


That’s what Jesus implied (=taught).

Quote:
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.

NJK: 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.

Tom: If it's not God's actual will, then it is "mootly not contributive" to understand what God's will is in this matter? What? If it's not God's actual will, then, of course, it's not God's will.


That therefore should have self-suppressed your objection/question here!

Originally Posted By: Tom
What's the point in stating this?


Indeed my point is that it is not God’s will that people be put to death for violating Sunday. So there mootly is no point trying to apply the portion of God’s Law permitting this to, effectively Satan’s law.

Originally Posted By: Tom
This only leaves the done righteously part. So if it's not done righteously, then it's not God's will. Let's assume it's done righteously then.


Then as Jesus taught, it is God’s will. Not popular of course, but that’s the truth, Church discipline in the SDA Church is also not popular and largely just ignored when it only involves censures or loss of membership.

Quote:
NJK: 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.

Tom: This is too long a sentence. The main point here looks to be that the violation of God's Sabbath principles involve selfishness and being indifferent to the murder of others is easily seen. How so?


For the ‘live and let the vitally needy die/be aborted’ reasons stated in that long sentence. That should be straightforwardly seen/understood?! See EGW’s Welfare Ministry 28-65ff for more.

Quote:
NJK:Thus its capital punishment is indeed fully justified.

Tom: So capital punishment is fully justified for breaking the Sabbath because it involves selfishness and being indifferent to the murder of others. If this is the justification for capital punishment of this act, then it should apply to other similar acts as well. Anyone who is selfish or indifferent to the murder of others should be killed.


It already does because, as seen in Isa 58, God’s sabbath is the underlying template/basis for other laws which have such a harmful socio-economic impact.

Quote:
NJK: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.

Tom: Would this be preferable? If so, why?


Before I address this question, notwithstanding my prior, would then be, hypothetical answers on this issue, where in the Bible does it actually state, i.e., as a Law, that Sabbath-Breakers should be put to death?? I only see an episode in Number 15:32-36 where a Sabbath breaker was caught in the act, brought before Moses and Aaron and since ‘it had not been declared what should be done’, manifestly for a Sabbath Breaking violation, he was put in custody by Moses and Aaron until God spoke on it. (vs. 34) It is then that God declared, by manifestly injunctive decision, that this person should be put to death. (vs. 35, 36). Yet even in the ensuing, related directives of God (vss. 37-41) God did not make this injunctive, judicial decision either the Statutory Law, nor the “Case Law”. Seems to me therefore that the penalty for Sabbath breaking was not death, especially not automatically, but at best custody until God judiciously decides the fitting punishment.

By extension I would say that, in a Biblical society that fully implements God’s Sabbatical principles, the violation of not only the Sabbath, but these principles can indeed result in tangible harm and therefore should indeed be subject to fitting custodial penalty, just as defrauding someone of their money would.

I also would see this forced (i.e., encouraged and facilitated) emigration to any other country) vs. the alternative domestic sole option of, if applicable, long-term/life imprisonment as equivalent to the “cutting off from Israel” punishment notion in the OT which did not necessarily mean death.


“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] #133587
05/20/11 10:41 AM
05/20/11 10:41 AM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
Quote:
I have a couple of discussion general questions for you Tom:

(1) Why do you selectively respond to some parts of a post and not to its other parts? Time of course is not the issue here since you do respond to some parts.


Usually it's time, if I respond to the first part, and not to the rest. If I respond to a post that's not addressed to me, I'll often just respond to a some portion of the post. Other than that, it's likely to be an oversight.

Quote:
My question is why not the other parts instead? Particularly those which you manifestly realized have disproved your previous objections.


I can't think of any like this.

Quote:
(2) Do you still think that your prior objections are still right despite not having responding to the responses that disprove them?


I can't think of any like this.


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] #133590
05/20/11 11:36 AM
05/20/11 11:36 AM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
Quote:
NJK: I have a couple of discussion general questions for you Tom:

(1) Why do you selectively respond to some parts of a post and not to its other parts? Time of course is not the issue here since you do respond to some parts.

Tom: Usually it's time, if I respond to the first part, and not to the rest. If I respond to a post that's not addressed to me, I'll often just respond to a some portion of the post. Other than that, it's likely to be an oversight.


Well obviously, factual contents taking into consideration, it indeed is not time, since you respond to some parts of a post skippings some points in between. In regards to parts of a post, you may begin to selectively answer part of a post, then not the rest, but then respond to another post after that, or e.g., the third post after that. So manifestly only answer what you think you have an answer to.

And how is time an issue when, as I told you before, you can take as long as necessary (e.g, a month) to answer a post?? You clearly are just choosing not to answer them at all.

Quote:
NJK: My question is why not the other parts instead? Particularly those which you manifestly realized have disproved your previous objections.

Tom: I can't think of any like this.


They still are there and can easily be demonstrated. I don’t have the time to do this recollection and factual demonstration, but these facts and “ignored” content speak for themself. Indeed by simply the “logic” of your response, you then agree with everything that I said in e.g, my past three wholly unanswered posts which disproved your latest arguments!?? Or perhaps, as I suspect, you obliviously consider you view to be true irrespective of the facts!?!

Quote:
NJK: (2) Do you still think that your prior objections are still right despite not having responding to the responses that disprove them?

Tom: I can't think of any like this.


Again the facts speak again you hear despite what ‘you can’t think of’.

Either this amnesic forgetfulness is clinical on your part, including a possible (subconscious) psychological block to whatever opposes your view, or you are, as I suspect with you being “guileful.” Given that you view was the basis for your conversion to Adventism, I can see why/how it could subconsciously “psychologically” affect you.
Being careless and irresponsible, especially given your supposed training, or pulling an “ostrich move”, or (like the Jews of Christ’s time), effectively ‘blocking your eyes and ears’ (Isa 6:9ff), and making oblivious, mantra repetitions, is not an excuse/justification for being guileful.

Of course you are going to find a way to peripherally object to this, but one thing I can’t stand is a liar, in any related degree/form/measure. As does the Godhead by the way (e.g, Rev 14:5; Acts 5:4; cf. Num 23:19).

Don’t forget the Seminary related questions, and that info can be duly lawfully verified.


“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] #133591
05/20/11 11:39 AM
05/20/11 11:39 AM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
Originally Posted By: NJK
(Again Tom, don’t forget to answer Post #133507)

-Also, as it is also generally pertinent to this discussion, you have said (back in Post #131319) that you “majored in Theology, and studied several years at the seminary”. Did you graduate (i.e., obtain a degree)?

-And did you take (and complete) courses in Biblical Languages, namely Biblical Hebrew and NT Greek?


Wow, this is a huge post! I'll respond as several posts.

I responded to the post you mentioned. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

I graduated with honors in my undergraduate degree. I completed the coursework for the graduate degree, but did not graduate. I took Biblical languages. I have taken a lot more Greek than Hebrew (I had already studied classical Greek).

Quote:
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.

Tom: 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.

NJK: 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.

Tom: That's not the issue. The problem is not with what had been revealed in the OT, but with people's perception of that revelation, which was, and still is, different then Jesus Christ's.

NJK:I don’t from where you are making/justifying your objection here because what you stated: “not with what had been revealed in the OT, but with people's perception of that revelation” is exactly what I had expressed by saying “what God had actually intended in the OT”.


What God had actually intended in the OT is what was revealed. I pointed out that this is not the issue, but people's perception of this.

Quote:
NJK:Because the OT People and also those in Christ’s times had a wrong perception of that revelation they therefore did not see nor understand what God had actually intended in what He had said or done.


Right, and still today people perceive the revelation incorrectly.

Quote:
NJK:E.g., the Sabbath was not a day to selfishly not do any work, per se, but to variously, pervasively provide God’s rest to others, and as Jesus showed, by “doing good” and “save life” (Mark 3:4). So “work” was really what was done to selfishly gratify/convenience oneself, including not doing the feasible pre-Sabbath “preparations”. (In an applicable way, the Church today won’t engage in the actually feasible ‘“work” needed to save millions of lives’ and all in the Pharisaical sanctimony that ‘God’s Sabbath rest is “at the door”, so effectively, they fully subscribe to the Capitalist ‘live and let die’ tenet.)

T:So when we look at the OT, we see one thing, but when Jesus Christ looked at it, He saw another. What Jesus Christ saw is what He revealed. So, given that we see things different than Jesus Christ did, we should defer to what Jesus Christ saw. That's been the point I've been making.

NJK:In terms of substantive things, Jesus read and thus “saw” the same thing that anyone in his day could see.


They could have seen these things if they were as sinless as He, as insightful, and listened to and understood the Holy Spirit as He did.

Quote:
NJK: I see that you are here trying to impose your own view for Christ’s here and claim that e.g., He did not see God actively doing the Destructions and judgements of the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, Nadad and Abihu, Dothan, Korah and Abiram, and all these other examples.


This is a good example of the principle I'm addressing. You're seeing something which isn't there (i.e., you see that I'm trying to impose my own view for Christ's here. What I'm actually doing is arguing that Christ's view is represented by His life and character).

Quote:
That premise to me is completely irrational.


You're not identifying the premise correctly. The premise is that Christ revealed what He heard and saw.

Quote:
NJK:Jesus did not engage in restating these acts of God as if God had not actually done them as the OT record unequivocally states. Even EGW did not see this in her Revelations of these episode. It is circularly only your view that needs this to be the case with Jesus and EGW, despite the clear testimony to the contrary, including Christ’s applicable “jot and tittle’ statement.


This is again not identifying the argument correctly.

The argument is that Christ revealed that which He saw and heard of God in His study of the Scriptures. So the picture we see of God that Christ revealed is in harmony with how Christ perceived God to have acted. What did Christ reveal of God? That answers the question of what Christ perceived of God's character. That's one argument.

Another argument is that God is often presented as doing that which He permits. There are many examples of this in the writings of Ellen White. I've already mentioned a few, including the destruction of Jerusalem, the serpents in the wilderness, those who love not the truth being sent delusions, and others. So, given that God is often presented as doing that which He permits, how do we know if the thing God is presented as doing is something He permitted as opposed to something He actively did?

One way would be to simply assume this must be what happened, unless there is some other statement elsewhere which presents a different point of view. So if there were simply the statement that God slew Saul, without the details, it would be assumed that God actively killed Saul. Or, without the statement from the SOP, it would be assumed that God sent fiery serpents to harm the Israelites, as opposed to removing His protection.

Another way is to perceive the principle involved, that there are a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which God protects us, and that it is both contrary to God's character to sent serpents to harm others, and unnecessary as a means by which God can effect judgments. Given an understanding of this principle, a corroborating statement from the SOP is unnecessary.

Quote:
NJK:Furthermore, Christ’s non-contradicting ‘fulfilling of the OT’, just as with EGW OT episodes revelations, only confirmed and even made it more clear that God was indeed involved in those actions. Jesus, and also EGW, only made these revelations more “palpable”/understandable to their applicable generations.


What do you have in mind here? Especially the "palpable" part. What's an example of Jesus making a revelation of this type more "palpable"? Also, what EGW statement did you have in mind?

Quote:
NJK:So it is you who is engaging in changing ‘jots and tittles’, even, redactively, whole phrases and statements of God. Your approach, however strongly/“blindly” you effectively think ‘Jesus also did this’ is just ‘a house built without deep, if any, foundations.’


I can't tell if you're missing the points I'm making entirely, or simply avoiding commenting on them, but you're not responding to points I've actually made. You're just responding to your own ideas regarding things I've said. This reminds me of when Huss, I think it was, was ordered to recant certain things he had supposedly taught, and his response was he couldn't recant things he had never said.

Also, you're citing anything specific here. If you're going to make an accusation like this, it would be good to quote something I've said. Otherwise it just becomes a pointless exchange of accusations and denials.

Quote:
NJK: 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.

Tom: Evidently the time that Jesus had was sufficient for Him to accomplish His mission.

NJK:Not necessarily, in terms of either ‘doing everything’, or your view-implied imposition ‘redoing/restating everything’.


??? I don't know what you have in mind here. I haven't suggested Jesus Christ did either of these things. I quoted many paragraphs explaining what I had in mind, as well as commenting on them. Why not respond to that?

Quote:
NJK:Jesus had to deal with the reality of the state of readiness and receptivity of those He dealt with. (E.g., John 16:12-15).


Which is what? Say what it was, or quote the text. Don't just cite a Scripture text you're not going to quote. That's pointless.

Quote:
NJK:Indeed just like in this ongoing GC, as documentedly revealed especially for OT Israel, God’s plans and intentions can be temporarily, and even greatly, delayed, curtailed and frustrated by the way people come to react to it.


How does this relate to the point that Christ had enough time accomplish His mission? Really, I don't see why you would think you have any grounds of disagreeing with this claim. Do you really doubt that Christ had enough time to accomplish His mission?

As regards to what Christ's mission was, it was the revelation of God, which I stated and quoted from the SOP to support (who, in turn, quoted from John 17).

Quote:
This is a very interesting quote. Note these points:

1.The whole purpose of Christ's mission on earth was to set men right through the revelation of God.

2.When the object of his mission was attained,—the revelation of God to the world,—the Son of God announced that his work was accomplished, and that the character of the Father was made manifest to men.

So Christ accomplished the revelation of the character of the Father to the world. If this had already been done, Christ would not have had to have come, since the whole purpose of His mission was the revelation of God.

NJK:Christ did this “whole accomplishing”


"Whole accomplishing?" Why is this in double quotes? No one used this expression. That's an odd thing to do. I understand you use single quotes to indicate a paraphrase, but don't you use double quotes to refer to an exact statement? If not, what is their purpose?

What Ellen White actually said was "whole purpose." The "whole purpose" of Christ's mission was the revelation of God is what she wrote.

Quote:
NJK: by furthering the standing OT revelation.


He accomplished His mission by living the life that He did.

Quote:
NJK: And this “OT revelation” does not include the unbiblical “traditions” and “precepts of men” that Jewish leaders added to this “Word of God” (Matt 15:1-9) I.e. what had been not fully said (i.e, what Paul later referred to as “mysteries” = “hidden truths” (cf. in this post #132603, indeed the ‘mysteries of God’s Kingdom), and “misunderstood” by the people, which included.


Why are you making this point?

Quote:
NJK:Furthermore, the Character of God inclusively includes Justice, as indeed seen throughout the OT. So that was to also be involved in Christ whole/complete revelation.


Yes, but justice is often misunderstood as involving violence and/or vengeance (as human's think of it). Is this what we see in Christ's life and character? Or do we see justice as explained here:

Quote:
“Thus says the LORD of hosts:


‘ Execute true justice,
Show mercy and compassion
Everyone to his brother.
10 Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless,
The alien or the poor.
Let none of you plan evil in his heart
Against his brother.’ (Zech. 9:7;NJKV)


Quote:
NJK:Christ’s revelation reforms in this regard involved the perfect righteousness that is to be involved when Justice/Judgement is done, as seen in the episode of the Woman caught in adultery. Indeed not too many, if any, can actually cast a first stone here.


I don't see what this has to do with the point I made. This is the point I made, to which you are responding here:

Quote:
So Christ accomplished the revelation of the character of the Father to the world. If this had already been done, Christ would not have had to have come, since the whole purpose of His mission was the revelation of God.


How does what you're saying relate to this point?


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] #133594
05/20/11 01:10 PM
05/20/11 01:10 PM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
Quote:
NJK: 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.

Tom: They certainly didn't have as clear a view of the character of God as Jesus Christ.

NJK:That is besides the point.


No it's not. The point is that the whole purpose of Christ's earthly mission was the revelation of God, and that had this revelation already been accomplished, Christ need not have come. That's the context of the discussion. So that the Bible writers did not has a clear a view of God's character as Christ did is to the point.

Quote:
NJK: The revelation of these (OT) Bible writers, set out in writing under the inspiration of God’s Spirit was precisely what God wanted to be fully understood then. Later in Jesus Christ, God only ‘made more full’ what He had previously said, legislated and inspired. And again, as per the focus of this thread, this fuller revelation in Christ did not change the actual substance of “historical” OT episodes, indeed as they are properly recorded. To make this apply to your view, you need to show statements from Christ which e.g., change the substantive/historical records of OT events. And again, the misperception of people in Christ day was not on what had occurred, but the wrong conclusion they drew from what had occurred.


On what do you base this assertion? How do you know there wasn't a misunderstanding as to what had occurred?

Quote:
As in your case, you read of Nadab and Abihu being burnt alive by a Fire from God and you, effectively, wrongly conclude that this “would” show/mean that God is violent. The principles in Christ’s revelation, which profusely included the teaching of Hell Fire judgement by Him/God (e.g., sLuke 12: 49, 50; cf. Rev 20:14) and its “fiery” physical torment (e.g., Matt 10:28; Mark 9:42-50/Matt 18:7-11).

So like these misguided first century Jews, you need to allow/trust Jesus’ teaching and revelations that the OT was not “violent” in doing those judgement, nor in doing them again in the NT Era through the end of this GC. God was rather quite Just and indeed, all things taken into proper consideration, Loving. Indeed many will be eternally saved because of these most strikingly, deserving, warning, ‘object lesson actions/judgement of God. (Cf. 2 Pet 2:5, 6).


When Christ was urged to destroy the Samaritans, how did He respond? This statement is really odd:

Quote:
So like these misguided first century Jews, you need to allow/trust Jesus’ teaching and revelations that the OT was not “violent” in doing those judgement...


The misguided first century Jews needed to trust Jesus' teaching that OT was not "violent"? You think that they perceived these events like I do?

Quote:
Quote:
NJK: 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.

Tom: Which people? Why do you think they thought that? I think they thought of the sacrifices in general very, very differently to how we, who have been very heavily influenced by Anselm, do.

NJK:By explicit and implicit implication, the people of God who thought that God was “pleased,” or ‘to be pleased,’ by merely offering sacrifices. Pointedly: Judah/Jerusalem (e.g., Isa 1:10-13a ff; Jer 20:6b): “Zion” (Psa 50:13, 14; 23; cf. Heb 13:16); ‘Israel’ (Mal 1:10; 1 Sam 15:20-22; cf. DA 509.1-2).


You said the blood sacrifices led the people to thing God was bloodthirsty. I asked you why you think this. You responded by saying that the people thought that God was pleased merely by offering sacrifices. I don't see why you would think this meant the people viewed God as bloodthirsty. Why wouldn't it mean that they viewed that God was pleased by their offering sacrifices? Not all sacrifices involved blood. What do you think the meaning of sacrifice was in Hebrew culture?

Quote:
Quote:
NJK: 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.

Tom: You're saying they viewed Jehovah to be more bloodthirsty than Molech, who demanded child sacrifices, which is why they turned to Molech?

NJK:No actually. Molech was in a distinct ‘type of God’ context. I had said that Israel probably turned to some foreign gods which required no sacrifices compared to their own God. Indeed, as the same underlying principle is posited today, it was “economically” more logical to obey a god that e.g., did not require one to make sacrifices from quite valuable livestock. The same personal wealth amassing excuse is used by many people, e.g., in regards to tithing, or conversely going along with Capitalism vs. God’s socio-economic principles.


So you're saying that a god who would require merely the sacrifice of one's own children was preferred to One who required the heavier sacrifice of cattle? So you believe the Hebrews viewed cattle as more valuable than their children? And that's why the preferred Molech?

Quote:
NJK:In regards to Molech, I meant that Israel, who had a wrong understanding that God was “bloodthirsty” and was merely pleased with the shedding of blood in sacrifice, probably thus surfacely saw Molech as being a “greater god” by requiring the “blood” of their own children.


Wouldn't this mean this god was requiring a greater sacrifice? But above you said they turned to foreign gods which required less sacrifice than theirs did.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Tom
I think they more likely turned to Molech for reasons analogous to why people turn to Catholicism.

NJK:Do elaborate/explain. I don’t see the correlation. Catholic rituals don’t include child sacrifices, in fact no (actual) sacrifices at all.


Catholicism has rites which enable the practitioner to continue in sin, while soothing the conscience. The true religion of Christ involves a doing away with sin. People will choose religions systems, which have a yoke which is heavy, over the yoke of Christ, which is light.

Quote:
NJK (edited): So the misunderstanding was in the mind of the people but not with the Biblical writer. Indeed God’s Spirit would not let such a misconception be recorded as Scripture/The Word of God.

Tom: Light is progressive. We need to bear in mind that at the time the OT was written, Christ had not yet come. The coming of Christ shed a great deal of light.

NJK:As this is all in relation to e.g., who actually did destructions in the OT, I see no Biblical, I.e., later OT, NT, SOP) evidence that contradict what had priorly revealed as taking place.



The contradiction is not with what had been previously been revealed, but with people's perceptions of what had been revealed. I've made this point repeatedly.

Quote:
NJK:Further revelations in such regards only confirmed, and that with greater details, what had been previously expressed by these Inspired Bible Writers.


Same comment.

Quote:
NJK:The direct statements of God are not subject to such future enlightening as the Bible writers then just recorded what they had “heard”. This is synonymous with EGW’s “I was shown” revelations in which she many times heard direct statements from God. In fact, I see that the revelation of these OT writers were probably identical to the direct ones given to EGW in that they “heard” many of these statements in those divine visions and dreams and recorded it. They also may have more clearly “heard” the voice of God while fully awake/conscious and proceed to record verbatim, what they had heard/been told.


What a person perceives is colored by their mind-set, their world view, their paradigm, etc. No inspired writer perceived things as clearly as Christ did, and none could reveal God's character as clearly as He.

Quote:
Quote:
NJK: You also often say that OT people had an incorrect understanding of who was doing an action in the Bible,

Tom: Actually I've never said this.

NJK:Perhaps not verbatim, but you have actually meant this.


No, this isn't what I meant, or mean.

Quote:
NJK:That is indeed what I understood by your repeat (though unsubstantiated) statement: that ‘the Bible often presents God doing that which He permits’ (e.g., the latest in Post #133509). Clearly that logically means to you that ‘these Bible writers had written that God had done something when He had actually only permitted it to be done, and that by someone/something else, moreover independent of His effectuating energy.’


This involves the action being done, not simply who is doing it. For example, consider the case of God's sending fiery serpents upon the Israelites. What actually happened was God permitted the serpents who were already there to harm the Israelites, which action He had been actively preventing until that point. So the problem was not with who was doing the action (clearly it was the snakes), but with what action was taking place (God was permitting them to attack the Israelites, as opposed to sending the snakes to attack them).

Quote:
Quote:
NJK: and while that substantively only applies to the episode of Job,

Tom: What is "that" here?

NJK:As I went on to (disprovingly) say (see below): “where God permitted Satan to do the destruction”, that “that” clearly refers to this notion of ‘God being said to do something which he had only permitted to be done’.


You're saying that the notion of God being said to do something which He only permitted to be done, in terms of Satan being permitted to cause destruction, applies only to the episode in Job? That is, at no other time did this occur?

Quote:
NJK: 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,

Tom: Everybody has already understood this. God is omnipotent, which has always been understood, so that if something happens, it's because God permitted it.

NJK:Really|Seriously|Truthfully|Honestly, Tom!??? Another sly, retroactive switch of views on your part here???? If your really believe/always believed so, then why do you keep on insisting on citing Job 1:21 as ‘a mistake of understanding by Bible writers.’ E.g.:

Originally Posted By: Tom Post #132613
“God is often presented as doing that which He permits in Scripture. For example... It says in Job that the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, but this was said by one who didn't know of Satan's existence. When the curtain is pulled away, we see that it was an enemy who caused the things which happened to Job.”


(Obviously you also did not at all mean in regards to “cause” that: ‘Satan “caused” and God actually physically “did”’.)

Indeed the truth was always that both Job and Moses knew exactly what they were talking about here when Job said, and then Moses later faithfully related, that Job 1:21 statement.


I've got no idea what your point here is. You wrote:

Quote:
if something was done against God’s people it ultimately was because God had permitted it,


Isn't this patently obvious? Who doesn't believe this to be the case? Why would you characterize my pointing out how obvious this is as

Quote:
Another sly, retroactive switch of views on your part here????


I've always viewed this as obvious, and think anyone would, and don't know anyone who doesn't, and have no idea why you would think my pointing this out would be a switch of views, let alone worthy of an insult.

Do you have no concept of how insulting your writing is? Do you do this on purpose, or out of ignorance?

If you're going to accuse me of something ugly, please have the common decency of at least substantiating your ugly claim with some morsel of evidence. Where have I switched a view?

I've been consistently saying the same things over and over again.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Tom
Here's the issue:

Originally Posted By: SOP
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. {DA 471.1}

NJK:The issue here, without using the method of building a teaching on a single verse/passage, was that affliction and calamity were not always, and that arbitrarily, a judgement of God, but many times simply the natural results of sin and also disobedience to God’s laws which served to avert many of these adversities. Yet that does not isolatively mean that God never directly inflict the punishment of disease and death. As I see Biblically clearly it, when God needs to deservingly/judiciously effectuate such a punishment, and there is no immediate natural/organic consequence for the sin, He then either does it Himself, or commissions His Angels to do it, or stirs up foreign nations/powers, or even permits Satan and/or his angels, to do it. Indeed even EGW who made this DA 471.1 statement, did not see this as you do, as in e.g., GC 614.2.


From GC 614:

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.


This is bringing out the same points I have been. This is the context of GC 614.2.

Regarding the issue, what EGW points out is that Satan has induced people to view when bad things happen to people that this is a punishment from God, as opposed to an action originating from him (Satan), or a consequence of sin. Given that sin has bad consequences, it is not necessary for God to impose artificial bad consequences of His own. It's sufficient for Him to allow the bad consequences already inherent in a sinful world to effect any desired judgments.

Quote:
Also by God legislating that some sins should be capital punished wile others were not, He Himself had clearly shown that not all sins would immediately result in a divinely ordained consequence of death.

Quote:
NJK: even if a different agency was employed to carry out that action.

Tom: If the same agency was employed, which would be God, then, of course, it would be understood that God permitted the action.


NJK:I don’t get your point here.


You wrote:

Quote:
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.


That's an awfully long sentence, by the way.

You said 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. Consider the first part of this:

If something was done against God’s people, it ultimately was because God had permitted it.

Now if God was the agency involved, then of course God permitted it, because the agency would be Himself in this case. In other words, what your saying doesn't make sense. You say, "even if a different agency was employed," when it only makes sense that a different agency was employed.

Quote:
NJK:The Bible is indeed full of such ‘same Divine agency’ examples. Indeed I rationally see that when the Bible says/shows that God directly did something, then it not only means that ‘He permitted it’ but also that He did it.


So when it says God killed Saul, God did that. And when God sent fiery serpents against the Israelites, God did that. And when God "took away" from Job, God did that. And when God sent strong delusion against those who love not the truth, God did that too.

So whenever God acts indirectly, you see this as God acting directly? That seems to be what you're saying.

Quote:
NJK:That is however slightly different in cases where the Bible says that God had commissioned an Angel to do the work of judgement. In such cases, God did not actually directly do the action. Still it is generally considered as a Divinely-done judgement.


Generally? When would it not be considered as such?

(More later)


Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: Mountain Man] #133605
05/20/11 05:55 PM
05/20/11 05:55 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. Please elaborate. Thank you.

Page 95 of 105 1 2 93 94 95 96 97 104 105

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