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

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

Click Here To Read Legal Notice & Disclaimer
Suggested a One Time Yearly $20 or Higher Donation Accepted Here to Help Cover the Yearly Expenses of Operating & Upgrading. We need at least $20 X 10 yearly donations.
Donations accepted: Here
ShoutChat Box
Newest Members
ekoorb1030, jibb555, MBloomfield, Dina, Nelson
1323 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums118
Topics9,186
Posts195,505
Members1,323
Most Online5,850
Feb 29th, 2020
Seventh-day Adventist Church In Canada Links
Seventh-day Adventist Church in Canada

Newfoundland & Labrador Mission

Maritime Conference

Quebec Conference

Ontario Conference

Manitoba-Saskatchewan Conference

Alberta Conference

British Columbia Conference

7 Top Posters(30 Days)
Rick H 21
kland 17
Daryl 4
March
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Member Spotlight
ProdigalOne
ProdigalOne
Alberta, Canada
Posts: 1,166
Joined: June 2015
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
8 registered members (Kevin H, TruthinTypes, Wendell Slattery, Daryl, ProdigalOne, TheophilusOne, 2 invisible), 3,086 guests, and 6 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 98 of 105 1 2 96 97 98 99 100 104 105
Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: Tom] #133808
05/26/11 09:02 PM
05/26/11 09:02 PM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
Originally Posted By: MM
T: You wrote as if God were responsible for the things you were speaking of. I addressed that by pointing out that it would be a huge mistake to view God as responsible, and cited texts to explain why.

M: 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?

T: What would a disagreement to this look like? That Jesus let them cause more death and destruction than He was willing to permit? This is a question to you, asking for clarification. Actually two questions.

M:Why disagree with it? Just say, Yes, of course, I agree.


It looks like a tautology.

Quote:
M:Jesus was responsible for ensuring evil angels did not exceed the limits He imposed on them, that is, He did not let them cause more death and destruction than He was willing to permit.


The second part here looks like a tautology. The first part seems somewhat poorly phrased, perhaps giving the impression that the evil angels were fulfilling Christ's will, as opposed to acting contrary to His will. I would want to make clear that the evil angels are acting contrary to Christ's will.

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

T: I believe that Jesus worked to prevent evil men and evil angels from inflicting death and destruction in general. I don't know what you would want me to elaborate on here. I don't see what you wouldn't be understanding here.

M:Your response seems to imply you believe Jesus works to prevent them from causing any and all forms of death and destruction.


Yes, this is what Jesus does by default.

Quote:
M:If so, did He fail? That is, did He fail at preventing them and it accounts for why they caused so much death and destruction? If so, why wasn’t Jesus successful?


Well, let's look at what we've been told:

Quote:
Their sufferings are often represented as a punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God. It is thus that the great deceiver seeks to conceal his own work. By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them, and Satan was permitted to rule them according to his will. (GC 35)


This seems clear. The Jews "cause the protection of God to be withdrawn from them."

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

T: This can't be a serious question. This seems self-explanatory. What sense would it make for an evil person to restrain themselves in order not to displease God? Doesn't being evil presuppose that one is displeasing God? Why would you think a question like this makes sense? Better yet, why would you ask such a question? What were you thinking when you asked it? If you write out what you were thinking, perhaps we could discuss that, as what you were thinking probably makes some sense.

M:Do you believe Jesus worked to prevent them from exceeding His limits because otherwise they would?


What limits are you talking about? Is this something specific, or a general question?

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

T: 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? This seems self-explanatory too. I don't see how you could not understand what I'm saying here.

M:Why didn’t they exceed the limits Jesus imposed on them?


What limits are you talking about?

The general concept is simple. God is constantly protecting us (and not just us, but the wicked as well) from a thousand dangers, all of them unseen. God can be caused to remove His protection. When this happens, bad things may happen (although it's also possible Satan may favor certain ones for his purposes).

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

T: 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.

M:What criteria did Jesus use to determine how and what punishment would be inflicted?


What makes you think He was doing this?

Quote:
M:Did the punishment He envisioned require the involvement of evil men and evil angels?


Same question.

I don't understand how you're thinking here. Here's how I'm thinking. God protects people. They cause Him to remove His protection. Bad things may happen as a result.

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

T: 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. This seems very clear to me. Your question has a premise, with which I disagree. I pointed out the premise in question, and why I disagree with it.

M:What motivated Jesus to withdraw His protection and permit evil men and evil angels to inflict the punishment He determined was appropriate and worked to ensure they did not exceed?


Same question as before. Why are you thinking that Jesus is determining punishment here, as opposed to that God was caused to remove His protection?

Quote:
Quote:
M: 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?

T:Again, I disagree with the premise here. The premise is that you speak of "death and destruction" which "Jesus deemed right and necessary." I disagree with your premise that Jesus Christ was so deeming.

M:Who, then, if not Jesus, determined the limits of punishment to be inflicted on them?


This whole concept of "punishment to be inflicted on them" is foreign to what I'm seeing in the description of the destruction that took place to Jerusalem. In all of Jesus' ministry, not once did He attribute any evil which occurred as punishment being inflicted upon the suffering person. Not one time. In every instance, every one, He attributed their suffering to either sin or Satan. I share this way of thinking. As Jesus Christ did, I also attribute all suffering to the evil one, and the consequences of sin.

Quote:
...all suffering results from transgression of God's law....suffering is inflicted by Satan (DA 471).


Quote:
Sickness, suffering, and death are work of an antagonistic power. Satan is the destroyer; God is the restorer....When Christ healed disease, He warned many of the afflicted ones, "Sin no more, lets a worst thing come unto thee' John 5:14. Thus He taught that they had brought disease upon themselves by transgressing the laws of God, and that health could be preserved only by obedience (MH 113).


Quote:
We are to observe carefully every lesson Christ has given us throughout His life and teaching; He does not destroy. He improves whatever He touches.


I'd like to discuss this last quote a bit, because I think it hits at a heart of the difference between how we view things. I see this last quote as a condensed explanation of the main issue involved in the Great Controversy. Here's the reality:

1.Christ (or God) does not destroy.
2.Christ (or God) improves whatever He touched.

Here is Satan's claim:

1.Christ (or God) does destroy.
2.Christ (or God) does not improve whatever He touches.

Note what we are exhorted to do:

Quote:
We are to observe carefully every lesson Christ has given us throughout His life and teaching(1SM 118).


Why are we exhorted to do so? To learn that:

1.Christ (or God) does not destroy.
2.Christ (or God) improves whatever He touched.

How I see you to perceive things is that Christ (or God) does destroy, and we could not observe carefully every lesson Christ has given us throughout His life and teaching to see that He does not destroy, nor improves everything He touches, because that isn't the case.

I'd like to bring into to attention that we are exhorted to "observe carefully *every lesson* Christ has given us throughout His life. Every lesson. Why every lesson? Because the whole purpose of His mission was the revelation of God. *Everything* He did was for this purpose, and so it follows that *every lesson* should be observed, to learn two things:

1.God does not destroy.
2.God improves everything He touches.

And this is wonderful and beautiful truth.

When these truths dawn on our consciousness, it changes our whole paradigm! As Acts says, Christ went about doing good. This is how He revealed the Father. He improved everything He touched, thus revealing that God improves everything He touches. So all we need to is allow God to touch us, and He will improve us.

Understanding that God improves everything He touches takes our fear away. We don't need to worry about what God will do to us if we don't do what He says, because God improves everything He touches; He does not destroy. Our fear should only be what will happen to us if we do not allow God to touch us. This is because we need improvement, and that is because of how Satan and sin have wrecked us.


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] #133809
05/26/11 09:13 PM
05/26/11 09:13 PM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec

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.

Tom: 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.

NJK: It substantively is besides the point for the substantiating reasons that I went on to state.

Tom: From what you are saying here, it looks right on point, getting to the critical issue (at least, a critical issue).

NJK: Now that I understand your point of view more clearly based on what you have finally forthrightly/clearly stated below, I can actually now see/understand how and why this is “right on point for you, in your view. That is because you believe that OT writers themselves had, actually, a wrong view of God.

Tom: I don't think this is the right way of thinking about this. God is infinite, so no human (besides Jesus Christ) could have a view of God that was complete. What I said was, "They certainly didn't have as clear a view of the character of God as Jesus Christ."


Your expressed statements and practices in regards to your view clearly show that you have much more than ‘complete comprehension’ in mind. According to your view, one has to not believe the Bible when it says that God said, commanded or did something. If you can dichotomize your view as you please then great for you. I just cannot comprehensively see from your that one understanding (Christ’s greater revelation) does not involve the other (not taking even the God-quoting OT writers at their words). Which is why you just don’t answer questions that deal with such direct statements of God. That is a major red flag for me, as I don’t one-sidedly build my Theology on just a selective set of passages, but seek to harmonize everything that has been said on the topic. This is indeed where we foundationally differ.

Quote:
NJK: I would only see that this applies to the parts of the Bible, where these writers were “free” to purely express their own thoughts, derived from their own experiences with God, e.g., the “Writings” of the OT (e.g., Psa/Pro/Eccl), however I also do see that much of the “free” statements by writers was derived from things that God had actually said.

Tom: All throughout the Bible the Bible writers are communicating their thoughts.


Not “all throughout” but generally speaking, only in certain part. I.e., not when they were either quoting God’s own words or making statements directly derived from these direct statements. As I said later and you agreed, the same thing was involved in EGW’s writings.

Originally Posted By: Tom
They are God's penmen, not His pen.


That does not involve/include thing that were directly, through various prophetic revelations (Heb 1:1) stated by, and heard from, God.

Quote:
NJK: So I also only see that in some parts, Bible writers had an incomplete understanding of God, due to what God could only reveal to them, due to their own failings, revelation frustrating and other shortcomings. Yet what was revealed was quite sufficient for them to come to that full understanding of God. E.g., Moses, after his 40 days up on the mountain had a perfect understanding of God’s Law and also of the Plan of Salvation in the current OT Religious Economy symbols (PP 330.2). I believe Jesus came to this fuller and more complete revelation using this exact “text”, combined with the ever guiding help of the Spirit because of His unwavering, self-initiated, perfect walk in God’s ways and constant obedience to the various promptings of God’s Spirit. So what could not be revealed to people in the OT because of their own shortcomings, could, and was revealed to Christ, particularly as He variously “advanced” and “kept on course” in God’s will.

NJK: Israel, by necessity, indeed just as NT Believer have faith in Jesus, and are to be faithful and obedient to Him to remain in harmony with the Father’s will, OT Believers had to do the same thing with the Law.

Tom: I'm not sure what your point is here. It sounds like you're agreeing with me in regards to what I said about Jesus Christ.


Not in the sense of your ‘He caused the OT to be reworded where: ‘God did not actually say or do what it says he did or do’, but OT writers always misunderstood Him. What I am saying is that they had ample revelation in the OT to get the same understanding that Jesus got. Jesus did not make his extra-biblical misconception corrections from direct revelations from God but by what He “exegetically” (i.e., especially including the greater Theological and substantive context) understood from those same OT writings.

Originally Posted By: Tom
What I have been saying is that Jesus Christ was the clearest revelation of God. It was the whole purpose of His mission to reveal God. This was necessary because of the work Satan had been doing to misrepresent God's character.


And he achieved this mainly by variously causing people to doubt the Word of God, such as this not trusting that even direct revelations were accurate. I can see how doubting God’s Character Justice does bolster the devil’s work. Indeed that is why people persist in rebellion today, not seeing/believing that God will enter into judgement with them.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Until the cross, even holy angels were impacted by Satan's misrepresentations.


What are you basing this on? I rather see that they were not yet convinced that the alternate way that Satan had proposed was deserving of the completely eradicating judgement that God wanted to effectuate on it.

Quote:
NJK: The OT revelation was perfect in itself.

Tom: Only as they left God's mind. Once human beings got involved, they were no longer perfect, as the Scriptures neither represent the logic nor the language of God. (See Selected Messages on inspiration).

NJK: I do see that the Inspiration of Bible writers was very much like what was seen with EGW. They primarily wrote upon what they had seen in visions and dreams and “heard” from God. Similarly most of EGW “early writings’ were such direct revelations. Then she began to derive testimony from such direct revelations and additional ones. Bible writers similarly did the same thing. However I see that they had a much closer experience with God than did EGW (e.g., Moses’ in person meetings with God.) Indeed God was tangibly in the midst of Israel for many centuries, even right through periods of apostasy, though no additional revelation and (advancing/visionary prophetic) light was given.

Tom: Ok.


So e.g., when the Bible says that God commanded Moses to kill the person violating the Sabbath, there was no misunderstanding involved here right? As with the many other God-quoting, God-commanded and/or God-directly-effectuated judgements in the Bible right? Your typical “God permits” reason here has been further shown to be invalid and would also only be addressing some episodes of such effectuated judgements.

Quote:
NJK: The people’s added misconceptions are what need to be addressed and Christ added furthering and fulfilling revelations. The Inspired Bible writers got God’s revelation right. It was the people who misunderstood that revelation. And to say that these Bible writers got it wrong, implies that God Himself wrongly expressed, legislated and/or otherwise reveal it.

Tom: It dosn't imply this.

NJK: Previously I had said that a misunderstanding in Bible writers could have occurred in their actual “ad lib” writings, i.e., vs. writing what God had “directly” revealed. And I do not actually see an example of this “misunderstanding” in the Bible.

Tom: What you wrote was stronger than this. You wrote, "to say that these Bible writers got it wrong, implies that God Himself wrongly expressed, legislated and/or otherwise reveal it."


I don’t see so given what those particular statement involve. Again you are spuriously trying to dichotomize your view.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Again, I wouldn't say that the Bible writers got it wrong, but that God is infinite, and they are human. God as a writer is not expressed in Scripture in terms of rhetoric or logic is what I recall the EGW quote to say.


So then, as Mountain Man also asks for, pointedly explain, once and for all, how you see that someone in the Bible writing a: “Thus says the Lord” is expressing an imperfect statement and will of God!!??

Quote:
NJK: I understand that you do with, e.g., every instance where it says that ‘God took judgement actions on someone/ a group of people.’ For the many reasons already expressed in this thread, including especially the ones that show that your understanding of what EGW revealed in 14MR 1-3|GC 35-37 was only a secondary way to effectuate judgements, namely “no (more) mercy” judgements, I indeed do see that you are quite wrongly and overreachingly misapplying that view.

Tom: She never said that this was a secondary way to bring about judgments. This is simply an assumption you have,


That’s is what all inclusive, proper exegesis reveals. If you were doing so you would be seeing this. Indeed those two methods are pointedly seen in the destruction of Jerusalem. One for the first allowed mercy part and the second for the utter end, no-more mercy part. The same thing occurs with the 7 Last Plagues.

Originally Posted By: Tom
and one which is contrary to various principles she articulated, including, to name a few:

1.The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government.
2.Compelling power is found only under the government of Satan.
3.All that we need to know, or can know, of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son.
4.God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown.
5.Sickness, suffering, and death are work of an antagonistic power. Satan is the destroyer; God is the restorer.


Simply restating these points does not make them mean what you claim they mean. Deal with the many already stated points that show that they are not implying what you understand.

Originally Posted By: Tom
You've never adduced any evidence that what she has said above is a "secondary way to effectuate judgments." That there is such a thing, as multiple ways to bring about judgments, is under dispute.


As cited above I indeed have.

Originally Posted By: Tom
The way that I have said that God brings about judgments is in harmony with the principles laid out above.


You are understanding these principles in an overreachingly different way than what EGW intended.

Originally Posted By: Tom
If God had some other way of bringing about judgments, not in harmony with the above judgments, that would be problematic.


You are the one who is choosing to only look at one aspect of God’s judgement-effectuating. And the substantive Biblical record is what is to stipulate ‘hermeneutic rules of understanding’ not isolatively/merely EGW. That’s an unbiblical approach.

Originally Posted By: Tom
God's character is consistent.


Which is why He allows for mercy even when effectuating judgement. Indeed many people in Jerusalem may not have themselves rejected Christianity. So God allowed for them to escape the destruction and have a further chance merely by remaining alive to get this saving knowledge of this Truth.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: SOP
The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God’s mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God’s penmen, not His pen.


NJK: Indeed some expression may seem and are ungodly.(None come to mind actually) However I see that the substance itself is not affected by the mode of expression.

Tom: Certainly one's understanding of what another communicates, which is what we're talking about, is impacted by the mode of expression.


(A) Not when “quoting” a source. The source itself would have to make the “ungodly expression” It is because you view all acts of judgement as evil and violent that you spuriously posit that God was in such direct statement cases always being misunderstood and misquoted.

(B) Again, while this may generally be true in life, I myself don’t actually see this occurring in the Bible. EGW saying: “Men will often say such an expression is not like God.” does not mean that this is the case.

Indeed, when one reads that SOP statement in full context, EGW is actually supporting the understanding that Biblical writers did not have a misconception about God. They wrote under thought inspiriation. She is simply saying that what they wrote in applicable, non direct quoting places, was not literally, i.e., verbatim the words, logic and rhetoric of God, as in a ‘verbal inspirational’ way. She also personally dealt with those same issues. Her full statement:

Originally Posted By: SOP 1SM 21.2
It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the man's words or his expressions but on the man himself, who, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is imbued with thoughts. But the words receive the impress of the individual mind. The divine mind is diffused. The divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will; thus the utterances of the man are the word of God.-- Manuscript 24, 1886 (written in Europe in 1886).


So for any misunderstanding to have patently been occurring, as you are claiming. These writers would have to be constantly misconstruing the inspired thought that God’s Spirit was continually putting in their heads.

That is indeed all part of the actual point EGW had in mind in making these “objection to the Bible” statements 1SM 19-21.

Quote:
NJK:I also think that the Bible is substantively perfectly revealed in what is prescritive and also, by being truthful, in what it describes. I also think that whenever it relates that God did something, then that is indeed what occurred. (Of course you do see so).

Tom: The Bible often presents God as doing that which He permits.


Again this is not a substantiated claim. God is either directly or indirectly acting is those situations which are not necessarily always “permitting”. Indeed only in Job’s case do I see it applying as you claim. Otherwise I can easily see that God acted through an agency.

Originally Posted By: Tom
This is a principle, like "forever" does not necessarily mean "for all eternity."


I have already shown that this is only when the context implies this. Why won’t you substantively address this instead of, as usual just repeating what you had previously said??!

Originally Posted By: Tom
So when we say something occurred, like God killed Saul, what does that mean? It might mean that Saul took His own life. Or when it says that God sent fiery serpents against the Israelites, what does that mean? It might mean that God did nothing more than remove His protection. Or when God sent strong delusion against those who received not the love of the truth, that might mean that God left to them to their own delusions.


All repeatedly, exegetically, addressed and disproven/debunked

Originally Posted By: Tom
There are all sorts of examples like this.


You’ll have to cite new ones than the ones you have as they have been disproven and/or address the points that disprove them.

Quote:
NJK: Again, I really cannot think of any theologically substantive error/wrong view in the Bible. Indeed I do not see your view on God’s judgements as being examples of a wrong view.

Tom: You don't see my view on God's judgments as being examples of a wrong view? So you see my view on God's judgments as being examples of a correct view?


I meant, in context, that: ‘I do not see your examples trying to support your view on God’s judgements as being examples that show that I have a wrong view’

Quote:
Tom: On the other hand, Jesus Christ was God's pen! Jesus Christ was God's thought expressed audible, the perfect representation of God. His was the greatest revelation.

Originally Posted By: Bible Hebrews 1:1, 2 (KJV)
1God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son. (Hebrews 1:1, 2;KJV)


NJK: This text clearly is just saying that “in the same way God had variously spoken through prophets in the past, now spoke through His Son Jesus Christ.”

Tom: I don't know anybody who interprets this text this way. I've never heard this idea until now.


That does not mean that it is not valid. It exegetically indeed is. It is the same Spirit that was prophetically speaking. It was just able to achieve more through Jesus. And what was later revealed in Jesus did not in any way contradict what God’s Spirit had previously revealed.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
The Highest of All Revelations Is Given Us Now in the Son of God, Who Is Greater than the Angels, and Who, Having Completed Redemption, Sits Enthroned at God's Right Hand.


Originally Posted By: Matthew Henry
God spake to his ancient people at sundry times, through successive generations, and in divers manners, as he thought proper; sometimes by personal directions, sometimes by dreams, sometimes by visions, sometimes by Divine influences on the minds of the prophets. The gospel revelation is excellent above the former; in that it is a revelation which God has made by his Son. In beholding the power, wisdom, and goodness of the Lord Jesus Christ, we behold the power, wisdom, and goodness of the Father, Joh 14:7; the fulness of the Godhead dwells, not typically, or in a figure, but really, in him.


Tom: These were chosen because they're easy to find. I hadn't read what these had said, but just looked for *any* commentary, because this explanation is the only I've ever heard, and seems clear just by reading the text.


I exegetically see this as the sole/limiting understanding here. God’s Spirit did not reveal unbiblical things in the past. Also notice e.g., that it was Christ Revelation to Paul ca. 4 years after Jesus’s ascension showed that the keeping of OT ceremonial laws was no longer required. Similar to this, further, more pointed revelation, all of what Jesus revealed was already hinted in the revelations of the OT, just not with “executive” force then.

Quote:
NJK: Still it was God who was doing this speaking. Only a different spokesperson was used.

Tom: The point is that Jesus Christ is greater. This is the theme of Hebrews in a nutshell.


The book of Hebrews served to complete the types to Anti-type transition in Christ. The issue of judgements in the OT is not subject to this type/anti-type development, and indeed, it was not hinted that OT statements of judgements would be so “changed” (= reworded) in the NT. So this is really a proof text to support your view. Indeed, at best, a similar “replacing” revelation by Christ for judgements, given their incontrovertible substantive occurrence in the OT, like e.g., ceremonial practices, would come to only mean that such judgements would now no longer be done by God in this way in the NT era.

Quote:
NJK: Interestingly enough, I only see two times in the Bible where God had to correct a prophets, and that for relatively benign reasons, namely Nathan (2 Sam 7:1-17) and Samuel (1 Sam 16:6, 7). Seems to me they were quite faithful in correctly transmitting what had been revealed/said to them. So I do not see a basis here that what was recorded in the OT from God was wrongly done.

Tom: What are your responding to here? Where have I said that anything was wrongly done?


The OT quotings of God being what He actually had in mind. These two examples show that when a prophet misconceived, misunderstood something about God, God then immediately intervened to correct him. So that is why I do not that this was not at all the case with any statement of the OT. God’s Spirit evidently so made sure that what was written was in full harmony with the Intention and Will of God. E.g., God would have intervene to prevent Israel from stoning someone to death or going to war as this would not have been what He had ordered. Indeed David was not permitted to build the Temple because his own hand (and not Israel in general) had shed much blood, even if that was “before God” (1 Chr 22:8). Though these were necessary actions, God wanted a non-warrior to build His Temple. Indeed, correspondingly. though God does such great judgement actions, He only wants a worship of Him that is not based upon these acts. Still such effectuated Justice is a necessary and righteous part of God Character. If not, He would never have directly commanded David to engage in any of these wars. (E.g. 1 Chr 14:9, 10 versus 13-16).

Originally Posted By: Tom
Haven't I been saying that the problem is with how what was written has been perceived?


I do not sequiturly/fully see that from what you have been saying. Indeed the problem is that you are also including direct statements of God in this view of yours. You may be not explicitly saying/intending that, but your OT revisionism and non-answers, say otherwise. Indeed you won’t answer anything that has to do with direct statements of God ordering war, capital punishment and judgement.

(You are actually seeming, by those non-answers, to be trying to buy time until you can find an even plausible answer for them. As with other similar issues, you should indeed clearly answer those direct questions to avoid this resulting logical/rational perception.)

Quote:
NJK: I am not going down that slippery slope!

Tom: I think you're going down a different one. Namely, replacing the revelation of Jesus Christ with ideas which are not in harmony with what He lived and taught.

NJK: That is of course because you are viewing/judging things by your view,

Tom: Of course. And you are viewing/judging things by your view, which is why you say the things you say.


Well you need to do a better job of proving your view, indeed by engaging the many points that are showing that it is not in harmony with the Bible. Selectively only using some texts for a view is the patent way of establishing a teaching that is not actually Biblical. It is only plausibly so when only those partial selection of text are used. Still, the texts that you are claiming in support do not in themselves support your view as they are accurately understood when considered in the greater context of all applicable texts, if not simply through proper exegesis.

Quote:
NJK: which I do not see what you are basing it on saying or requiring what you are doing. Even EGW who “would have” expressed it, did not do/say what you are requiring when writing her commenting books on Biblical episodes, namely the Conflict of the Ages series. As seen in e.g, GC 614.2, she also saw and understood that God had done acts of judgement and destructions in the OT and also NT.

Tom: From GC 614:

Originally Posted By: SOP
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.


Tom: These are the same ideas I've been sharing. This is the context of the text you're referencing.


What’s the real issue/problem here Tom, as with other similar occurrences elsewhere??? I have already answered this objection of yours. Why won’t engage what I have already said in response? Did you not see that post? Or did you not bother to read it?? Or did you forget what you had read??? Or does it not matter what I had said???? Which one is it????? And then you vexatiously complain when I get upset by this patent disrespectful discussion snubbing as if I have to silently taken this from you? What’s the deal here??

Quote:
NJK: EGW’s treatise on the “City of Refuge” in ST, January 20, 1881 is a good example of the perfect mixture of God’s justice and his mercy.

Tom: The most detailed explanation I've see in the first chapter of the Desire of Ages. The chapter on the revolution in France also is pretty detailed, and is along the same lines as the first chapter.


Well wherever EGW does expound on this “perfect mixture”, she rightly understands that they both simultaneously exists and are distinctly manifested.

Originally Posted By: Tom
It's helpful to note principles involved. I've already articulated some.


Your articulated principles do not extent to what you claim of them.

Originally Posted By: Tom
We know that at times God works as explained in GC chapter 1, and that this example has God working things out in harmony with the principles articulated before. Does He sometimes work differently, according to other principles? I don't see that you've made any such case.


My point, as stated in that Signs article is that God does not wholly dispense with Justice for the sake of Mercy. Because God is merciful, He still does not do away with the justice elements in His Law and Character. So He statutorily instituted in Israel that a murdered person should be avenged (=Gen 9:5, 6). (You have not responded to that Genesis statement by God).

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.

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

NJK: Seriously???

Tom: ??? What is is you think we're disagreeing about???

NJK: Now that I finally understand your full view of the OT,

Tom: It doesn't appear that you do. If you could articulate my position in a way that I would agree with, I would agree that you understand my view. Are you able to do so?


Easy. You see that nothing that is written in the OT can be defaultly said to be a correct perception of God’s ideas, will and ways.

Quote:
NJK: I can see why you don’t get my incredulity here. I see that the Bible writers did not have a misunderstanding with what had occurred,

Tom: The issue is not with the Bible writers!


Really, so according to you who is it with then in pointedly direct quoting of God? It seems quite clear to me that we should not take what these statement say as accurate representation of God’s will. Then who is responsible for this supposed misperception and misquoting of God?

(And if that is what you don’t think you said, then do spare me a terse: ‘that not what I said’ reply, and do quote or articulate for yourself what you said or meant. As seen below, (bold) you can do this when you think you have, at least, a seemingly plausible answer.)

Quote:
NJK: indeed as confirmed by the similar views of EGW. Of course, you don’t, and think that everywhere that is said that God did something was a misunderstanding and must be restated.

Tom: You're being inaccurate here. What I've said is that God is often presented as doing that which He permits, and I've given many examples of this, both from Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy.

NJK: I find no Biblical example or support, including from Jesus Himself, for this rewriting of the Biblical text.

Tom: I've given over a dozen examples of what I asserted.


By now all disproven a Biblically valid examples. At the very least, try new ones or address the standing objections.

Quote:
NJK: As I understand the why’s of God’s timely OT judgements, indeed as He did need to timely act to check free developments that, I believed, He did not always anticipate as a concrete possibility (cf. Isa 5:4). All of these acts of judgement are also microcosms and warnings of what the Final Hell destruction will be.

Tom: I haven't been discussing with you as to why the judgments occurred, but the mechanism involved in the judgments.


That what/how is clear to me. And as my statement emphasized, it is the involved “why” that make Him use these direct and active methods for reasons of timeliness and also due, full and proper effectuations. Again these issues are not “dichotomizable” to me.

Quote:
NJK: Well then, simply said, because these OT writers would copiously preface their statements with qualifiers along the lines of: ‘The Lord said’; by Jesus’ full endorsement of the OT as well as other NT writers, never engaging to correct its accounts, and passages like 2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:20. I’ll go by these: “Thus says the Lord” than by anything man may fancifully suppose.

Tom: So when you said, "this fuller revelation in Christ did not change the actual substance of 'historical' OT episodes," you had only specifically the actual words of God in mind? If so, that's not very clear.

NJK: No. These “thus says the Lord” are a distinct portion of the Biblical Text, which I see a paramount in God’s revelation. Similarly to how I see the SOP’s “I was shown” statements. And in matters of history, these Bible writers straightforwardly and matter of factly related what had occurred and I do not see Jesus changing these accounts.

Tom: Yet again, this is not the issue.


It is if all of what is being said in the Bible is to be questioned as to its both verbal substance and meaning.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Jesus Christ said what He heard, and lived what He saw, of God as revealed in the Old Testament. He read the same accounts as everybody else, so the problem is not with the accounts!

The problem is with one's perceptions of what was written. These perceptions are often at odds with what Jesus Christ revealed in His life and teachings.


As typical with your answers on this issue, it is substantively partial and logically simplistic. What is written is clear, especially in direct quotings of God. You are just systematically ignoring these statements to sustain a surface validity of your view. You effectively and evidently clearly do not believe “the problem is not with the accounts!”. Indeed won’t even let them exegetically speak for themselves as they pointedly do. With you, exegesis is to be ignored, especially as you see that these writers perceptions affected their exegesis, making say things that were not really what happened!?! How does that stated view of yours support your claim here.

Quote:
NJK: Indeed if your view was the Truth, I would think Jesus would be systematically engaging in recorded statements of, e.g.,: ‘you have read “God rained fire on Sodom”, but I say on to you God never does a judgement Himself, and this was actually a volcano that was always supposed to erupt then.’ etc.

Tom: Light is progressive. Jesus Christ spoke of the things which He felt were most pressing at the time. There are all sorts of things which are true of which Jesus Christ did not address directly.


So how then did He reveal everything, especially with such a crucial view of an OT episode that He used as the illustrative basis for His own end time judgement. He did not receive the full light on this???

This is a prime and most indicative example of you also making Jesus be subject to your view.

Quote:
NJK: Seems to me that this work would be quite crucial to Christ reforms, indeed as it would similarly be correcting misconceptions about the, here, History and Prophets, of the OT, just like He had done with the Law and how people came to view it.

Tom: I think what Ellen White wrote here addresses the issue you are raising:

Originally Posted By: SOP ST January 20, 1890, par. 9
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.


The whole purpose of Christ's mission was the revelation of God. He revealed the principles I'm articulating; love your enemies, turn the other cheek, walk the second mile. Christ gave His life for His enemies. He never recommended violence, and when it was suggested He burn them, He rebuked those who thus suggested because they did not know what spirit they were of. He died the most horrible death at the hands of those who hated Him. He returned kindness for cruelty.


And, as copiously seen throughout His Ministry, He mostly did this by explaining misunderstood OT passages/episode. So why not also with this crucial S&G episode which manifestly was still “misunderstood” by NT writers? Indeed Teaching on the Scriptures was a major part of His Ministry.

Quote:
T: If you had more than the actual words of God in mind, then we are dealing with what actually happened, right? And even with the words of God, there are questions, as God often presented Himself as doing what He permits. For example, consider the episode of the fiery serpents. What happened there? Isn't this was our disagreement entails? I believe the serpents were already there, and that God had been protecting the Israelites from them the whole time, and He merely ceased doing so for a time. This is despite the direct language used.

NJK: This is where I see that you are being finally being forthcoming about what you actually think of Biblical exegesis. Evidently you see it as irrelevant.

Tom: How does what you're saying here in any way tie into the points that I just made? Or questions I asked?


I am dealing with the paramount “This is despite the direct language used.” Which means: “Exegesis is irrelevant to understanding the Bible.” And also “Bible writers did not relate things accurately.” As for your other points, that had been already dealt with, long ago, and through this exgetical method, so there was no point to restate those patently ignored answers, especially, as now revealed here by you, ‘exegetical facts do not matter’.

Quote:
NJK: Had I known this earlier it would have saved me much aggravation because I just could not understand how you would not take exegetical points into proper consider.

Tom: You're not being responsive to what I wrote.


There was absolutely no reason to respond to what you had just obliviously restated. Indeed you’ll clearly just go on ignoring those answers again.

Quote:
NJK:Indeed throughout this discussion. Manifestly your outright dismissal of whatever points exegesis makes is derived from your view that these writers had it wrong.

Tom: This is also not responsive. You're also misrepresenting my view.


Nothing new to respond to. Exegetically and logically think your view through (if you’re allowed) and you’ll see that this is what it fully entails

Quote:
NJK: So there is really no way one can argue against this “double-whammy”, contra-Bible view.

Tom: You can argue as you are, but misrepresenting the view of the person you are discussing things with, and then argue against that.


I am not exegetically limited/“handicapped” as you choose to be. Facts and Truth are just what they fully are.

Quote:
NJK:I would say that ‘EGW’s writings are effectively, your “Bible”, but as you clearly only subscribe to her statements when she agrees with your claimed view, (i.e., you understood her supposed view better than she did) then I can only see that you are really your own Bible and Biblical Authority. Can’t logically/“sanely” compete with/against that “private” method. Case in point, with the fiery serpents. Indeed rather than respond to the many substantive arguments that I have made debunking from various valid exegetical angles, your “private” view, you here simply claim that ‘exegesis is irrelevant’. Indeed now I finally, head shakingly, understand why you did not bother to answer exegetical points that completely disproved your claims and supposition. All that I can say is: Good Luck with that view. I really don’t understand why, with such an obliviously non-exegetical mindset, you would invest in attending a Seminary and ‘completing its coursework.’

Tom: These are just insults and name-calling. I've surprised you either don't recognize this, or don't realize there is no value in this. You're not addressing points made, nor answering questions. You're simply misrepresenting my view and hurling insults my way.


It is just too bad that you want to/can only see these factually based/derived “constructive criticism” statements as “insults”. Indeed try Prov 27:5, 6 instead. And also what “name-calling”? Substantiate your claim.

And if you want respect then earn it by ceasing from your disrespecting response-ignoring ways while, moreoverly just restating your previous, already answered claims. If you really think that my answers don’t matter at all, as your louder than word actions (or non-actions) are saying then do openly refute my standing arguments!

And why didn’t you answer the Seminary questions. Since your are touting this ‘completed professional education’ (whatever that actually means) as an asset, it is a matter of public/“pointed audience” regard/interest. You brought up your ‘seminary attendance’, I am just pointing out that what you have claimed about it does not make logical sense. So do clarify the would be issues of confusion as posed in my questioned.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I’ll stop here


Of course you will.

Originally Posted By: Tom
If you wish to dialog regarding ideas, I'm happy to do so, but I don't have a desire to engage in mud-slinging.


Despite what you evidently prefer to believe, you’re ideas are not divorceable from their natural, logical and Spiritual implications. Try thinking them through and not just subjectively stop at what you are comfortable with.


“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] #133816
05/27/11 01:35 PM
05/27/11 01:35 PM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
Tom, out of “Truth” necessity, here is a succinct commentary for/on what literally is a ‘one-isolated-line-of-a-quote’ theology in your above post reply to Mountain Man.

First of all the full statement of that quote points out what EGW was meaning:

Originally Posted By: SOP 1SM 117, 118
The Lord permits circumstances to come that call for the exercise of the passive graces, which increase in purity and efficiency as we endeavor to give back to the Lord His own in tithes and offerings. You know something of what it means to pass through trials. These have given you the opportunity of trusting in God, of seeking Him in earnest prayer, that you may believe in Him, and rely upon Him with simple faith. It is by suffering that our virtues are tested, and our faith tried. It is in the day of trouble that we feel the preciousness of Jesus. You will be given opportunity to say, "Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him" (Job 13:15). Oh, it is so precious to think that opportunities are afforded us to confess our faith in the face of danger, and amid sorrow, sickness, pain, and death. . . . {1SM 117.4}

With us, everything depends on how we accept the Lord's terms. As is our spirit, so will be the moral result upon our future life and character. Each individual soul has victories to gain, but he must realize that he cannot have things just as he wants them. We are to observe carefully every lesson Christ has given throughout His life and teaching. He does not destroy; He improves whatever He touches.--Letter 135, 1897. {1SM 118.1}


(1) It seems clear to me that in this context of “God permitting trials to e.g., ‘try one’s virtue and faith’, etc, what EGW meant in that last statement here was that God/Jesus’s aim in all of this is not to destroy the person that he permits to be so tested, indeed like Job, as seen in here quote there, but so that He can, through this permitted trial, which like Job is not necessarily out of deserved reasons of wrongdoing, ‘improve them who He has touched’.

So the intent of that statement seem to clearly mean to me that God can permit a person to be “touched” by trials in their life. Yet His aim here in not to cause their destruction. Indeed as EGW says: “Each individual soul has victories to gain, [b]but he must realize that he cannot have things just as he wants them[b/].” Meaning that God sometimes has to allow trials virtually, like Job, out of the blue, in order to build that person’s spirit, and thus future life and character. (= e.g. Heb 2:10-18; cf. Acts 14:22). And the recorded demonstration/example in the life of Job affords believers today to understand that such sufferings are for a greater purpose and helps one to endure it and remain faithful as God permissively works to “improvingly” shape them. And He does this through whatever way He knows is best, and which will not always please us. Unless one understand’s this, as Job innately did, then when God makes this beneficial use of sufferings, that person will most likely just ‘curse God and die’. It is only by allowing God to be God and do whatever He knows is best that we like Job can say in perfect trust and faith: “The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away. Blessed be the name of the LORD.”

Under your view Tom that implies that God would only permits such “sufferings” when one causes his protection to be withdrawn because of living in persisted rebellion to Him, then, if like Job that actually indeed righteous living person suddenly finds themself experiencing all of these same utter calamities, I don’t see how they won’t straightly and only see this as a betrayal act of God and indeed just curse Him for having so, and unfairly, permitted the devil to “judge” them.

(2) Like I said in my post above, God indeed does not directly do “sufferings” to someone but can and does “permit it” for a greater good, again as perfectly demonstrated with Job, and explained in the above SOP statement. However such “sufferings” and “judgements” are two distinct things.

(3) A theology, i.e., an entire theology, such as this extrapolated one of yours involving God’s Justice, is never to be built on one passage, let alone “proof-textedly” on an isolated sentence from as quote, as you did here. It is indeed quite clear in the Bible and SOP that God does acts of judgement either Himself, through His commissioned angels of destruction, or when no more mercy is capable of being granted, at the Devil’s own hands. And as stated above such “judgements” are distinct from “sufferings”. And, e.g., burning someone alive falls under the category of “judgement” because God is not just seeking to make the person suffer, and that for no reason. It is a deserved act of fitting judgement.


“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] #133818
05/27/11 02:21 PM
05/27/11 02:21 PM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
duplicate post

Last edited by Tom; 05/27/11 02:38 PM. Reason: duplicate post

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: NJK Project] #133820
05/27/11 02:38 PM
05/27/11 02:38 PM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
NJK, first of all, the point of each of the quotes was the same, in pointing out that sickness, suffering and death are the work of an antagonistic power, and that God (or Christ) works against this. On one side we have the author of sin and all its results, which includes sin itself, sickness, disease, suffering, and death. On the other side we have Christ, obedience, and all the blessings that come from obedience. There is a battle involve, which each side has its weapons and characteristics.

Regarding the specific quote in question, you'll notice she uses language speaking of circumstances which are permitted to come.

Quote:
Under your view Tom that implies that God would only permits such “sufferings” when one causes his protection to be withdrawn because of living in persisted rebellion to Him


Not so! And Job is a perfect illustration of this.

The context of our conversations has been destructive acts which have taken place against the wicked. I have pointed out that these are due to their (the wicked) causing God's protection to be withdrawn.

The question of why the *righteous* suffer is an altogether different question (one we haven't been discussing) and this is where Job comes into play.

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}


This quote, which has been cited several times, deals with Job, and brings out that:

1.All suffering results from the transgression of God’s law.
2.Satan, the author of sin and all its results, had led men to look upon disease and death as proceeding from God.
3.He led men to look at disease and death as punishment arbitrarily inflicted on account of sin.

This is precisely the viewpoint I've been arguing against.

Quote:
(2) Like I said in my post above, God indeed does not directly do “sufferings” to someone but can and does “permit it” for a greater good, again as perfectly demonstrated with Job, and explained in the above SOP statement. However such “sufferings” and “judgements” are two distinct things.


Yes, they are two different things, but the truths we have been discussing apply to both cases. That is, regardless of whether we are dealing with the suffering of the wicked or the righteous, it is the case that:

1.All suffering results from the transgression of God’s law.
2.Satan, the author of sin and all its results, had led men to look upon disease and death as proceeding from God.
3.He led men to look at disease and death as punishment arbitrarily inflicted on account of sin.

It is also the case that:

4.We are to observe carefully every lessons Christ has given us throughout His life and teaching; He does not destroy.
5.Christ improves whatever He touches.

Quote:
(3) A theology, i.e., an entire theology, such as this extrapolated one of yours involving God’s Justice, is never to be built on one passage, let alone “proof-textedly” on an isolated sentence from as quote, as you did here.


An interesting application of the pot calling the kettle black! Your doing what you are accusing me of is what I've been pointedly arguing against. You do this with your ideas of the Tree of Life, ignoring whole paragraphs and books dealing with the pre-eminence of Christ, and would effectively replace His importance with a tree. And this is all because of focusing your entire theology and an extrapolation built on an isolated sentence from a quote.

However, this is not what I'm doing. I presented many quotes, not just one sentence from one quote.

It's always good to consider the context of a statement, but in this case the context does not alter the point which was made, which is:

1.We are to observe carefully every lessons Christ has given us throughout His life and teaching; He does not destroy.
2.Christ improves whatever He touches.

She applies these truths to the situation of the righteous suffering, but there would be nothing to apply if these truths weren't the case.

Quote:
NJK:It is indeed quite clear in the Bible and SOP that God does acts of judgement either Himself, through His commissioned angels of destruction, or when no more mercy is capable of being granted, at the Devil’s own hands.


How can God do acts of destruction, or commission angels to do acts of destruction, if every lesson Christ has given us throughout His life and teaching teaches us that He does not destroy?

"Sickness, suffering and death are the work of an antagonistic power." This is clear enough, right? So if it is God who is inflicting these things as punishments, then God is doing the work of an antagonistic power. Furthermore it has been Satan's studied purpose to get people to view suffering as punishments inflicted by God, whereas EGW writes that suffering is inflicte by Satan (not as a special circumstance, but as a general principle: "all suffering results from transgression of God's law....suffering is inflicted by Satan (DA 471).")

So if God were doing these things, not only would He be doing the work of an antagonistic power, but Satan's whole purpose of causing God to be viewed as inflicting suffering as punishment for disobedience would be vindicated.

Quote:
And as stated above such “judgements” are distinct from “sufferings”. And, e.g., burning someone alive falls under the category of “judgement” because God is not just seeking to make the person suffer, and that for no reason. It is a deserved act of fitting judgement.


The point is that *all* suffering is the result of disobedience to the law, and *all* suffering is attributed to Satan, the author of sin. Suffering is inflicted by Satan. God may permit it, but He is not the cause.

Obviously if God were to burn someone alive, or strike him with a disease, that would cause suffering.

By the way, an examination of Christ's life and teachings echoes this point, as in not a single instance did Christ attribute the suffering of anyone He healed or spoke of, whether righteous or not, to God.


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] #133822
05/27/11 04:47 PM
05/27/11 04:47 PM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
Originally Posted By: Tom
NJK, first of all, the point of each of the quotes was the same, in pointing out that sickness, suffering and death are the work of an antagonistic power, and that God (or Christ) works against this.


I objectively, clearly and certainly do not see so in that SOP statement. She is clearly trying to make the point that ‘God permits such sufferings, indeed actively done by the devil and/or a natural consequence of sin, in order shape someone’s life for the best’. It is in that context that she says, right after quoting Job’s statement:

Originally Posted By: SOP 1SM 117.4
Oh, it is so precious to think that opportunities are afforded us [i.e., by God’s permitted trials] to confess our faith in the face of danger, and amid sorrow, sickness, pain, and death.


Originally Posted By: Tom
On one side we have the author of sin and all its results, which includes sin itself, sickness, disease, suffering, and death. On the other side we have Christ, obedience, and all the blessings that come from obedience. There is a battle involve, which each side has its weapons and characteristics.


That is not the point of that SOP statement, but only your view additions.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Regarding the specific quote in question,


That is indeed what is in question here and the pointed subject that it actually is saying and expounding on.

Originally Posted By: Tom
you'll notice she uses language speaking of circumstances which are permitted to come.


In the case of ‘suffering”, which are not “judgements”, then like in Job’s case, God permits adverse circumstances from the devil and/or natural life and does not Himself act to directly cause or do them.

Quote:
NJK: Under your view Tom that implies that God would only permits such “sufferings” when one causes his protection to be withdrawn because of living in persisted rebellion to Him

Tom: Not so! And Job is a perfect illustration of this.

The context of our conversations has been destructive acts which have taken place against the wicked. I have pointed out that these are due to their (the wicked) causing God's protection to be withdrawn.


As I have been saying, the episode of Job is not one of “judgement,” but such God-permitted “sufferings”. I.e., for no actual personal wrong. Notice also that God made it that Job would not die in this suffering. This is how he would not be “destroyed” in this trial, (Psa 118:18) but only improved, as rewardingly, tangibly confirmed by his doubling of blessings after the trial. Only Job’s wicked children were permitted to die in this episode as that was out of deserved judgement for persisted sins.

Originally Posted By: Tom
The question of why the *righteous* suffer is an altogether different question (one we haven't been discussing) and this is where Job comes into play.


Indeed so. Which is why EGW cites in her brief exposition here on God permitted, character shaping “sufferings”.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Originally Posted By: SOP DA 471.1
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.


It is not clear to me that this SOP quote is dealing with this same distinct categories of “sufferings”, (though here not necessarily “God-permitted”, i.e., for improving, character shaping, even life-saving (cf. Pro 19:18) reasons), and not “judgements.” As I now see it being implied in that SOP quote, when God does an act of judgement for sin, even when it results in death, it is not an ‘arbitrary punishment’.

Originally Posted By: Tom
This quote, which has been cited several times, deals with Job,


Indeed as “suffering” and not “judgement” is the pointed issue here.

Originally Posted By: Tom
and brings out that:

1.All suffering results from the transgression of God’s law.
2.Satan, the author of sin and all its results, had led men to look upon disease and death as proceeding from God.
3.He led men to look at disease and death as punishment arbitrarily inflicted on account of sin.


All true in regards solely to “sufferings”.

Originally Posted By: Tom
This is precisely the viewpoint I've been arguing against.


It is not applicable in “judgement” as seen in the doctrine of Hell, where it will be God who will be in charge of it, and will execute, through even ‘full life sustaining power’ the sentence that had been determined by the righteous.

Quote:
NJK: (2) Like I said in my post above, God indeed does not directly do “sufferings” to someone but can and does “permit it” for a greater good, again as perfectly demonstrated with Job, and explained in the above SOP statement. However such “sufferings” and “judgements” are two distinct things.

Tom: Yes, they are two different things, but the truths we have been discussing apply to both cases.


The Bible and SOP clearly reveals that it is not always the case for “judgement” which God does.

Originally Posted By: Tom
That is, regardless of whether we are dealing with the suffering of the wicked or the righteous,


Only in cases of “sufferings”. Indeed the differentiating issue, as it applies to our discussion has rather been whether the act is in the context of a “merciful” or “no more mercy” judgement.

Originally Posted By: Tom
it is the case that:

1.All suffering results from the transgression of God’s law.
2.Satan, the author of sin and all its results, had led men to look upon disease and death [generic reference] as proceeding from God.
3.He led men to look at disease and death as punishment arbitrarily inflicted on account of sin.


As highlighted here, only in the case of “sufferings”.

Originally Posted By: Tom
It is also the case that:

4.We are to observe carefully every lessons Christ has given us throughout His life and teaching; He does not destroy.
5.Christ improves whatever He touches.


The context and intent of EGW’s statement does not use those phrases with the intent that you are.

Quote:
NJK: (3) A theology, i.e., an entire theology, such as this extrapolated one of yours involving God’s Justice, is never to be built on one passage, let alone “proof-textedly” on an isolated sentence from as quote, as you did here.

Tom: An interesting application of the pot calling the kettle black! Your doing what you are accusing me of is what I've been pointedly arguing against. You do this with your ideas of the Tree of Life, ignoring whole paragraphs and books dealing with the pre-eminence of Christ, and would effectively replace His importance with a tree. And this is all because of focusing your entire theology and an extrapolation built on an isolated sentence from a quote.


This is only true for you when you amnesically, probably willfully vs. clinically, forget that I have long ago fully included the preeminence of Christ in the Tree of Life teaching, which is actually, as shown in many posted quotes, copiously discussed as I have been emphasizing in the SOP, “bookended” by Biblical statements in Genesis and Revelation. So you just need to keep up with posted facts and developments.

Originally Posted By: Tom
However, this is not what I'm doing.


It is evident to me that you are determined not to let any fact at all and in any degree get in the way of your view. I rather let facts shape my theology. You rather seem to have the view that you can’t do no wrong and must never admit that you have been corrected. In the light of all of the standing facts against your view, which you just choose to outrightly ignore, that is certainly not being “honest”, to say the least.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I presented many quotes, not just one sentence from one quote.


You attempt here to make this SOP statement, and all other SOP statements speaking pointedly on the distinct issue of “suffering” is just “proof-texting”. And do include all quotes on a issue, not just those that support only an aspect of an issue. Indeed you view is proven to be false as it is not what the Bible and SOP wholly say on this issue of God Justice, which includes Judgements, even smaller, preliminary ones (cf. Jer 10:24).

Originally Posted By: Tom
It's always good to consider the context of a statement, but in this case the context does not alter the point which was made, which is:

1.We are to observe carefully every lessons Christ has given us throughout His life and teaching; He does not destroy.
2.Christ improves whatever He touches.


Any objective and honest read can and will surely see that it is definitely not making the “also judgement” point that you are.

Originally Posted By: Tom
She applies these truths to the situation of the righteous suffering,


So you did see that this is her point!!?

Originally Posted By: Tom
but there would be nothing to apply if these truths weren't the case.


That is because God does not actively act to merely better the life and character of a wicked person (cf. Jer 2:19) as, since He would then be dealing with a wicked person, it would inherently be an act of judgement. And when He does this, thus ‘non-arbitrary’ acts of judgement on righteous people for their sins, it is hopefully on for both punishing and corrective purposes, as EGW states with the fiery serpent episode:

Originally Posted By: SOP PP 428.3
If with all these tokens of His love the people still continued to complain, the Lord would withdraw His protection until they should be led to appreciate His merciful care, and return to Him with repentance and humiliation.


Indeed as God/Jesus says:

Originally Posted By: Bible Rev 3:19
“Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent.” (cf. Deu 8:5; Psa 39:11; 94:12; Jer 30:11; 46:28)


Quote:
NJK: It is indeed quite clear in the Bible and SOP that God does acts of judgement either Himself, through His commissioned angels of destruction, or when no more mercy is capable of being granted, at the Devil’s own hands.


Tom: How can God do acts of destruction, or commission angels to do acts of destruction, if every lesson Christ has given us throughout His life and teaching teaches us that He does not destroy?[/quote]

Simple: Because the Bible and SOP do not have your “suffering” and “judgement” category conflation issue.

Originally Posted By: Tom
"Sickness, suffering and death are the work of an antagonistic power." This is clear enough, right?


Indeed so when kept in its distinct context.

Originally Posted By: Tom
So if it is God who is inflicting these things as punishments, then God is doing the work of an antagonistic power.


For “sufferings” it would be. Not for “judgement” when God so decides.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Furthermore it has been Satan's studied purpose to get people to view suffering as punishments inflicted by God, whereas EGW writes that suffering is inflicte by Satan (not as a special circumstance, but as a general principle: "all suffering results from transgression of God's law....suffering is inflicted by Satan (DA 471).")


I don’t see a general principle being applied here, keep in mind that EGW relates God and His angels as directly doing judgements themselves. So that evidently is not what she had in mind here.

Originally Posted By: Tom
So if God were doing these things, not only would He be doing the work of an antagonistic power, but Satan's whole purpose of causing God to be viewed as inflicting suffering as punishment for disobedience would be vindicated.


Same ‘category distinguishing’ observations as before. I’ll add that God does apparently out of double necessity as, on one hand, Satan would not want to punish those who serve him and on the other hand, Satan would work to completely destroy, especially rather than “improve” or ‘provide an opportunity to improve’, with those who God is only endeavoring to mercifully punish/chasten/correct/redress.

Quote:
NJK: And as stated above such “judgements” are distinct from “sufferings”. And, e.g., burning someone alive falls under the category of “judgement” because God is not just seeking to make the person suffer, and that for no reason. It is a deserved act of fitting judgement.

Tom: The point is that *all* suffering is the result of disobedience to the law, and *all* suffering is attributed to Satan, the author of sin. Suffering is inflicted by Satan. God may permit it, but He is not the cause.


Given the Bible and SOP examples showing the contrary, as seen also in the Doctrine of Hell that Jesus Himself concretely established and detailed, that is an overreaching application of the statement here. This “all” only applies to “sufferings”. Furthermore the judgements that God do, usually are for reasons of timeliness and an accelerated end result, all for a greater good.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Obviously if God were to burn someone alive, or strike him with a disease, that would cause suffering.


That is why ‘burning someone alive’ in judgement is ‘His strange/foreign/alien act’ (Isa 28:21) and ‘arbitrary punishment for sin as having or (naturally) being struck with a disease’ is not his active/direct act at all. When suffering is not ‘arbitrary’ then it is a judgement and can be from God is so necessary.

Originally Posted By: Tom
By the way, an examination of Christ's life and teachings echoes this point, as in not a single instance did Christ attribute the suffering of anyone He healed or spoke of, whether righteous or not, to God.


Again the key word, is the distinct one of “suffering”. Jesus had no qualm/problem with Divine vengeance and judgement, including Hell Judgement.

By the way, you also have not addressed the posted points of 'Jesus/Divine Vengeance.


“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] #133824
05/27/11 06:17 PM
05/27/11 06:17 PM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
Quote:
MM:To answer your questions:

1. 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? Jesus said, “The angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.”


I recall you're saying that you didn't believe this was literal. That is, this isn't an example of people being burned alive. So this doesn't seem to be an adequate answer, given even you don't believe this is speaking of people literally being burnt alive.

Quote:
M:2. Where did He ever do anything even remotely similar to this? He didn’t burn anyone alive while here in the flesh.


The way you've put this together, it's a little difficult to see who's who. I assume up to the question mark is me, and after that is you? So I asked where He did anything even remotely similar to this, and you replied He didn't do precisely this. So you didn't answer the question. I should infer from your lack of response that you can't think of anything?

Quote:
3. How did He respond when it was suggested He do so? He rebuked them.

4. Where during His mission did Jesus ever even physically harm any person, even in the slightest manner? He didn’t. But He clearly taught He will, at the end of time, punish impenitent sinners with everlasting, unquenchable fire. “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire. I will burn you up with unquenchable fire.”


Which you don't believe is setting people on fire to burn alive. So this doesn't apply. Can you think of something which does apply?

Regarding N&A, we spent a lot of time discussing this, and I don't see that anything positive came out of it, and have no desire to repeat the episode. Indeed, in general, it has been your approach to discuss isolated incidents, and I have said over and over again I don't see this to be an effective way of going about discussing the issue, but have done so, against my judgment, for a number of years, and it seems to me my judgment was correct. I think a more productive route would be to consider principles involved, and we can speak of certain incidents to illustrate principles.

I've done so with the destruction of Jerusalem. I've articulated a number of principles, and used that as an example. Here are some principles I've discussed:

1.What Jesus perceived of the OT is what He revealed.

This is a really important one, in my view. Christ spoke what He heard of His Father, and did what He saw. So He serves as a reference as to how the Old Testament should be understood. We can either:

a.Consider Christ's lessons: "We are to observe carefully every lesson Christ has given us throughout His life and teaching; He does not destroy."

OR

b.Consider the Old Testament.

These should be equivalent. To the extent that these are not equivalent in our way of seeing things, how we see things varies from how Christ saw things.

2.All that we can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son.

This means that there is nothing any revelation from the Old Testament can add in terms of telling us something about God that we wouldn't already know from looking to Christ.

3.Sickness, suffering, and death are the work of an antagonistic power. Satan is the destroyer; God is the restorer.

4.The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government. Compelling power is found only under Satan's government.

5.There are a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which God protects us.

6.God often presents Himself as doing that which He permits.

You have not stated things in terms of principles. You seem not to think in terms of principles, which I think explains some of our disconnect. You seem to think in terms of individual incidents.

I'll see if I can infer some principles, as you see things:

1.God destroys in many ways. Permitting destruction is simply one way.

2.The principles listed above (my list above), are of limited scope. So when it says that "sickness, suffering, and death are the work of an antagonistic power," that means some of the time. Similarly when it says, "It is true that all suffering results from the transgression of God’s law," that means some of the time.

Another principle that seems important to you is that God is the one inflicting the suffering.


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] #133825
05/27/11 06:28 PM
05/27/11 06:28 PM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
Originally Posted By: NJK
NJK, first of all, the point of each of the quotes was the same, in pointing out that sickness, suffering and death are the work of an antagonistic power, and that God (or Christ) works against this.


I objectively, clearly and certainly do not see so in that SOP statement. She is clearly trying to make the point that ‘God permits such sufferings, indeed actively done by the devil and/or a natural consequence of sin, in order shape someone’s life for the best’. It is in that context that she says, right after quoting Job’s statement:

Originally Posted By: SOP 1SM 117.4
Oh, it is so precious to think that opportunities are afforded us [i.e., by God’s permitted trials] to confess our faith in the face of danger, and amid sorrow, sickness, pain, and death.


Originally Posted By: Tom
On one side we have the author of sin and all its results, which includes sin itself, sickness, disease, suffering, and death. On the other side we have Christ, obedience, and all the blessings that come from obedience. There is a battle involve, which each side has its weapons and characteristics.


That is not the point of that SOP statement, but only your view additions.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Regarding the specific quote in question,


That is indeed what is in question here and the pointed subject that it actually is saying and expounding on.


It's evident that you're reading through the post, without any intent to understand what's being said, but just wanting to argue, it looks like. I'm not interested in arguing for argument's sake.

You didn't even read to the end of the sentence to see what point was being made here, let alone read the post.

Please read the entire post first, then go back and make whatever comments you wish to make, hopefully after thinking some. It would also be good if you went over what you wrote too. We could have shorter, better quality posts, which deal more with the issues involved. That would enable me to get to more posts too.


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: NJK Project] #133826
05/27/11 07:22 PM
05/27/11 07:22 PM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
It looks like you're just making one point here, so I'll address that point. The point is that the quotes have to do with suffering, and not judgments. However, this isn't a viable explanation of the quotes, which is evident by simply considering that they say. For example:

Quote:
We are to observe carefully every lesson, Christ has given us throughout His life and teaching;He does not destroy. He improves whatever He touches.


If what you were suggesting were true, we'd have to re-write this to say something like:

Quote:
We are to observe carefully every lesson which deals with suffering (but not lessons which don't deal with suffering; only lessons dealing with suffering should be considered), Christ has given us throughout His life and teaching;He does not destroy. He improves whatever He touches.


This clearly isn't viable. She emphasizes that "every lesson Christ has given us throughout His life and teaching" brought out the point that "He does not destroy." Trying to limit this to deal with only some subset would destroy the point she is making.

Another example:

Quote:
Sickness, suffering, and death are the work of an antagonistic power. Satan is the destroyer; God is the restorer.(MH 113)


This would have to be rewritten:

Quote:
Sickness, suffering, and death are the work of an antagonistic power (sometimes, when sufferings are the issue; but not judgments). Satan is the destroyer (sometimes; other times it's God); God is the restorer(sometimes; when He's not the destroyer).


Your post does not deal with the overreaching point, which goes beyond sufferings or judgments, and that is what the whole Great Controversy is dealing with. There are to different powers at work, one the "antagonistic power," and the other is Christ. One went about doing good, and the other brings about suffering, sickness, and death.

The two powers are contrary the one against the other.

Quote:
They [heavenly beings] marked the work of...Satan constantly pressing darkness, sorrow, and suffering upon the race, and Christ counteracting it" (PP 69).


One last point is that invariably when the SOP mentions God's judgments, it is brought out, either immediately preceding or following, God's "withdrawal" or "release" or "giving over" of the fighting against God into the enemy's power.


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] #133836
05/28/11 12:10 AM
05/28/11 12:10 AM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
Originally Posted By: Tom
It's evident that you're reading through the post, without any intent to understand what's being said,


It spuriously is only “evident” for you. I know that is never the case.

Originally Posted By: Tom
but just wanting to argue, it looks like. I'm not interested in arguing for argument's sake.


I know I have better things to do than that. The issue is that your “sectional” view “sum” is made up of independently defective “parts.” (As also done in this present post). So I address them point by point to demonstrate this, and also rather than say everything at the end. I think this approach is being more transparent as it detailedly shows why the “sum” is not valid.

Originally Posted By: Tom
You didn't even read to the end of the sentence to see what point was being made here, let alone read the post.


That’s just your assumption. I went back to point out the independent deficiency in a premising phrase, when that is the case. You also seemed to me to have expanded your understanding in that post to partially include what EGW was actually saying there, hence the need to distinctly address your prior “non-inclusive” statements.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Please read the entire post first,


I always do.

Originally Posted By: Tom
then go back


Also what I always do.

Originally Posted By: Tom
and make whatever comments you wish to make,


Really... then what are you complaining about as....

Originally Posted By: Tom
hopefully after thinking some.


...this permissively seems to be still optional for you. I don’t subscribe to that approach. I say whatever I think is true/valid.

Originally Posted By: Tom
It would also be good if you went over what you wrote too.


I’ll be the first to know so, however I can’t afford to expend that discussion overhead.

Originally Posted By: Tom
We could have shorter, better quality posts, which deal more with the issues involved.


In this approach I actually get to better corroborate/support my points with details that I think best explains them. As I see it , it’s actually merely a: ‘substantive quantity over external quality issue’. Indeed you can just ignore whatever you don’t personally think is pertinent, however don’t be surprised when I continue to use them to support my points, as it initially was the case.

Originally Posted By: Tom
That would enable me to get to more posts too.


That’s counterintuitive to me.


“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Page 98 of 105 1 2 96 97 98 99 100 104 105

Moderator  dedication, Rick H 

Sabbath School Lesson Study Material Link
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
Most Recent Posts From Selected Public Forums
The Value of Bible Types
by TruthinTypes. 03/17/24 06:22 PM
Orion Which Every One on the Globe Can See
by Rick H. 03/16/24 06:26 PM
Carbon Dioxide What's so Bad about It?
by Rick H. 03/16/24 06:23 PM
'Prophet' Summons UFOs
by ProdigalOne. 03/16/24 02:19 AM
Are the words in the Bible "imperfect"?
by Rick H. 03/15/24 08:53 PM
Will You Take The Wuhan Virus Vaccine?
by dedication. 03/11/24 06:31 PM
Get That Razor Wire Up!
by kland. 03/05/24 12:49 PM
Messages for This Time
by ProdigalOne. 03/04/24 05:54 AM
The Lake of Fire is Hell
by Rick H. 03/02/24 05:01 PM
Adventist Agriculture
by kland. 02/29/24 12:33 PM
How tall were Adam and Eve?
by dedication. 02/28/24 07:30 PM
Hebrew word YOM or yowm meaning?
by dedication. 02/26/24 05:42 AM
The Book of Job
by teresaq. 02/22/24 04:43 AM
Most Recent Posts From Selected Private Forums of MSDAOL
Christian Nationalism/Sunday/C
limate Change

by ProdigalOne. 03/16/24 08:38 PM
Perils of the Emerging Church Movement
by Rick H. 03/16/24 06:30 PM
Is There A Connection Between WO & LGBTQ?
by Kevin H. 03/12/24 09:20 PM
Climate Change and the Sunday Law
by kland. 03/05/24 01:37 PM
A Second American Civil War?
by Daryl. 03/04/24 06:14 PM
WHAT IS THE VERY END-TIME PROPHECY?
by Daryl. 02/29/24 11:21 AM
Should Walter Veight have preached this sermon?
by dedication. 02/21/24 05:28 PM
Labor Unions and Adventist
by Rick H. 02/20/24 01:59 PM
Spiritualism: Across The Gulf...
by Rick H. 02/20/24 01:52 PM
Samuele Bacchiocchi & Recent Article Concerns
by dedication. 02/20/24 01:39 AM
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