Indeed it is, by necessity, due to the exegetical reasons of understanding what E.G. White meant in “corpus-wide context”.



It is only your re-wording is what makes absolutely no sense. So that is a straw man and circular argument on your part. When one reads what E.G. White said earlier, as well as elsewhere, I see that my understanding of here statement is not only viable, but her actual and only intent. Indeed she is pointing out that the reason why: “We are to observe carefully every lesson Christ has given throughout His life and teaching. He does not destroy; He improves whatever He touches” is so that when one is clearly seeing that He is suffering for no wrong in his life, “not having things just as he wants them”, i.e., (even) in Spiritual/Righteous pursuits and/or ‘Soul victories’, and thus clearly so suffering by God’s permission, they are to study “every lesson of Christ” and see that “he is working, and will work this out, for our good’ (Rom 8:28).



That “point premise” again is just your “straw man” and circular view. You’re really just arguing with yourself.



It actually clearly did, as restated below.



As I had said, that is why God has to take on the duty of (timely) executing necessary judgement Himself. Satan has generally caused sin, suffering and death for all, however there are many instances when there are no natural cause and effect (= organic consequences) for a needed, object lesson and timely judgement. Indeed the last thing Satan wants is to do something that will make people think twice before continuing on a path of sin. So God has to do this work out of Justice.



The main issue is that “suffering” is not synonymous with “judgement”. Satan also does not want to do any judgement, just merely cause suffering. He is indeed aiming for utter lawlessness and anarchy. Which is why God must do it Himself, and that to: protect/defend the Righteous, keep the playing field level and maintain the pure cause of truth whenever He is permitted to have a foothold, (e.g., ironically enough when Israel still claiming/believing to be His people while living in open sin (cf. Dan 9:18)).



I am not sure I get your point here. Please restate and also cite a couple of examples to see exactly what your are meaning. And God’s judgements include what He injuctively said or legislated to occur, as in capital punishments.


By the way, I noticed your “principles” statement above to Mountain Man. I’ll just say that I think that principles are exegetically derived, and that includes the SOP. And I see that this is done by examining all pertinent examples and statements. So I don’t subscribe to using a single statement by EGW as a principle. In fact since I would mainly, if not effectively only, draw such principles for the Bible, so I subject EGW’s seeming one-liner principles to the test of the Bible. I.e., do they check out in all situations as they should if they were indeed a singular principle. So even if EGW has made what seems to be a principle, I subject it to a thorough Biblical test. Indeed all in line with the “Greater Light, Rule of/for faith and Doctrine” approach she had clearly and most deliberately counseled.

Addressing your points.

I.What I wrote in terms of my rewording of her statement is a straw man.

Here's what I wrote:



In what way does this not accurately represent your thought?

You make the argument that her statement is in the context of suffering, which is fine, but I made the point this doesn't change the truth of her assertions, which are:

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

We are to observe all His lessons throughout His life and teachings to learn these two things. Then we apply these two things to the subject of the suffering of the righteous. That's what she's doing.

Your thought seems to be that these two statements were intended to apply *only* in the case of sufferings, which is what my rewording of her statement is doing.

So again I ask, how is this not accurately reflecting your thought?

II.You made the same point in regards to this rewording:



This is, this point:



But the rest of what you wrote looks to be once again justifying this rewording. This is, it accurately reflects your thought, as far as I can tell. You say that you disagree with the rewording, but the rest of your post agrees with the points of the rewording. So I ask the same question in regards to this rewording as to the other one, which is in what way is it not accurately reflecting your thought?

III.You write:



This is probably the crux of our disagreement. You see sin as basically innocuous, or, at least, some sins. Since there is not negative consequence (that's not imposed, like God's eventually killing the one who sins), God must impose an artificial consequence (killing someone in this lifetime), so that a person will think twice about continuing on a path of sin. This is what God has to do this work out of Justice.

So your argument is as follows:

1.Sin (at least some sins) does not naturally have negative consequences.
2.There are imposed negative consequences in the final judgment.
3.God imposes negative consequence in the here and now so that people will wake up to the fact that there are imposed negative consequences in the hereafter.

My argument is as follows:

1.All sin has negative consequences.
2.Therefore it is not necessary for God to impose any negative consequences to sin, but simply reveal what the negative consequences are.

I see the cross as essential to this last point. That is, the cross revealed, as nothing else, what the negative consequences of sin are.

So if sin is innocuous, then your reasoning follows, but if it's not, then it doesn't. Our disagreement, to a large extent, comes down to this point.

Regarding the last point I made, that when the SOP mentions God's judgment, it is brought out either immediately preceding or following, God's "withdrawal" or "release" or "giving over" of the one fighting against God, I don't understand the difficulty in getting this point. I've simply pointing out that when she speaks of God's judgments, she usually brings out that God was withdrawing etc. in the immediate context.

Here are some examples:









IV.Finally, in regards to the point about principles needing to be exegetically derived, of course context is important when considering any statement. But a statement like the following:



is clear of itself.

Here's the context:



The context changes nothing. The principle is exactly as one would expect it to be, just by reading the sentence.

Now if there is some statement which you think is unclear taken by itself, without the context, so that the principle is misstated, please point out which ones these are, and how the principle should be correctly stated. This is what I was doing in the rewording above, putting the principles according to your view of things. If you disagree with how I put it, please put the principle the way you think it should be put.

I myself never saw a need to pointedly make “Christ’s lessons” be limited to only sufferings. I rather see that they include reasons in regards to suffering, but are not limited to only those. Other things that ‘Christ touched to improve’ did not need to go through suffering, as seen in many miracles. However in the applicable episode with Peter’s and the disciple’s testing, they were permitted to suffer in order to come out as better Apostles on the other end. (Luke 22:31, 32) Apparently Satan asked Jesus Himself to so touch the disciples. Another example of this is Lazarus who was permitted to die by Christ for the glory of God and also Lazarus’s healing and resurrection.



Because the condition of “sometimes” is moot to me here as this “Sickness, suffering and death” are only applying in context to non-judgements. The Bible is clear that God uses sickness, suffering and death in judgements, so I defaultly saw that there was no need to make the distinction here as I see that it is naturally understood to not include acts of judgements. It is as mootly useless as trying to justify the ways in which Law Enforcement and the Judicial Systems in western societies normatively enforce and preserve Law and Order. Your description is only applicable to Criminals. Lumping God’s actions as these acts of (non-judgement) sickness, suffering and death is innate wrong to me as His actions are always non-arbitrary and Just, eventhough they involve applicable force. God cannot be labelled as a “Destroyer” as He is acting out of Justice. Just like a policeman is not a felon, or a murderer even when he may have (justly) been speeding and crossing red lights, or killed someone in the line of duty.

So in both cases, I had not seen a need, in any way, to make your textual amendments. I indeed saw that those distinctions were contextually/theologically understood. There was therefore no need to so restate if for those statements. You, viewing things from your point of view, of course only saw the contrary and this need to explicitly differentiate.



The problem is that whenever this difference is brought up and discussed, you outrightly ignore or suddenly end discussing/responding to the latest points, even involving the Bible and SOP on key issues such as legislated and effectuated capital punishments, acts of judgement destruction done by God Himself, Divine Vengeance, the Tree of Life, etc. Your view needs to be “shielded”, from the clear statements made against it in the Bible and SOP, and that with a teflon-coated brick wall where nothing, however Biblical and factual they actually are, can neither stick or get through. This “stone-walling” to engaging all points is not conducive to a constructive and truth-arriving discussion. So if you really want to continue discussing these ‘fundamental’ discussion issues, then go back to where you stopped responding to my points and begin from their by answering those points.



Well until those present examples, I had no idea what you were saying. If you understand something, it does not automatically mean that I would or should. Hence the request for clarification and concrete, corroborating/illustrating examples.



That restatement itself is much more clear than the previous confusingly, somewhat, (indeed just enough), periphrastic and muddled:





In a sequitur way, the ‘non-restraining of the destroyer’, with is “And because...” opening, seems to be in addition to the effectuation of the prior “Divinely-sent plagues”, and that for plausibly added wickedness than the previously listed acts of selfishness. Interestingly enough this resembles, if not is in the template of: the first 6 Last Plagues being at God’s doing, through His Angels, with the 7th involving the unrestrained destroying power of, presumably, but not necessarily, here, Satan.

Indeed the destroying power could be the judgement destroying power that God Himself can wield. These destructions can easily be made to occur by not tempering or quenching a naturally formed disaster which does not have to be pointed created/done by Satan.



God’s withdrawing His Spirit from people is not what causes disasters which God had been protecting them of. Again these could be normally forming disasters, (e.g., unsteady fault lines, formed hurricanes, Tornado producing weather conditions, belching or active volcanoes, gathering abundant rain cloud capable of causing floods, etcs). All are natural formations that God may indeed be, unseenly working to variously disrupt and prematurely end. So by Him instead allowing them to fully follow their development and/or destruction course He Himself would be effectively sending these destructions. Satan really is not actively involved here, even if those adverse elements are ultimately all the result of the sin he had authored. Interestingly enough, as in the case of e.g, the Flood and S&G, as well as other acts of judgements by God, He needs something more potent and timely to effectuate “undelayed and striking Justice” and so much develop His weapons of destruction himself.



In this case, their was indeed an organic threat in the Assyrians present to do the destruction. Though, as I had said, God can also stir up/summons a foreign power to do this work of destruction when it is not “organically” intending/desiring to. Furthermore the ‘forfeiting of God’s protection here’ straightforwardly entails that ‘in the event of an attack by Assyria, God then could not protect Judah.’ God ‘forfeiture’ did not result in the Assyrians being drawn to fight Judah. It just assured their victory in the case that such a war took place. And as seen in that episode’s history, when Hezekiah prayed later, God was able to protect them against an already drawn opposing army.



In a Theological way, I see this as involving indirect/passive participance by Satan. I.e,. the effectuated destructions are from naturally forming disasters that God does not act to prevent. In other words, I don’t see that every natural disaster is an active act of Satan. Indeed if that was true in those days of EGW, then how much more today. I rather see that Satan would love to prevent all those catastrophe so that men may live care-free and not have any notion of judgements.

Nonetheless, it must also be seen that in especially her day which was largely an “Age of Faith” most people would see these acts as “acts of God”. And as they saw nothing wrong in their lifestyle and practices, they would only be susceptible to “cursing God” for “unfairly” punishing them. So Satan would have some incentive to cause such natural disasters.

Similarly, in the Age of Unbelief and Unreason that we live today, when, as with e.g., Katrina was said to be God’s judgement on New Orleans for its lifestyle, it caused much more people to become upset at the people making these claims, than cause genuine repentance. So Satan does indeed do things that advantage him, and God may have no better option than to allow these things to at least tangibly build up/confirm the faith and awareness of the righteous. (Cf. Dan 12:10)



As I have said before, and indeed in the case of this point, it is not the point/principle itself that has a problem, but how you understand them and/or what you think applies to it. In this case here you won’t include the fact e.g., that Jesus did not do away with capital punishment, despite a perfect chance to do so, also spoke of Divine Vengeance, and did not do some things, such as Hell Fire destruction, only because that was not in His mandate, though He both amply and most descriptively spoke about it and also justly greatly wanted to bring it about (Luke 12:49, 50). So the issue is not with the principle themselves but squarely with your understanding of them and the selective and artificial parameters/limitations that you impose on them.



I have already copiously dealt with your view of the principles you list. But as stated in this post, whenever the discussion reaches a point where you do not have an answer to my points, you just ignore them and/or isolatively deal with another topic, if not raise a side issue and never return to the prior topic. Yet you continue to maintain that your view is perfect. In this way, how can you but continue to see this. Indeed this present topic is another instance of this topic shifting, with many other posts and prior points left completely unanswered by you. Non-“insultingly” speaking, as usual from me, this is like ‘“clinical” discussion ADHD.’

We should allow Scripture to interpret itself. God often presents Himself as doing that which He permits. This doesn't mean "one has to not believe the Bible when it says that God said, commanded or did something."

For example, Scripture says that "God killed Saul." But, in actuality, Saul took his own life.

Another example is that Scripture says that God sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites, but the serpents were there the whole time; God simply removed His protection from them.



Why question have you asked me that I haven't answer?

Where we fundamentally differ is in how we view God's character, and how we view sin.



A couple of problems here.

It is certainly the case that the writers are communicating their thoughts when they are making statements directly derived from statements they heard from God. This is completely obvious. Just think about what is happening. They hear God say something, and then write about what they heard. It's impossible that this would not involve their communicating their thoughts.

Even in the case where they are recording something which they directly heard or saw, they are *still* communicating their thoughts. There's never a time when a Bible writer is not communicating his thoughts. He things something, and writes it down.

When EGW writes that the language of God is not recorded in Scripture, it is precisely that the Bible writings are communicating their thoughts which is being said. This is what stating that God is not represented as a writer in Scripture means. This is what it means to say that God is speaking to men in the language of men.

Another problem is that "all throughout" does not mean "without exception." Even if we allowed as an exception those cases where a Bible writer is recording what he heard God say (which isn't an exception to the statement that God as a writer is not represented in Scripture), it would still be the case that over 99% of the time Bible writers were communicating their thoughts, so to say this happens "all throughout" is completely accurate.



I don't know what this is in reference to.



Yes it does. This is made clear from the quote from which this sentence was taken. That is, that God, as a writer, is not represented in Scripture; that God communicating in the language of men; etc.



I've said people have misunderstood the OT writers. I didn't say the OT writers "always misunderstood Him."

It doesn't help a discussion to misrepresent another's view like this. Especially doing so repeatedly, after one has already been corrected, is unhelpful. I've already stated on numerous occasions that the problem is not with what was written, but with the understanding of what was written.



I said that Christ had a clearer understanding of God's character than the OT writers. Do you really disagree with this?



Please provide some evidence to support your idea here. I say Satan did so primarily by vesting God with his own attributes (cf. DA chapter 1).

I'd say that Satan does use doubting Scripture as a way of influencing us in our view of God's character. Since through Scripture is God's primary means of communicating with us, if we doubt Scripture, we're doubting God's ability to communicate with us, and if we doubt that, how can we trust Him?



People enter into rebellion against God because they prefer sin to God, or because they do not love or trust God. They don't enter into rebellion because they don't believe God will enter into judgment with them. This idea doesn't make sense.

If what you are suggesting were true, then it would follow that all that would be necessary to not be in rebellion with God is to believe He will enter into judgment with them. But surely you can see this isn't the problem. The problem is that one is not right with God; one fears Him; one doesn't trust Him. The problem is to reconcile an estranged relationship. This takes place when the rebels heart is melted by the revelation of the love of God shining from the cross:





The SOP.



I haven't seen any evidence this was ever an issue for the angels. Can you quote anything to substantiate this idea?

Here's a statement from the SOP speaking to the impact of the cross on the angels:



The chapter "It Is Finished" from "The Desire of Ages" goes into detail about how the cross impacted the holy angels.



Do you remember what Christ said to the disciples in regards to marriage? That because of the hardness of man's heart, God permitted divorce, but from the beginning it was not so? And the disciples replied tragicomically, "His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with [his] wife, it is not good to marry." (Matt. 19:10)

This gives some idea of just how far from God's ideal will things had gotten. Christ explained what God's ideal will was, and the disciples responded that if God's ideal will is true, it's better not to marry.

Divorce is not the only area where God's ideal will was not understood. There wasn't any misunderstanding of the communication from Moses to the Israelites in regards to the divorce laws, but Christ saw further. He understood what God's ideal will was, and communicated that.

The same thing is true in other areas as well.

All that we can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son. The whole purpose of Christ's mission was the revelation of God. Christ fully and completely communicated God's ideal will. We do not need to supplement Christ's revelation.

If we have views based on our reading of the OT which do not agree with Christ's revelation of God's ideal will, we should go with Christ's revelation, as that's the clearest revelation. Evidently there's something we're not understanding correctly if we see discrepancies.



What are you talking about? I directly quoted you! You're finding fault with my directly quoting you?!



Here I'm quoting Ellen White. I've given you the reference (Selected Messages, vol. 1).



No it doesn't. For example, she writes:



If you don't see this as an adequate explanation of how God brings about judgments, it's incumbent upon you to produce an argument as to why not.



Here's what she wrote:



Where is even one sentence here that is out of harmony with what I've been sharing? Where is there any hint of God's working in two different ways here?



I'm curious about something here. Ellen White writes that these last plagues were similar in character to the Egyptian plagues. So do you see the same thing happening with the Egyptian plagues? (i.e., God working in two different ways).



These are simple statements which anyone can understand. Take the last one as just one example:



There's nothing difficult here. "Sickness, suffering, and death are work of an antagonistic power." What do you think this means? Indeed, how can this be misunderstood?



You've just made the claim. That's not the same thing as adducing evidence. I've provided the quote from "The Destruction of Jerusalem." Go ahead and make the case that she has to different mechanisms in mind there. Produce some evidence to support your claim.



Make an argument to support your claim. You have the quote in front of you.



Provide some evidence to support your claims.



This much is true.



I agree with this, but this isn't what we were disputing. I was disputing your idea that GC 35-37 has to mechanisms at work, that God is using two different methods of effecting judgment, one where He directly destroys/causes suffering/etc., and another where He permits Satan to do these things.



First of all, the problem is not with that Bible writers, but with the understanding of what they wrote.

Secondly, you wrote that the substance of what is being written is not impacted by the mode of expression, but that this is false is evident on the face of it. For example, you use a mode of expression that's very difficult to decipher, as you write in exceedingly long sentences and don't proof-read what you write. That certainly impacts the substance you are trying to communicate.

Different languages have strengths and weaknesses. One cannot always say the same things in one language that one can say in another. God chose to communicate in Hebrew, since that was the language that those to whom God was speaking spoke. But Hebrew is not God's language, and, of course, His choosing to communicate in Hebrew had an impact in what He was saying.

But, this is a minor point. The major point is that our world view, our paradigm, our understanding of God's character impacts our understanding of what has been written. In order to make things as clear as possible, God sent His Son.





Sure it is. I've given many examples of this. Hardening of Pharaoh's heart, the sending of spies, fiery serpents, killing of Saul, sending strong delusion, sending lying spirits, destruction of Jerusalem, the cross, Job, are a few of these. Here's a new one:



God didn't send evil angels among them, but permitted the evil angels to go.



Ok, let's consider a couple of these.

First the hardening of Pharaoh's heart.



So what did God do if not permit this to occur?

Regarding the fiery serpents, we read:



This is stating my position as clearly as is possible to do so. "The Lord permitted death to come upon them." There's no hint of anything at all going on here other than what it says: "the protecting hand of God was removed."

The destruction of Jerusalem is another one. I've quoted at length regarding this above, so just a short quote here:



This is not only clear that what happened here is that God's protection was caused to be removed, but that Satan seeks to conceal "his own work" by causing others to view this as a punishment visited upon them by God.

I won't go through all of these, but the point has been decidedly made that God is presented as doing that which He permits, in the clearest language possible.



This doesn't make sense. To understand what "forever" means we need to go outside the immediate context, considering all that Scripture has to say. For example:



The context here doesn't tell us what "forever" means here. It's by comparing Scripture with Scripture that we know that "forever" means for as long as the given event is applicable.



I keep repeating things I've said because you keep misrepresenting my view. Value comes from a discourse like this when each party can correctly represent the view of the other. If you correctly represent my view, and offer arguments against that view, I can strengthen my view in meeting the arguments, or adjust the view, or disregard it, in response to counter arguments. But you if misrepresent my view, then there's no value in your arguments, since they aren't hitting anything I'm saying. So I keep repeating the same things in the hope that you'll address what I'm actually saying.



??? This certainly isn't the case. I can't think of a single one of these examples that's not applicable. For example, here's the last one:



How has this been "debunked"? Scripture says, "“God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:" This is presenting God as doing something He permits. Here's where it says God is permitting:



This is clear, right? In one case we have "God shall send them strong delusion." This is God being presented as doing something. In the other we have "God withdraws His Spirit, leaving them to the deceptions that they love." This is God being presented as permitting that which He had been presented as doing.



I can't imagine what you're thinking here. You don't have a leg to stand on here. We have in one case, direct language "God sends, etc." and in the other "God permits." This proves the assertion.



Actually, it does. It could conceivably be the case that your unique point of view could be true, but it's inconceivable that the text is clearly just saying something if you're the only human being who sees this.



The "more through Jesus" is the point that was made.



Of course not. This is not the point. The point is that Jesus Christ was the clearest revelation of the Father.



This doesn't look to be responsive to the point, which is:





Again, this isn't responsive to the point, which is that Jesus Christ is the greatest revelation of the Father.

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?

NJK: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.[/quote]

Although this is outside from our discussion, from the point of logic, this is an invalid conclusion. That God corrected a viewpoint in one or two instances does not imply that no prophet anywhere at any time had a viewpoint that was incorrect.



This doesn't make sense.



This is poor logic as well. The cases of slavery, divorce, and polygamy disprove this idea.



I don't see that you responded to my question above. I asked, "What are your responding to here? Where have I said that anything was wrongly done?" and you didn't answer.



Ok, then I'll continue to repeat it, until you can sequiturly/fully see it.



I may have written over a thousand posts on this topic (several hundred for sure) which is more posts than you've written at all. So I could just as well claim that you haven't posted anything.



You simply don't know what you're talking about. I have over 14,000 posts, and many of these posts are on this topic.



To someone who is unwilling, it's not possible to prove it. All I can hope is to do a good job expressing it, and that it can at least be understood and correctly represented.



This is pointless. It's just a claim without evidence.



I'd say the main deal is your lack of either ability or desire to write clearly and succinctly. You go on and on and on, and make very few points, and there's just so much to sift through that's it's hardly surprising that I might miss something. I'm going through everything in this post, but I won't often have time to do so.

I suggest you try to write in a summary post what your main ideas are in regards to the topic we are discussing, and what you see my main ideas are. So far the main ideas I've been able to gather from you are that there is not an organic relationship between sin and death, and that God executed judgments in more than one way, sometimes permitting sickness/suffering/destruction to occur, and sometimes causing these things Himself.



In Scripture, these are not in conflict. For example:



Justice is effected by means of mercy.



Yes they do (Gratuitous assertions my be gratuitously denied).



Justice means killing, and inflicting disease, things like that, against those who are disobedient?



So if God weren't merciful, He would do away with the justice elements of His Law and Character? I guess what you mean is that even though God is merciful, He does not do away with the justice elements of His law and character.

I think you're seeing justice as punishment here, but this isn't how justice was viewed in the Old Testament. Justice has to do with the restoration of the community to shalom.



What sort of response are you looking for?



I guess this is your idea of a joke. But mine was a serious question. Can you articulate my position in a way I would agree with?

Please note that the key point of this request is that you articulate my position "in a way I would agree with."



There's no misquoting here. Simply bear in mind that God often presents Himself as doing that which He permits. The misperception occurs when this principle is not grasped.



Just quote something I said. You don't have a leg to stand on here. If you misstate a position I say once, that could be due to a misunderstanding. But after I correct you, and you persist, that's on you; you're doing it on purpose.

So just stop. Don't purposely misrepresent the positions of people with whom you disagree. That's just not right.



I've cited several in this thread. What's an example of a case where I've cited an example of God being presented as doing something He permits when this isn't what was happening?



This isn't well written, but I'll address what I think your point is. If we accept the principle that God is constantly protecting us from a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, then the why need not be impacted by the mechanism. The "why" involved is that God permitted an evil to occur (i.e., "evil" in the sense of an unfortunate event), to prevent a great evil from occurring. The mechanism could either be that God directly did something, or that He permitted something, in order to accomplish this. So the "why" would be the same, although the mechanism involved differed.



God is often presented as doing that which He permits. This occurs both by means of direct quotes, and otherwise. There's no need to question anything. There's just a principle of interpretation to grasp.



Then why are there thousands of denominations? Surely somebody somewhere isn't understanding something correctly.



What statements?

You write as if the viewpoint I have is something I wanted to have, and went about obtaining it. What I believe is simply the result of my trying to ascertain truth. My original background was anti-SDA Calvinism. If my disposition were what you are suggesting, I would have just stayed as I was, as systematically ignoring statement to sustain a surface validity is something anti-SDA Calvinists are very capable of doing.



It seems clear to me from this post that the problem involves the principle that God is often presented as doing that which He permits.



Again, I think the issue has to do with the above mentioned principle. You seem to be denying this principle, with the single exception of Job. Even though my position in regards to what occurred in many of these incidents is a minority view, I think you're the only one who disagrees with this particular principle. The position that everyone else has who disagrees with me is that yes, God is often presented as doing that which He permits, but that doesn't mean that God isn't sometimes doing the things He is presented as doing.



You asked why Jesus didn't explain all this. I said there were many things He didn't explain. You're response is, ":So how then did He reveal everything..." So you're asserting that Jesus actually did reveal everything?



I assume "this" here is the revelation of God. If so, what you are asserting here is not the case. He mostly revealed God's character by how He lived (i.e., His deeds of kindness, healing, ministry, etc.)



I disagree with your assertion here. I believe the NT writers understood that God is often presented as doing that which He permits, and they did so themselves.



It wasn't His purpose to correct every conceivable error a person might have had in regards to what Scripture taught about God's character. Indeed, that would have been impossible. Light is progressive. God takes people where they are, and through revelation, moves them closer to the truth. This doesn't happen all at once.

Just think of where they were coming from. They had a militaristic view of God's kingdom, where the Messiah would come and physically rescue them from their enemies. They didn't understand the spiritual nature of Christ's kingdom. Christ had a lot to deal with.



(post truncated here by software. next post continues)

I have made the point that God is often presented as doing that which He permits. Scripture uses direct language that God sent fiery serpents against the Israelites. This is explained by the SOP as meaning that God removed His protection from the serpents which were already there. Your conclusion to this is that "Exegesis is irrelevant to understanding the Bible." I'm incredulous to this response.

I'll point out once again that you're on your own here. That is, while my understanding of certain incidents is at odds with many posting here, that the principle is true that God is often presented as doing that which He permits is agreed to by everyone here besides you. That means, to be consistent, your assertion that "Exegesis is irrelevant to understanding the Bible" applies to everyone else here as well.



Why is this in double quotes? Who are you quoting? Certainly not me.



If you're talking about the snakes, you're on your own here also. You have some fanciful idea that God did something to instill fear in the snakes so they would attack, but this isn't anything even resembling exegesis.

Here again is the EGW statement:



That God's action here consisted of His removing His protection to allow the Israelites to be exposed to a danger which was already existing is incontrovertible.

Ok, this is everything, except for insults at the end of the post, which I'll skip.

I decided to answer this entire post, as you seem to complain if I don't do so. However, I'm simply not going to have time to do so on a regular basis. I spent something like 4 hours on this post.

Much of what is written here is redundant. What seems to be the main bone of contention here is the assertion that God is often presented as doing that which He permits. My understanding of our position is that you see the principle of God doing that which He permits as being applicable only to Job, and, I would extrapolate, to other similar incidents where God permits Satan to cause sufferings to a righteous person. Other than this case, you believe that whenever it says that God did something, that God took direct action to bring about the thing which it says He did. Is this your position?

This assumption/assertion that “God often presents Himself as doing that which He permits.” is one that is bourne out of poor exegesis. The Bible is exegetically clear and non-ambiguous/ambivalent when ‘God permits something’ or ‘directly or indirectly does something through Himself or through a Divine agency. That is why and how all of your examples to try to substantiate this claim have been exegetically disproven and debunked. You do not see this because you are not given these exegetical points their due weight, still that does not render them invalid or vacuous of any meaning. The Hebrew Language has several verbal stems and tenses and each has its pointed and distinct meaning and connotation. It is by the careful use of these that Bible writers variously expressed how they understood God did various action. There is no linguistic justification to lump all of these distinct verbal expressions into one bland and blanket category of ‘they are all saying that “God often presents Himself as doing that which He permits.”’ Hebrew writers clearly and correctly understood the contrary and carefully related these differences in their writings. You need to get up to speed with that widely, if not unanimously understood/taught scholarly fact, even if solely at the teaching level. Students, even Seminary students are free to apply or not apply what they have learned in Seminary, however that does not make them right.



The Bible incontrovertibly, exegetically says that “God caused the death of Saul.” Exactly how, i.e., what agency was used to achieve this is not specified, however this exegetical indication implies/involves that Saul was somehow, perhaps psychologically, as he was susceptible to (1 Sam 16:14-18), to take his own life. God wanted it to be done that day, and through the use of an “(unspecified) agent” made sure that it was done. However, as Satan surely did not want Saul to die and thus turn over the throne to the more Spiritual and clearly more competent David (E.g., the slaying of Goliath; also 1 Sam 18:6-9), then he probably did not even volunteer his “services” here to be God’s agent. Indeed it was in the interest of Satan to provide an evil spirit to terrorize Saul as God’s desired as he then could influence Saul to make bad decisions that would be detrimental to Israel, as it was indeed the case. So more than likely, a God-commissioned angel acted in pushing Saul to take his own life.

And that “evil spirit from God” (1 Sam 16:14-18) was, though not indicated here, sent through the same process that was revealed in the Ahab episode. That is God “opened the floor” to ‘agents of terror’ here and an evil Spirt from Satan’s camp volunteered his services. God also probably then also limited what that spirit could or could not do, as also seen with Job. So it was indeed “from God,” i.e., ‘from God’s mandating/commissioning.’ Indeed, the underlying Hebrew has the notion of “by reason of the interest/intent of Yahweh”.

I had also pointed out the that, unlike in this episode, the Bible uses a Polel verb when speaking of a direct killing by God, yet you just chose to completely ignore that exegetical fact.



For the many points that I have stated against this claim of yours, (which you have not answered head on, but simply restated this claim), this also in not what the Bible says, or what the SOP fully intended in meaning. Together, as exegetically due, they reveal that this withdrawing of God’s protection was in the form of Him acting to cause the serpents to come in the camp and also bit the people.



“Questions that deal with such direct statements of God” More specifically, statements where God told Israel to effectuate capital punishment, render equivalent justice, go to war against other cities/nation and completely wipe them out; statements expression God’s intent to effectuate vengeance, etc.



That is resolved by proper exegesis and not eisegetical impositions of principles, even if it is EGW who is making them.



That is not what I had in mind. I meant them hearing e.g., Moses quoting God and relating that God said (as Paul in the NT also exactly understood - Rom 12:19), through Moses in Deut 32:35: ‘Vengeance is Mine, and retribution,’ and then David later expressing the derived, and thus also inspired thought: “O LORD, God of vengeance, God of vengeance, shine forth! Rise up, O Judge of the earth, Render recompense to the proud.” (Psa 94:1, 2) This involved a first and basis part where what God had said was quoted and then the distinct statement by David based on what He had read God had said.



The Bible clearly say that such quotings are ‘thoughts which are of divine origin.’



This text is saying in the context of the statement from God on the mount of Transfiguration making the OT prophetic word even more sure (vss. 17-19) that no prophetic utterance at all were ever a matter of personal interpretation. This “prophetic” word does not only included statements such as in Dan 8:14, but also any word that is said to be stated by God Himself. Thus any “Thus says the Lord”. The “prophet” was indeed the spokesperson of God and did not only accomplish this task by making “event prophecies” but also by relating what the Spirit of God had told him to say. So Peter is saying that “no such “prophetic (i.e. “God-spoken”) word in Scripture is left to any man to privately explain. There are to be taken just as they say. So here when the voice of God said that Jesus was His Son, then that was not left to any human reasoning or interpretation. It is just as it says, and indeed confirmed what God had previously said in OT (event/classical) prophecies. So I see that explaining something that “God spoke” to mean anything less/else than what is pointedly said going against this Biblical understanding. So when God says He will do something or has done something, or commands that something should be done, that is because, as He has said, He will indeed do it. The Bible is also very specific through incontrovertible and precise grammar and syntax to indicate the exact mode of feasance, e.g., whether direct or indirect.

EGW, by implication, supports this as she says:



She is echoing this Biblical understanding that the thoughts from which Bible writers wrote were themself inspired by God’s Spirit. And I further see that this is pointedly speaking of instances where there is not a quoting of God involved, as in the quotings, as seen in EGW’s vision, these men who were receiving this communication through some form of vision, trance or dream, only had to faithfully record what they had then heard. Indeed this is demonstrated in EGW’s many “said the angel...” or “I heard (quote of Divine-utterance)”. There was no need, nor room for “interpreting” anything during those direct quoting instances. Only a faithful verbatim relating of what was said need to be done. However when, e.g., Solomon wrote His proverbs, God inspired him with Divine thoughts and he expressed them in the best human knowledge he could. That was indirectly similar seen in EGW’s many “words fail me...” statements. Indeed I see that EGW’s statement that: “The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God's mode of thought and expression” applies to this non-quoting/non-“prophetic” (as Peter put it) part of Scripture.



As explained above this only applies to non-quoting/non-“prophetic” parts. These prophetic parts are indeed what God understood as “putting His words in that prophet’s mouth” (Deut 18:18; cf. Isa 51:16). See a possible difference between the two forms of communication, i.e., Spirit (inidrect) mouth (direct) in Isa 59:21



That’s definitional, even colloquial, news to me. To me the double/redundant emphasis of “all” and “throughout” is to emphatically mean ‘no exceptions at all’. (cf. in the SOP 2SM 399.3)



I actually is since God is not doing the writing there either. Only the Ten Commandments could make this claim, but I do not see that is not the technical intent of this “God writing” statement. As stated above, I see this statement as generically referring to ad-lib compositions by Bible writers and not verbatim transcribings.



Specifically speaking, from just the hits for the following distinct statements I get a figure of 97.1% (888 out of 31103 verses) and less

“Thus says the LORD” - 419
“The LORD said” - 233
“Says the LORD” - 84
“God said” - 46
“the word of the LORD came” - 102
“the word of the God came” - 4

Furthermore: (1) the text of prophetic visions are not included (e.g., Dan 11); (2) entire or large portions of chapters are many times non-introducedly the statements of God (e.g., Isa 58 (see vs. 14); Jer 5:20-31); and (3) those “thus say the Lord intro’s many times only say so for the first part of sections of texts quoting God (e.g, Ezek 45:9, 18). And as it is generally understood that ca. 25% of the Bible is prophecy, and this may include all of the God-said statements, as in a “Red-Letter” OT, this total is conceivably easily 25% and more.

The key thing here is that this minority percentage of factually 25% the Biblical corpus is more than enough, as the rest of the Bible is greatly derived from those direct statements of God. The same is seen in the writings of EGW where a very small percentage of “I was shown” type of statements and other visions/revelations served as a basis for her writings.

So, “all throughout” not only does not involve exceptions for me, unless this is explicitly specified, but I really don’t see it applying in such a situation where only 75% and less of the whole is affected.



I was referring to this later exchange in that post:



As you apparently read through a post before answering, you should have noticed it.



As explained above, a for reasons of being truthful, I do not see that when a Bible Writer was quoting God, he took the liberty, though he was at, to paraphrase God. I see that they were faithful to write exactly what they had heard. And it must be kept in mind that the communication between God and man was much more frequent, clear and pronounced in Bible Times. Indeed God spoke with Moses “mouth to mouth.” (Num 12:6-8). As Moses also was a prophet (Deut 18:15-18) the statement in this verse to other prophets apparently only spoke of any other person who may be raised as a prophet, as God then saw, (as Exod 32 & Num 14 showed), that only Moses was ‘most faithful’ in all of Israel then. However I see that when God could find such another faithful person, he spoke to him ‘mouth to mouth’ as with Moses, as Moses indeed manifestly understood (Deut 18:15, 18).



That’s not what I got from your previous responses, which includes what is “undivorceably” also implicated.



First of all, no need to put this in a generic voice here, speak only for what you think is happening with you. Secondly, I am not representing anything just involving all that your assertions entail and that through proper exegesis, (as it is responsibly and scientifically/Theologically due), which, as seen in your statements below, you foundationally see as being void of any distinctive or determinative meaning.

Here is a representative recent discussion history of what you have been saying:





If, as you claim: “the contradiction is not with what had been previously been revealed, but with people's perceptions of what had been revealed,” that therefore me that what had been revealed was, as you think, ‘God had not directly acted to forcefully send the snakes’ but that is what these Bible writers understood. Ergo my observation of your view that “the Bible writers got it wrong.” I.e., they had been revealed something, which implies through a supernatural means, even if solely by ‘thoughts imbued God’s Spirit’ (1 Sam 21.2), however they went on to relate something that is actually contrary to what was revealed. E.g., ‘God actively acted to do something’ when He had only “permitted” it by a protection withdrawing move. This can only involve those Bible writers getting something, effectively total wrong. And if they did so with every instance where you similarly claim that “God only permitted something to happen”, yet they used varying verb tenses to relate those instances which are all supposed to be the same. Therefore that can also mean that they were greatly confused and it really depended on not only who the writer was, but as a writer can use two verb form for different acts of God in the same book, then it practically depends on the subjectivity and whim of the writer. I.e., how he was personally viewing God.

Your exegesis-denying view here is quite circularly based on your claim that “God often presented Himself as doing what He permits”. I have shown that there is no valid example of this in the Bible as exegesis is clear that God is varyingly involved in those actions. I see that EGW is to be subject to the Biblical revelation, and if a difference is seen, the Bible wins out, however I have seen that when this does not occur, her statements actually are indeed not contradicting what the Bible reveals.

So I see that the problem with your view is foundationally that you are placing the writings of EGW over the Bible and through this justifying rendering Biblical exegesis completely void of any meaning. I really don’t know what to say here. Even continuing this conversation is not worthwhile as your approach lack any Bible or SOP basis. We really don’t have the same Final Arbitrator/Authority, which should be the Bible, as EGW counseled, which implies its exegetical contributions, so it is virtually impossible that we’ll agree here.



Yes in that I see that Christ had a fuller understanding. “Clearer” implies not seeing something as it is. My “fuller” involves not having all the pieces of the puzzle yet, however what later came with Jesus only completed the puzzle and did not take anything (i.e., any jot or tittle) from the OT. So e.g., the was no problem with Capital Punishment, just the need to actually restore it back to the righteous level that it was always suppose to be on from the start.



Every time a false prophet rose up to pointedly speak against a pronouncement that a prophet of God, or even the Biblical writings were saying. (E.g., Jeremiah’s ordeals)

That is also seen today with people dealing with the Bible and also within SDA Circles with direct revelations of EGW (as they are explicitly ascertainable).



I think it does not need to go higher than disbelieving that was is written is either accurate and/or actually the “Word of God”. Indeed that is why most people who do not believe in God don’t even consider the character of God. They simply reject the claim that they Bible is true and/or is God’s Word. Even believers engage in unbiblical path by doubting that a part of God’s word that condemns their ways is either true, binding, accurate/applicable, authoritative or consequential (as seen in e.g., same-sex relationships; premarital relations, Sunday Sacredness, etc.). And those people will usually be the first to claim that their unbiblical behavior is acceptable because “God is Love/Merciful” (cf. Jude 1:4). So they actually do not have a negative view of God’s Character per se, just “His Word”.



Perhaps not to you but, it makes perfect Theological/Biblical sense to me. Show me a criminal who will commit a crime with a group of 10 uniformed police officers standing around him. It is only because they can clearly see that they won’t get away with their crime that they refrain from doing it while these cops are present. However when they are gone and out of sight, thus they are more likely not to face Justice for it, then they go ahead and do it. (That is also e.g., why people who are driving over the speed limit normatively slow down when the pass a police car.) So it is with sinners vs. God. If one knows with absolute concrete certainty that your are surely going to suffer punishment for committing a sin(s) then they’ll surely refrain from doing it. However this ‘absolute certainty’ would, with men, actually require that they see God face to face and also see Him doing the judgement on others. Because people have not had such concrete proof. Even in Bible times, as God did not concretely manifest Himself to even His People but only through various forms that could actually be explained away as something else, people have this sense of security that no God will actually punish them for violating what He claims is His Law. So the sin, and that openly without hesitation or shame. Indeed as the world is becoming more and more “atheistic” and unbelieving, including with “nominal” Believers, this boldness in sin is clearly being seen. That is indeed all what God intended to convey and what Moses understood just after relating God’s Law (Exod 20:18-20; cf. Job 1:8)



Well it is true and it is because that God does not want a relationship based/developed merely upon such a fear, though foundational and healthy for fallen man, that He many times deliberately masked His actions of judgement as something that could be perceived as only natural, especially as time has advanced.



Why don’t you let me determine what I ‘surely can or cannot see’ in/from my own view!!?



One is not ‘right with God; nor fear Him; nor does not trust Him’ (only if they actually know of God), because they indeed either don’t know God or believe that there is any such thing as God. To such atheist, the Cross and Jesus death on it was simply the just execution of a delusional deceiver. If your “rebels heart is melted by the revelation of the love of God shining from the cross” claim was all that it took, then all the people and many “rebels” (cf. DA 760.4) looking on at the Cross would have, on that very same Friday, before the sun set and surely long before the Resurrection, instantaneously become Believers in Christ. They actually “believed” in God but despisingly rejected Jesus. The only issue here was that they did not believe in Jesus.

Furthermore your “reconcile an estranged relationship” is only, tangibly, applicable to someone who actually had a “relationship” with God/Christ in their past. The ethereal view that this means Man in general actually does not follow through in practical, individual-by-individual reality.



Persisting non-believers in the Cross are, when actually confronted with its Story and Truth, indeed are not drawn because they defaultly or subsequently refuse to believe in it. This issue is not mere looking/gazing/contemplating as, at the very least, the Jews in Christ’s day showed, especially during the crucifixion, but believes. (= John 3:14-20)



Great. My question was “where exactly”?? I.e., page and paragraph #.



If you just want to see evidence, then go back in this thread where I have defended this view that I merely summarily stated here. If you do not accept that presented evidence then that is a different story, and you then need to address the points that I made in establishing this view.



This is only tangibly (i.e., in actual/realistic process) possible with someone/a Being who first/actually, in some actionable/inceptive degree “believes” in God/Christ. For the unbeliever the cross defaultly has no significance to him, and so a deeper look/contemplation will never be done. Also it was clearly and soberingly seen at the Cross that God, despite His great Love and Mercy, will surely not let sin go unpunished. (The SOP somewhere says something along these lines).



Where exactly? All I am reading in that Chapter is that they came to understand Satan’s character and in DA 764.4 that: “though they did not then understand all, they knew that the destruction of sin and Satan was forever made certain, that the redemption of man was assured, and that the universe was made eternally secure”



In the allowance by God in the Law of Moses, I rather see an act of great caring, just as, as previously explained, God permitting Israel to buy as many foreign slaves as they could afford. In those two cases, the woman and those slaves were going to be miserably treated as unwanted people. So to guard against the injustices and hardships that they would surely endure for the rest of their lives, God permitted divorce for the woman and the taking in by Israel for the foreign slave. They then would have a better life, and if another man loved and accepted that woman, then it can be seen that the reason claimed for the divorce was only a subjective one to that first husband. God preferred to not have unhappy marriages with the woman suffering at the hand of the husband and also inviting temptations for fornication and adultery and thus granted divorces in such case, despite greatly hating it as He clearly said in Mal 2:16. So as God’s intention for His laws is for the best of one’s life, He had no problem allowing for a clearly hated relationship to continue.

I see that Jesus only addressed the portion of that law that was being abused. I.e., as the questioners of Jesus revealed, Deut 24:1 “indecency/defilement” was being abused as ‘any subjective/frivolous dislike’ (= “any reason” Matt 19:3). So as with Christ’s other Law magnifying statements, Jesus only specified that this reason of “defilement” was only applicable to issue of adultery. He therefore narrowed it down to one issue, indeed not even doing away with divorce, despite the perfect plan that God had for marriage in Eden.

It is in the light of this “lone permissible reason” vs. the previous “any reason at all” that the disciples made their, I think/see quite serious statement that, since that is indeed the intent of that Law, i.e., with marital unions being really quite binding and not whimsically/frivolously dispensable, it was then better to not marry at all. Christ indeed to their statement seriously as he went on to warn that this was not recommended for all men and really only a eunuch (whether naturally or by physical “preempting” force) could ‘successfully” endure this lifelong privation. He then also indicated that becoming a eunuch for the kingdom of God, as Paul later would do (1 Cor 7:7-9), was the only viable alternative for a “healthy” man choosing to live like this. (19:11-13).

So in summary, Jesus did not annul or change anything here in the OT. He just closed a loophole by specifying what that “indecency/defilement” was all about. It could even be that, as Christ said, Moses, and that because of the hardness of the hearts of men, saw it better to grant divorces for reasons beyond this one which probably indeed may have been the only initial one intended by God.



While God’s ideal was for no diviorce, He Himself did allow for divorces for the same reason he allowed for capital punishment. To deal with an issue of high handed sin. For divorce itself that was adultery. And for e.g, murders, capital punishment served to also bring justice to the situation. (Gen 9:5, 6). It was the people who abused that Law and Moses under inspiration granted them these frivolous divorces so as to avoid sufferings in marriages and also temptations for adultery. So it was for a greater good. As with the other views of the law that Jesus corrected, it was the people who caused to occur any great divergence from God’s ideal. In marriage God’s ideal is for a loving and faithful relationship and divorce allows for this ideal to be protected in genuine cases. Indeed a person usually cannot forgive or trust an adulterous spouse.

Notwithstanding, as the penalty for adultery was death, then the “defilement reason” allowed by God may have been for something less then divorce. And as a man could be tricked or not know of such defilement in advance then God allowed for this, effectively, ‘marriage-back guarantee’. So this provision worked both ways. This was also in perfect harmony with God’s law which would preclude a man ever knowing in advance of those defilement. Indeed in such cases it was up to the woman to be honest enough to make this be factually be known.

It must also be kept in mind that in Eden, when God had instituted marriage, he was dealing with perfect being. They therefore would be free from ever having any “indecency”. So this provision was fairly made by God in the light of the reality of Fallen and subject to sickness and disease, men. Yet to honor God’s ideal and seek to work back to the perfection of Eden, even now, after the fall, then the counsel of Jesus is best. Just as counsels on diet are, though the post-fall/flood Biblical revelation allows for the eating of clean meats.



As stated above I don’t see it as a misunderstanding, just an abuse and loophole that needed to be ended and closed. There is also the Theological issue, as I understand it within the context of Man’s free will and a not yet existent future that sometimes men do things that God did not think that they would do. (cf. Isa 5:1-4). So this gross abuse of the “indecency/defilement” clause by man may have been another example of this. (I believe that the sexual perversion and misconduct of Sodom & Gomorrah and other surrounding cities was another such occurrence of this which is why, apparently Yahweh Himself can to earth to (incredulously) verify if the rumors He was hearing in Heaven was the actual case (Gen 18:1, 20, 21)). So Jesus acted to fix this unforeseen development.



I assume you mean what I actually had expected you to directly comment on. Namely capital punishment. I didn’t see you claims for divorce as being valid with your belief that: “There wasn't any misunderstanding of the communication from Moses to the Israelites in regards to the divorce laws”. Again they abused this God-given permission to then mean “any reason at all”. It was pointedly this that Jesus corrected.

It is also exegetically crucially important that Jesus really pointedly spoke of a right to remarry. He therefore closed the loophole that the general reasons of indecency allowed one to remarry, but specified that it should only be applicable in cases when a valid “indecency reason” is for reasons of adultery. This would all be like Jesus saying then that Christians should become vegan-vegetarians however Christ did not do this, yet this is what the SOP clearly is emphasizing now.



I don’t see a strong support from your ‘divorce’ examples for this claim here. And as just mentioned above, this view would mean that believers today do not have to be vegan-vegetarians! How does that fit in your view?? I personally have not problem with that because my view is that Jesus only dealt with what was within His mandate. The rest of God’s revelations to men was going to be done through other “prophetic” mouthpieces/spokesperson that God would raise up. Starting with Paul.



In regards to Justice/judgement, I, through due proper exegesis, see no difference/discrepancies at all.



No. I am stating again that I only say it possible that a misunderstanding could have occurred in the portions of the Bible that do not involve quoting God. That is why only revelations of God (i.e., ‘expression, legislations and/or other revelations by God Himself’) was included for that statement. You claim that this was stronger than that, presumably the to include the entire Bible vs. my ‘particular various statement from/of God Himself’ is due to you not understanding what I had said. So the fault is entirely on you.



And, as previously said and explained above, in pointed regards to that statement, I do not see that EGW’s statement applies to those ‘Thus says the Lord’ direct statements of God in the Bible.



As I had stated before in exegetical detail from the context of that SOP statement, (points which you also did not respond to), (1) this type of judgement applies to people who had once been followers of God but rebelled; (2) this is for an utter, no more mercy end scenario.

In regards to a secondary method. This is exegtically evident when one understand that God Himself does direct judgements, as exegetically seen in the Bible and SOP. So when there is not this organic option and/or when Satan has no incentive to do this “shooting-himself-in-the-foot” judgement, the God does it, also for reasons of proper punishement/justice, striking and memorable object-lesson; applicable mercy and timeliness.



I’ve thoroughly dealt with that SOP passage throughout this thread. And whenever our discussion reaches a point where you do not have an answer you just stop responding to that line of discussion, and as typical, just restate your initial arguments as if it had never been discussed before. This is starting to be quite comical on your part. If you really think your view is valid here as your oblivious restatement are manifestly trying to indicate then refute, and that head on, all of my standing arguments against it. That’s the only way, as most logical, you’ll convince me that ‘you’re still right.’



Firstly, the only SOP quote I found was:



Clearly she is refering to the plagues themselves and not to the method/process in which God was going to administer it. In fact their force/extent is not even included in this character as the Final Plagues will be “more terrible and extensive judgments”. Indeed by solely their reach of potentially the whole world they will be so.

Secondly, there was mercy found in God’s judgement of Egypt, as God would end a plague when Pharaoh, even if temporarily felt sorry, thus limiting the damage that was being done. However that was to no actionable end (i.e., ending the succession of plagues since God was determined to bring about all 10. And God only limited the exacting of justice to what was retributive and not, as I understand it, in excess of the various loss and damages that Israel had incurred.

Thirdly, there is a Theologically/Exegetically significant reason why the Egyptians Plagues were 10 and the Last Plagues are 7. The number 10 is fitting for a judgement while 7 is only for a representational one. As I had said, the Egyptian plagues was indeed to exact complete judgement upon Egypt for all that it had tangibly done to Israel over those years of slavery. The 7 Last Plagues in only a partial judgement. The full judgement of the wicked, and the full outpouring of the wrath of God upon them will occur later during the Hell Fire judgement. Indeed the 7 Last Plagues which is only felt by those living before Christ returns is pointedly for the sins under the end time, antichrist power. They will pay for the sin and harm done during pointedly that reign.

I have already responded to them and shown why I do not see that they mean or extend to what you understand in them. Deal with those standing objection if your serious about having a discussion. Otherwise this is just a way one conversation with you not responding to my questioning/disproving/debunking objections. And of course, you are right in both doing this and undisturbedly maintaining your initial view.



By applying the exegetical parameter of: a writer’s context, including, when applicable and as EGW suggests elsewhere (if I recall correctly) the pertinent parts of her writings dealing with this. Indeed applying this responsible, exegetical method one can easily seen that his is speaking of non-judgements. If you want to object to my understanding here, then address it head on, follow through all the standing points made supporting it rather than arbitrarily yourself resetting that already started line of discussion and just restating what you had initially said as if nothing at all had been said since your first advancement of that thought.



I copiously have in past posts, exegetical evidence, which includes the wider context of EGW’s writings and also her other accounts of God’s judgements which, as proper exegesis reveals show that God directly does judgement Himself. Hence that first method, and this, pointedly in regards to His own previous followers, the second method.



I have. “Go ahead” and look it up!! And as stated above I have already responded, and that long ago, to your GC 35-37 claim. Address those standing arguments against it. (You really think this derisive “go ahead”, “gas-lighting” egging on would make me not realize that it is you who had not responded to those already posted countering points!??)



I already have. Respond to those posted unanswered point in this thread!! As usually advised by me, take as much time as you need.



Look back on the record of this thread, indeed what you have chosen not to answer and you’ll surely find those evidences that you have ignored.



How is it true for you in your view since, God step away and turns over judgements to either natural consequence or the devil?? According to your understanding of this passage there is no longer any mercy to be involved as, e.g, :

GC 35.3 - “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 36.1 - “It is the restraining power of God that prevents mankind from passing fully under the control of Satan. The disobedient and unthankful have great reason for gratitude for God's mercy and long-suffering in holding in check the cruel, malignant power of the evil one.”

GC 36.1 - “But when men pass the limits of divine forbearance, that restraint is removed. God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown...”

GC 36.1 - “The Spirit of God, persistently resisted, is at last withdrawn from the sinner, and then there is left no power to control the evil passions of the soul, and no protection from the malice and enmity of Satan. The destruction of Jerusalem is a fearful and solemn warning to all who are trifling with the offers of divine grace and resisting the pleadings of divine mercy....”

GC 36.2 - The Saviour's prophecy concerning the visitation of judgments upon Jerusalem is to have another fulfillment, of which that terrible desolation was but a faint shadow. In the fate of the chosen city we may behold the doom of a world that has rejected God's mercy and trampled upon His law.

Seems evident to me that “you [merely] want to have your cake and eat it too”! Or is that a tenet aspect of/justified by your ‘having a more attractive view’ foundational basis.



Again how in your GC 35-37 view since when God’s judgement occurs the people being judged have already the point where they are ‘so [i.e., irreconcilably] out of harmony with God’. This granting of mercy would mean that God had turned over this judgement prematurely and those previously, supposedly all utterly wicked people, would only have repented in the face/fear of the present consequence. That would mean that God permitted Satan to do the full and unrestrained judgement, as you understand GC 35-37 but at some point during the judgement, when people were fearful of these consequences told Satan to back off so they could be forgiven. I don’t see how your view of GC 35-37 allows for this.



And as my answer fully entails/involves, the God effectuate judgement is many times because He wants to have mercy when applicable. If given over to Satan in such cases of judgement, as inherently involved, it is a previously well thought-through decision and God does not have to go back on His decision. And as shown in the 7 Last Plagues, He indeed won’t, as already discussed (Rev 22:11).



And when it is God who is doing the speaking, there is no room for any misunderstanding, especially as God knows exactly which words, imagery, symbols and expression to use with an individual engage in this “prophetic communication” to get then to unmistakeably and perrfectly understand what He is saying and means.



In matters of direct Divine-quoting (+25% of the Bible), since they did not misunderstand, in term of recording/relating verbatim what they had heard, there was not problem there.



Your example from my writing does not apply at all since I did not write a single word in the Bible. The only way it would is if you believe that Bible writers: ‘(1) use a mode of expression that's very difficult to decipher, (2) wrote in exceedingly long sentences, and (3) didn't proof-read what you write.’ I don’t see none of these three factors applying at all in the Bible. Indeed as (1) the Bible was initially and even later until things were written down mainly orally passed down, then what was so anecdotally, though deliberately precisely passed on was readily understood by the recipient; (2) did not have proof reading syntax issues and (3) as seen in the meticulous work of the ca. 8th-9th century A.D. Masoretes, carrying on the work of previous scribes, they carefully transmitted the Biblical texts.



As the Jews were speaking to Jews, they did not have this issue in transmission. As their Hebrew text is much more than less, thanks to the careful scribes and Masoretes available today. It can be thoroughly, and crucially, comparatively studied out, especially in our modern computer age, to achieve translational precision.



Really???!! God can have problems perfectly relaying His will in Hebrew. The fact that God could easily corroborate His words with various visual revelations does away with any possibility of being misunderstood. Indeed with Moses, He simply brought him up to view a template for Israel’s Sanctuary. No chance of misunderstanding here. Same thing with the 10 Commandment expanding Laws found in the books of Moses.



I see a foundationally major as it shockingly reveals where you consider a source of misunderstanding could occur. Indeed here in statements involving God Himself directly, prophetically communicating. If that “secure line” is capable of having merely message relaying errors, then we are in serious trouble.



God’s direct revelation, indeed which was so “securely/directly” dome because Divine things had to be crucially accurately revealed to Man (vs. merely thoughts inspiring), has no room for such errors.



When God wanted His thoughts to known heard in to OT He clearly and perfectly spoke it to prophets and ‘put it in their mouths’



Contrary to what you “... above implies these two quotes are not the continuation of the same thought. Here in DA 21.2 EGW has shifted to speak of the Divine Law of Giving and Unselfishness. To this theme/end, in the preceding paragraphs 20.2 & 21.1 examples in nature and then with God’s Heavenly Beings. It is to these “lesser representations” that she is referring to. She is not saying that God’s revelations in the OT were lesser representations. Indeed God’s own “prophetically expressed” word in the OT are not lesser as they are His perfect words. Even His thought inspired revelations in the rest of the OT are not “lesser representations”. ‘All Scripture is Inspired and profitable... ’ (2 Tim 3:16) And there was no Gospels or New Testament yet then.



Sure. And they al have unresponded to, standing arguments against them that disprove and debunk them. Thus they are “unsubtantiated.”



On what/From where are you basing this assertion??

Exegetically speaking, which is why I go by:

(1) the “send” verb is in the Piel Stem, so it was a forceful and direct action by God;

(2) this Psalm is retelling from vs. 42-51 of the Egyptian deliverance and in vss. 49-51 it is focusing on the slaying of the Firstborn;

(3) these “Angels of Evil” or more colloquially, “Angels of Calamity” (cf. Word Biblical Commentary); “Destroying Angels” (NASB) are evidently synonymous with the ‘Angel of Death’; the “Destroying Angel” spoken of in the Bible. (Exod 12:23)

(4) The Bible and the SOP are clear that is was God who was going to do this work of destruction. (Exod 11:4, 5, 7; 12:23, 27, 29; Num 3:13; PP 273.1-274.2; 279.3-4). In GC 614.2, EGW is distinguishing what God’s Angel have done in acts of judgement vs. what Satan’s Angel could do when permitted and she puts the work of this “Destroying Angel” with God’s Divine Agents of Destruction.



Indeed EGW only saw this “destroying Angel” as God’s agent and so she clearly did not understand her own ‘Satan is the destroyer” statement to mean that this Angel were evil angels.

E.g.,


Cf.:


Satan really had no personal incentive to do this work of destruction on Egypt and spare Israelites. As EGW says “Satan was unwilling to have the people of Israel released from Egyptian servitude that they might serve God.” (1T 292.1) God cannot force Satan to do His work just like He cannot force love and indeed obedience from him.

(5) The only issue of difference here is the mention of plural angels in the Bible vs. the mention of a lone angel in the SOP and also implied in the Exod 11 &12 account. I resolve this apparent contradiction by understanding that though one angel was being prominently spoken of, additional light may have been given to the writer of Psa 78 showing that more than one angel (= ‘a band/deputation of destroying angels’) had been involved in the execution of this task under the leadership of one authoritative/commanding angel.

In a similar way EGW constantly speaks of the destruction in Ezek 9 as being the work of a destroying angel and also the preceding sealing work as the work of an angel (e.g., 4BC 1161.5 - Letter 12, 1886; cf. EW 279.2). However in Ezek 9 both this “sealer” and the “6 destroyers” are depicted as men (Ezek 9:1, 2). So it may be quite similar to what occurred in Egypt were a commanding ‘seal-verifying’ angel went first and indicated to perhaps also ‘a band of 6 following destroying angels’ which households to enter and execute judgement.



It is only through shoddy and/or completely absent exegesis that you contrive this conclusion here. The full SOP quote without you calculated edits reads as:



(1) Clearly this is speaking of the ‘turning of the rod into a snake’ (Exod 7:8-13) which occurred even before the first plague of ‘Water into Blood’ occurred (Exod 7:14ff). It is in that sign that “Satan wrought through the magicians in a manner calculated to harden the heart of the tyrant Pharaoh”. And indeed as exegesis shows it is not said in that exchange that ‘God forced the heart of Pharaoh to be hardened (Piel)’ but that Pharaoh’s heart was naturally hardened (Qal), and that because of this Satan induced counterfeit.

(2) EGW clearly goes on to say as the Bible does that the magicians soon were no longer able to stand before Moses at God’s preventing hand, so this “wroughting” of Satan clearly does not apply to all the plagues and all of the ‘heart hardening’ instances.



My exegetical points against your view here still stand and this EGW notion of ‘permitting death’ is harmonized with the Bible’s account of how it transpired -by the direct action of God. God Himself acted to effectuate this permitting. For me the Bible always has the last word over EGW.



Just repeating things over and over does not make them so. Address the standing point against them. And since God does allow Satan to effectuate these no more mercy destructions, it is quite logical for him to mask his work then as seeming to be God’s own and make God seem like the bad guy. This is just like the United State “extra-ordinarily rendering” a detainee to a country where torture is allowed so that they can not seem like a law violating nation. Conversely here, there is a due judgement to be done and since God cannot do it without mercy, then there is no point for Him to do so and Satan is permitted to act. As I said, this is why this is pointedly shown to be done with people who formerly people of God as Satan then has this vengeful and public shaming incentive to do this destruction. Even in the end, the Beast worshipper will be, surfacely, Christ-claiming Christians. And so to shame them and take spiteful vengeance on Jesus when then Satan will have nothing left to gain, he will surely do such work of no-mercy destruction during the Last/7th Plague.



There is no point to anyway. Deal with the standing arguments against them.



As further shown above, your claim continues to be unsubstantiated.



(1) Succinctly said, and part of my working thesis on this, the Greek literally means “for ages of the ages”. So it is literally only generically speaking of an indefinitely known period of time, and that relatively or unforeseeably long time.

(2) The immediate context helps one to see what is being speaking of. And since this is shown to be Hell here, we can then go to the rest of the Bible and see that the destruction of the wicked is shown to end in death. So the forever here will ultimately have a limit.

(3) In the case of Gen 3:22-24's “forever”, which EGW understood as “eternally” (PP 60.3), the wider context of the Bible and the SOP on this show that even in Heaven the redeemed will need to partake of the Tree of Life to live forever, and that periodically. So it clearly necessary even when sin is not present, indeed as seen in Eden. So it clearly has a life perpetuating element that, as God said in Gen 3:22-24 works even when sin is present in the person. Indeed if that was not the case, then their would be no need to so forcefully bar Adam and Eve from accessing it, and so that ‘the sinner would not live forever’. The presence of sin alone in man would have brought about their death.



Clearly that is not the issue. You repeating things because you think they are still right, despite the standing arguments against them which you just ignore. And I am dealing with what the Bible and SOP actually teach and not merely your view. So when you just refuse to let facts have their due weight, I don’t so subjectively and artificially limit my understandings. This is like having a discussion with someone who does not want to recognize that abortion the murdering of a viable human life but just want to see it as ‘a personal choice’ and that to ‘to simply terminate a pregnancy’.



So if you really think I am misrepresenting your view then correct my supposed “misrepresentation” rather than merely repeating what you had said and which was already debunked. Address those standing points that render you view spurious and worthless. You seem to be going by the tenet that ‘your view is to be correct no matter what the facts and arguments against it are.’ And just bringing up new (yet thus far still spurious) claims is not an answer against distinct prior one. Those trees are still felled and your initial forest is not as dense as when you first presented it, if in existence now at all.



To an honest, exegetical and facts-guided person it is.



Well then read back through this thread, including these latest posts. Focus on what you have ignored/not answered.



Go back and address my posted arguments against your repeated claims here. And if all else fails, to me the Bible has the final word on this so, at the very least what EGW describes involves God’s sending act.



You don’t have to “imagine” anything. Just read and address my standing, exegetically based points against them. If you won’t and/or can’t do that then there is no point of continuing this discussion.



In those standing points, I have already explained how these notions of “sending” and “permitting” are harmonized. Permitting does not necessarily preclude an action to “send”, it just focuses on the decision process involved vs. the executive action that needs to be taken to effectuate it.



When proper exegesis is involved, it takes much more than one element in a point to establish/prove an assertion. With the Bible and SOP there is much harmonization vs. “either/or” (and not favoring the SOP over the Bible) work that needs to be done to uphold the Spirit of God in both sets of revelations. And, if there is an actual irreconcilability, the Bible has the final say.



It still is just clearly saying that. I am not responsible for the preconceptions that others bring into the text.



More is not necessarily the same as “clearer”. My added point is that there was no need for God to correct/clear up His OT Revelation, just provide more through the incarnate Christ.A nd still there was much more to be added after that. (E.g. ‘Paul’s Gospel’; the prophecies of Revelation, even the SOP/EGW’s revelations.). My point has always been that those revelation were only given on a need-basis which is why the incarnate Jesus did not either reveal all those things, nor tangibly do everything from the OT. Still He virtually covered all aspects of the OT including God’s Ministry of Wrath, Divine Vengeance and Judgement.



I have the view of ‘addition/completion’ vs. ‘clearing up.’



It is if you duly take into consideration all of the contributing exegetical points here. In order to validate the theme of OT Covenant to NT Covenant switch that was going to be done in the book of Hebrew, apparently written for Jews, most probably newly converted Jewish Christians, this Authority of Christ over all things had to be first emphasized. The it was shown how Jesus completes the OT Revelations by being the anti-Type of these OT types.



Well again, it does, for the same reasons as above.



It does to me as it became part of the Biblical record. It is those Bible statements that are of pertinent relevance to this discussion on the “Word of God”. Other instances of that could have been corrected by God in the prophet long before that prophet made it publically known.



It sequiturly and logically makes sense to me especially as I am pointeldy dealing with “prophetic utterances”: I.e., not such Divine-corrections of what was recorded in the Bible implies that God did not see a need to correct the person speaking/writing in a prophetic context. So those “prophetic” statements were all perfectly transmitted to, and related by, these “spokespersons” of God an and reflects His perfect will.



Not to me: I priorly have already responded to your claims involving slavery and polygamy. Deal with those standing points/arguments instead of just making this claim again as if I had not said anything. Above in these latest posts, I have dealt with your claims involving divorce. All of these were within God will for those post-fall and GC circumstances, which actually, to me shows how understanding and fair God is. It also speaks volumes to me against the then existing non-ideal practices that God did not at all permit to be done. Namely/Chiefly homosexuality. (See in this post for more on this topic - “Homosexual Lifestyle” section). God is indeed a God of Justice and justice acts to uphold any valid/truth-based argument, which, evidently homosexuality is not at all to God.



I had in the above answer then. It all involved/implied in your claim that even OT quotings of God are subject to being mistransmitted, misunderstood, misconceived and even misconstrued. My point was that those “prophetic” revelations were not or else God would have corrected them.



That’s your preference/prerogative, though substantively/constructively useless. It won’t change the facts involved/implied or address my standing arguments against your view. You just don’t take into consideration all what your assertions sequiturly/fully entail. That is all the natural fruit of your subjective, non-exegetical and selective approach to ascertaining Biblical Truth. I, on the other hand, don’t spuriously limit myself and allow the Truth to freely lead where it actually does. Understanding that the “Word of God”, the Bible, (i.e., over EGW’s writings) is the Final Authority in matters of Faith and Doctrine is the cornerstone of Biblical Truth.



That argument is clearly merely vexatious and mindless. I wasn’t aware of your other posts. Why didn’t you just point me to exactly where you begin to do so?? You think I first read all your posts before engaging in this discussion?!



Oh I do. Your reply here does not justify your non-answer and no posts references to my objections. Nice gas-lighting attempt. Doesn’t impress nor work with me. Quite to the contrary.

And even more factually clearly, beyond the above logical reasons involved, this is not a problem with me as in this thread Mountain Man, who has been studying with you for years also did not know of/recall what your view is/was on Capital Punishment. So start looking squarely at yourself and the fact that, at the very least, you are not pointing people to where you answers on this are.

Unwilling to what... accepting your unscholarly, unbiblical and irresponsible basis which helps your view merely run on, now, gas fumes?? I have to check my brain at the door to accept your view and its spurious and non-exegetical “proofs”. Much more than the peripheral ‘doing a good job expressing it’ you need to first do a good job with the validity of the substance you would then lastly need to properly convey.



The evidence of feasance of yours is strewn throughout this thread, with each point you have decided to ignore. But as you have a ‘view over exegesis’ belief, it can easily be seen why you don’t understand this foundational and paramount substantive and exegetical necessity.



I am merely substantiating my major points. In the end of such a point all you need to do is state whether you agree or not and pointedly why. I.e., which sub-/supporting points you do not find to be accurate and provide the evidence against for why. Furthermore, even, as done in these latest posts, it is pointed out that you didn’t respond to a prior point, you just ignore that indication/“reminder” again. It is clear to me that you only insist on ignoring that point, and quite manifestly because you cannot disprove its evidence against your view.



That would be both redundant, and you’ll still need to address the underlying sub-points that were given to support that sectional view.



Correct, for the many reasons I have given to support it.



I’d say the vast majority of times except for the utter end in the War of the Jews with the actual destruction of Jerusalem, and in the future during the Final Plague. In between this may have occurred with individuals as shown in 14MR 1-3. Other than that I only see variously involved acts of judgement by God even when the SOP relates Him “permitting” something to occur. As the Biblical record pointedly, exegetically relates, this “permitting” also involves His executing/effectuating action.



I have already and exegetically responded to the presentation of this text as a supporting argument by you. Did you forget? No need to repeat things here. Answer my posted responses head on.



You are the one who thinks they are gratuitous. Evidently not being exegetically responsible blissfully frees you. I can’t do anything more in the light of this non-recognition/comprehension by you.



Based on copious Biblical examples and statement of God, yes. It is a necessity, even if for quite beneficial, future life sparing object-lesson/exemplary reasons. (1 Cor 10:5-11)



“Miswriting”. The “eventhough” correction is accurate.



And... I am just supposed to accept this claim on mere pronouncement and/or face value?? Cite some texts that substantiate it.

It is instead clear to me that justice can only involve the punishment of the wicked whether in Israel or other nations (e.g., Psa 59:5; Jer 46:25; 50:18, 31)



Well as previously, repeatedly asked, how to you deal in your view with this (contradicting) fact that God Himself ordered right after the flood that Capital Punishment for murder should be done.



No. You are the one who thinks it is.



I already did as it fully entails. (= the fully involved “abortion is murder” vs. ‘it’s a personal, pregnancy-ending, choice’ opposing views). If you disagree with how I understand your view, then that’s a complete different issue and does not fall within my responsibility. And when you stop ignoring my posted points that disprove your views and/or show that this is indeed what it all entails, then will literally be on the same discussion page.



That involves ignoring facts. You can do that yourself. Your view is not valid if its supporting points have all been disproven and debunked as it currently is the case.



As there is not exegetical proof for that claim, as further demonstrated in these latest posts, there nothing factual/valid to (view-controllingly) “keep in mind” here.



I already explained why this is what is incontrovertibly involved in your view above, in these latest posts.



I only “purposely” deal with what is Truth and all that is exegetically involved or entailed by an assertion/view. You just arbitrarily and subjectively/fancifully choose to not follow your views to their full/complete end.



For my cited exegetical reasons which you have not responded to, in all of those examples.

Even in the example of Job, as it was dealing with Job ad-libbing and candid statement, it was not a Biblical “revelation” per se. Moses had already set the record straight in that account.

Furthermore it was not a judgement of God so it is not an example of these judgements we are discussing.

And as God was involved, limiting Satan, it was ultimately an act of His. Just through a different, but directly “employed”, agency.

And, exegetically speaking (i.e., the use of Qal verbs in Job 1:21 except for the last “be (forcefully) blessed”)], Job’s comment was more to indicate that God has a right to naturally take away what He had priorly naturally given, and was not actually a commentary of how, (i.e, the “mechanism of”) this loss had occurred. That was not his concern as he wholly trusted/believed in the goodness of God no matter what happened to him.



Since I have the view that God is still doing the action whether he “creates something new” (the earth opening up, the Flood, fire and brimstone on S&G) or uses a present organic means which he had been acting to protect against before, they still both are acts of God, then I see, as I understand the thread-starting question of this topic to be: What is the justifying reason why God allowed, pointedly the forms of personal acts for capital punishment to take place? I think to that can be added why does God Himself use acts that we would see as “violent” to effectuate such judgements/punishments. I.e., e.g., why not just let some peacefully die in their sleep as a judgement?

The “why” answer to me is that this was all for object-lesson reasons, and when organic consequences are used, it is indeed, as with the fiery serpents, so that Israel can understand that without Him and His protective care, they would not survive. The end goal is to try to instill that obedience to Him is the best option and the best way of doing this is through such natural consequences. However to deal with sudden situations to which there is no organic, natural remedy, then something fitting and new has to be done.

There is also the ultimate Theological reality that in the end, in order to be personally purged for having supported sin, God will have to expend His wrath upon sin and sinner. For the saved person, this was, as much as possible, representatively done to/upon Christ, but for the unsaved person, they’ll have to bear that wrath themselves in Hell Fire. So these “harsh” judgements for high handed sins was to serve as a tangibly and intendedly deterring reminder to that end reality that any rebellious person will have to suffer.



Only when the SOP is viewed in isolation of the Bible message that is to actually complete, correct and/or override it.



Only with this isolative approach of yours, I rightly/duly harmonize EGW’s comments to the Biblical testimony. Direct revelations of EGW when rightly understood and kept in their proper SOP-exegetical context are also, but still secondarily authoritative.



As I have seen in my past 13+ years of deeper and more scholarly studies, because of poor, deficient, shoddy and/or completely absent Biblical exegesis, including in the SDA Church and at the highest of religious educational level, namely its Seminaries. That is why our message is both not “fully” understood and also not convincingly/“credibly” shared.



The Direct Quotes/statements of God e.g, ordering (“violent”) Capital Punishment, “offensive” Wars, population decimations, etc.



That may be your objective but your non-exegetical approach is what is the problem and why your view come across as fanciful and subjective. Indeed, in Biblical terms, the choice to make EGW’s writing authoritative over the Bible is in itself a personal preference given EGW’s own counsels against this.



Good start. It seems to me that you stopped this course and got of track. Pro 4:18 Pointedly when you decided that Biblical exegesis was not determinative or authoritative. That is doublyhard for me to understand from you given your claimed ‘Seminary education’, whatever that actually/really involved. (What you have claimed in regards to your “completion of coursework” does not make logical sense.)



To me that exegtically is not a valid claim at all.



Indeed and as specified above, not even Job, particularly for the distinct “judgement” issue.



As I have seen for a fact proper/deeper/more exhaustive exegesis has a way of doing this as others spuriously refuse to do it.



Well to me, improper exegesis is most likely the reason. Indeed it arrives at that similar (spurious/non validly substantiated) claim and indeed your posted arguments are generally not disputed by these others, and that despite my exegetical facts/points against them. So evidently that view is also being “beleived” despite the standing facts against it and as I see it, as with you, it is to not engage the exegetical issues involve. I can surfacely understand this for others, but not for you as you (supposedly) are ‘/“ formally seminary educated”/’.



And my question was/is :How then did He, according to your understanding “reveal everything” if he didn’t explain everything. By natural sense “explaining” only involves things that need to be explained. So that would mean that Jesus would have left many OT things not explained and so HE would not have “revealed everything”. So my questions still remain. I.e. I do not see how you can claim that Jesus revealed everything if:

“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.”

And eve if these ‘not directly addressed things’ were not included in the Gospel accounts, by natural implication your “revealed everything” claim would mean that they were actually addressed but just not recorded. Which would be quite possible as John 21:25 can allow for.

To be quite frank with you, (and do correct me if I am wrong), I can only see this another sly view switching of you on your part following my pointing out of the John 16:12-15 evidence (also pointed out by Mountain Man) which you did not respond to me (or as I recall, neither to Mountain Man) but instead, with me, only peripherally quibbled about me not having included the words of the text in that post and so (as you apparently wanted to convey then) you were just going to ignore it as “pointless.” Manifestly you did not and used it to change your previous claim/stance on that pointed issue.



Correct.



Ohhhh... really. I rather see that if Jesus had not made a copious amounts of statements surrounding His miracles, as pointedly and selectively recorded in the Gospel, this full revelation of God would not have been perceived, indeed as seen in the fact that his actions were being misunderstood by many (e.g., Mark 9:6; Luke 13:18).

Indeed even despite all of the miracles and acts of kindness during His ministry, His own disciples, strangely enough, did not ‘believe that He was from God’ until He finally, defaultly started to speak plainly to them (John 16:25-31), as just done in that Last Supper feast (John 14:1-16:24). Keep in mind that they are not saying this because they knew His ministry was about to end. They did not even awarely register, let alone, understand this soon drastic ending. SO it really was because, as this meeting Jesus had openly and straightforwardly spoken to them on divine truths concerning Himself.

So such explanatory teachings, and that throughout His Ministry, was indeed fundamentally crucial, “public relation/comprehension-wise” to His Ministry.



Well you’ll need to substantiate this claim. I don’t see this notion expressed in their writings, including with Jesus teachings. (e.g., Matt 22:7; Luke 12:47-50; 2 Pet 2:4-6, 9; cf. Rom 12:19).



Did what (else) themselves?? Your view does not have to be theirs. For starters, as discussed in previous recent posts, I see that they had a different view of the Inspiration of Scripture than you as it concerns the perfect transmission of direct revelations from God (2 Per 1:17-21).



I am not making that so self-evidently “impossible” extreme “every conceivable error a person might have had” claim. He (1) only need to focused on major views which were that of the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenses and Zealots, (2) people then, unlike today, and that for mainly various cultural reasons, did not normatively have individual/private views outside of what their followed teachers had. So dealing with those 4 views would virtually have included all other views.



I see that Jesus only dealt with issue within His Plan of Redemption/New Covenant confirming and Character of God revelation mandate and this would involve doing explanatory teaching on all prominently espoused views which especially misrepresent the Character of God.



His Teachings on the Character of God would be a key part of these topics here. So they would not have been detrimental to His full pertinent teachings objectives.

Why would it be. Irrespective of the fact that your “permit” claim was then, and still is, spurious, hence the complete ignorance of it here, your view controllingly necessitates that Biblical exegesis be considered as not really meaning anything. Hence, despite the various grammatical and syntactical uses made by Bible writers, these are all irrelevant. That is the straightforward and only conclusion that can be made here. You then also come to involve direct-quotings of God in this view. You need to both think you views through and allow all applicable points to be involved in the validity weighing of it.



Well again, that is only because I am being exegetically responsible. That’s just the natural result of this more precise scholarly approach. I, by now, am well used to, for such deeper work reasons, “stand alone.” That is alone with God and His “fuller” truth. Look through the Bible and Church History and you’ll see that Truth is never determined by numbers but by the actual Biblical facts.



As this summarily loudly expresses what your view fully entails, those quotes fully apply for me.



It’s not a fanciful idea. It is using factual natural science to corroborate what was exegetically revealed in the Bible. Indeed I foundational believe that always uses some form/degree of Science to accomplish things. On the other hand, your Bible and SOP completely opposing/contradicting claim that a volcanic eruption is what destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah and not God tangibly working through His own angels is what is “fanciful”.



Already responded above. As Biblical exegesis is irrelevant to you and as this SOP account seems to corroborate your claim, it is not surprising to me that you fickly only choose the SOP account here, which is actually just a part of what fully happened with the Bible indicating the rest, all corroborated by what occurs in nature.

Indeed you just fancifully jump to whatever you think corroborates your view (namely either the Bible or SOP or something else (e.g., “volcanoes for S&G”)) to the exclusion of all other opposing statements, even within that source itself. So clearly, at least to me, it is your view that is the final authority as to what Truth Is.



“Insults”??! What is “insulting” about, pointedly, asking you to:

-substantiate your “name-calling” claim,

-answer my points instead of ignoring them,
-explain the illogicalities in ‘seminary education’ claim,

and:

-pointing out you non-exegetical ways and practices,

-pointing out that you need to think your views through,

-highlighting that you manifestly end answering a post whenever you no longer have valid answers. (Of course you are wanting to make this seem as a non-discriminatory ending, but just reading either what you left out or where you ended reveals your tactic here. And, as already pointed out time is really not the issue here. You can take as much time as necessary to full make the response to my substantive points. Indeed you usually prefer to quibble with non-substantive issue rather than substantive ones, of course when that suits you, or as done here, try to pass off all of these questions/points as “insults” and so not answer them.)

At the very least, you should be able to easily defend the “rightness” and truth in all of these.



Great. One down, 10+ both fully, and also partially, unanswered posts to go.



No misunderstanding here, I do and still am complaining, and that with cause, way beyond discussion/views respect. Indeed as you are quite obviously only doing this with what you cannot answer yet continue to maintain that these disproven points are still contributing to making your view the supposedly right/Biblical one!??

And the issue is not merely answering a post completely, per se, but at the very least addressing all of the substantive points made in their against your view. So you still have many other such unanswered points left to address.



Your loss/detriment/problem. My facts disproven your view will still stand as they rightfully self-deserve to against your view. But of course you’ll blissfully go on thinking and claiming that you are right.

Again time is not a reason here as you can take as long as necessary. You just don’t want to.



And I had said that you could have, i.e., e.g., here taken 8 minutes per day over the next month to make this response. So time is not the issue. You manifestly just want to appear to be confident and sure of your view by posting replies, and difficulty-avoiding, selective ones at that, to my posts. That does not impress me. Just, as seen in your shallow response, shows that you have not involved proper, if any exegesis in your answers and have no intention to do so.



Due mainly to your blind repetitions of already disproven claims.



This has been further explained above. I indeed don’t see it as the lone/possible example anymore.



Correct though I do not see any example in the Bible where this is said or related as ‘God permitting what He is doing.’ As seen in Luke 22:31, 32 it was clearly stated that Satan would do this, and with Lazarus, I see that it was understood that this was not a direct act of God.



Not exactly. If a Hiphil class of verbs were used then it was through some “agency”. If a Piel class then through “patiency”.

No, this is totally on you. I have many conversations with many people, and this has never been an issue. You're not organizing your thoughts in any systematic way.

If you could come up with a list of what you see to be the important principles involved, the could be helpful.

Also a list of what you see to be the differences in our points of view that has to do with content rather than methodology, that would be helpful (i.e., don't write something like, "I just accept what the Bible teaches, while you hold to your own ideas regardless of what Scripture says").