I find your view very interesting considering these texts:

"This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. Zecharaiah:7:9

"Learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow". (Isaiah 1:17)

"This is what the LORD says: "`Administer justice every morning; rescue from the hand of his oppressor the one who has been robbed" (Jeremiah 21:12)

These texts say that to administer justice is to show mercy and compassion, defend the weak and disenfranchised, encourage the oppressed, and rescue the oppressed from the oppressor.

Mercy seems to be the true purpose of justice! I see no tension at all! Remember it was Satan who claimed that God couldn't be merciful and just at the same time thus separating them. It seems like God's intention to bring them back together into one.

scott

That wasn't the context. Here's the context. Scott asked:



To which you responded:



Scott was asking a general question, which is if your theology allows for Ellen White's thinking to grow and change. My comment was along the same line.



MM, Here's the full context of what Scott said:



You stated that the questions were addressed to Scott in the specific context having to do with Sister White evolving from a harsh view of God to a kinder one, but I'm not seeing where Scott said that. Did I miss something? Where did he say this?



Let's first establish if your question has something to do with what was actually posted. However, I would be interested in pursuing your answer in regards to what Scott actually did ask. He asked:



Does it?

The law is the righteousness of God put into words. The law is transcript of God’s character. It simply states what God does and doesn’t do. It condemns us because it shows us where we fall short. Jesus said that “Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son” and Jesus makes the point that we judge ourselves by either accepting Jesus or not. We judge and condemn ourselves by either loving the righteousness we see in Christ or not, loving the light or clinging to our darkness.

Your point that the law cannot pardon is simply because the law only told us what righteousness is. In the ceremonial system we have symbols of forgiveness and salvation, but it wasn’t until Jesus came that we saw what God is really like. What the law couldn’t do, express God’s character perfectly, Jesus did by coming in the flesh.

The written law couldn’t pardon because of the hardness of our hearts all we saw in the law was the standard. We missed the fact that mercy and love, the very principles of the law, are what make God’s character what it is. God doesn’t murder because He is love, God doesn’t lie because of His integrity, etc. etc...

We missed the truth that existed in the law because we only saw the letter and missed the principle behind the letter. All we saw is that God told us not to commit adultery so while we were busy not doing the act lust was in our hearts. The fact is that “thou shalt not commit adultery” really means “be faithful to your spouse and love them with all your heart just like Christ loves His church”. We needed the demonstration of love, in Christ, to really see what “not commit adultery” means.

Jesus showed us that the reason there is a law is to point out our sins and drive us into God’s loving arms for salvation. In the NC Jesus replaces the law as our standard of righteousness. The life of Christ is our standard and that means that we not only see the letter of the law, but we see the grace that existed as the power behind the written law . . . love! So the law written in stone couldn’t possibly reveal to us the whole picture of God that Jesus revealed. Now we see the love of God manifest in the flesh and if we love what we see then the law, which was expressed in words written on stone, is written on our hearts.

scott

You have stated multiple times that God is sitting in judgment on men and will kill violently kill everyone who doesn’t accept Christ. This is another example of you reinterpreting acts depending on who does them. If I do something it is sin, but if God does it it is not sin. If I stab someone with a sword it is violence, but if God tells me too it isn’t violence. Can’t you see that this is exactly how Christians justify the Inquisition of the Dark Ages. Isn’t this antinomianism, the rejection of the true meaning of the law because we find some loophole and that loophole is “God told me too”? Aren’t we supposed to judge things by the law and the testimonies and if they speak not according to them they are false? Wouldn’t this mean that if someone came in God’s name and told us to break His law we should know that it isn’t God speaking?

If God came and told you to commit adultery would you do it or would you think it wasn’t God talking? Why isn’t this the case with murder?

You are the one that insists God is violent and threatening and then you say, “God has never been violent, nor has He ever threatened anyone.” Do you really believe that violence and threatenings are only a matter of who does them?

scott

What? Jesus’ cure doesn’t stop us from dying the first death. I only know of two people that got off this earth alive! Jesus’ cure is for the second death which those who are born again, take His cure, are immunized!

The doctor analogy doesn’t work at all for the first death.

scott

Hebrews 1:1-3
1God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways,
2in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.
3And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature . . .

The phrase “exact representation” is the Greek word “karakter” or character. The text simply says that God spoke to us in the past through the language of the prophets, but now speaks through His Son who is the exact character of the Father and the radiance of His glory. This strongly implies that the prophets represented less than the exact character of the Father and were not the radiance of His glory.

I believe that the NT clearly places Christ as an authority over the prophets. You are the one that suggests differently. Maybe you could supply me with all the quotes from the scriptures where the written word claims infallibility.

This I would really like to see!

scott

Okay, but I would prefer it if you would at least imitate what Jesus and the NT writes did, which is to say I wish you would quote inspired passages and explain why you think they support your beliefs.


In the case of resurrected sinners, I suppose executing the death penalty is mercy killing.


Thus, the law is not a perfect or complete reflection of the character of God, right? It lacks certain things, namely, the legal right to be merciful, to pardon, and the power to save sinners. On the flip side, though, it does reflect the character of God in that it condemns sinners to death.

“And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.” Exodus 34:6, 7.


Yes. The following insight makes sense to me:

LDE 241
The plea may be made that a loving Father would not see His children suffering the punishment of God by fire while He had the power to relieve them. But God would, for the good of His subjects and for their safety, punish the transgressor. God does not work on the plan of man. He can do infinite justice that man has no right to do before his fellow man. Noah would have displeased God to have drowned one of the scoffers and mockers that harassed him, but God drowned the vast world. Lot would have had no right to inflict punishment on his sons-in-law, but God would do it in strict justice. Who will say God will not do what He says He will do? {LDE 241.2, 3}


Scott, what is your primary source of authoritative information about Jesus? And, how does He speak to you?


Scott, you seem to be suggesting that the Bible does not claim to be the infallible Word of God. By implication, then, aren’t you also saying the Bible is fallible? I’m not comfortable with this idea. If the Bible doesn’t claim to be infallible does it mean it is fallible? I don’t think so. I agree with Sister White:

1SM 416
When God's Word is studied, comprehended, and obeyed, a bright light will be reflected to the world; new truths, received and acted upon, will bind us in strong bonds to Jesus. The Bible, and the Bible alone, is to be our creed, the sole bond of union; all who bow to this Holy Word will be in harmony. Our own views and ideas must not control our efforts. Man is fallible, but God's Word is infallible. Instead of wrangling with one another, let men exalt the Lord. Let us meet all opposition as did our Master, saying, "It is written." Let us lift up the banner on which is inscribed, The Bible our rule of faith and discipline.-- The Review and Herald, Dec. 15, 1885. {1SM 416.2}

The following passages imply it is wrong to go against the Word of God, which also implies the Word of God is right. Since we are required to live by “every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” how can we say the Bible, the Word of God, is anything but infallible? Therefore, I am convinced the Bible is totally and completely infallible, that the discrepancies it contains are inspired, too. That is, God purposely allowed them to be admitted in the Bible. They, too, serve a high and holy purpose. They are not in the Bible by accident, or because the men who wrote them were not being guided by God.

Matthew
4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Mark
7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Luke
8:21 And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it.
11:28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed [are] they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

John
10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Acts
4:31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.

Romans
10:17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

2 Corinthians
2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
4:2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

1 Thessalonians
2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received [it] not [as] the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

1 Timothy
4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Hebrews
4:12 For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

1 Peter
1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Yes, I believe she grew in her understanding of the truths God revealed to her. I do not, however, believe God revealed things to her later on that contradicted what He revealed to her earlier on. I cannot think of an example of her learning something later on that led her to realize she was wrong, or that led her to change her thinking on a particular point of truth. Can you?

In particular, can you think of her ever saying something to effect - Earlier in my ministry I wrote stuff that reflected a harsh view of God, but I was young and ill informed, nowadays my views are more accurate, they represent the truth about God, about His love and mercy and compassion. I no longer believe He directly or personally punishes or destroys impenitent sinners. Instead, I have come to realize and believe He reluctantly withdraws His loving protection and either commands holy angels to allow man and nature to unleash their pent up power, or He gives evil angels permission to manipulate man and nature to cause destruction proportionate to the sinfulness of the person or people who have resisted and rejected His loving entreaties and protection.

What about Ellen’s early rejection of a prohibition on pork?

What about her position on the “Shut Door Theory”?

What about her position on masturbation?

What about her learning about the Sabbath?

What about her statements that contradict each other such as her taking a dogmatic stand that God punishes the wicked by violently destroying them and then making a statement that God’s punishments are not to be seen as God doing anything other than allowing men to suffer the consequences of their own choices?

What about Her insistence that we are the ones being judged in the IJ and then clearly explaining that God has placed Himself on trial in the IJ.

What about her embracing the 1888 message and getting excited that the truth was being presented so clearly?



This makes no sense to me. What you are purposing is that if Ellen didn’t say it, it isn’t true! Thus all truth is in Ellen! She makes it pretty clear that if we study the sanctuary there are vast truths to be gained. If we looked at things the way you do how could we ever advance from her understanding at all? Every time a person advances in truth the past truths take on new meanings and become clearer. Ellen didn’t see everything, but what she did see will make sense when understanding truth clearer.

scott

Not that the law lacks “the legal right to be merciful”, but that the law lacks the revelation of God’s mercy.



This offends me that you could say such things about God after Jesus spent so much time talking about God’s acceptance and revealing His love.



Sinners condemn themselves to death and God cries like a mother morns over her dead child!

scott