If the reason that someone dies is because you execute them, you could hardly say you were "leaving" the person to reap the consequences of his choice, sin you are the one responsible for his death!

Ellen White's point, made 7 times in the paragraph cited, is that God was *not* responsible for the death of the wicked, but that the wicked were. She explained that death is "the inevitable result of sin." If the inevitable result of sin is death, it would hardly be necessary for God to impose His power upon them to kill them.



It's not a case of both, but of one instead of the other. That is, instead of God's executing the wicked ("God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression") the wicked "reap that which they have sown." This is something that happens when God "leaves" the rejectors of His mercy to themselves.

The whip was for the animals, not the people. Jesus did not drive the money-changers out with a whip. They were compelled to leave by a guilty conscience.



I've addressed this. Jesus spoke in the present tense in Matt. 23:37, 38, so this is a legitimate example of the principle.



Actually it was Ellen White who said this. That's where I got the idea from!





I've addressed the question, so it doesn't remain. Regarding your question in the last sentence here, I'm not following your reasoning. What is "this"? Why would "this" imply God had never done "it" before?



Regarding the definition of "cruelty," from Webster's:



This is actually the definition of "cruel." "Cruelty" is defined as basically "being cruel."

Regarding your question if I believe God to be cruel, no, I don't. Regarding the incidents you cite, you know I don't perceive what happened the same way you do. That is, you perceive these things as God's doing certain things to the people in order to inflict them with pain, suffering and death. I see what happened in terms of what EGW outlined in GC 36, and throughout the chapter "The Destruction of Jerusalem."

Regarding my not presenting the explanation you requested, I've recently moved, and am at a client side, with the explanation on my work computer, so I'm not often able to deal with these matters where I have access to the information I was trying to find. I'm sorry you had to wait. The next post has the explanation.

The Ever-Loving, Saving Father

When the Israelites took the sword, thus rejecting God's way in favour of their own, the Lord was faced with several possible courses.

Firstly, He could have simply abandoned them to their own devices. This would have been perfectly just and righteous on His part, though it would have been justice without mercy. The result would have been the speedy disappearance of the household of Israel from the face of the earth. Their enemies were multitudinous, highly skilled, and well equipped in the business of war. Satan desired nothing so much as the extermination of Israel and he would have quickly seized upon the opportunity.
Secondly, God had the physical power to force the Israelites to continue in His way but He could not do this from the moral point of view. He had given them, along with the remainder of humanity, the freedom to choose. Therefore, under no circumstances, would He attempt to insist on His way in preference to theirs. It was for them to choose how it would be, and when they made that choice God could do nothing except respect it, which He did.

Thirdly, God could have simply ignored the sin, pretended that it did not exist. To do this would be to condone it and this God cannot do.

These three are obvious alternatives, but there is another possibility which is normally overlooked. Herein, the Lord recognizes that He has failed to save them from taking the wrong turning, and that, therefore, the work calculated to save them from that is now valueless. Because they have not yet tasted the bitter experience of the consequences of their apostasy, they are not disposed to come back. But they have not gone beyond the possibility of restoration. So God, in His infinite love, will not abandon them and thus cut off their opportunity to rectify their misdemeanors.

If no saving help is provided to draw them back from going into the worst effects of their choice, then they would not survive long enough to ever return to God. Therefore, the Lord works to save them from those evil results both to make their sufferings as mild as possible, and to extend the time in which they may learn and repent. It is because this aspect of God's working has not been understood that He has been so seriously misjudged in the Old Testament.

The following illustration will serve to clarify these alternatives and to identify the divine choice among them.
Picture a smallish town located in an area where wild animals, such as bear, deer, mountain sheep, and various big cats abounded. As is to be expected, the majority of men in the town were keen hunters never missing the opportunity to take their guns out and to track down the game.

But one man was different. He had the love of God in his heart and to kill the beautiful dwellers in the forests and mountains was contrary to his nature. So he was never seen in company with the men trailing off to seek their adventures in the blood of others. For their part, they were troubled by this odd man out and never lost an occasion to persuade him, if possible, to join them. At one time, they even bought him a splendid hunting rifle for his birthday. With Christian graciousness, he gently declined the gift. This was naturally resented, causing those men to increase the pressure on him, but despite this, year after year, there was no change in him. The only equipment with which he would hunt was a good camera.

This man had a fine son whom he was most anxious to protect from the influence of the hunters around. He worked untiringly to instil into him the same love of the wildlife which he possessed, and was gratified to see that he was having good success in this direction. Thus the father was working to have the boy do things his way as distinct from the hunters' way.
The father did not take away the boy's freedom of choice. When he eventually reached later youth, he became answerable for himself and was no longer under the direct control and discipline of his father. He received an invitation to spend some weeks away from home and, eager to see new country, accepted the kindly offer. This was a clever plot by the huntsmen, who sent their sons along to invite the boy, once he was away from the father's direct influence, to go hunting with them. They urged him to try it just once to see how he liked it. Feeling that no harm would be done by an on-the-spot personal appraisal of the hunting business, he went along.
His first reaction was unfavourable but, something about the challenge, thrill, and excitement, drew him back and soon he was an enthusiastic devotee. He went to the sports store, selected a beautifully engineered weapon, and in due time returned with it to his dismayed father. He had exercised his choice and now the father was confronted with a situation which required a response. How would he now relate himself to this turn of events? Clearly the young man had instituted in his life a course contrary to the ways of his father and of God.
For the father, as for God, the choice lay between several alternatives.

The first option was to disown the son, forbidding his entrance to the home and requiring he go his own separate way. The justification for this would have been the certainty that the principles of father and son could never harmonize.
Another course would have called for the use of force to coerce the lad's surrender to his father's wishes and ways. This was not the answer for two reasons. Firstly the youth had achieved the age of independence, so it would have been impossible for the father to achieve the desired result anyway. But, secondly, it was not in this father's nature any more than it is in the character of God, to use force. To them, the only acceptable service is that which springs from an educated heart of love.

A third alternative was to quietly ignore the change, pretend that the rifle had never been brought into the home, and act as if all were well when, in fact, it was not. Again, this was no way out, for sin cannot be ignored. Neither love nor justice will permit it. Iniquity demands attention. A response to it will always be forthcoming whether it be the saving outreach of love or the vindictive reaction of destructive hate.
Having considered and rejected each of these possibilities, what would have been left for this godly man to do? What would God do in the same situation?

Firstly, the older man recognized that his son had placed himself, other people, domestic livestock, and wild animals, in a position of great danger. Being an inexperienced and untrained rifleman, he did not understand the necessity of looking beyond the target to ensure that there were no buildings, people, or farm animals in the line of fire. He needed to understand how to carry the weapon so that in climbing through fences, for instance, he did not, as so many have done, shoot himself or his friends. He must be made aware of the awful potential of the ricochet, when a bullet, glancing from rock or tree, will embed itself in a target far to the right or left of the original sighting. He must come close enough to the game to eliminate the possibility of only wounding the animal which would then drag itself away to suffer a lingering death. These and others things he could be taught in order to save himself and others from the worst effects of what he had chosen.

While the father could no longer save the youth from taking the gun, he could, if permitted, provide the instruction needed to save him from these serious consequences. Even the wild animals would benefit from this saving ministry, for, while they could not be saved from death, they could be delivered from a painful and lingering one.

As the response of God and those who walk with Him will always be the outreach of saving love, there is only one course among those suggested above that the Lord or this father would follow. God is by nature a saviour. So too was the father pictured in this illustration. When God is frustrated from saving people in one area, He will still exercise His saving power in whatever possibilities remain. Thus, when the boy's father found that his long pursued objectives of saving the youth from taking up weapons had failed, he still recognized that there was much he could do to save the boy from the worst effects of what he had chosen.

So, sadly, but with tender dignity the father drew his son aside and spoke with him. He expressed disappointment that the younger man had chosen to go the way he had, but assured him that he would respect his decision fully. He gently suggested that there were dangers associated with the use of such a weapon, from which perils he could only be safeguarded by receiving and obeying a number of specific precautions. The father intimated that he was more than willing to carefully instruct the son in these.

Seemingly this father is instructing the youth to be a hunter, whereas, in fact, he is advising the lad, who has elected to be a killer against the father’s wishes, how to be merciful and safe in the use of the gun.

The son, relieved that his parent was not launching against him a fiery denunciation of his ways, no longer braced himself to resist such pressure. Instead he expressed his willingness to learn. By so doing he exhibited the strange quirk of human behaviour which gives men an unwillingness to obey God where the higher levels of faith are concerned, but permits them to follow His counsel at lesser levels. Israel, for instance, was not prepared to trust God fully by leaving the sword alone, but they accepted and followed His counsels regarding the restrictions designed to minimize its evils. In like manner, the son who had abandoned his father's principles regarding the total rejection of firearms, was prepared to respect his counsels in the use of them.

The father introduced the training session by emphasizing that nothing he was about to do or say indicated that he had changed in any way, even though it could be interpreted that way.
God, who has been placed in the same position by the determination of His children to take up weapons of destruction, has likewise solemnly warned that His effort to save them from the worst effects of what they have chosen does not indicate any change in Him, even though His actions could and have been interpreted otherwise.

"I am the Lord, I change not;" "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever;" "with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." Malachi 3:6; Hebrews 13:8; James 1:17.

Despite the fact that men know that before sin entered God never destroyed, and despite these solemn declarations from God that no change has ever occurred in Him, men still look on His everlasting efforts to save and interpret them as being the actions of one who has become like man himself. The father in our story did not have to change his ways in order to instruct the son how to be a kind killer, neither did God have to change His ways to save Israel from being cruel users of the sword. Neither of them took life. They were only bent on saving it, or, if that were no longer possible, to save it from as much suffering as possible.

Now suppose that one of the villagers, the man who had most ardently sought to convert the father, had happened to come down the lane as this session was in progress. From a distance too great to hear all that has been said, he beheld the father instructing the son in the use of firearms.

What assumptions will this man make? What conclusions will he draw?

He never was possessed of the spirit of the father and therefore, could never understand it. Accordingly, there was no possibility of his correctly assessing what the father was doing. Instead, he would have interpreted what he saw as sure proof that the father had changed.

The onlooker would have lost no time in returning to his hunting companions to announce the father's conversion. He would have told them that he was now one of them—a gunman. He would have offered as proof to his incredulous listeners, what he had seen of the father actually instructing the boy in gun-handling. The evidence he offered was factually true, for this is exactly what he had seen the father doing, but the conclusions drawn from those evidences were the opposite from the truth.

Even as that father was misjudged, so God has likewise been.

Tom, the "how to be a kind killer" illustration (Behold Your God) comes short in one important way - It is not a sin to kill enemy nations as an act of war. God commanded the COI to dispossess the Canaanites, to utterly kill men, women, and children. Listen:

Numbers
21:2 And Israel vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou wilt indeed deliver this people into my hand, then I will utterly destroy their cities.
21:3 And the LORD hearkened to the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed them and their cities: and he called the name of the place Hormah.

Deuteronomy
3:1 Then we turned, and went up the way to Bashan: and Og the king of Bashan came out against us, he and all his people, to battle at Edrei.
3:2 And the LORD said unto me, Fear him not: for I will deliver him, and all his people, and his land, into thy hand; and thou shalt do unto him as thou didst unto Sihon king of the Amorites, which dwelt at Heshbon.
3:3 So the LORD our God delivered into our hands Og also, the king of Bashan, and all his people: and we smote him until none was left to him remaining.
3:4 And we took all his cities at that time, there was not a city which we took not from them, threescore cities, all the region of Argob, the kingdom of Og in Bashan.
3:5 All these cities [were] fenced with high walls, gates, and bars; beside unwalled towns a great many.
3:6 And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city.
3:7 But all the cattle, and the spoil of the cities, we took for a prey to ourselves.

Deuteronomy
7:1 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;
7:2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, [and] utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them:
7:3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.
7:4 For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.
7:5 But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.
7:6 For thou [art] an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that [are] upon the face of the earth.

Tom, I do not see how the "kind killer" illustration explains why God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer. Nor do I see how GC 36 explains it.

By the way, is this you in the following link?

http://www.heavenlysanctuary.com/forum/v...w=5&page=10

I think we're at the agree to disagree point here, MM. I can't do better than the explanation here. Regarding the link, that should be me, yes.

Do you deny the possibility of either God stop holding back, or allowing Satan to take over?

In the beginning, water covered the face of the earth. Through a supernatural act, God caused the dry land to appear. By stopping that supernatural act, the waters would come back. While He could cause a second supernatural act to counteract the first supernatural act, allowing entropy to happen would both make more sense and be supportive of God's character.


Yes, I think so, perhaps a wording conflict between us on that.


I'm implying that your views of God and a dictator is no different.

God kills people who go against Him.
Hitler kills people who go against him.

God kills people because He is just.
Hitler kills people because he is just. (His followers believed it)

God kills people for the greater good.
Hitler kills people for the greater good. (To move the human race to a higher level)

Imagine a being from another part of the universe coming late to the showdown. He arrives and walks along the wall looking over the side seeing men, women, and children being burned alive. The only way he could tell if it was God doing it or just the continuing actions of Hitler would be that Hitler couldn't keep them alive very long whereas God supernaturally prolongs their suffering to satisfy some unkown purpose for punishment.

People during Hitler's day didn't really have a choice. They followed him or died. If God does the same, we don't really have a choice. Choice of death or shutup and putup is not a choice.



God kills.
Jesus didn't.
Jesus came to earth to represent God.
Is that a conflict between God and Jesus?

Perhaps an investigation of the first time God gave the instruction to kill enemy nations is in order. When was that?
Israel means a prince of God, ruling as God. The nation was named after Jacob. If the nation ruled as Jacob did, maybe you can find where Jacob killed people.


Mountain Man, why are you opposed to a kind God? Could God be kind, meaning that He does not actively kill people?

If you could quote passages from the Bible where God says something like - "I commanded Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to death because of the hardness of Moses' heart. Circumstances forced Me to act contrary to My character." - then I would be more willing to buy into your idea. But nowhere does God say anything like it.

i liked the eth3.org, 7 stages of christian maturity. that seemed to really make sense for me. plus i liked the 7th stage, it seemed to be the goal the bible and egw have been calling us to.

i liked your story, too, tom.

on this side of eternity, and at this point in time, it seems hard to know for sure exactly how, what and why everything happened in the ot. but the few things i do understand give me confidence that there was no vengeful, arbitrariness in our God.

There looks to be some confusion here. The problem was not the hardness of Moses' heart, but of the people. God never acted contrary to His character -- that's been my whole point!!! If God acted as you have been suggesting, *then* He would be acting contrary to His character. I've been saying God's actions have always been consistent with what Jesus Christ revealed in His life and teachings, that all that we can or need to know about God was revealed by these.

If you think I should present you something which says, "circumstances forced me to act contrary to My character," then you haven't heard what I've been saying, because this is not remotely what I've been saying. God always acts in harmony with His character. This is what I've been saying.

It looks to me like we're not communicating. If the thing I included about the ever-loving father doesn't make sense to you, I think, as I said before, perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. It just looks to me like you haven't understood the points the story was making. I don't know what else to say. I can't explain it more clearly than the story does.