MM, if you reject the foundational basis, how can we move on?

Had the COI followed God's desires, they would never have killed anyone, just as the lad in the hunter story would not have hunted had he followed his father's wishes. God did not arm the Israelites. It was not God's wish to conquer the Holy Land by military force. We have a couple of examples where the people allowed God to fight their battles for them, and in these instances, not a single Israelite died. Had they always exercised faith, no Israelite would ever have died. Instead destruction would have come upon their enemies (provided they didn't repent) along the lines of GC chapter 1, in a similar manner to how Israel's enemies were defeated when they did trust God.

The point of the hunter story has to do with how it would have sounded to a neighbor to hear the father explaining to the son how to hunt. It would have sounded like the father was in favor of hunting. Similarly, without knowing the details, it would seem that God is in favor of getting what you want by violence, since there are so many stories of this type in the OT. However, God's words and actions are being taken out of context to get this idea. God's words and actions, His true feelings and thoughts, are best understood as revealed by Jesus Christ. Through Him we see what God is really like.

There is an apparent contradiction between the God of the OT and Jesus Christ's revelation of God while hear in the flesh. Anyone can see this. The OT stories present God as violent, whereas Jesus was not only non violent, He was opposed to violence. So how do we resolve this apparent contradiction?

One way would be to assume that Jesus Christ really did have a violent streak to Him, just like God does, but because of circumstances that violent part was hidden. In this case, Jesus did not present a full revelation of God, but a partial one, where certain actions God does were not revealed, because of circumstances. This looks to be the approach you have chosen to take. To understand God, we need to supplement the picture of God that Jesus presented with what we learn about God from the OT. Many people feel this way.

Another approach to take is that we have not properly understood what was really happening in the OT. God is presented as actively doing things by inspiration that He merely allowed to happen. We know this happened some of the time. Perhaps it happened much, much more frequently than a simple reading of the OT would suggest, but which a reading of the OT in the light of Jesus Christ's revelation of God would suggest. Also the analogy of the father of the hunter son can help explain some difficult to understand passages.

But overall we're dealing with a difference of conviction and approach. One can have the conviction that Scripture, as we understand it on the surface, should be our foundation. We should allow that to supplement our view of God, based on what Jesus Christ revealed. In this approach, our view of God is pliable, but our understanding of Scripture is not. This view allows God to be different than Jesus Christ (drastically different), but has the advantage of our understanding of Scripture, nor our paradigm, having to change.

The other approach would have our paradigm shift, and our understanding of Scripture change. We would perceive, for example, that much of what happened in Scripture is along the lines presented by GC chapter One, even when not explicitly stated. This is a key point.

This has the advantage of allowing our view of God to be exactly that which Jesus Christ, while in the flesh, revealed.

The question is, do we allow Christ's revelation of God to stand as complete, so that it is the bedrock of our understanding of God. Or do we assign it the role of partial revelation, to be added to other things.

Tom, lest ye forget, let me remind you that I truly believe Jesus demonstrated the awesome attributes of God's kingdom and character in an unsurpassed way. And, I wish we could leave it at that. However, you insist it means we must interpret all the places in the Bible where it says God killed or commanded others to kill to mean that [i]God freely forgives, that He turns the other cheek, that He goes the extra mile, that He never resorts to force or violence, that it actually means He withdrew His protection[i] and gave them over to their own fierce passions and over to the unrestrained control of Satan.

Therefore, I feel compelled to present an alternate view, a view that does not require us to rely on interpretations which deny the obvious meaning of the words employed.

The father in your story taught his son, against his will and wishes, how to hunt animals. Are you implying, therefore, that God felt compelled to command Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer, even though it went against His will and wishes? If not, please explain why. Thank you.

mm: The father in your story taught his son, against his will and wishes, how to hunt animals. Are you implying, therefore, that God felt compelled to command Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer, even though it went against His will and wishes? If not, please explain why. Thank you.

tom: This is pretty close. God had a big mess to deal with, and His choices, like the father in the analogy, were to just let the people go and say He couldn't work with them, or to take them as they were, and work with them the best He could. As with the father/hunter story, this led to actions which would present God in a way that would make Him appear to be different than He is; for example, that force is a principle of God's government, or that God is violent.

Do you see the problem? How do you reconcile the fact the Bible says God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer

Therefore, I feel compelled to present an alternate view, a view that does not require us to rely on interpretations which deny the obvious meaning of the words employed.

We cannot know how much we owe to Christ for the peace and protection which we enjoy. 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. 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.

T: out of curiousity my brothers, would either of you know how and when this got derailed from the "covenants"? i only looked at a couple of the first posts and dont know how it "ends" but it certainly looks like something we dont really get.

M: Teresaq, this aspect of the OC is being discussed at this point because we were unable to agree on the other aspects that have been discussed. Of course, this aspect of the discussion is no better off than the rest of the discussion. Oh well. We do not study together to prove a point or to persuade the other guy to believe like we do; instead, we study together because it helps us express what we have learned, and what makes sense to us.

There are several covenants mentioned in the Bible: 1) The Everlasting Covenant, 2) The Old Covenant, and 3) The New Covenant. Of course, there are also the Adamic, Noatic (aka Noahic), and the Abrahamic covenants. What do you know about it?

From what I read about it, the EC and the NC are, in the context of the GC, essentially the same covenant, namely, that God promises to pardon our sin, empower us to love and obey Him, eliminate sin and sinners, and to restore paradise lost. The blood of Jesus ratifies the covenant. The OC, on the other hand, was implemented in response to Israel's failure to comply with the conditions of the EC/NC. It was designed to teach them the truth about the EC/NC and to how meet the conditions outlined therein. The OC was ratified by the blood of animals. The terms and requirements unique to the OC ended when Jesus died on the cross. Exactly what we are still obligated by law to obey is often hotly debated. Nevertheless, people who experience the awesome miracle of rebirth this side of the cross are born again under the terms and conditions of the EC/NC. What those are are also debated.

T: thanks brothers. im not real sure how i state things that gives the impression i was asking anyone to "teach" me anything.

i thought it would be understood that i meant we dont really understand the point egw is trying to get across to us about the new/old covenant.

but i understand there is an attempt at ironing out a particular point.

i am strongly tempted to say, "aint gonna happen." maybe if it was put aside for a minute and reapproached later with fresher minds?

M: Do you see the problem? How do you reconcile the fact the Bible says God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer . . . ?

K: Tom has been most patient in continually answering that. I know of nothing more to add to it.

M: Therefore, I feel compelled to present an alternate view, a view that does not require us to rely on interpretations which deny the obvious meaning of the words employed.

K: I don't recall if you said before, but I'm curious as to how you would interpret the following verse regarding Saul: 1 Ch 10:14 Therefore the LORD slew him, and turned the kingdom over to David the son of Jesse.

EGW: We cannot know how much we owe to Christ for the peace and protection which we enjoy. 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. 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 35-37)

K: Read the paragraph, in context, and tell me what you think Ellen White is saying here in those pages.