For comparison with this topic:

That's good, Tom! I would have missed that. Many times in speaking to evolutionists, they change or insert a word for distraction. I take it to mean they are getting uncomfortable and wish to sidetrack the issue. And away it goes. However, I don't know if it was MM's intent. I'm not sure why he does it. It can't be because he generalizes words and terms as recently shown by putting qualifiers on certain things such as "perverted" desires rather than plain desires.



In case you missed this one, I see a very similar application.

OT not fully revealed God but Christ did
-vs-
four attributes not applying to God

Am I right?

Comparison?:Are both cyclic?


Raining fire down from heaven and up from below -- how is that different than swinging an ax? As in, the woodsman isn't actually lopping off a head, but merely employing the powers of an ax? I'm afraid your explanation of King Saul is no different than God being an executioner. Neither am I sure that it fits in with your other statements. Saul chose to defy God. Yet, you say that God permitted/"managed" his death. Why? Why for someone who went against God, but other times God manages the death/torture of others who don't defy Him by letting them fall into the hands of the enemy?

MM, do you see some things are just not "fitting" with your view?
I suppose you might say, that's just love or justice and we'll understand it later?

As I said before, I can explain the apparent contradictions by saying we don't fully understand scripture at first, and that by comparing text with text, with things like "God killed Saul", we start to understand that certain killing/punishing can mean something else.

Can you explain by like means the apparent contradictions?

Please answer the question first. Thank you.


I hear you saying you think the angels did not, before the cross, "fully understand" 1) the truth about God's kingdom and character, 2) the truth about Satan's claims and accusations, and 3) the truth about the inevitable results of sin. And, based on these things, you also believe the angels "incorrectly" expected, just before Jesus' incarnation, God to once again wipe out sinners on a wholesale scale.

Based on these observations, do you think it is likely humans can read the OT and arrive at better conclusions than you think the angels did regarding the kingdom and character of God?


You wrote, "All that we can know about God was revealed by Him." Why do you insist on misstating, thus, misrepresenting, what Ellen wrote?

Also, why do you insist on misrepresenting what the angels think and feel while witnessing sinners suffering during the seven last plagues? See Revelation 16 and 18.


So, you believe the "withdraw and permit" method of causing death and destruction is God's "will and purpose", right? And, you think all the places in the Bible that describe God causing death and destruction must be seen as examples of the "withdraw and permit" method, right? If these observations are correct, then which aspect is God's "will and purpose" - 1) withdrawing and permitting, or 2) the resulting death and destruction?


Is this what you think God's "will and purpose" is as described in 3SG 80, namely, to motivate sinners to choose life and not death? Listen:

God controls all these elements; they are his instruments to do his will; he calls them into action to serve his purpose. These fiery issues have been, and will be his agents to blot out from the earth very wicked cities. Like Korah, Dathan and Abiram they go down alive into the pit. These are evidences of God's power. Those who have beheld these burning mountains have been struck with terror at the grandeur of the scene-- pouring forth fire, and flame, and a vast amount of melted ore, drying up rivers and causing them to disappear. They have been filled with awe as though they were beholding the infinite power of God. {3SG 80.2} End Quote.

For example, you believe the phrase above "he calls them into action to serve his purpose" should be interpreted to mean "he permits them to naturally run their course and serve his purpose", right? Either way, what is His will and purpose - 1) to withdraw and permit, or 2) the resulting death and destruction?

I was assuming you agree with the following insight: “Justice demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed. God, in the gift of His only-begotten Son, met both these requirements. By dying in man's stead, Christ exhausted the penalty and provided a pardon. {AG 139.2}

You insist elsewhere, if not on this thread, that the word “justice” in this quote means God. Thus, you believe it should be interpreted to mean, “God demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed.” You then seem to also think we must interpret this reworded passage to mean “God demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed so that sinners can experience the inevitable result of sin when He withdraws His protection.”

So I ask again, why would God have to demand that death happens if, as you say, it is going to happen naturally as soon as He stops preventing it from happening? And, why doesn’t He demand pardon for sin instead of demanding death?


There is nothing simplistic about it, Tom. God ordered things from the beginning in such a way that we must regularly eat of the tree of life to perpetuate the breath of life within us. Death cannot occur while the breath of life resides within us. Yes, God must work to uphold the laws that enable to the tree of life to bear fruit and that make the planet a habitable place for humans.


I wrote, “For example, what happened to Sodom was certainly horrific, but it in no way means God used force or violence. Instead, it was an act of power on His part. There was nothing arbitrary or forceful or violent about it.”

Whereas you wrote, “God is caused to withdraw His protection, which results in violence to happen to the victims who eschew God's protection. God is not violent. He doesn't use force.”

Either way the outcome is the same, namely, sinners were burned alive. You label the outcome “violence” whereas I label it “justice”. I disagree that God withdrew His protection and violence happened. Instead, I believe God employed the forces of nature to execute justice.

Well, that came as a surprise. Thank you being honest and straight forward. All this time I thought you knew of some but were holding out. Does this mean you do not believe, as some do, God was forced to do it because of the ignorance and hardened hearts of Moses and the Jews?


The idea there are two or more absolute perfect ways is counterintuitive. It eliminates the idea of absolute perfection.


And you skipped my apology and note. Please answer the newly worded question.


I’ve never closely studied Augustine, Arminius, Wesley, or Calvin, so I cannot say whether or not my views are similar to their views. I believe everything God causes or permits is the result of His absolute perfect “will and purpose”.


Does this mean you believe God sins every time He manifests jealousy?


So, you believe Satan cannot exceed the limits enforced by God and yet you also believe it was not God’s “will and purpose” for Peter, Paul, John, and Jesus to suffer and die the way they did – is that right? What, then, was God’s “will and purpose”? And, why didn’t He enforce it?

No.

PS - Kland, I do not appreciate you talking about me as if I'm not here. Please use the PM function on this forum to talk to Tom about me. Thank you.

[quote=Mountain Man:
...
Also, why do you insist on misrepresenting what the angels think and feel while witnessing sinners suffering during the seven last plagues? See Revelation 16 and 18. [/quote]

i think this one, mm, is a matter of ones understanding of what is happening and what they are feeling.

if you believe they are rejoicing for the destruction of the wicked that is how you will read it. if someone else understands the picture differently that does not mean they are misrepreseng the angels.

it just means they disagree with your picture.

Your question, as posed, is rather difficult to parse. I think my answer is "no." Did you have a point to make?



No, of course not. This has been the point I've been making. God sent us Jesus Christ to make clear what He is really like (e.g. John 1:18.)



I explained to you before why what I wrote is not misrepresenting what she said. What man needs to know is a subset of what man can know. Did you not understand this point?



I would ask you the same question.



Not necessarily, but possibly.



Yes. I believe the principles of GC 35, 36 always apply. Also the principle that force is not a principle of God's government, and that God does not use force to overcome rebellion, that force is the last resort of every false religion; I believe these principles always apply.



I think this question is assuming a false premise.



Sure, this was a part of God's purpose. Wouldn't you agree? He could have some other purpose as well, but don't you think God would have wanted sinners to choose life and not death as a response to what He did?



I've never said this.



I've point out that what *you* believe is equivalent to this.



This conclusion is based on a false assumption, stated above.



Same comment.



The simplistic idea is that God has nothing to do with sustaining life, apart from providing a tree to eat from. MH 417 makes that clear.



By "employ," I assume you mean manipulate or manage. In this case, God was using force.

No. Your reasoning here is bewildering to me. Can you explain it? That I'm not aware of any Scriptures explaining something doesn't mean anything in regards to my believing or not believing something. Why would you think it should?



No it doesn't. Consider a perfect closed figure as being one which is equal-sided and with angels of the same size. There are triangles, squares, pentagons, etc. There needn't be one. Similarly there needn't be just one right choice.

I think your idea here is what is counter-intuitive. Everyday experience teaches us that there are decisions we make where one choice is as good as another. For example, which pair of socks you pick to wear.



What apology? I think I missed that.

Regarding your question, didn't I already answer it? If you want me to answer it again, please phrase it without reference to 3SG.



You've certainly been heavily influenced by Augustine. That's not an unlikely thing to have happen, since his influence pervades much of Western thought.



Since God never sins, obviously the answer to this question is no, even without considering the assumption upon which it is based. I take it by this question you don't wish to acknowledge that you misused the word "micromanage." Also, from previously, that you don't wish to acknowledge that you misused the term "Dark Ages."



No, that's not right. The first part is, but not the second.



God would have people repent and come to a knowledge of the truth rather than kill His messengers.



How could He force someone to repent?