Forums118
Topics9,232
Posts196,213
Members1,325
|
Most Online5,850 Feb 29th, 2020
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
9 registered members (TheophilusOne, dedication, daylily, Daryl, Karen Y, 4 invisible),
2,513
guests, and 5
spiders. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: The Covenants
[Re: kland]
#107584
01/16/09 02:48 PM
01/16/09 02:48 PM
|
SDA Charter Member Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
Kland, yes, I see Jesus doing things in the OT that He didn't do while He was here in the flesh. For example, in the OT He created a planet inhabited with plants, animals and people. He also employed the forces of nature and caused a wolrd-wide flood. He commanded Moses to stone people to death. Etc, etc, etc. Jesus did none of these things while here in the flesh.
|
|
|
Re: The Covenants
[Re: Tom]
#107585
01/16/09 03:38 PM
01/16/09 03:38 PM
|
SDA Charter Member Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
M: Can I assume, then, that you agree with my summarization of what you think about the angels? That is, they "incorrectly" expected God to wipe out the sinners instead of correctly expecting Him to send Jesus as a babe, and that they got this wrong idea from watching God employ the "withdraw and permit" method of causing death and destruction?
T: The angels had a misunderstanding here. They expected one thing but another happened. My point is that if even the angels were not understanding things correctly until the cross, because of Satan's sophistry, why should we think that men can do better? What is it exactly about my summary of your view do you disagree with? I based it on things you posted here and elsewhere. Also, what about it do you agree with? M: Why not quote what she said? Why leave out key words? "All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son." The phrase "needs to know or can know" to me means Jesus revealed only those traits and attributes of God that 1) we are capable of comprehending and that 2) we need to know to experience salvation.
T: Your idea limits she said significantly, to a very small subset of what her statement actually says. On this we disagree. Please, in the future, do not quote this passage as if your view is right and mine is wrong and then try to prove something based on it. It is obvious Jesus did not reveal everything there is to know about God. He said so Himself. M: So, you believe the "withdraw and permit" method of causing death and destruction is God's "will and purpose", right?
T: Not necessarily, but possibly.
M:Please explain your answer.
T: Your question is pretty vague. I think what I had in mind is that in certain cases, such as in the 3SG passage, God could have a specific purpose or purposes in mind, such as those she pointed out, and other times not have such a specific purpose or purposes. Are you suggesting we must look at each case individually to determine what God's "will and purpose" is, that one-size-fits-all does not apply? M: 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?
T: 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?
M: I assume you are referring to the ones who watched them die. But what about the ones who died? What was God's "will and purpose" concerning them?
T: I think God had the same will for them, that they repent and be saved. Can full-cup sinners repent and be saved after God employs the "withdraw and permit" method of killing them? M: Do you think we can substitute the word "God" for the word "justice" in the following sentence? "Justice demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed.” If not, why not?
T: No, because I think it would convey a meaning which could be better expressed differently (Specifically, the quotes I've repeatedly presented of Fifield's in regards to what I understand this quote to mean conveys the thought well). Is "justice" in this quote a sentient being? If not, what does it represent? Does it represent God or Satan or someone else?
[quote]T: 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.
M:On this point we disagree.
T: I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with here. Are you disagreeing that MH 417 says that God is not active in sustaining the life of man? Please include everything I said about it. T: By "employ," I assume you mean manipulate or manage. In this case, God was using force.
M:I didn't use the word "manipulate".
T: You have in the past. "Micromanage" you've used as well. "Employed" I understand to be synonymous with "made use of." This could be either active or passive. God employs His enemies and the forces of nature to punish full-cup sinners. He manages the outcome of their choices to ensure a favorable end of the GC. Nothing is left to chance or Satan or sinners.
|
|
|
Re: The Covenants
[Re: Tom]
#107586
01/16/09 04:39 PM
01/16/09 04:39 PM
|
SDA Charter Member Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
T: 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?
M:Since you don’t know of any inspired passages that explain why God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer I assumed you disagreed with the view I posted above. My bad.
T: No, I don't disagree with your view because of some specific inspired text dealing with this specific instance, but on the basis of general principles that inspiration teaches.
M: Let me ask instead – Do you believe, as some do, that God was forced to commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to accommodate the ignorance and hardened hearts of Moses and the Jews, that He had to do it to retain their respect and attention long enough to show them the "right way"?
T: No. Who did you have in mind? You have yet to explain why. Will you ever? T: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.
M:But we’re not talking about shapes and socks. We’re talking about God.
T: No on both accounts. We're talking about choices. There's no reason to believe that God is always constrained to one choice. He could have more than one viable choice available to Him. There's no reason to suggest otherwise. The fact that God is perfect in no way implies that *choices* He might make must be limited. There could be more than one valid choice available. We can rightly assert that there is no *better* choice that God could make than what makes in a given circumstance, but not that there is no choice which is as good. On this we disagree. M: Did you also miss the note? The apology was in the box you omitted.
T: What box did I omit? Could you repost it please? That's the problem with leaving out aspects of the discussion. M: The quote in 3SG 80 is the focus on the question. I cannot omit it. You have not answered the new and improved question. Here it is again: Do you agree with me that God does indeed do these kinds of things [in the quote you omitted]?
T: He obviously did the things mentioned in 3SG 80 in the circumstances that quote referenced. Thank you for answering my question. M: But you didn’t answer my question. Here it is again: Do you agree that everything God causes or permits is the result of His absolute perfect “will and purpose”? If not, does it mean you believe sometimes things get out of hand, that things happen that exceed His established limits and boundaries? If not, please explain what you do believe. Thank you.
T: No to both questions. Your question is based on an Augustinian paradigm, which is itself inspired by Hellenistic thought. The concept of "absolute perfection" that you referenced is Platonic. This would take quite a bit of time to explain adequately, which I cannot do right now. Basically you're assuming that everything that happens has a specific purpose on the part of God. But many things happen which are not God's will, nor something God permits for some specific purpose. They are just evil things which happen because evil beings choose to do these evil things. They do not occur because of some will or purpose of God.
However, that being said, in spite of these evil things which God permits to happen, against His will, God is able to accomplish His will and purpose. Thus God can make evil to accomplish His will and purpose even though the evil itself was not God's will or purpose. I don't care one iota about the old timers you named above. Mentioning their names mean nothing to me. Nor do I believe God causes people to make evil choices or to evil things. What I do believe is that God manages the outcome of the choices they make to ensure the GC ends favorably. He establishes and enforces limits beyond which His enemies cannot pass. M: Does this mean you believe God sins every time He manifests jealousy?
T: Since God never sins, obviously the answer to this question is no, even without considering the assumption upon which it is based.
M:Are you implying, then, that sometimes the word “jealousy” doesn’t mean something sinful, that the immediate context determines whether acting or feeling jealous is sinful or not? Can sinners act or feel “jealous” without sinning?
T: No. The phrase "even without considering the assumption upon which it is based" makes clear this is not being implied. I don't understand your answer. Do you believe the word "jealous" means something different in the case of God? M: So, you agree with me that Satan cannot exceed the limits enforced by God.
T: Obviously. How could this not be the case? Thank you for answering my question. M: How does He enforce the limits? And, why? What does He do to prevent it and what does He do to permit it?
T: Regarding how, I know of no communication from God where He informs us how He does this. We know that force is not a principle of His government, so we can rule that out.
Regarding why, if He didn't, as I've stated a number of times, Satan would destroy everybody. As to preventing it, this looks to mean the same thing as "enforcing the limits." If so, I addressed these questions immediately above. If it means something else, you'd have to explain what. Thank you for answering my question. M: Regarding the second part above. So, you do not believe it was God’s “will and purpose” for Peter, Paul, John, and Jesus to suffer and die the way they did?
T: No. It was Satan's will that they suffer and die the way they did. Interesting. M: Why, then, did they suffer and die the way they did?
T: Because evil beings inspired and committed evil deeds. Interesting. M: Did Satan exceed the limits established by God?
T: How would this be possible? You tell me. M: If not, then please explain why they died the way they did.
T: Because evil beings did evil things. Interesting. M: Why didn’t God intervene and prevent it from playing out the way it did?
T: This could be answered in respect to any bad thing that happens. When a child dies, this is a natural question. Why did God permit this to happen? On a case by case basis, I don't think we can know these types of questions until the judgment when we have access to all the information that God had access to when He made the decisions He made. I agree. M: What were God’s limits in each of their cases?
T: What? God establishes and enforces limits beyond which His enemies cannot go. Did the way they die exceed those limits? M: How did God envision them dying?
T: Not sure what you're asking here? Everyone dies. Did they die in a way that exceeded His limits? M: Why didn’t He ensure it played out according to His “will and purpose”?
T: This gets back to the question I asked you above, which you didn't address. How can God force people to repent? Why didn't God ensure that they (the people named above) died according to His "will and purpose"? Or, did He? Did He intend for them to die some other way? He intend for them to die of natural causes?
|
|
|
Re: The Covenants
[Re: Mountain Man]
#107589
01/16/09 05:42 PM
01/16/09 05:42 PM
|
SDA Active Member 2024
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,512
Midland
|
|
Kland, yes, I see Jesus doing things in the OT that He didn't do while He was here in the flesh. For example, in the OT He created a planet inhabited with plants, animals and people. He also employed the forces of nature and caused a wolrd-wide flood. He commanded Moses to stone people to death. Etc, etc, etc. Jesus did none of these things while here in the flesh. Why? Why, when He had good reason and was urged by others, did He not maim, kill, and torture men, women, and children? You keep bringing up creation. He finished and rested. Why would you bring that up that He didn't create more -- that doesn't make sense to bring that up. The world had already been flooded by removing His protection. Since the water had already reached its lowest point (the ocean), it would not flood again -- just like He promised. I don't know why you would you bring that up, either. I mean, He didn't talk to Adam and Eve, either. But wouldn't you think that is non relevant to the topic being discussed? But, why do you not think there was good reason for Him to stone people? In fact, He quite contradicted that idea. WHY? We're not talking about specific instances any more than all specific instances need be explicitly detailed in order to apply similar instances to His character. If Jesus was to represent His character, why do you see the apparent contradiction (contradiction based upon your responses)?
|
|
|
Re: The Covenants
[Re: kland]
#107591
01/16/09 08:32 PM
01/16/09 08:32 PM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
M: Can I assume, then, that you agree with my summarization of what you think about the angels? That is, they "incorrectly" expected God to wipe out the sinners instead of correctly expecting Him to send Jesus as a babe, and that they got this wrong idea from watching God employ the "withdraw and permit" method of causing death and destruction?
T: The angels had a misunderstanding here. They expected one thing but another happened. My point is that if even the angels were not understanding things correctly until the cross, because of Satan's sophistry, why should we think that men can do better?
M:What is it exactly about my summary of your view do you disagree with? Your mindset. You view God as destroying and doing destructive things. I read in the SOP that Satan is the destroyer and the Lord is the restorer. I would not say something like, "God employs the 'withdraw and permit' method of causing death and destruction." I would say that others cause God to withdraw His protection, and then calamity follows. For example: 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 35) Instead of "Satan was permitted to rule them according to his will" other unfortunate results could be included. I based it on things you posted here and elsewhere. Also, what about it do you agree with? I agree that the angels misunderstood God's intentions, and were not expecting Christ to come. M: Why not quote what she said? Why leave out key words? "All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son." The phrase "needs to know or can know" to me means Jesus revealed only those traits and attributes of God that 1) we are capable of comprehending and that 2) we need to know to experience salvation.
T: Your idea limits she said significantly, to a very small subset of what her statement actually says.
On this we disagree. Please, in the future, do not quote this passage as if your view is right and mine is wrong and then try to prove something based on it. It is obvious Jesus did not reveal everything there is to know about God. He said so Himself. I'll agree with this request if you'll agree not to quote the following passage as if your view were right: A single angel destroyed all the first-born of the Egyptians and filled the land with mourning. When David offended against God by numbering the people, one angel caused that terrible destruction by which his sin was punished. The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits. There are forces now ready, and only waiting the divine permission, to spread desolation everywhere.(GC 612) Are you suggesting we must look at each case individually to determine what God's "will and purpose" is, that one-size-fits-all does not apply? No, I'm not suggesting this. To even address this, one would need to address what God's "will and purpose" is. In a general sense, God's will and purpose is that all repent and be saved. Also in a general sense, God's purpose is to bring an end to sin. If one accepts this latter principle for what God's "will and purpose" is, I would agree that a one-size-fits-all approach would work. That is, God works in such a way as to bring sin to an end as quickly as possible. T: 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.
M:On this point we disagree.
T: I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with here. Are you disagreeing that MH 417 says that God is not active in sustaining the life of man?
M:Please include everything I said about it. I'm asking you're disagreeing with. You shouldn't need to see everything you've written on this to know what you disagree with, I wouldn't think. If you think this is necessary, you can do this task. God employs His enemies and the forces of nature to punish full-cup sinners. He manages the outcome of their choices to ensure a favorable end of the GC. Nothing is left to chance or Satan or sinners. You seem to have an Augustinian perspective. Let me ask a simple question to clarify this. Do you believe that whenever anything happens, it happens because it is God's will that the given thing should happen? (By "God's will" here, I do not mean "God's permissive will"). To clarify, I would agree that God permits certain things to happen. But I believe there are things which happen which are contrary to God's will, meaning that He would prefer that something else happened than what He permits to happen.
Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
|
|
|
Re: The Covenants
[Re: Tom]
#107592
01/16/09 09:07 PM
01/16/09 09:07 PM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
M: Let me ask instead – Do you believe, as some do, that God was forced to commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to accommodate the ignorance and hardened hearts of Moses and the Jews, that He had to do it to retain their respect and attention long enough to show them the "right way"?
T: No. Who did you have in mind?
M:You have yet to explain why. Will you ever? I'm sent you many pages in reference to this question. You don't agree with the explanation, which is your prerogative, but you needn't suggest no explanation has been suggested. M: Did you also miss the note? The apology was in the box you omitted.
T: What box did I omit? Could you repost it please?
M:That's the problem with leaving out aspects of the discussion. MM, I don't recall any apology. If you've made an apology, I'd like to hear it. You can repeat it from memory; that would be fine. I don't care one iota about the old timers you named above. Mentioning their names mean nothing to me. Nor do I believe God causes people to make evil choices or to evil things. What I do believe is that God manages the outcome of the choices they make to ensure the GC ends favorably. He establishes and enforces limits beyond which His enemies cannot pass. A famous quote says: Those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it (paraphrase of George Santayana, The Life of Reason, Volume 1) Regarding what you say you believe, the last two sentences, I don't know anybody (i.e. any believer) who doesn't believe these things. M: Does this mean you believe God sins every time He manifests jealousy?
T: Since God never sins, obviously the answer to this question is no, even without considering the assumption upon which it is based.
M:Are you implying, then, that sometimes the word “jealousy” doesn’t mean something sinful, that the immediate context determines whether acting or feeling jealous is sinful or not? Can sinners act or feel “jealous” without sinning?
T: No. The phrase "even without considering the assumption upon which it is based" makes clear this is not being implied.
I don't understand your answer. Do you believe the word "jealous" means something different in the case of God? You asked, "Does this mean you believe God sins every time He manifests jealousy?" Since God never sins, the conclusion is moot. This is a fundamental principle of logic. "Jealous" has different meanings. For example, I can say I jealously guard my time. This has a similar meaning to what we see in Scripture where it says God is jealous. M: So, you agree with me that Satan cannot exceed the limits enforced by God.
T: Obviously. How could this not be the case?
M:Thank you for answering my question. Please return the favor. How could this not be the case? M: Did Satan exceed the limits established by God?
T: How would this be possible?
M:You tell me. You asked the question, MM! Why did you ask it? Do you think it's possible Satan could exceed the limits established by God? (not that you think this does happen, but that it could happen) M: Why didn’t He ensure it played out according to His “will and purpose”?
T: This gets back to the question I asked you above, which you didn't address. How can God force people to repent?
M:Why didn't God ensure that they (the people named above) died according to His "will and purpose"? Or, did He? Did He intend for them to die some other way? He intend for them to die of natural causes? He intended that they repent and live. God is not willing that any should perish but come to a knowledge of the truth.
Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
|
|
|
Re: The Covenants
[Re: kland]
#107616
01/17/09 03:41 PM
01/17/09 03:41 PM
|
SDA Charter Member Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
Kland, yes, I see Jesus doing things in the OT that He didn't do while He was here in the flesh. For example, in the OT He created a planet inhabited with plants, animals and people. He also employed the forces of nature and caused a wolrd-wide flood. He commanded Moses to stone people to death. Etc, etc, etc. Jesus did none of these things while here in the flesh. Why? Why, when He had good reason and was urged by others, did He not maim, kill, and torture men, women, and children? You keep bringing up creation. He finished and rested. Why would you bring that up that He didn't create more -- that doesn't make sense to bring that up. The world had already been flooded by removing His protection. Since the water had already reached its lowest point (the ocean), it would not flood again -- just like He promised. I don't know why you would you bring that up, either. I mean, He didn't talk to Adam and Eve, either. But wouldn't you think that is non relevant to the topic being discussed? But, why do you not think there was good reason for Him to stone people? In fact, He quite contradicted that idea. WHY? We're not talking about specific instances any more than all specific instances need be explicitly detailed in order to apply similar instances to His character. If Jesus was to represent His character, why do you see the apparent contradiction (contradiction based upon your responses)? I don't see how we can talk about it without naming and comparing specific instances. Either Jesus demonstrated every aspect of God's kingdom and character there is to know or He didn't. What do you believe? Did He or didn't He? I believe it is obvious He didn't. Jesus did indeed give the order for someone without sin to cast the first stone at the women caught in the act of adultery. He did not do it Himself because the law of Moses specified that the person who caught them was supposed to be the first one to cast a stone. However, I do not believe it was in His heart to do so in this specific case. He understood the situation perfectly, and the circumstances did not lend themselves to capital punishment. Besides, Roman law disallowed it.
|
|
|
Re: The Covenants
[Re: Mountain Man]
#107617
01/17/09 03:47 PM
01/17/09 03:47 PM
|
SDA Charter Member Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
M: God employs His enemies and the forces of nature to punish full-cup sinners. He manages the outcome of their choices to ensure a favorable end of the GC. Nothing is left to chance or Satan or sinners.
T: You seem to have an Augustinian perspective. Let me ask a simple question to clarify this. Do you believe that whenever anything happens, it happens because it is God's will that the given thing should happen? (By "God's will" here, I do not mean "God's permissive will").
To clarify, I would agree that God permits certain things to happen. But I believe there are things which happen which are contrary to God's will, meaning that He would prefer that something else happened than what He permits to happen. God does not want sinners to make sinful choices. Nor does He sit around hoping they do so that He can punish them. He does not delight in punishing sinners.
|
|
|
Re: The Covenants
[Re: Mountain Man]
#107618
01/17/09 03:54 PM
01/17/09 03:54 PM
|
SDA Charter Member Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
In reference to 107592
Tom, you have never explained why God commanded Moses to kill sinners. Never!
I apologized for assuming you think 3SG 80 describes Satan, instead of God, using the forces of nature to cause death and destruction.
The last question was in reference to Peter, Paul, John, and Jesus. Your answer seems off topic.
|
|
|
Re: The Covenants
[Re: Mountain Man]
#107629
01/17/09 09:22 PM
01/17/09 09:22 PM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
1.Regarding God's commanding Moses to kill sinners, I sent many pages dealing with the father/hunter, and stated I could not present the concept more clearly than the author did there.
2.Thank you for 3SG 80 explanation.
3.Regarding last question, it is not God's will that people be killed. The people you listed were killed because evil being inspired (e.g. angels) or evil beings killed them(men). God would have preferred that the evil men repented in response to the preaching if His messengers as opposed to killing them.
Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|