"Does God Punish?"

I truly do not understand why Adventists would need to spend so much time debating whether or not God punishes. The Bible says He does in about as many words. What's more, no one needs to claim that God punishes "nicely," because punishment would not be punishment if it were plush treatment. No one is supposed to enjoy it. That's why we call it punishment!



The first murderer was punished by God, as evidenced here by his own admission, and he thought it unbearable.



Sodom was punished. Iniquity is punished. Is there anyone here brave enough to say Sodom was not punished by God? And if so, who punished Sodom?



These were Jesus' own words. There is only one Being capable of inflicting an "everlasting" punishment, for He only is everlasting. God declares that vengeance is His. This final punishment is just that. It is the final act of vengeance of a God named "Jealous."



Those texts teach that God is jealous for our worship. Those who do not worship God will ultimately be destroyed.



Enough texts already. There are scores of texts in the Bible speaking of God's capacity, willingness, duty, and promises to punish those who depart from Him and from His commandments.

So, in answer to the question of this thread--Yes. God does indeed punish. This is such a clear fact, that it appears those who would deny it are but seeking an escape from guilty conscience. Such a retreat from reality will, unfortunately, prove short-lived.

You can deny it for a time, but you cannot prevent it. "For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil." (Ecclesiastes 12:14, KJV)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Here is the initial post of the thread, by the one who opened it:



So the title is perhaps a bit misleading. No one is questioning whether or not punishment takes place, but the details. For example, is punishment something imposed by God (i.e. something God does to guilty people to make them suffer) or is it the consequence of decisions which have been made, which God allows to happen.

GC, Tom believes that God punishes full-cup sinners by withdrawing His protection and permitting one of the following results to play out:

1. God, who must actively prevent the forces of nature from imploding upon itself and killing sinners in the process, is compelled to withdraw His protection and to permit the forces of nature to run its natural course and kill targeted sinners.

2. God commands the holy angels to withdraw their protection and to permit evil angels to cause the death and destruction of targeted sinners and places.

3. God withdraws His protection and permits evil men and empires to cause the death and destruction of targeted sinners and places.

And, on another note, Tom also believes God withdraws His protection and permits evil men and angels to cause the suffering and death of His chosen people.

Thank you for the gentle warning about getting on very dangerous ground. I need all the help I can get.


In light of what I posted above I'm not sure what you mean here. Please elaborate. Thank you.


I believe God is very aware of the heinous things serial killers do. But I'm not sure I understand your point in light of what I wrote above. Please explain how it ties in. Thank you.


Again, I don't understand how this text ties in to my comments above. Please explain. Thank you.

Nothing God does can be perceived as force or violence. He is, after all, God, and “God is love”. Which means the wrath of God is love.


The phrase “can know” can imply “is capable of comprehending”.


Here’s the actual quote; “All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son.” {8T 286.1} What I’m suggesting is implied here, if not expressively stated.


It certainly can. And I think it does. I realize you don’t, but you haven’t explained what you think it does mean.


Tom, this volley began with the following two posts (also posted above in context): T: God restores and Satan destroys. Satan is the author of sin and all of its results, which include death and destruction. Death and destruction come as a result of choosing Satan's ways over God's. M: Are you suggesting evil angels are responsible for causing all the death and destruction recorded throughout the Bible?

Throughout the volley above I have been addressing the following comment – “Satan is the author of sin and all of its results, which include death and destruction.” Instead of discussing your comment in nebulous terms I introduced the Flood as a case in point. Since then you have been steering away from my questions related to your original comment. I’m trying to understand how your comment plays out in real world situations like the Flood. So, please, humor me and answer the questions I posted above. Thank you.


Here is the answer you gave: “I'm not sure what you mean by "its former state of righteousness," but this was basically what God was doing. Justice in Scripture has to do with restoring the covenant community to shalom. However, the context in which God is described as "restorer" has to do with His restoring those who desire such, as God highly respects free will.”

I don’t understand your answer. In light of the 3 enumerated questions posted above please elaborate on your answer to them. Thank you.


I agree. But in what sense was God acting as a “restorer” when He withdrew His protection and permitted the forces of nature to kill targeted sinners?


The passages posted above clearly teach that there are times when God does indeed destroy. Do these passages imply God is a “destroyer” in the same sense Satan is? No, of course not! Nor do they imply, as you seem to think, that Satan is the one who causes the destruction referred to in these passages.

Before I respond to your comment I need to know your answer to the following question – “Were the pigs safe and sound before Jesus gave the evil angels permission to drown them?”


I understand you believe we must interpret everything we read about God in the OT in light of everything we read about Jesus in the NT, and if we come across an apparent contradiction between God in the OT and Jesus in the NT we must interpret it in light of the loving and nonviolent behavior Jesus demonstrated in the NT. With this in mind, please demonstrate this method of interpreting the OT by answering the 4 questions I posted above. Thank you.


Tom, please resist the temptation to tell me what I should and shouldn’t post as we discuss various truths. Please simply answer the questions. Here they are again:

1. You seem to be saying, yes, polygamy is a sin, and yes, God permitted the Jews to practice polygamy contrary to His will and law. Is this what you believe? If not, please explain.

2. I believe God has never give sinners permission to practice things contrary to His law. Do you agree? If not, please explain.


No. But do you think God has ever said anything like this? In other words, do you think God told the Jews, “Having a king is a sin, but I’m going to allow you to have one any way. I will even help you select the best kings possible.”


In light of my questions above, do you think it was a sin for the Jews to want and to have a king and more than one wife?


Why did God permit them to have a king and more than one wife if having them is a sin?

Tom,

Has Mike summarized your thoughts accurately here?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Not exactly. From the SOP I read:



What I have said is that this principle is not limited simply to what Satan does, but also applies to natural disasters, evil that other human beings would to do one another, and even at times to evil that human beings would do to themselves. I believe that sin in general is sufficiently destructive and deadly of itself that God does not need to add to it in order to cause death and destruction to occur.

If you say that God caused death and destruction by means of a Flood, that can certainly be perceived as force or violence.



I agree with this point, and agree that the phrase the SOP wrote could be phrased with this language. In other words, one could say



would not materially change what Ellen White wrote.

You are interpreting "man" here as just certain individuals, those to whom Jesus was speaking when He said, "I have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now," which is what I was taking issue with. When she writes "man" I think she means "man" or "mankind" not "a few individuals."



It doesn't look to me like it's implied in the least that Ellen White was wishing her comment to be taken in the very limited way you are suggesting. For example, a bit later from the same testimony she wrote:



This looks to me to be speaking of Christ's work for all men, not just a few individuals.



Yes, I have explained what I think it means. I think the meaning is self-evident. There were things Jesus Christ could have told them, but He chose not too, because they weren't ready to here these things. You extrapolate from this that it must follow that Jesus Christ did not fully reveal God's character. I think this is not a valid inference. I think the only thing we can infer is that there were things which Jesus Christ could have told them, but chose not to, because they were not ready to bear them.



Ok, this is clear. If you had written something like this at first, that would have been clear. Instead when I wrote, "od restores and Satan destroys. Satan is the author of sin and all of its results, which include death and destruction. Death and destruction come as a result of choosing Satan's ways over God's." and you ask me if I'm suggesting certain specific things about the Flood, it doesn't make much sense to me.

In answer to your questions about the Flood, no, I'm not suggesting the things you asked about. What I said does not touch upon the questions you asked, as far as I can tell. I wrote, "Satan is the author of sin and all of its results, which include death and destruction." What I meant by this is that is the author of sin and all its results, meaning he is the creator of these things, or, to state it another way, were it not for Satan, these things would not exist. Since death and destruction are the result of sin, these things would not exist, but for Satan.



Here's a statement from the SOP:



This speaks of God's work of restoration. God is constantly trying to bring an end to sin, to restore humanity to its state in Eden. The flood was a part of this plan, not as something God intended or desired should happen, but as a necessity in view of the choices man had made.



This isn't something I have said God does (i.e. "kill targeted sinners").



I think the following explains what happens:



The Bible says that "God killed Saul." This is true in the sense that God permitted Saul to be killed (Saul actually killed Himself). In the same sense, God destroys. But God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression, nor as a Destroyer; this is Satan's work (which is why he is called "the Destroyer").

Sin/Satan are destructive; they are destroyers. God is the restorer; He restores. However, His restorative work can result in destruction if one refuses to respond to the principles of love, and chooses death instead. For example:



The light of the glory of God, which is the revelation of His character, results in life for the righteous (their restoration) but the death of the wicked (their destruction). Why? Because God works as Restorer for one group of people, but Destroyer to the other? No, but because one group embraces His restorative work, whereas the other rejects it, embracing destruction instead.

In regards to God's destroying differently than Satan, I agree one could characterize things in this way. However, you do not seem to view God as actually doing anything different from Satan when He destroys. For example, their are statements which state that plagues of the end are caused by Satan. You agree that Satan causes some plagues, the ones these statements are referring to, but that God causes other plagues. So you see God and Satan doing the same thing. In fact, you have no way of distinguishing, based on their behavior, whether Satan or God is doing some destructive or deadly act.

I don't see why. I was just pointing out your statement that Jesus is culpable for death of the pigs, given the logic you used to come to this conclusion implies, by the same logic, that God is responsible for all evil.



I think the first step would be the conviction that the actions can be explained in some way that has God acting in harmony with how Jesus acted during His earthly mission. I've already explained the general principles I believe are involved in these types of events. I see basically two. One is that God is often presented as doing that which He permits. The second is the principle illustrated by the father/hunter analogy. To put the second in other ways, because of the hardness of people's hearts, God permits things which are contrary to His ideal will. I don't believe God's ideal will is that Sabbath-breakers should be put to death.



Please resist the temptation to post red herrings. You know that nobody here believes that God "caved in to pressure and permitted sinners to practice sin contrary to His will and law."



I believe that polygamy is a sin. I also believe God allowed polygamy to occur.



If by giving permission you mean something like God's saying, "I give you permission to break my law," I agree. Breaking God's law results in death, because it involves acting contrary to the principles of the "law of life for the universe," which is self-sacrificing love.



I think God said akin to this:





As I stated, I think the Jews were breaking the first and second commandments. They having having a king an idol, and they were guilty of having a god before God. Had they not been guilty of breaking the first commandment, they would have done God's will.

Regarding having more than one wife, this is adultery, which is a sin.



For the same reason He allows us to sin. If we insist on having our own way, (generally) God allows us to do what we want.