Righteousness is holiness,
likeness to God,
and "God is love." 1 John 4:16.

It is conformity to the law of God,
for "all Thy commandments are righteousness" (Psalm 119:172), and "love is the fulfilling of the law" (Romans 13:10).

Righteousness is love,
and love is the light and the life of God.
The righteousness of God is embodied in Christ.
We receive righteousness by receiving Him. {MB 18.1}


Not by painful struggles or wearisome toil,
not by gift or sacrifice,
is righteousness obtained;
but it is freely given to every soul who hungers and thirsts to receive it.
"Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat, . . . without money and without price."
"Their righteousness is of Me, saith the Lord,"
and, "This is His name whereby He shall be called,
The Lord Our Righteousness." Isaiah 55:1; 54:17; Jeremiah 23:6. {MB 18.2}

This is an interesting thought. Love is the light of God. That ties in with this:



and this:

What do you think must be stripped away? Are you referring to any one of the “judgments and laws” that were "only the principles of the Ten Commandments amplified"? Or, are you referring only to the “ritual laws”?

So far you have said the OC was bad because it involved the COI promising to obey and observe everything God required of them without fully understanding their need and dependence on Him to keep their promise. I agree. I’ve been saying the same thing all along. Are you aware of the fact that I’m in agreement with you on this one point?


Are you saying having to obey and observe all those rites and rituals was not a kind of bondage that “was against us, which was contrary to us”, and that it is not a major relief not to have to do it now?


To put it in terms you are familiar with, the COI forced God to require them to obey and observe rites and rituals that “was against us, which was contrary to us”. It was not God’s original will or desire for them. Remember, initially He wanted them to live under the terms and conditions of the NC (i.e. live in harmony with the 10Cs, circumcision, and occasional sacrifices).

I believe Jesus revealed everything we need to know about God. I believe He did it in two ways – 1) Through His actions, and 2) Through His teachings.

Are you saying you agree with this?


What? That’s precisely what she said. Why do you exclude capital punishment? It was an integral part of the “judgments and laws” which were “only the principles of the Ten Commandments amplified".


Are you saying 1) the author didn’t specifically address this issue, and that 2) you are expecting me to know how you apply the principles to it? If so, then you are expecting way too much of me. Please state your position clearly and concisely. Thank you. BTW, you have never done this, that is, you have never plainly stated why you think Jesus ordered Moses and the COI to stone sinners to death.


God demonstrated His power. “Every manifestation of creative power is an expression of infinite love.” {PP 32} “These judgments are sent that those who lightly regard God's law and trample upon His authority may be led to tremble before His power and to confess His just sovereignty. {PP 109} “Thus in the midst of judgment the mercy of God was displayed, the people were tested, and it was shown how many had been led to fear God by the manifestation of His power. {PP 269} The following two passage explain why God chose to demonstration His power through the plagues of Egypt:


Demonstrating His power in the way He did and for the reasons He did was not a show of force or violence. Do you agree?


Jesus employed the “withdraw and permit” principle throughout the OT. Yes, circumstances forced Him to withdraw His protection and permit death and destruction to happen. The point is – Death and destruction cannot happen without God’s permission. It does not happen naturally. He must first withdraw His protection. Sinners do not cause it to happen. They don’t do something and then it happens. For example, the antediluvians did not make water flood the earth and kill everyone. Nor did the sodomites make fire burn everyone alive. True, it was on account of their filling up their cup of woe and wrath that Jesus was forced to withdraw His protection and permit death and destruction to happen.


God will withdraw His protection and permit the radiant light of His presence to cause sinners pain and suffering in duration and in proportion to their sinfulness. He will also rain down fire from above and raise up fire from below. In this environment they will suffer and die.


Are you suggesting resurrected sinners will suffer and die at the end of time because God is kind to them?


Are you disagreeing with the idea the OT envisioned two different advents with two different sets of goals? Please refer to the many quotation I posted above.

He then came still closer to his people, and would not leave them, who were so readily led astray, with merely the ten precepts of the decalogue. He required Moses to write as he should bid him, judgments and laws, giving minute directions in regard to what he required them to perform, and thereby guarded the ten precepts which he had engraved upon the tables of stone. These specific directions and requirements were given to draw erring man to the obedience of the moral law which he is so prone to transgress. {3SG 299.1}

As the Bible presents two laws, one changeless and eternal, the other provisional and temporary, so there are two covenants. {PP 370.2}[/quote]mm, in reflecting on these statements and the issues, it seems to me that God had no reason to give the "judgments and laws" to adam and eve, nor will they be applicable in the new earth. He also hadnt given them before abraham, nor after, so it seems the only reason God gave them, based on the pp, is because of the mental state of the israelites at delivery from the egyptians.

so what ellen white meant by "amplified" seems to be explained by her other comments.




would that make sense?

i think that seeing it this way prevents a clear understanding of Gods continual protection over us.

these are just a couple:

There are a lot of things which were pertaining to the Israelites, such as polygamy, divorce, slavery, to name a few. I wouldn't call these "ritual laws," would you. Yet they don't apply to us, right? God's not in favor of divorce, slavery or polygamy, is He?

IMO, you're not really in agreement with me. You wrote, "In essence, the OC is the NC amplified." I completely disagree with this, for the reasons I explained. The fact that you could write such a think demonstrates that you don't agree with what I'm saying.



MM, God gave these things to the COI. How could they have been against them? When you speak of the rites and rituals, are you speaking of the Ceremonial law?

Sin is bondage. That's what "was against us, which was contrary to us." It's a major relief not to have to sin.



No, MM. God didn't give the COI things which were against them, or contrary to them, or put them into bondage.



Yes, which is why He offered them the same covenant He offered Abraham. But they refused that covenant and initiated their own.

God's covenant was to accept the righteousness of Christ, and have the law written in the heart. Their covenant was to go about trying to establish their own righteousness, and not have the law written in the heart.

God's covenant leads to freedom. Their covenant led to bondage, and still does.

Although God went along with their wishes, He did so in such a way as to instruct them in the ways of Christ, so they would be led to freedom. He worked with their unbelief and gave them things to help them. He did not institute a system to put them into bondage, nor give them things which were contrary to them or against them.

Since the SOP tells us that Christ lived what He taught, I believe it's sufficient to say that Christ revealed God's character fully and completely by His life.



I think you're misreading what she wrote, and that you are confusing the principles of the Ten Commandments with judgments related to breaking certain laws. IMO, it shouldn't be difficult to see that principles related to commandments are not the same thing as judgments related to breaking them.



I'm saying 2). I'm sorry I'm expecting too much of you. I have stated my position. I'm sorry you haven't understood what I've said.

I think we've spent enough time on this. Why not do what I've suggested, which is to stay with a study of the cross, of the final judgment, and with the character and life of Jesus Christ which fully revealed God?



How could I not? The whole time I've been advocated that God did not use force or violence to get His way, as your view suggests. The fact that you don't label it "force" or "violence" doesn't change what you actually believe, which is that God used what in ordinary conversation would be labeled by an ordinary person as "force" and "violence."



I should just put something where I can copy and paste it, since you keep using this language. At any rate, I either disagree with your idea here, or think the language is ill-chosen, for reasons I've explained on several occasions. I think what the SOP said, that people caused God to withdraw His protection, is a better way of putting it, being more accurate than what you are saying, clearly indicating upon whom the blame/responsibility lies.



People did this. The "circumstances" was the free will decisions that people made.



IMO, this isn't much of a point. Nothing can happen that God doesn't permit, because God is omnipotent.



Actually, they do. The cause God to withdraw His protection, according to GC 35, 36.



Yes they do. The do something, which causes God to withdraw His protection.



They did indirectly by causing God wot withdraw His protection.



They caused God to withdraw His protection.



Right! Why not just say this?



Before you said that God works to prevent sin from having destructive consequences upon those who practice it, consequences deriving from the conscience being violated. The SOP tells us if we had to bear the enormity of our guilt, it would crush us. Christ bears our guilt, and when He ceases to do so for those who have rejected Him, it crushes them.

I have no idea why you think God would have to add some arbitrary punishment on top of the death and destruction which you yourself said that sin causes. I also have no idea why you insist on speaking of "radiant light" when quotes from the SOP, such as this one, make it clear that it's not a physical issue:





I wasn't suggesting this, but I'm not opposed to the idea. That is, one could say this, and it would be true. The wicked will suffer and die at the end of time because of God's kindness to them. Amazing, isn't it?



I think the character of the One acting in both comings is the same, and was fully revealed by Jesus Christ, whose "whole purpose" was the "revelation of God." I don't think Christ only revealed one side of God, the kinder/gentler side, and that His other side, the vindictive/violent side will be revealed later.