“If you’re saying you believe Jesus lived out in actions, while here in the flesh, everything He lived out in actions in OT then, yes, we disagree.” The word “revealed” in 8T 286 does not imply Jesus acted out everything He taught. A simple example should suffice - the second coming and destruction of the wicked.


True, it is tiring asking the same question over and over again and being told over and over again – “I’ve already plainly stated my position in the humane hunter story.” The truth is, however, implying that Jesus risked being misunderstood each time He commanded the COI to stone sinners to death doesn’t answer the question. It merely assumes something that may or may not be true. By the way, the question is – How do you think Jesus commanded the COI to stone sinners to death? Did He command them to do something that was sinful? In other words, was it a sin to obey Jesus and stone sinners to death?

Ellen White wrote:

Those who performed this terrible work of judgment [slaughtering those who worshipped the golden calf] were acting by divine authority, executing the sentence of the King of heaven. Men are to beware how they, in their human blindness, judge and condemn their fellow men; but when God commands them to execute His sentence upon iniquity, He is to be obeyed. Those who performed this painful act, thus manifested their abhorrence of rebellion and idolatry, and consecrated themselves more fully to the service of the true God. The Lord honored their faithfulness by bestowing special distinction upon the tribe of Levi. {PP 324.2}


Are you suggesting sinners suffered and died forcefully and violently because Jesus withdrew His protection? If so, why did He do it? What was He trying to accomplish? And, did He accomplish it?


Awhile ago you said you agree with the list except for number one.


You seem to be implying force and violence does not happen until Jesus withdraws His protection. If so, then it sounds rather arbitrary to me. That is, the relationship between sinning and force and violence is arbitrary. For example, the Egyptian infants and babies died a forceful and violent death because Jesus withdrew His protection and permitted an evil angel to kill them. Why? Why do you think Jesus gave an evil angel permission to kill infants and babies? What was He trying to accomplish? And, did He accomplish it?


You really don’t see a difference? Do you do the same thing with the following kinds of promises: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” “He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.” That is, do you make them mean – Believe in Jesus or the Father will kill you!!!


It is perfectly reasonable and righteous for Jesus to warn sinners to repent and obey Him because otherwise He will have to punish and destroy them. But this isn’t what He will say on judgment day. By then it’s too late warn and plead with sinners. They are neither innocent nor ignorant. They have willfully despised and rejected Him. They deserve to suffer and die. They are worthy. Jesus will not hesitate or apologize for inflicting punishment. Here’s what is says in the SOP about “inflicting” punishment:


Tom, I realize I posted several passages which affirm the truth, and I also realize you are not fond of reading so many testimonies. However, please take the time to read them. Thank you.


You insist sinners cause Jesus to withdraw His protection, and that Jesus doesn’t do anything to cause death and destruction.


Sure we do. Ellen White wrote:


At His own will God summons the forces of nature to overthrow the might of His enemies--"fire, and hail; snow, and vapours; stormy wind fulfilling his word." Psalm 148:8. {Mar 297.1}


As you can see from the quotes posted above that Jesus does indeed micromanage the forces of nature. “His hand has molded the mountains and balances them in their position, that they shall not be moved except at His command. The wind, the sun, the rain, the snow, and the ice, are all His ministers to do His will. {3BC 1144.10}


Would you say evil angels control the elements of nature as far as Jesus allows? Also, do you think Jesus and Satan use the same powers to control the elements of nature? If not, in what way do you think they differ? Consider the following insights:

The time is at hand when there will be sorrow in the world that no human balm can heal. The Spirit of God is being withdrawn. Disasters by sea and by land follow one another in quick succession. How frequently we hear of earthquakes and tornadoes, of destruction by fire and flood, with great loss of life and property! Apparently these calamities are capricious outbreaks of disorganized, unregulated forces of nature, wholly beyond the control of man; but in them all, God's purpose may be read. They are among the agencies by which He seeks to arouse men and women to a sense of their danger. {CC 231.3}

Satan works through the elements also to garner his harvest of unprepared souls. He has studied the secrets of the laboratories of nature, and he uses all his power to control the elements as far as God allows. . . While appearing to the children of men as a great physician who can heal all their maladies, he will bring disease and disaster, until populous cities are reduced to ruin and desolation. Even now he is at work. In accidents and calamities by sea and by land, in great conflagrations, in fierce tornadoes and terrific hailstorms, in tempests, floods, cyclones, tidal waves, and earthquakes, in every place and in a thousand forms, Satan is exercising his power. He sweeps away the ripening harvest, and famine and distress follow. He imparts to the air a deadly taint, and thousands perish by the pestilence. These visitations are to become more and more frequent and disastrous. {GC 589}


Yes, the acts are very different. But what do you want me to conclude based on this example? Are you implying Jesus accidentally causes or permits death and destruction?


Nowhere in judgment does it say sinners experience the kind of guilt and shame that leads to repentance and obedience. Also, immediately after judgment ends, the wicked turn upon one another in fits of rage and anger. This doesn’t reflect the kind of behavior one would expect from sinners who are supposedly experiencing what Jesus experienced from Gethsemane to Golgotha. How do you account for the radical difference?

Satan with his fierce temptations wrung the heart of Jesus. The Saviour could not see through the portals of the tomb. Hope did not present to Him His coming forth from the grave a conqueror, or tell Him of the Father's acceptance of the sacrifice. He feared that sin was so offensive to God that Their separation was to be eternal. Christ felt the anguish which the sinner will feel when mercy shall no longer plead for the guilty race. It was the sense of sin, bringing the Father's wrath upon Him as man's substitute, that made the cup He drank so bitter, and broke the heart of the Son of God. {DA 753.2}

And on "whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder." The people who rejected Christ were soon to see their city and their nation destroyed. Their glory would be broken, and scattered as the dust before the wind. And what was it that destroyed the Jews? It was the rock which, had they built upon it, would have been their security. It was the goodness of God despised, the righteousness spurned, the mercy slighted. Men set themselves in opposition to God, and all that would have been their salvation was turned to their destruction. All that God ordained unto life they found to be unto death. In the Jews' crucifixion of Christ was involved the destruction of Jerusalem. The blood shed upon Calvary was the weight that sank them to ruin for this world and for the world to come. So it will be in the great final day, when judgment shall fall upon the rejecters of God's grace. Christ, their rock of offense, will then appear to them as an avenging mountain. The glory of His countenance, which to the righteous is life, will be to the wicked a consuming fire. Because of love rejected, grace despised, the sinner will be destroyed. {DA 600.2}


Are you suggesting God will not appear in their presence in His unveiled brightness and glory? Or, are you suggesting that His unveiled brightness and glory will not cause them to suffer intense physical pain similar to what people suffered in the presence of the glory and brightness radiating from Moses’ face (which is not the same kind of physical pain caused by emotional anguish)?

this is one way to look at it. is it possible there is another way to look at it? or are the statements presented as questions the only way to look at it?

i wonder if the fact that sometimes God Himself took action, while other times He "ordered" execution have anything to study into.

I didn't say "act out" but "lived." What Jesus Christ taught, He lived, is what I said. (Item 2).

Do you disagree with item 2?



This is from "The Great Controversy"



The Egyptians caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them, by stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy. You're question as to what God was trying to accomplish is assuming that God was trying to accomplish something, which seems to me to be in opposition to the idea that the people were causing something to happen.



Until He is caused to withdraw His protection, this should say.



It would be arbitrary if it wasn't something He was caused to do, as in the view you suggest.



You seem to be ignoring the point that God was caused to remove His protection.





I invited you to point out any difference, and you didn't. If you see a difference, what is it?

To be clear here, what you believe is that God warns us to do what He says, or, if we don't, then He will cause us to suffer and die by bringing fire upon us from above and below. I think I'm quoting you accurately here. Now if this is the case, He is telling us, "Do what I say, or I will kill you (after causing you to suffer)," right?



*I* don't believe God will kill those who choose not to believe in Him, which you know, so, of course, I don't make these words say this, as how would I make words say something I don't believe? What you're asking here really doesn't make sense.

You, otoh, actually do believe that God will kill those who don't do what He says, and you interpret these words to mean this, and so do the very thing you're asking me about!



Then it's perfectly reasonable and righteous for Jesus to say, "Obey Me, or I'll kill cause you to suffer, and then kill you!" because what you are suggesting is essentially this.



I read them, but don't seem much point in posting a lot of passages like that without any comment. Here's a passage to consider:



I'm quoted this a number of times, and pointed out that I don't seen an tie-in between the principles you suggest and the cross. I notice you don't point out any connection in your comments, or even mention the atonement at all.

But, according to the SOP, to understand truth, the connection to the cross must be understood. This is why I've suggested starting out by a study of the cross. Ask questions like:

a.How did Christ respond to His enemies?
b.How do we see the principles of force and violence applied?
c.How did God act towards those who were treating His Son so terribly?

and so forth.



There's a large difference between what she wrote and what you wrote. By the way, I first quoted these concepts to you(that you quoted from her), and it was for the purpose of pointing out that nature is not self-working, the point she makes. That is, nature needs God to manage it.

What has to do with Augustine is the idea that not one molecule is out of place, that everything that happens in nature is because God has explicitly willed it to be so. This is what I understood you to be saying.

Nature has been impacted by sin. God manages nature so the whole planet doesn't get wiped out, which is what would happen if He didn't. If we were all wiped out, we couldn't participate in the Great Controversy.

Because of sin, nature does not behave as initially designed. For example, there are now great waste areas where before there were none. This was not and is not a part of God's design, but something which happened because of sin.



I would say they manipulate it.



No. I think they differ in that God exercises a restraining hand, whereas Satan exercises a destructive hand.



That causing something to happen is very different than permitting it to happen.



No. I was illustrating how acts can be very different, even though the result in the same thing. Does this make sense?

This is why, in our legal system, there is a difference between manslaughter, second degree murder, and first degree murder. The intent is very important in distinguishing between acts.



The statement doesn't say anything about being led to repentance and obedience, but about being crushed.



You're not dealing with the point.

1.If we had to bear our own guilt, it would crush us.
2.The wicked will have to bear their own guilt.
3.It will crush them.

From "The Desire of Ages":



I'm hoping the part in bold will help show the similarities in what Christ and the wicked experience.

That DA 600 quote is great. That's what I've been trying to say all this time in our discussions. "In the Jews' crucifixion of Christ was involved the destruction of Jerusalem." I've made this point many times.



I think what I was saying is that God acts kindly toward the wicked. God is love, and even treats His enemies with kindness. He loves them too. But the wicked have so warped their characters, that they cannot stand to be in His presence, which is to them a consuming fire.

Tom, sorry, but this does not make sense to me. Why was God caused to remove His protection only from the firstborn? Why was He caused to remove His protection from babies and children, for instance, but not from hardened adults like pharaoh and the magicians?

Why did God send angles to kill only the firstborn? Why did He cause babies and children to be killed, for instance, but not hardened adults like pharaoh and the magicians?

I'm asking you these questions because I don't see why your answers to these questions wouldn't apply as answers to the questions you asked me.

That's an easy answer. God did it to save those too hardened to be awakened by any other means.



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

My answer is that this was a judgment from God and it was an arbitrary one (in the sense of "left to one's judgment and choice") - designed by Him to achieve His purposes of showing to the whole world His superiority above all gods. As I see it, two things are essential for this subject to be understood: 1) God told them how to avoid death, and 2) God has given life and has the right to remove it, cutting short the life of sinners who can no longer be saved. God will deal with the Egyptian babies and children who died in exactly the same way as He will deal with any child or baby who dies today. As to the firstborn who had achieved the age of accountability and died, these were the hardened ones who knew how to avoid death and had seen all the miracles God had performed, but chose to defy His authority. They were lost anyway.
Is this how you see things?

Ok, then that answer applies to Rosangela's question to me as well.

Tom,

I don't think you will agree with my answer (in the post just above yours), as I understand your perspective is completely different. So I would like to hear your explanation about it.

Your response seems fine. Where I would differ would be in regards to holy angels permitting the first born to be killed by destroying angels, which I believe were evil ones.

A question can come up in regards to why Satan would cooperate with God, and also in regards to how Satan's killing newborns would display God's power. In regards to the first point, I think Satan knew God would be blamed for what he (Satan) did (like the GC statement regarding the "great deceiver" hiding his work) and couldn't resist the chance to make God look bad. In regards to the second point, God power is manifest no less in His resisting the powers of evil and managing the forces of nature as it would be in His actual doing the destruction Himself.

A final point is that the question could be raised as to how God would allow Himself to be so misunderstood, and I think the answer to this is similar to when Jesus taught the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man. When I first understood that Jesus did so, *knowing* that what He said would be misunderstood as tacitly endorsing the immortal soul idea, this was a great "aha!" moment for me. My previous paradigm would not have allowed this, because it is not "correct."

However, as I thought about it, it occurred to me that God has no choice but to communicate to us in ways that are "incorrect" because we, with are so highly defective paradigms, could not understand the truth in its "correct" form. So God communicates the truth to us in ways we can understand (e.g. with immortal soul ideas for those He spoke to regarding Lazarus and the Rich Man) and then works with our paradigms to lead us into more and more truth. Jesus spoke of not being able to put new wine into old wine skins, and I believe this is the principle He was getting at.

Another point to mention is that as we perceive things differently, God has millions of paradigms to deal with. How to communicate truth to so many people at so many different places? I believe He does so by communicating different concepts for the different paradigms. At times, it can appear that God is contradicting Himself.

Here are two examples. First of all, there are the instructions for divorce given by Moses. This appears to be implying that God is OK with divorce, that it's not a sin (Or at least wasn't in the time of Moses. MM, for example, appears to believe this). Then in the Gospels, Jesus explains that divorce was only permitted because of the hardness of their hearts.

A second example is the following statement from EGW. I can't find the statement I wanted, so I'll just describe it. It speaks of how we have the incentive of heaven before us, and urges us to respond, to gain heaven and avoid hell. Many times she speaks of a heaven to gain and a hell to shun.

Elsewhere she writes things like:



and



So it appears on the one hand that she is speaking against the idea of using hope of punishment and fear of reward to incent people, but then she does that very thing. Is she contradicting herself? No, she's addressing different groups of people.

And so with God. God does not contradict Himself, but He addresses different people, with different truths to impress upon them. As some truths are learned, that opens the way for others. For example, a proper understanding of the atonement opens the way to understanding other subjects.

Regarding the concept of putting God in a favorable light, it appears to me that you try to do this. That is, that you look for interpretations which not only match what is said in the text, but that do so in a way that speaks to God in as favorable a way as your understanding of the text permits. I don't know how clear I'm being hear, but this is a positive comment. I perceive and appreciate these efforts.

Finally, this is a rather long post, and I'm not expecting that you'll see things as I do, but hope that this helps to at least explain a bit better where I'm coming from.