This post is the one I said I would write separately in regards to point 6.

There's two basic approaches that can be taken in regards to the incidents in Scripture which depict God as acting violently. One is that we can understand all these incidents according to the principles laid out in GC 35-36. The other is that we can't, but must treat the incidents on a case by case basis, the idea being that sometimes God acts according to the principles laid out in GC 35-36, and sometimes He doesn't.

Inspiration often presents God as doing that which He permits. Examples include:

1.The killing of Saul.
2.The attack of the serpents against Israel.
3.The destruction of Jerusalem.
4.The calamities that befell David's household after David's sin.
5.The sending of lying spirits to deceive Ahab.

We know from inspiration that, although God is reported explicitly as having done these things, what actually happened is He permitted them to happen. Could it be that this same principle applies to other incidents as well? Sure! Why not! This would make perfect sense, as it would have God acting in a consistent manner, according to the principles of His own government.

Let's suppose this can't be the case, that we can't apply these principles to other cases. Then which cases do we apply them to? Since sometimes God is presenting as doing that which He permits (i.e., a violent action), when God is reported as doing something violent, how do we know whether He's doing it or permitting it?

We don't! We'd have to apply some sort of principle of interpretation like the following:

If inspiration depicts God as doing something violent, then God did it, unless He didn't (because some other place in inspiration tells us He didn't).

This doesn't seem like a satisfactory principle. For example, let's consider the sending of the snakes and the destruction of Jerusalem. According to the SOP, the snakes were there the whole time, and what happened is God removed His protection. There's no hint in the Bible that this is the case. This means if one were to take the principle suggested above, for thousands of years, until God sent a prophet to send additional light, the student of Scripture would have ignorantly attributed to God what was actually not God's doing. The destruction of Jerusalem is similar, as Scripture ascribes this as an action God undertakes.

Rather than accept the principle that if inspiration presents God as doing something violent, God did it, unless somewhere else it says He didn't, it seems much better to go with the idea that God, who changes not, applies the same principles laid out in GC 35-36. This is in harmony with His character.

Also, a point to bear in mind, is there is absolutely no necessity for God to act in a destructive manner (even assuming He was capable of doing so, character-wise). That is, there are a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which God protects us. It is sufficient for God to simply stop protecting us from these dangers, and we would be destroyed, even terrible, as Herod was.

When speaking of God? Can you form a sentence where God is the subject, and comprise is the verb, that doesn't portray God in a negative way?



Jesus was articulating a principle.



Since we have a thread on the final judgment going already, these could be discussed there.

Pardon me? Please, MM, if you're going to write something like this, quote something to substantiate what you're saying!

I've never cited this passage as you're stating.


(PS, you've done this a number of times in this thread. Please be more careful!)

Tom, I am surprised to learn you vehemently oppose the interpretation I described above and ascribed to you. If you do not believe it means what I described, does it mean you agree with me? In other words, do you believe it means holy angels obeyed God's command to punish and destroy sinners? Or, do you believe it means they withdrew their protection and permitted the forces of nature or evil men or evil angels to cause death and destruction? For example, do you believe a holy angel killed the first born of Egypt? Or, do you believe he permitted it to happen without actually doing it himself?

You didn't address why you think God commanded people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death.

True, the word "compromise" can mean something negative. But obviously I'm using it in a negative way. My wife and I make compromises all the time in the interest of peace and harmony. There is nothing sinful about compromising if it serves a higher purpose. For example, God compromised and appointed a king. However, it is clear He did not compromise when He commanded people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death. He was acting in perfect harmony with His law and character. You seem to disagree. Why?


True, He was pointing out a principle. However, you didn't address my comments and questions. Do you agree with me that God didn't permit the Jews to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death, that instead He commanded them to do so? And, do you see yourself being like Saul or Samuel? Would you have obeyed God and hacked Agag to pieces?


Okay.

God isn't violent.



Because of the hardness of people's hearts, God permitted certain things to be done. God is not violent. Jesus revealed God's character.



What I'm objecting to is you wrote:



This is a false statement! I've never cited this passage as you've described! You said something that isn't the case, claiming I did something I didn't do, so I took issue with that.

True, God is not violent. However, He can do what we cannot, namely, execute infinite justice. Ellen wrote, “God does not work on the plan of man. He can do infinite justice that man has no right to do before his fellow man. Noah would have displeased God to have drowned one of the scoffers and mockers that harassed him, but God drowned the vast world. Lot would have had no right to inflict punishment on his sons-in-law, but God would do it in strict justice. {LDE 241.2} On the other hand, King Saul displeased God because he did not obey Him and hack Agag to pieces. Do you agree?


Okay. But you didn’t answer my questions. 1) Do you agree with me that God didn't permit the Jews to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death, that instead He commanded them to do so? 2) And, do you see yourself being like Saul or Samuel, that is, would you have obeyed God and hacked Agag to pieces?


Maybe you haven’t cited it to prove holy angels exercise destructive power by permitting evil angels to kill selected sinners, but you have responded accordingly whenever I’ve quoted it to prove holy angels have obeyed the command of God to kill selected sinners.

Also, you didn’t answer my questions. Do you believe it means holy angels obeyed God's command to punish and destroy sinners? Or, do you believe it means they withdrew their protection and permitted the forces of nature or evil men or evil angels to cause death and destruction?

For example, do you believe a holy angel killed the first born of Egypt? Or, do you believe he permitted it to happen without actually doing it himself?

MM, I entered this thread to correct a misstatement in regards to what I had said. I'll continue to comment on misstatements. Regarding the rest, we've discussed this before.



Maybe? MM, the issue is that you asserted something which is entirely false. I've never quoted the text you mentioned in the manner you cited. There's no "maybe" about it. It's out of line for you to make assertions like this with no basis in fact.

It sounds to me that you are saying God does less than pleasant things. That God does unpleasant things.

Am I understanding that correctly?