Forums118
Topics9,232
Posts196,198
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
|
|
6 registered members (Karen Y, dedication, Kevin H, 3 invisible),
2,753
guests, and 8
spiders. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death?
[Re: Tom]
#121555
11/14/09 02:10 AM
11/14/09 02:10 AM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
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.
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: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death?
[Re: Tom]
#121556
11/14/09 02:14 AM
11/14/09 02:14 AM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
MM:Why do you think "compromise" is derogatory? 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? Also, Jesus was addressing divorce. He wasn't explaining why He commanded people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death. He didn't "permit" it; instead, He commanded it. In fact, He rejected King Saul because he refused to obey His command to utterly destroy the city of Amalek.
"And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal." Can you imagine yourself hacking Agag to pieces in obedience to the command of God? Or, do you see yourself, like Saul, disobeying God's command? Jesus was articulating a principle. Secondly, it sounds like you agree God does indeed punish and destroy the wicked except that you believe He does it by withdrawing His protection from enemy combatants. How do you envision this idea playing out during the final judgment? Do you think God will withdraw His protection and permit enemy combatants to punish and destroy sinners? If so, who will punish and destroy the last surviving enemy combatants? Since we have a thread on the final judgment going already, these could be discussed there.
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: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death?
[Re: Tom]
#121557
11/14/09 02:21 AM
11/14/09 02:21 AM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
PS - Of course, Tom cites this passage to prove holy angels have never punished or destroyed sinners in obedience to God's command. 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!)
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: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death?
[Re: Tom]
#121578
11/14/09 03:55 PM
11/14/09 03:55 PM
|
OP
SDA Charter Member Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
GC: Herod was not only visited by God with death--but with a "horrible" death, eaten by worms, dying in "great agony" under God's "retributive justice." Mrs. White tells us this was a "demonstration of divine judgment." This post is slightly off-topic, and yet parallel to the topic, in that instead of God commanding people, God commanded an angel to inflict the death penalty.
M: "The same angel who had come from the royal courts to rescue Peter, had been the messenger of wrath and judgment to Herod." Ellen wrote something similar is the following passage:
"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 614.2}
Of course, Tom cites this passage to prove holy angels have never punished or destroyed sinners in obedience to God's command. He interprets "the same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands" to mean holy angels are commanded to permit evil angels to punish and destroy selected sinners.
T: 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. 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?
|
|
|
Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death?
[Re: Mountain Man]
#121579
11/14/09 04:05 PM
11/14/09 04:05 PM
|
OP
SDA Charter Member Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
This post is the one I said I would write separately in regards to point 6. You didn't address why you think God commanded people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death.
|
|
|
Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death?
[Re: Tom]
#121580
11/14/09 04:18 PM
11/14/09 04:18 PM
|
OP
SDA Charter Member Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
M: Why do you think "compromise" is derogatory?
T: 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? 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? M: Also, Jesus was addressing divorce. He wasn't explaining why He commanded people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death. He didn't "permit" it; instead, He commanded it. In fact, He rejected King Saul because he refused to obey His command to utterly destroy the city of Amalek.
"And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal." Can you imagine yourself hacking Agag to pieces in obedience to the command of God? Or, do you see yourself, like Saul, disobeying God's command?
T: Jesus was articulating a principle. 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? M: Secondly, it sounds like you agree God does indeed punish and destroy the wicked except that you believe He does it by withdrawing His protection from enemy combatants. How do you envision this idea playing out during the final judgment? Do you think God will withdraw His protection and permit enemy combatants to punish and destroy sinners? If so, who will punish and destroy the last surviving enemy combatants?
T: Since we have a thread on the final judgment going already, these could be discussed there. Okay.
|
|
|
Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death?
[Re: Mountain Man]
#121588
11/14/09 06:23 PM
11/14/09 06:23 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
M: Why do you think "compromise" is derogatory?
T: 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?
M: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? God isn't violent. M: Also, Jesus was addressing divorce. He wasn't explaining why He commanded people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death. He didn't "permit" it; instead, He commanded it. In fact, He rejected King Saul because he refused to obey His command to utterly destroy the city of Amalek.
"And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal." Can you imagine yourself hacking Agag to pieces in obedience to the command of God? Or, do you see yourself, like Saul, disobeying God's command?
T: Jesus was articulating a principle.
M: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? Because of the hardness of people's hearts, God permitted certain things to be done. God is not violent. Jesus revealed God's character. M: "The same angel who had come from the royal courts to rescue Peter, had been the messenger of wrath and judgment to Herod." Ellen wrote something similar is the following passage:
"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 614.2}
Of course, Tom cites this passage to prove holy angels have never punished or destroyed sinners in obedience to God's command. He interprets "the same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands" to mean holy angels are commanded to permit evil angels to punish and destroy selected sinners.
T: 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. 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. What I'm objecting to is you wrote: Of course, Tom cites this passage to prove holy angels have never punished or destroyed sinners in obedience to God's command. 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.
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: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death?
[Re: Tom]
#121622
11/15/09 07:22 PM
11/15/09 07:22 PM
|
OP
SDA Charter Member Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
M: 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?
T: God isn't violent. 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? T: Jesus was articulating a principle.
M: 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?
T: Because of the hardness of people's hearts, God permitted certain things to be done. God is not violent. Jesus revealed God's character. 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? M: "The same angel who had come from the royal courts to rescue Peter, had been the messenger of wrath and judgment to Herod." Ellen wrote something similar is the following passage:
"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 614.2}
M: Of course, Tom cites this passage to prove holy angels have never punished or destroyed sinners in obedience to God's command. He interprets "the same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands" to mean holy angels are commanded to permit evil angels to punish and destroy selected sinners.
T: 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. You've done this a number of times in this thread. Please be more careful!
M: 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?
T: What I'm objecting to is you wrote: “Of course, Tom cites this passage to prove holy angels have never punished or destroyed sinners in obedience to God's command.” 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. 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?
|
|
|
Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death?
[Re: Mountain Man]
#121637
11/16/09 06:29 PM
11/16/09 06:29 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
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. M: "The same angel who had come from the royal courts to rescue Peter, had been the messenger of wrath and judgment to Herod." Ellen wrote something similar is the following passage:
"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 614.2}
M: Of course, Tom cites this passage to prove holy angels have never punished or destroyed sinners in obedience to God's command. He interprets "the same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands" to mean holy angels are commanded to permit evil angels to punish and destroy selected sinners.
T: 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. You've done this a number of times in this thread. Please be more careful!
M: 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?
T: What I'm objecting to is you wrote: “Of course, Tom cites this passage to prove holy angels have never punished or destroyed sinners in obedience to God's command.” 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.
M: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.
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.
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: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death?
[Re: Green Cochoa]
#121649
11/17/09 08:34 PM
11/17/09 08:34 PM
|
SDA Active Member 2024
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,512
Midland
|
|
PS - Of course, Tom cites this passage to prove holy angels have never punished or destroyed sinners in obedience to God's command. He interprets "the same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands" to mean holy angels are commanded to permit evil angels to punish and destroy selected sinners. I truly do not understand how Tom can avoid such a plain "thus saith the Lord." Yet even if he chooses to hide his face from the less-pleasant facts, they still remain factual, and I must accept them. As a Christian, it is nice to have pleasant facts. But as long as sin still exists, there will also be some unpleasant facts and unpleasant duties which our righteous God must carry out. I believe it is helpful, not harmful, to my Christian experience to accept all of the facts and truths here, and not just the subset of them which look appealing. Blessings, Green Cochoa. It sounds to me that you are saying God does less than pleasant things. That God does unpleasant things. Am I understanding that correctly?
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|