Looking at the world today, the following quote seems to be fulfilling already.

If "judgements of God" can mean that God has withdrawn His protection, what does "slain of the Lord" mean?

Speaking of a past event...

Two questions here:

1) Do Satan's "judgments" (which God has allowed by withdrawing protection) "call for humiliation?"
2) Were the judgments on Battle Creek from God directly or by His withdrawing protection?



When God commands that people be slain, is this the same thing as "withdrawing protection?"

I do not disagree that God withdraws protection on account of our sins. However, that does not always result in such signal justice as is presented above. Satan likes to preserve some of his own, that he may lead others astray by their influence. God may not be protecting them, and yet, they do not simply die on account of their sins the instant that God withdraws His protection. If, on the other hand, God chooses to "cleanse the camp" of them, He may act to end their existence himself.

God is omnipotent. He is to be respected and revered as the Sovereign of the Universe. Yet His judgments are just, done in mercy and love.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Do you not see the problem with accusing someone with whom you disagree of "twisting" "ignoring" "extracting" "neglecting to hear" from Scripture in order to support "his own philosophy?" It should be possible to communicate without making things personal. It should be possible to address the ideas concerned, with addressing the motives.

Do you not believe that I believe the Scriptures to be the word of God, and a representation of His character? Do you not believe I understand them differently than you do? Or do you think that I secretly think that you're right, and that I'm in error, but I'm refusing to publicly admit this, preferring to "twist" and "extract" etc.?

If you think I'm wrong, but acting in ignorance, then there's no reason whatsoever for you to apply these types of terms to me. In the case of the Pharisees *they knew they were doing wrong* and *Jesus Christ knew that they knew they were doing wrong*. That is, they knew that Jesus Christ had the truth, and He knew that they knew that.

Do you know this? Do you that I know that you have the truth? If so, then I'm a hypocrite, and you have the right to publicly rebuke me. But if all that I'm guilty of is having an idea which you perceive to be contrary to Scripture, your only right is to present evidence as to why you think my ideas are wrong. You have no right to "rebuke" me, as Jesus did.

Again, I ask you to consider the golden rule. Do you wish others to speak to you with the pejorative language that you use?

That kind of hints at once saved, always saved, no matter what your works are.

I've been considering what you said about character. Now you may find this hard to believe, but I think I'm more confused than ever.

If acts are the result of character, then what does killing people say about God's character? But, I guess you say that there is no morality to acts? This is all very very confusing to me. Especially when I just came across verses such as this:
Some say that God kills people out of love.
If I don't love, then I don't know God.
So, if I kill people, then that is showing love and therefore knowing God.
That and knowing that God kills people. But, you said it is not for me to decide to kill people. But then again, you say that acts are not morality. So how can killing people be wrong? Especially if you have good thoughts and good feelings of eliminating the heretics and infidels to make them an example to others so they may give their lives to God rather than suffer His punishments.
Doesn't this seem so confusing?

Sorry, I guess I was confused on something else.

Tom,

I'm not so certain as you regarding some of what you have said here. For example, I do not feel the Pharisees necessarily knew they were wrong when Jesus uttered His rebukes. A good question to ask here might be whether or not Jesus would have thus spoken had the Pharisees known, but had purposely chosen to deny the truth--and for what reason. Does Jesus rebuke them for their own sakes? or for the sakes of those standing by who need to be cautioned against their errors? or both? And yet, we know that the Pharisees were not benefited.

The concepts which you have been sharing here, Tom, are of grave concern to me as they may very well impact your own salvation and that of others. If I did not thus view this topic, I would not choose to continue discussing it. Mrs. White has given the following counsel:



Tom, I honestly do not view the differences between your theology and mine on this point to be minor, or I would have let this topic slide long ago. I am not as eloquent as some others here, including yourself, but I will make an honest attempt at expressing where I see the greatest danger in your theology, in the hopes that you can understand what my limited speech attempts to convey.

Based on a philosophy of "God does no harm," and that even to the end God is desirous of the salvation of all and will never kill anyone, one is led to believe that if he were to choose God's way, even after the second resurrection, God would not destroy him, because, after all, "their exclusion from heaven is voluntary with themselves, and just and merciful on the part of God." Therefore, since God does not destroy, and the wicked must choose death for themselves, this belief could lull one into a sense of security based on the concept that they would choose Heaven, and would not choose death, and that God would honor that choice.

This theology essentially makes no room for a belief in probationary time, because "God does not change," and "God will never kill." So it matters little that God will one day say "It is finished" and take the reins of the Universe back securely from Satan, ending the conflict with His own judgments and by His own authority, in keeping with His mercy, love, and law.

If there is never a point where God will use force to end the misery of sin, then the sinner can be lulled to blissful sleep thinking that he can continue to choose life, for God will never force death upon him.

In essence, Tom, your theology provides the sinner a "salvation loophole"...a false sense of security. It is nearly the same as a "second chance" belief. And this contrasts starkly with the real truth. Indeed, this belief will be the ruin of many who have procrastinated their decision to wholly submit to Christ.

Furthermore, Tom, you have exalted reason above a "thus saith the LORD," in believing that God would never ask you to do something which does not make sense to you. It is true that God has created us with intelligent minds, but, as Arnold and others have pointed out, God also commands us to do things based on faith, which we may not understand.

When you understand the Bible's true picture of God, you see a God who is infinitely wiser than human thoughts can reach, who is fair, loving, and merciful beyond our comprehension, and yet at the same time who can cleanse the universe of sin in such a dramatic way as by fire, without contradiction to His benevolent character in the least. Our logic and reason can never hope to find out God. God reveals enough of Himself to us that we may accept, believe, and love Him. But we will never know Him fully. We will continue to study the science of our salvation throughout eternity, and continue to learn more about God forever.

Some aspects of the Bible are beyond our present understanding. We must accept them by faith. We do not accept them blindly, however, for we have a great number of witnesses which lead us to a faith based on evidence and reason. For example, scientists do not understand how gravity works. They do not know its source or mechanism. But they have sufficient experience to know that it is there, and that it is unfailingly reliable and predictable. Thus it is with God's Word. There are parts we may not understand. It does not, however, mean that it is ever unreasonable to accept them on faith.

The part of the Bible which speaks of the future fire to come in judgment upon the lost is just such...it is something we can accept by faith, even though we may not fully understand it or all of the reasons for it now. I have faith to believe that God will ensure that all of the Universe understands those reasons before it happens, and I believe that our millennium in Heaven will be spend largely in preparing for that, and in answering all of those questions which we have now.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC, again, do you really not see the problems involved with accusing another, whose viewpoint you disagree with of "twisting" "ignoring" "extracting" from the Scriptures in order to support "cherished ideas"? Do you think this sort of rhetoric is OK? Would you like me to address you in this way?

Just a few days ago, another member of the forum, who is not a party to this discussion (so has no vested interest) wrote:



to which you replied:



It seems you're doing the same thing you just apologized for a very short while back. Would you like to ask Gordon what his opinion is of the things you've written today? He's a neutral party.

That was in response to your suggestion that sin is the sole cause of disorder, citing the 2nd law of thermodynamics as an example. My view is that God is always needed to make things go; otherwise, things fall apart, even without sin. But it looks like you agree with that.

But that is an interesting quote you cited. Indeed, I know it well. Even gravity, something more fundamental than the "laws" of thermodynamics, requires God's active participation to function. I think we can agree that it also applies to the other forces: electromagnetic, weak, and strong.

That is why I don't understand why you say that judgments will fall upon sinners without God's participation. NOTHING works without God's participation. Even the fire that will destroy the sinful earth cannot function unless God participates in making sure thermodynamics works like it always does, and gravity holds the earth together like it always does, and nuclear forces hold atoms together like they always do, etc. Moreover, without God's participation, the sinner's mind cannot function such that it can comprehend the judgment and feel any mental anguish.

Your desire to make God an inactive bystander in the eradication of sin contradicts your belief that God makes everything go. "He works through the laws of nature, using them as His instruments. They are not self-acting."

God will simply present the facts. Agreement will not be required. There is no need for force there.

However, do you think Satan and the rest of the sinners want to be there? Or would they rather be somewhere else?

Regarding the 2nd law of thermodynamics, I think I said this:



I don't think I said anything about disorder, did I?

Regarding God's involvement in the destruction of the wicked, you wrote:



I've said that God is not directly responsible for the fate of the lost, that He does not take direct, or arbitrary, or imposed, action, nor use force, to either cause them to suffer or die. But I've never said what you're suggesting here. Obviously not, since I'm well aware of the MH quote.

Do you really not understand what my point is?

The issue is not whether God maintains the universe, or the molecules that make people's bodies exist, or the fire that burns, but who is morally responsible for the suffering and death which occurs at the judgment; who is it that causes the suffering and death of the wicked to occur. My point is that God is entirely innocent of this. The lost suffer and die because of their own choices, not because of an arbitrary use of power on the part of God. DA 764 is saying exactly this, it seems to me, very clearly, and repeatedly.

Agreement is required. It is essential that we understand this point. This is crucial to understanding the Great Controversy. If agreement were not required, God could have ended the Great Controversy long, long ago.