Tom, if neither the Bible nor the SOP specify what killed Jesus why are you suggesting we study His death to determine what will kill the wicked? What do you think killed Jesus? What do you think will kill the wicked?

Do you think the phrase "death is the inevitable result of sin" explains what will kill the wicked? Please explain your answer.

Do you think the phrase "leaving the wicked to reap the full result of sin" explains what will kill the wicked? Please explain your answer.

Why do you think neither the Bible nor the SOP specify what killed Jesus? As to why we should study His death to understand how the lost will die, Jesus "suffered the death which was ours." He "tasted death" for every man. He is the only One who has experienced this death to date.



I've answered this.



It explains that death is the result of sin. That's enough to understand that it's not God who causes their death, which is the important point.



It makes clear that their death is not clear to a direct action on the part of God, since it is something He leaves them to. That's enough to start with.

The general principle is that sin is deadly. It's based on the principle of selfishness, which can only lead to misery, suffering and death. We need to be rescued from the power of sin. Of Jesus we read, that His name would be called Jesus, for He would save the people from their sins. (Matt. 1:21, as I recall).

If we understand that sin is the enemy, which causes death, then we can see God in His role of Savior, to save us from it, rather than fearing that He will do terrible things to us if we don't do what He says.

I'm having serious trouble understanding how you mean "left", "permitted", and especially "did not destroy" is the same thing as capital punishment.
Wouldn't it be odd for someone to say, I'm going to permit you to go before the firing squad?


I thought Tom was clear before.
The Bible says God killed Saul.
The Bible says God torched Sodom and Gomorrah.
But, Saul killed himself.

Just because you don't know of any place in the Bible where it says that God didn't torch Sodom and Gomorrah, does that mean He did?

You actually illustrate a perfect example. You did not know the Bible said God killed Saul. Some would think it classic knowledge. Yet, you trusted Tom in that area. However, why do you not trust Tom in the area of Sodom and Gomorrah?

Of all the truths found in the Bible, what percentage would you say you fully understand? Do you need the Bible to specifically say exactly in every instance? Suppose for your full list of objections that there was an opposing explicit, "Saul killed himself" for every one except one. Would you then deny that one instance?

If your mom said to stop hitting your sister with a stick, then a few minutes later, you got in trouble for hitting your sister with a plastic baseball bat, would you cry foul?

You seem to think God didn't. But, yet, you seem to think it was God's ideal will in the above situation, but not with killing the abortion doctor? By someone doing an act, how would one know it wasn't commanded by God?

I guess the main question I have, if I see someone doing something, should I stop them or just walk on by? I mean, maybe I just think their act is wrong, but if acts aren't wrong in themselves, how would I know if God commanded them to do it and I'd be interfering with God's will?


I'm having trouble distinguishing the difference. Wikipedia does not seem too helpful. I found one definition for variety that says, A state of constant change. Could you help clarify the differences?

Is there a possibility the Israelites should have followed God's will, like Adam and Eve, and then He wouldn't be commanding them to stone each other?

Is there the possibility the Israelites could have refused to stone each other? What would God have done then?

In your version of things, doesn't God reveal to each sinner all his sins, until the sinner agrees that he is wrong and God is right? Don't you think that would be a terrible experience?

I still don't understand why you ascribe terribleness to one side of the argument, but don't see the terribleness of your own side.

If you want to avoid such "terrible things" then God should just leave the dead alone. Then anyone can do whatever they want, and the dead won't care.

But God will not do that. No matter how you slice it, terrible things will happen to the impenitent. Terrible things that could be avoided if God would just leave things alone.

We see here one fruit of this hermeneutic. Universal and arbitrary application of a limited principle is not good. Using this same methodology we could come to all sorts of foolishness.

The Bible says Jesus died for our sins. But just because we don't know of any place that says Jesus didn't do that, does that mean He did?

The Bible says sin will not rise again. But just because we don't know of any place that says it will rise again, does that mean it won't?

The Bible says Jesus is preparing a place for us to stay with Him. But just because we don't know of any place that says He isn't, does that mean He is?

The Bible says X. But just because we don't know of any place that says !X, does that mean X?

Essentially, the principle you espouse is that even though God said X, you won't necessarily believe it, even if you have no statement otherwise.

That's a bit too "progressive" for me. If God said X, I will believe X. Only if God says !X will I start thinking that there's something else going on. The default is to believe God's words as is.

No.



As you're describing it, yes.



Let's start with the one side, and see if we agree that. Do you agree that setting someone on fire for many hours or many days for the purpose of making them suffer is terrible?



It's necessary for the universe as a whole to voice their opinion in regards to the Great Controversy. The lost are a part of this.



I think this is an odd way of looking at it. Also wrong. I think the right way to look at it is that terrible things happen as a consequence of sin, that people could avoid the results of sin if they chose not to cling to it. Sin is the enemy, not God. That is, these terrible things could be avoided if the lost chose not to do the things which results in them. The terrible things are not things which God does to them, but are things which are the results of their own choices. DA 764 makes this precise point repeatedly.

This isn't what's being said. What's being said is that the Bible often presents God as doing that which He permits. So how do you know, if the Bible says something, that God actually did it instead of permitting it?

Here you say, "If God said X, I will believe X. Only if God says !X will I start thinking that there's something else going on." But this is often not the case, right? For example:

a.Did God cause David to number Israel?
b.Did God destroy Jerusalem in A. D. 70?
c.Did God send fiery serpents upon the Israelites?
d.Did God send lying spirits to Ahab?
e.Did God harden Pharaoh's heart?
f.Did God kill Saul?
g.Does God send lies to people so they won't believe the truth?
h.Does God blind people so they won't see and repent?
i.Does God punish children for the sins of their parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents?

You are correct, I failed in addressing the problem. What I said is no better than what MM said.

Could you address the problem better than I did?

MM says the Bible says X. There are many places where it says !X. Only in those specific places will he believe !X.


A dog is an mammal.
A cat is an mammal.
A cow is an mammal.
A horse is an mammal.
They all have four legs and hair.

If we should come across a new organism that looks similar with four legs and hair, until proven differently, would it be out of line to think it is a mammal, too, without requiring a specific statement as such?

No, this isn't it. There are two principles to consider. One is what you're saying, which is:

1.If inspiration says God did something, then He did it, unless somewhere in inspiration it says that He didn't.

2.The Bible often presents God as doing that which He permits. We must determine on the basis of principles we know to be true, and similar examples, whether God did the given thing or not.

Consider the case of God's sending the fiery serpents. Under your principle, principle 1, taking just the Bible, you'd have to conclude that God did this, since it nowhere says He didn't.

Using principle 2, we would come to the conclusion that He didn't, and the SOP verifies this is the case.

So any non-SDA, using principle 1, believes an error. Only SDA's believe the truth, because only SDA's have the SOP. So the Bible is not enough to ascertain the truth, according to principle 1.

Even more striking is the destruction of Jerusalem. In both the parable of the murdered son, and the wedding garment, it says that God would destroy Jerusalem. Yet from "The Great Controversy" we read:



Following principle 1, we would led to conclude that God did something which He didn't do, which the "great deceiver" accused God of, seeking to conceal his own work.

And this is the big problem with Principle 1. It leads to us ascribing to God that which He does not do, sometimes even leading to confusing God's work for Satan's work.

Let's go back to what you said:



The problem with this statement is that there *are* statements elsewhere. There doesn't have to be a specific statement for each and every case (such as the fiery serpents, or the destruction of Jerusalem), but there are statements in the form of principles, and we can apply the principles to other cases. That's what's great about principles. You don't have to have every single case spelled out. You can apply the principles to other cases, using the ones which are spelled out as examples for how they should be applied.

For example, from Scripture we read that Christ is the express image of the Father, and when we've seen Him, we've seen the Father. Therefore we can learn what the Father is like by examining Christ. What was Christ's attitude about violence? What were His teachings regarding it? How did He Himself act? How did He treat others? What did He do when He was attacked? From studying Christ, we can learn how God views violence, and how He acts.

From the SOP we read principles like the following:

1.The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government.
2.Compelling power is only found under the government of Satan. The Lord's principles are not of this order.
3.God destroys no man.
4.Satan is the destroyer. The Lord is the restorer.
5.God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown.

And so forth.

On top of this, we have very an extremely detailed case study to learn how to apply the afore mentioned principles from "The Great Controversy" chapter one. A whole chapter, and a long one at that, explains in detail the principles involved in the destruction of Jerusalem. We learn that the great deceiver attempts to conceal his own work by presenting God as doing that which he permits himself to do. We learn that when the Spirit of God is persistently resisted, eventually he leaves those who reject Him to the result of their choice.

We have other, less detailed examples, to guide us as well, including the sending of the fiery serpents (they were there all the time; God simply withdrew His protection from them).

So why should it be necessary for God to go through each and every case for us before we believe the principles? We have enough evidence to understand how God works. It's not necessary for every case to be explained.