Well, let's just do some math. Let's say a wicked person commits 1,000 sins in a day. Does that seem reasonable to you? If not, we can adjust it. In one year that's 365,000 sins. If the person lives a long life, that's 3,000,000 sins.

Let's say it takes 10 seconds to review a sin. Does that seem reasonable to you? If not, we can adjust it.

To review 3,000,000 sins at 10 seconds a sin would take 30,000,000 seconds, or a little over 57 years. I don't think the judgment will take 57 years. Do you?

As I subsequently responded and detailedly explained, plague by plague in this post, (to which you never answered!), that “traditional view” and assumption is not supported by the Biblical fact that God repeatedly worked to forcefully harden Pharaoh’s heart starting from the 6th plague and all that for a preplanned “mighty acts” demonstration purpose and to merely to make Pharaoh capitulate.



To me, the SOP’s statement in PP 96.3; 99.1 that the seas and rivers were permitted to overflow their bank was key to the flooding. [Still, as I see it, God (“passively”) did this destruction (and not Satan).] Furthermore, the Hebrew of Gen 7:11 speaks of an inflicted destructive act and a “permissive” one. The word for “burst open” #01234 consistently speaks of something that was whole and was then forcefully divided, split open, torn apart, etc. It is also in the passive form (Niphal), meaning that they did not do this “splitting open” own their own but were acted upon by an external force. The same goes for the “floodgates in the sky” that were opened. Also, after the flood the water covering all of the earth highest mountains did not all evaporate as this would have oversaturated the atmosphere, but probably also with the winds sent by God, was force to return to their previous boundaries. So it seems to me that the water that formed into clouds had been prepared and stored up by God from the evaporation of ocean/sea waters, (and guided towards land for the flood), so that when this great flooding was ended, an excess of water on this planet and its atmosphere would not occur. And the indeed great amount of waters that came from the deeps probably could not be returned back there. So that may have caused more land masses to become flooded resulting in our current ca. 70% world surface coverage by waters whereas before it may have been much less.

The key thing here is that the Hebrew Grammar/Syntax of Gen 7:11 speaks of an externally acting, and intact constitution break up of the fountains of the deep as well as the floodgates in Heaven. And God also acted to allow the seas and rivers to overflow their banks. However, as seen today, rivers and seas only do so because of e.g., earthquakes under sea (= Tsunamis) and or an over abundance of rainfall. So I would see this allowing as being secondary to the caused flooding by the opening of the fountains of the deep and the rain fall. (I.e., e.g, Evaporated ocean waters being caused to fall inland as rain upon inland rivers and overflowing them.) In other words, God then did not act to prevent the in filling rivers and seas from not overflow their borders.



Where are you reading/deriving this ‘exploding into the atmosphere’ i.e., which is at least 6 km (3.5) in the air. Are you implying that this is what was the flood rain fall??




From the syntax of Gen 7:11, as well as the SOP quotes cited by Mountain Man on the flood earlier in this thread (maybe he can readily relocate them), I rather see pointedly active actions of God, [i[acting[/I] to cause these destructive agents/“weapons” from otherwise stable and inexistent elements.



That’s pointedly what the exegetical Biblical evidence indicates!



(Already explained.) Also, assumedly here, we both fully view the Bible as the Inspired and Infallible Word of/from God and (doctrinally) inerrant. So if your view is Biblical, then I would accept it only when it is demonstrated from the Bible (and in secondary corroboration with the SOP, when it rightly does so.)

Even in a sinless state, we would be incapable of knowing all there is to know about God. But that's not the point. The point is that everything that we can know of God was revealed in the life and teachings of Christ. The righteous will spend eternity plummeting the depths of what Jesus Christ revealed (not to mention, having the privilege of His continuing to reveal those same things throughout eternity).



I'm sure we can learn more about it.



Because these are different things. Don't you see that? I can explain it if you wish, but I think if you think it through, you should be able to see that these are different things.



Sure, of course. That's what it says. Well, the context is clearly dealing with Christ in His humanity, so if we accept that this is dealing with Christ's earthly mission, how else could it be read?

You asked if God was free to do things that He did. Obviously He was free to do so, which we know, since He did them. That's what I said. Why are you concluding something different than what I said?

I also suggested that rather than ask a question like this, which is obvious, that you simply set out what you're thinking. But rather than do this, you're just asking more questions.



This doesn't make any sense. You asked if God was free to do something which He did, which, of course, He was. I pointed out that this is obvious. That doesn't put you into any position where you weren't already.



You've read Job. What does it say?



My answer describes the principle at work.

I don't think I could possibly answer everything you write. If I don't answer something, just do as everyone else does when that happens, and bring it up again.



The Bible says that Paraoah hardened his own heart. God is often represented as doing that which He permits. This makes more sense to me than that God did something to influence Pharoah's free will to act contrary to his (i.e. Pharoah's) own best interests.



There weren't any oceans at this time, so this theory can't be right on the face of it.

If you look at the SOP writings, you'll see that she speaks about how the antediluvians believed a flood was impossible, because they didn't understand that there were great quantities of water underground. The key to the flood was in these underground waters. There had to be enough water to form the oceans, which did not exist at this time. This is an incomprehensible amount of water.



Once again, there weren't any oceans at this time.



Yes. This is how the creation science models work which I have seen, and I believe this agrees with Scripture and the SOP as well.



The water from the depths below had to get in the atmosphere somehow.



This doesn't seem to make much sense. The waters would already be under great pressure simply by virtue of being there. God wouldn't have to do something special to make this happen, just like He doesn't need to do anything special to make gravity happen. To *prevent* destruction from occurring; that *this* would require special action on the part of God makes sense, just as God is presently at work preventing destruction.

This is God's character: He prevents destruction. The character of the enemy, called "the destroyer" in Scripture, is to destroy. Jesus Christ, the revelation of God, came not to destroy, but to save, manifest His character (and God's) as "God, the savior."



I don't understand on what basis you think that God acts directly as opposed to indirectly, given that there are cases where God is said to act directly when He didn't.

For example, in one place it says that God killed Saul, whereas in another, it says that Saul killed himself. Indeed, as I recall, the author of the respective books consistently presented God in these respective manners, with one attributing all evil to God (as Sovereign of the universe, God being presented as doing that which He permits), and the other not.

So given that God is often presented as doing that which He permits, when do you know when He is doing something, or permitting it?

What I'm suggesting is we can know that whenever evil occurs, it's never the case that God is actively doing it, but He is always permitting it. I imagine you would agree with this, but would disagree as to what evil is, arguing that if God does a thing, then it can't be evil, which just brings us back to where we were, as I believe acting violently (or what would be termed violently if anyone else were doing it besides God, as you would prefer some other term, but surely something like dousing someone with fire would be termed a violent action, in normal parlance) is evil, and contrary to God's character.

When Jesus Christ was urged to destroy, He responded, "You know not what spirit you are." "Spirit" here is representative of one's character. Jesus Christ responded as He did to the suggestion that He destroy ("The Son of Man came not to destroy but to save") because of His character.

Good example! That make’s one more episode you need to show fits into your paradigm/view.



I see that God directly killed and/or had killed many people in the OT. Jesus had no prophetic/theological need/mandate to do that during His ministry. (Furthermore, him doing so may have been against the imposed Roman Laws of the time in regards to Capital Punishment, hence the ensnaring/cornering attempt in the Woman Caught in Adultery (see {DA 460.5})

[Btw, 8 B.C. is actually the most exgetically and substantively conclusive dating for Christ’s birth and not the popular 4 B.C. date. See here.]



(Already addressed). And what was the health harm that God was always preventing in Herod. Evidently here, you want to use the blanket assumptions that God is actively preventing everyone from dying from some health malfunction!? Seems to me that much more violent and perverted sinners today need to suffer this judgement.



Yes it outrightly, incontrovertibly is.



You are claiming here to have baked a cake (principles) without any ingredients. One normatively, scientifically draws “principles” from concrete demonstration/experiment. Otherwise you do not have principles but mere opinions and opting to not demonstrate that they work in applied/real situation just proves that they were never founded nor valid. One just then has to mindlessly take your subjective word (= opinions) for it.

Since you believe that your “principles” apply to all incidents in the Bible, the how is any list of episodes from the Bible to show this “arbitrary”. Only the selection of incidents may be an arbitrary selection (i.e., from anywhere in Genesis to Revelation) however the incidents themselves are substantively not arbitrary.



Anyone can easily see that this claim is completely irrational. You do not necessarily to prove all of them. Indeed I have selected examples that clearly, in my view, contradict you view. So show that they do not. Perhaps you only think that such clearly contradicting examples are arbitrary. Furthermore, I see much more of such direct Divine judgements in the Bible than even what I now understand to be Divine passive ones.

Also to generally also address the commands of God for Israel to effectuate capital punishments or Wars where total populations were to be eradicated. How is that not a direct act of/from God. (vs. The teflon Mafia don who pleads not guilty because it was his capo soldier who had done the killing. Even fallen man saw that it just to draft R.I.C.O and Criminal Organization laws to close that loophole. Is God less just and fair??



Let’s see if this “cake” is made up of any “cake ingredients”:



Your stance here wants to preclude everything outside of the Gospel accounts. I do not see that this is what the SOP had in mind. Furthermore, you do not address the circumstantial realities, Gospel mandate and Legalities which all variously limited the extent of Christ actions on this earthly mission. Jesus also wanted to emphasize that the low and hypocritical level of righteousness amongst God’s people then made it that just/righteous judgements such as those involving capital punishment could not be enforced. (Cf. Matt 5:20) It indeed was the leaders who were deserving of these punishments. Also, these capital punishments may have been done during the 3.5 years of Christ public ministry, (that is of course if the Roman’s honored them, especially the more religious ones), yet you don’t read of Jesus going to such a probable public execution and saying that it should not be done, and that oddly enough, because ‘God does not condone such direct and inflicted killing which are done for Him and in His name by His People’!?



I see that you are significantly looking at things reversedly. Many statements of Jesus say that He was imitating the Father. As such He also did not act unjustly and thus have someone killed just to demonstrate that the Father had done this in the OT. He rather did just like God and, not doing away with such capital punishment laws, insisted that it be done in a righteous way (John 7:24 - and a “righteous” judgement is not the same as a “just” as seen in the episode related by John in the next chapter.



If this “violence” means malicious acts, then that statement if fully true.



If it means “use force” then a statement like (Luke 22:35-38) could easily disprove this, indeed as the time for this use of capable force had now come. Jesus indeed used light force to exact, or seek to exact, just acts from His opposers and enemies. (E.g., ‘not arresting Him as he was indeed God‘ John 18:5, 6 - DA 695.1). Christ’s miracles were also a use of supernatural force to this similar effect (see e.g., John 11:4, 40-42). This is also just like God to use shades of light force to seek to instill an inceptive fear in man (e.g, Egypt Plagues Exod 7:3-5; 11:9), yet, as seen with Christ’s arresters, man is free to be compelled by this force or not.



That possibly may, to an extent, be the case, however that blanket supposition is not what the Bible and SOP explicitly state in many, if not most, pertinent instances. And the passive destructions of God (God removing His hand from an already formed/present danger - which is not even leaving a person to follow (the destructive path) what they always wanted to follow as this contra-theologically imply that God is forcing people not do right), still do come from Him, i.e., His allowing of it. That is why I now see the God vs. Satan categories instead on seeing this as ‘an Active God vs. a Passive God.’

Indeed the presence and influence of God’s is not doing anything forceful, but is just whispering a Good alternative to the Satan’s evil suggestions. People are always entirely free to choose what they will follow. It is when they commit the unpardonable sin that God removes this good, suggestive influence and these people are barraged with a flood of only evil ideas, hence the spiral downwards into chaos with God then also not intervening to avert the natural consequence of the actions. That is all what is involved in the Four Winds event in the end (blowing upon human passions) as comes from the withdrawal of God’s balancing spirit (=Divine wind). In this way, these Four winds of Human Passions are no longer equally countered by the Wind of God’s Spirit and thus they figuratively are permitted to freely blow upon the earth.



As transparently demonstrated above, they Substantively (=Biblically) and Theologically, even Prophetically not “genuine”. The have proven to just be eisegetical suppositions.



As I see it , that is loopingly, wildly circularly irrational.



So you indeed do need to apply them to a, and according to you “any cases” claim, any situation to see/understand that they would/do work!?



EGW does not state this as an all and all situation, but just a major demonstration of what how man can and do come to cause their own destruction. Still I see that God had a hand in this to limit Satan’s permission here in just mercy. It that destruction had been to wrap up the world as it could have, and was planned to, were it but for the great under achievement of the NT Church as seen in the many reprimands by Paul, all of which is reflected in the message to the 7 Churches, God intervene to have mercy on the Jewish nation, leaving them a remnant, and a hope of future salvation as History continued. Indeed as demonstrated by Josephus, it was mostly/only the religious zealots (a completely unbiblical faction to redeem Israel) who naturally we killed in this war. The rest were allowed by God of a chance at future Salvation, by becoming Christians. (However they were in for more self-inflicted destruction by the next generation in the Bar Kokba Revolt. (ca. 125 A.D.))



Although I see this as not being substantively applicable/contributive to this Theological issue, i.e., you’ll have to state the reasons why you think it is, I have Biblically delved more deeply on what happened at the Cross on my blog. See here.



I have gradually been stating the underlying points thus for this observation. And they indeed are, even it the current in exhaustive stage, quite explicitly compelling. Indeed my main task now is to see how the SOP aligns itself with these many Biblical facts, if it can/does.



Yes you obliviously and misconstruingly, grossly are. You manifestly also seem to just be wanting to desperately believe this. As I know, and explicitly stated, my compelling evidence warranting this stance is from the Bible.



Not defaultly. I examine EGW non-direct revelation statement, as they can be ascertained, even in, e.g., comparing what is written in the Conflict of the Ages series with her previous, substantively similar early works where she copiously and patently, explicitly made “I was Shown” statements (and refrained to do so for the C.A. books which were intended for general distribution. So when my Biblical exegesis conclusively points to a different understanding than non-direct SOP statements I go where the conclusive truth is. EGW also depended on her exegesis to make such claims. That is why she many times had to latter correct some earlier understandings that she had, as she later came to scholarly/exegetically better understand them. A classic example to me is the statement of Christ in John 20:16 which for years she expressed as “Touch Me Not” (quoting her Bible) until her vision on this seemingly only suggested to her that “Detain Me Not” was a better understanding. Yet, if you can handle it, as I now see it, more advanced exegesis, based upon the direct revelation statements in that vision, would seem to say that “Do not begin to so affectionately embrace”. The issue was not receiving worship and not being touched or temporally detained. Thought that act would have detained Christ, yet that really, as expressed by EGW, was not Christ’s main concern in doing this. (See in this post for more details)



There are indeed some mistake in the Bible, though I see them as peripheral. Such as attributing a statement to the wrong OT person. EGW also did the same by attributing a statement of Peter to Paul. There many be errors of numbers in the Bible, I have not examined all of them. I would see these as being clerical and also peripherally insignificant. As I have repeatedly disproven many claims of “Biblical errors” in the Bible through my bottom-up approach to Exegesis (the (conclusive) identity of “Darius the Mede” is an example), vs. there, which resembles yours, assumed top-down, one-size-should-surely-fit-all approach, if you know of a significant substantive, theological, even Historical error(s), then point out a (top) few. I see the substantial amount of errors in the SOP as being much more significant that the very few in SOP and as I said, most stem from a natural scholarly deficiency which is needed today to accustom ourselves and virtually recreate the contiguous world in which these Bible writers live in. Particularly for the Jewish nation itself. EGW herself repeatedly complained for not being a Biblical Scholar. Perhaps this was because of the great effort she had to take in writing her pertinent books and implicating counsels, mainly though filling in/couching in her 2000+ visions and direct revelations. She may have also had to scrap large portion of writings to start all over when she saw that she had made an exegetical error, indeed as seen by her documented/published corrections.

So my view on the inspiration of Bible writers is that it was the same as EGW when direct revelations were involved. However when it came to formulating derived doctrines and theological teachings and/or given counsels, even composing poems, even interpreting prophecies (not uttering prophecies), all of these were left to the best spiritual expression of the writer. God may have inceptively hinted at some aspect of these areas to suggest what the understanding should be, but the full development of them was left to the writer. And in this way where the divine is indeed mixed the human, these Jewish Writers had many natural and religio-cultural advantages over EGW. As I understand it, even in making some prophetic pronouncements, the Bible prophet at times, seeing certain circumstances and theologically/biblically knowing that God surely will not accept this, went ahead and made a Biblical pronouncement against, perhaps being simply moved to do so by the Holy Spirit but not told precisely what to say or even prophesy. The action of Elijah comes to mind in that, at least, the end of the drought would depend on his initiating word (it was not meant to be 3.5 years, but however long it should take). (1 Kgs 17:1 - Jame 5:17 - PK 119.1-121.1). Case in point here, James, knowing oral Jewish tradition may be correct in saying that it was Elijah who prayed for it not to rain, contra EGW in PK 120.1, 120.2 who implies that God told him of this pointed judgement or they may be harmonized with the understanding that God indicated to Elijah that his pointed request was going to be honoured and that He could go and pronounce this to Ahab (cf. his questionings PK 121.2).

I see it as helpful, as Jesus only revealed in full detail what was logically applicable and explicitly mandated in His time. (cf. John 3:17-21). To expect Christ to go through every episode of the OT where God is revealed so that He could specifically set forth what the father’s Character there was is completely irrational and borne out of eisegesis (i.e., an externally imposed supposition) to me. Also Philip, in the often quoted text of John 14:8 for this view, wanted Jesus to have the Father be disclosed, even possibly physically presented. So Jesus’ response to that request (vs. 9) was on point in saying that “knowing” and “perceiving” what He had said was the same as having the father be disclosed/presented.

So this is not making a blanket, underlying statement that Jesus had even clarified (involving the sense of correcting) the Father. Jesus came to restore all things, especially the law, to the perfect standard that is used to be upon.



It’s too bad you want to misconstrue what I said by interjecting a spurious by not letting my whole statement make my point. As I fully said, it is irrelevantly moot to me because “God does not use for to “compel” anyone or anything.” Thus He does not “use for to get His way”. As that expression “get His way” solely colloquially means. God rather uses necessary force to get certain GC-fairly allowed things done, and that includes, the execution of deserved and adjudged temporal judgements. So e.g., the conquering of Canaan by Israel using military force at the command of God was not a land grab, it was a judgement on deserving, perverted and probably sickly, at least spiritually, unredeemable, except through force, nations (see e.g., Gen 15:13, 16; Deut 20:16-18.) Using that needed force to convert them would be “using force to get His way”.



I priorly have responded to that stance of yours. Repeatedly. Look it up and at least read it



Jesus upheld the underlying principle of deserved temporal judgement, and when God decides it is best. And I see that “best time” always being, throughout this GC, when ‘sin has fully mature, [sometimes long] after it was conceived and birth.’ James 1:15 Indeed the life of that sin depends on how long it can live and it the various Light of Truth of God, when appropriately revealed, that come to judge and condemn it. (John 3:19-21).

Individual Jewish people were given until 70 A.D. to heed the light of the Gospel an join themselves to God’s New Covenant Israel. However they, with increasing conviction of its Truth, refused to do so.



I still believe sinner could have lived forever as God said had they had access to the Tree of Life, however, the GC then would be that much more complex. So God here put everyone in this GC on the same level ground by making it that all humans since the fall die. So the demonstration of GC viability is really independent of death. Indeed by living according to God’s ways as seen in the 10 Commandments that even non (Judeo-)Christians observe in some parts, it is seen that God’s way is the better alternative than the “do whatever you please” lawless ways which does typical end up, when various life demand make it so, a survival of the fittest (now under Capitalism” “richest”), even mortal, feuding.



That’s not fully what I had meant, as my enjoined next statement (below) did specify. For man to truly live apart from God, that would me that God can take away His Fruit of Life which enclosed God’s Supernatural, Life Perpetuating Power. So sinful cannot have it both ways. And only by God’s grace/mercy does he now have a chance to regain this Life perpetuated ingredient.



I’ll need to see explicit Biblical/SOP support for those assumptions (in bold). I see that man can at least live up to ca. 1000 years without the Life Perpetuating ingredient that comes from God through the Fruit of Life.



As I see it, once created, then, even variously, not as long (and perpetually) as it could have.



My, indeed pointed point was that I do not see that: ‘God wants unthinking, unquestioning obedience’ or that ‘He want us to do what He says, or else.’ As far as I am concerned, I see that those are spurious issues imposed on God and raised up by those who are seeking an excuse not to believe in Him. So since I do not begin to see this in the Bible, I personally do not see it as affecting my view at all. Perhaps it does yours, which would indeed explain the reasons for many of your implicated stances.



I think amongst especially SDA Christians, aware of the GC, and/through believing in the SOP, thus in this discussion, that should not be a crucial issue in the present discussion. I think it can be fairly, defaulty stipulated that God wants loving obedience from particularly His professed people, as it was priorly stated below.



Those were succinct response to your 5 questions if you really needed them. What I was saying was that. It is a non-issue for me so I personally see no point on involving them in the present discussion. They may be raised by asking specific questions on a episode, however to generally discussion seems as overkill, at least, to me



From a lifetime of healthy Christian Experience and reading about God in the Bible and SOP.



Succinctly said, given the perfect storm of various socio-political conditions, if one, even with only good intentions, thus unawarely, runs up to a President, e.g., during the midst of a manifestation against him, they could be defensively taken as a suicide-bomber or assassin and thus be, even neutralizingly, shot due to the believed threat against the President.



Thanks. I have edited that phrase in the quoting above [bold] to reflect what I had meant to say. I got mixed up.



Actually I meant to mean: only righteously, which involves God also being Just. I think Esau and His descendants can attest to this (Mal 1:2-5). With the power that God has, when He allows Himself to be filled with singular “Passion” to see right be done, no matter the consequence, it has the inevitable result of this justice occurring. In the case of Esau who should have had the birth right, he basely chose to trade it to readily satisfy his hunger need so God chose to indeed grant him the full effect of his trade, which indeed rightly would affect all of his descendants (vs. Jacob/Israel’s blessing). So He was deliberately not given a land flowing with milk and honey, as he actually indeed wanted so. Can’t blame God if he didn’t believe (i.e., at least, Isaac’s presence).



Unfortunately we do not have the same approach, at least here, to arriving at the concrete Theological Truth on this issue. (I am sure you reciprocally feel the same way).

Yes, I was noticing that your supposed difference between violence and ... something else is similar to your such difference between killing and murder. And that is the intent. Or maybe, you could say, purpose of intent.

So, if I'm understand you correctly, two people could perform the same action and depending upon their intent or "the object one is seeking to arrive at", it could be considered violence or it could be considered "force".

So, would you say, that someone who fully and completely believed in Hitler, could justifiably say Hitler was not a man of violence but a man of force?


Nice. So you are saying God won't kill people at the end?

It actually would not make a difference to me as the proof is in the end result. In succinct summary, I absolutely don’t impose the common cookie cutter approaches to the Bible, but practically do virtually original exegesis of each passages. These includes lexis, grammar, syntax, context, etcs, and avoiding general philosophies such as chiastic structures, certain theologies etc. Of course when I am convince my original works, I tend to follow it in future application, so it is really that I found too many holes and inconsistencies in the exegetical, theological and philosophical rules and templates that were being passed down from particularly SDA higher religious education. So I did my original studies in these regards, including in understanding the SOP. It has paid off quite well so far.



My wholistic view is: “All the Bible is included, and Jesus Christ is the corner stone”. Jesus did say that: ‘the Scriptures (i.e., OT) testifies of Him’ (John 5:39; cf. Luke 24:44-45). Which to me means that it works both ways. Both revelations complete each other. (An example to illustrate this perfect reciprocal union is: in e.g., the U.S. political system, when the “perfect” situation occurs for a political party and the have a super majority in both houses of congress and their presidential nominee won the election, the “government” functions as one united voice. However when there are difference parties leading these three seats of government, things can get quite choatic and contradicting.) So in this way OT (=Congress) made up of the Law (Senate) and the Prophets (House) are joined in a united proclamation by Jesus (the President) who does not ‘abolish these “offices” but fulfill them’ (Matt 5:17). Thus Jesus executes and makes a tangible reality what the OT always wanted to do.



Of course such “passive/indirect revelation” of mainly Nature/Creation is quite arbitrary and “speechless” without the “direct revelation” given in the Bible. Perhaps in Bible times man did look at Nature and always think that a “god” of some sort must have done this, however since the view of Darwin, man has been conditioned to no longer have that natural perception thus literally shutting out that possible avenue of communication between God and any/all humans.



That would only be the case in a “divided government”. It seems to me that Jesus believe that the OT would of itself accurate depict and confirm Him and not just vice versa. What I foundationally see from Jesus is that He was loving but also real, among other explicit things he said and demonstrated, so when I read the OT and see clear cut episodes that a natural man would say is opposite to Jesus, such as God command Israel to do capital punishments or engage in military campaign and ‘take no prisoners’ rather than outrightly ignore them as I incomprehensibly see that you are doing, thus to me, discrediting your entire views as being subjectively controlled, I instead give the benefit of any doubt to God and try to see how He was candidly acting lovingly, just merciful in also this.

I think that is where we significantly differ and why I think/see that your approach knowingly leaves too many holes in the final construction. Indeed even with a cornerstone, it you think as a builder that you can complete the God building by outrightly leaving out those blocks, which again, you are doing in many cases, then your building will be completely unstable and worth-less as it will still be unfinished. (Much can even be learned about both God and Jesus from the ceremonial aspects the OT Laws that were indeed fulfilled by Christ. So they to should be part of the building where the rightly fit in the New Covenant context).



As I say it does not just work one way. That is why when I read the OT and God says he does something, I don’t close my eyes and repeat a mantra that “Jesus did not do this” “Jesus did not do this” (especially as I logically understand that Jesus could not have recreated everything that occurred in the OT), but since the Father and Jesus are One, the I try to see the good reasons and purposes that surely were involved in these OT actions. To me saying that ‘God passively allowed destruction and thus did not do it actually destroys the character of Love and Truthfulness, among others, of God. I rather seek to see and determine why and how this ‘act of God’, i.e., whether active or passive/direct or indirect, was done by God while still in perfect harmony with His expressed character which Jesus actually emulated.

-If you go by the “school” that only what Jesus did is determinative, then what is your view on meat eating, since Jesus ate at least fish, if not other clean meats. Indeed the Jews ate at least the Passover Lamb. That is why I see that having the “Real” view of God is quite significant in that He does not always reveal everything all at once. Revelation is indeed progressive an fitting of the times and circumstance, though never in contradiction of what had been said but either in fulfillment or improving complement. That is why the gift of Prophecy (= the SOP) is also enduring as a Spiritual gift. Because when times change God may need to have His message heightenedly adjusted to meet those GC challenges. So when, in the case above, clean meat eating started to become a health risk, God sent a message through his establish prophet that a meatless diet was a better choice from then on. Similarly, Jesus did not minister to gentiles (e.g., Matt 10:6-8; [15:24]; John ) however when that time came, as it was revealed many times in the OT, He appeared to Paul and instructed Him to do so. (Acts 9:15). Jesus knew that everything must be done in its appropriate time. (Acts 1:7). That is why I see that since Jesus did “design” for especially the Jewish leaders, who could and should have known better, to not understand his message and thus continue unenlightened on their path of destruction (Matt 13-10-17 = Isa 6:9-13) and then upheld those judgement predictions (e.g,. Matt 23; Luke 22:21), then I see that he did not do away with this aspect of God’s OT revelation. He indeed showed the great amount of justice involved in it. And it did involve direct and indirect actions of Jesus/God in i.e., veiling the saving/destruction averting messages (Luke 19:42) and then, when the time came, allowing the Jews to fully plunge into this destruction without His Spirit to help influence them to choose the right here. In fact, as I understand it, Jesus, in His parable also left open the option for God to ultimately, forcefully make this destruction occur if the passive approach did not of itself work out.



The problem here is you are blanketly conflating ‘God’s power in execution judgements’ with ‘a force to compel the will’. They are not one and the same thing same thing. In DA 759.1 EGW clearly is referring to the distinct “compelling force” as she says:



Using destructive force at that point when the GC issues were not fully developed and understood would indeed have become this distinct “compelling force” as the surviving angels would have obeyed God simply to avoid being destroyed. However letting Satan and the rebel angels live out their view for a sufficient while and then destroying them in the end in Hell Fire after 6000+ years is indeed not force, though force to bind them and destroy them will then be used, as stated and depicted in the SOP.

Illustration: A Police agency that goes around as a policy and beats up gang members simply because they are gang members and in order to dissuade them to commit any crime that they most likely will do is using force to compel the will. However a police agency that uses even (defensive) deadly force to end a crime in progress by these gang members or to break into their “reinforced gang compound” (e.g., bikers) and arrest them is not using force to compel the will.



Here again you wrongly read what EGW said (GC 36.1). Immediately prior to saying:


She says:



In part here, the operative condition here is “when men pass the limits”. Though this may seem implausible to you, there may have been many instances in the Bible where men actually did not pass that limit. E.g., in Deut 20:10-15, an offering of peace was to be offered to a city that was going to be attack, if accepted, the destruction by God’s command would be abandoned, if not then partial destruction was permitted. So, as I theologically see it, God can step in even before a self-acting “critical mass” stage is reached by sinners to effectuate a destruction.

Yet it is also said in that same passage (Deut 20:16-18) that other nation were not to be shown any mercy by Israel’s armies. Here again, it can be seen that they people who had passed their limit of mercy could and would have remained for quite a while alive and thriving before they reached a “critical mass” stage where they naturally produced their own destruction. However God evidently saw that this was not the best option for the GC and thus actively stepped in through Israel’s armies and immediately bring about that destruction.

You have chosen to quasi-excisingly ignore such passages in the Bible, as if that can be done, however in such a case, I see that it is the SOP that needs to be adjusted to properly reflect what the Bible teaches and not vice versa. That is indeed why I see that this application of EGW if her revelation in 14MR 1-3 in GC 35-37 was variously overstated. Sorry but that is the hermeneutical approach that must be followed that the SOP is always subject to the Bible, especially in such EGW commenting and applications.

In some way, God stepping in to directly act in punishment even before self-destruction is done can be illustrated by a parent who disciplines their child as appropriate when they chose to behave waywardly. Indeed if that child is the responsibility of the parent, lives under their household and/or is destroying the family name/image then they’ll surely step in to right this wrong, especially when tangibly damaging to the family, (also whereas mere name dishonor may not be visited upon by judgements). As with Israel, this discipline occurs more with a child living in the parent house and then the mere dishonoring of the family name is also punished as it implies that these parents are incompetent, evidently having no authority and even legally negligent. Such an undiscipline child may alway lead to their removal from that irresponsible household, especially if it becomes a menace to society at large. So God did have to step in many times to discipline Israel, even using judgement force (again not actually/intentionally compelling force, indeed as it does not even defaulty produce that effect when people insist on being rebellious).

So in summary, that is why I see that God will have to intervene in this GC to effectuate judgements, as the self-actuating, critical mass, destruction stage would not have been reached to even have a combustible destruction by the mere glory of God.



In e.g., His parable on the wedding invitation (Matt 22:7) where as I say, that would be God’s last direct resort if it came to be necessary. The Jews could easily have decided much earlier that saving their city and Temple, indeed as Titus had expected, was something they should never risk, and thus refuse to fight the Romans. In that case God would have ‘stirred up’ a reason (cf. Isa 13:17), even influencing the Jews, or having them influence to continue withholding their taxes, and thus force a physical confrontation. Other places involve His veiling of the Kingdom truths from Jewish leaders right from the start of their ministry as for them, as privilege leaders, their judgement had come. (God continues to work by that same principle.)



I do and that is indeed only feasible by letting God speak for Himself and giving Him the benefit of the doubt that He was acting lovingly, fairly, justly, responsibly, and with the best general interest in mind. After all nothing is done on this planet unless God allows it (e.g., Job’s sufferings), so the question of why did God let this happen, even if it goes back to the initial GC issue of letting sin have its course to demonstrate its character, must be considered.

Point it out to me if I have overlooked something, but as I have yet to see an episode in the Bible where God completely removed his mercy in the Bible and let Satan have his way unhindered (indeed even with Job God drew a line for Satan), I do not see that this singular “Passion of God” destruction where Satan acts without any restraint has occurred. I.e., Satan himself killing people. I rather see that God either lets natural consequences occur, like someone getting cancer because of cigarette smoking, or he himself, in works out a natural way, e.g., military confrontation, to punish evil doers.

I do not even see what E.g., says in GC 35-37 to have fully played out in the destruction of Jerusalem. For one thing, mercy was shown.



I have previously address this and do indeed not see it as superceding letting God speak for Himself in the OT as He copiously explicitly does. I indeed see not justification or rationalization to have a view that imposes the notion that “God did/does not mean what He has said or said what He means. So I do disagree with your subjective emphasis on this approach which has as it foundation an unrealistic expectation to have everything stated or done in 4000 years of the OT revisited in 3.5 years of ministry. Furthermore as John says, many ‘other similar things’ that Jesus said and did were not recorded, (John 21:25), so He may have gone into more specifying details and examples of the times that were recording, including His endeavors to keep the Jewish leaders in the dark and thus on this path towards physical destruction (and all those who would follow them).



As stated and shown above, Yes. Indeed Jesus’ “full and complete” revelation cannot be so, if OT things about God and what He said are outrightly left out!



Also as shown above, though your points may surfacely seem Spiritually sound, I think that your are including in them unwarranted and non-realistic requirements and expectation and thus I do not fully subscribe to them, indeed as I see you applying them. Again, ignoring explicit and clear Scriptures, particularly statement of God Himself, as you have repeatedly done, even if the SOP is stated as support, is a complete Theological non-starter for me, especially as the SOP is to be subject to the Bible, especially in non-direct revelation matters.



Are ‘any”of Ty Gibson’s book all dealing with this subject?? If on the other hand you are meaning that this view of Gibson is philosophically foundational to all of his writings, then I can understand this as, and if you had read my blog post on the War in Heaven, I see that he thus has a completely unBiblical, including against the SOP, view on the War in Heaven, as you also do.



I have Weiland’s “The 1888 Message” book in my library. In general I see that the 1888 message is being wrongly emphasized and it takes the place to the actual practical Gospel work for members and the Church to more fully do, or do at all which would naturally bring about this righteousness. To me the whole thing resembles Jesus’ work vs. the Pharisee’s work. Thus I do not see that Weiland view here, probably being influenced by His general ministry emphasis, is reflective of the true character of God.



I have downloaded Fifield work and others related to his views from this website since you brought him up. And I have to say, just upon a cursory overview that deep exegesis may be a critical issue here.



Due to too many bad experiences in the past, I do not defaultly or fully subscribe to any person’s or group’s view until I have done an original exegetical examination of it myself, and that Goes as high as SDA Scholars, SDA Pioneers, EGW* and Bible versions/translation. So to really convince me, I need to see the exegetically sound and transparently demonstrated, Biblical evidence, rather than someone’s view.

*In regards to EGW, I specifically consider the SOP as anything that she said that is either a direct revelation or concretely, fully agrees with the Bible revelation. So, e.g., when she wrote in 1882 about getting oysters to eat (MR852 2.3), I do not consider this as having been inspired by God’s Spirit!



Frankly and seriously speaking, w here I am faulting you personally is that, as a Seminarian, you should be able to more deeply exegetically examine these pertinent Biblical issues on this topic, yet your repeatedly are showing to me that you, factually speaking, upon observation, are not competent in this regard, despite, manifestly having a graduate degree, which implies you are fully functional in Greek and Hebrew. I am now furthermore seeing this with the Plagues and with the Flood. So I do fault you for upholding and ignoring wrong issues that should have been corrected by you having done the exegesis. Instead I am seeing that you are letting a view control your exegesis, if any. Indeed what I was expecting from you if you do not think that something is exegetically accurate is not a total disregard of the exegetical point, but a countering, sound exegetical rebuttal as to why you think/see that it is wrong. Instead what I see is actually indifferent oblivious to exegesis, and especially in regards to you, being ‘educated and trained’ in this regards, that is not acceptable and actually speaks volumes against the validity of any view you advance because my question at least is, where else is exegesis being totally and indifferently, obliviously ignored. Even a supposed EGW over exegesis view that many SDA’s have, is completely unacceptable because that actually, wrongly puts EGW over the Bible.



Of course your are judging how I treat others by your understanding and not by what Christ actually did. Or are you also choosing to ignore these parts even found in the Gospel of Christ. The word of God is a two-edge sword and it thus sharply cuts, indeed both ways of uncompromising and full Truth and deserved/due Rebuke. Read the full Gospel including the SOP’s DA and allow yourself to get the complete story and not just what you subjectively prefer. Jesus was also Real as God the Father was and candidly dealt with situations in this way instead of acting hypocritically. (E.g, Matt 23:23, 24 -or do you also excise this (Gospel) chapter?! From the “Word”/Revelation of God - (John 1:1)).



That is what I had said/meant by “explicitly expressed”.



As I had related (below), and have said prior to that, in the New Covenant, God was not going to be as close to His People (i.e., His Shakinah Glory in the Sanctuary, and the actually more shielding Temple, which God actually may not have wanted to occur too early as it indeed did hide Him from His people (cf. 2 Sam 7:4-7ff) resulting in an “out of sight out of mind” sin-permissive effect) so swift and powerful judgement are correspondingly not to be expected to be seen in the NT Church, though Annanias and Sapphira was probably a object-lesson reminder that God was tangibly still there.



Is that a Spiritually substantively serious question or a spurious, halved-statement, ‘false witnessing’, impeachment attempt??? (cf. Matt 26:57-62ff)

(A) The NT era includes more that what occurred particularly between 27-31 A.D. Thus was Jesus tangibly present beyond 31 A.D. right through today??!

(B) Jesus was in a veiled form so that alone prevented this aspect of God from swiftly and powerfully effectuating judgements as it in some degree did when “divinity flashed through humanity” even if lightly. (cf. e.g., DA 162.3; 590.4; (694.5); 707.2)

I'll summarize a portion of the post to which I'm responding, and respond to the rest in a more detailed fashion.

What I've said is that it's not necessary to investigate every individual case, that knowing the principles which apply are sufficient. You think it's necessary to investigate every incident which you list. It seems to me self-evident that if you agreed with the principles we're discussing, that takes care of the issue, so I'll deal with these.



First of all, it's not my stance. Secondly, the idea isn't to preclude anything, but to emphasize that everything necessary is contained in a certain place, which is in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.



I think she had in mind what she said, that everything that man needs to know, or can know, of God was revealed in the life and teachings of His Son. This seems very to the point and easy to understand to me.



This is irrelevant, unless it limited Christ's ability to reveal all that man needs to know or can know of God.



Did this impact Christ's ability to reveal the Father?



The "whole purpose" of Christ's earthly mission was "the revelation of God." (ST 1/20/90). From Scripture, John 1:18. "No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known."

The problem is that God's character wasn't known.

Both statements "Jesus Christ is just like God" and "God is just like Jesus Christ" are equally true. The problem lies more in the realm of misunderstanding God's character, however; hence the emphasis there.






The point that you are responding to is that "God is just like Jesus Christ." Are you wishing to dispute this point? If so, I don't see how this last paragraph does so.



It means "violent" in the ordinarily understood meaning of the term. An illustration of Christ's teachings are where He explained that His kingdom is not of this world, and if it were, His servants would fight.



If you would cite what the references say, it's easier on the reader. When Jesus said, "It is enough," your understanding of this is that Jesus Christ was teaching that violence, or force, should be used?



You're saying the Egyptian Plagues were "light force"? Should the 7 last plagues also be deemed "light force."?

In the last plague, the eldest sons were killed. The implication is, if you don't do what God says, more will be killed. To suggest that this isn't compelling a decision isn't a credible suggestion.

If I kill a child of yours, and threaten to kill another one if you don't do what I say, sure, I can say you're free to do what you want, that I'm not compelling you, but that rings hollow. This is certainly an example of my using force to compel you to do my will.



I got the statement from the SOP. In the GC 35-37 passage she says something similar. We certainly grossly underestimate the extent to which we are dependent upon God for His protection.



I don't know what your point is here.

Regarding God's allowing things instead of preventing them, it's evil that is causing the things which God permits. God can't prevent all bad consequences of sin, or else no one would learn that sin results in misery, suffering, and death.



But they may lose a child if they don't. Or get burned alive.



Here are the principles again:

1.All that can be known of God was revealed by the life and teachings of Jesus Christ during His earthly mission.

2.God is just like Jesus Christ in character.

3.Jesus Christ was not violent, and taught anti-violence.

4.There are thousand dangers from which God protects us constantly. Any degree of destruction is possible by God's simply withdrawing His protection. There is no need for God to act actively to produce destruction.

5.The use of force is contrary to the principles of God's government.

So you're saying you don't agree with any of these? (since none of them are "genuine").