Forums118
Topics9,234
Posts196,242
Members1,327
|
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
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
5 registered members (dedication, Karen Y, Daryl, 2 invisible),
2,513
guests, and 16
spiders. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death?
[Re: Tom]
#132651
04/13/11 03:03 PM
04/13/11 03:03 PM
|
OP
SDA Charter Member Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
1. In the OT, why did Jesus command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle?
M: Seems to me you believe Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in battle because 1) the Jews failed to trust Jesus to defeat their enemies in a godly way, and 2) the Jews expected Him to think and behave like a pagan god. Do you agree with my assessment of your view as it relates to the question above?
T: No, of course not. But surely you must know that.
M: Please elaborate.
T: Consider the story of the father/hunter. What was the father's will in regards to his son? What did the father do and say to his son? Could his words be misconstrued by someone overhearing the conversation? If you don't remember the story, I can refresh hour memory. In the humane hunter illustration the father raised his son to abhor killing animals. Later on, when the son craved to kill animals, the father taught him how to kill animals in the most humane manner. Those who would have overheard the father teaching his son how to kill animals humanely would have heard him mingling pleading with his son not to do it and the son begging his father to let him do it. Or, are you assuming the father would not have mingled teaching his son how to hunt humanely with gently reminding him it is contrary to his will and wishes? Now, let’s take two common stories from the Bible and apply the principle of the humane hunter. Story One: Fire blazed out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned N&A alive. Story Two: Elijah prayed twice for fire to consume two separate bands of fifty and twice “the fire of God came down from heaven” and burned them alive. Please apply the principles of the humane hunter to these two stories. M: Was Jesus, while here in the flesh (as opposed to after He returned to heaven), forced to command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle?
T: What are the principles laid out in GC 35-37? That's the important question. Did Jesus Christ teach and embody these principles? Yes, He did. Where we're disagreeing is in regards to what we think God is like. I believe God's character was revealed fully by Jesus Christ, and the best revelation was the cross. Rather than use force to get His way, Jesus Christ voluntarily submitted to torture and a horrible death from the very creatures He came to save. This is what God is like. Not just sometimes, but all the time. The principles explained in GC 35-37 are in harmony with what Jesus Christ revealed. Your perceptions of God's character appear to me to be schizophrenic. Some of the time, as it appears to me you see things, He exhibits the qualities Jesus Christ embodied on earth, especially at the cross, but other times He acts indistinguishably from Satan, leaving us with no means to know who is acting.
M: I don’t understand how your response answers the question above.
T: I explained the principles I felt your question was trying to get at. Your question was simply a yes/no question, of which a one-word answer wouldn't be very useful, I didn't feel. You've asked many questions similar to the above, and each time it appears to me the motivation is to argue why the SOP statement that "all that man can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son" is false. You've already stated categorically that it doesn't include "His strange act." Perhaps your question above is another manifestation of this same point. Well, we're simply in disagreement regarding this point. I think the statement that all we need to know, or can know, of God was revealed in the life and character of Jesus Christ is 100% true, including "His strange act," or anything else regarding God's character that one can think of. It is obvious Jesus did not, while here in the flesh, command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle. Nobody in their right mind would argue otherwise. With this in mind I am compelled to ask – Why did the OT Jesus command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle? I have no idea what your answer is to this question. I’m not even sure if you agree Jesus did so. Your continual reference to the humane hunter illustration implies you do, which suggests you believe Jesus did in fact command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle. If so, according to your view of God, doesn’t it mean Jesus commanded them to do something diametrically opposed to the will of God? 2. In the OT, why did Jesus command godly people to kill ungodly people through the execution of capital punishment?
T: You repeated yourself.
M: Why do you think so?
T: Because you asked the same question twice! Look at your post. Here are the two questions I asked above: 1. In the OT, why did Jesus command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle?
Was Jesus, while here in the flesh (as opposed to after He returned to heaven), forced to command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle? Why do you think these questions are a repetition of the one above? Do you believe killing enemy soldiers in battle and killing citizens through the execution of capital punishment are the same things? M: Was Jesus, while here in the flesh (as opposed to after He returned to heaven), forced to command godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment?
T: What's your argument here? That since Jesus Christ, while here in the flesh, wasn't forced to command godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment, it therefore follows that it's not the case that all that we can know of God was revealed by Him? I can't think of why you would ask this question otherwise. Why not just set forth your argument?
M: You wrote, “Jesus Christ, while here in the flesh, wasn't forced to command godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment.”
T: It's really confusing to read something like this. I didn't write this. You wrote this.
M: Is this your answer to the question above?
T: No. No one in their right mind would argue Jesus, while here in the flesh, commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment. M: In response to your question, I believe the OT Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment, and the fact the NT Jesus did not do so makes it clear He did not demonstrate this attribute of God’s character while here in the flesh.
T: Ok, you disagree with Ellen White's statement. I agree with it, and disagree with you. I think you're misunderstanding what an attribute of God's character is. At "attribute" is “a quality or feature regarded as a characteristic or inherent part of someone or something.” In regards to God's character, these would be things like "mercy, compassion, integrity" and so forth. You are jumping to conclusions. Just because I believe Jesus, while here in the flesh, never commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment, it doesn’t mean I believe He opposed capital punishment. He often spoke about it. “Cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth when the Son of man shall come in his glory.” Exodus 22:20 He that sacrificeth unto [any] god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed. Numbers 15:35 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. Deuteronomy 2:34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain: 20:17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; [namely], the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee: Joshua 10:40 So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. M: Seems to me you believe Jesus was reluctantly willing to command the kinds of things described in the passages above for as long as it would take Him to teach the Jews how to "turn the other cheek"? Is this what you believe? T: I believe, as I've said so many times, that for us to properly interpret Scripture, we need to know God's character. I believe that the first order of business is to study the life and character of His Son, whose "whole purpose" was "the revelation of God." What is it that Jesus Christ revealed? What was Jesus Christ like? How did He treat His enemies? I don't believe that He acted any differently in the Old Testament than while here in the flesh. Do you? M: Do the scriptures above require interpretation? Ellen wrote, “The language of the Bible should be explained according to its obvious meaning, unless a symbol or figure is employed.” {GC 598.3} “If we would not build our hopes of heaven upon a false foundation we must accept the Bible as it reads and believe that the Lord means what He says.” {5T 171.1} You seem to be saying, no, we cannot take the passages above at face value because . . . . If so, why not? T: She also counseled us to compare Scripture with Scripture. She wrote a lot about how erroneous ideas can be obtained in regards to Scripture. She wrote a lot in regards to the importance of understanding God's character. I've stated many times that a proper understanding of God's character is paramount to properly understanding Scripture. Do you disagree with this? Assuming you don't, this begs the question of how we should obtain an knowledge of God's character. I believe the foundation must be Jesus Christ. Ellen White wrote it would be well for us to spend a thoughtful hour each day meditating upon the life of Christ, taking each scene point by point, especially the last scenes. Why? So that we may understand God's character. Everything hinges on this point. This is what the whole Great Controversy is about. The most important aspect of faith is our mental picture of God...(O)ur actual picture of God, not our theoretical knowledge about God, most influences how we feel about Him. It's impossible to enjoy a genuinely passionate and loving relationship with God when our mental picture of Him doesn't inspire passionate love.
Our picture of God not only influences our emotional response to God, it strongly influences our understanding of everything else in our life. (Boyd; "Is God to Blame?" p. 21) Also it strongly influences our understanding of Scripture. I also believe a proper understanding of God's character, especially through the life and teachings of Jesus, is paramount to properly understanding the Bible, especially as it pertains to all the killing and destruction. The passages I posted above are too plainly worded to assume they mean something other than what they obviously mean. Jesus did indeed command the things described in those passages. There is no doubt about it. No one in their right mind would argue otherwise. The question is – Why did Jesus command such things? Why did a loving, merciful, compassionate Savior command godly people to kill ungodly people?
|
|
|
Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death?
[Re: Tom]
#132652
04/13/11 04:28 PM
04/13/11 04:28 PM
|
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
|
|
NJK: Jesus did not come to do away with the Law and the Prophets (=OT) but to fulfill them.
Tom: He did so by His life and teachings ("You have heard it said, 'an eye for an eye' ... but I say unto you, love your enemies," etc.).
NJK:Your are quite wrongly causing a mixed up Christ’s statement here.
Tom: I was simply referring to the Sermon on the Mount. You didn't understand this? What you quote was only Matt 5:38-44a. So I logically, certainly did not see the entire Sermon on the Mount here by this thematical curtailing attempt, but indeed an attempt to make two distinct counsels, in two distinct sections falsely seem to be complimentary of each other. NJK: Also where in the OT does it say to “hate your enemies’.
Tom: The point is that the Old Testament was not understood. I've never said there was anything wrong with the Old Testament. That’s not what I logically got from your pointedly curtailed quoting above. It simply said to me that the OT was teaching retribution/vengeance\hate ad Jesus was teaching otherwise. Hence my question to point this out in the OT. What I said was that if we see Jesus Christ acting or teaching differently than what we see in the OT, then there's something wrong. It doesn't sound like you're disagreeing with this, but simply repeating the same thing I said. Your selective quoting does not indicate that. It, as you foundationally believe, hence my direct correlation, aims to suggest/imply that ‘Jesus provided a better picture of God than what was shown in the OT.’ Hence this manifest attempt to implicitly demonstrate that OT Laws on legal retributions were not the right revelation of the Character of God. The indeed were as it was His Character of Justice, and simultaneously of Love for the victim here, even pre-emptively deterring protective Love against such irreparable bodily harms. NJK: He, and where it was necessary, reinstituted these OT contributions where they were always meant to be.
Tom: He tried to correct the misconceptions what people had about the law.
NJK: Indeed as you had knee-jerkly (i.e., through defaultly deferring to your paradigm) done in your objecting comments to the underlying laws addressed in Matt 5:38-47. As Christ implied in conclusion, God’s OT Law, when rightly restored to what it was always meant to be, is “”Perfect” (Matt 5:48; James 1:25) Indeed it thus “restores the soul’ (Gr. “psyche" Psa 19:7).
Tom: If this is the definition of "knee-jerkedly," then everything you write is also such. You can't get outside of your paradigm. My paradigm is what the Bible exegetically, straightforwardly expresses, even above EGW’s comments. So I remain within that Biblical paradigm. You can allow your paradigm to change, however. And this is what Jesus Christ does. He is constantly challenging our paradigm. He presents a picture of God which is different than the one that we presently hold, always and forever. If we are willing, we can allow Him to mold our view of God to that it becomes more and more like what God is truly like. This is proof that you indeed wanted to show that there was something wrong with Jesus speaking of the OT retributive laws. His point was not to become hateful and spiteful even in exercising the legally permitted acts of justice. That’s how he fulfilled that law. That also probably, with cause, came to allow for many pardons where the harm committed had not been done intentionally. The very first step in doing so is to recognize that our paradigm is faulty, and that we need His help. If we think we see, our blindness remains. If we think we are sound, we won't seek the help of a physician. The actual first step to arriving at the Biblical paradigm is to prayerfully endeavor to uphold all of Scripture, as exegetically accurate, and not only choose those which privately seem better to use, as you indifferently patently do to defend your view, especially in regards to the OT. Thus, as done here, this involves also upholding Christ’s introductory statement that: ‘He had not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.’ (Mat 5:17, 18 [NASB]) Tom: Do you think that when we believe in Christ that we, at that moment, have eternal life?
NJK: The Bible [+SOP] fully teaches that with such a genuine faith, our sins are forgiven and will, in persisting in this faith, be all blotted out in the judgement, and thus we can have the unshakable assurance that Jesus will one day in the future let us enter into Heaven to access the Tree of Life so that we can ingest the life-perpetuating supernatural powers contained therein. However show the Second Coming tarry, we can and will die in this life.
Tom: Is this yes or no? Do you believe that when we believe in Jesus Christ we, at that moment, have eternal life? Yes...but fully as the Bible reveals this realistically happens. NJK: As I said, the two compliment each other, and it is manifestly from the Water of Life flowing from the Father’s throne that the needed, life perpetuating “supernatural power” is injected in the Fruit of the Tree of Life. However, without accepting Jesus, Fallen Man will not have access to that physical provision and thus not life eternally. So both Jesus’ statements to this end and the tangible reality of the Tree/Fruit of Life harmonizingly present the Theological Truth of how Man, and now Fallen Man, lives eternally.
Tom: I think this is getting a bit removed from the important question. The important question is, "Is there an organic relationship between sin and death?" (and similarly between faith and life).
NJK:We’ve been down that road before. My explicitly citing Bible/SOP answer is “No”. Sinful man can live eternally with access to the Tree.
Tom: This could only be the case if sin were a physical problem only. But sin involves more than the physical. It involves the mind, and the longer a person lives contrary to the principles of God's government, the principles of agape, the worse and worse he becomes, and this isn't something a tree can fix, but only Christ. I’ll go by God’s word that sinner could live forever over your comparatively greatly uninformed and merely speculative human reasonings and rationalization. And simply restating your previously Biblically disproven claims on Sin and the Tree/Fruit of Life does not suddenly make them true. Indeed it is the God-injected supernatural elements in the Fruit of Life that can make a sinner live forever as the Creator God knows/believes. And I correspondingly see and understand the Fruit/Tree of Life vs. the God injected power in it to be as neutrally inconsequential as a bottle for medicine tablets. It is what God conveys through the Tree of Life that produces this spiritually independent life-perpetuating ability. And Jesus came to make the Spiritual requirement to access that supernatural power accessible again to redeem Man (Rev 2:7). And that will also involve having our minds also purged of sin (indeed tangibly by selective brainwashing) to be truly eligible to be granted access to this transmitted life-perpetuating power. T:If we don't perceive an organic relationship between sin and death, we will perceive what is happening in the final judgment very differently than if we do. We will see the second death as being the result of something God does to the wicked in justice as a punishment as opposed to something that the wicked have brought upon themselves by the choices they have made, and which God permits.
NJK:The Bible is clear that the destruction of the wicked in Hell, the Second Death, as well as the General First death at the second advent are both direct acts of God.
Tom: This is simply seconding what I wrote. I don’t see so. As I understood you here and from your previous statement on this. You believe that the second death is “something that the wicked have brought upon themselves by the choices they have made, and which God permits.” I instead see it as ‘the result of something God does to the wicked in justice as a punishment’ as depicted in the Bible. The wicked life choice do condemn themselves however the execution of the condemnation is depicted to be from direct acts of God in both their First Death smiting (e.g., Rev 19:20, 21) and their supernaturally sustained surviving in the Sin Sufferings for their Second Death (e.g., Rev 20:13-15).
“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
|
|
|
Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death?
[Re: Tom]
#132653
04/13/11 04:33 PM
04/13/11 04:33 PM
|
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
|
|
Tom: (quoting EGW) “Christ designed that the Pharisees should answer as they did. He designed that they should condemn themselves. His warnings, failing to arouse them to repentance, would seal their doom, and He wished them to see that they had brought ruin on themselves. He designed to show them the justice of God in the withdrawal of their national privileges, which had already begun, and which would end, not only in the destruction of their temple and their city, but in the dispersion of the nation.”
NJK:It was because Jesus “designed/wished” to have this due judgement justly and deservingly come upon the Jewish Nation.
Tom: That's not what EGW wrote! She didn't say that Jesus "designed/wish" to have this due judgment come upon the Jewish nation, but that He designed that His hearers respond the way they did. Surely you can see the different here, can't you? You are not seeing this because you are narrowly only seeing what your view allows you to selectively see. And that by ignoring the opposing Scriptural testimony to your view. EGW also said there: “He designed to show them the justice of God in the withdrawal of their national privileges, which had already begun, and which would end, not only in the destruction of their temple and their city, but in the dispersion of the nation.” As I had went on to say (see below), Jesus did indeed pointedly design/wish this throughout His ministry, and did endeavor to have this physical Judgement become the reality for these leaders and the Jewish nation, and that by not helping them/these out of their Spiritual darkness (Matt 13:10-17 = Isa 6:9-13), and that, defaulty, from the very start of His ministry (John 2:13ff & 3:3ff). Indeed Jesus did not suddenly come up with that design/wish at this final moment of His Ministry but had justly laid the foundation towards this end right from its start. In the quote she says exactly the same thing I've been saying all along: His warnings, failing to arouse them to repentance, would seal their doom, and He wished them to see that they had brought ruin on themselves. Tom: The underlined portion is what He wished them to see, which is, again, what I've been saying all along. And that could not have been done without Him actively working to keep them in the dark (Matt 13:10-17 = Isa 6:9-13), as I had stated (see below). NJK: and these leaders that he, throughout His ministry worked to veil, until it was inevitably too late, any element in his public teaching that may help to avert that destruction.
Tom: You're saying that Christ wanted God to kill them, and He veiled the truth from them, so that God could kill them, rather than save them? That is what the Bible says Jesus said and endeavored to do, and righteously in due judgement (Matt 13:10-17), indeed just like He had seen the Father say, commission and endeavor in the OT (Isa 6:9-13). ‘These saving/elucidating mysteries of God’s Kingdom had justly not been granted to these.’ The parable that Christ spoke to them said that God would kill them and given their land to another. So if what you're asserting were true, then my question at the beginning of this paragraph would follow. I don’t get this reasoning and thus do not see what your applicable question is here. And since it is Christ’s parable that is saying this then why am I wrong to take Him at His word compared to subscribing to your view, even if it is foundationally based upon the comments of EGW in GC 35-37. The Bible is the final arbitrator here and thus Christ’s statement here, and as I substantively believe so, supplant EGW’s comments. Even if solely in the consistent veilings of Christ during His ministry then God did indeed actively work to effectuate the judgement on these rebellious leaders and destroy their city. NJK: Therefore this is a clear declaration of the destruction of Jerusalem being accomplished by God's acting directly.
NJK: The symbolism indeed indicates this. However Christ’s actively inducing “designs” as stated by EGW in DA 597.3 in leading these leaders to pronounce and seal their own doom and future destruction mirrors in principle EGW’s understanding of how Jerusalem was going to be destroyed. I.e., by these Jewish leaders having here spoken their own doom. So the future physical destruction could indeed have been sent by God, at least, in part at first and not really contradict the SOP view here. (However for the reasons cited in a prior ost my jury is still out on EGW’s application of this Second indirect destruction method on the 70 A.D. as well as all of the the 7 Last Plagues.
Tom: Why do you think it's right for you to set yourself as a judge of Ellen White's writings? If God sent her as a prophet, shouldn't her writings judge you? Succinctly said. The Greater Light in especially Biblical exegesis. This ascertained light is judging her own, non-directly inspired comments, as they are just like any spiritual commenting by any religious Christian leader/person. Indeed EGW got/borrowed many of such insights from other Christian authors as infamously known in some cases. So I analyse and judged such EGW comments and thought by the Word of God just like a do for/with such others writers. (Isa 8:20) NJK: I don’t believe the SOP [i.e., EGW] ever “corrects” the Bible. That “correction” element is only One Way. I.e., the Bible corrects the SOP. So if the Bible says something and the SOP [i.e., EGW] says something that seems or is opposite to it, such as here that Christ indicated “direct judgement” and EGW “indirect judgement” then the SOP [i.e., EGW] is always to be deemed as wrong.
Tom: Where does she say this? Or is this an idea of yours? Or do you think the Scripture teaches this, that God's prophets should be correct by Scripture? My above specification and differentiation (in bold) between EGW (i.e., the (human) person) and the SOP (the direct revelations of God) should clarify what I actually meant here and thus also answer your question. It is only in direct revelations that EGW’s comment constitute the Spirit of Prophecy and was thus on par with the Inspiration of the Bible. Isa 8:20 states this rule as does EGW’s counsel to make the Bible the Greater and Infallible Authority in Biblical matters. And as I said before, Bible writers had a considerable natural advantage over EGW in commenting matters as they lived in the pertinent Biblical context. The Bible also shows that not everything that comes out of a prophets mouth is the “Word/Will of God/Spirit of Prophecy” (e.g., Samuel (1 Sam 16:6, 7) and Nathan (2 Sam 7:1-17)). I don't see this taught at all. What I see is that God's prophets should be judged by Scripture, not corrected by it. Claiming, as you are, not having a choice that ‘Jesus spoke of a direct destruction’ but EGW spoke of an indirect one, and upholding EGW’s claim over Christ’s statement is making EGW “correct” Christ here. I rather easily see that it is EGW who is wrong here, especially as these are mere expositional/expounding comments of hers and not directly inspired, “I was shown” statements. That is, if a person is speaking for God, then that's person's teachings will be in harmony with Scripture, and will not need to be corrected by it. If the person's teachings are not in harmony with Scripture, then that person's teachings should be rejected, as well as the idea that this person was a prophet. That would make a prophet have to be infallible and inerrant. That is not expected by God for any human that He prophetically works with. That prophet is rather to exercise extreme caution to not speak forth in the name of God except He is certain that God has given that message (cf. Deut 18:18-22). T:What's your methodology here? Is it the following?
1.Determine the truth by exegetical analysis of the key passage(s).
2.If Ellen White agrees with that analysis, fine, but if not, then conclude she is mistaken.
NJK:1. Definitely, Yes. 2. Sadly, Yes.
Tom: Why not conclude that your exegesis may be wrong, or that you may be misunderstanding what she wrote? Because I endeavor to make those choices after I have ascertained that my pertinent exegesis is well-founded. Some exegetical points indeed leave no opportunity of a misunderstanding mistake. And if/when I make an exegetical mistake, I have not problem correcting this with EGW comments/statements as my sole aim is to arrive at and have Biblical truth, and even, as it really only “One Way” can, as I understand it, if that comes to mean not ascribing to a then provedly mistaken comment of EGW.
“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
|
|
|
Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death?
[Re: Tom]
#132654
04/13/11 06:36 PM
04/13/11 06:36 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
T: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.
NJK:I most manifestly, even evidently, see here how your view actually is defaultly faulting and impeaching the Character of God.
Tom: I haven't found any fault whatsoever with God's character, but only your understanding of it. Where have I said anything negative at all regarding God's character, or found any fault with it?
NJK:In the opening statement which you ‘implied’ must be a ‘baseless and deadly extorting, compelling act.’ You know this isn't my view, right? It would be very disappointing if, after all this conversation, you didn't recognize this. T:I should add that, in saying that I find fault with your understanding of God's character, I don't wish to imply that my understanding of it is perfect; not by any means! However, I'm not aware of anything regarding my conception of God's character that another would find negative.
NJK:The problem is your understanding is not strictly and objectively guided b exegesis but subjectively by whatever fits your view and that includes, effectively placing EGW above the Biblical revelation. It's important that our understanding be guided by the Holy Spirit. The point I made above is that I'm not aware of anything in my view of God's character that someone else would find negative. It seems to me this is an important consideration. If we have a view of God's character which is negative, that should sound alarms. In your view, God, for reasons of judgment, hardens Pharaoh's heart, so that Pharaoh has no option in the matter, so that He can inflict judgments of "light force" against him, including killing his son. I don't see how one could find this view of God's character to be appealing. It's important to God that His character be seen as appealing. He desires that the creatures of His hands shall love Him because He is worthy of love. He would have them obey Him because they have an intelligent appreciation of His wisdom, justice, and benevolence. And all who have a just conception of these qualities will love Him because they are drawn toward Him in admiration of His attributes. (GC 541)
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]
#132655
04/13/11 06:43 PM
04/13/11 06:43 PM
|
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
|
|
T:We've spoken some about the plagues of Egypt. The traditional view is that God applied more and more force against Pharaoh until he finally capitulated. I've mentioned that this idea presents God as acting in a similar fashion to someone wanting protection money. Accidents, or plagues, keep happening until the one applying force gets his way.
NJK:As I subsequently responded and detailedly explained, plague by plague in this post, (to which you never answered!),
Tom: 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. I have and will. However, as I see that does not make any difference as you either don’t read them or respond to them. I cannot know when you are doing either one so it is only when you continue to advance a previously addressed and countered point that I manifestly see to be the case either way. NJK: 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.
Tom: 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. This is the perfect case of what I just stated above. You manifestly did not even click on the provided link above in regards to the Plagues exposition. So manifestly, even obviously, you prefer to state your view independent of what I may have said there (as with the pertinelty related “War in Heaven” exposition on my blog) So, as I have already thoroughly addressed the Plagues issue and showed that this view you have on it is not exegetically accurate, indeed despite EGW claim/comments vs. the Bible, then I won’t restate these here again. T:Regarding the flood, a couple of quick thoughts. One is that models creation scientists have developed, the Bible, and the SOP, all agree that the waters of the flood were primarily under the earth. These waters exploded into the atmosphere, and that precipitated the flood. The amount of water released was nothing like any flood we've ever seen.
NJK: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.
Tom: There weren't any oceans at this time, so this theory can't be right on the face of it. What we call seas, the people in Bible times considered as their oceans, indeed not being aware of the greater bodies of water. However that does not mean that these larger bodies of water did not exist. And as the Bible says that the land mass was gathered all in one place (Gen 1:9, 10), then it is most scientifically logical to see that the rest of this planet was one large ocean. So that theory stands and your inherently strange attempt to spuriously discount it is what is obviously and unequivocally not right. 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. The SOP reference, at the very least, would help here. I cannot find what you are claiming. The Bible is clear that there was both a land mass and waters covering the Earth then (Gen 1:9, 10). Those “seas” included the larger, even if unknown, oceans. NJK: 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.
Tom: Once again, there weren't any oceans at this time. Nice, though puzzling, discredit attempt but your are Biblically and scientifically wrong. Furthermore it is probably the flood that split and spread the earth land mass which was in one place before (Gen 1:9) into their present dispersed locations. Tom: These waters, to explode into the atmosphere, must have been under tremendous pressure.
NJK: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??
Tom: 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. I had misread that website reference. The atmosphere actually starts on the earth surface and varyingly expands from 6-20 km (3.5-12 mi) from there (for the first layer from earth - the Troposphere). So to get into the atmosphere they only had to overcome the force of gravity and flow onto the surface. That can easily be done by creating a vacuum if the bore hole is already present. Rain water could easily have been gathered up from the Seas and Oceans. A model that claims no oceans is unbiblical. Tom: Both of the following possibilities harmonizes with the ideas I've been presenting
1.God knew the disaster was going to take place. He could have prevented it, and would have, given a favorable response to Noah's preaching.
2.God was preventing the disaster from occurring, but stopped doing so when His overtures were continually rejected, after the many years of preaching of Noah.
NJK: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.
Tom: The water from the depths below had to get in the atmosphere somehow. The only had to get to the surface and flood the Earth that way. Simple creations of holes and either pointed vaccuum in these areas or enough water pressure to overcome the force of gravty, which is not that much, would suffice to cause these ground waters to spring up. Since the SOP says in PP 99.1 that the springing up fountains of the deep were so forceful that large/heavy rocks were hurled hundreds of feet in the air, then I see that God, as Gen 7:11 exegetically says, actively burst those previously closed fountains open by creating this needed tremendous water pressure as it also had to bore a hole to the surface. Once that opening was forcefully created, then they just continued to flow naturally flooding the earth from the surface up, i.e., from flowing up to the ground surface. There is also no Biblical/Scientific/Logical reason to believe that these waters were always under such pressures and God was actively preventing them from bursting. God would really have to have been doing that since creation, as the removal of the tree of life logically did not result in instant fragility chaos as such. Instead the earth has gradually become weakened. At best the pressure of these waters is jsut as high as those seen in naturally formed geysers. Tom: If God were acting directly to cause the flood, He would have had to cause the pressure in the first place, as well as not prevent the action from occurring.
NJK: That’s pointedly what the exegetical Biblical evidence indicates!
Tom: 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. It circularly does not make sense to you because of your view that the world is in ecological/geological chaos, sort of like a gas filled room waiting needing only a small spark to explode. I rather see that, though under some pressure, (though not necessarily as seen by the fact that ground water, unlike crude oil reservoirs, usually needs to be pumped up from the ground to the surface), the geological condition of the Earth then, indeed before the great flood pervasive damages, was sound enough to contain those (pressurized) fountains. God therefore would not have been actively preventing them to burst, and that from the very instant that man fell. That is not a Biblical view of the effect of sin upon Creation. “Ageing” is not “damaging” nor “unstable chaos.” So God would just have increased these pressure to indeed actively burst them open as Gen 7:11 exegetically indicates. 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." That equation does not provide a Biblically sound scientific view of sin effect on Creation even after the Fall. And where are you seeing that the Devil called “the destroyer”? Rev 9:11? Some quite sound interpretation would easily challenge that view. I also see the that name of “Satan” means “adversary”. I also don’t see that Satan has power to wantonly, even at all damage/effect the geology of this planet. He may however concoct various noxious amalgamations in his laboratories and indeed sow them in nature. However I do not see Him having the power to create geological damages. I see that God reserves that power to ensure that life on this earth can go on with any major supernatural interference, thus keeping the field level in this GC. Indeed since God does not act to e.g., provide a warm climate for believers who live in a cold climate place, then Satan does not have the power to so affect nature. And the reason why Satan can use already existing creation and mix up something noxious and even sow it into creation, is manifestly because God at times similarly “supernaturally” (=higher than humanly known science) acts to favor the agriculture of His faithful people. So that allowance to the devil, probably since right after the fall, was probably in the light of the fact that God had planned to so favor his people when needed, as when living in a place where the climate/weather is not favorable to agriculture. Tom: But you wrote elsewhere that you don't seen any difference between God's sending fiery serpents upon the Israelites, and His withdrawing His protection, so why would you care here, or in the other incidents you mentioned, what happened?
NJK:(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.)
Tom: 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. Perhaps this, on top of what I have already said by now, could also help. Because God is also responsible for what He allows to be done in His name, including indirectly. This however is distinct from Him mercilessly acting in full “passion” and not even stipulating what can or cannot be done. In such distinct cases He turn things entirely over to Satan and the result are direct or indirect acts of Satan. I would Theologically/Prophetically say that even the 2 Thess 2:11, 12 is partly an indirect and God-responsible action of at first as it is an endeavor to have the people subject to it come to a stage where they can be judged by ever deeper following and believing their lies. It does mirrors Christ action to keep the Jewish leaders in their Spiritual darkness so that they can be judged. (Matt 13:10-17 = Isa 6:9-13). 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. You’ll have to give the references where you have seen this with Saul as I don’t see or know of those statements. All I see is that there are two seemingly contradicting account of how Saul died. 1 Sam 31:4 says he fell on his own sword, killing himself while in 2 Sam 1:8-10 an Amalekite claims that he did is. Succinctly said here, I see that the Amalekite came to David with a made up story to get some favor, but that backfired as it enraged David and he was killed for it (2 Sam 1:13-16). So no contradiction here in this. 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? I see it as Justice for God to carry out a deserved death sentence Himself, so I see no problem when the Bible says He does so whether directly or in permitting it. However I do see that if mercy or any limits are to be shown in a judgement, then He will remain in at least ultimate control, overseeing that the judgement is fairly carried out, even if indirectly. He only relinquishes the entire judgement to Satan when no mercy is to be shown. Ironically enough, upon further pondering, it very well may be because God injunctively intended to effectuate a merciful Judgement on Jerusalem, indeed preserving the life of hundreds of thousands, given that the end of the world was not to occur then, as it could have if the NT Church had fully and faithfully finished their work, that he was in control of it and counterintuitively in Him sending the Roman armies under the most patient and merciful Titus in late 69 A.D. In other words, the first siege attempt under Cestus could have been a natural consequence for the Jews withholding their taxes. However God intervened to have that siege/war suddenly end. He then would have wait for the noble Titus to be in position to lead this expeditions so that it would be done in mercy thus not actually ending in total destruction and the loss of all life. 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. I indeed see that when God does something it is because it is not evil. As I said elsewhere, burning someone alive with fire may seem “violent” however I see it as a just method if total cleansing and purging of a sin is necessary. Sure the person suffers a little, however that is the just consequence of sin in general. So that person may up to then have live a sinful life in physically and mentally “painless” ease and guilt-free, as many sinners do today, however in the momentary suffering in the fire, God caused that person to suffer the due physical and mental pain that his life of sin should have wrought, and would have it that sinful course had been allowed to even more fully ripen and be finished completed (James 1:15) vs. the necessary premature judgement intervention by God. 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. That was indeed not His mission/mandate then. So that was indeed not the “Spirit” of God suggesting this to the disciples (cf. Matt 16:15-17 vs. 21-23). And, being exegetically faithful/responsible, the word “Spirit” (Gr. “ pneuma” #4151) is not actually what is one’s character. The Greek word “ psyche” (#5590) would indicate that. The “Spirit” instead is only a blowing influence. The devil, as prince and power of the air (Eph 2:2) also has a similar blowing influence. A person’s character (= psyche) comes to be shaped by whichever of these blowing influences he allows himself to be pushed along by.
“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
|
|
|
Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death?
[Re: Tom]
#132656
04/13/11 07:21 PM
04/13/11 07:21 PM
|
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
|
|
T: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.
NJK:I most manifestly, even evidently, see here how your view actually is defaultly faulting and impeaching the Character of God.
Tom: I haven't found any fault whatsoever with God's character, but only your understanding of it. Where have I said anything negative at all regarding God's character, or found any fault with it?
NJK:In the opening statement which you ‘implied’ must be a ‘baseless and deadly extorting, compelling act.’
Tom: You know this isn't my view, right? It would be very disappointing if, after all this conversation, you didn't recognize this. Actually no. On one hand you never expressed your view on the Plagues and only quote ‘what people generally believe’ Then you tried to oppose my view with this scenario. So I logically assume that this is your view of the Plagues and why, as with most other episodes in my suggested listing, you indifferently choose not to consider it to understand God’s character. So if you actually and clearly stated your view, instead of remaining defensive, then any misunderstanding here would not have been caused. I can only go by what I read here. Any disappointment here is due to such incomprehensible indifference not to deal with the whole testimony of Scripture from your part. T:I should add that, in saying that I find fault with your understanding of God's character, I don't wish to imply that my understanding of it is perfect; not by any means! However, I'm not aware of anything regarding my conception of God's character that another would find negative.
NJK:The problem is your understanding is not strictly and objectively guided b exegesis but subjectively by whatever fits your view and that includes, effectively placing EGW above the Biblical revelation.
It's important that our understanding be guided by the Holy Spirit. Guess what, the Holy Spirit lead to all Truth, and that involves guidance when doing exegetical analysis. Unless one begins to engages in this as they can, the Spirit is quit limited as to what He can impress one with in this quest for truth. 13 years of experiences in this Spiritual reality have made this concretely and crucially clear to me. Indeed, as the Bible and SOP say, it is only as one expends, invests and uses what they have towards the quest for concrete truth, blowing away much of the rubbish that have been piled on by men who have variously refused to walk in God’s advancing light of truth, that more “Light”, Spiritual Insight, and “Treasure” will be added, given and found. The point I made above is that I'm not aware of anything in my view of God's character that someone else would find negative. It seems to me this is an important consideration. If we have a view of God's character which is negative, that should sound alarms. As I have suspected here, your view aims to pleas the masses rather than be as Biblical as possible. That is why you factually don’t take everything into it due consideration, if at all. I am not aim to keep anyone from seeing something negative as I cannot force them to see the actual Biblical light. People will always find something to quibble with God. Just as the criminal hates the police and the judge, well the sinner hates the Legal and Justice aspects and manifestations of God’s Character. Can’t rewrite the Bible, (indeed as some paraphrase versions do) to please them nor ignore Biblical exegesis. In your view, God, for reasons of judgment, hardens Pharaoh's heart, so that Pharaoh has no option in the matter, so that He can inflict judgments of "light force" against him, including killing his son. As I have detailedly brought forth that is what the Bible reveals. God’s full Justice and Love for His people also demanded retribution for the murder of Israelites (Gen 9:5, 6). You only care to see one side of the matter here when the other side is undeniably manifest in the Bible and SOP. I don't see how one could find this view of God's character to be appealing. It's important to God that His character be seen as appealing. Seriously, Spiritually/Biblically-stated, if that means ignoring scripture, then that cannot my Biblical concern. I am not selling anything here. Biblical Truth is not for sale. If you don’t understand this, then it is easy to see why you won’t let Biblical exegesis, which indeed disprove your views be the final arbitrator here, as objectively ascertainable. Marke-haggling, subjective selectivity is not the Biblical answer. He desires that the creatures of His hands shall love Him because He is worthy of love. He would have them obey Him because they have an intelligent appreciation of His wisdom, justice, and benevolence. And all who have a just conception of these qualities will love Him because they are drawn toward Him in admiration of His attributes. (GC 541) Only sound Biblical exegesis, which innately will not partition the Word of God, ignore some parts, will produce this, indeed, foundationally pivotal “intelligent appreciation of His wisdom, justice, and benevolence”. (cf. 2 Tim 3:16, 17).
“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
|
|
|
Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death?
[Re: NJK Project]
#132660
04/13/11 09:55 PM
04/13/11 09:55 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
NJK:Once again Tom, as typical, and it is quite telling to me, out of the many things I countered in your previously expressed objections (too many to take the time to even simply, transparently, relist here), you only respond to what you think you have an answer for, and once again, also as typical, with spurious, irrelevant and peripheral argument. Yet you still see a dense forest. I'm very busy. You don't write at all concisely, and repeat yourself a lot. I'm trying to cover the main points you make. If I miss something, you're always free to bring it to my attention again. Summarizing main points would help. Also, there's a lot of name-calling, accusations, in what you write. I don't see how anything good can come responding to such things. T:Please state these principles in a way that you would consider genuine.
NJK: Summarizing my already stated points based not merely on the SOP, but the Greater (both in content and rank) Testimony of the entire word of God (2 Tim 3:16, 17):
Tom: 1.All that can be known of God was revealed by the life and teachings of Jesus Christ during His earthly mission.
NJK: What was revealed about God by Jesus serves to understand why God acted and said what he did in the OT.
Tom: This is greatly reduced in scope from what I wrote (actually, what Ellen White wrote).
NJK:That is because it is pointedly addressing how this Revelation of Christ principles applies to this discussion.
How it fits in is that Jesus Christ fully revealed the Father's character, so we know that the Father, in all circumstances, acts in harmony with how Jesus Christ acted. Quote: NJK No need to reword/repaint anything.
Tom: What are you referring to? I didn't reword anything, I simply quoted it. I don't recognize it as a quote from anything. Did you repaint something?
NJK:Effectively “rewording” (even ignoring) the Hebrew and Greek ... The context here was me quoting from Ellen White, so this doesn't apply. Quote: Tom: 2.God is just like Jesus Christ in character.
NJK: Jesus perfectly emulated the Father, substantively, as it actually applicable, spiritually, in manifesting the same Character principles.
Tom: This isn't nearly as clear as what I wrote. Does it mean anything different?
NJK:Absolutely! Succinctly said then: Jesus perfectly imitated/emulated the OT God in every form of way. He "revealed" or "declared" God. That's what Scripture and the SOP state. John 1:18 says that Jesus Christ "declared" God. John 17 says: 4I have glorified You down here on the earth by completing the work that You gave Me to do....
6I have manifested Your Name [I have revealed Your very Self, Your real Self] to the people whom You have given Me out of the world. They were Yours, and You gave them to Me, and they have obeyed and kept Your word.(amplified version) The SOP comments on this as follows: Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,—to set men right through the revelation of God. In Christ was arrayed before men the paternal grace and the matchless perfections of the Father. In his prayer just before his crucifixion, he declared, “I have manifested thy name.” “I have glorified thee on the earth; I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.” When the object of his mission was attained,—the revelation of God to the world,—the Son of God announced that his work was accomplished, and that the character of the Father was made manifest to men. {ST January 20, 1890, par. 9} Quote: Tom: 3.Jesus Christ was not violent, and taught anti-violence.
NJK: The God head does not use force to compel love or service but to necessarily and timely execute judgements and to instill a inceptive healthy fear, all to permit this GC to be fully fulfilled by the end of the feasibly self-capable allotted time.
Tom: How is acting from "healthy fear" not forcing or compelling service?
NJK:Because men still have the free choice to believe in those actions or not, This is contradictory. "Free" means there's no pressure being applied against you to make a choice. "Healthy fear" means there *is* pressure being applied against you to make a choice. That's not free. just as equally as they could be marvelled by God’s supernatural signs/miracles and believe or not. These both can produce a “healthy fear” if the observer does not choose to harden their hearts. Perhaps you mean something different from "healthy fear" than being afraid of what God will do to you if you don't do what He says(?). Otherwise, the choice is being made under duress, so is not free. That God does not compel a free choice does not mean that God infiltrates the person's mind to force the person to think and to do certain things, but that external pressure by means of threats and such like are not being applied. Quote: Tom: 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.
NJK: (edited) God uses “supernatural” force to produce judgements and miracles when the natural elements, even present/real threats in nature, would not, even if not restrained, do so, and if eventually they would do so, still not in the needed timely way.
Tom: Don't know what this is trying to say. Do you disagree with what I wrote, that God protects us from many unseen dangers?
NJK:Perhaps a simple Bible example (which you indifferently avoid) will help. I've given several Biblical examples. I've spoken about the destruction of Jerusalem at length. I've suggested the cross as a fine example. We could talk about that. Please don't make false accusations like this. Name calling and accusations add nothing to the discussion. It just makes the person reading what you wrote want to do the same thing back to you. When God needed to instantly destroy Sodom and Gomorrah instead of naturally letting them die off on their own, which may not totally happen and/or may have taken much more time, then He supernaturally intervened to cause fire and brimstones to rain down from Heaven pointedly on the 5 cities in that valley. There was nothing natural that He could have allowed to naturally take place here to timely effectuate that instant judgement. His power supernaturally assembled all the needed elements for that judgement. This is your opinion, but others have a different opinion. For example: "This remarkable happening is stated matter-of-factly, with no suggestion that it was a special miracle or divine judgment. Lot’s wife "looked back" (the phrase might even be rendered "returned back" or "lagged back") seeking to cling to her luxurious life in Sodom (note Christ’s reference to this in Luke 17:32,33) and was destroyed in the "overthrow" (Genesis 19:25,29) of the city. There are many great deposits of rock salt in the region, probably formed by massive precipitation from thermal brines upwelling from the earth’s deep mantle during the great Flood. Possibly the overthrow buried her in a shower of these salt deposits blown skyward by the explosions. There is also the possibility that she was buried in a shower of volcanic ash, with her body gradually being converted into "salt" over the years following through the process of petrifaction, in a manner similar to that experienced by the inhabitants of Pompeii and Herculaneum in the famous eruption of Mount Vesuvius. - Henry Morris (taken from: "The Defenders Study Bible")( http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/lotswife.html) Many feel that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was due to a volcano or some other natural disaster. Quote: Tom: 5.The use of force is contrary to the principles of God's government.
NJK: The use of force to compel love and service is contrary to the principles of God's government.
Tom: You wrote elsewhere that Pharaoh had no choice but to do what God wanted Him to do. Isn't this an example of God's compelling service?
NJK:As I also said there. It was because this was the execution of a judgement and not a “trial.” Pharaoh’s, even murderous, oppression and abuses of Israel was being judged and Pharaoh was not actually really given a choice to avert this.
Unfortunately I don't have time right now to comment on this, but I'd like to discuss this in more detail when I can. I'm interested in your thought process here. I know you've written on this, and I read that, but what I'm interested in finding out more about is how you see what's happening here as speaking in any way positively in regards to God's character. God Himself in the Bible is unequivocally clear that all 10 plagues were going to be fulfilled no matter how Pharaoh responded to Moses’ requests. I disagree. Hope we can discuss this later. (More later).
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]
#132662
04/13/11 11:09 PM
04/13/11 11:09 PM
|
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
|
|
NJK: As I also said there. It was because this was the execution of a judgement and not a “trial.” Pharaoh’s, even murderous, oppression and abuses of Israel was being judged and Pharaoh was not actually really given a choice to avert this.
Tom: Unfortunately I don't have time right now to comment on this, but I'd like to discuss this in more detail when I can. I'm interested in your thought process here. I know you've written on this, and I read that, but what I'm interested in finding out more about is how you see what's happening here as speaking in any way positively in regards to God's character.
NJK: God Himself in the Bible is unequivocally clear that all 10 plagues were going to be fulfilled no matter how Pharaoh responded to Moses’ requests.
Tom: I disagree. Hope we can discuss this later. Though I’ll gradually be continuing to respond to the previous posts of yours that I have not yet responded to, I propose/agree to focusedly discuss the ‘Pharaoh and the Plagues’ issue separately, now. Do you accept/agree?
“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
|
|
|
Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death?
[Re: NJK Project]
#132663
04/14/11 04:26 AM
04/14/11 04:26 AM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Though I’ll gradually be continuing to respond to the previous posts of yours that I have not yet responded to, I propose/agree to focusedly discuss the ‘Pharaoh and the Plagues’ issue separately, now. Do you accept/agree? Sure, I'm happy to discuss whatever you'd like to.
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]
#132664
04/14/11 05:01 AM
04/14/11 05:01 AM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
1. In the OT, why did Jesus command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle?
M: Seems to me you believe Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in battle because 1) the Jews failed to trust Jesus to defeat their enemies in a godly way, and 2) the Jews expected Him to think and behave like a pagan god. Do you agree with my assessment of your view as it relates to the question above?
T: No, of course not. But surely you must know that.
M: Please elaborate.
T: Consider the story of the father/hunter. What was the father's will in regards to his son? What did the father do and say to his son? Could his words be misconstrued by someone overhearing the conversation? If you don't remember the story, I can refresh hour memory.
M:In the humane hunter illustration the father raised his son to abhor killing animals. Later on, when the son craved to kill animals, the father taught him how to kill animals in the most humane manner. Those who would have overheard the father teaching his son how to kill animals humanely would have heard him mingling pleading with his son not to do it and the son begging his father to let him do it. Or, are you assuming the father would not have mingled teaching his son how to hunt humanely with gently reminding him it is contrary to his will and wishes? The father was giving the son counsel in regards to something which was not his ideal will. Someone overhearing the conversation could think that the father was giving counsel in regards to something which was his will. Now, let’s take two common stories from the Bible and apply the principle of the humane hunter. Story One: Fire blazed out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned N&A alive. This doesn't apply. Story Two: Elijah prayed twice for fire to consume two separate bands of fifty and twice “the fire of God came down from heaven” and burned them alive. Please apply the principles of the humane hunter to these two stories. This doesn't either. The story applies to incidents where God is giving counsel, counsel which could be understood as being His ideal will, when it is not really. We see God's ideal will revealed in Jesus Christ. M: I don’t understand how your response answers the question above.
T: I explained the principles I felt your question was trying to get at. Your question was simply a yes/no question, of which a one-word answer wouldn't be very useful, I didn't feel. You've asked many questions similar to the above, and each time it appears to me the motivation is to argue why the SOP statement that "all that man can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son" is false. You've already stated categorically that it doesn't include "His strange act." Perhaps your question above is another manifestation of this same point. Well, we're simply in disagreement regarding this point. I think the statement that all we need to know, or can know, of God was revealed in the life and character of Jesus Christ is 100% true, including "His strange act," or anything else regarding God's character that one can think of.
M:It is obvious Jesus did not, while here in the flesh, command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle. Nobody in their right mind would argue otherwise. With this in mind I am compelled to ask – Why did the OT Jesus command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle?
I have no idea what your answer is to this question. Please consider the story of the father of the hunter son. I’m not even sure if you agree Jesus did so. Your continual reference to the humane hunter illustration implies you do, which suggests you believe Jesus did in fact command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle. Do you think the father of the hunter commanded his son to hunt? Is this what you understand the story to be saying? This is why you say my reference to this story suggests I believe Jesus did in fact command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle? If so, according to your view of God, doesn’t it mean Jesus commanded them to do something diametrically opposed to the will of God? Did the father of the hunter command his son to do something contrary to his will? 2. In the OT, why did Jesus command godly people to kill ungodly people through the execution of capital punishment?
T: You repeated yourself.
M: Why do you think so?
T: Because you asked the same question twice! Look at your post.
Here are the two questions I asked above:
In the post in which I made the statement that you had repeated yourself, you had repeated the same question twice. It's not a big deal. I just pointed this out. M: Was Jesus, while here in the flesh (as opposed to after He returned to heaven), forced to command godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment?
T: What's your argument here? That since Jesus Christ, while here in the flesh, wasn't forced to command godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment, it therefore follows that it's not the case that all that we can know of God was revealed by Him? I can't think of why you would ask this question otherwise. Why not just set forth your argument?
M: You wrote, “Jesus Christ, while here in the flesh, wasn't forced to command godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment.”
T: It's really confusing to read something like this. I didn't write this. You wrote this.
M: Is this your answer to the question above?
T: No.
M:No one in their right mind would argue Jesus, while here in the flesh, commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment. I asked you the following: What's your argument here? That since Jesus Christ, while here in the flesh, wasn't forced to command godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment, it therefore follows that it's not the case that all that we can know of God was revealed by Him? I can't think of why you would ask this question otherwise. Why not just set forth your argument? Please respond. M: In response to your question, I believe the OT Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment, and the fact the NT Jesus did not do so makes it clear He did not demonstrate this attribute of God’s character while here in the flesh.
T: Ok, you disagree with Ellen White's statement. I agree with it, and disagree with you. I think you're misunderstanding what an attribute of God's character is. At "attribute" is “a quality or feature regarded as a characteristic or inherent part of someone or something.” In regards to God's character, these would be things like "mercy, compassion, integrity" and so forth.
M:You are jumping to conclusions. Just because I believe Jesus, while here in the flesh, never commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment, it doesn’t mean I believe He opposed capital punishment.
??????? I didn't say you said anything like this! He often spoke about it. “Cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth when the Son of man shall come in his glory.” Did you read something from some other post, and respond to it here by mistake? I don't see any connection between what you're writing here and what I said. Here's what I said: Ok, you disagree with Ellen White's statement. I agree with it, and disagree with you. I think you're misunderstanding what an attribute of God's character is. At "attribute" is “a quality or feature regarded as a characteristic or inherent part of someone or something.” In regards to God's character, these would be things like "mercy, compassion, integrity" and so forth. Where do you see anything here about you're beliefs regarding Christ's view of capital punishment? I also believe a proper understanding of God's character, especially through the life and teachings of Jesus, is paramount to properly understanding the Bible, especially as it pertains to all the killing and destruction. The passages I posted above are too plainly worded to assume they mean something other than what they obviously mean. The Bible statement that says that "God killed Saul" is just as plainly worded! So is the one that says God sent fiery serpents. So is the one that says that God sent lying spirits to Ahab. So is the one that says that God would send his armies to burn their city (Jerusalem). So is the one that says that God would send strong delusion to those who received not the love of the truth. So is the one that says that the Lord given and the Lord taketh away. Jesus did indeed command the things described in those passages. There is no doubt about it. I disagree with the approach you're taking. That it doesn't work is evident in a number of ways. First of all, it's inconsistent. I've cited a number of examples which are stated just as clearly as the ones you cited, yet you interpret them differently than the ones you cited. Why don't you interpret them all the same? They're all worded the same. Secondly it leads to the rejection of other ideas, such as that all that we need to know of God, or can know of Him, was revealed by His Son while here in the flesh. The whole purpose of Christ's earthly mission was the revelation of God. The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government. Compelling power is found only under Satan's government. God does not stand as an executioner of the sentence against the transgressor, but leaves him to experience the result of his choice. There are a lot of these. If we simply consider the cross, we can see from that what God's true character is, and what His principles are. How does God treat His enemies? Do He turn the other cheek? No one in their right mind would argue otherwise. The question is – Why did Jesus command such things? Why did a loving, merciful, compassionate Savior command godly people to kill ungodly people? What I believe is the right approach is to consider God's character and the principles of His government. These were fully, wonderfully, and completely revealed by His Son. This is why we are counseled to spend a thoughtful hour each day meditating upon his life, especially the latter scenes. Having Christ as a foundation gives us a chance to rightly understand the more difficult passages in Scripture, which appear to have God acting out of harmony with what Jesus Christ revealed. Otherwise we may wind up with a schizophrenic picture of God, acting one way in the OT, and another in the Gospels. God always acted the same way! He *always* acted like Jesus Christ acted during His earthly mission. He's never acted any other way, nor will He. He always returns good for evil, and always goes around doing good. Not understand that there is an organic relationship between sin and its results, such as misery, suffering, destruction of all types, and death, I think is another error that may lead us to wrong conclusions. If we don't see these as related (i.e., sin and its results), we'll conclude that God must have done these things as judgments and/or punishments, as opposed to permitting them to happen. The whole concept that God destroys, sometimes in this way, and sometimes in that, is off base, I believe. Jesus said He came not to destroy, but to save, and this is God's character. Jesus wasn't demonstrating just one aspect of God, the aspect that saves but doesn't destroy, but was revealing God in His fullness. In Jesus Christ dwelt the *fullness* of the godhead bodily.
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.
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|