Regarding the post, I spent quite a bit of today working on it. I'm hoping it will be of some value to you.

I think the third option is what I've been suggesting. God was not completely unassociated. He took the actions to allow the flood to happen, or Sodom and Gomorrah or whatever of the incidents we want to consider. So much so that the Bible gives Him "full credit". The Bible simply says God did these things.

However, the Bible often portrays God as doing that which He permits. For example, the Bible says that God killed Saul. The Bible says God sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites. The Bible says God destroyed Jerusalem. Yet we read that the "great deceiver" was really the one responsible for the destruction of Jerusalem! We read that the great deceiver does these things in order to hide his own work. Could it be that the great deceiver has been so successful at this that we can't conceive of the idea that God really didn't do these things?

The problem is not of explaining away events in Scripture, but of understanding them correctly in the first place. First we need to start with Christ. When the question is asked, where in Christ's life do we see anything along the lines of what God supposedly did in the Old Testament there are always two events that come to mind. One is the cursing of the fig tree, and the other is the cleansing of the temple. What really happened in these events? Was Christ really acting violently?

There's plenty of material available to study from the Spirit of Prophecy (most specifically, the Desire of Ages), so I'll let you look into this yourself. If you look into this, you'll find that Christ was not acting violently in these episodes, which is carefully explained.

Here's another thing to consider. Christ said that what He heard His Father say, He (Christ) said, and what He saw His Father do, He did. Where did Christ hear and see His Father? From Scripture, of course, which would have been the Old Testament, since that's all there was.

So Christ was basically saying, "If you want to know what I think of the Old Testament God, look at Me!" Christ's life and character was the acting out of what Christ saw the Old Testament God to be.

So where is the violence? How did Christ miss that? Or could it be that Christ's picture is actually correct, and we, with our violent ideas regarding God are actually the ones that have it wrong?

The way the Spirit of Prophecy puts it is that "all that man can know about God was revealed in the life and character of His Son." In other words, Christ was a complete revelation. What about the part about God where He will violently destroy you if you cross Him in the least detail? How is it that Christ left that part out?

The Spirit of Prophecy tells us that force is not a principle of God's government, that He does not compel the conscience. Yet the plagues of Egypt, as traditionally understood, are the poster child for compelling the conscience. What better example could be given? Just keep upping the violence until you get your way, and who better to do that than an all-powerful God?

The Spirit of Prophecy tells us



How can it be that true religion is the same as false?

The GC quote I cited earlier states:



I believe this is the principle by which God destroys, and there is no need for additional principles which incorporate violence. Violence is not a part of God's government, which is simply another way of saying that God is not violent. God is like Jesus Christ, which is to say, non-violent. More than that, God is anti-violent.

Violence and God have nothing to do with one another.

The bottom line in considering this topic is, "Who is God?" I believe that to rightly divide Scripture, we must take the position that Jesus Christ has revealed fully and completely what God is like, and let that be our bedrock. Questions may come up, but if we stick to this axiom, they will clear up.

What then about Jesus teaching? In Matthew 7, Jesus says that we will recognise false prophets on their bad fruit. A good tree has good fruit and a bad tree has bad fruit, and a tree that bears bad fruit will be cut down and thrown on a fire.

In chapter 13 Jesus explains his parable about the weeds saying that at harvest time, the son of man (ie Jesus himself) will send angels to gather up those who lead others to fall and live lawlessly and throw them into a burning furnance where they will cry.

In chapter 21, Jesus tells the story of some wineyard workers. The owner of the wineyard sent servants to collect his due from the wineyard but the tenants manhandled them all in different ways. Then the owner sent his son, whom the tenants killed. What will the owner do?
The next parable tells of a king throwing a wedding party. The king sends invitations but they are refused. How does the king react? He sends his troops and sacks the city of those who refused to come. Then the king invites any beggar or farmer his servants can find on the roads and the festive room was filled. All but one had found and dressed in wedding clothes, and the one who had neglected the proper attire was bound and thrown out.

The we have the judgement tale in chapter 25 where some are judged good and invited to eternal life and others are judged bad and condemned to eternal punishment.

Where does Jesus teaching about the judgement fit in?

Concerning the plagues of Egypt, most sermons I heard on it did not try to say that God increased the pressure until He got what He wanted but rather that He showed one by one that the Egyptian gods were powerless against Him. Like, you pray to the nile? the nile bleeds when I hit it. you pray to the god of the flies? flies will haunt you on my word. you pray to the sun? the sun will hide its face from you for three days on my command. etc.

Another thing that concerns me I think will be made clear from some examples. In Numbers 16, we read about Korah, Datan and Abiram making a riot against the leadership of Moses. They all gathered outside the tabernacle and God showed Himself at its door. God then told Moses to separate himself and Aron from the rebellious group. Moses then tells the people to go away from the tents of Korah and have nothing to do with them. Then he tells Korah that if Korah dies in another way than by the ground opening up under his feet, swallowing him and his family, God has not sent Moses. Once Moses finnished talking, the ground did open up under the feet of Korah and he and his family was swallowed up alive by the earth. Then a fire from the Lord burned up the remaining 250 accomplices of Korah.

Now, there are four possibilities here. Either we accept that Moses and God acted in mutual agreement and that the ground did open up by an act of God to validate Moses leadership.
Or we say that God did not act in any of this except allowing it to happen, but that the devil was so eager to kill Korah and his family that he didnt care that he at the same time validated Moses as Gods approved leader.
Or then we say that God did not do it beyond allowing it, but neither was the devil involved in it. What really happened was that Korah had the missfortune of having put up his tent on the only spot of land in the area that was instable and prone to open up under his feet and all that had saved him until that moment was God miraculously holding the earth solid so as to spare his life.
And lastly, we can simply say that none of this ever happened in reality and that it is in the bible because some teacher thought it usefull for teaching spiritual lessons.

Only the first option is supported by the text in its entierity. For the following three options we have to deny the truthfullness of the text to a lesser or a greater extent. If for instance it was the devil who was the real actor, Moses attributed acts of the devil to God, an accusation not to different from the one that caused Jesus to speak about the sin against the Holy Spirit.

Also, if we accept here that the text says one thing but what really happened was something different, then how are we to say anything when others do the same in for instance genesis 1-6? Sure the text says that God created earth in 6 literal days, but what happened in reality was... And in this parable Moses whom we attribute as the author was personally involved in the event whereas he was not at creation. If he was not aware of what really happened in an event that he was a major player in, what credibility does he have of knowing what took place before he was born?

Jesus did not walk around judging people when He walked around on earth some 2000 years ago, but at the same time He prophecied both that Jerusalem would fall aswell as that He would return to judge the world. Jerusalem did fall, so who are we to say that Jesus will not return to judge?

Thank you for your thoughts, Thomas.

You didn't really deal with the points I was making, so I would invite you once again to consider those points, which deal primarily with God's character. Is God violent? That's a key question to consider. When we look at Christ's life, we say no. When we look at the Old Testament, the answer appears to be, very much so, as in your interpretation of the Egyptian plagues. You want to pray to another God?! I'll show you!!

Regarding Jesus' teachings, I think you have misunderstood them. One thing to bear in mind is that Jesus met people where they were, and often communicated with people in ways they could understood, to make a certain point. The key point Jesus was wanting to communicate should be born in mind. If you simply look at Jesus' life, it's easy to see that He was against violence.

I'll give you an example of what I mean. In the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, Christ spoke of Lazarus and the rich man being together in the after life. The people he was speaking to had the idea that the soul was immortal. Christ used that idea to communicate an idea, which was that even if He should rise from the dead, if they did not believe Moses, they would not believe Him, which is, of course, exactly what happened.

Now one could look at the parable and say, "See, Jesus believed the soul is immortal!" However, Jesus was simply communicating with them in their own language. His words can be misapplied to obtain the wrong message.

Similarly, to consider one of the examples you gave, regarding the parable of the murdered son (the vineyard parable).



In looking at this parable, we see that it was actually the hearers of the parable that pronounced the sentence against themselves. They were the ones who saw God as vindictive and violent. Christ did not correct their picture of God, similar to not correcting His hearers ideas regarding the state of the dead in the Lazarus parable. Instead He used their ideas to communicate a truth they were ready to hear:



Now what actually happened in the event prophesied by Christ? Did God act the way Christ's hearers had envisioned? Not at all!



Here was see what really happened. So it's evident that Christ was not teaching that God is violent in the parable you cited.

What is God like? That's the key question to be considered. When I look at Christ, I see One who is kind, gentle, patient, gracious, merciful, courteous, and not violent, to name just a few characteristics. In 1 Cor. 13 we read:



This is a picture of Christ.

I believe God is just like Jesus Christ: kind, gentle, patient, gracious, merciful, courteous, and not violent. God is like the picture of love described in 1 Cor. 13.

It's possible to understand the events in Scripture in a way by which God is not violent. Christ evidently understood God that way, because He said the works He did were the works He saw His Father doing, and none of Christ's works were violent.

To give an example, in the event of Korah being swallowed up by the earth, a possibility you didn't mention is that God simply knew that was going to happen. That is, that there was going to be an earthquake, and Korah would be swallowed up by it. God could have taken measures to prevent it, but didn't.

It's not difficult to come up with alternative explanations for the stories in Scripture which preserve the picture of God's being like Jesus Christ, being non-violent. The main question is one of motivation. Do we see any need to do so? Or is the picture of a violent God just fine with us?

If we have no problems with God's resorting to violence in order to accomplish His will, then it's easy to read Scripture to support that idea.

To give a short answer rigth away, what I am looking for is not a violent God but Gods holiness. This is a true characteristic of God and one that I do not think is diminished in the person or teaching of Jesus.

No on is disputing that God is holy. What is there even to discuss?

Is violence a characteristic of God's kingdom? Of His character?

[quote=the cross of christ]
The holy love of God

What has this to do with the atonement? Just that the way God chooses to forgive sinners and reconcile them to himself must, first and foremost, be fully consistent with his own character. It is not only that he must overthrow and disarm the devil in order to rescue his captives. It is not even only that he must satisfy his law, his honour, his justice or the moral order: it is that he muyst satisfy himself. Those other formulations rightly insist that at least one expression of himself must be satisfied, either his law or honour or justice or moral order; the merit of this further formulation is that it insists on the satisfaction of God himself in every aspect of his being, including both his justice and his love.

But when we thus distinguish between the attributes of God, and set one over against another, and even refer to a divine 'problem' or 'dilemma' on account of this conflict, are we not in danger of going beyoond Scripture? Was P. T. Forsyth correct in writing that 'there is nothing in the Bible about the strife of attributes'? I do not think he was. To be sure, talk about 'strife' or 'conflict' in God is very anthropomorphic language. But then the Bible is not afraid of anthropomorphisms. All parents know the costliness of love, and what it means to be 'torn apart' by conflicting emotions, especially when there is a need to punish the children. Perhaps the boldest of all human models of God in Scripture is the pain of parenthood which is attributed to him in Hosea, chapter 11. He refers to Israel as his 'child', his 'son' (v.1), whom he had taught to walk, taking him in his arms (v.3) and bending down to feed him (v.4). Yet his son proved wayward and did not recognize his Father's tender love. Israel was determined to turn from him in rebellion (vv.5-7). He therefore deserved to be punished. But can his own father bring himself to punish him? So Yahweh soliloquizes:



Here surely is a conflict of emotions, a strife of attributes, within God. The four questions beginning with the words 'how can I...?' bear witness to a struggle between what Yahweh ought to do because of his righteousness and what he cannot do because of his love. And what is the 'change of heart' within him but an inner rension between his 'compassion' and his 'fierce anger'?

The Bible includes a number of other phrases which in different ways express this 'duality' within God. He is 'the compassionate and gracious God... Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished'; in him 'love and faithfulness meet together; righteousness and peace kiss each other'; he announces himself as 'a righteous God and a Saviour', besides whom there is no other; and in wrath he remembers mercy. John describes the Word made flesh, the Father's one and only Son, as 'full of grace and truth'; and Paul, contemplating God's dealings with both Jews and Gentiles, invites us to consider 'the kindness and sternness of God'. In relation to the cross and to salvation Paul also writes of God demonstrating his justice 'so as to the just and the one who justifies the man who has faith in Jesus', and he finds nothing anomalous about juxtaposing references to God's 'wrath' and God's 'love', while John assures us that, if we confess our sins, God will be 'faithful and just' to forgive us. Here are nine couplets, in each of which two complementary truths about God are brought together, as if to remind us that we must beware of speaking of one aspect of God's character without remembering its counterpart. (Ex. 34:6-7; Ps. 85:10; Is. 45:21; Hab. 3:2; Mi. 7:18; Jn. 1: 14; Rom. 11:22; 3:26; Eph. 2:3-4; 1 Jn. 1:9)

Emil Brunner in The Mediator did not hesitate to write of God's 'dual nature' as 'the central mystery of the Christian revelation' (p.519). For 'God is not simply Love. The nature of God cannot be exhaustively stated in one single word' (pp. 281-282). Indeed, modern opposition to forensic language in relation to the cross in mainly 'due to the fact that the idea of the Divine Holiness has been swallowed up in that of the Divine love; this means that the biblical idea of God, in which the decisive element is this twofold nature of holiness and love, is being replacedd by the modern, unilateral, monistic idea of God' (p.467). Yet 'the dualism of holiness and love, ... of mercy and wrath cannot be dissolved, changed into one synthetic conception, without at the same time destroying the seriousness of the biblical knowledge of God, the reality and the mystery of revelation and atonement.... Here arises the "dialectic" of all genuine Christain theology, which simply aims at expressing in terms of thought the indissoluble nature of this dualism' (p. 519, footnote). So then, the cross of Christ 'is the event in which God makes known his holiness and his love simultaneously, in one event, in an absolute manner' (p. 450). 'The cross is the only place where the loving, forgiving merciful God is revealed in such a way that we perceive that his holiness and his love are equally infinite' (p. 470). In fact, 'the objective aspect of the atonement ... may be summed up thus: it consists in the combination of inflexible righteousness, with its penalties, and transcendent love' (p. 520).

At the same time, we must never think of this duality within God's being as irreconcilable. For God is not at odds with himself, however much it may appear to us that he is. He is 'the God of peace', of inner tranquillity not turmoil. True, we find it difficult to hold in our minds simultaneously the images of God as the Judge who must punish evil-doers and the Lover who must find a way to forgive them. Yet he is both, and at the same time. In the words of G.C. Berkouwer, 'in the cross of Christ God's justice and love are simultaneously revealed', while Calvin, echoing Augustine, was even bolder. He wrote of God that 'in a marvellous and divine way he loved us even when he hated us'. Indeed, the two are more than simultaneous, they are identical, or at least alternative expressions of the same reality. For 'the wrath of God is the love of God', Brunner wrote in a daring sentence, 'in the form in which the man who has turned away from God and turned against God experiences it'.

One theologian who has struggled with this tension is P. T. Forsyth, who coined - or at least popularized - the expression 'the holy love of God'.


Again,

Yet again,

This vision of God's holy love will deliver us from caricatures of him. We must picture him neither as an indulgent God who compromises his holiness in order to spare and spoil us, nor as a harsh, vindicative God who suppresses his love in order to crush and destroy us. How then can God express his holiness without consuming us, an his love without condoning our sins? How can God satisfy his holy love? How can he save us and satisfy himself simultaneously? We reply at this point only that, in order to satisfy himself, he sacrificed - indeed substituted - himself for us. What that meant will be our concern in the next chapter to understand.

-end quote

What do you think of this Tom? Especially the two paragraphs where I underlined the first sentences. All other italics and fat style text is as found in the book.

There's some interesting points here, Thomas. I can't comment at detail now (at work), but will when I get a chance. One quick comment is that there is a common misconception of what "justice" means in the Old Testament. Here's a web site that discusses "justice" which I have found very helpful. (http://www.sharktacos.com/God/cross1.html, in particular the "justice and mercy" part).

Interesting concepts indeed you provided Tom.

I have some time, it turns out.

I read through this again, and I see some of the point being made, but not other. For example, it says, "For 'God is not simply Love. The nature of God cannot be exhaustively stated in one single word' " yet John did precisely this not once but twice, in declaring that "God is love."

I agree with the idea of conflict expressed, although I don't think "dualism" is necessarily the right way of expressing it. "Dualism" has to do with good and evil, and, indeed, the Old Testament has dualistic aspects attributing both good and evil to God. That God has two dualistic natures, namely love and holiness, seems to me would be difficult to support from Scripture.

Let's consider one of the conflicts mentioned, the one in Hosea. The way I see the conflict is that God, on the one hand, would like to always pardon; that's His nature. However, if God never allows sin to have any consequences, then how is the sinner to know the true nature of sin?

This is a constant dilemma God faces. If God did nothing, we would be utterly consumed by sin. If God does too much, then it appears like sin is nothing, not a problem at all. So to what extent does God allow sinners (whether nations or individuals) to experience the consequence of sin? That's the conflict I see that God has. I don't see that it's an internal conflict involving His holiness, but a practical conflict about how best to deal with the sin problem, how best to heal His creatures which so desperately need healing.

God's natural inclination is to completely shield us from the effects of sin, as God is kind and gracious, merciful and compassionate. However, His always giving in to that inclination might not be a good thing for us. Sometimes the school of hard knocks is just what is needed. In the case of Hosea, the hard knocks school was vetoed in favor of mercy.

The author writes that God must satisfy Himself, in some sense in contrast to Anselm's idea and the penal substitution idea. I don't think this is correct. God is selfless, and has no need to satisfy Himself. I suppose what the author really means is that God must act in a way which is consistent with His character, which, of course, everyone agrees with. Everyone can also agree that the sacrifice of Christ was necessary in order for God to act in a way which is consistent with His character. This is obvious, because if the sacrifice of Christ were not consistent with God's character, He wouldn't have allowed it. So to say that God must satisfy Himself, meaning, as I take the meaning to be, act in a way that is consistent with His own character, seems to me not to add anything meaningful.

We're back at square one. *Why* was the sacrifice of Christ necessary? *Why* was this sacrifice consistent with God's character?

One of the ideas of justice in the Old Testament (not brought out, I'm pretty sure, by the web site I mentioned) is that God is satisfied by justice, which, in the Old Testament is understood as righteous acts (i.e. good, merciful acts, such as feeding the hungry, taking care of the widow). For example:



So doing righteousness and justice satisfies God, or, in other words, God is satisfied by justice.

So how does the sacrifice of Christ fit in? Well, clearly this is the whole question, but to mention one aspect, the sacrifice of Christ is an act of righteousness and justice on the part of God, because in giving His Son for us, allowing Him to die for our sins, God is exercising mercy and compassion upon us.

One final comment is that the Hebrew understanding of sacrifice, as I understand it, is exactly what Paul set out in Romans 12:1



The NIV has



which brings out that sacrifice is a "spiritual act of worship," which I understand is the idea in the Greek of the word translated "reasonable."

So sacrifice was seen by the Hebrews, and other cultures as well, as a sign of dedication on the part of the one offering the sacrifice to his deity. I'm not aware that the Jews had any concept that the sacrifice was for the purpose of satisfying some aspect of God's character, such as holiness. However, God was certainly satisfied by sacrifice, when offered in faith, because this was a sign that reconciliation was being accomplished, which was the whole point of the sacrifice.

I too agree that there is some truth in what this author of the webpage you suggested has written. However, I do not think it covers the full truth. It is one side of the multifaseted diamond and Stotts book covers one or several other angles.

I think you are defining the word "dualism" to narrowly. I have seen it used regarding humans, humans having a dualistic nature with both body and soul. The good and bad is just one way of using the word.

Quoting some other, shorter, passages from the same book.

Under the headline, Looking below the surface:

In conclusion, the cross enforece three truths - about ourselves, about God and about Jesus Christ.
First, our sin must be extremely horrible. Nothing reveals the gravity of sin like the cross. For ultimately what sent Christ there was neither the greed of Judas, nor the envy of the priests, nor the vacillating cowardice of Pilate, but our own greed, envy, cowardice and other sins, and Christ's resove in love and mercy to bear their judgment and so put them away. It is impossible for us to face Christ's cross with integrity and not to feel ashamed of ourselves. Apathy, selfishness and complacency blossom everywhere in the world except at the cross. There these noxious weeds shrivel and die. They are seen for the tatty, poisonous thing they are. For if there was no way by which the rightoues God could righteously forgive our unrighteousness, except that he should bear it himself in Christ, it must be serious indeed. It is only when we see this that, stripped of our self-righteousness and self-satisfaction, we are ready to put our trust in Jesus Christ as the Saviour we urgently need.

Secondly, God's love must be wonderful beyond comprehension. God could quite justly have abandoned us to our fate. He could have left us alone to reap the fruit of our wrongdoing and to perish in our sins. It is what we deserved. But he did not. Because he loved us, he came after us in Christ. He pursued us even to the desolate anguish of the cross, where he bore our sin, guilt, judgment and death. It takes a hard and stony heart to remain unmoved by love like that. It is more than love, Its promer name is 'grace', which is love to the underserving.

Thirdly, Christ's salvation must be a free gift. He 'purchased' it for us at the high price of his own life-blood. So what is there left for us to pay? Nothing! Since he claimed that all was now 'finished', there is nothing for us to contribute. Not of course that we now have a licence to sin and can always count on God's forgiveness. On the contrary, the same cross of Christ, which is the ground of a free salvation , is also the most powerful incentive to a holy life. But this new life follows. First, we have to to humble ourselves at the foot of the cross, confess that we have sinned and deserve nothing at his hand but judgment, thank him that he loved us and died for us, and receive from him a full and free forgiveness. Against this self-humbling our ingrained pride rebels. We resent the idea that we cannot earn - or even contribute to - our own salvation. So we stumble, as Paul put it, over the stumbling-block of the cross.


Under the headline "the problem of forgiveness":

All five metaphors illustrate the utter incompatibility of divine holiness and human sin. Height and distance, light, fire and vomiting all say that God cannot be in the presence of sin, and that if it approaches him too closely it is repudiated or consumed. Yet these notions are foreign to modern man. The kind of God who appeals to most people today would be easygoing in his tolerance of our offences. He would be gentle, kind, accommodating, and would have no violent reactions. Unhappily, even in the church we seem to have lost the vision of the majesty of God.

......

The essential background to the cross, therefore, is a balanced understanding of the gravity of sin and the majesty of God. If we diminish either, we thereby diminish the cross. If we reinterpret sin as a lapse instead of a rebellion, and God as indulgent instead of indignant, then naturally the cross appears superfluous. But to dethrone God and enthrone ourselves not only dispenses with the cross; it also degrades both God and man. A biblical view of God and ourselves, however, that is, of our sin and of God's wrath, honours both. It honours human beings by affirming them as responsible for their own actions. It honours God by affirming him as having moral character.

So we come back to where we began this chapter, namely that forgiveness is for God the profoundest of problems. As Bishop B. F. Westcott expressed it, 'nothing superficially seems simpler than forgivenss', whereas 'nothing if we look deeply is more mysterious or more difficult'. Sin and wrath stand in the way. God must notonly respect us as the responsible beings we are, but he must also respect himself as the holy God he is. Before the holy God can forgive us, some kind of 'satisfaction' is necessary.
end quote

What I read from the webpage you refered to earlier, I wonder if it is not written in reaction to a strawman of evangelical thought on the subject. I note here that I do not know if it is a strawman that was made up by the author or by lay people among the evangelicals themselves. But what I read in this evangelical book I been quoting from is much to rich to be hurt by such a poor critique as is presented in this webpage, at least as far as I have seen it.