Yes, but it's hard to copy and past from books!

Thanks for the reference!



I don't disagree with any of the references, of course, which are all from Scripture. The conclusion that I draw from these metaphors is that we cannot come close to God because we cannot stand His glory, which is His character.

With Moses, for example, when he requested to see God, God said for him to hide in the cleft of the rock, and He would allow Him to see His backside. Then, in one of the most beautiful passages in Scripture, it says:



"Name", as I'm sure you know, designates "character." Moses asked to see God's glory, and God responded by revealing His character to him.

Now why could Moses only see God's backside? Because Moses could not bear to see God fully revealed. Note the issue was not that God could not come close to Moses, but that Moses was unable to bear God's glory. So Christ, God in the flesh, shrouded His glory so that we could behold God's character in a way that we could bear.

Just as Christ was able to come close to sin and sinners, so is God. Just as Christ did not need someone to be sacrificed in order for Him to come close to us, neither does God. But we need the sacrifice of Christ in order to be reconciled to God.



Looking back at what I wrote, it seems like I wrote this:



If you read this as my saying we don't need a balanced understanding of the gravity of sin and the majesty of God, then you misunderstood my point. My point was that it looks to me like the author is not recognizing the lethality of sin.

Was is this statement of mine you had in mind? Or something else?



Thomas, it doesn't look to me like you're reading what I'm writing very carefully. I'm not said anything remotely resembling that God finally has to accept His failure so save everyone. Of course Jesus taught that God separates the saved and the wicked into two groups. Why would you think I don't believe this?



Right after where I wrote "These are good questions, and get at the heart of the very issue." I proceeded to address them.



Moses and Elijah saw the truth that the holy angels couldn't see until Christ's death? I doubt it.



One could ask for enough truth to bring sin to an end, to end the Great Controversy.



No He doesn't! God nowhere tells us that He cannot bear the presence of sin or sinners without death. Where do you think He says this?



Or, one could say, when we know God says things He does not say we must be confused.

However, statements like this don't really help to create the right spirit for a friendly dialog, do they? Perhaps we could refrain from pejorative statements, and just deal with the issues in a friendly way?



This is essentially saying the same thing that God shrouded His glory so that we could stand to be in His presence. God has no difficulty approaching sin or sinners. It is sinners who could not stand to be in God's presence, so God shrouded His glory so that they could.



That's a moot point.

Say I have a theory of the atonement, which is that God is so angry at sinners that His wrath must be propitiated in order to calm Him down (a theory which is obviously not true, and not one that you believe).

You ask me to show this theory from Scripture. I present a bunch of Scripture, and you respond, "None of these Scriptures supports your theory" and I respond "They don't disprove it either." This is a moot point.

It's like saying they don't disprove that the moon is made of green cheese.

You're suggesting a theory of the atonement. The onus is on you to provide evidence for what you believe, not present evidence that doesn't disprove what you believe.



There is already a thread for that (and actually, our conversation here would fit well there), called "is penal substitution Biblical?"

Ok, we'll use this as an analogy, but really, we're dealing about an act that's already occurred, not in on progress. The question has to do with forgiveness, which assumes a completed wrong act has already occurred.

Say some terrible act occurs where a loved one of ours is murdered. What do we do? Do we seek revenge? Or do we forgive? Do we make forgiveness conditional upon someone's dying to make up for the murder of our loved one?

Do we choose "eye for eye" or "turn the other cheek"? It's admittedly, not an easy thing to do, but this is exactly what Christ, and God, did.



Of course blood was necessary. No theory of the atonement denies that. The whole question is why the blood was necessary.

To argue, "See, Paul says that blood is necessary! Therefore my theory of the atonement is true!" is not a valid way to argue. You need to show that the meaning of the blood for Paul is what you claim it is.



It's inconceivable to me that a subject as important as the death of Christ, the cornerstone of the Gospel, is one on which Christ Himself would not have carefully explained, adequately enough for us to understand the truth about it from that alone. It's important to understand what the teachings of Christ are, as it is these very teachings that Paul taught. Paul did not invent new theology, but simply explained the teachings of Christ in His own words.

I see you mentioned several Scriptures, but none of the Scriptures say anything resembling the idea that God needed the death of Christ in order to be able to legally forgive us. People believed for centuries that Christ died in our place, and that we were purchased by His blood, without any hint of penal substitution. The Eastern Orthodox church has believed these thing for 2,000 years, without any idea of penal substitution.

You are used to looking at these concepts through the lens of penal substitution, but that doesn't mean the concepts themselves are penal, just because you happen to view them that way. The question is, how did the writers of the concepts view them?

Historically, the idea of penal substitution did not come into being until many centuries after the New Testament was writing. This meaning of blood did not exist in the world of Paul.

The Eastern Orthodox church split from the Roman Catholic church in the eleventh century, but before Anselm's influence. The Eastern Orthodox church never obtained the penal substitution idea as a result. If that theory of the atonement had existed at the time of Paul's writing and shortly afterwards, they would have gotten it too, the only alternative to this being that somehow the true idea of penal substitution died off extremely quickly, only to be recovered by a Catholic monk at the height of the dark ages.

MM: I assumed you agreed with Sister White. You often say, “I believe it is wise to apply the principle so well laid out by EGW.” Again, here is what she wrote about the will of God as it relates to God destroying sinners:

3SG 80
God controls all these elements; they are his instruments to do his will; he calls them into action to serve his purpose. These fiery issues have been, and will be his agents to blot out from the earth very wicked cities. Like Korah, Dathan and Abiram they go down alive into the pit. These are evidences of God's power.


MM: Thank you for answering my question, Tom. From this, I understand you believe God has never directly killed a sinner. It is true, at least in the following case, that Jesus did not kill the man Himself. Instead, He commanded Moses and the congregation to do it. But I suspect this isn’t what you had in mind.

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.
15:36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

Tom, does this situation symbolize God giving sin or Satan or nature permission to kill sinners? I'm having a hard time understanding how stories like this one fit into the model you advocate.


MM: Is the following case an example of evil violence or justice?


Also, are we to assume that “by the hands of the apostles” means Ananias and Sapphira were killed by the apostles? If not, who or what killed them? And why? To what purpose were they killed? BTW, it doesn't say God took away the ghost; instead, it says they "gave up the ghost".

AA 74
Infinite Wisdom saw that this signal manifestation of the wrath of God was necessary to guard the young church from becoming demoralized. Their numbers were rapidly increasing. The church would have been endangered if, in the rapid increase of converts, men and women had been added who, while professing to serve God, were worshiping mammon. This judgment testified that men cannot deceive God, that He detects the hidden sin of the heart, and that He will not be mocked. It was designed as a warning to the church, to lead them to avoid pretense and hypocrisy, and to beware of robbing God. {AA 73.4}

While Gods responce to sin is an act that has already occured, from our perspective, sin itself is still an act in progress. Maybe you could tell me what purpose the blood had. Since my suggestions are wrong, there is really no reason to rehearse them is there?Yes, if we go only after what Jesus preached about, it would seem his death was not a cornerstone at all. Jesus mentions his death a couple of times but doesnt speak much about it, the institution of the communion meal propably being the single most informative time. The true cornerstone of Jesus preaching is the Kingdom that had come and the Kingdom that will come and how people like you and I are to relate to this Kingdom. It is in the epistles that we read that Jesus death is what grants us access to this Kingdom. So, how did the authors view it?

And why can we not stand His glory? What is it about either us or Gods glory that forces us to keep our distance? Why could Moses not bear to see God fully revealed? Does it have anything to do with sintainted humans not being able to survive such an encounter? If no, then what?One of these days I will have to learn not to quote books that all participants of a discussion have not read. You have not read the book and I can for obvious reasons not quote it in its entierity. So what comes out as a solid argument in its context can be picked apart when you only have to deal with the fragments I can type in for this discussion. I will have to leave this part of the discussion.The "recieve their due" part is missing in your restating the issue. Howcome? So maybe it is possible to come from earth and walk with God and be brought to heaven without understanding the depth of Gods love or His character? I ask this because both Moses and Elijah evidently walked with God and where recieved at His throne before Jesus had become incarnate. Yet if Gods love and character could not be understood even by angels until after the cross, Moses and Elijah could obviously not have understood it. In such case, a relationship with God can not require understanding of these issues and must be based on something else. Then again, if our relationship with God is to be based on something different than understanding His character and love, what is it?And 2000 years later we are still waiting. So we phrase it your way. God can stand both the presence of sin and sinners, but both sin and sinners disintegrate as soon as God reveals His full glory before them. So the open meeting between God and sin/sinners still results in the destruction of one part. The mechanics work a little differently but the end result is the same, the universe is not large enough to harbor both God and sin, and God is eternal. The end result is still the same. God's glory had to be shrouded before a meeting could take place. My wrong for stating my case badly. I posted arguments which you agreed with and concluded that they could support alternative views aswell. The simple summary is that the arguments support both views.

Terrific question! There's probably multiple reasons, but I'll mention here the first one that popped into mind. A revelation of God's character brings with it a simultaneous revelation of ourselves, which we can't bear. We get of glimpse of this in the cleansing of the temple, where a glance of Christ ("divinity flashed through humanity" EGW) was too much for the guilty money-changers to bear. They couldn't run away fast enough. The second time they were determined to hold their ground, but they ran away even faster than the first time.



I think it has to do with character. I think the 144,000 will be able to stand God fully revealed.



Why do you think I haven't read the book?



Ok.



No reason. I didn't copy and past the quote. "Receive their due" is accurate in terms of the wicked. In terms of the righteous, I myself would think of it more in terms of receiving that which God is gracious enough to give. I would not think of my receiving my due.



That the angels didn't fully understand is brought out the quote from the Desire of Ages that I cited. That Elijah and Moses could understand fully the issues of the Great Controversy without the cross, as well as holy angels did after seeing the cross, seems impossible to me.



It almost happened in 1888. More important than our waiting, Christ is still waiting.



There's a big difference between the two views. The mechanics, as you put it, as hugely different. In the one case, God is working to eliminate sin, by revealing the truth. We become motivated as we understand His character, understand what He is trying to do, and choose to cooperate with Him. There is no element of our doing what God tells us to do because we are afraid of what He will do to us if we don't.



If the issue is that we could not bear to see God's glory because of our sinfulness, not that God cannot be around sin without death, that makes a difference to how we view the meaning of Christ's death.



I agree. There are definitely some good things, many good things, in fact, that those who believe in penal substitution bring out.

John suggested that Jesus used a whip He had made out of rope, and John was after all an eyewitness. One would think he would know.As the 144000 are also mentioned as the huge group that noone could count, which was standing before Gods throne, I would agree. I also think that Moses will be one member of this group. However, does not the question still remain for sintainted humans?Nothing in your comments this far have suggested you had read the book. Something they must have understood considering their track record and what we know about their whereabouts for the last thousands of years. I also notice that what they failed to understand cannot have been critical for their relationship with God.

Please avoid sarcasm.

I've read the account. Did I write something that would lead you to believe I was implying that Jesus did not use a whip? I'm not really understanding why you're making this point.

The rope for was moving the animals. Animals have thick skins, and Jesus was not being at all cruel in so doing.





Moses a part of the group? Elijah could be too then, right? An interesting idea!



I don't think so. They won't be tainted (at least, not as Ellen White uses the term. You may have some other meaning in mind though).



What would a comment look like that would suggest I had read the book?



I'm sure they understood a great deal. I just doubt they understood things that the holy angels had not been able to understand until they saw the cross. The angels knew God well, and knew all about His love and character, so in saying that I doubt that Moses and Elijah knew more than the angels I'm not limiting Moses or Elijah. Men were created a little lower than angels. The angels, in addition to being more intelligent than we are, have lived in the presence of God for millennia.



Certainly not, but the quote I cited from DA is not dealing with merely a human's relationship with God, but with the Great Controversy.

MM: I assumed you agreed with Sister White. You often say, “I believe it is wise to apply the principle so well laid out by EGW.” Again, here is what she wrote about the will of God as it relates to God destroying sinners:

3SG 80
God controls all these elements; they are his instruments to do his will; he calls them into action to serve his purpose. These fiery issues have been, and will be his agents to blot out from the earth very wicked cities. Like Korah, Dathan and Abiram they go down alive into the pit. These are evidences of God's power.


MM: Thank you for answering my question, Tom. From this, I understand you believe God has never directly killed a sinner. It is true, at least in the following case, that Jesus did not kill the man Himself. Instead, He commanded Moses and the congregation to do it. But I suspect this isn’t what you had in mind.

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.
15:36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

Tom, does this situation symbolize God giving sin or Satan or nature permission to kill sinners? I'm having a hard time understanding how stories like this one fit into the model you advocate.


MM: Is the following case an example of evil violence or justice?


Also, are we to assume that “by the hands of the apostles” means Ananias and Sapphira were killed by the apostles? If not, who or what killed them? And why? To what purpose were they killed? BTW, it doesn't say God took away the ghost; instead, it says they "gave up the ghost".

AA 74
Infinite Wisdom saw that this signal manifestation of the wrath of God was necessary to guard the young church from becoming demoralized. Their numbers were rapidly increasing. The church would have been endangered if, in the rapid increase of converts, men and women had been added who, while professing to serve God, were worshiping mammon. This judgment testified that men cannot deceive God, that He detects the hidden sin of the heart, and that He will not be mocked. It was designed as a warning to the church, to lead them to avoid pretense and hypocrisy, and to beware of robbing God. {AA 73.4}

I am trying to limit myself. Seems you are on me for it like a piece of old duct tape. :pYour quote suggested that Jesus did not use a whip to drive out the peddlers. Your second quote here below along with your comment on it suggests that Jesus only used the whip for the cattle. I would never have got any of those ideas from Johns account. Yes, I think that is a safe bet. It all depends on wether you want to see the 144000 as some group in the very last hours of earths history who manage to achieve something that noone else in the history of our planet (including Jesus) have managed to do, or if you choose to view them as the invisible church through the ages, first the church militant in facing the battles of this controversy and later the church triumphant having seen the last enemy conquered and bowed before Jesus.They or we? Are we tainted with sin and does the question apply to you and me?You could for instance have made comments that showed you understood what the point made was, or have said wether you had read the book or not. If you have read the book and maybe even have a copy within reach, you would have saved me lots of typing.So now you write that the holy angels knew God well and knew all about His love and character. Having said that, what did they learn from the cross?
But we must maily relate to the controversy from the God-human relationship point of view, if for no other reason that we know next to nothing about any other points of view that exist.