Murders depicted in the Bible

[Kevin Straub]

11 hours ago, Kevin H said:

As a freshman at Atlantic Union College one of the seniors would take the pictures of all the students and faculty and turn some into cartoons. One was of a religion professor where he was made to look like the devil with flames wrapping around him and with a beckoning finger had the caption "Who says it isn't literal fire?" I asked about that and learned that a number of our religion professors did not believe in the traditional view of hell. I thought it was just heresy. While the professors did not yet teach it in any of their classes that I attended, after seeing that cartoon I started to notice a little bit here and there in both the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy which started me wondering if it was a heretical as it first appeared and  I decided that by the time  the professors came to teach their understanding of hell that I'd listen with an open mind.

Prior to hearing their arguments I ended up having a "ah ha" moment where that cartoon and what I was noticing clicked into place. It was in American Literature class. I was doing my paper on the book "The Turn of the Screw" by Henry James. One of the books I used in studying this was Eli Siegel's "James and the Children" As Siegel talked about how the children die in the end of the story, I saw that this was the same thing that I was starting to see in the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy about hell fire. Thus by the time I got to the classes on Hell Fire I already was convinced and the classes lead to just a clearer understanding.

After AUC I was working for the Jerusalem Passion Play and Nativity Play of Bethlehem in Israel. While there I started going out with a young pretty Israeli girl. We ended up talking a lot about religion as well as other topics. She understood the heart of the Christian message to  be "Never forgive the Jews for killing this wonderful man." So I spent an afternoon reviewing all I could in the Bible and Mrs. White for why Jesus had to die. Of course I saw how it was connected to my understanding of hell, and it helped my friend understand better.

A few years later while in the Army I was stationed at Ft. Lewis Washington. Besides main line Adventism two other views I ran into there was the "Hope International" and their journal "Our Firm Foundation" (in which I noticed they saw at their authority people who I had read a lot of "sharp" letters between Ellen and Willie White and the men who they idolized). I also ran into people who supported and gave out the literature of Michael Cluke. I was initially excited about Cluke, however as I read his writings I noticed that he had some strange ideas on other views (please don't ask me to point them out as I don't remember and my focus was on this view of hell) and looking at his views of hell I understood his view as having about half the truth but using it against the rest of the truth.

Later I heard of a friend of mine from high school who was listening to Graham Maxwell tapes. I had heard some negative things about him and did not like what I heard. I wrote to the seminary for information and was referred to one professor who was the "Seminary's leading authority on Maxwell's work" (I have to admit not feeling comfortable with that professor when I was at Andrews and was glad that I never took classes from him). He told me to read John Stott's book on the atonement. I got the book and was convinced that the Moral Influence theory was wrong. But I did not find Stott's arguments for the forensic view convincing. They looked just as bad. Neither theory sided with my understanding of hell (and other topics from Bible classes at AUC) or my study on why Jesus had to die to talk to my Israeli friend. Soon after this I got hired at Loma Linda University Medical center and moved to Loma Linda. Since I was in Loma Linda I decided to hear it from the horses mouth and attended Dr. Maxwell's classes.

He and I spent hours over the next 10 years discussing his view, and how that professor from the Seminary had misrepresented him. He lamented how even those who studied him tended to mix what he was really teaching with what they were saying he was teaching. He told me that his understanding was much closer to my view and what was being taught at AUC than it was to what people were describing as his teaching (although he did say that my professors did use more traditional language that he was not comfortable using). Now I will be the first to confess that when I discuss the topic of hell fire I am giving MY PERSONAL understanding that came to me when reading "James and the Children". Similarities to my professors from AUC and Graham Maxwell are clearly there from being in class with them, but I am giving my understanding and how it appears very similar to what I was being taught at AUC and from my 10 years of discussions with Graham Maxwell. My comment is based on my study and Dr. Maxwell's lament as to how he was understood in contrast to what he was actually trying to teach. I am trying to share what I understand about hell fire, but also to defend Dr. Maxwell because of his laments on how he has been misunderstood and misrepresented by so many both foe but was growing among his friends.

I know that Dr. Maxwell did like Campbell's book "Light on the Dark Side of God" but that in our discussions he did agree with me that the book gives an overlooked half of the truth but misses the rest of the truth, but was a more mainline and balanced writer than we understood Cluke to be.

Eli Siegel taught that "All Beauty is a making one of opposites" And in our classes at AUC much of our learning was that people tend to grasp one aspect of truth but it's only one side in the set of the aesthetic oneness of opposites, or they grasp the other side but rarely make a oneness out of them but that the truth is in the oneness.

By the way, although I may be seeing you as again taking part of the truth and using it against the rest of the truth. However, you are on the right track and you are pointing out a very neglected aspect of the truth and I want to thank you for that. (If you want maybe divide the Maxwellian aspects as to how Maxwell has been understood by many vs. an east coast (AUC view of Hell fire ) and allow all four views (rather than just your 3) to be considered. (and again I invite you to read my posts of hell fire and feel free to critique them.) But since I feel that your 3 views exclude the view that both I understand as the truth and that from my conversations with Dr. Maxwell I think that he himself would have felt more at home with this fourth view. I don't know how to make a copy but I have a DVD of a Spirit of Prophecy class from spring 1984 where the professor gives a wonderful description of the trinity, the issues of the Great Controversy and how this leads into a proper understanding of hell fire. If I can find someplace to make a copy I'd gladly send you a copy.

Ok. Well I still wouldn't have any idea really of how to differentiate the Maxwellian view, as I have understood it to be, from what "he actually believed." Maybe I should just call it "the Middle View" and at such time as I would understand that there is a fourth view that differs in a significant manner from the traditional view yet cannot fit into the middle view because of elements of active wrath in the post-millennial phase I could chart a fourth view. But at this time I am not aware of any other major views, save Mike Clute's universalism, which I don't even bother including in my discussions as it is in another category altogether. I know Mike Clute, having had many interactions with him over the years, and his theology is fraught with numerous serious difficulties, Gnosticism, speculations, wild interpretations, and even absurdities. He knows that I soundly reject his work and have nothing to do with it. There is Dr. Lorraine Day, also a universalist. These folks are way out in left field, having taken some good basic principles regarding God's pacifism way too far.

M. M. Campbell released a new edition of "Light on the Dark Side of God," calling it "Light through the Darkness." LOTDSG enjoyed a fairly wide distribution. She decided to do a second edition of LTTD at which time we had known each other for a few years and had attended some of the same camps and conducted a symposium in her city. We stayed in her home and at that time did some work on the final fires. I have a sixty-some page paper that comes out of this, which is built around chapter 42 in GC, "The Controversy Ended." It is called "The Ending of the  Great Controversy: The Fires." You can download it here:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/107170239/The Ending of the Great Controversy_The Fires.docx 

Later, I consulted with Margaret as she was revising LTTD and contributed material to the book (which is credited by a footnote on the relevant chapter, regarding final destructions).

Your DVD sounds interesting. If you don't mind, email me straub AT direct DOT ca and I will give you my address for mailing a copy, when you get the time to create one.

[Kevin Straub]

11 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Thats not fair to get personal like this. Forum rules here do allow us to oppose ideas, but not individual people, or groups of people. Since you have not met "all Adventists," you have no way of knowing this anyways. I was enjoying your posts until I read this.

But in moving on, it is great to have someone on the forum trying to explain Gods mercy, as many do see Him as very cruel.

Tell me something Kevin S, please.

Do you think God would yell at us, or that if He did, it would mean that He is mean to us. Or that He has no mercy?  I realize that you may feel that you "know the paradigm," that i am moving into, but if you would just go along with me and explore a bit, we both might learn some NEW AND EXCITING!!

Thank you for taking the time to consider what I have posted my friend.

lol, I knew somebody would jump on me for that. It is just a generalization, but it is not my own. What does it mean to you that Christ describes this people saying, "You SAY you have it all and need nothing while blind to the fact you are poverty stricken." I am absolutely convinced that the institutional Adventist mind, in general, fits this description. I have been around a while and have worked with many Adventist minds and as a reformer have no different experience than could be expected by any reformer. The constant rebuttals, rebukes, and recriminations present a constant temptation to be nasty in return. This is especially poignant given the content of this particular reform message, which is truly the advancing light of the 1888 message! Nevertheless, its content is so very pertinent to the Laodicean rebuke because this people thinks they have God, when they don't. IN GENERAL, they follow institutional leaders and cling to the standard view of God (the torturing God, the punishing God after the similitude of carnal principles of punishment) and in so doing, are beholding that which is forming a character after a false god. I am not even going to state what that implies. Let the reader understand. But there can be no argument that Jesus, who is the "perfect photograph of God" (MS 70, 1899), is knocking to come in. He is not in the building.

Regarding mercy/love and judgment/justice, I surely do not ever intend to place them at odds with each other. I would fail to understand how this teaching that God's dealings are strictly in accordance with perfect judgment and execution of justice (albeit we see the mechanism in a profoundly dichotomous fashion), ever produces that "saccharin sweet" picture of God, as one lady here commented, or as I heard out of Eastern Canadian leadership, speaking of "Some people out West are teaching about a God who wouldn't harm a fly." Well, these types of things are just caricatures of what we teach, revealing either a disingenuous spirit that is pharisaical in nature and working to prevent others from hearing the message because of jealousy for their own power and influence over minds, or that they are not actually taking any time to find out what it is we are teaching. I saw this clearly when we were working with a group in northern Alberta, who were making their bid to move up from a Company to an organized church. We were studying in the area with this message. They called in two conference men and called us to join them in a Wednesday night study. One of the men told us he would have the floor for the next hour and we were not to comment. He presented the standard view, as though we would not know it, making snips and snipes throughout, like "There are these people who 'think they have all the answers'" and so forth. At the end, I did not make much of a return, only to state that nothing new had been presented that evening and that there was really a whole lot more than meets the eye in the Bible language and we need to have a fresh look at it. I left it at that, but after the people dismissed, we had a frank discussion with the two men. It got really uncomfortable for them. We sat, they stood over us. They shuffled on their feet. As their final words of conviction, they said, "Well, we have to teach what the church teaches."

[Kevin Straub]

5 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

As I read the posted comments of Kevin Straub and Green the following thoughts come to my mind:

*  Human language is imperfect and what we say, either verbally or in print, often fails to fully reflect what we wanted to communicate and what we were thinking.

*  As I understand what they are posting, they agree more than they appear to argue about.  But, I do not suggest that they totally agree.

*  Their disagreement appears to me to be more about semantics and how it is being stated than an actual issue.  But, some issues may remain.

*  There is an element of personalization, by both, that may not be justified.

*  I do not want to get into the middle of this argument (discussion).  So, I think that I will not post how I think that they are saying the same thing, in part, but with different words.

*  O.K.  call me chicken, if you will.   It is just where I am  today. 

 

Well, Gregory, the standard view and the new view are in fact quite different. They use the same words, "God destroys" but they mean something quite totally the opposite! The standard view holds that God destroys in two ways. In one, you have the "hiding of face" principle, or "passive wrath." It is agreed by both views that God does wrath in this manner and in the Bible we are alerted to the mechanism of passive wrath in two ways: 1) when the phraseology of Divine Recession is employed, in words such as "spare not," "give over," "give up," and even "sent" (for the word for sent means "let"), and 2) the provision of an aetiology--the narrative itself, either in context or in another place (we include the SoP in this) will disclose causation. The problem comes in when the same language of apparently active wrath, which is used in the cases of 1 and 2, stands alone. Then the standard view seeks to impose carnal principles of punishment, the exercise of the power of "might" into the great controversy. Upon what basis? This is eisegesis. There is no Biblical hermeneutic for it and it flies in the face of the testimony of Scripture itself, which provides its own definition of Divine wrath; of the testimony of Jesus; and of the very principles inherent in the great controversy.

I do regret that my personal frustration pokes through here and there. I do not like arguing with folks who are here to teach me what the standard view is. I already know what it is. I am interested in people who want to learn something and ask honest questions in a pleasant manner, not dig in their heels, thrust out the jaw, saying things like "Oh YEAH? What about the flood? What about Sodom and Gomorrah? What about...what about" as though I had never read that God sent fire from heaven. I read "God sent" from the Hebrew mindset, the way it was written, not from this recalcitrant and what often appears to be willingly-blind, modern-day, Webster's-dictionary approach to reading the Bible.

[there buster]

 

Quote

15 hours ago, there buster said:

If she was not "making any point about holy angels," she would not have written, "destructive powers exercised by holy angels."
Unless she cared not at all what she wrote.

The slovenliness of our language makes it easier to have foolish perceptions of what others are saying.

I said: "She cares not at all for making any point about holy angels or God exercising physical force!"
Let me break it down for you: She cares not at all for making any point about holy angels exercising physical force OR God exercising physical force. Ok? smh

 

Let's see where the foolishness lies.

Here's the complete quote:

A SINGLE ANGEL DESTROYED ALL THE FIRST-BORN OF THE EGYPTIANS AND FILLED THE LAND WITH MOURNING. WHEN DAVID OFFENDED AGAINST GOD BY NUMBERING THE PEOPLE, ONE ANGEL CAUSED THAT TERRIBLE DESTRUCTION BY WHICH HIS SIN WAS PUNISHED. THE SAME DESTRUCTIVE POWER EXERCISED BY HOLY ANGELS WHEN GOD COMMANDS, WILL BE EXERCISED BY EVIL ANGELS WHEN HE PERMITS.

"The same destructive power" exemplified explicitly by the slaying of the first borns, "will be exercised by holy angels when God commands," has nothing to do with "holy angels exercising physical force, or God exercising physical force."

So we now have all the first born of Egypt being slain without physical force. Mirabile dictu! So much nicer to be killed without physical force!

No doubt you have an ingenious explanation for Jacob physically wrestling with an angel that does not wrestle with physical force in return.

Maybe you shouldn't shake your head so hard. It keeps producing contradictory propositions which make no sense.

 

[Kevin Straub]

9 minutes ago, there buster said:

 

Let's see where the foolishness lies.

Here's the complete quote:

A SINGLE ANGEL DESTROYED ALL THE FIRST-BORN OF THE EGYPTIANS AND FILLED THE LAND WITH MOURNING. WHEN DAVID OFFENDED AGAINST GOD BY NUMBERING THE PEOPLE, ONE ANGEL CAUSED THAT TERRIBLE DESTRUCTION BY WHICH HIS SIN WAS PUNISHED. THE SAME DESTRUCTIVE POWER EXERCISED BY HOLY ANGELS WHEN GOD COMMANDS, WILL BE EXERCISED BY EVIL ANGELS WHEN HE PERMITS.

"The same destructive power" exemplified explicitly by the slaying of the first borns, "will be exercised by holy angels when God commands," has nothing to do with "holy angels exercising physical force, or God exercising physical force."

So we now have all the first born of Egypt being slain without physical force. Mirabile dictu! So much nicer to be killed without physical force!

No doubt you have an ingenious explanation for Jacob physically wrestling with an angel that does not wrestle with physical force in return.

Maybe you shouldn't shake your head so hard. It keeps producing contradictory propositions which make no sense.

 

I've provided answers and links to studies on the out of context quote that you think proves the case for a destroying god after the manner of men. You have the choice to believe as you will. It is your belief. We need not continue to argue.

The first born of Egypt were slain by Satan, the destroyer.
The angel of the LORD is Christ and Jacob wrestled with him. This is apples and oranges. This is not an act of destruction and does not apply to our discussion.

Your tone in saying "No doubt you have an ingenious explanation..." drips with sarcasm and reveals a mind closed to what I have to say. There isn't much point in you continuing with me. You are a mere caviller and you guys come a dime a dozen. I am happy to talk to nice people. If you think you are shutting me up by your rudeness, think again. You are only shutting me from talking to YOU.

[Gail]

There are people out there who are scholars in the Middle Eastern mindset. Kevin, are you in agreement with any of them on either the Egypt incident or the fire from Heaven?

[Kevin Straub]

1 minute ago, Gail said:

There are people out there who are scholars in the Middle Eastern mindset. Kevin, are you in agreement with any of them on either the Egypt incident or the fire from Heaven?

I don't know. I would have to read on an individual basis. I have not studied a range of "scholars in the Middle Eastern mindset." Scholars are one source of information. Jesus is another.

[Gail]

The reason I am asking is because I AM interested in the Middle Eastern mindset and have studied some.

[Kevin Straub]

1 minute ago, Gail said:

The reason I am asking is because I AM interested in the Middle Eastern mindset and have studied some.

Have you read any works by Yoder? What have you looked at?

I hope nobody is understanding me to say the middle east mindset is pacifism.

[Kevin Straub]

3 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

Kevin. I hate to burst your little bubble. But you certainly do not present anything new here either.  You seem to feel that coming up with paradyms that are allegedly different and then irritating others with it is all it takes to be a Reformer as you have called yourself. If you knew how many before you have come here before you with the same dry theory as you present...I doubt you would even bother with it. You are not fooling anybody here with your semantic wrestling and your views on Adventists are neither homiletic or exegetic...its all been heard before

Thank-you for your love. Go in peace.

[Green Cochoa]

2 hours ago, there buster said:

Let's see where the foolishness lies.

Here's the complete quote:

A SINGLE ANGEL DESTROYED ALL THE FIRST-BORN OF THE EGYPTIANS AND FILLED THE LAND WITH MOURNING. WHEN DAVID OFFENDED AGAINST GOD BY NUMBERING THE PEOPLE, ONE ANGEL CAUSED THAT TERRIBLE DESTRUCTION BY WHICH HIS SIN WAS PUNISHED. THE SAME DESTRUCTIVE POWER EXERCISED BY HOLY ANGELS WHEN GOD COMMANDS, WILL BE EXERCISED BY EVIL ANGELS WHEN HE PERMITS.

"The same destructive power" exemplified explicitly by the slaying of the first borns, "will be exercised by holy angels when God commands," has nothing to do with "holy angels exercising physical force, or God exercising physical force."

So we now have all the first born of Egypt being slain without physical force. Mirabile dictu! So much nicer to be killed without physical force!

No doubt you have an ingenious explanation for Jacob physically wrestling with an angel that does not wrestle with physical force in return.

Maybe you shouldn't shake your head so hard. It keeps producing contradictory propositions which make no sense.

Well said there buster.  It is noteworthy how many of the modern theological errors have come in from essential misunderstandings of word definitions.  It is as if having a good education is something to be prized far more highly than it typically is--for one's eternal salvation may be contingent upon it.  When people come trying to wrest the definitions of words, wresting scripture to fit their own opinions, watch out.  Mrs. White tells us that the devil's servants can out-debate the Lord's.  While I feel it is important to state the truths of the Bible, in a simple and straightforward manner, I do not expect to "win" any argument with those who have wrested and complicated the scriptures.  When God says HE did something, and people say Satan did it instead, they are wresting.  If we cannot believe God at His word, we have nowhere to go for truth at all.  It's all or nothing to me.  So the stakes in this discussion are set far higher than the issue of whether or not God destroys or punishes.  The very Bible is at stake.

Mrs. White tells us it would be better to have NO Bible, than to interpret it incorrectly.

Quote

Whenever the study of the Scriptures is entered upon without a prayerful, humble, teachable spirit, the plainest and simplest as well as the most difficult passages will be wrested from their true meaning. The papal leaders select such portions of Scripture as best serve their purpose, interpret to suit themselves, and then present these to the people, while they deny them the privilege of studying the Bible and understanding its sacred truths for themselves. The whole Bible should be given to the people just as it reads. It would be better for them not to have Bible instruction at all than to have the teaching of the Scriptures thus grossly misrepresented.  {GC 521.2} 

 

[there buster]

Hmmm. So dislocating a hip, causing a lifetime limp is not destructive. Interesting notion.

Yes, my mind is closed to attempting to read "the same destructive power" as "a different, non-destructive power." As it is to declaring up is down, night is day, no is yes.  Words have meanings, which we are not at liberty to change at will.

Sorry that you find 'ingenious' a pejorative.

This notion that God never destroys anything is inimical to both logic and scripture. Even in human law, to knowingly allow someone to be killed by another makes one an accomplice, not guiltless. So God permitting evil angels to use "the same destructive power" indicates his culpability, not his righteousness. No. The Bible is an inconvenient book. Men are always attempting reductionist explanations which diminish God, while exalting themselves.

 

[Kevin Straub]

45 minutes ago, Green Cochoa said:

Well said there buster.  It is noteworthy how many of the modern theological errors have come in from essential misunderstandings of word definitions.  It is as if having a good education is something to be prized far more highly than it typically is--for one's eternal salvation may be contingent upon it.  When people come trying to wrest the definitions of words, wresting scripture to fit their own opinions, watch out.  Mrs. White tells us that the devil's servants can out-debate the Lord's.  While I feel it is important to state the truths of the Bible, in a simple and straightforward manner, I do not expect to "win" any argument with those who have wrested and complicated the scriptures.  When God says HE did something, and people say Satan did it instead, they are wresting.  If we cannot believe God at His word, we have nowhere to go for truth at all.  It's all or nothing to me.  So the stakes in this discussion are set far higher than the issue of whether or not God destroys or punishes.  The very Bible is at stake.

Mrs. White tells us it would be better to have NO Bible, than to interpret it incorrectly.

 

It is good to examine the context of "taking the Bible as it reads." Generally, she says this with regard to the plan of salvation. On other matters we are to stretch our powers, dig, mine the Scriptures, turn them over and over for layers of meaning, not ever say "it means THIS and nothing else," etc. Even regard to this very subject, the character of God, we are to be on the alert for new views.

"At no period of time has man learned all that can be learned of the word of God. >>>There are yet new views of truth to be seen, and much to be understood of the character and attributes of God<<<...This is a most valuable study, taxing the intellect, and giving strength to the mental ability. After diligently searching the word, hidden treasures are discovered, and the lover of truth breaks out in triumph..." (FE 444.2).

Thanks for calling me the devil. I love you, too.

[Kevin Straub]

43 minutes ago, there buster said:

Hmmm. So dislocating a hip, causing a lifetime limp is not destructive. Interesting notion.

Yes, my mind is closed to attempting to read "the same destructive power" as "a different, non-destructive power." As it is to declaring up is down, night is day, no is yes.  Words have meanings, which we are not at liberty to change at will.

Sorry that you find 'ingenious' a pejorative.

This notion that God never destroys anything is inimical to both logic and scripture. Even in human law, to knowingly allow someone to be killed by another makes one an accomplice, not guiltless. So God permitting evil angels to use "the same destructive power" indicates his culpability, not his righteousness. No. The Bible is an inconvenient book. Men are always attempting reductionist explanations which diminish God, while exalting themselves.

 

Your god runs his government on human punishment principles. Eye for eye and deterrence. You can have that god. It is your choice. I reject that one.

[CoAspen]

Interesting.....

Quote

 Even in human law, to knowingly allow someone to be killed by another makes one an accomplice, not guiltless. So God permitting evil angels to use "the same destructive power" indicates his culpability, not his righteousness.

So, are we seeing God in the light of 'human thought"? God kills, human kill. Sound much like ancient mythology that the ancients believed during the the time Abraham and on down through history.

[Kevin Straub]

1 minute ago, CoAspen said:

Interesting.....

So, are we seeing God in the light of 'human thought"? God kills, human kill. Sound much like ancient mythology that the ancients believed during the the time Abraham and on down through history.

No, God is not culpable. He is responsible, but not culpable.

The same destructive power is the power of the evil angels to destroy. God is "exercising" that power only in the sense of Biblical language of letting, giving over. Folks are saying it is semantical twisting, as they fight oh so hard for a God that executes retributive punishment after the manner of men. But it isn't. It is the same judicial punishment mechanism as seen at the cross, where we are to get our true picture wrath.

Hiding of face = withdrawal of divine countenance = wrath of God = judicial punishment

 

“As man's substitute and surety, the iniquity of men was laid upon Christ; He was counted a transgressor that He might redeem them from the curse of the law. The guilt of every descendant of Adam of every age was pressing upon His heart; and the wrath of God and the terrible manifestation of His displeasure because of iniquity, filled the soul of His Son with consternation. The withdrawal of the divine countenance from the Saviour in this hour of supreme anguish pierced His heart with a sorrow that can never be fully understood by man. Every pang endured by the Son of God upon the cross, the blood drops that flowed from His head, His hands and feet, the convulsions of agony which racked His frame, and the unutterable anguish that filled His soul at the hiding of His Father's face from Him, speak to man, saying, It is for love of thee that the Son of God consents to have these heinous crimes laid upon Him…. He, the sin-bearer, endures judicial punishment for iniquity and becomes sin itself for man” (SR 225.1).

 

Hiding of face=just retribution

 

"The death of the spotless Son of God testifies that 'the wages of sin is death,' that every violation of God's law must receive its JUST RETRIBUTION. Christ the sinless became sin for man. He bore the guilt of transgression, and the HIDING OF HIS FATHER'S FACE, until His heart was broken and His life crushed out. All this sacrifice was made that sinners might be redeemed. In no other way could man be freed from the penalty of sin. And every soul that refuses to become a partaker of the atonement provided at such a cost must bear in his own person the guilt and PUNISHMENT of transgression" (GC 539.3).
 

Deut. 31:16-18 states clearly the principle that when God hides His face (His anger) it is because the people have abandoned Him, the Rock of Protection, for other gods (their rock) and then in v. 19 it was to be a song to be sung to teach the people how it works. Deut. 32 gives the song. It is all very clear. HIDING OF FACE = ANGER = FIRE = ALL THE CALAMITIES THAT COME = VENGEANCE = RECOMPENSE

Deut 32:20 And he said, I will HIDE MY FACE from them, I will see what their end [shall be]: for they [are] a very froward generation, children in whom [is] no faith.
32:21 They have moved me to jealousy with [that which is] not God; they have PROVOKED ME TO ANGER with their vanities: and I will move them to jealousy with [those which are] not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation.
32:22 For A FIRE IS KINDLED IN MINE ANGER, and SHALL BURN unto the lowest hell, and SHALL CONSUME the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.
32:23 I will heap mischiefs upon them; I will spend mine arrows upon them.
32:24 [They shall be] BURNT WITH HUNGER, and devoured with burning HEAT, and with bitter DESTRUCTION: I will also send the TEETH OF BEASTS upon them, with the POISON OF SERPENTS of the dust.
32:25 THE SWORD without, and terror within, shall destroy both the young man and the virgin, the suckling [also] with the man of gray hairs.
32:26 I said, I would SCATTER THEM into corners, I would make the remembrance of them to cease from among men:
32:27 Were it not that I feared the wrath of the enemy, lest their adversaries should behave themselves strangely, [and] lest they should say, Our hand [is] high, and the LORD hath not done all this.
32:28 For they [are] a nation void of counsel, neither [is there any] understanding in them.
32:29 O that they were wise, [that] they understood this, [that] they would consider their latter end!
32:30 How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight, except their Rock had sold them, and the LORD had shut them up?
32:31 For their rock [is] not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves [being] judges.
32:32 For their vine [is] of the vine of Sodom, and of the fields of Gomorrah: their grapes [are] grapes of gall, their clusters [are] bitter:
32:33 Their wine [is] the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps.
32:34 [Is] not this laid up in store with me, [and] sealed up among my treasures?
32:35 To me [belongeth] VENGEANCE, and RECOMPENSE; their foot shall slide in [due] time: for the day of their calamity [is] at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste.
32:36 For the LORD SHALL JUDGE his people, and repent himself for his servants, when he seeth that [their] power is gone, and [there is] none shut up, or left.
32:37 And he shall say, WHERE [ARE] THEIR GODS, [their] rock in whom they trusted,
32:38 Which did eat the fat of their sacrifices, [and] drank the wine of their drink offerings? let them rise up and help you, [and] BE YOUR PROTECTION.

[Green Cochoa]

9 minutes ago, Kevin Straub said:

It is all very clear. HIDING OF FACE = ANGER = FIRE = ALL THE CALAMITIES THAT COME = VENGEANCE = RECOMPENSE

Your god is always angry.  That is not my God.  Why do I say this?  We're back to definitions again.  The Bible teaches plainly that God is a fire.  If all of those items in your equation are equal, therefore, since God is always a fire, He would necessarily also be always angry and always hiding His face.  Because I do not believe these can be true, I reject the entire equation as invalid.

Deuteronomy 4:24 -- For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God.

Deuteronomy 9:23 -- Understand therefore this day, that the LORD thy God is he which goeth over before thee; as a consuming fire he shall destroy them, and he shall bring them down before thy face: so shalt thou drive them out, and destroy them quickly, as the LORD hath said unto thee. 

Hebrews 12:29 -- For our God is a consuming fire. 

 

Now, considering that God IS a fire, and God is eternal, the fire is also eternal.  This explains the following text:

Jude 1:7 -- Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. 

Fire doesn't have "vengeance" anyhow, unless we are using a figure of speech called "personification."  But God has vengeance, and as "eternal fire" He used it to destroy Sodom and Gomorrha.  To say God didn't do it is to call God a liar--because He says He did.

In hell, two types of "fire" will co-exist, as I perceive it: literal fire, and the fire of God's presence.  Perhaps both are essentially of similar substance, i.e. heat/rapid oxidation which consumes.  It is really not necessary to understand the physical aspects of it.  What is necessary to understand is that God is in charge of it.  He does not passively watch, looking on as one who is powerless to alter the circumstances.  He so controls it as to mete out the proper amount of justice to each sinner, with the worst sinners getting the greatest "justice."  Satan, we are informed, will last for days in the flames.  Some will be extinguished as in a moment.  If "sin" (as if it were a sentient being) killed the sinner, then why would the ones most guilty live longest?  That makes no logical sense.  Obviously, Someone else is in charge.

[there buster]

Quote

Your god runs his government on human punishment principles. Eye for eye and deterrence. You can have that god. It is your choice. I reject that one.

No, that is not 'my god,' it is your straw man.  If one kills a rabid dog or a man-eating tiger, this is not a matter of punishment, but rather of protecting the innocent. You reason as if there were only two alternatives, a vengeful God, or a passive one who never acts to end evil. The vengeful god is the god of Old Testament pagans; capricious, envious, and wrathful. The vengeful god is one kind of reductionism. Another type of reductionism is the God never kills or destroys.

We construct those reductionist deities to alleviate the need for the intellectual and emotional effort required to wrestle with the God portrayed in the Bible. Jesus withered the fig tree--a destructive act, surely. It is, as scripture says, a 'strange act' for God to destroy, but scripture makes it clear in multiple places that he does just that.  The Revelation 19 passage I mentioned earlier is just one, but a very pointed, example. The mass of verbiage required to deny these examples is an indication of how weak that position is.

Because of the many examples of God commanding or approving of violence--see Samuel's dispatch of Agag, for example--the God never kills argument requires multiple different explanations (or did he merely "hide his face" when Samuel hacked Agag to death? And why didn't Samuel get the memo?). This violates Occam's Razor, and renders the position inconsistent and incoherent.

You seem sensitive to any perceives slight, yet quite willing to define another's position falsely in the most pejorative terms. Black-and-white, false dichotomies are not constructive to the discussion, and not expansive to the intellect.

 

[Gail]

I am having trouble with the idea that Satan does God's dirty work when God's people need God to show Himself mighty in their defense.

Was it Satan that freed God's people from their Egyptian bondage? And that because God didn't want to do what needed to be done for Pharaoh to relinquish control?

I just have questions.

[CoAspen]

responsible adjective [predicative]    having an obligation to do something, or having control over or care for someone, as part of one's job or role• being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for itculpableadjectivedeserving blame: sometimes you're just as culpable when you watch something as when you actually participate.The similarities between the word meanings do suggest that there is blame that can be placed. My 'opinion' is that God is neither. Humankind needs someone to blame, from beginning of recorded time. Who started/originated that idea? The predominate story of the Bible is that God loves, saves, desires the best, promises the best, etc. Humans seem to only see God in light of a book written by humans, thousands of years ago. I am not saying that no inspiration was involved. But it was still written down based upon the human understanding of relationships at that point/s in time. My 'opinion' is that we do fully understand what 'sin' is, by that I mean not just a human construct, but what is the essence of it. Is it just the breaking a physical law, one we don't understand, or is it some supernatural/metaphysical phenomenon. There are real physical laws that run the universe, we are constanly learning what they are. I just don't believe in a God who decides who live and who dies. We operate with in the physical laws of life. Blame is a human concept. I don't understand it all, how commiting a sin has a detrimental effect other than the breaking of a physical law, jump out of a high tree, you will hurt yourself because humans don't have the physical ability to fly.

Bottom line for me, I'm not going to get the tidy-whities in a bind over what an other person believes. I ain't got the answers!!!

[Kevin Straub]

2 hours ago, Gail said:

I am having trouble with the idea that Satan does God's dirty work when God's people need God to show Himself mighty in their defense.

Was it Satan that freed God's people from their Egyptian bondage? And that because God didn't want to do what needed to be done for Pharaoh to relinquish control?

I just have questions.

The problem is we think that there is a "dirty work" to be done. That by hook or by crook, violence must be done and this is the way to make things happen and move things along for righteousness' sake. There is something really wrong with this picture, don't you think? God HATES violence. We think that showing might means using violence. Why? (Americans and their love of guns, military force, and Hollywood vengeance...smh.) What about the power of love? Oh, and here again, this means what--protecting loved ones through the use of violence? I am so sick and tired of it. Aren't you? 

In my thinking the mightiest, most powerful is the one who can rise above all that is of force and win purely on principles of freedom, respect, loyalty, and non-violence. I am going to show a little piece by A. T. Jones in a moment, that sums it up for me, beautifully. But first to answer your question from the principles of God's government and character. Briefly, and without making a big article with SoP and Bible references, because I will get chastised for being Satan's little debater, lol:

God freed His people. How? By acting the part of a mafia thug, putting the "strong arm" on Pharaoh until he cried "Uncle?" That is the picture portrayed by the standard view. NO! God was trying to save Pharaoh, not harden His heart. But the effect of Pharaoh's refusal of God's overtures was to harden his own heart. Most of us, even my opponents, know how to read the Bible language on that point, but they flip-flop around inconsistently, saying well that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, yes, so God didn't "actually" do that part, but not so well when they claim that God "actually" did the other stuff. That is just picking and choosing your own interpretation to suit your chosen view of a violent God. That is why we call the advancing light "the consistent view" on God's government and character and we call it the most powerful because it wins without resorting to force. God is not just trying to win, He is trying to win loyalty by earning it through respect of His ways, that they are always out of goodness and gentleness and NEVER have to use force, not even in the emergency of rebellion. Perfect love cannot be won by God if fear of punishment at His own hand is in the picture. The apostle John tells us this.

Now then, God in Egypt came against the gods of Egypt (Ex. 12:12). Applying DR (Divine Recession) to this picture, we have God giving over to their gods, which are no gods, and behind which Satan hides. So, for instance, the frogs. One of the main godesses of the land was "Hekt" and she was the wife of the creator of the world. She was depicted with the head and body of a frog. God withdraws His protective hand from the frogs, that says "This far shall you go and no farther" and the frogs go out of control. Satan may have had to do with it, or maybe not. Can't be dogmatic, but probably he does. It doesn't matter terribly. The fact is that Egypt chose the frog and God let them have the frog. If the frog was to benefit them, then they could only blame the frog god for causing them grief. And this is not arbitrary on God's part. God is never arbitrary. He is always acting according to the terms of the great controversy, which He must follow, because He must be who He is and that is the Granter of Total Liberty. So, when the people exercise their liberty to have a frog god, Satan, hiding behind the frog god, has a claim upon them. God must honor it. They chose it. This is how God "comes against the gods of Egypt." He is not fighting physically against any gods, he is simply giving them over to what they have chosen to trust in as their god. According to the terms of the great controversy, He cannot interfere with their choice and force His protection over them by holding back the frogs. He has to let them go out of balance or let Satan do stuff to multiply them over the land.

Satan would have been happy to smite them and build up this view of God doing it directly by power, for it is a major strategy that he uses. Notice:

“Satan works through the elements also to garner his harvest of unprepared souls. He has studied the secrets of the laboratories of nature, and he uses all his power to control the elements as far as God allows.... the Lord will do just what He has declared that He would--He will withdraw His blessings from the earth and remove His protecting care from those who are rebelling against His law and teaching and forcing others to do the same. Satan has control of all whom God does not especially guard. He will favor and prosper some, in order to further his own designs; and he will bring trouble upon others and lead men to believe that it is God who is afflicting them” (GC 589.2).

Ok, here is that Jones bit that I love so very much. I believe it with all my heart and will teach it as long as I have a tongue in my mouth and fingers on my hands to key the message:

Where did there start in this universe the assumption of any authority or power of might as against right? It originated with the rebellion of Lucifer, in that assumption of self, away back there. He brought that power into this world, and fastened it upon this world by deception when he got possession of this world. Therefore that word is properly used to show that when God in Christ has lifted us above all the principality and power of this world, it is above this power of might as against right, which is the power of Satan, as he has brought it into this world, and as he uses it in this world. {March 3, 1895 N/A, GCB 436.1}

This simply emphasizes the thought we mentioned a moment ago, that our contest is simply the contest that has been waged from the beginning between the two spiritual powers, between the legal and the illegal powers, between the power of right as against might, and the power of might as against right. The contest is between these two spiritual powers. We have been under the power of might as against right, - the power of force. Jesus Christ brought to us the knowledge of right as against might - the power of love. We forsook the dominion and power of might as against right - the power of force; and have joined our allegiance to the power of right as against might, - the power of love. And now the contest is between these two powers, and concerning us. The contest is always between these spiritual powers. Whatever instruments may be employed in this world as the outward manifestation of that power, the contest is always between the two spiritual powers, Jesus Christ and the fallen prince. {March 3, 1895 N/A, GCB 436.2}…

Satan was the one who originated the authority of might as against right.   {March 3, 1895 N/A, GCB 436.5}…

Now note: The power of right as against might can never use any might. Do you see that? Do you not see that in that lies the very spirit that is called non-resistance of Christians, that is, the very Spirit of Jesus Christ, - which is non-resistance? Could Christ use might in demonstrating the power of right as against might? - No. {March 3, 1895 N/A, GCB 437.8}

To maintain the power of might as against right, might is to be used at every opportunity; because that is the only thing that can be used to win. In that cause the right has only a secondary consideration, if it has any consideration at all. {March 3, 1895 N/A, GCB 437.9}

438

But on the other hand, the power of right as against might, is in the right, not in the might. The might is in the right itself. And he who is pledged to the principle of right as against might, and in whom that is to be demonstrated, can never appeal to any kind of might. He can never use any might whatever in defense of the power of right. He depends upon the power of the right itself to win, and to conquer all the power of might that may be brought against it. That is the secret.   {March 3, 1895 N/A, GCB 438.1}

Then don't you see that that explains in a word why it is that Christ was like a lamb in the presence of these powers, and this might that was brought against him? He had nothing to do with using any might in opposing them. When Peter drew the sword, and would defend him he said, Put up your sword: he that taketh the sword shall perish by the sword. {March 3, 1895 N/A, GCB 438.2}

When we get hold of that, all things will be explained as to what we shall do here, there, or the other place. We are pledged to allegiance to the power of right as against might, - the power of love. And Jesus Christ died as a malefactor, abused, tossed about, mobbed, scoffed, spit upon, crowned with thorns, every conceivable contemptible thing put upon him, and he died under it, in his appeal to the power of right as against might. And that power of right which he died in allegiance to has moved the world ever since, and it is to move the world in our day as it never has been moved before. Just as soon as God can get the people who are professedly pledged to the principle, to be pledged in heart to the principle, and put the thought upon nothing at all, and never expect to appeal to anything at all, other than the absolute principle of the right and the power of it, to which we are allied, and to which we are pledged, then we shall see, and the world shall see, this power working as never before.   {ATJ, March 3, 1895 N/A, GCB 438.3}

[Kevin Straub]

2 hours ago, CoAspen said:

responsible adjective [predicative]    having an obligation to do something, or having control over or care for someone, as part of one's job or role• being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for itculpableadjectivedeserving blame: sometimes you're just as culpable when you watch something as when you actually participate.The similarities between the word meanings do suggest that there is blame that can be placed. My 'opinion' is that God is neither. Humankind needs someone to blame, from beginning of recorded time. Who started/originated that idea? The predominate story of the Bible is that God loves, saves, desires the best, promises the best, etc. Humans seem to only see God in light of a book written by humans, thousands of years ago. I am not saying that no inspiration was involved. But it was still written down based upon the human understanding of relationships at that point/s in time. My 'opinion' is that we do fully understand what 'sin' is, by that I mean not just a human construct, but what is the essence of it. Is it just the breaking a physical law, one we don't understand, or is it some supernatural/metaphysical phenomenon. There are real physical laws that run the universe, we are constanly learning what they are. I just don't believe in a God who decides who live and who dies. We operate with in the physical laws of life. Blame is a human concept. I don't understand it all, how commiting a sin has a detrimental effect other than the breaking of a physical law, jump out of a high tree, you will hurt yourself because humans don't have the physical ability to fly.

Bottom line for me, I'm not going to get the tidy-whities in a bind over what an other person believes. I ain't got the answers!!!

God has to be responsible for the entire course of the great controversy and even all the suffering that happens, because He allows it. To not allow it would have been to disallow the creation of beings as free moral agents. He would have a nice tidy universe of pets, but no joy of companions, of a family. What good is a God that can't have creatures to love and be loved by? I believe that at least part of the reason He created us was so that this could be understood about Him. He wants to be known. The great sovereign unknowable knows how good He is and He wants others to know it and glory in Him and be like Him, too.

Yes, there is a natural law in all of it. Sin is the breaking of that law. The law, as a transcript of His character, is actually the protocol upon which life is built. He didn't make it up. It exists the same as He does and it is perfect and there can be no life outside of it. Freedom of choice dictates that one can go outside of it, but it is suicide. I don't believe in a God who decides who lives and who dies, AT ALL. We decide whether we will live or die and it has nothing to do with God killing us if we decide to die. I like what you wrote. Thanks.

[Green Cochoa]

Genesis 19:29 -- And it came to pass, when God destroyed the cities of the plain, that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in the which Lot dwelt.

"They must be led to renounce the debasing customs and practices which existed in Sodom and in the antediluvian world, whom God destroyed because of their iniquity." -- Ellen White.

Numbers 23:19 -- God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good? 

Why should Satan get the credit for cleaning up the abominable mess in Sodom?  Why should we call God a liar to say He did not do what He said He did?  It is simply a mischaracterization to paint such actions of God as "dirty work."  Nothing could be further from the truth.  It was a work of cleansing.

 

Ultimately, either we believe the Bible and Ellen White, taking God at His Word, or we place our own opinions above a plain "thus saith the LORD."

 

[Kevin Straub]

7 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

Genesis 19:29 -- And it came to pass, when God destroyed the cities of the plain, that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in the which Lot dwelt.

"They must be led to renounce the debasing customs and practices which existed in Sodom and in the antediluvian world, whom God destroyed because of their iniquity." -- Ellen White.

Numbers 23:19 -- God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good? 

Why should Satan get the credit for cleaning up the abominable mess in Sodom?  Why should we call God a liar to say He did not do what He said He did?  It is simply a mischaracterization to paint such actions of God as "dirty work."  Nothing could be further from the truth.  It was a work of cleansing.

 

Ultimately, either we believe the Bible and Ellen White, taking God at His Word, or we place our own opinions above a plain "thus saith the LORD."

 

Yes, I know how you read the Bible. You prove that God uses violence by giving more Bible language, when I ask for the hermeneutic. I am not really interested in responding to your circular stuff. Be warned, you are fighting God, not me.

By the way, I did not say Satan cleanses, anywhere, did I? Did Satan bring fire on Sodom? Probably not, but who knows what he might have done by way of working with the elements, which he has power to do when God stands aside. I also believe that this fire was not some hocus pocus God made it up, but it came from the earth and back down. Nor is God the "White Witch" performing Divine Alchemy on Lot's wife. She got caught by a blob of molten material, dragging her feet and not getting out of the danger zone.

[Green Cochoa]

1 hour ago, Kevin Straub said:

Yes, I know how you read the Bible. You prove that God uses violence by giving more Bible language, when I ask for the hermeneutic.

God has not instructed me to have a proper "hermeneutic."  He has told me to demand a plain "thus saith the LORD" on any point of doctrine.  The Bible IS the source of the "thus saith the LORD."  When I bring the Bible to you, you want a hermeneutic instead.  Those reading here should be amply instructed by this.

Quote

But God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms. The opinions of learned men, the deductions of science, the creeds or decisions of ecclesiastical councils, as numerous and discordant as are the churches which they represent, the voice of the majority--not one nor all of these should be regarded as evidence for or against any point of religious faith. Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain "Thus saith the Lord" in its support.  {GC 595.1} 

 

1 hour ago, Kevin Straub said:

I also believe that this fire was not some hocus pocus God made it up, but it came from the earth and back down. Nor is God the "White Witch" performing Divine Alchemy on Lot's wife. She got caught by a blob of molten material, dragging her feet and not getting out of the danger zone.

You evidently have already rejected Ellen White's writings.  She tells us plainly, if the Bible itself were not already clear enough (see Genesis 13:10; Gen. 18), how it happened.  To me, I believe the Bible.  But for the wresters, Ellen White is another point of evidence to establish what the Bible means.  God says what He means! 

Quote

God saw the corruptions of licentious Sodom, and, after hurrying Lot and his family from its borders, he rained fire upon the city, and it was turned to ashes, making it "an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly." . . . .  {RH, March 27, 1888 par. 11} 

And the Lord rains fire and brimstone upon the city, and the beautiful plain that looked like Paradise when the angels passed over it, now looks like a parched and blackened desert. The smoke of the burning goes up like the smoke of a great furnace, and the whole heaven is illuminated with the flames of the great conflagration. Sodom has become a place of desolation and ruin.  {ST, October 16, 1893 par. 5}  
     The sin of the people rose up to heaven, and because of the iniquity of the people, the Lord poured out the vials of his wrath. The fearful doom of Sodom stands forth as a warning for all time, and especially for those who live in the last days. The destruction of Sodom was a symbol of the destruction that will come upon the finally impenitent, when tempests of fire come from above, and fountains of flame break forth from the crust of the earth. The fate of this ancient city should be a warning to all who live for self, and who corrupt their ways before God. The sin of Sodom is the sin of many cities now in existence, that have not been destroyed as was Sodom. Ezekiel says, "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me; therefore I took them away as I saw good."  {ST, October 16, 1893 par. 6} 

When the Lord rained the fire and brimstone from heaven to consume Sodom and Gomorrah, what a desolation! How easily could the blast of God make that beautiful situation an unsightly place. {CTr 80.3}