Leaderboard

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.

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.

I have always wondered why God is not explicitly mentioned in the Book of Esther. In a devotional by Rabbi Jonathan Cahn, he mentions that - although the word "God" or "LORD" is not spoken in the book, His works are all over it. Like how Esther was appointed for "such a time as this". Like how at just the right time, "circumstances" worked out that the Jewish people were rescued at just the right time. Isn't that how it is in real life? When we feel oppressed, depressed, and persecuted; when life seems unfair, we frequently wonder where God is; and why He doesn't hear or answer our prayers (at least in the way we expect). Then, suddenly "circumstance" and "coincidence" make problems go away or give is the strength to endure - even though God never blatantly manifests Himself. I found this thought very comforting - that even though we can't always "see" His hand, He is always working to make all things work for the good of those who love Him.

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.

See: http://spectrummagazine.org/article/2017/01/07/poetry-and-music-new-year NOTE: The above poem was written in the 1800s. But, I suggest that it may have something to say to us today.

As to the Bible predicting that someone would die in Iran: I suspect that on any day of the year, at least one person dies in Iran. I do not believe that one needs to assert a claim that the Bible has predicted one death in Iran on any day of the year. On another issue: What if President Elect Trump would die before January 20? The Electoral College has met and Donald Trump is now the President Elect. If he were to die before January 20, the 20th Amendment to the Constitution would rule. In that case the Vice-President Elect would become President on January 20.

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.

This is fatally flawed reasoning. What sinners have chosen is sin. If God gave them their choice, sin, then He would be a liar--for He has said He gives perfect gifts, and that He neither is tempted by evil nor tempts any man. Sinners do not choose death. They want to live. If sinners in hell were choosing death, then why would they desire to make war with the saints in the city of God? Why would they have hope that by conquering it, they would yet preserve their lives--escaping the justice of God? While it is true they will ultimately acknowledge God's justice in rewarding them as He has, we do not see anywhere in inspiration where it is recorded that they will be happy to die.

No amount of verbiage can change the plain meaning of "Destructive power exercised by holy angels." and "at God's command," to boot. That it "sullies God's name" is your conclusion, but unless you claim to be inspired, that conclusion is no stronger than the reasoning behind it. You mix emotional language and your own conclusions with various quotes, but the links are weak or non-existant. Here's an interesting passage: Rev. 19: 11 Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. 12 His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had[e] a name written that no one knew except Himself. 13 He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean,[f] followed Him on white horses. 15 Now out of His mouth goes a sharp[g] sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. By your reasoning, "makes war," "strike the nations," and "treads the winepress," all become passive rather than active--which makes nonsense out of the entire passage. If the author--who was inspired, by the way--wanted to indicate divine inactivity, he managed to conceal it well.

I've read Maxwell and this is what I have seen. I have listened to others who have carried on in that tradition, such as Tim Jennings, Ty Gibson, Brad Cole, and others and this is the view they hold as well. Brad Cole seems to be shifting, though. Another that has shifted is Dr. Jean Sheldon of PUC, who got her instruction from Maxwell. If you have a document prepared to show this special melding of active and passive wrath, please send it to straub AT direct DOT ca. Thanks.

Indeed it is. That is why we must adhere in our beliefs to a clear "thus saith the LORD." And the Lord is clear on this point, both in the Bible and in the writings of Mrs. White. You have quoted Mrs. White out of context to make it appear she supported your warm, fuzzy, God-can-do-no-harm doctrine (a false doctrine). God is the King and Ruler of the Universe. He does not look on and watch sin passively, with no power to intervene. God's laws are not so weak and flimsy that they can have no teeth. When His law is a reflection of His character, and the law demands the death of the sinner--folks that's all we need to know. There's a reason the Bible speaks of having a holy fear of Him. But God is wise who anticipated just the sort of errors that you have brought to this forum and has answered them already in the writings of Mrs. White. The truth is in the Bible, of course, but some have so wrested the context of the Bible as to be unable to perceive it from there anymore. The Bible is made to say the opposite of what it actually says. I've heard people make the vain argument that every time the Bible says God did something to kill, to destroy, or to punish, that actually Satan was the agent, and God just "let it happen." Such falsehoods are clearly met with quotes such as the following: The Certainty of God's Judgments God's love is represented in our day as being of such a character as would forbid His destroying the sinner. Men reason from their own low standard of right and justice. "Thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself" (Psalm 50:21). They measure God by themselves. They reason as to how they would act under the circumstances and decide God would do as they imagine they would do. . . . {LDE 240.5} In no kingdom or government is it left to the lawbreakers to say what punishment is to be executed against those who have broken the law. All we have, all the bounties of His grace which we possess, we owe to God. The aggravating character of sin against such a God cannot be estimated any more than the heavens can be measured with a span. God is a moral governor as well as a Father. He is the Lawgiver. He makes and executes His laws. Law that has no penalty is of no force. {LDE 241.1} The plea may be made that a loving Father would not see His children suffering the punishment of God by fire while He had the power to relieve them. But God would, for the good of His subjects and for their safety, punish the transgressor. God does not work on the plan of man. He can do infinite justice that man has no right to do before his fellow man. Noah would have displeased God to have drowned one of the scoffers and mockers that harassed him, but God drowned the vast world. Lot would have had no right to inflict punishment on his sons-in-law, but God would do it in strict justice. {LDE 241.2} Who will say God will not do what He says He will do?--12MR 207-209; 10MR 265 (1876). {LDE 241.3} In answer to that last question, will Kevin be such a one?

See: http://atoday.org/leapfrog-patient-safety-grades-of-adventist-hospitals-released/ My thinking: While some improvement could be made, in general most of our hospitals are doing well. For more on the organization that evaluated our hospitals see: http://www.leapfroggroup.org/

No, that is not what I was saying. God reaches us with language that we understand. In the culture of the times violence was applied more readily than we would consider using today. It was a language that the people knew and understood and accepted at the time.

There are some who, after studying Scripture, believe that God doesn't kill at all. But the topic deserves a deeper look, bringing into consideration the culture where the specific incidents occurred.

It is important to know this, while reading the Scriptures, “He who has understood the EVERLASTING GOSPEL, will be able to gather all the themes of the Bible into one and see the beauty of God’s Truth!” The center of the EVERLASTING GOSPEL will be the sacrifice of God, Who gave the most precious He had, His Only Begotten Son, as an offering for the sins of men, the root of which is mistrust to God. And all this is for the restoration of trust and for giving the revolted and dying Creation what God Himself possesses, that is namely - EVERLASTING LIFE. In the God’s Word which reveals the plan of salvation who will be the central Person? Jesus, God’s Son. He Himself told about this, “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.” (John, 5:39) The Hebrews, God’s people of the Old Testament, never saw what God said in the Scriptures. They do not see it now.

I agree almost fully with this portion of your post. There are other portions which I believe detract significantly from this message--and introduce an element of confusion, as if marching to the beat of a different drum is good. Before I read your post, I was about to present my thoughts relative to the question for this thread that ran along the same lines as what I've quoted you saying above. However, I will be a little more focused, perhaps, on the specifics of the change that I see as needed most. I believe the church most needs a change in structural philosophy. The church must cease and desist from its continual efforts to centralize, to organize under a single leadership entity or organization, to legitimize and enforce "memorandums of understanding" upon supporting ministries in an effort to essentially annex them to the church, and in general to "bureaucratize" the work of the Lord's servants. As examples of what should NOT be done, that the church has recently done, I would remember the following: -- Annex the ASI organization to become an arm of the church under the General Conference (so much for the "laymen" organization) -- Merge the Review and Herald Publishing Association into the Pacific Press Publishing Association, essentially closing it -- Force supporting ministries to sign agreements called "memorandums of understanding" (MOUs) in order to authorize their work and cooperation with the church -- Centralize all financial decisions and support of local church efforts to institutions hundreds or thousands of miles away who are out-of-touch with the local needs -- Insist that tithes may only be paid to the local Conference and may not be forwarded to other conferences or missions of the church around the world -- Prohibit churches from forwarding donations to independent or supporting ministries -- Enforce only the official use of the name "Adventist" upon all worldwide, including schools, websites, etc., such that only the church's official branches and organizations may legally use it -- Automatically deduct tithe monies from workers' salaries, procedurally, usually without the individuals' ability to choose otherwise (you sign the consent to get the job) All of the above represent efforts toward control, control, control. These efforts come under the "kingly power" designation used by Mrs. White to decry them. They will NOT help to further the Lord's work around the world. Several of the above are outright sins of which we are informed through Mrs. White, yet the church has gone forward with them, full knowing what she said (not sins of ignorance).

They were both a huge part of my childhood, and they are both going to be missed.