Is destruction inevitable by a loving Creator?

[skyblue888]

"It is true that the rule, 'Eye for eye, tooth for tooth' (Leviticus 24:20), was a provision in the laws given through Moses; but it was a civil statute. None were justified in avenging themselves, for they had the words of the Lord: 'Say not thou, I will recompense evil.' 'Say not, I wil do so to him as he hath done to me.' 'Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth.' 'If he that hateth thee be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink.' The whole earthly life of Jesus was a manifestation of this principle. It was to bring the bread of life to His enemies that our Saviour left His home in Heaven. Though calamity and persecution were heaped upon Him from the cradle to the grave, they called forth from Him only the expression of forgiving love." M.B.70.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

Eze 28:8 They shall bring thee down to the pit, and thou shalt die the deaths of them that are slain in the midst of the seas. ... notice the verse does not say the humans will turn on them with their bare hands but with weapons.

Human weapons will do as little damage to Satan as human hands would do.

Angels are spirit creatures, not physical or material beings. ...

i hope that you understand that im going to need some seventh-day adventist authorities to back up this belief, as well as when and why we gave up the firm belief that angels have real bodies tho different from ours.

in my studies it was made very plain that the angels, fallen or unfallen, still have bodies, different from ours just invisible to our eyes.

2Ki 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

[teresaq]

When a doctrine is presented that does not meet our minds, we should go to the word of God, flee to the Lord in prayer, and give no place to the enemy to come in with suspicion and prejudice.

We should never permit that spirit to be manifested that arraigned the priests and rulers against the Redeemer of the world. They complained that he disturbed the people, and they wished he would let them alone; for he caused perplexity and dissension.

The Lord sends light among us to prove of what manner of spirit we are. We are not to deceive ourselves.

In 1844 when anything came to our attention that we did not understand, we kneeled down, and asked God to help us to take the right position, and then we could come to a right understanding and see eye to eye.

There was no dissension, no enmity, no evil-surmising, no misjudging of our brethren. If we only understood the evil of this spirit of intolerance, how we would shun it!

We join ourselves to the enemy of God and man when we accuse our brethren, for Satan was an accuser of the brethren.

We bear false witness when we add a little to our brother's words, and give them a false coloring; and in the sight of God we are not doers, but transgressors of the law.

We are not on the Lord's side; we are on the side of him who hurts, destroys, and tears down the cause of truth. We should pray for one another, instead of drawing apart. {RH, August 27, 1889 par. 6}

[John317]

Quote:

Once one understands the principles involved, there's no point in going through every instance in Scripture of violence attributed to God.

I've heard the same argument used against the Sabbath and the state of the dead. The question is, are we right to come to a conclusion before we have taken into account all the relevant Bible evidence? The truth is not going to be contrary to consistent Scriptural testimony. If our idea is contradicted by valid Bible evidence, we need to change our idea to conform to the Bible evidence.

I have no problem examining ALL the Bible evidence as well as all of the evidence on the subject in the writings of Ellen G. White.

Here it's not a question of looking at "every instance." In my post I only mentioned 20 instances, all except one from the first four books of the Bible, and these included some examples in Numbers 25. As of this writing, there's been no answer given to those questions, and no explanation from the viewpoint that God does not destroy.

Quote:

Certainly the amount of violence attributed to God in Scripture is staggering...

Given the circumstances, I don't find it "staggering." The circumstances are that God is faced with an extreme emergency-- sin, rebellion, and death-- in His universe.

Looking at all those incidents of violence is a bit like looking at all the ugly pictures of disease in a medical text. It would be possible for a person to ask why all those ugly pictures are in the book. Some look almost pornographic. Others show dead bodies. One has to consider the context, and the context has to do with healing and salvation. For me that makes a big difference as I study the Bible.

Quote:

So we can come to the conclusion that either:

a.God is an extremely violent Person.

b.There's some other explanation to the incidents of violence attributed to God in Scripture.

First, I'd be careful about drawing a conclusion before looking carefully at all the Bible and SOP evidence.

Second, we need to ask what the reason is for the violence. Is the violence just for the sake of violence? This gets back to the question of context as mentioned earlier.

Quote:

In the Old Testament, the concept of Satan's doing evil was not developed.

In Job, one of the oldest books of the Bible, we have a very good picture of Satan as one who does evil. But I agree with you that revelation of truth is progressive, and we would have to wait until the book of Revelation before we were given some important information on the controversy between Christ and Satan.

[John317]

Yes John God did tell them to kill the Baal worshippers but He did it simply because in a Theocracy God is the Ruler not only in religious matters but in civil matters as well. And the command to kill was not a revelation of His character but of the fact that His professed people had chosen to elect the sword to defend themselves against their enemies, and there were plenty of those, and to resolve matters within the camp. So in His mercy the Lord gave instructions which were not in harmony with His perfect ways of dealing with rebellion and iniquity but according to man's ways but mixed with an element of divine mercy to their emenies.

Did that help at all?

sky

When God delivered them from Egypt, they were unarmed and they left unarmed. They allowed God to deliver them in righteousness. The Egyptian army was the most powerful on earth. But they didn't have to fight. But after they crossed the Red Sea they picked up the Egyptians weapons that had washed to shore and ever after they fought with the sword. If the Lord had abandoned them to the Amalekites they would have been blotted from the face of the earth. So they fought against the Amalekites with the Egyptian weapons and God gave them the victory but it was not God's perfect way of delievering them in righteousness.

Great answer, sky. Thank you. :-)

I'm not sure I agree with everything here-- particularly about those things not being a revelation of God's character-- but you've given some thoughts worth thinking about for sure.

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

Yes John God did tell them to kill the Baal worshippers but He did it simply because in a Theocracy God is the Ruler not only in religious matters but in civil matters as well. And the command to kill was not a revelation of His character but of the fact that His professed people had chosen to elect the sword to defend themselves against their enemies, and there were plenty of those, and to resolve matters within the camp. So in His mercy the Lord gave instructions which were not in harmony with His perfect ways of dealing with rebellion and iniquity but according to man's ways but mixed with an element of divine mercy to their emenies.

Did that help at all?

sky

When God delivered them from Egypt, they were unarmed and they left unarmed. They allowed God to deliver them in righteousness. The Egyptian army was the most powerful on earth. But they didn't have to fight. But after they crossed the Red Sea they picked up the Egyptians weapons that had washed to shore and ever after they fought with the sword. If the Lord had abandoned them to the Amalekites they would have been blotted from the face of the earth. So they fought against the Amalekites with the Egyptian weapons and God gave them the victory but it was not God's perfect way of delievering them in righteousness.

Great answer, sky. Thank you. :-)

I'm not sure I agree with everything here-- particularly about those things not being a revelation of God's character-- but you've given some thoughts worth thinking about for sure.

Thanks John, something for all of us to think about. I realize this is not something most people are familiar with. Today we have the separation of Church and State. We no longer have a theocracy. It is not left to the church to rule in civil matters and that is why a civil law like capital punishment is something the State has to deal with. Capital punishment is equivalent to "an eye for eye," right?

The image of the beast will be a false theocracy, in the United States first and then in every country on the globe. So we know what that will mean, don't we? In the name of God laws will be enacted to put to death those who will not bow down to the church's decrees. And, of course, under this false theocracy the religious leaders will declare that God is now the Ruler in religious and civil matters. That is how the death decree against the true people of God will be brought to bear upon them. And in doing so the leaders of this false theocracy will attempt to make everybody believe that they are rendering God a service by killing those who refuse to pay homage to their usurped authority.

The papacy of the Dark Ages was also a fase theocracy and what did they not do in the name of God? Just think of the millions who protested against this false theocracy only to end up being burned at the stake or to die of starvation in dungeons? How many were slain in the name of God just because they refused to pay homage to the decrees of the church? The church wielded the power of the State and all dissidents were threatened with capital punishment!!!!

sky

"It is true that the rule, 'Eye for eye, tooth for tooth' (Leviticus 24:20), was a provision in the laws given through Moses; but it was a civil statute. None were justified in avenging themselves, for they had the words of the Lord: 'Say not thou, I will recompense evil.' 'Say not, I wil do so to him as he hath done to me.' 'Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth.' 'If he that hateth thee be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink.' The whole earthly life of Jesus was a manifestation of this principle. It was to bring the bread of life to His enemies that our Saviour left His home in Heaven. Though calamity and persecution were heaped upon Him from the cradle to the grave, they called forth from Him only the expression of forgiving love." M.B.70.

[pnattmbtc]

Thanks for the response John317. Here are some of the themes of the post, with comments.

1.Certainly the amount of violence attributed to God in Scripture is staggering, as Lutz's chart points out. So we can come to the conclusion that either:

a.God is an extremely violent Person.

b.There's some other explanation to the incidents of violence attributed to God in Scripture.

Do you agree with this point? I think this is an issue that needs to be dealt with. It seems to me the approach you're suggesting leads to the conclusion that God did quite a lot of exceedingly violent things, therefore He must be violent, and violence must be a central feature of His character and the administration of His government. Either that, or there is some other explanation to the violence attributed to God in Scripture.

2.We know, either from Scripture itself, or from the Spirit of Prophecy, that God did not a one of these things (I mentioned 5 things). Yet they are all attributed to Him. Why? Because God presents Himself as doing that which He permits. Once we grasp this principle, we can explain every act of violence attributed to God in Scripture.

An alternative to this principle, that God presents Himself as doing that which He permits, would be something like the following: If it says in Scripture that God did something violent, then He did it. Unless it says somewhere else that He didn't. Or unless God sends a prophet saying that He didn't.

Now personally I find this principle of interpretation far less appealing than the other one.

It seems that your idea is if it says in Scripture that God did something violent, then He did it. Unless it says somewhere else that He didn't. Or unless God sends a prophet saying that He didn't. You spoke of harmonizing things. I agree, the truth must harmonize, and this seems to be your approach. Otherwise I don't see how you avoid the contradictions that arise from such statements that God sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites or that God would destroy Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

3.However, none of this gets to what is, to me, the core issue, the reason, above all others, that I personally believe that God did not do the violent things attributed to Him. The reason I don't believe that God did these violent things is because:

1.I believe God is just like Jesus Christ.

2.I believe that Jesus Christ was completely non-violent.

Not only "non-violent" but "anti-violent." That is, Jesus Christ was totally against violence. I think everything about His ministry demonstrates this, both in His actions and teachings. "Turn the other cheek." This is what Jesus Christ taught, and what He lived. He chose to go to be crucified rather than violently defend Himself, as Peter was ready to do. Jesus Christ never used violence, and never advocated it.

So if we can agree that Jesus Christ was non-violent, or anti-violent, we're halfway there.

I keep wanting to call you John, but I don't suppose that's actually your name. Do you agree with the points being made here? Namely, God is just like Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ was both non-violent and anti-violent. Therefore God is non-violent and anti-violent.

4.In order to properly understand Scripture, we must know God. This includes both knowing Him personally, and knowing what He is like. We know God through Jesus Christ.

Therefore, before we embark on the study of a subject, we must be firmly established with a right foundation, which is knowing God as He has revealed Himself in Jesus Christ.

I would appreciate your comments on these four points. Thanks!

[pnattmbtc]

Here is an excerpt from a book called "Is God to Blame?" which I'm reproducing because I'm in harmony with the thoughts shared here, and believe they are key to understanding the topic we are discussing here (or any topic which involves Spiritual things).

Quote:

This is the foundation of all sin: the lie that God is untrustworthy, the lie that God is not altogether loving and that He doesn't have our best interests in mind. Adam and Eve came under the grip of this deceptive picture of God. At that moment they stopped trusting God as their source of life. Consequently, they saw themselves as deficient...

A faulty picture of God led to an ungodly evaluation that in turn brought about a rebellious action...The lie created an emptiness as well as the futile and rebellious means of filling it. A false concept of God, and therefore of herself, gave birth to sinful behavior, which in turn brought about spiritual and physical death (see Jas 1:14-16)...

Just as the foundation of all that separates us from God is a false picture of God, so too the foundation of all that restores our innocent communication iwth God is a true picture of God. So everything hangs on the question, Where do we find the true picture of God? The answer that the Bible unequivocally and emphatically gives is Jesus Christ.

Jesus is the truth that dispels the serpent's lie...

When God thinks, John is saying, it is Jesus. And when God expresses Himself, it is Jesus...wherever and whenever God thinks and expresses Himself, it is Jesus Christ.

Moreover, it has been this way throughout eternity...

This means that in knowing, we are not knowing someone "one step removed" from God. in knowing Jesus we are knowing God Himself, God in His eternal essence. In seeing Jesus, we are seeing the very heart of God...

Whereas the enemy covered up the true God in a veil of deceptive darkness that brought death, Jesus turns the light on so we can see who God really is. In doing this, Jesus gives life...

Only the revelation of God in Christ completely dispels all forms of the lie we have been deceived into believing. When our picture of God is built on any foundation other than Jesus Christ...we will be vulnerable to believing a lie about God... We will embrace a god that is consistent with our jaded presuppositions and fallible expectations, which keep us in bondage to the serpent's lie. Our understanding of God, ourselves, suffering and every other aspect of creation will be to some extent corrupted...

Idolatry takes place when we don't allow God to define Himself for us in Christ but rather embrace a picture of God on the basis of our life experiences, philosophical speculations or non-Christ-centered interpretations of Scripture...

All we can and need to know about God is found in Christ, for God fully dwells in and is revealed in Christ...

Christ was not an innocent third party who was punished against His will to apease the Father's wrath...Hence His sacrifice does not appease God's wrath; it reveals God's love.... In the crucified Christ the truth about God, about us and about the world is most perfectly revealed. For the cross is where reconciliation between God and the world is accomplished...

Under the impact of the primordial deception, the "natural mind" does not expect the omnipotent Creator to like like this...

The most fundamental distinguishing characteristic of every false picture of God is that it qualifies and compromises the truth about God's love. The most fundamental distinguishing characteristic of the true God is that the love He is and the love He gives is unsurpassable. A greater love simply cannot be conceived.

The love that God eternally is, is manifested in the love that God gives. And the love God gives is displayed most perfectly on the cross.

[pnattmbtc]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

Yes John God did tell them to kill the Baal worshippers but He did it simply because in a Theocracy God is the Ruler not only in religious matters but in civil matters as well. And the command to kill was not a revelation of His character but of the fact that His professed people had chosen to elect the sword to defend themselves against their enemies, and there were plenty of those, and to resolve matters within the camp. So in His mercy the Lord gave instructions which were not in harmony with His perfect ways of dealing with rebellion and iniquity but according to man's ways but mixed with an element of divine mercy to their emenies.

Did that help at all?

sky

When God delivered them from Egypt, they were unarmed and they left unarmed. They allowed God to deliver them in righteousness. The Egyptian army was the most powerful on earth. But they didn't have to fight. But after they crossed the Red Sea they picked up the Egyptians weapons that had washed to shore and ever after they fought with the sword. If the Lord had abandoned them to the Amalekites they would have been blotted from the face of the earth. So they fought against the Amalekites with the Egyptian weapons and God gave them the victory but it was not God's perfect way of delievering them in righteousness.

Great answer, sky. Thank you. :-)

I'm not sure I agree with everything here-- particularly about those things not being a revelation of God's character-- but you've given some thoughts worth thinking about for sure.

I think this was a very good answer as well. It's not easy to be brief and clear and adequately address an issue as sky has done here. I'll add a couple of examples to sky's point here, which are polygamy and divorce. These things were never in harmony with God's will, but God tolerated them in times of ignorance. As Jesus Christ pointed out, it was because of the hardness of their hearts.

In general, the picture we get of God's character in His dealings with Israel is a "mixed" one. It's mixed because you have God having to deal with the hardness of the hearts of the Israelites, having to permit certain things contrary to His will to even have anything to do with them at all. His plan was to lead them into all truth, but they rejected and fought Him the whole way threw, so we never got to see a true, unadulterated picture of God through them. It wasn't until Jesus Christ came that God's true character was fully revealed.

[pnattmbtc]

Me:John317, as a brief answer to your Numbers question, it's really dealing with a different issue than if God Himself acts violently.

J:Do you believe that God ever commanded His angels to act violently?

[pnattmbtc]

T:The reason I don't believe that God did these violent things is because:

1.I believe God is just like Jesus Christ.

2.I believe that Jesus Christ was completely non-violent.

Not only "non-violent" but "anti-violent." That is, Jesus Christ was totally against violence.

John317:I believe we need to get our view from the Bible itself and not base it on preconceived notions. In other words, it's best to arrive at conclusions on the basis of inductive Bible study.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

I have posted a small study on the Prince of Tyrus thread.

I think this shows that we should be cautious developing a doctrine based on the idea that the Prince of Tyrus is specifically Satan...

And that he will be killed by man.

Mark, I can't believe you are saying this in the face of what inspiration has already stated that the representation made in Ezekiel 28 refers primarily to Lucifer. English is your language and you know very well that "primarily" means "essentially, mostly, chiefly, principally."

Developing a doctrine based on the idea that the prince of Tyrus is specifially Satan...

Again, I must say, you never cease to amaze me, my dear friend Mark.

I am really scratching my head here as to what is happening with my brother to make that kind of a statement when the pen of inspiration is so clear, and that is that Satan is the primary figure referred to in that chapter, so much so that Mrs. White has nothing to say about the prince of Tyrus himself. She specifially applies that chapter to Lucifer!!!

You are right Mark, we need to be very cautious here!

It is how you use the word "primarily" that is the issue Sky.

You can use that to say the whole of Ezekiel 28 is a revelation of Satan.

Or that its core focus is indeed Satan within that section.

The second explains how the tail end of Eze 28 does not in fact relate at all...

To use it the way you have interpreted means that that has to be applied to Satan as well.

It is how you are using "primarily" that is going to cause confusion here I sense.

Mark :-)

[Twilight]

[Twilight]

In Ezekiel 28 the Lord says that Satan will fall at the hand of strangers who will draw their swords (implements of war) against the beauty of his wisdom and the result will be that he will be brought down to the pit. Sky

No it does not, it says the "man of sin" will be destroyed by the hand of man, which SOP agrees with.

You are then arguing this is a type of Satans destruction.

But there is no basis for that.

[skyblue888]

Yes John God did tell them to kill the Baal worshippers but He did it simply because in a Theocracy God is the Ruler not only in religious matters but in civil matters as well. And the command to kill was not a revelation of His character but of the fact that His professed people had chosen to elect the sword to defend themselves against their enemies, and there were plenty of those, and to resolve matters within the camp. So in His mercy the Lord gave instructions which were not in harmony with His perfect ways of dealing with rebellion and iniquity but according to man's ways but mixed with an element of divine mercy to their emenies.

Did that help at all?

sky

[color:#000066]When God delivered them from Egypt, they were unarmed and they left unarmed. They allowed God to deliver them in righteousness. The Egyptian army was the most powerful on earth. But they didn't have to fight. But after they crossed the Red Sea they picked up the Egyptians weapons that had washed to shore and ever after they fought with the sword. If the Lord had abandoned them to the Amalekites they would have been blotted from the face of the earth. So they fought against the Amalekites with the Egyptian weapons and God gave them the victory but it was not God's perfect way of delievering them in righteousness.

Would you please take the time to carefully read the following parable? I believe it might help you as it did me (15 years ago) when I was trying to understand the topic we are discussing.

Picture a smallish town located in an area where wild animals, such as bear, deer, mountain sheep, and various big cats abounded. As is to be expected, the majority of men in the town were keen hunters never missing the opportunity to take their guns out and track down the game.

But one man was different. He had the love of God in his heart and to kill the beautiful dwellers in the forests and mountains was contrary to his nature. So he was never seen in company with the men trailing off to seek their adventures in the blood of others. For their part, they were troubled by this odd man out and never lost an occasion to persuade him, if possible, to join them. At one time, they even bought him a splendid hunting rifle for his birthday. With Christian graciousness, he gently declined the gift. This was naturally resented, causing those men to increase the pressure on him, but despite this, year after year, there was no change in him. The only equipment with which he would hunt was a good camera.

This man had a fine son whom he was most anxious to protect from the influence of the hunters around. He worked untiringly to instill into him the same love of the wildlife which he possessed, and was gratified to see that he was having good success in this direction. Thus the father was working to have the boy do things his way as distinct from the hunter's way.

The father did not take away the boy's freedom of choice. When he eventually reached later youth, he became answerable for himself and was no longer under the direct control and discipline of his father. He received an invitation to spend some weeks away from home and, eager to see new country, accepted the kindly offer. This was a clever plot by the huntsmen, who sent their sons along to invite the boy, once he was away from the father's direct influence, to go hunting with them. They urged him to try it just once to see how he liked it. Feeling that no harm would be done by an on-the-spot personal appraisal of the hunting business, he went along.

His first reaction was unfavorable but, something about the challenge, thrill, and excitement, drew him back and soon he was an enthusiastic devotee. He went to the sports store, selected a beautifully engineered weapon, and in due time returned with it to his dismayed father. He had exercised his choice and now the father was confronted with a situation which required a response. How would he now relate himself to this turn of events? Clearly the young man had instituted in his life a course contrary to the ways of his father.

For the father, the choice lay between several alternatives. The first option was to disown the son, forbidding his entrance to the home and requiring he go his own separate way. The justification for this would have been the certainty that the principles of father and son could never harmonize.

Another course would have called for the use of force to coerce the lad's surrender to his father's wishes and ways. This was not the answer for two reasons. Firstly the youth had achieved the age of independence, so it would have been impossible for the father to achieve the desired result anyway. But, secondly, it was not in his father's nature any more than it is in the character of God, to use force. To them, the only acceptable service is that which springs from an educated heart of love.

A third alternative was to quietly ignore the change, pretend that the rifle had never been brought into the home, and act as if all were well when, in fact, it was not. Having considered and rejected each of these possibilities, what would have been left for this godly man to do?

Firstly, the man recognized that his son had placed himself, other people, domestic livestock, and wild animals, in a position of great danger. Being an inexperienced and untrained rifleman, he did not understand the necessity of looking beyond the target to ensure that there was no buildings, people, or farm animals in the line of fire. He needed to understand how to carry the weapon so that in climbing through fences, for instance, he did not, as so many have done, shoot himself or his friends. He must be made aware of the awful potential of the ricochet, when a bullet, glancing from rock or tree, will embed itself in a target far to the right or left of the original sighting. He must come close enough to the game to eliminate the possibility of only wounding the animal which would then drag itself away to suffer a lingering death. These and other things he could be taught in order to save himself and others from the worst effects of what he had chosen.

While the father could no longer save the youth from taking the gun, he could, if permitted, provide the instruction needed to save him from these serious consequences. Even the wild animals would benefit from this saving ministry, for, while they could not be saved from death, they could be delivered from a painful and lingering one.

When the boy's father found that his long pursued objectives of saving the youth from taking up weapons had failed, he still recognized that there was much he could do to save the boy from the worst effects of what he had chosen.

So, sadly, but with tender dignity the father drew his son aside and spoke with him. He expressed disappointment that the younger man had chosen to go the way he had, but assured him that he would respect his decision fully. He gently suggested that there were dangers associated with the use of such a weapon, from which perils he could only be safeguarded by receiving and obeying a number of specific precautions. The father intimated that he was more than willing to carefully instruct the son in these things so that he would be saved from the worst results of what he had chosen.

The son, relieved that his parent was not launching against him a fiery denunciation of his ways, no longer braced himself to resist such pressure. Instead he expressed his willingness to learn. Israel, for instance, was not prepared to trust God fully by leaving the sword alone, but they accepted and followed His counsels regarding the restrictions designed to minimize its evils. In like manner, the son who had abandoned his father's principles regarding the total rejection of firearms, was prepared to respect his counsels in the use of them.

God, who has been placed in the same position by the determination of His children to take up weapons of destruction, has likewise solemnly warned that His effort to save them from the worst effects of what they have chosen does not indicate any change in Him, even though His actions could and have been interpreted otherwise. "I am the Lord, I change not;" "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and for ever;" "with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." Malachi 3:6; Heb.13:8; James 1:17.

The father in our story did not have to change his ways in order to instruct the son to be a kind killer, neither did God have to change His ways to save Israel from being cruel users of the sword.

Now suppose that one of the villagers, the man who had most ardently sought to convert the father, had happened to come down the lane as this session was in progress. From a distance too great to hear all that has been said, he beheld the father instructing the son in the use of firearms. What assumptions will this man make? What conclusions will he draw? He never was possessed of the spirit of the father and therefore, could never understand it. Accordingly, there was no possibility of his correctly assessing what the father was doing. Instead, he would have interpreted what he saw as sure proof that the father had changed.

The onlooker would have lost no time in returning to his hunting companions to announce the father's conversion. He would have told them that he was now one of them. He would have offered as proof to his incredulous listeners, what he had seen of the father actually instructing the boy in gun-handling. The evidence he offered was factually true, for this is exactly what he had seen the father doing, but the conclusions drawn from those evidences were the opposite from the truth.

Even as the father was misjudged, so God has likewise been.

At the golden calf, God gave direct instructions through Moses for the Levites to take their swords and execute the unrepentant rebels. Men have taken these facts and from them have drawn their own conclusions. While the facts are correct, the conclusions drawn from them are wholly wrong. They have declared with great satisfaction that God has changed and has become like one of them--a destroyer. They could not be more mistaken. Thankfully, God has not changed. He has not become like men; He is not a destroyer. Sin has not changed Him, neither have sinful men.

[teresaq]

In slaying the Egyptian, Moses had fallen into the same error so often committed by his fathers, of taking into their own hands the work that God has promised to do. It was not God's will to deliver His people by warfare, as Moses thought, but by His own mighty power, that the glory might be ascribed to Him alone. Yet even this rash act was overruled by God to accomplish His purposes. Moses was not prepared for his great work. He had yet to learn the same lesson of faith that Abraham and Jacob had been taught--not to rely upon human strength or wisdom, but upon the power of God for the fulfillment of His promises. {CC 82.4}

[teresaq]

old covenant vs new covenant.

we dont understand it any better now than the israelites did then.

God said, "i will"

man said, "ok, we will"

God says "noooo, i will"

man says, "yes God, we understand, we will"

....ad nauseum. yet He still tries...

faith vs works.

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Joh 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

Joh 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

[John317]

Would you please take the time to carefully read the following parable? I believe it might help you as it did me (15 years ago) when I was trying to understand the topic we are discussing.

Picture a smallish town located in an area where wild animals, such as bear, deer, mountain sheep, and various big cats abounded. ......

The onlooker would have lost no time in returning to his hunting companions to announce the father's conversion. He would have told them that he was now one of them. He would have offered as proof to his incredulous listeners, what he had seen of the father actually instructing the boy in gun-handling. The evidence he offered was factually true, for this is exactly what he had seen the father doing, but the conclusions drawn from those evidences were the opposite from the truth.

Even as the father was misjudged, so God has likewise been.

At the golden calf, God gave direct instructions through Moses for the Levites to take their swords and execute the unrepentant rebels. Men have taken these facts and from them have drawn their own conclusions. While the facts are correct, the conclusions drawn from them are wholly wrong. They have declared with great satisfaction that God has changed and has become like one of them--a destroyer. They could not be more mistaken. Thankfully, God has not changed. He has not become like men; He is not a destroyer. Sin has not changed Him, neither have sinful men.

Thanks for that, sky. I remember reading it either on Club Adventist or on AO.

While it doesn't answer all the questions we might have about God's actions in the Bible, it certainly gives good, valuable insight into the topic we're discussing.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

no.

but the question is now getting into the personal instead of dealing with the issues, is it not? the issue to be addressed is whether God Himself would break His own law, His own character or not. it is not about peoples personal feelings on the question.

but since you asked let me ask you:

would you have a problem with Him if He told you He didnt?

No, I wouldn't. I would merely ask why the Bible was written in such a way as to appear that God destroyed the world in the Flood and why it says that fire comes down from God out of heaven and destroys the wicked.

Speaking as the moderator:

There is nothing wrong (i.e., contrary to the rules) with asking people the kind of question asked in that post, whether you would have a problem with God's destroying the wicked.

[skyblue888]

John, there are a lot of things in the Bible one can wonder about, as you already know, right?

John, it is the language that the Bible uses but God has not left us to speculate as to what that language means or why it is used. In the Bible itself and in the Testimonies are the answers to these questions to be found. That's what makes it so exciting and thrilling. If that was not so, it would not be the Word of God. It is full of hidden treasures and we must sink the shaft deeper and deeper into the mine of truth. Right?

sky

[skyblue888]

John, please read this and see if it makes any sense at all. Would appreciate your feedback again. Thanks so much and God bless.

It is safe to say that at least three facts are common to us all. The first is that we have, either consciously or subconsciously, a definite opinion about God's character and behavior. Even though little direct thought or specific expression may have been given to the topic, it is true nonetheless.

The second is that our attitude toward God, our treatment of others, and our receptivity to truth are determined by these opinions. The third is that all of us were born predispositioned to possess a false concept of God which in turn has been confirmed and extended by environmental and educational influences. Unless delivered from this and initiated into a true knowledge of God, it will be impossible to enter into a full and perfect Christian experience, and the prospects of eternal life will be endangered.

If this seems to be saying too much, consider the proof of these words as provided in the history of the Jews of Christ's day.

When Christ first appeared working amazing miracles, proclaiming the kingdom, and proving that He came at exactly the time specified in Daniel 9, He quickly became a very popular figure. Thousands followed Him, confident that He would re-establish the lost glory of Israel. The Jewish leaders studied the movement with increasing apprehension seeing in it the threat to their prestige and power. His following continued to swell until the feeding of the five thousand with the loaves and the fish. Then, when the enthusiasm of the people had reached its height and they were determined to crown Him king, the tide suddenly turned, the enthusiasm died away, and the crowds walked with Him no more. From that time every step led to the cross when those who had so ardently called for His crowning, screamed for His crucifixion.

What was the factor which caused this astonishing reversal? The answer is not difficult to find. They had a very definite but false concept of God's character, shaped by the educational processes in their environment. This factor was so fixed and powerful that it influenced them to reject the Savior because He did not perform as their concept of God's character led them to expect and desire of Him. Thus the question of God's character became the most critical element in the mission of Jesus and the fate of the Jews. Had they correctly understood this, the history of His work on earth would have been very different.

Any careful study of the mounting conflict between Christ and the people leaves no doubt of the veracity of the above assertions. A great and significant event in His ministry was the sermon on the mount. Everyone who attended came anticipating important announcements about the coming kingdom. The Pharisees had looked forward to the day when they should have dominion over the hated Romans and possess the riches and splendor of the world's great empire. The poor peasants and fishermen hoped to hear the assurance that their wretched hovels, the scanty food, the life of toil, and fear of want were to be exchanged for mansions of plenty and days of ease. In place of the one coarse garment which was their covering by day, and their blanket by night, they hoped that Christ would give them the rich and costly robes of their conquerors. All hearts thrilled with the proud hope that Israel was soon to be honored before the nations as the chosen of the Lord, and Jerusalem exalted as the head of a universal kingdom.

Because the devil had done his work well, the people believed that not only the Messiah would exalt them in this way but that He would do it by the use of the sword. They saw God as the vengeful, destroying One of the Old Testament. Their concept of the God of the Old Testament led them to believe that the Messaiah would behave in the same way. But because their understanding of God's character was wrong, their expectations were to be disappointed.

"Christ disappointed the hopes of worldly greatness. In the Sermon on the Mount He sought to undo the work that had been wrought by false education, and to give His hearers a right conception of His kingdom and of His own character." D.A.299.

The people did not hear what they had come to hear in the sermon on the mount, but many did not reject the Savior just then. He did not directly attack their errors, and they were left with the vague hope that somehow He would assert His power and use it according to their ideas of God's character.

Their servitude to the Romans had placed that proud people in a desperate plight. They needed great help, and they knew it. Their understanding of the prophecies had led them to pin their entire hopes on the Messiah as the answer to this predicament. If He should fail them, they would have nowhere else to turn.

Christ had not come to fail them. He knew exactly what their true needs were, and He had fully purposed to supply those needs. But the answer did not lie in the use of the weapons of force. It lay in the changing of their characters into the likeness of His own. But so intent were they on their long cherished ambitions that there was no room to consider the alternative He offered.

The climax came at the feeding of the five thousand. Throughout the long day, He had thrilled their hearts with the wonder of His teachings. The sick had been healed and the multitude fed. As the day wore on, "they said to one another, 'This is the prophet that should come into the world.'"

"All day the conviction had strengthened. The hopes of the people rise higher and higher. This is He who will make Judea an earthly paradise, a land flowing with milk and honey. He can satisfy every desire. He can break the power of the hated Romans. He can deliver Judah and Jerusalem. He can heal the soldiers who are wounded in battle. He can supply whole armies with food. He can conquer the nations, and give to Israel the long-sought dominion.

In their enthusiasm the people are ready at once to crown Him king, They see that He makes no effort to attract attention or secure honor to Himself. In this He is essentially different from the priests and rulers, and they fear that He will never urge His claim to David's throne. Consulting together, they agree to take Him by force, and proclaim Him the king of Israel. The disciples unite with the multitude in declaring the throne of David the rightful inheritance of their Master. It is the modesty of Christ, they say, that causes Him to refuse the honor. Let the people exalt their Deliverer. Let the arrogant priests and rulers be forced to honor Him who comes clothed with the authority of God." D.A.377,378.

They could see that Jesus loved them and that He had all the power necessary to give them all that they could desire. The only kind of character they knew and understood was the kind which used the possession of mighty power to achieve their selfish ambitions. They could see and were unwilling to be taught that Christ did not have this kind of character. He loved the Romans as much as He loved the Jews, neither was it His way to use force to accomplish any desired objective. Therefore, in harmony with His character, He would not permit Himself to be made king by them, nor would He use His mighty powers to advantage one class of those whom He loved, above another. With an authority which none could disobey, He dismissed disciples and multitude alike.

The bitter complaint of the apostles against Him was, "Why did not He who possessed such power reveal Himself in His true character, and make their way less painful." D.A.380. The truth was that Christ was living out the character of God to perfection. It was because of what He was, a revelation of God to men, that He did what He did. In their failure to understand His real character, they expected an altogether different line of behavior. When He did not do what they believed that He should do, they felt cheated and betrayed.

So it was with the multitude. The next day, after closely questioning Him, they came to see that He would never use His power as they expected Him to. For this reason they left Him forever. "If He would not devote His power and influence to obtaining their freedom from the Romans, they would have nothing to do with Him." D.A.391.

Thus it was that their misunderstanding of the character of God in Christ led them to expect from Him a complete deliverance from the Romans and their exaltation to the heights of material grandeur. He was a Jew like they were. He was sent as the Messiah to the chosen and favoured people. He had the power. Therefore, they reasoned, it was His duty to use that power to favour them. If He refused to do it, then He was nothing short of a traitor to His own. They found Him guilty of treason and determined to be revenged. Because they possessed the character which they believed He had, they did to Him with the power at their command, what they believed He should have done to the Romans. To accomplish this, they accused Him before the Romans of seeking to make Himself to be what they had actually tried to make Him, the king of the world. This was a totally false accusation which, though it enabled them to wreak vengeance on Him whom they believed had betrayed them, opened the floodgates of woe on the nation. Few people, if any, have suffered as the Jews have since that terrible time. Theirs is a fate which none would care to share.

If only they had understood the character of God so perfectly revealed in Christ, or at least been willing to be taught it, they would not have expected of Him what they did, nor would they have rejected and vengefully crucified Him. Thus the question of the character of God in Christ was the most critical element in His mission and in the fate of the Jews.

Contained in their history is a sober warning which none can treat lightly. The character of God is still the most critical issue in the church and in the world today. As were the Jews, so too have all of us been subjected to an erroneous education in respect to God's character. But God will not leave us in darkness without the opportunity to escape from it. When that light is presented to us, there is the terrible danger that we will repeat their history by rejecting the message because it does not conform to our already established ideas and does not suit our personal ambitions and dreams.

Let none repeat the fearful history of the Jews by rejecting God's truth on this basis. The outworking of such decisions have implications too terrible, final, and eternal to comtemplate. Rather, let there be an earnest, prayerful pleading with the Lord to open the eyes of our spiritual understanding to see God as He really is.

More on this after I get some feedback from you.

sky

[skyblue888]

where are you John? I'm waiting for you to comment upon my last post!

sky

[pnattmbtc]

It is safe to say that at least three facts are common to us all. The first is that we have, either consciously or subconsciously, a definite opinion about God's character and behavior. Even though little direct thought or specific expression may have been given to the topic, it is true nonetheless.

The second is that our attitude toward God, our treatment of others, and our receptivity to truth are determined by these opinions.

The third is that all of us were born predispositioned to possess a false concept of God which in turn has been confirmed and extended by environmental and educational influences. Unless delivered from this and initiated into a true knowledge of God, it will be impossible to enter into a full and perfect Christian experience, and the prospects of eternal life will be endangered.

[Guest]

So you two guys think that there will be people who don't make it, and have to get burned up because they believed excactly what the Bible says, and never come around to your viewpoint?

[Guest]

Because that's what it looks like you're saying. Especially you sky.

Unless delivered from this and initiated into a true knowledge of God, it will be impossible to enter into a full and perfect Christian experience, and the prospects of eternal life will be endangered.