Murders depicted in the Bible

[Kevin Straub]

Did you know that this thing we call "Divine Recession" is in the Bible called the "hiding of His face" and that this Hebrew idiom refers to God's wrath? Would you believe that this same thing is also the "judicial punishment" of God?

[Kevin Straub]

2 minutes ago, there buster said:

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.

It is language. The destruction that takes place is one and the same action: God commands holy angels to stand down and evil angels destroy. The action of holy angels releasing the evil angels is expressed in the Hebrew idiom, wherein to let is to perform. You will just have to study this out without your own emotional glasses on, for this desire to see God as exercising physical power to punish is nothing but the old carnal heart beating strong, which wants its pound of flesh in eye-for-eye justice. That is old news. Jesus came to correct that. You can twist the Bible language to make it say what you want it to say. We have the keys to decode this language of wrath. You may ignore those keys and believe what you want. But I am going to stick with the keys, with Jesus, and with common sense, because at the end of the day, you can't love someone freely and commit all your heart loyalty to him if he is the one who will punish you by his own hand for not giving him that love and loyalty, right? This doesn't work in the human realm and God can't make it work, either. It is preposterous.

1 John 4:18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. 

The NIV says "because fear has to do with punishment."

Human carnal systems execute punishment based upon principles of restitution, vengeance, and deterrence. Let's discuss how these principles might operate in God's character and government, shall we? These are the kinds of things we need to be discussing. But instead, the standard response of the standard view is to continually fling the "destroying God" language as its own proof of active wrath when the Bible keys say that the destroying God language is actually when God turns aside and lets outside powers come in and do their work of destruction because the free moral agent has rejected God.

The language of Rev. 19:11 is highly symbolic, now, isn't it? What is Christ striking with? The Word! It is the word rejected that is bringing punishment. The wicked have spurned their day of opportunity. The world and they have been given over to the full control of Satan and the working out of Satanic principles. At the second coming, God's protective power over all nature is relinquished and the wicked are destroyed by it, as well as by their own passions, warring against each other, the great slaughter that takes place under the drying up the great River Euphrates, and so on. There is no need whatsoever for God to impose any personal destructive power, even if it was in Him to do so.

They are destroyed by the brightness of His coming in the same way that the Jews were destroyed by it:

“But in that day, as in the time of Jerusalem's destruction, God's people will be delivered, everyone that shall be found written among the living. Isaiah 4:3. Christ has declared that He will come the second time to gather His faithful ones to Himself: ‘Then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And He shall send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.’ Matthew 24:30, 31. Then shall they that obey not the gospel be consumed with the spirit of His mouth and be destroyed with the brightness of His coming. 2 Thessalonians 2:8. Like Israel of old the wicked destroy themselves; they fall by their iniquity. By a life of sin, they have placed themselves so out of harmony with God, their natures have become so debased with evil, that the manifestation of His glory is to them a consuming fire” (GC 37.1).

“Let ministers and people remember that gospel truth ruins if it does not save. The soul that refuses to listen to the invitations of mercy from day to day can soon listen to the most urgent appeals without an emotion stirring his soul” (5T 134.1).

[Kevin Straub]

2 Cor. 10:3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: 
 10:4 (For the weapons of our warfare [are] not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) 
 

"'Whereunto,' asked Christ, 'shall we liken the kingdom of God? or with what comparison shall we compare it?' Mark 4:30. He could not employ the kingdoms of the world as a similitude. In society He found nothing with which to compare it. Earthly kingdoms rule by the ascendancy of physical power; but from Christ's kingdom every carnal weapon, every instrument of coercion, is banished. This kingdom is to uplift and ennoble humanity. God's church is the court of holy life, filled with varied gifts and endowed with the Holy Spirit. The members are to find their happiness in the happiness of those whom they help and bless" (AA 12.2).

[Green Cochoa]

18 minutes ago, Kevin Straub said:

Did you know that this thing we call "Divine Recession" is in the Bible called the "hiding of His face" and that this Hebrew idiom refers to God's wrath? Would you believe that this same thing is also the "judicial punishment" of God?

Kevin,

On account of trying to make God fit your paradigm, you're missing the forest for the trees.  Are you a parent?  If so, let me ask a simple question: When you punished your children, did you always do so by making them go to bed without supper?  You NEVER slapped, made them sit still for five minutes to think, spanked, made them give up their prized possession, sat down and talked with them, gave them chores, made them do reparations, asked them to apologize, or ever punished in any other way?  You ALWAYS punished by sending your child to bed without supper, right?  Because your character is always the same, and never changes, right?

You may continue to hold that it is this way with God, but inasmuch as God is a lover of variety, and inasmuch as His wisdom is so far above ours that He can think of a thousand ways where we can think of one, I would submit that your view is too narrow, and puts God into a box of your own making.

God does not always punish by "hiding His face."

[Kevin Straub]

1 minute ago, Green Cochoa said:

Kevin,

On account of trying to make God fit your paradigm, you're missing the forest for the trees.  Are you a parent?  If so, let me ask a simple question: When you punished your children, did you always do so by making them go to bed without supper?  You NEVER slapped, made them sit still for five minutes to think, spanked, made them give up their prized possession, sat down and talked with them, gave them chores, made them do reparations, asked them to apologize, or ever punished in any other way?  You ALWAYS punished by sending your child to bed without supper, right?  Because your character is always the same, and never changes, right?

You may continue to hold that it is this way with God, but inasmuch as God is a lover of variety, and inasmuch as His wisdom is so far above ours that He can think of a thousand ways where we can think of one, I would submit that your view is too narrow, and puts God into a box of your own making.

God does not always punish by "hiding His face."

To learn to parent after the pattern of the Divine Character is a tremendous challenge. Force does not work. We should be striving to teach them that disobedience brings its own consequences. However, we need to remember that we are in a carnal environment and for the young sometimes an imposed penalty, based upon principles of deterrence, will save them from damages. But this is apples and oranges. God is God and He sustains and upholds all things. God and His Spirit and His angels are ever in place to protect. Should any of these be withdrawn, punishment comes. God, being God, never has to impose punishment. He gives over to Satan's claims and to individual choice, because love is based upon freedom of choice and non-coercion.
 

God always "punishes" the same way, by DR.

“When will men learn that God is God, not man, and that He does not change? EVERY calamity, EVERY death, is a witness to the POWER OF EVIL and to the truth of the living God. The Word of God is life, and it will abide forever. Through all eternity it will stand fast. How can man, knowing what God is and what He has done, choose Satan's way instead of God's way? There is only one path to Paradise restored,--the path of obedience” (ST, January 25, 1910 par. 18).

 

You cannot compare God being a lover of variety in creation with the principles of His dealing with sin and sinners, the principles of love, wrath, and punishment. Again, this is mixing apples and oranges.

 

There is no hermeneutic for active wrath. Simply citing "God did it" language does not work. This is a circular argument.

 

Everything we need to know about God is at the cross, including 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; for thee He spoils the domain of death, and opens the gates of Paradise and immortal life. He who stilled the angry waves by His word and walked the foam-capped billows, who made devils tremble and disease flee from His touch, who raised the dead to life and opened the eyes of the blind, offers Himself upon the cross as the last sacrifice for man. He, the sin-bearer, endures judicial punishment for iniquity and becomes sin itself for man” (SR 225.1).

[Kevin Straub]

Let us now exercise our mental powers. It is no secret that the Bible is written mostly in the modality of active wrath, in the “God-did-it” language. This is what we call the “major voice” of Scripture. Then we have the lesser heard voice of passive wrath, which is the “minor voice” of the Bible language, wherein the types of phrases depicting Divine Recession are used (e.g., 2 Chron. 30:7; Rom. 1:28; Isa. 54:8). What happens is that assent is given to the minor voice but it is not used as a key to interpret all of the language, including the major voice (e.g., Eze. 25:7; Acts 23:3). It is simply believed that the major voice, when standing alone, must stand as it reads in our own mindset, without consideration of the Hebrew mindset and manner of speaking, whence it was written, in that to have power to stop an evil and not step in, is to be the doer of that evil (DA 286.2). But there is a problem with this principle of interpretation, or hermeneutic. Follow carefully:

   We find that the LANGUAGE OF WRATH, where it appears as though God actually does a destructive thing, is used freely in cases where the minor voice is present or in cases where it is not. Here is an example of where we have a DIRECT MINOR VOICE revealed in Scripture relative to a particular Biblical narrative of Divine destruction:

 

MAJOR VOICE (ACTIVE WRATH)

“And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life, from under heaven; [and] every thing that [is] in the earth shall die” (Gen. 6:17).

 

DIRECT MINOR VOICE (PASSIVE WRATH)

“For a small moment have I forsaken thee; but with great mercies will I gather thee. 

   In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the LORD thy Redeemer. 

   For this [is as] the waters of Noah unto me…” (Isa. 54:7-9a).

 

   Then there are examples where the major voice is used without the inclusion of a minor voice key, but the curtain is drawn back to show causation (aetiology), which is an INDIRECT MINOR VOICE. Here is an example: The case of Saul, in 1 Chron. 10:14 states that God did it:

 

MAJOR VOICE (ACTIVE WRATH)

“And [Saul] inquired not of the LORD: therefore he [God] slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse” (1 Chron. 10:14).

 

INDIRECT MINOR VOICE (PASSIVE WRATH)

“And the battle went sore against Saul, and the archers hit him, and he was wounded of the archers. 

   Then said Saul to his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. So Saul took a sword, and fell upon it” (1 Chron. 10:3, 4).

 

   The two examples thus are conclusive. The minor voice in them absolutely dictates that it was passive wrath that was being “exercised” in that God gave over. In the case of the flood, He gave over to the free course of the elements. In the case of Saul, He gave Saul over to the archers and to the course of his own action.

   Then, in the third class of Biblical narrative we lack any indication of the minor voice, either direct or indirect. All we have is the major voice/active wrath language. I.e., it is now perceived that God actually did it. In such a narrative we have no indication that God gave over to anything and we cannot prove causation. It simply appears, on the basis of our own interpretation of the language, without reference to the Hebrew idiomatic manner of expression, that in such cases God actually used Personal power or the power of Holy angels to punish and destroy.

 

MAJOR VOICE (ACTIVE WRATH)

“And there came out a fire from the LORD, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense” (Num. 16:35).

 

   So now, in such a case, where we have no direct or indirect minor voice brought into the narrative anywhere in the Bible, the standard view would apply a hermeneutic from outside of the Scriptures, from human philosophy, to say that God sometimes uses direct power to destroy. Herein, the standard view takes the liberty to take the major voice of apparent “active” wrath out of its setting of the Biblical/Hebrew idiomatic manner of thinking and expressing. It imposes upon the narrative the carnal understanding of judgment, justice, and punishment, after the manner of the world. All of this serves to bring God down to the level of man.

   The standard view, therefore, has upon it the responsibility to provide a valid Biblical hermeneutic which will validate the theory of dual modalities of wrath. In doing so, it will then succeed in proving that:

 

1) God is variable;

2) When we are lacking either a direct or indirect minor voice indicator we are then to take the language literally as the direct exercise of Divine power for the purpose of causing disorder (Creator becomes Destroyer), and;

3) Such action functions in accordance with the principles of carnal human governance with its notions of justice and punishment, founded upon:

 

   a) The imposition of restitution (eye for eye);

   b ) The desire for revenge (eye for eye), and;

   c) Deterrence (Continuance of Government through rule by fear of punishment)

 

God’s power does only good for us, all the time. When the sinner rejects Him, His power is turned aside. Suffering is never His doing.

[Green Cochoa]

Kevin,

Your view of a passive God is unscriptural and is diametrically/diabolically opposed to the Third Angel's message--the very message we are to be preaching as Present Truth for this time.  That makes yours a "false gospel," doesn't it?  Consider the Third Angel's message:

14:9    And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,  
 14:10    The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:  
 14:11    And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.  
 14:12    Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. 

When the passage says "without mixture" it means that at this point in time mercy will no longer dilute the wrath.  Until now, this has never happened yet.  There comes a time when all will see the wrath of God for what it really is, "without mixture."  Pure wrath.  From a Holy God.  God has every right to be angry at sin and those who have cherished it.  His wrath is righteous.  Anger, of itself, is not a sin.  Nor is it a sin to punish.  "For whom the Lord loveth, he correcteth."  "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous, therefore, and repent."

Mrs. White says . . .

Quote

God is our Lawgiver and King, and parents are to place themselves under His rule. This rule forbids all oppression from parents and all disobedience from children. The Lord is full of lovingkindness, mercy, and truth. His law is holy, just, and good, and must be obeyed by parents and children. The rules which should regulate the lives of parents and children flow from a heart of infinite love, and God's rich blessing will rest upon those parents who administer His law in their homes, and upon the children who obey this law. The combined influence of mercy and justice is to be felt. "Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other." Households under this discipline will walk in the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment.  {AH 310.4} 

That "mercy" and "justice" are the two components of "love," and not "freedom of choice" as you like to believe.  "Justice" is a thing altogether different from "mercy," and a thing upon which you would do well to ponder.  It is clear in your posts here that you do not well understand it.  Until we understand both of these two components to love, how can we understand God's character, which is love?

[Kevin Straub]

Just now, Green Cochoa said:

Kevin,

Your view of a passive God is unscriptural and is diametrically/diabolically opposed to the Third Angel's message--the very message we are to be preaching as Present Truth for this time.  That makes yours a "false gospel," doesn't it?  Consider the Third Angel's message:

14:9    And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,  
 14:10    The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:  
 14:11    And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.  
 14:12    Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. 

When the passage says "without mixture" it means that at this point in time mercy will no longer dilute the wrath.  Until now, this has never happened yet.  There comes a time when all will see the wrath of God for what it really is, "without mixture."  Pure wrath.  From a Holy God.  God has every right to be angry at sin and those who have cherished it.  His wrath is righteous.  Anger, of itself, is not a sin.  Nor is it a sin to punish.  "For whom the Lord loveth, he correcteth."  "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous, therefore, and repent."

Mrs. White says . . .

That "mercy" and "justice" are the two components of "love," and not "freedom of choice" as you like to believe.  "Justice" is a thing altogether different from "mercy," and a thing upon which you would do well to ponder.  It is clear in your posts here that you do not well understand it.  Until we understand both of these two components to love, how can we understand God's character, which is love?

The third angel's message is the everlasting gospel which is the righteousness of Christ/God. This is the theme of the great controversy. Satan has issued a challenge to God's character and government. Satan's way is that of force and he has attributed the same to God. But God's way is love. Freedom has to be it. Freedom to choose God or not choose Him. But not choosing Him carries consequences because only in Him is life. He doesn't have to torture with fire and then kill after a time to prove anything. He need only give the wicked over to their choice. You need not worry that they might not suffer, if that is so important to you. They will suffer.

The language is all highly symbolic, as is much of Revelation. The smoke of their torment going up forever, we have figured out, but can't seem to give up the rest of it. It is time. This language is taken from the OT, as you should know, from the battle of Gog and Magog, Eze. 38-39. It is all language of recompense that comes back upon the wicked as the fruit of their own doing. But we have insisted on making it literal punishment by violent exercise of physical forces at the behest of a trigger-pulling God. Away with such a God! This is SATAN!

[Kevin Straub]

God's justice is giving the free moral agent that which he has chosen. God would not be just if He withheld the consequences for then He would be sustaining sin, which itself causes a lot of pain to the innocent and weak. Also, He would not be just in that He would be forcing Himself where He was not wanted. The free moral agent must be allowed to choose not to have God and if God is the Creator, Protector, Sustainer and Healer, then all of these must be relinquished and sought after from the other gods. There is only one problem with this, there are no other gods.

[Green Cochoa]

10 minutes ago, Kevin Straub said:

But we have insisted on making it literal punishment by violent exercise of physical forces at the behest of a trigger-pulling God. Away with such a God! This is SATAN!

On the contrary, it is Satan who lies about God and His true character.  Where will your false doctrine eventually lead?  Mrs. White tells us.

Quote

. . . Many regard the threatenings of the Bible as designed merely to frighten men into obedience, and not to be literally fulfilled. Thus the sinner can live in selfish pleasure, disregarding the requirements of God, and yet expect to be finally received into His favor. Such a doctrine, presuming upon God's mercy, but ignoring His justice, pleases the carnal heart and emboldens the wicked in their iniquity…. {DD 16.2}

 

[there buster]

" SAME DESTRUCTIVE POWER EXERCISED BY HOLY ANGELS WHEN GOD COMMANDS, WILL BE EXERCISED BY EVIL ANGELS WHEN HE PERMITS. "

 

To say that is one action is to ignore the actual sentence structure. It is one (destructive) power, exercised in two different ways with two different causes:

Holy angels exercise it when God commands

Evil angels exercise it when God permits.

Basic syntax makes that clear: the sentence has two clauses describing two actions. But even if you could overcome that obstacle, it makes the sentence nonsense. It turns a command to holy angels to exercise a power into a command to do nothing, thus rendering the first clause superfluous and meaningless.

No matter how many paragraphs you write, you cannot change those simple facts.

 

[there buster]

2+2 cannot be made to equal 1.

 

[Green Cochoa]

Quote

The depths of the earth are the Lord's arsenal, whence were drawn weapons to be employed in the destruction of the old world. Waters gushing from the earth united with the waters from heaven to accomplish the work of desolation. Since the Flood, fire as well as water has been God's agent to destroy very wicked cities. These judgments are sent that those who lightly regard God's law and trample upon His authority may be led to tremble before His power and to confess His just sovereignty. As men have beheld burning mountains pouring forth fire and flames and torrents of melted ore, drying up rivers, overwhelming populous cities, and everywhere spreading ruin and desolation, the stoutest heart has been filled with terror and infidels and blasphemers have been constrained to acknowledge the infinite power of God.  {PP 109.1} 

It appears Kevin would rather have Christians acknowledging the power of Satan (and denying God's involvement) than to have the worldlings acknowledging the power of God.

Quote

Those majestic trees which God had caused to grow upon the earth, for the benefit of the inhabitants of the old world, and which they had used to form into idols, and to corrupt themselves with, God has reserved in the earth, in the shape of coal and oil to use as agencies in their final destruction. As He called forth the waters in the earth at the time of the Flood, as weapons from His arsenal to accomplish the destruction of the antediluvian race, so at the end of the one thousand years He will call forth the fires in the earth as His weapons which He has reserved for the final destruction, not only of successive generations since the Flood, but the antediluvian race who perished by the Flood (3SG 87).  {1BC 1090.8}

As hell will not be a blissful land of bed and bath (bed of coal, bath of oil), I am certain there must be some literal fire involved. 

Genesis 19:24: "Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven . . . ."

Exodus 9:23: "And Moses stretched forth his rod toward heaven: and the LORD sent thunder and hail, and the fire ran along upon the ground; and the LORD rained hail upon the land of Egypt."

Revelation 20:9: "And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them."

In hell, Satan is not the one in charge.  Jesus is the Judge to whom all will be subject at that time.  The fire of hell comes from God.  God is not turning His face away--He is an active participant in the final destruction.

But, for the sake of pondering God's character a little, let us contemplate a few other facts:

1) Only God knows the future.

2) Only God can create life and resurrect/restore life.

3) Only God's law defines sin and the punishment for it.

Starting with #1, let us remember that God knows hell is coming.  He knows what will happen to the wicked at that time.  If, for the sake of argument, we should accept that God does not punish, then why would He wish to raise the wicked dead (see #2) only to receive their just reward of punishment?  Such a God as this could hardly be said to be acting "passively" because He first actively resurrected the wicked--full knowing what was in store for them.  Finally, considering #3, Satan does not define sin.  Sin cannot define itself.  The Bible is clear that sin is the transgression of the law, and Mrs. White adds that "Our only definition of sin is that given in the word of God; it is 'the transgression of the law;' it is the outworking of a principle at war with the great law of love which is the foundation of the divine government"  {GC 492.2}.

And what are the wages of sin?  The Bible, again, is clear: "The wages of sin is death . . . " (Romans 6:23).  God defines sin.  God defines its wage.  Satan rebels against God, and desires not to be punished nor to die.  Fortunately, it is not up to Satan to decide his fate once his character has been established.  God will act.  In the Bible, this action that God takes is called His "strange act."  (See Isaiah 28:21.)  We may not understand everything now; it is not necessary.  We may simply praise God for His mercy toward us as sinners, and live every day for Him, that His sacrifice on the cross be not in vain for us, Who would rather we live and not die.

 

[Kevin Straub]

1 hour ago, Green Cochoa said:

On the contrary, it is Satan who lies about God and His true character.  Where will your false doctrine eventually lead?  Mrs. White tells us.

 

We don't see the same thing when reading the words, "threatenings," "justice" etc. You have a punitive penal model, we have a Divine loving model. You read God as threatening in the same way that human punishment "threatens" in that it seeks to acquire obedience by the principle of deterrence. But such has no concern for winning the heart, only the compliance of obedience, non-resistance. If that was the government of God, or any part of it, it would be no different than carnal governments. Deterrence says "obey or face the executioner." But God is not the executioner:

"God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but he leaves the rejecters of his mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown. Every ray of light rejected, every warning despised or unheeded, every passion indulged, every transgression of the law of God, is a seed sown, which yields its unfailing harvest. The Spirit of God, persistently resisted, is at last withdrawn from the sinner, and then there is left no power to control the evil passions of the soul, and no protection from the malice and enmity of Satan. The destruction of Jerusalem is a fearful and solemn warning to all who are trifling with the offers of divine grace, and resisting the pleadings of divine mercy. Never was there given a more decisive testimony to God's hatred of sin, and to the certain punishment that will fall upon the guilty" GC88 36.2).

[Kevin Straub]

1 hour ago, there buster said:

" SAME DESTRUCTIVE POWER EXERCISED BY HOLY ANGELS WHEN GOD COMMANDS, WILL BE EXERCISED BY EVIL ANGELS WHEN HE PERMITS. "

 

To say that is one action is to ignore the actual sentence structure. It is one (destructive) power, exercised in two different ways with two different causes:

Holy angels exercise it when God commands

Evil angels exercise it when God permits.

Basic syntax makes that clear: the sentence has two clauses describing two actions. But even if you could overcome that obstacle, it makes the sentence nonsense. It turns a command to holy angels to exercise a power into a command to do nothing, thus rendering the first clause superfluous and meaningless.

No matter how many paragraphs you write, you cannot change those simple facts.

 

You are ignoring the entire context of this quote. She cares not at all for making any point about holy angels or God exercising physical force! Nothing of that nature is even remotely suggested in the passages in question. You folks are taking one sentence and wresting it out to say what you want it to say to fit your paradigm. The principles are clearly outlined in both the Bible and the SoP. It is an unusual phraseology, but it is in keeping with the principles of DR. (Divine Recession = hiding of face = judicial punishment). Yes, the command to holy angels is to exercise the power of the evil angels, not by doing nothing, but by releasing their restraint. This is entirely in keeping with the Hebrew parlance, that to let, to give over, is to do the thing. You should really look further into this instead of continually arguing with me about it. You are thinking to read all of these things in the modern mindset and according to ordinary dictionary understanding of our time, but the Bible was written from the perspective of a different culture and different manner of expressing. Also from a mindset of a singular deity issuing both good and evil. I suggest you go to Dr. Jean Sheldon at PUC and take in some of her lectures to get the real goods on this. Until you can get out of your Greek mindset our discussion will be to no profit, as much as the way the majority of the Christian world reads the Bible to no profit.

In the last plagues, the holy angels "pour out the vials of wrath." This is clearly delineated in inspiration in many passages as giving over the world to the power of Satan. Here is one:

"The wicked have passed the boundary of their probation; the Spirit of God, persistently resisted, has been at last withdrawn. Unsheltered by divine grace, they have no protection from the wicked one. Satan will then plunge the inhabitants of the earth into one great, final trouble. As >>>the angels of God cease to hold in check<<< the fierce winds of human passion, all the elements of strife will be let loose. The whole world will be involved in ruin more terrible than that which came upon Jerusalem of old" (GC 614.1).

This is Divine Recession, "exercised" by holy angels.

Note how the same thing is expressed also as apparent active wrath:

"They are mighty, and they excel in strength. On one occasion, in obedience to the command of Christ, they slew in one night one hundred and eighty-five thousand men of the Assyrian army. They can, and will, soon visit the earth with judgments. >>>In quick succession one angel after another will pour out vials of wrath upon the inhabitants of the earth.<<< How easily could the angels, beholding the shameful scene of the trial of Christ, have testified to their indignation by consuming the adversaries of God! But they were not commanded to do this" (ST, January 17, 1900 par. 10).

In the first passage, they are exercising wrath by giving over to Satan and "all the elements of strife" and in the second this is described as their excellent strength. Their strength is obviously in holding back the winds of strife! It is conclusive. The slaying of the Assyrian army is done in the same way. This was the work of evil forces, as God's angels would have released them to do so.

Here is another interesting point to ponder. We all know that it was the unmitigated fury of the Roman soldiery that caused the razing of the temple at Jerusalem in A. D. 70. You can read up on that in the first chapter of GC. Notice how the Bible language is used to describe it:

"2 (Luke 19:44). Angels Did Work of Destruction.--Men will continue to erect expensive buildings, costing millions of money; special attention will be called to their architectural beauty, and the firmness and solidity with which they are constructed; but the Lord has instructed me that despite the unusual firmness and expensive display, these buildings will share the fate of the temple in Jerusalem. That magnificent structure fell. >>>Angels of God were sent to do the work of destruction, so that one stone was not left one upon another that was not thrown down<<< (MS 35, 1906)" (5BC 1098.7).
     
 By the same token, the twin towers on 9-11 were thrown down by angels of God. In the Biblical parlance, they were "sent to do the work of destruction." And in the same way were the firstborn destroyed, the 185K of the Assyrians, the "pestilence upon Israel" whereby 70K died for David's sin of numbering Israel (the LORD 'sent'--let a pestilence come, by giving over to outside forces), and on it goes. It is all the same thing.

[Green Cochoa]

2 hours ago, Kevin Straub said:

God's justice is giving the free moral agent that which he has chosen.

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.

[Kevin Straub]

1 hour ago, Green Cochoa said:

It appears Kevin would rather have Christians acknowledging the power of Satan (and denying God's involvement) than to have the worldlings acknowledging the power of God.

As hell will not be a blissful land of bed and bath (bed of coal, bath of oil), I am certain there must be some literal fire involved. 

Genesis 19:24: "Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven . . . ."

Exodus 9:23: "And Moses stretched forth his rod toward heaven: and the LORD sent thunder and hail, and the fire ran along upon the ground; and the LORD rained hail upon the land of Egypt."

Revelation 20:9: "And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them."

In hell, Satan is not the one in charge.  Jesus is the Judge to whom all will be subject at that time.  The fire of hell comes from God.  God is not turning His face away--He is an active participant in the final destruction.

But, for the sake of pondering God's character a little, let us contemplate a few other facts:

1) Only God knows the future.

2) Only God can create life and resurrect/restore life.

3) Only God's law defines sin and the punishment for it.

Starting with #1, let us remember that God knows hell is coming.  He knows what will happen to the wicked at that time.  If, for the sake of argument, we should accept that God does not punish, then why would He wish to raise the wicked dead (see #2) only to receive their just reward of punishment?  Such a God as this could hardly be said to be acting "passively" because He first actively resurrected the wicked--full knowing what was in store for them.  Finally, considering #3, Satan does not define sin.  Sin cannot define itself.  The Bible is clear that sin is the transgression of the law, and Mrs. White adds that "Our only definition of sin is that given in the word of God; it is 'the transgression of the law;' it is the outworking of a principle at war with the great law of love which is the foundation of the divine government"  {GC 492.2}.

And what are the wages of sin?  The Bible, again, is clear: "The wages of sin is death . . . " (Romans 6:23).  God defines sin.  God defines its wage.  Satan rebels against God, and desires not to be punished nor to die.  Fortunately, it is not up to Satan to decide his fate once his character has been established.  God will act.  In the Bible, this action that God takes is called His "strange act."  (See Isaiah 28:21.)  We may not understand everything now; it is not necessary.  We may simply praise God for His mercy toward us as sinners, and live every day for Him, that His sacrifice on the cross be not in vain for us, Who would rather we live and not die.

 

I realize that you enjoyed writing all of that and I am actually quite well acquainted with the paradigm. I grew up in it, third generation SdA, product of our educational system. However, it is all wrong from start to finish. Would you like me to answer all of it? I can answer all of it. Every line. And bring the evidence, also.

[Kevin Straub]

29 minutes ago, Green Cochoa said:

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.

It is not flawed at all. You are saying God doesn't give freedom of choice.

Sinners will show that they choose death. This is what the final fire is all about. They will realize that they want life but on their terms. But they will find that they can't have it because they don't want God and in Him is the only life to be had. They see that God has rightfully reclaimed all that is his, which is all. He is going to now be all in all and righteousness will be established forever. They will realize there is no place for them because they didn't create anything nor do they have life in themselves. It will be a terrible time of processing but when they come to terms, they will seek to be let go. Did you see the quotes on the unquenchable fire? Mrs. White is very clear that it is not a literal fire that tortures them to death. It is quite something else.

Jer. 8:3 And death shall be chosen rather than life by all the residue of them that remain of this evil family, which remain in all the places whither I have driven them, saith the LORD of hosts. 
Deut. 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, [that] I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: 
 

[there buster]

Quote

She cares not at all for making any point about holy angels or God exercising physical force!

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.

[Kevin Straub]

1 hour 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

[CoAspen]

KS, I understand what you are trying to say. Good to see someone making a case for a loving God and not a vengeful God based on human ideas. There is a lot we simply can't  understand or make to difficult.

[Kevin Straub]

1 minute ago, CoAspen said:

KS, I understand what you are trying to say. Good to see someone making a case for a loving God and not a vengeful God based on human ideas. There is a lot we simply can't  understand or make to difficult.

Thank-you. As a rule Adventists are extremely difficult to teach. They think they know it all.

[Kevin H]

12 hours ago, Kevin Straub said:

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.

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.

[Kevin H]

8 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Well it is good to come together like this on the forum and compare notes. Kevin S. I like reading your posts as they make me think.  We may not agree on this topic but I am willing to hear more from you. ?

Indeed! I was just uncomfortable with the 3 options he offered, and from my conversations with Dr. Maxwell I'd think that he would have been more comfortable with the fourth neglected view than the view ascribed to him.

[Gregory Matthews]

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.