Murders depicted in the Bible

[Gail]

I know a person who is exactly as Kevin H has described; one who, while consumed with guilt, refuses to grasp Christ's forgiveness.

I suspect that like most topics of life we see only in part for the time being and there will be lots of surprises on the road to the end of sin.

[Samie]

Thank you, Kevin.

On 15/01/2017 at 0:52 AM, Kevin Straub said:

Not at all. God's government, being based upon freedom of choice, still has to contain that element  of final reward which is God’s express promise that grace and mercy "by no means will clear the guilty." Those who want to keep their own way must do so with the full understanding that it is an impossibility—not because God will kill them but because God is the source of life.

It would not be fair for God to leave everything hanging with all the unnumbered host having gone down to the grave with wicked self in the ascendancy and no resolution, no demonstration that "if" they had had more light they might have chosen righteousness. This is all vitally necessary for everyone and it is only fair to the wicked themselves to reveal their condition to their own selves. The sleep death doesn't finalize anything, it is only an interruption in the process of consummating their decision.

^{Sorry, but I don't think Scriptures support that, Kevin.  There's simply no plain "Thus saith the Lord" in its support.  In the allegory of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man wanted father Abraham to send Lazarus to the rich man's house to warn his brethren so they don't end up like him in the place of torment. But it looks like no amount of persuasion can sway the recalcitrant wicked from the course they have decided to take. Here's how Jesus Himself described it:}

^KJV Luke 16:27-31  

²⁷ Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: 

²⁸ For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. 

²⁹ Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. 

³⁰ And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. 

³¹ And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

^{Hence, resurrecting the wicked dead looks more like it can't have the purpose you explained other than to receive the reward due the wicked. Here's the apostle Paul:}

^KJV Romans 2:5-11   

⁵ But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; 

⁶ Who will render to every man according to his deeds: 

⁷ To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: 

⁸ But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, 

⁹ Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

¹⁰ But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

¹¹ For there is no respect of persons with God.

On 15/01/2017 at 0:52 AM, Kevin Straub said:

The "proposition" is that God does not have two modalities of wrath, "active" and "passive" and that He does not exercise physical force to punish by the infliction of pain and terror, appealing to principles of restitution, vengeance and deterrence. 

^{Well, as I have said, in this life now, God simply lets over. But not in the rewarding of every man according to what each has done. Here's what an angel pronounces in the third plague:}

^KJV Revelation 16:4-7  

⁴ And the third angel poured out his vial upon the rivers and fountains of waters; and they became blood. 

⁵ And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus. 

⁶ For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy. 

⁷ And I heard another out of the altar say, Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous are thy judgments.

[Kevin Straub]

51 minutes ago, Samie said:

Thank you, Kevin.

^{Sorry, but I don't think Scriptures support that, Kevin.  There's simply no plain "Thus saith the Lord" in its support.  In the allegory of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man wanted father Abraham to send Lazarus to the rich man's house to warn his brethren so they don't end up like him in the place of torment. But it looks like no amount of persuasion can sway the recalcitrant wicked from the course they have decided to take. Here's how Jesus Himself described it:}

^KJV Luke 16:27-31  

 

 

²⁷ Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: 

 

 

²⁸ For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. 

 

 

²⁹ Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. 

 

 

³⁰ And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. 

 

 

³¹ And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

^{Hence, resurrecting the wicked dead looks more like it can't have the purpose you explained other than to receive the reward due the wicked. Here's the apostle Paul:}

 

^KJV Romans 2:5-11   

 

 

⁵ But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; 

 

 

⁶ Who will render to every man according to his deeds: 

 

 

⁷ To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: 

 

 

⁸ But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, 

 

 

⁹ Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

 

 

¹⁰ But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

 

 

¹¹ For there is no respect of persons with God.

 

 

 

 

 

^{Well, as I have said, in this life now, God simply lets over. But not in the rewarding of every man according to what each has done. Here's what an angel pronounces in the third plague:}

^KJV Revelation 16:4-7  

 

 

⁴ And the third angel poured out his vial upon the rivers and fountains of waters; and they became blood. 

 

 

⁵ And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus. 

 

 

⁶ For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy. 

 

 

⁷ And I heard another out of the altar say, Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous are thy judgments.

 

 

Seriously, would you quote the parable of Jesus, that He based upon Jewish folklore, to prove literal hell fire? Come on, brother, this is poor.

So it appears now that we are at the same impasse as all of your brethren in the standard view tend to create when I ask for the proof of a valid Biblical directive to parse out the language into two modes of wrath. Have you read what I am asking for and do you understand it? For it seems that I am continually ignored in this and what is only available for the standard view to offer up is more examples of Bible language, but it proves nothing. It is only more examples of Bible language.

I see that you have quoted regarding the seven last plagues, which are vials of wrath poured out by the angels. I believe we have discussed this already. We know for a certainty that the SoP directly states that the plagues occur when God stands down and the angels are no longer to stay on duty as restrainers. The forces of Satan and evil humans are given to do all that they will do and the plagues are the result. This is not God employing force to punish. This is all the work of Satan. God and angels are said to execute this wrath only in the sense of the Bible definition of Divine wrath, see Deut. 31:16-18.

"When he leaves the sanctuary, darkness covers the inhabitants of the earth. In that fearful time the righteous must live in the sight of a holy God without an intercessor. The restraint which has been upon the wicked is removed, and Satan has entire control of the finally impenitent. God's long-suffering has ended. The world has rejected his mercy, despised his love, and trampled upon his law. 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" (GC88 614.1).

There is no Biblical or SoP instruction for us to take this language of wrath and call it direct exercise of Divine power to bring chaos, damage, and death. The language is used when we can clearly see that it does not mean such a thing, as when God sends an evil spirit, hardens hearts, sends strong delusion, puts lying spirits in the mouths of false prophets, and so on. The language is used when it says God killed Saul, but we know that God didn't kill Saul, but God gave Saul over to the archers and to his own solution to his problem: suicide. What warrant do we have to switch out of the clearly stated Biblical principle of Divine wrath as DR, and say that when we have no aetiological solution at hand, or when we have no embedded statement of "giving over" or "hiding of face," etc., that God actually did it in said instances? We do not have any support for doing this. It comes from our own dark minds that think God has to employ might to prove right. It is time for those who say they understand the issues at stake in the great controversy to come out of this confused state.

At this point, I will ask you to kindly give me the Bible principle for determining that in one instance we have Divine Recession, where God gives over to outside forces of destruction and in another we have Divine exercise of physical might to destroy? I need to know how to the read the Bible because the standard view of a God with two modes of wrath has never been able to show me how to read it and make any sense of it.

 

[Green Cochoa]

1 hour ago, Kevin Straub said:

So it appears now that we are at the same impasse as all of your brethren in the standard view tend to create when I ask for the proof of a valid Biblical directive to parse out the language into two modes of wrath. Have you read what I am asking for and do you understand it? For it seems that I am continually ignored in this and what is only available for the standard view to offer up is more examples of Bible language, but it proves nothing. It is only more examples of Bible language.

Quote

The truths most plainly revealed in the Bible have been involved in doubt and darkness by learned men, who, with a pretense of great wisdom, teach that the Scriptures have a mystical, a secret, spiritual meaning not apparent in the language employed. These men are false teachers. It was to such a class that Jesus declared: "Ye know not the Scriptures, neither the power of God." Mark 12:24. The language of the Bible should be explained according to its obvious meaning, unless a symbol or figure is employed. Christ has given the promise: "If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine." John 7:17. If men would but take the Bible as it reads, if there were no false teachers to mislead and confuse their minds, a work would be accomplished that would make angels glad and that would bring into the fold of Christ thousands upon thousands who are now wandering in error.  {GC 598.3}

 

2 hours ago, Kevin Straub said:

At this point, I will ask you to kindly give me the Bible principle for determining that in one instance we have Divine Recession, where God gives over to outside forces of destruction and in another we have Divine exercise of physical might to destroy? I need to know how to the read the Bible because the standard view of a God with two modes of wrath has never been able to show me how to read it and make any sense of it.

Quote

3:10    But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.  
 3:11    [Seeing] then [that] all these things shall be dissolved, what manner [of persons] ought ye to be in [all] holy conversation and godliness,  
 3:12    Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 

 

[Samie]

1 hour ago, Kevin Straub said:

Seriously, would you quote the parable of Jesus, that He based upon Jewish folklore, to prove literal hell fire? Come on, brother, this is poor.

Oh, so sorry, you misunderstood my point. I apologize for my poor communication skills.  In quoting the allegory, I was not trying to prove literal hell fire, brother. Far from it.

Instead I was contending this portion of your post:

On 15/01/2017 at 0:52 AM, Kevin Straub said:

It would not be fair for God to leave everything hanging with all the unnumbered host having gone down to the grave with wicked self in the ascendancy and no resolution, no demonstration that "if" they had had more light they might have chosen righteousness. This is all vitally necessary for everyone and it is only fair to the wicked themselves to reveal their condition to their own selves. The sleep death doesn't finalize anything, it is only an interruption in the process of consummating their decision.

I understood your post as expressing the need for the wicked to be given ample time to consummate their decision which was interrupted by sleep death.  Since I believe that Scriptures do not support your contention, I called your attention to the allegory that seems to be diametrically opposed to it. I highlighted the verse, v31, that, IMHO, points to the opposite direction your position points to.  That led me to say that no amount of persuasion can sway the recalcitrant wicked from the course they have already taken. 

In my use of the allegory, I was attempting to communicate that the reason for resurrecting the wicked is not the one you gave in your post above-quoted but simply for them to get rewarded according to their works. And that tells me of God's ACTIVE participation in the execution of His judgment.

2 hours ago, Kevin Straub said:

So it appears now that we are at the same impasse as all of your brethren in the standard view tend to create when I ask for the proof of a valid Biblical directive to parse out the language into two modes of wrath.

I'm sorry to say this, brother, but please don't jump to conclusion too fast too soon comparing my attitude in ferreting out truth from Scriptures with how you evaluate others.  For me, you have not yet shown a plain "Thus saith the Lord" that supports the reason you provided for the resurrection of the wicked.  Until that is resolved, I still maintain my stand that the resurrection of the wicked is God's ACTIVE participation in seeing to it that the wicked get their due reward.

[there buster]

This notion that God does not do what he repeatedly says he does is simple sophistry. It's just a form of proof-texting, where one text which says what the interpreter has pre-determined to be correct, is used to define all the other texts which say something else.  The sheer volume of verbiage required to "prove" the point demonstrates that it is rationalizing away all the other evidence. And it is the opposite of sound exegesis.

On simple example, this idea turns Isaiah 28 on its head. We're asked to believe that what God calls his "strange act," or his "unusual act," is precisely the same as what he always does. In other wordes his "unusual act" turns out to be "standard procedure." Any such formulation is simply nonsense.

[APL]

3 hours ago, there buster said:

This notion that God does not do what he repeatedly says he does is simple sophistry. It's just a form of proof-texting, where one text which says what the interpreter has pre-determined to be correct, is used to define all the other texts which say something else.  The sheer volume of verbiage required to "prove" the point demonstrates that it is rationalizing away all the other evidence. And it is the opposite of sound exegesis.

On simple example, this idea turns Isaiah 28 on its head. We're asked to believe that what God calls his "strange act," or his "unusual act," is precisely the same as what he always does. In other wordes his "unusual act" turns out to be "standard procedure." Any such formulation is simply nonsense.

What did Christ some to save us from?

What would you say is the "Good News?"  (1st angel's message)

[there buster]

1 minute ago, APL said:

What did Christ some to save us from?

What would you say is the "Good News?"  (1st angel's message)

Perhaps you could explain the logical relationship between these questions and the topic of this thread.

 

[APL]

5 minutes ago, there buster said:

Perhaps you could explain the logical relationship between these questions and the topic of this thread.

 

Is it that mysterious to see the connection?  God's "strange act" - is it Good News or Bad News?  Are we being saved from God's "strange act" or something else?  You argue about the " sheer volume of verbiage" but do you not know that "The truths of the Bible are as pearls hidden. They must be searched, dug out by painstaking effort." {Ms24-1886}

[Kevin Straub]

Here is an excerpt from an old paper, dealing with "strange act" formatting removed:

God’s Strange Act

So then, what is “God’s Strange Act?”  We have used this phrase to depict God’s final destruction of the impenitent by the unleashing of “fire from God out of heaven.” 

God’s “strange work,” or “strange act” does not necessarily apply to the final destruction of the wicked. In fact, it applies to any time that God gives up sinners to destruction. It has specific application made to the time of the seven last plagues.

Oftentimes people’s minds have confined their understanding of “strange act” solely to the destruction of the finally impenitent, while at the same time erroneously attributing that judgment to a direct act of God, using a created fire for purposes of torture (we have to use that word, because that is what it is; the standard expression is the euphemism, “punishment”). We have been mistaken in confining the definition of God’s strange act to executive judgment. Note the following as examples:

 

DA 582-3 (applied to the destruction of the Jewish nation);

GC 17-38 (again, the principle is obvious in its application to the ancient Jews and their city, noting especially the prolepsis of the great time of trouble, pp. 36-38);

2 Sam. 5:17-20 (the case of the slaughter at Baalperazim);

Joshua 10:12-27 (the case of the slaughter at Gibeon and the capture and slaughter of the five kings);

5T 77 (God allowing a state of things to come, He gives people up to the deceptions they love, the cry of “Peace, peace” comes and we know that the sudden destruction of final events then occurs);

2 SM 373 (applied to the desolation of the earth after the “national apostasy”);

GC 627-628 (the pouring of the plagues);

RH, March 9, 1886 par. 22 (at the “law against the Sabbath of God’s creation”).

 

Curiously, Ellen White does not actually apply the term of “strange work” to the executive judgment.

 

“For the Lord shall rise up as in Mount Perazim; He shall be wroth as in the Valley of Gibeon -- that He may do His work, His strange work; and bring to pass His act, His strange act.” Isa. 28:21

 

Adventists have believed and taught that God’s “strange work” is the final destruction of the wicked following the millennium. Certainly, raining fire upon people would be a strange work for humans to do, especially holy humans, but we have granted our holy God the right to do this. A careful study of the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy, however, does not support this view. God’s strange work is, in fact, an act of destruction, similar to the destruction of the city of Jerusalem.

 

“To Him [God] the work of destruction and the denunciation of judgment is a strange work. . . . ‘O Israel,’ the Lord says, ‘thou hast destroyed thyself’” DA 582-3, quoting Hosea 13:9. Read in context.

 

God’s strange work is also “as in” incidents that occurred on Mount Perazim and in the Valley of Gibeon. We must find how these incidents are similar, because God’s strange work of destruction will occur in a similar way.

The Bible records only one significant incident occurring at each of these locations—both confrontations between the forces of God and those of paganism:

 

a)  Mount Perazim: David versus the Philistines.  (2 Samuel 5:17-20)

The Valley of Gibeon: Joshua versus Amorites. (Joshua 10:12-19)

     The Canaanites had filled up the measure of their iniquity, and the Lord would no longer bear with them. His defense being removed from them, they would fall an easy prey to the Hebrews (4T 151).

 

In each case the Lord delivered up the Canaanites for destruction, because . . .

 

“The Canaanites had filled up the measure of their iniquity, and the Lord would no longer bear with them. His defense being removed from them, they would fall an easy prey to the Hebrews.” 4T 151

 

God’s strange work is the handing over of the unrepentant to their enemies:

 

     “Who knows whether God will not give you up to the deceptions you love? . . . When God shall work His strange work on the earth . . . woe will be upon the people".” 5T 77

 

Spirit of Prophecy pinpoints the exact point in time when God will do His strange work:

 

“Every century of profligacy has treasured up wrath against the day of wrath; and when the time comes and the iniquity is full, then God will do His strange work. . . . It is at the time of the national apostasy, when acting on the policy of Satan, the rulers of the land will rank themselves on the side of the man of sin—it is then the measure of guilt is full; the national apostasy is the signal for national ruin. 2SM 373

“God’s judgments will be visited upon those who are seeking to oppress and destroy His people. . . . ‘The Lord shall rise up as in Mount Perazim, He shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that He may do His work, His strange work; and bring to pass His act, His strange act.’ Isaiah 28:21. . . .

“When Christ ceases His intercession in the sanctuary, the unmingled wrath threatened against those who worship the beast and his image and receive his mark (Rev. 14:9, 10) will be poured out. The plagues upon Egypt when God was about to deliver Israel were similar in character to those more terrible and extensive judgments which are to fall upon the world just before the final deliverance of God’s people (GC 627-8).

 

Protestantism shall give the hand of fellowship to the Roman power. . . . Then there will be a law against the Sabbath of God’s creation, and then it is that God will do His strange work in the earth. . . . God keeps a record with the nations: the figures are swelling against them in the books of heaven; and when it shall have become a law that the transgression of the first day of the week shall be met with punishment, then their cup will be full.  RH 3/9/1886; 7BC 910

God’s “strange act" properly understood is a true definition of His wrath

So, when we are speaking about the subject of the wrath of God, invariably “God’s Strange Act” will be brought up from the arsenal of misconception.  Now we can show that this phrase is not applied to the final destruction of the wicked, but to the outpouring of the plagues upon the earth.  This is not to say that the principle of “strange act” does not apply to the final destruction of the wicked. However, when we look at the references to Perazim (Baalperazim) and Gibeon, and when go to the Spirit of Prophecy we find the term applied to Divine Recession, or God giving over, in withdrawal of His protecting hand. Mercy comes to an end by the choice of the wicked, leaving them to reap the consequences.

[Kevin Straub]

31 minutes ago, APL said:

What did Christ some to save us from?

What would you say is the "Good News?"  (1st angel's message)

It is really the right question. There are two views: came to save us from God or came to save us from sin.

[Green Cochoa]

35 minutes ago, APL said:

What did Christ some to save us from?

What would you say is the "Good News?"  (1st angel's message)

Does that make the Third Angel's message "the bad news"?

In any case, the message of the Third Angel is the one to be especially proclaimed at this time.

[Kevin Straub]

53 minutes ago, there buster said:

Perhaps you could explain the logical relationship between these questions and the topic of this thread.

 

Wow. Everything we have been discussing is relevant to the topic. We have here a post containing a reference to a page by some atheist who is reading the Bible pretty much the way the majority of the Christian world, including Adventists, read it, concerning the character of God. It has been my experience that there is little difference in dealing with the atheist or with the Adventist mind that is entrenched in this view of God.

The atheist hates God because he got that view from Christians. But he doesn't want to hear how to read the Bible because he wants to keep that view. The fundamental problem the atheist has with being confronted with the truth about God's character is one of two, or both: 1) it is foolishness because all he understands is carnal principles of law, crime and punishment; 2) to embrace this God also means committing to dealing with cherished sin in his own life.  

The Christian who has this view also hates God, but has fooled himself into believing he loves Him. He has one of two problems, or both: 1) he loves the idea of punishment, being fully committed to eye for eye systems; 2) his relationship with his God is contaminated with being afraid of God.

Both are clinging to Satan's misrepresentation of God as a Being with his own attributes.

"No outward shrines may be visible, there may be no image for the eye to rest upon, yet we may be practicing idolatry. It is as easy to make an idol of cherished ideas or objects as to fashion gods of wood or stone. Thousands have a false conception of God and His attributes. They are as verily serving a false god as were the servants of Baal. Are we worshiping the true God as He is revealed in His word, in Christ, in nature, or are we adoring some philosophical idol enshrined in His place? God is a God of truth. Justice and mercy are the attributes of His throne. He is a God of love, of pity and tender compassion. Thus He is represented in His Son, our Saviour. He is a God of patience and long-suffering. If such is the being whom we adore and to whose character we are seeking to assimilate, we are worshiping the true God" (5T 173.4).

 

[Kevin Straub]

15 minutes ago, Green Cochoa said:

Does that make the Third Angel's message "the bad news"?

In any case, the message of the Third Angel is the one to be especially proclaimed at this time.

The third angel's message is a term that applies to the total package and is the everlasting gospel. It is all in the first. Angels 2 and 3 don't have anything new to add. Angel 2 shows what happens when the gospel is rejected (the individual or the group becomes fallen Babylon) and in a certain sense shows what happens in the heart when it is accepted (Babylon falls). Angel 3 is a warning of what happens to fallen Babylon.

[APL]

22 minutes ago, Green Cochoa said:

Does that make the Third Angel's message "the bad news"?

In any case, the message of the Third Angel is the one to be especially proclaimed at this time.

What is the 1st angel's message?  I don't know why you would then jump to the conclusion that the 3rd is bad news.  And I agree with you that the 3rd is to be proclaimed.  What does EGW tells us about the 3rd angels message?  She tells us the 3rd angel's message is the last message of mercy to be given to the world.  And what is this message?  That God is going to kill you?  NO.  That is not the message. 

The third angel's message--the last message of mercy to a perishing world --is so precious, so glorious. {MM 333.4} Compare that with {COL 415} Can you then conclude that the 3rd angel's message is bad news or Good News? The message is about God's character of Love. But in Early Writings, she tells us that there will those who should not give the 3rd Angel's message because of being so long in error and delusion, that they can just save their own souls, and if they do undertake to guide others, they will be the means of overthrowing them. That should be sobering...

 

 

[Kevin Straub]

From E. J. Waggoner:

Then when Paul preached among the Corinthians, he preached nothing but Christ and him crucified, and that was the gospel. That gospel-the cross of Christ-is the power of God unto salvation unto every one that believeth. {March 25, 1891 EJW, GCDB 239.4}
Now the question arises, Was this preaching of Paul's anything like the third angel's message, or the threefold message which is committed to us? Did his preaching differ from the preaching which we preach? If it differs, are we preaching what we ought to preach? In other words, should our preaching embrace anything more than what the apostle Paul had? If it does, then whatever it may be, we had better get rid of it as soon as we can. Now let us see why,- {March 25, 1891 EJW, GCDB 239.5}
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." That is a strong statement, but he repeats it and emphasizes it, "As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." Gal. 1:8, 9. {March 25, 1891 EJW, GCDB 239.6}
These words are not in vain, for there have been men that have preached other gospels, or other things for the gospel; and more than that, there have been angels who have preached other gospels, and other things for the gospel. We shall yet see those fallen angels coming to us and preaching that which they call the gospel, which will have a power with it, and which will be accompanied by dazzling light. But the things which they tell us, we are to pronounce false, and the one who preaches them to us, accursed; because it will differ in some particular from that which the apostle Paul preached. {March 25, 1891 EJW, GCDB 239.7}
Leaving this point, we return to Rev. 14:6, where we read, "And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach to them that dwell on the earth, . . . saying with a loud voice, Fear God and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come." This is a
240
work that prepares men for the last judgment, and consequently a work which carries everything for man's perfection, as we saw by the twelfth verse. But that message is nothing more nor less than the everlasting gospel. The second angel went with the first, and the first accompanied them both, and all three together sounded one cry. {March 25, 1891 EJW, GCDB 239.8}
The question arises, If the third angel came along and added his sound to the cry of the first and the second angel, do not we have something more to tell the world, than those who labored under the first message had? Well, we certainly can have nothing more to preach than the everlasting gospel. The second angel announces a fact, that Babylon is fallen, because of her apostasy from the gospel. Mark you, the second angel has no new truth to tell; merely a fact, that something has occurred. The third angel merely announces the punishment that will fall on the men who do differently from the truth announced by the first angel. But the first angel keeps sounding, and the three go together; and since the three keep sounding together, and the first is telling the everlasting gospel,-that which is to prepare men to stand blameless before God,-and the third angel is telling the punishment that will befall them if they do not receive the everlasting gospel, it necessarily follows that the entire threefold message is the everlasting gospel. {March 25, 1891 EJW, GCDB 240.1}
Mark it, the first angel proclaims the everlasting gospel; the second proclaims the fall of every one who does not obey that gospel; and the third proclaims the punishment that will follow that fall, and come upon those who do not obey. So the third is all in the first,-the everlasting gospel. Yes, that everlasting gospel carries with it all truth. It is the power of God. That everlasting gospel, remember, is all summed up in one thing,-Jesus Christ and him crucified, and of course risen again. We have nothing else in this world to proclaim to the people, whether we be preachers, Bible workers, colporters, or canvassers, or simply people who in the humble sphere of their own home let the light shine. All that any of us can carry to the world is Jesus Christ and him crucified. {March 25, 1891 EJW, GCDB 240.2}
Says one, That is taking an extreme view; are we going to throw away all the doctrines we have preached,-the state of the dead, the Sabbath, and the law, and the punishment of the wicked? Throw them away?-No; by no means. Preach them in season and out of season; but, nevertheless, preach nothing but Christ Jesus and him crucified. For if you preach those things without preaching Christ and him crucified, they are shorn of their power, for Paul says that Christ sent him to preach the gospel, not with words of man's wisdom, lest the preaching of the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. The preaching of the cross, and that alone, is the power of God. I say again, the gospel is the power of God, and the cross is the center of the gospel. "God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ." Gal. 6:14. To Paul there was nothing else worthy of glorying in, save the cross of Jesus Christ his Lord. {March 25, 1891 EJW, GCDB 240.3}

[APL]

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

 

We have only one perfect photograph of God, and this is Jesus Christ. {Ms70-1899}

[Kevin H]

Just because the lost have indeed developed a hatred for God does not make Genesis 3:15 less true. It would be useful to spend a thoughtful hour a day looking at the cover of Mrs. White's biography of Jesus.

[Samie]

The following is the final portion of my post for Kevin S.

10 hours ago, Samie said:

For me, you have not yet shown a plain "Thus saith the Lord" that supports the reason you provided for the resurrection of the wicked.  Until that is resolved, I still maintain my stand that the resurrection of the wicked is God's ACTIVE participation in seeing to it that the wicked get their due reward.

Specifically, that post was meant to clear up what I really meant in another post where Kevin thought I was trying to prove a literal hell fire when I appealed to the parable of the rich man and Lazarus.

I would be happy if Kevin replies but I am not insisting if he is not yet ready to respond.  Let's just say this is a reminder just in case Kevin could have overlooked my post.

[Kevin Straub]

3 hours ago, Samie said:

The following is the final portion of my post for Kevin S.

Specifically, that post was meant to clear up what I really meant in another post where Kevin thought I was trying to prove a literal hell fire when I appealed to the parable of the rich man and Lazarus.

I would be happy if Kevin replies but I am not insisting if he is not yet ready to respond.  Let's just say this is a reminder just in case Kevin could have overlooked my post.

I have no problem with viewing God resurrecting wicked as a direct act by application of Divine power and this for the purpose of seeing that they get their reward, fair and square. It is necessary. Of course. I think I explained it but perhaps not sufficiently.

I will pretty much have to leave it there now. My book manuscript (not on Character of God, actually) has returned from my publisher (TEACH Services, Inc.) and I will be busy going through it now to approve the edits. They want it back in about 3 weeks and it is almost 600 pages, so I have to be on task.

[Kevin Straub]

8 hours ago, APL said:

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

 

We have only one perfect photograph of God, and this is Jesus Christ. {Ms70-1899}

Amen. Your quote from ATJ is from a section that is packed with dynamite on this issue of the power of right (the power of love) against the power of might (the power of force). Here is another excerpt from sermon 22 (1895 series "The Third Angel's Message"):

"We forsook the dominion and power of might as against right--the power of force, and have joined our allegiance to the power of right as against might--the power of love. And now the contest is between these two powers and concerning us. The contest is always between these spiritual powers. Whatever instruments may be employed in this world as the outward manifestation of that power, the contest is always between the two spiritual powers, Jesus Christ and the fallen prince" (March 3, 1895 ATJ, GCB 436.2).

"And that power of right which He died in allegiance to has moved the world ever since, and it is to move the world in our day as it never has been moved before. Just as soon as God can get the people who are professedly pledged to the principle, to be pledged in heart to the principle and put the thought upon nothing at all and never expect to appeal to anything at all other than the absolute principle of the right and the power of it to which we are allied and to which we are pledged, then we shall see and the world shall see this power working as never before" (March 3, 1895 ATJ, GCB 438.3).

“Jesus Christ is the Restorer. Satan, the apostate, is the destroyer. HERE is the conflict between the Prince of life and the prince of this world, the power of darkness” (CTr 247.2).

[Kevin Straub]

8 hours ago, Kevin H said:

Just because the lost have indeed developed a hatred for God does not make Genesis 3:15 less true. It would be useful to spend a thoughtful hour a day looking at the cover of Mrs. White's biography of Jesus.

The image of Christ crushing the serpent's head is an image meant to depict that the works of the devil will be destroyed and with them, the devil too. However, the picture is not saying that the power of might is used to do this. It is only the power of right that is employed. In any battle for truth, for ideals, you have to demonstrate the actual ideals of that proposition of truth. If the power of might was in question, then it could be used. The controversy is not about who can employ a greater power of might. If it were, then the standard view is justified, but how horribly so, for if that were the case then it would have been used at the start and it would have set up a state of tyranny in that it would have depicted a display of the ideals of the employment of force to ensure the continuance of governance which would only in a short time produce a sullen submission to that authority, having introduced weeds into the garden of love and loyalty based on heart appreciation, admiration, and philosophical agreement:

"Satan’s representations against the government of God, and his defense of those who sided with him, were a constant accusation against God. These murmurings and complaints were groundless. Yet God allowed Satan to work out his theories. He could have handled Satan and all his sympathizers as easily as one can pick up a pebble and cast it to the earth. But by this He would have given a precedent for the violence of human beings that is so abundantly shown in our world in the compelling principles.
   "The Lord’s principles are not of this order. All the compelling power is to be found under Satan’s government. God would not work in this line. He would not give the slightest encouragement for any human being to set himself up as God over another human being, and cause him mental or physical suffering. This principle is wholly of Satan’s creation" (CTr 13).

How would God have "handled Satan and all his sympathizers?" By striking them down with force? No. He would do the same as in any case of wrath: give them over to their choice. But if He had gone fully over to judgment and execution of the sentence against transgression, He would have allowed them full separation from His power and they would have flashed out of existence. It would have looked like God did it. Satan had been plying them with a story that God was all about protecting His own authority and had imposed a law upon them to keep them in line (the implication is that He would use force to do so--how else?). So, if there would have been an assembly and a lot of talk that God's ways are the only right ways and Satan and his host refused to repent and they disappeared before the eyes of all, it would have introduced the element of deterrence into the Government of God, which has nothing to do with the heart. Deterrence seeks non-resistant compliant behaviour as its object, not heart loyalty. Such a governance becomes a rule of terror, a tyranny.

"Those who enter the service of the institution with a spirit of unwillingness to help, who do their allotted tasks with a feeling of compulsion, in sullen submission, who act as if they would gladly escape from the drudgery of the necessary daily duties which someone must do, are very little help to the institution. A mechanical obedience may hide the smoldering fire of rebellion, but it is ready to break out at any time against restraint. In the service of such there is no peace or light or love. The atmosphere surrounding their souls is not fragrant. The influence of their words and actions is felt by others, and this influence is a harm even to those who are trying to do their best in any position in which they are placed. Self-pity is deteriorating to the characters of those who cherish it, and it exerts an influence that spoils the happiness of others.

"He desires that we shall patiently and wisely take up the duties of service. . . . A sullen submission to the will of the Father will develop the character of a rebel. The service is looked upon by such a one in the light of drudgery. It is not rendered cheerfully and in the love of God. It is a mere mechanical performance. . . . Such service brings no peace or quietude to the soul" (TMK 120.4).

"But when men pass the limits of divine forbearance, that restraint is removed. 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).

[Samie]

4 hours ago, Kevin Straub said:

I have no problem with viewing God resurrecting wicked as a direct act by application of Divine power and this for the purpose of seeing that they get their reward, fair and square. It is necessary. Of course. I think I explained it but perhaps not sufficiently.

I will pretty much have to leave it there now. My book manuscript (not on Character of God, actually) has returned from my publisher (TEACH Services, Inc.) and I will be busy going through it now to approve the edits. They want it back in about 3 weeks and it is almost 600 pages, so I have to be on task.

Thank you, Kevin.  God's blessings be upon you in your endeavor.

A crawling baby falls from a table where his nanny left him. Who's to blame?

The nanny could have just momentarily turned her back, but what if she really planned everything to harm the baby, purposely leaving the baby on the table top making sure the baby crawls to the edge to get his just-out-of-reach feeding bottle from a nearby shelf? Did the nanny have an active participation in the baby's fall?

The above scenario is not very much unlike resurrecting the wicked for them to be punished.  For me, that would be God ACTIVELY doing His "strange act".

 

[Kevin Straub]

1 hour ago, Samie said:

Thank you, Kevin.  God's blessings be upon you in your endeavor.

A crawling baby falls from a table where his nanny left him. Who's to blame?

The nanny could have just momentarily turned her back, but what if she really planned everything to harm the baby, purposely leaving the baby on the table top making sure the baby crawls to the edge to get his just-out-of-reach feeding bottle from a nearby shelf? Did the nanny have an active participation in the baby's fall?

The above scenario is not very much unlike resurrecting the wicked for them to be punished.  For me, that would be God ACTIVELY doing His "strange act".

 

you can't be serious

[Samie]

38 minutes ago, Kevin Straub said:

you can't be serious

A police officer arrested and handcuffed a fugitive criminal convicted for mass murder and sentenced to death by electrocution.  The police officer brought him to the justice department. The criminal was subsequently electrocuted.  Did the police officer have an ACTIVE participation in his being electrocuted?

The above scenario is not very much unlike resurrecting the wicked for them to be punished.  For me, that would be God ACTIVELY doing His "strange act".