Horizontal Menu Bar

The “Character of God” Controversy ...

.... Controversy Exegetically Resolved

            Recently, I had engaged in an SDA forum discussion which, specifically enough, asked as its topic title: “Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death?” As it turned out, that discussion soon became a full blown “Character of God Controversy” (COGC) discussion. However it was not until very late into the discussion that I concretely/cognitively realized that this was a COGC discussion, all throughout my 4-month, 90+ forum pages of discussing it, I was merely addressing the presented issues exegetically on a verse by verse basis. So I did not at all have, contrary, effectively to my main opposer, a background, “View agenda” to defend, but was merely dealing with finding out the exact meaning from each Bible verse/SOP passages brought forth for discussion (usually with them having been falsely/spuriously/shoddily posited as a Biblical support of the COGC).
           Tellingly enough, that ‘COGC’ conversation, which had started on 10/23/09, abruptly first ended after 5.5 forum pages of discussion, on 11/20/09, as the main proponent of the “Character of God View” (username: “Tom”) was indeed ‘not being responsive to presented passages that opposed his view and for which he manifestly had no answer to.’ The conversation picked up again 13 months later on 12/14/10. I joined that second wave starting on page 14, on 02/11/11, pointedly addressing the topic’s title, however that quite simple, and, all objections considered and defeated, Biblically/Exegetically sound response to that question launched off those 90+ pages of various points on this discussion. However, again, tellingly enough, the discussion began to constructively end, when the COG view proponent “Tom” was opting to just not respond head on to Biblical and SOP passages and issues which squarely, and clearly, opposed his presented/defended view. This indifferent ignoring were quite (typically) manifestly because he had no answer to give. It became quite self-evident that the final arbitrator for his COG view was neither the Bible, nor the SOP, but rather, and circularly, his priorly formed Character of God view.

            I restate these developments in that discussion here not to make one-sided disparaging comments on my main opponent there, “Tom”, but because the way in which that discussion developed, and also unravelled to an abrupt end, is so typical of how a false belief is formed and held: -by not exegetically studying the Bible. What I could not understand, nor accept as honest, was that “Tom” actually claimed to be ‘SDA Seminary educated/trained’, yet he was still, for the most crucial parts, quite indifferently not allowing proper exegesis to determine the accurate interpretation of passages, indeed those that then came to defeat his specific points, and further dent his general view. There is really not much that can be done against this “non-factual” preference/stance.

            As the other, elsewhere, proponents of this COG view also have the same arguments as were made in that discussion, the answers there should, honestly, help fully/satisfactorily resolve this issue, once and for all. So, for anyone who has questions on this key issue of difference in, at least, SDA circles[1], I have here provided several aids to facilitate the reading of, and to get the benefits from, that, much more than less, substantively detailed discussion. 

Issue Resolutions
            To summarily state the result of my Biblical findings in this discussion, which did indeed have some valid points: The Bible and SOP exegetically show that:

-God, both actively/directly, does certain destructions/judgements; or passively does these by taking the action to no longer prevent a harm that He was protecting/shielding against.

-God also indirectly does destruction events, through various “agents” that He summons and commands to this end, and when this “agent” is the Devil, usually strict limitations are imposed as necessarily applicable.

-God’s period/session of judgements also involve, when judiciously applicable, a period of some for of mercy. And the underlying reason for His personal involvement in all judgement/destruction events, even if only up to a certain point, is for reasons of Him wanting to have both Justice and Mercy be properly executed and provided.

            So, the first facilitating aid here is a linked, major discussed points, outline of that forum thread (from the point where I joined the discussion; -Many points that had been made prior to my joining were later repeated during my discussion and addressed, and exegetically resolved then):

-Judgements as object lesson vs. Nature of Sin: “Organic” to Death or Non-organic; and the GC implications.

-Necessity of the Tree of Life for Eternal Life          

[A First Discussion ended due to Tom’s ‘exegesis indifference’][2]

-Tree of Life Contribution Discussion Resumed & Physical Nature of Man in regards to Gen 2:17b

Nature of the Content of the Tree/Fruit of Knowledge of Good and Evil [a ‘sin-containing-fruit’ theory that is not taught in the Bible or SOP -e.g., Ed 25.2; 9MR 232.2; cf. in here]; -added to the ongoing discussion by a joining new user (“APL” -who actually also believed|s in that spurious COG view, see e.g., here).

[p.24] #131487 (end)-
The free-will possibility that sin could reoccur in the New Earth.

Genetical degradation and sin.

[As this outline requires a page-by-page summary reading of the 90+ pages of posts in that discussion, and thus requires some significant time to do so, it will be gradually expanded over time]

Some Extra/Background Details
            With the referred to pertinent exegetical proofs already in hand, this following, more explicit/detailed “behind the scenes”, Spiritual anecdote on a segment of this discussion may be enlightening here as it could optionally help further demonstrate/substantiate what is the True (i.e., God-Endorsed) Biblical View here.
            When, in Post #132600 [near the end of it], “Tom”, effectively, (since, despite his non-belief, the Bible does clearly/truly say that God did this action), brought up the argument of ‘God being shown to be a badgering, monstrously bully, even quasi-terrorist, by, effectively, wantonly, killing the Egyptian firstborn in the last plague in order to compel obedience’, being a quite plausible objection, as it then really did surfacely strike me as this being unfair and unlike God. But, as part of my foundational exegetical methodology, as I related in my response in Post #132612 [correspondingly also near the end of it], I then immediately, staring blankly at a World Political Map hanging above and beyond my computer screen in front of me[see p.218 here], reverentially/deferentially, inwardly cried out to God: “Why did/would(??) You do this??” in the implied sense of: “What was the reason why You seem to have done such a thing in regards to the killing of the Egyptian firstborn”?? As I was drawing a complete blank for a response, and just as my thoughts were inceptively starting to offendedly drift towards myself similarly, effectively, now also “faulting and impeaching the Character of God”, encroaching towards: ‘condemning Him as charged here in that countering argument’, a most noticeable “sonic-booming” thought-inducing voice suddenly came into my hearing/mind which, (as related in this post, and also in examples in this one), I immediately, unmistakably/unquestionably knew to be pointedly of God, and it most distinctly, blurtingly said: “Judgement”. And before I could finish my ensuing, now slightly amused (-noticing an offended* tone in the way this statement was expressed, -a type of tonal nuance that I have personally noticed/experienced before from God, which indeed can also be readily discerned in many comparable, candidly/honestly interacting statements/questions of God in the Bible, -indeed merely by reading them, -conversational notions that are also corroborated in the SOP (see 1SM 22.3 -all like a parent “intelligibly” communicates with their toddler); *a reaction that is patently in keeping with how God honestly/candidly reacts with ‘those who should know better’ (= Exod 4:24-26 - PP 255.5; see discussion comments on this episode here[mid], here[mid], & here[end])), yet quasi-retorting questioning of: ‘What in the world does “judgement” have to do with anything here (i.e., in regards to (inclusively)the killing of children)?!’, it suddenly hit me just as I had engaged in the process of beginning think through for myself, {-having inferredly noticed that I (manifestly) was ‘annoying/bothering’ “Someone” here}, the legally-inherent implications of “judgement” of: ‘it normatively is for the reason of a fitting/corresponding offense/crime having had been committed’ [cf. here], it is then that I began to suddenly, perfectly see, as detailed in my response, how ‘the killing of Israel infants by Egypt, as well as other caused and premature deaths due to the deliberately/purposely imposed overly oppressive slave work and mistreatment’, would certainly indeed be thus justly exacted, and that most strikingly, (in order to be most significant), in this thus judicial and retributive killing of Egyptian firstborns. (Indeed so [as I later, on 01-13-2015, discovered in the SOP]: TA 94.5). So hence my response there. (Cf. John 12:30)
            And most confirmingly, tellingly enough, as incredibly discovered later on, as shown in Posts #134146 and #134615 that notion of “Judgement” with the Plagues had already been concretely stated and implied in the Biblical text. So God here, for apparently aiding reasons for ‘response timeliness’ in the heat of that Spiritually crucial discussion battle, took it upon Himself to “supernaturally” reveal this to me, -as typical of such “Spiritual Gift aids” (cf. this post), to help do/accomplish something that is honestly not capable of being done by an endeavoring individual or collective group. Praise Be to Him!
            (Thematically and Spiritually relatedly, see this depiction [01:41-04:14] by Joyce Meyer; and this shared experience [42:13-45:20] by Francis Chan!! (Cf./= PK 147.1|RH, Sept 30, 1873 par. 7))

Additional Comments and Substantive/Exegetical Corrections
            Here are some additional comments that help corroborate the above mentioned conclusion of this discussion. I also provide various substantive/substantively-derived (i.e., vs. “cosmetic” typo) corrections to some posts, most of which are due to more indepth exegetical analysis, vs. at times, heat-of-the-moment, off-the-cuff, relatively surface, responses.


#1 Further Support
            As I was banned before I could add the following prepared post on the Character of God Issue, I obviously could not add it to that pertinent discussion. So here it is:

The following recent (i.e., June 16-17, 2011 = GWYC) 3-part series by Steven Wohlberg on this same Character of God topic is quite interesting. He actually addresses several episodes/issues (also referring to the SOP) that either were not discussed at all in this thread or were not discussed in depth.

Main/Key Points in each Sermon:
-Character of God = Mercy and Justice;
-Levite executed Judgement in Exod 32:26-28 (PP 323.2-325.3);
-PP 95.3 = ‘the [typological?] “Character of God” delusion on the antediluvian “wisemen”’.
-The Wrath of Lamb (Rev 6:16, 17 = DA 825.4) = ‘provoked by the indifference of God’s professed people to the Spiritual and vital needs of others’

-Wrath of God (Rom 1)
-The “Unmixed Cup” of God in Third Angel’s Message and in Gethsemane
-Gethsemane and the Justice of God poured upon Jesus

-The “beastly” ‘Character of Satan’ taken upon by (MOB taking) men

-On top of having written a book in this topic, he had also made similar sermon series presentations in here and here.


#2 - Additional Comment
The following later post #134344, in another discussion thread in that forum, provides additional, exegetical proof against the spurious claim responded to Post #131347 of: ‘a believer in Christ not dying’.


#3 - Correction
Posts #134955 - #135000 (pp. 104-105) - I have noticed, (based on this recent post), that I had misunderstood Num 15:32-36, pointedly Num 15:34 thinking that it was implying a deliberation as to decide whether or not that Sabbath violator should be put to death as the law stated  Exod 31:14-15, and also, (for some strange and unknown reason (~ EW 74.1)), actually not entirely read through the SOP statement of PP 409.1 posted in reply, abruptly stopping just short of what would have corrected my view then, as it went on to state that the deliberation in all of this was because it was not known precisely how this Sabbath Breaker was to be put to death as God had previously stated in the Exod 31:14-15 law regarding this. So I now see that the SOP is not in any way in conflict with what the Bible less detailedly recounted.


#4 - (Key Typo) Correction
Post #134077 (p. 102) - Just a slight but key typo correction to the semi-personal illustration cited in that post. The phrase “this frequency has dropped to once every two.” should fully read as “this frequency has dropped to once every two months.” The frequency of my parent encountering a snake dropped from ‘at least one per week’ without their dog to ‘once per two months’ with a dog. (A satellite photo of that referred property and its surrounding area can be seen in p. 297 of this document. (The fully shown house is the referred to property.))


#5 - SOP Substantiation/“Corroboration”
Post #134011 (p. 101) - To Tom’s question in that post of:

            “What in the EGW quote gives this idea?

to my ‘theologically-arrived at observation/understanding’ that:

I rather see that Satan would love to prevent all those catastrophe so that men may live care-free and not have any notion of judgements.”

I cite this recently read SOP statement:

“The time is at hand when there will be sorrow in the world that no human balm can heal. The Spirit of God is being withdrawn. Disasters by sea and by land follow one another in quick succession. How frequently we hear of earthquakes and tornadoes, of destruction by fire and flood, with great loss of life and property! Apparently these calamities are capricious outbreaks of disorganized, unregulated forces of nature, wholly beyond the control of man; but in them all, God's purpose may be read. They are among the agencies by which He seeks to arouse men and women to a sense of their danger.” {CC 231.3}


#6 - Added Application

As he is apt to pastorally do, see the August 3-4, 2012 three-part application here of the COGC issues by Mark Howard in regards to the personal/psychological affectations from an unbalanced understanding of the balancing mercy &/vs. justice issue. (See also his 08-18-12; 08-25-12; 09-15-12 “Manifold Wisdom of God” sermons in here).


#7 - More Exegetically Accurate Understanding of Luke 22:35-38

My prior quasi “off the cuff” explanations for Luke 22:35-38 stated within this forum discussion commenting, are superceded by the more exegetically accurate understanding posted in this recent comment in this blog.


#8 - Explicit Scriptural Substantiation

As referred to here, another Scriptural substantiation of the Biblical fact, as expressed in that discussion starting here (see end), that God outrightly wanted to execute all 10 Plagues on Egypt culminating in the just exaction of the death of Egypt’s firstborns is seen in preluding statement in Exod 4:21-22 where God cites that final (plague) judgement as His chief intent all along in this matter!


#9 - Miscellaneous, yet Most Pertinent, Documentation

In this forum post, towards its end, an allusion was made to the famous “quip” by then, (arguably, iconic) Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau responding, in 1970, to a reporter’s question by famously saying Just Watch Me in reference to invoking the Canadian (Martial Law) War Measures Acts to deal with a terror-political crisis in Quebec then (see here [at ca. 5:43ff]); and a recent “witty” usage of that phrase by Trudeau’s son who is also in Canadian Politics reminded me of my usage of it in that forum post. Only after did I quote it off the top of my head in that post, did I find out, when I looked it up on the internet/Youtube, did I see that the context of ‘not being swayed by “bleeding hearts” and “weak-kneed” people from doing something which was stern, but necessary’, did I see that it was indeed pertinently fitting to both the immediate context of my responding usage in that forum post (i.e., Tom annoyingly whining about me not also posting the text of Biblical references I cite), and also to that wider Character of God discussion, because it indeed is such over-sentimental people who allow their emotions to cloud their minds from grasping that there is some stern work to be done in this Great Controversy, both by God, and also by His obedient people. Instead such people merely want a religion of God which is satisfied by mere sentimental and emotional “compassionate” professions and expressions while the knowingly neglect and indifferently refuse to do the tangible correcting works of “right-doing” (= true righteousness). Such people, and any other who subscribe to similar “sanctimonious” neglect and indifferent are in for a “teeth-gnashing” shock, to say the least (e.g., Matt 25:31-46; LDE 218.3-219.3; DA 825.4)
            So it is such a Biblically, and even humanly unbalanced character predisposition which leads these people to jump on the COG view which builds its claims solely on passages which seem wholly support their view, namely Bible and SOP passages which show that God uses/allows certain spiritual, natural and/or human agencies to do works of judgement/destruction. However, in line with what is already stated above, God actually wisely uses whatever method will be most just and (thus inherently) have the most redemptive value, even if solely for those who will “witness” that judgement. And when there is no organic/natural, timely and fitting consequence to end/check a sinful course, then God tangibly and forcefully intervenes to, even pre-emptively/prematurely bring about that deserved (and also wider-purposeful) end.


#10 - Biblical/Scientific Substantiation

In support of my foundational view expressed, e.g., in here and in here, that those snakes in the wilderness would, as generally typical of snakes, not attack the Israelites unless God also put a fear of the Israelites in them, I cite God’s plan stated in Exod 23:28-29 to use hornets swarms to gradually drive the people living in Canaan out. Now even if this swarm would come from hornets which had then not been in Canaan, or if  they were always present in the land, it is quite clear that these would not, of themselves, be attacking these people, but for this fear of the people that God was going to put in their minds. So, as snakes, and any venomous creature similarly do not others, or humans, unless they feel threatened, (and even larger prey animals only attack others for food, or to, even pre-emptively, defend themselves), then I am seeing here a Biblical substantiation for my thesis that God would have to “actively” inject a fear of the Israelites into, specifically, the venomous snakes in wilderness, for them to both, come amongst the people in the camp, and then also bite them. (Cf. My personal experience here with suddenly frightened of/by me bees.)
            -And the same “send” word  (Strongs #07971) is used in both the planned Exod 23:28 and effectuated Num 21:6 actions by God. And with a basic Qal verbal stem used to speak of the planned act of Exod 23:28, this shows that this ‘“sending” of harmful animals/agents’ act is something that God Himself “naturally” (i.e., typically) does.

Related, APL claims here in a subsequent (yet quite duplicative) rehash of this COG discussion,*, ** futilely, manifestly, effectively/silently implies that, (isolatively) based on Exod 23:28: God evidently did not actually go on to sanction the physical fighting which Israel later on did to take possession of Canaan. However that is immediately refuted by God’s own instructions some forty years later in Deut 20:10-18. But, duplicitously telling enough, APL ignores Exod 23:27 which states that God will Himself, evidently distinctly, and thus directly, also be “causing terror and confusion” to cause these people to flee their land. And the underlying issue here is that if Israel had been faithful, then God would not need to place them in such perils. But since they were not, on the other side of their 40-year punishment, they would fittingly have to risk themselves to fulfill the promises of God to them.
            So it is not, as effectively implied by APL’s partial statement, that God did not order the physical fighting later on, but that it was just a necessary option given the prior/initial righteous basis which had been annulled by His faithless and rebellious Israel.

* Quite (albeit here, manifestly relapsingly (as in: “the schoolmaster is gone so let’s misbehave’) with the user named “kland” who started that discussion thread, his allegorical parable to try to found his COG-espousing view is also devoid of the pertinent and applicable realistic facts, as I had initially, repeatedly encountered from him. (cf. here) Indeed he is here also  merely viewing things from a quite humanistic and, spiritually speaking, “natural” (=1 Cor 2:14-16), and not at all surprisingly, that is what his COG view is only allowing him to think of the judgements of God actually related in Bible and SOP, but which those COG proponents/adherents selectively and subjectively ignore. And so he is resultingly viewing actual Biblical things quite surfacely as any non-believer does, and can only see/claim about the actual True stories that they involve God saying: “Love me or I will kill you”....and that is indeed just what Satan wants people to instead think and believe about the Truth.
            Duly succinctly, correctingly stated, his allegorical parable should start where, and involve what, the SOP contributions have, even foundationally, allowed its readers to see where it starts, and involves, and also as further delved into in this blog post's section: Thus his allegory should instead be relating that: a man has developed, at great cost, a treatment and antidote for a highly virulent and deadly new STD. While out and about, he encountered that woman and they began a relationship which has ended up in marriage. However sometime soon after their marriage, that woman began to be quite adulterous, also injecting herself with drugs, and has in that wayward course managed to contract that fatal STD. Her husband is gives her the antidote which, due to market constraints costs him millions of dollars to produce, but each time he cures her, she soon after goes back to her adulterous ways and once again contracts that deadly STD. She is gradually eroding the man’s resources to the point where he is no longer seeing it as rational or wise to repeatedly expend on her, especially as, meanwhile, other members of his family have accidentally contracted that STD and he has not been able to assist all of them as he was expending his available money on his rebellious wife. The husband has sadly watched as several of his family members have died from their innocently/accidentally contracted STD, including all of the 5 members in his sister’s family as the STD had contagiously spread to all of them before the sister knew she was infected. So the husband, wanting to save the life of his another, now languishing, brother instead decides to instead spend his money on helping him and leaves his wife to her fate. She then, and this is where kland’s allegory (should) start, makes the claims that her husband is ‘killing her because she does not love him’....
            Indeed, contrary to the underlying tenet of kland’s allegory, God is not going around wantonly beating up and killing people for not just, applicable reason. But that is indeed what the COG people want people to think about the Biblical view of God. They of course will also argue that sin, like that STD, is purely what is killing sinners, and not any act of God, but they are forgetting that God has both the antidote for any sin, and its tangible/physical effects, but is also choosing, as it was involved in banning sinners access to the Tree of Life, to not let sinners receiving that antidote. And that is the crux of this GC issue...i.e., why, as in the more accurate depiction above, has God deemed that anyone who sins must be left to their fate of sin. In other words, why doesn’t God just divorce the sinner and let him/her live their own separate life, but also continue to supply all of their living needs, as well as an endless supply of the anti-dote for the effects of sin, death!!

** Evidently, just going by the many recycled and reset already-debunked arguments, both he, and kland, who had participated in the prior COG discussion, think that they can now get their way to “support” their one-sided/selective/surface COG view since, quite evidently, deep/deeper Biblical exegesis will not be pursued by their opponents in this new discussion, (indeed instead replaced whenever it comes to be the case, with vacuous, pompous/authoritarian subjective declarative claims/arguments of “surely being right” (e.g., by the, one of several SDA,Ezek 14:1-8, ‘halved (thus falsed)-“prophets”’, James Son of Thunder (JSOT) (=James Tierney), (cf. e.g., here), or Green Cochoa (cf. e.g, here -ending), or worse, the topic will defeatedly be left as if it is something which could possibly be deemed inconclusive/neutral (cf. e.g. here). Indeed, the main reason why I took quite considerable amount of my time to continue in that prior COG discussion (when substantively worthwhile (cf. e.g., here)), (until I was “banned”), was to debunk such a religiously sanctimonious, infidel-echoing, stance and tenet that ‘Truth is not absolute and all can have their version of it’.
            As pleasingly/conveniently easy as it popularly may not be for most SDA’s, “concrete”/absolute Biblical Truth will take some exegetical prospecting and then digging to uncover. (=CS 244.5)


#11 - Documenting SOP Episode

In forum post #132408 (see at very end) I responded to a claim by Tom which effectively, i.e. when fully thought through, (something Tom did not bother to do/engage in during that entire discussion), claimed that when EGW spoke in formal/public/official Church/Ministry settings, she then spoke “ex-cathedra” as she then did not make any mistakes in her “pronouncements” then. Well that claim is documentedly refuted by the several “official” errors of EGW listed here, especially this one where EGW made a similar “Divinely unadvised” pronouncement error as had the prophet Nathan (2 Sam 7:1-17).


#12 - Deficient Attempt to Explain God’s Wrath

Within this later (issue introductory) forum post [#153353], “APL” tries to explain/equate the wrath of God merely with/as a ‘“giving up” action’, as actually partly defined in Rom 1:24-32 based on Hos 11:8. But that attempt is typical of the COGP’s approach/“tactic” to exegesis, they try to re-define everything the Bible/SOP has to say about something based on a single passage which is subjectively deemed by them to be superior.
            Succinctly said, though these cities of Admah and Zeboiim (cf. Gen 10:19; Deut 29:23), as well as Bela/Zoar (Gen 14:2, 8; ) were also destroyed with Sodom and Gomorrah (S&G), it is no accident that it is S&G which are prominently cited when this destruction is mentioned in the Bible, as simply seen by post-destruction (i.e., post Gen 19) simple (i.e., the destruction may not even be the contexting subject) word occurrence counts in the Bible: Sodom (28); Gomorrah (14) Bela/Zoar (3); Admah (2); Zeboiim (2). In fact, just by Sodom being allowed by God to go to Zoar (Gen 19:17-23) which even Lot knew should/would be destroyed (Gen 19:30), showed how those surrounding cities were not as corrupt as S&G were...but none the less, perhaps merely by their proximity (cf. Deut 20:15-18) dangerously “infected” with that deprived mentality. So thus is seen and understood how God “collaterally” “gave up”, pointedly here Admah, i.e., if the distinct mentioning in Hos 11:8 is not merely poetic rhetoric, the city of Zeboiim may been much more deserving of be thus “treated” by God. Yet other passages in the Bible are clear that God still directly effectuated that sudden and targeted fire and brimstone “rainfall” on those cities (Gen 19:24 and thus “overthrew” them Himself in that anger and wrath of His (Deut 29:23).
            God’s “giving up” of guilty parties is not itself overarchingly definitional of how the judgement is executed. In certain cases, that “giving up” brings about deserved immediate/direct/organic/intrinsic judgement/destruction, in other cases, as it would not, as was the case with the balls of sulphur which were to destroyed those cities and everything in it, God has to step in to effectuate that judgement. God’s “wrathful” “giving up” of guilty parties is just a judgement initiating, guilt sealing phase where He then no longer continues to ‘strive, through His Spirit’, with them (Gen 6:3) but instead allows them to be fully ruled solely by their degenerate Spirit leading them to do things worthy of the punishment that He will distinctly next do, or, if there is a fitting and timely natural consequence, allow to occur. (e.g., 2 Thess 2:8-12).
            That is precisely what occurs with the Four Winds and the Final Plagues, which APL likes to claim is mere “natural consequences” (e.g., here [#153861]). The Four Winds are the restrained “human passions” (20MR 269.2; GC 614.1). This is why “wickedness does not break forth in decided violence against righteousness [=right doing] and truth” as, as discussed here, it would have been the case from the U.S.A. starting in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 if God then had not long worked to ‘hold back that angered horse”’ (20MR 216.6). The release of the Four Winds occurs with God removing the countering influence of His Spirit from the Earth resulting in man doing whatever they want to which may lead to such ‘(human-borne) strifeful’ atrocities (6T 408.1)* as Nuclear Holocaust, but it most ultimately leads to God then no longer having any reason not to execute judgement, in the form of Plagues, upon these now unforgivable wicked people.
            So God’s “giving up” wrath does lead people to fully follow their own course of their perverse desires and reap the consequences, but it does not preclude God Himself bringing about that consequence if a fitting immediate/organic one is not “naturally” available or feasible. Case in point, atmospheric fire balls of sulphur is not the “natural” consequence of the various sexual and socio-economic (Ezek 16:48-50) abominations of S&G...or else it surely would have long re-occurred in World History upon various peoples and civilizations (e.g., Greeks and Romans), and surely would in today’s similarly boldly sinful, and most likely much more pervasive and rampant, world/society.
            So really God’s “passionate “giving up” wrath” is just Him permittingly, self-producing the needed reason(s) to, one passive, and/or active, way effectuate/execute the punishing judgement.

* These “warranting” human-borne “strifeful” atrocities, indeed done by humans then under the full control of Satan (=EW 280.2; -just as he was given ‘full control’ of the Jews in 70 A.D. (=GC 615.1) and thus “led” them to only make and take most foolish decisions and actions which “naturally” led to their merciless, utter ruin by the Roman armies), are actually not synonymous with the ‘punishing “natural disasters”’ which God then does (EW 280.2), or allows to be done by Satan (RH, September 17, 1901 par. 7; RH, September 17, 1901 par. 8) as punishing (non-organic) consequences. COGP’s can’t see/accept the involved “warranting actions” vs. “effectuated (non-organic) judgement” distinction here, indeed, as stated in the last section here [#133274], the actual reason why Titus decided to no longer have mercy on the Jews was certainly “non-organic” as it was merely because he became vexed/indignant that they dare insist on dictating the terms of their surrender.


#13 - Nadab’s and Abihu’s “Fire”

-On APL’s also typically (indeed) ‘eisegetical’ comment here [#154152], as rightly responded to him based on the SOP next [#154163], it is evident that God’s presence does not automatically kill sinners or else Satan would never have been able to survive when in God’s presence (e.g., Job 1:6; 2:1 see here [#131899] which was in a prior responding to this claim of APL) , and, as presented later in this present blog post, what destroyed Nadab and Abihu was manifestly a type of (non-burning up) lightning strike (=Num11:1 (cf. Num 16:35) PP 379.1), it clearly was a distinct, deliberate/willful judicial act of God.


Growing Commentary on Various COG Proponent (COGP) Views & Claims (from e.g., here and here)

Satan in the OT
It is commonly believed and claimed by COGP’s that Satan is not more revealed in the
OT because God was concealingly acting to shield Israel from a knowledge/awareness of an opposing evil force to avoid polytheism. Well for one ready thing, whether the people worshipped a false “god” (cf. 2 Cor 4:4) they couldn’t see or statuette idols which they ascribed to be gods, and which were representative of Satan’s false religion, really makes no difference: the people are still worshipping Satan, and the ‘representative idols “alternative”’ is clearly much more deceptive. Indeed if Israelites knew that in bowing down to statues of Baal they were actually directly worshipping Satan, then that probably would have served to actually keep them from idolatry. The same thing is seen today with, even SDA, Christians wholly espousing the Evil socio-economic system of Capitalism...but of course they do not see it as “Evil” and thus not a system that was directly concocted/inspired by Satan following a special boardroom meeting to see how to ensnare even/especially Sabbath Keepers (=EW 266-269), so they most proudly both practice and preach this spurious system which is rooted in the Chief of Sins: selfishness. Case in point that Capitalism is Evil: remove the base and ungodly traits greed, selfishness, individualism, avarice, covetousness, self-interest, thievery, oppression, fraud, lying, usury, etc from that system and you then do not have Capitalism at all. But there clearly is something most subtly deceptive in a false system which man sees/thinks that they themselves have concocted and developed, which plays right into the hands of Satan’s step deception to lead to the worship of him, and that is: humans worshipping themselves, thus effectively “deifying” themselves (Gen 3:4-5). That is really why tangibly idolatry in OT times was so successful, even in God’s Israel as men then thought that they, controllingly, were doing something to save and better themselves; and that is similarly why spurious systems like Capitalism today are so entrenched, even in SDA/Christian circles, because there too, man prefers to think to be in full control of their own destinies rather than rely upon God (cf. Exod 32:1ff), or certainly the reciprocating goodwill of others.
            But, upon overviewing the issue of Satan in the OT, it has dawningly become clear to me that the reason why Satan does not explicitly appear more in that text is, on one hand, the very same reason why he does not appear more today in either SDA or Christian circles. E.g. in SDA Circles, you still do not see EGW repeatedly stating that Satan tangibly/directly did many things which detrimentally occurred in the SDA Church. Take the infamous events of the 1902 burning to the ground of the Battle Creek Sanitarium and then, 10 months later, the Review and Herald building after ignoring several counsels and warnings in the SOP. Like in OT days, EGW does not here say that “Satan did it”, but rather that she had been shown in vision that is was an angel, which she clearly believed was of God, who had done these two fires in Battle Creek (see 8T 97.1; RH, April 14, 1903 par. 6; cf. Gen 4:24).
            Pertinently, interestingly enough, as related in Light Bearers to the Remnant (1979) p. 307, some people thought that it was “heathen” to think that God Himself had done these fires in judgement/vengeance. But EGW and others, and, as resolvingly/reconcilingly/harmonizingly/“theodically” presented in this blog post, this is indeed the Biblical way to view such a “Character of God” issue, God had indeed done this judgement, for: (1) disciplining reasons (=Heb 12:3-11); and (2) also because He wanted to have mercy (thus only one man who went into the R&H fire to save his things lost his life). Had this judgement be given over to Satan, then surely no form of mercy would have been involved and many (irreplaceable) lives would also have been lost.
            And that all leads into the “dawning”/working thesis observation that I have seen about “Satan in the OT”....God was indeed prominently involved in Israel’s judgements because, also then God was acting out of disciplining reasons and thus also wanted to have mercy. Indeed with Israel supposed to provide the way for the redemption of the entire world in the advent of the Messiah, it is clear why God would want to be in full control over whatever needed to discipliningly happen to Israel, in even the Assyrian and Babylonian invasions and destructions. So in the OT Satan is not more prominently present/presented because he factually is actually not present in most of what transpired with Israel in the OT. It thus is evidently only when God has permitted him to do something, and when he actually confronts God about something, that he is reported. Therefore Satan only had ca. 4 “extraordinary” appearances in an Israel of God issue and all of the other times, it was indeed God Himself who was acting to, even if a foreign earthly power was summoned and used, justly deal with his wayward people. Those “4 extraordinary times”, along with the reason(s) which prompted those appearances, namely being:

(1) Job 1-2 - Satan challenging God’s opposition to claim of rulership on earth because of Job.

(2) 2 Sam 24:1 & 1 Chr 21:1 - Satan acting to tempt David to distrust God and number Israel, which, contrary to common assumption/belief, even, ignoramusly, amongst SDA Scholarly circles, is (i.e., Satan’s involvement), as discussed here (cf. in here near end), (see latest exegetical updating here), actually exegetically also, albeit not explicitly by name), pronominally indicated in the earlier 2 Sam 24:1 account.
            It is relatedly pertinent to further see that it was, by David’s chosen option, God Himself who acted, through the “Angel of the Lord”, (i.e., perhaps Michael/Jesus Himself), to punish David for his transgression here, -and, also substantively pertinent to this COG issue, in order to assure that mercy is present (2 Sam 24:10-17ff|1 Chr 21:9-17ff). Indeed as seen with what Babylon went on to, at God’s regret, ‘exaggeratingly’ do when God allowed them to overrun His people (see e.g., Jer 50 & 51; 50:28-29ff; Psa 137:8-9; cf. Assyria’s overstepping in Jer 50:18|Isa 10:5-7), if God would have turned over this judgement to an enemy of Israel as per one of the three options (2 Sam 24:12-13|1 Chr 21:10-12) they too may have exaggerated.

(3) 1 Kgs 22:19-23 - God allowing, for desired judgement (1 Kgs 22:17), a “lying spirit” to maintain King Ahab and his (known to be) false prophets in their rebelliousness and deception.

(4) Zech 3 - Satan objecting to God’s choice for a new, post-exilic priesthood head in the selection of Joshua.

            So other than these Biblically cited instances, (and perhaps the SOP does cite/reveal more, but not, as COGP claim “contrary” to what the Bible claims (e.g., that it wasn’t an angel of God who threatened the life of Moses in Exod 4:24-26), it is manifest that Satan was not directly/more prominently involved in dealings with Israel. Perhaps doing more so by him would be a violation of Great Controversy rules of engagement or would result in him being more exposed by God thus destroying his sly cover through which he could be more effective, indeed as working to tempt Israel through heathen people (e.g., Num 25:1) was both fully/defaultly permissible in this GC, as well as most effective.
            Relatedly, and also contrary to blanket claims that Satan was not introduced early in the OT, we see, pointedly from the SOP, that God had, right at the start, warned Adam and Eve about the fallen angel Satan and of his plans to try to deceive them. (SR 29.2-31.2) (Which is indeed why Satan appeared to them in the disguise of the serpent, rather than, as it otherwise would have been more effective, as he tried to do with Jesus in the Wilderness (DA 118.2) to appear to them as a dazzling Mighty Angel claiming to have a message from God that ‘it was “now” perfectly okay to also eat from the forbidden tree.’)

-We see from unprefaced NT statements in e.g., John 8:44; 2 Cor 11:3 Rev 12:9 that it was commonly known in Jewish circles that Satan had been acting in that deceiving serpent, and thus also that Satan could take on various forms and covers to work to try to deceive God’s people. So the Jews would for early times have had a knowledge and understanding of the ever-, and earthly omni-, presence of Satan in his work to overturn them.
-There also is the inspired account of Moses for the story of Job, which was written before Israel’s Exodus from Egypt, which clearly revealed Satan and his claim of ruling over the earth, and that because people (except for Job) have freely accepted his rule.

-There is the symbolism in Israel’s Law of Azazel the scapegoat which proper Biblical and Historical studies respectively show that (1) it was a representation of Satan, and that Jewish people, at least by the writing of the book of Enoch, had an understanding that Azazel was the leader of rebel angels (Book of Enoch  -with the possible possibility that the apparent intertestamental author/arranger/composer of that “Apocryphal” book is actually, under prophetic inspiration, or even merely out of known textual citing, restating, as done in Jude 1:14-15 (=1 En 1:9) what “Enoch, the Seventh from Adam” (1 En 60:8) had actually prophetically seen and said in regards to who Azazel was (cf. in this post).

-Then there are the two Divine/Prophetic Statements in Isa 14:12-15 & Ezek 28:11-19, which, in clearly not being only descriptive of the thoughts, motives and actions of earthly rulers, are clearly speaking of an acting evil influence/spirit directly behind these people which Jewish hearers/readers could, through their already exposed to awareness of what Satan can slyly, covertly do, could recognize that it was Satan who was acting being these two heathen rulers and, as God pointedly and keyly reveals here, first, in Isaiah 14:12-15 to try to raise up and establish Babylon as a world ruling power in order to bring the known world and also Israel under his own GC agenda, and then in Ezek 28:11-19, with him having succeeded with Babylon, trying to do the same with a more proximate power to God’s Israel, perhaps even so as to completely hamper any chance for a return of Judah, then paramountly in exile in Babylon, (and Israel), in the former territory, by also trying to inspire the King of Tyre to also have those grandiose ruling desires. Clearly both of those Divine-ward opposingly earthly rule would have, moreover, both ideologically/religiously through Babylon, and temporally, territorially and socio-economically, through Tyre, served to counteract what God was Temporally and Religiously trying to redemptively do on Earth through Israel. So it is not surprising to see Satan here being “extraordinarily” involved in these endeavors, and also why God would be revealing the true/full state of earthly geo-political developments here. If Satan can “incite and move” a king in Israel to act against God, then he surely can, and has similarly specially acted with heathen rulers.

            So all of these concrete examples show that, contrary to what is, as patent and typical with COGP’s, glibly posited by them, Satan is not more prominently and explicitly mentioned in the OT, especially in dealing with Israel, simply because he actually was not more prominently, even frequently, involved, particularly/pointedly in regards to matters of judgement. God just did not allow Satan to have such control as He was mercifully working with Israel in order to bring about the greater good for the world in the Advent of the Messiah and the triumphant of the New Covenant. So really it was not until the final stages of the 70 A.D. destruction of Jerusalem that God did then not completely give over the reins to Satan in regards to, then former Israel, as that New Covenant was then firmly established.
            In fact it is ironically interesting to hear COGP’s and others spuriously claim that an awareness/knowledge of another powerful being, (namely Satan), was kept concealed from Israel in order to avoid them delving into idolatry, but that obviously was not the preventive case with Israel, but it is rather an understanding from their start that Satan existed and was a powerful being which made pursuing the gods of pagan nations worthwhile since these gods were in some ways aiding those pagan gods. Had they believed that only God existed, and He only had power to do anything, then worshipping idols would not have made any tangible sense to them. Instead both a knowledge of the existence and power of Satan, as well as seeing the favor and power which he was manifestly providing wicked (cf. Psa 92:7ff), and with God Himself not opposing/defeating them, thus implying that Satan was actually more powerful than Him, made idolatry a viable cultic alternative to them. The same deception still occurs today with professed believers in God who knowingly follow the sinful ways, customs and policies (e.g., Capitalism) of other, even godless, people simply by “naturally” looking at how those ways are prospering them.

[1] As far as I know, this is apparently only an issue in SDA Circles, mainly because of some of the comments that EGW has made on how/why some destruction events in the Bible took place. And so the surface and non-exegetical reader has come to jump to a false conclusion on this topic based solely on a selective few, and many misread other, SOP statements.
            Perfect and most prominent case in point, the views on this topic of Tim Jennings of the Come and Reason ministry, as manifested throughout this highly [but spuriously] critical Sabbath School discussion which involved that topic. As later presented in this present post, those who hold the wrong view on this topic have done so by only considering the passages which seem to wholly support their view and arbitrarily and subjectively ignoring all of the clearly opposing ones.* That is not at all proper exegesis. The full truth of the matter is that there is both mercy and justice involved in God’s judgement with, typically, a period of merciful dealings preceding a final, utter “giving up” by God. That utter end is called “wrathful”, which literally means “most passionate”, because God then no longer cares to have any mercy on the impenitent. So all of Jennings’ arguments and claims have been addressed in that MSDAOL discussion referred to in this present blog post. (Cf. this response of Eugene Prewitt to this view of Jennings.)

* Necessarily, foundationally starting with Gen 3:22-24|PP 60.1 whose wider, incontrovertible theological implication involves that: ‘it is God who has imposed a death result on sinful man’, even placing guarding Cherubim with flaming swords so that man would not "obey" God's Law for life and continue eating of that fruit!! -And so the foundational GC issue has been “why??”, i.e., ‘why must the sinner not live eternally?’ -See here. EGW indeed also had exactly the same understanding. E.g., Speaking of the demonstrated result in the “fruition” of sin in the descendants of Cain till their Flood Judgement she says:

“Fifteen centuries after the sentence pronounced upon Cain, the universe witnessed the fruition of his influence and example, in the crime and pollution that flooded the earth. It was made manifest that the sentence of death pronounced upon the fallen race for the transgression of God's law was both just and merciful. The longer men lived in sin, the more abandoned they became. The [Gen 3:22-24 and pre-Gen 6:3] divine sentence cutting short a career of unbridled iniquity, and freeing the world from the influence of those who had become hardened in rebellion [=DA 764.1's ‘so out of harmony character’] was a blessing rather than a curse.” PP 78.2

            Tim Jennings often/repeatedly harkens to the chief tenet of his view which claims that there are only two viewed diametrically opposing “constructs” in this Great Controversy issue. And these are an “Imposed Law” vs. a “Natural Law” construct. Summarizing his view, he says that God can only operate in a Natural Law construct and so nothing He does, or no law that He gives is out of an Imposed Construct, which he says is the view of men, even as done here [29:29ff], linking it to the Mark of the Beast movement. Now therein is the emblematic problem/issue with Character of God (COG) proponents...succinctly stated, they are quite shortsighted and tunnel-visioned, and though they certainly would not think so...just like Lucifer was when he began his rebellion. And the proof of this “myopism”, (frankly bordering on being logically and Spiritually moronic for the clear truths/facts/logic that it is “straw-manly” and “sanctimoniously”, even hysterically, deliberately choosing to not factor in) is repeatedly seen in how they pompously, even outrightly ignore the word of God, whenever it expresses something that is contrary to their view. Case in point, in that presentation [31:15ff], Jennings claims that it is only governments which are operating according to the principles of the Devil which have laws with “arbitrary” arresting and penalties for people who do not obey them. He claims that God does not do this. Seriously!???? He does not have an Old Testament??? E.g., was the person who committed adultery in Israel even allowed to leave the camp and go live with other nations where that was perfectly acceptable, or did God say that they must “arrested”, judged and capitally punished!!! (e.g., Lev 20:10). And Jennings manifestly became aware of that Biblical fact and [at 41:05ff] (assumedly) “obliviously” muddle the actual issues here, by, as COG people typically do, citing the episode of the Woman Caught in Adultery (John 8:1-11). But what these people always deliberately ignore here is that (a) the Jews then did not have Capital Punishment authority, and Rome was certainly not going to Capitally enforce such Moral Law, and (b) Jesus whole point in that episode was that “it was not a lawful/righteous/valid accusation and sought condemnation, because (1) the man she was supposedly “in the act” with was not also brought forward and (2) the accusing witnesses were themselves not blameless/sinless (which certainly does not mean that they had never sinned, or else that legal stipulation could never be enforced, but that, as Jesus knew, these accusers were themselves then also living in open sin). So Jesus did not prevent her being stone because God’s Law/Will in this regards had diminished and changed. Even the “Eye for an Eye” etc, stipulations had to similarly reformed from the vindictive abusing of it, where people were probably then mechanically enforcing it, i.e. without taking into consideration whether or not the person who had caused the damage, had intentionally/deliberately done it. Logically and righteously, only in actual criminal and resolute acts should it be enforced, and that actually for a deterrent provision, in order to prevent damage to innocent, law-abiding Israelites. There was to be similar Gospel order in NT Israel, the Church (e.g., Matt 18:15-18), with God then, by geo-political necessity taking any Capital Punishment issues into His own hands. (e.g., Acts 5:1-11). Yet as God now wanted in this New Covenant (Jer 31:31-34) to most developedly/advancedly (cf. Gal 3:24) finally have a people who obeyed Him out of a genuine desire and love (=Matt 22:34-40) and not any threat of punishment, He has not been systematically doing these demonstrative/object-lessons enforcements.
            It is strange, but quite telling, to see how COG people think that they are doing God a favor by, through their selective ignoring of clear Bible and SOP statements of God’s effectuated, instructed and or commanded judgements, effectively painting Him as someone who is not all Wise and having acted out of ruthlessness and “violence”. The actual truth about God’s Character is only found in the full testimony of His word and not by what mere sentimental mortals will subjectively allow themselves to accept.
            It is telling interesting to hear Jennings obtusely claim that speeding laws are an example of arbitrary laws. Well, at the root, limiting speeds in a given area and/or according to surrounding circumstances is done for the safety of everyone as an accident, including a fatal one is much more likely at higher speeds. So imposed speeding laws are not arbitrary. They help to save lives. And Law without either fitting penalties or justified law enforcement is no law at all (ST, July 14, 1890 par. 2; cf. ST, June 5, 1901 par. 5), but a mere “suggestion”, -which is just what Satan wants people to think about the Law of God. All are free to obey it or not, but as this entire universe is God’s domain, ultimately, as explained below, the sinner will not be able to be given a place in it to live out their detrimental rebellion. (=PP 420.2)(Jennings subsequently ‘appealing/resorting’ to the German autobahn only highlights the wishful thinking here because actually only ca. 13% of the 7,982 miles of the autobahn has no general speed limit, (only having a, binding/actionable in case of an accident, “advisory speed limit” of 81 mph...-all sounds like the debunked’s/defeated’s, (e.g.), “safe sex” advisory 7th commandment of man), yet actually only for certain types of (simple) vehicles.[...Hmmmm, I wonder why....safety??!], not to mention imposed speed limits to reduce noise and pollution. And a minimum speed limit is also imposed for all....again/also for safety reasons. Its all the old “experimental trial and error”, “pain or pleasure” approach of men vs. Godly wisdom protectively law setting approaches.) 
            Relatedly, Jennings' claimed “Roman Emperor Imposed Law model to try to discredit all imposition of laws, (which all of God’s Laws inherently actually ‘infinitely wisely’ are (PP 42.1; GC 584.2-585.1ff; COL 275.2; cf. PHJ, Feb. 1, 1902 par. 2)), is a classic “straw-man”, even “red-herring” tactic...And if I sequiturly get Jennings view here, where he is moreover advocating that ‘people should indeed be free to determine what (speeding) law/limit will apply for themselves’, if there is no direct/organic/natural/pointed consequence to an action, (which there indeed is not necessarily/defaulty for sin, or else any sinning would be as consequentially immediate as committing an act of suicide), then the imposition of a wisely-borne, pre-emptive law is inevitably arbitrary and dictatorial. Well then, since the Bible and SOP indeed clearly/unequivocally shows/teaches that death only became a consequence of sin for sinful man only when God barred them access to the Tree of Life, then Jennings & his view is actually teaching that God’s Law, and thus God Himself, is therefore ‘arbitrary and dictatorial’, and thus not valid....Hmmm... where did I hear that “rationale” before....Oh yeah, e.g.: PP 49.1; ST, July 23, 1902 par. 5; ST, June 5, 1901 par. 4ff; ST, July 14, 1890 par. 2; CTr 289.2; Con 75.2; 3SP 257.1; cf. 1NL 60.3). What a sly, converse way for Satan to continue and further his foundational GC, “lawlessness (as arbitrary)” rebellion issue; -and right from the mouths of SDA’s, and in SDA Churches/Pulpits/Platforms!!
            The pivotal fact of this matter is that Jennings has made the foundational mistake of mindlessly conflating God’s “Natural/Physical” laws with His Moral Laws/“Obligations”. But the two are actually not one and the same. See e.g., PP 52.3; 1SM 216.2; HL 53.2; PH104 19.1; Te 213.5..
            Now, as mentioned above, COG proponents want to “short-sightedly” think/claim, from isolative claims from especially the SOP (e.g., DA 764.1) that death is not an arbitrary penalty for sin because it is only by God’s mercy that sinners do not immediately reap this penalty of death. Well the ironically shocking fact of the matter is that this Great Controversy has actually demonstrated that God could, “if He wanted to” accommodate sinners. I.e., forever be “merciful” to them and not allow His glory to destroy them. In fact, as related in PP 39.2, that was the crux of Satan's argument against God when he showed that the fact that he had not been struck down in his started opposition and rebellion to God was proof that God’s created being could live if they lived outside of God’s will. Ergo, God’s Law was arbitrary and God was only requiring total obedience to Him out of prideful reasons. So the real, far-reaching issue in this GC is, again, why can’t God allow sinners to live forever, as He actually knows they can (Gen 3:22-24). Does He have to “impose” His presence on them and thus cause their destruction. I.e., there are many examples in the Bible where God encountered men who had sinned and they were not destroyed. Perfect case in point, God/Jesus came and openly met with Adam and Eve after they had sinned, even before they had been forgiven, with, as I understand it, through complete thought-privacy and visual/observational-privacy then, Jesus not knowing before they told him that they had sinned. Yet they did not spontaneously combust. Even a non-repentant Satan came into the very presence of God in Heaven, with other Sons of God, in Job 1:6; 2:1 and was not destroyed. So clearly sin does not automatically result in death. It is only the case if God makes it so, e.g., by barring access to the Tree of Life.
            The pointed answer to the issue is in regards to character. DA 764.1 clearly states that it is only when man has developed a character that, by a life of rebellion, is so out of harmony with God's, that He then, actually allows that His very glory destroys them. It is not an automatic law, it is a willed allowance by God. That is why time was needed and allowed for this GC. It was to be shown the type of most detrimental character that man would develop (as done by the antediluvians) so that it can then be objectively seen that these people are worthy of being put to death. It is all like a police agency surveilling a criminal gang for months, even years, so that they can collect enough valid evidence to both have them convicted and also justly have them imprisoned for a long time.
            So the actual GC issue is that God is trying to demonstrate why sinners cannot be, even mercifully, allowed to live forever. And the deeper implication here, as more fully discussed here, is that, by the constant remedying and protective attention and interventions that their sinful/rebellious living will recommend from God, including probably greater supernatural doses of the Fruit of Life, they are taking away from what God would instead be able to do for the righteous, including creating new life. So, as in any genuine self-defense scenario, they are worthy of death only because of the direct or indirect death that their life, especially when at a most rebellious state will cause (e.g., Gen 6:11-13), and not at all simply because 'God’s presence can only cause people with sin to die'. It is actually people in rebellion, which is a more heightened/high-handed level of sinning, and which was to be Capitally Punished in God’s Israel, which objectively warrants an immediate death penalty.
            So, whether COG people can grasp that view-imploding fact or not, the Theological fact of the matter is that sin does not organically/“naturally” result in death. It is only when God directly or indirectly allows for this to happen. Indeed the Bible itself is ambiguously clear that sin is, non-tangibly, the transactional transgression of God’s Law (1 John 3:4). In fact, conversely, ‘without a stipulated/related law, there is no sin’. (e.g., Rom 7:7-9). It is COG people who want/need for sin itself to be something tangible, even with some claiming that it stemmed from something bodily/genetically harmful that was injected in man from Adam and Eve eating of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Furthermore, one can go through all of the Ten Commandments and not find not one of them which inherently directly results in vital, physical harm to oneself. That is why it was the violation of commandments which involved proximate vital risks (i.e., Commandments for Murder and Adultery), or, with the Sabbath, its all-encompassing ideal life principle, which were to be, object-lessonly, immediately Capitally punished. It is because sin is so intangible, and only leads to gradually and eventually producing a Character which is dangerously contrary to God’s Universal Law of Life, that this concretizing GC was permitted. And what God has been trying to demonstrate in this GC is that there really are no such thing as little benign sins, and that any deviation from His Will will surely end up in full blown rebellion. So once this GC demonstration is completed in its wisely allotted, albeit merely “representational”, time of ca. 7000 years, all will agree that God has a right to immediately inflict a punishment of death upon any sin, even long before it leads to open/violent rebellion and is tangibly life-threatening to either the sinner or righteous people. To illustratively speak in modern understandings, God has been trying to show that a pre-emptive doctrine against sin is fully justified and necessary. The “loving character” of God is to have/produce life, and that more abundantly for all of Creation (John 10:10), and sin actually gets in the way of this, and so this GC is showing that God is indeed wise and justified with this view.
            And the pointed phases of this GC demonstration now focuses on God’s Sabbath, to show that it too is not an arbitrary requirement, and the battle here currently has advanced to the most advanced point in God’s Sabbatical Truth, and that is that God’s Law of Life (DA 20.1-21.3) where people cooperate to help provide relative and collective rest for all, so that living will not become a burden to anyone, and then life could equally be enjoyed to the full by all, which must be followed, and not, the presently, fully-developed and implemented system of Satan (EW 266-269) as manifested in Capitalism, and especially the most deceptively spurious derivative of Philanthro-Capitalism, which are both fully rooted in a founding base principle of Selfishness, the Chief of Sins (4T 384.3; 7MR 232.4).
            So in summary, God has, and will, intervene to impose a permanent penalty of death on/for sin, not because of some scientific/physical reality that ‘sin and sinners can really only be consumed by the physical glory of God’, but rather out of a just necessity in order to preserve the life, and abundant life, of others who, like God want this better life for, especially any other who can be created/born to inhabit God’s, perhaps infinite, Universe.* The consuming glory/“character” issue here is not a Physical, but a Spiritual, one and God will objectively show that He is right in only accepting people who also have a similar character as His to live. Which is why people in this life who care nothing, and thus do nothing tangible or significant about the millions of people in this world dying from preventable, curable and/or intentional causes, and also to Christless graves, especially when these indifferent people are merely worshipfully bowing down to the arbitrary and artificial dictates of a Capitalistic socio-economics, also are not in harmony with God’s character and will also not be seen/deemed as fit to live eternally with God, because on the “other side”, God will still require the same loving and beneficent character which He is expecting and requiring now. It is just a most loving necessity...for the good and best of all, pointedly the potential all.

* E.g., think about it, since, a gleaned from the Bible and SOP, this planet/galaxy was the very first that God created (= organized for habitable human life), and it, evidently necessarily, took Him seven 24-hour days. Then by simple math, God would have since have created/organized only ca. 313,000 other planets/galaxies for habitation. Yet science today see/claims that there are billions of other galaxies in this Universe. So God may indeed still be in the process of Creating/organizing other worlds for human habitation. So a sinful world is clearly sapping away from such resources, including God’s time since He has to take special time to deal with this Planet’s ongoing rebellion.

            So, when all such pertinent and applicable things are duly taken into consideration, -an exegetical due diligence that COG proponents/adherents knowingly/(blissfully) “obliviously” do not bother to do, it is seen that the issue is not the false rival dichotomy of “Natural Law” vs. “Imposed Law”, as e.g., Tim Jennings “mantrasically” claims (see e.g., this entire “Creation and the Gospel” SS presentation), [and it indeed would not require 4-6 thousand years, for even highly intelligent angels, to understand a supposed “natural” (thus supposed-to-be objectively, scientifically, readily demonstrable) consequence of sin as being death], but, and most interestingly enough, as in the perfect mixture of God’s Justice and Mercy which is at the helm of the Biblical resolution of this issue, that this GC has been endeavoring to demonstrate that God’s Law is (indeed) the “Ideal/Optimal” Law for governing this Universe and that those who want to deviate from it must not be “sponsored” (by God) to do so, as this will only be “sappingly” costly to an abundant/ideal/optimal/happy/love-filled life for all.
            And as surfacely “counterintuitive” as it may seem, i.e. given the ditsy, justice-oblivious facade typically presented by COG proponents, it is actually people who, (as it is particularly the case with the vast majority of those, indifferently, plushly living in the “Western/First” world), have been conditioned to live according to principles and practices rooted in (“instinctive”) selfishness, self-interest and self-survival, who cannot, or won’t, accept what the Great Controversy is integrally and comprehensively revealing here about sin, because they have the “natural” mindset that ‘they must not sin because sin will be detrimental to, or kill, them(self)’; rather than the GC understanding that: it is because sin will, even temporally remotely, be detrimental to others, -even in the least of ways, and certainly ‘to the “least” amongst these others’ (=Matt 25:45), that God sees it as justified to put to imposed death those who choose to live according to sinful principles and ways. Indeed, as discussed in here, the often cited “wages”[=Strongs #3800] claim of Rom 6:23 is not a ‘“price[#5092]/cost[#1160 or #1431]” for sinning’ as it would “inherently/naturally” be the case if ‘sin naturally resulted in death’; but rather, and as understood from other pertinently related passages in the Bible and SOP: by God’s imposition, that death is now (i.e. since the barring of access to the Tree of Life), the only “payout” that sin will ever bring. In other words, God has made it that unrepenting sinful man cannot decline/refuse to accept that ‘wage/reward for their sinful work’ (Rev 22:12; 2 Cor 5:10), but that they can’t but accept that “charge” by Him “directly depositing” it in their account and thus making them incontrovertibly [unless of course the repent in faith], owe that “death payout”. (Col 2:13-14; GC 544.2).

            Non-coincidentally, like Capitalists today, Satan opposing way wants it that God’s created beings, who, as e.g., seen in the most/superiorily beautiful and (vocally) blessed “Lucifer” in Heaven (Ezek 28:12-15ff), actually all purposefully vary in (thus also mastered and/or developed) talents, abilities and strengths, can selfishly live however they please and even if this results in them using up resources which would have been made available for the outright life and well-being of others. Thus the entire universe would (also) be ordered according to a “survival of the fittest/most blessed” model. And inherently, and probably knowingly, Satan wants to thus try to force God to defaulty equally bless/gift everyone, yet God is evidently not doing this for the most practical reason that, and actually unlike what Capitalism relatedly claims), there, as also discussed in here, indeed is not, either ultimately or optimally, sufficient Divine-Energy to so abundantly or extravagantly/excessively “go around”, all the while all of the derived matter containing the necessary, incorporated God-particle in them. And so God blesses some more than others but expects them to in return be a (collective) blessing to any other in relative need of that blessing. Perhaps if God the Father also incarnated Himself as God the Son did, and bestowed His Divine energy/glory, then there would be, but God knows that this is not a viable/best/safe option, while Satan calculatedly wants this to become the case, especially as this would most likely place God on the same conditional-Eternity level as him, and other created beings...and then...Satan can achieve what He always wanted to do, which is supplant Yahweh Himself as God (Isa 14:12-14ff).

            Confirmingly enough, all of these deeper Theological implications are what are typologically involved in the founding reason for, and the organization of, the Church Triumphant’s NJK Project (=Matt 6:10), (which I perceive Jennings is inclusive taking an assumingly applicable swipe at in his COG commenting), in that, as it was done in God’s Israel, when they were organized as a distinct kingdom, which therefore had to economically wholly provide for its sustenance, unlike the scattered NT Israel which could operate, even depend, on the local governments where Church members resided, as any criminal, even morally sinful, activity will actually have a tangible effect by the economic means which will be needed to deal with it and its societal detrimental results, there will indeed be means to enforce the Laws, including moral Laws of the NJK, however justly, deterrently necessary, even, as in OT Israel, Capitally in regards to more direct Life-Threatening actions. When the most basic founding and ultimate goal is, as it is with the NJK, to ‘have a most righteous society so that even “outright life” can be provided for anyone who needs this rescuing assistance, and even “abundantly so” (John 10:10), pointedly in infants throughout this world who would otherwise be aborted’, then certain just measures have to be in place to ensure that acts of selfishness will not come to prevent the NJK from being able to save the life of any one these (Matt 25:45)....And anyone, including especially velvet-gloved, “sanctimonious” COG proponents, who either cannot see this necessity, or worse, don’t think that such life-saving ministry is necessary, i.e. in this life, before Christ’s Second Coming...to put it bluntly: they are prime candidates for the (full) Mark of the Beast and they do not at all have, nor reflect, either the Love or Character of Christ (cf. DA 825.4). And like the Pharisees of old, they are deceiving themselves to think that by merely making grandiose, ethereal “warm fuzzy” professions of Love, that they then actually have, and are manifesting Love. Instead, by their ideological “hands off” approach (i.e., in executing righteous judgement), they too are indifferently, even self-interestly, likewise allowing evil to thrive amongst them, and even to their benefit. Surely at the sure sign of opposition to any, even vital, good works that they may undertake, which unrighteous people will most “naturally” oppose, COGP’s will surely not, even most lawfully, “fight back”, but just allow evil to have its way, in fact, given their views, as it would be completely hypocritical, they won’t even pray God to intervene...because, they staunchly believe, ‘Evil will organically/naturally “right” itself’. In fact they probably implicitly/subconsciously believe that since, e.g., God is not Himself directly doing anything to overturn the injustices of the world, then that means that they must not...All contrary to the, life-risking, counter-cultural, example and character which Christ modeled. [And clearly they will pack their bags and go “home” when God mandates them to ‘mete out the just (extended) Hell suffering punishment duration of unsaved individuals, varying according to their committed sinful deeds’ (GC 660.4=Rev 20:11-15) ...or is that another Biblical fact that they also sanctimoniously/obliviously ignore!!?]* That all here is indeed a microcosm of what this Great Controversy is all, and fully, about!!!

* Not surprisingly, Jennings has the tangentially subterfuging view that ‘God’s fire is actually not one that consumes’. (A view which was similarly claimed in here by Jonathan Henderson about Hell.) Jennings cites Lev 10:4-5 as the anchoring example by pointing out that though Nadab and Abihu were struck by God’s fire (which relatedly means that God Himself, at the very least, struck them down), they were not consumed as they were bodily then taken out of the camp while still in their priestly garments. Well indeed, but here properly, using Jennings’ admonition of considering all Scriptures on a passage together, something which he actually does not do as he only selectively regards ‘other passages’ which do not contradict his view, as other passages do show that fire from God can physically consume (e.g., Lev 9:24; 1 Kgs 18:38) and as other passages pertinently show that God has power over the effect of fire where it is prevented does not consuming (e.g., Exod 3:2; Dan 3:21-27), and moreover as the SOP reveals that the fire which killed Nadab and Abihu was the glory of God (), and as discussed earlier, several examples in the Bible show that a sinner, even Satan, is not automatically consumed when in presence of God’s glory, but only when God permits it to be the case, then this all reveals that Nadab and Abihu were not them bodily consumed because God did not want it to be so. Perhaps He wanted the rest of the people to tangibly see what had befallen the two wayward priests, lest the people claim, if nothing, not even ashes were left, that the had not really been slain by God but just vanished (alive); God decided to leave this bodily evidence for them to tangibly deal with. In fact the SOP’s extra-Biblical revelation on Num 11:1 (cf. Num 16:35) in PP 379.1 indicates to me that God had then similarly used a strong enough lightning bolt (which can easily be understood as (still being) fire to strike dead Nadab and Abihu. And so, in such an effectuation, their body, or even clothes, did not have to be burned up. (Doing things this way also tangibly dispelled to the people that the attire of the priest did not at all “magically” shield them from the judgement of God.)
            So God can indeed attenuate and effectuate His Glory as He judicially sees fit, and despite the fact that lightning was manifestly used to strike down Nadab and Abihu, that further disproves Jennings’ false-dichotomizing claim that there are two types of Hell Fires from God: one that does not kill nor consume, and one that does both. For the Bible instead reveals that God’s fire, in whatever related form it manifests itself, at the very least, kills. And with that fire indeed foundationally being God’s glory, it can be seen from Biblical testimony that it would indeed defaultly kill. (Exod 33:18-23). Jennings also wants to claim that Hell’s guilt tormenting will be similar to what transpired when Moses came down from the mountain and his still radiating face, reflecting God’s glory/“Divine Presence” was unbearable to others, which the SOP further explains was all borne out of their guilt (PP 329.5-330.4), but if this is what is to typify what will occur in Hell then it would need to involve people outside of the New Jerusalem similarly seeing God’s own face, but the Bible is clear that sinful man cannot do that and live. So that would just automatically, instantly kill them.

            (Relatedly, Jennings cited example of the Acts 2:3 ‘tongues of fire upon the Apostles’ as a proof that Hell’s fire is not initially literal, i.e., as it does not consume, does not substantively checkout as exegetical probings into the word for “upon/on” in Acts 2:3's “sat upon” (KJV)/“rested on” (NASB) is from the Greek preposition epi but is here written as eph’ with other examples of this spelling in the NT and LXX point to such a usage for figurative/intangible/metaphorical/proverbial circumstances vs. ones in which something are/can/will be literally/tangibly/actually/concretely effectuated; -even if merely from the (theological or historically elucidated) perspective/understanding of the writer. See in especially the 106 Bible passages where the two spellings occur in the same verse. (e.g., Matt 23:35; Luke 11:17; Acts 5:11; 11:28; Rev 6:16 & Matt 27:25; Luke 23:28; 2 Cor 1:9; Gal 3:16). -[Indeed the reason of different spelling is not, as manifestly assumed by grammarians, whether or not the next word begins with a vowel or a consonant as there are hundreds of instances in the Bible where that assumption is not the case with either form of the preposition (e.g., Jer 17:25; Acts 5:11 || Jer 14:17; Luke 12:53; Gal 5:13). In fact, in cases here with epi it is actually contracted to ep’.] So Acts 2:3's fire did not literally/tanigbly/actually/concretely “rest/sit” upon the people in that upper room, and therefore could/would not burn them.)

            It is only by God’s miraculous sustaining that the alternative implements/elements that will be used for Hell will not produce such instant death, but instead, like the use of just enough electricity for torture, they can then instead be used to “torment” someone. (And, as presented here, I see that it will be much more efficient for God to sustain the lives of sinners in a Lake of Fire’s torment, rather than keep producing billions of tormenting lightning strikes). In short, Hell’s fire and torment will partially be like what miraculously happen in Daniel 3's fiery furnace with only the prevention of feeling pain being removed.
            Highlighted in these claims in the COGP’s fundamental insistence of reinterpreting what was literal/clearly said and revealed in the Bible and SOP according to symbolic, non-typological, but ultimate understandings. That is all contrary to proper hermeneutics, especially for non-prophetic passages. So implicit to all of this is the background claim that what EGW was “shown” in visions about Hell’s judgement was not a direct revelation from God of what will take place, but merely according to her own understanding. That is logically quite ironic since it is evident that COGP’s have founded their view directly from certain (isolated and misapplied) passages in the SOP. So they are irrationally claiming that even EGW did not understand her supposed COG view as she did not always relate things according to such a ‘God does not punish/kill’ slant. If, as COGP’s have self-betrayingly demonstrated neither God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, any Bible person/writer, nor EGW ever properly understood this view, as they quite dissonantly did not consistently say things according to it but would occasionally “diverge” form it, then it is unacceptably clear that they, i.e., COGP’s, have to be the final authority as to what is Biblical Truth. That is indeed unacceptable.

Miscellaneous Responses to Tim Jennings Claims

God’s “Foreknowledge”
-Jennings often claims that ‘God knows the future’ to try to substantiate a claim of his, but as extensively discussed in this post, the Bible actually teaches (as also revealed in, and in relation to, Direct SOP revelations), that God actually merely plans the future (Isa 46:9-11) It is just the case that when conditions for fulfilment (cf. Jer 18:1-10) have all been met that God was able to so precisely carry out these plans that people later on, (actually post Biblical times believers, those Christians who lived after the First Century A.D., (and particularly when the study of Bible prophecy was revived around the time of the start of the Reformation), gradually/increasingly came to assume that God “knew” the future. But God’s “Foreknowledge” (Gr. ‘proginosko’) is actually His “prognostications”, which, when dependent conditions are met, comes to pass as predicted, -through His “Almighty Power” if/when necessary.

DA 471.1-3 Quoting
-As due/typical with COG proponents, Jennings here [08:00-11:27] gleefully cites DA 471.1-3 as a supposed proof that God does not at all execute judgements, but as it was discussed and disproven e.g., in here, this misunderstanding only occurs when one thinks that the natural results of sin manifested in ‘sin, disease/sickness and (natural/consequential) death’, are the same as the judgements which God either direct executes (e.g., the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah) or has His people do on certain types/levels of sinners (e.g., Capital Punishment, War depopulations). As stipulated in the Bible and SOP, they are not the same, and God does do those judgements, for a greater good, whenever it is due and necessary.
            It is relatedly moronic of the Jews to have thought that Jesus must have been a sinner because of what occurred with Him on the Cross since (1) they were the ones who were unlawfully and fraudulently inflicting this judgement on Him, and (2) as seen several times before when their murderous actions towards Him failed, He clearly was allowing this to be done. So they clearly just did not want to believe in Him, and so used whatever straw excuse that they could grasp.
            It is also interesting to note that EGW’s opening statement in that quote which implies that it was fallacious to think that God is (defaultly) ‘punishing all sin in this life’ involves/implies that God will actually be doing this after this life, i.e., in Hell’s judgement and also, since God does execute certain judgements, then He does intervene to punish certain sins, and these have been shown to be those which encroach upon the successful development of the Great Controversy cause.

Hell’s Fire will be Symbolic, and also during the Great White Throne Judgement
-It is, however head-shakingly irrational, yet natural and telling, for Jennings to here [51:43-53:16ff], try to explain away the clear reading of the SOP’s description of the destruction of the wicked in Hell’s Fire as both being symbolic and all occurring during the Great White Throne Judgement’, all the while, while slyly glossing over the clear expressions of physical/“combustible” destructions mentioned therein, when the Bible, and SOP is clear that the Great White Throne judgement has actually ended by then, and this is all during a last gasp effort by Satan to rally the wicked against God, and after they have all, included Satan, admitted that God’s way was right. (1SG 212.2ff|GC 662.1ff). In fact, God in the SOP confidently envisions that the wicked will then not even agree with Satan any more. It is then, i.e., after, that a physical fire, rains down from heaven, and from under the earth, and effectuates the “tormenting” suffering death of the wicked; -all contrary to Jennings’ claim, (spuriously/proof-textly positing 2 Pet 3:10), that ‘a distinct fire, this time a literal one, will then destroy all of the elements on this Earth’, (GC 672.2), and also will physically burn up, and thus purify the ruined elements in/of this Earth (GC 674.1).
            Jennings may claim that he does not ignore Scriptural passages, or twist them out of their contexts, but what he says objectively speaks against him, and there is actually not ‘harmonizing/reconciling’ being done by him as he is patently, as fundamentally, and really necessarily, typical of COG proponents, grossly painting over, fancifully excising, and/or glossingly ignoring whatever his view cannot respond to.

Jennings’ Isa 1:24-25 Proof-texting Eisegesis
The context of Isaiah 1:24-25 does not reveal, as Jennings claims, that God will execute vengeance on rebellious Israel by merely forcing sin to be separated from their lives, but actually by ‘crushing transgressors/rebels and sinners (cf. Isa 1:23) together, and bringing them to an end’; consuming them altogether (Isa 1:28, 30-31). It is this physically, wholly, sin and sinners eradicating action, which will result in whoever the Israel being purged and pure. And we also have the testimony of history to see what God had in mind here...and the subject of this judgement pronouncement, the 10-tribe Northern Kingdom of Israel, did not at all survive in any part, this effectuated judgement which was the Assyrian invasion and captivity, but only Spiritually recovered from it in the New Israel that was established in Christ’s New Covenant. So God clearly did not have in mind the ‘touchless surgical intervention’ that Jennings claims, but rather a most wholly thorough eradicating, branches (Isa 5:5-6) and stump/root (Isa 6:11-13) if necessary.. Indeed only the “holy seed” of Christ (cf. Gal 3:16; 2 Tim 2:8), (tangibly able to be preserved through the relatively more faithful Southern Kingdom of Judah), was able to fully reestablish/grow that Israel “Tree” (cf. Rom 11:16-17ff) again.
The COG view house/edifice is indeed build on such flimsy proof-texting and eisegetical “cards”.

‘The Flood was not a Judgement nor punishment by God on Wicked People but merely/solely an intervention to keep open avenue for the Messiah.
a) I do not read in the Bible or SOP of no one physically threatening the life of Noah and his family, even while they were preaching against the unrighteous. So, according to Jennings’ claim, God would actually only have destroyed the wicked because they would be a bad influence on these 8 righteous and eventually lead them astray from God’s ways. Now how is that more Godly than the punishment for sins which the Bible and SOP teaches the flood was???

b) Indeed Peter (2 Pet 2:4-10), evidently rightly understanding all what Jesus had entailed in his Matt 24:36-41 comparison, presents the flood as a judgement upon those who choose to live wickedly and certainly not, especially for the end times: ‘as a measure to help preserve the line of the Messiah’, for as Israel’s history repeatedly showed, there is no army on earth that can overrun or stand against a people that God is protecting. So God destroying the wicked as at the Flood, and actually, in a first applicable application, at Christ’s Second Coming appearance, is not for any other reason, but to judge the wicked and inflict punishment on them.

“Character of God” Central
            Evidently, the online gathering place for SDA’s (see e.g., here) (and also including non-SDA’s; -e.g,. here) who share this spurious Character of God view is at: godscharacter.com. What I have consistently encountered while skimming through the various apologetic presentations of that view posted on that website, as it inherently was with my lengthy discussion with an individual who shares this view, is the common ignorance and/or willful ignorance of proper, and/or any, Biblical Exegesis...which naturally results in their deceptive “blissful”/oblivious facade. The common quoting of whatever Bible version “sounds/seems” best to them vs. what the underlying original language actually says is emblematically “epitomic”. That is why this blog post is titled with the “Exegetical” qualifier because that is indeed the fundamental reason why there is any “controversy” on this issue. And these COG proponents actually gleefully will (when cornered) admit that they are deliberately ignoring such exegetical verifications, especially of the OT, because, in short, OT writers just had it all wrong. (E.g., even in regards to what God Himself spoke such as the Sacrificial system, OT Law, Order and Punishment, Israel “Offensive” Wars, etc). And when you try to “spell-breakingly” convey and point out how inherently “Satanic” (=Gen 3:1, 4-5) such a Scripture twisting and/or ignoring/rejecting stance actually is, (indeed, when the Sermon on the Mount is properly understood in what Jesus actually was “correcting”, even Jesus did not at all do, or “model”, this (e.g., John 5:39; Luke 24:27), nor did EGW), then they put on their best ‘puppyish, victimized facade’ and claim: “insults”, “viciousness”, ‘mean-spiritedness’, etc. I guess one should remain as matter-of-factly as the, here doubly-applicable, warning statement in (e.g.) Rev 22:18-19; cf. Matt 7:15 & Acts 20:29-30! 

            Really, trying to have/hold an even substantive discussion with COG proponents is like playing a game of whack-a-mole as they'll just come up with, (and/or outrightly ignore), yet another text either wrest out of its context or gross non-exegetically claimed. Neither the Bible, nor the SOP, contrary to what they claim/believe, is their final authority, but their subjective and fanciful view of God, including, i.e., selectively, Jesus Christ.

A Systematic Debunking I (cf. 1SM 205.3-206.3)
            Were it but for the helpless “sheeple” who, as it was the case in the David Gates issue, unlike the model of Acts 17:11 superficially think that their duty is to not, especially openly, disagree with their “shepherd”, I would gleefully let false teachers like Tim Jennings keep holding his various audiences in error....all to even more than now fulfill EGW’s Shaking-detailing vision of ‘SDA’s congregations not having a shepherd’. But for any truly/actually honest who would want to break free from such indifferent deceiving by these false leaders/“prophets”/shepherds (Matt 7:15ff/Ezek 34), I’ll here make a systematic debunking of all of the spurious claim that Tim Jennings has brought forth throughout this 2013-Q1L3 (04-20-13) Lesson Study:

Jennings’ Claim #1 [01:46ff]: ‘Examples of God acting to put people in their grave [which are so clear that he, unlike other COGP’s, cannot honestly/rationally just outrightly ignore/deny these acts] such as “Firstborn of Egypt, Sodom and Gomorrah, the platoons who came to arrest Elijah, Nadab and Abihu”, were not examples of God punishing sin, but God “therapeutically acting” to intervene to save the human race, -like a doctor amputating a gangrened limb to save the patients life.

Claim Debunking #1: First of all, since Jennings here admits “destruction” actions of God then what of his otherwise claimed tenet that ‘God never directly acts to effectuate a destruction, especially as these do so themselves.’ So to the logical observer, Jennings has just sunk his own view by conceding those (supposed) “exceptions”.

            Jennings tries to set up a false context for God’s action in these examples for in all of them, sin was actionably involved, and, most significantly and pertinently here, high handed/capital sin at that which warranted a death penalty. To claim that ‘God was not actually punishing sin is laughably ludicrous. Certainly God did not approach innocent people who had not sin and ‘put them in their grave to save the human race’ because they had not sinned. The fact is that they had sinned, and that against clearly available light. I.e.:

-The Egyptians naturally knew that killing the infants of Israel was wrong, particularly as it was merely based on a speculated fear of theirs and not any self-defense reasons. (Exod 1:8-22). So as God had long ago commanded it for all man, any human who took the life of another human, would have to pay with their own life. (Gen 9:5-6).

-Similarly, as stated in the context of Rom 1:26-27, in Sodom and Gomorrah man was also violating a most natural and self-evident law, which would inherently lead to a culture of death and so God, who actually had to come to take account of this in the first hand, stepped in to judge that, and other capital sins of selfishness that existed in these cities (Ezek 16:48-50).

-In Elijah’s case, Ahab, as well as the soldiers he sent, clearly knew following all that Elijah had wondrously done in God’s power in Israel, that Elijah was God’s prophet. So persisting in disrespecting him, and that at the threat of death, was a direct affront to God. So object-lessonly responding in due kind to that knowingly sinful affront was indeed in order here.

-Nadab and Abihu already knew that their permissive ways in God’s work was not acceptable. As Moses went on to point out in Lev 10:3, God had already made it clear that also the priests who would approach Him must do treat Him as holy (Exod 19:22), which as clearly stated in the ensuing Ten Commandments was to not mix the worship of God with any other type of false worship (Exod 20:3-6)....including ‘things which God had not commanded’ (Lev 10:1). So God was duly punishing them with the due penalty He had said that such actions would bring.

            So were any and all of these instances, examples of God acting to therapeutically save the human race. Well in general, with, as the Bible and SOP incontrovertibly and undeniably state, (contra what COGP’s need to do), God having imposed the consequence of death on man because of sin (Gen 3:22-24), everyone who dies is a reminder to living people that there is this penalty to pay, and which has led many to seriously consider their lives and the message of the Bible. So death in general inherently is that ‘therapeutic intervention on sin by God’. But according to Jennings’ constraints here, God would need to do such actions because the human race then hung in a life or death balance. But while that argument can be made for the flood, that most manifestly was not the case in any of the cited examples above. Namely:

-The Egyptians had not engage in killing off all Israelites nor could they have done anything to stop Israel from leaving Egypt if God had wanted to do so without even any plague falling. God could have, like he did to help Lot escape Sodom, simply struck all Egyptians with blindness and Israel would have marched out of Egypt untouched. So bring about plagues including the death of their firstborn, was, as repeatedly stated in advance by God, merely for an inherently just judgement on Egypt for all of the sins and detriment, including Economic detriment to Israel as well as the unjust gains they had obtained through the enslavement of the Israelites. (Gen 15:13-14; Exod 3:19-22; 4:21-23). So God’s punishments here were indeed only out of due judgement for the various trespasses which Egypt had done to Israel during these years of sojourn in their land.

-In the case of S&G, while their type and extent of sinning may have been unprecedented, did God actually ‘“save the human race” by putting them to death’. Well as the sexual aspect itself of S&G’s sinning were soon thereafter again practiced in the world, with it becoming a prominent sin in World Kingdoms such as Greece and Rome, even probably going to a further degenerative extent of pedophilia, then surely ca., at the most, Tens or hundreds of thousands of people practising this sin in 2-5 cities in a valley region was not a vital threat to the rest of the human race or else God would be repeatedly effectuating this ‘necessary intervention’ through world history, including in our world today due to the global spread of such sins, not to mention the socio-economic abuses cited in Ezek 16:48-50. Furthermore God had said that Israel itself, the nation through which the world was supposed to be redeemed, did much worst than S&G (Ezek 16:47; cf. Isa 1:10; 3:9). So God was evidently then not acting to ‘vitally save the human race’, but at best to make it clear to many other people who would live after that such sins would definitely/surely not be acceptable by Him. And yet, many, even professed Christians choose to believe otherwise in these cases. So it was not a vital intervention by God but just an object-lesson judgement for a specious and also most unnaturally high handed level of sinning.
-The instance with Elijah was clearly not one which involved the either physical or spiritual survival of the human race. It was just the quasi-private case of justly dealing with a prideful king who was refusing to accept the previous merciful corrections of God. Case in point, when kings would later physically mistreat and even kill other prophets of God, such as Isaiah and Jeremiah, God then did not strike them dead. Had the signs of God’s judgement been manifested in Israel as it had with Elijah, then they too probably would have been immediately visited with the same terrible judgements of God for such knowing/high handed rebelliousness. So clearly in Elijah’s case there was no action by God to save the human race as Jennings falsely posits.

-As there were many priests other than Nadab and Abihu who could step in to do these sanctuary services, God was then not in a life and death conundrum in this instance. In fact Him killing them for their high handed sin was proof that they were not indispensable. (And the case of Uzzah’s death is also comparable here). Indeed Israel later entirely living many spans of decades in open rebellion against God and thus without a pure sanctuary service, if any at all, was spiritually, and relatedly physically, much more of a vital threat to the human race than these early waywardness of a couple of priests. It was the fact of the closeness of God in Israel back then, in those early post-Exodus days, which made Nadab and Abihu’s sin complete unacceptable as they were then sinning against what they almost first-handedly knew to be the will of God in these matters as God Himself had just recently spoken to them on this.

            So contrary to the false categories which Jennings needs to make here, God was not inevitably acting in these instances to “save the human race” as these instances neither immediately threatened the survival human race, nor was death the only measure that God could have used to save the rest of the human race. None of these actions, as their later repeating, and even much worse, as pre-Messianic Advent history tangibly showed, would have prevented the successful incarnation of the Messiah. God’s judgment actions then were all capital punishments for various levels of high handed sinning.
            But that is the typical/patent thing with COGP’s. They paint their false bull's eye (=false/spurious reality) and then paint a target around it, and then claim to have spoken on the crux of the issue.

Jennings’ Claim #2 [04:05ff]: John 15:15 presents a slave vs. friend mindset dichotomy which was unwanted by Jesus.

Claim Debunking #2: As typical/patent with COGP’s, directly/naturally due to their non-exegetical ways, they never let a text speak for its. John 15:15 clearly involves that for ca. 3 years, Jesus had had a slave/pupil vs. master relationship with His disciples because He had then yet to speak openly with them on everything (cf. John 16:29-30) nor, evidently had not revealed everything which the Father had already revealed to Him, and yet there was still more that He was withholding from them, but would actually be later revealing to them (John 16:12-15). So clearly from all of this, when, like a parent dealing with a young child, Jesus taught that it was best to have master-slave approach with His disciples, He did not hesitate to do so, and that for a full 3 years of dealing with them. During this time they were then supposed to follow and obey Him purely out of faith that they believed, with sufficient evidence, that He had the wiser way of living. (cf. John 6:66-69). It was not until the very end (John 13:1ff) that Jesus, rewarding their faith, disclosed to them things which He had been withhold which manifestly was the pointed Theological issues involved in Him fully redeeming the entire world through His upcoming violent death.
            So having a slave-Master relationship is not inherent sinful and wrong with God because Jesus chose this approach for most of His ministry dealings with even His inner circle of twelve. It was then the best approach to test their faith and loyalty to Him, and they therefore were self-evidently no longer “worthy” to be merely considered as slaves but indeed as friends because they had lovingly, obediently followed Jesus all the way, even at the cost/risk of their own prior life and livelihood (John 15:10, 13, 14; cf. Luke 18:28)

-Interestingly enough, given how hellishly unbiblical Jennings’ COGP view actually is, (as it can objectively be seen by the end of these debunkings), it is not surprising to me, (i.e., ala. 5T 512.1ff), but rather quite fitting, that Jennings claims that John 15:15 and its ‘slave mentality’ kept popping into his head as he was thinking that week about the objections to his COGP view, because Lucifer similar wanted angels to think that they would be mere (deluded) slaves of God if they did not subscribe to his (supposedly) ‘intellectual’ views rather than, as Jennings similarly ridiculizes, just be taking God at His stated word. (see PP 40.1)...Comparatively telling indeed...

Jennings’ Claim #3 [05:20ff]: People keyly need to understand that ‘sin naturally results in detriment and chaos’ in order to have a proper relationship with God.

Claim Debunking #3 : As it is most fundamental with COGP’s, they basely present this claim that sin must be shunned because of the harm that it naturally brings. They obstinately make this claim out of having rejected what transpired in Eden when man sinned. But as the Bible (Gen 3:22-24) and SOP (e.g., PP 60.1) clearly/unequivocatingly/incontrovertibly/undeniably reveal, all of the harmful effects of sin on man and on nature came as a result of God having banned access to the tree of life to sinful man. Case in point, that Tree of Life remained fully functional in Eden for the 1700 years after up to the Flood and Eden itself remained in its perfect beauty while all of the animals and humans who were cast out of it, as well as the rest of nature, suffered and died off because they could not have access to the fruits of that tree. So the Bible is clear that God has imposed a detriment and death penalty on sinful man and that this is not at all a natural consequence of sin. It is just that God does not want to sponsor sinners in their way of living which is outside of His Laws, which are wisely for a more abundant life for all. Nonetheless the sinner would have been able to live eternally as vile sinners if they were able to eat of the Tree of Life. Breaking any and all of God’s Ten Commandment would not, and still does not, naturally result in death. That consequence is just the deemed judgement of God which He has allowed millennias to objectively demonstrate is indeed the right action.
            And therein is a torpedoing issue for COGP’s. As already expressed above, their claim that sin in man can only naturally result in their death is not at all supported by the many instances in which sinners came into the immediate presence of God and were not destroyed. That in itself fundamentally shows that sin does not naturally result in death when in the presence of God. It is only when God wants it to justly be so, that this consequence transpires. It is a character that is wholly dedicated to sinning that God cannot put up with as this is then, unredeemably way to costly for Him, in regards to what it selfishly detrimentally takes away from others who want to live according to His ways for life and a more abundant life for all. So in Jennings and other COGP’s view, one should not sin merely out of an understanding that sin naturally results in death. But the attested Theological/Biblical case is that it naturally does not. It only indirectly does in what it comes to vitally costs others, and so for these reasons of self-defense, God justly chooses to cause the capital punishment death of impenitent sinners.
            So understanding the far reaching Biblical issues here is much more Spiritual than the base/“natural” reasons claimed by COGP’s and will prove to be the message which secures this universe from another experience with sin because the actual fact is a sinner would not die if they had access to the Tree of Life...and that access will be again granted in Heaven. So there, as Adam was pointedly deceived, sinning against God would not result in them “naturally” dropping dead, as it had not with Eve, indeed just as the Devil had sad..so why not sin and moreover claim that God’s Law is thus really arbitrary and thus start a Second Rebellion!!! COGP’s, not surprisingly through their shoddy and non-exegetical approach to dividing the Word of God, are effectively setting up people for such a Second Rebellion scenario and that in itself is reason enough for them and their steeled mindset which is foundationally rooted in second guessing God Himself, to be barred from Heaven. Theirs is a most speciously deadly message of deception from Satan all couched in a ensnaring “love” capsule which most see no problem with swallowing. Ironically enough, it is the COGP’s view which produces a slave mentality in man in regards to sin and God as they are choosing not to sin because it will “naturally” kill them and effectively not really because they love God...but because they paramountly love themselves. So just as the slave fears the “natural” penalty from a master for being disobedient to Him, they fear the supposed “natural” consequence of disobeying God’s law. So it will indeed risk being a free-for-all when they find out, as the Bible teaches, that there is no such inherent/natural death consequence in sin...it is just the just penalty that God uses to eliminate it from existence in His Universe in order to allow those who want to lovingly provide an abundant life for all, versus sin’s selfish ways, to be able to do so. (cf. Psa 11:3). That is indeed why, starting from the ‘Divinely deliberatedly-designed, brute force, War in Heaven’, (an episode which COGP’s avoid like an “Evil” plague; and not surprisingly, as seen e.g., in here and here, Jennings also has that same pseudo&vacuous-exegesis, SOP-revelation ignoring/dismissing, logically glib, view.(...yeah and they are the “enlightened”/right ones....and just because they say it should be so...)), God has been consistently acting, even pro-actively so, to enforce His Law...to ensure both the fairness, and security of the Righteous.
            From the beginning God had been saying that sin and eternal sinners will surely be most detrimental to this Universe and Him, being a God of Love, did not want any of the beings He planned to create, to have anything less than what they could have. Satan led many others to say that this would not become the case, and so God, not having any tangible evidence to prove His view then, was forced to adopt with the Universe, the same master-slave relationship that Jesus used with His disciples, (indeed until it was clear to Jesus that He would surely be put to death soon (John 13:1)). And this GC has been God’s attempt to most objectively and as concretely as possible substantiate that His claim had indeed been wise. So it is only when human will have come to understand all of the reasons why God’s view is indeed the wiser one, will they have self-graduated from a slave to friend relationship as they then would be loving and obeying God because they not only would understand why His loving and sacrificially selfless ways for ordering this Universe are indeed better/wiser, but they will then most naturally also want to imitate His loving and self-sacrificing ways to further and perpetuate these ways. Jennings’ “natural self-death” “understanding” is not only Biblically false, but even if it were the actual case, wold be so asininely elementary that it would not take 6000+ years to substantiate and prove it. In fact such a claim actually paints God as a sadist who needs to allow the suffering and death of billions for thousands of years for something which could have proven by Eve dropping death upon just one bite of the fruit, let alone “Lucifer” back in Heaven. But the fact that highly intelligent angels would then not have understood is proof in itself that there is something way other/beyond something naturally/inherently consequential involved in this issue of sin. COGP’s need to get a clue here, and that can only begin to be done by them by properly studying the Word of God.

Jennings’ Claim #4 [05:20ff]: God’s Law/Way = ‘the designs upon which life is naturally built’ and is not imposed.

Claim Debunking #4 : Succinctly added/specified here, given all that is already debunkingly said on this mantra claim of Jennings, God’s Law and Way actually is pointedly for the design of a more abundant life and not merely to life itself. Sinners could live eternally with the Fruit of Life, and they may actually enjoy their life. Case in point, sinners today quite enjoy their sinful life and if they could find a way to circumvent both harmful consequences and death for their actions, as would be provided by the supernatural remedying properties in the Fruit of Life, then it can be easily seen that they would not only much more enjoy their life, but also be even more sinful sinners, and also more boldly so. So really, as seen in the increasing way in which man now even more widely “consent” to live sinfully, only those who would want to live righteously would be detrimentally impacted by this eternal sinful living. E.g., if a sinner wanted to have the spouse of a non-wife-swapping-consenting righteous person, and thus would do violence to them to have their way, as well as rape that also non-consenting spouse. So it is to safeguard the righteous that God chose to impose a penalty of death on sinful people.

Jennings’ Claim #5 [07:33ff]: God’s Law is so natural that it does not require any enforcement by Him, especially to uphold it.

Claim Debunking #5 : Well COGP’s typically make this claim out of the way they have chosen to ignore scripture, namely those where God ordered Capital Punishment for certain sins, and just wars on foreign peoples. If God’s Law involved a natural consequence element then their would be no need for God to do so. Any sinners would automatically drop dead because they had committed a sin. But it is because that this is not the case, even in a world where access to the Tree of Life has been removed, that God needs to order immediate death penalties for certain sins, and whereas in other none “capital” issues, He instead chooses to let the sinful course itself bring about its own inherent/organic results.
            It is completely futile to ‘go and reason’ with anyone who, as Jennings and other COGP’s do, only cite the God, Jesus, the Bible and/or the SOP when it seems to agree with their view and just ignore it, or worse discredit it, when it does not. That is the patent deceiving way of Satan to lead people into error. (E.g. Matt 4:5-7|DA 125.2-4)

Jennings’ Claim #6 [08:11ff]: Gravity and respiration are great examples of/for the inherent natural consequences of death in God’s Law.

Claim Debunking #6 : Those two quite common examples by COGP’s are actually easily debunked by the fact that God, and even man can act to circumvent those Laws, thus not making them ‘incontrovertibly absolute’. Namely, gravity does not exist beyond the immediate atmosphere of this/a planet, therefore it is seen that it was something that was created by God. It serves to keep man and all the things around them on the surface this round, spinning and revolving planet. So it is an imposed law of God, and not out of vital necessity as man could be floatingly/weightlessly living about as they do when in the Space Station, but is an imposed Law in order to provide a more manageable and better, and thus more abundant life for created man. Indeed man could alternatively live in a gravity less planet by securing or tethering everything to the ground. Also man can momentarily circumvent the Law of gravity in a freefalling airplane, not to mention that they can overcome it through the use of powered opposing forces. So if there was no gravity on this planet, man could still live, however it would be at a much greater hampering.
            So quite contrary to the limited common illustration of COGP's: a person who decides to defy the Law of gravity by walking off the roof of a building can actually survives, as repeatedly see in the world, if they have circumventing means such as a parachute, a jet pack, a bat suit, etc.

-With respiration, pertinently pointedly in the way that man freely and of themselves breathe, it too is a Law that is not actually fundamental to life, but one that is, in the way in which God has “engineered” it, is more conducive to a more abundant life for man. Man could have been design to breath in water as fish do, but that would require that man walk about with their heads in a water tank. Also, as God does as a sign with His prophets, He can make it that they could go for a long period of time without breathing. Clearly He Himself is sustaining them then. So, as with gravity, He clearly can circumvent that Law of respiration and thus could be sustaining all human to live without physically breathing. But that evidently would be too costly for Him in terms of the continual supernatural energy that He would need to dispense to maintain that way for man to breathe and live.
            It is by creating worlds and humans which are, as much as possible, self-sustaining that creation is a viable endeavor by God. Otherwise it actually is most detrimental to Him. So the physical scientific methods which He has created to achieve this are not indispensable Laws and Measures in themselves as there are ways of circumventing them, by both God and men, but are the ways which are the most efficient to achieve His chiefly desired result of a most abundant life for all...including Himself.
            So similarly, death is not a Law Consequence for sin as the Bible reveals that with the provision from the Tree of Life a person can sin and not die. Thus there is a way to circumvent that supposed “law”. The actual Law which pairs sin and death is that “sin hampers a more abundant life” and so is thus worthy of a death penalty

Jennings’ Claim #7 [08:29ff]: Psa 82:3; Isa 1:17; 30:18; Jer 21:12 are prime examples that Justice does not involve “imposing” punishment on the evildoer, but rather merely rescuing/healing/restoring the victim.

Claim Debunking #7 : First of all, all of these cited text are examples of the sly and oblivious inherent eisegetical and proof-textingly, as well as subjectively selective, methodology of COGP’s. Namely:

-Psa 82:3 actually distinctly speaks of “righteousness” (#6663 =right doing) and not “justice” (#4941 =judgement). These are not necessarily the same levels of action as a righteous judgement could involve having to put someone to death, as is the case with God’s Law for Capital Punishment (Gen 9:5-6)

-Neither Isa 1:17 or Jer 21:12 is necessarily stating, as Jennings construes them to, that what follows those statements is a “definition” of what is to be done in justice, and that what “only” is to be done in justice. That is just Jennings reading his view into the text and thus deliberately rewording it. Both Isa 1:17 and Jer 21:12 are easily understandable as a listing of various things that God wants to have done in addition to the act of seeking/doing justice. Only in the COGP’s world does God’s justice not involve any punishing act. (=Deut 21:22)
            Most tellingly enough in Jer 21:12, Jennings ignore the rest of the verse which speaks of ‘God’s unextinguishable wrath breaking forth because of still present evil deeds amongst His people.’ If one cannot see that is not speaking of God choosing to act to punish the sins of people, then the are more far gone, and that deliberately so, than I can begin to rationally understand.

-Similarly the rest of Isa 30:18, which Jennings also ignore qualifies God’s stated compassion in that verse and in its wider context. It is speaking to God wanting to overturn the detriment which has inclusively befallen on Zion when God judged His Jerusalem. (cf. Zec 1:12) So God wants to have compassion but cannot. He want to give Zion the justice that is due to her when she unfairly had to suffer the calamities which had justly befallen a previous generation of her. So God is longing for that day when He will be able to overturn these events and thus bring due justice to Zion. And the Bible is clear that in effectuating that “justice” God will enter into Judgement with any power which seeks to oppose this move. (E.g., Dan 5|Jer 25:12)

-Indeed “justice” (#4941) is not limited to, as Jennings selectively posits, to doing good to the poor, but to any matter which involves a judiciary consideration (Deut 17:8), e.g., matters of killing/murder (Num 35:12, 24, 29= NASB’s “ordinances”; Deut 19:6). The emphasis on mentioning the case of the poor and needy within a context of justice (e.g., Lev 19:15; Deut 10:18; Psa 140:12; Pro 13:23; Eccl 5:8; Isa 3:14; 10:2; Jer 5:4, 28; Ezek 18:17; 22:29) was to show how they too should be considered in such matters of justice, for as still/also seen today it is patently the poor and needy who suffer injustices (Deut 24:17; 27:19), and is compoundedly not permitted their “day in court”. (Cf. Deut 1:17) (Hence Judicial Aid laws and measures as well as endeavors for “Social Justice”).

            To anyone who does not have the artificial bias of COGP’s, it is self-evident that the Bible copiously speaks of God executing “justice” (Psa 1:5; 7:6; 9:16) by declaring and even “visiting” the wicked in punishment for any sinful way (e.g., Jer 1:16; 4:12-13; 48:21ff; 49:12; Ezek 5:8-9; 39:19-21; Zeph 3:8, 15; Mal 3:5). But so it the patent case with COGP’s. They isolatively only city a couple of passages which seem to support their claims and views, ignore all others, in order to build a teaching on a selective few passages. Hence the circular root of their deception.

            On a purely logical level, Jennings claim that God’s justice merely involves him rescuing the victim and not also entering into judgement with the evildoers is laughably completely nonsensical. It would be like societies today doing away with both Criminal Courts as well as Prisons and only having Civil Courts so that people who have been offended can be restored of what they had lost. So for example, if a oil drilling company would, through willful ignorance of safety regulation, cause a major spill damaging not only nature but also the fishing livelihood of several thousands of people, there would only be a Civil Court proceeding to pay for the clean up cost of the spill and to pay for loss income and restore the livelihood for those fishermen, but since, as Jennings claims, the person who committed this wrong would themselves not be punished, the compensation money for those damages would not be coming from them, but from anyone else in society. So then that company could cause another oil spill through violating the same laws and again not incur any punishment and just watch as the Court requires the compensation from the rest of society. And this would always be the case, even if that company caused such an oil spill every year. That makes absolutely no ration sense.
            Then take the case of a serial killer. Man of course cannot restore life as compensation for the victim and while God can, not punishing the murder here would mean that God would be merely going behind him resurrecting all the people he murders. A much wiser and rational God instead requires that the murder be immediately put to death. And man is just and right in similarly also imposing this penalty of punishing the evildoer in their laws.

Jennings’ Claim #8 [10:47ff]: ‘Biblical vengeance is when God takes vengeance on sin, destroying sin and cleansing sinners.’

Claim Debunking #8 : In that view claim Tim Jennings is literally openly showing his “horns” because you can’t so: shoddily handle (Matt 4:3|Luke 4:3), selectively consider (Matt 4:5-6|Luke 4:9-11) and/or outrightly/indifferently ignore (Luke 4:5-7/Matt 4:8-9) the Bible (and SOP) and not, most naturally, ‘grow a pair of horns’ (cf. John 8:44/Gen 3:4-5), -resultingly professing ‘doctrines of devils’. When the Bible is wholistically, vs. Jennings’ proof-textingly, considered it does not even begin to teach what Jennings claims...indeed quite the contrary. Jennings claimed as ‘priorly presented substantiation’ what he had said the week before, here [19:55-22:27], but, as already discussed above on his Isa 1:24-25 take, that claim grossly was only a most contextually-wrenched proof texting. (His enjoining citing of Isa 61:2 will be discussed here later).
            Here (near the end of that post), in my 2011 MSDAOL COG discussion, I responded to this similar spurious “vengeance” claim, and it clearly showed that the Bible amply substantiates, as well as self-defines, what is meant by, and what transpires in, the ‘“vengeance” of God’.  First of all, in the OT the follow Strongs word numbers for/from the Hebrew basic word naqam means “vengeance”: #5358 [22X], #5359 [16X], #5360 [31X]...but, as patent/typical of COGP’s, Jennings ignores everything which he cannot eisegetically contrive to construe to seem to support his view. (The NT term will be discussed after). Here is how the Bible defines God’s Vengeance, and I’ll only focus on when God is either directly or indirectly (i.e., answering a prayer/request) involved in a vengeance because all of the other uses are clearly as that word is “humanly” defined today in English. And I would have taken the time to expound on each of those verse, but it is so objectively clear from those verse and their textual, as well as, as duly involved in proper exegesis, their historical occurrence, that God’s vengeance involves, when necessary, ‘punishing the sinner by taking his actual life’ that it would be quite redundant to do so. So I’ll simply cite these texts, especially as deceived and/or dishonest at heart people will surely still just ignore them; indeed acting as if these verses do not have any context which define what is meant by God’s “vengeance” there:

E.g., Exod 21:20-21; Lev 19:18; 26:25; Num 31:2-3; Deut 32:35, 41, 43; Jos 10:13; Judges 11:36; 16:28; 2 Kgs 9:7; Psa 58:10; Isa 1:24; 34:8; 35:4; 47:3; 63:4; Jer 5:9, 29; 9:9; 46:10; 50:15, 28, 51:6, 11, 36; Ezek 24:8; 25:12, 14, 15, 17; Mic 5:15; Nah 1:2.

            Indeed quite contrary to Jennings’ irrelevant illustration of ‘a doctor ‘taking vengeance’ on sickness to destroy it, but spare the life of the patient’, all of the mentions of God’s vengeance in the Bible involved the death of the evildoer. Jennings view smacks of Universalism wherein God will actually force sinners to be rid of their sins. Just like a Capital Criminal will prefer to suffer and even risk dying from an injury if their self-remedying measures do not work, rather than check himself in at a Hospital and almost surely be then apprehended by Law Enforcement, an evildoer will not “check himself in to God’s Hospital to be cured’, and God will not violate their Free Will by forcing them to. Even when God acted to mercifully spare Israel, and was indeed acting to eradicate sin from them, He still put to death some people, probably the most rebellious ones and others were to take a lesson from this and reform their lives, or else they too would suffer the same utter end.
            So contrary to Jennings and other COGP’s quite comfortable with approach of building a teaching on just a couple of (proof-)texts and ignore everything else, the proper approach is to let all texts contribute to the final understand, and that after they are each properly defined by their immediate context.

Vengeance in the NT
            Succinctly said about Isa 61:2, since at is involved in the NT (Strongs #1557; (cf. #1556 “legal protection/revenge” & #1558 “avenger”)) and, tellingly enough, is vindicated of any evil by literally meaning ‘out of/from just penalty/punishment’ [dike #1349] which in turn is derived from “righteousness” (#1343)) when Jesus spoke about God’s coming vengeance on rebellious Jerusalem in Luke 21:22, it too involve tremendous bloodshed in what transpired historically in the 70 A.D. destruction. As the SOP reveals, Jesus deliberately avoided mentioning that statement in his Luke 4 sermon. What would objectively validate its application on (firstly) the Jewish nation themselves, i.e., their murderous rejection of God’s Messianic Salvation message, had not yet occurred. (DA 240.4-241-1). So it is not at all different from the OT use and understanding of it.

            Someone in Jennings’s class who has evidently also wholly bought into this false teaching had made the circular faulting rhetorical comment: ‘What in humans wants to have vengeance for justice.’ Well the short answer, which COGP hypersentimentals just cannot stomach: God Himself has repeatedly and consistently shown that such actions are what is “righteously” involve in administering justice, with indeed, as mentioned above, the word for “righteousness” being rootly involved in the NT Greek term for the synonymous terms: “vengeance/justice/penalty/punishment/revenge/avenging”. It is not surprising that COGP’s do not see this as they have been methodologically closing their eyes and ears to any passage in the Bible and SOP which opposes their subjectively founded view!

Jennings’ Claim #9 [12:01ff]: ‘God’s judgement is either Rehabilitative or Retributive’

Claim Debunking #9 : Succinctly said, since the Bible is clear on this issue by not having an either/or stance but a both/and view here, God involves both rehabilitation and retributivism in his dealings with sinners. Only when sinners sin against revealed or most natural light, and thus pass an unacceptable limit, does God end his prior probationary, self-rehabilitating approach and now enters into judgement which in most cases is to protect and vindicate the righteous against that overspreading of sin by evil people. Gen 15:13-16 is a good example of both of these aspects of God’s Judgement. You just cannot divorce oneself from clear “reality” and claim as Jennings does that God never steps in to exacts vengeance and retribution on sinners for their evil deeds. E.g., God did not kill of all but 8 people at the Flood because those antediluvians did not do anything wrong. (Interestingly enough, Jennings wants to claim that the antedulivians nature-abusive-living “naturally” caused the flood, whatever that would require, which he does not even offer any concrete suggestion. They surely were not polluting the atmosphere with Fossil Fuels and other manufactured chemical as the present world is doing because it was the Flood itself which produced those fossil fuels! (3SG 79.1-80.1). The Bible and SOP is clear that God acted to cause the overabundance of waters to come upon the Earth to cause the flood.)

Jennings’ Claim #10 [20:16ff]: [Quoting Gal 6:7 in some non-credited version (if not, his own take)]

Claim Debunking #10 : First of all that text is not saying that it is okay to let the evil doer roam free because he will eventually, naturally reap what he has been sowing.” If that was the point and case, God would not have legislated punishments in the OT Law, especially not Capital Punishment for, e.g., adultery or disrespecting parents. How does these sins naturally/surely result in one’s death?? God has many times stepped in to make evil doers reap the results of what they had been sowing for, as seen especially in our days, with sinners having since, even from the days of Paul, learned of the many results of sinful ways, they have become “smarter sinners” in order to avoid such consequences, e.g., AIDS, STD’s, overdosing, etc. So as God will do at the end of the time allotted for this GC, He will Himself directly enter into judgement with the ‘far-gone character of sinners’ and not actually let them meet a “natural/automatic” fate, which they, especially in our day and age, could, except for death itself, actually work to postpone or entirely avoid.
            Indeed, in His Israel and Church, God holds the “righteous” fully responsible for not opposing evildoers. That’s what Church Discipline is all about (e.g., Matt 18:15-17)

Jennings’ Claim #11 [25:28ff]: 2 Cor 5:19 refutes any notion that ‘God keeps and account of sins through recording angels’

Claim Debunking #11 : That verse simply says that in accepting to provide a path for reconciliation for this world, God overlooked the sins committed as this would have prevented them any chance to be saved. However that Salvation was to be sought for in faith in the OT, even in merely aiming to live in harmony with observable natural law (Rom 1:18-32); and in NT times mainly to an accepting response to the Gospel message when aware of it, for if those fair opportunities are rejected then that person’s sins will not be overlooked by God but be accounted against them in their judgement, just as Paul had finished stating in 2 Cor 5:10 and similarly in Heb 10:26-27.
            Again Jennings demonstrates that he wholeheartedly thinks/believes that a teaching is to be built upon on text wrenched out of it context!! And he is quite evidently completely rejecting what the SOP says on this, particularly on “recording angels”. Perhaps he thinks that these angels had been merely doodling in the books which will be opened in God’s judgement sessions.

Jennings’ Claim #12 [27:08ff]: The Eye for an Eye... stipulation have non-Israelite origins.

Claim Debunking #12 : Funny I read in Exod 21:24; Lev 24:20; Deut 19:21 that it is God Himself who is stating it. As patent/typical with COGP’s when they cannot explain something as clear as this, then they resort to citing some non-Biblical statement to explain it away. In fact, quite contrary to Jennings indifferently arrogant claim that ‘God was using pagan ideology for His Laws’, I Biblically rather see that God was instead expanding His “life for life” law given way back in Gen 9:5-6, which evidently did not exist in antediluvians societies , thus never, before. (Not at all surprising, indeed quite sequitur enough, Jennings clearly believes that he knows much better than (the OT) God.)
            As already discussed, Jesus was actually bringing out a manifestly ignored aspect of the law which spoke to also do good to one’s enemy. In other words, people were exacting this type of equating vengeance for any, and everything, even probably in non-intentional matters. And most indicative here, Jesus was actually trying to help people who were evidently doubly suffering by trying to exact this penalty from much stronger “evil” people, who just inflicted more harm to them and so was counselling them to instead do good to them, as that would, in such cases of superior strength, serve to “deter” them from doing any other evil acts. (= Pro 25:22/Rom 12:20). And that counsel was indeed most timely in those days as the Jews were then dealing with the Roman Military which, as Pilate had shown, could be (purposely) quite lawlessly/exaggeratingly “shock and awely” ruthless. So Jesus was telling them that instead of standing up to such “evil” ones and seek to exact that Law from them, to adopt a different approach which would help preserve their own lives, as well as most likely prevent future such trespasses. It was the Zealots faction which sought to exact tit for tat acts against the Romans and it only was bringing more misfortune on the Jewish people. God never contradicts Himself, and as Jesus had introductorily said, He would not be doing away with any part of the OT Law (Matt 5:17-19).
            So just like it was lawful for an Israelite to kill as self-defense and/or in the justified end of preserving innocent/righteous life, Jesus was here conversely/implicitly showing was likewise lawful to not enforce this Law on exacting judgement if it would actually cause more detriment, even death to the victim.
            And in response to the sarcastically glib enjoining/supporting quip-comment that was made [at 30:38] by someone in Jennings’ class: If you are criminal scoundrel who enjoins going about and plucking out other peoples eyes, knocking out their teeth, slashing off their hands, beating up pregnant women till the baby is damaged or dies, etc, then you do deserve to yourself ‘walk about with one eye, toothless, missing a limb, or even dead’....and you were actually not doing any “good” for God before that anyway. That Law was indeed stated by God to deter such bullying criminals that may be found in Israel, but Jesus thought that it was not smart to try to exact if from evil people like the Romans who were not themselves within the enforcement jurisdiction of Israel.

Jennings’ Claim #13 [32:49ff]: The Plagues of Egypt were to awaken the Israelites back into believing God and not to punish them Egyptians.

Claim Debunking #13 : I’ll again here rather go by what God Himself says was the purpose of the Plagues of Egypt in. It was to “judge Israel’s oppressor” (Gen 15:13-14; Exod 7:3-4); reparationally plunder Egypt (Exod 3:19-22; 12:33-36); Effectuate the avenging death of Egypt’s children (Exod 4:21-23). The actual signs that God intended to convince Israel that God was working through Moses to deliver them were the three given in Exod 4:1-9. Sure the 10 Plagues on Egypt help to build up Israel’s faith in God, as well as convert many Egyptians (Exod 12:38) but if as Jennings posits these Plagues were merely done to impress Israel to leave Egypt and convert some Egyptians, then in just the killing of (all of) Egypt’s first born, God would then have needlessly killed many people off for nothing, perhaps even people who would also have converted and left with Israel, especially as the Bible is clear that by Plague #6, Pharaoh was ready to capitulate, but, as delineated in here (cf. here), God then stepped in from then on to, whenever necessary, harden his heart (Exod 9:12). As typical such obliviously fanciful COGP views never hold up to the full scrutiny of Scripture but instead most arbitrarily think to supercede its, even Directly Divine, Testimony.

Jennings’ Claim #14 [34:01ff]: The withholding of rain in Elijah’s day was not to punish sin, but merely to awaken Israel back to recognizing God instead of Baal.

Claim Debunking #14 : Again the fundamental flaw in Jennings restatement of things here is that it contrives the Biblical statement to be an all of nothing view, when it actually a both/and. In other words, yes God did want to demonstrate to that rebelling generation in Elijah’s time that he was God, but was it at the complete absence of executing punishment. Again, contrary to what Jennings needs to fancifully believe, the Bible and SOP do not say so. As a matter of fact, the drought itself did not even convince the still “halting” Israel to return to God. (=PK 147.3) They probably then just thought that it was a mere coincidence that there had come to be a drought. That is why Elijah called the showdown on Mount Carmel. (1 Kgs 18:20ff) It is only then that the people cried out that: “The Lord, He is God” (1 Kgs 18:39). So when they made this confession, did God say: ‘Okay. All is well now.’ No, rather, as mentioned here, even after Elijah had killed the 850 false prophets of Baal, and upon his return from his faithlessly scared 40-day flight in the wilderness, God resumed the punishment that He had started in Israel, as Israel, by not repenting before the sure evidence was in, had surpassed their granted probation (PK 119.2), and so Elijah was to set up a three-fold power which would serve to effectuate further and fuller punishment on Israel. (1 Kgs 19:15-18ff)
            Again God does use His initially mercy-mixed punishment of sin to try to awaken repentance, but that certainly does not mean, as Jennings claim, that God is not punishing sin. The Law was clear that a drought ‘affliction’ by God would be the punishment for idolatry (Deut 11:16-17; cf. 1 Kgs 8:35). So the drought was actually to pinpoint to Israel, if they could recall the Law, that God had found them guilty of idolatry. Indeed it is the presence of such capital sins which themselves require God to visit them in judgement. He certainly did not here irrationally, as Jennings’ vacuous, self-contradicting view mindlessly actually involves/implies, bring a drought upon Israel because they were living according to His will.

Jennings’ Claim #15 [34:43ff]: The fiery serpents were (1) not “sent” God, and (2) also not to punish sin, but merely to bring back Israel.

Claim Debunking #15 : (1) I have abundantly discussed this favorite passage of COGP’s of the fiery serpents involving all of the non-SOP-contradicting exegesis, which COGP’s just ignore as typical, which incontrovertibly show, also from nature, that God acted to “sent” the serpents amongst the people by instilling a self-defending fear them. So Jennings and other COGP’s can continue to live in their exegesis ignoring “Wonderland” to uphold their false view of what occurred here, and of course hoodwinkly mislead his sheep who are clueless as to these exegetical points. As a false shepherd, he will have his reward. (2) Also, contra Jennings claim, whenever (a) “repentance” is required in an action of God, then that is because sin is present and needs to be dealt with, and (b) whenever there is any detrimental affliction, then it is a judgement of God, and for that sin. So the “sending” of these fiery serpents, even if it was mixed with mercy, was nonetheless a judgement of God which the Bible and SOP are clear is still effectuated even if it is mixed with mercy, i.e., even if it has a salvific/restoring intention. And again many Israelites did die, so God was indeed/rationally acting to punish sin, even if it would be, demonstratively, limitedly upon a representative some.

Jennings’ Claim #16 [41:09ff]: The statement of Job’s servants that it was God bringing about destruction is an (OT) example of wrong views of what God vs. Satan does.

Claim Debunking #16 : (a) Contrary to Jennings’ claim, actually only one of the 4 calamities which befell Job were  said by reporting messengers/servants to be ‘from God’ (Job 1:16). (b) Not everything that is stated in the Bible, especially in such candid narrative passages, is a didactic Biblical statement which is supposed to be teaching a theological truth. I.e., those reporting messengers/servants were not speaking under any inspiration but just according to their own understandings. So those statements cannot be used to claim that all OT people, even inspired people, also had this same false understanding of God. And with Job being the first book to be written, and through the inspiring of Moses, then it served as a theological cornerstone for God’s people from then on and revealed, as with SDA’s and the SOP, that there was a Great Controversy at play, and that Satan had power, when permitted by God, to himself do detrimental things.

Jennings’ Claim #17 [41:52ff]: The storm in Matt 8:23-27 was done by Satan, and in an attempt to kill Christ and the disciples.

Claim Debunking #17 : It indeed does not say so in the Bible, nor the SOP...and Jennings is not prophetically inspired...in fact by his pervasive shoddy approach to “dividing the Word of Truth” quite far away from being able to claim any remotely inspired/truthful thing, -indeed merely “natural” (1 Cor 2:6-16), -tellingly enough, as he indeed prefers. Jennings thinks to be able to make an argument here ‘from Biblical silence’, however when proper exegesis is factored in here, thus allowing other pertinent passages to have a say here, Jennings claim is shown to be “implausible”. Namely:

(a) If Satan could not even touch Job were it but by God’s expressed permission, then he surely could not here endeavor to try to wipe out God’s New Israel, including Jesus Christ (as if God would not raised them all up from the dead anyway), without God allowing it. So since it logically is not Divinely rational for God to allow Satan to try to kill Jesus (which is on a whole other level than mere men, of themselves, thinking and trying to do so, to someone who they only knew was a mere man like themselves), then I don’t see that God would have “green-lighted” this pointless endeavor, and thus Satan did not do this as he would not have Divine permission to do so.

(b) Indeed in Isa 54:15 God prophetically speaks to the Remnant of Israel and states that ‘if anyone fiercely assails them, it would not be from Him.’ It would instead be out of these wicked men’s own desires. The case with Satan vs. Jesus and the disciples was that, to actually work to kill Jesus before His appointed time, that permission would have to only come ‘from God’...but it surely would/did not here. In fact, such a permission by God would be inherently contradictory: i.e.: ‘Go and (try to) kill Jesus, but do not kill Him’. Especially following the lost wager with Job, Satan then would have readily seen this as a mere set up by God to thus do something greater in the end and would most likely have declined to participate in this favoring ordeal of God.

(c) As seen in the Wilderness Temptations, Satan knew/understood, particularly by now (i.e., after Matt 2:16-18) that to bodily kill Christ would avail to nothing, (or else he would have of himself pushed Jesus from the heights in the twofold attempts at that single, 2nd and 4th, temptation), as God would just raise Him up, and so this would only serve to even more clearly expose/unmask him, before now, manifestly, also the unfallen angels, as a liar and murder (=Rev 12:4; DA 761.2; cf. here) To successfully kill Christ “for good”, he would have to convince Jesus to sin, as that single sin would make him be subject to death like any other man who has sinned, and thus with no one else to redeem Him. So a physical attack on Christ was useless in term of intended lasting success. Satan rather had to attack Christ psychologically in order to get Him to lose faith in God and sin. That targeted endeavor was seen in Satan’s frenzied efforts at the Cross to get Christ to come down from the it (DA 746.4) for he knew that such a, actually death averting action, would be sin for Jesus and thus would doom Him to everlasting death.

(d) As repeatedly seen in the Gospels, of all people, Jesus would readily recognize what extent of power He was dealing with (see Scriptural examples and statements in GC 515.2). So if Jesus was here dealing with Satan, He would have, as in other times, addressed Satan directly and not nature.

(e) The SOP makes a quite interesting comparison statement which, in this discussion issue actually has much weight. She says that the two demoniacs that they disciples and Jesus encountered when the reached the other side of the sea was ‘a sight more terrible than the fury of the tempest/storm-tossed sea’ (DA 337.1/MH 95.1). She then significantly, distinctly adds that Jesus had stilled the Sea, and ‘(on another occasion, = “before”) had met Satan and conquered him’ (DA 337.2/MH 95.2), and no problem standing against these demons. If Jesus had just had a showdown with Satan in that Sea Storm then not only would God have most likely shown this to EGW, but she would have then mentioned this here by saying something like: ‘He who had just conquered Satan in the storm-tossed Sea...’ She makes a similar distinction of extent of satanic influence in MH 91.1ff.

(f) EGW often cited the Sea of Galilee storm when she found herself in a storm while at sea, but never does she associate these with a direct action of Satan. And thus clearly only knew the storm in the Sea of Galilee to similarly have been a natural storm, which God’s ever-present angels would protect her against. (ML 336.2-3; LS 230.1-3)

(g) Jennings also claimed that the fact that these fishermen disciples were terrified of that storm, whereas they (surely) had encountered many storms before was proof that this storm was of Satanic feasance. Well at the very least, this would just be proof that this was unlike any other storm they had encountered before, but that did not necessarily mean that it was because Satan was doing it. But carefully (i.e., exegetically) reading both the Bible and SOP actually reveals that the disciples were actually not “terrified” or even ‘“phobicly” afraid’ (=Greek ‘phobeoStrongs #5399)  of the storm, there were merely, at best “fearful” (DA 334.4) and “cowardly” (= Gr. ‘deilos’ #1169) which is from/related to the word for “(Divine) awe” (Gr. ‘deos’ #1190a) and thus was meaning, indeed as Jesus was pointing out (Matt 8:26; DA 335.3), that the disciples had allowed themselves to ‘faithlessly’ become more ‘fearful’/‘in awe’ of the storm than of Him/God and His already demonstrated Power. Indeed the usage of deilos (#1169) in the unsaved-faulting context of Rev 21:8 is not that these were phobicly afraid/terrified but rather that they had allowed themselves to ‘fear and awe’, and thus reverence and believe, something/someone else than God (contra. Rev 14:7).
            Confirmingly, and most interestingly, the storyline in both the Bible (Matt 8:23-27) and the SOP (DA 334.3-334.6ff) actually reveals that the disciples set out to try to take care of the storm themselves. They did not even feel a need to even remember that Jesus could help them. It was only when they began to take on water that they became fearful that the boat would sink, and then they remembered Jesus and began to call upon Him. And then it is when He, as He was still sound asleep [Jesus must actually/humanly have been a deep sleeper!], initially did not respond to their cries that: “doubt and fear assailed them” (DA 334.4). It was that doubt and fear that Jesus rebukingly addressed, and it had not actually be caused by the storm itself, but by the disciples belief that Jesus was forsaking them here and letting them die.

            Relatedly, in response to the common COGP belief that God never does nor send a natural disaster, a belief which Jennings’ has apparently backpedalled into no longer claiming, instead logically vacuously and Biblically wrongly claiming, as fully discussed later, that ‘such Divine natural disasters are actually not/never to punish sin’ (???), (and with Jennings being ambiguously ambivalent here, it is really not explicitly determinative what he actually believes on this), we have the sea storm instance in Matt 14:22-24 which shows, as explicitly stated in DA 380.2ff, that it was God Himself who sent that storm up on the disciples (Jesus was not in the boat then), in order to “g[i]ve them something else to afflict their souls and occupy their minds” as ‘consequentially opposed to the temptations of doubt and unbelief that they had allowed themselves to sink into’.
            It is quite popular for COGP’s to make such quasi-quaint, simpleton/simplistic claims which have a populace appeal of not being exegetical. So people then think that this must be the Truth. But that is how Babylon itself stands strong, because the word of God is not properly presented to the people by leaders/teachers who should know and do better (=Ezek 34:17-19/EW 36.2). Can’t help but feel sorry for those who mindlessly swallow everything that “teachers” like Jennings claim without thinking, questioning and/or verifying them, as if these people were infallible. As Jennings himself somewhat self-recognizes, his default overbearing and condescending reactions to any, especially open/public/live, challenges to his views is evidently contributive to this non-challenging (and sheepish following). As a psychologist, he should, and probably does, recognize that he is (subconsciously) (re-)acting like this because he does not want to risk being openly/publicly exposed as not being able to substantiate his claim, and thus lose face. This is all borne out of pride, and, tellingly/pertinently enough, in Jesus’s dealing with the Pharisees, that repeatedly was the chief base reason which led them to final lawless act to try to silence Jesus..

Jennings’ Claim #18 [43:15ff]: Rev 7:1-3 indicates that the 7 Last Plagues are not acts of God.

Claim Debunking #18 : The full Bible and SOP facts here are that the 4 Angels holding the Four Winds have an active role to play in those destructions and “harm then earth and sea etc”. As God did with Pharaoh hardening, these will “cause the winds to blow” by conversely inciting (which is a form of hardening someone against God’s will) when/if man should decided to relent. In fact prophetic study reveals, as seen in here at Rev 9:14, that these same 4 angels directly pursue this course of active/inciting destruction in the Sixth Eschatological Trumpet (Rev 9:13-15ff); contributively setting up the Sixth Plagues’ Battle of H/Ar-Mageddon (Rev 16:12-16 = LDE 238.3). And the Bible and SOP are clear that the 7 Last Plague Angels (Rev 16) are angels of God who are to actively, themselves, bring about those judgements of God (GC 614.2). Satan certainly will not act to punish himself or his followers (e.g. Rev 16:2, 10-11, 12ff) while they are in the midst of, mainly through their thriving living then, possibly deceiving even the elect.

            At 44:40ff, Jennings mind-bogglingly also continues his claim that such acts of God, as what will occur when the 4 Winds are released, and thus the Last Plagues are sent (EW 36.2a; RH, October 8, 1901 par. 15), are ‘merely to awaken people before it is too late’, but the Bible (Rev 15) and SOP (EW 36.2a) are crystal clear that when the Four Winds are released and the Plagues begin to fall it is “too late”, as Jesus intercession would have ended and no one would then be acceptedly able to change side. Interestingly enough, in that SOP revelation (EW 36.2b) it is then that the Ezek 34 False Shepherds, which substantively can also apply to SDA’s, begin to receive the reward for their wrongful leadership, and so it would be then that COGP’s will begin to so how wrong they were in so shoddily presenting the Bible, and also how much God resented their false view, with its many consequential, unrighteous and justice-ignoring, anti-Gospel/Christlike mindsets that it produces, when they see the plagues also failing upon them, indeed, as stated earlier, as the (Full) Mark of the Beast endorsers that they would have become..

Jennings’ Claim #19 [44:48ff]: 14MR 3.1 is an ‘all-in-all’ detailing of how all of God’s judgements, and that in the final plagues, occur.

Claim Debunking #19 : The EGW Estates’s inclusion of this passage in the LDE compilation chapter on the 7 Last Plagues (LDE 242.1-2) is probably contributive to many people citing it as how God does all of his judgements. But, as discussed e.g. here, as a similar SOP claim is made in regards to the destruction of Jerusalem (GC 35-37), the comprehensive Biblical understanding here is that this is God’s abandoning action when no aspect of mercy or merciful limiting is to be involved in a judgement. The fact is that in the first Six Plagues God is mercifully working to not engulf the whole world in those judgements. So that aspect of abandoning judgement does not apply in the first Six Plagues, but only in the Seventh/Last One.
            As in Egypt’s Plague the partial effectuating of the first Six Last Plagues by God is probably to both justly punish the world by punishing the leaders in this rebellion, (e.g., the Western Capitalist Christian World) more than others, but also to maintain the natural living capability of the righteous. It certainly is not to give a chance to people to convert, which would basely be merely out of them trying to escape this punishment. Unlike the people of Egypt, the people in the end would have had ample opportunity to heed God’s message in the “Final Warning” (GC 603ff) of the Loud Cry campaign which would have preceded the beginning of these Last Plagues.
            So when God wants mercy to be involved in a judgement, He administers/executes it Himself (or through His angels), and when He does or no longer want to, then He fully abandons people to their natural consequences and/or wholly turns over that Judgement to Satan, thus abandoning the subjects to Satan’s vindictive whim. So statements like in 14MR 3.1b of ‘Satan wrathfully doing great destructions all over the earth knowing his time is short’ is actually what he will be permitted to himself do only during the Seventh and Last Plague (Rev 16:17-21) when God then would have completely removed any merciful limitations (=the final “It is done” Rev 16:17b; see LDE 238.2).

Jennings’ Claim #20 [47:20ff]: (Effectively) The last, great and pivotal/key “Divinely-servicing” message to be given to the world is one which says that God does not punish sin.

Claim Debunking #20 : Of course sinners will find that message much more appealing, but they will however, and most logically/sequiturly, then insist to therefore just continue in their sinful ways. God’s own most basic “fearingly” loving warning message as found throughout the Bible and SOP is to ‘turn from sin because He will indeed punish sin.” The final message about the loving Character of God that is to be given to the world is instead in a demonstration by believers in God that a God-like love is one which, as exemplified by Jesus, even sacrificially, does whatever is possible to help anyone who is in vital and/or spiritual need. (E.g., Matt 25:45; DA 825.4, etc.) The “God does not punish sin” message of Jennings and other COGP’s is just a hellish deception from Satan which directly opposes the True Three/Third Angel's Message here [cf. this good comment], (despite Jennings professions to the contrary (i.e., Jer 12:5)) because when acts of righteous judgement will be required to effectuate forceful interventions for people in need, such people with their spurious COG mindsets, will just allow unrighteous people to have their way rather than standing against them. Indeed Israel literally had to get their hands bloodied in warfare in order to establish the Israel of God Kingdom. Yet as God would have actually bloodlessly done such work for Israel if they had remained faithful (see Exod 23:27-28), as COGP’s would, sequiturly based on their expressed views, deem such actions of God as Him “punishing” sinners, then they would not be engaged in the various faith-based actions and prayers which God will surely require in order to effectuate these actions (e.g., Israel’s walking around Jericho 6+7 times over 7 days. In fact, as introductorily stated in this post, that Jericho action serves as the background for the (also the Eschatological) 7 Trumpets, which are said to be ‘punishments from God’ Mar 284.6)
           The SOP is unequivocally clear at the futility and delusion of ‘benevolence without Justice’: “That so-called benevolence which would set aside justice is not benevolence but weakness.” (PP 522.2)
            And God’s actual warning message is not: ‘love me or I will kill you’ but instead ‘love me enough to obey all that I have commanded and counselled or else you will be found in the camp of those who I will need to enter into life-preserving judgement against’. (cf. Ezek 18:21-23, 27-28, 30-32).

Jennings’ Claim #21 [48:03ff]: God never acted to ‘punish Israel with judgements for their sins’ but merely to reform them.

Claim Debunking #21 : Simply (Biblically) said: e.g., Exod 32:33-34; Lev 18:25; 1 Sam 15:2; 2 Sam 21:1*; Psa 59:5; 89:32; 99:8; Isa 29:6; Jer 5:9, 29; 6:6; Amos 3:2, 14; cf. Isa 10:12; 13:11; 26:14; 26:21. Etc. Again the false, facts-oblivious, wishful thinking, dichotomy of Jennings about the word “punish” holds no water. Indeed just reading the account of God punishing David for his census taking sin in 2 Sam 24, (and also the historically late-written 1 Chr 21), and that with God providing a multiple choice for which punishment, all fatal, was to be used (2 Sam 24:10-13|1 Chr 21:7-12), as exactly echoed and expanded in the SOP (PP 746.3-748.4), it is honestly incontrovertible to not see that God, when He deems it necessary, does punish sin, including/especially Israel’s sins. Furthermore, when especially death is inflicted upon people who are being punished, as in “Capital Punishment” (which God also ordained to be used, in also Israel), then that is not a “disciplinary” act but a judgement, for those who have been justly killed because of those sins will eternally not ever have an opportunity to repent and change their ways Indeed I am sure the by now forever lost 10 Northern Tribes of Israel would themselves resoundingly reject Jennings' claim here.
            When one has so accustomed themselves to subjectively fanciful thinking as Jennings/COGP’s do, particularly in their patent myopic, ‘out-of-sight-out-of-mind, proof-texting views, it is quite easy, even most natural, to accept such irrational claims that “God has never punished sin.’
            Presumedly such a view by COGP’s is squarely based on EGW’s statement in 1SM 235.2|1MR 131.1 which says:

            “We are not to regard God as waiting to punish the sinner for his sin. The sinner brings
             the punishment upon himself. His own actions start a train of circumstances that bring the sure result. Every act of transgression reacts upon the sinner, works in him a change of character, and makes it more easy for him to transgress again. By choosing to sin, men separate themselves from God, cut themselves off from the channel of blessing, and the sure result is ruin and death.”

            But that is certainly not what EGW had in mind in that statement as she copious says in here writings that “God punished....” (E.g., ST, June 5, 1901 par. 5; 1SP 278.1; 14MR 345.4; ST, Mar 20, 1901 par. 7; CTr 77.4; CC 98.5; 368.3; 1T 264.1; 5T 2093.2|CCh 333.2-3; RH, Oct. 8, 1901 par. 8; PP 325.3; RH, Dec 13, 1898 par. 10; RH, Apr 29, 1875 par. 11; etc; cf. PP 359.3)
            The key/operative/qualifying word here is “waiting” which means that God is not revelling in aiming to do this. Comparing this statement with what was revealed in 14MR 1-3 we see that this consequence would only occur when God abandons the sinner to the natural results of his sins, thus when He chooses to no longer have mercy on them. Yet that does not preclude, as clearly and explicitly attested throughout the Bible, God Himself doing acts of judgement, when such natural/organic consequences are too remote and not timely enough. E.g., a person committing adultery will not automatically soon after have rocks fall on him and stone him to death, even ever naturally die from that sin. But that was the capital punishment consequence which God imposed on people who committed this sin.

* As necessary with COGP’s, someone in Jennings’ class tried to explain away the famine which occurred at Elijah’s word as ‘a natural event that was always supposed to occur’, thus not a calamity sent by God. However God’s own statement in 2 Sam 21:1 shows that He does “send/give” famines (cf. 2 Sam 24:13a [“7 years”]|1 Chr 21:12a [“3 years” - probably correct]), and that, indeed justly so, for committed/standing sins.

-Related, and foundational to Jennings’ false claim here that “God does not punish sin”, is his theory, as posited here [23:03ff], that the First Death is (a) not/never a punishment for sin and (b) that this First Death itself is actually merely a sleep (until the resurrection). Well that is all the perfect/natural product his patent selective exegesis where he, treating the Bible like a cafeteria, picks and chooses what he likes from it and just leaves out what he does not, which results in such “minority witness” doctrines as these are concocted from only a couple of favoring proof-texts.
            The Bible is clear that, from the very start, God declared that whoever sins will have a penalty of death to pay (Gen 2:17), which came to indeed be the transpiring case with God barring access to the Tree of Life (Gen 3:22-24). The Bible calls Hell’s judgement the “Second Death” (Rev 2:11; 20:6, 14; 21:8) because it too will end up in that Divinely-imposed consequence of “death.” It is just that it will be of a more protracted process to first include a necessary period and process of sinful psyche/character breaking by God through tormenting (Matt 10:28; cf. in GC 544.2). By the simple logic that if man had not sinned, then God would not have made them to die, it is straightforwardly and sequiturly seen that death is a punishment of sin by God. Also, with God actually killing people when He executes a judgement on them, including Israel’s Capital Punishments, then it is evident that these people are forever lost, and never have a future chance to repent of their sins. So their First Death, particularly in a imposed judicious killing by God, is indeed God (eternally) punishing them for their sin.
            Jennings also claims that if the First Death was God punishing sin, then that would mean that God would be punishing sinner before they are judged. That is completely obtuse and borders of blasphemous (i.e., slanderous). In Israel’s representative Capital Punishment proceedings, as legislated by God, no one could be put to death without both 2+ witnesses and a just judgement. Similarly, when, as the Bible actually fully teaches, ‘God (Himself) punished, through destruction, Sodom and Gomorrah, for their extreme abominable sins’ (see Gen 13:10; 18:20-21; 19:13, 24-25: Ezek 16:49-50; Jude 1:7), He did not do so with first personally investigating the matter. That what His thorough judicial process. It is indeed slanderous to claim that God would decree for someone to be put to death, thereby eternally sealing their fate, without having had a thorough judicial proceeding, in Heaven if jurisdictionally applicable (i.e., for someone living outside of the judicial jurisdiction of Israel’s courts), to decided this eternal fate. In fact, I’ll venture to say that God, being all-wise, can even take these decision alone, and only in the Investigative Judgement are these decisions reviewed by others, but I actually think that, as it was reflectively done for Capital Punishment in Israel, with God’s Law being reflective of His own Characters, that for such cases where a person has to be put to death before their natural death, then God convenes a judicial session to decide this fate.
            Jennings also, exegetically-speaking, far-fetchedly, cites Jesus calling death a sleep as proof that the First Death is merely a sleep, and not a punishment of/for sin, but it is interesting to not that (1) Jesus only called death a sleep when he knew that he was about to resurrect the person (Matt 9:24; John 11:11), and (2) this analogous understanding that death was sleep was understood throughout the Bible, OT (e.g., Psa 13:3) and NT (1 Cor 15:51). Manifestly, in Jesus’ statements, He wanted to (re-)emphasize that death was not final; and also that He was that overturning resurrection (John 11:25). But most significant here, the theological specification that exists the First and the Second Death issue here, is not that ‘there is no Resurrection from the Second Death’, but that, in cases of people who die in their sins in the First Death, there then is no Salvation from even that Death.(John 5:29|Rev 20:6) So someone who is, especially Capitally, put to death for their First Death, which, again was/is to occur solely after a Judicial proceeding, whether in God’s Israel and/or in Heaven, has already had their eternal fate sealed, and thus has been punished for their sin, -indeed with a punishment that has been brought forth from that preceding judicial session.

Jennings’ Claim #22 [52:00ff]: Israel’s hardships were actually to demonstrate to the world the choosing Satan’s way resulted in such problems.

Claim Debunking #22 : That is quite an odd take on things here as it was pagan nations who would also inflict these hardships on Israel. (E.g., Babylonians, Assyrians, Philistines, Romans, etc.) Indeed most of the world’s nations thrived while Israel suffered and were it but for God’s infliction of hardship on other nations through Israel, those foreign powers would not have had certain troubles.
            Israel was a special case in this worlds affairs as they were a hated nation as they had both, according to pagan views, “ran away from their slave masters” and also “stole the territory of other nations”. So they were actually viewed as a threat to World Order. What they actually could demonstrate to the world was what God would be able to do with such a lowly people if they remained faithful. The lesson in what they at times imposedly vs. naturally, specially and many times almost uniquely suffered when they were unfaithful was just a demonstration to the world of what would befall a formerly blessed people of God if they wandered away from God’s ways. (Case in point, I don’t hear/read of other nations having famines because they did not let their land lie fallow every 7 years. It manifestly was because God would be doing something miraculous with Israel and their land that this Sabbatical Law had such (catastrophic) consequences for Israel if it was not obeyed.)
            Of course all sinful nations will eventually suffer hardship, even if, in our world today, only at the Second Coming, so what befell Israel wold not temporally serve as a lesson for other nation and it was only when God Himself entered into judgement with those majoritarily consentingly sinful nations would they reap from God the consequences of their sin. In other words, the end will not occur when all the sinful nations of the world have self-destructed, but rathe when they are in the revelling midst of festal/normative living (Luke 17:26-30; 1 Thess 5:2-3)

            So unlike Jennings’ false dichotomy and one-sided view [54:15ff], God’s judgements are “by definition, inherently, an intervening, punishments for sins which can, for those who are justly and/or mercifully permitted to survive it, object-lessonly serve to awaken them to repentance”.

Jennings’ Claim #23 [55:05ff]: The Outpouring of the Latter Rain is impeded by the non-COG views of people.

Claim Debunking #23 : Contrary to what Jennings fancifully believes, the True True Latter Rain and its Loud Cry Message is not dependent on people espousing his unbiblical COG claims about God and His Character, for the ‘false mindset and thus false/non righteous actions’ reasons already stated earlier. And, contrary to his straw man claims that people without his COG beliefs will claim that, e.g., ‘God sent Hurricane Katrina, Sandy etc, as punishment on sinners’, (-which he actually, really just does not know that He did not; -just like, as mentioned earlier, he default assumed that God did not, (as ‘He never would’), send the Matt 14:24 storm upon the sinfully doubting disciples), that Biblical Final Loud Cry Warning will heightenedly be along the starkly “most fearful” “threatening” warning lines of Rev 14:9-12's Third Angel’s Message (EW 254.1|GC 449.2), combined with actual righteous/full righteousness actions which oppose the injustices committed by those who are under the spell of the (selfish/Capitalist) Mark of the Beast camp.
            I’ll go by what God’s word says instead of Jennings’/COGP’s vacuous, sentimentalist falsehoods

Jennings’ Claim #24 [58:00ff]: [Glossingly, proof-textingly reading of Exod 20:18-20]

Claim Debunking #24 : Contrary to what Jennings straw-manly rhetorically adds, also to the text, here, the people did not say that they were afraid of God per se, they were afraid that God would kill them if He spoke directly to them. It was to that fear that Moses said do not be afraid. Because God’s end/intention here was not to cause their death, but as Moses pointed out, (but Jennings deliberately, rewordingly (i.e., “keep on obeying Him”), completely glosses over), God instillingly (=”test/prove”) wanted them to indeed become fearful of Him, so that they would not sin, and thus die. So as typical with all of God’s such “threatening” warnings, it is so that people would avoid the rebellious ways which will lead them to death.

Jennings’ Claim #25 [01:00:30ff]: Heb 10:31 is only “terrifying” because of the mental anguish which the sinner will inculcate when fully exposed in the presence of God.

Claim Debunking #25 : As usual, Jennings has to ignore the entire context of that passage in order to posit his COG views as to what is ‘merely involved here’. Paul’s point in that passage from Heb 10:26-30, quoting OT passages like Isa 26:11 (literal fire); Deut 32:35 (God’s Vengeance (cf. Isa 34:8|GC 672.2)); Deut 32:36 (God’s Vindication), is that God’s judgement on knowing/rebellious sinners will physically be much worse than what was done in the Law of Moses through Capital Punishment for such deliberate sins. Contrary to what Jennings claims, citing Adam’s disculpating passing of the buck in Gen 3:12, the type and mindset of sinning which is involved here are sins in which the person knows that what they are doing is wrong. They have had a clear revelation/knowledge of the Truth but have chosen to persist in sin, such as the Jewish Nation knowingly choosing to reject Jesus Christ (cf. John 11:45-53). So Paul is saying that these will, in the hands of the Living God, physically suffer much more than the stoning punishment of the Law of Moses. And as the Biblical teaching of Hell reveals, as a necessary part of Hell’s Judgement will be God’s endeavor to completely break this indifferent/deliberate sinful psyche of sinners (Matt 10:28), through physical tormenting because these sinners will have refused to let the priorly revealed Full light of Truth to much less painfully do so. That Light has instead only resulted in them being “filled with the same hatred of God that inspires Satan” (GC 671.2b), and so, ‘just like Satan’ they then persist in their spirit/character of Rebellion against God (GC 671.2a), and it is that rebellious psyche/character that God will endeavor to, quite necessarily, completely break and undo through, as a last resort, torturously forced admissions/confessions, in Hell. Indeed the wicked here actually only “fall into the hands of the living God” when they are thereupon seized alive and cast into Hell to then suffer varying, Righteous-meted-out, punishments.

            All of the presented debunkings here are, through proper exegesis, versus Jennings shoddy, fanciful and selective methods, the Full Biblical Gospel Truth about the Character of God and what it “terribly” involves....So deal with it COGP’s...The sooner the better!!

A Systematic Deconstructing
            From this quarter’s Fifth Sabbath School Lesson which speaks of Amos’ call to “Seek the Lord and Live” (cf. Amos 5:14), Tim Jennings uses that to here springboard into mainly an expounding/expanding/explaining why ‘he’ believes, as it was discussed above in Claim/Debunking #21, that there are two types of death

Jennings’ Claim #1 [03:45ff]: ‘God’s Angels do not accompany people into places such as theaters.’

Claim Deconstructing #1 : While that statement attributed to EGW may itself be an SDA myth, probably assumingly derived from 5MR 125.2:

“Angels of God are all around us. You do not discern them with your human vision. Satan and his angels are here in this house today. Oh, we want to know these things, and fear and tremble, and to think much more of the power of the angels of God that are watching over and guarding us than we have done hitherto. We want to place ourselves under the blood-stained banner of Prince Emmanuel. We do not want to be serving Baal. We do not want to be giving ourselves up to the powers of darkness. Angels of God are commissioned from heaven to guard the children of men, and yet they [i.e., children of men] draw away from their [i.e., God’s angels’] restraining influences and go where they can have communication with the evil angels; and then the evil angels fasten impressions in their minds that they will never get rid of so long as they live, just as going to the theater, billiard hall, and all such places lead them from the path of God to stand under the black banner of the prince of darkness. Oh, that we might all obey the injunction of the apostle. (Read 2 Corinthians 6:17, 18.)”

However the notion that God can indeed “vacate” a place, a people which had priorly been near to and with is present throughout the Bible (e.g,. Exod 33:3, 5; Ezek 11:23; Matt 23:38). And that is all because a Just and Holy God them would have to execute swift judgement upon that sinful company, which is instead of allowing for a eventual, more natural, judgement, particular as that person or group will surely, by no longer being cautioned or redressed by God’s Spirit, plunge into even more risky and dangerous acts which could themselves bring about a detrimental consequence, even death. So in the Esther and Mordecai example that Jennings cites, they manifestly had not reached that level of “obstinacy” against a, moreover clear, will of God. In fact, with Esther’s story occurring in ca. 486-464B.C., thus 52+ years after the initial return under Zerubbabel in Cyrus’ reign in 538 B.C., then either Mordecai, nor Esther were probably not born then, certainly not adults, so they themselves had not fully informedly made a decision against God’s will for Israelites to Return to Jerusalem, and so God could still be with them. Their parents had probably laid a wrong example and wrong teaching for them and they believed taht it was “okay” to remain in Babylon, [just like Capitalistic SDA’s similarly do with today’s Babylon], and, as it was done with the Wilderness death curse, God probably had “abandoned” that rebellious adult generation itself, and waited to later work with their innocent children/descendants when they became grown. And God, neededly, was working towards another mass Exodus from Babylon under the righteous Ezra (cf. Ezra 7:10). So God evidently worked out the later full re-establishment of Jerusalem in 457 B.C. through the influence/presence of that then distinct/grown generation of Israelites in Babylon, however it is most likely the case that if all Israelites had faithfully returned in 538 B.C., that He would have (even supernaturally) worked to have a full re-establishment done back then. That would then have involved that the 490 years of probation would have started before, and thus Christ’s advent and ministry would have instead started 81 years earlier, around 54 B.C. (through to 52 or 48 B.C.), which would have been quite beneficial for Israelites then as, e.g.:

-they would not have been as steeped in the waywardness of their religious leaders/teachers, and thus more apt/willing to accept Christ’s Gospel message.

-the Romans would not have yet created the cult of Caesars (42 B.C., with no Roman Dictators (i.e., Julius Caesar), and then later Emperors (a.k.a. “Caesars”), part of Rome’s system prior to 49 and 27 B.C. respectively) which became a rationality-undermining politico-religious view, even “feared/reverenced” by Jews, and which would directly, and fatally so, opposed Jesus Christ (cf. John 19:12, 15)

-even the Jewish Temple would not, through Roman financial/material backing, have been embellished to an externally alluring state which proved to be a snare to people who then thought that this surely meant that God was with them, and that enduringly so (e.g., Matt 24:2; cf. John 2:20). It would rather have been the humbling one of Zerubbabel’s days (Hag 2:3; cf. Ezr 3:12), which would still be seen, and would beneficially be serving to remind Judah of its humbling by God for their past waywardness.

            So that 538 B.C. faithless Babylon-Exodus refusal was not without great consequences on the Nation of Israel. Indeed, as consistently seen throughout the Bible and Church/SDA History, every frustration of an initial, endeavored plan of God, results in much more complications to be encountered in later attempts to accomplish that plan, with these obstacles only causing much more people to turn away from God’s cause then.

            So contra. Jennings’, as usual, shallow/glib claim, I rather see that such an abandoning by God is actually possible, when justly deserved, which is when the person/group is “obstinately”, thus rebelliously, acting against Godly knowledge and light. Furthermore, contra. Jennings’ also glib maxim that: ‘God won’t leave us, but we are the ones who can leave Him’, Israelites did not leave the land of Israel, nor its Temple. Indeed the still professed to be God’s people. So it would have to be God who would literally have to decide to leave them despite those professions of theirs, -indeed because of this unacceptable “lukewarmness” (=Rev 3:16; 1 Kgs 18:21).

-Also contrary to a claim by someone in Jennings’ class [05:50ff] that ‘God was with Jonah (i.e., protectively) even if he was fleeing from God’, the Bible and SOP actually reveal that God was only “with” Jonah in order to break his spirit of rebelliousness through “strange” (as in Isa 28:21), Sheol/Hell-like, testing trials and even seemingly killing tormenting ordeals, in order to convince Jonah that it was best for him to carry out God’s mission. (See Jon 2:2-9; PK 266.3-269.1; cf. in here).
            Interestingly enough, as also brought up by Jennings [06:02ff] , while Jonah himself claims that he had fled because he did not want to have God forgive the Ninevites if they repented (Jon 4:2), the SOP however states that Jonah had actually fled out of fear of his life if the Ninevites would refuse to change and turn on him, thus actually thinking that this was probably and impossible commission (PK 266.2ff). The reconciling situation evidently is that while Jonah may have pondered that possibility “while still in his own country” he was initially motivated to flee mostly out of that great fear of failure. Bu then, when he later, i.e., after having preached his warning message, concretely “learned” (see PK 271.1) that God would indeed spare the Ninevites just as he had priorly thought also possible, that he then, vexatiously, and really irrationally, as he was then impaired by anger, claimed that this was really the reason why he had fled in the first place. In responding to him, God cut through all of this vexatious peripheral obfuscation and spoke to the heart of the actual issue at hand here, and that was if Jonah actually had any reason to even be upset by God’s mercy here.
            Incidentally, contrary to Jennings’ mishmashed, attempted, Exodus Plagues-like, ‘natural, gods vs. punishment, relation’ claim [06:59ff], God did not use a fish to deal with Jonah because the god of the Ninevites was the fish-god Dagon. That was the god of the earlier Philistines (e.g.,  Jdg 16:23; 1 Sam 5:2) Nineveh  had several gods (e.g., Nergal, Adad, Shamash, see in here). The fact that Nineveh may be derived from the Aramaic “nuna” which means “fish” is still irrelevant to God’s necessary, tangible dealing with Jonah stranded in the open sea.

Jennings’ Claim #2 [07:39ff]: People are “naturally” left by God when they no longer have faculties which could respond to Truth.

Claim Deconstructing #2 : While such a claim would perfectly corroborate Jennings’ overarching tenet that sin only brings about natural consequences, we rather have copious incidents in the Bible where people wanted to return to God after he had already pronounced judgement on them. From the antediluvians pounding on the ark’s door, to Israel on the borders of Canaan, to actually here with the Ninevites. Evidently the faculties of these people had not “so eroded” that they could not then choose to want to obey God (even if in the face of judgement). That’s all just made up, fanciful, circular ideology by COGP’s. The clearly demonstrated Truth here was that it was just because they had not priorly, in time, i.e., in even a probationary time, obeyed God in faith, as He was requiring, that they now would be lost. It was not a “natural eroding” that had prevented them, but a cognitive spiritual refusal which God had judged.
            As stated in DA 761.5, it similarly had been a “choice” by Lucifer in the clear light of ‘understanding the character of goodness of God’ to “follow his own selfish, independent will” that sealed his fate. God then could neither force him to accept Him, or reveal anything more from His character that would change Lucifer’s resolute mindset. But in all of this, it was not some tangible, physical “erosion” change in Lucifer’s faculties which doomed him, but his obstinacy to see his Divine-contrarian views through. From such a similar mindset, people do then go to repeatedly act out the associated actions, (until it can even become as natural as “muscle memory”), and thus they shape their overall psyche/character, which really is a template of how they will most likely react in a given situation, and thus determine and set their present life, and eternal, destiny (=COL 356.2). And it is when God looks on that “predisposed template” that He sees whether or not that person can be trusted to live in Heaven and the New Earth. (=DA 764.1). Unlike people who claim that the Bible teaches that ‘God knows the future’, the Biblical and also logical fact of the matter is that God actually only has a set of present data and parameter to work with in order to make decisions for the future. And so here He does not, (as He realistically can not), ‘look into the future to see if that person will always be faithful’, but rather looks at the present state of things, at the person’s present character, and that is what determines if that person can be trusted or not. So in all of this fate/destiny sealing matter, it is a choice that is involved throughout, and not an effective, “contracted” mental illness issue where a person has become spiritually senile. Because as seen with post judgement repenting sinners, as cited above, they clearly still do have a basic capacity to then ‘want to obey God’s will’. Even a freezing cold shower can help a drunk person to partially sober up shower. It is the fact that they then do not want to genuinely do this out of a love of/for God and others, but instead really to, selfishly/self-interestly, “save their own skin”, that their “repenting” plea is still rejected by God. People suppress Truth not by ‘a mental malfunction of their faculties’, but by persisting in ever degenerating unrighteousness, which so, preoccupatively, crowds their minds (=Gen 6:5), that they then have no interest in pursuing righteousness. It is not an arrived at mental state, but the implications of a fully and devotedly followed through mental choice.
            As stated before, contrary to what Jennings needs to believe, there is no organic “natural”, physical, consequence to refusing to follow God’s Moral Law, particularly for the “careful/safe/consensual sinner(s)”. The consequence, which is death, actually only comes by God’s judicial imposing of it on sinners. What actually separates irrevocably a sinner from God is, spiritually, a cognitive choice, and that, one that is made in full Light of what the Truth is, and not anything physical or mental, (or else, as seen in civilized judicial systems today, one can rightly claim, and should have granted, a “(temporary) insanity” defense). Indeed, as it occurred with Nineveh (= Jon 4:11), Heaven will most likely reveal that God has chosen to be merciful to, inherently, “sinners” who broke several commandments, such as #1-#4, just because they did not have the full Light on these requirements (e.g., how many reformation era people did not keep the 7th Day Sabbath right through William Miller (cf. EW 258.1-2)). But these people, even non-Christians, would have been faithful to follow the other self-evident laws of humanity, as stipulated by the last 6 Commandments. (Rom 1:18-23ff).
            Relatedly, these days people, even/especially Christians and SDA’s are drunk with the wine of the Historical and/or Eschatological Babylon (Rev 17-18) and through this inebriating, they do not Lovingly and in Faith heed the doctrinal and/or socio-economic teachings in Gospel of Christ, but both alike will jointly be given one sobering up chance in God’s Loud Cry Call, yet for those who have so set their minds to live unrighteously, that message will actually fall on their self-blocked up ears.

Jennings’ Claim #3 [09:02ff]: There are two types of death (1) sleeping in the grave and (2) eternal (spirit) separation from God.

Claim Deconstructing #3 : It is quite eery to see how this fundamental claim of Jennings so much parallels the attempted dichotomy made by Futurist-Dispensationalist about the Second Coming of Jesus Christ into (1) a Secret Rapture and then (2) a Glorious Appearing. As with Jennings’ case, without that theory, their entire view crumbles to dust. As introductorily stated above, that theory of Jennings was already discussed in the prior Debunking section (at #21), but it will here be further debunked and deconstructed.

-Again what sinks Jennings theory is his shoddy, subjective exegesis, and it starts off with “blissfully” ignoring God’s own declaration that death, the First death would be the penalty for sin. (Gen 2:17; 3:22-24) As it was shown in the prior section, neither the Bible or SOP makes such a claim and distinction as do COGP’s in regards to God “punishing” sin, nor do neither of these claim that there are thus two types of death. Death, starting with the First Death, is an action which irrevocably seals the eternal fate of a person. (Heb 9:27) Therefore Jennings’ theory, like the Secret Rapture theory, is, when considered in a full Theological context, spiritually and logically useless, as there is no “second chance” either after the First Death, nor Christ’s Coming. So the First Death can’t but indeed be a punishment for sin as consistently stated in the Bible and SOP. In fact it is only because God first wants all, both saved and unsaved, to most objectively and documentedly see exactly why people were either saved or not saved that He is postponing the Second Death until the very end...even after Hell’s tormenting when then even the wicked would have, albeit, forcedly, yet truthfully, confessed, perhaps merely demonstrably so in how God allows them to fully suffer for every sin they committed, that God was indeed Just in their dealing with them and sin.
            So, contrary to Jennings’ view, misconstruing and misapplying 6BC 1093.2, God is not preserving the Spirit/Character of sinners ‘because He has not yet punished them for their sins’, but merely because He does not want to kill off the accused while he is being held in custody before their White Throne trial judgement and before they could even see for themselves the evidence against them. If God does not proceed this way, the GC would then really have been in vain, and the same initial charges of Satan could be brought up.

-Similarly, as quoted earlier from PP 78.2, it is actually out of protection of the righteous that God has imposed the First Death punishment for sins. It should have rather been the case that all who are born live for the duration of the allotted GC period (i.e., ca. 6000), which would require them having access to the Tree of Life, and then there is a final judgement at the end where some are allowed to enter the Holy City and other left outside to suffer Hell’s Sentence, but God has instead decided to inflict the penalty of death much earlier on, even shorter than the ca. 1000 years that a human can apparently live without the Tree of life.* So the First Death is really the Second Death pre-emptively anticipated and effectuated all in order to, as seen in Capital Punishment (cf. Gen 9:5-6), preserve the well-being of people who want to live righteously, and thus be conducive to life, and an abundant, as God lovingly desires.

* Contrary to what is commonly claimed from the statement in Gen 6:3, I don’t see here that God was limited the life of future men to 120 years, (as most people never reach that age, and several, even today at times, have passed it). I personally lean more to a view that it is genetic degradation, accelerated by meat eating after the flood, which has reduced man’s life to, on average 70 years (cf. Psa 90:10). So Gen 6:3 was merely pointing out that those living before the flood would only have 120 more (probationary) years to live until the Flood was sent.

Jennings’ Claim #4 [12:37ff]: Christ did not experience the Second Death. And the belief that He did is from an “Imposed Roman Law Construct”.

Claim Deconstructing #4 : Is there really, as Jennings claims, no inspired statement that Christ’s paid the Second Death penalty for all?? Well if you have dichotomize death to be distinct things as Jennings does, then you indeed can make that isolative claim. But if you view death wholistically as the Bible and SOP does, as (1) the penalty for sin, and as (2) necessarily, as discussed above in Deconstructing #3, through the First Death being pre-emptively effectuated on sinners, even prematurely, in relation to one’s natural life span, then it is seen that the Theological Truth is that Jesus paid the penalty of death for all men, even with God allowing Him to endure the overwhelming mental anguish in Gethsemane and on the Cross (see this post), to the point, and this is where Jennings’s obtuse view becomes fully deflated,  where Jesus Himself (1) could not see how His strongly believed in resurrection would be possible (2), and quite strongly came to believe that God had forsaken Him. If that is not fully experiencing death, which defaultly is inherently/eternal, barring God’s resurrecting intervention, and which is thus representative of the lasting extent of death that sinner will suffer (=the Second Death), then Christ died in vain (cf. Heb 2:9), as He actually would not have paid the penalty for sin. According to Jennings purporting that the First death is actually a sleep, then Jesus really should merely have gone to sleep, even a coma, for 3 days (tellingly enough, as opponents of the resurrection counterclaim). And it was only because Jesus was sinless that God had the undefeatable right to raise Him from the dead. (John 14:30).
            Indeed, starkly contrary to what Jennings needs to obliviously claim, the Bible and SOP is clear that (1) the, moreover imposed, penalty for sin is death and (2) Jesus paid that penalty in His own death on the Cross. E.g.: John 3:14-16; 15:13; Rom 5:6-10ff; 8:32; Eph 5:2; AG 160.3;  TDG 137.5; ST, Sept 24, 1894 par. 9; PP 516.3; 12MR 398.2; RH, June 20, 1893 par. 5. I’ll go by those “inspired”, absolutely non-dichotomizing, thus comprehensive, statements instead of Jennings’ fundamentally, fatally flawed isolative and eisegetical misconstruings.
            Interestingly enough the only passage I have come across (and Jennings Himself does not actually cite any inspired passage to substantiate his theory), where Jennings could claim that his theory is supported, would be 4SP 364.2 which says:

“The penalty threatened is not merely temporal death, for all must suffer this. It is the second death, the opposite of everlasting life.”
            But notice the pivotal/qualifying word in bold: “merely”. Proper English comprehension implied/involves that the intent of that passage was to point out that “temporal death” = the First Death, was also a, moreover “threatened” (which thus inherently is not “natural”), penalty for sin!!

Jennings’ Claim #5 [13:21ff]: Jesus did not have to pay a penalty for sin but merely cure the detrimental conditions which sin brought about.

Claim Deconstructing #5 : Well that theoretical premise is categorically debunked by even just one text Rom 5:10. There actually was a dual work in Christ’s Advent. (1) His Death paid the penalty that was hanging upon all sinners (cf. Col 2:13-14; cf. Gal 2:19-21) and (2) His Life, which fully reflected His teachings, gave us the model/pattern/template/cornerstone to follow and build from, in order for all things to be able to be restored to their original perfection. (e.g., Matt 6:10)
            Also if, as Jennings posits, Christ’s work was instead to restore life, then Jesus did not have to die, but just keep on working miracles and raising dead people. Strangely, but tellingly enough, the entire Jewish nation, except for the otherwise jealous Jewish leaders (John 11:45-53), would then have believed in Jesus. Jennings wants this to be the final message given to the world, but just as in Jesus’ day, such a message would indeed greatly attract the masses because it too would be a message that does not expose people to be the sinners that they are. They would certainly flock to such a message where they will have their especially vital physical needs met, with moreover no reproach for their sinful living. Jesus did not die because, as Jennings view wrongly presents, man could not have an abundant life, even life itself, but because they had sinned. So it is that cause of sin that Jesus had to pay the penalty of.
            Jennings [at 13:44] quotes 2 Tim 1:10 as a “proof” that Jesus did not come to pay a penalty of (especially not a second) death, but rather to brought life and immortality to light. But that too is glibly presented by Jennings, thus making it a proof text. That text is not at all saying that Jesus did not pay a penalty of death. Christ actually “abolished death” by dying as a sinless man. That is, as stated above, the first part of what Jesus came to do, and it is through faith in Him that others can then escape the penalty of sin which is death. The second part is what is next stated in that verse and that was for Christ to “bring life and immortality to light through the Gospel” (which Jennings left out). Indeed it is only by believers today heeding all of what Jesus revealed in His Gospel of the Kingdom message that one will be able to escape death and live eternally. (John 3:16; 5:24; cf. John 6:53, 68). A believer who does not walk according to the light of Christ’s Gospel will find themselves subject to that penalty of death, for there then will no longer be a penalty paying sacrifice for them. (Heb 10:26-27)

            It is head-shaking to see how Jennings has constructed himself into a completely irrational, illogical and anti-gospel corner all by trying to desperately substantiate a chief false claim that he has by now repeatedly had to back pedal from, (and this is where his head shaking claims, such as: ‘God does not punish sin’, ‘the First Death is not a punishment for sin’; ‘Jesus did not pay a death penalty of sin’; etc,  have now sprouted from), that “God does not kill”. Jennings’ view is like “leaven” (cf. Luke 12:1-2), it surfacely seems harmless, even positive, but, when grown to full maturity, it only produces a Spiritually|Theologically most toxic growth, perverting the entire Three Angels’ and Remnant Church message in the process.

            Interestingly enough, Jennings has now, as easily seen when compared to his repeated mantra statements here in prior weeks, expanded his understanding for his “Natural Law Construct” to also include the ‘character protocol of a Loving God upon which life is built’, thus effectively including the Moral Law into this Construct, whereas before his Natural Law Construct strictly meant that people would naturally drop dead if they violated even the Moral Law. Well he has therefore included an inherently subjective element in his Natural Law Construct which entirely defeats his view as the Moral Law is not a Natural Law, but a Law of better/best practices. That is the issue upon which this entire permitted GC is revolving around because Satan had been claiming that there was another better way apart from such a Moral Law. And even the death of sinners, even through 4000 years did not convince even the unfallen angels of the spuriousness of Satan’s view. It is because the Moral Law does not have a natural consequence were it but for the refusal of God to sponsor sinners, that it is not a Natural Law. Its validity has to be concretely demonstrated by how it better promotes Life than Satan’s alternative. Yet at the basis of that choice is also the Free Will implication of: “What if God’s created beings do not want to provided a life, or better life for others, apart from themselves??” What if they want to hoard all of God’s created blessings for themselves and not care about others?? Why isn’t God sponsoring that selfish lifestyle? That is indeed the crux of Satan’s argument and view, and God’s best answer to this is that despite that alternative being indeed quite profitable to those who can thrive in it, for the good of others, and in return, to be actually able to provide a better life for all, even if equivalently so, Satan’s view is not to be sponsored. (The same confrontation of views is now found in the self-seeking Capitalistic views of most, vs. the “Law of Life” (DA 20.1-21.3ff) Biblical Socialism view of God....and most Christians, including SDA’s are willfully or sheepishly voting for Satan’s view, thus taking on that anti-Sabbatarian Mark of the [Second] Beast.

Jennings’ Claim #6 [13:57ff]: ‘Is ‘(Natural Law Construct)’ Jesus destroying death the same as ‘(Imposed Roman Emperor Law)’ sinners being destroyed by death??!’

Claim Deconstructing #6 : Well that entire ‘Jesus merely destroying death, but actually not through His (thus completely pointless) death’ theory of Jennings has already been shown to be completely unbiblical, to say the least (i.e., Gal 1:8), as well as a would be a view that sinners will actually destroy themselves in the end. But wait, Jennings is actually opposing his view here since he has been adamant that the Natural Construct is that ‘sinners naturally destroy themselves, especially in the end, with God having to do anything. Yet here he attributes that self-destruction to the supposed “Imposed Roman Emperor Law” construct. Evidently Jennings got fooled and confounded by his own straw man claim attempt here!! As inherent and inevitably involved in someone (especially extemporaneously) telling a lie, sooner or later they’ll forget what they are “supposed to say” and contradict themselves. The lie (ala. 2 Thess 2:11; 1 Tim 4:1) in Jennings view is from all of the indifferent eisegetical and proof-texting claims that he has been making. So it is not surprising that chief tenets in his views now squarely oppose each other.
            And also,, contrary to Jennings’ added eisegesis proof texting here [at 14:28ff]: “this same Jesus” in Acts 1:11 (1) refers to the post-resurrected Christ; and (2) is not making any physically substantive claim about what type of body or psyche/memory Jesus would then have when He returns. As Jennings scurries to try to hold together his haywiringly unravelling view, he frankly, factually sound more and more, and that not coincidentally so, Satanic.
            Similarly his often claimed text of Matt 10:28 which he now says means that God will destroy what tangibly makes up the spirit in Hell is also a proof text. As the actual meaning of that verse speaks of trying to break one’s spirit through torture/torment. Man cannot do that. All they can do is destroy a person physically, but God on the other hand has the “torturing/tormenting” measures to break one’s spirit/psyche in Hell, and that will indeed be much more painful than mere physical suffering, as Jesus Him experienced on the Cross. (Actually also contrary to Jennings limited understanding view, God then actually, purposefully, did, conversely break Christ’s (Divine) psyche/character that ‘He was not a sinner like any other common man’ (yet without Jesus then actually sinning), all in order to fully effectuate the substitutionary atonement!!... As explicitly proven by Christ feeling so “dirty” that He came to feel that God had forever forsaken Him....to the point where even after His resurrection Jesus needed to confirm in person with God that His sacrifice was acceptable before receiving any worship as God. My view here, as presented here, is that His Divine Nature was eternally sacrificed on the Cross.)
            So, as “natural” in Jennings view, his take on Matt 10:28 is Spiritually void. Indeed Jennings “natural” view is consistent at sapping anything spiritual from Biblical teachings, reducing them that what the common/sinful man wants, something that is so “natural” that they then can readily ascribe to it and not need to involve any faith. (1 Cor 2:6-16). Keep up the Satanic ambassadorial work Jennings!!

-Also, on DA 762.2 [at 14:46], first of all, technically, the Law actually requires complete obedience, and that is what in turn, over time, produces a righteous character. But also in that statement is seen the two part work of Christ’s First Advent which Jennings has been curtailing to only one. Christ offered the perfect Character that He had wrought in His perfectly lived life by ‘being the Lamb of God which is slain/sacrificed to take away the sins of the world’. (cf. John 1:29|Rev 5:6, 12). It is:

‘thus/then that the sinner [whenever they individually accept Christ themselves] has remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God.’ (DA 762.2a)

            However (Second Part) from that “justification” point on, the sinner now has to actively cooperate with Christ, emulating the pattern life that Jesus set, in order to themselves build up a godly character. I.e.:

More than this, Christ imbues men with the attributes of God. He builds up the human     character after the similitude of the divine character, a goodly fabric of spiritual strength and beauty. Thus the very righteousness of the law is fulfilled in the believer in Christ. God can "be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." Romans 3:26.  (DA 762.2b)

            Jennings cannot escape the Gospel Fact/Truth that there was a prior, outstanding debt to the Law, to pay in the salvation of man. Christ’s Life is to help the redeemed sinner, from then on, to no longer walk in the prior ways which had broken God’s Law and warranted their death penalty. Man’s life itself is actually only (realistically) perfected depending on how they live after having accepted the sacrifice of Christ. In short, this two part view can be viewed as, and the Doctor in Jennings should appreciate this, the (1) surgery and (2) therapy needed to full heal a person’s injury.
            Seriously, I do not see, as Jennings does, what is so “evil” in this Biblical sound and well attested, two-part Gospel teaching. Evidently it is because my “Light” (Psa 119:105) is still, fully lighted. Indeed, he on the other hand needs to desperately/graspingly insist that ‘there is no imposed penalty for breaking God’s Law’ for if he were to recognize so, then that evidently would invalidate God’s Law for him....How clever indeed by the Chief Author of that converse GC view!!

Jennings’ Claim #7 [15:29ff]: In the First Death, man’s character/spirit is not separated from God as it is in the Second Death.

Claim Deconstructing #7 : The Biblical fact is, given what the Bible teaches a “soul” i.e., “living being” combinedly is (Gen 2:7) claiming an actionable difference here would be like the unbiblical belief that a living/conscious soul is what returns to God in Hell. It would take a body in Heaven where that spirit/psyche can be inserted and (re-)activated which would result in no “separation” occurring then. As explained before, God is here merely keeping these spirits/psyches in storage for (for the wicked) their final White Throne Judgement, but they are as good as dead as computer software on store shelf is not functional until it is loaded into a computer. The dichotomy that Jennings is trying to make here is mooted by the fact that death is death and even God does not have interaction with those who are dead. So all of this argument by Jennings about the ‘tragedy’ of dead people having their “individuality, character, spirit separate from God” is a red herring as it is actually a complete non-issue. That is indeed why there are books being recorded by, necessarily witnessing and recording personal angels, something that Jennings also scoffs at, and why people are judged out of those books (Dan 7:10; cf. Rev 20:12; 2 Cor 5:10) and not God ‘tapping’ into the “individualities, characters, spirits of dead people which are with Him and, as implied in Jennings claim, substantively accessible to/by Him. If God bans necromancy it is manifestly because, as with any other sin He condemns, He also does not do it. And that is all most likely because He knows that it cannot be done, and He Himself cannot communicate/tap into, the psyche of the dead. So those spirits that go back to God merely do so simply for inert/inactive “storage” and nothing more/else. So God cannot be feeling any sort of non-separation with people who had died the First Death because these dead ones are “as good as dead”. And why does Jennings’ false teaching also imply a sort of, moreover God-ordained, consciousness after (the first) death!!??...Because it is craftily all inherently part of the doctrine of devils which is to set the world up for strong, demonic, dead-impersonating spirits!!!
            Relatedly, the complaining “souls” of martyrs in Rev 6:9-11 are, as discussed here, actually martyrs which have been resurrected and are fully alive in Heaven.

Jennings’ Claim #8 [15:42ff]: The First Death is an artificial state to allow for God to intervene to temper sin.

Claim Deconstructing #8 : Sin Jennings cannot head on really ignore or explain away Gen 2:17; 3:22-24; he explicitly reveals here his theory that the First Death rather is not the penalty for sin that God had said would occur...”but an artificial state”. So, assumedly unwittingly, like Satan in Gen 3:4, he is preaching that sinful man will not surely die. This can only be his conclusion here if he really believes that there is any substantive difference between the First Death and the Second Death. As stated before, once a person dies, that’s it. There is no undoing of the fate that is then sealed. So unsaved sinners who die are assured to one day be gone eternally, after their final, publicly exposing (=White Throne) judgement. So whether it is the First Death, or the Second Death, it is all the same Death nonetheless. Trying to carve a difference between the two is completely useless, not to mention unbiblical.
            Furthermore, in terms of the redemptive work that God needs to do, it seems to me that primary purpose in this GC has been to demonstrate to the Universe that a life of lawlessness is not better than one lived according to His Law. And by immediately visiting sinners with either capital or natural death, He is exponentially better making that point as people still are not repenting in the face of this death fate. The whole matter revolves around a belief in, and love of, God for there is then also the flip side of people thinking that this life is the only turn that they will have, so they plunge themselves into anything they want to do.
            So God’s imposition of death for sin was not merely ‘to preserve the way for righteousness’, and one has to wonder (1) if God has to kill off people in order to merely ‘preserve an avenue for the Messiah to be born’, as Jennings views it, rather than out of specific and due justice (cf. Gen 15:13, 16), then how is that not an infringement upon Free Will, if since that implies that other people were killed merely to not influence a remnant of righteous people into unrighteousness. (E.g., the antidelluvians were not actually threatening Noah and his family with death.) What would happen if no one wanted to be faithful to Him? Indeed such interventions merely for that purpose would be God acting to force people to remain faithful to Him. It rather seems to me that God has instead indeed always been acting out of deserved justice from specific cases, and so wicked people, and solely when they actually threatened physical (vs. spiritual) life, were justly capitally punished by Him. God then would be solely acting to safeguard physical life itself. Case in point, God did not have killed/expelled all of the inhabitants of the Promised Land, despite Him knowing that they surely would be a snare for Israel, which they indeed quite damagingly were. And (2) did the Messiah’s advent really have to wait for 4000 years, or could it not have been at any point in time when God’s Israel would be ready to usher Him in and reveal Him to the world. Indeed it seems to me that it was because God could never come to have a properly prepared Israel that He decided to put them under a final probation (Dan 9:24-27), and instead wait until circumstances in the wider world would be proper, as it did under the rule of Rome, so that then a very small remnant of that rejected Israel could be able to do this work that an entire, faithful nation of Israel would have much more easily done. Indeed God actually only intervened with the Flood when the culture had degenerated to one of only violence and death. And so He justly executed capital punishment on them and started all over. Better to kill them off now, than take a few more centuries to wait for them to do it and perpetuatingly pervert even more people.
            So it rather seems to me that God’s interventions have all been (1) out of immediate cases that needed to be individually capitally punished and (2) that his overarching reason was in order to have this GC, and not necessarily Redemption (which could have occurred at any prior time) play out. Case in point, the world has continued for 2000 years since the effectuation of Christ’s atoning Sacrifice. Evidently, as stated in DA 764.4, it is because there are still issues about God’s Law which need to be play out and thus concretely explained in this GC.*

            It is interesting to hear Jennings claim now [16:20] that ‘God has been acting to intervene with sinful man to limit them so that they do not destroy this planet, which I presume includes the Flood. But he had priorly posited that the antediluvians themselves had “naturally” caused the Flood by their way of life. Surely, as stated before, they were not polluting the atmosphere as man is doing today with its inventions, moreover as the fuels we burn today are from the global damage to vegetation that occurred because of the Flood! Jennings’ views are, not surprisingly because of their capriciousness and eisegesis, all over the place, and (indifferently) contradictory! Tellingly enough, as with people involved in spinning this “Character of God” lie, they never admit that a prior view of theirs was wrong but just try to make people believe that they always had the present understanding in mind and are never wrong, because, after all, since they are basically trying to vindicate loving God then they naturally can’t say anything wrong in that endeavor if their whole purpose has been to show that God is loving. I guess since Jennings now believes that ‘God intervenes by inflicting death, then he no longer believes that “God does not kill”, which if I recall accurately, was the founding battle cry of this Character of God movement...Oh yeah, Jennings now does not see that people “really die” then!!

* The Tree of Life - A related/pertinent issue that I have pondered, in keeping with God’s statement in Gen 3:22, as also echoed in the SOP, is if all that it would take for a sinner to live eternally was just a single partaking of the tree of life while sinners. That very well may be the case (and that would actually more than equivalently offset the fact that only one “serving” of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil would result in a death sentence.). In fact, we do not know when exactly Adam and Eve sinned, i.e., it could have been a couple of weeks into Creation, and as the Tree of Life gives its fruit every month (Rev 22:2), it may not yet have produced its first fruit. So perhaps God would have had this testing of Adam and Eve for ca. one month, and then if they passed the test, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil would be removed and then they would be able to eat of the Tree of Life and thus seal themselves to live Eternally. So, since only one serving would be necessary to render them eternal, it then would have indeed been imperative for God to swiftly and most securely guardingly bar access to that Tree. And in regards to the redeemed, it then seems to me that there will be a need to partake of the Tree of Life, which will be aromatically, thus indeed through the aroma given off by its leaves and dispersed via the air (see Rev 22:2b; PP 62.3; cf. e.g., starting in here {near the end of that forum post}), more frequently because there will be much more of the effects of sin to then still undo in man. That is how that tree is “therapeutic” as the Greek word for “healing” in Rev 22:2b is. In other words it is not the physical “surgery” reparation part in regards to sin, which will be the new, healthy bodies which the redeem will instantly receive upon their resurrection, but, as it is actually detailedly revealed in the SOP in GC 644.3, but, as EGW concludes upon that revelation, “never fully understood” by believers, the redeemed will still have some “growing up” (“=Mal 4:2”) to do in order to regain the full (“majestic”) form with which man was originally had, as then strikingly contrastingly seen in the resurrected Adam. And she points out, this will all be done through partaking of the Tree of Life in Heaven.  Quite explicitly evidently, as even in Adam’s and Eve’s day, their children were born as tiny babies and not full height adults, then the redeemed, particularly those living long after the Fall, will then be like still physically developing youths, thus indeed with then given ‘youthful freshness and vigor’, but still needing to physically further develop. Indeed since Adam was supernaturally created at (surely) a fully developed physical stature, and that was before sin, but everyone else was born as babies and after sin, and needed to grow up, then, if it indeed “naturally” takes 1000 years to grow into that full physical stature, and no Earthly human being has lived beyond 969 years, and all of them had to do this growing up after sin, -under the ageing weakening brought about due to sin, then that GC 644.3 (albeit depicted) revelation does make Biblical sense that at the final resurrection Adam, (and probably Eve next (cf. 1SP 24.2)), would be the two tallest people amongst that [non-martyrs] risen throng. (And all will have to Spiritually, i.e., full Character wise, develop (COL 332.3)). So the Tree of Life in Heaven will serve to continue the physical restoration of man to his original stature, but now merely on a “therapeutic” level. And then will there be no longer at all seen the “curse” that sin had brought (Rev 22:3a). So it would need to produce its fruit and healing medicine for a longer time, and perhaps even more often than what would have been the case for Adam and Eve.
            Not sure if when all have been fully, physically restored, if the Tree of Life will still be needed, perhaps so, but at a much lower frequency, (e.g., every 1000 years??), but in the light of the fact that God said that a sinner eating of the Tree, manifestly even once, would become an eternal sinner, then perhaps, once full restoration is complete, all it then will take to eternal seal man’s life will be one more serving. Or perhaps, applying the Mal 4:2 verse which EGW was probably shown by God directly applied here, the “Sun of Righteousness”, symbolically being Jesus Christ, will then take over to provide this perpetual eternal livelihood to man, just as Vitamin D is produced in man by sunlight exposure, and/or that statement may be metaphorically speaking of the eternal living that man will then be able to achieve by ‘fully living righteously’, and, intertwinedly, probably because then Jesus, the Sun of Righteousness will be able to continue to shine upon His people and this way continue to impart to them what they physically need to live eternally. (cf. Rev 22:5?). Or perhaps then, this element of life will all directly be right in/from the “springs of the water of life” (Rev 7:17 = Rev 21:6), which actually (had been) supply(ing) the Tree of Life (Rev 22:2-3)

Jennings’ Claim #9 [16:34ff]: ‘Returning to Lord in order to live’ (Amos 5:5, 6, 14) cannot merely mean be physically alive, since those returning people still ended up dying later.

Claim Deconstructing #9 : Only in the enchanted background of Jennings fabricated fantasaical theology could he consider such a claim to be “insightful”. Once again, if he would have let the Bible contextually speak for itself, there would not be this ethereal restating of the text. God understood that “living”, however limited it would still be as all have sinned, and thus must suffer this penalty of death, as being in contrast to the destruction and death that He would immediately impose on those who then persisted in rebellion. That is clearly stated in the rest of these verses and/or their ensuing context, namely Amos 5:5, 6, 16-17ff. But such statements of direct judgement from God just do not harmonize with Jennings theology, so he then ignores them and thinks that he will find another meaning by taking another non-exegetically understood text out of its context and appending them in these verses instead; E.g., John 10:10 and pointedly John 11:25-26. I have amply, exegetically, discussed that passage starting here, and it shows that this statement is literally speaking of ‘not dying eternally’ or “into the (future (new) age) which will come”.
            No need to ‘disentangle “our minds” [manifestly “Dr. Jennings” wants/needs people to sheepishly believes that this is also a skewed psychology issue]  from what the Bible says about life and death’ as Jennings faultingly preaches. Again, he needs to do this because his theology does not allow for God to Himself directly punish sin. Just more of Jennings doctrines of devils.

Jennings’ Claim #10 [22:56ff]: ‘Moses did not die...but merely slept in the grave’
Claim Deconstructing #10 : I guess with such a vacuous take, it then has become quite useless to quote Scripture such as God’s own declaration in Jos 1:1-2 , to respond to that claim of Jennings...how most convenient for him!! But, “nonetheless”, the issue then still is, why, since even in the OT death is straightly spoken of a sleep (e.g., Psa 13:3; 1 Kgs 2:10; 11:43; etc), would God “confuse” people by not saying, as Jennings does, that “Moses is sleeping”!??? The succinct answer is because it makes no difference if it is called (merely for illustrative purposes) a sleep, or death. The person is still dead and their eternal fate is then forever sealed.

Jennings’ Claim #11 [23:12ff]: ‘The First Death, “that other thing”, is not the wages of sin.’....’but indeed a consequence of sin.’

Claim Deconstructing #11 : Already fully responded to that vacuous and useless tenet of Jennings. But I just wanted to highlight how heretical, indeed (Theologically) illogical and self-defeated it is on its face, and in its substantive evaluation.

Jennings’ Claim #12 [23:53ff]: Sin does not “naturally” bring such a state where you “rest secure”(?????) in “God’s care” (?????) waiting for a resurrection.

Claim Deconstructing #12 : So then...why not sin in order to achieve that non-natural Divine “security” and “care”!!??? And are all sinners really ‘merely awaiting a resurrection’. Frankly I am starting to wonder about Jennings’ sanity, because you cannot possible make such a senseless claim, with an encouragingly recommending straight face, and moreover believe that it is the Gospel Truth. It is so full of heretical, contradictory holes that Jennings is clearly here drunk with the wine of his falsehoods to not see how heretical and demonic this statement is. I think that is what an enchanted Eve looked/acted like when she was encouraging Adam to eat of the forbidden fruit...for, pertinently enough, ‘he too will not surely die’.
            Obviously Jennings is making this disclaimer because he cannot explain how man would “naturally” die from e.g,. stealing, cursing out their parents, or violating any of the 10 Commandments for that matter. So he then concludes that this death must not be a real death. So then, when the wicked dead are resurrected from their “artificial death” at the end of the 1000 years, what extent, type, era of sinning will they then engage in in order to “naturally” die from sin????! Obviously then will already have been condemned, through a, prior to the Second Coming, completed judgement, and it is for the sins that had already committed that they will die. So Jennings cannot escape the fact that they will still “non-naturally” die for those committed sins, and in most cases, God had capitally inflicted their eternally sealing First Death on them.
            It is quite typical of false teachers to make claims which, in its contributing parts just do not have any validity. Therefore the sum, logically/naturally also has no validity. So the First Death, which both saved and unsaved equally suffer cannot have as its purpose/result a “securing” and “caring” feasance of God. God does not interact with the dead in any way. The consequence/wage/penalty for sin is only severe and irrevocable (for the unsaved), and the resurrection of the wicked is anything but a blessing because when both the White Throne Judgement is over (removing their smugness) and Hell’s torment begins (breaking their rebellious psyche), they’ll wish that they had not be resurrected to undergo this judgement.

Jennings’ Claim #13 [24:38ff]: On Eph 2:1-2

Claim Deconstructing #13 : One does not need to be “scared off” by the straw man position that Jennings claims is the ‘other (historical theology) way” of understanding that verse. Simple, proper exegesis, such as reading the full context explains that verse. First of all Paul is not even speaking of literal death, but spiritual death. So when those who have accepted Christ are made alive by His grace (Eph 2:5), it is speaking of a spiritual quickening. Indeed these saved ones were also neither literally “raised up/resurrected” nor literally, presently “seated in heavenly places”. So the text, in its context is speaking of being spiritually dead because of a prior course of lawlessness which was according to the principles of Satan, but that deadness has since been ended by them doing the good works of Christ. However this is still not the reason why they can obtain salvation. (Eph 2:8-10).

Jennings’ Claim #14 [26:04ff]: Sinners would be sickly living if God had not impose death on them.

Claim Deconstructing #14 : Again, when a person, like Jennings is going by the seat of their pants to proclaim theology, then they just say whatever sounds best to them for that instance, and don’t bother to say something that is Biblically sound. The Bible is clear that the only way that sinful man could live (initially for more than 1000 years), and not “naturally” die, is by having access to the Tree of Life. As that Fruit was to prevent sickness and disease, even heal them, then a sinful person would not be sickly if they had access to it. So can’t have the ‘non-dying sinner; of Jennings’ illustration, without also the Tree of Life.
            And, technically, the only way that person naturally dies is by their bodily capabilities malfunctioning, degenerating and ultimately ceasing to function. The Tree of Life was to prevent this from ever starting and/or healing them, as it physically will, as discussed above, even in Heaven for most of the saved. So the Tree of Life does not prevent a person from ever dying of a cancer or other fatal sickness that they have, but from ever getting or developing that sickness to the point where it becomes detrimental and thus fatal. So just like sinners today would be much more jovial and more steeply entrenched in sin if all they had to do was pop a pill (=eat the Fruit) every month to not suffer the physical consequences of their sinful acts, then surely sinners would be much more happier, by being care-free, if they had access to the Tree of Life. It surely would have been great joy for the “fittest” as they would be able to survive even more as I do not think that the Fruit of Life could protect against non-natural inflictions of death such as a deadly blow, shooting, stabbing, bomb explosion, etc. Sinners may have then decided to “agree” to live lives of consensual sinning, and so any foundation of love would have been non-existent with them and people would have been forced to comply to that state of affairs in order to not be (non-naturally) put to death.

Jennings’ Claim #15 [27:02ff]: Confusing comment by an enjoining class member.

Claim Deconstructing #15 : Could not make any logical head or tails out of that comment which Jennings agreed with, but it seems to, at least unwittingly, involve a granted second chance for the wicked after their resurrection when they then will ‘choose to turn away’ and then be eternally out to death. She is obviously trying to make sense of Jennings view that the First Death is not a punishment for sin whereas the Second Death is. But clearly one cannot escape the fact that one’s fate is sealed at the first death, and so anything after that is merely judicial, procedural formalities, just like when a criminal is arrested and held in custody till their trial, no concrete facts of the case are changed. Whatever these facts are is what they will be judged on. So it is useless to try to see any substantive difference between the First Death and the Second, unless a Second Chance theory is going to be, necessarily/inherently, suggested/implied as the differentiating/distinguishing reason here.

Jennings’ Claim #16 [27:48ff]: On Rom 8:9-10

Claim Deconstructing #16 : Again, no need to view things according to Jennings’ straw man ‘alternative view’. Paul also is again not speaking about anything literal, (i.e., a physically dead, sick body), but of spiritual things. He is speaking of sinful human nature, the “flesh”, and says that it is by doing righteousness that we work apart from it and thus because spiritually alive, as indeed people who belong to Christ. Even Paul’s ‘raising from the dead’ and ‘give life to your mortal bodies’ is figurative.
            However, one can make the Theological point, as discussed before, that if/since Jesus was totally, substitutionarily, imbued with the sins of the world on the Cross, to the point where His Divine Nature thus died then, and it was only because God the Father, through God the Holy Spirit, raised up the now merely human-natured Christ from that death, as permissible by the righteous life that Christ had perfectly lived, then God here would be doing an even greater, spiritual work in man by providing that same resurrecting spirit to sinful, but repenting men, so that they to could overcome the spiritual deadness of their flesh. So they would not only eventually get physical, eternal life from God’s Spirit, but, priorly, Spiritual life.
            So, from this exegetical understanding, it is evident to me that Jennings’ mindlessly contrived and imposed mantra of “Imposed Law” vs. “Natural Law”, indeed mindlessly forcing it into every issue, is not even pertinent to the issue of this text. Just more of his, increasingly far-gone, eisegetical and proof-texting ways. Indeed Paul’s greater point here is that it is by the reviving of one’s Spiritual Nature through the provision in God’s Spirit that we can ever, one day obtain the redemption of or mortal bodies. So even if the believer will still age and die in this life, a renewed Spiritual Nature in Christ will result in them living eternally when Christ returns. It has nothing to do with the alternative/secondary meanings for physical life and for death that Jennings needs to be making to try to validate his frayed view that the First death is not a punishment for sin.

Jennings’ Claim #17 [28:22ff]: Psa 51:5 says and means we were born with a sinful nature.

Claim Deconstructing #17 : See here for what that statement of David actually/exegetically says and means. Contrary to the common understanding of it that Jennings manifestly wants to resolutely and oblivious continue to claim, David was rather saying that: ‘he was birthed in guilt because his mother had adulterously conceived him.’

Jennings’ Claim #18 [28:39ff]: On Col 2:13-14

Claim Deconstructing #18 : It is LOL, not surprising to see that Jennings would need to “paraphrase” that text according to his eisegetical views in order to harmonize it with them, instead of presenting something exegetically derived. It is also tellingly funny how one needs to put on rose coloured glasses in order to read /“hear” Bible texts according to Jennings’ view, and not how they exegetically, straightforwardly read.
            This text, which was previously shown to be indeed speaking squarely against Jennings claims and view (hence his need to ‘ignore’ it by completely rewording it), simply says that people were once spiritually dead in their sins, and had a debt to pay because of that which they could not pay and thus were doomed to remain in their sins, but God, in the death of Christ, provided a cancelling payment for that debt, thus allowing sinners to go free and pursue a life of righteousness. In that whole context (Col 2:8ff), physical life is not even the issue here, but merely, figuratively speaking, Spiritual Life. For it is the triumph of that life, as it is/was from and through Christ’s Life (Col 2:15) that can ever eventually grant eternal Physical Life.
            It is ominous how Jennings’ rewordings focus more on natural life than on spiritual life, as in ‘you are naturally physically dying because you are sinfully living’, when the actual fact of the matter is that sin would actually never naturally produce death. God has to judiciously impose that sentence because sin erodes from the life, and abundant life that others, i.e., righteous people could have, and which God only wants such people to have. Jennings’ “naturalistic” take on things here  would indeed be more attractive to, ironically, but fittingly enough, base, carnal and non-spiritual people as they are looking for a way to physically live eternally. But God’s word instead focuses on the intangible aspects in one’s Spiritual life, where only righteous choices can begin to remedy it.
            Interestingly enough, as God needs faith in Him and His Wisdom to save sinners, a naturalistic understanding as is Jennings view, would neither require faith and also destroy both faith and love, for when a person finds out that sin would not actually, “naturally” kill them, but actually others, then why live according to this law of love (for God and for others). It is only by choosing to adhere to God’s wise principles, all borne out of unselfish love that one finds the actual issue in God’s Law. An naturalistic understanding, which is completely non-existent in both Theological and literal reality, does not at all require love, especially not of others, but merely of oneself. So Jennings view will be, and that even more slyly, furthering the Selfishness movement that Satan wanted to establish, especially as it will then have people acting out merely out of motives to preserve their own lives, and then when any type of sacrificing is inevitably required, as it is the chosen case in God’s Universe (cf. DA 20.1-21.3ff), then they will surely instead shortsightedly look to first immediately preserve themselves. And so this GC would then simply be endlessly continued, or better, people with such a base mentality and sure corresponding character will not be allowed into Heaven. And so Jennings’ chiefly naturalistic teaching, of course deceptively draped in a spurious garment of “love”, is just preparing people to be prevented from being allowed into Heaven.
            The Devil could not have crafted a better deception himself. Indeed it is even seemingly directly opposing his own prior charges that God was arbitrary, unmerciful and stern. Not surprisingly, Jennings has come to his likewise God-opposing view by choosing to ignore God’s clear word about God’s Justice and reword it according to what he prefers to hear about God’s character. Indeed the controlling, chief tenet in/for Jennings’ view is that God’s actions, particularly in the OT were actually not acts of Justice and Just Punishment for sin, but in some concrete or ideological way just did not happen as stated in the Bible!!

Jennings’ Claim #19 [30:11ff]: On 1 Cor 6:17; Col 3:3|Rom 6:6-7

Claim Deconstructing #19 : It is funny to see how Jennings has so confused his audience that when they literally apply all that he has been teaching, they then are “logically” force to instead read into such figurative passages, something “natural”/literal/physical in regards to then mentions there of ‘life’, ‘death’ and ‘one’s spirit “upon death”’, indeed just as Jennings had just modelled for them in his paraphrasing and explaining of Eph 2:1-2; Rom 8:9-10; Col 2:13-14. But evidently when that is, and perhaps deliberately so, literalistically read back to Jennings and he sees how such a way of ‘naturalistically’ (i.e., involving a “Natural Law” Construct) viewing those terms make no logical or theological sense, he is force to revert to solely/strictly the Biblical way of viewing these things or else. Col 3:3 & Rom 6:6-7 would have to be speaking of a literal, bodily death, and that just would not make any sense. So, again quite naturally of false (=lying) teachers, they just choose whatever gets them to weasel out of a jam then. The objective proof that his view is not the ‘paraphrasingly’ ideal way of reading Scripture is that it cannot be consistently, uniformly applied throughout Scripture. So it is indeed merely a subjective and opportunistic view.

Jennings’ Claim #20 [31:41ff]: Isa 57:1-2 (NIV) supports his prior claim that: all people’s spirits going into the “security” and “care” of God upon the First Death.

Claim Deconstructing #20 : Jennings will of course, and uncritically so, welcome/grasp at any “straw” which sounds like it supports his view. It is also telling to read the doctrinal, ‘conscious life after death’ slant that the translators of the NIV have given to this text, even rearranging phrases and adding words to the original Hebrew to do so, which Jennings just accepts without questioning which he would do for especially new SOP quotes/claims read by people in his “audience”.
            The context of Isa 57 is speaking of, actually a live disappearance of righteous people from a nation in open rebellion and evil. (Isa 57:1). ‘They are taken away, by God, from evil’, as God is actually preparing to pour out His wrath upon the rest of the nation which then will only consists of the evil doers. (Isa 57:3ff) Now when one understands the Biblical teaching that ‘the dead do not know anything’ (Eccl 9:5; Psa 146:4), then Isa 57:2 cannot be read with a belief that the dead ‘enter a state where their spirits feel peace’. Instead we see here a statement on how God, perhaps even without necessarily putting the righteous to them, but, as with the Jewish-Christians just before the War in Jerusalem in 66-70 A.D., giving them prior instruction of how, when and where to flee for refuge. So these righteous ones (“each one who walked in his upright way”): ‘“go” in peace’ ‘to a secure place where ‘they will rest in their (literal) beds’. That is how the righteous come to “perish” form this rebellious land, not necessarily by death, (for then can their removal actually be in peace), but by Divinely-guided escape, yet, naturally, none of the evil doers miss them, indeed probably saying: “good riddance”. The wicked are then unrestrained and thus further seal their judgement and doom.
            Relatedly, when one understands the valid three historical parts understanding for the book of Isaiah (see here), namely Isa 1-39; 40-54; 55-66, with the first part, written by the actual Isaiah son of Amoz, written long before the Assyrian and Babylonian Captivity Judgements on Israel and Judah respectively, and the work of Deutero-Isaiah speaking on/for the restoration of Judah from the Babylonian Captivity, and then once that restoration was complete, Trito-Isaiah being raised up to speak of the future global Messianic glory that God has planned for this Israel, we see that Isa 57 is found in that Third, Messianic Era section. Indeed the chapters in Isa 55-66 follow a progression that can be aligned with God intended developments for now His New Israel:

-from the First Advent of Christ (Isa 55:1-2 = John 7:37-39; cf. Rev 21:6);
-right through Apostolic and Church History, the Remnant Church message (Isa 58);
-and culminating in, after a terrible, purifying Shaking of professed believers (Isa 63),
-the restored, glorious, Earth-renown, Kingdom of God (Isa 65:17-66);
-all also joined by further calibrating, explanatory, exhorting prophetic passages mainly pointing out what constitutes God’s standard of righteousness, for which one can also see pointed Literal, Historical and Eschatological applications during New Israel’s multi-phased History right through its Present-day’s new developments (Isa 56; 59; 60-62; 64-65:16).

            And so it can be defended that Isa 57 itself does indeed pointedly speak to what transpired following Jesus’ prophecy of doom upon Jerusalem in 31 A.D. (Matt 23:37-38ff), with then a New Israel being formed and the righteous remnant gradually and increasingly “leaving” that Old Israel and Jerusalem culminating in the mass Exodus just before the 66-70 A.D. war, heeding the instruction of Christ (Matt 24:15-20ff|Mar 13:14-18|Luke 21:20-23).

Jennings’ Claim #21 [32:21ff]: 1 Tim 5:6 is making a statement that differentiates “existence” from “life”.

Claim Deconstructing #21 : Yet another proof text by Jennings to try to support his view. Strictly exegetically, Paul is here merely speaking figuratively, moreover doing a play/pun on words by saying that a widow who plans to “live it up” because she is finally free from her husband is actually just as dead as her husband for her lifestyle will only be contributing to her loss of salvation, and thus eternal life. No “wider” intent/implication/meaning, as Jennings goes on to read into this text, that this verse means that one’s existence is distinct from their life, all in an attempt to substantiate a claim that the First Death is not really dead, really as if the dead still exist in some conscious form after their (First) death.  Even EGW who, even when more widely applying it to people in general, versus only widows in MB 61.2, also speaks of strictly in Paul’s original light that it is futile to think that one should think that it is best to sinfully enjoy their present life as much possible because that then only forfeits a chance to one day live eternally. So no statement on “existence” vs. “life” is being made here, but rather that a sinfully living person today is, in a wider eternal context, as good as dead.
            One cannot forcefully read their own pet beliefs into a text, as false teachers, as is Jennings, can only eisegetically, and quite awarely, do to try to make it seem that their false views have Biblical support. You really have had to be sipping Jennings’ Kool-Aid to ascribe to his private take on such passages.

Jennings’ Claim #22 [33:57ff]:  MB 62.1 is showing that there is no infliction of punishment by God upon a sinner.

Claim Deconstructing #22 : Ample Biblical examples show that sin is only consumed by God, (1) when He then wants it to be the case, and (2) when He actually first comes into the presence of sin. As sin can only reside within the psyche of men, then it is quite synonymous that God consuming sin will only be tangibly done by Him confronting, judging and punishing sinners who have such unrepented of sins. So while it is popular to say that ‘God only deals with sin’, it is not divorced/distinct from the actual reality that this inevitably involves what people are cognitively doing. So such a statement does not at all take away from what the Bible and SOP clearly describe elsewhere as God entering into tangible judgement with sinners.
            God’s intent is to rid sin from His universe, and interestingly enough, the repented of sins from righteous people are, like it was demonstrated in Israel’s sanctuary, actually tangibly stored up into God’s Throne Room (TM 157.2; PP 107.1; cf. Isa 44:22). Unrepented of sins are stored up within people who practise them. So for God to rid the Universe of sin, He will not only cleanse the Heavenly Sanctuary of the repented of sins of the righteous, justly casting them all upon Satan then (=the scapegoat Azazel), which really is all from the completed judicial GC vindication of God; but will have no other choice but to destroy sinners in whom the rest of Sins exists, but not before also tormentingly extracting from them a confession in Hell’s Fire that God was not at all responsible for their choice of sinful vs. righteous living.

Jennings’ Claim #23 [34:27ff]: (DD 14.3) Actual Life is only Eternal/Immortal Life

Claim Deconstructing #23 : That is really a confusing tactic by Jennings as one does not need to ascribe to his view to know and understand that Life can only be Life when it is Eternal and Immortal. The direct opposite of that is death. But man was originally created with that Everlasting Life possibility. It was only sin which forced this gift to be taken away. But that does not actually mean that man’s present life is not life. Even this life is still life as it can be seamlessly “continued” into Eternal Life as it will be for the righteous translated alive in the end, similarly as it was for Enoch and Elijah, and then these people will, even after having been giving new bodies, will still have to eat of the tree of life, as everyone else, as would have the perfect and sinless Adam and Eve to continue living.
            So, as seen next, Jennings is trying to make a view distinguishing claim and issue here where there just is not a substantive one to make. Indeed next argument ‘derived’ from what the preceding SOP+ statements supposedly have differentiatingly made, is quite vacuous, and nothing more than a mere, hypnotic mantra.

Jennings’ Claim #24 [35:13ff]: Psa 19:7 is speaking of a tangible ‘life giving’ to the soul.

Claim Deconstructing #24 : Again just another muddled proof-texting by Jennings. There is not involvement of tangible life in this statement, but how God’s perfect Law restores a sense of right/peaceful living in man, thus soothing their psyche.

Jennings’ Claim #25 [35:23ff]: Mantra: ‘Death comes out from an Authority who must execute it for Justice to be had, and we get life because someone paid our penalty’ but ‘a natural condition that was [or: “of this”] being healed’(???)

Claim Deconstructing #25 : One would have to have by now been brainwashed by Jennings vacuous mantra to not see how the first view which he vehemently opposed is teaching for teaching, exactly just what the Bible clearly teaches. His alternative view is not Biblical, and really only has value in the understanding of the healing that God will indeed ensuingly do upon repented sinners once Justice has been served. But, as fundamental with COGP’s the Justice aspect of God’s dealing with sin as explicitly found throughout the Bible and is to be ignored and only passages which speak on the other part of God’s restorative dealing with sin are to be upheld. Again when you so subjectively and selectively treat the Bible, as many do, you cannot but come up with doctrines which the Devil keenly uses to fasten people in even worst deceptions. And this ‘God does not punish sin’ view is right at the top of Satan’s agenda as it, as variously stated before (see e.g., in Deconstructing #18), comes to conversely, yet synonymously, echoes all of his own GC charges against God.
            Indeed death is not a “natural” consequence of sin since even sinless humans would die if God whimsically decided to bar them access to the supernatural element of the Tree of Life. Yet that unjustified, effectively selfish, and loveless, act by God would actually be sinful by Him, just as it is criminal for a parent refusing to take, especially vital, care of their dependent children. And that furthermore highlights why selfishness/sin has been deemed worthy of death by God, not because it is necessarily harmful to the committer, but because it surely will come to be, even vitally, detrimental to a helpless/dependent someone else.
            Relatedly, in response to the question of why has not, and will not, God create everyone with the same capabilities and talents so that no one will have to depend on anyone else for anything, and thus everyone can just go about living their own life without this being selfish living? Well the, actually non-“natural” answer is that, God wisely deems that all should reflect His own character of love for His Universe to be ideal, a claim that Satan had a problem with, and so He has chosen to give others a similar chance to really be just like Him: I.e., to posses some capability that others do not have but need and depend on. And that great responsibility in itself serves as a perfect shield against sinful living (cf. John 17:19), just like a father who has children to feed will not be wasting his days in selfish living but will be working hard to provide for his family....and typically in normative situations, really because he loves them.
            All this to say that no matter how, and how much, Jennings tries to disclaim, he will never find a natural basis for a consequence of sin. It is all judiciously, justly imposed as a worthily deemed pre-emption and/or penalty.
            And this all shows that ‘God’s Design of Love for His Universe’ as Jennings like to say, is actually itself a Chiefly imposed design, I.e., how God wants it to be, given his far reaching plans for it, and not how it can only be, as Satan was alternatively suggesting. It is like the Mac vs. PC debate. Especially in prior days, choosing one or the other virtually completely restrained one’s later add-on software choices. So that fundamental, effectively computer build (i.e., even beyond the Operating System), was quite crucial. Similarly God decided to have a Universe based on Love, whereas Satan wanted one out of Selfishness, and unlike now Mac- or PC/Windows- interchangeable software between the two, even in regards to Operating System, and similarly also unlike the mix of Capitalist and Socialist socio-economics in the currently prevailing Mixed Economy models, God is also, with cause, refusing Satan’s alternative of a co-existence of Love and Selfishness. (So Christian’s/SDA’s who believe that a Mixed-Economy, involving the selfish system of Capitalism is acceptable to God are similarly, and relatedly, deluded by Satan’s GC schemes).
            So indeed from that fact that God has fundamentally chosen not to have His Creation all be inherently equal with each other, but instead be dependently responsible to each other (indeed contra. Capitalists who think that: ‘if you have, even are “blessed” with more, then that gives you the ‘innate/manifest right’ to exact/demand more from other, comparatively, “inferior/needy” people, (contra. Matt 20:25-28)), and in order to achieve equivalency, one cannot get away from the fact that God’s Universal Design and thus His Law to govern it, are both an Imposed-out-of-Wise-preference act of God. Therefore everything else that inevitably comes to derive from this Design, including God’s Lawful dealing with the accidence of sin, also are imposed things.

Jennings’ Claim #26 [35:44ff]:  RH, March 12, 1901 par. 15-16 means that spiritual death is the same as/synonymous with literal/physical death, and is also solely speaking of a healing.

Claim Deconstructing #26 : Again more muddling misconstruing by Jennings. EGW said that renewing someone from Spiritual death required just as much power from Christ as physically raising someone from the dead, but that does not mean, as Jennings would like it to, that the two are one and the same, that ‘their presently is no life as it is sinful life’, etc. These two spiritual and literal states just require the same level of power from God, but they are not morphed into the same category.
            Secondly Jennings claim that this passage shows that there is no ‘legal pardon involved with sin’ but as stated above, he comes to such conclusions by ignoring other related statements in this overall process in regards to God dealing with sin, and so Jennings is here also building his doctrine upon solely the ensuing part when God acts to heal the damages done by sin. The passage here is clearly speaking with ‘“sinners” who have chosen to become converted’ So their justification process is then over in which their penalty for their sins was paid in full by the sacrifice of Christ (why, oh why, does ‘Jennings’ need to diminish what Jesus has, through much suffering, done on the Cross). The sanctification process now starts with these newly birth “baby-Christians”, and this is where EGW here picks things up to say that it requires just as much effort/power from Christ to build up a new life in that converted person as it does with literally raising someone up from the dead. Yes the healing process from sin is being spoken of here, but that does not mean that this is all that is involved in overturning sin. And the (lifetime) sanctification process is indeed much more elaborate and demanding than is instantaneous justification.
            Tellingly enough, in Jennings view, one doesn’t needs to recognized the Great Price that their sin cost God and Christ, but just focus on the “goodies” = the healing that can be obtained by righteous living. It is not surprising that COGP’s are typically people who focus so much on outwardly being proper and kindly and so, like the Levite and Priest in the parable of the Good Samaritan, just refuse to get involved in anything that may require them to confront the commitance and effects of sin. In fact they will be the first ones to superficially lament these effects of sin, but surely won’t be doing anything to overturn it. Thank Jesus that He did not shy from doing so for us and calls us to tangibly do the same, in all applicable situations. (E.g., Matt 25:31-46). People who refuse to do so are those who thus, at least tacitly, believing in Satan’s lawlessness view, because a law that is not enforced is a good as non-existent.

Jennings’ Claim #27 [37:09ff]: From an audience member: ‘belief in the sacrifice of Christ’ [=justification] without ‘the healing process’ [=sanctification] is invalid.

Claim Deconstructing #27 : Indeed, as is ‘the healing process’ without the ‘sacrifice of Christ’. No one, but, at least these Jennings-COGP’s have been saying that it is either/or here. Indeed they want it to only be the healing process and no sin penalty paying at all. So they, unwittingly, conversely show how their view is merely one-sided and incomplete. But they are so blinded/inebriated/hypnotize by their view that they would not recognize, or worst, admit, that there are indeed two aspects of redemptions involved here, not to mention the third, which is glorification, which cannot be done in this present life, no matter how could someone comes to be. In fact, it now seems to me that they have actually also bypassed ‘sanctification’ and their ‘healing’ teaching and, by insisting that Eternal Life is the supposed to reach stated, gone right to glorification, especially as righteous people in this life still end up dying. Hence their teaching that the First death is not really death, etc.
            The more the try to substantiate their view, the more the both contradict and discredit it.

Jennings’ Claim #28 [37:37ff]: From 8T 135.3: “Selfishness brings spiritual death”...and spiritual death if not remedied brings Eternal death.

Claim Deconstructing #28 : Right....and how exactly does this show that your view only is right?? This is a cornerstone belief of non-COGP’s. So this is just some more grasping at straws by Jennings, but here vacuously, to slyly try to oppose those who do not hold his views.
            Or perhaps he is here implying according to his belief that this death only “naturally” occurs and God has nothing to do in order to punish this state. Well that take would have been already completely refuted by what the Bible and SOP relate about God’s effectuated judgements, several of which Jennings has also cited (see Debunking #1 above)...but of course Jennings has by now warped (or has he says ‘disabused’) people minds from thinking that the First death is a punishment for sin. Sure...I’ll rather continue straightforwardly reading my Bible and the SOP.

Jennings’ Claim #29 [38:07ff]: On PK 233.1

Claim Deconstructing #29 : As usual, Jennings can only claim/see that this statement only, and  favorably speaks to his view because he is eisegetically imposing his take and twists on these SOP statements. EGW is here speaking in spiritual terms. Like in any discipline in life, you only become good at what you observe, study, practice and master, to the detriment and exclusion of several others, especially squarely opposing ones. How much more so for righteous vs. unrighteous living. Of course will the one who favors unrighteousness thus inherently weaken their spirit/psyche/character from doing or even wanting to do right. As EGW goes on to say in that paragraph, (which Jennings did not read): “The soul is weak, and for want of moral force to overcome, is polluted and debased.” (PK 233.1) So what is spoken of here is something that is entirely on the spiritual level, and not, as Jennings would literally/“naturalistically” have it, as discussed before (Deconstructing #2), a concrete affecting of one’s tangible faculties. This PK 233.1 ‘Spiritual affections’ are all matters that are effectuated in the intangible realm of, moreover personally-preferred, thoughts, mindset, habits and character.

Jennings’ Claim #30 [38:56ff]: GC 36.1 is a “nail in the coffin” of the “imposed view”’s claim that God Himself executes the punishment for sin.

Claim Deconstructing #30 : Funny...then why did Jennings earlier concede, as the Bible incontrovertibly teaches, that God does take action which put to death wicked people (see in Debunking #1), irrespective of his ensuing vacuous differentiation that ‘that was actually not really death’. His whole teaching just cannot stand with such artificial and superficial dichotomizing qualifiers and categories about death, life, sin, salvation, etc. But that is all because he is wrongly “handling” (“dividing” KJV) the word of Truth. (2 Tim 2:15).
            Indeed, as it prominently occurred in my MSDAOL COG discussion, EGW’s comments in GC 35-37, (which were manifestly derived from a revelation for a private person in 14MR 1-3 (1883) [=LDE 242.1-2], but nonetheless probably inspired by God to state it in the context of the destruction of Jerusalem), but as more indepth and wider contexting study and discussion on that issue showed, see e.g. here, the full fact of the matter is that this type of ‘Divine-abandoning to Satan’s control destruction’ only comes to occur when God no longer wants to exercise mercy upon people. So prior to that, and defaultly with any judgement that God actually Himself does, He mixes in mercy, but if/when that mercy is also shunned, and only when, as the SOP had qualified: “men pass the limits of divine forbearance” (GC 36.1), then this type of utter, merciless, Satan controlled judgement occurs. However, as I stated in my MSDAOL discussion, I had actually not yet seen an explicitly related judgement in the Bible where Satan has been given, from start to finish, this unrestrained green light. There are however examples of God ending up leaving an already started judgement by Him to be finished off by Satan, e.g., as discussed in here,  in when/how King Saul died; and also in how the final Roman assault on Jerusalem in this war, typifying what will take place in the Seventh Endtime Plague. But to claim, as COGP’s, and inherently, Jennings does here that this speak of how God executes all of His judgements is substantively erroneous and just another example of COGP’s glibly/moronically overstating their case based on only a single passage. Indeed Jennings sees this as a final nail in the coffin, but it actually is only one nail in the coffin as the Bible clearly speaks of God Himself executing judgements, when He wants mercy to be involved.
            That is the self-confusing thing with people who are teaching false things. Their views are never coherent and self-contradictory as they whimsically just change with the blowing wind (=latest eisegetically claimed lone verse/passage). It is all just a sign that they themselves cannot make fluent and consistent sense of their teaching because there is so much that categorically and clearly still oppose it

Jennings’ Claim #31 [40:37]: It is many who ‘sleep’ (=First Death) are secure with God in Heaven.

Claim Deconstructing #31 : Looks like the “wind” has again suddenly changed direction, and so then must Jennings with some more inevitable/natural double-talking and contradiction. And right in mid-explanation here, he again, effectively switches understandings. I.e., Whereas priorly (see Deconstructing #12) Jennings had claimed that all who die the First Death, including unrepentant sinners, are secure in the care of God until the resurrection. He now “correctively” claims that this only applies to “many” of those who die/“sleep” that First Death, and not all. So then...there must be a Third kind of Death for Jennings theory to make any sequitur sense, a sleep, or rather outright death, according to Jennings “logic” where/since now unsaved dead people don’t also have their spirit ‘secure in the caring care of God until their resurrection’. But Noooo, he revertingly goes on to insist that all alike undergo this “sleep” while still maintaining that just stated differentiation that only some/many are secure with/cared by Jesus. Uhhhhh...Whatever?!! Indeed what then is the case/condition of the unsaved dead who are also “sleeping” that exact same First Death”???????? He of course won’t dare (explicitly) cite a Third type of death, as nothing in the Bible or SOP can be eisegetically contrived to reflect this claim, but that is what his claim nonetheless would require to be even deemed to be logical, let alone Biblical.
            The Biblical teaching is so much more sound: Death is inherently a penalty for sin that all sinners alike pay and experience by their First Death. But only the unsaved will have an everlasting state of it to pay later.

Jennings’ Claim #32 [40:53ff]: An adamantly defending audience member claims that the Flood was not an imposed punishment by God because people had made a choice to not go into the Ark.

Claim Deconstructing #32 : Right...Because as Jennings and other COGP’s mindless claim, the water canopy that was in the atmosphere then was always supposed to one day come crashing back down to the earth as rain at that point, ca. 1700 years into Creation, and so God was only “conveniently” acting to spare people from that natural disaster. The Flood was not God’s act to actively destroy sinners, it was just a catastrophe waiting to happen because so much water suspended up there suddenly becomes unstable when people on Earth only insist on being violent to one another. Or as Jennings tried to more sequiturly, yet vacuously and unscientifically, put it, the antediluvians were doing things which was damagingly polluted the atmosphere. For the life of me, I cannot figure out what since, there was no coal, fossil fuels, neither applications which made use of these like cars, planes systematic manufacturing plants, neither man-made aerosol pollutants. (There may not even have been meat-eating back then prior to the flood, so no barbequing)! Why is there no such mention at all of this supposed actual cause of the Flood in the Bible (Gen 6:5-8; 11-13) or SOP (PP )!!???? In fact, completely contrarily, the SOP explicitly states that while: “in the days of Noah a double curse was resting upon the earth in consequence of Adam's transgression and of the murder committed by Cain”: “Yet this had not greatly changed the face of nature.” Certainly no hint at all in this paragraph that the atmospheric canopy of the Earth had become damaged and unstable and was about to come crashing down on Earth.
            This contra-Biblical theory of COGP’s for an alternative reason why God sent the Flood is not only completely fabricated, but it then requires other levels of similarly whimsical fabrications just to begin to prop it up. Clearly those who have ascribed to these COGP claims and views not only have left the Bible and SOP at home (of course when they cannot twist it to seem to support their views), but have moreover also checked their rational and scientific brain at the door prior to entering the room. And quite typically the obscure the complete irrationality of their claims by couching in fluffy vacuous disculpatingly-slanted expressions of “love”, “individuality”, “choice”, etc.
            The Biblical fact is that the actual choice here was not in merely getting on the boat or not (again this shows the base natural mindset of COGP’s), but, as also involved in salvation as a whole, the antediluvians recognizing that their ways were contrary to God’s will, that God had ample reason to enter into judgement against it, and to then accept the, faith-entrenched, method of salvation that God had established.

-And not contrary to Jennings added remarks [41:42], the antedilluvians did not ‘choose to go into the grave and sleep’. They would not believe that death was an option at all here as they thought that Noah was not speaking a truth (=Matt 24:39). If they knew as a fact that death was an actual option here, then, as they indeed did when the rain actually started failing in torrents, they would have been stepping all over themselves to get on the are. Instead the only choice they thought they had was between “continuing to live their life as is (Matt 24:38)’ or ‘getting on that useless boat of Noah’s’.
            The straight-face level of flint-faced resoluteness manifested in these COGP’s so adamantly professing and believing their Bible-independent theories and arguments is “prophetic”, to say the least. (Cf. 2 Thess 2:11-12)

-Not surprisingly, neither that choice claim holds up to basic logic when a valid point is next raised [41:53ff] that ‘not everyone who died in the Flood (i.e., children), or indeed, dies generally (e.g., crime victims) had made a choice for their death. And what about the grown adults today who have never heard of all of God’s ways in the Bible. Did they also “choose” to not know and then die, even when they had died of old age???
            Jennings now reverts to his ‘safe and secure psyche in God’s care’ claim for people who die the first death, when here using the 4 Boston Marathon Bombing victims as an examples. But focusing solely on the three adults here, (and keeping in mind that no one ever says anything bad about anyone at their funeral, not even for gang members or criminals), what is to not say that all of these adults were not vile sinners up to their death, or at the very least, sinners who had chosen not to be believers in Christ. So they too, even as unsaved people are ‘safe and secure in the care of God’s”.....So, since God so blanketly approves of everybody once the die the first dead, even if He is the one who had put them to death, then everybody goes to Heaven in the end??? How convenient!!!!
            God is also justly in the habit of cursing and even killing children who have witnessed the wrongful ways of their parents. So what is to say that he did not find any of the antedilluvian children innocent. Indeed just like angels led the animals into the ark, God could have likewise led all innocent children into the ark. (Cf. Jon 4:11). But just like He, through Noah, cursed the youthful Canaan after the flood because of his skewed character (PP 117.2), likewise God probably saw that these children had ingrained in them the wickedness of their parents and other adults, and thus were not worthy of being spared.

Jennings’ Claim #33 [46:23ff]: The “Imposed Model” believes that being :clothed in Christ’s robe of righteousness is according to a “candy-coated rotten apple theory”

Claim Deconstructing #33 : Not sure from where Jennings is making that blanket claim, but don’t see many people believing in the Justice and Mercy of God having such a shallow and superficial view about either justification or sanctification. So this clearly seems to me like a straw man argument on his part. In fact, it would see to me that it is people who preach and believe that “God does not punish sin” who will be more prone to not seek to eradicate all sin, including sin of omissions, from their lives. In fact, COGP’s are so focused on supposed “natural” consequences of sin, and how that causes death, that when faced with a sin that is not personally detrimental to them, such as helping all other people in need, they’ll just “naturally”, bypass them. That is not a problem that is limited to COGP’s, but their teaching, tellingly enough, is perfect to instill such a ‘all too selfishly natural, self-looking out for’, mentality in those who espouse it. According to their “non-violence” view, they’ll certainly not defend people in need if that will require adversarily, to whatever needed extent, confronting those who are oppressing them. On this particular issue, their view is in complete cognitive dissonance. So either they really don’t believe what they are claiming, or it is inherently just not Biblical.
            The Bible and SOP is clear that Christ will not cover up anyone who is insisting on living outside of His will, indeed also right from that parable that Jennings is here reading from (see Matt 22:1-14|COL 307-319). So anyone who reads the Bible and SOP and takes it as it reads (something by the way which COGP’s are conditioned not to do when it goes against their pet view), then they will not have the “candy-coated rotten apple” understanding that Jennings purports here.
            Also Jennings put all the emphasis on the worthiness of man’s righteousness here in his view. The Biblical fact is that “all our righteousness, however good, are still filthy rags” (Isa 64:6). So Jesus will still have to cover up believers in His own perfect righteousness for man to ever be acceptable....and that itself indeed is not a “natural” process, as if we deserve it, but a most mercifully “imposed” one by Christ. So it is most interesting to see how Jennings’ view opposingly leans towards man mainly, if not alone, by is “good character”, being capable of making themselves worthy before God. (contra. Eph 2:8-10).
            And if anything, all of the “rotten sins” that a person committed before they came to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ will have to be outrightly just covered up by His Righteousness, and justly because of their past ignorance. (Acts 17:30-31)

Jennings’ Claim #34 [57:52ff]: The “imposed/authoritarian” view leads into a disrespect of women, as reflected in the SDA Church’s Women Ordination issue.

Claim Deconstructing #34 : So I guess that is what was the problem with people in the OT. For one foundational thing, it is God who, wisely, barred women from defaultly being the religious leaders (namely/mainly priests) in His Israel, but He still used women in religious leadership capacities whenever He chose to. Again claiming that being against Women Ordination can only be the view of those who hold the, “Imposed and Authoritarian” view of God*, is again just a straw man tactic on his part. The two are not really, nor necessarily “complimentary”. I, for one, as discussed here, am in favor of Women Ordination.
            By the way, it cannot be ignored that God had actually selected two men to be His prophet to the Remnant Church before choosing Ellen White, and that, as He stated, He actually chose her as she, being sickly, not fully educated, and a woman, was “the weakest of the weak”. So He did not primarily choose a woman because of the qualities she specially had as a woman, but, as similarly also done through Paul by the way (2 Cor 12:9), actually because His glory would then shine even brighter through such a person that the world generally just did not pay any attention to, nor ascribe any importance to. People would then have to squarely focus on the power in her given prophetic gift, and thus would more readily see that God was at work here. Still, after having decided to choose a woman, God then set out to find one with the best character which He could work with. And as stated here, God, neededly, in order to be timely, had already begun to prepare EGW for such a possible future election ca. 2 years before she was chosen to fill that prophetic office.

* “Imposed” in that God had Sovereignly decided that this Universe would be function and be governed by principles borne out of Love, not that this was the only way in which it could be done, but merely the best way if one wants to be loving;

“Authoritarian” in that God decided on this model without the input from His “subjects”, i.e., created beings; -both points here leading to the, relatively speaking, “valid” GC issue where Lucifer suggested another possible, but ultimately not best/viable way, and God, accepting that valid objection, allowed for 6000+ years to objectively demonstrate that His imposed and unilaterally- (actually trilaterally + Trinity) chosen model for this Universe was indeed the best.

Jennings’ Claim #35 [1:02:02ff]: The Church’s mission in the end is not (and/or should not include) preaching against homosexuality.

Claim Deconstructing #35 : Jennings’ “horns” are growing!!!! What in Hell (and that’s not a pun), is that supposed to even begin to mean???? Moreover, as unbelievers similarly do, excuse and ignore sin out of a pretext of (spurious) “love”, as if, and as COGP’s actually tacitly believe, God suddenly only became Love in the New Testament!??
            The Church is to preach against all sin, including, and especially obvious and “abominable ones” of which homosexuality definitely is. Since the Bible, both OT and NT preach against it, then so should Bible believers, and if they really “love” those kinds of sinners, and want them to have a chance to be saved (1 Cor 6:9-10; Rev 21:8) and literally be plucked out from the burning (Rom 1:26-27). The Church needs now more than ever in the light of all of the popping up counterfeits, even from professed Christians, the (prophetic) Word of God to best understand what Divine Love is all about (1 Cor 14:1).
            Apparently Jennings believes in baptizing people while they are living in open sin. The Remnant Church’s Spirit of Elijah message, leading to the water baptism is incontrovertibly one of repentance (Luke 3:3, 10-14; Acts 13:24) of sinful/bad works, as homosexuality most naturally/anatomically, thus rationally, is. The work under the “Baptism of the Holy Spirit” is one which follows after that (e.g., Luke 3:15-17), and leads to purifying people from, relatively/conditionedly, less obvious/subtle sins, particularly in regards to sins of omissions, and in not doing good works. Christ did ‘die for sinners, while they were yet sinners’ as Jennings next cites in his prayer, but that has nothing substantive to do with the repentance from (self-evident/obvious) sins of commission that is called for by Christ if someone wants to follow Him (e.g., Luke 18:22ff). If a Church/Preacher cannot make a clear Biblical case against the practice of homosexuality to someone before they baptize them, then they are not worth their Ministry credentials. Indeed, in such cases, where would be the “repentance” (Acts 19:4). Why not then just go around and baptize anyone living in known/open/obvious (e.g., Ten Commandment violating) sins??!! And what’s the rush.... i.e., why baptize someone because it is believed that they would reject the Gospel if they soon found out from a Bible message that God was against homosexuality...why not present them that message and let them then decide what they will do before baptism?! I mean they could always be attending an SDA Church during that time as a non-baptized follower. What’s this rush to dunk people in water before they fully understood God’s Remnant Church message, as if those baptism statistics actually made any difference anywhere!! All it really does is lead to larger membership “decession” figures (currently ca. 1300 per day). And this is not a call for people to “fix themselves up” before coming to Christ, but to actually, necessarily, “repent” first (Mar 1:14-15). Indeed we have statements on Jesus ‘going out’ to be with people who were “sinful” (e.g., Matt 11:19; Luke 15:1-2ff), but we do not see Him calling them, “as is”, to become His disciples. (cf. John 8:11b).
            Such watering down stances and approaches, as proposed by Jennings, (as it was Historically previously done in the Christian Church during its ‘accommodated pagan “influxion”’), is what happens when you have a basic “evolving” view towards the Bible and COGP’s foundationally do. They then think, and do, pick and choose and/or reword, what they want to transfer from it into their present “evolved” theology, thinking themselves to know better and be wiser than God and His Spirit of Prophecy. The Final Message of the Remnant Church is not narrow and exclusive, but will be, collectively and specifically, of many banners, wherever the light of God’s Truth needs to shine.

A Systematic Unspinning....But Due Succinctness
            As it was stated before, just before this generous series of “Systematic” responses to the spurious claims of Jennings/COGP’s, when you are dealing with people who defaulty, systematically and quite indifferently, quote texts out of their context, or furthermore only in part; ignore whatever in the Bible or SOP does not agree with their Tenet Chief view; have a mindset that the OT, even EGW had teachings which are were “unevolved”; build entire teachings and claims on solely one isolated passage; among many other proof-texting and eisegesis practices and tactics; then try to respond to them with sound exegesis, all becomes an exercise in whack-a-mole, because there really is no limit as to the many lies that these people can spin.
            So, having opted to nonetheless provide “unspinning” responses to Jennings added, indifferently crafty lies from his takes in Lesson #6 (“Eager to Forgive” Jonah) study, I’ll however to so quite succinctly as to not be wasting any more of my time than most basically necessary. So I’ll here be solely stating my responses. Including time markers to “Jennings claims” actually requires additional work so I’ll bypass this also. Frankly people who want to believe everything that Jennings claims without either challenging him or verifying it for themselves, (and there was a segment in this study where someone began to rightly challenge him on a claim, and as usual, seeing that he was going to be proving wrong, resorted to his condescending vexatious responding), do deserve to be deceived by him, for themselves not being dutiful Bible students.

-God does not need to forgive - Jennings spend the first part of the lesson trying to claim that ‘God does not need to forgive sin, as sinners do not have a penalty for their sins to be forgiven of’ etc, but, succinctly said, I’ll instead go by the Bible, Jesus’s, God’s and SOP’s knowledge and teaching on this. Just do a Bible or SOP search on the word “forgiveness” and you’ll get, and it really sounds strange to even have to state this to Christians, the due penalty for sin wiping away that takes place then. Jesus thought us to forgive others, as the Father forgives us, indeed to even have the Father forgive us.

-The notion that Christ paid the penalty for our sins/debt/transgression is clearly, explicitly stated throughout the Bible and SOP. It is not pagan as Jennings obstinately claims. Just do a search on those bold terms.

-The word “remission” (#859) in Heb 9:22 (KJV) actually means only “forgiveness” as rightly translated in all of its 16 NT occurrences by the NASB, as used in e.g., Matt 26:28; Mar 1:4; 3:29; Luke 1:77; 24:47; Acts 2:38, etc. It is related to term aphiemi (#863) which basically means “from a sending away” and is thus used when speaking of “forgiving” someone of something owed, =‘letting them go away without duly holding them “captive” for this debt”. Jennings attempt to spin this into his “medical/natural/scientific” view is biasedly spurious.

-‘Christ’s Pleading His Blood’ is not Biblical- The Bible and SOP clearly teach that it is Christ’s blood which provides forgiveness/mercy for the sinner from what God would “passionately” do in regards to seeing that Truth be done (e.g., EW 38.1-2), which would automatically doom the sinner (=His “wrath” -see here*). Jennings can obtusely try to mock, decry and ignore this teaching but that only makes him a primary tool of Satan, who (i.e., Satan) has wanted nothing more than to make people think that Jesus had shed His blood for no necessary reason. (contra. e.g., Rom 3:24-25; 5:9; 1 John 1:7; Rev 1:5) The initially (=OT) anticipated and then effectuated (=NT) perfect sacrifice of Jesus does indeed prevent God from executing due immediate punishment on the sinner (cf. EW 149-153), as God then views the sinner through the covering perfection of Christ. And God would want to justly execute such swift deserved punishment of death because sin, which actually only exists in this Planet,  is hampering the Universe plans He has for other created beings who have chosen to live in perfect obedience to His Will.

* Correction & Addition: I had not noticed, from that non-pursued/unimproved prior cursory search/study, that God’s “wrath” is also spoken of as “anger” (Greek: “orge” #3709) in the Bible (e.g., John 3:36; Rom 1:18; Eph 5:6; Col 3:6 & Rev 6:16-17|DA 825.4), even combinedly, culminating in a “passionate/indignant (Gr. thumos -cf. Col 3:8) anger” (Rev 16:19; 19:15) - Manifestly this is all reflective of three phases of God’s dealing with sinners, namely: (1) The (facilitated) Setup (=Passion/Indignation (thumos); (2) the (albeit merciful, hopefully awakening) judgement stage (=Anger (orge), and (3) the “No More Mercy” utter destruction stage (=Passion Anger). Perhaps it is Babylon refusal to recognize its faults in the prior plagues which produced the 7th, “No More Mercy”, “Passion Anger” stage in Rev 16:19; cf. 19:15; -as it was warnedly “mixed” in Rev 14:10 Third Angel’s Message.
            Relatedly, see this interesting discussion on: “What is the Wrath of God”, which, as typical from COGP’s, inevitably is barred from constructively advancing by their desperately “necessary” indifferent refusal to harmonizingly take into consideration all pertinent Bible and SOP statements on an issue. (By the way, in regards to that discussion, SDA Pioneers were not infallible. Not even EGW was (when relating personal understandings). So just because an SDA Pioneer, e.g, E.J. Waggoner, S.N. Haskell, J.N. Andrews may have said something, it does not mean that it is the incontrovertible truth. These claims also need to be validated by the full counsel of God (i.e., Bible and SOP). EGW statements posted here in support of SDA Pioneers does not give/provide a Carte Blanche to whatever they may say. And so clearly it is only their ‘“words” which have proven to be Biblical’ which are to be held up to future, continuing generations. In fact, those statement seem to be more supportive of the ‘experience wisdom’ that those pioneers can relate more than “doctrinal accuracy” as the Bible is always the final arbitrator in/for such substantive matters.

-“Fear of God” is not Biblical - God Himself uses “fear” in a necessary and beneficial way...because it serves as the perfect method to help someone not commit a wrong action that they do not know or understand the consequences of. E.g., to keep a very young child from putting their hand on a red hot stovetop, particularly if they have repeatedly indicated that they want to do it, you somehow tangibly instill the fear of this action in them. God did the same when He wanted to keep Israel from sinning, (Exod 20:20; Jer 32:40), and that despite just having clearly stated His Ten Commandment Law to grown adults. Jennings claims some study on how people with Conservative socio-political views have a greater sense of fear than people with Liberal views, which I would presume includes for those Conservatives the “fear” of ungodly culture, homosexuality, abortion, atheism, etc. Well just by looking at how Liberals freely espouse such ungodly things, then I would see how God is actually wanting people to develop such “fear” of these things and that Liberals have indeed managed to remove this safeguarding Godly fear, including “no fear (=no reverence)” of God”, from their mind and psychological system and thus plunge headlong into these abominations. So, not surprisingly, Jennings and his views/teachings support having a mindset which has not fear of sin and abominations. Given that humans do not know the full tangible consequences and punishment which God will bring, and even most naturally allow, for such actions, then His use of Godly fear to keep people away from committing them is quite necessary, and indeed is Biblical (cf. Rev 14:7). What is worst with Jennings is that he does not at all suspect the evil in his teachings here, particularly, as “liberals” do, he has claimed that he is instead controlled by “love”. Well it is only “perfect love” as calibrated by the prophetic word of God (1 Cor 14:1) which can ever cast out fear, and that “perfect love” is one which obeys all of the commandments of God. (John 14:15; 15:10) because one then will not be not doing evil out “fear” but out of a fully trusting love of God. But Liberals have clearly taken God out of that equation. So even the humanitarian good things that they may do is marred because their greater love (of others) is not calibrated in God’s Truth.

-S/Paul’s Wired Mental Faculties Controlled His Ways - Jennings’ view, as claim for Paul of Tarsus, places mental faculties above the power of will. That is not the case. It is one’s will and choices which determines their spirit/psyche and character and not, in itself how their brain is wired. So Paul did not change views about Christianity because ‘his brain was rewired from being Conservative to Liberal’, but because he chose to obediently act of the Truth of Christ that he had been confronted with. It was that choice which cause a change in his then fully cognitive actions. Because Jennings believes in a all-pervasive “natural law”, then he cannot allow for anything to exist/occur which does not have a scientific/natural basis. And so such change of behavior merely by one’s will is not the answer for him, but rather it can only come from a brain rewiring.
            As I said before, even the most far-gone and vilest of sinners, who God may even be about to destroy can suddenly change their mind about God when faced with their death. Certainly their supposed “dead mental faculties” as is involved in Jennings view, did not prevent them from having this sudden, and instantaneous change of mind. It is all in the will. The only thing that is eroded in a persistent sinful person is the will’s power, which is that natural habitual desire to not do what is wrong but good. But it too is overriddingly controlled by the will.
            By the way Paul was not “intolerant” of Christians, just as God was not “intolerant” of adulterers, spiritualists, false prophets, murderers, etcs in OT Israel when He commanded that they should be immediately put to death. Paul just honestly believed that these Christians were advocating a blasphemous false religion, not to mention a false god. So according to God’s law, such people had to be removed from God’s Israel. He just did not know the actual truth here, so his actions were actually not “intolerant” but simply mistaken. Just like a police officer arresting a person wrongly suspected of having committed a crime instead of the real person is not acting “intolerantly” (particularly if no discrimination is involved), but merely mistakenly. (1 Tim 1:12-14) Not surprisingly, claiming such Biblical actions as “intolerance” is the chief defensive charge of Liberals, and Jennings is right there with them in making Truth subservient to tolerating evil.
            Tellingly enough, Jennings here is also building a teaching on isolated and misunderstood/misconstrued passages. Just read the rest of Paul’s letters and you’ll see just how “tolerant” he was not on sinners now in the Christian Church (e.g., 1 Cor 5:5; Gal 2:11). Paul was actually not very popular amongst NT Christians because he was still a strict disciplanarian. And that is probably why God chose him, because He knew he could use that resoluteness in disciplining the paganistic Gentiles which would be coming by droves into God’s Israel, indeed for the same reasons why God had chosen Abraham to found that Israel (Gen 18:19; 26:5). So contrary to what Jennings needs to believe for his “naturalistic” view, Paul was passionately still firing the same circuits, just now in full harmony with God’s NT Truth vs. what was to be done in regards to sin and sinners in the OT. God indeed needed someone with such an accomplished “mind-steeling” in regards to defending God’s truth and in Saul the honest and zealous defender of God’s Truth, (as he knew it to be so back then), he had needfully, given all that Paul would have to also endure for this zeal and passion, (e.g., Acts 9:15-16), found such a “vessel/instrument”. And it was that honest passion that led into him being willing to even lay down his own life for the sake of the triumph and wide-spreading Truth.

-There Is No Legal Transaction in Sin & Forgiveness - MB 114.1 - Contrary to Jennings, EGW implies also here that “God's forgiveness is [also] a judicial act by which He sets us free from condemnation” yet it also involves, in addition to “forgiveness for sin”, also a “reclaiming from sin.” Jennings only want to focus on the “reclaiming/healing” part and wants/needs to gloss over and ignore all of the preceding legal aspects involved. But that is not the comprehensive teaching of the Bible and SOP. It is only for Jennings natural view that the non-natural and moral aspects of the Law and Sin need to not be factored into the equation. And that is how you get a false teaching, when you allow your view to effectively become the Law over God’s word.
            And the only thing that Jennings can actually remotely relate to his view, versus the way he obliviously thinks that everything said their supports his view, is the quoted request of David for ‘a right spirit to be renewed in him’ (Psa 51:10), but unlike what Jennings’ view dictates him to think, that is not speaking of a brain rewiring, but for a prominent righteous character to be rebuilt in him, and, as stated above, that is done, not by brain rewiring, but by character upbuilding through heeding the righteous choices inspired by God’s own Spirit. What Jennings adversarially claims is “real forgiveness” actually is “full forgiveness”, and that does not exclude the penalty releasing part. Forgiveness without restoration would be like annuling the prison sentence of a criminal but never actually letting out of prison so that he can resume a life in normal society.
            In fact one can actually see the entire purpose of the OT as being to instill this first part in God’s act to completely remedy sin. It was God’s acting to show the death penalty involved and paying that penalty in the sacrifices of Lambs until Christ anti-typical sacrifice made this continuation no longer necessary. And then with that penalty having been paid, God can now focus on effectuating and instill the healing of sin in the New Covenant. But the New Covenant’s contribution does not mean, as Jennings teachings involve, that what was being taught through the Old Covenant was either never the case or never necessary.

-Asking for Forgiveness is not Necessary - If the Bible amply and chiefly teaches that we must ask for forgiveness, indeed ‘if we ask’ (1 John 1:9), then I’ll go by that view rather than Jennings false teaching that God always forgives, even when people do not ask. The full Biblical teaching here is that God only forgives people without them asking when they do not know/understand that they are sinning, Thus when they are not sinning against clear light. That is how the people at the Cross (as also the Ninevites) could be pro-actively forgiven by God, because (which Jennings cuts short in mid-quote less it exposes his false take here): “they did not know what they were doing”, however there was still a penalty to be paid (i.e., the already decreed destruction of Jerusalem) if they later chose to then sin against the clear light in the Apostolic Church’s evangelism. And any proactive forgiveness is actually merely a postponement of a still liable penalty which will be fully exacted in Hell.
            And by remaining invisible to fallen man, He has thus been able to basically/generally be merciful to sinful man for they do not know that they are morally sinning against Him. But that all does not one-sidedly mean, as Jennings claim, that God always/only pro-actively forgives, even when people don’t ask for it or repent.
            Frankly Jennings is increasingly, if not always, but according to my observations of him, knowingly and more boldly, ignoring, curtailing and rewording Scripture to spew his false teachings, and to the Bible student, he increasingly does look impishly like a frenzied false teacher (to say the least) as he is desperately working to hypnotize his followers into thinking like him irrespective of what the Bible opposingly or more full teaches.
            And Jesus also did not teach that forgiveness never had an imposed limit. (Matt 18:15-17)

-The Unrepentant are Forgiven in the Heart of God - That may ‘sound great’ to Jennings and COGP’s, but that is still not what the Bible teaches. God actually does not Himself “always” forgive unrepentant people. (e.g., 2 Kgs 24:4; Ezek 8:18; Matt 6:15; Isa 2:1, 9; (cf. Neh 4:5; Jer 18:23).

-Payment for a penalty for sin in never needed, and is pagan - God actually only “proactively” forgives people who also do not know, or (in OT times) tangibly cannot ask for forgiveness through God’s instituted sacrificial system. To those who knew to do the anti-typical ceremonies, which demonstrated their faith, in their much greater light, in God, it would be sinful to disregard these laws. God still needs all who can and know to, to ultimately explicitly ask for forgiveness for their sin, which can be by demonstrating genuine repentance (or else Satan will charge God of forgiving people who actually do not want to).
            By the way, contrary to what Jennings typically ambiguously/foggingly insinuates, both the concepts of ‘Jesus paying a penalty for sin’ and the sacrificial system to obtain forgiveness are neither unbiblical teachings, nor pagan. (1) God Himself instituted the sacrificial system in the process of the forgiveness of sin right outside of Eden, upon Adam and Eve’s first sin (and the sacrificial system has always been required for those who clearly knew that they had acted against God and His Will), so it is not pagan in its origin. In fact it was most likely former righteous people turned pagans who went on to also incorporated this ceremony of God into their false worship system. (2) The Theological understanding ‘Christ paying a ransom [-which is from the Greek word for “loose/untie/release” (#3089)], and the penalty, for sin’ is found throughout the Bible and SOP. E.g., Matt 20:28; Mar 10:45; Rom 3:25-26ff; (See the related “Christ Died for God” sermon of John MacArthur of the Grace to You ministry: Part 1 & Part 2); and SOP search: "paid the penalty" christ jesusST, November 18, 1903 par. 1; UL 246.6; TMK 368.4;  SD 344.2; ST, July 18, 1878 par. 7; and many more.
            So despite COGP’s being afraid to admit this doctrine, and try by any means to discredit it, there is an imposed legal penalty to be paid for sin, and like in a ransoming scenario, God has chosen to resolve the issue of sin through this informal means rather than actually go through formal law enforcement and justice where the group of captive sinners then would have no chance of being rescued as they had voluntarily, even contractually so, chosen to go with their captor.

-Jesus Interceding for Us to Father is Pagan - Sorry Jennings but the teaching that Jesus is the “Advocate” of the sinner before the Father (1 John 2:1; 1 Tim 2:5) and is making intercession for them (Heb 7:25), as also stated throughout the SOP,  is most Biblical and cannot be explained away by a subjective and non-exegetical claimed interpretation of the “who and” (Greek hos kai) construct in Rom 8:34. The “Hos kai” sequence does not necessarily mean (“who in addition to (someone else)” but straightly “and who” -e.g., Mar 3:19; Luke 7:49; John 21:20; Acts 24:6;1 Thess 5:24).
            Also God would not be have any problem to deal with from sin if man was not practising it. So God is not interceding for something that is in itself intangible and certainly non-volitional, but with the actual source of the problem: sinners.
            That is all the Classic way how false teaching are birthed and spread, when people claim, moreover, “exegetical nuggets” from the Bible yet they have neither any basic exegetical sense, nor make the effort to concretely validate their claim, but like sect gurus just want you to ‘take their word for it’.

-Jennings’ Influencing “Baggage” - Jennings finally reveals why he is so passionate about the COG thing. He was, or felt, psychologically “abuse” by wrath of God teaching growing up. Well that certainly is not a validation for rewording or ignoring the Bible or SOP. That instead, and as a medical counsellor, Jennings should know, is a psychological condition that need to be treated, not by further fanciful, disculpating, medicating lies but by the actual Full Counsel of God.

-On Rev 12:11b - People do not accept martyrdom ‘because their brain has become rewired’ (prime case in point Jesus Himself just hours before His death: Matt 26:36-44), but because they have made a cognitive choice and, in faith, acceptance of this manifest will of God.

-The Penal Substitution Model is Selfish - Another Straw Man claim. The Penal Substitution Model is perfectly according to God’s necessary and realistic way of dealing with sin. Contrary to the “naturalistic” contrivance that Jennings now needs to claim for righteousness, it is not something that people do because their brain/“neuro-circuitry” has become rewired. It always involves a knowing, optionable and thus truly loving choice. By Jennings “natural” equation, people will then be excusingly right to claim that ‘they could not have been righteous’ because their brain was not medically able to do so. I.e., they wanted to do right, but, try as they may, they just could not. Seems that sinners are already using that “natural” excuse for sinning. Right living is always and only a ‘non-“natural”’ choice. Like in the Homosexual issue, having a medical/clinical/natural vs. volitional justification for sinning is just what sinners are looking for.

-Martyrdom is so that “the Universe can be a better place without the martyrs” - This death, on this lone sinful Planet, may contribute to people later being inspired by that faithful-to-death stance, but it is not ‘because that martyr will no longer be there’. And on the “loss to God” side, e.g., Paul died long before God’s work for him on this Earth was completed, and that probably led to the failure of the Apostolic Church to usher in the Second Coming. So here God, in judgement, decided that it was better for Paul not to undergo anymore hardship, and also allow him to die in a way that may serve to bring all those in even the Christian Church who opposed and despised him, to repentance. So the premature, martyr’s death of a faithful person of God is many times at the loss of those who would have benefitted by their reforms. Similarly is Israel had repented under John the Baptist, then they would have more likely been Spiritually ready to accept Jesus Christ (Mal 4:5-6 = Matt 17:11-13)

-“All Nations Being Accountable to God” - Succinctly said, this understanding is, collectively, fully Biblical (e.g., Psa 82:7-8; 94:1-2ff; Gen 18:25; 1 Pet 4:3-5; Acts 17:30-31; Matt 25:31ff; cf. Rom 14:12; 2 Cor 5:10), and trying to fluffily  replace it by love as Jennings does is vacuous. I.e., e.g., when God destroyed nations it was not out of “love for them” but because they were inherently accountable to him for the way they had been sinfully living.

-‘Heroine Addicts Won’t Go to Doctor (=“God”) if He is a Judge’ - Fact is they, and other criminals, don’t perhaps unless/until they are about to die. The answer is not presenting God as not being a judge of sin, but rather also as a forgiver of sins through the way in which He has now (i.e., in NT times) instituted = Jesus Christ. And God cannot actually “restore” a person from the harmful effects of their sin if they would be refusing to allow him to forgive them. It’s like that heroine patient going to that doctor but refusing his treatment and instead only wanting money from them so that they can go buy more heroine.
            Justice and Mercy do not need to be divorced as COGP’s moronically do. That is not God’s Truthful message nor revelation and only leads to a dooming abuse of God’s merciful provisions.

-Natural Law is More Powerful than Imposed (=Moral) Law - The fact is that all of God’s Moral Law is imposed. Furthermore, as seen in the Mac vs. PC analogy given above in Deconstructing # 25; it can be seen that God’s Natural Law, i.e., the Law in which He has constructed nature to unselfishly work on, is inherently imposed as it is all derived from that optional chosen way of God for the “unselfish” running His Universe. It is all like the Constitution of a Country which is Supreme to all of its other enacted laws. It foundationally determines how a country will be from the many ways that it could be.
            Again, if all angels found Satan claim valid for thousands of years, then it surely was not an empty claim, but all of these highly intelligent angels who concretely knew God and Jesus knew it was entirely possible, -again just like Christians, even SDA’s today have no problem living by Capitalistic ways, which is incontrovertibly based on principles of greed and selfishness, not seeing it for the Evil that it is. The exact same “living” concepts are being debated in the wider GC.

-Forgiveness alone does not Work - The Bible never said it did. God even demonstrated this through the day of Atonement Cleansing Session to cap off the daily sin offerings. The main problem with Jennings and COGP’s is that they indeed want to ignore forgiveness and sin penalty payment to instead only claim restoration. The True teaching here is not either/or. The “Law in the Heart and Mind” had actually been God’s intention since the Old Covenant (cf. Psa 40:8), but Israel never learned and graduate from that pedagogical lesson (Gal 3:24-25). God was only able to do this, through a Faith in, and Emulation of, the Perfect Christ in the New Covenant. (Heb 10:16)

-Adam’s and Eve’s “afraid” Feeling/Reaction Towards God Upon Sinning - The Fact probably is that, through full given thought-privacy, God was not aware that Adam and Eve had sinned before He (Jesus) came to visit them thereafter. So of course He did not come in an upset way to them. And there actually was a reason for Adam and Eve to be afraid of God and hide from Him because He had already told them that the very day they would eat of the forbidden fruit they would die (Gen 2:17);  and if they had not actually dropped dead, then surely it would be God who would inflict this death sentence upon finding out, and moreover the manifest tangible loss of their robe of light covering exposing their nakedness (as Adam probably, subconsciously, tried to diversionarily/pleadingly claim instead), was undeniable evidence of their sin, so why not most logically try to hide from Him a long as possible, as moreover, evidently His then usual gentle calling voice clearly showed that He did not yet know what they had done and also indicated that they could probably successfully hide from God.
            (And also, upon finding out what they had done He did all of the things which Jennings generally derides. Namely He reprimanded them; punished them with, moreover imposed consequences, required an animal Sacrifice, and also expelled them from their home, and condemned them to (instead/mercifully(?), -justly due to Satan use of deception, a protracted) death).

-Wendell: ‘God soon sent a storm upon the fleeing Jonah to mercifully spare him a longer trip in the fish’ - It is most natural for COGP’s to come up with such fanciful, vacuous claims in regards to all of God’s judgement and punishment actions. I’ll instead go along the lines of what actually Inspired/Biblical people have said on the reason here, namely in PK 267.1:

“If, when the call first came to him, Jonah had stopped to consider calmly, he might have known how foolish would be any effort on his part to escape the responsibility placed upon him. But not for long was he permitted to go on undisturbed in his mad flight. "The Lord sent out a great wind into the sea, and there was a mighty tempest in the sea, so that the ship was like to be broken..... ”

I suppose COGP’s here also entirely ignore the SOP stating how, as discussed here, God actually did not use the fish merely for “transportation”, but to “break” Jonah’s disobedient defiance to carrying out his mission (=Jon 2:3-7||PK 268.6-269.1)...as in: “you can die right here or just believe that I also have the power to be with you in your mission to Nineveh!!”
            And like someone else in that class remarked in reply, (although it evidently was, as later seen in his elaboration, because he falsely believes that Jonah’s “fish story” [which neither the Bible or SOP said he ever related in his announcement], would then give the (as seen above: falsely-claimed) fish-worshipping-Ninevites “instant credibility in the message), that the distance of Jonah journey in the fist ‘depended on how fast the fish swam’, for Jonah did spend “3 day and 3 night” in the fist, thus, assume that the fish can swim faster than, e.g., Michael Phelps’ longest distance (=400m) world record time of 4:03.84, thus 1.64 m/s or 3.67 mph, then if that fish was merely “for transportation” as inherent in Wendell’s comment, then it would have covered a distance of 264 over those 72 hours, thus effectively, and almost exactly, sinking the snarky claim of Wendell that ‘it was all because God wanted Jonah to only travel 10 miles in the fish and not 300.’
            As usual, a fundamentally arbitrary, subjective, fanciful and vacuous view, is is the COG
view, combined with “off the cuff” commenting on it indeed will on lead to such “arbitrary, subjective, fanciful and vacuous”, pointless and untrue claims.
            It seems to me that God only, and indeed most early, acted then because when the ship started sailing with Jonah remain on it, He (1) had the confirmation that Jonah was serious about fleeing away, and (2) He now had naturalistic implements in the open sea to use to force Jonah to turn back. Yet, as Jonah complained, once Jonah was in God’s custody, in the fish, He sure took both His time and His measures, to bring him back to the, indeed, albeit only priorly, (i.e., prior to the fish detourly heading for the deeps), nearby shore. In fact, the length of Jonah’s stay in the fish apparently took just as long as it actually took for Jonah to eventually, penitently capitulate to God’s will. (Jon 2:1ff, 10)

-People should obey God because of Natural Law - It is ironic how Jennings incensedly faults people for saying that ‘if there is no Higher Authority/Power then why shouldn’t people do what is wrong’ when he instead presents that people should do what is right because of Natural Law. So his view actually completely removes God out of the equation and sets up Natural Law as the deity to be “necessarily” obeyed. So either way in Jennings claim, Satan gets his wish for people will either be rejecting God Himself as the Highest Authority since it is Natural Law itself that is Supreme, and thus will be only living lives according to what “naturally” occurs which actually, when one comprehensively thinks it through, does not actually involves/go into the realm of Morality, as seen in the “safe” and “consensual” sinning in today’s world. And what will happen when, as also various seen in the world today, a strong and powerful majority decide to (self-justifyingly) get rid of the dependent and resource-consuming weak/minority. Unlike what many assume, even will not be the free-for-all that people think. God’s Law of Life will be in full effect there (cf. DA 20.1-21.3), and manifestly all because God wants to abundantly create as, even infinitely, much as possible for all, but He cannot do this if one group is consuming more than they need. Nor is the option/solution to just not let others be created. All this to say that Natural Law is not the Chief Law that Jennings believes and claims. In fact, as stated before, it is itself a rigged and imposed better way of doing things by God, yet is subservient to Morality, for in many ways, if e.g., people choose to have their day of rest on Sunday instead of Saturday, what then will be the “natural” consequence of that act, (-with God moreover evidently having, and  commemoratively so, only first created the Sabbath solely upon the completion of the organizing of this Planet), apart from it not being what God had, observance time wise, specified!?? Really the comprehensive Sabbath Commandment is, since around the Cross, especially since the rise of Sunday Sacredness, the final issue being demonstrably resolved in this GC.
            It is interesting that Jennings uses the word “template” to refer to a Natural Law Construct, because that implies a pre-defined patter/order for something. God’s argument has always been that His way or ordering this Universe was best, and not actually the only possible way, which is something that would then be “scientifically” determinable versus the grand complexity which Free Will comes to undeterminatively involve.
            Also Jennings is not taking into rational consideration that the GC started in Heaven with perfect angels. It is was solely a matter of natural law, then they surely would have been able to “scientifically” figure it out. Seems clear to me that the matter was about a not utilized, plausible alternative, all based on the Free Will of God’s created beings, with the angels evidently also knowing that death was not a natural consequence of not going by God’s Law and “template” but indeed an imposed deemed worthy punishment by God. If this GC has all been merely upon a scientifically provable “Natural Law” equation then Ohhhh what a vexatious waste and carnage by God to prove himself right!! He should have just produced the proofing “science” instead. So it was/is indeed True in part that the way that God has chosen in not the only one, yet it is the best of ways, in terms of being the most Loving, and so people should not be choosing it for the base reason that ‘otherwise they’ll “naturally” cause their death, but rather because like God they too want to, and willingly choose to, live Lovingly. And since a person can’t actually fake this type of living ‘just to save their skin’ or they actually just be continually miserable, on top of actually being detrimental to others when they surely choose to selfishly do something outside of this way of living, then those “transgressor of God’s Law” must, as the allotted 7000-year “perfectly representative GC is showing, be, always justly, be put to death.

-Health Law are Ceremonial Laws - No they are not. Ceremonial Laws, ‘Laws contained in sanctifyingly setting apart ordinances’ (Eph 2:15), which were merely pedagogical (Gal 3:24-25) shadows of the anti-types (Col 2:16-17), were indeed done away with at/by the Cross, optionally having, at best, a Spiritual contribution in the New Covenant.

-Going to God the Father Through Christ is Wrong - That is actually what the Bible teaches even in the New Covenant (John 14:6), just as it was only through the Christ representing priest that a sinner could have quasi-face to face access to God the Father. Especially in this life, as all have already sinned, fallen man will never be able to develop a self-righteousness that will make Jesus’s Righteousness facilitation optional. This is so Biblically fundamental and Theologically evident that it needs no further elaboration.
            Really???? What can’t Jennings not understand here and not see how Hellish his teaching of setting aside Jesus and what He most necessarily has done and is providing is!!??!

-Fearing Secret Thoughts is a Imposed Law Construct Issue - Jennings more and more non-sequiturly conflates just about any disparaging thing with a Straw Man claim that it is because of an “Imposed Law” Construct, but of course construes the supposed converse of these things to be what is involved in a “Natural Law” Construct. Fact is his claims are neither here nor there, but merely subjective psycho-fabrications from manifestly the ‘bad, discomforting, nightmarish, experiences he had growing up’. Frankly it sounds like what non-Christians do, citing the hypocritical acts and lives of nominal Christians, to, “disculpatingly”, blanketly disparage all Christians. Funny, it seems I was exposed to those same, actually quite Biblical, teachings and object lessons, and, since I wanted to be good, they only led me to seek to  “choose” what was right and good. So the view on such sin-dealing issues is really in the eye and heart of the beholder. Interesting that Jennings sought to find a “natural” view/answer in order to, manifestly remove, across the board, any notion of accountability. It’s all supposed to only “naturally” happen.
            Things, such as the way God will deal with one’s secret thoughts, are indeed not either “Natural” or/vs. “Imposed” Law views. The Bible|SOP is clear that God will present into judgement whatever has been committed, thought and is found in man, whether good or bad. (2 Cor 5:10; Rom 14:12), and also secrets (Rom 2:6; PH096 29.1|Pro 28:13). Jennings and his view want/need to circumvent any notion of accountability to effectively plead non-responsibility, even non-guilt, due to some clinical sin “insanity”. So in his view, with his trite, only healing doctor analogy, the law breaker just needs to come and get healed whenever they get in trouble, with all notions of preventive responsibility downplayed in some convoluted way as “imposed heresy”. Moreover the provisions from that Health Care system is somehow all “naturally” “free” as there was/is not cost at all to establish and operate it (i.e., Christ did not pay any penalty for the violation of God’s Law since it is all Natural). Again, the problem of Jennings here, as typical with COGP’s is that they only want to consider one side of the issue, here the healing/restoration part, and not the prior penalty/cost. That does not amount to sound doctrine, indeed as with any halfly thought doctrine, such as ‘the righteous dead go to heaven’...’without first being in the grave until the first resurrection’, it opens up an avenue through which Satan can, and will, deceive people. Pointedly here, in regards to completely perverting God’s Plan of Salvation resulting in a Santa Claus, cheap grace God who will just heal everyone.
            Jennings may want to claim that emphasizing the non-naturality of God’s Moral Law is according to Satan’s view, but again, that is because it was/is the actual case, however his natural law view, has no need of God nor His Wisdom. And all He actually needs to do is freely dispense of the Fruit of Life. That is what Satan thought when he and other angels considered the imposed nature of God’s Unselfish Moral Laws. Satan thought he was wiser (which, discretionarily, is actually not the same things as “smarter”) than God, and thus God, nor His Law, were not necessary. But the added GC fact and issue is that God actually declares that His Wisdom is also ever necessary in ruling this universe, therefore even Holy Beings, living according to His Moral and Natural Laws, still need to acknowledge Him as their God.
            All this involves that there is nothing Natural in the GC. And with even a vile sinner being capable of living eternally if God continued to give them access to the Fruit of Life, even Natural Laws, are not Natural, but an imposed system, as they could be Supernaturally overruled and circumvented. Jennings thinking that he has, in his short lifetime, figured out, with his all-pervasive “Natural Law Construct view, what not even holy angels could understand for millennias, even after the Cross, is like a 8 year old, who has failed his Third Grade math class, thinking he has figured out University Level math classes. Start by actually getting the very basics straight by being responsible enough to heed and incorporate all that is being said in the Bible and SOP instead of subjectively selecting only was seems to be favorable.

-The Final Conflict will revolve around grasping Natural Law - Actually it will revolve around choosing to be loving or not, which is all emblematically represented in God’s Sabbath, which, non-naturally, goes out of the natural order of things to provide both personal rest (Exod 20:8-11) and relief for other in dependent need (Isa 58). Wanting to do this, particularly for others in need is the real test of (loving) character involved here (cf. COL 69.1), because it will then only cost a sacrifice from the benefactors with any actual equal reward. That is why people, even (SDA) Christians basely choose to let such others in various vital or even spiritual need just suffer and die off. The same options will be present in the Fully Restored Universe and people will have to freely, lovingly choose to self-limit themselves in order to go by God’s loving plan to provide for additional others. So Selfishness and Love will always be choices that God’s Beings will be confronted with in everything. God is not requiring things in this life, which are to shape one’s character for Eternity, that will not be an actual/tangible necessity in Heaven and the New Earth. It’s all continuously/linearly/transferably related.
            By the way, why, in Jennings’ view, would someone who has sin in their life not be terrified that God may come that night??? How is Natural Law supposed to affect anything here??? That person is choosing to not obey God, so why shouldn’t they be afraid of God’s judgement!??? Can’t make any logical, rationale, sequitur, let alone Theo-logical sense of the claimed “better-for-all” points in Jennings’ view...that is apart from what I commonly hear from, pun-intended, “half-baked” Christians and their cheap grace views.

-Validity of Lot Casting - On top of the case of Achan (Jos 6:16-19ff, where the case apparently was God guiding the “investigations” (PP 495.1) of Joshua), another most pertinent Bible example which was not cited by any of Jennings class members, was when, after praying for God, ‘who knew the hearts’, to choose a disciple to replace Judas, the 11 Apostles cast lots. (Acts 1:23-26). My understanding is that in the absence of a prior/written word from God on a specific matter (=6BC 1054.9; 2SM 328.5-6), then the consulting of Him, as it was done through the Urim and Thummin (which these apostles may not have been able to do at that time, perhaps also of they believed that God would not speak to/through, moreover on New Covenant/NT Church matters, the present priesthood, was an acceptable replacing alternative. Apparently the two candidates for the 12th Apostle were, externally, so well qualified that the other 11 left the choice to God who would also know the hearts here.
            In a comparable way, when God would reveal to pioneer SDA’s through EGW what was the correct/Biblical view from prior presentations on a matter in which there was a genuine impasse, it somewhat was a (human) for of casting lots.

-Miracles are solely for the weak in faith - It is great that, e.g., Jesus was able to restore to perfect health thousands of people in the process, or God was able to many time protect and deliver his people from an overwhelming force. The fact is that requesting miracles as a sign is what is the problem here, but God will actually still do supernatural acts when the situation needs it, and He has not problem with people looking to these acts to build there faith upon, particularly in regards to Him being able to do this again in any such future situations. So necessary miraculous interventions are perfectly acceptable, and God allows this to establish or build up someone’s faith, and in genuine instances when even He does not see that it should be necessary. (E.g., Exod 4:1-9; Judg 6:36-40).

-Angels of God do not Appear because their message could be counterfeited - Since that did not prevent them from appearing throughout the Bible or to EGW then that is not the Biblical reason. The truth is that all revelation, even “from an angel from Heaven”, needs to be tested by the already establish Law and Testimonies. That is the only way how Jesus saw through the angel of light disguise approach of Satan in the Wilderness. Ironically enough, since Jennings is patently so bad at properly applying the whole Bible, he would indeed be readily fooled by a deceiving angel. And, in fact, God would not appear to “answer” or correct people who indifferently, shoddily handle His already revealed word. Additional Light is only given to those who have already, honestly genuinely searched out and followed prior light.
            It is not at all surprising that such “Natural Law” mindsets leads one to reject the Super-natural action and interactions by God. I guess that is how the SOP can be outrightly ignored by COGP’s when it does not fit their human natural view.

-Jesus left so that the Apostles would think for themselves - That is wrong since, the Holy Spirit would still be guiding people to all truth in various matters. (John 16:8, 13-15). Christians are actually still encouraged to continually seek God’s enlightment and guidance in all things and thus always be ‘walking in the Spirit’. The only reason Jesus gave for leaving involved that he would not be Omnipresent and apparently the Holy Spirit could not fully come if He remained (John 16:7),... lest Satan cry “technical foul” for that double-team. So it is rather that it would have been “overwhelmingly” not fair for both Christ to be ever present, on top of the Holy Spirit also guiding people, and perhaps that would actually warrant Satan more physically appearing to deceive people.
            In fact, since manifestly both Christ and the Holy Spirit could not be both fully operating on earth at the same time, then it was indeed more profitable/advantageous/expedient for the Holy Spirit to be on Earth instead of Him so that, in matters when God guidance was needed, His followers would not have to, e.g., do a pilgrimage to wherever he was, or send a letter which would take months, instead of being able to access the alternative instant global communications provided by the Holy Spirit.

-The Forgiveness of the Ninevites Showed that the Sacrificial System was not Necessary for Forgiveness - That is another glib and obtuse, Straw Man way of Jennings to misconstrue things. Israel itself was actually, on a wider national level, God’s priest for this entire planet. So just like an sinning Israelite was ministered to by the priesthood, Israel as a whole was to minister to the rest of world. But its object lesson ceremonies were to serve to sanctifyingly set them apart as a people, thus then making them fit to minister to the rest of the world. They would ultimately do that through in the Advent of the Messiah, which would have actually coincided to whenever they had finally made themselves fully ready, (again the 490 years in the 70 Weeks, were only a last chance, final probational countdown, where God would not wait any longer after that to send the Messiah, ready or not for them, hence the requirement of Dan 9:24). So the Messiah could have come anytime the Israelites were ready. So the Ninevites were forgiven in the anticipated way that all Gentiles would be forgiven in the New Covenant, by faith apart from the works of the Law. (e.g., Gal 2:16). So that is the Theological reason why they were not required to do things according to the ceremonial laws of Israel and not because it was not necessary. It just did not apply to them as they did not have the mandate of being God’s priest to heathens. Like Masters level courses for someone who wants to be a teacher in a domain, the law was necessary to Israel if they were going to be ready to best accomplish their mission to the rest of the world.
And even if it was for “acting out a script”, it would be because that script, like repeated
training and drills by a Special forces team was so that the actual mission would be perfectly executed, even if unforeseen situations would develop when then these “soldiers” would have to aptly apply the principles of their practiced skills. Not surprisingly, even beyond the 12 Apostles chosen by Christ, it was the expert in the law, Paul who was commissioned with that task of spreading the Kingdom of God to the Gentiles.

-Wars are often caused to fix people with wrong rituals - Another fancifully ‘neither here nor there’ claim by Jennings. E.g.: God Himself ordered Israel to confront pagan through war because their practices, including religious ones, (which at times Israel itself imitated) were “all wrong”.

-“Job” was not a liar and a cheat (perhaps he meant Jacob)
-Moses killing of the Egyptian was not brought up before him by other Israelites at his return from his 40 year flight, only before, and was the reason why he left.

A Systematic Deconfusing

Responses to Jennings’ “new” claims for SS Lesson #7. For the honest and serious Bible student, there is no use in the light of the preceding response sections above re-addressing the various spurious and vacuous claims that Jennings continues to indifferently purport about the Character of God. It is most indicative to me that if one does not go by the eisegetical and non-hermeneutic method of Jennings in regards to both the Bible and the SOP, you won’t begin to get derouted like he has, and prefers to continue to be. It is most evident from his continual back pedalings partial backtracking that he came to his view from just reading those few passages which, when considered in complete isolation as he patently does, seem to “wholly” support his claims. But then as other clear/known contradicting Bible or SOP statements are explicitly/publicly brought against his view, he is forced to take them into consideration and thus his prior claims are self-debunked. And it is manifest that he actually was aware of several of those countering statements but, when he had no clever “smoke and mirrors” way of explaining them away, had just chosen to ignore them and continue to build his false teachings. Well that is just the classic approach of false teachers, who most significantly are deliberately/knowingly misleading people. Such will have their special/just reward with other “false teachers” (e.g., Ezek 34; GC 637.2; 640.1; 655.4)!
[The approximate time where the here below responded to claims of Jennings are made is given as [??:??].

-[9:10] Sins like dishonesty, injustice and mistrust are worthy of the death of the committer only because they typically lead to the unjust death of someone else and usually not the perpetrator. The character that is built on such traits which is tangibly threatening to the security of others in God’s Universe and so such a sinner must be put to death. So here also Jennings “Natural Law Construct” claim fails to show that such “moral” sins are in themselves “self-fatal”. So as reflected in both the Capital Punishment requirements of Israel and God removing the Tree of Life, at the foundation, all consequences of sin are imposed as God knows that a sinner, even one with the most vile character, can live eternally if they could eat of the Tree of Life.

-[10:20] Interesting that Jennings claims that he does not have the view that ‘sin/sinners cannot exist in God’s presence’ because view is actually the foundationally patent way that COGP’s interpret DA 764.1 claiming that this is the “natural reason” why sin causes death. But I guess that COGP’s don’t have a harmonized view...really how could they sin it all depends on ‘however they interpret whichever Bible or SOP passage they will decide to take into consideration!!’
            Succinctly said, the actual/full Biblical Truth on that matter is that God’s presence indeed is a consuming fire to sin, but only when He judiciously allows it to be. Thus this development inherently all is not something that is “Natural” but “Imposed” as it actually depends on whether or not that sinner has seen the “face” of God, which, through symbolic meaning involves them having a clear understanding of God and thus have been sinning against clear light. It is then that God deems them to be worthy of the penalty of sin, death, and thus He allows His glory to execute them. So, as with most things that Jennings claims, this is also not an either/or teaching, but is both/and, i.e., sinners can be killed by God’s glory...if He chooses to allow that fate. So this all depended on the judicious judgement of God.
            In fact Hell’s fire can be understood in that way, in the sense that it will only be when the sinners in Hell’s fire will have finally understood the truth about all of their sinful ways through the preceding truth-exacting/extracting torturous process that God’s fire will become “deadly” to them and they’ll then die.

-[10:40] Gen 3:22-24 clearly shows that sin only “cuts the sinner off from the channel of blessing” because God has justly imposed that “cutting off” penalty on them. I.e., I am sure that, as Satan was banking on, Adam and Eve would be able to go back to eat from the Tree of Life after they had sinned, but God literally ‘blocked that access’ to them. The incontrovertible fact is, as implicitly understood by God’s action here, that He could have easily continued dispensing His Fruit of Life “blessing” to Adam and Eve and other sinners without having to impose His presence on them. So it is just that He judiciously, i.e., for the good and security of other sinless people in His Universe, chose not to also “sponsor” the very life of sinners.
            As also seen from an EGW’s statement in GC 544.2:

“Since it is impossible for God, consistently with His justice and mercy, to save the sinner in his sins, He deprives him of the existence which his transgressions have forfeited and of which he has proved himself unworthy.”

she evidently did not have a view that ‘sinners can only suffer natural consequences from their sins’.

-[11:23] On the contrary to Jennings’ take, if a Biblical doctrine causes one to fear, then there is something wrong with the person and not the doctrine. Clearly the truthfulness of a doctrine is not to be subjectively and fancifully determined by how someone, with all of their personal baggage, reacts to it. Perfect example, on Mount Sinai (Exod 20:18-19), the people who had priorly been murmuring and doubting God despite His already demonstrated power throughout the plagues on Egypt, while Moses himself was not, at least as overwhelmingly, afraid, for the Bible says that Moses said that he too then was “full of fear and trembling” (Heb 12:21). So the problem here was definitely not ‘with God’ nor with His chosen, veiled/cushioned just way of communicating to these unworthy people. Ironically enough Jennings’ self discredit his prior faulting by stating that the problem is in whether ‘one knows this loving God or not’. It is wicked people who do not even try to “know God” and thus can only view His just actions as something to only be afraid of.
            Similarly, the Biblical doctrine of ‘torturous Hell” is harrowing to the sinner who prefers to continue unabated in his wickedness, but not to the righteous person. Do we then, as Jennings does, reshape the teaching of Hell to, by removing the element of God’s Justice in it, make it something that the wicked person will be able to circumvent by a ‘mind over matter’ deflection. It is in the preceding White Throne judgement that all sinners will be given a perfect understanding of all of their sins. They will then see that they are proven wrong, but still will not confess their guilt. So God will then have to torturously extract that necessary guilt confession from them by literally making them feel the pain that their sins (ultimately) cause (to others), and then, when they have tangibly “admitted”, or at least, demonstrated this reality, will it objectively be most just to eternally put them to death.

-[13:30] Right from its introduction, the book of Micah speaks of ‘God’s Coming Destructive Judgements, and moreover because of the rebellion and sins in Judah and Israel. (E.g., Mic 1:4-7; 2:3; 3:12; 5:14-15; 7:13, 15) So I’ll go by those clear statements rather then by what Jennings privately and selectively “hears” and comprehends. Biblical Truth is not determined by the gauge of Jennings’ “mormonic” ‘warm heart fuzzies’.
            Jennings appeals to the historical transpiration as the “proof” that God here did not actively destroy the people as it was other armies (Jennings only cites Babylon) who did that destruction. The actual Historical and Biblical fact are that Micah spoke to both Israel and Judah (see Mic 1:5-6), starting during the reign of Jotham (750-731 BC). So it was before the fall of Israel to Assyria in ca. 723 B.C. Passages like Isa 13:17 shows that God actually does “stir up” nations against another, and Isa 10:5-6ff involved that God had also sent Assyria against rebellious Judah, though they went on to do more than He wanted them to. Similarly the Bible also reveals that God had “summoned” Babylon against rebellious Judah (e.g., Jer 1:15; 6:22; 25:8-9; Hab 1:6; cf. Jer 43:10). So just like God gave a dream to the King of Babylon in Dan 2, he could just as easily influenced Assyria and Babylon by ‘stirring him up’ against Israel and Judah through ‘terrorizing’ dreams which made them think that they were a “clear and present threat to their well-being and must be invaded. (Jer 20:4). In fact throughout the history of Israel it was well known that they were a nation who had dispossessed the inhabitants of the land where they lived and so by God just emphatically sharing with Assyria and Babylon the actual truth that (actually a righteous) Israel had inherent plans to overtake their territory (see Gen 15:18; Jos 1:4) would be reason enough for them to then think that it was necessary to do such a pre-emptive invasion. So, for the Bible believer, “history” must be viewed in its Biblical light and not just in “natural” ways as non-believers do. And the Bible consistently reveals, indeed as continued to be so stated in Micah’s prophesying, that it was God who sent both Assyria and Babylon against His People. So here too, I’ll go by what the God Himself and the Bible (prophetically) says rather than Jennings’ private interpretations.
            It is by now LOL comical to see how Jennings just indifferently contradicts himself. On one hand he “admits” that people were killed in the fall of Israel and Judah, but later he says that God only had things such as high places and idols destroyed. Similarly he says that the people were killed by “unremedied sin” (as if they suddenly all drop dead because of their “unremedied sin”) thus completely going his tenet of “looking at history to actually see what happened”, which shows that the people actually died by the warring actions of the Assyrians and Babylonians against them, to the point where God Himself was appalled by the unjust extent to which they went.

-[17:00] If, as Jennings purports, God’s permitted destruction against Israel and Judah were only to save them from sin, then I guess that all those who died in their wickedness during those wars, as for over 30 years Judah itself refused to stop their wrongs leading to more and more attacks by Babylon, will all be saved. That makes no rational sense. E.g., In the case of the 10 northern tribes of Israel, they never recovered either Spiritually or Temporally from their judgement. So if anything, their death was only profitable for those who survived in Judah yet that actually did not lead them to repent from sin and later they too were judged. Jennings is grasping at straws with his claim that ‘God does not actually punish sin’ but is merely acting to save the sinner because all those sinners who die when God effectuates judgement will more than likely, barring a “face of death conversion, which for Israel would be too late, all be eternally lost.
            Again Jennings resorts to his spurious “therapeutic Divine Intervention” analogy which was already debunked earlier. So let’s see, if a person with a infectious virus goes to a hospital but refuses to be injected with the saving antidote and requests that they be allowed to go home. If the doctor then says that all that he will do, for the safety of the general public, is keep them in quarantine in the hospital, and the patient ends up dying of that virus, then how could that ever be construed as being beneficial or “healing” for the patient. That is indeed what occurs with sinners who are so set in their ways that God sees no other option but to either immediately put them to death (e.g., Capital Punishment, Direct Judgements) or let them die of organic or natural consequences, if these are present and incontrovertible.

-[17:54] Again Jennings contradicts himself by stating that “fear” is from an evil construct, yet he then recognizes that God uses ‘fearful’ language to communicate warnings to stubborn people. Moreover it is God who tells sinners to, if nothing else is effective, “fear” Him. Same thing applies to Jennings and the indifferently “stubborn” destructive path he is on in persisting in non-exegetical and non-hermeneutical ways of interpreting the Bible.

-[19:30] (On Biblical Retribution, see below at 42:10).

-[22:50] -If not honoring parents will only lead to harmful “natural” health/physiological consequences, then how is that averted by honoring wicked parents!??? Again holding a purely “natural” view of Moral Law is not tenable. 

-[23:54] -Jer 26:18-19 is not rewording all related passages to now teach that ‘consequences can only naturally occur to people as they bring it upon themselves,’ as claimed by someone in Jennings’ class, a take which he also agrees with. It is rather involving that God does not bring unjust punishment on people so by Judah acting just as wicked as Israel, they themselves will have warranted the punishment will God will send on them.
            Frankly Jennings and his class sound and act like a bunch of pre-schoolers who are: spooked by everything and thus need only warm fuzzy communications; who unanalytically just forget things and just go by the latest thing they see in front of them, among many other common developmental characteristics for ‘spiritually immature’ people (=Isa 28:5-13)

-[24:50] -So Jennings believes that it was God who acted to kill Korah, Datham and Abiram, but “of course” because he claims that this is not punishment for sin, as if these will be redeemed in the end. And, so why all the prior spurious efforts to claim that God would not be acting in the calamities which would befall Israel and Judah according to Micah’s prophesying, which manifestly prompted that observation by a class member here. The only difference would be that God would have had a timely natural consequence for Judah and Israel then, but not so with KDA before. However as already shown above, the Bible actually says that God sent Assyria and Babylon against His rebellious People.
            Jennings also has the “keeping channel open for the Messiah” subterfuge, but then explain why God had seriously wanted to instantaneously kill all Israelites except only Moses in Exod 32 and Num 14, but then only chose to let the adults gradually die. Does that then mean that His prior wholesale destruction intentions were not really ‘necessary to preserve the line of the Messiah”!??

-[29:51] -Many inferentially claim that the initially opened gates of the New Jerusalem with the resurrected wicked before it (=GC 664.3) is for a demonstration that they do not want to be saved. Probable Biblical explanation is that these opened gates most likely have been for the redeemed to go out and observe tangible evidence if they needed to (Isa 66:24). Jennings’ view, as later softly challenged by someone in his class in regards to probation [34:18ff], is contrary to Scripture as it implies that God will be giving a Second Chance to the wicked to be saved, and this time, based upon “Evidence” rather than faith as God has been (thus wastefully) requiring for 7000 years during the GC. Fact is the wicked now know as a fact that they are eternally doomed. So why try to be saved now, moreover by just walking through the open gates. Moreover, many of them (e.g., Antedilluvians, Sodom and Gomorrah, wicked in Israel and Judah, Fist Century Jews, the people who were killed by Christ’s Second Coming; etc)  people, had non-naturally died during a direct prophesied judgement of God which they only came to understand when it was being executed. So they now know as a fact that they are eternally lost. So they can only see these opened gates as a trap. And going into the city would not demonstrate a conversion, as they later do want to go into the city, but only to overtake it for themselves, which is why the gates are then closed.

-[31:33] Jennings claims that God inflicting death in Judgement upon the wicked is merely all for a “cryogenic time out”, and so post-resurrections the wicked will be given a chance to repent, based on the clear evidence about God that they now (always wanted to see) in order to believe. . So he does believe in a post death Second Chance for the wicked (contra. Heb 9:27). But that is indeed all against the Biblical teaching that a person’s probation forever closes either upon their death or shortly before their death. (Rev 22:11)
            As there is no chance to change sides now, there then is now granted opportunity to do so by God. If He makes this claim as Jennings’ believes both the redeemed and the lost would easily point out the (disingenuous) emptiness of that “opportunity as even if they now had repented, it would not even have been the case.
            On top of his use of lying straw-man claims, Jennings is also, quasi-hypnotically, slyly and deceptively good as making vacuous “filler” claims that externally sound nice and generate intoxicating warm psychological fuzzies, but really have no Biblical basis, and even if he himself does not actually believe such things. But that all serves to paint his view as magnanimously grandiose.

-[33:30] Death actually only happens for one reason: because God barred access to the Tree of Life. Ignoring that fundamental initiating fact is like a person, similarly mindlessly, claiming that ‘apples can be produced in various ways: by baking an apple pie, by making apple sauce, by pouring apple juice, etc). No an apple only exists because it was produced by an apple tree.

-[35:20] If Jennings “understands” that all cases will have been decided before the millennium then why all this vacuous fluffy talk about the wicked not taking a chance to be saved after the millennium and thus sealing their death???! God’s full teachings make so much more consistent sense, including Him not whimsically showing that decision in some applicable form of faith prior to death are optional. Indeed why not sinfully live through your first death and then seriously want to be saved, as the antidelluvians did, in the face of evidence.

-[36:20] - In the talents parable (see COL 364.1), EGW saw it as an imposed act of God as those talents are not “naturally” withdrawn from someone, and then given to another. God has to actively do this judgement. E.g., people who use their talents for evil do not suddenly wake up with an inability to, e.g., sing well, and their Christian neighbor suddenly can. As involved in such non-natural judgements, it is by God’s active action that their consequences come to exist and fully transpire, and God typically justly does this with especially people who are somehow sinning against light.

-[38:02] As stated before, in regards to “Natural Laws” (CD 161.4) there then indeed are most natural consequences. But not so with Moral Law. Only a deemed punishment, for the good, security and well being of others, is executed then.

-[40:38] A text wrest from its context is a lie. Jennings emphatically ends his quoting of EGW in Ed 148.2 at:

“God does not annul His laws. He does not work contrary to them. The work of sin He does not undo.”

to imply that this is all according to what he has been teaching, but the preceding context had clearly qualified that this by relating that this only becomes the case when the sinner learns the lesson from his past wrongs, and not, as Jennings’ view claims, as being the only way that God blanketly intends punishment for sin to result in for all. It is only when people learn from their ways that God can then, ‘through His grace, transform, and thus that “the curse [i.e., punishment/consequence] works out blessing.” (Ed 148.2b).
            Again God’s healing does not annul his prior works of punishment and judgement when these are the only fitting and timely consequences that can be visited upon the evildoer.

-[41:31] Jennings is really “good” at his, moreover, vacuous straw-man arguments. He claims that certain “Imposed/Punishing Model” people say that it is not fair that a “little” sinner has to pay the same punishment as Adolf Hitler in Hell and so God has to punish them to make sure it is fair.’ And How???? By God punishing that little sinner so that he then suffers as much as Hitler????! What is even the rationality in that argument!! The Bible clearly says that everyone will be receiving according to how their work had been. So that is how God’s Hell judgement will be fair, and all actually meted out by the redeemed...but of course Jennings avoids discussing that SOP fact as if he was correctingly inspired contrary to the SOP. Indeed he actually is “inspired contrary to the SOP.”

-[42:10] In regards to EGW’s mention of “retribution” in passages like GC 541.2 just see, through a search, the way she actually uses it throughout her writings, indeed both before and after that 1888 statement, and you’ll see what she herself fully understands by that word. E.g.,

ST February 12, 1880 = Retribution For Sin
RH August 21, 1913 = Elijah the Tishbite Divine Retribution

            She also understood it as ‘Divine avenging actions against a wrongdoer’ (cf. RH, Aug. 16, 1906; PM 178.2). What EGW is actually saying in GC 541.2 is that even God’s execution of retributive Justice will not be without mercy and benevolence. E.g., by allowing the sinner to first fully and judiciously know why he will be punished and by not allowing someone to suffer more than they deserve.
            So Jennings is here, as usual, doing what EGW explicitly spoke against in regards to how people isolatively misrepresenting her words/views. (1SM 44.3). As seen in other instances of EGW’s writings, if she knew that people like Jennings would later misrepresent her views here, reading into her writing their own suppositions, I am sure she would have not left any opportunities for her words to be twisted to mean something else.

-[45:21] It is comical to see that in Jennings expounding on GC 541.3 he does not does not mention “Justice”. Therefore when He will find out that God’s justice involved Him imposing just consequences on sinners, he will no longer be drawn to God as he would not have had an “intelligent” understanding of it but rather a disparaging view of it, as reflected in his teachings, just how people who oppose (just) capital punishment disdainedly view those who uphold it. Love and Mercy do not annul “Justice”, in fact Justice upholds them. Jennings cannot have “just” conceptions of God’s qualities if he is ignoring God’s justice.
-[50:45] It is interesting that Jennings keeps referring back to an argument that ‘sin “naturally” results in death because it is contrary to the principles upon which life is built’ because that is indeed the fundamental crux of the issue here, but not for the “natural” reasons that he supposes since God Himself knows that a sinner can live eternally (Gen 3:22-24|PP 60.1). As already stated before in a Mac vs. PC analogy, since it is from God that Life originates, He has imposed the Love construct in which He wants to see it operate so that abundant life can be achieved, particularly in regards to all the possible others who can also abundantly live from such a model of Life. Satan on the other hand wants the, at best, limited life that a Selfishness Model can ever bring, and He wants God to sponsor those who want to live that way. God however has deemed that, while those sinner can indeed, as “pleasurably”, live in such a model, yet perfectly healthy lives, it is rather best for such sinners to actually be blotted out from existence. These are the two possible options upon which the GC revolves. And it is people who do not have a God-like character who would not be able to be trusted in a world where only God’s model of Love and Righteousness is allowed.
            And do present me a sinner who would not be happy if they could be as promiscuous as they want, drink all they want, lie, cheat, steal etc and all they have to do to avoid any physical damage that such living can bring was to pop a “Fruit-of-Life” pill. Fact is a most likely way in which such living would devolve into, as seen with the comparatively healthy, long-living and strong, antidelluvians, would be in murderous violence, yet that could all be avoided by an arrangement among the wicked, as popularly seen today, to, as it can be assured through Law Enforcement, not resort to violence but only act in consensual ways, even, in a “mixed multitude” way, respecting the choices of “righteous people” to abstain for such collective/societal sinning. That is indeed how most societies operate in this postmodern world. And that way of living would indeed be more “viable” but the overall life, though individually eternal, would still be limiting in regards to what could otherwise be abundantly achieved and so God has chosen to not allow selfishness and sin to cohabit with love and righteousness.

-[51:50] When you’ve inceptively barred the sinner any chance of living eternally, then finally executing that Death Sentence in the end is not the oxymoronic take of Jennings of a ‘freedom-granting retributive justice’. God had already said that the sinner would not live but die, so retributive justice only is following through on that death penalty.

-[52:50] As violating God’s laws of Health is also “Sin”, and also as the ingredient in the Fruit of Life were “supernatural” PP 60.1, then violating the laws of health, e.g., having a poor diet, would actually be supernaturally prevented from being detrimental by the Fruit of Life. Just can’t get away from that fundamental issue of the Tree of Life, as Jennings need to do for his “natural law” view to ever begin to have any seeming plausibility.
            It all like someone inceptively heading North instead of South and then all along their Northward travelling claiming that they are actually going South.

-[55:20] Jennings encourages people to get the rest of his notes on that lesson online. He actually had covered 7 of his 10 pages of notes. The rest of his notes are either mere ‘recycling’ applications of his wrong views or some more straw-man positing to try to uphold his views. Nothing worth taking time to first assumingly decipher from his subjective perspective, but then necessarily unspin. (E.g., He does believe that God at times kills, but that is not actually punishment for sin????) Indeed it is when he actually expounds on his views that you clearly see just what he fully has in mind in those points.

Micah Lesson+ Conclusion
As introductorily stated, by foundationally ignoring Gen 3:22-24|PP 60.1, Jennings has chosen to build on a defective foundation. Not at all surprising to see that his Tower is skewed and catastrophically leaning.

(05-19-2013) A Systematic Re-Rationalizing
            The more Jennings persists in trying to prove his COG view, as in this Eighth Lesson presentation, the more it devolves into irrationality, not surprisingly because he has effectively chucked the Bible and SOP out of the window when he cannot get them to corroborate his spurious natural/scientific understanding of God’s Character. As I said before, trying to “reason” with someone who is as Biblically/Exegetically/Hermeneutically unanchored as Jennings and other COGP’s necessarily are, results in a time wasting exercise in whack-a-mole, because, since they do not have to be Biblically sound, can produce whatever concoction for a “proof” of their claim that they can imagine, and they typically do this by malconstrued, lone verse, proof-texting.
-[01:45] (It is interesting to hear that a weekly discussion group that meets without the self-confessed ‘domineering’ Jennings being present has been formed in that class. Hopefully it is in the spirit of Acts 17:11 because, if like I have been doing here, they simply try to apply proper Bible study methods to the claims that he had made in the prior Sabbath lesson presentation, they should be able to see for themselves that it is full of Truth sucking black holes!!)
-[02:22ff] Jennings’ open salvo is that God’s endtime glory revelation will not be something visible, but merely in the mind, which evidently would dovetail perfectly with his claims that it is the mind that needs to be “rewired” for the Gospel work to be finished. Jennings thus thinks that he has another right to discredit what God had done in the OT, i.e., visibly revealing His glory such as in the Tabernacle/Sanctuary/Temple. Again Jennings is a victim of his shoddy, spiritually dim-wit and moronic methods of “dividing the word of Truth”. (He (as done later) claims he goes by a three-prong method involving Scripture, Science and Experience, but in not letting either the Bible and SOP fully speak for themselves, his claims are being controlled by merely human science.) Indeed for Jennings, as it is the tacit case for all COGP’s, i.e., even if he/they cowardly won’t explicitly say so, all that God did in the OT was meaningless, insignificant and even irrational, as if God was then an eccentric old geezer who suddenly only came to His senses when Jesus appeared on the Earth. The Biblical fact/truth here is that God’s ultimate aim is to have His glory once again be tangibly and visibly manifested in the midst of His People. Because of the growing level of unrighteousness in Israel, that glory tangibly finally left in 31 A.D. and has actually also been withdrawing itself away from NT Israel following Apostolic times. Jesus came to model the perfect righteousness which would result in that glory once again being able to be tangibly restored and it indeed is only when God’s (present) professed people will begin to truly emulate the character of Christ (cf. COL 69.1) that that glory will be able to return (=Ezek 43:1-5 = Rev 18:1ff) and be most tangibly, if not also visibly seen/felt/experienced as it glorious was in the OT. So as the SOP reveals (LDE 202.3-203.2; cf. 4MR 113.1-2), God’s people then will also be tangibly demonstrating the glory of God through the mighty miracles that they will be doing in His name. (Yet Satan will then work to matchingly offset this influence. (LDE 166.2-167.1) That is fully how God’s glory will be (re-)manifested in the end as it was in the beginning, amongst His people, and always meant to be. Having a mental understanding of the, actual true and full, Gospel message only serves as the ignition key beginning of the revelation of God’s glory then. It really is through the ensuing/resulting tangibly and visibly manifested glory that through the work and accompanying proclamation of God’s people that the knowledge of the Creator God will fill the Earth. And because Satan will immediately seek to counteract the tangible manifestations of that Glory, it is really the message of it, rather than the demonstrations in miracles with will serve as the “last message of mercy” to these people (COL 415.3), yet that glory will not only be limited to its message.
            And really the type of work that the Church, in its present clouding state of selfish fallenness would deem as a “miracle” if it was ever accomplished by the Church, is really what will naturally transpire when the Church actually emulates the Character of God/Christ.
            So the Biblical understanding here is not the “johnny come lately”, mutually exclusive, approach of Jennings where only the last statement (or really whichever lone one seems to support his view) on a topic is considered but “every word that has proceeded from the mouth of God”. The Character of God and His Glory truth will not limited to only an intellectual understanding or proclamation of this teaching. And, most pertinently enough, a People of God who are in perfect harmony with His will will have no problem with the manifestation of His Wonderful, Majestic, Bright and Powerful Glory. There is absolutely nothing wrong with God’s full fledged Glory. It is only sin that “rubs it the wrong way. So it is only sinful people who need to have God’s glory shielded and removed from them (Exod 20:18-19; 34:30ff; 2 Cor 3:7-18; Rev 22:4), which is a main reason why Jesus came with His Divine glory veiled in Humanity. And given the way that COGP’s so pompously shoddily treat the Word and Counsel of God, particularly in regards to the OT, it is not at all surprising to me that they are effectively “so afraid of the (Glory of the) OT God”. Like Satan, they claim that He has not Right to Fully be God, i.e., in dealing with sin and sinners how He knows is best, and so they have been trying to find a “natural” alternative view of God and those dealings. [And as typical of Jennings here, unless he is actually “only” interacting with people who have the skewed “Imposed Law” views that he claims, he straw manly claims that the only alternative to not understanding that the Revelation of God’s glory in the end will be ‘bolts of lightnings’. However, as shown here, the Bible and SOP actually, fully reveal that it will most prominently involve the tangible/pragmatic manifestation of God’s miraculous healing/restoring power.]
            Seriously, I really ‘pity the foolish people’ who don’t know better than to run as far away as possible from such a teacher who so indifferently atrociously handles the word of God. Indeed just by the various questionings of Jennings by some people they are clearly cognisant that he deliberately leaves many texts and issues out of his claim equations, yet they still insist to drink his Kool-Aid!! Perhaps it is because it is the “healthier”, “natural” “real fruits”, brew.... Yes “more fruity Kool-Aid” nonetheless.

-[07:10] The glory of the Second Temple would have indeed been more glorious than Solomon’s Temple has (1) the model revealed through Ezekiel (Ezek 40-48) had been believed and implemented; and (2) because of the now global redemptive work that God would have been able to do through it in the ca. 500+ years leading up to the Advent of the Messiah.

-[12:10] If Jennings thinks that a “kingdom of God”, populated by fully Free beings, will preclude Law Enforcement, then he really has been smoking the 1960's hippee movement claims. Just reading Christ’s own view for His Kingdom (Matt 18:15-17), and God’s own glory manifestation in it (e.g., Acts 5:1-11), it is evident to me that God will then also be expecting that his Laws be enforced with safeguarding penalties and punishments for the disobedient, as He Himself has always done. Even in Heaven, a potential sinner will not be allowed to carry out their prospective “devisings” (Nah 1:9)

-[13:40] At ca. 14:24, Jennings “freudianly” said, (in his mantra exercise in trying to claim two constructs) something which is indeed the foundational issue here, and that it that ‘he understands that, in what he views as “Natural Law/Construct” that God designed Laws to work in harmony with His own nature (of Love). Well, (1) if God had to “design” this, then, as with anything else that needs to be “designed” to come into being (e.g., automobiles), it is not “natural”, but indeed just a “construct” of what the designer thinks is best and (2) if the ensuing laws here are to be in harmony with God’s character of Love, then that also reveals that it is not something that is natural, but selective. God could have, and this is the opposing, valid, GC view, allowed for a different way than this one which is indeed reflective of His Loving Character, and, as amply stated before, that way would have been “viable”, in the sense that had those who had chosen it been allowed to eat of God’s Fruit of Life, then they too would have lived eternally. So from this “dilemma” was borne all of Satan plausible charges that:
-God’s, indeed “imposed” Law (of Love) is arbitrary;
-if someone even once broke that Law then God could not “fairly” forgive them
-God was being egocentric, by making everything, including the lives of other Free Will beings “revolve” around Him and His chosen way for Life;

(But all of these charges were convincingly answered by what God allowed to occur at the Cross, i.e., God dying to uphold his own imposed penalty of death of, and requirement of perfect obedience to, the His Law.)

-On page 10 of his notes for this lesson, Jennings provides a table where he contrasts his “Natural Law Construct” vs. “a Roman Emperor Imposed Law system” (which he later [22:15ff] spuriously claims is “inherited” by Christians, including (post-EGW) SDA’s, from the era of Constantine; -and that these were the “Laws” that were to be changed in Dan 7:25). [Well of course, that is because Jennings only read the Bible and SOP when and as he thinks it agrees with his view and indifferently ignores anything that does not....Good Luck with that! The truth is that. At best, Constantine’s legacy led to an extreme from, and dichotomically so, only viewing one aspect of God’s dealings, the Justice aspect (indeed reverting, also religiously, to a misconstrued Old Covenant model), and not also viewing and implementing the merciful and loving one. Jennings himself has gone to the other, equally-detrimental, extreme.]
            Most of the various contrasts that he makes, (which are actually quite straw-manly/partial-truthly, “libellously” biased in his claims for the so-called “Imposed View”), have been to some degree addressed in the answers already given above, so here only further points will be made when necessary and where applicable:

-Again, a foundational fault with Jennings’, as typical with other COGP’s, view is that it only looks at this issue from one side. So when Jennings e.g. claims that the Natural Law view is “Violations inherently damage” but the Imposed View is: “Violations- [require] external punishment”, the actual answer here is not an either/or, but a both/and. Sin does indeed inherently (i.e., psychologically) damage, which can indeed lead to physical detriment, but as the Bible actually fully states, that is all nothing that the Fruit of Life would not have been able to fully remedy. So again the issue here, as with most COGP issues, goes back to the removal of the Tree of Life by God so that sinners would not be able to live eternally. Just can’t get away from that fact...at least not without resultingly building a whole heretical theory. As stated earlier in this post, COGP’s are guilty of having divorced God’s Mercy from His Justice, something that Satan Himself needed to do in order to make His false charges against God plausible.
            Similarly many of the contrasts in that table are easily reconciled by the fact that God does both actions of dealing with sin, sinners, and the “legal” (=fair) ramification of the violation of His Law and then does He work in the restoring aspects. That dualism is indeed pointedly seen in what God did in the Old Covenant Era, (which really was only, disciplinginly required when God’s own professed people became so “worldly”, i.e, post 400 years in Egypt); and then in the New Covenant Era which is to be a return to the level of “religion” that existed before God’s people went so far astray, indeed to a renewed-Spirit level where written laws and learning/object lessons rituals were not needed to keep those people Holy.

So really, (so as to not waste my time here), when one keeps all of those above factors in mind in reading through Jennings’ table of contrast, they should be able to see where and how Jennings’ claims fall short of being full Biblical teachings.

-[14:46] Again Jenning’ claims that speed limits is arbitrary. That irrational claim was already debunked before. Interestingly enough if God knew that being in a marital relationship with more than one woman was adultery, then why did he in a subsequent Law regulate a man having two wives? (Deut 21:15-17). Answer: Because God’s Laws are for the preservation of Life, and so He had allowed for a Second wife in valid cases of infertility in the first/preceding wife. [Which is furthermore why homosexual unions will never be accepted by God as they do not produce life, and even in cases of medical feasibility such a surrogate or implanted conceptions, they then, resource-costs wise, do not allow for abundant life. Those are two sequitur aspects of Life that God’s Ordering Construct and Laws most Lovingly aim to protect.]
            Additionally here, Jennings mindlessly cites “taxes” as being arbitrary....Well just see what happen if a government tries to collect taxes from its citizen at an effective 75% rate when it actually only needs a 35% rate to (most efficiently) operate government. The tax rate is reflective of the budget of the actual government and is not a”arbitrary”. What is collected has to be transparently and necessarily expended or else returned as tax credits.

-[15:53] It is comical to see how Jennings so glibly understands justification. Succinctly said, for the person who does not back slide into outright rebellion against God, justification happens once, (whereas sanctification is the work of a lifetime), and that is when the come to accept God as their Saviour. It is then, at that specific time, that God has to legally declare them to be righteous and thus legally erase all of their past offenses against God’s Law. There is indeed nothing that the sinner could then do to undo those committed offenses, so God’s best option is to indeed legally declare them to be forgiven and righteous. That does not then mean, as Jennings insists on “libellously” claiming, that the person can then live a “rotten” life because he will then be “coated” by Christ’s righteousness, because Christ’s righteousness cannot be applied to someone who deliberately will not be sanctified by God’s Truth. (Psa 66:18) Indeed even daily sin pardoning “justification” cannot be effectuated then. (Heb 10:26) So the lifelong sinner cannot begin to be made right with God if all of their prior offenses towards God are still speaking against them. God first has to effectuate a forgiveness process, which indeed is reflective of the sinner’s regret for that past life, and this is how and when justification takes place. Paul (contextually) clearly expressed all of these above themes and implications which Jennings tries to mockingly gloss over in Rom 3:23-26 when read carefully/honestly. (Cf. Rom 5:9; 1SM 392.2)

-[24:40] It is chilling to hear Jennings claim that the change in God’s Law by the Catholic Church is actually merely a deliberate distraction to keep people from understanding that God Natural Law construct has been changed. The fact is that Jennings view, similarly borne out of shoddy and subjectively selective Biblical “study”, is just as evil as tampering with God’s Ten Commandments. So LOL, ironically enough, his attempt to claim that the changes to the Ten Commandments are not actually the main GC issue here actually is itself that “diversion/grand scheme/master deception” which he here claims. Just properly studying the Bible and SOP will confirm this.

-[25:35] The accepted answer as to “why does God allow injustice to continue?” was a (no doubt self-oblivious) terse: “freedom”...well indeed so: pointedly, the “Freedom” of those who claim to be his people selfishly refusing to allow Him to use them in correcting these injustices, thus leaving him no “GC permissible” option with which to intervene.
            It is tellingly confirming to me of the selfishly derouting insidiousness of Jennings’ view how, here, instead of delving into a answer to this question which focuses on what is the tangible Gospel responsibility of the believer in the face of injustices (e.g, Matt 25:31-46), he instead deviates into some philosophical airings of his glib and ethereal Natural Law understandings here, and all focusing on one self, instead of actually those who are victims of these here themed injustices.
            It is moreoverly disturbing how Jennings then blames all of this insubordination of God’s people, i.e., as if Jesus/God had never told His people to meet the need of people in need, on God Himself by claiming that God is here allowing time to contrast the two systems, and then will He finally intervene by pouring out His Spirit and thus empowering His people to be able to do something about these injustices. The Biblical Truth on the Latter Rain is that God would have long assisted His people in, when necessary, Supernaturally completing their various needs-meeting works had they been engaged in trying to do so. Because it is then, and only then that He has a legal right to so supernaturally aid His trusting people. The Latter Rain will actually never e given if God’s people refuse to initiate it by themselves freely deciding to fully obey God. (Acts 5:32). So any transpiring time is not by God’s direction, and actually, given the entrenched faithless selfishness of God’s people in this area, this “time of waywardness” would really only “end” when they themselves have hit the wall and concretely see that their ways have all along been in opposition to God’s way, but then it will be too late for that concrete proof will be in the damages that will come by God’s permitted judgements to punctuate that prolonged Shaking period.

-[27:20] It is comical here to see Jennings again change views as the winds blow. Whereas, as discussed before he had said that he believes that God Himself does effectuate certain punishments in the Bible, here in speaking of Babylon attacking rebellious Judah, he futilely goes to great length to try to discredit any claim that God acted in any to bring this apart. Well as already discussed earlier, it is not at all beyond God’s power to ‘stir up’ a nation against another as his implement of punishment, and the Bible reveals that he did so in regards to summoning Babylon against Judah in order to punish them. But COGP’s need to ignore those statements and claim here that ‘this was always supposed to happen.’

-[28:35] Interesting that Jennings indoctrinatingly encourages his class members to come to conclusions about Biblical things without first consulting what the Bible says, but merely from an idea based on their “Natural View” [cf. at 32:21]. Then of course they will search to Bible to support that preconceived view and only quote it where they think it supports them and ignore all others. As I stated to a COGP before who used the same methodology, it is not the Bible which is the Defining Authority in Doctrinal matters, but their View.
            God Himself “defines” His anger as, e.g., the instant (non-natural) destruction that He would have destroyed Israel in the wilderness (Ezek 20:5-8ff). The full fact of the matter is that when God has a natural way of punishing sin he permits/allows it, but when there is no such natural option, then he ‘does a new thing’ (e.g., Num 16:30-33 -an act which Jennings had priorly admitted that God had acted to do.) As Jennings view is not anchored in the word of God, it is not surprising to see it get blown about by every fanciful wind that arises.

-[29:00] A John Wayne movie is not Biblical Authority.

-[32:35] The typical COGP claim that ‘God “abandoning” people to their fate is never, even a passive, act of God’ is, all things considered as ludicrous saying that a parent letting their child starve to death because they would not eat their vegetables cannot be attributed to an act of theirs. The “gave them over” statements in Rom 1:24ff are often claimed [see at 38:35ff] as defining how God “always” exercises His wrath, but since that text implies that God had priorly been striving with people who already had reached a state of depravity, Him instead now abandoning them is like a Correctional Facility removing a prison off suicide watch without them actually being “cured” of their overwhelming suicidal desires. How can such an act not be attributable to the sane, responsible person who had “let them go”!??
            And when you properly understanding things here, you’ll see that God’s tormenting actions in Hell all to get the sinner to admit that God was right in how He dealt with them, is indeed God’s endeavor to clear His name of such charges that ‘He has been unjustifiably abandoning helpless sinners to their death fate’. Rom 1:18ff emphasis is that God has actually been providing ample evidence for the sinner just short of Him openly revealing Himself to them. So ‘God giving these sinners over’ is indeed also a judgement act of God, albeit a passive one. The uninvolved act described in 14MR 1-3, is pointedly in regards to people who sin against clear light, but the ‘giving over to that final fate’ act itself was an act of God. Whatever then transpires after is not, pointedly because God then is not longer in any way, involved. And God actually does “righteously inflict wrath” Rom 3:5
            So, as fully discussed in prior COGP discussions, God’s “no more mercy, giving over” actions are just another, subsequent way in which He deals with sinners, and not His only way which He Himself effectuates when mercy is to be involved.

-[33:41] Since God Himself can concoct and send “terrible, fatal pestilence” (=Exod 9:3, 15), then Him saying in Jer 21:5-6ff; 9-10 that He will do so in pouring out His anger is not, as Jennings insinuates, Nature acting on it own. (Cf. Lev 26:25)

-[34:10] God is clearly being ironic in Jer 34:17, playing on the word “liberty/release” (=Isa 61:1).

-[39:25] Were it not but for the various wrong example and harm that Jennings’/COGP’s view to both Biblical Truth and the actual Gospel mandate, I too would have long “wrathfully” opted to just ignore them and let them delve deeper, undisturbed in their heresies. They evidently will do so indeed, but at least other sincere and serious Bible Students won’t be deceived by their craftiness in dichotomizing and misconstruing the word of God.

-[39:40] Quite odd that Jennings tries to make Rom 1:18-32 “dovetail” into ‘God’s character no being more fully seen’, moreover claiming that this is all because of a false, imposed Law view. So I guess that problem would not then have originate with Constantine in ca. 313ff A.D. Paul himself does not see the problem here being Jennings’ spurious Natural Law claim, since he instead says that the convicting-enough evidence has already been clearly given by God since Creation. (Rom 1:20). People mainly don’t believe in God because they do not see His professed People acting like Him and not because, as Jennings needs it to be, because they do not understand his Natural Law view. Even Unfallen Angels, even beyond the Cross, did not see the GC as being one that involved an objective, ‘“Scientific”, “duuuhhh”, evidentiary solution’. It is, given Free Will, much more “inherently subjective” than that.

-[40:20] In answer to “Ken’s” great distraught over the fact that God’s revelation lead us to trust God despite what is being seen, that is indeed what the “faith” religion of God is all about. (Heb 11:1-2ff) Not surprising, and “Freudianly” telling, that COGP’s won’t trust/believe unless the can concretely see. Which is why they need the GC to be about something “natural” versus something which, again given Freedom, is subjective. I.e., why can’t God allow sinners to also live eternally as He knows it can be done? It is Satan who did not want to have faith in, and trust, the wisdom of God, and since there indeed was nothing objectively incontrovertibly concrete upon which God’s chosen Order for the Universe is built, He chose to rebel against it. The answer still is not in trying to find that non-existent concrete reason, but to accept that God’s Love way is indeed the best option for everyone.
            So do smugly feel ‘disappointed’ all you need to “Ken” et al., it is all the self-borne fruit of your shoddy Biblical approach.

-[42:00] Babylon was indeed God’s weapon to inflict punishment upon rebellious Israel. God Himself righteously inflicts punishment (e.g., Rom 3:5), so it is not ‘Him making others do His dirty work’. The fact of the matter is that there is an issue of faith that is still at play in judgements that God allow to be seemingly “natural”, where then the sinner will still have the option to confess that what they had been doing was wrong and thus God punished them or that it was all mere coincidence and God is not at all judging them. This is repeatedly transpiring in this GC. E.g., the Flood and how people then and today view it. Then there is also the issue of mercy where when God Himself executes a judgement in such “no more mercy” scenarios, rather than letting nature take its course, the chances of, even delayed, survival by the offenders are rather quite dismal to none. (E.g., Num 14:11-23, 33-35)
            So get a clue and a brain COGP’s instead on your mindless/vacuous, snarky “vexations”.

-[43:45] ....Right “the Flood is just one big timeout”. Yeah... An up to 1000, or really 5300+, year “suspension/pause” from their life so that these wicked will be able to resume their lives after the Millennium for then just a few days. What in the world of ‘beneficiary different’ will that “timeout” provide for these people who were put to death??? Just a completely vacuous/senseless view!

-[44:40] Since God does righteously execute punishment, then He was indeed approving of the suffering and punishing actions that Babylon brought upon Judah. His only objection was that they went further than what He would have allowed (if He had remained involved in that judgement execution), and so, as a consequence God was then going to punish Babylon for this overreaching. Indeed just by them knowing of the prophesying of Jeremiah that this would occur, they fully knew and understood that Israel’s God was permitting this as a punishment and thus should have known to not do beyond the strict minimum which was actually to do whatever was necessary to subdue this rebellious kingdom which was refusing to submit to their rule. Nations have a basic sense of right and wrong and justice, so what Babylon overreachingly did was self-evidently unwarranted, unlawful and “war crimes”.

-[45:20] Ironically enough, the cited “snowballing” effect of Hezekiah revealing his (then independent) kingdom’s great wealth to visiting Babylon (Isa 39) is what probably started a covetous chain-reaction in Babylonian rulers to where they probably on the return trip then began to ponder how profitable it would be for them to take possession of this Kingdom. They probably only had considered Israel up to then to only be a harmless, even poor, religious entity with nothing worthwhile to gain by conquering them, but just a headache of worthless additional subjects, but now seeing for the first time how wealthy they actually were, they later pounced on any perceived threat, probably then implanted by God in their minds, as an excuse to invade Israel. E.g., a royal adviser sitting at the King’s War Council sealingly pointing out that this expedition to, and subjugation of, Judah would more than pay itself given the actual great wealth present in Israel. (All just like how (modern-Spiritual Babylon) the U.S. justified their Invasion of Iraq all really to better benefit from Iraq’s Oil wealth.)
            Babylon later even went on to distinctly also take the costly utensils and furniture in God’s Temple itself, having by then lost any respect for the Jewish religion due to their persisted irrational opposition, indeed, like Neo-Babylon (the Roman’s) would later do in 70 A.D. plundered the Temple edifice itself of all of its costly materials (Jer 52:20-21)

-[45:50] Satan is indeed self employed...which is why He cannot do a, especially destructive, thing on this planet unless God’s allows him to (e.g., 1 Kgs 22:19-22)

-[46:08] When such a “pathogen” like Babylon already exists that can and will get the punishing job done, God then does not need to “do a new thing”. He just utilizes those permitted, self-determined, “vessels of wrath” (Rom 9:21-23), even allowing these “vessels of wrath” to, e.g., greatly develop militaristically so that they will later be capable/effective when God will summons them to punish His wayward professed people. (E.g., Historically and Contemporarily, the “Christian” West vs. Militant Islam (Rev 9:1-12).

-[47:50] Already presented what true Justification is all about, and in Abraham’s case (Gen 15:), he needed to be instantly “justified” from a past life of not being fully faithful to God, and thus then “declared” and “reckoned” him to be Righteous by God. (Gen 15:6), And God also credited Him righteousness later on because he also continued to tangibly act in accordance with that belief in God’s promise. (Cf. Jam 2:20-26)

-[51:28] Funny how Jennings cannot back up his rhetoric by explicitly saying that ‘the SDA Church is not Biblically based.’ Fact is he would not be able to back up such a claim. How ironic in the light of what he had just said in regards to the Jews self-excusingly bowing in Dan 3, when it here would come time for him to take a stand for what he is claiming is God’s pivotal end time truth, he cowardly excuses himself, as if his life or his ministry would be adversely affected by such a stand. Indeed don’t count on COGP’s to be the “Voice of Stern Rebuke” (PK 129-142). Frankly their view squarely reflects that they are only in this for what they themselves can benefit from it.

-[53:00] First studying out the Hebrew word for “reckoned”, Strongs’ #02803, shows that it involves “(alternative) perception”. I.e., looking at something but thinking something else about it (e.g., Gen 31:15; Jos 13:3; 1 Sam 1:13; Job 41:27; Neh 13:13 cf. Neh 6:2; etc.), which is indeed something that “skillful workers” can “visualizingly” do in their creative craft (Exod 26:1, 31; 28:15). The same notion of ‘not considering something for what it surfacely/actually is (or defaultly believed to be)’, is involved with the Greek term for it logizomai (#3049), (e.g., Mark 15:28; Acts 19:27; Phil 3:13; Heb 11:19; 1 Pet 5:12). It indeed is the perfect word to associate with issues of  faith (i.e., Heb 11:1-2ff).
            Furthermore logizomai (#3049) is derived from logos (#3056) which speaks of “sayings which are borne out of pondered thoughts. So these are “judicious” pronouncement upon the actual state of something which involves much more than a surface observation.
            So Abraham is only righteous because God (1) had forgiven him of his past sins and (2) in regards to future faults, God considers the faith despite all odds that he is maintaining as the reason to be able to continue to consider him as righteous. I.e., Though he may not have been perfect, but he was actually doing what he genuinely believed was right. (Cf. Rom 4:19-21).
So unless, e.g., Jennings actually believes that Jesus was really a transgressor (Mark
15:28; Luke 22:37) the “exegetical” claim that he makes that ‘the NT Greek term “reckoned” represents something as exactly what it actually/substantively is’ is at best “voodoo exegesis”, and at worst, a deliberate/knowing falsehood by him. Which, the latter, would not be wrong for him, since, after all, he only cares to shoddily be a “false teacher/shepherd (cf. Matt 7:15ff).
            And just to point out the Straw Man view of Jennings, no one can soundly claim that God justifies a person who is in deliberate, faithless disobedience to him to be righteous. However the main point in citing Gen 15:6 in the NT (Rom 4:3; Gal 3:6; Jam 2:23) was to show that justification/righteousness can be obtained/achieved apart from the works of the (ceremonial) Law (=Gal 3:11), however not apart from the respective demonstrating works of that faith. (Jam 2:20-26)

-[55:27] How is not God-ordained Capital Punishment in His Law not an “externally imposed infliction”???! A COGP will really prefer to die rather than take this element into consideration....Oh wait, if they are about to be killed for this, then they’ll way prefer to recognize it (e.g., Jennings when confronted with incontrovertible destructions actions of God which he however later just ignore), since they are in this only to benefit themselves!!
            And it is God who stipulated the “Eye for an eye”, more fully explained before, type of Judgement (cf. Gen 9:5-6). So have enough conviction of your supposed Godly view and openly declare that God did not know what He was saying then as your deflecting “overwhelming pagan influence” take on these laws imply. In many ways God explicitly told Israel that they were not to act as the surrounding pagan nations around them, indeed instead be a light to them. So why would He hear be (supposedly) helplessly imitating them (as it is also claimed by COGP’s about Israel Sacrificial system).
            You just can’t be serious or honestly ingenuous!!!!

-[56:10] Right...so when you deliberately maimed someone, or poked their eye out, that would be why you too had to suffer what you had inflicted. The actual reason why God gave that Law was, given the irreparable bodily harm that is done in such cases, to pausingly protect against such harm being done to others. God’s reason and immediately imposed consequence is so much more logical, practical and effective than Jennings’ psychological hot air which a person won’t bother considering if they are only caring about gaining an advantage now. It is the realistic fact that selfish people/sinners/criminals don’t care about hurting others if they know, which is the case, that they won’t actually suffer that pain or fate. E.g., murderers who have a life sentence don’t immediately die soon after their crime, and eventually everyone, whether righteous or murderer naturally dies that first death. The Second Death’s consequence is of no determination to their present day decisions and actions. So God instituted a righteous way to keep such evil people in check..

-[57:45] Since Jennings’ “self-acting natural consequences” view typically do not transpire in this life, then it is the last thing that would help someone have faith in God. Indeed there is much more empirical evidence against this “naturalistic view” than for it. E.g. the unrighteous do triumph with impunity in this life. The belief in God’s power to take care of those who believe in them when He deems it best is much more convicting.

-[58:40] {On the flip side, ‘You can have faith that killing millions of innocent people with the most advanced and sophisticated military weaponry, and all to further your greed and covetous desires, is in God’s will’ and actually be even more wrong than those who crudely, yet justly self-sacrificingly responded to inflicted God’s Life for Life consequence on you.’ God’s Heaven is bound to reveal many such shocking surprises because God is a Fair, Righteous and applicably Merciful Judge and will thus judge His professed people more stringently than those who did not fully know His Will.}

-[01:00:00] The problem with the “science” that Jennings proposes it that it is that brand of worldly, falsely-so called science which thinks itself to be above the word of God. (Cf. Rom 1:22) Indeed Jennings, as with other COGP’s have ignoramusly already made it clear that they strongly believe as valid that Bible itself is to be interpreted according to their naturalistic/scientific view instead of through sound exegesis and proper hermeneutics!!
            Science can never be rightly understood if it is being done in spite of what God has revealed in His Word. Same goes for “experience” (2 Thess 5:19-22).

Habakkuk Lesson+ Conclusion
            Nothing different to see here...just some further vacuously concocted, moreover irrational, COGP falsehoods.

Lesson 9 (Zephaniah) - Systematic De-Propagandizing
            Nothing noteworthy/new was presented in this COG Lesson (#9), which was taught by Eve Parker, with just the same vacuous/mindless and already Biblically disproven eisegetical claims of their ‘Dear Leader (Tim Jennings)’ being faithfully regurgitated, but there is one “newish” claim which stood out and highlights the eisegetical propaganda which buoys this false COG view. At 13:46ff it is claimed by Parker that in Acts 2:20 Peter [not “Paul” as she misstated], deliberately changes the word “dreadful/(lit. fearful)” from the OT passage (Joel 2:31) that he is quoting because to “glorious”, because by then, i.e., in the New Covenant and as a disciple of Christ, Peter has a better understanding of God and thus sees such OT statements in a “better” light. Well, LOL, the fact of the matter is that Peter is actually here, as NT writers defaultly/consistently do, quoting the Greek OT, the Septuagint, verbatim (= Joel 3:4 LXX) and it is they, thus ca. 200+ years before the New Covenant, who translate the Hebrew word of “fear” with the Greek epiphanes (=“(glorious/visible) appearing” -NT Strongs #2016). So if Parker’s claim is to be considered true, then ‘those OT people would actually have had a better understanding of God long before Jesus’ preaching and revelation.’ Paul’s use of the related term epiphaneia (#2015) in 2 Thess 2:8 shows why Christ’s glorious appearing will indeed be a “dreadful/fearful” day for sinners (cf. Rev 6:16-17|DA 825.4).

Lesson 10 [Haggai] - A Systematic Deprogramming
So by now Tim Jennings and his devoted and/or indifferent/ambivalent followers are
quite “comfortable” with their shoddy and subjective way of twisting the Bible and SOP to attempt to support their various false claims. So as with any cult following, a deprogramming is also here in order to try to bring these people back to at least some basic logic sense.

-[02:40] It is comical to see here how Jennings just arbitrarily an basically scraps sound, hermeneutical prophetic interpretation of 2 Thess 2:1-12 (which Paul had based on Dan 7 & 8) to claim that the “man of sin” establishing himself in God’s temple was not the Roman Empire religiously ruled by Popes, but, effectively a little green imp who sat on people’s shoulders and whispered mind-altering lies in their ears...if not literally set up a throne on top of people’s brain and thus ruled over them. That may seem like a hyperbolic take on Jenning’s claim, but by him thinking that he can gloss-over the prophecy-fulfilling historicity of what took place in the Church entity (=Temple of God) that Christ had set up, so that he can instead straightly make his spurious ‘neuro-affectation’ claims does sequiturly result in that characterization...because any ‘mind affectation,’ which is not even the case, (i.e., the Papacy misguidedly tried to revive what had been practiced in God’s Israel when it was a Kingdom (e.g., Priesthood, an (Earthly) Sanctuary Service, Capital Punishment, Wars against “pagans”) and did not, as Jennings circularly claims invent, out of the blue, things which had never been (justly) done in the Old Covenant) sure did not ethereally spring up.
            So the “Temple” of 2 Thess 2:4 was a tangible, Christian Church Institution and Structure and not “the mind”.

-[06:43] Since Theistic Evolution Professors at SDA University claim to believe in God yet deny that He has to power to create the world in Six 24-hour days as the Genesis account says, then they certainly/emblematically also are those that 2Tim 3:5 says are: ‘holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power’, -for once you thus discredit and doubt God’s word, the floodgates are then opened to alter anything else that you won’t accept...as Jennings himself similarly does with his COG falsehoods. And unlike Jennings, “religious” people sure don’t deny or impeach the (just) “power” of God.

-[07:45] The problem with Caiaphas using force to end the ministry of Jesus was not that he was applying provisions which God himself had stipulated in such would be cases, but rather that his entire case against Jesus was untrue, unfair and unjust and he therefore had no legal right to seek his death.
            As Jesus demonstrated in John 8:1-11 these OT Laws and Capital provisions against evil doers, (including actual false prophets (Deut 13:1-5)) had to be righteously executed.

-[10:17] It is ironically comical to hear Jennings decry all of the abuses that have been done “in the name of Christ” which he claims is all the result of having a wrong view of God’s Character. To me, it observedly is more anteriorly due to having had a poor understanding of God’s word where, e.g., people thought racial slavery was permitted by the curse of Canaan, the Catholic Church, with all of its false teachings, had a territorial/temporal mandate, and thus could make use of the sword as did OT Israel under God’s directive, etc. And the irony in all that is that Jennings find faults with those sins of commission, but the fact is that if his views are to be strictly put in practice, there would be absolutely no law enforcement in societies, e.g., with serial killers never being punished for their crimes while the victims and other people just work to clean up their messes behind these killers. So Jennings’ view, which swings completely to the other extreme side of God’s Mercy and Justice spectrum would itself lead to, actually even more gruesome sins, and also a whole slew of sins of omission where if a situation justly required force in order to begin to remedy it, such COGP’s would think that the Bible prevents them from doing so and that a “natural” consequence must instead self-actingly do this intervention.

-[12:30] So now Jennings denies that there is a literal Sanctuary and Sanctuary Service in Heaven. Christ ministering in us through the Holy Spirit, which is to in turn remove sin from our body/spirit temples, is just one part of His Priestly work. As it was in OT Israel, the sinner did also have to mentally make himself right with God, but sin then still had to be tangibly dealt with through the processes of the Sanctuary/Temple. So it is also the case in what is tangibly being done in Heaven by God.

-[13:02] God the Father is not constantly wrathful towards sinners, but, as it was shown in vision to EGW in EW 38.1-2 (which Jennings evidently is deliberately mocking here), there are times when God the Father realistically wants to just wrap things up already. That is what His “passionate regard for Truth” (a.k.a. wrath) is about. But Jesus, who better understands what it means to be a human does indeed ‘“plead His blood” to the Father for mercy’ as EGW explicitly says there (EW 38.2). The same thing occurred twice with the interceding Moses and the Israelites in the wilderness (Exod 33 & Num 14). So I’ll go by what the Bible and SOP similarly depict instead of what Jennings’ superficial bleeding-heart psyche will accept, because ‘YYYEEESSSS’ (i.e., contra. the mindless self-steeling “NO” head shaking by a member of his class) that is what the Biblical Truth is.

-[13:30] So evidently Jennings believes that just claiming and then repeating a theory and a eisegetical view about a text, namely here Rom 8:34, which he also cites, makes it so. In regards to Rom 8:31, God was also ‘for Israel’ when He worked to lead them out of Egypt, but when people turn against God, then He has no obligation to indifferently still be “for them”. It is then, as repeatedly seen in OT Israel’s history (cf. Num 14:34), and which is to serve as warning to all generations of God’s People (cf. 15MR 292.2-4), God can turn against people who have turned and rebelliously remained turned against Him. And this is not a tantrum and spiteful reaction by God. It rather is out of wise justice which clearly sees that any furtherance with such a group would relatively be rather quite futile and detrimental. That first occurred when Adam and Eve sinned and God would have preferred to let them die off had not Jesus pleaded with Him to let Him die for them...a solution that God conceded to only after an ‘intense struggle’ (EW 149-153), it occurred with Israel in the wilderness, and more recently, in occurred in the pioneer days of the SDA Church where God would have preferred to end things around ca. 1847, then 1888 (=EW 38.1-2, see this post), rather than continue into an ever darkening world history which He wisely saw that very few would fully adhere to His Truth, thus avoiding being deceived by Satan, and be saved (e.g., less than 0.25%). But in all of those pivotal instances, God allowed an intercessor to successfully plead for mercy for undeserving sinners. So instead of just justice, God instead opted for, albeit overall detrimental, mercy.

-[14:45] Jennings’ quoted 2 Cor 5:19 and Col 2:9, (which are, all things rightly viewed in regards to this view, just proof texts), do not preclude that God at times justly wants to execute a deserved judgement on hopeless sinners. They instead reveal that when God accepts the offer of a merciful course, He then does not sit in His corner hoping that it will fail so that He can say: “I told you so”, but rather fully and whole-heartedly also invests Himself to try to make that attempt succeed. So He was indeed in the Son trying to save this world just as He had effectively covenanted to do so when they, (i.e., the Godhead), reached that agreement after the Fall of man (EW 149-153). That latter understanding is indeed what Jennings also believes, but as patent with his view, he wants to divorce it from other transpiring realities (which he cannot stomach), which is in this case that God the Father does at time justly and wisely see that Justice and Judgement would be much more effective than mercy. As an illustration, it could be compared to President Reagan deciding to fire all striking Air Traffic Control workers rather than grounding all air flights or putting the life of people at risk in uncontrolled flights. Similarly, for a better/greater good, God would decide for judgement instead of subjected mercy, but “humans” who have a more tangible understanding of the weaknesses which led to such resisting of God’s will (e.g. Exod 32:31-32; 33:12-17; Heb 4:14-15) are allowed to convince God the Father otherwise.
            So it actually is a hyperbolic straw man claim for Jennings to claim that having such an understanding (i.e., God’s preference to at time execute just judgement) constitutes believing that “God the Father is the obstacle to our salvation.”
            -You know, either Jennings has only been exposed to really twisted people who do not have a balanced understanding of the Mercy and Justice of God or he is just making up such straw-men claims in order to give his view a certain amount of credit and worthwhileness (i.e., contrary to ‘that other option’).

-[14:47] The Greek adverb houtos (#3779) in John 3:16 does not mean “so much” as Jennings claim (and as commonly assumed/viewed) but “in this way” (e.g., Matt 1:1 “as follows”). Meaning in John 3:16 that “in the same way” that God used to save Israel in the past from their sins (John 3:14-15), he now, out of (dutiful) love of this world, sent His son, ‘in the likeness of sinful flesh’ (Rom 8:3), to redeem, and not condemn/judge (John 3:17ff), the world...and as stated before, that was not without an ‘intense struggle’ (EW 151.3), (and when Jesus was going to go through with it, He mirroringly saw that God was indeed presciently right that ‘this only way was a great price to, potentially, uselessly pay’. (Matt 26:39-44))

            The foundational non-comprehension by COGP’s that ‘God is real’, probably derived from the incorrect theological understanding about “God and the Future”, is at the basis of such “boxing in” view of God, where they cannot see that He would ever react to a situation as it justly deserves but is, at best, just stoically going through meaningless motions, for after all, straightly from their view, ‘it is “Natural Law” which actually is in control’, and not, and also injunctively so, God.

-[15:48] Sin is Biblically defined as “the transgression of God’s Law” or “lawlessness” (1 John 3:4; cf. Rom 5:20; 7:7). If that definition has become “tired” for COGP’s then it is no wonder that they have concocted a more “exciting”, yet most unbiblical, way to view it. Seems to me like the other side of Satan’s anti-nomial camp. What sin does/results in is a distinct issue.

-[17:02] Since a Sanctuary is only used to deal with sin, thus when God wants to cleanse sin from people,
-since a Sanctuary is needed when God is not present to serve as a Temple (see Rev 21:22)
-since sin is dealt away through the shedding of blood (Heb 9:22)
-since one is only liable of sin when they do so against clear light (e.g., John 9:41; Rom 5:20; 7:7)

Then it can be rightly argued that “Lucifer” did not commit sin in his questioning of God until he reached the point where he realized he was actually wrong but indifferently and vexatiously chose to instead persist in opposition to God. (PP 39.1) And at that point God straightly took irreversible measures to (forcefully) defeat and expel him and his followers from Heaven.
            So (1) I don’t see that Satan actually had engaged in “sin” from the start of his genuine questionings of God and Jesus, and (2) when he subsequently began to act against light, and thus “sin”, God did not act in any way to deal with that sin, instead allowing that sin to doomingly still remain on the heads of Satan and his angels, then I don’t see that, unlike God’s dealing with men which he condemned to die the first and/or second death (Gen 3:22-24), God ever allowed Lucifer’s sin to ever linger in Heaven and also that there even was a “Sanctuary” then set up to deal with sin. That Sanctuary procedure was probably conceived and implemented by God after Adam and Eve themselves sinned and God opted to have mercy on fallen man (EW 149-153) and before Adam and Eve were instructed to sacrifice a lamb at the gates of Eden to pay the penalty of their sin.
            The most striking symbolism in the Earthly Sanctuary was the sprinkling of blood all about it throughout the year. And with blood symbolizing life, it was God way of depicting how He was allowing His decision to not let sinful man life eternally, as they indeed could, against Him throughout this GC, until a righteous and redeemed, especially while still alive, generation could fully vindicate that sinful man does indeed not have to live eternally as fallen man can still live righteously according to God’s Law.
            So, contrary to Jennings’ theory here, the first sin that was allowed by God to “contaminate”/stain the Sanctuary was that of Man, as He allowed it to be held against Him. In fact, it is because God did not instantly kill Satan and his angels, who still live today, unlike man who comparatively soon die, that there was not spilled blood from these fallen Heavenly beings to charge against God as it is the case with dying humans. So since God did not payout the death wages of sin on Satan and his angels, but rather let them live on, He literally does not, and will eventually never have to, owe them nothing for, unlike what was more necessarily, preemptively and/or defensively done with Man, they will be put to death only after all of the proving GC evidence is in.

-[18:10] As Satan expressed his lies about God to the wider body of Angels, and certainly not to his co-covering Cherub, Michael (=Jesus Christ), then he did not ‘first “contaminate: God’s very Throne Room’, but rather spread his views, then lying views to the angels who, except for other Mighty Angels (e.g., Rev 8:2) and the representative Seraphim (Isa 6:2ff) are limited in access to outside of that Throne Room.

-[18:35] So the text that Jennings reads here, Col 1:20, which actually does not at all substantiate his prior claim above about ‘Satan lies first contaminating the Sanctuary and Throne Room of God’, also actually disproves Jennings stance here that it is humans, and not a physical Heavenly Sanctuary that need to be cleansed/made right. Again the balanced Biblical view is not Jennings’, here also, either/or claims, but a both/and understanding. I.e., both a tangible Sanctuary in Heaven and also the Spirit Temple of God in men have to be cleansed of sin.
            And in God tangibly doing this also in Heaven and not letting sin contaminate only committing sinners, it all speaks to me of the overall alternative choice for ordering this universe that exists. God set up a moral law, that is not “natural” as Jennings wants to believe, but merely ideal/optimal (i.e., as transgressors of that Law can still live forever with the Fruit of Life), and so God has allowed sin, which does come from that imposed (ideal/optimal), Law,  as well as its distinctly imposed consequence of death to both, and jointly be charged also against him until this GC is wrapped up and proves that God was right. Indeed God here tangibly recording and  “dealing” with every single sin in his own Sanctuary is a demonstration that He is examining, in His own, psycho-forensic evidence lab, as it were is, every piece of evidence (i.e., sin) against Him to objectively prove that His opted for Universe Ordering way was indeed better. If He had not been doing so, He could have literally been, impeachingly charged with either “destroying evidence” and “dereliction of duties as a Judge”, and thus could not make a Just/Impartial case against sin and for His way.
            Moreover, in the incarnated Christ, God has also most objectively subjected a member of His judicial Team to the ordeals of those who He will be judging.

-[19:15] Similarly here, since Adam and Eve did not themselves sin even when Satan had told them a lie about God, but rather when they ate the forbidden fruit, then it was not a lie which was actually the human’s first sin, but their disobedience to what God had said. Satan could have spent decades appearing and lying about God at that tree, and if Adam and Eve had never disobeyed God, they would never have sinned.
            So that claim of Jennings is also technically/realistically not accurate, and as next seen, he is reverse-engineeringly making such claim because he believes he has found a proof in the SOP (COL 102.3) that (Intellectual) Truth, and not Christ’s Blood,  is what is involved in actually forgiving and washing away the sins of people. So to him that would prove that it is ‘lies about God in the mind’ which need to be pointedly dealt with to remedy the sin problem. The fact actually is, as in Adam and Eve case, it is not external lies about God, but, as in all sin, an internal distrust of God (=faithlessness), which in turn is a loss of belief that God is acting in love towards the person, that rather needs to be dealt with. Lies have to be “believed” to ever cause contamination, just like poison has to be internalized through ingestion to ever kill.
            So the first sin was actually faithlessness...case in point, Adam and Eve could easily have trusted in God even after hearing the Serpent and say that they will first verify Satan’s claim with God, but here to, a lack of faith in God that Him indeed making them lower than Him, even in regards to the knowledge of Evil (cf. Gen 3:22) was really in their own best interest.

-[20:20] The ‘trust in/of God’ solution that Jennings states here is indeed the resolving antidote, however it is not done according to his selectively approach where he will only choose to believe from the actions of God related in the Bible and SOP what he himself can figure out to be just and warranted, and outrightly reject or dilute anything which he cannot comprehend. That in itself is just repeating that distrust of God which produced that first sin. So Jennings has actually thus bought into the lie that God, in certain instances in that Bible is actually unloving, violent, arbitrary and unfair, instances which he then just ignores. In this way, Satan’s key deception has come full circle because that latter, more palpable approach for Christians actually likewise leads to not obeying God and carrying out His will. I.e., Jennings would probably been a likewise ringleader in OT Israel to try to convince people that God did not actually want certain sinners to have capital punishment inflicted on them. Indeed Jennings would similarly most likely have been with those in Noah’s day who, being also “arrayed against God's justice” claimed that God was too loving to bring a flood that would destroy all who did not repent and get into the ark. (PP 96.1)

-[20:36] On COL 102.3, contrary to how Jennings eisegetically and proof-textingly miscontrues what EGW wrote and meant, she does not say in that passage that it is ‘Truth itself which washes away the sins of the sinner’, but as she consistently says throughout her writings, it is the blood of Christ. So it is actually ‘the blood of Christ which cleanses a person, through them having learn of this provision through the Truth of Christ Gospel.’ Truth only makes that final cleansed result possible, but does not actually execute that change. This is just like the content of a textbook will lead me to get a diploma, but only after I systematically ingrained what it says in my mind and am then able to reproduce it in various testings during my class. Likewise if I get stranded by having run out of gas, a gallon of gas will resolve the matter after I pour it into my tank, but really only after I start the car through its distinct ignition process. So EGW’s statement is just saying that Truth is just this “fuel”, but the blood of Christ is the pivotal “car-starting ignition”. I can’t still sit there “stranded” with a tank full of gas if I choose to never turn the ignition, just like I can still be stranded despite going through all of the post-ignition motions of driving if I have actually never started the car. Likewise, an intellectual knowledge of Truth will itself never save/purify a person in the eyes of God, nor will all the magnanimous “motions” of someone who actually still is living in certain known sin. As much as Jennings can’t stand to hear it, it is only the applied blood of Christ which presents a sinner as purified in the eyes of God. And it is only then that Truth itself can ever have any of the effects spoken of in COL 102.3. So the SOP contextually right reading of that passage actually is: “By it the impure are cleansed, [having been] washed in the blood of the Lamb.”
            And the, really “Truth” about the metaphorical Blood of the Lamb, indeed Christ’s Gospel Truth, is that, on one end, the best way to live life is sacrificial so (=God’s Law of Life DA 20.1-21.3), and on the other hand, the sinner does indeed have to die. So when one accepts and internalized both of these truths depicted in Christ’s blood shedding, then, and only then can be redeemed and redeemable. So Christ’s Blood represents in its wider GC context, that this is indeed the only way that God’s Justice can be met and also the best way that life in this Universe could exist.

-[22:28] In John 6:54, Jesus was, in context, metaphorically saying that to be deemed worthy of having life, one had to abide by His (didactic) Words (=flesh) and fully emulate His (modelling/implementing) Self-Sacrificial (Mar 8:34-35) Life (=blood). And those two combined are indeed the Gospel’s Saving/Redeeming Truth. (Cf. FE 385.3) “Truth” apart from these two constituating joint-elements is not Truth.

-[22:58] As already discussed above. Christ is cleansing both people and the Sanctuary in Heaven, not just people. God is just being most responsible in His handling of the evidence of sin.
            Also Jennings’ ‘medical records” analogy is biasedly and straw-manly flawed because God’s records of sins, which only exist if they were not able to be expunged through Christ’s forgiveness, would be depicted by a patient repeatedly trying to get care for the same illness but records show that all the while he has been refusing to spend the money to purchase the post-medical procedure medicine that the doctor had prescribed him. So that carefully kept record shows that the doctor had been doing all that was required of him to treat the patient and moreover, the criminal and civil lawsuits charging the doctor of criminal malpractice are not valid.
            It is in faithfully taking that therapeutically healing medicine as prescribed (=sanctification) that the patient then does not relapse into the sickness which the doctor had intervened to fix (=actual, justification). (E.g., a kidney transplant recipient faithfully taking his anti organ-rejection medicine following the transplant). Jennings has his theology of redemption all muddled by only focusing on Natural/Healing Law (which really is the medical intervention) and not also on Moral Law (=the preventative/therapeutic provision)

-[26:43] It is comical how Jennings gauges Truth by what is “comfortable” to someone. Quite typical of COGP’s. All sound like the Mormons claiming that one will know whether something is true of not by the ‘warm fuzzy feeling they will have in their bosom’. Jennings needs to resort to that “inculcated feelings” option because his way of arriving at “truth” is so subjective, isolative and eisegetical.

-[26:55] It is therefore no wonder that his class members cannot readily articulate what they believe because they have been trained to claim things by subjectively and fancifully rewording them. So they actually cannot give a blanket explanation for something because their view on it will depend on how they need to isolatively spin when they pointedly come across it and/or how they need to convince a person then. So e.g., in one situation: ‘the Flood would have been the “natural” result of antediluvians having damaged the atmosphere’ but in another situation, ‘it would instead have been an act of God’, as the Bible states. This is like trying to be a house in the middle of the ocean: forget about an anchoring foundation and do expect to drift...however the wind blows. (Eph 4:14)

-[27:40] The Lamp in the Sanctuary was actually symbolic of the “glory” which outshines from one’s character and not one’s character itself. And it is actually up to man to shape their own character from the various aiding resources that God has provided. God will not brainwash people into obtaining a character that they don’t themselves want, and thus work towards, having. Even the redeem will bring to heaven with them whatever level of character they had been able to develop up to then.

-[27:50] In GC 426.1, EGW is not making the claim that Dan 7:13; 8:14, and Mal 3 (and also Matt 25:1-11) are ‘descriptions of the same action’, but the same “event”. Different aspects of that “event” are presented in these passages. So again it is not the either/or claim of Jennings that ‘only a refining of people is being done in this anti-typical Day of Atonement’ (=Mal 3' aspect), but rather that this refining, is only one part of what that Day of Judgement produces. Simultaneously, a call to enter into that day occurs (Matt 25:1-11), with these people being indeed separated in attenuated fiery “judgements” Mal 3:5-6 and redress (Mal 3:7-15), from evil ones, which thus produces that “refining” (Mal 3:1-4), and then a review of life record books (Dan 7:13 =an inspection of the retained guests Matt 22:1-14|COL 310.1-4) takes place (cf. Mal 3:18) and in all of this is God Truth, People and Heavenly Abode (=Sanctuary) all vindicated/made right/“cleansed” (Dan 8:12-14-see discussion here), with the Heavenly Sanctuary then actually being “disassembled”, which actually may only be the Holy Place section with the Most Holy Place (=God’s Throne Room remaining).
            And the “gold” that was refined by God in the October 22, 1844 event was the “faith (which works by) love” (4T 88.2; COL 158.2) of the believers then indeed through that “fiery trial” (1 Pet 1:6-7) in the permitted Great Disappointment, which indeed serve to further weed out (cf. Mal 3:5) the most righteous from the dross of false believers to the point that only ca. 10% of Millerites went on to fully come to know God full Truth on this event. (=Mal 3:16-18)

            So...yet again, the Truth of a matter is not what Jennings selectively and isolatively claims
about it, building his claims, as usual from just one passage, but rather is a full consideration of all pertinent contributing passages on the topic. These passages certainly do not substantiate Jennings ‘neurological rewiring work’ that he claim Jesus Priestly ministry is all about. Again, man is responsible for rewiring their own minds/character through choosing God’s ways.

-[30:21] But it of course does not end there with Jennings. He claims that TMK 150.2-4 means, ‘along with all of Inspiration’ (i.e., Bible and SOP), that there is no actual Heavenly Temple, but it rather is speaking of the people of God on Earth. Well, LOL, “Inspiration” actually also speaks of a literal Sanctuary in Heaven (e.g., (from the same Paul of 1 Cor 6:19 & Eph 2:21-22) Heb 8:1-2, 5; 9:23-24 & EW 18:2-19.1; 32.1-33.1; GC 417.1-3; 433.1-435.1). So, again, there is a Sanctuary work that is being doing both on Earth, in man, and also in Heaven, in God’s literal Temple.
            Also what Jennings apparently cannot harmonize, and so as usual he chooses one side and discards the other, is that the Bible also speaks of Heaven not have Temple, yet EGW saw visions of a Temple in Heaven where the redeem minister in. (=Rev 7:15). That is because there will actually be a need to have a Temple during the Millennium all because not everyone will have been saved after having developed perfect characters. So the millennium will be their granted time to do so, all being led by the “Final Generation) 144,000 (EW 18.2), (which actually includes the Great Multitude (Rev 7:4-8, 9-15)  much more than who would have already had that Earthly sanctification opportunity and indeed made good use of it.
            So, LOL, Jennings is actually only “restricting” himself to only what he one-sidedly wants to consider from Scripture.

-[33:15] TMK 151.5 - It is the Earthly, replicating, Jewish Temple which represents God Spiritual Temple which is the body of believers on Earth. But there still is a literal Temple in Heaven.
            The only “lie”, and that: boldface lie, here is being told here is that of Jennings claiming that what he has read on this issue represent ‘all of what Inspiration says of this topic.’ ...and I never heard anyone claim that the Heavenly temple was made of “brick and mortar”.
And the ‘filling up of smoke in God’s Temple’ (that ignoramusly Jennings mocks),
actually only occurs when a period of probation has ended and God is then going to execute judgement (see e.g., Isa 6:4-13). In terms of the final probation (Rev 15:8), this has yet to occur, even delayed a couple of time by Christ’s own pleading intercession with the Father (EW 38.1-2), whose ‘consuming glory’ (Heb 12:28-29) manifestly produces that smoke (Rev 15:8). Perhaps it most tangibly is God’s glory which actually then consumes whatever is sin, or contains sin, in that Temple which, through this actually combustion, produces that smoke, indeed as God is literally purifying it with fire. Likewise God first purified His newly built/dedicated Temple of any inadvertently remaining sinful defilement  through this glory’s fire, whose “cloud” was manifestly a ‘smoke cloud’. (See Deut 5:22; Exod 40:38; (cf. Isa 4:5; Ezek 1:4) & Exod 40:34-35; 1 Kgs 8:10-11). And in the case of the final probation, it may be that since that Sanctuary is not cleansed by the work of the Priest then, but by God literally torching it with the fire of His glory, then all of the utensils and furniture which had been used to deal with sin and had then not been cleansed by the Priest are also irreparably burned up in that process, thus making any further intercession for sinners, unachievable.

-[35:00] Can’t get away from the lexical fact that the word used for “fear” in the Bible only involves the notion of (some degree of) “phobic fear” even if that develops into a reverential awe.

-[36:20] As already explained, Adam and Eve were manifestly afraid that it was this approaching God who would execute that consequence of death that He said would occur if they sinned, and apparently with Adam now realizing he was naked, evidently his robe of light having vanished, he thought that his nakedness would further offend God when He saw it. (cf. Exod 20:26). So he hid himself. (Gen 3:10)

-[37:23] Funny how Jennings claims that ‘other’ people have problem harmonizing seemingly contradicting passages in the Bible, when that is at the very root of all of these false teachings of his. And even more comical, he aims to demonstrate one ‘acceptable way’ of resolving such differences, and therefore show, as already observed, that his approach is then to give different/diverging meanings to the same word. So here “fear” would mean “dread” in e.g., 1 John 4:18, but “awe and reverence” in e.g, Psa 111:10; Pro 9:10; Mic 6:9.
            While better knowing God does reduce one’s fear of him, since we will never perfectly know him, there will always be a reason to have a fear of Him. (Cf. Pro 15:33; Isa 11:2b). Since God knows that fully knowing/understanding Him would then leave no other option but death to someone who would deviate in any degree from God’s Full will, He, like any parent who cannot yet explain the reasons to their child why they shouldn’t do something, will instead allow fear to keep them from encountering that harmful consequence , which in God’s case is death (cf. Exod 20:20).
            By the way it evidently was because Satan had not fully known God and His will that his, initially honest, questioning of God did not immediately cause his death. And even after he himself came to recognize that God was probably right, because the GC evidence was the not yet in, as it will be when it is wrapped up, then that is why God has not yet destroyed him. In man’s case, all that they had to do to, probably soon be allowed to live eternally, perhaps even only from one serving of the Fruit of Life (which may have not yet produced its first fruit before they sinned), was to not eat of the forbidden fruit.
-[40:20] Jennings claim that in the OT God only thundered when Israel was involved in a sin is false. God instilled fear in them in Exod 20:18-21, which was before the Golden Calf incident (Exod 32).
            And really the only reason why God so “scared” Israel and not any other of the many worsely sinning nations in existence around them was because God would be in the very midst of Israel itself, and so, in the light of that tangible presence, no deviation would be overlooked. So he scared them so that they would not sin and He/His Glory would have to immediately consume them. (Cf. Heb 12:28-29). More “light” more accountability.

-[40:40] There is absolute no mention of the people in the book of Haggai ‘having an inappropriate reaction of [spooking] fear’ as Jennings claim. The Hebrew word for fear occurs only in Hag 1:12 and 2:5 in that book. In Hag 1:12, it speaks of the people, though they did not see how the proposed Temple rebuilding endeavor would successfully work out, nonetheless “fearing” God by obeying His prophetic word. The ensuing message in Hag 1:13 was one of confirmation by God that ‘(since the had been obedient), He was going to be with them in this colossal endeavor.’ Then in Haggai 2:5 Haggai tells them not to fear and lose courage and thus stop the rebuilding work when again they could not see how what they were doing would compare to the prior majestic Temple of Solomon (Hag 2:3). So no mention nor notion at all here that the people were ‘cowering before God’, but rather that they were to “fear” (=trust) the Lord and not their seemingly insurmountable circumstances.

-[40:55] Another dud of an illustration. I.e. it seems to me that if a child is yelling and crying because a vaccine is burning them and causing them pain, then they are not reacting so because they are “afraid” but because they are in pain. So fear is not the issue.

-[41:35] When we just cannot understand why, God does indeed want us to submit in apprehension of Him. That is what any loving parent would resort to if incontrovertibly necessary. God actually does not shout when there has already been given clear light on a matter that one can and should follow. So as the Bible says, God only uses fear to begin this course of becoming wise as to what His will is, when no other option will do.

-[42:40] Just Law Enforcement is not that same as intolerance. If people don’t want to live according to the established laws of a community, then they should be dealt with as the Law also prescribes.

-[42:50] Again, contrary to what Jennings fancies, nothing “neurotically” wrong with Paul before his conversion, He just did not know the truth about Christ and was therefore rightly seeking to rid Israel of people he honestly (Acts 26:9) believed were rebelling against God. And unlike prior Jewish leaders, he manifestly was not acting against all of the clear light and opportunity to know the truth that they had be given (e.g, John 11:45-53)

-[44:00] I am not versed in neuroscience but it seems logically nonsensical that one’s love vs. fear circuitry would be offsettingly functioning against each other where, as Jennings claim, if you fully love someone/something then that “shuts off” your fear “circuitry”. It rather seems to me the two circuits are independent and are only distinctly triggered by what one is actually perceiving. Perfect case in point, if your child is caught up in a strong current of water and you can’t swim and is afraid to drown you may still experience both fear of drowning and love of the child, even fear of them dying, while you tentatively variously secure yourself to try to save them without drowning. So while your love feeling may be higher then, you would still be dealing with various fears in exercising that love.
            So Jennings’ “mutually exclusive” claim does not seem to have been based on actual science but mere hopeful thinking, or at least, as typical with him, merely based on one type of scenario when the object of love or fear is the same thing, yet there also, it is the knowledge and understanding of that object which does not cause one to fearfully perceive it. E.g., I was somewhat fearful of driving when I first started to learn, but as I became more knowledgeable and able, I no longer perceived it the same way and have since had much less fear of it. Conversely, one may have greatly loved driving until they had a major accident and since then have a fear of driving. And that person could then actually “fearfully” view every passing car as a threat, when that is just the way they now perceive them. And in such a case, it was actually greater, experiential knowledge which brought about that fear, just like one can become afraid of dogs after they come to “know” that they could actually bite them.
            So Jennings claim certainly does not hold up to reality and his passing this off hard science, (which moreover applied to Paul),  is quite deceptive, to say the least.

-[45:07] Zech 4:6 was said in reference to the great, tangible task of reestablishing Israel that was before Zerubbabel (Zech 4:7ff) and not even at all to how people come to love God. It was God’s prophetic Spirit that was going to guide these Returnees to seemingly improbable success in this work, as seen later in it influencing foreign kings to aid it Ezra 7:13-24; Neh 2:7-10.
            So that was another a straw man, “cheap shot”, proof-text/claim by Jennings.

-[47:00] Had the medieval Church had actually been commanded by God to do those crusades as He ordered in the OT (Deut 20:10-18 ), then their action would have been a “Godly response” for a “Godly response” is doing whatever God has actually commanded, and not what man deems is best. (e.g., 1 Sam 15:10-33)

-[49:15] Uhhhhh: Not “Yes”, but “Nooo”...I.e., The Bible does not define Christ’s “Living Water” (John 4:14) as “love”, as Jennings “feeling-associatingly” claims, but as the Holy Spirit (John 7:37-39), which leads to restoring righteousness (Matt 5:6)

-[50:41] God at condemning judging times actually presents ‘Truth, in mysteries, leaving people free (to surely reject it)’ (Isa 6:8-13; Matt 13:10-17)... Can’t say He didn’t give them an opportunity to know that Truth!!

-[52:00] Funny how Jennings tries to avoid the damning truth about God’s judgement but his hollow “best intervention” alternative take changes nothing about that Biblical truth. E.g, the “best intervention” for an adulterer in God’s Israel was death.’ God still prematurely put them to non-natural death and they are eternally lost, not having even having been given any chance to repent.
-LOL, God ‘thundering at Sinai’ was not a “judgement”, but a warning. Case in point, no one died then.

-[52:43] (Funny how I am weekly tempted to cite Hos 4:17 in regards to Jennings and other COGP’s)
            And that is not an “endtime judgement” by God, as if God only uses that option in the very end, i.e., post Second Coming and even Millennium. It was pronounced upon Ephraim long before the, not-even-yet-transpired, end. It is Jennings who heretically believes that god will give the wicked a chance to repent (i.e., ‘enter the open gates of the City’) after the Millennium. Their probation would have closed at the time of each individual death.

Haggai Lesson+ Conclusion
            If it did not occur long before, this is the point in devolving progression of Jennings when ‘the Bible gets relegated to the out house”, because they really don’t care what it (actually) says.

Post Script
...Indeed I, most applicably, plead Hos 4:17 in regards to Tim Jennings and his, allusion-intended, “SS” class. He most resolutely intends on making the Bible and SOP subservient, and that whimsically so, to his Biblically unsupported “Natural Law construct” claim. Pertinent, case in point, in here [ca. 28:55ff], he manifestly thinks to have made a quasi-inspired explanation as to why he believes that Job’s ordeals were merely meant as a trapped for God to expose Satan to the other angels. Well: (1) The Bible itself (‘does’) clearly states the terms upon which God (distinctly twice) engaged in the wager with Satan were in regards to Job’s “hedging” even “Skin for Skin” protection being all but completely removed. Hence indeed God’s “just don’t hurt him personally (Job 1:12), and ensuingly, heightenedly: “only spare his life” (Job 2:6). And (2) the SOP reveals that the angels only, (yet also merely biasedly), began to see/understand that Satan was really a cunning murderer all that time by what He sought to do to the sinless Jesus on the Cross (DA 761.2; 764.4)...not at all in Job’s ordeal. And, “Bible in Outhouse” effectuation: no one, even him bothered to look up what the Bible (or SOP) actually said....only expounding their view is paramount, and is determinative here!
            It is rationally (i.e., in such “whack-a-mole” cases) pointless to try to “reason” with someone who most clearly believes he ex-cathedraly is above the Bible and SOP..., on top of basic common sense. [And even despite any, (however, redundant), personal Truth-affirming benefits]....Now that indeed is cultish of Jennings...His case/condition is not merely Spiritual, it is also clinically psycho-logical....(obviously he can’t properly psycho-analyze himself!!)...And all of his sheepish “I-won’t-deny-you-O-[LOL]-fearful-leader”, parroting, emulating morons do fittingly deserve to believe him, and in his heresies....Good Shaking riddance. (TM 112 (1897)|LDE 177.1; i.e., the COGP’s “bitterness” towards the “OT” God). Anyone who properly applies Acts 17:11 won’t be deluded by Tim Jennings et. al.

My Certain Subsequent Responses
-Reason for NO GC II - Jennings cannot fathom or stomach why a situation presented here where God may have to immediately judge and even put to death a person who would, in eternity decide to, once again, sin. He thinks that this would only involve others then serving God out of fear. Well the facts are that this is why this was not done before this permitted 7000-year GC which has, and will have, microcosmicly, satisfactorily shown why any sinful course is not optimal or viable. People in eternity will all still fully have Free Will. As introductorily presented, Jennings’ “Natural Law” view is fundamentally, heretically skewed as Gen 3:22-24|PP 60.1 clearly and unequivocally state that ‘a sinner can live eternally’. But Jennings has had to ignore that statement by God to instead build his unbiblical view.
            Again, if this GC has entire been revolving around merely a scientific “Natural Law” view, then it has been quite a carnage, which then should have been immediately been prevented from developing by God. But the fact of the matter that one’s eternal life itself is not “scientifically” dependent on their sinful state. It is their character which is a threat to how God wants His universe to be and the reason why they cannot be permitted to live eternally, as He decided to do in Eden (Gen 3:22-24|PP 60.1). So it is people who do not share that moral character and vision of God, will not be allowed to be able to live eternally. So just like God, the redeem will Spiritually have both a then most complete understanding of what God’s ideal has always been, and is, and will wholeheartedly want to live according to that ideal, and thus, with such “perfected/completed love” for both ‘God and others’ (Matt 22:34-40) there will be no need for even the healthy. wisdom-wisening “fear (of God)” which the Bible speaks of (e.g., Pro 9:10; 15:33) that Jennings so obviously, traumatizedly, psycho-phobic, basely “fear”. (1 John 4:16-18).
            Jennings’ all-encompassing “natural” view is so base and selfish on so many levels that it actually is a reverse side of legalism as he quite obviously believes that if there is not a scientific/natural reason from something, then it is not worthy of being heeded. That is exactly what Satan’s argument was when he noticed that inherent “arbitrariness” in God’s Law where God had chosen one of at least two ways, as Gen 3:22-24|PP 60.1, seriously-taken, clearly  reveals, in which His Universe can be ordered. In Jennings’ view one is really only looking out for themselves and their well-being, including in regards to maintaining an ordered ‘non-societally chaotic’ universe so that one will not come to encounter and suffer adversity. But God’s ideal has always and only been others-ward, and all that He has ordered in His universe is towards that wider goal as it fundamentally involves a sacrificing of oneself for the good of others. So it is not at all self-protecting and self-preserving as Jennings’ Natural Law view involves, but sacrificially “others-besting”.

-Wrath of God at Calvary - Of course Jennings has a great problem with the “wrath of God” issue which was, as the Bible and SOP clearly state, manifested and vicariously inflicted upon Jesus on the Cross. Again it is God’s, others-ward view which brings out God’s Truth here as God is indeed “wrathfully” angry by the fact that so many people have been, and are going to be, lost because of that necessary sin exposing GC. As the SOP states in DA 825.4 (=Zech 7:8-14), even the Lamb, Jesus is “wrathful” when professed people of God are actually indifferent to people in various need, and even die without any chance to hear the saving Gospel message which would have caused them to change their sinful ways, and thus whom, for most, God will actually not be able to save. In those cases, such spurious believers themselves will not be saved, but overall, God’s wrath is both against sin, and also against the sinner who knowingly/deliberately/indifferently practices it. (Heb 10:26-27). So it is only because God has been able to meet the just demands of His Law by pouring out that wrath all on Jesus at the Cross that any sinner, whether knowing or unknowing can ever have a chance to be forgiven when they genuinely ask. Otherwise they would have to be subject to that just penalty for transgressing God’s Law, which, as seen in Hell’s Judgement, is indeed way beyond mere death.

            It is quite telling to me how Jennings’ view aims to make light of what Jesus had to morally account for by His death on the Cross, with Jennings also claiming here that this too was all merely something “natural”. This view harkens back to the disdain that Satan placed on God’s Law, claiming that God knew that it was not necessary. The Incarnation of Christ and His (Substitutionary) Death on the Cross demonstrated that God Himself was fully willing to abide by the demands He had made in this Moral Law.

[2] As it is also important to later, wider development as to why I was wrongfully (indeed even legally speaking), “moronically”, banned from that forum, I have here reposted my Administrator deleted response in #131297 to, as usual with him, falsely accusing, (-due to his various non-/mis-/mal-informed assumptions) Forum Administrator (“Green Cochoa”) [That post is also the deleted post quote in the first part of #131332 (also in #131333)]:

Green Cochoa: NJK, you are certainly welcome to continue discussions here if you like. Tom has been polite. No one has told you to leave. However, it might help you to enjoy this forum more if you adopt the perspective of this passage.

(Listen Green Cochoa,
-I was not asking for "permission" nor "approval" from anyone so you can save your white-washing, sanctimonious "welcoming". It's not applicable here; If you cannot see nor understand why I have actually decided to end my discussion here as indeed not being ‘worth my while' then I momentarily pity you.

-I did not say, nor mean, that Tom was impolite. If that had been the case, I would have clearly said this, indeed like I have told you what I think of you and your continuing ungodly methodology in another discussion (on abortion) [see PDF repost in here];

-And the next time you feel the need to take a judgmental, hypocritical, and self-evidently vindictive, "Biblical jab" at me, have enough conviction to state it in the text here, instead of using this sanctimonious "redirection."

You want "respect," then earn it; and do also follow your own forum rule (Matt 23:23-24)

The level of Biblical ignorance and exegetical competence by some of you administrators on this forum is absolutely pathetic. But of course, you all will never see that, because whatever may spill out of your "golden mouth" is the unimpeachable truths. Having to deal with the sanctimonious egos and spiritual baseness of some of you administrators is task in itself. Seems your more concerned with ‘having discussion just for discussion sake, no matter how unbiblical the premise, instead of establishing and maintaining Biblical truth. But, in regards to having such proper exegetical competence to decipher between truth and error, faulting you here is manifestly like reproaching a 10 year old for not knowing Calculus! And of course such an incompetency will lead you to claim that "no one can know the truth for certain" ergo everyone is free to insist that whatever they may believe or have said is, at least, a Truth. All clearly sounds like ‘the wine of Babylon' talking to me! Must be because I am the one who is, Biblically-speaking, exegetically sober here vs. this ‘being "opinionatedly-wise" enamoured with themselves'.

-And judging by your own pattern thus far, and Tom, though through a lesser, but substantively spurious extent, it is clear that you all only answer my various points, only when you think you have an answer, and when you don't you just ignore what I have said, or just perfunctorily restate/reword what you had claimed before, yet still continue to hold to your now, especially exegetically, disproven views. And that is indeed what I do not have time for, particularly on this topic; hence my complete choice to end this discussion here. In regards to this tactical manifestation on the abortion discussion, I only continue to debunk your increasingly spurious statements there because there indeed is a vital life and death issue at hand. Given what the internet is, in terms of wide-reaching accessibility and that public forum, wouldn't want a child to die, or even, a sincere mother to make the wrong choice, because they was fooled/misguided by your spurious, actual, ‘defense of abortion in the name of God' there.)

1 comment:

  1. [Response to “Anonymous” Commenter from San Bernardino, California [10-29-11 19:07:51 IP:98.#4#.5#.1#7]:

    Given the, as stated, more stringent, facts-based requirements for having comments post on this blog, you can (substantively) “see” why your “moronically” vacuous, 6-word snarky snide was not published on this blog!!


This blog aims to be factual and, at the very least, implicitly documented. Therefore if applicable, any comment which contains unsubstantiated/unsupportable ideas will not be allowed to be published on this blog. Therefore make the effort to be Biblical, truthful and factual.

-It typically takes 1-2 days for an accepted submitted comment to be posted and/or responded to.

[If you leave an "anonymous" comment and, if applicable, would like to know why it may not have been published, resend the comment via email (see profile) to receive the response.]