[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]
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.
#7 - More Exegetically Accurate Understanding of Luke 22:35-38
#9 - Miscellaneous, yet Most Pertinent, Documentation
* 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.
#11 - Documenting SOP Episode
Satan in the OT
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.)
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.
* 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.
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).
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.)
DA 471.1-3 Quoting
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”.
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.
-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...
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.
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)
* 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.
* 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.
-[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.
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).