Is God Violent, Or Nonviolent?

[Hermano]

Speaking of my charismatic roots, Greg Laurie of Calvary Chapel wrote a column for World Net Daily yesterday titled
“Long Life? How About A Full Life?” you may find of interest.

I think his discussion (and my dissenting comment today to his column—as “Marco Gol” at the bottom of that page) is relevant to the question “Is God Violent, Or Nonviolent?”

Blessings.

(Btw, I also recently commented on another Greg Laurie post called “Is David Bowie In Heaven?” My comment and responses in defense of evangelical universalism are as “Hermano” starting at 4:00 PM on January 13, 2016.)

[Eaglesway]

Those words as they stand do not read to me that the Lord’s coming is after the working of Satan, and they never did, since I first read it at 21 years old.

The reason you never read it that way is because you always read a version in which the text had been altered by the translators in order to bring out what Paul actually meant.

Now read it again as Paul actually wrote it, and tell me that it doesn’t say that the Lord’s coming is after the working of Satan:

And then shall that wicked one be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders.

To whom does the word “whose” refer? Normally it would refer to the person in the sentence that immediately precedes it, just as “his coming” refers to the coming of the Lord, and not that of the wicked one. The person immediately preceding “whose” is “the Lord”. It would not be “that wicked one” since that expression occurs more remotely from the word “whose.”

I already said who “whose” refers to in my post. It is clear to me by context, either way I read it, in Greek, or in English. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. I think the Spirit is able to give the proper sense and context, and I don’t really see how anyone looking at the context with a renewed mind would get anything other than what the translators- who in this case were, imo, correct-delivered…

Normally it would refer to the person in the sentence that immediately precedes it

“Normally” is a matter of opinion that perhaps I would agree with, were i only reading and analyzing the one sentence out of the contect of the entire subject, but in this case the context makes it clear, in addition to the fact thyat common sense dictates the Lord’s coming is in no way “after the working of Satan”.

[Hermano]

Today Greg Laurie published a teaching at World Net Daily titled, "Illicit Sex: Never Lower Your Guard." But when a pastor preaches on sin, I believe he is actually throwing gasoline on the fire. That, in so many words, is what I told Greg in the comments section at the end of his article (calling myself “Marco Gol”). Fyi, I mention Pastor Bob Coy in my comment, because 1) he is a close friend of Greg Laurie’s who fell into sexual immorality, and 2) I love him dearly.

Like Greg Laurie, my background is charismatic, Arminian, infernalist. But my view of God’s true nature has dramatically changed since leaving Calvary Chapel. I discovered that “grace teachers” such as

•Steve McVey -a ‘hopeful universalist’ who has rejected his Calvinism
•Joseph Prince -an infernalist who has rejected his Arminianism
•Richard Murray -a ‘convinced universalist,’ and
•Paul Ellis -an annhilationist
are (often unwittingly) leading the church toward the acceptance of universal reconciliation. See, e.g., “The ‘Grace Teachers Lead Us Toward A Global Understanding of Salvation.”

I commend these grace teachers to you, dear friends. I owe them each so much!

Blessings.

[Hermano]

Regarding God’s nonviolent goodness, I pray the ideas presented in “Is God Violent, Or Nonviolent?” will help counteract two misunderstandings within the ‘nonviolence camp’:

1. That God is nonviolent, but there is no devil. And its corollary…
2. That God is nonviolent, and therefore we can marginalize apocalyptic eschatology as merely allegorical, nonliteral, poetical.

As to the first misunderstanding—that there is no devil, and so evil comes only from the heart of man—please see *“Fighting For God’s Nonviolence,” *and the discussion there of René Girard’s Mimetic Theory.

As to the second misunderstanding, I offer as an example a book I am reading called God and Empire: Jesus Against Rome, Then and Now (2007), by John Dominic Crossan. Crossan is a New Testament scholar who, according to Wikipedia, “portrays the Second Coming as a late corruption of Jesus’ message,” and is an advocate for “a non-eschatological view of Jesus, a view that contradicts the more common view that Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher.”

For example, Crossan doesn’t like the Left Behind series of Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins. (Well, join the club!)

In a chapter titled “Apocalypse and the Pornography of Violence,” in a subsection called “Armageddon as Spectator Sport,” Crossan writes:

Barbara Rossing’s 2004 book, The Rapture Exposed, is a powerful indictment of American Christian fundamentalism’s lust for divine ethnic cleansing and transcendental cosmicide. As a professor of the New Testament at Chicago’s Lutheran School of Theology, she can expertly judge the anti-scriptural excesses of “the destructive racket of rapture” (pp. 1–18). That “rapture racket” has existed only since around 1830 and is based on the presupposition that the Second Coming of Christ will be a double advent—once for the Rapture and again, seven years later, for Armageddon. Rossing outlines that complete final scenario for our world like this (p. 56; italicized additions of numbers and titles are mine):

1. Israel: The rebirth of the nation of Israel.
2. The Rapture: The removal of born-again Christians off the earth by Christ.
3. The Tribulation: The emergence of an evil Antichrist (and his one-world currency), probably in Europe. The Antichrist signs a seven-year peace treaty with Israel, setting in motion the seven years of tribulation—but the Antichrist will break the treaty after three and one half years.
4. The Temple: The rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem and the resumption of animal sacrifices there. The desecration of the temple by the evil Antichrist, followed by the second half of the seven years of tribulation.
5. Armageddon: Jesus’ return in the “Glorious Appearing” exactly seven years after the Rapture, beginning with his touch-down on the Mount of Olives, which will split the mountain into two.
6. The Millennium: After Jesus wins the battle of Armageddon he will then set up his millennial kingdom from the throne of David in Jerusalem and will reign for one thousand years over a kingdom repopulated by converted Jews and un-Raptured people left behind on earth.
7. Judgment: After that comes the last judgment.
8. Eternity: [The last judgment will be] followed by eternity itself—“God’s New Jerusalem.”

Reading this summary, you can see clearly why the full Rapture program cannot be readily dismissed as simple religious fantasy arising from faith’s freewheeling imagination. For those who accept its vision, there are very specific connections to American foreign policy relations in the volatile Middle East.

I appreciate Crossan’s observations, criticisms and concerns. But I believe there is indeed a devil, and that tragically he is sometimes confused with God—even by writers of Scripture. So we must be careful not to 'throw out the baby with the bath water,’ when it comes to the importance of apocalyptic literature in the face of a nonviolent God.

Knowing that God is in fact nonviolent, we must realize that apocalyptic scriptures, e.g., the Book of Revelation, are to be read as part of a progressive revelation. Apocalyptic writers like ‘John’ and others were doing the best job they knew how. They were imperfectly seeing and warning us of what is to come. But I certainly believe in a literal antichrist, a literal rapture, a literal tribulation, and a literal second coming—details to be freely debated.

Beloved friends, 1 Corinthians 15:54 tells us that

“When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: ‘Death has been swallowed up in victory.’”

Here within linear time, there is a purging going on in each one of us, and throughout all creation. Eventually there will be no more death, and this lesser reality—where we currently perceive ourselves to be—will have fulfilled its purpose, and will be absorbed into the greater reality, into eternity. But now we have work to do, in praying, preparing, encouraging, and fighting.

Blessings.

[Paidion]

I already said who “whose” refers to in my post. It is clear to me by context, either way I read it, in Greek, or in English. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. I think the Spirit is able to give the proper sense and context, and I don’t really see how anyone looking at the context with a renewed mind would get anything other than what the translators- who in this case were, imo, correct-delivered…

And I already said, that of course, the translators rendered correctly the meaning of the passage. Do you think I was arguing otherwise?
My only point is that grammatically the Greek order of the words states that our Lord’s coming is after the working of Satan. Of course, Paul didn’t mean that. And Irenæus was not claiming that Paul meant that. He was claiming that Paul in the rapidity of his discourse wrote the words in the incorrect grammatical order. So likewise with the “God of this age” thing. Irenæus claimed the order in that case should have been, “God has blinded the minds of the unbelievers of this age.”

It should not come as a surprise that God should blind the minds of the unbelievers. Jesus Himself said that he spoke in parables for much the same reason:

And He said to them, "To you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to those who are outside, all things come in parables, so that “Seeing they may see and not perceive, And hearing they may hear and not understand; Lest they should turn, And their sins be forgiven them.” (Mark 4:11,12 NKJV)

[Paidion]

Paidion, how would you describe your view on inspiration and inerrancy?

I would say, that to say a writing is inspired (as in 2 Tim 3:16) is a figurative way of saying that the writer was inspired to write as he did. For a writer to be inspired doesn’t imply that what he wrote is inerrant. It cannot mean that, since there are many factual errors in the Bible. Here is just one:

Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel, and they gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord directed me.” (Matt 27:9,10)

These words are not found in the prophecy of Jeremiah. Rather very similar words are found in Zech 11: 12-13, a passage from which this quotation was likely made. It seems that Matthew simply made a mistake and named the wrong prophet.

Some attempt to explain away this apparent mistake by pointing out that Matthew said these words were SPOKEN by the prophet Jeremiah, rather than WRITTEN by the prophet Jeremiah. However, if one looks at other passages in Matthew that quote the prophets, one finds that it was usual for Matthew to write that his quotes were SPOKEN by the prophet when, in fact, they were written. See Matt 1:22, 2:15, 2:17, 4:14, 8:17, 12:17, 13:35, and 21:4. John also did this (John 12:38).

I see inspiration as a writer being influenced by God to write as he did about particular subjects. In general, the inspired writer’s historical accounts are correct, and his discourses on divine matters bring out truth. This does not mean that every detail is flawless.

Also, I do not see inspiration as restricted to the 66 books found in the Protestant Bible. If it were, then on what basis do we say that those particular books are the exclusively inspired writings? In the early church, there was much disputation about which writings were to be read and used in the churches. For gnostics were churning out writings purporting to be apostolic when, in fact, they were forgeries. Writings that were rejected or at least disputed in those early times included Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2nd and 3rd John, Jude, and Revelation. Clement (Paul’s fellow labourer) wrote a long letter, and powerful one, to the Corinthian Church shortly after Paul and Peter’s death. That letter was widely read and used in the early Church. Why it didn’t make “the canon of scripture” is anybody’s guess. Athanasius’ list of “New Testament” writings to be read and used in the churches is identical to those in our present New Testaments. So was Athanasius inspired to select this particular list? If so, then there must be inspiration outside the Canon. However, Athanasius’ list of “Old Testament” writings included Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah, and excluded the book of Esther.

One might ask why Esther is included in the Protestant Bible, but Judith is excluded. Both are about heroic women who saved the Hebrew nation.
In Esther, God is not mentioned even once.

Here is an interesting link from Bible Researcher concerning the Canon of Scripture:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon.html

[Agnostic_Gabe]

Paidion, how would you describe your view on inspiration and inerrancy?

I would say, that to say a writing is inspired (as in 2 Tim 3:16) is a figurative way of saying that the writer was inspired to write as he did. For a writer to be inspired doesn’t imply that what he wrote is inerrant. It cannot mean that, since there are many factual errors in the Bible. Here is just one:

Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel, and they gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord directed me.” (Matt 27:9,10)

These words are not found in the prophecy of Jeremiah. Rather very similar words are found in Zech 11: 12-13, a passage from which this quotation was likely made. It seems that Matthew simply made a mistake and named the wrong prophet.

Some attempt to explain away this apparent mistake by pointing out that Matthew said these words were SPOKEN by the prophet Jeremiah, rather than WRITTEN by the prophet Jeremiah. However, if one looks at other passages in Matthew that quote the prophets, one finds that it was usual for Matthew to write that his quotes were SPOKEN by the prophet when, in fact, they were written. See Matt 1:22, 2:15, 2:17, 4:14, 8:17, 12:17, 13:35, and 21:4. John also did this (John 12:38).

I see inspiration as a writer being influenced by God to write as he did about particular subjects. In general, the inspired writer’s historical accounts are correct, and his discourses on divine matters bring out truth. This does not mean that every detail is flawless.

Also, I do not see inspiration as restricted to the 66 books found in the Protestant Bible. If it were, then on what basis do we say that those particular books are the exclusively inspired writings? In the early church, there was much disputation about which writings were to be read and used in the churches. For gnostics were churning out writings purporting to be apostolic when, in fact, they were forgeries. Writings that were rejected or at least disputed in those early times included Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2nd and 3rd John, Jude, and Revelation. Clement (Paul’s fellow labourer) wrote a long letter, and powerful one, to the Corinthian Church shortly after Paul and Peter’s death. That letter was widely read and used in the early Church. Why it didn’t make “the canon of scripture” is anybody’s guess. Athanasius’ list of “New Testament” writings to be read and used in the churches is identical to those in our present New Testaments. So was Athanasius inspired to select this particular list? If so, then there must be inspiration outside the Canon. However, Athanasius’ list of “Old Testament” writings included Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah, and excluded the book of Esther.

One might ask why Esther is included in the Protestant Bible, but Judith is excluded. Both are about heroic women who saved the Hebrew nation.
In Esther, God is not mentioned even once.

Here is an interesting link from Bible Researcher concerning the Canon of Scripture:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon.html

This is a great post Paidion. I agree with your stance.

[Hermano]

For your consideration:

“Why Standing Against Islamic Violence Forces You To Rethink Biblical Inerrancy” by Benjamin L. Corey.

Blessings.

[St_Michael]

I believe God is nonviolent. When we read in Job that God allowed Satan to bring fire down from heaven the text goes on to say it was the fire of God. This is also why when God allowed Satan to take Job’s family the text goes on to say “The Lord has given and the Lord has taken away”. Based on these verses I interpret those verses in the Bible that say God destroys as God permitting or allowing evil and destruction (for justifiable reasons). This is how God’s wrath was expressed at the cross. He allowed evil to have it’s way with Christ. What Satan meant for evil God meant for good - the saving of many lives. One act two intentions. The worst evil in human history was meant by God for good. Incidentally we see this in the Old Testament as well. God will bring evil to judge His people and turn around and judge the people who brought evil against His people.

[Hermano]

St. Michael, as in this essay, I often try to point people to the ideas of Richard Murray. Particularly his “SATAN: Old Testament Servant Angel or New Testament Cosmic Rebel?” I strongly commend this journal article to you. For me, it was life-changing.

I must disagree with the idea of “God permitting or allowing evil.” I believe God has disallowed all evil through the finished work of Christ. And as Christians, it is up to us to enforce his victory with ‘the weapons of our warfare,’ which are spiritual and not carnal. 2 Cor. 10:4.

Here is something else by Murray I hope you will find of interest: this FB post where he disputes Calvin’s view of God’s “omni-causative sovereignty.” He asks people to think through all the implications of what Calvin was saying. And to take full ownership of those implications—if they agree with Calvin’s premises.

To whit, Calvin claims:

That thieves, murderers, and other evildoers, are instruments of divine providence, being employed by the Lord himself to execute the judgments which He has resolved to inflict. Institutes I, 17, 5.

and that

The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are, in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as He permits, nay, unless in so far as He commands; that they are not only bound by His fetters but are even forced to do Him service. Institutes I, 17, 11.

Blessings.

[St_Michael]

Hermano,

Thanks. Let me just say that I hold to the view of Thomas Aquinas on predestination and control. I believe in “Free Will” and God’s total control and predestination but He permits evil. God is the Greatest Sovereign good and therefore must love Himself as such. Not to do so would be a sin and God is holy. This view of providence and predestination was held by the Mystical Doctor of Catholicism St. John of The Cross. It lays the foundation for holy living and contemplation bringing one into union with Christ. For my future is in God’s hands because I love Him and therefore I have hope. I hold this view because I’m striving to become more holy like St. John Of The Cross was.

[Hermano]

Friends, over at The Christian Post there is a column called
“Greg Laurie: Jesus Christ Calls on Christians to Share the Gospel, Refusing to Can Be a Sin.”

I have had some exchanges in the Comments section there about the nature of God. Please be encouraged to chime in.

Blessings.

[Hermano]

In light of the today’s tragic events in Brussels, we remind ourselves that

-Our struggle is not against flesh and blood (Ephesians 6:12)
-The weapons of our warfare are spiritual; and whatever we bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever we loose on earth will be loosed in heaven (2 Corinthians 10:4; Mat. 16:19)
-God is not in the violence business, Satan is (John 10:10)
And from a Catholic theologian—

[size=125]Violence is Contrary to God’s Nature[/size]: Common Ground for Catholics and Atheists by Dr. Matthew Ramage of Benedictine College:

The Catholic has to interpret the entire Old Testament as a gradual progression towards Jesus Christ….Christians believe the fullness of truth is revealed in the person, teaching, and ministry of Jesus. We look at the entirety of Scripture in light of him.

(Come on, Baptists! Come on, Pentecostals! Come on…Muslims.)

[anon12438761]

The quote from the Catholic person is spot-on imo, and reminds of the the Channing piece I have linked to many times:

“We regard the Scriptures as the records of God’s successive revelations to mankind, and particularly of the last and most perfect revelation of his will by Jesus Christ. Whatever doctrines seem to us to be clearly taught in the Scriptures; we receive without reserve or exception. We do not, however, attach equal importance to all the books in this collection. Our religion, we believe, lies chiefly in the New Testament. The dispensation of Moses, compared with that of Jesus, we consider as adapted to the childhood of the human race, a preparation for a nobler system, and chiefly useful now as serving to confirm and illustrate the Christian Scriptures. Jesus Christ is the only master of Christians, and whatever he taught, either during his personal ministry, or by his inspired Apostles, we regard as of divine authority, and profess to make the rule of our lives.”

[steve7150]

In light of the today’s tragic events in Brussels, we remind ourselves that

-Our struggle is not against flesh and blood (Ephesians 6:12)
-The weapons of our warfare are spiritual; and whatever we bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever we loose on earth will be loosed in heaven (2 Corinthians 10:4; Mat. 16:19)
-God is not in the violence business, Satan is (John 10:10)

Exactly right.

[Hermano]

Fyi, today I commented on an article I found called

“A THOROUGH REFUTATION OF THE FALSE-GRACE HERESY OF JOSEPH PRINCE PART 3” by Pastor Chace Gordon.

Prince is my favorite grace teacher; unfortunately he is still an infernalist—though a tepid one. But his infernalism is not the beef that Pastor Gordon has with him.

Gordon offers, and then counters, various quotes from Prince’s book Destined To Reign; I select only one particular discussion of interest—his dispute with Quote #55 regarding the Law of Moses. (Recall that 2 Cor. 3 names that covenant a ‘ministry of death and condemnation, engraved on stones.’ That hiccup—out of the unilateral Abrahamic covenant of grace—and into the bilateral Law of Moses, lasted from Sinai to the cross.)

Gordon quotes Prince, then gives his critique of the quote:

Quote #55:
“…Something tragic happened right at the foot of Mount Sinai. In Exodus 19:8, your English Bible says that the people cried out to Moses, saying, ‘All that the Lord has spoken we will do.’ In the original Hebrew text, this is actually a statement of pride. They were saying, ‘All that God requires and demands of us, we are well able to perform’…So they effectively exchanged covenants, from the Abrahamic covenant which is based on grace, to the Sinaitic covenant which is based on the law.”
Chapter 17, pages 222-223

NOTE: The giving of the law at Sinai was not the chastening of God for Israel’s presumption of obedience. If the Israelites were truly walking in the grace of God, they WERE WELL ABLE to obey the commands of God!

Why would a just Lord deliberately give commands to His servants they could not fulfill, and then ADDITIONALLY PUNISH them for their predetermined and unavoidable failure?

Keep in mind that it was under the Abrahamic covenant (“which is based on grace”) that Israel backslid and went into captivity in Egypt for 430 years prior to the 50 day “period of pure grace” leading to Sinai.

If the Abrahamic covenant is based on grace and characterized by the unconditional favor of God, why are ONLY the last 50 days referred to as an example of this, and the 430 years prior completely ignored???

Here is my contribution to the Comments section of Pastor Gordon’s article:

In Quote #55 (from Destined To Reign, by Joseph Prince), Pastor Gordon asks, “Why would a just Lord deliberately give commands to His servants they could not fulfill, and then ADDITIONALLY PUNISH them for their predetermined and unavoidable failure?”

The short answer is, He didn’t. Prince made the point that “Something tragic happened right at the foot of Mount Sinai.” I believe Prince is right on that point—but that Pastor Gordon is right in arguing that “The giving of the law at Sinai was not the chastening of God for Israel’s presumption of obedience.”

The real problem is they are both wrong in believing that “dogma” is ever from God.

I offer you the “Jesus Hermeneutic”: All Scripture must be interpreted according TO, BY and THROUGH the revealed nature of Jesus.

I am sure that God warns people, but I don’t believe He hurts people. Whenever well-intentioned prophets misattribute to God anything that is violent or vindictive, it is because they are not successfully distinguishing the voice of God from either their own flesh, or the voice of the world, or the voice of Satan.

I believe Pastor Prince is correct in saying “Something tragic happened right at the foot of Mount Sinai.” What happened? Well, Moses was known to sometimes misinterpret and embellish what he was hearing from God. Case in point: When Moses was told to speak to the rock, reassuring the people of the Lord’s lovingkindness, he instead struck the rock, declaring *“Listen, you rebels, must WE bring you water out of this rock?” *Numbers 20.

Jesus himself is THE Word of God (Revelation 19:13), and showed himself to be the arbiter of all Scripture. He said *“All authority has been given to ME in heaven and on earth.” *Matthew 28:18. And “You have heard it was said…but I say…” Matthew 5.

Speaking of Mosaic embellishments, Jesus ‘blotted out the handwriting of ordinances [DOGMA vs. nomos] that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.’ By doing this, he ‘disarmed the powers and authorities’ —since their principle weapon is condemnation. See Col. 2:14. (Note: I define dogma this way: human embellishments carrying a suggestion of threatened judgment.)

To support the bold assertion that God’s true nature has only ever been nonviolent and unipolar (i.e. love), please consider this short essay,

“Is God Violent, Or Nonviolent?” at

Is God Violent, Or Nonviolent?

This article will dramatically help the reader to cultivate reading Scripture ‘by the Spirit,’ instead of ‘by the Letter,’ because it defends the goodness of God.

Blessings.

Pastor Gordon’s complete article, with my disagreement, is found here.

[anon12438761]

I offer you the “Jesus Hermeneutic”: All Scripture must be interpreted according TO, BY and THROUGH the revealed nature of Jesus.

Outstanding!

[Hermano]

DaveB, that quote above about the “Jesus Hermeneutic” is from Richard Murray. I hope you will read his
“SATAN: Old Testament Servant Angel or New Testament Cosmic Rebel?” if you haven’t already. It’s the most important article I’ve ever read.]

**My background is charismatic, so I’ve always believed in divine healing, in theory. But my bipolar view of God was an obstacle to my faith.

Yesterday I saw a video interview of a paramedic who has had a lot of success praying for the sick and injured in his ambulance. He goes by “The Praying Medic.”

This was my comment to him today on his blog:**

Congratulations. I saw this interview on World Net Daily yesterday, and bought The Kingdom of God Made Simple (3 Book Series) for Kindle an hour later. I would like to support this quote I just read from Hearing God’s Voice Made Simple—

When an atheist hears of a God who seems to endorse mass genocide and other acts of cruelty and violence, their internal understanding (that if God existed, He would be more loving than this) causes them to reject the violent and immoral God who is preached from many pulpits. When atheists and agnostics are presented with the idea that God is a truly loving and compassionate deity, many will confess that they hope such a God does exist.

** —**with a short essay for your consideration:

“Is God Violent, Or Nonviolent?” at

Is God Violent, Or Nonviolent?

Blessings.

[anon12438761]

I’m reading the Murray article now - very interesting. Very.

[Eaglesway]

I dont believe God is totally non-violent. I believe He prefers all other methods of resolution but under certain extreme conditions will resort to violence as a last line of defense for the creation, which, if anyone recalls, He placed under Adam’s dominion, where it remains today, with the caveat that adam has placed himself under the adversary, and the further caveat- except for those who have entered the kingdom of God, placing themselves under the Lord Jesus.

All else is confusion, chaos and futility, into which, in this age, God is speaking “Let there be light” through the gospel and the Ecclesia of God as more “dry ground” emerges as the ages proceed and the waters above are separated from the waters below.

The fact that “Our weapons are not carnal but mighty through God for the pulling down of strongholds and fortresses that exalt them selves against the true knowledge of God”- which I agree with, does not necessarily contradict that God, in the unfolding of this letter from Him…

“the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him with a view to an** administration** suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth”…

Has gone through some changes in how He deals as mankind has emerged through the continuing creation onto wider ground. Yes, His goal is that we would turn our swords into pruning forks and “learn war no more”. If He wanted to just zap that into us maybe He could, but I think something else is going on.

I personally think that portraying God as a totally non-violent being who has been hood-winked by the adversary, or portraying the OT as one big screw up, is just as off as portraying Him as a cruel tyrant, unless we disregard the testimony of the scripture totally as well. Rather, imo, the OT was a stage to grow through, even as this age is also as we(all mankind) proceed toward the “all in all”.

Sodom and Gomorrah were ended violently. Directly by YHWH. Noah’s flood was an act of immense violence that destroyed a world where such perversity and violence held sway that God was forced by His own character to end it, as the Potter ends the clay vessel that has been marred beyond repair upon the wheel, then remakes it according to His pleasure and purpose.

God has created us for a purpose, the further we stray from that purpose(love God, love one another), the more likely we are to incur disciplinary intervention.

IMO these judgments have entered into the “consciousness of corporate mankind” as testimonies to the error of wickedness and the consequences of that error and that is what it means when it says “her smoke will rise up forever and ever”.

Jesus didnt kill anyone but he was violent in clearing the Temple and I can’t help but believe that the only reason any one man could have done such a thing without being physically restrained by the multitudes gathered there is that the wrath of an angry God was crackling all around and through Him.

IMO the explanation of the violence perpetrated by Israel in the Old Testament has to do with the constraints YHWH has placed upon His own hands in working with man as he was then- in the age before the revelation of Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of God.

A full preterist must believe that God is violent in some degree, in that they believe the destruction of Jerusalem was the signal event transitioning from that age to this- Pretty violent.

And if some major interpretations of prophecy are to be believed there is more violence to come, as man, in his stubborn and hardened rebellion continues to force His mighty hand to intervene in tumultuous ways to preserve His creation from even greater depredations from the hands of the stewards he has placed the earth under- mankind.

God is disposed against violence. His ultimate goal is for all that is not love to be consumed by the fire of His love. But at times he “shows Himself froward with the froward” and “answers a fool according to his folly”

I think not enough credit is given to the corporate consciousness of mankind and the general accountability we have for one another, and the lessons we are learning as a whole.

Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good.** But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. 5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake.**

the highest sword is wielded by God. Just because someone does not want to believe a good God could ever be violent doesnt mean that their perception is the highest one, since they are, in some measure, setting themselves apart from mankind, who is corporately responsible in some measure for its own fate.

I do not think the violence done by men of all religions, like the Crusades or Calvin or Salem is the same as the violence required of Israel in the OT in certain circumstances where the testimony of the Word is clearly that YHWH spoke plainly to Moses in the tent of meeting, or that he spoke plainly to Samuel in regards to destroying the Amalakites, etc.

Why destroy the whole family? because the children would perpetuate the perversity of their father’s and the cancer(within the body of Creation) would remain, malignant to the point of becoming a terminal illness.

The Crusades and Geneva(to me) are examples of ambitious liars and deceivers subverting the people over which they were stewards to incite them to violence for their own ambitions and politics and empire building.

I think it flies in the face of a false self image of humanity to admit that a group of humans could become so perverse that they ought to be eliminated or destroyed as a family from the face of the earth. I think that is in itself an error, not seeing the depths of the consequences of our wickedness as a race and our corporate accountability for our general irresponsibility. i think it is the reason we call “them” bad and “us” good while we do the same things for the same reasons behind different forms of propaganda and different enticements.

I think we could very well be reaching such a point again, where God intervenes to arrest the abominable wickedness of mankind by some great act that must necessarily be categorized as “violent”.

But God sent Jonah to Nineveh, and He sent Jesus to Jerusalem, He sent Noah into the world that was destroyed by water and he is sending us into the world that is now reserved for fire unto a new heavens and a new earth where righteousness dwells, in which the lion lays down with the lamb and a child plays by an adders den, and as we are subjected to Christ in the “administration suitable to the fulness of times” corporate mankind is being brought onto even wider ground of consciousness, where the glory of the Lord covers the earth and the underlying enmity of man is further reduced by the presence in the earth of the Lord Jesus and many sons unto glory- who suffered violence with Him in this age so that they might be the “repairers of the breach” and “restorers of paths to dwell in” in the age to come.

6 For those whom the Lord loves He disciplines,
And He scourges every son whom He receives.”
7 It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? 8 But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons.

All partake of discipline, and scourging at times involves violence. sometimes we need it and standing back at a very far distance and looking at the depravity of man and the slow learning curve of the ages, God is justified in sometimes, as a last resort, giving mankind what disciplines He must to maintain the balance between His plan and man’s participation in it as stewards, sons and daughters, families, etc.

but thats just one guys opinion