So it is interesting David that you seemingly put ‘judge’ and God in the same place, or seeming to…
Can you expound on that thought… How is the modern justice system doing God’s will? Or maybe that is not what you were saying?
God is a loving Father. He has never been anything else, and would never harm anyone, regardless of when the prophets have said otherwise. “Let God be true, and every human being a liar.” Romans 3:4, NIV.
He loves people and warns people in order to help them avoid death. He does not rule, or decree, or threaten death. He does not approve of death, send death, or utilize death as a tool. Death is His stated enemy, which will one day be brought to an end (1 Cor. 15:26). Death is under the control of the fallen archangel, Lucifer, not God:
Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil. Heb. 2:14.
God does not send death, He sends salvation from death. He is not in the killing business, but in the saving business. God is a Savior.
Good post, H!!
1 Like
Nah I’m NOT drawing that connection at all. Simply by ‘Judge’… God being the supreme honcho of creation determines (sets Adam boundaries, i.e., judges what consequence might flow from a given action) as per His command given that determines certain outcome — and contrary to Hermano’s denials, this was all via His “command/charge/directive” as per Gen 2:16.
Gotta love your argument of shifting sands…
So it all comes down to the semantics of warning but not threaten — seriously, this the best you can do??
…UNLESS it be His own Son (Rev 13:8), as per…
So contrary to all you have said it still comes back to this above that really negates all your other claims. AND the reason for the sanction is NOT the issue!
What is your method of choice in explaining away and discrediting Jesus?…
Rev 2:22-23 Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds. I will kill her children with death, and all the churches shall know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts. And I will give to each one of you according to your works.
Rev 2:27a ‘He shall rule them with a rod of iron; they shall be dashed to pieces like the potter’s vessels’—
Rev 19:11 Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war.
Rev 19:15 Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
WHAT!? God not in control!? You missed this memo too…
Rev 1:18 I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death.
Notice the PRESENT TENSE of I have — NOT will have, or yet to have, but I HAVE!!
Can you not appreciate the major difference between a threat and a warning, Davo?
Threat: “Fred, I am going to kill you!”
Warning: "Fred, watch out! Someone is around the corner waiting to kill you!
Davo, I don’t believe God killed His Son; but obviously you do. We radically differ in our views of God’s true nature. I subscribe to the Ransom Theory/Christus Victor, not Penal Substitution.
Here, Hades and Death are conceived as prisons where the dead are confined, and from which Christ can deliver them. We read about “the gates of death” in Psalm 9:13 and Job 38:17, and “the gates of hell” in Isaiah 38:10 and Matthew 16:18.
Christ won the keys of Hades and Death to free people, not to kill people.
By the way Davo, I don’t see myself wavering in my position about God doing no harm, and being exclusively good. As you well know, I even go so far as to challenge the prophets on this point.
But why blow a fuse? I don’t, even when you accuse the Savior Jesus of returning in 70 AD to kill all the Christ-rejecting Jews in Jerusalem–while knowing that Jesus had said, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem…how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing." Mt. 23:37, Lk. 13:34.
I perceive that much of the Bible assumes this happens in various ways. E.g. I think the notion that God disciplines and chastens those he loves, and that we will all appear for judgment as well as the warning that we’ll reap what we sow assumes that we can face punishing consequences for doing evil things. Do you see God’s posture as being that we are exempt from punishment?
Not really, but I’m trying to look at it from a different angle, It is an interesting situation, Men have tried to understand God, and in doing so have had to make judgments (I would say assumptions) about what the word of God means and says.
When I can break free of the ideas that have been drilled into me for years, I can see a different God, one of love and compassion, That also brings a peace with it.
I tend to see most of scripture as history, so to me the verbiage of God chastising those he loves and each one will stand in judgment as past events that have happened.
Morality or shall we say right and wrong seem to me to be at the least a moving target. I’m not sure how we can be judged if the rules are not crystal clear.
Please don’t assume that I mean anyone can do anything without repercussions… But we have societies with rules and enforcements in place. If I do something bad and go to prison, will I again have to pay for the wrong before God?
These are ALL your words Hermano NOT mine… little wonder you can’t be taken seriously! If person A sanctioned the death of person B and person C carried out the sentence at person A’s behest, WHO does logic credit with passing out the sentence? — Person A.
Threat = Warning: “Fred, you had better keep your mouth shut (warning)… if you don’t I will kill you! (threat)” — yawn… your forced equivocations are nothing more than simplistic detractions and most can see straight through them.
Once again, yes no doubt… 100% in lockstep with any number of atheists on that very point. 
Feel free to provide a direct quote for this FALSE claim.
Yep as is becoming more evident, your preferred M/O seems to be… never let a full quote get in the way of claiming a half-truth with half a quote. And Jesus went onto say…
Mt23:38 See! Your house is left to you desolate! Cf. Jer 22:5
BTW Hermano…
What is your method of choice in explaining away and discrediting Jesus?…
Rev 2:22-23 Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds. I will kill her children with death, and all the churches shall know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts. And I will give to each one of you according to your works.
Rev 2:27a ‘He shall rule them with a rod of iron; they shall be dashed to pieces like the potter’s vessels’—
Rev 19:11 Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war.
Rev 19:15 Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
1 Like
I tend to this think as well. I mean, I ask myself regularly, how is it possible some madman hasn’t used an atomic weapon? The only time they were used is when it was calculated to save more lives than fighting a grueling war. However, the moment a nuclear (a powerful one) is detonated in non-wartime, I would likely change my stance on this. Actually, you might say this concept keeps me believing there is some restraining force in the universe.
I guess time will shape my beliefs as more and more nations get their hands on nuclear weapons, bringing with it the possibility that a madman could get a hold of one and use it. This might just be a case where our defensive tech (being able to detect specific isotopes?) has been able to keep up with the bad guys, but if that fails…
Wait, Davo. You know of atheists who challenge the prophets about the depths of God’s goodness?!
Surely you recognize some of this as figurative language?
But whether it is or it isn’t, let me reiterate my belief that God does not harm people. Even the hard things He does to people are to benefit them, not harm them; because He loves people, and sent Jesus to provide salvation for all people.
-David says about God, “You hate all who do wrong.” Ps. 5:5, NIV.
-Yet the apostle John says, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son.”
Who is right? Or, should we continue to promote that God is bipolar?
Whenever someone, whether a Bible prophet or anyone else, misattributes evil to God, in that instance he is confusing God with Satan, whether through ignorance or deception.
1 Like
In the view i am suggesting what i had in mind was not a Calvinist or deterministic outlook, although as you mention that would be consistent with what was stated, but a free will perspective wherein God does not “endorse” sinful acts (e.g. abortion) against the innocent, but nevertheless bears much of the responsibility for such (as if He had committed the acts themselves) since He could have easily stopped them, but chose to allow the sinful acts to be committed, thereby making Himself complicit in the act. In so doing, however, He does not sin, since He is acting for the greater good & not missing the mark, for freewill was necessary without Him continually intervening to stop evil actions, just as it is for beings to experience both good & evil in order to appreciate the good all around them (the following chapter makes this latter point):
…in fact just like you they deny, dispute and dismiss absolutely everything in the bible they cannot fathom, comprehend or just plain don’t like… so yeah.
Hmmm… in which case you might just want to take a look the mirror.
1 Like
1 Like
Thank you for that correction, Hermano. I should have said, “God seldom intervenes at the present time to prevent evil acts from occurring.”
[quote=“Origen, post:163, topic:13832, full:true”]
God… bears much of the responsibility for sinful acts (as if He had committed the acts themselves) since He could have stopped them, but chose to allow the sinful acts to be committed, thereby making Himself complicit in the act. [/quote]
I was critiquing MM’s position and you and I share many apologetic assumptions here, such that our difference may be semantic. For I would never say that not stopping someone’s perversity that one could stop makes one “complicit” in their sin, or even gives one the “responsibility” for their acts.
E.g. I often could physically stop members of my family from executing sinful choices, but I’m not convinced in the big picture that it would always be the healthiest for me to stop them from making their own decisions. Yet while I am responsible for that choice, I would not put it that my failure to control them makes me “complicit” in their sin, or is the same as if I myself committed their sins. Indeed, I think sometimes the most responsible thing is to let others make their own choices and to let them bear the responsibility for those choices.
Definitely agree with this.
Not many people go around pulling cigarettes out of the mouths of other people. OTOH if it were one’s child that may be an exception. To use another example, if you had the power, as God does, to stop the rape, torture & murder of a child but chose to simply observe it, then many people, perhaps even most courts, would consider you just as responsible, guilty & evil as the perpetrator of the immoral act. Many, therefore, blame God for such evils, yet He is no more or less sinful in allowing them than if He had committed the act Himself. He bears responsibility for freely choosing to allow such acts while He watched & did not stop them & therefore the responsibility to make it right with those who suffered, which He is capable of & shall do.
“The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” Rev. 13:8. What was foreknown to, and ordained by, God is spoken of as having taken place.
God has disallowed all evil through the finished work of Christ.
[quote=“Origen, post:169, topic:13832, full:true”]
“God is NO (more or) LESS sinful in allowing evil acts than if He had committed the act Himself.”
Thanks Origen, you make a good point that many would say our failure to stop crimes that we could have would mean that we share in responsibility for them, and thus similarly believe God shares in responsibility for evils that God does not intervene in. That makes sense, and if we assume that God is omnipotent concerning all actions, I think it puts the burden on Arminians to explain why creating an existence where God does not stop each evil action is a greater value than creating one where only good acts are allowed. (Of course as you implied above, many of them will argue that an essentially non-interventionary practice of allowing genuine freedom including evil choices is that good.)
I also agree that if God allows such freedom for evils, He properly bears responsibility to make it right. But in the line cited above, I remain confused about apparently describing God’s role in designing a free creation as making him equally responsible (“no less sinful!”) for such acts as the one who chose to do them. That seems tantamount to saying that God then is as sinful as sinners who choose to do the evils. But in your previous note, you affirm that God does not sin in bearing this ‘responsibility’ because he allows it for the greater good.
Again, apart from differing semantics, it appears to me that we are actually saying the same thing. Except, my own sense is that even though human failures to stop a crime means we do culpably share in responsibility for it, I would say the sin of doing the crime is more egregious, rather than “no more sinful” than not intervening. More to the point, agreeing with you that God has good reason not to intervene (and thus did not sin), I would not put it that his choice to do that makes him “no less sinful” than the person choosing to do the evil. Am I missing something here?