Saul in 1 Sam 15 wanted to preserve life and as a consequence was rejected. Samuel on the other hand killed the captured king. Who did the right thing? About Joshua, it says: As the LORD had commanded Moses his servant, so Moses commanded Joshua, and so Joshua did. He left nothing undone of all that the LORD had commanded Moses” (Joshua 11:15). “The Israelites served the Lord as long as Joshua was alive, and they continued serving the Lord during the lifetimes of the elders who lived after Joshua had died. These old men had seen all the great things the Lord had done for the Israelites.” Judges 2:7 ERV How do you understand these verses in light of what you have said at the end of the video that Joshua only thought he was serving God? Thanks.
I’m not sure I think that Saul was being merciful, but I do think that Samuel’s vision of vengeance is at odds with Christ and other visions of God within the Bible. But that’s a subject for a whole new video. There’s been a lot of discussion about that tale. Thanks for the idea! I’d recommend checking out these four videos about people in the Bible who argued with God. I think it provides additional insights into the sort of dialogues that God invites us to, and the options we have within them: ua-cam.com/video/p_vF3N4OuWU/v-deo.htmlsi=nadV5ivAYqh7m6fT ua-cam.com/video/fPVq-7UWe1o/v-deo.htmlsi=kzf-HNxHAxAN4NwW ua-cam.com/video/WlcBco10PCU/v-deo.htmlsi=059ORXy2Z3XjjV6S ua-cam.com/video/BzksPTGb8Vs/v-deo.htmlsi=k8csz15OlRYF0vrI
The God of the OT and NT is the same. God is gladly merciful to those who would respond to His mercy, but those who were so hardened that would only hurt themselves and others He knew that it was best for these people to die. You quote that Abraham tried to preserve life. True, he was pleading for the people in Sodom (in this sense Abraham was a type of Christ, who is pleading for us) - but on the other side when it was time to fight, Abraham and his men did fight (when Lot was taken captive). - In the NT Jesus gladly forgives but he also is depicted as a King who is coming for the battle, to give to the sinner, what he chose. - My friend you are mixing things and confuse people. - Quoting from the Apocrypha (if I understood you correctly) that Moses would argue with God and that God would need to explain Himself to Moses... have mercy! That is a total distortion of the character of Moses and of God! Please for your own sake, stick with the Bible and leave out all philosophical ideas of men - Joshua failed? Are you serious?
I don’t have time at the moment to read your whole message but I saw that you misstated something toward the end (I’ll try and come back later today to reply to the rest): I’m not quoting from the apocrypha regarding Moses. That’s in the Bible in Exodus chapter 32. It’s also something that Ellen White affirmed as well in multiple writings where she says that Moses displayed his true faith by disobeying God. So perhaps you need to spend more time researching and contemplating before you begin to form misconceptions about what someone shares? I’d encourage you to read my book Saying No to God: A Radical Approach to Reading the Bible Faithfully (link in description of video to Amazon). The book has been endorsed by every almost every major Adventist publication including official ones. The reason? It’s Adventist theology and also something the earliest Protestants like Martin Luther taught. So don’t be so dismissive of something just because you misunderstand it.
Okay, so I finally have a moment to respond again! With regard to Ellen White and Moses, I tackle the issue in my book but I also have an article coming out on the topic. For now, here are some relevant quotes for you. “If God had purposed to destroy Israel, who could plead for them?Many men would have said: ‘It is the purpose of God. If he wishes to destroy Israel, I can not help it. They will be destroyed.’ Not so Moses.” Ellen White, “Apostasy,” Youth Instructor 49.46 (1901): 362. "How few but would have left the sinners to their fate! . . . . But Moses discerned ground for hope where there appeared only discouragement and wrath. The word of God, “Let me alone,” he understood not to forbid but to encourage intercession . . . " Ellen White, Patriarchs and Prophets (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1890), p. 318. "Here the Lord proved Moses . . . . He would test the perseverance, faithfulness and love of Moses . . . . [And Moses] showed by his intercessions with God that he valued more highly the prosperity of God’s chosen people than a great name, or to be called the father of a greater nation than was Israel . . . . Nobly did Moses stand the test . . . . God had proved him, and was pleased with his faithfulness, his simplicity of heart, and integrity before him." Ellen White, Spiritual Gifts (Michigan: Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Assoc., 1864), vol. 3, pp. 276, 278. Also compare her statements with John Calvin's response: "This was, indeed, the sharpest and sorest trial of the faith of Moses; when God seemed to contradict Himself and to depart from His covenant . . . when God seems at first sight to throw discredit upon His own words, we have need of unusual fortitude and firmness to sustain this assault. For, since faith is founded on the Word, when that Word appears to be at issue with itself, how in such conflicting circumstances could pious minds be sustained unless they were supported by the incomparable power of the Spirit?" John Calvin, Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of A Harmony, trans. Charles William Bingham, vol. 3 (Edinburgh: The Calvin Translation Society, 1854), p. 339. “For we do not fight against him [God], except by his own power, and with his own weapons; for he, having challenged us to this contest, at the same time furnishes us with means of resistance, so that he both fights against us and for us.” John Calvin, Commentaries on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis, trans. John King, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1850), p. 196. And compare with Martin Luther's comments: "There is sufficiently abundant protection in the promise of God . . . against this lofty temptation [from God]. For if God sent an angel to say: “Do not believe these promises!” I would reject him, saying: “Depart from me, Satan, etc.” (cf. Matt 16:23). Or, if God himself appeared to me in His majesty and said: “You are not worthy of My grace; I will change My plan and not keep My promise to you,” I would not have to yield to Him, but it would be necessary to fight most vehemently against God himself. It is as Job says: “Though He slay me, yet will I hope in Him” (cf. Job 13:15)." Martin Luther, “Reminiscere Sunday - Second Sunday in Lent,” Complete Sermons of Martin Luther, vol. 5 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2000), p. 325
Now, to finally reply to your other points: 1. I agree that the God of the OT and NT is the same. 2. The reference to Abraham preserving life in John 8 is likely a reference to the story of Isaac in Genesis 22. Please see this article for more background: www.academia.edu/56031779/When_God_Wants_Dis_obedience_Wrestling_with_Genesis_22_Adventist_Today_29_3_2021_12_15 3. I'm not attempting to mix or confuse anything. I'm simply addressing issues in a way that biblical scholars do. 4. Yes, I would argue that Joshua failed. The funny thing is that this isn't my argument, it's from the Bible. The book of Joshua explicitly says Joshua failed to drive out the peoples and the letter of Hebrews in the NT specifically says that where Joshua failed to do what was hoped, Jesus (Yeshua = Joshua) would provide that reality.
Time to buy another J.J Collins Book 😀 Regarding the idea that we don't know enough to judge God's actions as unfair or contrary to goodness, Thomas Allin would argue that such a concept may lead to moral skepticism. In the following quote he is writing against eternal torment but i think his words apply equally here as well. "It is impossible to avoid sympathy with much of this view at first sight, but only then; for when closely examined it is seen to be open to the charge of grave ambiguity, or far worse. It may mean that in the future God will act as a loving human parent would, and then, I reply, this is precisely the larger hope. Again, it may mean a very different and very dangerous thing. It may mean that at the last my ideas of right and wrong will undergo a complete change-that the things that I now pronounce with the fullest conviction to be cruel and vile will at that day seem to be righteous and just, and that thus God will be fully justified though he inflict endless torment. But take this statement to pieces and see what it really means. It means, in effect, practical skepticism. It means blank agnosticism. This is easily shown. For what this view really tells me is that my deepest moral convictions are wholly worthless, because that which they declare to be cruel and revolting, is right and holy, and will so appear at the last. But if this be so, then I have lost my sole measure of right and wrong. What is truth or goodness, I know not. They cease to be realities; they are, for all I know, mere phantoms. Religion, therefore, is impossible. Conscience ceases to be a reliable guide. Revelation is a mere blank, for all revelation presupposes the trustworthiness of that moral sense to which it is addressed. (Christ Triumphant, pg. 12-13)
![Part 3: The Faking of a Man [JACOB] // David Asscherick](/img/n.gif)
Saul in 1 Sam 15 wanted to preserve life and as a consequence was rejected. Samuel on the other hand killed the captured king. Who did the right thing?
About Joshua, it says: As the LORD had commanded Moses his servant, so Moses commanded Joshua, and so Joshua did. He left nothing undone of all that the LORD had commanded Moses” (Joshua 11:15).
“The Israelites served the Lord as long as Joshua was alive, and they continued serving the Lord during the lifetimes of the elders who lived after Joshua had died. These old men had seen all the great things the Lord had done for the Israelites.”
Judges 2:7 ERV
How do you understand these verses in light of what you have said at the end of the video that Joshua only thought he was serving God? Thanks.
I’m not sure I think that Saul was being merciful, but I do think that Samuel’s vision of vengeance is at odds with Christ and other visions of God within the Bible. But that’s a subject for a whole new video. There’s been a lot of discussion about that tale. Thanks for the idea!
I’d recommend checking out these four videos about people in the Bible who argued with God. I think it provides additional insights into the sort of dialogues that God invites us to, and the options we have within them:
ua-cam.com/video/p_vF3N4OuWU/v-deo.htmlsi=nadV5ivAYqh7m6fT
ua-cam.com/video/fPVq-7UWe1o/v-deo.htmlsi=kzf-HNxHAxAN4NwW
ua-cam.com/video/WlcBco10PCU/v-deo.htmlsi=059ORXy2Z3XjjV6S
ua-cam.com/video/BzksPTGb8Vs/v-deo.htmlsi=k8csz15OlRYF0vrI
Amen.
The God of the OT and NT is the same. God is gladly merciful to those who would respond to His mercy, but those who were so hardened that would only hurt themselves and others He knew that it was best for these people to die. You quote that Abraham tried to preserve life. True, he was pleading for the people in Sodom (in this sense Abraham was a type of Christ, who is pleading for us) - but on the other side when it was time to fight, Abraham and his men did fight (when Lot was taken captive).
- In the NT Jesus gladly forgives but he also is depicted as a King who is coming for the battle, to give to the sinner, what he chose.
- My friend you are mixing things and confuse people.
- Quoting from the Apocrypha (if I understood you correctly) that Moses would argue with God and that God would need to explain Himself to Moses... have mercy! That is a total distortion of the character of Moses and of God! Please for your own sake, stick with the Bible and leave out all philosophical ideas of men
- Joshua failed? Are you serious?
I don’t have time at the moment to read your whole message but I saw that you misstated something toward the end (I’ll try and come back later today to reply to the rest): I’m not quoting from the apocrypha regarding Moses. That’s in the Bible in Exodus chapter 32. It’s also something that Ellen White affirmed as well in multiple writings where she says that Moses displayed his true faith by disobeying God.
So perhaps you need to spend more time researching and contemplating before you begin to form misconceptions about what someone shares?
I’d encourage you to read my book Saying No to God: A Radical Approach to Reading the Bible Faithfully (link in description of video to Amazon). The book has been endorsed by every almost every major Adventist publication including official ones. The reason? It’s Adventist theology and also something the earliest Protestants like Martin Luther taught.
So don’t be so dismissive of something just because you misunderstand it.
@@MatthewKorpman Thank you for the reply! I would like to see what EGW wrote about Moses disobeying God.
Okay, so I finally have a moment to respond again!
With regard to Ellen White and Moses, I tackle the issue in my book but I also have an article coming out on the topic. For now, here are some relevant quotes for you.
“If God had purposed to destroy Israel, who could plead for them?Many men would have said: ‘It is the purpose of God. If he wishes to destroy Israel, I can not help it. They will be destroyed.’ Not so Moses.” Ellen White, “Apostasy,” Youth Instructor 49.46 (1901): 362.
"How few but would have left the sinners to their fate! . . . . But Moses discerned ground for hope where there appeared only discouragement and wrath. The word of God, “Let me alone,” he understood not to forbid but to encourage intercession . . . " Ellen White, Patriarchs and Prophets (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1890), p. 318.
"Here the Lord proved Moses . . . . He would test the perseverance, faithfulness and love of Moses . . . . [And Moses] showed by his intercessions with God that he valued more highly the prosperity of God’s chosen people than a great name, or to be called the father of a greater nation than was Israel . . . . Nobly did Moses stand the test . . . . God had proved him, and was pleased with his faithfulness, his simplicity of heart, and integrity before him." Ellen White, Spiritual Gifts (Michigan: Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Assoc., 1864), vol. 3, pp. 276, 278.
Also compare her statements with John Calvin's response:
"This was, indeed, the sharpest and sorest trial of the faith of Moses; when God seemed to contradict Himself and to depart from His covenant . . . when God seems at first sight to throw discredit upon His own words, we have need of unusual fortitude and firmness to sustain this assault. For, since faith is founded on the Word, when that Word appears to be at issue with itself, how in such conflicting circumstances could pious minds be sustained unless they were supported by the incomparable power of the Spirit?" John Calvin, Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of A Harmony, trans. Charles William Bingham, vol. 3 (Edinburgh: The Calvin Translation Society, 1854), p. 339.
“For we do not fight against him [God], except by his own power, and with his own weapons; for he, having challenged us to this contest, at the same time furnishes us with means of resistance, so that he both fights against us and for us.” John Calvin, Commentaries on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis, trans. John King, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1850), p. 196.
And compare with Martin Luther's comments:
"There is sufficiently abundant protection in the promise of God . . . against this lofty temptation [from God]. For if God sent an angel to say: “Do not believe these promises!” I would reject him, saying: “Depart from me, Satan, etc.” (cf. Matt 16:23). Or, if God himself appeared to me in His majesty and said: “You are not worthy of My grace; I will change My plan and not keep My promise to you,” I would not have to yield to Him, but it would be necessary to fight most vehemently against God himself. It is as Job says: “Though He slay me, yet will I hope in Him” (cf. Job 13:15)." Martin Luther, “Reminiscere Sunday - Second Sunday in Lent,” Complete Sermons of Martin Luther, vol. 5 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2000), p. 325
Now, to finally reply to your other points:
1. I agree that the God of the OT and NT is the same.
2. The reference to Abraham preserving life in John 8 is likely a reference to the story of Isaac in Genesis 22. Please see this article for more background: www.academia.edu/56031779/When_God_Wants_Dis_obedience_Wrestling_with_Genesis_22_Adventist_Today_29_3_2021_12_15
3. I'm not attempting to mix or confuse anything. I'm simply addressing issues in a way that biblical scholars do.
4. Yes, I would argue that Joshua failed. The funny thing is that this isn't my argument, it's from the Bible. The book of Joshua explicitly says Joshua failed to drive out the peoples and the letter of Hebrews in the NT specifically says that where Joshua failed to do what was hoped, Jesus (Yeshua = Joshua) would provide that reality.
Time to buy another J.J Collins Book 😀
Regarding the idea that we don't know enough to judge God's actions as unfair or contrary to goodness, Thomas Allin would argue that such a concept may lead to moral skepticism. In the following quote he is writing against eternal torment but i think his words apply equally here as well.
"It is impossible to avoid sympathy with much of this view at first sight, but only then; for when closely examined it is seen to be open to the charge of grave ambiguity, or far worse. It may mean that in the future God will act as a loving human parent would, and then, I reply, this is precisely the larger hope. Again, it may mean a very different and very dangerous thing. It may mean that at the last my ideas of right and wrong will undergo a complete change-that the things that I now pronounce with the fullest conviction to be cruel and vile will at that day seem to be righteous and just, and that thus God will be fully justified though he inflict endless torment.
But take this statement to pieces and see what it really means. It means, in effect, practical skepticism. It means blank agnosticism. This is easily shown. For what this view really tells me is that my deepest moral convictions are wholly worthless, because that which they declare to be cruel and revolting, is right and holy, and will so appear at the last. But if this be so, then I have lost my sole measure of right and wrong. What is truth or goodness, I know not. They cease to be realities; they are, for all I know, mere phantoms. Religion, therefore, is impossible. Conscience ceases to be a reliable guide. Revelation is a mere blank, for all revelation presupposes the trustworthiness of that moral sense to which it is addressed. (Christ Triumphant, pg. 12-13)