Is God Magnanimous? - (as opposed to tyrannical)

[Jack]

Agree.
When I went to your post from my alerts, it was the only one on page 17.
I clicked show ignored content and the page filled up with a dozen more posts. - LOL
I was missing all the fun.

Two Bible attackers agreeing. Imagine that.

 

[Hiddenthings]

I was missing all the fun.

Stick around Steve more of that to come!

 

[quietthinker]

You know, @quietthinker, this could be a monumental moment for you, perhaps the last time you ever resort to a 'slow-moving train' as a way of avoiding the weightier matters of the Gospel. Only time will tell.

I see the expression 'slow train coming' has left an impression whether you like it or not. My guess is your constant reinforcement of it, either in jest or mocking will only etch it further into your consciousness.

 

[Hiddenthings]

To keep this thread on track, let’s return to the point at hand:

As I recall, @quietthinker, you argued that God hands people over to their own lusts and devices, citing Romans 1.

And I assume you'd still agree with that.

However, when it was shown that God Himself orders destruction (as in Jeremiah 34), you had no response. You're quick with clever one-liners, but when it matters, you offer nothing of substance.

The issue, as I see it, is your limited capacity to engage with Scripture in ways that challenge your preconceived theological notions. When confronted with such challenges, you resort to empty ramblings rather than addressing the point directly.

If I'm wrong in my observations feel free to point them out honestly with your dismissive meaningless diversions.

If you can’t engage and all you see are 'slow trains,' just say so, and I’ll watch you pass by without stopping. toot toot!

 

[Hiddenthings]

I see the expression 'slow train coming' has left an impression whether you like it or not. My guess is your constant reinforcement of it, either in jest or mocking will only etch it further into your consciousness.

No need to justify yourself, quiet. If getting to the truth is a ‘slow train coming’ for you, and it’s a spiritual awakening you need then I suggest you engage openly and honestly and leave Dylan’s songs where they belong.

No one can force you to engage, but your usual diversion tactics need to be called out if you're ever going to open your mind to God's Truth, rather than relying on your own.

#344 is where's it's at.

 

[quietthinker]

To keep this thread on track, let’s return to the point at hand:

As I recall, @quietthinker, you argued that God hands people over to their own lusts and devices, citing Romans 1.

And I assume you'd still agree with that.

However, when it was shown that God Himself orders destruction (as in Jeremiah 34), you had no response. You're quick with clever one-liners, but when it matters, you offer nothing of substance.

The issue, as I see it, is your limited capacity to engage with Scripture in ways that challenge your preconceived theological notions. When confronted with such challenges, you resort to empty ramblings rather than addressing the point directly.

If I'm wrong in my observations feel free to point them out honestly with your dismissive meaningless diversions.

If you can’t engage and all you see are 'slow trains,' just say so, and I’ll watch you pass by without stopping. toot toot!

Yes, you are wrong in your observations.
Contextually you have shown yourself uninterested in hearing explanations. You have lobbed yourself into the same camp as Jack in that regard.
Denial only serves your inability to want to know what you refuse to hear.....and so you remain stuck.....all the while projecting your recalcitrance onto me.

I observe the debate you have with others on this thread and it reinforces my conclusions to your approach.

 

[Hiddenthings]

Yes, you are wrong in your observations.
Contextually you have shown yourself uninterested in hearing explanations. You have lobbed yourself into the same camp as Jack in that regard.
Denial only serves your inability to want to know what you refuse to hear.....and so you remain stuck.....all the while projecting your recalcitrance onto me.

I observe the debate you have with others on this thread and it reinforces my conclusions on your approach.

I can only take this as a reluctance to deal openly and honestly, choosing instead to stay within a self‑made fortress. At least you have Steven for company.

You’re welcome to revisit the thread to see if you ever provided an explanation regarding the facts of Jeremiah 34, but I’d wager that doing so will only reinforce your self-deception and further call your integrity into question.

Not only to you deny the Lord's teaching but the very history which supports it.

Terrible position to be in really.

 

[quietthinker]

I can only take this as a reluctance to deal openly and honestly, choosing instead to stay within a self‑made fortress. At least you have Steven for company.

You’re welcome to revisit the thread to see if you ever provided an explanation regarding the facts of Jeremiah 34, but I’d wager that doing so will only reinforce your self-deception and further call your integrity into question.

Not only to you deny the Lord's teaching but the very history which supports it.

Terrible position to be in really.

Your reply appears to me as if you haven't heard a thing I've said.

 

[Hiddenthings]

Is God Magnanimous? - (as opposed to tyrannical)

Agree. When I went to your post from my alerts, it was the only one on page 17. I clicked show ignored content and the page filled up with a dozen more posts. - LOL I was missing all the fun. Two Bible attackers agreeing. Imagine that.

www.christianityboard.com

God’s declaration of ‘freedom to the sword’ carries implications that you and Steven seem unable to address. Acknowledging them would send your theology into a tailspin, or perhaps even make shipwreck of your faith. We can't have that can we!

 

[Hiddenthings]

Your reply appears to me as if you haven't heard a thing I've said.

I’m waiting for you to say something meaningful. We’ve already established that your aversion to the subject isn’t enough, more is required of you. Either confront your inability to discuss the hard sayings or willingly move on.

 

[Hiddenthings]

Why am I pressing @quietthinker so hard on Jeremiah 34?

Well it goes to the central theme of the Gospel as preached to Abraham.

The terms of the covenant in Genesis 15, outlined in verses Jer 34:18-20, involve a solemn act where all parties must pass between the divided pieces of a sacrificed calf. This practice was common in the ancient Near East, not limited to the Israelites, but found among various peoples of the region. When two individuals or groups made a covenant, whether for secular matters like property rights or business arrangements, they would sacrifice an animal, cut it into pieces, and separate the parts. To seal the agreement, the parties would then pass between the divided pieces, sometimes also sharing a meal together, as a sign of fellowship and mutual commitment. This act symbolized their understanding of the terms of the covenant.

Beyond a simple agreement, this ritual carried a profound message: anyone who violated the covenant’s terms would deserve the same fate as the animal victim- death. By partaking in the sacrificial meal, they symbolically ate their own condemnation, reinforcing the gravity of breaking the covenant.

This practice may explain the frequent biblical vow: "The LORD my God do so to me, and more also, if...," as seen in various places (Ruth 1:17; 1 Samuel 3:17; 14:44; 20:13; 25:22; 2 Samuel 19:13; 1 Kings 2:23; 2 Kings 6:31). This vow implies a wish for the same fate to befall the one who breaks their word, similar to what happened to the covenant animal.

It also clarifies why the Hebrew phrase for "making a covenant" is often translated as "cutting a covenant," indicating the sacrificial act involved.

Additionally, this practice sheds light on several other biblical actions.

For example, in Judges 19:29, the Levite cut up his murdered concubine into twelve pieces and sent them to the tribes of Israel.
Similarly, in 1 Samuel 11:7, Saul cut up two oxen, and in 1 Samuel 15:33, Samuel did something similar with Agag.

Jesus' words in Matthew 24:51 (Luke 12), where the unfaithful servant is "cut in pieces," may also be linked to this covenant tradition.

Similarly, agreements between Isaac and Abimelech (Genesis 26:28-31) and between Jacob and Laban (Genesis 31:44-54) are confirmed by sacrifices and shared meals, underscoring the significance of the covenantal act.

It’s clear from my conversation with @quietthinker that they have little to no understanding of these passages, which are clearly taught in both the Old and New Testaments. Moreover, it’s evident they have no interest in discussing it further, as acknowledging the truth of these teachings would challenge their man-made understanding of God’s wrath and judgments on mankind.

What this reveals is a lack of foundational knowledge, something that Abraham, Jeremiah, and Christ all understood and affirmed.

By their own words they place themselves outside the New Covenant.

 

[quietthinker]

Why am I pressing @quietthinker so hard on Jeremiah 34?

Well it goes to the central theme of the Gospel as preached to Abraham.

The terms of the covenant in Genesis 15, outlined in verses Jer 34:18-20, involve a solemn act where all parties must pass between the divided pieces of a sacrificed calf. This practice was common in the ancient Near East, not limited to the Israelites, but found among various peoples of the region. When two individuals or groups made a covenant, whether for secular matters like property rights or business arrangements, they would sacrifice an animal, cut it into pieces, and separate the parts. To seal the agreement, the parties would then pass between the divided pieces, sometimes also sharing a meal together, as a sign of fellowship and mutual commitment. This act symbolized their understanding of the terms of the covenant.

Beyond a simple agreement, this ritual carried a profound message: anyone who violated the covenant’s terms would deserve the same fate as the animal victim- death. By partaking in the sacrificial meal, they symbolically ate their own condemnation, reinforcing the gravity of breaking the covenant.

This practice may explain the frequent biblical vow: "The LORD my God do so to me, and more also, if...," as seen in various places (Ruth 1:17; 1 Samuel 3:17; 14:44; 20:13; 25:22; 2 Samuel 19:13; 1 Kings 2:23; 2 Kings 6:31). This vow implies a wish for the same fate to befall the one who breaks their word, similar to what happened to the covenant animal.

It also clarifies why the Hebrew phrase for "making a covenant" is often translated as "cutting a covenant," indicating the sacrificial act involved.

Additionally, this practice sheds light on several other biblical actions.

For example, in Judges 19:29, the Levite cut up his murdered concubine into twelve pieces and sent them to the tribes of Israel.
Similarly, in 1 Samuel 11:7, Saul cut up two oxen, and in 1 Samuel 15:33, Samuel did something similar with Agag.

Jesus' words in Matthew 24:51 (Luke 12), where the unfaithful servant is "cut in pieces," may also be linked to this covenant tradition.

Similarly, agreements between Isaac and Abimelech (Genesis 26:28-31) and between Jacob and Laban (Genesis 31:44-54) are confirmed by sacrifices and shared meals, underscoring the significance of the covenantal act.

It’s clear from my conversation with @quietthinker that they have little to no understanding of these passages, which are clearly taught in both the Old and New Testaments. Moreover, it’s evident they have no interest in discussing it further, as acknowledging the truth of these teachings would challenge their man-made understanding of God’s wrath and judgments on mankind.

What this reveals is a lack of foundational knowledge, something that Abraham, Jeremiah, and Christ all understood and affirmed.

By their own words they place themselves outside the New Covenant.

If ever there was a deflection, you have embraced it.

 

[Hiddenthings]

If ever there was a deflection, you have embraced it.

Well, this seems like a diversion and an acknowledgment that you're unable to engage with the topic of God's judgment and wrath. It might be best to walk away rather than continue in vain.

 

[shepherdsword]

Does it trouble you that the very principle you rely on hinges on placing your faith in Greek scholars?

No, it assures me that I am in great company. Does it trouble you that your position has no credible backing from any scholarly source?

 

[Hiddenthings]

Why am I pressing @quietthinker so hard on Jeremiah 34?

Well it goes to the central theme of the Gospel as preached to Abraham.

The terms of the covenant in Genesis 15, outlined in verses Jer 34:18-20, involve a solemn act where all parties must pass between the divided pieces of a sacrificed calf. This practice was common in the ancient Near East, not limited to the Israelites, but found among various peoples of the region. When two individuals or groups made a covenant, whether for secular matters like property rights or business arrangements, they would sacrifice an animal, cut it into pieces, and separate the parts. To seal the agreement, the parties would then pass between the divided pieces, sometimes also sharing a meal together, as a sign of fellowship and mutual commitment. This act symbolized their understanding of the terms of the covenant.

Beyond a simple agreement, this ritual carried a profound message: anyone who violated the covenant’s terms would deserve the same fate as the animal victim- death. By partaking in the sacrificial meal, they symbolically ate their own condemnation, reinforcing the gravity of breaking the covenant.

This practice may explain the frequent biblical vow: "The LORD my God do so to me, and more also, if...," as seen in various places (Ruth 1:17; 1 Samuel 3:17; 14:44; 20:13; 25:22; 2 Samuel 19:13; 1 Kings 2:23; 2 Kings 6:31). This vow implies a wish for the same fate to befall the one who breaks their word, similar to what happened to the covenant animal.

It also clarifies why the Hebrew phrase for "making a covenant" is often translated as "cutting a covenant," indicating the sacrificial act involved.

Additionally, this practice sheds light on several other biblical actions.

For example, in Judges 19:29, the Levite cut up his murdered concubine into twelve pieces and sent them to the tribes of Israel.
Similarly, in 1 Samuel 11:7, Saul cut up two oxen, and in 1 Samuel 15:33, Samuel did something similar with Agag.

Jesus' words in Matthew 24:51 (Luke 12), where the unfaithful servant is "cut in pieces," may also be linked to this covenant tradition.

Similarly, agreements between Isaac and Abimelech (Genesis 26:28-31) and between Jacob and Laban (Genesis 31:44-54) are confirmed by sacrifices and shared meals, underscoring the significance of the covenantal act.

It’s clear from my conversation with @quietthinker that they have little to no understanding of these passages, which are clearly taught in both the Old and New Testaments. Moreover, it’s evident they have no interest in discussing it further, as acknowledging the truth of these teachings would challenge their man-made understanding of God’s wrath and judgments on mankind.

What this reveals is a lack of foundational knowledge, something that Abraham, Jeremiah, and Christ all understood and affirmed.

By their own words they place themselves outside the New Covenant.

To understand God's goodness and severity in light of both His gracious nature and the judgment seen in passages like Jeremiah 34, we must balance His overwhelming mercy with His righteous justice.

In Jeremiah 34, the Israelites had entered into a covenant with God, agreeing to obey His commands, including the release of their Hebrew slaves in keeping with God’s law of freedom and justice (Leviticus 25:10, Deuteronomy 15:12-15). However, when the Israelites turned back on their word and re-enslaved those they had once set free, God’s judgment fell on them. Despite His promises of mercy, God could not overlook their disobedience and breach of covenant. His judgment was both severe and just, because they failed to honor their commitment to Him and to uphold the dignity of the oppressed.

God's Kindness: On one hand, God’s kindness, as seen in passages like Titus 3:4 and Ephesians 2:7, is undeserved. His grace humbles us, as He offers forgiveness, redemption, and freedom to those who repent. This is an incredible display of His goodness and patience, even when we repeatedly fail or turn away. The kindness of God is not earned, but is given freely to those who are broken and humble (contrite) themselves before Him.

God's Severity: On the other hand, God’s severity, His righteous judgment and discipline also reflects His holiness. In Jeremiah 34, His judgment was poured out because of the Israelites' disobedience. Despite their initial repentance and the covenant they made to release the slaves, they failed to keep their word, which was a violation of God’s justice and a direct rebellion against His commands. In this way, God's severity is a reminder that He will not allow sin to go unpunished, and He will bring justice to those who harm others, even when those others are powerless or oppressed.

What we see here is a balance: God’s goodness does not ignore sin, but rather, it is seen in His provision of mercy and forgiveness through Christ. God's severity, on the other hand, is not vindictive but righteous, a necessary response to sin and injustice. His judgment on Israel in Jeremiah 34 highlights the consequences of unfaithfulness to His covenant and commands.

Ultimately, both God's kindness and severity reveal His perfect character: His grace and mercy to those who repent and humble themselves before Him, and His justice and holiness in dealing with those who turn away from Him, break His commandments, or exploit others. Even in His judgments, God remains redemptive, knowing those who are His and capable of redeeming them, just as He did with the Gentiles and Israelites who repented and turned back to Him.

This dual aspect of God, His mercy and His justice helps us understand the full scope of His nature. His goodness invites us into relationship with Him, while His severity calls us to reverence, repentance, and faithfulness.

So is God Magnanimous?​

If we exclude God’s righteous judgments, as seen in passages like Jeremiah, then the answer would be no (and yes). God knows those who are His and those who are not. While His rejection of the unfaithful does not diminish His grace and mercy, it cannot imply universal salvation. If salvation were guaranteed for all, regardless of faith or obedience, then faith would no longer be meaningful, and obedience would lose its value.

"The Lord knows those who are His." 2 Tim 2:19 here Paul draws strength from this truth, echoing Moses' words during Korah’s rebellion in Numbers 16:26: "Depart from the tents of these wicked men," and God Himself brought judgment upon them.

Paul here encourages Timothy, even in the face of opposition, not to give in to despair or flee like a hireling. Despite the undermining of doctrine by men like Hymenaeus and Philetus (2 Tim 2:17-18), the truth remains unshakable. Just as Moses trusted in God's timing and judgment, Paul reminds Timothy that God knows His people and will deal with the unfaithful in due time.

I see men like @quietthinker & @St. SteVen in the same way as Hymenaeus and Philetus, who sought to distort the message of God, there are those who attempt to pervert His character and His past and future judgments.

 

[Hiddenthings]

No, it assures me that I am in great company. Does it trouble you that your position has no credible backing from any scholarly source?

While there are scholars who grasp the original Gospel, I do not rely on their interpretations for my understanding or salvation. This is similar to Nicodemus, who came to Christ under the cover of night, seeking understanding of truth. I hope your time will also come.

 

[Muna]

Why am I pressing @quietthinker so hard on Jeremiah 34?

Well it goes to the central theme of the Gospel as preached to Abraham.

The terms of the covenant in Genesis 15, outlined in verses Jer 34:18-20, involve a solemn act where all parties must pass between the divided pieces of a sacrificed calf.

There were two parties passing between the pieces in Genesis 15?

Genesis 15:17 And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces.

Samuel did something similar with Agag.

How does cutting a covenant have anything to do with the situation with Agag?

1 Sam 15:33 And Samuel said, As thy sword hath made women childless, so shall thy mother be childless among women. And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal.

 

[quietthinker]

I see men like @quietthinker & @St. SteVen in the same way as Hymenaeus and Philetus, who sought to distort the message of God, there are those who attempt to pervert His character and His past and future judgments.

It's noteworthy that I considered you in the same vane as these guys above.
No doubt the last day will reveal who qualifies as wheat and who as tares.

 

[Hiddenthings]

There were two parties passing between the pieces in Genesis 15?

Genesis 15:17 And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces.

Are you referring to the smoking furnace and the burning lamp?

How does cutting a covenant have anything to do with the situation with Agag?

1 Sam 15:33 And Samuel said, As thy sword hath made women childless, so shall thy mother be childless among women. And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal.

King Agag of the Amalekites met his death as a result of his disobedience to God’s command, which was carried out by the prophet Samuel.

Did you read the post correctly?

 

[Hiddenthings]

No doubt the last day will reveal who qualifies as wheat and who as tares.

I agree, but for now, your actions have exposed what you're truly focused on, and it’s not a sincere pursuit of truth. Instead, it seems you're twisting Scripture for your own benefit. If you had truly approached the Word with sincerity, it would be evident, not just the clever one-liners you are so skillful in giving.