The reason I posted the quotes was to point out the importance of looking at the underlying principles involved.

Tom, is it not true that you also believe Satan, and not God, is the one who employs the forces of fire and water to destroy people? Did you not post those quotes to prove that Sister White did not mean to imply that it was God who used water to punish and to destroy the antediluvians? that God will not use fire to punish and to destroy the unsaved at the end of time?

Daryl, do you think the chapter I posted needs further explanation, further interpretation? Or, does it stand alone?

The quotes Tom posted introduce awesome and solid principles as to why God has, and will, use the forces of nature to punish and to destroy unsaved sinners. They also point out that, at times, God commissions evil angels to do His biddings, to spread desolation everywhere. There is a quote Tom did not post (unless I overlooked it):

GC 614
A single angel destroyed all the first-born of the Egyptians and filled the land with mourning. When David offended against God by numbering the people, one angel caused that terrible destruction by which his sin was punished. The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits. There are forces now ready, and only waiting the divine permission, to spread desolation everywhere. {GC 614.2}

MM,

To me the chapter you quoted is obviously clear and in context, whereas, I am not so certain about the ones Tom Ewall quoted. I would say that the ones he quoted needs to be looked at in respect to the chapter you quoted.

We shouldn't be interpreting anything to what we think it should be saying, but to what it is saying.

Why does a quote which says that God destroys stand on its own, but a quote that says He doesn't destroy is out of context? I didn't merely present a single quote, but a whole slew of quotes which explain that force is not a principle of God's government. How is context involed here?

If the statement that force is not a principle of God's government is dependent on context, then it's not true. A principle is not dependent upon context by definition. Otherwise it's not a principle.

Consider the principle that God is not a respector of persons, or to use more modern language, does not show favortism. If this is dependent upon context, then this is not a principle. If God sometimes shows favortism, but sometimes doesn't, then it cannot be said, as a principle, that God does not show favortism.

Similarly if God only uses force as a last resort, then it cannot be said that force is not a principle of God's government. In this case, force would be a principle of God's government, and the statement would be false.

Also my question regarding force as the last resort of false religion applies. If force is also the last resort of true religion, then what's the difference? Why even make the statement that force is the last restort of false religion if it's also the last resort of true religion?

And what about the statement that all we can know about God was revealed in Christ? Where in Christ's life do we see the predisposition to destroy those who disagreed with Him, even as a last resort? Where did Christ ever use force to get His way?

Was Christ a full and complete revelation of God's character?

Tom, while I admit that your idea harmonizes with some of what Sister White wrote, it does not, however, agree with everything she wrote about the arsenal of God.

And, it is a mistake to assume she expected us to interpret what she wrote at the beginning of this thread to mean God did not, or does not, use the forces of nature to punish and destroy unsaved sinners.

Nor does it make sense, to me, that she expected us to believe she meant God simply stopped holding back the inevitable forces of nature, or that they are eager to spread desolation everywhere.

Here's what she wrote, at the beginning of thisthread, about the forces of nature:

quote:

---

God controls all these elements; they are his instruments to do his will; he calls them into action to serve his purpose. These fiery issues have been, and will be his agents to blot out from the earth very wicked cities.

---

There’s nothing stated, or even remotely implied, that God withdraws His protection and then the forces of nature wreak the havoc they’ve been eager to dole out.

quote:

---

There is much talk about God in nature, as if the Lord were bound by the laws of nature to be nature's servant. Many theories would lead minds to suppose that nature is a self-sustaining agency apart from the Deity, having its own inherent power with which to work. In this men do not know what they are talking about. Do they suppose that nature has a self-existing power without the continual agency of Jehovah? The Lord does not work through His laws to supersede the laws of nature. He does His work through the laws and properties of His instruments, and nature obeys a "Thus saith the Lord." {6T 186.1}

---

Before addressing this post, I note that I asked 7 questions I think in a post two before this, and none of these questions have been answered. In fact, I have been asking the same question for several weeks, if not several months, and I think it would be really, really cool if you, or someone else who disagrees with the concepts I've been presenting, would answer them.

Tom, while I admit that your idea harmonizes with some of what Sister White wrote, it does not, however, agree with everything she wrote about the arsenal of God.

I just presented principles she wrote, such as:
1)All that man can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son.
2)Force is not a principle of God's government, but is only to be found in Satan's government.
3)Force is the last resort of false religion.

I do not see how any of these statements could be construed as agreesing with some of what EGW wrote. Perhaps you could explain this to me.

And, it is a mistake to assume she expected us to interpret what she wrote at the beginning of this thread to mean God did not, or does not, use the forces of nature to punish and destroy unsaved sinners.

I didn't asser this, did I?

Nor does it make sense, to me, that she expected us to believe she meant God simply stopped holding back the inevitable forces of nature, or that they are eager to spread desolation everywhere.

Why not? To deny this is to deny that sin is destructive, and, to my mind at least, denies the clear statements in MH 416 (about God's sustaining work) and GC the first chapter, especially 35-37)

Here's what she wrote, at the beginning of thisthread, about the forces of nature:

quote:

---

God controls all these elements; they are his instruments to do his will; he calls them into action to serve his purpose. These fiery issues have been, and will be his agents to blot out from the earth very wicked cities.

---

I agree with this, and she explains many times exactly how God will do this. For example:

quote:

---

I was shown that the judgments of God would not come directly out from the Lord upon them, but in this way: They place themselves beyond His protection. He warns, corrects, reproves, and points out the only path of safety; then if those who have been the objects of His special care will follow their own course independent of the Spirit of God, after repeated warnings, if they choose their own way, then He does not commission His angels to prevent Satan's decided attacks upon them. It is Satan's power that is at work at sea and on land, bringing calamity and distress, and sweeping off multitudes to make sure of his prey. And storm and tempest both by sea and land will be, for Satan has come down in great wrath. He is at work. He knows his time is short and, if he is not restrained, we shall see more terrible manifestations of his power than we have ever dreamed of.(14 MR 3)

---

There’s nothing stated, or even remotely implied, that God withdraws His protection and then the forces of nature wreak the havoc they’ve been eager to dole out.

That's not true. There are many statements which explain this, such as the one I quoted. Plus this is the only explanation which agrees with the principles I cited (the ones numbered 1-3 above)

I would suggest in dealing with the subject that one should think of the principles involved, and not just think in terms of proof texts. Consider Rev. 20:10. This is a famous proof text for those who believe that hell is eternal. When one considers the principles involved, and takes into account all of Scripture, then one can see this text does not mean what it may appear to say.

The same methodology should be used in considering statements from EGW.

There is much talk about God in nature, as if the Lord were bound by the laws of nature to be nature's servant. Many theories would lead minds to suppose that nature is a self-sustaining agency apart from the Deity, having its own inherent power with which to work.

This is exactly the opposite of the thought in MH 416 which I have cited many times. The forces of nature are NOT self acting, and necessitate God's sustaining and protecting hand. This is exactly what I've been asserting. If God removes His protecting or sustaining hand, then ruin must result.

In this men do not know what they are talking about.

Agreed.

Do they suppose that nature has a self-existing power without the continual agency of Jehovah? The Lord does not work through His laws to supersede the laws of nature. He does His work through the laws and properties of His instruments, and nature obeys a "Thus saith the Lord." {6T 186.1}

It is correct to assert that God controls the forces of nature. It is because of God's protection that we are not destroyed.

Tom, your favorite quotes provide awesome insights regarding some of the ways God uses the forces of nature to punish and destroy unsaved sinners. But it is a mistake to assume they explain all of the ways God employs them.

When Sister White plainly describes several different ways God has punished and destroyed unsaved sinners it would be wrong, to my way of thinking, to insist she meant one way. She says what she means, and means what she says. We do not have to change the meaning of one quote to agree with the meaning of another.

The questions you keep repeating have been addressed on other threads. Yes, Jesus is a revelation of the character of God - in both the OT and NT, not just the NT. It was Jesus in the OT who killed people in various ways. You disagree.

Yes, God does not employ force to harvest obedience from His created children. But He does, and will, use the forces of nature to punish and destroy unsaved sinners in the lake of fire. You disagree.

Yes, Jesus used the Flood to punish and kill the antediluvians. Nowhere in the Bible or in the SOP is it taught that God merely withdrew His hand and allowed the forces of nature to run its natural course. You have yet to post one single quote that agrees with the legitimate insights you have gleaned from other passages.

If your idea is correct, then please prove it from the Bible or the SOP. If Jesus merely withdrew His hand and the Flood naturally occurred, then please post a quote that says so (not unrelated quotes that you believe must be applied to the Flood). Let the Bible or the SOP speak for themselves. Please, Tom, just one quote that directly says so. Thank you.

By the way, Tom, it occurred to me to ask you about something. If nature is ready to destroy us, why, then, does it say in the SOP that nature obeys God? Since it is clear that nature naturally obeys the will of God, how is it that nature naturally wants to destroy us? Can nature do anything against the will of God?

If God must restrain the forces of nature from naturally and automatically killing us, why, then, does it say in the SOP that God sometimes allows evil angels to manipulate the forces of nature to destroy unsaved sinners?

Which is it? Does God withdraw His protecting hand and allow nature to run its natural course of destruction? Or, does He allow evil angels to manipulate the forces of nature to spread desolation everywhere?