plagues

how are we to understand this?

This is how The Good News Bible translates the passage:

"He caused them great distress by pouring out his anger and fierce rage, which came as messengers of death."

This is one of the possibilities. In case the text is indeed referring to angels, some see it as a possible reference to the slaying of the first-born, but it could also refer to all the plagues. About this, Barnes says, "The idea here is not that the angel himself was evil or wicked, but that he was the messenger of evil or calamity; he was the instrument by which these afflictions were brought upon them."

The reference doesn't seem to be to fallen angels. Ellen White says,

"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." {GC 614.2}

The Scriptures often present God as doing that which he presents. For example, Scriptures say that God sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites (whereas the SOP says the serpents were there the whole time), and that God destroyed Jerusalem (whereas the SOP says Satan was responsible). Many more examples could be given.

Rosangela presented the statement in the EGW that is most often cited as presenting the idea of God's dispatching killer angels. The following statements are much more typical of her writings:







If we simply consider the following statement by Jesus Christ:



the idea that God would dispatch killer angels should be banished from our minds forever.

Tom, what you said does not harmonize with what Ellen White says, referring to the death of the firstborn:

"The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits." {GC 614.2}

Obviously the quotes you presented refer to the second part, "will be exercised by evil angels when He permits."

What, however, do you make of "The same destructive power exercised by holy angels"? She presents two classes of angels - holy and evil - and says that both exercise the same destructive power. It's clearly implied that a holy angel caused the death of the firstborn. I know I won't convince you, but could you please give your explanation for the GC passage?

God sometimes abbreviates the lives of incorrigible sinners in order to save those who can still be saved. The Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, the death penalty in Israel for defiant sins, are all examples of that.

that GC 614 quote does seem to be pretty clear.

i came across this and similar applications and i wonder if there is not more to study about the meaning of the slaying of the firstborn here.

First of all, let's establish who was responsible for the death of the first-born in Egypt:



Who is "the destroyer"?









We note in PP that "the destroyer" had smitten the first-born, as well as committing the destruction of the other plagues, and we see that "the destroyer" is Satan.

From Revelation, we read:



"Apollyon" means "the Destroyer." We know this is talking about Satan, because he is the angel of the bottomless pit.

So far we have seen:
1.The destroyer caused the destruction of the plagues.
2.The destroyer is Satan.

A bit later in the same chapter in "The Great Controversy" that the quote you're asking about is taken from, we read:



Regarding the plagues to be poured out we read:



Since the plagues of Egypt were of a similar character to the plagues about to be poured out, and these plagues are the result of God's withdrawing His protection from Satan, this agrees with what we've seen above, that "the destroyer" who caused the destruction of the plagues in Egypt was Satan.

Let's consider some statements in the immediate context of the quote you're asking about:



This is immediately before the quote. We note:

1)The restraint which has been upon the wicked is removed, and Satan has entire control of the finally impenitent.
2)The wicked have passed the boundary of their probation; the Spirit of God, persistently resisted, has been at last withdrawn.
3)Satan will then plunge the inhabitants of the earth into one great, final trouble.

In the final sentence, she compares what happens with the destruction of Jerusalem. Regarding the destruction of Jerusalem, she writes:



This is presenting the same picture we saw before. She compares the destruction of Jerusalem with the final plagues from both directions (i.e. compares the former to the latter, and the latter to the former, saying they are similar) and presents the same principles for both events, that God's Spirit, persistently resisted, is finally withdrawn, leaving those who have rejected God to the devices of Satan.

We again note that she says the plagues of Egypt were of a similar character to the final plagues.

Here is what we read immediately following the quote:



Once again we see Ellen White referring to the Spirit of God being withdrawn.

So recapping what we have so far:

1.The plagues of Egypt were of a similar character to the final plagues.
2."The destroyer" caused the destruction of the plagues in Egypt.
3.Satan is "the destroyer."
4.The final plagues, similar in character to the Egyptian plagues, will come about as a result of the Spirit of God being withdrawn, and Satan being allowed to wreak havoc.
5.Immediately preceding the quote in question, Ellen White emphasizes these same principles, that destruction comes as a result of the Spirit of God being withdrawn, and Satan doing his destructive work.
6.Immediately following the quote in question, Ellen White emphasizes these same principles, that destruction comes as a result of the Spirit of God being withdrawn, and Satan doing his destructive work.

So if the quote in question were to be taken as saying that holy angels were responsible for the destructive work of the plagues, we're thrown into a sea of contradictions, not the least of which is that the immediate context, both before and after, are voicing principles diametrically opposed to this.

As to the quote itself, I think it is similar to where Jesus said, "Verily, verily, I say unto you today thou shalt be with me in Paradise." in that, if this were the only quote we had on the subject, it would seem like the immortal soul idea were correct. Or when Paul talking about how dying was a good thing for him, because then he would be with Christ. Or when in Peter it talks about preaching to the spirits in prison. There's a bunch of these. Ah, I left out the "best" one, where the rich man speaks to Lazarus.

Anyway, if one considers these Scriptures, they seem to teach there is an immortal soul. But if we take into account what Scripture as a whole teaches, as well as other principles such as context and historical setting, we see that Scripture teaches that the soul is immortal, and there are explanations for these "outlier" texts.

The GC 614 text is like that. While she says that the same destructive power is used, she doesn't say in the same way. The holy angels destroy by releasing, whereas the evil angels destroy by destroying; but it's the same destructive power in each instance.



Yes, I agree. I believe He does this by the means explained by the SOP above, which is to say, withdrawing His protection. Of course, the Flood and Sodom and Gomorrah are not due to Satan's activities, but natural disasters, but the same principles apply. The Spirit of Prophecy tells us we are preserved from a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, by the Spirit of God. We don't realize how much we owe to the grace of Christ protecting us.

However....

Some more interesting quotes:

because i got into it with one espousing a "stay for the slay" variation of the shepherds rod ezekiel 9, i became quite familiar with the chapters destruction of jerusalem and Gods people delivered of the great controversy as well as a few related issues. meeting error can make one really study which apparently comes in real handy for other occasions.

because of that i can see partly where tom is coming from.
combining the two chapters we get a picture of what it will be like on that horrible day.

the "retributive judgments of God" on jerusalem were not inflicted by Him in any form. it was purely the people themselves turning on each other and the romans finishing the job, but no "destroying angel" is mentioned in the events of the destruction of jerusalem.

delaying His judgments in this case would be holding back the romans "wrath", as well as the jews themselves from destroying themselves (according to the other paragraphs in that chapter). the chapter continues in its graphic description of that horrible time.

so, does that mean the "destroying angel" is symbolic of something? at least at the second coming....

The Old Testament didn't really have the concept of Satan that was developed in the New. To this day, Jews do not have concept of Satan that Christians have. They think of him very differently.

One sees often in Scripture the idea that anything that happens is of God's doing, even if it isn't God who did it. For example, in one spot we are told that Satan moved David to number Israel, while in another spot it says that God did it. In one place we are told that Saul killed himself, and another says that God did it. In one spot it says God sent fiery serpents against the Israelites. The SOP tells us the serpents were there all the time.

In the parable of the wheat and the tares, to the question "who did this?" Jesus answered, "an enemy has done this." The tares and the wheat have to both be allowed to grow, so their true character can be seen. To the evil that is done in the world, Satan points his finger at God, while God's way is to allow the tares and the wheat to grow, so the truth can be seen. Who's the killer, Satan or God? An examiner of the tares and wheat should provide the answer!

if i hadnt done that study, as i mentioned in my post, i would not be so open to the possibility of an alternative understanding than what the scriptures/sop seem to clearly say. the same for the "wrath of God", if my own study hadnt revealed certain things....

i came across this one person who believes, based on isaiah, that the lost will be around for 100 years after the third resurrection. that sounded like major heresy to me and i backed off him big time. but in my studies i noticed certain sentences about that time that i hadnt thought about before.

it will take the lost some time to build weapons, especially considering they have to start from scratch since the earth will have been destroyed and then there is the 1000 years of decay on top of that. thats a long time.

i started off going to say that i didnt totally buy into the 100 years but as im typing and thinking about it i think im talking myself into believing it might be.

we are told that they "march over the broken, uneven surface of the earth". that is considerably different than when man started making weapons after the fall. they had a fairly perfect world. even after the flood God protected this earth from the complete wipe-out of plants and trees.

and this is giving me a new understanding of the reason for the "cleansing fire". so many things we read that we understand the words on the page, but the comprehension of their meaning completely escapes us.

but anyway, my whole point about that particular gentleman and his 100 years is that i can understand the "resistance" to accept a different interpretation of what we are used to believing. and i believe it is an honest conclusion that a different view may not be right. after all the scripture/sop does seem to be very clear.......until other verses/sentences start registering.....but even then it can take time. i read that gentleman thoughts about 3 years ago and i am just now starting to see where he might be right, at least in part.

Ok, the posts regarding the 100 year theory have been moved to a new topic, so discussion on the plagues may continue here.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

now there is this,

[The above is a condensed version of Tom's post.]

Tom,

If you believe that so easily, taking separate passages of Mrs. White out of their context and linking them together loosely this way, I've got something to sell you.

Here it is: You better watch out for Jesus, or He'll eat you! Note the following passages:






Oh, and this quote was rather interesting...

Of course, is that the only lion?

Jesus is "the Lion" as well as "the Lamb." But is that the only "lion"? As the answer to this should be obvious, my response to you should bear a message equally obvious...one cannot loosely take quotes out of context and link them together to prove something here.

Satan is not the only destroyer. He's just the only one who destroys happily and with intent to strike at the heart of the God who created and loves us so much to die in our place. That same God, to save some and to preserve the happiness of His faithful ones, will be terrible to the wicked while at the same time a wall of protection to His faithful ones.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The whole question is who the destroyer is, as we're told they "had been smitten by the destroyer." We know for a fact that Satan is the destroyer. The question is, is there some other destroyer that enters into the question as well.

The texts taken from the SOP deal with principles. For example:



This isn't simply an isolated statement saying that Satan is the destroyer, but it articulates important principles. For example, "Sickness, suffering, and death are work of an antagonistic power."

Here's another principle:



My argument regarding the plagues in Egypt was not limited to simply identifying Satan as the destroyer, but upon consider a number of principles, including these above.

Another point is that she said that the plagues of Egypt were similar in character to the final plagues, regarding which we read:

suffered means allowed. so we now seem to have a contradiction, unless we want to believe there is an angel in heaven who is eagerly waiting to destroy? i certainly hope none of us have that as any kind of picture.

the way it is stated it sounds like that is not what God wanted to have to do/allow.

Jesus as the "lamb" gives us an example of unimaginable love, humility, compassion....but as a "lion" He is mighty to save, mighty to rip us from the enemies clutches both from sin, and from death.

It's interesting in Revelation that the angels saw Jesus as a lion, but when John looked, he saw a lamb, which seems to be speaking of a difference perspective between angelic and human.

I don’t see any evidence that this passage refers to the final plagues. The context of the comment is the death of a Brother Stone, who evidently had died in some kind of accident. Then she says, “I felt sad indeed, for I had no evidence that Elder Stone was prepared for this change.” She goes on to say: “I was shown that the time was in the near future that these whom God had warned and reproved and given great light but they would not correct their ways and follow the light, He would remove from them that heavenly protection which had preserved them from Satan's cruel power.” Then, in the next paragraph, comes the passage that you quoted. So, I don’t see as being clear in the passage that the context are the plagues.

She wrote this in the paragraph in question:



It seems odd to me to read this and not see this as a reference to the plagues.

We see from Ellen White's writings that God protects all from Satan's wrath while the Holy Spirit is still working with men. Eventually, after repeated warnings, the Spirit is withdrawn, and Satan works his destruction, by storm and tempest, etc., sweeping off multitudes. If would be very odd indeed if God were walking hand in hand with Satan, doing the very same thing Satan was doing! One would see people being destroyed, and have no idea who was doing the destroying!

The view I'm suggesting is much simpler. If we see destruction occurring, it's because of an evil power.



I read something like this, and it is so obvious to me that it is not God who is going to do these hideous things to the wicked. There is nothing more the saints can do for the wicked because they have irrevocably chosen to follow their master Satan, and he does what he always does, which is to cause pain, suffering and death.

I cannot conceive of how someone would read this and think this is the work of God. We see the face of God in Jesus Christ. Can we imagine Him causing boils, sores, etc. against people simply because they've chosen to reject Him? We've seen this all before in the book of Job. It's Satan who does these things, and then blames God.

When Christ was urged to destroy He said, "You know not of what spirit you are," which they didn't, because that ascribed this spirit to Christ, but it's not His.



If God were to have the disposition to hurt and destroy those did not appreciate His work, or acted contrary to His idea, He would be presenting conclusive evidence that He possessed the spirit of Satan. This can't be right!

What would it accomplish for God to torture/torment those who reject Him. What good could this possibly accomplish? In what way is this in any way in harmony with *anything* Christ lived or taught?

God sure could have made it easier by just stating, "no, there is no eternally burning hell. never mind how I stated things. and baptism is by immersion. there is no immortal soul.

there is going to be a thing called the papacy and it is going to change the sabbath from the 7th day to the first...." and etc.

but that could be pretty boring having it all laid out like that.

This is a rather interesting point, teresa. We tend to categorize the Bible as if it were book of proof texts, when that's not what it's about. It's a revelation of God.

The present tense is used. I think this refers to Satan's work now.

The problem is, Tom, it is in your view that I see God walking hand in hand with Satan.
Aaron, according to God's command, stretches out his hand with his rod over the rivers, over the canals, and over the pools, and Satan causes frogs to come upon the land of Egypt, fulfilling what God said would happen.
Aaron, according to God's command, stretches out his rod and strikes the dust of the earth, and Satan brings gnats throughout all the land of Egypt, fulfilling what God said would happen.
The Lord announces that very heavy hail will fall, and Satan makes hail to fall. And so on. It's like God saying to Satan, "Today I will permit you to do this, and tomorrow I will let you do that, and the day after tomorrow I will permit you to do that other work of destruction..."
Then the Israelites leave Egypt, and God commands Moses to stretch his hand over the sea, and He divides the waters for the people of Israel to go through it, and then He commands Moses to stretch out his hand over the sea again for Satan to make the water come back upon the Egyptians.
Well, there are dozens of examples I could cite where, according to your view, God and Satan work in perfect harmony.

Here's the quote:



The "it is Satan's power" looks to be describing the power of Satan which characterize his "decided attacks."



Immediately following we have future tense again. Also of note is it's saying that "Satan has come down in great wrath." Here "wrath" means what we are accustomed to, they type of wrath that we sinners exhibit, destroying and wreaking vengeance against those who get in our way.



That's really strange! In my view, Satan destroys, causes misery and kills while God restores, blesses and heals. It's odd that one would see this as "walking hand in hand."

I see Satan and Christ actually doing different things, not merely acting according to different motivations.



This is so wrong. God has never desired destruction or death or any such thing. Satan is always acting contrary to God's will when he does these things. There is no harmony at all, but the working out of principles that are completely contrary the one to the other.

Where did Jesus Christ teach that it is OK to harm or destroy those with whom you disagree? Where did He ever act this way? Christ went to His death, being tortured and murdered without lifting a hand, without raising a voice.

i see it more as God restraining and allowing. if we can see satan as eager to destroy and God is holding him back....
in the first paragraph it is very clear that God is holding back the winds/satan. but in the second paragraph we read Gods "vengence". other places we read of His "judgments". it seems to me that "justice" is God backing off and letting us have what we have chosen. if we have chosen satans rule-as jerusalem did- then God will step back and let us see what that is like. problem is, by that time we are so possessed we still dont get it.
i was just reading in the pioneers where satan tries to prevent any from being converted so that he wont have to bear their sins at the third coming. that is a mighty powerful incentive to kill off as many as satan can so they can never repent...

OK, Teresa, but this is what I said in another thread in reply to Tom:



So, it seems to me that the winds and the plagues are not the same thing.
As to the seven last plagues, they will be similar in nature to the plagues of Egypt.
But, in relation to the plagues of Egypt, I can't accept that God's representative stretches out his hand announcing that something will happen, and then it is Satan who makes it happen. If this isn't God and Satan working in harmony, then what is?

these were in the quotes i provided and so it seems there is much more than just

it kind of looks like they are working in "harmony" here, also:but as i said before i see it more as restraining and allowing.

but, having made all those points, im on the fence in some places. this, for example is pretty clear - on the surface....but then we have this which vindicates ellen whites statement:

so why dont we go through the egyptian plagues and the last plagues systematically and see what we come up with? we can play, "win, lose, draw", if im not being blasphemous.

i would say this was clearly God, but it caused no harm to anyone except dead sticks.

OK. Now let's consider this passage:

Ex 8
16 And the LORD said unto Moses, "Say unto Aaron, ‘Stretch out thy rod and smite the dust of the land, that it may become lice throughout all the land of Egypt.’"
17 And they did so; for Aaron stretched out his hand with his rod and smote the dust of the earth, and it became lice on man and on beast. All the dust of the land became lice throughout all the land of Egypt.
18 And the magicians so did with their enchantments to bring forth lice, but they could not; so there were lice upon man and upon beast.
19 Then the magicians said unto Pharaoh, "This is the finger of God."

About this, Ellen White comments:

"Pharaoh called for the magicians to work with their enchantments. They also showed signs and wonders, for Satan came to their aid to work through them. Yet even here the work of God was shown to be superior to the power of Satan, for the magicians could not perform all those miracles which God wrought through Moses. Only a few of them could they do. The magicians' rods did become serpents, [SEE APPENDIX.] but Aaron's rod swallowed them up. After the magicians sought to produce the lice, and could not, they were compelled by the power of God to acknowledge even to Pharaoh, saying: "This is the finger of God." Satan wrought through the magicians in a manner calculated to harden the heart of the tyrant Pharaoh against the miraculous manifestations of God's power. Satan thought to stagger the faith of Moses and Aaron in the divine origin of their mission, and then his instruments, the magicians, would prevail. Satan was unwilling to have the people of Israel released from Egyptian servitude that they might serve God. The magicians failed to produce the miracle of the lice, and could no more imitate Moses and Aaron. God would not suffer Satan to proceed further, and the magicians could not save themselves from the plagues. 'And the magicians could not stand before Moses because of the boils; for the boil was upon the magicians, and upon all the Egyptians.' Exodus 9:11. God's controlling power here cut off the channel through which Satan worked, and caused even those through whom Satan had wrought so wonderfully to feel His wrath. Sufficient evidence was given to Pharaoh to believe, if he would. Moses wrought by the power of God. The magicians wrought not by their own science alone, but by the power of their God, the devil, who ingeniously carried out his deceptive work of counterfeiting the work of God. {1T 292}

Here it is specifically said that the magicians were working by the power of Satan, trying to counterfeit the work of God (which refers not only to the rod but at least to the first three plagues, too). So I see the first three plagues as being unequivocally called the work of God.

i was hoping we could take them in order. the "win, lose, draw" wasnt meant as "you vs me", but as God did it, the enemy did it, or we cant really tell from what we have been given.

as for the lice, only God can create life, so the question is, did God create the lice, or remove His protecting hand that He had been exercising towards the egyptians all along, and let the lice overtake the people?

im inclined to believe the Lord had been protecting the egyptians from, not just the lice but, many, many, things they had no idea of.

I've been keeping quiet because my opinions have already been expressed, and I was interested in what Teresa would say. I agree with what she has said.

God's protecting hand protects us from both Satan and the forces of nature. The bad things that happen to those whom God protects may be caused by Satan directly, or not. If not, these bad things may be caused by other evil beings, or by inanimate forces. The basic principle remains the same, which is God removes His protective hand, and bad things happen.

In the case of the plagues, God's servant indicated with the rod what would be destroyed once God's protective hand was removed. It wasn't necessarily Satan who caused the plague to occur, although it might have been. For example, the last plague, the killing of the first-born, looks to have been Satan as opposed to the forces of nature.

This brings up an interesting question. Why didn't Satan simply refrain from killing the first-born to make God a liar? Or, to put it another way, why would he kill the first-born given God said that was going to happen? What did Satan have to gain by this action?

On the surface, it may seem that Satan could gain more by not destroying the first-born, in an attempt to make God look foolish. But when considering what Satan had to gain, it seems he had more to gain by following the course he did. By killing the first-born he had a perfect opportunity to frame God for their killing, and continue misrepresenting God's character, as God was willing to take "credit" for their deaths.

Why was God willing to take such "credit"? For the same reason Christ was willing to tell the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man. God was working within the paradigm the Egyptians had. Their idea was the true God was the one who was the most powerful, who overpowered the other gods. Now it's true that God is the most powerful, and that God demonstrated His power, but He didn't have to overpower the other gods by force, or Himself kill and destroy, in order to do so. Force is not a principle of God's government, and violence is not a part of His character. He was willing to allow Himself to be misunderstood as using force and violence, in order to reach those whose paradigms were so mixed up. God always has to reach us where we are, or there's no way He can communicate with us. We have highly overrated senses of our abilities to understand God and His ways, so He routinely humbles Himself to reach us in our arrogance and ignorance. He doesn't do so by acting contrary to His principles, but He allows us to misunderstand certain things (e.g. the immortality of the soul, or that He uses force and violence to achieve His ends) in order to teach us others (e.g. even if one should raise from the dead, if Moses is not believed, neither would Christ be, or God is the one true God, more powerful than anyone else).

I am starting out with the conviction that God is a certain way (i.e. like Christ) and when I see Him supposedly doing things which are not like Christ, I ask the question, "What's wrong here?" Of course, one possibility is that I'm misunderstanding what Christ is like, but in this case it seems to me much more likely that what happened in the Egyptian plagues is misunderstood than that Christ, in reality, would resort to force and violence to achieve His ends if necessary.

I cannot conceive, based on Christ's life and teachings, that He would ever, in any circumstances, kill innocent children in order to demonstrate that He is more powerful than another. I cannot imagine that He would ever, under any circumstance, use escalating force and violence, to compel an adversary to capitulate, along the lines that the Egyptian plagues are ordinarily understood.

Once one understands Christ's character to be a certain way, and understands the two principles that God is often presented as doing that which He permits, and that His protective hand saves us from many destructive things of which we are unaware, it's very easy to perceive the violent acts of inspiration in such a way that does not have God directly taking violent action or using force. It's simply a matter of viewing things from a certain paradigm.

A different paradigm to mine allows for God to do things mine does not. It allows God to do violent things, to kill and to use force, because this is what one sees inspiration as saying. Mine does not, because of Christ. If I see inspiration as teaching that God used force or violently killed or tortured someone, or coerced or incented others to act in such a way, my conclusion is that my understanding of the given passage must be incorrect, and what appeared to have happened didn't.

For example, in Scripture we read that God sent poisonous serpents upon the Israelites, and these serpents bit the Israelites, many of whom were injured or died. It looks like God did this because He was ticked off and wanted to teach the Israelites a lesson. From my paradigm, it's easy to see that what actually happened is that God withdrew His protecting hand, and the snakes which He had been protecting them from, caused the damage. God did not sick the snakes on them, nor was He ticked off, but this is what was perceived to have happened, and this is how inspiration (at least Scripture) records this event.

So the underlying question seems to come down to what we allow to be our bedrock in terms of determining what God is really like. Is it Jesus Christ?

Jesus Christ said that the things He did were the things He saw His Father do, and what He taught were the things He heard from His Father. Where did He here and see these things? From Scripture (the Old Testament). So the things He did and taught were what He saw God doing and saying in the Old Testament. Not Christ's actions and teachings appear to be very different than what we read of God doing and saying in the Old Testament. So what to do we do with this apparent discrepancy?

One approach would be to say that Christ did not give a complete revelation of God, but a partial one, revealing what God is like in certain circumstances, namely the circumstances which Christ met. Under different circumstances, God could act and speak in very different ways.

Another approach would be to say that we're simply misunderstanding what God actually did and said in the Old Testament, but Jesus Christ had it right. In this approach, we see Christ as saying, "If you want to know what God is really like, look at Me! Let me be your view, your picture, of God."

If we see the OT God as acting and speaking differently than Jesus Christ did in the flesh, I believe it means our paradigm needs adjusting. We need new wineskins so we can receive new wine. We need the eyes and ears of Christ, to see and hear the things in Scripture as He did.

Amen, Rosangela.

Basically, those who would say that God is not able to punish the wicked (because He is too good to do so), deny His power, and make Him into a weaker Being. Is He not omnipotent, almighty?

Tell me, was it Satan's "glory" that smote Uzzah? How about the thousands who died from looking into the ark?

Let's see, if Satan really didn't like God, why would he be working together with God so gleefully? And isn't God telling Satan what he can do and precisely when to do it something akin to the servants of the Jews who turn on their lights and push the elevator buttons on Sabbath so that they don't have to? What kind of a God would this be, who could not do these things Himself?



When we speak of an almighty God, we should be speaking with fear and trembling, for holy is His name. If He were not powerful, if He were not able to punish, then why should we concern ourselves with how we address Him? He is not almighty who has no power to judge and to punish. If He in some way needed Satan to be His executor of justice, then why would He ever choose to rid Himself of the Destroyer?

These things make no sense. God having the power, the wisdom, and the justice to punish when necessary is the only thing that makes sense.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I don't know of anyone who claims this(i.e., that God is unable to punish the wicked). Do you?

Of course God is able to do whatever He wants. He is all-powerful. The fact that He is able but unwilling to do certain things does not weaken Him.

For example, do you think God would do something immoral? Of course not, right? That doesn't make Him weaker in your eyes, does it?

Also I don't think there's any disagreement that God will punish the wicked. Where there's a difference of opinion is in regards to how the wicked will be punished, and, in particular, what the role of literal fire will be. Will literal fire burn their flesh while God supernaturally keeps them alive so that they can feel excruciating pain to pay for their sins? I think it's particularly this idea that some object to.

But if God can punish the wicked without proceeding as above, that should still keep Him strong, right?



Not being willing to do immoral things does not make one stronger.



This is my question! If one takes the idea that God is the one causing the destruction of the seven last plagues, then we see God and Satan working hand in hand torturing and killing. I can see why Satan would do this, but not God.



These are odd questions. God doesn't tell anyone to do evil. Only an evil being does this. God tells Satan the same thing He tells everyone, to do good. Satan has chosen to go his own way, however.

Satan does evil, and casts his actions as God's. That's his modus operandi.





A good God!

Jumping in the middle without having followed nor much time lately, I couldn't help the above quote from catching my eye as someone recently just repeated it almost word for word. I would like to not critique the one who just said it, but the phrase in general. I am reminded that various people in various settings, when confronted with the suggestion that God may not be out to destroy people, they almost repeat the same thing word for word. I find that extremely uncanny, and being an individual who questions and thinks about things, I have to bite my tongue.

It's almost like they all attended the same club and were told that if anyone says God is a loving God and isn't going to cause the tortures of Hitler seem like nothing say, "Basically, those who...". It's almost like there's some conspiracy (and there is a non-human conspiracy, isn't there?) to defame God.

Has anyone else observed the same repeated phrase and have any ideas why it's almost word for word? I suspect it could be some book, some movie,...

Hey kland! A blast from the past! If you have time, please take a look at #114874 (the last post on the previous page of this thread, if your page looks like mine), a rather lengthy post I wrote which goes into some principles involved in considering a question of this sort. I imagine you'll agree with what I wrote, but would be interested in any comments you might have.

kland, regarding your comment about, "Basically, those who...", I can't comment on that, but regarding the rest of what was said, there is the following EGW statement which is fairly well known:



Some read this and think it is countering the types of ideas you and I (other other like-minded weird people) have on this subject.

she is referring to how we "couple" those two words together so glibly, but i get your point.
the problem for me, gc, is that i dont have any problem whatsoever imitating that picture. it comes naturally.

but imitating the real power of God, the power that suffered 33 years of constant abuse and then a cruel death, that one i dont even want to imitate. now that is real power!! that is superhuman power!! the power that never, ever, ever, once retaliated, not even in thought or desire!!







While God has desired to teach men that from His own love comes the Gift which reconciles them to Himself, the archenemy of mankind has endeavored to represent God as one who delights in their destruction. Thus the sacrifices and the ordinances designed of Heaven to reveal divine love have been perverted to serve as means whereby sinners have vainly hoped to propitiate, with gifts and good works, the wrath of an offended God.... {PK 685.2}
When God's written word was given through the Hebrew prophets, Satan studied with diligence the messages concerning the Messiah. Carefully he traced the words that outlined with unmistakable clearness Christ's work among men as a suffering sacrifice and as a conquering king. In the parchment rolls of the Old Testament Scriptures he read that the One who was to appear was to be "brought as a lamb to the slaughter," "His visage . . . so marred more than any man, and His form more than the sons of men." Isaiah 53:7; 52:14. The promised Saviour of humanity was to be "despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; . . . smitten of God, and afflicted;" yet He was also to exercise His mighty power in order to "judge the poor of the people." He was to "save the children of the needy," and "break in pieces the oppressor." Isaiah 53:3, 4; Psalm 72:4. These prophecies caused Satan to fear and tremble; yet he relinquished not his purpose to thwart, if possible, the merciful provisions of Jehovah for the redemption of the lost race. He determined to blind the eyes of the people, so far as might be possible, to the real significance of the Messianic prophecies, in order to prepare the way for the rejection of Christ at His coming. {PK 686.1}




this is the power of God that i need!!

I didn't consider it a "you vs. me," but just proceeded in our analysis. I gathered together the first three plagues because they have something in common that the other plagues do not have - the mention of the magicians' attempt to imitate them. And in this there is an important aspect to consider in the attempt to define what God did and what Satan did. I was interested in how you see this episode. If it is interpreted just in terms of God removing His protecting hand, how do you explain Ellen White's comment, "Pharaoh called for the magicians to work with their enchantments. They also showed signs and wonders, for Satan came to their aid to work through them. Yet even here the work of God was shown to be superior to the power of Satan, for the magicians could not perform all those miracles which God wrought through Moses"? Notice that that the plagues are called "the work of God" and "those miracles which God wrought through Moses."
In another discussion I pointed out to Tom that I didn't see any sense in the devil imitating himself, and did not see any purpose in the Lord fobidding the devil to imitate himself.

your response seems to be very clear that you havent really read what i have posted.

I've read it, but maybe I haven't understood it (because I'm still not understanding what you mean). Anyway, could you provide your opinion about what I've asked?

but you didnt gather them together. you brought up ellen whites quote instead of looking at each plague individually. i dont have a problem with the quote, just wanted to really look at each situation.
so what did you think of this answer, or what did you not understand, from post #114866 or this one: #114872 in response to #114869


satan has immense power and control, but God has absolute power and control. satan can only work by permission of God and when we remove ourselves from Gods umbrella of protection.

God could literally turn the rod into a serpent, satan could only make it appear that rods had turned into serpents, by hypnotism i believe ellen white states elsewhere. which makes sense if he cant do it literally, but that is pretty powerful to be able to make people see something that isnt real.

God could create frogs, but satan could only make it appear that he-or the gods the egyptians worshipped- had created frogs. but the bible verse states that they caused frogs to come up from the river, so were the frogs there all along and God contained them at the river, but removed His protecting/holding back power and allowed them to overrun the place? our God controls satan but He also controls nature. i live in cali, earthquake country. if God didnt control the tectonic plates beneath our feet this state would have been long gone, or at least a fractured mess.

He lets go every once in a while in the hopes that we will remember that He is holding together and controlling nature, and will thank and praise Him, but we dont. He lets satan have more and more power, but we still dont go to Him in prayer for Him to "hold the winds" longer. we dont pray for God to work on hearts on our freeways, in our capitol, in the nations, and on-and-on.......

Do not know if I have posted here on this subject before or not, but this is my take and has been since I first became a Christian and read about the Plagues of Egypt and the plagues to come at the end before Jesus comes.

I have never had a problem with God executing His judgments upon an evil world and evil people and evil angels. He created all of it and it is His to do as He wish. Not what I would want or what I think He should do, but what He does.

This fact has never changed in my mind that God will met out his wrath and punishment upon the wicked. This never has changed my view of His love, compassion or mercy in my mind.

It is through His law, the Ten Commandments I came to know Him. That's right, through the Law. Not a legal set of words, but an understanding of His love for us so much that He set up rules in which we can live by for our own good on all levels of life.

These Commandments were written out by the heart and mind of God through love knowing our need to have rules in which to help us to know His will for us in our lives.

To divert from these rules we suffer the consequences of our actions either directly or indirectly by disobedience to His laws.

When a person breaks a law we arrest them for the crime. We take them to court and if found guilty met out a punishment that fits the crime or who we hope that we have judged and metted out a punishment, which unfortunately some innocent people have suffered someone else's punishment.

When we as the jury have found someone guilty, the judge sets up the punishment according to law of the crime committed. Does the jury have no part in this? They have when they found the person guilty. We are part of the hand that extends to the judge that determines the punishment by the verdict we have set. We know what the consequences of the guilty verdict will be. We are a whole of the system in which we have set up our justice system.

The same is true of God's government. Whether He does the punishment by His own hand or sends an angel to do it, it still is the same hand giving out the punishment to the offender. Directly or indirectly it is still the same God that created this creature out of love that will destroy that same creature out of His justice.

Does justice come out of love? Of course for He knows that the wicked would never be happy with all of eternity in heaven. His mercy in His wrath of destruction by His own hand belongs to Him.

The plagues are in an order written in Revelation. In a world that will be out of control completely God still will have the power to distribute His wrath in the order that He has written out by His Word. These plagues will be quick and swift so as to spare the Saints from having to endure watching for very long such horror.

Only a God could make such timing happen. If Satan had his way it would go on forever or as long as it could, but God in His mercy will allow it to go on long enough to fulfill his will and purpose by His own wrath and hand.

To anyone who thinks that God is just going to let it all go and allow Satan to finish off that which He created is wrong. It all belongs to Him and He does everything according to His plan and timing, even the plagues.

i think God cuts it short for the sake of the lost, also. i grew up with the idea that God hated the lost, so as i have learned, and not just superficially, that God deeply cares for the lost as much as His own people it has created in me a deep respect and admiration for Him.
that is a good point.

im not sure what specifically you are referring to, but these verses make it look like the earth will be pretty much devastated.

this one is quite interesting also: ylt Rev 11:18..., and to destroy those who are destroying the land.'

There are some who believe that God is going to just sit back and let Satan destroy everything after the four winds are let go. That God allows Satan control over the plagues and the destruction. the only thing God controls is how long that will happen.

This is contrary to Scripture in Revelation:

16:1 And I heard a great voice out of the temple saying to the seven angels, Go your ways, and pour out the vials of the wrath of God upon the earth.

Who and where are the seven angels? They are the good angels in heaven. Who's wrath are they pouring out? Gods wrath. Not their wrath, but God's wrath according to the plagues that he bring upon the earth.

And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth.
And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea
And the third angel poured out his vial upon the rivers and fountains of waters

This is something that come down from heaven by each angel and contains the wrath of God being poured out.

Some say that this is not fair. When the books are opened even the Saints well see the fairness and how many times God gave each one of us to hear His voice and follow His Son.

have you ever taken a good look at each plague in revelation, or are you just speaking from a general belief?

take this for example:

these verses all apply to the same time period. according to rev 17:16 who does what to whom?

i dont think you especially believe in the prophetic ministry of ellen white so ill leave what she has to say out of this, tho i will include the pioneers understanding.

Dear Teresa:

I do not know what books have lined my bookshelf for the last 32 years, but I do recall them being called the Spirit of Prophecy given to Ellen G. White by the Word of God.

I am talking about one point in a whole picture of the plagues. I am talking about who is in control? Who wrath are we talking about? Who has the power to create and who has the power to destroy both body and soul as given in Matthew:

10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

We know them as Satan and his followers whether they be fallen angels and men, but we do know who HIM is which is able to destroy both soul and body.

In Revelation it says:

20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

When the wicked were destroyed by His brightness when He came and those that remained in the graves will be resurrected into living beings one last time. If he has the power to destroy, and the power to recreate, He will destroy one last time fulfilling Revelation 20.

I was just looking at Revelation 16. Yes there is more, a lot more. I only have time to type so much without making lines upon lines of posting that would go for pages. I hope you can understand that.

if i have you mixed up with others, my bad and my apologies!


yes, God does have the power to destroy, but does He exercise it? is that what God is about? but i am not trying to say God never "destroys".

the verses i posted referred to only one "plague". what more in the bible has to do with that one plague and why the need to post pages and pages? it is either God Who destroys in that one or it isnt.

i am trying to go plague by plague, event by event. i get the idea you want to go by a general belief. you believe that God destroys and you want to prove that. ok. lets do it event by event. contrary to what i have seen, generally, on these forums i dont mind in the least admitting that i either dont know or could be wrong. so you really have nothing to lose if we take each plague mentioned in the bible and see W/who or what did it.

i also get that you did not understand what specific event those verses referred to. it is just one plague, the last plague. but we can start at the beginning of the last plagues, if you like tho i dont understand why we cant start at the first egyptian plague since that has already been started, here.

there is nothing to fear, here. either God destroys in the plagues and it can be proved..... or

Many believe the plagues were just natural phenomena. Sometimes the Lord does use natural phenomena as signs (the Lisbon earthquake, the fall of the stars, and perhaps even the dark day), but this doesn’t seem to me to be the case here, owing to the nature of these phenomena.
For instance, some explain the plague of the frogs saying that the death of the fish caused a population explosion among frogs, because fish eat frog eggs; if you have no fish, more eggs will hatch. However, the Bible gives us to understand that just seven days after the Lord had smitten the river, He told Moses to announce the plague of the frogs (Ex 7:25-8:2). But 16 weeks must elapse from the moment a tadpole hatches to the moment the frog is able to emerge onto land (www.wwt.org.uk/uploads/frog-and-toad.pdf), so I see no foundation in this hypothesis. Others say that the plague of the frogs is a natural consequence of the mass death of the fish: this large number of frogs was driven onto the land by the polluted Nile water. But the water was polluted before the fish decayed, since it caused their death. Therefore, if it hadn’t killed the existing frogs, it would have forced them to leave the river immediately, not one week later. Still others say that frogs are very abundant just after the high Nile when the waters begin to recede, so they would have left the marshes and come forth. But I see some problems here: 1) the floods occur between June and September, and the Exodus occurred in March-April. The impression the Bible gives us is that the plagues occurred in a rapid sequence, not that they took so many months; 2) just one week or so before, the Egyptians had dug about the river to obtain water (Ex 7:24) – this seems incompatible with a flood scenario.
However, the main reason why I don't think this was a natural phenomenon is that the magicians imitated the plague, which implies that it was a supernatural, and not a natural, event.
So I don't see how this plague could have been a natural phenomenon resulting from God’s removing of His protecting power.
Besides, this view doesn’t seem to me to be compatible with the language used by Ellen White: “Yet even here the work of God was shown to be superior to the power of Satan, for the magicians could not perform all those miracles which God wrought through Moses."
As I said in previous discussions with Tom, God is sometimes said to do what He permits, but, as I see it, this is not always the case, and Ellen White’s words are sometimes too clear to make room for an alternative interpretation, as for instance in this case (which refers to another episode but has to do with the same principle):

The same angel who had left the royal courts of heaven to rescue Peter from the power of his persecutor, had been the messenger of wrath and judgment to Herod. The angel smote Peter to arouse him from slumber; but it was with a different stroke that he smote the wicked king, bringing mortal disease upon him.--3SP 344. {TA 234.1}

I would think the reverse would be true. If the magicians *couldn't* imitate the plague, that would be more likely to be evidence that the supernatural was involved.



I think it's always the case. At least, I can't think of any exceptions off the top of my head. Certainly God doesn't act contrary to His own law, nor contrary to the revelation of Himself in Jesus Christ. This is the biggest flaw I see in the common interpretation of the plagues -- it simply has God acting so contrary to what Jesus Christ lived and taught, on the face of it, the common interpretation can't possibly be true.



The same thing could be said about Scripture. The words of Scripture are sometimes too clear to make room for an alternative interpretation, yet Ellen White does precisely this!

For example, Scripture says:



Yes Ellen White says:



So if, even when Jesus' words are too clear to make room for an alternative interpretation, Ellen White does so anyway, why can't the same thing apply to her? (i.e., perhaps words which seem so clear that can't be interpreted differently than what they appear to be saying, can be)

There's a lot of examples of this same principle that could be given from Scripture.

It seems to me that the first chapter of "The Great Controversy" is laying out general principles. The destruction of Jerusalem is an example of the principles unfolding. If we take the position that it's simply one way of God's destroying, while God can destroy in other ways, then we run into the problem of not knowing who's doing what. For example, in the final plagues, when people are being tormented and destroyed and killed, how will we know who's doing it, God or Satan? And why would God act so contrary to what Jesus lived and taught?

When Jesus was urged to destroy, he replied "you know not of what spirit you are." What would this be any different today? (or in the future). The Spirit of Prophecy commented that "There can be no more conclusive evidence that we possess the spirit of Satan than the disposition to hurt and destroy those who do not appreciate our work, or who act contrary to our ideas. (DA 487)"

Would God act in a way that would provide conclusive evidence that he possessed the spirit of Satan?



Regarding the example you gave, I think anyone who shares the paradigm I laid out a few posts ago, would see that what caused Herod's death was God's ceasing to continue in some way something He was doing which was preventing Herod from being destroyed. We don't often think in terms that God has to do anything to keep us healthy. We have the ideas that our bodies are self-working, that God's not really involved. But God is involved in the workings of nature, including our bodies, in ways we cannot even fathom. If He should withdraw His actions, then instant death would take place, such as what we see with Ananias and Sapphira, or Herod.

Herod's painful death came not as a result of God's sadistically hurting and killing him, but as a result of his own rejection of God.

im not seeing the similarity between "natural phenomena" that you mention above and Gods constant restraining of nature, as well as all evil. it isnt the same idea for me.

imitated how? the testimonies 1 passage you provided earlier and other articles of hers which contain those statements have to do with satans counterfeiting the work of God and his deceiving power and continues in describing his (satans) work now. so how do you see satan as "imitating" the serpents, and frogs?and here?


and what might that different stroke be? do we know?

we also have this one.
When the angel of mercy folds her wings and departs Satan will do the evil deeds he has long wished to do. Storm and tempest, war and bloodshed--in these things he delights, and thus he gathers in his harvest. And so completely will men be deceived by him that they will declare that these calamities are the result of the desecration of the first day of the week. From the pulpits of the popular churches will be heard the statement that the world is being punished because Sunday is not honored as it should be.--RH Sept. 17, 1901.

What is God's wrath? Romans 1:18 says, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven ". If it's revealed, does Romans explain what the wrath of God is?

Tom, I looked at your post you mentioned and remember your explanation of paradigms before. It's much like evolutionists. They come with an assumed presumption, then proceed to narrowly look for support and reject anything contrary to their presumption. As many do with similar quotes as the one you gave from Ellen White. They look at a narrow and presumed definition of "punish" and "deal with sin".

This would explain why people would agree with the quote about making God weaker. But it doesn't seem to me to explain how they could come up with it themselves. I could understand someone coming up with saying if you don't believe God will directly maim, torture, kill, or otherwise harm people, then you don't read the Bible, don't believe in God's "justice", but to almost word for word say, "make Him into a weaker Being" just seems too uncanny to be a coincidence.

In fact they *couldn't* from the third plague onward, and this is proof enough that the origin was supernatural and not natural. But what I meant was - the fact that they tried to imitate them means everybody saw the plagues as something only gods could produce.


As I have pointed out several times, God sometimes sends His judgments and even shortens the lives of those who can no longer be saved, in an attempt to bring back to their senses those who can still be saved. Ananias and Sapphira are an example of this. Other examples are the slaying of those who were joined to Baal of Peor; Nadab and Abihu; etc. Another reason why He can send judgments and even shorten the lives of incorrigible sinners is to protect His people and/or preserve His knowledge on earth. The Flood is an example of this; the slaying of the Assyrian army; the plagues. Pharaoh wouldn't have let God's people go without these judgments. Even when he did let them go, he later regretted his decision.
God sometimes shortens the life of incorrigible sinners in mercy to them and to the world.


No. Most of the times the Bible explains itself.
About David's numbering of Israel, for instance, 1 Chron. 21:1 explains 2 Sam. 24:1; about the bad things that happened to Job, Job 2:3 is explained by Job 1:12. About the destruction of Jerusalem, Matt. 24:15 and Dan. 9:26, 27 explain Matt. 22:7, showing that it was permitted, not caused by God, since the power which would destroy Jerusalem, under the control of Satan, would be the abomination of desolation.

Paradigms are an interesting thing. The Jews were so sure they understood what the Messiah's work would be about. They thought they understood what Christ's coming would be about. It strikes me as so ironic that the same issues confronting the Jews confront us now. There are the same misconceptions about Christ's work, and the same misconceptions about what His coming involves.

Piaget's research has helped me understand paradigms better. Before Piaget, the common idea was that children were like little adults, but Piaget theorized that children actually thought quite differently than adults, but that as you mature you forget how you used to think.

This is what a paradigm shift is like. You remember that you used to think differently, but you can't see things the way you used to, because your paradigm has shifted.

This has happened to me. I used to see things along the lines of the traditional view, in regards to the plagues. As my paradigm began shifting, it was important to me to examine each of the different incidents, and try to understand what was happening (I'm talking about incidents where God is presented as acting violently). But now, it just seems to obvious to me that God just wouldn't act in a way that if it weren't God would be characterized as "sadistic."

I see people defend their views by saying things like, "Anything God does is right, by definition" so the things which, if it were someone else, would be thought of as sadistic are brushed off as "OK" since it was God.

For me the "aha!" moment was realizing the significance of the thought of Jesus: "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father."

Yes, God has and, no doubt, still does permit evil angels and the forces of nature to cause death and destruction. But the idea that this is the only way He permits "evil" to befall us, that He has never employed the forces of nature or commanded holy angels to cause death and destruction, forces unnatural interpretations of many Bible and SOP passages.

Also, yes, there are times when God simply ceases restraining the forces of nature and death and destruction naturally follow. But to suggest this means God did nothing to cause the resulting death and destruction forces yet another unnatural conclusion. Must we conclude the same thing when evil angels use the forces of nature to cause death and destruction? Does God cooperate with them by first ceasing to restrain the forces of nature so they can manipulate them to cause death and destruction?

Ellen White wrote:

The depths of the earth are the Lord's arsenal, whence were drawn weapons to be employed in the destruction of the old world. Waters gushing from the earth united with the waters from heaven to accomplish the work of desolation. Since the Flood, fire as well as water has been God's agent to destroy very wicked cities. These judgments are sent that those who lightly regard God's law and trample upon His authority may be led to tremble before His power and to confess His just sovereignty. As men have beheld burning mountains pouring forth fire and flames and torrents of melted ore, drying up rivers, overwhelming populous cities, and everywhere spreading ruin and desolation, the stoutest heart has been filled with terror and infidels and blasphemers have been constrained to acknowledge the infinite power of God. {PP 109.1}

Question - Do evil angels use the forces of nature to extract from unbelievers confession of God's power and greatness?

She goes on to say:

In the day of the Lord, just before the coming of Christ, God will send lightnings from Heaven in his wrath, which will unite with fire in the earth. The mountains will burn like a furnace, and will pour forth terrible streams of lava, destroying gardens and fields, villages and cities; and as they pour their melted ore, rocks and heated mud into the rivers, will cause them to boil like a pot, and send forth massive rocks and scatter their broken fragments upon the land with indescribable violence. Whole rivers will be dried up. The earth will be convulsed, and there will be dreadful eruptions and earthquakes everywhere. God will plague the wicked inhabitants of the earth until they are destroyed from off it. {3SG 82.3}

Those majestic trees which God had caused to grow upon the earth, for the benefit of the inhabitants of the old world, and which they had used to form into idols, and to corrupt themselves with, God has reserved in the earth, in the shape of coal and oil to use as agencies in their final destruction (NOTE - looks like we will not run out of oil before Jesus returns). As he called forth the waters in the earth at the time of the flood, as weapons from his arsenal to accomplish the destruction of the antediluvian race, so at the end of the one thousand years he will call forth the fires in the earth as his weapons which he has reserved for the final destruction, not only of successive generations since the flood, but the antediluvian race who perished by the flood. {3SG 87.1}

Observation - It is difficult to conclude that evil angels are responsible for the death and destruction described above. "God will plague the wicked inhabitants of the earth until they are destroyed from off it." To attribute these inspired passages to the work of evil angels seems daring to me. Reminds me of the following quote:

Notwithstanding they had had the most convincing evidence of God's displeasure at their course, in the destruction of the men who had deceived them, they dared to attribute His judgments to Satan, declaring that through the power of the evil one, Moses and Aaron had caused the death of good and holy men. It was this act that sealed their doom. They had committed the sin against the Holy Spirit, a sin by which man's heart is effectually hardened against the influence of divine grace. {PP 404.4}

Final observation - Giving evil angels credit for something God did yields unfavorable results.

I'm just using the word Ellen White used in the quote I provided: "The magicians failed to produce the miracle of the lice, and could no more imitate Moses and Aaron."
They obviously imitated by counterfeiting.


Whatever it was, we are told it was a stroke of a holy angel, not of Satan.


OK, it's clear Satan will be working destruction, but the events mentioned here and in other similar passages aren't the events described in the Bible as constituting the plagues.
Take the last plague, for instance, and you will see that it describes a series of commotions on earth which will attend Christ's coming. Do you think that these things will be produced by Satan?

"It is at midnight that God manifests His power for the deliverance of His people. The sun appears, shining in its strength. Signs and wonders follow in quick succession. The wicked look with terror and amazement upon the scene, while the righteous behold with solemn joy the tokens of their deliverance. Everything in nature seems turned out of its course. The streams cease to flow. Dark, heavy clouds come up and clash against each other. In the midst of the angry heavens is one clear space of indescribable glory, whence comes the voice of God like the sound of many waters, saying: 'It is done.' Revelation 16:17. That voice shakes the heavens and the earth. There is a mighty earthquake, 'such as was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake, and so great.' Verses 17, 18. The firmament appears to open and shut. The glory from the throne of God seems flashing through. The mountains shake like a reed in the wind, and ragged rocks are scattered on every side. There is a roar as of a coming tempest. The sea is lashed into fury. There is heard the shriek of a hurricane like the voice of demons upon a mission of destruction. The whole earth heaves and swells like the waves of the sea. Its surface is breaking up. Its very foundations seem to be giving way. Mountain chains are sinking. Inhabited islands disappear. The seaports that have become like Sodom for wickedness are swallowed up by the angry waters. Babylon the great has come in remembrance before God, 'to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of His wrath.' Great hailstones, every one 'about the weight of a talent,' are doing their work of destruction. Verses 19, 21" (GC 636, 637).

This sort of begs the question, doesn't it? You claim it forces unnatural interpretations. That's because you have a certain paradigm. To one with another paradigm, the interpretations are not unnatural at all.

For example, consider the case of God's sending the fiery serpents upon the Israelites. To suggest that God didn't really send them, but actually simply removed His protecting hand, would be what you're terming a "forced" or "unnatural" interpretation of Scripture. Yet this is exactly what Ellen White says happened!

Similarly we read:



but the SOP says



which is another "forced" or "unnatural" interpretation.

Anyone reading these episodes from the paradigm I'm coming from, would find these interpretations by the SOP natural, and would simply comment "of course," and would not need to read the explanation from the SOP to know what was happening.

So one man's "forced" and "unnatural" is another man's "natural" or "but of course!"

No, the Bible generally explains itself, and the fiery serpents "sent" by God are explained by Deut. 8:15. So this is not a forced interpretation of Scripture.


No. The Bible itself makes this clear, as I've explained in my post # 115006 above.

Job 1:11 But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.
Job 1:12 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.
Job 1:13 And there was a day when his sons and his daughters were eating and drinking wine in their eldest brother's house:
Job 1:14 And there came a messenger unto Job, and said, The oxen were plowing, and the asses feeding beside them:
Job 1:15 And the Sabeans fell upon them, and took them away; yea, they have slain the servants with the edge of the sword; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.
Job 1:16 While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, The fire of God is fallen from heaven, and hath burned up the sheep, and the servants, and consumed them; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.
Job 1:17 While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, The Chaldeans made out three bands, and fell upon the camels, and have carried them away, yea, and slain the servants with the edge of the sword; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.
Job 1:18 While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, Thy sons and thy daughters were eating and drinking wine in their eldest brother's house:
Job 1:19 And, behold, there came a great wind from the wilderness, and smote the four corners of the house, and it fell upon the young men, and they are dead; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.
...
Job 2:3 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause. ...
Job 2:7 So went Satan forth from the presence of the LORD, and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown.

When the angel of mercy folds her wings and departs Satan will do the evil deeds he has long wished to do. Storm and tempest, war and bloodshed--in these things he delights, and thus he gathers in his harvest. And so completely will men be deceived by him that they will declare that these calamities are the result of the desecration of the first day of the week. From the pulpits of the popular churches will be heard the statement that the world is being punished because Sunday is not honored as it should be.--RH Sept. 17, 1901. {LDE 256.3}

I saw that the four angels would hold the four winds until Jesus' work was done in the sanctuary, and then will come the seven last plagues. These plagues enraged the wicked against the righteous; they thought that we had brought the judgments of God upon them, and that if they could rid the earth of us, the plagues would then be stayed.--EW 36 (1851). {LDE 256.2}

reading this closely and prayerfully we see that moses and aaron were being accused of following satan, of calling on satan to destroy their enemies. they called the evil men good, and the righteous men they called evil, of satan.

It always explains itself. It does this by means of principles, not on a case by case basis. Above all, Jesus Christ is the explanation of Scripture. He is the crimson thread that binds it together.



To quote Dan. 9:26, 27 and Matt. 24:15 sure seems like a long way to me to go about this. To see how God feels about what happened from Scripture, all one needs to do is consider the following:



I can give other examples (of Scripture texts requiring "forced" and "unnatural" interpretations). For example, here's one:



I would come back to the same question I've been raising before, which is, what is it that make one even think that God is capable of doing the things ascribed to Him, according to the traditional view of the plagues?

For example, suppose you read somewhere that Ellen White had a secret affair. What would you think? No way!, right? Why? Because you have an idea as to her character, that she wouldn't act in such a way. Even if you read something from a reliable source, you would question it, and look for some other explanation.

Similarly, if we consider that Jesus Christ is a full and completely revelation of God (all that man can know of God was revealed by Him), then, on the basis of knowing Him, certain ideas regarding God's behavior can be ruled out on the face of it. For example, God is perfectly pure. Therefore any ideas of impurity regarding Him can be cast aside. Similarly, God is kind. Therefore any ruthless ideas can be cast aside.

Going back to the Piaget analogy. As mentioned previously, Piaget suggested that as children mature their way of thinking changes, but as we get older, we forget how we used to think. He designed experiments to demonstrate this.

One of them involved the idea that the shape of an object, such as clay, does not impact its mass. Certain children were shown two clumps of clay of equal mass and shape. It was demonstrated to them that their mass was the same by weighing the clay in front of them. Then one of the clumps was changed to a different shape. They were asked which clump would weigh more.

The children which had already learned the principle involved responded correctly, that the shape of the clay wouldn't change how much it weighed. Others, who hadn't learned the principle yet would respond incorrectly. The principle was explained to the one who didn't know it.

The experiment was repeated, with the experimenter secretly siphoning off some clay. When the clumps were weighed, and one weighed more than the other, the children who already knew the principle looked for where the experimenter was hiding the clay that had been removed. They knew some clay must have been removed, because they understood the principle. The other children were confused.

Similarly, to one whose paradigm is based on a certain principle (I don't know how best to label it, but something along the lines that Jesus Christ was a full and complete revelation of God, or that God is exactly like Jesus Christ -- that when we've seen Him we've seen the Father) when such a one reads that God supposedly did some act which would be contrary to the principle involved, one looks for where the missing clay is hidden.

ok, we are jumping around to defend a general belief. i can see, and respect, that the effort is to defend the power of God as one sees it.

it just seems to me that the power we should be glorifying is Gods creative and protecting/restraining power, not His "destructive" power which is the one satan glories in. but the most important power of God that we are completely ignoring is the power of God as demonstrated in the Christ, Jesus.

the One Who turned the other cheek and commands us to do the same. i dont know about you, but that is one "power" i havent really been interested in, to put it mildly. in all honesty i have flat out refused it.

the power that returns good for evil. the power that loves those who are hurting me in whatever form, instead of the one calling down fire from God on them.

i suggest we all have that "destructive" power of God down to an art-form in some manner or other. how about the form where we "lovingly" judge and condemn another, even misrepresent them, because they believe differently than we do? ive seen that one a few times. (others arent so "loving" about it)

so God either created so many frogs they overran the place or He stopped holding them in their place. but the magicians made it appear that they could bring or create them also so it must have appeared much worse than it really was.....
Exo 8:3 And the river shall bring forth frogs abundantly, which shall go up and come into thine house, and into thy bedchamber, and upon thy bed, and into the house of thy servants, and upon thy people, and into thine ovens, and into thy kneadingtroughs:
The frog was regarded as sacred by the Egyptians, and they would not destroy it; but the slimy pests had now become intolerable. They swarmed even in the palace of the Pharaohs, and the king was impatient to have them removed. The magicians had appeared to produce frogs, but they could not remove them. Upon seeing this, Pharaoh was somewhat humbled. He sent for Moses and Aaron, and said, "Entreat the Lord, that He may take away the frogs from me, and from my people; and I will let the people go, that they may do sacrifice unto the Lord." After reminding the king of his former boasting, they requested him to appoint a time when they should pray for the removal of the plague. He set the next day, secretly hoping that in the interval the frogs might disappear of themselves, and thus save him from the bitter humiliation of submitting to the God of Israel. The plague, however, continued till the time specified, when throughout all Egypt the frogs died, but their putrid bodies, which remained, polluted the atmosphere. {PP 265.2}
The Lord could have caused them to return to dust in a moment; but He did not do this lest after their removal the king and his people should pronounce it the result of sorcery or enchantment, like the work of the magicians. The frogs died, and were then gathered together in heaps. Here the king and all Egypt had evidence which their vain philosophy could not gainsay, that this work was not accomplished by magic, but was a judgment from the God of heaven. {PP 266.1}
real frogs vs hypnotism.

im not sure if the second coming is considered as a "plague" or not. it is certainly a "woe" for the lost.
Rev 11:19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.
the same thing happened on a smaller scale when God came down to mount sinai.
Exo 19:11 And be ready against the third day: for the third day the LORD will come down in the sight of all the people upon mount Sinai.
Exo 19:16 And it came to pass on the third day in the morning, that there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud; so that all the people that was in the camp trembled.
Exo 19:18 And mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke, because the LORD descended upon it in fire: and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly.
if God hadnt controlled how much the elements could fall apart it looks like the earth would have been destroyed when He came to sinai. but at the second coming He will control the devastation much less.

We need to study the pouring out of the seventh vial. The powers of evil will not yield up the conflict without a struggle. {Mar 280.1}
Rev 16:17 And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, It is done.
Rev 16:18 And there were voices, and thunders, and lightnings; and there was a great earthquake, such as was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake, and so great.
Rev 16:19 And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath.
Rev 16:20 And every island fled away, and the mountains were not found.
Rev 16:21 And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great.

One could quote other texts, like Isa. 6:10. But scripture cannot contradict scripture, and the Bible says that God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:4). Therefore, it's impossible that God does something to make men lose salvation.


Look, we will only have a clear view about the plagues when they happen, and it may even be that some will be the result of God permitting men to reap what they have sown. For instance, when I read the 4th plague, I think about global warming effects as a possible fulfillment of this plague. However, I don't think that all the plagues must be caused by Satan or by the effects of sin. I definitely think that the 7th plague, for instance, will consist in the commotions suffered by the earth as a result of the events which will attend Christ's coming.

From 1 Cor. 13 we learn



as well as



Since scripture cannot contradict Scripture, it's impossible that God does something contrary to what Jesus Christ revealed.





There's no inherent reason why the earth should suffer any sort of damage simply because its Creator is returning to it. The fact that it acts so weirdly, it seems to me, should be attributed to sin, as opposed to some arbitrary damage inflicted upon it by God.

In Romans Paul talks about how creation groans. Surely this groaning, and waxing old, is due to the effect of sin.

As I see it, the reference here is to the battle of Armageddon. Under the 6th plague the world is assembled for this battle, but it is fought under the 7th plague. This is the battle between Satan and his followers and God and His followers.

"When the protection of human laws shall be withdrawn from those who honor the law of God, there will be, in different lands, a simultaneous movement for their destruction. ... It will be determined to strike in one night a decisive blow, which shall utterly silence the voice of dissent and reproof. The people of God--some in prison cells, some hidden in solitary retreats in the forests and the mountains--still plead for divine protection, while in every quarter companies of armed men, urged on by hosts of evil angels, are preparing for the work of death. It is now, in the hour of utmost extremity, that the God of Israel will interpose for the deliverance of His chosen. ... With shouts of triumph, jeering, and imprecation, throngs of evil men are about to rush upon their prey, when, lo, a dense blackness, deeper than the darkness of the night, falls upon the earth. Then a rainbow, shining with the glory from the throne of God, spans the heavens and seems to encircle each praying company. The angry multitudes are suddenly arrested. Their mocking cries die away. The objects of their murderous rage are forgotten. ... It is at midnight that God manifests His power for the deliverance of His people. The sun appears, shining in its strength. Signs and wonders follow in quick succession. The wicked look with terror and amazement upon the scene, while the righteous behold with solemn joy the tokens of their deliverance" (GC 635, 636).

Jesus Christ revealed many things, both by His life and by His teachings. And one of the things is that if you have only two alternatives and both are bad, you should opt for the less bad.

Matthew 5:30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.

This is what He sometimes has to do, too - opt for the less bad.


It is an effect of sin, but it is caused by the Creator's approaching of earth.

the problem is we are dealing with mindsets. for example the predestinarian. try to convince some that Rom 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Rom 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. doesnt mean just what it sounds like it means.

Mar 13:20 And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.

so for them these are very clear. they dont know that God is very different than that. bible verses that might contradict that conclusion are explained so as to fit in with the conclusion.

2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 2Th 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

we know the the truth, some because we were raised knowing, some because they were shown. and some we take on faith because ellen white "said so".

so the same could be very true about "very clear statements" of ellen white that we are used to reading one way.

instead of, "does God destroy?", a better question might be, "how does God destroy?", what means does He use when He feels the need to act? i have drifted more to toms side of understanding-not completely-because of unrelated studies in dealing with a shepherds rod adherent. (he swears up and down he isnt sr but if one is teaching their beliefs, albeit with some variations, what else would s/he be callled?) in reading the destruction of jerusalem very carefully and the desolation of the earth, also very carefully, along with other relevant texts/statements relevant to ezekiel 9, my view changed as to what will happen at the second coming and just how much God is involved in the destruction that will happen.

but, she specifically refers to the 7th vial. the other is under the 6th vial.

see last paragraph of above post. in that study and subsequent ones im seeing how bad it will really be. beyond terrifying. on a regular, daily basis.

no offense meant to any here because im just discovering this myself, quite accidently, but we have the most superficial, and detached understanding........

This is where rebellion is overcome, right? And we're told that rebellion would not be overcome by force.





The less bad, in Jesus' case, was sin. The better choice was righteousness. So Jesus is teaching that we should choose righteousness over sin, even if this may be a painful choice.

The assertion that God has to make this same painful choice I agree with heartily.



I don't think the "less bad" choice that God is constrained to take every involves Him acting contrary to the principles of His government, such as using force or violence would be.



It sounds like you're agreeing with me, as I've been saying all along that it is an effect of sin. There's no reason at all that the Creator's returning to earth should cause it any problems. Clearly sin has done something to damage the earth.

Here's an analogy. Say a person is being gassed, so that when they breath they die. One could say, "it is an effect of the gas, but it is caused by their breathing." Yeah, that's true, in a way, but it kind of obscures the real point, which is that it's not breathing that is lethal, but the gas. Similarly for God to return to earth is as natural a function as breathing, and there's no more reason than His coming to earth should cause destruction than that breathing should.

The point about mindsets is well taken, as is the example of Calvinism. I'm trying to say the same thing in speaking of paradigms and Piaget.

You can't really cause a paradigm shift by proof texts, it seems to me. It seems to me the best proof texts can do is to open your mind to the possibility that just maybe something you had been rejecting might possibly be true. But really it's how one views God that shapes one's theology, it seems to me.

I know when studying to be an SDA, I believed in an immortal soul. When I considered the texts involved, I saw that there was a big stack on the SDA side, and a big stack on the non-SDA side. How was I to determine who was right? Weigh the stacks?

What was telling in my mind was what the different views said about God. In the one view, God would be punishing (torture, really) the wicked for all eternity. That just didn't seem like God to me, when I stopped to think about it carefully.

puts Him right in there with the papists and the people who experimented on the jews without anesthesia.

i was raised, up to a point, with the adventist understanding so that was my reality. when i realized that there were many texts that seemed to support an eternal burning hell i could understand better why some others had a hard time hearing the "good news". i finally realized it was better to acknowledge that those verses were there, that was their reality.

im still learning others have a different reality than mine and their reality wont change just because something is so clear to me.


something had to have happened somewhere because God, not just Jesus, came to visit adam and eve in the garden before sin and as far as we know the earth was trying to escape. Rev 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

I'm not sure I follow you, Teresaq. Ellen White wrote, ". . . they dared to attribute His judgments to Satan . . ." Are you saying they were correct in saying Satan is the one who actually killed the 250 with fire?

I think what you are implying is that the question is, if Moses and Aaron caused the death of good and holy men through the power of the evil one or through the power of the Good One.

Is it possible neither are true?

Did Moses and Aaron cause any death? I haven't read it recently nor can get a view from your brief quote. It just seems like some good questions one should ask.

1.Did Moses and Aaron cause the death of good men by the power of Satan?
2.Did Moses and Aaron cause the death of bad men by the power of God? (or, equivalently, God caused their death, but Moses and Aaron played some sort of auxiliary role).
3.Did bad men die because they rejected God, whereupon He withdrew His protective hand, and they were killed, while God was blamed for it?

Are these the possibilities?

I think a few questions need to be asked and answered, as follows:

1- If God doesn't do any destruction Himself, then in the end who destroys the devil and his fallen angels in the Lake of Fire?

2- (a) Where does the Lake of Fire come from? (b) Does it come from God or the devil?

3- Does the devil destroy all the fallen angels by casting them in the Lake of Fire, and then destroys himself, as in suicide, by jumping into the Lake of Fire?

i dont know how you read that into what i wrote....

repositioning the phrases, the people said that: "Moses and Aaron had caused the death of good and holy men" "through the power of the evil one". they accused moses and aaron of following satan. they were accusing moses and aaron of having followed satan-instead of God- all along. they were saying that moses and aaron deliberately called on satan to destroy "good and holy men".

In keeping with Teresaq's quest to carefully and prayerfully study PP 404 I submit the following questions:

1. Why did God display His displeasure?
2. How did God display His displeasure?
3. What did Ellen White mean when she wrote "the most striking manifestations of His power"?
4. What did Ellen White mean when she wrote "they attributed them all to human or satanic agency"?
5. What did Ellen White mean when she wrote "they dared to attribute His judgments to Satan"?
6. What did Ellen White mean when she wrote "declaring that through the power of the evil one"?
7. What did Ellen White mean when she wrote "Moses and Aaron had caused the death of good and holy men"?
8. What did Ellen White mean when she wrote "It was this act that sealed their doom"?

Here is how I answer these questions:

1. For the same reasons He displayed His displeasure on other occasions, namely, to punish sin and rebellion, to check the tide of evil, to protect and preserve the innocent, to demonstrate justice.
2. By causing the earth to open up and swallow the rebellious.
3. God manifested His power in striking ways.
4. The rebellious did not give God credit for causing the striking things they witnessed.
5. The 250 did not give God credit for causing the earth to open up and swallow the rebellious.
6. The 250 credited the power of the evil one for causing the earth to open up and swallow the rebellious.
7. The 250 blamed Moses and Aaron for cooperating with the power of the evil one and causing the earth to open up and swallow the rebellious.
8. The 250 sealed their doom (destroyed by fire from God) because they credited Moses and Aaron and Satan for something God Himself did, that is, causing the earth to open up and swallow the rebellious.

PS - Of course there are other aspects involved, but these questions and answers pertain to the content of PP 404 itself.

Regarding the destruction of the wicked, I'll answer the question in two ways, one general, and one more specific.

First general. The death of the wicked will be like Jesus' death. Jesus was not killed by being literally burned by fire. Christ said, "My heart melts like wax." There was fire involved in Christ's death, but it wasn't literal fire.

Also if we simply consider the scenario, we need to ask if we think God would be capable of the cruelty of depositing someone into something like a cauldron of molten lava and watching as the person writhes in pain for many days or many hours. Of course God would have to supernaturally keep the person alive, since such a fire would destroy one in a matter of seconds.

Second specific:



I quoted this at length to get the full context. Please note the underlined passage. The "consuming fire" is God's presence. It is the glory of God (which is His character) which destroys the wicked.

Here's a sister passage:



Of special interest is the fact that the same thing that gives life to the righteous is what slays the wicked. Therefore it cannot be literal fire which slays the wicked, since it is not literal fire which gives life to the righteous.

The "light of the glory of God" = "the revelation of God's character," which is made clear by the context.

From these passages we can see that the problem for the wicked is that the revelation of God's character makes manifest to men their sin. Apart from the grace of God (which they have rejected), this is something which cannot be born.

MM, your explanation would have God's overcoming rebellion by force and violence. Yet the SOP tells us that God would not overcome rebellion by force, and that force is not a principle of God's government. For example:

Oh, now I see what you meant. Sorry for being so dense. It's an affliction I live with. So, it sounds like you agree with me that the 250 blamed/credited Moses and Aaron and Satan for something God did, namely, cause the earth to open up and swallow the rebellious. Or, has my denseness gotten in the way again?

Why do you label it "force" and "violence"? Is punishment a form of force and violence?

How do you answer the questions above regarding PP 404?

PS - I realize this thread is concerned with the seven last plagues, but the fire which God used to punish and destroy the 250 seems fitting to discuss. Also, the following passage says the angels that pour out the plagues are dispatched from heaven and that they go out from the temple of God:

15:1 And I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvellous, seven angels having the seven last plagues; for in them is filled up the wrath of God.
15:5 And after that I looked, and, behold, the temple of the tabernacle of the testimony in heaven was opened:
15:6 And the seven angels came out of the temple, having the seven plagues, clothed in pure and white linen, and having their breasts girded with golden girdles.
15:7 And one of the four beasts gave unto the seven angels seven golden vials full of the wrath of God, who liveth for ever and ever.
15:8 And the temple was filled with smoke from the glory of God, and from his power; and no man was able to enter into the temple, till the seven plagues of the seven angels were fulfilled.
16:1 And I heard a great voice out of the temple saying to the seven angels, Go your ways, and pour out the vials of the wrath of God upon the earth.

Are we supposed to interpret this to mean evil angels? Isn't it possible that these angels are holy angels?

My denseness must be getting in the way in understanding how you mean punishment could not be force or violence. Unless you mean punishment is something other than what is commonly understood. Could you elaborate?

Because what you wrote depicts force and violence.



Not necessarily. It depends on the form of the punishment. If the punishment consists of forceful and violent actions, it would be.



I think the same principles were at work here as in the Destruction of Jerusalem.





Those opposing Moses and Aaron thought they were in league with the devil. They sealed their doom by resisting the Holy Spirit, committing the unpardonable sin.

This is all similar to what happened to Christ. He was accused of working in league with the devil. Once one identifies the voice of God as the voice of Satan, there's nothing more God can do for such a one, as the means of communication has been cut off.

Yes, I think so (that this can be understood as referring to holy angels) but what God's wrath is would need to be understood.

Teresa, that's precisely the point about which I disagree with Tom's view. Sin is extremely dangerous because it spreads from mind to mind. God is the ruler of the universe. He cannot let sin go unchecked. This is not related to the plagues, but in the following passages Ellen White presents some concepts that apply to what we've been discussing.

About the flood:

In the destruction of the old world by a flood of waters, God gave evidence that men had exceeded the bounds prescribed through His long-sufferance. And whenever a people, with a "thus saith the Lord" to guide them, presume upon His mercy, and go decidedly counter to His will, despising all His warnings, they finally exceed the limits of grace. Then God interferes and vindicates the honor of His law. He represses the increase of unrighteousness, by blotting out the race who become indifferent to His law which had been made known to the inhabitants of the Noatic [world]. Thus the Lord reveals to the whole human family that it is possible to go so far in sin and disgraceful transgression of His law, that it becomes necessary for Him to limit human life, and interpose in His wrath to prevent their spoiling one another in continual disobedience and defiance of His law. {21MR 65.2}

About the apostasy at Sinai:

"Love no less than justice demanded that for this sin judgment should be inflicted. God is the guardian as well as the sovereign of his people. He cuts off those who are determined upon rebellion, that they may not lead others to ruin. In sparing the life of Cain, God had demonstrated to the universe what would be the result of permitting sin to go unpunished. The influence exerted upon his descendants by his life and teaching led to the state of corruption that demanded the destruction of the whole world by a flood. The history of the antediluvians testifies that long life is not a blessing to the sinner; God's great forbearance did not repress their wickedness. The longer men lived, the more corrupt they became. So with the apostasy at Sinai. Unless punishment had been speedily visited upon transgression, the same results would have again been seen. The earth would have become as corrupt as in the days of Noah. Had these transgressors been spared, evils would have followed greater than resulted from sparing the life of Cain. It was the mercy of God that thousands should suffer, to prevent the necessity of visiting judgment upon millions. In order to save the many, he must punish the few. ... It was necessary for the good of Israel, and was also a lesson to all succeeding generations, that crime should be promptly punished. And it was no less a mercy to the sinners themselves that they should be cut short in their evil course. Had their lives been spared, the same spirit that led them to rebel against God would have been manifested in hatred and strife among themselves, and they would have eventually destroyed one another. It was in love to the world, in love to Israel, and even to the transgressors, that crime was punished with swift and terrible severity." {RH, February 11, 1909 par. 18, 19}

Since sin entered the universe, there is dirty work to be done. Sin must be dealt with. But if there is dirty work to be done, God takes the responsibility for it. He doesn't use Satan to do the dirty work for Him. This reminds me of the Jews. They use gentiles to do for them the things that they think would make them transgress the Sabbath. Their reasoning is the following: since the gentiles are already lost, they cannot become more lost than they already are. So they can transgress the law instead of the Jews, and do what the Jews need to be done but cannot themselves do. Well, God does not act like that. If there is dirty work to be done, God does not use Satan to do it for Him. And, in case He does use nature, it is just as a tool to fulfill His purposes.
Of course there are occasions when people's attitudes force Him to leave them to their own ways. But this should be distinguished from what is described above. There are occasions when God Himself intervenes to punish sin.

There's no need to disagree with my view on account of this! I agree completely with this.

I think where we actually disagree is the mechanism involved by which sin is checked. This goes along with Teresa's point, in regards to asking how does God destroy. It's actually the same point.

I believe that God has to take action to prevent the destruction that would take place (because of the effects of sin) were He to stop taking these actions. So God does not prevent sin from going on unchecked by ceasing to take the actions which prevent the destruction that sin results in.

To put it another way, God destroys by withdrawing His protection in some way. It could in regards to some natural function, such as a function of the human body, or it could be some phenomena of nature, or it could be releasing protection in regards to evil beings, either heavenly or earthly.



There's a number of problems with this analogy, but I'll deal with just one, as this is a fundamental difference. In the case of the Jews, they are willing for a given action to take place, such as the switching on of a light. In the case of God, He is willing that a given action *not* take place. He withdraws His protection to all some destruction to take place, which is contrary to His will. The "dirty work" is not something that God would have happen. He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should repent. But if they refuse to repent, then the only alternative is to perish, not because of an arbitrary action God takes against them, but because this is the only alternative to choosing life, which is tantamount to choosing Christ, because life can only be found in Him.

One other point I'll mention is in regards to the "dirty work" that needs to be done. From your paradigm, this "dirty work" is something that needs to be done, or, if not, sin will continue unchecked. This is based on the idea that sin is basically innocuous. It has to be arbitrarily, or artificially, punished because simply withdrawing one's attention is not sufficient to cause the "dirty work" that needs to happen to happen.

But if we take the POV that God must be actively involved to counteract the ills that sin brings about of its own accord, then all that's necessary for God to do the "dirty work" is for God to cease the work He is doing to counteract the ills of sin.

I disagree. He is willing for a given action to take place - the restraint of sin, so that others may not be led to ruin.


I disagree. This is not based on the idea that sin is basically innocuous. The opposite is true. Sin is so dangerous that not restraining it in some cases may mean the perdition of many who could still be saved. In these occasions, simply withdrawing one's attention is not sufficient. The spread of sin must be immediately stopped. Ellen White says this clearly in the quotes I provided:

"Unless punishment had been speedily visited upon transgression, ... the earth would have become as corrupt as in the days of Noah. Had these transgressors been spared, evils would have followed greater than resulted from sparing the life of Cain. ... In order to save the many, he must punish the few. ... And it was no less a mercy to the sinners themselves that they should be cut short in their evil course. Had their lives been spared, the same spirit that led them to rebel against God would have been manifested in hatred and strife among themselves, and they would have eventually destroyed one another. It was in love to the world, in love to Israel, and even to the transgressors, that crime was punished with swift and terrible severity."

good questions!! i think the question is, how does God destroy, and how does He punish.

the lake of fire, from my undersanding is very real, but are the lost kept conscious in that lake, as those who believe in an immortal soul and eternal burning hell believe?

here is one pioneers understanding:

other pioneers, from what i have seen so far didnt go into what the pain and suffering was. they seemed to equate punishment with eternal death.

from a writer to the review and herald, which i thought was interesting in comparing how long one would suffer in the fire:

anothers thoughts:

If this is the action you had in mind that God is doing, then what you said previously doesn't make sense. Specifically:



It doesn't make any sense to suggest that God would use Satan to restrain sin for Him. This certainly isn't anything I'm suggesting.



In your "disagreement" you're agreeing with my point. You have the view that sin is basically innocuous, so some sort of artificial, imposed, manufactured, or arbitrary (however you want to label it) action must be taken against it because, in your view, God's simply ceasing from the actions He is taking to prevent the calamity that sin would cause is not sufficient.

Your characterization of God's activity as "simply withdrawing one's attention" falls far short of accurately describing God's activity. God doesn't simply "pay attention" to things, but is active to ensure that, for example, one doesn't die, or the earth's orbit doesn't go off course, that nature doesn't go off kilter, etc.

To be clear, I'm not disagreeing with the idea that God needed to take action, that something needed to be done to restrain sin, or to "speedily visit punishment upon transgression." The point I'm making is that God does not need to take violent action to achieve this purpose.

first, i need to clarify what i mean by reading carefully and prayerfully. having been a lone student of the bible/sop i read, i supposed, carefully and prayerfully and saw what there was. but over time i would see things in both i hadnt seen before. we all do that. but since being online and having to deal with certain types i had to really read carefully and prayerfully each word in a much more serious manner in order to counter certain understandings. i picked up a lot more faster than ever before.

many times im just as dense as you might be.

no.

i mean just what i said before. sorry if i havent been able to make it clear.

lets try this. it may or may not work. who were moses and aarong following and obeying? themselves and satan, or God?

in my study of the bible/sop i have come to my own conclusions which may be similar to others.

i have no problem whatsoever with those statements. i understood why God had to stop what was going on. i thought He took direct action, but was unclear generally as to what that direct action was/is. at first i thought He was angry and vengeful and destroyed at the drop of a hat. but as i studied longer i understood better what exactly upset God and why He felt the need to stop it. i still saw Him as angry but not as bad as before. now im starting to see Him as sad. im seeing a different side of God than ive ever heard, before. a Parent Who does not chastise in anger like we do, but One Who really does hurt more than i when "dishing it out".

one thing i hate about discussions sometimes, is in trying to get my point across i find myself starting to defend a position i havent taken. then i have to back off the discussion and go into prayer. im trying to avoid being pushed into a position i havent taken.

does God punish? yes, but how? is it in vengence and anger like we do? is it by allowing what He has restrained? and similar questions. so im going to explore the possibilities of how God deals with us til im settled in my mind one or the other.

ok, this is your perspective. i dont see God using satan to do His dirty work, but restraining him from the destruction satan wants to do. i do see Him using nature, no longer holding it together, to "punish" when needed.

i think there are statements like these that give a broader picture as to what is going on. i agree that W/who would be destroying is up for grabs, here.

this, i think is the best representation of what im starting to see as going on.

this is how i am beginning to understand Christs mediatorial work. satan claims us because of our sins, but Christ turns to the Father and says dont let satan have them yet. they arent beyond hope yet.

after taking out others.

And does He use nature for this purpose?


Tom, where have I ever said what you are suggesting - that sin is innocuous? As I said, I have always defended the opposite - that sin is so dangerous that it must be stopped. Just waiting for it to destroy itself can take too long.


????????????????
I was only addressing what you had said. Please read again what you wrote and what I said in reply:

I'm in perfect agreement with that.

Yes, I believe so, in the manner I spoke of.



It's not that you are directly saying that sin is innocuous, but in your point of view it's innocuous. That is, it's not destructive enough of itself to bring out the destruction of the one practicing it. God has to apply some "oomph" to it, to "get the job done," the "dirty work" as I think you put it.

I think sin is capable of doing the "dirty work." All that's necessary is for God to not take the counteractive steps He takes, and all sorts of destruction/pain/death results.



Ok, you're right. I know what I meant, after re-reading it, but I didn't choose my words well, as even I didn't know what I meant without thinking about it. So I can't blame you for being confused as to what I meant. Let me try to explain my thought more clearly.

What I meant is that that God must take active measures to counteract the damage that sin would do if He did not take these counter measures. These counter measures encompass our own bodies, nature, and evil beings. If God relinquishes control in one of these areas, bad things results, such as we see in the accounts of Scripture.

Along the same lines as Tom just said, could Satan survive if God didn't explicitly keep him alive? That is, can evil exist on it's own?

granted adam and eve didnt become evil such as satan, but their bodies did last almost a thousand years, so is there more to it?

God keeps our hearts pumping and and lungs breathing, so...

Thank you for clarifying.


God. Yes, the others assumed they were working with the evil one, but obviously they were wrong.

Who do you think caused the earth to open up and swallow the rebellious? And, who do you think caused the fire that killed the 250? Finally, who do you think will cause the plagues that punish and kill sinners after probation closes?

Welcome to D club. I agree with Tom in that it depends on how it is carried out. Unlike Tom, though, I also believe it depends on who carries it out. God cannot sin, therefore, whatever He does is right and righteous. His "strange acts" are not strange to the inhabitants of heaven.

Who do you think caused the earth to open up and swallow the rebellious? And, who do you think caused the fire that killed the 250? Finally, who do you think will cause the plagues that will kill sinners after probation closes?

The earth opening up and swallowing the rebellious depicts force and violence? If so, who caused it to happen and why? What about the fire and the 250? And the plagues after probation closes?


Please cite examples of divine punishment in the Bible that did not involve force and violence.


Please answer the questions in relation to PP 404.


Again, please answer the questions in relation to PP 404.

Do you believe God created beings in such a way that their life depends on them doing certain things (i.e. eating, drinking, breathing, etc)? Or, do you believe their life also depends upon God keeping them alive? Whatever your answer is please explain what God meant in Gen 3:21 where He says, If we don't bar access to the tree of life they will eat of it and live forever as sinners.

i think toms points are worth considering, if for no other reason than that the papacy, not to mention time before, believed they were doing the will of God in persecuting and killing millions who believed differently.

along the same lines is the question, is God a punishing God or a God Who restrains evil? is He constantly protecting us from circumstances we are completely oblivious to. one thing i dont see in the punishing God view is His ceaseless protection of us. since our view of God determines our actions, how we treat others, that seems to be an important question.

your conclusion, in my opinion, leaves itself wide open to justify any actions because "God would do it". if tom is right and God does not go against what He orders, then it behooves us to consider that and restudy, methinks.

These parables were spoken after the solemn lessons given in the twenty-third and twenty-fourth chapters of Matthew, when Christ dwelt particularly upon His second coming, and revealed things which would transpire before His second appearing in the clouds of heaven. "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem," Christ said, "thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not" [Matthew 23:37]. {16MR 275.3}
In this lamentation over Jerusalem is given the assurance of protection to all who will come unto Christ. He will accept and protect them, poor, defenseless, dependent, even as the hen spreads her protecting wings over her brood. If her chickens wander from her, the hen has a peculiar call by which she warns them of peril or storm. If they will heed the danger signal, and can reach their mother's protecting wings, they find warmth and safety, for she will defend them while she has any life. She forgets herself, and will give her life in defending her helpless little flock. {16MR 275.4}
What a touching figure is this! What an idea it gives us of the watchful care of Christ for all who trust in Him. Christ longed to gather Israel under His mediatorial wings. He longed to hear their voice calling upon Him, and saying: "Hold up my going in thy paths, that my footsteps slip not. I have called upon Thee, for Thou wilt hear me, O God: incline Thine ear unto me, and hear my speech. Show Thy marvelous loving kindness, O Thou that savest by Thy right hand them which put their trust in Thee from those that rise up against them. Keep me as the apple of the eye, hide me under the shadow of Thy wings" [Psalms 17:5-8]. {16MR 276.1}
[Psalms 36:5-11, quoted.]
"I will abide in Thy tabernacle for ever: I will trust in the covert of Thy wings" [Psalm 61:4]. {16MR 276.2}
But Christ could not do for Israel all that He desired to do, because they would not respond to His invitations. "Ye would not," He said. Their will was stubborn and unyielding. His last words to the impenitent nation were, "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see Me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord" [Matthew 23:38, 39].--Ms 92a, 1898. Ellen G. White Estate October 30, 1986. Entire Manuscript. {16MR 276.3}

do you have a picture of what that would look like? and this one? lets take this one:
are you saying that God is the evil spirits here?

one final thought:
Today . . . heavenly messengers are passing through the length and breadth of the land, seeking to comfort the sorrowing, to protect the impenitent, to win the hearts of men to Christ. We cannot see them personally; nevertheless they are with us, guiding, directing, protecting. . . . {ML 303.2}

MM, you should know what force and violence are. If you set someone on fire, that's violence. If you threaten to set someone on fire unless they do something you want them to do, that's force.



I think you're asking the wrong question. What I've asserted is that God does not use force or violence to achieve His ends, whether to punish or overcome rebellion or forgive sinners or anything else.

As explained in "The Destruction of Jerusalem," in "The Great Controversy," God withdraws when rejected beyond a certain point. Force and violence may result as a result of this withdrawal, as evil beings use force and violence. However, *God* does not use force or violence.



God withdraws His protection, which entails bad things happening as a result of either nature, evil beings, or one's health. I explained the principles involved in a lot of detail earlier in the this thread. The exact application doesn't matter. It's the general principles involved that are important.

The bottom line of our disagreement has to do with our paradigms, and with how we perceive God to be. You perceive that God is capable of using force and acting violently. You label this as something else, so I'm not talking about that, about the label. I'm talking about God's actual actions, of setting people on fire, or inflicting them with boils, or whatever. You see that God is capable of doing these things (i.e., His character allows it) and that He will resort to these methods if necessary to get His way. I disagree. I don't believe He acts any differently than how Jesus acted while here with us in the flesh, nor that He uses any methods different than those which Jesus used.

Didn't that fire, which consumed 51 men, come from God/Jesus?

Do you believe that God can choose an action for which there are more pleasant alternatives? IOW, could God choose option A if there exists an option B that was more pleasant?

I would say that Satan would die immediately if God does not provide him with life. (And that applies to every other creature.)

Now consider this angle: Which option results in more pain and suffering for an individual?

a) Be separated from God through sin and immediately cease to exist.
b) Be separated from God through sin and continue to live in sin for 6000 years.

Doesn't God sometimes change His actions depending on the context? He publicly denounced some Pharisees as blind guides, but He didn't treat Nicodemus that way. Jesus went to the house of Zacchaeus the thief, but kicked Adam and Eve out of their house when they stole. More importantly, Jesus came to die for sinners the first time around, but He's not going to do the same thing the next time, and definitely not the next time after that.

The Samaritans would not receive Jesus a certain time because he "had His face" towards Jerusalem.



The SOP comments:





Of course, but He never acts contrary to His principles in so doing, principles such as those described here:





He'll display the same spirit.



The cross reveals the heart of God, a heart which doesn't change.

When war broke out in heaven, wasn't the devil and the one third of the devil's followers forcefully ejected from heaven by Michael (Christ) and His loyal angels?

this thread is for the plagues of any kind and i considered starting another thread for this but it all seems interrelated so ill put it here.

satan was lucifer, the covering cherub who veiled Gods glory. there are two on the mercy seat so it makes one wonder who the second covering cherub is, but that is beside the point.

The glory of the Eternal Father is enshrouding his Son. The brightness of his presence fills the city of God, and flows out beyond the gates, flooding the whole earth with its radiance. {4SP 479.2}

He sees another now standing near to the Father, veiling his glory....{4SP 484.2}

the question i have is why was there need to veil Gods glory in heaven? in case someone accidently sinned? or would "erred" be preferred?

Hi Teresa:

Sorry for the long delay in responding. My week was full of other issues and did not get a chance to get back to the forum here.

I think of the plagues as I do the creation of the week. Each plague is quoted by the different angels that bring the plague out. As I see each plague as one event after another.

The key words that tells me this is a sequence of angels and plagues are from: seven angels, first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth. And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea. And the third angel poured out his vial upon the rivers and fountains of waters.

There is a space of verses after and before the fourth angel:

16:5 And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus.
16:6 For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy.
16:7 And I heard another out of the altar say, Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous are thy judgments.

Then it says:

And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun.

There is another point that comes to mind that there is an event that takes place in heaven between the sixth and the seventh plague.

16:17 And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, It is done.

We have been taught by the Spirit of Prophecy that is when Jesus leaves the most Holy Place and comes to meet His redeemed and take them home.

"There is a mighty earthquake, "such as was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake, and so great" (Rev. 16:17, 18). The firmament appears to open and shut. The glory from the throne of God seems flashing through. The mountains shake like a reed in the wind, and ragged rocks are scattered on every side. The whole earth heaves and swells like the waves of the sea. Its surface is breaking up. Its very foundations seem to be giving way. Mountain chains are sinking. Inhabited islands disappear. The seaports that have become like Sodom for wickedness are swallowed up by the angry waters. Great hailstones, every one "about the weight of a talent," are doing their work of destruction (verses 19, 21) {LDE 271.1}

Clearly the verses from 16:17 through the end of the seventh plague are one whole event at the coming of Jesus. These verse are not part of the plagues from the first angel to the sixth angel.

And again from Early Writings is stated that the plagues are God's wrath pour out to this world:

"Satan was trying his every art to hold them where they were, until the sealing was past, until the covering was drawn over God's people, and they left without a shelter from the burning wrath of God, in the seven last plagues. God has begun to draw this covering over His people, and it will soon be drawn over all who are to have a shelter in the day of slaughter. God will work in power for His people; and Satan will be permitted to work." {EW 44.2}

What to me is a very simple understanding of what God says can be made into complicated and confusing ideas. God says, is enough for me to realize God is speaking in a language that all can understand. It does not take a educated person to understand the world of God.

If a young girl of 16 called by God to witness to a people God can witness to each one of us through the same power given to her, the Holy Spirit.

From "The Desire of Ages"



Note:

1.Rebellion was not to be overcome by force.
2.Compelling power is found only under Satan's government.
3.The Lord's principles are not of this order.
4.His authority rests upon goodness, mercy, and love; and the presentation of these principles is the means to be used.
5.God's government is moral, and truth and love are to be the prevailing power.

If one takes these statements seriously, I don't see how one can think that God used force to overcome Satan.

I think the problem is that we are so used to seeing things according to how things operate in our world. Force and violence are how things get done, so we assume God employs these same methods. The idea that God could achieve His means by "truth and love" seems fantastic, unbelievable.

Yet if we consider the life and teachings of Christ, we see they are in perfect harmony with the principles which the SOP lays out. Christ was all about truth and love, and totally against force and violence.

If I missed this in some post, please accept my apology for repeating it:

The Strange Act of God

For the Lord shall rise up as in mount Perazim, he shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that he may do his work, his strange work; and bring to pass his act, his strange act. Isa. 28:21. {FLB 338.1}

"With unerring accuracy the Infinite One still keeps an account with all nations. While His mercy is tendered, with calls to repentance, this account will remain open; but when the figures reach a certain amount which God has fixed, the ministry of His wrath commences. The account is closed. Divine patience ceases. There is no more pleading of mercy in their behalf." {FLB 338.2}

"To our merciful God the act of punishment is a strange act. "As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked." Eze. 33:11. Yet He will "by no means clear the guilty." "The Lord is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked." Ex. 34:6, 7; Nahum 1:3. By terrible things in righteousness He will vindicate the authority of His downtrodden law. The severity of the retribution awaiting the transgressor may be judged by the Lord's reluctance to execute justice. The nation with which He bears long, and which He will not smite until it has filled up the measure of its iniquity in God's account, will finally drink the cup of wrath unmixed with mercy." {FLB 338.5}

"God's judgments will be visited upon those who are seeking to oppress and destroy His people. His long forbearance with the wicked emboldens men in transgression, but their punishment is nonetheless certain and terrible because it is long delayed. "The Lord shall rise up as in Mount Perazim, He shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that He may do His work, His strange work; and bring to pass His act, His strange act." Isaiah 28:21. To our merciful God the act of punishment is a strange act. "As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked." Ezekiel 33:11. The Lord is "merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin." Yet He will "by no means clear the guilty." The Lord is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked." Exodus 34:6, 7; Nahum 1:3. By terrible things in righteousness He will vindicate the authority of His downtrodden law. The severity of the retribution awaiting the transgressor may be judged by the Lord's reluctance to execute justice. The nation with which He bears long, and which He will not smite until it has filled up the measure of its iniquity in God's account, will finally drink the cup of wrath unmixed with mercy." {GC 627.2}

"The forbearance that God has exercised toward the wicked, emboldens men in transgression; but their punishment will be none the less certain and terrible for being long delayed. "The Lord shall rise up as in Mount Perazim, He shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that He may do His work, His strange work; and bring to pass His act, His strange act." Isaiah 28:21. To our merciful God the act of punishment is a strange act. "As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live." Ezekiel 33:11. The Lord is "merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, . . . forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin." Yet He will "by no means clear the guilty." Exodus 34:6, 7. While He does not delight in vengeance, He will execute judgment upon the transgressors of His law. He is forced to do this, to preserve the inhabitants of the earth from utter depravity and ruin. In order to save some He must cut off those who have become hardened in sin. "The Lord is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked." Nahum 1:3. By terrible things in righteousness He will vindicate the authority of His downtrodden law. And the very fact of His reluctance to execute justice testifies to the enormity of the sins that call forth His judgments and to the severity of the retribution awaiting the transgressor." {PP 628.1}

These are not passive words, but the word "act" means something that someone does. Sister White says very clearly that this God's strange act, not passive, but taking things into His own hands. He will execute judgment and He will execute punishment as well by His Strange Act.

sitting still is also an "act".



When He leaves the sanctuary, darkness covers the inhabitants of the earth. In that fearful time the righteous must live in the sight of a holy God without an intercessor. The restraint which has been upon the wicked is removed, and Satan has entire control of the finally impenitent. God's long-suffering has ended. The world has rejected His mercy, despised His love, and trampled upon His law. The wicked have passed the boundary of their probation; the Spirit of God, persistently resisted, has been at last withdrawn. Unsheltered by divine grace, they have no protection from the wicked one. Satan will then plunge the inhabitants of the earth into one great, final trouble. As the angels of God cease to hold in check the fierce winds of human passion, all the elements of strife will be let loose. The whole world will be involved in ruin more terrible than that which came upon Jerusalem of old. {GC 614.1}
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}
Those who honor the law of God have been accused of bringing judgments upon the world, and they will be regarded as the cause of the fearful convulsions of nature and the strife and bloodshed among men that are filling the earth with woe. The power attending the last warning has enraged the wicked; their anger is kindled against all who have received the message, and Satan will excite to still greater intensity the spirit of hatred and persecution. {GC 614.3}
When God's presence was finally withdrawn from the Jewish nation, priests and people knew it not. Though under the control of Satan, and swayed by the most horrible and malignant passions, they still regarded themselves as the chosen of God. The ministration in the temple continued; sacrifices were offered upon its polluted altars, and daily the divine blessing was invoked upon a people guilty of the blood of God's dear Son and seeking to slay His ministers and apostles. So when the irrevocable decision of the sanctuary has been pronounced and the destiny of the world has been forever fixed, the inhabitants of the earth will know it not. The forms of religion will be continued by a people from whom the Spirit of God has been finally withdrawn; and the satanic zeal with which the prince of evil will inspire them for the accomplishment of his malignant designs, will bear the semblance of zeal for God. {GC 615.1}

and
The people see that they have been deluded. They accuse one another of having led them to destruction; but all unite in heaping their bitterest condemnation upon the ministers. Unfaithful pastors have prophesied smooth things; they have led their hearers to make void the law of God and to persecute those who would keep it holy. Now, in their despair, these teachers confess before the world their work of deception. The multitudes are filled with fury. "We are lost!" they cry, "and you are the cause of our ruin;" and they turn upon the false shepherds. The very ones that once admired them most will pronounce the most dreadful curses upon them. The very hands that once crowned them with laurels will be raised for their destruction. The swords which were to slay God's people are now employed to destroy their enemies. Everywhere there is strife and bloodshed. {GC 655.4}

he time has come for God to vindicate the authority of His downtrodden law. Now the controversy is not alone with Satan, but with men. "The Lord hath a controversy with the nations;" "He will give them that are wicked to the sword." {GC 656.1}

And it shall come to pass in that day, that a great tumult from the Lord shall be among them; and they shall lay hold everyone on the hand of his neighbor, and his hand shall rise up against the hand of his neighbor." Zechariah 14:13

"And the slain of the Lord shall be at that day from one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth: they shall not be lamented, neither gathered, nor buried." Jeremiah 25:33

That doesn't quite answer my question re: 2 Kings 1:12. When the Bible says that "the fire of God came down from heaven and consumed him and his fifty," did that fire come from God/Jesus?

Hi Teresa:

Not sure what your point is, but my understanding of the word ACT is as followed: the doing of a thing, something done voluntarily, the process of doing something.

I guess doing nothing could be seen as an act of doing nothing, but when we are looking at "God's Strange Act" it is far removed from my mind as God doing nothing.

Looking at the word wrath the definition that I was able to find says: strong vengeful anger or indignation or retributory punishment or divine chastisement.

How one does those things by doing nothing is beyond what I can understand, but I guess in this day and age anything is possible.

I see God as a action being. Everything that He does is active whether it be in His creative power as well as in His wrath and His Strange Act. I do not see God as passive even when He stands back and allows us our free will. He is ever working to bring us to Him or he allows us to do our thing, but He is ever there longing and working to keep us so that we can have eternal life with Him.

Those that have rejected those actions by Him are the ones that see Him as doing nothing. My sister I am sad to say is one of those people, thus she has rejected her Creator and life giver.

we are told that the bible should define itself, yet we still go outside of it for understanding dont we?

When He leaves the sanctuary, darkness covers the inhabitants of the earth. In that fearful time the righteous must live in the sight of a holy God without an intercessor. The restraint which has been upon the wicked is removed, and Satan has entire control of the finally impenitent. God's long-suffering has ended. The world has rejected His mercy, despised His love, and trampled upon His law. The wicked have passed the boundary of their probation; the Spirit of God, persistently resisted, has been at last withdrawn. Unsheltered by divine grace, they have no protection from the wicked one. Satan will then plunge the inhabitants of the earth into one great, final trouble. As the angels of God cease to hold in check the fierce winds of human passion, all the elements of strife will be let loose. The whole world will be involved in ruin more terrible than that which came upon Jerusalem of old. {GC 614.1}
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}
Those who honor the law of God have been accused of bringing judgments upon the world, and they will be regarded as the cause of the fearful convulsions of nature and the strife and bloodshed among men that are filling the earth with woe. The power attending the last warning has enraged the wicked; their anger is kindled against all who have received the message, and Satan will excite to still greater intensity the spirit of hatred and persecution. {GC 614.3}
When God's presence was finally withdrawn from the Jewish nation, priests and people knew it not. Though under the control of Satan, and swayed by the most horrible and malignant passions, they still regarded themselves as the chosen of God. The ministration in the temple continued; sacrifices were offered upon its polluted altars, and daily the divine blessing was invoked upon a people guilty of the blood of God's dear Son and seeking to slay His ministers and apostles. So when the irrevocable decision of the sanctuary has been pronounced and the destiny of the world has been forever fixed, the inhabitants of the earth will know it not. The forms of religion will be continued by a people from whom the Spirit of God has been finally withdrawn; and the satanic zeal with which the prince of evil will inspire them for the accomplishment of his malignant designs, will bear the semblance of zeal for God. {GC 615.1}

and
The people see that they have been deluded. They accuse one another of having led them to destruction; but all unite in heaping their bitterest condemnation upon the ministers. Unfaithful pastors have prophesied smooth things; they have led their hearers to make void the law of God and to persecute those who would keep it holy. Now, in their despair, these teachers confess before the world their work of deception. The multitudes are filled with fury. "We are lost!" they cry, "and you are the cause of our ruin;" and they turn upon the false shepherds. The very ones that once admired them most will pronounce the most dreadful curses upon them. The very hands that once crowned them with laurels will be raised for their destruction. The swords which were to slay God's people are now employed to destroy their enemies. Everywhere there is strife and bloodshed. {GC 655.4}

he time has come for God to vindicate the authority of His downtrodden law. Now the controversy is not alone with Satan, but with men. "The Lord hath a controversy with the nations;" "He will give them that are wicked to the sword." {GC 656.1}

And it shall come to pass in that day, that a great tumult from the Lord shall be among them; and they shall lay hold everyone on the hand of his neighbor, and his hand shall rise up against the hand of his neighbor." Zechariah 14:13

"And the slain of the Lord shall be at that day from one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth: they shall not be lamented, neither gathered, nor buried." Jeremiah 25:33

the one extreme to the other mentality really surprises me.

The restraint which has been upon the wicked is removed... {GC 614.1}

When God's presence was finally withdrawn from the Jewish nation, priests and people knew it not. {GC 615.1}

this may not be the picture of an angry, vengeful "God" we are accustomed to but it is the all-powerful One. it is the power that is exercised in our behalf to protect us from untold evil and calamities that, we are told, we shall find out how many when we get to heaven.

in the destruction of jerusalem a mighty and powerful God gave his people up to the god they wanted.

could God have done any worse to them than what they did to each other and eventually suffered?

Hi Teresa:

Nothing should surprise anyone in these last days. We know that Satan is as a roaring lion seeking who he will devour. When the four winds are let loose and God has withdrawn his protection, note that God acts by withdrawing His protection Satan will do his evil deeds more powerfully than ever before.

On the other hand God will act out his own wrath through the plagues and by His wrath through His Strange Act.

I may not understand how that may work, but God has given us enough from history and His Word to know it will be His own wrath.

I agree extremes are dangerous at both ends and we see that often enough from the image of God in the OT from the image of God in the NT. These extremes are dangerous for the soul.

God is both merciful and just. He will judge the world by His righteousness, but He will also be merciful in His judgment.

From Psalms I find these words to be wise:

89:13 Thou hast a mighty arm: strong is thy hand, and high is thy right hand.
89:14 Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face.
89:15 Blessed is the people that know the joyful sound: they shall walk, O LORD, in the light of thy countenance.

we get a very clear picture from chapters 39-41 if you havent reviewed those lately. then there are bits and pieces scattered here and there that ive been integrating into those chapters in their rightful places. that really helps to bring out overlooked points.

ohhh, i hear that so often. i read the ot over and over and over systematicallyand that kind of "God" in the "ot" was absolutely destroyed in my mind. i believe that asking Him to cleanse me of all "traditions" helped immensely in seeing what was really there, compared to what we seem to read there.

It seems to me it does (answer the question). If one takes the point of view that the fire came from Jesus (or God), I don't see how the things I quoted would fit in.

The Bible often presents God as doing that which He permits, so the fact that the Bible labels it the "fire of God" doesn't imply that God caused it, any more than God's sending fiery serpents upon the Israelites means that God sent fiery serpents upon them.

In an earlier post I spoke of different paradigms involved. I don't think looking at isolated, individual texts has an impact on one's paradigm. I think considering the character of God does, however.

One could argue that looking at isolated, individual texts is a way to "consider God's character," but I think, apart from Jesus Christ's revelation, this is more likely to confuse than enlighten. If we look at Christ's life and teaching, the idea that He would zap someone with fire seems incomprehensible. I certainly can't think of anything He said or did that would lead one to such a conclusion.

I spoke, in an earlier post, of my experience in coming to the conclusion that the SDA view was correct in terms of the immortality of the soul. I think the same principles applies.

I think this is the part that isn't understood. The idea is that God's power can only be shown if He is the actual one doing the zapping. But God's power is displayed every bit as much in His prevention of destruction. Indeed, to prevent destruction takes *more* power than then one who would do the destruction.

Don't you think it would be rather odd to have God and Satan doing the same thing, maiming, hurting, and causing destruction? There would be no way of who was doing what.

How about the following:



It seems to me what you're suggesting is diametrically opposed to what we read here. At least, I don't see how it would fit together.

If one considers the life and teachings of Jesus in general, it's difficult to see a life more anti-violence than His. If someone smites you on the cheek, turn the other cheek. This is what He taught and love. It's contrary to human nature, but seems to fit with God's nature, and how God actually acts. So it seems to me, at any rate.

As to the plagues in Revelation, as I said, I don't think we can know precisely how they will play out. So we can't really say if they will be permitted by God, sent by God, or a mix of the two (that is, some permitted, some sent).
However, the idea that directly removing life is always cruel and is incompatible with God's mercy does not make any sense to me. So, if I have a pet, and this pet gets an incurable disease and is suffering terribly, if I kill him I'm heartless, mercyless and cruel.
And I don't understand how someone can think that killing is always cruel, but can't see that letting die is no less cruel (and in fact can be, sometimes, more cruel).

Depending on how "directly removing life" is understood, I agree. For example, Moses comes to mind.

The idea that God would act cruelly, though, causing a painful or violent death is another matter, however.



What's being suggested is more along the lines of your causing the disease and making the pet to suffer terribly, rather than alleviating such suffering. Recall the characteristics of the plagues. The descriptions are not of merciful, painless deaths ending the sufferings of those experiencing the plagues.

Moses? God didn't remove Moses' life.


All deaths are violent, because death is unnatural.
You said God uses nature to cause death, but all deaths caused by nature are violent.
Besides, as I said, removing life is no more cruel than letting people die.


No, in the analogy the "disease" is sin.

Scripture says:



If his natural force was not abated, why did he die?



This is your reasoning?

A.All death is unnatural.
B.All things unnatural are violent.
C.Therefore all death is violent.

Regarding death and nature, I wrote the following in response to MM:



I quoted this in detail, to make clear my thinking.



If the life is removed by causing the person whose life is being removed a great deal of pain, that could be cruel, don't you think?



No, it's not. Why is it not? Because your analogy doesn't correspond to what I'm saying. You're analogy sounds like euthanasia, and involves the painless death of a being who is suffering. What I was speaking against is the causing of pain to one who wasn't suffering, which is why I said what's being suggested is more along the lines of your causing the disease and making the pet to suffer terribly.

To make this clear, it's being suggested that God will do things like cause those who suffer the plagues to suffer boils and in other ways suffer greatly. That is, it is God who is directly causing them to suffer excruciating pain. What I am claiming is that God is not like this. He does not get vengeance by making people suffer excruciating pain, nor does He establish His justice by so doing, nor punish those who reject Him.

This is not at all like your euthanizing a pet who is suffering. It would be like causing the pet to suffer, however.

these seem like good questions to me. they got me thinking. about things ive wondered about before.

but one thing seems to be that we need to differentiate between ourselves and God. between what we can/would do and what God can/would do.

God isnt cruel. we may not know, or really believe that, but He isnt. but He allowed the antediluvians to drown, or drowned them-to appease both sides, because i want to make a point.

so why didnt He just take back His breath of life and let them fall where they dropped? could it be because He gave them every chance to repent til their dying breath? that the flood was the only thing that could convince them, or finally wake them up, to eternal interests?

your other points have me thinking, roseangela, and i would like to explore them but i didnt want to get off-track on this.

i would also like to explore why God had/s a covering cherub to veil His glory before sin happened.

but isnt that getting into "God and satan cooperating together"? it does seem like it has to be one or the other. or maybe we havent explored-prayed and studied-it out more?

im doing an integration on the 2nd and 3rd comings and one minute it seems very clear its satan causing everything, the next it seems just as clear that its God.

with all due respect i think roseangela is right. all death is violent, with the exception, maybe, of aaron and moses, who the Lord laid to rest.

there never was supposed to be any death, ever.

again i have to disagree. i never found euthanasia to be completely painless, for my pets or me.

i think death is painful however it happens.

that is the point, i believe, that is the most important whether "God" does it, or allows it.

Because a thing is unnatural does not make it violent! Both law and medicine recognize the difference between "natural death" (or "death by natural causes") and "violent deaths".

It's certainly true that there was never supposed to be any death, ever, and it could certainly be argued that any death is unnatural, but that's a far cry from arguing that all deaths are violent. To see this, let's consider the definition of "violent," which should make the point clear:



And even if one did want to call all death "violent death," that would in no way affect the points I was making, which have to do with things God is actually (supposedly) doing. It makes no difference how these things are labeled!



The whole point of euthanasia is to bring about death in as painless a way as possible. The plagues are not depicting this sort of thing.



This isn't anything like euthanasia! Who's responsible for this? Is this something God is actively doing, or that God permits to happen?



Agreed!

i probably didnt make myself clear.

my point didnt involve God one way or the other.

my point is that death, to me, is "violent" regardless of how one dies. but we do tend to categorize deaths so i can understand the misunderstanding of what im trying to say.

the "violence" can be just mental. trauma? may be a better word. but i think even for an elderly person dying of natural causes for them it is "violent".

even a person who dies in their sleep we cant really say they died peacefully, even tho it appears so, because no one is able to come back and tell us.

just something that the discussion made me think about. not trying to take away from your points about God.

Did Satan leave heaven of his own accord? Was he convinced that he didn't really want to be there, and decided to leave on his own?

Lazarus did!

Jude says he (and his followers) "left their habitation." The SOP speaks of Satan's "leaving the immediate presence of the Father."

From "It Is Finished" in "The Desire of Ages" there's the following interesting comment:



The verse in Revelation dealing with Satan's being cast down is interpreted as having to do with a loss of influence on Satan's part. As his disguise was taken away, the holy angels wanted nothing to do with him. Before he had some access, such as we see in Job.

I think Satan would like to have the power of God, but doesn't want anything to do with His principles, nor those who do.

Certainly the idea that God would use force to compel Satan to leave heaven would be problematic, given statements like the following:

Teresa, we had an interesting discussion some years ago where many of the principles touched on here were examined and presented in more detail. Take a look at it here if you can.


Perhaps a new thread could be created about this topic.

So you think that the death resulting from a heart attack or an asthma attack is not violent? These are natural causes, but I can see little difference, for instance, between an asthma attack and a gas chamber or death by hanging.


When I brought up the analogy of euthanasia, I was referring to the motivation for causing the death, not to the pain involved in it.


One would suppose that in an afflictive situation the person would turn to God, so whether God is sending the plagues or permitting them, they prove definitively that these people are incapable of repenting.

Here again is the definition of "violent"



So such deaths are not violent.



If you slip around a pool, and hit your head, and fall into the pool and drown, that's not a violent death. If, however, someone bonks you on the head with a club and dumps you in the pool, that is.



I wasn't taking issue with the motivation of God's supposed actions, but with the actions themselves; specifically, with the idea that God would directly cause excruciatingly painful, violent deaths.



I think the premise here is questionable, and I don't see the reason for it's being brought up. What leads one to repentance is not affliction, but the goodness of God (Romans 2:4).

But this wasn't something I've been discussing. I've been pointing out that I don't believe that God's directly causing people excruciating pain and killing them is in harmony with His character. I think this is made clear by Jesus Christ's life and teachings.

But your physical sensations will be the same, and the distinction, in this sense, is artificial. Now take for instance the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira. There is no painless death, so either you must believe that it wasn’t God who caused their deaths, or that He causes pain and suffering, because in all deaths (whether natural or “violent”) there is some degree of pain and suffering.


There may be suffering before a death occurs (and this is true of both natural and “violent” deaths), but in death itself the suffering takes just some seconds. After that the brain turns itself off. So what are you referring to? Sufferings that precede death?


It’s obvious that affliction may lead people to repentance. What happened in Nineveh is proof of that.


Disease and death can achieve purposes. Gehazi's and Uzziah's leprosy had a purpose to achieve in their lives and in the lives of others (2 Ki 5:27; 2 Chron 26:20). The death of Ananias and Sapphira also had a purpose to achieve.

Such "artificial" distinctions determine whether people are hanged for murder.



Everything seems to follow from your assertion that "there is no painless death." Can you establish that assertion? For example, when a person dies in their sleep, that would seem to me to be a painless death.



Sufferings that precede death is the only possibility, isn't it?



I agree that God can work His purposes despite disease or death, if this is what you have in mind. I don't believe that God kills people or inflicts them with disease to work His purposes, if that's what you're saying.

I've made clear I'm not referring to legal aspects but to physical sensations, and in this respect there is no difference between "natural" and "violent" deaths.


I'm referring to conscious deaths. But since you consider that death during sleep is painless, do you now believe that it was the angel of God who killed the 185,000 soldiers in the Assyrian army?


What about Ananias and Sapphira?

So?



Your questions and points seem to be coming out of left field. I don't follow your reasoning. I've laid out in several posts on this thread in detail where I'm coming from. I'll write another post after this post to put forth some more ideas that hopefully will be helpful insofar as what I'm trying to say.



I'm not excluding them or anybody. I don't believe that God kills people or inflicts them with disease to work His purposes. Satan is the author of sin and all its results. Force and violence come from Satan's kingdom, not God's. I believe these methods are completely foreign to the way God does things.

There are a number of things God does to ensure that we live and are in good health. He manages nature, including astronomical issues (keeping the earth on its orbit) and geological (pressures having to do with the earth, climatology, etc.) beasts large, small, and microscopic, and so forth.

God manages our "organisms" (to use the Portuguese term).

God prevents evil beings, whether human or angelic, from harming us.

God prevents us from suffering accidents.

I think this covers all the bases, but there may be something I'm leaving out.

What I believe is that God "kills" by removing His protecting hand, which results in one of the above happening. The bad things from one of the above happening may result in violent painful death, but this is not something which God is directly causing. It is something which He allows, which is far different.

Here's an example. Say you have a child, and the child wants to leave home. The child is too young, so you don't permit it. At some point, the child becomes old enough, so you permit it. Something bad happens to the child. This is not the same as if you did something bad to the child yourself. This is analogous to what I see happening in the cases where God "kills" people.

I don't believe God kills people by Himself acting violently. I don't believe God has a violent bone in His body. I believe violence is something entirely foreign to God, and it would be as impossible for God to act violently as it would be for Him to lie, for example. Violence is as foreign to His kingdom as deceit is.

true, but then again he didnt say if he felt his death was violent or not. he was sick so maybe it did.

thank you, i will when i can.
that could be done, but i think it relates to this topic, also, in that we are talking about restraining vs inflicting, i believe.


back to the op, if possible.
here it appears to come from the Father.

here it appears to come from satan. (an integration of gc and sp).

does this one tie the two different pictures together?


there are more statements (and probably some i havent discovered yet)that can also be added.

I think the SOP says something about this.

John 16:2.


Does God punish by withdrawing His protection? If so, who or what is responsible for causing the punishment?


I agree. And, we should probably base such studies on the assumption God is love and that He never does anything contrary to the truth.


Yes. Please consider the story of Korah in the Bible.


Yes. The following story of the 250.


Does this plague cause anyone to die? But to answer your question, no, I don't think God is the evil spirits that come out of the mouth of the dragon, beast, or false prophet. Instead, I believe God dispatched the 6th angel who poured out the 6th vial. Do you agree?


Amen!

You didn't answer the question - Who caused it to happen and why?


You didn't provide an example of God punishing sinners without using force or violence. Yes, you said evil beings resort to force and violence when God withdraws His protection, but my question doesn't concern such examples. BTW, do you know of examples of God withdrawing His protection and evil beings using force and violence?


You didn't honor my request.


My paradigm allows me to take God at His word. When the Bible says God did something, I take it to mean 1) He either caused it to happen, or 2) He commanded holy angels to do it, or 3) He permitted evil angels to do it. Your paradigm seems to disallow the first two possibilities.

This is addressed to everyone reading this thread:

Isn't it clear in Rev 15 & 16 that it is God who will command holy angels to pour out the seven last plagues?

Those who refused God's protection caused it to happen by forcing God to withdraw His protection.



I pointed out I didn't think you were asking the right question, and explained why.



Yes, there are many. The destruction of Jerusalem is one. The crucifixion of Christ is another. Job is another.



In the past we've gone over these things in great detail, and I can't see that it's resulted in anything positive. It seems to me the reason why is that this approach is scratching where it doesn't itch. I think Teresa's explanation regarding Calvinism was excellent.

That is, if you look at Romans 9, it talks about how God unilaterally selected Jacob but rejected Esau. To a Calvinist, this is irrefutable evidence that God is alone responsible for who is saved and who is lost. Someone from our perspective looks for an alternative way of understanding this text. What drives how the text is interpreted, and similar texts, is our paradigm. We cannot divorce how we interpret Scripture from our paradigm.

So whether the destruction of the people you mentioned because God withdrew His protection in the realm of nature or the realm of evil beings is immaterial. That He didn't directly do it I derive Jesus Christ's revelation of God, as well as from the principles laid out by the SOP in regards to His character.



I think this statement betray a lack of acuity. Anyone with any paradigm can make this claim, and many people sincerely believe they are doing so, even when they have views such as that God will torment (or, perhaps more accurately, torture) people for all eternity.



Not at all. For example, the Bible says God created the universe. I believe God did this.

There are many things that Bible says God did or commanded holy angels to do which I believe were done.

In regards to 3), I don't think this is comprehensive enough. Post #115246 brings out some other salient possibilities.

I don't think God directly does or did anything contrary to what Jesus Christ revealed of God in His life and teachings while here with us in the flesh. I think His was a full and complete revelation of God. Setting people on fire, for example, I perceive to be contrary to Christ's teachings.



It's as clear as Scripture is that God destroyed Jerusalem, or that He killed Saul, or that He sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites, or that He sent evil spirits to lie to Ahab, or that He will send strong delusion, or that He moved David to number Israel.

well, my brother, we are dealing with a symbolic book, are we not?

so when are the angels literal and when are they symbolic? does this "angel" literally cast a censor filled with fire onto the earth? does this "angel" literally have a sickle and literally gather grapes and literally press them in a winepress?does this angel literally have a bowl/vial full of darkness? will the darkness cast on the earth be really darkness or is it symbolic of the withdrawel of the HS?

answering a question with a question, eh? or you dont have an answer? but we cant help but bring our preconceived opinions into it, or read it according to what has happened to us. all of us. no one is exempt.

years ago my mother was saying something she shouldnt to my oldest daughter, then 3 or 4 years old. i got on my mother about it and her reply and "logic" was that she needed to be prepared to go through the persecution, supposedly by being persecuted now. that made me seriously wonder what she had done to us the time we had with her as children?!?

i only bring that up to say that there are things in our lives we dont think about that influence how we spiritual things.


im asking about the picture that comes to mind when reading those accounts.
which does what? i mean what exactly does this angel do? is it a literal angel with a literal vial?
glad you liked that.

Such distinctions do not determine violent vs non-violent deaths. Consider two scenarios:

1) Someone intentionally gives you enough morphine to cause you to fall asleep and die.

2) You are hiking and accidentally fall down the side of a mountain. At the bottom, you find yourself with two dislocated shoulders, two broken legs, a few broken ribs, and wedged underneath a huge log. A few hours of your feeble cries for help only results in the unwanted attention of a hungry mountain lion. And this is in addition to the ants that found you soon after you fell. Your suffering is over a few minutes later, and you are little more than cat and ant food.

Which scenario describes a violent death?

The difference between death by bonk and death by slip is not violence, but culpability.

Here again is the definition of "violent."



From wiki:



Another cite:



I suppose one could argue whether or not accidental deaths should or should not apply, according to the above definition, but regardless, this would hardly apply to our conversation, as if God caused an "accident" to happen to someone, it wouldn't be an accident. The deaths which are caused by "active human intervention" are unnatural, or violent ("effected by force or injury rather than natural causes").

What I've been suggesting is that violence is not a principle by which God runs His government, and, given this, it could not be that He would violently kill someone.

And you're also suggesting that God just removes His protection, and lets Satan (or hurricanes, or heart attacks, etc.) do the violent killing. Is that right?

Also, you are suggesting that whenever God removes His protection, death is sure to follow. It is not possible to survive without God's protection. Right?

The "fire of God" came down after Elijah said that it would come down if he was a man of God. So you're saying that this proof of Elijah's calling as a man of God did not actually come from God. Is that right?

If so, who would send this fire down? Satan? He helped prove Elijah to be a man of God? Sounds counterproductive for Satan.


The OT has quite of few of these "isolated, individual" texts. If they are so confusing, Jesus should have said, "Search the scriptures for in them you think you have eternal life, but these are they which confuse your ideas of me." Paul should have said of the Bereans, "These were more confused than the others, for they compared my words with the scriptures."


More than zapping, the Bible describes God as destroying the planet, melting everything with fervent heat. Is that incomprehensible too? That's much bigger than 102 impenitent soldiers.

the question is, how do we know when God makes statements such as these that they are in a permissive sense and not in a causative sense?

Exo 15:26 And said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes,

I will put none of these diseases upon thee,

which I have brought upon the Egyptians:

for I am the LORD that healeth thee.

Deu 7:15 And the LORD will take away from thee all sickness, and will put none of the evil diseases of Egypt, which thou knowest, upon thee;
but will lay them upon all them that hate thee.

i had to share this,
The time of trouble, trouble such as was not since there was a nation, is right upon us, and we are like the sleeping virgins. We are to awake and ask the Lord Jesus to place underneath us His everlasting arms, and carry us through the time of trial before us. {3MR 305.2}

I'll come back to the 2 Kings 2 question later.



I think the principle applies to all of them.

The question comes down to, "How do we understand God?" Do we:

1)Take Christ is a full and complete revelation of God, using this as our bedrock, and interpret more difficult to understand passages in the light of this?

2)Do we put the more difficult passages on equal footing with Christ?

3)Do we start with the more difficult passages, using that as our bedrock, and then interpret Christ's revelation in the light of that?

Probably no one would suggest 3). So we're really looking at 1) vs. 2). The question comes down to whether Christ in the flesh, Emanuel, was a full and complete revelation of God, or a partial one which we should augment with other revelation, such as these more difficult passages in the OT.

I believe 1) is correct. Christ is the new wine which requires new wine skins. He ever challenges our paradigms, correcting our wrong thinking in relation to God. To the extent that we subjugate the revelation of Christ to some other revelation, I believe our understanding of God's character will suffer. This is because Christ in the flesh was a full and complete revelation of God, so to the extent that we stray from that revelation, we err.

A comment regarding the expression "more difficult passages." Someone might respond, "There's nothing difficult about these passages at all. God at time zaps those who act contrary to His will. No problem here."

I think there is a problem, and that is that the idea that God causes those who act contrary to His wishes to suffer excruciating pain and/or violently kills them is at odds with what Christ lived and taught. Something needs to be done to resolve this tension.



I think you may have misunderstood Christ's intent, having left out the most important point of what Christ was saying, which is that they would not come to Him in whom they could find life. His whole point was that life was not to be found in the Scriptures, but in Him. So Christ was saying:

1.Search the Scriptures.
2.They testify of Me.
3.Come to Me, that you might have life.

He wasn't saying to search the Scriptures in order to know what Christ was like, which seems to be what you are suggesting.



Romans says that all creation groans under sin. I think it's the sustaining power of God that protects the earth from the destructive power of sin. At some point, God has to let go. He can't continue prolonging the artificial environment which now exists in which sin continues to exist. One the truth has been seen by all, there's no longer any need for God to do so. He can allow the wages of sin to take effect.

In order to take the position that it is God who destroys things, one must take the position that sin is not destructive, or not destructive enough to destroy. If sin is destructive enough to destroy, clearly all that God needs to do is to allow that destruction to happen. There's no need for Him to add destruction to destruction.

The view that God must actively destroy must deny that God must actively prevent destruction from coming about.

Also the fires which destroy the earth are not setting live people on fire, so your whole point seems moot (unless you're suggesting that they do; are you?)



I suggested what happens is similar to a parent who allows a child to leave home, and then something bad happens to the child.



No, I've not suggested this. Sometimes Satan's blesses his followers, making it appear to others that God is blessing them, in order to cause confusion.



If God were to cease doing all He does to counteract the consequences of sin for a given person, that person would surely die.

Since you have been saying that God cannot kill in a "violent" way, could you please clarify some points to me? Does God kill in "non-violent" ways? Since you classified death during sleep as non-violent, do you believe God's angel killed the soldiers in the Assyrian army? Or do you believe God doesn't kill at all?


1) You are not saying that sin destroys, but that God removes His protection, which is something completely different. In the cases where the forces of nature are involved, for instance. If God is protecting people from nature, He is protecting both righetous and wicked. If He removes His protection from the righteous, they will perish just like the wicked. So what is the relationship between this and the fact that "sin destroys"?

2) Sin does destroy, but this is not immediate. In the cases where people are given up to the control of Satan, as in the case of the Jews, their sin took 40 years to destroy them.

3) There are situations in which God cannot just sit and wait for ruin to follow. Sin sometimes takes too long to perform its work of destruction and, for the sake of those who can still be saved, God cannot wait for so long.

For instance, maybe the antediluvians would have destroyed themselves, but by then there would no longer be a single righteous on the face of the earth. For the sake of those 8 righteous, who would preserve God’s knowledge and the lineage of the Messiah, and for the sake of the antediluvians themselves, who were spoiling themselves and one another, these people must die.

The same is true about the idolatry at Sinai.

"So with the apostasy at Sinai. Unless punishment had been speedily visited upon transgression, ... the earth would have become as corrupt as in the days of Noah. Had these transgressors been spared, evils would have followed, greater than resulted from sparing the life of Cain. It was the mercy of God that thousands should suffer, to prevent the necessity of visiting judgments upon millions. In order to save the many, He must punish the few. Furthermore, as the people had cast off their allegiance to God, they had forfeited the divine protection, and, deprived of their defense, the whole nation was exposed to the power of their enemies. Had not the evil been promptly put away, they would soon have fallen a prey to their numerous and powerful foes. It was necessary for the good of Israel, and also as a lesson to all succeeding generations, that crime should be promptly punished. And it was no less a mercy to the sinners themselves that they should be cut short in their evil course. Had their life been spared, the same spirit that led them to rebel against God would have been manifested in hatred and strife among themselves, and they would eventually have destroyed one another. It was in love to the world, in love to Israel, and even to the transgressors, that crime was punished with swift and terrible severity" (PP 325, 326).

If the transgressors had been spared, they would eventually have destroyed one another, but by then Isarel would already have fallen a prey to their enemies, and corruption would have already been widespread, affecting the whole people of Israel and, through them, the whole earth.

Rosangela, I wrote several long and every detailed posts on this subject in this thread. Please refer to those.



No, it's not completely different. To say these things are completely different implies there's no connection, but there's a very definite connection, and that's what I had in mind when I made my statement.

If it weren't for sin, there would be no need for God's performing any actions to counteract its bad effects, as there would be no bad effects. Sin impacts how nature works, how our bodies work, and what people and angels do. God counteracts all of these effects of sin.



If it weren't for sin, there would be no bad effects for God to counteract. You're right, of course, that God protects both the righteous and the unrighteous; He causes the sun to shine on the just and the unjust. Sometimes God allows bad things to happen to righteous people, and sometimes He allows bad things to happen to unrighteous people.



It's only not immediate because the bad effects of sin which God allows are not immediate. If God ceased to counteract the immediate effects of sin, the destruction would be immediate. For example, Herod's death was immediate.



I think this is being completely oblivious to the destructive power of sin. It impacts a lot more areas and in a lot more ways than you are allowing for. It is because of the actions God takes to counteract sin that it's power is not seen.



So what was the mechanism that caused their death? We know the flood came about as a result of waters bursting forth from the great depths. These waters arose into the atmosphere, and came back in the form of torrential downpours (There were some other factors, but this is where most of the water came from; what would become our vast oceans were under the earth's crust).

In order for these waters to burst forth, they had to be under tremendous pressure. God must have been restraining this pressure until the "right time." God gave a long period for repentance, 120 years. After this time period, God withdrew His protecting hand, and the waters, under great pressure, erupted.



This is a separate case, as no one even alleges that God killed anyone here. The question under consideration her would involve God's commanding someone else to kill. Of course, there are some aspects in common, such as culpability (to will for someone else to do something makes you culpable, if you have the power to cause them to do your will), but this isn't the same question. This is an question which we've also already discussed at length.

I can't help but come back to the same point I've been making, and that is that the real difference between our perspectives here has to do with our paradigms. I think Teresa hit the nail on the head in her illustration involving the Calvinistic idea of predestination. Our paradigms disallow the Calvinistic understand of things, and so we offer explanations for the texts Calvinists put forth because of this paradigm. A similar example involves the immortality of the soul and eternal punishment of the wicked.

I also gave an explanation involving Piaget which I thought was pretty good (but no one has commented on).

You have a paradigm that allows for God's doing things mind does not. We both share a paradigm that doesn't allow for God doing things that other people's paradigm allows for (e.g. tormenting/torturing the wicked forever).

I think the key to the puzzle comes about not as a result of considering individual texts, which is what all the inquiry here seems to be involving, but in the revelation of Jesus Christ, which we aren't discussing at all.

How did Christ live? What did He teach? What does His revelation of God entail?

I really believe that the answers to the questions are key to understanding God's "violent" actions.

Tom,

I don't see you as providing a satisfactory answer to any of my points/arguments.
First, I didn't find any answers in your previous posts to my first set of questions.
As to the other three points, I would say the following:
1) Your point is (or should be, to make sense) that the wicked are destroyed by their own sin. If they are destroyed by nature's forces or any random disaster, they are not being destroyed by their own sin, in the same way that if a righteous dies in a disaster he is not being destroyed because of his own sin. (Some of the plagues, by the way, will involve the forces of nature.)
2) It does not make any sense to say that God didn't cease to counteract the immediate effects of sin in the case of the Jews but ceased to counteract the immediate effects of sin in the case of Herod, since, according to you, He gave up both to the results of their own choices.
3) It's true that we have discussed God's commands to kill in the past, but if memory serves me well you just deny that God gave these commands and imply that the actions of those who killed were wrong, or altogether sinful - although God not only approved but rewarded them. ???

People, whether wicked or righteous, can be destroyed because of the sin of another as well. All destruction and death is due to sin, but not, in this life, is it necessarily the case that one suffers because of one's own sin. Christ is a perfect example of this. Job is another example.



I've made no argument that the wicked are destroyed by their own sin.

What I've been arguing is that God does not directly do things to people to cause them excruciating pain and/or violently kill them.

Regarding the plagues involving forces of nature, that seems very likely to me. However, I don't see God as using the forces of nature like we would use a laser, for example, to hone in on the enemy and inflict them with some disaster. Rather, God, in accordance with the desire of the wicked, withdraws Himself from their care (takes Himself our of their life) which results in maladies of different forms.



Since you gave no reason as to why this doesn't make sense, all I can do is respond, "It does to!"



No, this isn't right. But this is another discussion. It's too involved to give a simple response.

To summarize, once again, I see no reference whatsoever to Jesus Christ. I think we have no hope of understanding God's actions in these events apart from the revelation of Jesus Christ. According to the SOP, all that we can know of God was revealed in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ (the context of this statement is dealing with the time He was hear in the flesh).

I think the whole approach here is wrong. Rather than looking at individual incidents in Scripture where violent or hurtful acts are ascribed to God, our starting point should be to build a model of God's character based on the revelation of Christ. *After* having an idea as to what God is like, according to what Christ has revealed, *then* take a look at these uncharacteristic incidents and try to come to an understanding as to what happened. I think that's an approach that can work.

I'll be waiting for it.

i disagree. anyone reading through page by page will see that instead of taking it systematically it skipped around with other incidents being brought up and going off in other directions.

i really dont think, if this were a job, anything would ever be accomplished. i mean if i started doing the dishes then let someone distract me into making the bed, then another came along wanting lunch, and on and on, what would i have done by the end of the day but a whole lot of started jobs and a bigger mess than when i started.

i dont disagree that starting with Jesus is probably the best approach and is the one recommended by ellen white, i still believe that taking incidents one by one till a conclusion is reached even if we ended up with:
a believes God did it
b thinks it might be this or it could be that-so doesnt know for sure
c believes God did not do it.

in the end we each have reasons for believing what we do. some are honestly going to believe God did certain acts because the evidence they have is that He did.

i still think we can take them one by one and learn things about God without anyone having to defend any position. but then i have been known to be an idealist.

Arnold, regarding 2 Kings, regarding the phrase "fire from heaven"



From this it can be seen that one possibility for what happened in 2 Kings 1 is that Elijah was one place and the others were in another. The place where the others were got struck by lightening. God knew this would happen, and informed Elijah of it. God could have prevented the lightening from occurring, but chose not to, because of their rejection of Him.

This is just one possibility that comes to mind. But, as I've pointed out, the actual implementation of the principle doesn't matter. The principle is that sin is destructive in a myriad of ways, and God protects us from its destructive power. If he lifts His protections, the bad effects of sin can impact us in literally thousands of ways. God protects us all the time from a thousand different things, of which we are ignorant. Because of our ignorance, we don't recognize our need of His protection, nor the destructive power of sin.

Again, I hasten to add, I don't think this manner of proceeding is likely to be fruitful, for the reasons I've pointed out. It's like Teresa pointed out in her example of Calvinistic predestination (or my point regarding Piaget). The differences in our positions has to do with a difference in paradigm. My view of what God does, things which are consistent with His character, is restricted by what Jesus Christ revealed of Him in His life and teachings.

teresa, I found your post quite confusing. You started out by saying that you disagreed with what I said, which is this:



You wrote:



So this looks like you're agreeing with what I said.

You continued:



so it sounds like you are disagreeing with an idea that we should not consider the incidents at all. But if you'll look at what I wrote, you'll see I didn't suggest this. Instead I said *after* having an idea of what God is like, *then* take a look at these incidents.

Isn't this the same thing you're saying?

Tom,

That's some pretty amazing "natural" lightning that would strike twice in the same place, both times reducing to ashes an entire company of fifty (50) soldiers, and both times missing Elijah who was on the hill above them.

But, you are welcome to put your faith where you like.

Hmm....and while we're at it, why would God ask people to do His "dirty work?" Elijah himself helped to execute the prophets of Baal a few years later. Did he not do this at the prompting of the Holy Spirit, at God's behest, while at the pinnacle of closeness to God and obedience to Him?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC, I quoted from "The Bible Encyclopedia" from http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/fire.html). They say:



If you choose to believe the fire was something else, as you put it, "But, you are welcome to put your faith where you like."

That lightening would strike the same place twice is not at all unusual. The Empire State building gets struck around 100 times a year.

By chance I came upon the following:



This speaks of 8,000 lightening strikes in a single day.

Regarding being on a hill, if the fifty were in a valley below the hill, and were the highest points around (no trees around them), and Elijah was on the hill, but there were trees around him, it's a lot more likely that they would be hit than that he would. (Granted, that fifty would be hit at once would be quite extraordinary.)

At any rate, this is one possibility, based on the comment I quoted. There may be other possibilities. What I have difficulty with is the idea that God would act contrary to principles so clearly lived and taught by Jesus Christ, and spelled out by the SOP, such as the following:



The SOP tells us that all that we can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son (8T 286). The context is speaking of His life in the flesh. Where did Jesus Christ teach or reveal that God would kill those who act contrary to His intentions?

Regarding your question:



To my mind, this phrasing of the question places God's character in an unbecoming light. Do you disagree?

A more straight-forward way of asking the question, to my mind, would be something like the following, "If God is against killing, why would He ask others to kill?"

This has been discussed at length on another thread. This is a more difficult question than the topic of this thread, dealing with the plagues.

I'm not seeing how discussing a more difficult topic would be helpful when the easier one is going on. However, if you would like to start a thread on this (or, better yet, perhaps someone could find the one which was already started), perhaps a discussion might get going on it. It's certainly an interesting question as to why God would ask the Israelites to do some of the things we see in Scripture.

You may quote the encyclopedia if you like. I will quote the Spirit of Prophecy.



First of all, the Empire State Building was the tallest in the world for many years, and has ample reason for being struck so frequently. Similarly, as Elijah was on the hill above the soldiers, he had more chance of being struck than they did.

California is the third largest state in our union, and "Northern California" is a rather large and mountainous region with lots of tall trees, including the tallest trees in the world. So those statistics do not surprise me.


Thank you. That was my point. And it happens TWICE, and it would have happened again, I am sure, if the commander of the third company had not been so humble.


Yes, I disagree. It is as an "optical illusion" that God appears to be in a poor light here. Those who are really in the bad light are ourselves. WE are the dirty ones that God must clean up after. As dirt cannot clean up dirt, so we cannot clean up ourselves. It takes the "Water of Life" and the "blood of the Lamb." And it takes His fire, too.

Now, in more direct answer to your question, here is the magnifying glass:



Considering that He does ask others to kill (as brought out in the above quote), perhaps He is not so against killing as we might think.

Tom, the problem is that your narrow viewpoint on whether or not God kills has become your focus in these other topics as well. It seems impossible to actually get down to the core of the question of the plagues with you until you can understand that God does indeed act in justice. "Vengeance is mine," He says. And the plagues are His vengeance.

Remember when David numbered the people of Israel? Remember that God gave him three choices for punishment? What did David choose? He chose to fall in the hands of the LORD, and not those of his enemies, for he knew the Lord would be merciful. Do you think God would have not honored David's choice? Would He instead have just turned David over to his enemies by "permitting" them to act? (Are not the devil and his angels "enemies"?) Nay. God honored David's request. Here is what Mrs. White says of it:


God is more just and merciful in His punishment of men than Satan is in handing out rewards. "Faithful are the wounds of a friend."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

and were off and running

defending positions

instead of investigating scripture!!

The whole question is what the fire from heaven is. If you simply quote something that says the "fire from heaven" is "fire from heaven," that's not helping. If, on the other hand, we say something like



that does help. This is dealing with what a Biblical phrase meant.



The point I was making is that it's not surprising that the same spot would be struck twice. You said it's pretty amazing that lighting would strike twice in the same area, so I was explaining why it's not.

Regarding Elijah's being on a hill, that's just one factor. There are other factors. I mentioned one; Elijah could have been near a tree or trees while the others weren't. Another factor is Elijah wasn't wearing metal, while the soldiers were likely wearing armor, probably bronze with copper, which would conduct electricity well. I understand that, in particular, the Syrians' armor had a lot of copper in it, and they adorned themselves with armor from head to toe.



I hadn't considered the armor angle before. Bringing that into account, it's not so extraordinary. If you took a bunch of soldiers arrayed in armor standing close to one another, it doesn't seem so surprising they could all get zapped.



So the question, "Hmm....and while we're at it, why would God ask people to do His "dirty work?" doesn't seem to you to be putting God in a bad light? You have no qualms about speaking of God's doing "dirty work"?



To me it's astounding, and rather scary, to see one write something like this. It's astounding because the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill" should make it clear that God is against killing. In addition, the life and teachings of Christ should have made that clear, even if we didn't have the commandment. It's scary because if you don't think God is against killing, you might be inclined to kill yourself.

The question if God asks others to kill is one that has considered at length in another thread. In particular, I've had this discussion with MM. There's a story about a father who's son is a hunter that brings out the point well, I think.



I don't think this is stating things accurately. I tend a lot more to respond to the points and questions others make than to bring up these things myself. If you look through the thread, I think you'll find this is the case here as well.



I, of course, believe that God acts in justice. I don't think He acts in violence. It seems from your statement that you don't think it's possible to have justice without violence. This is what you think? If not, I don't know how to make sense of your assertion here.



I think it's a pity that you think God can only take vengeance by acting violently. At least, this appears to be what you think. I disagree with this idea.



I can't follow your train of thought at all here, GC. What I've been saying is that I believe that force and violence are not principles by which God governs. I think the following makes this clear:



There are many such statements in the SOP. I think we need to bear in mind these, and similar principles, when we seek to interpret Scripture.

Secondly, I don't believe we can properly understand God's character without taking into account Christ's life and teachings. The whole purpose of Christ's mission on earth was the revelation of God. Given this is the case, shouldn't we consider it?

I find it incredible that in post after post on this subject, Jesus Christ isn't even mentioned.

This last sentence of yours may explain where you have not understood my post. Perhaps you should read it.

I just counted the references to God in it, excluding quotes from your post, i.e. my own material. I counted 31, including God, Lord, Savior, Lamb, Jesus, Christ, etc. This only includes my most recent post, as the post before that also mentioned God. Yes, this tally includes, in part, the statements from Mrs. White which I quoted. However, those statements say what I believe on the subject, and as such, represent my thoughts here. Nor have I seen you answer regarding them. Does not Mrs. White say explicitly that God commanded the killing? Do you wish to reject Mrs. White, Tom?

Of course, if God and Jesus are different in your eyes, maybe we need to start a thread on that too.

Mrs. White and the Bible are inspired by the Holy Spirit, and I feel safer being guided by them than by a mountain of human interpretation or opinion, including my own. All of us wrestle with understanding God and His character. We may never understand fully. God is more than any one word or thought can capture.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Regarding the meaning of "fire of the Lord," saying it is merely "lightning" falls far short of its true meaning.


However, I would not choose to call God "lightning", nor view Him as "Zeus."

Remember the "Pillar of Fire"?

Tongues of fire came down upon the disciples in the upper room at Pentecost. The burning bush story never mentions lightning, nor was the bush burned. In other words, I do not view the "fire of the Lord" as being equivalent to the natural phenomenon we call "lightning." It is different. Just as there was a difference in the temple between "holy fire" and "common fire" or "strange fire," so also is there a difference between ordinary fire and the fire of God.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

This is rather confusing. You start out by saying that to consider that "fire from heaven" is "merely lightening" falls far short of its true meaning, and then quote some verses which seem to have nothing to do with the subject. In the one hand, we have "fire from heaven," which evidently refers to some physical phenomenon, then on the other are a number of verses which refer to God Himself -- not a physical phenomenon. Is it your contention that the "fire from heaven" was God Himself (as opposed to literal fire or literal lightening)?



It seems to me that you actually do view Him rather like Zeus. He sits in heaven destroying His enemies by violent means, just as Zeus would do.



I think what the Bible Encyclopedia said is more plausible. There doesn't seem to be any evidence in Scripture that the "fire from heaven" which destroyed the soldiers was some odd kind of fire. Even less that had anything to do with the tongues of fire that came upon the disciples on Pentecost.

I think it's interesting that you bring up the burning bush in this regard. It seems to me that it's the bush that has the uncommon characteristic (of not being consumed by fire) rather than the fire being unusual.

But this whole line of reasoning seems to be circular. You have a view of God that causes you to view the story in a certain way. There's certainly nothing that precludes the statement of The Bible Encyclopedia from being the case.

This seems to me to be rather sarcastic and hurtful. Do you disagree? (specifically "Perhaps you should read it." Something like "It appears you didn't understand my post" would not have been sarcastic.)



My point was that no attempt has been made to consider Jesus Christ's life and teachings in attempted to understand God's actions. Mrs. White explicitly says that all that we can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son (the context being, while here in the flesh). That being the case, doesn't it make sense that we should study His life and character to understand the violent actions we see in Scripture ascribed to God?

Regarding God's commanding, often in inspiration we see God being portrayed as doing that which He permits. For example:



There are many examples of this in inspiration. God killed Saul. God sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites. God sent His armies to destroy Jerusalem. Yet in each of these case, inspiration tells us God Himself did *not* do these things.

So how do we know if, when we read somewhere that God did something, whether or not God actually did it, or if it was something He permitted? I submit we can only correctly determine which is the case by studying the life and character of His Son Jesus Christ.



This has been my whole point, that God is like Jesus Christ. Jesus said, "When you've seen me, you've seen the Father." You are suggesting behavior of God which I don't see in Jesus Christ. Is it possible that God and Jesus are different in your eyes? And perhaps you are unaware that this is the case?

It seems to me that God and Jesus are different in all of our eyes. This is one of the problems we have. John speaks to this here:



Because we *didn't* know what God was like, God became flesh, so that we could see what He is really like. You can see how excited John was about this here:



He brings out how he saw Jesus, heard Him, and touched Him. Here was God made flesh, God in a tangible form, that could be apprehended by humans. Then Jesus tells us that this God, made visible by Himself, is just like He is.

Now your view of God presents Him as violent and vengeful. So, given that Jesus Christ is like God, where in Jesus' life and character do you see Jesus being violent or vengeful?



Given you feel safe being guided by her, let's consider some of her guidance:







He we have wonderful counsel as to how we can understand God's character.

both the bible and sop tend to use God to refer to the Father to differentiate between the members of Deity. as in God was in heaven while Jesus was here on earth. i could use some tactics of others at this point but i wont.

i have never seen any evidence of antitrinitarianism in tom so im not sure what the point is here, unless were starting to deal with the person instead of the issue.

but having read the thread start to finish it is clear, at least as i understood the posts, that tom is saying we should be taking Christs life into consideration of what God would or would not do.

Tom,

No, of course I am not trying to hurt you, nor was I speaking sarcastically. I'm sorry if you understood it that way.

Regardless of the point you were making, to say that Jesus Christ was not mentioned when such was not actually the case is well...I preferred to believe you just hadn't read carefully (which is why I offered you the advice on reading it). Did you really mean to say, after having read it, that my post made no mention of Him?

I'm not understanding something here.

Nevermind all that. What I would like an answer to is whether or not you accept that it was an angel of the Lord that brought death to thousands of the Israelites as David's punishment. Mrs. White and the Bible both say so. Do you accept this?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

this is sounding rather intimidating. i hear, believe as i do or else. here are a couple of items turned up in doing a search on "investigate".

Cannot you question and investigate with one another? Indeed you can. But the great trouble is that self is so large in us all that just as soon as we begin to investigate, we will do it in such an unchristian manner. It has been done here in Battle Creek; it was done in Minneapolis; it has been done in many other places. God is not in any such work as that at all; it is the devil that is in such work as that. We want to come to the Scriptures with humble hearts. If God has a work for us we are ready for it, and we want to know that it is the truth for ourselves, and thus you be driven to your Bibles. You must be driven to them. {1888 565.1}

Those who have entered upon the work of teaching, or who have been called to any position of responsibility, should not be satisfied to take the product of the researches of other minds, but they should investigate truth for themselves. If they do not form the habit of investigating themes of truth for themselves, they will become superficial in their life and acquirements. The opinions of your associates may be of value to you, but you should not rely upon them and have no definite ideas of your own. You should examine the truths you have been led to believe, until you know that they are without a flaw. You lose much when you do not bring every point of faith you hold to the law and to the testimony, for you do not see or appreciate the truth as it is. Oh, that all our youth might appreciate the privilege that God has given! It is His will that you should go to the source of all light, and receive the enlightenment of His Spirit (for this will be given to every humble seeker for truth), and then you will know that the Spirit and the Word agree, and know that you know what is truth. What assurance this knowledge gives! You can then speak with power, proclaiming what you have learned as truth, knowing that you have not followed cunningly devised fables.--TSS 58-61. {CSW 33.1}

In the days of Christ there were many who incurred deep guilt because they denounced His teaching without carefully investigating its claims to their attention. . . . {11MR 292.1}

I am glad that a time has come when something will stir our people to investigate the points of our faith for themselves. . . . My cry has been: Investigate the Scriptures for yourselves, and know for yourselves what saith the Lord. No man is to be authority for us. If he has received his light from the Bible so may we also go to the same source for light and proof to substantiate the doctrines which we believe. The Scriptures teach that we should give a reason of the hope that is within us with meekness and fear.--Letter 7, 1888, pp. 3, 4. (To Brother Healey, December 9, 1888.)

Tom, I am guided by both the Bible and Mrs. White. It is possible that with too narrow a base, I may be misguided. The Bible says the following, which helps me to understand Mrs. White's words.

Together with the verse you quoted about no man having ever seen God at any time, John 1:9 tells me that every time in the Old Testament that we see "God" dealing with the children of Israel, speaking to Abraham face to face, speaking to Moses face to face, etc. it is really speaking of "Jesus." Jesus was not yet begotten in those days. He was not yet named "Jesus" nor "Christ." Yet He led His people, and He was God.

So, when speaking to Old Testament issues, to speak of God is to speak of Jesus. For example "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." We know from other verses in the Bible that it was Jesus who created everything.

Once we have this understanding, it lays the groundwork for the next one which is that Jesus has been revealing His character from the very beginning, and not only during His human life here. All through the "Old Testament" history we see how Jesus has revealed to us His character.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

first the bible:
Eph 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

now the sop.
The Father and the Son engaged in the mighty, wondrous work they had contemplated, of creating the world. The earth came forth from the hand of the Creator exceedingly beautiful.... {1SP 24.1}
After the earth was created, and the beasts upon it, the Father and Son carried out their purpose, which was designed before the fall of Satan, to make man in their own image. They had wrought together in the creation of the earth and every living thing upon it. And now God says to his Son, "Let us make man in our image." ... {1SP 24.2}

yes, this was Jesus. but notice that it doesnt say God, which in the ot would have been elohiym.
Gen 18:1 And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;

but toms point comes from the direct counsel of ellen white.

I appreciate and accept your apology.



Other than a reference, quoting EGW, and a couple more, quoting me, I didn't see any references (also, I wasn't singling you out specifically; I didn't see anybody referring to Jesus Christ. That His life and teachings need to be understood in order to understand God's actions doesn't seem to be an idea that people have, was my point).

My point was not relating to a number of references made, but to the methodology. I keep saying I disagree with the methodology being used, which is to look at isolated texts, as opposed to considering Jesus Christ, but, in spite of this, what I'm seeing is more questions of the nature of "What about this? ... What about this? ... What about this?..."

My nature is to answer all the questions I receive, and respond to any points made. But in so doing, I'm acting counter to what I personally believe would be most productive. I'm mostly wanting to make that point clear.



I accept it just as I accept that God sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites.



Without a doubt it's too narrow a base, as Ellen White herself specifically makes this clear. So one cannot be guided by Ellen White and restrict oneself to Ellen White, as to do so is not what she herself taught.



I think this is completely backwards, and the fundamental problem. I think this problem is a really difficult one to get. I try my best to explain it, but it seems difficult to grasp.

Perhaps the following SOP statement in regards to angels may help me in communicating the point I wish to make:



This is very significant. Why? Because the Great Controversy is about two individuals, each of which are making claims about the other. Basically both God and Satan are claiming to be one way (kind, compassionate, considerate of others, etc.) while claiming that their adversary is another (a liar, wanting his own glory, etc.) To the extent that we misunderstand the character and principles of the one, we misunderstand the character and principles of the other. Therefore the enlightenment of Satan's character by Jesus Christ was also an enlightenment of God's character. It became crystal clear to them who was telling the truth. The loyal angels had already had some conviction regarding this, enough to take a stand, but until the cross, they still had some doubt. The cross removed all doubt. The cross made clear who Satan really was, and what his principles were.

Now if even holy angels did not fully understand things until the cross, what hope do unholy human beings have of so doing?

The OT has been misunderstood. It *appears* to present a totally different picture of God than Jesus Christ does. In the OT we see God telling people to kill their enemies, and take for their wives whoever appeals to them. We see an angry God who takes vengeance and kills those who would dare oppose Him. We see a God who applies more and more force to get His way, until His adversary can resist no more, and is overcome by force.

But this can't be right. Why not?

First of all, we have statements like the following from the SOP:



This tells us:

1.God does not overcome rebellion by force.
2.Compelling power is found only under Satan's government.
3.The Lord's principles are not of this order.

I don't see how the SOP could have expressed this any more clearly.

When we consider the traditional understand of the Egyptian plagues, the idea is that God applied more and more force until, when God applied enough, Pharaoh capitulated. This seems to be as diametrically opposed as possible to the principles laid out by the SOP.

The second reason this cannot be right is because it is contrary to what Jesus Christ lived and taught.

Here's another quote from the SOP, which might make the point clearer.



Notice that the world was through misapprehension of God. This means God was not understood. Because of the sophistry of Satan, the OT was not enough. Jesus Christ was needed. Indeed, this was His purpose; to reveal God. If God had already been known, it wouldn't have been necessary for Jesus Christ to reveal Him.

In addition, we see the same points made about force. God was misunderstood, so Jesus Christ came to clear up the misunderstandings. Misunderstood in what way? Consider what was specifically pointed about by the servant of the Lord:



Working by means of force is specifically mentioned. Not only is force a principle by which God does not work, but it is a principle by which Satan misrepresents God.



Satan's power to deceive, as well as the destructive power of sin, is greatly underestimated. When the destructive power of sin is apprehended, it becomes apparent that there's no need for God to be destructive, as there's quite enough destructive power in sin to do whatever destruction is needed. In addition, by understanding this principle, we don't need to bump heads with the principles regarding force which the SOP brings out.

To conclude, in regards to what is completely backwards, is rather than:

1.We need the OT to give us a background to understand Christ.

it should be

2.We need Jesus Christ to give us a background to understand the OT.

Now, to be clear, you didn't exactly say 1., but this was the impression I was getting. My apologies if I misrepresented your point here, but it does seem to me you are advocating an approach which uses the OT as foundational, as opposed to what I think needs to be foundational, which is Christ's life and teachings as revealed when "the Word became flesh."

My thinking involves neither of the above and all of them at the same time. I am not making just one part the "foundational" one. I am opening the base wide to accept the whole as "foundational," just as I do not build on Ellen White alone, but also the Bible with her. Together, we have a more complete picture.

I do not accept that everything about Jesus was revealed in 33 years. Nor will I. I do not believe Mrs. White ever said so, and to make her say such would be to misunderstand the import of her words. (I'm not saying you have misunderstood her, only clarifying my position relative to the quote you brought here.)

It just so happens that the Old Testament gives more "foundation" to the New than the other way around simply because the Old Testament happened first. But truth is progressive. The more time passes, the more light is given. Today, we have much more light and capacity to see Jesus than did the early church just after His ascension. The "central" theme will always be the cross. The ancient Israelites were always looking forward to that, while modern Israel must always look back to it. It is the foundation of our redemption. However, if we had only the cross, and nothing more, by which to know Christ, we should have scant knowledge indeed. And as far as I'm concerned, our knowledge would also be quite limited if we had only those 33 years, and nothing more.

Which brings us back to the plagues: God has shown us a part of Himself through these judgments. Without first understanding God's love, we could never hope to see the justice in His plagues. But sin cannot go unpunished. It is just.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

my brother do you equate Jesus with the Father? that they are one and the same?

.... Nature is the servant of her Creator. God does not annul His laws, or work contrary to them; but He is continually using them as His instruments. {FLB 28.5} so did God work contrary to His laws in the plagues of egypt? or anywhere else since peoples like to skip around instead of dealing with one issue at a time.

What makes you think this has anything to do with the plagues?

"searching the scriptures" and sop, there seems to be more than some validity as to why the brethern believe it is lightning.
No sooner had his prayer been uttered, than flames of fire in a distinct manner, like a brilliant flash of lightning, descended from Heaven, kindling the wood for sacrifice, and consuming the victim, licking up the water in the trench, and consuming even the stones of the altar. The brilliancy of the blaze is painful to the eyes of the multitude, and illumes the mountain. The people of the kingdom of Israel, not gathered upon the mount, are watching with interest the gathering of the people upon the mount. As the fire descends, they witness it, and are amazed at the sight. It resembles the pillar of fire at the Red Sea, which by night separated the children of Israel from the Egyptian host. {RH, September 30, 1873 par. 19}

In the day of the Lord, just before the coming of Christ, God will send lightnings from Heaven in his wrath, which will unite with fire in the earth. The mountains will burn like a furnace, and will pour forth terrible streams of lava, destroying gardens and fields, villages and cities; and as they pour their melted ore, rocks and heated mud into the rivers, will cause them to boil like a pot, and send forth massive rocks and scatter their broken fragments upon the land with indescribable violence. Whole rivers will be dried up. The earth will be convulsed, and there will be dreadful eruptions and earthquakes everywhere. God will plague the wicked inhabitants of the earth until they are destroyed from off it. {3SG 82.3}
what power does satan have?


i also came this:

guess im thinking the nile river, frogs, lice, flies, locusts, hail,....

.... Nature is the servant of her Creator. God does not annul His laws, or work contrary to them; but He is continually using them as His instruments. {FLB 28.5}just wondering how that worked. He doesnt work against His laws yet they are His servants. i havent studied every instance she brings this up yet, but im interested in just how that works.

Indeed, it is a matter of paradigm.

Tell me if I understand your methodology correctly: You take "what Jesus Christ revealed of Him in His life and teachings" - basically, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John - and restrict yourself to this set of data to determine what God is or is not like, what He does or does not do. Then, whenever you read any of the other 62 books of the Bible, your interpretation of any passage must match the paradigm you formulated based on those 4 books. If you come across anything that describes God as doing something that your paradigm cannot account for, then you conclude that God must not have done that, and He simply allowed it to happen. Whether or not you have a plausible alternative explanation for the phenomenon, if your paradigm from the 4 books does not allow for God to do it, He didn't do it - He didn't cause it to happen, but simply allowed something else to cause it to happen.

Does that sound about right?

My paradigm, and it seems GC has a similar paradigm, is to take all 66 books, figure out what they are saying, and use all of that to formulate a paradigm of what God is or is not like, what He does or does not do. IOW, Christ's 33 years in the Middle East does not constitute a comprehensive description of everything God is and could possibly be; it only constituted what He was in that context. There will be other contexts, such as when Jesus comes in His full divine glory, when He will do something He didn't do while in fallen flesh.

It is very possible that we do not know how all of His laws work. It is also possible that some of His laws require a catalyst that is beyond human ability to generate.

But one thing to note is that nature is God's servant or instrument, as opposed to lying in wait for God to let it do some bad thing. Nature, as well as sin and God's law, are not sentient beings.

Why do you think He must have worked contrary to His laws in the plagues? What about the occasion when He walked on the water? Or when the sun stood still in Joshua's day, or when He brought the shadow ten degrees backwards from the point to which it had gone down on the dial of Ahaz? Like Arnold said, can some laws we don't know be involved in these incidents?

Yes, this pretty much what I understood your approach to be. I think it's a common one, but I believe incorrect. I believe the correct approach is that Jesus Christ is the foundation, and everything else is subservient to Him, and to be build upon Him.





She didn't say that everything about Jesus was revealed in 33 years (nor did I!) but that everything that man can know of God was revealed by the life and character of His Son (as did I). Here's the quote again:



Since all that man needs to know, or can know, of God has been revealed in the life and character of Jesus Christ while here in the flesh (this is the context of the quote), it makes perfect sense to start there, and build up a theology of God's character. Then, *after* having a correct understanding, we can explore other areas, which have been misunderstood.



But the Revelation of Christ had not yet come, so it is as a dim reflection. It's like the moon to the brilliant glory of the Son. As EGW points out in DA, the earth was dark through misapprehension of God. Why dark? Because God's character had not been revealed in its fullness by Christ.

The OT writers did the best they could, but they were hampered by not having had the opportunity to live with Christ, to hear Him and see Him and touch Him, as John puts it. Having seen the Son in His glory, the Gospel writers were able to write first hand of God in the flesh.

The whole purpose of Christ's earthly mission was the revelation of God. Because no one had seen God, Christ came to show us what He is really like. Not what we thought He was like, but what He really is like.

If we do not allow the testimony of Christ to impact our preconceptions of God's character (new wineskin to receive the new wine), it's inevitable that the errors in our thinking will persist. How could it be otherwise?



Here we are in disagreement. According the SOP, all that man can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son. Here's her statement in more detail:



Now given that *all* that man can know of God was revealed by Christ, it should be clear that if there is some additional thing we think we learn by supplementing this "all" we are in error! This couldn't be more clear.

Let me try to give an analogy. Let's say I have a twin brother. I've lived all my life with him, and I know him far better than anyone else. I give a full and complete account of him. An inspired writer says, "All that anyone can know of Tom's twin brother was made known by Tom's complete account of him."

Say some other people wrote some things about my brother, things which people find harder to understand than my account, which some people find to be in harmony with my account but others find not to be.

Isn't it clear that if what the inspired writer wrote is true, that anyone who has the idea that what these other people wrote differs from my account must be wrong? Isn't is also clear that my full account is the place to go if you really want to understand my twin?



I think it should be clear that if one thinks one sees some aspect of God which was not revealed in the life and character of Jesus Christ while here in the flesh, what one thinks one sees must be in error. God most assuredly did not reveal anything about Himself through the plagues that He did not reveal in Christ.

In posts which follow, I'll present in more detail ideas related to how we should approach understanding God.

How did they, in practical terms, force God to do something He didn't want to do? Or, did He want to do it? For example, how did the 250 force God to allow fire to kill them? Did they surround Him and bind His arms? Or, what? Please speak in practical terms. Thank you.


Please indulge me, Tom. Or, are you going to insist I ask your questions and not mine own?


Thank you for answering my question. Your insight seems to imply evil men and angels only use force and violence when God withdraws His protection. It also seems to imply He violates their freedoms when He prevents them from using force and violence.


Tom, your unwillingness to deal with specific cases, such as the one described in PP 404, makes it impossible to arrive at any concrete conclusions. Please answer the questions I posted a few pages ago regarding PP 404.


The truth is evident when viewed in the context of the Bible.


Please cite an example of Jesus withdrawing His protection, while here in the flesh, and permitting evil men or angels to cause death and destruction. Please do not cite the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 as an example of something Jesus did while here in the flesh.


Are you implying that holy angels leaving the temple in heaven symbolizes evil angels? If so, where else in the Bible is this the case?

Do you know of any other place in the Bible where holy angels leaving the temple in heaven symbolize evil angels? And, is it possible that the voice of God in Rev 15 symbolizes Satan?


Probably not. What do you think?


Probably not. What do you think?


Do you think the angel in this vision is an evil angel? If so, why? If not, why not?

Also, is there some kind of rule or principle we can use to determine which parts of Rev are literal and symbolic?

I was simply following your example. Ha! Yes, I have an observation.

You asked - "is God a punishing God or a God Who restrains evil?" Both are true.

"is He constantly protecting us from circumstances we are completely oblivious to." Yes. He also protects us from ones we are aware of.


How do we determine what the truth is? And, is it safe and true to believe that God does nothing contrary to the truth? If so, is it true He commanded Moses to stone people to death?


The picture that comes to mind is the one described in the Bible and in the SOP, namely, God caused the earth to open up and swallow the rebellious and then He caused fire to consume the 250. Are we supposed to assume those descriptions are symbolic of evils angels causing death and destruction?


Yes, in the vision the details are literal, namely, John literally saw an angel with a vial, etc. I don't think he saw something he was unfamiliar with and used language he was familiar with to describe it. The description of the plagues in the SOP is most helpful. I take her explanation literally. She describes literal things happening in relation to the out pouring of the plagues.

What about you? Do you read her description literally?


I am totally sold on the truthfulness of that statement. But I am also interested in what you think about the rest of this thread. My interest in no way implies I am not more impressed with statements like the one you posted above.

Why do you think He must have worked contrary to His laws in the plagues? [/quote]hey, my sister, where did i say that, hint or give any impression to that effect? since i seem to stepping on toes, now i will just back off. have a good day, y'all.

Well, you gave me that impression when you said,

I understand you implied He might be acting contrary to His laws in the plagues and asked if there were other examples of this having apparently happened. So I provided some other examples, and suggested that in these incidents there might be involved some laws we don't know.
Sorry, but I don't have a clue as to why you thought what you said was taken negatively.
I was trying to contest the idea, true, but not in a negative tone.

hmmm, how did you get from there to here so-to-speak?
i put up the statements by ellen white some pages back on when Christ leaves the sanctuary. are we going to base our beliefs on that and her and the bibles other statements, or on something else? im asking if we are going to actually search the scriptures or just try to defend beliefs we already hold? ive been doing whatever word searches i could think of to see what she says on the subject and try to stay within that.
where did you get evil angel from? ive looked back through my posts and cant see where i give the least hint that the angel in the vision was evil. as i stated above, is there some reason we shouldnt search the scriptures and sop for a better understanding? :0

forgive me, my brother, but i do not see how you can consider this any kind of legitimate question. while Jesus is just as much God as the Father is, He also laid aside all His powers and took on humanity while here on earth. if He wasnt exercising His powers here, He also wasnt exercising them to protect anyone. so how can there be any such example?

Joh 14:7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
Joh 14:8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
Joh 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
Christ came to the world to reveal the character of the Father, and to redeem the fallen race.{RH, January 7, 1890 par. 1}

They did so in a similar manner mentioned here:



Regarding whether it was something God didn't want to do, of course it wasn't!





Force isn't a principle of God's government. Neither is violence. Do you disagree?



Do you really think so? Do you think the fact that God doesn't allow Satan to destroy the entire human race violates his freedom?



I've spent dozens of pages, if not hundreds, discussing these types of things with you, so it's not like I haven't done so in the past.

I don't think this approach is fruitful. I think the fruitful approach would be to consider the life and character of Christ first, from that obtaining a foundation upon which we may understand God's character. *After* so doing, we may consider incidents which apparently have God using force and violence, principles we know from the SOP to be contrary to His government.

Did you read my analogy of my making an account of my twin brother? Or read the posts where I spoke of Piaget and the lumps of clay?



Jesus Christ is the truth. The truth is evident when we believe what He revealed about God.



The cross.

What example would you give?



No.



N/A.

maybe we need to define "punish" and i mean by the bible, the original meanings, and uses, and not the dictionary.


how about searching the scriptures and sop prayerfully?

this is off-topic and has to do with your agenda.
this seems to be something you have just taken at face value and havent prayed and studied over. neither have i but i am now. it also is but since the moderators be the bossmen and started it in the first place....i wouldnt mind it being explored eventually but this skipping all over the place has started wearing on my nerves big time-to put it mildly.in other words you havent really studied this out except superficially? otherwise the way you are stating things is rather confusing and give no evidence of dealing with the question. in other words it appears that you are saying you believe a literal angel will literally pour out some vial, instead of the angel and vial being symbolic of something that will happen.i have been collecting and integrating her statements on this subject. i am still studying and praying and dont believe i will have all the info all at once. as ellen white said, "we have much to unlearn and much to learn".

No, that's not how I think. Here's how I think.

Jesus Christ said, "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father." The SOP says that all that man needs to know of God, or can know of God, was revealed in the life and character of His Son.

A number of years ago, after I had been posting here for awhile, the statements, the two of them, made a profound impression on me. It became clear to me that I had ideas of God that could not be defended on the basis of these principles. So I started to rethink how I thought of things.

What I've been suggesting is that if Ellen White is correct in asserting that all that we can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son, then two things follow:

1.If we want to understand God, studying the life and character of Jesus Christ is the logical place to start.

2.If we come across something which is contrary to what Jesus Christ revealed in His life and character, that something must be wrong.

i was asking a question. the next part of the question was the second part of the quote. it was actually intended as a friendly point to consider by all parties.the first sentence might be a give-away. but i was doing a couple of other things and didnt have time to think of a better way to phrase, if there was one.

the points you brought up were good ones. but both your and arnolds responses only dealt with the first part of the quote and not in respect to the plagues which i asked. nor did it take into account the second part of the quote since you were going off in other directions. "He doesnt work against His laws yet they are His servants."

we have to actually start thinking about Jesus and how He lived here, through the bible/sop, to have an idea what you are talking about. otherwise you are talking to the air.

Teresaq, thank you for addressing my questions and comments. I have studied the plagues in the Rev fairly extensively. The GC and LDE contain excellent info and insights on the topic. My studies have led me to conclude that literal holy angels will cause the forces of nature to cause death and devastation. It is also evident in the SOP that evil angels will be permitted to wreak havoc as well.

I also agree with you that Jesus did not withdraw His protection and permit sinners to suffer and die. Tom believes Jesus demonstrated/revealed everything there is to know about the God of the OT. The fact Jesus did not employ the withdraw and permit method of allowing death and destruction is evidence Jesus did not reveal "everything" there is to know about the God of the OT.

Tom, you're right, we've attempted to discuss this topic in the past, but you have yet to plainly state your position. From what I can gather, you seem to think God holds 1) evil men, 2) evil angels, and 3) the forces of nature in check until such time sinners no longer deserve His protection. Do I understand your position correctly?

Regarding the plagues - I have no idea how you think they will play out.

And, as to whether or not I think Jesus employed the withdraw and permit method of allowing death and destruction, the answer is - No. I do not view the cross as an example.

What you said doesn't seem to be materially different from what I said; you just used different words.

Let's take it a piece at a time. You talked about "what Jesus Christ revealed in His life and character." Does that include anything that is not in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? If some aspects of "what Jesus Christ revealed in His life and character" can be found outside of the Gospels, please tell me where.

Assuming that "what Jesus Christ revealed in His life and character" is all in the Gospels, it still looks to me like your 2 points can be worded this way:

1. If we want to understand God, start in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

2. If we come across something which is contrary to how Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John described Jesus, that something must be wrong.

We must keep in mind that what we understand from studying Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John might not be all there is in there. It is possible that there are things in there that we have not yet learned.

We never deserve His protection. From GC 35:



This speaks of causing the protection of God to be withdrawn. This is what I believe happens. When God withdraws His protection, bad things may happen. This should not be misconstrued as God's desiring that these bad things happen.



The think the following is a good indication of how things will play out in general terms:





I have never used the phrase "employed the withdraw and permit method of allowing death and destruction." This is your invention. I personally do not care for it.

This isn't what I was asking you. You asked me for an example of Jesus' doing something you saw God doing. At least, that's what I think you were doing. So I asked you for one.

yes, i have/had generally the same conclusions but am studying deeper, now. i dont see literal holy angels inflicting anything, tho.

our rivers and streams, for example, are becoming polluted and if it werent for laws we would have little drinking water. when Jesus leaves the sanctuary and the restraint is taken off evil men, i can see the owners of factories and such making deals with our lawmakers to do away with these laws. then take into account droughts....is that the way it will happen? well know soon enough.

Jesus couldnt withdraw His protection because He wasnt exercising His powers. what does ellen white have to say about that? i dont understand, my brother. are you saying ellen white meant Jesus only came to show us one side of the Father, one part, the "nicey-nice" side?

in my study of the ot i came to generally the same conclusions as the gentler ones on this board, that God did indeed inflict mortal injury on people for various reasons. others call it "putting people to sleep", since they will be resurrected.

but keeping in mind other counsel by ellen white, that it hurts us not at all to investigate others positions, i am willing to rethink and restudy, which means looking at more than i was looking at before. it means much more thorough searching and praying and not to justify my position.

i take these thoughts extremely seriously!!

But you have to consider the whole picture. This includes, for instance, the driving of the moneychangers from the temple, which shows that God sometimes manifests His wrath actively (not just passively, "abandoning" the sinner). As I said once, "God is love" is not the same as "God is nice" ("Deus é bonzinho"). The Christ you portray to me is one who will not judge men, one who will not make any difference between righteous and wicked on the Day of Judgment, but one who will be smiling to all, without showing in His countenance any abhorrence for sin.

But this is not the picture we find in the driving of the moneychangers from the temple.

"And Jesus entered the temple of God and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons" (Matt. 21:12).

"And making a whip of cords, he drove them all, with the sheep and oxen, out of the temple; and he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. And he told those who sold the pigeons, 'Take these things away; you shall not make my Father’s house a house of trade'" (John 2:15, 16).

As He beholds the scene, indignation, authority, and power are expressed in His countenance. DA 157

The Majesty of heaven stands as the Judge will stand at the last day,--not now encircled with the glory that will then attend Him, but with the same power to read the soul. - p. 158

With a zeal and severity He has never before manifested, He overthrows the tables of the money-changers. - Ibid.

Even the disciples tremble. They are awestruck by the words and manner of Jesus, so unlike His usual demeanor. - Ibid.

The displeasure of His countenance seemed like consuming fire. With authority He commanded, "Take these things hence." John 2:16. - p. 591

God manifests His wrath actively because He is love - and love cannot let His creatures think that sin is something trivial.

Yes, God shows, both to those who reject Him, and to those of future generations who must be warned, that sin is offensive in His sight, and that He won't permit it to go on forever, and that those who reject His grace and disregard His warnings cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely to live in sin. This is the message conveyed by the episodes of the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the plagues of Egypt.

Of course God loves those who will be lost, and suffers for them - but He loves His creatures - all of them - too much to not make His abhorrence of sin manifest to the universe.

Tom,

Just as with the Bible, one cannot be balanced by pulling a viewpoint from one text or passage alone, so also with Ellen White. She has much to say, and there are balancing statements for many of her thoughts which were presented at the edges. If we were to imagine the truth as a coin, in which the very center of it bore the image of Christ, and His love, we might come close. There are edges to that coin which are not in the center. They also present truth. They are yet part of the body of truth, though they are not its heart.

The Gospels, and the life of Christ, may be the heart of truth--but they are not complete by themselves. Now, to balance that quote of Mrs. White which you have brought are other statements which help to define the one you are so interested in. I am certain that you will agree with the truthfulness of her pen. So, while your view may remain the same, I hope that you can understand where many of the rest of us have understood differently.

You said:


I say this: "The life and character" of Jesus included more than 33 years.

How long has Jesus lived?
How long has Jesus had His character?
Forever? From "everlasting to everlasting"?

Tom, if I were to accept your view, that not until Christ was born in Bethlehem and He lived on earth was His character truly revealed, then I would have to feel that God had not dealt fairly with His people prior to that. But I do not see it so. Here is what Mrs. White says:


In fact, it has ALWAYS been Christ, throughout earth's history, who has appeared and taught us.


And finally, it was Christ who presented His character to the people from Sinai.


In short, Christ was the God of the Old Testament. The two Testaments have the same God, have been shown the same character (for God's character does not change--Mal. 3:6), and people have always had access to Salvation through Christ.

Christ revealed His character to Israel via Moses upon the Mount:


In other words, Christ's "life and character" have long been revealed. This last quote went so far as to say even the "glorious ideal of character" was revealed. That should be of interest to you, Tom.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I find this to be a great weakness in this position. There's no way of knowing if the death and destruction comes about by means of holy or wicked angels. If you can't tell the difference between holy actions and unholy ones, to me, that's a problem.



I haven't narrowed it in this way. I've simply said what the SOP said, which is that all that man can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son ("can know of God," being a superset of "needs to know of God," includes it).

Of course God is the God of the OT, but I believe thinking of things in this way is a problem. It is better, IMO, to think of God as simply God. Jesus Christ in the flesh, the Word made flesh, revealed God perfectly. That's a simple, and accurate, way of putting it.

Or, we can put things in His words: "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father."

yes, that idea that others are getting, that picture of what tom is saying, has been coming through loud and clear and it puzzles me. but notice how He does it.
and how Jesus felt about it. and why did they run? why did these remain behind, why didnt they run, also?

i repost this and it is not isolated.
Christ came to this world to reveal the Father, to give to mankind a true knowledge of God. He came to manifest the love of God. Without a knowledge of God, humanity would be eternally lost. Without divine help, men and women would sink lower and lower. Life and power must be imparted by him who made the world. {YI, September 13, 1900 par. 1}
The promise made in Eden,--the seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's head,--was the promise of the Son of God, through whose power alone could the counsel of God be fulfilled and the knowledge of God be imparted. {YI, September 13, 1900 par. 2}

as i say there are many and we all have read them but they dont seem to have registered to some of us.

Christ alone was able to represent the Deity. He who had been in the presence of the Father from the beginning, He who was the express image of the invisible God, was alone sufficient to accomplish this work. No verbal description could reveal God to the world. Through a life of purity, a life of perfect trust and submission to the will of God, a life of humiliation such as even the highest seraph in heaven would have shrunk from, God Himself must be revealed to humanity. In order to do this, our Saviour clothed His divinity with humanity. He employed the human faculties, for only by adopting these could He be comprehended by humanity. Only humanity could reach humanity. He lived out the character of God through the human body which God had prepared for Him. He blessed the world by living out in human flesh the life of God, thus showing that He had the power to unite humanity to divinity (RH June 25, 1895). {7BC 924.6}

there are more.

Considering Christ is the whole picture.



"For instance"? That's an odd way of putting it. As if there are so many examples of Christ's acting violently, that one could easily pick one at random.

There are only two incidents in all of the 100 pages or so in the Gospels which could even be misconstrued as Christ's acting violently: His overturning the tables of the money-changers and the cursing of the fig tree. That's it. The "for instance" here is very out of place.



Love is kind. ("chresteuomai" in the Greek; 1 Cor. 13:4).





The great error here, IMO, is to think that one must act violently to judge, or to show abhorrence for sin. Violence is not necessary whatsoever for these things.

To be fair, I've never in the least suggested that God will not judge, or that His countenance would not show abhorrence for sin. I've only argued that He does not act violently. I don't believe it is necessary to be violent to either judge sinners, or express abhorrence of sin.



Yes, of course. This is well stated, and is exactly the issue.

Sin is what causes people to act violently. Because of sin, people hurt and kill each other, as does Satan, and those who follow his principles, and God, of course, hates that, because He loves those who are being acted violently against.

Sin is not something trivial because its inevitable result is death. God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked. He certainly doesn't cause it.



The problem here is that sin is not innocuous. If sin were simply something that God found offensive, then it would be necessary for Him to take action to prevent Himself from being offended. But this is a rather selfish view of God to take, IMO, and it makes short shrift of the destruction which sin wreaks.

If one understands that sin is destructive, it is not necessary for one to attribute to God the necessity to cut short the lives of those who practice it. This is simply not recognizing all that God does to protect us from the power of sin. God does so by keeping us alive (our "organisms"), by preventing the power of sin to destroy us by way of natural disasters, by saving us from micro-organisms, from bio-weapons, from nuclear weapons, from radiation, from toxins, from Satan's attacks. There are thousands of things that God preserves us from, of which we are ignorant. But our ignorance does not make things threats any less real, nor His power less which He continually exercises to protect us.

It is simply not necessary for God to act violently or to use force in order to kill or punish those who choose to sin. This view of things both underestimates that power of sin, and misapprehends the principles by which God runs His government.







Not if you think this message is communicated by God's using force. The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government.



He manifests His abhorrence of sin by making known the horror it causes. He doesn't need to act violently to do this.

Please consider the quote following (next post, to keep this one from being too long).

And then there is the wrath of God that you read about all through the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation. I want to turn and read a text on this point. We can only understand these things that are brought to view in the Bible, when we see them in the light and the grace of the revelation of God. The scripture I will read is found in 2Cor.3:12-16: "Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: and not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished."

God had many things to show to them that they could not bear; and as they could not see the true glory as it was, he had to vail it, so they could take it. "But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. Nevertheless, when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away." And, brethren, if we want to understand what God has said all through this Book, we want to turn to him, and we will understand all.

Was there ever a being in this world that hated sin as Christ hates it? - No. Was there ever a being who loved the sinner as Christ loved him? - No. Suppose I hate a man, and somebody is trying to do that man an injury, and I see it, and do not try to prevent it. Do I care whether that man is injured or not? - No; I am rather glad of it. But suppose I love that man, and here is a man that is trying to thrust a dagger into him and kill him. Now the measure of my hatred for that deed is the measure of my love for that man. I am liable to hate the man that is doing the deed, too. But I hate the deed, anyway. Now, brethren, the measure of God's hatred for sin, is the measure of his love for the sinner.

Sin has been lurking with murderous intent to take the life of every soul. God's wrath is kindled against the sin. Is that wrath going to be appeased in any way? O if it were, it would be a bad thing for us. That wrath of God against sin is to burn on until it consumes every bit of sin in this universe. Just as long as God loves the sinner, he will hate the sin, and his wrath against the sin will burn; and, thank God! that wrath against sin is going to burn, unchanged, until the universe is clean. (George Fifield; Sermon #1, 1897 GCB)

Tom,

Take the statements of Mrs. White in context.



Is she talking about punishments here? judgments? Not at all.

Your application of the term "force" and her usage of the term in this context, seem to be two different things.

God is Commander in Chief of the Universe. He has exercised "force" many times. Satan was "cast out" of Heaven. Satan was "not allowed" to bring fire on Mount Carmel, even though Satan wanted very much to do this. Was this not "force?" When Satan is bound to the earth for 1000 years, will this be by Satan's own choice? or will it be enforced by Heaven against his will?

The point is this, God does not use force to make us choose something that we do not want. God may set limits upon our actions, by force, or He may punish us, against our will, but He will never force against your freedom of choice.

God's plagues will never be caused by people or by the angels of hell against themselves. They may be "asking for them" via their behavior and their own free choices (i.e. deserving them), but they will not say to themselves, "Yay! Let's cause these plagues for ourselves!" No, indeed. God has reserved His justice for just such a time, and it will be by God's choosing and on His terms that the final plagues will fall.

When the final plagues fall, God will have already stood up and declared "It is finished." Probation is closed. Earthlings no longer have the option of making a choice for or against God's government. The plagues, therefore, are not sent to convert them....no.



I would not class the devil or his followers as "God's agencies." In fact, that would be the epitome of God using "force" if He were to command the devil against his will to cause the destruction. When God asks His own to do it, they obey of their own will out of love to Him. Those who belong to Christ are Christlike, and do not need to be "forced" to do His biddings.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Isn't the Bible a "verbal description" of God? Furthermore, did Mark and Luke personally walk with Jesus, or did they write their books based on a "verbal description" they got from someone else?

Teresa,

I agree, that a "verbal description" without a "visual evidence" would have been powerless to communicate to us adequately.

I do not accept Christ's human-flesh advent to be the first advent, despite our language to the contrary--like "World War I" was also not the first war in this world. Christ had come to earth many times prior, even walking and talking with people: Adam and Eve, Enoch, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Joshua...to name a few who spoke with God personally.



When God showed Himself to these people, it was more than just "verbal" communication. Moses actually got to see God's backside--which was certainly a more glorious glimpse of Divinity than Jesus revealed, for Jesus hid His divinity so that He could be as one of us. Yet He showed us what God was like in His actions. The same "actions" were apparent throughout times past as God sheltered, protected, delivered, taught, and blessed His people.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

hmmm, well gentlemen, since ellen white always makes the same point in context to Christs birth and life here on earth i take it to mean exactly what i read it to say.

it never dawned on me it could be made to say pre-incarnate also. :0

did either one of you read those two quotes in context to see if they backed your claims? or any of the other times she says essentially the same thing?

and goes on to say: Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

but i guess we pick and choose and twist and turn what doesnt go in the direction we want it to.

i just cant express how disappointed i am!! how amazed! i thought so much better.........



apparently your arguments make a lot of sense to you as brs arguments do to him....i wont say what im seeing.

sorry, gentlemen, this is reminding me of the "dreams" threads and the responses by a certain individual. i see no reason to continue here, either.

thats what the messenger of the Lord said. was she mistaken? im not inclined to dispute it or quibble.

tq,

Don't skip out now. We're on the verge of something important here. Let me stop speaking in parables and tell you plainly what I was hoping you would see.

"No verbal description could reveal God to the world."

If you apply that too vigorously, you must conclude that you cannot know God because all you have to go by are the verbal descriptions in the Bible. And for people such as Tom, all they have to go by are the verbal descriptions of 4 of the people who wrote books of the Bible, and 2 of them might have based their books on others' verbal descriptions. Essentially, the only ones who would know God are those who saw Him personally; the rest of us are out of luck.

More than that, you would have to discard the testimony of those such as Jesus Himself who told us that the OT testified of Jesus.


EGW certainly did not limit her study of God to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Look at that last sentence. If we would be acquainted with Jesus, she told us to study a verbal description.

Teresa,

She makes that statement within the specific context of the advent, that is clear. I fully agree with her point, too. However, she is not saying that God has only revealed Himself to us through the incarnation, is she? If you feel so, how do you understand this quote?

If God could only be revealed through Jesus' incarnation, then, it would appear to me, that statement could not possibly be true, for it says God's "glorious ideal of character" was revealed at Sinai.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

tq,

The words of inspiration are sharper than a two-edged sword. If we do not wield it carefully, it will leave us maimed.

God Himself was revealed to humanity. But He started doing that long before He was laid in a manger. Yes, His time in flesh revealed much, or perhaps it is more accurate to say that He clarified much, but He wasn't just twiddling His thumbs until that time.

Amen, Arnold.

You put that to words far better than I have. I feel my attempts at expression here have been feeble and do not adequately represent my understanding.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

There was also "kinesthetic learning" involved. Moses, who talked to God face to face, was deeply involved in setting that up.

There's a principle involved, and the principle is that force is contrary to the principles of God's government. If this is true, it has universal application. It can't be limited to just certain situations. If that were the case, then it wouldn't be a principle of His government. It would simply be a principle He abides by in some specific circumstance. I trust you see the difference here?



Here's the main statement I've been quoting:



What's the context? The context is specifically about how God dealt with Satan. Now if God used force to overcome Satan, this would a direct contradiction to what Ellen White is writing. She specifically writes that rebellion was not to be overcome by force.

Regarding Satan's being cast out, she writes, a bit later in the same chapter:



Is this a description of force being used? No, not at all. How then was Satan cast down? Not by force, but by light. His disguise was torn away. He lost his influence. That was how he was cast down.



There could hardly be a better example of God's using compelling power to achieve his will than the Egyptian plagues as traditionally understood. It's like a mafioso who applies more and more force to get you to pay protection money until you finally succumb.

I think not enough attention is being paid to the principles involved.



What does "the exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government" mean if not that God does not use force to get His way? Let's try substituting some other words for "force" here:



Would you understand this to mean that sometimes God uses deception? That to claim that God does not use deception to get His way is not taking the statement in context?

Let's try another:



Wouldn't this mean that God doesn't use cruelty?



Would you say the same thing about God's judgements? Or do you make a distinction between judgements and plagues? What I'm asking is if you would also claim that God's judgements will never by caused by people or evil angels?



You mean, because of their bad behavior, they are "asking for it," asking that God would use His power to "teach them a lesson," to "get His revenge"? So when God does something like inflicts the wicked with excruciatingly painful boils, you would say "they asked for it," and God is acting in harmony with His own character and following the principles of His government?



I'm curious as to what you mean by they no longer have an option. Do you mean, they might want to make a choice in one direction or the other, but God will not let them? Or do you mean something else?

By the way, Mark has a thread on the plagues where he argues that the plagues fall before probation has closed. Have you seen this thread?



??? Why would God do this? I hope you're not misunderstanding what I've saying as this. You're not, are you?



So if we love God, and He asks us to do things like apply biological weapons to the wicked (this would cause an effect similar to that described by the plagues), we will obey this of our own will out of love to Him, because we are "Christlike"?

This is the danger in the philosophy you are espousing. If you serve a violent God who is able to command that terrible violent things be done in His name, then you are liable to do these violent things thinking you are serving him in so doing. This has happened many times throughout history.

In the Middle Ages ingenious methods were devised to torture heretics. The idea was to get them to confess to save their souls. Anything was better than to be eternally tortured in hell, was the reasoning. So out of love the heretics were tortured.

Once again, I notice that your approach makes no mention of Jesus Christ. In saying this what I mean is not that you didn't mention the name "Jesus Christ," but that the concept that we can only understand God by means of Jesus Christ's revelation nowhere appears. It does not appear that you feel a necessity to apply a study of Jesus' life and character to this question. I'm saying this, because you don't mention it in your posts.

Did you read what I wrote in the analogy of my twin? It seems you are doing the equivalent of not making use of the complete account I made of my twin, and account endorsed by an inspired writer.

I believe that to correctly understand God's character it is imperative that we study the life and character of Jesus Christ. There is no other way. He is the way.

He is the foundation. *After* a foundation has been laid, then come the apostles and the prophets.

A more glorious glimpse of divinity than Jesus revealed? That's simply not possible!

Jesus said, "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father."

These words of Jesus need to find a place in our hearts.

It appears you're not understanding what I'm trying to say. I'll try to be more clear.

Jesus said, "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father."

What this means is that the Father is like Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ, when He said this, was not talking about events in the Old Testament, but that which they were seeing right in front of them, with their own eyes. Jesus had lived with them for several years, revealing the Father as He did so.

This is what He was referring to.



This seems very clear to me to. The statement continues:



So again, clearly, this is dealing with the time of His earthly mission.

Here's another statement:



This tells us that the "whole purpose" of Christ's earthly mission (once again, this means the time He was here with us in the flesh) was the revelation of God.

So if we wish to understand God's character, how could it not be more clear than to do so we should study the life and character of Christ while here in the flesh?

We're not limited to only four books in doing so. However, we need to start somewhere, and certainly the Gospels are the most logical place to start, if our goal is to understand Christ's revelation of God during His earthly mission. As SDA's we are blessed to also have such books as "The Desire of Ages," "Christ's Object Lessons," and "Thoughts From the Mount of Blessing."

Does this insight account for all the stories in the Bible where God is credited for the "bad" things that happened? For example, the flood, sodom, the 250, etc. That is, do you think evil angels are responsible for all such things? If not, please cite a story in the Bible where something "bad" happened and evil angels were not responsible (something the Bible says God did).


Are you suggesting evil angels will cause the death and destruction described in the Bible and the SOP (talking about the plagues)?

Also, what do you think the angels and the voice of God in Rev 15 and the angels in Rev 16 and the vials they pour out symbolize?


If God doesn't withdraw His protection and permit evil angels or the forces of nature to wreak havoc what, then, do you believe about it? Why are you so opposed to referring to your view as the with withdraw and permit method of allowing death and destruction?

Also, do you think the kinds of death and destruction described in the Bible and the SOP would happen if God continued to prevent it from happening? And, in the case of evil angels, is God preventing them from experiencing the natural cause and consequence effect of their sins? If so, what is the effect He is protecting them from and why?

Why do you think Jesus' death on the cross demonstrates Jesus revealing the withdraw and permit principle God demonstrated throughout the OT in stories like the flood, sodom, and the 250?

Tom,

You would never have passed the test given to Abraham, since you place your own reasoning about who God is so high. You would never have believed that God was really asking you to kill your son Isaac, the only child of promise, since that, to you, is a "violent act," an act of "force," which is against the principles of God's government.

There are scores of examples in the Bible where God intervenes to settle the score or to judge those whose "cup of iniquity" is full. Yet you have never once offered a good explanation for this. (Saying the devil was "allowed" by God to do what God cannot do for Himself just doesn't do it for me. The devil would have little reason to do it. The flood? Sodom? Goliath's execution? Stopping the sun and moon so that the Israelites could finish off their enemies? etc.)

All I can say to answer your arguments here is simply this: I, in my human wisdom, cannot always understand why God does what He does, or why He asks certain things of us. For example, as a human, I sometimes have entertained questions in my mind regarding the reason for monogamous marital relationships. If we are supposed to love everybody, why do we need to be exclusive? And what about serving the Lord as a priest? Why were only the Levites permitted to do this? And further, why were certain men with blemishes not even allowed in the temple, by God's orders?

No, my human wisdom cannot understand all of these things. I must exercise faith and trust in a wisdom that defies human comprehension, because it is so far above our highest thoughts.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Yes.



No.



Sodom and Gomorrah.



If this question is in reference to 14 MR 3 (which appears immediately above it) yes. If this is a more general question, encompassing all of the Bible and the SOP, it's too vague.

At any rate, I'd ask you to re-read what I wrote earlier in the thread. I laid out my position in detail. Please read the detailed explanations, and if you would like some further explanation of something stated there, I'd be happy to respond. If you'd like, I'll find the explanations, and repost them for you.



I agree with what Teresa has been saying.



As you put it here, I agree with it. The other way you put it makes it sound like something God is wanting to accomplish (i.e. employing a method).



Because it conveys the false idea that God is desiring that the death and destruction take place.



This question doesn't make sense to me. Does it make sense to you?



Yes.



He's preventing them from death, the inevitable result of sin. I'm surprised you would ask this, MM, as I've presented the following quote for you countless times:





Here's what you asked me:



You asked for an example of Jesus withdrawing His protection, while here in the flesh, and permitting evil men or angels to cause death and destruction. I gave the cross as such an example. The death and destruction caused was first of all that to Jesus Christ Himself. The after-effect was death and destruction to themselves, and to their children.

Tom,

Where in this quote does it say that this revelation comes ONLY from the Christ's earthly ministry?



Mrs. White is not speaking exclusively here, but inclusively. She is saying that of all the truth one might collect from all possible sources, the truth brought by Jesus is sufficient, and indeed, one cannot surpass this knowledge. What she does NOT say is that the truth which Jesus taught by His life here is not revealed before or since from any other source. That would be exclusive.

It's like going to school--there is a book out titled something like "All I ever needed to know I learned in Kindergarten." The book details how the author learned to play fair, get along with others, eat right, stay clean, obey the teacher, etc. (I don't remember all the details, but they were not the scholastic points one might think school was for).

Now, let's just suppose that Kindergarten taught all of the essential core values in life, and that, indeed, as far as core values goes, nothing else that one learned later could really add to them. In such a case, would not the title of this book be true? However, would it be saying that if one never attended Kindergarten, they would never learn life's core values? Of course not.

To Moses was revealed Christ's character, well before His incarnation, and that one point should be sufficient to tell us that God's character has been on display throughout history.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

It would seem to me rather arrogant of you to think you are capable of setting yourself in such a way to pass judgment on me. Is this what you're doing? Or did not you mean to say what it sounds like you are saying?

I disagree with some of the things you say, but I have no idea if you are rejecting light or not, or if you would if you were living in some other time, nor would I dare to make such a judgment. I'm determined to put you in the most favorable light possible, and assume that you are sincerely looking for truth, and if you don't see something which I see that is true, the reason for that it not because of some character defect, but simply a lack of perception.



You can't possibly know what I would have done in such a circumstance. For one thing, my whole world view would have been different if I had lived in such a time and culture.



Since it "doesn't do it" for you, how would it be possible to offer a good explanation? Could anyone (and I mean anyone) offer a good explanation if this doesn't "do it for you"?



What I've been saying is that I don't believe it's possible to understand what happened in these events by going about it the way you are suggesting. I've been saying, repeatedly, in every post, that I believe to that understand God's actions here what is necessary is to build a foundation based on a study of Christ's life and character. So if what I've been claiming is true, then why would I act contrary to what I've been claiming to be the case?

That is, to make this clear, if I really believe that to understand God's actions in the stories you are mentioning, it is necessary to first have an understanding of God's character based on a study of Christ's life and character, why would I bypass completely Christ's life and character and try to offer an explanation to the stories your are mentioning? Wouldn't this be acting completely contrary to what I'm advocating?



We're given clear answers to these questions. If you wish to start a thread about them, we could discuss it. I don't see how this ties into the fact that if we wish to understand God's character, the appropriate foundation is a study of Christ's life and character.



I don't think this is the issue here. I think the issue is one of darkness through misapprehension of God, to use Ellen White's expression, and that the solution is that which she pointed out:



Please notice that there was only One who could do this, and it wasn't done until He did it!

it seems like nit-picking and trying to avoid the point being made, to me. nor do i know of any time when it was stated that the incarnation was the only time God revealed Himself.

i understood what tom meant since id read ellen whites statements myself. that you dont agree with toms general understanding is fine, you have that right. but what i see as 'raping' the scriptures/sop, to counter him, not only makes no sense to me, it makes me want to run far away so as not to be infected.

this is how i understand toms point.

He declared that they had rejected the word of God, inasmuch as they had rejected Him whom God had sent. "Ye search the Scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and these are they which bear witness of Me." John 5:39, R. V. {DA 211.4}
In every page, whether history, or precept, or prophecy, the Old Testament Scriptures are irradiated with the glory of the Son of God. So far as it was of divine institution, the entire system of Judaism was a compacted prophecy of the gospel. To Christ "give all the prophets witness." Acts 10:43. From the promise given to Adam, down through the patriarchal line and the legal economy, heaven's glorious light made plain the footsteps of the Redeemer. Seers beheld the Star of Bethlehem, the Shiloh to come, as future things swept before them in mysterious procession. In every sacrifice Christ's death was shown. In every cloud of incense His righteousness ascended. By every jubilee trumpet His name was sounded. In the awful mystery of the holy of holies His glory dwelt. {DA 211.5}
The Jews had the Scriptures in their possession, and supposed that in their mere outward knowledge of the word they had eternal life. But Jesus said, "Ye have not His word abiding in you." Having rejected Christ in His word, they rejected Him in person. "Ye will not come to Me," He said, "that ye might have life." {DA 212.1}
The Jewish leaders had studied the teachings of the prophets concerning the kingdom of the Messiah; but they had done this, not with a sincere desire to know the truth, but with the purpose of finding evidence to sustain their ambitious hopes. When Christ came in a manner contrary to their expectations, they would not receive Him; and in order to justify themselves, they tried to prove Him a deceiver. When once they had set their feet in this path, it was easy for Satan to strengthen their opposition to Christ. The very words that should have been received as evidence of His divinity were interpreted against Him. Thus they turned the truth of God into a lie, and the more directly the Saviour spoke to them in His works of mercy, the more determined they were in resisting the light. {DA 212.2}

oh, whats the use. continue in your own way.

Rev 17:12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.
Rev 17:16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.
Rev 17:17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

[quote]When Christ ceases His intercession in the sanctuary, the unmingled wrath threatened against those who worship the beast and his image and receive his mark (Revelation 14:9, 10), will be poured out.....{GC 627.3}

While Jesus had been standing between God and guilty man, a restraint was upon the people; but when Jesus stepped out from between man and the Father,
the restraint was removed, and Satan had the control of man.

It was impossible for the plagues to be poured out while Jesus officiated in the Sanctuary; but as his work there is finished, as his intercession closes,

there is nothing to stay the wrath of God,
and it breaks with fury upon the shelterless head of the guilty sinner, who has slighted salvation, and hated reproof.{1SG 198.1})

“The Lord hath a controversy with the nations;” “he will give them that are wicked to the sword.” {GC88 656.1}

“And this shall be the plague wherewith the Lord will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem: Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth. And it shall come to pass in that day that a great tumult from the Lord shall be among them; and they shall lay hold every one on the hand of his neighbor, and his hand shall rise up against the hand of his neighbor.” [Zechariah 14:12, 13.]

Now, in their despair, these teachers confess before the world their work of deception. The multitudes are filled with fury. "We are lost!" they cry, "and you are the cause of our ruin;" and they turn upon the false shepherds. The very ones that once admired them most will pronounce the most dreadful curses upon them. The very hands that once crowned them with laurels will be raised for their destruction. The swords which were to slay God's people are now employed to destroy their enemies. Everywhere there is strife and bloodshed. {GC 655.4}

The work of destruction begins among those who have professed to be the spiritual guardians of the people. The false watchmen are the first to fall. There are none to pity or to spare. Men, women, maidens, and little children perish together. {GC 656.2}

"And the slain of the Lord shall be at that day from one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth: they shall not be lamented, neither gathered, nor buried." Jeremiah 25:33. {GC 656.3}