T: Remember when I asked you if you would sacrifice your son to God if He asked you, and you responded, "Of course. Wouldn't you?" Suppose God asked you to do the same thing to a sinner that He does (or, rather, that you think He does). Would you do that?

Assuming you might wish to answer something like this: "God wouldn't ask me to do something like this" (making my question a FOTAP question -- welcome to the club! smile ), what is your basis for determining what God might or might not ask you?

MM:In answer to your question, I submit the following insight:

“Noah would have displeased God to have drowned one of the scoffers and mockers that harassed him, but God drowned the vast world. Lot would have had no right to inflict punishment on his sons-in-law, but God would do it in strict justice.”

What is your basis for determining what God might or might not ask you?

Typo from my previous post in this thread:



should be

The great apostasy originally began in a denial of the love of God, as it is plainly revealed in the Word. Provision was then made whereby fallen man might have a powerful revelation of the love of God, and be given an opportunity to return to his allegiance to Jehovah. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16). "I lay down my life for the sheep," says Christ (chap. 10:15). "The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world" (chap. 6:51). Here is a revelation of the power mighty to save "to the uttermost." God is light and love. {UL 149.4}

Who could bring in the principles ordained by God in His rule and government to counterwork the plans of Satan and bring the world back to its loyalty? God said: I will send My Son. "God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16. This is the remedy for sin. Christ says: "Where Satan has set his throne, there shall stand My cross. Satan shall be cast out, and I will be lifted up to draw all men unto Me. I will become the center of the redeemed world. The Lord God shall be exalted. Those who are now controlled by human ambition, human passions, shall become workers for Me. Evil influences have conspired to counterwork all good. They have confederated to make men think it righteous to oppose the law of Jehovah. But My army shall meet in conflict with the satanic force. My Spirit shall combine with every heavenly agency to oppose them. I will engage every sanctified human agency in the universe. None of My agencies are to be absent. I have work for all who love Me, employment for every soul who will work under My direction. The activity of Satan's army, the danger that surrounds the human soul, calls for the energies of every worker. But no compulsion shall be exercised. Man's depravity is to be met by the love, the patience, the long-suffering of God. My work shall be to save those who are under Satan's rule." {6T 236.2}

Through Christ, God works to bring man back to his first relation to his Creator and to correct the disorganizing influences brought in by Satan. Christ alone stood unpolluted in a world of selfishness, where men would destroy a friend or a brother in order to accomplish a scheme put into their hands by Satan. Christ came to our world, clothing His divinity with humanity, that humanity might touch humanity and divinity grasp divinity. Amid the din of selfishness He could say to men: Return to your center--God. He Himself made it possible for man to do this by carrying out in this world the principles of heaven. In humanity He lived the law of God. To men in every nation, every country, every clime, He will impart heaven's choicest gifts if they will accept God as their Creator and Christ as their Redeemer. {6T 237.1}

Christ alone can do this. His gospel in the hearts and hands of His followers is the power which is to accomplish this great work. "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!" By Himself becoming subject to Satan's misrepresentations, Christ made it possible for the work of redemption to be accomplished. Thus was Satan to show himself to be the cause of disloyalty in God's universe. Thus was to be forever settled the great controversy between Christ and Satan. {6T 238.1}

Satan strengthens the destructive tendencies of man's nature. He brings in envy, jealousy, selfishness, covetousness, emulation, and strife for the highest place. Evil agencies act their part through the devising of Satan. Thus the enemy's plans, with their destructive tendencies, have been brought into the church. Christ comes with His own redeeming influence, proposing through the agency of His Spirit to impart His efficiency to men, and to employ them as His instrumentalities, laborers together with Him in seeking to draw the world back to its loyalty. {6T 238.2}

Men are bound in fellowship, in dependence, to one another. By the golden links of the chain of love they are to be bound fast to the throne of God. This can be done only by Christ's imparting to finite man the attributes which man would ever have possessed had he remained loyal and true to God. {6T 238.3}

Those who, through an intelligent understanding of the Scriptures, view the cross aright, those who truly believe in Jesus, have a sure foundation for their faith. They have that faith which works by love and purifies the soul from all its hereditary and cultivated imperfections. {6T 238.4}

M: Awesome insights. Thank you for sharing them. However, do you think they explain the outpouring of the plagues? If so, how?

t: since this thread has been derailed and hijacked almost from day one im just responding to whats being thrown out.

t: can you tell me what this has to do with studying each specific plague?

M: What are the rules evil angels must abide by when God gives unrepentant sinners over to them? Are they at liberty to bless or to curse or to do whatever suits their fancy? Or, are they required to work within well defined limits which prevent them from doing as they please including whether or not they are free to bless sinners?

how are we to understand this?

Psa 78:42-51:
They remembered not his hand, nor the day when he delivered them from the enemy.
How he had wrought his signs in Egypt, and his wonders in the field of Zoan:
And had turned their rivers into blood; and their floods, that they could not drink.
He sent divers sorts of flies among them, which devoured them; and frogs, which destroyed them.
He gave also their increase unto the caterpiller, and their labour unto the locust.
He destroyed their vines with hail, and their sycomore trees with frost.
He gave up their cattle also to the hail, and their flocks to hot thunderbolts.
He cast upon them the fierceness of his anger, wrath, and indignation, and trouble, by sending evil angels among them.
He made a way to his anger; he spared not their soul from death, but gave their life over to the pestilence;
And smote all the firstborn in Egypt; the chief of their strength in the tabernacles of Ham:

What is your basis for determining what God might or might not ask you?

Ok, teresaq, good point. MM, let's try to do as she's suggesting. Let's discuss plagues. If you move your non-plague questions to another thread, I'll be happy to answer them.

T: I have some thoughts on this, but before I share them, I'd like you to answer a question I've asked several times now. I think there are two pending which I've asked at least three times. My apologies if I missed a response somewhere.

Question 1 is the Medieval one, and question to is based on the following quote: "The sacrifice of Christ as an atonement for sin is the great truth around which all other truths cluster. In order to be rightly understood and appreciated, every truth in the word of God, from Genesis to Revelation, must be studied in the light that streams from the cross of Calvary.(GW 315)

How do you see that the light that streams from the cross of Calvary illuminates one's understanding of the plagues? By the way, what reminded me of this question is Teresa's quote, and your response to it (questioning how it ties into the plagues). It ties into the plagues the same way the cross does.

M: 1. I addressed this in #116042, namely, God can do things to sinners that we cannot do to them with impunity. It's not a matter of the end justifying the means. God does not have to justify Himself to us. He can drown or burn sinners alive if He thinks it is best. There is nothing evil or forceful or violent about it.

T: This isn't really answering my question, MM. Arnold expressed a principle, which is that it's OK to cause people pain if it will be eternally beneficial. I asked if this applied to the practices of those I mentioned. It sounds like what you're saying it's OK for God to cause people pain if it's eternally beneficial, but not for humans. Assuming this is the case (i.e., that I've understood you correctly), why not? That is, why can't people cause others pain if it's eternally beneficial? Wouldn't that be a good trade-off? Why do you apply the quote about God's being able to do certain things that people can't do to this particular situation? (since the quote you cited isn't dealing with this question)

It seems like you're watering Arnold's principle to just about nothing. You're transforming it to "God can do anything He wants because He's God." But Arnold's principle was specific: "God can cause people pain if it's eternally beneficial." You haven't actually said that people can't rightly do this, but this is what you seem to be implying. Assuming I've understood you correctly, why not?

Let’s examine the LDE 241 passage quoted above:

“He can do infinite justice that man has no right to do before his fellow man. Noah would have displeased God to have drowned one of the scoffers and mockers that harassed him, but God drowned the vast world. Lot would have had no right to inflict punishment on his sons-in-law, but God would do it in strict justice. Who will say God will not do what He says He will do?”

1. The “infinite justice” referred to here involves death and destruction.

2. “Noah would have displeased God to have drowned one of the scoffers and mockers that harassed him . . .” The drowning referred to here envisions Noah physically drowning someone with his bare hands. It is not a reference to the “withdraw and permit principle”.

3. “. . . but God drowned the vast world.” The context makes it clear she is not referring to the “withdraw and permit principle”. It is obvious to me she is referring to God doing it Himself (the first of the five principles I listed earlier).

4. “Lot would have had no right to inflict punishment on his sons-in-law, but God would do it in strict justice.” Please apply points 2 and 3 above to this insight.

5. “Who will say God will not do what He says He will do?” The context makes it obvious she is referring to God causing death and destruction. It is clear to me she is not referring to the “withdraw and permit principle”. Instead, I believe she is referring to God doing it Himself.

The passage in LDE 241 is addressing “infinite justice”. It is not addressing the issue of pain. Do I think it is okay for God to cause pain if it serves an eternal purpose? This question seems to divorce “infinite justice” from the issue. Yes, people feel pain when God executes infinite justice. But pain isn’t the focus - justice is! The question should be, Is it okay for God to execute justice and judgment when it serves an eternal purpose? The answer is obvious, Of course it is!

BTW, do you find it odd that God commanded Moses to kill sinners and yet Ellen White wrote in LDE 241 “Noah would have displeased God” had he drowned even one sinner? How do you explain this apparent contradiction? Why was it okay for Moses to execute “infinite justice” whereas it would have “displeased” God if Noah had done something similar?

M: 2. The light that streams from the cross is: God is love. It was our loving God who created everything in seven days, who drowned the antediluvians, who burned up the sodomites, who commanded Moses to stone sinners to death, who healed the sick and raised the dead. The cross explains the plagues in that "God's love has been expressed in His justice no less than in His mercy".

T: I'm really not seeing anything specifically about the cross here that helps understand anything. For example, let's say I replace the cross with some other random loving act of God, like providing oil for the elderly lady in the time of Elijah. Let's rework your statement a bit:


This works just as well, doesn't it? According to the SOP, we need to understand the cross to understand any other truth. I didn't see this concept apply even a little bit in what you wrote. Do you? If so, please explain it a bit more clearly.

MM, I'll address #116057 since this relates to the plagues. At least, my question did. You didn't really answer it, but went off on a tangent, so let's try to focus on the principle at hand, which is "Is it OK to cause others excruciating pain if there its eternally beneficial?" I know you believe it's OK for God to do so, because you think anything God does is OK, and your test for if God did it is if that's what you think. So if you think God did the thing, then it's not violent, and it's OK, and we don't really need to consider any principles involved.

So let's just consider the question in relation to human beings. You responded in regards to the papacy as a whole, but my question was [not] directed to the papacy, but to an individual playing a role, and that role is to "motivate" a heretic to repent, because this is eternally beneficial. Now we may agree that the person involved is wrong in their judgment, regarding whether what they're doing is eternally beneficial, but I qualified my question in my original post on this subject by removing that from consideration. That is, let's assume the application of pain would be eternally beneficial. Would it be OK in this case for the person to administer pain to bring about the desired eternally beneficial result?

Now I know people who are very close to my way of thinking in regards to the atonement and the judgment that would say "Yes! That's OK." So it's possible to be wayyyyy over on my side of the questions we disagree on (regarding the atonement and the judgment) and think it's OK to do "bad" things if the results are eternally beneficial. I'm interested in your opinion in this regard.

M: Do you agree with Tom that Arnold applied principles to God that apply to papal atrocities?

K: Since you seem to object to Tom's comparison of principles, maybe you can approach it from another direction.

K: What underlying principles caused / led to the papal atrocities? What was their view of God, how did their view affect their actions?

T: Remember when I asked you if you would sacrifice your son to God if He asked you, and you responded, "Of course. Wouldn't you?" Suppose God asked you to do the same thing to a sinner that He does (or, rather, that you think He does). Would you do that?

Assuming you might wish to answer something like this: "God wouldn't ask me to do something like this" (making my question a FOTAP question -- welcome to the club! smile ), what is your basis for determining what God might or might not ask you?

M: In answer to your question, I submit the following insight:

“Noah would have displeased God to have drowned one of the scoffers and mockers that harassed him, but God drowned the vast world. Lot would have had no right to inflict punishment on his sons-in-law, but God would do it in strict justice.”

T: MM, you should be able to see that this doesn't address my question. Here's my question: "What is your basis for determining what God might or might not ask you?"

Let's tie this directly to the plagues. You appear to believe that God will ask holy angels to do certain things which would cause excruciating pain to people, presumably for ends which are eternally beneficial. So we have:

a.God can cause excruciating pain to people, for eternal beneficial ends, and that's OK.
b.God can ask angels to cause excruciating pain to people, for eternal beneficial ends, and that's OK.

So what about people? Can God ask people to do the same things He asks angels? If not, why not? If you were asked by a voice that you thought was God to do these same things, I don't see what basis you would have for refusing to do the same things He asks holy angels to do.