Whichever position one takes, there are apparent contradictions which need to be resolved. So the question comes about, how should these be resolved? To resolve them involves making certain assumptions. I think the real issue comes down to these assumptions.

Regarding the LDE quotes, the quotes are inspired, but not the comments about them, or the way they are grouped.

From the EGW quotes that have been posted here and elsewhere, we see God's angels doing His bidding and consequently doing their destructive work, and we see where God permits the devil and his fallen angels to do their destructive work.

So the holy angels and unholy angels do the same thing?

Yes, sometimes, but for completely different reasons.

Did David kill Goliath for the same reason that he killed Uriah?

Of course not. But to the eye, he was actually more aggressive in the first case--killing the giant with his own hands, and with the help of God.

What is done for God's honor is not the same as what is done for wrong motives--though the act itself is the same.

The Pharisees loved to donate large sums of money to the temple treasury, and have men see them do so. The poor widow made no such show when casting in her two mites. God saw the motive. Both donated money--the one in the spirit of Satan, the other in the spirit of holy worship to God.

If money is just money, why did Mrs. White tell us not to accept donations from the liquor companies? She called it blood money and unacceptable to God. Again, it may be the exact same thing, but for opposite motives. The motives make all the difference.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

This sounds like saying the end justifies the means. It's OK to do use violence and force as long as one's motives are OK. What does one do with statements such as the following?



I don't see how this can be true given what you're suggesting. It seems to me this would have to say instead something like "Often compelling power is found only under Satan's government. Often the Lord's principles are not of this order."

To me, if the Lord's principles are not of this order, that means He doesn't do these things, nor would He command His holy angels to do these things. Otherwise, what does the statement mean?

Tom, please consider the following insight:

The plea may be made that a loving Father would not see His children suffering the punishment of God by fire while He had the power to relieve them. But God would, for the good of His subjects and for their safety, punish the transgressor. God does not work on the plan of man. 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? {LDE 241}

this is strange wording, mm. have you noticed that?

it doesnt make sense in the context.

As in the other thread, I think the following explains the principle:

http://sinbearer.com/light_on_the_dark_side_of_god.htm

See Chapter 9.


What do you make of the principle I cited? That compelling power, and force, are not principles of His government?

I did a search through the SOP, and couldn't find anywhere where Christ was ever said to have used violence.

Tom,

You have been working under a misunderstanding of the concept of "compel." We do not "compel" someone to die. We kill them. Now, we might "compel" someone to act against his or her will. That is what "compel" means.

David did not compel Goliath to hurl mocking insults at God. Nor did God do this. However, Goliath's mocking compelled God to act...for His honor.

Here is what it means to compel:

compel: To force, constrain or coerce; To exact or produce by force; To overpower; to subdue

God does not force our will. He does not take our will from us by force. He never removes from us the freedom of choice which He has given us and guarded for us at the cost of Jesus' life. Following the proper definition of "compel," which is a word tied to our freedom of choice, I can fully agree that God does not do this.

However, following an improper definition of "compel," any number of accusations could be aimed at God for doing just this. For example, one might say that God compels or forces people against their will to:

--have no wings for flying
--stay in our solar system
--die instead of living forever
--have no gills for water sport
--be born blind
--endure the curse of thorns and thistles

etc.

The fact is, upon these points, God has not given us a choice. We cannot choose our parents. We cannot choose to have been born on a different planet. We cannot choose to sprout wings and fly. Does any of this mean God has coerced us? forced us? used "compelling power?" Of course not.

Goliath's destiny and fate were determined by his own un-compelled actions. Nor did God compel David to act in slaying Goliath. But God was certainly honored when David obeyed His voice in carrying out justice upon the heathen mocker.

God's plagues are not compelling anyone to choose anything against their wills. In fact, they are sent only to bring justice for the choices which have already been made by them.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Perhaps, but evidently not at the White Estate during the time the Manuscript Release series was put together, e.g. circa 1990. See editorial comments below in this oft-quoted statement here.


Yes or no, depending on who is "we."

Would you like to clarify your meaning here?

Again, depending on who is "we," perhaps. However, this is the sort of metacognition that is best kept to oneself.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.