Does the end justify the means?

We discussed this in the past, but it's been awhile. Here's a post from MM from a different topic:



I'm interested in discussing the last sentence, "the end justifies the means." I don't know how to create a poll. If someone wants to do that, that would be cool. The question would be "Does the end justify the means?" and the responses would be "Yes" or "No." Of course anyone setting up the poll would be free to set it up however they like, but that would be my suggestion.


Tom

The means establishes the end.

Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Luk 6:44 For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.

The end justify the means once got Jesus killed:

Joh 11:49 But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, told them, "You don't know anything!
Joh 11:50 You don't realize that it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed."


/Thomas

Perhaps it would be helpful to define what the phrase under question means:



(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_ends_justify_the_means)

"In the world ye shall have tribulation" (John 16:33), says Christ; but in Me ye shall have peace. The trials to which Christians are subjected in sorrow, adversity, and reproach are the means appointed of God to separate the chaff from the wheat. Our pride, selfishness, evil passions, and love of worldly pleasure must all be overcome; therefore God sends us afflictions to test and prove us, and show us that these evils exist in our characters. We must overcome through His strength and grace, that we may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. "For our light affliction," says Paul, "which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal" (2 Cor. 4:17, 18). Afflictions, crosses, temptations, adversity, and our varied trials are God's workmen to refine us, sanctify us, and fit us for the heavenly garner. {AG 89.2}

Many of your afflictions have been visited upon you, in the wisdom of God, to bring you closer to the throne of grace. He softens and subdues His children by sorrows and trials. This world is God's workshop, where He fashions us for the courts of heaven. He uses the planing knife upon our quivering hearts until the roughness and irregularities are removed and we are fitted for our proper places in the heavenly building. Through tribulation and distress the Christian becomes purified and strengthened, and develops a character after the model that Christ has given. {AG 89.3}

Let the afflictions which pain us so grievously become instructive lessons, teaching us to press forward toward the mark of the prize of our high calling in Christ. Let us be encouraged by the thought that the Lord is soon to come. Let this hope gladden our hearts. {AG 89.4}

This isn't saying the end justifies the means. Also these statements should be understood in the light of what Scripture tells us, as well as other of her writings. For example, God does not tempt us, as James points out, and as Ellen White herself has pointed out. He allows these things to come our way, and uses them for our benefit.

For example, from "Thoughts From the Mount of Blessing"



Something to notice here is that we should pray that God will not permit us to be drawn away by the desires of our own evil hearts, which, of course, presupposes that there are such desires which can draw us away. Given your view of things, MM, do you think a converted Christian should pray the Lord's prayer?

"He permits us to encounter obstacles, persecution, and hardships, not as a curse, but as the greatest blessing of our lives."

MM: God does not tempt us. But He does try us. Do you agree? And, even though God doesn’t tempt us, He does regulate how Satan tempts us. Do you agree?

1 Corinthians
10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God [is] faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear [it].

……………….

TE: Something to notice here is that we should pray that God will not permit us to be drawn away by the desires of our own evil hearts, which, of course, presupposes that there are such desires which can draw us away.

MM: So true. But these desires do not count against us. They are only temptations. If we reist them in Christ we are innocent. Do you agree?

TE: Given your view of things, MM, do you think a converted Christian should pray the Lord's prayer?

MM: Yes. Why not? Is there something about the view I have embraced that makes you think otherwise?

We seem to have gotten away from the topic, which is whether the ends justify the means. You (MM) made the statement that it does, but so far haven't presented any evidence for this idea, which sounds to me more like something Marx would say than Christ.

God permits certain things to happen to us, but these things are not God's will, except in a permissive sense. God works all things together for good, so in this sense they are His workman, but God's will is always that good things happen to us.



Regarding what you wrote about the Lord's prayer, that seems reasonable to me.

TE: God permits certain things to happen to us, but these things are not God's will, except in a permissive sense. God works all things together for good, so in this sense they are His workman, but God's will is always that good things happen to us.

MM: I agree. In a permissive sense it is God's will for us to experience trials. I suspect, though, that we disagree as to who God allows to try us. I believe God accomplishes His will for us in different ways. Two of them are 1) He commands holy angels to try us, and 2) He gives evil angels permission to try us. In either case, God orchestrates the trial. God does not allow anything to undermine His will for us. He works hard to ensure the most desirable outcome.

I believe, like you, it is God's wish or preference that things were not such that trials are necessary for us to grow. Also, since trials are necessary for us to grow and mature as believers, I believe it would be uncaring and sinfully indulgent for God not to try us. Under the circumstances it is God’s will for us to be tried.

God does not tempt us. But He does try us. And, even though God doesn’t tempt us, He does regulate how Satan tempts us. God sets limits. And holy angels make sure evil angels do not exceed those ordained limits. And I believe evil angels have never exceeded those limits. I also believe they have never passed up the opportunities God gives them to tempt us. Do you agree?

1 Corinthians
10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God [is] faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear [it].

TE: God permits certain things to happen to us, but these things are not God's will, except in a permissive sense. God works all things together for good, so in this sense they are His workman, but God's will is always that good things happen to us.

MM: I agree. In a permissive sense it is God's will for us to experience trials. I suspect, though, that we disagree as to who God allows to try us. I believe God accomplishes His will for us in different ways. Two of them are 1) He commands holy angels to try us, and 2) He gives evil angels permission to try us. In either case, God orchestrates the trial.

What do you mean by "orchestrate"? Is this permissive will or active will? Why do you mean by "try"? Are you speaking of having bad things happen to us, like sickness or death?

God does not allow anything to undermine His will for us. He works hard to ensure the most desirable outcome.

I believe, like you, it is God's wish or preference that things were not such that trials are necessary for us to grow. Also, since trials are necessary for us to grow and mature as believers, I believe it would be uncaring and sinfully indulgent for God not to try us.

You are acting as if it were possible for us to not be tried. How would that be possible? We live in a world full of sin and misery. How could we possibly not be tried?

Under the circumstances it is God’s will for us to be tried.

God does not tempt us. But He does try us.

How do you see the difference between these two words?

And, even though God doesn’t tempt us, He does regulate how Satan tempts us. God sets limits.

Are you stating anything other than the obvious here? Obviously if God didn't set limits, Satan would kill us.

And holy angels make sure evil angels do not exceed those ordained limits. And I believe evil angels have never exceeded those limits. I also believe they have never passed up the opportunities God gives them to tempt us. Do you agree?

Obviously evil angels can not exceed limits. I don't know what the point of this question is. How could anyone say differently? Regarding the second question, I think the evil angels pass up many opportunities to tempt us. For example, God may permit angels to tempt you to smoke pot, but they might choose not to do so (because they know it wouldn't work). They pass up permissible areas of temptation for more promising ones.

1 Corinthians
10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God [is] faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear [it].

Hope you don't mind me adding my two cents.

The question was "Does the ends justify the means?"

When it is God, who knows the end before the beginning, then He is just in all He does. God knows if He permits a certain circumstance in our life what the ultimate outcome will be, therefore He is is always working based on perfect knowledge.

We on the other hand work from very limited knowledge. Our best guess at the outcome of any situation is just that, a guess. Since we do not have all the information, the only correct choice is to be obedient to the One who knows all, where that information is clearly provided by the Word of God, and to trust in His love, grace, and knowledge to help us when we are required to walk by faith.

One section of scripture that comes to mind, which clearly shows that the ends do not justify the means, is Romans 6:1&2.

(Rom 6:1) What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?

The Apostle Paul answered His own question:

(Rom 6:2) God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

Just because the "ends" is God's grace, it does not justify continuing in sin.

Someone mentioned God's perfect will, versus His permissive will.

(1Th 4:3) For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:

This verse indicates that it is God's will that all live a sanctified life, free from fornication, but that is not always the case. Not all are surrendered to Him, and not all live holy lives.

Because of God's permissive will, He does not always obtain His perfect will. I know this statement may cause some raised eyebrows, but think about it.

(2Pe 3:9) The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Although God is not willing, many still perish, because they will not yield their will to His.

Jesus mourned over Jerusalem, when He said, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which 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!"

His will was to gather them. Their will was not to be gathered.

The good news is that, although He does not always get His will, we can be encouraged because He is not only all knowing, but all powerful. Therefore He can take any circumstance, and make it work for our good.

(Rom 8:28) And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

Do the ends justify the means? No, but God takes whatever is surrendered to Him, and justifies those that love Him.

(1Co 6:11) And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Welcome forumsearcher.

Nicely written.

MM: I agree. In a permissive sense it is God's will for us to experience trials. I suspect, though, that we disagree as to who God allows to try us. I believe God accomplishes His will for us in different ways. Two of them are 1) He commands holy angels to try us, and 2) He gives evil angels permission to try us. In either case, God orchestrates the trial.

TE: What do you mean by "orchestrate"? Is this permissive will or active will? Why do you mean by "try"? Are you speaking of having bad things happen to us, like sickness or death?

MM: God tries us by allowing trials to befall us and by orchestrating them so that they do not undermine His intended outcome. He is both permissive and active.

……………….

MM: God does not allow anything to undermine His will for us. He works hard to ensure the most desirable outcome. I believe, like you, it is God's wish or preference that things were not such that trials are necessary for us to grow. Also, since trials are necessary for us to grow and mature as believers, I believe it would be uncaring and sinfully indulgent for God not to try us.

TE: You are acting as if it were possible for us to not be tried. How would that be possible? We live in a world full of sin and misery. How could we possibly not be tried?

MM: Again, God does not allow anything to happen to us or to our planet without ensuring the outcome does not undermine His will and desire. The trials God allows to befall us are not random; instead, they are regulated by God to serve His will and desire for us. True, our world is full of sin and misery, but God regulates it to serve His will and desire. There is nothing random or out of control about it.

……………..

MM: Under the circumstances it is God’s will for us to be tried. God does not tempt us. But He does try us.

TE: How do you see the difference between these two words?

MM: To “try us” means to allow trials to befall us for the purpose of growing us as Christians. To “tempt us” means to influence us to sin.

………………

MM: And, even though God doesn’t tempt us, He does regulate how Satan tempts us. God sets limits.

TE: Are you stating anything other than the obvious here? Obviously if God didn't set limits, Satan would kill us.

MM: I’m not talking about Satan killing us. I’m talking about God regulating how Satan tempts us. Do you see a difference?

………………..

TE: Regarding the second question, I think the evil angels pass up many opportunities to tempt us. For example, God may permit angels to tempt you to smoke pot, but they might choose not to do so (because they know it wouldn't work). They pass up permissible areas of temptation for more promising ones.

MM: What if pot smoking were a weakness of mine, which it isn’t, would God allow evil angels to tempt me indiscriminately? I do not believe God gives evil angels blanket permission to tempt us however they choose. Nor do I believe God leaves it up evil angels to decide how and when they are going to tempt us. I believe God scrutinizes every temptation and decides whether or not to allow it. Evil angels are not given the freedom to choose from a long list temptations from which they choose how and when they are going to tempt us.

FS: Because of God's permissive will, He does not always obtain His perfect will. I know this statement may cause some raised eyebrows, but think about it.

MM: God will never force anyone to love and obey Him. He leaves it up to us. Of course we must abide in Jesus in order to love and obey God. Otherwise, we are too depraved and degenerate to originate it. All of this is according to God’s will. I see no difference in this regard between His permissive will and His perfect will.

But what about God allowing trials to befall us? Does the end justify the means? In this case, the “end” is growth in grace, and the means is “trials”.

It is said that CS Lewis held a belief simmilar to this until the day his wife died...

MM: I agree. In a permissive sense it is God's will for us to experience trials. I suspect, though, that we disagree as to who God allows to try us. I believe God accomplishes His will for us in different ways. Two of them are 1) He commands holy angels to try us, and 2) He gives evil angels permission to try us. In either case, God orchestrates the trial.

TE: What do you mean by "orchestrate"? Is this permissive will or active will? Why do you mean by "try"? Are you speaking of having bad things happen to us, like sickness or death?

MM: God tries us by allowing trials to befall us and by orchestrating them so that they do not undermine His intended outcome. He is both permissive and active.

Are you speaking of having bad things happen to us, like sickness or death? In what way is God active?

……………….

MM: God does not allow anything to undermine His will for us. He works hard to ensure the most desirable outcome. I believe, like you, it is God's wish or preference that things were not such that trials are necessary for us to grow. Also, since trials are necessary for us to grow and mature as believers, I believe it would be uncaring and sinfully indulgent for God not to try us.

TE: You are acting as if it were possible for us to not be tried. How would that be possible? We live in a world full of sin and misery. How could we possibly not be tried?

MM: Again, God does not allow anything to happen to us or to our planet without ensuring the outcome does not undermine His will and desire. The trials God allows to befall us are not random; instead, they are regulated by God to serve His will and desire for us. True, our world is full of sin and misery, but God regulates it to serve His will and desire. There is nothing random or out of control about it.

Your point is elusive. Of course since God doesn't permit certain things to happen, then what does happen is not random. Also since God doesn't permit some things to happen, He is obviously controling things. So you don't really seem to be saying anything. But perhaps you have more in mind, like the things which do happens happen because God intends them to happen? If a loved one dies, is that because God wanted that to happen? (I'm talking active will here. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to understand what you're thought is.)

……………..

MM: Under the circumstances it is God’s will for us to be tried. God does not tempt us. But He does try us.

TE: How do you see the difference between these two words?

MM: To “try us” means to allow trials to befall us for the purpose of growing us as Christians. To “tempt us” means to influence us to sin.

No one would disagree that God allows trials to come upon us, nor that God uses these trials for our good. Correct? So why are you making this point?

………………

MM: And, even though God doesn’t tempt us, He does regulate how Satan tempts us. God sets limits.

TE: Are you stating anything other than the obvious here? Obviously if God didn't set limits, Satan would kill us.

MM: I’m not talking about Satan killing us. I’m talking about God regulating how Satan tempts us. Do you see a difference?

You mean that God only allows Satan to tempt us in certain areas, but not in others? That's obvious, isn't it? God won't allow us to be tempted above what we are able. I don't understand why you're wishing to make this point.

………………..

TE: Regarding the second question, I think the evil angels pass up many opportunities to tempt us. For example, God may permit angels to tempt you to smoke pot, but they might choose not to do so (because they know it wouldn't work). They pass up permissible areas of temptation for more promising ones.

MM: What if pot smoking were a weakness of mine, which it isn’t, would God allow evil angels to tempt me indiscriminately? I do not believe God gives evil angels blanket permission to tempt us however they choose. Nor do I believe God leaves it up evil angels to decide how and when they are going to tempt us. I believe God scrutinizes every temptation and decides whether or not to allow it. Evil angels are not given the freedom to choose from a long list temptations from which they choose how and when they are going to tempt us.

I was simply pointing out that it isn't necessarily the case that evil angels always tempt us in areas where God doesn't prevent them, which is what you were asserting. There would be no reason for God to limit angels to tempt you to smoke pot, assuming that's not a temptation you couldn't overcome. But they might not bother, since they know that's not a potential weakness.

Your statement was that the evil angels never pass up an opportunity to tempt us. I was explaining the fallacy in this reasoning. Your response doesn't address my comment, because to show the fallacy in your reasoning it's only necessary to come up with one counterexample. That some counterexample might not be permitted by God has no bearing on the fact that there are counterexamples which disprove your assertion.

TV: It is said that CS Lewis held a belief simmilar to this until the day his wife died...

MM: In what way did he change his mind? Did he switch to believing God has no control over such things? that Satan is free to kill us as he pleases? that God has no say-so in the matter? I hope not!

TE: Are you speaking of having bad things happen to us, like sickness or death? In what way is God active?

MM: Yes. However, perceiving such things as “bad” assumes they are not allowed and regulated by God. He is “active” in that He fights to make sure it is not more than He allows.

………………

TE: But perhaps you have more in mind, like the things which do happens happen because God intends them to happen? If a loved one dies, is that because God wanted that to happen? (I'm talking active will here. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to understand what you're thought is.)

MM: Nothing happens that God does not, given the circumstances, want to happen. Death is inevitable. So, God gives us an opportunity to honor and glorify Him in how and when we die. He decides how and when. Not Satan, not fate, not us. Our response to it determines whether or not we honor and glorify Him.

…………………

TE: No one would disagree that God allows trials to come upon us, nor that God uses these trials for our good. Correct? So why are you making this point?

MM: I believe it is, given the circumstances, His will and desire. The end justifies the means. Do you agree?

………………

TE: You mean that God only allows Satan to tempt us in certain areas, but not in others? That's obvious, isn't it? God won't allow us to be tempted above what we are able. I don't understand why you're wishing to make this point.

MM: The point is – Satan can tempt no one without God’s express permission. The reason God allows it is to give us an opportunity to disprove Satan’s accusations that God’s law cannot be obeyed, that God is tyrannical for requiring us to obey it. Satan’s temptations are a means to an end. Otherwise, God would not allow it. Do you agree?

………………………..

TE: Your statement was that the evil angels never pass up an opportunity to tempt us. I was explaining the fallacy in this reasoning.

MM: Again, God does not leave it up to evil angels to decide how and when to tempt us to sin. Every temptation is approved by God. Whether or not evil angels pass up such opportunities is unlikely. You believe you know for sure there are plenty of times when they do. I would like to qualify my previous post by saying – It is unlikely.

What "circumstances" have an effect on God's will?
How do "circumstances" come into the equation?
Isn't man's choice also a "circumstance"?
Isn't Satan a "circumstance"?
What circumstance is a "circumstance"?

Amen!

TE: Are you speaking of having bad things happen to us, like sickness or death? In what way is God active?

MM: Yes. However, perceiving such things as “bad” assumes they are not allowed and regulated by God.

God's allowing a thing to happen does not make a bad thing good. A woman being raped, a child being abused, are not part of God's plan for anything. These things are evil.

He is “active” in that He fights to make sure it is not more than He allows.

………………

TE: But perhaps you have more in mind, like the things which do happens happen because God intends them to happen? If a loved one dies, is that because God wanted that to happen? (I'm talking active will here. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to understand what you're thought is.)

MM: Nothing happens that God does not, given the circumstances, want to happen.

Everything that is contrary to what we see in Christ, everything that is contrary to the principles of love, the principles revealed by His law, is not what God wants to happen.

Death is inevitable. So, God gives us an opportunity to honor and glorify Him in how and when we die. He decides how and when. Not Satan, not fate, not us. Our response to it determines whether or not we honor and glorify Him.

You appear not to believe in free will.

…………………

TE: No one would disagree that God allows trials to come upon us, nor that God uses these trials for our good. Correct? So why are you making this point?

MM: I believe it is, given the circumstances, His will and desire. The end justifies the means. Do you agree?

What do you think?

………………

TE: You mean that God only allows Satan to tempt us in certain areas, but not in others? That's obvious, isn't it? God won't allow us to be tempted above what we are able. I don't understand why you're wishing to make this point.

MM: The point is – Satan can tempt no one without God’s express permission. The reason God allows it is to give us an opportunity to disprove Satan’s accusations that God’s law cannot be obeyed, that God is tyrannical for requiring us to obey it. Satan’s temptations are a means to an end. Otherwise, God would not allow it. Do you agree?

No, I don't think I agree with any of this.

………………………..

TE: Your statement was that the evil angels never pass up an opportunity to tempt us. I was explaining the fallacy in this reasoning.

MM: Again, God does not leave it up to evil angels to decide how and when to tempt us to sin. Every temptation is approved by God. Whether or not evil angels pass up such opportunities is unlikely.

I guess you've seen the fallacy of your statement, since you're backing off from it.

You believe you know for sure there are plenty of times when they do. I would like to qualify my previous post by saying – It is unlikely.

Well that's closer. It depends on the opportunity. It's extrememly likely they would pass up on the tempting you with pot opportunity, but not likely they would pass up on other more promising opportunities. You're not qualifying your statement correctly. You should qualify it like this: Many of the temptations which God allows the evil angels to tempt us with, they take advantage of.

Dont know, I or you would have to read his books on the subject to find out.

The fallacy behind these questions is that it presupposes only two ways of looking at things, which is the way MM looks at them, and the way these questions are implying are the only alternative. C. S. Lewis could have stopped looking at things in the traditional Augustinian way, and started looking at them in a non-Augustinian way, which is nothing like what MM is saying.

That is, MM is presenting two alternatives:
a.Augustinian theology
b.His understanding of non-Augustinian theology.

But b. is not the only alternative to a.

To clarify, Augustine taught that everything that happens is God's will. This idea was incorporated into the Catholic church, and into some of the Reformers as well, most notably Calvin (and to some extent Luther).

An alternative theology is that not everything that happens is God's will, but that there is a war going on, between good and evil.

In Augustinian theology, Satan and his hosts are simply pawns, to be used by God as He see fits. Nothing happens that is not God's will. If a loved one dies, if one is raped, if a child is abused, all of this fits into God's plan. We may not understand why, but we are to trust that God knows best, and some time we will see why God had the woman raped, the child abused, and so on.

An alternative theology is that God did not have the woman raped, or the child abused, or any of a million other horrors. Rather these things happen contrary to God's will, who is working tirelessly to bring these things to an end. These things happen in spite of God's will, not because of it.

MM: Nothing happens that God does not, given the circumstances, want to happen.

JB: What "circumstances" have an effect on God's will?
How do "circumstances" come into the equation?
Isn't man's choice also a "circumstance"?
Isn't Satan a "circumstance"?
What circumstance is a "circumstance"?

MM: By “circumstances” I mean the great controversy. In other words, because of the sin problem, because God wants us, and the onlooking universe, to understand the truth about good and evil, He must command holy angels and permit evil angels to cause suffering and death. These things are necessary to teach us the truth about good and evil. That’s what God wants. That is His will and desire. Of course He wishes circumstances did not make it so. But the end justifies the means. In fact, God has no choice. The circumstances have forced Him into it.

Do you agree?

TE: God's allowing a thing to happen does not make a bad thing good.

MM: I believe it depends on why He commanded it or permitted it as to whether or not it is “bad” or “evil”.

……………..

MM: Death is inevitable. So, God gives us an opportunity to honor and glorify Him in how and when we die. He decides how and when. Not Satan, not fate, not us. Our response to it determines whether or not we honor and glorify Him.

TE: You appear not to believe in free will.

MM: How do you figure? God deciding how and when we will die does not rob us of our freedom or ability to choose.

……………………

MM: I believe it is, given the circumstances, His will and desire. The end justifies the means. Do you agree?

TE: What do you think?

MM: What do I think you think? I think you agree. Did I get it right? If not, then why do you think God commands holy angels and permits evil angels to cause suffering and death?

…………………..

MM: The point is – Satan can tempt no one without God’s express permission. The reason God allows it is to give us an opportunity to disprove Satan’s accusations that God’s law cannot be obeyed, that God is tyrannical for requiring us to obey it. Satan’s temptations are a means to an end. Otherwise, God would not allow it. Do you agree?

TE: No, I don't think I agree with any of this.

MM: Then why do you think God allows Satan to tempt us? Does God have any say-so in the matter? Is Satan free to tempt us? Or, must he first obtain permission from God?

……………………

TE: Many of the temptations which God allows the evil angels to tempt us with, they take advantage of.

MM: I agree. But do you also think there’s a list of temptations that God will allow, and that He leaves up to the evil angels to decide which ones to tempt us with, when and where, and all of that?

Here, finally, is the requested POLL.

TE: In Augustinian theology, Satan and his hosts are simply pawns, to be used by God as He see fits. Nothing happens that is not God's will. If a loved one dies, if one is raped, if a child is abused, all of this fits into God's plan. We may not understand why, but we are to trust that God knows best, and some time we will see why God had the woman raped, the child abused, and so on.

MM: The idea that “God had” something happen is different than God commanding holy angels or permitting evil angels to cause something to happen.

TE: An alternative theology is that God did not have the woman raped, or the child abused, or any of a million other horrors. Rather these things happen contrary to God's will, who is working tirelessly to bring these things to an end. These things happen in spite of God's will, not because of it.

MM: But this view does not explain why God allows these types of things to happen. Nor does it explain why God commands holy angels and permits evil angels to cause death and destruction. It seems to assume God has no say-so in the matter, that He is just as much a victim of Satan's tyranny as we are.

DF: Here, finally, is the requested POLL.

MM: Since this thread in based on something I posted, I would prefer it if the poll question read - When God allows us to be tried and tested, so that we can grow and mature in the fruit of the Spirit, does the end justify the means?

Thank you.

Free will, the ability to choose after ones own will what to do and act upon it. If I have to get permission to do a sertain thing, it is no longer my will but the will of the person whom I ask for permission from that counts.

The end does never justify the means when God is conserned, is what I believe. The reason for this is that God would not use any means which go against His character to achieve an end. On the way to the cross the last night, Jesus was tempted to change plans and achieve the end with the help of 12 legions of angles rather than by humiliation and torture. God would not use rape to achive an end. If we believe He would, we would have to believe that if Mary had said no when Gabriel told her, God would have made her pregnant nontheless.
The promise that God can turn any situation for good for those who trust Him does not require that God has any part in creating all of those bad situations. We are told that all good gifts come from God, not that *all* gifts come from God.

TE: In Augustinian theology, Satan and his hosts are simply pawns, to be used by God as He see fits. Nothing happens that is not God's will. If a loved one dies, if one is raped, if a child is abused, all of this fits into God's plan. We may not understand why, but we are to trust that God knows best, and some time we will see why God had the woman raped, the child abused, and so on.

MM: The idea that “God had” something happen is different than God commanding holy angels or permitting evil angels to cause something to happen.

This begs the question. If the reason something happens is because God so wills, then the difference vanished.

TE: An alternative theology is that God did not have the woman raped, or the child abused, or any of a million other horrors. Rather these things happen contrary to God's will, who is working tirelessly to bring these things to an end. These things happen in spite of God's will, not because of it.

MM: But this view does not explain why God allows these types of things to happen.

This is not the question under discussion. The question under discussion is whether the ends justify the means. Why God allows bad things happen to you is an important question, and one for which a topic could be opened. The point being brought up here is that an alternative theology to the Augustinian idea that nothing happens except for what God wills is that bad things happens in spite of God's will, not because of it.

Nor does it explain why God commands holy angels and permits evil angels to cause death and destruction.

This is really the same thing. It's not intended to explain this, but to offer an alternative to the idea that bad things happen because of God's will.

It seems to assume God has no say-so in the matter, that He is just as much a victim of Satan's tyranny as we are.

Your comment brings the following quote to mind:



So your right to assume that God is a victim of Satan's tyranny. Of course it's wrong to assume God suffers because He has no say-so. Certainly He could have destroyed Satan immediately when he sinned, in an attempt to cut short His own suffering. But this is not His character. He chooses to suffer Himself to make it possible for His children to be healed, not because He doesn't have a say-so, but because He does. He judges self-sacrifice to be better than the alternative, which is in harmony with His character of self-sacrificing love.

I agree with what Thomas wrote.

Then let us do this POLL also here.

Here is the actual quote:



Since *this* is the actual quote for the question, and I am the one who requested the poll, not MM, and I am the one asking the question, not MM, I would prefer the question read, "Does the end justify the means."

The actual poll which MM suggested is trite. Who could answer "no" to the question as phrased? This is not an interesting poll.

Since the actual quote talks about rape, that could be included in the poll, which would make it more interesting. For example, the question could read:



This would be more in harmony with the question being asked. However, I think my original request, "Does the end justify the means?" is a better choice, as it doesn't lead the responder either possible answer, which, unfortunately, the actual poll does.

I am pleasantly surprised MM that you allowed this openness to God.

It does propose that the circumstances are not entirely brought about by God, and that He must needs react to circumstances not of his choosing.

I agree with this.

Do you agree?

If the truth is that sin causes suffering and death, how would God's sending holy angels to cause suffering and death teach us this truth? Wouldn't it instead teach us the "truth" that God, by way of holy angels, causes suffering and death?

If God does the same thing as Satan, how are they different? Just by identity?

If good and evil look the same, what's the difference? Just who does the deed?

JB: It does propose that the circumstances are not entirely brought about by God, and that He must needs react to circumstances not of his choosing. I agree with this. Do you agree?

MM: I agree. God did not make the GC happen. Given the circumstances, He is forced to deal with the sin problem in a way that allows suffering and death. Of course God wishes things were different. He is very much looking forward to the day when suffering and death are no longer necessary to teach us the truth about good and evil.

TE: If the truth is that sin causes suffering and death, how would God's sending holy angels to cause suffering and death teach us this truth?

MM: Good point. I believe there is a difference between the 1) unrestrained natural consequences that occur when we sin and 2) God commanding holy angels or permitting evil angels to cause specified consequences in response to our sin. Not all sinning cause natural consequences. Telling a white lie, for instance, does not cause hardened people to suffer or die.

When someone overdoses on drugs, and God chooses not to override the natural consequences, they experience suffering and sometimes death. These consequences are not the same as when God commands holy angels or permits evil angels to cause suffering and death and destruction as punishment for sinning.

TE: Wouldn't it instead teach us the "truth" that God, by way of holy angels, causes suffering and death?

MM: In some cases, yes.

TE: If God does the same thing as Satan, how are they different? Just by identity?

MM: Again, Satan is not allowed to do anything that God does not permit.

TE: If good and evil look the same, what's the difference? Just who does the deed?

MM: Good and evil do not look the same. That’s the truth about good and evil.

TE: If the truth is that sin causes suffering and death, how would God's sending holy angels to cause suffering and death teach us this truth?

MM: Good point. I believe there is a difference between the 1) unrestrained natural consequences that occur when we sin and 2) God commanding holy angels or permitting evil angels to cause specified consequences in response to our sin. Not all sinning cause natural consequences. Telling a white lie, for instance, does not cause hardened people to suffer or die.

When someone overdoses on drugs, and God chooses not to override the natural consequences, they experience suffering and sometimes death. These consequences are not the same as when God commands holy angels or permits evil angels to cause suffering and death and destruction as punishment for sinning.

If sin results in death and destruction, God's killing and destroying would not teach us that sin kills and destroys but that God kills and destroys.

TE: Wouldn't it instead teach us the "truth" that God, by way of holy angels, causes suffering and death?

MM: In some cases, yes.

Which would obscure, rather than teach, the truth that sin causes suffering death.

TE: If God does the same thing as Satan, how are they different? Just by identity?

MM: Again, Satan is not allowed to do anything that God does not permit.

This doesn't address the question.

TE: If good and evil look the same, what's the difference? Just who does the deed?

MM: Good and evil do not look the same. That’s the truth about good and evil.

Previously you were arguing they were the same, right? You seemed to be writing whether evil or holy angels destroyed, it didn't make any difference. So good and evil would look the same. Unless you think the evil angels were doing good, and destruction and death are always good, since it only happens from evil angels when God permits.

This is going around in circles. Someone introduce something new or we all just agree to disagree and move on.

Does the end justify the means? = Do two wrongs make one/it right?

The question of if the end justifies the means is getting at this:



This is the definition given earlier. I don't see how any Christian could think this could apply to God, because how can God perform any morally wrong actions. This is why I brought up this topic, was to see if anyone other than MM would venture to say that "the end justifies the means" in the context of things which God is doing.

Speaking for myself, it wouldn't cross my mind to use it in relation to God. Applied to men it's a more difficult question, getting into situation ethics.

Suffering and death is never neccessary to teach us the truth, but suffering and death is the reality of sin and evil. Sin and evil shifts the blame and asserts that it is God causing it. God is seeking to save from sin and evil hence from suffering and death.

He certainly does not use evil and sin, but overcomes it with good.

That which is neccessary to learn truth is "faith".

TE: If sin results in death and destruction, God's killing and destroying would not teach us that sin kills and destroys but that God kills and destroys.

MM: I believe there is a difference between the 1) unrestrained natural consequences that occur when we sin, and 2) God commanding holy angels or permitting evil angels to cause specified consequences in response to our sin. Not all sinning produce natural consequences. But when God commands or permits consequences they are unavoidable.

…………………….

TE: If good and evil look the same, what's the difference? Just who does the deed?

MM: Good and evil do not look the same. That’s the truth about good and evil.

TE: Previously you were arguing they were the same, right? You seemed to be writing whether evil or holy angels destroyed, it didn't make any difference. So good and evil would look the same. Unless you think the evil angels were doing good, and destruction and death are always good, since it only happens from evil angels when God permits.

MM: True, the results, from our perspective, look the same whether God commands holy angels or permits evil angels to cause death and destruction. But these two outcomes do not contrast good and evil.

When God commanded the holy angels to destroy the world with a Flood and then, later on, when He gave the evil angels permission to influence the Romans to destroy Jerusalem, the results were essentially the same, namely, sinners were destroyed in accordance with God’s will.

Good and evil are contrasted when sinners either accept or reject Jesus. Good and evil will be clearly contrasted, so much so that the GC will end, when the world is divided between having the seal of God or having the mark of the beast. The way these two groups behave during the outpouring of the seven last plagues will define the truth about good and evil.

DF: Does the end justify the means? = Do two wrongs make one/it right?

MM: No, those two expressions are not equal, at least not in this case. Besides, which two “wrongs” are you referring to? When God commands holy angels to destroy sinners, can we consider this “wrong”?

TE: If sin results in death and destruction, God's killing and destroying would not teach us that sin kills and destroys but that God kills and destroys.

MM: I believe there is a difference between the 1) unrestrained natural consequences that occur when we sin, and 2) God commanding holy angels or permitting evil angels to cause specified consequences in response to our sin. Not all sinning produce natural consequences. But when God commands or permits consequences they are unavoidable.

It does not appear to me that this addresses my point.

…………………….

TE: If good and evil look the same, what's the difference? Just who does the deed?

MM: Good and evil do not look the same. That’s the truth about good and evil.

TE: Previously you were arguing they were the same, right? You seemed to be writing whether evil or holy angels destroyed, it didn't make any difference. So good and evil would look the same. Unless you think the evil angels were doing good, and destruction and death are always good, since it only happens from evil angels when God permits.

MM: True, the results, from our perspective, look the same whether God commands holy angels or permits evil angels to cause death and destruction.

You're bouncing back and forth like a ping pong ball. "Good and evil do not look the same." "So good and evil would look the same."

But these two outcomes do not contrast good and evil.

When God commanded the holy angels to destroy the world with a Flood and then, later on, when He gave the evil angels permission to influence the Romans to destroy Jerusalem, the results were essentially the same, namely, sinners were destroyed in accordance with God’s will.

Good and evil are contrasted when sinners either accept or reject Jesus. Good and evil will be clearly contrasted, so much so that the GC will end, when the world is divided between having the seal of God or having the mark of the beast. The way these two groups behave during the outpouring of the seven last plagues will define the truth about good and evil.

Given that good and evil are back to looking the same, there's still my original question to address, "If good and evil look the same, what's the difference? Just who does the deed?"

When God commands holy angels to destroy sinners, as was the case of Sodom & Gomorrah, God is only pronouncing and executing His judgment against the sinners.

The breaking of God's law results in death, sooner or later, but sooner in the case of Sodom & Gomorrah, and sooner or later for us, as we all also die the first death as a result of sin.

DF: When God commands holy angels to destroy sinners, as was the case of Sodom & Gomorrah, God is only pronouncing and executing His judgment against the sinners.

MM: Is it "wrong" when God commands holy angels to destroy sinners? Does the end justify the means?

TE: Given that good and evil are back to looking the same, there's still my original question to address, "If good and evil look the same, what's the difference? Just who does the deed?"

MM: We are not on the same page. Please do not try to make it look like we are. I clarified my point. You chose to ignore it.

If God is commanding holy angels to destroy sinners in judgment, then it isn't wrong for Him to do so.

Whether or not the end justifies the means depends on what both the end is and the means is.

DF: If God is commanding holy angels to destroy sinners in judgment, then it isn't wrong for Him to do so.

MM: I think we all agree on this point. When God commands holy angels to destroy sinners it is equivalent to God doing it Himself.

DF: Whether or not the end justifies the means depends on what both the end is and the means is.

MM: In this case, the means is holy angels destroying sinners, and the end is the destruction of sinners. So, do you believe the end justifies the means?

I have a confession to make. Earlier I made the assumption that God will give evil angels permission to pour out the seven last plagues. My bad. I based my assumption on the following quote:

GC 614
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}

I assumed this inspired insight meant that God is going to give evil angels permission to pour out the seven last plagues. But the Bible makes it clear that it is holy angels who will pour them out. Here is how the Bible describes it:

Revelation
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.
15:6 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.

I think it is safe to say that we all agree that the Bible always represents God as being responsible for causing, commanding, or commissioning the destruction of full-cup sinners. And rightly so. God is in control of managing the outcome of the GC. It is His sole responsibility to ensure that the evil angels do not exceed the limits and boundaries established and maintained by God.

Tom and Thomas, however, insist that the Bible portrays God as doing the deeds of the devil simply as a gesture of generosity, that God is willing to take the blame because He is humble and unassuming. But in reality, God is not to blame. The devil is. Jesus did not cause, command, or commission destruction during His earthly sojourn. And, based on this insight, Tom and Thomas wrongly conclude that God never has, nor ever will, cause destruction or the death of full-cup sinners.

I totally disagree. I believe the Bible. I take it at face value. I do not read into it ideas that contradict the obvious. When the Bible says God caused, commanded, or commissioned something to happen, I believe it. God said it, I believe it, and that settles it for me. I have no reason to doubt or interpret the Bible to serve my preconceived opinions.

In that specific sense, yes, but in a general sense, no.

In other words, generally speaking, the end doesn't justify the means.

Not quite. I have stated that God has in the past judged groups of people and will in the future judge people, and those people judged have meet death. Examples of this is the flood, the lower jordan valley, sertain things that happened during the exodus 40 years. What I am saying is that when Joey in a NY gang war gets shot and killed, that is not God, neither actively nor passively. When Pt. Smith shoots Iraqi warriors and is then himself killed in combat, that is not God. When janjaweed paramilitaries raid a southern Sudan village, killing all the men and raping all the women and children, that is not God. When Hitler ordered the gasing and shooting of 6 milion Jews and other groups he thought where lesser humans, that was not God.

All these later things are either planed and directed by satan or his minions, or simply the fruit of the free will of humans. God has at times judged people and will in the end judge everyone and Gods judgements are just. All this vanton violence that we can observe every day until suffering fatigue overtakes our capability of compassion, that is neither just nor caused or expressidly permitted by God. It all passes under the blanket permission that is known as human free will. And while God can interviene and protect those who call on Him, does not mean that the opposite is true that God gives individual permission to ever atrocity or sin commited on earth. This is what I believe about this subject.
On this ground I reject your statement about what you thought I believe Mike.

/Thomas

DF: In that specific sense, yes, but in a general sense, no. In other words, generally speaking, the end doesn't justify the means.

MM: Let me see if I understand your position. Please correct me if I have misunderstood it. You believe the end justifies the means when it involves God commanding holy angels to destroy full-cup sinners. But generally speaking this principle does not apply.

What I'm not clear on is what you mean by "general" sense. I assume you mean when God gives evil angels permission to destroy full-cup sinners. In other words, you mean the "end justifies the means" principle does not apply when God gives evil angels permission to destroy full-cup sinners.

If this is what you mean, and I'm not saying it is, but if this is true, what is the "end" and what is the 'means", and how are they different in cases involving God commanding holy angels to destroy full-cup sinners?

Again, in such cases, we both agree that the "means" is holy angels destroying sinners, and the "end" is the destruction of full-cup sinners.

TV: Not quite. I have stated that God has in the past judged groups of people and will in the future judge people, and those people judged have meet death. Examples of this is the flood, the lower jordan valley, sertain things that happened during the exodus 40 years. . . . God has at times judged people and will in the end judge everyone and Gods judgements are just.

MM: Thank you for clarifying how you and Tom differ on this topic. I had forgotten you posted these convictions in the past. I was operating under the assumptions that you and Tom were in perfect agreement. Sorry for the oversight.

……………………..

TV: What I am saying is that when Joey in a NY gang war gets shot and killed, that is not God, neither actively nor passively. When Pt. Smith shoots Iraqi warriors and is then himself killed in combat, that is not God. When janjaweed paramilitaries raid a southern Sudan village, killing all the men and raping all the women and children, that is not God. When Hitler ordered the gasing and shooting of 6 milion Jews and other groups he thought where lesser humans, that was not God.

MM: In this aspect I think you and Tom are also in disagreement. Again, my mistake. I thought you agreed with Tom that such things are God’s passive will in that He does not intervene to stop them. I think we all agree that God’s ultimate will is that no one is lost, that everyone is saved, but that He does not force us to choose one way or the other.

……………………….

TV: All these later things are either planed and directed by satan or his minions, or simply the fruit of the free will of humans. . . . All this vanton violence that we can observe every day until suffering fatigue overtakes our capability of compassion, that is neither just nor caused or expressidly permitted by God. It all passes under the blanket permission that is known as human free will.

MM: The idea that God has no say-so in the outcome of our choices is, to me, unsettling. True, He allows us to make our own choices, but I find it hard to believe that He has absolutely nothing to do with managing the consequences of our choices. For example, I cannot imagine God standing by and doing nothing the moment that rival gang member shot Joey.

I believe whether or not the bullet kills Joey is in the hands of God. How many times have we heard testimonies from people like Joey who gave their hearts to Jesus when they realized that God spared their lives, that He sent a holy angel to guide the bullet in a way that the results were “miraculously” nonfatal.

………………………..

TV: And while God can interviene and protect those who call on Him, does not mean that the opposite is true that God gives individual permission to ever atrocity or sin commited on earth. This is what I believe about this subject.

MM: As described above, I also believe God can and does intervene so that people like Joey will be motivated to call on Him. I suspect you also agree with this. But in order for this to be true, God cannot be as detached or uninvolved as you seem to believe.

If there are times, as you seem to believe, when things happen that God neither caused, commanded, nor commissioned, then I believe He runs the risk of being perceived as aloof, uncaring, and unmindful. It has to do with the "duty to act" principle.

TV: On this ground I reject your statement about what you thought I believe Mike.

MM: Hopefully I now better understand your position. Please correct me if anything I have posted here is off base. Thank you.

By general sense, I mean that the end doesn't justify the means in relation to, for example, what Jacob did to obtain the promised birthright.

Oh, okay. Now I see what you mean. Thanx for clarifying. What about when God gives evil angels permission to destroy full-cup sinners? Does the end (i.e., the destruction of sinners) justify the means (i.e., giving evil angels permission to destroy sinners)?

Give me an instance in the Bible where this happened.

TE: If good and evil look the same, what's the difference? Just who does the deed?

MM: Good and evil do not look the same. That’s the truth about good and evil....True, the results, from our perspective, look the same

This doesn't seem clear to me. When I asked "if good and evil look the same, what's the difference?" who did you think I was talking about? Us, of course, right? I'm concerned about our perspective. So if you say, "True, the results, from our perspective, look the same" that's saying they look the same, right? If not, what looks different?

You went on to say that good and evil will be contrasted in the end of time, during the time of the last plagues, which is fine and well to say, but that doesn't address my question, which is, if good and evil look the same, what's the difference?

You answered this by first saying that they don't look the same. Then you said they do. Then you said I chose to ignore your point. What point did I choose to ignore? (I'm certainly not voluntarily ignoring any point you're making).

No, if this is what you were thinking, you were right.

Of course you read into the Bible ideas which contradict the obvious. All of us read the Bible according to our preconceived ideas. How else could God communicate to us? You're no better than any of the rest of us on this point.

As an example of how you interpret inspired readings to serve your preconceived opinions, consider how you respond to the quote from EGW that God offered Lucifer pardon again and again on the condition of repentance and submission. You write that "sin" doesn't mean "sin," that "pardon" doesn't mean "pardon"



One could hardly come upon a better example of doing the very thing you say you don't do than this.

A simple principle to be aware of is that the Bible often presents God as doing that which He permits. So the idea that just because Scripture says God did something means He actively caused a certain thing to happen, as opposed to permitting the enemy to do something, is facile. Here are some examples:

a)Scripture says God sent fiery serpents to the Isrealites.
b)Scripture says God killed Saul.
c)Scripture says God caused David to number Israel.
d)Scripture says God sent His armies to destroy Jerusalem

I don't disagee with what Thomas wrote, either here or earlier in his post. He wrote that God judges certain people, such as with the Flood, or other examples, and that's certainly true. I agree with each example that Thomas gave.

It may be the case that Thomas and I differ regarding what exactly God's actions were in the Flood, for example, but I see this as a minor point compared to the bigger question, which has to do with God's character. Thomas is presenting a portrait of God's character with which I fully agree. In addition, I think Thomas is doing a fine job expressing the same concepts I've been trying to share.

It should be remember what, "The end justifies the means" means. I've quoted the following definition a couple of times:



In order to establish that the end justifies the means, it must be established that the means are of a quesitonable character. Otherwise the phrase is meaningless. Everyone agrees that the end justifies means which are right in and of themselves.

It is my contention that God never acts out of harmony with His character. To say this in three other ways:

a)He never acts contrary to His law.
b)He never acts differently than Jesus Christ acted during His earthly mininstry.
c)He never acts contrary to what 1 Cor. 13 says (i.e., the description of love is the description of God's character).

MM: What about when God gives evil angels permission to destroy full-cup sinners? Does the end (i.e., the destruction of sinners) justify the means (i.e., giving evil angels permission to destroy sinners)?

DF: Give me an instance in the Bible where this happened.

MM: Job is probably the most famous example. And the destruction of Jews in AD 70 is Tom's favorite one.

TE: You went on to say that good and evil will be contrasted in the end of time, during the time of the last plagues, which is fine and well to say, but that doesn't address my question, which is, if good and evil look the same, what's the difference? You answered this by first saying that they don't look the same. Then you said they do. Then you said I chose to ignore your point. What point did I choose to ignore?

MM: Tom, if I didn’t know better I could be tempted to think you are trying to make it appear as though I am contradicting myself.

The point that got ignored, or accidentally overlooked, is the one where I made a distinction between good and evil as it applies to people choosing to sin or not to sin and as it applies to God commanding holy angels or permitting evil angels to destroy unpardonable sinners.

In cases involving people sinning or not sinning, during the time of trouble, good and evil do not look the same. I’m sure we can both agree on this point. I realize you believe this insight has absolutely nothing to do with the question you posted. But it should help you understand that I am not contradicting myself.

Now, in cases involving God commanding holy angels or permitting evil angels to destroy full-cup sinners, I do not believe the results, namely the destruction of sinners in accordance with God’s will, can be labeled “evil”.

Moses, Joshua, Gideon, Samuel, David, Elijah, etc., did not perceive it as “evil” when God blessed them with victory, with the death and destruction of their enemies. On the contrary, they wrote beautiful songs and hymns to commemorate the slaughter.

……………………

TE: No, if this is what you were thinking, you were right.

MM: The quote you posted does not refer to the seven last plagues. I still believe God commands holy angels to pour out the seven last plagues. It appears that you disagree. If so, then how do you explain the following biblical insights:

Revelation
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.
15:6 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.

Revelation
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.

TE: A simple principle to be aware of is that the Bible often presents God as doing that which He permits.

MM: That’s my point. Whether God commands holy angels or permits evil angels to cause death and destruction, the Bible always, not sometimes, portrays God as doing it. I choose to believe the Bible. You do not.

…………………..

TV: What I am saying is that when Joey in a NY gang war gets shot and killed, that is not God, neither actively nor passively.

MM: I thought you agreed with Tom that such things are God’s passive will in that He does not intervene to stop them.

TE: It may be the case that Thomas and I differ regarding what exactly God's actions were in the Flood …

MM: I think he may also disagree regarding your ideas on God's passive and permissive will.
………………….

TE: Everyone agrees that the end justifies means which are right in and of themselves.

MM: That’s my point in cases involving God commanding holy angels or permitting evil angels to destroy unpardonable sinners. The “means” is, given the extenuating circumstances, right. It’s the lesser of two evils, which makes it morally right.

Since when is Job an example of a full-cup sinner being destroyed by evil angels? He was destroyed by evil angels but hardly for being such a sinner that God lost hope of him...

As for Jerusalem 70 AD...

TE: A simple principle to be aware of is that the Bible often presents God as doing that which He permits.

MM: That’s my point. Whether God commands holy angels or permits evil angels to cause death and destruction, the Bible always, not sometimes, portrays God as doing it. I choose to believe the Bible. You do not.

-That God is portrayed as doing something, does that mean that God is actually doing it? Satan is busy portraying God as doing a lot of less than flattering things. My point here is that image and reality is not nessessarily the same thing.
…………………..

TV: What I am saying is that when Joey in a NY gang war gets shot and killed, that is not God, neither actively nor passively.

MM: I thought you agreed with Tom that such things are God’s passive will in that He does not intervene to stop them.

TE: It may be the case that Thomas and I differ regarding what exactly God's actions were in the Flood …

MM: I think he may also disagree regarding your ideas on God's passive and permissive will.

-Gods actions during the flood, somehow providing lots and lots of water... and also keeping a wooden boat from destruction.

1. You did contradict yourself. First you said that evil and good do not look the same and then you backed off from that.

You still haven't answered my question, which is if they look the same, then what's the difference? You point out that when God commands holy angels to destroy then this is not evil. Fine, then it's good. In what way does it differ from evil? Just the identity of the one doing or commanding the act makes the difference in your view. Isn't that correct?

2.What plagues do you think 14MR 3 are dealing with? There are other SOP statements which state the same thing as 14MR 3. (that the seven last plagues come about as a result of God's withdrawing His protection).

For example:

TE: A simple principle to be aware of is that the Bible often presents God as doing that which He permits.

MM: That’s my point.

No, this was *my* point. The point is that sometime Scripture presents God as doing that which He permits, of which I gave several examples. So you cannot on the basis of a text which says, "God did such and such" know whether God actively did the thing or simply permitted the thing to happen. Yet you frequently do this very thing.

Whether God commands holy angels or permits evil angels to cause death and destruction, the Bible always, not sometimes, portrays God as doing it.

This isn't true either. For example, the Bible says in one place that God moved David to number Israel, and in another place says it was Satan.

I choose to believe the Bible. You do not.

This is a funny thing to say.

…………………..

TV: What I am saying is that when Joey in a NY gang war gets shot and killed, that is not God, neither actively nor passively.

MM: I thought you agreed with Tom that such things are God’s passive will in that He does not intervene to stop them.

TE: It may be the case that Thomas and I differ regarding what exactly God's actions were in the Flood …

MM: I think he may also disagree regarding your ideas on God's passive and permissive will.

I'm not seeing that. It seems to me he's saying exactly the same thing I am. Of course Thomas knows God is all-powerful and nothing can happen except God permits it. But Thomas has been careful to point out that just because God allows something to happen, does not mean this is something God wanted to happen. He gave several examples to show this. This is exactly the same point I was making.
………………….

TE: Everyone agrees that the end justifies means which are right in and of themselves.

MM: That’s my point in cases involving God commanding holy angels or permitting evil angels to destroy unpardonable sinners. The “means” is, given the extenuating circumstances, right. It’s the lesser of two evils, which makes it morally right.

The statement "the ends justifies the means" implies the means are not just, but the ends make them such. If it is your contention that the means are just in and of themselves, you shouldn't have made the statement, "the ends justifies the means."

Yes, Job is an interesting case where God allowed the devil to do things that would hurt Job in, for instance, the death of his children.

In this instance, God actually allowed the devil to bring about the death of Job's children.


Why did God permit the devil to bring about the death of Job's children?

Was this an example of God using the devil to execute God's judgment upon Job's children?

I thought I responded, but I don't see it.

MM wrote somewhere that he doesn't believe Satan was guilty of sinning when he killed Job's children, and inflicted him with boils etc.

Job shows that when bad things happen, it is not necessarily because the person to whom these things are happening did something wrong.



Satan is the author of sin and all its results. He leads men to look upon disease and death as proceeding from God.

TV: Since when is Job an example of a full-cup sinner being destroyed by evil angels? He was destroyed by evil angels but hardly for being such a sinner that God lost hope of him... As for Jerusalem 70 AD...

MM: The point in Job’s case is that God gave evil angels permission to destroy his children. Job gave God the credit, thus honoring and glorying God. Yes, as for the destruction of the Temple and the slaughter of Jews in AD 70. Clearly God gave evil angels permission to influence the Roman soldiers to wreak havoc, but not beyond the limits God established and maintained.

TV: That God is portrayed as doing something, does that mean that God is actually doing it? Satan is busy portraying God as doing a lot of less than flattering things. My point here is that image and reality is not nessessarily the same thing.

MM: The Bible, not the Devil, clearly portrays God doing things He commands or permits. Who are we to question God’s perspective?

TV: Gods actions during the flood, somehow providing lots and lots of water... and also keeping a wooden boat from destruction.

MM: So, who do you think caused the Flood? God? Satan? Nature? Why didn't God prevent the Flood?

TE: You still haven't answered my question, which is if they look the same, then what's the difference? You point out that when God commands holy angels to destroy then this is not evil. Fine, then it's good. In what way does it differ from evil? Just the identity of the one doing or commanding the act makes the difference in your view. Isn't that correct?

MM: Moses, Joshua, Gideon, Samuel, David, Elijah, etc., did not perceive it as “evil” when God blessed them with victory, with the death and destruction of their enemies. On the contrary, they wrote beautiful songs and hymns to commemorate the slaughter.

How do you explain the joyous and jubilant response of God’s chosen people to the death and destruction of fellow humans beings made in the likeness and image of God?

The circumstances that exist which force God to command or permit the destruction of sinners is not good, that is, the circumstances themselves are not good. By circumstances I am referring to the fact people choose to sin. Sinning creates circumstance that forces God to do things He wishes were not necessary. It is God’s great desire to save everyone.

God is not guilty of evildoing when He commands or permits sinners to be destroyed. Nor are the results evil. They are not evil by virtue of the fact God commanded or permitted them. God is good, not evil. And everything He does is good. It is too bad circumstances force Him to do things He wishes were not necessary.

The fact evil angels delight in destroying sinners, when God gives them permission, is evil. To answer your question - that is what makes the difference. Holy angels do not delight in the death and destruction of sinners. True, they rejoice in the results, that is, they praise God for doing the right thing, but they take no pleasure in destroying sinners.

…………………..

TE: What plagues do you think 14MR 3 are dealing with? There are other SOP statements which state the same thing as 14MR 3. (that the seven last plagues come about as a result of God's withdrawing His protection).

MM: The insights articulated in 14MR 3 (LDE 242) are dealing with things God is allowing evil angels to do now. It is not talking about the seven last plagues. And the GC 614 quote you posted describes how unsheltered sinners will behave under the influence of evil angels. It does not describe them causing the destruction associated with pouring out the seven last plagues.

Again, the Bible is clear about who pours out the seven last plagues:

Revelation
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.
15:6 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.

Tom, what is about this description that makes you insist evil angels will pour out the seven last plagues?

…………………………..

TE: The point is that sometime Scripture presents God as doing that which He permits, of which I gave several examples. So you cannot on the basis of a text which says, "God did such and such" know whether God actively did the thing or simply permitted the thing to happen. Yet you frequently do this very thing.

MM: Since God portrays Himself as doing the very things He commands or permits it is clear that is how God views it. I agree with God. I do not pretend to be able explain why or how, but I believe what God says about Himself.

………………………..

TE: It seems to me he's saying exactly the same thing I am. Of course Thomas knows God is all-powerful and nothing can happen except God permits it. But Thomas has been careful to point out that just because God allows something to happen, does not mean this is something God wanted to happen. He gave several examples to show this. This is exactly the same point I was making.

MM: Thomas made it clear that Joey’s death was not the result of God’s passive or permissive will. He plainly stated that it was result of human free will, that God was in no way involved, that He did permit it. Which disagrees with your point of view. Here is how he explains it:

TV: All these later things are either planed and directed by satan or his minions, or simply the fruit of the free will of humans. God has at times judged people and will in the end judge everyone and Gods judgements are just. All this vanton violence that we can observe every day until suffering fatigue overtakes our capability of compassion, that is neither just nor caused or expressidly permitted by God. It all passes under the blanket permission that is known as human free will. And while God can interviene and protect those who call on Him, does not mean that the opposite is true that God gives individual permission to ever atrocity or sin commited on earth. This is what I believe about this subject.

MM: The idea that “just because God allows something to happen, does not mean this is something God wanted to happen” is, by itself, misleading. It does not explain why God allows it to happen. The reason God commands or permits things to happen is because, given the circumstances, it makes sense to Him. True, God wishes circumstances did not force Him to command or permit it to happen. He hates the circumstances. But He wants to do what is right.

DF: Was this an example of God using the devil to execute God's judgment upon Job's children?

MM: Here is an interesting insight I just found:

LDE 242
God will use His enemies as instruments to punish those who have followed their own pernicious ways whereby the truth of God has been misrepresented, misjudged, and dishonored.--PC 136 (1894). {LDE 242.3}

TE: Satan is the author of sin and all its results. He leads men to look upon disease and death as proceeding from God.

MM: There are times when God uses disease to punish sinners. Not all diseases are the result of unrestrained natural causes. For example, God punished Miriam with leprosy. Of course, who can forget the plagues of Egypt? And, God will use disease to punish sinners during the seven last plagues:

Revelation
16:2 And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and [upon] them which worshipped his image.

Job assumed God was responsible because he was ignorant of Satan.



It is to Job's credit that he was willing to trust God, even though he was unaware as to what was really happening, but God's preference is not that we "honor" and "glorify" Him by ignorantly falling along with that which the great deceiver seeks to do, which is to conceal his own work. He loves to blame God for what he does, and is delighted when his lies are appropriated.

TE: You still haven't answered my question, which is if they look the same, then what's the difference? You point out that when God commands holy angels to destroy then this is not evil. Fine, then it's good. In what way does it differ from evil? Just the identity of the one doing or commanding the act makes the difference in your view. Isn't that correct?

MM: Moses, Joshua, Gideon, Samuel, David, Elijah, etc., did not perceive it as “evil” when God blessed them with victory, with the death and destruction of their enemies. On the contrary, they wrote beautiful songs and hymns to commemorate the slaughter.

How do you explain the joyous and jubilant response of God’s chosen people to the death and destruction of fellow humans beings made in the likeness and image of God?

The circumstances that exist which force God to command or permit the destruction of sinners is not good, that is, the circumstances themselves are not good. By circumstances I am referring to the fact people choose to sin. Sinning creates circumstance that forces God to do things He wishes were not necessary. It is God’s great desire to save everyone.

God is not guilty of evildoing when He commands or permits sinners to be destroyed. Nor are the results evil. They are not evil by virtue of the fact God commanded or permitted them. God is good, not evil. And everything He does is good.

This looks like you are answering my question the way I suggested you would, which is that there is nothing different between good and evil, except the identity of the one performing the act. If this is not really what you think, please clarify.

It is too bad circumstances force Him to do things He wishes were not necessary.

The fact evil angels delight in destroying sinners, when God gives them permission, is evil. To answer your question - that is what makes the difference. Holy angels do not delight in the death and destruction of sinners. True, they rejoice in the results, that is, they praise God for doing the right thing, but they take no pleasure in destroying sinners.

Ok, this is going a bit further than just identity. Here you seem to be saying that what makes the difference is not the act being committed, but the attitude of the one performing the act. Although you aren't consistent with this, because you stated in the course of Job that you did not think the evil angels were guilty of sin, which here they would have been because of their delight in destroying sinners.

…………………..

TE: What plagues do you think 14MR 3 are dealing with? There are other SOP statements which state the same thing as 14MR 3. (that the seven last plagues come about as a result of God's withdrawing His protection).

MM: The insights articulated in 14MR 3 (LDE 242) are dealing with things God is allowing evil angels to do now. It is not talking about the seven last plagues.



This certainly seems like a description of the last plagues. "We shall see more terrible manifestations of his power than we have ever dreamed of." It's difficult to understand how one would not see this description as dealing with the last plagues.

And the GC 614 quote you posted describes how unsheltered sinners will behave under the influence of evil angels. It does not describe them causing the destruction associated with pouring out the seven last plagues.

Here is the description from GC 614:



It's even harder to see how one could not perceive that this is dealing with the last plagues. Contrary to your assertion, this is not simply dealing with how unsheltered sinners will behave. Notice it says, "Unsheltered by divine grace, they have no protection from the wicked one." They are then plunged into a great, final trouble. The 14 MR quote brings out the Satan is working with great wrath, causing terrible manifestations of his power, in the form of storms and temptests. This is obviously describing destruction which takes place at the time Christ leaves the heavenly sanctuary, which is the time of the seven last plagues.

So we see that the time is right (Christ leaving the heavenly sanctuary), and the events are right (Satan's causing destruction, a great time of trouble). You would have to hypothesize that God is working hand in hand, along with Satan, destroying those who have rejected God's Spirit the same time as Satan.

How could you tell which was which? That is, someone is destroyed. "Who did that?" someone might ask. Your answer would be, "Either God or Satan." as to your way of looking at things, they do the same thing.

Again, the Bible is clear about who pours out the seven last plagues:

Revelation
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.
15:6 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.

Tom, what is about this description that makes you insist evil angels will pour out the seven last plagues?

In reading Scripture, a good idea is to consider all of Scripture, not just one text or passage. The Scriptures make clear what God's character is (He is just like Jesus Christ), and we have many examples of Scripture presenting God as doing that which he permits. We know this is dealing with what God permits both by understanding His character, and by the things revealed from the Spirit of Prophecy.

…………………………..

TE: The point is that sometime Scripture presents God as doing that which He permits, of which I gave several examples. So you cannot on the basis of a text which says, "God did such and such" know whether God actively did the thing or simply permitted the thing to happen. Yet you frequently do this very thing.

MM: Since God portrays Himself as doing the very things He commands or permits it is clear that is how God views it. I agree with God. I do not pretend to be able explain why or how, but I believe what God says about Himself.

You should also believe what He says about Satan. God presents Himself as doing that which He permits because He is gracious and humble. Those who know Him understand His character. What God does can be distinguished from what God allows by knowing His character.

………………………..

TE: It seems to me he's saying exactly the same thing I am. Of course Thomas knows God is all-powerful and nothing can happen except God permits it. But Thomas has been careful to point out that just because God allows something to happen, does not mean this is something God wanted to happen. He gave several examples to show this. This is exactly the same point I was making.

MM: Thomas made it clear that Joey’s death was not the result of God’s passive or permissive will. He plainly stated that it was result of human free will, that God was in no way involved, that He did permit it. Which disagrees with your point of view. Here is how he explains it:

TV: All these later things are either planed and directed by satan or his minions, or simply the fruit of the free will of humans. God has at times judged people and will in the end judge everyone and Gods judgements are just. All this vanton violence that we can observe every day until suffering fatigue overtakes our capability of compassion, that is neither just nor caused or expressidly permitted by God. It all passes under the blanket permission that is known as human free will. And while God can interviene and protect those who call on Him, does not mean that the opposite is true that God gives individual permission to ever atrocity or sin commited on earth. This is what I believe about this subject.

MM: The idea that “just because God allows something to happen, does not mean this is something God wanted to happen” is, by itself, misleading. It does not explain why God allows it to happen. The reason God commands or permits things to happen is because, given the circumstances, it makes sense to Him.

No, this is an unwarranted assumption.

True, God wishes circumstances did not force Him to command or permit it to happen. He hates the circumstances. But He wants to do what is right.

God always does what is right, but God has given free will to His creatures, and *they* do not always do what is right. Whenever they do no do something which is right, they act contrary to God's will. If God's will were always followed, the world would be at perfect peace; men would live as Christ did.

Regarding disease and death, these things come from Satan. "Satan is the author of sin and all its results." "He leads men to look upon disease and death as proceeding from God." These are statements from EGW.

If Satan is the author of sin and all its results, then he is the author specifically of disease and death. "He leads men to look upon disease and death as proceeding from God."

It's true that Satan does this, but we do not have to believe him.

TV: Since when is Job an example of a full-cup sinner being destroyed by evil angels? He was destroyed by evil angels but hardly for being such a sinner that God lost hope of him... As for Jerusalem 70 AD...

MM: The point in Job’s case is that God gave evil angels permission to destroy his children. Job gave God the credit, thus honoring and glorying God. Yes, as for the destruction of the Temple and the slaughter of Jews in AD 70. Clearly God gave evil angels permission to influence the Roman soldiers to wreak havoc, but not beyond the limits God established and maintained.

-Historical records show that Roman soldiers hardly needed any external influence to destroy some foreign peoples temple or city. They where doing that for a living all around the empire where they had conquered and meet hard resistance.

TV: That God is portrayed as doing something, does that mean that God is actually doing it? Satan is busy portraying God as doing a lot of less than flattering things. My point here is that image and reality is not nessessarily the same thing.

MM: The Bible, not the Devil, clearly portrays God doing things He commands or permits. Who are we to question God’s perspective?

-And the examples of bible passages where the "doing" changes from one account to the next?

TV: Gods actions during the flood, somehow providing lots and lots of water... and also keeping a wooden boat from destruction.

MM: So, who do you think caused the Flood? God? Satan? Nature? Why didn't God prevent the Flood?

-You playing games with me? What in my above post is unclear? the "provide lots of water" part eh?

We've got a post going about the flood and such elsewhere. I think it's clear from science, the SOP, and Scripture that the water came from beneath the earth. Certainly it was under great pressure, as how else could it have exploded up into the atmosphere? I think it's possible to see God's actions here as being similar in principle to His actions in other places, such as Jerusalem in A.D. 70. I'm mentioning this to you Thomas, because I can't remember if you took part of that other thread. Mark asked this topic not be discussed outside of that thread, so I've chosen to abide by his wishes.

No, I dont think I participated in that thread(possible exception of a post or two). You know, yours and Mikes threads do tend to drag on almost ad infinitum...

TE: Job assumed God was responsible because he was ignorant of Satan.

MM: Please consider the following insights:

ML 316
Satan was permitted to tempt the too-confident Peter, as he had been permitted to tempt Job; but when that work was done he had to retire. Had Satan been suffered to have his way, there would have been no hope for Peter. He would have made complete shipwreck of faith. But the enemy dare not go one hairbreadth beyond his appointed sphere. There is no power in the whole satanic force that can disable the soul that trusts, in simple confidence, in the wisdom that comes from God. {ML 316.3}

3BC 1140
It is very natural for human beings to think that great calamities are a sure index of great crimes and enormous sins; but men often make a mistake in thus measuring character. We are not living in the time of retributive judgment. Good and evil are mingled, and calamities come upon all. Sometimes men do pass the boundary line beyond God's protecting care, and then Satan exercises his power upon them, and God does not interpose. Job was sorely afflicted, and his friends sought to make him acknowledge that his suffering was the result of sin, and cause him to feel under condemnation. They represented his case as that of a great sinner; but the Lord rebuked them for their judgment of His faithful servant (MS 56, 1894). {3BC 1140.5}

There is wickedness in our world, but all the suffering is not the result of a perverted course of life. Job is brought distinctly before us as a man whom the Lord allowed Satan to afflict. The enemy stripped him of all he possessed; his family ties were broken; his children were taken from him. For a time his body was covered with loathsome sores, and he suffered greatly. His friends came to comfort him, but they tried to make him see that he was responsible, by his sinful course, for his afflictions. But he defended himself, and denied the charge, declaring, Miserable comforters are ye all. By seeking to make him guilty before God, and deserving of His punishment, they brought a grievous test upon him, and represented God in a false light; but Job did not swerve from his loyalty, and God rewarded His faithful servant (MS 22, 1898). {3BC 1140.6}

MM: Moses, Joshua, Gideon, Samuel, David, Elijah, etc., did not perceive it as “evil” when God blessed them with victory, with the death and destruction of their enemies. On the contrary, they wrote beautiful songs and hymns to commemorate the slaughter.

TE: This looks like you are answering my question the way I suggested you would, which is that there is nothing different between good and evil, except the identity of the one performing the act. If this is not really what you think, please clarify.

MM: Sinning is evil. God cannot sin. Commanding holy angels to destroy sinners is not evil. The circumstances that force God to command or permit destruction are evil.

…………………

MM: The fact evil angels delight in destroying sinners, when God gives them permission, is evil. To answer your question - that is what makes the difference. Holy angels do not delight in the death and destruction of sinners. True, they rejoice in the results, that is, they praise God for doing the right thing, but they take no pleasure in destroying sinners.

TE: Ok, this is going a bit further than just identity. Here you seem to be saying that what makes the difference is not the act being committed, but the attitude of the one performing the act. Although you aren't consistent with this, because you stated in the course of Job that you did not think the evil angels were guilty of sin, which here they would have been because of their delight in destroying sinners.

MM: I am referring specifically to God commanding or permitting destruction. The attitude of holy angels is holy, and the results are equally holy. The attitude of evil angels is evil, but not the results God permitted.

……………………

MM: Tom, what is about this description that makes you insist evil angels will pour out the seven last plagues?

TE: In reading Scripture, a good idea is to consider all of Scripture, not just one text or passage. The Scriptures make clear what God's character is (He is just like Jesus Christ), and we have many examples of Scripture presenting God as doing that which he permits. We know this is dealing with what God permits both by understanding His character, and by the things revealed from the Spirit of Prophecy.

MM: The language of the Bible should be explained according to its obvious meaning, unless a symbol or figure is employed. What is symbolic about it?

GC 598, 599
The truths most plainly revealed in the Bible have been involved in doubt and darkness by learned men, who, with a pretense of great wisdom, teach that the Scriptures have a mystical, a secret, spiritual meaning not apparent in the language employed. These men are false teachers. It was to such a class that Jesus declared: "Ye know not the Scriptures, neither the power of God." Mark 12:24. The language of the Bible should be explained according to its obvious meaning, unless a symbol or figure is employed. Christ has given the promise: "If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine." John 7:17. If men would but take the Bible as it reads, if there were no false teachers to mislead and confuse their minds, a work would be accomplished that would make angels glad and that would bring into the fold of Christ thousands upon thousands who are now wandering in error. {GC 598.3}

……………………..

MM: Since God portrays Himself as doing the very things He commands or permits it is clear that is how God views it. I agree with God. I do not pretend to be able explain why or how, but I believe what God says about Himself.

TE: You should also believe what He says about Satan. God presents Himself as doing that which He permits because He is gracious and humble. Those who know Him understand His character. What God does can be distinguished from what God allows by knowing His character.

MM: Again, the language of the Bible should be explained according to its obvious meaning, unless a symbol or figure is employed. We give God credit for not allowing evil angels to trouble us. We should also give Him credit when He permits it.

………………………

TE: If God's will were always followed, the world would be at perfect peace; men would live as Christ did.

MM: True. But they don’t, they choose to sin, which creates circumstances that force God to command or permit destruction.

TE: Satan is the author of sin and all its results. He leads men to look upon disease and death as proceeding from God.

MM: There are times when God uses disease to punish sinners. Not all diseases are the result of unrestrained natural causes. For example, God punished Miriam with leprosy. Of course, who can forget the plagues of Egypt? And, God will use disease to punish sinners during the seven last plagues:

Revelation
16:2 And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and [upon] them which worshipped his image.

TV: Historical records show that Roman soldiers hardly needed any external influence to destroy some foreign peoples temple or city. They where doing that for a living all around the empire where they had conquered and meet hard resistance.

MM: True. But does this disapprove what Sister White wrote about it?

GC 32, 33
Titus would willingly have put an end to the fearful scene, and thus have spared Jerusalem the full measure of her doom. He was filled with horror as he saw the bodies of the dead lying in heaps in the valleys. Like one entranced, he looked from the crest of Olivet upon the magnificent temple and gave command that not one stone of it be touched. Before attempting to gain possession of this stronghold, he made an earnest appeal to the Jewish leaders not to force him to defile the sacred place with blood. If they would come forth and fight in any other place, no Roman should violate the sanctity of the temple. Josephus himself, in a most eloquent appeal, entreated them to surrender, to save themselves, their city, and their place of worship. But his words were answered with bitter curses. Darts were hurled at him, their last human mediator, as he stood pleading with them. The Jews had rejected the entreaties of the Son of God, and now expostulation and entreaty only made them more determined to resist to the last. In vain were the efforts of Titus to save the temple; One greater than he had declared that not one stone was to be left upon another. {GC 32.3}

…………………………

MM: The Bible, not the Devil, clearly portrays God doing things He commands or permits. Who are we to question God’s perspective?

TV: And the examples of bible passages where the "doing" changes from one account to the next?

MM: It doesn’t change the fact that God is also portrayed as doing it. The Bible doesn’t contradict itself. In reality, though, God didn’t do it. He either commanded it or permitted it, which is portrayed as God doing it.

……………………………

TV: Gods actions during the flood, somehow providing lots and lots of water... and also keeping a wooden boat from destruction.

MM: So, who do you think caused the Flood? God? Satan? Nature? Why didn't God prevent the Flood?

TV: You playing games with me? What in my above post is unclear? the "provide lots of water" part eh?

MM: No games. Just trying to understand your post. Wanted to make I didn’t assume something you do not believe. Okay, so you believe God caused the Flood, right? You do not believe He gave evil angels permission to cause it, right?

Here's a point that deserves some study:

LDE 242
God will use His enemies as instruments to punish those who have followed their own pernicious ways whereby the truth of God has been misrepresented, misjudged, and dishonored.--PC 136 (1894). {LDE 242.3}

How does what you all have been posting lately answer the question, does the end justify the means?

TV: Historical records show that Roman soldiers hardly needed any external influence to destroy some foreign peoples temple or city. They where doing that for a living all around the empire where they had conquered and meet hard resistance.

MM: True. But does this disapprove what Sister White wrote about it?

GC 32, 33
Titus would willingly have put an end to the fearful scene, and thus have spared Jerusalem the full measure of her doom. He was filled with horror as he saw the bodies of the dead lying in heaps in the valleys. Like one entranced, he looked from the crest of Olivet upon the magnificent temple and gave command that not one stone of it be touched. Before attempting to gain possession of this stronghold, he made an earnest appeal to the Jewish leaders not to force him to defile the sacred place with blood. If they would come forth and fight in any other place, no Roman should violate the sanctity of the temple. Josephus himself, in a most eloquent appeal, entreated them to surrender, to save themselves, their city, and their place of worship. But his words were answered with bitter curses. Darts were hurled at him, their last human mediator, as he stood pleading with them. The Jews had rejected the entreaties of the Son of God, and now expostulation and entreaty only made them more determined to resist to the last. In vain were the efforts of Titus to save the temple; One greater than he had declared that not one stone was to be left upon another. {GC 32.3}

-Not nessessarily any conflicts here. Though I wonder wether Jesus saying that the temple would be destroyed should be considered a declaration against it rather than a prophecy or prediction. i.e., would the temple still have stood there today if Jesus had not made that statement?
…………………………

MM: It doesn’t change the fact that God is also portrayed as doing it. The Bible doesn’t contradict itself. In reality, though, God didn’t do it. He either commanded it or permitted it, which is portrayed as God doing it.

-So is a portrayal to be taken as what acctually happened or as what people thought was acctually happening?
……………………………

MM: No games. Just trying to understand your post. Wanted to make I didn’t assume something you do not believe. Okay, so you believe God caused the Flood, right? You do not believe He gave evil angels permission to cause it, right?

-Evil angles as the loyal servants of God just dont seem right to me. Just imagen the scene,

God sitting in heaven on His throne, declaring, 'Ive had it with those selfish and sinning humans. Lets wash the planet clean of them.' God then looking towards the half of his courtyard where all the evil angels who wherent on any mission at present where gathered, playing their favourite game, lynching the imp. 'Come here' God says to the leader of the deamons. 'I have a plan for you to perform for me. You see, Ive got to cleanse the earth from all of those sinner humans who spend all their time thinking up ways to mock me and destroy each other, and I want you to do it for me. I've got the plans right here...'. The deamon getting an ever widening cruel smile while the extent of this sceme unfolds before his eyes.
After fully explaining the extent and limitations of the mission, God dismisses the deamon.
The deamon called over to his kin, 'Ey guys, let loose the imp and prepear for a party. We've got us some humans to drown, yeeah.'

Now what is wrong with this picture? Any guesses?

DF: How does what you all have been posting lately answer the question, does the end justify the means?

MM: The way I see it, circumstances force God to cause, command, or commission destruction. It is the lesser of two evils. So, yes, in this specific case, the end does justify the means.

TV: Not nessessarily any conflicts here. Though I wonder wether Jesus saying that the temple would be destroyed should be considered a declaration against it rather than a prophecy or prediction. i.e., would the temple still have stood there today if Jesus had not made that statement?

MM: Two points. First, the Romans were not anxious to destroy the Jews or the Temple. They tried hard to avert it. Secondly, the destruction Jesus predicted was based on His perfect foreknowledge. It was His will and desire that they embrace Him. But their rejection forced God to withdraw His protection, and Satan was permitted to influence the Jews in a way that led to their destruction at the hands of the Romans. Of course Satan influenced the Romans as well. But all within the limits ordained by God.

GC 35
Their sufferings are often represented as a punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God. It is thus that the great deceiver seeks to conceal his own work. By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them, and Satan was permitted to rule them according to his will.

Just in case the quote above leads us to believe God has never “decreed” destruction, here are several other places where Sister White plainly describes God decreeing destruction. The difference between the following quotes and the one posted above is the absence of the word “direct”. Satan tries to make it sound like God decrees destruction without just cause, as though He is a capricious tyrant. But the truth is quite the opposite. God does not decree destruction until all other means and measures have been exhausted. God decrees destruction as last resort. He is slow to wrath.

PK 286
For a season these predicted judgments were stayed, and during the long reign of Jeroboam II the armies of Israel gained signal victories; but this time of apparent prosperity wrought no change in the hearts of the impenitent, and it was finally decreed, "Jeroboam shall die by the sword, and Israel shall surely be led away captive out of their own land." Amos 7:11. {PK 286.2}

PK 451
To the "profane wicked prince" had come the day of final reckoning. "Remove the diadem," the Lord decreed, "and take off the crown." Not until Christ Himself should set up His kingdom was Judah again to be permitted to have a king. "I will overturn, overturn, overturn, it," was the divine edict concerning the throne of the house of David; "and it shall be no more, until He come whose right it is; and I will give it Him." Ezekiel 21:25-27. {PK 451.2}

4T 153
He also decreed that, as a punishment for their rebellion, all the adults who left Egypt, with the exception of Caleb and Joshua, should be forever excluded from Canaan. … And the ten unfaithful spies, whose evil report had caused Israel to murmur and rebel, were destroyed by the power of God before the eyes of the people. {4T 152.3}

2BC 1010
We have seen the result of Eli's mistaken kindness,--death to the indulgent father, ruin and death to his wicked sons, and destruction to thousands in Israel. The Lord Himself decreed that for the sins of Eli's sons no atonement should be made by sacrifice or offering forever. How great, how lamentable, was their fall,--men upon whom rested sacred responsibilities, proscribed, outlawed from mercy, by a just and holy God! {2BC 1010.1}

MB 136
That which we do to others, whether it be good or evil, will surely react upon ourselves, in blessing or in cursing. … And evil imparted also returns again. … It is the love of God toward us that has decreed this. He would lead us to abhor our own hardness of heart and to open our hearts to let Jesus abide in them. And thus, out of evil, good is brought, and what appeared a curse becomes a blessing. {MB 136.3}

…………………..

MM: It doesn’t change the fact that God is also portrayed as doing it. The Bible doesn’t contradict itself. In reality, though, God didn’t do it. He either commanded it or permitted it, which is portrayed as God doing it.

TV: So is a portrayal to be taken as what acctually happened or as what people thought was acctually happening?

MM: It is God who inspired the authors of the Bible to portray Him as the One doing the things He commanded or permitted. It is actually how God perceives it, and how He wants us to see it. Here is another example:

PK 285, 286
"Behold, the eyes of the Lord God are upon the sinful kingdom, and I will destroy it from off the face of the earth; saying that I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob, saith the Lord. For, lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all nations, like as corn is sifted in a sieve, yet shall not the least gain fall upon the earth. All the sinners of My people shall die by the sword, which say, The evil shall not overtake nor prevent us." {PK 285.4}

"The houses of ivory shall perish, and the great houses shall have an end, saith the Lord." "The Lord God of hosts is He that toucheth the land, and it shall melt, and all that dwell therein shall mourn." "Thy sons and thy daughters shall fall by the sword, and thy land shall be divided by line; and thou shalt die in a polluted land: and Israel shall surely go into captivity forth of his land." "Because I will do this unto thee, prepare to meet thy God, O Israel." Amos 9:8-10; 3:15; 9:5; 7:17; 4:12. {PK 286.1}

……………………

MM: Okay, so you believe God caused the Flood, right? You do not believe He gave evil angels permission to cause it, right?

TV: Evil angles as the loyal servants of God just dont seem right to me. Just imagen the scene …

MM: I agree with you. God did not commission the evil angels to destroy the antediluvians with the Flood. Instead, He commanded the holy angels to do it. Right?

MM: It doesn’t change the fact that God is also portrayed as doing it. The Bible doesn’t contradict itself. In reality, though, God didn’t do it. He either commanded it or permitted it, which is portrayed as God doing it.

TV: So is a portrayal to be taken as what acctually happened or as what people thought was acctually happening?

MM: It is God who inspired the authors of the Bible to portray Him as the One doing the things He commanded or permitted. It is actually how God perceives it, and how He wants us to see it. Here is another example:

-God inspired authors, authors wrote down and the texts inspiration corresponds with the authors ability to put down their inspiration on paper, something that sure can be easier said than done.
That example acctually shows a situation where God would have failed to accomplish His designs if that passage was an in context quote from His own lips. Israel is not destroyed from the face of the earth, neither as a nation nor as a people (neither has it ever been destroyed as a people from the day of Jacob and till today). There are lots of alive sinners in Israel today, whatever definition of it you would use.

PK 285, 286
"Behold, the eyes of the Lord God are upon the sinful kingdom, and I will destroy it from off the face of the earth; saying that I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob, saith the Lord. For, lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all nations, like as corn is sifted in a sieve, yet shall not the least gain fall upon the earth. All the sinners of My people shall die by the sword, which say, The evil shall not overtake nor prevent us." {PK 285.4}

"The houses of ivory shall perish, and the great houses shall have an end, saith the Lord." "The Lord God of hosts is He that toucheth the land, and it shall melt, and all that dwell therein shall mourn." "Thy sons and thy daughters shall fall by the sword, and thy land shall be divided by line; and thou shalt die in a polluted land: and Israel shall surely go into captivity forth of his land." "Because I will do this unto thee, prepare to meet thy God, O Israel." Amos 9:8-10; 3:15; 9:5; 7:17; 4:12. {PK 286.1}

……………………

MM: Okay, so you believe God caused the Flood, right? You do not believe He gave evil angels permission to cause it, right?

TV: Evil angles as the loyal servants of God just dont seem right to me. Just imagen the scene …

MM: I agree with you. God did not commission the evil angels to destroy the antediluvians with the Flood. Instead, He commanded the holy angels to do it. Right?

-I do not know if there where any angels involved or not, do you?

MM: Just in case the quote above leads us to believe God has never “decreed” destruction, here are several other places where Sister White plainly describes God decreeing destruction. The difference between the following quotes and the one posted above is the absence of the word “direct”.

Satan tries to make it sound like God decrees destruction without just cause, as though He is a capricious tyrant. But the truth is quite the opposite. God does not decree destruction until all other means and measures have been exhausted. God decrees destruction as last resort. He is slow to wrath.

No comment?

…………………………………

TV: God inspired authors, authors wrote down and the texts inspiration corresponds with the authors ability to put down their inspiration on paper, something that sure can be easier said than done.

MM: If we cannot believe the Bible, what can we believe?

TV: That example acctually shows a situation where God would have failed to accomplish His designs if that passage was an in context quote from His own lips. Israel is not destroyed from the face of the earth, neither as a nation nor as a people (neither has it ever been destroyed as a people from the day of Jacob and till today). There are lots of alive sinners in Israel today, whatever definition of it you would use.

MM: Actually, that’s exactly what God said, in the passage I posted. “… saying that I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob, saith the Lord.” No miscommunication between God and the author. We can trust the Bible.

…………………………….

MM: I agree with you. God did not commission the evil angels to destroy the antediluvians with the Flood. Instead, He commanded the holy angels to do it. Right?

TV: I do not know if there where any angels involved or not, do you?

MM: Now that you mention it, no, I haven’t read anywhere that says God commanded holy angels to cause the Flood. Instead, the inspired records teach that it was God’s “purpose” to cause it to happen. He explained this “purpose” to Enoch.

3SG 54
God communed with Enoch through his angels, and gave him divine instruction. He made known to him that he would not always bear with man in his rebellion -- that his purpose was to destroy the sinful race by bringing a flood of waters upon the earth. {3SG 54.1}

CON 39
He had overcome Adam upon this point, and he had controlled his descendants, and through indulgence of appetite, had led them to provoke God by iniquity until their crimes were so great that the Lord destroyed them from off the earth by the waters of the Flood. {Con 39.2}


PP 98-101
Guided by holy angels, they "went in two and two unto Noah into the ark," and the clean beasts by sevens. {PP 97.3}

Satan himself, who was compelled to remain in the midst of the warring elements, feared for his own existence. {PP 99.3}

Angels that excel in strength were commissioned to preserve [the ark]. {PP 100.1}

"By the word of God . . . the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: but the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men." 2 Peter 3:5-7. Another storm is coming. The earth will again be swept by the desolating wrath of God, and sin and sinners will be destroyed. {PP 101.1}

………………………..

The passage in 2 Peter 3:5-7 makes it clear that not only did God Himself cause the Flood, that is, He did not command holy angels to do it for Him, it also says that God Himself will use fire to destroy sin and sinners in the lake of fire, that is, He will not command holy angels do it for Him.

An interesting phrase to use. It's consistent with the idea that the end justifies the mean. (There's the minor problem of God's doing evil, however).

This is a great question, Thomas.

MM's response seems off the mark, as both common sense and inspiration tell us (accepting EGW as inspired):



Especially of note, "But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible" also, "it is not God's mode of thought and expression."

Men wrote things down as they perceived them, but man does not perceive things as God does (although God is willing to teach us to see things more and more like He does).

LDE 242
God will use His enemies as instruments to punish those who have followed their own pernicious ways whereby the truth of God has been misrepresented, misjudged, and dishonored.--PC 136 (1894). {LDE 242.3}

1SM 21
The divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will; thus the utterances of the man are the word of God." {1SM 21.2}

According to the inspired insight posted above it is clear that God uses His enemies to punish sinners. Does that mean sinners are punishing sinners? I don't think so. Does it mean God gives evil angels permission to influence His enemies to punish sinners? I don't think so. She plainly says that God, and not somebody or something else, uses His enemies to punish sinners.

So, again, does the end justify the means? I believe it does. God can do no wrong. He is righteous and altogether lovely.

MM, the end does not justify the means. Actions are either moral or they aren't. An immoral action does not become moral because it accomplishes something good.

God never does anything evil to accomplish something good. This can be seen in a number of ways. I'll mention two.

First of all, we can see this in Christ's life. Christ always acted with perfect integrity. He never did anything which could be construed as sin, so much so, that even His enemies could bring forth no accusation when He asked them, "Which of you convinceth me of sin?"

We see in His willingness to even be crucified, as well as mocked and tortured preceeding that, that He would in no wise act contrary to the principles of God's government, which is self-sacrificing love.

Secondly, the law is a transcript of God's character. It puts down in written form, in human language, what the means are. These are the means by which God always acts. He does not act contrary to His law in order to bring about some desirable result.

Please recall that the definition of the ends justifying the means is that an immoral act is justified by a moral outcome. When you say, "the ends justifies the means" that's what you are saying, as the phrase is used. I have to clarify "as the phrase is used" because you have your own way of defining things, so it may be that you have some unique idea for what the phrase means, but here is an explanation of the phrase:

If the end justifies the means, why did not Jesus gain the kingdom in the desert temptation by bowing down to satan?

Thomas, can we apply sinning to this principle? I don't think so. In other words, if sinning is the means then it can never justify the end.

But the following insight can only apply to God:

"God will use His enemies as instruments to punish those who have followed their own pernicious ways whereby the truth of God has been misrepresented, misjudged, and dishonored."

In such cases, that is, when God uses His enemies to punish sinners, the means justifies the end. There is nothing immoral about it. For example, when God used the evil angels to influence the Jews and the Romans to kill one another in AD 70 there was nothing immoral about what God did.

If God did such a thing, if...

If?

Oh, that's right, you believe such things are the result of FMAs choosing to be evil, that God chooses not to interfere.

FMAs?

FMA = Free moral agent. (it's an MM invention)

MM, if you argue that the means are not immoral, then your statement that the ends justify the means is pointless. If the means are fine, there is nothing to justify.

In such case Mikes last post is right. An FMA would not be neither free nor moral if in choosing to be evil, God would interfere, neither if God would interfere in the FMA choosing to be good.
Both free and moral require a real, practical option of being good or evil, a real and practical ability to choose to walk to the left, or to the right, or straight forward, or backward, or not at all.

TE: MM, if you argue that the means are not immoral, then your statement that the ends justify the means is pointless. If the means are fine, there is nothing to justify.

MM: It's not any different than any other oxymoron. The Bible refers to God’s “strange act” (Isa. 28:21). What is so “strange” about it? Why call it “strange” if God is the one doing it? Everything God does is holy and righteous, right? So, why call it a “strange act” when He rises up and unleashes His wrath and righteous indignation upon a nation of sinners who reject Jesus and despise His sacrifice?

Indeed, why not call it a “strange act”? Our heavenly Father does not delight in circumstances that force Him to mete out vengeance, to execute judgment upon sinners. But He is forced to do it. Why? To preserve the inhabitants of the earth from utter depravity and ruin. In order to save some God must cut off those who have become hardened in sin.

TV: An FMA would not be neither free nor moral if in choosing to be evil, God would interfere, neither if God would interfere in the FMA choosing to be good.

MM: God does not interfere in the decision making process, but He does interfere, when it serves His purpose, in the outcome of the decision. FMAs (humans and evil angels) are free to think and choose, but the outcome is up to God. They manage the choices, but God manages the consequences.

The stories of Balaam and Cyrus illustrate this insight nicely.

To state this in a way you feel familiar with Mike, Balaam and Cyrus are the exceptions to the rule.

MM, you've kind of gone off an another topic. Getting back to the ends justifying the means, if the means are not immoral, then there is no need for justification. Perhaps what you really meant was not "the ends justify the means" but "the means may appear to be bad, but they really aren't." This seems to be more along the lines of what you really think.

I think you misspoke when you wrote, "The ends justifies the means," as you don't really seem to believe this.

TV: To state this in a way you feel familiar with Mike, Balaam and Cyrus are the exceptions to the rule.

MM: I don't think so, Thomas. God can be very persuasive when it serves His purpose. God can, without violating our freedom to choose, persuade us not to jeopardize or undermine His ultimate will. The following divine injunction or mandate illustrates the point nicely:

Ezekiel
3:17 Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me.
3:18 When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked [man] shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
3:19 Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.
3:20 Again, When a righteous [man] doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
3:21 Nevertheless if thou warn the righteous [man], that the righteous sin not, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; also thou hast delivered thy soul.

Ezekiel’s choices were limited – Do or die. Fortunately for him he chose to obey God. It is interesting, too, that God said, “I lay a stumblingblock before him”, that is, before the backslider. Again, God takes matters into His own hands. He leaves nothing to choice or chance.

TV: To state this in a way you feel familiar with Mike, Balaam and Cyrus are the exceptions to the rule.

MM: I don't think so, Thomas. God can be very persuasive when it serves His purpose. God can, without violating our freedom to choose, persuade us not to jeopardize or undermine His ultimate will. The following divine injunction or mandate illustrates the point nicely:

-Indeed God can be. But if this be the rule rather than the exception to the rule, it would mean that God would be regularily sending genuine messages to fortune tellers and regularily sending heathen kings to save His people from between rocks and hard places.
Hmm, maybe I better check that horoscope just in case...


Ezekiel
3:17 Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me.
3:18 When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked [man] shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
3:19 Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.
3:20 Again, When a righteous [man] doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
3:21 Nevertheless if thou warn the righteous [man], that the righteous sin not, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; also thou hast delivered thy soul.

Ezekiel’s choices were limited – Do or die. Fortunately for him he chose to obey God. It is interesting, too, that God said, “I lay a stumblingblock before him”, that is, before the backslider. Again, God takes matters into His own hands. He leaves nothing to choice or chance.

TV: Hmm, maybe I better check that horoscope just in case...

MM: Is that really what you get out of how God has managed things in the past? Just how much wiggle room do you think God gives sinners? Does He standby idly unconcerned if our actions undermine His goals and purposes? I don't think so. I believe God is proactive. I do not believe He will allow anything or anyone to derail His plans and strategy to win the GC - even if it means empowering rocks to help finish proclaiming the gospel so Jesus return on schedule.

How is this different than the choice of anyone else? Either we follow the principles of life, outlined in God's law (the principles of love), or we follow the principles of sin (the principles of selfishness), which cannot support life, and we die.

It is the example you gave of Balaam. There is reason to believe that Balaam was a kind of fortuneteller who stumbled upon God and recognised Him as a deity he dared not cross but then went happily on without letting this chance meeting with the Creator burden his mind. Gods dealing was with Israel, not with Balaam. Therefore I make the assumption that this is not standard procediure and therefore "an exception to the rule".

We should remember that the root to this particular subthread was from your statement:The point being that Balaam and Cyrus arent good illustrations on this...

MM, God *may* "interfere," but it would certainly be wrong for us to infer anything from the times He doesn't. Job is a good example of this. It is certainly not the case that when God does not interfere that this means the consequences are something God desired, intended or planned. Really, this is simple to see, just by looking at what God actually did in the flesh when He was living here with us!

I find proof in the Bible and the SOP that God is in control of the outcome of our choices. I have not found anything to suggest that God usually remains uninvolved and let's things unfold naturally. Again, I believe He leaves nothing to choice or chance. I believe God works actively and intimately to orchestrate the cause and effect outcome of our choices. He makes sure that nothing we think, say, or do derails or undermines His plans and strategy to win the GC. God knows the end from the beginning, and things end favorably because He does not sit back and let the scroll unfold helter-skelter.

I realize you two, Tom and Thomas, disagree with this view of God's sovereignty.

• 2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

With this in view, it proposes that "all" will be "saved". I do not mind that, except that in your scenario God leaves nothing to choice, meaning there is/was no sin, hence no one to save.

According to your view, this is all just a phase of God's game.

John is right. If God leaves nothing to choice, there is no sin.

Your view that evil angels do not commit evil when they do what God permits them to do is consistent with your idea that God leaves nothing to choice. But this idea does not present God in a flattering way, nor in a way which is consistent with what we see in Jesus Christ.

Let's take a simple case. Let's say that a child is abused by its parent. All of us would agree that God can take even this most tragic of circumstances and is able to work something good out of it, but what about the actual act itself? Did God desire, intend, or plan that the child be abused? Say an evil angel led the parent to abuse the child, by introducing thoughts into the parent's head, by way of drugs or porn or whatever. Given that evil angels are not committing evil when they do things which God permits, then they are not doing evil by tempting the parent to abuse its child. So, by your theory, the temptation is not evil.

What is it then? Is it good? Is it something planned, intended, or desired by God? What of the act of abuse itself? Is that planned, intended, or desired by God?

If angels do not do evil when they do things permitted by God, what about men? Logically if evil angels are innocent of doing evil when they do things which God permits, then evil men are also innocent of doing evil when they do things God permits.

JB: According to your view, this is all just a phase of God's game.

MM: John, please define what you think I meant in the context of what I wrote - "Again, I believe He leaves nothing to choice or chance." Thank you.

Tom, are you willing to make the same argument against holy angels when God commands them to cause death and destruction? Sister White wrote that holy angels and evil angels exercise the “same” destructive power when God ordains it.

Your question doesn't make sense to me. That same argument as what?

The topic of this thread is whether the end justifies the means. I do not believe that it does. I do not believe holy angels ever do anything which is immoral (i.e. contrary to God's law), nor do I believe that God commands them to do anything which is either contrary to His law or to His own character as revealed in Jesus Christ.

Well now, according to all that you have written on this thread and other lately; we are all waiting for you to define/explain yourself.

The points in question:

Is God running a "program" for sin and its progression; or is God aware of the nature of sin and its course and hence wanting to save us from it?

Is everybody doing what God wants accomplished; or is there a war and there are two sides; a conflict?

Or it may be simpler to think on a personal basis.

Simply put:

Is your salvation affected by your choice, or God leaves nothing to your choice.

The issue of the great Controversy is after all a personal matter. You are one part of it, and God deals with each one of us individually.

What happens to one; happens to all.

The point in regards to this topic of "Does the end justify the means?" is simply, that if it is all a "program", then there is no issue of either the end or the means.

But if there is a genuine controversy, as I know there is; then the answer to the controversy demands its own validity.

• I do not believe that the answer stands in who has the biggest muscles.
  
  I do not believe that the answer stands in who knows the most or all.
  
  I do not believe that the answer stands in who knows the future best.
  
  I do not believe the answer stands in whose program will succeed.

If it these were the issues then the end would justify the means.

The controversy is not over any of these issues. It is a of a different nature. The controversy is of the same nature as that of salvation. The answer is of the same nature as that of salvation.

I sort of believe in the last one. It depends upon how you think of it. The program doesn't succeed because arbitrary means are used to make it so, but the program is one of love, mercy, and truth. It succeeds because these principles, by which God governs, really are the principles of life, happiness and peace.

I don't know what you understand a program to mean. The following is from a dictionary.

1. a plan of action to accomplish a specified end:
2. a plan or schedule of activities, procedures, etc., to be followed.

The point of a program is in its programmed activity. Programs, by their very nature have a lack of genuineness; an element of performance.

Love, mercy, and truth cannot be classed into a program, as neither can spirit. (as I uderstand program, and as I understand people to commonly use it)

Love, mercy and truth do not answer the controversy, because of a program set forth, but because the nature of Love, mercy and truth, is life and peace; while hate, wrath and lies work destruction and death.

The answer of the controversy is thus in the very nature of that which is at odds, rather than in any presentation of the same.

I was thinking of the "program" as "the plan of salvation."

I was pretty sure you had something else in mind, which is why I wrote, "It depends on how you think of it."

I agree completely with the idea that God did not do anything special, in terms of organizing an activity, or doing anything arbitrary; rather, He simply put forth a plan to make evident the true principles involved on both sides of the controversy.

JB: According to your view, this is all just a phase of God's game.

MM: Sister White refers to it as the “game of life”. She says, “All are engaged in playing the game of life.” (2T 36)



The great controversy, the plan of salvation, the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus, the investigative judgment, the MOB crisis, the seven last plagues, the first and second resurrections, the lake of fire, the new earth – these are all “phases” of the “game of life”.

And God is leaving none of it to choice or chance. By “choice” I mean He will not allow our choices to derail His strategy to ensure each phase of the “game” plays out according to His master plan. And by “chance” I mean God will not sit back and let nature take its course. He is micro-managing every detail.

God allowed choice to derail His original plan, which was that sin would never occur.

Tom, yes I understand.

In view of MM's position we need to be clear.

That which is called the plan of Salvation, has to do with God's work of saving us from sin; rather than a program or plan for the progress and process of sin.

But is not the "plan of Salvation" largely misunderstood?

Hence this topic!

MM you did not respond to this:

Yes, of course, the plan of salvation is largely misunderstood. It is not seen at a plan to save us from sin, but as something else.

I understand your use of the word "program," as in so many man-made ideas to get this or that done. God's "program" is not one of mindless activity, but one of revelation, or to use your language, one of education, to teach us to see through His eyes.

I'm still thinking about the conscience idea. Instead of saying "I don't have a slate; I have a conscience" another way of putting it is that our conscience is the slate that gets wiped clean.

Everything important that happens, happens in the mind (not in books).

That would miss the point. You see, wiping the slate has an inanimate aspect. The slate is no better before or after; it can only be used by others for their purposes.

If God were to wipe my conscience, I would be an imbecile. The cleansing of the conscience is unlike the wiping of a slate.

The cleansing of the conscience is a work of enlightenment, dispelling the darkness. It is the changing from glory to glory.

Heb 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

I responded on the other thread where you posted this. I wasn't thinking in the terms you are regarding the empty slate. You're ight that one could look at it that way, as an inatimate object being cleansed by an arbitrary mechanism. I also agree with you that conceiving of things as a legal process leads to this way of thinking.

TE: God allowed choice to derail His original plan, which was that sin would never occur.

MM: I disagree.

AG 129
But the defection of man, with all its consequences, was not hidden from the Omnipotent, and yet it did not deter Him from carrying out His eternal purpose; for the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness. {AG 129.2}

TE: God allowed choice to derail His original plan, which was that sin would never occur.

MM: I disagree.

So you believe that it was God's original plan that sin should occur? I guess you don't see there being a problem of having the existence of sin being something which God desires?

No, Tom, what I disagreed with was the idea that "God allowed choice to derail His original plan." So far as we know the following insight deals with God's only plan. Nowhere does it say in the Bible or the SOP that sin derailed God's original plan, and that what is happening now is plan B.

AG 129
But the defection of man, with all its consequences, was not hidden from the Omnipotent, and yet it did not deter Him from carrying out His eternal purpose; for the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness. {AG 129.2}

I stated that God allowed choice to derail His original plan. You disagreed. This means that choice did not derail His original plan, which means that His original plan was not derailed, which means that sin was His original plan.

This is straightforward logic, MM. You can't logically agree with both my original statement and its negation.

Tom, please show me where it says what God foresaw did not involve the fall and death of FMAs.

The following quote says God knew man would sin but that it did not deter Him carrying out His "eternal" purpose. You cannot get more "original" than eternal.

AG 129
But the defection of man, with all its consequences, was not hidden from the Omnipotent, and yet it did not deter Him from carrying out His eternal purpose; for the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness. {AG 129.2}

No, Tom, God did not want us to sin. He did not create us to sin. He designed us to be holy and righteous, just like Jesus. He only had two options, 1) to create us and deal with the sin problem, or 2) not to create us and not have to deal with the sin problem. The same logic applies to the angels.

Obviously He chose to create us. Why? Because "the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness." That's why! That's the only reason we are given as to why God chose to create us in spite of the fact He knew we would sin and that some of us would reject Jesus and despise His sacrifice and die in the lake of fire.

Again, I ask, does the end justify the means? In other words, God is going to lose a majority to save a minority, so, does the end justify the means? Or, would it have been better if God had chosen not to create us in the first place? It would have saved Him losing the majority, right?

Or create us and we wouldnt have sinned? Was that ever a possibility?

Tom, please show me where it says what God foresaw did not involve the fall and death of FMAs.

Why would I do that? That's the opposite of what I've been saying. That would be like me asking you to show me where it says that the future is not like a T.V. rerun.

The following quote says God knew man would sin but that it did not deter Him carrying out His "eternal" purpose. You cannot get more "original" than eternal.

AG 129
But the defection of man, with all its consequences, was not hidden from the Omnipotent, and yet it did not deter Him from carrying out His eternal purpose; for the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness. {AG 129.2}

No, Tom, God did not want us to sin. He did not create us to sin. He designed us to be holy and righteous, just like Jesus. He only had two options, 1) to create us and deal with the sin problem, or 2) not to create us and not have to deal with the sin problem. The same logic applies to the angels.

Your logic is wrong here. It assumes that God could only create man in such a way that he would sin. That is, you're leaving out a third possibility: 3) to create us, and not have to deal with the sin problem (in human beings; there still would have been a sin problem to deal with) because we chose not to sin, as God intended.

Obviously He chose to create us. Why? Because "the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness." That's why! That's the only reason we are given as to why God chose to create us in spite of the fact He knew we would sin and that some of us would reject Jesus and despise His sacrifice and die in the lake of fire.

You have a habit overstating things, which leads to your having to backtrack. Here you are stating that "that's the only reason we are given" when you should state instead, "that's the only reason I've come accross."

God did not create us with the intention that we should sin, as you seem to be suggesting. You are stating that there were only two possibilities: 1)God could not create us 2)God would create us, and we would sin. You are further reasoning that God created us anyway because He would establish His throne in righteousness, making it sound as if it was part of God's plan that we should sin, so that He could establish His throne in righteousness. I think I'll stop here to see if you agree with this.

Again, I ask, does the end justify the means?

This would imply that the means are immoral, and need justifying. Again, I answer, "no." The end does not justify the means. I like (I think it was JB? who put it this way) the idea that the means are validated by the end. But the phrase "the end justifies the means" implies there is something faulty with the means, which is justified by the end result.

In other words, God is going to lose a majority to save a minority, so, does the end justify the means?

This is taking a myopic view of things. God created millions of worlds who did not sin. The vast majority of creation will not be lost. We're just a tiny speck. God safeguarded the universe, even though a tiny minority will be lost.

Or, would it have been better if God had chosen not to create us in the first place? It would have saved Him losing the majority, right?

No. God created millions of worlds, and any of these millions of worlds could have sinned. He would have had to refrain not just from creating us, but these millions of worlds as well, and refrained from creating the angels as well. As soon as God created sentient beings with the ability to love and be loved, the possibility for sin existed. You can't have the one without the other. (I'm speaking of the possibility of sin here; it was by no means necessary that this possibility be realized, but God foresaw the possibility, and was ready for it)

MM, you did not respond to this question yet. Would you please?

It is simpler to think on a personal basis.

Simply put:

Is your salvation affected by your choice, or God leaves nothing to your choice.

The issue of the great Controversy is after all a personal matter. You are one part of it, and God deals with each one of us individually.

TV: Or create us and we wouldnt have sinned? Was that ever a possibility?

MM: Obviously not. Otherwise, that's how God would have done it.

AG 129
But the defection of man, with all its consequences, was not hidden from the Omnipotent, and yet it did not deter Him from carrying out His eternal purpose; for the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness. God knows the end from the beginning. {AG 129.2}

TE: I'm speaking of the possibility of sin here; it was by no means necessary that this possibility be realized, but God foresaw the possibility, and was ready for it.

MM: That's not how Sister White put it. She said God knew FMAs would choose to sin - not that He knew it was a possibility.

JB: Is your salvation affected by your choice, or God leaves nothing to your choice. The issue of the great Controversy is after all a personal matter. You are one part of it, and God deals with each one of us individually.

MM: "Is your salvation affected by your choice ..." Yes. I must choose to serve Jesus. The choice to be lost is made by default.

"You are one part of it ..." Yes, but a very small part of it. Whether I choose to serve Jesus or not will not change the outcome of the GC. God will win the GC with or without me.

This is what misses the mark!

The winning of the GC is in your heart and mine. It is the eternal life that he offers to save us from the power of sin and death.

God does not have a political agenda to establish some sort of utopia, while millions of sacrifices fall by the wayside as he tramples them on the way.

Rather, he feels keenly for each soul, and there is great joy for one sinner that repents.

The default is to be saved. One must fight to be lost.



Not only must one choose to be lost, but it is a difficult thing to do:



Notice the part that says, "God's love has made it hard for the heedless and headstrong to destroy themselves." This means that God's love has made it hard to be lost.

Thank the Lord for the good news of the Gospel! The gospel is not that it is hard to be saved, and by default that we are lost, as if God were making it hard for us to get to heaven. God is working hard not to keep us out, but to get us in! His love makes it hard for us to destroy ourselves. (I like how she puts this as well. Hard for us to destroy ourselves, as opposed to, "hard for us to avoid His killing us because we don't obey His rules.")

Not only is the good news that God has made it hard for us to destroy ourselves; it is even better than that!



God will not only justify us, if we don't resist His drawing, but He will perfect us as well. The Good News is good!

TV: Or create us and we wouldnt have sinned? Was that ever a possibility?

MM: Obviously not. Otherwise, that's how God would have done it.

This comment brings out the problems in your philosophy. First of all, this idea is directly contrary to inspiration. Secondly, it speaks very badly of God. Thirdly, it misstates things. I'll take things in reverse order.

It misstates things because it puts things as if whether or not man would sin was something controlled by God. It puts God in a bad light, because it makes Him, rather than Satan (and man) responsible for man's sin. Thirdly it directly contradicts inspiration because inspiration tells us that the entrance of sin is a mystery for which no explanation can be given. Clearly "Otherwise, that's not how God would have done it." is providing an explanation (i.e., God created things in such a way that man would sin) where we are told none should be given. (to explain the entrance of sin is to excuse it).

TE: I'm speaking of the possibility of sin here; it was by no means necessary that this possibility be realized, but God foresaw the possibility, and was ready for it.

MM: That's not how Sister White put it. She said God knew FMAs would choose to sin - not that He knew it was a possibility.

No, that's not what she said. She said this:

AG 129
But the defection of man, with all its consequences, was not hidden from the Omnipotent, and yet it did not deter Him from carrying out His eternal purpose; for the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness. {AG 129.2}

You are interpreting this to mean what you think it means, but you are not taking into account other things which she wrote on the subject. She suggests that we (just like when we study Scripture) take into account all her writings on a subject, not just take one thing. For example, she wrote the following:



This makes it crystal clear that EGW did not view the future as you do, as being like a T.V. rerun (T.V. reruns have no risk!).

In the Story of Redemption we are told, " It was not the will of God that this sinless pair should have any knowledge of evil." (p. 34). This means it was not God's will that man would eat of the forbidden tree. According to you, if God had not wanted man to sin, "that's how God would have done it."

There's nothing wrong with how God did things! Sin arose not because of God's desire that man should sin, but in spite of His desire that man sin. To suggest that man sinned because of God is to blight His character. God is not willing that any should perish.



Here we see that God mad with Jesus three times. What was the purpose of this meeting?



Obviously if God always knew man was going to sin at this precise moment, and knew what He would do (send His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss), there could not have been any struggle. Everything about the account of man's fall makes it clear that it was a real emergency that had to be met. God had foreseen the possibility of man's fall, but it was not an inevitable event, as everything about the account indicates.

Therefore your interpretation of AG 129.2 must be rejected, as it does not fit with the rest of the evidence.

JB: Rather, he feels keenly for each soul, and there is great joy for one sinner that repents.

MM: I agree

………………………….

TE: Not only must one choose to be lost, but it is a difficult thing to do:

MM: To be saved we must make a conscious choice. It does not require a conscious choice to be lost. We are born lost, not saved. That’s we must choose to be born again.

TE: Not only must one choose to be lost, but it is a difficult thing to do:

MM: To be saved we must make a conscious choice. It does not require a conscious choice to be lost. We are born lost, not saved. That’s we must choose to be born again.

You're not taking into account the quotes I provided. The first one said that unless the sinner resists, he will be saved. The second won said that God will make us like Jesus unless we interpose a perverse will. Both resisting and interposing a perverse will are conscious choices.

The first statement also said that God's love has made it hard to be lost. "Hard" = "difficult".

Tom, not only do all the quotes I posted teach it, so does experience. It is a lot easier to backslide than it is to climb uphill. Yes, God provides us tools to obey Him and to be like Jesus, which is what makes it possible for us to do the impossible. But it is a "battle and a march". Full joy and peace, though. I love a good fight, especially when I am more than a conqueror in Jesus.

Tom, not only do all the quotes I posted teach it, so does experience. It is a lot easier to backslide than it is to climb uphill.

Do you think the quotes your posted teach the opposite of the quotes I posted? "Do not therefore conclude that the upward path is the hard and the downward road the easy way." is pretty clear, isn't it? "God's love has made it hard for the heedless and headstrong to destroy themselves." This is true, isn't it?

The words of Jesus, "My yoke is easy, my burden is light" should be considered as well.

My experience must be different than yours, because my experience lines up with what Jesus said and what the Spirit of Prophecy say. It's easier to walk with God and to fight against Him. As Jesus said to Paul, "It's hard to kick against the pricks."