The Wrath of God,The Wrath of Satan, the The Wrath of Man

from plagues, page 58 post 116341
http://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=116351&page=58

so the key to how you see this is the "wrath of God", what that looks like.

Well said Mountain Man -

in Christ,

Bob

I don't understand your comment. Please elaborate. Thank you.

What I'm saying is the Bible and the SOP describe several things that will happen during the outpouring of the plagues. The following passage articulates two of these things that will result in the fall of the wicked toward the end of out pouring of the plagues:

“[1] In the mad strife of their own fierce passions, and [2] by the awful outpouring of God's unmingled wrath, fall the wicked inhabitants of the earth--priests, rulers, and people, rich and poor, high and low.”

Of course, many of the wicked will have already died of other causes by the time this scene plays out.

Teresa commented:



You appear to see the "wrath of God" as meaning something God does to people. Another way of looking at the "wrath of God" is as something God permits to happen to people.

The same thing applies to "strange act." You see God's "strange act" as something God does to people, as opposed to something God allows to happen.

This gets back to our difference in paradigm. As I look to Christ, I can't see that He ever acted in this way. Given all we can know of God was revealed by Christ, I don't see how we can think that God will do these things; that is, it would be out of character, given Christ's character.

There are many examples in Scripture where God's wrath is seen to be that which He permits. For example:



God's anger is equated with His hiding His face, the result of which are many evils and troubles befalling.

I believe this is a description of how God's wrath works. It's not an isolated event where God was angry, and decided He would exhibit His anger this way this one time, but in other occasions He would do it by zapping people. Rather, this is the way His wrath works.

is Gods wrath the same as when we get angy and start swinging?

is Gods wrath like satanic wrath?

Indeed that is serious stuff. But we are blessed by the fact that God warns us ahead of time not to jump into the ditch and suffer those results.

He also gives us a message to give to others that they too do not need to suffer that horrible fate and that life is offerred to them at infinite cost to heaven.

in Christ,

Bob

yes! tho, im sure we dont see it exactly the same.

Have you gotten the five different ways I believe the wrath of God results in death and destruction?

Actually, the two ways you mentioned above are two out of the five ways death and destruction happen.

here is one example of "Gods wrath":

The sins of the world were upon him. He was suffering in man's stead, as a transgressor of his Father's law. Here was the scene of temptation. The divine light of God was receding from his vision, and he was passing into the hands of the powers of darkness. In the agony of his soul he lay prostrate on the cold earth. He was realizing his Father's frown. The cup of suffering Christ had taken from the lips of guilty man, and proposed to drink it himself, and, in its place, give to man the cup of blessing. The wrath that would have fallen upon man, was now falling upon Christ. {ST, August 14, 1879 par. 3}

The suffering Son of God leaves his disciples, for the power of darkness rushes upon him with an irresistible force which bows him to the earth. He prays as before, and pours out the burden of his soul with stronger crying and tears. His soul was pressed with such agony as no human being could endure and live. The sins of the world were upon him. He felt that he was separated from his Father's love; for upon him rested the curse because of sin. Christ knew that it would be difficult for man to feel the grievousness of sin, and that close contact and familiarity with sin would so blunt his moral sensibility, that sin would not appear so dangerous to him, and so exceedingly offensive in the sight of God. ... {ST, August 14, 1879 par. 5}

Again the powers of darkness press upon him with renewed force, bowing him to the earth. He leaves his disciples with a determination to conquer the prince of darkness, that man may not be held in chains of hopeless despair. ...The divine sufferer shuddered with amazement at this mysterious and terrible conflict. {ST, August 14, 1879 par. 9}

There was the hiding of the Father's face from his dear Son. Humanity staggered and trembled in that trying hour. It was anguish of soul beyond the endurance of finite nature. It was woe condensed that brought from the trembling lips of the noble sufferer these words: "Now is my soul troubled." "O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt." ...{ST, August 14, 1879 par. 12}

The glorious Redeemer of a lost world was suffering the penalty of man's transgression of the Father's law. He was about to ransom his people with his own blood. He was paying the just claims of God's holy law. This was the means through which an end was to be finally made of sin and Satan, and his vile host to be vanquished. {ST, August 21, 1879 par. 15}

Oh, was there ever suffering and sorrow like that endured by the dying Saviour! It was the sense of his Father's displeasure which made his cup so bitter. It was not bodily suffering which so quickly ended the life of Christ upon the cross. It was the crushing weight of the sins of the world, and a sense of his Father's wrath that broke his heart. The Father's glory and sustaining presence had left him, and despair pressed its crushing weight of darkness upon him, and forced from his pale and quivering lips the anguished cry: "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" {ST, August 21, 1879 par. 16}

He is dying! His Father's approving smile is removed, and angels are not permitted to lighten the gloom of the terrible hour. They could only behold in amazement their loved Commander suffering the penalty of man's transgression of the Father's law. {ST, August 21, 1879 par. 17}

The displeasure of the Father for sin, and its penalty which was death, were all that he could realize through this amazing darkness. He was tempted to fear that sin was so offensive in the sight of his Father that he could not be reconciled to his Son. The fierce temptation that his own Father had forever left him, caused that piercing cry from the cross, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" {ST, August 21, 1879 par. 18}

Christ felt much as sinners will feel when the vials of God's wrath shall be poured out upon them. Black despair like a pall of death will gather about their guilty souls, and then they will realize to the fullest extent the sinfulness of sin. Salvation has been purchased for them by the suffering and death of the Son of God. It might be theirs if they would accept of it willingly, gladly; but none are compelled to yield obedience to the law of God. If they refuse the heavenly benefit, if they choose the pleasures and deceitfulness of sin, they can have their choice, and at the end receive their wages, which is the wrath of God and eternal death. They will be forever, separated from the presence of Jesus, whose sacrifice they had despised. They will have lost a life of happiness, and sacrificed eternal glory, for the pleasures of sin for a season. {ST, August 28, 1879 par. 1}


...think that Christ suffered only a small portion of the penalty of the law of God, and that while the wrath of God was felt by his dear Son,...Christ's keenest anguish was a sense of his Father's displeasure. His mental agony because of this was of such intensity that man can have but faint conception of it. {ST, August 28, 1879 par. 10}

The sins of the world were upon him, and also the sense of his Father's wrath as he suffered the penalty of the law. It was these that crushed his divine soul. It was the hiding of his Father's face, a sense that his own dear Father had forsaken him, which brought despair. The separation that sin makes between God and man was fully realized and keenly felt by the innocent, suffering Man of Calvary. He was oppressed by the powers of darkness. He had not one ray of light to brighten the future. And he was struggling with the power of Satan, who was declaring that Christ was in his hands, and that he was superior in strength to the Son of God, that God had disowned his Son, and that he was no longer in the favor of God any more than himself. If he was indeed still in favor with God, why need he die? God could save him from death. {ST, August 28, 1879 par. 12}

I was shown that the judgments of God would not
come directly out from the Lord upon them, but in this
way: They place themselves beyond His protection.
He warns, corrects, reproves, and points out the only
path of safety; then, if those who have been the objects
of His special care will follow their own course, independent
of the Spirit of God, after repeated warnings,
if they choose their own way, then He does not
commission His angels to prevent Satan's decided
attacks upon them.
It is Satan's power that is at work at sea and on
land, bringing calamity and distress and sweeping off
multitudes to make sure of his prey.-- {14 MR 3}

Whoa! An offended God. Looks like Jesus was begging, pleading, opposing God to withhold His wrath. Now He has stepped aside. Let the killings begin.

Wait! You mean the restraint wasn't upon God?

Wow! Let's see.... The restraint was upon the people... The restraint was removed... Satan gets the control of man. Would that mean that mediating between man and God somehow puts a restraint upon man which keeps Satan from having full control?

Jesus leaves, restraint removed, Satan gets full control of man..... What should we conclude is the wrath of God?

Teresaq, yes, thanking for posting those quotes. Are you leaning toward the idea that the "withdraw and permit" principle accounts for all the places in the Bible and the SOP where God is credited with causing death and destruction? If so, do you see the following insight agreeing with this model:

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

The wrath of God is manifested in five different ways:

1. God personally causes death and destruction
2. God permits the forces of nature to cause death and destruction
3. God commands holy angels to cause death and destruction
4. God permits evil angels to cause death and destruction
5. God permits evil men to cause death and destruction

MM, you continually quote the same GC 614 quote without any context. If you look at what it says both immediately before and immediately after, you can see that it supports the point that kland has been making, in regards to God's withdrawing His protection.

Regarding your following post, I agree with your list, except item #1. Often in Scripture, God is presented as doing that which He permits. How do you decide if God is taking direct action or not? It appears to me that your logic is to simply assume God is taking direct action, unless there's some inspired statement somewhere else which says He didn't. Is this correct?

i just came across this. i think it is a good example of the "wrath of man".
Moses set about his work by trying to obtain the favor of his people by redressing their wrongs. He killed an Egyptian who was ill-treating an Israelite. In this he manifested the spirit of him who was a murderer from the beginning, and proved himself unfit to represent the God of mercy, love, and tenderness. He made a miserable failure of his first attempt. Like many another, he immediately lost confidence in God and turned, his back on his appointed work. He fled from the wrath of Pharaoh. He concluded that because of his mistake, his sin in taking the life of the Egyptian, God would not permit him to have any part in the work of delivering His people from their cruel bondage. But the Lord permitted him to make this mistake in order that He might be able to teach him the gentleness, goodness, longsuffering, that is necessary for every worker for the Lord to possess. {ST, July 12, 1905 par. 3}
A knowledge of the attributes of God's character can not be obtained by means of the highest education in the most scientific schools. From the great Teacher alone is this knowledge obtained. Only in the school of Christ are taught effectively the lessons of meekness, lowliness, and reverence for sacred things. {ST, July 12, 1905 par. 4}

Except in the end plagues.


MM, who killed Saul?

Good point, Teresa. Moses was doing just what MM says he did later. Why didn't God work with him then? Was it because there was no, "Simon says to kill the Egyptian"? Or is it because that was not God's character?

I agree. In particular it describes 3 and 4.

1. God personally causes death and destruction
2. God permits the forces of nature to cause death and destruction
3. God commands holy angels to cause death and destruction
4. God permits evil angels to cause death and destruction
5. God permits evil men to cause death and destruction


Actually, it doesn't matter if God causes or commands or permits death and destruction - the results are the same, namely, death and destruction. An example of God Himself causing something to happen, as opposed to commanding or permitting it, is when He turned dust into lice. Only God can create lice out of dirt. He cannot command or permit it.

Exodus
8:16 And the LORD said unto Moses, Say unto Aaron, Stretch out thy rod, and smite the dust of the land, that it may become lice throughout all the land of Egypt.
8:17 And they did so; for Aaron stretched out his hand with his rod, and smote the dust of the earth, and it became lice in man, and in beast; all the dust of the land became lice throughout all the land of Egypt.

What kind of wrath is demonstrated in the following passage:

Exodus
15:35 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
15:36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

Saul.

were getting back to going to whatever will prove ones point whether it fits with the topic or not. in other words its more about proving ones viewpoint than it is about searching the scriptures/sop.

i just happened to come across the last quote i posted. it isnt meant to prove any point, but to get us to think and pray and restudy, to become an empty vessel that God can fill. you can read the context if you wish.

i respect that for you it does fit with the topic, but the topic is what has God Himself done, what has satan himself done, what do we do.

Teresaq, the title of this thread is - The Wrath of God, The Wrath of Satan, the The Wrath of Man. This title assumes there are three types of wrath. The following question . . .


. . . is asking, Which of the three kinds of wrath named in the title of this thread is demonstrated in Exodus 15:35-36? You wrote, "The topic is what has God Himself done, what has satan himself done, what do we do." The passage quoted above describes something that was done. My question is - Who did what and why?


This is an unkind and unwarranted condemnation. Who made you judge? Please keep such caustic comments to yourself. Stick to the topic. Thank you.

i also wrote this.

but im not sure why you are correcting me since im the one who started the topic and know what i intended.

what did God Himself do?

what did satan himself do?

what does man himself do?

if you would like to start a companion topic on your point please feel free.

1. What did God Himself do? He commanded Moses and the COI to stone the blasphemer to death.

2. What did Satan himself do? Tempted the man to blaspheme.

3. What does man himself do? A) Blasphemed God, and B) obeyed God's command to stone the blasphemer to death.

You imported something I wrote and then asked me the following question - "So the key to how you see this is the "wrath of God", what that looks like", so technically speaking my answer is what you're requesting. I was talking about two different things that will happen after probation closes - 1) Holy angels will pour out the plagues, and 2) Evil men will turn upon one another in fits of rage.

In the mad strife of their own fierce passions, and by the awful outpouring of God's unmingled wrath, fall the wicked inhabitants of the earth--priests, rulers, and people, rich and poor, high and low. "And the slain of the Lord shall be at that day from one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth: they shall not be lamented, neither gathered, nor buried." Jeremiah 25:33. {GC 656.3}

oh. ok. well since you have your own intention for this thread, carry on.

Teresaq, I addressed your three questions. See 116843. What more do you want?

perhaps it is a matter of understanding the topic title?

Please explain the topic title. I am very interested in learning more about the wrath of God. I believe getting it right is important. Knowing God is essential to our sanity and salvation.

I have been praying about our communication problem. I really do want to study with you. But it is obvious I'm not very good at it. I manage to cause more trouble than good. Please help me out. What can I do to make studying together rewarding for you? It seems my questions and comments strike you as manipulative and interrogative. I do not mean them in that way. Please believe me.

thank you. i do appreciate that. i also have been in prayer over this.

Amen!

But Holy inspired passages say God killed Saul:

True.

So, if Saul killed himself, why did God say He killed him?

Because God could have intervened in one of countless ways to prevent it. In one way or another God is in control of everything that happens. But God did not intervene when Saul fell on his sword and killed himself. In the case of Elijah, though, when he wanted to die, God intervened. The same can be said of David and others.

when did elijah try to kill himself, or david and any others?

When they wanted to die. Elijah asked God to slay him. "In the desert, in loneliness and discouragement, Elijah had said that he had had enough of life and had prayed that he might die. But the Lord in His mercy had not taken him at his word. {CC 223.2}

saul fell on his sword so where did elijah or anyone else actually try to kill themselves?

for me there is a difference between "wanting to die" and attempting to kill oneself.

that makes it hard for me to see what your point might be.

Okay.

Would you be saying that God failed to protect Saul? Even as to the reason he was in such situation?

Exactly how do you understand Saul died?

Here's what the Bible says:



I understand that to mean that even if Saul had not fallen upon his sword, he would have died. He just took the easy way out, for fear of being abused. The text is not clear as to how injured he was by the arrow, but it is quite probable that had it not been immediately life threatening, he would have died of infection within a few days. This, of course, is assuming he could yet escape from the Philistines.

Who killed Uriah?



So the answer here, technically, is both. David orchestrated Uriah's death. The Ammonites did the actual deed. Had they not finished Uriah, David would have found another way to accomplish his purpose.

The same is true of Saul's case. God arranged for his death. Saul did the actual deed.

The difference here, and this is a huge difference, is one of intent. I do not use these examples to speak of motives. I use them to speak of definitions on responsibility. God held David responsible for Uriah's death, even though David himself had not used a sword on Uriah.

A king may tell an executioner to slay the prisoner. Do we hold the executioner responsible for the death, or the king? The king, of course.

The same is true with Saul. The King had ordered the king's death. "And Samuel said unto Saul, I will not return with thee: for thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, and the LORD hath rejected thee from being king over Israel." (1 Samuel 15:26, KJV)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

ellen white seems to understand the text in question to mean that the Lord no longer protected saul.

"and abandoned to destruction":
(bold color for ready visibility, only)

Teresa,

Of course God no longer protected Saul. There would be no point in protecting someone you were killing, would there?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I'm repeating what I heard you say.

You believe that God was responsible for Saul's death, in the same way David was responsible for Uriah's death. Basically God murdered Saul. We don't use the word "murder" in the case of God, because He's God, but the mechanism is identical, and if it were anyone else, we would call it murder.

Maybe not. I think perhaps this is why you were speaking of the big difference of intent. So because God's intent was different, it wasn't murder, but a justifiable killing. Perhaps this would be a more accurate way of representing your thought.

Ok, so the mechanism is the same between David and God, in that both orchestrated the killing of another. They were both responsible for the death of the victim, even though who committed the actual deed was someone else.

This mechanism is very different from what I perceive. What I perceive is that God says to the wicked, "I have no pleasure in your death. Why will you die?" I perceive that it is sin that causes our problems, and God does all that He can to rescue us from the terrible consequences of our choices.

This principle is outlined in "The Great Controversy" chapter one. That's the best place I know of which discusses it. If it weren't for this chapter, we'd probably view the destruction of Jerusalem very differently (and, in spite of it, some still view God as using the Romans as His instrument to bring suffering upon the Jews and kill them in retribution).

Here is an excerpt from the chapter:



1.The Jews had forged their own fetters.
2.They had filled for themselves the cup of vengeance.
3.In all the woes that followed them, they were but reaping the harvest which their own hands had sown.
4.They destroyed themselves.
5.Their sufferings are often represented as a punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God; this is how the great deceiver seeks to conceal his own work.
6.By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them.
7.Satan was permitted to exercise control over them.
8.The horrible cruelties enacted in the destruction of Jerusalem are a demonstration of Satan's vindictive power over those who yield to his control.
9.We cannot know how much we owe to Christ for the peace and protection which we enjoy.
10.It is the restraining power of God that protects mankind.
11.when men pass the limits of divine forbearance, His restraint against the power of Satan is removed.
12.God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression.
13.God leaves those who reject His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown.
14.Every ray of light rejected, every warning despised or unheeded, every passion indulged, every transgression of the law of God, is a seed sown which yields its unfailing harvest.
15.The Spirit of God, persistently resisted, is at last withdrawn from the sinner.
16.The Spirit of God, withdrawn, leaves the sinner without protection from the evil one.

Ok, these are the background principles. No here comes a really interesting thing:



The destruction of Jerusalem is a warning TO ALL. It's not simply an isolated event, the principles of which have little interest to us, except an understanding a specific event in the remote past that doesn't concern us. The principles involved apply *to all* who would trifle with the pleadings of mercy.



Some complain that the mechanism suggested, that is, that God has used and will continue to use the same methods outlined in GC 35-37, are not sufficiently "tough." The don't express the divine outrage sufficiently, or for some other reason are not a sufficient way to deal with sin. But the SOP brings out that "Never was there given a more decisive testimony to God's hatred of sin" than what happened to Jerusalem, nor a more decisive testimony to "the certain punishment that will fall upon the guilty."

This means that if we want to really understand how God hates sin, and how He deals with those who practice it, which is to say how He punishes them, the most decisive testimony -- the best example of this -- is the destruction of Jerusalem.



This is dealing with the plagues, which ties into the theme of this thread. Those who trample upon God's law in the time of the end, and reject His mercy, will suffer according to the principles outlined in the destruction of Jerusalem.

There's a great deal of light here! We can learn a lot by simply going through this passage point by point, to get at all the principles involved. In so doing, we can understand God's hatred of sin, and how He punishes those who practice it. Not just in Jerusalem, or the plagues at the end of time, but in any situation. Although the specific details vary from case to case, the general principles, outlined above, remain the same.

One last point.



I think this principle is vastly underestimated, or vastly unnoticed. That is, Satan has been *far* more successful at this than we have even an inkling of. God's character has been so successfully maligned, that we don't have the slightest idea that the character of Satan is represented in His place. This is an indictment on all of us (I'm not targeting, for example, those who don't believe a certain view I hold; I'm as guilty of this as anyone).

As long as we don't really understand who God is, Christ will not be able to come. Why not?



Be beholding we become changed. As long as we are beholding an image which is off, how can we perfectly reproduce Christ's character? This seems impossible to me.

One of the elements of the 1888 message was eye salve. Eye salve allows us to see our condition as it truly is. Not rich and increased with goods, but naked, destitute, and miserable, desperately in need of eyesight. The SOP tells us that the 1888 message laid the glory of man in the dust. I think that's a major reason it was resisted and rejected. Seeing the truth about God inevitably results in our seeing the truth about ourselves, which we have a natural aversion to. Our natural reaction to any error pointed out, no matter how carefully, is to accuse others and justify our own actions.

Yes, there is clearly a difference in intent here. David's intent was selfish. God's intent was unselfish, unless you wish to construe it that God wanting a pure Israelite nation with a righteous leader is selfish.

The Hebrew words used with David versus with God bearing the responsibility are also different. In David's case, the word can be synonymous with destroy, smite, wound, defeat, stripes, punish, murderer, etc. In God's case, the word means "put to death" and is never related to murder in any of its translations. It is translated as die [232], died [153], dead [134], surely put to death [56], put to death [44], slew [40], surely die [40]...etc.

God is not a murderer. But He does fill the role of executioner when necessary.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I believe the following explains how God fills this role:

Tom,

That does explain how God fills His role. But it explains it for a specific context (in this case, time frame). Have you looked carefully at the full context of that statement? Was Mrs. White addressing the final plagues, or the damnation of hell?

Here are statements that lead me to believe that there are additional contexts which one must necessarily include when studying this topic.


Would God require of His servants something that He Himself did not exemplify? If Eli was supposed to have executed justice against sinners, will God also refrain from this? As I understand, despite Eli's piety, for this one sin in being too permissive and gentle toward others, he will not be in Heaven. Does that not seem a little harsh? The Bible and Mrs. White both say Eli was a good man. Why should he be lost?


God is forced to execute justice?


For those who do not accept Christ's sacrifice and pardon, the death penalty must be met at the cost of their own lives. That penalty has not yet been meted out. But it will come soon enough.

Personally, I see little difference between "executing the death penalty" and the role of executioner. I will admit that Mrs. White does not use the term executioner in these statements. But I see no difference in the meaning. She uses the exact word "executioner" mostly in speaking of the martyrs, and it is quite possible that she chooses to avoid the term here because of the negative impression which it gives. It implies to many minds a dark side. But leaving motives out of the picture again, the act and responsibility for it are the same.

God's motives are pure. He executes justice and judgment in righteousness. While filling the role of executioner of the death penalty, He does not in the slightest take any enjoyment from it. He does it, as Mrs. White says, because He is forced to.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Tom,

To represent God as being too loving to punish sinners with His own hands is to undermine His authority. I do not think you even half realize the thoughts God may have toward your representation of Him. There are many who hold similar views to yourself. But Ellen White gives the following message which I think you and several others whom you have influenced here in this forum might do well to ponder.



The wrath of God is closely tied to the Law of God. The law is a law of love. Therefore, one might even say that God's wrath is a "loving wrath." It is not mean-spirited as our sinful wrath is. God's wrath is righteous. But it will bring forth the most solemn judgments--there will be weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

1.I've never said God was "too loving" to do something.
2.I've never said God does not punish sinners.

Where you and I differ is not to the *fact* of whether or not God punishes sinners, but as to the *mechanism*.

The following had a profound impact on my understanding of this:



I think we way underestimate the dangers God protects us from, so we mistakenly think it's necessary for Him to "smite" someone from His own hand, when all He needs to do is withdraw His protection from one of these unseen dangers.



Would the same not apply to you?

I agree with your comment, in spite of believing my view is closer to reality than yours. I repent continuously in regards to my shortcomings to represent God's character as it truly is. I know He's far, far better than I've presented Him.



Where? I'd like to meet them!



I'll comment on a portion of this:



In post #118761 I quoted the following:



This points out that what Jerusalem experienced is what those who trample upon God's law will experience. The principles I laid out in this post will apply, as Ellen White points out.



Indeed it is. The law is a hedge to protect us from the dangers of breaking it.



Those who trample the law will experience the results of so doing, according to the principles laid out in GC 35-37.



Nor is it based on the principles of force, as ours is. The principle of force is not to be found in God's government.



The foundation of God's government is goodness, mercy and love. The judgments of God involve these principles, as does everything God does, as opposed to the principles of force or violence.



Agreed. And these judgments will come in perfect harmony with the revelation of God given by Jesus Christ, in harmony with the principles laid out in GC 35-37.



As commented in GC 35-37.

She was discussing the destruction of Jerusalem. That's the context. And she said:



Aren't the plagues what those who trample upon God's law receive?



Again, from the GC passage (i.e. "Great Controversy") I've cited from:



Do you agree with each of the following points?

The destruction of Jerusalem

1.demonstrates God's punishing sin.
2.was a judgment.
3.is prophetic of the judgments and punishments of others who trample His law.



She says the following of Samuel.



Do you think Samuel won't be in heaven either?

Regarding Eli, my understanding was the Eli was a righteous man. If he was a righteous man, he'll be in heaven. Regarding your statement that



I spend a bit of time researching this, and couldn't discover anything suggesting this. I'll admit that I haven't specifically researched the question of Eli's being righteous or not, but my impression has been that Eli was a righteous man. I came across the following:



This seems like the response of a righteous man. Again, this isn't a point I've researched. If you can present an argument that Eli won't be in heaven, I'd be happy to listen to it.



I don't know what you're asking.



This is actually from GC 541-543, page 541 I think, and I've quoted this many times. Of special interest is that God executes justice upon the wicked for their own good. That's very profound, and interesting.

Also of note is that the principles of kindness, mercy and love are present in judgment (this isn't clear from FILB, with the ellipses, but it's clear from the GC passage this comes from). This is a principle reason I reject many of the ideas I hear regarding God and the judgment. I believe God's actions will be in complete harmony with what Jesus Christ revealed of God in His humanity.



Those who choose to separate from God, the source of life, cut themselves off from life (DA 764).



Nor do I. The death penalty will be executed as explained in DA 764.



The difference in meaning, IMO, is between what she said in DA 764, and what many people think will happen. She speaks of how had Satan been *left* to reap the full results of his sin, he would have perished. She says that Satan and those who join him in rebellion place themselves so out of harmony with God that His presence it to them a consuming fire. She says the light of glory of God, which is the revelation of His character, gives life to the righteous, but will slay the wicked.

It's not that God is different towards one group of people, killing some and blessing others. It's that the wicked themselves have destroyed themselves, wrecking their character, so that they cannot stand to be around God, or those who love His principles (The GC passage above, 541-543, brings this out).



DA 764 explains God's actions in the destruction of the wicked very clearly. He allows them to "receive the result of their choice."



And His methods too! He's just like Jesus Christ.



Yes, and He does so without using force or violence.



Yes. He says, "I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked." He asks the wicked, "Why will you die." As DA 764 brings out, the inevitable result of sin is death. God would much rather the wicked chose to live than to die.

That's the point. There is no difference whatsoever between one thing and the other. As I've said previously, what makes the difference is the motivation for doing things.

That God doesn't need to "smite" someone with His own hand is the point? If this is really so, I'm glad you agree.



In DA 764 Ellen White spends quite a lot of effort explaining that there is a difference.



So one could lie, for example, if one's motivation were OK? Or rape? Or steal? Or anything? The act itself is irrelevant, as long as the motivation is right?

I don't believe this. There are things which are wrong, regardless of the motivation one has.

What I'm saying is, Does anyone who lets someone die have a good motivation? And does anyone who kills have a bad motivation?
What would you think about a person who sees someone dying, has the power to rescue that person, and simply stands there, observing it, or turns around and goes away?

Tom,

This statement indicates exactly what sort of justice God required that Eli execute in the case of his sons:



Three questions here:

1) Should Eli's sons have killed themselves because of their sins?
2) Did their sins themselves have power to kill them?
3) Should Eli have removed some protection from them so that they would die?

Regarding Eli being lost, I also am having trouble locating a clear statement. I studied the issue while in school, and distinctly came away with the impression that Mrs. White somewhere speaks to this. But I have not located it this morning. However, if we tie a few of her statements together, it is implied that Eli will not be in Heaven.



That one says Eli was partly guilty of the sins his sons committed. The following statements speak to Eli and to parents today.



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

hi gc, im having a hard time understanding your response in light of what ellen white had brought out below. could you explain a little more?

Teresa,

Saul was abandoned by God long before the fateful day of his demise. Ellen White says that his visit to the sorceress was just one reason for this. There were other reasons.

Here are a few:

He did not wait for Samuel to offer sacrifice.
He did not annihilate the Amalekites as God directed.
He took king Agag captive, a war trophy, and much cattle, against God's express command.
He nearly executed his own son when Jonathan and his armorbearer had gone out in faith and by God's blessing won a stunning victory against the Philistines, unbeknownst to him and unawares of his command.

[EGW]
He had rejected the counsel of Samuel the prophet;
he had exiled David, the chosen of God;
he had slain the priests of the Lord.
He had sinned away the Spirit of grace...


The following quote is for reference purposes. Note that Samuel told Saul God had rejected him more than two decades before Saul died. God rejected Saul before David had been anointed, before David met King Saul, before David killed Goliath, before Saul tried to kill David, before David married Saul's daughter, before David was hunted by Saul and his men, before a great many things happened in the story. Note how God's rejection of Saul affected him, according to Mrs. White.


What happened to Saul may happen to any of us.



The lesson to be learned is to follow God carefully, and not be careless in carrying out the duties He has asked of us. If we do not live up to the light He has loving provided us, His patience will eventually be exhausted, and He will give us up.

"Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;" (2 Thessalonians 1:9, KJV)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

oh.
the above post sounds much different than this from page 5 118759 which i was asking about.

what a great quote for the sabbath!!

Psa 116:17 I will offer to thee the sacrifice of thanksgiving, and will call upon the name of the LORD.

How graciously and tenderly our heavenly Father deals with His children!

He preserves them from a thousand dangers to them unseen and guards them from the subtle arts of Satan, lest they should be destroyed.

Because the protecting care of God through His angels is not seen by our dull vision,

we do not try to contemplate and appreciate the ever-watchful interest that our kind and benevolent Creator has in the work of His hands;

and we are not grateful for the multitude of mercies that He daily bestows upon us. (3T 373)

You said before that there was no difference between the acts.



I'm saying there is a difference. That is, for God to violently kill someone is different than for Him to withdraw His protection from one of the thousand unseen dangers He protects us from.



If there's no difference, then why does Satan make the effort to conceal his actions as something God did?

Regarding your question, I'm not denying that motive is important. Of course it is. I'm denying your statement that there is no difference between God's violently causing someone's death (e.g. setting the person on fire) or causing him excruciating pain (e.g. inflicting the person with painful boils) and permitting these things to happen.

This is what I've been saying. I understand God's giving us up to mean allowing us to receive the results of our choice. For example:

Huh?



I can't comment without something concrete. If Eli was righteous, he'll be in heaven. A righteous man can make mistakes with the raising of his children and still be in heaven. Samuel also had problems with his children. The quote I provided shows Eli responding as one would expect a righteous man to respond.

If you come up with something concrete, I'd be happy to look at. It seems to me that to argue from the quotes you presented that Eli won't be in heaven would be a great stretch. Again, Samuel had trouble with his children. So did David. I'm sure many others could be mentioned. The question isn't if Eli made mistakes, but if he repented. The response I quoted previously seems to me to sound like that someone who had repented would say.

But men are accustomed to this process, and they drop God out of their thoughts, thinking that they themselves are doing the work. They do not give God the glory due to his name.

But it takes just as much power to prepare the harvest which men garner as to make a few barley loaves serve for so many thousands.

God gives us all that is needed to sustain life, and in so doing, he is daily working miracles.

Were it not for these miracles, which are so graciously repeated in our behalf, we would be weary, hungry, starving, and dying.

But God, full of mercy and compassion, constantly cares for us; and because there is no cessation of his goodness,

because we are surrounded by his miracles, we cease to appreciate his continually increasing mercies.

Fixing our eyes upon human instrumentalities, we give the glory to men, and ascribe the miracles of God to natural causes.

Men allow the enemy of God to lead them to glorify men in the place of praising their Creator.

Many convert the rich provisions of nature into unnatural stimulants, and thus pervert the good things of God.

They becloud the intellect, and wear out the delicate organs of the system by the indulgence of the appetite. They banish God from their thoughts, and act as did the inhabitants of the Noatic world, polluting the earth by their sins. Thus man dishonors his God. {ST, August 12, 1897 par. 9}

Tom,

That doesn't answer any of the questions. You are welcome to be long-winded in any response to them, but a simple yes or no will suffice. Do you not understand the questions?

Tom, I have heard you hint toward each of these possibilities in God's dealing with us, but you have never spoken plainly (at least the explanations were never clear to me) as to which of these best represent your view. I thought perhaps in the case of Eli, it might be simpler to explain in concrete terms. I'm sure you have more skill in the area of abstract thought than I. I usually need things explained in more logical/concrete form before I can grasp them.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

No, I don't understand the questions.

Regarding how God deals with us, I believe GC 35-37 laid out the principles clearly. Here's an excerpt:



Regarding Eli, I don't know what you're thinking. You're putting Eli in the place of God as some sort of analogy?

I think it would be easier if you simply explained your thought, and I'd respond to that. Or you can try asking a different question or questions that I understand. As posed, I'd have to respond to each of your questions with other questions.

Eli's sin was allowing his wicked sons to continue to hold sacred office.
He should have removed them from office years earlier.

The penalty for the conduct of Eli's sons was death.
What did God command Moses to do with those who were guilty of adultery? They should be stoned to death.

1 Sam. 2:22 "Now Eli was very old, and heard all that his sons did unto all Israel; and how they lay with the women that assembled [at] the door of the tabernacle of the congregation."

Lev. 20:10 "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death."

Being in position of spiritual authority, the rebellious nature of these men turned people away from God.

The Bible is pretty brutally clear as to what Eli was to do.

Duet. 21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and [that], when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
21:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son [is] stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; [he is] a glutton, and a drunkard.
21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Eli's sons are lost for eternity.
I didn't read anything that Eli was lost for eternity.

"The history of Eli is a terrible example of the results of parental unfaithfulness. Through his neglect of duty, his sons became a snare to their fellow men and an offense to God, forfeiting not only the present but the future life. Their evil example destroyed hundreds, and the influence of these hundreds corrupted the morals of thousands. This case should be a warning to all parents. While some err upon the side of undue severity, Eli went to the opposite extreme. He indulged his sons to their ruin. Their faults were overlooked in their childhood, and excused in their days of youth. The commands of the parents were disregarded, and the father did not enforce obedience.
1010
The children saw that they could hold the lines of control, and they improved the opportunity. As the sons advanced in years, they lost all respect for their fainthearted father. They went on in sin without restraint. He remonstrated with them, but his words fell unheeded. Gross sins and revolting crimes were daily committed by them, until the Lord Himself visited with judgment the transgressors of His law. {2BC 1009.8}
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}

Tom,

Let's set those questions aside for a moment and ask a simpler one:

How should Eli have punished his sons?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC, I think to understand the incidents where God appears to be acting violently in the O.T., or where God counsels Israel, or Israelites, to do violent things or use capital punishment, requires one to have a firm grasp of God's character to start with. According to the SOP, all that man can know about God was revealed in the life and character of His Sin while He was here with us in the flesh. God was constrained to do many things He would rather not have done in His dealings with Israel, and Israelites, because of the hardness of their hearts.

In the case of Eli, had he raised his sons as God had wished in the first place, the problems that later arose would never have arisen. I think the idea that we can better learn of God's character by studying the case of Eli then by studying the life and teachings of Jesus Christ is not a good one. To know what God is like, we should be asking questions about Jesus Christ, not Eli.

Assuming your question regarding Eli is in regards to the SOP quote, Eli should have acted as the quote lays out.

ellen whites points are regarding indulgent parents and the results. (she also addresses controlling parents and those results.)

so the point i get from her is in reference to how we should raise our children.

as to what eli should have done...the series in the signs of the times of 1881 she said this of God:

Do you disagree that God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow? Do you disagree with the book of Malachi?

Do you think Mrs. White did not do this? Do you feel she was wrong to write about the case of Eli?


Yes, the questions were centered around that quote. Therefore, based on this statement, it is fair to say that your answers to the three earlier questions would have been in the negative. This would fully agree with my own answers to those questions. And you have stated that Eli himself "should have acted as the quote lays out." The quote laid out the death penalty for his sons. Eli was the judge of Israel, and vested with such authority. More importantly, every parent was vested with this authority according to the laws of Moses.

Now, I am back to the question I asked earlier:

"Would God require of His servants something that He Himself did not exemplify? If Eli was supposed to have executed justice against sinners, will God also refrain from this?"

Your earlier response indicated that you agreed that God would also act in justice. As the case with Eli indicates, this justice must be actively executed, not merely by adopting a "wait and see" attitude until sin works its own justice. God must step in and execute righteousness Himself. Do you also agree with this?

If you think God merely permits the devil to do this work of punishment, I have one question more: Do you think God permitted the devil to enter the Holy Place of His Sanctuary to slay the two drunk sons of Aaron?

To bring this clearly around to the topic of this thread: If you feel that God permits the devil to do the "violent acts," is this because you feel that God has no wrath Himself?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Of course not. From "The Desire of Ages" we read:



This brings out that there was a work that needed to be done, to make known God's true character. Now Malachi had already existed at this point in time, but was evidently not sufficient to do the job that Christ had to do. Or, to put it another way, there really was a job that Christ had to do. It was necessary that Christ reveal God's character. Why was this necessary? Because God's character wasn't known.

In fact, the SOP tells us that the "whole purpose" of Christ's earthly mission was "the revelation of God." So if God had already been sufficiently revealed, why did Christ need to do this?



I wrote:



Ellen White wrote hundreds of pages on the life of Christ. She said:



It wouldn't surprise me if she followed her own advice. After having a firm grasp of God's character based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, we are better situated to studying the more difficult questions we come across in Scripture. Otherwise, I fear we will be in danger of substituting our ideas for the revelation of Christ.

A big problem we all have is that we view God's character according to the filter of our own. This is a Catch 22. How do we get around this? I can only think of one way, and that's Christ.



I agree that God acts in justice, but disagree that God acts violently.



There's a flaw in this reasoning here in that Eli is not God. In particular, God protects us from a thousand dangers, all of them unseen. In order to punish, or bring about justice, it is sufficient for God to withdraw His protection from one of these unseen dangers. This doesn't apply to Eli.

The principle I've been suggesting is the one laid out by GC 35-37, which speaks of God's being caused to withdraw His protection. I've not understood why you've brought up Eli in this context.



Yes, and He does so according to the principles laid out in GC 35-37.



It's not just the devil. There are a thousand dangers from which God protects us, all of them unseen. Not just one.



I believe the wrath of God is that laid out in GC 35-37.

You seem to have the idea that in order for God to punish, or execute justice, or to exercise His wrath, He Himself must act violently. I don't know where this idea comes from. In the GC passage I've been quoting from, we're told:



If there is no more decisive testimony than this, why aren't the principles laid out here sufficient?

One other point. We're told:



From this we see that Satan seeks to conceal his own work by representing his work as punishment visited upon his victims by a direct decree of God. It seems to me this point is not being given the weight it should be.

Tom,

If I'm understanding what you have said, you are saying that you do not believe that God killed Aaron's sons--but that some hidden danger did this--and yet you believe that Eli should have punished his sons with death. What unseen danger do you suppose Eli could have caused his sons to find? Or do you think that God asked of Eli something that God Himself would never do?

I agree with you that God does not act violently. However, I do not class God's execution of the death penalty as "violence." God acts in "justice." His "wrath" is righteous.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

As I pointed out, Eli is not God, so the option of his withdrawing his protection from the thousand different dangers he was protecting others from doesn't make sense. This whole line of study makes no sense to me. I don't understand why this focus on Eli rather than Christ. I think if one really wishes to understand God, one must study Christ. That has to be the bedrock, the foundation, of our understanding of God, if we wish to have any hope of getting it right.

Regarding agreeing that God does not act violently, it seems to me it's only possible to claim to believe this by redefining the word to not include what would be violent acts if any other being did them other than God. So the word "violent" because basically a meaningless word, and the claim a meaningless claim. God isn't actually *doing* anything any different than a violent person does. A different label is simply being applied.

Also the idea seems to be being expressed that God must act violently in order to be acting in "justice" or to exhibit "wrath." But the description in GC 35-37 displays God's acting in justice, and displays His wrath. These pages bring out that God can bring out justice and pour out His wrath by permitting those who reject Him to experience the result of their choice. There are many, many examples of this in Scripture. Here are a few:



Here we see God's wrath in action. What does God do? he "forsakes" them, and "hides His face from them" with the result that "they shall be devoured" and "many evils and troubles shall befall them," which they recognize as being because "God is not among us."



Again God's anger, or wrath, is spoken of in terms of His hiding His face.



Because of sin, God's wrath followed, described as His giving them up to trouble.



Here we see the same thing. Sin provoked God's wrath, causing Him to remove them from His sight. God rejected them, and afflicted them by delivering them.



Again God's wrath is associated with His hiding His face.



The same principle.



God gave the Israelites up to the Babylonians, which was an expression of His wrath.

So it is evident that God's wrath does not require Him to by His own hand to violent things. There are many examples from inspiration of God's justice being executed, His wrath being expressed, by means of His protection being caused to be withdrawn, just as GC 35-37 describes.

Where we differ is that I believe the principles expressed in GC 35-37 cover all cases. There is no reason to say things like "God acts in 'justice'" or "His wrath is righteous" as if this were equivalent to His causing excruciating pain or death by His own hand when we have so many examples of Him acting in justice and expressing righteous wrath without His doing these things.

There's no question that there are many times that God acts the way I've lined out. Again, our difference involves whether there are other times where God exercises His wrath or acts in justice according to different principles. But even if He did, this would still not negate that fact that there are many times where God does act in the way I've been saying, in the way explained by GC 35-37. Therefore my expressing God's actions in the terms laid out in GC 35-37 should not be, and cannot rightly be, taken as a denial that God acts in justice or that His wrath is not righteous.

A final point is that GC 35 says:



It seems to me that the import of this statement is not being considered.

the wrath of God

Until the generation that had received instruction from Joshua became extinct, idolatry made little headway; but the parents
had prepared the way for the apostasy of their children. The disregard of the Lord's restrictions on the part of those who came in possession of Canaan sowed seed of evil that continued to bring forth bitter fruit for many generations. The simple habits of the Hebrews had secured them physical health; but association with the heathen led to the indulgence of appetite and passion, which gradually lessened physical strength and enfeebled the mental and moral powers. By their sins the Israelites were separated from God; His strength was removed from them, and they could no longer prevail against their enemies. Thus they were brought into subjection to the very nations that through God they might have subdued. {PP 544.4}

"They forsook the Lord God of their fathers, which brought them out of the land of Egypt," "and guided them in the wilderness like a flock." "They provoked Him to anger with their high places, and moved Him to jealousy with their graven images." Therefore the Lord "forsook the tabernacle of Shiloh, the tent which He placed among them; and delivered His strength into captivity, and His glory into the enemy's hand." Judges 2:12; Psalm 78:52, 58, 60, 61. Yet He did not utterly forsake His people. There was ever a remnant who were true to Jehovah; and from time to time the Lord raised up faithful and valiant men to put down idolatry and to deliver the Israelites from their enemies. But when the deliverer was dead, and the people were released from his authority, they would gradually return to their idols. And thus the story of backsliding and chastisement, of confession and deliverance, was repeated again and again. {PP 545.1}

The king of Mesopotamia, the king of Moab, and after them the Philistines, and the Canaanites of Hazor, led by Sisera, in turn became the oppressors of Israel. Othniel, Shamgar, and Ehud, Deborah and Barak, were raised up as deliverers of their people. But again "the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord; and the Lord delivered them into the hand of Midian." Heretofore the hand of the oppressor had fallen but lightly on the tribes dwelling east of the Jordan, but in the present calamities they were the first sufferers. {PP 545.2}

The Amalekites on the south of Canaan, as well as the Midianites on its eastern border, and in the deserts beyond, were still the unrelenting enemies of Israel. The latter nation had been nearly destroyed by the Israelites in the days of Moses, but they had since increased greatly, and had become numerous and powerful. They had thirsted for revenge; and now that the protecting hand of God was withdrawn from Israel, the opportunity had come. Not alone the tribes east of Jordan, but the whole land suffered from their ravages. The wild, fierce inhabitants of the desert, "as locusts for multitude" (Judges 6:5, R.V.), came swarming into the land, with their flocks and herds. Like a devouring plague they spread over the country, from the river Jordan to the Philistine plain. They came as soon as the harvests began to ripen, and remained until the last fruits of the earth had been gathered. They stripped the fields of their increase and robbed and maltreated the inhabitants and then returned to the deserts. Thus the Israelites dwelling in the open country were forced to abandon their homes, and to congregate in walled towns, to seek refuge in fortresses, or even to find shelter in caves and rocky fastnesses among the mountains. For seven years this oppression continued, and then, as the people in their distress gave heed to the Lord's reproof, and confessed their sins, God again raised up a helper for them. {PP 545.3}

Tom,

I think I am finally beginning to understand your position. However, since your position is unbiblical, I will not be able to accept it. The Bible is clear enough on this point for me. I will summarize here the points, and then provide some support for them afterward.

You have said that God never acts in violence. You answered my question regarding the deaths of the sons of Aaron in the sanctuary by saying "It's not just the devil. There are a thousand dangers from which God protects us, all of them unseen. Not just one."

However, do you believe God is a "danger" from which we must be protected? If so, what is the difference between God protecting us from Himself and God withdrawing that protection by choosing to act Himself to cause death?

To accept your view would mean one must necessarily be brought to accept one or more of the following points, all of which are rather disagreeable:

1) The Old Testament is invalid or less valid than the New Testament.
2) Mrs. White did not focus on the right topics when writing on the Old Testament and drawing lessons from them for us today (she should have been learning from the life of Christ instead).
3) God is a danger (He must protect us from Himself).
4) God asks of people that which He Himself would not do.
5) The Bible does not quite mean what it says (e.g. when the Bible says God did something destructive, it was never really God who did it).

You have constantly answered that we should not be studying the events of the Old Testament to get to know God, but rather the events of Christ's life. Jesus, however, whom you claim to have all the brightest and best knowledge from, taught concerning the Old Testament scriptures that "they are they which testify of Me." (John 5:39) Jesus also, speaking of the Old Testament scriptures, said "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4). Moreover, Jesus said he had not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it, and that not one jot or tittle would pass from it until Heaven and Earth should pass away.

Malachi 4:4 tells us expressly to remember the law of Moses. Malachi 3:6 testifies that God does not change. God was the same for the children of Israel as He is today. The prophet Malachi told us this, and I believe it.

Mrs. White shows clearly which "danger" it was that killed Nadab and Abihu. If this was an "act of violence," then you will have to either accept that God has acted violently, or else you may choose to reject the veracity of some of these statements. As some of the quotes are longer, I will mark the key points.



So Mrs. White tells us plainly that God slew Nadab and Abihu.

Tom, why do you wish so much to continue believing that which is not fully supportable? Your view has appeal. It is unpleasant to think of God acting in strict judgment this way Himself. One might like to avoid thinking about death too. But death remains a fact just the same.

Tom, I agree with you that in many cases God withdraws His protection and allows other forces to act. However, God does at times proactively purge sin Himself. I am grateful to have a God that is not too timid to deal with the rottenness of sin Himself. He not only gave His own life to rescue us, but is also willing to separate the wheat from the tares, and to destroy the latter forever.

You see, Tom, you have tried to persuade me that even though the Bible says God did it, He was only responsible for withdrawing His protection and allowing some non-God danger to do the actual punishing. You have said this was on account of the way the people back then viewed God, and that things were attributed to Him which were not really because of Him. However, will you now tell me the same of Ellen White? Did she also claim God did this when it was really Satan?

One step leads to another in the reasoning. If we take it to its fullest conclusion, we are not where we might wish to be.

I appreciated this statement from Mrs. White concerning Nadab and Abihu: "A fire blazed out from the holy of holies and consumed them." To me, this means that the wrath of God, the destruction which this represented, and even the lessons to be learned from it are all sacred and holy.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

In your opinion, it's unbiblical. In my opinion, your position is unbiblical. Do you think pointing this out is useful?



It's clear enough for me too. "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father."



No. This is what I've been understand your position to be. That is, that God will cause excruciating pain and kill if one doesn't do what He says. But God will protect us from Himself if we do what He says. I've been arguing against this position.



I have argued that we need to be protected from the dangers caused by sin/Satan (which can involve many things, including indirect things, like natural disasters not necessarily caused directly by Satan, for example), not from Himself.



To be clear, you've not stated my view yet in this post.



Or it's been misunderstood, being interpreted to present God in a way contrary to what Jesus Christ presented. That's another possibility.



No, this is a wrong conclusion. She doesn't always speak of the same thing. There are many lessons to be learned from the Old Testament, not just one. The fact that she speaks about some other principle in a given event does not mean she's contradicting what she wrote in GC 35-37, or other places, or suggesting that these principles don't apply.



I've not said this nor implied it.



Eli was compared to God, and asked if he did certain hypothetical things which it would be impossible for him to do, not having God's character. To conclude 4) from this is not a valid conclusion.



This is facile. For example, the Bible says that God sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites, but the SOP makes it clear the serpents were there all the time, and God withdrew His protection. Should we conclude, "The Bible does not quite mean what it says"?



What I said was that before tackling the episodes where God looks to have acted violently in the OT, we should first have a firm grasp on His character, based on having studied Christ.



That's right. He also said, "But you will not come to me that you might have life." The OT Scriptures testified of Christ, that we would know who He was, and listen to what He had to say, and come to Him to receive life.



Jesus also said that its impossible to receive new wine in old wine skins. The Jews had very violent interpretations of the Kingdom of God. But Jesus taught that the Kingdom of God was not how they perceived it to be.

Jesus said what He heard His Father say, He spoke, and what He saw Him do, He did. Where did Jesus see and hear the Father do these things? In the OT! So Jesus spoke and acted out what He understood the God of the OT to be like. Thus "when you've seen Me, you've seen the Father."

Now we may have an interpretation of God's acts in the OT which is not in harmony with what Jesus said and acted out. Indeed, this would seem to be inevitable, given our old wine skins. So Jesus invites us to receive new wine skins from Him, to view God as He does.



I believe it as well. God doesn't change, but He can be misunderstood, and, according to the SOP, He has been misunderstood and is misunderstood. Christ's work, and our work, is to sweep away the cobwebs, to reveal the true character of God. EGW emphasizes this on many occasions. If God weren't misunderstood, there wouldn't be anything for us to in this regard.



I ask you the same question. Not only is it not fully supportable, but it presents a view of God which is out of harmony with what Jesus Christ lived and taught.

We're expressing opinions here, of course, and I really don't see the point. Clearly you think what you think is correct, and what I think is incorrect, while I perceive the reverse. I don't see what is gained by pointing this out.



I agree my view has appeal, and that your view involves thinking unpleasant things of God.



If you mean by taking things into His own hand, and doing things to cause excruciating pain and violent deaths, I disagree.



I am sorry you perceive that God is constrained to use what I believe are methods of the enemy to deal with the problem the enemy created. I believe that evil is overcome by good, such goodness as Jesus Christ displayed in the flesh. I'm also sorry that you believe that if God only used the methods outlined in GC 35-37 that this would make Him "timid."



I agree with this. I believe DA 107, 108 explains this principle well. For example, it says that the light of the glory of God, which gives life to the righteous, will slay the wicked, bringing out that it's not an arbitrary act of God that slays the wicked, but their own actions which have unfit themselves from receiving light from God which gives life to others of His creatures. In this section she also says that God is a consuming fire which must consume sin, and that if a person refuses to let go of sin, the person will be destroyed. So the problem is sin, not an arbitrary (or imposed) action God takes against a certain group of people. God is love, but this love is death to the wicked. The SOP makes this same point in DA 764 as well ("The glory of Him who is love will destroy them.")



Such as when the Bible says God sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites, or that God would destroy Jerusalem (A.D. 70). That is, the Bible says "God did it" in these incidents.



And still view God, and still erroneously attribute to God things that were not really because of Him. Every time a disaster like Katrina or the tsunami of several years ago happens, people do this.



You mean does the principle apply that God presents Himself as doing that which He permits to Ellen White as well as to Scripture?



Or perhaps it will lead us to a position closer to the truth.



What is it you think happened?

i have not read any post of toms that says this, nor would even lead me to that conclusion. i cant see where anyone else would see that either.

i have read him to say that we should study the ot in the light of Christs character.



From the days of eternity the Lord Jesus Christ was one with the Father; He was "the image of God," the image of His greatness and majesty, "the outshining of His glory." It was to manifest this glory that He came to our world. {DA 19.1}

By coming to dwell with us, Jesus was to reveal God both to men and to angels. He was the Word of God,--God's thought made audible. In His prayer for His disciples He says, "I have declared unto them Thy name,"--"merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,"--"that the love wherewith Thou hast loved Me may be in them, and I in them." But not alone for His earthborn children was this revelation given. Our little world is the lesson book of the universe. God's wonderful purpose of grace, the mystery of redeeming love, is the theme into which "angels desire to look," and it will be their study throughout endless ages. Both the redeemed and the unfallen beings will find in the cross of Christ their science and their song. It will be seen that the glory shining in the face of Jesus is the glory of self-sacrificing love. In the light from Calvary it will be seen that the law of self-renouncing love is the law of life for earth and heaven; that the love which "seeketh not her own" has its source in the heart of God; and that in the meek and lowly One is manifested the character of Him who dwelleth in the light which no man can approach unto. {DA 19.2}

Teresa,

Tom appears to prefer to focus elsewhere, as if the Old Testament is inferior. When Mrs. White herself wrote about Eli, and wrote about Nadab and Abihu, I believe she was directed by God to do so. Tom, however, prefers to study the life of Christ, which is to be found in the New Testament. That is fine, but while he may wish to reduce his focus to a few decades' of the spiritual timeline, there are others of us who recognize that God has been here all along, leading and guiding, and teaching His people. I believe there is salvation to be found if I had the Old Testament only. There are things it reveals that are not in the New Testament...and beautiful things too.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

If you're suggesting I believe the OT is an inferior revelation of God's character than Christ, I agree with this. Christ is the express image of the Father. When we see Christ, we've seen the Father. He came to reveal the Father, because the world was in the dark about Him.



The "however" is out of place here, as it implies that I don't believe Ellen White was direct by God to write about Eli, Nadab and Abihu, which is a spurious suggestion.



Certainly it's possible to be saved simply by having the OT, as it's possible to be saved simply by having nature. But it's more difficult than if one has the clear revelation of the Father that Christ provided.

I want to be clear that I'm understanding you correctly. You don't believe that Christ was the clearest revelation of the Father? Better than the OT?

Tom,

Need I remind you that "this whole line of study" you referred to above came from two primary sources: 1) The Old Testament, and 2) Ellen White? You stated in that quote that you would rather study Christ.

I would rather study the whole truth.

I would, however, like to see this discussion of whether or not God punishes, causes pain, causes plagues, does violent acts, does forceful things, etc. etc. come to an end. I am sure that you can see we are at an impasse. I do not wish to force you to my side. God will reveal all truth to both of us given sufficient time. For now, as these topics have continually swirled about and permeated virtually every topic here, and it is clear that resolution cannot come when each of us is already convinced in our own mind, I feel that we should lay these things to rest, and agree to discuss other topics without so much expenditure of time here. There are many topics which might interest everyone and for which we might better agree.

Can I say "You win!" the debate so that we can move on?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC, this is at least the third time I'm saying this. I believe that to understand the incidents where God apparently acted violent in the OT, one first needs to have a firm understanding of God's character. You have not been correctly representing what I've been saying, in spite of my clarity regarding this point. I am NOT saying there is not value in studying the OT accounts, but that FIRST one should embark upon this already having a firm understanding of God's character.

You're free to disagree with this, of course, but please disagree with something I've actually been saying!

I asked you the following:



What do you think?

in my opinion, the subject of eli would have been much better brought up under a discussion of parental responsibility and holy office responsibilities. page 6 118790

thanks tom for your posts specifically related to Gods wrath, and therefore on topic to this thread, especially this one 118936.

our God is a God of justice and it is interesting to watch how He works:

Title: "The Wrath of God,The Wrath of Satan, the The Wrath of Man"

And would the "Wrath of Jesus" help us understand the Wrath of God?

Does Jesus help us understand what God's character is like or should we determine God's character through another means and try to fit Jesus into that idea? I also am not sure how Eli would help us understand what God is like. Unless, of course, it fits in with the latter means of fitting him with our conceived idea of God.

you know the "wrath of Jesus" hadnt occured to me...

but that does bring up a point.
the bible says God was manifested in Jesus.

was God manifested in Jesus?
or are we denying that in some form?

Tom,

I do largely agree with this statement, except that I disagree with the verb tense. I believe I have also reiterated this several times in our discussion, but the fact is that I believe it was Jesus Christ who walked with Enoch, Christ who met with Abraham, Christ who wrestled with Jacob, Christ who led His people out of Egypt and through the wilderness, and it has always been Christ, throughout time, who IS revealing the Father to us (this is why He calls Himself the "I AM"). Notice that the last book of the Bible was written well after Christ had ascended to Heaven. Yet it is called "The Revelation of Jesus Christ." Christ has also revealed more through Ellen White. Christ has always, is always, will always, reveal the Father to His people.

In other words, I have no special binoculars focusing on the "only Christ" of the 4 BC - 31 AD era. I see Christ as continually giving His people a revelation of the Father throughout time.

In our day, He continues to do so through the Comforter, sent in His name.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

In what sense do you agree with the statement? (i.e., the first part of your first sentence says, "I do largely agree with this statement.") I'm not seeing this.

Both Scripture and the SOP bring out that Christ came with the explicit purpose of revealing the Father. The SOP points out that the true understanding of God had been lost, so Christ came to reveal the truth. If the OT presented the Father as clearly as Christ in the flesh did, then why would it be necessary for Christ to do this? In fact, the SOP says that the "whole purpose" of Christ's earthly mission was the revelation of God. (ST 1/20/90). If God had already been revealed, and this was the whole purpose of His mission, it seems like He would have had to have come at all, if this had already been done.

The difficulty involved in the revelation of God in the OT is that God was constrained in His actions by the unbelief of the people. For example, God allowed divorce, polygamy, and so forth, so that some thing that God approved of these things. When Christ came in the flesh, He was not so constrained. He was free to reveal what God is really like, without being in the context of governing a hard-hearted and unbelieving people.

Also, and extremely important, Christ was flesh! He was a human being, that could be seen and heard and felt (as John points out in 1 John chapter 1). We, being human beings, can best understand what God is like by studying a human being who was God. God, in His graciousness, has given us this opportunity.

The SOP tells us it would be good for us to spend a thoughtful hour each day studying the life of Christ, especially the latter scenes.

To be clear, again, I'm not saying that we should limit our study to the life of Christ in the flesh, but that this should be our foundation. That is, this is indeed where our binoculars should be focused, but they shouldn't be mounted on a tripod that can't move.

God did not sit back idly wishing there was something He could do prevent Saul from dying. The only reason Saul was able to successfully kill himself is due to the fact God chose not to intervene and prevent it. Do you agree? If not, what do you believe?

PS - Finding fault with my view does not explain what you believe is the truth. So, please take the time to explain what you think is true. Thank you.

Tom, by focusing on Jesus while here in the flesh you ignore a huge part of the Bible. Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Also, Jesus came the first time as a suffering sacrifice - not as a conquering king. Therefore, His revelation of the Father was incomplete in certain key ways, namely, He did not reveal the wrath of God. He never "employed" the withdraw and permit principle. He never commanded someone to stone a sinner to death.

MM, Ellen White suggested that we focus on the life of Jesus while here in the flesh. She said it would be good to spend a thoughtful hour doing this, especially considering the latter scenes of His life. Was she ignoring a huge part of the Bible?

Tom, if our desire is to understand the wrath of God, His retributive justice, then, no, studying what Jesus did while here in the flesh will not be helpful. Yes, we can study what He said while here in the flesh. He spoke often about the future punishment and destruction of the wicked.

If it were true that all that man could know of God was revealed by Jesus Christ while here with us in the flesh, then studying what Jesus did while here in the flesh would be helpful, don't you agree?

It is not true to say Jesus revealed everything we can know about God through His actions while here in the flesh. That wasn't His purpose. It's not even true to say Jesus taught everything we can know about God while here in the flesh. "'I have many things to say unto you, but ye can not bear them now.' Their own limited comprehension put a restraint upon him, so that he could not open to them the things he longed to unfold; for it would be labor lost." {Bulletin, March 3, 1899 par. 1}

Christ said to his disciples, "I have many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." There were many things he did not say to them because their education and ideas were of such a character that his instruction would have confused their minds, and raised questioning and unbelief that it would have been difficult to remove. {Canvasser, December 11, 1890 par. 3}

Not only was it His purpose, it was His "whole purpose."

Tom, do you agree Jesus was unable to teach His disciples everything He wanted to? And, do you agree that in spite of this He was able to reveal everything they needed to know to be set right in regards to God's character?

Regarding your second question, it seems to be a bit imprecise. Here's what EGW actually wrote:



Here are some points to mention:

1.The only way in which he could set and keep men right was to make himself visible and familiar to their eyes.

2.The whole purpose of Christ's mission was to set men right through the revelation of God.

3.The object of Christ's mission was the revelation of God to the world.

If you're asking if Christ accomplished these things, I say yes.

Regarding if there were things Christ would have liked to have said to His disciples, yes there were, but you seem to have the assumption that because Christ could not say these things, since the disciples weren't ready to hear them, this means that Christ did not reveal something He could have had they been willing to listen. This reasoning is flawed for at least four reasons.

1.The thing which Christ had to say to the disciples was not necessary related to the "revelation of God" EGW speaks of.

2.Christ may have already revealed the thing He was going to tell the disciples about. The disciples may not have understood it, but it could have already been revealed.

3.The thing which Christ couldn't tell the disciples He may have revealed afterward in some other way (e.g. dying on the cross).

4.The SOP tells us that all that man can know of God was revealed by Christ in the flesh, and that His mission was the revelation of God, and that Christ accomplished this mission. So there couldn't have been something lacking in His revelation.

Now if I may ask you a question, you said:



but there are several quotes saying that this was his purpose. So I guess my question is, why are you asserting this given that Ellen White wrote that:

1.Everything man can know of God was revealed by Christ.
2.His mission was the revelation of God, in order to set men right and keep men right with God.
3.Christ accomplished His mission, which was the revelation of God.

On a side note, Ellen here says Jesus "could not fail". And yet you insist that God did not know this in advance, that He was not certain Jesus would succeed.

Regarding your speculations and assumptions articulated above: No, I do not believe Jesus revealed through His actions alone everything we need to know about God. Yes, I believe Jesus revealed everything we need to know about God through His actions and teachings. He very plainly said that He couldn't say everything He wanted to because of prevailing erroneous ideas. Nevertheless, He went on to say, the Holy Spirit would explain it latter on. Again, two things Jesus did not reveal through His actions was employing the withdraw and permit principle or commanding people to stone sinners to death.

What she wrote should be read in context. Elsewhere she emphasized that Christ could fail. You're aware of this, aren't you? So if you took it the way you're suggesting here, you'd have her contradicting herself.



EGW said that all that man can know of God was revealed in Christ's life and character, speaking of when He was here with us in the flesh.



According to EGW, what Christ taught, He lived, and it was this which gave His teachings the power they had.



No He didn't.



He said the Spirit would guide them into all truth, and bring to remembrance the things He had taught them.

The SOP says that Christ's mission was the revelation of God, and that Christ accomplished this mission. Actually, Christ said this, in John 17, and she quoted Him, and explained Christ's words as His accomplishing His mission of revealing the Father.



I think there's a better way of looking at this. Think of things in positive terms. What *did* Christ reveal? He revealed the Father. What *was* His mission, His purpose? To reveal the Father. Did He accomplish this? Yes, He did. Was there anything lacking in His revelation of the Father? No, there was not.

If one starts from this standpoint, by faith accepting that Christ did do what He said He did (and the SOP as well) -- reveal the Father -- then it should be possible to deal with any questions or doubts that might come up, related to isolated incidents that may be difficult to understand.

Besides Saul, I came across another instance. In 2 Chronicles 18 starting around the middle, He asks the "hosts of heaven" (a side topic) who will entice Ahab so he will fail. I had come to this in a conversation regarding Genesis 6 and therefore had a good idea. I decided to check the commentary to see what it said. Amazingly, I found it to call this a parabolic vision and that it must be interpreted as such and that which God does not restrain is represented as having done. Hmmm.... Where have I heard that before. It goes on to mention the fiery serpents and agreed with Ellen White in saying that God withdrew His protection with death as the result. They even refer to GC pg. 614.

So, seems to me, this idea of withdrawing protection is not some newfangled idea to put God in better light than He deserves, but something that has been around for many years supported by the Bible, Ellen White, and the commentary. And a few here on this forum.

This is assuming that the idea of God's withdrawing His protection puts Him in a better light than the idea of God's directly causing the action in question. What do you think this is the case? (I'm asking because some have questioned this, saying that if God permits something to happen, there's no difference between this and if He had done it Himself).

True, she does not contradict herself. In theory Jesus could have failed, but in reality God knew He wouldn't. The two are perfectly compatible. Of course, only God knows the beginning from the end; therefore, it doesn't apply to us. That is, it cannot be said of us that we know such and such will or will not happen in the future. We can say, "In theory it could happen." But we cannot also say, "But in reality we know it will not." The rules change dramatically when we factor in God's perfect knowledge of the future (i.e. He knows in advance precisely how things will play out).


If you take into account everything she wrote about it, it is clear she taught Jesus revealed everything we need to know about God through His actions and through His teachings.


Jesus taught Moses permitted divorce. You are implying Jesus lived it. He taught the wicked will wail and gnash their teeth in hell. You are implying He lived it. Obviously, Jesus did not live everything He taught.


The SOP quotes I posted awhile ago say so.


Jesus said the Holy Spirit would teach them the things He couldn't.


Jesus taught the truth regarding the wrath of God. It's just that He didn't employ the withdraw and permit principle of destroying sinners, nor did He command people to stone sinners to death. That Jesus didn't do these things while here in the flesh doesn't prove God didn't do them in the past.

I'm not saying you believe it does. I still have no idea why you think God did such things. You dance around the idea that He ran the risk of being misunderstood by accommodating their sinful desires and expectations, but this insight in no way explains why you think God did such things. Jesus never gave sinners permission to do something to accommodate their sinful desires and expectations. Why do you think He did such things in the OT?

Kland, nobody is denying God employed the withdraw and permit principle in the OT. The question is - Did He ever cause death and destruction Himself (as opposed to allowing others to cause it)? And, as Tom pointed out above, Is God less culpable if He allows others to cause death and destruction within His established and enforced limits?

You think so because you hold to a compatibilist view of free will. That Ellen White did not is clear by such statements as the following:





Given your idea, compatibilist free will, the idea that heaven was imperiled is impossible. That is, given how you view things, it's impossible that heaven was ever in any peril. Yet Ellen White says it was. Therefore her view was not compatibilist, which means the things you are suggesting were compatible aren't.



She we could. God could make this known. In fact, this is exactly what you are asserting.



Reality doesn't change. I don't know what "rules" you are talking about.

Ellen White certainly didn't have any of this in mind in her statement in ST 1/20/90. This whole discussion is tangential to the points she made there.

(More later)

I don't know what you're saying here. Is it any different than what I mentioned? That is, that, as EGW stated, all that man can know of God was revealed in Christ's life and character, speaking of when He was here with us in the flesh?



Really? How does Ellen White's statement that all that man can know of God was revealed in His life and character, and her statement that what He taught He lived, imply what you are suggesting?



Here's her statement:



I think you're trying to make an invalid application of this.



I addressed this argument in detail previously. That the Holy Spirit would teach them things Christ couldn't or didn't does not imply that Ellen White's statement that all that man can know of God was revealed by Christ's life and teaching is incorrect. I explained why.

M: Again, two things Jesus did not reveal through His actions was employing the withdraw and permit principle or commanding people to stone sinners to death.

T: I think there's a better way of looking at this. Think of things in positive terms. What *did* Christ reveal? He revealed the Father. What *was* His mission, His purpose? To reveal the Father. Did He accomplish this? Yes, He did. Was there anything lacking in His revelation of the Father? No, there was not.

If one starts from this standpoint, by faith accepting that Christ did do what He said He did (and the SOP as well) -- reveal the Father -- then it should be possible to deal with any questions or doubts that might come up, related to isolated incidents that may be difficult to understand.

M:Jesus taught the truth regarding the wrath of God. It's just that He didn't employ the withdraw and permit principle of destroying sinners, nor did He command people to stone sinners to death.[/quote]

Nor teach this. What He taught He lived.



What Jesus revealed of God does.



Far from understanding everything God does, I can't even understand why you do what you do. For example, why you ask a question like this. I don't think "God did such things." I think the things God did are the things Jesus Christ did.



I'd suggest you quote something I've said, and ask me about that. There is such a convoluted and inaccurate embedding of the ideas I've been sharing that I'll just comment that I've given you a suggestion on how to go about things. I'll repeat it.



My suggested approach is to start with Christ, see what He revealed about God, and then, with an understanding of God's character as revealed by Christ as a base, *then* (and only then) investigate the incidents in Scripture which appear to have God acting violently.

We're just going to keep speaking past each other as long as you don't do this, because your view of God's character is so different. You see that God can do violent things (although you don't label them as such, but things which, if anyone else besides God did them you would call violent; I don't know of a short way of describing this other than "violent") without acting contrary to His character. Based on the person of Christ, these ideas are from my point of view impossible. I don't have to understand exactly what happened in every case to know this. All I have to understand is what Christ was like. God was, and is, like that. He is not violent, and does not do violent things, like purposely cause people to suffer excruciating pain by setting them on fire, or inflicting them with diseases, or shooting them, or knifing them, or any such thing. Violence is contrary to God's character. God is not violent.

I am. I've been arguing against this idea since the first time you said it. I've repeatedly pointed this out.



Another question that comes to mind is why you keep asserting that God employed the withdraw and permit principle in the OT as if this were something which I was asserting, given that I've so often explained to you that this is not what I believe.

Why are you doing this?



I didn't "point this out." I asked a question, for the hopes of having the difference clarified for people who don't understand the difference.

Maybe I need you to clarify this for me. Maybe the specifics is what I'm missing?


Well, as the references show, there is no difference as God fully is willing to accept responsibility when he allows things to happen. Yet at the same time, it is different.

For example, if you see someone standing in the street and a car is approaching from behind them and you do nothing to help them get out of the way....well that is sad. However, it is different than if they were standing on the curb and you pushed them in the path just as the car comes up. But, either way, the results are the same. And most people would blame you.

Yet, what if you were waving, yelling, pointing, and trying to pull them out of the way, and they keep swinging a baseball bat at you until the point you finally let them reap the result?

What the SOP says is the following:



This says that God was "caused" to withdraw His protection. Put this way, as the SOP put it, it is clear that the active element which resulted in destruction was the action of the Jews themselves. To say that God "employs the withdraw and permit principle" in order to destroy implies that God is the active element. This is how MM sees things, but not how I do. MM sees that God always destroys, but sometimes He does it one way, but sometimes another.

So I've objected to his putting things this way, instead of how the SOP puts it, because it obscures what's really happening. It's not that God says, "I must destroy. How will I do it? Oh, I know! I'll withdraw My protection." but God is *caused* to remove His protection.

Ah. I guess I missed the weasel word. Got to watch those things.

As in:
God's gonna get you. Sometimes it's an outright direct act. Other times it's more of a sly way. Other times he uses nature or evil people to get you (as in they have no choice for their evil actions - God made them do it) But, either way, if you don't fall in line exactly, you're goin' down. And if you do stay in line, there's seven virgins waitin' for you.

I guess a question similar to causing/permitting death and destruction would be to ask is there a difference between God removing His protection because of His choice or because of our choice. He could force protection on us, so if He removed it for either reason, is there a difference.

In the case of Job, He removed it for His choice. In the case of the destruction of Jerusalem, He did so because others caused Him to do so.

I'd say there is a difference. In the second case, there's a cause and effect relationship. In the first case, God took an action to allow His character to be revealed, rather an extraordinary one, as it could so easily be misunderstood.

Tom, it is clear in the Bible and the SOP that God has employed the withdraw and permit principle. It also clear Jesus didn't employ it while here in the flesh. And, God is not judged by the same standard we are.

The plea may be made that a loving Father would not see His children suffering the punishment of God by fire while He had the power to relieve them. But God would, for the good of His subjects and for their safety, punish the transgressor. God does not work on the plan of man. He can do infinite justice that man has no right to do before his fellow man. Noah would have displeased God to have drowned one of the scoffers and mockers that harassed him, but God drowned the vast world. Lot would have had no right to inflict punishment on his sons-in-law, but God would do it in strict justice. {LDE 241.2}

NOTE: In both cases mentioned above it was God, not Satan, who caused death and destruction.

Kland, when you were born, did you ask God to protect you from the natural, inevitable effect of sinning (emotional agony ending in death)? Or, did He do it without your permission? Perhaps your parents gave God permission. If so, what about all the children of unbelieving parents? Does God force His protection on them?

PS - I don't recall you ever explaining what you believe will cause the wicked to suffer in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness at the end of time. Also, what is their life source as they suffer so? That is, what keeps them alive so they do not die prematurely (before suffering for each and every sin)?

It's clear that God is at times caused to removed His protection, if that's what you mean (e.g. GC 35).



Right! it's not a principle that God, or Christ, employs.



What standard is God judged by?



We've discussed the flood before. From Scripture, the SOP, and studies by creation scientists, we see that the flood was caused by waters which burst forth from the great depths into the atmosphere. These waters would have had to have been under tremendous pressure to do so. Therefore it is apparent that God permitted the pressure the water was already under to propel it into the atmosphere, which agrees with the principles EGW sets forth in GC 35-37.

Also, in order to properly construct a theology, we need to have a foundation set. That foundation is Jesus Christ. He is the corner stone. He is the light of the glory of God, the revealer of God's character. Before we can hope to understand Scripture, we need to know God. We know God through Jesus Christ. All that man know of God was revealed by Jesus Christ in the flesh, in His life and character.

By leaving out the words "employed" and "permit" what are you suggesting?


To use your words, Jesus didn't remove His protection while here in the flesh. This doesn't jive with your theory.


The quote I posted makes it clear. He drowned millions and burned thousands alive. We can't.


Your interpretation assumes nature is self-acting, that God did not employ the forces of nature to ensure it behaved the way it did without exceeding His established limits, that God simply stood aside and let nature do its thing.

MM, I've asked you on multiple occasions not to phrase things in this way, and I've explained to you why. What did I say?



I've mentioned repeatedly that the Destruction of Jerusalem demonstrates this principle. Jesus said:







You said God isn't judged by the same standard we are. I'm asking by what standard God is judged. You haven't said.



No it doesn't. It points out that the flood was caused by waters understand the earth's surface, which had to have been under great pressure, which God permitted to erupt into the atmosphere and cause the flood. There's no "self-acting" assumption here.

(You're misusing this phrase, by the way -- Look at the context!)

No, that's not what I meant. Do you see a difference between the two statements? If so, please elaborate.


And I've repeatedly responded by saying it didn't happen while Jesus was here in the flesh. The point is - Jesus didn't remove His protection and permit His enemies to destroy the Jews while He was here in the flesh. This is what doesn't jive with your theory, namely, that Jesus revealed everything there is to know about God while here in the flesh.


The difference in standards is implied in the quote I posted. God can employ the forces of nature to destroy sinners without incurring guilt or condemnation. We cannot. Obviously "infinite justice" does not violate the law, the standard in judgment. Law and justice makes God responsible for meting out justice and judgment. They do not task us with these responsibilities. By executing justice and judgment, God is merely complying with the demands of law and justice. Indeed, He would be in violation of law and justice if He refused to execute justice and judgment.

Ahh... Employ. Now I think I understand the difference. You mean employ as a warrior "employs" a sword. You are suggesting God "employs" nature as a weapon of mass destruction.

Why do you keep doing what Tom has asked you not to do?

Well said, Mike.

I'm glad to see that you are properly interpreting the Bible in being willing to account for all of the evidence, not just a selection from it.

To elevate one part of the Bible above another is dangerous ground, considering the whole of it was given under the same Spirit of Prophecy.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Perhaps Mike means "employ" precisely as described by Mrs. White.

I suppose the Flood did represent mass destruction, though I rather like to think of it as mass cleansing.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Please consider the following inspired insight:

"The bowels of the earth were the Lord's arsenal, from which he drew forth the weapons he employed in the destruction of the old world. Waters in the bowels of the earth gushed forth, and united with the waters from Heaven, to accomplish the work of destruction. Since the flood, God has used both water and fire in the earth as his agents to destroy wicked cities. {3SG 82.2}

GC, thank you.

That seems like an odd thing to ask and an odd way.

Do you intend to mean that those kids who were abused by their parents or others, or have suffered natural or man-made causes failed to ask God to protect them?

Or do you intend to mean that God arbitrarily protects some children from suffering without their permission while others He doesn't?

Or do you intend to ask, Why do good things happen to anyone?

I've never heard of any person using the forces of nature to destroy sinners. Therefore, I doubt anyone could be considered for incurring guilt or condemnation for doing something they are not able to. I don't think that is what Tom meant by asking by what standard. Maybe start by answering, by what standard are we measured by.

"from which he drew forth the weapons he employed in the destruction of the old world."

This seems similar, in some ways, to a previous post of using the word "punish" when the word, "punish", is what was under question. How many times does Ellen White use employ in this sense and how many times does she use result in or caused to happen? If this is the only place she uses "employ" in the sense, it would seem that you aren't considering everything. I agree, taken by itself, it does seem to support your idea. However, if there was something where she said the exact opposite, what do we conclude then?

How about both? I don't take the two to be mutually exclusive concepts, do you?

There are times when God acts, and times when God permits. However, in both cases, God is ultimately responsible.

Consider the case of a teacher: If two students get into an argument and begin treating each other disrespectfully and with "colorful" language against the classroom rules, the teacher could "punish" them one of two ways:

1) Allow the fight to escalate until they have punished themselves; or
2) Step in and punish them directly.

OR both!

In any case, the teacher is the authority figure in the classroom, and the buck stops with him/her for what goes on in the classroom--whether by direct action or permissiveness.

God is the authority for the Universe. He is ultimately responsible for allowing things to take place. It is only in light of the Great Controversy that we can comprehend why He sometimes allows things, and sometimes does not.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Did God kill Saul?

Should we believe the Bible?

I don't remember if you were involved in the earlier discussion of this exact question, but it was rather well discussed earlier, and the question answered.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

By "ultimately responsible" do you mean something more than God's permitting it to happen? For example, is God ultimately responsible for the entrance of sin into the universe? One could say yes, in the sense that He created beings who could use their free will to sin, and this would apply to Saul's death as well. Did you have something beyond this in mind? (i.e., simply permitting a thing to happen, in Saul's case)

No, this isn't a viable response. MM is asking me a question related to *my* view, not his. I know what he has in mind by the word "employ," and I disagree with his idea, and he knows this. If he wants to express his idea, that's fine, he can use whatever language he wants. If he wants to express my view, in a way that I feel I can respond to, he needs to do with language that I agree with.

Here's an example. Suppose I ask you, "GC, why do you believe that God will torture people by setting them on fire?" how could you respond to that question? You can't, because you don't perceive God's setting people on fire for the purpose of causing them excruciating pain to be torture. So I don't use that language. I use language that you can agree with, otherwise there's no point in my asking you the question.

Tom,

I think my point was that it was not Mike saying it, but rather Ellen White. If you wish to say that Ellen White is using terms you disagree with, take that up with her.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I think it is important to realize that God is in control. Period. He does not need to be called to our account for it, He is in charge, and not us.



For the same reasons, we cannot think to understand His wrath which is yet to be revealed.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Well discussed and answered?
I didn't perceive it as so.

Should we believe the Bible? Which part of it about how Saul died?

Either God killed Saul or He didn't. They are mutually exclusive concepts putting it in MMs frame of idea.

But, God is willing to take responsibility since He could step in and preserve Saul, stop satan, prevent free choice, refused to create that which could reject Him.

But, if God said He killed Saul, but didn't actually kill Saul, could we conclude there may be other places in the Bible where it says God did certain things, but really, as in Saul's case, God was driven away and results happened?

...then we have a problem, don't we?

"God is not a man, that he should lie" (Num. 23:19). That should be sufficient to remove this question.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

This isn't true. Here's what MM said:



This is uniquely MM's wording. I've never seen any one else say this. Certainly Ellen White didn't.

Is God responsible for the entrance of sin into the universe?

Regarding God's wrath being revealed, it has been revealed. Throughout Scripture is has been revealed, and Romans 1 draws specific attention to this, to name just one spot:



Above all, the wrath of God was revealed on the cross.

Regarding God's being called to account, it's certainly true that we have no rights over God, but God is humble, incredibly so (as Jesus' washing His disciples feet demonstrated), and has submitted His case for all to be judged. Every knee will bow, not because God forces them to against their will, but because they will have been convinced that God is righteous, by the judgment.

Tom,

You have not done due diligence. That's not the statement I was referencing, but this one:

And we might perhaps even include this one...though it was not quoted in my earlier post on this as the quote above was.

Those are the quotes which, as Mike has said, are substantiated in the SOP.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Ok, I see what happened. I didn't comment on this statement of MM's, but kland did. You commented on his comment of MM's comment. Regarding nature's not being self-acting, I first brought that quote to MM's attention. Pretty funny.

There's actually two different quotes involved. One speaks of nature's not being self-acting, and that deals with God's maintaining nature. I've pointed out that if God were to be caused to withdraw from His maintaining work, that it was likely that bad things would result. God needs to directly act to have nature act as it does (e.g., keep the earth's orbit in line). So the idea I was sharing was that God directly acts to keep nature in line.

Ok, given that, if God is caused to release His control, and bad things happen, God could be said to be employing the forces of nature for destruction. This would be in harmony with His character, and with how He is presented in Scripture (as doing that which He permits). Similarly, at times it is Satan who is causing the destruction, and God permits that. God is also presented as doing that which He permits Satan to do.

By the way, the early Christians viewed that the destruction that came by way of natural disasters was caused by Satan. That is, this was their world view.

At any rate, the "self-acting" passage in "The Ministry of Healing" say nothing of God's employing nature for destruction, so the concept of "self-acting" she shares was not in that context (i.e., she wasn't arguing, as MM did, that saying that if God did not directly cause natural disasters, that would imply that nature is self-acting).

Thanks for helping me understand that. I guess that is like the, Who killed Saul, question.

I guess the thing I find wrong with the thought that nature somehow acts on its own is the fact that God governs nature.


God is in control, just as much as a man is in control of the computer of his creation. The computer does not act on its own, but does what it was programmed to do. God is behind and supports all the realm of nature by His own power. Computers do not think. They do not choose for themselves. They merely follow, thoughtlessly, the code they have been given. Without electricity, they cannot even do this. Likewise, nature does not think. It has no power of choice. It merely follows the Creator's instructions. Without His power, it would also cease to function.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

It was my understanding that Tom was trying to say Ellen White was not arguing that nature is self-acting.

Nature includes beings who have the ability to think and act on their own, so that's quite unike a computer.

Except for the fact that computers are also "teachable" to a degree, by being able to change course dependent upon the data coming in.

As it turns out, we who create computers may not always expect the results we get from them. But God, who created nature, always knows in advance what will happen--including what free moral agents will choose!

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Nature is suffering from "the wrath of man".

All the pollution being pumped into the air and water, the chemicals being sprayed on fields, food and everywhere! The engineering of foods and filling them with a whole list of chemicals (just read the labels on some things!)

Geoengineers talk about things like sulfate injections into the air, iron fertilization, cloud seeding, increasing the amount of sulfates in the Earth's atmosphere, artificial ionization of earth’s atmosphere. Then there's genetic manipulation and engineering. Mixing the genes of plants and animals and even humans! And also cutting down the natural air filters of the world (forests)

They are even developing a contraceptive vaccine that aims to control populations of wild animals, such as rabbits and foxes. This is an immuno-contraceptive vaccine which causes an animal's immune system to produce antibodies that act against some essential event or structure in the reproductive process.

Quote:
"Environmental warfare is defined as the intentional modification or manipulation of the natural ecology, such as climate and weather, earth systems such as the ionosphere, magnetosphere, tectonic plate system, and/or the triggering of seismic events (earthquakes) to cause intentional physical, economic, and psycho-social, and physical destruction to an intended target geophysical or population location, as part of strategic or tactical war." (Eco News)



God created a perfect world
but who made it so imperfect?

Who is the "he" in the quote below......and who is doing "his" work?

"he will bring disease and disaster, until populous cities are reduced to ruin and desolation. Even now he is at work. In accidents and calamities by sea and by land, in great conflagrations, in fierce tornadoes and terrific hailstorms, in tempests, floods, cyclones, tidal waves, and earthquakes, in every place and in a thousand forms, Satan is exercising his power. He sweeps away the ripening harvest, and famine and distress follow. He imparts to the air a deadly taint, and thousands perish by the pestilence. These visitations are to become more and more frequent and disastrous. Destruction will be upon both man and beast." {CH 461.1}



A lot of the troubles in this world are the result of
CAUSE AND EFFECT

Mankind breaks the natural laws of health
Mankind upsets the laws of nature
and of course the moral laws as well --
the result is pretty disastorous.

Clearly you see the difference, since you put "teachable" in quotes.



I disagree with this idea. If this were the case, then when God created Lucifer, it was inevitable that sin should occur.

The SOP tells us:



If what you are suggesting were true, how could heaven have been imperiled?

Agreed, dedication.

Again, God has employed the forces of nature to cause death and destruction. He has employed water and fire to cause universal and local "annihilation" and "extermination". Note her use of these two words in the following passages:

"And the reason why man was not annihilated was because God so loved him that He made the gift of His dear Son that He should suffer the penalty of his transgression. {FW 21.2}

"The world see the very class whom they have mocked and derided, and desired to exterminate, pass unharmed through pestilence, tempest, and earthquake. He who is to the transgressors of His law a devouring fire, is to His people a safe pavilion. {GC 654.3}

NOTE: In the quote above she equates the "devouring fire" of God with "pestilence, tempest, and earthquake". Indeed, our God is a consuming fire. He employs the forces of nature to punish and destroy sinners.

"But not so when the great controversy shall be ended. Then, the plan of redemption having been completed, the character of God is revealed to all created intelligences. The precepts of His law are seen to be perfect and immutable. Then sin has made manifest its nature, Satan his character. Then the extermination of sin will vindicate God's love and establish His honor before a universe of beings who delight to do His will, and in whose heart is His law. {DA 764.3}

"The whole universe will have become witnesses to the nature and results of sin. And its utter extermination, which in the beginning would have brought fear to angels and dishonor to God, will now vindicate His love and establish His honor before the universe of beings who delight to do His will, and in whose heart is His law. Never will evil again be manifest. Says the word of God: "Affliction shall not rise up the second time." Nahum 1:9. The law of God, which Satan has reproached as the yoke of bondage, will be honored as the law of liberty. A tested and proved creation will never again be turned from allegiance to Him whose character has been fully manifested before them as fathomless love and infinite wisdom. {GC 504.1}

"God is slow to anger. He gave the wicked nations a time of probation that they might become acquainted with Him and His character. According to the light given was their condemnation for refusing to receive the light and choosing their own ways rather than God's ways. God gave the reason why He did not at once dispossess the Canaanites. The iniquity of the Amorites was not full. Through their iniquity they were gradually bringing themselves to the point where God's forbearance could no longer be exercised and they would be exterminated. Until the point was reached and their iniquity was full, the vengeance of God would be delayed. All nations had a period of probation. Those who made void God's law would advance from one degree of wickedness to another. Children would inherit the rebellious spirit of their parents and do worse than their fathers before them until God's wrath would fall upon them. The punishment was not less because deferred (MS 58, 1900). {2BC 1005.6}

"The Amorites were inhabitants of Canaan, and the Lord had promised the land of Canaan to the Israelites; but a long interval must pass before His people should possess the land. He stated the reason why this interval must pass. He told them that the iniquity of the Amorites was not yet full, and their expulsion and extermination could not be justified until they had filled up the cup of their iniquity. Idolatry and sin marked their course, but the measure of their guilt was not such that they could be devoted to destruction. In His love and pity God would let light shine upon them in more distinct rays; He would give them opportunity to behold the working of His wondrous power, that there might be no excuse for their course of evil. It is thus that God deals with the nations. Through a certain period of probation He exercises long-suffering toward nations, cities, and individuals. But when it is evident that they will not come unto Him that they might have life, judgments are visited upon them. The time came when judgment was inflicted upon the Amorites, and the time will come when all the transgressors of His law will know that God will by no means clear the guilty (Ibid., May 2, 1893). {1BC 1093.5}

"The Hebrews had an opportunity to reflect upon the scene that they had witnessed in the visitation of God's wrath upon the most prominent ones in this great rebellion. The goodness and mercy of God were displayed in not completely exterminating this ungrateful people when His wrath was kindled against the most responsible ones. He gave the congregation who had permitted themselves to be deceived, space for repentance. The fact that the Lord, their invisible Leader, showed so much long-suffering and mercy in this instance is distinctly recorded as evidence of His willingness to forgive the most grievous offenders when they have a sense of their sin and return unto Him with repentance and humiliation. The congregation had been arrested in their presumptuous course by the display of the Lord's vengeance; but they were not convinced that they were great sinners against Him, deserving His wrath for their rebellious course. {3T 355.1}

NOTE: Nowhere in the passages above does Ellen White "dare to attribute" the judgments of God to Satan or other agencies. She fully acknowledges the wrath of God as the wrath of God.

"Notwithstanding they had had the most convincing evidence of God's displeasure at their course, in the destruction of the men who had deceived them, they dared to attribute His judgments to Satan, declaring that through the power of the evil one, Moses and Aaron had caused the death of good and holy men. It was this act that sealed their doom. {PP 404.4}

And what would be the wrath of God?

The various ways God expressed His wrath are clearly described in the books and passages posted above.