According to the following SOP passages, the "destroying angel" and the "angel of the LORD" is a holy angel, not an evil angel:

Had Pharaoh accepted the evidence of God's power given in the first plague, he would have been spared all the judgments that followed. But his determined stubbornness called for still greater manifestations of the power of God, and plague followed plague, until at last he was called to look upon the dead face of his own first born, and those of his kindred; while the children of Israel, whom he had regarded as slaves, were unharmed by the plagues, untouched by the destroying angel. God made it evident upon whom rested His favor, who were His people. {CC 89.4}

Moses delivered his message; but the proud king's answer was, "Who is the Lord, that I should obey His voice to let Israel go? I know not the Lord, neither will I let Israel go." Ex. 5:2. The Lord worked for His people by signs and wonders, sending terrible judgments upon Pharaoh. At length the destroying angel was bidden to slay the first-born of man and beast among the Egyptians. {DA 51.3}

The storm came as predicted--thunder and hail, and fire mingled with it, "very grievous, such as there was none like it in all the land of Egypt since it became a nation. And the hail smote throughout all the land of Egypt all that was in the field, both man and beast; and the hail smote every herb of the field, and brake every tree of the field." Ruin and desolation marked the path of the destroying angel. The land of Goshen alone was spared. It was demonstrated to the Egyptians that the earth is under the control of the living God, that the elements obey His voice, and that the only safety is in obedience to Him. {PP 269.3}

What is the seal of the living God, which is placed in the foreheads of His people? It is a mark which angels, but not human eyes, can read; for the destroying angel must see this mark of redemption (Letter 126, 1898). {4BC 1161.4} The angel with the writer's ink horn is to place a mark upon the foreheads of all who are separated from sin and sinners, and the destroying angel follows this angel (Letter 12, 1886). {4BC 1161.5}

There the flames of the sacrifice ascending to heaven from the threshing floor of Ornan had turned aside the sword of the destroying angel (1 Chronicles 21)-- fitting symbol of the Saviour's sacrifice and mediation for guilty men. {GC 18.2}

1 Chronicles
21:11 So Gad came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee
21:12 Either three years' famine; or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh [thee]; or else three days the sword of the LORD, even the pestilence, in the land, and the angel of the LORD destroying throughout all the coasts of Israel. Now therefore advise thyself what word I shall bring again to him that sent me.
21:13 And David said unto Gad, I am in a great strait: let me fall now into the hand of the LORD; for very great [are] his mercies: but let me not fall into the hand of man.
21:14 So the LORD sent pestilence upon Israel: and there fell of Israel seventy thousand men.
21:15 And God sent an angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was destroying, the LORD beheld, and he repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, It is enough, stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD stood by the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite.
21:16 And David lifted up his eyes, and saw the angel of the LORD stand between the earth and the heaven, having a drawn sword in his hand stretched out over Jerusalem. Then David and the elders [of Israel, who were] clothed in sackcloth, fell upon their faces.
21:17 And David said unto God, [Is it] not I [that] commanded the people to be numbered? even I it is that have sinned and done evil indeed; but [as for] these sheep, what have they done? let thine hand, I pray thee, O LORD my God, be on me, and on my father's house; but not on thy people, that they should be plagued.
21:18 Then the angel of the LORD commanded Gad to say to David, that David should go up, and set up an altar unto the LORD in the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite.

It's your opinion that these are holy angels?

Tom,

What you demand for someone to be blameless is that they can mind-read. How would I truly know if you "would agree that the presentation is accurate?" Especially you, Tom, have a tendency to be upset with the way others here interpret your views.

However, since you take issue with what I posted, and feel it is not your view, I would be very happy to hear the reasons why it is not your view. How is your view materially different from what I presented?

Is that not what you believe? That God withdraws His protection in order for evil to befall the sinner(s), such as the plagues, the serpents, etc.?

Surely you would not believe that God withdraws His protection in order that a specific evil will come. Or perhaps you believe that God actually tells Satan which evil to bring? This is why I said "and see what happens next."

Either God withdraws His protection to allow some non-God-determined evil to come, or God withdraws His protection to allow a God-ordained evil to come. Do you see what I am getting at here? The way I phrased my earlier statement, I was putting your belief into the best light I could. Now, if you disagree with the way I put it, please do not just say I was not "blameless" but tell me where the blame should be. With what part of what I wrote do you disagree?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I'm not saying that you said there's nothing to learn outside of the Gospels. What I was trying to confirm is that you believe there is nothing outside of the Gospels regarding what "man can know of God" that is not in the Gospels. Isn't that what you believe? IOW, we can get everything we need to know or can know about God just by reading the Gospels. Right?

As a corollary, if some piece of information supposedly about God is found outside of the Gospels, but it is not included in the Gospels, it must be wrong. IOW, if it isn't in the Gospels, it isn't right. Do you agree?

That's how I see it as well. If I understand Tom correctly, it is one of two options:

1) God withdraws His protection and watches to see what happens next.
2) God withdraws His protection and orchestrates what happens next.

GC, why the personal attack here? I didn't bring this up, Teresa did! I didn't "demand" anything!

I'm not asking to be mind-read, but accurately quoted, if not correctly represented. As I asked previously, where did I say something like "I will withdraw my protection, and see what happens next."? Can you quote something please?

I've quoted the following:



and pointed out that I believe this principle applies to other cases as well. Do you think it would be proper to characterize the view presented here as, "I will withdraw my protection, and see what happens next."?

I'm not aware that I've said anything specifically about the Gospels. Have I? What I recall saying is that all we can know of God was revealed in the life and character of Jesus Christ, in His humanity.

The "Desire of Ages" is outside the Gospels. There's certainly things we can learn about Christ from that. I'm sure from other books as well.

Speaking of Scripture, the Psalms comes immediately to mind. There are certainly things to learn about Jesus Christ in His humanity from that. The same thing is true about the epistles.

Where did this Gospel idea come from? I'm a bit perplexed by this, as I don't recall saying anything about the Gospels. If I did, please point it out, and I'll see if I misspoke.

Which of these do you think applies to GC 35? (quoted above for GC)

No, you haven't said anything specifically about the "Gospels." You have repeated many times that "all we can know of God was revealed in the life and character of Jesus Christ, in His humanity" which I took to mean the Biblical record of His actual sojourn in humanity.

But I see that you also take sources outside of the historical record of Christ's life as authoritative regarding Christ's life. For example, you take Desire of Ages. So, if we find something revealed in Christ's life in DA, but is not found in the Gospels, you would still accept that as true?

So also, if we find something in Psalms or the epistles that tells us something about Christ, but it is not in the Gospels, you would still accept that as true?


I noticed you said "Christ in His humanity" here. Of the 7 times I found the "can know of God" statement in the SOP, 6 times it said, "revealed in the life and character of His Son." 6 out of 7 times it included Christ's character, not just His life, and specifically His life on earth.

The other time, when "character" was not used, it's a little different. It goes like this:
So, of the 7 times I found this in the SOP, it is never limited to the life of Jesus. 6 times it included His character, and 1 time in included His Word.

Now, Exodus is part of His Word, yes? Also, the God of Exodus is Jesus, yes? In fact, the well-known text where Moses asked God to show him His glory, and God revealed to him His character, that was Jesus, yes?

If we find something in Exodus that tells us something about Christ, but it is not in the Gospels, would you still accept that as true?

Let me quickly summarize what I've been getting from you on this topic: You form your view of what God is like based on Christ's life and character (which I just now found out also includes DA, Psalms, and the epistles), and reject everything that does not fit that mold.

That's fine with me, except that you put huge chunks of Exodus into the "reject" pile instead of the "authoritative" pile with DA, Psalms, and the epistles. I believe that Exodus, just like DA, Psalms, and the epistles, can teach us a few things about Christ's character; even some things not in the Gospels.

Here's the quote for easy reference:
It doesn't seem conclusive. But it's hard to be comprehensive in a handful of sentences. It seems to be this: God withdraws His protection and something bad happens next. The quote is not definitive whether God just watched it happen, or He orchestrated the events for His purposes.

But if I had to choose, I'd go with #1. I'm guessing you would, too.

But if I had more information that pointed to #2, I could go for that. I'm guessing you would not.