Tom, how do you explain the following insight:

Never was there given a more decisive testimony to God's hatred of sin and to the certain punishment that will fall upon the guilty.

M:If you assume God metes out penalty and punishment by merely withdrawing His protection and permitting nature or evil men and angels to cause death and destruction, how, then, do you explain God doing so?

We cannot know how much we owe to Christ for the peace and protection which we enjoy. It is the restraining power of God that prevents mankind from passing fully under the control of Satan. The disobedient and unthankful have great reason for gratitude for God's mercy and long-suffering in holding in check the cruel, malignant power of the evil one. But when men pass the limits of divine forbearance, that restraint is removed. God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown.

Why doesn't He allow their sins to punish and kill them?

Instead, fire comes down from heaven and consumes, or God commands His chosen people to hack them to pieces. How is it not arbitrary?

Evil angels will influence people who receive the mark of the beast and work through their inflamed evil passions to persecute those who receive the seal of God. Holy angels, on the other hand, will obey the command of God and cause the death and destruction portrayed by the seven last plagues. Evil angels will work through evil men to persecute godly men, whereas, holy angels will work through the forces of nature to cause death and destruction.

When He leaves the sanctuary, darkness covers the inhabitants of the earth. In that fearful time the righteous must live in the sight of a holy God without an intercessor. The restraint which has been upon the wicked is removed, and Satan has entire control of the finally impenitent. God's long-suffering has ended. The world has rejected His mercy, despised His love, and trampled upon His law. The wicked have passed the boundary of their probation; the Spirit of God, persistently resisted, has been at last withdrawn. Unsheltered by divine grace, they have no protection from the wicked one. Satan will then plunge the inhabitants of the earth into one great, final trouble. As the angels of God cease to hold in check the fierce winds of human passion, all the elements of strife will be let loose. The whole world will be involved in ruin more terrible than that which came upon Jerusalem of old.

The Jews had forged their own fetters; they had filled for themselves the cup of vengeance. In the utter destruction that befell them as a nation, and in all the woes that followed them in their dispersion, they were but reaping the harvest which their own hands had sown. Says the prophet: "O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself;" "for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity." Hosea 13:9; 14:1. Their sufferings are often represented as a punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God. It is thus that the great deceiver seeks to conceal his own work. By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them, and Satan was permitted to rule them according to his will. The horrible cruelties enacted in the destruction of Jerusalem are a demonstration of Satan's vindictive power over those who yield to his control.

We cannot know how much we owe to Christ for the peace and protection which we enjoy. It is the restraining power of God that prevents mankind from passing fully under the control of Satan. The disobedient and unthankful have great reason for gratitude for God's mercy and long-suffering in holding in check the cruel, malignant power of the evil one. But when men pass the limits of divine forbearance, that restraint is removed. God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown. 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. The Spirit of God, persistently resisted, is at last withdrawn from the sinner, and then there is left no power to control the evil passions of the soul, and no protection from the malice and enmity of Satan. The destruction of Jerusalem is a fearful and solemn warning to all who are trifling with the offers of divine grace and resisting the pleadings of divine mercy. Never was there given a more decisive testimony to God's hatred of sin and to the certain punishment that will fall upon the guilty.

"To our merciful God the act of punishment is a strange act." Again, please note - the act of punishment = His strange act.

His point is that EGW was articulating a principle:



This principle means that *any time* God punishes someone, that is a "strange act" to Him. I also understood from what MM wrote that he understands punishment to be when God stops being merciful and starts inflicting justice.

Tom, you correctly understood the point I was making in response to Kland's post.

M: Jesus said, "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of." Please note He did not say, "It is evil and unlawful to call on God to consume impenitent sinners with fire."

T: He said it was the spirit of Satan to do so. Isn't that sufficient? Does He have to add to this that it is "evil and unlawful"? Doesn't being of the spirit of Satan cover this? "There can be no more conclusive evidence that we possess the spirit of Satan than the disposition to hurt and destroy those who do not appreciate our work, or who act contrary to our ideas." (DA 487)

M: Elijah did so twice. See 2 Kings 1. Instead, Jesus specifically rebuked their spirit. When meting out punishment on God's behalf, one must have a godly spirit, not a spirit mixed with ungodliness.

T: The whole concept that one would mete out punishment on God's behalf is wrong. This is a really dangerous idea. It smacks of the Inquisition. Those people were motivated by saving the souls of those they were torturing. That sounds like a "godly spirit." It sounds like you're saying that the act (of torture, or whatever) is not evil of itself, but only if it is performed with a wrong spirit. I hear Jesus saying that the whole idea of wanting to do the act is the problem. Jesus explained that He came not do destroy but do save. It was that they wanted to destroy that Jesus Christ identified as the problem, not that they wanted to do so with the wrong spirit. He didn't say, "You want do destroy them. That's OK. But you have the wrong spirit." Rather He explained that they were misunderstanding what He and the kingdom of God was all about. They were misunderstanding God's character and the character of His government, and this is the same issue I perceive we are talking about.

M: However, you seem to be saying, No, I don't agree with the idea that God is too kind, loving, and merciful to consume sinners with fire. What exactly are you disagreeing with?

T: What principle or principles do you see in GC 36?

M: Why doesn't He allow their sins to punish and kill them? Instead, fire comes down from heaven and consumes them, or God commands His chosen people to hack them to pieces. How is it not arbitrary?

T: If God caused the actions, I could see you're saying these were arbitrary, along the lines of DA 764. But if God simply permits a course of action chosen by someone with free will to have the effect which consequently results (which is what GC 36 and 37 depict), why would this imply that God had acted arbitrarily?

So would you be saying that even though those quotes only talk of before and at the seven plagues, and even though she says God's strange act is ceasing intercession right before the plagues start, you are saying that even if it's not clearly stated, there's a general principle involved that punishment or acts we may consider out of His character before, during, and any time after the plagues are to be considered God's strange act(s)?

Evil angels will influence people who receive the mark of the beast and work through their inflamed evil passions to persecute those who receive the seal of God. Holy angels, on the other hand, will obey the command of God and cause the death and destruction portrayed by the seven last plagues. Evil angels will work through evil men to persecute godly men, whereas, holy angels will work through the forces of nature to cause death and destruction.

M: However, you seem to be saying, No, I don't agree with the idea that God is too kind, loving, and merciful to consume sinners with fire. What exactly are you disagreeing with?

M: Why doesn't He allow their sins to punish and kill them? Instead, fire comes down from heaven and consumes them, or God commands His chosen people to hack them to pieces. How is it not arbitrary?

T: If God caused the actions, I could see you're saying these were arbitrary, along the lines of DA 764. But if God simply permits a course of action chosen by someone with free will to have the effect which consequently results (which is what GC 36 and 37 depict), why would this imply that God had acted arbitrarily?

M:I hear you saying God withdraws His protection and permits sinners to experience the consequences of sinning, that is, the consequences that would have happened had God not acted to prevent it. In reality you are also saying the consequences of sinning include evil angels causing the punishment God establishes and enforces, that is, God decides to what depth and degree of punishment evil angels can mete out and then God also works to ensure they do not exceed those limits.

M: God commanded King Saul to utterly kill and destroy everyone and everything pertaining to the Amalekites. He disobeyed and incurred the wrath of God. Then Samuel, in accordance with the commandment of God "hewed Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal." See 1 Samuel 15. This is one of many stories portraying God commanding His chosen people to kill His enemies.

T: Regarding your comment about King Saul, please remember the Father/hunter analogy. This is a different issue.

T: Regarding GC 36, from the post you referred me to, you wrote:


I really don't see even a hint of this in GC 36.

To get back to your question:


What I'm saying is that I agree with the principles outlined in GC 36 and 37. I don't think these principles contradict the points she was making in the passage you were asking me about.

M: Why doesn't He allow their sins to punish and kill them? Instead, fire comes down from heaven and consumes them, or God commands His chosen people to hack them to pieces. How is it not arbitrary?

T: If God caused the actions, I could see you're saying these were arbitrary, along the lines of DA 764. But if God simply permits a course of action chosen by someone with free will to have the effect which consequently results (which is what GC 36 and 37 depict), why would this imply that God had acted arbitrarily?

M: I hear you saying God withdraws His protection and permits sinners to experience the consequences of sinning, that is, the consequences that would have happened had God not acted to prevent it. In reality you are also saying the consequences of sinning include evil angels causing the punishment God establishes and enforces, that is, God decides to what depth and degree of punishment evil angels can mete out and then God also works to ensure they do not exceed those limits.

T: I like the way the principles are laid out in GC 36, 37. An issue I see with the way you word things is that you appear to believe that God is responsible for the death and destruction that occurs. This is actually what I've been taking issue with you all along.

For example, you have written something along the lines that God uses a "withdraw and permit" strategy as a means of causing death and destruction, but that He uses other methods as well. So you conceive death and destruction as originating from God, and Satan is like a puppet, as are the other tools which God uses to cause the destruction/death that He wants to have happen.

I think this is the crux of our disagreement. I don't perceive death and destruction as proceeding from God at all, but rather from sin/Satan. God has to put limitations on the destruction and death that sin/Satan causes, or all humans would be destroyed, and there couldn't be a Great Controversy (at least, not involving humans).