I've got no idea what this is in response to. It's not very responsive. There's really no way to reply to something like, right? It's not an argument or statement of any sort that can be responded to.



No, I'm not doing this! I'm arguing *against* this point of view. I merely pointed out that this is the view that many have of the Egyptian plagues, that God applied more and more force until He got His way.



How is the Bible clear that there are different mechanisms involved by which God expresses His wrath? Romans 1 makes it clear how God's wrath works. There are many examples of this throughout Scripture. For example, one at random:



Note how God's anger, or wrath, is equated with the hiding of His face. Now how it speaks in direct terms ("I will also send") when depicting passive action.

For example, Scripture speaks of God's sending fiery serpents against the Israelites, where the SOP makes clear that the serpents were there all along, and God merely removed His protection from them.




This sort of language doesn't argue well for your position.



There's no argument here, no evidence, nothing that can be responded to. This is just name-calling.



Your view of God is colored by your mind-set, your paradigm, your already existing ideas of God's character, just like everybody else's is.



Stoic? Where do you get stoic from? Why are you linking bloodless and stoic? Do you the idea that a lack of violence implies stoicism?



Your response here is typical of those who take your position take, and, indeed, the only defense. That is, this is just one way that God destroys, but there are others. But if you consider what is written, there are flaws with this idea.

First of all, she writes that the great deceiver presents God as destroying in order to hide his own work. This would hardly be an effective ploy if God is actually the one doing the destroying.

Secondly, there is nothing whatsoever in Scripture which gives the idea, through the language used, that God was not at work actively destroying Jerusalem. It is said that He was angry, that He would send armies to destroy the city, that He would kill those who had killed His Son. It's all presented as something He would do, in active voice, and Satan isn't mentioned at all.

Yet, through a subsequent prophet, the curtains are drawn aside, and we see what really happened. The point is that when the same language is used in regards to other incidents, there is no reason the same mechanism should not be at work. That is, there is no reason to suppose that the principles of GC 35-37 do not apply to these other incidents, just as there is no reason to suppose that they do apply to the destruction of Jerusalem.

There is nothing stated in the explanation of the destruction of Jerusalem to suggest that Ellen White intended these comments to be applicable only to that incident. Indeed, the opposite is clear, as she specifically applies the principles there to other incidents, including the final events of earth's history before Christ's Second Coming.

And she does the same thing the other way around. That is, when discussing these last events, when Christ leaves the sanctuary, she ties back to the destruction of Jerusalem!

Coming back to a previous point, the mind-set we have, or paradigm that we hold, our view of God's character, greatly impacts how we view His actions. So the question arises as to how we should obtain the right view of His character. The answer I've been asserting is through the revelation of Jesus Christ.

In Jesus Christ we see that truth about God. We see what God looks like, in human flesh, where we can best comprehend it.

The "whole purpose" of Christ's earthly mission (ST 1/20/90) was the revelation of God. All that we need to know about God, nor can know of Him, was revealed by the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

I don't see the ideas you are espousing anywhere in Christ's life and teachings. Rather than use force or violence to get His way, what I see instead is self-sacrificing love dying a horrible death on behalf of the creatures who would use force and violence against Him.



This is the favorite passage of those who espouse your view, and they, like you, ignore the paragraph immediately preceding, which is the one I quoted, and the one you're not commenting on. This is just what I expected would happen.

Switching points here, why is your writing so angry? If the position you hold is true, there is no need for the types of tactics you are employing here, involving name-calling, and so forth. Simply present your view, and adduce evidence for it, based on arguments taken from texts from Scripture or the Spirit of Prophecy.

Tom: (1) You can answer your question here by reading what I have already said and linked to. I won’t waste my time restating them.

(2) My exegetical approach is not to build a teaching on one or a select few “favoring” passages in the Bible or SOP but harmonize all paassages.

(3) You’ll mind-boggling, to say the least, to read what I have posted on my blog on the “War in Heaven” and just blindly continuing with your comments is basically what upset me and made this discussion no longer worth the time investment.

So I will only wish you “good luck” with your single-sided GC and Theodicy view! I think I’ve made my point and I won’t be held responsible for doing your analysis and reading work. And... seriously stated, in regards to my “attitude” switch read e.g., Matt 23 for some clues. Knowing myself for now 36+ years, when I make such statements, they are certainly not “tactics” but my weighed decision. Sorry if you all choose to remain indifferent and/or oblivious to your disrespectful “trespasses” here.

APL: I’ll listen to that sermon when I have time. Don't expect my comments though. I really don’t see why you are suggesting it to me if it is so ‘dangerous’??!

It is not a sermon, it is a class room setting. It is dangerous, because it destroys your paradigm. Tom, if you have not listened to it, I think you will appreciate it. The recording, done on 3/19/2011, was done by a gentleman named Cole.

Ohhh... APL, I guess I should have contextually assumed that. By the way, same goes for my blog post on the War in Heaven and your view! [Notice that I could easily just cite the pertinent, and self explanatory, SOP references quoted and discussed there!! But it is just so much easier for me for you all to just simply click that provided link!]

I'll see what he has "taught". I have, objectively, factually speaking of course, ‘taken on’ and beaten many (even seminary educated) teachers/professors in the past!!

If you, or anyone else, wants to ‘destroy my paradigm and/or views’ then be exegetically exhaustive and not indifferently selective.

Again, but more precisely, don’t expect me to waste my time giving any feedback comments if it was exegetically spurious.

It is specifically your exegetical stance that I suggested this presentation, and why I said start around minute 36 (or is it 37 or 38) so as to not "waste your time". The speaker talks about doing the exegetical treatment, and he think he could win it on points, but only narrowly. The controversy can not be won narrowly. It must be won in a big way. The story of the good Samaritan was not won on exegesis. It however won in a big way. God ls like the Samaritan. God is exactly as seen in Jesus (John 14:9).

To what purpose was God testing, proving Moses?


Why would God destroy a nation fathered by a failure only to replace it by another father of failure? "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Also, why did God need Moses' permission to destroy Israel? "If God had purposed to destroy Israel, who could plead for them?" Her use of the word "if" implies it was not God's intention to destroy Israel.

In a deserving one word answer: “Dud”

Indeed, normatively I would not respond to that, indeed spurious exposition, but so that you don’t claim victory by default and since you manifestly sincerely think he his incontrovertibly right then I make some brief comments.

-I listened to the whole lecture. His exegesis and approach struck me as exactly what I utterly loathe from the SDA Scholarly philosophy. I.e., incompetent and substantively vacuous replies to objections. I am therefore not surprised that he jumped on the defensive bandwagon and reverse psychology ploy of Nietzsche: ‘If you can’t (substantively) beat them, then peripherally make them think they’re weak.’ Show me where in the parable of the Good Samaritan that the bypassing Priest and the Levite had a dilemma between what God had stated by law (i.e., not to touch a dead corspe) and helping the man. That is why Jesus pointedly said he was “half dead”. And indeed, as expounded on by EGW in COL 379.2, both the Priest and the Levites fully knew he was not dead. So they had absolutely not legal dilemma to come to his aid, indeed especially since he was not dead and thus not a health hazard as that law sought to protect Israel against. So they chose to bypass him and disculpate themselves out of their own selfish indifference to the plight of the needy. So this is substantively not an example against not doing something that is not only legally valid (i.e., just war, judgement and/or capital punishment), and also has great vital and societal benefit, namely utterly protect against the gratuitous snuffing away of life by evildoers (i.e., e.g., murders and abusers of military force).

Secondly, the ‘claim to win a Theological war by ignoring or losing all, or even some, of the exegetical Battles’ does not begin to make sense to me. My approach is, when there are such seemingly “losing battles”, i.e., passages that seem to oppose your main view, is to seek to reconcile/harmonize the two, thus seek a negotiated peace in that battle. And not claim victory while those battle have not been won and are still being fought. SO if you think that view give you a right to outrightly ignore what EGW has said on the War in Heaven, then you are only engaging in arbitrary and selective eisogesis, (i.e., deciding for yourself what a view should be without consulting all pertinent passages on the topic).

Sorry but that Loma Linda professor, Sigve Tonstad [PhD, MD] by name (Associate Professor, Religion -Theological Studies), needs to properly do what he has apparently, or should have been educated and trained to do: proper exegesis, and that only is: ‘fighting and seeking to win all of the exegetical battles first’ before claiming victory or else that really only is capitulating and still claim victory then is being delusional.

P.S. Funny, but when I make a comparable argument for the SDA Church and members to seek to do more to help the millions of people dying from preventable and curable causes, as we easily can as a large, global Church, I get the same Priest and Levite attitude, with the added spurious claims that “this is not the mission of the Church” or worst: “time is too short to do that”!??

As I have already said: ‘To at least genuinely have an intercessor for Israel.’ Indeed just like God had tested Abraham to find out if he really ‘fear Him’. (Gen 22:12) I know that in the pervasive view of foreknowledge, yours being the Classical View, such testing is not being genuine on God’s part since He knew the answer from eternity, but supposedly only done in relation to Moses. I of course don’t see it this way, but see/understand that God was also genuinely finding out what Moses was made of, character wise. (= E.g., Deut 8:2; cf. Exod 15:25; 16:4; 2 Chr 32:31) God does indeed need to test what is in someone heart and that is done by being so candid.



...So I also see that this was being done to ascertain whether or not he had a worthy person with which to seal this serious deal. So God killed two birds with one stone and after this test, and only after this test He on one hand had the option an intercessor and thus mercy, and on the other hand, He was also sure now that He had a worthy person for such a offer. However Moses’ pointed arguments (even calculatively saying “Israel” instead of “Jacob” (Exod 32:13a) - I.e., the covenant name) probably convinced Him to opt for mercy rather than judgement.



Obviously, as I see it, God was not seeking any permission here. Just establishing the “intercessor option” and also verify if Moses was indeed worthy. As I said in a sermon on this episode: “When God twice offers to make you greater than father Abraham and you turn it down, you must indeed be the most humble man in the world.” (Num 12:3) So after that test which proved that Moses was faithful, then, just like Abraham passing his test confirmed to God that He can indeed proceed with the great promise previously made to Him (Gen 22:15-18), Moses’ passing of this test confirmed to God that He could proceed with the destruction and start over with Moses, but Moses was able to talk him out of it (Exod 32:14 = Isa 1:18). Nonetheless, God instead opted for a lesser judgement (Exod 32:33-35).

As I said before, later in Num 14 where much greater judgement was effectuated, God did not proceed to leave this caveat for Moses to seize as He then evidently did not need to test Moses again. However Moses again talked Him into doing a lesser judgement. (Num 14:20).



I rather understand her use of “if” here to mean: If there was no “ground for hope” here at all. I.e., “if” this had been the sole desire of God here. Indeed God was candidly seeking to establish the option for mercy. Again, that is not made in Num 14, perhaps revealing that God indeed was going to do some form of great punishment either way. And with all adults then condemned to (naturally) die, so as to not indicate a judgement of God to e.g, the Egyptians who, ironically enough, would know firsthand (pun intended) that Israel’s powerful God could do this and as they would also know that no other god would have overpoweringly been able to do this, if Yahweh did not allow it, this great punishment, though mercifully and maybe justly reduced so as to not include children (under 20), was done. That ‘just curtailment’ prove to me that, here too, God was also ‘greatly angered’ (Exod 32:11) and may have overlooked/been indifferent of that fact. (Cf. Num 14:20). However since God does punish sins onto subsequent generations, it all was probably all justly appropriate, especially as these had seen this, and other, bad examples of their parents and thus were more likely to also do this later and/or merely serve God out of fear and not faith.

So God did not, at that stage yet (firmly) “purpose” this (i.e., in the definition sense for that term, of: “reach a decision”), but was here really just considering it, but first wanted to have a mercy option and also, more pertinently, ascertain that Moses was worthy to proceed with that ‘considered plan.’

NJK - I feel the love. May you have peace on your journey.