I see now... Nonetheless, I believe that many of my prior answers had addressed some of these questions you pose here.



Since an unfaithful Israel was only preventing God’s redemptive plans for potentially billions of people to be saved, even putting a great risk the accomplishment of this if no one worthy was found, (though I see that God would then have to once again seek and call a half pagan man like Abraham was to start all over with His “Israel” plans), deservingly moving here to wipe out this obstruction of ca. 2,000,000 rebels to save a numerically unknown, but potential billions+, was at least an act of Justice and Love for these others. Indeed the waywardness of Israel, thus not permitting them to be a light to the world, as it could have fully been especially by the time of Christ, has caused many to go to their graves in condemning sins which they may have refrained from had this light shone upon them (e.g., the Ninivites and Noah cf. Luke 11:32)



I rather see that the test which pointedly concerned Moses was to see, as all of God’s tests are (see previous citations) what was in his heart. God needed the option of an intercessor and he could not have one in Moses if Moses actually did not freely want to do so. So it now seems to me that even if Moses had chosen to let God destroy Israel and start over with him, that would not have been a sin to him, but would just mean that no intercessor had been found to have an option of mercy. So God had to candidly test Moses to see if that is what he freely wanted to be for Israel and then it could fairly be used to have mercy on Israel. Or else the enemy could claim that God forgave people without any just grounds as intercession is in God’s redemption policies.



Actually destroying all of Israel then was the farthest thing from ‘insanity’ as leaving a remnant of those people up to 20 years old who had seen and been accustom to the waywardness of Israel, as well as the sinful Egyptians ways, was more risky than starting anew with descendants of Moses. Furthermore, with an recorded utter destruction here, that Moses generation, (which technically would still be descendants of Abraham) would have this striking object lesson of what can and likely will happen if they so rebelled. So they, like, relatively speaking, the generation that returned from the utter destruction of the Babylonian Captivity, would then have become ultra careful to do God’s will. Ultimately, barring the hypocrisies build up leading up to Christ’s time, that would have been an acceptable grounds to work with, even if based on the fear of God, but God really wanted a generation who freely and lovingly served Him and also knowingly would be choosing to remain faithful to Him, despite personally knowing of the evil and idolatrous ways of Egypt. Nonetheless, the deliberate 400 years of slavery, were meant to instill a fear of the promised consequences for disobedience thus offsetting this fear of a would be utter destruction with a Moses generation. So God had absolutely nothing for or against carrying out that judgement if Moses had not freely been found to be a willing intercessor for Israel.



I see, from the SOP God only as said “le” solely for the testing of Moses part. He was actually not asking for any “permission”. Instead Moses intercession with good points allowed and convinced Him, to have mercy. Case in point, not use of a “let” caveat in the similar Num 14 statement.



I rather see that the word used by God was meant to encourage Moses to seek the intercession option and that solely for that Moses testing purpose. Also, exegtically speaking, the Hebrew word nuach #05117, translated as “Let me alone”, literally involves stopping something or, colloquially today, “give it a rest” so God was really saying to Moses ‘don’t even begin to intercede’ i.e., even ‘give this interceding a rest’ to which, most naturally Moses would have thought: “stop interceding???, I have not even said anything....Ohhhhh!! Do you want me to intercede??...Then yeah, if that is what you think/know can be done in this case, I didn’t know I could....Then here goes my best arguments (as this apparently depends on how well I do this) {Exod 32:11-14}.’ Of course this may not have been so staged on Moses’ part but still may be reflective of His inner thoughts.



I see the “rule” here as the one of needing an intercessor in order to forgive and undeserving other, even larger group of people (again = Jer 5:1; Ezek 22:30, 31; Isa 59:16).

Indeed this is what Tom believes, but I don’t see this as being the case. I see that the Bible and SOP are not shy in explicitly stating who directly does a destruction whether God and good angels or Satan and evil angels (permitted by God).

E.g., How can Satan fear for His life in the flood destruction (PP 99.2) if that was being effectuated by angels under His command??!



And also who was (‘powerfully’) compelling Satan to remain withing those warring elements if it was not God??? Indeed as this was being done by manifestly remote force, this compelling force probably came directly from God, sparring the good angels being in the midst of these warring elements. In the same way, God will forcefully “chain” (i.e., a supernatural or psychological chain) Satan down to this desolate earth during the Millennium.

Generally speaking, i.e., not case specific, Yes. I.e., motives here would mean: For what Just reasons and/or towards what Just purpose.



The reality in regards to the flood is that God had warned of it and caused it, and then made it to be recorded to say so. I also do not see how it realistically can be that someone would look at the result of the flood and the destruction and not know of the circumstances leading up to it that Noah had been preaching that the Creator God was going to do this. Indeed to choose between God and Satan that person would have to have a pretty knowledgeable understanding of the Bible and also the GC as Satan is, especially early, kept behind the scenes, if that is even actually applicable as it may factually be that he just did not have much chance (i.e., granted permission by God) to actively/directly effectuate such “supernatural” events of destruction.





I do not understand what you meant in that statement. Please clarify.



I think I can, notwithstanding the not understood statement above, generally reply here that I see that the Millenium will be used for us to have a first hand knowledge that God has indeed been fair and just in all of, these, His final salvation decision both in those who He allowed in Heaven and those who He kept out.



To avoid any misunderstanding here, I understand “violent” here as using force, even supernatural (= “high/higher science”) force to effectuate something that otherwise would not naturally transpire (e.g, the Flood, the raining of fire and Brimstone on Sodom and Egypt, the Red Sea opening, and the closing upon the delayed and hindered, the released to pursue, Egyptians. (Exod 14:19-21).



That statement and linking is a bit unclear, please rephrase/clarify.

As a general comment on Mountain Man’s view about ‘Satan’s destruction’, I would say that he only wishes to, especially following the Cross, utterly destroy man, especially before the GC is complete which will further expose him so knowing that He has nothing to gain, when he has this destruction green light, he literally “tees-off” on these subjects, of course seeking to make this seems as God’s fault.

Since I Biblically see that God uses both direct and indirect (i.e., Satan permitted) destruction, it would interesting to make a listing for those tow categories, especially with the available SOP light. I.e., other than the Jerusalem destruction what other judgement stated in the Bible and SOP are also said to have been ‘under the direct control of Satan’ vs. God’s and His angels?

As I explain in greater detail in this blog post (search for “LDE 51"), EGW here does not mean that this will never be the case, just that, at that point it was never given as such. In 1SM 179 she states that this will only be the case when there is a tangible and incontrovertible need to do. So that God’s work will not/no longer be hindered by a stalled Church.

So I really do not see EGW’s comments on Moses here as being exgetically/prophetically based, but more pastorally applied with a lone extent in view. Indeed from what I posted here and other places, I do not see her statement here as having an “I was shown” force. Thus is seems more to be by permission, than by commission, and maybe out of emotional reasons given the great circumstances she was facing/addressing.

God never intended to destroy Israel. Israel destroyed itself by persistently rejecting the Holy Spirit (GC 35-37).

All the factors there are.



Did you think through this question? Aren't you asking if God was free to allow something to happen which He allowed to happen? That's not a question that makes sense, is it?



His hands can be tied, in general.



Satan would destroy everyone, and there wouldn't be any Great Controversy, which is a point I've made many times, which you are aware of.

Penalty = result. I.e., the inevitable result of sin is death (DA 764). This is talking about the second death.



??? No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

The Israelites persistently resisted the Holy Spirit until Satan was allowed to do with him what he wanted. What Satan did to them was evil, not justice.



The sin of persistently resisting the Holy Spirit, spurning God's protection.



It what was was what not arbitrary? Or, to ask the question another way, what is it you think was arbitrary, and why?

No, of course not. But surely you must know that.



What are the principles laid out in GC 35-37? That's the important question. Did Jesus Christ teach and embody these principles? Yes, He did.

Where we're disagreeing is in regards to what we think God is like. I believe God's character was revealed fully by Jesus Christ, and the best revelation was the cross. Rather than use force to get His way, Jesus Christ voluntarily submitted to torture and a horrible death from the very creatures He came to save. This is what God is like. Not just sometimes, but all the time.

The principles explained in GC 35-37 are in harmony with what Jesus Christ revealed. Your perceptions of God's character appear to me to be schizophrenic. Some of the time, as it appears to me you see things, He exhibits the qualities Jesus Christ embodied on earth, especially at the cross, but other times He acts indistinguishably from Satan, leaving us with no means to know who is acting.



What's your argument here? That since Jesus Christ, while here in the flesh, wasn't forced to command godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment, it therefore follows that it's not the case that all that we can know of God was revealed by Him? I can't think of why you would ask this question otherwise.

Why not just set forth your argument?



I believe, as I've said so many times, that for us to properly interpret Scripture, we need to know God's character. I believe that the first order of business is to study the life and character of His Son, whose "whole purpose" was "the revelation of God."

What is it that Jesus Christ revealed? What was Jesus Christ like? How did He treat His enemies?

I don't believe that He acted any differently in the Old Testament than while here in the flesh. Do you?

Sure it was. Anybody listening to Jesus would have understood it as such. It's obvious. He will take the vineyard away, and kill the ones that killed his son. He was angry, and sent armies to burn their city. This is very direct language.

What in Scripture suggests that the destruction of Jerusalem should be interpreted the way Ellen White did?



Sure, you can interpret the direct statements of Christ as involving passive action on the part of God, and thus not contradicting the SOP, but this is precisely my point. Scripture portrays God's actions as direct, but the SOP portrays it as passive. There are other examples of the same thing.

So if the Bible says God acts actively, but the SOP tells us God was actively passively, which do we believe?



Your reaction wasn't exegetical, but off the cuff. It revealed our mind-set.



I'm just talking about your reaction. You quoted a text, from "The Great Controversy" chapter 39, as I recall, and stated that this sounded like "justified and deserving, Divine ‘wrathful’ judgements to me."

Why do these words sound that way to you? Because of your mind set, your paradigm. That's the same reason words sound the way they sound to any of us.

This gets to a big problem God has. How does He teach us His ways, His thinking, His paradigm, when we're so set on our own, and interpret everything He says according to our own?



What are you talking about? I've got no idea what you're trying to say here. Silently switch views? What views were silently switched? Or switched at all, silently or not?



This is hardly fair. Here's what you wrote:



"His characteristic attribute" is synonymous with "His primary characteristic." For you to characterize me as taking what you wrote in this way as "misrepresenting" or "misconstruing" your view is in no way fair. You could rightly say I'm guilty of misunderstanding it, however, but that's only because I based my view upon what you wrote. I could just have readily as written, "You believe God's characteristic attribute is His power; I believe it is His love."



God always uses love in each and every instance in which He acts. Love is not something He switches on and off, but is His character. "God is love."

Love is not in contrast to power or justice, or whatever it is you think that God is doing that is different than love. All the attributes of God's character fit under the umbrella of love.



Not only are they not mutually exclusive, but they are identical. If you agree with this, you should also agree that it's not necessary to go outside of Jesus Christ to learn of God. This isn't to say there isn't value in studying God in other places where He is revealed (even in nature, we can do this) but the clearest revelation of God is Jesus Christ.

Certainly if we think we have found something about God which was not revealed in Jesus Christ, we're seeing something which isn't there.



I don't recall you're having made a point in regards to these texts for me to respond to. What's your point, in regards to these texts?