[“Reminder”: You have not answered the substantive and foundational key exegetical points in Post #133009]



I don’t have time to retrace all your statements on pointedly this issues, but it seemed/seems to me that you don’t see God needing to ever be directly involved in any judgement, especially in the executory part of Hell judgement as, as I recall, you believe this will merely be a self-combusting event, (perhaps with instantaneous consummation vs. The Bible’s and SOP’s ‘(varyingly) many days’).



I infer this from your consistenly expressed “reap its full reward” view of sin and death. In any case, that is what the Bible actually teaches. In a prior post you had inaccurately curtailed James 1:14, 15 to:

“temptation => sin => death”

however the Bible is exegetically clear in saying that it is rather, i.e., more fully/protractedly:

“temptation => lust => sin => fully developed/accomplished sin => death

From the Bible’s:

‘intercourse’ => “conception” (Strong’s #4815) => “birth” (#5088) => “finishing/completion” (#658) [= “fully lived and aged life”] => natural death.



I address your view of GC 35-37 later in indeed these intervene events, but how is it actually “intervention” as this is defined as: “the act or fact of interposing one thing between or among others”. A “withdrawal/absenteeing” action is not an interposition/intervention.



To me, on one hand, “removing” his protection in not synonymous with “intervening” and on the other hand, to me, this allowing of something dangerous to affect someone involves the same ultimate responsibility. Thus this “passive” act is still a judgement-contributing act. I.e., this judgement cannot occur unless God does this.



I’ll, first of all, also add: “natural” actions = (Qal), which are actions that God does not have to involve any causation, but simply “allow to naturally happen”



(A) my exegetical approach is that the Bible has the final word, and that over EGW’s comments, which again I don’t defaultly consider to be direct revelations (i.e., SOP revelations)

Thus, point by point, based on previous exegetical contributions and discussions:

1.Saul's death. The Bible uses a Hiphil to say that God would cause Saul’s death. That therefore does not mean that God has to be the agent which causes that death. As Polel tense would pointedly say, indeed be used to convey that notion, even in regards to God. Therefore Saul killing himself, perhaps by the now absence of God’s soothing/comforting/hope filling Spirit, and thus out of utter despair, fulfills this agency notion invovled with a Hiphil

2.Fiery serpents sent upon the Israelites. As it says in e.g., this Wikipedia entry:



Therefore God’s “protective hand/action” here may have been to make a snake feel a peace with the passing Israelite if ever they would feel threatened. God may also have been heightening the snakes innate desire to “avoid contact”. However when Israel acted rebelliously and God wanted to punish them for this, as the Hebrew of Num 21:6 and also as seen in vs. 8 (NASB):

(a) vs. 6: the serpents were ‘made to be sent (Piel) in [the midst of] the people, as [Heb *et preposition IBHS, 195]: ‘accompaniment/companionship/fellowship’ and/or with ‘“helping” interest’, etc).

Then (b) as seen in verse 8, the request was to “remove”/cause to turn aside (Hiphil) from amongst them this companionship of these serpent.

So it was not as if Israel was walking in the midst of serpents and they were not biting them by the power of God, but that God was actually making these serpents remain naturally fearful of these humans and seeking to avoid any contact with them. Indeed as snake innately, naturally do, because they know humans can easily, and are more like to, kill them than vice versa. As a Piel tense is also used for “the serpents biting the people” (vs. 6b), it is also seen that this was a forced action. So this does not even qualify as a passive action of God. Indeed, as I see it, the serpents may have been naturally staying away, and God withdrew his protection by making them no longer naturally want to avoid contact with the Israelites. So the Bible is not saying something different than EGW when is says that God ‘made the serpents come into the midst of the people.’ Indeed this was an active action of God which involved the withdrawing of his protective hand.

As I understand it, what God does and what God permits under his ultimate control are both equally the same. It is when God allows the Devil to decide and do whatever he wants, that a judgement is not at all from/of God.

3.Lying spirits sent to Ahab.

As already present, the Bible is revelatorily clear that it was God who green lighted a suggestion of a lying spirit, and even pronounced that this lying spirit ‘will prevail.’ Given God’s omnipotence, this “prevailing guarantee” can only be involved if God is at the helm of this action. So this also is an action in which God is involved. Indeed it would be equivalent to God sending a good angel to do a deed on the earth.

4.Job's sufferings.

Also as already discussed, and like in #3 above, God was in final authority of what could and could not be done to Job, even if Satan himself was to do it. So Job was not wrong (in 1:21) to think that God was doing this as God was indeed doing so. Even a good angel could have done the same thing instead of Satan, indeed simply to test Job. Even the death of Job’s children was warranted given their blantant and personally non-repentant waywardness.

5.The destruction of Jerusalem.

Here Jesus said that it was God who would send “armies” to do this judgement (Matt 22:7), in the line of what the the Jews themselves a priorly seen fit (Matt 21:41). The Devil may have been allowed to play a part in the destruction once these God summoned agents were on the scene, however God was ultimately in control of this destruction as many (relatively righteous) people (mainly non-zealots and/or zealot-minded) survived it (=Matt 24:22), as I understand it, so that they can have another chance to seek the truth. Again, as I see it, when God is involved in a judgement, it is ultimately an act of his. That occurs in all judgements except the 7th Plague. So as I said before, EGW may have overstated this in regards to this destruction and also to the extent in which she applied it in all of the 7 Last Plagues. So, once again, since the Biblical testimony evidence, does not support the extent to which EGW sought to apply her distinct revelation in 14MR 1-3, I have to subscribe to the extent and God-implication indicated in the Bible over EGW’s comment. The fact that EGW says her “It is thus that the great deceiver seeks to conceal his own work” does not make this pass as a direct revelation of hers in regards to the Destruction of Jerusalem. This is only the case in her 14MR 1-3 revelation, but that does not mean that it must have been the case with this judgement. God only permitted Satan to play one of the parts in this destruction event, but ultimately God had remained in control of what could and could not be done here.

6.Those who received not the love of the truth being sent delusions.

As I discussed in Post #132508, there is effectively no “sending vs. withdrawing” contradiction between the Bible and the SOP on this issue. By God withdraw his countering and balancing SPirit and allowing the devil to work in order to confirm these rebellious ones into the lies and, foundationally, hatred of truth, that they already adhere to, it is tantamount to ‘allowing an evil influence to fully enter this vacated space” thus = “sending”. Also if there is a contradiction here, then I go by the would be irreconciable notion of “sending” that the Bible is saying. Furthermore, as I see it, God allowing something (=EGW’s withdrawing) is still and action of God (=The Bible’s “sending”)

7.Jesus making those who reject Him blind so they not see, and deaf so they not hear.

I am assuming that you are referring to Matt 13:7-13. My understanding here is that everyone defaultly, initially recieved the same “parables” and veiled sayings “treatment”. However for those who chose to continue to seek understanding from Jesus, He went on to reveal the meaning of these statements (= the unloking “keys” Matt 13:11). So there was a double purpose to parables and depending on how people wanted to receive/use this light, it either served to blind them in persisted opposition or enlighten them and cause them to seek out new light. So Christ actually gave everyone the same opportunity to receive His “Light”. Whether they did or not depended on how they indeed handled it when they came across it.

However in regards to the Jewish leaders, Christ made default use of veiled/cryptic sayings, even unexplained quotings of the OT. (E.g, John 2:19ff; 8:56) As Jewish leaders they should have been able to figure these out. However, in general discourse, i.e., those involving common people, parables were used, which indeed could either “illustrate” a perceivable truth or be deemed as inconclusive, as many people, especially the Jewish leaders chose to deem them.

Ironically enough, this “blinding” was probably out of their paramount pride, feeling insulted that Christ was speaking to them as little children in parables, however when Christ was more “direct” with them, even by straightforwardly quoting/alluding to Scriptures, they still could not/did not “get it.” So by not getting the Truth-illustrating, parable messages they proved that they were not Spiritually in tune with God’s (natural/basic) Truth and by not getting the Biblical allusions and quotings they proved that their great knowledge of the Scripture was actually Spiritually bankrupt.



As the Bible says in all of these actions that God casued, made to happen, allowed, and/or was in ultimate and overuling control of all of these actions, (even with Christ making his veiled/parable statements), these were all in some form an action of God. The way I understand that you are understanding GC 35-37, GOd has to be completely uninvolved for it to be, what you consider, a “passive action”. That is however not the substantive, exegetical and/or spiritual/theoligical case in any the 7 ‘prime’ examples of yours to support your claim.

So as I had said below (next), to refute this observation, you’ll have to substantively and exegetically engage these respective elements involved in these Biblical examples/cases.





As stated before, if their is a perceived difference between the Bible and EGW’s comments, indeed non-direct revelation comments as manifestly likely for these above two statements, then they, at the very least, must be made to seek to reconcile themselves with the superior Biblical testimony. And if this cannot be done, then the Biblical testimony is to prevail.

I think my view on both of these achieve this non-contradictory reconciliation/harmonization, whereas your view makes you claim that “the Bible says one thing, but EGW reveals something else’, indeed “else” as it can exegetically only be concluded, because to “make/cause something to happen” (=Piel/Hiphil) can only involve, “involved” action either as truly actively or passively, and not “absently” (= your understanding of “withdrawn”) as in/for your view.



As Biblically seen in the fiery serpent example, these countless dangers do not necessarily meant that they are self acting. God had to forcefully “send” the serpents in the midst of the people. A “countless danger” may indeed be a dormant one until GOd awakens/stimulates/stirs its “dangerous” aspect. Case in point, God calling Babylon to destroy Judah (Jer 1:13-16; 4:16) who may not have had any interest/desire to attack them. The same thing can be seen with Titus who, as Josephus records was most reluctant to inflict damage on Jerusalem throughout the War.



As explained above, God’s ‘Spirit withdrawing’ act is tantamount to sending, as it creates a vacuum that naturally is “filled in” by the Devil. Indeed by God’s implied permission. In actuality, just the absence of a countering Godly influence is sufficient.

Would that be like God hardening Pharaoh's heart?



Of the land snakes, the most
dangerous is the Taipan, since it will attack unprovoked.
http://stason.org/TULARC/travel/australia/9-5-4-Venomous-Fauna.html

however, they [Bushmasters] are one of only a few snakes in the world with reputations for unprovoked attacks on people.
http://books.google.com/books?id=MOfaTpk...ked&f=false

The chief and city attorney reviewed local ordinances and determined the snake is a vicious animal because of its propensity to commit an unprovoked attack.
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/581/817/Woman_Pried_From_The_Mouth_Of_Python.html


Withdrew means make? Really?

Would you be saying that allowing the devil is different than permitting him?

No since, as revealed and discussed repeatedly before, a Pile stem, which involves a notion of patiency (See Post #133009) by the subject is used for all of God’s hardening of Pharaoh.





Seems to me your sources are ambivalent on this issue. Probably researching and quoting the first 10 sources on this would continue this trend. Furthermore it is not known precisely what type snakes were in the Sinai wilderness.

The Hebrew contributions in Num 21:6-8, as already discussed, convince me that these were ‘defaultly a people-avoiding type of snake.’



It does here if EGW’s comments are to be reconciled with the Bible’s exegetical Piel use in saying ‘God made to be sent’ (Num 21:6). Otherwise, if a “difference” is seen, then, according to the exegetical methodology/principles that I go by the Biblical testimony is to supercede EGW comments.

However it seems clear to me that EGW also fully was aware of this “sending” notion here as she made her “withdrawing” notion as she says:



Relatedly, see also:

1SP 315.1 - “To punish them for their ingratitude[/u], and complaining against God, the Lord [b]permitted fiery serpents to bite them.”

And PP 428.3 - “If with all these tokens of His love the people still continued to complain, the Lord would withdraw His protection until they should be led to appreciate His merciful care, and return to Him with repentance and humiliation.”

Seems to me, contrary to Tom’s view, that some notion of “punishment” and even “suggestive compelling” from God were also involved here. (Indeed all similar to what had happened with Moses (Exod 4:24-26 - PP 255.5))



They seem to mean the same thing to me, with perhaps “permit” being more formal than “allow”.

NJK, thank you for bringing my attention to this post I missed. I've responded to the first part of it. I have to divide my time as best I can, so I'm not sure what I'll be responding to next. If you have some preference, you can present it (such as continuing to respond to this post, or to respond to the more recent ones).



That was a joke, of course. Copy/paste won't save any trees. I got a kick out of it.



I'm hoping you'll listen to me and others and start quoting texts. Just quoting one would be good. One quoted text is better than 10 references without quotes.



You should realize that just quoting references is pretty much a waste of time. Few people are going to look them up. After all, if you, the poster, don't feel them important enough to copy/paste, the reader is not likely to view them more important then you do.



I don't know what languages you know (except for French, of course), but consulted languages I was familiar with. The point was that every translation I could find, in any language I was familiar with, translated the text the same way. God caused the death of Saul; that's the idea. Although the text states this, what actually happened is that God permitted the death of Saul. This is an example of the principle that Scripture presents God as doing that which He permits.




Page 433.



He didn't use force on people, but on animals and chairs. This doesn't explain why the people left. Were they physically afraid of Christ? Of course not. They had Christ greatly outnumbered. It was "divinity flashing through humanity," that "forced" them away; their guilty consciences condemned them. They felt as if they were in the presence of the Great Judge.

This is what the Desire of Ages explains. It says nothing about Christ using physical force against them.



Righteous indignation is fine. We see, from the DA account, that Christ longed with pity over those who were ignorant of true worship. He still loved them. His anger was directed against what they were doing, in leading others away from the Plan of Salvation, but He felt no anger or malice against the individuals involved, but rather pure love, the love which led Him to be crucified at their hands.



Of course, and this is note-worthy. The acted parable is in reference to God's removing His protection against the Israelites.



I think our difference in opinion in these incidents is more in terms of the mechanism used than the motivation. I believe the mechanism of removing protection is sufficient to cause any level of destruction. There is no need for God to act in any other way than this, since this mechanism is sufficient. Indeed, one would wonder why, given this mechanism is sufficient, God would act in any other way. It could only be because God wanted to be seen as a destroyer, but everything in Christ's mission argues against this idea.



There's no problem with Christ's righteous indignation, of course; the "unfortunate manner" being suggested, that I referred to, was your picturing Christ as acting as you have acted. Christ, in His righteous indignation, had tears in His voice when He uttered His scathing comments, and longed with pity over those He loved, willing to give His life for them.



If you wish me to respond to some reference you are citing, please quote more than 3 words (in the case of the SOP), or more than 0 words (in the case of Scripture).

You may note that when I reference things, I quote them for you. When I quote Scripture, I usually use the NASB, because that is a version you said you liked.

The healing of the paralytic comes to mind. That's at the beginning of Mark. The sermon on the mount, Matthew 5-7, also comes to mind.



What I'm sharing is by no means an idea original to myself. Indeed, I found reference to the idea in the first place I randomly looked.



You don't think He wanted to save them? You don't think He wanted to reach them that He might save the nation?



That depends. Consider Nicodemus. In him we see the pride of the Pharisee battling against the honest seeker of truth. If hatred comes because pride has been rebuked, that could indeed be a means of awakening love, because that's the road to repentance. Especially when one considers the character of the One doing the rebuking.

What motivated Christ was inestimable love, and those who met Him sensed that. So while pride hates to be rebuked, there's also a part of the person who wants to be healed from it.

It was never Christ's desire to arouse hatred in anyone. He wanted to provoke faith and love.



Christ's designs were the salvation of human beings. I don't understand the lack of perceiving this. Christ taught "love your enemies." He *gave His life* for those who hated Him. Look how He treated Nicodemus, Simon, the thief on the cross. Even those completely intransigent; look how He treated them.

Christ's designs were that those entrapped by sin be led to repentance, and He did all He could to bring that to pass.



Resolves what? What does "claiming love" mean? Does this mean "claiming that Christ loved others," or something else?



Again, Christ taught: "Love your enemies." Christ had love for His enemies, otherwise His teaching would be hypocrisy.



You don't know that. In Nicodemus the pride of the pharisee fought against the honest seeker for truth. You don't know that others weren't in the same boat as Nicodemus. Perhaps they experienced a similar fight, but chose poorly (in favor of pride), and it was only after making this choice that they had reached the stage of "unrevokable judgment."

It seems much more reasonable to assume that they were taken aback by Christ's first actions, not knowing what exactly to make of it, as they hadn't seen Him before or heard Him. Then they made decisions, one way or another. Those who chose to open their hearts were walking in the path of repentance and salvation. Those who steeled their hearts against Christ, in the path of "unrevokable judgment," but there's no reason to assume they started out this way from the beginning.

Even Judas(!), who started as poorly as one could start in relation to Christ, almost repented, as his heard thrilled within Him when Christ washed his feet.



This doesn't happen in an instant. The Holy Spirit keeps trying. It takes time to harden one's heart against the Lord.



Many reacted this way, while some others repented. But even after starting out poorly, there was still time to change (e.g. Simon).



How do you mean force being used? You don't mean insults and sarcasm, do you? You've been civil in recent posts, which I appreciate, but when I wrote this, some time ago, it was in reference to these sorts of comments. I don't perceive Christ ever acting in this sort of way.



Witness how Paul treated the high priest.

The respect with which Christ treated others was not due to their actions, but to Christ's character. This is the way our wonderful God is! We are nothing, full of wretchedness, rotting bones underneath a white-washed sepulcher, but God treats us with unbelievable kindness, patience, tact, and respect. It's unbelievable how well God treats us, who are *so* undeserving!

He doesn't treat us well because we deserve to be treated well, because we don't. He treats us well because He is God, and it is His nature, His character, to treat others well.



??? Christ didn't want to save Simon? The SOP points out that Simon would have been lost, if it weren't for how well Christ treated him.

How could you possibly think that Christ was not motivated to save Simon? What is it you think Christ was doing?



The public feast was something Simon did out of obligation. Simon didn't even thank Christ when he was healed. He was still filled with hypocrisy. It was he who had led his niece into sin. When she was lavishing her love for Him, by means of the perfume (a years salary being the cost) she anointed Him with, he wasn't touched.

Christ won Simon's love and devotion by how He treated him at that feast. He converted an enemy into a friend, and life-long follower by His love, tact, and gentleness.



You're thinking Christ would have said, "Off with you! Go ahead and be eternally damned!" if He had not had these "tangible reasons?" I really don't understand your thinking here. You think Christ works to save some, because of their actions, but others He leaves to be lost?

Consider the words of Paul: It is a saying worthy of acceptance that Christ came to save sinners, of whom I am chief. This is how I feel. I'm sure it's how Simon felt, and Nicodemus, and anyone else who has been saved by Christ. I hope it's how you feel.



So if Simon had spoken out load, instead of inwardly, Christ would have responded, "Enough of you! Be lost!" and not worked to save him?



No sir! Christ *died* for these "prideful objectors," a most horrible death. This is how He "dealt" with them. He loved them, and gave His life for them.



You didn't quote anything here, so I have no comment.

How did Christ treat Saul? (who would become Paul)



How so? How would Christ be compelling faith?



Mercy is not merited! Mercy was shown because Christ is merciful. That is His character, as proclaimed to Moses.



Right! Simon did not deserve the treatment he received from Christ, which is why it was mercy. And neither do we deserve the treatment we receive from Christ.



Until one is converted, no one can understand the spiritual/prophetic import of Christ's actions.

(More later, perhaps).

The point I was making is that some snakes do attack.



So, Allow=Permit.

Substituting in we have:
As I understand it, what God does and what God allows under his ultimate control are both equally the same. It is when God allows the Devil to decide and do whatever he wants, that a judgement is not at all from/of God.

Does that lack of contrast make logical sense to you? That is, what God does and allows is from Him, but what God allows the Devil to do is not from Him?

Regarding judgements in general, I believe God is involved, but the mechanism is one of withdrawal/permitting vs. directly causing suffering/death by doing things like setting people on fire.

Regarding the final judgement, I believe those who have sinned more will suffer more than those who have sinned less, according to the light they have received, as EGW explained.





What's "that"?



James described a process wherein temptation leads to sin, which, when finished, results in death. This is accurate.



Job describes a similar circumstance. Do you see that God didn't intervene in what happened to Job?



Not if the person in question is caused to remove the protection. Then the responsibility lies with the one causing the protection to be removed. This is the whole point of the GC 35-37 passage. If the responsibility did not lie with the Jews, it could not be said that the Jews forged their own fetters.



Here's the passage in question:



I don't see how Ellen White could have more clearly articulated who was and was not responsible for what was happening here.



I'll get to the points your listing later, but I really don't get these comments in regards to Ellen White. If Ellen White is an inspired writer, then surely what she wrote in regards to how her writings should be used should be given weight, yet you are acting contrary to her counsel, doing what she said should not be done. In this case you might as well just reject her entirely. In another post, you argued with Elle, because she *wasn't* taking into account what Ellen White wrote.

Ellen White wrote that everything she wrote for public consumption (or spoke) was not of herself, but she only wrote what God impressed her to write (or speak). She does not allow for the selective grabbing of what she wrote that you are doing.

You have no basis from any inspired writing to treat her writings the way that you are.

What I'm arguing is that the way you are understanding Scripture is incorrect. I demonstrate this by citing inspired references from Ellen White. When you disagree with what Ellen White wrote, then, rather than modifying your view in regards to what Scripture is saying, you reject what she wrote as not inspired. That's not cricket.

I don't know if you are aware of this or not, but this is what happened in the 1888 era.

To immediately address this apparent hang up here, I had actually addressed it earlier (see starting at the end of this post (#132576), (see also here (#132696) indeed without a pertinent need to go into the wider subject of inspiration. Again, EGW was not inerrant, did not speak/write ex-cathedra and was not infallible, so all that she claims can and must be tested, and that by the Greater light of Scripture. The proof of the veracity of her statements is if it harmonizes with the Theological nature and substantive testimony of already given Revelation (i.e., the Bible). (Isa 8:20; 1 Thess 5:19-21; cf. Acts 17:11)



If EGW had said she was infallible, then you would have an incontrovertible argument here. But she never made such a claim for herself and made it transparently clear that she sought to complement her direct revelations with her Theological and Spiritual/Experiential understandings, which at times she corrected, even wrongly.



I have never seen nor felt that need, however, quite to the contrary, I have been implicitly impressed to ‘test what she has said and hold on to what is good’, 1 Thess 5:19-21 indeed when I first, and quite shockingly started to discover some of the exegetical deficiencies in her writings.



That is indeed what I feel. I actually have a problem pointedly with how you either wrongly and/or selectively, even ignoringly, treat her writings, and that without bothering to give any explanation, and all of that, when a statement she made does not agree with the parts of her writings which you claim support your view. I on the other hand take all of her writings/statements into full consideration, and do transparently object to some for substantive reasons. I also give more weight to her direct revelations over the ones that were not from such a directly inspired source.



You have not provided the reference for that claimed statement. Perhaps this dedicated thread for that purpose could help.

If true and strictly applied, that would mean that all of her writings were (directly) inspired. That would lead to several problems in regards to her corrections and errors, among other applicable problematic areas.

As I said, I only see EGW making honest mistakes, as these were based upon her actual knowledge of the Bible.



That is actually what you are, at least effectively, doing. E.g., the Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, The Flood, Nadab and Abihu, among many others. [“Reminder”: Don’t forget the remainder of this pertinent post (#133009b) which you have not yet fully answered (See here (#133207)) and apparently left open to not answering (= your “more later perhaps”??). Answer that part of that would/should transparently explain why you are also not seeing EGW’s view on these events as she says they occurred.]

Again, as Biblically instructed, I am ‘holding on to what actually checks of against the Greater Light of the Bible.’



Indeed I do, OT & NT: Isa 8:20; 1 Thess 5:19-21 among others.



That is not the way it is to be done. Scripture is to be exegetically ascertained, (and that does not only involve original language) and the writings of EGW are to be subject to this exegetical light.



That is because EGW’s writing is not my Bible. The Bible is. You are the one who is opting to disregard Biblical exegesis and in those 7 prime examples of yours, except, partly in terms of extent, 5. The Destruction of Jerusalem, I do not see a difference between the Bible and SOP. In fact in regards to that destruction event, I see (as my other responses will document) that it may have partly transpired to the extent EGW says only from the time that Titus became indignant, at the very end of the war in 70 A.D. and ordered that no more mercy be shown and that the entire city be destroyed. Prior to this, throughout the first ca. 4 years of the War, God had a hand in both tempering His vessels of destruction and allowing for merciful, life sparing acts. That is similarly what I see in the Bible and SOP occurring in 6 of the 7 Last Plagues.



As I see/understand that 1888 difference, the problems/errors their could have been averted if proper exegesis was used and/or given its proper weight. So in this way, their shortcoming is not applicable/attributable to me. Quite to the contrary. That message was also, and has also, been blown out of its actual intent/proportion.

I am seeking to reconcile the SOP with the exegetical Biblical testimony as much as possible. And from what I also read in the SOP, indeed what EGW went on to write later in that GC book, namely GC 614.2, she did not see a need to reconsider all OT destruction/judgement events as being natural, and non-God involved acts.

In relation to her “decree statement” as I went on to say, the “fetters” and “cup of vengeance” show me that God does have a provision for rebellion against His ways, but it is only the “stubborn” persistence of evildoers that result in them suffering those punishments.

There is also an added dimension in this issue that has not been emphasized. That is that the judgement spoken of here is pointedly for people who God had actively engaged to protect. Indeed I do not see in the Bible of SOP that God equally, actively engages in protecting everyone as He does His professed People. So, e.g., if the Amalekites had wanted to sojourn and stay in the Sinai wilderness, they would have surely been defaultly bitten by these venomous creatures. Also Satan concentrates his efforts to destroy people on those who are opposing him, and God therefore has to intervene to protect His followers. However it is when they stubbornly reject him that he no longer commissions His angels to protect these rebellious ones and, unless He intends the punishment for an opportunity to change their ways (e.g., snakes in wilderness) He then permits Satan to do as he wishes. For many reasons, including the fact that hundreds of thousands may have escaped Jerusalem alive, I see God as having been quite present in that destruction. It very well may be until the utter end of the War, when then only rebellious and militaristic Jews were left in the city, that God permitted Satan to have his way as, Titus, out of “great indignation” at the prideful refusal of an offer for peace, then commanded His armies to ‘have no mercy’. He even refused to accept any deserters. (see Josephus, Wars 6:6.3 #352)

So I fully understands EGW “Divine Decree” statement to include more than just that ‘judgement is deserved’ but also that it is speaking against a notion that ‘people can’t but suffer this deserved judgement’. Her “stubborn, fetters, ‘wine poured into cup of vengeance’ are contributive to this fuller view for me. Also Satan want to make it seem that and adverse action that he does is along these lines that it is because it is God who must have it so. E.g., the Holocaust. Had the Jews believed in the Messiah Jesus Christ as they easily could have, they would not have been dispersed to all these surrounding nations. So it was this persistent rejection that, in a way, set up that 20th century evil-inspired act of Nazism, however Satan has convinced many people that this occurred was because God wanted it so.



As posted elsewhere, because the Bible says so. God use of physical fighting and war to settle conflicts in the GC is attested from Heaven. It is your view that does not allow these incontrovertible facts of Bible and supporting SOP.



The comes a point where, out of love for those who want to do what is right, that God has to utilize physical force to push back and/or eliminate and overstepping and unlawful act of the Devil and/or his followers.



I rather see that both God and Jesus wanted to punish the waywardness of the Jews, indeed to also serve as a lesson for those, especially new Israel, that would follow, as it was indeed typologically applicable to them. Those who were to be punished entirely depended on personal, “stubborn” choices, that brought themselves beyond these ‘bounds of God’s mercy’ and thus automatically into His ministry of wrath. And God decides, based upon His ultimate plans/intentions just how this judgement will be performed.



God also decides when this limit is reached, as it all depends on how much light and opportunities one has had.



My point was that all and any sin is fully deserving of immediate, Hell Fire obliterating, death. However God has chosen not to make this so in this life. He instead reserves this immediate capital judgement and death for high handed acts of sin and rebellion. Even in the final judgement, some committed sins will cause some people to burn more than others indeed in direct proportion to the light one had (Luke 12:47, 48).



As I said elsewhere, indeed also next, I am seeing that what I understand as “passive” you understand as ‘completely absent’ in regards to God’s involvement. I therefore don’t see that my understanding agrees with yours here.



“self-acting” = does not need to be caused/done by God, with which I also do not include God’s permitting of this act by removing a protection that was keeping it from occurring.

“Self-directing” = case in point, your S&G volcano which, unless it was right in the middle of that valley, would have to self-direct its eruption only towards the valley of these 5 cities.



If God permits Satan to effectuate death, then it is God’s will. That is an incontrovertible and also non-impeaching fact in regards to God. It is his “strange act” as that is not what he would prefer if circumstances (e.g., genuine repentance of the guilty party) had permitted him to “rule”/act otherwise. God does not “like” these judgement that he either himself does or allows, however his love for those who want to live righteously is, and with substantively validating reasons, greater. Why let someone who is wantonly murdering people freely live. That would not be “love” at all. Indeed as mootly inapplicable to the killer (i.e., a blatant offender), unless God “loves” murder, and especially not to the victims or potential future victims. So since the only way to make these serial murder stop is to have that murderer either incarcerated or put to death, then God Love here makes him act to bring about this result. Also, as with God’s other Capital Punishment provisions, this will serve to prevent others from engaging in this blatant and life threatening sin, and thus preserve the life of many others.



As I substantively see that there substantively was a mixture of mercy and judgement in the ca. 4 year War and Destruction of Jerusalem, then I do not see that Satan was entirely in control of it. God played a part to temper these developments where he could. If not, the city would have been destroyed from the very first siege of Cestius in 66 A.D. and not a single Jew would have escaped/survived. Surely Satan wanted to kill all of the Jews, however I see that God made it possible for those who surrendered to this manifest judgement, were spared (cf. Jer 27:7-11). Like I said above, Satan, (like in the final Plague) was permitted to have full control when Titus became indignant. As expressed in that Josephus passage, it was indeed out of Religious pride, which implied that God had not entered in judgement against them that was fueling that continued rebellion. Of course the ultimate purpose in the preservation of the lives of Jews who did not want to continue to oppose the Romans, was the potential and quite possible chance that they would then find and accept the Gospel Message. It is also similar to the 7 Last plagues where God aims to not have all flesh perish before the end, though of course, there then would not be a chance to change sides. Or perhaps there can/may be; hence the imperative “wish” of Rev 22:11.

You have actually lost me in the rationalizing, which again I see as Theologically circular. And I indeed see it as circular because in saying “God to have acted” you are manifestly leaving an opening to actually exegetically reword the OT according to this understanding. That is probably why you manifestly see no contribution by the various Hebrew tenses being used to variously relate God’s actions in to OT. I don’t both see this exegesis-overstepping reconsideration or substantive episode re-viewing, as I sequiturly see that Jesus, as realistically possible, fully emulated that OT actions.

Indeed I linearly see that Jesus was incarnated with a “empty slate” indeed having “emptied Himself” (Phil 2:7). And he ‘filled in that slate’ by reading the OT Scriptures along with/in the light of the various revelations, especially surrounding His birth. Christ then saw that there was no need to change a jot or tittle from the OT record but that the righteousness in this recorded acts and laws had to be upheld and/or restored.



I don’t get what you are trying to say here. Please restate/rephrase/explain.





My entire point was that a degree of force of force was used by Christ and it did include physical force. (Religious) Psychological Force (i.e., guilt-convicting force) was also used by Jesus,

In (case) law there indeed is a valid Tort provision for e.g., “Psychological False/Wrongful Imprisonment” where you do not even have to physical restrain someone to be found guilty but merely use something that you know can effectuate this physically realized confinement.

[See e.g., R. v. Mann, 2004 SCC 52,: ‘the constitutional right recognized in Section 9 of the Charter is engaged in situations that involve significant psychological restraints.’]

This included type of force was addedly stemming from Christ’s ‘indignant demeanor’ which was enjoined by physical acts of this vehement opposition. All of this contributed to the fear that was both instilled and developed in these offenders resulting in their choice to flee.

That was sequentially, Christ’s look when they reacted by fleeing, after he had finished applying his (religiously) psychological and physical force on them and this situation. The “piercing” look before this was no doubt in full congruence with his stern, indignant demeanor. This pity was manifestly that they had chosen to flee rather than stay and seek to be corrected. Indeed a merely a sincere and whole look of “pity” does ‘strike one with terror’ And while these offenders felt guilty, they manifestly did not feel sorry, as their future recommitting of this showed. And so this is what Jesus was ‘yearningly pitying’ for rather than have them flee, he would have preferred them to stay, right their wrongs and seek to find out what should indeed be done here. Indeed as EGW says, and as Christ was surely fully aware of, ‘they did not yield to the convicting power of the Holy Spirit here and repent, but rather chose to run.’ DA 162.3-4.



That is implied in the initial way that Christ was manifestly looking at them prior to them choosing to flee. When a perceived “Judge” has a ‘stern and indignant demeanor’ towards you because of what you are doing, it is normatively and non-hypocritically conveyed through a “condemning” look.



I didn’t say his other option was to do nothing. I said that according your not-any-force view, Christ would have effectuated this desired cleansing result by merely walking in the Temple and, as if completely unconcerned, just look about and not even ever directly at these offenders and the exact same terror-struck guilt and frantic fleeing would have occurred.



I rather see in the Bible and SOP that it was also Christ’s words, demeanor and action that caused them to flee and not resist/stand their ground. Indeed in DA 162, EGW answers here questions on this by saying:



It was the factual case that they were also (i.e., additionally, and not your impliedly understood ‘solely’) trying to flee from ‘Christ’s heart searching glance’. That thus all does not mean that they fled ‘solely because they felt guilty.’ Christ many acts and degrees of force contributed to their felt need to run.



The problem with this is that (1) you somehow think that this will include all of the actions of God from the OT, which is not the realistic case for 3.5 years of Christ public ministry which was moreoverly only limitedly recorded in the Gospels. (2) only re-manifested events from the OT can be explicitly compared.

Like I said many times before, I do not see Christ acting differently from the OT God in especially terms of Justice and Judgement in the Gospel, as His paramount mandate allowed (Luke 12:49, 50).

So e.g., in the case of the woman caught in adultery, Jesus acted exactly like the OT God Spiritually fully intended, and effectively said that ‘she indeed should stoned for this sin of adultery by worthy witnesses and executioners.’ As this was not done only because their was not such a worthy witness/executioner. They were probably all guilty of unconfessed or even confessed but not punished, capital sins.



That claim has been disproven by what the Bible and SOP fully and actually say. Indeed they fled because of the various ‘terror-striking’ visible and physical manifestation of Christ blended with, if not directly causing this Religious psychological force. A simple sternly condemning look towards a person, whereas no one else is doing so, indeed doing the exact opposite, automatically leads one to believe that your are reading their thoughts and wrong intentions. And a resulting fear of being publicly exposed and thus humiliated can cause someone to flee.



Indeed it does, which is why Jesus wanted to bring Hell Fire right then and there in judgement of all of those sins and waywardness He had just spoken against. That would have doomed everyone to Hell as the Plan of Salvation would have not been complete. And these were not just empty expressions by Christ as He said He had to ‘greatly constrain Himself so that this desired immediate judgement is not done.’



That ‘doing what he permit’ rationalization of yours actually does not have actual Biblical substantiation as the refutation of your 7 prime examples show. God is either direct or indirectly (=actively or passively) rather involved in his judgement and not “absent”. He either ‘“makes” these happen” or ‘“causes” them to happen’. Or, when possible, “naturally” (“Qal”) allows something to occur. However, I have thus far see only Hiphil and Piel type of actions.



That may be the chosen case, but Jesus still use veiled language and statements, especially with the Jewish leaders.



Again they were still deliberate veiled sayings of Christ. He withheld the keys.



Those citings actually circumvents the actual issue, (=my intended point) here. In doing this ‘hatred rousing’ Christ was acting out of deserved judgement upon these Jewish leaders. However, like Nicodemus went on to do, they could have taken this deserved rebuke and seek correcting light. But most preferred to continue in prideful opposition.


Furthermore it was out of Christ’s justified greater love for those who were being misled, oppressed and entrenched in unrighteousness that Christ was acting to openly and publicly rebuke and destroy this false religious platform of these Jewish leaders. That was a tangible overturning work of reform that had to be done, regardless of whoever it came to clingingly implicate. In fact Christ’s public denunciation acts was more to show the people that these leaders were not beyond any reproach nor should they be blindly believed.



That is an eisegetical view of this passage. Paul, quoting Solomon (Pro 25:21, 22) had said to leave all vengeance to God and not repay evil with evil but honest deeds. Therefore this is not a method for how either man or God is to take vengeance upon an evil person. The Bible is copiously clear that when God takes vengeance for a wrong done to His people, it is definitely not, and far from, in favoring acts. But rather through deserved acts of Justice. I.e., whatever is deserved/required to exact just vengeance.

This counselled “doing good” response for men is only an intermediary step until God acts in vengeance. And its purpose is actually, calculatedly practical as such acts of ‘good towards evil ones’ will either cause that evil person to “melt” and thus cease their evil, or become so furiously “hot under the collar” that they cannot “get to you” that they would much prefer to completely avoid you. (Indeed, from the probable real life circumstance from which this illustration was drawn, in that hot and arid desert climate, the last thing one wanted was even more heat. Also ‘ice to cool them down’ vs. ‘coal to melt them’ was not a known possibility and/or ready feasibility in those days. Hence thus the use of ‘coal to melt’).

This ‘good-for-evil’ method was also an opportunity for these evil persons to save themselves, if they so chose, from God’s pending and sure vengeance judgement.



As seen in the sequitur context, I was here expressing what your view is suppose to entail. I.e., Jesus was only suppose to always speak plainly to people and never in any veiled way and they were to knowingly reject those plain statements.



I did not say that this is what Jesus wanted to do, though he indeed did deliberately use figurative language (John 16:25). And that naturally, repeatedly caused confusion in the disciples leading them to ask many questions (vs. 30) as indeed seen through the Gospels (e.g., Matt 13:36|Mar 4:13; 15:15; cf. 24:32)



As I documented, that’s what the Bible says. And other probably will if the take the Bible as it clearly says in such passages. E.g., what don’t you accept what God said and did in Mal 1:1-5??



According to the ‘Law and the Testimony’ (Isa 8:20), Yes.



You don’t earn God love, you come to benefit from His available/obtainable love. God does not dispense more than the basic life necessities upon those who hate and/or rebel against him. And, as seen in the Egypt Plagues, He could make darkness come upon only some people and not others close by, then that manifestly could be such basic natural aspects. But not, e.g., abundant rain, fertile soil, tempered winds, etc.