You will when you allow for proper exegesis. Anyone who truly does easily will.



I actually reconciled EGW statements of permit to involve the actions described in the Bible. In short my view is that what EGW says, rather glibly in my understanding, that ‘God permits to happen’ does not mean the He completely removes Himself but acts to effectuate this, as the Bible actually exegetically specifies.



Again I do not see EGW’s use of “permit” to be “loaded” to mean God is no longer involved. And, by the way, I only view EGW as having made an “inspired” comment so far as it agrees with or can be reconciled with what the Bible says. That is why I don’t see her view on the hardening of Pharaoh heart as being a ‘statement by commission’ as it does not agree with what the Bible exegetically says. That is a substantially occurring deficiency in the writing of EGW.



Not actually. Intent is secondary to whether God does the act or not. My view is even when He permits something to occur, He sometimes needs to actively act to bring it about. Just like a father permit his teenager to go to a school activity after much plea may require him having to drive him/her to the location of the event, particular in a last minute decision when taking public transportation will cause the teenager to be late. So e.g., God’s permitting something adverse to occur to Israel as a rectifying lesson (thus mercy is involved) may require Him to take full control of what is to transpire out of various GC realities, including the absence of no natural/organic consequence. Thus with the fiery serpents, these had to be attracted to, and then feel threatened by, the people for this permitted calamity to timely and strikingly forcely come to pass so that Israel can learn its key lesson.



It is because you have not been taking my arguments into full consideration and weight, if you are even reading them, that you think that we have the same view here in regards to ‘God permitting something.’ As I understand it, you then see God as completely non-involved in such claimed cases. I do not at all. See all of my prior views on this which indeed differentiatigly debunk your view of things here.



[Because you incorrectly link your post reply here (responding to yourself) I had to waste time just to retrace exactly where you were quoting from. If you had been doing this properly from the beginning you would find that retracing your steps to find the comments of mine that you omitted would be just a matter of a few clicks.]

In regards to your restated comment here, my answer is still the same:



You are only not seeing ‘no relevance to your points’ because you are outrightly ignoring my points. I am correcting what you had said. If you don’t think that is a valid correction then point out with, engaging the specific arguments made, rather than just repeating your prior point. And, as I said, truth is not limited to what you can or want to understand. You need to get up to speed on particularly proper exegesis.

The rest of my statement was, as I apparently need to spell this out for you, in regards to how you just ignore my points which counter your view. I am not responsible for your mistakes. Apparently you believe that when your view hits a wall, it is my fault. As if your view is not suppose to be wrong. That makes no sense to me and indeed is just stubborn bias. There no ‘discourse value’ in this mentality. Just defend your view however you think it is and you do the work needed to substantiate and present it. I’ll keep on stating why I agree or do not agree with it and you’ll make the necessary adjustments and better restate it if still applicable/valid.



I don’t see how that would change anything but just reset this discussion thus forcing me to have to remake the same arguments again. So I won’t do so. You nonetheless still need to respond to all of my point which show how and why your view or methodology is deficient, improper and/or wrong. So focus on addressing those standing point if you want this discussion to constructively go on, if at all.

The context of the rewording was contrasting sufferings to judgments. So the reworded statement:



is dealing with sufferings, as opposed to judgments. You don't agree with the points that "He does not destroy. He improves whatever He touches." as, in general, true, from what you've said.



Which agrees with what I said. That is, you believe:



If the word "sometimes" is not necessary, it's not inaccurate, given your point of view. That is, the reworded statement is correctly reflecting your point of view.



This is circular reasoning, but, regardless, doesn't counter the point that the above reworded statement accurately reflects your view. You don't believe that sickness, suffering, and death are necessarily the work of an antagonistic power. Sometimes they are, and sometimes they aren't.



What description?



This seems to have nothing to do with the fact that the reworded statement accurately reflects your view.



I'm clarifying your thought. When I read that sickness, suffering and death are the work of an antagonistic power, I read this as saying these things are the product of Satan. You read this as saying something else, which the reworded statement explains.



The statement says one thing, which you understand as another, which the reworded statement makes clear.



This isn't responsive to my point. I listed what our arguments are, and the differences between our points of view. If you agree with how I have characterized our differences is the question being raised here.



That doesn't work. She would have had to have written, "And because of men’s wickedness the Lord also does not restrain the destroying power." The "and" here is simply a conjunction.



Not quenching a naturally formed disaster is fine. This fits the principle of the Lord's being described as doing that which He permits.

Regarding the 7th plague, you're saying here you're not sure if this is Satan or not?



That this is the case looks to be the intent of the quote. "Few have appreciated his goodness and love, although he has kept them from dire disaster and death."



This is fine. This would again be God's being presented as doing that which He permits.



Either way, the principle would apply.



These could be the same principle as well. Indeed, considering the Flood, given the description of the event, God must have been preventing the waters beneath the earth from exploding into the atmosphere until all the animals and people had entered the ark.



This highlights what I've stated as the fundamental difference in our points of view. You view God as capable of acting in such a manner, whereas I see no hint of this capability in Christ's revelation of God's character. You recognize that there is a potential organic relationship between the removal of God's protection and the destructive power of an invading foreign power, but postulate that God could spur them on in their destructive action.



This is the whole point. God was protecting them. They caused God to remove their protection, and then disaster came, the same as with the destruction of Jerusalem.



The statement tells us that all that man can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son. This means that it is not necessary to go outside of Christ to obtain a perfect revelation of the Father. That's simple logic. There is nothing unsound in applying the principle in this manner.



I'm just going to comment on one thing here, and that's the following:



I've made no such claim, and that you have such an idea is evidence that you're not paying attention very well to what I've been writing.



I've quoted this several times.

My view of things has been evolving since I became a Christian. I have no reason to think that it wouldn't continue to do so. Indeed, I've also said repeatedly that Jesus Christ is constantly challenging our paradigm, and that God is infinite, and that our understanding of His character is imperfect. Only Jesus Christ have a view that is perfect. Our goal should be to have a view which is harmony with his.

You're the one who appears to think he has an infallible view. I readily admit that there are flaws to my way of thinking. Do you admit the same?

I'm simply sharing how I understand things, what I believe to be true, and why. I've been willing to change my view in the past, and have done so, and am still willing to do so, given the presentation of evidence which makes sense to me.

What I meant was: ‘God Himself acted to effectuate the judgement that He was allowing/permitting to occur’



As stated before this all revolves around the natural tendencies of serpents. So as the Bible relates God acted to override this. Still occasional bites could have occurred but God had shieldingly acted to prevent any serpent bites. Also to effectuate a striking and timely judgement, this forceful action would indeed have been needed.

So my understand here involving, and in that order, the contributions of the Bible, SOP and nature: With simply a removal of this shielding. Some occasional bites would occur (e.g, 1-2 per day) with God’s added elements of feeling of threat: (100+ per day). All so that a timely and forceful judgement can be made, overriding what would lesserly, naturally occur.

No. In the no mercy stage, as there was a present organic cause to effect agent, God was only acting to temper things so that things don’t blow over. All the while mercy was variously being obtained by some Jews. Then as things obstinately further developed, God removed Himself and let Satan take over. That is indeed when Titus lost his temper, probably under Satan direct influence and order that the city and its remaining inhabitants be mercilessly dealt with.

All that I see God actively doing in regards to destruction in that first phase was, as Jesus had said in Matt 22:7 sent/draw the Romans, as He indeed can, especially to return under Titus after a brief hiatus.

So in case where the destruction is organic, present and (fittingly) sufficient, God does not have to actively cause the destruction. Otherwise, for reason of necessary justice, he does.

As shown in my detailing, I said that ‘evil angels” was not a fitting translation and that these were indeed ‘destroying angels of God’ as functionally attested in the Bible and SOP.

One statement of EGW does not establish a theology and indeed sometimes it may only be an incomplete/partial expression of her understanding of that issue. Given what EGW says elsewhere about ‘God and/or His angel doing acts of destruction’ a theology cannot be made upon on Statement in regards to tithing. Indeed God action in the flood is the perfect example. That is not proper exegesis of the SOP. That is why I made a more general statement on this with a large GC view in mind rather than limiting my understanding to one quote.

Nonetheless, I see here that she is speaking of not necessarily judgement actions, but just day to day circumstances where God has to daily act to prevent natural calamities. The GC rules probably limit Him to only certain preventions and when His people are not faithful in tithing, He then has no justification for extraordinarily acting to protect them against an approaching calamity.



It must also be kept in mind that as it was very likely that the end could have occurred in EGW’s day, Satan seeing this, probably step things up to cause as many natural disasters as possible. Seeing/believing then that he had nothing left to gain, he therefore was wrathfully acting to do these ‘supernatural’ (also in terms of frequency) disasters. (Cf. 3MR 318.2) So EGW was probably injunctively given special light on this new, potential/possible end time, development. Indeed Satan does not know when the end will be, so, and by God’s permission, as this can indeed be the end, is allowed to act in this way, especially, as the SOP reveals, this will serve to establish the Mark of the Beast and cause billions to be lost.



Nothing specifically. Just furthering my related GC/Theological observation/understanding here.



I had only cited the Katrina event to illustrate the reactions of people to claims of Gods judgement against them from the occurrence of a natural disaster. I was not making a claim on the veracity of those God-judgement or Satan-action claim. Thus I meant: ‘Satan generally does indeed (generally speaking) do things (favoring or destroying acts) that advantage him.’



Correct, as I have no specific knowledge of the behind the scenes actions surrounding Katrina.



“These things” means ‘such naturally occurring disasters, uncaused by either Satan or God but of course the derived result of Satan’s destructive course.



He just permitted it to occur, not hindering it in any way, however, he didn’t have a good overriding reason to prevent it, as He surely has been able to do in other worthy conditions, indeed not even allowing the natural disaster to form. We may also be impressed to see e.g., how many named, thus formed hurricanes which subsided was at the direct hand of God. Leaving however just enough of a threat to help people keep things in their proper perspective - those who act wisely enough to fearfully perceive His gracious warnings here.

Why is this an important point? How is this different than saying, for example, that the judgments occurred because God removed His protecting hand?



You mean because the Bible says God send fiery serpents upon the Israelites? This means God acted to override the natural tendency of serpents? This certainly seems to be reading a lot into the text.



This doesn't address the point made. According the SOP, God had protecting the people from constant dangers. God removed His protecting hand so that His protection could be seen. If God *caused* the dangerous event to happen, then the serpents weren't the danger; *God* was.

Here's what's written:



How do you get from this that God *caused* the attacks to occur? She writes:



She writes "the protecting hand of God was removed, great numbers of the people were attacked by these venomous creatures."

This is the same as the no mercy stage then, except that God was acting to temper things. God is not acting as a direct agent.



So the Romans would not have wanted to tax the Jews, except for God's inducement? What exactly do you see God doing here?



But if there are a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, God *never* has to actively cause the destruction. It's always sufficient for God to simply remove His protecting hand.

Do you see the destruction of Jerusalem as due to a direct decree on the part of God?

I noticed you mentioned Matthew as justification for the idea that God sent the Roman armies. What about Mark's account?



To be consistent, don't we need to say that God killed the Jews and gave their land to others? That is, if we're going to say that God "sent" the Romans because of Matthew, then, by the same token, we should say that God "killed" the Jews, because of Mark.

It looks like the word is used over 200 times, and only once translated "destroying" by the NASB. Overwhelmingly the word is translated "evil." You referenced the Word Critical Commentary. What does it say?

Regarding "send," you wrote:



So does this mean "send" (in the Piel Stem) is never used in conjunction with evil angels?

It sounds like you knew your comment was bogus as you made it. You must have been aware of what you were doing, or why would have made yourself a bet?

Here's the post:



How could you have missed, "Here's a statement from the SOP speaking to the impact of the cross on the angels:" along with the cite? This could hardly have been more immediate, and so, hardly a "spurious" claim.