Right.

Ok, so back to my question. It looks to me like the author is pretty much paraphrasing EGW's comment, yet you agree with her but disagree with him. Why?

The author believes God sits back and allows the devil to do whatever he chooses; whereas, Sister White makes it clear God is in control. The devil is limited in what God allows him to do. Satan is not free to do whatever he pleases. Plus, God has done things that others have blamed on Satan.

Why do you think this? He certainly didn't say this. If I were a betting man, I'd take 1000 to 1 odds the author doesn't believe this. Your imputing an idea to him which has virtually no chance of being true.



He's just saying the same thing she is. Please compare the passages, and cite something of the author's which is different than what EGW wrote. Specifically cite something on this point where you say they are saying different things.

God does not permit suffering only to prove Satan's way is wrong. Sometimes He allows it to prove His way is right. Listen:

To many minds a deep mystery surrounds the fate of John the Baptist. They question why he should have been left to languish and die in prison. The mystery of this dark providence our human vision cannot penetrate; but it can never shake our confidence in God when we remember that John was but a sharer in the sufferings of Christ. . . . {CC 278.2}

Jesus did not interpose to deliver His servant. He knew that John would bear the test. Gladly would the Saviour have come to John, to brighten the dungeon gloom with His own presence. But He was not to place Himself in the hands of enemies and imperil His own mission. Gladly would He have delivered His faithful servant. But for the sake of thousands who in after years must pass from prison to death, John was to drink the cup of martyrdom. As the followers of Jesus should languish in lonely cells, or perish by the sword, the rack, or the fagot, . . . what a stay to their hearts would be the thought that John the Baptist, to whose faithfulness Christ Himself had borne witness, had passed through a similar experience! {CC 278.3}

Satan was permitted to cut short the earthly life of God's messenger; but that life which "is hid with Christ in God," the destroyer could not reach. Col. 3:3. He exulted that he had brought sorrow upon Christ, but he had failed of conquering John. Death itself only placed him forever beyond the power of temptation. . . . {CC 278.4}

God never leads His children otherwise than they would choose to be led, if they could see the end from the beginning, and discern the glory of the purpose which they are fulfilling as coworkers with Him. Not Enoch, who was translated to heaven, not Elijah, who ascended in a chariot of fire, was greater or more honored than John the Baptist, who perished alone in the dungeon. "Unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake" (Phil. 1:29). And of all the gifts that Heaven can bestow upon men, fellowship with Christ in His sufferings is the most weighty trust and the highest honor. {CC 278.5}

The author rejects the idea that on occasion God causes or permits sinners to suffer and die because law and justice require it.

MM, it's a Great Controversy. There are two parties involved. Showing Satan's way is wrong *is* showing His way is right. There are only two ways.



Let's not put words in his mouth. In the quote you mentioned, he said, "Not as some imposed penalty by a divine dictator, but the inevitable result foreseen by a loving Creator."

Do you disagree with this? These are his words, so let's address this, not your interpretation of my interpretation of something he said.

I'll make the question more general. Where is something the author wrote that you disagree with? Please quote it and explain what you disagree with. You should be able to do this without reference to anything I've written.

MM: I'm sorry, Tom, but I totally disagree with this idea. Proving that Satan's way is wrong does not disprove his accusations about God love and law. It is not enough for Satan to fail to produce an alternate path that is just as satisfying as God's path. Just because Satan cannot do it does not prove it's impossible. He is, after all, only a created being. In order to win the GC God must also demonstrate beyond question that His way is truly the one and only way that can satisfy people forever.


Okay, let's back up to my original observation, which was, "The author seems to have omitted law and justice from his list of reasons." Do you agree? If so, why do you think he omits it?

To answer your question - I disagree with his conclusion that God allows suffering for one reason - to prove that Satan's ways are wrong.

Here's the part I disagree with:

That’s the cosmic situation that God is dealing with. And we come with our question, "Why, God? Why is there so much pain and suffering?"

God replies something like this: "Not because I cannot prevent it, or do not wish to prevent it. Not because I do not care, or that I am unmoved by so much pain. I weep with you, and every second this evil world continues is agony to me. But I wait before I end it for a supremely important reason.

"I wait so that all may see what evil really means and where selfishness leads. I wait so that all can see the Devil in his true character. I wait so that all who will may come to me for salvation, salvation into the arms of a Father God who loves them with an undying love.

"If you want to know the answer to your question, ‘Why God?’ go to the Cross. There you will see me as I really am, two arms outstretched to save, bleeding and dying for all the suffering, misery and pain in the world."

Just like Jesus who wept while on this earth, God weeps. Not as a powerless being, but precisely because he has the power. His heart aches to heal this world of evil, to wipe away every tears from every eye, to be with his people and be their God, face to face.10 But because he is God, and he wants all to understand him and love him without compulsion, he waits. "He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."11

Why is there evil and suffering? Because the Devil chose this way, which is the opposite of God. How can we say that God is uncaring, that he willingly allows sin and suffering? So often we or the Devil cause evil, and then all of us blame God!

We have bought into the Devil’s way, and experience the consequences of trying to go our own way. Not under the punitive hostility of God, but because choosing wrong instead of right has its own natural results. Tragically, such a viewpoint does lead to death, just as God said it would. Not as some imposed penalty by a divine dictator, but the inevitable result foreseen by a loving Creator.

Think for a moment. What is the alternative? For God to intervene in every situation? To stop the car crashing, to prevent the earthquake, to defuse the terrorist’s bomb? The result would be a world in which evil is never seen for what it truly is, for it never has its diabolical consequences. A world where God by his intervening power takes care of every problem; a world of eternal evil that can have no end.

Only as the conflict is resolved through the unmasking of evil’s real face, only as God is demonstrated to be the loving, compassionate Being he says he is, only as all his creation agrees with him that he was right all along—only then can God bring this rebellion to a close. Those who have chosen the Devil’s way will be allowed their choice of final non-existence in the end-time destruction. And then, and only then, can God create a new heaven and a new earth, a place where righteousness dwells and the goodness of God reigns supreme.12

First he says - "So often we or the Devil cause evil, and then all of us blame God! We have bought into the Devil’s way, and experience the consequences of trying to go our own way."

Then he adds - "Think for a moment. What is the alternative? For God to intervene in every situation? To stop the car crashing, to prevent the earthquake, to defuse the terrorist’s bomb? The result would be a world in which evil is never seen for what it truly is, for it never has its diabolical consequences."

His examples are inconsistent with his conclusions, especially the first two. How does crashing a car illustrate the "consequences of trying to go our own way"? How does an earthquake illustrate the "consequences of trying to go our own way"? And, why would defusing a bomb every once in awhile, to save innocent lives, prevent us from realizing that terrorism is bad?