Tom and Teresaq, thank you sharing your views. There is nothing pleasant about studying the stories in the Bible that depict God causing death and destruction. I can see how it would be more comforting, more flattering to interpret all those accounts to mean circumstances forced God to withdraw His protection and permit evil angels to cause death and destruction. And, indeed, there are times when this is clearly the case.

However, even this interpretation is hardly comforting or flattering. The idea that God reluctantly, uncharacteristically does something that results in evil angels arbitrarily inflicting His children with death and destruction paints a pretty poor picture of God. It begs the question - Why does God reach a point where He is no longer willing to do whatever it takes to prevent death and destruction from happening?

What harm would it do to simply continue doing whatever it takes to prevent death and destruction? Besides the nation of Israel, and on occasion her neighbors, God pretty much does this very thing, that is, He prevents death and destruction from happening in consequence of their neglect or rejection of Him. Indeed, the majority of the nations of the world have not, and do not, incur the wrath of God. In such cases, God continues to uphold the laws of nature and things continue like they have forever, that is, there are good years and lean years. "For he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." (Mat 5:45)

Also, please take into consideration the following insights:



QUESTION - Is it right to credit Satan for the wrath of God, for His "strange acts"? Is it right to attribute the judgments of God to Satan?

Please consider the following insight:

Korah would not have taken the course he did had he known that all the directions and reproofs communicated to Israel were from God. But he might have known this. God had given overwhelming evidence that He was leading Israel. But Korah and his companions rejected light until they became so blinded that the most striking manifestations of His power were not sufficient to convince them; they attributed them all to human or satanic agency. The same thing was done by the people, who the day after the destruction of Korah and his company came to Moses and Aaron, saying, "Ye have killed the people of the Lord." Notwithstanding they had had the most convincing evidence of God's displeasure at their course, in the destruction of the men who had deceived them, they dared to attribute His judgments to Satan, declaring that through the power of the evil one, Moses and Aaron had caused the death of good and holy men. It was this act that sealed their doom. They had committed the sin against the Holy Spirit, a sin by which man's heart is effectually hardened against the influence of divine grace. "Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man," said Christ, "it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him." Matthew 12:32. These words were spoken by our Saviour when the gracious works which He had performed through the power of God were attributed by the Jews to Beelzebub. It is through the agency of the Holy Spirit that God communicates with man; and those who deliberately reject this agency as satanic, have cut off the channel of communication between the soul and Heaven. {PP 404.4}

If by "more flattering" you mean "more flattering to God," I agree that the suggested interpretation that destruction comes when God withdraws His protection is more flattering to God.



Since you recognize that there are times when this view is clearly the case, how can you then assert this paints are "pretty poor picture of God," given this is a view you hold yourself? (by which I mean, you hold this view to be correct some portion of the time).



The Fifield quotes I've presented discuss this in detail. I don't have access to them right now.

Three quick problems are:

1.This would not be honoring the free will choice of those who have rejected God.
2.This would not be fair to Satan, who would cry foul that he was never given the opportunity to present his case.
3.It would not be seen what the effects of sin are, if God never permitted bad things to result from bad moral decisions.

Regarding the PP comment, there's no doubt that Satan is indirectly responsible for all effects of sin. Satan is "the author of sin, and all its results," which includes death, of course, as without sin there would be no death. However, the PP quote is not dealing with this, but is dealing with the idea that Moses and Aaron were agents of Satan.

Note:



Assuming God withdrew His protection of forces which would cause an earthquake, and an earthquake resulted as a consequence, then one could hardly fairly accuse Moses and Aaron of being in cohoots with Satan.

Yes, it presents a flattering view of God. However, it is not the only means and method God uses to punish and destroy impenitent sinners. "To interpret all those accounts to mean" God employed the same means and method is what I'm objecting to.


I believe there are times when "circumstances forced God to withdraw His protection and permit evil angels to cause death and destruction." But I do not agree with "the idea that God reluctantly, uncharacteristically does something that results in evil angels arbitrarily inflicting His children with death and destruction." I think this view "paints a pretty poor picture of God." Do you see the difference?


1. Your answer implies what God is doing now to prevent death and destruction is a violation of free will.
2. Is there any evidence Satan cries foul play in response to God preventing death and destruction?
3. God regularly allows people to suffer the natural cause and effect consequences of their poor decisions. But there are also many, many times when He intervenes and prevents things from playing out naturally.


I'm not sure I understand your interpretation of the PP quote. Are you saying they didn't attribute the judgments of God to Satan? In saying, "there's no doubt that Satan is indirectly responsible for all effects of sin", it sounds like you believe Satan is the one caused the ground to open up and swallow Korah and his companions.

PS - What does it say about the character of God that He buried and burned sinners alive? What kind of God would do such a thing - bury and burn people alive?

The eyes of all Israel were fixed upon Moses as they stood, in terror and expectation, awaiting the event. As he ceased speaking, the solid earth parted, and the rebels went down alive into the pit, with all that pertained to them, and "they perished from among the congregation." The people fled, self-condemned as partakers in the sin. {PP 400.5}

But the judgments were not ended. Fire flashing from the cloud consumed the two hundred and fifty princes who had offered incense. These men, not being the first in rebellion, were not destroyed with the chief conspirators. They were permitted to see their end, and to have an opportunity for repentance; but their sympathies were with the rebels, and they shared their fate. {PP 401.1}

This means you believe in a less flattering view of God. I agree with this.



Yes, we disagree regarding this. I see the principles described in GC, the first chapter, as being general principles, not to be limited to that one event. She writes a number of things in the chapter that bear this out. For example:





No, I don't see the point you're trying to make.

Btw, I have no problem agreeing with what you said here: "Circumstances forced God to withdraw His protection and permit evil angels to cause death and destruction." I would make it broader and say it this way: "Circumstances forced God to withdraw His protection and permit death and destruction to come upon those who have rejected His mercy." Is there anything in this statement, which is sticking very closely to how you expressed things, which you see as painting a poor picture of God?



The first chapter of the GC deals with this. Basically, God needs to protect us from destruction, or else we wouldn't have the opportunity to express freedom of choice. However, God has to allow Satan the opportunity to present his case, or else his charges against God would be true.



Job.



Agreed.



No. I'm saying they were accusing Moses and Aaron of being in league with Satan, which is not a fair accusation, given that od withdrew His protection of forces which would cause an earthquake, and an earthquake resulted as a consequence.



Not directly. If it weren't for Satan, there wouldn't be any earthquakes, or any other bad thing, because all bad things come as the result of sin. That was my point.

I think you should answer this, since you are the one who believes this is what God is like.

(I see Tom beat me to referencing Job )


I believe it did.
And since, even though I requoted and underlined it, you do not see it as such is probably why you made this statement:



Where did the water go when He separated it? Keep in mind, Ellen White says that the seas then were not as large as now.


Why? Why one and not the other?


But I thought you did say that.


Water no longer seeks lowest point? Nothing need to be changed there. It did before. It does now.


I guess that is where we differ. The first couple of chapters of Job, I believe you would agree supports your idea there was no difference as to whether God is stretching forth His hand, or it was in Satan's hands.

I see a great difference. I'm not sure what your motivation of not seeing one is. You had asked for an inspired passage. I've quoted, requoted, and Tom has requoted it. "withdrawn", "protection", "holding in check", "restraint is removed". I don't know what more you need.

Why do you require your viewpoint of God? Do you remove the possibility exists of Tom's and my viewpoint? Would you be upset to find God doesn't directly causing death and destruction?


Sounds like you are asking why do bad things happen to good people.
Which really means:
Why was satan allowed to make his choice?

Is that what you have been objecting to all along?

I think Mountain Man is saying that God doesn't reluctantly, uncharacteristically do something that results of evil angels inflicting death and destruction (which results in a poor picture of God), but that He willingly and characteristically permits or allows evil angels to do it, or if they won't, God will do it Himself -- but in "love" (which results in a good picture of God).

Sorry, but that's what I see MM saying. If he should help explain why he thinks that that is love, or why he requires that kind of picture of God, I may be able to understand his viewpoint better. But without that understanding, he is painting .... shall I say... a pretty poor picture?

Mountain Man, do you see a big contradiction here? Do you hate (maybe too strong of a word, but the first that comes to mind) God, but yet feel compelled to defend Him? I mean, I've seen God hating, atheistic evolutionists express similar views, if I explained your statement correctly. I hope I totally misunderstood you and need to take Tom's position of, "No, I don't see the point you're trying to make".

This means you're being less flattering than God.


This insight in no way supports your idea that God has never employed any other means and methods other than the one described here to cause death and destruction.


God does nothing reluctantly or uncharacteristically. God is not wishy-washy like that.


My description is less flexible than the one you described. Yours allows for other reasons why death and destruction happens; whereas, mine states it happens specifically because of what Satan does. Neither one of these descriptions, however, paint an unfavorable picture of God - in my opinion.


We both agree God doesn't "have" to do anything. What He does He does because it is right and righteous. Satan was feeling pretty good about his chances of winning the GC until God pulled the plug and everyone, save eight, was destroyed in a Flood. Is there any evidence Satan cried, Foul play?

But you didn't address the issue I raised. If protecting sinners from the consequences of their sins would be a violation of their freedom at a certain point why wouldn't it be a violation of their freedom at every step of the way?


I don't read in the book of Job where Satan cries, Foul play, because God is protecting him from death and destruction. It was God, not Satan, who brought up Job. Satan's complaint was just the opposite of what you said. He complained that Job loved and obeyed God because God blessed Him. Death and destruction did not happen until God gave Satan permission to afflict Job. Are you implying this is the death and destruction God was protecting Job from? If so, then such death and destruction was purely arbitrary.


Glad we can agree on something.


Earthquake? Who said anything about an earthquake? Here's how it is described: As Moses ceased speaking, the earth opened and swallowed them up, and their tents, and all that pertained unto them. They went down alive into the pit, and the earth closed over them, and they perished from among the congregation. {4aSG 31.2}

The idea that these people and their stuff happened to be standing over a naturally occurring fault line, and that God ceased preventing it from naturally opening up and closing up long enough for them to be buried alive, seems rather far fetched and fanciful to me.

However, my question here concerns a different issue. It has to do with daring to attribute the judgments of God to Satan. Here's the quote again: Notwithstanding they had had the most convincing evidence of God's displeasure at their course, in the destruction of the men who had deceived them, they dared to attribute His judgments to Satan, declaring that through the power of the evil one, Moses and Aaron had caused the death of good and holy men. It was this act that sealed their doom. {PP 404.4}

Are you saying you agree that "they dared to attribute His judgments to Satan"? Are you saying you agree it was God, and not Satan, who did something that resulted in Korah and his comrades being buried and crushed alive in the earth? Is this what you meant when you wrote, "God withdrew His protection . . . and an earthquake resulted as a consequence."


I don't understand what you're trying to saying here. Are you saying Satan did not cause the ground to open up and bury and crush them alive? If he didn't cause it to happen, who or what did? Did Korah sin in such a way that his sin caused the earth to open up and kill him?

In the following passage Ellen says God employs the forces of nature to do His will, to serve His purpose. It was God's will and purpose, therefore, to bury and crush Korah and his comrades alive in the earth. Listen:

God controls all these elements; they are his instruments to do his will; he calls them into action to serve his purpose. These fiery issues have been, and will be his agents to blot out from the earth very wicked cities. Like Korah, Dathan and Abiram they go down alive into the pit. These are evidences of God's power. . . These manifestations bear the special marks of God's power, and are designed to cause the people of the earth to tremble before him, and to silence those, who like Pharaoh would proudly say, "Who is the Lord that I should obey his voice?" {3SG 80}

What does it say about the character of God that He buried and burned sinners alive? He is a God mercy and justice.

What kind of God would do such a thing - bury and burn people alive? A God of mercy and justice.

Are you implying you do not believe God does such things? Are you saying God does not bury or burn people alive? If not God, then who or what buried and burned them alive? Why didn't God protect them from being buried and burned alive? Why didn't He withdraw their breath of life just before being buried and burned so that their pain and suffering was less severe and horrible?

PS - I am referring to the cases of Korah and the 250 priests mentioned above on this thread.