M: For example, in light of all the places in the Bible where it says God killed, or God commanded others to kill, in what way do they demonstrate that God:

1. Freely forgives
2. Turns the other cheek
3. Goes the extra mile
4. Never resorts to force or violence

T: I haven't been arguing that the OT fully revealed God, but that Christ did. Christ revealed the things you've listed.

M: Also, besides these incidents demonstrating that God eventually gives sinners over to their unbridled fierce passions and over to the unrestrained control of Satan, what are some other things that happened in consequence of sinners filling up their cup of woe and God giving them up?

T: I just mentioned a whole list of things, like yesterday.

M: Regarding my understanding of Ellen’s use of the word “pardon” in her graphic description of Lucifer’s rebellion in heaven, I would like to say she was describing a highly unusual, very abnormal situation. Nothing like that had ever happened before. There was no precedence to guide her. Never before had a high ranking, sinless angel, who knew God so well that there was nothing more God could to recommend His love more fully, deceived himself into believing lies about the character and kingdom of God. Who wouldn’t be at a loss for words?

T: Regarding Ellen White's use of the word "pardon," I have no idea why you think she was at a loss of words, or why she used the word "pardon" to mean anything different than "pardon." Similarly for "author," "repentance," or "sin."

Other examples could be given. You do this routinely. And it isn't really my intent to criticize you for doing this, as everyone comes across passages which say just what they want, and others which don't, so everyone has the same challenge.

For example, you quote the paragraph in the GC about the same power being exercised by holy angels when God commands as by evil angels when God permits, and don't mention the paragraphs that force is not a principle of God's government, that God does not overcome rebellion by force, that all man can know about God was revealed by Christ, and so forth. On the other hand, I don't mention this one paragraph in GC, but bring out the points I wish to. I realize that this is a difficult paragraph for those who hold to the position I espouse. OTOH, you don't seem to recognize the difficulties you have to face. You seem to view your actions differently than mine. I don't see this. I've never claimed that a common word like "sin" or "pardon" or "author" doesn't mean what it normally means. I haven't sought to resolve difficulties in this way.

So you're hardly in the place to accuse those who disagree with you of ignoring the "obvious meaning" of words Ellen White uses. Anyway, back to resolving difficulties. It should be clear that when there are things which seem to favor one view, and things which seem to favor another, it's necessary to do some reconciliation to make the difficult passages "fit" with the easy ones, depending on one's perspective. In the issues we have been discussing, it seems to me that the way I'm arguing is at least as viable, in terms of what the text is saying, as what you suggest. What decides the issue for me is what a given position says in regards to God's character. Does God come out looking like Jesus Christ if I choose to look at things this way instead of that?

M: You seem to be hinting that their perverted desires forced God, against His will and desire, to command Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer, that His only options were to 1) reject the COI altogether or to 2) stick it out and command Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer. Why do you think these were His only two options? If so, how do you explain the fact they were uncertain what to do?

There is no evidence they were eager to kill them, or that they were looking for excuses or justification to kill them. Because of their conundrum, they came to Moses for guidance and understanding. Seems to me this would have been the perfect opportunity for God to demonstrate His ultimate will and desire, as you understand it, and yet He commanded them to stone the sinners to death – a slow and painful way to go, unless the first stone knocks you out and you die in your sleep. Could it be that God, given the circumstances, did indeed express His will and desire? Is there any reason to think otherwise?

T: Regarding Moses and the Sabbath-breaking, if you look at the SOP you will see lengthy explanations as to why God gave the counsel He did in this and like episodes, such as when the Levites killed those who worshiped the golden calf. The OT is a very violent book. There's no doubt that God, on the surface, appears to be violent and to use force to get His way. However, I don't believe this fits with what we know about God's character, and that we need to bring to bear certain principles of interpretation, such as that God is often presented as doing that which He permits, and that God is sometimes put in the position of the father of the hunter in the story presented, where He gives counsel which may be misinterpreted.

As you have pointed out, God's counsel was the best possible counsel given the situation. He was in a circumstance where He could either give the counsel He did, or allow Israel to fall apart, for reasons the SOP details. That circumstances constrained God to act in a certain way does not mean that God is violent, or uses force to get His way, any more than the counsel the father gave to his hunter son implies these things about him.

M: Yes, given that Saul held in his hand the full cup of woe, it was God's will and desire that things play out the way they did. Think of all the other ways it could have played out had God not intervened. No, I'm not saying God was happy Saul filled up the cup of woe. God worked very hard to help Saul live a godly life, but he filled up the cup of woe instead. There was nothing else God could do to woo and win him back. He was left with the miserable task of managing Saul's death in the one and only right and righteous way.

T: Why do you think God intervened? Also, when God makes a choice, why do you think there's necessarily only one right choice available? Why could there not at times be two or more equally good choices, and God simply chose any one of those?

M: Since the Fall of man, God has had to employ the forces of nature to cause death and destruction. He has also had to command holy angels to cause death and destruction. Again, here's how Ellen saw it:

A single angel destroyed all the first-born of the Egyptians and filled the land with mourning. When David offended against God by numbering the people, one angel caused that terrible destruction by which his sin was punished. The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits. There are forces now ready, and only waiting the divine permission, to spread desolation everywhere. {GC 614.2} End quote

Again, Jesus claims responsibility. It matters not how death and destruction happens, as sovereign of the Universe, as Lord and Master, as King of kings, Jesus claims responsibility. Nothing happens without His permission. Satan is not at liberty to cause death and destruction according to his will and whim. He is answerable to Jesus. He cannot so much as lift a finger against us or our planet without the approval of Jesus. When sinners fill up their cup of woe, Jesus decides how, when, and where they suffer and die. Nothing is left to sin, Satan, or chance. Jesus is in total control of the outcome.

T: In regards to the last paragraph, is it your understanding that all suffering that happens takes place because this is what God desires?

M: Not even you boil "all suffering" down to the same thing. God must juggle millions of variables as circumstances force Him to manage the outcome of the sinful choices sinners make. Some people suffer because of the choices other people make. God must manage everything so that nothing plays out in a way that is not right and righteous. We are always placing God between a rock and a hard place.

In cases where sinners fill up the cup of woe, God employs many and varied ways to punish them. He tailors the punishment to fit the crime. There is nothing generic about what God does. Listen as Ellen describes it:

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. Those who have beheld these burning mountains have been struck with terror at the grandeur of the scene-- pouring forth fire, and flame, and a vast amount of melted ore, drying up rivers and causing them to disappear. They have been filled with awe as though they were beholding the infinite power of God. {3SG 80.2}

T: I don't understand why you think God does these things. You perceive God as capable of being the way you present Him as being, which I see as impossible, for the reason that He would not be acting in accordance with how Jesus Christ revealed Him to be, how Scripture and Ellen White describe Him of being, or in accordance with love.

“Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; 5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; 6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
8 Love never fails. (1 Cor. 13)

In the case of the destruction of Jerusalem, the description says that the Jews forged their own fetters, that they chose Satan as their leader, that they caused God to withdraw from them, and yet you *still* express what happened in terms of God's doing something to them to punish them. I don't see how she could possibly express something in a way that would have you see God as not being responsible for what fell upon them.

It seems to me that if, even in this circumstance, where she uses the strongest possible language that it was not God doing these things but Satan, that you *still* see God as punishing them and causing what happened to happen that there would be any circumstance where you wouldn't ascribe these things to God. So let me ask my question in a different way. Can you name a circumstance where suffering comes upon someone who rejects God that is not a result of God's actively willing that result to come upon them? By the phrase "actively willing," I'm distinguishing this from the idea that God "permits a desire He would prefer did not happen," which is what I believe God does when He punishes those who reject Him.

True. Thank you for pointing it out. I'm not the sharpest the tool in the shed. ...


Right, hanging out with Jesus today is going to make me an entirely different person tomorrow, thus, I am going to see things in the Bible I didn't see before. I love it! Thank you Jesus!

But I'm still interested in learning what makes sense to you today as it relates to the following question - Why did God command Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer? If you think you have already answered this question, then please restate it here so I don't have to spend time searching for it. I'm sorry for the inconvenience.

M: For example, in light of all the places in the Bible where it says God killed, or God commanded others to kill, in what way do they demonstrate that God:

1. Freely forgives
2. Turns the other cheek
3. Goes the extra mile
4. Never resorts to force or violence

T: I haven't been arguing that the OT fully revealed God, but that Christ did. Christ revealed the things you've listed.

You didn’t answer my question. Or, is this a cryptic way of saying all the places in the Bible where it says God killed, or God commanded others to kill, do not demonstrate the four things named above?

Also, are you saying the OT does not fully reveal the character and kingdom of God?

25With the merciful thou wilt shew thyself merciful; with an upright man thou wilt shew thyself upright;

26With the pure thou wilt shew thyself pure; and with the froward thou wilt shew thyself froward. (Ps. 18)

T: I just mentioned a whole list of things, like yesterday.

M:Are you referring to the fact God also employed the forces of nature to cause death and disease and destruction in consequence of sin?

If so, then it sounds like we are in agreement that God does not always leave it up to Satan to accomplish His “will and purpose”, that there are times when He takes matters into His own hands

Nicely put, Tom. I really appreciate how you stated it.

However, I would like to say I have integrated what Ellen wrote about force and what she wrote about punishment. The purpose of punishment is not to force sinners to obey Him or to do anything else; instead, it is out of respect for and in obedience to the just and loving requirements of law and justice. Justice requires God to execute justice and judgment upon sinners. Death must happen in consequence of sin.

Sin has death wrapped up in it. Without sin death would be impossible, for "the sting of death is sin." (The Glad Tidings)

You wrote, “That circumstances constrained God to act in a certain way does not mean that God is violent, or uses force to get His way . . .” Amen!!! I couldn’t agree more.

That God did indeed do such things is clearly described in the Bible. There is no reason to assume He didn’t do them.

Soon after leaving Mount Hor the Israelites suffered defeat in an engagement with Arad, one of the Canaanite kings. But as they earnestly sought help from God, divine aid was granted them, and their enemies were routed. This victory, instead of inspiring gratitude and leading the people to feel their dependence upon God, made them boastful and self-confident. Soon they fell into the old habit of murmuring. They were now dissatisfied because the armies of Israel had not been permitted to advance upon Canaan immediately after their rebellion at the report of the spies nearly forty years before. They pronounced their long sojourn in the wilderness an unnecessary delay, reasoning that they might have conquered their enemies as easily heretofore as now.

As they continued their journey toward the south, their route lay through a hot, sandy valley, destitute of shade or vegetation. The way seemed long and difficult, and they suffered from weariness and thirst. Again they failed to endure the test of their faith and patience. By continually dwelling on the dark side of their experiences, they separated themselves farther and farther from God. They lost sight of the fact that but for their murmuring when the water ceased at Kadesh, they would have been spared the journey around Edom. God had purposed better things for them. Their hearts should have been filled with gratitude to Him that He had punished their sin so lightly. But instead of this, they flattered themselves that if God and Moses had not interfered, they might now have been in possession of the Promised Land. After bringing trouble upon themselves, making their lot altogether harder than God designed, they charged all their misfortunes upon Him. Thus they cherished bitter thoughts concerning His dealings with them, and finally they became discontented with everything. Egypt looked brighter and more desirable than liberty and the land to which God was leading them.

As the Israelites indulged the spirit of discontent, they were disposed to find fault even with their blessings. "And the people spake against God, and against Moses, Wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? for there is no bread, neither is there any water; and our soul loatheth this light bread."

Moses faithfully set before the people their great sin. It was God's power alone that had preserved them in "that great and terrible wilderness, wherein were fiery serpents, and scorpions,
and drought, where there was no water." Deuteronomy 8:15. Every day of their travels they had been kept by a miracle of divine mercy. In all the way of God's leading they had found water to refresh the thirsty, bread from heaven to satisfy their hunger, and peace and safety under the shadowy cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night. Angels had ministered to them as they climbed the rocky heights or threaded the rugged paths of the wilderness. Notwithstanding the hardships they had endured, there was not a feeble one in all their ranks. Their feet had not swollen in their long journeys, neither had their clothes grown old. God had subdued before them the fierce beasts of prey and the venomous reptiles of the forest and the desert. 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. (PP 428)

T: Why do you think God intervened? Also, when God makes a choice, why do you think there's necessarily only one right choice available? Why could there not at times be two or more equally good choices, and God simply chose any one of those?

M:That God intervened is evidenced by the fact things didn’t play out worse than they did.

M:In theory there are an infinite number of options available to God, but in reality only one of them is the best one. Why? Because God is perfect; He is the epitome of absolute perfection. Everything He does is perfect, which, by definition and default, renders all other ways inferior and substandard. He settles for nothing less than best.

You wrote, “I don't understand why you think God does these things.” Are you backpeddling? I ask this question because on a different thread you confirmed your belief that 3SG 80 describes things God did and does. You were offended when I suggested you believe 3SG 80 describes the work of Satan.

You asked, “Can you name a circumstance where suffering comes upon someone who rejects God that is not a result of God's actively willing that result to come upon them?” Yes, the destruction of Jews and Jerusalem in 70 AD.

I also happen to believe it would have played out the way it did without the presence or involvement of evil angels.

By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them, and Satan was permitted to rule them according to his will. The horrible cruelties enacted in the destruction of Jerusalem are a demonstration of Satan's vindictive power over those who yield to his control. (GC 36)

Either way, Jesus takes full responsibility for the outcome; He micromanages everything. He leaves nothing to chance or Satan. Otherwise, things would play out contrary to God’s "will and purpose", in a way not conducive to a favorable outcome of the GC.

To direct or control in a detailed, often meddlesome manner. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/micromanage)

God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown. (GC 35-37)

He was left with the miserable task of managing Saul's death in the one and only right and righteous way.

Yes, there are times when God permits things to play out a certain way, and there are times when He causes things to play out a certain way.

Otherwise, things would play out contrary to God’s "will and purpose", in a way not conducive to a favorable outcome of the GC.