that was cute!! i hope my "sister" sees it that way, also.

this is the first time i knew what was meant when i hear "God accepts responsibility". thank you.

Okay. Thank you for the though provoking questions. It opens up avenues to consider and study.

I included the whole history of this point in the box above. Your first response seemed to say you agreed with me. But now I can see you were saying the four attributes named above apply to God at all times except in the context I applied it. You seem to be saying such an application is based on a false premise. So, I ask again, are you saying all the places in the Bible where it says God killed, or God commanded others to kill, are not demonstrations of the four attributes named above? If so, then please explain which attributes of God they do demonstrate.


We’ve discussed this theory before but I don’t remember arriving at a satisfactory conclusion. Seems to me you interpreted certain SOP statements regarding loyal angels not fully understanding until the cross Satan’s side of the GC to mean they ignorantly assumed throughout the OT that it was God’s will and desire to punish and destroy full-cup sinners, but at the cross it finally dawned on them that they had been dead wrong about God.

With this theory in mind you believe since loyal angels developed dead wrong ideas about God it is insane at best and arrogant at worst to think we can read the OT and not draw worse conclusions. But you are confusing issues. First, yes, the loyal angels were unclear about Satan but, no, they were not unclear about God. Second, yes, sinners are prone to formulate false views about God when they read the Bible but, no, this does not apply to the OT only, it also happens when they read the NT.

For example, Ellen wrote, “Men flatter themselves that God is too good to punish the transgressor.” (PP 420) It is unlikely they get this false impression of God from reading the OT. Most likely they get it from reading the NT and in particular the Synoptic Gospels. Even the loyal angels, more than two millennia after Jesus died on the cross, believe it is God’s will and desire to punish and destroy full-cup sinners. Listen:


You seem to think Satan is the one responsible for the death and destruction the loyal angels view as righteous and praiseworthy. I find it hard to believe, though, that the angels would praise God for something Satan does. These prophecies (posted above) do not depict the loyal angels praising God for permitting Satan to cause death and destruction; instead, they very clearly show them praising God for causing death and destruction. How do you reconcile this attitude and senitment with what you wrote above?


Yes, that too, but mostly I was referring to the part about it being His “will and purpose”. Do you agree that, given the circumstances, it is God’s “will and purpose” to employ (as opposed to withdraw and permit) the forces of nature to kill full-cup sinners? Of course we both agree God wishes things hadn’t gotten to such a point. He would prefer not having to kill them. He would prefer it if the circumstances were such that He could bring them home safe and sound.


The justice of God demands death for sin. Why would God demand something if it happens naturally anyhow? Also, why didn’t He demand pardon for sin instead of demanding death? Besides, demanding that something happen that happens naturally anyhow is like me or you demanding that an arrow return to earth after we shoot it with a bow. Sounds ludicrous, doesn’t it? And yet that’s what you would have us believe about God, that He goes around demanding things happen that happen naturally.

Regarding your comments about the “principle of life” I’m not sure I follow you. Here’s what Ellen wrote about it: “All things both in heaven and in earth declare that the great law of life is a law of service . . . each takes to give.” (Ed 103) Are you saying the source of unending life is taking from God to give to others? If so, then I disagree. Yes, it affects the quality of life, but it is not the source of life. The breath God breathed into Adam is the source of life, and regularly eating from the tree of life is what perpetuates it. Death occurs when the breath of life returns to God. The same is true for both the first and second deaths.


How is what you said above any different than what you’re accusing me of? Again, 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 . . .” Are you saying that the things God was constrained to do were not acts of force and violence? If so, then I agree with you. For example, what happened to Sodom was certainly horrific, but it is no way means God used force or violence. Instead, it was an act of power on His part. There was nothing arbitrary or forceful or violent about it. Such terms apply to the history Hitler not God despite the similarities.


All of the above is true. God both caused and permitted such things to happen. In either case the outcome is the same, namely, full-cup sinners are punished and killed. The “will and purpose” of God is served.


Tom, this passage doesn’t address my question. Here it is again:


The passage you posted deals with God withdrawing His protection and allowing them to be defeated in battle and attacked by fiery serpents. But it doesn’t explain why God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker or the blasphemer. Neither one of these cases involved God withdrawing His protection and allowing the forces of man and nature to run their courses unimpeded. Do you know of any inspired passages that explain why God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer?

I am a former Special Forces soldier and I can testify that things could have turned out far worse for King Saul. God intervened in that He permitted an arrow to wound him, but not so bad that he couldn’t do something to avoid falling into the cruel and barbarous hands of the enemy, which is far worse than suicide.

You asked, “Why can't there be two perfect choices, or more?” The definition of “absolute perfection”, in the context of divinity, doesn’t allow for it. There is only one way that leads to heaven. All others lead to hell. There is only one God. All others are pretenders. Similarly, there can be only one right way to handle a given situation because God is the epitome of “absolute perfection”. There are too many variables for there to be more than one absolute perfect way to handle it. The idea there are two or more absolute perfect ways is counterintuitive. It eliminates the idea of absolute perfection.


I included the history of this point in the box above. I quoted 3SG 80 and said God did and does these kinds of things, to which you replied, “I don't understand why you think God does these things.” Do you agree with me that God does indeed do these kinds of things? NOTE: I’m not here referring to when I suggested elsewhere you credit Satan with doing them; instead, I’m referring to what we said here (in the first two posts in the box above).


Yes, it was God’s “will and purpose” to withdraw His protection and permit the Jews to suffer and die the way they did; otherwise, He would have managed the outcome differently. Just because God withdraws His protection it does not mean He isn’t actively involved. He is very actively involved in making sure things play out according to His absolute perfect “will and purpose”.

“I also happen to believe it would have played out the way it did without the presence or involvement of evil angels.” By this I mean God is not dependent on Satan for things to play out according to His “will and purpose”. God is perfectly capable of making sure things play out according to the one and only right and perfect way without Satan’s presence or involvement. Do you agree? Or, do you believe God is dependent on Satan? I feel weird asking this question.


Perhaps “micromanage” means what you quoted in certain cases, but it certainly doesn’t mean this in the case of God. Sometimes we have to make distinctions between sinners and God. For example, God is said to be a “jealous God”, but elsewhere we read, “Jealousy is cruel as the grave.” Obviously we cannot apply the same meaning to both cases, right? Actually, though, the definition you posted above would be fine if we delete the phrase “often meddlesome”. Unless, of course, we choose to define “meddlesome” in a positive sense, in which case it also reads fine.

Do you really believe that when God withdraws His protection that He relinquishes all control, that God does nothing to ensure Satan works within the limits and boundaries He has established? For example, whose will was it for Job not to die – God’s or Satan’s? As I recall the story, it was God who brought up Job in the first place. And, it was God who set limits on what Satan could do and not do. Holy angels were on hand to make sure Satan worked within the limits and boundaries established by God. I assume Satan took things to the limit.

I realize you believe it was “Satan's will, not God's, that he lose his children, his possessions, be covered with painful sores, etc”, but do you agree with me that holy angles made sure Satan worked within the limits and boundaries established by God?

By the way, do you think it was God’s “will and purpose” to allow Satan to test Job? Or, did God have any choice in the matter? Was He bound by the rules of engagement to permit Satan to attack Job? Similarly, was it God’s “will and purpose” to allow John the Baptist to suffer and die the way he did? And what about Jesus and Peter and Paul and John, etc? Was it God’s “will and purpose” to allow them to suffer and die the way they did? If not, please explain why. Thank you.

Amen! Yes, God knows the end from the beginning. He knows all the choices and all the possible outcomes and He works very hard to ensure everything plays out according to His "will and purpose". God is good - all the time!

In gathering other quotes which speak to God "executing justice and judgment upon sinners" I meant to demonstrate there are other facets to consider. I do not see them as contradicting what she wrote in GC 36. God is not an "executioner" in the sense He isn't the guy lopping off heads with an axe or guillotine. She explains how God has executed justice and judgment in the past and how He will do it at the end of time. The last chapter in the GC describes the final execution of justice and judgment in graphic detail. God will employ three different sources of fire to punish and destroy sinners in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness - 1) the firelight of His glory, 2) fire rained down from above, and 3) fire raised up from below.


Today I posted responses regarding King Saul. Hopefully I made it clear God withdrew His protection and permitted King Saul's situation to play out as it did. Otherwise, yes, I agree there is no point in going on.


Hopefully my response above addresses this question sufficiently. If not, I can try and spell out my position more clearly.


1. No. God is the epitome of absolute perfection, therefore, the way He managed King Saul's outcome was the one and only right way.
2. No. They are one and the same thing.
3. I think so. If not, please help me out.
4. Yes. King Saul's punishment played out according to God's absolute perfect "will and purpose" (3SG 80).
5. The armor bearer did what any good armor bearer would do. His choices were very limited. God took all these things into consideration in the way He managed the outcome. There is a good chance we'll see him in heaven. He was loyal and faithful to the "Lord's anointed". Heaven is made for such souls.


There is nothing natural about the consequences we suffer in this lifetime as it relates to the "wages of sin". The wages of sin is immediate and eternal death, not a lifetime of sinning and suffering.


Yes, but the word "manipulate" infers a negative connotation. That's why I like to use the word "manage" or "orchestrate" instead. For example, if God had not intervened with a Flood the world would have fallen under Satan's undisputed control. The same thing applies to the Tower of Babel. Had God not acted not one righteous soul would have remained. For a similar reason He will cut things short during the time of the end.

I don't understand what you're trying to get at. Please state your point.



I've never put it that way. That is, I've never used the words "ignorantly assumed" or "finally dawned." I think for carrying on discussions like this it would be a lot better to avoid these kind of pejorative descriptions, and stick to more neutral ones (and I freely admit I may be guilty of the same thing at times, although I do a lot of editing to weed these things out!).

The way I would put it is that that until the cross, the angels did not fully understand certain things, one of them being that death is the inevitable result of sin. For example:





There you go again! Please, see if you can stay closer to what I've written, or, here's a thought! *Quote* something I've actually said! Anyway, this particular characterization is so far off, I'll pass on commenting.



This is impossible. There are two protagonists in the Great Controversy. To be confused in regards to one is to be confused in regards to the other. This is because Satan's whole game is to vest God with his own attributes, and to pawn himself off as being reasonable in regards to his own actions, and complaints about God. Think about it; if someone gives credence to what Satan is saying about God, it must follow that one is suffering some doubts in regards to God, because that's the very thing Satan was raising doubts about.

Anway, the above 1888 Mat. quote shows that the angels did indeed suffer some confusion in regards to God's plans, in particular, in regards to what we've been discussing.



Sure, one can happen to NT writings as well. But this is beside the point I've been making, which is that Jesus Christ is a full revelation of God's character. When we've seen Him, we've seen the Father. All that we can know about God was revealed by Him.



Of course not. God Himself says, "I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked." Paul tells us that God is *not* willing that any should perish. Angels know this of course. When Christ was urged to destroy, He said, "You know not of what spirit you are. For the Son of Man came not do destroy man's lives but to say them." Jesus Christ revealed God's will, which is not to destroy, but to save. As the SOP points out:





I think you're wrong. The angels are not praising God for causing death and destruction. God does not cause death and destruction. Satan is the author of sin and all its results (DA 471). Death and destruction of the results of sin. We are told Satan is the destroyer, not the Lord, who is "the restorer."

I think the idea that the angels praise God for causing death and destruction is awful. Also not pleasant is the idea that God Himself would desire being view as wishing praise for such things.



No. I believe GC 35, 36 explain God's will and purpose.



He would prefer that they not choose death. Ty Gibson brings out this point nicely:





I agree with this. He would rather the choose life than death.

(More later)

I'm not following how what you wrote is a response to what I wrote.



No, I didn't say this. I said it was the "law of life." Actually, I didn't say it. Ellen White said it. I quoted her.



God is the source of life. That's what I've said in relation to "source of life."



I think this is a simplistic view. Your suggesting a mechanism which is perpetuated, not needing help from God. Indeed, that's what you said, that God need not do anything, right? (given that one at of the tree of life). You have a theory of life which leaves God out of the picture, at least not directly in the picture.



I don't see that presents the same picture you are suggesting.



It's the other way around. That is, when death occurs, the breath of life returns to God.



Yes. GC 35, 36 explains the principle. She says:



God is caused to withdraw His protection, which results in violence to happen to the victims who eschew God's protection. God is not violent. He doesn't use force.



I don't see how your ideas fit with the principles expressed here.



You're simply repeating the point I responded to with the Shakepeare quote. You believe God used violence and force, but call it a different name. "Power". But changing the name of what you call it doesn't change how you think God acted.



Not just the terms, but the actions, apply to Hitler rather than God. This is a point kland has been making.

(More later)

Regarding your question regarding Moses and the Sabbath-breaker, no, I don't know of any.



The perfection of God doesn't imply there can be choices which are equally good. There's no reason why this should be the case. A perfect person will never make a choice worse than another choice, but that doesn't mean there can't be two or more choices which are equally good.



You skipped the most important part, where you took her quote and replaced "God" with "Satan."



You ideas here are Augustinian. I disagree with this concept of God's will, which is far closer to Calvinism than Adventism. This idea would merit a thread of its own.

By way of clarification, do you believe that God's will is always done?



MM, words mean what they mean. It seems like you feel that words have no objective meanings; they're simply whatever you feel like what they should mean. "Micromanage" means what it means. It doesn't matter who the subject is.

You chose the use of the word. I'm simply cited what its meaning is. If you don't like what the word means, why don't you choose another word?

Regarding God's setting boundaries, yes, of course, otherwise Satan would kill everybody.

Regarding if it was God's purpose that Paul or Peter or others be killed, no, it wasn't. However, out of the evil that others do, God is still able to achieve His purpose, which is the revelation of His character. When one returns good for evil, God accomplishes His purpose.