Tom, please explain how the following views misrepresent or come short of what you believe. Thank you.

1. God, who must actively prevent the forces of nature from imploding upon itself and killing sinners in the process, is compelled to withdraw His protection and to permit the forces of nature to run its natural course and kill targeted sinners.

2. God commands the holy angels to withdraw their protection and to permit evil angels to cause the death and destruction of targeted sinners and places.

3. God withdraws His protection and permits evil men and empires to cause the death and destruction of targeted sinners and places.

4. God withdraws His protection and permits evil men and angels to cause the suffering and death of His chosen people.

Perceived, yes, but it is not so in reality. We need to view things as God’s sees them, not as ill informed sinners see them. God has never done anything that He considers violent or forceful.


I hear you saying Jesus demonstrated, while here in the flesh, everything there is to know about God’s character and kingdom. If this is what you’re saying, why, then, didn’t Jesus demonstrate creating a planet populated people, plants, and animals? Why didn’t He demonstrate commanding the leader of Israel to kill sinners? Why didn’t He withdraw His protection and permit fire from the sanctuary to kill unholy priests? Why didn’t He allow the earth to open up and swallow a host of treasonous sinners? Why didn’t He assist a young man in slaying a blasphemous giant with a sling and stone?

I suspect you are going to dismiss these pointed questions by saying something like – We need to interpret the bad things you named above in light of what we know about Jesus. Well, what we know about Jesus is that He never did these things while here in the flesh, therefore, do you expect us to conclude that these did not actually happen? BTW, I’m not sure how you will explain why Jesus didn’t demonstrate creating a world. How do you explain why He didn’t do this in light of the fact you believe He demonstrated everything there is to know about God?


Please cite examples of things Jesus couldn’t share with His disciples while He was here in the flesh.


Thank you for answering my questions.


I agree with “were it not for Satan, these things [i.e. like the Flood] would not exist.” In the case of the Flood I apply this insight to mean God would not have had to destroy the world if sinners had obeyed Him. But because they obeyed Satan, God was compelled to destroy the world with a Flood.


I appreciate this insight, but I still don’t know how you would answer the 3 questions above. I’ll answer them for you and you can tell me how my answer differs from yours:

1. In what sense was God acting as a “restorer” when He withdrew His protection and permitted the forces of nature to destroy the world and to kill sinners? He acted as a “restorer” in that He eliminated sinners and the sinful effect they had upon the planet, thereby, restoring, at least partly, the world to its pre-sin state.

2. What did He restore? He restored, at least partly, the planet and its population to its pre-sin state.

3. What was restored when the planet was destroyed and when sinners were killed? The pre-sin state.


I didn’t say you did. I was merely asking a question. BTW, what do you believe about God permitting certain sinners to die and not allowing others standing nearby to be killed (i.e. as in the case of Korah and clan)? Would you say Korah and clan were targeted by God and the others weren’t? Please explain.


You wrote – “However, His restorative work can result in destruction if one refuses to respond to the principles of love, and chooses death instead.” I think the Flood is a better example of God acting as a restorer. The firelight of God’s glory acts indiscriminately upon sinful flesh. For example, while here even Jesus was unable to appear in the unveiled presence of God because the firelight of His glory and presence would have consumed Jesus in His sinful flesh.


Please explain to me how you think the way God destroys is different than how Satan destroys. For example, when Satan kills sinners with a flood, how is it different than when God did it?


When God and Satan employ the forces of nature, and sinners are killed, the results are, as you say, indistinguishable, namely, sinners suffer and die. You see God withdrawing His protection and permitting the forces of nature to cause death and destruction. You see sinners reaping what they sowed (i.e. sinning forces God to allow the forces of nature to kill sinners). In this sense, you feel God is innocent of the results. However, you see Satan manipulating the forces of nature, when God permits, to kill sinners (i.e. sinning forces God to permit Satan to use the forces of nature to kill sinners). In this sense, you feel Satan is guilty of the results.

Question – Since the results are the same, why doesn’t God cut out the middle man (i.e. Satan) and simply allow the forces of nature to kill sinners? Why is it necessary to include Satan in the process?

Please humor me and answer the question. Were the pigs safe and sound before Jesus gave the evil angels permission to drown them?


1. Actions can be explained in some way that has God acting in harmony with how Jesus acted during His earthly mission.
2. God is often presented as doing that which He permits.
3. Because of the hardness of people's hearts, God permits things which are contrary to His ideal will.

Thank you for the clarification. With these principles in mind, please demonstrate this method of interpreting the OT by answering the 4 questions I posted above. Thank you.


I never accused anyone here of believing this. I simply stated what some people believe. Does this mean you are not going to honor my request that you not tell me how and what to post?


Do you distinguish between God allowing polygamy to occur and God allowing other sins to occur? Please explain.


How does “"I give you permission to break my law” differ from God “allowing polygamy to occur”? Also, does sinning result in death when God permits it (as in polygamy)? Or, does it only result in death when God forbids it?


I agree wanting and having a king is contrary to God’s will.


Are you suggesting wanting a king and having a king were both contrary to God’s will and a sin? And, above you wrote, “God allowed polygamy to occur” and here you say polygamy is adultery. Are you suggesting God allowed adultery to occur? If so, in what sense do you mean it?


This goes along with the question I asked above, namely, do you distinguish between God allowing polygamy to occur and God allowing other sins to occur? Please explain. IOW, does God allow people to commit other sins in the same way He allowed polygamy, divorce, and having a king? Or, does He have criteria that disallow Him to permit certain sins to occur? Please explain.

On these you speak of the destruction of targeted sinners and places, which implies God is behind these things happening; that is, that these are designs of His.



I don't know what this means. Do you mean like Job?

What you wrote was that nothing God does can be perceived as force or violence. So I understand you're agreeing this is incorrect?



The way you perceive God to have acted, most people would consider violent. The way God actually acted, however, is not violent. That is, I don't think God has done the violent/forceful things you think he has ("violent/forceful" hear meaning violent/forceful in the eyes of most people).



Christ made wine out of water, which demonstrates God's creative power. His healing miracles could be understood as demonstrating God's creative power as well.

What we are told is that all that man can know of God was revealed by Jesus Christ. It seems clear to me this is referring to God as a Being, as He is in His essence. That is, we can fully know God by the revelation given us by Jesus Christ.

Regarding your questions in general, I think you're still missing my point. My point is if you perceive God as doing something which Jesus Christ did not reveal, especially if it something different in character to what Jesus Christ did reveal, the conclusion should not be that the statement that Jesus Christ revealed all that man can know of God really doesn't mean that, but means something else like Jesus Christ revealed all that a few individuals at a given time could know of God, but should instead be that things which you perceive God to have done He didn't really do.



Where is there a record of these things?



I don't disagree with this, but would add that I believe God destroyed the world in a way which is in harmony with His character, in harmony with what Jesus Christ revealed, in harmony with the EGW statements in GC chapter 1, which is to say by withdrawing His protection. Sin/Satan is powerful enough to do all the destruction necessary. It is sufficient for any level of destruction desired to take place by means of God's withdrawing.



This is fine, except for the part saying that God eliminated sinners.



Yes, but in a FOTAP way, a common occurrence. Like, "have you stopped beating your wife?" The way the question is asked assumes a premise. I can't answer the question without tacitly accepting the premise.



Here's another example. I've not said that Korah and clan were targeted by God.



Better than what? I think Jesus Christ is a better example of God acting as a restorer. His teachings, His healing miracles, His generosity, humility, self-sacrifice; these are better examples of God acting as a restorer.



Do you mean like in Raiders of the Lost Ark? Where do you get this idea?



You've often asserted this, but adduced no proof.



The following touches on this:



God destroys by withdrawing His protection. This is also called God's wrath.



Satan kills actively. When God destroys it is by allowing sin/Satan to have its destructive consequences.



Excellent! This is an excellent representation of what I believe, the best I can recall seeing from you. It's great to be able to say yes, this is what I believe.



In answer to the first question, there's faulty reasoning in that because the results are something should follow from this. The fact that two results are the same does not mean the causes are the same.

In answer to the second question, there's a faulty assumption here, which is that it is necessary to include Satan in the process. I think what you're really want to ask is why Satan is involved in the process, since God could kill people without Satan by just using nature. Is this what you have in mind?

Jesus didn't give the evil angels permission to drown them.



It says Jesus gave the demons permission to go into them. It doesn't say Jesus gave the demons permission to drown them.



If you write something in response to a post, the implication is you're responding to the post, not just making general comments that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. For example, if I wrote, "It's better to avoid posting red herrings" it would be natural of you to assume I was speaking of you. Say you took exception to this, and I responded, "Oh, did you think I was speaking of you? No, this was just a general statement. I was just speaking of what some people do."



No. I don't know what there is to explain here.



It's less clear. To give someone permission may be understood as tacit agreement with the given action, whereas saying that God allowed something to happen has no such implication.



You're using "permits" and "forbids" in a confusing manner here. God has always forbidden polygamy.



God permitted polygamy in the sense that teresaq pointed out:





The Lord said:



Now if the people were rejecting God, choosing that God should not reign over them, isn't this sin?



I mean in the same sense that God allows any sin to occur. If you choose to lie, for example, and God does not prevent you from doing so, then he has allowed you to lie.



No.



Yes.



No, not in general.

By "targeted" I mean God does not permit nature or Satan to indiscriminately kill everyone or destroy everything. For example, in Egypt God didn't allow the land of Goshen to be harmed by the last 7 plagues. In this sense, God ensured the safety of specific people and places while allowing the death and destruction of others.


Yes. And, like the martyrs God has allowed to be tortured and killed throughout time.

So, with these clarifications, do you agree with my summary of your view?

I feel very uncomfortable your way of wording things, but the concepts, given the explanations you provided, seem in harmony with what I've been saying.

I see a huge difference between perception and reality. So, yes, I should have said, “Some people may perceive things like the Flood as forceful and violent, but in reality they are not. Why not? Because God doesn’t use force or violence when He punishes sinners.”


What matters is what God thinks about it – not what ill informed sinners think about it. Most people would say the same thing about God if they believed what you do about it. That is, they would believe God was acting negligently if He failed to act in harmony with the Good Samaritan Law and allowed something tragic to happen when it was within His ability and duty to act.


Except for your water to wine example you responded precisely as I thought you would. But this example doesn’t demonstrate how God made everything out of nothing.

However, you didn’t answer my final question – “Well, what we know about Jesus is that He never did these things while here in the flesh, therefore, do you expect us to conclude that these did not actually happen?” Though I didn’t predict it, I figured you wouldn’t answer this question. That’s been your MO regarding this issue. Again, your unwillingness to forthrightly answer my questions bodes bad for your position.


You brought it up, so you tell me.


What did Jesus do while here in the flesh that demonstrated God withdrawing His protection and permitting the forces of nature to kill sinners and to destroy the world? Please don’t cite Matthew 23:37-39 as proof that Jesus withdrew His protection and permitted the forces of nature to kill sinners while He was here in the flesh. It simply isn’t so.


Please suggest a better word. Or, reword my answer to reflect precisely what you believe. Thank you.


By “targeted” I mean God did not allow the forces of nature to kill sinners indiscriminately, that God allowed nature to kill only specific sinners. Korah and clan is an example.


Better than the example you gave, which was – “For example: The light of the glory of God, which imparts life to the righteous, will slay the wicked.” The newest example you cited above (i.e. Jesus) doesn’t address the genera of my question, which is, In what sense was God acting as a restorer in the Flood.


Like Moses on the mount.


The proof is in the fact it never happened, that is, Jesus never appeared in sinful flesh in the unveiled presence of God. “To sin, wherever found, ‘our God is a consuming fire.’” Jesus was “made to be sin; He bare our sins in his own body”, therefore, He could not appear in the unveiled presence of without being consumed.


Please use the Flood as example to explain what you mean by “God destroys . . . by allowing sin/Satan to have its destructive consequences”. How did this insight play out in what did God which resulted in the Flood and loss of life?


Sweet!


1. You wrote, “The fact that two results are the same does not mean the causes are the same.” Please use the following passage to explain what you mean:


2. Yes, that’s what I mean, namely - Why does God, at times, involve Satan in processes that result in the suffering and death of sinners since God has done it so many times without Satan by simply withdrawing His protection and permitting the forces of nature to kill sinners? What purpose does it serve when God withdraws His protection and allows Satan to kill sinners?

Are you suggesting God permitted the Jews to break His law but He didn’t give them permission to break His law?


Is there anything God didn’t allow or permit? Or, did He allow and permit the Jews to do anything and everything they wanted to do?


Ellen wrote, “In causing the destruction of the swine, it was Satan's purpose to turn the people away from the Saviour, and prevent the preaching of the gospel in that region.” Are you suggesting Jesus did not foresee the reason why the evil angels sought His permission to enter the swine? If so, I disagree. I believe Jesus knew very well that the pigs were going to killed the moment He gave the evil angels permission to enter them. Ellen goes on to say:


So, with these insights in mind, I'll rephrase the question - Were the pigs safe and sound before Jesus gave the evil angels permission to enter them? And, did Jesus know they would drown the pigs the moment they entered them?