Ok, the posts regarding the 100 year theory have been moved to a new topic, so discussion on the plagues may continue here.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

now there is this,

[The above is a condensed version of Tom's post.]

Tom,

If you believe that so easily, taking separate passages of Mrs. White out of their context and linking them together loosely this way, I've got something to sell you.

Here it is: You better watch out for Jesus, or He'll eat you! Note the following passages:






Oh, and this quote was rather interesting...

Of course, is that the only lion?

Jesus is "the Lion" as well as "the Lamb." But is that the only "lion"? As the answer to this should be obvious, my response to you should bear a message equally obvious...one cannot loosely take quotes out of context and link them together to prove something here.

Satan is not the only destroyer. He's just the only one who destroys happily and with intent to strike at the heart of the God who created and loves us so much to die in our place. That same God, to save some and to preserve the happiness of His faithful ones, will be terrible to the wicked while at the same time a wall of protection to His faithful ones.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The whole question is who the destroyer is, as we're told they "had been smitten by the destroyer." We know for a fact that Satan is the destroyer. The question is, is there some other destroyer that enters into the question as well.

The texts taken from the SOP deal with principles. For example:



This isn't simply an isolated statement saying that Satan is the destroyer, but it articulates important principles. For example, "Sickness, suffering, and death are work of an antagonistic power."

Here's another principle:



My argument regarding the plagues in Egypt was not limited to simply identifying Satan as the destroyer, but upon consider a number of principles, including these above.

Another point is that she said that the plagues of Egypt were similar in character to the final plagues, regarding which we read:

suffered means allowed. so we now seem to have a contradiction, unless we want to believe there is an angel in heaven who is eagerly waiting to destroy? i certainly hope none of us have that as any kind of picture.

the way it is stated it sounds like that is not what God wanted to have to do/allow.

Jesus as the "lamb" gives us an example of unimaginable love, humility, compassion....but as a "lion" He is mighty to save, mighty to rip us from the enemies clutches both from sin, and from death.

It's interesting in Revelation that the angels saw Jesus as a lion, but when John looked, he saw a lamb, which seems to be speaking of a difference perspective between angelic and human.

I don’t see any evidence that this passage refers to the final plagues. The context of the comment is the death of a Brother Stone, who evidently had died in some kind of accident. Then she says, “I felt sad indeed, for I had no evidence that Elder Stone was prepared for this change.” She goes on to say: “I was shown that the time was in the near future that these whom God had warned and reproved and given great light but they would not correct their ways and follow the light, He would remove from them that heavenly protection which had preserved them from Satan's cruel power.” Then, in the next paragraph, comes the passage that you quoted. So, I don’t see as being clear in the passage that the context are the plagues.

She wrote this in the paragraph in question:



It seems odd to me to read this and not see this as a reference to the plagues.

We see from Ellen White's writings that God protects all from Satan's wrath while the Holy Spirit is still working with men. Eventually, after repeated warnings, the Spirit is withdrawn, and Satan works his destruction, by storm and tempest, etc., sweeping off multitudes. If would be very odd indeed if God were walking hand in hand with Satan, doing the very same thing Satan was doing! One would see people being destroyed, and have no idea who was doing the destroying!

The view I'm suggesting is much simpler. If we see destruction occurring, it's because of an evil power.



I read something like this, and it is so obvious to me that it is not God who is going to do these hideous things to the wicked. There is nothing more the saints can do for the wicked because they have irrevocably chosen to follow their master Satan, and he does what he always does, which is to cause pain, suffering and death.

I cannot conceive of how someone would read this and think this is the work of God. We see the face of God in Jesus Christ. Can we imagine Him causing boils, sores, etc. against people simply because they've chosen to reject Him? We've seen this all before in the book of Job. It's Satan who does these things, and then blames God.

When Christ was urged to destroy He said, "You know not of what spirit you are," which they didn't, because that ascribed this spirit to Christ, but it's not His.



If God were to have the disposition to hurt and destroy those did not appreciate His work, or acted contrary to His idea, He would be presenting conclusive evidence that He possessed the spirit of Satan. This can't be right!

What would it accomplish for God to torture/torment those who reject Him. What good could this possibly accomplish? In what way is this in any way in harmony with *anything* Christ lived or taught?

God sure could have made it easier by just stating, "no, there is no eternally burning hell. never mind how I stated things. and baptism is by immersion. there is no immortal soul.

there is going to be a thing called the papacy and it is going to change the sabbath from the 7th day to the first...." and etc.

but that could be pretty boring having it all laid out like that.