Is it possible that no bad thing will happen whenever God "backs off" to show what He's been doing all along? Or do bad things always happen when He does that?

i dont see God as doing "evil" deeds, ever!! i dont see fire coming down and devouring sodom and gomorrah as "evil" any more than i see putting a rabid dog to sleep.

as for God having a "lackey" i think it is a matter of perspective, and i dont think im going to be able to "give" you mine, or get you to see it. or maybe i can try.

does God want to hurt people and so he lets satan have them?-lackey.

or is God trying to get through to people, to wake them up, so He holds back from restraining.

im still here on this earth, people, before the second coming and third coming, since everything seems to be mixed up into one point.

this is someones perspective on the "strange act" reprinted with permission.

the quotes had to do with the plagues, which i didnt include.

as for your questions, i see God as telling us what the evil angels will do.
this, as well as the corresponding texts that go with it make it very clear whether it is God acting or "evil angels".

for those of that mindset, would these angels and satan be working in conjunction with God, here?

oh, ok, i see where you are coming from.

but yes, there are, just like this one, and if we did not have ellen white to point out the contradiction, or explanation, we would believe that God literally sent serpents into the camp.
Num 21:6 And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died.

how do you understand what happened? i mean if God wasnt restraining from Christs birth, remember herod, the times the people picked up stones, etc., then how do you understand it?

again, going back to perspectives, i think it is all in how one looks at it, which seems to touch on a point i realized about myself in reading the bible some time ago.

but anyway, for me, it was sin. it was sin, the desire to enslave, that led the egyptians to go after the israelites.

as for the waters, what was God supposed to do, keep holding them up so the egyptians could get to the other side? what would have been the point of holding them back so the israelites could escape, then?

and who told the egyptians to go running after them? talk about insane!!, sin will do that to a person. i mean, one sees waters separate, which is no usual occurrence, and doesnt stop to think those waters might fall back on them?!?! sounds like insanity to me!!

He didnt protect them from something they did. He could have somehow prevented them from running into the middle of the sea, but He didnt. He allowed them to do what they wanted to and they ended their lives for it.

No, that's not what I'm suggesting. I've been arguing strongly against this idea because behind this is the idea that what happens is something God wants to happen. But it isn't. Satan can only be God's lackey if he does God's bidding. But he doesn't. Satan has one agenda, and God has another. God's agenda involves doing good, while Satan involves doing evil.



This is simply not thinking about things in the wrong way, IMO. Sin is destructive. There is no need for God to do any dirty work, ever. Sin is perfectly capable of accomplishing all the evil there is in the world. It needs no help from God.

God is working constantly to prevent "dirty work" from happening. At times He permits it, as explained here:





The "dirty work" happens when God's restraint is removed.

There is absolutely no need for God to do these things Himself, and the mere suggestion that God does "evil deeds" should alert one immediately that there is something wrong with the theory one is espousing.



No. It's an act which appears, on the surface, to be contrary to something God would ordinarily do, but, upon further investigation, isn't.



What?

i guess it depends on whether we believe we really have an enemy seeking to steal, kill and destroy, i think.

Please post the passage you believe says "God or Jesus ceased restraining anyone and permitted Jesus to be crucified" and then explain why you think it does. I read the chapters you suggested and didn't see it.


This supports the opposite of what I'm asking for. IOW, it doesn't show Jesus withdrawing His protection and permitting evil men or evil angels to cause the death and destruction of unrepentant sinners.


I didn't mean to imply the Father didn't cease restraining sinners and allowed Jesus to be crucified. What I'm saying is Jesus didn't do it, thus, it's not example of Jesus employing the "withdraw and permit principle" while here in the flesh. In fact, I'm still waiting for you to post such an example.

Jesus earned the right on the cross to judge, punish, and destroy sinners. Ellen White wrote:

Death entered the world because of transgression. But Christ gave His life that man should have another trial. He did not die on the cross to abolish the law of God, but to secure for man a second probation. He did not die to make sin an immortal attribute; He died to secure the right to destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil. He suffered the full penalty of a broken law for the whole world. This He did, not that men might continue in transgression, but that they might return to their loyalty and keep God's commandments and His law as the apple of their eye. {TM 134.1}