Ellen White wrote:

The plea may be made that a loving Father would not see His children suffering the punishment of God by fire while He had the power to relieve them. But God would, for the good of His subjects and for their safety, punish the transgressor. God does not work on the plan of man. He can do infinite justice that man has no right to do before his fellow man. Noah would have displeased God to have drowned one of the scoffers and mockers that harassed him, but God drowned the vast world. Lot would have had no right to inflict punishment on his sons-in-law, but God would do it in strict justice. Who will say God will not do what He says He will do?--12MR 207-209; 10MR 265 (1876). {LDE 241.3}

She says God drowned the antediluvians - not nature. Plus she says God can do it whereas it would be a sin for men to do it.

Ellen White wrote:

God will use His enemies as instruments to punish those who have followed their own pernicious ways whereby the truth of God has been misrepresented, misjudged, and dishonored. {LDE 242.3}

Sounds to me like she is saying, yes, God does "use His enemies" to accomplish His purposes.

Verses 13-16 above are not directly related to what the sixth angel will do when he pours out the sixth vial.

And, yes, evil angels unwittingly fulfill the will and purpose of God in such cases. I suppose they are ignorant or hoping things will not play out according to God's plan. If they believed it would serve God's overall plan seems to me they wouldn't go along with it. The following passage goes along with the dynamics in Rev 16:13-16.

2 Thessalonians
2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.


I don't see a significant difference between God sending serpents to bite them and not preventing the poison from killing them or allowing serpents in the area to bite them and not preventing the poison from killing them. Do you? If so, please explain why.

BTW, do you agree with the idea that there are times when God does not allow death and destruction through the "withdraw and permit principle"? Keep the following in mind:

Especially solemn is the apostle's statement regarding those who should refuse to receive "the love of the truth." "For this cause," he declared of all who should deliberately reject the messages of truth, "God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." Men cannot with impunity reject the warnings that God in mercy sends them. From those who persist in turning from these warnings, God withdraws His Spirit, leaving them to the deceptions that they love. {AA 266.2}

The wicked have passed the boundary of their probation, and the Lord withdraws His protection, and leaves them to the mercy of the leader they have chosen. Satan will have power over those who have yielded themselves to his control, and he will plunge the inhabitants of the earth into one great, final trouble. As the angels of God cease to hold in check the fierce winds of human passion, all the elements of strife will be let loose. The whole world will be involved in ruin more terrible than that which came upon Jerusalem of old. {Mar 275.2}

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 428.3}

Where does it say God restrained Herod or those people from killing Jesus? I read where Jesus escaped such attempts but not where such people were restrained.

Could you indicate where in the quote you gave gives your conclusion about earning "the right on the cross to judge, punish, and destroy sinners"? The only thing I find concerns the devil - the rest talks about sinners returning to God.
So, I'm a little loss as to your conclusion.

So did God want Satan to develop and display his principles?

When God removes His protection, is it possible that nothing bad happens? IOW, is God surprised that something bad happens when He removes His protection?

Regarding #115767, inspiration often attributes to God that which he permits.

The flood waters were caused primarily by waters under the earth's crust which erupted into the atmosphere. This could only happen if they were under great pressure. God could simply have stopped restraining these waters from erupting.

Notice that there is fire under the earth's crust now, and eventually the earth will become a lake of fire. The earth's crust is extremely thin. It makes sense that God is taking action to protect us from fire, as earlier He took action to prevent us from water.

A strange act that is, nonetheless, performed by God Himself?

If I believe that nothing bad will happen to me, whether or not God protects me, does that mean that nothing bad will happen to me? IOW, does my belief determine reality?

Do you believe there is an enemy seeking to hurt us? Do you think that it's possible to remain unscathed if God removes His protection?

What about God? Does He believe there is an enemy seeking to destroy? Does He think it is possible for us to remain unharmed without His protection?

This sounds identical to me to GC 35, 36.



God would have preferred that Satan repent. God offered him pardon again and again on the condition of repentance and submission.



These are two different questions, it seems to me. To answer the second one, why would God be surprised in such a case? This question doesn't make sense to me.

In answer to the first one, "The Great Controversy" speaks of how Satan sometimes blesses his followers to further his purposes, so things can happen to a person which seem to be good (fame, riches, etc.) even though God has removed His protection from them. Also, bear in mind (as pointed out earlier in an SOP statement from Teresa) that when God removes His protection, it's not a carte blanche thing (if it were, everyone would die) but done selectively; that is, He removes His protection is some specific area or areas (Job also makes this clear).