I have some thoughts on this, but before I share them, I'd like you to answer a question I've asked several times now. I think there are two pending which I've asked at least three times. My apologies if I missed a response somewhere. Question 1 is the Medieval one, and question to is based on the following quote:



How do you see that the light that streams from the cross of Calvary illuminates one's understanding of the plagues? By the way, what reminded me of this question is Teresa's quote, and your response to it (questioning how it ties into the plagues). It ties into the plagues the same way the cross does.

But comparing Arnold’s view of God to papal atrocities seems harsh to me. I see no connection or comparison between the two. Nothing he said reminds me of papal atrocities. Yes, I see why it reminded you of papal atrocities, but what good can come from saying so publicly? It just seems less than endearing to me.

BTW, what “logic” do you think Arnold applied to arrive at the conclusion he stated above? What assumptions do you think it was founded upon?

You asked, “Is it OK to do anything if eternal benefit would result? This is a perfectly reasonable question. Does the end justify the means?” The following insight speaks to the issue:

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? {LDE 241.3}

What is it that God can do that we cannot do with impunity? Her answer is – Drown and burn up people. The question, Does the end justify the means, doesn’t even come to mind in this context. Who am I to question God? “Who will say God will not do what He says He will do?” All I know for certainty is that I cannot do to sinners what God can do to them.


Thank you for answering my question. I hear you saying evil angels are at liberty to bless or curse according to their fancy when God gives sinners over to them. I agree. However, I doubt Satan has unlimited control over evil men or the forces of nature to use them to afflict those whom God gave over to him. God establishes and enforces limits beyond which evil angels cannot exceed even in cases involving those whom God gave over to Satan. As such, evil angels are not truly free to do with them as they see fit. The question is – Do the limits set by God ever exclude blessing those whom God has given over to evil angels? I suspect there are times when they do. Do you agree?


But if evil angels have the power and authority to manipulate the forces of nature when God permits, why, then, wouldn’t they be able to work to prevent the forces of nature from causing death and destruction when God ceases preventing it from playing out naturally? Are they incapable of counteracting what God does? If so, what happens when God withdraws His protection and permits the forces of nature to do what it would do naturally if He wasn’t preventing it? Is it possible the evil angels cannot prevent it from happening naturally because God is doing something unnatural (like employing the forces of nature as a weapon to cause death and destruction}? The following insight is pertinent:

As he called forth the waters in the earth at the time of the flood, as weapons from his arsenal to accomplish the destruction of the antediluvian race, so at the end of the one thousand years he will call forth the fires in the earth as his weapons which he has reserved for the final destruction, not only of successive generations since the flood, but the antediluvian race who perished by the flood. {3SG 87.1}


What does the hedge consist of? How does it prevent evil men and evil angels from doing as they please without it violating their freedom? How does God “restrain” them?


If I were Satan I would be crying, Unfair, and insist that God’s behavior confirms my accusations against Him. What is fair about God managing what evil angels can and cannot do? Who is to say God isn’t unfairly managing the outcome of the GC? Are we supposed to trust God and assume Satan is a liar and worthy of death before it is proven beyond reasonable doubt?


First of all, are you comfortable with attributing human traits to nature? If so, then are you also comfortable with me asking, If God were not preventing nature from naturally causing havoc, it would naturally do what it pleases, that is, what it would do naturally, namely, cause death and destruction? This question assumes doing what comes naturally is pleasing.


Okay. Earlier you wrote “It's impossible that God would withdraw from His role of managing nature and nothing undesirable happened.” Now it seems like you’re tempering this statement. “Impossible” and “likely” don’t seem like synonyms to me. Or, did I misunderstand your point? If so, please explain it again. Thank you.


Okay. Thank you for clarifying your thoughts on this point. Do you happen to have any inspired quotes to support this view?


In the Bible it says: “Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; and he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.” They suffered “the vengeance of eternal fire.”

Ellen White wrote:

The inhabitants of Sodom passed the limits of divine forbearance, and there was kindled against them the fire of God's vengeance. {PK 297.2}

In the time of Abraham, mercy ceased to plead with the guilty inhabitants of Sodom, and all but Lot with his wife and two daughters were consumed by the fire sent down from heaven. {EW 45.1}

The fire and brimstone from heaven consumed everything except Lot, his wife, and two daughters. The wife, looking back in disregard of God's command, became a pillar of salt. {TM 75.1}

Suddenly and unexpectedly as would be a thunder peal from an unclouded sky, the tempest broke. The Lord rained brimstone and fire out of heaven upon the cities and the fruitful plain; its palaces and temples, costly dwellings, gardens and vineyards, and the gay, pleasure-seeking throngs that only the night before had insulted the messengers of heaven--all were consumed. {PP 162.2}

There is no indication to suggest the fire and brimstone that destroyed Sodom came from beneath the earth or from oil or coal in the area. It simply says God rained down fire from heaven. What do you make of this? What do you think was the source of fire that destroyed and killed everybody in Sodom? And, what do you think caused Lot’s wife to become a pillar of salt?


True. But I’m talking about the fire God rained down from heaven. Did evil angels have anything to do with it?


What are those reasons? Do you have inspired quotes to back up your thoughts on it?


Which quote are you referring to? Please post it here. Thank you.


Do you believe evil angels always cause the death and destruction God is willing to allow them to cause” Or, do you believe the reverse? Do you think they are at liberty to bless? If so, please quote the Bible or the SOP where it describes evil angels doing the opposite of, or something less than, what God was willing to allow them to do.

For example, if God was willing to permit evil angels to kill an army encamped against Israel, would they be at liberty to do something less than killing them, like bless them instead?


Have you hanged your mind since we last spoke about this? I seem to recall you saying God knows all the possible outcomes but that He doesn’t know precisely which one will play out before it happens. Did I misunderstand you?


Do you have an inspired quote that describes it this way?


Whether or not it is false doesn’t take away from the fact that those who believe it is true would understand my statement. That’s my point. Do you see what I mean?

An old thread about that, in case someone is interested.

I'll be away for some days withtout an internet connection. I wish a good study to all.

I agree that had this been done, that would have been harsh. But it wasn't done. I made no comparison at all. What I did, as I've explained several times now, was to take the principle which Arnold suggested, a principle which, as Arnold stated it, applies to the incident that I asked about.

MM, a *reference* to an event is not a *comparison*. A comparison is when a person says something like, "This thing is like that, because of this and this and this." I didn't say anything like this. What I did was to ask if the principle he stated, applied by those I mentioned, was as applicable to them as to God. I didn't make any judgments, but asked a question for clarification. It could well be that when he articulated this principle, that he had in mind some other qualification which he didn't mention (e.g., it's OK for God to cause excruciating pain to people if its eternally beneficial; perhaps this is something which is only God's prerogative to do, and the principle should be more clearly articulated.)



Once again, the principle articulated was that it's OK to cause excruciating pain (he actually just said "pain," but, in context, we were talking about excruciating pain) if its eternally beneficial. This is *exactly* the same principle that I was asking my question about. If you think there's some difference in the principles involved, please specify what you think that difference is.



I can't read Arnold's mind, MM. As I recall, the post in which he wrote this was very short, without any sort of logical buildup or reasons given.



So was the other. There's nothing wrong in asking if what the people during Medieval times did is wrong. If you think it's wrong (and I hope you do), I'd be interested in knowing why.



No, it doesn't, MM. This isn't dealing at all with the question, "does the ends justify the means." Perhaps there's some confusion as to what this phrase means:



Now, of course, God wouldn't do anything morally wrong, all would agree, so the "morally wrong" here would need to be qualified in some way, such as, (just an example) things one would ordinarily consider to be morally wrong, such as causing people excruciating pain. So the question I'm asking is if it's OK to cause people excruciating pain, if this will be eternally beneficial.



I'm glad you recognize this, and thus agree with my point that the quote you presented has nothing to do with this question. It's a bit odd, however, that you would preface a quote with, "the following insight is pertinent" to the issue, and then follow it with the issue "doesn’t even come to mind in this context."



You're not answering my question directly, but there may be enough here to make an inference. I'm inferring that you think it's OK for God to cause people excruciating pain if its eternally beneficial, but not OK for humans. Is this a correct inference?

Remember when I asked you if you would sacrifice your son to God if He asked you, and you responded, "Of course. Wouldn't you?" Suppose God asked you to do the same thing to a sinner that He does (or, rather, that you think He does). Would you do that?

Assuming you might wish to answer something like this: "God wouldn't ask me to do something like this" (making my question a FOTAP question -- welcome to the club! ), what is your basis for determining what God might or might not ask you?

1. I addressed this in #116042, namely, God can do things to sinners that we cannot do to them with impunity. It's not a matter of the end justifying the means. God does not have to justify Himself to us. He can drown or burn sinners alive if He thinks it is best. There is nothing evil or forceful or violent about it.

2. The light that streams from the cross is: God is love. It was our loving God who created everything in seven days, who drowned the antediluvians, who burned up the sodomites, who commanded Moses to stone sinners to death, who healed the sick and raised the dead. The cross explains the plagues in that "God's love has been expressed in His justice no less than in His mercy". {DA 762.3}

From the highest peaks men looked abroad upon a shoreless ocean. The solemn warnings of God's servant no longer seemed a subject for ridicule and scorning. How those doomed sinners longed for the opportunities which they had slighted! How they pleaded for one hour's probation, one more privilege of mercy, one call from the lips of Noah! But the sweet voice of mercy was no more to be heard by them. Love, no less than justice, demanded that God's judgments should put a check on sin. The avenging waters swept over the last retreat, and the despisers of God perished in the black depths. {PP 100.3}

"By the word of God . . . the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: but the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men." 2 Peter 3:5-7. Another storm is coming. The earth will again be swept by the desolating wrath of God, and sin and sinners will be destroyed. {PP 101.1}

Tom, for your convenince, here is the other half of my post:


1. “God is vengeful and bloodthirsty.” God said, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay.” I concede “bloodthirsty” was a poor choice of words. What I meant to convey was that He demands justice.

1a. “Blaming Satan for the existence of sin and death assumes Satan, and not God, is in control of sin and death.” Satan did not create FMAs, therefore, he didn’t create a situation where sin and death were inevitable. See 3 below.

2. “Throughout eternity we will praise God for punishing sinners and destroying them in the lake of fire.” True. It’s because He did what was right and righteous.

3. “I think it is obvious that God is responsible for creating a situation where sin and death was inevitable.” See quote above. DA 22.

4. “God is the author of death.” Poor choice of words. What I mean is that God chose to create FMAs in spite of knowing in advance which ones would sin and rebel and die in the lake of fire.

5. “But the fact is, He has killed (i.e., destroyed) hundreds and thousands and millions of people since the Flood, and He will kill millions and billions more in the lake of fire.” There are five different ways death and destruction has happened since the Fall.

1. God did it Himself.
2. God commands holy angels to do it.
3. God permits the forces of nature to do it.
4. God permits evil angels to do it.
5. God permits evil men to do it.


The humane hunter story you wrote does not explain why God commanded Moses and the COI to stone sinners to death. It assumes He gave in to human expectations and commanded something He wasn’t in favor in order not to incur their disfavor, that is, He went along with it because it’s what they expected and He chose not to correct the problem at that time. In my opinion, though, this doesn’t speak well of God. Do you think it speaks of Him? If so, why?


Yes, everything must be understood in light of the dynamics involved in the death of Jesus on the cross, especially what made it necessary and why God was willing to go through with it. The following passage is pertinent to the topic of this thread:

Hebrews
10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

im not understanding why this bothers you so much.

it is not generally understood that we behave according to our picture of God.

knowing whether or not sodom and gomorrah was destroyed specifically for homosexuality can affect how people will react, such as the poor deluded pastor and his followers who stand on street corners with signs saying, God hates fags". that is his picture of God. and he believes with all his heart that God approves of his behavior.

how we view God will determine our actions to a large degree regardless of how mildly to how severely it is manifested.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.



This seems to contradict what you just said above: "(A)ngels are at liberty to bless or curse according to their fancy when God gives sinners over to them. I agree."



First you say they're free, then you say they're not free.



This is too vague for me to answer. You know, in response to questions I asked you, you thanked me for answering your question, and then didn't even address mine! Would you please do so? (I'm talking about my questions above, to which you responded, "Thank you for answering my questions.")



MM, I explained this. I said, "evil angels are not capable of managing nature." It's too big for them. They have the power to cause nature to do this or that, but not to manage it. It takes a lot less power and ability to pervert an existing thing than to bring it into existence or manage it. For example, Satan made the plants God had created poisonous. He couldn't create them. He couldn't give them life. If God ceased to manage them, there's nothing Satan could do to make them OK.



Clearly evil angels are able to counteract what God does to a great degree. Our sin-filled world is evidence of this.



In regards to your parenthetical question, this is, for me, a FOTAP question, as I believe that Jesus Christ in the flesh was a full and complete revelation of God's character; i.e. God acts like Jesus Christ did.



The Bible just says that God put a hedge around Job. Wouldn't it be speculative to go beyond this?



Satan does just this, of course.



MM, I pointed out in this very post that if God permitted evil angels to destroy everyone one the planet, there wouldn't be anyone left to render a decision. Surely you can see the logic in that.



One can say that if one chooses.



We're not supposed to believe things without evidence, if that's what you're asking. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the criterion in the U.S. for judging criminal cases. "Sufficient evidence," is the phrase the SOP uses, which is more akin to "preponderance of the evidence," which is the standard for deciding civil cases.



If the meaning is clear. For example, Paul speaks of nature "groaning." Your reference to the forces of nature being "free to do as they please" doesn't make sense to me, however. What do these forces want to do? Good things or bad things?



Ok, this seems to me to be an odd way of putting it, but at least I think I see what you meant. The way that I would put it (and did put it) is that if God were not managing nature, then bad things were bound to happen. I even gave an analogy of driving a car as an explanation.



MM, I addressed this at length. Please re-read the post.



Do you think inspired quotes are necessary to establish this point? Do you think it's possible that evil angels can either create life or manage nature?



Sure there is. The geography of the region.



What else would it say, MM?



Brimstone is "an old name for sulfur".(wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn)

Regarding Lot's wife:



I don't know why you're asking this, MM. We've already discussed this. I've presented the above quote to you on a number of occasions.

As I've pointed out, our difference is not due to texts, but paradigm. Your paradigm permits, or requires, you to attribute violence to God (although you don't like the word, but a synonym doesn't come to mind; sorry) whereas mine doesn't. So when you see texts that aren't prohibited by the SOP as allowing the violent act to be performed by God, in your mind, you think God must have done it. This seems to be your paradigm.

Mine is that GC 35, 36 describes the general principle by which God operates, that He *always* acts like Jesus Christ did in the flesh, and that force and violence are not a part of the principles of His government.

I've spent quite a long time on this post, so I'll have to stop here. I'll see if I can continue tomorrow.

i read it quite differently.

are you asking if God manipulates satan, evil angels and those inspired by them?

You wrote “What I did, as I've explained several times now, was to take the principle which Arnold suggested, a principle which, as Arnold stated it, applies to the incident that I asked about.” What “principle” are you talking about?


“. . . the principle articulated was that it's OK to cause excruciating pain”. This answers my question above.

You wrote “If you think there's some difference in the principles involved, please specify what you think that difference is.” First of all, it is obvious to me that he wasn’t implying there are similarities between what God did and what the papacy did. Surely you can agree with this. Can you? I see zero similarities. Do you see any?

Secondly, the difference as I see it has to do with the motives and means of the persons involved. Again, there are zero similarities between God and the papacy. Do you agree? For example, when the papacy withdraws its protection and permits evil men to cause death and destruction, do you see any similarities to God withdrawing His protection and permitting evil men to cause death and destruction?


Did he state the “principles” that he applied to arrive at his two part conclusion?


Yes, what they did was wrong. The reason it was wrong is because they were acting on their own, that is, God did not command them to kill sinners as He did in the case of Moses and the COI. Of course there are other reasons why it was wrong, namely, the people they were killing were law abiding Christians.


As I see it, the quote above articulates the idea that God can do something we cannot do, namely, drown or burn sinners alive. True, this does not directly address your question, but it goes to means and motive, that is, God killed them because it was the right and righteous thing to do. Again, it has nothing to do with the end justifying the means.

Let’s examine the LDE 241 passage quoted above:

“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?”

1. The “infinite justice” referred to here involves death and destruction.
2. “Noah would have displeased God to have drowned one of the scoffers and mockers that harassed him . . .” The drowning referred to here envisions Noah physically drowning someone with his bare hands. It is not a reference to the “withdraw and permit principle”.
3. “. . . but God drowned the vast world.” The context makes it clear she is not referring to the “withdraw and permit principle”. It is obvious to me she is referring to God doing it Himself (the first of the five principles I listed earlier).
4. “Lot would have had no right to inflict punishment on his sons-in-law, but God would do it in strict justice.” Please apply points 2 and 3 above to this insight.
5. “Who will say God will not do what He says He will do?” The context makes it obvious she is referring to God causing death and destruction. It is clear to me she is not referring to the “withdraw and permit principle”. Instead, I believe she is referring to God doing it Himself.


When God causes death and destruction the question, Does the end justify the means, doesn’t even come to mind. The two part conclusion Arnold articulated above does not elicit the question. It has nothing to do with what he wrote. Why do you think this question seems reasonable to ask in light of what he wrote?


The passage in LDE 241 is addressing “infinite justice”. It is not addressing the issue of pain. Do I think it is okay for God to cause pain if it serves an eternal purpose? This question seems to divorce “infinite justice” from the issue. Yes, people feel pain when God executes infinite justice. But pain isn’t the focus - justice is! The question should be, Is it okay for God to execute justice and judgment when it serves an eternal purpose? The answer is obvious, Of course it is!

BTW, do you find it odd that God commanded Moses to kill sinners and yet Ellen White wrote in LDE 241 “Noah would have displeased God” had he drowned even one sinner? How do you explain this apparent contradiction? Why was it okay for Moses to execute “infinite justice” whereas it would have “displeased” God if Noah had done something similar?


In answer to your question, I submit the following insight:

“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.”