Let's continue this topic here. I'll start the thread with my list of examples from post #116141:


Let's look at some familiar examples (I won't post the corresponding Scripture since they are easy to find):


God would punish, even drown, transgressors "for the good of His subjects and for their safety." Would punishment and drowning involve pain, maybe excruciating pain? Death? Possibly.

Does God effect the good and safety of His subjects through punishment and drowning of sinners? It looks like it.

Would Satan do the punishing and drowning himself, since it benefits God's children? I doubt it.

Does God do things that He does not allow us to do? Yes.


The Levites did this at the command of God through Moses. That's the plain reading of the text.

Did God merely remove His protection, and let the bloodthirsty Levites kill their friends and relatives, in contrast to His desire? If so, I don't think they would have been considered faithful and worthy of blessing.

Did Satan instigate this "painful" event, which was needed to avoid "irretrievable ruin"? Was Satan to be credited for the severity by which "the evil [was] put away"? I don't think so.


Was Elijah itching to kill people, just waiting for God's permission? I doubt it.

Did Satan drive Elijah to do this? No. Rather, he was "directed by the Lord" to kill Baal's prophets. And the purpose was to protect repentant Israel, and to open the way for a mighty spiritual reformation.


What we have here is a little different in character than our previous examples. This time it is clear that God merely withheld His blessings.

There was no dew or rain for over 3 years. Did that result in suffering or death? It surely did. So terrible were the results that it was considered a "curse of God."

You can't blame Satan for this, since he doesn't send rain in the first place. Can't blame nature for this, since God decides what nature does. Can't blame sinful man for this, since he has no power to control weather.

This is an obvious case of God speaking through judgments. This was the "fiat of Heaven." This was God's doing.

And what exactly was God up to in all this? "The people recognize God's justice and mercy in withholding the dew and the rain until they have been brought to confess His name." After the people's eyes were opened and they had a clearer view of God's character, they recognized the withholding of dew and rain as "justice and mercy." Justice is easy to see, but why mercy? Because through this painful experience, they were saved from the more painful experience of spiritual death. Through this, they were led to confess God's name.

Would Satan have caused this himself? I doubt it. He ain't no fool.


This one seems the clearest of all. The SAME ANGEL who smote Peter also smote Herod. That is clear beyond contention.

Is this angel a holy angel? Is this angel one who ministers to the needs of men, or ministers their destruction? Is this angel a messenger of God or of Satan?

I would say that this angel - the angel of the Most High - is one of the good guys. I don't think he wanted to wreak havoc among men, just waiting for God to allow him. I believe he acted upon God's command. And we find that he who rescued Peter from death also caused "great agony of mind and body" to Herod.

Pain and death? Yes. Done by God's messenger? Yes. According to His will? Yes. And this "became the means of leading many to a belief in Christ."

God sometimes causes pain if it is eternally beneficial.

you know, my brother, i believe that God has had to take action from time to time, but some of your post, i believe, has gone over the top.

how does the unutterable love God has towards us show through this? it sounds more like a justification of the actions of hitlers henchmen, the ones who did surgical experimentations on the jews without anesthesia.

again i state, i also believe God has had to take action various times in the history of this world, but i am so thankful i never had the need to justify my understanding in such a manner as above.

Gods actions can be shown in a gentle, loving manner for those of us who believe such. this is not to say i will not continue studying to see if toms understanding has merit or not. but i pray that should i decide against his view i never see the need to justify my understanding at the expense of Gods glory.

Teresaq, no one is doubting that the wrath of God is love. Just because Arnold did not include the balance between mercy and justice in his study above, it does not mean he is opposed to the mercy of God. How would you reflect the truths Arnold shared above without leaving the impression you are ignoring the mercy of God? As you know Tom is quick to explain all the stories above in light of the "withdraw and permit" principle. Both he and Arnold are in agreement that God is merciful and loving. Since it is not a disputed point, Arnold isn't addressing it. He is focusing on what they disagree on.

Here's a statement which shows both sides of God's character, as He relates to the two classes of His subjects: the obedient, and the erring.


Certainly, God can and does bless. He also can and does curse. Our choices can make a world of difference in which side we are on.



God's law contains both blessings and cursings. Let us not forget that God's law represents His character. I'm thankful that God hates sin enough to bring those who persist in it to justice and to eradicate it. God is fair. God is good.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Did I say something incorrect? If so, please point it out so I can correct it immediately.


The Word of God is symbolized by the Sword of the Spirit. Those who are limited to teaching by the feather of the Spirit, hoping to tickle everyone death, will eventually find that God was wise in likening His truth to a sword. If we are serious about dying to sin, self, and Satan, we better be ready for the sword that cuts deep.

But "at the expense of Gods glory"? Surely you must be joking. In every case, God put a stop to the spread of evil and even effected the spiritual revival of His poor deluded creatures. Turning sinners into saints is the highlight of God's glory. If you missed it, you are focusing on the wrong thing.

Anyway, Tom's understanding certainly has merit, and much truth to it. The error is in thinking that his paradigm is ALL there is to it.

Sometimes the natural consequences of sin constitute the best remedy for it. But sometimes, other measures must be taken to prevent sin's natural consequences. If my son had a habit of running into the street after his toy, I would warn him against it. But if he kept doing it, you can be sure that my next step is not to just let him reap the consequences of his choice. Before that happens, I will make him feel the pain of disobedience, and it will be significant pain. But it won't be quite the same pain as getting crushed by a speeding car.

To make sure you don't miss the point: I cause my son significant pain so that he can learn to avoid that which would cause infinitely more pain. That's because I love him. The father chastens the son he loves.

Now, what if instead of punishing him so he can learn to stop running into the street, I just let him run out and deal with whatever consequences that may entail? Sure, I tell him to stop it, but he keeps doing it anyway. And since I "love" him so much, I just let him keep running into the street. Eventually, he meets metal at 30 mph. Gentle? Loving? Glory?

we are back to perspectives. how one sees a particular point.

i did a search of ellen whites writings thinking she had some guidelines on spanking. no such word in her writings that i could find. but i did find this: this has to do with a teacher, but i get that the principle is the same no matter who it is.

discipline does not mean punish.

it is much more work and much more painful to learn other methods that work far better and are far more long-lasting. i know.

I appreciate the kind comments. Regarding the "all there is to it," that does seem to be the question. MM mentioned 5 ways that the wrath of God is manifested:



I note that all of these, but the first one, have in common that God withdraws His protection. We appear to differ in that I believe this is sufficient to cause any pain that God would deem necessary for disciplinary purposes. I don't think we necessarily see the necessity or the reason behind why the event take place differently, but we see the mechanism to be different, in the times that you think 1. applies.

Another area of difference involves the following:



You appear to believe the author intended this to be applied in a limited sense, whereas I believe the principle being articulated here is universal. That is, I believe it's really the case that Jesus Christ has revealed all that we can know of God.

I studied this about a dozen years ago, when I was planning to get married. It should be required reading for all who deal with children:

You will find in these quotes that punishment is necessary, but there is a proper way to do it.

I will comment more later.

i didnt think to look for "whipping".

but why do you equate punishment with spanking? i mean who said discipline was not necessary?

but as i said i can testify to what she states above. the more time we spend in prayer and searching for other methods than "whipping" we will find them and they will be more effective.

as i continued praying and searching i learned how to get loving obedience, without spanking, from my grandchildren.

this is why i learned to seek other methods and not spank.

Teresa is claiming that "Gods actions can be shown in a gentle, loving manner for those of us who believe such." It appears that Arnold is challenging this assertion by pointing out the Word of God is likened to a sword, as opposed to a feather, meaning that God's actions cannot always be seen as gentle and loving.

I don't see how this makes any sense. Doesn't the "sword of the Spirit" refer to the action of the Word in revealing truth? Isn't is the truth that causes the "damage"? That the truth causes us pain doesn't imply that God must have acted in a non-gentle, non-loving manner, does it?