I have to click the link I posted once, wait a second, and then click it again and then it opens the document on the White Estate. Does it work that way for you on your computer?

You've written a lot on this subject. Based on what you've said, this is my impression of what you believe. If this is inaccurate, please let me know how.



She didn't say it wasn't God's purpose to save Egypt. I'm pointing this out to you, because without seeing this, you're missing the whole context of what was happening in Egypt. God had been working for centuries for Egypt. He sent Joseph to Egypt, and for a time Egypt flourished. But then arose a Pharaoh who "knew not Joseph," who wanted cheap labor, and made slaves out of the Hebrews, losing the blessing they had had through Joseph's influence. While working to free the Hebrews, God was bringing light to the Egyptians for the purpose of saving them.



Yes I did. It's right above your comment here that says, "You didn't answer my question."



No.



When you ask reasonable questions, I'll give reasonable answers, which I have. I've written things out in detail, in this very post. If you twist what I've said around so much I can't easily disentangle it, I either have to spend a lot of time trying to do so, or, otherwise, give a terse answer.



That's not fair. I've written things out in great detail. You ask me questions over and over again that indicate you're not paying attention to what I've written.



That's been my main point. I've glad that's come across.



This is inane. Of course I don't believe this. No one could.



I've not said God stops managing the forces of nature.



As I've said quite a number of times, because of sin, nature does not function as originally designed.



Many things/beings are involved. I think you should recognize this is a very complicated question, MM, and doesn't lend itself well to a short answer.



MM, there's nothing in this chain of question and response that's dealing with the managing of the forces of nature. My point in quoting the "justice smites" quote is that the wording indicates that it's not something God is causing.

I think you've got confused here as to the subject matter. I was explaining the following:



You didn't respond to any of the points I made (or even notice them, apparently).



No. It doesn't appear to me you read what I wrote, or, at least, you were reading through quickly if you did. I'd invite you to reread what I wrote more carefully. IMO, your question here makes no sense whatever. You're asking me if I'm saying something which would be absurd. The concept of giving justice permission to manipulate is nonsense. I haven't suggested anything like this.



You didn't even quote enough of what I said to address this. Let's try from scratch. The way you describe things, it appears to me that your understanding is that God used force and violence to get his way. The only way to deny this, it appears to me, would be for you to say that what happened was not violence. Is this your contention?



As you envision things, yes. As I see things, no. If you ask how I see things, I believe that God was trying to free the Hebrews, and save Egypt while doing so. God gave light to the Egyptians. Pharaoh resisted the Spirit of God, which is how he hardened his heart, and God permitted disasters to occur in the areas indicated by the rod.



No.



Since I asked you first, I'll await your answer.



So you're saying that killing the firstborns was not violent?



It looks to me that you perceive God to act with violence and force to achieve His purposes. This is how you interpret Scripture and the SOP. You see God undertaking actions which are out of character with what Jesus Christ revealed God's character to be, as I see things.



I disagree with your conclusion ("In this sense ...")



I quoted it to you previously. I don't know off the top of my head. Actually I think you quoted it to me first. Maybe DA 600. (just a guess)

Mike, on my computer the link goes to White Estate with the first click. However, it opens up the search page, and not the document you referenced. So I would have to perform the search myself in order to get to the document. I have not found a way to link directly to documents like this on the White Estate's website. I have tried it before to no avail. If you are able to get it to work, I'm curious how you did it. From a technical perspective, the URL you provided cannot possibly retrieve the document, because there is no identification of a document within the URL (unless, of course, the White Estate had set that particular document to the "default" page).

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

one of the pioneers. they werent real worried about being known for what they wrote. in other words there is no byline, just the identifiers at the end of each paragraph.

so, whoever jwe is. i suppose my cd has a list somewhere of the initials.

It worked yesterday on my computer, but you're right, it doesn't work today. Must have been in a cache or something and went away after I logged off. So, yeah, thank you for posting the other link.

this is noteworthy wording. why did she stress that she was shown? why not just say, the judgments......?

I was shown that the judgments of God would not come directly out from the Lord upon them, but in this way: They place themselves beyond His protection. He warns, corrects, reproves, and points out the only path of safety; then if those who have been the objects of His special care will follow their own course independent of the Spirit of God, after repeated warnings, if they choose their own way, then He does not commission His angels to prevent Satan's decided attacks upon them. [SEE ALSO THE GREAT CONTROVERSY, P. 614, WHERE ELLEN WHITE STATES, "A SINGLE ANGEL DESTROYED ALL THE FIRST-BORN OF THE EGYPTIANS AND FILLED THE LAND WITH MOURNING. WHEN DAVID OFFENDED AGAINST GOD BY NUMBERING THE PEOPLE, ONE ANGEL CAUSED THAT TERRIBLE DESTRUCTION BY WHICH HIS SIN WAS PUNISHED. THE SAME DESTRUCTIVE POWER EXERCISED BY HOLY ANGELS WHEN GOD COMMANDS, WILL BE EXERCISED BY EVIL ANGELS WHEN HE PERMITS."] It is Satan's power that is at work at sea and on land, bringing calamity and distress, and sweeping off multitudes to make sure of his prey. And storm and tempest both by sea and land will be, for Satan has come down in great wrath. He is at work. He knows his time is short and, if he is not restrained, we shall see more terrible manifestations of his power than we have ever dreamed of. {14MR 3.1}

God plagued and punished Egypt to compel them to acknowledge His power, authority, and superiority over other gods. He also did it for the other reasons named above. From God’s perspective it was never a question of whether or not He would be able to relocate the COI to the Promised Land. He could have accomplished His purpose in other ways. However, He did it the way He did for the reasons already mentioned. I wouldn’t say He escalated things to achieve His goals. Instead, I would simply say He did what He did knowing it achieve His goals.

As you know, I believe God has known from eternity what it would take to achieve His goals. He didn’t make it up on the run. You seem to think I believe God tried one thing hoping it would work and when it didn’t He upped the ante, each time hoping it would finally persuade Pharaoh to comply. Remember, God was dependent on Pharaoh to accomplish His purpose. He didn’t need Pharaoh’s permission. Again, God did what He did to achieve His goals.


Again, she said God punished Egypt because they were beyond saving, their cup of iniquity was full. It is similar to the history of the Amorites. Ellen White describes it this way:


The principle described above applied to Egypt. Her cup of woe and wrath was full. Her probation of mercy and grace was ended. The time for retributive justice and judgment had come.


The fact God withdrew His protection and enforced His established limits does not explain who or what made nature behavior destructively. Are you saying “God manages nature” and that He employs her forces to cause death and destruction? If not, who or what do you think manages the forces of nature and causes it to behave destructively? At one point you indicated “justice” does it. But who or what is justice?


Are you going to wait until I ask you who or what you think manages the forces of nature to cause death and destruction?


It may be your main point, but it doesn’t answer my question. I’m sad that hasn’t come across.


How did eating the forbidden fruit cause the forces of nature to stop functioning as originally designed?


It is not complicated if you view it from the perspective I believe, which is – God manages and employs every atom and every molecule and all the forces of nature to serve His purposes. They behave according to His will. Ellen White put it this way:

The depths of the earth are the Lord's arsenal, whence were drawn weapons to be employed in the destruction of the old world. Waters gushing from the earth united with the waters from heaven to accomplish the work of desolation. Since the Flood, fire as well as water has been God's agent to destroy very wicked cities. These judgments are sent that those who lightly regard God's law and trample upon His authority may be led to tremble before His power and to confess His just sovereignty. As men have beheld burning mountains pouring forth fire and flames and torrents of melted ore, drying up rivers, overwhelming populous cities, and everywhere spreading ruin and desolation, the stoutest heart has been filled with terror and infidels and blasphemers have been constrained to acknowledge the infinite power of God. {PP 109.1}


You wrote, “Satan is the one who causes death and destruction, not God. . . [The] plagues come when God does not prevent them, which implies that God is not causing them.” Which implies Satan is the one who “controls the elements” of nature and causes death and destruction. Is this what you think? Do you think God let’s Satan control the elements of nature that are not directly under His control?

You also wrote, “My point in quoting the ‘justice smites’ quote is that the wording indicates that it's not something God is causing.” She said, “When Moses besought God to show him his glory, the Lord passed by before him, and proclaimed, ‘The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty.’ It grieves the heart of God, as our Father, to let justice smite.” {PH089 15.3}

“To let justice smite.” How does God “let” justice smite? Elsewhere she wrote this about it: “And the very fact of His reluctance to execute justice testifies to the enormity of the sins that call forth His judgments and to the severity of the retribution awaiting the transgressor. But while inflicting judgment, God remembered mercy.” (CC 155) Is letting justice smite and executing retributive justice one and the same thing? I don’t think so.


That’s it? You’re just going to reject my question? The question was an attempt at clarification. Now that I know what you don’t believe, please take a minute to clearly state what you do believe. I realize you believe sinners force God to withdraw His protection and that when He does bad things happen. What is not clear to me is the how. That is, who or what do you think causes the bad things to happen? For example, consider the plagues. Who or what controlled the elements of nature and caused them to behave destructively?


I included the entire volley. You omitted it in this post. Here it is again:


Did that help?


By the time God started sending plagues on Egypt, Pharaoh’s heart was hardened beyond hope. He was unsaveable. If you doubt this point, please post an inspired quote that plainly says otherwise, that is, please post a passage that say something to the effect, “Pharaoh was still capable of being won to Jesus. His heart was not yet too hardened. It was still yielding and pliable. It might be that a demonstration of God’s mercy and power would woe and win him to Jesus. Thus, one by one, God sent plagues hoping it would win Pharaoh and his people to Jesus.”


Are you really going to wait and make me ask the obvious question? Here’s the quote: “The time had come when God would answer the prayers of His oppressed people, and would bring them from Egypt with such mighty displays of His power that the Egyptians would be compelled to acknowledge that the God of the Hebrews, whom they had despised, was above all gods. He would now punish them for their idolatry and for their proud boasting of the mercies bestowed upon them by their senseless gods. God would glorify His own name, that other nations might hear of His power and tremble at His mighty acts, and that His people, by witnessing His miraculous works, should fully turn from their idolatry to render to Him pure worship. {SR 115.1}

What do you think she was referring to when she wrote the following:

1. His mighty displays of power
2. His mighty acts
3. His miraculous works

Was she referring to the plagues? If so, who or what caused them to happen? And, to what purpose did the plagues serve?


Fair enough. But I’m surprised you do not already know my answer. My answer to the question “Do you think the explanation Ellen White provided above describes God using force or violence or permitted force or violence?” is – Of course not! Your turn.


I doubt they suffered a violent death. I suspect they simply stopped breathing and died. It was probably done as humanely as possible. Do you agree?


You seem to be attributing to God motives that are human and ungodly. God can do infinite justice that would be considered forceful and violent and displeasing to Him if we were to do the exact same thing.


Are you suggesting the Romans ransacked Jerusalem because the Jews rejected Jesus and His apostles? If not, why, then, do you think the Romans did it? What was their motive and reasons?


Are you suggesting the Romans ransacked Jerusalem because the Jews rejected Jesus and His apostles? If not, why, then, do you think the Romans did it? What was their motive and reasons?

Tom, I have always agreed that there are times when God permits evil angels to cause death and destruction. I’m not disputing this point. Please believe me. However, I believe there are also times when God commands holy angels to cause death and destruction. You seem to reject this point.

I asked, “’The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits.’ In what sense do you think the ‘destructive power’ exercised by both holy and evil angels is the ‘same’? What similarities do they share?” And you responded by saying, “To answer your question, it is evident the power exercised by holy angels is a restraining power.”

You seem to be saying, destructive power = restraining power. If so, then you also seem to be implying evil angels will exercise the same restraining power exercised by holy angels. But this doesn’t sound right to me. It is the same thing as saying evil angels will restrain evil angels. If this is indeed the truth, who or what, then, will pour out the seven last plagues? Will “justice” do it? If so, who or what is “justice”?

Also, do you know of any inspired passages that specifically say evil angels will cause the death and destruction described in the seven last plagues? Ellen White wrote the following about it:


BTW, some people attempt to make the following passage apply to the seven last plagues, but is evident from the context that she is not referring to them:

I was shown that the judgments of God would not come directly out from the Lord upon them, but in this way: They place themselves beyond His protection. He warns, corrects, reproves, and points out the only path of safety; then, if those who have been the objects of His special care will follow their own course, independent of the Spirit of God, after repeated warnings, if they choose their own way, then He does not commission His angels to prevent Satan's decided attacks upon them. {LDE 242.1}

The following link contains the context. It is a short letter. God's Protecting Power Removed From Those Who Refuse His Warnings PS - GC posted a functioning link to the quote (#118245)


Are you saying dinosaurs were a force of nature God managed to cause death and destruction?


“No” doesn’t explain what you believe. All I know is what you don’t believe about it. Please tell me.


So, are you saying it wasn’t A&E’s sin that upset the balance of nature and caused it to become violent and dangerous? Or, are you implying what changed is Satan’s right to “control the elements” (GC 589) of nature and that he makes them behave destructively? If so, doesn’t this imply God prevents nature from causing death and destruction by restraining Satan from exercising his power over nature?


Do you agree that the light that radiates from God’s presence will cause sinners to suffer pain similar to the light radiating from Moses’ face caused the COI to suffer pain? If not, why not? Please explain your answer. Thank you.

I suspect she said "I was shown" because it was shown to her in vision. I don't see where she "stressed" it, though, as if to say, "Sit up and take note. This is very important. Don't get this wrong." She simply reported the facts. She often began with "I was shown" or something similar when referring to her dreams and visions.

It is very clear in the SOP that Ellen White believed there are times when God withdraws His protection and permits evil angels to cause death and destruction. I don't think anybody on this forum disagrees with this point. It is equally as obvious that Tom and Kland do not believe God has ever Himself caused death and destruction or that He has ever commanded holy angels to cause death and destruction. What is not clear is who or what they believe caused such things to happen.

i have to disagree. i see her as stressing that it came from God Himself and not from her understanding.

again i disagree given the multitude of pages on this forum regarding this issue. it is obvious to some that the answer has been given over and over and in as many ways as possible. i cant help but see that there is something else going on, not that they have not given a clear answer.

http://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=117631&page=3 114874
Posted by: Tom Re: plagues - 06/19/09 01:51 AM
I've been keeping quiet because my opinions have already been expressed, and I was interested in what Teresa would say. I agree with what she has said.

God's protecting hand protects us from both Satan and the forces of nature. The bad things that happen to those whom God protects may be caused by Satan directly, or not. If not, these bad things may be caused by other evil beings, or by inanimate forces. The basic principle remains the same, which is God removes His protective hand, and bad things happen.

In the case of the plagues, God's servant indicated with the rod what would be destroyed once God's protective hand was removed. It wasn't necessarily Satan who caused the plague to occur, although it might have been. For example, the last plague, the killing of the first-born, looks to have been Satan as opposed to the forces of nature.

This brings up an interesting question. Why didn't Satan simply refrain from killing the first-born to make God a liar? Or, to put it another way, why would he kill the first-born given God said that was going to happen? What did Satan have to gain by this action?

On the surface, it may seem that Satan could gain more by not destroying the first-born, in an attempt to make God look foolish. But when considering what Satan had to gain, it seems he had more to gain by following the course he did. By killing the first-born he had a perfect opportunity to frame God for their killing, and continue misrepresenting God's character, as God was willing to take "credit" for their deaths.

Why was God willing to take such "credit"? For the same reason Christ was willing to tell the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man. God was working within the paradigm the Egyptians had. Their idea was the true God was the one who was the most powerful, who overpowered the other gods. Now it's true that God is the most powerful, and that God demonstrated His power, but He didn't have to overpower the other gods by force, or Himself kill and destroy, in order to do so. Force is not a principle of God's government, and violence is not a part of His character. He was willing to allow Himself to be misunderstood as using force and violence, in order to reach those whose paradigms were so mixed up. God always has to reach us where we are, or there's no way He can communicate with us. We have highly overrated senses of our abilities to understand God and His ways, so He routinely humbles Himself to reach us in our arrogance and ignorance. He doesn't do so by acting contrary to His principles, but He allows us to misunderstand certain things (e.g. the immortality of the soul, or that He uses force and violence to achieve His ends) in order to teach us others (e.g. even if one should raise from the dead, if Moses is not believed, neither would Christ be, or God is the one true God, more powerful than anyone else).

I am starting out with the conviction that God is a certain way (i.e. like Christ) and when I see Him supposedly doing things which are not like Christ, I ask the question, "What's wrong here?" Of course, one possibility is that I'm misunderstanding what Christ is like, but in this case it seems to me much more likely that what happened in the Egyptian plagues is misunderstood than that Christ, in reality, would resort to force and violence to achieve His ends if necessary.

I cannot conceive, based on Christ's life and teachings, that He would ever, in any circumstances, kill innocent children in order to demonstrate that He is more powerful than another. I cannot imagine that He would ever, under any circumstance, use escalating force and violence, to compel an adversary to capitulate, along the lines that the Egyptian plagues are ordinarily understood.

Once one understands Christ's character to be a certain way, and understands the two principles that God is often presented as doing that which He permits, and that His protective hand saves us from many destructive things of which we are unaware, it's very easy to perceive the violent acts of inspiration in such a way that does not have God directly taking violent action or using force. It's simply a matter of viewing things from a certain paradigm.

A different paradigm to mine allows for God to do things mine does not. It allows God to do violent things, to kill and to use force, because this is what one sees inspiration as saying. Mine does not, because of Christ. If I see inspiration as teaching that God used force or violently killed or tortured someone, or coerced or incented others to act in such a way, my conclusion is that my understanding of the given passage must be incorrect, and what appeared to have happened didn't.

For example, in Scripture we read that God sent poisonous serpents upon the Israelites, and these serpents bit the Israelites, many of whom were injured or died. It looks like God did this because He was ticked off and wanted to teach the Israelites a lesson. From my paradigm, it's easy to see that what actually happened is that God withdrew His protecting hand, and the snakes which He had been protecting them from, caused the damage. God did not sick the snakes on them, nor was He ticked off, but this is what was perceived to have happened, and this is how inspiration (at least Scripture) records this event.

So the underlying question seems to come down to what we allow to be our bedrock in terms of determining what God is really like. Is it Jesus Christ?

Jesus Christ said that the things He did were the things He saw His Father do, and what He taught were the things He heard from His Father. Where did He here and see these things? From Scripture (the Old Testament). So the things He did and taught were what He saw God doing and saying in the Old Testament. Not Christ's actions and teachings appear to be very different than what we read of God doing and saying in the Old Testament. So what to do we do with this apparent discrepancy?

One approach would be to say that Christ did not give a complete revelation of God, but a partial one, revealing what God is like in certain circumstances, namely the circumstances which Christ met. Under different circumstances, God could act and speak in very different ways.(tq comment: such as changing the wording of the inspired messenger of the Lord to fit our view instead of....)

Another approach would be to say that we're simply misunderstanding what God actually did and said in the Old Testament, but Jesus Christ had it right. In this approach, we see Christ as saying, "If you want to know what God is really like, look at Me! Let me be your view, your picture, of God."

If we see the OT God as acting and speaking differently than Jesus Christ did in the flesh, I believe it means our paradigm needs adjusting. We need new wineskins so we can receive new wine. We need the eyes and ears of Christ, to see and hear the things in Scripture as He did.

perhaps this could be seen as "defending tom" or "defending error"... i see it as defending the truth which supercedes all else.

there will never ever be any excuse for being less than truthful in all dealings, regardless of who the person is.