the pioneer posted saw it this way:

IN WHAT SENSE DID THE LORD HARDEN PHARAOH'S HEART?

IT cannot be denied that some minds find serious difficulties in this subject. This fact is a sufficient reason for an effort to relieve the subject of its difficulties, and to set it in the light of reason and of Scripture. {April 1, 1862 JWe, ARSH 138.23}

It is supposed by some that the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart by an exertion of divine power, that was, first, direct; second, irresistible; and, third, of set purpose to produce this result. {April 1, 1862 JWe, ARSH 138.24}

Over against this view, we maintain that God's agency in the hardening of Pharaoh's heart was, first, indirect and permissive; second, negative (not positive) - and consisted in leaving him to himself, withholding efforts of mercy to save him; third, that it was not irresistible, but was in perfect harmony with Pharaoh's free moral agency; fourth, that God's agency and policy in the case were judicial - done as a just judgment on Pharaoh for his sin, and under circumstances which fully justified Jehovah in revealing his power, his justice, and his righteous retribution on a persistent sinner. {April 1, 1862 JWe, ARSH 138.25}

The reader will now very properly inquire, On what grounds do you give the Scriptures the construction you propose? For the Scriptures declare repeatedly that the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart. He first said to Moses, Ex.iv,21; vii,3, that he would do it; and after it was done, said more than once (for example, Ex.x,1; xi,10) that he had done it. Do you not, therefore, evade the plain sense of Scripture when you interpret God's agency as only indirect, permissive, negative, and not purposing the end of his hardening for its own sake? {April 1, 1862 JWe, ARSH 138.26}….

2nd. But again, it seems plain that in the cases where the Lord is said to have hardened Pharaoh's heart, the language looks rather to the certainty of the event, or to the incidental results God would educe from Pharaoh's sin by over-ruling and punishing it, than to the nature of the agency by which it was done. Phrases sometimes take their shape from their first use. The first use of this is prophetic, Ex.iv,21, spoken to Moses while yet in Midian, and manifestly having reference to the certainty of the event, and not to the particular kind of agency employed in producing it. {April 1, 1862 JWe, ARSH 139.20}

3rd. We give to the words all the meaning they naturally call for, when we explain them to refer to that permissive and providential agency whereby the Lord sent Moses to Pharaoh with his own commands; brought plagues on him and his people; let his wicked heart have its own way, withheld all divine restraining influence, and gave some, more or less, scope to Satan's temptations. This done, any sinner hardens his heart fast enough. There is never occasion for any other influences from God to make men sin. {April 1, 1862 JWe, ARSH 139.21}….

Perhaps we may add that in this whole history we may see that the Lord seems not to be specially careful to shield his own ways against cavilers. Those who choose and who try to blame God, can do so. They are free to do this - even as Pharaoh was free to harden his heart under the respite granted from the plagues in answer to his imploring cry. Sometimes it may seem to us that scripture language leaves the ways of God unguardedly open to cavil. Let us rather say, Their tone is that of perfect honesty, and of a full and peaceful consciousness of integrity. The entire Bible history reveals a God whose absorbing concern it is to be, not merely to seem, right; and who throws upon all readers the responsibility of being candid and fair-minded as toward God. If they will not be fair and unsuspicious; - if they will not dispel from their souls all prejudice against God's ways and character, they must bear their own responsibilities. - Ob. Evan. {April 1, 1862 JWe, ARSH 139.31}

Sure it's clear. The SOP tells us that God protects us from a thousand things, all of them unseen. When God removes His protection, we are in danger from these unseen dangers God was protecting us from. The "who or what" caused such things to happen come from these thousand of unseen dangers the SOP mentions.

it was james white and the little "e" stands for editor.

Tom,

I'm rather interested in whether or not you feel Pilate used force when he commanded the soldiers to put Jesus to death? Was His crucifixion an act of violence against Him?

Of course, I'm sure you would agree that it was. If the deaths of the firstborn of Egypt is counted as "violence" in your eyes, the wrongful execution of the innocent firstborn of God must certainly be the same thing: an act of violence.

In fact, this act was so forceful and violent that the story is written in the Bible with gruesome detail, leading us to understand just how torturous and painful Jesus' experience was--and He was bruised for our iniquity.

Mrs. White speaks of the "violent death" of John the Baptist (CC 290.3). She speaks of the violence of Jesus' death:



However, of this exact event, God inspired Mrs. White to write the following:


Sometimes, then, God accomplishes His Divine purposes through violent means.

There are some important lessons to be learned from the plagues. I do believe that God accomplished His Divine purposes by means of them--even by Pharaoh hardening his heart against God, so that God would have the chance to prove His authority and power as a witness to the whole world through those miraculous plagues.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

MM, how can you possible conclude this from what I've written? This sort of things are very frustrating to encounter. *My* view is that God was causing these things at all! Surely this should be clear to you by now. My view is that God *permitted* these things to happen.



What do you mean?



What was God dependent upon Pharaoh. Why would He need Pharaoh's permission? (I realize here you're saying He didn't, but why would this thought even come up?)



I agree with this. Where we differ is in what God did. You see that He did things that involved what an ordinary person would describe as force and violence.

You'd agree that your view is that God compelled Pharaoh, right? Let's start with this. I'm basing this on the fact that you said, "God plagued and punished Egypt to compel them to acknowledge His power, authority, and superiority over other gods." God "plagued" them by causing them excruciating pain (e.g. boils) and killing them (hail, last plague), according to your view, right?

So, to summarize your view:

1.God compelled Pharaoh by "plaguing" him.
2.These plagues involved causing excruciating pain and killing.
3.Therefore God, in your view, causes people excruciating pain and kills them in order to come them to do what He wants in order to achieve His goals.

Regarding the Amorites, the following describes the principles involved:

.

I replaced "Jews" and "Israelites" with "[nation]", as in "fill in nation here." It's the same principle involved, MM! She explains just a little later:



The principle is:
1.God gives light, with the intent to save.
2.If that light is rejected, people eventually God cause to withdraw His protection.
3.This manifests God's hatred of sin and the certain punishment to fall upon the guilty.

It doesn't matter if they are Israelites or Amorites. God is not a respecter of persons.



Or Egypt. The name of the nation doesn't matter. The principles involved are the same. God is not a respecter of persons, or nations.

The principle of the full cup is that when the cup is full, God is caused to remove His protection, and then come judgments (See the GC statement quoted above).



Regarding "justice smites," I quoted Ellen White, to make the point that the way the statement I quoted was worded, this destruction was not something God was causing, a point which you haven't addressed.



Notice it says to "let" justice smite. So clearly this is something God permits, as opposed to causes. The same thing applies to the plagues. She wrote that God "prevents them not." If He is "not preventing" them, then clearly He is not causing them.

I don't see how you can rationally conclude from this statement that "justice" manages nature. This is so illogical, I don't know how to respond to this, other than to point out that it doesn't make any sense to say this.

Regarding what happens, this is explained in the GC chapter on the destruction of Jerusalem. This is just one principle, MM! This is good news. There's only one principle to learn!



and something bad happened. That's the principle.



Ok. These "you seem to by implying" questions are very difficult for me to answer. They are often predicated on things I've not said. I don't know how to respond other than point out I've not said these things. For example, so far from saying that God stops managing nature, I was the one who first pointed out to you that nature was not self-acting. And you are aware of this. Which makes your "are you suggesting" question even more difficult to understand.

God continues to oversee nature, and His involvement is necessary, as nature is not self-acting. However, that doesn't mean He causes it to cause death and destruction. He permits that to happen.

Here's an example. Let's say that you use drugs, and drive under the influence of drugs. God miraculously protects you from being killed in a car accident. You continue using drugs and driving under the influence. Eventually God permits you to be killed by a car accident. God is not causing the other cars to run into you.



My point is a simple one. We are protected from a thousand dangers, all of them unseen. When God is caused to remove His protection, we are subject to these unseen dangers. The specifics of how these unseen dangers act isn't the important thing, but the principle involved, which I've just explained.



You already asked this. I answered this. I gave you an example, quoting the following:



Perhaps it would be good to slow down a bit. Please read carefully what's being said. When you ask me a question I've already answered, I find that perplexing. It makes me think perhaps you're rushing things a bit. New ideas take time to digest.



I agree that if one views these things as Augustine did, as you're suggesting is the case, then this is much simpler. However, I think this is an inaccurate way of viewing things. It's simply not possible the Ellen White had this perspective, coming from a Wesleyan tradition. You're being inconsistent theologically here. What you're writing is deterministic, and the logical development of determinism is that which Jonathan Edwards described in "Freedom of the Will."

God *uses* nature to achieve His purpose. This doesn't mean He *causes* nature to do what it does, any more than it means that God caused Pharaoh to do what he did, or the Romans to do what they did, although He used what they did to achieve His purposes as well.



No it doesn't.



No. Not if you mean all the time. Certainly sometimes natural disasters are caused by Satan. Actually early Christians believed that Satan was responsible for all natural disasters, which is rather interesting. However, I don't think that's necessarily the case. I think nature was profoundly impacted by sin, and natural disasters happen when God does not intervene because of things like moist warm fronts colliding with cold dryer ones.



Certainly sometimes this happens, as in Job, for example. But not necessarily always, as I explained.



Yes. There's just one principle to learn, which is the one laid out in GC 35-36. Letting justice smite, executing retributive justice, whatever you want to call it, the same thing is happening. God is caused to remove His protection from the thousand unseen things that He is protecting us from, and something bad happens.



MM, do you really think, "God stops managing the forces of nature and gives “justice” permission to manipulate them to cause death and destruction?" makes any sense? I think anyone in this forum would agree that this is a concept that doesn't make sense, regardless of their view on the issue we're discussing. I think you should consider what you're writing and ask if it makes sense.

God "gives 'justice' permission to manipulate them to cause death and destruction." How does this even come close to making sense?



How is not the important point. There are a thousand unseen dangers that God protects us from. We don't need to understand what all these unseen dangers are, or how they work, to understand the principle that He is protecting us from these things and that if He ceases bad things can happen to us.



It depends on the case. Some of this was discussed earlier. The particulars don't really matter. The important thing is to understand the overall principles.



MM, I've been asking you this question for about a week now, and have tried many times now, and you've refused to answer, which causes one to wonder why. It's a direct question, which can be answered "yes" or "no." Please do so, and then explain your "yes" or "no" answer however you wish.

Either this is your contention, or it's not. You should be able to answer that.



Clearly if you're going to propose something like this, the onus is on you to provide such a quote. My position, without being aware of evidence to the contrary, is that we don't know whether Pharaoh was beyond hope or not. If you want to propose something definite on this question (or any question) you should provide evidence for your position, not ask for an inspired quote saying the opposite. I could say, "The moon is made of green cheese. if you doubt this, please present an inspired quote saying something to the effect that "the moon is not made of green cheese."



Your "are you suggesting" questions tend to be poor questions. I think it would be better to phrase them in some other way, as you've done here. I spend hours, literally, answering your questions, so I'm clearly not unwilling to answer them.



God's might power is displayed in His protecting us from a thousand dangers, all of them unseen. We get a glimpse of His power when we see what happens when He relaxes His protection, such as when he "prevents not" plagues.



MM, this comment doesn't make sense. You say, "Fair enough," which I take to mean, "You're right. You asked first. I should answer your question." Given this is the case, it's obvious I'm not making indication regarding whether I know the answer or not. I'm simply asking for the courtesy of your answering a question I asked you first, which you seemed to recognize by saying "fair enough."

So your following comment is out of line, isn't it?



So you're saying that the killing of the firstborns was not violence? I think killing the firstborn was violence. The boils too, to name another one. Causing people excruciating pain and killing them to compel them or their survivors is violence.



An interesting question. From "The Great Controversy"



So given the great deceiver was trying to conceal his own work, he might have been humane in the killing of the firstborn.



No.



No.



They're not doing the same thing. They would be doing what appeared to be the same thing to them. That is, they would be doing what they perceive God to be doing. God is often said to do that which He permits.



The Jews rejected God, and His counsel, which would have kept them safe. The Romans were motivated by selfish considerations such as keeping the empire.



You just asked this. MM, I think it would be good to slow down. When you repeat questions you've already asked, it gives the impression of haste. I think sometimes less can be more. Let's try to boil things down to a couple of key principles and points, and discuss these, how about that?

For example, here are a couple of principles I see:

1.The view you are suggesting of the plagues has God acting in a way where He "plagues" his victims (I'm trying to quote you; you used "plague" as a verb; perhaps you'd like to suggest a different word for "victim" (?)) more and more until He compels them to do what He wants them to do in order to achieve His goals. This is accurate, isn't it?

2.I see there is one principle which explains all the violence of Scripture which is attributed to God, which is that He protects us from a thousand dangers, all unseen, and is caused to remove His protection from these dangers.

It seems to me that this quite long post can be summarized by just a couple of these points.

this is a very deep statement, or thought, green cochoa. one that i personally would have to think about and wait on the Lord for understanding of to fit in with the overall message. at first glance it would indicate a predestinarian stance but we know ellen white was not in the least a predestinarian.

im wondering how you are understanding the thought.

We are to count it "all joy" when we have trials and temptations, because these work patience in us. If we are a person by whom others are offended, perhaps we are, as it were, a part of the fire which tries and purifies their faith. However, woe unto us for being the cause of their trials! (You may interpret her statement differently, this is just one application that I see. Mrs. White herself applies this statement to multiple unrelated situations.)

Jesus needed to die for us to fulfill the plan for our redemption. It was prophesied that He would be given stripes, and would be bruised for us. Those prophecies needed to be fulfilled. God's purpose would never have been accomplished without these "acts of violence."

But Jesus is here warning, "Woe to the man by whom the offense cometh!"

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Thank you for reposting this post. I was away for awhile and did not see this one. You're right, it is the clearest answer Tom has provided. I hear Tom saying:

When God withdraws His protection, the bad things that would have happened naturally are allowed to happen within His established and enforced limits. In other words, things are not allowed to get out of hand, to run their full, natural course. The only things that happen are things God is willing to let happen. In this sense, the things that happen are, at least to some degree, arbitrary and unnatural. However, for these modified, regulated things to happen, the participation of one or more of the following is required - 1) Satan, 2) other evil beings, or 3) inanimate forces. Of course, it is assumed that in the case of number 3, inanimate forces are self-acting, that they can behave destructively independent of God and yet still be managed by God so as not to exceed His established limits. In all of this, God is not to be blamed or credited for the things that happen.

you seem to have a talent for coming up with unique interpretations to what is written.

having read this in a hurry, i can buy that.

you had me a little worried with the way you had presented it before. (you are saying that it was all their own idea and not God-prompted, right?)