Kland, nobody is denying God employed the withdraw and permit principle in the OT. The question is - Did He ever cause death and destruction Himself (as opposed to allowing others to cause it)? And, as Tom pointed out above, Is God less culpable if He allows others to cause death and destruction within His established and enforced limits?

You think so because you hold to a compatibilist view of free will. That Ellen White did not is clear by such statements as the following:





Given your idea, compatibilist free will, the idea that heaven was imperiled is impossible. That is, given how you view things, it's impossible that heaven was ever in any peril. Yet Ellen White says it was. Therefore her view was not compatibilist, which means the things you are suggesting were compatible aren't.



She we could. God could make this known. In fact, this is exactly what you are asserting.



Reality doesn't change. I don't know what "rules" you are talking about.

Ellen White certainly didn't have any of this in mind in her statement in ST 1/20/90. This whole discussion is tangential to the points she made there.

(More later)

I don't know what you're saying here. Is it any different than what I mentioned? That is, that, as EGW stated, all that man can know of God was revealed in Christ's life and character, speaking of when He was here with us in the flesh?



Really? How does Ellen White's statement that all that man can know of God was revealed in His life and character, and her statement that what He taught He lived, imply what you are suggesting?



Here's her statement:



I think you're trying to make an invalid application of this.



I addressed this argument in detail previously. That the Holy Spirit would teach them things Christ couldn't or didn't does not imply that Ellen White's statement that all that man can know of God was revealed by Christ's life and teaching is incorrect. I explained why.

M: Again, two things Jesus did not reveal through His actions was employing the withdraw and permit principle or commanding people to stone sinners to death.

T: I think there's a better way of looking at this. Think of things in positive terms. What *did* Christ reveal? He revealed the Father. What *was* His mission, His purpose? To reveal the Father. Did He accomplish this? Yes, He did. Was there anything lacking in His revelation of the Father? No, there was not.

If one starts from this standpoint, by faith accepting that Christ did do what He said He did (and the SOP as well) -- reveal the Father -- then it should be possible to deal with any questions or doubts that might come up, related to isolated incidents that may be difficult to understand.

M:Jesus taught the truth regarding the wrath of God. It's just that He didn't employ the withdraw and permit principle of destroying sinners, nor did He command people to stone sinners to death.[/quote]

Nor teach this. What He taught He lived.



What Jesus revealed of God does.



Far from understanding everything God does, I can't even understand why you do what you do. For example, why you ask a question like this. I don't think "God did such things." I think the things God did are the things Jesus Christ did.



I'd suggest you quote something I've said, and ask me about that. There is such a convoluted and inaccurate embedding of the ideas I've been sharing that I'll just comment that I've given you a suggestion on how to go about things. I'll repeat it.



My suggested approach is to start with Christ, see what He revealed about God, and then, with an understanding of God's character as revealed by Christ as a base, *then* (and only then) investigate the incidents in Scripture which appear to have God acting violently.

We're just going to keep speaking past each other as long as you don't do this, because your view of God's character is so different. You see that God can do violent things (although you don't label them as such, but things which, if anyone else besides God did them you would call violent; I don't know of a short way of describing this other than "violent") without acting contrary to His character. Based on the person of Christ, these ideas are from my point of view impossible. I don't have to understand exactly what happened in every case to know this. All I have to understand is what Christ was like. God was, and is, like that. He is not violent, and does not do violent things, like purposely cause people to suffer excruciating pain by setting them on fire, or inflicting them with diseases, or shooting them, or knifing them, or any such thing. Violence is contrary to God's character. God is not violent.

I am. I've been arguing against this idea since the first time you said it. I've repeatedly pointed this out.



Another question that comes to mind is why you keep asserting that God employed the withdraw and permit principle in the OT as if this were something which I was asserting, given that I've so often explained to you that this is not what I believe.

Why are you doing this?



I didn't "point this out." I asked a question, for the hopes of having the difference clarified for people who don't understand the difference.

Maybe I need you to clarify this for me. Maybe the specifics is what I'm missing?


Well, as the references show, there is no difference as God fully is willing to accept responsibility when he allows things to happen. Yet at the same time, it is different.

For example, if you see someone standing in the street and a car is approaching from behind them and you do nothing to help them get out of the way....well that is sad. However, it is different than if they were standing on the curb and you pushed them in the path just as the car comes up. But, either way, the results are the same. And most people would blame you.

Yet, what if you were waving, yelling, pointing, and trying to pull them out of the way, and they keep swinging a baseball bat at you until the point you finally let them reap the result?

What the SOP says is the following:



This says that God was "caused" to withdraw His protection. Put this way, as the SOP put it, it is clear that the active element which resulted in destruction was the action of the Jews themselves. To say that God "employs the withdraw and permit principle" in order to destroy implies that God is the active element. This is how MM sees things, but not how I do. MM sees that God always destroys, but sometimes He does it one way, but sometimes another.

So I've objected to his putting things this way, instead of how the SOP puts it, because it obscures what's really happening. It's not that God says, "I must destroy. How will I do it? Oh, I know! I'll withdraw My protection." but God is *caused* to remove His protection.

Ah. I guess I missed the weasel word. Got to watch those things.

As in:
God's gonna get you. Sometimes it's an outright direct act. Other times it's more of a sly way. Other times he uses nature or evil people to get you (as in they have no choice for their evil actions - God made them do it) But, either way, if you don't fall in line exactly, you're goin' down. And if you do stay in line, there's seven virgins waitin' for you.

I guess a question similar to causing/permitting death and destruction would be to ask is there a difference between God removing His protection because of His choice or because of our choice. He could force protection on us, so if He removed it for either reason, is there a difference.

In the case of Job, He removed it for His choice. In the case of the destruction of Jerusalem, He did so because others caused Him to do so.

I'd say there is a difference. In the second case, there's a cause and effect relationship. In the first case, God took an action to allow His character to be revealed, rather an extraordinary one, as it could so easily be misunderstood.

Tom, it is clear in the Bible and the SOP that God has employed the withdraw and permit principle. It also clear Jesus didn't employ it while here in the flesh. And, God is not judged by the same standard we are.

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. {LDE 241.2}

NOTE: In both cases mentioned above it was God, not Satan, who caused death and destruction.

Kland, when you were born, did you ask God to protect you from the natural, inevitable effect of sinning (emotional agony ending in death)? Or, did He do it without your permission? Perhaps your parents gave God permission. If so, what about all the children of unbelieving parents? Does God force His protection on them?

PS - I don't recall you ever explaining what you believe will cause the wicked to suffer in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness at the end of time. Also, what is their life source as they suffer so? That is, what keeps them alive so they do not die prematurely (before suffering for each and every sin)?