I've never heard of any person using the forces of nature to destroy sinners. Therefore, I doubt anyone could be considered for incurring guilt or condemnation for doing something they are not able to. I don't think that is what Tom meant by asking by what standard. Maybe start by answering, by what standard are we measured by.

"from which he drew forth the weapons he employed in the destruction of the old world."

This seems similar, in some ways, to a previous post of using the word "punish" when the word, "punish", is what was under question. How many times does Ellen White use employ in this sense and how many times does she use result in or caused to happen? If this is the only place she uses "employ" in the sense, it would seem that you aren't considering everything. I agree, taken by itself, it does seem to support your idea. However, if there was something where she said the exact opposite, what do we conclude then?

How about both? I don't take the two to be mutually exclusive concepts, do you?

There are times when God acts, and times when God permits. However, in both cases, God is ultimately responsible.

Consider the case of a teacher: If two students get into an argument and begin treating each other disrespectfully and with "colorful" language against the classroom rules, the teacher could "punish" them one of two ways:

1) Allow the fight to escalate until they have punished themselves; or
2) Step in and punish them directly.

OR both!

In any case, the teacher is the authority figure in the classroom, and the buck stops with him/her for what goes on in the classroom--whether by direct action or permissiveness.

God is the authority for the Universe. He is ultimately responsible for allowing things to take place. It is only in light of the Great Controversy that we can comprehend why He sometimes allows things, and sometimes does not.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Did God kill Saul?

Should we believe the Bible?

I don't remember if you were involved in the earlier discussion of this exact question, but it was rather well discussed earlier, and the question answered.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

By "ultimately responsible" do you mean something more than God's permitting it to happen? For example, is God ultimately responsible for the entrance of sin into the universe? One could say yes, in the sense that He created beings who could use their free will to sin, and this would apply to Saul's death as well. Did you have something beyond this in mind? (i.e., simply permitting a thing to happen, in Saul's case)

No, this isn't a viable response. MM is asking me a question related to *my* view, not his. I know what he has in mind by the word "employ," and I disagree with his idea, and he knows this. If he wants to express his idea, that's fine, he can use whatever language he wants. If he wants to express my view, in a way that I feel I can respond to, he needs to do with language that I agree with.

Here's an example. Suppose I ask you, "GC, why do you believe that God will torture people by setting them on fire?" how could you respond to that question? You can't, because you don't perceive God's setting people on fire for the purpose of causing them excruciating pain to be torture. So I don't use that language. I use language that you can agree with, otherwise there's no point in my asking you the question.

Tom,

I think my point was that it was not Mike saying it, but rather Ellen White. If you wish to say that Ellen White is using terms you disagree with, take that up with her.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I think it is important to realize that God is in control. Period. He does not need to be called to our account for it, He is in charge, and not us.



For the same reasons, we cannot think to understand His wrath which is yet to be revealed.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Well discussed and answered?
I didn't perceive it as so.

Should we believe the Bible? Which part of it about how Saul died?

Either God killed Saul or He didn't. They are mutually exclusive concepts putting it in MMs frame of idea.

But, God is willing to take responsibility since He could step in and preserve Saul, stop satan, prevent free choice, refused to create that which could reject Him.

But, if God said He killed Saul, but didn't actually kill Saul, could we conclude there may be other places in the Bible where it says God did certain things, but really, as in Saul's case, God was driven away and results happened?

...then we have a problem, don't we?

"God is not a man, that he should lie" (Num. 23:19). That should be sufficient to remove this question.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.