I think I answered that above, didn't I? I said:



and that I thought these were the principles involved.



From GC 614:



This is what I think is happening. Specifically, the holy angels cease to hold back the winds of strife, and what happened in Jerusalem repeats itself, but on a larger scale.



I don't understand your response. I asked, " Wouldn't separating oneself from the fountain of life result in death? And isn't this something the sinner himself does?" This is talking about the destruction of wicked, which happens at the second resurrection. I don't understand the reference to GC 614, which is dealing with something else, nor your questions about evil angels, which also seem to be discussing something else.



Ah, you're asking if the destruction that comes upon the wicked happens because God withdraws His protection, if this counts as justice. Well, was the destruction of Jerusalem an example of God's justice? I note that EGW stated, in commenting upon that event, that



Notice especially the last sentence. So if what happened to Jerusalem is an example of God's justice, and this justice occurred as a result of God's withdrawing His protection, I see no reason why the same thing couldn't happen for the later destruction that occurs. And, indeed, EGW makes the explicit comparison between the two events.




You're asking if evil angels are willing to do something entirely different than God is willing to permit them to do? Sure, why wouldn't they be?



You're asking if evil angels are able to do more than God allows them to do? I don't understand why you're asking this question. Suppose I said yes, they are. That would mean that evil angels are more powerful than God, wouldn't it? So you're asking me if I believe evil angels are more powerful than God. No, I don't. I think God is more powerful than evil angels.

I don't think anything can happen that God does not permit. However, the fact that God permits something doesn't mean He is pleased that the thing occurred. Anytime God permits a sin to be committed, for example, this happens contrary to His will.



God is not the author of death and destruction! That's Satan! Satan is the author of sin and all its results. DA 471. So since death and destruction is something of which Satan is the author, thinking of Satan's work as of God seems wrong to me.



No, but they are related events.



I think GC 614 describes it well. Since I already quoted it above, I won't quote it again. Anytime God permits Satan to have sway, or disasters to occur, regardless of the cause, He does to reluctantly. Of course. God is love. He is not willing that any should perish.

Do you really want to leave it up to me to ascertain what you believe? Okay, I'll give it a go. Yes, you believe the plea may be made that God is too kind, loving, and merciful to consume sinners with fire.

I see no one has presented any argument against what I concluded, most likely because it was so clearly and obviously stated, that God's strange work happens at "His intercession in the sanctuary". This is before His second coming, before the 1000 years, before His third coming. His strange Act is NOT burning, torturing, and killing men, women, and children at their second death.

Lest anyone say that is only one place, another is:
"Then there will be a law against the Sabbath of God's creation, and then it is that God will do His "strange work" in the earth.--7BC 910 (1886). {LDE 130.1} (Last Day Events)"

Now, what is His Strange Act? MM said it is the execution of justice and judgment. But what is His justice and judgment? The GC paragraph says His wrath is poured out. But what is His wrath? She says the plagues of Egypt were of similar character to the more terrible and extensive judgments which are to fall upon the world just before the final deliverance of God's people. The plagues of Egypt were "judgments".

A few paragraphs later she says, "While the wicked are dying from hunger and pestilence, angels will shield the righteous and supply their wants." Would this mean the angels don't shield the wicked? Meaning, if God is actively doing something to the wicked, why would He need to shield the righteous. There would be no need to shield them if He was "smiting" the wicked. This is only a withdrawing of His shield from them, the mercy that in times past which was mingled with His "wrath".

Notice this from The Faith I Live By: Did you catch that last part? "and it will be a dreadful death, for they will have to feel the agony that Christ felt upon the cross." Seems like she's saying that Christ felt the wrath of God, His strange Act, upon the cross. So, to say that Christ did not experience what sinners will experience doesn't seem to fit.

Next page:
So now we know when God's strange act is, when there is a law against the Sabbath, when His intercession ceases. It looks obvious to me what His strange act is, the justice and judgment of the wicked which is withdrawing protection from them and no longer shielding nor sheltering them. Is this obvious to others or are there objections?

Thank you for answering my question. I'm glad we can at least agree on these two fundamental points.


We agree God is responsible for establishing and enforcing the limits within which evil angels work. When evil men and nations exceed the limits of God's mercy, justice requires judgment. God is not at liberty to do nothing. To do nothing is to encourage rebelliousness.


God will not, cannot, ignore iniquity. Comes a time when justice demands destruction. If God were to do nothing, the law would condemn Him as an accomplice. So, what does God do? Sometimes, but not always, He withdraws His protection and permits evil angels to cause death and destruction within the limits He establishes and enforces.


God was responsible in the sense He chose not to protect the rebellious Jews from being defeated in battle. He did not permit it until after they passed the limits of His mercy. He also worked to ensure their punishment did not exceed the limits He established.

I hope you don’t mind me consolidating your comments. It sounds like you’re saying when evil men or nations pass the limits of mercy, God reluctantly withdraws His protection and permits evil angels to cause the death and destruction commanded by God. In the final analysis, though, Satan is blamed for the death and destruction commanded by God.

“The Lord does not delight in vengeance, though he executes judgment upon the transgressors of his law. He is forced to do this, to preserve the inhabitants of the earth from utter depravity and ruin. In order to save some, he must cut off those who have become hardened in sin. Says the prophet Isaiah: "The Lord shall rise up as in mount Perazim, he shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that he may do his work, his strange work, and bring to pass his act, his strange act." The work of wrath and destruction is indeed a strange, unwelcome work for Him who is infinite in love. {ST, August 24, 1882 par. 15}

"To our merciful God the act of punishment is a strange act." You seem to be suggesting the final judgment will not involve “his strange act” "the act of punishment". How do you see the following description fitting in with your conclusion:


Do any of these acts strike you as strange?

This certainly isn't the way I would put it. This sounds like wanting to make God responsible, which is what I've been taking issue with. The SOP makes it clear that Satan is the responsible party, not God. God has to take action to prevent Satan from killing everybody, or else there would be no Great Controversy, so God does this. So I would say that God is responsible for preventing Satan from going too far.



This is indeed a problem that God has. If God does too much, then people do not see the sinfulness of sin. If God doesn't do enough, then everybody gets killed. So God has to prevent Satan from going too far, but can't prevent so much that the sinfulness of sin is not seen.



If God ignored it, it would destroy everybody. God usually is constantly preventing the destruction it causes from occurring. His "strange work" is when He ceases doing so, for the reasons you are pointing out.



Yes, God cannot continue to prevent the destruction which sin causes to occur.



God is always doing something. When you say "do nothing," this is denying that sin/Satan has destructive power, and that God is constantly at work to prevent this destruction. This is a problem I have with the view you hold, that it underestimates (or doesn't recognize at all) the destructive power of sin/Satan.



This, again, makes it sound like God is that bad guy. Satan is the bad guy.



God is not responsible. Satan is responsible. This is the point of GC 36:



Satan is the one responsible for the destruction that occurred. Satan, the great deceiver, seeks to conceal what? "his own work". Who is responsible? The one whose work it is: Satan.

God prevents Satan from going to far, but the will involved is the will of Satan, not the will of God. Notice: "Satan was permitted to rule them according to his will."

Please be reasonable. I have explained in great detail what I believe, point by point. I've quoted GC 36, and 37. I presume you agree with the passages. I presume you disagree with the red highlighted views. So do I.

No. Please consider the following:



Please notice what the "great deceiver" is seeking to do, and also the mistake that's often made.



No. Please consider GC 36.

Should one think certain things are strange or should one consider when she defines as His "strange act"?