Here's the rest of the questions you haven't addressed:

1. Above you wrote, "God does (a thousand different) things to prevent sin/Satan causing death and destruction". How does sin, which you say is not a sentient being, cause death and destruction?

2. Are you referring to the results of sinning like smoking causes cancer?

3. And, are you suggesting God need only cease preventing it and sin and/or Satan will cause death and destruction?

4. Please name a few contrasting ways this has played out. Thank you.

5. However, there is another demonstration of force and violence which reflected the "act of punishment". Ellen wrote - "The storm increased in violence until water seemed to come from heaven like mighty cataracts. . . Jets of water would burst up from the earth with indescribable force, throwing massive rocks hundreds of feet into the air, and then they would bury themselves deep in the earth. {SR 66.2}

As you know millions of men, women, and children perished as a result of this single "act of punishment". Powerful forces and violence served to execute the justice and judgment of God Almighty.

Was it considered more or less forceful and violent when the "act of punishment" involved God withdrawing His protection and permitting evil angels to influence Roman soldiers to kill thousands of men, women, and children in 70 AD?

6. I don't know, you tell me.

7. Do you think Jesus withdraws His protection and permits evil angels to cause death and destruction that the resulting death and destruction constitutes Satan exercising force and violence?

The questions above refer to time after evil angels were cast down to earth and before A&E were created. Please answer them with this in mind. Thank you.


Please post inspired passages which confirm your hunch "that not all of the loyal angels . . . pleaded with the unfaithful ones. . . some were in the middle." Thank you.


We both agree the death of Jesus would have been unnecessary had A&E succeeded in Eden. After they failed to disprove Satan's accusations about God and His law, it fell to Jesus and the 144,000 to settle the issues surrounding the great controversy.

By the way, do you think the loyal angels who pleaded with the disgruntled angels were unsettled about the issues surrounding great controversy before and after A&E failed?

Satan has raised doubts about God's character, and God's government. God determined the best way of meeting these questions was to allow time for character of the respective governments and protagonists to be seen.

I don't think your questions can be well answered by "yes" or "no" responses.



Just look at the ones which discuss this. You'll see that they don't say that all the holy angels were doing this.



You think the angels are dependent upon Jesus Christ + the 144,000? No way!

First of all, just from the standpoint of common sense, this makes no sense. Jesus Christ was God. If the angels couldn't "get it" from the revelation of Jesus Christ, there's certainly no way the 144,000 would convince them.

Also, EGW writes that only by looking to the cross are the angels secure. This isn't referring to the 144,000, but to Christ. The whole context of the statement that deals with the security of the angels is discussing the cross and Jesus Christ. Not a word of it mentions the 144,000.



I think they were less unsettled. But none of them were secure until the cross, according to EGW's statement.

By the way, you didn't answer my question. I asked you you think she wrote that the angels were only secure by looking to the cross. You didn't address this.

I addressed this.



You're asking if God prevents smoking from causing cancer? If so, no, I didn't have that in mind.



I would say GC 35-37 explains this, that EGW is suggesting this.



The destruction of Jerusalem. The seven last plagues.



Looks rhetorical.



This doesn't look like a question to me.



This doesn't make grammatical sense.

Please answer each question. Thank you.


The following passages make it clear being in the "middle" (your word) is not possible.

"The gospel message admits of no neutrality. It counts all men as decidedly for the truth or against it; if they do not receive and obey its teachings, they are its enemies. {LP 240.2}

"Many have tried neutrality in a crisis, but they have failed in their purpose. No one can maintain a neutral ground. Those who endeavor to do this will fulfill Christ's words, "No man can serve two masters. {TDG 240.2}

In Christ's work there can be no neutrality, no middle ground He declared, "He that is not with me, is against me, and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." {1888 911.2}


"Christ in you, the hope of glory." In essence, it is Jesus continuing to settle the issues surrounding the great controversy through the 144,000.


All FMAs were dependent upon Jesus succeeding on the cross. Had He failed, God would have been forced to destroy all of them. However, the fact Jesus' death wouldn't have been necessary had A&E succeeded in Eden proves the loyal FMAs did not require it to be rendered eternally secure.

Please elaborate.


2 is related to 1. How does sin cause death and destruction?


Please elaborate.


How did sin cause the death of Jews and the destruction of Jerusalem? The seven last plagues, by the way, have not "played out" yet. At any rate, how will sin cause them? What sin do?


Do you think it was forceful and violent when the "act of punishment" involved God withdrawing His protection and permitting evil angels to influence Roman soldiers to kill thousands of men, women, and children in 70 AD?


Tell me your answer to 5.


Do you think Jesus withdraws His protection and permits evil angels to cause death and destruction? If so, do you think the resulting death and destruction represents Satan exercising force and violence?

I wrote several paragraphs, several times, on the questions. I've answered them. I just said:





The angels all made decisions. This doesn't mean that all holy angels were involved in convincing all unfaithful angels not to rebel.



This is much better put than previously.



Them who? Forced by whom?



Christ's death was a sufficient but not necessary condition is what you're saying. We're not told about necessity, regarding which I've already expressed my opinion. However, we are told about sufficiency, which is what matters. The angels are only secure in looking at the cross. This is what the quote says. I've asked you several times why you think this is the case, but you haven't responded, I don't think.

Look at what I wrote please.



I couldn't possibly do justice to this in a short answer, but here's one way. The root of sin is selfishness. Selfishness causes one to do anything, regardless of the cost to others, to maintain one's spot, including cause death and destruction.



GC 35-37 says it fine. I'd just be copying and pasting sentences from that.



The principles of GC 35-37 explain this.



This is a really weirdly phrased question. Are you asking if Satan acted destructively? Or the Roman soldiers? Or something else?



Not sure what you're asking. I've been asking for clarification for awhile now.



I think this happens under the conditions explained in GC 35-37.



If Satan exercises force and violence, I think that constitutes Satan's exercising force and violence. Is this what you're asking?

True. But this insight doesn’t address the questions above. Here’s how I imagine you answering them:

1. Do you think the loyal angels were unsure of God? Yes, they were unsure. That’s why God permitted the great controversy to play out.

2. Were they unclear as to His traits and attributes of character? Yes, they were unclear. It wasn’t clear to them that Satan’s accusations were untrue.

3. Were they afraid of Him? Not really.

4. Did they somehow cease believing what they believed about God's character as they pleaded with the disgruntled angels in heaven? To some degree.

5. Were they unsure of Satan's accusations regarding the law? Most definitely.


What do you mean by “some were in the middle” regarding their decision not to side with Satan?


If Jesus settled everything regarding the great controversy on the cross, why didn’t it end at the cross? Are there unsettled issues Jesus must settle through the 144,000 for the great controversy to end?


“Them” refers to “all FMAs”. “Forced” refers to justice.


The death of Jesus was necessary to satisfy the demands of law and justice. His death established and confirmed the immutability of law and justice. “The wages of sin is death”, therefore, “death must come in consequence of man’s sin.” God was not at liberty to disregard the death penalty and save sinners. To redeem sinners He had to pay the redemption price, namely, the death of Jesus.

Are you saying sin/selfishness causes death and destruction? If so, how? Nothing you have said thus far explains how. Please take the time to explain how sin/selfishness causes death and destruction. I realize you think you have made it clear dozens of times, but please take pity on me and explain it in detailed terms in your own words (don't just post quotes and assume they explain it).


Therein lies the problem. GC 35-37 says God withdrew His protection and Roman soldiers killed thousands of men, women, and children. Is this what you mean when you say God acts now to prevent the full, inevitable result of sin? If so, how does this insight jive with the insight you mentioned above, namely, that sin/selfishness causes death and destruction?


See response above.


You have made it abundantly clear you believe God works to supernaturally prevent sinners from experiencing the inevitable result of sin. But it is very unclear what you believe the inevitable result of sin is.

Your constant reference to GC 35-37 suggests you believe the inevitable result of sin involves God withdrawing His protection and permitting either 1) the forces of nature, or 2) evil men, or 3) evil angels to causes death and destruction in which men, women, and children alike suffer and die.

If neither one of three things named above represents the inevitable result of sin, what, then, do you think does? If the inevitable result of sin involves God causing the wicked to comprehend the contrast between His character and their sinfulness, what, then, do you call the death and destruction that results when God permits either one of the three things named above to play out?

By the way, how does God ensure sinners suffer in duration and in proportion to their sinfulness without dying too soon or prematurely? In other words, how is it possible for some sinners to die after one hour of suffering whereas others are able to suffer for several days before dying? Why doesn't an equivalent degree of sinfulness cause everyone to die at the same time? For example, why does one white lie cause death almost immediately, whereas, millions of heinous sins does not cause death until after many days? And, who or what is their source of life while they are suffering unimaginable agony and anguish?

Also, when the "act of punishment" involves Jesus permitting evil angels to cause death and destruction in accordance with the limits He sets and enforces, when He "executes justice and judgment" in this manner, does it mean He "uses His enemies" to "employ" force and violence?