I think the foundational accusation of Satan is that God is arbitrary in both the Laws that He enacts and thus inherently, in the judgements to uphold this Law.



I disagree with the first part of your reply here, but it is indeed saved by the latter part. Indeed the issue here is for us to make it clear why this evil is happening in our world and thus, in response to the first part of your reply, why a Good, Loving and All Mighty God is allowing for this to happen; even permitting Satan to live. Hence the Remnant Church’s GC revelation and understanding and the inclusive mandate to share this foundational and enlightening Truth to the world, thus making crystal clear to all ‘the loving character of God’.



In a ultimate sense yes since cancer could have been prevented and cured by the Fruit of Life. However if one has “chosen” by such directly causing unhealthy acts such as smoking to expose themselves to getting cancer, then God may still also have allowed this by having banned the preventive healing found in Fruit of Life. It was indeed such sinful acts that resulted in the banning of access to that healing tree.



-“Violence” as in the act of energetic, even supernatural force: copiously, manifestly “Yes”. Many capital deaths in the Bible involved this type of “violence”

- “Violence” as in e.g., a thug stabbing an innocent person to death because they refuse to give them their money, i.e., an act that is for something that violates God’s own Law/Character in any way: definitely “No”.

So in these cases, God’s capital punishment are clearly not acts of murder and thus not ‘maliciously/illegally/sinfully violent’.

(We, of course, as discussed before, do not have the same understanding on what is the arbitrary act in DA 764 would be in relation to: I see it’s the full development of Satan’s plan; you see that it is straightly the presence of sin itself).

In the Bible, I read that (potentially billions of) sinners in the end will (many at least) (1) be forcefully cast alive by God into the Lake of Fire (Rev 19:20). The rest will at least be also directly struck dead by Christ (vs. 21). That is however only the “Here and Now” judgement for them, not to mention the “bird’s feast” (Rev 19:17, 18). (2) Following the Millenium (Rev 20:1-10) the wicked dead are all raised, adjudged and once again thrown into the lake of Fire, for now their “Second Death” (Rev 20:11-15), where they will be supernaturally enabled to live for some time in those supposed to be instantaneously destructive fires to suffer their due punishment, as depicted in Luke 12:45-48.

So both of these acts are “violent” i.e., forceful and supernatural acts of God in satisfying His wrath. Those prophetic facts must also be taken into consideration with the statements that the brightness of the glory of God itself strikes the wicked dead and consumes them. Could it be that God will actually only do this for certain sinners who were less guilty than others?? Maybe “no” as shown in the involved descriptions of Revelation.

It must be added here that this view actually does not contradict 2 Thess 2:8 which literally says’



So it may be here that God will opt to not allow His Glory to destroy the wicked, though it could, so that they can survive to duly feel His wrath upon them and their sinfulness.

(In my current eschatological understanding of end time prophecies, I see how this all is perfectly feasible as stated as these depiction in Revelation are symbolic prior to Christ’s Second Advent and literal, afterwards.)

No one questions (i.e., no Christians) that God doesn't have malicious intent.



To me that concept that God *ever* acts to defend His interests is contrary to agape. Agape is by its nature other-centered. God always acts in the best interest of others, regardless of the cost to Himself. This was exemplified by Christ on the cross.

Satan argued, in Eden, that God had His own interests in mind in prohibiting Adam and Eve from eating of the TOTKOGAE. He said they would be as goods, the implication being that God didn't want this to happen, as that would be bad for God (and good for Adam and Eve). The temptation was predicated on the idea that God looks after His own interests, to the detriment of the interests of His creatures. The reality is that God looks after the interests of others, even His enemies, to the detriment of His own.



The problem here is that if the problem is sin, and that's what needs to be demonstrated, then anything artificial that God does to cause pain/injury/death is not demonstrating that sin is the problem, but the opposite. Only by it being seen that sin is the problem can it be seen that sin is the problem. This is what the chapter "It Is Finished" (from which we have discussed the last page) is discussing throughout. It wasn't until the cross that this principle was clearly seen by the (loyal) angels (and unfallen worlds). This is when the Great Controversy was won, as far as they are concerned.

The ones I cited were dealing with the destruction of Jerusalem. The killing, and burning of cities, and sending of armies were violent acts, and actually did happen. God was portrayed as doing these things, but what really happened is He permitted them to happen.




Indeed. And we see what the principle involved in the destruction of Jerusalem was. The wrath of God was inflicted by means of His permitting those who rejected Him to experience the result of their choice. This is the same principle at work in the judgment, as described in DA 764. We even see the same language used and the same Scriptures quoted ("Thou hast destroyed thyself.")



Right. The use of force is contrary to the principles of His government. Compelling power is found only under the government of the enemy.



He had no choice, given the constraints of free will.



It's not possible to compel people to do right things, unless one has a very superficial idea as to what doing right things means.



Agreed. My point is that this episode illustrates how God always acts; it's not a special case.



A good insight.



The following comes to mind:

The first chapter of "The Desire of Ages" has influenced my thinking a lot in regards to the Great Controversy theme. Unfortunately, the Desire of Ages is not loading well right now, so I can't copy/paste what I had in mind, but basically it says that self-serving began with Lucifer, who desired to be first. In order to gain the homage of God's creatures, he misrepresented God's character.

Satan used the law as a ruse, a means to an end, but his beef was always with God. He hated Christ, and wanted to get back at him, and the most effective way he could think of so doing was to level the spurious claims against God that he did.



You're disagreeing with the following?





I think you're over-complicating this. It has nothing to do with the tree of life. If you smoke, you may get cancer, because of the characteristics of cigarettes. This is an example of a free will choice leading to an undesirable consequence. If all had followed God's counsels, these things wouldn't happen. God is not responsible for these things happening, but they follow the law of cause and effect.



I was going to say this one isn't an issue, but the plagues of Egypt come to mind. Many have the idea of God's acting like a criminal wanting protection money, using more and more force until He gets His way. That would be similar to what you're suggesting here.

I don't believe God is violent, nor that violence is part of God's government, in either of the two ways you mentioned. I don't see any hint of this in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.



Is any kind of violence a part of God's government? If so, did this part of God's government exist from the beginning, and just wasn't revealed, like grace and mercy? So we could say that God was always violent, but this aspect of His character wasn't seen, until sin came about (similarly to mercy and grace).

Seems to me that even questioning God with “why” to a personal tragedy, even by Christians, which inherently implies, ‘is God acting unfairly towards me?’ inherently brings into issue of the question of whether or not God is acting “maliciously” i.e., “out of feeling a need to see others suffer” and/or ‘without just/due cause.’



Simply said, how is ordering the death of anyone, e.g., “a stubborn child” (Deut 21:18-21) in their own “best interest”?? God interest is to have a sinless universe. So His acts are ultimately towards that interest which in itself is for the best of all of His creatures. So even in allowing sinful men to live, that is to serve as a tangible GC demonstration, for those who will be redeemed, why His ways should be followed.



Well then... Satan lied. Indeed he perverted this protective stance of God here. A parent similarly protecting their child is not only acting with their best interest in mind, but also, ultimately so they will not have to be held responsible for the wrong acts that this child may commit by being exposed to such evils. However when that child becomes legally responsible and also, as long as they are no longer under the “parent’s roof”, then such prohibitions are usually no longer imposed or policed. So clearly, Satan lied in misrepresenting God’s actual intentions in doing this preventive act, for the good of Adam and Eve and the whole universe. Satan just wanted a foothold to be permitted to continue His rebellion or, if Adam and Eve had resisted, He probably would have been destroyed a long time ago.



It seems to me that in the final paragraph of DA 764, the titling phrase “It is Finish” is speaking of the necessity for this GC to go on, was here finished at the cross and soon this decreed judgement would be executed.

Again my view and understanding of DA 764 is that the angels did not understand the sinfulness of Satan’s sin, and thus that it was not deserving of death. However I see that they fully understood this at least by the debacle in the antedelluvians needing the Flood to redress things. What they pointed came to fully understand at the Cross, i.e., 4000 years after sin, was that, and just how much, Satan actually hated Jesus and wanted Him dead. That is what was umasked and resulted in the Angels utterly rejecting him (DA 761.2)



Still, given the undeniable sovereignty of God in all and any matter, I see that what is meant here is ‘Thou hast destroyed thyself by the means that God has ultimately allowed.’ God does not always have to directly cause destruction when there are perfectly natural means that will naturally bring about this result, still means that He has the power, if He wills, to prevent and/or defeat.



I actually understand that God can use force (i.e., a definition of “violence”) to forcefully bring about a judgement (e.g., the Flood and Sodom and Gomorrah) and not that God uses force to “compel” people. So I was saying here that if God had permitted His Spirit to “strive” with these unbelieving Jews here to make them e.g., ‘see that paying their taxes was the best choice,’ he would have, given their decided rebelliousness against His will, been “compelling” them to do the right thing = His will here. If such a dilemma had been righteous, then surely God would have acted to influence a choice for good amongst such would-be sincere seekers of His will. However they were acting out of pure and callous rebelliousness.



The deliberate ‘veiled teaching’ approach of Jesus (Matt 13:10-15) all directly based upon the desire for physical destruction in the OT in Isa 6:9-13 and the later “blindness in part” that occurred on Ethnic Jews (e.g., Rom 11:25) all surely greatly contributed to this final utter end. Therefore He was indeed “instrumental” in this end. He could have easily done the same thing with His disciples who in many ways ‘just didn’t get it’ until after the resurrection.



And... didn’t God, e.g., “compel” the right thing to be done by Moses and his previously disobedient wife, when He was going to strike Moses dead if he persisted in his disobedience. (Exo 4:24-26). If God actually wanted Moses dead then, rather than actually be forced to do what was right, Moses would have died. Actual Biblical Truth is not determined by mere philosophically-based maxims but by all that is written! (2 Tim 3:16).



I do not see how ‘one’ development can become an ‘illustration of how God always acts’. The Divinely active and direct Sodom and Gomorrah destruction (Gen 19:24, 25), indeed with God and two Angels having bodily made a trip to Earth for this is a prominent examples of how God can actively bring about the results and judgement of sin. As it will also occur with the Lake of Fire destruction of the wicked.



Promotion: That was taken from my book on the 70 Weeks.



In keeping with the ‘healthy fear of God’ understanding in the Bible, indeed pivotal to the final warning to be given to the world (Rev 14:7), the following ‘more to the point’ (= exegetically pertinent) passages comes to mind: Job 28:28; Psa 111:10; Pro 1:7; 9:10; 15:33; Isa 11:2; 33:6.

As your cited SOP statement, moreover, actually says nothing against having this Biblically encouraged “healthy fear of God”, I can only see your opposition to this as also being merely as ‘how you prefer things to be; how they should be’ and not what the Bible actually teaches! Needless to say, at least for me, that I personally am not persuaded by what is not Biblical, however surfacely righteous one may think they are.

I do not believe Jesus, while here in the flesh, revealed everything there is to know about "His strange act". I also believe Jesus began revealing what the Father is like in the OT before His incarnation and continued doing so while here in the flesh. Jesus said, "I have many things I'd like to share with you but none of you are ready. I'll finish sharing it with you through the Holy Spirit later on."

What I really keep hoping is that you'll honor my request to address the two newly worded questions posted above. I realize you think you have adequately addressed them, but after all these years I still have absolutely no idea what you believe. It would do my heart and soul wonders if you were to explain your thoughts in the clearest of terms possible. "Go ahead, make my day."

Tom, for your convenience:

1. In the OT, why did Jesus command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle?

2. In the OT, why did Jesus command godly people to kill ungodly people through the execution of capital punishment?

Actually yes. As God can and has prevented evil, e.g., to safeguard Israel, He therefore is fully responsible for its occurrence, indeed simply by removing this protection, choosing not to have mercy. So I do not see this as “the argument of the enemy” per se, but rather just his cover, and that by calculatedly to this end, having chosen to remain in the shadows while letting, the already manifested and more prominent God, wholly take the blame. Again, Satan’s GC position is that man can live independently of God and if the Tree of Life had not been removed, as I understand it, such ‘sinful perpetual life, despite knowing good and evil, and indeed practising evil, would have been possible (Gen 3:22-24). So Satan’s posturing here is to make God responsible for the adverse effects of sin, all stemming from God withdrawal of the life quality maintaining tree. And towards this blaming end, he does indeed try to complicate matters, now have nothing to lose, but rather many more, upset-with-God, people to gain.

So in summary of my Theological understanding here: I do not see that ‘God is not responsible for why evil happens as sin is this why but solely, in an ultimate since, that this evil is permitted to be effectuated, as he can easily prevent it, and all that stemming from the decision to ban access to the Tree of Life to sinful man and curtail its effect upon nature outside of the Garden of Eden. So it is solely in that since that I say “responsible for” i.e., ‘having allowed it’ but certainly not for actively doing it. The Devil in many ways does that. Still much of our various personal and planetary adversities are natural occurrences of a continually degenerating nature from its once perfect state. E.g., God does not cause earthquakes or hurricanes, an ageing planet with damaged and shifting tectonic plates natural cause earthquakes, and an uneven climate causes hurricanes to form.



I actually am not, in my understanding. With cancer, many people live healthy lives and still get cancer. That all really stems back to the absence of the Fruit of Life in our lives. Cigarette smoking is something else entirely and may be a cause-and-effect issue. However many diseases are not, but just a natural consequence of our bodily frailty after so many years of being removed from the Tree of Life and our once perfect state.



While the plagues are an example of God’s use of force, I actually do not see them as an act of compelling since if God wanted to compel Pharoah to obey Him, He would not have hardened his heart at all. Seems to me that God wanted to completely break the Spirits of Pharaoh so that Israel would have an unobstructed exodus and also a financially rewarded one as it indeed came to pass.



Due to a seeming confusion of understandings I suggest/move for an abandonment of the term “violence” here for instead ‘use of force’ as this is supposed to be how this term is being used here. So in that sense, I see God, in many instances, as “using force”, e.g., supernatural acts, to effectuate a judgement action and not always just letting nature take its course..



If violence is “use of force” here, then yes.



Of course, prior to sin: “No”; however after sin, by variously protective necessity: “Yes”.



(Same response as above.)

-In regards to mercy and grace, it was not prominent in the OT as the spiritual discretion needed to implement it was not allowed by the Law. The Law was supposed to be a School Master to probably inculcate in believers the proper application of mercy and grace (cf. Matt 5:17, 18ff). Only the believers in Christ who thus had a proper understanding of the Law and its honourableness, through His Gospel crash course, were able to properly grasp and apply mercy and grace.

Nonetheless, by God annually forgiving all of the sins of Israelites in the Passover ceremony and the blotting them out in the Day of Atonement, “mercy and grace” were also quite present in the OT. Of course, God, as I see it, for most tangible, inherent life and death reasons, commanded that the commitance of various “high-handed” sins were to be immediately, capitally punished. However most lesser tangibly affecting sins, were mercifully dealt with through the Sanctuary system.

NJK,

Excellent post. Well said.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Tom,

Will you know everything that it is possible to know about God the moment you see Jesus when He comes?

How about after 3.5 years in Heaven with Him?

God bless,

Green Cochoa.