I think this goes along with the idea, expressed by the SOP, that it is according to God's purposes to do things that He would not otherwise have done because of prayer. There are a number of examples of disaster being avoided because of intercessory prayer.

It seems to me that God acts according to certain "rules" in the Great Controversy. Prayer evidently enables Him to do things He couldn't do otherwise. Not that He couldn't do so if He chose to, of course, since God is all powerful, but God chooses not to intervene in such cases at times.

Thanks for the reminder Daryl. Like in society, when one does not think they’ll get fairness/justice from ‘established Law Enforcement’, especially if based upon concrete past incidents, they’ll tend to take matters into their own hands instead of calling upon them. Notwithstanding, I’ll deferentially consider, and make us of, that provision, if/when applicable, in the future.

Tom’s later comment found those underlying comments to that single-quoted term in that linked post.

(Did you notice my replies to those questions of yours here and here, (among other replies), Mountain Man??)

That is indeed a good example. It also shows that God does candidly need to investigate the will of people before making a final decision and executing any deserved judgement, and also allowing for any deserved mercy, as God had indeed descended to effectuate this judgement, if it was found to be deserved, as “audible outcry” had it. (Gen 18:20, 21).

Indeed that is my understanding and view. When these “judicious killing” of God are investigated to determine why He would have done/sanctioned/ordered such an act, the just reason can be seen. (The destruction and dispossession of the indigenous habitants of the land of Canaan is a perfect example of this. As seen in Gen 15:13 & 16, their freely committed sins, which were increasingly of the perverse kind, had not reached this life-threatening (= “complete”) level where death was the next, and inevitable, result (= James 1:15); but also putting other righteous people at risk.) That is indeed also why I see that Lucifer was not immediately destroyed in Heaven. This “justifying” evidence was not yet in.

One could further illustrate the difference between God and Satan’s ‘GC War’ and ‘killing policies’ here as: God using precision and forwarned strikes, while Satan uses terroristic and indiscriminate mass destructions, and that, in regards to Satan, like a terroristic group operating within the territorial jurisdiction of a State, by trying to place the blame on God as “Acts of God”.

Notwithstanding, since I also see and believe that nothing happens on this planet unless God wills it, while Satan’s, thus “allowed destruction” is indeed merciless and indiscriminate, just as Babylon’s allowed destruction on Judah was (Jer 51, Psa 137:8, 9), I theologically see that God allows this and other of Satan’s concocted deadly weapons as this actually is showing to the entire universe that Satan, from the start had absolutely no love for anyone other than himself in embarking upon this lawless GC campaign. Perhaps God will be most merciful in the judgement to those who were collaterally killed by Satan in these Divinely-permitted actions.

However it must also be tangibly noted that, the judgements that God allows Satan to perform are upon just causes deserving of judgement and thus they are probably actively limited by God for the extent to which they can affect people. Also, all of Satan’s concoctions, e.g., drugs, Tobacco, etc, are not forced upon any man but taken in by their free choices.

So in summary, my views is that God indeed allows all these things that take place, but in the end, and even now, with deep Biblical pondering, it can and will be seen that they were all fair, and, as I see in, in cases were innocent people were killed, God may compensate them by giving them Eternal Life. Now there may be a major source of questioning/examining of God’s judgement in the Millennium reviewing judgement!

Since it is applicable, Tom -apology accepted. These are indeed the statements that I had in mind. Reading my blog post on the ‘War in Heaven’ would further substantiate my view.

I just could/can not understand why these expressed views were to be my, and that ‘subjective’, “mind-set” when the Bible and SOP clearly states that God performs many judgements directly Himself. Indeed the same SOP that pulls back the curtains to show how a judgement occurred, also makes this statement, and affirms what is many times straightly said, to this point, in the Bible. Whether God uses direct or indirect, active or passive, methods to execute a judgement that He Himself has taken the command to do (vs. allowing Satan to have his way), He still is doing the judgement. The use of natural elements and even geo-political circumstances to do these judgements instead of uses freak supernatural acts such as fire and brimstone raining down on a particularly valley, is done so as to not over-influence the will of man. So one will have the faith-implicated choice to say: ‘that was not a judgement of God, but just nature’ and thus continue in their lawless ways, or one could in faith choose to more seriously consider God. Both choices would thus have been free and really non-compelled. The ironic truth is that ultimately, all of these adverse events are a form of God’s judgements, as they are all allowed to occur by Him. At the very least, one should see that something is not right here and maybe the message of the Bible does have the right answer, solution and (saving) world view.

So in summary, it was those clear Bible, SOP-confirmed and distinct SOP statements that ‘set my mind’ on this view and, definitely not anything else of the eisegetical, converse effect.

Good point Tom. That is indeed the innate raison d’être of Divinely-permitted, and most seriously considered, “intercession” (cf. Isa 1:18). God is looking for an excuse to have, even undeserved, mercy towards fallen Man in this semi-blindsiding, but inevitably so, GC. Of course then upon conditions of subsequent individual obedience and responsibility for this gracious advance, (even when it was unbeknownst), gift, thus confirming it (see e.g., Isa 1:19, 20).

NJK, I've been speaking of the Destruction of Jerusalem for precisely this reason. In Scripture, it is expressed that God performed this judgment directly Himself. But...



There is nothing in Scripture to suggest this is the case (i.e., nothing direct; we can infer it from God's character revealed in Jesus Christ, but that's the whole point!); that is, the following:



Their suffering are often presented as punishment visited upon them by God because Scripture presents these judgments as coming directly from God.

So if these judgments, which Scripture says come directly from God, are really the result of God's withdrawing His protection, then why not others?

In regards to "mind-set" you wrote:



Indeed, it sounds like this to you, but not to me, or APL, or kland, or many others. Why doesn't it sound like this to us, but it does to you? Because your mind-set is different than ours.

I said:



I'm not seeing what's offensive in saying this. I'm simply saying you see things in one way, because of your mind-set or paradigm, whereas others, because of their mind-set or paradigm, see things differently.

I appreciate your effort to clarify/justify your position Tom, however I can only see that this blaming of my statements on, effectively, ‘a mind-set that is not in the Bible’ is further not justified, and is indeed due to you not having a due, harmonized understanding of such seemingly divergent Scriptures/SOP statements.



First of all, where in Scripture is the destruction event of Jerusalem recorded?? It is only from the SOP account and Josephus that we have an account of that event. So one will not find statements in the Bible, unlike, e.g., the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19:14, 24) that say that: ‘God did so and so.... during that destruction.’ the closest thing we have in the Bible are the prophecies of Jesus in His Olivet discourse (Matt 24:15-21; Mk 13:14-19; Luke 21:20-24), however nowhere does He indeed make a claim of a direct judgement from God Himself. I indeed have no problem with that view, and in a related discussion in my book on the 70 Weeks, as summarized in my blog, I also make this point directly from the Hebrew grammar and syntax of Dan 9:26b & 27b. The cause and feasance of destruction was indeed upon ‘the people of the coming Prince’ (i.e., the Jewish people who, whether they recognized it or not, were (at least, supposed-to-be) subjects of Prince/King Jesus (e.g., Luke 1:32; cf. Matt 2:2).

Now did EGW make this the all in all example of destructions?? It seems that your claim here is derived from your assumption that the Bible had said that God would actively do this destruction, but EGW claimed otherwise. However all that she says here, and that apparently because it could easily be seen that this was surely a direct judgement of God, is that it was rather the work of Satan after God had withdrawn His protection and permitted him to do so, as highlighted below



So contrary to your assumed premise, I actually do not see that anywhere in the Bible, in the OT or NT that this was ever (matter-of-factly) said to be or described as “God’s direct judgement”. The closest statement to the sort is Christ’s completion of Isa 63:4 in Luke 21:22 as he says: ‘these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled’. Isa 63:5, 6 may be taken as a claim of “direct action of God” as it is indeed prophetically speaking of the Messiah, who after making a way of escape for Himself given the great rejection of the people (vs. 5), He seemingly directly acted to destroy, however the Hebrew syntax there indicates otherwise. That text literally says:

(cf. Isa 63:4)

As I explained before, I Jesus acting out Isa 6:9-13 as stated in Matt 13:10-17, Jesus had indeed set up the potential for this end result, which the Jews did indeed opt to follow. They were not aided to get a saving knowledge of the Gospel and the Kingdom plans of God and thus did not know better when the long ago prophesied time of judgement (Dan 9:26, 27) came for those who would come to reject the Messiah. So I do see that Christ fulfilled this in His own time when He figuratively (naturally) trod down these rebellious people through this key veiling during His ministry, and thus did indeed make them drunk with their own false teachings. However, as to pouring out their lifeblood, as the Hiphil verb fully allows for as it indicates, indirect and mediated action, that particular act, unlike the other two, was to be done by a third party. Christ was only to “indirectly cause”, indeed by what He had done to fulfill Isa 6:9-13. The imagery in Isa 63:3 shows that this was indeed to be a seemingly, directly faulting/responsible actions but it was not.

So the SOP is not actually ‘correcting’ the Bible, but indeed affirming this causal and indirect act of God in that destruction itself.

Indeed, even if done by Satan, it was, as is always the case in such judgements, at least an indirect act of God, as EGW does say that ‘Satan was permitted’, i.e., by God, even if it was by simply withdrawing that previously present restraining and shielding protection, and then looking on indifferently to what occurred. However as stated in the Bible, even if only in applicable partial fulfillment, ‘those days were cut short’ (Matt 24:22a; Mk 13:20a) and that is indeed why total physical and life destruction did not then occur, as it easily could and should. Surely Satan wanted to do this, so as not to give the Jewish nation any chance of ever coming to a saving knowledge of the Gospel in the future. As recorded in Josephus, Wars, 5:10.1 [#420]ff, there came to be a group of people who wanted to surrender/desert to the Romans, who other “rebels” wanted to fight on. And quite possibly for the sake of these ones, were these days cut short. Text:



Perhaps the SOP says something along these lines. However, simply by pure Biblical equivocation, since many lives were spared, those days were indeed cut short as “none” should have survived but for that act, as stated by Christ.

So, in the light of the fact that the Bible (e.g., Gen 19:14, 24) and the SOP (e.g., GC 614.2) also unequivocally say that God does perform judgements Himself, directly and/or through commanded/commissioned angels, I had this problem of setting this up as the norm, if not the sole template, and not taken into account these other statements. Instead for these statement to be best understood, it has to be acknowledge that God indeed does use direct or indirect judgements and the Jerusalem one was an example of, even template for, the indirect ones, showing exactly how it comes to be behind the scenes.

So, also in answer to your prior objection, that is how I exegetically do “harmonize” seemingly divergent passages/statements on the same issue. And while its long and detailed explanation may make some to falsely think it must be false, that is just the cost and work involved when doing proper exegesis as such divergent passages incontrovertible require, because, in most cases, the correct harmonizing meaning has indeed been lost in translation.




This was the SOP statement, cited by you, that I was commenting on:



On solely a single point, out of the many other unequivocal, emphasized terms and statements of EGW above: How is r “wrath” not wrathful?

So I simply conversely pose this question to you and others:



Indeed I similarly ask to you all: Why??! Perhaps the above “exhaustively comprehensive, harmonized” thus “proper” exegesis can help you answer this “why” here and also understand what the Biblical “mind-set” actually is.



Just reading the Bible along with the SOP as they themselves, non-contradictorily, say, and that distinctly in varying episodes, as either one of God’s two methods of executing judgement is judiciously selected and appropriately applied.

You also, at least effectively, spuriously and falsely keep on trying to make me say that I think and say that: ‘I believe/think that violence/killing/coercion/use of force to get ones way/etc is part of God's character and what He does.’ Instead of speculating on what you think I think/believe quote me where I supposedly said this. You above quote was at best a complete misconstruing of my direct and exegetically accurate conclusion of the SOP. I also don’t see how you APL, kland or anyone else can rightly claim that this is from my “brute force” and physical war in Heaven statements since you manifestly don’t’ even know how I substantiated that fact from my blog post on that topic. So that was indeed why I found this to be most annoying as it was clearly the underlying reason for your sudden barrage of such false accusations. It is your exegesis that is at full fault here, so my advice as before is get up to speed on all that I have pertinent said in regards to this topic, on top of engaging in proper exegesis before falsely accusing me. (John 18:19-23)



As I said, and shown in this response, your first need to engage in more substantively sound and deep exegesis, which shouldn’t be too hard for you a seminarian. That will, or should demonstrate what the Biblical mindset is, and there is only one, God is not dividable nor divided. That has been a foundational exegetical tenet of mine for now over 13 years and you’ll be shock how many Biblical statements, including in the SOP, that are harmonized into a full congruent truth, if not just rightly corrected, when this claim of “having a paradigm” is left out, letting the texts speak for themselves and state what the full view should be. So the Bible and SOP will not (normatively) contradict each other; and if they do, as they indeed, substantively do at times, then, as EGW counsels, the Bible is the final arbitrator.

That correct exegetical approach alone should lead you to properly perceive what is “offensive” in such Spiritual matters.

Notice: After a reading of the Bible and SOP, I see a valid problem with a belief that Satan is given the power to effectuate all of the Seven last plagues. That is mainly because the angels who are to commit these plagues are unequivocally said to be from the Temple of God (Rev 15:5-8). The argument can be made that ‘the SOP instead reveals that this will be the acts of Satan’ however, succinctly and harmonizingly said here after a cursory, but sufficient examination of these passages, I rather see that (SOP citations omitted): the first six plagues are done by these angels of God (Rev 16:1-15), that enrages the wicked and lead to the Armageddon Assembly (Rev 16:16). It is then that the seventh angel distinct throws his bowl of wrath “in the air”. (Rev 16:17a) It is then that I see that Satan, the prince and power of the air, is unleashed and permitted to do that seventh and last, multi-faceted plague. (vss. 17b-21). It is indeed so sever that, unlike the others, it leads the wicked to “blaspheme God” (i.e., conversely, attribute a work of Satan to God.) (vs. 21).

There is also a manifest difference between Christ ceasing His work of intercession and then His leaving of the Sanctuary. It is in this mean time, while He changes robes from His Priestly ones to ones of vengeance that the Time of Trouble begins and the plagues begin to be poured out. When He leaves, thus to begin His Return, the Seventh Plague commences, now under the granted control of Satan (see e.g., 1T 204). It is then that the cry is by Christ made: "It is done." Rev. 16:17 = {GC 636.2} Then Satan’s permitted destruction occurs after Christ makes this distinct and subsequent leaving move {GC 613.2-614.1}.

I’ll expand on this summary later and add the underlying SOP and Bible reference. I just wanted to make this observation as it can help to understand what is being harmoniously said in the Bible and SOP on these seven last plagues, and pertinently who exactly do which ones.