Everybody is impacted by their mind-set/paradigm. This is a chief pillar of the exegetical method. Why would you think this doesn't apply to yourself?

It is in Scripture, and I quoted it for you.







Not at all. Your response was one of reaction. You didn't investigate what was happening, but merely read a text, and replied, "this sounds like such and such to me."

When you see certain statements, they immediately strike you a certain way. You then investigate if you think the way they strike you is what you think is correct.

My question was directed towards why the given statement strikes you in a certain way in the first place. It's because of your mind-set/paradigm, the same as for everyone else.



Why don't you start please? That is, please quote what specifically it is I'm saying here that you're taking exception to, and I'll look for evidence to support what I've asserted. What you quoted, that you are responding to, is this:



Since you're reacting against *this* statement, which doesn't mention you at all, is it correct for me to understand that you wish to assert that you are a part of this group? In other words, you see yourself as believing that God doesn't use violence/killing/coercion/use of force to get His way? If this is what you wish to assert, simply say so please, and if I disagree with your assertion, I'll look for evidence to support why.



We're all doing this. We just use different foundational statements upon which to harmonize the others.

For example, you believe that God's primary characteristic is His power. I believe it's His love.

As another example, I believe that the primary revelation of God's character is Jesus Christ. I believe that all that we can know of God was revealed by Him. Therefore I don't need to go outside of Jesus Christ to know or understand God. This is an important foundational principle which I use in attempting to harmonize Scriptural statements, or statements by the SOP.

So we both agree that Scripture should harmonize with itself, as well as the SOP (should harmonize with itself, and Scripture), but disagree on what the foundational principles should be upon which to attempt the harmonization.

When Jesus withdraws His protection and gives Satan permission to kill sinners, because "they are worthy" (Rev 16:6), are we to assume Satan is acting injudiciously? Is he not, after all, acting in harmony with Jesus' will? If Satan were to refuse to mete out justice on Jesus' behalf who, pray tell, would punish the wicked? What good is law if no one is willing to enforce it? "God has a right to enforce the penalty of the law upon transgressors, for law without a penalty would be without force." {ST, July 14, 1890 par. 2}

"By His word God has bound Himself to execute the penalty of the law on all transgressors. Again and again men commit sin, and yet they do not seem to believe that they must suffer the penalty for breaking the law." {6BC 1095.4} "God has given in His word decisive evidence that He will punish the transgressors of His law." {GC 539.3} "The penalty for the least transgression of that law is death, and but for Christ, the sinner's Advocate, it would be summarily visited on every offender." {TDG 246.1}

Do you agree Jesus is required, by law, to execute justice and judgment, to punish the wicked according to their words and works? If so, do you believe it falls to Satan to punish them? If so, what if Satan refused to do it, who would administer the "ministry of wrath" on Jesus' behalf?


Jesus earned the right on the cross to pardon and save penitent sinners. "For this reason He can ransom every soul." He saves them from the penalty of transgression, that is, intense emotional and physical suffering eventually ending in eternal death.

What attribute of character did Jesus reveal when He told Moses to let Him destroy Israel?

Also, what would have qualified as passing the test – letting Jesus destroy Israel or not letting Him destroy Israel? Would Moses have passed the test if he had let Jesus destroy Israel? And, would Jesus have passed the test if He had destroyed Israel?

“Let Me alone, that My wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation."


Which begs the question – Why destroy Israel and start over with Moses? How is that not “insane” (see definition above)?


Because Jesus asked Moses to “let” Him destroy Israel.


It’s part of the quote you omitted when you responded to it. Here it is again:


Was Jesus seeking Moses' permission to destroy Israel? Or, was He encouraging Moses to intercede on their behalf? "The words of God, 'Let Me alone,' he understood not to forbid but to encourage intercession . . ." If so, how could Jesus' words also mean He was intending to destroy Israel if only Moses would "let" Him?


In the case of Jesus asking Moses to "let" Him destroy Israel, how did His "rules of engagement" play out?

NJK, please accept my response above as answer to the points you raised.

1. What factors does God weigh when choosing to allow things to play out the way they do?

2. Is God free to allow or disallow things like N&A being burned alive and the two bands of fifty being burned alive?

3. Or, are His hands tied?

4. Is Satan free to do as he pleases without limits?

5. Did Jesus, while here in the flesh (as opposed to after He returned to heaven), choose to allow things like ungodly people being burned alive?

Do you agree with my assessment of your view as it relates to the question above?

Was Jesus, while here in the flesh (as opposed to after He returned to heaven), forced to command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle?


Do you agree with my assessment of your view as it relates to the question above?

Was Jesus, while here in the flesh (as opposed to after He returned to heaven), forced to command godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment?


Seems to me you believe Jesus was reluctantly willing to command the kinds of things described in the passages above for as long as it would take Him to teach the Jews how to "turn the other cheek"? Is this what you believe?

NJK, do you agree with Tom's view of the following passages:


In particular, Tom believes the highlighted sentence above must be interpreted to mean holy angels exercise the same destructive power exercised by evil angels by withdrawing their protection and permitting evil angels to cause death and destruction. Do you agree with him?

He also believe the holy angels portrayed as causing the death and destruction described in Rev 16 must be interpreted to mean they have withdrawn their protection and are permitting evil angels to cause the death and destruction described in Rev 16. Do you agree with him?

So, like some others, would you say it depends upon the motive? I, in the above specific instance, was referring to the end result. Maybe I had the flood in mind that after an observer saw the destruction of the earth and the people, would he, without knowing anything aforehand, be able to determine whether satan did it or God did it? But, considering the actual action and motives in the acting of it, does that help any? Perhaps you think not that we are going to use the Millennium for determining God's (well, not character it seems you suggest as anything goes fits in here), but act as whether it was "judicious" or "injudicious". Am I understanding correctly that you view God as using a violent act, drowning people, to stop their violent acts, and that violence is not wrong, but we will spend a thousand years determining if that, and other violent acts, were "judicious" use of violence? But, is "judicious", as determined by you proper use in determining character as you then have what MM comes up with:

wow

Are you saying that both Jesus and Satan kill judiciously?

Could that comment be a revealing of a problem with your view?