I know this was addressed to kland, but I found this an interesting post, so have replied to it.



Yes.



No, of course not. Satan acts contrary to Jesus' will. That's his character. Satan is evil; Jesus is good. They have wills the one contrary to the other.



This isn't a reasonable assumption here.



The following is from "The Great Controversy" discussing the destruction of Jerusalem:



The law is enforced. GC 35-37 describes how it is enforced. It's not an arbitrarily imposed sentence, but by the law of cause and effect.



This is the wrong way of looking at things, IMO, because it is phrasing things as if the law were an entity independent of God. The law is a transcript of God's character, so it suffices simply to say that God's character requires Him to do the things that He does, the defining characteristic of which is love.



Disobedience to the law of itself brings punishment. It's a mistake to think that this must be arbitrarily imposed ("arbitrarily" as per its primary meaning; not "capricious" or "whimsical").



What Satan does doesn't matter as far as the certain of the punishment of the wicked is concerned.

Here's something to consider:



The certain punishment that comes upon the wicked is exemplified by what happened in the destruction of Jerusalem. What happened there?

Tom, you seem to be referring to the first death, whereas in the quotes I posted Ellen is referring to the second death. The penalty for transgressing the law of God is the second death. Roman soldiers will not be employed by Satan to mete out the justice and judgment of God as in the case of Jerusalem's destruction in 70 AD.

By the way, what sin resulted in Satan employing Roman soldiers to kill the Jews in 70 AD? In what way was it not "arbitrary"?

You omitted most of my post. Why?

Tom, I addressed three posts to you after the one I posted to Kland (which you responded to above). Please respond to them. Thank you.

Really busy, MM. I'm doing my best.

Is this what you think God was doing? Or, let me ask it this way, what do you think was happening?

What I think was happening is that God wanted to be merciful, and this was the aspect of character He was revealing.



I understand that God was proving, or testing, Moses in the sense of revealing his character.



What test?



Remember that God's wrath is His hiding His face, withdrawing His protection. This is similar to other times in Scripture, when God looked from someone to intercede. In Moses He found a kindred spirit.



Why couldn't the offspring of Moses have behaved differently?



I think God wanted Moses to intercede on behalf of Israel.

(More later)

It seems Tom is right about this incident. This is what Ellen White says, and the interesting lesson she draws:

"But we have never had a message that the Lord would disorganize the church." Which implies Jesus did not intend to destroy Israel and start over with Moses, not any more than Jesus intends to reject the SDA church and start over with another church.

That was part of my point, that was not a ‘matter-of fact account or straightforward fore-description of the destruction. It was a parable. Are we to take all of the elements used in a parable as literal descriptions. What then of e.g., the Rich Man and Lazarus.

In reality, did God send ‘His own army’ to do this destruction (which would literally have to be the Angels as He is the Lord of Hosts) or was it the Roman armies who came and did this. Still as God is sovereign over all of the earth, and does set up and remove earthly kings (Dan 2:21) and even ‘cause (= Hiphil) foreign kings/kingdoms to be ‘awaken/roused up/stirred up’ to effectuate His plans/judgements of destruction even when not in direct relation for or against His Israel (Isa 13:17). Indeed as shown in Isa 10:26, as the Lord of Host (=angels) He still does this work through earthly powers, even foreign armies as for the promised destruction of the Assyrians (cf. vs. 24-34). So I do not see Christ’s parable as being substantively contradictive to what was later revealed in the SOP. At the very least, it could only have been down by the allowance of the Sovereign God of this World.



That’s really too bad. However I believe I made a substantive point. It is indeed, seriously, really “too bad” that you cannot even begin to see the, at least, hinted exegetical light here.



Then it should not be too hard for you to substantiate that claim of your with points that I made that were Biblically wrong and that because they were assumedly “not investigated.” If my, even off the theological cuff comments are so manifestly wrong, then you can easily shoot them down by posting a Bible and SOP statement against it. I cannot know what you are objecting to and I surely did not endeavor to knowingly post false/wrong statements. (By the way, I am not impressed by your customary, almost default, way of answering questions with questions or making vacuous one-liner replies. Now that, on it’s face, providing non-investigated replies.) So you are really here seeking to hold me responsible for something you all do and much worst. I know and would prefer to exhaust all exegetic resources before discussion however my time won’t allow me. Again, if you readily know something to be false, then point it out, otherwise, I think that, at the very least, I made a Biblically valid point. It all seems normal for a discussion, or else I personally would have to take ca. 6 months between answers while I first do/write a doctoral dissertation on a topic.



The non-peripheral, quasi-obfuscating, substantive question still is how/where was I then wrong??! Given the constraint of my time, I indeed do not do deep exegesis to all text. Factually speaking, neither do you. The problem is that while I go on to support my view with deeper exegesis, even correcting it if need be, you all never allow such deeper exegesis to correct your view as they should, preferring to, for evidently, desired face-saving reasons, maintain your initial view. That is what I factually, and not purely pejoratively, see as “still seeing a forest despite all of the felled trees”.



...And my answer was in regards to GC 628, because that is what the text says, (confirmed by what I subsequently exegetically observed in the Bible and SOP.) I.e., whether directly or indirectly effectuated, they were still God’s desire and His wrath. It indeed is not that God wanted to not punish these people to these extent but Satan overpowered Him, or convinced Him to let Him unmercifully scourge them!?? It is your paradigm that just won’t let you read, recognize and acknowledge that straightforward reality, as well as others to the sort, including in Christ ministry, to the point where you effectively say that Jesus was incorrect in His Vinedressers parable statement of destruction. That view, or even perception, alone sinks the validity of your paradigm.



Indeed, in that emboldened statement you actually have your contextually implied answer!



Full quote:



Okay then, I’ll mindlessly bite and assume that you had other people but me in mind here (I still don’t see why?? Especially since, as customary on your part, you never explicitly stated that you had abandoned your prior views and opposition of me for what you had though was my similar view. Indeed I cannot keep track of when you silently switch views.). So then simply state what in my view, as you seem, or should already have in mind before making this claim, that makes literal statements of ‘God’s just/judicious wrath, unmixed mercy, permitted or directly done destructions’ wrongly “God’s just/judicious wrath, unmixed mercy, permitted or directly done destructions”. As I said, you are trying to fault me for straightforwardly and comprehensively reading the Bible and SOP vs. your narrow, mutually exclusive approach!!? Who can win against that??! And once again, it has never been and nor is not my view. I do not conflate the “use of force” with “violence” or “compelling force”.



I rather see quite the different thing, as expounded upon above.



Here you go again misunderstanding, misrepresenting and/or misconstruing my views. I say that God’s prominently revealed characteristic is His power, as His many names to that end shows, and as explained in this other post, that is out of logical realities in this GC. So I do not see that God ‘“first” uses His power’. That is different from Him having to prominently use and convey as natural circumstances demanded it. Using Love for every circumstance, especially in the realities of this GC, would prove to impeachingly be Artificial and Hypocritical on God’s part.



I already addressed that above and again, I don’t see the OT God and Jesus to be mutually exclusive, as Jesus Himself said He was emulating the OT God (John 8:16, 28; 38; 10:37, 38). How were people to ascertain that what Jesus was doing was also what the Father would do if they were not to be looking at the records of the OT to see what the OT God had done??



My foundational scripture is all of Scriptures, and squarely Jesus confirms that approach. Nonetheless, when in doubt as to how the OT God had (justly) acted (which indeed is the only applicable question), then do look at Jesus and He will indeed reveal just how the Father had indeed (justly) acted in the OT, and that, not because, He would have exactly redone these very past acts (circumstances have changes), but because, when similar circumstances manifested themselves, Jesus then did something very similar. And in regards to this discussion, that includes judgement, even if working to aid the coming to pass of them (e.g, Matt 13:10-17 = Isa 6:9-13).

It is quite telling to me that you rarely address my cited texts of support as this (Matt 13:10-17 = Isa 6:9-13; also Matt 23). Instead making claims to your paradigm. However you should now and understand, as you apparently intellectually do, vs. practically, that an SOP quote, particularly an non “I was shown one” is not defaulty on the same level as the testimony of Scripture. So e.g., effectively saying that ‘“Matt 13:10-17 = Isa 6:9-13" is not an example of Jesus’ ministry of wrath, and that, self-contradictingly, because the SOP says that Jesus only reveals the Father, and circularly, that this must only be a Loving, non-judging, non-wrathful revelation’, is the wrong approach as it is highly subjective and textbook eisegesis.

Great SOP statements here on this issue Mountain Man. I see that these are indeed righteous and foundational parts of God’s Character and Jesus also perfectly emulated these in His Life and prominently His 3.5 year ministry.