Interesting angle on this issue Tom, however this goes back to such a question that I had previously asked which you did not address:



The SOP also says that Angels of God knocked down the wall of Jericho and slew 185,000 Assyrians. See LDE 243-244. Seems to me that your are knowingly and selectively opting to leave these clear episodes out to uphold your paradigm. Again all of Biblical testimony must contributively be included in one’s Theological paradigm.

I also see that in God removing the Tree of Life from Nature and access to man, a certain degree of natural destruction began to occur. E.g., Man increasingly degenerated health wise (not necessarily sickness, but ageing), the ground was cursed, Tree leaves died, etc.

Again “sin” (= transgressing God’s law/living outside of it) is not the same as an act of (just) destruction. God killing wicked people (= the Flood was not sin - Satan clearly did not do this destruction). This then would be like saying that the officer who carries out the judges capital punishment sentence on a criminal is a criminal himself for doing this. Such judgement destruction is within the law, as it righteously/justly is within God’s Law and Government. The previously cited SOP quote testify to this Theological fact.

---

I could make a statement on what I have observed in regards to what EGW says in GC 35-37 on God’s method of judgement based upon direct revelation she was shown in contextual regards to a certain Brother Stone 14MR 1-3. She was apparently shown this to present this priorly not prominently-seen second, indirect, way in which God effectuates judgements (and not to replace that prior understood direct way - which she does also uphold in GC 614.2). I however refrain for now until more in depth analysis. (Hint: Based on the Biblical and Direct SOP evidence on the Seven Last Plague, she may have blanketly overextended the application(s) of that newly revealed ‘second indirect judgement way’ and that may include the destruction of Jerusalem. Again the Bible is to be the final arbitrator!)

Also Tom, do list the other places in the Bible/SOP where you (explicitly(?)) see the indirect method being used.

Again going back to my fundamental Theological tenet that: ‘God is “Real”’, I do not see Him, nor Jesus, as doing anything just simply to do it. So in the OT, this just and real God did not destroyed the Amorites because there was no actual, nor just, reason to do so, -to that total extent. (Gen 15:13, 16). In Jesus’s ministry the time for (any) physical destruction had not yet come, so Jesus did not do so. However He did clearly indicate that it will come, and that to any disobeying person (e.g,. John 3:16-21). So that nonfeasance due solely to not yet actionable/fully developed rebellion did not mean that Jesus dispensed with this aspect of God’s government. Jesus, in incarnated Presence, did indeed in principle maintain that Just, Divine Authority.

And Tom has not yet addressed the many direct destruction of God in the OT as explicitly stated in both the Bible and SOP.

Interestingly enough, if Tom is saying that there is a substantive methodical difference between the “direct” destruction spoken of by Christ in parables in Matt 22:7 and Luke 20:16 and EGW statement on the destruction of Jerusalem, as expounded on in GC 35-37, then I see and understand that Jesus’ view should win out and God, as He can do (e.g., Isa 13:17), did indeed send even a foreign army (cf. Isa 46:11a) to effectuate this destruction. However as I have already said, since the prophetic statements of Dan 9:26b & 27b, that destruction was explicitly (through the Hebrew syntax) always said to be caused by the people, self-inflicted and indirectly effectuated (i.e., foreign armies). Still in an ultimate and sovereign sense, it was indeed God who permitted it (= ordered/summoned it).

It doesn't fit in the quote boxes. I thought you would remember what you said. Tom repeated it and so did NJK. Are you familiar with how commentaries work?

Quoting the rest of it doesn't change anything, does it?

Sounds like you said, "No".

That one can only know whether an act is of satan or God is if he knew the full background.

Doesn't that seem.... unsatisfactory to you?

For example, if you should come upon a crime scene, where someone has been stabbed multiple times with their head severed, but you did not know the background of what happened, it sounds like you just said you wouldn't know whether it was done by a good or bad person.

Personally, I would find that unsatisfactory, to make an understatement.

Which I think you clarified the statement. That we will use the Millennium to determine if God used violence "judiciously" or "injudiciously".

Sounds like we agree with what "violent" is.
So, would you say God used violence to stop violence?

That made me smile. Perhaps I was getting too wordy.
I see I left out a comma and the sentence seems backwards and maybe including phrases within phrases. Let me try again.

Is the way you define what "judicious" is, the proper use in determining character? If so, then you have what MM came up with, that both satan and God are "judicious" in their use of violence. And if satan and God are both "judicious" in their use of power, why during the Millennium would we be able to determine which was .....(I don't know what adjective would go here).

Rosangela or MM, could you help out here? I'm thinking of the quote where she says she never writes anything publicly of her own opinions, something like that. I think you'll know it, as it's pretty well known.

(Evidently I had not successfully posted this reply yesterday.)



This is self-manifest in our discussions thus far. My approach is to take passages as they exegetically read and use this a building blocks towards a Theology which will, when necessary self-produce such harmonization, so in a way, I am working from a bottom-up view. On the other hand, I see you working from a top down view citing Jesus Christ as the top view, seconded by EGW seemingly wholly supporting statements to the fact and thus you virtually ignore any revelation that may have been made in the OT. I do not see Jesus making such a claim, per se, of only considering what He has done to understand the Bible’s Theology. (e.g., John 5:39; Luke 24:27). I do not see the God of the OT, which in active form was Michael/Jesus, His actions, and statements as being mutually exclusive with the Revelation of the incarnate Christ. I rather see that both say exactly the same thing. Jesus did not come to do away with the Law and the Prophets (=OT) but to fulfill them. He, and where it was necessary, reinstituted these OT contributions where they were always meant to be.

For example, (and correct me if I mis-restated your view) in our discussion on the Fruit of Life, I see and say that in God’s perfect plan (i.e., before sin was ever a factor in anything), we were meant to live forever by our partaking of the Fruit of Life. You categorically say no and point to the post-sin provision made by Christ on the Cross as the only means to live eternally, and that the Tree of Life was only a substantively vacuous object lesson of that. I instead have the harmonizing view that Jesus came to provide redemption to man, to those who would accept this gift, and thus once again give us access to this Tree of Life so that we can live eternally (=Rev 2:7). You instead want to have the mutually exclusive stand of Jesus or the Tree of Life but not both. As I said, the two compliment each other, and it is manifestly from the Water of Life flowing from the Father’s throne that the needed, life perpetuating “supernatural power” is injected in the Fruit of the Tree of Life. However, without accepting Jesus, Fallen Man will not have access to that physical provision and thus not life eternally. So both Jesus’ statements to this end and the tangible reality of the Tree/Fruit of Life harmonizingly present the Theological Truth of how Man, and now Fallen Man, lives eternally.

So resuming here, I build my views on all of these building blocks as I see them all as being contributive and fulfillingly endorsed by Jesus. On the other hand I see you having a Jesus-and-nothing-else, even-if-it-is-stated-by-God/Jesus-in-the-OT, view. So it is in that sense that you do not see the wrath expressed in the OT as being part f Jesus nature, though He did utilize and apply fitting degrees of that judgement aspect of God. I do not see an endorsement for such an approach in the Bible, from Jesus or the SOP. EGW’s counsel is indeed to look at Jesus for the calibrating view however that does not mean that what God, even Jesus did in the OT was wrong. Rather Jesus shows us how what was then done was just. E.g., in citing Isa 6:9-13 in His chosen action in Matt 13:10-17; Jesus vindicated God’s OT action there showing that in such cases of persisted hypocrisy, endeavoring to make these people so drunk and settled in their wrong ways so that prophecies of deserved destruction will be fulfilled in in perfect harmony with the Perfect, Just and Wise Character of God. Jesus can to vindicate the Law and the Father and not to “show Him up”, and that as violent, wrong, unloving, coercive, spiteful, insane, irrational, etc. It is we who have to get up to speed on how exactly Jesus did that. What Jesus thus expounded on does not replace a jot or a tittle of the OT, but confirms it as having been a perfect expression of God’s Will and a Righteous and unimpeachable demonstration of His Character.

I rather see this, and all of Christ’s parable as also being a deliberate veiled statement (Matt 13:10ff). There is nothing straightforward/literal to speak about the current Jewish Nation by instead using vineyard and tenant farmers and a king’s wedding feast. The only reason why the Jewish leaders came to understand that he was speaking to them (Matt 21:45a) with the two preceding parables (Matt 21:28-32 & 33-41) was because of Christ unique public explanatory details appended to these two related parables in vss. 42-44, especially vs. 43.

Also if Christ’s words are expressing directly effectuate judgement and EGW categorically says the complete opposite then Christ’s words/the Bible should win out and EGW views as “mistaken” (Isa 8:20). She would have simply missapplied this type of judgement here. However see next answer.



As I said before, the syntax of the prophetic statement in Dan 9:26b & 27b. (See also my enjoined next (priorly post) statement.)

And whether directly or indirectly effectuated, God ultimately did, at the very least, allow it, So this all may actually be a substantively inconsequential difference, especially as, as I see it, in either way, God is blameless.



As I said above, in case of such a supposed “irreconcilable difference” the Bible should win out, even if by arbitrative decision (i.e., ‘I’ll just go by what the Bible says, despite the SOP emphasis’) That is also why making a parable have force over a Bible prophecy and/or plain statement (Dan 9:26 and 27b) is actually not proper exegesis (e.g., the Rich Man and Lazarus). In a parable some things can only be expressed in the natural/logical way in which the story allows for. It is not meant to stipulate precise doctrinal/theological/prophetic statements but illustrate a single, even detached point. That “point” is Christ’s parable was that the Jews would lose their land and feast invitation before God and others would receive it and, merely surfacely speaking, and not necessarily in explanatory details, they would both suffer physical destruction and death because of those disassociation actions. How that destruction is effectuate may not at all been the main, detailing concern of Christ in that parable. He was more concerned with making this most urgent point that: “the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people, producing the fruit of it. (Mat 21:43)”. I am sure you can go through most of Christ’s ’sermon illustration’ and find such points that are not fully the same as every single line of doctrinal and straightforward teaching.



Please do list at least 5 of these other examples.



As I have been saying, clearly and easily the Bible. I have had to do this several times. I think EGW would agree and may actually be glad to have her would be honest mistake in such non-direct revelation commentary be pointed out to her and corrected.



Tom, you still need to explain why the underlying text here of GC 628.2 is not speaking of God’s Wrath, irrespective of how it actually is effectuated. As I said this destruction is not against God’s will




Then perhaps/manifestly my ‘“mind-set” off the cuff reaction’ was Theologically on point here, based on what I actually had in mind here. Indeed, the wrath of God is foundationally clearly expressed in that action. I was not actually addressing how it would be effectuated as this is besides the point. So the “exegetical hint” here is that whether done by God or Satan, it is still ‘God unmixed and merciless wrath.’ (= Rev 14:, 10|16:19) - Notice indeed, as my ongoing 7 Plagues deeper studies have revealed, that promised ‘unmixed wrathful wine cup’ judgement for the Mark of the Beast adherents (Rev 14:9, 10) is not actually effectuated until the 7th and last plague (Rev 16:19).



The plain reading of the text was all that was necessary to make that ‘sound’ observation. Again, how this judgement is effectuate is beyond the green lighting ‘Divine wrath’ point/issue.



Contrary to what you may want to believe about me, and as my prior ending of this discussion on this point was based on, my reaction and statement here on this expression of ‘Divine Wrath’ was indeed directly and entirely derived from that plain textual expression. It is your paradigm that manifestly sees this wrath of God as sinful, and thus must somehow be wholly attributed to Satan, a point that EGW does not at all make in that passage, that is ‘eisegetically reactionary.’



There is no “big problem” for those who engage in proper exegesis to study God’s word. All necessary resources to do this, especially in our day, are available and accessible by most, (especially SDA’s in Western/advance countries). I rather see your, what I see as a Top-down and selective approach to be incorrect exegesis. Jesus compliments the rest of the Bible and does not replace it.



See the statement in this post which you have not addressed.

By the way, just to be sure, what exactly is your criteria respond to a question/comment or not? I.e., Time; Agree/Disagree, etc.



Fair enough, in regards to “misrepresentation” and “misconstrue.” To better explain my point, I’ll preface my comment here by:

“In/For this GC, God, as seen in the OT, clearly considers, by on the ground necessity, His Characteristic Attribute to be in His Power and Ability to (ultimately) accomplish His will against any odds, or human obstacles.

Also EGW begins and ends her Conflict of the Ages series with the statement ‘God is Love’ (PP 33.1 & GC 678.3), however notice that this is prominently freely said before and after this GC episode of sin:





EGW interestingly has to pointedly add that:



This is indeed true, however my point is that this was not prominently demonstrable during the GC because of the many varying circumstances that God had to deal with using His other Characteristic Attributes.

Towards this vindicating end I Theologically/Prophetically understand that this prominent demonstration that God is Love during the GC is greatly dependent on what His Professed People will allow Him to do, for without their participation, that attribute won’t be as prominently revealed as it should. Jesus began that needed reform and the Remnant Church is to finish it by applying all that Christ taught and mandated towards this end. So as you signature passage says:






To use a concrete example: When destroying the antedelluvian, it was indeed a loving act for the righteous, but it also was not so loving, if at all for those who perished. So here both Love and Justice were demonstrated. Indeed as EGW says: ‘Love is not independent or divorceable for God’s other expressed attributes. E.g.:





From what I am reading of your view, it is you who is making this contrast here by saying e.g., that God does not effectuate direct judgement because that is sin. How does that view compare with Such SOP statements and many clear Bible demonstrations to the contrary.



As I have said elsewhere, God does have other names in the Bible. Indeed he is not called by a name that “God is Love” but has to be declared to be so, and that corroborates my understanding that this is because that has not been the prominent manifestation of Him in the Bible. Indeed without Jesus’ statements to the sort, subsequently echoed by NT writers, and then in the SOP writings, this Characteristic of God would continue to remain in the background.

So I see all of those emphasis on saying that “God is Love” only as necessary efforts to make this Character trait also prominent and not setting it up as a ‘chief umbrella trait’.
There is always a tendency and need to emphasize what is being overlooked and ignored, while the other much more prominent “traits” speak for themselves.

To use my concrete example of the Flood Destruction. On one hand God’s Love saved the righteous, but on the flip side, God’s Justice destroyed the antedulluvians. I do not see it as a ‘subset’ trait of Love but a same level one.



As I see it ‘having the “clearest” revelation of God in Jesus’ is completely different from ‘it being not necessary to go outside of Jesus Christ to learn of God’. In the first situation if you want the clearest understanding than you can indeed go to Jesus who will indeed make obscure and ambiguous OT revelations clearer, however to have the full Revelation you do need to include the OT (and also God’s Creation.) So I see Jesus as being clarifyingly definitive and comprehensive, but not actually exhaustive (no slight of Jesus at all intended, as I Theologically clearly see that this is not/cannot be done by that understanding does not).

I see that Christ’s statement in John 14:9 are commonly, wrongly over applied to mean that ‘Jesus is the only, even only true, revelation of the Father.’ However in context, what Jesus was addressing was Philip’s actually entirely dismissive follow up request to Christ’s statement that: “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.” (Joh 14:7) to which Philip obstinately said: “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” (vs. 8) thus entirely bypassing any contribution to this knowing/understanding end that Jesus had been making (vs. 9-11). So I see it as Jesus counselling: ‘Do not so dismiss my revelation for it was in perfect emulation of God the Father.’ Still the revelation of the Father in the OT is to be an inseperable integral part of Christ’s revelation and be clarified, where needed in what Jesus said, did, revealed.



This is an example of making Christ the only revelation about God, where e.g., most pertinent to this discussion, ‘since he did not directly/actively do any destructive judgement then, that must also be what happen in the OT with God.’ My expressed understanding above to this view is that those OT judgements said to be done by God, did not need any clarifying and also their was no justly actionable or present circumstance for which Christ to similarly do this. However passages imbued by Christ such as Isa 63:1-6 show that He did not consider this role a foreign to Him or the Father. So it is there in both the OT and NT. Case in point who struck dead Ananias and Sapphira. Did they both e.g., always have an extremely bad heart condition and God removed a protection that was keeping them from having a heart attack, or was it an externally-borne, direct and non-natural health wise (as ‘externally non-natural’ as a death by gunshot), ‘swift and terrible, meted out, wrathful punishment of God’ (= AA 72.2-76.1) and thus also not even one carried out by Satan?



(See in this April 5 post (#132364)). Also in this mistakenly not posted reply (#132433).


M main point, as also later stated here is that Jesus deliberately acted to effectuate physical destruction on the Jewish nation. This drawing up of the plans and setting up the explosive charges is just as contributive to effectuating the destruction pressing the detonation button. It even amounts to trick the Jews here to obliviously go ahead and press that button themselves, allowing them to continue to think that it was for their good. Again all this I see as equally being Just and Righteous and Loving, Loving to the Gentiles living in oblivious darkness of God (= e.g., Matt 21:40, 41, 43).

Law and justice require impenitent sinners to “suffer punishment varying in duration and intensity, ‘according to their works,’ but finally ending in the second death.” {GC 544.2} “Some were many days consuming, and just as long as there was a portion of them unconsumed, all the sense of suffering remained. Said the angel, ‘The worm of life shall not die; their fire shall not be quenched as long as there is the least particle for it to prey upon." {EW 294.1} I do not believe the work of punishing impenitent sinners will fall to Satan. Nor do I believe impenitent sinners will somehow punish themselves. Ellen wrote:


“It is because He has borne the punishment that man can have a second probation.” {RH, May 28, 1901 par. 10} “Through this plan the great, the dreadful God can be just, and yet be the justifier of all who believe in Jesus, and who receive Him as their personal Saviour.” {5BC 1133.4} "My Father hath so loved you, that he even loves me more for giving my life to redeem you. In becoming your substitute and surety, by surrendering my life, by taking your liabilities, your transgressions, I am endeared to my Father; for by my sacrifice, his will is fulfilled, his law vindicated, and God can be just, and yet justify him who believes in Jesus." {ST, November 28, 1892 par. 1}

Regarding the Flood, Tom believes God works to prevent the forces of nature from destroying the entire world. In the case of the Flood, God merely ceased preventing the forces of nature needful to cause the degree of death and damage He deemed necessary while continuing to work to prevent the remaining forces of nature from causing complete annihilation.

Tom agrees that the forces of nature are not "self-acting" and that they are totally dependent upon God to exist and act as they do. However, he rejects the idea that God "employed" the forces of nature as instruments to cause death and destruction.

But Ellen wrote, "The bowels of the earth were the Lord's arsenal, from which he drew forth the weapons he employed in the destruction of the old world. Waters in the bowels of the earth gushed forth, and united with the waters from heaven, to accomplish the work of destruction. Since the flood, God has used both water and fire in the earth as his agents to destroy wicked cities. {1SP 84.3}

She also wrote, "Many teach that matter possesses vital power. They hold that certain properties are imparted to matter, and it is then left to act through its own inherent power; and that the operations of nature are carried on in harmony with fixed laws, that God himself cannot interfere with. This is false science, and is sustained by nothing in the word of God. Nature is not self-acting; she is the servant of her Creator. God does not annul his laws nor work contrary to them; but he is continually using them as his instruments. Nature testifies of an intelligence, a presence, an active agency, that works in, and through, and above her laws. There is in nature the continual working of the Father and the Son. Said Christ, "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." {HL 290.1}

My answer and point actually is, using all of the actually applicable elements to this question, that if one is questioning whether an act was done by God or by Satan, then that can only imply a knowledge of God and of the GC. Case in point: an atheist/evolutionist would look at that destruction and say: it was a freak act of nature, a “rainstorm of the tens of millennias” just like they believe in an ice age or meteorites striking the earth to kill dinosaurs, (which, if they existed, perhaps direct concoctions of Satan (or even “amalgamations of animals” (i.e., ‘with other animals species’)) to explain such observed destruction which the Bible believer, believes came from the flood. So these Bible Believers would also know that God said that He was going to send this destruction and did indeed do it as recorded in the Bible.

As shown with the atheist/evolutionist, apart from a Biblical knowledge, which thus provides the answer itself, the question of whether it was God or Satan who did it is a non- or invalid, issue.
This would be like a Taoist today expecting me to know if e.g., the recent earthquake, Tsunami and Nuclear Meltdown in japan was caused by the Yin or the Yang! So for the Bible Believer the Biblical answer can only be “God did it’ and for the Remnant Church, SOP believer today, the fact that ‘Satan feared for his life during that destruction’ is further proof that God was actively/directly doing this destruction.

I think that all supernatural war victories, destructions, plagues, etc found in the Bible are explicitly attached to the responsible effectuating party (i.e, God or Satan) and the SOP also confirms the Biblical testimony.



To properly and fully compare with the Flood example, I would already know here that a policeman had been given the authority by the city mayor to fight crime undercover by any force necessary, including here “kill-on-sight”. So when he came across this known “cop-killer” he tried to arrest him, but when that serial killer, got hold of the cops gun, the officer pulled out his knife and first stabbed him multiple times as he could manage to, to try to neutralize him. The decapitation was actually an necessary act as the killer just would not go down with the other stabbings and was still pulling the gun trigger and firing shot (that were barely missing the officer). So the police officer, to deal with this still immediate and deadly menace, with that only deadly weapon he had, proceed to severe the killers head to effectuate a sure instant death.



Again, and seriously kland, divorcing these concepts from their actual realities is what wrongly causes an ‘understating’ of the issue here.



Indeed, just like a police officer who kills someone in the line of duty (=God’s Final Decisions) is automatically, at least in my local jurisdiction, put under default investigation and that by a completely distinct police agency (e.g., Provincial vs. Municipal and vice verse) = (pre-advent review of God’s final decisions = e.g., Rev 15:3, 4; 19:1, 2). And if further question are still unresolved and/or there is (still) a public outcry-/decry -ing, then a public inquiry/investigation commission is called. (=the Millennium review of God’s Decisions by the redeemed). Of course, indeed, the Millennium will not entirely be for that area of questioning but also for saving and non-saving decisions of God.



Back in this reply post to Tom, I had suggested/moved to abandon the use of violence with what God does, for the above mentioned “use of force”. That was not a fancifully frivolous request, but a substantively necessary one. In the light of your next question I formally make the same request for you in this discussion to indeed avoid confusions....



...case in point, what is your question here, e.g., ‘does God use (physical? or supernatural?) force to stop the use of (physical? or supernatural?) force.’

How is the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the other surrounding cities for e.g., their sins of socio-economic indifference and oppression (Ezek 16:49); self-exaltation (i.e., God-ward - cf. Isa 14:4, 13, 14) and sexual perversion (e.g, vs. 50) a “use of (physical? or supernatural?) force” on their part??!



I do not see how “judicious” is the same with God and Satan. I said that God allows and apparently only with the last plague in the end, will not then limit the destruction that Satan can do. As the SOP states, all prior judgement, and that even if/when Satan was allowed to carry them out, God mixed in mercy and limited the extent Satan could go to, indeed as stated in this post (keyword: “Josephus”), that was also the case in the 70 A.D. Jerusalem destruction judgement. So Satan is actually only made to be “judicious” by God’s limitations, except for the Final Plague, however I copiously read in the Bible and SOP that Satan would want nothing more than utterly and injudiciously destroyed all peoples, especially after the Cross as they potentially, until the Close of Probation in the end, have a relatively ‘simple’ chance to be saved (e.g, vs. OT peoples).

As these OT, even non-Judeo Christian NT, peoples had a chance to be saved if they lived right according to clear inherent laws of good (cf. Rom 1:20ff), Satan of course was there trying to get them to live as unnaturally perversely as possible.



As I said, I am not seeing them both as “judicious”, however the Millenium book’s review will be to concretely clarifying that the judgements of God, even when he would have allowed Satan to have his way, (with limits prior to last plague), were truly/fully deserved and fair (= “judicious”).