I haven't found any fault whatsoever with God's character, but only your understanding of it. Where have I said anything negative at all regarding God's character, or found any fault with it?

I should add that, in saying that I find fault with your understanding of God's character, I don't wish to imply that my understanding of it is perfect; not by any means! However, I'm not aware of anything regarding my conception of God's character that another would find negative.



I'm understanding what is written according to the following principles:

1.God is often presented in Scripture as doing that which He permits.

2.Jesus Christ fully revealed God's character.

In particular, the second statement, when it really hit me what it was saying, had a profound impact upon how I saw things.



This doesn't help any. That is, it doesn't speak any better of God's character; worse, actually. At least, it appears you're saying that God undertook an action, the result of which was, that He would kill innocent children. Not only did God threaten to kill the innocent children if a given demand wasn't met, but God, worse than this, took steps to make sure that the demand wouldn't be met.

I sincerely hope I'm misunderstanding you here, but, if not, I cannot imagine why you would think such a representation of God's character is in the least appealing, nor of what you think it could have in common with the character Jesus Christ revealed.



This isn't Scriptural.





"What?" would be a good question.



Do you think slavery was very successful at this? Ever? You're making it sound as if it were God's will that Israel should be made slaves. Isn't it evident that the powers of Egypt acted contrary to God's will in not remembering Joseph? Or do you think God is in favor of slavery, or that slavery is not an evil?

What I believe is that God permitted the slavery to occur, and that God is able to work blessings out of evil, but slavery is evil, and evil is never God's will.



This last phrase isn't a sentence.



I don't know what you want me to point out. When what? I don't see that you explained what the "when" was referring to.



It's hardly "freely" if done under duress. That's the opposite of "freely."



The following explains what true justice is:





Didn't have the option to refuse! So pharaoh didn't have free will. Again, this hardly helps in terms of presenting a defense of God's character.



One could argue that God, out of mercy, was trying to apply the least amount of force necessary, and only increased the force of the plagues because He wasn't getting His way with less force.



The way to understand the character of God is to study Jesus Christ, who was sent for the very purpose of revealing God's character, which had be so sorely misunderstood.



Not just confirming God is a God of justice, but demonstrating the truth of God's justice:



As well, Jesus Christ revealed the Father.

I appreciate your effort in writing all this, but it still remains that threatening to kill someone's child if they don't do what you're telling them to do is using force. If you say that Pharaoh wasn't threatened because God forced him to do what He wanted him to do by hardening his heart, that hardly helps the argument that God doesn't use force to get His way.

Consider the story of the father/hunter. What was the father's will in regards to his son? What did the father do and say to his son? Could his words be misconstrued by someone overhearing the conversation?

If you don't remember the story, I can refresh hour memory.



I explained the principles I felt your question was trying to get at. Your question was simply a yes/no question, of which a one-word answer wouldn't be very useful, I didn't feel.

You've asked many questions similar to the above, and each time it appears to me the motivation is to argue why the SOP statement that "all that man can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son" is false. You've already stated categorically that it doesn't include "His strange act." Perhaps your question above is another manifestation of this same point.

Well, we're simply in disagreement regarding this point. I think the statement that all we need to know, or can know, of God was revealed in the life and character of Jesus Christ is 100% true, including "His strange act," or anything else regarding God's character that one can think of.



Because you asked the same question twice! Look at your post.



It's really confusing to read something like this. I didn't write this. You wrote this.



No.



Ok, you disagree with Ellen White's statement. I agree with it, and disagree with you. I think you're misunderstanding what an attribute of God's character is. At "attribute" is



In regards to God's character, these would be things like "mercy, compassion, integrity" and so forth.



She also counseled us to compare Scripture with Scripture. She wrote a lot about how erroneous ideas can be obtained in regards to Scripture. She wrote a lot in regards to the importance of understanding God's character. I've stated many times that a proper understanding of God's character is paramount to properly understanding Scripture. Do you disagree with this?

Assuming you don't, this begs the question of how we should obtain an knowledge of God's character. I believe the foundation must be Jesus Christ.

Ellen White wrote it would be well for us to spend a thoughtful hour each day meditating upon the life of Christ, taking each scene point by point, especially the last scenes. Why? So that we may understand God's character.

Everything hinges on this point. This is what the whole Great Controversy is about.



Also it strongly influences our understanding of Scripture.

This doesn't contradict what Ellen White wrote. Even though there were things Jesus Christ did not say to the disciples, it does not follow that He didn't reveal all that man needs to know or can know of God. I can't think of why you would think that this would follow. There's no logical dependency here. This should be easy to see. All that needs to be the case for Ellen White's statement to be true, and Jesus' as well, is that the things which Jesus refrained from telling the disciples were referring to aspects of God's character which Jesus Christ had revealed (or would reveal) elsewhere.

And indeed, in regards to the context of the statement, what Jesus Christ could not reveal to the disciples by words, which they could not bear, *was* revealed to them by Christ when He died on the cross.



Truth is progressive.



Same response.



This question doesn't make sense to me.



Nor this.



Those who hate God are God's enemies (but God is still their friend).



No, I disagree. You're original question wasn't well stated, and I misread it. Here's what you asked:



This isn't something I think because it's obviously false. That these are different things should be obvious to you, and it should be obvious to you that I wouldn't think these are the same. This is what I should have said.

You're the one who was making the apparent argument that because we don't know everything about God in our sinful state the idea that all that we need to know of God or can know of God was revealed by Jesus Christ must be false. I certainly never expressed this idea.

You should be careful that you don't ask some question which has an assumed premise, and then, when the question is answered, pawn the assumed premise off on the one responding, as if that person had the original idea, rather than yourself. This isn't fair, and you have a tendency to do this, so I suggest being careful to guard against this.



Yes, but this doesn't contradict the idea that Jesus Christ revealed all that man needs to know or can know of God, as I explained above.



No, she said the opposite.



Of course I disagree, because your assertion is blatantly false. First of all, nowhere in the quotes you provided did she say, "Jesus did not, could not, reveal everything there is to know about God while He was here in the flesh." This is simply misstating what she said!

Secondly, she actually did say, "All that man needs to know or can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son." You disagree with this, which is fine, that's your prerogative, but that doesn't give you the right to assert that *she* disagreed with what she said!

NJK, would you say it should be written as:

1. All Most that can be known of God was revealed by the life and teachings of Jesus Christ during His earthly mission.

or

1. All Some that can be known of God was revealed by the life and teachings of Jesus Christ during His earthly mission.

or

1. All Part of that can be known of God was revealed by the life and teachings of Jesus Christ during His earthly mission.

or

1. All A little that can be known of God was revealed by the life and teachings of Jesus Christ during His earthly mission.


Are you opposed to looking at Jesus to see what God is like instead of looking at the building to see what the corner stone is like?

I have already explained why which you have not addressed. So simply restating them without addressing those replies, even if EGW stated them does not prove anything. Restating my substantively unaddressed points also is not necessary for me.



Summarizing my already stated points based not merely on the SOP, but the Greater (both in content and rank) Testimony of the entire word of God (2 Tim 3:16, 17):

Tom: 1.All that can be known of God was revealed by the life and teachings of Jesus Christ during His earthly mission.

NJK: What was revealed about God by Jesus serves to understand why God acted and said what he did in the OT. No need to reword/repaint anything.

----

Tom: 2.God is just like Jesus Christ in character.

NJK: Jesus perfectly emulated the Father, substantively, as it actually applicable, spiritually, in manifesting the same Character principles.

----

Tom: 3.Jesus Christ was not violent, and taught anti-violence.

NJK: The God head does not use force to compel love or service but to necessarily and timely execute judgements and to instill a inceptive healthy fear, all to permit this GC to be fully fulfilled by the end of the feasibly self-capable allotted time.

----

Tom: 4.There are thousand dangers from which God protects us constantly. Any degree of destruction is possible by God's simply withdrawing His protection. There is no need for God to act actively to produce destruction.

NJK: God uses “supernatural” force to produce judgements and miracles when the natural elements, even threats in nature would not even if not restrained do so, and if eventually so, then not in the needed timely way.

----

Tom: 5.The use of force is contrary to the principles of God's government.

NJK: The use of for to compel love and service is contrary to the principles of God's government. The use of (mostly) ambivalently attributable and relatively/comparatively light force for a necessary preventive/protective/pre-emptive deterrent, and so that greater and more destructive force will not be used is part of God’s government in order to keep the playing field level in this GC, particularly for His faithful people vs. particularly ruthless and lawless enemies.



Indeed not. Just the one’s I’ve listed should be enough!



Then let’s throw out everything other than the Gospels since even what we “guidingly” learn from Christ does not need to be applied elsewhere in God’s Revelations.



Still not substantively conclusive to me, even as expounded upon and applied by EGW. The plain and exegetical Biblical evidence against these EGW applications are too compelling. So I’ll follow the SOP’s counsel here.



Engaging in actually exegetically rewording the Bible to fit an EGW statement is not Biblically acceptable to me, nor is it endorsed by the SOP. I’ll instead let the Bible decide when EGW was correct. I’ve done so many before with the consistent result of arrive at greater Biblical light, ironically enough thanks to perceived and confirmed inconsistencies between the Bible and the SOP and/or the EGW vs. the SOP. If your “paradigm” doesn’t allow for this then I see it as foundationally, Biblically, flawed. In all things, including EGW’s (vs. the SOP) comment: Isa 8:20.



As I see it, by first preventing this danger and then allowing it when Israel rebelled God did indeed send the serpents. It’s like flipping on the fusebox’s power switch while you know someone is still rewiring the water heaters circuitry. So the Bible is Theologically correct. How God performs a judgement whether in active or passive means makes no different.



1 Kgs 22:19-23 - In the Bible itself, in a vision that was shown to Micaiah, the Bible does indicate that God actually desired to do this and accepted to hear the offer of an evil spirit and upon ascertaining exactly how it would be done, he ‘commanded’ that Spirit to do this. (vs. 22b) So God did not merely passively permit this but indeed ordered it.



Job 1:8-12 - Here also it was God who actively told exactly what should be done to Job, even if it had been suggested by Satan. So God, through what he told Satan he could do did indeed took away what He had given. So the Bible is also accurate here.

These indeed are the only three examples that people cite for this view however I do not see any mandate or permission to reengineer everything in the Bible. Telling enough, you make no statement on Israel’s war and the executing of Capital Punishment



This is not a mandate to reword the Bible. The “system” is not ‘God’s action’. Indeed God uses these death elements to execute judgement on sin. Other times He supernaturally orchestrates His own.



Since it leads you to reword the rest of the Bible and/or outrightly ignore parts of it, I see no “Light” in how you are apply it.



Still no mandate to reword the rest of the Bible and/or outrightly ignore parts of it.



Literary thought borrowing could easily be the reason. Don’t expect him (or the ca. 40% of other American pastors in general who cite EGW as their most commonly read authors) to explicitly cite the SOP in his notes/bibliography.



I don’t see God being “violent” in the Bible in any act of judgement and/or necessary defense. It is indeed difficult for man, not knowing all that God does, however it is only fair to God. Indeed just like a judge ordering death by lethal injection (or even other utilized means), nor the officer effectuating this sentence are being violent.



The Bible still says that God did do such things at times in judgements and the SOP fully enjoins. And Israel was not commanded to throw sponge balls during capital punishments or tickle their enemies to death in war. Somehow you don’t see God as being responsible (in the non-impeaching sense) for commanding these actions to be done, in His name and to uphold His Law.

Indeed God calls such judgements actions His “Strange Acts”, warningly typify the final Hell judgement execution. Or do you also not/can’t believe in Hell where people may indeed be maintain alive in full sensory health for e.g., 57 years. (By the way did you even consider Christ’s “wish” in Luke 12:49)

And burning people alive was actually a scientifically and spiritually necessary means to actually cleanse/purge an evil vs. having to bury all the, even sickly infected, corpses.



That’s what I have said and had in mind in requesting to use “force” instead of violence.



Which, since it is “compelling force” that she means and not ‘(supernatural) force to execute judgment’ is not relatable nor synonymous with “violence.”



My logic had always been as expressed above. You, at the very least, did not see this.



Have you ever read e.g., Deut 28:20ff, or is that also to be reword and excised. By your understanding just “saying” irrespective of how the promised judgements will be carried out is ‘compelling force’. Or is it, as you do elsewhere, that since it was Moses who said this then God is not “responsible”.



Let’s stick to Biblical examples though God did makes such threats of inflicted capital death for disobedience including upon future generations.



Indeed I’ll correct you as the Bible exegetically indicates. God wanted to kill the first born of Egypt in the planned tenth plague as retribution for Israelite infant death and probably millions of more premature death during the life damaging physical oppressions over decades of hard slavery. Death to livestock first born probably venged the damage and privation of slavery upon Israel’s own livestock livelihood. God keeps a most accurate judicial record and ledger which also scientifically includes what normatively could have been over that given time.



Exegetically, i.e., in strict context, Yes, as seconded by the SOP:



The rest is “sermonic license” which is actually not synonymous with being Biblical.



That has always been my point as the Bible, throughout, including the Gospels, copiously shows. Only when justice and judgement demand it is force and supernatural power used. And the includes miracle working power to, at the very least, merely forcefully overcome a GC-crucial, unjust evil.



It’s neither hard nor time consuming to open your Bible. I’ll only make the extra effort when it is exegetically necessary.



Indeed though the truth actually lies in what the underlying original languages say and not surfacely what another version says.



Sanctimoniously paint it as you need to, it is still remains time consuming for me. People will do whatever they consider important to them. So I cannot be held responsible nor over burdened by that. Reading a post and looking up referenced text is far less time consuming as writing it and pasting texts. Looking them up to reference them, which is something you commonly don’t even bother to do, is time consuming enough. So if this is a quibbling excuse for you or anyone else to not read these Biblical references, then be my guest! Starting/continuing with this reference John 6:60, 61.



Well that’s my point and main concern! Perhaps if people, including you, put more and deeper thought, and did more exegetical efforts before responding to my post, I would have more time to post the text of Biblical references!



So “ease” is a satisfactory criteria for you in this much more crucial area vs. seeking and ascertaining the best exegetical answer, especially despite being a Seminary graduate. (Matt 23:24)



How are you sure of that???? Because you want it to be so???

Clarke and Gill are exegetically unfounded, including the fact that Luke usually plainly expresses any veiled comments/references in his gospel account to his Gentile (Roman Officer) Theophilus. Such background info is also key to exegesis. And again, “sermonic license”, and needlessly defensive whitewashing at that, does not equate/trump exegetical correctness. And the word translated “enough” more literally means sufficient/considerable.



Of course, to you... Truth is exegetically and not subjectively determined.



(A) God is never horrible. Executing due and deserved Justice is not being horrible. Just a necessary/natural means to an end. ‘Awe-ful’, yes.

(B) Indeed as my point was, if Hitler had nuclear weapons, then the Holocaust might relatively be called so vs. hundreds of millions instantly vaporized in e.g., the U.K., France, Russia, The U.S., Canada, etc.

See in my latest post to Tom (#132364). The cornerstone does not cause the assembled e.g., marble building blocks to be switched for foam props, but merely serves to anchor them for the always intended solid building, as planned long ago (= OT). Jesus completed that plan. (Perfectly Imitating/Emulating God the Father, comprehensively in all ways). There is no mandate, as Tom arbitrarily does, for selective excising of the Bible.

In the opening statement which you ‘implied’ must be a ‘baseless and deadly extorting, compelling act.’



The problem is your understanding is not strictly and objectively guided b exegesis but subjectively by whatever fits your view and that includes, effectively placing EGW above the Biblical revelation.



In the 3 examples you have cited for this, God still “acted” to permit something and/or ordered that it be done. He did not have to accept the devils offers for Job or Ahab. A truly ‘God-less’/“natural”act would not involve any action of God. Such as a person getting cancer from smoking. And claiming chaotic nature everywhere is not Biblically sound. Our once perfect creation was meant to be self-sustained with periodic “therapy” and not to instantly devolve into damaged chaos, where, as it were, God had to effectively hold millions of shattered pieces of a crystal ball, when the tree of life was removed.

Furthermore, withheld dangers of God, such as the fiery serpents, can be objectively seen anything else would need to involve the supernatural. That is why e.g., fire from heaven destroy Sodom and Gomorrah was not a natural event or withheld natural chaos but a supernatural act of God.



You don’t see that Jesus imitated the OT God and indeed similarly wished for instant destruction (Luke 12:49). It just was not the time nor His given mandate (vs. 50).



It does not need to “help” anything. God is God and that is what the Bible reveals He did. You, as all uniformed created being, need to come in line with that, especially clearly expressed will. Ignoring exegesis to fit your view is completely preposterous, to say the least. I repeatedly subject myself to what proper exegesis reveals and that has its consequences, particularly with the EGW where she was not exegetically accurate.



OT Isa 6:91-3 NT (and emulating Jesus) Matt 13:10-17.



It certainly is when proper exegesis is used:
-Immediate context God said so and was pointedly shown to so.

-This was not, as you can only see it: ‘a compelling attempt to force Pharaoh to “repent” and believe in Him, but the execution of judgement for years of slavery, murder, dispossession, oppression, etc. And since not all Israel was killed by Pharaoh nor entirely dispossessed, God’s exacting judgement here, only achievable in all 10 plagues, was thus perfectly match.



We have already been told/shown in both the Bible and SOP, you don’t want to accept it and futilely seek to explain it away or outrightly ignore it instead of seeking to find out “why”/“for what reason(s)” did God do these “why”.




It should have been. As God’s Wisdom saw. Who in their right minds would want to return to be slaves??



God told this would (surely) happen to Abraham. That is indeed what happens to a nation without a homeland. What was permitted to be done through Joseph was just to delay that inevitability as long as naturally possible.



It’s ironic that you are not seeing here from your view that “God only permitted it”. What’s the difference between that and: allowing Job to be variously struck, including death to His children; permitting a lying spirit to deceive Ahab; or removing your protection to have snake bit Israel. Indeed as with righteous Job, Israel then had done nothing wrong for God to permit the Egyptians to enslave them.



It was. Just not properly worded/expressed: “I further do not see any indication when it ever ended, if it ever did, right up to Israel’s Exodus, despite Moses having been rescued through a seemingly unique, and God-inspired, idea.” I.e., Moses’ rescue by Pharaoh’s daughter (and through that unique method), did not necessarily mean that the killing method of Pharaoh was ended. Indeed saving Moses and adopting him meant that he could be made to surely be on Pharaoh and his army’s side. Still their envisioned Israelite military might threat had to continue to be kept in check and so the killing probably did indeed continue unabated.



“When” the killing ended. (Seems like what I later said would, in defining context, indicate what was being said here.)



It actually is if it’s not an explicit “duressive”: ‘give me your money or else (more plagues)’. All Israel had to do was to ask and the Egyptians, relatively, freely complied, and out of “favor”. Indeed God wanted to plunder the Egyptians. (Exod 3:21, 22; 12:36)



No it is not ‘explaining’ it. ‘Dispense true justice’ is a distinct required action from ‘practicing kindness and compassion each to his brother.’ Indeed one can distinctly ‘prosecute and rightly/fairly adjudge crime’ and ‘act kindly and compassion towards their neighbor.’ And this “listing” of what need to be reformed in Israel continues in vs. 10. A text without its context in not exegesis.



He did and the Bible clearly shows that he freely exercised it in the first 5 plagues. However in plagues #6, 8, 9 and 10 God overruled it by hardening his heart.



Subjectively based human “helping” is of no consequence. God’s manifested Character here was Justice. So the adjudged criminal here, Pharaoh, was not to have any overturningly determinative say against the intended full sentencing. This indeed was not even a Parole hearing.



Not when you allow God and the Bible to plainly, and also exegetically, speak for Himself/itself.



Yes... as you are selectively doing I suppose (e.g., Luke 12:49; 22:38; Matt 23, etc). You don’t even (truly) practice what you claim/preach.



Indeed, as I pointedly said, “confirm” E.g, Matt 13:10-17 confirms God’s default Justice action against Pharaoh right from the start, just a Jesus defaultly did with the Jewish leaders.

Rather than think that you are fighting me, I recommend you engage in actual exegesis, as you supposedly should be able to soundly do!



Already demonstrated Proof-text.



Which is much more than what you are letting Him reveal in your view.



(A) God was not actually really asking Pharaoh for anything. Just wanted him to think so, and that for his own good so that when he would surely fail, he won’t vindictively think that God had tricked him and seek blind revenge. Indeed God had to force him to go after Israel after they had left eventhough Pharaoh was seethingly and agitatedly seeing this great opportunity for “recovery”! (Exod 14:3&5-7 vs. 4&8; cf. vs. 17) And God also needed some spacing time before this would be done.

(B) Just faithfully (i.e., exegetically) relating Scripture and letting it determine what my view of God is to be.

This discussion would be much more constructive if you utilized proper and, as due, objective exegesis.

Yes in part as I further consider that “object” to be “objectively” as righteous cause. Thus using force is the only option and not one where other lessor options have been leapfrogged. So that Homeless man would have tried all other law enforcement/judicial recourse to get his money back but because he was poor and a social outcast, he thus could not afford the court fees and was not taken seriously by law enforcement. His option was to die. (Getting food elsewhere was also not an option and no one wanted to give him money for now over 3 weeks)



No. His “object” of pointedly e.g., killing Jews and stealing Russia’s national wealth/resources was “objectively” not a just cause. However, engaging in war to regain what had been lost in WWI, arguably was, especially as it had been taken in war and the powers then were surely not going to hand it back to him.



Call off the party kland!! ‘Meting something out’ is not synonymous with ‘executing it’
‘Meting’ = fixely determining or ‘administer/bestow, in Hell’s case, individual specific punishment sentences.’ So once the redeemed have done so, God will execute it by making each wicked live through their individual, meted out sentence.

This is greatly reduced in scope from what I wrote (actually, what Ellen White wrote).



What are you referring to? I didn't reword anything, I simply quoted it. I don't recognize it as a quote from anything. Did you repaint something?



This isn't nearly as clear as what I wrote. Does it mean anything different?



How is acting from "healthy fear" not forcing or compelling service?



Don't know what this is trying to say. Do you disagree with what I wrote, that God protects us from many unseen dangers?



You wrote elsewhere that Pharaoh had no choice but to do what God wanted Him to do. Isn't this an example of God's compelling service?



I think what you're trying to say here is that God uses comparatively light force as a deterrent, in order to keep the playing field level in the Great Controversy, particularly to protect His faithful people against ruthless enemies. Given that God is constantly protecting all from a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, wouldn't it be sufficient for God to simply remove His protection from these unseen dangers to accomplish the same effect?

Consider Jesus Christ. No one was ever as faithful as He. God had to protect Christ on many occasions. Did He ever resort to this comparatively light force you're speaking of? (i.e., things like the plagues in Egypt, or burning people alive)



I don't think it would be enough, as evidenced by your comment below, saying that only three episodes are cited, even though I've already cited more than this.



This would be a possible suggestion if the only purpose for Scripture was to learn of God's character.



The cross isn't substantively conclusive to you?



The evidence against the EGW applications is too compelling, so you'll follow EGW's counsel?



This is no different than what you do with subjects such as the state of the death or God's foreknowledge. One needs to consider a subject in its entirety.



Why not let both the Bible and EGW decide when you're correct?



Do you perceive your view of God's character to be appealing? Or just accurate?



The serpents were already present. No serpents were sent anywhere.



It's like ceasing to restrain a bully who would do someone else harm.



God is often presented as doing that which He permits. The Bible is indeed theologically correct.



Then why all the argument against the idea that it's passive?



This sounds like Calvinism. This is not Adventism in any way. Are you familiar with our tradition, or the works of the 19th century?

Returning to the concept of God's character, the Bible says that God cannot lie. If God were to order someone to lie as a means of fulfilling His will, God would be responsible for the lie. The assertion that God cannot lie would be false.



All the evil performed against Job was done so by Satan. None by God. God does no evil.



I've already quoted other examples.



Perhaps kland would engage you in this conversation.

Once again Tom, as typical, and it is quite telling to me, out of the many things I countered in your previously expressed objections (too many to take the time to even simply, transparently, relist here), you only respond to what you think you have an answer for, and once again, also as typical, with spurious, irrelevant and peripheral argument. Yet you still see a dense forest. I really just don’t get this baselessly indifferent attitude to exegesis. It frankly really is quite infantile, especially Spiritually. You manifestly really think/believe that these non-substantive and inconsequential quibbling knee-jerk answers prove anything to the validity of your view vs. the other substantive counters to your views that you should have been bothering to defend. Or is it really that you view is correct irrespective of full, if any, Biblical support? Suit yourself. I am certainly not impressed, to say the least.



That is because it is pointedly addressing how this Revelation of Christ principles applies to this discussion.



Effectively “rewording” (even ignoring) the Hebrew and Greek original languages to fit your view and thus “repainting” what God had revealed in the Bible and all out of your incorrect understanding and also, substantively speaking, misapplication/overstatement of EGW in regards to God’s judgements(i.e., her GC 35-37 comments)



Absolutely! Succinctly said then: Jesus perfectly imitated/emulated the OT God in every form of way.



Because men still have the free choice to believe in those actions or not, just as equally as they could be marvelled by God’s supernatural signs/miracles and believe or not. These both can produce a “healthy fear” if the observer does not choose to harden their hearts.



Perhaps a simple Bible example (which you indifferently avoid) will help. When God needed to instantly destroy Sodom and Gomorrah instead of naturally letting them die off on their own, which may not totally happen and/or may have taken much more time, then He supernaturally intervened to cause fire and brimstones to rain down from Heaven pointedly on the 5 cities in that valley. There was nothing natural that He could have allowed to naturally take place here to timely effectuate that instant judgement. His power supernaturally assembled all the needed elements for that judgement.



As I also said there. It was because this was the execution of a judgement and not a “trial.” Pharaoh’s, even murderous, oppression and abuses of Israel was being judged and Pharaoh was not actually really given a choice to avert this. God Himself in the Bible is unequivocally clear that all 10 plagues were going to be fulfilled no matter how Pharaoh responded to Moses’ requests.



He does do so but only when it is naturally feasible to the extent and timeliness of the action/judgement He wants to implement. Otherwise He has to supernaturally act to produce this with the force, precision and time that He wants it to happen.



As already stated, the angel standing between Christ and the arresting mob was an example. Indeed any angelic intervention, even if unseen is an example of this use of light force to keep the playing field even vs. such utterly lawlessness/unrighteous attempts.



That is clearly a LOL cop out to me. How would you know without even trying. It is clear to me that you just cannot Biblically do so. My comment below is no “evidence” at all but just an excuse. I have not seen the other ones you’ve listed. Just like you have “not seen” my detailed exegetical exposition on the Plagues though repeatedly referred and/or linked to!?? If you are going to arbitrarily and/or spuriously decide things for me what I think then this discussion is pointless and surely not worth my time and effort. Simply fancifully convince yourself however it is fitting for you.



Candidly, but most perplexingly, interesting!! So that is indeed the only other purpose of the rest of Scripture for you. This confirms that you really do not see the revelations of God in the OT as having any self-spoken/acting contribution to His Character!



(This is the perfect example of the knee-jerk, subjectively selective, partial responses that I patently see in your replies). I was pointedly referring to the Jerusalem Destruction. Still, in regards to the Cross: Not in the ‘all in all’ sense that you wrongly see it for this Theological Issue. The rest of the Bible to me is substantively just as contributive. The Cross culminatively confirmed the rest of that Revelation of God’s Character, still there is much more to be confirmedly revealed in the ca. 2000 years since.



I said the “SOP’s counsel” as I do not see all comments by EGW as being the SOP. And the “SOP’s counsel” is to let the Bible be the final arbitrator. (Somehow I suspect you understood this distinction in that response already. Hence the sly need to misquote what I had written.)



I know I don’t do this in any topic so you’ll have to remove me form this “you” if it was a plural/general expression and especially if it was pointed addressed to me. Trying to find the precise nuanced wording out of Syntactical possibilities is not the same as, as you are scholastically indiferrently and/or obliviously doing so far, making e.g., an active verb become passive, an intensive verb become simple/natural tense, or outrightly ignoring any exegesis.



(A) Because I would have first done the exegetical work in the Bible, as usual. (That answer also is the same for your previous similar question from a post of yours that I have not yet replied to.)

(B) Because by saying “EGW” here, I was pointedly referring to her non-directly inspired comments vs. the SOP/Testimony (=Her visions and (direct) revelations).



Accurate. I am not in the public relation business but in the Truth preaching. God’s Character is Wise/Perfect/Loving/Just/Merciful/Good/Compassion, etc enough as candidly self related and demonstrated throughout the Bible to let Him speak for Himself. Only those who understand His Truth will ever find Him appealing in any whole way that He manifests Himself.



That’s mere, Theologically-irrelevant, peripheral semantics. Does not counter anything.



No. Since the bully may not necessarily do this. It’s more directly/actively correlated as deliberately letting go of the rope while your friend is still climbing it on the side of a 2000 ft cliff. Try to claim you didn’t actively do anything here!



You rather are trying to present God as not being responsible for, or even doing, what He legislates, commands, directly or indirectly executes/permits, like some Teflon Don. The fact is you have yet to actually see in the Bible a truly “passionate” judgement of God where He is 100% not implicated in the judgement. He set boundaries in Job’s episodes. He was merciful in the Destruction of Jerusalem, and He told the lying spirit precisely what he could do. (He even provided a way of escape for the snake-bitten Israelites). That “passionate” judgement (commonly, though wrongly called the “wrath of God” won’t occur until the 7th endtime Plague.



Because now you are maintainedly confusing a truly fully permitted/unrestricted, Satan active or even passive, judgement, with a God active/passive judgement. In the Satan judgement, God is completely uninvolved and absolutely no mercy is shown. Again I have seen no example of this in the Bible yet. That is why God is rightly related as being involved in all Biblical judgements thus far.



As I don’t care for nor ascribe to any Theological system, but get my views directly from the Bible or SDA “traditions”, and especially 19th century Theologies, I know that it is none of what you “pigeon-hole” need it to be. 1 Kgs 22:22b is unequivocal of God’s sovereignly empowering commission to that lying spirit. How else was that evil spirit to ‘surely, naturally “prevail” #3201 (cf. Gen 32:25).’



That vision reveals that this was like God allowing Satan to make his claims in the Tree of the Knowledge of God and Evil. That lying spirit was to try to “entice” Ahab and that by becoming a lying spirit it the (already) false prophets. God did not originally create this evil path he just allowed it to reach its full course. (James 1:13-15). So this consistently like God ‘sending a deluding influence so that those faithful to the antichrist power will believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness. (2Th 2:11, 112).’ Still this is an actively permitted, passive judgement of God and not one entirely relinquished to Satan.

Indeed had these prophets been God’s prophets vs. the false prophets that they were and that Ahab fully knew they were (cf.1 Kgs 22:5, 6 & 14-18), then God would have been tempting Ahab with evil/lie. (contra. James 1:13).



He still allowed it. And not even for judging reasons. I simply accept that incontrovertible fact and it does serve, as with many other people, to understand that even when bad things may be allowed to happen to a righteously living person, it does not mean that God has rejected/abandoned you. And faithfulness in that trial may have great GC implications. So I thank God for having (singularly) done this through Job, as an object-lesson for millions of believer throughout this ongoing GC. So in God’s perfect wisdom He did not see/consider this as “doing evil”, as your theological paradigm constrains you to narrow-mindedly do, but testing Job as it candidly/truly could only be done.



Great. Please do point them out (e.g., post #’s) or list them so that I can analyse them.



I don’t see how kland's expressed view that ‘there is no difference between killing and murder’ implying that ‘all killing is murder and thus should not be done’ helps your case. But suit yourself. It certainly does not come to erase any of those Israel divinely-legislated and executed capital punishments or its God spoken commands to go to war and e.g., also completely kill all surviving inhabitants, and that through a victory that was actively sustained by God’s supernatural power. (E.g, Exod 17:8-16; Deut 3:3, 6; 2 Kgs 19:35; cf. DA 700.5, PK 361.2|GC 117.1|511.3 - I think in this last work of EGW (PK) she would have by then got it clear that “the Angel of the Lord” had not killed 185,000 Assyrians on the battle field.)