Up to now, everything that has happened has been tempered with mercy. That is, not until the seven last plagues will Jesus pull out all the stops - "unmixed with mercy". All along Jesus has held back, that is, He has established and enforced limits, limits which neither holy angels nor evil angels have been allowed to exceed. Jesus (not sin, not sinners, not Satan) is the one who determines when, where, and how impenitent sinners will be punished. It is not up to Satan to determine. "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

Tom, when you get a chance, please address 132,979, 980, and 981. Thank you. Happy Sabbath.

Agreed, Mountain Man. Great (Isa 45:7) citing! However, I understand God as “creating the evil” through what He permits the Devil to do. (Cf. James 1:13).

I also see a form of God’s mercy in the first six plagues because ‘they are not [yet] universal’ GC 628.2 and it is only when an angel of God throws his bowl in the air, (Rev 16:17 - perhaps accompanied by a subsequent, and manifestly heightened, “It is done” pronouncement, which EGW may have conflated) which premeatively, freely and easily affects every part of earthly life, that the ‘Hell-like cup of God’s passion = ‘unmixed with mercy’’, which was previously mentioned/prepared in Rev 14:10 is then poured out (Rev 16:19).

This doesn't make sense. This was what kland was asking you to explain. You can't just refer back to that.

That is, you made a post. kland asked you a question in regards to that post, which is how you see what you're saying to be different than what I have been saying. It doesn't make sense to refer back to the post that kland is asking you about.



kland asked you a question, and you haven't answered it. We accept that.



Not understanding what you write doesn't necessitate playing dumb. You're writing is difficult to understand. You should recognize this, especially as you've admitted to refusing to proofread or edit what you write. Even the things you have proof-read and edited (presumably, referring to what you've posted on the web) are difficult to read.



I don't know why you choose to impute people's motives. kland is trying to understand what you are saying, and also trying to engage your mind. He wants you to think about what different aspects of your thoughts lead to.



He's not trying to "gotcha" you, but to get you to think about certain things. This can be an effective way to get us to see things we hadn't seen before.

Tom, re-read that sub-thread in question. It will answer all your objections here. If you had, it, as usual, would have saved you the time and effort for this spurious, impinging attempt, spiel. Kland chose to ignore and indeed selectively excise my explanatory response and then wants me to re-state those explanations again as if he could not understand them!?!? Not my problem! Deal with the determinative facts instead on your subjective/fanciful perceptions.

And not everything on my blog is thoroughly proof-read, indeed for there, mainly, the applicable Isa 6:10 principle, (as well as time) for those who would “prefer” it so.

I apparently did not included that manifest Dwight Nelson change stated in a sermon after our email communications (can’t re-access the content of that email which was from my previous, other ISP). As I now recollect and retrace, I had only made a note of it in my blog post notebook. The reason why I indeed had chosen not to include that note in the post, and expressed this here as “may have”, is because in that subsequent sermon, (see his 2010-03-27 Sermon at 24:47-26:08ff), Dwight Nelson only emphatically, and tellingly, said “WAR”, with a protracted stress, in reading Rev 12:7, without adding any explanations as he had done before. That statement was relatively too ambiguous, and in context, wrongly ambivalent, for me to give it a benefit of the doubt. It should have been more explicitly correcting for his wide audience, even wider during Net ‘98, especially if that was actually the intention here.

Ok. I'll state what I perceive to be our areas of disagreement here. This is in regards to judgments during this life, not the final judgment.

I perceive what happens is that the judgments which occur do so because the people involved have persistently resisted the Holy Spirit, leading to God's withdrawing His protection, which is the manifestation of His wrath. I see God as acting passively here, against His will, as He would prefer to protect, as Jesus' lamentation regarding Jerusalem -- "But ye would not!" -- illustrates.

I believe your perception is that it is God's will to cause suffering, or death, to those who have disobeyed Him, and that He does so by different means, including acting both passively and actively.



Agreed.



I disagree with this for two reasons. One is logical, and the other factual.

The logical objection is that what I stated is there is no necessity for God to act any differently than how Jesus Christ acted while here in the flesh. To adduce an action of Jesus Christ's which involves physical force is not a logical thing to do here. If your assertion were true, this would only serve to broaden the things which God can do, making it more likely, not less, that my assertion is true.

The factual objection is that Christ did not use physical force to drive out the money changers. It was their consciences which forced them to leave, both times.



Those who hold the point of view that you do regarding God's character most often cite two incidents: 1)The cleansing of the temple 2)The cursing of the fig tree. So it's not surprising that I'm well familiar with them, which you should have expected. However, these incidents do not involve Jesus Christ acting in a manner contrary to the principles I, and kland, have been bringing up. If you look at the descriptions of these events in "The Desire of Ages," this is very clear. There are also indications of this in the Gospel accounts themselves.



This has been my point, as I've explained several times. Christ both said and did the things He perceived the OT God to be doing. To put that another way, what He perceived the OT God to have done is what He did. Therefore if you postulate the OT God to have acted contrary to how Christ acted, you're creating a contradiction.



This is an unfair comment. I'm going through your posts line by line. The only comments you have made that I haven't answered are either because I didn't understand what you were saying, or just the length of the posts written during a time when I didn't have the time to spare.

I've pointed this out several times to you now. I'd appreciate some consideration on this point. If I'm taking the time to go through your posts line by line, you should acknowledge that, rather than accusing me of "patently ignoring" you.



Wow! What a sentence. This is way too long, and includes references without quotes. Please use shorted sentences, proof-read what you read to make sure it makes sense, and copy/paste any texts you wish to be considered. If texts you don't copy/paste are not commented on, please recognize this as a short-coming on your part, which it is.

In short, what you wrote above doesn't make sense (I mean grammatically).



God loves both the just and the unjust. God loves righteousness (or justice), and hates unrighteousness (injustice), but it is God's love, while unjust, that draws us to Him and leads us to repentance.



God is not the problem here. It is not God's will that we fear Him, and do things to please Him, so that He will not smite us. Such "obedience" is not obedience at all.








This looks to be agreeing with what I said, in characterizing your viewpoint. When God acts violently, such as by setting people to burn alive (according to your point of view), that is not evil. But "God’s allowing of what is describe(sic) in GC 35-37 to take place" is by definition evil.



Then what you wrote above is incorrect. You didn't mean that God's allowing of what is described in GC 35-37 to take place was evil, but that the evil which He allowed was evil. That looks to be your meaning, at any rate. If you really meant what you said, that God's allowing of the events that took place was evil, feel free to assert that again.



The War in Heaven was not God's choice. God's choice was for peace. War has no place in either God's character nor the principles of His government. He is not a violent God.



What do you think were Israel's reasons/motivations in going their wars? Where do you think think they got their weapons from? Do you think it was God's will that they make their gains by military conquest, the same as nations do that have gone to war throughout history?

During the times when the Israelites followed God's directions, not one soul was lost. Had they followed God's directions throughout, no Israelite would have died in a military battle.

I find fault with your comment for two reasons. One is the lack of civility. This tone is inappropriate for this sort of discourse.

I used to write in a similar fashion to how you write, and a seminary professor, with whom I greatly disagreed, brought it to my attention. Fortunately, although we had differing points of view, I had the good sense to take heed to his comments. Perhaps something similar will happen here. Being able to treat others respectfully with whom you disagree would speak well of both you and your viewpoint.

The second reason is that this comment seemed to me to strike to the core of your thinking, which is why I wanted to pursue it further.



Jesus' designs for the leaders was not "against" them, as you put it, but for them. Jesus loved them as much as others, and wanted to save them. Indeed, several of the Jewish leaders became followers of His, which was due to Jesus' love and work in their behalf.



I agree that they chose freely to remain on their wayward course, but disagree with the idea that Jesus Christ was designing punishment for them. Jesus was clear regarding His mission, which was not to destroy, but to save. The suffering which came as a result of not taking heed to His words were because His words were the way of salvation.

Suppose there is a bridge out on a road, and I warn you not to go forward, and you insist, and suffer as a result. This is analogous to what was happening in the case of Jesus Christ and those who rejected Him, and continues to be the case to this day. Jesus Christ went about doing good, encouraging others to also do so, and warning of the consequences of doing evil, which consequences are the result of sin.



Just an understanding of God's character makes this clear. God causes the rain to fall on the just and the unjust. Even the final judgment in the second resurrection is for the benefit of those who are judged (that I know the reference for off the top of my head, should you desire it. If the final judgment is for the benefit of the wicked, it shouldn't be difficult to believe that His telling of parables was for their benefit as well.)



Certainly there were other reasons as to why Jesus taught in parables. The beginning of "Christ's Object Lessons" discusses this.



You really don't see that Jesus Christ taught in parables because of the opposition of the Jewish rulers? It seems pretty obvious to me. It's not a "subjective assumption," but follows from a reading of what happened. Christ taught openly in the beginning of His ministry, was brought opposition, and then began to teach in parables.

Here's something I found quickly on the web:



This isn't adduced as proof that what I'm saying was correct, but merely that it is not a "subjective assumption" of mine.

Before I go further, do you disagree with what I quoted here?



This is a long and difficult to understand sentence, but it looks like you're saying the same thing that I was saying, that the cause of their blindness was due to their own actions, as opposed to something God did to them. You wrote, "It was by them(sic) choosing to persist in their wayward course" etc.

So if I'm understanding you correctly, that their blindness was a result of their own actions, then I agree.



I would put it this way. It's not that God was withholding something from them, but they, because of their own actions, were unable to see or understand that which was before them. They heard the same words as those who believed, but did not understand the words, because they refused to respond to the Holy Spirit, and without the Holy Spirit, they could not understand.

Fitting succinct and summary response to you Tom: Substantively and “peripherally”, utterly frivolous, indeed on all levels, for both your posts actually. Nothing deservingly “salvageable” here. Keep up this obfuscating work!! You’re not fooling, nor impressing, at least, me....

Again I make the Bible my final authority and not the opinions of men. The statements of EGW is also subject to this Biblical hierarchy.

And to, as here, I substantively take my orders from the word and Spirit of God and certainly not from the “substantively base and quibbling preferences of men”. You, more crucially, lack truthfulness, including Biblical Truth. Keep quibbling away...

It would be a good thing for you to be civil in your posts. Insulting your readers isn't a good strategy for anything I can think of.

The blog post is too long to comment on it all, so I'm bringing up something I found to be of interest. I should be free to do so without being insulted.

It would be a good idea for you to proof-read your posts, not just for content, but for tone.



Same comment as above. I read everything, and chose what I wanted to pursue further. If you wish to call a different portion of what you wrote to my attention, and pursue that further, you're free to do so.

Also the point of view of the author was correct, even if the "polemos" comment was flawed. The Great Controversy is involves God's character and the principles of His government. It is not a battle which can be won by physical force.



Required in what sense?



You're not giving a context to your comments here. What is it that you think is my point of view in regards to Ellen White's comments? What is it that you are taking issue with?



You mean Dwight Nelson no longer views the was as being one of ideas? Or just that he changed his mind regarding "polemos"?



Again, proof-reading your posts, and improving the tone, would be a good thing to do. A lack of civility does nothing to help our arguments. It neither speaks well of you, nor your point of view. Indeed, it casts doubt upon it. If, at every turn, you feel the need to resort to sarcasm and insults, that speaks to a feeling of inferiority, a sense of doubt.



I suppose I could have quoted the whole chapter, to avoid such accusations. The point she was making was that compelling power is found only under Satan's government, and that rebellion was not to be overcome by force. My including the above sentence would have altered this point in any way. Its meaning is clear, as I stated it.



What I quoted speaks to the methodology used. This could not be clearer. She wrote that compelling power is to be found only under Satan's government, which is speaking to a difference of principles involved in the two governments.



This is a bit difficult to understand, but I think I have it. I think you're trying to say that God gave the rebels a chance to win the war by force, if they were able to do so, but that He would not win the war in that manner by destroying them. Assuming this is what you meant, I see two problems with this idea.

First of all, she writes that rebellion was not to be overcome by force. That would be an ironic to thing to write if what had just happened is that rebellion was overcome by force.

Secondly, and more importantly to this discussion, she wrote that compelling power is only to be found under Satan's government. This is a far-reaching statement, dealing with the principles of the governments involved. It would be akin to saying something like, "Deceit is only to be found under Satan's government." It is speaking of a principle which God does not use.



If rebellion was not to be overcome by force, and compelling power is found only under Satan's government, it stands to reason that God did not use compelling power to cast Satan out.



She said nothing about forcing the angels to believe anything. She did not limit her comment that compelling power is found only under Satan's government in any way. She did not say, "Compelling power is only found under Satan's government when it involves compelling someone to believe in a certain way."