NJK, why don't you just answer the question? kland is asking you how your view differs from mine. What he quoted doesn't matter; just explain how you perceive your view of GC 35.3 to be different than my view.

This, of course, begs the question of what "evil" means in this context. I have argued against the idea that God acts violently, by doing such things as burning people alive, to punish them. I have said that there are a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which God is constantly protecting us, and that it is sufficient, in terms of explaining and judgments that have occurred, for God to have simply withdrawn His protection, as explained in GC 35-37. There is no need for God to have acted in any way different than how Jesus Christ acted while here with us in the flesh.

Jesus said, "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father," and that means fully/completely. God is *always* like Jesus Christ was; He knows no other way to act than by agape. God is far more gentle, kind, patient, humble, merciful and compassionate than we can imagine. The enemy is Satan and sin, which is far more powerful to corrupt and destroy than people have any idea of. Not having an idea of sin's power, people feel the necessity to attribute the bad things that happen due to that people to the power of another.



So if God acts violently, contrary to how Jesus Christ lived or taught, that's not evil, but if God acts precisely according to the explanation of GC 35-37, that is evil. That seems backwards.

This caught my attention, due to the choice of words. You write of "designings against the Jewish leaders," as if Christ were out to get them, or against them. But Jesus Christ loved them, and didn't have designings against them, but for them.

Christ taught in parables for their benefit, as well as for others. When He first started to teach, He taught openly, but because of opposition, He changed tactics. Christ was always interested in reaching the Jewish leaders, both for the sake of their own souls, and as a means of saving the nation. When they opposed Him, He resorted to teaching in parables.

The reason that teaching in parables was for their benefit as well was they were in no state of mind to receive that which He was preaching, had He continued in a direct non-parable way. By teaching in parables, He was able to present truths to them in a non-threatening way, that they could ponder at their leisure. It was a means of trying to overcome prejudice.

Also, in your quote of Isaiah, and how you have expressed things, it gives the impression that God either desired that those who were rejecting Him not see, or caused it, or both. But it was their own actions, and their own desires, that caused their blindness. God did nothing but give them light, as He does for all. Jesus Christ is the true light that lightens everyone who comes into the world.

Regarding the war in heaven, here is a statement from the SOP involving Revelation 12:



From your post:





These statements seem to be in harmony with what Ellen White wrote above. Satan was not defeated by violence, or force, but by the cross. The cross is the power of God. It is the "foolishness" which defeats the wisdom of Satan, and the "weakness" which defeats his power (cf. 1 Cor. 1:25).

Indeed, a little before the above cited reference, Ellen White wrote:

Ellen White wrote:



I don't see how one could read this and come to the conclusion you did. Could you explain that please?

Because, as I already said in response to kland, I already did, including as you quote below in post #133066. (Really why can’t/won’t you both understand and/or accept that??1) Such a quasi-“playing dumb” tactic does not work with me; especially not from kland who has no benefit of the doubt in this regard from me. kland chose to editorially, excisingly ignore my explanatory comments. Seems that it took more time and space to create his convoluted push-button quoting than to quote my statement in its entirety. (Try reading my unread by you comments/posting in their entirety before posting questions. This quasi-gotcha approach just wastes time, at least mine).

I have seen absolutely nothing wrong/unjust/undeserved either with the acts of judgement themselves or with God doing them either directly (Fire from God) indirectly (through His Angels) and/or actively (His being executively involved) or passively (allowing nature to naturally [i.e., e.g., not the Flood] take its course and/or permitting Satan to do the judgement.



That is what I see as a “passive act of God”.



That view of yours is easily refuted by e.g., the fact that Jesus twice did use physical force to clear/cleanse His Temple of ‘merchandising robbers and thieves’. Not surprisingly that Gospel episode fact also, and that obliviously, if not indifferently, does not “catch your attention.”

Furthermore that persistent “reverse Theology” of ‘the OT God (which was also Jesus Himself as Michael/The Angel of the Lord) acting like the incarnate Jesus’ is substantively illogical to me. I rather see that Jesus, upon reading and studying the scrolls of the OT for at least up to 35 years (8 B.C. birth) came to understand how God had justly acted in those inspired records and sought out to emulate God as He had read. Which is why, e.g., (which are comments you patently ignore, yet still insist on making your claims), Jesus had not qualms about become upset due to the Israel-wide, copiously encountered pervasive religious hypocrisy (Luke 12:1-12), mindless selfish greed (vss. 13-21), lack of faith in the power and faithfulness of God (vss. 22-34) and sloughful indifference towards the Glory and Triumph of God’s Kingdom (35-40) and wasteful stewardship of God resources (vss. 41-48) was greatly desiring to effectuate Hell Fire judgement before His Atoning Sacrifice (vss. 49, 50) since that would surely overturn things (cf. 51-53) though without any opportunity for mercy.



It is God’s Love for primarily the just and righteous which leads Him to, when absolutely necessary, to do supernatural acts to beneficially, timely, protectively and efficiently effectuate a deserved judgement. It is even, in some case, as object lesson, out of a love for other less sinful peoples that God selects the worst group from these sinful peoples to effectuate a judgement. (These non-judged, though also lesserly deserving, others are then free to choose whether to let that judgement lead them to begin to have a healthy fear of God or not.)



God’s use of force (=your violently), or even effectuating judgements (which are actually meant to serve as a deterrent from other people, if not also in some cases, a tangible necessity, e.g., thorough cleansing by fire) is not evil. God’s allowing of what is describe in GC 35-37 to take place, which in some level does not have to involve direct actions of the devil, as EGW originally was shown in 14MR 1-3, but is just allowing nature to unrestrictively take its course, is by definition evil, as it is the natural consequence of the evil that Satan’s sinful schemes and concoction have brought into the world. The evil, especially in the Greater GC context, is also not necessarily in the action itself but the circumstance making it necessary. Case in point God’s choice for a War in Heaven was not evil, but the best way to resolve that conflict. Similarly Israel’s Wars at the command and supernatural assistance of God was not an act of evil. So the key here is not merely looking at the act, but the wider reasons/motives behind the act.

As usual you are paramount attracted by the externals and thus do not susbtantively engage the other points listed prior to this one, as already pointed out.
I had already expounded on the ‘designing’ issue here in a prior post. Jesus deliberate “designs” against these leader was in order to get them to suffer the punishment for the wayward course, (should they obstinately freely choose to remain on it), which they, as the most educated and privileged in Israel then had ample opportunity to not only change course but also help the people under their leadership. They selfishly and indifferently chose not to, for indeed doing so now would come to undoing all of the spurious platform their false teachings and ways had raised up.



You’ll need to quote either Scripture or the SOP to validate this manifest subjective assumption of yours. Indeed based on the (paramount) testimony of Scripture in Matt 13:1-3, 10ff, I have to adjust my view to include all peoples, and not just the Jewish leaders as to why Jesus taught in parables. And it was because: ‘To Christ disciples it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to non-believing/following crowd it had not been granted.’ (vs. 11; cf. 12-17)



Again this all seems like a subjective assumption of yours. Cite Bible and/or SOP to validate it.



It was by them choosing to persist in their wayward course, [even by simply saying: ‘this guy does not teach “plainly” as the other Jewish leaders so He must either be telling tales or have something to hid (it must e.g., be, (hint hint) because of his “illegitimate” birth)’], that this light, which he indeed did (freely) “give” to them, though a dimmed/veiled form, actually came to blind rather than guide these defaultly quibblingly objecting, faithless, hypocritical and self-serving ones. That is exactly how I see EGW understood it in your quoted RH, September 26, 1899 par. 10-12. Only those who stepped out in faith to walk with Jesus, versus just being part of a gathering crowd to here a good sermon, similar to how the Greeks gathered to watch a play), would be given the keys to unlocking and understanding the truths in these deliberately veiled sayings.

Congratulation on the reading of that blog post, though you obviously also borught along your one-sidedly selective mindset. Didn’t you read the exegetical points and direct EGW revelations beyond my opening quoting of SDA preacher who have the Biblically wrong view on this topic???

The SOP, based on the Bible, is clear that there were two casting out of Satan from Heaven. The first from within Heaven itself using brute force to decided the issue and then further force to effectuate the casting out; the Second at the Cross from where Satan use to “await the angels as they came from the heavenly courts”. You are quoting comments made in regard to the Second Casting out above which, as I see it just required the angels just to completely ignore Satan, which then made it quite futile to even show up there as he had before. Exegesis also applies to the writings of EGW, especially the contextual aspects of it!

By the way, as I noted on my blog post, Dwight Nelson may have changed his view on this topic. Indeed in a response to an email I had sent him on this, he had said that he saw the difference expressed there involving “polemos”.



Again you resort, given your advanced (i.e., Seminary) education, to poor/shoody/arbitrary “exegesis”:

(1) You left out EGW’s qualifying statements to those comments which were just before them, that: “God could have destroyed Satan and his sympathizers as easily as one can cast a pebble to the earth; but He did not do this.” This speaks of actions to “destroy” Satan and his sympathizers and also cast them out without a chance to defend their position. It does not preclude the war that God instead used to give them this chance to win this GC indeed merely by brute force if they could. In fact the war itself was probably limited to be non-lethal.

Furthermore, even when force used to cast Satan out, it was not strong enough to caused them to crash down to earth and die indeed “as easily as one [a man] can cast a pebble to the earth”.

(2) As I have repeatedly said, EGW speaks here of “compelling power”. I.e., using force to cause Satan to believe, or actually make the other angels believe that God is right without the GC opportunity to let both sides demonstrate their view.

I already did, in Post #133034. Engage those already posted answering comments.