T: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.

NJK:In Jesus’s predictions of the destruction of Jerusalem, he not only speaks of God removing His protection but ‘commandingly involved in the destruction event” (Matt 22:7) indeed just as the Jews before had said it should be done (Matt 21:40, 41). As I understand it, the fact that God was involved and that this was never intended to be an action entirely controlled and achieved by the Devil, even if through the Roman armies, was that, as Jesus later pointed out, God wanted to have mercy in this event and cut these days short (cf. Matt 24:22) so that some of the Jews could survive. As I now more precisely understand it. It was because God then had planned ca. 20 more years before the Second Coming could occur and perhaps this judgement would help to make these surviving, ‘pacific Jews’ realize their sin and seek Gospel/New Covenant repentance.

EGW comments in GC 35-37 are not in opposition to these exegetical and exegetically derived facts as her point was that God does not ‘decree punishments’ in the sense that He violates the freewill of people and makes suffer a punishment that they did not unlawfully act to deserve.

her point was that God does not ‘decree punishments’ in the sense that He violates the freewill of people and makes suffer a punishment that they did not unlawfully act to deserve.

Hence her pivotal phrase “direct decree of God” (GC 35.3). Indeed it extends to even a judgement that was fully warranted, as with the Jews, their 70 A.D. destruction which was for the rejection and murder of their Messiah did not have to be as if God had decreed it to be irreversible. It was because they continued in unbelief and rejection during the 40 years since, and in the light and testimony of the Gospel message that they suffered the natural end results of God not protecting them. Still, as Jesus had indicated in Matt 22:7, it was God who, just like He had done with Babylon in the OT, sent the Romans against the Jews to effectuate this judgement, even though they were clearly pondered and reluctant to do so.

His authority rests upon goodness, mercy, and love; and the presentation of these principles is the means to be used. God's government is moral, and truth and love are to be the prevailing power. (DA 759)

By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them... (GC 35)

And as I see it, it was so that this judgement could here timely be done to allow for enough time (ca. 20 years) for the rest of Christ Olivet Discourse prophecy to be fully fulfilled and thus culminating in the Second Coming. However the Christian Church proved not faithful to this charge as seen in the messages to the 7 Churches, which was indeed based on literal developments and which God then typologically used as capital points that He would object to in the now to be Historically developed NT Church.

T: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.

NJK:I do not believe that “it is God’s will to cause suffering, or death, to those who have disobeyed Him”. That view fits in the mold of what EGW decried as ‘Satan’s claim of God’s direct decree’. By illustration, that is like a judge wanting a person who simply got a speeding ticket to get the death penalty and acting irrespective of facts to “decree” that this be the case. God instead is exercising just justice and the capital punishment death penalties that He rules through full and transparent justice are all warranted sentences. The more light and thus opportunities to avert the sin resulting in this death, the more delayed that punishment is. Still that punishment is not set in stone for those who genuinely want to repent. It is only by them persisting in their wayward course that these “forge the fetters” that cause them to indeed receive that associated or necessitated punishment and through whatever expedient or as-natural-as-possible means it needs to be done.

T: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.

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

Tom: Agreed.

NJK:As I understand your view, you are only ‘agreeing’ with the “passive” portion but not my “of God” portion as I understand this to mean that God was actually involved in such cases.

You instead think God is completely removed in such cases and natural acts, even in self-acting, even as it is required, self-directing way and/or the devil is in full control and is administering the judgement.

I, on the other hand, have yet to see a Biblical/SOP case where the devil has been given this green light, even, a particularly in, the Destruction of Jerusalem, and only see that this will be the case in the 7th and Final Plague.

By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them, and Satan was permitted to rule them according to his will. The horrible cruelties enacted in the destruction of Jerusalem are a demonstration of Satan's vindictive power over those who yield to his control. (GC 35)

T: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.

NJK: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’.

Tom: 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.

NJK:I see this as a circular argument, especially as (1) it is entirely based on your view, (which, in my view is reversedly making ‘the OT God act like the incarnate Jesus’ (which is chronologically not possible), instead of the logical vice versa, and (2) it is being stated here as the first reasons instead of a second one. I.e., logic must be based upon/flow out of concrete facts.

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.

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’.

T: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.

NJK:This is not a realistic nor logical conclusion. Had Jesus just walked into the Temple and simply looked at these thieves and robbers and they and then suddenly scurriedly bolted out of the Temple leaving most, if not all of their commodities behind, or even taking them with them, then that would have been a passive act or Jesus. (Indeed “passive” as He was physically present but had just looked at them). But the account didn’t end with Jesus just looking at them as seen in DA 157.4. That only caused a hushed silence. The Bible and SOP then clearly say that:

-divinity flash through the garb of humanity (DA 158.1a = a “stern and godlike demeanor” DA 589.1)
-a divine light illuminates His countenance (DA 158.1b)
-to the sellers of doves He (first) tells them to “take these things hence” (DA 158.1c cf. John 2:16)
-He then, effectively menacingly, and as a “flaming sword”, raises his scourge of cords (DA 158.2)
-and then begins over thrown the money-changer’s table
-it is then, after these physical acts that “Officers of the temple, speculating priests, brokers and cattle traders, with their sheep and oxen, rush from the place, with the one thought of escaping from the condemnation of His presence. {DA 158.2}”

To say that Jesus did not use force here is not exegetically realistic. It was a degree of force, and proportional/reasonable force at that, but by incontrovertible definition, force non the less. To say the contrary is like saying that a police officer does not use force at all to do a traffic stop.

By merely flicking on his lights, a first stage/degree of law enforcing force is used. If that is being resisted by the law violator, then that forces is increased namely to a siren blasting, a parallel/side visible indication, a police chase, a spin out, a nail carpet, shooting out the tires, and so on. In fact the first stage of force to comply to the law is, if that was the case, to immediately slow down to the speed limit particularly when passing a police office who is engaged in speeding control. Furthermore, more pertinently, complete non-force with the effectuation of a judgement here, would that law offender pulling over on their own at the mere noticing of a police car and then convincing the police officer to write them a ticket becasuse they had exceeded the speeding limit, even 10 miles before.

Similarly, in the case of Christ, the inceptive stage of force was when He stepped into the Temple and began to glare at them. As they immediately knew something was wrong, they should have immediately complied with what God’s Law/principle actually was for this circumstance, which they fully knew of. Instead subsequent degrees of force came to be used as listed above with:

-divinity flashing through the garb of humanity (stern and godlike) = revealing that Jesus was a Divine “Law Enforcer” here and means to end this violation of the Law.
-a divine light illuminates His countenance = Jesus was flashing His “pull over lights”
-Orders to “take these things hence” = visible/audible “command/indication to comply”
-A raised his scourge of cords = Christ menacingly “chasing them out”
-and then begins over thrown the money-changer’s table = Christ physically removing/ending the elements that made the resistance “possible or justified”
-then the object of this Law Enforcing intervention was begun to be realized with the violators having been “neutralized”

Second Clearing/Cleansing
The second clearing cleansing (Matt 21:12, 13; Mar 11:15-17; Luke 19:45, 46; DA 589.1-591.1) similarly also involved all of the degrees of force as in the first one, including physical overturnings (Matt 21:12b/Mark 11:15b which EGW does not mention in her account DA (590.4-591.1)).

Overpowered with terror, the priests and rulers had fled from the temple court, and from the searching glance that read their hearts. In their flight they met others on their way to the temple, and bade them turn back, telling them what they had seen and heard. Christ looked upon the fleeing men with yearning pity for their fear, and their ignorance of what constituted true worship. In this scene He saw symbolized the dispersion of the whole Jewish nation for their wickedness and impenitence.

And why did the priests flee from the temple? Why did they not stand their ground? He who commanded them to go was a carpenter's son, a poor Galilean, without earthly rank or power. Why did they not resist Him? Why did they leave the gain so ill acquired, and flee at the command of One whose outward appearance was so humble?

Christ spoke with the authority of a king, and in His appearance, and in the tones of His voice, there was that which they had no power to resist. At the word of command they realized, as they had never realized before, their true position as hypocrites and robbers. (DA 162)

The plain meaning of physical force is power, violence, or pressure directed against a person consisting in a physical act. A person cannot make physical contact — particularly of an insulting or provoking nature — with another without exerting some level of physical force. (United States Court of Appeals)

M: By the way, if this is indeed what happened, did God give His enemies access to the most holy place? And, where did they obtain the fire they used to burn N&A alive?

T: This question doesn't make sense to me.

M: Inspiration makes it clear the fire that burned N&A alive blazed out from the presence of God in the most holy place. In order for His enemies to do it, they would have had to been inside the most holy place when they employed fire to burn N&A alive. Well, come to think of it, I suppose it’s possible they could have figured out a way to make fire blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place without having to be physically inside the most holy place. Also, what kind of fire did God’s enemies use?

T: GC 35-37 isn't limited to actions of God's enemies. There are a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which God protects us.

M: While we’re at it, who were His enemies?

T: Those who hate God are God's enemies (but God is still their friend).

M: I’m sorry it wasn’t clear I was referring specifically to the enemies of God who you say caused fire to blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned N&A alive.

T: Why do you think I said this?

M: Were these particular enemies evil angels? If not, who were they?

T: Please quote something I've said. I don't know where you're getting these ideas from.

M: Are you refusing to address questions relating to N&A and the two bands of fifty?

T: No, I'm asking you to please quote something I've said, because I don't understand where you're getting your ideas from. That isn't clear to you?

M: It was Ellen who said so. You agreed with her.

T: You're suggesting that Ellen White said these particular enemies were evil agents?

M:Inspiration makes it clear the fire that burned N&A alive blazed out from the presence of God in the most holy place. Similarly, fire flashed from heaven in response to Elijah’s prayers to burn alive the two different bands of fifty. Do you believe Jesus withdrew His protection and permitted His enemies to burn them alive? So far you have not answered this question plainly. Please do so.

Christ's Revelation of God (Section title in book)

All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son. {8T 286.1}

"No man hath seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him." John 1:18. {8T 286.2}

Taking humanity upon Him, Christ came to be one with humanity and at the same time to reveal our heavenly Father to sinful human beings. He was in all things made like unto His brethren. He became flesh, even as we are. He was hungry and thirsty and weary. He was sustained by food and refreshed by sleep. He shared the lot of men, and yet He was the blameless Son of God. He was a stranger and sojourner on the earth--in the world, but not of the world; tempted and tried as men and women today are tempted and tried, yet living a life free from sin. {8T 286.3}

Tender, compassionate, sympathetic, ever considerate of others, He represented the character of God, and was constantly engaged in service for God and man. {8T 286.4}

T: Please explain to me how this can mean that NOT every thing man needs to know, or can know, of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son, when He "took humanity upon Him."

M:Please refer to the many passages I posted earlier (omitted by you). As a whole they make clear the point. Do not make the mistake of basing your idea on one passage. Also, “needs to know” is not the same thing as “everything there is to know”.

T: I agree that nothing happens by fate. I disagree that nothing happens by chance. If Jesus, or God, permits something to occur which happens by chance, that doesn't mean that the thing permitted to occur did not happen by chance. I believe there are things which happen by chance. For example, tossing a fair coin is an example. By chance it will be heads or tails. Many such examples could be given.

M: Do you believe Jesus is free to choose between such options as preventing death and destruction or permitting it, that He takes everything and everyone into consideration and then decides whether to prevent or permit death and destruction, that the choice is His?

T: You're mixing too many things together here, and then asking a yes or no question. That's not cricket. I think all evil is not the choice of Jesus Christ, and evil only occurs when beings choose to act contrary to His will.

M: Or, do you believe chance dictates whether or not He is free to choose between preventing or permitting death and destruction?

T: Things happen by chance, if that's what you mean.

M: Is Christ in control or is chance?

T: Things happen by chance, if that's what you're asking. Again, chance being in control isn't a logical construct.

M: If God is not in control of sinners, who, then, is protecting them?

T: By "in control of" I assume you mean "controlling." Or do you mean something else? If by "in control of" you mean "protecting," then I may agree with what you mean, if not what you're saying. That is, I certainly agree that God is protecting sinners.

M: Do you believe God is not in control of sinners?

T: Not when they sin.

M: If so, and I assume you do, what do you mean by it?

T: I mean that sinners, when they sin, choose to exercise their free will to act contrary to the will of Jesus Christ.

M:Yes, of course, sinners are free to choose to sin. But I’m referring to the resulting outcomes, consequences. For example, N&A were free to choose to employ strange fire. The various outcomes, consequences of their choice was entirely up to Jesus – not chance, not sin, not Satan. Jesus chose to employ fire to burn them alive. So far, you have refused to say who or what employed the fire that killed them.

M: As for me, I believe Jesus is, as sovereign Lord and King, ultimately in control of the outcome of the great controversy – not sin, not sinners, and not Satan.

T: The Great Controversy is not a contest that can be decided by sovereignty; it's decided by evidence. God has been accused of certain things, things involving His character and the principles of His government. To make His case that He has been unjustly accused, God has chosen to allow things to play out, that His character may be seen in contrast with that of His accuser, as well as the principles of His government in contrast to the principles of his adversary's government.

M: That is, sin does not determine how the GC will play out, neither do sinners, nor does Satan.

T: Sinners and Satan have a part, as do all sentient beings.

M: Whether or not this or that choice plays out this or that way is entirely up to Jesus - not sin, not sinners, and not Satan.

T: No, this isn't the case. When a rapist chooses to rape, and that plays out in a rape victim being raped, that's not "entirely up to Jesus." You don't see the problem in asserting this?

M: True, His options are limited. He isn’t free to manage the outcome irrespective of the choice. For example, Jesus wasn’t free to manage Judas’ choice to betray Him in a way that would result in him sitting on the right or left hand of Jesus in the New Jerusalem.

T: This doesn't seem to be a related point to the discussion.

M:Whether or not this or that choice plays out this or that way is entirely up to Jesus - not sin, not sinners, and not Satan.
Evil choices usually end in evil consequences. Exactly which evil consequence plays out is up to Jesus. Not that He makes it play out that way. But He does manage things so that they do not play out some other way. He either causes, commands, or permits.

T: To state that evil angels never disobey Jesus Christ is not a fair accusation to make upon Christ. Of course they disobey Him, whenever they do evil. To think that evil angels are shackled so they only obey Christ's will is, I'm having difficulty coming up with words that aren't too strong here, I'll just say not fair to Christ. Also, it's not fair to them, as well, as, if they are not to a great extent free to do their will, then the Great Controversy is a sham. Finally, if they are not free to do their will, how do you explain the evil there is in the world?

M:As explained above, Jesus is in control – not sin, not sinners, and not Satan. Evil angels are only as free as Jesus allows. 1 Cor 10:13 is an example.

M: He commanded godly people like Moses to kill ungodly people. In final judgment, the radiant glory of God’s person and presence will cause the wicked to suffer in duration and intensity proportionate to their sinfulness. The presence of God’s radiant glory is required for the wicked to experience the emotional and physical suffering that ends in eternal death, otherwise, they would merely live and die as they did before Jesus resurrected them.

T: I'm sorry you feel this way. DA 764 tells us that if God had allowed Satan and his followers to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished, but it would not have been apparent that the inevitable result of sin is death. I'm sorry you don't see the relationship between sin and death. I think not seeing this connections leads to many errors, all of which portray God negatively.

M:Jesus established the laws regulating capital punishment. It doesn’t matter if such laws existed.

M:And, the connection between sin and eternal death is real. Sin and sinners cannot abide in the presence of God. The radiant light of His glory consumes sinners with their sins. You seem to think it is sin, not the light of God’s radiant glory, that will consume sinners in final judgment.

God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them. (DA 764)

T: I assume you mean that from my perspective, the mechanism matters, if sincere seekers of truth wrongly conclude that Jesus employs fire to burn people alive. If this is what you mean, I still don't agree that the mechanism matters. I believe it's the principle that matters. A sincere seeker of truth, from my perspective, will not make conclusions about the mechanism involved which are not in harmony with God's character or the principles of His government, if he gets the principles right.

M: What would they conclude? Would it suffice them to know Jesus didn’t burn them alive? Thus satisfied it wouldn’t occur to them to care who or what caused the fire that burned them alive?

T: I don't think it matters much to one who is convinced in regards to God's character. For example, let's say someone is killed in your house by a fire. It's possible that your wife set them on fire and burned them alive. But you know your wife, and know she isn't capable of that sort of behavior. So how did the person die? Insofar as your wife's setting them on fire is concerned, you don't much care, because you know however the person died, it wasn't because your wife set them on fire.

M:Did my wife withdraw her protection and permit her enemies to burn them alive? You seem to think it doesn’t matter.

By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them ... (GC 35)

M: In the case of N&A, the fire blazed out from the presence of God in the most holy place. And, in the case of the two bands of fifty, fire rained down from God in heaven. To say Jesus simply withdrew His protection and permitted (you have yet to say who) to cause fire to burn them alive begs the question – Why were His enemies in the most holy places in heaven and earth?

T: I disagree that it begs this question.

M: Does it matter to you, Tom, where Jesus’ enemies were when He, according to you, permitted them to make fire blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burn them alive? It matters very much to me. That’s why I believe Jesus employed fire to burn them alive.

T: I addressed this just above, in the illustration about your wife setting people on fire.

M:Who did Jesus permit to employ the fire that killed them? Please don’t say it doesn’t matter. Please answer this question.

T: You didn't answer my question. I'll repeat it. Satan is free to do his will, to a great degree, which is evident in looking at our world. He has to be free to do as he pleases in order for there to be a Great Controversy. This agrees with your understanding, doesn't it?

M: No, I disagree. Satan is not free to do as he pleases.

T: Then there's no Great Controversy. If God does His will, and Satan does God's will, there's no controversy at all; there's only God's will. If all that happens is God's will, that begs the question of what sort of God would will the sort of horror we see on this planet?

M: Jesus is in control of the outcome of our choices. He doesn’t leave it up to Satan to decide how best to punish evildoers. True, in the case of Job, Jesus left it up to Satan to decide, within very strict perimeters, what to do. However, in the cases of the wicked, Jesus does not leave it up to Satan.

T: This seems a bit confused, in regards to the subject of discussion here. Are you talking about the final judgment? If not, none of this really makes sense. The punishment of the wicked isn't until the resurrection. If you're talking about the final judgment, then it doesn't make sense to suggest that Jesus Christ leaves their punishment up to Satan. That's just a red herring.

M: “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. . . Since the flood, God has used both water and fire in the earth as his agents to destroy wicked cities. {1SP 84.3}

T: Scripture, and the SOP, often present God as doing that which He permits.

M:The GC concerns us as much as it does God. Jesus will not let Satan tempt us beyond His ability to empower us to resist. This ensures the GC is fair. Very clearly Satan is not free to do whatever he’d like to do. He must obtain permission from Jesus to tempt us or to harm us. What happens is by permission.

There are times, though, when Jesus Himself acts to punish impenitent sinners. 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. . . Since the flood, God has used both water and fire in the earth as his agents to destroy wicked cities. {1SP 84.3}

M: I’m curious, Tom, do you even believe Jesus commanded Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to death? I cannot recall you ever answering this question. I get the impression you believe Moses misunderstood what Jesus told him. Please, Tom, don’t go off on a tangent here and ignore directly answering my question. I realize you haven’t said anything specifically about whether or not Moses misunderstood Jesus. So please, don’t use this comment as excuse to ignore answering my question. Please answer it. Thank you.

T: The best way I know to answer your question is with the story of the father of the hunter son. Did the father of the hunter son command his son to do the things he told him to do? What would neighbors who overheard their conversation have thought? Also, do you think Moses knew God and His will as well as Jesus Christ did? Was it Moses' job to perfectly reveal the character of the Father? Isn't it true that God's character was misunderstood until Christ completed His job of revealing it? If so, wouldn't it stand to reason that Moses' understanding of it was imperfect? Can there be any better way of understanding God's character than to examine the life and teachings of Christ? (No, there can't be).

M:Do you believe it when it says in the Bible that Jesus commanded Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to death? Or, do you suspect Moses misunderstood what Jesus said? For example, in the Bible it says:

“And Moses spake to the children of Israel, that they should bring forth him that had cursed out of the camp, and stone him with stones. And the children of Israel did as the LORD commanded Moses.”

“And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.”

Also, do you think the father teaching his son how to hunt humanely is the same thing as Jesus commanding Moses to stone to death the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer? Is hunting animals and killing humans equal in the eyes of God? Did the father command his son to hunt humanely?

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."


T:It's a huge mistake to view God as responsible for these things.

Quote:
It was generally believed by the Jews that sin is punished in this life. Every affliction was regarded as the penalty of some wrongdoing, either of the sufferer himself or of his parents. It is true that all suffering results from the transgression of God's law, but this truth had become perverted. Satan, the author of sin and all its results, had led men to look upon disease and death as proceeding from God,--as punishment arbitrarily inflicted on account of sin. Hence one upon whom some great affliction or calamity had fallen had the additional burden of being regarded as a great sinner.

Thus the way was prepared for the Jews to reject Jesus. He who "hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows" was looked upon by the Jews as "stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted;" and they hid their faces from Him. Isa. 53:4, 3.

God had given a lesson designed to prevent this. The history of Job had shown that suffering is inflicted by Satan, and is overruled by God for purposes of mercy. But Israel did not understand the lesson. The same error for which God had reproved the friends of Job was repeated by the Jews in their rejection of Christ. (DA 471)

M:I do not understand how your response addresses my comments.

T:Oh I see what you're saying. Actually the phrase, "punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God” conveys the idea that the punishment visited upon them was not due to a direct decree of God. This means it wasn't God's will. Also, the context makes clear what was happening. She repeats, over and over again (reminiscent of DA 764) that the things that happened were NOT due to something God did, but to the actions of others. Indeed, one wonders how she could have made this clearer.

M:Jesus was forced to withdraw His protection and to permit His enemies to inflict punishment upon the Jews in 70 AD.

Said punishment was inflicted because Jesus permitted it.

Their sufferings are often represented as a punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God. It is thus that the great deceiver seeks to conceal his own work. By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them ... (GC 35)

He also worked to prevent His enemies from exceeding the limits He imposed on them. In essence Jesus orchestrated the outcome.

(1)The Jews had forged their own fetters; they had filled for themselves the cup of vengeance. (2)In the utter destruction that befell them as a nation, and in all the woes that followed them in their dispersion, they were but reaping the harvest which their own hands had sown. (3)Says the prophet: "O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself;" "for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity." Hosea 13:9; 14:1. (4)Their sufferings are often represented as a punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God. (5)It is thus that the great deceiver seeks to conceal his own work. (6)By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them, and Satan was permitted to rule them according to his will. (7)The horrible cruelties enacted in the destruction of Jerusalem are a demonstration of Satan's vindictive power over those who yield to his control.

We cannot know how much we owe to Christ for the peace and protection which we enjoy. (8)It is the restraining power of God that prevents mankind from passing fully under the control of Satan. (9)The disobedient and unthankful have great reason for gratitude for God's mercy and long-suffering in holding in check the cruel, malignant power of the evil one. (10)But when men pass the limits of divine forbearance, that restraint is removed. (11)God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown. Every ray of light rejected, every warning despised or unheeded, every passion indulged, every transgression of the law of God, is a seed sown which yields its unfailing harvest. (12)The Spirit of God, persistently resisted, is at last withdrawn from the sinner, and then there is left no power to control the evil passions of the soul, and no protection from the malice and enmity of Satan. (GC 35-37)

God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown.

T: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. [...]
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.

NJK:Ironically enough, for either ones of these to fit within your ‘natural (third-party) self-acting’ view Jesus would have to not have even condemningly looked at these offenders but even just walk into the Temple mid his own business and these offenders would still have bolted out overturning their own tables and leaving being their money (= causing damage to themselves).

Christ looked upon the fleeing men with yearning pity for their fear, and their ignorance of what constituted true worship. (DA 162)

NJK:Clearly that is not the case. Thus this was a direct judgement of Jesus/God and thus emulates the similar acts of intervening judgement of God found throughout the Bible, pointedly with the OT God that Jesus was here perfectly emulating, especially by using the reasonable force needed to fully effectuate that judgement and its desired outcome. The money remaining behind was indeed rightfully to be made available from those who had been defrauded.

NJK: 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.

Tom: 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.

NJK:The problem with the enjoined full extent/implication of “your point” (= your view of this emulating) is that it does not, even manifestly, must not, involve all of the exegetically actual/realistic elements in Christ actions. E.g.:

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.

-As shown above, a degree of force was used in the clearing of the Temple, indeed with Christ himself being the one who actively administered that Law Enforcing force.

-Jesus greatly wished to interveningly bring about Hell Fire to end the GC Luke 12:49-50 in the light of all of the pervasive abuses taking place (12:1-48).

-Jesus said that God would be the one to cause the destruction event of Jerusalem (Matt 22:7)

-Like the OT God (Isa 6:9-13) Christ veiled the things that would have facilitated the averting of Jerusalem’s physical destruction, only providing the explanatory keys to His disciples.

(Matt 13:10-17) All that everyone else heard was a story which they had to then, at their own peril precisely figure out what actual reality they were conveying. Clearly most of these people never came to accurately decipher and understand these veiled sayings.

-Jesus defaultly acted to rouse the hatred of Jewish leaders, e.g., in the first temple cleansing (DA 167.2) and in His synagogue sermon (DA 237.3ff).

Your claim of ‘only later resorting to this is both Biblically unsubstantiated, and also opposing your view since in your view, God is not supposed to do anything to contribute to the demise of those who oppose him.

17Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.

18If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

19Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

20Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.

21Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.(Romans 12)

SO Jesus was suppose to continue to speak “plainly” to them vs. this “veiled” approach and they were to then knowingly reject what he was teaching and not believe in Him.

In fact, as John 16:25-31 shows that Christ figurative/veiled speaking even caused his own disciples to doubt him.

NJK: Which is why, e.g., (which are comments you patently ignore, yet still insist on making your claims),

Tom: 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.

NJK:You excuses here just prove that this was indeed a pointedly fair comment. First of all I am referring to outrightly ignored/left out comments.

Indeed I consider a ‘I don’t understand this as an answer vs. not mentioning nothing at all. And if I consider that non-understanding to be substantively valid, i.e., not a substantively void ‘too long a sentence’ quibble (?!?) I make the appropriate editing/restating correction.

I could easily list the litany of things you have outrightly ignored, especially when it involved Biblical exegesis. Also making an answer and not taking into consideration or opposingly counter all the points that had substantiated my point is considered as this selective ignoring. These standing facts do not disappear just because you did not address or mention them in your response.

And the “too long a response” excuse does not nullify the fact that you still did not respond to those points.

Indeed by responding to something vs. a distinct other, you are just showing that you are using selectiveness in your responses.

It is also clear that you are only responding to what you think you have an answer to. However this obviously does not make what you chose not to answer not be true.

T: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.

NJK:As it can easily be when I do restate those points, you just ignore them again, or as seen in the “War in Heaven” issue, you selectively only address what you think you have an answer to and ignore the other points that you manifestly cannot counter

T: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).

NJK:That, mainly format, editing should remove your ‘grammatical non-sense’ objection.

And since “grammar” was your objection here, that obviously does not affect the “substance” presented.

So you could have engaged that substance.

T: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.

NJK: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.

Tom: 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.

NJK:The non-glib fact that, as the Bible clearly teaches, God acts to destroy the wicked when they reach a certain point of sinfulness, even favoring, tangibly aiding Israel in wars, shows that He loves those who a faithful to Him more than those who reject him and indeed tangibly acts upon, and towards to effectuating of, those emotions. (E.g., Jacob vs. Esau - Mal 1:1-5). God’s love for people is not stoically indifferent to their response. I.e., e.g., He indeed does not bless those who don’t return that love by obey Him and His Law (e.g., Exod 20:5, 6; Deut 7:9, 10 (Neh 1:5; Dan 9:4); John 14:15; 21; 15:10)

NJK: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.)

Tom: 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.


NJK:As already stated, the Bible throughout approvingly speaks of having a “healthy fear of God”.

Yet this is only a beginning and not to be the motivation throughout. In fact that fear is distinct from the desired loving and faith relationship that should normatively ensue. E.g., the Ninevites became fearful of God and repented, however there is no indication that they went on to pursue/deepen a relationship with the God of Israel, i.e., becoming a satellite Jewish Tribe/Nation. They only had a “fear of punishment” (Jon 3:9) but not a ‘relationship-building “love of God”.’

Indeed this fear that God seeks to instill through such acts of judgements upon a selected most deserved party is to serve to abruptly end a sinful course that is developing and not to be the basis for a relationship. Indeed just like threatening someone to enter into a relationship with you at the threat of death is not a relationship based on/involving love.

God’s acts of judgement are thus to immediately end a threatening course and not even to begin a relationship. The person outside of his will is however free to use this instilled fear try to get to know this God better, or not. That fully offset the fact that God’s miracle can and do foster belief and faith, but again, only if the witnessing party wants this to be a result.

That is what your SOP quotes (MS 20, 1897 & DA 480) are also saying and indeed my view was not what you had supposed, despite the many times that I have already stated so. (E.g., as shown below, you won’t allow for my distinction between ‘judgement effectuation force’ vs. ‘belief compelling force’.)

NJK: Ironically enough, it is actually only “evil” (not in regards to God, as actually He never has been required to curtail His '"passion" for truth' in order to be merciful towards sinners) when God just lets Satan freely and fully have his way.

Tom: 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.

NJK: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.

Tom: 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.

NJK:(A) God e.g., using various appropriate elements to effectuate a judgement, especially as these are inherently object lessons, as any sin should result in the immediate Hell Fire destruction of anyone, is not evil. Even if simply for that object lesson reason as it serves to preserve the life of literally billions of other people. E.g., who knows for crucially how long the striking and widely “noteworthy” Judgement on Sodom and Gomorrah, served to prevent their Capital sins from spreading and being engaged in. Also, if not for that judgement, one would see many more cases, as widely seen today, of people professing to be Christian while practising the abominable lifestyle of Sodom and Gomorrah. And as that sin is clearly condemned elsewhere in the Bible, even if, as some want to spuriously suppose, that was not a sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, it still served as a deterrent for that Biblically condemned practice.

(B) What is described in GC 35-37 is (1) a natural end result which must be as “organically” natural as smoking causing lung cancer (and not “disobedience” resulting in a snake attacking you. E.g., Why didn’t the venomous scorpions also attach Israel??);

and (2) a judgement where Satan has full and unrestricted/unlimited control. Those two are natural and manufactured “evil”. God’s bringing about a death sentence, however, he deems is appropriate, is not evil. In fact, not doing so, in the light of the adverse effect that this would then have/result in (e.g., persisted and further advanced sin), makes this a justified and righteous act. Indeed just like a police officer stopping a murderous act in progress using any pertinently necessary deadly force is not the “evil” of murder.

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.

God’s allowing of what is describe in GC 35-37 to take place ... 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.

NJK: The evil, especially in the Greater GC context, is also not necessarily in the action itself but the circumstance making it necessary.

Tom: 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.

NJK:As already explained above, (and as I had gone on to illustrate), you indeed misconstrued what I had said and meant. Succinctly summarized: God’s effectuating of death, and that even as a most striking object lesson is not “evil” or “murder”. God’s not intervening to timely, thoroughly and efficiently (i.e., produce the Law Abiding effect) effectuate this judgment would be evil. Appropriately responding to that ‘GC circumstance’ is not.

NJK: Case in point God’s choice for a War in Heaven was not evil, but the best way to resolve that conflict.

Tom: The War in Heaven was not God's choice. God's choice was for peace.

NJK:(1) The fact that God indeed did not want war but peace, (though this was not his “choice” as if it had been, it would have been the case as nothing could have prevented him from making it so).

(2) As quote from the SOP on my blog, which you, for lack of a more comprehensible term, “ignored”, it is clear that it was God who decided that a war was to be the way to resolve the conflict:

Originally Posted By: SOP 1SP 21.1
“The loyal angels hasten speedily to the Son of God, and acquaint him with what is taking place among the angels. They find the Father in conference with his beloved Son, to determine the means by which, for the best good of the loyal angels, the assumed authority of Satan could be forever put down. The great God could at once have hurled this arch deceiver from Heaven; but this was not his purpose. He would give the rebellious an equal chance to measure strength and might with his own Son and his loyal angels. In this battle every angel would choose his own side, and be manifested to all.”


Furthermore it is only after that war stipulation that:

Originally Posted By: SOP 1SP 21.2
Then Satan exultingly pointed to his sympathizers, comprising nearly one half of all the angels, and exclaimed, These are with me! Will you expel these also, and make such a void in Heaven? He then declared that he was prepared to resist the authority of Christ, and to defend his place in Heaven by force of might, strength against strength.


The fact that you would just ignore such SOP direct revelation statements, that you supposedly had read since your first visit of my blog post, was most mind-boggling to me. Indeed you did not even dare mention them, as if that made them fade into insignificance.

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. Rebellion was not to be overcome by force. Compelling power is found only under Satan's government. The Lord's principles are not of this order. His authority rests upon goodness, mercy, and love; and the presentation of these principles is the means to be used. God's government is moral, and truth and love are to be the prevailing power.

It was God's purpose to place things on an eternal basis of security, and in the councils of heaven it was decided that time must be given for Satan to develop the principles which were the foundation of his system of government. He had claimed that these were superior to God's principles. Time was given for the working of Satan's principles, that they might be seen by the heavenly universe. (DA 759)