It looks like a tautology.



The second part here looks like a tautology. The first part seems somewhat poorly phrased, perhaps giving the impression that the evil angels were fulfilling Christ's will, as opposed to acting contrary to His will. I would want to make clear that the evil angels are acting contrary to Christ's will.



Yes, this is what Jesus does by default.



Well, let's look at what we've been told:



This seems clear. The Jews "cause the protection of God to be withdrawn from them."



What limits are you talking about? Is this something specific, or a general question?



What limits are you talking about?

The general concept is simple. God is constantly protecting us (and not just us, but the wicked as well) from a thousand dangers, all of them unseen. God can be caused to remove His protection. When this happens, bad things may happen (although it's also possible Satan may favor certain ones for his purposes).



What makes you think He was doing this?



Same question.

I don't understand how you're thinking here. Here's how I'm thinking. God protects people. They cause Him to remove His protection. Bad things may happen as a result.



Same question as before. Why are you thinking that Jesus is determining punishment here, as opposed to that God was caused to remove His protection?



This whole concept of "punishment to be inflicted on them" is foreign to what I'm seeing in the description of the destruction that took place to Jerusalem. In all of Jesus' ministry, not once did He attribute any evil which occurred as punishment being inflicted upon the suffering person. Not one time. In every instance, every one, He attributed their suffering to either sin or Satan. I share this way of thinking. As Jesus Christ did, I also attribute all suffering to the evil one, and the consequences of sin.







I'd like to discuss this last quote a bit, because I think it hits at a heart of the difference between how we view things. I see this last quote as a condensed explanation of the main issue involved in the Great Controversy. Here's the reality:

1.Christ (or God) does not destroy.
2.Christ (or God) improves whatever He touched.

Here is Satan's claim:

1.Christ (or God) does destroy.
2.Christ (or God) does not improve whatever He touches.

Note what we are exhorted to do:



Why are we exhorted to do so? To learn that:

1.Christ (or God) does not destroy.
2.Christ (or God) improves whatever He touched.

How I see you to perceive things is that Christ (or God) does destroy, and we could not observe carefully every lesson Christ has given us throughout His life and teaching to see that He does not destroy, nor improves everything He touches, because that isn't the case.

I'd like to bring into to attention that we are exhorted to "observe carefully *every lesson* Christ has given us throughout His life. Every lesson. Why every lesson? Because the whole purpose of His mission was the revelation of God. *Everything* He did was for this purpose, and so it follows that *every lesson* should be observed, to learn two things:

1.God does not destroy.
2.God improves everything He touches.

And this is wonderful and beautiful truth.

When these truths dawn on our consciousness, it changes our whole paradigm! As Acts says, Christ went about doing good. This is how He revealed the Father. He improved everything He touched, thus revealing that God improves everything He touches. So all we need to is allow God to touch us, and He will improve us.

Understanding that God improves everything He touches takes our fear away. We don't need to worry about what God will do to us if we don't do what He says, because God improves everything He touches; He does not destroy. Our fear should only be what will happen to us if we do not allow God to touch us. This is because we need improvement, and that is because of how Satan and sin have wrecked us.

Your expressed statements and practices in regards to your view clearly show that you have much more than ‘complete comprehension’ in mind. According to your view, one has to not believe the Bible when it says that God said, commanded or did something. If you can dichotomize your view as you please then great for you. I just cannot comprehensively see from your that one understanding (Christ’s greater revelation) does not involve the other (not taking even the God-quoting OT writers at their words). Which is why you just don’t answer questions that deal with such direct statements of God. That is a major red flag for me, as I don’t one-sidedly build my Theology on just a selective set of passages, but seek to harmonize everything that has been said on the topic. This is indeed where we foundationally differ.



Not “all throughout” but generally speaking, only in certain part. I.e., not when they were either quoting God’s own words or making statements directly derived from these direct statements. As I said later and you agreed, the same thing was involved in EGW’s writings.



That does not involve/include thing that were directly, through various prophetic revelations (Heb 1:1) stated by, and heard from, God.



Not in the sense of your ‘He caused the OT to be reworded where: ‘God did not actually say or do what it says he did or do’, but OT writers always misunderstood Him. What I am saying is that they had ample revelation in the OT to get the same understanding that Jesus got. Jesus did not make his extra-biblical misconception corrections from direct revelations from God but by what He “exegetically” (i.e., especially including the greater Theological and substantive context) understood from those same OT writings.



And he achieved this mainly by variously causing people to doubt the Word of God, such as this not trusting that even direct revelations were accurate. I can see how doubting God’s Character Justice does bolster the devil’s work. Indeed that is why people persist in rebellion today, not seeing/believing that God will enter into judgement with them.



What are you basing this on? I rather see that they were not yet convinced that the alternate way that Satan had proposed was deserving of the completely eradicating judgement that God wanted to effectuate on it.



So e.g., when the Bible says that God commanded Moses to kill the person violating the Sabbath, there was no misunderstanding involved here right? As with the many other God-quoting, God-commanded and/or God-directly-effectuated judgements in the Bible right? Your typical “God permits” reason here has been further shown to be invalid and would also only be addressing some episodes of such effectuated judgements.



I don’t see so given what those particular statement involve. Again you are spuriously trying to dichotomize your view.



So then, as Mountain Man also asks for, pointedly explain, once and for all, how you see that someone in the Bible writing a: “Thus says the Lord” is expressing an imperfect statement and will of God!!??



That’s is what all inclusive, proper exegesis reveals. If you were doing so you would be seeing this. Indeed those two methods are pointedly seen in the destruction of Jerusalem. One for the first allowed mercy part and the second for the utter end, no-more mercy part. The same thing occurs with the 7 Last Plagues.



Simply restating these points does not make them mean what you claim they mean. Deal with the many already stated points that show that they are not implying what you understand.



As cited above I indeed have.



You are understanding these principles in an overreachingly different way than what EGW intended.



You are the one who is choosing to only look at one aspect of God’s judgement-effectuating. And the substantive Biblical record is what is to stipulate ‘hermeneutic rules of understanding’ not isolatively/merely EGW. That’s an unbiblical approach.



Which is why He allows for mercy even when effectuating judgement. Indeed many people in Jerusalem may not have themselves rejected Christianity. So God allowed for them to escape the destruction and have a further chance merely by remaining alive to get this saving knowledge of this Truth.



(A) Not when “quoting” a source. The source itself would have to make the “ungodly expression” It is because you view all acts of judgement as evil and violent that you spuriously posit that God was in such direct statement cases always being misunderstood and misquoted.

(B) Again, while this may generally be true in life, I myself don’t actually see this occurring in the Bible. EGW saying: “Men will often say such an expression is not like God.” does not mean that this is the case.

Indeed, when one reads that SOP statement in full context, EGW is actually supporting the understanding that Biblical writers did not have a misconception about God. They wrote under thought inspiriation. She is simply saying that what they wrote in applicable, non direct quoting places, was not literally, i.e., verbatim the words, logic and rhetoric of God, as in a ‘verbal inspirational’ way. She also personally dealt with those same issues. Her full statement:



So for any misunderstanding to have patently been occurring, as you are claiming. These writers would have to be constantly misconstruing the inspired thought that God’s Spirit was continually putting in their heads.

That is indeed all part of the actual point EGW had in mind in making these “objection to the Bible” statements 1SM 19-21.



Again this is not a substantiated claim. God is either directly or indirectly acting is those situations which are not necessarily always “permitting”. Indeed only in Job’s case do I see it applying as you claim. Otherwise I can easily see that God acted through an agency.



I have already shown that this is only when the context implies this. Why won’t you substantively address this instead of, as usual just repeating what you had previously said??!



All repeatedly, exegetically, addressed and disproven/debunked



You’ll have to cite new ones than the ones you have as they have been disproven and/or address the points that disprove them.



I meant, in context, that: ‘I do not see your examples trying to support your view on God’s judgements as being examples that show that I have a wrong view’



That does not mean that it is not valid. It exegetically indeed is. It is the same Spirit that was prophetically speaking. It was just able to achieve more through Jesus. And what was later revealed in Jesus did not in any way contradict what God’s Spirit had previously revealed.



I exegetically see this as the sole/limiting understanding here. God’s Spirit did not reveal unbiblical things in the past. Also notice e.g., that it was Christ Revelation to Paul ca. 4 years after Jesus’s ascension showed that the keeping of OT ceremonial laws was no longer required. Similar to this, further, more pointed revelation, all of what Jesus revealed was already hinted in the revelations of the OT, just not with “executive” force then.



The book of Hebrews served to complete the types to Anti-type transition in Christ. The issue of judgements in the OT is not subject to this type/anti-type development, and indeed, it was not hinted that OT statements of judgements would be so “changed” (= reworded) in the NT. So this is really a proof text to support your view. Indeed, at best, a similar “replacing” revelation by Christ for judgements, given their incontrovertible substantive occurrence in the OT, like e.g., ceremonial practices, would come to only mean that such judgements would now no longer be done by God in this way in the NT era.



The OT quotings of God being what He actually had in mind. These two examples show that when a prophet misconceived, misunderstood something about God, God then immediately intervened to correct him. So that is why I do not that this was not at all the case with any statement of the OT. God’s Spirit evidently so made sure that what was written was in full harmony with the Intention and Will of God. E.g., God would have intervene to prevent Israel from stoning someone to death or going to war as this would not have been what He had ordered. Indeed David was not permitted to build the Temple because his own hand (and not Israel in general) had shed much blood, even if that was “before God” (1 Chr 22:8). Though these were necessary actions, God wanted a non-warrior to build His Temple. Indeed, correspondingly. though God does such great judgement actions, He only wants a worship of Him that is not based upon these acts. Still such effectuated Justice is a necessary and righteous part of God Character. If not, He would never have directly commanded David to engage in any of these wars. (E.g. 1 Chr 14:9, 10 versus 13-16).



I do not sequiturly/fully see that from what you have been saying. Indeed the problem is that you are also including direct statements of God in this view of yours. You may be not explicitly saying/intending that, but your OT revisionism and non-answers, say otherwise. Indeed you won’t answer anything that has to do with direct statements of God ordering war, capital punishment and judgement.

(You are actually seeming, by those non-answers, to be trying to buy time until you can find an even plausible answer for them. As with other similar issues, you should indeed clearly answer those direct questions to avoid this resulting logical/rational perception.)



Well you need to do a better job of proving your view, indeed by engaging the many points that are showing that it is not in harmony with the Bible. Selectively only using some texts for a view is the patent way of establishing a teaching that is not actually Biblical. It is only plausibly so when only those partial selection of text are used. Still, the texts that you are claiming in support do not in themselves support your view as they are accurately understood when considered in the greater context of all applicable texts, if not simply through proper exegesis.



What’s the real issue/problem here Tom, as with other similar occurrences elsewhere??? I have already answered this objection of yours. Why won’t engage what I have already said in response? Did you not see that post? Or did you not bother to read it?? Or did you forget what you had read??? Or does it not matter what I had said???? Which one is it????? And then you vexatiously complain when I get upset by this patent disrespectful discussion snubbing as if I have to silently taken this from you? What’s the deal here??



Well wherever EGW does expound on this “perfect mixture”, she rightly understands that they both simultaneously exists and are distinctly manifested.



Your articulated principles do not extent to what you claim of them.



My point, as stated in that Signs article is that God does not wholly dispense with Justice for the sake of Mercy. Because God is merciful, He still does not do away with the justice elements in His Law and Character. So He statutorily instituted in Israel that a murdered person should be avenged (=Gen 9:5, 6). (You have not responded to that Genesis statement by God).



Easy. You see that nothing that is written in the OT can be defaultly said to be a correct perception of God’s ideas, will and ways.



Really, so according to you who is it with then in pointedly direct quoting of God? It seems quite clear to me that we should not take what these statement say as accurate representation of God’s will. Then who is responsible for this supposed misperception and misquoting of God?

(And if that is what you don’t think you said, then do spare me a terse: ‘that not what I said’ reply, and do quote or articulate for yourself what you said or meant. As seen below, (bold) you can do this when you think you have, at least, a seemingly plausible answer.)



By now all disproven a Biblically valid examples. At the very least, try new ones or address the standing objections.



That what/how is clear to me. And as my statement emphasized, it is the involved “why” that make Him use these direct and active methods for reasons of timeliness and also due, full and proper effectuations. Again these issues are not “dichotomizable” to me.



It is if all of what is being said in the Bible is to be questioned as to its both verbal substance and meaning.



As typical with your answers on this issue, it is substantively partial and logically simplistic. What is written is clear, especially in direct quotings of God. You are just systematically ignoring these statements to sustain a surface validity of your view. You effectively and evidently clearly do not believe “the problem is not with the accounts!”. Indeed won’t even let them exegetically speak for themselves as they pointedly do. With you, exegesis is to be ignored, especially as you see that these writers perceptions affected their exegesis, making say things that were not really what happened!?! How does that stated view of yours support your claim here.



So how then did He reveal everything, especially with such a crucial view of an OT episode that He used as the illustrative basis for His own end time judgement. He did not receive the full light on this???

This is a prime and most indicative example of you also making Jesus be subject to your view.



And, as copiously seen throughout His Ministry, He mostly did this by explaining misunderstood OT passages/episode. So why not also with this crucial S&G episode which manifestly was still “misunderstood” by NT writers? Indeed Teaching on the Scriptures was a major part of His Ministry.



I am dealing with the paramount “This is despite the direct language used.” Which means: “Exegesis is irrelevant to understanding the Bible.” And also “Bible writers did not relate things accurately.” As for your other points, that had been already dealt with, long ago, and through this exgetical method, so there was no point to restate those patently ignored answers, especially, as now revealed here by you, ‘exegetical facts do not matter’.



There was absolutely no reason to respond to what you had just obliviously restated. Indeed you’ll clearly just go on ignoring those answers again.



Nothing new to respond to. Exegetically and logically think your view through (if you’re allowed) and you’ll see that this is what it fully entails



I am not exegetically limited/“handicapped” as you choose to be. Facts and Truth are just what they fully are.



It is just too bad that you want to/can only see these factually based/derived “constructive criticism” statements as “insults”. Indeed try Prov 27:5, 6 instead. And also what “name-calling”? Substantiate your claim.

And if you want respect then earn it by ceasing from your disrespecting response-ignoring ways while, moreoverly just restating your previous, already answered claims. If you really think that my answers don’t matter at all, as your louder than word actions (or non-actions) are saying then do openly refute my standing arguments!

And why didn’t you answer the Seminary questions. Since your are touting this ‘completed professional education’ (whatever that actually means) as an asset, it is a matter of public/“pointed audience” regard/interest. You brought up your ‘seminary attendance’, I am just pointing out that what you have claimed about it does not make logical sense. So do clarify the would be issues of confusion as posed in my questioned.



Of course you will.



Despite what you evidently prefer to believe, you’re ideas are not divorceable from their natural, logical and Spiritual implications. Try thinking them through and not just subjectively stop at what you are comfortable with.

Tom, out of “Truth” necessity, here is a succinct commentary for/on what literally is a ‘one-isolated-line-of-a-quote’ theology in your above post reply to Mountain Man.

First of all the full statement of that quote points out what EGW was meaning:



(1) It seems clear to me that in this context of “God permitting trials to e.g., ‘try one’s virtue and faith’, etc, what EGW meant in that last statement here was that God/Jesus’s aim in all of this is not to destroy the person that he permits to be so tested, indeed like Job, as seen in here quote there, but so that He can, through this permitted trial, which like Job is not necessarily out of deserved reasons of wrongdoing, ‘improve them who He has touched’.

So the intent of that statement seem to clearly mean to me that God can permit a person to be “touched” by trials in their life. Yet His aim here in not to cause their destruction. Indeed as EGW says: “Each individual soul has victories to gain, [b]but he must realize that he cannot have things just as he wants them[b/].” Meaning that God sometimes has to allow trials virtually, like Job, out of the blue, in order to build that person’s spirit, and thus future life and character. (= e.g. Heb 2:10-18; cf. Acts 14:22). And the recorded demonstration/example in the life of Job affords believers today to understand that such sufferings are for a greater purpose and helps one to endure it and remain faithful as God permissively works to “improvingly” shape them. And He does this through whatever way He knows is best, and which will not always please us. Unless one understand’s this, as Job innately did, then when God makes this beneficial use of sufferings, that person will most likely just ‘curse God and die’. It is only by allowing God to be God and do whatever He knows is best that we like Job can say in perfect trust and faith: “The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away. Blessed be the name of the LORD.”

Under your view Tom that implies that God would only permits such “sufferings” when one causes his protection to be withdrawn because of living in persisted rebellion to Him, then, if like Job that actually indeed righteous living person suddenly finds themself experiencing all of these same utter calamities, I don’t see how they won’t straightly and only see this as a betrayal act of God and indeed just curse Him for having so, and unfairly, permitted the devil to “judge” them.

(2) Like I said in my post above, God indeed does not directly do “sufferings” to someone but can and does “permit it” for a greater good, again as perfectly demonstrated with Job, and explained in the above SOP statement. However such “sufferings” and “judgements” are two distinct things.

(3) A theology, i.e., an entire theology, such as this extrapolated one of yours involving God’s Justice, is never to be built on one passage, let alone “proof-textedly” on an isolated sentence from as quote, as you did here. It is indeed quite clear in the Bible and SOP that God does acts of judgement either Himself, through His commissioned angels of destruction, or when no more mercy is capable of being granted, at the Devil’s own hands. And as stated above such “judgements” are distinct from “sufferings”. And, e.g., burning someone alive falls under the category of “judgement” because God is not just seeking to make the person suffer, and that for no reason. It is a deserved act of fitting judgement.

duplicate post

NJK, first of all, the point of each of the quotes was the same, in pointing out that sickness, suffering and death are the work of an antagonistic power, and that God (or Christ) works against this. On one side we have the author of sin and all its results, which includes sin itself, sickness, disease, suffering, and death. On the other side we have Christ, obedience, and all the blessings that come from obedience. There is a battle involve, which each side has its weapons and characteristics.

Regarding the specific quote in question, you'll notice she uses language speaking of circumstances which are permitted to come.



Not so! And Job is a perfect illustration of this.

The context of our conversations has been destructive acts which have taken place against the wicked. I have pointed out that these are due to their (the wicked) causing God's protection to be withdrawn.

The question of why the *righteous* suffer is an altogether different question (one we haven't been discussing) and this is where Job comes into play.



This quote, which has been cited several times, deals with Job, and brings out that:

1.All suffering results from the transgression of God’s law.
2.Satan, the author of sin and all its results, had led men to look upon disease and death as proceeding from God.
3.He led men to look at disease and death as punishment arbitrarily inflicted on account of sin.

This is precisely the viewpoint I've been arguing against.



Yes, they are two different things, but the truths we have been discussing apply to both cases. That is, regardless of whether we are dealing with the suffering of the wicked or the righteous, it is the case that:

1.All suffering results from the transgression of God’s law.
2.Satan, the author of sin and all its results, had led men to look upon disease and death as proceeding from God.
3.He led men to look at disease and death as punishment arbitrarily inflicted on account of sin.

It is also the case that:

4.We are to observe carefully every lessons Christ has given us throughout His life and teaching; He does not destroy.
5.Christ improves whatever He touches.



An interesting application of the pot calling the kettle black! Your doing what you are accusing me of is what I've been pointedly arguing against. You do this with your ideas of the Tree of Life, ignoring whole paragraphs and books dealing with the pre-eminence of Christ, and would effectively replace His importance with a tree. And this is all because of focusing your entire theology and an extrapolation built on an isolated sentence from a quote.

However, this is not what I'm doing. I presented many quotes, not just one sentence from one quote.

It's always good to consider the context of a statement, but in this case the context does not alter the point which was made, which is:

1.We are to observe carefully every lessons Christ has given us throughout His life and teaching; He does not destroy.
2.Christ improves whatever He touches.

She applies these truths to the situation of the righteous suffering, but there would be nothing to apply if these truths weren't the case.



How can God do acts of destruction, or commission angels to do acts of destruction, if every lesson Christ has given us throughout His life and teaching teaches us that He does not destroy?

"Sickness, suffering and death are the work of an antagonistic power." This is clear enough, right? So if it is God who is inflicting these things as punishments, then God is doing the work of an antagonistic power. Furthermore it has been Satan's studied purpose to get people to view suffering as punishments inflicted by God, whereas EGW writes that suffering is inflicte by Satan (not as a special circumstance, but as a general principle: "all suffering results from transgression of God's law....suffering is inflicted by Satan (DA 471).")

So if God were doing these things, not only would He be doing the work of an antagonistic power, but Satan's whole purpose of causing God to be viewed as inflicting suffering as punishment for disobedience would be vindicated.



The point is that *all* suffering is the result of disobedience to the law, and *all* suffering is attributed to Satan, the author of sin. Suffering is inflicted by Satan. God may permit it, but He is not the cause.

Obviously if God were to burn someone alive, or strike him with a disease, that would cause suffering.

By the way, an examination of Christ's life and teachings echoes this point, as in not a single instance did Christ attribute the suffering of anyone He healed or spoke of, whether righteous or not, to God.

I objectively, clearly and certainly do not see so in that SOP statement. She is clearly trying to make the point that ‘God permits such sufferings, indeed actively done by the devil and/or a natural consequence of sin, in order shape someone’s life for the best’. It is in that context that she says, right after quoting Job’s statement:





That is not the point of that SOP statement, but only your view additions.



That is indeed what is in question here and the pointed subject that it actually is saying and expounding on.



In the case of ‘suffering”, which are not “judgements”, then like in Job’s case, God permits adverse circumstances from the devil and/or natural life and does not Himself act to directly cause or do them.



As I have been saying, the episode of Job is not one of “judgement,” but such God-permitted “sufferings”. I.e., for no actual personal wrong. Notice also that God made it that Job would not die in this suffering. This is how he would not be “destroyed” in this trial, (Psa 118:18) but only improved, as rewardingly, tangibly confirmed by his doubling of blessings after the trial. Only Job’s wicked children were permitted to die in this episode as that was out of deserved judgement for persisted sins.



Indeed so. Which is why EGW cites in her brief exposition here on God permitted, character shaping “sufferings”.



It is not clear to me that this SOP quote is dealing with this same distinct categories of “sufferings”, (though here not necessarily “God-permitted”, i.e., for improving, character shaping, even life-saving (cf. Pro 19:18) reasons), and not “judgements.” As I now see it being implied in that SOP quote, when God does an act of judgement for sin, even when it results in death, it is not an ‘arbitrary punishment’.



Indeed as “suffering” and not “judgement” is the pointed issue here.



All true in regards solely to “sufferings”.



It is not applicable in “judgement” as seen in the doctrine of Hell, where it will be God who will be in charge of it, and will execute, through even ‘full life sustaining power’ the sentence that had been determined by the righteous.



The Bible and SOP clearly reveals that it is not always the case for “judgement” which God does.



Only in cases of “sufferings”. Indeed the differentiating issue, as it applies to our discussion has rather been whether the act is in the context of a “merciful” or “no more mercy” judgement.



As highlighted here, only in the case of “sufferings”.



The context and intent of EGW’s statement does not use those phrases with the intent that you are.



This is only true for you when you amnesically, probably willfully vs. clinically, forget that I have long ago fully included the preeminence of Christ in the Tree of Life teaching, which is actually, as shown in many posted quotes, copiously discussed as I have been emphasizing in the SOP, “bookended” by Biblical statements in Genesis and Revelation. So you just need to keep up with posted facts and developments.



It is evident to me that you are determined not to let any fact at all and in any degree get in the way of your view. I rather let facts shape my theology. You rather seem to have the view that you can’t do no wrong and must never admit that you have been corrected. In the light of all of the standing facts against your view, which you just choose to outrightly ignore, that is certainly not being “honest”, to say the least.



You attempt here to make this SOP statement, and all other SOP statements speaking pointedly on the distinct issue of “suffering” is just “proof-texting”. And do include all quotes on a issue, not just those that support only an aspect of an issue. Indeed you view is proven to be false as it is not what the Bible and SOP wholly say on this issue of God Justice, which includes Judgements, even smaller, preliminary ones (cf. Jer 10:24).



Any objective and honest read can and will surely see that it is definitely not making the “also judgement” point that you are.



So you did see that this is her point!!?



That is because God does not actively act to merely better the life and character of a wicked person (cf. Jer 2:19) as, since He would then be dealing with a wicked person, it would inherently be an act of judgement. And when He does this, thus ‘non-arbitrary’ acts of judgement on righteous people for their sins, it is hopefully on for both punishing and corrective purposes, as EGW states with the fiery serpent episode:



Indeed as God/Jesus says:





Tom: How can God do acts of destruction, or commission angels to do acts of destruction, if every lesson Christ has given us throughout His life and teaching teaches us that He does not destroy?[/quote]

Simple: Because the Bible and SOP do not have your “suffering” and “judgement” category conflation issue.



Indeed so when kept in its distinct context.



For “sufferings” it would be. Not for “judgement” when God so decides.



I don’t see a general principle being applied here, keep in mind that EGW relates God and His angels as directly doing judgements themselves. So that evidently is not what she had in mind here.



Same ‘category distinguishing’ observations as before. I’ll add that God does apparently out of double necessity as, on one hand, Satan would not want to punish those who serve him and on the other hand, Satan would work to completely destroy, especially rather than “improve” or ‘provide an opportunity to improve’, with those who God is only endeavoring to mercifully punish/chasten/correct/redress.



Given the Bible and SOP examples showing the contrary, as seen also in the Doctrine of Hell that Jesus Himself concretely established and detailed, that is an overreaching application of the statement here. This “all” only applies to “sufferings”. Furthermore the judgements that God do, usually are for reasons of timeliness and an accelerated end result, all for a greater good.



That is why ‘burning someone alive’ in judgement is ‘His strange/foreign/alien act’ (Isa 28:21) and ‘arbitrary punishment for sin as having or (naturally) being struck with a disease’ is not his active/direct act at all. When suffering is not ‘arbitrary’ then it is a judgement and can be from God is so necessary.



Again the key word, is the distinct one of “suffering”. Jesus had no qualm/problem with Divine vengeance and judgement, including Hell Judgement.

By the way, you also have not addressed the posted points of 'Jesus/Divine Vengeance.

I recall you're saying that you didn't believe this was literal. That is, this isn't an example of people being burned alive. So this doesn't seem to be an adequate answer, given even you don't believe this is speaking of people literally being burnt alive.



The way you've put this together, it's a little difficult to see who's who. I assume up to the question mark is me, and after that is you? So I asked where He did anything even remotely similar to this, and you replied He didn't do precisely this. So you didn't answer the question. I should infer from your lack of response that you can't think of anything?



Which you don't believe is setting people on fire to burn alive. So this doesn't apply. Can you think of something which does apply?

Regarding N&A, we spent a lot of time discussing this, and I don't see that anything positive came out of it, and have no desire to repeat the episode. Indeed, in general, it has been your approach to discuss isolated incidents, and I have said over and over again I don't see this to be an effective way of going about discussing the issue, but have done so, against my judgment, for a number of years, and it seems to me my judgment was correct. I think a more productive route would be to consider principles involved, and we can speak of certain incidents to illustrate principles.

I've done so with the destruction of Jerusalem. I've articulated a number of principles, and used that as an example. Here are some principles I've discussed:

1.What Jesus perceived of the OT is what He revealed.

This is a really important one, in my view. Christ spoke what He heard of His Father, and did what He saw. So He serves as a reference as to how the Old Testament should be understood. We can either:

a.Consider Christ's lessons: "We are to observe carefully every lesson Christ has given us throughout His life and teaching; He does not destroy."

OR

b.Consider the Old Testament.

These should be equivalent. To the extent that these are not equivalent in our way of seeing things, how we see things varies from how Christ saw things.

2.All that we can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son.

This means that there is nothing any revelation from the Old Testament can add in terms of telling us something about God that we wouldn't already know from looking to Christ.

3.Sickness, suffering, and death are the work of an antagonistic power. Satan is the destroyer; God is the restorer.

4.The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government. Compelling power is found only under Satan's government.

5.There are a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which God protects us.

6.God often presents Himself as doing that which He permits.

You have not stated things in terms of principles. You seem not to think in terms of principles, which I think explains some of our disconnect. You seem to think in terms of individual incidents.

I'll see if I can infer some principles, as you see things:

1.God destroys in many ways. Permitting destruction is simply one way.

2.The principles listed above (my list above), are of limited scope. So when it says that "sickness, suffering, and death are the work of an antagonistic power," that means some of the time. Similarly when it says, "It is true that all suffering results from the transgression of God’s law," that means some of the time.

Another principle that seems important to you is that God is the one inflicting the suffering.

It's evident that you're reading through the post, without any intent to understand what's being said, but just wanting to argue, it looks like. I'm not interested in arguing for argument's sake.

You didn't even read to the end of the sentence to see what point was being made here, let alone read the post.

Please read the entire post first, then go back and make whatever comments you wish to make, hopefully after thinking some. It would also be good if you went over what you wrote too. We could have shorter, better quality posts, which deal more with the issues involved. That would enable me to get to more posts too.

It looks like you're just making one point here, so I'll address that point. The point is that the quotes have to do with suffering, and not judgments. However, this isn't a viable explanation of the quotes, which is evident by simply considering that they say. For example:



If what you were suggesting were true, we'd have to re-write this to say something like:



This clearly isn't viable. She emphasizes that "every lesson Christ has given us throughout His life and teaching" brought out the point that "He does not destroy." Trying to limit this to deal with only some subset would destroy the point she is making.

Another example:



This would have to be rewritten:



Your post does not deal with the overreaching point, which goes beyond sufferings or judgments, and that is what the whole Great Controversy is dealing with. There are to different powers at work, one the "antagonistic power," and the other is Christ. One went about doing good, and the other brings about suffering, sickness, and death.

The two powers are contrary the one against the other.



One last point is that invariably when the SOP mentions God's judgments, it is brought out, either immediately preceding or following, God's "withdrawal" or "release" or "giving over" of the fighting against God into the enemy's power.

It spuriously is only “evident” for you. I know that is never the case.



I know I have better things to do than that. The issue is that your “sectional” view “sum” is made up of independently defective “parts.” (As also done in this present post). So I address them point by point to demonstrate this, and also rather than say everything at the end. I think this approach is being more transparent as it detailedly shows why the “sum” is not valid.



That’s just your assumption. I went back to point out the independent deficiency in a premising phrase, when that is the case. You also seemed to me to have expanded your understanding in that post to partially include what EGW was actually saying there, hence the need to distinctly address your prior “non-inclusive” statements.



I always do.



Also what I always do.



Really... then what are you complaining about as....



...this permissively seems to be still optional for you. I don’t subscribe to that approach. I say whatever I think is true/valid.



I’ll be the first to know so, however I can’t afford to expend that discussion overhead.



In this approach I actually get to better corroborate/support my points with details that I think best explains them. As I see it , it’s actually merely a: ‘substantive quantity over external quality issue’. Indeed you can just ignore whatever you don’t personally think is pertinent, however don’t be surprised when I continue to use them to support my points, as it initially was the case.



That’s counterintuitive to me.