I'll just repeat myself and say that I've had a great deal of conversations with many people, and this has never been an issue with anyone else. Others follow the same technique of responding to comments, without this being a problem.



I think your not thinking in terms of principles leads to the sort of rambling disorganized posts I've pointed out. Indeed, your thinking of principles as "creedal" seems to indicate a sort of bias against thinking in terms of principles.



You're saying there are two situations, one of mercy, and one of no mercy. Only in the latter case will God allow Satan to do the judgment indicated.

So never in a "mercy" situation is Satan involved. This is your contention? How does one determine a "mercy" situation? Can you define it in some other way than a situation in which Satan is not involved?

In the "no mercy" situations, is it your contention that God always acts indirectly, and that the text indicates this is taking place?

We haven't discussed the cross, I don't think. What do think God's action was here? Was it a direct one of judgment, or an indirect one of permitting Christ's suffering?

I assume you're referring to this:



So you see here that God is presented as doing that which He permits. Ok.

How do you see that James 1:13 ties into this?



By driving Saul to suicide? How? Going inside of Saul's head and manipulating his thoughts?



That God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked means that their death is not His will, in which case one could hardly expect Him to drive one to suicide.



There's something suspect with your exegetical methodology if it leads you to conclusions such as this.



It was Satan driving Saul to despair, not God!



Saul brought about his problems by separating himself from God.



Saul would hardly have been guilty of self-murder if his death were due to an action on God's part.



Or allowed Satan to do so?



It seems wherever the SOP suggests God permitted an action (except for Job), you take issue with this and say you take the Bible over her words. In the Bible you say this only occurred in Job (or perhaps you amended this slightly). So it sounds rather more like you have a mind-set that leads you in a certain direction, and causes you to interpret/harmonize different statements in a certain way (the way that agrees with your mind set).



Clearly there are principles that guide how you interpret things, you just don't know how to articulate them.

Anyone who allows for proper exegesis will agree with you is what you're saying, right? Always?



Why would you do this? The Bible says God sent fiery serpents against the Israelites. Ellen White writes:



Why would you think that God's removing His protecting hand would involve His sending serpents?



It's clear that according to her the danger was there all along, and God simply removed His protecting hand. Indeed, He did so in order to make evident to them that the *was* danger, and that He had been protecting them from that danger. He could hardly have done so if He Himself were causing the danger.



God was involved. His involvement consisted of His removing His protecting hand, subjecting the Israelites to the danger He had been protecting them from.



If she was inspired by the Holy Spirit, how do see her writing things contrary to the Bible? Would the Holy Spirit inspire one write to write things contradictory to that of another writer He had inspired? A house divided against itself cannot stand.



There are many scholars who disagree with you on this point. Indeed, only Calvinists, as far as I'm aware of, take this point of view. I believe the critical commentaries take the viewpoint that God strengthened Pharaoh to do what was already in his heart, and that's how to reconcile the 6 statements (as I recall, there are 6) that God hardened Pharaoh's heart with the 6 statements that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. This point of view has the added benefit of not making one inspired writer contradict another.



What is? What's a "statement of commission"?

You've said several times that you view "I was shown" statements differently than other statements. Do you have this in mind here? Do you recognize that your view her regarding her writings differs from her own?



This is self-contradictory. Your example doesn't fit. A parent taking a child to an event he is permitting to the child to go to isn't comparable to God's permitting a disaster to occur that He Himself is causing.

These are two contrasting concepts her. If God permits the disaster to occur, He is not causing it to occur.



Israel could not learn the lesson that God had been protecting them from dangers if they weren't in danger.



You just said that there was a natural disaster which Satan wasn't involved in which God permitted to occur. That's an example of 'God permitting something.'



I've said that God doesn't cause these things, not that He is not involved (if "involved" means anything different than "caused.")



You still aren't responding to the point, which has to do with the importance of being able to represent the view of another in such a way that that person would agree with that representation.



You've never done so. That is, you've never presented my view in a way that I would agree to. So I'm not asking you to repeat anything, but to do something you haven't done.

Please stated what you think my view is in a way that I would agree with it.



You're "so" here doesn't apply, since you've not done what I've asked, so you wouldn't be repeating anything. So please do so.



If you can't represent my view in a way that I agree with, then I simply don't agree with your presuppositions regarding my view, so there's nothing for me to respond to.

I've been suggesting ways to make the discussion easier to pursue. If you present something organized, that's much easier to respond to. I don't have time to go hunting all over the place to look for things to respond to.

My goal here is not to convince you of anything. You have shown no indication of being capable of changing your mind regarding anything we are talking about. My goal is to try to understand your thinking. This is why I'm asking you to present things in an organized fashion, and in terms of principles.

If you are unable to do so, that helps me indirectly understand your thought process.

It's not just one quote, but a whole bunch of quotes.

There's a mind-set involved. One can guess what she's going to say about a subject without having read it. For example, I knew she would disagree with your idea regarding Saul's death, before I looked it up. She points out that Satan drove Saul to despair, not God. Of course! That reflects Satan's character, not God's.

So I agree with your contention that a large view of the GC must be kept in mind, but we have very different ideas as to what that entails. I believe it entails the following:



The GC is about undoing this.



She says, "Satan is the destroyer" in the quote. That's part of the context. Also, a day to day circumstance that involves one of the thousand dangers from which God constantly protects us becomes a judgment as soon as God ceases protecting us from it. For example, the Israelites were constantly subject to danger, and as soon as God removed His protecting hand, that became a judgment.

Regarding the rest of the post, thanks for the clarifications. I just have a question regarding this phrase:



What do you mean by "fearfully?" That is, what should be being feared?

My answer was/is, I do not see the need to reword that sentence to emphasize that distinction because I see that it is already understood/implied in the overall immediate context and in EGW Theological understanding of this topic. This rewording may help you, but I don’t see it as necessary as being redundant.



If this is what you need to understand the distinction then great for you. I don’t see the need to do so. It’s already present in the context.



It’s already defined from the context. You are understanding this to refer to all “Sickness, suffering, and death” that is why you need to make that explicit distinction. To me it is just overstating the already understood.



Only when, as you are doing, exegesis and plain statements are ignored or eisegetically rendered void of any actual precise meaning. In that case you can have a perfect fictional world/GC where God never has to do any acts of judgement.



Again its not something that needs to be stated. The context is already defining what is to be understood by the mention of these actions. It is because you are not seeing that wider context that you need to insert those aiding qualifiers.



Only in cases of non-judgement. Thus in normal day-to-day life. Then they are either natural or Satan inflicted, and either way they are the work of Satan. It is indeed because no judgement was involved in Job’s case that God had to let Satan himself act against him.



That is, your added statements trying to make a distinction between what God doesn’t do in cases of non-judgement and what Satan instead does, or can do.



It is just a crutch for you. I don’t see a need for it.



The context already is defining/specifying this distinction.



If you also naturally keep EGW’s other pertinent statements on this issue which clear say and show that God does destructions instead of ignoring them, then you won’t be misconstruing this statement to be a blanket statement against all adverse actions, but will defaulty see that she is understanding a distinct category of non-judgements. Since I had that responsible exegetical approach I did not come to this isolative conclusion here.



I did/do not say that sins do not have negative consequences. They do, just not naturally life taking ones. And the Tree of Life can override most of those sins. So a “good sinner” can indeed live eternally whereas a physically detrimental sinner can e.g., overdose on drugs and die.

You can only make these claims by misunderstanding or ignoring clear statements and actions in the Bible such as the fact that God said sinners can live “eternally” with the Tree of life, as EGW also understood; the fact that only some sins were to be capitally punished and when they were done, those sinners went on living; God has to take actions to effectuate some judgements as the fitting “organic” consequence may not be present at all or too remote to be timely, or even “too natural seeming” so that I won’t seem like a judgement of God and thus would not serve to warn unbelievers. The Red Sea destruction of Egypt is a perfect example.



The Cross revealed that the sinner living with the tree of life will die, even if a “good sinner” and also, to be saved at last and have access to that tree of life where they can ingest the ingredient that perpetuates their life, someone had to bear their sins and pay their penalty of death.



That is what the Bible teaches in regards to a sinner being capable of living eternally and the SOP understood it. It is quite telling to me that you never address/addressed EGW’s statement in PP 60.3 as well as other SOP statements head on. Indeed that is your patent practice: “find an, especially SOP statement that seems to concretely confirm your view and hold it up at the forefront and then ignore anything else that speak against your view of it. That is not being exegtically responsible. I instead aim to harmonize “every word” that is said on the topic and that is how I arrive at my wider and “Biblical” view here.



In regards to the Tree of Life and sinners, as pointed out before, you seem to be the only person from those who have posted in this thread, (though I am still not sure about kland), not to understand/accept the Biblical truth that a sinner can live eternally.



Well let’s see what happens from what I’ve answered above. And for someone who just patently ignores what you cannot answer, you really are “shamelessly prideful” to want me to respond head on to what you post. Why do you be responsive to the many comments of my that you have just ignored. Like most people with your Mr. Nice Guy facade, you think that ignoring something justifies your non-action. As long as your conscience is clear and that is to be done by ignoring anything that would call you to responsibility. (That is indeed patently how/the same mentality/rationalizing of e.g., those who have the means to make a difference in the world justify not doing anything. Out of sight out of mind and thus out of responsibility.)



And my point was you are only still holding on to your view by being stubbornly selective in what you will allow to contribute to your theology. And as seen in what you have chosen to respond in those past threads, you don’t admit/recognize your pointed out and debunked errors, but just continue on with your belief that your view is perfect despite all of those pointed out non-biblical imperfections as if your view is to be true even when it does not have any proof or the proofs you have claimed actually don’t support. It is to be true no matter what.



Along the same lines of my prior observation, and to confirm what I had already stated, I see that the first mentioned ones are all direct/active “judgements” of God, just as the Plagues of Egypt. And the added ones involving the “destroying power” can actually be “destroying angels” of God, as it was in Egypt, and will be during the last plagues. Nonetheless, though only at an ultimate, no more mercy, end, Satan can have a part in this destruction.



What is this “is fine” suppose to mean/imply??? Is my only purpose/worthwhileness to reconcile myself to your view???



Only for your view/understanding. I see the “doing” as completely distinct from “permitting” in that God can take concrete action to Himself “do” what He is permitting. What I went on to state as an example above is only one side of the “permitting” coin, the passive judgement side, with the other “doing” one being the actively self-done permitted judgement.



Perhaps it is but only from the point where God’s angel has apparently “seeded” chaos in nature by throwing his bowl of Plagues in the air (Rev 16:17a). Satan will apparently then will be unrestrained to make use of that natural instability as he pleases and with him knowing then that all is lost and the end of his war is near, he will surely engage in these acts of sabotage and destruction on those who had actually been doing his will. His purpose here is also to hardened people in rebellion against God and also since the whole world will be “Christian”, at least nominally, to escape the Mark of the Beast consequences, then this will serve to make most of these people who had perhaps somewhat genuinely thought to be followers of God, here knowingly turn against God, even not repenting of their wrong course at all. So Satan does have personal interest to do this, back to the wall, end of the line 7th plague judgement, whereas in the previous six he really did not.



I rather see that this Spirit withdrawal, which EGW understands as the releasing of the Four winds of human passion, will lead men to act even more wickedly, not have a voice to suggest/impress them to do better and that they can heed. And by this added, free will blatant wickedness there will then be actionable reasons to inflict various judgements on them.

“Dire disaster and death” are extreme conditions and as I see it, ones that can also be done by actions of either God in direct judgement or Satan in permitted judgement. And by God allowing for these dire conditions to take place, as I see it, that at the very least makes it a passive judgement of God. Only when it is Satan who is directly doing this is it not an action of God in any form.



Again what’s with the condescending “is fine” remark. Am I in your classroom and you are grading my work????



Not as I understand the still present actions here and term distinctions involved here. “Permitting” is not synonymous with “doing”. The first just leads to the second which still requires action as exegtically indicated/specified in the Bible. Again, I do not see EGW’s “permitting” comments as precluding direct actions of God to effectuate what he is allowing/permitting to occur.



Not as you understand it. God would then be acting passively, yet He would still be “acting” to do what He is permitting. Just like letting go a rope that someone is hiking a cliff with.



I have already addressed your belief here. You just have not responded to my statements then and as usual, just, indifferently for spurious reasons of guiltless obliviousness, make the same “Level 1” argument again!??!



Because you are misunderstanding and misapply what EGW said in this regard. And when you ignore exegesis as you do and also claim that either God did not or could not accurately reveal things, apparently due to a claimed ‘language barrier’ (as if God could not add the explanatory details to make His point of how these things occurred clear), or claim that Bible writer miswrote what God had perfectly revealed, or spuriously claim that people were misreading what was written as if they did not understand their own language and we still exegetically do not (or what ever your latest backpedalling ‘explanatory/correcting’ supposition spuriously is), then it is obliviously easy to make and maintain this vacuous and selective claim.



That is not what I said nor meant. I had instead said and meant that Assyria was an organic threat and even if God was protecting Israel they could still come up against Israel in war, as many nations did. The only difference was that God would protect Israel in that war. His removal of his protection is not what made Assyria come to fight Israel. It is just what would allow Assyria to win if they ever chose to fight. And my added observation was that if those foreign powers did not have any plans or desire to ever come against Israel in war, than as stated in e.g., Isa 13:17 (cf. 46:11a) then God could “stir/summon” then to do so, as it was done with Babylon, as already documented.



Already explained above and as Jesus understood and said in regards to Jerusalem in Matt 22:7, it was God who would draw the Romans against Jerusalem. Indeed as seen by Titus, the Roman had no intentions at all to war against them. If that was the case they would have waged unrelenting war from the start. They were only hoping to have Jerusalem reason themselves to compliance but God apparently made them take an army along instead of mere diplomatic envoys.



This “revelation” is not only limited to actions but also involves the Truth and Teachings (cf. John 16:12-15). And without the added revelations of God through e.g., Paul and later John the Revelator, there quite easily would be no Christian Church today. So it is not only imperative to go outside of the ‘Gospels’ for the full revelation but also in the OT. And in regards to the OT, Jesus upheld what God had revealed there and did not change anything at all nor did he imply that what was said was mistaken in any way, whether as you suggest, from God or from Bible writers.



You view/understanding of what was said is what is at fault here, which is ‘the OT cannot be understood as it straightforwardly/exegetical reads’ (i.e., in the Hebrew).



Your actions and non-actions speak much more loudly than your words and professions. You clearly are ignoring whatever debunks your view so that you can continue to uphold it as the Truth. Thus and only in this oblivious way do you effectively “continue to maintain that your view is perfect”. And of course, you’ll never explicitly say this. And not “saying” this means to you that whatever you do then must not imply/involve this.



That transparently does not “appear” so to me given the various corrections I made in just this thread of my prior views, let alone other thread.



Another example where you think that ‘just saying something must mean that this is what you are doing’. The record of this forum is clear that you always ignore things that have incontrovertibly debunk a prior point of yours and many times just bring up that initial point again later.



Not in this superficial facade way of yours. I tangibly do so in my response to valid corrective points. You just completely ignore them and worse just restate that debunked point again later.



When one ignores the pertinent and applicable underlying exegetical facts and evidence (indeed exegesis as a whole) on/for an issue that determine what the proper understanding is, it is easy to continue to believe that an opposing view does not make sense.

Tom, please respond to 133773 and 774. Thank you.

Tautology defined means “needless repetition of an idea, statement, or word.” Isn’t it obvious we need to avoid taking anything for granted, that stating the obvious is often needed? We can’t be too careful can we? When impenitent sinners cross the line they forfeit Jesus’ protection and He gives evil angels permission to cause death and destruction within the limits He Himself establishes and enforces. The resulting death and destruction does not violate Jesus’ will. You seem to think it does. I disagree.


I don’t see how the passage you quoted above address my concern and question. It sounded as though you said Jesus works to prevent evil angels from causing death and destruction. Now it sounds like you’re saying, no, Jesus doesn’t always do that, sometimes He lets it happen. Please explain.


We are discussing the death and destruction of Jews and Jerusalem in 70 AD. Do you think evil men and evil angels exercised self-control so as not to exceed the limits Jesus imposed on them? Or, did Jesus have to work to ensure they didn’t exceed His limits?


You and I both believe Jesus never fully withdraws His protection. He establishes and enforces limits, perimeters within which He permits evil men and evil angels to work. In the case of Jews and Jerusalem in 70 AD the limits Jesus imposed prohibited them from causing more death and destruction than what we read about. It’s unlikely they caused less death and destruction than what Jesus was willing to permit. The point is it was Jesus, not evil men or evil angels, who determined how much death and destruction counted as just and righteous punishment.


Yes, bad things happen when Jesus withdraws His protection. However, you seem to think it’s up to evil men and evil angels to determine the extent of punishment. I disagree. It is entirely up to Jesus to determine the perimeters within which evil men and evil angels work to cause death and destruction. It is also entirely up to Jesus to ensure they do not exceed His limits.


The two go hand-in-hand, that is, impenitent sinners forfeit His protection and Jesus works to ensure the resulting punishment does not exceed the limits He Himself establishes. At what point does Jesus withdraw His protection? What criteria does He use to determine the limits of punishment? How much is too much? And, are evil men and evil angels free to withhold causing death and destruction? Again, I’m referring to Jews and Jerusalem in 70 AD.


Amen. Jesus does not destroy; He restores. The death and destruction of Jews and Jerusalem in 70 AD is an example of this truth. There was nothing arbitrary or random about the death and destruction they suffered. It was an act of punishment. Jesus visited vengeance and retribution upon them. He executed justice and vindicated the kingdom and character of God. He didn’t merely withdraw His protection and allow things to run its natural course as if sin metes out justice in defense of the honor and glory of God. "In the retribution inflicted upon the ungrateful husbandmen was portrayed the doom of those who should put Christ to death." {DA 596.3} Ellen wrote:


The execution of justice and judgment is an act of punishment Jesus metes out in vengeance and retribution. “While He does not delight in vengeance, He will execute judgment upon the transgressors of His law.” “By terrible things in righteousness He will vindicate the authority of His downtrodden law.”


You, on the other hand, seem to think Jesus accomplishes all these things by simply withdrawing His protection and allowing sin to run its course. Such an idea credits sin with vindicating the law and kingdom and character of God.

By the way, my records and a forum wide search has you quoting CET 203.2 only once in the past.

Because it ultimately depends on how exactly that judgement occurred. At times God needs to act to do that permitted judgements, as the Bible exegetical indicates, other times, when a present and organic/natural consequence if fully/fittingly there then the removal of his protective hand is enough to accomplish the task. No further/additional action is needed, unlike what the Bible exegetically indicates was for the fiery serpent.



Correct. By the way EGW also quote the Bible’s “sent” statement in 1SP 314.2. If she saw it as incorrect she would have edited it, as she did for John 20:17, as she went on to make her “permitted” statement (1SP 315.1). So to me that indicates that she did not see what she was going to say as contradicting the Bible.



Its just what proper exegesis entails. Indeed it serves as an anchoring basis for looking into God’s other book, Nature, to get the fuller story.

Perhaps this semi-personal illustration will help. My parent live in a developing community in Florida where there are, if I recount exactly, 4 houses on their street section, but vacant lots for several others, perhaps up to 20. That is the same for many other street sections in that community. Because of this abundance of vacant “wild” surrounding lots, the constantly have an everpresent threat of encountering a snake. Earlier on they would encounter various snake in their yard, despite it being well-maintained at least once a week. Furthermore, they were more likely to encounter those snakes in the less frequented portions of the backyard than around their house or the front yard. And when they would go away for vacation, there immediate fear, and indeed the actual reality upon returning, was that they were going to encounter several snakes. However when they got a dog about 3 years in, this frequency has dropped to once every two. The natural fact of the matter is that the ever presence of the dog is causing most of these snakes to stay away, indeed literally beyond the delineating mesh fence surrounding their yard, in the bushy surrounding lots. Yet when they would go on vacation after having had the dog, but would send the dog then to another place until they got back, the yard would have several snakes present upon their return. So evidently those snake know that they are susceptible to being seen and killed by the dog, who indeed always makes a noticeable fuss, when he finds a snake and after killing it parades it around in his mouth and toys around with it, flipping it in the air until my parents eventually take and throw it away. So the fact that most snakes, even venomous ones seek to avoid open spaces where especially humans or other larger creatures are present is a concrete reality.

So as I have stated before, the Bible is exegetically specific that God had to act bring the snakes into the camp with“interest” and also that these serpents forcefully acted to bite the people. That points to both a drawing action and then an injected threatened feeling done by God.



Yes it did. You are just limiting yourself to a narrow view here. I am saying that the removal of God’s protection would not have guaranteed the necessary elevated rate of bites to fittingly and timely effectuate this judgement. God’s protection was to assure 100% security. Without it, given the natural tendencies of most snakes, Israel would have been circa 98% secure. The snakes would mostly have stayed away. However God not only removed that protection, a part of this judgement that EGW sought to emphasize, but, as the Bible says, acted to heighten the danger so that Israel could strikingly see and realize that they could be susceptible to snake bites, even if it would be, under purely natural circumstances, 1-2 bites per day. God protection made sure it was always zero.



I do not limit myself to what EGW said and indeed see that she only presented part of the view. The Bible itself reveals God’s, not even “causing”, exegetically speaking, (=Hiphil) but “forcefully doing/making” (=Piel).

I find it quite comical for you to keep harping on how EGW should be taken word for word when you only do so when she seems to be agreeing with your view. Otherwise you just ignore her. Quite duplicitous.

No it is not. In the no more mercy stage. God either lets a present/fitting/organic consequence fully have its way or lets Satan do the destructive act. Either way God is not at all involved their either limiting nature, man or Satan, whatever the destuctive actor is then.

In the mercy stage God is present to make these limitations, even when working through an agency which can include the restricted works of Satan.



As I had posted before, the historical fact is, as documented by Josephus, that the Romans first came simply because the Jews suddenly stopped receiving any gift or making sacrifices for any foreigner, which included Caesar. I see that God impressed the Romans to be greatly alarmed by this sudden shift and convince them to send a contingent under Cestus to Jerusalem. The Jews may not even have gone on to withhold their taxes, but the Romans were convinced that this was a most threatening gesture. So as with the fiery serpents, God may have injected this substantively “baseless” fear in the Romans. E.g. if a Church decides to remove their country’s flag from their platform, or stop accepting a government subsidy, that does not sequiturly necessarily mean that they are going to, where applicable, stop paying taxes.



I Biblically see that God making use of any of those dangers to effectuate a judgement is still an action of his. And it is not always the case that one of these dangers is sufficient for judgement. God indeed uses nature as an arsenal of weapons for destruction. So those thousands of unseen dangers are part of this, his arsenal. He is just also protecting His people from those very same judgement implements.



No. The unbelief of the Jews cause it to be decreed and thus fulfill Dan 9:27. As verse 26 had said: “the people [i.e., the unbelieving Jews] of the Prince who is to come [i.e., Jesus the Messiah] will cause [Hiphil] the city and the sanctuary to be destroyed.”



I have absolutely no problem/qualm about allow the being so exegetically consistent, especially in regards to the Bible. You seem to be dismayed by having to face this incontrovertible, Biblical and Jesus Himself-spoken reality.



Exegetically speaking, and given the fact that Jesus probably spoke this in Aramaic, which is cognate to Hebrew, He probably used a Hiphil type of verb to indicate an indirect action by the land owner. That is a notion that does not always accurately translation from those Semitic languages to Greek. Nonetheless the logical context implies that the owner of the vineyard would have needed assistance to carry this out, indeed being greatly outnumbered, and that by already proven murders. And they knew that when they killed the owners son, they had passed a point of no more mercy. And since they wanted the vineyards as theirs (vs. 7) and knowing, given the laws of these probable Jewish characters, the owner, the next of kin to the son had legal right to kill them on site, that this owner was not coming to them in peace, they would have defaultly been on their guards against him and even preemptively acted offensively against him. So he more than likely knowingly did go to them alone but hired or rounded up amongst friends the necessary physical force to confront they resolute thieves and murderers. Indeed Jesus does not hint that ‘the owner decided to go to them and seek to reason with them.’ That is what intended to be done by the sending of the son. From the start, following the murder of his son, that owner only had (lawful) vengeance on his mind in going to them. And even despite the assistance, he likely would not have done the killings himself with all of the murders rounded up and held. These murders were probably armed and fought back from the start and so whoever confronted them had to kill them in justified self defence, indeed as in a kill or be killed “war” situation.

So Jesus’s statement was probably linguistically specific in including this “agency” notion in its original language. All of this can indeed easily be seen when proper exegetical method are involved which includes harmonizing different passages and also this Aramaic original language reality.