Let me see if I can be clearer.

“If a ‘bad’ act is ascribed to God alone by inspiration, then God is the being responsible”.

In the case of God sending a strong delusion or sending a lying spirit, the “bad” act is ascribed only to God, therefore, according to your principle, God would be the being responsible (if we consider just the incident itself). However, God cannot be the being responsible because, if you examine the whole context of the Bible, you see that God desires all men to be saved and God cannot lie. So I don’t see that this principle works when applied only to the Bible.
If it is applied to the Bible and SOP together, it might work. I will try to expand on Ellen White later.

About the quotes of Ellen White you presented.

quote:

---

So she saw, for example, the earth opening up and the waters of the deep erupting, and the flood happening. Why would she not describe this as something which God was doing? She is describing what she saw in vision.

---

She saw many natural disasters – some she definitely attributed to Satan and some she definitely attributed to God. How did she distinguish who was doing what?

quote:

---

For example, consider the Early Writing visions regarding the destruction of the wicked. They are full of images of God destroying them with fire. This makes it sound like its something God is doing. Yet when we read about the same even in the Desire of Ages, we see a completely different picture

---

Long after the writing of the Desire of Ages, she writes:

“Fire comes down from God out of heaven. The earth is broken up. The weapons concealed in its depths are drawn forth. Devouring flames burst from every yawning chasm. The very rocks are on fire. The day has come that shall burn as an oven. The elements melt with fervent heat, the earth also, and the works that are therein are burned up. The wicked ‘shall be stubble; and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts.’ All are punished ‘according to their deeds.’” {SW, March 14, 1905 par. 12}

There will be fire, and probably the fire will be caused by God’s glory.

quote:

---

This makes it sound like God destroyed the temple in Jerusalem, doesn't it? He send His angels to "do the work of destruction". Yet in the Great Controversy we read:

---

The passage of The Great Controversy you quoted says nothing about the temple. It was destroyed by a fire and EGW says angels aided in its destruction. Perhaps God didn’t want the place where He had once dwelt to be invaded by pagans.

“Like one entranced, he [Titus] looked from the crest of Olivet upon the magnificent temple, and gave command that not one stone of it be touched. Before attempting to gain possession of this stronghold, he made an earnest appeal to the Jewish leaders not to force him to defile the sacred place with blood. If they would come forth and fight in any other place, no Roman should violate the sanctity of the temple. In vain were the efforts of Titus to save the temple; One greater than he had declared that not one stone was to be left upon another. The blind obstinacy of the Jewish leaders, and the detestable crimes perpetrated within the besieged city, excited the horror and indignation of the Romans, and Titus at last decided to take the city by storm. He determined, however, that if possible, it should be saved from destruction. But his commands were disregarded. After he had retired to his tent at night, the Jews, sallying from the temple, attacked the soldiers without. In the struggle a firebrand was flung by a soldier through an opening in the porch, and immediately the cedar-lined chambers about the holy house were in a blaze. Titus rushed to the place, followed by his generals and legionaries, and commanded the soldiers to quench the flames. His words were unheeded. In their fury the soldiers hurled blazing brands into the chambers adjoining the temple... The whole summit of the hill which commanded the city blazed like a volcano. One after another the buildings fell in, with a tremendous crash, and were swallowed up in the fiery abyss. The roofs of cedar were like sheets of flame; the gilded pinnacles shone like spikes of red light; the gate towers sent up tall columns of flame and smoke.” {YI, November 13, 1906 par. 7}

The plagues we have already discussed although, as I said, I’m still studying the subject.

Old Tom: Similarly we could also say that God desires all men to be saved, and will not kill. Unless lying is morally less objectionable than killing.

R:God desires all men to be saved, but there are circumstances in which there is no longer any possibility to save them. However, although they themselves can no longer be saved, they can cause many others to be lost. If by removing the life of incorrigible sinners God can avoid those who can still be saved to be lost, what do you think God should do?

Tom:I think it would be good to make clear what we agree one and what we disagree on. I agree that limiting life is merciful for the reasons quoted. We agree on the principles involved when God acts to limit life. Where we disagree is limited to *how* God accomplishes this.

I believe that there are thousands of things which can kill us from which God is constantly protecting us. I also believe that it is necessary for God to actively sustain us to keep us alive. I see there are two ways in which God can act to limit life which are consistent with His character:

1)He can remove His protecting hand.
2)He can remove His sustaining hand.

I see no need or sense in God taking up an arm, or some similar weapon, to kill somebody. To do such a thing both implicitly denies that God must protect and sustain us, and is inconsistent with His character as revealed in His Son.

R: About the quotes of Ellen White you presented.

Old Tom:So she saw, for example, the earth opening up and the waters of the deep erupting, and the flood happening. Why would she not describe this as something which God was doing? She is describing what she saw in vision.

R:She saw many natural disasters – some she definitely attributed to Satan and some she definitely attributed to God. How did she distinguish who was doing what?

Tom:Presumably is she saw Satan taking action, she ascribed it to Satan, and if not ascribed it to God. It would most likely depend upon how God chose to reveal the action to her. However, God presents Himself as doing that which He permits, so even when she, or a Bible author, describes God as causing a natural disaster to occur, this should be taken into account.

Old Tom:For example, consider the Early Writing visions regarding the destruction of the wicked. They are full of images of God destroying them with fire. This makes it sound like its something God is doing. Yet when we read about the same even in the Desire of Ages, we see a completely different picture

R:Long after the writing of the Desire of Ages, she writes:

T:Is this a suggestion that she was revising her view in the Desire of Ages? The Desire of Ages selection is not a description of what happens in terms of a vision, but an explanation of the principles involved, which are:

1)God does not use an arbitrary act of power to destroy the wicked.
2)God does not destroy the wicked; they destroy themselves.
3)The wicked cut themselves off from God, who alone is the source of life.
4)The wicked form characters so our of harmony with God's that His very presence is to them a consuming fire.
5)The light of the glory of God, which gives life to the righteous, destroys the wicked.

The last principle is particulary important as it makes clear that it is not an arbitrary action ("arbitrary action" here meaning something specifically directed against the wicked) of God which causes the death of the wicked, since the same thing He does (reveals His glory) gives life to the righteous. This makes it clear that the wicked are responsible for their own destruction, because they have brought about the situation (i.e. formed characters out of harmony with God's, so that His presence becomes a consuming fire to them) which results in that destruction.

Any revelation, whether before, after, or at the same time, must be in harmony with these principles.

R: “Fire comes down from God out of heaven. The earth is broken up. The weapons concealed in its depths are drawn forth. Devouring flames burst from every yawning chasm. The very rocks are on fire. The day has come that shall burn as an oven. The elements melt with fervent heat, the earth also, and the works that are therein are burned up. The wicked ‘shall be stubble; and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts.’ All are punished ‘according to their deeds.’” {SW, March 14, 1905 par. 12}

There will be fire, and probably the fire will be caused by God’s glory.

Tom:The earth will be purified by fire, and I like your suggestion that this fire is caused by God's glory. It can also be seen as the results of God's removing His protecting hand from the earth, allowing the results of sin to be manifest. In a way similar to how God protected the earth from the flood, until He allowed it to happen, God is protecting the earth from fire, until He allows that to happen. This seems very possible to me, and would be in harmony with God's character.

I assume the wicked are already dead when the earth is purified by fire. I see no possible way to harmonize the destruction of the wicked with other inspiration (consider especially the above itemized principles) if one assumes the wicked are alive when the earth is purified by fire.

Another problem is that if the wicked are still alive when this happened, they would all die at the same time, but we know that their punishment is proportional; some suffer for a few hours, others for many days. On the other hand, the idea of proportionality is in harmony with the concept the death of the wicked is caused by a revelation of God's glory, since the suffering involved would be proporitonal to the light one had/sin one committed.

Old Tom:This makes it sound like God destroyed the temple in Jerusalem, doesn't it? He send His angels to "do the work of destruction". Yet in the Great Controversy we read:

R:The passage of The Great Controversy you quoted says nothing about the temple. It was destroyed by a fire and EGW says angels aided in its destruction. Perhaps God didn’t want the place where He had once dwelt to be invaded by pagans.

Tom: I could have quoted the whole chapter, but that would have been a bit long. I quoted what I did to establish that the destruction of Jerusalem did not take place by God's actively doing something, nor the angels actively doing something, but rather by God's permitting that destruction to take place. Yet EGW elsewhere describes that very event as being accomplished by the active work of His angels. This shows that EGW uses the same principle as the Bible, in using active voice to describe God's actions, where God is actually not doing the given deed, but permitting it to happen.

And the reason for this is very simple. She is simply describing what God has presented to her in vision. God presents in vision angels taking apart the walls of the temple. Then in the GC chapter she explains what this means.

This is exactly the same thing happening where the Bible describes God as doing something active yet the Spirit of Prophesy describes the event as God allowing the thing to happen. The Bible does the same thing as well; that is, it will present an event as God actively doing it in one place, while in another describing the same event as God permitting it.

There's no difference between the Bible and the Spirit of Prophesy in this regard, which was my point. You made the assertion that the Bible is unclear as to when God is actually doing something, whereas the Spirit of Prophesy is always clear, but this is a groundless claim. There is no basis to assume that God used a completely different standard of revelation for the Spirit of Prophesy than for the Bible.

Your principle, if followed, would lead to the conclusion that we can't really know what is happening in Scripture unless we read the Spirit of Prophesy. What I suggest instead of this is that we make use of the principles laid out in the Spirit of Prophesy (which principles are also laid out in Scripture) to understand the Scripture. In this way the Spirit of Prophesy is neither inferior to the Bible, nor superior, but in harmony with it.

R:The plagues we have already discussed although, as I said, I’m still studying the subject.

Tom:That's fine. Any one example I cited would be sufficient to establish the point, which is simply that Ellen White, as well as the Scriptures, ascribes things to God which He has permitted.