APL, you have not been forthcoming or forthright. You have repeatedly refused to answer my questions. The purpose of my questions is to ascertain more clearly your view. How can you expect me or anyone else to embrace your view if you refuse to discuss the points that matter to me or them?

I agree with you Jesus uses the withdraw and permit principle of punishment. He uses His enemies to punish sinners. "God will use His enemies as instruments to punish those who have followed their own pernicious ways whereby the truth of God has been misrepresented, misjudged, and dishonored." {LDE 242.3} His enemies include evil men and evil angels. Again, I completely agree with this insight.

However, you also believe the withdraw and permit principle of punishment applies to every incident described in the Bible and the SOP. This view insists nature is self-acting. It also insists the clearest descriptions of punishment cannot be taken at face value, that they must be interpreted in light of the withdraw and permit principle of punishment. It also insists there is no distinction between destruction and punishment. You also assign a role to "sin" that implies "sin" is a self-acting judge and executioner.

Please answer my lists of questions. I need your answers to help better understand your view. Please answer them plainly and concisely. Thank you.

I have read back in these forums. I'm not sure you really want to understand my view. A fellow named "Tom" presented a number of thoughts as I have. Yet, I see not change on your part. Read a forum on a different site, I found the following. Perhaps you should read this fellows book. You refuse to see the material I have pointed out to you. I have spoken of God's permissive will. This guy I think say it well, almost as he is talking directly to you.

It was not God's will that He should have led His people to the conquest of Canaan by their use of the sword. His deliverance would have taken the "purer" form, if I may use that term, of giving over, instead of permissive paradigm. In reality, however, the permissive paradigm is also "giving over" in that God winks at ignorance. What I mean is that in their ignorance of God's ways, they thought Him a violent Deliverer. They were in gross darkness in every way, hence the giving of the law. Another discussion. So God, in giving over to their paradigm, saw them pick up weaponry from the mail-clad bodies washed up on the shore. They got their arms from the dead Egyptians. They came out of Egypt unarmed and there was no other way for them to have obtained weapons. This reveals that they intended to fight their enemies their way. God worked with them in their own modality, for as long as they still had not entirely cast Him off, He was able to stay in the picture. The hands of Deity were tied, so to speak. It is God working with their own choice. Permissive paradigm is not the place to remain. God intends to bring us up out of it. They would not. That is why they rejected Christ. They wanted a military deliverer who would thrust through the Roman oppressor with the sword of slaughter. This is why Jesus told Peter to put up his sword, that the way of the sword ends in violence. They were desolated. God destroyed them by giving them over to their choice, "His blood be on us and our children, we have no king but Caesar." 

Permissive paradigm is akin to parents giving instruction to wayward children who are coming of age. A parent may have every intent that a son or daughter remain sexually chaste until marriage. However, there are some that choose to have a partner or partners before marriage, casting off the counsel of the parents. A parent can kick the child out and entirely give them over to whatever results will come or they can sit that child down and give counsel as to how to conduct themselves within their poor choice. They can advise with regard to the use of prophylactics to avoid pregnancy and disease. They will tell them that it saddens them to see them go in such a direction, but it is better that they avoid complicating things by pregnancy or disease. Also, keeping them in the picture rather than turning away from them entirely will enable them to continue to have influence and hopefully get through to a time when they will have matured and come back to their senses. They will likely have emotional scars, but at least will not have to care for children on the scene who have one young parent and are missing the other, and will not have ongoing health repercussions from contracting STD's. Now, an onlooker might say that that parent was condoning premarital sexual activity by recommending condoms, but the reality is, that parent would never have done any such thing. All that they were trying to do was to mitigate the negative consequences of bad choices while praying for the repentance of their child. 

So it is with God. Jesus came to set the record straight. He reminded them of their bent to violence and desire for eye for eye justice while saying that God's perfect will was to love one's enemies. Yes, God "gave" those eye for eye instructions, in the sense that He also gave them a king. In anger, or in giving over to their own poor choice. (See Hosea 13:11.) The civil code was but an advancement, or a step up from the Babylonian Code of Hamurrabi. The systems of law in the heathen nations were all eye-for-eye justice systems. The Hebrew version was not nearly as harsh. (We have written on this, Ch. 18 in our book, As He Is, my wife doing most of the research on that topic.) Moving on, we find Jesus saying that divorce was not God's perfect will, but "Moses" allowed it. Again, God allowed it through the civil laws under Moses. Why did He allow it? Jesus says that it was because of the hard heart of man. In other words, because man insisted on it. So God regulated it. The fact of divorce was not ever established by or allowed by God. Same with polygamy. Or slavery. And we are saying, "also violence." Those were all things of ignorance. God winked. Permissive paradigm. But now calls men to repentance. 

There was never a call for men to exercise violence. That all came from the hardness of men's hearts. There is no call now for men to ever exercise violence. I could work this all through with you using the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy, but why? I will suggest that in support of your claim to the principle that the Almighty gave us violence as a gift with which to vanquish our enemies that you do a search for yourself on the gentleness of Jesus and the use of violence or anything harsh in the way and manner of Christians. Bring it back for me if you think you have something. My belief is that you will come up with a fat ZE-RO for anything pro-violence. My friend, you will likely still disagree with me, even if you did such an exercise. There is no more that I can say to help you. Put away your guns. He who lives by the sword will die by the sword. As a man thinks in his heart, so is he.

Scripture quoted: Hosea 13:11 I gave thee a king in mine anger, and took him away in my wrath.

I'm sorry you weren't here when he was currently posting. I miss him much. But then I was glad you came around! But I believe Green just might be right in this instance. Of what are you hoping to accomplish? Your whole basis is dependent upon that there is a distinction between good and evil, that is, the acts themselves. But when someone says that there are no good or evil acts, that what makes them good is who is doing them, that in fact God uses satan to do what we would call "evil things", but then says that evil, good, and satan are all "good" because everything that happens is exactly premeditated, planned, coordinated and intended by God, of what hope is there?

You cannot show the contrast between good and evil for there is no evil based upon the whole definition held being that everything God does is "good" and God does everything. There can be no determination of whether satan or God does something because there is no real point in determining it because satan is working for God, that what satan does is what God intends. God and satan are on the same team, working together. There is no evil, no violence, no nothing that is not planned and intended by God and therefore termed "good". Of which one end result is, total apathy. This is the direct and raw truth of the view without using any whitewashing. But it is not a "bad" view, but viewed as "good".

So what hope is there? You have no common ground basis. Even direct statements such as, "God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression", are turned to mean, that God does not stand ALL THE TIMES toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression. Rather than figure out how that fits in with other statements, it is meant to mean nothing. How can there be any hope?

Through those times with Tom here, I had had hope, that God could be seen as a loving God who does not do evil, and that evil not being called "good" because God was doing that evil. But that was dependent upon there is a distinction between evil and good, that it can be determined, and that when satan personates God, one can tell by what his fruits are as to whether it is God or not. But when God and satan are said to do the same things, that satan is even employed to do what God wants and intends and plans, there is no hope in not being deceived at the personation. I can see that now. I don't know why Tom left. Suppose he was able to understand it quicker than I?

Of what are you hoping to accomplish? How can there be any hope? Do you feel safe parleying on such ground?

I do not.

APL, I appreciate you posting what other people have written on the topic. Unfortunately, though, it doesn't deal with the fact Jesus promised to help the Jews conqueror Canaan by 1) using hornets and 2) using the Jews.

Jesus said, 1) "I will send hornets before thee, which shall drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite, from before thee" and 2) "I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand; and thou shalt drive them out before thee." (Ex 23:28 and 31)

Again, nowhere in the Bible or the SOP does it say Jesus did not want the Jews to help conqueror the Promised Land with the edge of the sword. The fact you haven't quoted inspiration to prove otherwise is telling.

Not quoted inspiration? As Jesus said, Matthew 26:52 Then said Jesus to him, Put up again your sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

Context? Here's another text out of context:

Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Jesus was dealing with different circumstances in the NT. It was a totally different dispensation. He did not command His chosen people in the NT to wage war with the edge of the sword. In the OT, however, Jesus most certainly did command His chosen people to wage war with the edge of the sword.

God is not schizophrenic. An evil side and a good side.

Matthew 10:34-36 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

Who is our foe? Our own household, NOT GOD. In this verse, Jesus is telling us that the truth will not result in harmony everywhere. Matthew 10:11-13 And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, enquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence. 12 And when ye come into an house, salute it. 13 And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you.

Jesus is the Prince of Peace. John 14:27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. When we make peace with God, we are often counted as an enemy of the world. 1 John 3:13 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous. 13 Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you. Christ came to make sinners at peace with God, but will set them at variance with those that refuse to God's offer of pease. Matthew 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved. It is not peace with the world at any price.

Two different dispensations. Two different rules of engagements. They are not interchangeable. You cannot force the details of one to fit the other. Jesus never promised His disciples He would use hornets to drive out the enemies of His church. While here in the flesh Jesus never withdrew His protection and permitted evil men or evil angels to wreak havoc. In the OT, however, Jesus used both hornets and Hebrews to kill the unholy occupants of the Promised Land. Nowhere in the Bible or the SOP does it say otherwise, that is, it doesn't say Jesus never wanted to use the Hebrews in the OT to kill Canaanites.

Would the arguments change any? What if extreme weather events and other disasters are not a sign of God causing them, not a sign of global warming, not a sign of evil angels, and not a sign of nature being released? How would the arguments fall flat if, just suppose, if they are a sign of planned, intentional, coordinated, orchestrated efforts, not due to God wanting to kill people, but man wanting to kill people through geoengineering or H.A.A.R.P?

Your presentation of Matthew 10:34 in no way supports your claim that God is violent.

You would have to define your terms better. The Gospel dispensation has been from Eden lost. God's law in not any different under the Old Covenant than the New. The old was a shadow of the reality. The whole ceremonial system was a God stepping down to meet the people where they were in the unbelief.

EGW: God had made it their privilege and their duty to enter the land at the time of His appointment, but through their willful neglect that permission had been withdrawn. Satan had gained his object in preventing them from entering Canaan; and now he urged them on to do the very thing, in the face of the divine prohibition, which they had refused to do when God required it. Thus the great deceiver gained the victory by leading them to rebellion the second time. They had distrusted the power of God to work with their efforts in gaining possession of Canaan; yet now they presumed upon their own strength to accomplish the work independent of divine aid. "We have sinned against the Lord," they cried; "we will go up and fight, according to all that the Lord our God commanded us." Deuteronomy 1:41. So terribly blinded had they become by transgression. The Lord had never commanded them to "go up and fight." It was not His purpose that they should gain the land by warfare, but by strict obedience to His commands. {PP 392.3}

The people were never supposed to fight. Just as the Lord did to Pharoah and to all Egypt, so did he promise to do to all the enemies that should set themselves against the progress of the Israelites to the promised land. But the children of Israel did not strike a single blow to effect their deliverance from Egypt and the overthrow of all its armies. When Moses, forty years before, had attempted to deliver Israel by physical force, he most signally failed, and was obliged to flee in disgrace. It was only when he knew the Gospel as the power of God unto salvation, that he was able to lead the people forth without any fear of the wrath of the king. This is conclusive proof that God did not design that they should fight for the possession of the land; and if they did not fight, of course they could not lose any of their number in battle. Read further as to the manner in which God proposed to give them the land: "I will send My fear before thee, and will destroy all the people to whom thou shalt come, and I will make all thine enemies turn their backs unto thee. And I will send hornets before thee, which shall drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite, from before thee. I will not drive them out from before thee in one year; lest the land become desolate, and the beast of the field multiply against thee. By little and little I will drive them out from before thee, until thou be increased, and inherit the land." Exodus 23:27-30.

When Jacob, years before, sojourned in the same land, with his family, the "terror of God was upon the cities that were round about them, and they did not pursue after the sons of Jacob." Genesis 35:5. "When they were but a few men in number; yea, very few, and strangers in it. When they went from one nation to another, from one kingdom to another people; He suffered no man to do them wrong; yea, he reproved kings for their sakes; saying, Touch not Mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm." Psalms 105:12-15. That same power was to bring them into the land, and speedily give them an eternal inheritance in it, for afterward, the Lord, bewailing their unfaithness, said: "Oh that My people had hearkened unto Me, and Israel had walked in My ways! I should soon have subdued their enemies, and turned My hand against their adversaries. The haters of the Lord should have submitted themselves unto Him; but their time should have endured for ever." Psalms 81: 13-15.

Both the Bible and SOP agree that Israel was never supposed to fight. I supposed if you believe that rules have changed, then polygamy and divorce were approved in the other "dispensation".