I concur with the general facts as you have laid them out, albeit not entirely the same interpretation. There is more to the failure of Ai than besides Achan's sin. Israel was self-confident, and did not go up against Ai with the assurance that God was with them. It was not a question of numbers of arms, but whether God was with them. Also as EGW has said before, "It was to be impressed upon Israel that in the conquest of Canaan they were not to fight for themselves, but simply as instruments to execute the will of God; not to seek for riches or self-exaltation, but the glory of Jehovah their King." {PP 491.2} Have we heard that before? 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} They were not to fight, and when they fought, they were not to fight for themselves.

Speaking of Ai, EGW writes: Israel went downhill from there. They had more victories, but they never fulfilled what God had planned for them. They went backwards, not forwards. We see glimpes of what might have been in 2 Chronicles 20. But Israel did not become the light of the world they could have been.

I guess the example of Israel (JACOB) is not sufficient. Did he fight Laban? Did he fight Esau? Did the people fight when they left Egypt? Why would they need to fight to take the promised land? EGW says "it was not His [God's] purpose that they should gain the land by warfare".

You mention the writings of two other people which I do not believe have even been mentioned in these threads before. You inclusion now is for what purpose? How does what they thing or write serve in THIS discussion?

But you didn't answer as to why, with the miraculous throwing down of the walls, did God still expect Israel to destroy everyone in Jericho with the sword (everyone except Rahab and her family)? That battle was entered into in full trust the Lord would fight for them.
Why was the actual destroying of the people still their responsibility?



Agreed-- it's total whether God was with them or not. The point is -- they could not conquer Canaan in their own strength, they had to rely upon God. And once God was again with them they had no problem taking Ai; it wasn't a matter of God not wanting them to take up arms, but a matter of God being with them.




No question there --
But notice it was God's will that they executed.



We need to look at those fragments in context:

The quote in context is talking about Israel after the 12 spies had returned from Canaan -- ten spies were lamenting that there were too many giants and too many fortified cities and Israel couldn't possibly take the land. Caleb and Joshua tried to tell the people that the Lord had promised them the land and with Him they were well able to take it. But the people listened to the ten and reacted very badly. So God says -- "OK, your wish is granted, wander in the wilderness forty years till this whole generation gets their wish to die in the wilderness."

Suddenly the Israelites change their minds --
They decide to go and conquer Canaan WITHOUT GOD -- in their own strength!
This God never commanded and this they could never do, and they were sorely defeated.



Conclusion--
Prior to their rebellion God DID want them to go and TAKE the land and He would enable them to do so.
They refused thinking they had to do it in their own strength, with their OWN warfare, and were complaining bitterly that it was too hard.
So God withdraws the privilege.
They then decide to go and expected God to honor THEIR WORK!

This isn't talking about NO warfare, it's talking about Israel thinking THEY could or had to take Canaan by THEIR OWN warfare.
There is a difference.







Same problem --
It isn't that they were using warfare, the problem was always thinking THEIR warfare was strong enough to do it.
No -- it was God enabling the victories, not their own strength, as long as they realized that and depended on that they were victorious.

God never intended them to take Canaan with THEIR own warfare, destitute of relying upon God, but with God fighting for them, they were still required to execute His will in active warfare.







Because God asked them to.
And see above for the context of the quote you used.

Why did Abraham arm his servants to fight to save Lot in Gen 14?
And why was he blessed by God at the end of that battle?



They write the same stuff as you write. In fact the whole Esau and Jacob and Laban argument is found in Wrights book. The quote you gave from Strub is also straight from Wrights book, pretty much word for word. This didn't originate with you -- though I'm sure you throw in some of your own ideas. However, there is a whole movement on this, and we've heard it in other times and places.

Going up and taking the land does not necessarily equate with go up and fight to take the land. When they crossed the Red Sea and the Jordan, they were to march across. The way was open to them. They were required to march.

Exodus 14:13-14 AKJV And Moses said to the people, Fear you not, stand still, and see the salvation of the LORD, which he will show to you to day: for the Egyptians whom you have seen to day, you shall see them again no more for ever. 14 The LORD shall fight for you, and you shall hold your peace.

As to a "movement" as you say, perhaps there is a movement back to what early Adventists believed and wrote about in EGW's time. Do you believe that EGW did not know what was being said and written about, and preached? Here is one example:

God did not design that the people should do any fighting. He led them through the wilderness, in order that they might not see war. Yet He knew that if they went the way that they did, the Egyptians would surely pursue them. The children of Israel never had any greater need of fighting than they did when the Egyptians closed in on them by the Red Sea; yet the word then was, "The Lord shall fight for you, and ye shall hold your peace." (Exodus 14:14) {1900 EJW, EVCO 206.4}

It may be said that the reason why the Lord did not wish them to see war was because they were as yet unprepared for fighting; but we must remember that on other occasions when they had many trained warriors, God often delivered them without their striking a blow. When we consider the circumstances of their deliverance from Egypt--how it was all accomplished by the direct power of God, without any human power, their part being only to follow and obey His word--we must be convinced that it was not according to the plan of God that they should do any fighting, even in self-defense. {1900 EJW, EVCO 206.5}

But if this is not convincing, and I know it is not for most here think war is perfectly OK, all we need to do is look to Jesus. All fighting with carnal weapons is proscribed.

GC, thank you for the counsel - good counsel. I spend less than 5 minutes on APL's posts. I would spend more time if he actually posted something new.

Isn't this different than what we've been talking about? Until you recognize right from wrong, is there any point in addressing any other quotes? Hasn't APL addressed your above questions elsewhere?

Thanks. I wasn't sure.

I don't believe I had heard of Strub before, but unlike dedication, I had heard about them picking up arms from the dead Egyptians.

If they left unarmed, and they didn't pick up arms from the Egyptians, where did they get them? "Nowhere -- not in the Bible nor in EGW's writings are we told anything about" them manufacturing weapons.

This has been one of the longest topics in the history of Maritime.

Is it that hard to determine whether or not God punishes, however, God chooses to do it?

Daryl - there is no question that sinners suffer. The question is what is God's roll. Does God have to actively punish the sinner? What is the roll of sin? Is sin the cause of sickness, pain and death? Most here seem to believe that actually God is the cause of death, which is a mystery to me. Some here think that the life of Christ on this earth tells us little about the great controversy. And that the death of Christ is not the death that a sinner will die. There are only 2 deaths described in the Bible, and we all will suffer the first death, so what death did Christ taste for all of us? The first? I don't think so! Christ's death tells us what roll God has in the second death, and it is not execution by God. EGW: "Cease to cherish and excuse sin; for sin caused the death of the Son of God."