"The accusations of Moses" = against Moses which I repeatedly stated, but you seized on wording your thought contradicted all that I has written before. Why? Because you want this view of the Character of God to be represented as false. You really should read the whole chapter in Patriarchs and Prophets without your own bias.It is hard for me to believe what I have written that you instantly ignore it. The sentence in question is clear, the accusation against Moses and Aaron that THEY had killed the "good and holy men" via the power of Satan. And as God's representative, they literally were accusing God of being Satan in the destruction of Korah. All through the chapter, we see that all the accusations against Moses were literally calling God, cruel and harsh.

You can choose to believe that God is a killer. You can choose to ignore the testimony of EGW that God is not the executioner, and that God's judgments do not come directly from Him, but is so doing, you would be like the Korah and his followers, committing a sin against the Holy Spirit. You do not want to do that.

Let's look at the entire paragraph in question here on Korah, Dathan and Abiram's rebellion.



Lets break this paragraph down a sentence or two at a time.

Korah would not have taken the course he did had he known that all the directions and reproofs communicated to Israel were from God. But he might have known this.God had given overwhelming evidence that He was leading Israel.

Would Korah have acted as he did if he had known God was the source of everything Moses and Aaron had said in reproving him and his co-conspirators? No. He could have known it though. He had closed his mind to the influence of the Holy Spirit and thus locked himself out of knowing the truth, despite the daily miracles that happened while the Israelites were in the wilderness.

But Korah and his companions rejected light until they became so blinded that the most striking manifestations of His power were not sufficient to convince them; they attributed them all to human or satanic agency.

What happened to Korah and associates? They rejected every evidence from God that He was leading them until they attributed all manifestations of God's power to the devil or human working.

The same thing was done by the people, who the day after the destruction of Korah and his company came to Moses and Aaron, saying, “Ye have killed the people of the Lord.” Notwithstanding they had had the most convincing evidence of God’s displeasure at their course, in the destruction of the men who had deceived them, they dared to attribute His judgments to Satan declaring that through the power of the evil one, Moses and Aaron had caused the death of good and holy men.

Who did the same thing Korah and company did? The main mass of the people of Israel. They attributed the manifestations of God's power to the power of the devil, and said that Moses and Aaron were guilty of using the power of the devil to kill those men who opposed them.

It was this act that sealed their doom.

What act is this sentence referring to? The act of asserting that the power displayed by God was actually the power of the devil. Whose doom came about by making this assertion? Korah, Dathan, and Abiram along with their unapologetic co-conspirators. It is a fearful sin to say that the manifestation of God's power is actually the work of the devil. Why? Because it shows that the mind of those people who make this assertion have so long rejected the work of the Holy Spirit that they attribute the work of God to Satan. The story of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram has been given us to show us this lesson. It was this act that sealed their doom.

The last few sentences of the paragraph tie this story to the what Jesus faced during his day when the Jews attributed the power of God manifested through Jesus to Beelzebub. Korah, Dathan, Abiram, and the Jewish leaders of Christ's day all did the same thing. They committed the unpardonable sin. How was it manifested? By attributing the miraculous power of God to the devil.

The question speaks from a human standpoint. We are talking about God's righteousness and justice, not how humans govern.

Everyone NEEDS God's saving power --
There isn't any "many" vs the "few" when it comes to humanities greatest need -- everyone NEEDS God's saving power.
However, not everyone acknowledges that need.

God's saving power is extended to everyone -- He longs to meet everyone's need. He has no delight at all in the death of the wicked.
But we see in Biblical history, when a group of people (or a person) come to a point where they utterly reject God's saving power, and are actively working to keep others from receiving God's saving power, God does, at times, actively intervene to remove the barrier that was not only rejecting the gift that would have met their own great need, but they are were actively preventing the need of the many to receive that saving power as well.

Saving power to save us from what? Answer: SIN.

"As Satan took control of the minds of the Jews, again he is seeking to blind the minds of God's servants that they may not be able to discern the precious truth."

Doesn't that explain why there is not one in one hundred who understands for himself the Bible truth on this subject that is so necessary to our present and eternal welfare? Should we be surprised by that? If Satan is working with all his hellish power to make sure that you and I will not be able to discern the precious truth, should we not be most concerned?

Earthly kingdoms rule by the ascendancy of physical power; but from Christ's kingdom every carnal weapon, every instrument of coercion, is banished. {AA 12.1}

And that includes saving people from Satan and sinners who would destroy our faith and eternal lives.

But more importantly, it includes a LEGAL aspect, a Substitute.

And when we come right down to it --
it is the denial that Christ died FOR our sins, the denial that He took our punishment, in order that forgiveness could be granted to us --
that we see this "new theology" that God can't use His power to destroy sin, but must rely on the power of satan to do so. Thus attributing the mighty acts of God recorded in scripture, to satan.



It is essential to understand something about God when dealing with these issues:

God is the Sovereign ruler of the universe. He created and sustains the whole universe. He is the One Who possesses perfect holiness, justice, righteousness, as well as perfect love.
"He executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and shows His love for the foreigner by giving him food and clothing (Deut. 10:18)

" if we deny Him, He also will deny us:
If we are unfaithful, He remains faithful: He cannot deny Himself. 2 Tim. 2:12-13

Thus He cannot deny His grace to the sinful, for everyone who partakes of that grace does not deserve that grace, yet God is faithful in His covenant promise. However, neither can He deny His perfect holy and moral character in the exercise of His grace.

For God to simply "love", in the human sentimental manner of love, and forgive without regard to justice and holiness, would contradict His very character.

Moreover it puts the immutablity of His law in question before the universe. It would bring confusion to the whole universe for God to forgive guilt without a just bases for that forgiveness. Sin would be taken lightly, for it's not that bad as long as one returned to God for "healing" after engaging in sin, for then all would be well.

On the other hand -- to extend judgment and justice without love and grace would appear ruthless and in total contradiction to His character of love and goodness.

Another point that has not been brought out thus far is --
Sin, however it appears, is a revolt against God; it is defiance of God with a desire to be independent of divine restraints.
All sin is committed against God (See Psalms 51:4)

The "new theology" of a purely intrinsic definition of sin, tends to see sin as being mainly against one's self, against one's own health and existence, against the laws that are built into his system.
Thus it denies that sin at it's very core is against God.

Joseph when tempted by Potiphar's wife, exclaims --
"How can I do this thing and sin against _________.
Can you fill in against whom the sin would be committed if he yielded. No, it's not against himself, or even against Potiphar. "How can I do this thing and sin against God."

Sin is an act of revolt against God. This out right defiance against God can not simply be forgiven without violating the eternal principles of holiness, truth, and justice of God's character and God's law.

God is not in partnership with evil, He is in active opposition to evil. The Bible portrays God in open opposition to sin wherever it is found. To try and "correct" this in scripture is to manufacture a god that is not the god of the Bible.

Sin is so terrible, that there was only one way a God of love and holiness could find in which He could forgive a sinner, and still uphold the immutability and holiness of His character and His low.
He Himself, in the person of Jesus Christ, Who is God, One with the Father, would pay take the penalty for sin.
In the cross both God's love, and God's holy justice are revealed.

A God of love and holy justice can't be divided or made to deny one part of His character. Actually, it is only when we fully understand God holiness and justice and wrath against sin, that we can begin to understand His matchless love revealed at the cross.

Justification by Christ's death, gives a legal cleansing which we can never earn or attain of ourselves. Yet, which is absolutely necessary to enter heaven. No matter how "good" we become, it's not enough to earn a title to heaven. That legal exchange bestows on us Christ's merits, while He took our sins. It is a gift. But now, being reconciled to God through Christ, it gives us the right to come to God, adopted as His son or daughter, and to abide with Him -- and then the healing can take place as we walk with Him in love and obedience, and become conformed to His image. God will make us "fit" for heaven if we abide with Him. Yet, no one can claim a title to heaven based on their fitness.

Never will the universe take sin lightly when they look at the cross and what it took to reconcile mankind.

Did the Father PUNISH Christ for our sins? What did the Father do to the Son? Spiritualism says that "you will not surely die," and you only die because God gets mad and kills you. Sin does not destroy the sinner, God does.

Deuteronomy tells us doing justice to the fatherless and widow is doing the right thing for them.
Sin is bad because it destroys the sinner, would if it could, destroy our Maker. This was demonstrated clearly on the cross!

There is one who demanded legal punishment: Every sin must meet its punishment, urged Satan; and if God should remit the punishment of sin, He would not be a God of truth and justice. {DA 761.4}
Sin at its heart is the desire to kill God!
Now this is just confabulation. Sin at the core is a desire to kill God, so all sin is against God. The consequences are intrinsic, God does not have to "step in" and kill the sinner. He only has to "step out" and let the consequences play out. At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this. Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin. {DA 764.2} [inevitable = intrinsic]
What are God's tools for dealing with sin? God could have destroyed Satan and his sympathizers as easily as one can cast a pebble to the earth; but He did not do this. Rebellion was not to be overcome by force. Compelling power is found only under Satan's government. The Lord's principles are not of this order. His authority rests upon goodness, mercy, and love; and the presentation of these principles is the means to be used. God's government is moral, and truth and love are to be the prevailing power. {DA 759.1}

Earthly kingdoms rule by the ascendancy of physical power; but from Christ's kingdom every carnal weapon, every instrument of coercion, is banished. {AA 12.2}

No question, Christ suffered the penalty of man's transgression. However, did the Father punish His Son on the Cross? Did the Father KILL His Son? No. What killed the Son of God? Sin.

Did the death of Christ legally clear man? No, it only opened a way for man to be restored into the likeness of God:Man's only hope was in the death of Christ. And in his death Christ bore testimony to the whole universe that Satan's efforts to change the law were an utter failure. Now it is demonstrated that even for the human beings that have been deceived by Satan and made to transgress the law, there can be no pardon except through the death of the only-begotten Son of the Infinite God himself, who suffered the penalty of man's transgression. And this is the testimony that in the judgment will condemn every transgressor. {ST, December 28, 1891 par. 16} [keep reading]

Was such an infinite sacrifice made by the Son of God for the purpose of perpetuating sin?--No; it was not possible. There was no possibility that man, who had estranged himself from God, would be able to keep God's holy law. Christ died that he might, by virtue of his own righteousness, elevate humanity. He gave man another trial. Man, weak, sinful, ignorant, must look to Jesus if he would live. "Without me ye can do nothing." He has learned to be obedient to all the commandments of God, through Jesus Christ, who is made to him wisdom, sanctification, and righteousness. {ST, December 28, 1891 par. 17} Christ opened a way to return man to righteousness.
Then why are not all saved if they are "legally" off the hook? Because the problem is not simply a legal problem.
We will only be fit for heaven if God makes us fit and we cooperate with Him in that endeavor. It is not the sins we have committed that keeps out, but the sin we will commit if we are not changed. Sin is much more than an act, it is a condition of the mind, and roots of sin must be eradicated. From the Adventist point of view, "Then the Sanctuary will be cleansed". If we are content with having Christ our substitute for the penalty of sin, instead of having Christ our substitute for the righteousness of God, we will deceived the same as the Jews when Christ was on earth. The sanctuary service became a routine with a goal of life being guaranteed salvation by the blood of the Lamb providing a legal cancellation of the record books of heaven, without the law being written on the heart.

Are you saying the philistine archers had no choice?
But that's not what killed him. You said Saul fell on his sword. He killed himself. Are you saying God made him fall on his sword?

But you said
You were speaking from a human standpoint, right?
So do you yourself believe the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? Do you yourself believe from your human perspective that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few when it comes to God deciding to kill?

Could your belief on that colorize how you view God?



Keeping in mind we weren't talking about just the death of someone, but actually participating in actively killing someone...
I've never figured out what people say that, "delight". Has anyone ever thought you were saying God "delighted" in killing people?

Regardless, does whether someone "delights" in killing or hurting someone really make a difference? Does God's attitude in "delighting" or not make a difference when killing or hurting someone? Is that like the "thought police"?


Does it make a difference of "removing barriers" or actively killing someone?

And regarding the needs of the many versus the needs of the few, does God extend saving power to everyone, longing to meet everyone's need, up to a point and then the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?

You need to study your Bible more. Spiritualism seems to say the opposite of what you say it does.

Spiritualism teaches that you will not die. When you "die," you continue your existence in another state of being or place--for example as the prophet Samuel who was "brought up" by the Witch of Endor after his death to speak to King Saul. Spiritualism teaches that people are essentially immortal and do not die. Satan's lie to Eve in the Garden of Eden was simple: "Ye shall not surely die" (Genesis 3:4). Not by God, not for any reason at all. Where in the Bible do you see support for your claim that spiritualism teaches God kills the sinner? "Ye shall not surely die" does NOT equal "God will kill you"! They are opposites!



Do you love sin so much that you think it would be wrong to destroy sin and sinners? Is that the "wrong thing"? Is it the wrong thing to remove their unhappy existences so they have no miserable eternity? What is "wrong" with putting an end to sin and sinners via just punishment and cleansing?

Of course, Satan would love to escape the punishment due him, and he must surely complain among his followers that the judgments coming aren't just.



If you would only read the full context of that quote, you would find it teaching the opposite of what you here use it to say!







No, APL, "inevitable" does NOT equal "intrinsic."

Inevitable means: "certain to happen; unavoidable"
Intrinsic means: "belonging naturally; essential"

These are two different words with entirely different meanings. I suppose, though, you feel that anytime someone says "war was inevitable" you would prefer to believe that it was "natural" than to think it was "unavoidable."


Furthermore, your idea of God stepping in versus stepping out has it precisely backwards. God has stepped out in order to permit sinners to exist. This is why we do not see God in person these days. He does not wish to kill us by exposing us to His glory! So He has "stepped out," if you will, for the moment. But when He "steps in," sin and sinners will be destroyed in His presence, and cease to exist. As the Bible says "No man hath seen God at any time" (1 John 4:12); and "Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not" (Deuteronomy 18:16). Throughout the Bible it is clear that we cannot see God and live as sinners. Thus, He has "stepped out" to protect us until the sin experiment has finished. When He "steps in," hell takes place.





Methinks you misunderstand that quote. The "compelling power" she speaks of is NOT that pertaining to the destruction of Satan and his host. It is that of the use of said destruction to compel others to serve Him. If I had just shot someone in "cold blood" in front of a lady's eyes, then turned toward her with the gun still in my hand and said "marry me!", would she feel compelled to do so? What if, on the other hand, she had had a chance to witness the vile character of the one shot and knew that the killing was justified and had protected her--would she now feel equally compelled, or would I perhaps appear more as a knight in shining armor to her now, one to whom she could safely and voluntarily devote her love?



If "sin" by itself kills anything or anyone, why must Adam have been driven from the Garden of Eden so as not to eat again of the Tree of Life? Why hasn't Satan already self-destructed? When will he? How long does "sin" take to do the job?

But you ignore the Bible to make such a statement regarding the Cross as you have. Consider the following:

"Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. . . .
Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand." (Isaiah 53:4-5, 10)

God punished His Son. The Bible's language is clear. "Stripes" came of a sound whipping. God is said to "bruise" Him. He is "smitten," "afflicted," "bruised," and chastised by God for us.




Who said it was merely a legal problem? No one. But you seem to claim it is not a legal problem at all. That is the fallacy here.

Firstly the error that has polluted these discussions from the beginning is :
Dividing God's justice and holiness as sovereign ruler, from His love.
Thus as soon as anyone talks of God's executing justice in holiness, it is immediately turned around into a no-love, hateful thing.

God had already worked with great love and patience with those men to meet their spiritual needs. -- Korah, with the 70 elders had been on the mountain and seen God's throne (Ex. 24:9-10; PP 396) But since then sinful ambition and envy had destroyed their ability to respond to the Holy Spirit, and opened them up to satan's deceptive suggestions.
God had not ignored their needs in order to meet the needs of others.

But yes, there comes a time when a person reaches a point of no return.

God, who knows the heart and makes no mistakes, knows when a person has hardened himself to the point where no ray of truth can change them.

Humans can not make such a call -- must not make such a call. But God must!
It's part of the investigative judgment -- where God decides who will enjoy everlasting life, and who will die the everlasting death.

The "delight" --
All heaven rejoices every time even one sinner repents and accepts Christ!
All heaven mourns when sinners reject God's saving grace, for yes, they will have their names erased out of the book of life and they will not be given life but death.

God's love and justice come together -- especially this is true of the cross: