TV: Not nessessarily any conflicts here. Though I wonder wether Jesus saying that the temple would be destroyed should be considered a declaration against it rather than a prophecy or prediction. i.e., would the temple still have stood there today if Jesus had not made that statement?

MM: Two points. First, the Romans were not anxious to destroy the Jews or the Temple. They tried hard to avert it. Secondly, the destruction Jesus predicted was based on His perfect foreknowledge. It was His will and desire that they embrace Him. But their rejection forced God to withdraw His protection, and Satan was permitted to influence the Jews in a way that led to their destruction at the hands of the Romans. Of course Satan influenced the Romans as well. But all within the limits ordained by God.

GC 35
Their sufferings are often represented as a punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God. It is thus that the great deceiver seeks to conceal his own work. By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them, and Satan was permitted to rule them according to his will.

Just in case the quote above leads us to believe God has never “decreed” destruction, here are several other places where Sister White plainly describes God decreeing destruction. The difference between the following quotes and the one posted above is the absence of the word “direct”. Satan tries to make it sound like God decrees destruction without just cause, as though He is a capricious tyrant. But the truth is quite the opposite. God does not decree destruction until all other means and measures have been exhausted. God decrees destruction as last resort. He is slow to wrath.

PK 286
For a season these predicted judgments were stayed, and during the long reign of Jeroboam II the armies of Israel gained signal victories; but this time of apparent prosperity wrought no change in the hearts of the impenitent, and it was finally decreed, "Jeroboam shall die by the sword, and Israel shall surely be led away captive out of their own land." Amos 7:11. {PK 286.2}

PK 451
To the "profane wicked prince" had come the day of final reckoning. "Remove the diadem," the Lord decreed, "and take off the crown." Not until Christ Himself should set up His kingdom was Judah again to be permitted to have a king. "I will overturn, overturn, overturn, it," was the divine edict concerning the throne of the house of David; "and it shall be no more, until He come whose right it is; and I will give it Him." Ezekiel 21:25-27. {PK 451.2}

4T 153
He also decreed that, as a punishment for their rebellion, all the adults who left Egypt, with the exception of Caleb and Joshua, should be forever excluded from Canaan. … And the ten unfaithful spies, whose evil report had caused Israel to murmur and rebel, were destroyed by the power of God before the eyes of the people. {4T 152.3}

2BC 1010
We have seen the result of Eli's mistaken kindness,--death to the indulgent father, ruin and death to his wicked sons, and destruction to thousands in Israel. The Lord Himself decreed that for the sins of Eli's sons no atonement should be made by sacrifice or offering forever. How great, how lamentable, was their fall,--men upon whom rested sacred responsibilities, proscribed, outlawed from mercy, by a just and holy God! {2BC 1010.1}

MB 136
That which we do to others, whether it be good or evil, will surely react upon ourselves, in blessing or in cursing. … And evil imparted also returns again. … It is the love of God toward us that has decreed this. He would lead us to abhor our own hardness of heart and to open our hearts to let Jesus abide in them. And thus, out of evil, good is brought, and what appeared a curse becomes a blessing. {MB 136.3}

…………………..

MM: It doesn’t change the fact that God is also portrayed as doing it. The Bible doesn’t contradict itself. In reality, though, God didn’t do it. He either commanded it or permitted it, which is portrayed as God doing it.

TV: So is a portrayal to be taken as what acctually happened or as what people thought was acctually happening?

MM: It is God who inspired the authors of the Bible to portray Him as the One doing the things He commanded or permitted. It is actually how God perceives it, and how He wants us to see it. Here is another example:

PK 285, 286
"Behold, the eyes of the Lord God are upon the sinful kingdom, and I will destroy it from off the face of the earth; saying that I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob, saith the Lord. For, lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all nations, like as corn is sifted in a sieve, yet shall not the least gain fall upon the earth. All the sinners of My people shall die by the sword, which say, The evil shall not overtake nor prevent us." {PK 285.4}

"The houses of ivory shall perish, and the great houses shall have an end, saith the Lord." "The Lord God of hosts is He that toucheth the land, and it shall melt, and all that dwell therein shall mourn." "Thy sons and thy daughters shall fall by the sword, and thy land shall be divided by line; and thou shalt die in a polluted land: and Israel shall surely go into captivity forth of his land." "Because I will do this unto thee, prepare to meet thy God, O Israel." Amos 9:8-10; 3:15; 9:5; 7:17; 4:12. {PK 286.1}

……………………

MM: Okay, so you believe God caused the Flood, right? You do not believe He gave evil angels permission to cause it, right?

TV: Evil angles as the loyal servants of God just dont seem right to me. Just imagen the scene …

MM: I agree with you. God did not commission the evil angels to destroy the antediluvians with the Flood. Instead, He commanded the holy angels to do it. Right?

MM: It doesn’t change the fact that God is also portrayed as doing it. The Bible doesn’t contradict itself. In reality, though, God didn’t do it. He either commanded it or permitted it, which is portrayed as God doing it.

TV: So is a portrayal to be taken as what acctually happened or as what people thought was acctually happening?

MM: It is God who inspired the authors of the Bible to portray Him as the One doing the things He commanded or permitted. It is actually how God perceives it, and how He wants us to see it. Here is another example:

-God inspired authors, authors wrote down and the texts inspiration corresponds with the authors ability to put down their inspiration on paper, something that sure can be easier said than done.
That example acctually shows a situation where God would have failed to accomplish His designs if that passage was an in context quote from His own lips. Israel is not destroyed from the face of the earth, neither as a nation nor as a people (neither has it ever been destroyed as a people from the day of Jacob and till today). There are lots of alive sinners in Israel today, whatever definition of it you would use.

PK 285, 286
"Behold, the eyes of the Lord God are upon the sinful kingdom, and I will destroy it from off the face of the earth; saying that I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob, saith the Lord. For, lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all nations, like as corn is sifted in a sieve, yet shall not the least gain fall upon the earth. All the sinners of My people shall die by the sword, which say, The evil shall not overtake nor prevent us." {PK 285.4}

"The houses of ivory shall perish, and the great houses shall have an end, saith the Lord." "The Lord God of hosts is He that toucheth the land, and it shall melt, and all that dwell therein shall mourn." "Thy sons and thy daughters shall fall by the sword, and thy land shall be divided by line; and thou shalt die in a polluted land: and Israel shall surely go into captivity forth of his land." "Because I will do this unto thee, prepare to meet thy God, O Israel." Amos 9:8-10; 3:15; 9:5; 7:17; 4:12. {PK 286.1}

……………………

MM: Okay, so you believe God caused the Flood, right? You do not believe He gave evil angels permission to cause it, right?

TV: Evil angles as the loyal servants of God just dont seem right to me. Just imagen the scene …

MM: I agree with you. God did not commission the evil angels to destroy the antediluvians with the Flood. Instead, He commanded the holy angels to do it. Right?

-I do not know if there where any angels involved or not, do you?

MM: Just in case the quote above leads us to believe God has never “decreed” destruction, here are several other places where Sister White plainly describes God decreeing destruction. The difference between the following quotes and the one posted above is the absence of the word “direct”.

Satan tries to make it sound like God decrees destruction without just cause, as though He is a capricious tyrant. But the truth is quite the opposite. God does not decree destruction until all other means and measures have been exhausted. God decrees destruction as last resort. He is slow to wrath.

No comment?

…………………………………

TV: God inspired authors, authors wrote down and the texts inspiration corresponds with the authors ability to put down their inspiration on paper, something that sure can be easier said than done.

MM: If we cannot believe the Bible, what can we believe?

TV: That example acctually shows a situation where God would have failed to accomplish His designs if that passage was an in context quote from His own lips. Israel is not destroyed from the face of the earth, neither as a nation nor as a people (neither has it ever been destroyed as a people from the day of Jacob and till today). There are lots of alive sinners in Israel today, whatever definition of it you would use.

MM: Actually, that’s exactly what God said, in the passage I posted. “… saying that I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob, saith the Lord.” No miscommunication between God and the author. We can trust the Bible.

…………………………….

MM: I agree with you. God did not commission the evil angels to destroy the antediluvians with the Flood. Instead, He commanded the holy angels to do it. Right?

TV: I do not know if there where any angels involved or not, do you?

MM: Now that you mention it, no, I haven’t read anywhere that says God commanded holy angels to cause the Flood. Instead, the inspired records teach that it was God’s “purpose” to cause it to happen. He explained this “purpose” to Enoch.

3SG 54
God communed with Enoch through his angels, and gave him divine instruction. He made known to him that he would not always bear with man in his rebellion -- that his purpose was to destroy the sinful race by bringing a flood of waters upon the earth. {3SG 54.1}

CON 39
He had overcome Adam upon this point, and he had controlled his descendants, and through indulgence of appetite, had led them to provoke God by iniquity until their crimes were so great that the Lord destroyed them from off the earth by the waters of the Flood. {Con 39.2}


PP 98-101
Guided by holy angels, they "went in two and two unto Noah into the ark," and the clean beasts by sevens. {PP 97.3}

Satan himself, who was compelled to remain in the midst of the warring elements, feared for his own existence. {PP 99.3}

Angels that excel in strength were commissioned to preserve [the ark]. {PP 100.1}

"By the word of God . . . the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: but the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men." 2 Peter 3:5-7. Another storm is coming. The earth will again be swept by the desolating wrath of God, and sin and sinners will be destroyed. {PP 101.1}

………………………..

The passage in 2 Peter 3:5-7 makes it clear that not only did God Himself cause the Flood, that is, He did not command holy angels to do it for Him, it also says that God Himself will use fire to destroy sin and sinners in the lake of fire, that is, He will not command holy angels do it for Him.

An interesting phrase to use. It's consistent with the idea that the end justifies the mean. (There's the minor problem of God's doing evil, however).

This is a great question, Thomas.

MM's response seems off the mark, as both common sense and inspiration tell us (accepting EGW as inspired):



Especially of note, "But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible" also, "it is not God's mode of thought and expression."

Men wrote things down as they perceived them, but man does not perceive things as God does (although God is willing to teach us to see things more and more like He does).

LDE 242
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.--PC 136 (1894). {LDE 242.3}

1SM 21
The divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will; thus the utterances of the man are the word of God." {1SM 21.2}

According to the inspired insight posted above it is clear that God uses His enemies to punish sinners. Does that mean sinners are punishing sinners? I don't think so. Does it mean God gives evil angels permission to influence His enemies to punish sinners? I don't think so. She plainly says that God, and not somebody or something else, uses His enemies to punish sinners.

So, again, does the end justify the means? I believe it does. God can do no wrong. He is righteous and altogether lovely.

MM, the end does not justify the means. Actions are either moral or they aren't. An immoral action does not become moral because it accomplishes something good.

God never does anything evil to accomplish something good. This can be seen in a number of ways. I'll mention two.

First of all, we can see this in Christ's life. Christ always acted with perfect integrity. He never did anything which could be construed as sin, so much so, that even His enemies could bring forth no accusation when He asked them, "Which of you convinceth me of sin?"

We see in His willingness to even be crucified, as well as mocked and tortured preceeding that, that He would in no wise act contrary to the principles of God's government, which is self-sacrificing love.

Secondly, the law is a transcript of God's character. It puts down in written form, in human language, what the means are. These are the means by which God always acts. He does not act contrary to His law in order to bring about some desirable result.

Please recall that the definition of the ends justifying the means is that an immoral act is justified by a moral outcome. When you say, "the ends justifies the means" that's what you are saying, as the phrase is used. I have to clarify "as the phrase is used" because you have your own way of defining things, so it may be that you have some unique idea for what the phrase means, but here is an explanation of the phrase:

If the end justifies the means, why did not Jesus gain the kingdom in the desert temptation by bowing down to satan?