You're correct that God MAY choose to prolong the lives of some. That doesn't mean that God is choosing the best moment for their death.

If James White had followed the principles of health his wife wanted him to, he would have lived longer. His was not an "unprofitable life". God did not choose the best moment for him to die; he chose the moment of his death, which would have been better many years in the future.

I don't think you responded to my point about the infants of Herod or the Jews of the holocaust. To reiterate, in order for the position you are advocating to be true, wouldn't it have to be the case that not a single one of the infants whom Herod had killed who won't be in heaven (i.e. won't be resurrected) would have responded to the pleading of the Holy Spirit had they lived? Similarly, wouldn't this similarly have had to be the case for the millions of Jews killed in the holocaust who lost their lives before the age of accountability? Doesn't it make more sense to assert that rather than God's choosing the best moment for them to die that they tragically died years before what their best moment would have been had not an evil man killed them?

I've also been asking if the principle you are espousing in regards to death would not extend to other things.

I also asked if you believe that everything that happens does so because of God's will (not passive). If one can reason that God chooses the best moment for a person to die, because He sometimes intervenes to prevent a person to die, why couldn't this same reasoning be applied to other events as well? Why couldn't we reason that God chooses the best moment for everything?

I mean the best moment in relation to one’s salvation – that is, I don’t think God permits a person to die unsaved if there is a chance for that person to be saved in the future.
It could have been better for the church if James White’s ministry had been longer, if Moses' ministry had been longer, if Paul’s ministry had been longer (see AA 405, 406), and even if Elijah’s ministry had been longer (see Ed 151.1). They made mistakes which cut short their ministry, but they died (or went to heaven) saved.
Who said the infants Herod killed and the Jews who died in the holocaust before the age of accountability won’t be resurrected? As to the adult Jews, the very crisis they were facing may have driven them to God.
About the best moment for everything, God is primarily concerned about our salvation, but He can choose the best moment for other things if we let Him guide our lives.
You also didn’t answer my questions. Does God have favorites? If He gives special opportunities for some, why not for all?

God cares for all. Regarding the second question, God intervenes in the lives of some, and not in the lives of others.

Regarding the infants under Herod, of course some will be resurrected, which is why I discounted them. I'm talking about the majority that won't be resurrected. Presumably the millions of children under the age of accountability who were being raised by Jews weren't being raised by believing parents. One would presume that usually these children won't be raised in the first resurrection. There may have been as many as 1 million or 2 million children that would fit in this category. It seems to me that under the scenario that you are proposing, not a single one of these would have been saved had they lived. That's correct, isn't it? (I mean, it follows logically from the position you are suggesting)

Because we don’t see His intervention, this doesn’t mean He isn’t intervening.

"The Lord works continually to benefit mankind. He is continually imparting his bounties. He raises up the sick from beds of languishing, he delivers men from peril which they do not see; he commissions heavenly angels to save men from calamity, to guard them from the pestilence that walketh in darkness, and from the destruction that wasteth at noonday, but their hearts are unimpressed. They do not consider God's blessings, they do not rejoice in his love. They center all their thoughts upon themselves. They do not appreciate Christ's pitying tenderness and matchless love. Only a few discern that their blessings are the result of the never-failing mercies of God through Jesus Christ; but those who do discern this fact, make melody in their hearts to God, and, as did the cleansed leper, they offer to him a tribute of praise and thanksgiving." {ST, July 2, 1896 par. 1}

"Dear Brother P: ... Last June some things were shown me in regard to you. I was carried back in the past and shown your unsettled, roving life. You were without God. Yours has been a hard, reckless life. Yet I saw that God had in mercy spared your life many times when it seemed that no human power or wisdom could preserve it. You now stand a miracle of mercy. When your life has been in imminent peril, Christ, your Advocate, has pleaded in your behalf: ‘Father, spare his life a little longer. He has been an unfruitful tree, which has cumbered the ground; yet cut it not down. I will patiently wait a little longer, and see if it will not bear fruit. I will impress his heart with the truth. I will convict him of sin.’ I was shown that the Lord opened the way for you to obey and serve Him. Your steps were directed West, where your surroundings would be more favorable to a growth in grace, and where it would be less difficult for you to form a character for heaven. You came into our family and were received into our hearts. This was all ordered of the Lord. You had not the experience which was necessary in order to live a life that God would approve. You were situated where in a few short months you could obtain more light and a more correct knowledge of present truth than you could have obtained in years if you had remained East." {2T 421.1, 2}


What is your basis for saying this? Ellen White says the following:

"I had some conversation with Elder [J.G.] Matteson in regard to whether children of unbelieving parents would be saved. I related that a sister had with great anxiety asked me this question, stating that some had told her that the little children of unbelieving parents would not be saved. ... I said to Brother Matteson, 'Whether all the children of unbelieving parents will be saved we cannot tell, because God has not made known His purpose in regard to this matter, and we had better leave it where God has left it and dwell upon subjects made plain in His Word.'" {3 SM 315.1}

Yes, I'm familiar with that statement (from 3SM). I don't know why you're bringing it up. Some children of unbelieving parents may be saved. That doesn't affect my argument in any way.

Here's the argument:

a)Millions of Jews before the age of accountability were killed.
b)Presumably most of these were brought up by unbelieving parents.
c)Some pct. of these will not be saved.
d)This leaves a huge number of children who will not be saved (i.e. take part in the first resurrection) unless you wish to make the claim that *all* children of unbelieving parents will be saved.
e)The only way that none of the huge number of children would be better off had they not been killed is if none of them would have been saved had they lived.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



How would this apply to James White? Surely it would have been better for James White to have lived than not live. He died because of his own actions. It was not the Lord's will that he should die, and even though it would have better for others had he lived, God permitted him to die.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Old Tom:This is true in general, isn't it? That is, only things which God permits to happen can happen.

Rosangela:That’s the point. Then those who die are those who God permits to die.

I pointed out the principle that only those die who God permits to die applies to everything. That is, nothing happens that God does not permit to happen. So if one can argue that God chooses the best moment for every person to die, based on the fact that no one dies that God does not permit to die, why could one not argue the same thing for everything else that happens? That is, God chooses the best moment for everything, since nothing happens which He does not permit.

Tom:God intervenes in the lives of some, and not in the lives of others.

Rosangel:Because we don’t see His intervention, this doesn’t mean He isn’t intervening.

Intervening doesn't mean "take action of any sort." It means, in the context of our discussion, to prevent a death from occurring. Sometimes God performs a miracle, and heals a terminally ill person. Sometimes He doesn't. The same could be said for other types of deaths.

Also, your claim is that God chooses the best moment for *everyone* to die. To site some statement from the Spirit of Prophecy that God sometimes does something doesn't help your claim at all. The fact that A sometimes happens, doesn't mean that A always happen. To claim that A is always the case requires a much higher standard of proof than to assert A sometimes, or even often happens.

R: I mean the best moment in relation to one’s salvation – that is, I don’t think God permits a person to die unsaved if there is a chance for that person to be saved in the future.

MM: Tom, what Rosangela posted above is the whole point. God knows ahead of time exactly who will die lost or saved. He permits people to live until their final decision for or against Jesus is obvious to the onlooking universe.

How do you explain the deaths of millions of Jews before the age of accountability? They made no final decision, obvious or otherwise.

Please take a look at my last two posts, just above yours. They present arguments that the perspective you are suggesting needs to answer.

I'll repeat one argument here for your convenience:

a)Millions of Jews before the age of accountability were killed.
b)Presumably most of these were brought up by unbelieving parents.
c)Some pct. of these will not be saved.
d)This leaves a huge number of children who will not be saved (i.e. take part in the first resurrection) unless you wish to make the claim that *all* children of unbelieving parents will be saved.
e)The only way that none of the huge number of children would be better off had they not been killed is if none of them would have been saved had they lived.

Do you understand this argument? If not, please let me know, and I'll try to explain it more clearly. If so, please respond to it.

We cannot tell if all the children of unbelieving parents will be saved. We don't know. Isn't this what Ellen White is saying? Maybe all of them will be saved. Maybe all except those (which is also true of believing parents) who would imperil heaven by their disobedient spirit.


What does the quote say? "He delivers men from peril which they do not see," which, of course, means preventing their death. Notice that she is primarily speaking of unbelievers here, not of believers. Even in the case of believers, we are every day protected from unseen dangers:

"We shall never know what dangers, seen and unseen, we have been delivered from through the interposition of the angels until we shall see in the light of eternity the providences of God." {HP 101.4}


Again, this is true in relation to one's salvation, which is God's primary concern. God isn't concerned with the best moment for me to eat an apple or with the best moment for your favorite team to win the game.
And if He does everything to save some (and we know that He does), why doesn't He do this for all? Again, does He have favorites? The Bible says that "He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust," and that He shows no partiality. I'm asserting things on the basis of God's character. But what you are saying is that He cares for some and neglects others.

Rosangela, I'm not seeing that you've responded to my argument. Repeating it for convenience:

a)Millions of Jews before the age of accountability were killed.
b)Presumably most of these were brought up by unbelieving parents.
c)Some pct. of these will not be saved.
d)This leaves a huge number of children who will not be saved (i.e. take part in the first resurrection) unless you wish to make the claim that *all* children of unbelieving parents will be saved.
e)The only way that none of the huge number of children would be better off had they not been killed is if none of them would have been saved had they lived.


The conclusion is given in e). This appears to me to be a sound argument. If you disagree, please point out where you see a flaw. If you don't disagree, then it must be the case that none of the huge number of children who will not be in the first resurrection would have been better of had they lived. That is, none of this huge number, say a million, or whatever it is, would have accepted Christ. That seems to be an unwarranted assumption.

It also seems obvious to me that the reason these children died was not because God chose the best moment for them to die, but because an evil man killed them.

Also it should be noted that you are arguing that God always does a certain thing. Presenting evidence that God sometimes does this certain thing is not sufficient.