"I'd be interested in what you think the everything I say about God is ..." You believe God is the restorer, not a destroyer. You believe God is love, not a destroyer. You believe God is merciful, not a destroyer. You believe God destroys by allowing evil angels to work destruction.

"God destroys by allowing evil angels to destroy." According to you (and several SOP quotes) God does indeed destroy. How does God destroy? The Bible and SOP explain two ways – 1) By commanding holy angels to destroy, and 2) By permitting evil angels to destroy. In both cases, God gives detailed instruction as to what can and cannot be done. You, on the other hand, seem to be saying that God destroys sinners in only one way, namely, by permitting evil angels to do it.

“I say that the evil angels are responsible for what they do.” Are they free to wreak havoc as they please, when they please? Or, are they restricted by God? You believe “God destroys” by giving evil angels permission to destroy. This is, according you, how God destroys. How, then, can you say 1) God does not destroy, and that 2) God is not responsible for the destruction caused by evil angels when He permits?

If, as you say, God is not responsible for the destruction He permits, who is? Does God leave it up to evil angels to decide how much destruction is enough? Who, if not God, decides how much destruction is enough? Who decides what the appropriate limits are? Who is responsible for ensuring that the destruction does not exceed the appropriate limits?

"The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits." According to the view you are espousing, there is no difference between these two sources of destruction. How can that be?

TE: According to the Spirit of Prophecy, all that man can know about God was revealed in the life and character of His Son during His incarnation. If Jesus did not demonstrate the wrath of God, then that is not something we can know about God. That's simple logic. Either that or her statement is false.

MM: Did Jesus demonstrate that God is a consuming fire, that the glory of His personal presence causes things infected with sin to burst into flames and burn up? If not, why, then, do you insist that Jesus revealed everything there is to know about God?

Here's your description:


In response to this description I wrote, "Theme number one seems to conflict with two and three." Then you wrote, "Yes it does... I'm not saying my view is correct ..." Did you mean to say you agree with me, that one conflicts with two and three? If so, how so?

"This is obviously rhetorical." Does this mean you agree with me, that it is God's will to allow evil-doers to work evil? "In short, God permits evil to occur because evil is a choice made by the beings He created with free will." (#92025)

"My point is that God does not intend for evil to happen, ever." I agree. And I assume we both agree God foresaw evil happening (with you clarifying it was only one of many possibilities God foresaw) and, as such, He was not surprised, just saddened.

"... other than whatever responsibility attaches to creating beings with free will..." What is the nature of this responsibility, as you understand it? How did Jesus' life, death, and resurrection address it?

"This is obviously rhetorical." Does this mean you agree with me, that it is God's will to allow evil-doers to work evil?

The "this is obviously rhetorical" is in answer to the question, "Does God allow evil-doers to work evil?"

"In short, God permits evil to occur because evil is a choice made by the beings He created with free will." (#92025)

"My point is that God does not intend for evil to happen, ever." I agree. And I assume we both agree God foresaw evil happening (with you clarifying it was only one of many possibilities God foresaw) and, as such, He was not surprised, just saddened.

"... other than whatever responsibility attaches to creating beings with free will..." What is the nature of this responsibility, as you understand it? How did Jesus' life, death, and resurrection address it?

I don't know why you quoted the rest of this.

This is in reference to your post 92146.



Theme 1 is based on the statement that the destruction of the wicked is not due to an act on God's part, but rather they die because they choose to separate themselves from God, who alone is the source of life. This makes it appear that their death is something which happens by an action they initiate (i.e., their choice to separate from God). This would make it seem like they die because of being separated from God.

Theme 2 is based on the statement that the glory of Him who is love will destroy them. This makes it seem like they die because they are close to God.

Theme 3 is based on the point that the death of the wicked is due to their own choice, which EGW brings out in her description of both Theme 1 and Theme 2.

Themes 1 and 2 seem to be contradictory. The long post I wrote regarding the judgment was motivated, in part, by attempting to come up with a view which harmonizes these apparently contradictory ideas.

TE: According to the Spirit of Prophecy, all that man can know about God was revealed in the life and character of His Son during His incarnation. If Jesus did not demonstrate the wrath of God, then that is not something we can know about God. That's simple logic. Either that or her statement is false.

MM: Did Jesus demonstrate that God is a consuming fire, that the glory of His personal presence causes things infected with sin to burst into flames and burn up? If not, why, then, do you insist that Jesus revealed everything there is to know about God?

I didn't "insist" this. Ellen White did. She said that all that man needs to know, or can know, about God was revealed in the life and character of His Son. I got the idea from her.

Regarding if Jesus demonstrated that God is a consuming fire, if this is something that we can know about God, the answer is yes. The same answer applies to your second question, or any other question you can ask like this. "All" means "all." All that we can know about God was revealed in the life and character of Jesus Christ.

"I'd be interested in what you think the everything I say about God is ..."

Here's the context of my request.



You wrote that the idea that God punishes sinners by commanding holy angels to withdraw contradicts "everything" I say about God. That's what I was asking you clarify, which you did.

What you say I say about God is, again, taken from Ellen White, who wrote that "Christ is the restorer. Satan is the destroyer." Since I'm simply quoting what she said, and since she also explained how God punishes by commanding His holy angels to withdraw (GC chapter 1; e.g. pages 35-37), it's hard for me to see how there could be a contradiction here.

You believe God is the restorer, not a destroyer. You believe God is love, not a destroyer. You believe God is merciful, not a destroyer. You believe God destroys by allowing evil angels to work destruction.

"God destroys by allowing evil angels to destroy." According to you (and several SOP quotes) God does indeed destroy. How does God destroy? The Bible and SOP explain two ways – 1) By commanding holy angels to destroy, and 2) By permitting evil angels to destroy. In both cases, God gives detailed instruction as to what can and cannot be done. You, on the other hand, seem to be saying that God destroys sinners in only one way, namely, by permitting evil angels to do it.

There's more than two ways. Sinners can destroy themselves, by bad habits, for example. God can command His holy angels to withdraw. God can permit evil angels to destroy. Natural calamities can happen. These are a few ways.

“I say that the evil angels are responsible for what they do.” Are they free to wreak havoc as they please, when they please? Or, are they restricted by God?

I don't understand your motivation for asking these questions. You seem to be implying, by asking these questions, that you believe the evil angels are not responsible for what they do because God does not restrict them to the extent that they are powerless to act at all.

The fact that God restricts them from doing some things in no way implies they are not responsible for the things God allows them to do.

You believe “God destroys” by giving evil angels permission to destroy. This is, according you, how God destroys. How, then, can you say 1) God does not destroy, and that 2) God is not responsible for the destruction caused by evil angels when He permits?

It's not just me, but inspiration does the same thing. Inspiration often presents God as doing that which He permits. When I say that God destroys, it's in the same way the Bible and Ellen White say it. Just like GC chapter 1, for example, where EGW speaks of God's vengeance and retribution, but then explains that it is really Satan who destroys, and then seeks to hide his work by making it appear that God is reponsible (GC 36, I think).

If, as you say, God is not responsible for the destruction He permits, who is?

The beings that destroy.

Does God leave it up to evil angels to decide how much destruction is enough? Who, if not God, decides how much destruction is enough?

Who decides what the appropriate limits are? Who is responsible for ensuring that the destruction does not exceed the appropriate limits?

It's not a case of "enough." It's a case of what happens when Satan is given full rein. This is what GC chapter 1 explains.

"The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits." According to the view you are espousing, there is no difference between these two sources of destruction. How can that be?

I went into great detail regarding this paragraph. The very post you are quoting from says this:



I really do want you to read what I wrote before, as I put quite a lot of effort into that, and it goes into detail, but I will mention an example that might help you to understand the answer to your question.

In Revelation it talks about the angels holding back the winds of strife. The command comes to the angels to "release." When the angels release, these winds, which, according to the Spirit of Prophecy (quote already provided) represent the horrors enacted by Satan which God ceases to have the angels protect against Satan's works. Now if you look in Revelation, it talks about how the *holy* angels had power to hurt such and such.

So here we see the same thing you are inquiring about. In one place, Revelation, it talks about the *holy* angel's destructive power, under the command of God. Yet the SOP explains this in terms of the work *Satan* does, when he is permitted to do so. So the same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands (He commands them to release the winds of strife, and the angels "hurt") is exercised by the hand of evil angels when He permits (He permits Satan and his confederates to unleash havoc upon those who have not been sealed).

One can also think of this in terms of the wrath of God. The wrath of God is often described in terms of God's destroying this or that. It is also described in terms of God's withdrawing. There are tons of Scriptures which present this, which I've quoted many times in the past. Here's just one example:





The wrath of God comes by way of His "giving up" those against whom His wrath is visited.

"God punishes sinners. He does in the means explained in detail in GC chapter 1." Good distinction - punish versus destroy. It sounds like you are saying God punishes sinners by allowing evil angels to destroy them. What would happen if God never gave evil angels permission to destroy sinners? Would sinning go unpunished?