"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[John317]

Quote:

John317:Then explain GC 671-673, please. Also EW in those parts where she describes the destruction of the wicked.

...Are you saying that virtually the entire SDA church has believed since the 1860s what Ellen White taught plainly against?

Quote:

quote=pnattmbtc: I don't think your view, that God will torture people by setting them on fire for days, has ever been something the virtually the entire SDA church as believed. If you read the writings of Jones, Waggoner, Prescott, whom Ellen White endorsed in the strongest possible language, they didn't believe this...

I read Jones and Waggoner all the time and have most of their books.

Please give the reference where they say God will not destroy the wicked in fire at the end of the 1000 years. Also Prescott.

I have less confidence is Prescott because I've studied him, but even so, let me know what exactly he said on this topic that you're referring to.

You could either quote or just give the references. If you can, summarize what their statements are.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

I don't consider DA 764 as a contradiction of the language used in GC 673. I think you might but that is because you have a misunderstanding of Ellen White's use of the word "arbitrary,

Not at all. The meaning of "arbitrary" is clear from the context. Here's the paragraph:

Quote:

This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 8:36. God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them.

The primary meaning of "arbitrary," from Webster's, is "according to individual discretion, as opposed to a law." A secondary meaning, albeit common nowadays, is "whimsical" or "capricious." Now if this were her meaning, the paragraph would have said something about God's using power, but doing judicially, for a just purpose.

But that's not what she's talking about. She's discussing the *cause* of the destruction of the wicked, not the justification of a use of power.

Let's look:

1.The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown.

2.God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life.

3.They receive the results of their own choice.

4.By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire.

The next paragraph she continues:

5.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.

This last point is the clearest yet, as to her meaning by using the word "arbitrary." She points out that had God *left* Satan and his followers 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.*

Language couldn't be clearer that their death is the result of sin!

She makes the point over and over and over again that the wicked perish NOT because of something God does to them, but as a result of their own choice, and their own actions.

Anyone who can read and understand English can see this.

:)

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

1) Do you think that if I go to the Ellen White Estate and do research or ask James Nix to see if this is true, I would be able to verify your "simple explanation"?

Why would anyone care what James Nix thinks? Why would you think of asking this?

Quote:

2) What evidence do you have that this is true?

You don't say what "this" is, but if "this" has to do with what "arbitrary" means, I explained that in the previous post.

Quote:

3) Why didn't Ellen White write the explanation in GC 671-673?

Why are you asking questions like this?

Quote:

4) Can you show a direct connection between DA 764 and GC 671-673?

They're talking about the same subject. That's obvious, isn't it? Both passages quote Mal. 4. Indeed, the paragraphs of DA 764 cited are immediately preceded by the Mal. 4 passage.

DA 764 says, "The glory of Him who is love will destroy them."

The glory of God isn't literal fire, right?

DA 108 says that the light of the glory of God, *which gives life to the righteous*, will slay the wicked.

The same thing that gives life to the righteous will slay the wicked. Literal fire doesn't give life to the righteous, right?

The light of the glory of God is Jesus Christ, the revealer of God's character. The very next sentence in DA 108 speaks of Christ as "the revealer of God's character."

The principle is simple. Those who rebel against God form characters out of harmony with God's character and the principles of His government. They cannot stand God's glory, which is love; it destroys them. This is what DA 764 says, isn't it?

GC 542 discusses the same principle:

Quote:

A life of rebellion against God has unfitted them for heaven. Its purity, holiness, and peace would be torture to them; the glory of God would be a consuming fire. They would long to flee from that holy place. They would welcome destruction, that they might be hidden from the face of Him who died to redeem them. The destiny of the wicked is fixed by their own choice. Their exclusion from heaven is voluntary with themselves, and just and merciful on the part of God.

If we just think of the logic involved, it should be easy to see that sin could do no other than result in suffering and death. Sin is based on selfishness. That is its root. Again, DA 764:

Quote:

God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life.

Selfishness leads to death. Separated from God, cut off from life, one dies.

Living contrary to the principles of agape, according to "me first" cannot possibly lead to happiness and life. There's no need for an arbitrary act of power on the part of God to destroy those who have chosen such a system.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

I read Jones and Waggoner all the time and have most of their books.

Please give the reference where they say God will not destroy the wicked in fire at the end of the 1000 years.

Both the Bible and the SOP say the wicked will be destroyed by fire. I've pointed this out to you a number of times, probably 10 or 12 times at least on this one thread. I really can't understand why you continue this misrepresentation. Is it on purpose, or ignorantly? I don't see how it could be ignorance, since I've pointed this out to you so many times. But I also can't see why you would do this on purpose.

If you've read Jones and Waggoner, you should know what they say. Especially Waggoner is clear on death being the inevitable result of sin.

I'm actually more interested in your answering the posts I've reposted for you.

[pnattmbtc]

p:1.Why do you think God's character is such that He is capable of torturing people for days if they don't obey Him?

2.Why do you think God's threatening to set people on fire to burn for days if they don't do what He says is not forcing the will?

Two reasons:

1.Because He said so.

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: 1) Do you think that if I go to the Ellen White Estate and do research or ask James Nix to see if this is true, I would be able to verify your "simple explanation"?

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Why would anyone care what James Nix thinks? Why would you think of asking this?

James Nix has spent a lifetime studying Ellen White's writings. I know him personally and have learned to respect his opinions on Ellen White. He must know something since he is the Secretary of the Ellen White Estate.

If you don't think I have any reason to care what he thinks, can you give me a reason that I should care what you or anyone else thinks about this subject?

Ellen White said that we must listen to each other and not think that God shows only us the truth and not our brothers in Christ in the SDA church. God is not leading out a few people scattered here and there, and if He has truth to reveal to us, he will reveal it to the church as a whole. The church as a whole believes that God will do just what the book of Revelation says in Rev. 20 and in Early Writings, pages 50-53, 290-291 and GC 660-673.

Do you actually see no reason to inquire about the understanding of men who have spent a lifetime studying the writings of Ellen White and the history of the SDA church? If that is true, then there really is not much reason to discuss these things with anyone, is there? Because why should we care what others in the church believe about Ellen White or about anything else? You and others think nothing of quoting books like "Light on the Dark Side of God," and you expect people to take it into consideration, but if I ask you what the secretary of the Ellen White Estate thinks about a particular issue directly related to her writings, you wonder why I would be interested in what he thinks. Your opinion on this appears to me to be unreasonable. Would you take the same position if I asked whether your idea on history might be supported by certain well-known historians who study the very question under discussion?

[Guest]

Good question John. Good point too.

[teresaq]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: 1) Do you think that if I go to the Ellen White Estate and do research or ask James Nix to see if this is true, I would be able to verify your "simple explanation"?

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Why would anyone care what James Nix thinks? Why would you think of asking this?

Ellen White said that we must listen to each other and not think that God shows only us the truth and not our brothers in Christ in the SDA church. God is not leading out a few people scattered here and there, and if He has truth to reveal to us, he will reveal it to the church as a whole. The church as a whole believes that God will do just what the book of Revelation says in Rev. 20 and in Early Writings, pages 50-53, 290-291 and GC 660-673.

Do you actually see no reason to inquire about the understanding of men who have spent a lifetime studying the writings of Ellen White and the history of the SDA church? If that is true, then there really is not much reason to discuss these things with anyone, is there; for why should we care what others in the church believe about her or about anything else? Your opinion on this seems very peculiar to me.

you mean like Jesus acceptance by the jewish church?

like jones and waggoner acceptance by their brethern in 88 and subsequent years?

martin luthers acceptance by the papacy?

john huss?

william miller?

etc.?

[pnattmbtc]

James Nix has spent a lifetime studying Ellen White's writings. I know him personally and have learned to respect his opinions on Ellen White. He must know something since he is the Secretary of the Ellen White Estate.

If you don't think I have any reason to care what he thinks, can you give me a reason that I should care what you or anyone else thinks about this subject?

You asked me what I thought would happen if you asked some person a question whom I don't know. How would I know? I don't understand why you would ask me a question like this.

This isn't something I want to be discussing, what I think someone I don't know would say if you asked them a question.

Please answer the posts I reposted.

[Guest]

This doesn't answer either question. I'm not sure what this is meant to address. It certainly doesn't speak to why you think God is capable of torturing people by setting them on fire for days. It also doesn't explain why the threat of fire isn't forcing the will.

I gave you the answer, but as usual you don't want to except it, so you say it's not an answer. Just like when the Bible and EGW speak to the subject. You say: they didn't say that. Or they didn't mean that.

The answer was simple. How could I believe it? I said because God said so. That means that I believe and except the writings of Ellen White. So when she describes in great detail exactly how it will happen, I don't try to deny that she said what she said, or come at it from a different angle, or any of that stuff you do to try and nullify what she said.

I believe that what she says about it was shown to her in vision by God himself. It's cut and dried, plain and simple. I'm sorry if that's hard for you to understand.

Also, because she speaks so plainly on this, I have no reason whatsoever to spiritualize away Rev 20:9, and say: no it doesn't really mean what it says.

[skyblue888]

Good questions teresa about Jesus and the reformers and Jones and Waggoner. There is nothing new under the sun. That which has been is that which will be. Ecc.1:9.

I believe that the difficutly stems from the fact that "Tradition and misinterpretation have obscured the teaching of the Bible concerning the character of God, the nature of His government and the principles of His dealing with sin." G.C.492.

Tradition and misterpretation have obscured the teaching of the Bible concerning the character of God especially when it comes to passages of Scriptures such as Rev.20:9 which says, "and fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them."

The Bible is consistent from cover to cover. In 2 Thess.2:10,11 we read that "because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved, and for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie."

Well might it read, "Strong delusion came down from God out of Heaven upon those who did not receive the love of the truth that they should believe the lie."

Everybody agrees that directly sending strong delusion to anyone is not in keeping with the character of God and yet, somehow, directly sending fire upon those who do not receive the love of the truth is???!!!

But the majority of people take these words literally and thus our good and gracious Lord is presented before the people clothed in the attributes of Satan.

In that day fire will be just as real as the strong delusion but that fire will not come directly out from God any more than the strong delusion will have. See The Great Controversy, p.431 for direct commentary upon 2 Thess.2:10,11.

sky

[John317]

Quote:

teresaq(sda):you mean like Jesus acceptance by the jewish church?

like jones and waggoner acceptance by their brethern in 88 and subsequent years?

martin luthers acceptance by the papacy?

john huss?

william miller?

etc.?

Are you serious? You think that talking to the staff at the Ellen White Estate is the same as talking to the pope, etc.?

For one thing, you are assuming, evidently, that I'm saying I would simply accept everything James Nix says simply because he says it. That is not true. But at the same time, to suggest that talking to James Nix or other staff in the White Estate is somehow comparable to talking to the pope, etc., is just plain wrong.

If you are saying I should not care what someone like James Nix says or thinks, can you tell me why I should care what you or anyone else thinks? I don't understand your thinking about this. When you study something, don't you think it's a good idea to talk things over with others? Maybe you don't.

[Guest]

Quote:

teresaq(sda):you mean like Jesus acceptance by the jewish church?

like jones and waggoner acceptance by their brethern in 88 and subsequent years?

martin luthers acceptance by the papacy?

john huss?

william miller?

etc.?

Are you serious? You think that talking to the staff at the Ellen White Estate is the same as talking to the pope, etc.?

For one thing, you are assuming, evidently, that I'm saying I would simply accept everything James Nix says simply because he says it. That is not true. But at the same time, to suggest that talking to James Nix or other staff in the White Estate is somehow comparable to talking to the pope, etc., is just plain wrong.

John I think you misunderstood what she was trying to say. Don't feel bad, it's easy to do. I don't have a clue what she was trying to say, but I don't think it was what you're thinking. It's almost as if she were answering a question that was never asked. Or something.

[skyblue888]

pnattmbtc: Why would anyone care what James Nix thinks? Why would you think of asking this?

[John317]

James Nix has spent a lifetime studying Ellen White's writings. I know him personally and have learned to respect his opinions on Ellen White. He must know something since he is the Secretary of the Ellen White Estate.

If you don't think I have any reason to care what he thinks, can you give me a reason that I should care what you or anyone else thinks about this subject?

Quote:

pnattmbtc: You asked me what I thought would happen if you asked some person a question whom I don't know. How would I know?

You should get to know James Nix at the Ellen G. White Esate. Are you saying you didn't know who he is?

I don't know you and you don't know me, but yet you write as if you expect me to have some interest in what you believe or say. Does it make sense that you think this way, yet you think it's unreasonable for me to talk to someone you don't know but who is well-known for his knowledge and understanding of Mrs. White's writings? I find that contradictory and strange, to say the least.

You said that the "simple explanation" of the connection between DA 764 and GC 671-673 is "that GC 671-673 is describing a vision which Ellen White was shown, and DA 764 is explaining how she understood the vision."

However, despite your opinion that this is "a simple explanation," you have no idea-- and you don't care-- if someone who knows Ellen White's writing thoroughly would agree with your "simple explanation"?

[skyblue888]

Quote:

teresaq(sda):you mean like Jesus acceptance by the jewish church?

like jones and waggoner acceptance by their brethern in 88 and subsequent years?

martin luthers acceptance by the papacy?

john huss?

william miller?

etc.?

Are you serious? You think that talking to the staff at the Ellen White Estate is the same as talking to the pope, etc.?

For one thing, you are assuming, evidently, that I'm saying I would simply accept everything James Nix says simply because he says it. That is not true. But at the same time, to suggest that talking to James Nix or other staff in the White Estate is somehow comparable to talking to the pope, etc., is just plain wrong.

If you are saying I should not care what someone like James Nix says or thinks, can you tell me why I should care what you or anyone else thinks? I don't understand your thinking about this. When you study something, don't you think it's a good idea to talk things over with others? Maybe you don't.

John, I'm sure she didn't mean that but you must keep in mind that Mrs. White was shown again and again that the leaders of Laodicea were following in the tracks of Rome, that we were a backsliding church and that we were narrowing our distance with Rome. In fact she even stated that in some lines we had less to say about the papacy. Are you not familiar with these statements? And what about the dream she had at Battle Creek in which she saw the leaders of the church walking two by twos toward the door of the building she was in? Do you not recall what she saw shen she looked again?

sky

[John317]

Quote:

Richard Holbrook: John I think you misunderstood what she was trying to say.

Actually I do hope you are right. I hope I totally misunderstood her. I hope she meant something completely different from what her words appeared to mean. Maybe she meant that she was also interested in what James Nix would say on that topic.

[Guest]

Quote:

Richard Holbrook: John I think you misunderstood what she was trying to say.

Actually I do hope you are right. I hope I totally misunderstood her. I hope she meant something completely different from what her words appeared to mean. Maybe she meant that she was also interested in what James Nix would say on that topic.

Who can know these things?

[skyblue888]

Good questions teresa about Jesus and the reformers and Jones and Waggoner. There is nothing new under the sun. That which has been is that which will be. Ecc.1:9.

I believe that the difficutly stems from the fact that "Tradition and misinterpretation have obscured the teaching of the Bible concerning the character of God, the nature of His government and the principles of His dealing with sin." G.C.492.

Tradition and misterpretation have obscured the teaching of the Bible concerning the character of God especially when it comes to passages of Scriptures such as Rev.20:9 which says, "and fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them."

The Bible is consistent from cover to cover. In 2 Thess.2:10,11 we read that "because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved, and for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie."

Well might it read, "Strong delusion came down from God out of Heaven upon those who did not receive the love of the truth that they should believe the lie."

Everybody agrees that directly sending strong delusion to anyone is not in keeping with the character of God and yet, somehow, directly sending fire upon those who do not receive the love of the truth is???!!!

But the majority of people take these words literally and thus our good and gracious Lord is presented before the people clothed in the attributes of Satan.

In that day fire will be just as real as the strong delusion but that fire will not come directly out from God any more than the strong delusion will have. See The Great Controversy, p.431 for direct commentary upon 2 Thess.2:10,11.

sky

John did u miss this post. Please take a close look at it, will you? thanks

sky

[John317]

Quote:

skyblue888: And I too appreciate Robert's arguing strictly from Scripture. It is very inspiring. Keep it up Robert.

You apparently don't realize that Robert has stated before that the SDA church should throw away Ellen White's books, yet he continues to quote her whenever he finds she agrees with him or when he can use her writings to make a point.

So he quotes her to others but he doesn't like others to quote her to him, and when they do, he scatches her name or the name of the book out.

I wouldn't bring up Ellen White to Robert except for the fact that he often brings her up and talks about her-- but usually in a very negative way-- yet when someone who believes in her talks about her, he can't control himself because of his anger. When people talk to others about Ellen White, or quote her, they are tacitly giving others permission to do the same.

People have a right to disagree with any of us, but they have no right on the Forum to call names and talk the way we've seen on this thread today. I don't care what someone's theology is-- it gives no one an excuse to write that way.

[Guest]

In that day fire will be just as real as the strong delusion but that fire will not come directly out from God any more than the strong delusion will have.

There is a big difference between delusion and fire. When God withdraws his spirit from those who reject him, it leaves them to their delusions. It does NOT cause spontanious combustion. That is the difference, and that is why the fire will come directly from God. Ellen White didn't give all those minute details for nothing. If it was going to happen like you say, she would have said so, and so would the Bible.

You've got her talking out of both sides of her neck.

Especially solemn is the apostle's statement regarding those who should refuse to receive "the love of the truth." "For this cause," he declared of all who should deliberately reject the messages of truth, "God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." Men cannot with impunity reject the warnings that God in mercy sends them. From those who persist in turning from these warnings, God withdraws His Spirit, leaving them to the deceptions that they love. {AA 266}

Satan rushes into the midst of his followers and tries to stir up the multitude to action. But fire from God out of heaven is rained upon them, and the great men, and mighty men, the noble, the poor and miserable, are all consumed together. I saw that some were quickly destroyed, while others suffered longer. They were punished according to the deeds done in the body. Some were many days consuming, and just as long as there was a portion of them unconsumed, all the sense of suffering remained. Said the angel,(meaning it was a vision) "The worm of life shall not die; their fire shall not be quenched as long as there is the least particle for it to prey upon." {EW 294.1}

Did God show her a lie, or a riddle, so as to throw a curve ball to all who would read and believe her writings?

[John317]

Quote:

skyblue888:

I believe that the difficutly stems from the fact that "Tradition and misinterpretation have obscured the teaching of the Bible concerning the character of God, the nature of His government and the principles of His dealing with sin." G.C.492.

Tradition and misterpretation have obscured the teaching of the Bible concerning the character of God especially when it comes to passages of Scriptures such as Rev.20:9 which says, "and fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them."

sky

OK, explain what Ellen White has written in GC 660-667 and EW 290-291, 52-53, in the light of what you say here about "tradition and misinterpretation." That would mean that Ellen White and the Bible itself are part of the reason the truth is obscured-- but of course that doesn't make sense.

You've given very general explantions of these passages before from your viewpoint, but you don't go into specifics. Please show what those passages say and explain your reasoning as you read them. Start with Ellen White's words that Jesus and the righteous "decide every case according to the deeds done in the body. Then they mete out to the wicked the portion they MUST suffer, according to their works." It doesn't say Jesus decides to allow them to suffer whatever amount they WILL suffer. It says He determines how much they MUST suffer by a careful consideration of their deeds.

That decision is done during the 1000 years, while the wicked are still dead. What is the relationship between the study of the lives of the wicked and the decision of Christ and the righteous? She says they "decide" and "mete out" that decision. Elsewhere she says Jesus will "see that the wicked receive" the punishment that is due them for their evil deeds. Can you show how you harmonize this with your beliefs?

[John317]

Quote:

skyblue888: you must keep in mind that Mrs. White was shown again and again that the leaders of Laodicea were following in the tracks of Rome, that we were a backsliding church and that we were narrowing our distance with Rome.

OK, sure, but does that mean we should not talk to other Seventh-day Adventists and particularly with teachers and leaders? How about Robert Olson? He taught the class I took in the Spirit of prophecy just before he went to the Ellen White Estate and became the secretary there. Why would I not want to know his opinion on the writings of Ellen White? And why not James Nix? I used to talk to him often when he was at the Ellen White Estate here in Loma Linda, before he went back to Maryland. Why would I not want to talk to him about these matters?

Ellen White never said that we should be suspicious of each other as SDAs. In fact she said we need to draw closer together, not create distance and disunity.

Quote:

In fact she even stated that in some lines we had less to say about the papacy. Are you not familiar with these statements? And what about the dream she had at Battle Creek in which she saw the leaders of the church walking two by twos toward the door of the building she was in? Do you not recall what she saw shen she looked again?

Sure, but what does that have to do with James Nix and the other staff at the Ellen White Estate? Do you have reason to believe they are part of the group you mention here?

Remember that Ellen White also said that we should submit our "new light" to the leadership and see what they think, and if they see no light in what we think, we should "yield to their judgment." See 5 T 293.

Have you done this? Have others who taught these things done this? If not, would you be willing to follow the counsel of Sister White?

[John317]

Quote:

Robert, quoting Ellen White: They are surface workers , and delude themselves with the idea that they are christians. So effectually does this delusion take possession of heart and mind that the sharp arrows of the Lord fail to penetrate the armor of self righteousness in which they are encased. The spell is so strong that they will listen to the truth, the most earnest and powerful, even to the very portraying of the delusions which are upon them without any thought of self-examination to see if it means them. This is the class our Saviour found most difficult to arouse. The most authoritative teachings were heard and listened to as if they heard not. Thus it is with many, many in this generation. There will be a hatred kindled against the testimonies which is satanic.

Could you please give a reference for this quote?

Here's the same statement in another quote by the same writer:

"The very last deception of Satan will be to make of none effect the testimony of the Spirit of God.... Satan will work ingeniously, in different ways and through different agencies, to unsettle the confidence of God's remnant people in the true testimony. THERE WILL BE A HATRED KINDLED AGAINST THE TESTIMONIES WHICH IS SATANIC." 1 SM 48

Here it is from the original letter where she wrote it:

The Last Deception of Satan

Satan is ... constantly pressing in the spurious—to lead away from the truth. The very last deception of Satan will be to make of none effect the testimony of the Spirit of God. “Where there is no vision, the people perish” (Proverbs 29:18). Satan will work ingeniously, in different ways and through different agencies, to unsettle the confidence of God’s remnant people in the true testimony.—Letter 12, 1890.

There will be a hatred kindled against the testimonies which is satanic. The workings of Satan will be to unsettle the faith of the churches in them, for this reason: Satan cannot have so clear a track to bring in his deceptions and bind up souls in his delusions if the warnings and reproofs and counsels of the Spirit of God are heeded.—Letter 40, 1890.

==============================================

A thought to consider:

What better way to unsettle faith in the Bible and in the testimonies than to teach that we can't depend on what they say because they mean just the opposite of their plainest statements?

[pnattmbtc]

Reposting this for John317:

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Remember that God is often presented as doing that which He permits. How do we know when this is or is not the case? (i.e., when God is taking direct action, as opposed to removing His protection).

For example, we're told that God sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites. What did God actually do here? Did He take direct action, or remove His protection? How do we know?

J:The serpents were an example of destructive power resulting from God's permissive will. He withdrew his protective care from His people.

p:I asked how we know this. Why do you conclude this is an example of God's permissive will as opposed to active? The language is active.