"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[pnattmbtc]

Reposting for John317.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: There is no possible way that Ellen White could answer the question I'm asking you, which is why you think God would be capable of the things you think He will do, most specifically setting people on fire to cause them to "suffer torture" for many days.

This is a personal question. It has to do with your values, your conception of God's character. Only you can answer this.

John317:You ask why I believe that God is capable of destroying the wicked in fire at the end of the 1000 years.

I'm asking specifically about the idea that God will set people on fire to suffer excruciating pain while being burned alive, something Ellen White describes as being made to "suffer torture." I'm asking specifically about this. Not about destroying the wicked in general, nor even destroying the wicked by fire (if this were to happen in a moment, as fire normally works, that would be a different question; it would certainly be more merciful than the idea that God has people burning literally on fire for days like a torch).

Quote:

J:

I believe it for the same reason that I believe God is capable of creating the world by His Word and that this same Word was capable of becoming a man and is still a man to this day. For many people, I admit, none of this sounds possible. In fact, for many it sounds absolutely ridiculous. They laugh at the concept of a God who is capable of creating the world in 6 days and of then coming here in the form of one of his own creatures.

This has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm asking. I'm asking about your concept of God's character, your sense of morality, why these personal values you hold allow you to believe that God will set people on fire for days.

Quote:

J:

They stand in utter amazement that anyone could possibly be serious about this belief. They ask, "Why do you feel that God is capable of doing those things?" When I tell them that I will show them from the Bible, they sometimes reply that they are not interested in what "that book" says; they just want to know why I personally believe God is capable of doing those things and of being the way I describe Him.

This is just a question of might. I'm asking about character.

I appreciate that you took the time to write a lengthy post, but you didn't answer my question. It's hard for me to believe I'm not being clear.

I'm not asking you what you think the Bible or the SOP teaches. You cannot answer my question by citing texts.

Again, this is a personal question, which has to do with your view of morality, your view of God's character. I'm asking you why you think it's moral to set people on fire to burn for days. I'm asking you why you think God would be capable of doing this.

Setting people on fire, torturing people, is something not ordinarily considered acceptable behavior. No earthly government, no matter how corrupt, allows for punishing criminals in such a manner. A government might torture someone in order to gain information, such as to prevent a terrorist attack or some other perceived threat against itself, but not as a way of punishing criminals.

I can't think of a more inhumane manner of punishment than what you believe. Can you? Why not do something like we do in this country. Put people in prison to set out a sentence for some amount of time which corresponds to their crime. Why burn people?

It doesn't seem like you're thinking about what really happens, according to your thinking. You're suggesting that God sets people on fire, to burn like a torch, right? Now fire would kill a person in a few seconds. The only way they could continue to burn would be for God to supernaturally prevent them from dying, so they continue to be tortured, because, clearly, if they die, the torture ceases.

Also fire would quickly destroy the nerve endings. So God would have to supernaturally act to prevent the nerve endings from being destroyed.

So we have a person set on fire, burning like a Molotov cocktail, with God acting supernaturally to prevent the person from dying, or from the nerve endings from being damaged, so this fire has no purpose other than to cause the person being burned to suffer excruciating pain.

So we have God inflicting the worst torture in the history of man to those who refuse to obey Him. And supposedly this is "justice."

And all the while, while asserting this, you deny that God uses compelling power to coerce the will. This could only be true of a person without rudimentary reason powers.

1.God tells me to obey Him.

2.If I don't, He will set me on fire to burn for days.

3.I better obey Him if I don't wish to be tortured for days.

This isn't hard to follow, is it? I think most people are capable of reasoning like this. I think any reasonable person would see that threatening to torture someone by setting them on fire for days is forcing the will.

But this is a side note to my original question, although I have been asking this too, so might as well include it.

So I'm asking two things:

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?

_________________________

Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.

[John317]

Quote:

skyblue888: 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.

There's a big difference between these two teachings, sky.

One difference is that Jesus Christ himself taught in the plainest, clearest terms that the wicked will be destroyed in fire where they will suffer varying lengths of time or verying degrees of pain.

What happens is that people say, "OK sure, Jesus said it, but He can't mean it." So they make Jesus a liar or someone who merely says things in order to frighten people. Thus they make Jesus and the Scriptures a lie. Remember that Jesus said these things not only in parables but without parables. See Luke 12: 5, 6.

Also, we have direct statements of Ellen White that the wicked are made to suffer according to their deeds. She says that Jesus Himself in unity with the righteous in heaven during the 1000 years "decide" the portion the wicked MUST suffer.

Ellen White also makes many statements that show the great Creator God has a right to punish the wicked as He sees fit and that humans don't have to right to question God, "Why are you doing this"? SG vol. 4, p. 50, 51.

You must see the rebellious attitude of Robert and others who are faced with the evidence that they are wrong and that God will do exactly what He has said He will do. That is the kind of attitude that is encouraged by the idea that people have a right to reject God if He does not handle these issues just as they think He should. They learn to consider it right for them to say such things as that they couldn't love and worship a God who would burn up the devil and his wicked followers.

I do not think that way at all. If He chose not to destroy the wicked at all, ever, that would be fine with me-- as long as He did what He knows is best for the whole universe. I trust him implicitly. He has proved in the past that He is completely trustworthy. I would simply want to know why the Bible was written so that it appeared clearly to teach that God would destroy the wicked in fire. But I would not think or tell God that He has no right to destroy the wicked with fire just as the Bible says He will.

I do not believe that the Bible portrays God as being evil just because He destroyed the world in a flood or destroyed Sodom or that He will destroy the wicked in fire. God has a perfect right to do those things. Read again SG vol. 4, p. 50, 51. "God has unlimited control over the works of His hands, and man has no right to ask Him, 'Why doest thou thus?'" Does that only mean that God as unlimited control as long as criminals and sinners agree with Him? No. Unlimited control is unlimited control.

It doesn't mean God has "unlimited control over the work of His hands" as long as sinful humans agree with Him. That is what it seems to me you are saying. It seems to me you are willing to grant him control as long as He does what you judge to be right; and what is right for you is for God to be completely passive in the destruction of sin and sinners, allowing sinners to determine how and when they and other sinners die.

Quote:

skyblue888: 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.

Sure, I agree that God doesn't cause people to be lost by making them believe something that's in error. But there's a big and important difference between the statement in 2 Thess. 2: 10, 11 and the one found in Rev. 20. The main difference is this: We have Bible reasons for knowing that God does not directly make people believe lies, but we have good reasons to believe the Bible teaches God will destroy the wicked by burning them up in real fire. The Bible says is many times, such as in Isaiah, Malachi, and the Gospels. Ellen White also says it over and over again, and it is not in symbolic language.

Another difference is that nowhere does Ellen White or the Bible deny that God will destroy the wicked in fire, whereas they both deny that God would directly cause people to believe lies.

A third point I think you should consider is that when God finally destroys the wicked, it occurs after the close of probation, when the wicked have completely made up their minds to continue following the devil. The Bible shows that God has a right to judge sin and those who are unrepentant. In fact, He must do so as a just God and a just Judge of the universe. I am not saying He must-- it is the Bible which says He must do so. That is one reason the Bible says the wicked are repaid for the things they've done, and Ellen White says Jesus "metes out to the wicked the portion which they MUST suffer, according to the deeds done in the flesh."

[John317]

Quote:

Richard Holbrook (quoting Ellen White):

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?

Good and important quotes. Makes the point clear as glass. Look what the angel of God said to Ellen White: "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."

How can people dare to say the angel's words are a lie? It obviously means that God and Christ are in complete control of how long the wicked suffer, just as Ellen White says in EW 50-53.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

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.

I've been trying for weeks to carry on a conversation with you regarding certain points. You keep going off on tangents. You start new topics out of the blue, and when I oblige, and try to answer your points, you stop that conversation and open up some new thing, and never get back to the other. For example, on the subject of foreknowledge, I presented a number of texts, you thanked me for bringing them up to you, said you would look at them and respond, and I never heard another word.

I've reposted a second time a couple of posts that I'm interested in your opinion on. I am interested in what you think, and I'm trying to understand it. I can't do that if you won't answer the questions I'm asking.

I don't think it's unreasonable for you to talk to anyone you want to. I do think it's odd that you would ask me what I think someone whom I don't know would think.

I reposted the posts I mentioned again for your convenience.

Regarding DA 764, you stated that I am misunderstanding the word "arbitrary." I've explained in detail several times why "arbitrary" in context is in accordance with the primary definition of the word per Websters, and not the idea you're suggesting. If you wish to discuss DA 764, it seems to me that's the way to go (i.e., respond to the points I made).

It's clear to me that DA 764 and GC 673 are dealing with the same subject. I don't see how it would change anything if my "simple explanation" was the case or not. Do you? That is, let's assume I'm wrong, and DA 764 isn't explaining the same vision as GC 673, that there's actually two different visions involved. So what? They're both clearly dealing with the same subject. DA 764 is clearly explaining the principles involved in the destruction of the wicked, and doing so in the context of what Christ accomplished at the cross. That's what matters.

[pnattmbtc]

There's a big difference between these two teachings, sky.

One difference is that Jesus Christ himself taught in the plainest, clearest terms that the wicked will be destroyed in fire where they will suffer varying lengths of time or verying degrees of pain.

[John317]

Quote:

pnattmbtc:

I'm asking specifically about the idea that God will set people on fire to suffer excruciating pain while being burned alive, something Ellen White describes as being made to "suffer torture." I'm asking specifically about this. Not about destroying the wicked in general, nor even destroying the wicked by fire (if this were to happen in a moment, as fire normally works, that would be a different question; it would certainly be more merciful than the idea that God has people burning literally on fire for days like a torch).

You are evidently only concerned about the wicked. What about the fact that those people have committed the sin of rebellion agianst God and His government?

Yes, I do believe that God not only could but will destroy the wicked in fire and that "the portion they must suffer" is decided by Jesus Christ in unison with the saints in heaven during the 1000 years. You seem to have a lop-sided view of the love of God, as if God is some sentimental old man who only thinks about how the fire will hurt the wicked. Well, you are wrong. The wicked deserve exactly what they get. Ellen White says herself that Jesus comes to "see that the wicked receive their rewards according to what they have done." "He sees that they receive their rewards..." In other words, if Christ didn't see to it, it wouldn't happen. If I say I am going to the school to see that a teacher does a certain thing, it wouldn't make sense if the teacher could be expected to do it anyway. And you can be sure that Ellen White would not say that Jesus is coming in order to "see that" the wicked receive their rewards according to their works if they would receive those rewards whether he came or not. Jesus studies the lives of the wicked in order to decide the portion they MUST suffer, and then He comes to see that they receive that same portion that they must suffer. She doesn't say Christ comes to see if they suffer the punishment but rather she says He comes for the purpose of making sure they suffer what their evil works deserve.

Does that make Jesus like the devil? No. But you may see it that way. Ellen White writes about people who make such claims--that God's punishment of the wicked make Him look like the Devil. See what she says in ST Jan. 6, 1881; also see 12 MR 207-209. There the servant of the Lord says, "... leave to the Lord to deal with the work of His hands according to His own wise purposes... It is those who have not a keen sense of the exceeding sinfulness of sin and are ready to question the justice of God in punishing with such severity the sins of the Amalekites, Canaanites, and Midianites. Those who love sin are unable to comprehend God's dealing with His subjects..." See that entire article.

She also wrote, "SOME ARE DESTROYED AS IN A MOMENT, WHILE OTHERS SUFFER MANY DAYS. ALL ARE PUNISHED 'ACCORDING TO THEIR DEEDS.'... SATAN'S PUNISHMENT IS TO BE FAR GREATER THAN THAT OF THOSE WHOM HE HAS DECEIVED. AFTER ALL HAVE PERISHED WHO FELL BY HIS DECEPTIONS, HE IS STILL TO LIVE AND SUFER ON... THE FULL PENALTY OF THE LAW HAS BEEN VISITED; THE DEMANDS OF JUSTICE HAVE BEEN MET; AND HEAVEN AND EARTH, BEHOLDING, DECLARE THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF JEHOVAH." GC 673

You obviously don't like those words, but you need to, because they are the truth of God, which the messenger of the Lord wrote in plain !9th century English. I didn't make up the idea that the wicked will suffer for days; the prophet of God herself wrote those words. She is following the Bible's teachings.

Do you think that's symbolic language? Upon what basis would you have grounds for understanding them symbolically?

Remember that Ellen White said that we are not to judge God by what we humans would do. Would I burn up all the wicked in fire? No, but I am not the righteous, holy, Judge of the whole universe. God can do infinite justice in ways that I could not do. It would be murder if I did it. God can do it, and will do it, in strict justice. He made the laws of the universe and He made humans. He has unlimited control of what He does and how He shall punish the wicked. Man has no right to ask God, "Why are you doing this?" Read SG, vol. 4,, page 50. I didn't say those words-- Ellen White did. Read them in 12 MR 207-209 and SG, vol. 4,, page 50.

Fundamentally, I think your problem here is that you forget what the Bible teaches about the justice of God. The Bible speaks of the retributive justice of God. It speaks of the punishment of the wicked-- not merely that they die the second death but that they suffer for their sins. You know that God is love, but you seem not to realize that along with that love also goes justice and righteousness and holiness. He hates sin and love righteousness. As Ellen White herself says, "... God is merciful and compassionate, but He is also just." ST, Jan. 6, 1881.

So at the end of the 1000 years, He is out to destroy sin and Satan and all who have determined to rebel against Him and follow the devil. From the biblical viewpoint, God wouldn't be a God of love if He didn't totally destroy sin and make all unrepentant sinners pay for their wicked works. He does it in order to secure the universe forever against sin. He does it just like a mother wouldn't be a loving mother if she allowed a rabied dog to go on living and biting and chewing on her baby's face. And God loves His people much more than any mother ever loved her baby.

"The men who promptly and speedily executed the divine judgments upon those heathen nations [whom God commanded Israel to annihilate] have been pronounced harsh and unmerciful in destroying so many human lives. But all who reason thus, fail to understand the character and dealings of God." Again, read the entire article in the Signs of the Times, Jan. 6, 1881.

Notice in the above that Ellen White says as plain as day that God had the Israelites "execute divine judgments" by "destroying so many human lives." If you think that's harsh and unmerciful or wrong, Ellen White says you fail to understand the character and dealings of God.

Do you think Ellen White had any problem with the concept that God literally commanded the Israelites to destroy many human lives, including mothers and babies. Was that harsh? If you think so, she says you don't understand the character and dealings of God.

Will you accept Ellen White's words or will you do like some others and reject them because they are contrary to their favorite ideas? You decide. I already have. She's absolutely right. No question about it.

Let me know, please, if you need me to clarify any point. I'll be glad to do it. Truly. :-)

[Robert]

...when someone who believes in her talks about her, he can't control himself because of his anger.

Whatever, John. "He who is without sin cast the first stone." Yes, the way some SDA uses EGW (as a measuring stick of truth) bothers me. I was once just like them and if you think that I am an angry man now, you should have seen me then. And I attribute it to two things:

1] I made EGW the measuring stick of truth (I rarely opened my Bible)

2] I relied on Joe Crews' theology.

Now both these people have some good things to say, but because I viewed them as what it constitutes to be an Adventist I decided that whatever they taught I'll accept - hook, line and sinker.

Well, you need to ask my kids...my ex-wife, what I became. I became a mean spirited, legalist. I judged everyone. If you wore a wedding ring you were going to hell. If you eat meat...again, hell, etc, etc. The bottom line is I became a devil....

Around 1993 my Pastor gave me a cassette tape to listen to. I listen to a few minutes....I said to myself, "this man is of the devil." That man was Jack Sequeira. So I gave it back.

Around 1995 I really became a Pharisee. So much that my step kid and my own son left the house. My son naturally rebelled and got into trouble. And my actions pushed my wife over the edge also....I was destroying my family...all because I made EGW the measuring stick of truth. I never saw her "other statements".....

Anyway, I almost because an Atheist. Someone invited me to listen to Morris Venden. SO I did....This began the process to get me out of my legalism. Then I learned church history (1888 and the church's reject of justification by faith) from Robert Wieland....I finally learned the gospel from Jack Sequeira.....But ultimately he turned me on to the writings of Paul.

I will never go back to making Ellen White the measuring stick for truth. She has good things to say, and bad....I discard the bad. So when you and others rely heavily upon her writings I tend to go back into those days....It's like a Vietnam vet having flashbacks...

Having said that I gave over to the flesh last night....A lot of anger came out towards Richard....If Richard and I would have been face to face, well, it would have become very ugly. But that's the flesh....So Richard, we probably will never agree on a lot of theology points, but I do apologize for giving into the flesh last night and cursing you. That's the flesh, not what I want....

Rob

[pnattmbtc]

Look what the angel of God said to Ellen White: "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."

How can people dare to say the angel's words are a lie? It obviously means that God and Christ are in complete control of how long the wicked suffer, just as Ellen White says in EW 50-53.

What is it you think this means? Does it mean that a person is set on fire, and the fire burns the person up little by little, and the person suffers until there is any portion of him left? Is this how you're understanding this?

So if a person takes three days to burn, the fire burns a third of the person per day. Say the bottom half the first day, the head and shoulders the second day, and the rest of the trunk and arms the third day. Let's say the left hand is the last to go.

Your understanding is that until that hand is gone, the person is still suffering? (even though there's no more brain)

[Robert]

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?

Reference:

-BC- 1888

-TI- The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials

-CN- 102

-CT- To U. Smith

-PR- 01

-PG- 797

[Robert]

That's one of those quotes where EGW had limited light. Again, I ignore it because she isn't infallible and she will never be the measuring stick of truth....Good stuff? yes, unintentional bad stuff? yes....

[Robert]

Quote:

How can people dare to say the angel's words are a lie?

See, it's stuff like this that I oppose...."The angel said"....So if you disagree with EGW, well, you are in trouble. Well, that's terrible....Again, this makes the writings of EGW the measuring stick of truth. You are making her writing the infallible source of truth. Ellen White said it, she is our prophet, therefore she is right!

This leads to nowhere good....I will never give my mind over to her writings....I will take the good and discard the bad. The Bible, although it can be complicated in places, is the measuring stick of truth.

[John317]

OK, Robert, I can understand that, but the thing is you are saying since that's how you were, it must be because of the theology. But that isn't true. Most people that like Joe Crews and love Ellen White and her writings are not at all like you were. You don't realize that it was just you-- it had nothing to do with the teachings of Joe Crews. He certainly wasn't like that and he wouldn't have approved of the way you were. Your problem then was that you weren't living in the Spirit. I know that because I was also living in the flesh and without the Spirit for many years-- in fact, most of my life. I didn't get angry fast like you and I wasn't a legalist by any means. On the contrary I have to admit I loved sinning and I didn't care about anything as long as I had pleasure and fun. You have to realize that these things are just your natural personality and you can't justly blame it on Joe Cruz or on a particular theology. That's a cop out. It was my natural personality to be into pleasure and good times, etc. I don't blame anyone or anything for that. That was just me.

I don't see you as any different as a result of Jack Sequeira's theology. Do you actually see a big difference? Where is it? Help me see it.

[Robert]

THE FULL PENALTY OF THE LAW HAS BEEN VISITED; THE DEMANDS OF JUSTICE HAVE BEEN MET

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the law requires punishment and suffering. The law requires the death of the sinner.

Let's say I'm the law. So I shoot you in the head. You are dead. Of course the law doesn't shoot folks....

Your view of the justice of the law is that I, being the law, set you on fire...then put it out...then set you on fire to make your sufferings as bad as possible. Finally you die....That's not justice, that's torture...that's of Satan.

[Robert]

I don't see you as any different as a result of Jack Sequeira's theology. Do you actually see a big difference? Where is it? Help me see it.

My flesh remains 100% sinful....It is still there....It doesn't go away until the day I die. Hence as long as I live it is possible for me to do what Hitler did to the Jews, given that power....As Paul states, "I know that in me dwells nothing good."

Look at David, a man of God, he had Bathsheba's husband murdered..just to name a few things....

Believe me, the way I was and the way I am now are worlds apart....And yes, theology is everything...just ask a Muslim terrorist. It can make or break you....

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: How can people dare to say the angel's words are a lie?

Quote:

ROBERT: See, it's stuff like this that I oppose...."The angel said"....So if you disagree with EGW, well, you are in trouble.

No, I'm really not saying that. I'm asking that question of people who claim to believe that God gave her visions and dreams and who believe angels spoke to her.

If you are not convinced of that, then of course it is a different thing. It's the same with the Bible. If someone says they are convinced the the gospel of John is of God, but then they reject John 1: 1 and say it is false, all I can say is, how can they say the apostle lied or wrote something that's false?

Quote:

ROBERT: The Bible, although it can be complicated in places, is the measuring stick of truth.

Yes, the measuring stick of doctrine is the Bible. No one is disputing that. Ellen White is not the measuring stick, but does that mean she has no authority or that we should not believe what she says? What she says there does not contradict the Bible. Look at Rev. 14: 10, 11 and Luke 12: 45-48; Rev. 22: 12. The Bible teaches that there will be degrees of punishment and suffering for sins done in the body. Why is that so bad? Why does it mean to you that God is evil?

[Robert]

I'm asking that question of people who claim to believe that God gave her visions and dreams and who believe angels spoke to her.

If you are not convinced of that, then of course it is a different thing. It's the same with the Bible.

See how you put the two together? You are essentially saying if you reject her you will reject the Bible too....I strongly disagree.

[Robert]

Yes, the measuring stick of doctrine is the Bible.....What she says there does not contradict the Bible.

And it is this circular reasoning that gets many, well meaning SDA to put down their Bibles and pick up Ellen G. White. Their reasoning? If EGW doesn't contradict the Bible I might as well just read her.

Been there, done that, became a devil...a legalist

[Robert]

yes, theology is everything...just ask a Muslim terrorist. It can make or break you....

Religious bigots have bloodied the pages of history with unspeakable crimes, which surely flowed out of their picture of God.

Jesus predicted two thousand years ago that thus it would be. "The time is coming that whosoever kills you will think that he offers God service," He said (John 16:2). History confirms His prophecy. How could we, as Christians, have been so blind, so callous, so indifferent to human life? Jesus distills the answer down to its core. "These things they will do to you," He continues, "because they have not known the Father nor Me"

[John317]

Quote:

Robert] Believe me, the way I was and the way I am now are worlds apart....And yes, theology is everything...just ask a Muslim terrorist. It can make or break you....

I'm not disputing that theology can be important and have an influence on our lives. What I'm saying is that just because you think Joe Crew's theology made you that way, or that it was the influence of Crews' theology, doesn't make it so. Maybe it had that effect on you because of the way you viewed his ideas, but I know that he would have been very shocked to hear you blame your behavior and attitude on what he preached or wrote. I read his little booklets a lot but I am not angry nor do I get mad or call people names, nor do I judge people for their sins or their bad theology. I disagree with people but I wouldn't do if I couldn't do it without getting angry. What I'm saying is that it has to do with two things: the holy Spirit and a person's personality. Also their experiences. I worked for over 20 years with criminals and the insane, so I am just used to all kinds of people and with all kinds of attitudes. My job was simply to talk to those people and listen to them, etc. I loved that work. It changed me. When I first started it, I wasn't patient with them, but after a few years of it, and after I went back to studying the Bible and praying and wanting to do right, I changed-- or rather, God changed me. I got to the place where I could help people 2 seconds after they did really terrible things. I don't give myself any credit. There was a time when I probably would have shot them for doing some of those things, but the Holy Spirit changes a person. I stopped blaming stuff on my flesh and realized that God could help me overcome all sin in my life.

Well, I have written too much, and I need to go to bed here on the West coast. My wife went to sleep on the couch and I'm going to wake her up and move her into the bedroom. So good night, Robert.

[Robert]

just because you think Joe Crew's theology made you that way, or that it was the influence of Crews' theology, doesn't make it so.

I went from a sinner living for the flesh...to a proud, legalist...living for the flesh....Now I was a Holy Joe and everyone had to do the same or else. After all the law says, "Even the stranger within your gate"

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

pnattmbtc:

I'm asking specifically about the idea that God will set people on fire to suffer excruciating pain while being burned alive, something Ellen White describes as being made to "suffer torture." I'm asking specifically about this. Not about destroying the wicked in general, nor even destroying the wicked by fire (if this were to happen in a moment, as fire normally works, that would be a different question; it would certainly be more merciful than the idea that God has people burning literally on fire for days like a torch).

J:You are evidently only concerned about the wicked.

No, the concern is about God's character; how God is perceived if people think He will torture people be being set on fire to be burned alive for days. I can't think of what a more damaging representation of God's character would be than this, except I guess for thinking God would torture people this way for ever. This idea is damaging both to the people who believe this, and those to whom these people share the idea.

Quote:

What about the fact that those people have committed the sin of rebellion agianst God and His government?

So because they've committed rebellion, God will torture them by setting them on fire? How could anyone possibly think this idea makes any sense? I don't understand this.

If your children rebelled against you, would it cross your mind to set them on fire as a punishment? Clearly setting them on fire would be too harsh, as that would kill them, but you could burn them with an iron instead. Isn't the idea absurd on the face of it?

Why would you think God would wish to treat anyone this way?

Quote:

Yes, I do believe that God not only could but will destroy the wicked in fire and that "the portion they must suffer" is decided by Jesus Christ in unison with the saints in heaven during the 1000 years. You seem to have a lop-sided view of the love of God, as if God is some sentimental old man who only thinks about how the fire will hurt the wicked.

It looks like you're suggesting there's two possibilities. Yours and mine. Your view:

1.God will set people on fire, burning them alive to punish them for days.

2.God is "some sentimental old man who only thinks about how the fire will hurt the wicked."

This is it? These are the only two possibilities.

Quote:

Well, you are wrong.

Is it possible you're wrong? Perhaps God doesn't set people on fire for days? Maybe you've misunderstood what's going to happen? Is that possible?

Quote:

The wicked deserve exactly what they get.

So if you're children, or spouse, or other loved one is burning like a torch, screaming in agony, for hours and hours and hours, passing into days, you're thought will be "They're getting exactly what they deserve"? You think this is love? You think is justice?

I think perhaps you should think this through more carefully. The wicked are not some faceless people we don't know. They are our friends from church, our children, our parents, anyone we know who doesn't decide to be a follower of Christ.

Quote:

Ellen White says herself that Jesus comes to "see that the wicked receive their rewards according to what they have done." "He sees that they receive their rewards..." In other words, if Christ didn't see to it, it wouldn't happen. If I say I am going to the school to see that a teacher does a certain thing, it wouldn't make sense if the teacher could be expected to do it anyway.

But you're saying that God is the one who sets them on fire, right? So this would mean that Jesus Christ is seeing to it that God sets the wicked on fire. So He's making sure He does this. He's checking on God to make sure that He sets people on fire, because if He didn't do this, it wouldn't happen. In other words, if He didn't see that God did this certain thing, it wouldn't make sense if God could be expected to do it anyway.

Quote:

And you can be sure that Ellen White would not say that Jesus is coming in order to "see that" the wicked receive their rewards according to their works if they would receive those rewards whether he came or not. Jesus studies the lives of the wicked in order to decide the portion they MUST suffer, and then He comes to see that they receive that same portion that they must suffer. She doesn't say Christ comes to see if they suffer the punishment but rather she says He comes for the purpose of making sure they suffer what their evil works deserve.

Ok, let's say you're right, and the wicked must be punished in some arbitrary way. Why choose the most inhumane means possible? Why punish them by torturing them? Why not let them serve a sentence in prison, the way we do things in this sin-cursed earth? Why would God be incomparable less humane than sinful human beings?

Quote:

Does that make Jesus like the devil? No. But you may see it that way.

I'm seeing things incorrectly because I think if someone tortures someone else by setting them on fire, that would make them like the devil? When the Babylonians did this, who were they like? When the papists did this, who were they like? Were they like Christ?

Quote:

Ellen White writes about people who make such claims--that God's punishment of the wicked make Him look like the Devil. See what she says in ST Jan. 6, 1881; also see 12 MR 207-209. There the servant of the Lord says, "... leave to the Lord to deal with the work of His hands according to His own wise purposes... It is those who have not a keen sense of the exceeding sinfulness of sin and are ready to question the justice of God in punishing with such severity the sins of the Amalekites, Canaanites, and Midianites. Those who love sin are unable to comprehend God's dealing with His subjects..." See that entire article.

Having a sense of the exceeding sinfulness of sin entails understanding that it is not innocuous.

Quote:

Some are destroyed as in a moment, while others suffer many days. All are punished "according to their deeds." The sins of the righteous having been transferred to Satan, he is made to suffer not only for his own rebellion, but for all the sins which he has caused God's people to commit. His punishment is to be far greater than that of those whom he has deceived. After all have perished who fell by his deceptions, he is still to live and suffer on. In the cleansing flames the wicked are at last destroyed, root and branch--Satan the root, his followers the branches. The full penalty of the law has been visited; the demands of justice have been met; and heaven and earth, beholding, declare the righteousness of Jehovah. GC 673

It's poor etiquette to shout excessively like this (a few words for emphasis wouldn't be so bad, but an entire paragraph is going overboard), so I took the liberty of removing the all caps here. By the way, how did you do this? Do you have this in all caps somewhere? Or did you take the time to type this out in all caps?

Quote:

You obviously don't like those words, but you need to, because they are the truth of God, which the messenger of the Lord wrote in plain !9th century English. I didn't make up the idea that the wicked will suffer for days; the prophet of God herself wrote those words. She is following the Bible's teachings.

It's your words that I "obviously don't like." Ellen White wrote:

Quote:

How repugnant to every emotion of love and mercy, and even to our sense of justice, is the doctrine that the wicked dead are tormented with fire and brimstone in an eternally burning hell; that for the sins of a brief earthly life they are to suffer torture as long as God shall live. Yet this doctrine has been widely taught and is still embodied in many of the creeds of Christendom. Said a learned doctor of divinity: "The sight of hell torments will exalt the happiness of the saints forever. When they see others who are of the same nature and born under the same circumstances, plunged in such misery, and they so distinguished, it will make them sensible of how happy they are." Another used these words: "While the decree of reprobation is eternally executing on the vessels of wrath, the smoke of their torment will be eternally ascending in view of the vessels of mercy, who, instead of taking the part of these miserable objects, will say, Amen, Alleluia! praise ye the Lord!"

Where, in the pages of God's word, is such teaching to be found? Will the redeemed in heaven be lost to all emotions of pity and compassion, and even to feelings of common humanity? Are these to be exchanged for the indifference of the stoic or the cruelty of the savage? No, no; such is not the teaching of the Book of God. Those who present the views expressed in the quotations given above may be learned and even honest men, but they are deluded by the sophistry of Satan. He leads them to misconstrue strong expressions of Scripture, giving to the language the coloring of bitterness and malignity which pertains to himself, but not to our Creator. "As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die?" Ezekiel 33:11. (GC 535)

She clearly understood the ramifications of the idea that God tortures people to punish them.

Quote:

Do you think that's symbolic language? Upon what basis would you have grounds for understanding them symbolically?

I don't think this passage is symbolic.

Quote:

Remember that Ellen White said that we are not to judge God by what we humans would do. Would I burn up all the wicked in fire?

Why wouldn't you do this? (<== Please answer this.)

Quote:

No, but I am not the righteous, holy, Judge of the whole universe. God can do infinite justice in ways that I could not do. It would be murder if I did it.

If you set the wicked on fire, it would be murder? Why? What's the moral difference in your determining how long they should burn for, and putting the match to them?

Quote:

God can do it, and will do it, in strict justice.

Torture is not justice. God won't torture anybody. That's not His character. Jesus Christ revealed the character of God. God is one who would do anything to save His children, even risk His own Son. He's not One who would torture them.

Quote:

He made the laws of the universe and He made humans. He has unlimited control of what He does and how He shall punish the wicked. Man has no right to ask God, "Why are you doing this?" Read SG, vol. 4,, page 50. I didn't say those words-- Ellen White did. Read them in 12 MR 207-209 and SG, vol. 4,, page 50.

Why must these words be understood in terms of God's doing something negative? Couldn't it be the case that people are misunderstanding what God is doing, and their questioning of Him is unreasonable because it's based on ignorance? Or do you think that those who do not know Him, who have no relationship with Jesus Christ, who do not have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them, are correctly judging what God is doing?

Quote:

Fundamentally, I think your problem here is that you forget what the Bible teaches about the justice of God.

The Bible does not teach that justice is torture. Here's a text regarding justice:

Quote:

“Thus says the LORD of hosts:

‘ Execute true justice,

Show mercy and compassion

Everyone to his brother. (Zech. 7:9)

This is justice! It is not setting people on fire to torture them, but showing mercy and compassion.

Quote:

God has given to men a declaration of His character and of His method of dealing with sin. "The Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty." Exodus 34:6, 7. "All the wicked will He destroy." "The transgressors shall be destroyed together: the end of the wicked shall be cut off." Psalms 145:20; 37:38. The power and authority of the divine government will be employed to put down rebellion; yet all the manifestations of retributive justice will be perfectly consistent with the character of God as a merciful, long-suffering, benevolent being.

God does not force the will or judgment of any. He takes no pleasure in a slavish obedience. He desires that the creatures of His hands shall love Him because He is worthy of love. He would have them obey Him because they have an intelligent appreciation of His wisdom, justice, and benevolence. And all who have a just conception of these qualities will love Him because they are drawn toward Him in admiration of His attributes.

The principles of kindness, mercy, and love, taught and exemplified by our Saviour, are a transcript of the will and character of God. Christ declared that He taught nothing except that which He had received from His Father. The principles of the divine government are in perfect harmony with the Saviour's precept, "Love your enemies." God executes justice upon the wicked, for the good of the universe, and even for the good of those upon whom His judgments are visited.(GC 541)

This brings out that the principles of the judgment are kindness, mercy and love, and that God executes justice upon the wicked "even for the good of those upon whom His judgments are visited."

There is no possible way that setting people on fire to burn for days can be seen as loving, merciful, or kind. Nor could this be seen as the act of a benevolent being. Nor could it be seen as being in harmony with the principles of kindness, mercy and love taught and exemplified by our Savior. Nor could this be seen as something being done for the good of those upon whom His judgments are visited.

A. Graham Maxwell said a wonderful thing which made a profound impact upon me when I first heard it, and has stuck with me since. He said that even the wicked have nothing to fear from God. What he said is in perfect harmony with what Ellen White wrote here. Even for the good of those upon whom the judgments are visited does God execute justice. This makes no sense in your paradigm, but perfect sense in mine. In mine, you could ask the wicked themselves, after the judgment has been visited upon them, if what happened to them was for their own good, and they would say yes. You could ask them if God was just, merciful, kind, benevolent for treating them the way He has, and they would agree with that. There's no way that a person being set on fire to burn alive for hours or days would appraise God in this fashion.

Quote:

The Bible speaks of the retributive justice of God. It speaks of the punishment of the wicked-- not merely that they die the second death but that they suffer for their sins. You know that God is love, but you seem not to realize that along with that love also goes justice and righteousness and holiness.

I don't understand why you think justice, righteousness, or holiness has anything to do with causing people to suffer torture. These are actually concepts which are diametrically opposed.

Quote:

He hates sin and love righteousness. As Ellen White herself says, "... God is merciful and compassionate, but He is also just." ST, Jan. 6, 1881.

So at the end of the 1000 years, He is out to destroy sin and Satan and all who have determined to rebel against Him and follow the devil. From the biblical viewpoint, God wouldn't be a God of love if He didn't totally destroy sin and make all unrepentant sinners pay for their wicked works.

Two points. First, given that sin is based on the principle of selfishness, isn't it clear that suffering and death are inevitable consequences of sin? Given that death is the inevitable result of sin, why would God need to do something unrelated to destroy it? Wouldn't simply allowing sin to kill the sinner result in its being destroyed? Once there is no one alive to practice sin, sin has been destroyed, hasn't it?

The second point is, even assuming that some arbitrary means had to be set up to make people pay for their wicked works, couldn't God think up some way of punishment that would be less inhumane? I'm not sure if there's any punishment that would be more inhumane than what you're suggesting. Why would God choose the most inhumane means possible to punish someone?

Quote:

He does it in order to secure the universe forever against sin.

Torturing people secures the universe forever against sin? I disagree. It's the revelation of God's character described above that secures the universe forever against sin; the revelation of a benevolent being - kind, loving, and merciful - who sets the interest of His creatures above His own, the secures the universe.

Quote:

He does it just like a mother wouldn't be a loving mother if she allowed a rabied dog to go on living and biting and chewing on her baby's face.

A loving mother would set the rabied dog on fire to make it suffer torture in proportion to the pain it caused its child?

Quote:

And God loves His people much more than any mother ever loved her baby.

Including the wicked! God loves the wicked. He does not wish them harm. He will not torture them. He executed justice upon them for their own good.

Quote:

"The men who promptly and speedily executed the divine judgments upon those heathen nations [whom God commanded Israel to annihilate] have been pronounced harsh and unmerciful in destroying so many human lives. But all who reason thus, fail to understand the character and dealings of God." Again, read the entire article in the Signs of the Times, Jan. 6, 1881.

Notice in the above that Ellen White says as plain as day that God had the Israelites "execute divine judgments" by "destroying so many human lives." If you think that's harsh and unmerciful or wrong, Ellen White says you fail to understand the character and dealings of God.

This is another subject, but I'll mention quickly that even in your view of things, the Israelites never tortured anybody.

Quote:

Do you think Ellen White had any problem with the concept that God literally commanded the Israelites to destroy many human lives, including mothers and babies. Was that harsh? If you think so, she says you don't understand the character and dealings of God.

Again, this is another subject. God didn't literally command the Israelites to torture anyone, right?

Quote:

Will you accept Ellen White's words or will you do like some others and reject them because they are contrary to their favorite ideas? You decide. I already have. She's absolutely right. No question about it.

She didn't teach that God tortures. These are not her words. One can believe that God will not torture people without rejecting her words.

Quote:

Let me know, please, if you need me to clarify any point. I'll be glad to do it. Truly. :-)

Thanks, I appreciate this.

I appreciate you're taking the effort to write this long post, but you've still not dealt with the point I'm trying to get at, which is why you think God is capable of torturing people. This has to do with your values, your concept of morality, your concept of God's character. It's admittedly not an easy question, but I think it's a vital one. There's something within you which does not reject the idea that God would torture people. I'm very curious as to why you think this is something God would do.

The second point to clarify would be the one with the <== by it, where you said that you wouldn't burn the wicked. I'd like to know why not.

Regarding the rest of the post, for the sake of completeness, I addressed all your points, but this is quite a long post, and much of this we've dealt with already, so please feel free to respond to any points or questions, or not, as you wish.

There is one other part I found particularly interesting, which I may address separately, inviting others for comment, which would, of course, include you.

[Robert]

I read his little booklets a lot but I am not angry nor do I get mad or call people names, nor do I judge people for their sins or their bad theology.

Well John, I'm glad you have arrived...that you are perfect. So go ahead and brag if you wish....Bottom line is until you walk in my shoes you can't judge me. I am telling you what bad theology did to me and my family, period.

[olger]

Boasting or a quiet expression of reality?

[Robert]

Boasting or a quiet expression of reality?

Ask Job!

[pnattmbtc]

Robert, I appreciate you're sharing what you did. I can relate to parts of it. I can understand pretty much all of it.

One comment is that Ellen White is often misread. I don't think the problem is with her writings as with their being misused. She wrote many beautiful things, such as the following:

Quote:

If you are the children of God you are partakers of His nature, and you cannot but be like Him. Every child lives by the life of his father. If you are God's children, begotten by His Spirit, you live by the life of God. In Christ dwells "all the fullness of the Godhead bodily" (Colossians 2:9); and the life of Jesus is made manifest "in our mortal flesh" (2 Corinthians 4:11). That life in you will produce the same character and manifest the same works as it did in Him. (MB 78)

If you read her books written around the 1888 era, they are filled with wonderful thoughts like this.

You should be able to see that speaking ill of Ellen White is not a good thing. Go ahead and speak ill of the bad theology you suffered from, but don't throw out the baby with the bath water. If you prefer to avoid Ellen White, that's understandable. But avoiding writings, focusing on Scripture, is one thing, while speaking ill of her is another. And especially speaking ill of her in the context of Sequeira is terrible. You give the impression that he views her writings negatively, which he certainly doesn't.

Please continue to share the good, but leave aside that bad. That is, share your thoughts about what you think the truth is, but don't speak ill of anybody. Speaking ill of people isn't a good thing.