"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[Guest]

My favorite is as follows:

Deut 31:17 Then My anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide My face from them, and they shall be devoured; and many evils and troubles shall befall them, so that they will say in that day, `Have not these evils come upon us because our God is not among us?'

You call this a universal principle? Look at it in it's context. God is speaking to Moses about the children of Israel, and what is getting ready to happen to them, because they have turned to idols.

It has nothing to do with the final destruction of the wicked.

[Woody]

... to protect the innocent.

[Guest]

You know, you are coming off very egotistical.

Really!? People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks.

[Robert]

You call this a universal principle?

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: Robert

You know, you are coming off very egotistical.

Really!? People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks.

Yes, I can come off that way, but not right at this moment. I'm being honest as I can....

[Guest]

BTW, I hope you have forgiven me for going off on you. That was my nature....Nothing good in human nature.

[Archie777]

Originally Posted By: Archie777

Are you 100% certain you are right about God?

Are you 100% certain?

[Robert]

Except that is not how God says the second death will come about. It's not like He hasn't told us what He's going to do, so that we need to borrow what He said about a totally different situation, and apply it where it doesn't belong.

Well, I understand your view, but I disagree....Like I said, I err on the side of mercy and love...That doesn't negate sowing and reaping....

Rob

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: Rob

How certain are you?

100% certain.

Okay....The Bible is too complex for me to say I'm 100% certain. But I am certain of God's agape love.

As to being 100% sure that God does the destroying keep the following in mind:

We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible. Those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed. [CW 37]

[Archie777]

Okay....The Bible is too complex for me to say I'm 100% certain. But I am certain of God's agape love.

I appreciate the honest confession. I hope you don't fault me for being 100% certain about God's role in the punishment and destruction of the wicked at the end of time. Also, thank you for leaving out personal comments in this post.

[Robert]

TU

[Archie777]

Robert, what is your take on the following:

Quote:

The plea may be made that a loving Father would not see His children suffering the punishment of God by fire while He had the power to relieve them. But God would, for the good of His subjects and for their safety, punish the transgressor. God does not work on the plan of man. He can do infinite justice that man has no right to do before his fellow man. Noah would have displeased God to have drowned one of the scoffers and mockers that harassed him, but God drowned the vast world. Lot would have had no right to inflict punishment on his sons-in-law, but God would do it in strict justice. {LDE 241.2}

Who will say God will not do what He says He will do?--12MR 207-209; 10MR 265 (1876). {LDE 241.3}

[pnattmbtc]

skyblue888John, What do you think God meant when He said that He will send strong delusion to those who do not receive the love of the truth?

What it means is that God allows people to have their lies if they want them....

I don't think you understood sky's point. At least you didn't address it, neither here, nor previously.

The point is that the language is direct language. It presents God as actively doing that which in reality is permitted. So if language which indicates direct action is used here to speak of permissive action, why not in other places?

I've actually been asking this question for many pages without an adequate answer. How do you know when the action is direct action on the part of God, and when its permissive? When addressing this previously, you just said to look at the language used. But this is the point. The language used is active. But action isn't.

The incident I asked you about was the fiery serpents. It says God sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites, but in reality the serpents were already there.

The destruction of Jerusalem is another example. Matt. 22:7 says that God would sent His armies to destroy them, but in reality Satan was at work here.

So how do we know when language depicting direct action applies to direct action or passive action?

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Robert, what is your take on the following:

Quote:

The plea may be made that a loving Father would not see His children suffering the punishment of God by fire while He had the power to relieve them. But God would, for the good of His subjects and for their safety, punish the transgressor. God does not work on the plan of man. He can do infinite justice that man has no right to do before his fellow man. Noah would have displeased God to have drowned one of the scoffers and mockers that harassed him, but God drowned the vast world. Lot would have had no right to inflict punishment on his sons-in-law, but God would do it in strict justice. {LDE 241.2}

Who will say God will not do what He says He will do?--12MR 207-209; 10MR 265 (1876). {LDE 241.3}

Robert doesn't accept the SOP, so you'd be better off addressing someone else, like sky or myself or teresaq. Sky wrote a detailed explanation of this earlier in the thread. But this is such a long thread, it's not easy to find stuff.

A short explanation is that God is sovereign, so as sovereign He can do things that a non-Sovereign cannot do.

For example, let's consider the flood. Setting aside the question of whether God directly caused the flood, or took a direct action which permitted the flood to happen, in either case it can be said that God caused the flood to occur, as inspiration often presents God as doing that which He permits. So we can say that God caused the flood, or God drowned the entire world, save 8, regardless.

Now let's consider man. Man doesn't have the ability of permitting a flood to occur to drowned people because man doesn't have the ability to control nature as God can. So the meaning in regards to man would mean that a man would have to murder another by forcibly drowning him. God has more options than this.

God, as sovereign, has the right to punish those who transgress His law, which is a moral law. Man does not have the right to do so (or course, this begs the question of how God punishes immorality. Romans 1 speaks to this).

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

Except that is not how God says the second death will come about. It's not like He hasn't told us what He's going to do, so that we need to borrow what He said about a totally different situation, and apply it where it doesn't belong.

Well, I understand your view, but I disagree....Like I said, I err on the side of mercy and love...Rob

Why would you choose to err? You are not really disagreeing with me, I'm just pointing out what is plainly stated in scripture. That is what you're disagreeing with. Are you sure you want to take that path?

Rev 20:9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

Mal 4:1,3 For, behold, the day comes, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that comes shall burn them up, says the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch. And you shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, says the LORD of hosts.

2Th 2:8 And then shall that Wicked One be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the breath of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

2Pe 3:10-14 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,

Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

[teresaq]

It's not like that at all. Your idea is that God sets people on fire. Not some house where the people are collateral damage, but specifically certain people, for a specific amount of time. It's exactly what I said, as if someone said, "Richard, if you don't do what I say, you'll be set on fire to burn for 2 days and 4 hours. Not right now, but later. So your will is free."

If there's a sentence of being burned on fire hanging over your head, your will is being coerced.

far worse than that!! a man changed against his will is of the same opinion still!!

it makes for phoney christians. people who believe they are following the Lord, and may honestly wish to do so, but in the back of their mind is the thought that if they are lost they will burn, possibly for days. so all service ends up more fear-based than love-based...in other words, instead of looking to see who we can help because we are becoming like Christ, we keep looking at the rules and trying to live up to them.

so a person trying to follow the Lord to avoid burning will not be following the Lord. not with all their heart, soul, mind and body....

we may not be conscious of it but it is there.

yet if we are not afraid of burning and want to love the Lord fully....

[Woody]

Quote:

Robert doesn't accept the SOP

Wait just a minute.

I've seen Robert accept it many times.

Just take a brief look at a few of his posts and you will find that he quotes our prophet often.

[skyblue888]

And fire came down from God out of heaven

And strong delusion came down from God out of heaven

[Robert]

Robert doesn't accept the SOP, so you'd be better off addressing someone else...

Some I do, some I don't....It's best to get it from the Bible....

[Robert]

Why would you choose to err?

Because there are two opposing views. The one I believe in makes more sense....It fits my image of God that I've learned from the Bible. I cannot synthesize your view and mine. So I err on the side of mercy and love. I am not infallible...neither are you.

[Robert]

it makes for phoney christians.

Bingo....

[Guest]

Richard, is there a strong God does not destroy presence on this forum? Do they see everything harmonizing with one basic principle? Or, do they accept that God has other ways of accomplishing His goals?

There are four of them that I can think of right off, and yes, they look at everything through one tiny little peep hole. If it doesn't line up with that little peep hole, they reject it outright, and dispose of it.

They won't even consider quotes and texts that deny their position. They insist that their "universal principle" covers everything. It makes you wonder why God went to the trouble of having Ellen White and the other prophets write all that other stuff.

This thread is their home base so to speak, at least until someone starts another one similar to it. I only come here when I am feeling extra tolerant. I can't afford to spend too much time arguing about this nonsense. There is way too much truth to be studied. God is displeased when we waste our time.

[pnattmbtc]

Are you 100% certain you are right about God? Do you have "the leg up" on those who believe He will punish and destroy the wicked at the end of time? Or, are you merely hoping you're right? What if you're wrong? Would you be happy spending eternity knowing God punished and destroyed millions of men, women, and children? Or, would you be so devastated you'd rather die? Just how certain are you that you're right? Are you faithful enough to survive the risk?

[pnattmbtc]

Archie:Richard, is there a strong God does not destroy presence on this forum? Do they see everything harmonizing with one basic principle? Or, do they accept that God has other ways of accomplishing His goals?

R:There are four of them that I can think of right off, and yes, they look at everything through one tiny little peep hole. If it doesn't line up with that little peep hole, they reject it outright, and dispose of it.

[Guest]

This is a lie.

This is a lie. I'll giva an example: When have you ever honestly considered the following quote?

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. {EW 294}

If considering it null and void is what you call considering it, then yes you have considered it.

What about this one?

The plea may be made that a loving Father would not see His children suffering the punishment of God by fire while He had the power to relieve them. But God would, for the good of His subjects and for their safety, punish the transgressor. God does not work on the plan of man. He can do infinite justice that man has no right to do before his fellow man. Noah would have displeased God to have drowned one of the scoffers and mockers that harassed him, but God drowned the vast world. Lot would have had no right to inflict punishment on his sons-in-law, but God would do it in strict justice. {LDE 241.2}

Same thing right? Null and void. It means something other than what it says.

Do you still hold the position that God doesn't really know the future, otherwise He would have never created Satan?