"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: Archie777

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.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

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?

again, not true, richard. pnattmbtc understands it to mean differently than you do but you dont accept his understanding.

lets be truthful here, ok?

[Guest]

I believe it means what it says, You and the other three don't. It's as simple as that.

[pnattmbtc]

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.

[Guest]

Isn't this clear that this isn't literal fire?

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Was that fire not literal either? It says it's the same kind of fire. An example even.

EGW commenting on Jude 1:7:

They gave loose rein to their intemperate appetites, then to their corrupt passions, until they were so debased, and their sins were so abominable, that their cup of iniquity was full, and they were consumed with fire from heaven. {4aSG 121.3}

In Abraham's day the people of Sodom openly defied God and His law; and there followed the same wickedness, the same corruption, the same unbridled indulgence, that had marked the antediluvian world. The inhabitants of Sodom passed the limits of divine forbearance, and there was kindled against them the fire of God's vengeance. {PK 297.2}

...until Sodom became renowned for its pollutions. Their sins reached unto heaven, and the Lord would bear with them no longer. He destroyed them and all that was beautiful, that made it as a second Eden, for the earth was defiled under the inhabitants thereof. {TSB 126.2}

[doug yowell]

[Actually there's an error here, which persists even though it's been correct many times. It's unfortunate when people don't listen to the views of others to here what's actually being said. It's fine to reject an idea that one disagrees with, but in disagreeing with another it better, and fairer, to disagree with what the other party is actually saying.

God does destroy, but how? That's the question. Does God destroy by taking direct action to destroy, or does He remove His protection, and destroy by that means?

Actually, everyone agrees that God destroys by removing His protection. There's no disagreement on this point, so it's rather odd that some persist in speaking of those who believe that God does not destroy. The difference is that some believe that God destroys by two methods, sometimes by removing His protection and allowing destruction to occur, and other times by directly causing it Himself, while others believe that it is not necessary for God to take direction action Himself to cause destruction, and that such an act would be contrary to His character, and contrary to what He has revealed.

I only know of one person (on the side of the question that God destroys sometimes by removing His protection and sometimes by taking direct action) who is willing/able to carry on a conversation on this subject by considering the arguments being presented, answering questions, and presenting counter-arguments, and that's John317. Instead of this, what we see a lot of is name-calling, false accusations, and misrepresentations of the ideas with which one does not agree.

.

pnatt,here I find some agreement with you.I'm also with John3:17 on how and when God destroys but it seems your main criticism is aimed at Richard. Part of the problem here is that almost everyone is guilty but with so many quotes flying around it's hard to tell who's addressing what.But Richard is right in that there is a general "principle" that is used to refute his interpretation. This "principle" begs the question and needs to be established before any constructive interchange can be realized. There is also another subtle problem that seems to interfere with any progress. And that is the (dare I say) overabundance of EGW quotes used to try to establish one's correct view. As one reads it's easy to tell that one quote gets pitted against another until every one needs to be responded to.And many times these quotes "appear" to be contradictory.Should Biblical understanding on such a basic question as this need to be so complex? Since the traditional understanding of God has allowed His right to actively take human life without contradicting His character, it would seem only reasonable that any principle to the contrary must be Biblically established before tradition is to be replaced by "truth".Having typed all that, for the sake of clarity, can I ask, who believes that God NEVER actively takes human life.And do they recognize that there are stories in the Bible that would clearly suggest otherwise?

[Archie777]

Pnattmbtc, no doubt you know I'm Mountain Man from the Maritime forum. It's good to see you hear. Thank you for catching me up. You're right, I didn't read the entire thread. It's a bit long. By the way, I'm using the name Archie because it's the name our son is considering using if they have a baby boy in May.

Would you mind telling me what the letters mean in your name? Pnat is an amusing abbreviation. However, I suspect each letter stands for something and together it means something important and meaningful.

As you know, I'm pretty familiar with the "withdraw and permit" principle of death and destruction. You have labored long and lovingly to help me understand it. And I thank you.

For the sake of others here I agree there are times when circumstances forced Jesus (the principal player and power in the OT and in the NT) to withdraw His protection and permit evil men and evil angels to cause death and destruction within His established and enforced limits. He leaves nothing to chance or Satan. Examples include Babylon and Rome conquering Jerusalem.

I also believe Jesus has commanded holy men and holy angels to cause death and destruction. Examples include the sabbath-breaker Moses stoned to death and the first-born of Egypt.

I also believe Jesus has employed the forces of nature to cause death and destruction. Examples include the Flood and Sodom and Gomorrah.

And, I believe the radiant light of Jesus' person and presence will cause the wicked to suffer and die according to their sinfulness during the final judgment. Literal fire from above and below will also play a part in the suffering and death of the wicked.

[Archie777]

Pnattmbtc, no doubt you know I'm Mountain Man from the Maritime forum. It's good to see you hear. Thank you for catching me up. You're right, I didn't read the entire thread. It's a bit long. By the way, I'm using the name Archie because it's the name our son is considering using if they have a baby boy in May.

Would you mind telling me what the letters mean in your name? Pnat is an amusing abbreviation. However, I suspect each letter stands for something and together it means something important and meaningful.

As you know, I'm pretty familiar with the "withdraw and permit" principle of death and destruction. You have labored long and lovingly to help me understand it. And I thank you.

For the sake of others here I agree there are times when circumstances forced Jesus (the principal player and power in the OT and in the NT) to withdraw His protection and permit evil men and evil angels to cause death and destruction within His established and enforced limits. He leaves nothing to chance or Satan. Examples include Babylon and Rome conquering Jerusalem.

I also believe Jesus has commanded holy men and holy angels to cause death and destruction. Examples include the sabbath-breaker Moses stoned to death and the first-born of Egypt.

I also believe Jesus has employed the forces of nature to cause death and destruction. Examples include the Flood and Sodom and Gomorrah.

And, I believe the radiant light of Jesus' person and presence will cause the wicked to suffer and die according to their sinfulness during the final judgment. Literal fire from above and below will also play a part in the suffering and death of the wicked.

[John317]

Quote:

pnatt: Robert doesn't accept the SOP

Quote:

Woody: 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.

There's a big difference between agreeing with the SOP and accepting it. Some people agree with some things the Bible says, but that doesn't mean they accept the Bible.

Robert even tells us that he only uses Ellen White in order to support points with "legalists," but that is far different from accepting her.

The fact that he quotes her therefore doesn't demonstrate anything other than his desire to convince someone to accept his viewpoint. If he actually accepted her he wouldn't cross out her name or the title of books when others quote her.

People can agree with God but that doesn't mean they're obeying Him. It just means they agree with some things He's said. But to really obey and accept Him means you obey Him even when you don't understand the reasons for the command. Eve's problem was that she threw aside God's command when she didn't understand it or agree with Him.

[doug yowell]

Pnattmbtc, no doubt you know I'm Mountain Man from the Maritime forum. It's good to see you hear. Thank you for catching me up. You're right, I didn't read the entire thread. It's a bit long. By the way, I'm using the name Archie because it's the name our son is considering using if they have a baby boy in May.

Would you mind telling me what the letters mean in your name? Pnat is an amusing abbreviation. However, I suspect each letter stands for something and together it means something important and meaningful.

As you know, I'm pretty familiar with the "withdraw and permit" principle of death and destruction. You have labored long and lovingly to help me understand it. And I thank you.

For the sake of others here I agree there are times when circumstances forced Jesus (the principal player and power in the OT and in the NT) to withdraw His protection and permit evil men and evil angels to cause death and destruction within His established and enforced limits. He leaves nothing to chance or Satan. Examples include Babylon and Rome conquering Jerusalem.

I also believe Jesus has commanded holy men and holy angels to cause death and destruction. Examples include the sabbath-breaker Moses stoned to death and the first-born of Egypt.

I also believe Jesus has employed the forces of nature to cause death and destruction. Examples include the Flood and Sodom and Gomorrah.

And, I believe the radiant light of Jesus' person and presence will cause the wicked to suffer and die according to their sinfulness during the final judgment. Literal fire from above and below will also play a part in the suffering and death of the wicked.

OK,Archie. That's three of us.

[Archie777]

Doug, really? There are three of us who agree on each of the points articulated above? That's a quorum! Can Jesus return now?

[skyblue888]

When one reads that "the understanding of the people of God has been blinded, for Satan has misrepresented the character of God. Our good and gracious Lord has been presented before the people clothed in the attributes of Satan," should not the one question immediately come to mind? How is Satan misrepresenting the character of God?

What is the lie of Satan regarding the character of God? Is it that God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression but that He leaves the rejecters of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown?

Is the lie of Satan to teach that God's judgments do not come directly out from the Lord upon the disobedient but in this way--they place themselves beyond His protection?

Or is it to teach that God does directly destroy those who do not appreciate His work or act contrary to His ideas?

Which is it?

sky

[Robert]

If he actually accepted her he wouldn't cross out her name or the title of books when others quote her.

Because many SDA use her as a measuring stick....She is not the final word.

[John317]

Quote:

John317: Not all read the Bible and Ellen White as you did or do.

Quote:

ROBERT: Keep in mind what the Pharisees did to Christ. Sure, outwardly thy looked all holy, but inside they were full of dead man's bones.....All they did, outwardly, was to be seen of men. What does that mean?

If you are afraid of God...if you are depending on your works to save you, then everything you do will be polluted with self. .....

I'm responding to your statements where you appear to blame your legalistic problems-- your becoming "a devil"-- on Ellen White and Joe Cruz. I'm saying that isn't true. Millions of people study and accept the writings of these people without being legalistic or like a devil.

The Bible teaches that there is such a thing as a godly and wise fear of God. It has to do with awe, respect, and reverence. It has to do with recongizing that God is able-- like Christ Himself said-- to destroy both body and soul in the gehenna of fire. The "fear" that the Bible speaks of is different from being "scared" or terrified of Him. Those who love Him aren't afraid of Him in that sense. There's no reason to be. God will not destroy those who genuinely love Him. But the Bible says that God will destroy those who hate Him and hate His law and His righteousness. If you have trouble with this viewpoint, then your disagreement is with the Bible, not with me. Those who practice sin and law-breaking, and do not allow God to change them, will not inherit the kingdom of God. To teach that they will is a clear contradiction of the entire Bible. Adam was expelled from the Garden because of disobeying God's command. How, therefore, can anyone say that God will allow deliberate, persistent, and unrepentant commandment-breakers into His kingdom?

I've never taught that our works save us. I teach that God saves us by His mercy and that when we have been forgiven and justified, we will obey Him. I teach the same thing that is taught in 1 John 1: 5 to 2: 6. Those who say they know and love Christ will obey His commandments. They won't go around telling people that no one can keep Christ's commandmens or obey God.

Quote:

ROBERT: You see if you believe God only accepts those who keep the commandments and those who don't will suffer his wrath (some burning for many days) it will impossible to serve God with the right motive. All you do will be out of fear or hope of reward. Such a religions, says EGW, is worthless.

If Ellen White taught this, why did she write GC 673 where she says clearly that some of the wicked will burn longer than others, and that Satan will continue to suffer many days after all the others have perished? She taught that it is Christ and the righteous in heaven who decide this punishment. See EW 52-53, 290-291; and GC 660-661.

The Bible itself teaches that those who keep the commandments of God will be saved and those who disobey God's commandments will be lost. See Romans 2: 6-11; 1 Cor. 6: 9-11; and Rev. 22: 14, 15.

The vast majority of ancient Greek manuscripts read "Blessed are those who keep His commandments that they may have right to the tree of life and enter in through the gates into the city." But even if we take the reading of a handful of Greek manuscripts, it means the same thing. Washing one's robes in the blood of Christ means cleaning one's character and bringing it into conformity to the commandments of God and His character. I accept both readings. Former whoremongers and former murderers will be in heaven, for sure. But the thing is, they won't be there if they didn't repent of their sins and allow God to change them. That is what justification by faith is all about. A justified murderer and whoremonger doesn't keep murdering and committing sins with a whore. You can say that about all the other sins the Holy Spirit convicts us of: if we're truly justified and in right relationship with Christ, we won't keep practicing them. That's John's theme in 1 John 1: 5 to 2: 6.

The Bible shows that God uses the motive of "fear" and the desire for heavenly "reward." But it is like a parent who is willing to use those motives in order to get a child to do right. The parent would be disappointed if he found out his child is still motivated the same way at age 50 as at 5.

There is certainly nothing wrong with wanting to have eternal life and heaven, but that won't be the main reason a mature believer lives the Christian life.

But the epistles of saint Paul show that it is an important part of the Christian life, because he often speaks of the heavenly rewards awaiting the faithful, loyal Christian. God would not have inspired Paul to write those things if it is wrong to think about them the way Paul did. God obviously wants us to think about what He's prepared for those who love Him. It is Satan who wants people not to believe in it or to consider it. It should be on our minds constantly, every day, not only what God has prepared for us but what He's prepared for everyone who genuinely accepts Him.

[John317]

Quote:

Archie777:

For the sake of others here I agree there are times when circumstances forced Jesus (the principal player and power in the OT and in the NT) to withdraw His protection and permit evil men and evil angels to cause death and destruction within His established and enforced limits. He leaves nothing to chance or Satan. Examples include Babylon and Rome conquering Jerusalem.

I also believe Jesus has commanded holy men and holy angels to cause death and destruction. Examples include the sabbath-breaker Moses stoned to death and the first-born of Egypt.

I also believe Jesus has employed the forces of nature to cause death and destruction. Examples include the Flood and Sodom and Gomorrah.

And, I believe the radiant light of Jesus' person and presence will cause the wicked to suffer and die according to their sinfulness during the final judgment. Literal fire from above and below will also play a part in the suffering and death of the wicked.

Quote:

doug yowell: OK,Archie. That's three of us.

I agree, too. But I think that's a lot more than three us who agree with what Archie777 says there. For one thing, virtually the entire Seventh-day Adventist church, including Ellen White and the early Adventist pioneers, would agree with it, too.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

If he actually accepted her he wouldn't cross out her name or the title of books when others quote her.

Because many SDA use her as a measuring stick....She is not the final word.

As a people and as a church, SDAs don't use Ellen White as the measuring stick, nor do we teach that she is the final word. Those descriptions belong to the Bible, not to the writings of Ellen White. But at the same time, we believe her to have been a true prophet of God, and therefore it should come as no suprise that we quote her as an authority and pay serious attention to what she wrote.

Yet she is not the measuring stick. For instance, since the Bible says that God will send fire down on the wicked and consume them, she has no authority to say that this will not occur just as Scripture says it will. No one has a right to take her language and turn it into a denial of the biblical testimony of what God will do. If anyone believes that is what she's doing, such a statement, or such an interpretation of a statement, must be rejected out of hand. Why? Because the Bible is the measuring stick of doctrine.

It is the same with the Investigative Judgment. If Ellen White's views of the pre-Advent judgment contradict the Bible, her view must be jettisoned in favor of the Bible's teachings.

Any modern prophet of God can be expected to say things not found in the Bible, but whatever they say must not contradict a clear "thus saith the Lord." It will, however, contradict some people's misinterpretation of the Bible. That much is an absolute certainty.

[pnattmbtc]

p:Isn't this clear that this isn't literal fire?

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Was that fire not literal either? It says it's the same kind of fire. An example even.

EGW commenting on Jude 1:7:

They gave loose rein to their intemperate appetites, then to their corrupt passions, until they were so debased, and their sins were so abominable, that their cup of iniquity was full, and they were consumed with fire from heaven. {4aSG 121.3}

In Abraham's day the people of Sodom openly defied God and His law; and there followed the same wickedness, the same corruption, the same unbridled indulgence, that had marked the antediluvian world. The inhabitants of Sodom passed the limits of divine forbearance, and there was kindled against them the fire of God's vengeance. {PK 297.2}

...until Sodom became renowned for its pollutions. Their sins reached unto heaven, and the Lord would bear with them no longer. He destroyed them and all that was beautiful, that made it as a second Eden, for the earth was defiled under the inhabitants thereof. {TSB 126.2}

[John317]

Quote:

skyblue888:

Mark, we need to sit at the feet of Jesus in order to understand the deep things of God. We need to learn at the school of Christ what Holy Writ means by such expressions as "whom the Lord shall consumed with the spirit of His mouth, and shall be destroyed with the brightness of His coming." 2 Thess.2:8.

The superficial reader will never understand this language unless he is willing to leave all his preconceived opinions at the door of investigation and let the Holy Spirit be the Teacher....

When we teach the Bible to people, we should not be afraid to use the same language, as long as it is translated accurately. If we cannot tell people such things as "God will destroy the wicked," "fire will come down from God out of heaven and consume the wicked," "the wicked will be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power," etc.--- if we can't use that language, and without attempting to "interpret" it so that people will understand it "correctly," then there is something wrong with our theology and our understanding of what God is saying. I don't beleive God inspired the Bible in order for us to need to "reintrepret" it or put it into different words. Those verses don't make God look like Satan, nor do they make God look different from how the Bible writers intended to portray Him.

The true deep things of God are not going to contradict the plain statements of Scripture. For instance, one very plain teaching of the Bible is that "Jesus loves me." If anyone claims to have a deep study showing this to be untrue, you can be sure that it's false.

In the same way, the Bible plainly teaches that God destroyed Sodom by fire, the world with a flood, and that God will destroy the wicked both at the Second Coming and at the end of the 1000 years. If anyone comes along and claims that a deep study of the Bible proves that these plain teachings are false, one must, at the very least, really question whether such "deep" teachings are true or not.

Today it is common to hear or read SDAs-- or former SDAs-- who say that a deeper study of the Bible proves that there is no Investigative Judgment. Some are also saying that a deeper study proves that the Sabbath is no longer binding on Christians. There have already been quite a few who claim that a deep study of Ellen White proves that she was either a false prophet or someone who merely plagerized. There are also those, even within our church, who are saying that a "deeper study" of the word of God proves that the practice of homosexuality is not a sin and that the church ought to accept practicing homosexuals as members in good standing. Now "deeper studies" of the word of God are said to reveal that God never used compelling force against either Satan or humans, never destroyed anyone and that He never will destroy the wicked by fire. One must really wonder what else a "deeper study" will reveal.

[skyblue888]

When one reads that "the understanding of the people of God has been blinded, for Satan has misrepresented the character of God. Our good and gracious Lord has been presented before the people clothed in the attributes of Satan," (1 S.M.355) should not the one question immediately come to mind? How is Satan misrepresenting the character of God?

What is the lie of Satan regarding the character of God? Is it that God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression but that He leaves the rejecters of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown?

Is the lie of Satan to teach that God's judgments do not come directly out from the Lord upon the disobedient but in this way--they place themselves beyond His protection?

Or is it to teach that God does directly destroy those who do not appreciate His work or act contrary to His ideas?

Which is it?

sky

[pnattmbtc]

pnatt:I only know of one person (on the side of the question that God destroys sometimes by removing His protection and sometimes by taking direct action) who is willing/able to carry on a conversation on this subject by considering the arguments being presented, answering questions, and presenting counter-arguments, and that's John317. Instead of this, what we see a lot of is name-calling, false accusations, and misrepresentations of the ideas with which one does not agree.

.

pnatt,here I find some agreement with you.I'm also with John3:17 on how and when God destroys but it seems your main criticism is aimed at Richard. Part of the problem here is that almost everyone is guilty but with so many quotes flying around it's hard to tell who's addressing what.

[pnattmbtc]

To Archie777: pnattmbtc means "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain," a reference to a famous scene from the Wizard of Oz.

[pnattmbtc]

I agree, too. But I think that's a lot more than three us who agree with what Archie777 says there. For one thing, virtually the entire Seventh-day Adventist church, including Ellen White and the early Adventist pioneers, would agree with it, too.

[pnattmbtc]

For instance, since the Bible says that God will send fire down on the wicked and consume them, she has no authority to say that this will not occur just as Scripture says it will.

What you actually mean is "she has no authority to say that this will not occur just as I understand the Scripture says it will." But she does exactly this in saying "the glory of Him who is love will destroy them." So apparently she *does* have the authority to say things you disagree with!

The point here is you have a way of putting things that implies that Ellen White or Scripture can't say anything differently than what you think; i.e. your understanding becomes the final word; you can't possibly be wrong. You've made this same point on a number of occasions. This is your formula:

Ellen White has no authority to teach something contrary to [insert here some idea that John317 holds, but use include the words "just as Scripture says"].

This isn't an appropriate way of putting things.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

When we teach the Bible to people, we should not be afraid to use the same language, as long as it is translated accurately. If we cannot tell people such things as "God will destroy the wicked," "fire will come down from God out of heaven and consume the wicked," "the wicked will be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power," etc.--- if we can't use that language, and without attempting to "interpret" it so that people will understand it "correctly," then there is something wrong with our theology and our understanding of what God is saying.

Quote:

And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. (Rev. 20:10)

I guess we have to change our position on the state of the dead then.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: John317

For instance, since the Bible says that God will send fire down on the wicked and consume them, she has no authority to say that this will not occur just as Scripture says it will.

What you actually mean is "she has no authority to say that this will not occur just as I understand the Scripture says it will." But she does exactly this in saying "the glory of Him who is love will destroy them." So apparently she *does* have the authority to say things you disagree with!

The point here is you have a way of putting things that implies that Ellen White or Scripture can't say anything differently than what you think; i.e. your understanding becomes the final word; you can't possibly be wrong. You've made this same point on a number of occasions. This is your formula:

Ellen White has no authority to teach something contrary to [insert here some idea that John317 holds, but use include the words "just as Scripture says"].

This isn't an appropriate way of putting things.

Come on pnatt, you're using the same tactics on John that you've been criticizing others ("your side") for doing."What you actually mean..."??? Aren't you saying the same thing if you interpret that text in opposition to John's view??? And do you believe that YOU can't possibly be wrong, or is that exclusive to John? Wanna revisit your response? Let's play by the rules we establish.