"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[doug yowell]

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

If there was a real secret rapture I'd be in favor. That way the left behind (to coin a phrase) would still have another chance.

[Guest]

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

That would be our position on hell, not the state of the dead.

[doug yowell]

So pnatt, given that "our side's" position has been pretty clearly, and simply articulated by Archie, it would seem that we ALL agree that God does leave the unrepentant sinner(s)unprotected to reap the natural consequences of their choices. The only questions left to resolve are whether God ALWAYS does this, either in this life or the judgment to come.And whether or not His being personally active would be a violation of His character. Is that a fair analysis?

[John317]

Quote:

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?

One thing I know for sure is that neither the Bible nor Ellen White contributed to that misrepresentation of the character of God. What does the Bible say regarding the casting out of Satan from heaven, the driving out of Adam from the garden, the destruction of the world by a flood, the destruction of Sodom by fire, and the destruction of the wicked by fire at the end of the world?

Do the Scriptures contribute to that misunderstanding of God? Or do they tell the truth plainly so that no one needs to be unclear about what they are saying?

So when we ask how Satan is misrepresenting God's character, we need to make sure our views are in harmony with the Bible's teachings, because we can be absolutely sure that the truth is contained within its pages.

Some teach (falsely) that we cannot be sure what the Bible teaches because the Bible itself is not clear. The Bible is only unclear to those who don't want to accept what is actually and really says. The confusion regarding the Bible's meaning cannot justifiably be blamed on the Bible. Does the Bible contain some parts that are hard to understand? Of course. Peter talked about those in 2 Peter 3: 15, 16. But those things that are difficult to understand do not contradict the plain statements of Scripture which are easy to understand. The plain, clear statements should always be used to explain or interpret the more obscure or difficult verses, not the other way around. That's a basic principle of hermeneutics.

Quote:

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?

What Satan has done is make it appear to people's minds that God doesn't love them or really want them saved. Satan convinced people that God is standing toward the sinner as an executioner. But that is not true.

Yet notice that this does not mean that God won't execute the sentence upon the sinner at the end of time. Ellen White is not denying that God will personally judge, sentence, and execute the sentence of death against the sinner. See GC 666-673

Satan goes from one extreme to the other: either he lies and says God won't destroy anyone and that everyone will eventually be saved; or he lies and says that God will enjoy torturing humans throughout all eternity. Both are lies widely accepted.

He also works to get people within our church to believe part of the lie is that God's love won't permit Him to destroy the wicked in fire as the Bible and Ellen White say He will. The has the effect of causing people to question whether they can depend on the inspired writings to really mean what they actually say. They already hear people say, "Yes, the Bible says plainly that the dead do not know anything, but really the dead know more than the living." Now they are hearing people say, "Yes, the Bible says fire will come down from God out of heaven and consumes the wicked, yet the Bible doesn't mean that. It means actually something else. It means the fire comes from men's weapons. It means the wicked kill each other. God is really just a passive onlooker." There are other explanations, but the essential agreement between them is that they subtly teach people to question whether they can believe the Bible.

Quote:

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?

Satan's lie is that God is too loving to punish the wicked. He goes to the other extreme, also, and teaches the lie that God will make the wicked suffer endlessly throughout eternity.

That statement of Ellen White that the judgments of God do not come directly from the Lord are concerning the judgments of God during the time in which we live NOW. She is not talking about the final destruction of the wicked. Nor is she denying that the judgments of God in the past ever came directly from the Lord. Satan could not possibly have brought the third plague on Egypt, for instance, since it had to do with making dust into real, living insects. Satan doesn't have the power to do that.

Quote:

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?

Would you rebel against God if He directly destroys the wicked? Doesn't God have a perfect right to directly destroy the wicked?

Did Satan influence the way the prophets and apostles wrote the Scriptures? Did Satan influence Ellen White's writings? How do those sources read?

Personally I see the whole question of whether God destroys the wicked "directly" or not as something of a side-issue. It's important to accept the Bible just as it reads. If it was important for God's people to know that God doesn't directly destroy the wicked, God would have had the prophets tell us that God never directly destroys anyone and that He never will directly destroy anyone, ever. But none of the Bible prophets say this, and neither did Ellen White. On the contrary, they all say plainly that God does destroy the wicked and that He will certainly destroy the wicked after the Great White Throne Judgment. Ellen White wrote, "The wicked He will destroy... God executes justice upon the wicked" (GC 541). "God will destroy the wicked from off the face of the earth" (PP 110). "It is the wrath of God and the Lamb that CAUSE the destruction or death of the wicked" (EW 52).

When we say Ellen White and the Bible teach that God never has and never will destoy anyone, we make both the Bible and SOP seem to speak out of both sides of their mouths.

What, then, does the Bible say? What does Ellen White say in EW 51-53, 290-291, and GC 660, 661, 673? Those passages could not be clearer. Why would anyone be interested in trying to make it look like they don't mean exactly what they say?

We should be content to let the Bible speak for itself. For instance, when the Bible says that "fire comes down from God out of heaven and devours the wicked," we should not try to explain it away by saying the Bible means something other than what it says. Adventists don't feel the need of doing that with any other texts. It would be difference if we had verses in Scripture that explain the verse as meaning something other than what it says.

Similarly when the Bible says that Satan and the evil angels were "cast out" or driven out of heaven, we shouldn't feel it is necessary to tell people that Satan wasn't really cast out of heaven.

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: 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)

Quote:

pnattmbt:

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

If we are doing what you suggest is necessary in order to believe as we do about the state of the death, it would be dishonest of us and we wouldn't be interpreting the Bible in the right way.

You apparently think the believers in the immortality of the soul are right when they say the Bible clearly teaches that the dead go to heaven immediately after death. I believe the Bible is clear in its teaching that the dead go into their graves and sleep in death until Christ's return.

It seems to me that your arugment relies at least to some degree on making it appear the Bible is self-contradictory and confusing. The Bible doesn't speak out of both sides of its mouth. That is the way the Roman Catholic Church likes to portray it, in order for people to think they cannot understand the Bible without the teaching authority of the church. It is also certainly what the devil would like us to think. But it is not true. God's word is clear to those who are guided by the Spirit and who sincerely want to know the truth and are willing to obey what the Holy Spirit convicts them of.

[John317]

Quote:

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.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: 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!

I mean that when the Bible says, "fire comes down from God out of heaven and consumes the wicked," Ellen White has absolutely no authority to say, "The fire will not come down from God out of heaven."

Her statement above does not contradict the Bible statement in Rev. 20: 9. If it did, I would accept neither her statement nor her work as a prophet of God. It would prove her in my view to be a false prophet. Ellen White cannot correct the Scriptures; but they can certainly correct her.

Quote:

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.

I've never said that, and I don't think that way at all.

I don't put myself above the church.

For instance, if I were to come to the conclusion that God will never destroy the wicked in fire or that He never destroyed the world by a flood, I would be willing to submit my idea to a committee of church leaders, and if they didn't see any light in my viewpoint, I would be happy to yield to their judgment. This was Ellen White's counsel in 5 T 293 and is in agreement with the Bible. God is leading out a church, not a few individuals scattered here and there, and if God has light for the church, He will reveal it to more than a few individuals.

"All should be careful about presenting new views of Scripture... Introduce nothing that will cause dissension, without clear evidence that in it God is giving a special message for this time." TM 106.

When I say "just as the Scripture says," I'm talking about its clear statements. I still believe the Bible contains unquestionably clear statements.

[Archie777]

It's interesting to me that Robert, at least, is willing to say he might be wrong about God and the final judgment of the wicked. Are others more certain about their position?

[pnattmbtc]

If we are doing what you suggest is necessary in order to believe as we do about the state of the death, it would be dishonest of us and we wouldn't be interpreting the Bible in the right way.

[pnattmbtc]

I mean that when the Bible says, "fire comes down from God out of heaven and consumes the wicked," Ellen White has absolutely no authority to say, "The fire will not come down from God out of heaven."

Her statement above does not contradict the Bible statement in Rev. 20: 9. If it did, I would accept neither her statement nor her work as a prophet of God.

This is another example of what I'm saying. You're again setting yourself up as the last word, as if you were infallible (highlighted part).

Of course it's possible someone could contradict the Bible, and you would still accept his or her statement. Why not? You're not infallible.

All you can rightly claim is that if *you felt* she were contradicting Scripture, you wouldn't accept her. But you're convinced she's a prophet, so rather than reject her, you'd (basic defense mechanism) simply reinterpret what she said in such a way as to remove whatever cognitive dissonance you may have.

The point is, you're phrasing your statements in such as way that they imply that you have to be right.

But you might be wrong.

You're basically saying, "This contrary opinion can't be correct, because in that case I'd be wrong, and I can't be wrong." (that is, what you're writing is logically equivalent to this).

[pnattmbtc]

It's interesting to me that Robert, at least, is willing to say he might be wrong about God and the final judgment of the wicked. Are others more certain about their position?

If you're going to say something like this, please provide the quote you have in mind. I'm sure there's some context to this. I'd imagine Robert is sure about some things regarding the judgment, but not 100% sure regarding some of the details. Assuming this is what he meant, I would hope everyone fell into this category.

[pnattmbtc]

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

R:That would be our position on hell, not the state of the dead.

If the wicked were to burn forever and ever as the term is normally understood, without being interpreted, their soul would have to be immortal, which is the state of the dead.

[pnattmbtc]

So pnatt, given that "our side's" position has been pretty clearly, and simply articulated by Archie, it would seem that we ALL agree that God does leave the unrepentant sinner(s)unprotected to reap the natural consequences of their choices.

[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]

He also works to get people within our church to believe part of the lie is that God's love won't permit Him to destroy the wicked in fire as the Bible and Ellen White say He will. The has the effect of causing people to question whether they can depend on the inspired writings to really mean what they actually say. They already hear people say, "Yes, the Bible says plainly that the dead do not know anything, but really the dead know more than the living." Now they are hearing people say, "Yes, the Bible says fire will come down from God out of heaven and consumes the wicked, yet the Bible doesn't mean that. It means actually something else. It means the fire comes from men's weapons. It means the wicked kill each other. God is really just a passive onlooker." There are other explanations, but the essential agreement between them is that they subtly teach people to question whether they can believe the Bible.

This is a completely specious argument. As Kevin H. explained (which I've pointed out many times) there has *always* been disagreement within Adventism regarding the fire spoken of in Revelation 20. This doesn't mean that any Adventists were questioning if the Bible means what it really says. Remember the Revelation is a symbolic book. There's always been disagreements as to what should be taken literally and what shouldn't be.

For example, consider the 144,000. Is this a literal number? If someone says they believe it's not a literal number, does this mean they are not believing the Bible means what it actually says? Adventists disagree about this too, but neither side of this question is teaching people to question whether they can believe the Bible.

[pnattmbtc]

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.

I don't think you understand the point. I don't phrase things in such a way that if a person disagrees with me they must be rejecting Ellen White or Scripture.

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: Richard

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

R:That would be our position on hell, not the state of the dead.

If the wicked were to burn forever and ever as the term is normally understood, without being interpreted, their soul would have to be immortal, which is the state of the dead.

It would be both actually.

[John317]

Quote:

Archie777: It's interesting to me that Robert, at least, is willing to say he might be wrong about God and the final judgment of the wicked. Are others more certain about their position?

Here's the thing: would people continue to love and worship and obey God if He were to tell us Himself tomorrow that He will indeed directly destroy the wicked in fire after the 1000 years? In other words, have we learned to trust Him so much that we are willing to accept His way of dealing with sin, even if we don't understand all the answers to our questions?

I am certain that the Bible teaches God will directly destroy the wicked in the gehenna of fire. However, if I were to find out that the Bible picture of this is wrong for whatever reason, that God NEVER used compelling force and NEVER destroyed anyone in all of human history, and that He will NEVER destroy the wicked in fire, it would not affect my love and worship of God.

That is why as I've said before, I don't really care how God destroys sin and Satan and the rest of the wicked. My arguments here have only been the result of my study of the Bible and not because of a belief that God can't do something other than what I think He should do. I beleive that God has unlimited control over the works of His hands, and that man has no right to ask God, "Why are you doing this?" God wants us to witness what He does in response to the emergency of sin, but He's not asking us to tell Him what He must do. But what troubles me is that I hear some Seventh-day Adventists saying that God must NOT directly destroy the wicked, and if He does, He has the character of the devil. That kind of thinking is dangerous and is setting people up to rebel against God and reject His ways of dealing with sin.

[John317]

Quote:

John317: He also works to get people within our church to believe part of the lie is that God's love won't permit Him to destroy the wicked in fire as the Bible and Ellen White say He will. The has the effect of causing people to question whether they can depend on the inspired writings to really mean what they actually say. They already hear people say, "Yes, the Bible says plainly that the dead do not know anything, but really the dead know more than the living." Now they are hearing people say, "Yes, the Bible says fire will come down from God out of heaven and consumes the wicked, yet the Bible doesn't mean that. It means actually something else. It means the fire comes from men's weapons. It means the wicked kill each other. God is really just a passive onlooker." There are other explanations, but the essential agreement between them is that they subtly teach people to question whether they can believe the Bible.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: This is a completely specious argument. As Kevin H. explained (which I've pointed out many times) there has *always* been disagreement within Adventism regarding the fire spoken of in Revelation 20.

Kevin H. is one of those who says that he doesn't think the practice of homosexuality is condemned in the Bible, specifically in verses such as Lev. 18: 22.

What evidence do you have, besides Kevin H.'s explanation, that the early SDAs believed the fire of Rev. 20 was not from God or was not literal?

Please quote the earliest Adventist you know of who wrote clearly on this topic and claimed the fire is not from God?

Quote:

For example, consider the 144,000. Is this a literal number? If someone says they believe it's not a literal number, does this mean they are not believing the Bible means what it actually says? Adventists disagree about this too, but neither side of this question is teaching people to question whether they can believe the Bible.

There are very good and well known reasons for believing the 144,000 may not be a literal number.

That is a totally different thing from teaching people that they can't believe the Bible when it says that God never destroyed Sodom, that He never forced Satan to leave heaven, that He never destroyed the world in a flood, or that God will never destroy the wicked in fire at the end of the 1000 years. That would be like saying that you can't believe the Bible when it says that God blessed the seventh day and made it holy at the end of Creation week. It would be the same as saying the Sabbath is not a memorial of creation. On the basis of Scripture and Ellen White, there is no reason to believe that the fire that destroys the wicked is symbolic and not literal. The wicked are literally, not figuratively, destroyed. The earth will be cleansed by literal, not symbolic, fire. We not only have the evidence of Scripture that the fire is literal and real, but we also have many statements from Ellen White which show the same thing.

Therefore, it is a mistake-- or, to use your expression, "a completely specious argument"-- to compare the 144, 000 with the fire that destroys the wicked or with the casting out of Satan from heaven.

[John317]

Quote:

doug: 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.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: I don't think you understand the point. I don't phrase things in such a way that if a person disagrees with me they must be rejecting Ellen White or Scripture.

Where have I said that if a person disagrees with me they must be rejecting Ellen White or the Scriptures?

Could you copy and paste and give the post# and title of the thread?

[Robert]

I'm responding to your statements where you appear to blame your [past] legalistic problems-- your becoming "a devil"-- on Ellen White and Joe Cruz [theology]. I'm saying that isn't true.

Really? So I'm lying? I made it all up? You know me better than myself? Well, that's not true! Believe me, their theology was the root problem!

[John317]

Quote:

John317: I mean that when the Bible says, "fire comes down from God out of heaven and consumes the wicked," Ellen White has absolutely no authority to say, "The fire will not come down from God out of heaven."

Her statement above does not contradict the Bible statement in Rev. 20: 9. If it did, I would accept neither her statement nor her work as a prophet of God.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: This is another example of what I'm saying. You're again setting yourself up as the last word, as if you were infallible (highlighted part).

Of course it's possible someone could contradict the Bible, and you would still accept his or her statement. Why not? You're not infallible.

I'm telling you what I believe. If I believed that she was contradicting the Bible, I would not accept her or her writings.

I do not believe she contradicts the Bible in her statements about the final destruction of the wicked.

I'm not going to say "I believe" every time I make a statement. You should assume that I believe what I'm saying.

When someone says that they wouldn't accept a statement if it contradicts the Bible, they're not implying that they consider themselves infallible.

[Robert]

The Bible shows that God uses the motive of "fear" [OC demands] 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.

And that's why your theology is off! "Agape" is the ingredient that it takes to keep the law. Agape is not self-seeking...it is not bent back to self. Scaring a child (as EGW did) to outwardly get the actions right isn't righteousness. The Pharisees did this all day long. Why? To be seen of men! You can keep the law without agape, but you are really keeping iniquity...sin.

Here's EGW: "We may have flattered ourselves, as did Nicodemus, that our life has been upright, that our moral character is correct, and think that we need not humble the heart before God, like the common sinner: but when the light from Christ shines into our souls [when we are faced with God's agape love], we shall see how impure we are; [in what way?] we shall discern the selfishness of motive, the enmity against God, that has defiled every act of life. [sC 28]

Did you get that? "The selfishness of motive" defiles the act. Keeping the law out of fear or hope of reward is not agape. Therefore one is keeping sin....That's why Christ said, "unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

You see they were full-time law keepers, but their motive for keeping the law outwardly was "to be seen of men". That, however, is not keeping the law. It's sin. Keeping the law without agape is keeping sin. And EGW agrees:

"Their [the Pharisees] spirit and motives and methods were the opposite of His [Christ's]. While they claimed to be very jealous for the honor of the law, self-glory was the real object which they sought; and Christ would make it manifest to them that the lover of self is a transgressor of the law. [MB 77]

If your works are bent back to self, your motive is wrong and your works are based in iniquity....Hence you are a transgressor of the law even though outwardly you seem to keeping the law. This is Laodicea's problem:

"Self-righteousness is not the wedding garment. A failure to follow the clear light of truth is our fearful danger. The message to the Laodicean church reveals our condition as a people." [RH 12-15-04]

So early on when EGW made the mistake of telling her kid, "wicked children God does not love.... He will not take them to the beautiful City" produced a child that outwardly complied with the law, but inwardly he was practicing iniquity. Later, since the lady was fallible, she corrected this error: "Do not teach your children that God does not love them when they do wrong….Do not terrify your children by telling them of the wrath of God, but rather seek to impress them with his unspeakable love and goodness….”

[Robert]

virtually the entire Seventh-day Adventist church, including Ellen White and the early Adventist pioneers, would agree with it, too.

The mob is seldom right....

[Robert]

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.

Hmmm? She isn't the measuring stick, but she's the authority? Contradiction....

[pnattmbtc]

Here's the thing: would people continue to love and worship and obey God if He were to tell us Himself tomorrow that He will indeed directly destroy the wicked in fire after the 1000 years?