"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[Robert]

If we cannot tell people such things as "God will destroy the wicked," ...--- 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.

Okay...then take it exactly as it reads:

The Lord said to him, "Who made the human mouth? Who makes him mute or deaf, seeing or blind? Is it not I, the Lord?

God is responsible for causing infants & adults to be deaf, mute and blind. He is also responsible for all diseases: " The LORD will plague you with diseases until he has destroyed you from the land you are entering to possess. 22 The LORD will strike you with wasting disease, with fever and inflammation, with scorching heat and drought, with blight and mildew, which will plague you until you perish."

Yeah, that's it John...just take is at is reads....

You kill me...funny man!

[Robert]

In other words, have we learned to trust Him so much that we are willing to accept that He may act like Satan? If we're willing to do this, how can we ever hope not to be deceived by Satan's impersonation of Christ? If there's no difference between what God does and what Satan does, how do we know the difference?

Bingo!

[Robert]

From light on the dark side of God:

We have already noted that God did not execute Christ, but we still have that perplexing language stating He did. What can it mean? We shall now put these last two pairs on "hold" until the next chapter, since we must cover more background in order to better assess their bearing on the issue. However, let me at this point suggest a simple governing principle by which we may understand such statements. As we proceed, we shall test its validity:

Principle: God sees and describes Himself as doing what He does not prevent.

Since God could have prevented these incidents but chose not to do so, He depicts Himself as the actual instrument or performing agent. Note how often He describes them as His own doing in vivid, convincing terms. Yet we are justified, if they do not make sense in terms of the total picture or in terms of God's character as Christ expressed it, to wonder if He simply could have but didn't prevent it.

Why would God choose to so express Himself? His reason is not unknown in the human realm.

[Robert]

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

She made mistakes....Take the good, reject the bad. Decide by using the Bible....

[pnattmbtc]

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.

J: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.

??? This has something to do with Revelation 20 how?

Quote:

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?

Why?

Quote:

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

That's not what was claimed. I said there's been disagreement (or Kevin did) regarding the fire.

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.

People disagree about this. That's my point.

Quote:

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.

You keep misrepresenting what's being said, and keep jumping around. This makes it very difficult to carry on a conversation. Please stick to one subject at a time, and represent the position of the other party accurately. Not doing so isn't a reasonable manner of discourse. You made a statement in regards to Rev. 20. That's what I was dealing with.

Your idea is that God will set people on fire to torture them, that this is what Rev. 20 means, and if a person has any other idea than what you have on this then they are teaching people not to believe the Bible. I sincerely hope I've misunderstood you here, and would be very happy to have you correct me on this point, but this is what I'm hearing you say, and this is the point I was arguing against.

Quote:

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.

You assert there's no reason on the basis of Scripture and Ellen White to believe that the fire that destroys the wicked is not symbolic, which is the same argument that those who believe the 144,000 is a literal number say. But the fact of the matter is that many people do believe the fire is symbolic, and it's always been that way. Just because you don't see a reason to believe so doesn't mean one doesn't exist. Just because you don't see such a reason doesn't mean that having an opinion different than yours is equivalent to teachings others that the Bible is false. You're asserting such a belief is like not believing the Bible in relation to the Sabbath and the other things you mentioned is without merit. Revelation is a symbolic book. There has always been disagreement regarding what of Revelation is symbolic and what is literal. One can disagree regarding this without teaching others that the Bible is false.

[pnattmbtc]

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?

This is what we're discussing right now. I'm hearing you say that if one has a different position than you do in regards to the destruction of the wicked (i.e., God sets them on fire to suffer torture for up to many days) then they are teaching others the Bible is false. If I've misunderstood you here, please correct me.

[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."

No, that is not what I mean.

I'm saying that Ellen White does not contradict the Bible's teaching that fire comes down from God out of heaven and destroys the wicked.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: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 will show below that (1) Ellen White doesn't deny that the destruction of the wicked will take place exactly as Scripture says it will; and (2) she doesn't say anything there that I disagree with.

I don't disagree with Ellen White's statement that "the glory of Him who is love will destroy" the wicked. I probably do disagree, though, with your understanding of what those words mean, but that is a different thing.

What is God's glory? It is in Ex. 34: 6, 7. AN ESSENTIAL PART OF GOD'S GLORY IS HIS HATRED FOR SIN AND HIS LOVE OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. Heb. 1: 9. Since He hates sin and must destroy it, His glory must destroy those who are committed to their sins and refuse to give them up and submit to the rule of God and His righteousness. God Himself is a consuming fire to sin. Unless God protects sinners from His full glory, He literally burns sin up when it is in His presence. So Ellen White is speaking literally when she says that God breathes fire upon the wicked. The fire that destroys the wicked comes directly out from God. It is the same glory that gives life to the righteous. Why does it give life to the righteous? Because they have no sin. They have allowed God to take it all away from them. They are clean, washed in the blood of the Lamb.

Therefore, it is clear that Ellen White's quote is not in the least conflict with Rev. 20:9.

Notice that her words do not say, "the fire does NOT come down from God out of heaven and destroy the wicked." On the contrary she often quotes Rev. 20: 9 and shows that it is indeed real fire, because she says that the fire that falls from heaven combines with the fires that come out of the earth and these both work together to destroy the wicked and cleanse the earth. She says it is all the same fire. And everyone with any sense knows that the fire that comes out of the earth is real fire. Why? Because she is talking about the fires from coal and oil which God has hidden deep inside the earth for the purpose of destroying the wicked. See EW 54; GC 672; 3 SG 79, 80. As it turns out, Jesus telling the truth when He said that the gehenna of fire was prepared for the Devil and his angels. Billions will share it with him despite everything God has done to help them avoid it.

[pnattmbtc]

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.

This is the section of a previous post which I was taking exception to. I apologize for the way I dealt with this. I should have been clearer, and less personal, in explaining the objection. I'll try to improve in this post.

To explain my objection to the above, I'll write something in the same style:

What, then, does the Bible say? What does Ellen White say in DA 21, 759, 761, 764; GC 535-536, and GC 541-543. 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 "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father" 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 SOP says that Satan was "cast out" out of heaven when he was unmasked, we shouldn't feel it is necessary to tell people that Satan wasn't really cast out of heaven in this way.

If I wrote like this, I'm implying, if not actually saying, that if you disagree with me, then:

1.You are interested in trying to make the Bible and Ellen White look like they don't mean exactly what they say.

2.You are not content to let the Bible speak for itself.

3.You try to explain it away by saying the Bible means something other than what it says.

Hopeful this is clear.

We should be able to write in a less pejorative and confrontational manner. People can have differences of opinion in regards to what Scripture or the SOP means without having to have their motives impugned (as per items 1-3).

[John317]

From light on the dark side of God:

Not the measuring stick. I could care less what this person says. She is completely uninspired.

[John317]

Quote:

John317: I'm telling you what I believe. If I believed that she was contradicting the Bible, I would not accept her or her writings.

Quote:

ROBERT: She made mistakes....Take the good, reject the bad. Decide by using the Bible....

A true prophet does not contradict the Bible. A test of Scripture is that if the prophet speaks in a way that proves they are not telling the truth, they are a false prophet. It does not say we should accept the good from a false prophet and reject the bad. It says a false prophet is to be stoned to death. It doesn't sound like it's saying we should select what we like and reject the rest. That is what people do with the Bible. Ellen White had some harsh words for people who do what you do with her writings and what you suggest others do.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

I will show below that (1) Ellen White doesn't deny that the destruction of the wicked will take place exactly as Scripture says it will;

There's no need for this, since this isn't in dispute.

Quote:

and (2) she doesn't say anything there that I disagree with.

This seems pretty self-evident as well. She doesn't say anything anywhere that you disagree with, since you believe she's inspired. How could she? There might be some things you don't agree with what she wrote according to your understanding of what she meant (I'm not saying there is, but this is possible) but in this case I'd assume you'd say something like "I don't completely understand her meaning here" and would doubt your own understanding rather than say that you disagreed with her.

Quote:

I don't disagree with Ellen White's statement that "the glory of Him who is love will destroy" the wicked. I probably do disagree, though, with your understanding of what those words mean, but that is a different thing.

What is God's glory? It is in Ex. 34: 6, 7. AN ESSENTIAL PART OF GOD'S GLORY IS HIS HATRED FOR SIN AND HIS LOVE OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. Heb. 1: 9. Since He hates sin and must destroy it, His glory must destroy those who are committed to their sins and refuse to give them up and submit to the rule of God and His righteousness. God Himself is a consuming fire to sin. Unless God protects sinners from His full glory, He literally burns sin up when it is in His presence.

Sin isn't a thing that's flammable. Sin is constituted by thoughts and decisions, and actions which are the fruit of these. You can't burn thoughts, decisions or actions. Sin is in the mind. It's not a physical thing that can be burned like a sheet of paper or a cord of wood.

When the Scriptures speak of sin as a tangible thing, this should be understood not as a literal description, but as a means of articulating a concept.

Quote:

So Ellen White is speaking literally when she says that God breathes fire upon the wicked.

If this conclusion (the "so" here) is based on the assumption that God literally burns sin up, then it's an invalid conclusion, because sin is comprised of ones thoughts, decisions and actions, which is not something which can be literally burned.

Ellen White is not speaking literally. She is not saying that God is like a fire-breathing dragon whose breath spits out fire.

The glory of God is His character. The whole subject has to do with character, and is resolved by revealing character, not by setting things on fire.

Quote:

The fire that destroys the wicked comes directly out from God. It is the same glory that gives life to the righteous. Why does it give life to the righteous? Because they have no sin. They have allowed God to take it all away from them. They are clean, washed in the blood of the Lamb.

It looks like you're equating glory with fire here. You say in one sentence "the fire that destroys the wicked" and in the next "it is the same glory," so I'm assuming the "it is the same glory" is referring to the fire that destroys the wicked. So this means you believe that God's glory is fire which He breathes, and this fire destroys the wicked but gives life to the righteous, because they have no sin. So the righteous live by means of fire which God breathes. I've understood you correctly?

Quote:

Therefore, it is clear that Ellen White's quote is not in the least conflict with Rev. 20:9.

If Revelation 20:9 says that God breathes fire like a fire-breathing dragon, and this fire gives life to the righteous, and this fire is His glory, then what you say here would follow, assuming that you were correctly interpreting Ellen White.

Quote:

Notice that her words do not say, "the fire does NOT come down from God out of heaven and destroy the wicked."

I also noticed she didn't say "God's glory consists of fire which He breathes, which gives life to the righteous."

Quote:

On the contrary she often quotes Rev. 20: 9 and shows that it is indeed real fire, because she says that the fire that falls from heaven combines with the fires that come out of the earth and these both work together to destroy the wicked and cleanse the earth.

This fire that falls from heaven is actually fire that God breathes though, right? So God's fire breath combines with these other fires to destroy the wicked and cleanse the earth.

Quote:

She says it is all the same fire.

So that proves that God breathes literal fire and this fire which He breathes is His glory. And this is what virtually the whole SDA church has always believed. Am I correctly understanding what you believe?

Quote:

And everyone with any sense knows that the fire that comes out of the earth is real fire. Why? Because she is talking about the fires from coal and oil which God has hidden deep inside the earth for the purpose of destroying the wicked. See EW 54; GC 672; 3 SG 79, 80

So since the fire from earth must be literal fire, it follows that God's breath is literal fire, and God's glory is literal fire. This is your argument, correct?

[pnattmbtc]

Robert:From light on the dark side of God:

J:Not the measuring stick. I could care less what this person says. She is completely uninspired.

Who says something isn't the important thing, but what is said. A. T. Jones had a nice sermon about this. It was his first sermon of either the 1893 or 1895 GC session.

God has spoken truth through many people who were "uninspired," assuming by this you mean someone other than Ellen White and other non-canonical prophets, or the Bible writers. We should care about truth.

[John317]

Quote:

John317: 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.

Quote:

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.

I'm not even talking about that. I'm talking about the fact that you can't talk to a two or 3 or 4 year old like you can to an adult. When you try help a young child to stay safe, such as not cross the street or go near the rail road track or go outside where there's a big dog or touch the stove, you can't talk to them like they're adult. Those are the kinds of things I'm talking about.

Quote:

ROBERT: Did you get that? ...So early on when EGW made the mistake of telling her kid, "wicked children God does not love....

What I'm getting from you is that you're not understanding what I've been saying. I'm not saying anything that is even remotely related to what you said in this post. I'm not suggesting that anyone frighten a child in religious matters or anything like that.

You evidently think that the prophets, Christ Himself and apostles were wrong to warn people about hell and eternal destruction. Christ said such things as to fear Him who can destroy the body and soul in the gehenna of fire.

[pnattmbtc]

It doesn't sound like it's saying we should select what we like and reject the rest. That is what people do with the Bible. Ellen White had some harsh words for people who do what you do with her writings and what you suggest others do.

I don't see how there can be middle ground with Ellen White. She claimed that God spoke through her, gave her messages and visions, and so forth. Either she was deceived, or worse, or God did the things which she claimed.

Not just Ellen White, but Scripture has harsh things to say about those who reject God's servants. We should be very careful in how we deal with others, especially in terms of judging.

[John317]

Quote:

pnattmbtc:

We should be able to write in a less pejorative and confrontational manner.

Please copy and paste the sentences that you felt were "pajorative and confrontational."

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Please copy and paste the sentences that you felt were "pajorative and confrontational."

I was referring to what I quoted, all of it. As I said:

Quote:

If I wrote like this, I'm implying, if not actually saying, that if you disagree with me, then:

1.You are interested in trying to make the Bible and Ellen White look like they don't mean exactly what they say.

2.You are not content to let the Bible speak for itself.

3.You try to explain it away by saying the Bible means something other than what it says.

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: I will show below that (1) Ellen White doesn't deny that the destruction of the wicked will take place exactly as Scripture says it will; and (2) she doesn't say anything there that I disagree with.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: This seems pretty self-evident as well.

If it is self-evident that I agree with her, why did you say that I disagreed with her statement?

Quote:

JOHN3:17: I don't disagree with Ellen White's statement that "the glory of Him who is love will destroy" the wicked. I probably do disagree, though, with your understanding of what those words mean, but that is a different thing.

What is God's glory? It is in Ex. 34: 6, 7. AN ESSENTIAL PART OF GOD'S GLORY IS HIS HATRED FOR SIN AND HIS LOVE OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. Heb. 1: 9. Since He hates sin and must destroy it, His glory must destroy those who are committed to their sins and refuse to give them up and submit to the rule of God and His righteousness. God Himself is a consuming fire to sin. Unless God protects sinners from His full glory, He literally burns sin up when it is in His presence.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Sin isn't a thing that's flammable. Sin is constituted by thoughts and decisions, and actions which are the fruit of these. You can't burn thoughts, decisions or actions. Sin is in the mind. It's not a physical thing that can be burned like a sheet of paper or a cord of wood.

When the Scriptures speak of sin as a tangible thing, this should be understood not as a literal description, but as a means of articulating a concept.

Of course sin is in the mind and it is thoughts, etc. That is why when God destroys sin, He must destroy the people and the beings who hold onto sinful thoughts and practices. There is no "sin" outside of people.

Quote:

JOHN3:17: So Ellen White is speaking literally when she says that God breathes fire upon the wicked.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: If this conclusion (the "so" here) is based on the assumption that God literally burns sin up, then it's an invalid conclusion, because sin is comprised of ones thoughts, decisions and actions, which is not something which can be literally burned.

Yes, you are right that sin is comprised of thoughts, etc. God literally destroys sinners and the Devil and His angels in fire. The fire literally come from God, just as the Bible says it does.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Ellen White is not speaking literally. She is not saying that God is like a fire-breathing dragon whose breath spits out fire.

She is saying that God is the source of the fire that destroys the wicked. The fire comes out from God Himself, just as it did at various times in the OT.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: The glory of God is His character. The whole subject has to do with character, and is resolved by revealing character, not by setting things on fire.

It will be seen that His glorious, holy, righteous character destroys the Devil, his angels and all those who follow him. Our God is literally a consuming fire to sin. That means if sinners are in his presence unprotected from His glory, they will perish. That is what happens when Christ returns: the wicked are all slain by the brightness of His glory. Why? Because sin cannot exist in the presence of God's glory.

Quote:

JOHN3:17: The fire that destroys the wicked comes directly out from God. It is the same glory that gives life to the righteous. Why does it give life to the righteous? Because they have no sin. They have allowed God to take it all away from them. They are clean, washed in the blood of the Lamb.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: It looks like you're equating glory with fire here. You say in one sentence "the fire that destroys the wicked" and in the next "it is the same glory," so I'm assuming the "it is the same glory" is referring to the fire that destroys the wicked. So this means you believe that God's glory is fire which He breathes, and this fire destroys the wicked but gives life to the righteous, because they have no sin. So the righteous live by means of fire which God breathes. I've understood you correctly?

You've misunderstood.

God is a consuming fire to sin and to those who choose to hold on to sin. The righteous, who are saved and made immortal, do not have any sin. Therefore God is not a "consuming fire" to them. He is the life-giver, not a consuming fire to the righteous.

The Bible teaches that an essential part of God's glory is hatred for sin. That means God MUST destroy sinners who refuse to give up their sins. God's wrath-- or anger-- will be ultimately poured out on the wicked. It will result in their total destruction. Some will suffer longer than others-- some for many days whereas others will be destroyed as in a moment.

Quote:

JOHN3:17: Therefore, it is clear that Ellen White's quote is not in the least conflict with Rev. 20:9.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: If Revelation 20:9 says that God breathes fire like a fire-breathing dragon, and this fire gives life to the righteous, and this fire is His glory, then what you say here would follow, assuming that you were correctly interpreting Ellen White.

Rev. 20: 9 does not say God breathes fire like a fire-breathign dragon, does it? I do not see that anywhere in the text. It's Ellen White who says that God breaths fire on the wicked.

You mistaken to think that the fire itself is God's glory. Study Ex. 33: 22; 34: 6, 7. Those are good beginning verses to find out what God's glory is. As I said, an essential part of God's glory is His hatred of sin. Sin is anything that is opposed to His character. That means when people insist on holding on to anything that is contrary to His character, His glory will consume them.

Quote:

JOHN3:17: Notice that her words do not say, "the fire does NOT come down from God out of heaven and destroy the wicked."

Quote:

pnattmbtc: I also noticed she didn't say "God's glory consists of fire which He breathes, which gives life to the righteous."

OK. And what conclusion do you arrive at on the basis of that obvservation?

Quote:

JOHN3:17: On the contrary she often quotes Rev. 20: 9 and shows that it is indeed real fire, because she says that the fire that falls from heaven combines with the fires that come out of the earth and these both work together to destroy the wicked and cleanse the earth.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: This fire that falls from heaven is actually fire that God breathes though, right? So God's fire breath combines with these other fires to destroy the wicked and cleanse the earth.

Fire comes down from God out of heaven and it combines with the fires that come up out of the earth to destroy the wicked.

Since you seem so interested in learning this aspect of the final destruction of the wicked, you may read it for yourself in EW 221, 294, 51-54; GC 664; 3 BC 1142; 7 BC 986; ML 355.

"Fire was breathed from God upon them and consumed them. This was the execution of the judgment." Read the rest for yourself. Her meaning could not be clearer.

Quote:

JOHN3:17: She says it is all the same fire.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: So that proves that God breathes literal fire and this fire which He breathes is His glory. And this is what virtually the whole SDA church has always believed. Am I correctly understanding what you believe?

1) Fire comes down from God out of heaven and consumes the wicked.

2) God breathes fire upon the wicked.

3) The fire that He breaths is NOT God's glory. The fire that comes from God and destroys sin and sinners is the result of His glorious character. This is seen in Lev. 10: 2.

4) The SDA church has always believed that the fire that comes from God and destroys the wicked is literal fire, and that they burn up and become ashes.

Quote:

JOHN3:17: And everyone with any sense knows that the fire that comes out of the earth is real fire. Why? Because she is talking about the fires from coal and oil which God has hidden deep inside the earth for the purpose of destroying the wicked. See EW 54; GC 672; 3 SG 79, 80

Quote:

pnattmbtc: So since the fire from earth must be literal fire, it follows that God's breath is literal fire, and God's glory is literal fire. This is your argument, correct?

1) The fire from the earth is literal fire.

2) Ellen White says that God breathes fire upon the wicked.

3)She says the fire from God and the fires from the earth combine to destroy the wicked and purify the earth.

4) God's glory is not literal fire. The literal fire that destroys the wicked is the direct result of God's hatred of sin and His will to destroy it. That means God MUST destroy everyone who persists in holding on to sin and refuses to allow Him to cleanse them of it.

[John317]

Quote:

Please copy and paste the sentences that you felt were "pajorative and confrontational."

I was referring to what I quoted, all of it. As I said:

Here's what I wrote in the original post:

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.

---------------------------------------

I don't see anything in the above that is "pajorative and confrontational".

There's nothing in that post that is against either God's commandments or the rules of the Forum.

[Robert]

[quote name="John317"]

Originally Posted By: Robert

From light on the dark side of God:

Not the measuring stick. I could care less what this person says. She is completely uninspired.

[Stan]

then why are you in his section?

[Robert]

It doesn't sound like it's saying we should select what we like and reject the rest.

Sorry, not part of a cult....The Bible is the measuring stick. I don't need EGW. So I'll do as I please....

[Robert]

then why are you in his section?

"Bible, Theology and Related items"

[skyblue888]

Continuation of my last post, re: The Final Showdown.

After one thousand years during which there will not be a living soul upon this earth apart from the devil and his evil angels, the wicked of every generation will be raised up for this final showdown. They come up resuming "the current of their thoughts just where it ceased. They are actuated by the same desire to conquer that ruled them when they fell." The Great Controversy, 664.

Satan is astir at once and marshalls the mighty hosts into the most prodigious, prestigious army ever to tramp the earth. It will be a most impressive sight as they drill and train day after day. How long a time will be involved in this mammoth preparation we are not told. According to the principle of freedom which the Lord extends to all, they will be given as much time as they wish to take. Satan knows this and, while he is anxious to see the struggle over, at the same time he knows that it will be a titanic struggle.

Therefore, he will direct that the preparations be as thorough as possible. They do not intend to advance to the hoped-for conquest of the city with bare hands. "Skilful artisans construct implements of war." ibid. Just how sophisticated those weapons will be, we are not told. It is possible that they will be as highly technical as the scientific men can assemble. The atomic scientists will be there, remembering all that they learned while still living on this earth. They will think in terms of conducting nuclear warfare against the city so that, if it is at all possible to prepare such tools of destruction, they certainly will do it. The advancing hordes will carry such weaponry with them as they move up to the snowy walls.

But no battle ensues. It has been suggested that the battle of Armageddon begins before Christ's coming and is completed around the New Jerusalem. A little careful thought will show that there is no battle in the end. The struggle between God and His people on one side, and Satan and his on the other, will all end before Christ comes the second time. At the end of the thousand years, God will have at His command the revelations of the principles of righteousness as embodied in His character, which have been provided firstly by the life and teachings of Christ upon this earth and secondly by the witness of the translated saints as given during the time of Jacob's trouble.

This witness will be unfolded before the multitudes who have been halted in their advance. As scene after scene passes before them, they will see the great controversy in its true light. They will realize just what God stands for. They will see the true nature of Satan's rebellion against Him. They will recognize that His law was provided for them as a life-preserver; that disregard of the divine precepts did not bring them release from an arduous bondage, but opened the flood gates of woe upon them. They will understand at last, that every woe and trouble they have experienced has been the result of their own course of action. They will know that they have abused the gift of freedom to their own miserable hurt. See The Great Controversy, 666-668.

They will see things as they have never seen them before and as the devil was determined that they should never see them. As soon as they do, all intent to continue the rebellion against God is ended. The point was made before that when a misrepresentation of God's character begins, there, rebellion against God likewise begins. So when the character of God is fully revealed for what it is, rebellion against God then comes to its end.

This is precisely why there is no war between evil men and God over the New Jerusalem. In the beginning of the great controversy, God did not have so clear a manifestation of His character as would settle the problem right there and then. But at the end of the thousand years, He will have such revelations, which He will use, not only to ensure that there is no war, but to bring, from the least person to Satan himself, the frank and open confession that they have held wrong concepts of God, that they have been responsible for rejecting His salvation and that their doom is deserved.

The picture is so clear. The wicked see things exactly as they are and instead of rushing in to attack the city, they fall "prostrate" and "worship the Prince of life." The Great Controversy, 669.

Satan also sees it all. His mind travels back over the full span of his life. He sees again those days when he was the covering cherub. He remembers the first thoughts of doubt and then the open rebellion. He surveys the long centuries in between, comparing the loving patience and forgiving power of the Eternal in contrast to his own mean, destructive spirit.

"Satan sees that his voluntary rebellion has unfitted him for heaven. He has trained his powers to war against God; the purity, peace, and harmony of heaven would be to him supreme torture. His accusations against the mercy and justice of God are now silenced. The reproach which he has endeavored to cast upon Jehovah rests wholly upon himself. And now Satan bows down, and confesses the justice of his sentence." ibid., 670.

The great moment has come. There is not a single intelligent being in the universe whose mind has the slightest question remaining as to the perfect righteousness of God's character. Even the arch-rebel himself has bowed down to acknowledge the truth of God's ways and the falsity of every other system.

"'Who shall not fear Thee, 0 Lord, and glorify Thy name? for Thou only art holy: for all nations shall come and worship before Thee; for Thy judgments are made manifest.' Revelation 15:4.

to be continued

[pnattmbtc]

If it is self-evident that I agree with her, why did you say that I disagreed with her statement?

[pnattmbtc]

For John317, I'm reposting the following:

Yes, I need more explanation. I need some explanation which addresses the question.

I'm not asking why you believe what you believe, but why you think it's possible for God to do the things you think He will do, which is to set people on fire to torture them for days. Try to divorce yourself from the fact that this is a theological discussion, and just think in terms of discussing the character of some person.

Let's say your father or son or brother. Let's say I said that your father or son or brother believed in setting people on fire as a form of punishment, that this is how he favors punishing criminals, basing this in some article of his that I read. Say you respond, "No, that's not possible! I know my father (or son or brother), and he's not like that! He would never do that! You must have misunderstood what he wrote!"

You could reject what was being said of your father/son/brother without reading what was written, because you know him, you know his character.

What I'm asking is why you don't reject that idea that God will torture people because of knowing Him and knowing His character. Why don't you reject this idea on this basis, as you would for your father/son/brother? (assuming you would do so).

I hope this helps explain what I'm trying to get at.

I don't understand why this is such a difficult question to understand. If you've finally understood it, perhaps you could give me a suggestion on how I can better ask it. If you still don't get it, I'll try again. I appreciate your patience regarding this. You do appear to be trying to answer my question; it just seems you don't understand what I'm asking. Perhaps someone else reading this might be able to help (who can understand what I'm asking, and why you're not answering what I'm trying to ask).