"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[John317]

Quote:

John317: What God does to the wicked at the end-- after Satan's wickedness has been revealed, and after all the universe argrees that he and the rest of the wicked deserve to be punished with everlasting destruction-- does not compel anyone to accept Him any more than warning people of future punishment against sin compells them to accept Him.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: If God says to you, "Accept my Son as your Savior, or else I'll torture you for several days," how is that not coercion of the will? You didn't address the question. You just said it isn't. But why not?

What is the essential difference between that and what God says in Rev. 14: 9-12?

God doesn't "accept my Son or I will torture you." He does, however, say that if people don't accept the Son, they will die a horrible death. Some verses in the Bible do say that those who are lost will suffer in fire. John 3: 16 says that the only way to escape death is through accepting Christ. I guess some people would call that coercion of the will. I have a non-Christian friend who certainly sees it that way, and he is not referring to the idea of burning for days in the gehenna of fire, but simply to the idea that one will die if he doesn't accept Christ.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: If I threatened to torture you if you didn't do something, wouldn't that be forcing your will? Why would this not be the case if God does this?

How is it substantially different from saying you will die if you don't believe the gospel of Christ?

I don't think the gospel is supposed to be presented that way-- as a threat that people will be punished if they don't accept Christ. I know it is presented that way, but I don't believe it's right to do it.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: If someone threatens to torture me, then that's motivation to do what I'm told to do, right? If God threatens to torture me, that would be even greater motivation, since a man might not do what he threatens, but God surely has the power to do what He threatens to do, and we know He'll keep His word.

So why isn't this coercion of the will?

But isn't that something like what God did to the king of Egypt-- threatened to kill his son if he didn't let Israel go? The Egyptians were fearful they would all die if they didn't let Israel go free. So, not surprisingly, they let Israel go free.

Quote:

JOHN3:17: The fact that such warnings do not compel anyone is proven by the fact that most of the people who have seen the warnings reject God.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Consider the martyrs who were burned alive. They were tortured to recant, but they chose not to. The fact that they resisted and refused to bend their will does not mean their will wasn't being forced, right? Isn't this obvious? Or would you say that they weren't coerced to change their will since they refused to do so?

Ask how many people today who accepted Christ say they did it because God coerced their wills.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: .... I'm asking why you don't think that God's threatening to torture someone is coercion of the will. Why don't you think this is the case? Do you not think that the threat of torture is coercion? Is that the reason? Or is there some other reason?

The second example I gave was the Egyptian plagues. God, from your point of view, used more and more compelling power to force Pharaoh's will until He finally succeeded. But you said God does not use compelling power to force the will. But wasn't this the whole point of the plagues, from your perspective, to force Pharaoh's will?

Of course God has at times used compelling power to force the will. I never said God didn't do that. You are the one who says God never does it.

What I said is that God doesn't use compelling power to win the Great Controversy and He also doesn't use it to force people into accepting Him or believing in Him as Lord and Savior.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: The second question is in regards to the Great Controversy. You said that God does not use compelling power to win the Great Controversy, but the Great Controversy is won by God's revealing His character and the principles of His government. If compelling power is a principle of God's government, then by revealing this, He is winning the Great Controversy. I don't see how you can deny that God uses compelling power to win the Great Controversy. If this is part of God's character and a principle of His government, then, by definition, revealing that He does so is winning the Great Controversy by its use, just as much as revealing any other aspect of God's character or principle of His government does so.

The simplest answer to this is that God won the great controversy in only one way, and that is through the life, ministry, death, and intercession of Jesus Christ. What God did in heaven against Satan did not win the controversy. Neither did driving Adam out of the Garden, nor destroying the world with a flood, or destroying Sodom. God and Christ won it on the cross of Calvary.

Finally, it's as plain and obvious to me as the nose on my face that God has used compelling force and destroyed people before. The Bible says God drove Adam out of the Garden and Ellen White tells us that God commissioned angels to had "drive Adam and Eve out of the Garden." They wanted to stay but could not. What is that but compelling force?

Satan and his evil angels tried to get access to the Tree of Life, but angels of God guarded the tree and forced the evil angels to keep away from the tree and not eat any of it. They certainly were not talked into not eating of it.

[Robert]

Numbers 12:9, 10 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them; and he departed . And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam became leprous, white as snow.

God departs, bad things happen. Very good....

The principle at work again....

Then my anger will be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them and hide my face from them, and they will be devoured. And many evils and troubles will come upon them, so that they will say in that day, 'Have not these evils come upon us because our God is not among us?'

[Robert]

I honestly don't know what the problem is with what I said above. My words are not intended as pot-shots

Job: "let God weigh me in honest scales and he will know that I am blameless"

[Robert]

THEY SUFFER PUNISHMENT VARYING IN DURATION AND INTENSITY ACCORDING TO THEIR WORKS, BUT FINALLY ENDING IN THE SECOND DEATH.4 SP 364.

unjust....

Christ had the sins of the whole world and yet suffers only less than a day

[Robert]

Will the Holy Spirit perform a miracle in order to make them feel sorry for what they've done?

No, but since your view of god has him using compulsion, why not?

[John317]

Quote:

pnattmbtc: you really don't understand the problem with saying

Quote:

Evidently, though, pnatt and sky think her words don't mean what they obviously say.

Quote:

You say you're practicing the golden rule? You want me to post things like:

Evidently, though, John317 and (whoever) think her words don't mean what they obviously say.

Sure, I'm OK with that if you wanted to say it to me.

You're free to say stuff like that. I'm just expressing an opinion about people's ideas, and that's what this forum is all about. It's not a personal attack or name calling. Just saying that I can't see how anyone can read Ellen White's words as I quoted them and think she's not talking about the wicked being destroyed in fire. You're free to respond and show me that I'm wrong and explain why I'm wrong. In fact, I hope you can do that-- show that I am wrong about it and that you do understand what she said and that you accept it just as she wrote it.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

pnattmbtc: But not from here on. They won't have the Holy Spirit in the sense that the righteous have the Holy Spirit, of course, but who will be communicating the truth to the wicked? The Holy Spirit, of course. We're told that the lost will be made aware of every sin they've committed, of every point where they rejected Christ, and turned from the right path. Who does this work? The Holy Spirit. Who else could it be?

J:Sure, the Holy Spirit communicates the truth to them. But if criminals have a hardened conscience and don't have the Holy Spriit convicting them of sin, it doesn't matter if you pointed out their sin. They might be made aware of their sins, but if the Holy Spirit isn't there to make them sorrowful for sin, a man in the flesh won't feel true sorrow for what he's done. You could take a cold blooded murderer and show him pictures of his victims all day long, and he might even laugh and brag about it. Merely showing him his sins isn't going to make him die or make him feel like he wants to die.

There's a tendency in discussing this subject to dehumanize the wicked, as if they were people totally unlike us, people we don't know. But they're not. The lost will be comprised of many people we know; people we work with, our family members, people we go to church with, even we ourselves if we don't surrender to the Lord. I think thinking in terms of people we know may help here. Think of someone you know well that you fear may be lost. What is this person like? What will happen to him at the judgment?

Quote:

So the question is what will make all those billions and billions of wicked people any different than they are now when shown their sins? Will the Holy Spirit perform a miracle in order to make them feel sorry for what they've done? Will they be truly, deeply repentant? Or do they merely feel sad that they can't go on living?

GC 541-543 describes what their feelings will be.

Quote:

Is sorrow over not living going to result in the death of the wicked? What is the evidence for this concept?

If you're talking about what Ty wrote, it seems to me you've imputed some things he didn't say. You keep asking about things like "make them feel sorry for their sins" or being "deeply repentant," but not only did Ty not write this, there's not anything he wrote that, as far as I can see, could even be misconstrued as saying that. This is why I've been asking you to quote something, because I have no idea where you're getting these ideas from, which makes it very difficult for me to respond.

Regarding what Ty actually said, he provided evidence for why he said what he did.

[pnattmbtc]

Sure, I'm OK with that if you wanted to say it to me.

You're free to say stuff like that. I'm just expressing an opinion about people's ideas, and that's what this forum is all about. It's not a personal attack or name calling.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

What's the title of the book?

It's from "See With New Eyes," Chapter 8, Destiny Consciousness.

Quote:

I would not reject what Ty says here, but at the same time, I see no reason that these things could not take place just before the wicked see that their case is hopeless and they then attempt to destroy Satan. Of course they cannot destroy Satan, and that is when fire comes down from God out of heaven and consumes them. That humans can't destroy Satan is proved by the fact that Satan is still living and suffering on many days later, after all the other wicked have perished.

If what Ty wrote is true, then, by the time the wicked are attempting to destroy Satan, they will already have suffered in proportion to their sin, because, in Ty's view, the suffering the wicked experience is inherent in their sin. His point is that it's not something external, imposed as a non-organic consequence, but it is an organic consequence. This is a point he makes several times in the book. I can provide more quotes where he speaks to this, if desired.

Quote:

Could you give either EGW statements or Bible verses to support the above ideas, in Ty's quote? What Bible or SOP evidence shows a clear connection between what he says and the final destruction of the wicked?

Ty provides the Scripture references himself in what he writes. He doesn't cite Ellen White explicitly, but you can see often see what EGW quote he has in mind by the way he phrases things. For example, "The revelation of God’s perfect righteousness and love will destroy the wicked" is a paraphrase of "The glory of Him who is love will destroy the wicked" (DA 764).

GC 541-542 is the SOP passage that most directly seems to me to speak to the subject Ty discusses here, in terms of the reaction of the wicked. In terms of Scripture, Revelation 20 is what he's discussing.

[pnattmbtc]

p:Sure, I'll be glad to, but I would also appreciate it if you would respond directly to the following:

J:1) Do you beleive that God has ever compelled Satan to obey Him?

[skyblue888]

They're primarily consumed with hatred for God and with a desire to destroy holy city. But then when they see that can't be successful, and they realize that all is lost, they turn against Satan and his wicket angels. According to Ellen White, it's while they are attempting to attack Satan that the fire comes down from God out of heaven and devours them. However, the "devouring" takes some time. She says some perish as in a moment, while others suffer "many days." Satan is the last to die, but "he is still to live and suffer on." In the same paragraph, Mrs. White says Satan "is MADE to suffer."

John317

_____________________________________________________________

John, where is that quote from Ellen White which says that while they are "attempting" to attack Satan, fire comes down from God out of heaven and devours them?

"Notwithstanding that Satan has been constrained to acknowledge God's justice and to bow to the supremacy of Christ, his character remains unchanged. The spirit of rebellion, like a mighty torrent, again bursts forth. Filled with frenzy, he determines not to yield the great controversy. The time has come for a last desperate struggle against the King of heaven. He rushes into the midst of his subjects and endeavors to inspire them with his own fury and arouse them to instant battle. But of all the countless millions whom he has allured into rebellion, there are none now to acknowledge his supremacy. His power is at an end. The wicked are filled with the same hatred of God that inspires Satan; but they see that their case is hopeless, that they cannot prevail against Jehovah. Their rage is kindled against Satan and those who have been his agents in deception, and with the fury of demons they turn upon them.

Saith the Lord: 'Because thou hast set thine heart as the heart of God; behold, therefore I will bring strangers upon thee, the terrible of the nations: and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of thy wisdom, and they shall defile thy brightness. They shall bring thee down to the pit.' "I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. . . . I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. . . . I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. . . . Thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more." Ezekiel 28:6-8, 16-19.

'Every battle of the warrior is with confused noise, and garments rolled in blood; but this shall be with burning and fuel of fire.' 'The indignation of the Lord is upon all nations, and His fury upon all their armies: He hath utterly destroyed them, He hath delivered them to the slaughter.' 'Upon the wicked He shall rain quick burning coals, fire and brimstone and an horrible tempest: this shall be the portion of their cup.' Isaiah 9:5; 34:2; Psalm 11:6, margin. Fire comes down from God out of heaven. The earth is broken up. The weapons concealed in its depths are drawn forth. Devouring flames burst from every yawning chasm. The very rocks are on fire. The day has come that shall burn as an oven. The elements melt with fervent heat, the earth also, and the works that are therein are burned up. Malachi 4:1; 2 Peter 3:10. The earth's surface seems one molten mass--a vast, seething lake of fire. It is the time of the judgment and perdition of ungodly men--"the day of the Lord's vengeance, and the year of recompenses for the controversy of Zion." Isaiah 34:8. G.C.672.

According to the above statements, there is definitely going to be a battle for the Lord says, "I will bring strangers upon thee, the terrible of the nations: and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of thy wisdom, and they shall defile thy brightness. They shall bring thee down to the pit."

How can it be said that they will bring Satan down to the pit if they were to be destroyed by fire the moment they attempted to do this? If no battle is to ensue, why would the Scriptures make mention of this?

At some point, yes, fire will come down upon them but again, that fire will not come directly out from the Lord any more than strong delusions are sent directly out from the Lord to those who do not receive the love of the truth that they might be saved. The language is always consistent. Remember that the weapons that the wicked were to use to overcome the City and its dwellers will be turned against Satan and his angels. These weapons will certainly include some that will trigger mighty conflagrations like nuclear weapons or more deadly weapons even, for Satan and all His angels will be able to come up with weapons that human beings have never invented or imagined before. So that fire by which they will be destroyed at last will come from these most deadly weapons and it may very well be that the sun will be involved. But we may be sure that that fire that destroys the wicked will not come directly out from the Lord any more than the Lord directly sent fiery serpents to the Israelites in the wilderness.

sky

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: Archie

Pnat, is the idea that the radiant light of Jesus' person and presence will cause the wicked to suffer and die less objectionable?

Than the idea that God will breathe fire on them, setting them on fire to suffer torture for hours or days? Yes, less objectionable.

Even if it means that they will suffer excruciatingly painful physical,emotional, and spiritual pain?

[Archie777]

A: Pnat, is the idea that the radiant light of Jesus' person and presence will cause the wicked to suffer and die less objectionable?

P: Than the idea that God will breathe fire on them, setting them on fire to suffer torture for hours or days? Yes, less objectionable.

Thank you for answering my question (as opposed to asking me to read something written earlier). I have another question I hope you'll answer just as forthrightly. Do you think this view is more objectionable than the one you advocate? If so, why?

[pnattmbtc]

Thanks for your response. I see where I misunderstood something you said previously in regards to compelling power, which I'll get to.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: If God says to you, "Accept my Son as your Savior, or else I'll torture you for several days," how is that not coercion of the will? You didn't address the question. You just said it isn't. But why not?

J:What is the essential difference between that and what God says in Rev. 14: 9-12?

The essential difference is that God is warning against the result of the choice the wicked make which comes as a result of that choice, as opposed to something God will do to them if they don't obey Him.

For example, smoking can cause cancer. So God may do all that He can to warn a person of the dangers of smoking. He sends warnings, but if the person chooses to ignore these warnings and gets cancer, this isn't something God is doing to them. On the other hand, if God said, "Don't smoke cigarettes, or I'll set you on fire," that would be like what I'm arguing against.

Quote:

J:God doesn't (say) "accept my Son or I will torture you." He does, however, say that if people don't accept the Son, they will die a horrible death. Some verses in the Bible do say that those who are lost will suffer in fire. John 3: 16 says that the only way to escape death is through accepting Christ. I guess some people would call that coercion of the will. I have a non-Christian friend who certainly sees it that way, and he is not referring to the idea of burning for days in the gehenna of fire, but simply to the idea that one will die if he doesn't accept Christ.

Your friend is right if the horrible death they experience is imposed upon them by God. However, if the death comes as a result of sin, and God is simply warning them of the effects of sin, similar of warning of the effects of smoking, that's another story.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: If I threatened to torture you if you didn't do something, wouldn't that be forcing your will? Why would this not be the case if God does this?

J:How is it substantially different from saying you will die if you don't believe the gospel of Christ?

Because the death isn't imposed by God but is a result of the choice of the wicked themselves. This is the point of DA 764.

Quote:

God is the fountain of life, and we can have life only as we are in communion with Him. Separated from God, existence may be ours for a little time, but we do not possess life. “She that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth.” 1 Timothy 5:6. Only through the surrender of our will to God is it possible for Him to impart life to us.(MB 61)

I've quoted DA 764 so many times, I'm taking a break, as the above presents the same principle. Death comes as a result of choosing to separate from God.

Quote:

I don't think the gospel is supposed to be presented that way-- as a threat that people will be punished if they don't accept Christ.

I'm glad you perceive this is wrong.

Quote:

I know it is presented that way, but I don't believe it's right to do it.

Yes, this is wrong, but its coercion of the will.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: If someone threatens to torture me, then that's motivation to do what I'm told to do, right? If God threatens to torture me, that would be even greater motivation, since a man might not do what he threatens, but God surely has the power to do what He threatens to do, and we know He'll keep His word.

So why isn't this coercion of the will?

J:But isn't that something like what God did to the king of Egypt-- threatened to kill his son if he didn't let Israel go? The Egyptians were fearful they would all die if they didn't let Israel go free. So, not surprisingly, they let Israel go free.

I see from what you wrote later that I misunderstood you, that you don't believe that God doesn't compel the will. So you're right, that your understanding of what happened in Egypt supports your idea that God compels the will.

Quote:

JOHN3:17: The fact that such warnings do not compel anyone is proven by the fact that most of the people who have seen the warnings reject God.

pnattmbtc: Consider the martyrs who were burned alive. They were tortured to recant, but they chose not to. The fact that they resisted and refused to bend their will does not mean their will wasn't being forced, right? Isn't this obvious? Or would you say that they weren't coerced to change their will since they refused to do so?

J:Ask how many people today who accepted Christ say they did it because God coerced their wills.

You side-stepped the rebuttal! You said that the threats of torture don't compel anyone if proven by the fact that most people, in spite of being so threatened, reject God. This argument is false! As evidence of this, I mentioned the martyrs who were tortured to recant, but bravely held their ground. Would you hold that those who were torturing them were not forcing their will? If not, then this is evidence that what you said is false. Right?

Going on to your comment, this is irrelevant. That a person ignores, or is ignorant of, the coercion of the will that's taking place doesn't mean it's not happening. For example, consider the even worse idea that God will torture people for all eternity if they don't accept Christ. Would you not agree that *this* idea is coercion of the will? Yet if you ask most non-Adventist Christians, they too would not cite this as a reason that they accepted Christ. But this doesn't prove that the idea that if you don't obey God, He will torture you for all eternity is not coercion of the will.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: .... I'm asking why you don't think that God's threatening to torture someone is coercion of the will. Why don't you think this is the case? Do you not think that the threat of torture is coercion? Is that the reason? Or is there some other reason?

The second example I gave was the Egyptian plagues. God, from your point of view, used more and more compelling power to force Pharaoh's will until He finally succeeded. But you said God does not use compelling power to force the will. But wasn't this the whole point of the plagues, from your perspective, to force Pharaoh's will?

J:Of course God has at times used compelling power to force the will. I never said God didn't do that.

I misunderstood you on this point.

Quote:

You are the one who says God never does it.

What I said is that God doesn't use compelling power to win the Great Controversy and He also doesn't use it to force people into accepting Him or believing in Him as Lord and Savior.

Ok, I was restrictive enough in regards to the DA 759 statement. I'm hearing you say when she wrote, "Compelling power is found only under Satan's government," she actually means "Compelling power is NOT found only under Satan's government, except for the purpose of winning the Great Controversy and forcing someone to accept Christ."

However, if God uses compelling power, then it is a principle of His government, and He does use it to win the Great Controversy, so that reason is false, and the above becomes, "Compelling power is NOT found only under Satan's government, except for the purpose of forcing someone to accept Christ." But this is also false, because if God threatens to torture you if you don't accept Christ, then He's using compelling power. This has been my point in regards to torture.

If I threaten to torture you if you don't do what I say, I'm forcing your will. You don't disagree with this, do you? Assuming you don't, the only way you can avoid the conclusion that it is not coercion of the will when God does this is to come up with some essential difference between what God does and the hypothetical situation I'm asking about. What's the difference?

Quote:

pnattmbtc: The second question is in regards to the Great Controversy. You said that God does not use compelling power to win the Great Controversy, but the Great Controversy is won by God's revealing His character and the principles of His government. If compelling power is a principle of God's government, then by revealing this, He is winning the Great Controversy. I don't see how you can deny that God uses compelling power to win the Great Controversy. If this is part of God's character and a principle of His government, then, by definition, revealing that He does so is winning the Great Controversy by its use, just as much as revealing any other aspect of God's character or principle of His government does so.

The simplest answer to this is that God won the great controversy in only one way, and that is through the life, ministry, death, and intercession of Jesus Christ. What God did in heaven against Satan did not win the controversy. Neither did driving Adam out of the Garden, nor destroying the world with a flood, or destroying Sodom. God and Christ won it on the cross of Calvary.

The Great Controversy is in regards to God's character and the principles of His government. Satan has said they are one thing, whereas God has said they are another. Christ revealed the truth. He didn't do anything other than this. If Christ did one thing, and God does another, then Christ didn't reveal that the truth, but revealed a lie. Christ only won the Great Controversy if His character is the same as God's character, and the principles He taught, are the *same* as the principles God has used throughout.

*Everything* God has ever done is involved in the Great Controversy. Every single thing that God has done since the inception of sin has been to win the Great Controversy. There is no exception. So if God uses compelling power, then He does so to win the Great Controversy, just as anything else God does is for the purpose of winning the Great Controversy.

[Archie777]

Numbers 12:9, 10 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them; and he departed . And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam became leprous, white as snow.

God departs, bad things happen. Very good.... The principle at work again....

Wow! You have a nice way of making the Bible "cry aloud and spare not". Well done.

Why do you think Miriam was stricken with leprosy when God departed? Why not death or some other malady?

Why wasn't A&E stricken with a disease when God departed?

Why do you think Moses got leprosy?

Why were Nabad and Abihu burned alive? Why not leprosy?

Why did Ananias and Sapphira drop dead? Why not burned alive?

Does God have any control over what happens to people when He departs?

[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 (misrepresentation) 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 it 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

I have posted this at least 4 times so far and no one has answered these questions yet.

sky

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: Robert

Numbers 12:9, 10 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them; and he departed . And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam became leprous, white as snow.

God departs, bad things happen. Very good.... The principle at work again....

Wow! You have a nice way of making the Bible "cry aloud and spare not". Well done.

Why do you think Miriam was stricken with leprosy when God departed? Why not death or some other malady?

Why wasn't A&E stricken with a disease when God departed?

Why do you think Moses got leprosy?

Why were Nabad and Abihu burned alive? Why not leprosy?

Why did Ananias and Sapphira drop dead? Why not burned alive?

Does God have any control over what happens to people when He departs?

_________________________________________________________________

Archie, when I read your posts, I can't help but think that you sound like someone who wishes to be the devil's advocate. No offense to you. It's just how it comes across, to me anyway. It would seem that you have been on the maritime forum to debate this issue with pnatt and now you have joined this forum to continue the debate here.

There is one answer to your questions and you should know what it is because I am sure it has been pointed out before and that is that there are a thousand dangers of which we know nothing of and from which the Lord and holy angels protect us from continually. Like for Sodom and Gomorrah they were destroyed by fire simply because these cities were located in proximity to volcanic activity. So when the Lord was forced to withdraw His restraining power from these cities, there was left no power to control the enormous forces that were just waiting to burst upon these wicked cities. This judgment did not come directly out from the Lord upon these cities but the people had placed themselves beyond God's protection. And yet the language of the Bible is consistent, that the Lord rained fire upon these cities just as the Bible says that God sends strong delusion to those who do not receive the love of the truth that they might be saved. We all agree that God does not directly send strong delusion to anyone in any way, shape or form. Why should we think that He directly sends fire upon those who do not appreciate His work or act contrary to His ideas? We need to be consistent in our interpretation of this language, otherwise we will become like the other churches, Babylon! Confusion! Right?

sky

[Archie777]

Remember that the weapons that the wicked were to use to overcome the City and its dwellers will be turned against Satan and his angels. These weapons will certainly include some that will trigger mighty conflagrations like nuclear weapons or more deadly weapons even, for Satan and all His angels will be able to come up with weapons that human beings have never invented or imagined before. So that fire by which they will be destroyed at last will come from these most deadly weapons and it may very well be that the sun will be involved.

When the Bible says of God, "I will destroy thee . . . He shall rain quick burning coals, fire and brimstone and an horrible tempest . . . He hath utterly destroyed them" do you think it has in mind the scenario you spelled out above? That is, do you think it symbolizes God permitting evil men to wipe out the evil angels?

[John317]

Quote:

pnatt: Surely it's not the case that you think Ellen White's words mean what they obviously say. What is the case is that you perceive them to mean something different than I do.

Here is the passage in Ellen White's writings that I had in mind when I said that it's obvious what it means:

Concerning the wicked who are raised from their graves at the end of the 1000 years, Ellen White has written, "THEN THOSE WHO HAVE NOT SECURED THE PARDON OF THEIR SINS MUST RECEIVE THE PENALTY OF TRANSGRESSION. THEY SUFFER PUNISHMENT VARYING IN DURATION AND INTENSITY ACCORDING TO THEIR WORKS, BUT FINALLY ENDING IN THE SECOND DEATH. COVERED WITH INFAMY, THEY SINK INTO HOPELESS, ETERNAL OBLIVION." 4 SP 364.

Compare the above with the statements by Mrs. White that Christ metes out to the wicked the portion they must suffer. She makes many statements showing that both the length and the intensity they suffer is "decided" by Christ and the saints in heaven during the 1000 years. The decision is even written in a book against the names of the wicked BEFORE the wicked are resurrected to meet their Maker. See EW 51-53, 290-291.

What we learn from Ellen White's writings:

1) The wicked will suffer punishment.

2) Their punishment will vary according to their works.

3) There will be variation in the punishment in both intensity and time.

4) The portion of this suffering of punishment that every individual MUST undergo is decided by Christ and the saints during the one thousand years before the wicked are resurrected.

5) Jesus and the righteous study the lives of the wicked and write in a book the decision as to each individual's punishment.

6) Some of the wicked will perish as in a moment, whereas others will suffer many days. This portion that the wicked MUST suffer is decided during the one thousand years.

7) Satan is "made to suffer" many more days after all the rest of the wicked have perished. It is decided during the 1000 years that Satan must suffer longer than all others.

Are you in agreement that this is what Ellen White says in her writings?

If you have any doubts, please carefully examine 4 SP 364;EW 51-53, 290-291; GC 671-673.

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: Skyblue888

Remember that the weapons that the wicked were to use to overcome the City and its dwellers will be turned against Satan and his angels. These weapons will certainly include some that will trigger mighty conflagrations like nuclear weapons or more deadly weapons even, for Satan and all His angels will be able to come up with weapons that human beings have never invented or imagined before. So that fire by which they will be destroyed at last will come from these most deadly weapons and it may very well be that the sun will be involved.

When the Bible says of God, "I will destroy thee . . . He shall rain quick burning coals, fire and brimstone and an horrible tempest . . . He hath utterly destroyed them" do you think it has in mind the scenario you spelled out above? That is, do you think it symbolizes God permitting evil men to wipe out the evil angels?

Again, no offense to you but we should know better than asking questions like these when this language has been explained over and over, if not on the maritime forum, here at least.

The Bible also says that God killed Saul or that He hardened Pharaoh's heart but we know that God did not directly kill Saul or directly harden Pharaoh's heart but that to both of these individuals light was sent, one ray of light after another, but the light was resisted and the outcome was that the Spirit of God was forced to withdraw from these individuals. What these two individuals have done will be done by men until the close of probation.

Now when God says "I will destroy thee..." it is the same language when He says that He killed Saul. In the case of Lucifer God even says what He will do, how He will destroy him. He says it so clearly that no one needs to err about this. He says that He will bring strangers upon him, the most violent of the nations, and that these will draw their swords against him and that they will bring him down into the Pit!

The Lord will not interfere when the most violent of the nations shall turn upon Satan with the fury of demons and they will bring him down to the Pit. That is what God means when He says, "I will bring strangers upon you." True, Satan will be the last one to fall but the Scriptures are clear, he will have fallen at the hand of the most violent of the nations.

Read Ezekiel 28:6.10 again.

sky

[Archie777]

Archie, when I read your posts, I can't help but think that you sound like someone who wishes to be the devil's advocate. No offense to you. It's just how it comes across, to me anyway. It would seem that you have been on the maritime forum to debate this issue with pnatt and now you have joined this forum to continue the debate here.

There is one answer to your questions and you should know what it is because I am sure it has been pointed out before and that is that there are a thousand dangers of which we know nothing of and from which the Lord and holy angels protect us from continually. Like for Sodom and Gomorrah they were destroyed by fire simply because these cities were located in proximity to volcanic activity. But when the Lord was forced to withdraw His restraining power from these cities, there was left no power to control the enormous forces that were just waiting to burst upon these wicked cities. This judgment did not come directly out from the Lord upon these cities but the people had placed themselves beyond God's protection. And yet the language of the Bible is consistent, that the Lord rained fire upon these cities just as the Bible says that God sends strong delusion to those wh do not receive the love of the truth that they might be saved. We all agree that God does not directly send strong delusion to anyone in any way, shape or form. Why should we think that He directly sends fire upon those who do not appreciate His work or act contrary to His ideas?

I can see why you would think my posts are calculated to speak on behalf of Satan. But please believe me when I say you couldn't be more wrong about me. You already know what I believe. I stated my position clearly and concisely. My main objective here is to understand why others believe what they do. My questions are calculated to ascertain and understand what others believe. That's it. No hidden agenda. No secret plot to lie in wait and devour. My motives are pure and undefiled. Again, please believe me.

By the way, it might interest you to know I believe it when the Bible says God will send strong delusions to the willingly unrighteous so that they can more readily believe the lie (i.e. God changed the Sabbath from the seventh-day to the first-day). I also believe God sent the fiery serpents. I see no valid reason to interpret the Bible otherwise. It does not violate my view of God's character to take those passages at face value.

[Archie777]

When the Bible says of God, "I will destroy thee . . . He shall rain quick burning coals, fire and brimstone and an horrible tempest . . . He hath utterly destroyed them" do you think it has in mind the scenario you spelled out above? That is, do you think it symbolizes God permitting evil men to wipe out the evil angels?

Your answer above makes it sound like, yes, you believe those passages symbolize evil men wiping out evil angels. Have I understood your view correctly? If so, thank you for the concise answer.

[John317]

Quote:

pnattmbtc: ...The essential difference is that God is warning against the result of the choice the wicked make which comes as a result of that choice, as opposed to something God will do to them if they don't obey Him.

For example, smoking can cause cancer. So God may do all that He can to warn a person of the dangers of smoking. He sends warnings, but if the person chooses to ignore these warnings and gets cancer, this isn't something God is doing to them. On the other hand, if God said, "Don't smoke cigarettes, or I'll set you on fire," that would be like what I'm arguing against.

I think you'll agree that God made all the laws of the universe, including laws of health and the laws which result in cancer when people smoke. It is not as if God is simply allowing people to reap the results of a law He had nothing to do with. He made the universe in such a way that people reap the results of their sins.

Would you agree with this?

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: Sky

Archie, when I read your posts, I can't help but think that you sound like someone who wishes to be the devil's advocate. No offense to you. It's just how it comes across, to me anyway. It would seem that you have been on the maritime forum to debate this issue with pnatt and now you have joined this forum to continue the debate here.

There is one answer to your questions and you should know what it is because I am sure it has been pointed out before and that is that there are a thousand dangers of which we know nothing of and from which the Lord and holy angels protect us from continually. Like for Sodom and Gomorrah they were destroyed by fire simply because these cities were located in proximity to volcanic activity. But when the Lord was forced to withdraw His restraining power from these cities, there was left no power to control the enormous forces that were just waiting to burst upon these wicked cities. This judgment did not come directly out from the Lord upon these cities but the people had placed themselves beyond God's protection. And yet the language of the Bible is consistent, that the Lord rained fire upon these cities just as the Bible says that God sends strong delusion to those wh do not receive the love of the truth that they might be saved. We all agree that God does not directly send strong delusion to anyone in any way, shape or form. Why should we think that He directly sends fire upon those who do not appreciate His work or act contrary to His ideas?

I can see why you would think my posts are calculated to speak on behalf of Satan. But please believe me when I say you couldn't be more wrong about me. You already know what I believe. I stated my position clearly and concisely. My main objective here is to understand why others believe what they do. My questions are calculated to ascertain and understand what others believe. That's it. No hidden agenda. No secret plot to lie in wait and devour. My motives are pure and undefiled. Again, please believe me.

By the way, it might interest you to know I believe it when the Bible says God will send strong delusions to the willingly unrighteous so that they can more readily believe the lie (i.e. God changed the Sabbath from the seventh-day to the first-day). I also believe God sent the fiery serpents. I see no valid reason to interpret the Bible otherwise. It does not violate my view of God's character to take those passages at face value.

Okay, fair enough. Thank you for clarifying what your main purpose is which is to ascertain one's beliefs. Have you not discussed all this at length with pnatt and others on the Maritime forum?

So you do believe that God directly sends strong delusion to those who do not receive the love of the truth and that God directly sent fiery serpents to the Israelites and that it was God who changed the Sabbath from the Seventh-day to the first day of the week!

Okay, let us deal with the first one. You believe God directly sends strong delusion to those who do not receive the love of the truth. How does He do that exactly? Do you mean to tell us that you have never read what the Holy Spirit says about this verse?

In the book The Great Controversy 2 Thess.2:10,11 are quoted and these verses are followed by the Holy Spirit's commentary. "As they reject the teachings of His Word, God withdraws His Spirit and leaves them to the deceptions which they love." p.431.

So does that sound like it is God who directly sends them strong delusion or that He has no other choice but to withdraw His Spirit from them because again and again they have rejected the teachings of His word and they are left to the deceptions of Satan which they love?

And if these passages are to be understood this way, why not other passages?

sky

[Archie777]

Is it true that when God withdraws His protection that the forces of nature act on their own and cause devastation and death? Or, do the forces of nature rely on God to act as they do? For example, did the Flood act on its own when God withdrew His protection? Did fire act on its own to destroy S&G? Or, did God employ the forces of nature as weapons to punish and destroy sinners?

Ellen White observed:

God is constantly employed in upholding and using as His servants the things that He has made. He works through the laws of nature, using them as His instruments. They are not self-acting. Nature in her work testifies of the intelligent presence and active agency of a Being who moves in all things according to His will. . . {MH 416.1}

It is not by inherent power that year by year the earth yields its bounties and continues its march around the sun. The hand of the Infinite One is perpetually at work guiding this planet. It is God's power continually exercised that keeps the earth in position in its rotation. It is God who causes the sun to rise in the heavens. He opens the windows of heaven and gives rain. . . {MH 416.2}

It is by His power that vegetation is caused to flourish, that every leaf appears, every flower blooms, every fruit develops. {MH 416.3}

The depths of the earth are the Lord's arsenal, whence were drawn weapons to be employed in the destruction of the old world. Waters gushing from the earth united with the waters from heaven to accomplish the work of desolation. Since the Flood, fire as well as water has been God's agent to destroy very wicked cities. These judgments are sent that those who lightly regard God's law and trample upon His authority may be led to tremble before His power and to confess His just sovereignty. {PP 109.1}