"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[pnattmbtc]

I can see why you would think my posts are calculated to speak on behalf of Satan.

You don't know what the expression "devil's advocate" means?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devils_advocate

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: Sky

As far as I can see, you have only given us what you think these expressions mean instead of letting inspiration speak. Right?

No.

What I mean is that you are not letting one statement explain other statement or one passage of the Bible explain another.

"The testimonies themselves will be the key that will explain the messages given, as Scripture is explained by Scripture." 1 S.M.42.

sky

[Archie777]

Sky, thank you for stating your position clearly and concisely. Please understand I'm not here to defend my position or to attack yours. Like Robert, I too believe it is pointless to attempt to persuade you or anyone else to believe as I do.

[skyblue888]

What's the title of the book?[

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

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.

[John317]

Quote:

pnattmbtc:

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

...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).

Quote:

Twilight: I do not think you should use Ty Gibson as some type of authority Pnat.

You should argue your own position, not someone elses.

Mark :-)

I tend to agree with you, Mark. It's OK to tell what a particular person thinks about the topic, but if we're going to talk about the subject from their viewpoint, we should make a separate thread where that's the main topic. For instance, pnatt might want to start a thread on "Ty Gibson's View of the Destruction of the Wicked."

The difference between Ty and one of us is that we're here to respond to direct questioning and of course Ty would not be.

[skyblue888]

Quote:

pnattmbtc:

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

...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).

Quote:

Twilight: I do not think you should use Ty Gibson as some type of authority Pnat.

You should argue your own position, not someone elses.

Mark :-)

I tend to agree with you, Mark. It's OK to tell what a particular person thinks about the topic, but if we're going to talk about the subject from their viewpoint, we should make a separate thread where that's the main topic. For instance, pnatt might want to start a thread on "Ty Gibson's View of the Destruction of the Wicked."

John, how does this make any sense? we can use the writings of any man. Our job is to discern if what is being said is the truth or not. pnatt can quote from Ty Gibson if he wants, why not? Ty is entitled to his beliefs just as you and I are, no?

sky

[skyblue888]

Sky, thank you for stating your position clearly and concisely. Please understand I'm not here to defend my position or to attack yours. Like Robert, I too believe it is pointless to attempt to persuade you or anyone else to believe as I do.

Pointless! How about the Holy Spirit doing the convincing? I could say the same thing about you or john or anyone else. The point is that we are not the only ones involved. There are hundreds who may be reading these posts. They may not take part in the discussion but they are being influenced one way or the other. Our job is to state our position clearly and let the Holy Spirit impress the truth upon the mind so that by the truth error shall be exposed.

sky

[pnattmbtc]

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.

J: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?

I agree that God made things with laws which govern, and acting contrary to these, whether they be moral or health laws, results in bad things happening. I don't think God could have created things in some other way, wherein doing immoral things could lead to some good result, or doing moral things would lead to a bad result.

I'm curious as to why you're asking this. You asked what the difference was between two scenarios, and I explained that in one, God is warning of the inherent results of a choice, and the other is that God is warning of what He Himself will do. I guess your thinking is that these are somehow similar since God devised the laws that He's warning of the natural consequences of. If this is the case, I'd respond that the natural consequences of sin is death not because of a law which God devised, but because of the nature of sin itself, being based on selfishness. That is, there is no possible universe that God could have created wherein selfishness would result in anything other than suffering, misery and death.

[Archie777]

Did God harden Pharaoh's heart? Or, did he harden his own heart by rejecting the testimony of God? Or, was his heart already hardened by the time God sent Moses to lead the Jews to the Promised Land?

I believe Pharaoh hardened his heart long before Moses arrived to deliver the Jews. God knew he would resist His demands to let Israel go with Moses. "I am sure that the king of Egypt will not let you go, no, not by a mighty hand." Why didn't God merely permit a swarm of wasps and vipers to wipe out Pharaoh's army and then lead the Jews to the Promised Land?

The Bible says God worked out Israel's deliverance the way He did to inspire the Egyptians and the surrounding nations to embrace Him as the one and only true God. "The Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I stretch forth mine hand upon Egypt, and bring out the children of Israel from among them."

[pnattmbtc]

My friend is in rebellion against God. He's never submitted to God's will.

[Archie777]

Pointless! How about the Holy Spirit doing the convincing? I could say the same thing about you or john or anyone else. The point is that we are not the only ones involved. There are hundreds who may be reading these posts. They may not take part in the discussion but they are being influenced one way or the other. Our job is to state our position clearly and let the Holy Spirit impress the truth upon the mind so that by the truth error shall be exposed.

What are the chances you will change your mind based on anything I or anyone else writes about it? I believe the Bible and the SOP teach the things I listed earlier on this thread. You disagree. You believe we must interpret everything to agree with the "withdraw and permit" principle.

Here's what I wrote about it earlier:

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

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

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

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

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

pnattmbtc: 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.

J:I'm not doing that, whether you think so or not.

I wasn't speaking of you specifically. I think everybody does this (including you). It's a natural defense mechanism. It's a way of detaching ourselves from them, because the alternative is too awful to think about (i.e., being a part of them).

Quote:

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.

J:Yes, very true. I'm not saying anything different from that.

I don't sense this from your writing.

Quote:

p: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?

J:I am thinking of people I know. I'm thinking of how I was only a few years ago, and of how I would be right now if it wasn't due to God's answering people's prayers. I am thinking of the gang members I worked with for 21 years, and the people at Patton State Hospital where I used to work. I'm thinking of my friends, all of whom are non-Christians. I'm thinking of the men I served in the army with. I'm thinking of the bums I used to ride freight cars with. I'm thinking of the people I often meet and photograph on skid row in downtown Los Angeles. I'm thinking of people I knew in jail. I seldom associate with Christians, except for my direct family and the people I see at church.

I'm glad you're thinking of them. I'm sorry you think God will set them on fire and torture them.

[Guest]

This must be a sarcastic question(?). Or I'm not understanding it. Anyway, no, that's not the reason. The reason is to communicate spiritual truth to us.

You simply spiritualize away anything that doesn't agree with your paradigm.

The most specious temptations of the enemy are coming in, and they are coming in on the highest, most elevated plane. These spiritualize the doctrines of present truth until there is no distinction between the substance and the shadow. {MM 87.4}

Thousands who pride themselves upon their wisdom and independence regard it an evidence of weakness to place implicit confidence in the Bible, and a proof of superior talent and learning to cavil at the Scriptures, and to spiritualize and explain away their most important truths. {ST, July 4, 1899 par. 3}

If we are not to take all the texts that deal with the destruction of the wicked, both past and future, as they read. Then what do quotes like these apply to?

A great work can be done by presenting to the people the Bible just as it reads. Carry the Word of God to every man's door, urge its plain statements upon every man's conscience, repeat to all the Saviour's command, "Search the Scriptures." Admonish them to take the Bible as it is, to implore divine enlightenment, and then, when the light shines, to gladly accept each precious ray, and fearlessly abide the consequences.--Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 388.

Satan is ever ready, and he presents plausible reasons why it would not be best to obey the Word of God just as it reads. Thus souls are fatally deceived. {FW 41.2}

[Twilight]

Quote:

Has God ever used compelling power against him? Look at 1 SM 288. Speaking of the temptations of Christ by Satan, Ellen White writes, "At the divine command of Christ [to withdraw], he was compelled to obey. He was repulsed and silenced. He had no power to enable him to withstand the peremptory dismissal. He was compelled without another word to instantly desist and to leave the world's Redeemer."

Pnatt and Sky.

Please answer the question.

According to this quote, Satan was compelled to obey Christ.

Do you agree that the word "compelled" has been used in the above quote and do you agree the above quote is "inspired"?

Mark

Pnat and Sky.

Please could you answer the above questions?

[pnattmbtc]

J:Why does the Bible use the imagery of fire and the burning up of the wicked? Is it in order that people will come along and say that the prophecies all pointing to this are wrong?

pnattmbtc: This must be a sarcastic question(?). Or I'm not understanding it. Anyway, no, that's not the reason. The reason is to communicate spiritual truth to us.

R:You simply spiritualize away anything that doesn't agree with your paradigm.

[pnattmbtc]

I do not think you should use Ty Gibson as some type of authority Pnat.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

I do not think you should use Ty Gibson as some type of authority Pnat.

I was asked what I thought, so I quoted Ty, because he eloquently presents the principles I was wishing to communicate. This is just what I said I was doing. Why would you interpret this as using him as an authority? That seems to me to be an exceedingly odd thing to do.

Quote:

You should argue your own position, not someone elses.

Why do you not think this is what I was doing?

Because you quoted Ty.

The other danger of doing this, is that you then are claiming that yourself and Ty Gibson agree on this.

Without him here to verify that, it could present him in a wrong light.

Because of that, you should be careful how you present his view I think.

Mark :-)

PS.

I am still waiting for the answer on the other question?

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

JOHN317: :Why does the Bible use the imagery of fire and the burning up of the wicked? Is it in order that people will come along and say that the prophecies all pointing to this are wrong?

pnattmbtc: This must be a sarcastic question(?). Or I'm not understanding it. Anyway, no, that's not the reason. The reason is to communicate spiritual truth to us.

J:I asked the question because it seems to me that this is what happens: God tells prophets and apostles that He will punish and destroy the wicked in fire, and then some people come along afterwards and teach or preach that God won't punish anyone in fire but that the fire is a symbol of suffering from a guilty conscience to the point where they die from it. Or else they teach that the wicked won't suffer punishment in fire but will destroy each other with human weapons, etc.

This isn't sarcasm. You may interpret something that way, but I certainly don't mean it to be understood like that. I'm writing openly, sincerely and honestly.

You asked, "Why does the Bible use the imagery of fire and the burning up of the wicked? Is it in order that people will come along and say that the prophecies all pointing to this are wrong?"

So your asking if the reason the Bible uses the imagery of fire and burning up the wicked is so that people will come along and say all the prophesies pointing to this are wrong?

You're saying:

A.God uses the imagery of fire in Scripture

B.For the purpose of inducing people to think the prophesies are wrong

And you say this isn't sarcasm?

What do you think sarcasm is?

Or do you "sincerely" and "honestly" think that I believe God used this imagery for the purpose of getting people not to believe the prophecies?

[John317]

Quote:

pnattmbtc (quoting Ty Gibson on fire):

.... For those who persist in sin to the ruin of their inner capacity to discern and reflect God's love, that fire of divine love which would have cleansed them will, on the day of final reckoning, ignite in their souls a destructive measure of shame and guilt. The glory of Him who is love will be more than the conscience can bear.

On the day of unveiled encounter, they will experience psychological and emotional meltdown in God's immediate presence. .... Some will be consumed, while others are healed by the very same encounter.

....

OK, I have no disagreement with what Ty is saying here (unless it's with something in parts of the book that I haven't even read yet), but I don't believe that it explains the fire that Revelation and the SOP speak of as coming down from God out of heaven and devouring the wicked.

I've had some of the same thoughts about those things as Ty is expressing, but I don't see it as in conflict with the Bible's teaching that God will destroy the wicked in real fire. Nor do I see that this conflicts with the concept that the punishment of the wicked is decided by Christ and the saints in heaven during the 1000 years as they study the lives of the lost.

Could you explain how you understand the death of the wicked will come about, since you evidently don't believe it will be by literal fire or by literally buring up?

How does the line "the glory of Him who is love will be more than the conscience can bear" relate to the actual destruction and death of the wicked?

What does "the psychological and emotional meltdown" refer to, in terms of their deaths and the description of that death in the Bible and in the Spirit of prophecy? I mean, can you point out where this emotional meltdown is referred to on page 673 of The Great Controversy where Ellen White directly speaks of the death of the wicked? (I'm not asking where she uses the words, "emotional meltdown," but the idea of it.) Or on the other pages of other books where she describes those events? Where does she speak of it in those terms, or anything similar?

[pnattmbtc]

John317, please respond to #344618. Not necessarily the whole thing, and I think you have responded to parts of it, but what I'm particularly interested is the part of the discussion dealing with coercion of the will.

If I threaten to torture you if you don't do what I say, how is that not coercion of the will? Why would this not apply to your conception of the final judgment? Do what I say, or I'll set you on fire for days? I'm asking this because you said that the EGW statement "Compelling power is only found under Satan's government" does not apply to forcing someone to accept Christ. But if I tell you, "John317, accept Christ, or I'll set you on fire" aren't I coercing your will? If so, then God is doing the same thing when He says this, right?

Actually, if you just want to respond to this instead, that's OK, although if you wanted to continue the previous mentioned post that would be fine.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

My friend is in rebellion against God. He's never submitted to God's will.

I'm guessing it's not your job to make these sorts of determinations. I don't see how you could possibly know, for example, that he has never submitted to God's will. That seems quite unlikely to me, unless you mean by this phrase something equivalent to accept Christ as His Savior. If you mean that he's never done anything that God wanted Him to do, that seems unlikely.

We've been very close friends since 1971.

I mean that he is in rebellion against God. There are too many things I couldn't even write on this forum. I have to stay away from him now because I don't like his influence on me. I used to live with him.

An interesting thing is that he once read parts of Desire of Ages and he told me at the time that it seemed like the writer actually saw the events being described.

He never finished the book and he's never read it since that time, which was in 1974. I don't know how he got the book-- I think someone gave it to him-- but we've never discussed it since then, except that he told me about a year ago that he hasn't given that book any thought since the time I saw him with it. He said he has no interest in reading any more of it. I never did tell him about the writer.

Anyway, we seldom talk any more about religion because we're now so different that way. Our common interests are art, travel, photography, books, and poetry.

But yeah, I think you could say I know him as well as anyone could know anyone. He's been keeping a journal of his thoughts and feelings, etc., since 1968, a journal of about 50,000 pages, and he gives them to me to read.

Do you really beleive that one person cannot know whether another person is in rebellion against God?

[skyblue888]

Has God ever used compelling power against him? Look at 1 SM 288. Speaking of the temptations of Christ by Satan, Ellen White writes, "At the divine command of Christ [to withdraw], he was compelled to obey. He was repulsed and silenced. He had no power to enable him to withstand the peremptory dismissal. He was compelled without another word to instantly desist and to leave the world's Redeemer."

Pnatt and Sky.

Please answer the question.

According to this quote, Satan was compelled to obey Christ.

Do you agree that the word "compelled" has been used in the above quote and do you agree the above quote is "inspired"?

Mark

Pnat and Sky.

Please could you answer the above questions?

______________________________________________

From the word go of this debate, the first statements I have often quoted had to do with God's restraining power, how it is often removed from the agencies of evil, in a measure or fully removed. I have never questioned this restraining power. If God refused to restrain the evil agencies we would all be history. But God never uses compelling power to win the battle in the controversy between Him and Satan but He did, by His own spilt blood, purchase the right to control or restrain the forces of evil to protect the earth from being destroyed and to protect all who seek Him for refuge. He does restrain the agencies of evil even to protect those who do not love Him. But He will not be able to do this for ever.

sky

[Robert]

Why do you think Miriam was stricken with leprosy when God departed?

God protects, right? Perhaps Miriam had this virus in her system, but once God backed off it took over....

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: Richard

J:Why does the Bible use the imagery of fire and the burning up of the wicked? Is it in order that people will come along and say that the prophecies all pointing to this are wrong?

pnattmbtc: This must be a sarcastic question(?). Or I'm not understanding it. Anyway, no, that's not the reason. The reason is to communicate spiritual truth to us.

R:You simply spiritualize away anything that doesn't agree with your paradigm.

At a minimum, you should include enough of the quote for one to see what the context is. John317 asked if the Bible uses the imagery of fire so that people will come along and say that the prophecies all pointing to this are wrong. This certain appears to be a sarcastic question. I don't see how your response has anything to do with this.

Quote:

If we are not to take all the texts that deal with the destruction of the wicked, both past and future, as they read. Then what do quotes like these apply to?

You don't take all the texts as they read. For example, "Compelling power is found only under Satan's government." You don't accept this as it reads.

DA 764 has several paragraphs dealing with the subject, as does GC 541-543. I've never seen you take these into consideration in any thing you've written.

Jesus Christ said, "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father." Ellen White commented that all that man needs to know, or can know, of God was revealed by the life and character of His Son. I don't see the harmony in what Christ revealed in what you write, nor an attempt to make such a connection.

I don't even have any conviction that you could state what I believe accurately. Can you? Can you state what I believe in such a way that I would agree with your statement of my belief?

Jesus Christ said, "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father." Ellen White commented that all that man needs to know, or can know, of God was revealed by the life and character of His Son. I don't see the harmony in what Christ revealed in what you write, nor an attempt to make such a connection.

__________________________________

That is so true.

It was Jesus Christ who gave instruction to the Israelites to take one eye for one eye and one tooth for one tooth and yet the same Jesus Christ, when He walked among men, said, If someone strikes you on the right cheek, present the other cheek. By reading these things, many have been puzzled as if the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament were two different Gods with two different sets of rules.

This shows that we need to sink the shaft deeper into the mine of truth in order to understand what really happened in the Old Testament. When Christ admonished the Israelites to take one eye for one eye it was because they had rejected His way by having elected to defend themselves with the sword. It was in mercy even to their enemies that God gave them these instructions because He knew that they would not be content with taking one eye for one eye but that they would take ten instead.

But those who are imbued with the Spirit of Christ will not retaliate against their enemies and therefore they will present the other cheek or feed their enemies if they are hungry.

If we keep this paradign in mind it becomes easier to understand why it was necessary for the Lord to give the Israelites many instructions that were so contrary to His way of doing things, which instructions were given in mercy to themselves and to their enemies but for the onlooker who is unaware of what is really happening, the impression is that God's commands or instructions to Israel as to how to go to battle and war against their enemies are taken to mean that God is, after all, an executioner of the sentence against transgression and that He does directly destroy His enemies. But this idea couldn't be any further from the truth as the statement pnatt quoted from the Testimonies clearly shows, that all that men need to know and can know about God has been revealed in the life and character of Jesus Christ. (8 T 286)

sky

[Robert]

Heresy.....injustice, etc....