"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[pnattmbtc]

Because you quoted Ty.

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: Archie777

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....

As it was mentioned before, there are a thousand dangers around us of which we know nothing of.

sky

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

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.

I agree with this, and think this is well put.

I'll add one more thought, which is implied here, and that is God must act to preserve our free will. The Great Controversy is about choosing between two antagonistic powers. God has to allow Satan enough sway to make his case (and I think anyone observing, our, on our case, living on Planet Earth, would agree that God has certainly done this), but not so much that he prevents people from being able to make a choice at all (e.g., by killing them all).

[Twilight]

You have sidestepped the question Sky.

Quote:

At the divine command of Christ [to withdraw], he was compelled to obey.

Did Ellen White say in the above quote Sky that Satan was "compelled" to obey Christ?

Is that what it says?

[John317]

Quote:

skyblue888: ... when it says that God will call forth the fires in the earth as His weapons, that does not mean that He will do this directly, for His judgments, we are told, do not come directly out from Him but that the wicked have placed themselves beyond His protection.

Yes, but that passage is not talking about judgments of God in the past or of His judgment and punishment of the wicked at the end of the 1000 years. She's talking about the judgments that are coming on the earth NOW, in our day. Ellen White isn't denying that God directly destroyed the world with a flood or Sodom by fire, nor is she denying what she says plainly in GC 673 and EW 51-53, 290-291.

Quote:

skyblue888: If Satan is responsible for all the earthquakes that have ever struck the earth, as we are told in G.C.589,590, and if he is responsible for all the calamities that have befallen the earth ever since the fall of Adam in Eden...

I believe Satan is ultimately responsible for these things because they're the result of sin, but I doubt that Satan is directly causing all the earthquakes and storms or volcanos. These generally seem to be the result of natural actions within the earth's crust that were set in motion at the Fall or around the time of the Flood. However, I have no doubt that Satan is able to alter or trigger them when it suits his purposes, as he did in book of Job.

Quote:

skyblue888: ....we may be sure that when the most violent of the nations shall turn upon him with the fury of demons, that to protect himself he will not hesitate in the least to trigger many earthquakes or whatever he can to stay alive as long as he possibly can and it is these earthquakes that will cause fires from beneath to erupt to the surface to meet the fire from above, from volcanoes, which will be erupting all over the earth. And they will all be consumed.

In GC 672, Ellen White refers to weapons concealed in the depths of the earth. What do you believe thess weapons have reference to?

Could you give the clearest reference in the Bible and Ellen White's writings for the above scenario?

[Twilight]

We can all see that is what it does say.

Therefore, what you are presenting here Sky, that God "never" compels, in in direct contradiction with the Spirit of Prophecy and is therefore error.

It says the Jesus "compelled" Satan.

You are saying Jesus would not do that.

So who is right?

Ellen White, or yourself?

Mark

[pnattmbtc]

I didn't comment on his being in rebellion against God, but only regarding the comment that he had never submitted his will to God. But this seems to be a side issue. You seem to have his best interests in mind, and to regard him well, which is nice.

[teresaq]

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

[Robert]

Did Ellen White say in the above quote Sky that Satan was "compelled" to obey Christ?

Is that what it says?

Doesn't matter....You need to accept the fact that EGW didn't have all the light on this subject. Statements like "We have only the glimmerings of the rays of the light that is yet to come to us" and "We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn" should be taken very seriously, but instead you make EGW's statements the end all, be all, of truth. This will get you into trouble....Mark my words.

[skyblue888]

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

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.

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?

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Did Ellen White say in the above quote Sky that Satan was "compelled" to obey Christ?

Is that what it says?

Doesn't matter....You need to accept the fact that EGW didn't have all the light on this subject. Statements like "We have only the glimmerings of the rays of the light that is yet to come to us" and "We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn" should be taken very seriously, but instead you make EGW's statements the end all, be all, of truth. This will get you into trouble....Mark my words.

It does not matter to you Robert as you do not think she was inspired.

But let me ask you this.

Do you think that she was saying in this quote that "Jesus compelled Satan"?

Whether you think she was in inspired or not?

Can you answer that question?

Mark

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Did Ellen White say in the above quote Sky that Satan was "compelled" to obey Christ?

Is that what it says?

Doesn't matter....You need to accept the fact that EGW didn't have all the light on this subject. Statements like "We have only the glimmerings of the rays of the light that is yet to come to us" and "We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn" should be taken very seriously, but instead you make EGW's statements the end all, be all, of truth. This will get you into trouble....Mark my words.

Bob, I just wish you would stop crossing her name off like this. It is annoying to say the very least of it and very distracting. Please stop doing this.

When God restrains the devil, how could it be said that he is not compelled to back off? But this is not to say that God is using compelling power to win the controversy. He has a perfect right to restrain the evil agencies, does He not?

sky

[Robert]

The sacrifice of Christ as an atonement for sin is the great truth around which all other truths cluster. In order to be rightly understood and appreciated, every truth in the Word of God, from Genesis to Revelation, must be studied in the light that streams from the cross of Calvary. [Ev 190, 1915]

That is the year, I believe, that EGW died. What she states here speaks volumes. Everything...all the doctrines should be understood in the light of the cross, especially the justice of God.

So this comes full circle back to the question, did God slay Christ? The answer is no! The 2nd death, the curse of the law, is God abandonment. The result?

"I will forsake them and hide My face from them, and they will be consumed, and many evils and troubles will come upon them; so that they will say in that day, 'Is it not because our God is not among us that these evils have come upon us?'"

[Twilight]

Quote:

sky

*i believe i already answered your "other" question

When?

You gave a response that could be construed as meaning anything.

But please answer this simple question:

Did Ellen White state that "Jesus compelled Satan"?

Quote:

At the divine command of Christ [to withdraw], he was compelled to obey.

If you are saying you have light brother, now is the time to show it by answering this question honestly and simply!

If you cannot answer this question honestly, then I have to treat all your posts on this subject as without any light in them whatsoever!

You cannot trade your view on the internet as "great light" and not answer this simple question!

Mark

[Twilight]

Quote:

When God restrains the devil, how could it be said that he is not compelled to back off?

Did Ellen White state that "Jesus compelled Satan"?

Simple honest answer please Sky.

Your credibility is on the line here!

Mark

[Robert]

Bob, I just wish you would stop crossing her name off like this. It is annoying to say the very least of it and very distracting. Please stop doing this.

sky

It's more annoying that almost all of you make EGW the litmus test for truth. She was fallible...she had limited light...and a glimmer at that. So why argue back and forth when she clearly didn't have all light on the present subject? It's futile to do so! That's why I cross her name out....Even she would say go to your Bible and settle it there....

[Twilight]

When people believe that Ellen White is inspired and then try to say they have got their view from her viewpoint, then we have to discuss it.

Although, like yourself, I think we should find our doctrine from the bible.

In this instance, it is quotes from Ellen White being used by some posters to establish doctrine it appears.

Mark

[skyblue888]

You have sidestepped the question Sky.

Quote:

At the divine command of Christ [to withdraw], he was compelled to obey.

Did Ellen White say in the above quote Sky that Satan was "compelled" to obey Christ?

Is that what it says?

Yes he was compelled to obey. So? are you implying that in order to win the controversy God has to use force or compelling power?

sky

[skyblue888]

We can all see that is what it does say.

Therefore, what you are presenting here Sky, that God "never" compels, in in direct contradiction with the Spirit of Prophecy and is therefore error.

It says the Jesus "compelled" Satan.

You are saying Jesus would not do that.

So who is right?

Ellen White, or yourself?

Mark

Your talking to me?

I just explained to you a while back about this. You must have missed it.

sky

[pnattmbtc]

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.

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

Bob, I just wish you would stop crossing her name off like this. It is annoying to say the very least of it and very distracting. Please stop doing this.

sky

It's more annoying that almost all of you make EGW the litmus test for truth. She was fallible...she had limited light...and a glimmer at that. So why argue back and forth when she clearly didn't have all light on the present subject? It's futile to do so! That's why I cross her name out....Even she would say go to your Bible and settle it there....

I believe she had more light than you and I and all of us here put together have ever received or even begun to understand.

sky

[doug yowell]

I think most would agree with you, Archie, concerning the natural reading of the Scriptures, verses a filtered view based on a "principle" which seems to contradict the most obvious interpretation. Off the top of my head I thought of 16 stories (not including other statements)which would make it impossible for anyone to deny that God didn't directly punish human beings for their evil. Impossible to deny only if one lets the Bible interpret itself.

1)The Flood

2)Abram's appeal to God not to destroy the righteous WITH the wicked"should not the Judge of all the earth do right?"

3)Sodom and Gomorrah (note that the angels told Lot that God had sent THEM to destroy.

4)Lot's wife (how does God's withdrawal turn a human into a pillar of salt?)

5)God threatens Moses life for failure to circumcise his sons.

6)The plagues of Egypt.Particularly the deaths of the f

irstborn.

7)Pharaoh's army miraculoulsy drowned

8)Fences at Sinai to keep the people from accidentally seeing God.

9)Nadab and Abihu killed by fire from God

10)Korah and his sympathizers killed by earthquake and fire.

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: John317

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.

If what Ty writes is true, then the wicked will already have suffered proportionately for their sin, so there would be no need for an additional punishment on top of this.

Quote:

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.

No, this (Ty's idea) certainly doesn't. That's been my point all along.

Quote:

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?

DA 764 offers a couple of clues:

Quote:

God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life....

By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them.

This says the wicked separate themselves from God, thus cutting themselves off from life. It also says that the glory of God, which is His character, will destroy them. So I think these factors are involved. Regarding what would be their actual cause of death, like a medical doctor would write down, I'm not sure. It might be different things for different people. I'm not sure we're told.

What I've tried to do is to take into account all of the accounts from inspiration we are given, and make sense of them all. I'd be really interested in how Ty would answer your question. His explanation is the one which has made the most sense to me so far.

You said you studied with A. G. Maxwell. Do you know how he would answer this question?

Quote:

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?

Either it causes it, or causes them to no longer wish to live, it seems to me. DA 764 puts this "the glory of Him who is love will destroy them."

Quote:

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?

I think this is what happens during the judgment, during the time when God reveals to each one their case, explaining where they turned away from the right path, rejected the voice of Christ, and reveals their sins.

What I believe is that the fire that will consume the wicked at the end will not come directly out from God but I am 100% sure that fire will be involved, fire from beneath and fire from above. As I have pointed out earlier, all that fire will be triggered during the last great battle. The weapons that Satan was to use to take the City will be used against him and this will most likely involve nuclear weapons, and in turn there will be massive earthquakes which will cause many volcanoes to erupt and this is how fire from beneath will meet with the fire from above. So there will be real fire there but it will not come directly out from the Lord any more than strong delusions or fiery serpents were directly sent from the Lord before.

sky

[John317]

Quote:

TWILIGHT: 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."

skyblue888: .... If God refused to restrain the evil agencies we would all be history.

I agree, of course. Satan hates all human beings and only uses us and then throws us away when he's finished with us. He considers us a garbage and as fodder in his war against cHRIST. He inspires humans to destroy everything God made and loves.

But it's for this very reason that God had to destroy the world in a flood, and also the very reason He had to command Israel to annihilate the nations aligned with Satan.

Quote:

skyblue888: But God never uses compelling power to win the battle in the controversy between Him and Satan

I agree that God never uses compelling power to make people accept Him as Lord and Savior or to be saved. He also did not use it to compel Satan to do wickedness. I agree with you that He never uses it to win the war of the great controversy. In fact, that has been my point-- and the point of several others-- since the beginning of this discussion. But the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy show that God has used compelling power in order to compel Satan and the evil angels to stop certain activities or to move them out of heaven onto the earth, etc.

We agree, though, that the great controversy was won by love and truth in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. God didn't win the war by the use of compelling power.

Quote:

skyblue888: 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.

We agree, sky, but you appear to have skirted the fundamental fact that Ellen White says that God compelled Satan to cease his temptation of Christ in the wilderness.

Ellen White even uses the word "compel," it is obvious she means it in the sense of the use of "force."

She also says that Satan will be "constrained" to acknowledge God's justice and to bow to the supremacy of Christ. GC 671: par. 2. The primary meaning of "constrain" is to "compel."

[skyblue888]

I think most would agree with you, Archie, concerning the natural reading of the Scriptures, verses a filtered view based on a "principle" which seems to contradict the most obvious interpretation. Off the top of my head I thought of 16 stories (not including other statements)which would make it impossible for anyone to deny that God didn't directly punish human beings for their evil. Impossible to deny only if one lets the Bible interpret itself.

1)The Flood

2)Abram's appeal to God not to destroy the righteous WITH the wicked"should not the Judge of all the earth do right?"

3)Sodom and Gomorrah (note that the angels told Lot that God had sent THEM to destroy.

4)Lot's wife (how does God's withdrawal turn a human into a pillar of salt?)

5)God threatens Moses life for failure to circumcise his sons.

6)The plagues of Egypt.Particularly the deaths of the f

irstborn.

7)Pharaoh's army miraculoulsy drowned

8)Fences at Sinai to keep the people from accidentally seeing God.

9)Nadab and Abihu killed by fire from God

10)Korah and his sympathizers killed by earthquake and fire.

Where have u been all this time, Doug? do we have to start all over again? don't you know the principles of interpretation by now? are we going to choose to ignore them as some have done and are continuing to do so? Either we accept these principles or we don't. If we do we will have no problem understanding what really happened in the Old Testament. Whether you realize it or not, your way of looking at these things is based on the "letter" only and not on the spiritual meaning of the Scriptures especially when the Lord has been so gracious to us in giving us the keys as to how to interpret the Old Testament. Remember that "All that man needs to know or can know about God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son." 8 T 286.

sky