"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[John317]

Quote:

pnattmbtc:Why wouldn't God instead choose to win the Great Controversy by using principles which are found under *His* government?

Quote:

JOHN3:17: :He did and He does. What won the great controversy against sin and Satan was not compelling force but love and truth. When God used force, it was not to sin the war; but it is a way of controlling the forces of evil.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Everything God does and did is to win the war. I've made this point several times... The war is in regards to God's character and the principles of His government. If compelling force is a principle of His government, then that's what His use of it reveals, and this is how He wins the way.

Everything God does, and has done, since the inception of sin is for the purpose of winning the Great Controversy. Nothing is excepted.

Does anyone understand this?

I was hoping for your sake that you wouldn't do this. I'm afraid you are backing yourself into a corner. Here's how:

Ellen White herself clearly disputes your point, because she says God won the great controversy at the cross. She never indicates that all of God's activity against Satan is part of winning the war. God's forcing Satan out of heaven did not win the great controversy-- it only transferred the battle to other planets. Similarly, what God did in removing Adam and Eve from the garden of Eden did not win the war. Nor did many other actions that God has taken, such as commanding Moses to put forth his staff so that the water would return over the heads of the Egytpian army in the Red Sea. Nor did God's intentionally commanding the Israelites to annihilate the wicked nations in Palestine at the time of the entrance into that land. None of those things won the great controversy, and Ellen White never refers to them in that way. Yet they are clearly using compelling force by any definiton of the term.

Since both the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy clearly show that God has used compelling power or force before, your argument would mean that God is indeed using force to win the great controversy-- but this is exactly what Ellen White says God DOES NOT DO. It is also exactly what you are attempting to argue against. Yet (I believe) because you are apparently unwilling to admit that God does selectively use compelling power, you are now in the ironic position where the evidence would show that God uses force to win the great controversy, if indeed everything God does must be included in the way God wins the war. Are you sure this is what you want to do?

Notice that sky has avoided this situation by conceding that while God has selectively used compelling force in the great controversy, God has never used such power to win the war against sin and Satan. It's an extrmely critical distinction to make.

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: Just to point out something:

You've posted before that you have made responses before, only to have others post as if you hadn't made replies. But you are doing the same thing here. What you should say is that you have not received what you consider a satisfactory answer (but not because others have not tried to give you one).

It is one thing to say you have received no answer and quite another to say they haven't given you the answer you are looking for. Or that you would like further explanations.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: I haven't gotten any response that says: "This is how you can tell when God is doing something directly as opposed to permitting something to happen." I don't recall anything like this, anyway. And this is the question I've been asking.

OK, sure, no problem. I'll write more on this topic and do my best to give you an asnwer you find satisfactory.

In the meantime, there's at least a dozen questions I've put to you and sky but to which I have not received anything close to a satisfactory response (from my viewpoint). Sometime before we're through with this discussion, I must ask you to revisit them. I'm aware of at least half a dozen more questions of yours and sky's that I need to answer. But first let me give you my additional response to this question you're asking here. It's a good one.

I will be back and add to this post after I eat and spend a little time with my all-too-neglected wife. :-)

NOTE: At 2: 00 AM, Pacific Time: I just came back online after we had a power outage that lasted several hours. I'm going to bed and will back Tuesday morning to complete this post.

[skyblue888]

"Behold," says the Scripture, "the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people." Isa.60:2.

In the last chapter of the book Christ's Object Lessons, this passage of Scripture is quoted and commented upon. It is a very interesting commentary indeed. In says there that "the last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love." p.415.

When the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon all the face of the deep, the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, "Let there be light, and there was light." Gen.1:2,3.

So in the night of spiritual darkness, God's word goes forth, "Let there be light." To His people He says, "Arise, shine; for your light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon you." Isa.60:1.

"It is the darkness of misapprehension of God that is enshrouding the world. Men are losing their knowledge of His character. It has been misunderstood, and misinterpreted. At this time a message from God is to be proclaimed, a message illuminating in its influence and saving in its power. His character is to be made known. Into the darkness of the world is to be shed the light of His glory, the light of His goodness, mercy, and truth."

Into the darkness of the world is to be shed the light of His glory, and that is the light of His goodness, mercy, and truth, in other words the light of His character of love!

The whole world sees God in a false light. Why is that? because our good and gracious Lord has been presented before the people clothed in the attributes of Satan. See 1 S.M.355. What are the culprits? Tradition and misinterpretation have obscured the teaching of the Bible concerning His character, the nature of His government, and the principles of His dealing with sin? See G.C.492.

Now, the question is, We who sincerly desire to serve God in these last days, who ardently wish to have a part in giving the last message of mercy to the world, what message does the world need to hear about God that will cause the multitudes to re-assess their thinking about Him?

It cannot be that this message will be something they are already familiar with. In order for them to be captivated by this message, it will have to be a message which they have never heard before and which will cause them to take another look at the Old Testament Scriptures, at the whole Bible even. Certainly this message needs to be a message which they will have never heard before. It will be some light that will penetrate and dispel the cloud that has been obscuring God's glory--character--from their view.

It will be a message that will be so captivating that in currents of praise and thanksgiving from the many souls thus won to God, glory will flow back to the great Giver!

Can we not expect then, with the utmost certainty, that this message will be contrary to the tradidional view of God? that it will draw the attention of the multitudes, that it will also attrack the attention of the religious leaders and that the message will be opposed, as it is written, "As the light and life of men was rejected by the ecclesiastical authorities in the days of Christ, so it has been rejected in every succeeding generation." D.A.232.

sky

"Those to whom the message of truth is spoken seldom ask, 'Is it true?' but, 'By whom is it advocated?' Multitudes estimate it by the numbers who accept it; and the question is still asked, 'Have any of the learned men or religious leaders believed?' Men are no more favorable to real godliness now than in the days of Christ. They are just as intently seeking earthly good, to the neglect of eternal riches; and it is not an argument against the truth, that large numbers are not ready to accept it, or that it is not received by the world's great men, or even by the religious leaders." D.A.459.

[John317]

Quote:

skyblue888 (quoting Ellen White) : "Satan had questioned whether Jesus was the Son of God. In his summary dismissal, Get thee behind me Satan; for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve he had proof that he could not gainsay. Divinity flashed through suffering humanity. Satan had no power to resist the command. Writhing with humiliation and rage, he was forced to withdraw from the presence of the world's Redeemer. Christ's victory was as complete as had been the failure of Adam. So we may resist temptation, and force Satan to depart from us." D.A.130.

When Christ spoke the words, "Get thee behind me Satan," His guardian angel stood between him and Satan. And thus Satan could no longer harrass him. His guardian angels were as a wall of fire around him which the powers of hell could not prevail against. So it may be with us. Satan was "compelled" to withdraw. There was no physical battle there that took place between His guardian angels and Satan and his angels. The Holy angels are clothed with the panoply of Heaven. Their presence is sufficient to keep the evil angels at bay. They need not fight with them.

In the garden of Gethsemane when the soldiers first attempted to apprehend Jesus, His guardian angel stood between him and the mob and they fell to the ground as dead men and yet they were not hurt. It was the same at the temptation of Christ in the wilderness. At the resurrection, "the angel of the Lord descended from Heaven. Clothed with the panoply of Heaven, this angel left the heavenly courts. The bright beams of God's glory went before him, and illuminated His pathway." Now notice these words, "Now, priest and rulers, where is the power of your guard? Brave soldiers that have never been afraid of human power are now as captives taken without sword or spear." D.A.778 Here too they fell to the ground as dead men but they were not hurt!

Now that says something, doesn't it?

Interesting post and good quotes. They certainly do say something, for sure.

What that "something" is can be better understood by a careful consideration of this quote, regarding the same scene at the tomb of Christ:

"The face they [the Romans soldiers] look upon is not the face of mortal warrior; it is the face of the mightiest of the Lord's host. This messenger is he who fills the position from which Satan fell. It was he who on the hills of Bethlehem proclaimed Christ's birth. THE EARTH TREMBLES AT HIS APPROACH, THE HOSTS OF DARKNESS FLEE" (DA 779, 780).

First of all, notice the military/war imagery: "warrior," "mightiest [warrior] of the Lord's host [army]," "hosts [armies] of darkness."

NOTE: there is no imagery of debate and mere conversation or ideas.

What is the main emphasis of military imagery? Answer: compelling force & power, and organization for the purpose of winning an intense struggle and of achieving victory over the opposition.

I would like to suggest that the critical difference between God's forces and Satan's is that God only uses force in the cause of righteousness, truth, love, and restoration whereas Satan's forces use compelling power in the cause of jealousy, hatred, suffering, death, and destruction. (I'm not suggesting that these differences are exhaustive.)

Second, notice that it's self-evident that the hosts of darkness flee because of might, not because of a superior idea. When it speaks of the "mightiest angel," his power is associated with physical power, i.e., a power that is able to cause the very earth to tremble, which in turn causes the armies of Satan to flee. Surely they are not fleeing because they have lost an argument of words or ideas. They clearly flee because they cannot possibly stand up against the power of God, and this power has very much to do with some kind of force or "might." This is what is meant by the "mightiest angel." It appears to me that God has given this angel extraordinary power and strength for the purpose of making the armies of darkness withdraw. This is what happened at the tomb and also apparently at the temptation. It also occurs at the tree of life, where we're told that God's "strong angels" guarded the way to the tree in order to prevent Satan and humans from gaining access to immortality. These "mighty angels" had in their right hands "glittering swords," and we can be sure they were not just for looks. The swords were "beams of light," and I believe they must represent the power of God so that they made Satan fearful of disobeying the command of the angel, who spoke with the authority of God Himself. There's nothing to indicate that the mighty angels guarding the tree had debates with the evil angels, and that the good angels won the debates. No, they were some kind of confrontations-- probably similar to those which took place in heaven during the war there-- that had to do with a kind of power that goes beyond ideas and communication.

At such times, it is indeed true that Satan is compelled or forced to leave. He has no choice but to obey the command; no power whatsoever to resist. It is not a question, then, of Satan and his angels' being persuaded to leave: they MUST leave. God uses the same kind of force to make the demons leave the bodies and minds of the possessed who want to be free of the devil. We should all of us thank God for this use of compelling force in behalf of the armies and cause of righteousness.

[Robert]

Whatever already!

[Robert]

notice the military/war imagery: "warrior," "mightiest [warrior] of the Lord's host [army]," "hosts [armies] of darkness."

John, if God is like you describe Him, He sure goes through a lot of theatrics to do what He could do in a blink of an eye. War and death are of Satan. Are you attributing these evils to God?

[John317]

Quote:

John317: notice the military/war imagery: "warrior," "mightiest [warrior] of the Lord's host [army]," "hosts [armies] of darkness."

Quote:

ROBERT: John, if God is like you describe Him, He sure goes through a lot of theatrics to do what He could do in a blink of an eye.

I agree that if God wanted to, He could do everything without any angels or humans, but the wonderful thing about God is that He uses angels and humans to accomplish His work. For instance, at the resurrection of His Son, God could easily have raised Him to life again by a single thought or word, but instead God sent angels to call Him forth from the grave. God could spread the gospel Himself but instead He chooses to use you and me and other fallen, defective human beings made in His image. What a God!!

But it's not only how I describe him that you don't seem to like but also how Ellen White describes Him and even much of what the Bible says about Him.

I accept God as He reveals Himself through His revelation; we shouldn't pick and choose what we like about Him, and reject what we don't like. The whole Bible reveals Him, not just a portion of it; and that includes books like Joshua, Judges, Nahum, Jonah, Genesis 6-11, 2 Peter, Jude, and Rev. 20.

Quote:

ROBERT: War and death are of Satan. Are you attributing these evils to God?

God is not evil because He chooses to destroy Satan and the impentenant. God has unlimited control of the works of His hands, and it is His right to do as He pleases, and to do as He pleases with the works of His hands. Do you believe this? See 4 SG 50

Sin, war and death all originated with Satan, and God is determined to destroy all of those evils. In order to do it, He must finally judge, sentence and destroy not only Satan but everybody who follows Satan's ways. He will at last have a clean, safe, peaceful universe again. See GC 677, 678. Those are pages that you also can't help but enjoy.

[John317]

Whatever already!

Can you say more about what those lines say? I really am interested.

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: Robert

Whatever already!

Can you say more about what those lines say? I really am interested.

Ellen White has good things to say; she also has unintentional error. I'll stick with the Bible, just as she states I should....

[Robert]

God has unlimited control of the works of His hands, and it is His right to do as He pleases, and to do as He pleases with the works of His hands. Do you believe this? See 4 SG 50

No!

[Robert]

1. But You, O Lord, do not be far from Me; O My Strength, hasten to help me. . . . For He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; Nor has He hidden His face from Him: But when He cried to Him, He heard (Psalm 22:19, 24).

2. Why do you stand afar off, O Lord? Why do You hide Yourself in times of trouble? (Psalm 10:1).

3. Do not hide Your face from me; Do not turn Your servant away in /anger/ (Psalm 27:9).

4. You hid Your face, and I was troubled (Psalm 30:7).

5. How long, Lord? Will You hide Yourself forever? Will Your /wrath/ burn like fire? (Psalm 89:46).

6. Do not hide Your face from me, lest I be like those who go down into the pit (Psalm 143:7).

7. Why do You hide Your face, and forget our affliction and our oppression? (Psalm 44:24).

8. You hide Your face, they are troubled (Psalm 104:29).

9. Why do you hide Your face, and regard me as Your enemy? (Job 13:24).

10. Your New Moons and your appointed feasts My soul hates; they are a trouble to Me; I am weary of bearing them. When you spread out your hands, I will hide My eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not hear. [Your hands are full of blood] (Isaiah 1:15).

11. With a little /wrath/ I hid My face from you for a moment (Isaiah 54:8).

12. Behold I will gather them out of all countries where I have driven them in My /anger/, in My /fury/, and in great /wrath/ . . . I will not turn away from doing them good (Jeremiah 32:27, 40).

[NOTE: The following reference explains more fully that the hiding of God's face refers to the removal of His Holy Spirit.]

13. "And I will not hide My face from them anymore; for I shall have poured out My Spirit on the house of Israel," says the Lord God (Ezekiel 39:29).

14. I will return again to My place till they acknowledge their [offense]. Then they will seek My face; in their affliction they will diligently seek Me (Hosea 5:15).

15. Woe to them when I depart from them! (Hosea 9:12).

16. The Lord was like an enemy.

He has swallowed up Israel

He has swallowed up all her palaces;

He has destroyed her strongholds,

And increased mourning and lamentation

In the daughter of Judah.

He has done violence to His tabernacle,

As if it were a garden;

He has destroyed His place of assembly;

The Lord has caused

The appointed feasts and Sabbaths

to be forgotten in Zion.

In His burning /indignation/ ["Wrath," JB]

He has spurned the king and the priest.

The Lord has spurned His altar;

He has abandoned His sanctuary;

He has given up the walls of her palaces

into the hand of the enemy.

(Lamentations 2:5-7)

17. "You have feared the sword; and I will bring a sword upon you," says the Lord God. "And I will bring you out of its midst and deliver you into the hands of strangers, and execute judgments on you" (Ezekiel 11:8,9).

18. The /wrath/ of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. . . . Therefore God gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves. . . . For this reason God gave them up to vile passions (Romans 1:18-26).

19. His master was /angry/, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him. So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses (Matthew 18:34, 35).

20. He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death. But if he did not lie in wait, but God delivered him into his hand, then I will appoint for you a place where he may flee (Exodus 21:12, 13. This refers to the Cities of Refuge, symbols of Christ).

21. For the Lord God walks in the midst of your camp, to deliver you and give your enemies over to you; therefore your camp must be holy, that He may see no unclean thing among you and turn away from you (Deuteronomy 23:14).

22. The lord will do to them [the Canaanites] as He did to Sihon and Og, the kings of the Amorites and their land, when He destroyed them. The lord will give them over to you (Deuteronomy 31:4,5).

23. Thus says the Lord: "[You have forsaken Me], and therefore I also have left you in the hand of Shishak [of Egypt]" (2 Chronicles 12:5).

24. Now when the Lord saw that they humbled themselves, the word of the Lord came to Shemaiah [the prophet], saying, "They have humbled themselves; therefore I will not destroy them, but I will grant them some deliverance. My /wrath/ shall not be poured out on Jerusalem by the hand of Shishak" [2 Chronicles 12:7. Note the parallel thoughts: a) I, God, will not destroy them, and I, God, will not pour wrath on Jerusalem by the hand of Shishak.)].

25. Because you have forsaken the Lord, He also has forsaken you (2 Chronicles 24:20).

26. Those who are far from you shall perish.

You have destroyed all those

who desert you for harlotry.

But it is good for me to draw near to God.

(Psalm 73:27, 28).

27. You shall no longer be termed forsaken . . . You shall be called Sought Out, a city not forsaken (Isaiah 62:4, 12).

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

I was hoping for your sake that you wouldn't do this. I'm afraid you are backing yourself into a corner. Here's how:

Ellen White herself clearly disputes your point, because she says God won the great controversy at the cross.

I've made this point many times myself, I'm pretty sure on this very thread. I'm hardly contradicting myself. I didn't dispute that the Great Controversy was won at the cross, but the idea that there are things which God did which do not involve winning the Great Controversy. Do you see the difference?

I'll try to explain.

The Great Controversy is in regards to God's character and the principles of His government. Satan said they were won thing, whereas God said they were another. Most specifically, Satan changed that God acted out of self-interest, as opposed to the best interests of His creatures. He also presented God as having such traits of characters as himself: cruel, severe, and harsh. He made similar accusations in regards to the principles of God's government, saying that God's law was defective and that His creatures didn't need to keep it, or shouldn't keep it.

In order to counteract these principles, God sent His Son. All that man can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son. It's not that God was ever acting contrary to His own character or principles, but God's character was not seen or understood in its true fullness and beauty until Christ, largely because Satan was able to obscure things. But Christ, coming in human flesh, was able to cut through the fog.

Christ's entire life accomplished this, not just the cross. It's not that the Great Controversy was won at the cross to the exclusion of everything else, but Christ's entire life, culminating at the cross, portrayed a picture of God which put the lie to Satan's accusations. Although Christ's entire life demonstrated God's goodness, righteousness, selflessness, self-sacrifice, love, mercy and compassion, no part of Christ's life demonstrated this more deeply or clearly than the cross. At the cross, Christ's willingness to give of Himself, and even to risk Himself, for all eternity, for the good of His creatures, was demonstrated, as well as Satan being unmasked.

But in so doing, no new principle was put into effect, nor was God revealing anything that didn't already exist. God's character has always been the same, and He has always acted by the principles of His government.

To win the Great Controversy, God must reveal Himself and the principles of His government. The Great Controversy was won by Jesus Christ in regards to the onlooking universe because He demonstrated the truth about God and His government so clearly (as well as Satan's demonstrating his own character and the principles of his government so clearly) that there was no longer the shadow of a doubt among any of those watching as to who was right.

But this doesn't mean that at any time God was acting for some other purpose than to win the Great Controversy, nor that God's actions can be compartmentalized as "this pertains to winning the Great Controversy" and "this doesn't pertain to winning the Great Controversy."

Because the Great Controversy involves the revelation of God's character and the principles of His government, everything God does involves this. If at any time God should act selfishly, or contrary to the principles of His government, the enemy would win. Even now.

Quote:

She never indicates that all of God's activity against Satan is part of winning the war.

This is obvious is we simply understand what the war is about. And there are many statements to this effect, of which the following is typical:

Quote:

The world has been committed to Christ, and through Him has come every blessing from God to the fallen race. He was the Redeemer before as after His incarnation. As soon as there was sin, there was a Saviour. He has given light and life to all, and according to the measure of light given, each is to be judged. And He who has given the light, He who has followed the soul with tenderest entreaty, seeking to win it from sin to holiness, is in one its advocate and judge. From the opening of the great controversy in heaven, Satan has maintained his cause through deception; and Christ has been working to unveil his schemes and to break his power. (DA 210)

The part in bold is describing the fighting of the Great Controversy, and echoing the point I've been bringing out, that God has been constantly at work to win it.

Quote:

God's forcing Satan out of heaven did not win the great controversy-- it only transferred the battle to other planets. Similarly, what God did in removing Adam and Eve from the garden of Eden did not win the war. Nor did many other actions that God has taken, such as commanding Moses to put forth his staff so that the water would return over the heads of the Egytpian army in the Red Sea. Nor did God's intentionally commanding the Israelites to annihilate the wicked nations in Palestine at the time of the entrance into that land. None of those things won the great controversy, and Ellen White never refers to them in that way. Yet they are clearly using compelling force by any definiton of the term.

This really doesn't have anything to do with the point under discussion, which is that one cannot compartmentalize God's actions into some which have to do with winning the Great Controversy and some which don't. The fact that you think this is possible makes me wonder what you think the Great Controversy is about, or how it is won.

I'm also curious as to whether the fact that you interpret God's actions the way that you do is involved in not understanding the point I've been making.

Quote:

Since both the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy clearly show that God has used compelling power or force before, your argument would mean that God is indeed using force to win the great controversy-- but this is exactly what Ellen White says God DOES NOT DO.

You have an idea, and then reason in such a way to try to prevent that idea from being proven by my argument. Your idea is that God uses compelling power. To enable yourself to continue to keep this idea, you reason in such as way as to be able to keep this idea from being controverted. This leads you to the idea that God does some things to win the Great Controversy, but does other things which aren't involved in winning the Great Controversy, because if you didn't, you see that my argument would demonstrate that your idea regarding compelling power is incorrect. This is very interesting.

So if you're wrong that in stating that there are things that God does which are not involved in winning the Great Controversy, then you're also wrong in regards to God's not using compelling power. This is what you yourself are arguing here.

This helps me understand why you are taking the position you are.

Quote:

It is also exactly what you are attempting to argue against. Yet (I believe) because you are apparently unwilling to admit that God does selectively use compelling power, you are now in the ironic position where the evidence would show that God uses force to win the great controversy, if indeed everything God does must be included in the way God wins the war. Are you sure this is what you want to do?

Yes!!! Everything God does is on trial. Every nook and cranny is to be investigated. God has been completely transparent, and there is not a thing that God has ever done which is not in harmony with His character or the principles of His government. The winning of the Great Controversy = the revelation of God's character and the principles of His government. This is all God has been doing since the inception of sin, because this is the only way that sin can be brought to an end, and God hates sin because of what it does to His creatures. The judgment will show that at every step of the way God has acted to bring sin to an end as quickly as possible, and there is nothing which God could have done to have accomplished this more quickly than He did.

Quote:

Notice that sky has avoided this situation by conceding that while God has selectively used compelling force in the great controversy, God has never used such power to win the war against sin and Satan. It's an extrmely critical distinction to make.

I disagree that this is what sky has done. I submit that sky is in completely harmony with what I've written here, and that sky's point is that God has restrained Satan and his followers in order to allow a fair fight. For the Great Controversy to be wages, it's necessary that both sides have the opportunity to present their case, which necessitates Satan being given a certain amount of sway, but not too much. I expect sky is in perfect harmony with this idea, and this is actually what I've been hearing him say.

[Twilight]

Quote:

When is it "ok" for God to use compelling force?

If by "compelling force," you mean "compelling power," DA 659 tells us that compelling power is found only under Satan's government. So whenever God can use a principle that's found only under Satan's government, He can use compelling power.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: John317

Yes, you are right, God does not HAVE to use compelling power to win the controversy; but He has sometimes used it.

But compelling power isn't even a principle of God's government. It's found only under Satan's government. It didn't even exist until the invention of sin. Compelling power is the fruit of sin.

Why would God use something which is:

a.The fruit of sin

b.Didn't even exist until the invention of sin

c.Is a principle found only under the government of the enemy

AND

d.Is a principle He doesn't have to use?

Why wouldn't God instead choose to win the Great Controversy by using principles which are found under *His* government?

Have you considered that God does not "compell" or force the will to "choose Him".

And that is what you have turned into a "universal principle"?

God never forces us to serve Him.

But He does force people to do what they do not willingly want to do.

That is biblically clear.

He is going to force everyone to behold Christ when He comes soon, they are going to ask for the rocks to fall on them.

The only way that He would not force them to see Christ, is to come hidden...

Your argument is very illogical Pnat, because it rests on a premise that cannot be established.

Mark :-)

[John317]

Quote:

John317: Can you say more about what those lines say? I really am interested.

Quote:

ROBERT: Ellen White has good things to say; she also has unintentional error. I'll stick with the Bible, just as she states I should....

Ellen White doesn't say stick to the Bible, though. She certainly did say everyone should study their Bibles. But she also said all SDAs should have her books and be studying them. She wanted her book Great Controversy and certain of her other books sold widely to the public.

She said that people should get to know what the Lord has revealed in Scripture and that before they study her writings, they need to know what the Bible teaches. That is true, but that's different from saying she states people should "stick to the Bible" and not study the Testimonies.

My belief is the same as Jack Sequeira's-- we need as much help from God as possible, and we can't afford to reject the wonderful light that God gave to us through the life and work of Ellen White.

However, it's necessary for each individual to study and come to their own conclusions and convictions about her and her writings. It has to be due to real conviction and not simply because someone else accepts her. It's the same with the Bible. It doesn't do any good to believe in Christ and in the Scripture because others do.

[pnattmbtc]

In the meantime, there's at least a dozen questions I've put to you and sky but to which I have not received anything close to a satisfactory response (from my viewpoint).

From my viewpoint, this isn't the case. From my viewpoint, you ask the same question is dozens of different ways. I think sky feels the same way. This is because you don't think in terms of the principles involved, but think in terms of the incidents.

So you ask, "What about this incident? What about this one? What about this one? What about this one?" and so forth, and if every incident isn't discussed, you feel that every question hasn't been answered.

But what sky and I have been saying is that the same principles are involved in every case. It's not necessary, nor fruitful, to consider every single case. Instead, what we have suggested, and tried to do, is to explain the principles in detail and apply them to a few cases.

Sky has written pages and pages and pages doing this, and I've also discussed a number of incidents in detail, as well as described the principles involved.

Unless you have questions which involve principles which haven't been addressed. That would be another story, and I've be very interested to see and discuss any questions like this that you might have.

To recap, there are three subjects where I'm awaiting a response from you:

a.How is it that threatening to torture someone is not coercion of the will?

b.Why do you think God is capable of torturing people? (i.e., that torturing isn't contrary to His character or the principles of His government, or that you wouldn't reject the idea that God would torture people out of hand simply on the basis of knowing His character)

c.How you know when God is acting directly as opposed to passively, using the fiery serpents as an example (i.e., how, on the basis of Scripture, would you conclude that God acted passively in this incident).

You've also raised a new point which is very interesting, which I'm interested in discussing further, which is the relationship between the winning of the Great Controversy and the use of compelling power. That is, I'm especially interested in your argument that it cannot be the case that everything that God does is for the purpose of winning the Great Controversy, because if that were the case, then I'd be right, that God has never used compelling power. I hadn't thought of this connection until you brought it out.

Any other questions that you can think of which involve the principles involved I'd be very interested in discussing, especially if they are ones that you have raised and feel haven't been addressed.

I've pretty much had these same three items, a., b., and c. above, that I've been trying to discuss for 75 pages. You're the only one I've been able to carry any semblance of a dialog with on regarding these, and I do appreciate your willingness to discuss these.

[Twilight]

Quote:

It cannot be that this message will be something they are already familiar with. In order for them to be captivated by this message, it will have to be a message which they have never heard before and which will cause them to take another look at the Old Testament Scriptures, at the whole Bible even.

Do you realise how many peole have been lost because of the desire to have some "new light" to share Sky?

I believe that is what you and others are trying to do here.

It is definitely not "old light" as far as I can tell, as it has to reject much "old light" to be established...

I always prefer to rediscover old light, much safer that way...

Mark

[Twilight]

Quote:

I would like to suggest that the critical difference between God's forces and Satan's is that God only uses force in the cause of righteousness, truth, love, and restoration whereas Satan's forces use compelling power in the cause of jealousy, hatred, suffering, death, and destruction.

Now I believe this is light my friend!

Mark :-)

[John317]

Quote:

John317:In the meantime, there's at least a dozen questions I've put to you and sky but to which I have not received anything close to a satisfactory response.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: From my viewpoint, you ask the same question is dozens of different ways. I think sky feels the same way. This is because you don't think in terms of the principles involved, but think in terms of the incidents.

So you ask, "What about this incident? What about this one? What about this one? What about this one?" and so forth, and if every incident isn't discussed, you feel that every question hasn't been answered.

But what sky and I have been saying is that the same principles are involved in every case. It's not necessary, nor fruitful, to consider every single case. Instead, what we have suggested, and tried to do, is to explain the principles in detail and apply them to a few cases.

sky posted this:

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

Read sky's entire post where he made this important statement.

What you're saying is that you are satisfied that your "universal principle" is true for all cases, even though you admit that you have only applie them to "a few cases"--- far too few and selectively. That is bad scholarship and a poor way to study and arrive at the truth. It's already been proven that the so-called "universal principle" is not universal at all and that Ellen White herself rejects it, in addition to the fact that the Bible contains many instances of God's use of compelling force. The only way you can continue to support such an idea is by ignoring the full evidence, which you do by excusing it as unnecessary because of some imaginary "universal principle" based on a misunderstanding of a few passages of Ellen White that are taken out of context. Thus, you say, you do not need to study all the evidence, as long as you have your "principle." It seems to me to be fast collapsing.

Now I finally need to go to bed so I can get up at an indecent, unearthly hour.

[Twilight]

Quote:

God is not evil because He chooses to destroy Satan and the impentenant. God has unlimited control of the works of His hands, and it is His right to do as He pleases, and to do as He pleases with the works of His hands.

Agreed.

This theology that is being presented here, removes that absolute authority.

Mark

[John317]

I completely agree. It virtually sets up human thinking over God, at least as I see it. Reminds me of what Adam and Eve did when they put their reasoning above God's command.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Twilight:Do you realise how many peole have been lost because of the desire to have some "new light" to share Sky?

I believe that is what you and others are trying to do here.

Why would you believe that? No one has given you the job of judging others, and this is a very dangerous profession to undertake. "Judge not, lest ye be judged."

Why wouldn't you think sky or others are acting under the similar good motives that you presume you are acting from when you present your ideas? You have idea that are even more unusual than the ones you're protesting against, yet I don't believe anyone has accused of doing to because you have a desire to have some "new light."

What's the reason you share the unusual ideas you have? Isn't it because you believe they are true and that they are a blessing to those who receive them? Why not assume that others are acting under the same motivation you are?

Quote:

It is definitely not "old light" as far as I can tell, as it has to reject much "old light" to be established...

I always prefer to rediscover old light, much safer that way...

This is most definitely not the case. You've presented some ideas I've never seen expressed before ever, by anyone.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

I would like to suggest that the critical difference between God's forces and Satan's is that God only uses force in the cause of righteousness, truth, love, and restoration whereas Satan's forces use compelling power in the cause of jealousy, hatred, suffering, death, and destruction.

This doesn't agree with the statement that "Compelling power is found only under Satan's government," nor "The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government."

These statements are dealing with the principle of compelling power and force itself, not applying them correctly. That is, these statements indicates that the acts themselves involve principles which are not in harmony with the principles of God's government. Indeed, this idea could not have been more clearly expressed.

Consider:

X is found only under Satan's government. X is not according to the principles of God's government.

If one didn't already have some preconceived idea in regards to X, wouldn't one easily conclude that X is something bad? Can you think of anything other than compelling power/force that would fit the category that:

A.It is found only under Satan's government.

B.It is not a principle of God's government.

yet

C.It's not something bad.

or

D.It's something that God did at all (let alone often)

[pnattmbtc]

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

Read sky's entire post where he made this important statement.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

God is not evil because He chooses to destroy Satan and the impentenant.

This hasn't been asserted. This is a straw man argument.

Quote:

God has unlimited control of the works of His hands, and it is His right to do as He pleases, and to do as He pleases with the works of His hands.

Agreed.

This theology that is being presented here, removes that absolute authority.

If by "this theology" you mean the straw man, that could be argued. However, if one considers what's actually being said, that's another.

What's actually being said is that sin is destructive, and that God protects us against its destructive power, and that He destroys by removing His protection, allowing people to experience the result of their choices. Now those who oppose the ideas being presented *agree* that God has often done this. The disagreement is that, in addition to this, God also destroys in some other way.

Now if its agreed that God often does what is suggested, that God often destroys by removing His protection, then it is evident asserting that God does this does not "remove that absolute authority." God destroys in accordance with the principles of His government. The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of His government. Compelling power is found only under the government of Satan.

Quote:

I completely agree. It virtually sets up human thinking over God, at least as I see it. Reminds me of what Adam and Eve did when they put their reasoning above God's command.

I haven't seen evidence that the "human thinking" has been understood. I think before criticizing an idea, it should be understood. There's no evidence the idea being presented has been understood. I keep seeing misrepresentations of the idea. If an idea is understood, it should be easy to represent it in a way that the one presenting the idea can say, "Yes, that's what I believe." Instead of seeing this done, I see misrepresentations expressed, and then arguments made against that. That's hardly productive.