"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[pnattmbtc]

I will try to get the book and read it, and then if you like, we could open a thread just devoted to a discussion of it. But I think we should also read together and discuss a book [to be named later] that is written from the 'traditional' viewpoint of the final destruction of the wicked. It could be done on the same thread when we talk about Ty's book. It would look at the pros and cons of both viewpoints. Just an idea.

Sounds like an excellent idea.

[pnattmbtc]

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.

[pnattmbtc]

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

p: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.

T:Well, now you are in trouble.

Because you take this principle and apply it in all the wrong places.

[skyblue888]

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.

I have to say Amen here. And I think Mark knows exactly what you are talking about. I can think of two ideas, at least, that Mark has been presenting lately that were certainly not "old light" resurrected but private interpretations of some passages of Scripture that were totally off the charts. The way these ideas were presented, in spite of the fact that they were exposed for what they were, mere speculations, certainly struck me as one whose desire is to present "new light" and yet it is crystal clear that these "new ideas" were only mere human speculations.

Mark, many of your posts, and I am not saying this to offend you, strike me as one who has a "holier-than-thou" attitude toward those who don't exactly think or believe as you do on any given subject. You often argue from a philosopher's point of view asking rethorical questions. I find that a lot of your arguments are based on mere human reasoning, mere human suppositions.

sky

[doug yowell]

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.

Earthquake related? (Not the spending time with the wife!)

[Twilight]

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.

I have expressed ideas that are derived from an examination of the scriptures.

Many of them are fundamentally basic which you have disagreed with, like "the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the form of a present personal experience of God within through the agency of the Holy Spirit".

The only thing I have ever presented that you might argue the case for is about the human hearts functions at an emotional level, which has been expressed by other SDA's way before I ever mentioned it. I saw a programme on 3abn a few years ago where the same view was expressed.

But back to the point, this is "new light" you are presenting in my view.

But it is not light, it is darkness when I consider the dangerous path you have travelled down.

I have expressed many reasons why I believe this to be the case.

Mainly due to the fact that this doctrine has placed you in judgement over Gods character which is an extremely dangerous position to take and to then lead others into.

Respectfully,

Mark :-)

[Twilight]

Quote:

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."

This does agree if the above statement is considered in context and balanced by other statements.

The only time it does not agree is when it is applied "universally" and used to "blank out/erase" any statement that might question its use as a universal principle.

Mark :-)

[Twilight]

Quote:

Mark, many of your posts, and I am not saying this to offend you, strike me as one who has a "holier-than-thou" attitude toward those who don't exactly think or believe as you do on any given subject.

Then I ask God to deal with that.

But I would say, that you often state that those that do not accept your viewpoint are "rejecting light".

Is that not the very thing you are suggesting I am guilty of here Sky?

Suggesting that someone has not read the bible deeply enough etc, would that also qualify for the above condemnation?

Quote:

You often argue from a philosopher's point of view asking rethorical questions. I find that a lot of your arguments are based on mere human reasoning, mere human suppositions.

No Sky.

I am asking simple logical questions.

If your view was solid, that would cause you no concern.

But if you want to hold onto a specific viewpoint no matter how much you are reasoned with, then do you think this might be the only response you could use to defend your own viewpoint with?

There is nothing wrong with using reason Sky.

There is something very wrong however, with using dogmatism.

Mark :-)

[Guest]

AMEN! Mark

[pnattmbtc]

I have expressed ideas that are derived from an examination of the scriptures.

[pnattmbtc]

There is nothing wrong with using reason Sky.

There is something very wrong however, with using dogmatism.

I agree completely with this. So let's see some reason! No accusations, just well reasoned arguments.

[teresaq]

Exo 6:1 Then the LORD said unto Moses, Now shalt thou see what I will do to Pharaoh: for with a strong hand shall he let them go, and with a strong hand shall he drive them out of his land.

At the time of their deliverance from Egypt, the children of Israel ate the Passover supper standing, with their loins girded, and with their staves in their hands, ready for their journey. The manner in which they celebrated this ordinance harmonized with their condition; for they were about to be thrust out of the land of Egypt, and were to begin a painful and difficult journey through the wilderness. But in Christ's time the condition of things had changed. They were not now about to be thrust out of a strange country, but were dwellers in their own land. {DA 653.1}

[skyblue888]

Again to be totally honest with you Mark, and I am not saying this to offend you, but what I see to be the problem with you Mark is that you rely too much on your intellect and too little on what has already been revealed. Time after time, I have seen you putting your own constructions upon the Word of God and even upon the Testimonies to avoid having to say yes to something that would lead you to say yes to something else. Of course you are not the only one doing this. May God have mercy on all of us. But when we cannot accept the simplest declarations of the Holy Spirit from the Testimonies concerning the character of God, the nature of His government, and the principles of His dealing with sin, these enlightening statements that pnatt patiently keeps reminding us, which statements some of us keep making little of, and yet are the "keys" to unlock the meaning of some of what appears to be the most difficult passages of Scriptures concerning God's ways of saying and doing, and we reject that, in what then are we any better than the Jews of Old who would hold on to their false interpretations of the Scriptures of the Old Testatment and which led them to believe that Christ would establish a militaristic government on earth especially when He, by the truth, had repeatedly exposed their fatal error? They would not be taught anything different than what they had always understood and in the end their stubborn unbelief led them to crucify the One who had dared teach them differently from what they had been taught since infancy regarding the nature of Christ's kingdom and the manner in which it was to be established. If they would have accepted the principles of Christ's kingdom it would have been unto the saving of their souls.

So pray tell us Mark, John, Richard, and whoever else agrees with your position on the character of God, What is it that you are teaching about the character of God that is so illuminating in its influence?

What is it that you are teaching about the character of God that we and the whole world don't already know?

What is it that you are teaching that would cause the professed people of God and the whole world to re-assess our conception of God, that would cause us to see how falsely we have seen and interpreted God's actions in the Old Testament?

What is it that you are teaching that would cause us to say, This must be the message that Mrs. White predicted would be proclaimed in these last days regarding the character of God since it has been so misunderstood and misinterpreted?

What is it in your message that would cause many souls to say, This must be the fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah 60:1-5? or of these words: "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"? C.O.L.415.

sky

What is it in what you are teaching or defending about the character of God that would cause one to be so captivated by that teaching that it would cause him to give glory to God?

What is it in what you are teaching about the character of God that would serve to dispel the cloud that has been obscuring God's glory from the people's view, so that they would no longer see Him in a false light? See 1 S.M.355.

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

I have expressed ideas that are derived from an examination of the scriptures.

This is your opinion. Others have a different opinion. Everybody, in their own opinion, is doing what you are doing. But you judge others to have acted from a different motive than you have, which is what I'm trying to bring to your attention.

Quote:

Many of them are fundamentally basic which you have disagreed with, like "the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the form of a present personal experience of God within through the agency of the Holy Spirit".

The only thing I have ever presented that you might argue the case for is about the human hearts functions at an emotional level, which has been expressed by other SDA's way before I ever mentioned it. I saw a programme on 3abn a few years ago where the same view was expressed.

This doesn't matter. I discussing the aspect of judging, not the rightness or wrongness of the idea.

Quote:

But back to the point, this is "new light" you are presenting in my view.

But it is not light, it is darkness when I consider the dangerous path you have travelled down.

This is your opinion.

Quote:

I have expressed many reasons why I believe this to be the case.

Not very clearly. I've expressed a number of questions, the ones I've outlined for John317. They include:

1.What does the statement "Compelling power is found only under Satan's government" mean?

2.If it is asserted that God will torture the wicked by setting them on fire for days if they do not do what He says, how is this not coercion of the will?

3.Given that God is often presented as doing that which He permits, how can you tell if a given incident in Scripture is active or permissive? For example, consider the fiery serpents, or the destruction of Jerusalem. On the basis of Scripture, how would you determine that God actually acted passively in these cases?

If you wish to engage in a dialog where ideas are discussed, as opposed to accusations being thrown about, please address these questions. Also, if you have any questions yourself, that can be expressed without making accusations or judgments, please present them.

Let's discuss! (not accuse one another; that's not our job. What motives one had will come out in the final judgment; again, not our job).

Quote:

Mainly due to the fact that this doctrine has placed you in judgement over Gods character which is an extremely dangerous position to take and to then lead others into.

This is the type of comment I'm talking about. This type of comment would apply just as much to your ideas as to that of another. No need for this sort of thing. But if you'd like to leave accusations aside, and discuss the ideas, please do so!

Excellent comments. Very much appreciated. I am hoping and praying that any prejudice remaining will be removed and that we can share our concepts of God without judging the motives of the posters.

sky

[pnattmbtc]

Time after time, I have seen you putting your own constructions upon the Word of God and even upon the Testimonies to avoid having to say yes to something that would lead you to say yes to something else. Of course you are not the only one doing this. May God have mercy on all of us.

Amen to this!

It's very easy for us to become attached to our own ideas, so that when we come across new information, which would lead us to reject that which we have thought, we simply reject the new information instead.

[skyblue888]

Thats what happened to the the Jews of old and sadly it will continue to happen until the end of time.

sky

[Archie777]

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 firstborn.

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.

Yes, I see what you mean. It's hard to imagine someone naturally turning into a pillar of salt the moment Jesus withdrew His protection. It's also hard to imagine "God uses His enemies as instruments to punish" means He reluctantly withdraws His protection and permits evil men or evil angels to violently torture and kill sinners. Either way, how is Jesus not culpable?

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Yes, I see what you mean. It's hard to imagine someone naturally turning into a pillar of salt the moment Jesus withdrew His protection.

Not really. You've seen the following quite a number of times:

Quote:

"This remarkable happening is stated matter-of-factly, with no suggestion that it was a special miracle or divine judgment. Lot’s wife "looked back" (the phrase might even be rendered "returned back" or "lagged back") seeking to cling to her luxurious life in Sodom (note Christ’s reference to this in Luke 17:32,33) and was destroyed in the "overthrow" (Genesis 19:25,29) of the city. There are many great deposits of rock salt in the region, probably formed by massive precipitation from thermal brines upwelling from the earth’s deep mantle during the great Flood. Possibly the overthrow buried her in a shower of these salt deposits blown skyward by the explosions. There is also the possibility that she was buried in a shower of volcanic ash, with her body gradually being converted into "salt" over the years following through the process of petrifaction, in a manner similar to that experienced by the inhabitants of Pompeii and Herculaneum in the famous eruption of Mount Vesuvius.

- Henry Morris (taken from: "The Defenders Study Bible") (http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/lotswife.html)

Quote:

It's also hard to imagine "God uses His enemies as instruments to punish" means He reluctantly withdraws His protection and permits evil men or evil angels to violently torture and kill sinners.

This is even less difficult to imagine. Indeed, this is the only interpretation that makes sense, unless you wish to say that God uses His enemies as pawns or something like that, something more akin to what Calvinists teach. Over and over again in the SOP you'll find texts describing how God allowed those who have rebelled against Him to do their own will, yet accomplish His purposes despite that. God allows His enemies to choose what they wish, and works out His purposes anyway. The cross is a perfect example of this. God didn't move upon anyone to crucify His Son, yet He accomplished His purposes despite their opposition to Him.

Quote:

Either way, how is Jesus not culpable?

Jesus would clearly be culpable if He caused evil. But He is not culpable for permitting evil, for reasons which should be obvious. If we wish to say Jesus is responsible when evil is permitted, then *all* evil would have to be blamed on Him. Surely this isn't what you're suggesting.

[Twilight]

Quote:

1.What does the statement "Compelling power is found only under Satan's government" mean?

2.If it is asserted that God will torture the wicked by setting them on fire for days if they do not do what He says, how is this not coercion of the will?

3.Given that God is often presented as doing that which He permits, how can you tell if a given incident in Scripture is active or permissive? For example, consider the fiery serpents, or the destruction of Jerusalem. On the basis of Scripture, how would you determine that God actually acted passively in these cases?

1. This has been answered, when you take this quote and apply it universally, you have to ignore other quotes.

It has been shown from scripture that Christ Himself compelled Satan, so therefore your understanding that this is universal is the point of fault.

2. This rests on the assumption of point no 1. This has also been answered in its own right. God uses compelling force as a last resort and in the form of judgement, when there is no more chance for a person to accept God.

3. The only time you can assume it is permissive is when the bible states that is the case.

You cannot assume that all of Gods acts are permissive as others are clearly not.

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

These answers have been given to you over and over.

It is not that the questions have not been answered, it seems to me that with your "universal principle" in place, it is impossible for you to hear the answers.

Mark :-)

[Twilight]

Quote:

What is it in what you are teaching about the character of God that would serve to dispel the cloud that has been obscuring God's glory from the people's view, so that they would no longer see Him in a false light? See 1 S.M.355.

The very same thing that the pioneers were sent to take to the world.

One of the simplest truths in the bible.

God does not punish sinners for "eternity", they are punished for their sins.

Nothing more, nothing less.

This has always been part of the light we were supposed to take to the world.

This new view you are presenting is something entirely different.

[Twilight]

Quote:

It's very easy for us to become attached to our own ideas, so that when we come across new information, which would lead us to reject that which we have thought, we simply reject the new information instead.

Indeed...

[pnattmbtc]

1.What does the statement "Compelling power is found only under Satan's government" mean?

2.If it is asserted that God will torture the wicked by setting them on fire for days if they do not do what He says, how is this not coercion of the will?

3.Given that God is often presented as doing that which He permits, how can you tell if a given incident in Scripture is active or permissive? For example, consider the fiery serpents, or the destruction of Jerusalem. On the basis of Scripture, how would you determine that God actually acted passively in these cases?

1. This has been answered, when you take this quote and apply it universally, you have to ignore other quotes.

[Twilight]

Quote:

Thats what happened to the the Jews of old and sadly it will continue to happen until the end of time.

This is where I take issue with your view Sky.

Those that oppose your viewpoint are stating that they think you are wrong.

But your response is to compare those that do not agree with you, to the Jews that crucified Christ.

Basically, you seem to be inferring that if we do not accept your view, we will be lost, because we are rejecting "light".

Mark :-(

[Archie777]

Pnat, would you agree Jesus possesses the power and wherewithal to turn someone into a pillar of salt if circumstances required it? I'm not asking if you believe He would do it. I already know you believe He wouldn't.

Also, do you see any discrepancies between the following insights and the quote you cited above:

She looked back to Sodom, and, murmuring against the dealings of God, she was changed to a pillar of salt, that she might stand as a warning to all those who disregard the special mercies and providences of Heaven. {4T 111.3}

The judgment which God brought upon the antediluvian world declared it incurable. The destruction of Sodom proclaimed the inhabitants of the most beautiful country in the world incorrigible in sin. The fire and brimstone from heaven consumed everything except Lot, his wife, and two daughters. The wife, looking back in disregard of God's command, became a pillar of salt. {TM 75.1}

[pnattmbtc]

The very same thing that the pioneers were sent to take to the world.

One of the simplest truths in the bible.

God does not punish sinners for "eternity", they are punished for their sins.

Nothing more, nothing less.

This has always been part of the light we were supposed to take to the world.

This new view you are presenting is something entirely different.

What's been presented in regards to the final destruction of the wicked is not new light. Kevin H. pointed out that as long as Adventism has existed, the debate we're having in regards to the fire of Rev. 20 has been going on.