"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[Twilight]

Your questions have been answered Pnat.

Over and over again.

You are just refusing them.

[Archie777]

By the way, why did Jesus "command" godly people like Moses to kill sinners? When the Jews inquired of God, because they were uncertain what to do in the cases of the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer, why did Jesus "command" the Jews to stone them to death? Why didn't He take advantage of the situation and command the Jews to pardon and release the sinners?

Here's my twopence: Inspiration makes it clear to me both sinners were beyond hope and unpardonable. Otherwise, Jesus would have commanded the Jews to pardon and release them. I also suspect the laws commanding capital punishment symbolize the essence of final judgment. That is, punishment is personal and participatory. Jesus, not sin, selfishness, sinners, natural causes, etc. will execute justice and judgment.

[Twilight]

Quote:

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.

But that is not what you are presenting...

You are trying to say that God never actively uses compelling force in any way shape or form...

That is quite different to the details of the fire from God coming down out of heaven and destroying everyone.

Mark

[pnattmbtc]

Your questions have been answered Pnat.

Over and over again.

You are just refusing them.

If they've been answered "over and over again," you should be able to point to at least one post that does so. Other than John's answering question 1, can you do so? If so, please do so.

You certainly haven't answered any questions. You're just throwing out accusations. That's not helpful.

I'm telling you I'm interested in your answers to these questions. I'm interested in what you think. What do you think? Please answer the questions.

[pnattmbtc]

Jesus, not sin, selfishness, sinners, natural causes, etc. will execute justice and judgment.

This is another misrepresentation. Of course Jesus will execute justice and judgment. Nobody has suggested otherwise, and you're aware of this.

This question is, "What causes the destruction of the wicked?" It's not "Who executes justice and judgment?"

[Twilight]

Here is a summary of the answers you have been given.

You just do not accept those answers.

They have been given, over and over.

I think you would be better saying:

"I do not agree with the answers supplied."

Quote:

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.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: Archie

Jesus, not sin, selfishness, sinners, natural causes, etc. will execute justice and judgment.

This is another misrepresentation. Of course Jesus will execute justice and judgment. Nobody has suggested otherwise, and you're aware of this.

This question is, "What causes the destruction of the wicked?" It's not "Who executes justice and judgment?"

Playing games with words,pnatt? I understood clearly what Archie was saying.If he will allow me to restate it?..."not sin, selfishness, sinners,NATURAL CAUSES,ect. will cause the final death of the wicked." Correct me if I'm wrong,Archie.

[Robert]

it's necessary for each individual to study and come to their own conclusions and convictions about her and her writings.

Right...and I take the Bible and the Bible only....No EGW as an authority.

[Robert]

I completely agree. It virtually sets up human thinking over God, at least as I see it. :

John, that's a form of brainwashing....In your opinion it does this....It's just an opinion taken from your view of things....You are setting up your opinion as coming from God.

[skyblue888]

"The understanding of the people of God has been blinded for Satan has misrepresented the character of God. Our good and gracious Lord has been presented before the people (adventists) clothed in the attributes of Satan." 1 S.M.355.

Obviously this misrepresentation spoken of here is not about the false doctrine of eternal life in the fires of hell as the wages of sin in this life. Seventh-day Adventists have no misgivings about this teaching.

So it cannot be about this false teaching that it is said that the understanding of the people of God has been blinded. It must be about something else then. But what is it? Can you tell?

sky

[pnattmbtc]

Here is a summary of the answers you have been given.

You just do not accept those answers.

They have been given, over and over.

I think you would be better saying:

"I do not agree with the answers supplied."

Quote:

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.

[Twilight]

"The understanding of the people of God has been blinded for Satan has misrepresented the character of God. Our good and gracious Lord has been presented before the people (adventists) clothed in the attributes of Satan." 1 S.M.355.

Obviously this misrepresentation spoken of here is not about the false doctrine of eternal life in the fires of hell as the wages of sin in this life. Seventh-day Adventists have no misgivings about this teaching.

So it cannot be about this false teaching that it is said that the understanding of the people of God has been blinded. It must be about something else then. But what is it? Can you tell?

sky

[pnattmbtc]

d:Playing games with words,pnatt? I understood clearly what Archie was saying.If he will allow me to restate it?..."not sin, selfishness, sinners,NATURAL CAUSES,ect. will cause the final death of the wicked." Correct me if I'm wrong,Archie.

p:It's ridiculous to suggest that sin, selfishness, etc. will execute justice and judgment. This isn't a "word game" but either a serious error, or an attempt at ridicule.

Nobody has represented correctly the positions that have been presented from the POV God does not directly destroy the wicked. It's fine to argue against a position with which you disagree, but before doing so you should be able to present the position in such a way that the person with whom you are disagreeing would say, "Yes, that's what I'm saying."

I've not seen anyone do this. I just keep seeing misrepresentations, straw men, and then arguments against the misrepresentations.

It reminds me of when Huss was commanded to recant, and was given a list of things for which he was to recant, and he replied, "I can't recant of these things because I've never said these things."

[Twilight]

Quote:

To answer this question, you need to start out, "Compelling power is found only under Satan's government means ..."

This quote is in the context of God forcing the conscience.

So it means that God does not force the conscience.

It does not mean that God will never use any force in any way whatsoever.

Quote:

It's asking how threatening to torture someone is not compelling power.

Torture and punish are not the same thing.

This is where you have allowed a misrepresentation to colour your thoughts.

Torture is something you do to bring about a confession or change of mind.

Punishment is something you mete as a consequence to a crime.

Mixing these two up, has caused you to misunderstand punishment.

Quote:

There are many examples which prove this is false. I mentioned two, the fiery serpents, and the destruction of Jerusalem.

Are you saying the bible at no time reveals these as permissive events?

[skyblue888]

"The understanding of the people of God has been blinded for Satan has misrepresented the character of God. Our good and gracious Lord has been presented before the people (adventists) clothed in the attributes of Satan." 1 S.M.355.

Obviously this misrepresentation spoken of here is not about the false doctrine of eternal life in the fires of hell as the wages of sin in this life. Seventh-day Adventists have no misgivings about this teaching.

So it cannot be about this false teaching that it is said that the understanding of the people of God has been blinded. It must be about something else then. But what is it? Can you tell?

sky

_______________________________________________________

Yes I can tell Sky, when I read the rest of the context:

At the Kansas meeting my prayer to God was that the power of the enemy might be broken and that the people who had been in darkness might open their hearts and minds to the message that God should send them, that they might see the truth, new to many minds, as old truth in new framework. The understanding of the people of God has been blinded, for Satan has misrepresented the character of God. Our good and gracious Lord has been presented before the people clothed in the attributes of Satan, and men and women who have been seeking for truth have so long regarded God in a false light that it is difficult to dispel the cloud that obscures His glory from their view. Many have been living in an atmosphere of doubt, and it seems almost impossible for them to lay hold on the hope set before them in the gospel of Christ. . . . {FW 81.1}

On Sabbath [May 11] truths were presented that were new to the majority of the congregation. Things new and old were brought forth from the treasure-house of God's Word. Truths were revealed that the people were scarcely able to comprehend and appropriate. Light flashed from the oracles of God in relation to the law and the gospel, in relation to the fact that Christ is our righteousness, which seemed to souls who were hungry for truth as light too precious to be received. {FW 81.2

Light flashed from the oracles of God in relation to the law and the gospel, in relation to the fact that Christ is our righteousness,

The understanding was righteousness by faith.

It mentions nothing here about "God does not destroy", does it?

So I do not think you should use this quote as a "support".

It does not even mention anything about the subject you are using it to support.

Mark

___________________________________________________________________

In my humble opinion this would be taking the short-sighted view of things. Our conception of God has a lot more to do with righteousness by faith than we may have realized. "Righteousness is love and love is the light and the life of God." M.B.18. "Righteousness is right doing." C.O.L.312. God's right doing. If God is presented before us in a false light, will it not affect our understanding of righteousness by faith and therefore our bahaviour? "By beholding we become changed."

If one believes and teaches that God executes the sentence against the transgressors and that He will set people on fire to suffer for many days because they did not appreciate His work or because they have acted contrary to His ideas, will not that conception affect his righteousness-by-faith experience in a negative way? It is written that in these last days the people of God "can honor God only as they have a right conception of His character, government, and purposes." G.C.593.

In the days of Christ those who made the boldest claims to righteousness all voted to crucify the Son of God out of this world.

And we are warned that history shall be repeated in these last days. There is coming a time when "whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service." John 16:2.

sky

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

pnat:To answer this question, you need to start out, "Compelling power is found only under Satan's government means ..."

Twilight:This quote is in the context of God forcing the conscience.

No it's not. The quote is in the context of not overcoming rebellion by force.

Quote:

Rebellion was not to be overcome by force. Compelling power is found only under Satan's government. The Lord's principles are not of this order. His authority rests upon goodness, mercy, and love; and the presentation of these principles is the means to be used. God's government is moral, and truth and love are to be the prevailing power.(DA 759)

Quote:

So it means that God does not force the conscience.

This is true, but not the context.

Quote:

It does not mean that God will never use any force in any way whatsoever.

Thank you for answering the question, but the answer doesn't fit the context.

Quote:

p:It's asking how threatening to torture someone is not compelling power.

M:Torture and punish are not the same thing.

This is where you have allowed a misrepresentation to colour your thoughts.

Torture is something you do to bring about a confession or change of mind.

Punishment is something you mete as a consequence to a crime.

Mixing these two up, has caused you to misunderstand punishment.

Here's "torture" defined by Webster's:

Quote:

the infliction of intense pain (as from burning) to punish

Isn't this what you think God will do, inflict intense pain upon the wicked by burning to punish them?

The important thing isn't what it's called anyway. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. The important thing is what's happening. What's happening is that God says, "Accept Christ, or else I'll set you on fire and burn you for days." This a threat to inflict intent physical pain by burning. Threats of physical violence are a way of forcing the will.

If I said, "Give me your money, or else I'll shoot you in the knee cap," that's coercion, right? So why wouldn't it be coercion of the will if God were threatening to cause one terrible physical pain?

Quote:

p:There are many examples which prove this is false. I mentioned two, the fiery serpents, and the destruction of Jerusalem.

T:Are you saying the bible at no time reveals these as permissive events?

Are you thinking of something in particular? Where does the Bible speak of the fiery serpents as God acting passively? I'm not aware of anywhere.

[Twilight]

Quote:

In my humble opinion this would be taking the short-sighted view of things.

No Sky.

That is taking the context of the quote and then explaining what it is the people of God were misunderstanding and which truths it was that they were misunderstanding.

There is absolutely no mention of the character of God in relation to how He destroys in that quote.

Can you admit that that is actually not addressed in the context of the quote you have been using?

[Twilight]

Quote:

No it's not. The quote is in the context of not overcoming rebellion by force.

I read from that point downwards.

It was clearly talking about God not compelling the conscience.

Quote:

What's happening is that God says, "Accept Christ, or else I'll set you on fire and burn you for days.

No...

What is happening is that God says: "All sin will be destroyed, if you are attached to that sin, I have no choice but to destroy you, I want you to take up the opportunity to seperate from your sin so that does not happen".

You see Pnat, your view is not the only way to express something.

Your view judges God in my mind.

Very dangerous.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

p:No it's not. The quote is in the context of not overcoming rebellion by force.

T:I read from that point downwards.

It was clearly talking about God not compelling the conscience.

Where? Please quote what you think is clearly talking about God not compelling the conscience.

Here's more of the surrounding context:

Quote:

It was a being of wonderful power and glory that had set himself against God. Of Lucifer the Lord says, "Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty." Ezek. 28:12. Lucifer had been the covering cherub. He had stood in the light of God's presence. He had been the highest of all created beings, and had been foremost in revealing God's purposes to the universe. After he had sinned, his power to deceive

759

was the more deceptive, and the unveiling of his character was the more difficult, because of the exalted position he had held with the Father. {DA 758.4}

God could have destroyed Satan and his sympathizers as easily as one can cast a pebble to the earth; but He did not do this. Rebellion was not to be overcome by force. Compelling power is found only under Satan's government. The Lord's principles are not of this order. His authority rests upon goodness, mercy, and love; and the presentation of these principles is the means to be used. God's government is moral, and truth and love are to be the prevailing power. {DA 759.1}

It was God's purpose to place things on an eternal basis of security, and in the councils of heaven it was decided that time must be given for Satan to develop the principles which were the foundation of his system of government. He had claimed that these were superior to God's principles. Time was given for the working of Satan's principles, that they might be seen by the heavenly universe. {DA 759.2}

Satan led men into sin, and the plan of redemption was put in operation. For four thousand years, Christ was working for man's uplifting, and Satan for his ruin and degradation. And the heavenly universe beheld it all. {DA 759.3}

I highlight the sentence we're discussing.

Quote:

What's happening is that God says, "Accept Christ, or else I'll set you on fire and burn you for days.

No...

What is happening is that God says: "All sin will be destroyed, if you are attached to that sin, I have no choice but to destroy you, I want you to take up the opportunity to separate from your sin so that does not happen".

You see Pnat, your view is not the only way to express something.

Sure it's not the only way, but it's getting at the point. The point is that God is saying that if you don't accept Christ, He'll set you on fire to inflict terrible physical pain against you for days.

God doesn't have to do this to destroy sin. Surely you can see there are others ways that sin could be destroyed.

But this isn't the point. The point is that there is a thread of having intense physical pain inflicted upon you by being set on fire if you don't do what God says. This is forcing the will.

Quote:

Your view judges God in my mind.

Why do you think it's judging God?

[skyblue888]

Quote:

No it's not. The quote is in the context of not overcoming rebellion by force.

I read from that point downwards.

It was clearly talking about God not compelling the conscience.

Quote:

What's happening is that God says, "Accept Christ, or else I'll set you on fire and burn you for days.

No...

What is happening is that God says: "All sin will be destroyed, if you are attached to that sin, I have no choice but to destroy you, I want you to take up the opportunity to seperate from your sin so that does not happen".

You see Pnat, your view is not the only way to express something.

Your view judges God in my mind.

Very dangerous.

Ever since I became a Seventh-day Adventist I have heard this: "All sin will be destroyed, if you are attached to that sin, I have no choice but to destroy you, I want you to take up the opportunity to seperate from your sin so that does not happen."

There is catch to this phrase: "If you attached to this sin, I have no choice but to destroy you." Because of his sin, God said to David, "I will raise up evil against you out of your own house." Does that mean that God directly brought evil upon David's own house? No. The inspired intepretation of these words is that God did not prompt these evil acts of wickedness but that He did not exercise His power to prevent them. See P.P.739.

It is the same when God says, "I will destroy you" just as He said to Lucifer, "I will destroy you, O covering cherub,from the midst of the stones of fire." Ezekiel 28:17. Does that language mean that God will directly destroy Lucifer? No. No more than He directly brought evil upon David's own house.

Here is how the Lord will destroy Lucifer, "I will bring strangers upon you, the terrible of the nations, and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of your wisdom, and they shall defile your brightness. They shall bring you down to the Pit, and you shall die the death of them that are slain in the midst of the seas... Therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of you; it shall devoure you, and I will bring you to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold you. All they that know you among the people shall be appalled at you; you shall be a terror, and never shall you be any more." Ezekiel 28:7,8,18,19.

This is taking place after the 1,000 years, of course, when it is said that "fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them." Rev.20:9.

In Ezekiel the Lord says, "I will bring forth a fire from the midst of you and it shall devoure you." Ezekiel 28:18.

The Lord will not interfere when the terrible of the nations shall turn upon him with the fury of demons with all their weapons of destruction.

From these passages of Scripture it is clear that Satan will fall at the hand of sinners, that they will thrust him through with their swords and that a fire will be brought forth from the midst of them, from the midst of this battle and it is by that fire that he and all the wicked will be consumed in the end and therefore that fire will not come directly out from the Lord upon them. The Lord will not interfere. He will not exercise His power to prevent that from happening.

sky

[Guest]

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

"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")

Are you serious?

The wife of Lot turned her eyes toward the city, [looking] for what she had left there; the curse of God came upon her, and she was turned into a pillar of salt. . {CTr 76.5}

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}

But notwithstanding the warning, Lot's wife, whose heart was in the city devoted to destruction, did not obey, but turned to look behind her, and was changed to a pillar of salt in the way. She did not appreciate the mercy that God had shown her, and was left as an example of warning for future generations. {RH, November 5, 1889 par. 4}

One of the four fugitives ventures to cast a lingering look behind, to see the coming storm, and the number is less by one; for she stands as a memento of God's wrath, turned into a pillar of salt. {ST, October 16, 1893 par. 4}

[Archie777]

A: By the way, why did Jesus "command" godly people like Moses to kill sinners? When the Jews inquired of God, because they were uncertain what to do in the cases of the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer, why did Jesus "command" the Jews to stone them to death? Why didn't He take advantage of the situation and command the Jews to pardon and release the sinners?

Here's my twopence: Inspiration makes it clear to me both sinners were beyond hope and unpardonable. Otherwise, Jesus would have commanded the Jews to pardon and release them. I also suspect the laws commanding capital punishment symbolize the essence of final judgment. That is, punishment is personal and participatory. Jesus, not sin, selfishness, sinners, natural causes, etc. will execute justice and judgment.

P: This is another misrepresentation. Of course Jesus will execute justice and judgment. Nobody has suggested otherwise, and you're aware of this. This question is, "What causes the destruction of the wicked?" It's not "Who executes justice and judgment?"

D: Playing games with words,pnatt? I understood clearly what Archie was saying.If he will allow me to restate it?..."not sin, selfishness, sinners,NATURAL CAUSES,ect. will cause the final death of the wicked." Correct me if I'm wrong,Archie.

I included the context of my post. When not divorced from its context, the last sentence clearly agrees with the way you reworded it. The intent is obvious.

[Archie777]

I'm resubmitting the following for further discussion:

By the way, why did Jesus "command" godly people like Moses to kill sinners? When the Jews inquired of God, because they were uncertain what to do in the cases of the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer, why did Jesus "command" the Jews to stone them to death? Why didn't He take advantage of the situation and command the Jews to pardon and release the sinners?

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

A: By the way, why did Jesus "command" godly people like Moses to kill sinners? When the Jews inquired of God, because they were uncertain what to do in the cases of the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer, why did Jesus "command" the Jews to stone them to death? Why didn't He take advantage of the situation and command the Jews to pardon and release the sinners?

Here's my twopence: Inspiration makes it clear to me both sinners were beyond hope and unpardonable. Otherwise, Jesus would have commanded the Jews to pardon and release them. I also suspect the laws commanding capital punishment symbolize the essence of final judgment. That is, punishment is personal and participatory. Jesus, not sin, selfishness, sinners, natural causes, etc. will execute justice and judgment.

P: This is another misrepresentation. Of course Jesus will execute justice and judgment. Nobody has suggested otherwise, and you're aware of this. This question is, "What causes the destruction of the wicked?" It's not "Who executes justice and judgment?"

D: Playing games with words,pnatt? I understood clearly what Archie was saying.If he will allow me to restate it?..."not sin, selfishness, sinners,NATURAL CAUSES,ect. will cause the final death of the wicked." Correct me if I'm wrong,Archie.

I included the context of my post. When not divorced from its context, the last sentence clearly agrees with the way you reworded it. The intent is obvious.

Yeah, I thought it was kinda hard to miss. I just wanted to keep my post short.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: pnat

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

"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")

}

On the other hand, since there was no suggestion of a divine judgment here, the phrase might even be rendered "seller of salt". this would explain her sudden disappearance and subsequent sightings in Argentina where she was last seen having a cup of low-sodium soup with Elvis Presley.