"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[skyblue888]

Doug and Archie, ever wondered why in the garden of Gethsemane Jesus said to Peter, "Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword." Matt.26:52.

Was it not the same Jesus Christ who gave instructions to Israel as to how to use their swords to kill their enemies? Does not that strike you as odd? Why would He now tell Peter to put his sword in its place? What was Peter doing with a sword anyway if Christ did not believe in taking the sword?

"He who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword." Rev.13:10.

Any clue at all?

sky

I believe the answer to this puzzle is the key to the question you asked about God giving command to Moses to kill the Sabbath breaker. It has been answered before but it won't hurt to go over it again.

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: 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.

Quote:

pnattmbtc:

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."

But the context of those statements proves that Ellen White does not mean God never uses compelling power or exercises force under any circumstances. She shows in her own writings that God has used compelling power and exercised force, so she can't possibly mean what you think she means. You are taking those statements to be a universal principle that applies in every instance to every act of God in all circumstances, and that has been proven to be an invalid application. The Bible itself says that God forced (or "drove) Adam out of the garden. He wanted to stay and he asked to stay, but God told him he would "have to" go. Ellen White says God assigned strong angels to "drive Adam out." Then mighty angels were assigned to guard the tree so he and Satan could not gain access to it. Satan and his evil angels were compelled to stay away. You've already seen the statements by Ellen White that Satan was "compelled" to stop tempting Christ in the wilderness. If those aren't cases when "compelling power" was used by God, then the dictionaries need to be changed.

I think the problem is you are assuming something is a universal principle before it has been proved by the evidence to be in fact universal. You should, instead, look carefully at the evidence with an open mind to see if the Bible contains any instances where God has used compelling force. If He has, it would prove that it's not a universal principle. So, the question still is, has God ever forced, or compelled, Satan (or anyone else) to do anything?

If we accept the language of Scripture and the Spirit of prophecy, we can only come to one conclusion. What conclusion do you come to, on the basis of the following statement:

"At the divine command of Christ, he [satan] was compelled to obey. ... [satan] was compelled without another word to instantly desist and to leave the world's Redeemer" (1 SM 288),

Was Satan compelled to obey Christ or not?

Quote:

pnattmbtc: 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.

Where do you find such statements? Please give the sentence(s) and reference(s). None of the ones you've mentioned before are talking about compelling power per se.

DA 22 is talking about "compelling power" not being used to bring the world back to God, not to break Satan's power, and not to win the service of love. None of these things can ever be done by force, and God never used force in order to do them. Only one thing could accomplish these goals, and that is the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. "By stooping to take upon Himself humanity, Christ revealed a character the opposite of the character of Satan... Through Christ's redeeming work the government of God stands jusified. The Omnipotent One is made known as the God of love. Satan's charges are refuted, and his character unveiled. Rebellion can never again arise. Sin can never again ener the universe. Through eternal ages all are secure from apostasy. By love's self-sacrifice, the inhabitants of earth and heaven are bound to their Creator in bonds of indissoluble union" DA 25, 26.

In the chapter, "It Is Finished," Ellen White shows why God did not destroy Satan and his sympathizers at the very beginning. It was because "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 [to overcome rebellion]. God's government is moral, and truth and love are to be the PREVAILING POWER." DA 759

Notice in the above that Ellen White doesn't say God would never use compelling power but that God would never use it to overcome Satan's rebellion. She says that the power of truth and love-- NOT compelling power, or force-- is the power God uses to prevail over Satan and sin. This is not saying that God will never compel Satan to do anything, nor does it mean that God would never use force in any way or under any circumstances.

If Ellen White intended to say that God would never compel Satan to do anything, she certainly never would have written that "At the divine command of Christ, he [satan] was compelled to obey. ... [satan] was compelled without another word to instantly desist and to leave the world's Redeemer" (1 SM 288). Nor would she have written that during the Flood, "even Satan himself... was compelled to be amid the warring elements, fear[ing] for his own existence." SG, vol. 3, page 70.

And we also be certain she would not have said that during the one thousand years, Satan will be deprived of his power and left to contemplate his rebellion and the dreadful future when he "must suffer for all the evil that he has done and be punished for the sins that he has caused to be committed" (GC 660). During the one thousand years, Satan is forced to remain on the earth and to contemplate his rebellion. God is certainly using compelling force during that period. And you can be sure that all the universe will be full of joy that God is using it.

Notice that God does not win the great controversy through any of the above examples of God's use of compelling power.

Again, if we claim as a universal principle that God NEVER uses compelling power, we have some serious contradictions in both the Bible and in the Spirit of prophecy.

[Robert]

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?

Better yet, why don't we stone folks today? After all, God changes not....That will answer your question.

[John317]

Quote:

John317: OK, I have no disagreement with what Ty is saying here (unless it's with something in parts of the book that I haven't even read yet), but I don't believe that it explains the fire that Revelation and the SOP speak of as coming down from God out of heaven and devouring the wicked.

I've had some of the same thoughts about those things as Ty is expressing, but I don't see it as in conflict with the Bible's teaching that God will destroy the wicked in real fire.

Quote:

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

OK, but it seems to me that Ellen White places their suffering in that way-- i.e., sorrow for losing out on eternal life, not sorrow for sin itself-- BEFORE the fire from God falls on them. Their "proportional suffering" has to do with punishment in fire, and Ellen White says this suffering is meted out to the wicked by Christ BEFORE the resurrection of the wicked. The portion is in accordance to their wicked deeds done in the body.

And how does that interpretation fit with Ellen White's comment that "the sins of the righteous having been transferred to Satan, he is MADE to suffer not only for his own rebellion, but for all the sins which he has caused God's people to commit"?

As I read Ellen White's writings, I believe she is saying that the wicked suffer in the "cleansing flames." See GC 673.

The wicked are turning in rage upon Satan when the fire comes down from God out of heaven. It doesn't sound like they are wishing to die. They are filled with anger and hatred at both God and the devil. They are angry at Satan for having led them down the path of destruction, but they are not motivated by a hatred of sin and a love of righteousness and by a desire to be in God's holy kingdom. If they could, they would tear Christ down from His throne and break Him in pieces. See top of GC 672.

Notice that Jesus Himself personally "pronounces sentence upon teh rebels against His government and executes justice upon those who have transgressed His law and oppressed His people." GC 666

She says as soon as the books are opened, and the eye of Jesus looks upon them, the wicked are conscious of every sin which they have committed. They are also given a view of the main events of the great controversy, and they all see what they have forfeited by their life of rebellion. So they suffer mentally during the time between the Great White Throne Judgment and the time when Satan attempts to lead them into an attack on the city of God. But it is when Satan is attempting to rally the wicked to attack the city that they turn upon Him "with the fury of demons" (GC 672). It's at this point that the fire comes down on the wicked from God out of heaven. Some, she says, are destroyed as in a moment, while others suffer many days.

Notice that the "suffering for many days" is AFTER the fire falls on them, not before. Where do you find clear evidence in Scripture or the SOP (or both) for believing Ty's concept that the wicked suffer proportionately before the fire falls on them?

Would you show the sentence(s) here and give the reference(s)?

[John317]

Quote:

skyblue888:

.... 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.

There are parts of this prophecy that apply to Satan and other parts that do not apply to him. It is important to rememeber that these verses are primarily written about the king of Tyre. It seems to me you are making the same mistake that some make with Prov. 8. They take verses that were written primarily about Widsom and apply them literally to the pre-incarnate Christ, and in that way they make Christ into a created being.

Ezekiel 28: 1-9, for instance, cannot be applied literally to Satan. He will not die in the heart of the ocean, but the king of Tyre did. The king of Tyre also got great treasure in gold and silver, but obviously Satan has never had any interest in rocks, even in beautiful ones. God did bring nations against Tyre, but God has never brought literal nations to fight against Satan.

Of course there are many things in these passages that cannot possibly be said about a mere human being, but one must be careful about applying all the details in it to Satan. To know which ones apply and which do not apply to Satan, we need to let Inspiration be our guide.

Ellen White says not a word that would lead us to believe that the wicked destroy Satan. It is very evident that God destroys Satan by fire that falls on Him. He lives and suffers on for many days after all the other wicked have perished. GC 673 Notice the sequence of events in Ellen White's book, Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3, pages 83-87 (also in 1 BC 1090-1091). Ellen White says here that the wicked beg to be let into the city but Christ tells them that they can't come in, and soon after this, fire falls on them and consumes them.

Quote:

skyblue888: 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.

Your senario would require that God will turn Satan into a mere human being, so that he is no longer a spirit, but we have no evidence that God will do this.

Wouldn't it be arbitrary "compelling force" on God's part to make Satan into a human-like creature so wicked people can stab and mutilate him? Is this view supported by Inspiration?

Ezekiel 28: 18 says that God will bring "out a fire from within you," but I notice you apply this to mean that God will cause a fire to be "brought forth from the midst of" the nations fighting against Satan during a battle, and this man-made fire will then consume the wicked. So your picture of the end is that there will be a great slaughter where all the wicked are destroying each other.

I don't believe this is in line with Inspiration, and further, I can't see how such a mass slaughter brings about justice, and makes God look good. How does the judge look good if he locks up all the criminals in a prison, locks the doors, and lets them all murder each other in one huge blood-letting riot? How could such madness and mayhem result in people suffering according to Christ's decision after carefully studying their lives and meting out the portion of the suffering to the wicked? Can you harmonize this?

[Robert]

How does the judge look good if he locks up all the criminals in a prison, locks the doors, and lets them all murder each other in one huge blood-letting riot?

Sorry...you are comparing sinful human beings (judges included) who are by nature, well, let me quote Paul: "Their feet are swift to shed blood; 16 ruin and misery mark their ways, and the way of peace they do not know." God's ways can't be compared to how we sinful humans act. We are violent by nature and when we pay back we torture.

So you can't in righteousness compare what humans do with what God does....But I notice you do that a lot. When you do you pervert God's agape love and bring it down to our ways....

[John317]

Quote:

John317: How does the judge look good if he locks up all the criminals in a prison, locks the doors, and lets them all murder each other in one huge blood-letting riot?

Quote:

ROBERT: Sorry...you are comparing sinful human beings (judges included) who are by nature, well, let me quote Paul: "Their feet are swift to shed blood; 16 ruin and misery mark their ways, and the way of peace they do not know."

So you can't in righteousness compare what humans do with what God does....But I notice you do that a lot. When you do you pervert God love and bring it down to our ways....

You should follow through with it in applying your principle to the destruction of the wicked by God as the Bible says He will do it. Not by making up a scenario where God allows all the criminals to murder each other. There is absolutely nothing in either the Bible or the Spirit of prophecy to support such a belief. That is all the work of someone's imagination. I'm shocked that you prefer the idea that God will sentence all the wicked to murder each other and think that is the way to achieve justice in the universe. Remember the Bible's warning about most people accepting a lie because they don't love the truth. If a person doesn't love the truth of how the Bible says the wicked will perish, we're beginning to see more and more evidence that they will indeed believe lies.

Is this also what Jack Sequeira believes?

[Robert]

by making up a scenario where God allows all the criminals to murder each other.

[John317]

Quote:

John317: by making up a scenario where God allows all the criminals to murder each other.

Quote:

I didn't state this so STOP placing words in my mouth, now! Why do you manipulate as you do?

You will notice that I didn't write the original post to you. It was written in response to what skyblue wrote. He wrote this:

Quote:

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.

Do you believe what sky says here? What you wrote earlier makes it sound like you are defending his scenario of the final punishment of the wicked. Do you? If not, what do you believe? How do you understand from Scripture that the wicked will die?

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: Is this also what Jack Sequeira believes?

Quote:

ROBERT: What does this have to do with anything? Stop asking foolish questions. This is your nature at work again.....

What is wrong with asking this question, since you often study him and quote his books as an authority?

Could you please explain why you believe this is a foolish question?

I study his writings also, and I find that they support the view that God will directly destroy the wicked in fire after the 1000 years. At least he did-- but I'm not sure if he changed his viewpoint. Do you know what his current belief is on this topic?

[skyblue888]

Quote:

skyblue888:

.... 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.

There are parts of this prophecy that apply to Satan and other parts that do not apply to him. It is important to rememeber that these verses are primarily written about the king of Tyre. It seems to me you are making the same mistake that some make with Prov. 8. They take verses that were written primarily about Widsom and apply them literally to the pre-incarnate Christ, and in that way they make Christ into a created being.

Ezekiel 28: 1-9, for instance, cannot be applied literally to Satan. He will not die in the heart of the ocean, but the king of Tyre did. The king of Tyre also got great treasure in gold and silver, but obviously Satan has never had any interest in rocks, even in beautiful ones. God did bring nations against Tyre, but God has never brought literal nations to fight against Satan.

Of course there are many things in these passages that cannot possibly be said about a mere human being, but one must be careful about applying all the details in it to Satan. To know which ones apply and which do not apply to Satan, we need to let Inspiration be our guide.

Ellen White says not a word that would lead us to believe that the wicked destroy Satan. It is very evident that God destroys Satan by fire that falls on Him. He lives and suffers on for many days after all the other wicked have perished. GC 673 Notice the sequence of events in Ellen White's book, Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3, pages 83-87 (also in 1 BC 1090-1091). Ellen White says here that the wicked beg to be let into the city but Christ tells them that they can't come in, and soon after this, fire falls on them and consumes them.

Quote:

skyblue888: 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.

Your senario would require that God will turn Satan into a mere human being, so that he is no longer a spirit, but we have no evidence that God will do this.

Wouldn't it be arbitrary "compelling force" on God's part to make Satan into a human-like creature so wicked people can stab and mutilate him? Is this view supported by Inspiration?

Ezekiel 28: 18 says that God will bring "out a fire from within you," but I notice you apply this to mean that God will cause a fire to be "brought forth from the midst of" the nations fighting against Satan during a battle, and this man-made fire will then consume the wicked. So your picture of the end is that there will be a great slaughter where all the wicked are destroying each other.

I don't believe this is in line with Inspiration, and further, I can't see how such a mass slaughter brings about justice, and makes God look good. How does the judge look good if he locks up all the criminals in a prison, locks the doors, and lets them all murder each other in one huge blood-letting riot? How could such madness and mayhem result in people suffering according to Christ's decision after carefully studying their lives and meting out the portion of the suffering to the wicked? Can you harmonize this?

John, I am sorry to say but you are sounding too much like the theologians and you know what the Holy Spirit says about the theologians in M.H.442, don't you?

The verses I quoted from Ezekiel 28 apply to Lucifer himself. If we cannot see that, then we are blinded. The Holy Spirit through Mrs. White stated that this representation of Ezekiel 28 refers primarily to Lucifer. See Testimonies, Series B, No.17, p.30 or B.C. Vol.4, p.1162. If the Holy Spirit Himself says that it refers primarily to Lucifer, who are we to argue with him? After reading your post, I felt like you were saying to the Lord, Let me tell you how to teach Your message!

Please don't even try to make these verses look like they don't even apply to Lucifer because it won't work. I will not take your word on that. Why should I? We have a thus saith the Lord through the testimonies of His Spirit!

sky

[pnattmbtc]

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.

Another problem with this way of thinking: (i.e. "If you attached to this sin, I have no choice but to destroy you.") is it presupposes that sin is basically innocuous. There is nothing within sin which causes destruction of itself. That's why it's necessary that the Lord take direct action Himself.

But a little thought should show this is not the case, since sin is based on the principle of selfishness, which can do no other than lead to suffering, misery and death.

[skyblue888]

That's right. What will be the first thing the unsaved do after the 1,000 years, after they acknowledge that God has always been fair? they will blame Satan for their being lost eternally,,, that's what sin does, always blaming someone else for your own mistakes,,, that was the first thing Adam and Eve did after the fall in Eden,,, Adam blamed Eve and then they blamed the serpent,,, that's what the lost will do at the time of the sixth plague too, they will blame the false shepherds and they will tear them apart,,, and that is what the lost will do at the end of the 1,000 years, they will blame Satan for their being lost and we may be sure that he will get a good lickin,,, and the Lord will not interfere.

sky

[Guest]

This is forcing the will.

If God was forcing the will, then everyone would be saved, and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Also Satan would have never sinned in heaven.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: 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.

Quote:

pnattmbtc:

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."

J:But the context of those statements proves that Ellen White does not mean God never uses compelling power or exercises force under any circumstances.

No, the context of the statements does NOT prove this. This was the point of my argument, which you didn't respond to. I'll repost it in a later post, because I'm interested in your response to a couple of key points, but I'll discuss something else in this post.

Do you realize you're arguing in a circle? I'll try to make this clear.

The statement says that compelling power is found only under Satan's government, that the Lord's principles are not of this order. Now if this was all that was written, anyone would understand from this that the Lord does not use compelling power. Hopefully this is clear.

But you are aware of other statements which you believe would contradict this idea, so you reject the idea that this statement can be understood in a general sense as saying that compelling power is only found under Satan's government, or that it is not of the Lord's principles. It IS of the Lord's principles, you believe, except in certain circumstances, which you listed as two:

1.Not to win the Great Controversy.

2.Not to force people to accept Christ.

Now regarding #1, I presented an argument to rebut your idea, that God does not use compelling power to win the Great Controversy, given your assumption that God, in general, uses compelling power (with the two noted exceptions). You rejected my argument on the basis that if my argument were true, it would mean that God didn't use compelling power at all.

So you rejected my argument, not on the basis of any flaw in the argument itself, but simply on the basis that if it were true it would mean that you were wrong.

And you're repeating this "logic" here. You say that the context of the statement can't be saying that God doesn't use compelling power in general because there are statements in other places which says that he does. So again, your making a conclusion based on an idea you already had.

This is simply arguing in a circle. You assume something is true. When an argument is produced which demonstrates it's not true, you reject that argument on the basis that if it were true, then what you believed would be false. This is, again, completely circular reasoning, and exactly how you "countered" my argument.

What you need to do is set aside your ideas and consider the given argument on its own merits.

So here, again, is my argument in regards to the Great Controversy.

You state that God does use compelling force, except to win the Great Controversy or to force people to accept Christ.

My argument is that the Great Controversy is about God's character and the principles of His government. God wins this argument by revealing the truth regarding His character and the principles of His government. If compelling force is a principle of His government (except to force people to accept Christ or winning the Great Controversy), then God wins the Great Controversy by revealing this fact. If God uses compelling force in such a way that this is seen and understood, then in so doing God is revealing that using compelling force is a principle of His government (with the noted exceptions), and is thus winning the Great Controversy in so doing, because the way that God wins the Great Controversy is by revealing His character and the principles of His government.

Now you can't reject this argument simply on the basis that it disagrees with an idea you already had. This is circular reasoning. If everyone "reasoned" like this, no argument could convince someone to change their mind. You need to deal with the argument on its own merits.

So what's wrong with this argument?

[John317]

Quote:

skyblue888: John, I am sorry to say but you are sounding too much like the theologians and you know what the Holy Spirit says about the theologians in M.H.442, don't you?

Please quote the lines I've written that sound to you like "theologians."

Quote:

sky: The verses I quoted from Ezekiel 28 apply to Lucifer himself. If we cannot see that, then we are blinded.

The first lines are "tell the king of Tyre this..." So it is primarily a messge for the king of Tyre, and secondarily about Lucifer, or Satan. It's easy to see this because this chapter is in the middle of a large section of Ezekiel containing judgments against foreign nations, such as Ammon, Moab, Edom, the Philistines, Tyre, Sidon, and Egypt.

Quote:

sky: The Holy Spirit through Mrs. White stated that this representation of Ezekiel 28 refers primarily to Lucifer. See Testimonies, Series B, No.17, p.30 or B.C. Vol.4, p.1162. If the Holy Spirit Himself says that it refers primarily to Lucifer, who are we to argue with him?

No one is denying that Ezekiel 28 contains secondary references to Satan. In other words, Satan is the power behind the king of Tyre, but much that is said in Ezekiel 28 cannot possibly refer literally to the Devil, just as certain other parts cannot possibly refer literally to the king of Tyre. The first and literal reference is to the king of Tyre, while the descriptions show that it's giving us insight into the real power behind the human king.

Ellen White uses the word "primarily" in the sense of "most important." That is different from the way I'm using it. I agree with Ellen White that the most important reference is to Satan. But my point is that the chapter contains much that has to do with the king of Tyre and cannot be applied literally to Satan. The same thing can be said of Proverbs 8, where the primary reference is to wisdom under the symbol of a woman who lives with another woman named Prudence. See Prov. 8: 1,2,12. Of course Christ is not a woman, so it's obvious that it would cause us problems if we thought everything in Prov. 8 applies literally to Christ. You, however, are doing the same thing with Ezekiel 28 when you say that since humans brought down and destroyed the king of Tyre, humans will also kill Satan. That interpretation contradicts the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy in very clear and important ways. Criminals will not kill Satan. He will be destroyed in the fire that falls from God out of heaven. Ellen White describes how he will be destroyed, in GC 672-673, as well as in other writings. For instance:

"Satan rushes into the midst of his followers and tries to stir up the multitude to action. But fire from God out of heaven is rained upon them, and the great men, and mighty men, the noble, the poor and miserable, are all consumed together. I saw that some were quicly destroyed, while others suffered longer. They were punished according to the deeds done in the body. Some were many days consuming... Satan and his angels suffered long..." EW 294-295.

Quote:

skyblue: After reading your post, I felt like you were saying to the Lord, Let me tell you how to teach Your message!

I'm teaching exactly what the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy teaches: the fire from God consumes Satan and the wicked after Jesus decides the portion that they must suffer. The wicked are not sentenced to murder one another. God destroys Satan. God made him and God is the only One who has a right and the power to destroy him.

Quote:

skyblue: Please don't even try to make these verses look like they don't even apply to Lucifer because it won't work. I will not take your word on that. Why should I? We have a thus saith the Lord through the testimonies of His Spirit!

Sure, some of Ezekiel 28 most definitely applies to Satan. But clearly not every word or phrase describes Satan's death. To get a literal description of how Satan dies, we must study those portions of the Bible and Ellen White's writings that deal directly with those issues. Nowhere do those authoritative sources give us reason to believe that wicked men's weapons will be the cause of Satan demise.

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

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.

I am talking about reason vs revelation

"Traditions and falsehoods are exalted above the Scriptures; reason and science above revelation; human talent above the teachings of the Spirit; forms and ceremonies above the vital power of godliness. We need the divine touth." RH March 19, 1895.

"Let the watchmen on the walls of Zion not join those who are making of none effect the truth at it is in Jesus. Let them not join the confederacy of infidelity, popery, and Protestantism in exalting tradition above Scriptures, reason above revelation, and human talent above the divine influence and vital power of godliness." R H March 24,1896.

"Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you seems to be wise in this age, let him become a fool that they may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, 'He catches the wise in their own craftiness.'" 1 Cor.3:18,19.

The Scriptures are not subject to any private interpretation. 2 Peter 1:20. And neither are the Testimonies of His Spirit. 1 S.M.42.

sky

[pnattmbtc]

Ok, here's the other post I was speaking of, which is what you were responding to. Here's what I said:

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)

I highlighted the two main points. I'd be interested in your response to them.

Now I'll explain how you're arguing in a circle. (end or original post)

I highlighted the parts I'm particularly interested in.

You dealt with this by concluding that what I said was wrong because there are statements elsewhere which speak of God's using compelling power, but this is, once again, circular reasoning. My argument here should be considered on its own merits. So please do so. Please consider especially the two highlight points.

[skyblue888]

Quote:

skyblue888: John, I am sorry to say but you are sounding too much like the theologians and you know what the Holy Spirit says about the theologians in M.H.442, don't you?

Please quote the lines I've written that sound to you like "theologians."

Quote:

sky: The verses I quoted from Ezekiel 28 apply to Lucifer himself. If we cannot see that, then we are blinded.

The first lines are "tell the king of Tyre this..." So it is primarily a messge for the king of Tyre, and secondarily about Lucifer, or Satan. It's easy to see this because this chapter is in the middle of a large section of Ezekiel containing judgments against foreign nations, such as Ammon, Moab, Edom, the Philistines, Tyre, Sidon, and Egypt.

Quote:

sky: The Holy Spirit through Mrs. White stated that this representation of Ezekiel 28 refers primarily to Lucifer. See Testimonies, Series B, No.17, p.30 or B.C. Vol.4, p.1162. If the Holy Spirit Himself says that it refers primarily to Lucifer, who are we to argue with him?

sky

No one is denying that Ezekiel 28 contains secondary references to Satan. In other words, Satan is the power behind the king of Tyre, but much that is said in Ezekiel 28 cannot possibly refer literally to the Devil, just as certain other parts cannot possibly refer literally to the king of Tyre. The first and literal reference is to the king of Tyre, while the descriptions show that it's giving us insight into the real power behind the human king.

Ellen White uses the word "primarily" in the sense of "most important." That is different from the way I'm using it. I agree with Ellen White that the most important reference is to Satan. But my point is that the chapter contains much that has to do with the king of Tyre and cannot be applied literally to Satan. The same thing can be said of Proverbs 8, where the primary reference is to wisdom under the symbol of a woman who lives with another woman named Prudence. See Prov. 8: 1,2,12. Of course Christ is not a woman, so it's obvious that it would cause us problems if we thought everything in Prov. 8 applies literally to Christ. You, however, are doing the same thing with Ezekiel 28 when you say that since humans brought down and destroyed the king of Tyre, humans will also kill Satan. That interpretation contradicts the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy in very clear and important ways. Criminals will not kill Satan. He will be destroyed in the fire that falls from God out of heaven. Ellen White describes how he will be destroyed, in GC 672-673, as well as in other writings. For instance:

"Satan rushes into the midst of his followers and tries to stir up the multitude to action. But fire from God out of heaven is rained upon them, and the great men, and mighty men, the noble, the poor and miserable, are all consumed together. I saw that some were quicly destroyed, while others suffered longer. They were punished according to the deeds done in the body. Some were many days consuming... Satan and his angels suffered long..." EW 294-295.

Quote:

skyblue: After reading your post, I felt like you were saying to the Lord, Let me tell you how to teach Your message!

I'm teaching exactly what the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy teaches: the fire from God consumes Satan and the wicked after Jesus decides the portion that they must suffer. The wicked are not sentenced to murder one another. God destroys Satan. God made him and God is the only One who has a right and the power to destroy him.

Quote:

skyblue: Please don't even try to make these verses look like they don't even apply to Lucifer because it won't work. I will not take your word on that. Why should I? We have a thus saith the Lord through the testimonies of His Spirit!

Sure, some of Ezekiel 28 most definitely applies to Satan. But clearly not every word or phrase describes Satan's death. To get a literal description of how Satan dies, we must study those portions of the Bible and Ellen White's writings that deal directly with those issues. Nowhere do those authoritative sources give us reason to believe that wicked men's weapons will be the cause of Satan demise.

John!!!! You are not speaking the thing that is right before God. You are putting your own feeble reasoning above the Word of God. You remind me of Job's friends who were theologians. They had lots to say about God and why Job was suffering but it was clear that they were exalting their own human reasoning above God! Sorry to say but here you are making of none effect the Word of God.

The Lord tells us that the representation in Ezekiel 28 refers primarily to Lucifer but you, John, are quick to suggest that it refers secondarily to Lucifer. And then you try to justify your claim by high sounding theology which is nothing more than mere human reasoning that serves only to darken the understanding. Sorry John but thats how you are coming across. This is not the first time either. You've been doing this for the longest time, as far as I can see.

Please John, stop doing this!

sky

*are you suggesting that I didnt' know about the king of Tyre in that chapter? it was written with Lucifer in mind John just as all that the prophets wrote concerning ancient Israel was written more for adventists than for the Jews.

[John317]

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Another problem with this way of thinking: (i.e. "If you attached to this sin, I have no choice but to destroy you.") is it presupposes that sin is basically innocuous. There is nothing within sin which causes destruction of itself. That's why it's necessary that the Lord take direct action Himself.

But a little thought should show this is not the case, since sin is based on the principle of selfishness, which can do no other than lead to suffering, misery and death.

You are evidently forgetting or neglecting the fact that while sin is certainly destructive, sin itself will not make the individual suffer according to his deeds. It requires the 1000 years of judgment in heaven and then the coming of Christ to see that the wicked receive their reward for their wickedness. This is exactly what Ellen White says, and she has the full support of Scripture.

If the wicked would suffer for their sins completely apart from God's judgment, there would be no need for the examination of record in order to decide the portion they must suffer. And in that case, too, there would be no reason for Ellen White to say that Jesus metes out to the wicked the portion they must suffer. This is the part you apparently object to: God determining how much the wicked will suffer. Ellen White says the punishment varies in both intensity and time. This does not happen automatically, without any decison by Christ and the righteous. She wrote, "Jesus comes to see that the wicked receive their reward."

A major point you are not taking into account is that the demands of justice must be met and the penalty of the law must be visited. Sin by itself is incapable of causing this to occur, just as sin by itself is not capable of making the criminal suffer a certain amount for his crimes. It requires a court of law. Similarly the final punishment of the wicked requires the decision of Christ and the execution of this judgment by God Himself.

[John317]

Quote:

sky: 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.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Another problem with this way of thinking: (i.e. "If you attached to this sin, I have no choice but to destroy you.") is it presupposes that sin is basically innocuous. There is nothing within sin which causes destruction of itself. That's why it's necessary that the Lord take direct action Himself.

But a little thought should show this is not the case, since sin is based on the principle of selfishness, which can do no other than lead to suffering, misery and death.

Do you agree with sky's understanding that wicked humans will destroy Satan and one another?

[skyblue888]

John, it is not important who agrees with who. What is important is that we accept what the Lord is saying. He is saying that the terrible of the nations will draw their swords against him, that they will thrust him through with their swords and that a fire will be brought forth from his midst.

I believe that. I believe that this will be the most horrible battle of all time. And it will cause much suffering to every one involved and Satan will be the last to fall but he will have fallen at the hand of those whom he had deceived just as we are told that the false shepherds after the close of probation will fall at the hand of those they had deceived. It even says that they will burn them with fire in Revelation 17. After the 1,000 years, it will be the same scenario all over again except that this time the ministers will be Satan and his angels and they will be torn apart and beaten and burned with fire until it is all over with them. "Evil shall slay the wicked." Ps.34:21

If we can't accept the simplest declarations of Scripture, what can happen to our blind eyes?

sky

[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.

A: 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.

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

Yes. It was Pnat who truncated my post. Context, as they say, is everything. Thank you for helping clarify the point.

Some people believe Jesus will, during final judgment, gradually cease supernaturally preventing resurrected sinners and evil angels from succumbing to the natural cause and effect consequence of sinning. As a result they will gradually suffer and die according to their sinfulness.

According to this understanding of sin and judgment, if Jesus didn't supernaturally prevent the natural, inevitable result of sinning, they would suffer and die the first time they sinned. But because Jesus intervenes and prevents it, sinners live on and accumulate hundreds and thousands of sins. Since one sin is enough to cause sinners to suffer and die immediately, Jesus must gradually withdraw His protection or risk the wicked suffering and dying prematurely.

And yet, in spite of this, people who advocate this view maintain Jesus has nothing to do with directly causing the suffering the wicked experience during final judgment. But it seems to me if Jesus must work to prevent them from dying prematurely that He is directly responsible for all the suffering they experience after the equivalent effects of their first sin. Do you see what I mean?

Is it such a stretch, therefore, to say Jesus, and not sin, not self, not Satan will execute justice and judgment? That is, Jesus, not anything or anyone else, will "inflict punishment" upon the wicked, which is opposed to the idea that sinning inevitably, naturally results in suffering and death the instant Jesus ceases supernaturally preventing it.

After all, in order to prevent sinners from partaking of the tree of life and immortalizing sin, Jesus had to bar access to the tree of life. Since sinners could have lived forever, why, then, do some people say sinning inevitably, naturally results in sinners suffering and dying?

Is it possible Jesus must punish and destroy sinners since merely sinning doesn't naturally result in punishment and death, that it doesn't naturally satisfy the just and loving demands of law and justice or vindicate the kingdom and character of God? I think so. What about you?

[skyblue888]

Our posts get truncated all the time. So nothing new under the sun.

Sorry archie but I can't make much sense of your last post. You did not make yourself clear. What are you trying to say exactly?

You may be sure that Satan and his angels will suffer the full penalty of their sins and of the sins they have caused people to commit. During the thousand years they will suffer mental agony the like of which you and I cannot comprehend and that for a thousand years and at the end of that time they will have to face the fury of all the unsaved of all ages!!! In war fire is always involved. When you play with fire you always get burned. It is the same if you kill by the sword you must be killed by the sword. Sin will only follow its natural course and God will not interfere. Why is this so difficult to accept or understand?

"Evil shall slay the wicked." Psalm 34:21.

sky

[Archie777]

Doug and Archie, ever wondered why in the garden of Gethsemane Jesus said to Peter, "Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword." Matt.26:52.

Was it not the same Jesus Christ who gave instructions to Israel as to how to use their swords to kill their enemies? Does not that strike you as odd? Why would He now tell Peter to put his sword in its place? What was Peter doing with a sword anyway if Christ did not believe in taking the sword?

"He who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword." Rev.13:10.

Any clue at all? I believe the answer to this puzzle is the key to the question you asked about God giving command to Moses to kill the Sabbath breaker. It has been answered before but it won't hurt to go over it again.

Sky, first of all, I'd like to say thank you for taking the time and effort to word your post in a kind and tactful way. It's not always easy being kind and tactful. It takes time and effort. So again, thank you.

To answer your question, I think it has to do with timing. Jesus didn't come the first time to punish and destroy sinners, to execute justice and judgment. Not until the third coming will He "inflict punishment". and then He will not enlist the righteous. He execute justice and judgment Himself.