"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[skyblue888]

Robert, Ellen is okay. It's not her or her statements that are wrong its the false interpretations that are put upon her writings for lack of better discernment.

This is obviously a figure of speech which means that they will suffer according to their guilt and that justice will be done.

Why do we need to be reminded of that?

Isn't it self-evident?

sky

[Robert]

This is obviously a figure of speech which means that they will suffer according to their guilt and that justice will be done.

If I am near a river of lava flow and I fall in it I'll be dead in about 20 sec....The same for the wicked, unless God supernaturally keeps them alive....rejuvenates their bodies every few seconds so that they can feel it again again...SICK!!!! I'd run from such a god...

[pnattmbtc]

J:The postive penalties for sin-- which are in no sense the natural consequences of sin-- are referred to in Ex. 32: 33; Lev. 26: 21;

Robert:The LORD said to Moses, "Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book." [Ex 32:33]

The blotting of the name out of the book is simply a recognition of reality. It would be very odd to label this as something which is not a direct consequence of sin.

Here's and example. Say you move your address, and the phone book is changed to reflect your new address. Would you say this change of address in the phone book was not a direct cause of your having changed address?

[Robert]

I've about had enough of this view of God where He acts worse than a devil....If that's what most SDA believe, well, sick. If they are right I don't want to be in heaven because a god like that would never get my respect or love.

[skyblue888]

Quote:

Archie777: I don't recall you attempting to explain why Jesus commanded godly people like Moses to kill sinners. If you did, then I'm sorry to say I overlooked it somehow.

Quote:

ROBERT: You did overlook it....

Jesus didn't command any such thing

See the following evidence:

Exodus 32: 27, 28. Was Moses wrong? Who commanded Moses to do this? Was it God or Satan or Moses' own imagination?

Joshua 6--- did Joshua and the writer misunderstand what God told Joshua to do with Jericho?

Joshua 8: 18ff-- did Joshua misunderstand what God told the Israelites to do at A-i (or Ghai)?

Joshua 10: 8-10, 40-- same question.

Compare Ex. 17: 14 and Deut. 25: 17-19.

If the pre-incarnate Christ did not order them to do these things, how do you account for what the Bible says in those verses?

Ellen White has an important and interesting comment on these events in 4 SG 50.

It was God who commanded Moses to do it. There should be no question about that. What we forget or have perhaps never considered, though it has been brought up before, is that Israel was under a Theocracy and God ruled in both religious and civil affairs.

In the book Mount of Blessing, p.70 we read these very enlightening words:

"It is true that the rule, 'Eye for eye, tooth for tooth,' (Lev.24:20), was a provision in the laws given through Moses; but it was a civil statute. None were justified in avenging themselves, for they had the words of the Lord; 'Say not thou, I will recompense evil.' 'Say not, I will do so to him as he hath done to me.' 'Rejoice not when thine enemy faileth.' 'If he that hateth you be hungry, give him bread to eat, and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink.' Proverbs 20:22; 24:29,17; 25:21,22. Mount of Blessing, p.70.

So I believe this statement contains the key to unlock the meaning of all these difficult passages of Scriptures.

sky

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

John317: There's also nothing in Ellen White's writings showing that the wicked will kill each other off or that they will succeed in killing the devil with swords or bombs.

I only made a comment about a nuclear weapon. If a nuclear weapon went off, how could someone like John have described it? Certain as fire coming from heaven, or from God, seems like a definite possible. The same for Ellen White. She didn't know anything nuclear weapons. What would it have looked like to her? What would she have written?

I'm not saying this will happen, just it seems possible to me. That the fire could be referring to a nuclear weapon is certainly not a new thought. Many of considered this a possibility.

Quote:

The only evidence that can be used to support this idea is Ezekiel 28: 10, a verse that must be taken out of context to be understand in that way.

Or Revelation 20. Many non-SDA's have had this idea.

We know that the wicked will be constructing weapons. Why wouldn't they construct nuclear weapons? If they did, and one went off, how would it have been described by a prophet.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Of course, Ezekiel 28:10 is not in Ellen White's writings at all.

J:Nothing in Ellen White's writings shows that the wicked will kill each other off after the Great White Throne Judgemtn.

She talks about fire coming down. What's that fire? If she say a nuclear weapon going off in vision, couldn't she have described that as fire coming down from heaven? Same for John in Revelation.

Quote:

The only evidence anyone can cite for such a scenario is Ezekiel 28: 10, but to use it that way, one must take it out of context.

My, this is repetitive. This is three times already.

Quote:

Ellen White quoted Ezekiel 28: 6-8, 16-19, on page 672 of The Great Controversy, but significantly she didn't quote v. 10.

I have no idea why you're concentrating on Ezek. 28.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: From Ellen White's writings, the following are evidence that the wicked won't be caused to suffer torture by being set on fire and burned alive for days: GC 535-536; 541-542; DA 764.

J:You're looking in the wrong place.

No, I'm not. The texts I mentioned are dealing with judgment, and shouldn't be ignored if we wish to come to a balanced understanding. We should take into account all she wrote on the subject, as well as Scripture.

Quote:

Don't stop searching-- you'll find it if you keep seeking. She says it on the following pages: GC 671-673; 3 SG 83, 87; EW 51-54, 221, 294-295.

This is *part* of what she says. Let's not ignore the other things she wrote. Or Scripture.

Quote:

Read those pages carefully and tell what they actually say.

Do you see the lines, "Fire comes from God out of heaven and consumes them"? It means that God sends fire down on the wicked. God is the cause of the fire. He makes it come down on them.

John, do you read what you write before you send it? This is puerile.

Quote:

How and when does this happen? Ellen White explains: "Satan and his angels try to encourage the wicked multitude to action [to attack the city of God]; but FIRE DESCENDS from Heaven, and UNITES WITH THE FIRE IN THE EARTH, AND AIDS IN THE GENERAL CONFLAGRATION." 3 SG 87

Is the fire in the earth literal and real? Then so much the fire that descends from Heaven be real, for both these fires unite and destroy not only the wicked but also purify the earth. (Closely compare 3 SG 83-87 where she speaks of oil and coal being used of God in "the final destruction," and that when "God purifies the earth," "it will appear like a boundless lake of fire." )

"Fire from God out of heaven is rained upon them... all are consumed together. I saw that some were quickly destroyed, while others suffered longer. They were PUNISHED according to the deeds done in the body. Some were many days consuming, and just as long as there was a particle of them unconsumed, all the sense of suffering remained." EW 294

John, I've asked about this on a number of occasions, without your responding, as far as I know. What I've asked is if you understand this to mean something like God sets people on fire, and it burns for a few hours, and as it does so it consumes some part of the person, say a leg, and burns for a few more hours, and burns another leg off, then the stomach, and up to the head, until there's nothing but a couple of arms left, then it consumes one, so there's just one arm left, and finally a hand. So she's saying that the person continues to suffer as long as this hand is burning?

<== Please respond.

Quote:

This last paragraph proves without doubt that the suffering the wicked endure at this time comes AFTER the fire falls on them. This is when they are PUNISHED. The same proof is found in GC 673: "Satan's punishment is to be far greater than that of those whom he has deceived. After all have perished... he is still to live and suffer on..."

Please answer this question directly: according to the above sentences, when do Satan and the rest of the wicked suffer their punishment-- (a) before the fire fall on them ( after the fire falls on them?

John, I already addressed this. You're just repeating the same things you've said before. I've responded to this. Please respond to my response. Please don't just repeat the same thing as if I didn't respond already to your posts in the past which already said them.

[pnattmbtc]

So I believe this statement contains the key to unlock the meaning of all these difficult passages of Scriptures.

Flesh this out a bit please.

[Guest]

Richard, in all due respect, you must be getting too old for this. blink as if this was the only reference I have ever shared. I was the one who had to remind you time and time again of this statement: "The Testimonies themselves will be the key that will explain the messages given, as Scripture is explained by Scripture." 1 S.M.42. How many times do you think I had to post this statement???

Is that your best argument at this point after all the Bible verses and statements that I and others have been sharing on this thread alone about this topic, verses and statements that contain the principles of interpretation for all these verses and quotes

Please point to the quote where she says: "These verses and statements contain the principles of interpretation for all the other verses and quotes"

Show me where EGW says we are to use her writings to interpret scripture at all. Actually she says just the opposite.

According to your paradigm, if someone didn't have Ellen White, then there is no way they could possibly know what truth is. That goes contrary to both EGW and the Bible. So no thanks, I'll stick to the methods of study that served William Miller well. And that Ellen White approved of.

I wonder how the rest of our pioneers ever got by without sky to show them the principles of interpretation that ought to be used? I guess they just had to rough it. And since not having the sky method was good enough for them, then it is good enough for me.

But thanks anyway.

[Guest]

I've about had enough of this view of God where He acts worse than a devil....If that's what most SDA believe, well, sick. If they are right I don't want to be in heaven because a god like that would never get my respect or love.

I'm sure God can accomodate your wishes. If God has to change to suit your idea of what He should be like, I think He will find a way to make heaven work without you.

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: sky

So I believe this statement contains the key to unlock the meaning of all these difficult passages of Scriptures.

Flesh this out a bit please.

pnatt, sounds like you are asking for flesh to be put on the dry bones. See Ezekiel 37:1-10.

I believe that Romans 13:1-7 sheds a bit more light on this subject. "The powers that be are ordained of God" to control those who cannot control themselves. This is the power of Caesar.

There are only two powers that the Bible acknowledges, God and Caesar.

Of the power of Caesar, we read, in the same chapter, verse 4, "For he is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do that which is evil, be afraid; for he bears not the sword in vain."

Under the Theocracy, the children of Israel had elected to rule by the sword. In His wisdom and mercy, since they still looked to God for guidance, even though they had rejected His way, the Lord gave them instructions accordingly. They didn't bear the sword in vain any more than the nations around them. So it is today. In many countries of the world capital punishment is of the order. Under the Theocracy, capital punishment was a civil statute in harmony with the choice they had made, having elected the sword. To this day all the nations of the world bear the sword. They are ordained of God only in the sense that God allows this order of things, which is a lesser evil, to control those who cannot control themselves, who will not be brought in subjection to the peaceful rule of the grace of God.

In the case of Israel, the Lord knew that they would abuse that power and that is why he gave such instructions as, "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth."

Did this help a bit?

sky

Hence, "It is true that the rule, 'Eye for eye, tooth for tooth,' (Lev.24:20), was a provision in the laws given through Moses; but it was a civil statute. None were justified in avenging themselves, for they had the words of the Lord; 'Say not thou, I will recompense evil.' 'Say not, I will do so to him as he hath done to me.' 'Rejoice not when thine enemy faileth.' 'If he that hateth you be hungry, give him bread to eat, and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink.' Proverbs 20:22; 24:29,17; 25:21,22. Mount of Blessing, p.70.

So I believe this statement contains the key to unlock the meaning of all these difficult passages of Scriptures.

[pnattmbtc]

Please point to the quote where she says: "These verses and statements contain the principles of interpretation for all the other verses and quotes"

Show me where EGW says we are to use her writings to interpret scripture at all. Actually she says just the opposite.

According to your paradigm, if someone didn't have Ellen White, then there is no way they could possibly know what truth is.

This isn't true. This is actually the point I've been making in regards to what you think. I've been asking since the beginning how to know that fiery serpents sent by God is speaking of a passive activity by God. No one has answered this.

I've given the following link a number of time:

http://sinbearer.com/light_on_the_dark_side_of_god.htm

This has dozens of pages of discussion, all based on Scripture.

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: There's also nothing in Ellen White's writings showing that the wicked will kill each other off or that they will succeed in killing the devil with swords or bombs. Such a scenario, in my view, is pure madness.

_______________________

Quote:

skyblue: are you serious? do you mean to go on record saying that what Holy Writ says in Ezekiel 28:6-10 is pure madness?

The angels have recorded your words.

I think you should re-consider.

The Scriptures themselves are not madness, of course, sky. I'm saying that the interpretation that is here being placed on those Scriptures is madness. I think it's nonsense to believe that the wicked will all kill each other. I just don't see any valid evidence for such a belief or teaching. If the Bible taught it, I would believe it, but the Bible simply does not teach it, nor does the Spirit of prophecy. It certainly is not what Ellen White believed. I'm OK with the angels recording my words and thoughts. I say the same thing about the teaching that God made sinners immortal and will make them suffer endlessly in fire.

It would be different if Ezekiel 28: 6-10 says that God will give Satan a human body and cause humans to kill him with swords, etc., but that is not the case.

Your scenario means that all the counteless billions of human beings-- many of whom will be children, the very old, and the sick, etc.-- will all murder each other in one huge mass slaughter. Such deaths must of necessity be arbitrary. It won't be pre-determined how they will kill or how they will die. If your idea is correct, you'd have to agree that many would probably end up committing suicide, while others would have a great deal of fun committing the most horrible crimes against humanity before themselves falling victim to some other murderer. This is really the "madness" I mentioned. It would mean the execution of the judgment upon the wicked could be nothing but madness, mayhem, and even greater injustice than ever before. It would make the horrors of WW II look like child's play. For instance, a girl who deserves to die quickly and painlessly will be raped and tortured and killed in the most violent, cruel way possible. What would stop such things from happening by the millions, under those circumsances

How does such a scenario result in justice?

Quote:

skyblue: ... how many times do we need to be reminded that when Holy Writ says that fire will come down from God out of heaven it is in the sense that God will not exercise His power to prevent the wicked from causing that fire by which they will be consumed.

Where does either the Bible or Ellen White say this plainly?

Condider the following evidence:

1) In every place in the Bible (outside of Revelation) where it says fire came down from God out of heaven, it is speaking of literal fire-- is that not true?

For instance, in the following verses: 1 Kings 18: 38; Lev. 9: 24; 2 Kings 1: 12; 1 Chron. 21: 26; 2 Chron. 7: 1--- all of these fires were REAL fires, weren't they?

Therefore, if the fire in Rev. 20: 9 that comes down from God out of heaven is not real but is symbolic (i.e., is not real fire that actually comes from God out of Heaven), it would be the only such symbolic fire in the entire Bible, isn't that true? If not, please cite the verse where the fire that comes down from God out of heaven is clearly symbolic fire.

(Rev. 13: 13 may not be real fire, but in any case, this fire obviously does not come from God but is something that is either done or appears to be done by the power of the earth-beast in order to convince the world to make an image to the sea-beast.)

2)In many places in the Bible, including the words of Jesus Himself, fire is mentioned as the means of destroying the devil and all those who follow him. Therefore when we combine these statements with Rev. 20: 9, it adds up to overwhelming evidence that the wicked do indeed perish because of fire from God. "The Lord rained upon Sodom... fire from the Lord out of heaven." Gen. 19: 24. The Bible testimony is that real fire destroyed Sodom, and Sodom is held out in Scriptures as an example of the fearful punishment that awaits the wicked at the end of time. Compare Gen. 19: 28; Jude 7.

Consider the affect of a clear statement by Jesus that the wicked will all kill each other. Wouldn't you say such a statement would be proof that the wicked will die the second death by killing each other? Yet there are many statements that tell us the wicked will die in fire that comes from God. Jesus said in no uncertain words that God has prepared a fire to be used to destroy Satan and his angels, and that the wicked will be destroyed at that time. See Ellen White's comments in 3 SG 83-87 (also 1 BC 1090-1091) where she refers to God's agencies of coal and oil reserved in the earth for the final destruction of the wicked. That is not symbolic but real and literal. It will make the earth appear as a "boundless lake of fire" and will be combined with the fire that falls from heaven upon the wicked in order to both destroy the wicked and at the same time to purify the earth.

3) The context of the fire that comes down from God out of heaven and destroys the wicked is given in such a way as to show clearly that it's describing literal fire.

Let's review:

1) A literal 1000 year period after which a literal Satan is permitted freedom to tempt literal people.

2) A literal Satan will attempt to gether together real nations for a real battle.

3) Literal people together with a literal Satan surrounds the literal city filled with literal saints.

4) Does it sound right at this point to say that a symbolic fire comes down from a literal God out of a literal heaven and symbolically consumes the literal wicked?

Note on verse 10--

A real, literal devil deceives literal people. He is "cast into" a literal fire, in the sense that he's really burned up in a literal fire. The beast and the false prophet are symbols of real people in real organizations which are really opposed to God. While some will be destroyed as in a moment, many others will really be punished in real fire for a long time until they're completely destroyed. Many of the wicked will be literally punished and suffer in real fire for many days. GC 673.

From the viewpoint of Ellen White, we know that she intended us to understand this fire to be literal because she said the fire that comes from God out of Heaven and consumes the wicked combines with the fire that comes out of the earth, and together these fires make the earth appear as a lake of fire everywhere except where the city of God sits. She says this fire-- with real flames that burn up real rocks, etc.-- purifies a real earth.

A few additional statements by Ellen White which clearly prove that she had in mind literal fire as the instrument used by God to destroy the wicked: "The plea may be made that a loving Fther would not see His children suffering the punishment of God BY FIRE while He had the power to relieve them. But God would, for the good of His subjects and for their safey, PUNISH the transgressor. He can do infinite justice that man has no right to do before his fellow man." 12 MR 208, 208

"Fire comes down from God out of heaven. The earth is broken up. The weapons concealed in its depths are drawn forth. Devouring flames burst from every yawning chasm. The very rocks are on fire... The earth's surface seems one molten mass-- a vast, seething lake of fire. It is the time of the judgment and perdition of ungldy men..." GC 672

"The same fire from God that consumed the wicked purified the whole earth. The broken, ragged mountians melted with fervent heat, the atomsphere also, and all the stubble was consumed." EW 54

"God has reserved in the earth...coal and oil to use as agencies in their final destruction [i.e., the destruction of the wicked]." 3 SG 87

NOTE: Coal and oil make only REAL fire.

"I then looked and saw the fire which had consumed the wicked, burning up the rubbish and purifying the earth. Again I looked and saw the earth purified..." EW 295

[skyblue888]

John, Where have I ever said or made the slightest suggestion or inkling that the fire spoken of in Rev.20:9 is symbolic????!!!! I have always maintained that this fire will be real; I have also stated, many times, that that fire is said to be coming down from God out of heaven but only in the sense that the Lord will not exercise His power to prevent the wicked from causing that fire by which they will be consumed.

I will respond to your post as soon as I can.

I'm going for my walk now.

sky

[pnattmbtc]

Yes, sky, that's helpful. So how would you use this principle to explain the stoning by Moses of the Sabbath-breaker?

[pnattmbtc]

If the Bible taught it, I would believe it...

You say this a lot. I don't understand how you are so sure of this. You don't think the Bible may say things you don't believe?

[skyblue888]

Yes, sky, that's helpful. So how would you use this principle to explain the stoning by Moses of the Sabbath-breaker?

Are we back to square one???!!! how did my last post help then?

sky

[pnattmbtc]

John, a large weakness I see in your presentation of things is there is not consideration of God's character, the cross of Christ, the principles of God's government, the nature of sin, or the issues of the Great Controversy, all things the SOP says we need to understand in order to interpret Scripture correctly.

[John317]

Where have I ever said that the fire spoken of in Rev.20:9 was symbolic????!!!! I have always maintained that this fire will be real; I have also stated, many times, that that fire is said to be coming down from God out of heaven but only in the sense that the Lord will not exercise His power to prevent the wicked from causing that fire by which they will be consumed.

I understand that you believe it is real fire, sky, but you don't believe it literally comes down from God out of heaven. You believe (don't you?) when the Bible says "fire comes down from God," it is symbolic (or stands) for fire that come up from the wicked. I didn't mean to imply that you don't believe there will be real fire involved. In this way, you believe it will be regular fire. But the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy describes this fire as originating from the Creator, whereas you say it is from evil humans.

I believe the fire that comes from God is real fire but that it is fire especially made by God for the purpose of destroying the evil angels as well as the wicked. I don't believe man-made fire could destroy spirit-creatures. Jesus says the same thing when He clearly states that "the eternal fire" has been "prepared [by God] for the devil and his angels." Matt. 25: 41; cf. 8: 29; Jude 6; 2 Peter 2: 4.

The evidence for this (that it is not normal, man-made fire) is found in 1 Kings 18: 38 where we read that the fire that fell from God not only consumed the burnt sacrifices but also the stones and the dust and even licked up the water. I'm saying it is real fire but it is not identical with the fire that people make with matches. Natural fire made by man would not have been capable of doing that. In the same way, it is obvious that man-made fire would not be able to touch the Devil and his wicked angels, nor would man-made fire alone be able to purify the earth of all traces of sin. That is why Ellen White says the two fires are combined to purify the earth. Both must therefore be literal fire.

[skyblue888]

Again John, on the one hand you agree that I have never said it is symbolic fire but then on the other, in some subtle way you end your post by saying that the fire is literal, again leaving the reader with the same impression that sky does not believe this fire to be literal fire.

John, in what way is your understanding of God's character any different than that of Elijah or John the Baptist? Both expected the Messiah to reveal Himself as a God who directly destroys His enemies by fire. In what way is your conception of the character of God any different than that of the disciples as they urged Jesus to call fire out of heaven to fall upon a village of the Samaritans to destroy them all?

sky

[BobRyan]

If I am near a river of lava flow and I fall in it I'll be dead in about 20 sec....The same for the wicked, unless God supernaturally keeps them alive....rejuvenates their bodies every few seconds so that they can feel it again again...SICK!!!! I'd run from such a god...

We would all have to "run away" if you were god my friend - thankfully that is not the case.

Your view falls short in a number of areas - not the least of which is the direct contradiction to the Word of God.

But beyond that - you have the problem of a "non-second death". Your view really just has "two first deaths". It means that everyone of the saints who died th first death has in fact fully paid the penalty owed for their sins -- all of it. The only thing they lack is "staying dead".

We believe that in death - the soul is in a dormant state - it does not experience anything at all. Zip, nada - zilch. That means that to the extent that anything at ALL was unpleasant in death - it was "unpleasant BEFORE you died" not afterward.

Putting two and two together - it is not hard to see that you have come up with a way to be your own savior by in fact paying your own debt of sin. The only thing that you have Christ for in that case - is the resurrection - but NOT for paying your debt of sin. Thus Christ cannot be your substitute because he did not "pay" what you claim is the only difference between the first and second death - which is "staying dead forever". Thus in your model there NO "subtitutionary atoning sacrifice" on the part of Christ.

Your second death idea - is really just "another first death" which you die and thus pay "yourself".

And thus it comes back full circle. Man-made religion makes man his own savior sooner or later.

One additional glaring flaw in your model is that it makes God's Word to be a lie when it speaks of "tormented day and night" with fire and brimstone as the essence of the 2nd death. In your model it is God telling lies about things He would never do in all of time - to scare children who just might be tempted to believe Him. Not sure that your view is an "improvement" on anything.

Your model makes the Bible like a man running through a crowded theater yelling "fire! fire!" when in fact there is nothing of the sort. But he does so just to be sure the children will go home and be in bed on time.

in Christ,

Bob

[Archie777]

Archie: 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.

P: Can you name one person who believes this?

A: I had you in mind. I take it you disagree with this summary. If so, I am terribly sorry. I did not mean to misrepresent your view. Please explain how I got it wrong. Thank you.

P: I had in mind what Ty wrote.

I'm sorry, Pnatt, but your response doesn't help me understand how I misrepresented your view. Do you (as opposed to Ty) agree Jesus will supernaturally prevent sinners from dying prematurely during final judgment?

PS - Please include this entire post when you respond. Thank you.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, The fire of God is fallen from heaven, and hath burned up the sheep, and the servants, and consumed them; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee. (Job 1:16)

I understand that you believe it is real fire, John, but you don't believe it literally comes down from God out of heaven. You believe (don't you?) when the Bible says "fire comes down from God," it is symbolic (or stands) for fire that comes from Satan.

(I changed "sky" to "John" and "come up from the wicked" to "comes from Satan")

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

I'm sorry, Pnatt, but your response doesn't help me understand how I misrepresented your view. Do you (as opposed to Ty) agree Jesus will supernaturally prevent sinners from dying prematurely during final judgment?

PS - Please include this entire post when you respond. Thank you.

It should help. I had in mind what he wrote, as opposed to what you said.

[John317]

Quote:

skyblue888: Again John, on one hand you agree that I have never said it is symbolic fire and yet on the other hand, in some subtle way you end your post by saying that the fire is literal leaving the reader with the same impression that sky does not believe this fire to be literal fire.

Is this your position:

You believe it is real fire, but you don't believe it literally comes down from God out of heaven. You believe (don't you?) when the Bible says "fire comes down from God," it is symbolic (or stands) for fire that come up from the wicked. I didn't mean to imply that you don't believe there will be real fire involved. In this way, you do believe it will be regular fire, but fire from human beings, not from God.

Quote:

skyblue: in what way is your understanding of God's character any different than the way Elijah and John the Baptist viewed the God of the Old Testament then? and in what way is your way of looking at God any different than His disciples did when they urged Him to call fire out of heaven to fall upon a village of the Samaritans?

My view is probably quite a bit different from the men you mention because I have the advantage of the NT Scriptures which testify of Christ. We also have the advantage of all the inspired writings of Ellen White.

The context of the fire that the disciples wanted to call down on the people is that they had the idea that God wants His followers to harm or possibly even kill people who don't accept the gospel or believe what the discples taught. This is false. God never wants His people to destroy other humans because of the way they react to hearing the gospel.

Judgment and punishment of the wicked is God's prerogative alone. As Ellen White says, God has unlimited control of the work of His hands and can do as He pleases with the work of His hands. Fallen humans don't have the right to tell the Judge and Creator of the universe how He shall punish other fallen humans. We don't have the right to ask God, Why are you doing this? God wants us to study the Bible to see how He will deal with sin, but He's not asking us for suggestions or for directions on how He should do it. See 4 SG 50; 12 MR 207-209; and ST Jan.6, 1881.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

God never wants His people to destroy other humans because of the way they react to hearing the gospel.

Or for any other reason.

Quote:

Satan's representations against the government of God, and his defense of those who sided with him, were a constant accusation against God. His murmurings and complaints were groundless; and yet God allowed him to work out his theory. God could have destroyed Satan and all his sympathizers as easily as one can pick up a pebble and cast it to the earth. But by so doing he would have given a precedent for the exercise of force. All the compelling power is found only under Satan's government. The Lord's principles are not of this order. He would not work on this line. He would not give the slightest encouragement for any human being to set himself up as God over another human being, feeling at liberty to cause him physical or mental suffering. This principle is wholly of Satan's creation. {RH, September 7, 1897 par. 7}