"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[John317]

Quote:

pnattmbtc (quoting): 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")

Who said those words, "the fire of God is fallen from heaven"?

It was an unispired man who didn't know what he was talking about. It was not a prophet. Makes a big difference, doesn't it?

It is not in the same category as those statements written by inspired prophets and apostles.

That verse, by the way, was discussed a long time ago.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

You're arguing like this: God uses compelling power and physical force ==> It's not true that these things are found only under Satan's government ==> EGW's statement that compelling power can be found only under Satan's government must be interpreted.

I'm arguing, according to EGW, compelling power is found only under Satan's government. The Lord's principles are not of this order. ==> It is true that these things are found only under Satan's government ==> EGW's statements regarding activities where God appears to using these principles must be interpreted.

There's no a priori reason why one of these tracks of reason should be better than the other. This is what we're trying to discuss, which reasoning is correct.

I wrote this in response to John317. Does everyone agree with this? (i.e., that this characterizes a difference between the two points of view being discussed, and this is a good way of classifying the difference). The ==> means "therefore."

(repost)

[pnattmbtc]

John, on 3/16 I wrote the following:

Quote:

John317, please respond to #344711, or #344618. (#344711 was a request to respond to #344618).

This was post #344837.

I don't think you have. If you have, please tell me where.

Thanks.

(repost)

[Archie777]

A: 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.

R: You did overlook it.... Jesus didn't command any such thing

Do you believe Jesus instructed Moses in the OT? If so, do you believe the following passages portray Jesus commanding Moses to kill sinners?

Leviticus

24:13 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

24:14 Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard [him] lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him.

Numbers

15:35 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.

[BobRyan]

Differences are --

One side accepts what we find in scripture and in Ellen White's writings regarding what really happens at the 2nd death - and the other side "prefers not to think about it".

You cannot "imagine" the Bible away. That is not a "funny kind of exegesis". It is just wishful thinking.

That is the biggest difference right there.

The second one is like unto it -

By flatly denying what God says on the subject of the 2nd death in the Bible and in the writings of Ellen White - you are using the argument

"I don't care how explicit you are God in telling me what you will do at the 2nd death -- I refuse to believe it BECAUSE I find that you are a God of Love and I wish to use that principle in some way so as to negate everything you just spelled out about what will happen at the 2nd death".

The problem is -- the bible "just won't bend" the way you need it to bend for your view to come up as "valid".

Which is way there is so much opposition to it.

It has nothing to do with "what we prefer" to think - it has everything to do with a faithful rendering of the text.

Given what we saw here -

http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthread...html#Post345405

and here

http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthread...html#Post345407

There is simply no way to make all those inconvenient details "go away" with one "I don't want to think about it" story after another.

in Christ,

Bob

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Who said those words, "the fire of God is fallen from heaven"?

Someone who saw fire from God falling from heaven.

Quote:

It was an unispired man who didn't know what he was talking about.

??? Of course he did. He saw fire falling form God from heaven. He saw it and described it as he say it.

Quote:

It was not a prophet. Makes a big difference, doesn't it?

The prophets do the same thing. They see things and describe what they see.

For example, John described a great dragon in heaven. Ellen White described Satan in the heavenly sanctuary.

[BobRyan]

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.

The weakness I see in the position that flatly denies what both the Bible and Ellen White say about the 2nd death - is that it denies both the character of God as "just" and as "truthful", it argues against the character of God as "wise" and "loving" if God dares to make good on His Word - and it turns a blind ey to the "solution of God" for the Universe and for all eternity in carrying out a sentence that ENDS sin instead of subjecting his universe to the "I don't care" solution that just prolongs the horrible pain and suffering of sin as it mindlessly rambles on endlessly, until it finally fizzles out on it's own.

in Christ,

Bob

[John317]

Quote:

skyblue888: Where have I ever said or made the slightest suggestion or inkling that the fire spoken of in Rev.20:9 is symbolic????!!!!

It's symbolic from your viewpoint to the extent that you don't believe it's real fire that comes (as the verse says) from God out of heaven. You believe it is real fire that comes out of the earth and from sinful mankind. It's literal fire but it's not literally from God out of heaven. In literary terms, that makes it symbolic. In literature, you might have a literal fire but it can be symbolic of another, different literal fire. For instance, small, literal fires in some stories and poems represent the larger fires of hell.

[Archie777]

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.

Are you unwilling to answer my question?

PS - What happened to the rest of the post?

[doug yowell]

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: Who said those words, "the fire of God is fallen from heaven"?

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Someone who saw fire from God falling from heaven.

Yes, it was "someone," a good way to put it.

It was an uninspired man who had no idea of what it really was. God did not reveal anything to him, did He? Did He know anything about the conversation between God and the Satan, for instance? No.

So if you go by what this uninspired man says, you are in a lot of trouble, aren't you?

People who read the story know that the devil is the one who caused the destruction. The man was wrong.

Were the prophets and apostles wrong? For instance, was the Bible writer wrong in 1 Kings 13: 38?

Are you saying that you believe the apostle John was wrong about the fire that fell on the wicked? How about the fire mentioned in Genesis 19 and Jude 7? How about Jesus' testimony concerning the fire that will destroy sinners?

Quote:

JOHN 3:17: It was an unispired man who didn't know what he was talking about.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: ??? Of course he did. He saw fire falling form God from heaven. He saw it and described it as he say it.

But he was uninspired by the Holy Spirit and did not know anything about the conversation between God and Satan. In other words, that man was wrong because he didn't have a correct, inspired knowledge of what really happened.

The big difference is that prophets and apostles are inspired by the Holy Spirit and are given visions by Christ. The man in Job obviously was not.

Are you going to say you know better than John the Revelator what he was shown and what he saw? Wouldn't you agree that we should believe John in Rev. 20: 9 but we shouldn't believe the man in Job 1:16?

[doug yowell]

Yes, posts are regularly truncated. In some cases it doesn't cause a problem. But in those cases when it does context is often crucial. My comment to Doug was intended to assure him I didn't think he was the one who left out the context.

I'm sorry the rest of my post was unclear to you. I'm not good at conveying my thoughts, and it's even worse in print. Perhaps Doug can help out?

Archie, your points are cogent, your presentation is clear,and you don't need me to help you out. The problem lies elsewhere.

[John317]

Quote:

John317: If the Bible taught it, I would believe it...

Quote:

pnattmbtc: 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?

I mean that I base my beliefs on the Bible. Therefore if I see clear evidence that the Bible teaches a certain doctrine, I have no trouble believing it. What I'm saying is that I have to see clear Bible evidence for a teaching or belief. On the other hand, if a teaching or belief is clearly contradicted by Scripture, I will reject it.

[doug yowell]

Quote:

You're arguing like this: God uses compelling power and physical force ==> It's not true that these things are found only under Satan's government ==> EGW's statement that compelling power can be found only under Satan's government must be interpreted.

I'm arguing, according to EGW, compelling power is found only under Satan's government. The Lord's principles are not of this order. ==> It is true that these things are found only under Satan's government ==> EGW's statements regarding activities where God appears to using these principles must be interpreted.

There's no a priori reason why one of these tracks of reason should be better than the other. This is what we're trying to discuss, which reasoning is correct.

I wrote this in response to John317. Does everyone agree with this? (i.e., that this characterizes a difference between the two points of view being discussed, and this is a good way of classifying the difference). The ==> means "therefore."

(repost)

Actions speak louder than points of view. What is being argued (by some) is that God's actions in the past illustrate how He will act in the future.Others are arguing that all of God's actions are to be viewed thru the filter of a preexisting determinate (principle). I believe that,all other things aside, this "principle" is what is being controverted.

[doug yowell]

A fundamental issue which must be deal with is how to deal with texts which describe God as directly causing some calamity, given that God is often presented as doing that which He permits. How does one know if in a given text God is actively or passively? I've been asking this the entire thread without an answer, AFAIR, and this is an absolutely fundamental question.

There are many, many texts on the subject. Not just one has been put forth. Here's a fundamental text to consider:

Quote:

17Then my anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall befall them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us, because our God is not among us?

18And I will surely hide my face in that day for all the evils which they shall have wrought, in that they are turned unto other gods. (Deut. 31:17-18)

This equates the wrath of God with His forsaken the objects of His wrath. It speaks of His hiding His face, resulting in evils and troubles, which lead to the question, "Are not these evils come upon us, because our God is not among us?"

The principles are clearly laid out here.

pnatt, I'll be glad to answer this question but not tonight, it's too late.

[John317]

Quote:

pnattmbtc: The second question is in regards to the Great Controversy. You said that God does not use compelling power to win the Great Controversy, but the Great Controversy is won by God's revealing His character and the principles of His government. If compelling power is a principle of God's government, then by revealing this, He is winning the Great Controversy. I don't see how you can deny that God uses compelling power to win the Great Controversy. If this is part of God's character and a principle of His government, then, by definition, revealing that He does so is winning the Great Controversy by its use, just as much as revealing any other aspect of God's character or principle of His government does so.

Quote:

JOHN3:17: The simplest answer to this is that God won the great controversy in only one way, and that is through the life, ministry, death, and intercession of Jesus Christ. What God did in heaven against Satan did not win the controversy. Neither did driving Adam out of the Garden, nor destroying the world with a flood, or destroying Sodom. God and Christ won it on the cross of Calvary.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: The Great Controversy is in regards to God's character and the principles of His government. Satan has said they are one thing, whereas God has said they are another. Christ revealed the truth. He didn't do anything other than this. If Christ did one thing, and God does another, then Christ didn't reveal that the truth, but revealed a lie. Christ only won the Great Controversy if His character is the same as God's character, and the principles He taught, are the *same* as the principles God has used throughout.

*Everything* God has ever done is involved in the Great Controversy. Every single thing that God has done since the inception of sin has been to win the Great Controversy. There is no exception. So if God uses compelling power, then He does so to win the Great Controversy, just as anything else God does is for the purpose of winning the Great Controversy.

The great controversy is already won. God won it at the cross. The rest of the war are skirmishes. Satan has already been defeated and overcome. How did God do it?

Not by forcing Satan and his demons out of heaven. Nor by driving Adam out of the garden. Nor by drowning the vast world in the Flood. Nor by destroying Sodom. Not by using His overwhelming power to compell Pharaoh to free the Israelite slaves from Egyptian bondage. Nor by drowning the Egytpians army in the Red Sea. None of those things won the great controversy. What won it was Christ's life, death, resurrection, and ascension. His death and resurrection was the death sentence against Satan. He's as good as dead from the work of Christ on the cross as well as what He is doing today.

So I disagree with you that every act of God throughout human history wins the great controversy. I disagree with you on this because both the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy disagree with your viewpoint about how and when the great controversy was won.

The proof is this: clearly everything God does is a revelation of His character, so that God is continually revealing Himself, but it would not be correct to say that God is continually winning the great controversy. The great controversy is already won. The King of king Himself said, "It is finished." All God has to do now is pick up the prize and clean up the battle field. The prize is God's people and the cleaning up is what God will do at the end of the one thousand years when He will completely destroy the enemy and purify the earth of all traces of sin.

Question:

Did God ever use compelling force to make Satan do something he did not do by choice?

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

Was Satan compelled to obey? Indeed he was. "SATAN WAS COMPELLED TO OBEY... HE WAS COMPELLED... TO INSTANTLY DESIST..."

This plainly states that God and Christ used compelling power to make Satan obey when he otherwise wouldn't have. According to you, that act of compelling Satan to obey was necessarily part of winning the great controversy. Therefore, you MUST believe that God has used compelling power to win the war against sin and Satan.

The same is proved by Exodus 6: 1 when God said that He would use His mighty arm, or compelling power, to free Israel from slavery. The evidence shows that God did just that: He forced Egypt to give up its slaves. All the world recognizes that God proved in that way that He is the Only living God. It was God's reason for doing what He did. See Romans 9: 17.

[Robert]

See the following evidence Exodus 32: 27, 28.

Jesus came to reveal the Father. Therefore much in the OT is incompatible with what Jesus revealed.

For example the Jews were under Roman occupation. They wanted to free themselves from under Roman's yoke, but yet Jesus resisted their every move to do so. He maintained that those who live by the sword, die by the sword. He said love your enemies.

[Robert]

Quote:

Ex 32:26 "If you're on the LORD's side, come over here to me!" Then all the Levites gathered around him. 27 He said to them, "This is what the LORD God of Israel says: Each of you put on your sword. Go back and forth from one end of the camp to the other, and kill your relatives, friends, and neighbors." 28 The Levites did what Moses told them, and that day about 3,000 people died.

Matt 5: 38 "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' 39 But I tell you not to oppose an evil person. If someone slaps you on your right cheek, turn your other cheek to him as well. 40 If someone wants to sue you in order to take your shirt, let him have your coat too. 41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go two miles with him. 42 Give to everyone who asks you for something. Don't turn anyone away who wants to borrow something from you. 43 "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor, and hate your enemy.' 44 But I tell you this: Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you. 45 In this way you show that you are children of your Father in heaven.

These statements cannot be reconciled. No matter how much one twists, contorts and manipulates these statements are completely diametrically opposed.

[Robert]

Therefore, you MUST believe that God has used compelling power to win the war against sin and Satan.

God doesn't need to resort to violence to win your so called war. Violence is evil..it is sin.

[John317]

Quote:

John317: 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?

Quote:

ROBERT: He didn't....You can't see the forest for the trees.

Talk, then, about these verses and tell what happened. Show me the forest. To do that you'll have to do more than just say "He didn't."

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.

[Robert]

Reconcile these John, I can't:

"This is what the LORD God of Israel says: Each of you put on your sword. Go back and forth from one end of the camp to the other, and kill your relatives, friends, and neighbors."

"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor, and hate your enemy.' But I tell you this: Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you. In this way you show that you are children of your Father in heaven.

[Robert]

What did Christ do when He was captured, mistreated and crucified? Did He acted violently?

As He hung on the cross experiencing God’s curse for our sins, Jesus had to make a choice. He could not save Himself and the world at the same time. And He did make the supreme choice. He chose to die eternally that you and I may live in His place. That is what transformed the disciples. They were so shocked! They had not understood such love before as this. It is this concept of agape that turned the world upsidedown, that God not only came down for thirty-three years, but Jesus their Savior was willing to say good-bye to life forever that they may live in His place. “But God demonstrated His love that while we were still sinners Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8).

In other words, the supreme sacrifice is that Jesus was willing to accept our curse and give us His life in exchange. It was not a question of saving Himself and the world. He could not do that. He had to make a choice between the world and Himself. Do you know what Christ was saying on the cross? I hope you will never forget this; He was saying that He loves us more than Himself. That is God’s agape. [JS]

[Robert]

Here's the author of "light on the dark side of God":

Ethical Problems

Despite the seemingly clear way in which Scripture presents Him, the traditional view of Christianity's God is heavy with ethical problems that have puzzled reasonable men and women from time immemorial. As long as humans have reasoned on the subject of God, they have wondered about His destructive side. Noah's flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, eternal hell fire. . . . How can a God who punishes so cruelly also say: "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die?" "How can I give you up, Ephraim? How can I hand you over, Israel? . . . My heart churns within Me; My sympathy is stirred." "My heart sobs like a flute for Moab, sobs like a flute for the men of Kirheres; that accumulated treasure all lost" (Ezekiel 33:11; Hosea 11:8; Jeremiah 48:36, JB). Would not humans manifesting this personality split be considered psychotic?

How can God exercise such "cruel and unusual" punishment as drowning the world, burning cities and the humans in them, and still be considered loving and just, as He and His adherents claim? He extended Himself to the lengths of Calvary to preserve our freedom of choice. But is choice really free, with God standing over us to destroy us if we choose wrong? After enduring the cross to redeem humanity, thus showing His loving character before the universe, why does He, in the end, reverse it all by executing those whose choices He does not like?

How can a God who kills command His people not to kill and yet to be like Him? How does the mild and gentle Jesus reflect the character of the "fire-breathing" Old Testament God He came to reveal? Perhaps nothing has contributed more to the advancement of atheism than these perplexing unanswered questions of Christianity. [MM Campbell]

[pnattmbtc]

p: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.

B:The weakness I see in the position that flatly denies what both the Bible and Ellen White say about the 2nd death- is that it denies both the character of God as "just" and as "truthful", it argues against the character of God as "wise" and "loving" if God dares to make good on His Word - and it turns a blind eye to the "solution of God" for the Universe and for all eternity in carrying out a sentence that ENDS sin instead of subjecting his universe to the "I don't care" solution that just prolongs the horrible pain and suffering of sin as it mindlessly rambles on endlessly, until it finally fizzles out on it's own.

[John317]

Here's the author of "light on the dark side of God":

Ethical Problems

No authority or measuring stick.