"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[Dr. Rich]

I agree Archie!

[Archie777]

Archie, you don't believe God will set people on fire to make them suffer, correct? You believe that there will be fire around them, that they'll feel heat from the fire, but they won't actually be set on fire, correct?

I'm not sure, Pnatt. But even if I did believe Jesus will set them on fire and then supernaturally prevent them from dying prematurely, it would not be to make them suffer. Suffering is simply the inevitable result of capital punishment.

It is not unlike Jesus to burn sinners alive. Or, as you like to say, to "withdraw and permit" them to be burned alive.

[Archie777]

Originally Posted By: Archie777

I'm not familiar with your line of thinking, so I don't understand how Gal 3:10 explains why Jesus commanded godly people like Moses to kill sinners.

Let me help you think like I do...But instead of arguing with you, I'll let you figure it out. What does the following me?

Quote:

The terms of the “old covenant” were, Obey and live: “If a man do, he shall even live in them” (Eze. 20:11; Lev. 18:5); but “cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them.” Deut. 27:26. [EGW]

I quote her because you can't get a point across to most SDA without doing so. BTW, I agree with her here....

Will you hate me if I confess I still don't understand how this explains why Jesus commanded Moses to kill sinners?

[Robert]

Will you hate me if I confess I still don't understand how this explains why Jesus commanded Moses to kill sinners?

Hate? No....

DO this, just see if you can explain what EGW stated.

[Robert]

He did justify himself against his accusers but he never justified himself toward God.

[John317]

Quote:

Robert: What does the Bible say?

[Job to God] “How many wrongs and sins have I committed? Show me my offense and my sin.” [Job 10:23]

[Job to God] “What are my sins? What wrongs have I done? What crimes am I charged with?" [Job 13:23]

[Job to God] "Let God weigh me in honest scales and He will know that I am blameless!" [Job 31:6]

Yes, Job was blameless in the biblical sense, which means having integrity. As mentioned before it doesn't refer to sinlessness. Job was a good man who could be trusted to do what is right. That's the sense of it.

Check out these verses about Job's sinfulness:

Job said, "Why not pardon my sin and take away my guilt?" (Job 7: 21)

He also said, "You search for accusations and you recall the sins of my youth." (Job 13: 26)

Those verses prove beyond question that Job is not claiming to be without sin. What you apparently are forgetting or not understanding is that Job's claims of innocencce and blamelessness have to do with his having no secret sin for which God is punishing him. He is blameless in the sense that the narrator and God mean it: that he is a good man in the same way that Noah was a good man. See Gen. 6: 9. Both were "blameless," yet both obviously had faults. The main thing they had in common is that they were loyal to God and God could trust them.

[John317]

Quote:

Robert: What does Job do? He defends his righteousness. Let's go on to chapter 10, and you will notice that Job is now defending his righteousness even before God. Job 10:2:

“I will say to God: Do not condemn me, but tell me what charges you have against me;Come on God, even You, show me where I have gone wrong. Look at verse 7:

;...though you know that I am not guilty...;

Verses 14-15:

If I sinned, you would be watching me and would not let my offense go unpunished. If I am guilty — woe to me! Even if I am innocent, I cannot lift my head, for I am full of shame and drowned in my affliction.

In other words, he's defending himself. ;Show me where I'm wrong, show me what my sin is; Go to chapter 13. Job pleads with God to show him his sins. In fact, Job is so confident that he is sinless, look at verses 23-24:

How many wrongs and sins have I committed? Show me my offense and my sin. Why do you hide your face and consider me your enemy?

In other words,;These three; comforters’ are accusing me of some secret sin. God, show me where I'm wrong. I'd like to know;

Was there a sin in Job’s life? The answer is no. Was there a problem? Yes, there was a problem, we shall see it in a moment. Chapter 16:15-17:

I have sewed sackcloth over my skin and buried my brow in the dust. My face is red with weeping, deep shadows ring my eyes; yet my hands have been free of violence and my prayer is pure.

Can you see what he’s doing? What is he defending? His self-righteousness. Turn to chapter 23 beginning with verse 10. Now all this time there’s an argument. These three friends are saying;There is something wrong, he is defending himself.; And Job is saying,;Nothing doing! Let me turn to God and ask Him, let Him show me.” Job 23:10-13:

But he knows the way that I take; when he has tested me, I will come forth as gold. My feet have closely followed his steps; I have kept to his way without turning aside. I have not departed from the commands of his lips; I have treasured the words of his mouth more than my daily bread. But he stands alone, and who can oppose him? He does whatever he pleases.

In other words he's saying,;I have not sinned, I have kept His commandments, I have held my integrity; And he goes on. And then the three men come back at him. You need to keep on reading the whole chapter and book.

Then we come to chapter 31, which I recommend you read entirely. Here is the final argument of Job. In the KJV there is a subtitle;Job's solemn protestation of his integrity.” In other words, in this whole chapter Job strongly defends his self-righteousness, and insists that there is no sin in him. And then look at Job 32:1:

So these three men stopped answering Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes.

Tell me, was his righteousness the righteousness of faith, or was it the righteousness of self? Now please, I would like to point out that Job was sincere, he was honest. But there was a problem, a problem that he did not realize; it was subconscious, he did not know.

But this is all a false reading of the book because the writer is not taking into account the fact that Job is defending himself against the false accusation that he has a secret sin in his life that is the cause of God's punishment. He is not claiming that he's never sinned or that his life is absolutely perfect.

The writer seems to feel that Job should plead guilty to having sins in his life that are responsible for calling down God's punishment upon him. It would be a false confession if Job were to confess to this. He's not insisting that he is not a fallen human being. Rather Job is insisting that he hasn't committed the sins he's accused of which would make God punish him.

Again, the following verses show that Job isn't claiming to be without any sin at all:

Job said, "Why not pardon my sin and take away my guilt?" (Job 7: 21)

He also said, "You search for accusations and you recall the sins of my youth." (Job 13: 26)

[John317]

Quote:

skyblue888: Job was not a self-righteous man. He was a perfect and upright man. The righteousness which he had was from God.

Quote:

ROBERT: Really? Prove it from the Bible...using Job.

You only need two witnesses: the one writing the story-- an objective, omnicient, trustworthy narrator-- and God, who cannot lie.

There's also the fact that Job proves in the story to be just what God and the narrator call him: a man blameless and upright, one who feared God, and shunned evil.

If you believe he was not these things, it is up to you to prove it from the Bible. Remember that this is different from proving that Job was imperfect or that Job sometimes spoke ignorantly, or said things out of his pain. "Blameless" and "upright" don't mean Job was sinless or that He made no errors. As explained before, they mean Job was a man of integrity and that he was whole in his devotion to God.

In order to show that Job is not what the narrator and God say, you need to prove it from the story itself. You cannot take the word of the friends of Job because they are not always reliable. They put words in Job's mouth that he never said. On the other hand, we know that the narrator and God are always reliable.

[Robert]

the one writing the story-- an objective, omnicient, trustworthy narrator-- and God, who cannot lie.

But you can and do by rejecting what God is telling us.

[Robert]

Again, the following verses show that Job isn't claiming to be without any sin at all:

Job said, "Why not pardon my sin and take away my guilt?" (Job 7: 21)

[Robert]

The writer [Jack] seems to feel that Job should plead guilty to having sins in his life that are responsible for calling down God's punishment upon him.

1] God is not punishing him. Job's attitude caused God to retreat and trouble followed.

2] Job's problem is not sin - it's self-righteousness. He is doing good things outwardly, but the motive is bent back to self. Therefore he is doing iniquity.

Matthew 7:22, 23. Self-righteous acts camouflaged or disguised in the name of Christ are exposed in the judgment and clearly identified as works of iniquity (i.e., works motivated by self-love). All Christians must consider this text seriously. Do our works originate from Christ and therefore motivated by agape, or are they the “fair shew in the flesh” [Galatians 6:12]? Are our works the result of a genuine relationship with Christ (i.e, works of faith) or are we working in His name but we really don’t know Him? [see also Luke 13:25-28.]

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

In other words, God is not punishing me for something that I have done wrong, God is not that kind of a Person. And he’s right there. But the question that we must ask is, “Why did God allow Job to go through this terrible experience?” I want to remind you of Hebrews 12:6,11:

...Because the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son.

This is the part I probably find most objectionable to the theory. Supposedly God, in an effort to discipline Job, was willing to not only have all of Job's belongings taken away, and Job himself suffer terrible physical pain, but also to have his loved ones killed as well. I understand the concept that Satan is responsible for evil, and God merely permits it to happen, and it makes sense to me that God would allow these things to happen (which He often does; tragedies happen to righteous people all the time; this is the world of sin in which we live) because there's a Great Controversy going on, and Satan really is evil, and his evil must be seen so that the principles and character of the enemy can be contrasted to the character and enemy of God. However, it doesn't make sense to me that all of this would occur simply to "discipline" Job. Saying that God was disciplining Job seems to make God responsible for what was happening rather than Satan, unless God was using Satan as a tool to discipline Job with.

Plus, the book starts out with Satan accusing God, and God's taking up Satan's challenge. I don't see how this aspect of the story cannot be center stage.

Quote:

I will heap on you, Job, all the blessings now because you have learned your lesson.

I don't believe this either. This doesn't sound like God. He doesn't cause us pain, suffering, and the death of our loved ones to "teach us a lesson." And then help blessings on us when we learn our lesson. This isn't what happens. What happens is good and bad people alike suffer terrible pain, when, for no fault of their own, they are struck with injury or disease, and they lose loved ones. People have financial difficulties as well, who are faithful in paying tithe and offerings. And people who have no thought of God receive financial blessing, enjoy good health, and don't lost their loved ones. There is all sorts of inequity in this world.

The lesson of Job is that there is an enemy who causes all of these things, and blames God for it.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

I don't feel as though I'm any closer to understanding what you believe Jesus does to prevent sinners from succumbing to the natural, inevitable result of sinning.

He doesn't leave them to reap the full result of their sin.

Quote:

Simply saying He doesn't leave them to suffer and die the instant they begin revisiting their sins during final judgment isn't the same thing as explaining how He prevents it from happening.

I'm saying what DA 764 says. I'm sorry if this doesn't help you.

[quot]Does your view prevent you from knowing the answer?

[pnattmbtc]

p:Archie, you don't believe God will set people on fire to make them suffer, correct? You believe that there will be fire around them, that they'll feel heat from the fire, but they won't actually be set on fire, correct?

A:I'm not sure, Pnatt.

[pnattmbtc]

Reposting for John:

Quote:

pnattmbtc: As I understand your thinking, you think something like the following will happen. The righteous will examine the life of some person, and look at each and every sin, and for each sin, with a paper and pencil, or some recording device, determine for how long a person should be burned. So they see someone curse, and say, "Ohh, that's worth 10 seconds of fire!" or someone commits adultery "Ohh, that's a bad one! 20 minutes!" and so forth. This accurately represents your idea? They look at each sin, calculate the burning time, and then add it up, and say, "ok, Marsha should be burned for 2 days, 4 hours, 12 minutes and 5 seconds." Is this an accurate representation of your view?

J:No, it isn't my view. My view is that during the one thousand years, Jesus and the righteous study the "records" of the lives of the wicked, comparing their lives with the law of God; and based on what they find, they will render a decision as to the portion which the wicked must suffer, according to their works. Then they write the decision against their names in the book of death. This is all done before the wicked are resurrected.

p:How is this different from what I wrote? Don't they need to look at each individual sin? Don't they need to consider how much burning time each individual sin merits? If not, how do they arrive at a final amount of burning time? When you say "they will render a decision as to the portion which the wicked must suffer, according to their works," doesn't this mean "determine for how long they will be set on fire according to the sins they committed?" And doesn't this require evaluating each sin along the lines I asked about?

[Archie777]

R: The terms of the “old covenant” were, Obey and live: “If a man do, he shall even live in them” (Eze. 20:11; Lev. 18:5); but “cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them.” Deut. 27:26. [EGW]

Archie: Will you hate me if I confess I still don't understand how this explains why Jesus commanded Moses to kill sinners?

R: Hate? No.... DO this, just see if you can explain what EGW stated.

The terms, conditions of the NC are the same as the OC, namely, obey and live; disobey and die. The main difference between the two covenants is the promises upon which they are founded. "The 'new covenant' was established upon 'better promises' - the promise of forgiveness of sins and of the grace of God to renew the heart and bring it into harmony with the principles of God's law." (ibid)

Jesus established the OC to help the Jews understand, appreciate, and experience the blessings of the NC. "Now by faith and love they were bound to God as their deliverer from the bondage of sin. Now they were prepared to appreciate the blessings of the new covenant." (ibid) Obeying and observing the requirements established by the OC helped the Jews obey and observe the requirements established by the NC.

"The minds of the people, blinded and debased by slavery and heathenism, were not prepared to appreciate fully the far-reaching principles of God's ten precepts. That the obligations of the Decalogue might be more fully understood and enforced, additional precepts were given, illustrating and applying the principles of the Ten Commandments. These laws were called judgments, both because they were framed in infinite wisdom and equity and because the magistrates were to give judgment according to them. Unlike the Ten Commandments, they were delivered privately to Moses, who was to communicate them to the people." (ibid)

The execution and enforcement of capital punishment was one of the many "precepts" and "principles" required under the OC. When Jesus commanded godly people like Moses to kill sinners, He was "illustrating and applying the principles of the Ten Commandments." (ibid) "These laws were to be recorded by Moses, and carefully treasured as the foundation of the national law, and, with the ten precepts which they were given to illustrate, the condition of the fulfillment of God's promises to Israel." (ibid)

Had Moses refused to obey Jesus' command to kill sinners, he would have been in violation of the NC as well as the OC. Do you see what I mean?

[Archie777]

P: Archie, you don't believe God will set people on fire to make them suffer, correct? You believe that there will be fire around them, that they'll feel heat from the fire, but they won't actually be set on fire, correct?

A: I'm not sure, Pnatt.

P: This is what you said before, that God didn't set people on fire.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

The terms, conditions of the NC are the same as the OC, namely, obey and live; disobey and die.

They're quite different.

Quote:

The terms of the "old covenant" were, Obey and live: "If a man do, he shall even live in them" (Ezekiel 20:11; Leviticus 18:5); but "cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them." Deuteronomy 27:26. The "new covenant" was established upon "better promises"--the promise of forgiveness of sins and of the grace of God to renew the heart and bring it into harmony with the principles of God's law. "This shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts . . . . I will forgive their iniquity, and will remember their sin no more." Jeremiah 31:33, 34.

The same law that was engraved upon the tables of stone is written by the Holy Spirit upon the tables of the heart. Instead of going about to establish our own righteousness we accept the righteousness of Christ. His blood atones for our sins.

Note that the terms of the *Old Covenant* were "obey and live." This was contrasted with the New Covenant, which is founded on better promises. The NC could be described as "Believe and live," just as Jesus Christ Himself explained in the interview with Nicodemus, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

What Jesus was asked, "What good work should be perform to do the works of God," He replied, "This is the work of God, that you believe on Him who He has sent.

Also, from the SOP:

Quote:

There is not a point that needs to be dwelt upon more earnestly, repeated more frequently, or established more firmly in the minds of all than the impossibility of fallen man meriting anything by his own best good works. Salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ alone. {FW 18.1}

Quote:

The main difference between the two covenants is the promises upon which they are founded. "The 'new covenant' was established upon 'better promises' - the promise of forgiveness of sins and of the grace of God to renew the heart and bring it into harmony with the principles of God's law." (ibid)

Jesus established the OC to help the Jews understand, appreciate, and experience the blessings of the NC.

Jesus establish the NC, which was perfect. The OC came about as a result of the people's unbelief. Waggoner explains this clearly:

Quote:

The two women, Hagar and Sarah, represent the two covenants. We read that Hagar is Mount Sinai, "bearing children for slavery." Just as Hagar could bring forth only slave children, so the law, even the law that God spoke from Sinai, cannot beget free men. It can do nothing but hold them in bondage. "The law brings wrath," "since through the law comes knowledge of sin. Romans 4:15; 3:20. At Sinai the people promised to kept the given law. But in their own strength they had no power to keep the law.

Mount Sinai "bore children for slavery," since their promise to make themselves righteous by their own works was not successful and can never be.

Consider the situation: The people were in the bondage of sin. They had no power to break their chains. And the speaking of the law made no change in that condition. If a man is in prison for crime, he does not gain release by hearing the statutes read to him. Reading to him the law that put him there only makes his captivity more painful.

Then did not God Himself lead them into bondage? Not by any means, since He did not induce them to make that covenant at Sinai. Four hundred and thirty years before that time He had made a covenant with Abraham which was sufficient for all purposes. That covenant was confirmed in Christ, and therefore was a covenant from above. See John 8:23. It promised righteousness as a free gift of God through faith, and it included all nations. All the miracles that God had wrought in delivering the children of Israel from Egyptian bondage were but demonstrations of His power to deliver them (and us) from the bondage of sin. Yes, the deliverance from Egypt was itself a demonstration not only of God's power but also of His desire to lead them from the bondage of sin.

So, when the people came to Sinai, God simply referred them to what He had already done and then said, "Now therefore, if ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people: for all the earth is Mine." Exodus 19:5, KJV. To what covenant did He refer? Evidently to the one already in existence, His covenant with Abraham. If they would simply keep God's covenant, keep the faith, and believe God's promise, they would be a "peculiar treasure" unto God. As the possessor of all the earth, He was able to do for them all that He had promised.

The fact that they in their self-sufficiency rashly took the whole responsibility upon themselves does not prove that God had led them into making that covenant.(The Glad Tidings)

Here is counsel related to Waggoner's position, and producing positions that vary from his.

Quote:

Night before last I was shown that evidences in regard to the covenants were clear and convincing. Yourself, Brother B, Brother C, and others are spending your investigative powers for naught to produce a position on the covenants to vary from the position that Brother [E. J.] Waggoner has presented.{9MR 328.3}

[pnattmbtc]

Punishment, not pain, is the purpose.

[Robert]

The terms, conditions of the NC are the same as the OC, namely, obey and live; disobey and die.

I was hoping you would think for yourself instead of quoting partially from EGW. BTW, Ellen is wrong. If the covenants are the same then we have no hope....

[John317]

Quote:

John317: the one writing the story-- an objective, omnicient, trustworthy narrator-- and God, who cannot lie.

Quote:

ROBERT: But you can and do by rejecting what God is telling us.

God says that Job is a blameless man, one who is upright, and hates evil.

What is it that you believe God is telling us?

[John317]

Quote:

Archie777: The terms, conditions of the NC are the same as the OC, namely, obey and live; disobey and die.

Quote:

ROBERT: I was hoping you would think for yourself instead of quoting partially from EGW. BTW, Ellen is wrong. If the covenants are the same then we have no hope....

The Ten Commandments are the same in both covenants. God still requires perfect obedience, perfect righteousness. The standards are not lowered under the New Covenant.

The difference in who makes the promises: under the NC, it is God who makes the promise. Under the OC, it was the people who promised. So the promises are better under the NC.

[pnattmbtc]

=I was hoping you would think for yourself instead of quoting partially from EGW. BTW, Ellen is wrong.

Nope, she's right. She said Waggoner is right, whom I quoted. It's evident that Waggoner was right, as she said, and she taught the same thing he did.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

The Ten Commandments are the same in both covenants. God still requires perfect obedience, perfect righteousness. The standards are not lowered under the New Covenant.

The difference in who makes the promises: under the NC, it is God who makes the promise. Under the OC, it was the people who promised. So the promises are better under the NC.

Yes! Well said.

Another point is that the OC was initiated by the people, because of their unbelief, and not be God.

[Robert]

The difference is in who makes the promises: under the NC, it is God who makes the promise. Under the OC, it was the people who promised. So the promises are better under the NC.

This is legalism with a new face....What you are suggesting is that we are saved by what God does in us....Does this answer the law? If so what is your excuse for not living Christ's life of complete selflessness?