"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[John317]

Quote:

Robert:

So, you do not sin? Better yet you "claim to be without sin"?

Rob, do you believe anyone besides Christ has obeyed the commandments of God? Do you think that with the power of the Spirit, you can obey God's commandments? Or do you think the Bible teaches all Christians must forever be enslaved to sin, until Christ returns?

[pnattmbtc]

Moses:On that day I will become angry with them and forsake them; I will hide my face from them, and they will be destroyed. Many disasters and difficulties will come upon them, and on that day they will ask, 'Have not these disasters come upon us because our God is not with us?'(Deut. 31:17)

p:This is the same principle as what EGW explained in "The Destruction of Jerusalem."

A:"The LORD will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nought." Fourteen times it says, "The Lord shall". It sounds like you believe it only and always means Jesus will be forced to withdraw His protection and permit evil to befall them. "And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters."

How is this any different than Jesus saying, "Obey me or I'll be forced to let you kill and eat your children"?

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

John317:

JOHN3:17: All we know is what the Bible and SOP tell us about these matters, which is that God knows the end from the beginning, but that, as said before, God took a real risk in sending the pre-incarnate Christ to come to this world as a man. I assert that it was "imperiled" simply on the testimony of the prophet of God, in whom I have complete confidence as the messenger of God.

What I believe is also found generally in books written by well-known Seventh-day Adventist writers, although there are some differences in the details among these writers, particularly on some doctrines such as the Trinity, Armageddon, the nature of Christ's humanity, etc.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: This doesn't make it true either.

J:You're right. I'm not telling you this as a way of proving my beliefs are correct or accurate.

What post is this please? I don't know what the context is here. In particular, I wrote, "That doesn't make it true either." The "either" makes it sound like I may have made some other point, and that this is an additional point.

Quote:

I'm telling you this in order for you to have a better understanding of my beliefs. In other words, if you study standard works that present SDA doctrines-- and if you study Ellen White's writings-- you'll have a pretty good idea of what I myself believe. Of course there are minor differences among SDA writers on certain issues, particularly prophecy, the nature of Christ's humanity, but for the most part SDA writers are in agreement.

You seem to have major differences with Waggoner, for example, in regards to the idea of sin causing death and destruction. Also in terms of the atonement, although we haven't discussed this much. Fifield is another one with whom I'm virtually certain you would strongly disagree.

Actually, there have always been disagreements within the SDA church. For example, regarding the fire that comes from heaven. You speak as if the standard idea is that God will set people on fire and torture them, but this has never been set out as our position in our statement of beliefs or any standard reference that I'm aware of. Kevin H. has pointed out that the meaning of the fire was debated by Adventists from the very beginning.

Quote:

I attempt to base my views of the destruction of the wicked on the Bible and on the writings of Ellen White.

Everyone who accepts EGW as a prophetess is doing this as well.

Quote:

I'm not interested in building my own unique view of these things, since I believe the only things we can know for sure are those that God has revealed to us through His prophets. I believe explicitly in ALL of Ellen White's writings, taking time and place and context into consideration.

Same comment. Everyone studying here is interested in the truth.

Quote:

But again, I didn't tell you this a proof of the correctness of my views; only that you might have a clearer understanding of my positions.

I would assume you would think you're believing things which are consistent with inspiration. I'm not sure why you think this would help me understand your views. What would help me would be an explanation as to why you think God's character is such that He would be capable of setting people on fire to cause them excruciating pain for days as a means of punishment, which Webster's defines as "torture." I'd be very interested in understanding this. Now *why* you hold this view, as I know it's based primarily on your interpretation of certain passages of the SOP, but why you think God would be capable of acting in the way you think He will act. That I would find very interesting.

It's clear to me that our biggest difference of opinion involves how we view God's character. How we view God's character has a profound impact on who we are, and on all we do, including how we perceive and interpret inspiration.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: In the discussions we've had on other subjects, my positions agree more closely to Jones and Waggoner's than yours do, IMO. Do you dispute this? I mention this because the SOP specifically endorsed them several thousand times.

J:I study these men's writings and I have most of them, but there are many of them I haven't yet read. I don't attempt to measure all my beliefs by them, because I don't believe they were correct in everything they wrote or said. They were not prophets, and neither were they inspired in the biblical sense of that word.

I don't remember the context here. There's at least one quote where EGW refers to them as "prophets." She said Waggoner could teach righteousness by faith better than she could. She affirmed over and over again that they had a message from God, and that to reject their message was to reject Christ. I don't see that it matters that their gift wasn't identical to hers. The truth sent by God was still just as much the truth, and just as much needed.

Quote:

It's true that Ellen White endorsed the message they were preaching in 1888 and shortly thereafter,

I think this is misleading. At least by "shortly thereafter," I would think in terms of a few months, or perhaps a year or two. But in reality, she endorsed them through 1896 at least, which is almost ten years.

Quote:

but this doesn't mean she endoreed everything they wrote or said from 1888 onwards. We shouldn't assume when we read them that we are reading the Message of 1888 which Ellen White endorsed and which I do believe was from heaven.

Sure we should. She endorsed their writings continuously, and they wrote continuously on the subject. They didn't change their ideas on righteousness by faith. This is easy to see simply by reading what they wrote.

Quote:

For instance, Waggoner eventually totally rejected the doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ, and in my thinking, he was plainly wrong in this position.

??? I don't know what you're talking about here. If you're going to make a claim like this, you really should substantiate it in some way, right?

Quote:

I doubt she endorsed Jones and Waggoner several thousand times but she often did make it clear she endorsed their message.

By "several thousand times" I means "two thousand times." That would have been more accurate. She endorsed them about 2,000 times through about ten years.

Quote:

I have no doubt of that. But again, it doesn't mean we can assume she agreed with everything they wrote or said. In fact, we know that she didn't endorse everything. See, for instance, Ms. 15, 1888. Among other things, she says, "Some interpretations of Scripture by Dr. Waggoner I do not regard as correct.

She may have changed her mind on these points to agree with what Waggoner was saying. Her point in saying this was not that Waggoner was in error, but that he should be heard with an open mind. She said, in this same statement, that when she heard Waggoner speak, she had never publicly heard anyone teach so clearly on the subject of righteousness by faith, and that every fiber of her heart said "Amen!" She was doing all she could to get people to consider what Waggoner was saying (which I try to do as well).

Quote:

... It would be dangerous to denounce Dr. Waggoner's position as wholly erroneous." She wrote this as the GC was near its close. Arthur White writes about it on page 401 of Vol 3 of his biography of his grandmother. Later Mrs. White would write letters to A.T. Jones, cautioning him about two points: he had been making it appear that there was nothing that we must do to be saved; and Jones' words didn't properly distinguish between the sinlessness of Jesus and sinful mankind.

Are you referring to the dream she had? It's not clear that this dream is something Jones was actually guilty of, or something he was in danger of falling into. It makes sense that God would use a prophet to warn another servant of a danger he might be falling into. Regarding properly ditinguishing the sinlessness of Jesus and sinful mankind, what are you talking about? Please don't make statements like this without substantiating them. Please quote what was said and the reference. (more later)

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

pnattmbtc: This is especially true the further back in Adventist history you go.

J:Not sure what you refer to as "especially true."

I don't know what this is talking about, so can't comment.

Quote:

JOHN3:17: Ellen White taught that God knows the end from the beginning, yet she also taught that God took a real risk in sending His Son here as a human being to be tempted by Satan. Her writings contain such statements as, "From the beginning, God and Christ knew of the apostasy of Satan, and of the fall of man through the deceptive power of the apostatte. God did not ordain that sin should exist, but He foresaw its existence, and made provision to meet the terrible emergency" DA 22. The same writer often said that God had shown her "coming events," and "the scenes of the past AND THE FUTURE" (GC, Introduction, p. 14). Ellen G. White was sometimes given visions which showed exactly what people would say and do before those things actually happened.

pnattmbtc: God could easily show coming events without the future being fixed. Do you disagree?

J:The events described in Daniel 2, 7, and 8 were fixed and were bound to happen just as the prophecies say they would.

I do believe, though, that it was a real possibility for Israel to accept Jesus as the Messiah. Daniel 9: 24-27 clearly bears that out.

This would bear out what I have been saying. The future is not fixed, and Daniel 2, 7, 8, 9 laid out what would happen if the Jews did not accept Christ. If they had accepted Christ, it would have like with Nineveh, where what the prophet said would happen didn't happen. (or at a minimum, in the case of Daniel, things would have happened differently). These prophesies are condition upon beings with free will.

Quote:

JOHN3:17: The prophecies as found in Daniel 2, 7, 8, 9, 11; Ezekiel 26: 3-5 --- as well as many other prophecies, such as those regarding Cyrus, Christ, Judas, including the entire book of Revelation,-- prove beyond question that God knows the future.

pnattmbtc: I've explained several times that our difference is ontological, not epistemological. Do you not understand this point? I ask this because you continue to present things in epistemological terms. I've explained to you on many occasions now, every time we've discussed this, that I believe God knows the future perfectly. Yet you continue to assert that God knows the future, as if this were a meaningful assertion.

J:Wheher it is a meaningful assertion or not doesn't depend on whether you believe it or not.

Yes, I really believe our difference is ontological, and not epistemological. We disagree agree regarding the *content* of the future, not the fact that God knows it. It's important that this point be understood. Do you understand what I'm saying here? If not, I'll try to explain it more clearly.

Quote:

You may use the same expressions, that God knows the future, but yet we may not agree on what it means to say that God knows the future perfectly.

Yes, of course we disagree. We disagree because of the ontological difference in regards to the future.

Quote:

Would you explain your view of the science of being, such that it -- and not epistemology--- accounts for all of our differences?

What I'm saying is that I believe the future consists not of one line of things which God knows will happen, but of all the potential things which can happen, all of which God knows. The future is fundamentally (ontologically) different than the past or present in this regard. There is only one past, and there is only one present, but the future is not like that. The future consists of potential things which might happen, all of which God knows perfectly. Which specific possibilities will occur may or may not be possible to know with certainty. It's not always the case that these can be known, not because of any lack in God regarding His ability to see (this would be epistemological; we would be disagreeing regarding God's ability to see the future. This isn't what's happening here, because we both affirm God can see the future perfectly) but because this is the nature of the future.

Here's an analogy. In quantum mechanics, it is believed that the movement of certain subatomic particles can be explained according to a probabilistic model. It is believed that this probabilistic model is not simply the description of how things look because the underlying cause is not known, but that the probabilistic model *is* the reality. That is, if one asked God Himself what these particles would do, He would respond, "There's a 40% chance it will do this, a 15% chance it will do that" and so forth. The probabilistic behavior was built into the particle. So God, by His answer, would not be limited in His ability to view the future, but would simply be describing the behavior of the particle in terms of how He designed it. God could perfectly foresee the results of whatever the particle did.

The future consists of *all* the possibilities, seen all at once.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Again, I've already said I believe God knows the future perfectly, and I've already explained to you that this is a tenet of Open Theism. If you studied with Dr. Rice, you should know this. Why are you asserting that God knows the future? (of course this is true, but why do you think there's a need to assert this, given that this is a tenet of Open Theism, and I've already explained that I believe this, and that our difference is ontological, not epistemological).

J:You must not know very well what Dr. Richard Rice has written or said, because I know for a fact that Rice doesn't believe God knows all of the future in detail.

Now you're changing what was said. What I said is that it is a tenet of Open Theism that God knows the future perfectly. What is disagreed to is what the content of that future is. To change this to "knows all of the future in detail" is implying, or seems to be, that God has exhaustive definitive foreknowledge, or EDF, which would imply that the future is not open but fixed, which is the very thing we're in disagreement regarding.

Quote:

I know this because Richard Rice told me personally and explained in class some of what he was writing. I took classes by him at Loma Linda University at the time he was writing about this very topic. I know that he believes some things cannot possibly be known because they are not "there" for anyone, including God, to know.

Yes, this is correct. This is the ontological vs. epistemological difference I've been emphasizing. "It is not there for anyone, including God, to know" is speaking directly to the ontological issue. What is the nature or character of the future? That's the key question.

Quote:

He believes this must be true if humans are truly free to make choices.

And he's correct. If this weren't true, there would be a logical contradiction to the idea that humans have free will, assuming we use the libertarian definition of free will. (The logical contradiction goes away if we use the definition of free will the Calvinists use.)

Quote:

Here is some of what David Larson in Spectrum (11 November 2007) about the views of Richard Rice:

Quote:

He [Richard Rice] identified a second step in the thought of James [Jacobus] Arminius (1560-1609), John Wesley (1703-1791), Ellen G. White (1827-1915) and others. Christians such as these split Calvin's twin convictions, affirming one but not the other. They held that God knows the past, present and future with equal completeness but that God does not determine everything that occurs because God gives human beings genuine freedom.

“Open Theism” goes beyond this in a third step, Richard explained. It holds that Scripture, logic and experience urge us to reconsider both of the two convictions from Calvin with which we began, contending instead that God neither predetermines every thing that happens nor foreknows all that will occur.

This is inaccurate. God does not have EDF, but He does foreknow all that occurs. He foreknows all that occurs in terms of certainties and potential facts.

Quote:

I pointed out that, although it may seem new to some, in less detailed forms the basics of “Open Theism” have been taught at Loma Linda University for about fifty years, beginning at least as early as long-time professor Jack W. Provonsha.

Richard explained that today the “Openness of God” movement makes a path about half way between traditional theism, on the one hand, and contemporary process theology, on the other. With process theology, it holds that human beings have enough freedom partly to determine the future. With traditional theism, it holds that human freedom is not inherent; rather, like the whole of creation, it is a gift from God.

He emphasized that “Open Theism” makes God's love, rather than God's power, glory or sovereignty the primary and conceptually controlling theme. It holds that, as Jesus taught, God relates to us more like a good parent than an overpowering king or queen.

From this point of view, the Christian moral life is not primarily a matter of submitting to God's commands. It is the joy of responsively and responsibly interacting with God in bringing about in each situation as much flourishing as possible. I contrasted "the ethics of prohibition" and "the ethics of imagination," the latter being what “Open Theism” champions.

Richard made it clear that according to “Open Theism” God knows everything there is to know.

This is accurate. Clearly if God knows everything there is to know, He foreknows all that will occur, which is why the above comment was inaccurate.

Quote:

But there are some things that God does not know because they have not yet come into being and, given the reality of human freedom, they may or may not eventually occur.

This is inaccurate. God *does* know these thing. He knows them as potentialities. He doesn't know them as certainties, because they aren't certain. But a think needed be certain to be known.

Quote:

These things are not yet “there” for God or anyone else to know.

They are there to be known as potential facts, which God does know.

Quote:

This is a very important point. It means that those who wish to criticize “Open Theism” should not accuse it of “limiting God” because such arrows miss the target. They should aim at its understanding of human freedom instead.

If it is inherently possible for genuinely free decisions to be predicted with 100% accuracy, then God certainly knows what they will be. But “Open Theism” contends that to understand freedom this way is to rob it of its true meaning. What we mean by “freedom” is therefore the crux of the issue.

This last sentence is indeed a key point. There are two generally accepted definitions for freedom in these discussions. One definition is that a person is free if he can choose between multiple options. For example, it's actually possible for a person to do X or not X. This is the libertarian or incompatibilistic definition (incompatible with determinism). The compatibilistic definition is that a person has freedom if he is able to do what he wishes to do. This is not as strong a condition, as it does not require being able to effect either X or not X, but only that if a person wishes to do X, he can.

The logical contradiction with the libertarian view is simply that if God is 100% certain that X will occur, that it's not possible for not X to occur, and a person could not effect (bring this about) this option.

Quote:

JOHN3:17: I have no doubt that God foresaw and planned the rise of the Millerite movement and the Seventh-day Adventist church. I believe He also knew in eternity past that you and I would exist, just as Scripture proves that He knew long before they were born that Cyrus and Paul would exist and what they would do. If He didn't, the Bible could not contain statements such as the ones found in Is. 44: 28; 45: 1; Gal. 1: 15; Eph. 1: 4, 5; Is. 41: 22, 23, 26; 48: 3, 5.

Just two examples from representative Adventist viewpoints:

"Some believe that God relates to persons without knowing their choics until they are made-- that God knows certain future events such as the Second Coming, the millennium, and the restoration of the earth but has no idea who will be saved. They feel that God's dynmaic relationship with the human race would be in jeopardy if He knew everything that would transpire from eternity to eternity. Some suggest that he would be bored if He knew the end from the beginning.

I don't think this is a serious viewpoint. I've never seen this view defended or written about.

Quote:

"But God's knowledge about what individuals will do does not interfere with what they actually choose to do any more than a historian's knowledge of what people did in the past interferes with their actions. Just as a camera records a scene but does not change it, foreknowledge looks into the future without altering it. The foreknowledge of the Godhead never violates human freedom." Seventh-day Adventists Believe, pp. 28, 29.

This sounds like a straw man argument. No one is arguing, that I'm aware of, that God's knowledge of the future interferes with His dealings with men. That's not the issue. The issue is that there would be a logical contradiction between the idea that man has free will (using the libertarian definition) and that God has EDF, or, equivalently, that the future is fixed.

Quote:

In his book, The Reign of God, pp. 80-88, Richard Rice discusses questions of prophecy as related to God's Providence and to "conditional prophecy."

But these issues, while highly interesting and very important, are getting beyond and apart from the main question we're discussing on this thread.

Ok. Thanks for quoting what you did. I found especially interesting the ideas in regards to how one relates to God. I agree with the points made.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: You're not dealing with the issues or questions I've brought up.

I don't know what the context is for this comment.

Quote:

pnattmbtc:If God knows with certainty that a thing will happen, isn't it certain that thing will happen? Let's start with this. Do you agree?

J:Yes. For instance, God knows that someday the United States of America will pass laws that will enforce the keeping of Sunday. Also, God knows that Christ will return, and it is certain to happen. There is absolutely no possibility of its not happening. The visions of the future that God showed Daniel and Ellen White will all happened, without question.

Do you agree?

These examples aren't what I'm getting at. I'm getting at, if God knows you will wake up at 8:17am tomorrow morning, if He's absolutely certain this is what will happen, then it's not possible for you to do something to cause this not to happen. That's because if you could, then it would not be the case that God was 100% certain this is what would happen.

The examples you gave are all of things which can happen in different ways. Yes, they will certainly happen, and God is certain of this, but the timing of these things is open.

[Archie777]

Originally Posted By: Archie777

I believe sin in 1 John 3:6 and 9 refers to all sin. I believe John is describing born-again, converted, believers who are living in harmony with everything Jesus commanded.

So, you do not sin? Better yet you "claim to be without sin"? 1 John 1:8 "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us."

Ellen White: "Our earthly life, however long, honored, or useful it may be, is but childhood, frail, imperfect, and undeveloped. Manhood, with its full, perfect, glorious development, will come, when, freed from the taint of sin [our bent to self], we stand among the redeemed throng. Then [i.e., when we stand among the redeemed] we shall enjoy a life which measures with the life of God...." [The Signs of the Times, 06-09-81]

Paul: "Not that I...have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. 13 Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it [perfection]. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus. 15 All of us who are mature should take such a view of things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you. 16 Only let us live up to what we have already attained. [Phil 3:12-15]

Ellen states we are imperfect until indwelling sin (iniquity) is removed. Then, at the 2nd coming, we can say our lives measure with the life of God. Paul tells us that he was imperfect. John tells us we can't claim to be without sin (iniquity).

I do not believe possessing inherited or cultivated defects, weaknesses, and imperfections is equivalent to sinning. Sinful and sinning are two different realities. Being free from sin and claiming to be sinless are also two entirely different realities.

Just because the Bible says born-again believers abiding in Jesus and partaking of the divine nature "do not sin" and "cannot sin" it does mean they go around claiming to be sinless. Their focus is on Jesus - not on what Jesus is empowering them to be.

The truth is, as I see it, so long as they are not acting out the unholy desires of sinful flesh, which continually tempt them from within to satisfy their God-given appetites and passions in unChristlike ways, they are, like Jesus, "more than conquerors". Mastering oneself, subjecting our unholy traits and tendencies to a sanctified will and mind is "overcoming as Christ overcame".

Do you believe possessing sinful flesh, possessing inherited and cultivated defects, weaknesses, and imperfections is equivalent to sinning? If so, does Jesus require us to repent for what we are? Or, are we innocent of sinning while we abide in Jesus and partake of the divine nature and rein in our fallen flesh and satisfy our appetites and passions unto the honor and glory of God our Father?

[Archie777]

Moses: On that day I will become angry with them and forsake them; I will hide my face from them, and they will be destroyed. Many disasters and difficulties will come upon them, and on that day they will ask, 'Have not these disasters come upon us because our God is not with us?'(Deut. 31:17)

P: This is the same principle as what EGW explained in "The Destruction of Jerusalem."

A: "The LORD will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nought." Fourteen times it says, "The Lord shall". It sounds like you believe it only and always means Jesus will be forced to withdraw His protection and permit evil to befall them. "And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters." How is this any different than Jesus saying, "Obey me or I'll be forced to let you kill and eat your children"?

P: I've asked you several times this very question in regards to Jerusalem. Is this how you see what happened there?

[Archie777]

What they should have said is what Abraham and Jeremiah said, both men of God, as I quoted earlier. "I believe." Righteousness is by faith. We are saved by believing the promises of God. That's the New Covenant.

[pnattmbtc]

p:What they should have said is what Abraham and Jeremiah said, both men of God, as I quoted earlier. "I believe." Righteousness is by faith. We are saved by believing the promises of God. That's the New Covenant.

A:Jesus told the Jews, “If ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people”. And then He went on for 126 verses in Exodus chapters 20-23 explaining in great detail precisely what He expected them to obey and observe. Responding with, “I believe” would have missed the point. I believe Jesus expected them to say, “All the words which the LORD hath said will we do.”

[Archie777]

Pnatt, thank you for making your view of the OC very clear. Again, I believe the Jews sincerely intended to obey and observe everything Jesus commanded them. I do not perceive it as unbelief.

More questions -

1. Hadn't the Jews largely lost sight of the NC? Hadn't it gotten perverted over the years? And, as a result, weren't they ignorant and confused regarding the terms and conditions of the NC?

2. If so, why do you think Jesus, at Sinai, initially offered the Jews the NC?

3. Also, weren't the Jews already under the NC?

4. Do you agree the rules Jesus gave them to obey and observe included executing capital punishment?

[pnattmbtc]

Pnatt, thank you for making your view of the OC very clear. Again, I believe the Jews sincerely intended to obey and observe everything Jesus commanded them. I do not perceive it as unbelief.

[Archie777]

Pnatt, did you overlook 348394 (a few posts above)?

Also, since their understanding of the NC was distorted and grossly perverted, it doesn't make sense to me to believe Jesus offered the Jews the NC without first attempting to clear the confusion.

And, when did the Jews cease being under the NC?

Did Abraham cease being under the NC when he disbelieved the promise and had a son through Hagar?

Did Jesus ever command the Jews to get divorced in the sense He commanded them to kill sinners?

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Moses: On that day I will become angry with them and forsake them; I will hide my face from them, and they will be destroyed. Many disasters and difficulties will come upon them, and on that day they will ask, 'Have not these disasters come upon us because our God is not with us?'(Deut. 31:17)

P: This is the same principle as what EGW explained in "The Destruction of Jerusalem."

A: "The LORD will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nought." Fourteen times it says, "The Lord shall". It sounds like you believe it only and always means Jesus will be forced to withdraw His protection and permit evil to befall them. "And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters." How is this any different than Jesus saying, "Obey me or I'll be forced to let you kill and eat your children"?

P: I've asked you several times this very question in regards to Jerusalem. Is this how you see what happened there?

A:I assume you're referring to the question - How is this any different than Jesus saying, "Obey me or I'll be forced to let you kill and eat your children"? If so, then yes it is the same.

Jesus said:

Quote:

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!(Matt. 23:37)

This seems different to me.

Quote:

Do you believe Jesus was forced to let innocent children be killed and eaten by their parents? If so, why? What did children do to force or cause Jesus to let them be killed and eaten?

Here's what the quote says:

Quote:

By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them, and Satan was permitted to rule them according to his will.

I think this is what happened. Of course, the children were innocent victims. Wherever there is sin, there are innocent victims. This is the nature of sin.

[pnattmbtc]

Also, since their understanding of the NC was distorted and grossly perverted, it doesn't make sense to me to believe Jesus offered the Jews the NC without first attempting to clear the confusion.

[Robert]

Quote:

Robert:

So, you do not sin? Better yet you "claim to be without sin"?

Rob, do you believe anyone besides Christ has obeyed the commandments of God? Do you think that with the power of the Spirit, you can obey God's commandments? Or do you think the Bible teaches all Christians must forever be enslaved to sin, until Christ returns?

That question can be best answered if you tell me if you are living Christ's life. Remember that Jesus "thought not, planned not, lived not, for himself"!

Here is the quote:

"His [Christ's] heart was so full of love [agape] and interest for others that he thought not, planned not, lived not, for himself." [The Signs of the Times, 10-22-1885]

Now compare this with what EGW states in DA:

"You will have that love which seeks not her own, but another's wealth." [DA 439] Hence, again "In heaven none will think of self..." [2T 132]

So are you living Christ's life or is self-interests still manifested in your life?

[Robert]

Do you believe possessing sinful flesh,...is equivalent to sinning? If so, does Jesus require us to repent for what we are?

Even if you never sinned outwardly (which no one has) you would be disqualified for heaven because of indwelling sin. Your sinful nature in and of itself makes you a sinner.

"Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." Ps 51:5

"Like the rest, we were by nature [not only performance] objects of wrath" Eph 2:3

"Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I [my will...my mind] who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it" Rom 7:20

Rom 5:18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men...19 For as through the one man's disobedience the many [all] were made sinners....

Through sin the whole human organism is deranged, the mind is perverted, the imagination corrupted. Sin [i.e., indwelling sin] has degraded the faculties of the soul. Temptations from without find an answering chord within the heart, and the feet turn imperceptibly toward evil. [MAR 91]

"We have reason for ceaseless gratitude to God that Christ, by His perfect obedience, has won back the heaven that Adam lost through disobedience. Adam sinned, and the children of Adam share his guilt and its consequences" [FW 88]

[Robert]

"The people of God [believers] have been in many respects very faulty. Satan has an accurate knowledge of the sins which he has tempted them to commit:

[Here are some:] Have they not placed their own interests above His service? Have they not loved the things of the world? Look at the sins that have marked their lives. Behold their selfishness....

[in speaking of the time of tribulation, EGW says] The assaults of Satan are strong, his delusions are terrible; but the Lord’s eye is upon His people. Their affliction is great, the flames of the furnace seem about to consume them; but Jesus will bring them forth as gold tried in the fire. Their earthliness must be removed that the image of Christ may be perfectly reflected; unbelief must be overcome; faith, hope, and patience are to be developed. [5T 474]

What does this infer? That none of us are perfectly reflecting Christ's self-emptying, self-denying agape love and hence all are falling short of God's agape love!

[pnattmbtc]

What disqualifies us from heaven is whether or not we would be happy there.

[Archie777]

Pnatt, during the investigative judgment it is character that determines our eternal destiny. "It is character that decides destiny. {COL 74.4} "The harvest of life is character, and it is this that determines destiny, both for this life and for the life to come. {Ed 108.2}

[Archie777]

Originally Posted By: Archie

I do not believe possessing inherited or cultivated defects, weaknesses, and imperfections is equivalent to sinning. Sinful and sinning are two different realities. Being free from sin and claiming to be sinless are also two entirely different realities.

Just because the Bible says born-again believers abiding in Jesus and partaking of the divine nature "do not sin" and "cannot sin" it does mean they go around claiming to be sinless. Their focus is on Jesus - not on what Jesus is empowering them to be.

The truth is, as I see it, so long as they are not acting out the unholy desires of sinful flesh, which continually tempt them from within to satisfy their God-given appetites and passions in unChristlike ways, they are, like Jesus, "more than conquerors". Mastering oneself, subjecting our unholy traits and tendencies to a sanctified will and mind is "overcoming as Christ overcame".

Do you believe possessing sinful flesh, possessing inherited and cultivated defects, weaknesses, and imperfections is equivalent to sinning? If so, does Jesus require us to repent for what we are? Or, are we innocent of sinning while we abide in Jesus and partake of the divine nature and rein in our fallen flesh and satisfy our appetites and passions unto the honor and glory of God our Father?

Even if you never sinned outwardly (which no one has) you would be disqualified for heaven because of indwelling sin. Your sinful nature in and of itself makes you a sinner.

Do you believe possessing sinful flesh is the same thing as committing a sin?

And, do you believe possessing inherited and cultivated defects, weaknesses, and imperfections is the same thing as committing a sin?

[Archie777]

A: Do you believe Jesus was forced to let innocent children be killed and eaten by their parents? If so, why? What did children do to force or cause Jesus to let them be killed and eaten?

P: Here's what the quote says: "By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them, and Satan was permitted to rule them according to his will." I think this is what happened. Of course, the children were innocent victims. Wherever there is sin, there are innocent victims. This is the nature of sin.

The children were killed and eaten because Jesus did not protect them. Why didn't He protect them?

[Archie777]

A: Did Jesus ever command the Jews to get divorced in the sense He commanded them to kill sinners?

P: The counsels were similar in character. Neither represented God's ideal will, which was fully revealed in Christ.

It is clear in the Bible Jesus never commanded the Jews to get divorced. It is equally as clear He did command godly people like Moses to kill sinners.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

A: Do you believe Jesus was forced to let innocent children be killed and eaten by their parents? If so, why? What did children do to force or cause Jesus to let them be killed and eaten?

P: Here's what the quote says: "By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them, and Satan was permitted to rule them according to his will." I think this is what happened. Of course, the children were innocent victims. Wherever there is sin, there are innocent victims. This is the nature of sin.

A:The children were killed and eaten because Jesus did not protect them. Why didn't He protect them?

"By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them, and Satan was permitted to rule them according to his will."

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

A: Did Jesus ever command the Jews to get divorced in the sense He commanded them to kill sinners?

P: The counsels were similar in character. Neither represented God's ideal will, which was fully revealed in Christ.

A:It is clear in the Bible Jesus never commanded the Jews to get divorced. It is equally as clear He did command godly people like Moses to kill sinners.

Again, I believe the counsels were similar in character. Neither represented God's ideal will. God's ideal will was revealed in Christ.

[Robert]

What disqualifies us from heaven is whether or not we would be happy there.

verse?

[Robert]

Do you believe possessing sinful flesh is the same thing as committing a sin?

Not only do you stand condemned under law for transgression, you stand condemned because you were born depraved, i.e., you were born bent to self.