"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[pnattmbtc]

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

Clearly from the context and details - they had aLREADY had the "conflict of ideas" in which the final result was 1/3 with Satan and 2/3's with God the Son.

But in the statement above - you see the NEXT stage of conflict that came AFTER the battle of ideas had already split the camp into two opposing sides.

Excellent post, and a very important, crucial point there. Thanks for making it so clear.

The conflict of ideas was not something which was "already had," but was continuing, and continues to this day.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

John - you are welcome.

I agree that this point is incredibly obvious and clear as is almost every single point pertaining to this topic.

This points to a deeper element at work here - deeper than the idea that people cannot work through the obvious battle,war,power context for "there was war in heaven" with "Michael and his angels FIGHTING against Satan and his angels".

(Hint: How very different the text would have read if the real intent was the much more nonsensical "Satan and his angels VOTED THEMSELVES OUT of heaven").

What we are really seeing here is the effect of teachers like Maxwell whose method is to point to some Bible text or Ellen White statement that fully debunks their own view and then comment "well some people believe that -- but I prefer the lahhjahh view" -- instead of actually addressing the problem from the text so opposed to his false doctrine. (Then of course he adds an obligatory reference from some other area of scripture or from Ellen White made to appear to oppose the offending text he is trying to squirm out of ... bwink )

"To each his own" - I usually say when I run across that kind of non-Bible anti-exegesis model.

But then you see it come back up in places like this thread - and wow! It is amazing how even the most direct statements are denied.

in Christ,

Bob

It doesn't seem like you are running.

Do you think it's possible that rather than "denying" the "most direct statements," that others are simply understanding things differently than you are? That these two things are not synonymous? That is, it is possible to disagree with BobRyan without denying direct statements? For example, consider the following statement:

Quote:

Rebellion was not to be overcome by force. Compelling power is found only under Satan's government. The Lord's principles are not of this order.(DA 759)

John seems to think that this is a rule, which has exceptions (assuming I've understood him correctly). Should I write of him:

Quote:

What we are really seeing here is the effect of teachers like Maxwell whose method is to point to some Bible text or Ellen White statement that fully debunks their own view and then comment "well some people believe that -- but I prefer the lahhjahh view" -- instead of actually addressing the problem from the text so opposed to his false doctrine. (Then of course he adds an obligatory reference from some other area of scripture or from Ellen White made to appear to oppose the offending text he is trying to squirm out of ... bwink )

or

Quote:

But then you see it come back up in places like this thread - and wow! It is amazing how even the most direct statements are denied.

John's not doing anything different than what you're accusing others of, it doesn't appear to me. Doesn't the statement in DA 759 above qualify as a "direct statement."? Is John, by thinking there are exceptions to it, "denying a direct statement"? Perhaps he is, but if he is doing so, it certainly isn't with any intent to do so. So I don't cast aspersions on his motives, or accuse him of "denying" some "direct statement," but try to understand what he is thinking, and why, and argue why I think his thinking is wrong. Isn't that a better way of approaching things?

[phkrause]

I thought you said that God doesn't kill?

pk

Sarcasm, my friend!

Oh, sometimes you just don't know what it is that's being sad and for what purpose. I'm guessing directed to you?

[Gerr]

Of course! Who else?

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

And when people arose early in the morning, behold, these were all dead bodies. Isa 37:36 ESV.

And the KJV:

"... and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses." That's very literal. I remember my dad thinking that was a very funny way to put it. I think so too.

An important point, too, is that it says it was done by "the angel of the Lord." It doesn't say the angel of the Lord allowed Satan to smite the camp of the Assyrians.

Ah, but by using a different exegesis, that could probably be interpreted differently?

[SivartM]

You can do "different exegesis" now? Does that mean we can all interpret things differently without being heretics? Yay! :D

[teresaq]

You are taking Ezekiel 18: 4 out of context. My understanding of Ezekiel 18 is based on careful exegesis and analysis of the entire chapter, and my conclusions agree with the SDA Bible commentary as well as with every commentary that I have seen on these texts. The fact that the righteous who are alive when Christ returns will NEVER die proves that not all souls who sin shall die. As stated already, also, Enoch and Elijah never died but went to heaven without seeing death, although they were sinners.

Ezekiel 18: 4 and the rest of the chapter are dealing primarily with the first death, not the second. See below for quotes from the SDA Bible Commentary affirming this viewpoint.

The question being discussed is God's fairness in punishing the Israelites for the sins of their fathers. It's not a discussion of whether God will judge them fairly at the final Judgment of the Great White Throne. God is assuring them that He is fair and won't punish or judge them for the sins of others but only punish them for their own sins. The same point is made in Ezekiel 3: 16-21; 33: 12-20 and Deut. 30: 15-20.

Quote:

TERESAQ(SDA): The soul that sinneth it shall die an everlasting death--a death that will last forever, from which there will be no hope of a resurrection; and then the wrath of God will be appeased. {FLB 177.3}

The above quote from Ellen White is true-- the wicked will die an eternal death-- but this fact is not evidence that the second death is the primary reference intended in Ezekiel 18: 4. As I said in a previous post-- and as the SDA Bible Commentary also says-- this verse is secondarily referring to the death of the wicked at the end of the 1000 years,but the primary reference is the first death. I have shown the evidence from the chapter itself which demonstrates that this is so. I do not know of any Bible scholars who write on this text who disagree with this. Do you? If so, give their name and the reference, please. Also give their reasons for believing as they do.

The verse is often correctly quoted to show that the soul of man dies, and of course we know that the wicked souls (people) will die eternally at the end of the 1000 years. Both statements are true-- the soul that sins will die the first death and will ultimately die the second death as well if his sins are not forgiven and blotted out in the Heavenly sanctuary. Both truths are pointed out in the SDA Bible Commentary on Ezekiel 18, yet, as already said, the commentary specifically describes the first death as the one being primarily referred to in chapter 18.

Ezekiel 18: 25, 29 is an accusation against God because of what the people see as evidence of unfairness in the present life. The proverb given in the second verse is not about the final judgment or eternal death. It's about the punishment they believed they were undergoing in the prsent life for the sins of previous generations. See the discussion in the SDA Bible Commentary on Ezekiel 18.

Quote:

JOHN3:17: Finally, it's not enough merely to deny what I'm saying, but you need to show evidence and valid exegetical reasons for saying what you do. Perhaps you could also give quotes from good Bible commentaries which say the chapter primarily deals with the second death and explain why they believe this.

Quote:

TERESAQ (SDA): john, you do know that these commentaries you are going by are by people who do not know about a "first" and "second" death, right? remember, they believe in soul immortality and that man goes to hell or heaven (or pergatory be one catholic) upon "death", so of course their explanations are going to reflect that.

I don't accept what they teach on the immortality of the soul, of course, but the fact that a commentator is wrong about some doctrines does not mean they are unreliable about all theological matters. I think it's significant that they are all in agreement with the SDA Bible Commentary as regards the primary reference of Ezekiel 18: 4ff. One must consider the evidence and reasons they produce to show why they take their position.

I've given you analysis of the chapter itself as well as the SDA Bible Commentary to show that Ezekiel 18 is referring primarily to the first death. All commentaries-- SDA as well as non-SDA-- agree. Can you find any that do not?

Can you show how their mistaken belief about the immortality of the soul would cause them to be wrong about the primary subject of Ezekiel 18: 4. Can you show a clear relationship?

You have produced no evidence from the chapter itself to show that it's speaking of the second death. All you have done fundamentally is deny that it speaks of the first death.

The fact that some commentaries are wrong about the nature of man in death is not itself valid grounds for disbelieving the evidence they produce to show what the primary reference is in Ezekiel 18: 4ff. Any good Bible student using valid exegetical principles will come to the same conclusion.

Does it make sense to you that God's answer to the proverb in Ezekiel 18: 2 would be to tell them about the second death? The people are talking about God's unfairness in punishing them for the sins of their parents. How does talking about the second death answer this charge of unfairness against God?

The people are not saying God's final judgment is unfair. They are saying their current "punishment" is unfair because they themselves haven't done anything to deserve it. They blame their parents, not themselves. So in this chapter God is giving them assurance that their ideas about this are wrong.

How, then, does referring to the second death help them to believe that they won't be punished in the present life for the sins of the previous generations and that they should stop their fatalistic approach? That is the issue these people are raising and the one that God is speaking to.

ellen white believed this in the same exact way that our pioneers did, and that our church at some point in time also taught.

Christ "brought life and immortality to light through the gospel" (2 Timothy 1:10). No man can have an independent spiritual life apart from Him. The sinner is not immortal; for God has said, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die" (Ezekiel 18:4). This means all that it expresses. It reaches farther than the death which is common to all; it means the second death. {1SM 297.3}

http://www.clubadventist.com/forum/ubbth...html#Post320472

2. The penalty of the law of God for personal sins. It is death. Both Testaments represent man as being exposed to death for personal sins. But, inasmuch as all die for original sin, none can die for personal sin, without a resurrection to a second life; hence the Bible teaches that there will be a resurrection of the dead, "both of the just and the unjust." To be preceded by a second life, it must, in the nature of things, be a second death; hence while the penalty for personal sin is only one death, yet in reference to its relation to the penalty for original sin, it will be a second death. When I speak of this death as a second death, I wish to be distinctly understood as having no reference whatever to the nature of the penalty for personal sin, but only its relation to a previous death. This must be the only sense in which the Bible speaks of it as a second death. {1854 JMS, ATO 13.5}

That man is exposed to die a second time is evident from many very explicit texts of Scripture. Moses makes the most solemn and touching appeal to the children of Israel, saying, "I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live." This was a life which might be obtained by obedience; and a death that would be incurred by disobedience; hence it cannot refer to the first life or first death; for these are not conditional. Prov. xix, 16. "He that keepeth the commandment keepeth his own soul; but he that despiseth his ways shall die." All die the first death whether they "despise his ways" or not. Eze. xviii, 4. "Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die." Verse 20. All die the first death, whether they sin or not; it must therefore refer to a second, or another death. Chap. xxxiii, 11. "Say unto them, As I live saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye, from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel." {1854 JMS, ATO 14.1}

The death threatened Adam cannot be averted by turning to God, consequently, this text must refer to another death. Jer. xxi, 8. "And unto this people thou shalt say, Thus saith the Lord, behold I set before you the way of life, and the way of death." Jesus Christ says, "For if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." John viii, 24. This was a death that might be averted by faith; hence it must refer to another death, besides the one all men die, whether they believe or not. {1854 JMS, ATO 14.2}

Paul addresses personal agents who are responsible for their own actions, and tells them that the wages of sin is death. Rom. vi, 23. "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Man cannot have eternal life in the present life, it must therefore refer to a future life; the death here threatened refers to the same state; hence both must be in the world to come, when man receives his reward for obedience or disobedience. See John v. 28, 29; Mark x, 28-31; Rom. ii, 7; Tit. i, 2. Life and death are also contrasted in Chap. viii, 13. Sin when finished bringeth forth death. James i, 15. "Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin; and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." Personal sins will not finish their work until man is raised to a second life, to die again. But they that shall be accounted worthy to attain to that resurrection ("the resurrection of the just," Luke xiv, 14,) and the world to come (Mark x, 30,) will not die again, but be as the angels. Luke xx, 35, 36. "But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: neither can they die any more." {1854 JMS, ATO 15.1}

[teresaq]

Many think that they must consult commentaries on the Scriptures in order to understand the meaning of the word of God, and we would not take the position that commentaries should not be studied; but it will take much discernment to discover the truth of God under the mass of the words of men. How little has been done by the church as a body professing to believe the Bible, to gather up the scattered jewels of God's word into one perfect chain of truth? The jewels of truth do not lie upon the surface, as many suppose. The master mind in the confederacy of evil is ever at work to keep the truth out of sight, and to bring into full view the opinions of great men. The enemy is doing all in his power to obscure heaven's light through educational processes; for he does not mean that men shall hear the voice of the Lord, saying, "This is the way, walk ye in it." [isaiah 30:21.] {CE 85.2}

The jewels of truth lie scattered over the field of revelation; but they have been buried beneath human traditions, beneath the sayings and commandments of men, and the wisdom from heaven has been practically ignored; for Satan has succeeded in making the world believe that the words and achievements of men are of great consequence. The Lord God, the Creator of the worlds, at infinite cost has given the gospel to the world. Through this divine agent, glad, refreshing springs of heavenly comfort and abiding consolation have been opened for those who will come to the fountain of life. There are veins of truth yet to be discovered; but spiritual things are spiritually discerned. Minds beclouded with evil cannot appreciate the value of the truth as it is in Jesus. When iniquity is cherished, men do not feel the necessity of making diligent effort, with prayer and reflection, to understand what they must know or lose heaven. The have so long been under the shadow of the enemy, that they view truth as men behold objects through a smoked and imperfect glass; for all things are dark and perverted in their eyes. Their spiritual vision is feeble and untrustworthy; for they look upon the shadow, and turn away from the light. {CE 86.1}

[BobRyan]

Do you think it's possible that rather than "denying" the "most direct statements," that others are simply understanding things differently than you are? That these two things are not synonymous? That is, it is possible to disagree with BobRyan without denying direct statements? For example, consider the following statement:

As we saw in the case of war in heaven - "the example" of God himself not simply zapping out the rebellious angels with a snap of his finger was given as God agreeing to Satan's proposal of force against force among the good vs evil angels.

And as we saw in these links - God's history of the use of force is beyond dispute.

http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthread...html#Post328785

(I should have added the historic incidents where God destroys over 200 false priests with fire coming directly from His presence in the wilderness as well as having the ground open up and swallow Korah and Korah's entire family. Then of course there is God casting down great hailstones on the Amelakites the day that He also caused the Sun to stand still for Joshua)

http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthread...html#Post328786

in Christ,

Bob

[Guest]

That's right Bob, as it turns out.

[pnattmbtc]

This wasn't the point, Bob. The point has to do with how we treat others.

[Guest]

This points to a deeper element at work here - deeper than the idea that people cannot work through the obvious battle,war,power context for "there was war in heaven" with "Michael and his angels FIGHTING against Satan and his angels".

(Hint: How very different the text would have read if the real intent was the much more nonsensical "Satan and his angels VOTED THEMSELVES OUT of heaven").

What we are really seeing here is the effect of teachers like Maxwell whose method is to point to some Bible text or Ellen White statement that fully debunks their own view and then comment "well some people believe that -- but I prefer the lahhjahh view" -- instead of actually addressing the problem from the text so opposed to his false doctrine. (Then of course he adds an obligatory reference from some other area of scripture or from Ellen White made to appear to oppose the offending text he is trying to squirm out of ... )

"To each his own" - I usually say when I run across that kind of non-Bible anti-exegesis model.

But then you see it come back up in places like this thread - and wow! It is amazing how even the most direct statements are denied.

in Christ,

Bob

Amen Bob, amazing!

[SivartM]

I guess that "different exegesis" thing was too good to be true.

Oh well, I guess we can all be heretics today. :)

[pnattmbtc]

I'd say "disappointing." The post isn't dealing with the issues, but rather misrepresentation and name-calling. For example:

Quote:

Hint: How very different the text would have read if the real intent was the much more nonsensical "Satan and his angels VOTED THEMSELVES OUT of heaven"

No one has said this.

[teresaq]

I'd say "disappointing." The post isn't dealing with the issues, but rather misrepresentation and name-calling. For example:

Quote:

Hint: How very different the text would have read if the real intent was the much more nonsensical "Satan and his angels VOTED THEMSELVES OUT of heaven"

No one has said this.

Suppose a brother should come to us, and present some matter to us in a different light from that in which we had ever looked at it before, should we come together with those who agree with us, to make sarcastic remarks, to ridicule his position, and to form a confederacy to misrepresent his arguments and ideas? Should we manifest a bitter spirit toward him, while neglecting to seek wisdom of God in earnest prayer,--while failing to seek counsel of Heaven? Would you think you were keeping the commandments of God while pursuing such a course toward your brother? Would you be in a condition to recognize the bright beams of heaven's light should it be flashed upon your pathway? Would your heart be ready to receive divine illumination?--No; you would not recognize the light. All this spirit of bigotry and intolerance must be taken away, and the meekness and lowliness of Christ must take its place before the Spirit of God can impress your minds with divine truth. We should come right down to the root of the matter presented, and should not be in a position where we shall have no love for our brother because his ideas differ from our views. If you do take this position, you say by your attitude that you consider your own opinion perfection, and your brother's erroneous. {RH, August 27, 1889 par. 5}

When a doctrine is presented that does not meet our minds, we should go to the word of God, flee to the Lord in prayer, and give no place to the enemy to come in with suspicion and prejudice. We should never permit that spirit to be manifested that arraigned the priests and rulers against the Redeemer of the world. They complained that he disturbed the people, and they wished he would let them alone; for he caused perplexity and dissension. The Lord sends light among us to prove of what manner of spirit we are. We are not to deceive ourselves. In 1844 when anything came to our attention that we did not understand, we kneeled down, and asked God to help us to take the right position, and then we could come to a right understanding and see eye to eye. There was no dissension, no enmity, no evil-surmising, no misjudging of our brethren. If we only understood the evil of this spirit of intolerance, how we would shun it! We join ourselves to the enemy of God and man when we accuse our brethren, for Satan was an accuser of the brethren. We bear false witness when we add a little to our brother's words, and give them a false coloring; and in the sight of God we are not doers, but transgressors of the law. We are not on the Lord's side; we are on the side of him who hurts, destroys, and tears down the cause of truth. We should pray for one another, instead of drawing apart. {RH, August 27, 1889 par. 6}

[Robert]

I think that's your own term for it because the Bible doesn't call it death but a change from mortality to immortality.

Where did the old life go, John? Where did indwelling sin go? What happened to our gender? This is not the same person before translation. Yes, your character...your mind-set you take with you.....

Rob

[Robert]

In the case of Satan, the Bible says an angel of God chains Satan to the earth so he can't tempt anyone, and at the end of the 1000 years, it says the angel of God releases Satan from his "prison."

Metaphors John, metaphors....Again God has set limits...a barrier, but that doesn't mean that God is violent....

[Robert]

And let me add this:

And the angel of the Lord went out and struck down a hundred and eighty-five thousand in the camp of the Assyrians. And when people arose early in the morning, behold, these were all dead bodies. Isa 37:36 ESV.

Then God should have murdered Lucifer....Then we wouldn't have this problem, would we????

But if God's like Satan, the hell with both of them....I'll reject a God like that. If God tells me, "It's about free will, but if you go opposite my will I'll murder you" I'll say, "forget you"!

Rob

[teresaq]

it does appear that we will certainly go through some kind of "death" as we are changed. at least one pioneer thought so, perhaps he spoke for all.

Rom 8:21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. 23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

1Co 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. 51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

[Robert]

An important point, too, is that it says it was done by "the angel of the Lord." It doesn't say the angel of the Lord allowed Satan to smite the camp of the Assyrians.

Great...a God who murders...who bleeds folks out...a violent God, like Satan....Great....You guys are f'd in the head....

[Robert]

Ezek 18 makes it clear that the righteous who turn from sin will NOT die --Bob

Old covenant, Bob...old covenant....Stop your darn love of self...your self-seeking...all selfishness...all pride...then you will live. If not, you will die!!!

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: John317

In the case of Satan, the Bible says an angel of God chains Satan to the earth so he can't tempt anyone, and at the end of the 1000 years, it says the angel of God releases Satan from his "prison."

Metaphors John, metaphors....Again God has set limits...a barrier, but that doesn't mean that God is violent....

how about "literal" vs "spiritual"...? :)

[John317]

Quote:

PNATTMBTC: .....Finally' date=' your statement in regards to Jehovah's Witnesses is a cheap tactic.

I respectfully disagree that it's a "cheap tactic." I believe it's an example of what wrong methods of Bible study can lead to. If we ignore relevant verses, we can consider something a universal principle when it really is not, and we will explain away the exceptions as if they don't exist. Such can result in false doctrine. That is what happens in the case of the Jehovah's Witnesses view of Enoch and Elijah. Similar methods of Bible study have led the Jehovah's Witnesses to believe that Christ is an invisible spirit creature. I submit that this is precisely how the teaching arises that God did not expel Satan from heaven.

Quote:

PNATTMBTC: The fact that they make a claim is irrelevant to whether or not it's true or not.

Could you please explain what you mean by this sentence?

Quote:

PNATTMBTC: The Jehovah's Witnesses also claim that the soul is not immortal, using the same arguments we do.

They got their views of this from Adventists. Russell studied George Storrs' writings on the non-immortality of the soul. Storrs was a prominent Millerite preacher who never became a Seventh-day Adventist. Both Joseph Bates and James White studied Storrs' writings also, although these two men already believed in the non-immortality of the soul even before reading Storrs material on the subject. Nevertheless, given the fact that the leaders of both groups studied the same writings on the condition of man in death, it should come as no surprise that they use some of the same arguments to prove the Bible truth that the dead are unconscious in the grave.

The Jehovah's Witnesses are right on many things. After years of studying their books and talking to them about their beliefs, I found that our church has a lot in common with them.

Quote:

PNATTMBTC: I can hear a non-SDA echoing your comments (e.g. in reference to using the OT to prove a doctrine, to prove that one shouldn't do this) "This is how Jehovah's Witnesses and SDA's prove their false doctrines."

Actually I've seen some posters on other Adventist forums say this very thing.

There's no harm in people saying this unless Seventh-day Adventists cannot show it's a false argument. The best way to deal with it is to show that the Bible evidence supports the SDA teaching.

Quote:

PNATTMBTC: The reason I say it's a cheap tactic is because it's simply a rhetorical devise.

Rhetorical devises are perfectly legitimate. Perhaps you mean that you consider it an invalid rhetorical devise because it is false or irrelevant. If it's a true illustration-- which I believe it is-- then there is nothing at all wrong with it.

Quote:

PNATTMBTC: Lump an idea you disagree with with something or someone who is viewed negatively rather than deal with the issue itself.

I'm dealing with the issue itself. I'm explaining why a particular group holds a certain false doctrine, namely, that Enoch and Elijah didn't go to heaven. It's for the same reason that they believe only spirit creatures are able to go to heaven. So they don't believe Christ's body was resurrected or that He can be seen by the human eye. They believe Christ is invisible.

Why do they believe these things? Because they've concluded that certain statements in the Bible are universal principles when they actually aren't. Instead of using the inductive method of Bible study-- in which they would examine all the texts on a subject before arriving at their conclusions-- they use the deductive and therefore draw false conclusions and then read everything in the light of that false conclusion. I believe I can show that this is precisely what is being done by those who say that God did not compel Satan to leave heaven but that the Devil left heaven on his own.

You misunderstand me if you think I bring up Jehovah's Witnesses because they are viewed "negatively." Personally, I don't view them negatively, even though I disagree with some of their beliefs. I actually hold them as a people in fairly high regard.

Quote:

PNATTMBTC: Hitler and Satan are common choices for this devise.

Sometimes it's appropriate and relevent, isn't it?

There'S no doubt that these kinds of associations can be "cheap" and wrong if Hitler and Satan bear no genuine relationship to the main subject.

Quote:

PNATTMBTC: Now if Jehovah's Witnesses invented this means of argument, then you'd have some reason to bring them up.

You appear to be saying an invalid argument should only be pointed out and disputed if the person invented the type of argument being made. Is this what you mean to say?

Quote:

PNATTMBTC: But there's no tie to Jehovah's Witnesses and this means of argument. Indeed, I'm sure they don't always argue this way, but just in regards to some particular doctrine.

The tie-in is the fact that they use the same argument in order to arrive at false doctrines, and my objective is to show you evidence of the danger of that kind of method of study and arriving at doctrine.

The truth is that they use this kind of argumentation and study method quite a bit. It occurs in their beliefs in regard to blood-transfusion, for instance, as well as their belief that only the 144, 000 go to heaven but as invisible spirit-creatures.

Quote:

PNATTMBTC: Universal principles don't have exceptions. If they did, they wouldn't be universal. [/quote']

Yes, this is true, but the question is, is the belief that God never uses force under any circumstances one of those universal principles? Or does God use force under some circumstances but not in others?

It seems to me that the best way to know is by studying closely all the information that God has revealed on this subject. For instance, please explain only three incidents in the light of what you consider to be a universal principle that God never uses force under any circumstances at all:

1) Gen. 4: 24. God "drove out" the man [and the woman] from the garden of Eden.

2) Exodus 3: 19; 4: 23; 6: 1; 8: 17; 12: 12, 23, 29, 33; 13: 9, 14, 15. God used threats of death, sent a plague of gnats, etc., and kills the Pharaoh's son as well as all other first-born of both man and beast, in order to compel the Egyptians to let the children of Israel go.

3) Exodus 14: 17, 26, 27; 15: 2, 19, 21. God parted the Red Sea for the children of Israel to pass over, and then God made the water go back together over the heads of Pharaoh's army so that they were drowned. In way, God used force to prevent the Egyptians from taking Israel back to Egypt.

[John317]

What we are really seeing here is the effect of teachers like Maxwell whose method is to point to some Bible text or Ellen White statement that fully debunks their own view and then comment "well some people believe that -- but I prefer the lahhjahh view" -- instead of actually addressing the problem from the text so opposed to his false doctrine. (Then of course he adds an obligatory reference from some other area of scripture or from Ellen White made to appear to oppose the offending text he is trying to squirm out of ...

I know Dr. Graham Maxwell very well and consider him a personal friend. I attended his Sabbath School classes a lot for about 10 years, and also interviewed him for Insight magazine. The last time I talked with him, he acknowledged that God brought the flood on the world just like the Bible says. I plan to ask him his views about the casting out of Satan from heaven.

[Guest]

Amen John. So called universal principles that are not truly universal principles, allows the person who uses them to easily spiritualize away anything they don't want to believe, without thorough investigation.

As evidenced by pnat's own language concerning universal principles.

When I see a universal principle, then I accept that something which appears to contradict this must be false. I see no need to consider individual passages to determine this, because I already know the principle can't be false.