"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: 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.

.... 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.

Quote:

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

If you check out Prophets and Kings, p. 127, you will see that Ellen White understood Ezekiel 18: 23, 31, 32 to be written in order to persuade the people of Ezekiel's time to repent of their sins so God would not have to punish them. So, when God asks, "Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?" he is not talking primarily about the second death but about the first death. The whole of chapter 18 is referring to the same theme and has the same purpose. Again, read the SDA Bible Commentary for a good discussion of the purpose of that chapter. It addresses the very issues that we're talking about here.

Our church never had an official or even an unofficial position in regard to the contextual significance of Ezekiel 18: 4ff. Ellen White is not referring to that aspect of the verse. She's not discussing it in its context. She speaks to its spiritual or theological meaning, not its exegetical meaning. Notice that in 1 SM 297, she doesn't write anything about the verses surrounding Ezekiel 18: 4. It's irrelevant as far as her purposes are concerned.

Quote:

TERESAQ (sda): 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}

Yes, Ezekiel 18: 4 is referring to the second death in a secondary sense, but the primary reference is to the first death. I have said this several times. I'm not saying it has nothing whatever to do with the second death. But you seem to completely ignore the context of the verse; at least you haven't discussed it or shown how it relates to what's being said in that chapter.

Ellen White's statement is good and true, but merely quoting it doesn't answer the questions I asked you in my previous post-- questions that, if seriously considered, will help you to see that the verse at issue has directly to do with the first death, and only secondarily to do with the second death.

There are other texts in the Bible that have primary and secondary meanings. For instance, try Isaiah 7: 14, concerning the young woman, or virgin, who was to give birth to a son. What is the primary meaning, and what's its secondary meaning?

Ezekiel 18: 4 is the same way. Ellen White doesn't even discuss the verse in its context. She is using the verse in its broader significance. She wasn't an exegete and she wasn't trying to be. She never intended for people to rely on her words for understanding the exegetical meaning of a passage, or how a passage is related to its context. That wasn't her role or work.

Ellen White said that everyone should study the Bible personally for themselves, using all the tools at their disposal, and then when they've done all they can and know the subject really well, they should consult what she has written. Prophets don't use exegesis. They're not attempting to understand verses within their contexts, certainly not in any technical sense. The student of Scripture can find these things out themselves. We don't need a prophet to tell us things we can find out without revelation.

Sometimes prophets don't even understand themselves the significance of what they're seeing in vision or what they're writing. For instance, study Zech. 11:12 and then compare it with the way Matthew uses that verse in Matt. 27: 9, 10. Is Matthew showing what it means in its original context? Clearly not. Does that mean Matthew is wrong? Of course not. It's just that Matthew's purpose is not to show its primary, but rather its secondary, significance.

[teresaq]

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.

Originally Posted By: pnat

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.

hmmm, sounds more applicable to the one who is accusing it of another.

Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

Joh 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. 52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

Now the rabbis exclaimed angrily, "How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?" They affected to understand His words in the same literal sense as did Nicodemus when he asked, "How can a man be born when he is old?" John 3:4. To some extent they comprehended the meaning of Jesus, but they were not willing to acknowledge it. By misconstruing His words, they hoped to prejudice the people against Him. {DA 389.1}

now we know what that looks like. :)

[Guest]

I've never seen anyone try to make those texts literal.

[teresaq]

The Jehovah's Witnesses use the same argument to prove some of their false doctrines. They believe there were never any exceptions to the rule.

[Guest]

that begs the question of why you think you arent the one doing that?

Because he isn't the one trying to explain away plain Bible truths. Which are also backed up by Ellen White BTW.

[John317]

that begs the question of why you think you arent the one doing that?

You have not yet explained why you believe that bringing up the Bible study methods of Jehovah's Witnesses is a "cheap tactic."

The reason it is not a cheap tactic is that it's a valid illustration of what you do when you say that God didn't force Satan out of heaven. You assume that a particular statement is a universal principle and that it applies to the war in heaven. Thus your pre-conceptions cause you to ignore or twist verses that clearly contradict your view.

For instance, despite the fact that 2 Peter 2: 4; Jude 6; Rev. 12: 4, 7-9, 13, as well as many statements of Ellen White, make it clear that Satan was "expelled" and "cast out" or "thrown out," you refuse to accept this evidence because of a statement in the SOP that you believe gives a universal principle denying that God ever uses force or compels. This is held onto even though it causes Ellen White to contradict herself numerous times and makes the Bible look like it's speaking out of both sides of its mouth.

The Jehovah's Witnesses do the same thing even though it makes Christ tell a fib when He denied being a spirit.

If God never uses force or compels, please explain the verse in the Bible that plainly says that "God drove the man out of the Garden."

Also, could you please explain how it happened that Israel was able finally to leave Egypt?

Finally, can you explain what occurred at the Red Sea. Who caused the waters to part? Who caused the waters to come together again and why at that specific moment when the Egyptians were passing through?

Can we trust the narrative of these events to mean what it says? Or do we need to ignore certain verses or change the language?

Quote:

besides which it doesnt really prove you right since its just an accusation against someone who believes differently than you do. accusations are not bible proof.

I'm not interested in accusations but in Bible evidence and valid reasoning and argumentation. That is what I think I've been offering these past few days on this thread.

The best way to study the Bible is to take into account all that the Bible says on a particular subject BEFORE drawing our conclusions about doctrine. That is the inductive method of Bible study. If you do that, I don't see how you can conclude that God never uses force or compels. Instead, it seems obvious to me that the reason some people conclude that Satan left heaven willingly and of his own accord is that they accept a statement as an absolute principle when wasn't intended that way.

Could you give all the evidence you can think of in support of the belief that Satan left heaven of his own accord. So far, all I have heard from you are denials of my argument and a few quotes of Ellen White that don't address any questions that I've asked you. I'm disappointed not to have seen much of substance from you on this topic. I know you must have a lot of good points to offer.

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: Let me ask a few simple questions and show the answers:

1) Did Enoch and Elijah sin? Answer: Yes.

2) Did they ever die? Answer: NO.

3) Did the rightous living at the Second Coming ever commit sin? Answer: Yes.

4) Will right righteous living be translated without seeing death? Answer: Yes.

Therefore, since not all sinners die, it is not a universal principle, because there are clearly some exceptions to the rule that the soul who sins shall die.

Do you agree with the answers given to the questions and with the conclusion?

Quote:

pnattmbtc: No.

Please explain why not. Give your own answers to the same questions, and show your reasoning and evidence.

[John317]

When the SDA Bible Commentary says that Ezekiel 18: 4 is primarily referring to the first death, do you believe it contradicts Ellen White's writings?

It doesn't. What you're ignoring is the fact that Ellen White is not addressing any questions regarding the context of the verse or what it meant to the people of Ezekiel's day. That was not Ellen White's purpose.

As I've repeatedly stated on this thread, Ezekiel 18: 4 is referring to the second death in the sense in which Ellen White uses it, but that is different from what it means within the context of the chapter. The chapter has to do with assuring the people that they won't be punished or judged in this life by God for the things that their fathers did. In other words, God is trying to show them that they should give up their pessimism. The people of that time felt that God would punish them for the sins of others no matter what they themselves did. And Ellen White acknowledges this aspect of the chapter, in the book PK 127.

[Guest]

This is held onto even though it causes Ellen White to contradict herself numerous times and makes the Bible look like it's speaking out of both sides of its mouth.

[John317]

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.

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

Of course, but that isn't what BobRyan is saying. He's talking about how the conflict of ideas had already split the camp into two opposing sides, so by the time God decreed that Satan was banished, the conflict of ideas had already been going on for a long time. It was after this conflict of ideas that there was war in heaven. This would mean, then, that the "war in heaven" that's spoken of is not a reference to the conflict of ideas.

No one is denying that the conflict continuing today. God didn't overcome Satan in heaven but threw him down to the earth to continue the war here.

[John317]

JOHN3:17: The best way to study the Bible is to take into account all that the Bible says on a particular subject BEFORE drawing our conclusions about doctrine. That is the inductive method of Bible study.

Quote:

Why that's one of the rules of study that William Miller used. I guess they've moved beyond those old William Miller rules, what did he know.

That's an excellent point. I know that he was a meticulous student of the Bible and purposely refused to draw conclusions until he had weighed all the evidence. If he had an interpretation that kept running up against things in the Bible that contradicted his idea, he changed his idea to fit the Bible, not the other way around.

[John317]

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}

These are excellent. Let's put them into practice here on the forum.

Shall all the posts that do otherwise be deleted? How many would be left if that happened?

[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.

This is problematic.

1) If God personally destroys, then why did He even create Lucifer? He knew He would sin.

2) If God destroys, like in the case Gerry quoted above, then there's no need for any war. God would simply destroy the enemy. Hitler would never have murdered all those Jews. And all those who died in world war II would be alive. Instead it was a very bloody and violent war.

3) If God destroys then why are there serial killers on the lose? Why doesn't God destroy them? Instead they murder & rape and do sick things to people. God, according to Gerry's quote, destroyed 185,000 Assyrians, why not stop the Japanese and spare the loss of life?

4) Why not stop the terrorist from flying two planes into the Twin Towers and spare innocent lives?

I see much blood letting in the OT and supposedly by God Himself. Where's He been the past 4000 years? It seems like He doesn't interfere in our human predicament. Why even pray for protection?

PS: I like my version of God, but if you guys convince me of your version (and I'm starting to lean that way a bit), well, I'll become a atheist. And since your God is out for vengence, he will be very angry with you for turning me away....Maybe He will cut your throat, huh? Maybe He'll wipe your families out for causing me to reject Him.

Seriously, if I believe the way you guys do, I'll have to reject God. We already have a devil after all....

[Robert]

This is from the book, "Light on the Dark Side of God"

Ethical Problems

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

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

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

The 19th century skeptic, Robert G. Ingersoll, spoke for multitudes through the ages, when he addressed the idea of an eternally burning hell in these words: "Infinite punishment is infinite cruelty, endless injustice, immortal meanness. . . .

"Christians have placed upon the throne of the universe a God of eternal hate. I cannot worship a being whose vengeance is boundless, whose cruelty shoreless, and whose malice is increased by the agonies he inflicts."[1]

Those who believe hell eventually burns out still have the problem that an all-wise God, who is more loving than any human, could think of no better way to dispose of sin than to burn sinners, even though they are His children still the creation of His own hand. If burning humans alive is inherently evil, then would it not be as evil an act for God as it would be for humans? And God, as Christianity wishes to present Him, is not evil. Yet, evil is evil because it is evil. God's alleged participation in it does not sanctify it. The idea of hell fire, to many, constitutes another puzzling piece in Christianity's picture of God.

[Robert]

This is from the book, "Light on the Dark Side of God"

More:

Given our traditional view of God, Christians (like their concept of Him) are gentle and kind much of the time, except when the situation seems to call for gossip or destructive criticism or indifference to human woe or venting destructive emotions or taking human life. Isn't this how we see God's ways? The human mind has an extraordinary capacity for kindness, except toward those "demonized" humans we believe God abhors. If we cause those to suffer, it's okay, we think. Doesn't God do the same?

Historically, the "church" has carried the traditional view of God to its logical conclusion, by itself burning the opposition.[3] Religious bigots have bloodied the pages of history with unspeakable crimes, which surely flowed out of their picture of God.

Jesus predicted two thousand years ago that thus it would be. "The time is coming that whosoever kills you will think that he offers God service," He said (John 16:2). History confirms His prophecy. How could we, as Christians, have been so blind, so callous, so indifferent to human life? Jesus distills the answer down to its core. "These things they will do to you," He continues, "because they have not known the Father nor Me (v. 3). Because Scripture gives so many examples of God's wiping out His enemies, Christians have become confused regarding the interpretation of Jesus' words. They have concluded that when we destroy them, we're doing so as God's agents, but when they destroy us, they are fulfilling this prediction. We see our enemy as God's enemy and ourselves as His sword of justice, because for war to occur in the first place the warriors must be made to see their cause as righteous and the enemy's as evil. Yet is it not possible that Jesus meant that wherever people kill each other in the name of religion, neither side bears the signet of the living God?

It takes little imagination to see that the traditional view of God as One who can reach a point where He employs deadly force could lead to deplorable conditions where political power could be seen as a divine mandate to force the conscience of the politically weak. In czarist Russia, as well as pre-revolutionary France, for example, the church's connection with civil power engendered terrible abuses, causing an over-correction, which ended in atheistic regimes. Communism itself began as a protest against religious cruelty.

The Holocaust is a modern case in point, where a strong tradition of Judeo-Christian ethics didn't stop good and civilized people from supporting a regime which derived its power from the spilled blood of the governed and which attempted to exterminate an entire race perceived as undeserving of mercy. Where was the outrage, the conviction that causing the death of humans was intrinsically wrong?

Northern Ireland, the Middle East, Bosnia, Kosovo further illustrate the passion with which each side, believing it carries the flag of God in a righteous cause, kills and maims innocent civilians and destroys its own homeland in a seemingly endless bloodletting, presumably praying for the blessing of their fierce, nationalistic God before sallying forth on their missions of destruction. There are no wars bloodier than religious wars. Efforts to bring stability to such regions find religious fervor an almost impossible hurdle to overcome, politically generated peace accords notwithstanding.

And who can say if our traditional view of God as a destroyer has not in many ways encouraged the widespread secularization of our world, as thoughtful men and women see all this and note its inconsistency with mercy and justice hallmark attributes of the Christian God of whom they have been told. History offers an inexhaustible supply of illustrations of the subtle and pernicious effects the traditional view of a destroying God has had on civilization. It has opened the door to injustice and persecution throughout time; paved the way for intolerance, bigotry and the imposing of religious laws and duties upon an unconvinced people. If God can use force to get attention, the logic runs, then believers may use similar tactics to do his work. Civilizations do not rise higher morally than their concept of deity. "Ye are of your father . . . ," Said Jesus, "and the works of your father ye will do" (John 8:44, KJV).

And history confirms it. Without a settled conviction that hurting and destroying others is inherently wrong, society positions itself over an ethical bottomless pit, with no protective absolutes to break its moral fall. Where shall we find a model for such settled conviction, if we cannot find it in God?

[karl]

This is from the book, "Light on the Dark Side of God"

[pnattmbtc]

These are excellent. Let's put them into practice here on the forum.

Shall all the posts that do otherwise be deleted? How many would be left if that happened?

This is rather cryptic. What's your point please?

[Gerr]

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

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

her•e•sy \ˈher-ə-sē, ˈhe-rə-\ n

pl -sies [ME heresie, fr. AF, fr. LL haeresis, fr. LGk hairesis, fr. Gk, action of taking, choice, sect, fr. hairein to take] 13c

1 a : adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma

Merriam-Webster, I. (2003). Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary. Includes index. (Eleventh ed.). Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Are you holding an opinion contrary to the official teaching of your church?

[SivartM]

Well, if you count "we have the truth", "we are the true church", "we are the remnant", and/or "we keep the commandments of God" to be official teachings of our church, then yes.

Oh, I'm not an Arminian. Guess that automatically qualifies me for heretic status. :\

[SivartM]

Most people who use "heresy" though, at least in my experience, don't mean disagreement with the official teaching of the church. It can often mean disagreement with their own beliefs, which are so obviously true and Biblical that any dissent is heresy.

[pnattmbtc]

Of course, but that isn't what BobRyan is saying. He's talking about how the conflict of ideas had already split the camp into two opposing sides, so by the time God decreed that Satan was banished, the conflict of ideas had already been going on for a long time. It was after this conflict of ideas that there was war in heaven. This would mean, then, that the "war in heaven" that's spoken of is not a reference to the conflict of ideas.

No one is denying that the conflict continuing today. God didn't overcome Satan in heaven but threw him down to the earth to continue the war here.

[karl]

1) If God personally destroys, then why did He even create Lucifer? He knew He would sin.

2) If God destroys... then there's no need for any war. God would simply destroy the enemy. Hitler would never have murdered all those Jews. And all those who died in world war II would be alive. Instead it was a very bloody and violent war.

3) If God destroys then why are there serial killers on the lose? Why doesn't God destroy them? Instead they murder & rape and do sick things to people. God, according to Gerry's quote, destroyed 185,000 Assyrians, why not stop the Japanese and spare the loss of life?

4) Why not stop the terrorist from flying two planes into the Twin Towers and spare innocent lives?

Robert, I can't follow your reasoning above.

I could restate #1 like this: If I knew my dog would poop on the carpet, how could I let it in the house? Or: If I know houses burn down, how could I build one? These are not mandatorily exclusive concepts. You can actually let a dog in the house knowing it will poop. You can build a house knowing it can burn down (or fall apart, for that matter.)

#2, #3 & #4 presuppose that if God executes judgment at any point in time, He must execute judgement at every point in time. I'm pretty certain that this is the accusation that Satan has made and is one that God is disproving.

We will have the opportunity to ask God a lot of questions very soon. Meanwhile, He has given ample evidence that He is taking care of business on His schedule, not ours. There are more minds in the universe than just the ones on this planet. All are affected by what goes on here. The story of Job gives us a very small glimpse behind the scenes.

It is an ideological war. It has to be. Otherwise there is no way Satan could convince himself he has a glimmer of a chance. God is allowing thing to play out in various ways to make absolutely certain no one will EVER subscribe to Satan's ideology again.

[wayfinder]

God wants very much to put an end to sin and all of it's horrific realities. It is a fair question to ask, why doesn't God do something about it, the answer is He really wants to, but if He comes in judgment on sin and apostacy He must destroy all that is not righteous. The fact that there is none who are righteous on earth today would mean He must destroy everthing and everybody. God is waiting for us to complete the sanctification process and become righteous and them He will come and destroy wickedness.

God created Lucifer because He (God) does not allow His creation to be dictated to by His foreknowledge. God did not create sin when He created Lucifer, and He did not doom the earth to sin when He created Adam and told him not to eat from a certain tree. All of God's created beings have the prevledge to choose to obey or disobey God, otherwise we would be preprogrammed robots, possibly entertaining but certainly not useful to God.

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN317: These are excellent. Let's put them into practice here on the forum.

Shall all the posts that do otherwise be deleted? How many would be left if that happened?

Quote:

PNATTMBTC: This is rather cryptic. What's your point please?

I don't ever intend to be "cryptic."

I mean that I believe the quotes of Ellen White on post #329074, and I would like to see all of us willingly follow through with what the Lord inspired her to write.

I think it would be wonderful if we all truly wanted to practice what she says in them.

When I ask, "How many would be left if that happened," I am saying that I think we on Adventist Forum too often fail to practice what Ellen White wrote in those quotes. Many posts would not be written if everyone did practice them.

Finally, I wish everyone would read those quotes several times and think about what they're saying and ask God to help us put them into practice.

[pnattmbtc]

God created Lucifer because He (God) does not allow His creation to be dictated to by His foreknowledge.