"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[Gerr]

I was exposed to Maxwell's theology of a non-destroying God at LLU for 4 years. I did not/could not buy it then, and I still can't. Too many hoops to jump through. It's more simple to accept the plain sense of Scripture for me.

[karl]

I love Ty Gibson, but this is just short of the reality:

"For those who persist in sin to the ruin of their inner capacity to discern and reflect God’s love, that fire of divine love which would have cleansed them will, on the day of final reckoning, ignite in their souls a destructive measure of shame and guilt. The glory of Him who is love will be more than the conscience can bear."

Just short of the reality. The glory of Him who is love will not only be more than the conscience can bear, it will be more than the physiology can bear.

[BobRyan]

I was exposed to Maxwell's theology of a non-destroying God at LLU for 4 years. I did not/could not buy it then, and I still can't. Too many hoops to jump through. It's more simple to accept the plain sense of Scripture for me.

Makes me wonder if Maxwell ever took the time to read Rev 20 or Matt 10 or the statements from Ellen White (and posted here) about the lake of fire.

Or if he ever read what was shown here -

http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthread...html#Post331294

in Christ,

Bob

[pnattmbtc]

Robert:In heaven Lucifer began to re-think God's agape love. ....

For 6000 years we have seen Lucifer's principle at work. Because God has allowed Lucifer to develop his type of love God assumes the blame for all the fallout produced from such love, that is, until the day of atonement when God places the blame where it belongs; On Satan...

J:Jack Sequiera?

Richard:You can just about bet on it. Teaching for doctrine the commandments of men.

This was uncalled for. First of all, you don't know that Sequeira said this. Secondly, what's wrong with what was said? If you find fault with what's written, address that, not some third party whose not even involved.

[pnattmbtc]

I was exposed to Maxwell's theology of a non-destroying God at LLU for 4 years. I did not/could not buy it then, and I still can't. Too many hoops to jump through. It's more simple to accept the plain sense of Scripture for me.

Didn't Maxwell lead study groups through Scripture? Hasn't he gone through the entire Bible over 150 times? Why do you think you're better at accepting the plain sense of Scripture than he is?

[pnattmbtc]

I love Ty Gibson, but this is just short of the reality:

"For those who persist in sin to the ruin of their inner capacity to discern and reflect God’s love, that fire of divine love which would have cleansed them will, on the day of final reckoning, ignite in their souls a destructive measure of shame and guilt. The glory of Him who is love will be more than the conscience can bear."

Just short of the reality. The glory of Him who is love will not only be more than the conscience can bear, it will be more than the physiology can bear.

Do you think it's possible to separate conscience from physiology? Do you see the problem as a physical one as opposed to a spiritual one? If it's a spiritual problem, wouldn't that also involve the physical? (that's the SDA view of man, isn't it?)

[pnattmbtc]

I didn't see that your post addressed my point. Here's the EGW quote:

Quote:

"And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night." Rev. 12:10.

Satan saw that his disguise was torn away. His administration was laid open before the unfallen angels and before the heavenly universe. He had revealed himself as a murderer. By shedding the blood of the Son of God, he had uprooted himself from the sympathies of the heavenly beings. Henceforth his work was restricted. Whatever attitude he might assume, he could no longer await the angels as they came from the heavenly courts, and before them accuse Christ's brethren of being clothed with the garments of blackness and the defilement of sin. The last link of sympathy between Satan and the heavenly world was broken.

I asked, "How does this make any sense in a physical war?" and you took issue with the word "physical" because these are angels, but never addressed the point. So I'll rephrase the question. How does this make any sense in a war that is decided by force? The point is that Rev. 12 is dealing with a war that is not decided by force.

Also you wrote, "The war is real, and so is the victory." It's not necessary for a war to involve force for it to be real. It's a real war, and a real victory, but not a war, or a victory, which is decided, or obtained, by force.

[pnattmbtc]

Ok, I think I see your point. I agree that the destructive forces that were unleashed during the destruction of Jerusalem and the forces that will be unleashed during the Time of Trouble/Tribulation are the same, i.e. Satanic forces acting after God's protection is removed. However, I think we are talking about TWO different end-time events, which IMHO, you are missing the point. The end-time event that I am referring to is the destruction of the wicked AFTER the millennium when IT IS GOD'S CONSUMING FIRE OF GLORY that destroys the wicked which she refers to in the latter part of that chapter. So the common denominator between the destruction of Jerusalem and the Time of Trouble are: 1) God removes His protection 2) Satan and his hosts wreak havoc 3) underlying cause is people's rebellion. The common denominator between the destruction of Jerusalem and the destruction of the wicked at the end of the millennium is: wickedness. The difference? In the former, Satan does the destroying, in the latter, it is God's fiery glory that does the consuming and refining. Or are you going to say that the earth will refine itself?

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry

Ok, I think I see your point. I agree that the destructive forces that were unleashed during the destruction of Jerusalem and the forces that will be unleashed during the Time of Trouble/Tribulation are the same, i.e. Satanic forces acting after God's protection is removed. However, I think we are talking about TWO different end-time events, which IMHO, you are missing the point. The end-time event that I am referring to is the destruction of the wicked AFTER the millennium when IT IS GOD'S CONSUMING FIRE OF GLORY that destroys the wicked which she refers to in the latter part of that chapter. So the common denominator between the destruction of Jerusalem and the Time of Trouble are: 1) God removes His protection 2) Satan and his hosts wreak havoc 3) underlying cause is people's rebellion. The common denominator between the destruction of Jerusalem and the destruction of the wicked at the end of the millennium is: wickedness. The difference? In the former, Satan does the destroying, in the latter, it is God's fiery glory that does the consuming and refining. Or are you going to say that the earth will refine itself?

I think we can do without the sarcasm.

I can see where you interpreted the last line as such, but none intended. Just a question. Sorry.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry

I was exposed to Maxwell's theology of a non-destroying God at LLU for 4 years. I did not/could not buy it then, and I still can't. Too many hoops to jump through. It's more simple to accept the plain sense of Scripture for me.

Didn't Maxwell lead study groups through Scripture? Hasn't he gone through the entire Bible over 150 times? Why do you think you're better at accepting the plain sense of Scripture than he is?

I don't claim to be any better than he is, none was even intended to be implied. I just feel like I have to jump through too many hoops to accept his explanations.

"There is a sad neglect of reading the Bible and searching it with humble hearts for yourselves. Take no man's explanation of Scripture, whatever his position, but go to the Bible and search for the truth yourselves." TM 154.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

I can see where you interpreted the last line as such, but none intended. Just a question. Sorry.

Ok, thanks.

[pnattmbtc]

I don't claim to be any better than he is, none was even intended to be implied. I just feel like I have to jump through too many hoops to accept his explanations.

[karl]

Originally Posted By: karl

I love Ty Gibson, but this is just short of the reality:

"For those who persist in sin to the ruin of their inner capacity to discern and reflect God’s love, that fire of divine love which would have cleansed them will, on the day of final reckoning, ignite in their souls a destructive measure of shame and guilt. The glory of Him who is love will be more than the conscience can bear."

Just short of the reality. The glory of Him who is love will not only be more than the conscience can bear, it will be more than the physiology can bear.

Do you think it's possible to separate conscience from physiology? Do you see the problem as a physical one as opposed to a spiritual one? If it's a spiritual problem, wouldn't that also involve the physical? (that's the SDA view of man, isn't it?)

Read it again. I included both. I agree with Ty that it will be more than the conscience can bear, but it will also be more than the physiology can bear and thus result in death. This death will not be self-destruction except in the sense that the sinner has chosen his fate. The sinner's conscience doesn't kindle a fire upon himself.

[Gerr]

No two ways about it. We are using two different ways of understanding scripture.

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

J:Jack Sequiera?

Richard:You can just about bet on it. Teaching for doctrine the commandments of men.

This was uncalled for. First of all, you don't know that Sequeira said this. Secondly, what's wrong with what was said? If you find fault with what's written, address that, not some third party whose not even involved.

Thanks pnat, for once again pointing out what I SHOULD or SHOULDN'T have said. You seem to have an inordinate sense of what people OUGHT to say. Makes me wonder what we ever did before you got here.

Perhaps in the future I will check with you, to see what kind of response is called for.

[Woody]

Well Jack Sequeira is certainly someone we can count on for Present Truth. He is a man of God. And the Holy Spirit is certainly using this man to spread the Three Angels messages of this church. May God bless him.

[oldsailor29]

too far off point to even participate.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

I was exposed to Maxwell's theology of a non-destroying God at LLU for 4 years. I did not/could not buy it then, and I still can't. Too many hoops to jump through. It's more simple to accept the plain sense of Scripture for me.

Makes me wonder if Maxwell ever took the time to read Rev 20 or Matt 10 or the statements from Ellen White (and posted here) about the lake of fire.

Or if he ever read what was shown here -

we, as sdas, certainly do have to jump through hoops to explain many "plain" senses of scripture, such as,

Jdg 9:23 Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech:

1Sa 16:14 But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him.

Psa 9:17 The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.

Luk 16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

Luk 16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

Luk 16:25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

Luk 16:26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

and so many more.

the predestinationist, for example, has an easy time because he takes the plain meaning of the scriptures.

the arminian has a much harder job because he has to search the scriptures to find the true meaning which often contradicts the plain meaning.

and if that isnt enough, look at how people look at us when we try to explain the investigative judgment part of our sanctuary doctrine, unique only to us. we really have to take all the scriptures into account on that one!

[teresaq]

J:Jack Sequiera?

Richard:You can just about bet on it. Teaching for doctrine the commandments of men.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Read it again. I included both. I agree with Ty that it will be more than the conscience can bear, but it will also be more than the physiology can bear and thus result in death. This death will not be self-destruction except in the sense that the sinner has chosen his fate. The sinner's conscience doesn't kindle a fire upon himself.

Yes, I misread it, as exclusive as opposed to inclusive. Given the truth is more than the person can bear, I would describe their behavior as self-destructive.

Quote:

God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire.(DA 764)

By a life rebellion, they have placed themselves so out of harmony with God that they cannot bear His presence of love. This is self-destructive behavior. Perhaps you had this in mind when you said they choose their fate.

God shields them from His love for a time, so that they can develop a character, but He can't/won't hide His love forever. Their destruction at the end is entirely of their own doing.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Thanks pnat, for once again pointing out what I SHOULD or SHOULDN'T have said. You seem to have an inordinate sense of what people OUGHT to say. Makes me wonder what we ever did before you got here.

Perhaps in the future I will check with you, to see what kind of response is called for.

No need to check with me. Just be considerate.

[pnattmbtc]

Well Jack Sequeira is certainly someone we can count on for Present Truth. He is a man of God. And the Holy Spirit is certainly using this man to spread the Three Angels messages of this church. May God bless him.

There are things he says which I disagree with, but I've found him to be very much a Christian gentleman, and all indications are he's a servant of the Lord. We're cautioned about how we treat Christ's servants. That's a reason I try to be jealous for the reputation of others, especially those who are not hear to defend themselves.

He's certainly an individual thinker! (which is a good thing, IMO)

[karl]

By a life rebellion, they have placed themselves so out of harmony with God that they cannot bear His presence of love. This is self-destructive behavior. Perhaps you had this in mind when you said they choose their fate.

God shields them from His love for a time, so that they can develop a character, but He can't/won't hide His love forever. Their destruction at the end is entirely of their own doing.

We keep coming back to this, so I am leaving this thread. The destruction of the wicked is a result of their own choices, but they don't physically take their own lives in the final execution of their sentence. The life-Giver takes back the breath that He has been loaning them.

He Who gives life also takes it back when the borrower, by his own choices, earns the penalty of eternal death. When the Bible says "with the breath of His lips shall He slay the wicked" it is possible that it refers to the taking back of the breath of life.

However, there is this to consider about breath:

"The wicked all marched up around the "camp of the saints," with Satan at their head; and when they were ready to make an effort to take the city, the Almighty breathed from His high throne, on the city, a breath of devouring fire, which came down on them, and burnt them up, "root and branch." Ellen G. White: The Early Years Volume 1 - 1827-1862 , page 124

[pnattmbtc]

We keep coming back to this, so I am leaving this thread.

It may seem to you that we keep coming back to this, but I'm just trying to get a handle on where you're coming from. At times it seems like you're agreeing with me, and at times like you're not. I still don't know.

Also, there's other conversations going on on this thread besides ours.

Finally, I appreciate your posts. They're substantive, and you seem to avoid personalities. We seem to have common ground on the atonement. Well, I'm sure we'll have more opportunities to discuss things, and this is such a fundamental subject it's sure to come up again.

[karl]

Finally, I appreciate your posts. They're substantive, and you seem to avoid personalities. We seem to have common ground on the atonement. Well, I'm sure we'll have more opportunities to discuss things, and this is such a fundamental subject it's sure to come up again.

Yes, I agree. I enjoy your careful consideration of things. That's why I can't understand your insistence that the wicked literally take their own lives at the end of time.

If God wants you alive at any point in time, there's nothing you can do about it.

If God wants you dead at any point in time, there's nothing you can do about it.

He is in charge of life and death. This is not complicated, the way all these pages of argument seem to make it. It is very simple - God gives life, or He takes it away. Blessed be His name. The human choice is whether to cooperate with God and have God give him life, or not cooperate with God and have God pull the plug.

The life each of us enjoy is not a permanent gift. It is given moment by moment.