"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[skyblue888]

Excellent!

[skyblue888]

Amen!

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: John

Yes, it makes Him weep, for sure. And here I thought that all SDAs believed that Satan was cast out of heaven and banished by God from heaven. I'm amazed that some believe it was all voluntary. Wow. I am learning all kind of things on this Forum. An eye opener!!! Our church has some work to do, doesn't it? It shows me that our ministers need to teach and preach more on the basic doctrines of the Bible. They take it for granted that our people are in agreement on the basic doctrines when they obviously aren't.

John, I didn't say Satan wasn't cast out from heaven. I said God didn't use force to do so. Please don't misrepresent what I'm saying. I haven't said that God persuaded him to leave either. Please don't say that again.

A reason I'm saying God didn't use compelling power to expel Satan from heaven is because the SOP says that compelling power can only be found in the enemy's government, and that the Lord's principles are not of this order. Isn't that a reasonable reason for asserting this? If compelling power is only found in the government of Satan, doesn't it follow that God didn't use compelling power against Satan?

______________

Yes it does!

sky

[skyblue888]

Again, well put!

Praise God.

sky

[skyblue888]

Quote:

Those who have chosen Satan as their leader and have been controlled by his power are not prepared to enter the presence of God. Pride, deception, licentiousness, cruelty, have become fixed in their characters.

Can they enter heaven to dwell forever with those whom they despised and hated on earth? Truth will never be agreeable to a liar; meekness will not satisfy self-esteem and pride; purity is not acceptable to the corrupt; disinterested love does not appear attractive to the selfish. What source of enjoyment could heaven offer to those who are wholly absorbed in earthly and selfish interests?

Could those whose lives have been spent in rebellion against God be suddenly transported to heaven and witness the high, the holy state of perfection that ever exists there,-- every soul filled with love, every countenance beaming with joy, enrapturing music in melodious strains rising in honor of God and the Lamb, and ceaseless streams of light flowing upon the redeemed from the face of Him who sitteth upon the throne,--could those whose hearts are filled with hatred of God, of truth and holiness, mingle with the heavenly throng and join their songs of praise? Could they endure the glory of God and the Lamb?

No, no; years of probation were granted them, that they might form characters for heaven; but they have never trained the mind to love purity; they have never learned the language of heaven, and now it is too late. A life of rebellion against God has unfitted them for heaven. Its purity, holiness, and peace would be torture to them; the glory of God would be a consuming fire. They would long to flee from that holy place. They would welcome destruction, that they might be hidden from the face of Him who died to redeem them. The destiny of the wicked is fixed by their own choice. Their exclusion from heaven is voluntary with themselves. (GC 542-543;emphasis mind; paragraphs added for internet readability)

This same principle applies to Satan.

_______________________________________________

Exactly.

[skyblue888]

A little while ago, I was invited to join this adventist forum but it didn't take long before I was bannished from that forum only because I began talking like you do on the character of God. I stated the principles of God's dealing with men as you are doing here but was cut off. On that forum I was not allowed the freedom wherewith Christ has made me free to express or to give a reason for my faith. So by not allowing me to continue to post, they used force but God never did that with Lucifer. Lucifer was given all the time he wished to present God to the angels and to whole universe of intelligent beings in a false light until he was "expelled" meaning until the loyal angels and the inhabitants of the universe finally understood what was going on. There was nothing else he could do with the loyal angels or the loyal universe to convince them that God's government was faulty and that God Himself was not fit to rule. Satan had impeached God but was defeated. Since He has been "cast out" he has been concentrating and spending all his engergies on the fallen inhabitants of this earth and his success in clothing our good and gracious God in his own attributes has been without parallel.

Keep up the good work pnatt.

sky

[skyblue888]

Force is the last resort of every false religion. At first it tries attraction, as the king of Babylon tried the power of music and outward show. If these attractions, invented by men inspired by Satan, failed to make men worship the image, the hungry flames of the furnace were ready to consume them. (7SDABC 976)

_____________________

Amen pnatt. Good point. Keep saying it.

sky

[skyblue888]

Quote:

And Ellen White shows that after trying to get Lucifer to repent and change, once Lucifer refused to obey God, God decreed that Satan and his followers were "banished from Heaven." You make it sound like God did not tell Satan that he had to leave, but that is certainly not the way the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy portray it.

I quoted from GC 542, when responding to Gerry, and pointed out that the same principle explained there applied to Satan. For your convenience, I'll requote it:

Quote:

Those who have chosen Satan as their leader and have been controlled by his power are not prepared to enter the presence of God. Pride, deception, licentiousness, cruelty, have become fixed in their characters.

Can they enter heaven to dwell forever with those whom they despised and hated on earth? Truth will never be agreeable to a liar; meekness will not satisfy self-esteem and pride; purity is not acceptable to the corrupt; disinterested love does not appear attractive to the selfish. What source of enjoyment could heaven offer to those who are wholly absorbed in earthly and selfish interests?

Could those whose lives have been spent in rebellion against God be suddenly transported to heaven and witness the high, the holy state of perfection that ever exists there,-- every soul filled with love, every countenance beaming with joy, enrapturing music in melodious strains rising in honor of God and the Lamb, and ceaseless streams of light flowing upon the redeemed from the face of Him who sitteth upon the throne,--could those whose hearts are filled with hatred of God, of truth and holiness, mingle with the heavenly throng and join their songs of praise? Could they endure the glory of God and the Lamb?

No, no; years of probation were granted them, that they might form characters for heaven; but they have never trained the mind to love purity; they have never learned the language of heaven, and now it is too late. A life of rebellion against God has unfitted them for heaven. Its purity, holiness, and peace would be torture to them; the glory of God would be a consuming fire. They would long to flee from that holy place. They would welcome destruction, that they might be hidden from the face of Him who died to redeem them. The destiny of the wicked is fixed by their own choice. Their exclusion from heaven is voluntary with themselves... (GC 542)

Please notice the underlined part. This applies to Satan and all his followers.

This is plain as the nose on anybody's face. What will we, in judgment day, respond to God when these statements are going to re-surface again?

sky

[skyblue888]

Amen. It is the same when stating this principle: "God does not stand toward the sinner as an exectioner of the sentence against transgression. He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves to reap that which they have sown." G.C.36.

This principle also applies to Lucifer and the angels who rebelled against God.

sky

[skyblue888]

There's this one too, which I quoted:

Quote:

God could have destroyed Satan and his sympathizers as easily as one can cast a pebble to the earth; but He did not do this. 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. His authority rests upon goodness, mercy, and love; and the presentation of these principles is the means to be used. God's government is moral, and truth and love are to be the prevailing power.

It was God's purpose to place things on an eternal basis of security, and in the councils of heaven it was decided that time must be given for Satan to develop the principles which were the foundation of his system of government. He had claimed that these were superior to God's principles. Time was given for the working of Satan's principles, that they might be seen by the heavenly universe. (DA 759)

Rebellion was not to be overcome by force. Satan is overcome by the prevailing powers of God's government, which is moral, which are truth and love.

This is all so clear and easy to see, the difficulty in grasping this I find hard to understand. The government of God is moral, therefore the weapons involved in the war are weapons which have to do with the character of the government. These weapons are truth and love. Force, or compelling power, is not a weapon used, because the government is a moral government.

It's exactly the same principle as taught by Christ, when He said

Quote:

Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.(John 18:36)

Moral government = moral war = moral weapons. The warfare is described in vision as a war, because it is a war. But it's not a war fought by weapons of the flesh, but by weapons of the spirit. It's a war of ideas. The truth is the weapon that wins such a war.

______________

Amen!

[skyblue888]

There seems to be a war brewing in this thread... might it possibly be akin to the war that took place in heaven?

Exaclty. A war of ideas again.

Great point.

sky

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: Gerry

The DA chapter is too long to post here. I suggest everyone interested in this thread to read it for themselves. Her quoting of Rev 12:10 and this DA chapter "it is finished" have nothing to do with how the war in heaven was fought in Rev 12:7. Check it out.

I don't see how one could read the chapter and not see that it is dealing with this very subject. Here's how the chapter starts out:

Quote:

Christ did not yield up His life till He had accomplished the work which He came to do, and with His parting breath He exclaimed, "It is finished." John 19:30. The battle had been won. His right hand and His holy arm had gotten Him the victory. As a Conqueror He planted His banner on the eternal heights. Was there not joy among the angels? All heaven triumphed in the Saviour's victory. Satan was defeated, and knew that his kingdom was lost.

To the angels and the unfallen worlds the cry, "It is finished," had a deep significance. It was for them as well as for us that the great work of redemption had been accomplished. They with us share the fruits of Christ's victory.

Not until the death of Christ was the character of Satan clearly revealed to the angels or to the unfallen worlds. The archapostate had so clothed himself with deception that even holy beings had not understood his principles. They had not clearly seen the nature of his rebellion. (DA 758)

The chapter is talking about what was accomplished by Christ's death. A number of themes are discussed in this context, but by far the one which occupies most attention is this one, how the death of Christ unmasked Satan, thus winning the Great Controversy for everyone outside of this planet.

The Great Controversy is about God's character. Satan misrepresents God as having his own character. The question of force enters into this. Compelling power is to be found only in the government of Satan, whereas the Lord's principles are not of this order. The context of this statement is "rebellion was not to be overcome by force."

Here's the statement:

Quote:

It was a being of wonderful power and glory that had set himself against God. Of Lucifer the Lord says, "Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty." Ezek. 28:12. Lucifer had been the covering cherub. He had stood in the light of God's presence. He had been the highest of all created beings, and had been foremost in revealing God's purposes to the universe. After he had sinned, his power to deceive was the more deceptive, and the unveiling of his character was the more difficult, because of the exalted position he had held with the Father.

God could have destroyed Satan and his sympathizers as easily as one can cast a pebble to the earth; but He did not do this. 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.

So this is dealing specifically with how the challenge of Satan should be met. God could have destroyed Satan, but rebellion was not to be overcome by force. Compelling power is found only under Satan's government. Now if this is saying that God used compelling power to overcome the rebellion in heaven, that's really odd.

When you get down a couple of paragraphs later where she quotes Rev. 12:10, she's talking about the same subject, the war in heaven, WHICH IS THE GREAT CONTROVERSY. Pardon my shouting, but I'm anxious that this point be grasped (and I naively think by putting it in caps, that will help).

So how is the Great Controversy won? By force? No, but by truth and love, the prevailing powers of God's government. Thus, when Christ died, revealing the truth, and the love of God, Satan was cast down, meaning that he had been unmasked. He was cast down because his lies were exposed.

By the way, Jesus Christ also pointed out that Satan was to be cast down as a result of the cross, in John 12.

Amen! The truth that will prevail simply because it is the truth!

sky

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: John317

Many people believe that Christ won't really do this because they think of Him as too kind and loving to punish and destroy the wicked. They misunderstand the meaning and nature of Christ's love.

Many people think this is dealing with physical things rather than spiritual, and don't understand the principles involved. From DA 108:

Quote:

At the second advent of Christ the wicked shall be consumed "with the Spirit of His mouth," and destroyed "with the brightness of His coming." 2 Thess. 2:8. The light of the glory of God, which imparts life to the righteous, will slay the wicked.

In the time of John the Baptist, Christ was about to appear as the revealer of the character of God. His very presence would make manifest to men their sin. Only as they were willing to be purged from sin could they enter into fellowship with Him. Only the pure in heart could abide in His presence.

Of note is that the same thing which will "slay the wicked" "imparts life to the righteous." Kevin H has written several posts regarding this. If he's watching, maybe he'll chime in.

At any rate, the literal brightness of Christ does not give life to the righteous, so this must be talking about something else. The sentences immediately following give an indication as to what that something else is.

_____________________________

In the Desire of Ages, Mrs. White explains that even "John the Baptist did not understand the nature of Christ's kingdom. He looked for the high places of human pride and power to be cast down. He pointed to the Messiah as One whose fan was in His hand and would thoroughly purge His floor, who would gather the wheat into His garner, and burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. Like the prophet Elijah, in whose spirit and power he had come to Israel, he looked for the Lord to reveal Himself as a God that answereth by fire." D.A.215.

sky

[skyblue888]

Rev 12:1 And a great sign was seen in heaven: a woman arrayed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars; 2 and she was the child; and she crieth out, travailing in birth, and in pain to be delivered. 3 And there was seen another sign in heaven: and behold, a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his heads seven diadems. 4 And his tail draweth the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon standeth before the woman that is about to be delivered, that when she is delivered he may devour her child. 5 And she was delivered of a son, a man child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and unto his throne. 6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that there they may nourish her a thousand two hundred and threescore days. 7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels [going forth] to war with the dragon; and the dragon warred and his angels; 8 And they prevailed not, neither was their place found any more in heaven. 9 And the great dragon was cast down, the old serpent, he that is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world; he was cast down to the earth, and his angels were cast down with him.

Revelation is full of symbology and metaphors. If there was actually "war in heaven" then Satan is actually a red dragon with seven heads. Also, instead of the meek and mild Jesus, He ruled all nations with a rod of iron. I can't find this concept in my Bible.

Like I said, you can make Revelation say anything you want because of the symbolism.

Rob

"God bears with divine patience with the perversity of the wicked; but He declares that He will visit their transgressions with a rod. He will at last permit the destructive agencies of Satan to bear sway to destroy." MS 17, 1906.

Looks to me like this statement is clearly saying that the destrutive agencies of Satan are the "rod" with which the Lord will punish the finally impenitent.

God the Father, speaking to His Son, says to Him, "I will give you the nations for Your inheritance, and the ends of the earth for Your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron; You shall dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel." Psalm 2:7-9.

Now we know what it means for the Lord to break the wicked with a rod of iron and to dash them in pieces like a potter's vessels! He will permit the destructive agencies of Satan to bear sway to destroy those who have rejected His mercy. The wicked will be left to the control of the leader they had chosen. See G.C.28.

Thank God for the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit. He is truly the Teacher of His people, for we can honor God only as we have a right conception of His character, government, and purposes, and act in accordance with them. See G.C.593.

sky

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: Richard

p:Secondly, "may have right to the tree of life" could be seen as symbolic, meaning "may have eternal life" or "live eternally."

Thirdly "may enter into the gates of the city" may also be seen as symbolic as "may enter into heaven."

You can make it all symbolic if you want to, but you will be wrong in your understanding.

Being right or wrong has nothing to do with the point being made. The point is that one man's "spiritualizing away" is another's "using common sense."

Quote:

I've noticed that you do that quite a bit. You spiritualize away anything you think the Bible shouldn't be saying according to your beliefs.

I've noticed you do this too.

Quote:

I've even seen you do it with Ellen White, where she departs from what you believe. And Ellen White doesn't speak in symbols.

Yes, I've seen you do this too. I've also seen you not use common sense.

This is just going to show the point I'm making. What one person considers as "common sense" another may consider as "spiritualizing." You're just setting up yourself as arbiter as who's right and who's wrong, which isn't worth much. So making these types of judgments is pointless. Better to simply make whatever arguments you wish to make for your positions without the pointless judgments.

Amen!!!

[pnattmbtc]

I believe the context of the statement is that God did not immediately destroy Satan because it wouldn't have solved the sin problem but would have made it worse. The way she expresses it, it seems to me to clearly imply that God would destroy Satan after he had clearly demonstrated the wickedness of his character.

This makes no sense. If I said, "I'm not going to kill you now because force is against my principles" would you take this to mean that I'm going to kill you later? If I'm not killing you because force is against my principles, wouldn't that mean that I would never kill you?

If EGW says that God did not destroy Satan because "compelling power is only found under the government of Satan" and "The Lord's principles are not of this order," how could it possibly follow that this is imply that God wouldn't kill Satan in the beginning, but would kill him later?

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

By the way-- nice to see you back here, sky. :-)

Ditto. It's nice to get some positive feedback from the posts!

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: John317

The problem I see is that you use the deductive method to arrive at your conclusion that God never forces and therefore wouldn't have forced the Devil to leave heaven. In other words, you arrive at a conclusion on the basis of a few texts or passages, and then you try to apply them universally to every related instance in the Bible without truly examining what every one of those texts say. This method of study is superficial and does violence to the intended meaning of Scripture.

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.

For example, consider the principle that God does not lie. If we come across something in Scripture where He appears to be lying, or using deceit, or being dishonest in some way, don't we reject that as a possibility out of hand? Or do we examine the passage to see if maybe in this particular circumstance God is lying?

I think comments like the following are best omitted:

Quote:

This method of study is superficial and does violence to the intended meaning of Scripture.

I could say the same thing to you, and then we just wind up with a shouting match. This really adds nothing to the discussion, right?

Amen brother. I have been thinking about what Mrs. White was shown that there are truths that some of us do not understand and never will. May be this is one of them.

sky

[skyblue888]

Quote:

"...visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation that hate me..." was God contradicting Himself?

A couple of interesting things about this. One is that the Jewish tradition points out that while God visits the iniquity of the fathers of the children to the third and fourth generation, His blessings endure for a thousand generations for the faithful, so they see this as a tribute to God's graciousness.

The second is that the SOP explains this in terms of cause and effect, that it's not that God is taking some sort of arbitrary action to punish the children of certain individuals, but that it's generally the case that those who practice iniquity raise their children in the same way, and these suffer the consequences.

_____________________________________________________

Amen!

[skyblue888]

Quote:

Did your giving the "context" change the meaning of this statement?

"The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when he permits. There are forces now ready, and only waiting the divine permission, to spread desolation everywhere." {GC88 614.2}

"Explained" is a better choice of words.

Something else to consider is the character of God in these types of questions. What does it say about God to believe He is acting in one way as opposed to another. These sorts of questions are very much worth thinking through.

When God commands. "He will say to the angels, 'No longer combat Satan in his efforts to destroy. Let him work out his malignity upon the children of disobedience, for the cup of iniquity is full.'" Review and Herald, Vol.4, p.335.

sky

[pnattmbtc]

"God bears with divine patience with the perversity of the wicked; but He declares that He will visit their transgressions with a rod. He will at last permit the destructive agencies of Satan to bear sway to destroy." MS 17, 1906.

Looks to me like this statement is clearly saying that the destrutive agencies of Satan are the "rod" with which the Lord will punish the finally impenitent.

God the Father, speaking to His Son, says to Him, "I will give you the nations for Your inheritance, and the ends of the earth for Your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron; You shall dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel." Psalm 2:7-9.

Now we know what it means for the Lord to break the wicked with a rod of iron and to dash them in pieces like a potter's vessels! He will permit the destructive agencies of Satan to bear sway to destroy those who have rejected His mercy. The wicked will be left to the control of the leader they had chosen.

I hadn't thought of this.

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: John317

But let's say you have your mind made up that Ezekiel 18: 4 gives us a hard and fast rule that applies universally to every last human on earth. What then? Well, what happens then is that you find a way to explain away the verses in Scripture which teach that Enoch and Elijah never died. Because if you believe it's a universal without exceptions, then if you find an exception, God looks like a liar!! Just like, since you have made up your mind that God has never used force and never will use force under any circumstances, you come up with the idea that Satan left heaven willingly and of his own volition and that no force was used. Because if God used force in that instance or any other instance in salvation-history, God seems to be a liar. But of course He isn't a liar. But what you do with the so-called universal rule about the use of force-- that God didn't make Satan leave heaven-- makes as much sense biblically as believing Enoch and Elijah died and are in the grave.

This whole argument is specious because it's based on a false premise, which I explained in the previous post. If there were exceptions to the principle that "the soul that sinneth shall die," then it wouldn't be a universal principle. Even if the verse were dealing with the first death, your argument would still be invalid. It would be like saying that the law gravity has exceptions because one can use a parachute.

The statement "compelling power is only found under Satan's government" is either true or false. If it's also found in God's government, then it's false. This should be easy to see.

Amen. It is the same with the stated principle that "God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression, but He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves to reap that which they have sown." G.C.36.

This has always been true and always will be.

sky

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: John317

R:The principal(sic) that God cannot lie is valid because it comes from the Bible itself. Not so with principals you make up, or get from other places. That's why I say that principals you call universal are not universal at all, except in your mind.

J:This is true, and a very important point that some do not appear to understand or grasp.

One is a plain statement of Scripture and the other, which is used to conclude that God did not force Satan out of heaven, is arrived at by invalid deduction.

What is not plain about these statements?

Quote:

Compelling power is found only under Satan's government. The Lord's principles are not of this order.(DA 759)

Quote:

The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government.(DA 22)

Yes, exactly, that has always been my point too. What is not plain about these statements? Are they stating true principles or not? They cannot be half true and half false. If we take them at face value, without any prejudice, they are true principles and always true.

sky

[Guest]

He will say to the angels, 'No longer combat Satan in his efforts to destroy. Let him work out his malignity upon the children of disobedience, for the cup of iniquity is full.'" Review and Herald, Vol.4, p.335.

sky

Your reference to this quote leaves something to be desired. No issue of the Review and Herald ever had 335 pages. And I have never seen a book with that title. I was able to find it however. It was in {RH, September 17, 1901 par. 8}

Just as I thought, you have yanked it right out of it's context and applied it to something it doesn't apply to. This quote is not dealing with the final destruction of the wicked, or the war in heaven. So I'm not sure exactly what point you are trying to make with it, but here it is in it's context:

God keeps a reckoning with the nations. Not a sparrow falls to the ground without His notice. Those who work evil toward their fellow men, saying, How doth God know? will one day be called upon to meet long-deferred vengeance. In this age a more than common contempt is shown to God. Men have reached a point in insolence and disobedience which shows that their cup of iniquity is almost full. Many have well-nigh passed the boundary of mercy. Soon God will show that He is indeed the living God. He will say to the angels, "No longer combat Satan in his efforts to destroy. Let him work out his malignity upon the children of disobedience; for the cup of their iniquity is full. They have advanced from one degree of wickedness to another, adding daily to their lawlessness. I will no longer interfere to prevent the destroyer from doing his work."

This time is right upon us. The Spirit of God is being withdrawn from the earth. When the angel of mercy folds her wings and departs, Satan will do the evil deeds he has long wished to do. Storm and tempest, war and bloodshed,--in these things he delights, and thus he gathers in his harvest. And so completely will men be deceived by him that they will declare that these calamities are the result of the desecration of the first day of the week. From the pulpits of the popular churches will be heard the statement that the world is being punished because Sunday is not honored as it should be. And it will require no great stretch of imagination for men to believe this. They are guided by the enemy, and therefore they reach conclusions which are entirely false. {RH, September 17, 1901 par. 8,9}

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: John317

p:If this is your point, why did you bring up Elijah and Enoch? They have nothing to do with this.

J:Because you and others have said that the statement, "the soul that sins shall die," is a universal principle which applies to everyone.

It is. Here are some examples of the principle:

Quote:

God's Word declares, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die" (Ezekiel 18:20). But God does not desire the death of anyone. At infinite cost He provided for man a second probation. He "so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16). (UL 379)

Even clearer is the following:

Quote:

The soul that sinneth, it shall die an everlasting death,--a death from which there will be no hope of a resurrection... (BE 8/10/96)

I don't think the SOP every uses this phrase to refer to the first death. It's always the second. As she uses it, it's articulating a universal principle, which is the same principle as "the wages of sin is death" or "sin, which it is finished, brings forth death," or "the sting of death is sin," or death "is the inevitable result of sin."

Quote:

I am saying there are exceptions to the rule and that the statement in Ezekiel 18: 4 has to do primarily with the first death. The exceptions are Enoch, Elijah, and the righteous who are translated at Christ's coming without seeing death. They are all sinners, yet they will never have died. The book of Hebrews is clear that Enoch, a sinner, did not die; and 1 Thessalonians teaches that righteous who are alive at Christ's parousia will never die.

This goes to the point about how we study the Bible. If you read the statement in Ezekiel 18: 4 and conclude that it's a universal principle, you will conclude that Enoch and Elijah cannot have gone to heaven without seeing death. (This is precisely what the Jehovah's Witnesses do.)

The error is thinking the principle "the soul that sins, it shall die," is dealing with the first death. The SOP is applying the principle correctly.

Quote:

But if you look carefully at all the verses before drawing your conclusions about it, you will conclude that there are some exceptions to the rule. It's the difference between the deductive and the inductive methods of Bible study. The deductive may cause you to conclude that God could not have forced Satan out of heaven, whereas the inductive method of study would cause you to decide that God did throw Satan out of heaven and down to the earth.

This is a mixed up argument, John. If you want to take the general principle, then it's referring to the second death, not the first, as the statements from the SOP illustrate. If you wish to do a technical exegesis, and deal with the specific issue that Ezekiel is dealing with, then Enoch and Elijah are red herrings.

And this whole thing is a red herring to the main point, which is that there are universal principles, and if a statement is a universal principle, then it is always applicable. There are not exceptions.

How do we determined the difference? We have to look at the character of the statement. If it's dealing with something like the character of God, or the government of God, then it's universal, as God does not change. So the statement "God cannot lie" (or "God does not lie"), is a universal statement. There are no exceptions. It's based on His character.

Consider the statement "Compelling power is to be found only under Satan's government. The Lord's principles are not of this order." Can this be a rule that has exceptions? It's really difficult to see how this statement can be construed this way. She seems to be being emphatic that compelling power is found in Satan's government, and only there, and not in God's government.

I don't know how many times one has to read these statements before it finally dawns upon the human mind that there is no way around them.

sky