"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[Lutz13]

I was reading a book that I personally believe was a Godsend because it dispelled a lot of the fear of God that I had. I have learned that if I am afraid of God, then how could I ever trust Him? I had to get really honest and tell God that I do not love Him. That I would love to enter into a friendship with Him in hopes that one day I can say: "I love you God"

Can I say I love God 100% today? I still can't, but He sure has been melting my heart. I was reading through 2nd Kings, Ezra, and Nehemiah and I saw love written all over the place. It was a first! The prayer in Nehemiah 9 really got me!

" This state of mind is a continuing threat to the peace and security of the family of God. Sin will not have been dealt with until our “lawlessness” (state of mind) has either been changed or eliminated! Mull that around a little...what is the traditional teaching for how sin will be eliminated? We’re told that God is going to eradicate sin...but HOW is He going to do that? Some think by

Hellfire! Concentrate now...this is a simple but profound revelation: God is going to eradicate sin by changing our minds about it! Those who won’t change their minds will reap the natural results of anarchy and lawlessness. God won’t need to destroy them; they will destroy themselves! That’s not hard to fathom is it, especially in this age of

uncontrolled nuclear weapons? The danger of regarding sin as a breaking of the rules is that it tends to encourage an impersonal (even fearful) relationship with God. And you know what?

THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT HE WISHES TO ELIMINATE!!!"

From the book Oh My God. I haven't finished it because I am having a hard time putting my bible down. Gods laws are simply a promise to me now. I don't have to look at them and be afraid of breaking one. God has shown me that the laws just show what I will become if I trust Him to apply the medicine.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

So in other words what you're saying is, "When Mrs. White says that: "God will finally destroy the rejecters of His grace" She actually means something entirely different from what she said.

So, in other words, when the Bible says, "God slew Saul" the author means something entirely different than what he said.

No Richard, this isn't the point. The point is that inspiration often presents God as doing that which he permits.

Quote:

Are you sure she approved of that method of study? I mean if you have to take what she says and turn upside down before you can see what really meant to say, ...I don't know.

How is this any different than Scripture saying:

1.God destroyed Jerusalem.

2.God sent fiery serpent upon the Israelites.

3.God moved David to number Israel.

4.God slew Saul.

5.God sends strong delusion.

6.God sends lying spirits.

7.God refrains from opening the eyes of the blind and the ears of the deaf lest they see and hear and be converted.

8.God creates evil.

I presume you don't believe God did these things. Yet Scripture says He did. Is this "upside down"?

[Lutz13]

Originally Posted By: sky

When Mrs. White says that "God will finally destroy the rejecters of His grace," it does not mean that this judgment will come directly out from God

So in other words what you're saying is, "When Mrs. White says that: "God will finally destroy the rejecters of His grace" She actually means something entirely different from what she said.

Are you sure she approved of that method of study? I mean if you have to take what she says and turn upside down before you can see what really meant to say, ...I don't know.

That is a valid point Richard. If we assume she understood this concept, she probably would have been more straight forward.

We can also be sure she didn't have all truth. We would be foolish to think we have it all today.

[pnattmbtc]

I was reading a book that I personally believe was a Godsend because it dispelled a lot of the fear of God that I had. I have learned that if I am afraid of God, then how could I ever trust Him? I had to get really honest and tell God that I do not love Him. That I would love to enter into a friendship with Him in hopes that one day I can say: "I love you God"

Can I say I love God 100% today? I still can't, but He sure has been melting my heart. I was reading through 2nd Kings, Ezra, and Nehemiah and I saw love written all over the place. It was a first! The prayer in Nehemiah 9 really got me!

" This state of mind is a continuing threat to the peace and security of the family of God. Sin will not have been dealt with until our “lawlessness” (state of mind) has either been changed or eliminated! Mull that around a little...what is the traditional teaching for how sin will be eliminated? We’re told that God is going to eradicate sin...but HOW is He going to do that? Some think by

Hellfire! Concentrate now...this is a simple but profound revelation: God is going to eradicate sin by changing our minds about it! Those who won’t change their minds will reap the natural results of anarchy and lawlessness. God won’t need to destroy them; they will destroy themselves! That’s not hard to fathom is it, especially in this age of

uncontrolled nuclear weapons? The danger of regarding sin as a breaking of the rules is that it tends to encourage an impersonal (even fearful) relationship with God. And you know what?

THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT HE WISHES TO ELIMINATE!!!"

From the book Oh My God. I haven't finished it because I am having a hard time putting my bible down. Gods laws are simply a promise to me now. I don't have to look at them and be afraid of breaking one. God has shown me that the laws just show what I will become if I trust Him to apply the medicine.

Wonderful post!

1.Fearing God gets in the way of our trusting Him.

2.How does God get rid of sin? He changes our mind about it.

3.Those who refuse to do so will suffer the consequences of lawlessness and anarchy.

Wonderful thoughts.

One could add that God also gets rid of sin by changing our thoughts about Him.

[Guest]

Is there an echo in here? Or are you stuttering sky?

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

But this fails to give any significance to the fact that Ellen White distinguishes between what happened BEFORE the war and what happened both DURING and AFTER the war.

It's true that Satan had begun to rebel before the war, but the questions and the doubts were not one and the same as the WAR.

If Ellen White intended to say that what happened on pp. 18 to 22 of vol. 1 of the Spirit of Propehcy was war, why does she say on page 23, "THEN there was war in heaven"?

It doesn't make sense to mean that there was war on pages 18-20, only to say on page 23 that "THEN there was war in heaven." Something happened to cause there to be "war" at that point rather than before. What was it? They engaged in conflict in a way that they didn't before that point in the controversy. I think it's a mistake to ignore this distinction.

For instance, there were tensions and problems between the US and Japan before Dec. 7, 1941, but we don't say there was war before the war, or the fighting, started.

Notice that Ellen White uses language in regard to the "war" that she does not use in describing what happened before the war. She says, "Then there was war in heaven. The Son of God, the Prince of Heaven, and his loyal angels, ENGAGED IN CONFLICT with the arch rebel and those who united with him."

Can you show any statement by Ellen White where she refers to the events before Satan's banishment as "war"?

1.The war is the Great Controversy. It started with Satan's rebellion.

2.Satan began the war spoken of by EGW by gaining converts. Before fighting a war, it's necessary to marshal troupes. Without troupes, Satan would not have had anyone to fight on his side.

3.Satan's idea was that if there were enough angels on his side, he would have a chance. A chance of what? Overcoming God by force? That doesn't make sense, does it? No, he'd have a chance of convincing the others that his complains about God and His government had merit.

4.In DA 761, EGW quotes Rev. 12:10, which speaks of Satan's being cast down, and explains that this happened at the cross, because it revealed Satan's true character.

[Guest]

That is a valid point Richard. If we assume she understood this concept, she probably would have been more straight forward.

We can also be sure she didn't have all truth. We would be foolish to think we have it all today.

So you're saying she said it out of ignorance instead of inspiration?

I'm not smart enough, or inspired enough to make that call, and I wouldn't want to be the one who did make that determination. She was a stickler for taking it just as it reads though.

I believe God showed her the truth, regardless of what she knew. And she in turn wrote that truth down.

[pnattmbtc]

Because God is not MERELY a doctor. God is also the Judge, to use another biblical metaphor.

[Lutz13]

How is this the work of a Judge?

I would say that is the work of an executioner. Which is why such a view displays God holding a gun to the sinners head and pulling the trigger someday.

The truth is, God is asking us to put the gun down.

[Guest]

The truth is, God is asking us to put the gun down.

[Lutz13]

Originally Posted By: Lutz13

The truth is, God is asking us to put the gun down.

LOL! Thanks Richard. I laughed pretty loud...haha...Those all yours?

[pnattmbtc]

So Abraham was off?

[Guest]

LOL! Thanks Richard. I laughed pretty loud...haha...Those all yours?

Yep

[Lutz13]

Originally Posted By: John317

So Abraham was off?

He certainly didn't have the light that we have. He lived in a time when human sacrifice was common. This was seen as the ultimate in showing one's dedication to one's deity. Would you kill your son as an offering to God if you thought that's what He was telling you to do?

Does Christ's life and teachings not count for anything? Or do we pretend they don't exist when considering the Old Testament?

What I'm getting at is, what's the greater light, the Old Testament, or Jesus Christ?

The SOP tells us:

Quote:

All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son. {8T 286.1}

Jesus Christ is the revelation of God, the light of His glory, His express image. Not Abraham.

If we wish to understand God's thoughts and attitude in regards to violence, it's very simple! Simply look to Christ, and see what His thoughts and attitude was. When we've seen Christ, we've seen the Father.

God also meets us where we are. Just like the Israelites were absorbed into Egyptian culture. They wanted a mean tough God, and God provided to that on Mt. Sinai since that is what they wanted. Shows how far God goes to gain our trust! That shows Love to me...

I agree 100% with you. Jesus is the great light. The light they had back then was just a glimmer. It wasn't the ideal, but they weren't ready for the great light.

[Lutz13]

Originally Posted By: Lutz13

LOL! Thanks Richard. I laughed pretty loud...haha...Those all yours?

Yep

I would say you're prepared for the thief in the night!

[Guest]

No Richard, this isn't the point. The point is that inspiration often presents God as doing that which he permits.

Often? Or every single time?

[Guest]

LOL! Thanks Richard. I laughed pretty loud...haha...Those all yours?

I would say you're prepared for the thief in the night!

Between those and Mr. Murphy, I feel sorry for the poor thief in the night.

[John317]

Quote:

skyblue888: John, thank you. You are right. As far as I know, no adventist has any difficulty seeing that this verse does not mean that God directly deceives people. This is something everybody can see and understand. It is an admission on our part then that when God says that He sends strong delusion that it does not mean that He personally and directly deceives people into believing a lie so that they might be damned. But we understand that "As they reject the teachings of His word, God withdraws His Spirit and leaves them to the deceptions which they love." This is a direct commentary on 2 Thess.2:12 taken from The Great Controversy, p.431.

Yes, that's right. God wants everyone saved and is not going to deceive people so they will perish.

Here's an example:

Suppose a person is studying the Bible in regard to the subject of the Sabbath, and they really don't want to keep it. They think that it would be too much trouble, and they'd feel ashamed, to start keeping the Sabbath. They feel convicted of its truth, though, yet they keep resisting the conviction. According to the above passage, there will come a point where God will stop convicting them of the truth and they may eventually become deceived into believing that the error is truth and the truth is error. This doesn't happen because God intentionally tries to deceive them, but rather because they resist what God is trying to convict them of. In this way, they harden their hearts by their own choices in opposition to God's will. God won't force us to believe the truth or to accept Him, although He will try to influence our thinking.

Here's the difference when it comes to God's use of force: God didn't use force to get Satan to accept God or to worship Him, but once Satan became settled into rebellion, God's principles of love, justice, and mercy allowed Him to expel, or drive, Satan from heaven. In the same way, God wouldn't use force to get Adam to believe in Him or obey Him, but once Adam chose to rebel against God, God's principles of love, justice, and mercy allowed Him to "drive out the man from the garden."

Maybe you ask how the principles of mercy and justice and love could result in God's driving Satan out of heaven. That is easy. Imagine if God had allowed Satan to remain indefinitely in heaven. They would not have been in the best interest of the rest of the universe. Similarly, it would not have been the loving thing to do for God to allow Adam to remain in the Garden where he would have had access to the Tree of Life, thus immortalizing sin and rebellion. See Gen. 3: 22-24.

It's the same principles that led God to destroy the world with a flood and to destroy Sodom with fire. And Ellen White says it will be in mercy that God will destroy the wicked at the end of time.

Quote:

We also agree about the verse that says that "God hardened Pharaoh's heart." We agree that God did not directly harden Pharaoh's heart but that by resisting the light that God sent him, there was a hardening that took place in Pharaoh's heart. This is how God hardened his heart. It is the same with the verse that says that "God slew Saul." We know that God did not directly kill him but that Saul was left with no protection from his own evil passions and from the malice and enmity of Satan. So Saul killed himself. He fell on his own sword. 1 Chron.10:14,4.

Yes, we do agree. Again, notice that the Bible is very clear about these examples.

Quote:

Why then can we not read other passages of Scripture in the same way using the same principle of interpretation? Like when we read that "Fire came out from God out of heaven," or when God said, at the time of the flood, "I will destroy man whom I have created," or when we read these words, "God rained fire and brimstone upon Sodom and Gomorrah."

Very good and important question, sky. I think the full answer comes out as we discuss the issue and as we examine the Bible and SOP evidence.

For me, the major reason is that the Bible and the SOP are so clear (in my judgment) that God destroyed the world with a flood and Sodom and Gommorrah by fire. If I found any reason given showing God did not destroy them, I would accept it the same way I accept all the Bible. But there's nothing in the Scriptures to indicate God did not destroy the world with a flood, nor that He didn't destroy Sodom, nor that He will not destroy the wicked at the end of time. To arrive at those conclusions, one must rely almost exclusively on deduction based on a few primary pages in the Spirit of prophecy and the verses we've already discussed, the death of Saul; 1 Kings 22: 22; etc. But there are not clear statements-- i.e., the clear "thus saith the Lord" that we need to establish doctrine-- to that same effect in regard to the Flood, Sodom, or the wicked at the end of time. In fact, Jude 7 says that the fire which destroyed Sodom is like the fire that will destroy the wicked after the 1000 years. And we know that Sodom was destroyed by actual fire, not by metaphorical or symbolic fire. As I see it, the only things that "indicate" God didn't or won't destroy are the passages in the SOP which speak of God's not using force in order to overcome Satan; other passages of EGW that are used to support the same ideas are in GC 542 and DA 760-764.

I'm not convinced that the principles used to interpret the verses you mention in the first two paragaphs are universal principles of interpretation. For instance, when we look at the way Saul died, we have very clear biblical evidence that God did not literally put the sword into Saul. After Saul become settled into rebellion so that God knew he would never change, then it became the will of God for Saul to die. God merely used those circumstances to bring about Saul's death so the kingdom could pass on to David, the man after God's own heart.

I am open to all Bible and SOP evidence but I have to be convinced of the truthfulness of a teaching. I don't ever believe something on the basis of my feelings. So feelings or emotions has nothing whatever to do with my belief in this matter. As I said before, if I found out today from God Himself that He never has taken human life and never will take it, it wouldn't affect in the least my love and admiration for Him. I would merely ask Him why the Bible and SOP seem so plainly to teach differently.

Which raises a couple of question: how do you account for the fact that the prophets and apostles tell us that "God destroys," "God kills," etc.? Were they wrong? God could have given a vision to the prophets showing them the "truth" about the destruction of Sodom and of the world by a flood. Why did the Holy Spirit inspire the Bible to be written the way it was, in a way that teaches God destroys and will destroy? Or do you think it's crystal clear in the Bible that God never destroys anyone?

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: Because God is not MERELY a doctor. God is also the Judge, to use another biblical metaphor.

Quote:

pnattmctc: Why do you think that being a Judge means that God must set people on fire? Where is there anything written anywhere that the penalty for sin is being tortured by being set on fire?

The Bible says in many places and in many ways that God will destroy the wicked by fire. The Bible also says God is Creator and Judge and has given over the judging to Jesus Christ. It is not for us at this time to tell God how He shall judge or how He will punish the wicked.

Ellen White wrote:

"In no kingdom or govenment is it left to lawbreakers to say what punishment is to be executed against those who have broken the law... God is a moral govenor as well as a Father. He is the lawgiver. He makes and executes His laws. Law that has no penalty is of no force.

"The plea may be made that a loving Father would not see His children suffering the punishment of God by fire while He had the power to relieve them. But God would, for the good of His subjects and for their safety, punish the transgressor. He can do infinite justice that man has no right to do before his fellow man. Noah would have displeased God to have drowned one of the scoffers and mockers that harassed him, but God drowned the vast world. Lot would have had no right to inflict punishment on his sons-in-law, but God would do it in strict justice."

Actually the Bible uses a word that means "tortured" or "tormented." See Rev. 14: 10, 11. These are well-known passages dealing with God's dire warning regarding the punishment-- or "torment"-- of the wicked who choose to worship the beast power.

The Bible clearly says in many places that the wicked will be burned up by fire. It is your choice to say that it doesn't mean real fire. Ellen White says it is real fire. She says the same fire that destroys the wicked also cleanses the earth. She saw the fires evening buring the rocks. We know that there are fires which are capable of this. It burns up everything that would remind us of sin. She says the fire from God is combined with the fires made by human weapons as well as the fires in the earth. God's fire is supernatural and able to burn up the wicked angels. Human fires wouldn't have been able to do that. You can be sure that there is a difference between the fire that comes from a match and the fire that comes down from God out of heaven. God's fire burned up the rocks that made up the altars and the water around them on Mt. Carmel. That is not a normal fire. It fell from God out of heaven. Like the fire in Rev. 20.

Quote:

pnattmctc:: "How repugnant to every emotion of love and mercy, and even to our sense of justice, is the doctrine that the wicked dead are tormented with fire and brimstone in an eternally burning hell; that for the sins of a brief earthly life they are to suffer torture as long as God shall live.(GC 535)"

Notice that she speaks of the idea of setting people on fire to suffer for eternity as making them "suffer torture" for "as long as God shall live." Now if God is only setting them on fire to burn for many days, then he is causing them to "suffer torture" for many days.

How is this the work of a Judge?

Ellen White: "After all have perished who fell by [satan's] deceptions, he is still to live and suffer on. In the cleansing flames the wicked are at last destroyed, root and branch-- Satan the root, his followers the branches. THE FULL PENALTY OF THE LAW HAS BEEN VISITED; THE DEMANDS OF JUSTICE HAVE BEEN MET; and heaven and earth, beholding, declare the righteousness of Jehovah." GC 673

Here's an important quote from Ellen White, relative to the issue, that I've post several times on this thread already. What is Ellen White saying here?

"God's love is represented in our day as being of such a character as would forbid His destroying the sinner. Men reason from their own low standard of right and justice.... They measure God by themselves. They reason as to how they would act under the circumstances and decide God would do as they imagine they would do...

"In no kingdom or govenment is it left to lawbreakers to say what punishment is to be executed against those who hae broken the law... God is a moral govenor as well as a Father. He is the lawgiver. He makes and executes His laws. Law that has no penalty is of no force."The plea may be made that a loving Father would not see His children suffering the punishment of God by fire while He had the power to relieve them. But God would, for the good of His subjects and for their safety, punish the transgressor. He can do infinite justice that man has no right to do before his fellow man. Noah would have displeased God to have drowned one of the scoffers and mockers that harassed him, but God drowned the vast world. Lot would have had no right to inflict punishment on his sons-in-law, but God would do it in strict justice.

"Who will say God will NOT do what He says He will do?" 12 MR 207-209; 10 MR 265

We need to bring our minds into harmony with what the Bible teaches and not try to force the Bible into saying what we wish it said. For instance, both it and the Spirit of prophecy teach that the wicked will be destroyed by fire. The Scriptures teach plaily that this destruction by fire will be like the destruction by fire of Sodom and Gommorah. It is obvious that Sodom was destroyed by a literal fire, not a symbolic fire. Yet despite these statements, some continue to object to the language of the Bible signifying that real fire will destroy the wicked.

[John317]

Quote:

pnattmbtc:...In DA 761, EGW quotes Rev. 12:10, which speaks of Satan's being cast down, and explains that this happened at the cross, because it revealed Satan's true character.

Yes, as mentioned before, the complete fall of Satan did not happen at once. It was progressive. He was "banished from heaven" and "the gates of heaven were barred against him" so that "he could not" re-enter heaven-- all this took place before the creation of the earth. He was cast down again at the time of the cross when Satan's true character and plans were clearly seen for the first time by the onlooking universe.

The fact that Satan was able to go to certain places in the universe does not mean that he had free reign to travel wherever he wanted. God had His reasons for allowing Satan to test the other worlds as well as Adam & Eve.

The main point here is that God didn't make Adam and Eve remain faithful to Him or to obey Him, but when they disobeyed they were told they had to leave. The same applies to the Devil. Satan fought because he was determined to keep by force his place in heaven. What do you suppose would have been the result if Adam had refused to leaven the Garden in the way that Satan did.

[John317]

I agree 100% with you. Jesus is the great light. The light they had back then was just a glimmer. It wasn't the ideal, but they weren't ready for the great light.

Yes, of course, you are exactly right that Jesus is the great light. The argument is not that Abraham had all the light. The argument is that God's test of Abraham's faith was whether he was willing to obey a command of God simply because it was God's command. God wouldn't have given this test to Abraham if God hated the fact that someone would obey His command to kill.

That is very much like the test regarding the tree and the test also regarding the Sabbath. None of those tests are things that humans would arrive at through reason. God didn't ask Adam and Eve to agree that it was reasonable for them not to eat of that particular tree. God could have chosen any tree in the garden for the human couple to have to leave alone. The same with the Sabbath. He could have selected any other day of the week for them to rest. The seventh-dayness of the Sabbath makes no sense. No one would be able to arrive, through reasoning alone, at the concept of the Sabbath-rest being ALWAYS on the seventh day of the week. It required special revelation to understand the importance of worshipping God on the seventh day.

[John317]

No Richard, this isn't the point. The point is that inspiration often presents God as doing that which he permits.

Can you show some clear examples of where Ellen White speaks of God doing something that He actually only permitted?

For instance, we know of instances of where the Bible does this-- as with Saul's death, etc.-- but where does Ellen White say in one place that God does something but then in another place show that it is actually Satan who does it?

I'm not talking about Mrs. White quoting the Bible where this occurs, but rather I'm asking where does she clearly do the same thing in the original writings?

Do you believe that Ellen White always understood the destruction of the wicked to be due to God allowing them to die instead of God's direct action?

If not, when do you believe she began to see it this way-- and at what point, and what writings of hers, do you think she shows this change of view most clearly?

[John317]

Jesus Christ is the revelation of God, the light of His glory, His express image. Not Abraham.

The point is that it was Christ who called to Abraham to kill his only son. I do not believe that the evidence support the idea that Christ would have asked Abraham to do something that was contrary to God's nature. This is the whole question of this thread: does God ever use force or kill? There is no doubt that He has and that He will do so again in the future. As the Creator of the universe and of all life, he certainly has the right to. See Gen 6: 6,7; Romans 9: 14-23.

Also:

"God's love is represented in our day as being of such a character as would forbid His destroying the sinner. Men reason from their own low standard of right and justice.... They measure God by themselves. They reason as to how they would act under the circumstances and decide God would do as they imagine they would do...

"In no kingdom or govenment is it left to lawbreakers to say what punishment is to be executed against those who hae broken the law... God is a moral govenor as well as a Father. He is the lawgiver. He makes and executes His laws. Law that has no penalty is of no force."The plea may be made that a loving Father would not see His children suffering the punishment of God by fire while He had the power to relieve them. But God would, for the good of His subjects and for their safety, punish the transgressor. He can do infinite justice that man has no right to do before his fellow man. Noah would have displeased God to have drowned one of the scoffers and mockers that harassed him, but God drowned the vast world. Lot would have had no right to inflict punishment on his sons-in-law, but God would do it in strict justice.

"Who will say God will NOT do what He says He will do?" 12 MR 207-209; 10 MR 265

[John317]

Jesus Christ is the revelation of God, the light of His glory, His express image. Not Abraham.

The point is that it was Christ who called to Abraham to kill his only son. I don't believe that the evidence supports the idea that Christ would have asked Abraham to do something that was contrary to God's very nature or character. This is the whole question of this thread: does God ever use force or kill? There is no doubt that He has and that He will do so again in the future. As the Creator of the universe and of all life, he certainly has the right to. See Gen 6: 6,7; Romans 9: 14-23.

Also:

"God's love is represented in our day as being of such a character as would forbid His destroying the sinner. Men reason from their own low standard of right and justice.... They measure God by themselves. They reason as to how they would act under the circumstances and decide God would do as they imagine they would do...

"In no kingdom or govenment is it left to lawbreakers to say what punishment is to be executed against those who hae broken the law... God is a moral govenor as well as a Father. He is the lawgiver. He makes and executes His laws. Law that has no penalty is of no force.

"The plea may be made that a loving Father would not see His children suffering the punishment of God by fire while He had the power to relieve them. But God would, for the good of His subjects and for their safety, punish the transgressor. He can do infinite justice that man has no right to do before his fellow man. Noah would have displeased God to have drowned one of the scoffers and mockers that harassed him, but God drowned the vast world. Lot would have had no right to inflict punishment on his sons-in-law, but God would do it in strict justice.

"Who will say God will NOT do what He says He will do?" 12 MR 207-209; 10 MR 265

NOTE: Observe Ellen White's statement contrasting Noah's drowning people vs. God's drowning of people. This construction makes impossible the interpretation that she is referring to drowning that God merely allowed Satan or someone else to do. If she is saying this, she would be saying Noah would have displeased God by allowing anyone to be drowned, yet this meaning would make no sense. Ellen White is obviously talking about both Noah and God directly causing someone to be drowned. That is the only possible meaning within the context of the statement, "God drowned the vast world."

The same principle applies to her statement about Lot. "Lot would have no right to inflict punishment on his sons-in-law," yet God would have the right and did do it. The sons-in-law perished in the destruction of Sodom. Gen. 19: 14-16.

[John317]

We can also be sure she didn't have all truth. We would be foolish to think we have it all today.

While it's true she didn't have all truth-- which, of course, no one has ever had, anyway-- she didn't write any messages for God which contained false doctrines.

She was still learning at the time of her death, it's true, yet she wasn't finding out that she had been wrong in her visions or earlier writings.

I agree that it would certainly be false to think we have all the truth today. But again, we can be absolutely certain that the new truths we learn in the future will not teach us that the Sabbath has been changed, that the Investigative Judgment is false, that Christ isn't returning like He promised, or that the dead are conscious in heaven. In other words, God won't ever inspire the church to make fundamental changes in its foundational pillars.