"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[John317]

I agree.

But let's also read v. 15: "But my mercy shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I removed from before you."

God took his mercy from Saul and removed him and replaced him with David. Notice that God does not attribute the removal, or death, of Saul to either Saul himself or to any other man.

God wanted Saul to be saved, and God did love him, but once Saul rejected God, God chose, or willed, to have him "removed."

By what means was this "removal" by God accomplished?

Both explanations in 1 Sam 31: 4,5 and 1 Chron. 10: 13, 14 are right, depending on the perspective. If we see it from the viewpoint of human history, Saul died in battle after the Philistine archers wounded him and then he took his own life. But 1 Chronicles gives us the "inspired view," pulling back the curtains, as it were, and letting us see God's activity behind the historical events. So it's not a matter of "either/or" but of the fact that they both harmonize perfectly when ALL the Bible is taken into consideration.

Whether, then, we say God killed Saul or we say Saul killed himself with his own sword, the bottom line is that it was God who removed him from the throne, exactly as He told David.

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

Yes but self is not destroyed. It is restored in Christ.

"Subjection to the Word of God means the restoration to one's self." T.M.396.

"Subjection to God is restoration to one's self." D.A.466.

I agree with this, sky. The Fall perverted the self, and the gospel begins a restoration that will be completed at the second coming. God created us with a self, yet a healthy, loving self that puts God at the center and in control instead of the self.

Webster's dictionary defines "self" as "1 the identity, character, etc. of any person or thing; 2 one's own person as distinct from all others; 3 one's own welfare or interest."

The American Heritage dictionary: "1. The total, essential, or particular being of a person; the individual. 2. The essential qualities distinguishing one person from another; individuality. 3. One's consciousness of one's own being or identity; the ego. 4. One's own interests, welfare, or advantage."

In themselves, there is nothing wrong with any of the above except those of #4. In heaven, we will have # 1, 2, 3, but not "one's own advantage" nor "one's own interest or welfare above that of others."

Synonymns of "self" are "oneself, one's being, inner nature."

As you say, these won't be destroyed or done away with but restored to the way God originally intended them to be.

Agreed. And that reminds me of the fact that Christianity has so much more to offer than, say, Buddhism! Buddhism teaches that once the soul reaches Nirvana, which is perfection, the individual consciousness is lost in the universal consciousness, whatever that is. So the individualy is destroyed! But Christ died that self might be restored to its original state, sinless and unselfish, meek and lowly.

sky

[teresaq]

I agree.

But let's also read v. 15: "But my mercy shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I removed from before you."

God took his mercy from Saul and removed him and replaced him with David. Notice that God does not attribute the removal, or death, of Saul to either Saul himself or to any other man.

God wanted Saul to be saved, and God did love him, but once Saul rejected God, God chose, or willed, to have him "removed."

By what means was this "removal" by God accomplished?

Both explanations in 1 Sam 31: 4,5 and 1 Chron. 10: 13, 14 are right, depending on the perspective. If we see it from the viewpoint of human history, Saul died in battle after the Philistine archers wounded him and then he took his own life. But 1 Chronicles gives us the "inspired view," pulling back the curtains, as it were, and letting us see God's activity behind the historical events. So it's not a matter of "either/or" but of the fact that they both harmonize perfectly when ALL the Bible is taken into consideration.

Whether, then, we say God killed Saul or we say Saul killed himself with his own sword, the bottom line is that it was God who removed him from the throne, exactly as He told David.

how exactly does this dispute the fact that God chastises with the "rod of men"?

nor is the subject saul. the subject is how God will chastise and even "kill"....

2Sa 7:14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:

nrsv:

2samuel 7:14 I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me. When he commits iniquity, I will punish him with a rod such as mortals use, with blows inflicted by human beings.

nasb:

2 Samuel 7:14 (A)I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; (B)when he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men and the strokes of the sons of men,

Psa 89:30 If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments; 31 If they break my statutes, and keep not my commandments; 32 Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes.

Psa 89:33 Nevertheless my lovingkindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail.

Psa 89:34 My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. 35 Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. 36 His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me. 37 It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven. Selah.

Psa 89:38 But thou hast cast off and abhorred, thou hast been wroth with thine anointed. 39 Thou hast made void the covenant of thy servant: thou hast profaned his crown by casting it to the ground. 40 Thou hast broken down all his hedges; thou hast brought his strong holds to ruin. 41 All that pass by the way spoil him: he is a reproach to his neighbours.

Psa 89:42 Thou hast set up the right hand of his adversaries; thou hast made all his enemies to rejoice. 43 Thou hast also turned the edge of his sword, and hast not made him to stand in the battle. 44 Thou hast made his glory to cease, and cast his throne down to the ground. 45 The days of his youth hast thou shortened: thou hast covered him with shame. Selah.

Psa 89:46 How long, LORD? wilt thou hide thyself for ever? shall thy wrath burn like fire?

Isa 10:3 And what will ye do in the day of visitation, and in the desolation which shall come from far? to whom will ye flee for help? and where will ye leave your glory?

Isa 10:4 Without me they shall bow down under the prisoners, and they shall fall under the slain. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.

Isa 10:5 O Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indignation.

Isa 10:6 I will send him against an hypocritical nation, and against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge, to take the spoil, and to take the prey, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets.

i think you are the only one discussing anything about a "throne", john. others of us were discussing how often the bible says God did something when He doesnt actually do it Himself.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

I agree.

But let's also read v. 15: "But my mercy shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I removed from before you."

God took his mercy from Saul and removed him and replaced him with David. Notice that God does not attribute the removal, or death, of Saul to either Saul himself or to any other man.

God wanted Saul to be saved, and God did love him, but once Saul rejected God, God chose, or willed, to have him "removed."

By what means was this "removal" by God accomplished?

Both explanations in 1 Sam 31: 4,5 and 1 Chron. 10: 13, 14 are right, depending on the perspective. If we see it from the viewpoint of human history, Saul died in battle after the Philistine archers wounded him and then he took his own life. But 1 Chronicles gives us the "inspired view," pulling back the curtains, as it were, and letting us see God's activity behind the historical events. So it's not a matter of "either/or" but of the fact that they both harmonize perfectly when ALL the Bible is taken into consideration.

Whether, then, we say God killed Saul or we say Saul killed himself with his own sword, the bottom line is that it was God who removed him from the throne, exactly as He told David.

Saul removed himself from the throne by killing himself. God is often presented as doing that which He permits, so He is presented as removing Saul, even though God's action was permissive, and not active. God did nothing Himself to remove Saul. He didn't try to have him killed.

This is actually the point here. God did not kill Saul, but is portrayed as having killed Saul. God did not send fiery serpents upon the Israelites, but is portrayed as doing such. God does not send strong delusion upon those who reject the truth, but He is portrayed as such. God did not destroy Jerusalem in A.D. 70, but He is portrayed as such.

There are many examples of this principle. Of note is that this principle applies in a number of cases where there is no Biblical explanation that this is what's going on, such as sending strong delusion, sending fiery serpents, and destroying Jerusalem.

David acted according to God's will by *not* killing Saul, the Lord's anointed. If God had wanted Saul dead, He could have had David do it.

Compelling power is found only under the government of Satan. The Lord's principles are not of this order.

[teresaq]

it is really sad, isnt it? all saul had to do was repent...

and that is the ultimate lesson for us all. all we have to do is repent otherwise,

We are not to regard God as waiting to punish the sinner for his sin. The sinner brings punishment upon himself. His own actions start a train of circumstances that bring the sure result. Every act of transgression reacts upon the sinner, works in him a change of character, and makes it more easy for him to transgress again. By choosing to sin, men separate themselves from God, cut themselves off from the channel of blessing, and the sure result is ruin and death. {FLB 84.7}

and that is exactly what happened to saul and so many of us.

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

He didn't have any indwelt sin.

Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he (God) condemned sin in the flesh

He condemned sin in the flesh by not sinning. He didn't have any sin in his flesh. He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh.

2Co 5:21 For he has made him, who knew no sin, to be sin for us; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: John317

Where are you getting your view that Jesus assumes the blame for homosexuality or bestiality or all the other sins humans commit? Can you quote a clear verse in Scripture?

The following includes all sins:

Jeremiah 18:6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done? says the LORD. Behold, like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. 7 If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, 8 and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will repent of the evil that I intended to do to it.

Genesis 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagining of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the LORD repented that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him in His heart. 7 And the LORD said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, and the creeping thing and the fowls of the air, for I repent that I have made them."

Repenting for the evil He intended to do to Israel, is a far cry from saying "I assume the blame for all sin". And saying he was sorry He ever made man, is in no way accepting the blame for what they did. You won't find a text that says God assumes the blame for all sin, because He doesn't. Plain and simple.

[John317]

Self-renunciation is the great law of self-preservation, and self-preservation is the law of self-destruction. {ST, July 1, 1897 par. 13}

Self-love, self-interest, must perish. And the law of self-sacrifice is the law of self-preservation. {DA 623.5}

The Bible shows that all of God's acts are ultimately done for the main purpose of preserving and protecting His kingdom and government, or rulership, in the universe. He does all things for the praise and glory of His name, or reputation. What name? "Yahweh, Yahweh, a God of compassion and favour,-- slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness and faithfulness: keeping lovingkindness to a thousand generations, forgivng iniquity and transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers upon the children and the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations." Ex. 34: 6, 7; cf Ex. 20: 5,6.

We want God always to preserve His name, or reputation, and kingdom, don't we? Without it, the universe would disintegrate and consequently everyone in it would die. The death of Christ proved once for all that God would pay any price to assure the survival and prosperity of His kingdom for the eternal welfare of all the righteous even though it meant giving up for ever His beloved Son.

The preservation and protection of the universe is far more important than the life of any one single individual in it. That is why God's love means that anyone who would destroy the universe must himself be destroyed. Apparently Satan didn't fully grasp this. He thought that God was so loving of His creatures that God wouldn't be able to give them up, or destroy any of them. But one thing that is demonstrated clearly in the great controversy, and particularly in the Investigative Judgment, is that God will not put the life of any individual above the safety and presevation of His universe. If God did otherwise, He would be neither wise nor loving.

Thoughts, anyone?

[pnattmbtc]

Re: #335293

Quote:

I restored that which I took not away. (Psalm 69:4)

[Robert]

What's the source of the quotes?

Ellen White

[pnattmbtc]

Teresa got it.

[John317]

Agreed. And that reminds me of the fact that Christianity has so much more to offer than, say, Buddhism! Buddhism teaches that once the soul reaches Nirvana, which is perfection, the individual consciousness is lost in the universal consciousness, whatever that is. So the individualy is destroyed! But Christ died that self might be restored to its original state, sinless and unselfish, meek and lowly.

sky

Amen, sky. I was thinking of those very same things. You've expressed them well. It's an extremely important distinction. I got caught up in Buddhism for a while before I became SDA. It's deceptively attactive. But its goal is the death of the individual consciousness. By contrast, the goal of Christianity is life and an individual consciousness in service to God and others.

[Robert]

Yes but self is not destroyed.

Agape, by definition, is a love that has no self in it. That doesn't mean that there's no self-conscientiousness, it means that everything YOU do is NEVER for yourself. The minute you do something for yourself that moment you are bent-to-self. EGW gives some examples:

You will have that love which seeks not her own, but another's wealth. [DA 439]

There's no self-seeking in agape. The reason I have things is because I love myself, went to college, got a decent job and made money.

That's not agape....That's iniquity. Now if I went to college to learn a skill so that I could totally live for others, then that's agape. But the best of us still have "self-seeking" in the mix. Hence, "there's none righteous, no, not even one."

EGW agrees:

We may have flattered ourselves, as did Nicodemus, that our life has been upright, that our moral character is correct, and think that we need not humble the heart before God, like the common sinner: but when the light from Christ shines into our souls, we shall see how impure we are; we shall discern the selfishness of motive, the enmity against God, that has defiled every act of life. [sC 28]

What does she mean by selfishness of motive? It's helping the little of lady across the street so she'll remember you in her will or so the church members will think highly of you. All egocentric motives.

Now let me give you a Bible verse:

1 Cor 13:3 If I give all I possess to the poor ..., but have not love [agape], I gain nothing

There are a lot of folks who do seemingly good things, but without a very mature relationship with Christ, all the good things they do is "to be seen of men". That means the deed, in of itself seems good, but the motive is self-centered. Hence the act is defiled.

Madonna, for example, has given many free concerts for various causes. The question is does she do it for selfless motives? Well, she doesn't claim Christianity and without Christ it's impossible to produce agape. So even though the deed, a free concert, is admirable she's using it to advance herself in someway. That's iniquity.

[Robert]

This is totally contrary to our world, and intuition.

And Jack Sequeira tells us why:

Using man as his tool, Satan has developed a kingdom (the Bible refers to it as “the kingdom of this world”) that is based entirely on the principle of self and which is in complete opposition and contradiction to the “kingdom of heaven.” Everything, therefore, that goes to make up this worldly system (kosmos) — nationalism, tribalism, politics, education, commerce, recreation, sports, social clubs, technology, etc. — is founded upon the principle of love of self, even though at times this principle may not be obvious. According to 1 John 2:16, “all that is in the world” (i.e., without exception) is based or founded upon lust (i.e., love of self).

[Robert]

He condemned sin in the flesh by not sinning. He didn't have any sin in his flesh. He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh.

[Guest]

To assure us of His immutable counsel of peace, God gave His only-begotten Son to become one of the human family, forever to retain His human nature. {FLB 45}

God has adopted human nature in the person of His Son, and has carried the same into the highest heaven. . . . Heaven is enshrined in humanity, and humanity is enfolded in the bosom of Infinite Love. {FLB 45}

In taking our nature, the Saviour has bound Himself to humanity by a tie that is never to be broken. {DA 25}

[Robert]

Repenting for the evil He intended to do to Israel, is a far cry from saying "I assume the blame for all sin".

Wait, dude, God doesn't do evil, right? Why should He repent? It's back to God assumes the responsibility for all the evil because of our choices....

[Robert]

God has adopted human nature in the person of His Son, and has carried the same into the highest heaven. . . . Heaven is enshrined in humanity, and humanity is enfolded in the bosom of Infinite Love. {FLB 45}

This is talking about after Christ's resurrection....

Here's before:

MM 181:

He [Christ as God] took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature...."

LHU 345:

In Christ were united the divine and the human--the Creator and the creature. The nature of God, whose law had been transgressed, and the nature of Adam, the transgressor, meet in Jesus--the Son of God, and the Son of man.

[pnattmbtc]

This doesn't really address why self-preservation is self-destruction. It's basically saying that competition is bad. It's clear that competition is bad for someone, as for one to get ahead, another must be behind. But it's not intuitively obvious why this would be destructive for the one who gets ahead.

[Robert]

By His obedience to all the commandments of God, Christ wrought out a redemption for man. This was not done by going out of Himself to another, but by taking humanity into Himself. Thus Christ gave to humanity an existence out of Himself. To bring humanity into Christ, to bring the fallen race into oneness with divinity,is the work of redemption. [RH April 5, 1906]

[Robert]

It's basically saying that competition is bad. It's clear that competition is bad for someone, as for one to get ahead, another must be behind. But it's not intuitively obvious why this would be destructive for the one who gets ahead.

Competition is of the world. It's self-seeking. Sports, education, even our Capitalistic system is build on iniquity.

Jack: Everything, therefore, that goes to make up this worldly system (kosmos) — nationalism, tribalism, politics, education, commerce, recreation, sports, social clubs, technology, etc. — is founded upon the principle of love of self, even though at times this principle may not be obvious. According to 1 John 2:16, “all that is in the world” (i.e., without exception) is based or founded upon lust (i.e., love of self).

[Robert]

The death of Christ proved once for all that God would pay any price to assure the survival and prosperity of His kingdom for the eternal welfare of all the righteous even though it meant giving up for ever His beloved Son.

No, the death of Christ proved the agape of God. It shows that God loves us (sinners) more than Himself. Why? Because there's no "self" in God's agape. Christ was willing to die eternally so that we could have heaven in his place.

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

Agreed. And that reminds me of the fact that Christianity has so much more to offer than, say, Buddhism! Buddhism teaches that once the soul reaches Nirvana, which is perfection, the individual consciousness is lost in the universal consciousness, whatever that is. So the individualy is destroyed! But Christ died that self might be restored to its original state, sinless and unselfish, meek and lowly.

sky

Amen, sky. I was thinking of those very same things. You've expressed them well. It's an extremely important distinction. I got caught up in Buddhism for a while before I became SDA. It's deceptively attactive. But its goal is the death of the individual consciousness. By contrast, the goal of Christianity is life and an individual consciousness in service to God and others.

Exactly. I did get caught up in Buddhism too for a while before I began reading the Bible and, after a year of reading close to a hundred books from the Canadian Bible Society, I was providentially introduced to The Great Controversy and Desire of Ages, etc etc. Wow what a difference that made for me. As I was reading these books, the Bible became alive for me!

Yes, Christianity preserves the individual consciousness. Thank God! In the hereafter, we shall recognize our loved ones and we shall know them as we have known them here below.

sky

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: But let's also read v. 15: "But my mercy shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I removed from before you."

God took his mercy from Saul and removed him and replaced him with David. Notice that God does not attribute the removal, or death, of Saul to either Saul himself or to any other man.

God wanted Saul to be saved, and God did love him, but once Saul rejected God, God chose, or willed, to have him "removed."

By what means was this "removal" by God accomplished?

Both explanations in 1 Sam 31: 4,5 and 1 Chron. 10: 13, 14 are right, depending on the perspective. If we see it from the viewpoint of human history, Saul died in battle after the Philistine archers wounded him and then he took his own life. But 1 Chronicles gives us the "inspired view," pulling back the curtains, as it were, and letting us see God's activity behind the historical events. So it's not a matter of "either/or" but of the fact that they both harmonize perfectly when ALL the Bible is taken into consideration.

Whether, then, we say God killed Saul or we say Saul killed himself with his own sword, the bottom line is that it was God who removed him from the throne, exactly as He told David.

Quote:

teresaq (sda): how exactly does this dispute the fact that God chastises with the "rod of men"?

It doesn't dispute it at all, and I didn't imply that it does. You are wrong to think that this was my meaning.

My point is that God uses many means to punish and teach people the danger of sin and of separation from Himself. He often uses the rod of men, yes, certainly. But he has also used other means as well, such as the eternal fire that destroyed Sodom, and the destruction of the world by a flood, as examples to the ungodly and unrighteous. (2 Peter 2: 5-12; 3: 4-7; Jude 7, 11-19; Matt. 24: 50, 51; 25: 41, 46.)

God accomplishes His will without violating the free will and the individuality of people. He did this in the case of King Saul. God used the "rod of men"-- the battle and Saul's own sword-- to work out His will to remove Saul from before David. In this way, the inspired record is right when it states that God killed Saul.

The problem is when people conclude that "the rod of men" is the only way that God punishes sin and sinners.

I still don't see how "the rod of men" "let's God off the hook," as if God is less responsible for the pain and suffering of sinners if only God isn't the one with the rod in His hands.

Of course I don't believe God needs any "taking off the hook," because I believe He is just and merciful and loving in the punishment of sin and sinners.

To make the argument that God's removing of His mercy and of his use of "the rod of men" is better than His direct punishment is like saying a man is better if He removes his protection from a child and lets the wild dogs chew on the child's head for a while. Satan and evil people, or germs, etc., then become like God's attack dogs. God knows perfectly well what will happen when He removes His protection and mercy, and in fact, that is His purpose when He does remove His mercy and protection. He made the universe with certain laws which "naturally" result in suffering and death when His creatures rebel against Him and disobey those laws. He could have made the universe in such a way that His creatures could go on living forever in sin, but God wisely and lovingly chose not to do that. God was free to make the universe and humans any way He chose to. He chose to make it so that moral creatures perish apart from Him. I believe God is right in this.

Nor do I have any objection to Jesus and His righteous people "deciding every case according to the deeds done in the body" and then "meting out to the wicked the portion they MUST suffer, according to their works," and writing it "against their names in the book of death." EW 290, 291. Jesus has earned our trust in Him, and if the Father has enough trust in Him to judge righteously and fairly, I certainly can trust Him also.

"Those majestic trees which God caused to grow upon the earth, for the benefit of the inhabitants of the old world, and which they had used to form into idols, and to corrupt themselves with, God has reserved in the earth, in the shape of coal and oil to use as agencies in their final destruction. As he called forth the waters to the earth at the time of the flood, as weapons from his arsenal to accomplish the destruction of the antediluvian race, so at the end of the one thousand years he will call forth the fires in the earth as his weapons which he has reserved for the final destruction, not only of successive generations since the flood, but the antediluvian race who perished by the flood." 2 SG 83-85"Satan and his angels try to encourage the wicked multitude to action [in attacking the city of God after the Great White Throne Judgment]; but fire descends from Heaven, and unites with the fire in the earth, and aids in the general conflagration." 3 SG 87

Dictionary: Conflagration-- "a big, destructive fire."

Let's see if Ellen White taught that the fire that destroys the wicked and cleasnses the earth will be real fire:

"When the flood of waters was at its height upon the earth, it had the appearance of a boundless lake of water. When God finaly purifies the earth, it will appear like a boundless lake of fire... Although the whole earth, with the exception of that portion where the city rests, will be wrapped in a sea of liquid fire, yet the city is preserved, as was the ark, by a miracle of Almighty power." (This is followed by a quote of 2 Peter 3: 10.) 3 SG 85-86

NOTE: Based on this statement the fire that destroys the wicked will be just as real as the water that destroyed the antedeluvians. One had the appearance of a boundless lake of water, whereas the other will appear like a boundless lake of fire. The water was real water. The fire that destroys the wicked and purifies the earth will be just as real as fire that comes from coal, oil, etc, and just as real as the "eternal fire" that destroyed Sodom. (See 2 SG 83-85.)

"Fire comes down from God out of heaven. The earth is broken up. The weapons concealed in its depths are drawn forth. Decouring flames burst from every yawning chasm. The very rocks are on fire. The day has come that shall burn as an oven. The elements melt with fervent heat, the earth also, and the works that are therein burned up. Mal. 4: 1; 2 Peter 3: 10. The earth's surface seems one molton mass-- a vast seething lake of fire. It is the time of the judgment and perdition of ungodly men-- 'the day of the Lord's vengeance, and the year of recompense for the controversy of Zion' Is. 34: 8

"The wicked receive their recompense in the earth. Prov. 11: 31. They 'shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts.' Mal. 4: 1. Some are destroyed as in a moment, while others suffer many days. All are punished 'according to their deeds.'... In the cleasning 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 672, 673.

"The same fire from God that consumed the wicked purifies the whole earth. The broken, ragged mountians melted with fervent heat, the atmosphere also, and all the stubble was consumed." EW 54

"Satan and his angels suffered long [the result of the decision of Christ and the saints, as she says in EW 290, 291]. Satan bore not only the weight and PUNISHMENT of his own sins , but also the sins of the redemmed host, which had been placed upon him; and HE MUST ALSO SUFFER for the ruin of souls which he had caused. Then I saw that Satan and all the wicked host were consumed, AND THE JUSTICE OF GOD WAS SATISFIED; and all the angelic host, and all the redeemed saints, with a loud voice, said, 'Amen!'

"... I then looked and saw the fire which consumed the wicked, burning up the rubbish and purifying the earth." EW 294-295

"A few, yes, ONLY A FEW, OF THE VAST NUMBER WHO PEOPLE THE EARTH WILL BE SAVED UNTO ETERNAL LIFE, while the masses who have not perfect their souls in obeying the truth WILL BE APPOINTED to the second death. O Savior, save the purchase of Thy blood! is the cry of my anguished heart." 2 T 401-402

[John317]

Re: #335293

Quote:

I restored that which I took not away. (Psalm 69:4)

Here's that verse in context:

"Those who hate me without reason are more than the hairs of my head; my persecutors are strong, my foes are treacherous. How can I restore what I have not stolen?" REB

"There are more people who hate me for no reason than haris on my head. Those who want to destroy me are powerful. My enemies are liars. They make me pay back what I did not steal." New Century Version.

"My enemies and those who hate me for no reason outnumbeer the hairs of my own head. They hate me without cause. They seek to destroy me unless I restore what they say I stole from them." The Clear Word

"... I have to pay back what I didn't rob." William Beck

"...I am made to return things that I did not steal." New Life Version

"...My enemies tell lies against me; they are strong and want to kill me. They made me give back things I did not steal." TEV

Parts of this Psalm definitely have a secondary application to the experience of Christ. Some parts are not about Christ but about David. The very next verse after the one quoted above says, "O God, you know my foolishness, and my sins are not hid from you."

I have no question that Christ wasn't responsible for man's sin or for taking Paradise away from mankind. That was the fault of Adam and Eve when they chose to follow their human reasoning and their physical senses rather than the word of God. Neither the Father nor Christ are to blame for sin, and yet they will restore everything, even though they have no cause to do it except for their grace and mankind's desperate need.