"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

February 16, 2010

Quote:

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.

In fire you don't remain alive for many days....When you are engulfed in it you immediately die.

February 16, 2010

Neither the Father nor Christ are to blame for sin....

They didn't create sin, Lucifer did...but they allowed it to develop. Hence Deity assumes the blame. That's why you see statements like "I killed David", "I harden Pharaoh's heart", "I will send them strong delusion", "I will strike the Shepherd", etc.

February 16, 2010

Why does God say that He "was aroused against Israel and He [God] moved David . . . to . . . number Israel" when it was "Satan [who] stood up against Israel and moved David to number Israel"? Yes?

Why did God say that "He [God] killed him [saul]" when clearly "Saul took a sword and fell on it"?

Why did God say that "I will harden his heart" when again clearly "Pharoah hardened his [own] heart"?

Why did God say, "I...will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt" when clearly it was "the destroyer"?

Why did God say "I will strike the Shepherd [Jesus]" when clearly God had "forsaken" Him, i.e., He was not present.

Why does God say that He "sends... a powerful delusion" to those who reject the truth when clearly it is "lying wonders...and every kind of deception" from Satan through the man of sin?

Why does God state that He "maketh the dumb", "deaf" and " blind" when clearly His creation of mankind was "fearfully and wonderfully made" so that even David said, "Wonderful are your works"?

Why did God tell Satan that "you (Satan) incited Me [God] against him [Job] to destroy him without cause" when it was clearly Satan who caused all of Job's problems (see Job 1:12)?

February 16, 2010

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.

February 16, 2010

It should be noted that Robert has not said that God is responsible for sin, but that He accepts the responsibility for it. This is not the same thing. You can agree to pay the debt of another, even though it's not your debt. Again, isn't this what the atonement is about? Christ accepting a debt that wasn't His? Remember the parable of the 10,000 talents? The king accepted the debt of the servant. What does this represent?

February 16, 2010

My point is that God uses many means to punish and teach people the danger of sin and of separation from Himself.

There's only one method necessary, which is the truth. God allows the results of sin and of separation from Himself to be demonstrated. Anything other than this would be ineffective.

February 16, 2010

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.

February 16, 2010

Well done pnatt.

sky

February 16, 2010

Originally Posted By: John317

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,

What do you mean here? Sin is destructive. It's based on the principle of "me first," the inevitable result of which is suffering, misery and death.

i think the misunderstanding might be that we dont realize that sin is destructive and that partaking of the tree of life would have miraculously prevented natural consequences taking over. God removed access to the tree of life so that we could see the effects of sin, which ellen white and the pioneers understood very well as stated in their writings.

February 16, 2010

There is a statement that says that God removed access to the tree of life so that Adam and Eve would not become immortal sinners, just what Satan wanted.

sky

February 16, 2010

Originally Posted By: John317

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.

The universe wasn't arbitrarily made. It's not that God said, "How should I make the Universe? Oh, I know! I'll make it so that beings who sin suffer and die!" No! Sin is based on the principle of selfishness. That is its root. God could not have created the universe in such a way that living selfishly would lead to anything other than suffering, misery and death. This isn't something which God imposes as a punishment, but its a natural consequence, and its not a natural consequence that could be avoided by arbitrarily creating the universe in some other way, as if it were arbitrarily created in the first place.

Any universe God created would operate like this one, with sin resulting in suffering, misery and death.

again it seems that we do not comprehend what "sin", or selfishness, is.

if we are all for self it doesnt bother us to steal or kill to get what we want. and in the end we all steal and kill somehow. but if we are "deadened" we dont see that.

being out for self, without the restraint God imposes on us symbolized by the angels holding the winds, we would not be here. the world would not have made it to the 2000 years and the flood.

without the restraint of the angels there would have been killing to get what one wants til there was noone left.

February 16, 2010

There is a statement that says that God removed access to the tree of life so that Adam and Eve would not become immortal sinners, just what Satan wanted.

February 16, 2010

Quote:

pnattmbtc:

6.Regarding "my sins are not hid from you," Christ took our sins upon Him. As we take Christ's righteousness, and feel as if it were ours, even though it's 100% His, so Christ took our sin, and felt as if it were ours, even though it's 100% ours. A. T. Jones speaks of this concept in his 1895 sermons, around sermons 14, 15, 16. Here's an example from Psalm 40:

There is the Lord's application of the fortieth Psalm to Christ, and He said this when He came into the world. Let us read on, then, in the fortieth Psalm:

I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea thy law is within my heart. I have preached righteousness in the great congregation: lo, I have not refrained my lips, O Lord, thou knowest. I have not hid thy righteousness within my heart; I have declared thy faithfulness and thy salvation: I have not concealed thy lovingkindness and thy truth from the great congregation. Withhold not thou thy tender mercies from me, O Lord: let thy loving kindness and thy truth continually preserve me. For innumerable evils have compassed me about [Who? Christ.]; mine iniquities have taken hold upon me, so that I am not able to look up; they are more than the hairs of mine head: therefore my heart faileth me.

Who? Christ. Where did He get iniquity? Oh, "the Lord hath laid upon Him the iniquity of us all."

Were they not more than the hairs of His head? And when He would look at Himself and consider Himself, where would He appear in His own sight? Oh, "my heart faileth me," because of the enormity of the guilt and the condemnation of the sin--our sins that were laid upon Him.

But in His divine faith and trust in the Father, He continues:

Be pleased, O Lord, to deliver me: O Lord, make haste to help me. Let them be ashamed and confounded together that seek after my soul to destroy it; let them be driven backward and put to shame that wish me evil. Let them be desolate for a reward of their shame that say unto me, Aha, aha. [Didn't they say that to Him on the cross?] Let all those that seek thee rejoice and be glad in thee; let such as love thy salvation say continually, The Lord be magnified.

Who said so? He who was conscious of iniquities in such number that they were more than the hairs of His head. He who was so bowed down and so burdened with these--He was praising and rejoicing in the Lord!

Sure. All good there. Of course Jesus took our sins on himself. I have all of A.T. Jones' books and have been reading them for many years, along with E.J. Waggoner's.

I notice that A.T Jones reinterprets Ps. 69: 4 to signify that the enemies of the Psalmist are "iniguities" rather than people as they are in the Psalm.

My only point is that not every verse or line of those Psalms applies to Christ, nor do they all apply literally to Him. That would be doing with the Psalms what some do with Proverbs 8, which is to make the pre-incarne Christ have a beginning. They forget that the Proverbs is not ALL about Christ. If it was, it would mean Christ is a woman name Wisdom who lives with another woman named Prudence. So, as I said before, there are parts of the Psalms that definitely do apply to Christ but much of it that does not apply to Him. Christ himself applies the first part of Ps. 69: 4 to Himself in John 15: 25.

Ps. 69: 5 would have Christ saying that he's foolish, or committed folly. I suppose we could say that it carries the same meaning as the next line, which refers to his "wrongs," or sins. As A.T. Jones and numeerous others point out, when it's applied to Christ, it's speaking of the sins that Christ assumed and were imputed to Him.

Jesus prayed for those who nailed Him to the cross, but Ps, 69: 22-28 is a prayer to God that He will "pour out His indignation upon them," and "blot the wicked out of the book of the living," etc. These are true, except that Christ wasn't praying that these things happen to his enemies while hanging on the cross. He was praying for strength for Himself and for the salvation of his tormenters, not their destruction.

The context of Ps. 69: 4 is that David's enemies hated him for no reason and were demanding that he return stolen property when he knew that he hadn't stolen anything. Their demands were unreasonable and based only on their hatred of him. The TNIV translates it as, "I am forced to restore what I did not steal." Obviously this doesn't describe Christ's experience.

So, then, does the last part of verse 4 apply to Christ, "What I did not steal, then I have to restore"(NASB)?

I think the sufferings and feelings of David in most of Psalm 69 typify those that Christ would later experienced in the flesh, and this includes verse 4.

February 16, 2010

Thanks. Nice thoughts. Especially these:

Quote:

Self-preservation is the law of self-destruction. The law of self-sacrifice is the law of self-preservation.

This is totally contrary to our world, and intuition.

at some point it made me wonder if God would allow Himself to die rather than protect Himself....

would He allow Himself to die, which of course would mean the extinction of all life, (and if it is possible to kill Him) rather than protect Himself?

is that the point of Christs life, and these statements?

and oh how everything inside onesself fights that idea....the idea of death, not to mention the possibility of eternal extinction...

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}

February 16, 2010

Quote:

JOHN3:17: 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.

Quote:

ROBERT: In fire you don't remain alive for many days....When you are engulfed in it you immediately die.

So just because your human reasoning contradicts the Bible, and you don't like what it says, you believe you are warranted in throwing out all the verses of Scripture which plainly and clearly teach that the wicked will be destroyed in fire.

What do you do, then, with the following passages in the Spirit of prophecy, which are supported by the Bible--

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 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 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

February 16, 2010

ROBERT: In fire you don't remain alive for many days....When you are engulfed in it you immediately die.

John317:So just because your human reasoning contradicts the Bible, and you don't like what it says, you believe you are warranted in throwing out all the verses of Scripture which plainly and clearly teach that the wicked will be destroyed in fire.

February 16, 2010

Something to think about.

February 16, 2010

How does God hide Himself and His ways?

February 16, 2010

In order for this to be possible, God would have to be acting supernaturally to prevent people from dying. He would also have to prevent their nerve endings from being destroyed so they could continue to "suffer torture"

I couldn't love a god like that....No way....

February 17, 2010

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Robert is correct.

I find it interesting that you agree on this topic with someone who rejects Ellen White as a prophet of God and who therefore has no trouble rejecting everything she says that does not conform to his beliefs. I believe that we really need to conform out thinking to what Inspiration tells us and not try to make Inspiration conform to our opinions. That is what people do who say, "Yes I know it says the Sabbath is on Saturday, but...." Or: "Yes, I know it says that the dead do not know anything, but...." Or: "Yes, I know it says Jesus is our High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary, but...."

Quote:

pnattmbtc: When engulfed with fire, one dies. The resurrected wicked do not have glorified bodies, but bodies such as they had before they died, bodies which are subject to fire. How long would one last if engulfed in flames? A matter of seconds. This is just one of many reasons to reject this idea that people are going to be engulfed in flames to suffer for days. In order for this to be possible, God would have to be acting supernaturally to prevent people from dying. He would also have to prevent their nerve endings from being destroyed so they could continue to "suffer torture" (GC 635).

The answer to your puzzlement is found on pages 290-291 and 52-53 of Early Writings. That passage says clearly that during the 1000 years, "Christ, in union with His people, judged the wicked dead, comparing their acts with the statute book, the Word of God, and deciding every case according to the deeds done in the body. Then they meted out to the wicked the portion which they must suffer, according to their works; and it was written against their names in the book of death. Satan also and his angels were judged by Jesus and the saints. Satan's punishment was to be far greater than that of those whom he had deceived. His suffering would so far exceed theirs as to bear no comparison with it. After all those whom he had deceived had perished, Satan was still to live and suffer on MUCH LONGER."

Remember, the angel of God said these very words to Ellen White. See EW 52, 53.

I think I'm seeing more and more clearly where this is coming from. It seems clear to me that it ultimately leads to a denial of what the Spirit of prophecy says.

So how are Ellen White's word's quoted above the answer to your question?--- "How long would one last if engulfed in flames? A matter of seconds. This is just one of many reasons to reject this idea that people are going to be engulfed in flames to suffer for days. In order for this to be possible, God would have to be acting supernaturally to prevent people from dying."

The answer is (1) the suffering they MUST go through is not arbitrary but is decided by Christ and the saints, and this "portion that is meted out to the wicked" is according to their works; and (2) the wicked undergo punishment against sin and sinners that "visits the full penalty of the law" and "meets the demands of justice" (GC 673).

That is a part of the destruction of the wicked that you apparently are missing or ignoring-- at least so far as I can see.

Notice how often the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy speak of the destruction of the wicked as "punishment," "vengeance," "recompense," etc. That is a very important but unpleasant and neglected and often rejected part of the the destruction of the wicked. But I'm somewhat surprised to see that Seventh-day Adventists are also joining those who reject the plain language of Scripture and of the Spirit of prophecy in regard the destiny of the wicked, which is what I believe you are doing here.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: What an awful picture this portrays of our heavenly Father!

Do you mean the picture in GC 672, 673? (I noticed above that you cited page 635 of GC but I'm sure this is a typo.)

If so-- if you say Ellen White's portrayal of God is awful-- I don't agree. Both the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy say that after the destruction of the wicked, the whole universe will praise God and declare that God's judgments are just and merciful. ".... and [after the destruction of the wicked] heaven and earth, beholding, declare the righteousness of Jehovah;" and "a shout of praise and triumph ascends from the whole loyal universe... 'Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.'" (GC 673)

Why? Why do they praise God? Is it because they liked seeing the suffering and did not love the wicked? No. Then why?

It is because the entire universe is now eternally secure against sin, suffering, and death, and God has proven for all eternity that His ways are just and right. Never will sin arise a second time.

Quote:

I don't see how one how knows God could possibly think that this is what the Scriptures teach. How much easier to set such thoughts aside, with the conviction that such ideas cannot be in harmony with anything the Holy Spirit would be inspiring, hence must be based on a false, personal misunderstanding.

This is interesting but very sad, I think. You appear to be saying that the Holy Spirit did not inspire Ellen White to write the main descriptions she gives us of the destruction of Satan and of his wicked followers. If God did not inspire her to write it, such as EW 52, 53 and GC 673, then who do you think inspired her?

You are now talking about what you want to believe rather than what special revelation tells us. If you mean that Ellen White's writings on this matter are "a false, personal misunderstanding," how can you account for the fact that the prophet wrote the same thing many times over ahout 30 years, on the basis of many visions?

I'll ask you the same question. What are the following quotes saying? Not what do they mean to you subjectively, but what do Ellen White's actual words say?

Robert dismisses them because he doesn't believe in Ellen White. He believes in a regular man more than in God's prophet. So I can see why he has no trouble simply dismissing the following quotes. But you believe she was inspired, don't you?

What do you do, then, with the following passages in the Spirit of prophecy, which are supported by the Scriptures? Please reply to specific quoetes and the language she uses. I see nothing symbolic in her words. If you believe you do, please point it out.