"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[Robert]

Oh yeah, one more thing - quote the other EGW's quotes:

Do not think that, because we have a glimmer of the light of God, that we have it all.--Ms. 3, 1889, pp. 1-3. (Morning Talk at Ottawa, Kansas, May 14, 1889.)

The question has been asked me, "Do you think that the Lord has any more light for us as a people?" I answer that He has light that is new to us, and yet it is precious old light that is to shine forth from the Word of truth [the Bible]. We have only the glimmerings of the rays of the light that is yet to come to us. [1SM 401]

We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible. Those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed. [CW 37]

“A spirit of pharisaism has been coming in upon the people who claim to believe the truth for these last days. They are self-satisfied. They have said, ‘We have the truth. There is no more light for the people of God.’ But we are not safe when we take a position that we will not accept anything else than that upon which we have settled as truth. We should take the Bible, and investigate it closely for ourselves. We should dig in the mine of God's word for truth. ‘Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart.’ Some have asked me if I thought there was any more light for the people of God. Our minds have become so narrow that we do not seem to understand that the Lord has a mighty work to do for us. Increasing light is to shine upon us; for ‘the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day.’ --Review and Herald, June 18, 1889. CW 34, 35

[John317]

Quote:

skyblue888: Something to think about.

Sky, I'd really like to know what you think of post ##335985.

Do you agree with Robert's assessments in the last few posts, that Ellen White's statements in GC 673 amount to sadism?

And do you agree with Pnatt where he said in regard to GC 673 that it "presents an awful picture of God" and that "such ideas cannot be in harmony with anything the Holy Spirit would be inspiring, hence must be based on a false, personal misunderstanding"?

Quote:

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

.... 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.

Pnatt's last paragraph can be taken in two different ways: He could be saying it would be far easier to set Ellen White's thoughts or views aside; or he could be telling me that it would be far easier for me to set aside my thoughts about what Ellen White is saying on GC 673 since the Holy Spirit wouldn't inspire such thoughts, and therefore my view must be based on a false, personal misunderstanding.

Let's assume that pnattmbtc is telling me to set aside my thoughts about Ellen White description on GC 673. OK, but how do I explain that? Do I say that I am setting my thoughts aside because I'm totally misunderstanding Ellen White's words? Or do I say that Ellen White must be wrong?

And given the fact that Ellen White wrote about Jesus and the saints deciding on the portion that the wicked must suffer, in accordance with their works-- how are we to understand that? Is that a statement to be taken literally or is it metaphorical?

[John317]

Sure, I'm well aware of those quotes. But she is not talking about things that God showed her in vision.

We need to compare all her statements together, and when we do that, we see that she is saying (1) that God has much more knowledge and light for us; light to be gathered from the revelations that God already gave us in the Bible and in the SOP. Notice she refers to it as "old light" that God has already inspired. (2) She is talking about "cherished views" and opinions" that we must be willing to give up.

I completely agree with the following statement by Ellen White:

Quote:

“A spirit of pharisaism has been coming in upon the people who claim to believe the truth for these last days. They are self-satisfied. They have said, ‘We have the truth. There is no more light for the people of God.’ But we are not safe when we take a position that we will not accept anything else than that upon which we have settled as truth. We should take the Bible, and investigate it closely for ourselves. We should dig in the mine of God's word for truth. ‘Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart.’ Some have asked me if I thought there was any more light for the people of God. Our minds have become so narrow that we do not seem to understand that the Lord has a mighty work to do for us. Increasing light is to shine upon us; for ‘the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day.’ --Review and Herald, June 18, 1889. CW 34, 35

We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible. Those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed. [CW 37]

Notice that since she wrote above, the church has changed from being basically Arian or anti-Trinitarian in its views to being Trinitarian.

Also notice that since she wrote it, the church has changed its view on Armageddon, going from adopting Uriah Smith's view to adopting the view revealed in the Spirit of prophecy, but only after a long and instense study of the Bible.

There are many other ways in which the church has shown its ability to change its doctrines when it sees that it's in error. But that "error" must be shown from Scripture and from the Spirit of prophecy. If there is seen a clear contradiction between the Bible and Ellen White, then of course we must reject Ellen White and accept the Bible's view. But up to now I have never seen where that has occurred, though I realize others have.

One other thing we should notice here is that Ellen White wrote many warnings to us about the fact that just before the close of probation, there would be movements to destroy faith in the Spirit of prophecy. She never intended that we ignore her writings or reject them.

Yes, as a people, we certainly do "have the truth," or at least have access to more truth than any other people have been exposed to on this earth. But having said that, we must realize that we are held to a higher account for that very truth and for the reponsibility of living up to it.

Of course, too, we should lay aside all feelings that we have "all the truth" and that God has no more truth for us to discover in His word under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. At the same time, we know that while God will give us greater light on the truth, the fundamental truths or doctrines will not change. For instance, we will no doubt receive added light on the meaning of the Sabbath, and on how to communicate it better, but we can be sure that God will not reveal that the Sabbath has been abolished. The same principle applies to the Second Coming, the non-immortality of the wicked, the Investigative Judgment, Righteousness by Faith, the relationship between the law and the gospel, etc. The fundamentals of these doctrines are established, but God will reveal more and more about them, in order to improve our understanding, appreciation, and communication of them. She says God has "increasing light for us," but she does not say that God will have "different light for us." She wrote over and over again about the necessity of not moving the foundational pillars of our faith. Some of those are exactly what some people today are trying to move. I'm not surprised. We can be sure we will see more of such attempts as time goes by.

[pnattmbtc]

pnattmbtc: Robert is correct.

J: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.

[skyblue888]

"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." E.W.290,291.

John, there was a time when, before I was aware of such statements as "God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression," or "I was shown that the judgments of God would not come directly out from the Lord upon them but in this way--they place themselves beyond His protection," and many others, that, like you, I would read this statement from E.G.290,291, and imagine God and the saints deciding the fate of the wicked, how much suffering to inflict upon each one of them to make sure that each one pays for his evil deeds, very much according to the ways of an earthly tribunal, that is, according to the thoughts and ways of sinful man.

John, in those days, I was thinking as a man, as a man who was unmindful of the Scriptures which declare that "My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways, says the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:8,9.

We don't even begin to understand this divine utterance and that is why it is so difficult for us to correctly understand a statement the like of which you quoted from E.W.290,291.

That statement and many similar ones must be read with Isaiah 55:8,9. God's thoughts and ways are so not like ours that they cannot even begin to bear any comparison. So the language of E.W.290,281 must be read with that in mind.

I know this much and that is that according to Isaiah 55:8,9 what will be done during the 1,000 years, (as far as God and the saints "deciding" the punishment that is to fall upon the wicked), we can expect that it will be absolutely and totally contrary to the thoughts and ways of sinful men and their ideas as to how justice is to be done. One thing we may be sure of is that after it is all said and done, all will have seen and marveled that indeed God's thoughts and ways are definitely not the thoughts and ways of sinful men. We must not read that statement from E.G.290,291 and think in terms of the way earthly tribunals decide what punishment to inflict upon law-breakers or criminals. Otherwise, we would make the Scriptures which say that God's thoughts and ways are so far from our thoughts and ways, of none effect. God's thoughts and ways of making sure justice will be done are so different than the thoughts and ways of sinful men that they bear no comparison whatsoever.

So we will have to wait and see.

sky

[pnattmbtc]

Sky, I'd really like to know what you think of post ##335985.

And do you agree with Pnatt where he said in regard to GC 673 that it "presents an awful picture of God" and that "such ideas cannot be in harmony with anything the Holy Spirit would be inspiring, hence must be based on a false, personal misunderstanding"?

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: John317

pnattmbtc: Robert is correct.

J: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.

This isn't interesting. Your position agrees with many who reject Ellen White as a prophet too. This is completely irrelevant.

Quote:

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.

I agree! We should do this.

Quote:

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...."

Yes, and people who say, "Compelling power is only found in Satan's government, 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.

No it's not. This doesn't cover the issue raised at all, which is that when one is engulfed with fire, one dies in a matter of seconds.

Quote:

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.

It's a denial of your understanding of the SOP is all. Your understanding of the SOP would have God causing people to "suffer torture" (GC 635) in order to punish them for their sins. I believe in proportional suffering for those who have sinned more, but not because God arbitrarily does something to them to cause them to "suffer torture," but because the more one has sinned, the more sin there is to reveal, so, assuming that the revelation of sin causes one to suffer, the more sin, the more suffering. Light also comes into play here. The more light one has had, the more one will suffer too. This isn't because God burns these people longer, but because the stronger the light one has rejected, the more painful the revelation of that fact.

What seems clear to me is that you see no organic cause and effect between sin and suffering or death. You see this as something imposed upon angels and people by God and God's followers, something arbitrary. If one simply accepts the following principle:

Quote:

So long as sin exists, suffering and death are inevitable. (PP 522)

the rest follows.

As long as one doesn't recognize this organic relationship, it's inevitable that wrong conceptions of God's character will follow, which will be manifest in ones understanding of other subjects, including the judgment and the atonement. My only question is which is the chicken and which is the egg here. It is misconceptions of God's character which causes one to be blind to the organic relationship of sin and misery/suffering/death, or is it not recognizing the organic relationship that exists which leads to the misconceptions of God's character?

Quote:

It is Satan's constant effort to misrepresent the character of God, the nature of sin, and the real issues at stake in the great controversy.{GC88 568.4}

These all go together. Getting one of these wrong leads to getting the others wrong.

Quote:

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.

No, this isn't what's being done. The problem is that you interpret "punishment," "vengeance," "recompense," etc. as not involving any organic relationship to sin, but as imposed, or arbitrary (per Webster's primary definition) actions. So when another disagrees with you that these actions are arbitrarily imposed, as opposed to the result of an organic relationship to sin, you take this as a rejection of the SOP. But one is not constrained to interpret these concepts as you are. For example, DA 764 seems to be clearly interpreting things diametrically opposed to what you are suggesting.

Quote:

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

J:Do you mean the picture in GC 672, 673?

No, I mean the picture of God you have been portraying. There's something wrong with your paradigm, your sense of what's right, your picture of God; I don't know what the cause is, but the part which rejects an interpretation because it can't be right (maybe your ideas where you seem to view common sense and reason as being bad things) is turned off. It's not reasonable, for one who believes that God is anything like Jesus Christ, to suppose that God will cause people to "suffer torture" by setting them on fire for days in order to punish them. *Simply the ability to allow this as a possible interpretation points to a deeper problem.* I don't believe it's a problem that can be solved simply by citing quotes.

I've seen Calvinists with the same problem. (I actually used to think this way myself -- i.e. as Calvinists do). There are certain texts which seem to indicate that God will predestine some to be lost and some to be saved. You can talk until you're blue in the face, explaining that it wouldn't be just for God to create individuals and predestine them to hell (meaning there's no chance they'll be saved), and they'll quote Scriptures to you to support their position. But the fact that they are willing to believe that God would do such a thing points to a deeper problem. The fact that they believe God could possibly do such a thing means they don't know God's character.

Quote:

(I noticed above that you cited page 635 of GC but I'm sure this is a typo.)

No, the cite ("suffer torture") was correct. It's in paragraph 1.

Quote:

If so-- if you say Ellen White's portrayal of God is awful-- I don't agree.

I say her presentation of God is wonderful. I'm saying yours is awful.

Quote:

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?

The following brings out why:

Quote:

He (God) takes no pleasure in a slavish obedience. He desires that the creatures of His hands shall love Him because He is worthy of love. He would have them obey Him because they have an intelligent appreciation of His wisdom, justice, and benevolence. And all who have a just conception of these qualities will love Him because they are drawn toward Him in admiration of His attributes. {GC 541.3}

Quote:

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.

This is part of it, but not the most important part. It's not simply that His ways are just and right, but He is just and right, and, above all, love. It will be seen that He never acted contrary to the principles of His government, principles of agape. It will be seen that compelling power is only found under the government of Satan.

I never have understood how you can think this isn't a universal principle (that compelling power is only found under Satan's government.) How could she have worded this in such a way that you would have seen it as such? Or is that not possible? (i.e., you would never accept this principle, no matter how worded, because it disagrees with ideas you have based on your interpretation of other passages).

Well done!

God be praised!

sky

[pnattmbtc]

Let's assume that pnattmbtc is telling me to set aside my thoughts about Ellen White description on GC 673. OK, but how do I explain that? Do I say that I am setting my thoughts aside because I'm totally misunderstanding Ellen White's words?

[Guest]

Except that isn't what mete out means.

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: John317

Let's assume that pnattmbtc is telling me to set aside my thoughts about Ellen White description on GC 673. OK, but how do I explain that? Do I say that I am setting my thoughts aside because I'm totally misunderstanding Ellen White's words?

Yes. You must be misunderstanding her words because of the picture of God you wind up with. It's a simple case of contrapositive logic.

Quote:

Or do I say that Ellen White must be wrong?

No.

Quote:

And given the fact that Ellen White wrote about Jesus and the saints deciding on the portion that the wicked must suffer, in accordance with their works-- how are we to understand that? Is that a statement to be taken literally or is it metaphorical?

I addressed this when you first brought this up. You're misidentifying the cause and effect relationships here because you see no organic relationship between sin and suffering/death. Assuming there is an organic relationship, then it must follow that the work of the saints is not the cause, but the sin of those who have rejected God is the cause. Iow, the saints are shown what will happen. Their "meting out punishment" is agreeing that what will happen is just.

"The saints are shown what will happen. Their 'meting out punishment' is agreeing that what will happen is just."

Exactly! That is exactly what I have been thinking as well and it is in harmony with the principles of God's dealing with sin as revealed in the Bible and The SoP and more according to Isaiah 55:8,9.

sky

[pnattmbtc]

Definition of "mete" by Webster's 1913 dictionary:

Quote:

n. 1. Meat.

v. t. & i. 1. To meet.

v. i. & t. 1. To dream; also impersonally; as, me mette, I dreamed.

[imp. Mette ; p. p. Met.]

v. t. 1. To find the quantity, dimensions, or capacity of, by any rule or standard; to measure.

[imp. & p. p. Meted; p. pr. & vb. n. Meting.]

v. i. 1. To measure.

n. 1. Measure; limit; boundary; - used chiefly in the plural, and in the phrase metes and bounds.

"Mete," in the context of meting out punishment, has to do with measuring. This fits whether the punishment is arbitrary or organic.

[skyblue888]

Right on.

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: (I noticed above that you cited page 635 of GC but I'm sure this is a typo.)

Quote:

PNATTMBTC: No, the cite ("suffer torture") was correct. It's in paragraph 1.

Afraid not. :-)

Are you using a regular edition of GC? As far as I know all the pagination is the same in all editions published by the church.

Even after I told you that I don't see "suffer torture" in GC 635, it looks like you didn't even take the time to make sure of your information before assuring me that you gave the correct page. Anyone can make a mistake and print a typo-- that's no big thing--but why would you not even check to see after someone tells you that you made a misake?

Here's the first paragraph of GC 635, under the chapter title, "God's People Delivered":

"When the protection of human laws shall be withdrawn from those who honor the law of God, there will be, in different lands, a simultaneous movement for their destruction. As the time appointed in the decree draws near, the people will conspire to root out the hated sect. It will be determined to strike in one night a decisive blow, which shall utterly silence the voice of dissent and reproof."

I don't see the words "suffer torture" in the next paragraph on p. 635, either.

[Guest]

1.If God created Lucifer with the certainty he would sin, God would be responsible.

2.As things really are, God is in no wise responsible for sin. It's a mystery, whose existence cannot be explained (which would also not be true if God created a being certain to sin).

3.God is gracious, and accepts the blame for that which he has not done. This is the meaning of Psalm 69. Christ restored that which He did not steal. This means it's not His fault, but He accepts the responsibility for it.

One of the problems with your theology is that your god neccessarily has to be so small. There are many mysteries that cannot be explained. That does not mean they are a mystery to God. Your paradigm requires that you actually believe that there are things that God does not understand about his own creation. That is not what Ellen White was saying when she said sin is a mystery. It's a mystery to us, not God.

(I call him your god because you have made him in your mind, to be exactly what you want him to be. And whenever a new scenario pops up, you have to tweak him a little bit, and make him into something slightly different. This kind of god is based on human understanding rather than scripture.)

[Guest]

Quote:

"Mete," in the context of meting out punishment, has to do with measuring. This fits whether the punishment is arbitrary or organic.

Yes, it mean to measure out. The definition of "mete" in any dictionary, says nothing about "agreeing to something that has already been measured". Which is exactly what you are peddling.

[pnattmbtc]

PNATTMBTC: No, the cite ("suffer torture") was correct. It's in paragraph 1.

Afraid not. :-)

[pnattmbtc]

p:"Mete," in the context of meting out punishment, has to do with measuring. This fits whether the punishment is arbitrary or organic.

R:Yes, it mean to measure out. The definition of "mete" in any dictionary, says nothing about "agreeing to something that has already been measured".

This follows automatically if the punishment is organic as opposed to arbitrary.

[John317]

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Definition of "mete" by Webster's 1913 dictionary:

v. i. 1. To measure.

n. 1. Measure; limit; boundary; - used chiefly in the plural, and in the phrase metes and bounds.

"Mete," in the context of meting out punishment, has to do with measuring.

The Webster's New World Dictionary defines "mete" as "allot, distribute," "usually as "mete out."

The American Heritage Dictionary says, "Mete 1. To distribute by or as if by measure; allot: mete out punishment."

So the above definiton as "to allot or distribute as if by measure," completely agrees with SOP and Jesus' own words, that He will reward the wicked "in accordance with what they have done in the body."

The definiton of "mete" as "A boundry line; a limit; metes and bounds" has nothing to do with the way the angel of God used it in EW 52, 53. The angel is not referring to boundry lines.

Compare the angel's words as quoted by Ellen White. "'Behold ye,' said the angel, 'the saints in unison with Jesus, sit in judgment, and mete out [or "measure out" or "allot"] to the wicked according to the deeds done in the body, and that which they MUST receive at the execution of the judgment is set off against their names.'"

God, then, is clearly in charge of the death of the wicked. The wicked are not killed in some coincidental way or slain by other wicked people. That would be indeed arbitrary, wouldn't it? They suffer according to their sins. This would explain why some die almost immediately and others suffer on much longer. Christ allots or distributes the portion of the punishment to them according to their deeds, just as Christ says in Rev. 22: 15.

Therefore the punishment of the wicked is not arbitrary. "Arbitrary" would be if they were to die according to the way the other wicked arbitrarily choose to kill them.

But they don't die at the hands of the wicked. They die at the hands of great Creater God and Christ the Savior, who love them, in accordance with strict justice. Ellen White calls God judgment against sin "strict justice" (12 MR 209) and says it is done "in mercy" to the whole universe as well as to the wicked themselves (GC 541-543). Their punishment is measured out-- or "meted out"-- to them according to the decision of Christ after a close study of each person's life. In other words, the wicked receive only what their sins deserve. An infinitely loving God would not cause any more suffering than is absolutely necessary to "visit the full penalty of the law" and "meet the demands of justice" (GC 673).

Can anyone explain how this is wrong or how it makes God look bad? I don't see it.

How then can their destruction be "arbitrary"? It isn't. It absolutely cannot be. God doesn't do anything arbitrarily. The wicked are punished according to God's perfect judgment. By His own suffering and death, Christ earned the right to be the judge and to determine the punishment of the wicked.

Says the prophet of God, "It is not for man-- a criminal against God's holy law, pardoned only through the great sacrifice He made in gaving His Son to die for the guilty because His law was changeless-- to dictate to God.... In no kingdom or government is it left to the 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" (12 MR 208)

God indeed makes and executes His laws, and He decides what punishment is to be executed against those who have broken His laws. God is in charge of the destruction of the wicked. The combined testimony of Scripture and the Spirit of prophecy is that fire comes down from God out of heaven and consumes Satan and all who follow him.

Who will say that God will not do exactly what He says He will do? (10 MR 265)

[John317]

Quote:

PNATTMBTC: No, the cite ("suffer torture") was correct. It's in paragraph 1.

Quote:

JOHN3:17: Afraid not. :-)

Quote:

A mild form of dyslexia. I have the same problem with John 5:29 and John 6:29.

OK, but why wouldn't you at least check it out after you were told it wasn't on the page you cited?

No offense, friend, but it seems to me this is typical of something much broader than this one page, if you know what I mean. :-)

[Guest]

Excellent points John. Also a good question asked at the end, by the prophet.

Who will say that God will not do exactly what He says He will do? (10 MR 265)

Unfortunate answer: pnat and sky.

[Guest]

1.If God created Lucifer with the certainty he would sin, God would be responsible.

2.As things really are, God is in no wise responsible for sin. It's a mystery, whose existence cannot be explained (which would also not be true if God created a being certain to sin).

3.God is gracious, and accepts the blame for that which he has not done. This is the meaning of Psalm 69. Christ restored that which He did not steal. This means it's not His fault, but He accepts the responsibility for it.

One of the problems with your theology is that your god neccessarily has to be so small. There are many mysteries that cannot be explained. That does not mean they are a mystery to God. Your paradigm requires that you actually believe that there are things that God does not understand about his own creation. That is not what Ellen White was saying when she said sin is a mystery. It's a mystery to us, not God.

(I call him your god because you have made him in your mind, to be exactly what you want him to be. And whenever a new scenario pops up, you have to tweak him a little bit, and make him into something slightly different. This kind of god is based on human understanding rather than scripture.)

[pnattmbtc]

p:1.If God created Lucifer with the certainty he would sin, God would be responsible.

2.As things really are, God is in no wise responsible for sin. It's a mystery, whose existence cannot be explained (which would also not be true if God created a being certain to sin).

3.God is gracious, and accepts the blame for that which he has not done. This is the meaning of Psalm 69. Christ restored that which He did not steal. This means it's not His fault, but He accepts the responsibility for it.

R:One of the problems with your theology is that your god neccessarily has to be so small.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

PNATTMBTC: No, the cite ("suffer torture") was correct. It's in paragraph 1.

Quote:

JOHN3:17: Afraid not. :-)

Quote:

A mild form of dyslexia. I have the same problem with John 5:29 and John 6:29.

OK, but why wouldn't you at least check it out after you were told it wasn't on the page you cited?

No offense, friend, but it seems to me this is typical of something much broader than this one page, if you know what I mean. :-)

If I hadn't checked it out, I wouldn't have responded.

You said you were going to respond to the six arguments I made to Richard, and go through each of the quotes presented, but unless I missed something, you didn't do so. I asked a dozen times how heaven could have been in any danger, literally, but never got a response.

I really don't think you have a leg to stand on to complain here.

Also I'd like to know your response to #336037.

[Guest]

Quote:

No, you're misrepresenting what she said. She said, "It is impossible to explain the origin of sin so as to give a reason for its existence." This includes God.

You are adding words that she never said. Those are your words only, to make it include your point of view. How long have you been using this method of study? And I use the word study loosly.

I call it the "intelligent assumption method". That's where you assume you are intelligent enough to make assumptions based on your beliefs, and prior understanding.

This method very rarely, if ever, arrives at truth. This is a fact that you should be very concerned about if you are at all serious about wanting to know God's will.

[pnattmbtc]

God is in charge of the death of the wicked.