"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[pnattmbtc]

I want to get straight what it being suggested, in terms of the righteous "meting out" the punishment of the lost, which would presumably included their loved ones and friends, since one would assume that one would be in charge of those one knew best.

The idea is, each recorded sin is considered, and the righteous determine how much burning time is fair for that sin. So if it's not a bad sin, it's decided to add 5 seconds. But a really bad sin could be 10 minutes.

This is the idea, right? Someone sits there is a notebook or calculator, and adds up all the time together, and comes up with a final burning time.

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: John317

Why must the punishment be "organic," or rather simply organic?

Where does the Bible or SOP say the punishment must only be organic?

If that were the case, why do you think Ellen White says that the sins of people are taken carefully into account and that what "they MUST receive at the execution of the judgment is set off against their names"?

So that the punishment can be seen, that it is in accordance with the life of the person being judged.

Quote:

Consider again the angel's words: "'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.'"

It's important to remember that the universe needs to see that the punishment against sin and sinners is fair and in accordance with their sins.

Right.

Quote:

It is a very public trial. The decisions at to the punishment meted out to each individual is witnessed by everyone. The righteous, in unison with Christ, do not make the decisions arbitrarily but according to the perfect measuring stick of God.

"Arbitrary" has to do with "individual discretion," which is what you're suggesting, as I understand it. That is, there is no cause and effect. Instead it's an arbitrarily imposed penalty.

Quote:

The wicked do destroy themselves and they do suffer because of their sins, and not arbitrarily;

Right. There's an organic relationship involved instead.

Quote:

but the "portion" the wicked "must suffer" is not organic but decided upon by Jesus in unison with the saints in heaven during the 1000 years after they closely study the lives of the wicked.

This is a contradiction. Oh, I see what you mean. When you say that they suffer because of their sins, you mean indirectly, because of the arbitrarily imposed penalty, not because of the sins themselves. I disagree with this idea. I believe they suffer because of their sins in a direct way, not an artificial one.

Quote:

Otherwise, there is no reason for all the records kept of all our thoughts, words, actions, etc. Why are these recorded in the "books" if those records will have no bearing on the decisions reached in the Judgment? If the suffering and punishment of the wicked were only "organic," God would have no need for an investigative judgment or the examination of people's lives. In that case, the wicked would simply be allowed to die without the careful study of the record of their sins.

You're saying that if the punishment the wicked suffer is not an artificially imposed one, then there's no reason for records to be kept? In other words, this is the *only* reason you can think of that records are kept? Is this really true? Somehow I doubt this. I think I'll await confirmation that this is really what you're asserting before I respond, but off the top of my head, I can think of several reasons why records are kept.

Quote:

This principle also applies to the righteous, who are judged during the Investigative Judgment between 1844 and the close of human probation just before the second coming.

I agree that similar principles are at work for both judgments.

Quote:

The salvation of the righteous are not merely "organic." Our live are investigated carefully and a public decision is reached, and a record is made of that decision. It is known in advance who will be saved when Christ returns. That decison is irreversable and written in heaven's "books" by the close of human probation. It is being decided NOW.

I don't know what you mean by saying that our salvation is not merely "organic." It's partly organic and partly arbitrary? To my way of thinking, it's completely organic. That is, there is a 100% cause and effect relationship involved here. Specifically, those who accept Christ are justified by faith, and by virtue of their being clothed with Christ's righteousness, they receive salvation. The cause is the righteousness of Christ, and the effect is salvation. What is it you see that's not organic here?

Quote:

I'm afraid that many of us are spiritualing away these truths that Seventh-day Adventists believe.

I don't understand why believing in organic relationships would imply that a truth is being spiritualized away. That seems to me to be a very odd assertion.

Quote:

Some are saying that the pioneers did not believe that the wicked are literally destroyed by fire that comes down from God out of heaven and consumes them as they surround the holy city. But I do not find that to be the case at all.

The issue I've been raising hasn't been this, but the idea that the wicked are set on fire, and kept on fire, so they can "suffer torture," for some specified duration of time. This idea presents God in a negative way, to put it mildly, for a number of reasons:

1.It would make God, rather than sin, responsible for the suffering and death of His creatures.

2.It denies that there is an organic relationship between sin and suffering/death, which means that all the while God was warning us of sin, He was really warning us of what He would do to us if we didn't do what He said.

3.It presents God as one who tortures His creatures if they don't do what He says.

4.It contradicts the idea that God is a lover of freedom, and works in such a way as to keep the conscience free.

5.It contradicts the idea that compelling power and violence and torture are only found under Satan's government.

6.It presents the idea that God would have the saved determine for how long their loved ones should be set on fire to "suffer torture."

Quote:

Ellen White: "They do not believe a merciful God who made men will consume them with fire because they do not believe the warnings given. This, they reason, is not in accordance with God....

"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 themseles. They reason as to how they would act under the circumstances and decide God would do as they imagine they would do.

"God's goodness and long forbearance, His patience and mercy exercised to His subjects, will not hinder Him from punishing the sinner who refused to be obedient to His requirements. It is not for a man-- a criminal against God's holy law, pardoned only through the great sacrifice He made in giving His Son to die for the guilty because His law was changeless-- to dictate to God." (12 MR 207, 208)

Here's the context of this quote:

Quote:

As they reasoned in Noah's day they reason today, when the warning message is proclaimed to fear God and keep His commandments. The wrath of God is soon to fall on all the sinful and disobedient, and they will perish in the general conflagration. Professed servants of Christ who are unfaithful, who do not reverence God and with fear prepare for the terrible future event, will lull themselves to carnal security with their fallacious reasoning, as they did in Noah's day. "God is too good and too merciful [they reason] to save just a few who keep the Sabbath and believe the message of warning. The great men and the good men, the philosophers and men of wisdom would see the Sabbath and the shortness of time, if it were true." They do not believe a merciful God who made men will consume them with fire because they do not believe the warnings given. This, they reason, is not in accordance with God. . . . {12MR 207.1}

What she is arguing against are those who deny that there will be a judgment, that terrible things will happen to those who disobey. I'm not disagreeing this at all. I'm simply disagreeing with your idea that God will set people on fire to make them suffer torture.

The terrible things that happen in the judgment are due to the destructive power of sin. You seem to have no concept that sin is bad, and does bad things to people. You can't sin and sin and sin and not feel the effects of this when brought into the presence of God. The holiness, the righteous character of God, the revelation of truth, has an impact upon the mind and the conscience that is best represented by fire. This is why God is presented as a consuming fire, and why it speaks of Christ having eyes that are brilliant, like fire, and so forth. This is dealing with the righteous gaze that puts the finger on sin. It is the recognition of ones guilt, of the part one has played in life, in ruining one's own life and the lives of others, both in a temporal sense and in an eternal one, that causes the suffering of the wicked. And this will be terrible, but it won't be artificially imposed.

Quote:

NOTE: If Ellen White did not believe that it was God who was punishing and destroying the wicked at the end of time, why didn't she simply tell the reader that it wasn't God doing it?

She did. She said exactly this in DA 764.

Quote:

When she says people measure God by themselves, is she saying that God won't punish like people would? No. She is saying, on the contrary, that people may believe God won't punish and destroy the wicked, but God will most certainly destroy them. This is the only thing it CAN mean. Read again, "God's love is represented in our day as being of such a characer as would forbid His destroying the sinner. MEN REASON FROM THEIR OWN LOW STANDARD OF RIGHT AND JUSTICE...." She is saying that men have such a low standard of right and justice that they think God will not destroy the wicked. She says they are wrong to reason this way.

She speaking of those who deny there will be a judgment.

Quote:

I wouldn't burn up all the wicked. I would allow them to rest in their graves and never make them answer for all their evil deeds.

That's because you don't understand the "real issues of the Great Controversy." If you did, you wouldn't make such a statement. You think the resurrection of the wicked is about artificially punishing them, but there's much more to the judgment than the punishment of the wicked.

Quote:

I would think it's enough for them to lose eternal life. Why make them burn?

You're asking this question because you conceive of the punishment of the wicked as imposing a horrific, artificial punishment upon them, the most inhumane punishment imaginable, of setting them on fire. There is, indeed, no non-sadistic answer to this question. Who, indeed, would set people on fire to make them suffer torture as a form of punishment? It would take a special type of individual to do that.

Quote:

And if I would raise them up, I would just let them go to sleep while they're in my arms, like I did with my dog a few weeks ago when she had to be euthenized. Why make the teen agers suffer for their sins? And the grandmothers? Maybe my brother? Oh no. I couldn't do it. I wouldn't even punish them at all. I'd just let them lie down in the shade of a big tree and go into the dark night of oblivion with a nice smile on their face. What would be gained by punishing the damned anyway? It can't do them any good.

This reasoning is because you have the idea of punishment as having to do with being set on fire for days. Of course you wouldn't do this. No non-sadistic person would. Why would you think God would do something like this?

Quote:

It would be only torture to do otherwise.

That is how I would reason in my low standard of right and justice. But God reasons otherwise.

Your "low standard of right and justice" wouldn't allow you to torture your loved one, but God reasons otherwise? Why? Because, presumably, He has a higher standard of right and justice. So if you can just learn to be as right and just as God is, you can learn to set your loved one on fire for days without feeling any qualms about it?

I've addressed up to here in detail. I expect the issues raised in the rest of the post are the same as those being dealt with here.

Basically the idea that sin is not intrinsically bad is leading to the idea that some artificial punishment, and not just any artificial punishment, but the worst, most inhuman punishment possible, must be inflicted upon those who reject God. What you're suggesting doesn't make any sense. Any rational person would choose a more humane means of punishment, assuming that an artificial form of punishment has to be involved. For example, Satan is bound for 1,000 years to consider what he has done. Something similar to could be done for people. They could be kept in solitary confinement to consider what they had done, being made aware of their record, and the implications of their actions. Wouldn't that be a more humane way of handling things than setting them on fire?

Again, what I don't understand, is how one can consider the Person of Jesus Christ, and for a nanosecond consider that the idea that people will be set on fire for days can't possibly be right? We're told over and over again that the enemy is at work to misrepresent God's character, presenting him as one who is harsh and severe and cruel. Why isn't it obvious whose handiwork is involved here? What could be crueler than setting people on fire for days to make them suffer torture?

Amen pnatt. Wow, the Lord is doing a great work here through you in vindicating His character. I pray that He will continue to do just that. We need more men like you. I just can't fathom how anyone can't see and appreciate what you are presenting.

I am really enjoying this discussion.

sky

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: Richard

p:This is simply another way of saying there is no cause for sin. That should be easy to see.

That's why it's a mystery.

R:If this was all you were saying, I wouldn't bother to argue with you...

Ok, let's stop here, and see if this is true. All I'm saying here is that there is no cause for sin, and no one, not even God, can show that there is. That's why it's a mystery.

I'm not saying anything about the future in saying this.

Do you really agree with this? Or were you kidding?

"All I'm saying here is that there is no cause for sin, and no one, not even God, can show that there is. That's why it's a mystery."

You are right pnatt.

sky

[skyblue888]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: :Why must the punishment be "organic," or rather simply organic?

Quote:

PNATTMBTC: Because it leads us to wrong conclusions in regards to the issues of the Great Controversy, the nature of sin, and the character of God if we don't understand this.

Let's talk a bit about those conclusions. Please be specific as to the wrong conclusions you believe it leads to. I think I know what you mean but I want to be clear as to your meaning. Doubtless you have in mind something about the suffering being "abitrary" if it not strictly "organic," is that true?

Do these conclusions directly and clearly contradict the statements in the Bible and in the Spirit of prophecy?

Also, could you define exactly what you mean by "organic" in this context? Do you find it used in that way in any SDA writings, and if so, whose? Do you know when it was first used in that way?

Quote:

JOHN3:17: Where does the Bible or SOP say the punishment must only be organic?

Quote:

PNATTMBTC: DA 764 is one place that makes this clear. The whole chapter "It Is Finished" is good for this theme. So is the first chapter of "The Desire of Ages." The chapter in "The First Great Deception" in "The Great Controversy" is also good, as is the first chapter "The Destruction of Jerusalem."

OK, thank you. I shall study these chapters with that in mind. I've read them all several times before, and some many times, but never concentrating on the specific question we're looking into now. Those are wonderful, very important chapters, for sure. I'll get back with you about them, as soon as I can.

Let me explain something. I'm a diabetic and have some problems with it at present. I could actually lose my feet, it looks like. I hope not but.... Anyway, I can't sit at the computer as long as I would like because when I sit for too long, my feet swell up and "kill me," although hopefully not literally. They're reddish purple right now and I'm unable wear shoes. But I have to go to the Veterans Hospital today and see what they can do to help save my "pig feet," as I call them. My wife wanted me out of here a long time ago, but I so much enjoy the dialogue and the study that I put off leaving. So if I don't write as much as you think I ought to, and when you want it, that's why. A year ago at this time, I was sitting at the computer for hours at a time, and enjoying it, but that is also one of the reasons I have some problems now, I think. It pays to obey the health laws, which, of course, include lots of exercise. Finger movements on the keyboard just don't get it. lol

Sorry to hear about your feet John!

Do you go for a long walk every day? or before you had this problem, did u use to go for a long walk regularly? I didn't know you were a diabetic.

sky

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

No where in the Bible or the SOP is it (the destruction of the wicked) described as coming from any other source but God. You just refuse to believe it. It boggles my mind. To say that God is just going to let it happen organically in spite of all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is ludicrous. There is absolutely no way it could happen organically and be precicely meted out at the same time. That's impossible.

Do you have any concept of justice? No, you don't!!!! All of you who teach a God who tortures...a God who kills keep ignoring one important point - that is, that Christ took upon Himself the sins of the whole world and yet He only suffered for less than one day.....Hmmm? Yet you have some sinners suffering for many days? Again, hmmm?

No rebuttal?

[John317]

Sorry to hear about your feet John!

Thanks for that, sky.

Quote:

Do you go for a long walk every day?

Only in my house. lol I would go now except that I can't put any shoes or anything else on my feet, and of course I can't walk barefoot outside. But I do try to exercise them as much as I can, inside my house. This has only been for the last month or so. Before that, the swelling would go and come, and it seemed to be related to how much exercise I was getting.

Quote:

or before you had this problem, did u use to go for a long walk regularly?

Not very long ago, I was very active in sports and things like walking and running.

(I once walked a lot of the way from California to New York and back.) So I love to walk and did plenty of it. But I stopped walking regularly about a year ago, and that is probably a major reason for the problem-- but I can't be sure of that.

Quote:

I didn't know you were a diabetic.

I didn't know, either, until about two years ago. My blood sugar is doing fine, so I'm not sure what causes my feet to sometimes swell up this way. It may be due to an alergic reaction to something in my diet, but typically it has something to do with either the heart/circulation or the kidneys. And the medical tests all show that it's none of those things. I take some pills for diabetes, and there's a possibility it could be a reaction to them.

I need to have more testing done.

Diabetes runs in my family. My grandfather died at the age of 82 from an overdose of insuline administered to him by medical staff.

Anyway, that's the story of my feet. LOL

[Guest]

so, assuming that the revelation of sin causes one to suffer, the more sin, the more suffering.

Where can this assumption be found in the Bible?

[Robert]

Sorry to hear about your feet John!

Yeah, same here....Even though we disagree a lot, I wish you no illnesses. I wish you could get better....

Rob

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: pnat

so, assuming that the revelation of sin causes one to suffer, the more sin, the more suffering.

Where can this assumption be found in the Bible?

i dont know about the bible but i do know by experience!

i would think anyone who has ever been convicted that something they were doing was wrong, whether we repent or not, would know!!

it is a most uncomfortable feeling and that is only with a limited amount of revealing because God only reveals to us as much as we can take.

here and now we do all we can to deny conviction, by justifying our thoughts and actions, or by distracting ourselves by being busy doing whatever, including religion.

but on that horrible day there will be no escape! none whatsoever! we will be a captive audience and we will see from what has been in our heart since day 1 and how many times we had opportunity to confess and forsake our sins, but then it will be too late.

we will "mourn" but not in repentance.

[Guest]

Quote:

but on that horrible day there will be no escape! none whatsoever! we will be a captive audience and we will see from what has been in our heart since day 1 and how many times we had opportunity to confess and forsake our sins, but then it will be too late.

we will "mourn" but not in repentance.

It sounds like you're planning on being lost. You don't have to be, you know.

[pnattmbtc]

Originally Posted By: pnat

so, assuming that the revelation of sin causes one to suffer, the more sin, the more suffering.

Where can this assumption be found in the Bible?

That the revelation of sin causes one to suffer? It seems odd that one would question this. I'm sure there must be some proverbs which speak to this.

A couple of things come to mind. One is the reaction of the money-changers to Jesus when "divinity flashed through humanity."

Another is that the wicked cry for the mountains to fall upon them.

Another is where Jesus speaks of there being weeping and gnashing of teeth. Especially the gnashing of teeth was known as an idiom having to do with remorse.

David's experience comes to mind.

Well, those are a few quick thoughts.

[John317]

Quote:

pnattmbtc: I haven't said that God just lets them destroy one another...

Perhaps you have not said that the wicked destroy one another, but others who take your position on the destruction of the wicked have said that the wicked destroy one another with their weapons. Since you did not argue that the wicked do not destroy each other, I assumed that you agreed with those on this thread who say the wicked destroy each other.

Would you explain, then, how you understand the wicked are punished and destroyed? If you were watching it happen, what would you expect to see? Would it be maybe like self-combustion? And if so, what would be the cause of it? (I know you've written on this topic before, but I haven't seen any answers from you about these specific questions.)

Would you expect to see the wicked turn upon Satan with great fury, as Ellen White describes it in GC 672, par. 0?

I would expect to see fire literally fall from the sky onto the earth, just as fire fell from the sky onto Sodom. I believe Ellen White's descriptions of it in GC, EW, SG, and SP are literal. I don't believe there's anything in her writings on this subject to indicate she's speaking metaphorically or symbolicly.

The problem I'm having with your view of how the wicked are destroyed is that the Bible and the SOP describe it and explain it one way, whereas you describe and explain it in an entirely different way. Can you not see this?

For instance, both the Bible and SOP say clearly, "Fire comes down from God out of heaven." (You say that this is figurative, but there is nothing in either the Bible or SOP that shows this. The Bible compares it to the fire that destroyed Sodom, and to the very real water that destroyed the world in a flood.)

Ellen White continues, "The earth is broken up. The weapons concealed in its depths are drawn forth."[she speaks here of fire, coal and oil. See 3 SG 79, 80;PP 109, 110] "Devouring 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 are burned up... The earth's surface seems one molten mass-- a seething lake of fire. It is the time of the judgment and perdition of ungodly men... The wicked receive their recompense in the earth... Some are destroyed as in a moment, while others suffer many days. All are punished 'according to their deeds.'..."

Ellen White specifically says that the same fire that destroys the wicked also purifies the earth, burning up its rubbish, etc. She says the fire that comes from God out of heaven combines with the fires on the earth that are the result of oil and coal and man's weapons. I can't see how this points to anything but real fire with real flames.

The fire that destroys Satan and the evil spirits certainly is not man-made fire, because the spirits can't be harmed by the fires that humans make. You could not even destroy them with nuclear weapons or any other weapon. So it's obvious that the fire that comes from God is a supernatual fire that is capable of destroying even the evil spirits, as well as rocks and steel and anything else that is man-made, including materials that are considered incapable of being set on fire.

On the other hand, you say that God simply exposes the wicked to His glory and they die. He has no control over how they die or how long they suffer for their sins. It is all disconnected from God's choices or decisons or condemnation of sin, but what happens to the wicked is totally due to "organic" causes.

You say that it would necessarily be "arbitrary" if it was due to any decisions by Christ or the Father, even if those decisions were arrived at by carefully examining the lives of the wicked and "meting out to them the portion they must suffer according to their deeds."

But if that is true, why doesn't Ellen White put it the way you do? Why does she say [EW 291] in plain, unmistakable English that during the thousand years, "Christ, in union with His people, judge 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" ?

[by the way, it is important to remember that Ellen White never-- over a period of 50 years-- altered her view of how the wicked are to be destroyed. Her writings on the subject in 1914 are the same as when she wrote in the 1860s and earlier.]

Notice that she says that Christ "metes out" "the portion they MUST suffer." That's very significant. That contradicts the idea that Christ makes no decision as to the suffering of the wicked but that they die from "organic" causes unrelated to any judgment from Christ and the saints. You make it sound like all the saints do during the 1000 years is see why the wicked will die, but according to you, Christ Himself and the saints do NOT "mete out to the wicked the portion which they MUST suffer."

In that way, you are clearly contradicting the words of Ellen White. She says Christ and the saints decide the portion the wicked must suffer, whereas you say they do not do so.

Both the Bible and Ellen White say the fire comes down from God out of heaven and consumes, or burns up, the wicked; but you say that the fire is not real and that in any case no fire comes down from God out of heaven to consume the wicked.

Ellen White's words in GC 673 leave no doubt that the suffering and destruction of Satan is predetermined by Christ. The Bible shows that Christ has earned the right to destroy Satan. Ellen White says, "[satan's] punishment IS TO BE far greater than that of those whom he has deceived. After all have perished who fell by his deceptions, [satan] IS TO live and suffer on... The full penalty of the law has been visited; the demands of justice have been met..."

This language-- "full penalty of the law," "demands of justice," "punishment is to be" and "is to live"-- plainly refers to decisions made by Christ and the Father, in unison with the saints. But you deny this, right?

You say that Christ would be wrong to make these decisions, right?

It seems to me your position would make God and Christ out to be like Satan if they were to "mete out to the wicked the portion they MUST suffer." You insist that the suffering and the death of the wicked must be totally and only due to "organic" causes and unrelated to any decisions arrived at by Christ as a result of the investigation of their lives during the 1000 years.

First, have I stated your position correctly?

And, secondly, how then do you see the wicked perishing?

[John317]

Quote:

sky: Sorry to hear about your feet John!

Quote:

Robert: Yeah, same here....Even though we disagree a lot, I wish you no illnesses. I wish you could get better....

Rob

Thanks, Rob. I do believe they will get better, God willing. Hope and praying that He gives my doctor a lotta wisdom-- and quick.

Except for my stupid feet--lol-- I feel no different than I did when 20 years old. I plan on running up and the down the street here pretty soon. If not here, though, at least on the streets of gold some day. Maybe in a race with you. :-)

[pnattmbtc]

Perhaps you have not said that the wicked destroy one another, but others who take your position on the destruction of the wicked have said that the wicked destroy one another with their weapons. Since you did not argue that the wicked do not destroy each other, I assumed that you agreed with those on this thread who say the wicked destroy each other.

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17:

By the way, to get around these "problems," some have proposed that God is really just a very good and wise guesser. It's called the theory of the "openness of God"-- which posits that God changes or evolves along with His creation. It is related to "process theology,"-- a theory influenced by evolution-- first conceived by Mathematician/Philosopher Alfred Whitehead and later developed further by the German theologian, Wolfhart Pannenburg. Some SDAs, such as my former professor, Richard Rice, have bought into it and are advocating it.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: It has nothing to do with God's being a "very good and wise guesser." It also has nothing to do with God's changing or evolving. It's also very different from process theology, much more different from it than the view you hold.

I'm speaking of theologians who do not believe that God knows the future in any detail but that since God is all powerful and knows what His goal is and what He will do under various circumstances, He is a wise guesser of what will happen in the future. The expression "wise guesser" I heard directly from Dr. Richard Rice in his classes in systematic theology at Loma Linda University.

I studied under some of these theologians and was involved in a dialogue and seminar on the Loma Linda campus of LLU with Wolfhart Pannenberg who is an important leader of that theology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfhart_Pannenberg

His views had a great influence on Richard Rice, who wrote The Openness of God.

I'm saying that your view that God does not know everything about the future is similar to Richard's Rice's view of God's foreknowledge. I'm not saying it's identical, nor am I saying your view is the same as "process theology." I'm saying process theology is similar in some respects to Rice's theory of the "openness of God." See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_theology

They are similar, for one thing, in the fact that they do not acknowledge the omniscience of God. You have that in common: you reject the view that God knows all things from eternity past to eternity future.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Misrepresenting positions which you disagree with by such caricatures is not a worthy means of pursuing a disagreement.

This is no caricature.

If I am misrepresenting your position, please show how. I don't intend to misrepresent anything or anyone. I'm trying to understand you and your position.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Hopefully you're doing so ignorantly.

If I am misrepresenting your position, I assure you that doing it "ignorantly," or unintentionally, is the only way I would ever do it.

[teresaq]

so, assuming that the revelation of sin causes one to suffer, the more sin, the more suffering.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

I'm speaking of theologians who do not believe that God knows the future in any detail but that since God is all powerful and knows what His goal is and what He will do under various circumstances, He is a wise guesser of what will happen in the future. The expression "wise guesser" I heard directly from Dr. Richard Rice in his classes in systematic theology at Loma Linda University.

I've never heard that before. I read Rice's book many years ago, but don't remember that phrase being used. It's certainly not one I would use. I think it's a very unfortunate choice of words.

Quote:

I studied under some of these theologians and was involved in a dialogue and seminar on the Loma Linda campus of LLU with Wolfhart Pannenberg who is an important leader of that theology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfhart_Pannenberg

His views had a great influence on Richard Rice, who wrote The Openness of God.

I'm saying that your view that God does not know everything about the future is similar to Richard's Rice's view of God's foreknowledge. I'm not saying it's identical, nor am I saying your view is the same as "process theology." I'm saying process theology is similar in some respects to Rice's theory of the "openness of God." See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_theology

Here's what this said:

Quote:

* God is not omnipotent in the sense of being coercive. The divine has a power of persuasion rather than coercion. Process theologians interpret the classical doctrine of omnipotence as involving force, and suggest instead a forbearance in divine power. "Persuasion" in the causal sense means that God does not exert unilateral control.[1]

* Reality is not made up of material substances that endure through time, but serially-ordered events, which are experiential in nature. These events have both a physical and mental aspect. All experience (male, female, atomic, and botanical) is important and contributes to the ongoing and interrelated process of reality.

* The universe is characterized by process and change carried out by the agents of free will. Self-determination characterizes everything in the universe, not just human beings. God cannot totally control any series of events or any individual, but God influences the creaturely exercise of this universal free will by offering possibilities. To say it another way, God has a will in everything, but not everything that occurs is God's will.[2]

* God contains the universe but is not identical with it (panentheism, not pantheism or pandeism). Some also call this "theocosmocentrism" to emphasize that God has always been related to some world or another.

* Because God interacts with the changing universe, God is changeable (that is to say, God is affected by the actions that take place in the universe) over the course of time. However, the abstract elements of God (goodness, wisdom, etc.) remain eternally solid.

* Charles Hartshorne believes that people do not experience subjective (or personal) immortality, but they do have objective immortality because their experiences live on forever in God, who contains all that was. Other process theologians believe that people do have subjective experience after bodily death.[3]

* Dipolar theism, is the idea that God has both a changing aspect (God's existence as a Living God) and an unchanging aspect (God's eternal essence).

I don't see anything similar here to the idea that the future is open. As I pointed out, the view that the future is open is much more similar in terms of what God is like than that of process theology, incomparably so.

Quote:

They are similar, for one thing, in the fact that they do not acknowledge the omniscience of God. You have that in common: you reject the view that God knows all things from eternity past to eternity future.

No, this is incorrect. I believe God is omniscient. This is a tenet of Open Theism.

Quote:

Outline of Open View

I unequivocally affirm that God possesses every divine perfection, including the attributes of omnipotence and omniscience. I believe that God is the sovereign Creator and Lord, leading history toward his desired end, yet granting freedom to his creatures as he wills. He knows and can reveal all that he has determined about the future, thus declaring “the end from the beginning” (Isa. 46:10). I believe that God is perfectly wise and knows all reality exactly as it is.

The issue concerning the “openness of the future” is not about the infallibility or fallibility of God’s foreknowledge, but rather about the nature of the future which God infallibly foreknows. Is it exclusively foreknown and predetermined by God, or does God determine some aspects of the future and sovereignly allow other aspects to remain open?(http://www.gregboyd.org/essays/essays-open-theism/response-to-critics/)

The second paragraph would be good to study in detail. You've made a common mistake, which is to confuse the issue has having to do with God's ability to know (which is perfect) and the nature of the thing being known. That is, our difference is an ontological one, not an epistemological one. This point is often not grasped.

Greg Boyd does an excellent job presenting the position.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Misrepresenting positions which you disagree with by such caricatures is not a worthy means of pursuing a disagreement.

J:This is no caricature.

Yes, it is, although you appear to be unaware of this.

Quote:

If I am misrepresenting your position, please show how. I don't intend to misrepresent anything or anyone. I'm trying to understand you and your position.

I suggest reading the web address I referenced. Greg Boyd does a good job explaining the position. The main point is that the disagreement involves the nature of the future. This is the important point to grasp.

I appreciate your desire not to misrepresent the position I'm presenting, as well as your desire to know what it is. To state it succinctly, I believe God knows that future as it actually is, which is open, and not fixed. So God knows all future possibilities, but cannot know them as certainties for the simple fact that they are not certainties. God cannot know reality differently than it is, and reality is that the future is open (comprised of possibilities) and not fixed (only one thing can happen; that which God knows will happen).

[pnattmbtc]

John317, how was heaven imperiled?

[Guest]

Quote:

you have experienced conviction, right? i have a hard time imagining that anyone has never experienced conviction so i have to assume all could then understand what that day will be like.

If you let God make you into what He wants you to be, then you won't have to worry about that day.

Come unto me, all you that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and you shall find rest unto your souls.

For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. Matt 11:28-30

[phkrause]

Sorry to hear about your feet John, praying all will be well and soon.

pk

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: John317

For instance, both the Bible and SOP say clearly, "Fire comes down from God out of heaven." (You say that this is figurative, but there is nothing in either the Bible or SOP that shows this.)

Sure there is, and I've repeatedly explained this. I also quoted a lengthy explanation by Ty Gibson. DA 764 says that the "glory of God, who is love" will destroy them. The glory of God is His character....

[teresaq]

so, assuming that the revelation of sin causes one to suffer, the more sin, the more suffering.

[skyblue888]

"It is hard for you to kick against the pricks." Acts 9:5;26:14.

It is hard to resist the convictions of a guilty conscience.

sky

[John317]

Quote:

Richard: No where in the Bible or the SOP is it (the destruction of the wicked) described as coming from any other source but God.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: This is simply not true. I've quoted DA 764 a number of times on this thread...

DA 764 flat out says that the destruction of the wicked is not due to an arbitrary act of power on the part of God, but is rather due to their own choice,

It seems to me that you are confusing two things. It's quite true that the destruction of the wicked is due to their own choice. You can say the same thing about a murderer. It's no arbitrary act on the part of the state that the murderer is put in prison. That is where he deserves to be because of his choices. But the murderer wouldn't be punished apart from the state's decision to investigate, have a trial, convict him, and put him in prison. It would be ridiculous to say that the only just punishment is that which is self-imposed or "organic".

One of the main reasons Christ came to earth, was slain, and rose again was in order to destroy the Devil. Christ has earned that right. He earned through His shed blood the right to open the sealed book which contains the the entire plan of salvation, includng the destruction of sin, the devil, and all who follow him. Rev. 5: 9, 10, 12. It is why the clothes of the coming King have been dipped in blood. Rev. 19: 13.

"The Son of God passed through the portals of the tomb, that 'through death He might destroy... the devil.'" GC 503, par. 3.

Therefore, yes, the wicked certainly do destroy themselves by their choices.

Yet at the same time they are destroyed in the lake of fire by God, as a direct result of the judgment and decision of Christ, a judgment that is not arbitrary but is in accordance to their deeds. It will be an open judgment where all the universe witnesses the evidence, the decision, and the execution of that judgment.

The Bible and SOP say both kinds of destruction occur.

The death of the wicked is "punishment" which "visits the full penalty of the law" and "meets the demands of justice."

Your idea seems to me to say that God and Christ have no right to cause the destruction of Satan. I find that incredible-- if indeed that is what you are saying. You appear to be saying that the destruction of Satan and those who follow him can only occur justly if God is merely a passive onlooker and it is not related in any way with Christ's decision or the examination of their lives during the 1000 years. That would mean the judgment is only for the purpose of confirming that God was right not to raise them in the first resurrection. But Ellen White says plainly that one of the main purposes of the judgment during the 1000 years is for Jesus and the righeous is to study the evidence of people's lives and then to "mete out to the wicked the portion which they MUST suffer," i.e., determine their punishment according to their deeds.

So there is really no contradiction between the statement that "God destroys no man" and saying that "God will destroy the wicked from off the earth."

Why? Because they are talking about two different things. One is saying the wicked are responsible for the destruction of their spiritual life by sowing seeds of evil in their character. The other is saying that as a result of their destroying themselves by sowing seeds of evil, God will execute justice upon the wicked by destroying them from off the earth.

Is this clear to you?

[John317]

Quote:

Quote from Ellen G. White: This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 8:36. God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them. {DA 764.1}

Notice well the phrase that the wicked "RECEIVE the results of their own choice." The wicked are passive in this sentence. Who do they receive the results from? Who is the active party in that sentence?

Also notice this statement: "It is the glory of God to be merciful, full of forbearance, kindness, goodness, and truth. But the justice shown in the punishing of the sinner is as verily the glory of the Lord as is the manifestions of His mercy." RH March 10, 1904.

So the glory of God that saves the righteous destroys the wicked. However, it doesn't mean what you are saying, which is that God doesn't really destroy anyone-- He just allows them to self-destruct and it is totally up to the wicked how long they suffer. It has nothing whatever to do with any decisions made by Christ, who simply watches passively as things happen. (This is what I'm getting from your position.)

But by interpreting Ellen White to mean that the wicked are not destroyed as a result of God's judgment and the decisions made by Christ during the 1000 years, you are making Ellen White contradict her plainest statements.

Consider these two statements:

"God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner." GC 36.

"The wicked will He destroy... God executes justice upon the wicked." GC 541.

Also: Christ and the righteous study the lives of the wicked and then DECIDE every case. On the basis of that DECISION, they mete out, or allot, to the wicked "the portion which the wicked MUST suffer, according to their deeds." EW 290, 291, 52-53; GC 660, 661.

My contention is that the first statement in GC 36 is written in the context of the destruction of Jerusalem. It is saying God did not want the Romans to destroy the people and that God Himself did not execute the people who were destroyed by the Romans, but God "removed the restraint" and so they reaped that which they had sown.

Some have concluded that since Ellen White says this about the destruction of Jerusalem, the same must be said about the final destruction of the wicked after the 1000 years. But this is clearly an error, because unlike the destruction of Jerusalem, the final destruction of the wicked takes place AFTER Christ judges the wicked and metes out to them the portion which they MUST suffer. There will be no Romans to destroy the wicked. Therefore, if he wicked are to "receive the results of their own choice," they can only receive it from Christ after He and the righteous "judge the wicked" and then "DECIDE every case according to the deeds done in their body."

Those are two very important distinctions between the destruction of Jerusalem and the final destruction of the wicked. The destruction of Sodom is actually more like the final destruction of the wicked, and Jude 7 and 2 Peter 2: 6 make this comparison.

Notice the parallels:

1. Both are preceeded by an investigation. See Gen. 18: 20, 21.

2) There is a decision made. Gen. 19: 14.

3) God rescued the few righteous people. Gen. 15: 16.

4) Fire fell from God out of heaven onto the wicked and destroyed them utterly. Gen. 15; 24, 29.

Quote:

At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this. Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin. A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe. {DA 764.2}

The above is true, and it is the reason that Ellen White gives for God's not destroying Satan immediately. But then in The Great Controversy (pp. 498-504), she says that when God does finally destroy Satan, the whole universe will see that God is right in doing what He did not do before, because they wouldn't have understood.

Notice:

"Had he been immediately blotted from existence, they would have served God from fear rather than from love. The influence of the deceiver would not have been fully destroyed, nor would the spirit of rebellion been utterly eradicated. Evil must be permitted to come to maturity. For the good of the entire universe through ceaseless ages, Satan must more fully develop his principles, that his charges against the divine government might be seen in their true light by all created beings, that the justice and mercy of God and the immutablility of His law might forever be placed beyond all question... [Read entire section]....

"In the contest between Christ and Satan, during the Savior's earthly ministry, the character of the great deceiver was unmasked....Now the guilt of Satan stood forth without excuse. He had revealed his true characeter as a liar and a murderer... Satan's lying charges against the divine character and government appeared in their true light... God had manifested His abhorrence of the principles of rebellion. All heaven saw His justice revealed.... The great controversy which had been so long in progress was then decided, and the final eradication of evil was made certain... [After the destruction of the wicked] the whole universe will have become witnesses to the nature and results of sin. AND ITS UTTER EXTERMINATION, WHICH IN THE BEGINNING WOULD HAVE BROUGHT FEAR TO ANGELS AND DISHONOR TO GOD, WILL NOW VINDICATE HIS LOVE AND ESTABLISH HIS HONOR BEFORE THE UNIVERSE of beings who delight to do His will, and in whose heart is His law. Never will evil again be manifest..." GC 501-504.

Notice in the above, Ellen White does not say God will never blot Satan from existence; but rather she says that when God does destroy Satan, it will vindicate God's love and His law. Why? Because God has allowed Satan to prove that God is just in His destruction of Satan and all who follow him.

These events must happen this way in order to show the entire universe why the wicked suffer and why they die as they do. The whole universe watches the public trial and "the execution of justice upon the wicked" GC 541. The whole universe will now understand this and there will no longer any danger that God's moral creation will serve God from fear as they would have if God had destroyed Satan immediately after his rebellion.

"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

AMEN and AMEN.