"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[Guest]

I'm watching from a distance Bob. Let me know how it turns out.

[BobRyan]

Quote:

"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.

It's true that if God had destroyed Satan right away, God would have been feared, and served for a wrong reason. However, this is agnostic in terms of whether God would destroy Satan later.

[BobRyan]

I'm watching from a distance Bob. Let me know how it turns out.

Ahh that is the rule of life -- someone is "always watching for how things turn out"

[pnattmbtc]

J:Wonderful and extremely important point to note, Richard: The destruction of the wicked is according to God's law and Christ's decision based on the sins of the wicked. That certainly is not arbitrary.

p:As you perceive it, it is arbitrary.

B:That is exactly backwards.

John is not stating an arbitrary rule - and John does not claim it to be arbitrary.

[BobRyan]

==============================

"...God is merciful and compassionate, but He is also just. Let the cross of Calvary forever settle this matter. As surely as Christ, the guiltless, suffered for the guilty, so surely will the wrath of God fall upon the heads of those who persist in their transgression of His law." ST, Jan. 6, 1881.

NOTE: Christ did not “torment himself for all the sins of all the world”

"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 [at the time of the final destruction of the wicked] 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." GC 504.

===========================================

[Guest]

Bob, you have clearly pointed out the fact that pnat and others like him, have stopped reading before they got to the main point. Either mistakenly or on purpose.

But there are none so blind as those who WILL NOT see.

[Guest]

It's true that if God had destroyed Satan right away, God would have been feared, and served for a wrong reason. However, this is agnostic in terms of whether God would destroy Satan later.

Only for those who stopped reading.

But for those who continued to read - we find this -

ITS UTTER EXTERMINATION, WHICH IN THE BEGINNING WOULD HAVE BROUGHT FEAR TO ANGELS AND DISHONOR TO GOD, WILL NOW VINDICATE

Thus the very act that was not allowed at the start - is perfectly suited for the end.

Compliments of Bob Ryan

[pnattmbtc]

Only for those who stopped reading.

But for those who continued to read - we find this -

ITS UTTER EXTERMINATION, WHICH IN THE BEGINNING WOULD HAVE BROUGHT FEAR TO ANGELS AND DISHONOR TO GOD, WILL NOW VINDICATE

Thus the very act that was not allowed at the start - is perfectly suited for the end.

[Guest]

This statement is dealing with the question of what would have happened had sin been brought to an end at the beginning. The mechanism is immaterial to this point.

You can twist and turn any which way you want. You can even pretend to be ignorant, and unable to understand the point being made. But there is no way you can get around the fact that

"WILL NOW VINDICATE" can in no way be referring to what "WOULD HAVE" happened.

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: Bob

J:Wonderful and extremely important point to note, Richard: The destruction of the wicked is according to God's law and Christ's decision based on the sins of the wicked. That certainly is not arbitrary.

p:As you perceive it, it is arbitrary.

B:That is exactly backwards.

John is not stating an arbitrary rule - and John does not claim it to be arbitrary.

No, he doesn't claim it is arbitrary, but, according to Webster's primary definition, and according to how the word is used in DA 764, it is. This follows from his not perceiving that there is a direct relationship (not artificial or imposed) between sin and misery/suffering/death.

That is the first flaw in your argument. You claim that to follow the rule of law is "arbitrary". You claim that if God's law of nature is violated -- then the resulting damage is NOT arbitrary -- but if the moral Law of God is violated and God's own penalty for that violation is visited - then it IS arbitrary.

Your appeal to Webster does not help you in that case -- you are out on the limb - alone.

Your argument is flawed because following the rule of law is not "by definition" arbitrary -- though you imagine otherwise.

Your argument is flawed because God is the author of BOTH the law of nature and the Moral Law.

Your argument is flawed because you exalt the law of nature above God's moral law.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: Bob

Quote:

Thus it is you who perceive it as arbitrary no matter how clearly the rule is stated to the contrary.

No, I don't perceive it as arbitrary, because I perceive their to be an organic relationship between sin and misery/suffering/death.

Again - you appeal to your arbitrary exaltation of natural law above God's moral law. It is as if you feel justified in arguing that God is not allowed to execute the 2nd death sentence for violation of Moral law - since in your system the only death that is allowed is the "FIRST death" the "organic death" caused by sin causing damage in "this decaying tent" 2Cor 5.

But God is clear - the first death is NOT the limit.

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

Actually' date=' he's wrong, because fickleness is not the context of DA 764. Please read my post going through DA 764, where it is clearly seen that the context is not dealing with fickleness but with the cause of the destruction of the wicked.

[/quote']

You are wrong on both counts.

1. The definition for arbitrary would be met ONLY if the Judge were NOT following the rule of law.

2. FEAR results from fickle decrees and execution of sentence. This is avoided by first showing that the Law is necessary and that violation of the law -- is in fact damaging to society. Once that can be proven then executing punative sentences to disuade lawlessness and uphold the authority in the law itself - does not meet the requirements for the term "arbitrary", rather it meets the requirement for the term "justice". And it even meets the requirement for the term "love" and "mercy" as it demonstrates a level of safety and protection for society.

in Christ,

Bob

[Guest]

Every mouth will be stopped, and all the hosts of rebellion will be speechless. . . . 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. . . . Never will evil again be manifest. Says the Word of God, "Affliction shall not rise up the second time." {FLB 71}

It is gramatically impossible for this paragraph to be explaining something that WOULD or COULD have happened.

Try to describe something to me that WOULD or COULD have happened, using the words "WILL HAVE"- "WILL BE" "NEVER WILL" "SHALL NOT" - or "WILL NOW". It cannot be done.

"The whole universe will have become witnesses to the nature and results of sin".

This is clearly talking about a literal event that is to take place in the future. "WILL HAVE" can in no way be understood to say "WOULD HAVE".

"And its utter extermination, which in the beginning would have brought fear to angels and dishonor to God"

This is the only part that describes what "WOULD HAVE" been. It then goes on to say: again referring to what WILL BE:

will now vindicate His love and establish His honor before the universe. . . . Never will evil again be manifest. Says the Word of God, "Affliction shall not rise up the second time."

[BobRyan]

==============================

"...God is merciful and compassionate, but He is also just. Let the cross of Calvary forever settle this matter. As surely as Christ, the guiltless, suffered for the guilty, so surely will the wrath of God fall upon the heads of those who persist in their transgression of His law." ST, Jan. 6, 1881.

NOTE: Christ did not “torment himself for all the sins of all the world”

"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 [at the time of the final destruction of the wicked] 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." GC 504.

===========================================

[BobRyan]

Let's go with this idea that the only consequence is a natural consequence of the type when you break a natural law.

So in that fiction - the tree of knowledge has fruit - and that fruit is God's speacial weapons grade poison. So Eve goes over to the tree - and there is snake - when the snake bites the apple it writhes in agony and dies.

Eve says "see -- told yah" and walks away.

(Turns out we have plants on earth just like that today -- And if you eat one of those poisonous plants

the universe does not need you to wait 6,000 years to die so they can "be ready to see it")

Let's try that same thing in heaven - one day Lucifer stabs a cat in heaven - and the cat dies.

God says - this what happens when you stab a cat with a sword. Nobody stabs cats any more after that.

HINT: Notice that God does not super-glue Abel back together when Cain whacks him - saying "oh no! I cannot let Able suffer the natural consequence of getting whacked to pieces - everyone will be afraid. No one will see this as a loving result for violating a law of nature -- so I will suspend that natural law for now until the universe is ready to see that whacking someone in 20 pieces causes them to die to death".

--

Suppose today - everyone that swallowed a certain amount of Uranium 238 died of radiation poisoning within two hours. Not much Uraniuam swalling would be going on -- (hmm wait a minute - I think we have that rule)

Suppose today - everyone that robbed a bank died of cancer within two hours. Not much bank robbing would be going on.

That is a universe where the only "result" is a "natural result" like the ones for violating a "natural law".

Turns out in real life - that GOD has both laws "of nature" and "moral laws", and he has natural consequences vs Rev 20 supernatural consequences ( raised the 2nd resurrection and killed the 2nd death = punishement for violation of the moral law.)

As it turns out - coveting does not cause the wicked dead to be raised after 1000 years of dormancy. Coveting does not cause the Earth's surface to break up so that the "very rocks are on fire". Coveting does not cause each sinner to burn the exact amount of time owed for their sins by the Law before they wink out of existence. Coveting has no such magical powers.

in Christ,

Bob

[Robert]

Christ did not “torment himself for all the sins of all the world”

Neither did God. In Gethsemane God the Father began to pull back. That's why Christ said to the mob, "This is your hour...."

The cruelty done to Christ came from both Gentile and Jew. Satan's hatred was revealed at the cross. Christ's physical suffering was the result of evil men. That does not constitute what saves us.

What saves us is what God did to Christ, who was "made sin". God abandoned Christ and therefore the hope of the resurrection forsook Him. EGW (and I agree with her) states that this passive act is what caused Christ to die. So great was this separation that Christ, as man, barely felt His physical pain.

[pnattmbtc]

"...God is merciful and compassionate, but He is also just. Let the cross of Calvary forever settle this matter. As surely as Christ, the guiltless, suffered for the guilty, so surely will the wrath of God fall upon the heads of those who persist in their transgression of His law." ST, Jan. 6, 1881.

NOTE: Christ did not “torment himself for all the sins of all the world”

So do you think God "tormented" Him? Or made Him to "suffer torture"? What's your thought here?

[pnattmbtc]

You are wrong on both counts.

1. The definition for arbitrary would be met ONLY if the Judge were NOT following the rule of law.

[pnattmbtc]

What saves us is what God did to Christ, who was "made sin". God abandoned Christ and therefore the hope of the resurrection forsook Him. EGW (and I agree with her) states that this passive act is what caused Christ to die. So great was this separation that Christ, as man, barely felt His physical pain.

What saves us is what God did IN Christ. God was IN Christ, reconciling the world to Himself. God Himself was crucified with Christ.

God and His holy angels were present at the cross with Christ. God was never closer to His Son then at the cross. God left heaven to be with His Son in His suffering, and God suffered with Christ.

It's a big mistake to conceptualize the atonement in a way that pits the Father against the Son. It's not a three party process, but a two party process. There is the sinner, who needs an atonement, and God, who provides the atonement. It's not God the Son placates the wrath of God the Father so that God the Father will forgive us. This type of thinking leads us to conceive of the Father differently than the Son. Jesus said, "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father." They were working in concert.

The suffering that Christ experienced was not due to anything God was doing to Him, but to the effects of sin upon His mind, and what sinners (both human and angelic) were doing to Him.

I'm agreeing with much of what you say, as I agree that it was not God who caused Christ to suffer torment (your main point), and also could agree that God abandoned Christ, as long as this were carefully defined to mean that He abandoned Him in the sense of "giving Him up" to suffer the things He did.

[pnattmbtc]

Let's go with this idea that the only consequence is a natural consequence of the type when you break a natural law.

[pnattmbtc]

Indeed violation of the moral law has the result that the Bible calls "the SECOND death" - the one where BOTH "body AND SOUL" are destroyed in fiery hell.

Just as violation of physical laws of health have damaging consequences.

God is the author of both Laws. God can determine the method for punishment.

The laws of health are a good example. If a person smokes cigarettes and gets cancer, is this because God has arbitrarily "smote" the smoker with cancer? No. God had nothing to do with the cancer coming about. This was the result of sin, and the choice of the smoker.

Similarly the punishment for breaking moral laws is not God's acting arbitrarily to smite, but, as in the case of breaking the health laws, the sinner suffers for the choices he has made.

Sin is not innocuous. The whole problem comes down to this, to not perceiving that sin is not innocuous.

[pnattmbtc]

The cross is an excellent proof of your error. Christ pays the DEBT of suffering and torment owed in the Lake of Fire by for EVERY sini for EVERY person in ALL of time. This is a REAL quantifiable - debt that was paid. And it is not a case of Christ "tormenting himself" - but rather the Father has to apply the suffering debt owed - and that debt has to be exactly met - in full.

One person suffering a natural death - does not equal 9 billion people suffering.

This is extremely hard to follow. The 9 billion people represent everyone who's ever lived in earth's history? Or just the lost? Let's say it's the lost.

We know that some will suffer for many days, and others for less, so let's say, on the average, that the suffering is for one day. So this would come out to 9 billion days of suffering, which is roughly 25 million years. Christ suffered for a few hours. Let's say 8 1/3, since that goes in nicely to 25. So an hour of suffering on Christ's part is equivalent to being set on fire for 3 million years.

This idea is patently absurd. Who wouldn't prefer to suffer an hour of what Christ suffered to 8 million years of being set on fire? What's the difference here? That's a ratio of 70 billion to one. That means, rather than having a person suffer torture for a day, by being set on fire, it would be equivalent for that person to suffer what Christ suffered for just over a millionth of a second.

Of course anyone would prefer to suffer anything for a millionth of a second to being set on fire for a day.

So this whole idea of equivalence doesn't have legs. This is what comes of not perceiving there to be an organic relationship between sin and misery/suffering/death.

[pnattmbtc]

That is the first flaw in your argument. You claim that to follow the rule of law is "arbitrary".

[John317]

I've thought the same kinds of things, Bob. It's self-evident that we're not talking about "natural" results of sin when we refer to the judgment during the thousand years,the second resurrection, the Great White Throne Judgment, and death of the wicked. The first three are supernatual events brought about by God, and therefore it makes sense that the execution of the judgment is also supernatural.

Let's consider the following:

1) God makes Satan and his angels stay on the earth during the 1000 years, while the wicked are dead.

2) God holds a trial, or judgment, in heaven in which every individual who's lost has his life studied in close detail to "decide the portion that the wicked must suffer for the deeds done in the body." (There are, of course, additional reasons for the review of people's lives.)

3) At the end of the 1000 years Christ raises the wicked to be judged before Him and the Father.

4) There's a detailed review of everyone's life, and all see that they have made themselves unworthy of eternal life. They also see that they would not be happy in heaven with God and the righteous where they wouldn't be able to have their favorite sins.

5) Christ pronounces the sentence of eternal death on them.

6) After the sentence of death, God does absolutely nothing to see that the sentence of death is carried out, but He simply abandons the wicked and observes them. He takes no active part in the punishment against Satan or any of the wicked. Contrary to the testimony of both Scripture and the SOP, no fire comes down from God out of heaven.

In this view, the wicked all die voluntarily and on their own, apart from the will and activity of God to make it occur. Despite steps 1 through 5 that God has taken, God does not cause the death of the wicked but it results from natural, or "organic," causes. God is striclty a passive observer of the natural, organic processes which cause the death of Satan and his wicked followers. If He had any part in their actual deaths, God would be like Satan and unworthy of our worship.

My question is, why would God go through steps 1 thru 5 to ensure that the wicked receive their just rewards but then stop all involvement in their deaths before the sentence He Himself pronounces is carried out?

[Guest]

This idea is patently absurd. Who wouldn't prefer to suffer an hour of what Christ suffered to 8 million years of being set on fire? What's the difference here? That's a ratio of 70 billion to one. That means, rather than having a person suffer torture for a day, by being set on fire, it would be equivalent for that person to suffer what Christ suffered for just over a millionth of a second.

Yes it is absurd, when you apply your human logic to it. As if God were limited by that.

[John317]

Quote:

pnattmbtc: No. I haven't said anything one way or the other regarding this.

Why wouldn't you say anything? Why not discuss the reason you believe that idea of the death of the wicked is incorrect?