"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[Guest]

Aaaaaa-Maan

[John317]

Quote:

Robert:

So the question remains, "how was Christ cursed" because if we can determine this then we will see how the rejectors of God's grace will meet death?

He was cursed in the sense that God abandoned Him and allowed Him to feel the full weight of all the sins ever committed from Adam to the Second Coming.

Would Christ have died that Friday afternoon if God had abandoned Him in the garden and if He hadn't been tortured and nailed to the cross?

The fact that this is how Christ was "cursed" does not mean that the wicked will not be destroyed by fire. There's nothing in the Bible or the SOP which states that Christ died in the same way that the wicked will die. Does the Bible say that the Father sent fire from heaven down on Christ in order to consume Him? Of course it does not. Yet that is what the Bible says will happen to the wicked.

The essential similarity between the deaths of Christ and the wicked is that in both instances, God abandons them. He lets go of them, to let them reap the consequences of their sins. Christ bore our sins, and because of his moral purity, He experienced the awful burden of those sins to an extent that no sinner is able to experience them. While Jesus did feel profoundly the same separation from God that the wicked will feel when they parish in the flames, yet the difference is that God not only abandons the wicked but He also destroys them utterly, and this God did not do to Christ. Therefore, while the death of Christ is comparable to that of the wicked, yet His death and His subjective experience was by no means identical in terms of the mechanism that causes the final destruction of both soul and body of the wicked.

[John317]

Can you believe these clear statements from the Spirit of prophecy:

"God's judgments were awakened against Jericho. It was a stronghold. But the Captain of the Lord's host Himself came from heaven to lead the armies of heaven in an attack upon the city. ANGELS OF GOD LAID HOLD OF THE MASSIVE WALLS AND BROUGHT THEM TO THE GROUND." LDE 243

Another:

"Under God the angels are all-powerful. On one occasion, in obedience to the command of Christ, they [the all-powerful angels under God] slew of the Assyrian army in one night one hundred and eighty-five thousand men." DA 700. (Written in 1898)

NOTE: It seems obvious from the context that she is not speaking merely of their spiritual power, but of their power as warriors for God in the battle against evil forces.

And the next sentence shows that angels of God are capable of killing humans:

"How easily could the angels, beholding the shameful scene of the trial of Christ, have testified their indignation by consuming the adversaries of God! But they were not commanded to do this." Ibid.

Here is a clear statement from Ellen White proving beyond all question that she taught the angels of God have actually killed humans:

"The same angel who had come from the royal courts to rescue Peter had been the messenger of wrath and judgment to Herod. The angel smote Peter to arouse him from slumber. It was with a different stroke that he [the angel of God] smote the wicked king, laying low his pride and bringing upon him the punishment of the Almighty. Herod died in great agony of mind and body, under the RETRIBUTIVE JUDGMENT OF GOD." AA 152. (Written in 1911)

Who says God will not do exactly what He has said He will do?

Question: how many people after reading the above statement still believe that Ellen White taught that God never uses force or killed anyone.

We could say she was lying, sure, but beyond that, we can't deny any more that she said God has used force and taken human life before.

That being the case, those who believe they have a universal principle against God's ever using force or taking human life are completely without support--- unless they disavow the above statements by the prophet. I will be interested in the response of sky, teresaq (sda), pnattmbtc-- and anybody else, for that matter.

[Guest]

Exellent John! I see that you have been doing some homework.

[John317]

I can tell you are too. You've been coming up with some very important and outstanding points.

When it comes right down to it, the only evidence that those have who teach that God never has killed anyone or used force, are a few paragraphs and sentences which are taken out of context or made to apply to all of God's work on behalf of man, when they weren't intended to be made into universal principles. Not only that but they are contradicted by the plainest statements of both the Bible and the SOP.

Just to take one example: 2 Kings 1: 12. The prophet who wrote 2 Kings says in plain Hebrew that "the fire of God came down from heaven and consumed" fifty-one men.

Now, either the writer is badly mistaken or else God sent fire down and destroyed those men. I do not see any other alternative, do you?

I know from having taken a course in the Bible as Literature at a public college that unbelievers conclude from this verse that the writer is repeating a story he'd heard, but that we would be fools to put stock in an ancient writer who doubtless still believed in miracles.

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: 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.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: ..... DA 764 does address how Satan would be destroyer. It says that had God *left* Satan to reap the full result of his sin, he would have perished, but it would not have been misunderstood that Satan's death was the inevitable result of sin. This could hardly be taken to mean that had God killed Satan it wouldn't have been misunderstood that Satan's death was the inevitable result of sin, because, in this case, it wouldn't have been. This can only be understood by death coming from sin as a direct consequence of sin, as opposed to an imposed act on the part of God. All of DA 764 can only be understood in this way. Otherwise it's full of contradictions.

It's apparent from reading everything else Ellen White has written on the destruction of Satan and the wicked that when she talks about God "leaving Satan to reap the full result of his sin," she is referring to God's simply giving Satan up to perish, without trying to convince Him to repent and change his ways. Notice she's discussing the very beginning of the great controversy, even before the war in heaven. His extermination or destruction at that time would not have been understood, and therefore the angels wouldn't have realized that his death was the inevitable result of sin. They would have thought that maybe Satan was right, and that God really was evil, after all, and had demonstrated it by ending Satan's life.

By "inevitable results of sin," Ellen White is not saying that God Himself has nothing whatever to do with the death of the wicked. She's not suggesting that quite apart from any of God's activities or dicisions, the wicked are to receive the just rewards of their sins. Such would mean that the universe runs on its own and that God is not needed in order to execute the demands of justice or for the full penalty of the law to be met. "Inevitable" in this context simply means the results of sin that cannot be avoided. Those results (or wages of sin) are suffering, punishment, and death.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

pnattmbtc: I'd agree that it's supernatural. Anything God is involved in is supernatural. What I disagree with is that God imposes artificial measures to punish.

J:Of course God does not impose artificial measures to punish.

Then He doesn't set people on fire, supernaturally keeping the fire from killing people, so they can "suffer torture" for some arbitrarily set period of time.

Quote:

His "measures" are never artificial or arbitrary, to my way of thinking.

Surely you can see there's no direct or organic relation between sin and being set on fire to burn for some set period of time.

Quote:

Would you say that Jesus' "meting out to the wicked the portion they MUST suffer" is arbitrary or artificial?

As you see things, absolutely. There's no other way to see this, as far as I can determine. You've said yourself there's no organic relationship. The alternative is a non-organic one, which is artificial or arbitrary. It's artificial because it's not organic. It's arbitrary because the time period set for one to burn is determined by individual discretion.

I've asked I think half a dozen times now in regards to how you see the righteous "meting out" the punishment, without an answer, as far as I can tell. I can see missing a question once, or twice, but I've asked this question 6 times now I think.

I've also asked the question regarding how heaven was imperiled about 15 times now.

To repeat the question, it is my understanding that your thinking is that the righteous consider the sins of their lost loved ones, and evaluate for how long each sin should be result in their being burned alive. So some sins would be for a fraction of a second, or a few seconds, while others could be for minutes. The righteous go through the hundreds of thousands of sins, and add them up with a calculator, or something similar, and come up with a total amount of time that their loved ones should be burned. I'm asking if I've been accurate here in terms of describing what you think.

I apologize if you've answered this and I didn't see it. If this is the case, please point me to where you answered it. I can tell you that I have looked for an answer, but this is a long and active thread, and I might have missed it.

Quote:

I don't see it that way. I don't see God and Christ doing anything arbitrarily and artificially, particularly when it comes to the salvation of the righteous or the destruction of the wicked.

I can only guess that you are conceiving of the words "arbitrarily" and "artificially" in some other way than I am. What I mean by "artificial" is "not organic." What I mean by "arbitrarily" is "according to individual discretion." It seems to me this is in exact harmony with what you've been saying. The punishment is not organic, and its duration is determined by the individual discretion of the saints in their "meting out" process.

[skyblue888]

John, you can be absolutely certain that when we stand on words like these, "God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression, but He leaves the rejecters of His mercy to themselves to reap that which they have sown," we are standing on solid ground. It is by statements like these that we are to interpret the language of the Bible concerning God's dealing with sinners from the fall in Eden to the very last act in the controversy between God and Satan.

By adopting this principle of interpretation we can all come to the unity of the faith regarding the character of God, the nature of His government, and the principles of His dealing with sin which are ever the same.

"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." MR 14, 3.

After the thousand years, at the time of the executive judgment, Satan and his angels will be left without any protection from those they have deceived, the unsaved of all ages. By that time the Scriptures tell us that Satan and his angels will be like men and that they will have to fight like men and at last they will fall by the hand of those whom they had deceived. Lucifer will be the last to fall but nevertheless it will be at the hand of aliens, of the most violent of the nations of the unsaved.

"Behold, therefore, I will bring strangers against you, the most terrible of the nations; and they shall throw you down into the Pit. And you shall die the death of the slain in the midst of the seas. Will you say before him who slays you, I am God? But you shall be a man, and not God, in the hand of him who slays you. You shall die the death of the uncircumcised by the hand of aliens; for I have spoken, says the Lord." Ezekiel 28:7-10.

Mrs. White, in The Great Controversy, makes a direct commentary upon these words, saying, "The wicked are filled with the same hatred of God that inspires Satan; but they see that their case is hopeless, that they cannot prevail against Jehovah. Their rage is kindled against Satan and those who have been his agents in deception, and with the fury of demons they turn upon them."

These words from the Bible and from the pen of inspiration are so plain that no one needs to err. These declarations cannot be misinterpreted or misconstrued and they are in perfect harmony with the declarations that "God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression," or that His judgments do not come directly out from Him upon the wicked but that they place themselves beyond His protection.

sky

[skyblue888]

Before the return of Christ the same scenario will be enacted but this time on a smaller scale. Whereas after the 1,000 years all the unsaved of all ages will turn upon the ministers of unrighteousness, Satan and his evil angels who will have to defend themselves like men, at the time of the sixth plague all the wicked who are alive at that time, with the fury of demons, will turn upon the false shepherds and tear them to pieces and then turn upon each other. Thus we read that there will be strife and bloodshed everywhere.

Just as the false shepherds will fall by the hand of those whom they had deceived during the loud cry by preaching smooth things to them, so will Satan and his evil angels fall, at the end of the 1,000 years, by the hand of those whom they had deceived during the 6,000 years, especially by the hand of the most violent of the nations.

"With shouts of triumph, jeering, and imprecation, throngs of evil men are about to rush upon their prey, when, lo, a dense blackness, deeper than the darkness of the night, falls upon the earth. Then a rainbow, shining with the glory from the throne of God, spans the heavens and seems to encircle each praying company. The angry multitudes are suddenly arrested. Their mocking cries die away. The objects of their murderous rage are forgotten. With fearful forebodings they gaze upon the symbol of God's covenant and long to be shielded from its overpowering brightness...

"The people see that they have been deluded. They accuse one another of having led them to destruction; but all unite in heaping their bitterest condemnation upon the ministers. Unfaithful pastors have prophesied smooth things; they have led their hearers to make void the law of God and to persecute those who would keep it holy. Now, in their despair, these teachers confess before the world their work of deception. The multitudes are filled with fury. "We are lost!" they cry, "and you are the cause of our ruin;" and they turn upon the false shepherds. The very ones that once admired them most will pronounce the most dreadful curses upon them. The very hands that once crowned them with laurels will be raised for their destruction. The swords which were to slay God's people are now employed to destroy their enemies. Everywhere there is strife and bloodshed." G.C.635,636,655,656.

And then after the thousand years:

"Behold, therefore, I will bring strangers against you, the most terrible of the nations; and they shall throw you down into the Pit. And you shall die the death of the slain in the midst of the seas. Will you say before him who slays you, I am God? But you shall be a man, and not God, in the hand of him who slays you. You shall die the death of the uncircumcised by the hand of aliens; for I have spoken, says the Lord." Ezekiel 28:7-10.

"The wicked are filled with the same hatred of God that inspires Satan; but they see that their case is hopeless, that they cannot prevail against Jehovah. Their rage is kindled against Satan and those who have been his agents in deception, and with the fury of demons they turn upon them." G.C.672.

sky

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Here are a couple of problems I see with this:

1.It supposes that sin is innocuous.

I have never said that sin is innocuous, nor have I implied it,

Sure you have! You just haven't realized this is what you're doing.

If sin were not innocuous, it would be sufficient to simply allow sin to do its destructive work. It wouldn't be necessary to impose a non-organic unrelated punishment, such as setting people on fire for some set period of time.

Quote:

although your view of the death of the wicked may cause you to think this is what I've been saying. But, no, I don't believe sin is innocuous. Far from it.

But you do, for the reasons I explained.

Quote:

People often suffer in this life for their sins, apart from any punishment imposed by others. God made the universe with laws that make this true. For instance, lying will eventually catch up with people and cause them trouble. So will murder and adultery.

Ok, not totally innocuous then, but innocuous in the second resurrection.

Quote:

But sin doesn't always or necessarily cause suffering. The Bible is full of testimony that the wicked often prosper and escape punishment in this life. But they won't escape it in the next life. That's where God's justice comes in. God makes it happen.

Because sin is innocuous. If sin weren't innocuous, God wouldn't have to make it happen by artificial means, setting people on fire, and not letting them die, until they had "suffered torture" for some arbitrarily pre-set period of time. Instead, God could simply leave the guilty to reap the full result of their choice.

Quote:

For instance, Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, all escaped justice in this life, but they will certainly not escape God's justice after the second resurrection.

They don't escape justice because they suffer in accordance with their own sin. Their punishment is organic in their sin. The more sin, the more punishment. This is just on the part of God, and nothing arbitrary or artificial happens. Or cruel or violent or using force or compelling power.

Quote:

The reason sin is not innocuous is due to the fact that God made the universe in such a way that sin is NOT innocuous.

This is absolutely correct! And this is why no arbitrarily imposed artificial cruel punishment contrary to the principles of God's kingdom is needed. I'll add, however, that God did not create the universe in this way in the sense that He could have created it in some other way where sin would not have been innocuous. Sin is based on the principle of selfishness, which can only lead to misery, suffering and death. Any universe would have been like that.

Quote:

For instance, God could have allowed Adam to eat of the tree of life and live forever as a sinner. But God is too wise and too loving to do that. So God chose to drive Adam and all mankind out of garden so that he and all his progeny would die. That was God's choice, not something that happended apart from God's plan. After Adam sinned, it was God's will that Adam die. He did not want Adam and sinners to go on living forever. They had to die because Adam chose to rebel, and they actually did eventually die because God drove them out of the Garden. See Gen 3: 24.

I don't think you're thinking about this correctly. The correct way is to consider the fundamental principle of sin, which is selfishness. Selfishness can do no other than lead to misery, suffering and death.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: 2.It postulates God acting in ways contrary to His character and the principles of His government (specifically, setting people on fire to "suffer torture" to punish them).

J:In all due respect, it may be that you misunderstand something about God's character.

Certainly one of us is! You think it's OK for God to set people on fire and cause them to "suffer torture." I'm reminded of Christ's statement, when urged to call fire from heaven to destroy those who were contrary to Him, that "you know not of what spirit you are."

Quote:

(I'm not saying that I also don't misunderstand something, and even no doubt much, about God character.)

I agree with this (i.e., I'm as a little child, grasping just the minimum of God's character).

Quote:

Ellen White: "The men who promptly and speedily executed the divine judgments upon those heathen nations have been pronounce harsh and unmerciful in destroying so many human lifes. But all who reason thus, fail to understand the character and dealings of God." ST, Jan. 6, 1881.

You statement here assumes that God's character would not allow him to punish sinners.

You've said this on a number of occasions, and each time I've protested. You somehow apparently have the idea set in your head that if a punishment is not imposed (i.e., non-organic, artificial, arbitrary, whatever word you want to use), then it is not punishment. But I believe that sin is not innocuous, even in the final judgment, that it has the power to destroy, and that the wicked will be punished.

I must protest against your characterizing me as saying that God will not punish the wicked. I've never said this.

Quote:

However, Ellen White says, "It is the glory of God to be merciful, full of forbearance, kindness, goodness, and truth. BUT THE JUSTICE SHOWN IN PUNISHING THE SINNER IS AS VERILY THE GLORY OF THE LORD AS IS THE MANIFESTATION OF HIS MERCY." LDE 240"In all the Bible, God is presented not only as a Being of mercy and benevolence, but as a God of STRICT and IMPARTIAL JUSTICE." (LDE 240; ST March 24, 1881)

She also says it's not the business of human beings to "dictate to God" how He shall punish the sinner. This statement is in the context of the final destruction of the wicked. See 12 MR 208.

Also: "... leave to the Lord to deal with the work of His hands according to His own wise purposes..." ST, Jan. 6, 1881.

You're assuming this means according to how you perceive things. I don't agree with this. I think God can do things as I perceive things.

[pnattmbtc]

J:There are many things that will be taken into account in deciding every case. God will take into account people's backgrounds, their heredity, whether they had an opportunity to know more truth, how much "light" they had, etc. Luke 12: 46-48 definitely supports this view. Are you in essential agreement with this?

You and others may not like the idea that the righteous will be studying the lives of the wicked for the purpose of determining how much the wicked suffer for the sins, but it is a fact clearly stated in the Spirit of prophecy, and the Bible itself indicates the same thing.

[John317]

Quote:

pnattmbtc: I'd agree that it's supernatural. Anything God is involved in is supernatural. What I disagree with is that God imposes artificial measures to punish.

Quote:

JOHN3:17: Of course God does not impose artificial measures to punish.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Then He doesn't set people on fire, supernaturally keeping the fire from killing people, so they can "suffer torture" for some arbitrarily set period of time.

Quote:

JOHN3:17: His "measures" are never artificial or arbitrary, to my way of thinking.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Surely you can see there's no direct or organic relation between sin and being set on fire to burn for some set period of time.

Let's first define "organic":

"Organic" means "1. of or having to do with the bodily organ 2. inherent; inborn 3. systematically arranged 4. designating or of any chemical compound containing carbon 5 of, like, or derived from living organisms." Also, "Constituting an integral part of a whole; fundamental."

This is how I understand you position. Please tell me if I am wrong in my view of what you are saying. If I am wrong, please state your actual position.

You are setting up your own private standards of how God must judge and punish the wicked. You are saying that there must be an "organic" relationship between sin and the punishment given by God. In fact, you are saying God is unable to determine the punishment but that it must come directly from the body of the sinner himself. Neither the Bible nor Ellen White use the language you are using, such as "direct" or "organic." Nor do these sources teach that God's judgments are limited to what is "organic."

You think that any decision that is not "organic" is arbitary, but that is not Ellen White's meaning.

In this way, you are misunderstanding Ellen White's statements about God's decisions not being "arbitrary." DA 764 This statement in DA does not contraditct her statements in EW 290, 291.

Ellen White says that the Creator of the universe, who knows everyone as if they were the only person alive, "compares the acts of the wicked with the statute book, the Word of God, and decides every case according to the deeds done in the body. Then they [Jesus and the saints in heaven] mete out to the wicked the portion which they must suffer , according to their works; and it [the decision] is written against the names in the book of death." EW 290, 291.

I submit that the above proceedure by which the suffering and death of the wicked is determined does not meet the definiton of "arbitrary."

If you believe this is arbitrary, then you must also conclude that the rewards given to the righteous are arbitrary. Would you deny or reject the judgment of God in regard to the righteous? The righteous also receive rewards according to their works. Rev. 22: 12.

The direct connection to the rewards of both the righteous and the wicked is that God/Christ makes the decision based on His law and the works of the people being judged. That certainly is not "arbitrary."

Let's look carefully at the meaning of "arbitrary":

"1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse. 2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference. 3. Established by a court or judge rather than a specific law or statute. 4. Not limited by law; despotic."

Also: "1. left to one's judgment 2. based on one's preference or whim; capricious 3. absolute; despotic."

Here are the synonymns as given by Webster's Thesaurus:

"Willful, tyrannical, unsatisfactory, temporary, unpremeditated, irrational, generalized, deceptive, superficial, unscientific, unreasonable, whimsical, fanciful, determined by no principle, optional, uncertain, inconsistent, discretionary, subject to individual will, half-way."

By any of the above definitions, the judgment of God as described in the Bible and SOP is not arbitrary.

If the judgment takes place as Ellen White describes it in EW 52-53, 290-291, and GC 660-661, do you believe it would be "arbitrary"?

The essential points in those sources are these:

"...Jesus and the saints sit in judgment. The books are opened-- the book of life and the book of death. The book of life contains the good deeds of the saints; the book of death contains the evil deeds of the wicked. These books are compared witht he statute book, the Bible, and, according to that, men are judged. The saints, in unison with Jesus, pass their judgment upon the wicked dead. 'Behold ye,' said the angel, 'the saints, in unison with Jesus, sit in judgment, and mete out 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.' This, I saw, was the work of the saints with Jesus through the one thousand years in the Holy City before it descends to the earth." EW 52-53

Notice that these are the words of the angel of God which he communicated to Ellen White. It's the same as if Christ Himself communicated with Ellen White.

This is literal, not symbolic, language. There's nothing here that can't be understood as completely literal. Of course "books" are records of the life lived by the righteous and the wicked. The point is that the books are public records available for the purpose of inspection and study and to verify the correctness of the decisions made by Christ and the righteous saints. (I suspect these records will be kept throughout eternity as a lesson or illustration of the danger of sin and their consequences.)

Therefore, the decisions are not made by chance but are according to God's laws and to the record of the deeds done in the body.

The portion which the wicked must suffer is decided by Jesus Himself in union with the saints of God, according to the works of the wicked. (I trust Jesus Christ and the saints of God to make an impartial, just, and fair decision, don't you?)

The judgement by Christ and the saints are written in the books of death.

In your mind, what is "arbitrary" in the above description by Ellen White?

Would you tell Christ that His judgment and decisons in regard to the punishment of the wicked-- as described in the Bible and the SOP, i.e., EW 52-53, GC 660, 661--- are "arbitrary" and wrong?

[Robert]

Would Christ have died that Friday afternoon if God had abandoned Him in the garden and if He hadn't been tortured and nailed to the cross?

[Robert]

Herod died in great agony of mind and body, under the RETRIBUTIVE JUDGMENT OF GOD." AA 152. (Written in 1911)

Okay, Herod was a bad man, no doubt, but here are serial killers that God never intervenes with....Why doesn't He take them out? Little kids are raped, sodomized and murdered and yet I don't see God intervening. Why? Why didn't God just stop Hitler's heart before He murdered millions of Jews?

It seems like there are too many holes in this theory that God pays back and stops evil. I mean He is the one that said, "agape your enemies" and Christ fulfilled this all through His life and especially at the cross. Jesus said "If you have seen me (my actions) you have seen the Father." So I don't buy what you are saying, John.

Rob

[John317]

He [the Master] will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers.

Can't beat someone with a few or many blows if he/she is cut into pieces.

Luke 12: 46 is the text. It's not talking about cutting up a person into pieces. If it was, it's impossible to literally cut a person in pieces and then assign him a place with the unbelievers. So it's obvious that Jesus is not talking about being killed at that point.

The word literally means, "to cut into two parts," but it is a colloquialism, such as our expressions, "he will tear him to pieces," "He sure shewed you out," "My foot's killing me," or "the boxer beat the daylights out of his opponent," etc. No one takes those expressions literally.

Colloquialisms cause problems for people trying to learn American English because we say so many things that, if taken literally, make absolutely no sense. So a translator has to be careful to translate the actual meaning rather than the literal sense if he doesn't want to cause confusion. For instance, the colloquialism, "it's raining cats and dogs," wouldn't communicate what you mean to say, if it's translated literally into Spanish for a speaker of that language.

(I just said those words to my wife, "esta lloviendo gatos y perros," and she understand the literal words but she has no idea what they signfiy. She thinks I must be talking about cats and dogs fighting. "Raining cats and dogs" makes no sense to them. lol Mexicans don't have such an expression.)

It's the same with us when it comes to the expression of Jesus in Luke 12: 46.

Jesus used this expression only twice, in Matt. 24: 51 and Luke 12: 46. It carries the meaning of "severe punishment," or as the Greek Analytical Lexicon says, "in N.T. to inflict a punishment of extreme severity."

Compare Jer. 34: 18, which makes clear that the image of the "cutting" was a reminder of what happens to people who break covenant. When they made an agreement in ancient times, the two parties would cut an animal in half as a symbol of what would happen to them if they broke the covenant. So the idea here is that the unfaithful servant in Christ's parable will be punished severely for having broken his covenant with the Lord.

If you check out various translations, you will see that this is how it is translated:

--"punish him and cut him off" (Amplified)

--"punish him" (Revised Standard Version)

--"punish him severely" (Phillips Modern English)

--"tear him to pieces" (E. V. Rieu's The Four Gospels)

--"will flog him severely" (Twentieth Century NT)

--"will severely punish him" (Lamsa's trans.)

--"will punish him severely" (God's Word)

--"will cut him off" (Fenton's Holy Bible In Modern English)

[Robert]

Just to take one example: 2 Kings 1: 12. The prophet who wrote 2 Kings says in plain Hebrew that "the fire of God came down from heaven and consumed" fifty-one men.

I think he wrote what he perceived. If lighting kills someone you always hear, "it was an act of God". Why? Folks are afraid of God. We are brought up that way. Ellen White did the same with her sons...putting the fear of God in them to make them behave outwardly. It's very human....

[Robert]

it is a colloquialism, such as our expressions, "he will tear him to pieces," "He sure shewed you out," "My foot's killing me,"

Well, that's your opinion, but this thing in Luke isn't straight forward. Jesus used symbols and parables to reach folks with certain truths because He knew that they would understand....I live in a different time and therefore some of these things make no sense to me. Like Paul saying a woman will be saved in child bearing....Somethings we will not understand...and using Luke to prove that God punishes according to their deeds isn't using something very clear.

[Guest]

[

It seems like there are too many holes in this theory that God pays back and stops evil. I mean He is the one that said, "agape your enemies" and Christ fulfilled this all through His life and especially at the cross. Jesus said "If you have seen me (my actions) you have seen the Father." So I don't buy what you are saying, John.

Rob

Scripture is not a theory.

Rom 12:19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

[Robert]

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

pnattmbtc, quoting Ty Gibson: Christianity is intended to be an ever-deepening journey into the heart of God, by which the beholding of His glory gradually transforms the believer into the same character likeness (2 Cor. 3:18). For those who persist in sin to the ruin of their inner capacity to discern and reflect God’s love, that fire of divine love which would have cleansed them will, on the day of final reckoning, ignite in their souls a destructive measure of shame and guilt. The glory of Him who is love will be more than the conscience can bear.

On the day of unveiled encounter, they will experience psychological and emotional meltdown in God’s immediate presence. “’For behold, the day is coming, burning like an oven, and all the proud, yes, all who do wickedly will be stubble. And the day which is coming shall burn them up.’ Says the Lord of hosts,’ That will leave them neither root nor branch. But to you who fear My name [love My character] the Sun of Righteousness shall arise with healing in His wings [in the rays of light that emanate from Him]’ “(Malachi 4:1, 2, NKJC). Everyone will eventually meet God in all the radiance of His glorious love. Some will be consumed, while others are healed by the very same encounter.(Shades of Grace, by Ty Gibson)

J:I fully agree with the message about Christ being the revelation of the character of God. I don't believe the lines that I've set in red are supported by either Scripture or SOP. If you believe it's supported by clear statements in either authoritative source, please quote or give references.

Here are a couple from the SOP that come to mind:

Quote:

We should not try to lessen our guilt by excusing sin. We must accept God's estimate of sin, and that is heavy indeed. Calvary alone can reveal the terrible enormity of sin. If we had to bear our own guilt, it would crush us.(MB 116)

In the final judgment, the lost have to bear their guilt, which crushes them.

The following speaks to the idea that some are healed by the encounter of God's glorious love while others are destroyed by it.

Quote:

The light of the glory of God, which imparts life to the righteous, will slay the wicked. {DA 107.4}

From Scripture, Isaiah 33 comes to mind, as does Jesus' statements that there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

I'm not sure what it is you are disagreeing with. I see the following ideas suggested by Ty:

1.Sin results in destructive shame and guilt.

2.All will enounter God.

a.This encouter will be destructive to some,

b.and healing for others.

What are you disagreeing with?

Quote:

I think I know why you believe those lines are supported by the Bible and the SOP, but I believe he is not taking things in their proper context. For instance, Ty says that the very same encounter heals some and consumes, or destroys, others. But it is not really the same encounter at all-- at least from the biblical viewpoint. God does not rain fire down on the righteous. They will be inside the city with Jesus at this time. But the Bible does most definitly and plainly say that God sends fire down from heaven on the wicked for the purpose of punishing and consuming them.

Did you read what Ty said regarding fire?

The point of view that Ty is sharing is that God is God, and the different in effect is due to the character of the respective parties. It's like the idea that the same sun that melts the ice bakes the clay. DA 107 brings out this idea in pointing out that the same thing which gives life to the righteous slays the wicked. This can't be referring to literal fire, as literal fire does not give life to the righteous. This fire must be understood in a spiritual sense, as Ty explains. That's the only thing that makes sense. Also the context supports this idea.

Quote:

Ty writes as if there is no judgment in heaven during the 1000 years, when it is decided [determined] by Christ not only that they will die but how much they will suffer for their wicked deeds.

No he doesn't.

Quote:

I do believe that when Christ comes, the wicked who are destroyed are really destroyed by their own choices; and in the same way, when the wicked are destroyed in the lake of fire, it will not be God's fault but their own.

This isn't really the question. The question is who or what is causing the damage. You're saying that God does, not sin, except indirectly, in that God choose to damage those, setting them on fire to suffer torture, who have chosen to reject Him, certainly a strong motivation to not do so. Tye is arguing that isn't not only not God's fault that the lost suffer and die, but it's not God's doing! This is what's really being disagreed to here.

Quote:

God will have done everything He could, short of forcing them to believe, which as we all agree, God will never do.

We agree on this point, but disagree as to how and why the wicked suffer and die. Ty's idea is that sin damages their character, causing God to be a consuming fire to them.

Quote:

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}

Quote:

A life of rebellion against God has unfitted them for heaven. Its purity, holiness, and peace would be torture to them; the glory of God would be a consuming fire. They would long to flee from that holy place. They would welcome destruction, that they might be hidden from the face of Him who died to redeem them. The destiny of the wicked is fixed by their own choice.{GC 542.2}

I think there are many statements like this. The wicked ruin their characters so that the glory of God, His character, becomes to them a consuming fire. Certainly if it is the glory of God -- His character -- which results in the destruction of the wicked, it is not literal fire that does so.

The idea that God would destroy the wicked arbitrarily/artificially/in an imposed fashion/irrespective of the damage that sin does (I'm giving a number of choices here to make the meaning clear, and to allow for you to choose your favorite) supposes that sin is innocuous (please note the context; I'm saying innocuous here, in terms of destroying the wicked), which I disagree with.

I also disagree that God would use the methods of the enemy. (Setting people on fire is the method of the enemy; we have lots of examples of this, from Babylon to Rome).

I also disagree that God would choose the most inhumane method possible to destroy people. I'm completely confused as to how you can conceive of the idea that this is something God would do. Especially when you simultaneously assert that you agree that Christ revealed the Father. You don't see that Christ's character was not that of setting people on fire to make them suffer torture? I can only wonder how you can consider Christ, and not perceive that His character is diametrically opposed to the character of one who would set His enemies on fire to make them suffer torture. I don't see how Christ could have made that any more clear.

[Robert]

Scripture is not a theory.

[Robert]

SO are you staying that GOD kills ???

dgrimm60

No, I take the position He doesn't kill, but if one persist in unbelief and refuses God's grace from "under law" that individual will reap the consequences....God will "hand them over" over to sin's destructiveness.

Romans 1:8-26 is a good example:

8 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.

[Robert]

ROBERT

WELL I also do not believe GOD does NOT KILL

dgrimm60

So you believe God kills?

[Robert]

ROBERT

I believe that the sinner destoys them selves

dgrimm60

Yes, because they reject God, the author of life....

[Guest]

Jesus wasn't here for that reason. He did not come that time for vengeance, but to offer salvation. But don't be confused on the matter. He is still a God of justice. And judgment. The hour of judgment had not come at that time, but it is coming. The scribes and pharisees were wrong in many ways, but they did not openly defy God, and worship Baal, or Beelzebub. Jesus would like to have saved them, but they would not. But look what He did a few hundred years earlier.

2Ki 1:6 And they said unto him, There came a man up to meet us, and said unto us, Go, return unto the king that sent you, and say unto him, Thus says the LORD, Is it because there is not a God in Israel, that you send to inquire of Baal-zebub the god of Ekron? therefore you shall not come down from that bed on which you are gone up, but shall surely die.

And he said unto them, What manner of man was he who came up to meet you, and told you these words? And they answered him, He was a hairy man, and wearing a belt of leather about his loins. And he said, It is Elijah the Tishbite.

Then the king sent unto him a captain of fifty with his fifty men. And he went up to him: and, behold, he sat on the top of a hill. And he spoke unto him, You man of God, the king has said, Come down.

And Elijah answered and said to the captain of fifty, If I be a man of God, then let fire come down from heaven, and consume you and your fifty men. And there came down fire from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty.

Again also he sent unto him another captain of fifty with his fifty men. And he answered and said unto him, O man of God, thus has the king said, Come down quickly. (not a good move)

And Elijah answered and said unto them, If I be a man of God, let fire come down from heaven, and consume you and your fifty men. And the fire of God came down from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty.

And he sent again a captain of the third fifty with his fifty men. And the third captain of fifty went up, and came and fell on his knees before Elijah, and besought him, and said unto him, O man of God, I pray you, let my life, and the life of these fifty men your servants, be precious in your sight. Behold, there came fire down from heaven, and burnt up the two captains of the former fifties with their fifties: therefore let my life now be precious in your sight. 2Kings 1:6-14

Obviously a much better way to approach God's prophet in that day, if you worshipped the gods of Ekron.