"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: AA 152.

Quote:

ROBERT: You can't love a God who is always standing over you threateningly.

That is not the way God is. That is your picture, perhaps, but that is certainly not mine. The God I know is standing over us to protect us and show His love and concern. However, He is loving enough to tell us the truth about sin and its terrible consequences.

We must preach both aspects of God's character: the God of love and the God of strict justice. The God who died on the cross to save us, and the God who comes to destroy the wicked and Satan. God's word teaches both. Study Rev. 19: 11-21.

God is not lying in the Bible. Who will say that God will not do exactly what He says He will do?

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

John317: But you're saying the writer of Scripture-- possibly Jeremiah-- wrote his opinion, which you don't believe. You say he is wrong.

That's the problem when we start rejecting what the Bible says.

pnattmbtc: He's not rejecting what the Bible says. He's not saying Jeremiah stated his opinion. He's saying that Jeremiah wrote what he saw happen.

J:He said the writer was giving his perception, just as Ellen White gave her wrong perceptions to her sons.

Those events in Second Kings happened over 200 years before Jeremiah lived.

It's likely that the writer-- whoever it was-- didn't see the event but was writing under the guidance of the Holy Spirit as he studied and read in the same way that Ellen White did.

The Scripture in 2 Kings 1: 10 says plainly that the fire of God came down from heaven and consumed the captain and his 50 men.

Do you believe that?

This isn't addressing my point. My point is that you treat disagreements with you as if they were disagreements with Scripture, as if you were infallible. I'm saying that disagreeing with you is not tantamount with disagreeing with Scripture.

I wasn't commenting on the issue involved, but on the reaction.

I agree with you in regards to Robert's putting things poorly (i.e. comparing Jeremiah to Ellen White's opinion regarding her sons). This does give the impression Robert's not agreeing with Scripture, given his views on Ellen White, so I think you made a good point there. My point is in regards to the idea that if one is disagreeing with you, one is disagreeing with Scripture. I read this a lot, and not just from you. It seems like rather an exalted point of view to take in regards to one's owns abilities to interpret Scripture.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

pnattmbtc; Jesus demonstrated how God treats His enemies.

J:Yes, God is Love and He has great patience. Jesus demonstrated that no one will be able honestly to blame God for anything. The wicked will have destroyed themselves, by making decisions that lead to that eventuality. Saul destroyed himself by his refusal to do God will, and then after Saul was permenantly devoted to rebellion against God, God had no choice but to take Saul's life.

What is Ellen White referring to when she says that God will perform a "strange work"?

This is from another forum on this same question:

Quote:

The work of destruction is a "strange" work for God, but it is not strange in the sense that it is uncommon or rare, is it? It is strange, I believe, in the sense that His way of destroying people is so much higher than man's way, that it is not possible to equate God's way with man's way in this area.

Quote:

She's talking about Is. 28: 21, 22. How do you understand "God's strange work"?

It's strange that God would allow anyone to be destroyed, to be lost forever, to reap the full result of sin.

Quote:

I believe it's a reference to the fact that the destruction of the wicked will appear to some to be contrary to his character but it will actually be in complete harmony with his characeter if people really understood how much He hates sin and how God views it.

Setting people on fire to suffer torture isn't apparently contrary to God's character, but really, really, really contrary to His character, in actual fact.

Quote:

"Although loath to punish, nevertheless He will punish, and that speedily." RH, Jan. 11, 1887.

This sounds like GC chapter 1:

Quote:

The destruction of Jerusalem is a fearful and solemn warning to all who are trifling with the offers of divine grace and resisting the pleadings of divine mercy. Never was there given a more decisive testimony to God's hatred of sin and to the certain punishment that will fall upon the guilty. {GC 36.1}

What happened there?

[pnattmbtc]

R:You can't love a God who is always standing over you threateningly. It's like having a parent who tells you that he/she has got your back...that he/she loves your more than himself/herself, but in the same breath he/she warns you that if you get out of line that he/she will destroy you by dousing you with gasoline and lighting you on fire.

J:After all these years of studying, you apparently still don't get it.

[pnattmbtc]

The book is full of false doctrines if that is an example of what it contains. It teaches that God did not do the very things the Bible says He did, such as destroy the world with a flood and destroy Sodom. He teaches that God won't send fire down from heaven to consume the wicked at the end.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

ROBERT: You can't love a God who is always standing over you threateningly.

John317:That is not the way God is. That is your picture, perhaps, but that is certainly not mine.

I don't see how one could hold the position you hold and simultaneously assert that they don't have a picture that God stands against people in a threatening way unless they are completely dissociating cause from effect. Let's say I have power over you, and I say, "Do what I say. If you don't, I'll set you on fire to burn for days." This is threatening, isn't it?

Quote:

The God I know is standing over us to protect us and show His love and concern. However, He is loving enough to tell us the truth about sin and its terrible consequences.

Which is a threat, that He'll set us on fire for days, to "suffer torture."

Quote:

We must preach both aspects of God's character: the God of love and the God of strict justice.

What you consider God's "strict justice" is a threat of something horrific that God will do if you don't do what He says.

Quote:

The God who died on the cross to save us, and the God who comes to destroy the wicked and Satan. God's word teaches both. Study Rev. 19: 11-21.

I don't think anyone is denying that God will destroy the wicked, unless Robert disagrees with this idea (I can't say one way or the other), but the rest of us our denying that God destroys according the means you have laid out. This is only tantamount to denying that God destroys the wicked if the only that can destroy them is by setting them on fire to suffer torture for days.

Back to Robert's point. How can you possibly not perceive that there is a threat involved here?

God is not lying in the Bible. Who will say that God will not do exactly what He says He will do?

[John317]

Quote:

Richard HolbrookJesus wasn't here for that reason. He did not come that time for vengeance,

Quote:

ROBERT: Oh, so Christ has a split personality?

Christ doesn't have a split personality. The problem, I believe, is that people sometimes don't understand that it's the same love that came to save sinners that will ultimately destroy Satan and all who choose to follow him. On earth, Christ was Savior and the Lamb of God, but when He comes back, He will be King and Judge. His personality doesn't change but His role, or work, does. Read about this in such passages as Hebrews 9: 27, 28; REv. 19: 11-22; 14: 14-20; Matt. 24: 37-51.

"The One who has stood as our Intercessor; who hears all penitential prayers and confessions; who is represented with a rainbow, the symbol of grace and love, encircling His head, is soon to cease His work in the heavenly sanctuary. Grace and mercy will then descend from the throne, and justice will take their place. He for whom His people have looked will assume His right-- the office of Supreme Judge." LDE 240

"In all the Bible, God is pesented not only as a Being of mercy and benevolence, but as a God of strict and impartial justice." Ibid.

"God's love is represented in our day as being of such a character as would forbid His destroying the sinner." She says this is a mistake. Ibid., p. 241

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: Robert

The following is from Light on the Dark Side of God:...

The book is full of false doctrines if that is an example of what it contains. It teaches that God did not do the very things the Bible says He did, such as destroy the world with a flood and destroy Sodom. He teaches that God won't send fire down from heaven to consume the wicked at the end.

No, John, ...you endeavor to turn folks from Christ by placing upon Him sinful attributes.

[Robert]

"God's love is represented in our day as being of such a character as would forbid His destroying the sinner." She says this is a mistake. Ibid., p. 241

I can't listen to a woman who said, "...wicked children [and the context was Willie's impatience] God does not love. ....When you feel tempted to speak impatient and fretful, remember the Lord sees you, and will not love you if you do wrong." [AY 63, 1860]

What she said privately speaks volumes of her view of God . That, sir, is a perversion. I will take what is good from Ellen and trash what is not!

[Robert]

I don't think anyone is denying that God will destroy the wicked, unless Robert disagrees with this idea...

It is in God's power to "release" to "hand over" to "give them up"....but God has no choice because agape does not force...it does not coerce. God's wrath is passive for He reluctantly removes Himself when He is persistently and ultimately rejected.

[Robert]

Christ doesn't have a split personality.

Agape: "As He hung on the cross experiencing God’s curse for our sins, Jesus had to make a choice. He could not save Himself and the world at the same time. And He did make the supreme choice. He chose to die eternally that you and I may live in His place....In other words, the supreme sacrifice is that Jesus was willing to accept our curse and give us His life in exchange. .... Do you know what Christ was saying on the cross? I hope you will never forget this; He was saying that He loves us more than Himself. That is God’s agape." [js]

Sadism: "I saw that some were quickly destroyed, while others suffered longer. They were punished according to the deeds done in the body. Some were many days consuming, and just as long as there was a portion of them unconsumed, all the sense of suffering remained." [egw]

[Robert]

I agree with you in regards to Robert's putting things poorly (i.e. comparing Jeremiah to Ellen White's opinion regarding her sons).

No, both of you misunderstood....

[pnattmbtc]

No, John, you are full of falsehood. You are a OC teacher...you are a Judaizer...you are a warmonger...you endeavor to turn folks from Christ by placing upon Him sinful attributes. You are an enemy of the gospel.

Take it easy.

[pnattmbtc]

p:I don't think anyone is denying that God will destroy the wicked, unless Robert disagrees with this idea...

R:It is in God's power to "release" to "hand over" to "give them up"....but God has no choice because agape does not force...it does not coerce. God's wrath is passive for He reluctantly removes Himself when He is persistently and ultimately rejected.

I agree with this. This is how God destroys.

[Robert]

It [light on the dark side of God] teaches that God did not do the very things the Bible says He did, such as destroy the world with a flood and destroy Sodom. He [she] teaches that God won't send fire down from heaven to consume the wicked at the end.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: Robert

No, John, you are full of falsehood. You are a OC teacher...you are a Judaizer...you are a warmonger...you endeavor to turn folks from Christ by placing upon Him sinful attributes. You are an enemy of the gospel.

Take it easy.

Okay, I'll change it a bit....

[Robert]

The more I listen to John's view of God the more I want to act like the God He presents....Funny, that's when my nature comes out....See how that works? Believe that God is sadistic, and you become like him....John wouldn't like it if I acted out his view of God. He would run and hide because I can be like the SOB he presents.....

If God took my child, who for whatever reason rejected him, and He supernaturally made him feel the pain of being burnt to death until his, let's say, finger was at last consumed I would run kicking and screaming from heaven. I'd rather burn myself than to be in presence of such a sadist. Satan would look like a choirboy compared to this terrible view of God.

[Robert]

Matt 5:43 "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.

I saw that some were quickly destroyed, while others suffered longer. They were punished according to the deeds done in the body. Some were many days consuming, and just as long as there was a portion of them unconsumed, all the sense of suffering remained.

[pnattmbtc]

The more I listen to John's view of God the more I want to act like the God He presents....Funny, that's when my nature comes out....See how that works? Believe that God is sadistic, and you become like him....John wouldn't like it if I acted out his view of God. He would run and hide because I can be like the SOB he presents.....

Then don't do that. Be like the view of God you believe. How did Jesus treat others? He was kind, gentle, considerate, etc. Be like that. (I'm preaching to me too. Your observation is right on. It's our nature to return "eye for eye" rather than turn the other cheek. We need the grace of Christ.)

[John317]

Quote:

pnattmbtc: The sacrifices were consumed by fire (Genesis 8:20). The ever-burning fire on the altar was first kindled from heaven (Leviticus 6:9,13; 9:24), and afterwards rekindled at the dedication of Solomon's temple (2 Chronicles 7:1,3). The expressions "fire from heaven" and "fire of the Lord" generally denote lightning, but sometimes also the fire of the altar was so called (Exodus 29:18; Leviticus 1:9; 2:3; 3:5,9). (http://www.biblereferenceguide.com/keywords/fire.html)

I found this at random.

I'm not making any representation of this site, nor even of the point being made, but simply pointing out that any time the Bible is read, judgment is involved, and it was very easy to find someone who shared Robert's opinion.

It may have been what we would think of as "lightning," but the point is that the Bible says it was from God and that it was in response to what Elijah said. Read again 2 Kings 1: 10-12. It doesn't say the fire, or lightning, came from Satan.

It's apparent from the verses cited that the "fire from God" was not coincidental but had a God-given purpose. In other words, it was not ordinary "lightning."

So the issue is not whether the fire from God was lightning, but whehter God was the source or origin of it. The text leaves no doubt: "And the fire of God came down from heaven and consumed him and his fifty."

Quote:

Your posts of filled with the idea that if anyone interprets Scripture, or the SOP, differently than you do then they are "rejecting what the Bible says" or "rejecting the plain language of the SOP" or similar.

You seem to be failing to distinguish between saying someone rejects a statement in the Bible or SOP and saying someone rejects the Bible or SOP per se. I've never said that someone rejects the entire Bible or Ellen White's ministry because they reject a verse or an SOP statement.

It would be good if you would copy and paste some of my statements which you believe do what you have described, so I can see specific examples.

When I speak of "the plain language" of either the Bible or SOP, I'm talking about statements whose meanings are self-evident and don't require interpretation. There are many such sentences in both the Scriptures and the Spirit of prophecy. Take, for instance, the sentence, "Angels of God laid hold of the massive walls [of Jerico] and brought them to the ground." LDE 243.

My contention is that this sentence does not require interpretation. It's a straight-forward sentence, as plain as the sentence, "Then they [Jesus and His people] meted out to the wicked the portion which they must suffer, according to their works." Provided one understands the meaning of the words, perhaps with the assistence of a dictionary, it is a fairly easy sentence to comprehend.

Let's suppose someone would say, in response to the first sentence, "The angels of God did not lay hold of the walls of Jerico and bring them to the ground. That was the work of the evil angels." Then my reply is that they either did not understand the sentence or else they are rejecting the sentence as it reads.

Or let's suppose someone would say, in response to the second sentence, "No, Jesus and the righteous do not mete out to the wicked the portion which they must suffer. Their suffering is not due to any decison made by Jesus or the saints during the 1000 years. Their suffering is due wholly to "organic" causes, and has no direct connection with decisions made by Jesus in the Judgment."

Then my reply is that they either did not understand the sentence or else they are rejecting the sentence as it reads.

There's a distinction between interpreting Scripture and accepting the plain statements of Scripture. Not all Scripture needs "interpretation." In many places, the Scripture interprets itself.

I wouldn't say that if somone believes in the "rapture," they are rejecting the Bible. That's an interpretation. But let's say that someone doesn't accept the biblical statements that Christ will return. Then it's obvious that they are rejecting the Bible. I don't say that the Jehovah's Witness or even Roman Catholics reject the Bible, even though I have many disagreements with them. Why not? Because our disagreements are based on differences of biblical interpretation.

Let me know if this is unclear in some way to you and I will try to explain it more clearly.

Quote:

You should be able to perceive that people may see things differently than you do without necessarily rejecting Scripture or the SOP, unless you think you are infallible.

Yes, I do know that people see things differently than I do. I have never said that people are rejecting the Bible or the SOP simply for disagreeing with me on an interpretation.

I don't believe that Desmond Ford is rejecting the SOP because he rejects what she said about the Investigative Judgment. Neither do I say that people reject Ellen White because they reject what she said regarding Creation or masturbation, etc. They are rejecting certain statements but that is different in my view from rejecting the Bible or Ellen White per se.

But people are rejecting the Bible or the SOP when they say things such as, "The Bible is full of lies," or "Ellen White teaches heresy," or "Ellen White is a Jezebel."

They are also rejecting statements in the Bible or in the SOP when they say that God has never destroyed or that God has never used force before. But again, this is different from saying that those who say God never destroys, reject the Bible per se or the prophetic ministery of Ellen White. All I know is when they reject a particular statement or verse. That is not difficult to determine.

Let's see if you would agree with me.

Suppose you say that "it was Christ who from the bush on Mt. Horeb spoke to Moses and said, 'I AM THAT I AM,'" and I reply that it was not Christ. In that case, wouldn't you be right to say that I'm rejecting the statement of Ellen White on page 24 of DA? I believe you would be right.

Or, again, suppose you say, "From the beginning, God and Christ knew of the apostasy of Satan," and I reply that God and Christ did not know from the beginning that Satan would apostasize. Wouldn't you be right to say I am rejecting the statement of Ellen White on page 22 of DA? I believe you would be.

Quote:

Why not qualify your pronouncements? Something like, "In my opinion, your idea is tantamount to rejecting Scripture," although I don't even see much point in this.

I have done that many many times. But there is no real difference between saying, "In my opinion, your idea is tantamount...." and saying, "Your idea is tantamount..." It should go without saying that I am expressing my belief or opinion.

Speaking as moderator:

It is a good thing if people say "it is my opinion," or "I think," etc., but there is no rule that people must do this, nor is there anything wrong with saying, "Here's why your viewpoint is wrong," etc.

There is nothing wrong on the Forum with saying that someone's idea is invalid. In fact, members may express their convinctions much stronger than this. The idea, however, is not to attack people personally, but to keep their arguments and attacks focussed on the evidence, reasoning, conclusions, etc., and not on the person.

In other words, people are encouraged to distinguish clearly between a disagreement about ideas and their feelings and thoughts about the person. We should be able to be on opposite sides in a discussion with someone without that difference causing us to make personal attacks or call names, etc.

If you or any member feels that I have not lived up to the above, please copy and paste and send it to me along with the post# and title of the thread, and I will edit or delete the remarks.

Quote:

Better yet, why not simply present what you think is the correct interpretation, and why you think the interpretation you are addressing is wrong, without the pronouncements or personal comments?

Some pronouncement are OK and some personal comments are also OK.

What pronouncements and personal comments do you refer to? Please give some examples.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: Robert

The more I listen to John's view of God the more I want to act like the God He presents....Funny, that's when my nature comes out....See how that works? Believe that God is sadistic, and you become like him....John wouldn't like it if I acted out his view of God. He would run and hide because I can be like the SOB he presents.....

Then don't do that. Be like the view of God you believe. How did Jesus treat others? He was kind, gentle, considerate, etc. Be like that. (I'm preaching to me too. Your observation is right on. It's our nature to return "eye for eye" rather than turn the other cheek. We need the grace of Christ.)

if we think God acts according to "their" picture of Him then there is little reason to turn the other cheek, etc. because we have a "good" reason for responding as we do.

but if we see that God is not like that, then, while there can be a battle, we are now motivated to resist the "natural" man because we want to be like Christ.

my 2 cents. :)

[teresaq]

well john, it is rather sad that your highest authority is the forum rules which are vague at best, and interpreted by the moderator which essentially makes whatever rules there might be null and void.

i have yet to see you state, and show, that the law of God is your authority with all its meanings.

as for me, by the grace of God, His law will be my standard in what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior.

[Robert]

"Then they meted out to the wicked the portion which they must suffer, according to their works."

Kind of like this is easy to understand:

“.... wicked children God does not love. He will not take them to the beautiful City, for he only admits the good, obedient, and patient children there…. When you feel tempted to speak impatient and fretful, remember the Lord sees you, and will not love you if you do wrong. “ [AY 63, 1860]

If she got the love of God wrong she probably got your quote wrong also.....

[Robert]

When I speak of "the plain language" of ...the Bible ... I'm talking about statements whose meanings are self-evident and don't require interpretation.

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

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

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

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

Why did God say, in plain language, "I will strike the Shepherd [Jesus]" when clearly God had "forsaken" Him.

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

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

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

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: Robert

p:I don't think anyone is denying that God will destroy the wicked, unless Robert disagrees with this idea...

R:It is in God's power to "release" to "hand over" to "give them up"....but God has no choice because agape does not force...it does not coerce. God's wrath is passive for He reluctantly removes Himself when He is persistently and ultimately rejected.

I agree with this. This is how God destroys.

Yes this perfectly expresses my position as well.

sky