"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[John317]

Quote:

Robert:

Where does it say that "the mark of the beast" is Sunday keeping? Where's the plain text? Yes? So Ellen does what you accuse us of....Hmmm?

Do you now believe that Ellen White twists what God says? Does Jack Sequeira believe the same? Based on the fact that Jack refers to her writings as the Spirit of propehcy, and that he includes so many of her quotes in his own writings, I would find it hard believe he would agree with you about Ellen White twisting the truth, particularly about the mark of the Beast.

[John317]

Yet you don't accept these statements as they read, rather "turn them upside down."

The problem is not the statements but the use to which you are putting them. You are taking thise statement as if she mean that God never has used force. Her point is that God will not win the great controversy by force or by destroying Satan. The great controversy is won at the cross, not by killing Satan. But when he does destroy Satan, it will be after Satan has already proven who he is and will also have proven that God is right to destroy Him.

If you do not believe God has ever used force, explain the following quotes from the Spirit of prophecy:

Adam was compelled to leave the Garden. "Holy angels were sent to drive out the disobedient pair from the garden, while other angels guarded the way of the tree of life from the approach of Satan and the guilty pair." The Truth About Angels, p. 62. Obviously the guard was there to force Adam and Eve, as well as Satan, away from the tree. Satan wanted access to the Tree of Life, but God wisely did not permit him.

On page 61, she says Adam and Eve were "expelled," the same word she uses in regard to the thrusting out of Satan from heaven. She also says God told Adam he would "have to" leave. p. 61.

Angels of God removed the chariot wheels of the Egyptian soldiers as they went into the Red Sea. The Egyptians were trying to get out of the Red Sea and return to the shore, but before they could do so, God made the water rush in and "swallow the Egyptian army." p. 96.

It was Christ Himself who said He was giving Jericho into Joshua's hand, along with the king and all the mighty men of valor. p. 110. The angels and Christ "led in the attack on Jericho." p. 111. Elsewhere (3 T 264) Mrs. White says that the angels of God took hold of the walls and brought them to the ground. The whole city was slaughtered, except for Rahab and those in her house. This is exactly what the Bible teaches as well. Compare Joshua 6: 2, 16-25.

5) Angels of God were sent to do work of destruction. pp. 119, 127, 128, 241.

"Angels of God fought by the side of Jonathan, and the Philistines fell all around him."

She refers to the angel of God as "the destroying angel." p. 128.

Speaking of the temple at Jerusalem in 70 AD, Ellen White states, "Angels of God were sent to do the work of destruction, so that one stone [of the temple] was not left upon another that was not thrown down." p. 241.

Satan was compelled-- forced, if you will-- to stay on earth, to be in the midst of the warring elements, all during the Flood. p. 70

Ellen White says that God "thrust Satan out of heaven." p. 37.

How can this be stated in that way without meaning exactly what it says, that Satan was forced to leave? Have you ever seen anyone "thrust out," "cast out," "expelled," "turned out," and "driven out" if they went off voluntarily? That does not make sense, does not?

The Truth About Angels also contains good evidence that there is some sort of actual fighting that goes on between good and evil angels. If you have the book, please read pp. 69, 105, 208. She speaks of the power of certain of God's angels which makes the evil angels fall back or retreat.

Also, there's proof in the Bible and SOP that God directly caused the third Plague on Egypt--dust becoming real "gnats'-- yet we know that Satan cannot possibly create life. Therefore the third plague was most definitly from God; and if that plague was from God, the other plagues were also from God. Otherwise, we are saying Satan was cooperating with God and Moses to free the slaves, and that makes no sense whatsoever, because Satan was working to defeat God's plan. Are we to believe that every time Moses put out his rod, Satan would perform a miracle to help Moses accomplish his objective? Not likely, wouldn't you agree?

[Robert]

she is not saying that her writings regarding what God had shown her in vision is in error.

Sorry, I didn't see that disclaimer in her quotes....Good try, though.

Rob

[Robert]

Complete obedience does not mean believers don't make mistakes or ever commit a sin. But they don't intentionally do those things and if they do them, they are repentant, confess their sins, and ask Christ for His forgiveness and power to let Him live His life out in them.

Your argument it with EGW:

Complete obedience is the only condition that meets the requirement of the law. “God is not a man, that He should lie.” God’s law is the rule of His government. He says, “This do, and thou shalt live.” But to the disobedient He says, “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them.” “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.” God has given the promise that those who obey His law will be rewarded, not only in the present life, but in the life to come. He declares just as decidedly that those who do not obey His requirements shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on them. By lips that never lie the obedient are blessed, and the disobedient are pronounced guilty.

So I think you guys should be afraid of God.....

[Robert]

new truth won't contradict or set aside the old truth

Really? Then it's not new truth.

Rob

[John317]

Quote:

John317: she is not saying that her writings regarding what God had shown her in vision is in error.

You'll need to read her other writings. 1 SM pp. 25-48 is helpful.

Ever heard the saying, "One Swallow does not a summer make"? You need to take into consideration everything she says on the subject. Also context, context, context.

Don't forget that Ellen White was growing spiritually and in her awareness of truth. So did Paul, Peter, John, and James. Even Jesus grew in his spiritual awarenss and understanding. She changed in her views of things-- as, for instance, on the nature of Christ's deity, and on the nature of the Holy Spirit-- but the relevant point here is that she didn't write things for the church that God hadn't shown her. She wasn't writing on her own initiative. Often the angels of God would wake her up in the night and tell her to write. She never wrote her own opinions as God's messages. She never had to go back and change earlier writings to fit her new ideas or theology.

[Robert]

To say that God told Satan that Job is perfect and upright when God knew pefectly well that Job was just another self-righteousness sinner-- to say this, I believe, is tantamount to saying that God lied. It would be different if God had said, "My servant Job thinks he's just and righteous, but...." Then, for sure, it would be a totally different story than the one in our Bibles.

Okay, you want to go head to head on Job? Let's do it because every time we do you end up doing the backstroke. I'm game....

[Robert]

Quote:

Robert:

Where does it say that "the mark of the beast" is Sunday keeping? Where's the plain text? Yes? So Ellen does what you accuse us of....Hmmm?

Do you now believe that Ellen White twists what God says? Does Jack Sequeira believe the same? Based on the fact that Jack refers to her writings as the Spirit of propehcy, and that he includes so many of her quotes in his own writings, I would find it hard believe he would agree with you about Ellen White twisting the truth, particularly about the mark of the Beast.

No answers....Try again.

Where does it say that "the mark of the beast" is Sunday keeping? Where's the plain text?

[John317]

Where's the plain text that says little children will be ssved in heaven?

Where's the plain text that says the man of Romans 7 is converted to Christ (before the last verse of the chapter)?

And where is the plain text-- not in the mouth of one of the "friends" who does not speak the truth-- but by either the narrator, God or by Job himself, which says Job was a man filled with his own self-righteousness?

[Robert]

Don't forget that Ellen White was growing spiritually and in her awareness of truth.

[Robert]

Where's the plain text that says little children will be ssved in heaven?

[John317]

Nothing more than mere hearsay. Saying it doesn't make it so.

Ellen White stated this a number of times, and there is evidence from those who lived with her that it was true. Also from Adventists who would pass her house on the way to the Sanitarium.

Her word is not "heresay". Is that the way Jack Sequeira views it-- as heresay? Ask him if he believes the angels sometimes woke her up to write. I know he does. So maybe Jack would be interested in buying your Kool Aid. You think?

[John317]

BTW, you are the one saying take it just as it reads, not me....So what's your argument? or do you like to argue with yourself?

Taking it as it reads doesn't mean the student shouldn't use well-recongized principles of interpretation. You certainly know what those are, right? Included among the rules are (1) Take context into consideration; (2) Consider parallel or related verses; (3) Insofar as possible, consider everything the Bible or SOP say on a particular topic. (4) In the books such as Job, where you have characters who are sometimes wrong, you have to consider who's saying it and whether their view is verified by either God, the narrator, or by Job himself.

[Robert]

Taking it as it reads doesn't mean the student shouldn't use well-recongized principles of interpretation.

[John317]

BTW, you are the one saying take it just as it reads, not me....So what's your argument? or do you like to argue with yourself?

Taking it as it reads doesn't mean the student shouldn't use well-recongized principles of interpretation. You certainly know what those are, right? Included among the rules are (1) Take context into consideration; (2) Consider parallel or related verses; (3) Insofar as possible, consider everything the Bible or SOP say on a particular topic. (4) In the books such as Job, where you have characters who are sometimes wrong, you have to consider who's saying it and whether their view is verified by either God, the narrator, or by Job himself.

[Robert]

How to study your Bible

[Robert]

And where is the plain text-- not in the mouth of one of the "friends" who does not speak the truth-- but by either the narrator, God or by Job himself, which says Job was a man filled with his own self-righteousness?

Why does God say Job is perfect? Could it be God is merely presenting Job's view of himself before Satan? Yes! That's why when a 4th man steps in, Elihu, he points out the issue:

So these three men stopped answering Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes. 2 But Elihu son of Barakel the Buzite, of the family of Ram, became very angry with Job for justifying himself rather than God. 3 He was also angry with the three friends, because they had found no way to refute Job, and yet had condemned him.

That's Job's problem. He thinks he is righteous, but in reality he is self-centered and therefore isn't fulfilling the law after all. Again, only "agape (a selfless love) fulfills the law". The fact he is justifying himself before God proves beyond a doubt that this man is self-righteous.

Elihu has pin-pointed Job's problem. So God is presenting Job's view of himself. Why? Because that's what Job is presenting before God. He is justifying himself before God.

Now Job ends up repenting and so do Job's 3 friends. They were accusing him of some secret sin. They were also misrepresenting God's character. That's why at the end of the book of Job you see Job and his 3 friends repenting, but not Elihu! Why? He spoke the truth!!!!

[John317]

Quote:

John317: Taking it as it reads doesn't mean the student shouldn't use well-recongized principles of interpretation.

Quote:

ROBERT: teehe Yours, of course....

Absolutely not. They're the same ones that Jack Sequeira doubtless uses, and that all good Bible students use. You can read about them in books on how to study the Bible. They are called principles of hermaneutics. They're pretty well established across the denominational lines. A theology student learns these in his freshman year of college. It's those I'm referring to.

I gotta go:

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: And where is the plain text-- not in the mouth of one of the "friends" who does not speak the truth-- but by either the narrator, God or by Job himself, which says Job was a man filled with his own self-righteousness?

Quote:

ROBERT: Why does God say Job is perfect? Could it be God is merely presenting Job's view of himself before Satan?

"Could it be"? No, not on the basis of the text itself. Where are the clear verses that state this or shows it?

Why does the narrator himself tell us that Job is exactly as God says He is?

God says Job is "perfect" because Job was indeed "perfect" in the sense that the Bible is using that word. It doesn't mean "without sin."

Remember that God used the same word to describe Noah, in Gen 6: 9. NASB translates it as "blameless." In the margin, it also defines the Hebrew word as meaning, "complete, perfect; having intergrity." It is correct in that information. So it is saying that Job was someone whom God could trust because of Job's integrity. It has nothing to with absolute perfection or sinlessness.

To say that Job was not "perfect," then, or that God is merely giving Job's illusory beliefs about himself, is not only a denial of God's own testimony but also makes the book lose much of its purpose, which is to show the suffering of "perfect" people.

Why does the book itself show Job as God says? Is God mistaken about Job? The book does not support the idea that Job is different from God's expectations.

God completely ignores Elihu. Notice that the others make no reference to him and God does not acknowledge him, either. It is as if Elihu appears out of nowhere. You don't know he exists until all of a suddden he's there talking at the end of the book. Elihu is young and inexperienced and he puts words in Job's mouth that he's never said before, and some that are contrary to what Job has actually been saying. Notice that Elihu is not even mentioned in Chapter 2, verse 11, as a friend of Job. In fact, the book of Job reads better when you leave out Elihu's speeches altogether; and some Bible scholars believe that this cycle of speeches was added later as an afterthought to the rest of the story. It reads quite well when you skip Elihu and jump from the end of chapter 31 to the beginning of chapter 38 where the Lord begins to speak out of the whirlwind. You'll notice that Elihu actually just says a lot of the same things that the Lord Himself says. Also notice that of all the speeches, the only ones to which Job does not offer a response are those of the youthful Elihu.

There are two reasons for God to avoid Elihu, and that is (1) he's young and therefore his words aren't to be taken all that seriously, since he's only repeating things he's been told rather than things based on his personal experience and wisdom; and (2) at least Elihu doesn't argue that God is punishing Job for some grave, secret sin, as Job's three friends do. In that way, therefore, Elihu is an improvement over Job's three friends.

[skyblue888]

So this discussion is about Job being a self righeous man now? Why did you bring the subject up John? shoulnd't this be a separate thread?

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: sky

I appreciate many of your comments but some of your comments about what Mrs. White has written show a lack of discernment.

I agree with this. Additionally there is a lack of discernment in making negative comments about Ellen White to the audience you are addressing. This only hurts the cause you are representing.

That is, your views are very similar to that which sky and I have been sharing, yet we substantiate our views from the SOP. When you make derogatory remarks about the SOP, you're harming what sky and I are trying to share from her writings. I think it would be far superior to simply make your arguments from Scripture and remain silent in regards to Ellen White. I think you should think of the greater good, which is to present a position you believe is true in a way where it's most likely to gain an audience.

Totally agree. Right now Robert, I believe the enemy could be using you to make it look like the four of us (pnatt, teresa, yourself and I) are (must be) teaching error because of the way you respond to your opponents and your constantly bashing Mrs. White's writings.

If you don't care for her writings, then leave that subject alone and, like pnatt said, present your arguments from the Bible alone, as you have been doing.

One more comment I would like to make about the statement in which Mrs. White wrote that God hates disobedient little boys. I mentioned Romans 9 where God says He hated Esau and loved Jacob. I was thinking about that this morning and the thought came to me that this is God's way of saying that Jacob He could bless because of His faith but Esau He could not bless as He wished to bless him because of his unbelief. And this is in perfect keeping with the principles of interpretation found in the Bible itself and in her writings.

sky

God hates sin but He loves the sinner.

His love for the sinner is stronger than death. E.G.W.

[pnattmbtc]

Speaking of the temple at Jerusalem in 70 AD, Ellen White states, "Angels of God were sent to do the work of destruction, so that one stone [of the temple] was not left upon another that was not thrown down." p. 241....

Thoughts anyone?

[skyblue888]

Thanks pnatt. Anyone who reads The Great Controversy, pp.35,36,28 with an open and honest mind cannot fail to see and understand that this is the truth and the truth only.

sky

[pnattmbtc]

Even if this happened the way you think, this would be light years away from being as cruel as your idea that God will set the lost on fire to "suffer torture" for many days. A little thought should make that clear. How much suffering would there be to be drowned? How much suffering in being burned alive for days, with the nerve endings supernaturally preserved so the pain can continue?

How can you even conceive of such a thing? This is the sort of thing the Catholics were trying to device in the days of the inquisition to increase the pain they were inflicting. You attribute to God such torture as the devil himself was unable to implement, and see nothing wrong with this. All the while insisting that you believe God is just like Jesus Christ. And that I am the one who doesn't take statements as they read.

Quote:

It's best to leave it up to God how he punishes the wicked. Ellen White says that very thing.

I agree. You should to this.

I've actually said many, many times that God will destroy the wicked, so that wouldn't be a problem. Regarding the use of force, given that the exercise of force is contrary to the principles of His government, and compelling power is found only under the government of Satan, just how do you think this is possible?

Quote:

If you convince yourself that a just God will not do those things, then your only alternative will then be to reject Him.

He has said He won't do the things you're thinking. Torture people? Here's a key point where we differ. I would want no part of a Universe run by a torturer. Your position has no morality. You think it's fine that God tortures people.

Thank God He is not like that! God is exactly like Jesus Christ. He is a God whom even His enemies need not fear. The enemy is not God, but sin, which destroys the soul, and Satan, who misrepresents His character, making Him appear as cruel, harsh and severe. As a torturer even. And the sad thing is there are well-minding people who believe these misrepresentations.

What Robert wrote earlier comes to mind. You say it makes no difference to you if God does these things or not. I don't see how this is possible. How can you support someone who tortures? As long as you think it's God, you'll support Him no matter what act He would do, no matter how heinous. This is what you're saying. You don't see the danger in such a position?

If you think it's OK for God to torture and kill by inhumane means, why wouldn't it be OK for Him to ask you to participate? Actually, you believe this, since you think he will ask you to decide for how long your loved ones should be tortured. How about in this life? As a part of the plagues? Is torture possible there? The exact nature of the plagues isn't really spelled out. God could come to you and ask you to help with these plagues, couldn't he? Help the wicked suffer their "just desserts." You don't see the danger in thinking this way?

Quote:

For how can you worship, admire, love, and joyfully obey a God whom you are convinced is cruel and evil?

How can you worship a God who tortures people inhumanely?

Quote:

What you don't see is that His justice, mercy and love are the basis of the destruction of the wicked.

The destruction of the wicked is not Him setting them on fire to torture them! You've got this block in your mind that equates these things.

As I've said repeatedly, God will destroy the wicked, but the mechanism of destruction is not setting them on fire for days to torture them, and then finally, after they've supposed suffered enough pain to satisfy "justice," allowing them to die.

How can you possibly think God is capable of doing this? I know you would answer because this is how you read certain inspired statements, but that doesn't answer the question. Why would you think God is capable of such cruelty?

Quote:

I'm sure you've seen the SOP quotes which speak to this.

I've seen quotes that explain that cruelty is Satanic.

[skyblue888]

John, can I question your motive for bringing up the subject of Job being a self-righteous man? You know this is what Robert believes and I am positive that you also know that pnatt and I do not share this belief. Would not the enemy just love to pit us against each other while he is at it trying to make us look like we are teaching error since our position differs from the traditional view and that he is desperate to hide the truth at any cost or any way he can?

sky