"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[pnattmbtc]

I'm going to piggy back on teresa's post. I'm filling in the dots. I think I've understood her thinking in choosing these quotes and highlighting them as she did, which I'm writing out, in addition to adding some thoughts.

A single angel destroyed all the first-born of the Egyptians, and filled the land with mourning. When David offended against God by numbering the people, one angel caused that terrible destruction by which his sin was punished. The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when he permits. There are forces now ready, and only waiting the divine permission, to spread desolation everywhere. {GC88 614.2}

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

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.

I agree with you, sky. The words, God "hated Esau," really just means that God loved Esau less. God couldn't bless Esau because of Esau's lack of love, faith and obedience.

But it's important to see the significance of Romans 9: 11, which is that God's choice depends on His will alone, and not on whether people do something good or bad. It says that God's choice between Jacob and Esau is an illustration of the fact that God does not choose people on account of their goodness but strictly on account of His will, even long before people are born.

Paul then asks the question (v. 14) whether God's choice is unjust because He chooses people according to His own will and not according to man's works. His answer is that God is certainly not unjust.

God's choice does not depend on the will of people or on their good works but on God's mercy.

Verses 20 to 23 are very interesting and apropos of this discussion:

"What right have you, a human being, to cross-examine God? The pot has no right to say to the potter: Why did you make me this shape? Surely a potter can do what he likes with the clay. Is he not free to make out of the same lump two vessels, one to be treasured, the other for common use? What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the people who make him angry, however much they deserve to be destroyed? He puts up with them for the sake of those other people, to whom he wants to be merciful, to whom He wants to reveal the richness of His glory, people He had prepared for this glory long ago."

Ellen White: "God's goodness and long forbearancce, His patience and mercy exercised to His subjects, will not hinder Him from punishing the sinner who refused to be obedient to His requirements. IT IS NOT FOR A MAN-- A CRIMINAL AGAINST GOD'S HOLY LAW, PARDONED ONLY THROUGH THE GREAT SACRIFICE HE MADE IN GIVING HIS SON TO DIE FOR THE GUILTY BECAUSE HIS LAW WAS CHANGELESS-- TO DICTATE TO GOD. After all this effort on the part of God to preserve the sacred and exalted character of His law, if men, through the sophistry of the devil, turn the mercy and condescension of God into a curse, they MUST suffer the penalty. Because Christ died they consider they have liberty to transgress God's holy law that condemns the transgressor, and would complain of its strictness and its penalty as severe and unlike God. They are uttering the words Satan utters to millions, to quiet their conscience in rebellion against God.

"In no kingdom or govenrment is it left to the lawbreakers to say what punishment is to be executed against those who have broken the law... God is a moral governor as well as a Father. He is the lawgiver. He makes and executes His laws..." 12 MR 208

John, you wrote: I agree with you, sky. The words, God "hated Esau," really just means that God loved Esau less. God couldn't bless Esau because of Esau's lack of love, faith and obedience.

John that is not it. That is not what my thought was. God did not love Esau any less than He loved Jacob. What I said is that when God said that He hated Esau and loved Jacob He did not mean it in the same way that we human beings do. Remember, His thoughts are not our thoughts. God loves the sinner but He hates sin. He did not love Jacob any more than He loved Esau. God "hated Esau" only in the sense that He could not lavish upon Him all that He wished to lavish upon him because Esau made it impossible for God to do so.

Then you wrote: But it's important to see the significance of Romans 9: 11, which is that God's choice depends on His will alone, and not on whether people do something good or bad. It says that God's choice between Jacob and Esau is an illustration of the fact that God does not choose people on account of their goodness but strictly on account of His will, even long before people are born.

And His will is that all be saved, that none be loss. In fact, the Word says that He chose everyone of us in Christ even before we were born. So that goes for Esau as well. God chose him in Christ just as He chose Jacob. He loved both with an everlasting love just as He does all of us. He loved them both equally just as He loves all equally. His will is that all be saved. God's will is not whimsical.

"God is no respector of persons." Acts 10:34.

As to the rest of your post, you seem to think that someone like me is questioning God's justice. I have never questioned His justice and I know that justice will be done. But what some of us fail to see is that God's ways of exercising justice is not according to man's ways. His ways are so different than man's ways that they bear no comparison. When I read your posts and the way you interpret the Word one would think that God is altogether like us.

Sorry John but that is the impression you leave when discussing God's ways of doing things.

sky

[pnattmbtc]

God "hated Esau" only in the sense that He could not lavish upon Him all that He wished to lavish upon him because Esau made it impossible for God to do so.

Cool!

[pnattmbtc]

But what some of us fail to see is that God's ways of exercising justice is not according to man's ways. His ways are so different than man's ways that they bear no comparison. When I read your posts and the way you interpret the Word one would think that God is altogether like us.

This is a good point, but difficult to grasp. It's difficult to grasp because people don't recognize this is what they're doing.

Teresa spoke of our conceiving of God as a super us.

Having this view causes us to interpret Scripture incorrectly because we suppose, in our reasoning, that God would reason and act as we would.

Another example of a principle that's difficult to grasp is when Jesus said, "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father." It's difficult for the same reason the principle you mentioned is difficult to grasp, because people think they believe it when they don't. That is, they think they believe that when we've seen Jesus, we've seen the Father, but the reality is that the part of their brain that interprets God the Father pictures Him completely differently than the part of the brain that pictures the Son.

I actually think it's impossible for this not to happen. Since I became aware of this principle, it's become very clear to me that I do this very thing (conceive of God the Father as different than God the Son). I think one of the reasons the SOP suggests our meditating upon the life of Jesus an hour a day because this is a means of helping us to understand God better. I know that since I've become aware of my shortcoming in this respect (not really believing that God the Father is just like Jesus Christ) that my view of God has improved a great deal. It's difficult to put into words, but I view God as much more humble, kind, and patient than I used to. Like a really good (i.e. infinitely good) person who has the power to do whatever He wants. (Say! That sounds like Jesus Christ, doesn't it?)

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: John317

It says that God's choice between Jacob and Esau is an illustration of the fact that God does not choose people on account of their goodness but strictly on account of His will, even long before people are born.

Then you wrote: But it's important to see the significance of Romans 9: 11, which is that God's choice depends on His will alone, and not on whether people do something good or bad. It says that God's choice between Jacob and Esau is an illustration of the fact that God does not choose people on account of their goodness but strictly on account of His will, even long before people are born.

i didnt catch this.

perhaps john is not aware that this is predestinarian thinking. or perhaps he didnt realize how he was wording this....

has the sda church become predestinarian, or just some members?

does the church know the difference between predestinarian and freewill?

the way this has been understood before by our church, is that God judges by the heart...hopefully that is what john meant...

[teresaq]

piggybacking on your piggybacking... (where did that expression come from?)

I'm going to piggy back on teresa's post. I'm filling in the dots. I think I've understood her thinking in choosing these quotes and highlighting them as she did, which I'm writing out, in addition to adding some thoughts.

Originally Posted By: teresaq

A single angel destroyed all the first-born of the Egyptians, and filled the land with mourning. When David offended against God by numbering the people, one angel caused that terrible destruction by which his sin was punished. The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when he permits. There are forces now ready, and only waiting the divine permission, to spread desolation everywhere. {GC88 614.2}

...

Back to David's case.

Quote:

2Sa 24:12 Go and say unto David, Thus saith the LORD, I offer thee three things; choose thee one of them, that I may do it unto thee.

2Sa 24:13 So Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him,

Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land?

or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue thee?

or that there be three days' pestilence in thy land?

now advise, and see what answer I shall return to him that sent me.

2Sa 24:14 And David said unto Gad, I am in a great strait: let us fall now into the hand of the LORD; for his mercies are great: and let me not fall into the hand of man.

2Sa 24:15 So the LORD sent a pestilence upon Israel from the morning even to the time appointed: and there died of the people from Dan even to Beersheba seventy thousand men.

2Sa 24:16 And when the angel stretched out his hand upon Jerusalem to destroy it, the LORD repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed the people, It is enough: stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD was by the threshingplace of Araunah the Jebusite.

2Sa 24:17 And David spake unto the LORD when he saw the angel that smote the people, and said, Lo, I have sinned, and I have done wickedly: but these sheep, what have they done? let thine hand, I pray thee, be against me, and against my father's house.

… 2Sa 24:25 And David built there an altar unto the LORD, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings. So the LORD was intreated for the land, and the plague was stayed from Israel.

1Ch 21:27 And the LORD commanded the angel; and he put up his sword again into the sheath thereof.

This brings out that a pestilence came upon Israel, where seventy thousand died, by the hand of one angel.

going back to the difference between predestination and freewill, the calvinist believes that God saves man against his will and condemns another to hell regardless if the man condemned, in his heart, wants God.

here God gave david 3 choices.

first choice, famine. how does famine come about?

2nd choice, being pursued by davids enemies. how would that have come about?

or 3 days of pestilence. how does that come about?

[John317]

Quote:

John317: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.

Quote:

ROBERT: 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"?

I agree with the above conclusions, but the Bible explains what happened in those instances. Ellen White also explains what happened in the case of the hardening of Pharoah's heart (PP 268-269), so these things are not in the same category as those which we're discussing, i.e., the war in heaven and whether God has ever used force or will destroy the wicked in fire.

Your error is in assuming that this means that all passages in the Bible referring to God's activity are to be interpretated on the basis of the above examples. Every good Bible student knows-- or should know-- that God is sometimes portrayed as doing that which He permits, but a close study of the Bible and SOP proves beyond all question that this is not the case in every instance where God is described as punishing or destroying or killing.

"The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits. There are forces now ready, and only waiting the divine permission, to spread desolation everywhere." GC 614 (1911)

The above is a very important principle to keep in mind when studying these issues. It means it's a mistake to believe that whenever God is said in Scripture to punish or destroy, it is actually attributing the acts to Satan's power. The plain statement above is that God also commands holy angels to exercise destructive power.

Quote:

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

It was "the angel of God" who destroyed the first-born of Egypt. Both the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy could not be clearer on this. The devil couldn't possibly have made dust become gnats, since Satan cannot create life.

What is your proof that Satan was the one who took the life of the first-born? Does either the Bible or Ellen White say this? If so, please quote it.

Please consider the following evidence:

"The Lord slew all the first-born of man and the first-born of beast." Ex. 13: 15. (The same is stated over and over in the Scriptures.)

What makes this verse different from the other examples you give, is that there is not a single text in the Bible or a single passage in Ellen White which says that it was actually the devil who killed the first-born. In fact, Ellen White says just the opposite. She explicitly tells us that it was the angel of God who slayed the first-born.

Ellen White writes,

"A single angel [of God] destroyed all the first-born of the Egyptians and filled the land with mourning. When David offended against God by numbering the people, one angel caused that terrible destruction by which his sin was punished. The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits. There are forces now ready, and only waiting the divine permission, to spread desolation everywhere." GC 614 (1911)

"The Egyptians could not see the avenging angel, who entered every house and dealt the death blow, but they KNEW that it was THE HEBREWS' GOD WHO WAS CAUSING THEM TO SUFFER the same distress they had made the Israelites suffer." YI May 1, 1873 (The Truth About Angels, p. 95.)

The Israelites did not give glory and praise to Satan for killing the first-born and helping Israel to be freed from their slavery. The Bible gives the praise to God, and for very good reason.

Ellen White also wrote: "[some of the Egyptians] entreated to be permitted to come to the houses of the Israelites with their families, upon that fearful night when THE ANGEL OF GOD SHOULD SLAY THE FIRST-BORN OF THE EGYPTIANS." Spiritual Gifts, vol 3, page 224.

"The Egyptians could not see the avenging angel, who entered every house and dealt the death blow, but they KNEW that it was THE HEBREWS' GOD WHO WAS CAUSING THEM TO SUFFER the same distress they had made the Israelites suffer." YI May 1, 1873 (The Truth About Angels, p. 95.)

"Moses then told the king that the angel of the God would slay their first-born." The Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. 1, page 218.

The clincing proof that it was God who brought the plagues on Egypt is the fact that the third plague was that of dust being made into lice, or gnats. See Ex. 8: 17. Verse 18 shows that Satan could not reproduce this miracle of God. Even the Egyptian magicians admitted that it was the "finger of God" who did this miracle.

How do you explain this?

Please show any biblical or SOP evidence that it was the devil who made lice from the dust. Or that it was the devil who slayed the first-born of Egypt.

[John317]

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.

The highest authority on the forum is God's law, but unfortunately other specific rules are needed because people do not always abide by God's law. That is the reason for the rules, which were passed by Administrators and moderators.

When you joined the forum, you promised to abide by the rules and to listen to and cooperate with the moderators. If you feel that wrongs are done by moderators, I encourage you to use the appeal's process that was designed for that purpose.

If you don't like the decisions made by administrators and moderators, or the way the forum is run, then may I suggest that you may want to post on a different forum.

Do you see a conflict between the rules of the forum and the law of God? If so, let us know.

Quote:

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

If you read very many of my 16000 posts, you will see that I have often spoken of God's law as my authority. The whole Bible is God's law. But specifically, yes, the law of God in the Ten Commandments are authorative for me.

Also the Golden Rule, which says we're to treat others as we want to be treated. This is how I have always treated you and everyone else on the Forum. If you see me post where this is not being done, please tell me and I will delete it and offer an apology to the offended individual.

Quote:

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

I'm glad to hear that.

[skyblue888]

going back to the difference between predestination and freewill, the calvinist believes that God saves man against his will and condemns another to hell regardless if the man condemned, in his heart, wants God.

here God gave david 3 choices.

first choice, famine. how does famine come about?

2nd choice, being pursued by davids enemies. how would that have come about?

or 3 days of pestilence. how does that come about?

[teresaq]

Quote:

Exo 8:16 And the LORD said unto Moses, Say unto Aaron, Stretch out thy rod, and smite the dust of the land, that it may become lice throughout all the land of Egypt.

Exo 8:17 And they did so; for Aaron stretched out his hand with his rod, and smote the dust of the earth, and it became lice in man, and in beast; all the dust of the land became lice throughout all the land of Egypt.

Exo 8:18 And the magicians did so with their enchantments to bring forth lice, but they could not: so there were lice upon man, and upon beast.

Exo 8:19 Then the magicians said unto Pharaoh, This is the finger of God: and Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.

that makes sense, actually.

what exactly is meant by the hebrew word isnt certain, but that the gods of egypt were being judged is certain, Num 33:4 ... upon their gods also the LORD executed judgments. then we have to assume the "lice" represented one of their gods.

the eggs were in the dust and God had been controlling how many could be hatched and since God was controlling, of course the magicians could not cause them to be hatched. God removed His control and the egyptians were allowed to see that it had been the eternal self-existent God that had been protecting them all along, not that particular egyptian god.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

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.

The highest authority on the forum is God's law, but unfortunately other specific rules are needed because people do not always abide by God's law. That is the reason for the rules, which were passed by Administrators and moderators.

When you joined the forum, you promised to abide by the rules and to listen to and cooperate with the moderators. If you feel that wrongs are done by moderators, I encourage you to use the appeal's process that was designed for that purpose.

If you don't like the decisions made by administrators and moderators, or the way the forum is run, then may I suggest that you may want to post on a different forum.

Do you see a conflict between the rules of the forum and the law of God? If so, let us know.

Quote:

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

If you read very many of my 16000 posts, you will see that I have often spoken of God's law as my authority. The whole Bible is God's law. But specifically, yes, the law of God in the Ten Commandments are authorative for me.

Also the Golden Rule, which says we're to treat others as we want to be treated. This is how I have always treated you and everyone else on the Forum. If you see me post where this is not being done, please tell me and I will delete it and offer an apology to the offended individual.

Quote:

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

I'm glad to hear that.

thank you for sharing that, i suppose...

and thank you for uninviting me. most appreciated.

[John317]

Quote:

John317: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.

Quote:

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

I agree with the essential position you are taking on this verse. It was certainly not God who did those horrible things to Christ. The people who did those things were inspired by Satan. We know that from what both the Bible and Ellen White tell us. For instance, John 13: 17 says that Satan took possession of Judas. He was also controlling the other people involved in the crucifixion.

But there is more that needs to be considered.

Note that the original language does not have God saying, "I will strike the Shepherd." It says, "Strike," an imperative verb. The Septuagint translates the Hebrew imperative verb with the Greek word, pataxate, which, of course, is also imperative.

When, in Matt. 26: 31, our Lord quoted the verse, He said, "I will strike" [Gk. pataxw], which is future aorist indicative first singular, thus adding the first personal pronoun and changing the imperative to a future tense.

There is, however, a real sense in which God Himself was behind the events that took place at the crucifixion. The Bible shows that it was God's plan for these things to take place. See, for instance, Acts 2: 23. That does not lessen the responsibility of the people involved for the terrible deeds they did that day. This is taught in Matt. 26: 24: "The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed: it had been good or that man if he had not been born." It sounds like the punishment of the betrayer will be severe.

When it says, "I will strike the Shepherd," the signifance is that God was laying all of the sins of the world on Him, and hence He would be treated as if He were actually a great criminal. It's in this sense that God "struck" Christ. It reminds us of Isaiah 53: 4, 10.

Quote:

ROBERT: 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?

2 Thess. 2: 11, 12 is well explained by other verses which show that God wants everyone to be saved, but that when they turn away from God, and refuse to hear the truth, God allows them to believe the lies which they choose to believe. He sends the plain truth in the Bible, but many pervert it and turn back to lies; and when this happens, their eyes are darkened by the truth. They think the truth is a lie, and lies are the truth.

This is hardly of the same category as the verses in Scripture and the passages in the SOP which show that God has used force, has destroyed, and will again use force and destroy in the future.

As stated before, you are comparing apples and oranges. The apples are those verses which are explained in Scripture as referring to what God allows to happen; and the oranges are those things which the Scriptures and Ellen White say over and over again that God will do them, and they're never explain otherwise. On the contrary, she says things such as that the angels of God removed the wheels of the Egyptian chariots. She also says the Egyptians were attempting to return to the shore when Moses stretched out his rod and the waters drowned the Egyptains. God was controlling those waters, was He not? Or are we to think that whenever Moses put his rod out, the devil performed a miracle to bring the Israeltes out of bondage and save them from the Egyptians?

Consider whether this is in harmony with special revelation and also whether it makes biblical sense that Satan would be working hand in glove with God to free and save Israel.

[John317]

Quote:

Robert: So Satan went out from the presence of the Lord....16 While he was still speaking, another also came and said, "The fire of God fell from heaven and burned up the sheep and the servants, and consumed them; and I alone have escaped to tell you!"

Who did it? Mankind says God did it....Satan says the same. So, when we blame God for doing evil we are siding with Satan. Hmmm? Something to think on...huh?

Notice that the words "the fire of God fell from heaven and consumed them," is not said by God or by the inspired writers of the Bible but rather by an uninspired man. Therefore, it is not in the same category as Rev. 20: 9, where the prophet under inspiration writes of what God has revealed to him about the destruction of the wicked.

The Bible is very clear about this. You seem to be insinuating that the inspired word of God is to blame for making God look bad or that it doesn't reveal the truth about these things. It is the Bible itself, after all, which teaches that God expelled Satan from heaven and it is the Bible which teaches plainly that God will destroy the wicked by fire. Ellen White herself says it with the greatest possible clarity in GC 673. Like the Bible it is there for people to either accept or reject, depending on their choice.

Do you not see this as different from the words of a mere, uninspired character in the story about Job? One is what a man thought, and the other is what a prophet was shown in vision and wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit for the churches. That clearly makes a world of difference. The one, therefore, shouldn't be equated with the other.

[Robert]

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"?

John?

[John317]

Quote:

teresaq(sda)quoting : Exo 8:16 And the LORD said unto Moses, Say unto Aaron, Stretch out thy rod, and smite the dust of the land, that it may become lice throughout all the land of Egypt.

Exo 8:17 And they did so; for Aaron stretched out his hand with his rod, and smote the dust of the earth, and it became lice in man, and in beast; all the dust of the land became lice throughout all the land of Egypt.

Exo 8:18 And the magicians did so with their enchantments to bring forth lice, but they could not: so there were lice upon man, and upon beast.

Exo 8:19 Then the magicians said unto Pharaoh, This is the finger of God: and Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.

that makes sense, actually.

I agree. Not only does it makes sense but it's completely true as well.

Quote:

teresaq(sda): what exactly is meant by the hebrew word isnt certain,

True. The Hebrew word is kane (Strongs #3654) and is ususlly translated as "gnats," "lice," but it is also sometimes translated as "maggots," "vermin," or "mosquitos."

"Gnats" is the most literal reading. This is the reading given in both Young's Literal Translation and Rotherham's Ephasized Bible.

Quote:

teresaq(sda): but that the gods of egypt were being judged is certain, Num 33:4

I agree. God was out to show the Egyptians and the Israelites that the gods of Egypt were powerless. We can be sure that Satan was not a party to convincing the Egyptians and Israelites that the gods of Egypt were false and less than nothing. Nor was Satan interested in helping Israel escape slavery and go to the Promised Land.

Quote:

teresaq(sda): ... upon their gods also the LORD executed judgments.

True. As God did later, upon the god Dagon. Angels of God actually threw down those false gods and mutilated them in order show how useless and powerless they were.

Quote:

teresaq(sda): then we have to assume the "lice" represented one of their gods.

This could be, but then we would also have to assume that all the other plagues, such as the hail, were about things that represented one of their many gods. The Egyptians had many gods, so it is reasonable that all of the plagues affected in some way their religious beliefs.

Quote:

the eggs were in the dust and God had been controlling how many could be hatched and since God was controlling, of course the magicians could not cause them to be hatched. God removed His control and the egyptians were allowed to see that it had been the eternal self-existent God that had been protecting them all along, not that particular egyptian god.

Notice that the text does not say the eggs in the dust became gnats, but that "the dust became gnats."

The magicians of course couldn't do anything without the power of Satan. They didn't make the snakes appear but Satan did-- he made it look like the magicians had made them, and the reason Satan did it was in order to cause the Egyptians to believe their gods were powerful. Satan wasn't cooperating with God in this instance. He was fighting against God's purposes. If God made the serpants from Moses' rod, then God performed the other miracles when Moses extended his rod.

But let's suppose for the moment that your explanation is corrrect. It still comes down to the same thing: God, and not Satan, caused the plague of the gnats or lice.

It seems to me that your theory requires that God typically controls (or at least controlled at that period in Egypt) the population of gnats or lice, and I'm not sure that's true.

How, then, can one sure that God had been controlling how many lice had been hatched? If God controls it, does He also control the population of other insects or animals?

In all sincerity, it seems to me that you go to a great deal of effort in an apparent attmept to avoid the simple truth that God caused the third plague. How does your theory show that God is not responsible for the lice or gnats that plagued the people of Egypt at that time?

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

I agree with the above conclusions, but the Bible explains what happened in those instances. Ellen White also explains what happened in the case of the hardening of Pharoah's heart (PP 268-269), so these things are not in the same category as those which we're discussing, i.e., the war in heaven and whether God has ever used force or will destroy the wicked in fire.

Why not?

Quote:

Your error is in assuming that this means that all passages in the Bible referring to God's activity are to be interpretated on the basis of the above examples.

Why is this an error?

Quote:

Every good Bible student knows-- or should know-- that God is sometimes portrayed as doing that which He permits, but a close study of the Bible and SOP proves beyond all question that this is not the case in every instance where God is described as punishing or destroying or killing.

Actually, every good Bible student knows -- or should know -- that there is such a thing as a principle and it's not necessary to examine every single case to understand the principle. Once the principle is grasped, it can be applied to other cases. This is exactly what sky, I, teresa, and Robert do. We understand the principle that there are a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which God protects us, and when the Spirit is persistently rejected, God is caused to remove His protection, and bad things happen, from one of these thousand different things from which God protects. It really doesn't matter which of these things that God protects from that causes the bad thing. It could be a natural disaster, it could be an evil angel, it could be another human being, it could be an accident -- it doesn't matter.

There's only one principle involved here! One! It's not difficult to grasp. Once it's grasped, everything falls into place.

Also, I don't think you've grasped Robert's point. Robert's point is that inspiration presents God as doing that which he permits. It presents God as doing that which Satan does. So how do you know who is doing the act? You can't simply go by the language.

The principle it appears to me that you go by is, if inspiration says that God did it, then God did it, unless inspiration somewhere else says he didn't. That is what you believe, isn't it?

[teresaq]

Quote:

teresaq(sda)quoting : Exo 8:16 And the LORD said unto Moses, Say unto Aaron, Stretch out thy rod, and smite the dust of the land, that it may become lice throughout all the land of Egypt.

Exo 8:17 And they did so; for Aaron stretched out his hand with his rod, and smote the dust of the earth, and it became lice in man, and in beast; all the dust of the land became lice throughout all the land of Egypt.

Exo 8:18 And the magicians did so with their enchantments to bring forth lice, but they could not: so there were lice upon man, and upon beast.

Exo 8:19 Then the magicians said unto Pharaoh, This is the finger of God: and Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.

that makes sense, actually.

Quote:

teresaq(sda): but that the gods of egypt were being judged is certain, Num 33:4... upon their gods also the LORD executed judgments. kjv. then we have to assume the "lice" represented one of their gods.

This could be, but then we would also have to assume that all the other plagues, such as the hail, were about things that represented one of their many gods.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Notice that the text does not say the eggs in the dust became gnats, but that "the dust became gnats."

So what? How many examples are there in Scripture of it's saying something analogous to "the dust became gnats" but what happened is "the eggs in the dust became gnats"? 100? 1000?

[John317]

Quote:

John317, referring to Romans 9: 19-24: ...it's important to see the significance of Romans 9: 11, which is that God's choice depends on His will alone, and not on whether people do something good or bad. It says that God's choice between Jacob and Esau is an illustration of the fact that God does not choose people on account of their goodness but rather on account of His will, even long before people are born.

Quote:

teresaq(sda):i didnt catch this.

perhaps john is not aware that this is predestinarian thinking. or perhaps he didnt realize how he was wording this....

has the sda church become predestinarian, or just some members?

does the church know the difference between predestinarian and freewill?

the way this has been understood before by our church, is that God judges by the heart...hopefully that is what john meant...

Yes, I stand firmly with the Bible teaching on this and not with Calvin but rather with Scripture and Ellen White. You're misunderstanding if you think I'm supporting the classical understanding of predestination, or "double predestination." I'm simply talking about what Romans says in the ninth chapter.

If you believe the message of Saint Paul in Romans 9: 19-24 is different from what I've suggested, please show your reasoning in the Scriptures. Give your analysis and exegesis of what the apostle is saying in those particular verses.

[Robert]

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 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)?

While you touched on some of my questions you haven't attempted the conundrums above....

[pnattmbtc]

But let's suppose for the moment that your explanation is corrrect. It still comes down to the same thing: God, and not Satan, caused the plague of the gnats or lice.

[teresaq]

so whats the problem, if you dont believe paul is saying God predestined some to eternal life and some to eternal death?

John317: referring to Romans 9: 19-24: ...it's important to see the significance of Romans 9: 11, which is that God's choice depends on His will alone, and not on whether people do something good or bad. It says that God's choice between Jacob and Esau is an illustration of the fact that God does not choose people on account of their goodness but rather on account of His will, even long before people are born.

teresaq(sda):i didnt catch this.

perhaps john is not aware that this is predestinarian thinking. or perhaps he didnt realize how he was wording this....

has the sda church become predestinarian, or just some members?

does the church know the difference between predestinarian and freewill?

the way this has been understood before by our church, is that God judges by the heart...hopefully that is what john meant...

j: Yes, I stand firmly with the Bible teaching on this and not with Calvin but rather with Scripture and Ellen White. You're misunderstanding if you think I'm supporting the classical understanding of predestination, or "double predestination." I'm simply talking about what Romans says in the ninth chapter.

If you believe the message of Saint Paul in Romans 9: 19-24 is different from what I've suggested, please show your reasoning in the Scriptures. Give your analysis and exegesis of what the apostle is saying in those particular verses.

[Robert]

Human love is conditional and therefore reciprocal. It needs arousing and depends on outward beauty or goodness.

In contrast, God’s love (agape) is unconditional and therefore spontaneous, uncaused, and independent of our goodness or self-worth.

God does not practice favoritism. For one it is sin, but more importantly God is agape. Agape is who God is...He is love. God loves not only those who love Him back, but He loves His enemies - those that hate Him and seek to destroy Him.

Therefore it is impossible for God to love Jacob more than Esau, yet we have the statement, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."

What does that mean? It means from our perspective God hated Esau and favored Jacob. Esau forsook the Lord and placed himself outside God's blessing and protection. Therefore it seems that God hated Esau just as it seemed that Christ was stricken, smitten and afflicted by God. (see Is 53:4)

Again, the universal principle is - God sees and describes Himself as doing what He does not prevent.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: John317

But let's suppose for the moment that your explanation is corrrect. It still comes down to the same thing: God, and not Satan, caused the plague of the gnats or lice.

Or God permitted it. It doesn't have to be Satan that causes the bad things to occur. Here's the principle:

Quote:

We do not recount God's mercies often enough. . . . By our failure to express gratitude we are dishonoring our Maker. His angels, thousands upon thousands and ten thousand times ten thousand, are commissioned to minister to those who shall be heirs of salvation. They guard us against temporal evil and press back the powers of darkness, else we should be destroyed. Why do we not value God's watchcare? If Satan had his way and carried out his designs, destruction would be seen on every hand. Why do we not remember that we are mercifully shielded from peril? Have we not reason to be thankful every moment, thankful even when there are apparent difficulties in our pathway? Cannot we trust our heavenly Father? {HP 101.3}

We shall never know what dangers, seen and unseen, we have been delivered from through the interposition of the angels until we shall see in the light of eternity the providences of God. Then we shall better understand what God has done for us all the days of our life. We shall know then that the whole heavenly family watched to see our course of action from day to day. {HP 101.4}

i only bolded some, but each and every word needs to be studied til we have it down. we have no idea how much we are protected from.

the egyptians had no idea that it had been God, the true God Who had been protecting them, not all the incantations and sacrifices they had been making to their gods.

and yet the resistance to acknowledge that...

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17--Notice that the text does not say the eggs in the dust became gnats, but that "the dust became gnats."

Quote:

pnattmbtc: So what?

My objection is that it requires changing the language of the Bible. The Bible is speaking of "fine particles of earth," not living eggs.

The Hebrew words, "aphar hawah kane" ["dust became gnats"] mean that the dust began to breath, or became a living organism. That is to say, the text is telling us that God took something that was totally inanimate and made it alive. It was an act that required the power of the living God who created the world from nothing.

This is the same thing people do who arrive at the conclusion that God won't send fire from heaven to consume the wicked--- they change the language of Scripture, and by so doing, they naturally change what the Scripture is saying. If one's doctrine is true, one shouldn't feel the need to improve on or change the language that the prophets wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I wouldn't believe any SDA doctrine if it depended on changing the significance of the original language which the Bible writers used. It's what the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons do as well as other groups who manipulate Scripture for the pupose of supporting their views contrary to the plain teaching of the Bible.

Another point that should be added here is that even if one changes the meaning of "Aphar" (fine particles of earth) to "eggs," it doesn't help to advance the argument that God did not cause the plagues. If you believe it does support the argument, please explain on what basis you believe it does that.