"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[pnattmbtc]

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

Right!

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: Robert

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

Right!

WRONG!

Did God prevent Cain from killing Abel? No. Did he describe himself as doing it? NO!

Did God prevent David from having Uriah the Hittite killed? No. Did he describe himself as doing it? NO!

I could go on and on, but at some point surely you must realize that this so called "universal principle" is NOT universal!

[Guest]

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.

John, you're just going to confuse these scripture twisters, using facts like that.

[Robert]

WRONG!

No, Right!!!

[Robert]

Did God prevent Cain from killing Abel? No. Did he describe himself as doing it? NO!

Did God prevent David from having Uriah the Hittite killed? No. Did he describe himself as doing it? NO!

I could go on and on, but at some point surely you must realize that this so called "universal principle" is NOT universal!

God doesn't repeat it every time because I'm sure He expects YOU to use that gray matter between you ears. However, generally He does "describe himself as doing it"!

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

[teresaq]

it is quite possible that God literally created "lice" out of the dust of the ground, but if we get too literal then we also have to assume there was no longer any dust in 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.

it is also just as possible that God protected and cared for the egyptian as much as for His own people, and so stopped controlling the "lice" population and allowed the eggs to hatch.

Mat 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

Luk 6:35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.

[Robert]

Richard...this is us sparring over theology. I'm the guy in black pants:

Click here...

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

Did God prevent Cain from killing Abel? No. Did he describe himself as doing it? NO!

Did God prevent David from having Uriah the Hittite killed? No. Did he describe himself as doing it? NO!

I could go on and on, but at some point surely you must realize that this so called "universal principle" is NOT universal!

God doesn't repeat it every time because I'm sure He expects YOU to use that gray matter between you ears. However, generally He does "describe himself as doing it"!

No he doesn't.

So you're saying that God expects you to use your gray matter to change the meaning of scripture?

Can I use this on parts of scripture that I don't understand? I don't see why not.

[teresaq]

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

[Robert]

So you're saying that God expects you to use your gray matter to change the meaning of scripture?

No, I'm saying you don't understand Scripture and you sure don't understand God's love....You've made a devil of God....

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

John, you're just going to confuse these scripture twisters, using facts like that.

Not facts and it is you and Johnny who does disservice to the cause of God.... You have made a god in your image...after your likeness.

Robert, John is your elder. A true Christian would show some respect, if for no other reason but that.

[teresaq]

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.

then why do you believe in the "trinity"? clearly a changing of words there.

[John317]

Quote:

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

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Right!

Yes, it is a principle that sometimes applies but it is not a universal principle that applies to ALL Scripture and to all the SOP statements on the subject.

Can you point to a single verse in the Bible or a statement by Ellen White saying that this is a universal principle? If you cannot, then upon what basis do you claim it as a universal principle? People do the same who believe the dead are in heaven: they read everything in the Bible on that subject as if they KNEW that the dead are in heaven is a univeral principle. They don't take the time to compare all that the Bible says on the topic before they jump to their conclusion. I believe you are doing the same thing. Many verses and many passages of the SOP are proof that this is the case, but if you keep reading those things through the eyes of your "universal principle," you will fail to see the truth about this topic.

Remember the statement that both the angels of God and the fallen angels cause destruction. All destruction does not come from a single source.

Read this carefully: "The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits." GC 614.

Notice this sentence speaks of two sources of destructive power: 1) from holy angels when God commands; and 2) from evil angels when God permits.

Therefore, destruction may come as a result of God's command or by His permissive will.

In this context, Ellen White is clearly saying that it was a holy angel who slayed the first-born of Egypt and a holy angel who punished David for his sin of numbering the people.

This is what I mean by saying we need to keep in mind this statement by Ellen White, just as we should seriously take into account all her other statements on this subject. ALL of them are important and ALL of them are in perfect harmony with each other.

I'm wondering if you can produce a quote from Ellen White's writings, where, in one place, she ascribes a punishment or judgment from God, but where, in another place, she ascribes the same punishment or judgment to the direct activity of Satan?

I believe you have shown that you're making a universal principle of a statement that was never intended to be such, and for which you cannot produce a single statement from Ellen White describing it as a principle that applies universally throughout the Bible and her writings. On the contrary, it is flatly contradictted by many of her clearest statements as well as those of a flood of Bible verses [no pun intended].

Here are a few among many dozens of quotes from the pen of our prophet:

1) "Swift destruction followed [David's numbering of the people]. Seventy thousand were destroyed by pestilence. David and the elders of Israel were in the deepest humiliation, mourning before the Lord. As the ANGEL OF THE LORD was on his way to destroy Jerusalem [NOTE: not on his way to allow Satan to destroy the city], God bade him stay his work of death... The angel [of God], clad in warlike garments, with a drawn sword in his hand, stretched out over Jerusalem, is revealed to David, and to those who are with him. David is terribly afraid, yet he cries out in his distress and his compassion for Israel. He begs God to save the sheep." 1 SP 385, 386

"The destroying angel had stayed his course outside Jerusalem..." The Truth About Angels, p. 127, 128 (PP 748)

Note: "the destroying angel" is none other than an angel of God who was on his way to destroy Jerusalem. If you do not believe it means this, show your evidence from the passage itself or from other passages in her writings where she describes the same events. The Bible also shows this angel to be an angel of God and not one of the devil's. Question: does either Scripture or the SOP ever attribute this act to Satan or one of his demons?

2) "Angels who attended the ark struck down Uzzah for presuming impatiently to put his hand upon the ark of God." The Truth About Angels, p 126.

The Bible says that the angel of God told Balaam that if the donkey he was riding hadn't turned aside, the angel would have slain Balaam. See Numbers 23: 33.

Is the angel of God telling the truth here or not? Is it an idle threat which the angel knows good and well he never would have carried out under any circumstances?

3) "The same angel who had left the royal courts of heaven to rescue Peter from the power of his persecutor, had been the messenger of wrath and judgment to Herod. The angel [of God who had left heaven] smote Peter to arouse him from slumber; but it was with a different stroke that he [the same angel of God] smote the wicked king, laying low his pride and bringing upon him the punishment of the Almighty. Herod died in great agony of mind and body, under the retributive judgment of God." AA 152.

It's worth noting that the above paragraph was written in 1911, during the very last few years of Ellen White's life.

[skyblue888]

Did God prevent Cain from killing Abel? No. Did he describe himself as doing it? NO!

Did God prevent David from having Uriah the Hittite killed? No. Did he describe himself as doing it? NO!

I could go on and on, but at some point surely you must realize that this so called "universal principle" is NOT universal!

[skyblue888]

[skyblue888]

it is quite possible that God literally created "lice" out of the dust of the ground, but if we get too literal then we also have to assume there was no longer any dust in 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.

it is also just as possible that God protected and cared for the egyptian as much as for His own people, and so stopped controlling the "lice" population and allowed the eggs to hatch.

Mat 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

Luk 6:35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.

Great stuff!

God be praised!

sky

[skyblue888]

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}

How we should appreciate statements like these!

Thanks so much for these.

sky

[Guest]

So true! I love God's ways!

sky

No, you don't love God's ways. You hate God's ways. That's why you have to turn scripture upside down, and try to figure out a way to change the meaning. If you loved God's ways, you would believe God's word.

[John317]

Quote:

John317: 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.

Quote:

teresaq(sda): then why do you believe in the "trinity"? clearly a changing of words there.

No, there is no change in the words of the text of the Bible in order to believe in the Trinity. I believe the doctrine of the Trinity is taught in the Bible, as Seventh-day Adventists understand it, even though the term itself is not found in the Bible.

Do you believe in the Investigative Judgment, or the Pre-advent Judgment? I do, yet neither one of those names are to be found anywhere within the pages of the Bible. No language of the Bible must be changed in order to support that doctrine, and none needs to be altered to believe in the Trinity.

I wouldn't believe in those things if any change was needed or made in the text in order to give them support.

I've noticed that people who believe God never uses force or destroyed or that He will not destroy the wicked with fire, often change the Scripture in order to support their interpretation. They evidently feel the need of inventing all kinds of exotic scenarios to account for things happening the way the Bible describes them, such as the destruction of the world by a flood, the destruction of Sodom, the plagues that fell on Egypt, and the final destruction of the wicked. It's best to take the Bible just as it reads, which is also the very way God's prophet said that we ought to take it. Let the Bible interpret itself. Otherwise, everyone's interpretation becomes merely a private interpretation, and the church is no longer united on truth. For that very reason, we know that the devil seeks to bring in false teachings because he knows it's the way to cause division and factions, all for the purpose of continuing the delay of Christ's return for His church.

[John317]

Quote:

teresaq(sda), quoting: and "Anciently when any neglected or refused to heed the words of reproof and warning sent them of God, his protection was removed from them, and they were left to be deceived and deluded to their own ruin." {RH, January 8, 1884 par. 17}

The SDA church has read this quote many times and agrees with it, but virtually the entire church also believes that God will finally destroy the wicked in fire that comes from God out of heaven, just as Rev. 20: 9 says.

In other words, accepting that statement does not preclude the fact that God will destroy the wicked at the end in fire, nor does it preclude God's destruction of the world with a flood.

Remember the statement that both the angels of God and the fallen angels cause destruction. All destruction does not come from a single source.

Please read this carefully: "The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits." GC 614.

Notice this sentence speaks of two sources of destructive power: 1) from holy angels when God commands; and 2) from evil angels when God permits.

Therefore, destruction may come as a result of God's command or by His permissive will.

Do you believe what Ellen White says in GC 614? What do you think is she saying?

[John317]

Quote:

teresaq(sda):it is quite possible that God literally created "lice" out of the dust of the ground,

Not only is it possible but it is certain that God did literally create lice or maggots out of the dust of the earth. It clearly says so, as plainly as it says God created Adam out of the earth. God did not use eggs in the dust of the earth to make Adam, did He? If not, then why would we propose that the Creator God was indebted to eggs in the earth in order to make insects?

As explained before, the Hebrew text shows that God made the insects from the dust of the earth. It says this dust began to breath and be alive. This dust was inanimate before it became the insect.

What is in the text itself that would lead you to think that the Creator God, who made Adam from dirt, not eggs, would require eggs in order to make insects? There is absolutely nothing in the text which shows this or even remotely suggests it.

If you believe I'm in error here, please show from the text itself why you believe so.

Otherwise, your theory is just that-- theory and conjecture, invented apparently for the purpose of avoided the Bible teaching that God brought the plagues upon Egypt. The problem, however, is that even if God made the insects from eggs, the fact remains that God brought the plagues, and Satan did not.

If this conclusion is illogical or mistaken, why do you think so?

[Robert]

Quote:

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

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Right!

Yes, it is a principle that sometimes applies but it is not a universal principle that applies to ALL Scripture....

Au contraire...It applies all the time....

[John317]

Quote:

skyblue888:

[size:14pt] I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Again, this is something that all Seventh-day Adventists are aware of, and at the same time, we also believe as a church that God compelled Satan and his wicked angels to leave heaven, that He destroyed the world by a flood of water, and that He will finally destroy the wicked in fire at the end of the thousand years. In other words, Adventist Bible scholars and students going all the way back to the beginning of our church have not seen any contradiction between the above verse and the Bible teaching that God has destroyed the wicked and that He will do so again.

Can you show clearly how an understanding & acceptance of the above verse would necessarily mean that one cannot reasonably believe God forced Satan to leave heaven or that He will finally destroy the wicked?

[Robert]

No, you don't love God's ways. You hate God's ways. That's why you have to turn scripture upside down, and try to figure out a way to change the meaning. If you loved God's ways, you would believe God's word.

[John317]

Quote:

Robert: Again, the universal principle is - God sees and describes Himself as doing what He does not prevent. It applies all the time....

But remember the statement that both the angels of God and the fallen angels cause destruction. All destruction does not come from a single source.

"The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits." GC 614.

Notice this sentence speaks of two sources of destructive power: 1) from holy angels when God commands; and 2) from evil angels when God permits.

Therefore, destruction may come as a result of God's command or by His permissive will.