"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[pnattmbtc]

Regarding how the side that believes that God does not directly take destructive action (perhaps this would be better stated that God does not destroy by means of using compelling power, or what men would ordinarily consider to be destructive power. God destroys by means of truth and love.), the answer is that inspiration often presents God as doing that which He permits.

Another point is that the protective work of God is often underestimated, or ignored altogether. There are a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which God protects us. It is not necessary for God to take direct destructive action in order to accomplish destruction, even supposing that this were something God desired. It is sufficient for God to simply remove His protection. Does everyone agree with this? Or do some think that this would not be sufficient?

Given it would be sufficient, the question arises, why would God take directly destructive action when this isn't necessary?

[teresaq]

We're sort of going around in circles a bit, so I'd like to discuss the methodologies involved. First I'll say what I see happening, and see if everyone agrees.

There are statements which state principles regarding which, if true, and if universal, would lead to contradictions with other statements which appear to state that God directly destroys.

I see that the side that argues that God does not directly destroy argues like this:

1.Since the principles are true and universal, it must be the case that the statements which are apparently contradictory do not mean what those who take them to say that God directly destroys thinks they mean.

while the other side argues:

2.Since there are statements which state that God directly destroys, it must be the case that the statement of principles involved are not universal, or the principles are being incorrectly understood.

Does everybody agree with this?

Perhaps we can discuss things a bit on this level, rather than simply repeating the same statements. I think we've all see both types of statements many times by now.

I'll continue this on another post.

[teresaq]

Regarding how the side that believes that God does not directly take destructive action (perhaps this would be better stated that God does not destroy by means of using compelling power, or what men would ordinarily consider to be destructive power. God destroys by means of truth and love.), the answer is that inspiration often presents God as doing that which He permits.

Another point is that the protective work of God is often underestimated, or ignored altogether. There are a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which God protects us. It is not necessary for God to take direct destructive action in order to accomplish destruction, even supposing that this were something God desired. It is sufficient for God to simply remove His protection. Does everyone agree with this? Or do some think that this would not be sufficient?

Given it would be sufficient, the question arises, why would God take directly destructive action when this isn't necessary?

i dont see we adventists teaching this message at all. why is that? is it because we dont believe it? dont appreciate it?

are the disasters, like haiti and now chile, going to get closer and closer til we are brought to our knees?

the above should answer your last question, for some.

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: Robert

The Sabbath is the 7th day, but it is not yet a test of faith...neither is Sunday the mark of the beast, yet....These issues are future.

The Sabbath as it points to creation was ruined. It is meaningless. That's why you see a change, in the law, from creation to redemption. But here we disagree....

I thought this topic was supposed to be a separate thread!

John brought it up....

[Robert]

Quote:

ROBERT: Nope, it's not....Like Jack states, "It must be noted that this Sabbath covenant was made with mankind before the fall. Therefore, had there been no fall we would still be keeping God’s Sabbath as a day of rest. It is the entrance of sin that destroyed the significance of the Sabbath rest, since sin is rebellion against God, in exchange for self-dependence [Romans 1:21; Philippians 2:21]. Thus, when sin separated us from God [isaiah 59:2], no longer did His Sabbath have any significance."

Sequeira says this? That the Sabbath has no significance since the fall? (John317, I know you said to start a new thread to discuss this, so maybe you'd like to do this(?). I don't really want to discuss this at length, but I'd like to know a bit more about Jack's idea, as, at first glance, it doesn't seem to make any sense, and while I don't agree with all of his ideas, he usually has some logical reason for them).

The context is the Sabbath of creation....

[John317]

Quote:

John317: Explain what happened at the Red Sea when the Egyptian army was killed in the waters. How could that be Satan?

Quote:

Robert: Never said Satan drowned them, but through Pharaoh Satan did convince the Egyptians to go after the Israelis.

Yes, sure. Satan did that all right.

What happened at the Red Sea was obviously a miracle, and this miracle either had to come from God or from Satan. The Bible-- in the books of Moses, in Psalms and in Acts 7-- always gives credit for it to God, and in a most positive way. It never suggests that Satan was responsible for any of it, although it does give credit to Satan for doing many other things in the world.

So if-- or rather, since-- Satan was fighting against God's purposes, was he also cooperating and working hand-in-hand with God to help Israel escape by causing the plagues?

Quote:

ROBERT: Verse 25 says that "He caused their chariot wheels to swerve, and He made them drive with difficulty" This sounds like the dry land was becoming wet! It looks like the chariots wheels were becoming stuck in the wet sand.

The Hebrew of that verse says that God "took off the wheels of their chariots." (See Rotherham's translation and that of Robert Alter, a Jewish Hebrew scholar.) Some Hebrew scholars, such as the translators of the Jewish Publication Society's Tanakh-The Holy Scriptures, believe it may signify that the wheels were "locked." Ellen White states that angels of God took off the wheels. In any case, God was the direct cause of the chariots' not having the use of their wheels.

Quote:

ROBERT: Verse 27 So Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and the sea returned to its normal state at daybreak [sometime later], while the Egyptians were fleeing right into it [back into the sea away from the Israelis]; then the LORD overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the sea.

Remember that the Israelites crossed the sea at night. Doubtless the Israelites completed their crossing not long before daybreak. Verse 24 says that "in the morning watch," the Lord looked out over the camp of Egypt and He panicked the Egyptians, who were following after the Hebrews on the dry sea bed. They experienced great difficulty in driving their chariots through the mud and were turning back in the direction from which they had come, when God ordered Moses to stretch out his rod "so that the waters go back over the Egyptians." So the waters drowned the Egyptians in the early morning. There is no indication that the water went back on the Egyptians "sometime later," but rather the meaning is that the entire incident-- from the stretching out of the rod to the drowning of the Egyptians-- all occurred in early morning.

God was obviously the One who caused these things to happen. This is not say, however, that the Egyptians are not responsible for having foolishly chosen to follow after Israel into the Red Sea. They clearly were responsible for their own destruction to the extent that they made that choice.

Here is the translation and comment on this verse by the Jewish translator, Robert Alter, in The Five Books of Moses (2004):

v. 27, 28: "And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and the sea went back toward morning to its full flow, with the Egyptians fleeing toward it, and the Lord shook out the Egyptians into the sea. And the waters came back and covered the chariots and the riders of all Pharaoh's force who were coming after them in the sea, not a single one of them remained."

"27. the Egyptians fleeing toward it. The Hebrew preposition used here clearly means 'toward.' What is suggested is the following sequence: the Egyptian troops are struck with panic, perhaps at the sight of the pillar of cloud and fire, surely by the fact that their chariots have lost traction on what had briefly been dry land in the sea; they flee, presumably in the direction from which they had come, but the flood of water comes down on them from that very direction. The male warriors of the nation that had sought to drown every Hebrew male child now meet a fate of death by drowning."

The above is in perfect agreement, as it happens, with the writings of Ellen White. A literal translation of the verse is that "He [God] took off the wheels of the chariots."

Quote:

ROBERT: There seems to be an interval of time between Moses stretching out his hand over the sea and the collapse of the walls of water.

Quote:

ROBERT: The language, the Lord did that and this, doesn't bother me. Many times the Lord assumes the blame for that which He allows.

What evidence do you see here that the Lord is taking the blame for what He didn't actually do?

It seems that it doesn't bother you because you explain anything away that you wouldn't want to believe He did, instead of simply accepting the Bible version of what happened.

Quote:

ROBERT: The Egyptians' own fear made them retreat back into the sea.

The record is that their fear was causing them to retreat back to the shore in the direction from which they had come. This is both what both the Bible and Ellen White say.

Quote:

ROBERT: It was after their chariot wheels became stuck that they reasoned, "Let us flee from Israel, for the LORD is fighting for them against the Egyptians." Why should they give up the pursuit just because their chariots weren't moving well? Couldn't they go in on foot? Well, the Bible simply says that they retreated back into the waters.

They were afraid because "God panicked the camp of Egypt" v. 24. They were afraid not only because of the pillar of cloud and fire but they recognized that the God of Israel was fighting against them and for Israel. That is good enough reason for them to give up the fight and return to the shore, which is what they tried to do. But at that point God ordered Moses to "stretch out his rod so that the waters go back over the Egyptians" (v. 26).

Quote:

ROBERT: Now personally I would have never followed the Israelis in....That's stupid, but they did. It was never God's intent for them to follow. This shows how stupid human nature can be when it is given over to its desires (in this case hatred).

This contradicts the text. In Exodus 14: 13-17 proves beyond doubt that it was God's plan for the Egyptian army to die in the sea. So does Ellen White's Spiritual Gifts, vol. III, page 236.

If God never intended for the Egyptians to follow Israel into the dry sea-bed, why does both Ellen White and the Bible say that it was when the Egyptians were fleeing back to the shore, and retreating from Israel, when Moses stretched out his rod and the water swallowed up the Egyptians? Why didn't God allow them to get out of the water?

Ellen White writes, "As the Hebreww witnessed the marvelous work of God in the destruction of the Egyptians, they united in an inspired song of lofty eloquence, and grateful praise." Ibid.

Why not also give glory to God for his marvelous work instead of objecting to it and saying God never did those things?

This is the reason I believe the idea God that never has used force or destroyed anyone is dangerous. It leads people not only to reject what the Bible plainly teaches but it leads them to view God in an unrealistic light. People, with those views, reject God if He is not the kind of God they want Him to be. They don't let God be God and decide how He shall punish the wicked. You've even said that you could not worship a God who kills people or who would fianlly destroy the wicked in fire. What will you do when you see proof that God did kill people and that He will destroy them in fire?

Quote:

ROBERT: So did God drown them? It looks like it. Or did they drown themselves blinded by their hatred?

I see it happening very much like the final destruction of the wicked. The Egyptians were drowned by an act of God and Moses, and they also drowned themselves by their own hatred and stubborness. Similarly, the wicked at the end of time will have destroyed themselves by their rejection of God and His gospel, and they will also be destroyed completely by an act of Christ and the righteous saints and God Himself.

What do you think?

Quote:

ROBERT: If you put your head in a lions mouth and survive, I'm not going to also do the same ....But if my ego is controlling me I just might. So it seems the Egyptians had a death wish.

I agree, and we could say the same about the wicked at the end of time, couldn't we? After all, God says, "Those who hate me love death."

Quote:

ROBERT: Anyway, it was just plain stupid that the Egyptians followed them into the sea. The opening of the Red Sea was never intended for the Egyptians. So I see them as committing suicide.

A kind of suicide, certainly, you are right; but you have to admit, too, I think, that God could have had the water stay up long enough for the Egyptians to retreat and escape drowning, but the text and especially Ellen White's writings make it plain that God commanded Moses to stretch out his rod for the purpose of destroying the army. The text says, "stretch out your hand over the sea in order that the waters go back over the Egyptians...." It couldn't be plainer. God obviously knew the results of the water going back over the Egyptians at that point. The language shows intention, which is in complete harmony with what God says in v. 17.

Quote:

ROBERT: That being said, this one is a tough one.

I appreciate your post here, Robert. You are right it's a tough one. No one should take delight that human beings suffer and die, and that is not what Israel was joyful about. They were full of joy that God had fought with them and helped them to survive. So they had very good reason to praise the Lord for His marvelous works. And we should praise God for His work of salvation in freeing His people from Egypt, just as we should praise Him for his saving us out of our sins. There's certainly no reason to reject the idea that God did those things.

The problem comes when people distort the Bible in order to avoid the conclusion that God has destroyed the wicked in the past or that He will finally destroy the wicked at the end of the 1000 years. I don't think you distort anything on this post, but I'm saying some do that, even to the point of changing the text or of denying that the Bible record is inspired or reliable.

With a few exceptions, I see us as being in general agreement on what happened at the Red Sea, at least from the perspective of your post.

[Robert]

God's plan for the Egyptian army to die in the sea

But if they hadn't pursued the Israelis, then what?

I don't understand why God would kill....Doesn't He say "love your enemies"? Didn't He love His enemies? Confusing....

[Guest]

God wouldn't have had to drown them like rats.

[Robert]

Well, if God kills then why does He allow serial killers to have free reign? I mean if He is going to intervene why not stop some of these heinous crimes before they take place?

[Guest]

You sound like a non believer on their first Bible study.

[John317]

Quote:

John317: I agree with you, sky. The words, God "hated Esau," really just means that God loved Esau less.

Quote:

ROBERT: John, I have absolutely no faith in you as a Bible teacher. Agape is a love that doesn't differentiate. God loves all, good and bad, equally.

James 2:8 If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF," you are doing well. 9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.

It's true God doesn't show impartiality, and this is the exact reason that none can expect special favors in order to keep sinning simply because they are "in Christ." The gospel, or faith in Christ, does not release believers from obedience to the moral law of God.

I'm talking about the expression "I hated Esau," as Oriental hyperbole. I'm not addressing the issue of whether God loves everyone. Of course God loves everybody. My subject is the Hebrew expression found in Mal. 1: 3 and quoted in Rom. 9: 13. At the bottom of this post, see the context of the quote in Romans 9.

The SDA Bible Commentary, on Mal. 1: 3: "The use of the word 'hate' is a typical Oriental hyperbole (see Gen. 29: 33; Deut. 21: 15; see on Ps. 119: 136), and should not be taken in its strongest sense. The Lord here makes plain His preference for Jacob and his descendants oveer Esau and his descendants." Read the rest of the comment on Mal. 1: 3.

In Gen. 29: 33, Leah refers to herself as being "hated" when she means that she was loved less.

In Deut. 21: 15, it speaks of a wife who is hated in comparison with another wife, and again it carries the meaning of one wife being loved less than the other.

In Ps. 119: 136, it speaks of "rivers running down my eyes," an illustration of Oriental hyperbole.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown's Commentary:

"3. hated-- not positively, but relatively; i.e., did not choose him out to be the object of gratuitous favor, as I did Jacob."

This is exactly what I was saying to sky in my original post. I was agreeing with him that God did not "hate Esau" in the sense that this expression is commonly understood. I'm not disputing God's love for humanity.

But yes, of course God loves everyone. He loved the Egyptians whom He destroyed in the Red Sea, and He will love the wicked who are destroyed in the fire after the Great White Throne Judgment. God cannot save all people, even though He does love all of them. In fact, it's due to His love for the universe, and His mercy for the wicked themselves, that He has destroyed them in the past and will finally destroy the vast majority of mankind by fire. The Bible, as well as Ellen White, are clear on this. His punishment of the wicked is certainly not because of a lack of love on God's part, nor was it owing to a lack of love on God's part that Esau was rejected, and Jacob elected, as the Chosen.

The Bible is clear, however, that it was due to God's choice to show His preference to Jacob, just as it was God's decision to choose the Jews as His special people, and this choice was not due to their obedience or goodness. He could have chosen some other people, but He didn't. And the reason He didn't was simply because of His choice and mercy. The reason was not in the Jews themselves. God Himself points this out in the prophets. See, for instance, Deut. 6: 7-8.

The Jews have a saying that God chose the Jews because everyone else in the world was smart enough to turn Him down. That isn't literally true, of course, but it does help to illustrate the fact that God didn't chose the Jews because they were a great people or because they seemed to be superior to other nations. On the contrary, in fact. God chose them in order to show forth His own mercy, power and glory.

Notice that the point Romans 9: 10-13 makes is that the illustration of Jacob and Esau shows that the sole ground of distinction lay in the unconditional choice of God-- "not of works, but of Him that calleth."

"But in order that the choice of one son might be completely the result of God's own purpose, God said to her, 'The older will serve the younger.' He said this before they were born, before they had done anything either good or bad; so God's choice was based on his call, and not on anything they did. As the scripture says, I loved Jacob, but I hated Esau.' What shall we say, then? That God is unjust? Not at all. For he said to Moses,'I will have mercy on whom I wish, I will take pity on whom I wish.' So then, it does not depend on what man wants or does, but only on God's mercy. For the scripture says to Pharaoh, 'I made you king for this very purpose, to use you to show my power, and to make my name known in all the world.' So then, God has mercy on whom he wishes, and he makes stubborn whom he wishes.

"One of you, then, will say to me, 'If this is so, how can God find fault with a man? Who can resist God's will?' But who are you, my friend, to talk back to God? A clay pot does not ask the man who made it, 'Why did you make me like this?' After all, the man who makes the pots has the right to use the clay as he wishes, and to make two pots from the same lump of clay, one for special occasions, and the other for ordinary use. And the same is true of what God has done. He wanted to show his wrath and to make his power known. So he was very patient in enduring those who were the objects of his wrath, who were ready to be destroyed. And he wanted also to reveal his rich glory, which he poured out on us who are the objects of his mercy, those of us whom he has prepared to receive his glory."

[John317]

Quote:

Robert: Well, if God kills then why does He allow serial killers to have free reign? I mean if He is going to intervene why not stop some of these heinous crimes before they take place?

Rob, I can hardly believe you are asking this. Are you serious-- I mean, don't you already know the answer? (It must be one of those "rhetorical questions," right?) You've studied the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy. The answer to your question are all right there.

God does not kill indiscrimintly. He had reasons for taking the lives of people in the flood and in Sodom and in the Red Sea, etc. Those things do not indicate that God is out to kill everyone who displeases Him or disobeys Him. If that were the case, God would have snuffed out Satan the moment he sinned.

So a brief answer to your question is that God doesn't stop heinous crimes because if He did that, people wouldn't understand the terrible results of sin. Two other reasons He doesn't do it is that He honors people's freedom to choose whether to worship and obey Him, and He doesn't want people to choose Him out of fear or out of a desire for earthly rewards. The real difference between the righteous and the wicked will be at the Second Coming and then again at the judgment after the 1000 years. Before then, it often may appear that it's useless to serve God. Please study closely Mal. 3: 14 to 4: 3.

[Guest]

He's adrift John. Like a ship at sea, without a compass or an anchor.

[teresaq]

He's adrift John. Like a ship at sea, without a compass or an anchor.

this sounds a lot like:

Mat 27:41 Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said, 42 He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him. 43 He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.

[Guest]

Actually I wasn't mocking him. What I see on this thread makes me sad. It's also a little bit scary.

Point after point was established by the Lord God of heaven. That which was truth then, is truth today. But the voices do not cease to be heard--"This is truth. I have new light." But these new lights in prophetic lines are manifest in misapplying the Word and setting the people of God adrift without an anchor to hold them. {2SM 104}

[John317]

Quote:

John317: God's plan for the Egyptian army to die in the sea

Quote:

ROBERT: But if they hadn't pursued the Israelis, then what?

Well, for one thing, Exodus 9: 16 and Romans 9: 17 would then not have been fulfilled as it was:

"For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout the earth."

One of God's purposes in liberating Israel from Egypt as He did was that the people of the world-- and particularly the nations which were being dispossessed by Israel-- would know without question that the God of Israel is indeed the living God. It was some of those nations' last opportunity to repent and accept the true God. See, for example, Number 14: 13,14. Sadly, most of these nations did not accept God, although a few did, such as Rahab and Ruth. Of course the reason God wants people to know about Him is that He wants them to get to know Him and turn to Him for salvation.

Quote:

I don't understand why God would kill....Doesn't He say "love your enemies"? Didn't He love His enemies? Confusing....

Yes, God is loving even to his enemies. (I was his enemy for most of my life and he was loving toward me anyway.) He gave Pharaoh and his army life and opportunity to know He exists, but they stubbornly refused. He won't force people to accept Him as their God and Savior, but again, the only alternative to accepting God is judgment and eternal death. Hebrews 9: 27, 28; Mark 16: 16; John 3: 16. God's appeal is always, "Choose life. Why will you die when you can have eternal life?"

But notice the following Bible verse. It shows that while God does not hate anyone and while He wants everyone saved, God is willing to communicate in language people will understand so that they will know the dire consequences of defiant and persistent disobedience to God:

"And you shall know that the Lord your God, He is God, the steadfast God keeping the covenant and the faith for those who love Him and keep His commandments to the thousandath generation, but He pays back those who hate him to their face to make them perish. He will not delay-- him who hates Him to his face He will pay back." Deut. 7: 9, 10.

[Robert]

God doesn't stop heinous crimes because if He did that, people wouldn't understand the terrible results of sin.

[Robert]

"And you shall know that the Lord your God, He is God, the steadfast God keeping the covenant and the faith for those who love Him and keep His commandments to the thousandath generation, but He pays back those who hate him to their face to make them perish. He will not delay-- him who hates Him to his face He will pay back." Deut. 7: 9, 10.

So we can reduce this to, "I'm God, I love you, now be good and love me back by keeping all my rules or I'll set you on fire. But remember I love you."

[Robert]

"For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout the earth."

So, in your view, God brought Pharaoh from his mother's womb in order illustrate His power? In other words Pharaoh was preordained to oppose God (as in "I will harden Pharaoh's heart") and have His armies wiped out? That doesn't sound like fee-will to me.

[Robert]

"This is truth. I have new light." But these new lights in prophetic lines ....

She talking abut "prophetic line"...truth from Daniel, Revelation and such....Doesn't apply to our conversation here.

[John317]

Quote:

pnattmbtc: You're saying the statement "Compelling power is only found under Satan's government" is flatly contradicted by many of her clearest statements, unless we take this sentence not to be a universal principle. This is your assertion, right? So how should the sentence be taken? How do you suggest it should be worded?

Your "universal principle" can be easily proven NOT to be a universal principle, but you first have to be able to recongize "force." Of course as long as you refuse to recognize force when you see it, you can continue to keep your universal principle. So far I think you have what's called a "closed system," in which nothing can be shown to be false. You've arranged everything and re-define everything in such a way that it is impossible for anything done by God to be "force," just as it's impossible by your definition for God to have destroyed anyone, no matter how clearly the Bible or Ellen White say otherwise.

That's the way you've done already with the fact that the wicked angels were "expelled," "cast out," and "drive from heaven." You simply refuse to acknowledge that fact that "expelled" or "drive out" refers to the use of force, despite those words being commonly associated with its use, also despite the information Inspiration gives us that God had decreed that Satan absolutely could not remain in heaven.

Another one is that Exodus 6: 1 clearly shows that God forced the king of Egypt to let the Israelites go out of Egypt. That is the meaning of the words, "with a strong hand shall he let them go," and "with a strong hand shall he drive them out of his land." God is talking here about forcing or compelling Pharaoh to release Israel. Why did the Pharaoh do it? Only because the Egyptians felt that if they didn't, they would all die. Also, only because their lives were being made absolutely miserable by their water turning to blood, by all the dead frogs, the biting insects, the painful boils, and the disease of their livestock, etc. Also, only because the king's son was killed.

"The strong hand" refers to God's might. God is saying in those verses that God will cause Pharaoh to release the Israelites because of God's use of His power or might. Many modern translations use the word "force" or "compel" in this context, and appropriately so. The Amplified Bible, for instance, reads, "Now you shall see what I will do to Pharaoh, for [compelled] by a strong hand, he will let them go..."

In GC 671, Ellen White says that Satan is "contrained to acknowledge God's justice and to bow to the supremecy of Christ." The primary definition of "constrained" is "forced."

The Egyptian army was certainly forced to stay forever in the waters of the Red Sea.

The people who died in the flood were certainly forced to die in the water.

Jesus certainly forced the Jewish traders in the temple to leave off their business when He cleansed the temple.

Jesus certainly forced the demons out of people's bodies.

God certainly forced Adam out of the garden of Eden. Ellen White even says plainly that God sent angels to make them leave the garden. "Holy angels were sent to drive the guilty pair out of the garden." 3 SG 45.

Holy angels guarded the way to the tree of life, and compelled Satan and the evil angels to leave it alone. The holy angels also compelled Adam and Eve to stay away from the tree. The Truth About Angels, p. 62.

God certainly forced the people to stop building the tower of Babel and to disperse.

When Jesus told Satan "get thee hence," Satan had no choice but to obey. What is that if not "force"? See The Truth About Angels, p. 177.

God will certainly force Satan to stay on the earth during the 1000 years. He won't be able to leave it.

God certainly forced Satan to stay on the earth and among the warring elements during the flood.

An angel of God forced Herod to die a painful death. AA 152.

There are many more examples of where God has chosen to use force.

Where you are badly mistaken, I believe, is to think the statement by Ellen White refers to no use of force at all under any circumstances, whereas the examples given prove without quesion that her statement is talking about the fact that God won't use force to make people accept Him and He won't use force to win the great controversy.

What you fail to recognize apparently is that God already won the great controversy through the life, death, resurrection, ascension, and High Priestly ministry of His Son. God did't win the great controversy by forcing the demons out of heaven. God didn't win the great controversy by destroying Sodom or by destroying the world with a flood. He did those things for sure, but they aren't what won the war against Satan and sin.

Please look carefully at each of the above examples and tell whether any of those events are examples of the use of force, and if they are not, please explain why they aren't. Be as specific as possible.

[Robert]

God will certainly force

I don't think I like your God....There's really no free-will. It's My way or die. If God is going to manipulate free-will...if He is going to use people to prove His power, then I see traits that belong to Satan.

[John317]

Quote:

John317 God doesn't stop heinous crimes because if He did that, people wouldn't understand the terrible results of sin.

Quote:

ROBERT: So He wipes Pharaoh's army off the face of earth, but He overlooks the serial killer who rapes, tortures and murders his victims?

Is God answerable to you for what He does, and for how and when He punishes the wicked? We need to let God be God. Trust Him. He's certainly earned your love and trust, hasn't He?

You seem not to have learned much from the book of Job. What was God's answer to Job?

What does the Bible tell us regarding why God did what He did to Pharaoh?

Are you saying you don't think God was right to do those things?

[John317]

Quote:

John317: God will certainly force

Quote:

ROBERT: I don't think I like your God....There's really no free-will.

I must be doing a terribly crummy job of writing and communicating, because the God I worship and know is a God who wants nothing more than the worship, love, and admiration of his intelligent creatures but only when it's freely and intelligently given. He doesn't accept forced worship. That would be less than nothing to Him.

[Robert]

The Bible is the only thing I have to understand God. Jesus came to reveal the Father....I see agape in Christ's life as I read about Him, but when I look at your view I see a God with a tremendous ego...a God who selectively kills and a God who forces...a God who doesn't allow free will....