"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[Guest]

God achieved His purpose by the direct use of force when all else had failed.

I'm glad to see you have finally come around sky.

[Guest]

If it had to be decided that way, there would never have been a controversy to begin with!

Right?

Wrong!! Ellen White plainly explains why Satan wasn't destroyed right away.

Why was not the devil destroyed? Why do you ask such a question? Did not God know what was best? Would it not have destroyed confidence in God? Would it not have cast a reflection upon God if He had destroyed him, him that had taken hold of the very heart of the universe, and the world that was created? The only way to show the disposition of Satan was to give him a chance to develop himself as one who would be worthy of condemnation and death. {1888 122}

She goes on to say that what would have brought fear to angels and dishonor to God, will now vindicate, and establish honor.

"After the destruction of the wicked the whole universe will have become witnesses to the nature and results of sin. AND ITS UTTER EXTERMINATION, WHICH IN THE BEGINNING WOULD HAVE BROUGHT FEAR TO ANGELS AND DISHONOR TO GOD, WILL NOW VINDICATE HIS LOVE AND ESTABLISH HIS HONOR BEFORE THE UNIVERSE" GC 504.

You see, all God did was postpone Satan's destruction.

[pnattmbtc]

God achieved His purpose by the direct use of force when all else had failed.

I'm glad to see you have finally come around sky.

Force is the last resort of every false religion. Signs of the Times, May 6, 1897. The SDA Bible Commentary, 7:976.

[pnattmbtc]

Regarding Satan's destruction:

Quote:

At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this. Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin. A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe. (DA 764)

Had God *left* Satan to reap the full result of his sin, he would have perished, but the onlooking angels did not understand that death is the inevitable result of sin, so God could not permit this to happen in the beginning. At the end, when things are understood in their true nature, God can permit this.

[Guest]

You stopped reading too soon as usual. You should have read on a little further. Sin does not destroy itself. It has to be EXTERMINATED.

Quote:

Then the extermination of sin will vindicate God's love and establish His honor before a universe of beings who delight to do His will, and in whose heart is His law. {DA 764}

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: richard

God achieved His purpose by the direct use of force when all else had failed.

I'm glad to see you have finally come around sky.

Force is the last resort of every false religion. Signs of the Times, May 6, 1897. The SDA Bible Commentary, 7:976.

in all its forms, but we think if we arent practicing the more obvious form that we are guiltless.

or that we are members of the sda church and therefore guiltless.

[teresaq]

You stopped reading too soon as usual. You should have read on a little further. Sin does not destroy itself. It has to be EXTERMINATED.

Quote:

Then the extermination of sin will vindicate God's love and establish His honor before a universe of beings who delight to do His will, and in whose heart is His law. {DA 764}

as you understand it to mean. :)

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: richard

God achieved His purpose by the direct use of force when all else had failed.

I'm glad to see you have finally come around sky.

Force is the last resort of every false religion. Signs of the Times, May 6, 1897. The SDA Bible Commentary, 7:976.

pnatt and teresa, did you really think that I wrote this sentence by itself to mean just what that says: "God achieved His purpose by the direct use of force when all else had failed." Did you take the time to read the post from which this was taken and misapplied? please go back up and read it so can you see for yourself!!!

sky

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

You stopped reading too soon as usual. You should have read on a little further. Sin does not destroy itself. It has to be EXTERMINATED.

It doesn't appear you read what I quoted. We were talking about the destruction of Satan and his followers. EGW wrote that if God had *left* Satan and his followers to reap the full result of their sin, which is death, then they would have perished, but it would not have been understood that death is the inevitable result of sin.

Quote:

Then the extermination of sin will vindicate God's love and establish His honor before a universe of beings who delight to do His will, and in whose heart is His law. {DA 764}

Clearly if Satan and his followers perished, sin would be exterminated, right?

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

pnatt and teresa, did you really think that I wrote this sentence by itself to mean just what that says: "God achieved His purpose by the direct use of force when all else had failed."

No, of course not.

Quote:

Did you take the time to read the post from which this was quoted? please go back and read it so you see for yourself!!!

No, that's not necessary. It was obviously him quoting you out of context. I didn't need to check this.

[skyblue888]

So you didn't even bother reading what I posted?

[Guest]

Why would someone whos is supposed to be honest do such a thing?

You seem to be somewhat lacking in the humor department.

[teresaq]

Quote:

pnatt and teresa, did you really think that I wrote this sentence by itself to mean just what that says: "God achieved His purpose by the direct use of force when all else had failed."

No, of course not.

Quote:

Did you take the time to read the post from which this was quoted? please go back and read it so you see for yourself!!!

No, that's not necessary. It was obviously him quoting you out of context. I didn't need to check this.

ditto. you should know we know the tactics as well as you do! :)

[Guest]

Clearly if Satan and his followers perished, sin would be exterminated, right?

WRONG!

Maybe you should look up the word exterminate in the dictionary.

If I had to go that far out of my way to hang on to a belief, I believe I would realize that something was wrong.

You're belief requires you to change every thing she said on a topic, and make it appear that she said something else instead. And you're willing to do it. What gets me is that you're actually willing to go that far, in order to hang on to your belief. And don't see anything wrong with it.

If I ever have to start changing everything she says on a topic, to make it sound like she didn't really say what she said. I will stop and re-examine my belief.

When the bug exterminator comes to your house, do all the bugs just drop dead on their own? Because that's the case you're making.

Exterminate- to get rid of by destroying; destroy totally; extirpate: to exterminate an enemy; to exterminate insects.

Synonyms

eradicate, abolish, annihilate, eliminate.

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: richard

God achieved His purpose by the direct use of force when all else had failed.

I'm glad to see you have finally come around sky.

Force is the last resort of every false religion. Signs of the Times, May 6, 1897. The SDA Bible Commentary, 7:976.

__________________________

Okay here is the context.

As a sample of this we will cite a conversation held with a highly educated person who mentioned that God does personally raise His righteous hand in which are held weapons of destruction, to destroy the disobedient. Specifically, the conversation turned to ancient Egypt.

He agreed that his view of the situation was that God desired and demanded of Pharaoh the release of His people.

The king refused.

God then struck a first blow to show that He was not speaking idly.

The king was not intimidated.

Therefore God struck blow after blow until Egypt was pounded into submission.

That is, God achieved His purpose by the direct use of force when all else had failed.

My friend immediately saw, with great clarity, that criminal organizations use the same methods.

They desire and demand.

The person involved refuses.

They strike the first blow to demonstrate that they mean their threats.

The subject continues to resist.

Therefore, they hit him again and again until he is forced to concede.

That is, they achieve by force that which they otherwise could never gain.

I was most encouraged to see how clearly this man recognized the nature of his beliefs about God and that he could see that the syndicate operated in the same way as he understood God did. I naturally expected him to admit that he had never quite realized this before and that he was startled to see the real implications of his belief.

Instead, I was given a demonstration of the power of the human mind to rationalize.

Unhesitatingly he said, "Of course God uses the same methods as criminals. What makes the difference is God's intention. He does it with a good intention for the benefit of others. The criminal does it all for self."

"In that case," I replied, "you are saying that the end justifies the means used!"

He stoutly denied this, though the fact was inescapable that his argument was exactly that.

Here it is in simple terms.

The means used by the criminal were unjustified because the end was selfish. The same means used by God were justified because the end was unselfish.

Once this line of reasoning has become established, any crime can be justified. During the Dark Ages millions of fine people were martyred on the basis of this rationale.

The end can never justify the means.

Let every true child of God forever reject such a philosophy. There is no place for it in the ways, character, and government of God's church. God has never worked like this and never will.

All His ways are ways of righteousness and peace.

Any belief that God and the criminals use the same methods must be forever denied by the testimony of God Himself, when He said, "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways, saith the Lord." Isaiah 55:8.

Do we believe God? Shall we hold to a plain, "Thus saith the Lord"?

Assuredly!

____________________________

sky

[John317]

Quote:

John3:17: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.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: You wrote all of this stuff, but didn't answer or address my question. I'll repeat it:

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?

Please answer my question.

This question has already been answered many times on this thread. The answer is that the context shows Ellen White is talking about using compelling power for the purpose of putting down the rebellion or of forcing people or any created intelligences to be on God's side in the great controversy. God will not force anyone to choose Him. Satan does. He uses trickery and force. God doesn't and can't. To that degree, it is a universal principle, but is was not inteded to mean that God would never use force in any way or under any circumstances.

God has used force to put Satan and the evil angels out of heaven and to do a number of other things such as protect Jesus from being destroyed by Satan, but never to win the great controversy. The great controversy was won by God's love demonstrated in the life, death, and resurrection of His Son.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Regarding your points, I think they've all been addressed, haven't they?

Perhaps "addressed," but certainly not answered in any satisfactory way. But maybe you are only seeking to repond in a way that you are happy with. To me that's not a good way to carry on a dialogue. What you mean is that you've given some kind of generalized response that you hope will cover the whole subject in some sort of way.

But no, all of them have not been answered, at least not in any specific way which deals with the texts and the language.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: One thing I've been trying to do is hone in on what specifically we're disagreeing about. What I see you arguing is that there are examples in Scripture showing God using force and using compelling power. Therefore the idea that the exercise of force is contrary to God's principles must be understood in a limited sense.

Yes, you seem to have grasped that point rather nicely. The Bible and SOP examples show very plainly and even obviously that God is not opposed to using force under any and all circumstances irrespective of the purpose. That seems very obvious from the simple fact that He forced Adam to leave the garden.

Another simple but clear example is that Christ forced the evil spirits to come out of people. He commanded them to come out and they had no choice but to obey the command.

He also used force to keep both fallen man and fallen angels away from the Tree of Life.

Things like that make it very clear that God does sometimes use force, and therefore they prove there's no universal principle which states God never uses force under any and all circumstances.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Similarly the statement that compelling power is only found in Satan's government should be understood in a limited sense. Some of the time compelling power is only found in Satan's government. This is what you're suggesting, correct?

God NEVER uses compelling power for the purpose of winning the great controversy or for the purpose of solving the problem of sin and rebellion.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: There is one part of your post which strikes me as new, so I'll address it. I'll repeat the portion I have in mind:

JOHN3:17: 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.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: First of all, the "universal principle" isn't mine. I just quoted it.

This is not strictly true, is it? You didn't only quote it-- you labeled it a "universal principle," something that Ellen White never did. Furthermore, she must not have intended it to be considered "universal," since she then went on to give many examples of where God has used force. Your problem, it seems clear to me, is that you simply cannot bring yourself to accept that fact.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Ellen White wrote that "compelling power is only found under Satan's government."

OK, yes, that's good: there's the quote. Now please leave it as a quote!

Quote:

pnattmbtc: I've been asking from the beginning of this thread how this could not be a universal principle, without being answered.

You've been answered many times but you seem no better at recognizing an answer to this question than you are at recongizing "force" when you see it.

I'll be glad to give the answer again. It is not a universal principle in the sense that God never uses force under any circumstances, but it is a universal principle if it is applied correctly, which means that God never uses force to get intelligent creatures to serve Him or come back to Him. DA 22 says that God never uses force to break Satan's deceptive power.

Was forcing Satan out of heaven breaking Satan's deceptive power? No.

Was destroying people in the flood breeaking Satan's deceptive power? No.

Was forcing Adam out of the garden and to leave the tree of Life alone breaking Satan's deceptive power? No.

Was forcing Pharaoh to let the children of Israel go-- was that breaking Satan's deceptive power? No,

Will destroying Satan and the wicked at the end of time be breaking Satan's deceptive power? NO.

GOD BROKE SATAN'S DECEPTIVE POWER BY ALLOWING SATAN ENOUGH TIME TO PROVE HIS ROTTEN, EVIL CHARACTER AND BY DEMONSTRATING HIS OWN LOVE IN THE LIFE, DEATH AND RESURRECTION OF HIS ONLY SON, JESUS CHRIST.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: .... You say the universal principle can easily be proven not to be a universal principle. The way you propose to do this is by listing accounts in inspiration which demonstrated God using force. So your argument is that I'm misapplying the principle. I'm making it universal when it shouldn't be universal. I think this is what you're arguing.

That's precisely it, yes.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: You don't appear to be arguing that I'm misunderstanding the principle, which is another possible tack one holding your position might take.

Actually, I do believe you are misunderstanding it to the extent that you seem to think that it applies to all of God's activity in His relationship with evil angels and with mankind alike, whereas the reality is that it applies only to God's refusal to win the great controversy and break the deceptive power of Satan through force. It was never intended to be a universal principle that applies to every act of God in the great controversy. If that were the case, God would have allowed Adam a choice whether to stay in the garden and eat of the tree of life. Also if God wasn't ever going to use any force whatever, God would have given Satan a choice whether to stay in heaven rather than decreeing that Satan was banished from it.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: So your argument is that anytime a passage is adduced which demonstrates God using force, I reinterpret that passage so that God is not using force. That's probably a fair complaint.

Well, I'm glad to see that you agree it's a fair complaint. It means you realize you are doing this. I wondered how long it would be before you came around to see this obvious fact. :-)

Quote:

pnattmbtc: It's the same complaint someone believing in an immortal soul would raise against those who hold our position in regards to the state of the dead. Anytime they raise a passage, such as "the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever," we reinterpret that to mean something different than the plain language states.

No, it isn't what I do, and I never had anyone suggest that I did. If that is what I did, I would hop the fence and be on the other side arguing against the non-immortality of the dead. Is that what you feel you are doing when you study with people regarding the topic of death? I certainly don't. What you need to do is go through the Bible and look at all the uses of the word translated "for ever." You will find that its definition depends on the subject. If the subject only lives 70 years, then it may mean 70 years; if the subject is immortal, then the it means "without end." By itself, apart from any known subject, the word simply means "a very long time," and "age," and "an indeterminate period of time." How long it is depends, as I say, on the subject to which it refers. That is easily demonstrated. It wouldn't make any sense if it always meant "without end," or "endlessly." For instance, it would then mean that Jonah never escaped out of the great fish. Or that Samuel is still serving as a High Priest. Or that individuals have been working as servants to their masters continuously for more than 3 thousand years. Or that the fires that destroyed Sodom are still burning today. None of which, of course, are true, and therefore it proves that the word translated "for ever" and "eternal," must mean something besides "endless," etc.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: This is basically your argument. The way you would counter this argument is the way I'm countering yours.

But you are not really even countering my argument. All you are doing is saying that nothing is "force," which makes you look like you are unable to recongize force when you see it. If you ask any child if those things were "force," they would be able to tell you easily. For instance, if I told you that if you don't let someone go, I will kill your son-- and then if I did kill your son-- wouldn't you have the courage to say that's using force? So why keep denying it?

Quote:

pnattmbtc: We need to consider other places where these words or phrases are used, we need to consider what else inspiration has said on the issue, etc.

Indeed we do. So let's consider everything the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy say about these things. Let's not stop with just a few paragraphs. Study all she says and all that the Bible says about it.

The bottom line is that Ellen White states very clearly that the destructive power that one angel exercised when God commands will be exercised by evil angels when God permits.

You seem still unable to grasp this, that destruction may come from two sources: from angels of God when He commands, and from evil angels when God permits. GC 614. If you read it in context you will see that it's speaking of the events at Egypt and at Sodom and Gomorrah. In both those instances, she provides clear statements that it was God's angels who were commanded to destroy. The Bible is clear about this as well. But your "universal principle" won't let you see it, even though your way of applying the principle is making Ellen White flatly contradict herself.

Here's a question:

Ellen White says before we receive new doctrine or "new light" such as this, people need to be willing to lay it before the brethren of experience and let them decide if there's any truth to it. See 5 T 293. I would like to see this done with the teaching that God has never used force, never has destroyed anyone and that He will never destroy the wicked in fire at the end of time. Do you know if it's been done before?

[John317]

Quote:

pnattmbtc: One of four questions I've asked at least half a dozen times which haven't been answered. I'll list the unanswered questions here:

1.How was heaven imperiled for our redemption? (20th time I'm asking this).

That's easy. It was imperiled simply because it was an entirely new experience, wherein God became man and was completely and truly free as a human being to choose good or evil. Christ truly could have fallen and His humanity become separated forever from the Father. This would have been catastrophic not only for the universe but for the Godhead. There were no guarantees. There are many things about God's foreknowledge that we don't understand and probably never will understand fully. For instance we know that God knows the end from the beginning and we know that includes details, such as the free acts of human beings who have not yet even been born. And we know, too, that God is able to accomplish His purposes, yet we don't know how He can cause His purposes to be realized without manipulating and violating the wills of his intelligent creatures, but we know He's able to do exactly that.

We simply must accept some statements from Inspiration on faith because we can't possibly understand them yet. Take, for instance, the relatively simple concept of an "endless life." We can say it but we can't really begin to grasp what it means, any more than we can understand Christ's experience of the second death when He rose from the dead on the third day.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: 2.Why do you think God is capable of torturing people by setting them on fire for several days?

I wouldn't know anything about it except for the fact that God revealed to us through the Bible and the Spriit of prophecy. Therefore, the only reason I know God will do destroy the wicked in fire is that He's shown it to His prophets.

You are wrong to call it "torturing people," although some parts of Scripture do use words similar to "torture," such as in Rev. 14: 10. God wants people to realize that the final destruction and death of the wicked will not be pleasant, to say the least. He wants people to do everything they can to avoid it, just like a loving parent will encourage their child to avoid being killed by a car in the street, or by a bull in the barn.

Is God lying when He says people will be destroyed by fire after the Judgment? No. It will really happen. Billions and billions will die terrible deaths. They will perish forever in fire that will burn them to ashes before the earth will be made new. That the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy.

So the real question is, why do I think God is capable of doing exactly what God said He will do? Well, for one thing, because I know God doesn't lie or play games with people's fears. For the same reason, I suppose, that the angel of God told Balaam that if his donkey hadn't turned aside, the angel would have killed Balaam and left the donkey alive. That was not a lie either. Angels don't lie-- ever.

God will destroy Satan and sinners and sin the way He said He will because it is the only way He can rid the universe of all sin once and forever, so that it never rises up again. Therefore, as Ellen White, God will destroy the wicked out of love and mercy for the entire universe, even for the wicked themselves. Most of the lost will die quickly and even painlessly, but many others, whose sins deserve greater punishment, will HAVE TO suffer on for a period determined by Christ and the righteous. Study carefully GC 661, 665-673.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: 4.Since inspiration often presents God as directly doing that which He permits, on what basis do you determine whether or not He is doing the given thing? (as opposed to permitting it)

Simple answer: when Inspiration says so. In other words, it's the same principle as when the Bible says God killed Saul when we have other Scriptures which show that Saul thrust the sword into himself. Does that mean God didn't kill Saul? No. It just means that God didn't literally take the sword in His hand and drive it into Saul's body.

But one thing we can say for sure is that apart from God, Saul wouldn't have died in that way. It was obviously God's will that Saul perish. God used those circumstances to bring about His will. Yet Saul's freedom wasn't violated in the process.

But let me ask a simple question: can you show me anywhere that Ellen White said God destroyed someone or something and then later said that it was Satan who did it?

For instance, Ellen White says that it was an angel of God who destroyed the first born of Egypt. Where is her statement which says that Satan actually did it? Is there such?

Another way to test whether God really did what the Bible says He did is by reading everything that both the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy say about it.

Take, for instance, the death of the Egyptian soldiers in the Red Sea. When we read everything the Bible and SOP say about those events, it's impossible to come up with an explanation of what happened that agrees with everything the Bible and SOP says and yet conclude that God didn't destroy the Egyptians. Also, there's no text in either the Bible or the SOP which states that God did not do it.

In other words, you let Inspiration guide you. You don't conclude that God didn't do something that the Bible and SOP say He did unless you have evidence from Inspiration stating as much.

There's no reason to believe that Ellen White would write such things as "the angels of God took hold of the walls and brought them to the ground," unless that is exactly what she meant to say. Why? Because, except when describing some aspects of a dream, Ellen White did not write in symbolic language, and then the difference between symbol and the real is fairly easy to distinguish.

[Robert]

God became man and was completely and truly free as a human being to choose good or evil.

Humans aren't free to choose good or evil.

"But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin " [Gal 3:22]

[Robert]

It was obviously God's will that Saul perish.

Then it's God's will that all sinners die....All men die, hence it is God's will.

John, that's sick! God is not the author of sin and death. God doesn't will folks to die. Yes, He assumes the responsibility for sin because He has allowed Lucifer to develop his bent-to-self.....

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

It was obviously God's will that Saul perish.

Then it's God's will that all sinners die....All men die, hence it is God's will.

John, that's sick! God is not the author of sin and death. God doesn't will folks to die. Yes, He assumes the responsibility for sin because He has allowed Lucifer to develop his bent-to-self.....

Of course God is not the author of sin and death. I'm not suggesting that He is.

Once Saul was settled firmly into his rebellion against God and God knew he wouldn't change, it's obvious from the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy that God 's will was for Saul to be replaced on the throne of Israel. Up until Saul was opposed to God, then of course God wanted Saul to repent and do right, but that is going to be the same with those who continue to rebel against God beyond the end of their probation. When Christ returns, He's not coming to save the wicked.

What are you thinking? Do you think at that point-- after the end of human probation-- that it's God's will that the wicked be saved and receive eternal life?

What about after the Great White Throne Judgment-- will it be God's will that no one be lost?

How can we say that God killed Saul but it was His will that Saul go on living? The significance of saying God slew him is that God willed that Saul die. Yet God did NOT make Saul commit suicide. God is able to work out His will and His plan without violating people's free choices.

[John317]

Quote:

John317: God became man and was completely and truly free as a human being to choose good or evil.

Quote:

ROBERT: Humans aren't free to choose good or evil.

"But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin " [Gal 3:22]

My point is that the man Jesus was a completely free moral agent, able to freely choose whether to be faithful to God or to go against God. He could have chosen to oppose the Father, to sin, just as Adam did.

[pnattmbtc]

Thank you for answering my questions! I think I'll treat each question as a separate post, except for the third one, which I don't think you answered, so I'll reask it at the end of this post.

pnattmbtc: One of four questions I've asked at least half a dozen times which haven't been answered. I'll list the unanswered questions here:

1.How was heaven imperiled for our redemption? (20th time I'm asking this).

J:That's easy. It was imperiled simply because it was an entirely new experience, wherein God became man and was completely and truly free as a human being to choose good or evil. Christ truly could have fallen and His humanity become separated forever from the Father. This would have been catastrophic not only for the universe but for the Godhead. There were no guarantees. There are many things about God's foreknowledge that we don't understand and probably never will understand fully. For instance we know that God knows the end from the beginning and we know that includes details, such as the free acts of human beings who have not yet even been born. And we know, too, that God is able to accomplish His purposes, yet we don't know how He can cause His purposes to be realized without manipulating and violating the wills of his intelligent creatures, but we know He's able to do exactly that.

[pnattmbtc]

pnattmbtc: 2.Why do you think God is capable of torturing people by setting them on fire for several days?

J:I wouldn't know anything about it except for the fact that God revealed to us through the Bible and the Spriit of prophecy. Therefore, the only reason I know God will do destroy the wicked in fire is that He's shown it to His prophets.

You are wrong to call it "torturing people," although some parts of Scripture do use words similar to "torture," such as in Rev. 14: 10. God wants people to realize that the final destruction and death of the wicked will not be pleasant, to say the least. He wants people to do everything they can to avoid it, just like a loving parent will encourage their child to avoid being killed by a car in the street, or by a bull in the barn.

Is God lying when He says people will be destroyed by fire after the Judgment? No. It will really happen. Billions and billions will die terrible deaths. They will perish forever in fire that will burn them to ashes before the earth will be made new. That the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy.

So the real question is, why do I think God is capable of doing exactly what God said He will do? Well, for one thing, because I know God doesn't lie or play games with people's fears. For the same reason, I suppose, that the angel of God told Balaam that if his donkey hadn't turned aside, the angel would have killed Balaam and left the donkey alive. That was not a lie either. Angels don't lie-- ever.

God will destroy Satan and sinners and sin the way He said He will because it is the only way He can rid the universe of all sin once and forever, so that it never rises up again. Therefore, as Ellen White, God will destroy the wicked out of love and mercy for the entire universe, even for the wicked themselves. Most of the lost will die quickly and even painlessly, but many others, whose sins deserve greater punishment, will HAVE TO suffer on for a period determined by Christ and the righteous. Study carefully GC 661, 665-673.

[Twilight]

Quote:

Actually, I do believe you are misunderstanding it to the extent that you seem to think that it applies to all of God's activity in His relationship with evil angels and with mankind alike, whereas the reality is that it applies only to God's refusal to win the great controversy and break the deceptive power of Satan through force. It was never intended to be a universal principle that applies to every act of God in the great controversy. If that were the case, God would have allowed Adam a choice whether to stay in the garden and eat of the tree of life. Also if God wasn't ever going to use any force whatever, God would have given Satan a choice whether to stay in heaven rather than decreeing that Satan was banished from it.

Excellent point.

Quote:

The bottom line is that Ellen White states very clearly that the destructive power that one angel exercised when God commands will be exercised by evil angels when God permits.

You seem still unable to grasp this, that destruction may come from two sources: from angels of God when He commands, and from evil angels when God permits. GC 614. If you read it in context you will see that it's speaking of the events at Egypt and at Sodom and Gomorrah. In both those instances, she provides clear statements that it was God's angels who were commanded to destroy. The Bible is clear about this as well. But your "universal principle" won't let you see it, even though your way of applying the principle is making Ellen White flatly contradict herself.

Again, another excellent point.

Mark

[pnattmbtc]

pnattmbtc: 4.Since inspiration often presents God as directly doing that which He permits, on what basis do you determine whether or not He is doing the given thing? (as opposed to permitting it)

J:Simple answer: when Inspiration says so.