"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[skyblue888]

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.

John317

_______________________________________________________

John, give me a good reason why we should continue to ignore the testimony of Christ explaining these words, "When God commands"

"He will say to the angels, No longer combat Satan in his efforts to destroy. Let him work out his malignity upon the children of disobedience; for the cup of iniquity is full... I will no longer interfere to prevent the destroyer from doing his work." R&H, Vol.4, p.335.

These are God's commands to the angels: "No longer combat Satan in his efforts to destroy. Let him work out his malignity upon the children of disobedience."

This is how God's angels "destroy" at God's commands. They are given the command to no longer hold back the winds of strife.

And give me a good reason why we should ignore this other clear testimony of Christ, "I was shown that the judgments of God would not come directly out from the Lord upon them--but in this way: they place themselves beyond His protection." MR 14,3.

"From those who to the end continue in obstinate rebellion, He removes His protecting care. Providence will no longer shield them from Satan's power." R&H, Vo.4,335.

These are some of the testimonies that the Lord has sent to us to explain the messages given in the Bible and in the Testimonies. These statements give us the key as to how to interpret the language of the Bible concerning His judgments.

These words are the echo of the voice of Christ testifying to the eternal principle that "God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves to reap that which they have sown. The Holy Spirit, persistently resisted is at last withdrawn from the sinner and there is left no power to control the evil passions of the soul and no protection from the malice and enmity of Satan." G.C.36.

sky

[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.

[Robert]

How can we say that God killed Saul but it was His will that Saul go on living?

[Robert]

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.

That's because Christ never was a slave to sin....We are born bent-to-self and we can't just say no! that's my point...

[pnattmbtc]

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.

John317: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.

You haven't asked my question. My question is how what she meant should be worded. I'll try to do so based on what you wrote:

Compelling power, for the purpose of putting down rebellion, or forcing people to do things against their will, is found only under Satan's government.

Is this correct?

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.

Each incident you're asking about would take pages to respond to adequately. Sky has posted pages and pages regarding many of these incidents. The principles are in these explanations, and can be applied to other incidents.

Why don't you choose 2 or 3 to look at, and we'll do that. And, if you don't mind, I'd like to ask sky to explain them, as I've found the explanations he's provided to be excellent, and I've agreed with what he's written.

After looking at these 2 or 3, and they're answered to your satisfaction, we can address some more if you'd like. How's that?

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.

J: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.

This is what I thought. We view this completely differently. I agree with what sky wrote, which is that if it were true that God sometimes used force or compelling power to achieve His purposes, this would contradict the statements which say He doesn't do so, hence there must be some other explanation for these statements which appear to be contradictory.

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?

J: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.

Great! Thanks. This is what I've been asking for. It's pretty close to what I wrote above.

Quote:

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.

Or the reverse, right? That is, it really is a universal principle, and your problem is you simply cannot bring yourself to accept that fact. Therefore the statements which appear to be contradicting this must not be.

I think putting things in red and caps and so forth is poor etiquette. I had to ask you something 20 times to get an answer. I didn't yell at you. I just kept reposting until I got an answer.

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.

J:That's precisely it, yes.

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.

J: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.

This seems to be assuming your conclusion, but thanks for verifying that I've understood you correctly.

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. :-)

Well, this isn't hard to recognize, nor anything I've had to "come around" to. I interpret things according to my paradigm. Everybody does this. It would be impossible not to. The question is if our paradigm is correct.

I believe the truth of Christ is always challenging our paradigms. We always are in need of new wine skins to put the new wine in.

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.

J:No, it isn't what I do, and I never had anyone suggest that I did.

I'm speaking from the perspective of the one you're conversing with, of course, the same as I did to myself from your perspective. I was looking at things from your perspective, saying, given the way you look at things, it would be a fair complaint. I'm not saying you're correct to look at things that way.

Similarly a person who holds that people have an immortal soul would look at what you do along the lines of what I've said, because of their perspective.

Quote:

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.

You didn't understand my point, apparently, which had to do with looking at things from another's perspective. But your argument here has born out what I said, as you're arguing here the same say I argue with you; that is, it's the same logic.

Quote:

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

J: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?

I think you're misunderstanding what happened. I think what Ellen White wrote, that the exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government, and that compelling power is found only under the government of Satan is true, according to the definition of "force" or "compelling power," just as you would ask any child.

I believe that Satan and his principles are fundamentally different than God and His. Not only because of motives, but they actually do different things. Torturing, causing destruction and disease, using force and compelling power are examples.

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.

J: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.

Isn't it more likely that I simply disagree with what you're saying?

Quote:

If you read it in context you will see that it's speaking of the events at Egypt and at Sodom and Gomorrah.

Here's the context:

Quote:

When He leaves the sanctuary, darkness covers the inhabitants of the earth. In that fearful time the righteous must live in the sight of a holy God without an intercessor. The restraint which has been upon the wicked is removed, and Satan has entire control of the finally impenitent. God's long-suffering has ended. The world has rejected His mercy, despised His love, and trampled upon His law. The wicked have passed the boundary of their probation; the Spirit of God, persistently resisted, has been at last withdrawn. Unsheltered by divine grace, they have no protection from the wicked one. Satan will then plunge the inhabitants of the earth into one great, final trouble. As the angels of God cease to hold in check the fierce winds of human passion, all the elements of strife will be let loose. The whole world will be involved in ruin more terrible than that which came upon Jerusalem of old. {GC 614.1}

This is the paragraph immediately preceding. I don't see any mentioned about Sodom until almost 20 pages later.

Quote:

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.

Or the other way around. It could be that your ideas that God destroys don't let you recognize a universal principle, regardless of how clearly it's worded. "Compelling power is found only under Satan's government" seems very clear to me. Yet you reinterpret this to mean "Compelling power is found only under Satan's government, only if we're dealing with winning the great controversy or for solving the problem of sin and rebellion."

A little thought should show that even this reinterpretation is lacking as an explanation, because if God did the things you are suggesting He did, He would have been doing these things to win the Great Controversy. How could that not be the case? The Great Controversy is about God's government and the principles of His government. Every single thing God does has a bearing in that controversy, and with winning it. If God uses force and compelling power at certain times, then that's a part of His character, and the principles of His government, and making clear this is the case is a part of how God wins the great controversy, as making clear His character and the principles of His government is precisely how God wins the Great Controversy.

A problem I see with your responses in general is that they are too personal. When someone varies from you it's because they cannot grasp things which are obvious to you. I don't think this is the right way of looking at things, and certainly not helpful to express in a dialog like this. We interpret things differently because our perspectives our different. We take different things as fundamental or foundational, to use as our starting place, that we're reasoning from. It's not a matter of my not grasping what you're saying, but of reasoning from a different starting point, a starting point which includes a paradigm, a perspective, and foundational principles.

Quote:

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?

This isn't even what's been suggested. Here we're on page 50 of this thread, and you still don't know how to correctly express the position with which you disagree. That's not good.

When conversing with another, one should be able to express the opinion of another in such a way that the other person can say, "Yes, that's what I'm saying."

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

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

R: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.

Does your belief require you to be sarcastic and rude? If I were led to treat people in this way, that would cause me to take pause and re-examine by belief.

Let's go with "eliminate" as a synonym.

What is it you think is being redefined here? Note she didn't say that sinners are exterminated, but that sin is (it appears you may have missed this). If only righteous people remain, who remains to sin? If there's no one to sin, then sin is eliminated, right?

[pnattmbtc]

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 make Saul commit suicide. God is able to work out His will and His plan without violating people's free choices.

[Guest]

Quote:

Let's go with "eliminate" as a synonym.

What is it you think is being redefined here? Note she didn't say that sinners are exterminated, but that sin is (it appears you may have missed this). If only righteous people remain, who remains to sin? If there's no one to sin, then sin is eliminated, right?

Except she didn't use the synonym. She said exterminated. And extermination is never self inflicted. So you can dance around the word all you want, but the dictionary isn't unsure of what the word means. It gives a definate and concrete definition. Ellen white used a dictionary to help her choose the proper words, (that and divine inspiration) so I'm pretty sure she knew what the word meant also.

[teresaq]

i think "they" see the words but arent picturing the situations they are applying the words to....

perhaps they cant get past the picture the words bring to mind at this point in time....to be able to look at the picture.

[teresaq]

Quote:

Let's go with "eliminate" as a synonym.

What is it you think is being redefined here? Note she didn't say that sinners are exterminated, but that sin is (it appears you may have missed this). If only righteous people remain, who remains to sin? If there's no one to sin, then sin is eliminated, right?

Except she didn't use the synonym. She said exterminated. And extermination is never self inflicted. So you can dance around the word all you want, but the dictionary isn't unsure of what the word means. It gives a definate and concrete definition. Ellen white used a dictionary to help her choose the proper words, (that and divine inspiration) so I'm pretty sure she knew what the word meant also.

your response leads one to believe you didnt read what he said, richard.

[Guest]

The sinner is where the sin is. You can't exterminate one without exterminating the other. If you could then everybody would be saved.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

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.

according to the way you understand it, richard. but the bible is a spiritual book and God uses our language to communicate with us.

[Guest]

Quote:

according to the way you understand it, richard. but the bible is a spiritual book and God uses our language to communicate with us.

Yes and by believing you know how it "should" be understood, and what it really "ought" to say, you guys have actually placed yourselves in the exact same boat as people who don't even believe in God.

Many of them denied the existence of God and attributed the Flood to the operation of natural causes. {PP 119}

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

p:Let's go with "eliminate" as a synonym.

What is it you think is being redefined here? Note she didn't say that sinners are exterminated, but that sin is (it appears you may have missed this). If only righteous people remain, who remains to sin? If there's no one to sin, then sin is eliminated, right?

R:Except she didn't use the synonym.

That's right. You did. I used the word that you provided. So what's the complaint? You provided the word.

Quote:

She said exterminated.

You gave "eliminated" as a synonym.

Quote:

And extermination is never self inflicted. So you can dance around the word all you want, but the dictionary isn't unsure of what the word means. It gives a definate and concrete definition. Ellen white used a dictionary to help her choose the proper words, (that and divine inspiration) so I'm pretty sure she knew what the word meant also.

You still seem not to have apprehended that it is sin that was exterminated, not sinners.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

The sinner is where the sin is. You can't exterminate one without exterminating the other. If you could then everybody would be saved.

Sinners sin. Sin destroys sinners. This eliminates, or "exterminates" sin.

[pnattmbtc]

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.

But logically, given your presuppositions, it wouldn't be possible for Jesus to do so. You believe God was certain Christ wouldn't fail, right? So if God was certain Christ couldn't fail, then He couldn't. Unless you want to postulate that something which God was certain wouldn't happen could.

[Guest]

Quote:

That's right. You did. I used the word that you provided. So what's the complaint? You provided the word.

You gave "eliminated" as a synonym.

So let me get this straight. Now you want to take a word that I used, in order to explain to you what exterminate means. And replace the word that the prophet used, with this other word. Because you think you can better deal with this word? LOL

The very meaning of the word exterminate defeats, or "eliminates", or annihilates your description of what happens. That's why she used the word, because she knew that you guys would be along. Saying the exact same thing as the infidels.

Many of them denied the existence of God and attributed the Flood to the operation of natural causes. {PP 119}

That's the same thing you guys believe.

[teresaq]

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.

[teresaq]

Many of them denied the existence of God and attributed the Flood to the operation of natural causes. {PP 119}

That's the same thing you guys believe.

you make this accusation based on, what? :)

[skyblue888]

John you quoted the words "with a strong hand shall he let them go" as though the "he" was referring to God when the "he" actually refers to Pharaoh.

Exo 6:1 "Then the LORD said unto Moses, Now shalt thou see what I will do to Pharaoh: for with a strong hand shall he (Pharaoh) let them go, and with a strong hand shall he drive them out of his land." *parenthesis supplied

[John317]

Quote:

pnattmbtc: You didn't really get to the point of the question, which I'll spell out in more detail.

OK. I'll try to answer it better and more clearly this time.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: According to your view of the future, as I understand it, there's only one possible future, which is the future that God knows will happen. This is correct, isn't it? So given, in the future, looking at it from eternity past, heaven was never in any danger, how can you believe it was imperiled?

I accept the statements from Inspiration. Those statements are that God knows the future, including the free acts of people not yet born. God knows the beginning and the end. But we are also told Jesus Christ could have sinned and failed. Therefore, there was a real risk to the Godhead. I can go into this more later on, but let this suffice for the time being.

Let me ask you, do you read very much in systematic theology? If so, you might look into some systematic theologies regarding God's decrees and foreknowledge, etc., and the freedom of the will.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Or, to ask the question in another way, from your perspective of things, God has always been 100% from all eternity that there was no chance at all, the probability was always 0 and always has been, of heaven being lost. Given this, how can you assert that it was imperiled?

I wouldn't verbalize it that way. All we know is what the Bible and SOP tell us about these matters, which is that God knows the end from the beginning, but that, as said before, God took a real risk in sending the pre-incarnate Christ to come to this world as a man. I assert that it was "imperiled" simply on the testimony of the prophet of God, in whom I have complete confidence as the messenger of God.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Question 3 is, how would you word the following "Compelling power is only found under Satan's government" so that it would accurately convey your thought on what the real situation is.

God does not use compelling power to break the deceptive power of Satan and win the great controversy. Instead, God give Satan time and opportunity to demonstrate his character and to prove the consequences of sin. By contrast, Satan uses compelling power and deception to try and win the great controversy against God.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: That is, you don't believe this is a universal principle.

I believe it's a universal principle to the extent that Ellen White intended the statement to be understood, which is that God will never use compelling force to win the great controversy or to gain the service and loyalty of his intelligent creatures. God never forces people to accept Him.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: So what are the exceptions?

Here are examples:

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.

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.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: When does the principle apply that it's only found in Satan's government.

When it has to do with breaking the deceptive power of Satan and to winning the great controversy against him. Whereas God only accepts the service of love, Satan will try to gain it by force. God will never force people to accept Him, but Satan will.

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

Many of them denied the existence of God and attributed the Flood to the operation of natural causes. {PP 119}

That's the same thing you guys believe.

you make this accusation based on, what?

Based on that whole book that sky posted, attributing the flood to natural causes. I do believe you were in full agreement. I could be wrong.

[teresaq]

Many of them denied the existence of God and attributed the Flood to the operation of natural causes. {PP 119}

That's the same thing you guys believe.

[Guest]

Yes that's what the book said. It's not an accusation, it's a fact. And it's basically the same argument you're making here. That the Bible doesn't really mean what it says.

[teresaq]

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.