"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[Robert]

The Bible text is that "He took off the wheels of the chariots."

[skyblue888]

Robert!!! It's not a supposition but a language!!! I thought you understood that by now. Ellen uses the same language the Bible does but she does explain that language in other statements, as you should know that by now. It simply means that the angels of God could no longer protect them and their chariots, that they could no longer hold the evil angels in check from doing their evil deed.

Do you read all my posts, I mean, the latest?

sky

[John317]

Quote:

skyblue888: No it was not God who put an end to their lives. It was their presumption John. They put themselves where Satan wanted them and once there they had filled up their cup of iniquity. Satan kept them there by being allowed to take the wheels off their chariots. But God took the blame for that since He could no longer protect them. Hence the language of the Bible which is always consistent. Again the Lord says, I did it.

Notice that in the narrative Moses promises the people that God will fight for them and make the Egyptians so that they are never seen again. Ex. 14: 13, 14. THIS IS BEFORE THE EGYPTIANS EVEN WENT INTO THE WATER.

Ellen White:

"The Egyptians were seized with confusion and dismay..., they endeavored to retrace their steps, and flee to the shore they had quitted. BUT MOSES STRETCHED OUT HIS ROD, AND the piled up WATERS, hissing, roaring, and eager for their prey, RUSHED TOGETHER, AND SWALLOWED THE EGYPTIAN ARMY in their black depths." PP 287

The sentence speaks for itself.

As I said, the Bible narrative as well as Ellen White make it clear that the Egyptians were about to leave the Red Sea when God commanded Moses to put out his staff IN ORDER THAT the waters would flow back over the Egyptians and drown them. The language proves that God intended for the water to drown the Egyptians. Study carefully Ex. 14: 26. The people saw this happen and that is why the Israelites stood in awe of the Lord and trusted the Lord and his servant Moses. Ex. 14: 21.

Let the reader study these things for himself and become fully persuaded in his own mind.

[Robert]

God can't love me more than Himself (hence God = agape) and do a turnaround and keep me alive in fire for many days while I cry to die....

I will never reconcile the two because the day I do I am a sick screwed up individual. I'll need to be put in the funny farm....

Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

[skyblue888]

Quote:

skyblue888: .... can't you see what some of us can't see? what Ellen said about the wheels is just fine. It is the same language all the time. Can't you see that? nothing wrong with Ellen saying that anymore than God saying I will harden his heart.

get it?

sky

*There were angels watching over these Egyptian soldiers. God loved them just as much as He loved the Israelites. But when they ventured to pursue the Israelites through the Red Sea which God had opened for His professed people, they filled up their cup of iniquity and God's angels withdrew and the evil angels took off the wheels of their chariots and thus they had no way to escape from the waves when they returned. The Lord had no choice but to allow Satan and his angels to do their work of destruction. And the language is that the angels of God took the wheels off their chariots!

John, I am sorry but it is you who is in a dangerous spot.

And in this way, you make Ellen White say something she didn't say or mean. This is what's dangerous about the teaching that God has never destroyed anyone and will never destroy anyone. It requires the twisting of the Scriptures from what it plainly says to something entirely different.

What you say, sky, doesn't make sense. What you are saying would mean that when Moses held out his staff, the evil angels performed miracles, and then the Israelites gave all praise to God for all the evil things the wicked angels did. It would mean the enemies of God and God's angels were working hand in glove to free Israel from Egypt. There's no reason to think that Satan and his demons wanted to help Israel escape from the Egyptians. Ellen White and the Bible show that Satan was fighting against God's plan to free Israel. Satan tried to make it look like his magicians could duplicate the miracles of God, and that was for the purpose of fighting against God's plans. Why then would Satan have done things to cause the Egyptians to all perish in the waters?

It would be like God has some attack dogs nearby who do His evil work for Him whenever He needs it done, so that God doesn't get His hands dirty. How does it make God look any better if He does that? But on top of that, Ellen White says clearly that it was the angels of God who took off the wheels. She never says "angels of God" when she means "evil angels."

John, instead of letting the Bible interpret itself or the SoP interpret itself you keep using the same type of quotes to support the traditional understanding or teaching concerning the character of God, the nature of His government, and the principles of His dealing with sin. I would have nothing but admiration for your zeal if it weren't for the fact that you seem to want to ignore the statements that give us the key as how to interpret these verses that you keep quoting from the Bible. We are acquainted with these Bible verses too but we don't understand them the same way you do. We do not try to put construction upon them but simply allow the Bible to explain itself or the SoP to explain the language of these verses.

Myself and others have given you one example after another as to how this language is to be understood but it is to no avail it seems. I just hope that some will at last catch the heavenly rays before it is too late for us as a people.

The episode in Egypt was a parable in action. As long as the rod was in Moses's hand (Moses represented God) the powers of nature were under the control of God and at peace but as soon as the rod was no longer in Moses' hand that rod became a serpent of destruction.

I realize that this is a difficult subject but nevertheless the Lord has given us sufficient light to understand that no matter what happened in Egypt He did not stand there as an executioner of the sentence against transgression.

sky

[John317]

...Ellen uses the same language the Bible does but she does explain that language in other statements, as you should know that by now. It simply means that the angels of God could no longer protect them and their chariots, that they could no longer hold the evil angels in check from doing their evil deed.

Your view makes it seem as if the evil angels were just waiting in order to destroy the Egyptian army. Why would Satan do that when he was fighting against God's will to free Israel? Ellen White says, "Satan wrought to the utmost of his power to counterfeit the work of God and resist His will." PP 334. So Satan was resisting God's will. Yet your position would persuade us that Satan helped God at the Red Sea by destroying the Egyptian army. AND THEN, TO TOP IT OFF, THE ISRAELITES GAVE THE PRAISE TO GOD.

That would be like Satan fighting to help Christ expel demons from people. It would mean Satan is fighting against himself.

Ellen White says "the angels of God went through the host and removed their chariot wheels." Can you think of any reason she would say that, when she meant that the evil angels did it?

Can you cite any evidence in the writings of Ellen White where she says that "angels of God" or "God" did something, and then in another place she says that it was really Satan or the evil angels who did it?

For instance, she says that the angel of God slayed the first-born of Egypt. Does she ever say it was an evil angel or Satan who did it?

As another example, she says it was angels of God who removed the wheels of the chariot. Does she ever say it was the fallen angels who really did it?

Bible does sometimes say that God "killed," when another text shows that God did not actually put the sword in the individual, but that God used circumstances to bring about their death. The Bible is clear on that. Everyone agrees on that point. However, there are many places where the Bible and the SOP are clear that certain acts were done by God or by His angels. It's a mistake to merely assume that whenever the Bible or SOP describes the angels of God destroying, we're to understand that it really means the evil angels did it. After all, Ellen White herself says that the same destructive power exercised by the angels of God when He commands will be exercised by evil angels when He permits. She thus makes it clear that God sometimes commands His angels to cause destruction. Destruction sometimes comes as a result of God's commands to His angels. This is precisely what she says happened in Egypt and in Sodom and Gomorrah.

[skyblue888]

Quote:

skyblue888: No it was not God who put an end to their lives. It was their presumption John. They put themselves where Satan wanted them and once there they had filled up their cup of iniquity. Satan kept them there by being allowed to take the wheels off their chariots. But God took the blame for that since He could no longer protect them. Hence the language of the Bible which is always consistent. Again the Lord says, I did it.

Notice that in the narrative Moses promises the people that God will fight for them and make the Egyptians so that they are never seen again. Ex. 14: 13, 14. THIS IS BEFORE THE EGYPTIANS EVEN WENT INTO THE WATER.

Ellen White:

"The Egyptians were seized with confusion and dismay..., they endeavored to retrace their steps, and flee to the shore they had quitted. BUT MOSES STRETCHED OUT HIS ROD, AND the piled up WATERS, hissing, roaring, and eager for their prey, RUSHED TOGETHER, AND SWALLOWED THE EGYPTIAN ARMY in their black depths." PP 287

The sentence speaks for itself.

As I said, the Bible narrative as well as Ellen White make it clear that the Egyptians were about to leave the Red Sea when God commanded Moses to put out his staff IN ORDER THAT the waters would flow back over the Egyptians and drown them. The language proves that God intended for the water to drown the Egyptians. Study carefully Ex. 14: 26. The people saw this happen and that is why the Israelites stood in awe of the Lord and trusted the Lord and his servant Moses. Ex. 14: 21.

Let the reader study these things for himself and become fully persuaded in his own mind.

Nobody is denying what the Bible says or what Mrs. White says. The language is always the same John, whether dealing with the episode in Egypt or with Saul or with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah or the destruction of Jerusalem even. The language is always the same.

Remember that statement from the Bible in which God, through the prophet Nathan said to David, "I will raise up evil against you out of your own house." And then Mrs. White takes up this verse and says, "Not that God prompted these evil acts of wickedness but that He did not exercise His power to prevent them." P.P.739.

Do you see what I mean John? If she can interpret this language in this way in this case, what is to stop us from doing the same thing with other verses of the Bible when God is said to have done this or that? Can you tell?

This is not a lone verse or a lone interpretation. Mrs. White does it again and again and you know it.

It is the same when the Bible says that God took the wheels off their chariots. Not that God did that Himself but He that He did not exercise His power to prevent the evil agencies of Satan to do their evil deed.

sky

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

...Ellen uses the same language the Bible does but she does explain that language in other statements, as you should know that by now. It simply means that the angels of God could no longer protect them and their chariots, that they could no longer hold the evil angels in check from doing their evil deed.

Your view makes it seem as if the evil angels were just waiting in order to destroy the Egyptian army. Why would Satan do that when he was fighting against God's will to free Israel? Ellen White says, "Satan wrought to the utmost of his power to counterfeit the work of God and resist His will." PP 334. So Satan was resisting God's will. Yet your position would persuade us that Satan helped God at the Red Sea by destroying the Egyptian army. AND THEN, TO TOP IT OFF, THE ISRAELITES GAVE THE PRAISE TO GOD.

That would be like Satan fighting to help Christ expel demons from people. It would mean Satan is fighting against himself.

Ellen White says "the angels of God went through the host and removed their chariot wheels." Can you think of any reason she would say that, when she meant that the evil angels did it?

Can you cite any evidence in the writings of Ellen White where she says that "angels of God" or "God" did something, and then in another place she says that it was really Satan or the evil angels who did it?

For instance, she says that the angel of God slayed the first-born of Egypt. Does she ever say it was an evil angel or Satan who did it?

As another example, she says it was angels of God who removed the wheels of the chariot. Does she ever say it was the fallen angels who really did it?

Bible does sometimes say that God "killed," when another text shows that God did not actually put the sword in the individual, but that God used circumstances to bring about their death. The Bible is clear on that. Everyone agrees on that point. However, there are many places where the Bible and the SOP are clear that certain acts were done by God or by His angels. It's a mistake to merely assume that whenever the Bible or SOP describes the angels of God destroying, we're to understand that it really means the evil angels did it. After all, Ellen White herself says that the same destructive power exercised by the angels of God when He commands will be exercised by evil angels when He permits. She thus makes it clear that God sometimes commands His angels to cause destruction. Destruction sometimes comes as a result of God's commands to His angels. This is precisely what she says happened in Egypt and in Sodom and Gomorrah.

________________________________

Oh John, you already know what it means for God to "command" his holy angels to cause destruction. You know that His command to them is, "No longer combat Satan in his efforts to destroy... I will no longer interfere to prevent the destroyer from doing his work." 4 RH 335.

You know these statements as well as I do and yet it is as though they did not exist. This is what happened in Egypt.

John, I dont think you read all my posts but that's okay. I don't read all of yours either. Most of the time I get to know what you posted by others quoting you. pnatt does a good job at it.

But John, I already answered your question. By the time the Egyptian soldiers were where Satan had wanted them they had sinned away their day of grace. God's protection was removed from them. Satan was allowed to summon his evil angels to take the wheels off their chariots to make sure they would have no way of escape when the waters would return. But God says that He did that just as He says that He killed Saul or that He hardened Pharaoh's heart of that He sends strong delusions to those who do not have the love of the truth. It is God's language John that we need to interpret rightly.

John, Satan did it, take their wheels off, because he could no longer use them.

sky

[John317]

Quote:

Robert: God can't love me more than Himself (hence God = agape) and do a turnaround and keep me alive in fire for many days while I cry to die....

I will never reconcile the two because the day I do I am a sick screwed up individual. I'll need to be put in the funny farm....

Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

It seems like maybe it would be better if you took a step back and forget this debate for a while, Rob. You seem to be getting too upset or emotional about it. One needs to think and pray about these questions with a desire only to know the truth and not let our emotions control and influence our thinking. What we want to be true shouldn't have anyting to do with it. We need to approach these things with a completely open mind as to what the Bible and SOP evidence shows. That's why I said earlier that it doesn't matter to me how God destroys the wicked, whether He does it as the Bible says or whether He simply allows them to die in their sleep as some apparently want Him to do. I am only taking the view I do because it is clear to me it's the position of the Scriptures and SOP. But if he were to tell me tonight that He's never destroyed anyone and that He never will destroy anyone, it wouldn't affect my love and admiration and worship of Him.

Remember that the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy show that it is because of God's love and mercy to the universe that He destroys the wicked.

What does Ellen White and the Bible say about how Christ pronounces the judgment of death against the wicked? Careful deliberation is given to the lives of the wicked during the 1000 years, and you can be sure it is done with agape/love.

Everyone needs to become reconciled to the evidence of Inspiration and not insist that God can't do what He says He will do. Instead, some people take a few paragraphs out of context and make it appear that all those verses don't mean exactly what they say-- all in order to make God appear as if He won't destroy sinners.

[skyblue888]

Instead, some people take a few paragraphs out of context and make it appear that all those verses don't mean exactly what they say-- all in order to make God appear as if He won't destroy sinners.

John317

_______________________________________________________

John, again, this last sentence of your last post says a lot! Why? because you are implying that some of us do not believe that God destroys sinners. But John, how can you make a statement like that. It is not that He does not destroy sinners because we all know that He does and will destroy sinners. All this time I thought we were discussing HOW He destroys, HOW He hardens the heart, HOW He sends strong delusion, HOW He raised up evil against David's house, HOW He slew Saul, HOW He sent fiery serpents or evil spirits, HOW He sends fire out of heaven, etc etc

When this language is understood it becomes clear that God does destroy but not directly, only in the sense that He can no longer combat Satan in his efforts to destroy. So when God can no longer protect us from the evil agencies He may as well say that He killed us and that is exactly what He says.

sky

For example, the Lord keeps sending light to His people to correct their errors and to lead them into safe paths but if His people keep resisting the light, there is a hardening that takes place so that a second revealing is less discerned. This is how the heart is hardened. So if God sends us light but we resist that light and at last cut ourselves off from the source of life, then God may as well say that He hardened our hearts. And that is exactly what the Bible says happened to Pharaoh.

[John317]

Quote:

John317:

The point is that there is a real war going on in the world between Christ and Satan, and the battle is over individual minds and hearts. The Bible is full of war imagery. God is viewed as a man of war and Christ is viewed as a captain of the Lord's armies. Etc. etc.

Quote:

skyblue: Exactly! You just said it yourself! The Bible is full of "imagery". Certainly God is viewed as a man of war and Christ as the Captain of the Lord's armies. Yes, yes, yes. But He wars in righteousness! What are the weapons of God and Christ in this war John?

Yes, we agree that He wars in rightousness.

But you seem to think that if God destroyed anyone or if He took any human life or ever used force against anyone, it would mean the war is not rightous and that God is like Satan. I don't believe the evidence of Scripture or the SOP leads to that conclusion.

I don't see any contradiction between God's love and truth and the Bible statement that God's forces won the battle in heaven against Satan and that God banished and expelled him and his demons from heaven. After analyzing all the evidence in the Bible and SOP on this topic, it is clear to me that Satan was forced to leave heaven. I can't see how the Bible's language, "cast out," and Ellen White's langauge-- "driven out," "expelled," "turned out," "banished," etc.-- could mean anything else.

[skyblue888]

Instead, some people take a few paragraphs out of context and make it appear that all those verses don't mean exactly what they say-- all in order to make God appear as if He won't destroy sinners.

John317

_______________________________________________________

John, again, this last sentence of your last post says a lot! Why? because you are implying that some of us do not believe that God destroys sinners. But John, how can you make a statement like that. It is not that He does not destroy sinners because we all know that He does and will destroy sinners. All this time I thought we were discussing HOW He destroys, HOW He hardens the heart, HOW He sends strong delusion, HOW He raised up evil against David's house, HOW He slew Saul, HOW He sent fiery serpents or evil spirits, HOW He sends fire out of heaven, etc etc

When this language is understood it becomes clear that God does destroy but not directly, only in the sense that He can no longer combat Satan in his efforts to destroy. So when God can no longer protect us from the evil agencies He may as well say that He killed us and that is exactly what He says.

sky

For example, the Lord keeps sending light to His people to correct their errors and to lead them into safe paths but if His people keep resisting the light, there is a hardening that takes place so that a second revealing is less discerned. This is how the heart is hardened. So if God sends us light but we resist that light and at last cut ourselves off from the source of light, then God may as well say that He hardened our hearts. And that is exactly what the Bible says happened to Pharaoh. And we are told that men will keep doing what Pharaoh did until the end of time.

This is also my response to your last post.

sky

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: After all, Ellen White herself says that the same destructive power exercised by the angels of God when He commands will be exercised by evil angels when He permits. She thus makes it clear that God sometimes commands His angels to cause destruction. Destruction sometimes comes as a result of God's commands to His angels. This is precisely what she says happened in Egypt and in Sodom and Gomorrah.

Quote:

skyblue888: Oh John, you already know what it means for God to "command" his holy angels to cause destruction. You know that His command to them is, "No longer combat Satan in his efforts to destroy... I will no longer interfere to prevent the destroyer from doing his work." 4 RH 335.

When God commands His angels not to combat Satan, that is when He permits destruction.

What are some examples of when God commanded His angels to exercise destructive power? She says that God did this in Egypt and in Sodom.

Remember that destruction comes in two ways: 1) when God commands and 2) when God permits. You talk as if all destruction comes when God permits, but that is ignoring the fact that she says God sometimes commands the angels of God to exercise destructive powers. One is God's active will and the other is God's passive will. Both have occurred. Can you give an example of when it came from God's command to His angels to destroy?

Sky, before we finish this thread, let's review the main evidence and arguments from both sides of the question. I suggest that we both do it on separate posts. Try to be as objective as possible as far as the evidence goes for each side of the issue. This doesn't need to be done right away but sometime before the thread is closed. I won't close it until everyone has said what they want.

Is that agreeable?

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888 JOHN3:17: After all, Ellen White herself says that the same destructive power exercised by the angels of God when He commands will be exercised by evil angels when He permits. She thus makes it clear that God sometimes commands His angels to cause destruction. Destruction sometimes comes as a result of God's commands to His angels. This is precisely what she says happened in Egypt and in Sodom and Gomorrah.

[/quote

quoted by skyblue888!!!!

These words are not mine John. Where did u fetch this? sounds more like something you keep repeating.

sky

the way you presented that quote gives the impression that the quote is my own when it is yours.

[skyblue888]

You are asking me to give you an example of when God commands His angels to destroy?

The seven last plagues come to mind. At least thats the language used in Revelation 16.

sky

[skyblue888]

When the Lord sends light to His people and they keep resisting that light and believe the lies of Satan instead, then God may as well say that He has sent them strong delusion and it is exactly what He says He did. But we know what that means. All agree that God would never directly send strong delusion to anyone. It is the same when we read that God took the wheels off their chariots. It is the same language. God is consistent in his use of that language. He wants us to discern this. Otherwise we will be a confused people who do not know their right from their left.

sky

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: After all, Ellen White herself says that the same destructive power exercised by the angels of God when He commands will be exercised by evil angels when He permits. She thus makes it clear that God sometimes commands His angels to cause destruction. Destruction sometimes comes as a result of God's commands to His angels. This is precisely what she says happened in Egypt and in Sodom and Gomorrah.

[/quote

sky: quoted by skyblue888!!!!

These words are not mine John. Where did u fetch this? sounds more like something you keep repeating.

sky

the way you presented that quote gives the impression that the quote is my own when it is yours.

Yes, of course they are mine. If you look at the quote,you will see that I am saying that the words were said by JOHN3:17.

JOHN3:17: After all, Ellen White herself says that the same destructive power exercised by the angels of God when He commands will be exercised by evil angels when He permits. She thus makes it clear that God sometimes commands His angels to cause destruction. Destruction sometimes comes as a result of God's commands to His angels. This is precisely what she says happened in Egypt and in Sodom and Gomorrah.

Don't worry, sky. I will edit it so that everyone will know that you don't believe those awful things. lol :-)

[skyblue888]

Awful things? what awful things John?

Did you get the point I am trying to come across in my last posts?

sky

[John317]

You are asking me to give you an example of when God commands His angels to destroy?

The seven last plagues come to mind. At least thats the language used in Revelation 16.

sky

OK, but really my question is, when did the angels exercise destructive power at the command of God? Ellen White says that this has happened before. She distinguishes between destruction that comes from God's commands and destruction that comes when God permits. The statement is in the context of the work of God's angels in Sodom and in Egypt.

[skyblue888]

Please respond to my latest posts before we go any further.

sky

[John317]

Yes, I shall, glady, but first I have to go with my family to a pizza hut. Then I shall I return and write, write, write. :-)

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: Wouldn't you agree that it's important for mankind to learn that God is holy, hates sin and will one day destroy sinners?

pnattmbtc:

Yes, of course this is important, but mankind can't learn that sin is evil if the evil that comes as a result of sin is of God's own hand.

J:There are sins, however, which do not appear to be evil in and of themselves. For instance, homosexuality. The only reason we know that God hates the practice of homosexuality is that Inspiration tells us so.

You really think so? You don't think this could be figured out on the basis of reasoning from creation?

Quote:

Outside the fact that the Bible says it is wrong and that people who practice it won't be saved in God's kingdom, could you tell me what is morally wrong with it?

pnattmbtc: Going back to the post you are responding to, you didn't address my point. Please make some comment about my point.

Here's my point:

If we suppose that God intervenes and causes some terrible thing to happen which is NOT the natural consequence of sin, then humans wouldn't learn that sin is a great evil which results in very harmful consequences.

Do you agree or disagree with this?

J:No, I don't agree that this applies in all circumstances and in regard to all sins.

This sounds like you agree with what I said in general, but there are some exceptions. Did I understand your response correctly? If so, what are the exceptions? You mentioned homosexuality as one. Are there others that come to mind?

Quote:

The only real reason something is sinful is that it is contrary to God's character and His law.

One could put it this way, but this isn't the only way to put it. For example, another way to put it would be to say that agape is other-centered, while sin is self-centered, so that selfishness is the roof of all sin. So sin is sinful because its root is selfishness.

Quote:

Something is sinful NOT because we see the harmful consequences but simply on the basis of God's commandments.

Or because its selfish.

Quote:

Sin is whatever is out of harmony with God's character and does not conform to the will of God.

Which would be anything selfish.

Quote:

Take the commandment of God that Adam and Eve should not eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. It was right for them to obey simply because God gave it.

I guess this means that it was right for them to obey simply because God gave them a commandment (as opposed to giving them the tree; the "it" is ambiguous in your sentence).

Another way of looking at this is that it would have been wrong for Adam and Eve to eat of the forgiven tree because it wasn't theirs to eat of. That is, it belonged to God, not them. Not eating of that tree was respecting the property of another.

Quote:

The same with the Sabbath commandment: the only reason it is right to keep the Sabbath every seventh day of the week is that God blessed the seventh-day of the week and commanded us to keep it holy.

I disagree. The reason it is right to keep the Sabbath every seventh day is because God rested on the Sabbath day and sanctified it.

Quote:

It makes good sense for people to rest one day in seven, but the seventh-day-ness of the Sabbath is based strictly on the say-so of God and not on any harmful consequences of not keeping the Sabbath on Saturday.

It's based on the fact that God rested on the seventh-day and sanctified it. Not simply, or primarily, because of what God said, but because of what God did.

Your train of thought isn't entirely clear to me here. Why are you making these points? What I originally asked was:

Quote:

Yes, of course this is important, but mankind can't learn that sin is evil if the evil that comes as a result of sin is of God's own hand.

You said you disagreed with this. So this means you are asserting that there are certain sins which are evil, but mankind cannot learn this, unless the evil of these sins comes as a result of God's own hand. I'll have to say this makes no sense to me, and your post here certainly hasn't helped this to make any sense. Please explain why you think evil must come from God's own hand in order for man to learn that sin is evil.

[pnattmbtc]

You know this thread is 212 pages long now?

Is the discussion any further ahead than when it started?

As long as it is peaceable, keep it up!

I think this is the most interesting thread going on right now. It actually has the subject of 10 or 20 threads in it, sort of a catch-all.

[skyblue888]

Yes, I shall, glady, but first I have to go with my family to a pizza hut. Then I shall I return and write, write, write. :-)

okay,,,

hmmm when i lived in Abbotsford I used to go to Pizza Hut once a week. I always ate the same thing, a family size ceazar salad with no bits of course and a small personal veg pizza with their great tasting tomato sauce and black olives and tomatoes on top with a bit of cheeze. It was the best. But since I live here there is no Pizza Hut. There used to be one or two but I am told they closed, for some reason.

I miss it.

sky

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

pnattmbtc:

Why do you suppose she says that compelling power is only to be found in the government of Satan? What does this mean?

Gerry:

I gave you several references where God does not use force:

1. God does not use force to gain allegiance.

2. God does not use force to make people behave.

3. God does not use force to overpower the will.

4. God does not use force in the work of redemption.

5. God does not use force to compel the conscience.

6. God never uses force to bring men to Christ.

7. God does not use coercion to present the truth.

8. God does not coerce man's will.

In contrast, Satan uses force to accomplish all that God would not do above.

J:Excellent information. Thank you.

If God threatens to set you on fire to burn for days if you don't obey Him, then He's using force to overpower the will, to make people behave, to gain allegiance, to coerce the will. I don't see how any reasonable person could not perceive this to be the case.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Ok, so in answer to my question, what does "compelling power is only found in the government of Satan mean?" your answer is that, in certain circumstances, including (and limited to(?)) the above 8 points, God does not use compelling power. In other circumstances, however, He does. So the statement that compelling power is only to be found in Satan's government is not true as a general statement, but only in certain specific circumstances. I've understood you correctly?

J:God has obviously used force before in the Bible,

Obviously He hasn't, since we're told the exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government, and obviously God wouldn't do something contrary to the principle of His own government. We're also told that compelling power is only found under Satan's government, so, obviously God wouldn't use force, assuming force = compelling power. Also Jesus said that when we've seen Him, we've seen the Father, and Christ never used force or compelling power, so, obviously, God wouldn't use it, or else, looking at Christ, we wouldn't really be seeing the Father. Obviously.

Quote:

and the Bible and SOP portray God as using force again in the future, and therefore it is impossible for Ellen White's statement to be intended to be understood as a univeral principle that applies to every act of God throughout the history of world.

Or, it's obvious that using force/compelling power, violence, is contrary to the principles of God's government, and contrary to His character, so He obviously didn't use force/compelling power/violence.

Quote:

God used force to transfer the war from heaven to the earth.

"Rebellion was not to be overcome by force." This sentence was penned in the context of discussing Satan's being cast from heaven.

Quote:

"And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night." Rev. 12:10.

Satan saw that his disguise was torn away. His administration was laid open before the unfallen angels and before the heavenly universe. He had revealed himself as a murderer. By shedding the blood of the Son of God, he had uprooted himself from the sympathies of the heavenly beings. Henceforth his work was restricted. Whatever attitude he might assume, he could no longer await the angels as they came from the heavenly courts, and before them accuse Christ's brethren of being clothed with the garments of blackness and the defilement of sin. The last link of sympathy between Satan and the heavenly world was broken. (DA 761)

This clearly describes how Satan was "cast down" in Revelation 12. Where is there force here?

Quote:

This force did not overcome the rebellion, and neither did it defeat Satan.

Clearly if God overcame Satan in heaven by force, and cast him out of heaven by force, then God defeated Satan's rebellion in heaven by force. That's obvious.

Quote:

God also used force to put an end to the sinful race prior to the Flood and to begin anew with the descendents of Noah.

I've explained this at length. I don't understand why you write things as if nothing had been said on the subject. It would be nice to at least acknowledge in some way that things have been explained and discussed. You don't have to agree with the explanation, but at least acknowledging it would be reasonable.

The Scriptures, the SOP, and creationist models all agree that the primary cause of the flood was the waters of the great deep which burst forth. These waters climbed into the atmosphere and fell as torrents of rain, such as has not been seen since. There were tremendous amounts of water involved, which filled the great oceans.

How did the waters burst forth? They would have had to have been under tremendous pressure. So what happened? We can suppose that God was restraining the waters from exploding while Noah was preaching, to give time for men to repent. But when all had made their minds up that they wanted nothing to do with God or His principles, God allowed the pressure to do the work which He had warned them of. This is one possibility.

Another possibility is that God knew what was going to happen, of the great quantities of water under great pressure under the earth's crust, that disaster was immanent, and He warned of the impending doom, and provided an escape.

Another possibility is that God arbitrarily did something to cause the waters to burst forth from the great depth. I see no reason why this last choice should be preferred.