"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

John317: God didn't make Saul commit suicide. God accomplishes His will without forcing the will and choices of human beings.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: So you're asserting that God willed that Saul committed suicide.

J:I am saying exactly what the Bible itself says: God killed Saul.

The Bible presents God as doing that which He permits. It doesn't present Him as willing that the thing that He permits happens.

Quote:

That means that God used the circumstances to remove Saul from the throne and end his life, which had become dedicated to fighting against God. By that time, Saul was a lost man. He was never going to change, and God knew it. That is clear from the biblical narrative as well as from the writings of Ellen White.

It certainly was NOT God's will at that point for Saul to continue to live and be on the throne of Israel. Saul had passed his probation.

The same will happen to the rebellious who pass their probation in complete and utter rebellion against God. When Christ returns as King and Judge, you can be sure it will not be God's will for the finally impentinant to be saved in His kingdom.

When you say something like "God used the circumstances to remove Saul from the throne and end his life" this sounds like attributing the act to God, which would make Him responsible for Saul's death. In other words, God murdered Saul (using this definition: kill intentionally and with premeditation) This seems to be what you're saying.

Quote:

Quote:

pnattmbtc: You don't see a problem with this?

J:Not at all.

Are you saying you believe the evidence is that God's will at that point was for Saul to continue to live? Where do you find it?

God permitted Saul to die. This was His permissive will.

Quote:

Quote:

pnattmbtc: We should desire that others commit suicide?

Of course not.

Consider well this statement by Ellen G. White:

"The plea may be made that a loving Father would not see His children suffering the punishment of God by fire while He had the power to relieve them. But God would, for the good of his subjects and for their safety, punish the transgressor. He can do infinite justice that man has no right to do before his fellow man. Noah would have displeased God to have drowned one of the scoffers and mockers that harrassed him, but God drowned the vast world. Lot would have had no right to inflict punishment on his sons-in-law, but God would do it in strict justice." 12 MR 209

So it's OK for God to desire others to commit suicide, and cause them to commit suicide, but we should strive to be unlike God in this respect.

I spoke of other examples besides Saul. To be consistent, you would have to argue that God not only permitted the fiery serpents to attack the Israelites, but moved upon them to do so. Do you believe this?

Similarly, God didn't simply allow the Romans to destroy Jerusalem, but moved upon them to do so. Do you believe this?

I'm asking this because this seems to be what you're saying in regards to Saul, assuming I'm understanding you correctly. You seem to be saying that God moved upon Saul, and those around him, to kill him.

[Robert]

Explain what you believe happened in 2 Sam. 24. Why the plague?

I believe Satan tempted David to number Israel. Since God is sovereign, since God has allowed Lucifer to develop iniquity, God acts as if He enticed David to number Israel.

Because David listened to Satan, God backed away....What happens when God removes Himself?

...my anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall come upon them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us because our God is not among us?

[John317]

Quote:

John317: Deep, yes, but does "deep" mean that the Bible means the opposite of what it says?

Quote:

ROBERT: You mean the opposite of what you say it says....?

No, the opposite of the plain language used.

For instance:

"And all the spoil of these cities and the livestock, the people of Israel took for their plunder. But every man they struck with the edge of the sword until they had destroyed them, and they did not leave any who breathed. Just as the Lord had commanded Moses his servant, so Moses commanded Joshua, and so Joshua did. He left nothing undone of all that the Lord had commanded Moses." Joshua 11: 14, 15.

Now tell what those lines say. Tell them in your own words.

[Guest]

John your patience knows no bounds. Or you're just a glutton for punishment, one.

[pnattmbtc]

It was Pharaoh's decision to resist God. But it was also God's will that Pharaoh resist God's plan for Israel to go free.

So it wasn't God's will that He left Israel go free? Then why did God request of Pharaoh that he let Israel go? Because this was something contrary to His will?

If God asks us to do things contrary to His will, where does that leave us? If we do what He says, we're acting contrary to His will. But if we act contrary to what He says, thus doing His will, then He uses more and more compelling force until He finally kills our children, so that we do the thing which is contrary to His will.

This both doesn't seem to make much sense, nor does it portray God in a positive light.

It seems much more reasonable to me that God asked Pharaoh to let Israel go, and this is what God wanted him to do. It was pharaoh's will alone to resist. God had no desire that he do so, but when he did, God was still able to accomplish His purposes, despite pharaoh's resistance.

[pnattmbtc]

pnattmbtc: This indicated that God was removing His protection. God ceased protecting the Egyptians from the law of gravity, and they perished.

J:Yes, you might say so. I prefer the way the Bible and SOP puts it: God commanded Moses to stretch out his staff so that the waters would drown the Egyptians.

[John317]

Quote:

pnattmbtc: I think she's speaking here in a similar manner to in the destruction of Jerusalem, where she says the angels of God saw to it that not stone was left on the temple, to fulfill Scripture. Of course, the angels themselves had nothing directly to do with this, as we know that the Romans under Titus did it, but the angels permitted it to happen, so, as Scripture does, God is presented as doing that which He permits (or, in this case, holy angels acting as His agents).

But you are changing what Inspiration says: "Angels of God were sent to do the work of destruction, so that one stone [of the temple] was not left upon another that was not thrown down." 21 MR 66

That doesn't say the angels were sent in order to watch the Romans throw all those big stones down. Why would the angels be sent to stand passively watching the Romans throw all those stones down? It doesn't make any sense. If Ellen White meant to say that the angels were there to observe others doing the work of destruction, she wouldn't say the angels of God themselves did the work of destruction.

You seem to be forgetting that Ellen White says sometimes destructive power comes from angels of God at His command, whereas other destructive power will be done by evil angels when God permits. You seem to be saying Jerusalem is an example of what God permitted.

I'm wondering when you believe God commanded His angels to exercise destructive power-- not when God permitted it but when He commanded it to be done by the unfallen angels. Was there ever such a time?

Quote:

pnattmbtc: The Egyptians were permitted to perish as their chariots got stuck in the mud.

That isn't how the Bible portrays it. It plainly teaches that God intended for the Egyptians to follow the Israelies into the sea and be drowned. Ex. 14: 17.

Neither Ellen White nor the Bible says the Egyptians were "permitted to perish as their chariots got stuck in the mud," as if it were by chance or coincidental. You are putting a spin on it.

Please quote the verse or cite it that says what you claim.

She says the "angels of God went through their host and removed their chariot wheels." 1 SP 209

Why do you find it necessary to change the language and the meaning of what Inspiration says?

The Bible doesn't say God "permitted" it. We all know God permitted it. There's nothing that has ever occurred in all of history or in all the universe that God has not permitted. So what good is it to say that God permitted it to happen? It is far different to say God commanded His angels to do things than it is to say God allowed something to happen.

We might as well say that God allowed Satan to fall down from heaven. But that is not what the Bible says. The Bible very clearly says that God told Satan he couldn't possibly stay, and Satan said he wouldn't leave. But he did. He was "cast out," "expelled," "driven out," etc. The angels of God weren't merely permitting Satan to leave. He was contrained to leave just as Satan will be contrained to confess that God is right.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Why would you think that chariots could operate in mud?

Why would you think the angels of God were sent to watch the chariots get stuck in the mud? Do you think that makes sense? But the bottom line here is that neither the Bible nor the SOP says that the chariots got stuck in mud. Read what she actually says, in PP 287. She makes it very clear that it was God's intention for the Egyptians to perish in the water. The Bible also says that God commanded Moses to put out his staff "in order that" the water would go back over the Egyptians and drown them.

But in any case, the Israelites had no trouble going over that same sand, or "mud." You can be sure that they had a lot of heavy things on wheels they pulling or pushing, and their wheels didn't have any problems.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

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

J:But that information comes from Inspiration and special revelation. I do agree that the Bible does condemn the practice of homosexuality. But that is not the question here, as I understand it.

Isn't it your idea that people must see sin as wrong apart from "God's hand" in order to learn that sin is evil?

Actually, this was your idea! I quoted you, and pointed out that what you wrote (that God had to allow the results of sin to be seen, so that it could be seen as evil) wouldn't happen if God interfered with the process and arbitrarily caused evil things to happen that sin had nothing to do with.

Quote:

If that is true, it wouldn't be enough to know sin is wrong on the basis of Scripture.

How do you get from:

1.God must allow the results of sin to be seen, so that people can see that its fruit is evil (again, this is what you wrote; I simply quoted it)

to

2.Therefore it isn't enough to know sin is wrong on the basis of Scripture?

You're arguing against what you yourself wrote, using reasoning I don't see.

Quote:

So we must talk about the sinfulness of homosexuality [as well as other sins] strictly on the basis of what people can see apart from God's revelation that it is sin.

There are many millions of people who don't think homosexuality is a sin. These people can't understand why the Bible condemns it when it seems obvious to them that there's nothing wrong with it. The only harm they see in it is that God says people will be lost if they practice those things. They reason, "Why is it wrong for me to be happy and fulfilled being with someone I love?"-- and of course they are talking about being with a member of their own gender. "How does it hurt God or other people if I'm with someone I love?" This is their question.

Aside, then, from God saying in Scripture that it is wrong, what reason would you give a gay person that it is sinful for him/her to find happiness and fulfillment with a member of their own sex?

Couldn't one make the same argument about having a relationship with a boy? Or two men? Or a man and a woman? Or an animal?

This seems to be getting off the point. My point was that statement you made, that God must permit sin to bear fruit so its fruit can be seen to be evil, would be countermanded if God caused evil things to happen arbitrarily (i.e., not as a direct result of the sin).

[John317]

Or you're just a glutton for punishment, one.

No, not on your life. By God's grace I plan to be inside the city of God, not outside being punished. That's for the birds and those they will feed on.

But this isn't punishment here on the forum-- not by a long shot, believe me. It's fun, isn't it? lol

[pnattmbtc]

J:Yes, and all of that-- please notice-- is known ONLY through special revelation. It is not a part of logic or nature.

[pnattmbtc]

James 1: 13 says that God does not tempt any man to sin, but God does allow Satan to tempt people. God is frequently described in Scripture as doing what He merely permits to be done. God withdrew His supporting grace from David and permitted Satan to tempt him. See Is. 7: 17 as another example of where God is said to do that which He permits.

This principle is well established and understood, but it doesn't account for all that the Bible says.

How do you know when it applies and when it doesn't? For example, God sent fiery serpents against the Israelites. Did God directly cause this to happen or permit it? How do you know?

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

pnattmbtc: I think she's speaking here in a similar manner to in the destruction of Jerusalem, where she says the angels of God saw to it that not stone was left on the temple, to fulfill Scripture. Of course, the angels themselves had nothing directly to do with this, as we know that the Romans under Titus did it, but the angels permitted it to happen, so, as Scripture does, God is presented as doing that which He permits (or, in this case, holy angels acting as His agents).

J:But you are changing what Inspiration says: "Angels of God were sent to do the work of destruction, so that one stone [of the temple] was not left upon another that was not thrown down." 21 MR 66

That doesn't say the angels were sent in order to watch the Romans throw all those big stones down. Why would the angels be sent to stand passively watching the Romans throw all those stones down? It doesn't make any sense. If Ellen White meant to say that the angels were there to observe others doing the work of destruction, she wouldn't say the angels of God themselves did the work of destruction.

Your reasoning here is completely circular. We *know* what happened. The Romans under Titus destroyed the temple. Angels didn't do it. Humans did it. Both history and inspiration tells us this.

Quote:

The blind obstinacy of the Jewish leaders, and the detestable crimes perpetrated within the besieged city, excited the horror and indignation of the Romans, and Titus at last decided to take the temple by storm. He determined, however, that if possible it should be saved from destruction. But his commands were disregarded. After he had retired to his tent at night, the Jews, sallying from the temple, attacked the soldiers without. In the struggle, a firebrand was flung by a soldier through an opening in the porch, and immediately the cedar-lined chambers about the holy house were in a blaze. Titus rushed to the place, followed by his generals and legionaries, and commanded the soldiers to quench the flames. His words were unheeded. In their fury the soldiers hurled blazing brands into the chambers adjoining the temple, and then with their swords they slaughtered in great numbers those who had found shelter there. Blood flowed down the temple steps like water. Thousands upon thousands of Jews perished. Above the sound of battle, voices were heard shouting: "Ichabod!"--the glory is departed.

"Titus found it impossible to check the rage of the soldiery; he entered with his officers, and surveyed the interior of the sacred edifice. The splendor filled them with wonder; and as the flames had not yet penetrated to the holy place, he made a last effort to save it, and springing forth, again exhorted the soldiers to stay the progress of the conflagration. The centurion Liberalis endeavored to force obedience with his staff of office; but even respect for the emperor gave way to the furious animosity against the Jews, to the fierce excitement of battle, and to the insatiable hope of plunder. The soldiers saw everything around them radiant with gold, which shone dazzlingly in the wild light of the flames; they supposed that incalculable treasures were laid up in the sanctuary. A soldier, unperceived, thrust a lighted torch between the hinges of the door: the whole building was in flames in an instant. The blinding smoke and fire forced the officers to retreat, and the noble edifice was left to its fate. (GC 33-34)

Just as with Scripture, the SOP presents God (or His agents, in this case) as doing that which He permitted.

I don't see how this could be clearer.

Quote:

You seem to be forgetting that Ellen White says sometimes destructive power comes from angels of God at His command, whereas other destructive power will be done by evil angels when God permits. You seem to be saying Jerusalem is an example of what God permitted.

You don't understand this to be the case?

Quote:

Says the prophet: "O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself;" "for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity." Hosea 13:9; 14:1. Their sufferings are often represented as a punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God. It is thus that the great deceiver seeks to conceal his own work. By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them, and Satan was permitted to rule them according to his will. The horrible cruelties enacted in the destruction of Jerusalem are a demonstration of Satan's vindictive power over those who yield to his control.

We cannot know how much we owe to Christ for the peace and protection which we enjoy. It is the restraining power of God that prevents mankind from passing fully under the control of Satan. The disobedient and unthankful have great reason for gratitude for God's mercy and long-suffering in holding in check the cruel, malignant power of the evil one. But when men pass the limits of divine forbearance, that restraint is removed. 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. Every ray of light rejected, every warning despised or unheeded, every passion indulged, every transgression of the law of God, is a seed sown which yields its unfailing harvest. The Spirit of God, persistently resisted, is at last withdrawn from the sinner, and then there is left no power to control the evil passions of the soul, and no protection from the malice and enmity of Satan. The destruction of Jerusalem is a fearful and solemn warning to all who are trifling with the offers of divine grace and resisting the pleadings of divine mercy. Never was there given a more decisive testimony to God's hatred of sin and to the certain punishment that will fall upon the guilty. (GC 35-36)

How could she have more clearly stated that the destruction of Jerusalem occurred because God permitted it to happen as opposed to taking direct action to make it happen?

Let's stop here a moment, and we can go to the other cases later. Certainly if you don't agree that the destruction of Jerusalem was something permitted by God as opposed to caused by God, there's no point in addressing any other cases.

[John317]

John317: Yes, and all of that-- please notice-- is known ONLY through special revelation. It is not a part of logic or nature.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: I agree that we would not have known that God created the world in seven days, resting on the Sabbath, if He didn't tell us. Why is this point being made?

You forgot? The point is that we only know about creation because of the Scriptures. That is the only way you know that homosexuality is a sin: God's special revelation. And my point is that the Sabbath is the same way: we know about it only through special revelation.

Remember the question? It is, how do you know homosexuality is a sin, apart from the Bible? And you are quoting Scripture to show that homosexuality is a sin. My position is that there are sins that you only know are sins because of God's commandment not to do them. He says that those who practice those sins will be lost. You said we don't learn sin is evil if God's hand is punishing us for them. But that is exactly the way with the sin of homosexuality. The only way I know it is wrong and that I shouldn't do it is that God tells me it's wrong and that if I go on practicing it, I will be lost. So I believe the word of God, and with his help, I stop practicing. Otherwise I would be practicing it.

By the same token, if it wasn't for special revelation and God's commandment, I wouldn't be keeping the Sabbath.

Quote:

JOHN3:17: You would not do it if there was no command to do it.

In that way, it is the same as the tree that God commanded Adam and Eve to refrain from eating. He could have chosen any tree in the garden, but He arbitrarily chose that particular tree to tell them leave alone. The same with the Sabbath: God could have chosen any day to tell us to rest on and keep holy, but He chose to make holy the last day of the weekly cycle.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: No, He couldn't have. He could only tell us to rest on the Sabbath day because this is the day He rested on, since this was the day He rested on. It wasn't an arbitrarily chosen day.

Are you saying that God HAD to do precisely what He did? That He wasn't completely free to do whatever He wanted to do?

He could have chosen to rest on any day, could He not? He could have made the world in two days or 1000 days. He could have chosen to rest on the first day or on the 6th day. He had a reason for choosing the seventh day, sure, but my point is He could have had a different reason for resting, and for that matter God could have made the world without any Sabbath.

The bottom line is that we only have the Sabbath on the seventh day of the week because God commands it. It is not something you would know about apart from God's revelation. That is not like the commandments against adultery. People who have never heard of God or His law are against adultery. Same with the commandment against murder. But no one keeps the seventh-day Sabbath except as they know God's commandment.

Quote:

JOHN3:17: My point is that in both cases, the sinfulness of not keeping the Sabbath, and the sinfulness of eating the fruit, is based strictly on the command of God, not on any inherent difference in the day or in the tree.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: There is an inherent difference in the day. God rested on the Sabbath day. That makes it different.

Maybe you don't know what "inherent" is. It means that apart from God's law and command, there is no difference between the 24 hour period of the Sabbath and the 24 hour period of the other six days.

Yes, God rested on the Sabbath and it makes it different, but that doesn't make the day inherently any different. In and of itself the seventh-day of the week is not different from the first day of the week. You only know the difference by faith in the Bible and in God. It's like one building is a church and and another is a school. The material that make up the buildings are the same, so the buildings themselves are not inherently different. They are only different because of faith and because of the ideas of the people who use the buildings. This is the same way with the days of the week. One man who is unaware of the Sabbath doesn't see any difference in the seventh day of the week, whereas a Sabbath keeper sees the day as special and blessed because of his knowledge of God's commandments. That is what makes the difference.

[Robert]

No, the opposite of the plain language used.

For instance:

Here, let me help:

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

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

You forgot?

I never knew. You made a new point, so I was asking why you were making it.

Quote:

The point is that we only know about creation because of the Scriptures.

This certainly isn't true. The Scripture themselves tells us this isn't true:

Quote:

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:(Romans 1:20)

Quote:

That is the only way you know that homosexuality is a sin: God's special revelation.

You're just asserting this (i.e., you've offered no proof this is the case). I think it's obvious that homosexuality is a sin. You don't need the Bible to know this. Many societies understand homosexuality to be a sin which have no connection to the Scriptures. How could this be the case if the only way this could be known was through the Scriptures?

Quote:

J:And my point is that the Sabbath is the same way: we know about it only through special revelation.

How would you go about establishing this is the case? That is, that homosexuality is like the Sabbath. Seems like a convoluted argument. First of all, you'd have to show that this is the case for the Sabbath, and then you'd have to establish that there's some sort of link between the two.

Quote:

Remember the question? It is, how do you know homosexuality is a sin, apart from the Bible? And you are quoting Scripture to show that homosexuality is a sin. My position is that there are sins that you only know are sins because of God's commandment not to do them. He says that those who practice those sins will be lost. You said we don't learn sin is evil if God's hand is punishing us for them. But that is exactly the way with the sin of homosexuality. The only way I know it is wrong and that I shouldn't do it is that God tells me it's wrong and that if I go on practicing it, I will be lost.

You're just asserting things here, right? That is, you don't appear to be making any sort of argument. If you are, what is it?

Quote:

So I believe the word of God, and with his help, I stop practicing. Otherwise I would be practicing it.

By the same token, if it wasn't for special revelation and God's commandment, I wouldn't be keeping the Sabbath.

It doesn't appear to me you are being very clear. I'm going to try to connect the dots, and you can tell me if I'm correctly following your thought.

You made the statement that God has to allow the evil that sin causes to happen or else mankind would not see that the fruit of sin is evil. I made the comment that if God arbitrarily caused evil to happen which is not directly related to the sin involved then this connection would not be seen.

These seems self-evident to me.

I'm guessing you disagree with this, although I don't think you've actually stated so, but you responded by talking about homosexuality and the Sabbath. So I'm guessing your thinking is that if God didn't arbitrarily cause evil to happen as a result of these sins, mankind wouldn't know they were sin. Is this correct?

If it's not correct, then why you are talking about these things in response to my comment that if God arbitrarily causes evil to happen, so that the evil inherent with a given sin isn't seen, then mankind won't see the evil is the direct result of the given sin.

[Robert]

...it was also God's will that Pharaoh resist God's plan for Israel to go free.

That's funny...so funny it's ridiculous.

[Robert]

It plainly teaches that God intended for the Egyptians to follow the Israelies into the sea and be drowned. Ex. 14: 17.

This is laughing in your face....

You have lost it....You have made a god in your image...after your sick human nature. I have absolutely no respect for you....Everything you state perverts God's love. Instead of drawing folks to God, you are driving them away. You will be opposed!

[Robert]

By God's grace I plan to be inside the city of God, not outside being punished. That's for the birds and those they will feed on.

A God who induces fear in you will only get outward conformity. Hence all you do will be motivated by fear. EGW states that hope of reward, fear of punishment is not the reason to serve God. You can't serve a God who is more cruel than Hitler. Impossible! Hence your version of God doesn't draw all men to Christ...it scatters. This is the work of Satan.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: You would not do it if there was no command to do it.

In that way, it is the same as the tree that God commanded Adam and Eve to refrain from eating. He could have chosen any tree in the garden, but He arbitrarily chose that particular tree to tell them leave alone. The same with the Sabbath: God could have chosen any day to tell us to rest on and keep holy, but He chose to make holy the last day of the weekly cycle.

pnattmbtc: No, He couldn't have. He could only tell us to rest on the Sabbath day because this is the day He rested on, since this was the day He rested on. It wasn't an arbitrarily chosen day.

J:Are you saying that God HAD to do precisely what He did? That He wasn't completely free to do whatever He wanted to do?

No, I'm saying what I said. God could only tell us to rest on the Sabbath day because this is the day He rested on because He rested on this day. He couldn't say "Keep the first day holy because I rested on the first day and sanctified it" because He didn't rest on the first day or sanctify it.

Quote:

He could have chosen to rest on any day, could He not?

That's not the point! He rested on the Sabbath day, and sanctified it, and on that basis said that this day was blessed and should be kept as a holy day. He didn't arbitrarily tell us to rest on some day, but told us specifically to rest on a specific day because this specific day was the one He rested on and blessed. He didn't arbitrarily choose a day for us to keep. He chose a specific day for us to rest on for a specific reason.

Quote:

He could have made the world in two days or 1000 days. He could have chosen to rest on the first day or on the 6th day. He had a reason for choosing the seventh day, sure, but my point is He could have had a different reason for resting, and for that matter God could have made the world without any Sabbath.

The bottom line is that we only have the Sabbath on the seventh day of the week because God commands it. It is not something you would know about apart from God's revelation. That is not like the commandments against adultery. People who have never heard of God or His law are against adultery. Same with the commandment against murder. But no one keeps the seventh-day Sabbath except as they know God's commandment.

JOHN3:17: My point is that in both cases, the sinfulness of not keeping the Sabbath, and the sinfulness of eating the fruit, is based strictly on the command of God, not on any inherent difference in the day or in the tree.

pnattmbtc: There is an inherent difference in the day. God rested on the Sabbath day. That makes it different.

Maybe you don't know what "inherent" is.

It means that apart from God's law and command, there is no difference between the 24 hour period of the Sabbath and the 24 hour period of the other six days.

It means:

Quote:

involved in the constitution or essential character of something

Please quit writing insults. Please read over your posts, and look for things which are insulting, and leave them out.

You've done this several times now. Earlier I wrote that I only knew of two systematic theologies which are logically consistent, and you responded that you were surprised that I was only familiar with two systematic theologies. If I had responded in the same vein as you did above, I could have written, "Maybe you don't know how to read." Don't you think insults would be better left out?

The essential character of the Sabbath is different than any other day because that's the day that God rested on and blessed. This agrees with the definition of "inherent," doesn't it?

I already explained this. It should have been clear from my explanation that I understood the meaning of the word "inherent."

Quote:

Yes, God rested on the Sabbath and it makes it different, but that doesn't make the day inherently any different.

Yes it does.

Quote:

In and of itself the seventh-day of the week is not different from the first day of the week. You only know the difference by faith in the Bible and in God. It's like one building is a church and and another is a school. The material that make up the buildings are the same, so the buildings themselves are not inherently different. They are only different because of faith and because of the ideas of the people who use the buildings. This is the same way with the days of the week. One man who is unaware of the Sabbath doesn't see any difference in the seventh day of the week, whereas a Sabbath keeper sees the day as special and blessed because of his knowledge of God's commandments. That is what makes the difference.

The fact that someone perceives a difference and someone else doesn't perceive it doesn't mean that the difference doesn't exist.

God did something. He rested on the seventh day, and sanctified it. That changed the character of that day. Because God had rested and sanctified this day, He invites us to rest on it as well, so that we may share in the blessing of the day. We can't do this on any other day because no other day has this blessing. This is my understanding of the Sabbath. Do you disagree with the statements of this paragraph?

[pnattmbtc]

A God who induces fear in you will only get outward conformity. Hence all you do will be motivated by fear. EGW states that hope of reward, fear of punishment is not the reason to serve God.

[John317]

Quote:

pnattmbtc: I think she's speaking here in a similar manner to in the destruction of Jerusalem, where she says the angels of God saw to it that not stone was left on the temple, to fulfill Scripture. Of course, the angels themselves had nothing directly to do with this, as we know that the Romans under Titus did it, but the angels permitted it to happen, so, as Scripture does, God is presented as doing that which He permits (or, in this case, holy angels acting as His agents).

Quote:

JOHN3:17: :But you are changing what Inspiration says: "Angels of God were sent to do the work of destruction, so that one stone [of the temple] was not left upon another that was not thrown down." 21 MR 66

That doesn't say the angels were sent in order to watch the Romans throw all those big stones down. Why would the angels be sent to stand passively watching the Romans throw all those stones down? It doesn't make any sense. If Ellen White meant to say that the angels were there to observe others doing the work of destruction, she wouldn't say the angels of God themselves did the work of destruction.

Quote:

pnattmbtc:Your reasoning here is completely circular. We *know* what happened. The Romans under Titus destroyed the temple. Angels didn't do it. Humans did it. Both history and inspiration tells us this.

Of course the Romans destroyed the city and the temple. That is not what I'm talking about.

When Ellen White says, "Angels of God were sent to do the work of destruction, so that one stone [of the temple] was not left upon another that was not thrown down," she is not denying that the Romans destroyed the city. After all, she herself wrote about the Romans destroying the city. What she is saying is that angels of God did some of the work of destruction, specifically related to the large stones that the temple was made of. No one is saying the angels of God did the general work of destruction. Ellen White is very specific as to what their assignment was.

If you had been watching the destruction of the temple, you probably wouldn't have seen those large stones moving about in mid-air as if by some unseen, invisible hands, but you may have seen angels looking like men moving the huge stones. Remember that angels appeared as humans to Abraham, Jacob, Lot, Joshua, and Daniel.

Are you familiar with the passages in Ellen White's writings where she speaks of times when evil angels appear as men, and of times when the angels of God appear also as men and do the work of humans? See, for example, 8 MR 345, 399; RH August 5, 1909 (The Truth About Angels, p. 261)

[pnattmbtc]

I'd like to reask a question I've asked before, and which has been answered, presenting what I understood the answer to be.

The question I asked is why those who feel that God will set people on fire for days to inflict excruciating pain upon them to punish them (aka "torture" per Webster, and GC 535) believe that God is capable of acting in such a way. This question has never been addressed, at least, in terms of what I'm actually wanting to know.

The only answer I've gotten is that this is what the Scripture says. My follow up question was if the Scriptures said that God was a child abuser, or sadist, or something like that, would that be believed? I'm sure one would respond that Scripture doesn't say this, but what I'm trying to get at is if there is any description of God's character that there could be in inspiration (or "apparently in inspiration" or "misunderstood to be in inspiration," I'm not suggesting that any such description actually exists) which could rightly be rejected because it is objectionable on the face of it. Or should any understand of God's character, regardless of how heinous, be accepted because "that's what the Scripture says."?

I'm trying to get at this because it touches on a theme mentioned here:

Quote:

Where, in the pages of God's word, is such teaching to be found? Will the redeemed in heaven be lost to all emotions of pity and compassion, and even to feelings of common humanity? Are these to be exchanged for the indifference of the stoic or the cruelty of the savage? No, no; such is not the teaching of the Book of God.(GC 535)

Here she seems to be rejecting a teaching because it is contrary to "all emotions of pity and compassion, and even to feelings of common humanity" and would require "these to be exchanged for the indifference of the stoic or the cruelty of the savage."

So is it OK for us to reject a suggested teaching of an action God will supposed perform on this basis?

[Robert]

"Angels of God were sent to do the work of destruction, so that one stone [of the temple] was not left upon another that was not thrown down,"

[John317]

Quote:

John317: It was Pharaoh's decision to resist God. But it was also God's will that Pharaoh resist God's plan for Israel to go free.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: So it wasn't God's will that He left Israel go free?

Yes, it was God's will that His people be free but not immediately. If God had wanted to make them free immediately, God could have made it happen. God had a very good reason for doing what He did. Ellen White talks about it in SP vol. 1, page 177-181, as well as in Patriarchs and Prophets. The Bible says this same thing in Ex. 6: 1-9.

There were many Jews who did not want to leave their bondage but preferred to stay in Egypt. So God had to make them want to leave. That is why God did not deliver them sooner.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Then why did God request of Pharaoh that he let Israel go? Because this was something contrary to His will?

No. God did it in order to give the Pharaoh an opportunity to let Israel go at that point. God knew he wouldn't do it, but God gave him the opportunity to make the decision. God does the same with us.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: If God asks us to do things contrary to His will, where does that leave us? If we do what He says, we're acting contrary to His will. But if we act contrary to what He says, thus doing His will, then He uses more and more compelling force until He finally kills our children, so that we do the thing which is contrary to His will. This both doesn't seem to make much sense, nor does it portray God in a positive light.

You're right, it doesn't make much sense, but then I didn't say or think any of the things you wrote there. None of it accurately reflects my thinking on this subject.

I'm saying exactly what Ellen White says in this statement: "God overruled events to more fully develop the tyrannical spirit of Pharaoh, and that he might manifest his great power to the Egyptians, and also before his people to make them anxious to leave Egypt, and choose the service of God. The task of Moses would have been much easier had not many of the Hebrews become corrupted, and been unwilling to leave Egypt."

Read or reread pp. 177-181 in the Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 1.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: It seems much more reasonable to me that God asked Pharaoh to let Israel go, and this is what God wanted him to do. It was pharaoh's will alone to resist. God had no desire that he do so, but when he did, God was still able to accomplish His purposes, despite pharaoh's resistance.

As I said before, I don't believe it's necessary for God to violate people's freedom of choice in order accomplish His own will and purpose.

God didn't make Pharaoh resist Him, but it was certainly God's will that Israel not be freed immediately, prior to the falling of the plagues. Both the Bible and the SOP clearly show that this was part of God's plan.

Look at this important paragraph:

"As the children of Israel charged all their suffering upon Moses, he was greatly distressed, and felt almost like murmuring because the Lord delayed to deliver His people. THEY WERE NOT YET PREPARED TO BE DELIVERED. They had but little faith, and were unwilling to patiently suffer and perseveringly endure their afflictions, until God should work for them a glorious deliverance." Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 1, p. 180.

The above paragraph says that God knew that the children of Isreal were not yet prepared to be delivered. They lacked faith, and therefore they needed to have their faith strengthened by a glorious deliverance, which required the plagues.

In fact, the plagues that fell on Egypt had somewhat the same purpose that the Seven Last Plagues will have. The Seven Last Plagues will demonstrate the wickedness of the lost and it will also strengthen the faith of the righteous. Those plagues help prepare the harvest of the earth by making plain the distinction between the wicked and the righteous. The judgments from God in the last remnants of this earth's history will cause those living at that time to become intelligent in regard to God's lessons. LDE 240.

[pnattmbtc]

Of course the Romans destroyed the city and the temple.