"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[pnattmbtc]

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.

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

J:Yes, it was God's will that His people be free but not immediately.

So your answer to my question is no, it wasn't God's will that pharaoh let Israel go free. God told pharaoh, "Let My people go," but it wasn't His will that they be let go (at the time He was telling Pharaoh to let them go).

Quote:

J: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.

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

J: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.

This isn't addressing the question. You said that it wasn't God's will that Pharaoh let the Israelites go. This means that God was telling Pharaoh to do something He didn't want him to do.

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.

J: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.

You said that God told Pharaoh, "Let my people go," but it wasn't His will that Pharaoh let them go at the time He said this, right? I don't think I misunderstood you on this point. Everything else I wrote follows from this.

Quote:

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.

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.

J: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.

So what I wrote above follows. God asked Pharaoh to do something He didn't want him to do, and when Pharaoh didn't do what God asked (so Pharaoh was following God's will), God sent plagues upon Him.

Quote:

Both the Bible and the SOP clearly show that this was part of God's plan.

God worked out His own purposes in spite of Pharaoh's resistance. It wasn't part of God's plan to subject a people to violent plagues, to use more and more force, compelling power, and violence, until He finally killed their children, to compel them to obey Him.

How can you believe all this to be the case, and say with a straight face (so to speak) that God doesn't use compelling power to coerce people? That's exactly what would be happening in the Egyptian plagues, if things transpired as your perceive them to have transpired. There couldn't be a better example of compelling power coercing the will than what happened to Pharaoh.

Quote:

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.

GC 614 says:

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.

The last plagues are compared with the destruction of Jerusalem, and we see the same principles at work. God's Spirit is persistently resisted, until He is caused to withdraw. We're told the Egyptian plagues are similar in character to these.

I'm not surprised at your take here, however, as you're thinking God acted as you think He did in these plagues is a very small thing compared to believing that God will set people on fire, causing them to "suffer torture" for many days. Anyone who could believe God would do the latter would certainly have no problem believing He would do the former.

How you can think this isn't an example of using compelling power to coerce the will is beyond me, however. Surely is someone told me to do something, and if I didn't they would torture me for days, I would understand that as an attempt to coerce my will.

[John317]

[quote name="pnattmbtc

JOHN3:17: 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.

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.

Quote:

JOHN3:17: Inherent here 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.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: It means:

involved in the constitution or essential character of something

...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."

Here are some definitions. Let me know if they are acceptable to you: "existing in someone or something as a natural and inseparable quality;" "existing as an essential constituent or characteristic; intrinsic."

What essential, intrinsic characteristic of the seventh day of the week distinguishes it from the other days of the week? It must be a natural and inseparable quality.

I do agree, of course, that God rested on the Sabbath and that this fact makes it different spiritually, but that doesn't make the day inherently or naturally any different. They are all 24 hours long and in that essential, constituent quality they are indistinguishable from one another. In other words, the hours of the seventh day in and of themselves are no different from the hours of, say, Tuesday, Friday, or Sunday.

As I said, I'm not denying that there is a spiritual difference, but this is only seen through the eye of faith, and is not due to any intrinsic or natural difference in the day per se. If the difference was intrinsic or natural and inseparable, the entire world would have long since recognized it. But the fact that only those of a particular faith or belief make a distinction shows that the difference is one of faith and not one that consists of a natural, inseparable quality intrinsic to the hours of the day itself. The difference is in the eye of the faith of people looking at the day, but not in the day itself.

Let me give you two examples of what I mean:

1) First, the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. There was nothing instrinsically different about the fruit of that tree. It was perfectly good fruit. It was the same as the fruit that grew on other trees. What made it different was merely God's command not to eat of it.

One reason this is important to notice is that it's what makes the Sabbath a perfect test of obedience, and it's for the same reason that the fruit of the tree was a perfect test of obedience. Two reasons the Sabbath is the perfect test is that everyone has the same amount of time and everyone can rest.

If those two things-- the fruit and the Sabbath-- were intrinsically different, then Adam and Eve wouldn't have been obeying God simply because of His commandment but they would have been agreeing with God about the difference in the intrinsic quality of the fruit. The same applies to the Sabbath. It is a perfect test of obedience by virtue of the very fact that it completely depends on the word of God and is not due to any intrinsic difference in the quality of the time. If it was intrinsically different or superior in some way, people might keep it for that reason, and not because they're obeying God's commandment on account of who He is.

2) The second illustration is a parent's special child. The parent sees the child as different and as especially blessed, but in reality the child is not intrinsically different from other children. It may be more intelligent or even less intelligent, but none of those factors make it intrinsically different from other children. If medical science were to analyze the child, it would not see anything different. What makes the difference is the loving eye of the parent, not the child itself.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Yes it does.

Ok, could you show how the Sabbath then is intrinsically, inherently different?

Quote:

JOHN3:17: 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.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: 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?

The fact that the religious "perception" is necessary shows that there is not really any difference in the intrinsic quality of the day. It's a matter of faith, not natural, inseperable quality.

Of course I do recognize that the seventh-day was blessed and set apart for special use by God, but that did not alter the intrinsic quality of the time. I also do agree that the Sabbath is special time that cannot be transferred to another day; but that is because of the believer's faith and because of the influence and power of the Holy Spirit. The Sabbath, then, is different because God is in it, and not because there is anything different in the individual hours of the day.

[John317]

Quote:

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.

If you have Last Day Events, please see pp. 240, 241. There Ellen White gives you an answer. Her answer is that many people do not have a right conception of God's love. They think that God's love is of such a character as to forbid Him from destroying sinners. She says that's because people measure God by themselves and they reason as to how they would act. If they feel they couldn't destroy sinners, they think it must mean God won't destroy sinners, either. But, she says, such reasoning is wrong.

Then she says, "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. GOD DOES NOT WORK ON THE PLAN OF MAN. 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 harassed 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 [i.e., inflict punishment)IN STRICT JUSTICE.

"Who will say God will not do what he says He will do?" LDE 241

NOTE: Ellen White would only say the above if she is saying God will literally destroy the wicked in fire. If she was teaching that God wouldn't literally destroy anyone in fire, it is impossible to understand why she would write those lines. What does God say He will do? Well, burn the wicked up in fire, of course. Will He do it? Ellen White says clearly that He will.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: The only answer I've gotten is that this is what the Scripture says.

That's a pretty good answer. That would also be a good answer to the question, "Why would you beleive that God would make the soul merely mortal?" My answer would be the same: the Scriptures teach as plain as day that God did in fact create the soul mortal, or subject to death. Once you get your answer from the Bible, there is no further reasons necessary. All further reasons beyond what God actually did are superfluous, unless it be for entertainment or philosophy.

The Bible is really our only true, objective source of knowledge about God. We don't depend on what we want to believe about God or on what we believe makes good sense. We can't know anything about God through reason alone. Reason often leads man astray when it comes to a knowledge of God.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: 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?

No, I wouldn't.

You might as well ask if I would believe God and the devil are one and the same being. Some have believed it to be the case. I know people who believe the God of the OT was really the devil. That idea goes back to the early centuries of the church. They are wrong and foolish but since when did that keep people from pursuing a belief?

Now let me ask you a question, if I may:

What is the earliest SDA you know of who believed that God never destroyed anyone and that He won't destroy anyone in fire at the end of time? Could you quote that person and give references for it?

[John317]

Quote:

pnattmbtc: God worked out His own purposes in spite of Pharaoh's resistance. It wasn't part of God's plan to subject a people to violent plagues, to use more and more force, compelling power, and violence, until He finally killed their children, to compel them to obey Him.

How can you believe all this to be the case, and say with a straight face (so to speak) that God doesn't use compelling power to coerce people? That's exactly what would be happening in the Egyptian plagues, if things transpired as your perceive them to have transpired. There couldn't be a better example of compelling power coercing the will than what happened to Pharaoh.

....How you can think this isn't an example of using compelling power to coerce the will is beyond me, however. Surely is someone told me to do something, and if I didn't they would torture me for days, I would understand that as an attempt to coerce my will.

I think you misunderstood something, friend. I never said that God didn't use compelling force to free the people from Egypt. In fact, I am saying the exact opposite. What happened in Egypt is a good example of the fact that God has used compelling force. If you read carefully, the Bible even says so, in Exodus 6: 1, among others. That's what I wrote in previous posts, which I thought you understood. That is the whole reason I brought up Egypt in the first place. Where did you get the idea that I was saying God never used compelling force? Perhaps you thought so, since I mentioned that God didn't make Pharaoh resist Him. That is true. God can work out His purposes without violating the free will of humans, but in the case of Pharaoh, God did use force to free the children of Israel. As I said earlier, the Egyptians freed Israel because they feared they would all be dead if they didn't. I've said this a good number of times, so I am surprised that you are asking me how I can think it isn't an example of compelling force. Of course I do. That is my whole point in talking about it. Don't you also think it was using compelling force? Some people evidently feel that it makes God look bad if they admit that He used compelling force in Egypt to free His people from slavery, but I don't believe it does. I praise Him for what He did in Egypt just like the ancient Israelites did in the Psalms and in Exodus 15. I look on God's freeing the slaves by His power as something like His freeing me from my sins through His great power.

[John317]

Quote:

pnattmbtc, quoting:

A sullen submission to the will of the Father will develop the character of a rebel. By such a one service is looked upon as drudgery. It is not rendered cheerfully, and in the love of God. It is a mere mechanical performance. If he dared, such a one would disobey. His rebellion is smothered, ready to break out at any time in bitter murmurings and complaints. Such service brings no peace or quietude to the soul. (MS 20, 1897)

Good quote. She also says somewhere that such obedience is not really obedience.

My good friend, Dr. Graham Maxwell, used to quote that frequently in His Sabbath school classes, which I attended for about 15 years.

It's important to note, however, that despite the truth of that quote, the Bible is full of verses showing that God often used fear in order to get people's attention. Fear may be a good place to start but God wants people to go from fear as a motive to love for God and righteousness and hatred of sin. Love casts out fear, says the apostle. Yet there is also a wise fear. It is a fool who says, "I will keep on the same way I've been going, because I refuse to be motivated by fear." If he says this and keeps going toward the ditch that people have warned him against, he has no one to blame but himself when he falls into it. There will be millions of people like that, who will fall into the ditch called gehenna along with Satan because they stubbornly refused to pay attention to warnings God sent them.

[John317]

Quote:

John317: Of course the Romans destroyed the city and the temple.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Then angels didn't do it.

Ellen White doesn't say the angels of God did harm to people in Jerusalem. She said they helped destroy the temple. She is talking about the angels making sure that all the stones of the temple were thrown down.

Again, 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.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: That doesn't make sense. She says Satan did this work. Why would God be working hand in hand with Satan?

"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." (GC 35)

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. I think if you compare Ellen White quotes about the destruction of Jerusalem and the destructive work of the angels, you won't see any contradiction. She is not saying the angels destroyed human lives at Jerusalem in 70 AD. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was saying any such thing.

[John317]

Quote:

pnattmbtc: 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.

I asked if you read much in systematic theology, and you said you only knew of two, and one of those you said was "Calvinism." But of course Calvinism is not even a systematic theology, and that fact was the reason I was surprised. It would have been different if you'd said you had read Institutes of the Christian Religion. I think you'll admit that it isn't the expected response from someone who's earned an M. Div. But I'm awfully sorry if I hurt your feelings. It certainly wasn't intentional. I was simply expressing my astonishment. I won't mention it again.

[Twilight]

Mark, you have stayed away from this discussion for the most part and while some of us have been at the very front of the battle, you choose to jump in at this junction to make very bold statements about those who do not see exactly as you do. I don't mind you jumping in but since you have remained aloof from this discussion for a good while, I don't think it is fair for you to come and make such bold statements.

I do admire John's zeal and confidence but I do believe that his zeal and confidence, just like yours, are worthy of a better cause.

I beg you pardon my dear brother Mark but since you are making such bold statements about those who disagree with your stated view, I hope you will allow me the same boldness in saying with even greater assurance, that I believe it is you who has been resisting the light that has been shining lately concerning the character of God, the nature of His government and the principles of His dealing with sin.

As far as I can see, the reason why we can't see eye to eye on this vital issue, regarding God's ways of saying and doing, is that some have accepted and applied the principles of interpretation that the Lord has revealed to us from the Bible and the SoP and some haven't yet. Mark it is plain as day that you yourself continue to resist or reject these principles of interpretation. There is no doubt in my mind that your view and that of John317 and others concerning the character of God and the nature of His government and the principles of His dealing with sin is the traditional view which is hoary with age and is flawed.

The majority of us today read the Old Testament the same way it has always been read. Even John the Baptist, whom Jesus said was the greatest of the prophets born of a woman, including His own disciples, had not understood the character of God, the nature of His government and the principles of His dealing with sin.

Because he had read and wrongly interpreted the language of the Old Testament Scriptures, the way many do today, "John the Bapist did not understand the nature of Christ's kingdom... He had pointed to the Messiah as One whose fan was in His hand, and who would thourougly purge His floor, who would gather the wheat into His garner, and burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. Like the prophet Elijah, in whose spirit and power he had come to Israel, he looked for the Lord to reveal Himself as a God that answereth by fire." Desire of Ages,215.

Do we appreciate and understand the meaning of this amazing statement as we should? Obviously not! John the Baptist and Elijah were both mistaken as Christ's disciples were in regard to the issue we have been discussing on this thread. The disciples also had looked for the Lord to reveal Himself as a God that answereth by fire. They had called upon Him to make fire come down from heaven to destroy a village of the Samaritans because they had refused to put them up for the night. They had come to view God in that false light because tradition and misinterpretation had obscured the teaching of the Bible concerning the character of God, the nature of His government and the principles of His dealing with sin. There is nothing new under sun. We can say this with great confidence since the Lord Himself has told us this. "Tradition and misinterpretation have obscured the teaching of the Bible concerning the character of God, the nature of His government, and the principles of His dealing with sin." The Great Controversy, p.492.

Example after example have been given from the Bible and the SoP as to how the Lord would have us read and interpret His sayings and doings. How He would have us understand that His thoughts and ways are as different from ours as the heavens are higher than the earth. But we still don't get it. We choose to cling to the traditional way of reading and interpreting His sayings and doings.

The language of the Bible is always consistent. Many times the Lord will say, "I will do this," or "I will do that," or "I did this," or "I did that," but then He explains Himself, as in the case of David. Because of his sin, the Lord, through Nathan the prophet sent him this message. "I will raise up evil against you out of your own house." 2 Sam.12:11. This was a prophecy as to how his son Absolom would rebel against him and shame him publicly in an attempt to dethrone him. It is a fact that the average person who reads these words does not stop to think that these words could mean anything different from man's tradidional way of thinking. But we now know that by saying what He said God did not mean that He Himself would prompt these evil acts of wickedness against David but that He would not exercise His power to prevent them. That is exactly how the Lord, through His prophet, interpreted these words as found in Patriarchs and Prophets, p.739. But even when this inspired interpretation is presented, and it has been presented again and again, most of us continue to cling to the old traditional way of reading and interpreting God's sayings and doings, just as it reads! But why would anyone do this?

When we read that "God troubled the host of the Egyptians, and took off their chariot wheels so that they drove them heavily," (Ex.14:24,25) we must read this language the same way we just read what God said to David, "I will raise up evil against you out of your own house." Not that God would directly trouble the Egyptians by taking the wheels off their chariots but that He would no longer be able to exercise His power to prevent the enemy, Satan and his evil angels, from doing it.

"How readest thou?"

sky

My friend. :-)

As I have been following and considering the arguments, I have seen some very fundamental flaws in your argument.

These have been pointed out by John317.

When I have balanced both views through scripture, I find no basis for the viewpoint that you are presenting.

It just does not work brother.

The only way that you can make it work is by saying that something plainly stated means the exact opposite of what it has said.

Why?

Because you have taken one principle out of context and made it a universal principle.

This error has been shown to you plainly and clearly but I do not think you are willing to even consider that you are wrong on this.

Because you keep make the same points over and over brother, but those points have already been shown to be incorrect at its foundation.

I do not believe you are presenting truth on this matter, but error.

In love,

Mark :-)

[Robert]

I do not believe you are presenting truth on this matter, but error.

The teaching that John presents makes God a sadist, a liar, a manipulator and a murderer. I personally must reject his theology as the highest form of heresy.

[John317]

If I believe heresy, Rob, then virtually the entire SDA church and most other Christians also believe the same heresy. Because what we're talking about is my belief that God destroyed Sodom by fire, the world by a flood, and that He will destroy the wicked by fire at the end of the 1000 years. The Bible teaches this "heresy," and Ellen White did also.

Also, based on what I have recently read by Jack Sequeira, it is plain to me that he also believes (or believed?) that God will destroy the wicked after the millennium. See his book, 27 Fundamental Beliefs, pp. 86-89.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

I do not believe you are presenting truth on this matter, but error.

The teaching that John presents makes God a sadist, a liar, a manipulator and a murderer. I personally must reject his theology as the highest form of heresy.

How does this teaching make God a murderer,Rob?

Signed,

Heretic

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

I do not believe you are presenting truth on this matter, but error.

The teaching that John presents makes God a sadist, a liar, a manipulator and a murderer. I personally must reject his theology as the highest form of heresy.

It could be said that your theology makes God a pacifist who never exercises any control over His creation Robert...

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

Mark, you have stayed away from this discussion for the most part and while some of us have been at the very front of the battle, you choose to jump in at this junction to make very bold statements about those who do not see exactly as you do. I don't mind you jumping in but since you have remained aloof from this discussion for a good while, I don't think it is fair for you to come and make such bold statements.

My friend. :-)

As I have been following and considering the arguments, I have seen some very fundamental flaws in your argument.

When I have balanced both views through scripture, I find no basis for the viewpoint that you are presenting.

and yet you have presented nary an example.... :)

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

My friend. :-)

As I have been following and considering the arguments, I have seen some very fundamental flaws in your argument.

When I have balanced both views through scripture, I find no basis for the viewpoint that you are presenting.

and yet you have presented nary an example....

I have not needed to recently (although I have in the past).

John317 has presented a conclusive logical argument from the scripture and SOP.

Whereas those that present the other view have not been able to do the same.

[doug yowell]

It could be said that your theology makes God a pacifist who never exercises any control over His creation Robert...

[Twilight]

The whole argument rests on two false assumptions in my view.

1. That the SOP should be used as a basis for doctrine.

2. That the quote "God does not destroy" is a "universal principle".

These are the two points that cause the whole argument to fall down when examined.

Mark

[Twilight]

Quote:

It could be said that your theology makes God a pacifist who never exercises any control over His creation Robert...

Heretic!!

Maybe I should be careful what I say... :-)

[pnattmbtc]

It could be said that your theology makes God a pacifist who never exercises any control over His creation Robert.

Robert hasn't said or implied that God does not exercise control over His creation, just that He hasn't destroyed it. Is it possible to control something without destroying it? If God were a pacifist, would it follow that He couldn't control His creation? Is the point that one must be a warmonger, use violence, in order to control?

[pnattmbtc]

What essential, intrinsic characteristic of the seventh day of the week distinguishes it from the other days of the week?

[wayfinder]

Exodus 20:11 NAS

"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day ; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

Isaiah 58:13 NAS

"If because of the sabbath, you turn your foot From doing your own pleasure on My holy day, And call the sabbath a delight, the holy day of the LORD honorable, And honor it, desisting from your own ways, From seeking your own pleasure And speaking your own word,

The difference between the seventh day and the other six, is that it alone was made holy. Holy is set apart for God. The difference between the kingdom of the heavens and the kingdom of the world, is that the kingdom of the heavens is set apart for God, they are holy people. Holy people, being flesh and blood, are no different than those who are of the kingdom of the world, also flesh and blood. What God has made holy is different from the common and that is what the difference is.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

pnattmbtc: 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.

J:I asked if you read much in systematic theology, and you said you only knew of two, and one of those you said was "Calvinism."

My point here had to do with writing insults. I said if I responded along the same vein as you have written, I could have responded, "Maybe you don't know how to read."

Not only did you misread this the first time, I pointed out your error, and you're repeating it again, making the possible insult even more apropos.

This is from post #341197

Quote:

J:What I'm wondering about is why, when I asked you if you read read much in systematic theology, you said that you are aware of only two systematic theologies on this point, one being Calvinism...

p:I said this:

pnattmbtc: their are only two systematic theologies which I am aware of that are logically consistent regarding this point. One is Calvinism...

I said there are two I was aware of that were logical consistent.

I did NOT say I only knew of two systematic theologies. I said there were only two I knew of that were logically consistent regarding the point we were discussing. I not only said this, but I subsequently pointed it out to you AGAIN on a subsequent post, yet you have repeated your error, making the possible insult on my part "maybe you don't know how to read" even more apropos, as you've not read what was written correctly not just once, but again, after it was pointed out a second time.

But all of this is irrelevant to the main point, which is to please not write insults.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

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.

J:If you have Last Day Events, please see pp. 240, 241. There Ellen White gives you an answer.

There is no possible way that Ellen White could answer the question I'm asking you, which is why you think God would be capable of the things you think He will do, most specifically setting people on fire to cause them to "suffer torture" for many days.

This is a personal question. It has to do with your values, your conception of God's character. Only you can answer this. Please do so.

I'm not sure if you're not answering the question because you don't understand it, or because you haven't understood it. If it's the latter, I'll try to rephrase it. I've very interested in the answer, which is why I continue to ask. I think it's very unlikely that we'll come to see things the same way, but I'd like to at least understand better how you think.

Quote:

What is the earliest SDA you know of who believed that God never destroyed anyone and that He won't destroy anyone in fire at the end of time? Could you quote that person and give references for it?

Ellen White is the first I'm aware of. The references have been presented, but I'm happy to repost them.

Your question is a bit FOTAPish (fallacy of the assumed premise). Both sky and I have pointed out that one can say "God does destroy, but how?" How our positions differ is not in regards to whether God is said to have destroyed, but in regards to the mechanism at work. What has been suggested is that God destroys by withdrawing His protection.

Here are a few references.

Quote:

God destroys no one. Testimonies for the Church, 5:120.

God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejecters 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 Great Controversy, 36.

Satan is the destroyer. God cannot bless those who refuse to be faithful stewards. All He can do is to permit Satan to accomplish his destroying work. We see calamities of every kind and in every degree corning upon the earth, and why? The Lord's restraining power is not exercised. The world has disregarded the word of God. They live as though there were no God. Like the inhabitants of the Noachic world, they refuse to have any thought of God. Wickedness prevails to an alarming extent, and the earth is ripe for the harvest. Testimonies for the Church, 6:388, 389.

This earth has almost reached the place where God will permit the destroyer to work his will upon it. Testimonies for the Church, 7:141.

God keeps a reckoning with the nations. Not a sparrow falls to the ground without His notice. Those who work evil toward their fellow men, saying, How doth God know? will one day be called upon to meet long-deferred vengeance. In this age a more than common contempt is shown to God. Men have reached a point in insolence and disobedience which shows that their cup of iniquity is almost full. Many have well-nigh passed the boundary of mercy. Soon God will show that He is indeed the living God. 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 their iniquity is full. They have advanced from one degree of wickedness to another, adding daily to their lawlessness. I will no longer interfere to prevent the destroyer from doing his work. The Review and Herald, September 17, 1901.

When Jesus was asked to destroy the Samaritans who had rejected Him, He replied to His disciples, "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village." Luke 9:55, 56.

There can be no more conclusive evidence that we possess the spirit of Satan than the disposition to hurt and destroy those who do not appreciate our work, or who act contrary to our ideas. The Desire of Ages, 487.

Rebellion was not to be overcome by force. Compelling power is found only under Satan's government. The Lord's principles are not of this order. His authority rests upon goodness, mercy and love; and the presentation of these principles is the means to be used. God's government is moral, and truth and love are to be the prevailing power. The Desire of Ages, 759.

The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government; He desires only the service of love; and love cannot be commanded; it cannot be won by force or authority. The Desire of Ages, 22.

Sickness, suffering, and death are work of an antagonistic power. Satan is the destroyer; God is the restorer. The Ministry of Healing, 113.

[teresaq]

Quote:

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.

J:If you have Last Day Events, please see pp. 240, 241. There Ellen White gives you an answer.

There is no possible way that Ellen White could answer the question I'm asking you, which is why you think God would be capable of the things you think He will do, most specifically setting people on fire to cause them to "suffer torture" for many days.

[teresaq]

Quote:

What is the earliest SDA you know of who believed that God never destroyed anyone and that He won't destroy anyone in fire at the end of time? Could you quote that person and give references for it?

Ellen White is the first I'm aware of. The references have been presented, but I'm happy to repost them.

Your question is a bit FOTAPish (fallacy of the assumed premise). Both sky and I have pointed out that one can say "God does destroy, but how?" How our positions differ is not in regards to whether God is said to have destroyed, but in regards to the mechanism at work. What has been suggested is that God destroys by withdrawing His protection.

Here are a few references.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

The whole argument rests on two false assumptions in my view.

1. That the SOP should be used as a basis for doctrine.

2. That the quote "God does not destroy" is a "universal principle".

These are the two points that cause the whole argument to fall down when examined.

People taking part in the discussion, except for Robert, have used the SOP. It's very possible to present an argument without the SOP, as Robert has done. Your comments certainly don't apply to what he has written.

Here's a reference to over 85 pages, all from Scripture alone, which develop the position that has been shared here:

http://sinbearer.com/light_on_the_dark_side_of_god.htm