"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

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

If God kills then we must equate God with sin.

Really?

Where in the bible can we find that viewpoint Robert?

Mark :-)

[Twilight]

What you're really saying is that the Bible is incorrect, except in the places where it describes God as doing the things that you can understand, and condone.

It would indeed seem that way.

Mark

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

pnattmbtc: 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.

John317:You ask why I believe that God is capable of destroying the wicked in fire at the end of the 1000 years.

I'm asking specifically about the idea that God will set people on fire to suffer excruciating pain while being burned alive, something Ellen White describes as being made to "suffer torture." I'm asking specifically about this. Not about destroying the wicked in general, nor even destroying the wicked by fire (if this were to happen in a moment, as fire normally works, that would be a different question; it would certainly be more merciful than the idea that God has people burning literally on fire for days like a torch).

Quote:

I believe it for the same reason that I believe God is capable of creating the world by His Word and that this same Word was capable of becoming a man and is still a man to this day. For many people, I admit, none of this sounds possible. In fact, for many it sounds absolutely ridiculous. They laugh at the concept of a God who is capable of creating the world in 6 days and of then coming here in the form of one of his own creatures.

This has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm asking. I'm asking about your concept of God's character, your sense of morality, why these personal values you hold allow you to believe that God will set people on fire for days.

Quote:

They stand in utter amazement that anyone could possibly be serious about this belief. They ask, "Why do you feel that God is capable of doing those things?" When I tell them that I will show them from the Bible, they sometimes reply that they are not interested in what "that book" says; they just want to know why I personally believe God is capable of doing those things and of being the way I describe Him.

This is just a question of might. I'm asking about character.

I appreciate that you took the time to write a lengthy post, but you didn't answer my question. It's hard for me to believe I'm not being clear.

I'm not asking you what you think the Bible or the SOP teaches. You cannot answer my question by citing texts.

Again, this is a personal question, which has to do with your view of morality, your view of God's character. I'm asking you why you think it's moral to set people on fire to burn for days. I'm asking you why you think God would be capable of doing this.

Setting people on fire, torturing people, is something not ordinarily considered acceptable behavior. No earthly government, no matter how corrupt, allows for punishing criminals in such a manner. A government might torture someone in order to gain information, such as to prevent a terrorist attack or some other perceived threat against itself, but not as a way of punishing criminals.

I can't think of a more inhumane manner of punishment than what you believe. Can you? Why not do something like we do in this country. Put people in prison to set out a sentence for some amount of time which corresponds to their crime. Why burn people?

It doesn't seem like you're thinking about what really happens, according to your thinking. You're suggesting that God sets people on fire, to burn like a torch, right? Now fire would kill a person in a few seconds. The only way they could continue to burn would be for God to supernaturally prevent them from dying, so they continue to be tortured, because, clearly, if they die, the torture ceases.

Also fire would quickly destroy the nerve endings. So God would have to supernaturally act to prevent the nerve endings from being destroyed.

So we have a person set on fire, burning like a Molotov cocktail, with God acting supernaturally to prevent the person from dying, or from the nerve endings from being damaged, so this fire has no purpose other than to cause the person being burned to suffer excruciating pain.

So we have God inflicting the worst torture in the history of man to those who refuse to obey Him. And supposedly this is "justice."

And all the while, while asserting this, you deny that God uses compelling power to coerce the will. This could only be true of a person without rudimentary reason powers.

1.God tells me to obey Him.

2.If I don't, He will set me on fire to burn for days.

3.I better obey Him if I don't wish to be tortured for days.

This isn't hard to follow, is it? I think most people are capable of reasoning like this. I think any reasonable person would see that threatening to torture someone by setting them on fire for days is forcing the will.

But this is a side note to my original question, although I have been asking this too, so might as well include it.

So I'm asking two things:

1.Why do you think God's character is such that He is capable of torturing people for days if they don't obey Him?

2.Why do you think God's threatening to set people on fire to burn for days if they don't do what He says is not forcing the will?

[Twilight]

Quote:

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.

I agree with you, Mark.

Although I do accept Ellen White's prophetic ministry and quote her extensively in this discussion, yet I don't base doctrine on her writings. The doctrine that God has destroyed the wicked before, and that He will punish the wicked by destroying them at the end of the thousand years, MUST be based on solid biblical evidence. It seems to me that those who reject the notion that God destroys or uses force, base their beliefs on a few quotes from Ellen White that are taken out of context. Not only do those quotes contradict the Bible but they also contradict everything Ellen White wrote on the subject of the final destruction of the wicked.

I also accept Ellen White as inspired.

I think the very reason she warned us not to use her writings in this way, is because of what we see here.

Taking a few statements, applying them as "universal principles" and then forcing the bible to fit this pacifist view of God.

Now if someone could show me this from the bible, I would accept it.

But that is not the starting point.

First of all, a statement of Ellen Whites is lifted up as "THE" over-ruling definitive statement ever given to man on the subject, then the bible is re-interpreted.

This is what the Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses have done.

We do not need to be confusing the world with any more of this type of error, if we do, then we will end up being viewed as "bible changers"...

The fact this holding up of one statement from the SOP needs to be done, should be evidence enough it is error.

If this is truth, then we should be able to show it from scripture.

But we know that cannot be done, as has been evidenced here.

Because of that, it is error.

Nothing personal with anyone, but error is error.

Mark

[Guest]

Do you have anywhere in the bible that states that "God never destroys" as a "universal principle" Pnat?

If you cannot show it from the bible, it is error.

Mark

Amen Mark, if they cannot show it from the bible, it is error. Also I cannot find anywhere where Ellen White refers to this belief as being a universal principle.

[Twilight]

Quote:

I'm interested in the history and development of church doctrine. I would like to know who you believe was the first SDA to write a clear statement that God will not destroy the wicked by fire. Do you know of anyone prior to the 1970s? Please name the earliest person you know of who taught this without question and give a reference.

I also would like to see an example of a pioneer (from the 19th century) who plainly stated this belief.

[Guest]

The only universal principle she speaks of is this one:

It is a universal principle that whenever one refuses to use his God-given powers, these powers decay and perish. Truth that is not lived, that is not imparted, loses its life-giving power, its healing virtue.--The Acts of the Apostles, p. 206.

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: John317

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.

I have been thinking about this passage, especially lately, in the light of what has been revealed concerning the character of God, the nature of His government and the principles of His dealing with sin.

When God created the beautiful angels and the unnumbered worlds throughout immensity, He created the possibility of evil. He knew that some day Lucifer would choose to rebel against Him and impeach Him. He knew that Lucifer, the brightest of all His creatures, would become the adversary, the incarnation of evil. And yet He created him anyway. So for that reason, the Lord says, "I make peace and I create evil." Lucifer was created upright until iniquity was found in him. "You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, till iniquity was found in you." Ezekiel 28:15. In other words, "Though all his glory was from God, this mighty angel came to regard it as pertaining to himself." P.P.35.

His sin was that he no longer gave credit to whom credit was due. He attributed to himself the prerogatives of God. This was totally unfair. From being righteous Lucifer became unrighteous, evil. God did not create him evil and yet He declares, "I make peace and I create evil," simply because by creating him a free agent, God created him with the possibility of him choosing to become evil. So the moment God created intelligent beings, filling them with His own love and peace, being free to worship or not to worship Him, requiring only the service of love, He had also "created" the possibility that evil might raise its ugly head some day in the event that some of His creatures might rebel against Him.

When Jesus walked among men He said to His disciples, "Peace I leave with you, My peace I give unto you." John 14:27. But then in Luke 12:51 Jesus says, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, nay, but rather division."

We know that Christ would never directly cause any division. After all, He is "the Prince of peace," "the God of peace." Isaiah 9:6; Romains 15:33. So then, why does He say that He brings division? Here is why. "I am for peace; but when I speak, they are for war." Psalm 120:7.

So it is in that sense only that the Lord says, "I make peace and I create evil." I make peace and I create war. I make peace and I destroy. I make light and I create darkness.

Thus He says to us, "How readest thou?"

sky

*When Lucifer defected the Lord did everything He possibly could to win him back but the more Lucifer hardened his heart and the more evil he became. It is in that sense only that the Lord creates evil. God made Lucifer evil by doing good to him. He hardened his heart by trying to soften it. By doing everything He could to save him, He will have destroyed him.

[pnattmbtc]

Do you have anywhere in the bible that states that "God never destroys" as a "universal principle" Pnat?

If you read through the thread, you should see that "God never destroys" is not what is being asserted. What's being asserted is that inspiration often presents God as doing that which He permits, and that God destroys by removing His protection. The thread presents many examples of this from Scripture.

[pnattmbtc]

Speaking of examples, could you tell us who was the earliest SDA to believe that God never destroyed anyone and that God won't destroy the wicked by fire at the end of the thousand years?

This isn't what's being said, as has been pointed out. What's being said is that inspiration often presents God as doing that which He permits, and God destroys people by removing His protection. I gave Ellen White as a reference as the first I knew of, but I don't think she's the first, it's just that this isn't something I've researched. I know Kevin H. has referenced this, and as I recall, he says the difference of opinion in regards to the fire goes back to the very beginnings of Adventism (i.e., Seventh-day Adventism).

[Twilight]

Quote:

If you read through the thread, you should see that "God never destroys" is not what is being asserted.

I have been reading through the thread and that is being asserted.

Mark :-)

[skyblue888]

"A single angel destroyed all the first-born of the Egyptians, and filled the land with mourning. When David offended against God by numbering the people, one angel caused that terrible destruction by which his sin was punished. The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits. There are forces now ready, and only waiting the divine permission, to spread desolation everywhere." The Great Controversy, 614.

The portion of this statement causing the most difficulty is this, "The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits."

When a person does not have a clear grasp of the principles underlying God's character, it is easy to see how this statement could leave him with the conviction that holy angels destroy exactly as do evil angels. It would appear that the only difference is that holy angels destroy by God's command while the evil do it with His permission.

What happens is that everyone tends to read into this statement more than it actually says. Here is what the statement does not say:

"The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised in the same way by evil angels when He permits."

These four words, "in the same way," are not in the statement, neither are they inferred there. Furthermore, every principle of God's character forbids their being there. Yet, despite multiplied evidences to this effect, this is exactly what people read into the reference. They make no distinction between the work of God and of Satan and therefore between the character of each. This is serious.

There is a decided contrast between the role of the good angels and the evil ones. It is the heaven-appointed work of the righteous angels to hold back the four winds of strife for as long as possible. They only release them when God judges that any further remaining on station will impose their presence where it is not desired. There are many Scriptures which teach this.

"And after these things I saw four angels

standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree." Revelation 7:1.

"There is a work yet to be done, and then the angels will be bidden to let go, that the four winds may blow upon the earth." Testimonies for the Church, 5:152.

"We are today under divine forbearance; but how long will the angels of God continue to hold the winds, that they shall not blow?" Testimonies for the Church, 6:426.

"Angels are now restraining the winds of strife, that they may not blow until the world shall be warned of its coming doom; but a storm is gathering, ready to burst upon the earth; and when God shall bid His angels loose the winds, there will be such a scene of strife as no pen can picture." Education 179,180.

"I saw four angels who had a work to do on the earth, and were on their way to accomplish it. Jesus was clothed with priestly garments. He gazed in pity on the remnant, then raised His hands, and with a voice of deep pity cried, 'My blood, Father, My blood, My blood, My blood!' Then I saw an exceeding bright light come from God, who sat upon the great white throne, and was shed all about Jesus. Then I saw an angel with a commission from Jesus, swiftly flying to the four angels who had a work to do on the earth, and waving something up and down in his hand, and crying with a loud voice, 'Hold! Hold! Hold! Hold! until the servants of God are sealed in their foreheads.'

"I asked my accompanying angel the meaning of what I heard, and what the four angels were about to do. He said to me that it was God that restrained the powers, and that He gave His angels charge over things on the earth; that the four angels had power from God to hold the four winds, and that they were about to let them go; but while their hands were loosening, and the four winds were about to blow, the merciful eye of Jesus gazed on the remnant that were not sealed, and He raised His hands to the Father and pleaded with Him that He had spilled His blood for them. Then another angel was commissioned to fly swiftly to the four angels, and bid them hold, until the servants of God were sealed with the seal of the living God in their foreheads." Early Writings, 38.

"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.

"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 coming 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.

Every one of these statements confirms that the angels' role is to hold back those terrible powers which are only awaiting release to destroy the earth and the heavens. Angels are righteous. They have not instituted their ways in place of God's. Accordingly, they do only what the Lord would have them do. As surely as the God of heaven never destroys by direct action, neither do the angels. Therefore, the way in which they exercise those powers is by the withdrawal of their restraint upon them. The released energies pass from an inactive state into one of intense activity and consequently, of exercise.

This is the way in which the powers are brought into active exercise by holy angels when God commands, but it is not the way evil angels exercise them when God permits. Satan and his followers have studied the secrets of the laboratories of nature and the turbulent forces within man, until they know just how to activate them into destructive intensities. Thus, while God's angels are working to hold back these fearful elements, Satan and his company are working in the opposite direction.

But, whether they are released into active exercise by the holy angels, or manipulated by evil angels, they are the same powers. This is the principal thought that the statement is intended to convey. It does not discuss the way in which those powers are exercised. When it is recognized that this is the subject matter of the statement, there will be no problem in understanding it.

Far from proving that good angels, at God's command, sally forth and execute the unrighteous, this statement, by emphasizing that it is the same power in any case, verifies that they do not. If God undertook the work of executioner, He would not bother to use anything less than the greatest powers at His command. These certainly are not those in nature and in man. They are the almighty forces within Himself, forces so great that He merely has to speak and whole worlds appear and, in turn, disappear. Therefore, if God was the destroyer, it would not be the same powers as those used by the evil angels who have nothing of themselves but are dependent on what God has invested in nature and in man, to do their work of destruction. God does have almighty omnipotence and is not in any sense dependent on the relatively puny potentials He has given to this earth and its inhabitants. If these facts are kept in mind, then the statement presents no problem.

sky

[Twilight]

Quote:

"The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised in the same way by evil angels when He permits."

This is such a plain statement Sky.

Take it to a hundred people, ask them what it means and they will tell you it is what we are saying.

This is outlining two simple principles, you are trying to insist it is one.

The only reason one could not read it simply and plainly is if their belief system would not allow them to.

Are you trying to rationalise away a plain statement so that your viewpoint can be accepted?

If that is the case, does that not cause you even one moment of concern?

Mark

[Twilight]

Have you ever considered Sky, to use this statement as your "universal principle"?

Quote:

"The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised in the same way by evil angels when He permits."

When you do that, and only then, you will find that the bible harmonises.

This statement is not subject to another that places the emphasis on only one aspect of the statement.

That is illogical.

This statement must be used as the "root" to define the other statements, simply because this is the only way all the SOP and Bible harmonises.

Your use of another statement as a universal principle means that statements and scripture have to be "re-interpreted".

I am sorry my friend, but I really believe you have been blinded on this one.

Mark

[teresaq]

Quote:

I'm interested in the history and development of church doctrine. I would like to know who you believe was the first SDA to write a clear statement that God will not destroy the wicked by fire. Do you know of anyone prior to the 1970s? Please name the earliest person you know of who taught this without question and give a reference.

I also would like to see an example of a pioneer (from the 19th century) who plainly stated this belief.

while were at it lets dig up one that believed in the "trinity". :)

[pnattmbtc]

I have been reading through the thread and that is being asserted.

Please quote something. I know sky and I are on the same page regarding this. I think teresaq also is. I'm not sure how Paul phrases things, but I think he's on the same page to.

Please quote something.

[pnattmbtc]

The only universal principle she speaks of is this one:

It is a universal principle that whenever one refuses to use his God-given powers, these powers decay and perish. Truth that is not lived, that is not imparted, loses its life-giving power, its healing virtue.--The Acts of the Apostles, p. 206.

So? Does this mean this is the only universal principle she believe existed? Or spoke of? (i.e., spoke of without identifying it as such; or is that not possible?)

[pnattmbtc]

This is such a plain statement Sky.

Take it to a hundred people, ask them what it means and they will tell you it is what we are saying.

[pnattmbtc]

Have you ever considered Sky, to use this statement as your "universal principle"?

"The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised in the same way by evil angels when He permits."

When you do that, and only then, you will find that the bible harmonizes.

[John317]

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Some more Scripture references, along the lines of what tereseaq has posted:

Then 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 befall them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us, because our God is not among us?......

Quote:

Twilight: Where is it expressed in the above quotes that these are "universal principles"?

That is the key point.

Which you all need to be able to show from scripture.

I agree. The quotes being posted are well-known by Christians in general and by SDAs in particular, so posting them in order to show that God didn't destroy Sodom by fire or the world by a flood or that He will not destroy the wicked by fire at the end of time, doesn't really advance the argument. All Bible scholars recognize (1) that God is sometimes portrayed as doing that which He permits; (2) that judgments often do not come directly from God and (3) that God uses the wicked to punish those who rebel against Him.

The problem for those who teach that God never destroys people and that He won't destroy the wicked by fire, is that the above 3 points don't account for all that the Bible says in regard to God's activity in relation to humanity. Like you say, they simply are not universal principles.

[John317]

Quote:

pnattmbtc: How about this:

Quote:

Compelling power is found only under Satan's government.

If you took a hundred people, and asked them what it means, they will tell you it is what we are saying.

All one must do in order to show that this is not a univeral principle is prove that the Bible teaches God used compelling power one time. Do you agree?

Let's look closely at what occurred at the Exodus, and in particular at Exodus 6: 1. We've mention that verse before, but we really need to look at it further and compare it with other verses which use the same kind of language.

The "strong hand" mentioned there is God's power, not the Pharaoh's.

Do you agree that it's referring to God's "hand"?

This is easy enough to prove if you are willing to spend some time stuyding it.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

The quotes being posted are well-known by Christians in general and by SDAs in particular, so posting them in order to show that God didn't destroy Sodom or the world by a flood or that He will not destroy the wicked by fire at the end of time

Please!!! Who is saying this?

I've been objecting to this repeatedly for pages now. Who is claiming that God doens't destroy or will not destroy the wicked at the end of time?

Please quote something!

Please quit posting this unless you can establish that someone is actually stating the position you are arguing against. Otherwise you're just having a conversation with yourself, and are misrepresenting the position you are arguing against.

I've pointed this out probably a half a dozen times now, and have been asking for quotes. I now this isn't something I've said, and I see my name quoted first, so I must object, unless you offer a caveat pointing out that I'm not one who is saying this, and if you think teresaq or sky or Robert is, please quote something to establish this. I know sky has agreed with what I've said regarding this, and teresaq seems to be on the same page, and I don't recall Robert disagreeing with me on this point either.

[pnattmbtc]

All Bible scholars recognize (1) that God is sometimes portrayed as doing that which He permits; (2) that judgments often do not come directly from God and (3) that God uses the wicked to punish those who rebel against Him.

The problem for those who teach that God never destroys and that He won't destroy the wicked by fire, is that the above 3 points don't account for all that the Bible says in regard to God's activity in relation to humanity. Like you say, they simply are not universal principles.

Who teaches this?

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

pnattmbtc: How about this:

Quote:

Compelling power is found only under Satan's government.

If you took a hundred people, and asked them what it means, they will tell you it is what we are saying.

All one must do in order to show that this is not a univeral principle is prove that the Bible teaches God used compelling power one time. Do you agree?

This isn't the point. Mark said if you took a hundred people and asked them what a statement he quoted meant, all would agree. So I'm making the same point. All would agree with that "Compelling power is only found under Satan's government" means, wouldn't they? It's a very clear statement, right?

[pnattmbtc]

All one must do in order to show that this is not a univeral principle is prove that the Bible teaches God used compelling power one time. Do you agree?

Let's look closely at what occurred at the Exodus, and in particular at Exodus 6: 1. We've mention that verse before, but we really need to look at it further and compare it with other verses which use the same kind of language.

The "strong hand" mentioned there is God's power, not the Pharaoh's.

Do you agree that it's referring to God's "hand"?

This is easy enough to prove if you are willing to spend some time stuyding it.

I'm responding to this twice, the first time to point out that this post was not responsive to the point made. This time to respond to the point made, although not what the original post was discussing.

All would agree that the strong hand of God is being referred to, and that the plagues of Egypt demonstrated God's power. Again, everybody discussing this question agrees with this. The question is how was God's strong hand employed. Was it employed by His protecting from the thousands of unseen dangers? Or was it employed by acting exactly how Satan and his angels act in other circumstances? Remember that God is often presented as doing that which He permits. How do we know when this is or is not the case? (i.e., when God is taking direct action, as opposed to removing His protection).

For example, we're told that God sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites. What did God actually do here? Did He take direct action, or remove His protection? How do we know?