"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[skyblue888]

The problem for those who teach that God never destroys and that He won't destroy the wicked....

John317

________________________________________________

John, has the discussion really been about whether God destroys or not, whether He will or will not destroy the wicked at the end, or about understanding that His thoughts and ways of saying and doing are as different from ours as the heavens are far from the earth? As far as I am concerned, this is what this debate is all about. And when it is found out how it can be said that He hardens the heart, that He sends strong delusion, that he raised up evil against David out of his own house, that He sent fiery serpents to the Israelites in the wilderness, that He sent an evil spirit to Saul and that He slew him, that He sent fire from heaven upon Sodom and Gomorrah, or that He took the wheels off the Egyptian chariots, etc etc it is clearly seen that indeed His thoughts and ways of saying and doing are as different from ours as the heavens are far from the earth.

Then it is clearly seen that His judgments do not come directly out from Him but that the wicked place themselves beyond His protection and thus it is seen that God never stands toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression but that He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves to reap that which they have sown. This is always true.

The wars of Israel and the command of God to annihilate men and women and children may seem to contradict this principle but it is only an apparent contradiction.

sky

[teresaq]

hopefully our brothers do not need a clear statement from the bible or sop to say that there are universal principles to the law which this would be one, (at bottom)

Originally Posted By: Richard

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?)

[skyblue888]

Here is another statement which has been a problem to some.

"Moses commanded the men of war to destroy the women and male children. Balaam had sold the children of Israel for a reward, and he perished with the people whose favour he had obtained at the sacrifice of twenty-four thousand of the Israelites. The Lord is regarded as cruel by many in requiring His people to make war with other nations. They say that it is contrary to His benevolent character. But He Who made the world, and formed man to dwell upon the earth, has unlimited control over all the works of His hands, and it is His right to do as He pleases, and what He pleases with the work of His hands. Man has no right to say to his Maker, Why doest Thou thus? There is no injustice in His character. He is the Ruler of the world, and a large portion of His subjects have rebelled against His authority, and have trampled upon His law . . . He has used His people as instruments of His wrath, to punish wicked nations, who have vexed them, and seduced them into idolatry." Spiritual Gifts, 4:50, 51.

The main message of this statement is a warning that mankind is in no position to question the actions of God. If God does it, it is right and just. This rightness is not just because God is the Creator, but because His character is righteous and there is no injustice with Him.

What troubles people though, is the part which reads: "But He who made the world, and formed man to dwell upon the earth, has unlimited control over all the works of His hands, and it is His right to do as He pleases, and what He pleases with the work of His hands."

No problem would exist here if it were not for the persistent tendency of men to think of God as if He too, were a man. When men have the power to do as they please and what they please, then their behaviour becomes dependent on how they feel on a given day and what they want on that day. They do all things in reference to their own likes and dislikes and not according to unvarying principles. This is the behaviour pattern with which we are most familiar and we tend to think of the unknown and unfamiliar in God as if it were the same. Whereupon, we visualize God as being highly incensed and angered by this so that it becomes His pleasure to exact a revenge against those who have treated Him so shabbily.

But, unlike man, God is never motivated by feeling. He finds no pleasure in unrighteousness in any form. We need never fear then, that the Lord will destroy us because He has the right to do "as He pleases, and what He pleases." On the other hand, if we become subject to a human being with limitless power to do "what he pleases, and as he pleases," we can know that, unless we are able to serve that person to his entire satisfaction all the time, sooner or later, we are doomed.

In other words, the statement must be understood in the light of what it does please God to do, not in the light of what it would please man to do if he were in the same position.

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

How much more does this apply to our Father which is in Heaven. This is what Jesus came to reveal for tradition and misintepretation had obscured the teaching of the Old Testament concerning the character of God, the nature of His government and the principles of His dealing with sin. See G.C.492.

sky

"You thought that I was altogether like you." Psalm 50:21.

[skyblue888]

The wrath of God is referred to frequently in the Scriptures. It is an expression describing the savage fury of men or nature, or both, in a rampage of destruction. The seven last plagues are referred to specifically as the wrath of God which is to be poured upon those who worship the beast and his image.

There is very real danger that God's wrath will be understood to be exactly what man's wrath is. Man's wrath is the development within him of fury, anger, and a desire to retaliate against those who have hurt or offended him. But God's wrath is different, for the ways of God are not the ways of men. Isaiah has made that forever sure.

God's wrath is not the expression of His personal feelings, for, while His wrath is busily destroying man and the world, God is feeling anything but wrathful. He is pained with sorrow and distress to see His handiwork and children being committed to so terrible a fate.

The wrath of God is an expression of the very opposite from what He is feeling.

Yet without question it is wrath. See the blasting might of the roaring hurricane, the thunder of a thousand falling buildings and opening crevasses as the earthquake strikes, the crackling roar of the blazing inferno, the shriek of the storm and the fiendish fury of man at war. This is wrath. It is the complete picture of anger and fury and these are the things which the Bible terms "the wrath of God."

From the message God gave through Moses' rod, He plainly showed that when nature is in this state it has passed out of His control. Therefore, it is not the expression of God's feelings. Why then is it called "the wrath of God"? It is God's wrath simply because every power which has gone into the state of wrath through God's directing and controlling power being withdrawn, is of God. They are the powers of God in a wrathful state, therefore it could be called the wrath of the powers of God. Instead it is simply and more briefly called "the wrath of God."

There will be no problem understanding this if it is ever kept in mind that man's way and the ways of God are very different and, in fact, opposite from each other. There must be a perpetual guard set up in the human mind against the tendency to think of God and man as being the same.

sky

[John317]

Quote:

Robert:

If God kills then we must equate God with sin.

I think this is the kind of attitude that won't allow you to look at the evidence objectively and decide whether your view is right according to what the Bible teaches.

It would be like my saying that if God doesn't destroy the wicked, God isn't worthy of my worship. That would be wrong to think, wouldn't it? We already know that God will do it the right way. But none of us is in a position to tell God what to do or how to do it. That's a lesson out of the book of Job. See Job 38: 2ff; 40: 8.

I wonder if sky or pnatt believe what you've said here.

I don't know if you mean to say it, but your statement signifies that God cannot possibly do what you judge to be wrong. By doing that, I believe you are essentially making yourself God's judge and making Him subject to your law, or at least to your interpretation of the law.

It seems to me you are setting yourself up to be in a situation where you will reject God if and when you determine that He has killed or will kill in the future. Your idea could cause someone to rebel against God should they ever discover that God actually did destroy Sodom or the world by a flood.

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: 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

Quote:

pnattmbtc: 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?

Do you believe that God destroyed the world by a flood, that He destroyed Sodom, and that He will destroy the wicked by fire after the 1000 years?

Notice this is quite different from saying the wicked will be destroyed as a natural consequences of sin and without any active participation on God's part or that the wicked will destroy each other or themselves after God withdraws Himself and simply observes what happens to the wicked.

[John317]

Quote:

pnattmbtc:

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.

If you go back through the threads, you will see that sky wrote that the strong hand referred to in Exodus 6: 1 is that of Pharaoh, not God. I'm surprised you believed that everyone agrees with you on this, but perhaps you either forgot or simply didn't see those posts. If everyone agreed that the mighty hand was God's, I wouldn't have brought it up in the way that I did. There is no doubt that it's a reference to God's use of compelling force.

I was prepared to prove it if necessary but if you agree that the strong hand is God's in that verse, we can then discuss what the "strong hand of God" signifies. But I am wondering if sky has changed his mind since writing that post and realizes as you do that it's speaking of God's power.

[pnattmbtc]

Do you believe that God destroyed the world by a flood, that He destroyed Sodom, and that He will destroy the wicked by fire after the 1000 years?

[skyblue888]

Quote:

pnattmbtc:

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.

If you go back through the threads, you will see that sky wrote that the strong hand referred to in Exodus 6: 1 is that of Pharaoh, not God. I'm surprised you believed that everyone agrees with you on this, but perhaps you either forgot or simply didn't see those posts. If everyone agreed that the mighty hand was God's, I wouldn't have brought it up in the way that I did. There is no doubt that it's a reference to God's use of compelling force.

I was prepared to prove it if necessary but if you agree that the strong hand is God's in that verse, we can then discuss what the "strong hand of God" signifies. But I am wondering if sky has changed his mind since writing that post and realizes as you do that it's speaking of God's power.

_________________________________________

The Old King James rendition is:

"Then the Lord said to Moses, Now shalt thou see what I will do to Pharaoh; for with a strong hand shall he let them go, and with a strong hand shall he drive them out of his land."

Okay, let us say that this verse is talking about God's strong hand. As far as i am concerned, that would cause no problem whatsoever for the same principles of interpretation would apply.

We have seen how the Holy Spirit deals with such expressions anyway. Because David neglected to discipline his children it is written that God Himself took the case in hand. The Holy Spirit explains what this means, that "the Lord permitted events to take their natural course, and did not restrain Absalom." P.P.728. Right after this sentence, we read: "When parents or rulers neglect the dudy of punishing iniquity, God Himself will take the case in hand. His restraining power will be in a measure removed from the agencies of evil, so that a train of circumstances will arise that will punish sin with sin." Ibid,728.

In Egypt God's restraining power was indeed removed from one measure to another.

There are so many examples in the Bible and in the Testimonies which show that God's ways of punishing and destroying are as far from ours as the heavens are from the earth.

sky

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

pnattmbtc:

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.

J:If you go back through the threads, you will see that sky wrote that the strong hand referred

to in Exodus 6: 1 is that of Pharaoh, not God.

No, I didn't see the posts. I was lazy. I was assuming there was some text speaking of God's strong hand.

Quote:

If everyone agreed that the mighty hand was God's, I wouldn't have brought it up in the way that I did. There is no doubt that it's a reference to God's use of compelling force.

Why not? We're back to the same question that's been being asked all along. Given that God is presented as doing that which He permits, how do you know if the text is saying God directly did the thing or permitted it? For example, we're told that God sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites. This sounds like "There is no doubt that it's a reference to God's use of compelling force," but what really happened? The same could be said in regards to Jerusalem. Matt. 22:7 says that God would send armies to destroy, but what really happened?

Quote:

I was prepared to prove it if necessary but if you agree that the strong hand is God's in that verse, we can then discuss what the "strong hand of God" signifies. But I am wondering if sky has changed his mind since writing that post and realizes as you do that it's speaking of God's power.

I'm sure sky and I would agree with what happened. God removed His protective hand, and the plagues fell. I don't see how whose hand was being spoken of would change anything. If it's Pharaoh's hand, that would mean, I'm guessing (not having read the post) that the idea is that Pharaoh did so by telling the Israelites to go, as he did in the end? If it's God's hand, then God drove the Israelites out by removing His protective hand.

If it's God's hand, why does it say "drove them out"? That seems like a funny of putting it. Why not say "led them out"?

Anyway, this seems like a minor point.

Since Matt. 22:7 came up in this post, I'll ask again, what happened in Matt. 22:7? Did God cause the armies to destroy Jerusalem? Or did Satan?

You said earlier that God doesn't speak in riddles, that when it says God did something, then God did it, something along these lines. You remember? So what happened here? Did God do this?

I have the same question in regards to the fiery serpents. Did God move upon the fiery snakes to cause them to bite the Israelites?

[Robert]

The law is what it is because God made it so.

No [name deleted by moderator], God is agape! It isn't something additional....It is His very nature.

"It will be seen [future tense] that the glory shining in the face of Jesus is the glory of self-sacrificing love. In the light from Calvary it will be seen that the law of self-renouncing love is the law of life for earth and heaven; that the love which "seeketh not her own" has its source in the heart of God. . . ." [AG 45]

"Our only definition of sin is that given in the word of God; it [sin] is "the transgression of the law;" it [sin] is the outworking of a principle at war with the great law of love [agape] which is the foundation of the divine government." [GC11 492]

[pnattmbtc]

I agree. The law describes truth. It doesn't create it.

[John317]

Quote:

skyblue888: Here is another statement which has been a problem to some.

"Moses commanded the men of war to destroy the women and male children. Balaam had sold the children of Israel for a reward, and he perished with the people whose favour he had obtained at the sacrifice of twenty-four thousand of the Israelites. The Lord is regarded as cruel by many in requiring His people to make war with other nations. They say that it is contrary to His benevolent character. But He Who made the world, and formed man to dwell upon the earth, has unlimited control over all the works of His hands, and it is His right to do as He pleases, and what He pleases with the work of His hands. Man has no right to say to his Maker, Why doest Thou thus? There is no injustice in His character. He is the Ruler of the world, and a large portion of His subjects have rebelled against His authority, and have trampled upon His law . . . He has used His people as instruments of His wrath, to punish wicked nations, who have vexed them, and seduced them into idolatry." Spiritual Gifts, 4:50, 51.

The main message of this statement is a warning that mankind is in no position to question the actions of God. If God does it, it is right and just. This rightness is not just because God is the Creator, but because His character is righteous and there is no injustice with Him.

This is a rather astonishing paragraph, sky. I have little doubt that Robert would consider it heresy and very troubling to say the least. I myself find it refreshingly honest, true and straight-forward, and perfectly in line with the Scriptures, though I admit that it is contrary to much that is popularly accepted today.

What do you think of the rest of pages 51, 52 specifically about the "family picture" that Mrs. White describes? She compares God to a good father in a family of rebellious children and says that a good father would expel family members who are trying to cause the children to go astray and rebel against the father. That obviously means forcing a member to leave home if he refuses to change and obey the Father's wishes. It's hard to envision the father saying that the disobedient, rebellious individual can go or stay depending on what they want to do. That would hardly be "expelling" anyone, would it?

I noticed, by the way, that you used ellipsis in place of the words, "God has borne with them until they filled up the measure of their iniquity, and then he has brought upon them swift destruction."

That means that when they passed their probation and God knew that they would not change, God destroyed them. This is precisely what He did with the people living at the time of the Flood, at Sodom and Gomorrah, and the nations which God ordered Israel to annihilate.

[skyblue888]

"The law of God, from its very nature, is unchangeable. It is a revelation of the will and the character of its Author." G.C.467.

However, "The principles of the ten commandments existed before the fall, and were of a character suited to the condition of a holy order of beings. After the fall, the principles of those precepts were not changed, but additional precepts were given to meet man in his fallen state." 3 SG 295.

sky

[skyblue888]

I noticed, by the way, that you used ellipsis in place of the words,

"God has borne with them until they filled up the measure of their iniquity, and then he has brought upon them swift destruction."

John317

______________________________________________

John, you should know by now that there is no difficulty with that statement at all for as we compare statement with statement it is clear what is meant by "then He has brought upon them swift destruction" for when the disobedient fill up the measure of their iniquity, it is written that "God will say to the angels, 'No longer combat Satan in his efforts to destroy. Let him work out his malignity upon the children of disobedience; for the cup of iniquity is full. They have advanced from one degree of iniquity to another, adding daily to their lawlessness. I will no longer interfere to prevent the destroyer from doing his work.'" 4 RH 335.

This is how the Lord brings swift destruction upon them. He has no other choice but to give them up to the leader they have chosen.

sky

[pnattmbtc]

It's true that mankind is in no position to judge God, just as sky said, or, more accurately "to question the actions of God," but in spite of this fact, God is so humble and good, that he invites mankind, and universekind, to do precisely this! This is what the judgment is about, the vindication of God's character and the principles of His government. The entire universe will render judgment that God is righteous, and has acted selflessly in the best interests of His creatures, regardless of the cost to Himself.

[Robert]

...it is His right to do as He pleases

Nope, heresy....He can't sin....

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: John317

The law is what it is because God made it so.

No Johnny, God is agape! It isn't something additional....It is His very nature.

]

Johnny????

[John317]

Quote:

skyblue888: "The law of God, from its very nature, is unchangeable. It is a revelation of the will and the character of its Author." G.C.467.

However, "The principles of the ten commandments existed before the fall, and were of a character suited to the condition of a holy order of beings. After the fall, the principles of those precepts were not changed, but additional precepts were given to meet man in his fallen state." 3 SG 295.

Sure. Good quotes all. The second paragraph is the one that expresses the idea that I particularly had in mind. The Ten Commandments as we have them were written with sinful man in mind, and therefore it is expressed in particular words. If the principles were written for beings on another planet, they would obviously be written quite differently. For instance, their "Sabbath" commandment would be different, as would be also no doubt the seventh and tenth commandments.

Did you know that Ellen White says Christ alone could come and live and die, and not a created angel, because Christ was "above the law"? An angel could not possibly have come-- despite the claims of Jehovah's Witnesses-- because the angels are subject to law, whereas, of course, the Creator, Eternal God is not.

[John317]

Quote:

John317:...it is His right to do as He pleases

Quote:

ROBERT: Nope, heresy....He can't sin....

You throw that word around pretty loosely, Rob. I mean the word "heresy."

Suupose God did do what He pleased and what He pleased was evil. What would you do about it? Exactly nada--nothing.

This is one reason that it's important to understand that God doesn't change. If He were to change, He could only change for the better or for the worse. It'd be impossible for Him to change and yet remain the same. If He changes, what guarantee do we have that He would only change for the better and not in some ways for the worse?

And if He were to change over a few million years into something bad, what would we do? We couldn't do anything, could we? So it is a good thing that God is a good, loving, just, unchanging God, and not one that is changing.

I say this because there is a popular idea out there that God is changing along with His universe and even along with the world and with us. I find that kind of frightening, because as I said, if He's evolving, He just might evolve into an evil God.

If He were changing, maybe He changed His mind about the Second Coming, or about forgivenss, etc.

But I'm glad that is all just an idea and that the truth is God doesn't evolve at all and that we can know Him through His Son Jesus Christ.

[skyblue888]

Did she say "above" or "equal" to the law.

Where is that statement John?

sky

[John317]

No, she definitely said Christ was "above [the] law." I'll find it and post it.

Are you saying you think Christ is only equal to the law? The law proceeds from God. In other words, God preceeds the law, so it's obvious that Christ is above the law. The law is not equal to God, as if God has some kind of obligation to the law. The law is what it is because of who God is.

[doug yowell]

No, she definitely said Christ was "above the law." I'll find it and post it.

Are you saying you think Christ is only equal to the law? The law proceeds from God. In other words, God preceeds the law, so it's obvious that Christ is above the law. The law is not equal to God, as if God has some kind of obligation to the law. The law is what it is because of who God is.

Not too difficult to grasp. The law is often described as a transcript of God's character. It would only seem to follow that the substance preexisted the description.

[John317]

[John317]

Quote:

pnattmbtc: 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?

God knew what would happen when He removed His protecting care from the Israelites in the wilderness. It was God's way of teaching the people a lesson. He couldn't allow them to go into the Promised Land in the spiritual condition they were in.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: How do we know?

The same way that we know other texts: we know by Inspiration. See Patriarch and Prophets 429.

Have you noticed that there is never a single time when Ellen White tells us that God's angels did something but then later tells us that it was Satan's angels who actually did it?