War in heaven - War on Earth; Choosing sides

June 7, 2011

Why then does the Bible say they are "thrown" into the "lake of fire"?

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare....12 That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. 13 But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness

So the whole world will be on fire, like the sun, but it will burnt up. No need to throw anyone in...all the elements will will melt with heat.

June 7, 2011

Why is it that SDA are so selective about what is "literal" and what is "symbolic"?

I find it interesting that such selectivity always works out to fit their particular view.

Naw! It must be coincidence or just my imagination.

June 7, 2011

Would you chose one method only miz3? Which would you choose? Literal or symbolic?

Or, we could try discernment to determine which method applies when and where?

No matter which method you use, there will always be disagreement on when and where it applies.

June 7, 2011

Hmm we seem to have two contrasting views - but I would argue that the one inspired has probably got the correct detail.

But just making stuff up may appeal to some - so to each his own.

(Though I have to admit - I am always just a bit interested in those "Bible does not mean what it says" type arguments.)

Since what I said echoed the idea of the verse from Ephesians and sounded rather like the "not by force" statement of EGW, which one are you saying is lacking inspiration, or do you mean both Paul and EGW?

I am not so sure I am the one making things up here...

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

(BTW - turns out God himself has a physical form and that we were made in God's image, John saw the form of Christ in heaven and God said that Moses saw His form if the book of Numbers is to be believed - or is that also to be denied??)

So shall we turn this back into an anthropomorphic contest as done on another topic of seeing how detailed the image similarity is? Does God have a belly button? Genitals? Is he hairy? Do his toenails grow long and does he have to trim his nose hairs?

If God has a physical form just as we do and as we believe that he is present here with us, why can't we see him? Can you explain how his form is different from ours? Or is that image in which we are created the same in all its physical characteristics?

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

The force and "might against might" is not the college debate event that some have imagined...

Then stop acting like it is. It seems you are the one trying to play debate club on this topic.

Spiritual things are spiritually discerned.

June 7, 2011

Is not a sword a carnal weapon?

"Earthly kingdoms rule by the ascendency of physical power; bur from Christ's kingdom every carnal weapon, every instrument of coercion, is banished." A.A.12.

"The exericse 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." D.A.22.

sky

June 7, 2011

Satan and his evil angels will not jump into the lake of fire or be thrown into the lake of fire. Both the Bible and the SoP tell us that they will die at the hand of the most terrible of the nations after the 1,000 years. The weapons used against them during that gigantic battle will trigger earthquakes and volcano eruptions. The fire that will consume them in the end will not come directly out from the Lord but from these volcanos.

Yet the Bible language is that the fire that destroys them will come from God out of heaven.

sky

June 7, 2011

Hmm we seem to have two contrasting views - but I would argue that the one inspired has probably got the correct detail.

But just making stuff up may appeal to some - so to each his own.

(Though I have to admit - I am always just a bit interested in those "Bible does not mean what it says" type arguments.)

(BTW - turns out God himself has a physical form and that we were made in God's image, John saw the form of Christ in heaven and God said that Moses saw His form if the book of Numbers is to be believed - or is that also to be denied??)

June 7, 2011

Bob, we know the Father has a form and that Jesus has a form and that the angels have a form but what does that prove? that they fought Satan and his angels with swords?

sky

"Earthly kingdoms rule by the ascendency of physical power; bur from Christ's kingdom every carnal weapon, every instrument of coercion, is banished." A.A.12.

"The exericse 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." D.A.22.

sky

June 7, 2011

Satan and his evil angels will not jump into the lake of fire or be thrown into the lake of fire.

The Bible says that the lake of fire was "made for the Devil and his angels".

In Rev 20 we are told that the devil is cast into the Lake of Fire.

Isaiah says God will bring fire from within Lucifer to destroy him.

in Christ,

Bob

June 7, 2011

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

That too is another college debate forum and the wicked simply do not have the right answers - so in exreme embarrassment they toss themselves into the lake of fire.

Of course we have Biblical proof that satan and the wicked will of their own accord will just jump into the "lake of fire"?

Why then does the Bible say they are "thrown" into the "lake of fire"?

Apparently the Bible doesn't mean what it says.

Beggin a thousand pardons - I was being facetious.

in Christ,

Bob

June 7, 2011

Why is it that SDA are so selective about what is "literal" and what is "symbolic"?

I find it interesting that such selectivity always works out to fit their particular view.

Naw! It must be coincidence or just my imagination.

It is all literal unless an obvious symbol is being employed - such as using the imagine of a dragon to represent Satan in Rev 12.

In any case the call to "come out of her my people" in Rev 18 "that you be not partakers of her plagues" is the same call that you see in Rev 14's choose you this day whom you will serve message.

In Rev 14 the everlasting gospel message is "fear God and give glory to Him for the hour of His judgment has come" - it is a call to get on the right side before the plagues and yes even fire of God falls on the wicked mentioned in Rev 14.

"They will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the Lamb and of His Holy angels" Rev 14:10

Just keeping the simple stuff simple at this point.

in Christ,

Bob

June 7, 2011

Bob, God also says that He hardened Pharaoh's heart or that He raised evil out of David's own house but we know how the pen of inspiration explains these words. Don't we? We also know that the Bible says that to those who do not have the love of the truth, God sends strong delusions. But we know how the pen of inspiration explains these words, don't we?

sky

June 7, 2011

...It is all literal unless an obvious symbol is being employed - such as using the imagine of a dragon to represent Satan in Rev 12...

Actually, quite the opposite is the correct assumption to make since the very nature of apocalyptic literature is rich in symbolism and fantastic imagery and essentially written as code. The overwhelming majority of Revelation is to be understood as spiritual symbolism and imagery. You have to look behind the words to unveil its meaning. Much of the misinterpretation of the book is because is only read at its literal meaning level.

Of course, I could simply read what you said and say obvious symbols are being employed throughout substantially all of the book. It's obvious to me, and I might add, the majority of bona fide NT scholars including those within Adventism...

I would be curious to know all of the elements of Revelation that you believe are to be taken literally and the ones you see as obviously symbolic.

June 7, 2011

quite the opposite is the correct assumption to make since the very nature of apocalyptic literature is rich in symbolism and fantastic imagery and essentially written as code. The overwhelming majority of Revelation is to be understood as spiritual symbolism and imagery.

Bingo

June 8, 2011

...It is all literal unless an obvious symbol is being employed - such as using the imagine of a dragon to represent Satan in Rev 12...

June 8, 2011

Bob, God also says that He hardened Pharaoh's heart or that He raised evil out of David's own house but we know how the pen of inspiration explains these words. Don't we? We also know that the Bible says that to those who do not have the love of the truth, God sends strong delusions. But we know how the pen of inspiration explains these words, don't we?

sky

Indeed - the Bible says God hardened Pharaoh's heart AND it says that Pharaoh hardened his heart. BOTH are accurate.

The strong delusions God sends is in the same manner as the pagans that came to conquer Israel. (Recall that God sends his prophet Jeremiah to the King of Israel telling him to surrender to the Babylonians for this thing was sent to Israel of God and if the city and the King wish to survive then the people must surrender to the Babylonians instead of fighting back).

The Bible is much more straight forward and clear than many people have imagined.

in Christ,

Bob

June 8, 2011

Bob, we know the Father has a form and that Jesus has a form and that the angels have a form but what does that prove? that they fought Satan and his angels with swords?

The fact that we do not know the exact weapons used - the exact form of force and might and strength - does not give us freedom to toss the "War in heaven" statement out the window as "not really war" because of some imagined complication with "Angels are spirits and so they don't know how to be at war" or any such thing.

When we are told that it is not only "War in heaven" but it is also "force of might" - strength against strength and even that the heated debates eventually ripen into "open revolt" - there is a point at which one simply stops fighting against the words on the page and begins to accept them "as they read" rather than engaging in ever more creative ways to "make stuff up".

Which leads to the next question - if some insist on making the easy stuff convoluted - what will they do with the stuff that actually has a level of difficulty? I prefer to stick with the obvious and that keeps the simple stuff -- simple.

in Christ,

Bob

June 8, 2011

Bob,

I'm not sure from what dark corner of your mind the snide straw-man reference to the History Channel came, but I can assure you I have no idea what you are talking about much less what the History Channel has ever said about Revelation.

I'm also not sure what resources you rely on for your study of Revelation, but one of my primary resources that I use for both study and teaching has this to say about the symbolic nature of Revelation:

Quote:

In a style typical of apocalyptic writing, a very distinguishing feature of the book of Revelation is its peculiar and symbolic language. John states at the very outset (Rev. 1:1) that the contents of his book were revealed to him in symbolic or figurative language (Gr. semaino means "to make known by signs"). Thus, Revelation does not contain photographic presentations of heavenly realities or coming events that are intended to be understood in a literal way. Its messages are rather conveyed through symbolic or figurative presentations... It is of decisive importance for a meaningful interpretation of the book, therefore, to take seriously its symbolic nature and to be on guard against inadequate literalism in exploring and interpreting the book's prophecies.[emphasis added]

- Ranko Stefanovic's Revelation of Jesus Christ:Commentary on the Book of Revelation, p. 17

With regard to four traditional methods of interpretation Stefanovic notes that each of these approaches has "some elements of truth" and that no single approach is adequate or complete in itself. He further states that a good commentary on Revelation does not favor any one of those approaches since to do so is more apt to be "forcing an interpretation into a framework of of a predetermined idea" rather than letting the text and context speak for itself. Such an approach is typically intent on proving a point rather than finding what the text actually means.

Tom

June 8, 2011

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

Bob, God also says that He hardened Pharaoh's heart or that He raised evil out of David's own house but we know how the pen of inspiration explains these words. Don't we? We also know that the Bible says that to those who do not have the love of the truth, God sends strong delusions. But we know how the pen of inspiration explains these words, don't we?

sky

Indeed - the Bible says God hardened Pharaoh's heart AND it says that Pharaoh hardened his heart. BOTH are accurate.

The strong delusions God sends is in the same manner as the pagans that came to conquer Israel. (Recall that God sends his prophet Jeremiah to the King of Israel telling him to surrender to the Babylonians for this thing was sent to Israel of God and if the city and the King wish to survive then the people must surrender to the Babylonians instead of fighting back).

The Bible is much more straight forward and clear than many people have imagined.

in Christ,

Bob

Bob, "It is not God that blinds the eyes of men or hardens their hearts. He sends them light to correct their errors, and to lead them in safe paths; it is by the rejection of this light that the eyes are blinded and the heart hardened. Often the process is gradual, and almost imperceptible... but when one ray of light is disregarded, there is a partial benumbing of the spiritual perceptions, and the second revealing of light is less clearly discerned. So the darkness increases, until it is night in the soul." D.A.322.

As to God sending strong delusions to those who do not have the love of the truth, (2 Thess.2:11), we read:

"Looking down to the last days, the same Infinite Power declares, concerning those who 'received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved': 'For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.' 2 Thess.2:10-12. As they reject the teachings of His Word, God withdraws His Spirit and leaves them to the deceptions which they love. But Christ still intercedes in man's behalf, and light will be given to those who seek it." G.C.431.

And as to God saying to David, "Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house," we read:

"Not that God prompted these acts of wickedness, but because of David's sin He did not exercise His power to prevent them." P.P.739.

So it is clear that this is how the language of the Bible is to be understood when it is speaking of God's dealing with men.

"I was shown that Satan would entangle and then destroy, if he could, the souls he had tempted. God will bear long, but there is a limit to His mercy, a line which marks His mercy and His justice. I was shown that the judgments of God would not come directly out from the Lord upon them, but in this way--they place themselves beyond His protection. He warns, corrects, reproves, and points out the only path of safety; then, if those who have been the objects of His special care follow their own course, independently of the Spirit of God, after repeated wearnings, if they chose their own way, then He does not commission His angels to prevent Satan's decided attacks upon them." E.G. White, Manuscript Releases, Vol.14, p.3

Therefore, we read, "God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression. He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown... The Spirit of God, persistently resisted, is at last withdrawn from the sinner, and then there is no power to control the evil passions of the soul, and no protection from the malice and enmity of Satan." G.C.36.

"The principles of His dealing with men are ever the same." G.C.343.

sky

June 8, 2011

Interesting

Quote:

“And he went out from Pharaoh, and entreated the Lord. And the Lord turned a mighty strong west wind, which took away the locusts, and cast them into the Red Sea; there remained not one locust in all the coasts of Egypt. But the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go.” Notwithstanding his humility while death threatened him, and his promise to let Israel go, after he was relieved from the plague, he hardened his heart, and refused to let them go. {1SP 195.2}

...

But the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he would not let them go. And Pharaoh said unto him, Get thee from me, take heed to thyself, see my face no more; for in that day thou seest my face, thou shalt die. And Moses said, Thou hast spoken well; I will see thy face again no more.” {1SP 196.1}

... The Saviour said, “If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!” We are told that the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart. The repeated refusals of the king to hear the word of the Lord, called forth more direct, more urgent and forcible messages. At each rejection of light, the Lord manifested a more marked display of his power; but the king’s obstinacy increased with every new evidence of the power and majesty of the God of heaven, until the last arrow of mercy was exhausted from the divine quiver. Then the man was utterly hardened by his own persistent resistance. Pharaoh sowed obstinacy, and he reaped a harvest of the same in his character. The Lord could do nothing more to convince him, for he was barricaded in obstinacy and prejudice, where the Holy Spirit could not find access to his heart. Pharaoh was given up to his own unbelief and hardness of heart. Infidelity produced infidelity. When Pharaoh hardened his heart on the first exhibition of God’s power, he made himself more capable of a second rejection of God’s power. Pride and stubbornness held him in bondage, and hindered him from acknowledging the warnings of God. It was contrary to the nature of Pharaoh to change after once having given expression to his purpose not to believe. {RH February 17, 1891, par. 1}

What Pharaoh has done, will be done again and again by men until the close of probation. God destroys no man; but when a man stifles conviction, when he turns from evidence, he is sowing unbelief, and will reap as he has sown. As it was with Pharaoh, so it will be with him; when clearer light shines upon the truth, he will meet it with increased resistance, and the work of hardening the heart will go on with each rejection of the increasing light of heaven. ...The responsibility rests upon the sinner. By resisting the Spirit of God today, he prepares the way for a second resistance of light when it comes with mightier power; and thus he will pass from one stage of indifference to another, until, at last, the light will fail to impress him, and he will cease to respond in any measure to the Spirit of God. {RH February 17, 1891, par. 2}

We see the classic "Boil the frog" example above being done in gradual stages. Instead of starting off with "I will kill your first born " as plague #2 - God starts Pharoah off with signs that his own magicians can duplicate or fake.

Exodus 7:3

But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart that I may multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt.

God "could" have simply killed the Egyptians in a single night the way he killed the Assyrians that came to take Israel captive. Or He could have a massive demonstration of fire, power and smoke and thunder as he did at Sinai - Or fire coming down from heaven before the Pharaoh as He did with Elijah - Or He could simply overwhelm them with conviction so that they simply stood by and watched - as Christ did when he cleansed the temple at the start and end of his ministry on earth. But in this case God chose the slow gradual increase of signs so that Pharaoh would always consider the option "open" to harden his heart yet that much more.

God sovereignly chose the course of action that Ex 7:3 states for the purpose which Ex 7:3 states - thus the Bible is accurate in BOTH statements saying that Pharoah hardened his heart AND saying that God hardened Pharaoh's heart.

You can trust the Bible - as it turns out.

in Christ,

Bob

June 8, 2011

With regard to four traditional methods of interpretation Stefanovic notes that each of these approaches has "some elements of truth" and that no single approach is adequate or complete in itself. He further states that a good commentary on Revelation does not favor any one of those approaches since to do so is more apt to be "forcing an interpretation into a framework of of a predetermined idea" rather than letting the text and context speak for itself. .

Tom

As it turns out - the Grammatical historical model is the most accurate in rendering the text such that it "speaks for itself" instead of blindly eisegeting in whatever you wish by calling everything "symbolic".

You need an objective hermeneutic for "rendering the text" regardless of your bias PRIOR to reading the text. That is what the H-G hermeneutic provides.

It is why we use it to get accurate exegesis of the text.

And even your quote above does not argue that everything in the book is literal OR that we should not simply accept the text for what it says as being just so - unless an obvious symbol is employed.

The straw-man "all is literal" is not the only alternative to the "all is symbolic" flawed idea that some have imagined.

in Christ,

Bob

June 8, 2011

God did not directly harden Pharaoh's heart. He sent him light and it was by the rejection of this light that his heart was hardened and his eyes blinded.

Did you read my post just before yours?

sky

"It is not God that blinds the eyes of men or hardens their hearts. He sends them light to correct their errors, and to lead them in safe paths; it is by the rejection of this light that the eyes are blinded and the heart hardened. Often the process is gradual, and almost imperceptible... but when one ray of light is disregarded, there is a partial benumbing of the spiritual perceptions, and the second revealing of light is less clearly discerned. So the darkness increases, until it is night in the soul." D.A.322.