Tom,

Saying that God's act of destroying Satan would have been an act of force does not make sense, since this is precisely what will happen on the last day. Satan will be destroyed in the same manner he would have been destroyed at the beginning - by God's glory. So why would this have been an act of force at that time but it won't be on the last day? Because at that time nobody knew if Satan was right or wrong, and now everybody knows he is wrong. So the act of force refers to the context that surrounds Satan. It has nothing to do with the manner of his death.

Yes, and maybe the fire which comes down from heaven is just God's glory revealed if that angel, for instance, steps aside.

However, don't we find passages saying that an angel covered God's glory even before sin?

As to the body, the idea could be valid, but the fallen angels have a spiritual body, and they also are destroyed.

No it's not!



This tells us that

1.God could have destroyed Satan easily by force, but didn't do so.
2.Because force is not a principle of His government.
3.His principles are not of this order.
4.Rebellion was not to be overcome by force.

Clearly if God destroys Satan by force, these things are not true.



God's glory is His character. Force is not a principle of His government. Why not? Because it's not present in His character. Not at the beginning, and not at the end. Not ever.

If the Lord's principles are not of this order, that means He doesn't do theses things -- ever.

Jesus Christ revealed God's character, and in Him we see the truth that force is not a principle of God's.

Consider:

Deceit is not a principle of God's government. His principles are not of this order. Rebellion would not be overcome by force.

Would it make sense to suggest that God could use deceit to overcome Satan?

Plug in any word for "force" into what she said and see if it makes any sense.



It has everything to do with the manner of his death. If Satan has to be killed, then sin is innocuous. It's not something which destroys the one who practices it, but something that God does not like, that sets one up to be destroyed by God. That's a completely different concept than the idea that death is the inevitable result of sin, and that had God left Satan to reap the full result of his sin, he would have perished.

I've pointed out several times that the underlying principle of sin is selfishness, and that selfishness has no power to promote life.

i was addressing the "glory" part of your statement, not the the "right" or "wrongness" of it, which i honestly dont know.

i guess the question is, which glory, or is there a difference? it seems there are two, offhand. the physical and the spiritual/character. well back to research what is said and given.

i know that you are very well-studied, probably moreso than i. i just know that for as long as i have been studying i always come across bible texts and sop statements that add to my understanding or completely change it.

i dont know what will happen, which is why i am studying. i am coming across statements that contradict previous views.

is this the only statement of hers on the subject that you are willing to consider?
so the only conclusion you can come to is that if God Himself doesnt do it then evil angels do?
again, are these kinds of statements the only ones you wish to consider? wouldnt a better approach be to take everything the bible and sop says on the subject?

one final thought:
what kind of God were the jews looking for? why did they reject Jesus? wasnt it because they were looking for a "strong" god that would "punish" their enemies and make them, the jewish people, live in riches and comfort?

are we different?

I had come across this in CD pg. 75 (MS 23) regarding the health message
What do you think she means by permit?

i dont remember which page the link was on.

It's rather interesting the differences in paradigms here. One leads to looking to take statements which speak of causation in terms of permission, while the other does the reverse.

One paradigm prefers to see God as not responsible for the death that occurs as a result of sin, while another prefers the reverse.

An interesting question to pursue is what does it say about God if we consider these things in terms of causation viz a viz permission.

along the same lines, if we didnt have ellen whites clear statement that contradicted God saying He brought the "fiery serpents" upon the people we would be fighting tooth-and-nail to defend the "fact" that God did bring them on the people.