"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[SivartM]

God permitted sin in heaven... and sin is very violent.

[teresaq]

Would you worship Satan and believe that God should not be worshipped if you became convinced that God compelled Satan and His evil angels to depart from heaven? Would God's taking this action prove to you that God is unworthy of our worship and that Satan was right about God's character?

[Robert]

God destroyed the world by a flood and that He will destroy the wicked after the 1000 years

And we have given you evidence that God doesn't do this....God gives those who persistently reject Him over to their own destruction. God simply abandons the persistent unbeliever, as He did Christ who was made sin...made a curse...made under the law.

[Robert]

If God told you that He destroyed the world by a flood .... Would you then decide that God is unworthy of your trust, admiration, and worship?

If you learned it wasn't God who drowned the world, but instead He gave persistent unbelief over to their own choices, would you decide that God is unworthy of your trust, admiration, and worship?

[Robert]

Quote:

i think a better question would be, is God different from satan?

Yes, He is, most definitely.

Satan says do it my way or I'll destroy you....He has done this through the generations of men and kingdoms.

Now if God says, I love you - accept my love or I'll kill you, is He in different than Satan?

[Robert]

God permitted sin in heaven... and sin is very violent.

All sin is based on the love of self....For example, Since I love myself...if you get in my way I'll do anything I can to remove you, including murder. That's how human nature thinks....

Lucifer invented a u-turn agape...where as God's agape is a love that is not self-seeking.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

Then there was war in heaven. Angels were engaged in the battle; {EW 145}

He then declared that he was prepared to resist the authority of Christ and to defend his place in heaven by force of might, strength against strength. {SR 18.1}

Hence I must reject EGW here....You can't ground and pound God....There's no contest....God wouldn't permit violence in heaven....

lets remember that God said He "hated" esau. does that mean that He hated esau? or is He using our language and our mentality to get a point across?

when we read those words in the richards post does our mind conjure up the same picture as what happens here? or do we seek the HS and prayer and wait for understanding?

[John317]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

No the prophets were

They wrote the Bible, hence is the Bible fallible?

There's a differene between what a prophet writes under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and what they say or do when not under the direct control or inspiration of the Spirit. Paul, Peter, James and Moses, to name only a few, all made mistakes and were sinful human being, but these mistakes were not part of their inspired writings.

The Bible is an infallible guide to the truth of God which leads to salvation.

No prophet of God will make the claim of being infallible or say that their writings are infallible. Moses didn't say this and neither did any of the other apostles or prophets. Therefore, since Ellen White was a genuine prophet God, it should not surprise us to learn that she never claimed that her writings were infallible. Being infallible is different from being inerrent.

My own personal belief is that if an individual follows everything that Ellen White teaches, he will not be lost. I would say the same about the Bible, even though I believe the Bible does contain some "mistakes."

[John317]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

Then there was war in heaven. Angels were engaged in the battle; {EW 145}

He then declared that he was prepared to resist the authority of Christ and to defend his place in heaven by force of might, strength against strength. {SR 18.1}

...God wouldn't permit violence in heaven....

What do you believe God would do-- or should do-- to prevent it from happening?

Remember that God gave Ellen White visions of what occurred in heaven. Are you claiming to know more than she did about heaven or about what happened before the creation of this earth?

I wonder if Jack Sequeira would agree with you on this.

[pnattmbtc]

Being infallible is different from being inerrent.

[John317]

JOHN3:17: Would you worship Satan and believe that God should not be worshipped if you became convinced that God compelled Satan and His evil angels to depart from heaven? Would God's taking this action prove to you that God is unworthy of our worship and that Satan was right about God's character?

Quote:

TERESAQ(SDA): these might be good questions, john, but how does answering yes or no make what you believe the bible says true or not?

Quote:

JOHN3:17: Because the objection has been made that if God used force to remove Satan and the fallen angels from heaven, it would show that God used force to win the great controversy.

According to those making the objection, if that were true, it would mean God didn't win it by love and truth. See posts #326330 and 326644.

Quote:

TERESAQ(SDA): would that not be true? if God used force to win then He didnt win by love and truth, right?

OK, let me then ask you the same question: Since you evidently believe that if God compelled Satan to leave Heaven, it would mean He didn't win by love and truth-- would you then NOT worship God if God did compel Satan to leave heaven?

Ellen White never said that God didn't win in heaven in the struggle against Satan through the use of force. He obviously forced Satan out of heaven. The Bible itself says that Satan and the evil angels were "thrust out" or "thrown out" or "hurled out." This is language incompatable with the idea that Satan was persuaded to leave willingly. The same is true of Ellen White's language.

The important distinction is that God did win the great controversy against the false charges of Satan through the demonstration of love, patience, truth, trustworthiness, etc. None of that means God didn't compel Satan to leave heaven. When Ellen White writes about God's use of love and truth to win the war, she is not talking about the war that was in heaven between Christ and Satan, but she is talking about the ultimate victory of Christ over Satan. This victory is not due to force but is due to Christ's life, death, resurrection, and intercession in for us.

[pnattmbtc]

If God told you that He destroyed the world by a flood and that He compelled Satan and his evil angels to leave heaven-- just like it says in His inspired Word-- would you then choose to worship Satan? Would you then decide that God is unworthy of your trust, admiration, and worship?

If God told you that He never used force, that compelling power is only found in the government of the enemy, just as He said through an inspired prophet, would you then decide that God is unworthy of your trust, admiration, and worship?

I'm not really understanding the point of a question like this.

How about this question. We have two different point of view being expressed. One presents God as using power, force and violence to achieve His purposes. The other presents God as accomplishing His purposes without using these things. Which view is superior? Which presents God's character in a more positive light?

[Robert]

My own personal belief is that if an individual follows everything that Ellen White teaches, he will not be lost. I would say the same about the Bible, even though I believe the Bible does contain some "mistakes."

Wow, you are setting Ellen up as having more authority than the Bible. It's Ellen who has mistakes....I must take the Bible over Ellen. She isn't even part of the Bible....

[Robert]

One presents God as using power, force and violence to achieve His purposes. The other presents God as accomplishing His purposes without using these things. Which view is superior? Which presents God's character in a more positive light?

Bingo....

I must rejects John's typical, historic, traditional view for it presents a God who has the characteristics of Satan....No thanks!

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Ellen White never said that God didn't win in heaven in the struggle against Satan through the use of force.

She wrote:

Quote:

It was a being of wonderful power and glory that had set himself against God. Of Lucifer the Lord says, "Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty." Ezek. 28:12. Lucifer had been the covering cherub. He had stood in the light of God's presence. He had been the highest of all created beings, and had been foremost in revealing God's purposes to the universe. After he had sinned, his power to deceive was the more deceptive, and the unveiling of his character was the more difficult, because of the exalted position he had held with the Father.

God could have destroyed Satan and his sympathizers as easily as one can cast a pebble to the earth; but He did not do this. 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.

This goes beyond that God didn't use force with Satan, but makes the point that "The Lord's principles are not of this order" and that "compelling power is found only under Satan's government." So not only did He not use force then, but His principles are not of this order.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

If God told you that He destroyed the world by a flood and that He compelled Satan and his evil angels to leave heaven-- just like it says in His inspired Word-- would you then choose to worship Satan? Would you then decide that God is unworthy of your trust, admiration, and worship?

If God told you that He never used force, that compelling power is only found in the government of the enemy, just as He said through an inspired prophet, would you then decide that God is unworthy of your trust, admiration, and worship?

I'm glad you asked the question. If God told me that He didn't compel Satan to leave heaven and that God never killed a single human being, I would still love and worship Him. The only reason I believe as I do about these issues is because of the language of the Bible. If the Bible said that God persuaded Satan to leave heaven or that God never killed a single human being, I would accept it. But I think even you will admit that the Bible teaches no such thing.

My only question of God would be why He inspired the Bible to be written in a way that clearly says God did kill people.

This shows the differences between the theologies. My theology would allow me to find Him worthy of my worship and love, whereas it seems to me that yours does not allow you to believe God is worthy of your love and worship if you find out that God killed people and forced Satan out of heaven.

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

If God told you that He never used force, that compelling power is only found in the government of the enemy, just as He said through an inspired prophet, would you then decide that God is unworthy of your trust, admiration, and worship?

I'm glad you asked the question. If God told me that He didn't compel Satan to leave heaven and that God never killed a single human being, I would still love and worship Him. The only reason I believe as I do about these issues is because of the language of the Bible. If the Bible said that God persuaded Satan to leave heaven or that God never killed a single human being, I would accept it. But I think even you will admit that the Bible teaches no such thing.

My only question of God would be why He inspired the Bible to be written in a way that clearly says God did kill people.

This shows the differences between the theologies. My theology would allow me to find Him worthy of my worship and love, whereas it seems to me that yours does not allow you to believe God is worthy of your love and worship if you find out that God killed people and forced Satan out of heaven.

Amen John, good point!

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

My own personal belief is that if an individual follows everything that Ellen White teaches, he will not be lost. I would say the same about the Bible, even though I believe the Bible does contain some "mistakes."

Wow, you are setting Ellen up as having more authority than the Bible. It's Ellen who has mistakes....I must take the Bible over Ellen. She isn't even part of the Bible....

Definitely not. Ellen White's writings are to be judged by the Bible. Ellen White's writings cannot correct the Bible. The Bible is THE standard of faith and doctrine.

What I am saying is that it would be better to believe even the errors in the Bible than to reject the Bible because one finds some errors in it. The same applies to Ellen White. I know of people who reject Ellen White completely because they believe they have found an error in her wriitngs. Even if they are right that Ellen White wrote something that is error, it would be better to accept it than to reject everything she wrote. That is my point here. I do not believe that Ellen White has more authority than the Bible.

At the same time, however, I do not believe there are degrees of prophetic inspiration. Either a prophet is inspired or not. The only difference between Ellen White and the writers of the Scriptures is that she lived 1900 years after the close of the canon. She was just as inspired as Nathan, Elijah, and other prophets who also did not have writings included in the canon.

[pnattmbtc]

I'm glad you asked the question. If God told me that He didn't compel Satan to leave heaven and that God never killed a single human being, I would still love and worship Him. The only reason I believe as I do about these issues is because of the language of the Bible.

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: Ellen White never said that God didn't win in heaven in the struggle against Satan through the use of force.

She wrote:

Quote:

God could have destroyed Satan and his sympathizers as easily as one can cast a pebble to the earth; but He did not do this. 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.

This goes beyond that God didn't use force with Satan, but makes the point that "The Lord's principles are not of this order" and that "compelling power is found only under Satan's government." So not only did He not use force then, but His principles are not of this order.

The context is Ellen White's explanation of why God did not destroy Satan. Her answer is that Satan's rebellion was not to be overcome by force.

God's way of winning the great controversy is through truth and love as revealed in the life and death of Christ. She is not talking about how Satan left Heaven.

Therefore the above statement does not contradict the Bible or Ellen White's plain statements that Satan was "thrown out" of heaven.

Have you noticed the Bible does not say that Satan and the fallen angels were talked into leaving willingly or that they left after being persuaded to do so?

Ellen White's language also does not indicate any such change on the part of Satan. On the contrary, she says that Satan said that he would resist God's decree to the point of force. And there's absolutely no reason to believe that Satan finally changed his mind and left Heaven willingly. That is why the Greek uses a passive verb "bello," a word it never uses for something that someone does by choice. It means "to be thrown out" or "expelled." If I said that I "threw someone out" of the room, the picture is not one of a person going out on their own volition because they want to go.

[John317]

Satan left heaven of his own accord.

A clear reference, please?

My recollection is that the Bible says Satan was "thrown out," and Ellen White says that He resisted. Where does either the Bible or SOP say that Satan left heaven of his own accord?

Your statement would certainly appear to me to contradict Ellen White's statement that Satan was "expelled from heaven" SP vol 1, page 23. I can't see how the use of that expression-- to say nothing of the use of "ballo," "thrown out"-- is in harmony with the idea that Satan left heaven of his own accord. Maybe you have a good explanation based on a text or statement I'm unaware of. If so, please quote it and give the reference.

Quote:

God, far from trying to persuade to leave did all He could to persuade him to stay.

For a certain time, it's true that God wanted Lucifer to stay if he would truly repent and change, but by the time the Bible describes the war and Satan's being "cast out," God had already decreed that Satan and his fallen angels had to leave. See Vol 1 of SP pages 22, 23. It says that God told Satan he would have to leave, and then Satan said he would resist. After that there was war in heaven, and it ended with the triumph of Christ and the throwing out of Satan and his rebellious angels. It could not be plainer, then, that Satan resisted and said he would use "strength against strength" in order to keep his place in Heaven.

See also the top of page 41 of PP, where it says that Satan told his followers that the only course left to them was to "gain [their rights] by force." Therefore he had to be compelled to leave. This is the plain testimony of both the Bible and the writings of Ellen White.

Do you have evidence that Satan changed his mind after his declaration that he would use force to resist God's decree that he be banished from Heaven?

Aren't you glad that Satan was forced to leave?

If you insist that Satan was not forced to leave Heaven, what do you think would have happened if Satan had not been persuaded to leave willingly? Would God have allowed Satan and the evil angels to remain indefinitely in Heaven?

Remember that God had told Lucifer that there was no longer a place for him in heaven. After God made this declaration, do you really believe there was any chance that Satan could have continued in heaven?

[Aliensanctuary]

Rev 12:7-9

Quote:

And now war broke out in heaven, when Michael with his angels attacked the dragon. The dragon fought back with his angels, but they were defeated and driven out of heaven.

The great dragon, the primeval serpent, known as the devil or Satan, who had led all the world astray, was hurled down to the earth and his angels were hurled down with him.

Lest we forget, Rev 12 concerns future events. Satan's dragonish being is not yet here. He creates rebellion and misery here from a distance. To him and his off-world comrades, we are mere ants, so easily snuffed out.

[John317]

Rev 12:7-9

Quote:

And now war broke out in heaven, when Michael with his angels attacked the dragon. The dragon fought back with his angels, but they were defeated and driven out of heaven.

The great dragon, the primeval serpent, known as the devil or Satan, who had led all the world astray, was hurled down to the earth and his angels were hurled down with him.

Lest we forget, Rev 12 concerns future events. Satan's dragonish being is not yet here. He creates rebellion and misery here from a distance. To him and his off-world comrades, we are mere ants, so easily snuffed out.

Could you talk more about your understanding of Rev. 12? I'm not sure I follow how you view these things.

I take it that you mean you believe there will be war in heaven at some time in the future. When do you expect this to happen and how do you arrive at the conclusion that these events are yet future?

[Aliensanctuary]

Joel 2 NJB

Quote:

A warning about the Day of Yahweh

1. Blow the ram's-horn in Zion,

sound the alarm on my holy mountain!

Let everybody in the country tremble,

for the Day of Yahweh is coming,

yes, it is near.

2. Day of darkness and gloom,

Day of cloud and blackness.

Like the dawn, across the mountains

spreads a vast and mighty people,

such as has never been before,

such as will never be again

to the remotest ages.

The invasion of locusts

3. In their van a fire devours,

in their rear a flame consumes.

The country is like a garden of Eden ahead of them

and a desert waste behind them.

Nothing escapes them.

4. They look like horses,

like chargers they gallop on,

5. with a racket like that of chariots

they spring over the mountain tops,

with a crackling like a blazing fire

devouring the stubble,

a mighty army in battle array.

6. At the sight of them, people are appalled

and every face grows pale.

7. Like fighting men they press forward,

like warriors they scale the walls,

each marching straight ahead,

not turning from his path;

8. they never jostle each other,

each marches straight ahead:

arrows fly, they still press forward,

never breaking ranks.

9. They hurl themselves at the city,

they leap onto the walls,

swarm up the houses,

getting in through the windows

like thieves.

A vision of the Day of Yahweh

10. As they come on, the earth quakes,

the skies tremble,

sun and moon grow dark,

the stars lose their brilliance.

11. Yahweh's voice rings out

at the head of his troops!

For mighty indeed is his army,

strong, the enforcer of his orders,

for great is the Day of Yahweh,

and very terrible, who can face it?

Here's a glimpse of the future Day of the LORD, an event occurring after the 1K yrs, and before Judgment Day. Clearly, the LORD will have a vast army of some kind of machine or creature on the ground, destroying everything in its path. This attack co-incides with the Dark Day, not some day in the 1800's, but in the Last Days.

That war in space (the heavens), part of the signs and wonders that the inhabitants of Earth will see, will occur much nearer to the End of Time, just before the 1K yrs, I believe. The authors of Revelation, Daniel, and the other Prophets, including David, prophesied about the Last Days, not the past.

Our 1844 sunglasses make it more difficult to see this.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John

Being infallible is different from being inerrent.

According to Webster's "infallible" means "unerring" while "inerrant" means "free from error." What's the different you see here?

Friend, you need a good theological dictionary, not a Webster's. Or you might try a sytematic theology text. There are many good ones which speak to the issue at hand. Look up things like "inspiration," "plenary inspiration," or "inerrancy."

Did you know that it's common knowledge that the SDA church believes in the infallibility of the Bible but not in inerrancy? Check out the SDA doctrines, as well as the book, Seventh-day Adventists Believe. I'm sure I remember that it discusses the difference. There's also an excellent volume about theology included in the SDA Bible Commentary that goes into a good deal of depth on the topic. It's the last volume in the set and well worth studying.