"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[pnattmbtc]

You misunderstand. I'm not complaining at all. I agree with Ellen White.

[Woody]

Quote:

You think you do. She says that compelling power is found only under Satan's government. I don't think you agree with that.

I don't have any problem with there being things in the SOP that you think mean something different than what they say. You're doing the same thing I do, and everyone does, which is to interpret inspiration according to all that's written, and trying the best you can to make sense of it. It's rather amusing that some think they are so good at doing this, whereas everyone else, other than themselves, stink at it.

Speaking for myself, I've not made the argument "I take the Bible (or SOP) as it reads, unlike you." I think this is a silly way of looking at this.

Thank you. I am so glad you've stated this. And it is so clear. This is a most critical issue. And a good observation of your's. You deserve the gold star.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry

You are making EGW's comments take precedence over what the Bible says instead of the other way around. That's a dangerous notion.

How do you figure? Because I quoted her?

Quote:

{SR 18.2}

Then there was war in heaven. The Son of God, the Prince of heaven, and His loyal angels engaged in conflict with the archrebel and those who united with him. The Son of God and true, loyal angels prevailed; and Satan and his sympathizers were expelled from heaven. All the heavenly host acknowledged and adored the God of justice. Not a taint of rebellion was left in heaven. All was again peaceful and harmonious as before. Angels in heaven mourned the fate of those who had been their companions in happiness and bliss. Their loss was felt in heaven

White, E. G. (1947; 2002). The Story of Redemption (18). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

Does this sound like no force was used?

It sounds like you are making EGW's comments take precedence over what the Bible says instead of the other way around.

You complain about me quoting her, and that quote her? Reminds me of this:

I have no problem that are quoting EGW. I believe her to be a prophet. But the way you are using her writing I believe is wrong. The Bible says there was a war and that they were thrown down. Her comment that had direct reference to that event in what I quoted in SR echoed the same thought. You took another EGW statement that did not have direct bearing on Rev 12 and now try to make Rev 12 conform to what she said in a different context!

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

You think you do. She says that compelling power is found only under Satan's government. I don't think you agree with that.

I don't have any problem with there being things in the SOP that you think mean something different than what they say. You're doing the same thing I do, and everyone does, which is to interpret inspiration according to all that's written, and trying the best you can to make sense of it. It's rather amusing that some think they are so good at doing this, whereas everyone else, other than themselves, stink at it.

Speaking for myself, I've not made the argument "I take the Bible (or SOP) as it reads, unlike you." I think this is a silly way of looking at this.

Thank you. I am so glad you've stated this. And it is so clear. This is a most critical issue. And a good observation of your's. You deserve the gold star.

Thanks.

It's an interesting issue, that's for sure.

[pnattmbtc]

I have no problem that are quoting EGW. I believe her to be a prophet. But the way you are using her writing I believe is wrong. The Bible says there was a war and that they were thrown down. Her comment that had direct reference to that event in what I quoted in SR echoed the same thought. You took another EGW statement that did not have direct bearing on Rev 12 and now try to make Rev 12 conform to what she said in a different context!

[John317]

Quote:

R:The Bible says they fought. If he was leaving on his own accord, there would be no reason to fight.

J:Excellent point, and one that is unanswerable, because there obviously would be no reason to fight if he was going to leave on his own accord. There's no indication whatever to show that Satan changed his mind and finally said, "OK, you persuaded me. I'm leaving."

Once again, this has not been suggested. I wonder how many times I need to point this out. Specifically, no one has suggested that Satan was persuaded to leave. As I specifically said, God was trying to persuade Satan to stay.

Here's the problem as I see it: you are saying that Satan didn't have to leave but that he left of his own accord, willingly.

But the record is that God decreed that Satan was banished from Heaven, and then Satan resisted this decree. What does it mean to say that God "decreed" this? Doesn't it mean that Satan had to leave Heaven?

If he wasn't persuaded to leave, why then did he leave on his own, after he had declared that he would "resist to the point of force, strength against strength," as Ellen White puts it?

Are you in agreement that Ellen White wrote that God decreed that Satan was banished from Heaven and that there was no longer any place for him and his wicked followers there?

How does that language mean that Satan was free to stay in Heaven if He wanted to, or that he didn't have to leave?

[Gerr]

Here are the situations where she says God would not use force or compulsion:

1. God does not use: to make men accept truth AA 241; 6BC 1112

The Ellen White Writings Topical Index. 2002.

2. to make men be good 5T 445

3. to make men do right MH 114

4. to oppress His creatures 2BC 999

The Ellen White Writings Topical Index. 2002.

5. external force, not employed in work of redemption DA 466

6. exercise of force, contrary to principles of God’s government in winning service DA 22

The Ellen White Writings Topical Index. 2002.

The Ellen White Writings Topical Index. 2002.

How did Jesus expel demons from demon-possessed people except by force?

[John317]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

1SP 22. {TA 43.1}

Non-Biblical and therefore you can't use it as a measuring stick

Ellen White, as a non-canonical prophet, is not "the measuring stick," true, but for Seventh-day Adventists, Ellen G White was the Lord's messenger. As such, "her writings are a continuing source and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidancce, instruction, and correction." FB 17 (18) Therefore, it's to be expected that Adventists will quote her and discuss what she wrote and taught.

[BobRyan]

Here's the problem as I see it: you are saying that Satan didn't have to leave but that he left of his own accord, willingly.

I guess I missed that section of Revelation 12.

[Robert]

I don't ignore what God's prophet says but neither do I make her something that she was not nor ever claimed to be-- an infallible human being who never made errors. As she herself often said, she was a sinner in need of the Savior.

Ellen White, no...Bible yes....Ellen White is not needed. She came along because folks were unwilling to examine their Bible....After she came along, you had lazy SDA who defaulted to her for truth. Sorry, I can't accept her word....I must learn from the Bible

[BobRyan]

The facinating thing is that the force against force - strength against strength that we see in Rev 12 - described accurately as "WAR in heaven" where the devil and his angels are "cast out" -- fits perfectly with the WAR context we see in Rev 19 when Christ appears at His second coming and all the commanders of the armies of earth (and presumably including the armies of the "god of this world" 2Cor 4) -- and also fits the WAR context that we see in Rev 20 when "once again" the "god of this world" takes a stand against God the Son.

In all cases - force is used.

Hence the "strenght against strength" description we see here -

http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthread...html#Post326873

So consistent with Rev 12, and Rev 19 and Rev 20

(Notice how I did not need the tired old "you dirty rotten SDA.." invectives to make the point above?)

in Christ,

Bob

[John317]

JOHN3:17: In the latter post, it is said that if God used force to compel Satan to leave heaven, it would prove Satan right. I deny this.

why?

Frist of all, because the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy make it plain that Satan and his wicked angels were "expelled" or "thrown out" of Heaven. Ellen White said that God "decreed" that Satan and the fallen angels were "banished from Heaven." This language is incompatible with the idea that Satan left Heaven of his own accord, or willingly.

Secondly, God was right to force Satan and the angels who followed him out of Heaven. Satan's accusations against God are not proved by His decree that the devil and his angels had to leave Heaven.

Explain your reasoning that God's use of force to expel Satan from heaven would prove Satan right and God wrong-- if you believe this to be true.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Once again, this has not been suggested. I wonder how many times I need to point this out. Specifically, no one has suggested that Satan was persuaded to leave. As I specifically said, God was trying to persuade Satan to stay.

Here's the problem as I see it: you are saying that Satan didn't have to leave but that he left of his own accord, willingly.

But the record is that God decreed that Satan was banished from Heaven, and then Satan resisted this decree. What does it mean to say that God "decreed" this? Doesn't it mean that Satan had to leave Heaven?

If he wasn't persuaded to leave, why then did he leave on his own, after he had declared that he would "resist to the point of force, strength against strength," as Ellen White puts it?

Are you in agreement that Ellen White wrote that God decreed that Satan was banished from Heaven and that there was no longer any place for him and his wicked followers there?

How does that language mean that Satan was free to stay in Heaven if He wanted to, or that he didn't have to leave?

In the last response to a post of yours (I think it was the last one, if not, a recent one), I wrote:

Quote:

I didn't say this, did I? What did I say? I said they weren't forced to come to earth. I remember saying that. I said that compelling power is only to be found under the government of Satan. I remember saying that. I don't remember saying what you're saying here, however. Can you quote something?

So I would repeat this. I looked over everything in this thread where I spoke of Satan, and I don't see that I said what you're saying I said. I see these statements:

Quote:

The Bible says next to nothing about Satan's fall. I referenced the SOP, which says a great deal about, and the SOP does portray God as trying to persuade Satan to stay in heaven...

someone else:When someone is banished, it means they have to leave whether they want to or not.

That's what it means to us, who are accustomed to force, but force is not a principle of God's government. "The Lord's principles are not of this order." "Compelling power is to be found only under Satan's government."...

He didn't. There were trees of the knowledge of good and evil on all the worlds with sentient beings. Satan was free to go to any of these, and did, but they all refused. This world accepted, so he set up his kingdom here. He wasn't forced to come here. He came here because he wanted to, to win converts to his cause....

I think God permitted Satan to come here. He wasn't forced to come here against his will....

Everything besides the "someone else" is me. So if you'd like to discuss one of these things I said, please go ahead. It's possible I missed something I said. If so, please quote it.

Also I've commented on GC 542 twice, at least, and quoted it for you. I said the principle there applies to Satan. Was this unclear?

[pnattmbtc]

Originally Posted By: John317

Here's the problem as I see it: you are saying that Satan didn't have to leave but that he left of his own accord, willingly.

I guess I missed that section of Revelation 12.

[Robert]

Are you saying that if God destroyed the world by a flood as the Bible says or if God destroys Satan and the rest of the wicked after the 1000 years, you would consider God evil and not want to worship and serve Him?

I'm saying you...did you get that?...you present a god who is like that....That's your interpretation! You place on God human characteristics and thereby bring him down to our sinful level.

The disciples did this too until they learned better:

54 And when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, "Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?" 55 But He turned and rebuked them, and said, "You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. 56 For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives but to save them."

[Gerr]

Quote:

Lucifer and his followers were compelled to leave, but were they compelled to believe?

No to both.

Here are more references Re: Coercion

Christ’s kingdom does not employ 4BC 1171

do not use, in presenting truth Ev 541

God does not resort to, of man’s will PP 331-2

vanished from Christ’s kingdom AA 12

The Ellen White Writings Topical Index. 2002.

[Robert]

Ellen White, as a non-canonical prophet, is not "the measuring stick," true, but for Seventh-day Adventists, Ellen G White was the Lord's messenger. As such, "her writings are a continuing source and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidancce, instruction, and correction." FB 17 (18) Therefore, it's to be expected that Adventists will quote her and discuss what she wrote and taught.

But they are used in an authoritative way....I won't accept that...it's adding to the Bible...it's cultism...

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Are you saying that if God destroyed the world by a flood as the Bible says or if God destroys Satan and the rest of the wicked after the 1000 years, you would consider God evil and not want to worship and serve Him?

I'm saying you...did you get that?...you present a god who is like that....That's your interpretation!

You didn't answer the question.

Do you believe God would be evil-- or that it would prove Satan's accusations right-- if the Lord in fact destroyed the world by a flood or if He destroys the wicked by fire at the end of the 1000 years?

[pnattmbtc]

There's this one too, which I quoted:

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.

It was God's purpose to place things on an eternal basis of security, and in the councils of heaven it was decided that time must be given for Satan to develop the principles which were the foundation of his system of government. He had claimed that these were superior to God's principles. Time was given for the working of Satan's principles, that they might be seen by the heavenly universe. (DA 759)

Rebellion was not to be overcome by force. Satan is overcome by the prevailing powers of God's government, which is moral, which are truth and love.

This is all so clear and easy to see, the difficulty in grasping this I find hard to understand. The government of God is moral, therefore the weapons involved in the war are weapons which have to do with the character of the government. These weapons are truth and love. Force, or compelling power, is not a weapon used, because the government is a moral government.

It's exactly the same principle as taught by Christ, when He said

Quote:

Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.(John 18:36)

Moral government = moral war = moral weapons. The warfare is described in vision as a war, because it is a war. But it's not a war fought by weapons of the flesh, but by weapons of the spirit. It's a war of ideas. The truth is the weapon that wins such a war.

[Robert]

Do you believe God would be evil if He in fact destroyed the world by a flood or if He destroys the wicked by fire at the end of the 1000 years?

If God destroys we don't need a devil...we don't need sin....

God destroys only in the sense that He passively releases those who remain in persistent unbelief....

Deut 31:17 Then My anger [passive] shall be aroused 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, 'Have not these evils come upon us because our God is not among us?' 18 And I will surely hide My face in that day because of all the evil which they have done, in that they have turned to other gods [rejected God - unbelief].

God won't force....It's not in His character....God is agape, but He will not force unbelievers to believe....Instead he works with them until there's no point of return (complete hardening of the heart)....Then, because of unbelief and rejection, God removes Himself and destruction follows, but He is not the source of destruction..sin is...

We've covered this before, but you remain inside the box of tradition....You just can't think outside the box, much like the Jews couldn't get out of their legalistic ways....

[Robert]

It's a war of ideas.

I've been forced off of CA before....I had no choice, yet there was no blood shed. Yet there was war in CA....

John, Gerry and others think only in one dimension, which is the human point of view, but we are by nature violent...so you can't use human reasoning when it comes to spiritual things....

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Deut 31:17 Then My anger [passive] shall be aroused 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, 'Have not these evils come upon us because our God is not among us?' 18 And I will surely hide My face in that day because of all the evil which they have done, in that they have turned to other gods [rejected God - unbelief].

I think this Deut. 31 reference is perhaps the clearest in explaining the principle involved from Scripture. It brings out the connection between God's anger (or wrath), His letting go ("I will forsake them" "I will hide my face"), and the evils that come as a result, all of which is precipitated by persistent rejection of God.

[Robert]

I think this Deut. 31 reference is perhaps the clearest in explaining the principle involved from Scripture. It brings out the connection between God's anger (or wrath), His letting go ("I will forsake them" "I will hide my face"), and the evils that come as a result, all of which is precipitated by persistent rejection of God.

Yes, and this principle must be applied to everything....Otherwise you get into the same error that the Jews got into....They expected a King who would kick some butt....Instead they got a King who would rather die, eternally, then take a life....

[John317]

There's this one too, which I quoted:

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.

It was God's purpose to place things on an eternal basis of security, and in the councils of heaven it was decided that time must be given for Satan to develop the principles which were the foundation of his system of government. He had claimed that these were superior to God's principles. Time was given for the working of Satan's principles, that they might be seen by the heavenly universe. (DA 759)

Rebellion was not to be overcome by force. Satan is overcome by the prevailing powers of God's government, which is moral, which are truth and love.

This is all so clear and easy to see, the difficulty in grasping this I find hard to understand.

Notice in the above quote that it has to do with why God did not destroy Satan. It is not about the manner in which Satan left heaven. There is not a word in those two paragraphs about how or why Satan left heaven. It is all about why God allowed Satan to continue to exist.

The "compelling power" that Ellen White mentions is in the context of destroying Satan, not in making him leave heaven.

What I believe you are failing to see, also, is that God's expelling Satan and the fallen angels from heaven did not overcome the rebellion. The rebellion continues on earth. Therefore your objection to the idea of compelling Satan to leave heaven is without foundation. There is no contradiction between the statement that rebellion is not to be overcome by compelling force and the statement that God forced Satan and the fallen angels out of heaven. Again, God did not overcome the rebellion by forcing Satan to leave heaven.

Yes, the Devil and his wicked angels were "expelled" and "banished" and "thrown out" of heaven, and sent to this earth. God's doing this is not evidence that God's govenment is immoral or that God overcomes Satan by force. God has already won the great controversy, and He did it through the life, death, & resurrection of Jesus Christ.

[Robert]

Which God do you believe in:

1) I'm God...I love you with an everlasting love, please accept My deliverance of you from under the law. Let me be your righteousness, for without Me you face the 2nd death - where I have to legally abandon you to your own persistent choice.

2) I'm God...I love you, now love me back, keep my law, or I'll burn you for many days....

Rob