"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[Gerr]

Quote:

Ok, so in answer to my question, what does "compelling power is only found in the government of Satan mean?" your answer is that, in certain circumstances, including (and limited to(?)) the above 8 points, God does not use compelling power. In other circumstances, however, He does.

Correct. And John has given many instances where God has used His power. I don't see how you can deny that God used force/power to deliver Israel from the Egyptians, driven the Canaanites from the Promised Land, the Flood, fire to destroy Sodom & Gomorrah, and hellfire to terminate evil. But under NO circumstances will He ever use force to gain allegiance of ANY one.

[BobRyan]

In 2Peter 3 - the "Day of the Lord" begins with the 2nd coming of Rev 19 and ends with the lake of fire in Rev 20.

In the same way - the War in Heaven - in Rev 12 begins with the war in heaven - before the fall of Adam, when Satan and his angels were cast out - but it also includes the war fought at the cross. It includes not only the unmasking of Satan at the cross - but also the added forceful restrictions placed upon him such that his Job 1 and Job 2 activities at the conference table in heaven are no longer permitted.

in Christ,

Bob

[John317]

Why do you think she says that Satan was cast down at this point? ... Why do you suppose she says that compelling power is only to be found in the government of Satan? What does this mean?

Because the reasonable question that arises at that point in the story is why God permitted Satan to continue living. So she is explaining why God didn't destroy Satan as soon as God saw that Satan was in rebellion and that he would cause death and destruction.

She says plainly that Satan and fallen angels were "expelled" from heaven. "Expelled" always has to do with the use of force. For instance, to say that a student was expelled from school means he or she were compelled to leave. It would never conjure up the picture of a student willingly deciding to leave of his own accord. The same with "thrown out" (Gk. bello). The NIV translates it "hurled down." This Greek word is NEVER used in the passive voice in reference to something that someone does by choice. The language indicates that it was something that happened to Satan with force and against his will, not something that he chose to do. It is the same word used in Rev. 20: 3 to describe Satan's being "thrown into the Abyss" at the start of the 1000 years, and then again, in Rev. 20: 10, 14, 15, where it's used to describe Satan and the wicked being "thrown into the lake of fire." Surely no one thinks that Satan willingly throws himself into the Abyss or into the lake of fire, so why would anyone believe Satan voluntarily threw himself out of heaven and down to the earth?

Observe that neither the Bible nor the Spirit of prophecy mention anything that would indicate Satan was persuaded to leave on his own or that Satan was free to go where he wanted. Satan did not choose to come to this earth. The Bible says God made him and the other fallen angels come here. Revelation 20: 4, 9, 10, 13 repeats that he and the evil angels were "cast down" or "thrown down" "to the earth" 6 times; 3 times in verse 9 alone. It's impossible to interpret this expression to mean that it was a free choice on the part of the Devil. This point is confirmed by further biblical testimony in 2 Peter 2: 4 and Jude 6 which describe God as having cast them into Tartarus and committed them to chains and "kept" there until the judgment. It is certainly not the language used when referring to being free to go where one likes. On the contrary, it is the language a writer would use when wanting to communicate the concept of being forced to remain in a particular location. Compare with Rev. 20: 2.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

G:I have already enumerated in a couple of previous posts where God would never use force or compulsion.

It's a waste of time discussing with someone who has already made up his mind that God did not cause the Flood or will not cause the fires of Hell no matter what the Bible says.

p:The Bible says that God killed Saul. The Bible says God moved David to number Israel. The Bible says God sent lying spirits to Ahab. The Bible says God creates evil. The Bible says that God destroyed Jerusalem. The Bible says God sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites. The Bible says God will send strong delusion to those who refuse to believe the truth that they might believe a lie. The Bible says Jesus spoke in parables lest those whom He spoke to should hear and understand and be converted.

G:Soooooo, are we to take everything the Bible says as parables? Symbols? Metaphors?

What God permits, in His word He takes responsibility for it.

Right. That's exactly the point. So the fact that the Bible says God did something does not necessarily mean that He Himself directly caused the thing to happen, as in the examples I cited.

Quote:

Without His permission Saul would not have died. When we violate the laws of our being and get sick, He also takes some responsibility for. That's why the prophet could say that God creates evil. He takes responsibility for even Satan because He created Lucifer.

Right.

Quote:

p:I assume that even though the Bible says God caused all of these things, you don't believe that He did. So is it a waste of time discussing things with you?

G:If you notice, that comment of mine was in response to Robert. But if you have already made up your mind also that God did not cause the Flood or will not cause hellfire to annihilate the wicked, then, yes, it's just a waste of time.

This is really extremely poor logic. Do you think discussing things with people who use extremely poor logic is a waste of time? (My reason for asking this question is to point out that making statements that it's a "waste of time" to discuss things with certain people may be an opinion better left to oneself).

Here's the point. You said, "if you have already made up your mind also that God did not cause the Flood or will not cause hellfire to annihilate the wicked, then, yes, it's just a waste of time." What is your basis for saying this? Because this is what the Bible says.

So I presented around 8 examples of where the Bibles says God said something, but He didn't, which demonstrates that the grounds for your assertion, that it's a "waste of time" to discuss things with a person who rejects certain ideas because "that's what the Bible says," is hooey, because you do the very same thing yourself.

[Guest]

Observe that neither the Bible nor the Spirit of prophecy mention anything that would indicate Satan was persuaded to leave on his own or that Satan was free to go where he wanted. Satan did not choose to come to this earth. The Bible says God made him and the other fallen angels come here. Revelation 20: 4, 9, 10, 13 repeats that he and the evil angels were "cast down" or "thrown down" "to the earth" 6 times, 3 times in verse 9 alone. It's impossible to interpret this expression to mean that it was a free choice on the part of the Devil.

Amen!

[Guest]

Secondly, "may have right to the tree of life" could be seen as symbolic, meaning "may have eternal life" or "live eternally."

Thirdly "may enter into the gates of the city" may also be seen as symbolic as "may enter into heaven."

You can make it all symbolic if you want to, but you will be wrong in your understanding. I've noticed that you do that quite a bit. You spiritualize away anything you think the Bible shouldn't be saying according to your beliefs. I've even seen you do it with Ellen White, where she departs from what you believe. And Ellen White doesn't speak in symbols.

[pnattmbtc]

p:Secondly, "may have right to the tree of life" could be seen as symbolic, meaning "may have eternal life" or "live eternally."

Thirdly "may enter into the gates of the city" may also be seen as symbolic as "may enter into heaven."

You can make it all symbolic if you want to, but you will be wrong in your understanding.

[Guest]

Not a judgement, just an observation.

And no, you haven't seen me do the same thing. If you have an example of me making something symbolic, that you thought should be literal, please show it.

[pnattmbtc]

p:Why do you think she says that Satan was cast down at this point? ... Why do you suppose she says that compelling power is only to be found in the government of Satan? What does this mean?

J:Because the reasonable question that arises at that point in the story is why God permitted Satan to continue living. So she is explaining why God didn't destroy Satan as soon as God saw that Satan was in rebellion and that he would cause death and destruction.

[pnattmbtc]

NOTE: Again, in whatever way one interprets this, the fact remains that God is ultimately responsible for the destruction of the wicked as well as the salvation of the righteous. It is His will that sin and sinners are finally no more and that the righteous live throughout eternity. If this were not true, the book of Revelation would have no reason to give all the praise to God for bringing about the end of sin and Satan and the salvation of the righteous. Inspiration says these things "must take place" (Rev. 1: 1; 22: 6).

[karl]

Quote:

This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 8:36. God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them.

At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this. Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin.

I was going to underline the parts of this where she makes the point I've stated, but I'd wind up underlining the whole thing. I'll just point out that she says repeatedly that sinners themselves are responsible for their destruction, as opposed to God.

Yes, God finally lets them reap the full consequences of their sin and allows His glory to consume. But let us not, in our eagerness to say that this isn't God's fault (which it is not,) absolve God of making the decision that the time has come for the destruction of the wicked. This is a purposeful act of God that results in their destruction (or perhaps the end of a purposeful act of restraint.)

Regardless, God makes the decision that the time has come and acts in some way which results in the destruction of the wicked.

[pnattmbtc]

Not a judgement, just an observation.

And no, you haven't seen me do the same thing. If you have an example of me making something symbolic, that you thought should be literal, please show it.

It wasn't my point that there are things that you believe are symbolic which *I* think are literal, but that others (could be anyone) think are literal. For example, you think that "heart" is not literal, but Mark disagrees.

[pnattmbtc]

Yes, God finally lets them reap the full consequences of their sin and allows His glory to consume. But let us not, in our eagerness to say that this isn't God's fault (which it is not,) absolve God of making the decision that the time has come for the destruction of the wicked. This is a purposeful act of God that results in their destruction (or perhaps the end of a purposeful act of restraint.)

Regardless, God makes the decision that the time has come and acts in some way which results in the destruction of the wicked.

One could say that it is the end of a purposeful act of restraint. I think that's fine. But it should be clear that the end of a purposeful act of restraint is a far cry from a direct act to cause destruction.

Also, it is my believe that God is acting, and has always acted, to bring sin to an end as quickly as possible. I believe God hates sin, because of the pain it causes His creatures. I believe the judgment will show that God will have succeeded in destroying sin as quickly as possible. So God's decision to end the purposeful act of restraint is to do so as soon as possible. Before this can happen, the entire universe must become aware of the truth in regards to the Great Controversy (in particular, God's character), and this takes time.

[Robert]

Apparently when discussing "War in Heaven" (see the title of this thread) you choose to toss out that part of the Bible that actually speaks to that subject.

[Robert]

What God permits, in His word He takes responsibility for it.

No Gerry, He ASSUMES the responsibility for it. Sin isn't His fault, never....To assume means that one day He will place it on the guilty one, Lucifer.

Rob

What is the name of the second goat in your Bible? In the KJV it is “Scapegoat.” In the original it is “Azazel,” and some of the modern translations will have that word. What does the word “Azazel” mean? In the Hebrew, words have meanings. What does the word mean? We do not know today because the Hebrew language changed in the ninth century and we do not know exactly what it means.

But here is what we have from the best of the scholars. According to the Hebrew scholars (these are not Christian scholars, but Jewish scholars), “Azazel” is the name of the devil. So the Hebrew scholars back us up. We do have not the Hebrew manuscript but we do have the Syriac manuscript, which is one of the oldest manuscripts. The Syriac manuscript for “Azazel” has this phrase “the angel that revolted.” Very interesting and a very reliable manuscript. Most Christian scholars interpret Azazel as the Scapegoat. What does scapegoat mean? If you looked it up in a dictionary, what does it mean? We use it in our English language.

Someone has to take the blame. That is the issue! When you deal with sin in a legal sense, as a transgression of the law, there are three things involved. First there is guilt. Then there is punishment. Then there is responsibility.

The thing is this: who is responsible for sin? One of the clear teachings of the Bible is the sovereignty of God. That means that nothing happens in the universe without the permission of God. That’s what it means. God is sovereign. Did God know that Lucifer would sin? Yes. Then why did He create him? That’s one of the big questions.

If God is sovereign, then He has allowed Satan to come in. He has allowed Satan to tempt Adam and Eve. This has created a problem and this was not solved on the cross. Let me give you an illustration. When Adam sinned and God came to visit him, what did he say to God when God asked why did you sin? He said, “This woman, whom You gave....” So upon whom was he putting the blame? On God. Today you will hear it all the time: “If God is love why is He allowing all the sicknesses and problems? If God is love, why is He allowing a drought in America?” These are the kind of questions that have to be solved if the great controversy is to come to an end.

So what does God do? God actually assumes the blame! He assumes the blame until the Day of Atonement. There is a text which I want you to look for, it’s in the Old Testament, where God is speaking. He says, “I have created evil.” You will find many texts in the Bible where God assumes the blame for many things. For instance God said, “I have hardened Pharaoh’s heart.” These texts cause a lot of problems to many Christians. You wonder why those texts are there. Well, it’s because God assumes the blame until the Day of Atonement. Because He’s sovereign and He allows things to happen, He has to assume the blame. Does He assume the blame for a good reason? Yes. But we will not know it until the judgment. [Jack]

[Gerr]

Quote:

This is really extremely poor logic. Do you think discussing things with people who use extremely poor logic is a waste of time? (My reason for asking this question is to point out that making statements that it's a "waste of time" to discuss things with certain people may be an opinion better left to oneself).

You are a relatively newcomer to the forum. You have no idea how many threads and weeks and months were spent discussing those issues.

I have no desire to rehash them all over again. If that amounts to poor logic, so be it.

[Gerr]

PS

Anyway, here's a quote for you to consider:

A single angel destroyed all the first-born of the Egyptians, and filled the land with mourning. When David offended against God by numbering the people, one angel caused that terrible destruction by which his sin was punished. The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when he permits. There are forces now ready, and only waiting the divine permission, to spread desolation everywhere. {GC88 614.2}

[Robert]

Gerry....You have your version of God. And what's sad is you will become more like your version.

When I was a legalist I was very judgmental. I always wanted to rid the church of sinners. In OT times I would have stoned them....If you believe in a God of wrath who kills those not responsible for sin then you will become like Him.

After all, John tells me that God killed the firstborn of Egypt, yet it was the grownups that were rejecting God....Why did God turn on the children? After all the Bible says, "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son." Ez 18:20

The bottom line is that God is not above His law....Paul tells us "agape is the fulfillment of the law" and John states that "God is agape". God, then, is the fulfillment of the law. He is agape and therefore He can't sin....Since murder/killing is sin, God cannot kill/murder.

[Robert]

PS

Anyway, here's a quote for you to consider:

A single angel destroyed all the first-born of the Egyptians, and filled the land with mourning. When David offended against God by numbering the people, one angel caused that terrible destruction by which his sin was punished. The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when he permits. There are forces now ready, and only waiting the divine permission, to spread desolation everywhere. {GC88 614.2}

We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible. Those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed. [CW 37]

[Robert]

When David offended against God by numbering the people, one angel caused that terrible destruction by which his sin was punished.

Wait...I see a problem:

"The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son." Ez 18:20

David sinned, David should die....Punishing those who didn't sin is unjust.

The conundrum is yours...

Rob

[Guest]

When I was a legalist I was very judgmental.

And now you're not? LOL, Please, you're killin me.

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: Robert

When I was a legalist I was very judgmental.

And now you're not? LOL, Please, you're killin me.

No....

But I know a legalist when I hear one....Been there, done that....

By judgmental I mean I would look at you and if you wore a wedding ring...or ate meat...or listened to contemporary Christian music...or didn't base your theology on EGW, well, you were going to hell....That type of fundamentalism.

Rob

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

When David offended against God by numbering the people, one angel caused that terrible destruction by which his sin was punished.

Wait...I see a problem:

"The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son." Ez 18:20

David sinned, David should die....Punishing those who didn't sin is unjust.

The conundrum is yours...

Rob

Dude, why don't you answer this one?

Waiting...

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

Not a judgement, just an observation.

And no, you haven't seen me do the same thing. If you have an example of me making something symbolic, that you thought should be literal, please show it.

It wasn't my point that there are things that you believe are symbolic which *I* think are literal, but that others (could be anyone) think are literal. For example, you think that "heart" is not literal, but Mark disagrees.

I don't spiritualize the word heart. It refers to a literal part of the body. We have been shown not only with scripture, Prov 23:7, but by the pen of inspiration that it is the center, or heart of the being, which is the mind.

[Guest]

No....

But I know a legalist when I hear one....Been there, done that....

By judgmental I mean I would look at you and if you wore a wedding ring...or ate meat...or listened to contemporary Christian music...or didn't base your theology on EGW, well, you were going to hell....That type of fundamentalism.

Rob

If it was that bad, you may actually be better off the way you are now. No that's not right either.

What you've done is go to the other extreme. Which is just as wrong. You're still off the path, and that's all that Satan cares about.

It sounds like you are an extremist by nature. And you still have some of the judgmental in you, whether you know it or not. But now you're just judging from a different angle. Everybody's a legalist.