"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[pnattmbtc]

A question I've asked repeatedly involves the SOP comment "compelling power is found only under Satan's government." It has been suggested that this means "compelling power is found only under Satan's government when its used for the purpose of winning the great controversy or forcing someone's will."

What I've pointed out is that if God threatens to burn you for days if you don't do what he says, this is coercing the will. Stephen Haskell's argument pointed this out eloquently.

No one has responded to this point.

The plagues of Egypt would be another example of this principle. If God applied more and more force until pharaoh final capitulated, then He was using compelling power to force the will, the very exception being cited.

It's interesting that the statement "Compelling power is only found under Satan's government" is taken to mean "Compelling power is NOT only found under Satan's government, unless it's in regards to coercing the will or winning the great controversy."

[Robert]

The SOP also says that when He returns, He will return as judge and king, to administer justice to every man according as his work shall be. A totally different role. The chance for salvation will be over.

So His character changes from one of love? Remember, the Bible says that "God is love"....It doesn't say that one of the characteristics of God is love. No, Love is who God is....How can He just stop loving - change hats - so that He can burn, some for many days, His enemies? Something doesn't add up. SO we are back to that Pauline quote, "For now we see through a glass, darkly - but then face to face".

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son. Testimonies for the Church, 8:286.

[Robert]

Rev 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

Sure...He gives each men the results of his choice. That's why Paul says, "Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap."

[Guest]

Quote:

What I've pointed out is that if God threatens to burn you for days if you don't do what he says, this is coercing the will. Stephen Haskell's argument pointed this out eloquently.

What you continue to misunderstand is that he is not coercing the will. Right now you have free will. Choose ye this day. At that time everybody's choice will have been made. Most will choose destruction, even though they don't have to. People know the consequences, and still choose destruction.

If promising to burn them up when it's all said and done were enough to coerce them, then nobody would choose death. But they do, because they have free will. He does not coerce them, but allows them to choose death. That's why it's true when EGW says they bring it on themselves.

[Robert]

Quote:

All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son. Testimonies for the Church, 8:286.

And if you look at Christ's life I can't find Him killing anyone....

[pnattmbtc]

What you continue to misunderstand is that he is not coercing the will. Right now you have free will. Choose ye this day.

Richard, if someone says to you, "Do what I tell you, or I'll torture you for days, but not right now. Later. Right now you have free will. Choose you this day." would you say your will is not being coerced?

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son. Testimonies for the Church, 8:286.

And if you look at Christ's life I can't find Him killing anyone....

Not only not killing anyone, but not being angry at them, or calling them a fool. Or violence of any kind. He taught "love your enemies" and "turn the other cheek," "walk the second mile."

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: John317

If I am taking care of a child and I allow the child to be killed by refusing to do what I could have done to save it, that is the same as destroying the child. If I have a big dog that wants to kill someone and I allow it to happen by opening the door of its pen knowing it will kill, am I not fully responsible for the victim's death?

This point has been raised and dealt with quite a number of times on this thread. The thing being missed here is that God was caused to remove His protection.

doesnt that make God guilty for all the children dying a slow horrible death of starvation? doesnt that make Him guilty of the 200 million-and growing-orphaned children?

just to name a two...doesnt that make God guilty of everything bad that happens because He doesnt prevent it?

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: Richard

What you continue to misunderstand is that he is not coercing the will. Right now you have free will. Choose ye this day.

Richard, if someone says to you, "Do what I tell you, or I'll torture you for days, but not right now. Later. Right now you have free will. Choose you this day." would you say your will is not being coerced?

But He doesn't say that. He says: Why will you die when you don't have to? Reach out and take my hand so I can save you from what's coming.

It would be like if say the government came to your neighborhood and said: Ok people, were going to have to burn down your neighborhood because it is infested with the "killer trapazoid head lice". But not to worry, we have built you a new neighborhood across town that is 100 times nicer than this one.

All you have to do is come and move into your new homes. But we do have to burn this one down because if we don't kill the "killer trapazoid head lice" now, they will spread to all the world, and everybody will die.

You have one group that says: Alright lets go! We're gonna have much nicer homes and everything! And I heard we won't have to eat the government cheese anymore. They're going to supply us with Cheddar, and Swiss, and Gouda. Come on let's go!!

Then there's this other group that says: No, we're not going anywhere. We've been here to long to move.

(Gov) But we have to burn the place down to kill all the head lice. You'll be burned up.

We don't care if we burn up, we're not moving.

(Gov) But we built you new homes and everything. We've even stocked the refrigerators with exotic cheeses.

Don't matter. We're not going anywhere. Go ahead and start the fire.

Decision: Burn the place down and save the world from the Killer Trapazoid Head Lice. Or, let them stay there, and let the whole world die.

It's not like they were not warned of the consequences. Go get the matches.

[pnattmbtc]

It's not like that at all. Your idea is that God sets people on fire. Not some house where the people are collateral damage, but specifically certain people, for a specific amount of time. It's exactly what I said, as if someone said, "Richard, if you don't do what I say, you'll be set on fire to burn for 2 days and 4 hours. Not right now, but later. So your will is free."

If there's a sentence of being burned on fire hanging over your head, your will is being coerced.

[Guest]

I can honestly say: That fire that God has told us about, has absolutely nothing to do with why I choose to serve the LORD. I have not been coerced into being a Christian.

Also I never argue with what God says He will do. He knows what He's doing. Our ways are not His ways, and our thoughts are not His thoughts. To believe that we need to be able to figure His ways out, so that they all make perfect sense to us, is foolishness.

[Robert]

I can honestly say: That fire that God has told us about, has absolutely nothing to do with why I choose to serve the LORD.

Would you be someone's friend if they told you the following:

Hey, let's go hunting & fishing...we could hang out and be buddies, but - by the way - if you ever quit being my friend I will douse you with kerosine and light you on fire. But hey, don't let that influence you.

Would you be friends with such a person?

If so, wouldn't it be out of fear?

Rob

[Robert]

Richard, if someone says to you, "Do what I tell you, or I'll torture you for days, but not right now. Later.

[John317]

Quote:

skyblue888John, What do you think God meant when He said that He will send strong delusion to those who do not receive the love of the truth?

We've talked about that before-- at least I've made at least two posts in its regard-- but maybe you didn't see the post.

2 Thess. 2: 10-12 says, "This lawless one will appear with the power of Satan, performing miracles and wonderful signs at the service of deception. All the deceits of evil will then be used for the ruin of those who refused to love truth and be saved. This is why God will send them the power of delusion, that they may believe what is false. So all those who chose wickedness instead of believing the truth will be condemned." (Christian Community Bible)

What it means is that God allows people to have their lies if they want them. He sends the truth but some people go into darkness because they resist the light. That is how the Pharaoh's heart was hardened-- or how he hardened his own heart. God commanded him to let Israel go and the Pharaoh resisted God. When people do that, they harden their heart. It is like putting a callous around the heart or conscience. I don't know of any good student of the Bible who is unaware that this is the meaning of the verse, including Catholics and Protestants alike. I say this in order to show that it's common among believers of all faiths to recognize that the Bible often gives credit to God for doing that which happens by His permissive will.

For example, here's an accurate comment in the Christian Community Bible (Catholic) on 2 Thess. 2: 11:

"Once again we have the Hebrew turn of phrase that should be translated: God will allow the forces of deceit to act. The same people who do not take into account decisive arguments in favor of the fatih, later follow doctrine and opinions without foundation."

This understanding is plain from studying the rest of Scripture as well as the writings of Ellen White. I do not think that anyone in the Seventh-day Adventist church ever believed that God wills, or wants, people to believe a lie. He does everything He can to save them by sending them the truth. If they reject it and believe a lie, it is because they choose to.

From Jamieson, Fausset & Brown's Commentary:

"God judicially sends hardness of heart on those who have rejected the truth, and gives them up in righteous judgment to Satan's delusions (Is. 6: 9, 10; Rom. 1: 24-26, 28). They first cast off the love of the truth, then God gives them up to Satan's delusions, then they settle down into 'beleiving the lie"; an awful climax (1 Kings 22: 22, 23; Ezekiel 14: 9; Job 12: 16 ; Matt. 24: 11, 11; 1 Tim. 4: 1)."

The point I would make here is that it's well known destructive powers are exercised by the loyal angels at God's command, and also by Satan's angels when God permits.

When it comes to acceptance of truth or acceptance of God and salvation, God never uses compelling force.

This is from the very popular Life Application Bible:

"God gives people freedom to turn their backs on him and believe Satan's lies. If they say no to the truth, they will experience the consequences of their sin."

What is the difference between this and the statements in the Bible which say that God destroyed people, such as at Sodom and in the Flood?

The difference is that the Bible tells us that God doesn't lie to people, but it does say that God has destroyed the wicked before and that God will ultimately destroy the wicked at the end of the one thousand years. This is exactly what the SDA Bible commentary says, as well as Ellen G. White, so that it is clear that acceptance of 2 Thess. 2: 11 as teaching that God permits people to believe a lie after they reject the truth, is perfectly in line with solid biblical hermeneutics.

Notice also the SDA BC comment at Rev. 20: 9: "Fire. This doubtless refers to literal fire as the means of destruction."

Does this mean that this view of the destruction of the wicked is necessarily true? No. All Bible Commentaries contain some errors, of course. The student needs to study carefully and compare the evidence that's presented for various positions, including the one taken by the SDA commentary. But I'm simpy pointing out that the best scholars in the SDA church have determined that there is no contradiction between 2 Thess. 2: 11 and Rev. 20: 9. Ellen White makes the same point when she says that the power of destruction comes from two sources: God's angels at his command and the devil's angels when God permits. It's an important principle to keep in mind.

[Robert]

No one understands all the mysteries in the Bible....No one. And in speaking of God's agape, Paul says, "we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see [God] face to face."

Concerning this topic there are two schools of thought:

1] God kills

2] God doesn't kill

Both parties have their evidence...neither side as the leg up on the other....So, what do we do?

For me I have sided on # 2. It makes sense even though there seems to be counter evidence. In my mind God can't be both...He can't love his enemies with an "everlasting love"...He can't love us more than Himself and at the same time payback evil with evil.

No matter how you twist it, in my mind, if it is evil for me to burn someone for many days, it is evil for God to do so. You will never, in a billion years, get me to synthesize the two. If I must err I must err on the side of God's everlasting love - a love where God loves His enemies more than Himself.

So for God to be directly responsible for the destruction of his fallen, unbelieving children troubles me. Hence, as I said, I must err on the side of mercy and love. I can do no other.

Does this mean that God's fallen, unbelieving children will not perish? No, but not directly of God's doing. God releases those who persist in unbelief...but it wounds His heart with a sorrow that we cannot understand.

Rob

[Archie777]

Archie: This is my first post on Club Adventist. I haven't read every page on this thread. I hope you don't mind me jumping in and participating.

I believe "war in heaven" is real and not metaphorical. Whether it was a war of words or weapons or both I don't know. I suspect it was both. The evil angels were, after all, cast out of heaven. I doubt they left willingly. To this day, under certain circumstances, evil angels flee the presence of holy angels. I suppose it's because they are afraid, and I doubt they are afraid of words. Do they wield literal swords? I don't know. Do "swords" symbolize weapons? Probably. But I can't say what kind or what it looks like.

Has God ever destroyed sinners? Ellen White thought so.

The plea may be made that a loving Father would not see His children suffering the punishment of God by fire while He had the power to relieve them. But God would, for the good of His subjects and for their safety, punish the transgressor. God does not work on the plan of man. He can do infinite justice that man has no right to do before his fellow man. Noah would have displeased God to have drowned one of the scoffers and mockers that harassed him, but God drowned the vast world. Lot would have had no right to inflict punishment on his sons-in-law, but God would do it in strict justice. {LDE 241.2}

Who will say God will not do what He says He will do?--12MR 207-209; 10MR 265 (1876). {LDE 241.3}

Richard: Amen Archie, and welcome to the forum!

Thank you. The quote above didn't elicit much discussion. Has it already been considered? Who "drowned the vast world" if not God? Who inflicted "punishment" on Lot's sons-in-law if not God?

[Guest]

Good questions Archie. The folks here that believe God has never destroyed anything, claim that they have found a "universal principle" in the writings of EGW, that negates all of her other quotes, and any Bible texts that say God has or will destroy. (LOL, I know what you're thinking)

A fellow called Mountain Man, from another forum, used that exact same quote you did, and I borrowed it, and brought it here. Of course it was met with the same kind of nonsense that every other quote is, that denies their position.

Satan rushes into the midst of his followers and tries to stir up the multitude to action. But fire from God out of heaven is rained upon them, and the great men, and mighty men, the noble, the poor and miserable, are all consumed together. I saw that some were quickly destroyed, while others suffered longer. They were punished according to the deeds done in the body. {EW 294}

Rev 20:9 And they went up over the breadth of the earth, and encircled the camp of the saints, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

[Robert]

they have found a "universal principle" in the writings of EGW....

Incorrect....In the Bible. My favorite is as follows:

Deut 31:17 Then My anger shall be kindled 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?'

BTW, you've never answered me on the following:

Ex 4:11 The Lord said to him [Moses], "Who made the human mouth? Who makes him mute or deaf, seeing or blind? Is it not I, the Lord?

Does God cause His children to be born death, blind and mute?

[skyblue888]

No one understands all the mysteries in the Bible....No one. And in speaking of God's agape, Paul says, "we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see [God] face to face."

Concerning this topic there are two schools of thought:

1] God kills

2] God doesn't kill

Both parties have their evidence...neither side as the leg up on the other....So, what do we do?

For me I have sided on # 2. It makes sense even though there seems to be counter evidence. In my mind God can't be both...He can't love his enemies with an "everlasting love"...He can't love us more than Himself and at the same time payback evil with evil.

No matter how you twist it, in my mind, if it is evil for me to burn someone for many days, it is evil for God to do so. You will never, in a billion years, get me to synthesize the two. If I must err I must err on the side of God's everlasting love - a love where God loves His enemies more than Himself.

So for God to be directly responsible for the destruction of his fallen, unbelieving children troubles me. Hence, as I said, I must err on the side of mercy and love. I can do no other.

Does this mean that God's fallen, unbelieving children will not perish? No, but not directly of God's doing. God releases those who persist in unbelief...but it wounds His heart with a sorrow that we cannot understand.

Rob

________________________

Amen!

[Archie777]

Richard, is there a strong God does not destroy presence on this forum? Do they see everything harmonizing with one basic principle? Or, do they accept that God has other ways of accomplishing His goals?

[Archie777]

No matter how you twist it, in my mind, if it is evil for me to burn someone for many days, it is evil for God to do so. You will never, in a billion years, get me to synthesize the two. If I must err I must err on the side of God's everlasting love - a love where God loves His enemies more than Himself.

So for God to be directly responsible for the destruction of his fallen, unbelieving children troubles me. Hence, as I said, I must err on the side of mercy and love. I can do no other.

Does this mean that God's fallen, unbelieving children will not perish? No, but not directly of God's doing. God releases those who persist in unbelief...but it wounds His heart with a sorrow that we cannot understand.

Are you 100% certain you are right about God? Do you have "the leg up" on those who believe He will punish and destroy the wicked at the end of time? Or, are you merely hoping you're right? What if you're wrong? Would you be happy spending eternity knowing God punished and destroyed millions of men, women, and children? Or, would you be so devastated you'd rather die? Just how certain are you that you're right? Are you faithful enough to survive the risk?

[Robert]

Are you 100% certain you are right about God?

[Woody]

Good Points Rob.

[Robert]

Good Points Rob.

Thank you, sir....I like the name change.... teehe TU