"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[skyblue888]

Quote:

TWILIGHT: Has God ever used compelling power against him? Look at 1 SM 288. Speaking of the temptations of Christ by Satan, Ellen White writes, "At the divine command of Christ [to withdraw], he was compelled to obey. He was repulsed and silenced. He had no power to enable him to withstand the peremptory dismissal. He was compelled without another word to instantly desist and to leave the world's Redeemer."

Quote:

skyblue888: .... If God refused to restrain the evil agencies we would all be history.

I agree, of course. Satan hates all human beings and only uses us and then throws us away when he's finished with us. He considers us a garbage and as fodder in his war against cHRIST. He inspires humans to destroy everything God made and loves.

But it's for this very reason that God had to destroy the world in a flood, and also the very reason He had to command Israel to annihilate the nations aligned with Satan.

I agree that God never uses compelling power to make people accept Him as Lord and Savior or to be saved. He also did not use it to compel Satan to do wickedness. I agree with you that He never uses it to win the war of the great controversy. In fact, that has been my point-- and the point of several others-- since the beginning of this discussion. But the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy show that God has used compelling power in order to compel Satan and the evil angels to stop certain activities or to move them out of heaven onto the earth, etc.

We agree, though, that the great controversy was won by love and truth in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. God didn't win the war by the use of compelling power.

Quote:

skyblue888: but He did, by His own spilt blood, purchase the right to control or restrain the forces of evil to protect the earth from being destroyed and to protect all who seek Him for refuge. He does restrain the agencies of evil even to protect those who do not love Him. But He will not be able to do this for ever.

We agree, sky, but you appear to have skirted the fundamental fact that Ellen White says that God compelled Satan to cease his temptation of Christ in the wilderness.

Ellen White even uses the word "compel," it is obvious she means it in the sense of the use of "force."

She also says that Satan will be "constrained" to acknowledge God's justice and to bow to the supremacy of Christ. GC 671: par. 2. The primary meaning of "constrain" is to "compel."

Satan was constrained to leave for Jesus had passed the test. That promise was for Jesus too, that he would not be "tempted above what he was able." 1 Cor.10:13. Even before the foundation of the world, through the merits of a Saviour to come, God had earned that perfect right to protect and deliver those who would be tempted by the great adversary. This restraining or compelling power on the part of God has nothing to do with the statement pnatt often quotes to the effect that "compelling power is found only under Satan's government."

This compelling is not about the use of force to win the controversy.

sky

[John317]

Quote:

skyblue888:

Yes he was compelled to obey. So? are you implying that in order to win the controversy God has to use force or compelling power?

Yes, you are right, God does not HAVE to use compelling power to win the controversy; but He has sometimes used it. He didn't have to drive Satan out of heaven, but He chose to do it. The same in many other situations.

We agree that His use of compelling power does not win the controversy against sin and Satan. God never uses force in order to win the war. The war, as we both agree, was finally won at the cross and in the life, resurrection, and mediation of Christ.

But this raises an interesting and important point.

It proves that there is no "universal principle" according to which which God never uses compelling power or force. That was the argument-- based on DA 22, "the use of force is contrary to the principles of God's government"-- used to try to prove that "cast out" in Rev. 20: 9 does not mean God forced Satan to leave heaven. The context of DA 22 has to do with denying that God uses force to win people back to Him-- this is what God will not do. She never says that God will never use compelling force or power per se, or under any & all circumstances. In fact, as we have shown, she gives numerous examples of God's use of such power--- yet never for the purpose of winning the controversy or of making people accept Him.

I think we both agree now that God did use compelling force to free Israel from Egypt.

Based on these facts I don't think the argument can be made any more that we can be sure God will not destroy the wicked with fire because God never uses compelling power or force, or that God has never directly destroyed anyone.

[Robert]

I believe she had more light than you and I and all of us here put together have ever received or even begun to understand.

sky

The question has been asked me, "Do you think that the Lord has any more light for us as a people?" I answer that He has light that is new to us, and yet it is precious old light that is to shine forth from the Word of truth [the Bible]. We have only the glimmerings of the rays of the light that is yet to come to us. [1SM 401]

[skyblue888]

Mrs. White was so meek and lowly. Of course there is still much light to come. "More of thee," and the Spirit's answer is "Much more."

But we know and understand so little of what has already been given that it is as though it had never been given.

sky

[Twilight]

Quote:

At the divine command of Christ [to withdraw], he was compelled to obey.

Quote:

This compelling is not about the use of force to win the controversy.

This compelling shows us what God has done after He has won the controversy then Sky?

So you are saying it is okay for God to compel when the point has already been made?

In other words....

When God has made His point, then He can compel Satan and Sin to be sent away?

This is what you seem to be saying, would you agree with that?

Mark :-)

[Twilight]

So we are saying:

God will compel when the victory is won.

As is shown by this principle stated here:

Quote:

At the divine command of Christ [to withdraw], he was compelled to obey.

[John317]

Quote:

skyblue888: I believe she had more light than you and I and all of us here put together have ever received or even begun to understand.

Quote:

Robert (quoting Ellen White): The question has been asked me, "Do you think that the Lord has any more light for us as a people?" I answer that He has light that is new to us, and yet it is precious old light that is to shine forth from the Word of truth. We have only the glimmerings of the rays of the light that is yet to come to us. 1 SM 401

Sure, there's no question that the Lord has much more light for us to discover in His Word. But it's important to also consider such quotes as these, from the very same book, 1 SM:

"Have I not a knowledge of the state of the church, when the Lord has presented their case before me again and again for years? Repeated warnings have been given, yet there has been no decided change.... Yet now when I send you a testimony of warning and reproof, many of you declare it to be merely the opinion of Sister White. You have thereby insulted the Spirit of God. You know how the Lord has manifested Himself through the Spirit of prophecy. Past, present, and future hae passed before me. I have been shown faces that I had never seen, and years afterward I knew them when I saw them. I have been aroused from my sleep with a vivid sense of subjects previous presented to my mind and I have written, at midnight, letters that have gone across the continent, and arriving at a crisis, have saved great disaster to the cause of God. This has been my work for many years. A power has impelled me to reprove and rebuke wrongs that I had not thought of. Is this work of the last 36 years from above or from beneath?..." 1 SM 27

"Early in my youth I was asked several times, Are you a prophet? I have ever responded, I am the Lord's messenger. I know that many have called me a prophet, but I have made no claim to this title. My Savior declared me to be His messenger. 'Your work,' He instructed me, 'is to bear My word. Strange things will arise, and in your youth I set you apart to bear the message to the erring ones, to carry the word before unbelievers, and with pen and voice to reprove from the Word actions that are not right. Exhort from the Word. I will make My Word open to you. It shall be as a strange language. In the true eloquences of simplicity, with voice and pen, the message that I give shall be heard from one who has never learned in the schools. My Spirit and My power shall be with you.

"'Be not afraid of man, for My shield shall protect you. It is not you that speaketh: it is the Lord that giveth the messages of warning and reproof. Never deviate from the truth under any circumstances. Give the light I shall give you. The messages for these last days shall be written in books, and shall stand immortalized, to testify against those who have once rejoiced in the light, but who have been led to give it up becasue of the seductive influences of evil.'

"Why have I not claimed to be a prophet?-- Because in these days many who boldly claim that they are prophets are a reproach to the cause of Christ; and beccause my work includes much more than the word 'prophet' signifies." 1 SM 32

[skyblue888]

Mark, yours are rethorical questions, nothing more. The victory was not yet won when it is said that Satan was compelled to withdraw. Jesus had not even begun His ministry yet, let alone winning the victory.

You are grasping at this statement "At the divine command, he was compelled to withdraw" as though this was going to decide the whole issue as to whether or not at any time God has stood as an executioner of the sentence against transgression.

This statement does not infer in any way, shape, or form that His judgments, at times, or at any time for that matter, come directly out from Him upon the disobedient.

So the fact that Satan was "compelled" to withdraw from Jesus does not decide the issue in any way, shape, or form.

sky

[Twilight]

You are contradicting yourself Sky.

Quote:

The victory was not yet won when it is said that Satan was compelled to withdraw. Jesus had not even begun His ministry yet, let alone winning the victory.

If your previous statement is correct:

Quote:

This compelling is not about the use of force to win the controversy.

Then God can only use compelling force when the controversy is settled.

But now you have said that the victory was not yet won.

So now, Jesus had no right to use compelling force.

-----------------

So Sky, another simple question:

When is it "ok" for God to use compelling force?

In love,

Mark :-)

[skyblue888]

"Satan had questioned whether Jesus was the Son of God. In his summary dismissal (Get thee behind me Satan; for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve) he had proof that he could not gainsay. Divinity flashed through suffering humanity. Satan had no power to resist the command. Writhing with humiliation and rage, he was forced to withdraw from the presence of the world's Redeemer. Christ's victory was as comnplete as had been the failure of Adam. So we may resist temptation, and force Satan to depart from us." D.A.130.

When Christ spoke the words, "Get thee behind me Satan," His guardian angel stood between him and Satan. And thus Satan could no longer harrass him. His guardian angels were as a wall of fire around him which the powers of hell could not prevail against. So it may be with us. Satan was "compelled" to withdraw. There was no physical battle there that took place between His guardian angels and Satan and his angels. The Holy angels are clothed with the panoply of Heaven. Their presence is sufficient to keep the evil angels at bay. They need not fight with them.

In the garden of Gethsemane when the soldiers first attempted to apprehend Jesus, His guardian angel stood between him and the mob and they fell to the ground as dead men and yet they were not hurt. It was the same at the temptation of Christ in the wilderness. At the resurrection, "the angel of the Lord descended from Heaven. Clothed with the panoply of Heaven, this angel left the heavenly courts. The bright beams of God's glory went before him, and illuminated His pathway." Now notice these words, "Now, priest and rulers, where is the power of your guard? Brave soldiers that have never been afraid of human power are now as captives taken without sword or spear." D.A.778 Here too they fell to the ground as dead men but they were not hurt!

Now that says something, doesn't it?

sky

[Robert]

Whatever!

[pnattmbtc]

Mark, regarding Satan being compelled to obey, this is a simply thing. As has been explained, God has to limit the access of Satan. On the one hand, God has to allow Satan enough access to present his case, which includes being able to tempt us to a certain extent. But Satan's access to us is not limited, not even in terms of temptation. To all Satan too much or not enough access would be to not have a fair controversy. God acts in such a way that the great controversy is fair to both sides.

When Satan was compelled to obey Christ, this was consistent with what God has always been doing in providing for a fair fight. Christ had been fasting for 40 days. Satan was given a chance to deceive Christ, to tempt Him to fall, and failed. That session was over, and Satan's access was restricted, just as it was before the temptation began.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

When is it "ok" for God to use compelling force?

If by "compelling force," you mean "compelling power," DA 659 tells us that compelling power is found only under Satan's government. So whenever God can use a principle that's found only under Satan's government, He can use compelling power.

[pnattmbtc]

Yes, you are right, God does not HAVE to use compelling power to win the controversy; but He has sometimes used it.

But compelling power isn't even a principle of God's government. It's found only under Satan's government. It didn't even exist until the invention of sin. Compelling power is the fruit of sin.

Why would God use something which is:

a.The fruit of sin

b.Didn't even exist until the invention of sin

c.Is a principle found only under the government of the enemy

AND

d.Is a principle He doesn't have to use?

Why wouldn't God instead choose to win the Great Controversy by using principles which are found under *His* government?

[John317]

Whatever!

"Have I not a knowledge of the state of the church, when the Lord has presented their case before me again and again for years? Repeated warnings have been given, yet there has been no decided change.... Yet now when I send you a testimony of warning and reproof, many of you declare it to be merely the opinion of Sister White. You have thereby insulted the Spirit of God. You know how the Lord has manifested Himself through the Spirit of prophecy. Past, present, and future hae passed before me. I have been shown faces that I had never seen, and years afterward I knew them when I saw them. I have been aroused from my sleep with a vivid sense of subjects previously presented to my mind and I have written, at midnight, letters that have gone across the continent, and arriving at a crisis, have saved great disaster to the cause of God. This has been my work for many years. A power has impelled me to reprove and rebuke wrongs that I had not thought of. Is this work of the last 36 years from above or from beneath?..." 1 SM 27

"Early in my youth I was asked several times, Are you a prophet? I have ever responded, I am the Lord's messenger. I know that many have called me a prophet, but I have made no claim to this title. My Savior declared me to be His messenger. 'Your work,' He instructed me, 'is to bear My word. Strange things will arise, and in your youth I set you apart to bear the message to the erring ones, to carry the word before unbelievers, and with pen and voice to reprove from the Word actions that are not right. Exhort from the Word. I will make My Word open to you. It shall be as a strange language. In the true eloquence of simplicity, with voice and pen, the message that I give shall be heard from one who has never learned in the schools. My Spirit and My power shall be with you.

"'Be not afraid of man, for My shield shall protect you. It is not you that speaketh: it is the Lord that giveth the messages of warning and reproof. Never deviate from the truth under any circumstances. Give the light I shall give you. The messages for these last days shall be written in books, and shall stand immortalized, to testify against those who have once rejoiced in the light, but who have been led to give it up because of the seductive influences of evil.'"Why have I not claimed to be a prophet?-- Because in these days many who boldly claim that they are prophets are a reproach to the cause of Christ; and because my work includes much more than the word 'prophet' signifies." 1 SM 32

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

I think most would agree with you, Archie, concerning the natural reading of the Scriptures, verses a filtered view based on a "principle" which seems to contradict the most obvious interpretation. Off the top of my head I thought of 16 stories (not including other statements)which would make it impossible for anyone to deny that God didn't directly punish human beings for their evil. Impossible to deny only if one lets the Bible interpret itself.

1)The Flood

2)Abram's appeal to God not to destroy the righteous WITH the wicked"should not the Judge of all the earth do right?"

3)Sodom and Gomorrah (note that the angels told Lot that God had sent THEM to destroy.

4)Lot's wife (how does God's withdrawal turn a human into a pillar of salt?)

5)God threatens Moses life for failure to circumcise his sons.

6)The plagues of Egypt.Particularly the deaths of the f

irstborn.

7)Pharaoh's army miraculoulsy drowned

8)Fences at Sinai to keep the people from accidentally seeing God.

9)Nadab and Abihu killed by fire from God

10)Korah and his sympathizers killed by earthquake and fire.

Where have u been all this time, Doug? do we have to start all over again? don't you know the principles of interpretation by now? are we going to choose to ignore them as some have done and are continuing to do so? Either we accept these principles or we don't. If we do we will have no problem understanding what really happened in the Old Testament. Whether you realize it or not, your way of looking at these things is based on the "letter" only and not on the spiritual meaning of the Scriptures especially when the Lord has been so gracious to us in giving us the keys as to how to interpret the Old Testament. Remember that "All that man needs to know or can know about God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son." 8 T 286.

sky

"If they don't hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead." "For whatever things were written BEFORE were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope." Sky, I was taught ,when I was growing up, that the Bible was it's own best expositor. This is the only principle of interpretation I know.I'm sure that you can understand how hard it is to teach an old dog new tricks.Can you, using the proper method of interpretation,briefly explain these first 10 stories to me? Sorry, I guess I didn't post the last 7.Thanks

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

By the way, pnatt, is there a copyright on Ty's book?

Yes. It was published by Pacific Press in 2000.

[doug yowell]

Here's a few more:

11)The Amorites killed by hailstones

12)"If (the donkey) had not turned aside from me, surely I would also have killed you by now, and let her live."

13)Uzzah killed for touching the Ark

14)The unnamed prophet killed by a lion for disobeying God.

15)"If I am a man of God then let FIRE come down from heaven and consume you and your fifty men."

16)185,000 Assyrian soldiers besieging Jerusalem (Rev.20:7-10?)

17)Ananias and Sapphira

[pnattmbtc]

John317, please respond to #344711, or #344618. (#344711 was a request to respond to #344618).

There are two main subjects I'm trying to explore with you. One is the question of compelling power. The other is in regards to why you wouldn't reject the idea that God would torture people on the basis of His character. I still don't understand why you think it's within God to torture people. It's not something He's ever done before. It doesn't seems to be in harmony with anything Christ revealed. So why isn't the idea rejected?

The best I can understand from your answer is that you believe the Scriptures, or Ellen White (or both) teach that God will torture people, so that's that. The question of God's character doesn't seem to enter into things at all. You just ask the question, "What does the Bible say?" and if it leads you to believe something, anything at all in regards to God's character, such as that God will torture people, you just accept that. Have I understood you correctly on this point?

[pnattmbtc]

If you're looking for examples of God's being said to have acted violently, Doug, there's probably hundreds of these.

Here's a question I've been asking since the beginning of the thread, without an answer (but not for lack of trying!): Given that God is often presented as doing that which He permits, how do we know when He is said to have said something directly whether He did it directly or permitted it to happen?

For example, Scripture says that God sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites. But He didn't directly do anything. He removed His protecting hand. The serpents were already there.

We know that holy angels protect us (which includes the wicked) from a thousand dangers, all of them unseen.

How do you know if God is doing the thing directly or not? For example, consider the case of the fiery serpents. On what basis, considering Scripture, would you say that God didn't act directly here?

[John317]

He did and He does. What won the great controversy against sin and Satan was not compelling force but love and truth. When God used force, it was not to sin the war; but it is a way of controlling the forces of evil. God has a perfect right to control the forces of evil. But he never used "force" to win the war or to win the world back to Him. That is the context of the original statement in the Desire of Ages. God didn't use force to reveal Satan's evil character, and He didn't use force to make anyone accept Him.

But that God has used compelling force against the powers of wickedness is proved by both the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy.

Here's more positive proof:

The Bible says that God "drove" Adam and Eve from the Garden.

Ellen White adds details:

"God said that He would drive the transgressors from the garden... They [Adam and Eve] were informed that they WOULD HAVE TO lose their Eden home... It was not safe for them to remain in the garden of Eden, lest in their state of sin, they gain access to the tree of life... They earnestly entreated that they might remain in the home of their innocence and joy... Holy angels were sent to drive out the disobedient pair from the garden, while other angels guarded the way to the tree of life. Each one of these mighty angels held in his right hand a glittering sword. Strong angels, with beams of light representing flaming swords turning in every direction, were placed as sentinels to guard the way of the tree of life from the approach of Satan and the guilty pair... holy angels were sent to debar their [satan, the evil angels, and Adam and Eve's] way to the tree of life. Around these angels flashed beams of light on every side, which had the appearance of glittering swords."

The above shows several things: 1) God forced Adam and Eve to leave the garden of Eden; and 2) God forced Adam and Eve, as well as Satan and the evil angels, to keep away from the tree of life so they would not immortalize sin and rebellion.

God is wise and knows when it's necessary to use force against sin and those who are in rebellion against His government. He doesn't win the war by the use of force, but He does use force to control the spread of sin and its ability to destroy.

I'm sure we're all glad that God has done this. As sky himself pointed out in a recent post, God's selective use of compelling power does not win the war but it does help keep the wicked from destroying the righteous.

[John317]

Quote:

skyblue: By the way, pnatt, is there a copyright on Ty's book?

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Yes. It was published by Pacific Press in 2000.

I will try to get the book and read it, and then if you like, we could open a thread just devoted to a discussion of it. But I think we should also read together and discuss a book [to be named later] that is written from the 'traditional' viewpoint of the final destruction of the wicked. It could be done on the same thread when we talk about Ty's book. It would look at the pros and cons of both viewpoints. Just an idea.

[John317]

Quote:

pnattmbtc: If you're looking for examples of God's being said to have acted violently, Doug, there's probably hundreds of these.

Here's a question I've been asking since the beginning of the thread, without an answer (but not for lack of trying!)....

Just to point out something:

You've posted before that you have made responses before, only to have others post as if you hadn't made replies. But you are doing the same thing here. What you should say is that you have not received what you consider a satisfactory answer (but not because others have not tried to give you one).

It is one thing to say you have received no answer and quite another to say they haven't given you the answer you are looking for. Or that you would like further explanations.

Right?

PS. But, still, go ahead and say no one has answered you. We will know what is meant.

[pnattmbtc]

p:Why wouldn't God instead choose to win the Great Controversy by using principles which are found under *His* government?

J:He did and He does. What won the great controversy against sin and Satan was not compelling force but love and truth. When God used force, it was not to sin the war; but it is a way of controlling the forces of evil.

Everything God does and did is to win the war. I've made this point several times.

The war is in regards to God's character and the principles of His government. If compelling force is a principle of His government, then that's what His use of it reveals, and this is how He wins the way.

You can't split things up in the way you're trying to do. You can't say when God was using love and truth, He was winning the Great Controversy, but when He was using compelling power, He wasn't. The only way you could split things up like this would be if you could split God's character into different pieces, where this part is love and truth, but that part is compelling force. It doesn't work that way.

Everything God does, and has done, since the inception of sin is for the purpose of winning the Great Controversy. Nothing is excepted.

Does anyone understand this?

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Just to point out something:

You've posted before that you have made responses before, only to have others post as if you hadn't made replies. But you are doing the same thing here. What you should say is that you have not received what you consider a satisfactory answer (but not because others have not tried to give you one).

It is one thing to say you have received no answer and quite another to say they haven't given you the answer you are looking for. Or that you would like further explanations.

I haven't gotten any response that says: "This is how you can tell when God is doing something directly as opposed to permitting something to happen." I don't recall anything like this, anyway. And this is the question I've been asking.

It seems to me that this is a fundamental question, and I've been trying to find out how you, and those who think like you feel about this, and I still don't know.

If you can answer the question in a few sentences, I'd appreciate it. You could consider the case of the fiery serpents. On what basis do you conclude from Scripture that this incident was God acting passively and not actively? I would *really* like to know this, and if you've explained this before, and I didn't get it, I apologize, but this is something I'd really, really like to know.