"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[Gerr]

Like I said, the post you responded to was a response to Robert with whom I have had seemingly interminable discussions about the subject. Going through the same ground over and over is a fruitless endeavor.

If you both want to believe the Flood just "happened", that Satan will ignite himself, that the wicked will burn themselves up, you are free to believe it.

[pnattmbtc]

You raise a reasonable point here.

The Bible says in one place that God put Saul to death (2 Chron. 10: 14), yet in another place it states that Saul was killed by his own sword. 1 Sam. 31: 4; 1 Chron. 10: 4.

We may be sure that the writer of 1 Chronicles is not contradicting himself, because the two explanations are within only a few verses of each other, both being made by the same writer. Saul committed suicide after being defeated in battle, but God Himself was the efficient cause of both Saul's defeat in battle and his decision to commit suicide. Notice that this occurred after Saul had made his choice to turn away from God and after God had already rejected him. In PP 683, Ellen White explains that Saul was "rejected by God and abandoned to destruction: 'Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the Lord, even against the word of the Lord, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familar spirit, to inquire of it; and inquired not of the Lord: therefore He slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse.' 1 Chron. 10: 13, 14."

You say that "God Himself was the efficient cause of both Saul's defeat in battle and his decision to commit suicide," but quote EGW who says that Saul was "rejected by God and abandoned to destruction." Therefore God's "efficient cause" in Saul's case was to "abandon" him "to destruction." Iow, God killed Saul by abandoning him.

This is how God kills.

[Guest]

Like I said, the post you responded to was a response to Robert with whom I have had seemingly interminable discussions about the subject. Going through the same ground over and over is a fruitless endeavor.

If you both want to believe the Flood just "happened", that Satan will ignite himself, that the wicked will burn themselves up, you are free to believe it.

Amen!

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

I would invite anyone to try to explain the death of the Egyptians in the Red Sea in a way that shows it happened as a result of God's permissive will rather than His active will. Show, in other words, that God did not destroy the Egyptians in the waters that He had divided for the Israelites to pass over. See Exodus 14: 13-31. Remember that the explanation must account for, and make sense of, all the information that we're given in the text. I don't think it can be done but I am willing to seriously consider it and will change my mind if it can be shown that God didn't kill, or destroy, the Egyptians.

No, you never answered my question. The Bible states that the soul who sins will die. David, after committing adultery, didn't die...his son did. Why?

There are several possible explanations:

First, the statement in Ezekiel 18: 4 didn't mean that God would NEVER punish anyone through the death of a loved one. That's the problem we run into when we take one statement and apply it universally. There are almost always exceptions to every rule.

Second, I think some people might say that it could be that there was something "naturally" wrong with the baby, and as a result of David's sin, God didn't heal the baby as He otherwise would have. Therefore it appeared to be punishment for David's act but it really was not.

There's also the fact that the statement in Ezekiel was God's promise AFTER the time of David, Job, and the Exodus. It had seemed to the people during those times that children were punished for the sins of their parents, so God wanted to assure the Israelites that God wouldn't punishment them for the sins of previous generations. Their attitude was fatalistic. They were thinking that they might as well go ahead and sin since they would be punished for the sins of others anyway.

Although the context shows that the primary reference is to the first death, it should be remembered that the second death is the one that is punishment for sin. The first death is not really punishment. It's the natural consequence of inheriting Adam's mortal nature.

From the human viewpoint, what happened to David's baby looks really terrible, but from God's viewpoint, He knows that baby just went to sleep and will be in heaven after the resurrection. In some ways, Christ's death and resurrection made the first death into a blessing in disguise.

I would like to know what your answer is to your own question.

But now that you mentioned the death of others as a punishment for what someone else did, could you also explain what happened in 2 Samuel 24: 10-17? That's where it says that because of David's sin in numbering the people, "the Lord sent a plague upon Israel" so that 70,000 men of Israel died. It also says that "the angel of the Lord stretched out His hand over Jerusalem to destroy it." The fact that God caused the plague to stop shows that God was responsible for what happened, doesn't it?

Did God force the evil angels to stop killing? Or did God command the angel of the Lord to stop his destruction?

[teresaq]

Did you really want to claim that quote?

:)

[pnattmbtc]

This is a good illustration of the fact that the Bible sometimes attributes to God things that happen because of His permissive will rather than His active will. It is quite true that God did not personally and literally take the sword and thrust it into Saul's body, but God knew ahead of time what would be the sure result of His abandonment of Saul. It cannot be denied that it was God's will for Saul to die at that time.

[John317]

You say that "God Himself was the efficient cause of both Saul's defeat in battle and his decision to commit suicide," but quote EGW who says that Saul was "rejected by God and abandoned to destruction." Therefore God's "efficient cause" in Saul's case was to "abandon" him "to destruction." Iow, God killed Saul by abandoning him.

This is how God kills.

Most of what you say here is merely repeating what I have already said myself.

In my post, I quote that very passage by Mrs. White and say the same thing you did. But go back and reread my post. You will see my explanation for this in relation to events like the expelling of the Devil from heaven, the flood, etc. Please respond to my questions there and to my explanations as given in posts #327971.

(Added later: I see you have now replied to my post#327971. I'll study your response and reply in kind.)

The problem I see is that you use the deductive method to arrive at your conclusion that God never forces and therefore wouldn't have forced the Devil to leave heaven. In other words, you arrive at a conclusion on the basis of a few texts or passages, and then you try to apply them universally to every related instance in the Bible without truly examining what every one of those texts say. This method of study is superficial and does violence to the intended meaning of Scripture. It tends to look at the Bible from the viewpoint of wishful thinking rather than accepting it for what it actually teaches. It oversimplifies. That is the wrong way to approach it, I think.

A better way-- the inductive study method-- is to look at all the texts in the Bible related to the question BEFORE arriving at your conclusion. ALL the texts need to be considered. The truth will harmonize with ALL the Bible. The truth won't make you have to throw out major portions of the Bible or make it look like the Bible tells us things that are false. WE NEED TO BE SURE TO CONSIDER AND ACCEPT ALL THE INSPIRED EVIDENCE, NOT JUST PART OF IT.

[teresaq]

The reason that people are wrong who consider this illustration a principle that should be applied to situations like the throwing out of Satan from heaven is that both the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy contain explanations which show it was God's permissive will which determined Saul's fate. The narrative itself makes clear that God didn't literally kill Saul in the sense that God put the sword through his body. This is quite different from the situation where Satan was thrown out of heaven. In the latter case, the book of Revelation is clear that after Satan resisted God's decree that Satan was banished from Heavem, he was finally "thrown out," or "expelled." We not only have overwhelmsing evidence of this from the books of Revelation, 2 Peter, and Jude, but we have the clear statements of Ellen White, that Satan resisted God's decree and afterwards was "expelled." Unlike the case of Saul's death, which shows that Saul was allowed to kill himself of his own accord, there's no biblical evidence to support the view that Satan and the evil angels left heaven except by force. If anyone could produce clear statements from either the Bible or the SOP that God "permitted" Satan to leave rather than throwing him out of heaven, then the case for Satan's willing or voluntary departure would be very strong indeed. But as shown in previous posts on this thread, no such evidence has been produced.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

The reason that people are wrong who consider this illustration a principle that should be applied to situations like the throwing out of Satan from heaven is that both the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy contain explanations which show it was God's permissive will which determined Saul's fate. The narrative itself makes clear that God didn't literally kill Saul in the sense that God put the sword through his body. This is quite different from the situation where Satan was thrown out of heaven. In the latter case, the book of Revelation is clear that after Satan resisted God's decree that Satan was banished from Heavem, he was finally "thrown out," or "expelled." We not only have overwhelmsing evidence of this from the books of Revelation, 2 Peter, and Jude, but we have the clear statements of Ellen White, that Satan resisted God's decree and afterwards was "expelled." Unlike the case of Saul's death, which shows that Saul was allowed to kill himself of his own accord, there's no biblical evidence to support the view that Satan and the evil angels left heaven except by force. If anyone could produce clear statements from either the Bible or the SOP that God "permitted" Satan to leave rather than throwing him out of heaven, then the case for Satan's willing or voluntary departure would be very strong indeed. But as shown in previous posts on this thread, no such evidence has been produced.

spiritual things are spiritually discerned, not literally discerned.

Surely you can give a better response than this.

Of course spiritual things are spiritually discerned-- it always is-- but can you show what it means when applied to the question before us-- the casting out of Satan from heaven?

[teresaq]

If anyone could produce clear statements from either the Bible or the SOP that God "permitted" Satan to leave ...

is this what you are "hearing" those who disagree with your picture saying, john?

[Gerr]

Quote:

You become what you believe God is....If you think He is above His own law, then you too will play the hypocrite....As Jesus said,

"They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, a time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God."

Hmmmmmmm. I wonder what kind of God you believe in. Since you claim to have abandonned legalism, have you become more humble? More loving? Less judgmental? More gentle? Less abrasive? Less pompous?

[pnattmbtc]

The problem I see is that you use the deductive method to arrive at your conclusion that God never forces and therefore wouldn't have forced the Devil to leave heaven. In other words, you arrive at a conclusion on the basis of a few texts or passages, and then you try to apply them universally to every related instance in the Bible without truly examining what every one of those texts say. This method of study is superficial and does violence to the intended meaning of Scripture.

[Gerr]

Did your giving the "context" change the meaning of this statement?

"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}

[Gerr]

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.

"...visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation that hate me..." was God contradicting Himself?

[Gerr]

Assume: as•sume \ə-ˈsüm\ vt

as•sumed; as•sum•ing [ME, fr. L assumere, fr. ad- + sumere to take — more at consume] 15c

1 a : to take up or in : receive

b : to take into partnership, employment, or use

2 a : to take to or upon oneself : undertake 〈assume responsibility〉

b : put on, don

c : to place oneself in 〈assume a position〉

Merriam-Webster, I. (2003). Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary. Includes index. (Eleventh ed.). Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Take: a : assume 〈gods often took the likeness of a human being〉 〈when the college took its present form〉

b (1) : to enter into or undertake the duties of 〈take a job〉 〈take office〉

(2) : to move onto or into : move into position on 〈the home team took the field〉 〈take the witness stand〉

c (1) : to bind oneself by 〈take the oath of office〉

(2) : to make (a decision) esp. with finality or authority

d : to impose upon oneself 〈take the trouble to do good work〉 〈take pains to make her feel welcome〉

e (1) : to adopt as one’s own 〈take a stand on the issue〉 〈take an interest〉

(2) : to align or ally oneself with 〈mother took his side〉

f : to assume as if rightfully one’s own or as if granted 〈take the credit〉

g : to accept the burden or consequences of 〈took the blame〉

h : to have or assume as a proper part of or accompaniment to itself 〈transitive verbs take an object〉

Merriam-Webster, I. (2003). Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary. Includes index. (Eleventh ed.). Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, Inc.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

"...visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation that hate me..." was God contradicting Himself?

A couple of interesting things about this. One is that the Jewish tradition points out that while God visits the iniquity of the fathers of the children to the third and fourth generation, His blessings endure for a thousand generations for the faithful, so they see this as a tribute to God's graciousness.

The second is that the SOP explains this in terms of cause and effect, that it's not that God is taking some sort of arbitrary action to punish the children of certain individuals, but that it's generally the case that those who practice iniquity raise their children in the same way, and these suffer the consequences.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Did your giving the "context" change the meaning of this statement?

"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}

"Explained" is a better choice of words.

Something else to consider is the character of God in these types of questions. What does it say about God to believe He is acting in one way as opposed to another. These sorts of questions are very much worth thinking through.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

This is a good illustration of the fact that the Bible sometimes attributes to God things that happen because of His permissive will rather than His active will. It is quite true that God did not personally and literally take the sword and thrust it into Saul's body, but God knew ahead of time what would be the sure result of His abandonment of Saul. It cannot be denied that it was God's will for Saul to die at that time.

If you're talking about God's permissive will, I agree, this can't be denied, since God permitted it to happen. However, God's ideal will was that Saul repent, not that he die.

Yes, there can be no doubt that God's ideal was for Saul to repent and have eternal life. In the same way, God's ideaL was for Lucifer to never become the Devil and be thrown out of heaven. But we're not dealing with the ideal. We must come to grips with what actually happened, and what actually happened was that God expelled, or threw out, Satan and the other wicked spirits from heaven.

By the way, if you haven't already, please deal with the fact that Ellen White said Satan was "expelled" from heaven after God "decreed" that the Devil was "banished from Heaven." "Expelled" never refers to a free act on the part of the one who's expelled.

Also deal with the fact that the Bible uses the word, bello ["thrown out," "hurled down"], which, in the passive voice, is NEVER used to refer to something someone does voluntarily.

Quote:

JOHN317: In the final analysis, then, Saul's death was not by his own hand but by the hand of God.

Quote:

PNATTMBTC: ??? Is this what you really meant to say. Saul's death was cause by his own hand, NOT by the hand of God (you just said above "God did not personally and literally take the sword and thrust it into Saul's body,").

Yes, it is what I meant to say. Of course Saul died by his hand and with his own sword passing into his body. This is what any objective observer of that event would have seen and reported. And it is all they would have seen. It's the same with the flood: any objective observer would see rain and people and animals dying from drowning. And it's all they would see.

But what else is there? God's activity.

The Chronicler gives us the objective, historical view in 1 Chron. 10: 4, 5, and the theological view in v. 13. The first gives us what man sees without revelation, and the second shows us the work of God that is behind and above the decisions of men. Therefore while it's true that Saul committed suicide by his own sword, Saul was merely carrying out the will of God, who had decided that Saul must "die for his unfaithfulness which he had committed against the Lord, because he did not keep the word of the Lord, and also because he consulted a medium for guidance. But he did not inquire of the Lord; therefore He killed him, and turned the kingdom over to David the son of Jesse."

The question we need to ask and answer is, is this narrative accurate, true and trustworthy?

[John317]

...spiritual things are spiritually discerned, not literally discerned. ... He was expelled from heaven, .... {16MR 180.3}

Notice the word "expelled." Expelled is always used in reference to the use of force and the unwillingness of the one is who "expelled."

How do you explain this?

The "spiritual" is according to the words of Scripture and of Ellen White's writings. The spiritual will never contradict a plain "thus saith the Lord." Ellen White says Satan was "expelled" and that he said he would "resist to the point of force," "strength against strength." As stated before, the Bible also says that Satan was "thrown down to the earth." This is language incompatable with the view that Satan left heaven of his own volition or because he chose on his own to leave and go to the earth. Rev. also says Satan will be locked up on the earth during the 1000 years. That is obviously using force. Or do you believe that Satan decides to stay on earth during that time of his own free will? If force is used then, why not when he was expelled from heaven before the Fall of Adam, especially since both the Bible and Ellen White says he was?

[Gerr]

Fess up, John, and face that apparently you are not "spiritual" enough to comprehend "spiritual things" !!!

[Gerr]

Quote:

Did your giving the "context" change the meaning of this statement?

"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}

"Explained" is a better choice of words.

Something else to consider is the character of God in these types of questions. What does it say about God to believe He is acting in one way as opposed to another. These sorts of questions are very much worth thinking through.

Like - explained it away?

Yeah, I've thought it through. The antediluvians could not have perished by themselves. Nor will Satan and his angels burn themselves up voluntarily like the Islamic terrorist bombers. That God is not only a God of love but also a God of justice.

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

"Explained" is a better choice of words.

Something else to consider is the character of God in these types of questions. What does it say about God to believe He is acting in one way as opposed to another. These sorts of questions are very much worth thinking through.

Like - explained it away?

Yeah, I've thought it through. The antediluvians could not have perished by themselves. Nor will Satan and his angels burn themselves up voluntarily like the Islamic terrorist bombers. That God is not only a God of love but also a God of justice.

Amen!

[Gerr]

So there is a perfectly logical reason for David's baby to die without implying that somehow the baby was being punished for the parent's guilt.

[Guest]

The problem I see is that you use the deductive method to arrive at your conclusion that God never forces and therefore wouldn't have forced the Devil to leave heaven. In other words, you arrive at a conclusion on the basis of a few texts or passages, and then you try to apply them universally to every related instance in the Bible without truly examining what every one of those texts say. This method of study is superficial and does violence to the intended meaning of Scripture.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

If anyone could produce clear statements from either the Bible or the SOP that God "permitted" Satan to leave ...

is this what you are "hearing" those who disagree with your picture saying, john?

Yes, some are clearly saying that Satan left heaven of his own free choice.

If it is NOT what you are saying, please explain exactly what you ARE saying. Why did Satan leave? Please say it plainly, and support it with clear statements from Scripture and the SOP. For instance, the Bible says he was "thrown down to the earth." Can you show from the Bible's use of that term that it refers to voluntary action in some instances? Can you show also that "expelled" refers to actions that people take of their own free will and not due to force?

I believe myself that He was compelled to leave when God decreed that Satan was banished from heaven along with all the wicked angels, and I believe all the linguistic/exegetical evidence supports this view.