"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[pnattmbtc]

Regarding the other subject, I haven't heard any response for awhile, so I'll reiterate. One question I've had is in regards to compelling power. The SOP tells us:

Quote:

Compelling power is found only under Satan's government. The Lord's principles are not of this order. (DA 759)

Ordinarily this would be a clear quote. That is, if she had written:

Quote:

(put something here) is found only under Satan's government. The Lord's principles are not of this order. (DA 759)

The "put something here" thing would be understood as a bad thing, something pertaining to Satan, and not to God. But because people have the preconceived notion that compelling power is something which God uses, this sentence has been understood to mean instead:

Quote:

Compelling power is NOT to be found only under Satan's government (except for two exceptions).

The two exceptions given were to force someone to accept Christ, and the other to win the Great Controversy.

The problem with the Great Controversy argument is that to win the Great Controversy involves the revelation of God's character and principles of His government. If God uses compelling power, then that's a principle of His government, and His use of that power, by definition, is involved in winning the Great Controversy, so this dispenses with this exception.

The other exception, that God doesn't use compelling power to force people to accept Christ, is of course true, but two objections have been raised against this point.

1.The context in DA 759 is not dealing with using compelling power to force people to accept Christ.

2.Those holding this view also hold the view that God will set people on fire for the purpose of punishing them.

From Websters we read that "torture" is

Quote:

the infliction of intense pain (as from burning) to punish

which looks to be exactly what this position is advocating. What has been pointed out is that if one in power threatens to torture you if you don't do what is commanded, then compelling power is being used, and the second exception, that God doesn't use compelling power to force people to accept Christ, would also be false. We'd just be left with

Quote:

Compelling power is NOT found only under Satan's government. The Lord's principles ARE of this order.

which is the exact opposite of what EGW was claiming.

This is one point.

A second point is in regards to how one can have the concept in one's head that God would torture people who didn't do what He said. This is so contrary to what Jesus Christ lived and taught that I've been asking, in vain, for some sort of explanation of how this is possible.

[Guest]

The problem with the Great Controversy argument is that to win the Great Controversy involves the revelation of God's character and principles of His government. If God uses compelling power, then that's a principle of His government, and His use of that power, by definition, is involved in winning the Great Controversy, so this dispenses with this exception.

Not so fast there pnat. The controversy is not won by compelling power. Out of all the souls that will be saved and go to heaven, not one of them was compelled or forced to except Christ as their savior. And just as the quote says: "Rebellion was not to be overcome by force" Not one person will have overcome their rebellion by force. But by the principles of God's government. Which are truth and love.

Those that will finally be destroyed have been allowed to hang on to their sin and rebellion, because God would never forcefully take it from them. They will wish that God had forced them when the time comes for sin to be destroyed forever. And contrary to your belief, sin does not destroy itself, although it is destructive. Sin grows like a cancer, and spreads like a desease. If sin destroyed itself, man would have stopped sinning a long time ago and returned to the principles of God's government.

Sin must be destroyed at all cost, for the good of the entire universe. And our God is not only a God of love, but a God of justice also. The penalty of sin must be finally paid, and however God chooses to do that is perfect and just. And we are not in the dark (at least some of us aren't) as to how He will do this. There are plenty of straight forward descriptions, both in the Bible and the SOP, for anyone to read, who hasn't been taught to twist them and try to make them say something else. Ellen White was not wrong when she said:

I saw that some were quickly destroyed, while others suffered longer.They were punished according to the deeds done in the body. {EW 294}

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......Then I saw that Satan and all the wicked host were consumed, and the justice of God was satisfied; {EW 294,5

[Archie777]

A: How is this any different than, "Live in harmony with My will or you'll cause Me to let evil men or evil angels kill you"?

P: I quoted the section from GC 35-36 at length. Do you find fault with the principle laid out there? Would you characterize that principle as, "Live in harmony with My will or I'll let evil men or evil angels kill you."? Do you see what she described as a negative thing?

Yes, regarding the "withdraw and permit principle", I see it as an ultimatum: Obey and live, disobey and die. It is the same thing as Jesus saying, "Live in harmony with My will or you'll cause Me to let evil men or evil angels kill you." It's not a threat; rather, it is a promise.

[Archie777]

This "compact" called the "old covenant" (lower case) grew out of the condition of unbelief of the people, which is the Old Covenant (upper case), which is not a matter of time, but of condition.

[Robert]

Like the Jews, we must bravely respond, "All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient." Unlike the Jews, however, we must understand it is Jesus who dwells within us and empowers us to obey and observe “all things whatsoever” He commanded.

But like the Jews many SDA think they must be Holy to gain heaven. If this is the case then you can forget paradise. Until we can say that we "thought not, planned not, lived not, for" ourselves then it is all just smoke and mirrors...

Again, EGW: We may have flattered ourselves, as did Nicodemus, that our life has been upright, that our moral character is correct, and think that we need not humble the heart before God, like the common sinner: but when the light from Christ shines into our souls, we shall see how impure we are; we shall discern the selfishness of motive, the enmity against God, that has defiled every act of life. [sC 28]

[pnattmbtc]

p:The problem with the Great Controversy argument is that to win the Great Controversy involves the revelation of God's character and principles of His government. If God uses compelling power, then that's a principle of His government, and His use of that power, by definition, is involved in winning the Great Controversy, so this dispenses with this exception.

R:Not so fast there pnat. The controversy is not won by compelling power.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

A: How is this any different than, "Live in harmony with My will or you'll cause Me to let evil men or evil angels kill you"?

P: I quoted the section from GC 35-36 at length. Do you find fault with the principle laid out there? Would you characterize that principle as, "Live in harmony with My will or I'll let evil men or evil angels kill you."? Do you see what she described as a negative thing?

A:Yes, regarding the "withdraw and permit principle", I see it as an ultimatum: Obey and live, disobey and die. It is the same thing as Jesus saying, "Live in harmony with My will or you'll cause Me to let evil men or evil angels kill you." It's not a threat; rather, it is a promise.

I wrote:

Quote:

If you wish to characterize this accurately, the "God is caused to withdraw and permit destruction principle" would be much better. God doesn't withdraw on a whim, as you seem to be implying. God is "caused to withdraw."

As I stated, this is a vital point.

I explained that "withdraw and permit" was inaccurate, explained why this was the case, and brought out that this is a vital point. Yet here is this unfortunate expression again. Why?

[pnattmbtc]

I did some research and failed to find where Jesus formed another “compact”, another “covenant” with the Jews in response to a condition of unbelief.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Again, EGW: We may have flattered ourselves, as did Nicodemus, that our life has been upright, that our moral character is correct, and think that we need not humble the heart before God, like the common sinner: but when the light from Christ shines into our souls, we shall see how impure we are; we shall discern the selfishness of motive, the enmity against God, that has defiled every act of life. [sC 28]

This is to lead us to be born again, right? As I quoted earlier:

Quote:

Could those whose lives have been spent in rebellion against God be suddenly transported to heaven and witness the high, the holy state of perfection that ever exists there,-- every soul filled with love, every countenance beaming with joy, enrapturing music in melodious strains rising in honor of God and the Lamb, and ceaseless streams of light flowing upon the redeemed from the face of Him who sitteth upon the throne,--could those whose hearts are filled with hatred of God, of truth and holiness, mingle with the heavenly throng and join their songs of praise?

Could they endure the glory of God and the Lamb? No, no; years of probation were granted them, that they might form characters for heaven; but they have never trained the mind to love purity; they have never learned the language of heaven, and now it is too late. A life of rebellion against God has unfitted them for heaven. Its purity, holiness, and peace would be torture to them; the glory of God would be a consuming fire. They would long to flee from that holy place. They would welcome destruction, that they might be hidden from the face of Him who died to redeem them. The destiny of the wicked is fixed by their own choice. Their exclusion from heaven is voluntary with themselves, and just and merciful on the part of God. (GC 542-543)

Note:

Quote:

Its purity, holiness, and peace would be torture to them; the glory of God would be a consuming fire.

What does this mean? It means we must be born again, transformed, so that the purity, holiness and peach of heaven is a joy to us rather than a torture, and so that the glory of God is not a consuming fire, but a fire of delight.

[Archie777]

Originally Posted By: Archie777

Like the Jews, we must bravely respond, "All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient." Unlike the Jews, however, we must understand it is Jesus who dwells within us and empowers us to obey and observe “all things whatsoever” He commanded.

But like the Jews many SDA think they must be Holy to gain heaven. If this is the case then you can forget paradise. Until we can say that we "thought not, planned not, lived not, for" ourselves then it is all just smoke and mirrors...

Again, EGW: We may have flattered ourselves, as did Nicodemus, that our life has been upright, that our moral character is correct, and think that we need not humble the heart before God, like the common sinner: but when the light from Christ shines into our souls, we shall see how impure we are; we shall discern the selfishness of motive, the enmity against God, that has defiled every act of life. [sC 28]

Are you suggesting Jesus saves us with our sins?

[Archie777]

Quote:

A: How is this any different than, "Live in harmony with My will or you'll cause Me to let evil men or evil angels kill you"?

P: I quoted the section from GC 35-36 at length. Do you find fault with the principle laid out there? Would you characterize that principle as, "Live in harmony with My will or I'll let evil men or evil angels kill you."? Do you see what she described as a negative thing?

A:Yes, regarding the "withdraw and permit principle", I see it as an ultimatum: Obey and live, disobey and die. It is the same thing as Jesus saying, "Live in harmony with My will or you'll cause Me to let evil men or evil angels kill you." It's not a threat; rather, it is a promise.

I wrote:

Quote:

If you wish to characterize this accurately, the "God is caused to withdraw and permit destruction principle" would be much better. God doesn't withdraw on a whim, as you seem to be implying. God is "caused to withdraw." As I stated, this is a vital point.

I explained that "withdraw and permit" was inaccurate, explained why this was the case, and brought out that this is a vital point. Yet here is this unfortunate expression again. Why?

Regarding the "sinners cause God to withdraw His protection and permit evil men or evil angels to kill them principle", I see it as an ultimatum: Obey and live, disobey and die. It is the same thing as Jesus saying, "Live in harmony with My will or you'll cause Me to let evil men or evil angels kill you." It's not a threat; rather, it is a promise.

[Archie777]

Originally Posted By: Archie

I did some research and failed to find where Jesus formed another “compact”, another “covenant” with the Jews in response to a condition of unbelief.

The people initiated a new agreement by their unbelief. God offered them the same promises He offered to Abraham, but they responded in unbelief. God formalized the pact they initiated, and added the rites of the sanctuary service, that they might be led back to His covenant.

Quote:

"Then did not God Himself lead them into bondage?"--Not by any means; since He did not induce them to make that covenant at Sinai. Four hundred and thirty years before that time He had made a covenant with Abraham, which was sufficient for all purposes. That covenant was confirmed in Christ, and, therefore, was a covenant from above. See John 8:23. It promised righteousness as a free gift of God through faith, and it included all nations. All the miracles that God had wrought in delivering the children of Israel from Egyptian bondage were but demonstrations of His power to deliver them and us from the bondage of sin. Yes, the deliverance from Egypt was itself a demonstration not only of God's power, but also of His desire to lead them from the bondage of sin, that bondage in which the covenant from Sinai holds men, because Hagar, who is the covenant from Sinai, was an Egyptian. So when the people came to Sinai, God simply referred them to what He had already done, and then said, "Now therefore, if ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine." Ex.19:5. To what covenant did He refer?--Evidently to the one already in existence, His covenant with Abraham. If they would simply keep God's covenant, that is, God's promise,--keep the faith,--they would be a peculiar treasure unto God, for God, as the possessor of all the earth, was able to do with them all that He had promised. The fact that they in their self-sufficiency rashly took the whole responsibility upon themselves, does not prove that God led them into making that covenant, but the contrary. He was leading them out of bondage, not into it, and the apostle plainly tells us that covenant from Sinai was nothing but bondage.

I highlighted certain parts, to try to make the points clear.

Quote:

Like the Jews, we must bravely respond, "All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient." Unlike the Jews, however, we must understand it is Jesus who dwells within us and empowers us to obey and observe “all things whatsoever” He commanded.

This is OK, given that the "must" in "must bravely respond" is understood along the lines of 2 Cor. 5:14, 15, which speaks of the love of Christ which constrains us. Indeed, the problem with the Jews was not their words, but their heart. "O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!" (Deut 5:29)

[Guest]

But like the Jews many SDA think they must be Holy to gain heaven. If this is the case then you can forget paradise. Until we can say that we "thought not, planned not, lived not, for" ourselves then it is all just smoke and mirrors...

Christ's Righteousness Makes Obedience Possible

It was impossible for the sinner to keep the law of God, which was holy, just, and good; but this impossibility was removed by the impartation of the righteousness of Christ to the repenting, believing soul. The life and death of Christ in behalf of sinful man were for the purpose of restoring the sinner to God's favor, through imparting to him the righteousness that would meet the claims of the law and find acceptance with the Father.

But it is ever the purpose of Satan to make void the law of God and to pervert the true meaning of the plan of salvation. Therefore he has originated the falsehood that the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary's cross was for the purpose of freeing men from the obligation of keeping the commandments of God. He has foisted upon the world the deception that God has abolished His constitution, thrown away His moral standard, and made void His holy and perfect law. Had He done this, at what terrible expense would it have been to Heaven! Instead of proclaiming the abolition of the law, Calvary's cross proclaims in thunder tones its immutable and eternal character.

Could the law have been abolished, and the government of heaven and earth and the unnumbered worlds of God maintained, Christ need not have died. The death of Christ was to forever settle the question of the validity of the law of Jehovah. Having suffered the full penalty for a guilty world, Jesus became the Mediator between God and man, to restore the repenting soul to favor with God by giving him grace to keep the law of the Most High. Christ came not to destroy the law or the prophets, but to fulfill them to the very letter. The atonement of Calvary vindicated the law of God as holy, just, and true, not only before the fallen world but before heaven and before the worlds unfallen. Christ came to magnify the law and to make it honorable. {FW 118.2}

Titus 2:12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

[Christopher]

This thread was way to long to read all of it so if I'm repeating someone,sorry

There was war in Heaven Revelation 12 also says that satan went to make war upon the saints.

While there was some torture and the use of force,it has been mostly oneof Words and ideas throughout History.

In Heaven it had to be words and ideas also because God is all powerful and if used it in a forceful manner (against His own character of Love) Then Satan and his followers would have been wiped out in a minute or less.

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

and all of Ephesians 6 especially about the amour of God shows what we are fighting against.The mind stuff,ideas and words and such.

And Jesus said in John 17:6 that what He came to Do and Accomplished was to manifest The Fathers name(character)in answer to All created beings in Heaven and Earth. As Paul stated in !Corinthians 4:9 NIV Jesus was that spectacle first.

Which Satan showed he was trying to defame in Genesis with Eve.

The Adversary just brought his war down to us and we fell for it,just like we do with any politician it seems

That's Why the Great Controversy/The Great War is so important to know and understand about.

Christopher

[Archie777]

Pnatt, do you remember how discussing the old covenant relates to war in heaven?

[pnattmbtc]

Regarding the "sinners cause God to withdraw His protection and permit evil men or evil angels to kill them principle", I see it as an ultimatum: Obey and live, disobey and die. It is the same thing as Jesus saying, "Live in harmony with My will or you'll cause Me to let evil men or evil angels kill you." It's not a threat; rather, it is a promise.

[Archie777]

You see this as Jesus saying, "Live in harmony with My will or you'll cause Me to let evil men or evil angels kill you."?

Yes. Do you? If not, why not?

PS - Please imagine Jesus saying it with the correct intonation and with tears in His voice.

[pnattmbtc]

Three times the Jews confirmed the old covenant with Jesus. And yet I hear you saying they responded in unbelief. Do you think "All that the Lord hath spoken we will do", indicates unbelief?

In the quote above (PK 293) Ellen makes it clear the Jews agreed three times to the terms and conditions of the old covenant. Or, do you think the first time mentioned above is referring to the new covenant and the next two times are referring to the old covenant?

[pnattmbtc]

You see this as Jesus saying, "Live in harmony with My will or you'll cause Me to let evil men or evil angels kill you."?

Yes. Do you? If not, why not?

PS - Please imagine Jesus saying it with the correct intonation and with tears in His voice.

[pnattmbtc]

Hey Christoper, thanks for sharing your thoughts. So you're in Alaska? Do you like it there? What a beautiful place!

[Robert]

The death of Christ was to forever settle the question of the validity of the law of Jehovah.

No one is denying the validity of the law, Richard. However, because you are bent to self you had to be delivered from under law.

Gal 4:4 when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, 5 to redeem those under law....

[Robert]

Are you suggesting Jesus saves us with our sins?

Are you still bent to self? Jesus "thought not, planned not, lived not, for himself" to the point of homelessness. There was never any self-seeking in His life. Can you say the same? If not then yes He saves you in your sins even though you grow.

[Rex]

That's a different gospel than what Jesus preached. That's exactly what Satan has the babylonians preaching from their pulpits.

[Guest]

That's exactly right Rex. It's different from both Jesus and Paul. Neither one of them preached that you will be saved in your sins, but saved from your sins.

[Guest]

Joh 8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn you: go, and sin no more.

Tit 2:12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live sensibly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

Tit 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a people for his own, zealous of good works.