"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[pnattmbtc]

How could Christ suffer the penalty for the sins of every man, woman and child ever born into this world in only 9 hours, but yet we are told that a single sinner (like Hitler) would burn many days?

This is a minor point, but just curious. Where are you getting 9 hours from?

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

(... The wicked have passed the boundary of their probation, and the Lord withdraws his protection, and leaves them to the mercy of the leader they have chosen. Satan will have power over those who have yielded themselves to his control, and he will plunge the inhabitants of the earth into one great, final trouble..... {4SP 440.3})

the lost had been protected from satan and didnt know it!!

judgments=decisions, verdicts if you will.

so when God pours out His judgments He is saying, the lost have chosen satan, let Him be their ruler, i will no longer protect them.

Shall we read on from where you stopped? Here's the next paragraph:

i guess you didnt understand that i was "filling in" more detail from sp, adding to the gc paragraph, that pnattmbtc put up.

ellen white appears to make it quite clear that God has been protecting the lost, as well as the righteous, from satan. are you disagreeing with that?

[Guest]

Regarding "compelling power," we read that "compelling power is only found in Satan's government." I don't see how this can be taken to mean that sometimes it's found in God's government. If it's only found in Satan's government, then it's never found in God's government. I really don't see how this could be more clearly stated.

If you could look at this so called "principle" in the context of "God will never compel anyone to obey", (which is all she is saying) because God doesn't want that kind of obedience. Then you would find that the Bible is in perfect harmony. But when you take it to the extreme like you do, where God is rendered helpless to do anything, including casting Satan from heaven, like the Bible says. Then you turn the Bible and the SoP into one big contradiction.

I know you are smart enough to figure this out on your own. Proper Bible study causes the Word to harmonize, not contradict. Any good Bible student can tell you this, from William Miller on down.

[pnattmbtc]

Richard, this isn't the context of the statement. Here's the statement, in context:

Quote:

God could have destroyed Satan and his sympathizers as easily as one can cast a pebble to the earth; but He did not do this. Rebellion was not to be overcome by force. Compelling power is found only under Satan's government. The Lord's principles are not of this order. His authority rests upon goodness, mercy, and love; and the presentation of these principles is the means to be used. God's government is moral, and truth and love are to be the prevailing power.

She contrasts "compelling power" with:

1.God could have destroyed Satan.

2.Rebellion was not to be overcome by force.

and points out that God's authority rests upon "goodness, mercy and love."

She makes the point that God's government is "moral," and that "truth and love" are the prevailing power.

This all makes sense if the war (aka "Great Controversy") is one which involves ideas, but none of this make sense if the war is one decided by force.

At any rate, I don't see that the context here is dealing with "God will never compel anyone to obey" since she doesn't talk about that, but instead talks about overcoming rebellion by force, and destroying Satan.

The context is the rebellion in heaven (take a look at the paragraph just before the one cited) and she says that rebellion was not to be overcome by force, and that compelling power is to be found only under Satan's government. Notwithstanding this, you are arguing that God overcame rebellion by force, and used compelling power to do so.

[John317]

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

I think one of the best proofs that it was God who brought the plagues upon Egypt is that the third plague could not possibly have been performed by Satan. Satan cannot create life, and the Bible says that dust became gnats. Exodus 8: 17 tells us that the "dust of the earth became gnats." Further it says the magicians tried to do this but couldn't. Satan can make it appear that he's creating life, but he can't really do it. These were real gnats. Hence there can be doubt that God brought this plague.

A good question would be, why would Satan help God deliver God's people from cruel bondage?

Wouldn't this be similar to Jesus' casting out demons by the power of the demons?

It would mean that when Moses put out his staff, a miracle was performed by the devil to help save Israel from slavery.

In the face of Ellen White's clear statements that it was the angel of God who caused the destruction in Egypt so that the Egyptians allowed the Israelites to go free, I'm convinced they were the result of power of God. It's significant that nowhere does either the Bible or the Spirit of prophecy give us any statements showing it was actually Satan who brought about these great signs and wonders. Many verses in the Scriptures give God the praise for performing the miracles and delivering Israel from Egypt. Exodus 35: 8, "He smote the first-born of Egypt, both man and beast." See also Ps, Ex. 15: 1-21; Ps. 78: 12, 13, etc.

[pnattmbtc]

What if the fire falls on everyone? What if the fire that consumes sin is inherent in God's unveiling of Himself and thus applied universally. What if those who have been purified of sin by cooperation with the Holy Spirit are not consumed, but those who cling to their sins are burned as the sin is consumed? Would you consider that to be fair?

Yes, if you don't mean physically burned, which would not make sense to me as sin is not something which can be literally burned. However, that would be a good way of describing what happens to the mind (the impact of guilt upon the conscience as the truth is revealed, the inability of the ugly sinful self to accept itself in the light of the revelation of the beauty of God's character). So if you don't have in mind a literal fire, I think this is fine.

This is similar to what Kevin H. has written, by the way. Isa. 33 comes to mind. Also some thoughts by Ty Gibson in "Shades of Grace," if you're familiar with this book.

[Guest]

Then how do you reconcile these quotes? If you are correct, you should be able to.

After Satan was thrust from heaven, he determined to set up his kingdom on this earth. {CTr 19}

Christ and His angels fought against Satan and his angels, for they were determined to remain in heaven with all their rebellion. But they prevailed not. Christ and loyal angels triumphed, and drove Satan and his rebel sympathizers from heaven. (3SG 38). {7BC 973.7}

Then there was war in heaven. Angels were engaged in the battle; Satan wished to conquer the Son of God and those who were submissive to His will. But the good and true angels prevailed, and Satan, with his followers, was driven from heaven. {EW 145.2}

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq

anthropomorphism (Attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior) describing God’s power and majesty in very human metaphors, the only ones we have at our disposal. God often paints Himself in terms of human experience, the only medium of description we can understand.

This is a really interesting point. Yes, God can only communicate to us in language that we can understand. If He were to communicate to us through a prophet now, I'm sure the language would include cars, televisions, and the internet....

What's really tricky is figuring out when something is an anthropomorphism and when it's not. This isn't at all clear, but many cry out "this is what the Bible says!" One man's anthropomorphism is another man's literal truth.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: karl

What if the fire falls on everyone? What if the fire that consumes sin is inherent in God's unveiling of Himself and thus applied universally. What if those who have been purified of sin by cooperation with the Holy Spirit are not consumed, but those who cling to their sins are burned as the sin is consumed? Would you consider that to be fair?

Yes, if you don't mean physically burned, which would not make sense to me as sin is not something which can be literally burned. However, that would be a good way of describing what happens to the mind (the impact of guilt upon the conscience as the truth is revealed, the inability of the ugly sinful self to accept itself in the light of the revelation of the beauty of God's character). So if you don't have in mind a literal fire, I think this is fine.

This is similar to what Kevin H. has written, by the way. Isa. 33 comes to mind. Also some thoughts by Ty Gibson in "Shades of Grace," if you're familiar with this book.

[John317]

....

Quote:

"And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night." Rev. 12:10.

Satan saw that his disguise was torn away. His administration was laid open before the unfallen angels and before the heavenly universe. He had revealed himself as a murderer. By shedding the blood of the Son of God, he had uprooted himself from the sympathies of the heavenly beings. Henceforth his work was restricted. Whatever attitude he might assume, he could no longer await the angels as they came from the heavenly courts, and before them accuse Christ's brethren of being clothed with the garments of blackness and the defilement of sin. The last link of sympathy between Satan and the heavenly world was broken. (DA 761)

We see here that she uses the verb in the same sense, "cast down," and there's no force involved here.

You make some very good points, and I don't altogether disagree with you.

I think you may misunderstand something about the nature of the "force" that I'm speaking of. The kind of force intended by the passive verb ballo is not necessarily a violent force such as the police beating on someone or shooting someone or using a tazer against someone to force them to go somewhere. It simply means that the subject is being acted upon rather than acting of their own accord. The subject receives the action of another. In this case, Satan is receiving the action of Christ and the loyal angels. He is being made to leave heaven in the sense that God has decreed that He cannot stay; he's been banished. It doesn't mean that Satan was literally picked up and thrown threw the air. He was not offered a choice at that point. He could not possibly have stayed in heaven under any circumstances. God told him that there was no place in heaven for him and his rebellious followers.

But a violent "throwing out" is not a requirement of the proper meaning of "force" or "compel."

Genesis says that God drove Adam from the Garden. That doesn't mean that God struck him with a whip or picked him up and threw him out the gate. It means God told him and his woman that they could not stay in the Garden. Again, they were not given a choice.

It's the same with a student being "expelled" from school. As you know, Ellen White uses the word "expel" in describing Satan's leaving heaven. It's correct to say students "had to leave school" when they're "expelled." They aren't give a choice. They aren't told that if they want to, they can stay.

The dictionary associates "expelled" with the use of force, but there are various degrees of force. Sometimes it's obvious, as when police wrestle a criminal to ground or knock them down and handcuff them. Yet force is also used in a less obvious way, as when a man under arrest decides to cooperate and therefore may not have to have handcuffs. But the fact that handcuffs are not put on the person, and the fact that the force is not obvious, doesn't mean there's no force. In most cases, if the arrested person resists, then the force can become quite obvious, perhaps including the individual being maced, etc.

If you are told to move down the street, and two large policemen are standing in front of you with weapons, you may feel forced or compelled to do what they say, even though no violence is used against you. You know the violent kind of force is potentially there, and that may be one reason you obey the order of the police. Isn't that still the use of force and compelling power

So in the case of Satan and the fallen angels. I don't think anyone has meant to say that Satan was literally beat into submission and then picked up phyiscally and sent hurtling through space. No, the idea of being "thrown out" or "cast out" is simply that Satan was told that He couldn't stay in heaven and had to leave. That is exactly what it means to be "expelled," which is the word Ellen White uses.

There are other types of "force" that God has used where the violence is more obvious, but we don't know to what extent, if any, there was violence in heaven in order to get the fallen angels removed.

Could you tell in some detail how you understand the Exodus? What caused the Egyptians to allow the Israelites to go free? By what reasoning can we conclude that God did not compel the Egyptians to let Israel go, seeing that He told Moses to inform the ruler that if he didn't let Isreal go, God would kill the Pharoah's first-born child? The Egyptians said, "If we don't let Israel go, we are dead men." How is that-- to say nothing of all the plagues-- not using force?

[John317]

Regarding "compelling power," we read that "compelling power is only found in Satan's government." I don't see how this can be taken to mean that sometimes it's found in God's government. If it's only found in Satan's government, then it's never found in God's government. I really don't see how this could be more clearly stated.

I think one of the problems is that when we speak of "force" and "compelling power," we don't have the same understanding of those terms.

What do you consider "compelling power"?

Let's take the example of the Exodus, both the freeing of Israel and the crossing of the Red Sea. How were these events accomplished? If we do not see compelling power or force used in those instances, what is "compelling power" or "force"? And in particular, what is meant when God says a number of times that He brought Israel out of Egypt "by a strong hand"? The NASB translates this phrase a few times as "to compel."

Please speak directly to what the Bible says occurred there. Remember, for instance, that God told Pharoah that if he didn't let the people go, He would kill his son. Then God made the dust become gnats, and finally the angel of the Lord went through the land and killed all the first-born, both of man and beast. The Egyptians said that if they didn't allow Israel to go leave in order to offer sacrificce to Yahweh, they would all be dead men. So they let them go. Under what circumstances would this not be called "force" or "compelling power." If I did this to you, could I say with a straight face that I hand't forced your hand or used any compelling power over you?

Thoughts?

[Guest]

So in the case of Satan and the fallen angels. I don't think anyone has meant to say that Satan was literally beat into submission and then picked up phyiscally and sent hurtling through space. No, the idea of being "thrown out" or "cast out" is simply that Satan was told that He couldn't stay in heaven and had to leave. That is exactly what it means to be "expelled," which is the word Ellen White uses.

John are you compromising with the serpent? She also said that Satan was determined to stay, and that he was thrust out of heaven. Does that sound like he was asked to leave? The Bible calls it war. I think that would be the wrong word for just asking someone to leave. And what about this?

He then declared that he was prepared to resist the authority of Christ, and to defend his place in Heaven by force of might, strength against strength. {1SP 22}

That doesn't sound like he was willing to go peacefully. Sounds like he probably got maced, or worse.

[Robert]

{1SP 22}

non-biblical

[Robert]

Remember, for instance, that God told Pharoah that if he didn't let the people go, He would kill his son.

Ez 18:20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.

Ex 4:11 Then the LORD said to him, "Who has made man's mouth? Who makes him mute, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the LORD?

If God kills Pharoah's son, the same God can cause an infant to be born blind. What a wonderful God!

[Robert]

How could Christ suffer the penalty for the sins of every man, woman and child ever born into this world in only 9 hours, but yet we are told that a single sinner (like Hitler) would burn many days?

Yes?

More injustice? No, God can't sin, but neither can you guys explain to me your concept of justice.

[Robert]

One Perspective

I [God] will strike the Shepherd. . . . We esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God (Mark 114:27; Isaiah 53:4).

Another Perspective

My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me? (Mark 15:34).

We have already noted that God did not execute Christ, but we still have that perplexing language stating He did. What can it mean?

Principle: God sees and describes Himself as doing what He does not prevent.

Since God could have prevented these incidents but chose not to do so, He depicts Himself as the actual instrument or performing agent. Note how often He describes them as His own doing in vivid, convincing terms. Yet we are justified, if they do not make sense in terms of the total picture or in terms of God's character as Christ expressed it, to wonder if He simply could have but didn't prevent it.

Why would God choose to so express Himself? His reason is not unknown in the human realm. [Light on the Dark Side of God]

[John317]

Do you believe the text which says God told Pharoah that if he didn't let Israel go out in the desert to worship, He would kill Pharoah's son?

Also, how do you account for the dust becoming gnats, and for the the release of Israel from Egypt? Who performed the miracles when Moses threw down his staff?

[karl]

Originally Posted By: Robert

How could Christ suffer the penalty for the sins of every man, woman and child ever born into this world in only 9 hours, but yet we are told that a single sinner (like Hitler) would burn many days.

Yes?

More injustice? No, God can't sin, but neither can you guys explain to me your concept of justice.

Robert, can you step off your position long enough to examine it? Can we at least look for the love in what the Bible says?

Is man more just than God? Man would allow the victim of a rapist to confront the rapist in court, even though it could bring anguish to the rapist.

Perhaps that is why justice takes so long for heinous sinners. Perhaps they must answer to each of their victims. Maybe this thing you object to, because it cannot be redemptive, is for the sake of the victims. It could be that the torture is more mental than physical as these sinners see the full ramification of their sin. The Bible tells us they prefer death to facing their Judge.

It seems like it could prove a blessing to us whose sins have been forgiven, to see the anguish we have been spared.

Lastly, it could be that this is the final proof that these sinners are irredeemable - that even in torture they do not repent of their evil.

Don't be mad at God for putting things the way He did. Just know that His is an extremely difficult job - to have justice and mercy kiss like this.

[Robert]

Do you believe the text which says God told Pharoah that if he didn't let Israel go out in the desert to worship, He would kill Pharoah's son?

Do you believe that God causes some to be mute, or deaf, or seeing, or blind?

[Robert]

neither can you guys explain to me your concept of justice.

[pnattmbtc]

Then how do you reconcile these quotes? If you are correct, you should be able to.

After Satan was thrust from heaven, he determined to set up his kingdom on this earth. {CTr 19}

[pnattmbtc]

You make some very good points, and I don't altogether disagree with you.

[pnattmbtc]

p:Regarding "compelling power," we read that "compelling power is only found in Satan's government." I don't see how this can be taken to mean that sometimes it's found in God's government. If it's only found in Satan's government, then it's never found in God's government. I really don't see how this could be more clearly stated.

J:I think one of the problems is that when we speak of "force" and "compelling power," we don't have the same understanding of those terms.

What do you consider "compelling power"?

[pnattmbtc]

Perhaps that is why justice takes so long for heinous sinners. Perhaps they must answer to each of their victims.

This is an interesting thought.

[pnattmbtc]

It could be that the torture is more mental than physical as these sinners see the full ramification of their sin. The Bible tells us they prefer death to facing their Judge.