"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[BobRyan]

Good point John.

Well said.

[John317]

My bedtime here on the Westcoast where it is 6: 45 am. I'll be back in a few hours. :-)

[John317]

Continued from previous post--

After sin and Satan and all his followers have been destroyed, then the righteous and all the universe will say, "Amen." EW 294, 295. There will be no more reason to doubt God's character and His love, wisdom, and justice.

Ellen White writes, "Then I saw that Satan and all the wicked host were consumed, and the justice of God was satisfied; and all the angelic host, and all the redeemed saints, with a loud voice said, 'Amen.'"

They all agree that God's destruction of Satan and his followers is necessary, and they are glad that the universe is once again a place of harmony, peace, and love. It would be wrong to think that they are glad the wicked are lost. They are sad that the wicked chose to follow Satan but they are full of joy that sin and death are no more and that God's judgments are true and righteous.

Did Ellen White believe that God will destroy the wicked?

I believe here's the answer:

"Those who do not choose to accept the salvation so dearly purchased must be punished. But I saw that God would not shut them up in hell to endure endless misery... BUT HE WILL DESTROY THEM UTTERLY AND [HE WILL] CAUSE THEM TO BE AS IF THEY HAD NOT BEEN; THEN HIS JUSTICE WILL BE SATISFIED. He formed man out of the dust of the earth, and the disobedient and unholy will be consumed by fire and return to dust again. I saw that the benevolence and compassion of God IN THIS MATTER should lead all to admire His character and to adore His holy name. After the wicked are destroyed from off the earth, ALL THE HEAVENLY HOST WILL SAY, 'AMEN.'" EW 221 (SR 391)

Notice that she says God will "cause" the wicked to be as if they had not been. There is only one way that God could cause it to happen, and that is if God is the cause of the fire that falls from God out of heaven.

Thoughts?

[pnattmbtc]

p:I don't recall your writing anything about this. Could you direct me to the post where you discussed this?

R:Someone else pointed out quite well that the only thing she could have been talking about there, (if you want to reconcile everything) is the fact that He doesn't use compelling power to win the great controversy, or to win anyones allegiance.

[John317]

"Those who do not choose to accept the salvation so dearly purchased must be punished. But I saw that God would not shut them up in hell to endure endless misery... BUT HE WILL DESTROY THEM UTTERLY AND [HE WILL] CAUSE THEM TO BE AS IF THEY HAD NOT BEEN; THEN HIS JUSTICE WILL BE SATISFIED. He formed man out of the dust of the earth, and the disobedient and unholy will be consumed by fire and return to dust again. I saw that the benevolence and compassion of God IN THIS MATTER should lead all to admire His character and to adore His holy name. After the wicked are destroyed from off the earth, ALL THE HEAVENLY HOST WILL SAY, 'AMEN.'" EW 221 (SR 391)

Notice that she says God will "cause" the wicked to be as if they had not been. There is only one way that God could cause it to happen, and that is if God is the cause of the fire that falls from God out of heaven.

[Gerr]

I think it was the same one who sounds like this:

Quote:

God destroys no man. Everyone who is destroyed will have destroyed himself." Christ's Object Lessons, 84.

Quote:

God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejecters of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown. Every ray of light rejected, every warning despised or unheeded, every passion indulged, every transgression of the law of God, is a seed sown, which yields its unfailing harvest. The Spirit of God, persistently resisted, is at last withdrawn from the sinner, and then there is left no power to control the evil passions of the soul, and no protection from the malice and enmity of Satan. The Great Controversy, 36.

In reality, who destroyed Ted Bundy? Himself? Or the judge and jury or the state?

And how do you reconcile the above with this: "Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple. 1 Cor 3:16,17 ESV

[John317]

I'd like to make a request of Bob or Richard and of pnattmbtc:

It would be a good idea, I think, if you guys could write a post or two in which you summarize what has been said so far on this subject. Of course you can copy and paste from the previous posts, so you won't have to write it all over again.

As objectively as possible, try to give the primary evidence and arguments, including the strengths as well as the weaknesses of both sides of the question.

Then give your conclusions and tell what arguments & evidence you find the most convincing for your position.

It's been a good and very worthwhile discussion up to this point.

Thank you all. :-)

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: rudywoofs

I asked this a number of times. Where can it be found that Satan visited other inhabited planets but was restricted to the Tree of Knowledge on each planet? I can't find ANYTHING like that anywhere. And it was given as a fact on this thread.

Originally Posted By: teresaq

i believe that is more of a deduction than any explicit statement anywhere, pam.

if satan was not allowed to harass adam and eve all over the garden but only had access to them should they go to the tree of knowledge, then we assume God would also protect the inhabitants of other worlds in the same way, also.

I don't think I buy it if it's only an assumption. oh well. It's not a salvational issue anyway.

The earth looked like a desolate wilderness. Cities and villages, shaken down by the earthquake, lay in heaps. Mountains had been moved out of their places, leaving large caverns. Ragged rocks, thrown out by the sea, or torn out of the earth itself, were scattered all over its surface. Large trees had been uprooted and were strewn over the land. Here is to be the home of Satan with his evil angels for a thousand years. Here he will be confined, to wander up and down over the broken surface of the earth and see the effects of his rebellion against God's law. For a thousand years he can enjoy the fruit of the curse which he has caused. Limited alone to the earth, he will not have the privilege of ranging to other planets, to tempt and annoy those who have not fallen. During this time, Satan suffers extremely. Since his fall his evil traits have been in constant exercise. But he is then to be deprived of his power, and left to reflect upon the part which he has acted since his fall, and to look forward with trembling and terror to the dreadful future, when he must suffer for all the evil that he has done and be punished for all the sins that he has caused to be committed. {EW 290.1}

[John317]

In reality, who destroyed Ted Bundy? Himself? Or the judge and jury or the state?

Great illustration.

Someone did pull the switch on Bundy, but no one would deny that Bundy destroyed himself by his own choices to take the lives of innocent women. Similarly God causes the fire to fall on the wicked but in the final analysis they destroy themselvess.

To push the illustration even further, let's suppose that his mother had known that he was an evil child so she took his life when he was just a teen-ager. That would have made her look really bad, of course, and no one would have believed she loved her boy and was trying to protect the neighborhood. They would just think she was an evil woman, maybe a sadist, who hated her son for some reason. God's "premature" destruction of Satan would have had the same kind of effect on the onlooking universe.

[Gerr]

Quote:

God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejecters of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown. Every ray of light rejected, every warning despised or unheeded, every passion indulged, every transgression of the law of God, is a seed sown, which yields its unfailing harvest. The Spirit of God, persistently resisted, is at last withdrawn from the sinner, and then there is left no power to control the evil passions of the soul, and no protection from the malice and enmity of Satan. The Great Controversy, 36.

BTW, the context of this statement is about the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. She plainly says that it was the RESULT of the Jews' rejection of His mercy and the trampling of God's laws and the subsequent removal of His protection that they suffered. God was not the ACTIVE punisher. But in the same chapter, she has this to say:

But in that day, as in the time of Jerusalem’s destruction, God’s people will be delivered, "every one that shall be found written among the living." Christ has declared that he will come the second time, to gather his faithful ones to himself: "Then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other." [MATT. 24:30, 31.] Then shall they that obey not the gospel be consumed with the spirit of his mouth, and be destroyed with the brightness of his coming. [2 THESS. 2:8.] Like Israel [bEGIN P.38] of old, the wicked destroy themselves; they fall by their iniquity. By a life of sin, they have placed themselves so out of harmony with God, their natures have become so debased with evil, that the manifestation of his glory is to them a consuming fire. {GC88 37.2}

The Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan; Great Controversy. 1888; 2002 (37). Pacific Press Publishing Association.

In the case of Jerusalem, God removed His protection and Satan did the destroying but the ultimate responsibility still lay with those who rejected His mercy. In the endtime eradication of evil, the active agent that destroys them is His own glory which is as a consuming fire to the wicked; destroyed because of their own iniquity.

[pnattmbtc]

No. I don't believe God would have forced Satan to stay here if Adam and Eve had passed the test.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Isn't it possible to explain what happened without concluding God didn't make the decision resulting in the wicked angels coming to the earth?

A lot of negatives here! Let's see, God didn't make the decision result in the wicked angels coming to earth. You're asking if it's possible to explain what happened without concluding this. Yes, I think this is possible. This isn't a decision God made. He didn't send wicked angels to tempt us. They did this of their own volition, and God permitted it.

Quote:

The rebellion in heaven occurred during the time that God and Christ together were planning the creation of the earth and the human family. Satan was jealous because he could not be a part of the planning. Therefore we know that the earth was made a relatively short time after the angels were driven out of heaven.

I agree.

Quote:

I believe it makes biblical sense that it was God's will for Satan and the evil angels to come to this earth at the time of the creation for the purpose of testing the new race.

God cannot be tempted, and God does not tempt. If God sent an agent to tempt in His behalf, He would be tempting us, but He doesn't tempt. God permitted the wicked angels to come to tempt the race, but this wasn't His will or plan.

Quote:

It's very likely that at this time, Satan and his followers were trying to gain followers among the inhabits of other worlds. If this is true, it would be correct to say that God "threw them to the earth" at the time of His choosing.

This doesn't appear to make any sense to me. That is, why would it follow from the fact that Satan and his followers were trying to gain converts from other worlds that God threw them to the earth at the time of His choosing? I don't see anything at all connecting these two ideas, and it's certainly not clear to me what your thought process was for coming to this conclusion.

Quote:

Tnen, only after Satan came here did the arch-deceiver determine how he could destroy them-- leading them to disobey God-- and make this earth the center of his kingdom.

Satan could tempt any world's inhabitants at the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Surely he attempted to do so at other worlds. He couldn't try here until the earth was created, of course. After earth was created, he tried here, and was successful. God doesn't enter into this. This wasn't of God's doing at all. Only Satan's. God had no part in the fall of man, other than to warn him of the enemy.

Quote:

We're not told what God would have done with Satan and his demons if Adam and Eve had passed the test, but I think it's reasonable to conclude that God would not have allowed them to continue on the earth. But that's a non-issue as far as special revelation is concerned.

I think there is something revealed that says something to the effect that the test was to be of limited duration. That is, Satan would not have been permitted to tempt at the tree indefinitely.

[Woody]

Quote:

You (and others) appear to be using "not dealing straight-forwardly with the actual language of Scripture" synonymously with "seeing things differently than I do." It's possible for a person who is not you to see things differently than you do without denying either Scripture or the SOP. Many on this forum, not just you, seem to have the idea that seeing things in some other way than they do is equivalent to denying truth, not believing in Scripture, not believing in Ellen White, etc. I see this sort of thing asserted virtually every day. This simply isn't looking at things in a detached, reasonable way.

The Bible is a spiritual book. Some things are literal, and some things aren't. It's often not clear which is the case, which is why there are disagreements. There is much more to consider than simply "the actual language of Scripture." I've given a few examples, and could give many more. In particular, Revelation is a symbolic book, and the percentage of things we, as SDAs, take to be literal is very low compared to that of other groups, in particular, those who believe in a secret rapture. They take more than 10 times more of Revelation literally than you do, and would be taking you to task repeatedly with your own words in regards to dealing straight-forwardly with the actual language of Scripture.

You bring up some interesting points here.

Some on this forum don't believe we should interpret scripture or the SOP. They say that it interprets itself. IOWs ... it is literally saying what they personally believe and no other way.

It is this kind of intolerance for any thinking person that might dare to think differently from another that is so toxic in religion. IOWs ... anyone who has a different belief is not accepting scripture or Ellen White.

What a shame.

[pnattmbtc]

All these quotes are saying that God wants people to be saved and that He does everything He can to save them, not destroy them.

[teresaq]

...(if you want to reconcile everything)... It doesn't mean he didn't use force to get Satan out of heaven, He obviously did according to Ellen White and the Bible.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Quote:

But this view of things is not poetical enough for the fancy of very many who are fighting with Satan the game of life for their souls.

That's a nonsensical statement, IMHO.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: John317

Take the example of Sodom. Did God want them destroyed? Was God standing toward those people as their executioner of the sentence against transgression? No. God stands toward people as their Creator and Savior. But that doesn't mean God did not destroy Sodom. Those people destroyed themselves through their own choices. Yet they obviously didn't set themselves on fire. Ellen White says balls of fire were sent from heaven. This fire destroyed the city and the people, but the people brought the fire down on themselves. The Bible says that fire which destroyed Sodom is an example of the fire that will destroy the wicked at the end of this world. When we accept that it happened exactly as the Bible says it did--- and not that it was destroyed by a volcano-- everything about the final destruction of the wicked becomes clear.

Here's the general principle:

Quote:

We cannot know how much we owe to Christ for the peace and protection which we enjoy.

It is the restraining power of God

that prevents mankind from passing fully under the control of Satan.

The disobedient and unthankful have great reason for gratitude for God's mercy and long-suffering in holding in check the cruel, malignant power of the evil one.

But when men pass the limits of divine forbearance, that restraint is removed.

God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression;

but He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves,

to reap that which they have sown.

Every ray of light rejected, every warning despised or unheeded, every passion indulged, every transgression of the law of God, is a seed sown which yields its unfailing harvest.

The Spirit of God,

persistently resisted,

is at last withdrawn from the sinner ... (GC 36)

There is absolutely no necessity whatsoever for God to destroy things. It's completely sufficient for Him to withdraw His guiding, protective care.

notice how God uses His power...

[teresaq]

Quote:

But this view of things is not poetical enough for the fancy of very many who are fighting with Satan the game of life for their souls.

That's a nonsensical statement, IMHO.

as in it didnt make sense to you?

[pnattmbtc]

p:...there are two sets of quotes. You can't just pretend that one set of quotes doesn't exist. I'm not saying the quotes I presented "trump" the other quotes, but that the other quotes should be interpreted in the light of the principles she presented. Why wouldn't this be the case?

J:We need to accept and take into account ALL the quotes dealing with this topic.

[teresaq]

Quote:

You (and others) appear to be using "not dealing straight-forwardly with the actual language of Scripture" synonymously with "seeing things differently than I do." It's possible for a person who is not you to see things differently than you do without denying either Scripture or the SOP. Many on this forum, not just you, seem to have the idea that seeing things in some other way than they do is equivalent to denying truth, not believing in Scripture, not believing in Ellen White, etc. I see this sort of thing asserted virtually every day. This simply isn't looking at things in a detached, reasonable way.

The Bible is a spiritual book. Some things are literal, and some things aren't. It's often not clear which is the case, which is why there are disagreements. There is much more to consider than simply "the actual language of Scripture." I've given a few examples, and could give many more. In particular, Revelation is a symbolic book, and the percentage of things we, as SDAs, take to be literal is very low compared to that of other groups, in particular, those who believe in a secret rapture. They take more than 10 times more of Revelation literally than you do, and would be taking you to task repeatedly with your own words in regards to dealing straight-forwardly with the actual language of Scripture.

You bring up some interesting points here.

Some on this forum don't believe we should interpret scripture or the SOP. They say that it interprets itself. IOWs ... it is literally saying what they personally believe and no other way.

It is this kind of intolerance for any thinking person that might dare to think differently from another that is so toxic in religion. IOWs ... anyone who has a different belief is not accepting scripture or Ellen White.

What a shame.

throwing my 2 cents in, we forget that ellen white said the "daily"-whether pagan or papal- was not important, yet there are people on both sides who will fight to the death for their position, when both can be held and each side respect the other, even have a friendly, respectful discussion. something that seems alien to some, sad to say.

there are several subjects that are not life and death, another view can be had without it being a "life or death" issue and we can still respect that is how another sees it, without incurring the "wrath of God".

we can even allow sunday keepers to believe sunday is the right day without having to beat them into submission somehow, shock of shocks! :)

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: John317

NOTE: The above proves that God was not trying to get Satan to stay in heaven at the time of the war or afterwards. ...

Regarding the flaming swords, I referred you to what teresaq said, which I said I thought was fine.

How is it you don't think "Compelling power is only found under Satan's government. The Lord's principles are not of this order." is not the statement of a universal principle? You talk about respecting straight-forward language. What could be more straight-forward than this? How could she possible have stated this more clearly? "only found under Satan's government." What does this mean? How would you explain this phrase in other words?

no one said God was "trying to get Satan to stay in heaven at the time of the war or afterwards".

a suggestion, perhaps just very small chunks at a time? it seems to get confusing as to just what is being said, it appears, when there is a lot of info presented.

[pnattmbtc]

You bring up some interesting points here.

Some on this forum don't believe we should interpret scripture or the SOP. They say that it interprets itself. IOWs ... it is literally saying what they personally believe and no other way.

It is this kind of intolerance for any thinking person that might dare to think differently from another that is so toxic in religion. IOWs ... anyone who has a different belief is not accepting scripture or Ellen White.

What a shame.

Indeed. I think teresaq presented some quote or quotes from the 1888 era which spoke to this point.

I think we should be charitable to the viewpoints of others, realizing that it takes time to come to a right understanding of spiritual things. I think it was you who said that what we know is just a drop in the bucket. I agree completely. We should be humble in regards to our views. Even Ellen White was humble, allowing for the possibility of error, even though was was a prophet!

By being charitable to the viewpoints of others, I don't mean that we necessarily agree with them, but we refrain from judgmental statements regarding not believing in Scripture or the SOP etc.

[Guest]

My bedtime here on the Westcoast where it is 6: 45 am. I'll be back in a few hours. :-)

So you stayed up all night? I noticed after this post, you still didn't go to bed. I bet you're sleeping now though. You'll probably sleep all day.

[pnattmbtc]

EGW:God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejecters of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown. Every ray of light rejected, every warning despised or unheeded, every passion indulged, every transgression of the law of God, is a seed sown, which yields its unfailing harvest. The Spirit of God, persistently resisted, is at last withdrawn from the sinner, and then there is left no power to control the evil passions of the soul, and no protection from the malice and enmity of Satan. The Great Controversy, 36.

G:BTW, the context of this statement is about the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. She plainly says that it was the RESULT of the Jews' rejection of His mercy and the trampling of God's laws and the subsequent removal of His protection that they suffered. God was not the ACTIVE punisher. But in the same chapter, she has this to say:

But in that day, as in the time of Jerusalem’s destruction, God’s people will be delivered, "every one that shall be found written among the living." Christ has declared that he will come the second time, to gather his faithful ones to himself: "Then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other." [MATT. 24:30, 31.] Then shall they that obey not the gospel be consumed with the spirit of his mouth, and be destroyed with the brightness of his coming. [2 THESS. 2:8.] Like Israel [bEGIN P.38] of old, the wicked destroy themselves; they fall by their iniquity. By a life of sin, they have placed themselves so out of harmony with God, their natures have become so debased with evil, that the manifestation of his glory is to them a consuming fire. {GC88 37.2}

The Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan; Great Controversy. 1888; 2002 (37). Pacific Press Publishing Association.

In the case of Jerusalem, God removed His protection and Satan did the destroying but the ultimate responsibility still lay with those who rejected His mercy. In the endtime eradication of evil, the active agent that destroys them is His own glory which is as a consuming fire to the wicked; destroyed because of their own iniquity.

[pnattmbtc]

Regarding 2 Thess 2:8, the following sheds some light:

Quote:

At the second advent of Christ the wicked shall be consumed "with the Spirit of His mouth," and destroyed "with the brightness of His coming." 2 Thess. 2:8. The light of the glory of God, which imparts life to the righteous, will slay the wicked.

In the time of John the Baptist, Christ was about to appear as the revealer of the character of God. His very presence would make manifest to men their sin. Only as they were willing to be purged from sin could they enter into fellowship with Him. Only the pure in heart could abide in His presence. (DA 108)

A couple of things are interesting here. One is that the same thing which gives life to the righteous is what slays the wicked. This could hardly apply to literal fire.

Secondly, we see Christ presented as the revealer of God's character, and what the impact of that was on His listeners.

Also note that light = revelation, and glory = character (i.e., the glory of God is His character), so the "light of the glory of God" is the "revelation of truth." That this interpretation is correct is clear by noting that in one sentence she speaks of the "light of the glory of God" which gives life to the righteous and slays the wicked, and in the next she speaks of Christ "the revealer of the character of God."