"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[pnattmbtc]

Then she says that God will do what He says He will do, and she obviously means that God will punish sin and unrepentant sinners in fire. The same fire that destroys the wicked will cleanse the earth. Ellen White wrote that she saw the very rocks of the earth on fire. God combines the fire from heaven with the fire on the earth to destroy the wicked and the earth. The fires on the earth are man-made, coming from man's weapons, possibly including nuclear ones. This is, of course, a real, literal fire.

"If we will not accept His grace, what more can He do? We have destroyed ourselves by our determined rejection of His love" (SC 34).

[Michaeneu]

The word, triton is used 57 times in the NT, and 22 of those times occur in the book of Revelation. In 14 of these instances in Revelation, it has the same construction and meaning as in Rev. 12: 4. The latter are all listed and quoted near the bottom of this post.

If we compare Rev. 8 7, 12, it becomes readily apparent that "the third" or "a third" in Rev. 12: 4 simply means a large part of the whole-- i.e., less than half. Whether we say "a third" or "a third part" or "the third" is unimportant.

The idea of verse 4 is that 1/3 of the angels were thrown to the earth as a result of the rebellion of Satan, since they joined him. Verse 4 refers to them in the context of the warfare of Satan on the earth in His attempt to destroy the woman who was about to give birth to the Messiah.

Rev. 12: 4 signifies, then, that Satan and his demons were attempting to destroy God's people, the Jews, from whom came the Messiah. The historical proof that Satan did this is found all through the Old Testament, but particularly in books such as Esther and Daniel, as well as in the Gospels where we see Satan inspiring men to kill the Christ child as soon as He was born....

This isn't true, and for the following reasons:

Because of the way it's used, it couldn't possibly be referring to a sequence. All you need to do is be able to check the way it's always translated.

Why is it always translated as "the third of the stars"? Because that is the only possibility. "Stars" is a genitive plural noun. "To triton" is an accustive adjective.

By contrast, "to triton" in Rev. 4: 7 is nominative, as is also its noun, Zoo-on, which means "animal," or "living creature."

The same syntax that we find in Rev. 12: 4 is also found in the following verses in Revelation:

Rev. 8: 7-- a third of the trees

8: 8-- a third of the seas

8: 9-- a third of the creatures

8: 9-- a third of the ships

8: 10-- a third of the rivers

8: 11-- a third of the waters

8: 12-- a third of the sun

v. 12-- a third of the moon

v. 12-- a third of the stars

v. 12-- a third of them (the stars)

v. 12-- a third of it (the day)

NOTE: contrast the above with the first part of v. 12, which has "the fourth angel." Its construction is, "ho tetartos aggelos," in which the definite article and its adjective are nominative singular masculine, and the noun is also nominative. It can only be translated, "the fourth angel," never "the fourth of the angel." Nor could you ever translate the phrases given above as "a third star" or "the third stars."

Let me know if you can see this point clearly. If you can't, I will gladly try to explain it more clearly, step by step.

Rev. 9:15-- "a third of the men"

9: 18-- "a third of men"

12: 4-- "a third of the stars"

Conclusion: I believe you can see that "a third of the stars" could not possibly be translated as "the third stars" or the "the third star." If it could be, you would probably be able find some translations that make it read this way. The fact that no such translation exists is a pretty good indication that it's an impossible translation.

Rev. 12: 4 signifies that Satan and his demons-- a large portion of the angels-- were attempting to destroy God's people, the Jews, from whom came the Messiah. The historical proof that Satan did this is found all through the Old Testament, but particularly in books such as Esther and Daniel, as well as in the Gospels where we see Satan inspiring men to kill the Christ child as soon as He was born.

[John317]

Then it is true that overwhelmingly the translation of to tritos means something sequential and not proportional.

Yes, of course. That is because of the rules of Greek grammar and of translation. The construction of the phrases referring to things sequential are different from those describing amounts of something.

What you appear not to understand is that "to tritos" NEVER signifies something sequential when it is in the accusative case and precedes a genitive noun. This applies to Rev. 12: 4. ton asteron is genitive plural masculine. It is possessive and is here translated, "of the stars."

The accusative adjective, to tritos, plus the genitive noun, ton asteron, can only be translated "the third of the stars."

Please study closely the following texts in any published translation:

Rev. 8: 7-- a third of the trees

8: 8-- a third of the seas

8: 9-- a third of the creatures

8: 9-- a third of the ships

8: 10-- a third of the rivers

8: 11-- a third of the waters

8: 12-- a third of the sun

v. 12-- a third of the moon

v. 12-- a third of the stars

v. 12-- a third of them (the stars)

v. 12-- a third of it (the day)

Rev. 9:15-- "a third of the men"

9: 18-- "a third of men"

12: 4-- "a third of the stars"

Why do you think that ALL translations render these the same way? I have over 65 translations of the book of Revelation, and every last one of them translates the above phrases the same way.

As a beginning student of Koine Greek, you should try to find out why they translate them as they do, and if necessary check out some Greek grammar text-books.

Can you find someone who teaches NT at a near-by university and ask them to explain why it's correct to translate Rev. 12: 4 as "a third of the stars" and why it is correct to translate the first part of Rev. 8: 4 as "the fourth angel"?

Quote:

It is arbitrary as to its use as a portion of something in Revelation 8:7, 12.Biblos.com translates the aforementioned in Revelation 8:12 as an adjective - nominative singular neuter, also meaning sequential.

Yes, of course. That is what I said:

Quote:

Why is it always translated as "the third of the stars"? Because that is the only possibility. "Stars" is a genitive plural noun. "To triton" is an accustive adjective.

By contrast, "to triton" in Rev. 4: 7 is nominative, as is also its noun, Zoo-on, which means "animal," or "living creature."

Notice that in Rev. 8: 12, "the fourth angel" is ho tetartos aggelos. All three words are in the nominative case.

Now look at the phrase "a third of the sun." The Greek is: to triton tou heliou. Notice that the adjective to triton is nominative singular neuter. Then also notice that tou heliou is in the genitive case. Can you see how that is different from the construction of ho tetartos aggelos? The latter, "the third angel," is a nominative adjective followed by a nominative noun; whereas in the phrase to triton tou heliou, you have a nominative adjective, triton, followed by the noun, heliou, in the genitive case.

Do you understand the function of the various cases? If you do not, none of this will make much sense to you.

By the way, how important to your interpretation of Rev. 12 is the idea that Rev. 12: 4 is describing sequence rather than size or proportion? Would your interpretation be proven wrong if Rev. 12: 4 can only be translated as "third of the stars"?

I have to go to bed now but I'll be back later in the day tomorrow to continue our discussion. If you like we can study together every instance of the word tritos in the NT.

[Gerr]

Quote:

to perfectly represent Him, we have to know Him perfectly, and there is only one way to do that.

"For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.....For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known."

[John317]

... And we are not dealing with an unspecific subject as the Jews here, but specifically the church or the “New Covenant” people of Yahweh, which qualifies the time depicted not as when Satan was cast out of paradise, but when paganism and Satan were dealt a sever defeat by the advent of Christ and this is why he pronounced that he saw Satan fall from heaven, or high places of authority (Ephesians 6:12). The comparative texts in both testaments simply do not support that the stars in Revelation 12 represent fallen angels but more appropriately support that they represent the sons and daughters that Satan casts down through the power of Rome under Constantine and later the Papacy.

In Rev. 1: 20, the apostle John defines "the stars" as representing angels.

I don't believe your interpretation is correct here, but I can see why you believe as you do. This passage of the Apocolypse has been variously understood, and a number of good commentators are close to your view.

However, when it comes to the translation of Rev. 12: 4, there is no evidence whatsoever that it should be translated any other way than, "the third of the stars."

Can you name a single competant translator who has rendered it any other way? It can be translated only as "a third [part] of the stars," "the third [part] of the stars," or "a third of the stars." But never "the third star" or "the three stars."

[Robert]

The question is "what is justice according to the law". Does it differentiate between the one who sins little vs much? No, I can't find that the law is in the business of torture.

I noticed that the above has been completely ignored by the opposition! Why?

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Robert

The question is "what is justice according to the law". Does it differentiate between the one who sins little vs much? No, I can't find that the law is in the business of torture.

I noticed that the above has been completely ignored by the opposition! Why?

The function of the law is only to point out wrong doing. It is the judge and jury that determine the punishment.

[John317]

Please study carefully the following analysis of the Greek phrases containing the word tritos. I have listed every single use of the word as it occurs in the book of Revelation. If you have any doubts about validity of what appears here, please take it to a professor of Koine Greek and ask if he agrees with what I'm saying. Or if that's not possible, compare it to the information in any standard Grammar of NT Greek and to the translations.

========================================

A. Use of tritos (a total of 9 times) as referring to something sequential in the Apocalypse:

1) Adjective gpf + noun gpf ---- Rev. 9: 18 (used 1)

2) Adjective nsn + noun nsn ---- Rev. 4: 7 (used 1)

3) Noun asf + adj asf ---- Rev. 6: 5 (used 1)

4) Adjective gsn + noun gsn ---- Rev. 6: 5 (used 1)

5) Adjective nsf + Interjection ---- Rev. 11: 14 (used twice)

6) Adjective nsm + noun nsm---- Rev. 14: 9; 16: 4; 21: 19 (used three times)

B. Use of tritos (a total of 12 times) as referring to proportion in the Apocalypse:

1) Adjective nsn + noun gsf---- Rev. 8: 7,8, 12 (used 3 times)

2) Adjective nsn + noun gpn---- Rev. 8: 9, 11 (used 3 times)

3) Adjective asn + noun gpm--- Rev. 8: 10; 9: 15; 12: 4 (used 3 times)

4) Adjective nsn + pronoun gpm---- Rev. 8: 12 (used 1)

5) Adjective asn + pronoun gsf---- Rev. 8: 12 (used 1)

6) Adjective nsn + noun gpm---- Rev. 9: 8 (used 1)

==================================================================

Summary:

When tritos is used to refer to proportion, it is NEVER in the genitive case but always either nominative or accusative, and the noun it modifies is ALWAYS in the genitive case. Also notice that the noun and its modifier never agree in case, number, and gender.

By contrast, if you study the use of tritos when it refers to things sequential, you will notice that when the noun is in the genitive case, the adjective is also. In fact, in these instances in the book of Revelation, both the noun and its modifier agree in case, number, and gender.

These are all reasons that every translation you will ever read translates Rev. 12: 4 as "the third [part] of the stars" or "a third of the stars." Thus, in this instance, they will never translate tritos as referring to something sequential.

Let me know if this helps.

[Robert]

The function of the law is only to point out wrong doing. It is the judge and jury that determine the punishment.

The Bible doesn't state this. Here's Paul:

Romans 7:10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.

[Robert]

Christ felt the anguish, which the sinner will feel when mercy shall no longer plead for the guilty race." [DA 753]

Clearly EGW taught that God will abandon the unbeliever. Otherwise God treated Christ, who became sin, differently then He treats the sinner. But the Bible states that "God does not show favoritism".

Rob

[pnattmbtc]

Robert, if you look at the text, you'll see that it says that Christ "felt" the anguish which the "sinner will feel." Christ *felt* as if God had abandoned Him (which is the effect of sin, which causes us to feel things about God which are not true), but God did not abandon Christ.

Quote:

In that thick darkness God’s presence was hidden. He makes darkness His pavilion, and conceals His glory from human eyes. God and His holy angels were beside the cross. The Father was with His Son. Yet His presence was not revealed.(DA 753)

Similarly in the final judgment, sin causes the lost to feel things about God which are not true. This is the impact of sin on the mind. It causes us to feel that God is condemning us, angry at us, rejecting us, etc. If not treated, it will lead to our rejecting Him, which causes our death.

Quote:

God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life.(DA 764)

Christ's case was different because He was able to overcome by faith. Rather than trust in His feelings, which were telling Him that God had abandoned Him (which was not true, as we see above) Christ trusted in the word of God, and died triumphantly in faith.

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: SivartM

I think it was more of a war of words than of physical strength.

I think this is on the right track, although I would put it as a "war of ideas" as opposed to "war of words."

Here's a very interesting application of being "cast down" from "The Desire of Ages"

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)

So Satan was "cast down" in that he lost any ability to influence others in heaven.

We think so much in terms of force because of what we're used to here, but heaven is different:

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. (DA 759;emphasis mine)

Amen!

[skyblue888]

Force is not a principle of God's government. The Lord's principles are not of this order.

The war is one of ideas. Rebellion is not overcome by force. This is why the victory was obtained at the cross, and this is when Lucifer was "cast down" (or "thrown down," if you prefer).

Amen!

[skyblue888]

Daniel 7 talks about thrones being "cast down". I don't think that means God was throwing around chairs.

Exactly. It simply means that a meeting of some great importance was to begin. In the New King James, it says, "Thrones were put in place."

sky

[skyblue888]

Again, from the chapter "It Is Finished"

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)

It's easy to see this has nothing to do with force being applied.

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. (ibid 759)

The war isn't one which is won by force.

First of all, to think so is to misunderstand the nature of the Great Controversy. The Great Controversy concerns God's character. There is no doubt that God is powerful. It's not about that. It's about if He is harsh, severe, and compels others to do His will, which is why it is important we understand the nature of sin; specifically that it inevitably results in death.

Quote:

It is Satan's constant effort to misrepresent the character of God, the nature of sin, and the real issues at stake in the great controversy. His sophistry lessens the obligation of the divine law and gives men license to sin. At the same time he causes them to cherish false conceptions of God so that they regard Him with fear and hate rather than with love. The cruelty inherent in his own character is attributed to the Creator; it is embodied in systems of religion and expressed in modes of worship. Thus the minds of men are blinded, and Satan secures them as his agents to war against God.(GC 569; emphasis mine)

I find it ironic that with the examples of the Jews before our eyes in mistaking the spiritual for the physical, we so often follow in their footsteps, desiring, as they did, a militaristic victory of Christ.

Secondly, not only is the war not one which can be won by force, force itself is not a principle of God's government, but only of the enemy, as the above quote from DA 759 points out.

Quote:

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.

Amen!

[skyblue888]

John317 wrote:

Of course the above paragraph doesn't deal with force being applied against Satan. The example here given has to do with the effect of Satan's inspiring men to kill Christ. This has nothing to do with Satan being compelled to leave heaven itself prior to his coming to this earth. The language used to describe Satan's being cast out or cast down or expelled from heaven shows that Satan did not leave willingly. In fact, it even says that before being forced out, Satan had said that he would use "force of might" and "stength against strength." There is no doubt that he followed through with his threat.

There is no indication in the Bible or Ellen White's writings that Satan finally changed his mind and accepted God's decree that he would have to leave heaven. For that reason He was expelled or compelled to leave. This is not the language of persuasion or of a voluntary passing out of heaven. I see no evidence that Satan and the evil angels left their heavenly abode willingly. But again, that is not the subject of DA 761.

[skyblue888]

You are right that the war is not won by force, but then the expelling of Satan did not win the war.

Yet the fact is clear from the Bible that God has at times used "force," and it is clear that in the future, there will be times when God will again use force.

To say that the war is not won by the use of force is not the same as saying that God never uses force or that God has never used it at any time.

If we take that position, we must deny that God destroyed the world with a flood, etc., or that God will finally destroy the wicked. God doesn't win the war by destroying the wicked, but that is not to say that God won't destroy the wicked.

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: John317

Of course the above paragraph doesn't deal with force being applied against Satan.

It says "Rebellion was not to be overcome by force." I don't see how one could read this and not think this has to do with Satan. It's a principle dealing with how the Great Controversy would be won, and what the Great Controversy is about. It says;

1.God could have destroyed Satan as easily as one throws a pebble into the sea.

2.But force is not a principle of God's government.

3.Compelling power is to be found only in the government of the enemy.

4.Rebellion was not to be overcome by force.

5.The government of God is moral, and its prevailing powers are truth and love.

Because of the world in which we love, it doesn't make sense to us that anything can be done without using force. Surely truth and love are not sufficient to win any war of importance. But the kingdom of God is not like our world. Its principles are different, and the means of obtaining victory are different.

Continuing from the DA 759 paragraph cited previously

Quote:

It was God's purpose to place things on an eternal basis of security, and in the councils of heaven it was decided that time must be given for Satan to develop the principles which were the foundation of his system of government. He had claimed that these were superior to God's principles. Time was given for the working of Satan's principles, that they might be seen by the heavenly universe.

God's purpose was that the difference in the principles of the two governments be seen. One government uses force, which we see over and over again in this world, in many different contexts. The other uses truth and love. This we don't see, except in Christ, and His followers.

Quote:

The example here given has to do with the effect of Satan's inspiring men to kill Christ. This has nothing to do with Satan being compelled to leave heaven itself prior to his coming to this earth. The language used to describe Satan's being cast out or cast down or expelled from heaven shows that Satan did not leave willingly. In fact, it even says that before being forced out, Satan had said that he would use "force of might" and "stength against strength." There is no doubt that he followed through with his threat.

There is no indication in the Bible or Ellen White's writings that Satan finally changed his mind and accepted God's decree that he would have to leave heaven. For that reason He was expelled or compelled to leave. This is not the language of persuasion or of a voluntary passing out of heaven. I see no evidence that Satan and the evil angels left their heavenly abode willingly. But again, that is not the subject of DA 761.

This reminds me of the conversation regarding God's setting people on fire. In Early Writings, Ellen White described what she saw in vision. In later books, she wrote out what these visions meant, explaining things in terms of the principles involved. If we don't recognize this, we have her contradicting herself, in one place saying that force is not a principle of God's government, that compelling power is only found in the government of the enemy, and in another describing God as doing the very thing she says He does not do, when discussing the very same event.

The scene in EW describes things in terms that would make sense to us, who are acquainted with force. But why would God use force when the principle of His kingdom or not of this order? Why would God use force to overcome rebellion if rebellion was not to be overcome by force? Why would God use compelling power if compelling power is not to be found in His government, but only in the government of the enemy? Doesn't make sense.

If we compare what we written out this in other places, there is language which indicates that force wasn't used. For example, there's DA 759, which isn't talking about the cross, but Satan's rebellion in heaven. This is clear from the context, which says that God could have destroyed Satan as easily as one casts a pebble to the earth, but the Lord's principles are not of this order, and it was determined to give Satan time to demonstrate the principles of his government. When was this decision made? At the time Satan rebelled.

Jude says Satan and his followers "kept not their first estate, but left their habitation." The Great Controversy speaks of Satan's "leaving the immediate presence of the Father."

Revelation says:

Quote:

7And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

8And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.

9And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

10And 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.

This is describing the war in heaven. Of Satan's being cast down, EGW writes:

Quote:

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)

She describes the events described in Rev. 12 ("neither was their place found any more in heaven"; Satan was "cast out"; he was "cast down") in terms of a loss of influence.

If we understand what's happening here, then it makes sense that EGW would say that love and truth are the prevailing powers of God's government, because these are exactly the powers one would use to cause another to lose influence, assuming the influence was one based on selfishness and hate.

Finally from the statement in GC 569 we see that Satan is constantly seeking to misrepresent not only God's character, but the nature of sin and the real issues of the Great Controversy.

The nature of sin is that it leads one to depend upon force to get one's way, and it destroys those who give themselves to it. It is based on the principle of self first. It inevitably results in death.

God is working to counteract sin by revealing truth. He reveals the truth about Himself, and about His government, and this is the means by which He overcomes. Not by force, which is not a principle of His government.

Amen! Amen! Amen!

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: John317

You are right that the war is not won by force, but then the expelling of Satan did not win the war.

It's not one by force because:

a)It's not a war that can be one by force, being a war of ideas and influence. It can only be won by a revelation of truth.

b)Force is not a principle of God's government.

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. (DA 759)

Quote:

Yet the fact is clear from the Bible that God has at times used "force," and it is clear that in the future, there will be times when God will again use force.

Then force *is* a principle of God's kingdom, and He does use compelling power, and He does overcome rebellion by force, and His principles are of this order.

Quote:

To say that the war is not won by the use of force is not the same as saying that God never uses force or that God has never used it at any time.

But to say that "Compelling power is only found under Satan's government" is saying that God never uses force or that God has never used it at any time. Similarly "The Lord's principles are not of this order." It couldn't be said any more clearly than this.

Quote:

If we take that position, we must deny that God destroyed the world with a flood, etc., or that God will finally destroy the wicked.

Taking this position would lead us to deny that God used force, or will use force, to do so. It's possible for God to destroy without using force.

Quote:

God doesn't win the war by destroying the wicked, but that is not to say that God won't destroy the wicked.

It is to say that He won't use force to do so, given that rebellion is not to be overcome by force, and that His principles are not of this order. He destroys the wicked by the prevailing powers of His government, which are truth and love.

Quote:

God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them. (DA 764)

_________________________________________________

Amen again!

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: John317

Would you worship Satan and believe that God should not be worshipped if you became convinced that God compelled Satan and His evil angels to depart from heaven? Would God's taking this action prove to you that God is unworthy of our worship and that Satan was right about God's character?

Originally Posted By: John317

Because the objection has been made that if God used force to remove Satan and the fallen angels from heaven, it would show that God used force to win the great controversy.

According to those making the objection, if that were true, it would mean God didn't win it by love and truth. See posts #326330 and 326644.

would that not be true? if God used force to win then He didnt win by love and truth, right?

Quote:

In the latter post, it is said that if God used force to compel Satan to leave heaven, it would prove Satan right. I deny this.

why?

Quote:

God in His wisdom did not use measures of force to suppress Satan's rebellion. Such measures would have aroused sympathy for Satan, strengthening his rebellion rather than lessening his power. If God had at the outset punished his rebellion, many more would have looked upon him as one who had been dealt with unjustly, and would have followed his example. It was necessary for him to have time and opportunity to develop his false principles. There was war in heaven, and the Prince of life overcame the apostate. Satan was cast out of heaven, with the angels who had united with him. {ST, July 23, 1902 par. 7}

so if God didnt use force, then how did He get satan to leave, (remembering that God is using our human language to communicate with us, but He does not think like us)?

Quote:

Hence the question whether someone who discovers that God used force to compel Satan to leave heaven would decide to worship Satan rather than God.

if satan uses force and God uses force then they would be the same. but it doesnt necessarily follow that someone would choose to worship satan bacause they couldnt worship a god who is just like satan. an example of this are the many who can not worship a god who would torture people for eternity in hell. but they dont usually say, so i will worship satan instead. they just refuse to "worship" God as they understand Him.

Quote:

I believe God did use force to compel Satan to leave heaven, because the Bible plainly says so,

the bible "plainly" says many things, such as that He hated esau...the bible also interprets itself, so our job is to study it to see if our faulty understanding of what it is saying is true, right? and that would be with much humble, earnest prayer, right? not just a, the bible is clear....Act 17:10 ...Berea: .... 11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Quote:

and I have no doubt that God is worthy of my love, admiration, trust, and worship. I believe God was absolutely right to do what He did in expelling-- or "throwing out"-- Satan from heaven.

this is very admirable, but i am quite sure that those who refuse to see any interpretation in the bible other than an eternally burning hell say the same.

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

these might be good questions, john, but how does answering yes or no make what you believe the bible says true or not?[/quote']

Excellent!

[John317]

..The pen of inspiration tells us in no uncertain terms that the use of force is not in God's order to solve the problem with evil. Yet we turn around and add to His words by saying that "sometimes" He does use force to arrive at His desired end.

Sorry John, but this is not speaking the thing that is right.

I believe the context of the statement is that God did not immediately destroy Satan because it wouldn't have solved the sin problem but would have made it worse. The way she expresses it, it seems to me to clearly imply that God would destroy Satan after he had clearly demonstrated the wickedness of his character.

The word "force" needs to be defined. When God "drove the man out of the Garden of Eden," was that a use of force?

When students are expelled from school, is that "force"?

The school doesn't give the expelled student a choice but tells him that he must leave. That is what God did to Satan and what He did to Adam. They had no choice but to leave. Ellen White says that it was after God decreed Satan's banishment from heaven that Satan declared he would resist "to the point of force, strength against stregth, might against might." That's when there was war in heaven. The war was over Satan's resistence of God's will that Satan and his evil followers leave heaven. They didn't want to leave but they went anyway. God didn't give him a choice. He couldn't possibly stay any longer.

I understand that to be "force."

If God wouldn't allow Satan to stay in heaven under any circumstances, would it cause you to have questions about His character and love? It wouldn't cause me to have any such questions. I think God had ever right to do what He did.

By the way-- nice to see you back here, sky. :-)

sky, could you also please respond to the following, from the writings of Ellen White:

SOME BELIEVE THE ERROR THAT GOD IS TOO MERCIFUL TO DESTROY THE WICKED:

"Guardians... of the people...[say], The Lord will not do good, neither will He do evil. He is too merciful to visit His people in judgment." 5 T 211

"God's love is represented in our day as being of such a character as would forbid His destroying the sinner. Men reason from their own low standard of right and justice. 'Thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as theyself' (Ps. 50: 21). They measure God by themselves. They reason as to how they would act under the circumstances and decide God would do as they imagine they would do...

"In no kingdom or government is it left to lawbreakers to say what punishment is to be executed against those who have broken the law... God is a moral governor as well as a Father. He is the lawgiver. He makes and executes His laws. Law that has no penalty is of no force.

"The plea may be made that a loving Father would not see His children suffering the punishment of God by fire while He had the power to relieve them. But God would, for the good of His subjects and for their safety, punish the transgressor. He can do infinite justice that man has no right to do before his fellow man. Noah would have dispelased God to have drowned one of the scoffers and mockers that harassed him, but God drowned the vast world. Lot would have had no right to inflict punishment on his sons-in-law, but God would do it in strict justice.

"Who will say God will not do what He says He will do? 12 MR 207-209; 10 MR 265 (1876).

Your thoughts?

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: John317

If God told you that He destroyed the world by a flood and that He compelled Satan and his evil angels to leave heaven-- just like it says in His inspired Word-- would you then choose to worship Satan? Would you then decide that God is unworthy of your trust, admiration, and worship?

If God told you that He never used force, that compelling power is only found in the government of the enemy, just as He said through an inspired prophet, would you then decide that God is unworthy of your trust, admiration, and worship?

I'm not really understanding the point of a question like this.

How about this question. We have two different point of view being expressed. One presents God as using power, force and violence to achieve His purposes. The other presents God as accomplishing His purposes without using these things. Which view is superior? Which presents God's character in a more positive light?

The anwswer should be obvious to all.

sky

[skyblue888]

Quote:

Ellen White never said that God didn't win in heaven in the struggle against Satan through the use of force.

She wrote:

Quote:

It was a being of wonderful power and glory that had set himself against God. Of Lucifer the Lord says, "Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty." Ezek. 28:12. Lucifer had been the covering cherub. He had stood in the light of God's presence. He had been the highest of all created beings, and had been foremost in revealing God's purposes to the universe. After he had sinned, his power to deceive was the more deceptive, and the unveiling of his character was the more difficult, because of the exalted position he had held with the Father.

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.

This goes beyond that God didn't use force with Satan, but makes the point that "The Lord's principles are not of this order" and that "compelling power is found only under Satan's government." So not only did He not use force then, but His principles are not of this order.

Amen.

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: John317

The context is Ellen White's explanation of why God did not destroy Satan. Her answer is that Satan's rebellion was not to be overcome by force.

The context of Satan's rebellion not being overcome by force was when he left heaven. Right before the paragraph explaining that God doesn't use force she said:

Quote:

It was a being of wonderful power and glory that had set himself against God. Of Lucifer the Lord says, "Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty." Ezek. 28:12. Lucifer had been the covering cherub. He had stood in the light of God's presence. He had been the highest of all created beings, and had been foremost in revealing God's purposes to the universe. After he had sinned, his power to deceive was the more deceptive, and the unveiling of his character was the more difficult, because of the exalted position he had held with the Father.

So the context is dealing with this question.

Anyway, if force is not a principle of God's government, and compelling power is not to be found except in Satan's government, even if this weren't the context, it would still follow that God didn't use force. Why? Because His principles are not of this order.

Quote:

God's way of winning the great controversy is through truth and love as revealed in the life and death of Christ. She is not talking about how Satan left Heaven.

1.She is talking about Satan's leaving heaven.

2.Even if she weren't, it doesn't matter, since force is a principle of God's government, and compelling power is only to be found in the government of the enemy.

Quote:

Therefore the above statement does not contradict the Bible or Ellen White's plain statements that Satan was "thrown out" of heaven.

But not by force!

Quote:

Have you noticed the Bible does not say that Satan and the fallen angels were talked into leaving willingly or that they left after being persuaded to do so?

Why are you asking this? Has anyone suggested this?

Quote:

Ellen White's language also does not indicate any such change on the part of Satan. On the contrary, she says that Satan said that he would resist God's decree to the point of force. And there's absolutely no reason to believe that Satan finally changed his mind and left Heaven willingly. That is why the Greek uses a passive verb "bello," a word it never uses for something that someone does by choice. It means "to be thrown out" or "expelled." If I said that I "threw someone out" of the room, the picture is not one of a person going out on their own volition because they want to go.

If you're talking about Rev. 12, EGW says the following in regards to this:

Quote:

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.

This is describing Satan's loss of influence. It was the truth which accomplished this, not force.

I don't understand how one can think that God uses force to achieve His purposes when we are told:

Quote:

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.

Isn't it clear this is a principle being explained, as opposed to some specific application? Compelling power is found only under Satan's government. God's government is moral, and truth and love the the prevailing powers.

_____________________________

I don't understand it either especially when the Lord Himself is saying this through His prophet.

sky

[skyblue888]

Quote:

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. (DA 759)

Amen!