"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[skyblue888]

Quote:

John - you are welcome.

I agree that this point is incredibly obvious and clear as is almost every single point pertaining to this topic.

This points to a deeper element at work here - deeper than the idea that people cannot work through the obvious battle,war,power context for "there was war in heaven" with "Michael and his angels FIGHTING against Satan and his angels".

(Hint: How very different the text would have read if the real intent was the much more nonsensical "Satan and his angels VOTED THEMSELVES OUT of heaven").

What we are really seeing here is the effect of teachers like Maxwell whose method is to point to some Bible text or Ellen White statement that fully debunks their own view and then comment "well some people believe that -- but I prefer the lahhjahh view" -- instead of actually addressing the problem from the text so opposed to his false doctrine. (Then of course he adds an obligatory reference from some other area of scripture or from Ellen White made to appear to oppose the offending text he is trying to squirm out of ... bwink )

"To each his own" - I usually say when I run across that kind of non-Bible anti-exegesis model.

But then you see it come back up in places like this thread - and wow! It is amazing how even the most direct statements are denied.

in Christ,

Bob

It doesn't seem like you are running.

Do you think it's possible that rather than "denying" the "most direct statements," that others are simply understanding things differently than you are? That these two things are not synonymous? That is, it is possible to disagree with BobRyan without denying direct statements? For example, consider the following statement:

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.(DA 759)

John seems to think that this is a rule, which has exceptions (assuming I've understood him correctly). Should I write of him:

Quote:

What we are really seeing here is the effect of teachers like Maxwell whose method is to point to some Bible text or Ellen White statement that fully debunks their own view and then comment "well some people believe that -- but I prefer the lahhjahh view" -- instead of actually addressing the problem from the text so opposed to his false doctrine. (Then of course he adds an obligatory reference from some other area of scripture or from Ellen White made to appear to oppose the offending text he is trying to squirm out of ... bwink )

or

Quote:

But then you see it come back up in places like this thread - and wow! It is amazing how even the most direct statements are denied.

John's not doing anything different than what you're accusing others of, it doesn't appear to me. Doesn't the statement in DA 759 above qualify as a "direct statement."? Is John, by thinking there are exceptions to it, "denying a direct statement"? Perhaps he is, but if he is doing so, it certainly isn't with any intent to do so. So I don't cast aspersions on his motives, or accuse him of "denying" some "direct statement," but try to understand what he is thinking, and why, and argue why I think his thinking is wrong. Isn't that a better way of approaching things?

_________________________________

Excellent points pnatt! and I will say again, Excellent points pnatt.

Your hired. hehehe

youd make an excellent lawyer, in fact you are, for the Lord.

sky

[skyblue888]

You can do "different exegesis" now? Does that mean we can all interpret things differently without being heretics? Yay!

hehehe

[skyblue888]

Many think that they must consult commentaries on the Scriptures in order to understand the meaning of the word of God, and we would not take the position that commentaries should not be studied; but it will take much discernment to discover the truth of God under the mass of the words of men. How little has been done by the church as a body professing to believe the Bible, to gather up the scattered jewels of God's word into one perfect chain of truth? The jewels of truth do not lie upon the surface, as many suppose. The master mind in the confederacy of evil is ever at work to keep the truth out of sight, and to bring into full view the opinions of great men. The enemy is doing all in his power to obscure heaven's light through educational processes; for he does not mean that men shall hear the voice of the Lord, saying, "This is the way, walk ye in it." [isaiah 30:21.] {CE 85.2}

The jewels of truth lie scattered over the field of revelation; but they have been buried beneath human traditions, beneath the sayings and commandments of men, and the wisdom from heaven has been practically ignored; for Satan has succeeded in making the world believe that the words and achievements of men are of great consequence. The Lord God, the Creator of the worlds, at infinite cost has given the gospel to the world. Through this divine agent, glad, refreshing springs of heavenly comfort and abiding consolation have been opened for those who will come to the fountain of life. There are veins of truth yet to be discovered; but spiritual things are spiritually discerned. Minds beclouded with evil cannot appreciate the value of the truth as it is in Jesus. When iniquity is cherished, men do not feel the necessity of making diligent effort, with prayer and reflection, to understand what they must know or lose heaven. The have so long been under the shadow of the enemy, that they view truth as men behold objects through a smoked and imperfect glass; for all things are dark and perverted in their eyes. Their spiritual vision is feeble and untrustworthy; for they look upon the shadow, and turn away from the light. {CE 86.1}

Great quotes! wow!

thanks so much

sky

[skyblue888]

"Suppose a brother should come to us, and present some matter to us in a different light from that in which we had ever looked at it before, should we come together with those who agree with us, to make sarcastic remarks, to ridicule his position, and to form a confederacy to misrepresent his arguments and ideas? Should we manifest a bitter spirit toward him, while neglecting to seek wisdom of God in earnest prayer,--while failing to seek counsel of Heaven? Would you think you were keeping the commandments of God while pursuing such a course toward your brother? Would you be in a condition to recognize the bright beams of heaven's light should it be flashed upon your pathway? Would your heart be ready to receive divine illumination?--No; you would not recognize the light. All this spirit of bigotry and intolerance must be taken away, and the meekness and lowliness of Christ must take its place before the Spirit of God can impress your minds with divine truth. We should come right down to the root of the matter presented, and should not be in a position where we shall have no love for our brother because his ideas differ from our views. If you do take this position, you say by your attitude that you consider your own opinion perfection, and your brother's erroneous. {RH, August 27, 1889 par. 5}

When a doctrine is presented that does not meet our minds, we should go to the word of God, flee to the Lord in prayer, and give no place to the enemy to come in with suspicion and prejudice. We should never permit that spirit to be manifested that arraigned the priests and rulers against the Redeemer of the world. They complained that he disturbed the people, and they wished he would let them alone; for he caused perplexity and dissension. The Lord sends light among us to prove of what manner of spirit we are. We are not to deceive ourselves. In 1844 when anything came to our attention that we did not understand, we kneeled down, and asked God to help us to take the right position, and then we could come to a right understanding and see eye to eye. There was no dissension, no enmity, no evil-surmising, no misjudging of our brethren. If we only understood the evil of this spirit of intolerance, how we would shun it! We join ourselves to the enemy of God and man when we accuse our brethren, for Satan was an accuser of the brethren. We bear false witness when we add a little to our brother's words, and give them a false coloring; and in the sight of God we are not doers, but transgressors of the law. We are not on the Lord's side; we are on the side of him who hurts, destroys, and tears down the cause of truth. We should pray for one another, instead of drawing apart. {RH, August 27, 1889 par. 6}

[skyblue888]

Metaphors John, metaphors....Again God has set limits...a barrier, but that doesn't mean that God is violent....

[Dr. Rich]

Hey Sky, Did you notice anything wrong in the second quote? (RH Aug. 27, 1889) Ok, so in 1844 they all kneeled down and asked God to help them to take the right position. Oh Oh--And did they take the right position? History proves that they didn't. Why? Could it be because she didn't heed her own advise?

[skyblue888]

Most people who use "heresy" though, at least in my experience, don't mean disagreement with the official teaching of the church. It can often mean disagreement with their own beliefs, which are so obviously true and Biblical that any dissent is heresy.

how true! :)

[Guest]

He will say to the angels, 'No longer combat Satan in his efforts to destroy. Let him work out his malignity upon the children of disobedience, for the cup of iniquity is full.'" Review and Herald, Vol.4, p.335.

sky

Your reference to this quote leaves something to be desired. No issue of the Review and Herald ever had 335 pages. And I have never seen a book with that title. I was able to find it however. It was in {RH, September 17, 1901 par. 8}

Just as I thought, you have yanked it right out of it's context and applied it to something it doesn't apply to. This quote is not dealing with the final destruction of the wicked, or the war in heaven. So I'm not sure exactly what point you are trying to make with it, but here it is in it's context:

God keeps a reckoning with the nations. Not a sparrow falls to the ground without His notice. Those who work evil toward their fellow men, saying, How doth God know? will one day be called upon to meet long-deferred vengeance. In this age a more than common contempt is shown to God. Men have reached a point in insolence and disobedience which shows that their cup of iniquity is almost full. Many have well-nigh passed the boundary of mercy. Soon God will show that He is indeed the living God. He will say to the angels, "No longer combat Satan in his efforts to destroy. Let him work out his malignity upon the children of disobedience; for the cup of their iniquity is full. They have advanced from one degree of wickedness to another, adding daily to their lawlessness. I will no longer interfere to prevent the destroyer from doing his work."

This time is right upon us. The Spirit of God is being withdrawn from the earth. When the angel of mercy folds her wings and departs, Satan will do the evil deeds he has long wished to do. Storm and tempest, war and bloodshed,--in these things he delights, and thus he gathers in his harvest. And so completely will men be deceived by him that they will declare that these calamities are the result of the desecration of the first day of the week. From the pulpits of the popular churches will be heard the statement that the world is being punished because Sunday is not honored as it should be. And it will require no great stretch of imagination for men to believe this. They are guided by the enemy, and therefore they reach conclusions which are entirely false. {RH, September 17, 1901 par. 8,9}

[skyblue888]

While I may disagree with what you have to say, Robert, I defend your right to say it. IMHO it is a waste of time to participate in a "discussion" in which posts - anybody's posts - are being removed or modified by a moderator. If I were you, I would immediately move my discussion elsewhere because the thread has ceased to be a free discussion and has been moved to a sort of monologue or fenced-in conversation.

When your opinion is not wanted unless it falls inside certain parameters, your opinion is not wanted.

[skyblue888]

He moved them, but a truce must have been reached because while God moved Lucifer to earth he could not dominate the earth with his brand of love unless our first parents accepted him....Hence he became the god of this world after the fall:

Luke 4:5 The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. 6 And he said to him, "I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. 7 So if you worship me, it will all be yours." 8 Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.' "

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: John317

The Greek verb, bello, when used in the passive voice, as it is in Rev. 12, ALWAYS refers to the use of force. It NEVER refers to something that someone does voluntarily. For instance, the wicked are "thrown into" [eblhthh] the lake of fire.(Rev. 12: 9 uses the same form of the word, eblhthh.)

This isn't true. I posted previously in this thread a couple of example where it didn't mean something happening to someone caused by force. Also, the Rev. 20 text you quoted says "where the beast and the false prophet are." It makes no sense to say that the beast and false prophet were case into the lake of fire by force. Also vs. 14 uses the same verb, and says, "And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire." You're going to argue from this that death and hell we thrown, by force, into the lake of fire?

Also, if the war in heaven isn't a literal war, but say, a war of ideas, then the "casting down" of Satan would make more sense being interpreted in a way that goes along with the type of war that's being fought. And it turns out that this is just how the SOP interprets it!

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)

There's no reference to force here. Instead, we see that Satan's being cast down is due to the fact that Satan revealed himself as a murdered, and uprooted himself from the sympathies of the heavenly beings. We see that Satan had a large role in his being cast down, and God's part was the employment of the prevailing power of His moral government, "truth and love."

It's pretty amazing that God can defeat a despicable and violent opponent like Satan by the weapons of truth and love.

____________________

Amen.

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

DA 764 tells us that had God "left" Satan to reap the full result of his sin, he would have perished, but this would have been misunderstood, as it was not at this point understood that death is "the inevitable power of sin." GC 543 tells us the exclusion from heaven of the lost is voluntary with themselves. DA 749 tells us that compelling power is found only under Satan's government.

Then there's the life of Jesus Christ. We can see, in brilliant fashion, the true character of God simply by seeing how Jesus Christ lived and treated those with whom He came in contact, including those who desired him harm.

The "NOW" refers to the time when God can allow Satan and his followers to reap the full result of their sin without being misunderstood.

haskell, a buddy of egws, makes it clearer.

Quote:

While it was in harmony with worldly government, it was not, however, according to the principle of the heavenly government. Hence it is, that again, in the person of the Babylonian king, Satan is challenging the government of God. When Lucifer and his angels refused to bow before the throne of God, the Father would not then destroy them. They should live until death should come as a result of the course they pursued. The Babylonian king, however, threatened utter destruction to all who refused to worship his golden image. The motive power in the heavenly government is love; human power when exercised becomes tyranny. All tyranny is a repetition of the Babylonian principles. We sometimes call it papal; it is likewise Babylonian. When the civil power enforces worship of any sort, be that worship true or false in itself, to obey is idolatry. The command must be backed by some form of punishment,-a fiery furnace,-and the conscience of man is no longer free. From a civil standpoint, such legislation is tyranny, and looked at from a religious point of view, it is persecution. {1901 SNH, SDP 41.1}

wow!! he is good!! our pioneers really understood the issues involved, but we seem to have drifted so far from that.

we talk about a sunday law, but we do not, as a church, really delve into the spirits behind this "great controversy". the mentalities and characters we need to understand in order to make sure we are not on the wrong side of that city!

wow, great quote.

Never read this before.

sky

[skyblue888]

So John, am I a liar?

[skyblue888]

Quote:

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?

It's true God stops protecting the wicked from Satan after human probation ends and the seven last plagues begin to be poured out by the seven angels who are told, "Go, pour out the seven bowls of God's wrath on the earth." Rev. 16: 1.

Which they do by ceasing to hold the winds of strife, and ceasing their protective watch against the thousand dangers they protect us from, all of them unseen. There seems to be an underlying idea that God and His angels do nothing to protect us, and that the withdrawal of God's protection is not sufficient to result in the destruction described in inspiration, but that's not the case.

"Satan is the destroyer. The Lord is the restorer."

"Compelling power is to be found only under Satan's government. The Lord's principles are not of this order." The same is true in regards to violence. Simply considering the life of Christ should make clear what God's attitude is in regards to violence.

_____________________________

A huge Amen to this again.

sky

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: sky

"God bears with divine patience with the perversity of the wicked; but He declares that He will visit their transgressions with a rod. He will at last permit the destructive agencies of Satan to bear sway to destroy." MS 17, 1906.

Looks to me like this statement is clearly saying that the destrutive agencies of Satan are the "rod" with which the Lord will punish the finally impenitent.

God the Father, speaking to His Son, says to Him, "I will give you the nations for Your inheritance, and the ends of the earth for Your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron; You shall dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel." Psalm 2:7-9.

Now we know what it means for the Lord to break the wicked with a rod of iron and to dash them in pieces like a potter's vessels! He will permit the destructive agencies of Satan to bear sway to destroy those who have rejected His mercy. The wicked will be left to the control of the leader they had chosen.

I hadn't thought of this.

and as usual every statement she makes is based on the bible, a correct understanding of the bible had she:

Isa 10:5 O Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indignation.

Isa 10:24 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD of hosts, O my people that dwellest in Zion, be not afraid of the Assyrian: he shall smite thee with a rod, and shall lift up his staff against thee, after the manner of Egypt.

Isa 14:29 Rejoice not thou, whole Palestina, because the rod of him that smote thee is broken: for out of the serpent's root shall come forth a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent.

then there is this:Isa 11:1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:

Isa 11:2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD;

Isa 11:3 And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears:

Isa 11:4 But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.

breath or spirit as in Holy Spirit:

Joh 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

and what does the Holy Spirit do?

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: Bob

You are conflating two seperate points while ignoring each of the inconvenient details found in SR 16-19 and 1SP22 that so explicitly address the topic and refute your argument. You also missing another detail about how the war in heaven with all of its force and violence is a perfect example of God NOT using His own infinite power to solve a problem.

First the conflation --

The Rev 12 text (as in the case of 2Peter 3) takes the war in heaven BEFORE Eden and the events that took place AFTER the death of Christ (where Satan is then charged as a murderer) and combines them.

Clearly the physical war in heaven was over long before the death of Christ - and no one is arguing that at Christ's death another war was fought.

Your argument above is to point out that at the death of Christ - there is no physical violence - no "might against might" war in heaven itself.

A point everyone agrees with. (I think you also know this is true.)

What you have ignored is the fact that we are very clearly told about the physical war that took place in heaven prior to creation of this world.

Thus your argument is not really getting off the ground.

Second the "Power of God" issue.

Again in the inspired quotes you are ignoring.

The statements quoted explicitly state how God's allowing for force against force and strength against strength - is an example of His NOT simply zapping out the bad guys with His own power.

It's not ignoring them, but taking into account all that she said on a subject, and using her own words to interpret them. You know, the words in DA 761 are based on the same vision as the earlier quotes. She's talking about the same vision, and quoting the same text from Scripture.

The war in heaven is not a war which can be won by force. Not only can it not be one by force, but force isn't 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)

This is in the context of Satan's rebellion. This clearly says "Rebellion was not to be overcome by force." She could hardly have said this if rebellion was overcome by force.

She goes on to say that "compelling power is only found in Satan's government." She could hardly have said this if God used compelling power against Satan.

"The Lord's principles are not of this order." She could hardly have said this if the Lord's principles are of this order.

Elsewhere she says "the exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government."

These statements are clear, Bob. They are *apparently* contradictory to the ones you mention, but, being inspired by the Holy Spirit, they most both be true. You are suggesting that I'm "ignoring" the ones you cite, but it seems to me it's rather the other way around. I'm saying that the ones you cited should be interpreted in the light of these that I have cited, and others, such as the following:

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. (GC 568)

This tells us Satan looks to:

a.Misrepresent the nature of the Great Controversy.

b.Present false conceptions of God, so that people will regard God with fear.

It seems to me this is just what's happening here. If we view the Great Controversy as a contest which is decided by force, or in which force plays a part, and that God wins it by an act of power in which He sets His enemies on fire, I don't see how what she's warning against could be more the case than this. Surely the statements mean *something*. What is Satan doing to misrepresent the nature of the Great Controversy? He's making it appear to be a battle of force as opposed to a battle over God's character. What's he doing to make God appear cruel? The same thing. He presents God as cruel, and One who uses force, according to his own character (i.e. Satan's).

God's principles "are not of this order."

It seems to me that you are ignoring these and similar statements, as if they did not exist. You make no attempt to harmonize these statements with the other ones you presented, and don't take into account the significance that she's writing about the same vision she had years earlier. This happens in DA 764 as well.

Her understanding of things grew with time. When she wrote what she did in "The Desire of Ages," she wasn't writing about some other vision she had seen, but the same one she wrote about earlier in earlier volumes of "The Spirit of Prophesy" and elsewhere. We should understand her earlier writings in the light of the latter ones, when she's writing about the same subject.

Also, there's GC 542 to take into account, which, although I've mentioned it many times, and quoted it several times, it does not appear anyone has. The conclusion of what's presented there is that the exclusion of heaven of those who reject God is "voluntary with themselves," which is in harmony with the statements which have been presented above.

___________________________

The same thing happened on another forum. There were those who kept posting the same statements that are posted here which give the strong impression that God personally and directly punishes or destroys the wicked but they willfully ignored the statements establishing the principles for the interpretation of these statements. And because they were the ones in control of who stays and who leaves the forum, it shouldn't be too hard to figure out who had to leave, that is, who was forced to leave!

At least on this forum there is more freedom of speech, more liberty of expression, and I thank God for that.

sky

[John317]

Originally Posted By: SivartM

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, if you study Daniel 7:9 and compare it with the language of Rev. 12: 9, you will see that there is no relationship between the two. The Hebrew uses a word that is translated by the Greek translation, the Septuagint, as "etethesan," signifying that a throne was "set." In Revelation 12: 9, the word, eblethe, from ballo. This word in the passaive voice always refers to something or someone being "thrown out" or "cast out" against their will. I've already shown this in a complete word study of its use in the NT. It never refers to something that someone does willingly.

I would remind you, also, that Ellen White uses words such as, "expelled," "cast out," "banished," "turned out," and "the gates barred against him," etc. She says Satan "could not enter heaven." He did not have a choice. When "God decreed that Satan must be banished from heaven," the Devil resisted, and that is when the war in heaven occurred. The war was in response to Satan's refusal to leave; it was not about ideas, or some kind of debate.

[Guest]

The same thing happened on another forum. There were those who kept posting the same statements that are posted here which give the strong impression that God personally and directly punishes or destroys the wicked but they willfully ignored the statements establishing the principles for the interpretation of these statements. And because they were the ones in control of who stays and who leaves the forum, it shouldn't be too hard to figure out who had to leave, that is, who was forced to leave!

At least on this forum there is more freedom of speech, more liberty of expression, and I thank God for that.

I know you do.

So who is the statement sheriff? The one who decides which statements will be the interpreting principle, and which ones will be the interpretED?

Let me guess, YOU?

[skyblue888]

Quote:

we will always see Him as a "super" us. whatever we are, but bigger and more powerful.

Very well put! A "super" us.

_____________________________________

Yes, yes, very well put!!! So true! No wonder we have been told from the pen of inspiration that the understanding of the people of God has been blinded, for Satan has misrepresented the character of God. Our good and gracious Lord has been presented before us clothed in the attributes of Satan. We have so long seen Him in a false light that it is extremely difficult to dispel the cloud that obscures His glory (character) from our view. See 1 S.M.355.

sky

[skyblue888]

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 destroys no one. Testimonies for the Church, 5:120.

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.

Quote:

Satan is the destroyer. God cannot bless those who refuse to be faithful stewards. All He can do is to permit Satan to accomplish his destroying work. We see calamities of every kind and in every degree corning upon the earth, and why? The Lord's restraining power is not exercised. The world has disregarded the word of God. They live as though there were no God. Like the inhabitants of the Noachic world, they refuse to have any thought of God. Wickedness prevails to an alarming extent, and the earth is ripe for the harvest. Testimonies for the Church, 6:388, 389.

Quote:

This earth has almost reached the place where God will permit the destroyer to work his will upon it. Testimonies for the Church, 7:141.

Quote:

God keeps a reckoning with the nations. Not a sparrow falls to the ground without His notice. Those who work evil toward their fellow men, saying, How doth God know? will one day be called upon to meet long-deferred vengeance. In this age a more than common contempt is shown to God. Men have reached a point in insolence and disobedience which shows that their cup of iniquity is almost full. Many have well-nigh passed the boundary of mercy. Soon God will show that He is indeed the living God. He will say to the angels, 'No longer combat Satan in his efforts to destroy. Let him work out his malignity upon the children of disobedience; for the cup of their iniquity is full. They have advanced from one degree of wickedness to another, adding daily to their lawlessness. I will no longer interfere to prevent the destroyer from doing his work. The Review and Herald, September 17, 1901.

Quote:

When Jesus was asked to destroy the Samaritans who had rejected Him, He replied to His disciples, "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village." Luke 9:55, 56. There can be no more conclusive evidence that we possess the spirit of Satan than the disposition to hurt and destroy those who do not appreciate our work, or who act contrary to our ideas. The Desire of Ages, 487.

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." ibid., 759.

Quote:

The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government... ibid., 22.

Quote:

Sickness, suffering, and death are work of an antagonistic power. Satan is the destroyer; God is the restorer. The Ministry of Healing, 113.

Thanks for refreshing us with these clear and to-the-point statements which make clear that God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression.

sky

[skyblue888]

this is such an unhappy thread... and I've asked questions, only to be ignored...which will probably happen to this post as well.

The only unhappy thing would be to resist light or to force someone to leave the forum because he/she does not believe exactly as some do. These discussions are necessary as long as we stick to the issues and give everyone freedom to think for "In matters of conscience the soul must be left untrammeled." D.A.550.

sky

[pnattmbtc]

This word in the passaive voice always refers to something or someone being "thrown out" or "cast out" against their will.

[pnattmbtc]

I would remind you, also, that Ellen White uses words such as, "expelled," "cast out," "banished," "turned out," and "the gates barred against him," etc. She says Satan "could not enter heaven." He did not have a choice. When "God decreed that Satan must be banished from heaven," the Devil resisted, and that is when the war in heaven occurred. The war was in response to Satan's refusal to leave; it was not about ideas, or some kind of debate.

I'm sure I've mentioned GC 542 over a dozen times on this thread, but this hasn't been acknowledged, in spite of its being mentioned repeatedly and quoted.

[pnattmbtc]

So who is the statement sheriff? The one who decides which statements will be the interpreting principle, and which ones will be the interpretED?

The key to answering your question is the word "principle." Simply consider what the word "principle" means, and which statements fit this meaning, and which are not principles, but the telling of events. The telling of events should be interpreted according to the principles.

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: Robert

In heaven Lucifer began to re-think God's agape love. Lucifer found agape too restrictive. Instead of living selflessly for others he took God's agape love and bent it back to himself. We call this self-love - a u turn agape.

Now self-love sounds very convincing. Even Psychiatrists say, "You can't find happiness unless you love yourself." So 1/3 of the angels found Lucifer's argument very convincing.

God knew that the fruit of self-love would produce "hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy". You see if you are trying to climb the ladder there are other folks doing the same. So you compete...you try to get the best grades so you'll get the job instead of them....This is Lucifer's invention....Ultimately it collapses into anarchy. That's because the ultimate fruit of self-love is murder. That's why Paul states, "If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other."

But since Lucifer had no proof that his love of self was better than God's agape love, God allowed Him to develop it if and when he found a world that was receptive to his views. He found that in Adam and Eve.

For 6000 years we have seen Lucifer's principle at work. Because God has allowed Lucifer to develop his type of love God assumes the blame for all the fallout produced from such love, that is, until the day of atonement when God places the blame where it belongs; On Satan....Until then God makes statements like "I create evil"..."I killed Saul"..."etc...

This was a very nice post. Good points, which flow together. No negative comments. Convincing arguments. Very nice.

Yes, very true!

sky