"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

Question for the group - what "event" enables the saints to endure the sight of Christ at the 2nd coming?

All are condemned by the law. Then let every one meditate and pray, searching the heart to see if there are not sins still clung to and idolized because he loves them. Sins are retained and practiced which his own conscience tells him are hateful in God's sight. A mere profession of faith is not enough to save any soul. {RH, December 9, 1890 par. 9}

Do not, my brethren, deceive your own souls. As the law opens before us the deformity of our character, Christ our righteousness is lifted up, and presented in contrast with man. As we humble our hearts and draw nigh to Jesus, he draws nigh to us. {RH, December 9, 1890 par. 10}

When you see your case as it stands before God, you will have different ideas in regard to your own defects of character than you now have. When views are presented that do not seem in harmony with your own, it should drive you to study your Bible, and investigate it to see if you yourself hold the right position on the subject. That another holds a different opinion, should not stir up the very worst traits of your nature. You should love your brother, and say, "I am willing to investigate your views. Let us come right to the word of God, and prove by the law and the testimony what is truth." {RH, August 27, 1889 par. 3}

Oh thank you Lord for these quotes!

sky

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: karl

If God wants you alive at any point in time, there's nothing you can do about it.

If God wants you dead at any point in time, there's nothing you can do about it.

He is in charge of life and death. This is not complicated, the way all these pages of argument seem to make it. It is very simple - God gives life, or He takes it away. Blessed be His name. The human choice is whether to cooperate with God and have God give him life, or not cooperate with God and have God pull the plug.

The life each of us enjoy is not a permanent gift. It is given moment by moment.

this is the universal connecting factor of every religion on this planet. it will be what ultimately connects everyone in making the sunday law.

this is exactly how the vast majority of people on this planet view God, hence all the "appeasement" efforts be they pagan or christian.

_______________________________

I agree.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

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

"Something" "against it's will"? Like a piece of wood? The piece of wood was thrown out against its will?

Look at the same, passive form of the word in Rev. 8: 7 that is used in Rev. 12: 9, eblethe.

In Rev. 8: 7, it says that hail and fire, mixed with blood, was "hurled down" (NIV), or "cast upon the earth" (KJV). The NIV translates the same word as "hurled down" when referring to Satan's expulsion from heaven in Rev. 12: 9.

In all the places where the wicked are "cast into the fire of gehenna," "cast into the lake of fire," etc., the word used is the passive form of ballo, the same word that is used to describe Satan's being "cast out" or "cast down" from heaven. Carefully compare the Greek of Rev. 20: 10. 14, 15; Matt. 3: 10; 5: 13; 5: 25, 29, 30; 18: 8, 9, etc.

The point is that the word, ballo, in the passive voice, NEVER refers to people who are willingly taking an action. For instance, Luke 23: 19 uses the same word to tell us that Barabas was "cast" or "thrown" into prison.

The picture this word gives us is of Satan and evil angels being ejected, or expelled, from heaven, in much the same way that a person is thrown into prison, or as the wicked will be "thrown into the lake of fire" (Rev. 20: 15). Compare Matt. 5: 25. In fact, both Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2; 4 express that very concept, comparing the earth to a prison where the demons were "thrown."

[pnattmbtc]

Is hail "hurled down" or "cast"? Is that what happens? Or does it fall to earth?

You claimed that

Quote:

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

So you're claiming that hail was thrown to the earth against its will.

It seems to me to make a lot more sense to say that it fell to the earth. I don't think hail has a will.

Regarding what caused Satan to leave heaven, I think GC 542 should be considered.

[teresaq]

Is hail "hurled down" or "cast"? Is that what happens? Or does it fall to earth?

You claimed that

Quote:

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

So you're claiming that hail was thrown to the earth against its will.

It seems to me to make a lot more sense to say that it fell to the earth. I don't think hail has a will.

Regarding what caused Satan to leave heaven, I think GC 542 should be considered.

youve brought this out several times. i dont think it is being noticed.

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: Yes, it makes Him weep, for sure. And here I thought that all SDAs believed that Satan was cast out of heaven and banished by God from heaven. I'm amazed that some believe it was all voluntary. Wow. I am learning all kind of things on this Forum. An eye opener!!! Our church has some work to do, doesn't it? It shows me that our ministers need to teach and preach more on the basic doctrines of the Bible. They take it for granted that our people are in agreement on the basic doctrines when they obviously aren't.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: John, I didn't say Satan wasn't cast out from heaven. I said God didn't use force to do so. Please don't misrepresent what I'm saying. I haven't said that God persuaded him to leave either. Please don't say that again.

OK, pnattmbtc agrees that God did "cast out" Satan from heaven. As Ellen White says, Satan was "expelled" and "banished" and the gates of heaven were barred against him.

pnattmbtc also evidently agrees that Satan was not persuaded to leave.

Yet at the same time pnattmbtc has said that "Satan left heaven of his own accord" and that "God didn't use force."

Now we know from the SOP that the war in heaven occurred AFTER God decreed that Satan must be banished from heaven. That is when Satan resisted and fought against Michael and the loyal angels. The war resulted from Satan's refusal to leave after he was told he was banned and coouldn't stay in heaven. He became angry and declared he would use force in order to resist God's decree.

Lucifer obviously did not want to leave. We have no evidence that Satan ever did want to go or that he left heaven of his own accord, or willingly.

Now the question: Given that God cast Satan out of heaven; that Satan's war was for the purpose of using force to remain in heaven, to "conquer the Son of God, and that Satan was not persuaded to leave-- why then did Satan leave? Did Satan have a choice to stay?

No, Satan had no choice whatsoever. So he HAD to leave. Under no circumstances could the evil angels remain in heaven. The war proved it. Finally, he and his evil angels were therefore "thrown out" or "hurled down" to the earth.

How does all this add up to the conclusion that Satan left heaven of his own accord? When did anyone leave a location willingly when they were "cast out," "thrown down," "driven out," "expelled," "banished," "turned out," and had "the gates barred against them"?

Quote:

pnattmbtc: A reason I'm saying God didn't use compelling power to expel Satan from heaven is because the SOP says that compelling power can only be found in the enemy's government, and that the Lord's principles are not of this order. Isn't that a reasonable reason for asserting this? If compelling power is only found in the government of Satan, doesn't it follow that God didn't use compelling power against Satan?

Quote:

skyblue: Yes it does!

It only follows if we assume that the statement about compelling power is a universal principle. I submit that the context of the statement does not lead to the conclusion that God has never used force, or never will in the future, under any circumstances and for any purpose at all.

It's important to study the Bible using the inductive method, which means we weigh all the evidence with an open mind, and not draw conclusions before we've done so. We must understand both the Bible and SOP in their proper contexts. Otherwise, the Bible and SOP can be made to look like they are full of contradictions.

Examples:

Let's ask Ellen White if God destroys the wicked.

Her answers, as some have quoted her:

1) "God destroys no man. Everyone who is destroyed will have destroyed himself." COL 84 And this is true.

But then she also says, "It is the wrath of God and the Lamb that CAUSE the destruction or death of the wicked." EW 52

2) "God destroys no one. The sinner destroys himself." 5 T 120 And this is true.

But then she also says, "God will destroy the wicked from off the earth." PP 110

3) "God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner." GC 36 And this is true as well.

But then she also says, "The wicked will He destroy... God executes justice upon the wicked." GC 541

The above statements in red appear to contradict those in blue because they are not referring to the same events. In context, the red statements refer to God's literal destruction of unrepentant sinners at the end of time. Also in context, the blue statements refer not to the wicked's final destruction, but to the wicked's responsibility for the spiritual destruction of their own soul's salvation, and reaping in their lifetime the harvest of seeds they have sown. As such, the blue statements must not be used (as some have) to support the theory that God does not destroy anyone.

We need to look closely in separate posts at the contexts of each of the above quotes. We will also examine in detail the quote from Ellen White in regard God's not using compelling power.

[John317]

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Is hail "hurled down" or "cast"? Is that what happens? Or does it fall to earth?

The apostle John wrote in Rev. 8: 7 that the hail was "cast down" or "hurled down" upon the earth. He did not say it "fell down." There's a good reason.

It seems to me that this is an example of how some people try to make the Bible say something it does not say. Why not accept the language of the Bible as it is instead of trying to change it?

In all the Scriptures where the wicked are said to be "cast into the fire of gehenna," "cast into the lake of fire," etc., the word used is the passive form of ballo, the same word that is used to describe Satan's being "cast out" or "cast down" from heaven. Carefully compare the Greek of Rev. 20: 10. 14, 15; Matt. 3: 10; 5: 13; 5: 25, 29, 30; 18: 8, 9, etc.

The point is that the word, ballo, in the passive voice, NEVER refers to people who are willingly performing an action. For instance, Luke 23: 19 uses the same word to tell us that Barabas was "cast" or "thrown" into prison. Barabas, then, did not do something but rather something was done TO Barabas. He had no choice in the matter, any more than hail has a choice. Both the hail and Satan in this case were equally passive in the action that takes place.

The picture this word gives us is of Satan and evil angels being ejected, or expelled, from heaven, in much the same way that a person is thrown into prison, or as the wicked will be "thrown into the lake of fire" (Rev. 20: 15). Compare Matt. 5: 25. In fact, both Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2: 4 express that very concept, comparing the earth to a prison where the demons were "thrown" and put in "chains" or 'dungeons,' depending on the manuscript basis for the translation.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: So you're claiming that hail was thrown to the earth against its will.

No. I'm saying that the rules of Greek and English grammar both show that the hail is thrown to the earth by another, and that the hail does not throw itself or go of its own accord. It is passive, not active. In terms of the use of the passive verb, it is unimportant whether it's describing the action against or upon a person or against a thing. The point of the passive voice, rather, is that the thing or person is receiving the action. It is exactly the same with Satan and the evil angels. They no more decided to leave heaven than the hail decides to be thrown to the earth.

Similarly, in terms of force being used against another, it makes no difference if we say a ball was thrown against the wall or if we say a person was thrown against the wall. They are both passive and are not choosing to act but the action is done TO them. In each instance, the active one is the person doing the throwing. The thing or person who is thrown is not active but passive. This is the case with Satan and the evil angels in Rev. 12: 9. As Ellen White says, they were "expelled" and "driven out."

Quote:

pnattmbtc: It seems to me to make a lot more sense to say that it fell to the earth. I don't think hail has a will.

Of course hail does not have a will. In understanding the grammatical difference between the passive and the active voices, it is irrelvant whether something is referring to things or people. The point is that it is cast out by someone else. This is exactly what happened to the evil angels. They were also cast out. They did not go out on their own, any more than hail goes to the earth on its own. It requires someone to throw it out.

Notice that you are changing the language of Scripture. The Bible says "it was cast upon the earth," not merely fell out upon the earth.

[John317]

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Regarding what caused Satan to leave heaven, I think GC 542 should be considered.

GC 542 has been considered already, a number of times. But let's examine it again.

On that page as well as the following one, Ellen White is talking about the fact that God won't force sinners to to do His will. She says that it is in mercy that God will destroy the wicked, because they wouldn't be happy in heaven,anyway, but they'd be miserable and continue sinning. "The destiny of the wicked," i.e., destruction and punishment by the fire that God brings down upon them, "is fixed by their own choice." GC 543.

Notice she compares the final destruction of the wicked with the destruction by God of the world in a flood and of the evil people of Sodom:

"In mercy to the world, God blotted out its wicked inhabitants in Noah's time. In mercy He destroyed the corrupt dwellers of Sodom.... IT IS IN MERCY TO THE UNIVERSE THAT GOD WILL FINALLY DESTROY THE REJECTERS OF HIS GRACE" (GC 543).

Elsewhere she also says that "God drowned the vast world in the flood." They weren't drowned by Satan and they certainly did not drown themselves, although they did indeed cause God to bring the flood upon the world. In that sense they destroyed themselves, and it is in this sense that the wicked at the end will have destroyed themselves--- by their own choices, as Ellen White says.

At last, just before they are destroyed, the wicked, including Satan, will admit that they deserve to die. But that does not mean that they want to die or that they then all kill each other or commit suicide. On the contrary, Ellen White says that soon after declaring that God is right, they all continue their wicked ways. Their characters are unchanged.

If you feel that I have neglected some sentence or point on those pages of GC, please let me know and I will be happy to answer your question or address the issue you have in mind.

[John317]

Quote:

teresaq(sda): youve brought this out several times. i dont think it is being noticed.

In the two previous posts, I've given my responses about the hail as well as about GC 542. Please read the responses carefully and reply directly to them.

I also included additional points about the significance of the use of the passive verb ballo to describe the casting out of Satan from heaven. If you believe it is in error, please show the evidence and your reasons for the conclusions you draw.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: SivartM

There seems to be a war brewing in this thread... might it possibly be akin to the war that took place in heaven?

Exaclty. A war of ideas again.

Great point.

Ellen White has shown that the war in heaven took place AFTER God decreed that Satan could no longer remain in heaven. THAT is when the war occurred, in order to resist God's decree that Satan had to leave. So the war was in order to enforce the decree of God against Satan and the evil angels. Satan wanted to stay in heaven, and God's will was for him to leave. Satan had to go. He had no choice. See EW 146: "It was there determined that Satan should be expelled from heaven, with all the angels who had joined him in the rebellion. THEN there was war in heaven.... Satan, with his followers, were driven from heaven."

It proves that the debate over ideas had taken place BEFORE the war started. By the time the war began, the angels had already chosen sides. The war was all about removing the evil angels from heaven.

The words "expelled" and "driven" describe people being compelled to do something, just as being cast into prison or into fire both have to do with the use of force. If a student is "expelled" from school, and if someone is "driven" from where they want to be-- in both cases, they are being compelled to go. They may relent and go peacefully, but in any case, they MUST leave. In the case of God's decree against Satan & his followers, the decision was made and they had no choice whether to leave or not.

It was the same with Adam and Eve. The Bible plainly says, "God drove out the man" from the Garden of Eden. Gen 3: 24. In both instances, Satan and Adam were not given alternatives. Satan fought in order to resist the will of God. Ellen White wrote that it was Satan's plan to "conquer the Son of God," and this is in the context of what took place after the war started, that is, after Satan had been told he must leave heaven.

Adam did not resist the will of God but we know that if Adam had resisted, he would nevertheless have been made to leave the garden. Under no circumstances could Adam be allowed to stay in the garden where he would have access to the Tree of Life. God could not allow Adam to become immortal and live forever. It would have immortalized sin and rebellion.

Ellen White says, "In the banishment of Satan from heaven, God declared His justice and maintained the honor of His throne" GC 500. "Banishment" can only mean that Satan could not possibly stay in heaven. When someone is banished, they are not given a choice but they are made to leave. Whether you want to call it force or not, the result is the same: the individual MUST leave. Hence Satan and his wicked followers HAD to leave heaven.

[The Searcher]

Dear Friends,

I have a problem with the idea that Satan was not allowed into heaven. We read in the beginning of Job where God met with the Sons of God, and Satan was among them. God then asks him where he has been. Satan replied, "I have been going to and fro throughout the earth." Satan accuses God of not allowing access to Job, but let him at Job, and Job would change his tune. Thus, Satan is worthy of his name, an accuser. The important point is Satan was allowed to be in the presence of God.

When I look at the context of Revelation 12, it appears that the war occurred after Christ returned to heaven. EGW declares that the events on Calvary sealed the fate of Satan with the loyal angels. Up to that time, they had given him the benefit of the doubt, but with Christ's death he could no longer speak to them because they would no longer listen. He was responsible for Christ being nailed to the cross. His mask had been removed. He lost his credibility with the loyal angels and the universe. The only ones who would now listen were those upon the earth who supported him in his continued rebellion. So his rebellion was now confined to the earth where his lies were still successful. But heaven and the universe no longer welcomed him. He was banned by the whole universe because of his actions leading to and causing the nailing of Christ to the cross. There were no further arguments which he could give in his defense. He knew then that his cause was lost, and the time of his existence was now not long. He now desires to destroy as many as possible of God's children in order to cause more grief to God. He hates us because God has shown to us such supreme love and through that love caused Satan's lies to be exposed. Everyone who accepts God's offer is a testament against the lies of Satan.

Sincerely,

The Seeker

[John317]

Amen. It is the same when stating this principle: "God does not stand toward the sinner as an exectioner of the sentence against transgression. He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves to reap that which they have sown." G.C.36.

This principle also applies to Lucifer and the angels who rebelled against God.

Let the reader study the entire passage in the context of GC 35, 36.

He will see that this statement simply means that God does not stand over man today, threatening to make a decree as an executioner; but the sinner himself is responsible for his own decisions as to what seeds he will sow and reap.

If we compare this statement with all that Ellen White writes about the destruction of the wicked, it is plain to see that her statement in GC 36 is not contradicting everything else she says, as, for instance, in An Exhaustive EG White Commentary On Revelation, particularly regarding Rev. 20: 2-12. She says there that the wicked suffer the amount that Jesus and the saints determine in heaven during the 1000 years when they study the lives of the lost. They "mete out to the wicked" the punishment they MUST suffer according to the deeds done in the body. They decide that Satan must suffer much longer than all others. Jesus and the righteous "mete out to the wicked the portion which they must suffer, according to their works and it was written against their names in the book of death." EW 290-291 and 52-53; GC 660-661.

This, it seems to me, makes impossible the idea that the wicked kill each other or kill Satan.

The suffering and death of the wicked are clearly in the hands and under the control of the Creator and Redeemer, Christ, together with the righteous. Their punishment, suffering and death is not arbitrary but is all according to what they have done. Jesus Himself says that when He comes He is bringing His rewards with Him to give to each person according to what they've done. Jesus doesn't do anything arbitarily. Notice Jesus' words in Luke 12: 46-48. We can believe Him. He cannot lie.

I would like to know how those who reject the idea that the destruction of the wicked is caused by God explain the above sentences. How are we to understand Ellen White's words in EW 290-291 and 52-53? Please be as specific as possible.

[Robert]

Let's ask Ellen White if God destroys the wicked.

Her answers, as some have quoted her:

1) "God destroys no man. Everyone who is destroyed will have destroyed himself." COL 84 And this is true.

But then she also says, "It is the wrath of God and the Lamb that CAUSE the destruction or death of the wicked." EW 52

Let's see if EGW had trouble in understanding God's love:

“The Lord loves those little children who try to do right, and he has promised that they shall be in his kingdom. But wicked children God does not love. He will not take them to the beautiful City, for he only admits the good, obedient, and patient children there…. When you feel tempted to speak impatient and fretful, remember the Lord sees you, and will not love you if you do wrong. “ [AY 63, 1860]

4

“Do not teach your children that God does not love them when they do wrong….Do not terrify your children by telling them of the wrath of God, but rather seek to impress them with his unspeakable love and goodness….” [bible Echo and Signs of the Times, 02-01-1892]

Sorry, not a good, reliable source....Not the measuring stick.

[John317]

Dear Friends,

I have a problem with the idea that Satan was not allowed into heaven. We read in the beginning of Job where God met with the Sons of God, and Satan was among them. God then asks him where he has been. Satan replied, "I have been going to and fro throughout the earth." Satan accuses God of not allowing access to Job, but let him at Job, and Job would change his tune. Thus, Satan is worthy of his name, an accuser. The important point is Satan was allowed to be in the presence of God.

Yes, you bring up a good point; and one that has been discussed at length in previous posts on this and other threads.

First, it should be pointed out that we don't know where the council was held. It doesn't say where it was. (See the comment on Job 1: 6 in the SDA Bible Commentary.)

But even if we assume that it was in heaven, it doesn't mean Satan was able to go and come in heaven as he chose. Notice that in the book of Job, Satan asks God for permission to destroy and kill, and later to do harm to Job himself. So clearly Satan is on a leash, as it were.

Therefore, Satan's precence in heaven at the councils (if indeed they were held in heaven), simply means that God gave Satan permission to be in attendance. It does not mean that Satan was able to enter heaven whenever he wanted to.

We need to remember that even on the earth, Satan is not free to do and go without regard to God's will. He could only tempt Adam and Eve at the tree, for instance; and even now, the holy angels force him and the other evil angels to withdraw or "come out of" people. Under these circumstances, when commanded by Christ, Satan has no choice to obey.

Lastly, we know that Satan was first banished from heaven, and then again, that Satan was unable to go to the gate or entrence to heaven and taunt the righteous angels as he had done before he inspired humans to murder the Son of God. So there is a sense in which Satan's complete Fall has been a process. In fact, from perspective of the larger picture, Satan has still not completely fallen. His rebellion still affects heaven and God's reputation as well as the lives of the saints on earth. But his defeat is already a foregone conclusion, and it's only a matter of time before he's totally annihilated along with all who follow him.

[Robert]

Notice Jesus' words in Luke 12: 46-48. We can believe Him. He cannot lie.

Yes, we can believe Him, but your theology...your interpretation is not the same as "Jesus' words".

Rob

[Robert]

He cannot lie.

Right, but using your theology how do you explain the following?

"I [God] will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets," [1 Kings 22:22]

[John317]

Let's see if EGW had trouble in understanding God's love:

“The Lord loves those little children who try to do right, and he has promised that they shall be in his kingdom. But wicked children God does not love. He will not take them to the beautiful City, for he only admits the good, obedient, and patient children there…. When you feel tempted to speak impatient and fretful, remember the Lord sees you, and will not love you if you do wrong. “ [AY 63, 1860]

4

“Do not teach your children that God does not love them when they do wrong….Do not terrify your children by telling them of the wrath of God, but rather seek to impress them with his unspeakable love and goodness….” [bible Echo and Signs of the Times, 02-01-1892]

Sorry, not a good, reliable source....Not the measuring stick.

We've already discussed these quotes many times, Rob. You know that the first quote was written in 1860 by Ellen White in a private letter to her misbehaving, young boys. The letter wasn't written for the church, nor was it ever intended for publication. Also notice that there were 32 years between the first quote and the second one. She did learn how to deal with children during that time, better than she knew when she was a young mother herself under trying circumstances. She learned these things just as anyone else must learn, by experience and by trial and error.

Consider what it would be like if we had thousands of pages of private correspondence by the apostle Paul or by Saint John. You should know that not everything they wrote was inspired, and neither was everything Ellen White wrote inspired. You pick a good example in the letter to her boys.

She had regular conversations with people just like anyone else. Her being God's messenger didn't mean that she wasn't a regular person with an ordinary, "uninspired" private life.

The quotes of the letter to her boys doesn't represent Ellen White's ideas at the time of its writing. As a young mother who had to be separated for long periods of time from her children, she was at her wit's end and trying to find words that would persuade them to stop being "naughty" and to obey the people taking care of them while their parents were on their many journeys to help build up the body of Christ. If you read what she wrote for publication in 1860, you won't find her saying that God doesn't love everyone. As Ellen White said, people need to consider time and place.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Notice Jesus' words in Luke 12: 46-48. We can believe Him. He cannot lie.

Yes, we can believe Him, but your theology...your interpretation is not the same as "Jesus' words".

What does Jesus say in those verses, and what does it mean? Show from the actual words in the passage.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: Robert

He cannot lie.

Right, but using your theology how do you explain the following?

"I [God] will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets," [1 Kings 22:22]

This is elementary, Rob. I believe about this verse the same thing you do and the same thing all Bible scholars believe. The Bible itself explains it, as does Ellen White. It's the same as with the death of Saul, as well as with verses such as Judges 9: 23; Job 12: 16; etc.

Now that I've answered your question, please answer mine, with regard to the death of the Egyptian army in the Red Sea. Please look carefully at Exodus 14: 17, 21, 24, 26-31; 15: 6. What happened? What does the text say and how do you explain it?

[pnattmbtc]

OK, pnattmbtc agrees that God did "cast out" Satan from heaven. As Ellen White says, Satan was "expelled" and "banished" and the gates of heaven were barred against him.

pnattmbtc also evidently agrees that Satan was not persuaded to leave.

[pnattmbtc]

pnattmbtc: Regarding what caused Satan to leave heaven, I think GC 542 should be considered.

J:GC 542 has been considered already, a number of times. But let's examine it again.

[pnattmbtc]

Lastly, we know that Satan was first banished from heaven, and then again, that Satan was unable to go to the gate or entrence to heaven and taunt the righteous angels as he had done before he inspired humans to murder the Son of God. So there is a sense in which Satan's complete Fall has been a process. In fact, from perspective of the larger picture, Satan has still not completely fallen. His rebellion still affects heaven and God's reputation as well as the lives of the saints on earth. But his defeat is already a foregone conclusion, and it's only a matter of time before he's totally annihilated along with all who follow him.

[skyblue888]

"And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication.

"And upon her forehead, was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

"And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration."

"And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth." Revelation 17:4-6; 18:24.

In these, both the dazzling outer appearance and the inward corruption are revealed. Men tend to be impressed with great displays of wealth and power, all too often measuring the success and merit of a person or organization by such appearances. But the real value is the inner worth of character.

The last verse in this extract is worthy of special attention for the charge is laid by God that the blood of all men who have died is the work of the man of sin. Satan has sought to lay this blood to God's charge. Men have been prepared to believe Satan at least to some extent, for, while it is clear at least to most that sin and the devil have taken the lives of millions, it is also believed that God has done His share of killing too. But this verse does not subscribe to such teaching. Here it is stated that all the blood of all the dead is attributable to the man of sin. This text then is a strong Bible witness to the truth that God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression, for, if "the man of sin" has killed all who have been killed, then the Lord has killed none.

sky

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: John317

Lastly, we know that Satan was first banished from heaven, and then again, that Satan was unable to go to the gate or entrence to heaven and taunt the righteous angels as he had done before he inspired humans to murder the Son of God. So there is a sense in which Satan's complete Fall has been a process. In fact, from perspective of the larger picture, Satan has still not completely fallen. His rebellion still affects heaven and God's reputation as well as the lives of the saints on earth. But his defeat is already a foregone conclusion, and it's only a matter of time before he's totally annihilated along with all who follow him.

Indeed, the fall is a process. The war, from beginning to end, has been a process involving God's character. Satan has made accusations against God, representing God as having his own characteristics.

Quote:

Sin originated in self-seeking. Lucifer, the covering cherub, desired to be first in heaven. He sought to gain control of heavenly beings, to draw them away from their Creator, and to win their homage to himself. Therefore he misrepresented God, attributing to Him the desire for self-exaltation. With his own evil characteristics he sought to invest the loving Creator. Thus he deceived angels. Thus he deceived men. He led them to doubt the word of God, and to distrust His goodness. Because God is a God of justice and terrible majesty, Satan caused them to look upon Him as severe and unforgiving. Thus he drew men to join him in rebellion against God, and the night of woe settled down upon the world.(DA 21.3)

From this we see Satan's purpose and his method.

1.Satan's desire is to be first.

2.To win the homage of others, he misrepresents God, attributing to Him the desire for self-exaltation.

3.With his own evil characteristics he seeks to invest God.

4.This is how he deceives.

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.(GC 568.4)

The real issues at stake in the Great Controversy involve the above 4 points. If we misunderstand the Great Controversy as being a conflict whose battles are decided by force we error in two ways. First of all, we miss the point that the real issues involved are in regards to character, not force. Secondly, force and violence are principles of Satan's government, not God's, so by incorrectly attributing these to God's government, we are failing to correctly understand God's character, which is what the whole Great Controversy is about.

In the chapter "It Is Finished" we read:

Quote:

Not until the death of Christ was the character of Satan clearly revealed to the angels or to the unfallen worlds. The archapostate had so clothed himself with deception that even holy beings had not understood his principles. They had not clearly seen the nature of his rebellion....

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....

“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.” Revelation 12:10. “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.” Revelation 12:10. (DA 758, 759, 761)

Here we see how the truth gained the day for God. The defeat of the enemy has, all along the way, been by the revelation of truth, not by force. Here's another statement, continuing from the first one cited in this post, bringing out this principle:

Quote:

The earth was dark through misapprehension of God. That the gloomy shadows might be lightened, that the world might be brought back to God, Satan’s deceptive power was to be broken. This could not be done by force. The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God’s government; He desires only the service of love; and love cannot be commanded; it cannot be won by force or authority. Only by love is love awakened. To know God is to love Him; His character must be manifested in contrast to the character of Satan. This work only one Being in all the universe could do. Only He who knew the height and depth of the love of God could make it known. Upon the world’s dark night the Sun of Righteousness must rise, “with healing in His wings.” Malachi 4:2. (DA 22.1)

This brings out that the exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government, and that the means of victory was the revelation of truth. The love of God, and His character, must be made known to defeat the enemy.

The war is not a war of force, but of character, and it is one by the prevailing power of God's government (a moral government, not militaristic one) which are truth and love.

________________________________________________________________

pnatt, here is an excerpt from the book Behold Your God I am sure you will appreciate.

It is a principle of faith that belief in the testimony of Christ which clearly states that "Rebellion was not to be overcome by force" must be maintained in the face of evidences which declare the contrary is true. Thus in the Old Testament, God's actions seem to say that He did use compelling power to achieve His righteous ends, that He did resort to force to put down rebellion, and that He did make an example of some by crushing them with terrible punishments.

The choice of belief between the declarations of God and the appearances of what God did in the human arena is before every person. The greater proportion choose to believe what they think they see rather than what God has said. Therefore, the almost universal belief is that God does use force, that He exterminates whole nations who have utterly rejected Him, and that He relies on compelling power to put down rebellion.

But the true child of faith will believe what God said despite any evidences which at least appear to be contrary. God said that "Rebellion was not to be overcome by force," so he believes that, even though he cannot rightly understand what God really did in those Old Testament incidents. He will simply admit to the challenger of his faith that he does not yet understand just what God did, nor does he have to necessarily. In the meantime, he will assure the doubting questioner that he has the plain utterances of God, so that he can be assured that, even though he cannot explain it in detail, God does not do what He appears to do. This is the way faith works. It is based on God's utterances, not appearances. In due time such a faithful one will discover, under God's wise tutelage, just what God actually did in each varied incident. When he does, he will find that God did not once act contrary to His principles, but only in perfect harmony with them.

Either we believe God's utterances or we build our belief on the witness of sight and circumstances. If we believe God's declarations that "compelling power is found only under Satan's government," that He never turns to the use of force, and never crushes to destruction those who do not serve Him, then we are children of faith.

Otherwise, if we believe that God did find it necessary to use force to destroy His opponents, then we are unbelievers, because we have allowed the witness of appearances to take precedence over the witness of God's words. Without question the witness of sight and circumstances is very powerful. When the Old Testament stories are read wherein it is reported that God rained fire and brimstone on the Sodomites, that He poured forth the waters of the flood until they were all drowned, and so on, it is easy and natural to believe that God was personally resorting to the weapons of force.

But that pure faith, the faith of Jesus, which clings unswervingly to the declarations of God, recognizes that if this is so, then God is truly inconsistent. He has said one thing but does the other. This is the charge which Satan laid against God in Heaven and which the great controversy is designed to remove. If the Lord was to act contrary to His stated principles, then He would quickly and effectively give Satan the very evidences he needed to prove the point he had sought to make up in Heaven. It would have been much better for the Lord to have admitted inconsistency to Satan in the first case than to blatantly continue it where it could be openly seen by all. But, the very nature of the great controversy and the issues involved in that, demand that if the Lord is to triumph, He must be utterly consistent with Himself. He cannot say one thing and then do another. To do so, even for a single instance, would be to lose everything and give the victory to Satan and his angels.

sky

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: OK, pnattmbtc agrees that God did "cast out" Satan from heaven. As Ellen White says, Satan was "expelled" and "banished" and the gates of heaven were barred against him.

pnattmbtc also evidently agrees that Satan was not persuaded to leave.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: "Persuaded" is usually used in the sense of an argument. God didn't argue with Satan to try to get him to leave heaven.

OK, so we are in agreement that God did indeed "cast out" and "expel" Satan from heaven. And we are agreed that Satan wasn't ever persuaded to leave heaven. We also agree that Satan and his millions of evil angels never wanted to leave but fought in order to stay.

Questions:

Can you be clear as to why and how Satan was "cast out" and "expelled"? If Satan was not compelled to leave, and was also not persuaded to go willingly, what is meant by "cast out," "expelled," "banished," and "driven out"?

Do you concede that the language here normally describes the use of force, or at least the potential use of it?

Ellen White says Satan was "driven from heaven." She obviously doesn't mean God used a car to drive him off. This only leaves one alternative as a meaning here, and that meaning has to do with the use of force.

Consider the following: Websters Dictionary defines "drive, drove, driven" as "1 to force to go; 2 to force into or from a state or act..." and the Thesaurus gives the synonymns of "drive" as, "impel, propel, compel, coerce, induce, force, press, hurry..."

The Thesaurus' synonymns for "driven" are "blown, drifted, herded, pushed, pounded, guided, steered, directed, urged on, forced, shoved, sent, hard pressed, impelled, unable to help oneself, with one's back to the wall."