"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: Yet at the same time pnattmbtc has said that "Satan left heaven of his own accord" and that "God didn't use force."

Quote:

pnattmbtc: The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government. In the context of Satan's being cast from heaven, EGW wrote "Rebellion was not to be overcome by force. Compelling power is only found under Satan's government. The Lord's principles are not of this order" (DA 759).

Ellen White is saying here that the rebellion of Satan would not be solved by force. God would not force or compel His creatures to accept Him or serve Him. The rebellion would have to be solved through truth and love, not through force and deception. This meant that the rebellion would have to be given time for it to reveal its true character.

The rebellion is heaven was not overcome by force but it was transferred to the earth. It was fianlly overcome by the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. This is what provided the deathblow against Satan and his rebellion. It wasn't overcome by casting Satan and the evil angels out of heaven. This act only transferred the scene of the battle from heaven to earth.

In the future, the rebellious angels and Satan will be destroyed, but this will only be AFTER the character of Satan has been fully exposed and the whole universe will recognize that God judgments and decisions are just, merciful and right. At that point, a universe that would have had questions about God if He had destroyed Satan and his followers immediately after the rebellion began, will THEN see it as a necessary, just, and merciful act on God's part. As Ellen White says, "It is in mercy to the universe that God will finally destroy the rejecters of His grace." GC 543. Notice the context of this statement is the second death and the destruction of the wicked at the end of time.

Speaking of "the final execution of the judgment" and the "utter extermination of sin," Ellen White says, "The whole universe will have become witnesses to the nature and results of sin. And its utter extermination, which in the beginning would have brought fear to angels and dishonor to God, WILL NOW VINDICATE His love and establish His honor befoer the universe of beings who delight to do His will, and in whose heart is His law. Never will evil again be manifest..." GC 504.

Now let's read the statement in DA 759 in its proper context:

"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.

"... After he had sinned, his poweer to deceive was the more deceptive, and the unveiling of his characer 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. [Compare the above with GC 497-504.]

"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." DA 758, 759

NOTE: The above paragraphs show that the statement you've quoted in DA 759 is explaining why God did not IMMEDIATELY destroy Satan and the wicked angels. And that reason is that God's govenment cannot rest on force and compulsion. The solution to the problem of rebellion, then, must finally be that of truth and love. These are the powers that must fianlly prevail against Satan and sin. It was the only way to accomplish "God's purpose to place things on an eternal basis of security." It would have been counterproductive to destroy Satan at the wrong time, before he had fully demonstrated his evil characer and before the onlooking universe had seen him for what he really is.

Quote:

JOHN3:17: Now we know from the SOP that the war in heaven occurred AFTER God decreed that Satan must be banished from heaven.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: It would be more accurate to say it continued. The war in heaven had been going on for awhile. It started when Satan began his rebellion.

Both Ellen White and the Bible speak of the war in heaven as having been transferred to the earth. I don't know of any place where either the Bible or EGW say that there is still war going on in heaven. All the angels in heaven, as well as the beings on other worlds, have long since completely made up their minds to side with Jesus Christ in the great controversy. It only continues on this earth because most of the humans haven't decided completely whom they will serve.

When you say the war started when Satan began his rebellion, this conflicts with the plainest statements of Ellen White. Ellen White does not refer to it as a war until after God decreed that Satan must be banished from heaven and Satan declared he would resist God with "force, strength against strength, might against might."

She says the war started when Satan decided to resist God's decree that he was to be banished from heaven. Satan's rebellion had begun a long time before the war started. God was very patient with Lucifer, and "bore long with him," but when he became settled into his rebellion, God had no choice but to decree Satan's banishment from heaven. "THEN there was war in heaven." EW 146.

[teresaq]

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

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17 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: This has been stated already and dealt with already.

Do you mean that you have explained how you believe it happened that Satan left of his own accord even though the evidence says he was "expelled" and resisted by force God's decree of banishment? Could you please tell me what post you explained this on?

Or maybe just briefly summarize your answer?

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Sky just recently reposted a number of posts doing so.

OK, I did see those posts, but I didn't see a good explanation of how it happened that Satan and the evil angels decided to leave willingly and on their own accord, or how that would harmonize with the information we're given. If you could point me to those you think answer the question best, I would be very grateful.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: For example, EGW points out that the government of God is a moral government, and the prevailing powers are love and truth. If it's a moral government, then the war is a moral war and the powers are moral powers.

OK, but that is not an explanation of how Satan left on his own accord, willingly, when he declared before the onlooking universe that he was determined to resist God's decree of banishment. That's when the war began, according to Ellen White.

As regards your paraphrase of Ellen White statement above, Ellen White is saying here that the rebellion of Satan would not be solved by force. God would not force or compel His creatures to change their minds or to accept Him or serve Him. The rebellion would have to be solved through truth and love and persuasion, not through force and deception. This meant that the rebellion would have to be given time for it to reveal its true character.

The rebellion is heaven was not overcome by force but it was transferred to the earth. It was fianlly overcome by the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. This is what provided the deathblow against Satan and his rebellion. It wasn't overcome by casting Satan and the evil angels out of heaven. This act only transferred the scene of the battle from heaven to earth.

In the future, the rebellious angels and Satan will be destroyed, but this will only be AFTER the character of Satan has been fully exposed and the whole universe will recognize that God's judgments and decisions are just, merciful and right. At that point, a universe that would have had questions about God if He had destroyed Satan and his followers immediately after the rebellion began, will THEN see it as a necessary, just, and merciful act on God's part. As Ellen White says, "It is in mercy to the universe that God will finally destroy the rejecters of His grace." GC 543. Notice the context of this statement is the second death and the destruction of the wicked at the end of time.

Speaking of "the final execution of the judgment" and the "utter extermination of sin," Ellen White says, "The whole universe will have become witnesses to the nature and results of sin. And its utter extermination, which in the beginning would have brought fear to angels and dishonor to God, WILL NOW VINDICATE His love and establish His honor befoer the universe of beings who delight to do His will, and in whose heart is His law. Never will evil again be manifest..." GC 504.

Now let's read the statement in DA 759 in its full context:

"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.

"... After he had sinned, his poweer to deceive was the more deceptive, and the unveiling of his characer 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. [Compare the above with GC 497-504.]

"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." DA 758, 759

NOTE: The above paragraphs show that the statement you've quoted in DA 759 is explaining why God did not IMMEDIATELY destroy Satan and the wicked angels. And that reason is that God's govenment cannot rest on force and compulsion. (Compare The Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 1, page 21, 22.)

The solution to the problem of rebellion, then, must finally be that of truth and love. These are the powers that must finally prevail against Satan and sin. It was the only way to accomplish "God's purpose to place things on an eternal basis of security." It couldn't be done otherwise. It would have been counterproductive to destroy Satan at the wrong time, before he had fully demonstrated his evil characer and before the onlooking universe had seen him for what he really is.

Where I believe some people are making the error is to believe that God's final destruction of Satan and the wicked is the way that God prevails against Satan and sin. God prevails against Satan and sin long before that point. He prevails, first, in the life and death and resurrection of Christ. Second, God prevails against the Devil and sin at the end of the Investigative Judgment, just before the second coming. And finally, God prevails during the 1000 years when Christ and the saints judge the evil angels and the wicked.

The destruction of the wicked is not the way God prevails against sin and Satan. Before the execution of the judgment against the wicked, the entire universe agrees freely ahd joyfully that God has been proved right by the demonstration of His love through Christ, and by the proof that Satan is wrong. That is how God prevails over sin. The destruction of the wicked, then, is not how God prevails but how God cleanses the universe of all sin AFTER He has already prevailed.

[Robert]

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.

Yes, we've been through this and you are still making excuses for Ellen White. The fact is this "private letter" showed her frame of mind...her views. Inevitably her views worked its way into her theology. The Bible, John, is the measuring stick with most Christians, but not with many Traditional SDA. Hence even today most Christians look at Traditional SDA as a cult.

[Robert]

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

No! You aren't my boss....Neither do I need to accept your theology for it is of the wrong spirit (i.e., a god who tortures). After all it was you who said that if God commanded you to that you would kill. Your theology is off....

[Robert]

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

[John317]

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Satan knows he can't win a war of force against God. His war is to misrepresent God's character.

It's certainly true that he tries to misrepresent God's character. Both the Bible and SOP give a great deal of evidence of this. But Satan should also know that he can't win this kind of war against God, either. For him to imagine that he could win any kind of war against God is just as insane as thinking he could win a war of force against Him. Any war against God is equally crazy and irrational, don't you agree?

Remember, Ellen White wrote that Satan declared that he would "resist by force of might, strength against strength." That is certainly not the language used to describe merely a debate or exchange of ideas or thoughts.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Before you wrote that Satan was forced to earth. That clearly isn't the case as Satan had free reign to go to other worlds to tempt them and Job 1:6 says he presented himself along with the other angels before the Lord,

This also has been dealt with at length on this thread. But I don't mind dealing with it again, at some length.

The Bible makes it crystal clear that at some point Satan was "cast down to the earth." Compare Rev. 12: 9; 2 Peter 2: 4; Jude 6. This casting out seems to be related to a use of force that resulted in his coming to the earth.

However, I will concede that it's possible the text only means Satan was cast out of heaven and that this action resulted in his eventually coming to this earth. You've convinced I that I could have been wrong on this point, but I'll need to study it further.

Nevertheless, how long there was between the casting out and Satan's coming to this world, we simply don't know.

The fact that Satan was able to tempt the beings on other worlds doesn't show that Satan "had free reign to go" wherever and do whatever he wanted. For one thing, he was restricted in where he could go and how he could tempt them. I tend to think that it harmonizes best with the information we're given that he was able to visit other worlds immediately after he was thrown out of heaven.

I said all this earlier, but whether you saw it or not isn't important at this juncture.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: [the council] was presumably in heaven (that's the logical place the angels have present themselves before God.)

Yes, presumably. We have to presume it because it's not revealed where it was. If you have the SDA Bible Commentary, see comments concerns Job 1: 6. It is just as reasonable to assume that God has held counsels with "the sons of God," or the angels, on other worlds. God's throne is where He is, so that if He chooses to visit a planet, there's no reason to think He couldn't hold a council there.

However, even if the counsel described in Job 1: 6 was held in heaven, it wouldn't mean that Satan had free reign to go to heaven or visit the other worlds whenever he wanted. The book of Job itself portrays Satan as having to get permission from God in order to kill Job's family and animals, and again, to do harm to Job himself. All of this shows that Satan was restricted in his movements and activities. This is also certainly the view we get from 2 Peter 2: 4 and Jude 6.

Ellen White does say that Satan was "banished from heaven," that "the gates of heaven were barred against him" and that "he could not enter there." Whatever else this language shows us, they tell us that Satan and the evil angels' did not have free reign to visit inside the gates of heaven. Up to the time of Christ's death, Satan was able to visit the entrance of heaven and taunt the loyal angels, but we're told that after Christ's death, Satan was no longer able to do that. Some seem to believe that it was Satan's idea to stop going to the entrance of heaven, but I'm not convinced by the evidence of this. Just as God wouldn't have let Satan keep tempting Adam if he had passed the test, and just as God no longer allows Satan to tempt the beings on other worlds, so I believe God no longer permits Satan to stand outside the entrance and taunt the loyal angels. I'm willing to change my mind on this aspect of it, but so far this is my opinion.

[Robert]

the SDA Bible Commentary

Commentary's are out too, John.

[pnattmbtc]

JOHN3:17 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"?

pnattmbtc: This has been stated already and dealt with already.

J:Do you mean that you have explained how you believe it happened that Satan left of his own accord even though the evidence says he was "expelled" and resisted by force God's decree of banishment?

[Robert]

"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.

Like I said, John, you didn't explain anything....Why would God say that He would be a lying spirit (and God is spirit) in the mouths of all his prophets????

[pnattmbtc]

It's certainly true that he tries to misrepresent God's character. Both the Bible and SOP give a great deal of evidence of this. But Satan should also know that he can't win this kind of war against God, either.

[John317]

Yes, we've been through this and you are still making excuses for Ellen White. The fact is this "private letter" showed her frame of mind...her views. Inevitably her views worked its way into her theology.

There's no doubt whatever that Ellen White grew in her understanding of everything. But what's important is that Ellen White never had to go back and change her writings because of something she said God revealed to her but which she changed her mind on. This applies to her earliest visions until the last paragraph she wrote for Prophets and Kings in 1915. Did she edit things and rewrite things? Yes, but my point is that the rewrites didn't alter what the original had said. She added to the original and improved the style, writing more clearly, but that is not making a substanative change.

Her understanding of the Godhead, or the Trinity, certainly changed, as did her understanding of the importance of health in relation to the gospel. For example, there was a time when she wasn't sure what relationship Christ bore to the Father, and she wasn't sure about the nature of the Holy Spirit, whether it was an influence or a distinct person. You will notice that she didn't write very much on these subjects until the late 1880s through the early 1900s. As it happens, significantly, these were years shortly after the death of her husband, James.

When it comes to the health message, James and Ellen White slaughtered their own pigs and ate pork until about 1858. God gave her the vision on health in 1862, and even after that she did not see clearly for a time the issue about pork. So, it is obvious that she underwent some great changes in her understanding of health and its relationship to the Three Angels Messages.

Her view of the way of salvation also changed. I don't think anyone who really knows Ellen White would deny these things. I can't think of very many things about which she didn't undergo some changes in her views. I think we can be confident the same could be said about the apostles Paul, Peter, John, and even the Lord Jesus Himself. He certainly knew much more at 30 than he did when He was 17 years old, about the age that Ellen Harmon received her first vision. So the fact that inspired people grew or changed some of their views is not limited to Ellen White. If that becomes your standard-- whether their views changed over their lifetime-- I think you will find that you have to give up on anyone who was related to Adam.

Having said this, I am wondering if you can show me things she wrote in 1860 which you believe reflect her view in the private letter to her boys. Are they things that she no longer believed after 1910?

Quote:

ROBERT: The Bible, John, is the measuring stick with most Christians, but not with many Traditional SDA.

The Bible is my measuring stick, Rob, but I'm not trying to prove it to anyone. I believe that Ellen White was a true prophet, just as Jack Sequeira does, and you can believe that he studies both the Bible and Mrs. White's writings in order to better understand the truth. Does that mean the Bible is not Jack's measuring stick? No. Yet he quotes her as an authority in his writings.

I don't really consider myself a "Traditional SDA." No doubt you do, but I don't think in those terms. I don't put people in boxes that way, not even myself. You will notice I very rarely even use the labels "conservative," "liberal," or "progressive" SDAs.

As far as I can see, those labels just serve to divide people who should be drawing closer together, not further apart.

When I go to church, I don't even consider those kinds of labels or catagories. I just see them as fellow believers. It doesn't matter to me that they have a different view on something than I do. If you knew my background, you would see why I don't care if they have a different belief. In my personal life, I'm used to getting along and loving everyone, irrespective of their belief system. At my work of 20+ years, I helped people-- criminals of various kinds-- who only a few minutes before had spit in my face or said they would shoot me if they could, and they meant it. I helped people as a matter of course who smuggled guns into the facility in order to do harm to me or to other staff. Helping such people got to be a habit. You have to, in that kind of work. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to do the job. You learn to see people with problems as people that Jesus would help if He was here but He can't be because He had to leave and he sent us into the world to do the work He used to do.

Quote:

ROBERT: Hence even today most Christians look at Traditional SDA as a cult.

I'm not out to try to change how most Christians view SDAs. I'm not in the least bit concerned about that. I'm concerned about how they view Christ and the Bible, not how they view me or view the SDA church. I suppose many of those people you're talking about would want me to stop reading and studying Ellen White's writings. They might also want me to stop believing that the papacy is the little-horn power or that the Sabbath is a memorial of the creation, and a dozen other things.

As for being a cult, it isn't important to me whether people call the SDA church a cult. The early Christians were referred to as a cult. I certainly don't think it was right for certain leaders in our church to try to persuade others that our church is no longer a cult. Our church was considered a cult all through the 1800s and into the early 1900s while Ellen White was alive. But how did God view the SDA church? That's the important thing. How does God view you and me and the church today? I think that's what we should be most concerned about.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

the SDA Bible Commentary

Commentary's are out too, John.

Apparently for you they are. And that's fine if you choose to go that way.

Bible commentaries can be good sources of information on any given text or book of the Bible.

If the commentary is out, though, then so are comments by you or anyone else on the forum. And so, of course, is Jack Sequeira. He's out. Don't quote him from here on. He isn't inspired, nor is he even the son of a prophet.

But if Bible commentaries are "out," tell Jack because I know he reads them. I know he does. How do I know? Because he sometimes quotes them. There's no competant Bible scholar or serious Bible student who doesn't use them from time to time. They are a good source of information just like Bible dictionaries, translations, maps, concordances, lexicons, histories, systematic theologies, etc.

I've notice that there are people who are opposed to reading Ellen White or using her as an authority, yet they're just fine using (or misusing?) her whenever they want to prove a favorite idea of theirs. These are the same people who will read a commentary by Martin Luther or comments by someone else but they let on like they wouldn't so much as consider a Seventh-day Adventist commentary. Oh well. To each his own.

Seriously, are you telling me you never read a Bible commentary? Never read SDA BC 7A, comments by Ellen White? How about Luther's commentary on Romans or on Galatians? Never read John Wesley, either, uh? oh wow, you're missing something wonderful.

[pnattmbtc]

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

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: What does Jesus say in those verses [Luke 12: 36-48], and what does it mean? Show from the actual words in the passage.

Quote:

No! You aren't my boss....

OK, I get it: you don't want to talk about what those verses say.

I didn't realize that you thought I'm saying I'm your boss. Is that what you're thinking when you ask me to explain something-- that you are my boss? I never think of it that way.

Quote:

ROBERT: Neither do I need to accept your theology for it is of the wrong spirit (i.e., a god who tortures).

I've never asked you to accept my theology. Are you asking me to accept your theology when you write your posts? From my persepctive, all we are doing is exchanging our understandings of what the Bible or Spirit of prophecy say. I'm not obligated to accept your views and you aren't under any kind of obligation to accept mine. That isn't really the point of the discussions-- to accept each other's theologies. As far as I'm concerned, the point is to stimulate and encourage thinking and reflection, and hopefully, to have a good and worthwhile time doing it.

I don't see God as "a god who tortures." I see God as a holy God of love, mercy and justice,and I take Jesus' words literally when He promises that He's coming bringing His rewards with Him to give to everyone according to what he's done. I believe Saint Paul when he wrote, "You have a hard and stubborn heart, and so you are making your own punishment even greater on the Day when God's anger and righteous judgment will be revealed. For God will reward each of us according to what we have done. Some people keep on doing good, and seek glory, honor, and immortal life; to them God will give eternal life. Other people are selfish and reject what is right, in order to follow what is wrong; on them God will pour out his anger and fury. There will be suffering and pain for all those who do what is evil... But God will give glory, honor, and peace to all who do what is good... For God judges everyone by the same standard." Romans 2: 5-11.

This is not a "god who tortures," but it is a God of holiness and righteousness, who said, "You must be holy, for I am holy," and "Vengeance is mine; I will repay." Jesus, who is God, also said the verses found in John 3: 16, 17. Isn't all this a biblical view of God?

Quote:

After all it was you who said that if God commanded you to that you would kill.

Yes, IF it was truly God commanding it, certainly I would.

Are you saying that killing for God in Old Testament times was evil? If so, that would mean Moses and Joshua and Gideon and all the judges of Israel were evil, immoral people, wouldn't it? God didn't condemn David for killing under right circumstances, and when it was within the will of God. What God condemned David for was murdering. That's a different thing altogether.

You still don't seem to understand that God has a right to take human life, since He made it in he first place.

Don't worry, though-- I don't believe God is in the business in our time of telling people to kill others. That ended when the nation of Israel stopped being a theocracy. Now if I lived in the time of Moses or Joshua or David.... then, who knows? You think it was immoral of those people to take human life at the command of God? I don't.

Quote:

Your theology is off....

So Abraham was off?

God was pleased that Abraham was willing to obey Him even if it meant taking the life of his only son. If it was immoral for humans to obey the command of God to kill, God certainly would not have been pleased with Abraham's willingness to kill Isaac. I can't see Abraham telling God "no" at that point, can you?

[John317]

Quote:

pnattmbtc: For example, EGW points out that the government of God is a moral government, and the prevailing powers are love and truth. If it's a moral government, then the war is a moral war and the powers are moral powers.

Quote:

JOHN3:17: :OK, but that is not an explanation of how Satan left on his own accord, willingly, when he declared before the onlooking universe that he was determined to resist God's decree of banishment. That's when the war began, according to Ellen White. See EW 146

Quote:

It began with Satan's getting converts to his side.

Can you please show a reference for this? (No need to quote, since I have my Bibles and other sources real handy near my computer.)

Ellen White tells us that the war began after God's decree of Satan's banishment. That's significant. It shows that the war was different from what was happening before, which was more like a debate or discussion about whether God was right or not. Prior to the "war," angels were taking sides, and there were many who changed sides during that time. It was evidently a long time. Ellen White specifically says that the war began after Satan declared that he would resist God's decree with "force of might, strength against strength."

[John317]

Quote:

pnattmbtc: I don't recall even once where you've considered it. Perhaps you could refer me to the post where you did so? (my apologies if I missed it; this is a long thread, so it's entirely possible. I'd like to see what you said earlier.)

[/quote']

Should I look for it or should I tell you what you told me when I asked you to look for a post of yours? You said, "It is just as easy for you to look as it is for me."

But yes, I will be happy to look for it. If I find it, you'll be the first to know.

[Robert]

Seriously, are you telling me you never read a Bible commentary? Never read SDA BC 7A, comments by Ellen White? How about Luther's commentary on Romans or on Galatians? Never read John Wesley, either, uh? oh wow, you're missing something wonderful.

NO, I'm telling you that commentaries are just that...an opinion. They are not a source of authority. We must understand the Bible for ourselves....

[John317]

Quote:

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

Quote:

JOHN3:17: 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.

Quote:

ROBERT: Like I said, John, you didn't explain anything....Why would God say that He would be a lying spirit (and God is spirit) in the mouths of all his prophets????

Are you sure you are reading 1 Kings 22: 22 correctly? What translation are you reading anyway? I don't have a single translation that reads the way you quoted it. You quote it as if it is God who says, "I will go out and be a lying spirit." That is a fabrication of the first order. The Bible doesn't quote God as saying, "I will be a lying spirit." Those are the words put in the mouth of an evil angel in the story being told by the prophet, Micaiah.

So, instead of these words being those that God Himself utters, they are part of a narrative spoken by a prophet to Ahab, the king of Israel. The prophet is telling the king of a vision the prophet had. We're not to think that there was actually an evil angel, or spirit, who came up to God and suggested that he could go and persuade the king to believe a lie in order to be slain by the Syrians.

The prophet's message would actually have resulted in Ahab's being saved from death if he had accepted it, but instead the king insisted foolishly on believing the lies told to him by the false prophets.

Perhaps this is one of those instances where it is good to consult the Bible commentators to see what they have to say. Let's try it and see.

The SDA Bible Commentary: "In the Bible, God is frequently presented as doing that which He does not retrain. The whole picture is a parable. Ahab had chosen to be guided by false prophets, and God simply permitted him to be guided by these prophets to his ruin."

Jamieson, Fauseset & Brown's Commentary, a favorite of mine: "Since Ahab ws disposed to trace this unwelcome truth to personal enmity, Micaiah proceeded fearlessly to tell the incensed monarch in full detail what had been revealed to him. The Hebrew prophets, borrowing their symbolic pictures from earthly scenes, described God in heaven as a king in His kingdom. And as earthly princes do nothing of importance without asking the advice of their counsellors, God is represented as consulting about the fate of Ahab. The prophetic language must not be interpreted lirerally, and the command must be viewed as only a permission to the lying spirit."

Not bad?

At least they don't put those words in God's mouth as you do, Rob. Better go back and have a second or third read of those verses. :-)

By the way, I like the way that story reads in The Message.

[Robert]

God was pleased that Abraham was willing to obey Him even if it meant taking the life of his only son. If it was immoral for humans to obey the command of God to kill, God certainly would not have been pleased with Abraham's willingness to kill Isaac. I can't see Abraham telling God "no" at that point, can you?

Your theology is poison. You are perverting the character of God...you are bringing Him down to your level.

God had promised that through Isaac, Abraham's descendants would number as the stars in the sky....So Abraham knew that if Isaac was killed God would have to raise him to fulfill His promise .... Not only this but Isaac was willing....It was never forced.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Seriously, are you telling me you never read a Bible commentary? Never read SDA BC 7A, comments by Ellen White? How about Luther's commentary on Romans or on Galatians? Never read John Wesley, either, uh? oh wow, you're missing something wonderful.

NO, I'm telling you that commentaries are just that...an opinion. They are not a source of authority. We must understand the Bible for ourselves....

Well, who doesn't know that?

You think I dropped off a turnip truck this morning? I've been studying these things for over 30 years and studied religion, English lit, and theology, at two universities. You think I don't know what commentaries are?!! LOL come on, Rob.

Of course they are opinion, like almost everything else anyone says. What do you write if not opinion? What are Jack's books if not opinion? Aren't they opinions that you copy and paste so often? Shoot, you made me think you kinda liked opinion. Now you saying you don't? What gives?

[Robert]

"In the Bible, God is frequently presented as doing that which He does not retrain."

So when God say He does sinful things...that He kills...that in reality He does not....Very good John....

[Robert]

Aren't they opinions that you copy and paste so often?

Not at all...they are facts....Why? Because to me they are true...they might not be true for you, but from my understanding it is fact, otherwise I must understanding the Bible through the eyes of others....

[John317]

Quote:

"In the Bible, God is frequently presented as doing that which He does not retrain."

Quote:

ROBERT: So when God say He does sinful things...that He kills...that in reality He does not....Very good John....

Is this supposed to be one of your universal priciples?

I think you need to go back and read it again. You wrote that God said, "I will go out and be a lying spirit." That isn't what the Bible says. Not so good Rob...

Are you sure you are reading 1 Kings 22: 22 correctly? What translation are you reading anyway? I don't have a single translation that reads the way you quoted it. You quote it as if it is God who says, "I will go out and be a lying spirit." That is a fabrication of the first order. The Bible doesn't quote God as saying, "I will be a lying spirit." Those are the words put in the mouth of an evil angel in the story being told by the prophet, Micaiah.

So, instead of these words being those that God Himself utters, they are part of a narrative spoken by a prophet to Ahab, the king of Israel.

These facts make a big difference.

At 4 am on the West coast:

[pnattmbtc]

The war is the great controversy. You yourself quoted a statement which spoke of its beginnings. I've quoted it too:

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.(DA 21.3)

Another useful quote:

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...(GC 569)

The character of God is that He is just like Jesus Christ. The nature of sin is that it destroys those who practice it. The real issues at stake in the Great Controversy are issues involving God's character. The very items we are talking about are examples of conceptions of God which highlight the cruelty inherent in the enemy's character, which lead to regarding God with fear rather than love, especially the idea that God will set people on fire to make them suffer for their sins, or that God will have us set the time limits for how long our children or spouse or parents should burn.