"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[John317]

Quote:

ROBERT: If God hadn't created Lucifer we would have no sin, but since God allowed sin to develop He assumes the blame.

....

Quote:

RICHARD: In order for this to be a universal principle as you say. That God takes the blame for everything he allows, you would have to show complete consistency. Otherwise it is just you deciding when to use the so called "principle" and when not to use the "principle".

Did God kill Agag? NO! Did he claim to have killed Agag? Did he take credit for it in any way? No. Samuel killed Agag. And even though God ordered Agag's death, the Bible says Samuel killed Agag.

Did God take credit for it when David had Uriah the Hittite killed? NO.

Did God take credit for it when Moses killed the egyptian who was beating the Hebrew? Not at all! In fact it set Moses back forty years.

Your universal principle isn't holding up too well.

Excellent points all, Richard.

Indeed, is there anything that has happened which God didn't allow?

If God assumes the blame for everything he allows, then that would mean he assumes the blame for everything that's ever happened, since he obviously allows it.

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: sky

s:And we are told that what took place at the time of the French Revolution and the destruction of Jerusalem, are types of what will take place after the close of probation except that then God's restraining power will be fully removed from the agencies of evil and Satan will have entire control of the finally impenitent.

p:Where are we told this? I know about Jerusalem, but I'm curious about the French Revolution.

s:You must have missed my post about the French Revolution then.

No, I think you missed mine.

Quote:

God back a few pages.

sky

"When France publicly rejected God and set aside the Bible, wicked men and spirits of darkness exulted in their attainment of the object so long desired--a kingdom free from the restraints of the law of God. Because sentence against an evil work was not speedily executed, therefore the heart of the sons of men was fully set in them to do evil. Ecclesiastes 8:11. But the transgression of a just and righteous law must inevitably result in misery and ruin. Though not visited at once with judgments, the wickedness of men was nevertheless surely working out their doom. Centuries of apostasy and crime had been treasuring up wrath against the day of retribution; and when their iniquity was full, the despisers of God learned too late that it is a fearful thing to have worn out the divine patience. The restraining Spirit of God, which imposes a check upon the cruel power of Satan, was in a great measure removed, and he whose only delight is the wretchedness of men was permitted to work his will... 'The wicked shall fall by his own wickedness.'" The Great Controversy, 286.

I read this, and didn't see anything here which is comparing this to what will happen at the close of probation. I'm not saying this isn't a valid comparison - I believe it is. But I'm not seeing where the SOP specifically made this point, which is what I was understanding you to say, but that may not have been your intent.

In regards to the destruction of Jerusalem, she makes a very clear comparison with the time of the end, several times. I was wondering is she made a similar comparison with what happened in France.

In the book Education, p.228 we read, "the spirit of unrest, of riot and bloodshed, the world-wide dissemination of the same teachings that led to the French Revolution--all are tending to involve the whole world in a struggle similar to that which convulsed France."

When you put that together with the statement I quoted from G.C.286, it is clear that the French Revolution is also a type of what will happen in these last days. It is said that at the time of the French Revolution "the restraining Spirit of God, which imposes a check upon the cruel power of Satan, was in a great measure removed, and he whose only delight is the wretchedness of men was permitted to work his will." The same thing happened at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem. "Then God withdrew His protection from then and removed His restraining power from Satan and his angels, and the nation was left to the control of the leader she had chosen." G.C.28.

The exact same scenario will be repeated when probation closes. "Satan will have entire control of the finally impenitent." G.C.614.

Of course we see eye to eye on this.

sky

[Guest]

Quote:

ROBERT: If God hadn't created Lucifer we would have no sin, but since God allowed sin to develop He assumes the blame.

....

Quote:

RICHARD: In order for this to be a universal principle as you say. That God takes the blame for everything he allows, you would have to show complete consistency. Otherwise it is just you deciding when to use the so called "principle" and when not to use the "principle".

Did God kill Agag? NO! Did he claim to have killed Agag? Did he take credit for it in any way? No. Samuel killed Agag. And even though God ordered Agag's death, the Bible says Samuel killed Agag.

Did God take credit for it when David had Uriah the Hittite killed? NO.

Did God take credit for it when Moses killed the egyptian who was beating the Hebrew? Not at all! In fact it set Moses back forty years.

Your universal principle isn't holding up too well.

Excellent points all, Richard.

Indeed, is there anything that has happened which God didn't allow?

If God assumes the blame for everything he allows, then that would mean he assumes the blame for everything that's ever happened, since he obviously allows it.

That would mean that God is responsible for homosexuality also. And necrophelia, and beastiality. I don't see God claiming these things.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

So you're saying that when the Bible says that Jesus raised the dead, it's not true? It's just saying that for all us poor dumb humans that aren't smart enough to figure it out like you are?

If you think about it Lutz, that actually is what you are saying. That you are thinking on God's level now, and you can see why the Bible had to be dumbed way down for the rest of us poor schlubbs who can't possibly think that high.

So you are now able, since you know God's view of things, to discern what the Bible is REALLY saying. Especially in those places where it's obviously not really saying certain things. I guess God should have made two Bibles. One for dummies, and another one for you.

You're out there buddy, that's all I can say. And ordinarilly I wouldn't care. In the case of pnat, Robert, or sky, I couldn't care less what they believe. And I know I probably shouldn't say that. But for me to argue with them is nothing but a waste of precious time. And I've come to terms with that.

But it really bothers me to see you on this path. As you can see it leads to pride and grandiose thinking. To where you actually believe you are seeing things from God's perspective. If you look at the quote above, you will see yourself saying that you are trying to explain things to me from GOD"S perspective.

Richard, I do not know whether I should laugh at this or take it serious?

You are clearly taking it the wrong way. We humans see through a glass darkly. We do not see the whole picture. When a close one goes to sleep we immediately think death. When Jesus said that they were going to go wake up Lazarus, the disciples couldn't understand what He was getting at. Why would Jesus want to go wake up Lazarus?! What is the big deal right?

These concepts are important to understand. If it wasn't important they wouldn't have made it into scripture. Just as Jesus said that God is the God of the living, and to Him they are sleeping and are alive. Because the true death is what we would call the second death...

You are taking what I said way out of context. I wasn't saying you're stupid. I was saying we're very simple in comparison to God. So He often speaks in language that we can understand.

I can assure you there is no pride in what I have said.

In his first epistle to the Thessalonian believers, Paul endeavored to instruct them regarding the true state of the dead. He spoke of those who die as being asleep--in a state of unconsciousness: ... {AA 257.3}

[pnattmbtc]

R:There is nothing God cannot know.

[pnattmbtc]

Here's another quote to consider:

Quote:

Adam must die. I saw the lovely Jesus, and beheld an expression of sympathy and sorrow upon his countenance. Soon I saw him approach the exceeding bright light which enshrouded the Father. Said my accompanying angel, He is in close converse with his Father. The anxiety of the angels seemed to be intense while Jesus was communing with his Father. Three times he was shut in by the glorious light about the Father, and the third time he came from the Father, his person could be seen. His countenance was calm, free from all perplexity and trouble, and shone with benevolence and loveliness, such as words cannot express....

Said the angel, Think ye that the Father yielded up his dearly beloved Son without a struggle? No, no. It was even a struggle with the God of heaven, whether to let guilty man perish, or to give his beloved Son to die for them. (SR 23, 26)

This doesn't present the idea that everything was already known and set. Christ's countenance was troubled. He met with the Father three times. After the third time, His countenance changed. He was no longer troubled. A decision had been made, which the angel says was a struggle for God.

Now if God knew from all eternity that at that precise moment man was going to fall, none of this makes any sense, which should be clear to see. These meetings Christ had with the Father would have simply been a sham, and there would have been no decision to make, let alone a struggle, but simply the working out of a plan which had already been set in stone.

[Daryl]

I didn't read through the whole long thread, therefore, please forgive me if this was already asked.

Is heaven itself real or metaphorical? The answer to this question is also the answer to this topic's question.

[Guest]

I didn't read through the whole long thread, therefore, please forgive me if this was already asked.

Is heaven itself real or metaphorical? The answer to this question is also the answer to this topic's question.

Amen Daryl, I believe you have hit the nail right on the head.

[pnattmbtc]

The question for the topic isn't really well phrased. Of course the war is real. It's not a question of real vs. metaphorical, but of physical (decided by force) vs. spiritual (decided by the revelation of truth).

[Guest]

Adam must die. I saw the lovely Jesus, and beheld an expression of sympathy and sorrow upon his countenance. Soon I saw him approach the exceeding bright light which enshrouded the Father. Said my accompanying angel, He is in close converse with his Father. The anxiety of the angels seemed to be intense while Jesus was communing with his Father. Three times he was shut in by the glorious light about the Father, and the third time he came from the Father, his person could be seen. His countenance was calm, free from all perplexity and trouble, and shone with benevolence and loveliness, such as words cannot express....

Said the angel, Think ye that the Father yielded up his dearly beloved Son without a struggle? No, no. It was even a struggle with the God of heaven, whether to let guilty man perish, or to give his beloved Son to die for them. (SR 23, 26)

Your reference doesn't match your quotes pnat, but that's ok I found them anyway. It seems like you still want to play "my quote trumps your quote". Have at it. You can believe what ever you want, it makes me no difference. But keep in mind that if you're reading them correctly, they will all harmonize, instead of one set of quotes cancelling out another set.

Also you'll notice in the quote you used above. The reason why it was hard to come to the decision was because the Father didn't want Jesus to have to die.

God did not ordain that sin should exist, but He foresaw its existence, and made provision to meet the terrible emergency.—DA 22

[pnattmbtc]

Richard, it seems you just consider quotes "you like," to use your language, and ignore anything that doesn't agree with what you presently think. I present arguments, and you ignore them.

The reason why it has hard for the Father to come to a decision was because of the risk involved.

He permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss. {DA 49.1}

Regarding the SR quote, you didn't even address the point. The point is that Jesus Christ went to see the Father three times, His countenance changing after the third time. This means something changed. What changed was a decision had been made.

If things were as you are suggesting, there would have been no decision to be made! It would have already been made in eternity past, and there would be nothing more to do, other than announce the plan that had already been set.

But that's not what happened. There was a series of meetings, and what would be done was still not decided.

This doesn't fit with what you're suggesting.

Another point is that COL 196 says that all heaven was imperiled for our redemption. Under your view, heaven was never in any danger. (You don't believe that heaven was in any danger, do you?)

[skyblue888]

The question for the topic isn't really well phrased. Of course the war is real. It's not a question of real vs. metaphorical, but of physical (decided by force) vs. spiritual (decided by the revelation of truth).

Amen pnatt.

sky

[skyblue888]

Richard, I do not know whether I should laugh at this or take it serious?

You are clearly taking it the wrong way. We humans see through a glass darkly. We do not see the whole picture. When a close one goes to sleep we immediately think death. When Jesus said that they were going to go wake up Lazarus, the disciples couldn't understand what He was getting at. Why would Jesus want to go wake up Lazarus?! What is the big deal right?

These concepts are important to understand. If it wasn't important they wouldn't have made it into scripture. Just as Jesus said that God is the God of the living, and to Him they are sleeping and are alive. Because the true death is what we would call the second death...

You are taking what I said way out of context. I wasn't saying you're stupid. I was saying we're very simple in comparison to God. So He often speaks in language that we can understand.

I can assure you there is no pride in what I have said.

[Guest]

The idea isn't mine, first of all. And I'm not ignoring those other quotes. I was well aware of them before you posted them. I can make them all harmonize in my understanding. You are the only one ignoring quotes. YOU are the one with the problem. How do you reconcile this with the others??

Before Sin Arose, God Had a Plan

God and Christ knew from the beginning, of the apostasy of Satan and of the fall of Adam through the deceptive power of the apostate. The plan of salvation was designed to redeem the fallen race, to give them another trial. Christ was appointed to the office of Mediator from the creation of God, set up from everlasting to be our

substitute and surety.—1SM 250. {TA 24.4}

Known unto God are all His works, and from eternal ages the covenant of grace (unmerited favor) existed in the mind of God. It is called the everlasting covenant; for the plan of salvation was not conceived after the fall of man, but it was that which was “kept in silence through times eternal, but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, is made known unto all the nations unto obedience of faith.” Romans 16:25, 26, A.R.V.—ST Dec. 5, 1914. {TA 25.1}

The plan for our redemption was not an afterthought, a plan formulated after the fall of Adam. It was a revelation of “the mystery which hath been kept in silence through times eternal.” Romans 16:25, R.V. It was an unfolding of the principles that from eternal ages have been the foundation of God's throne. . . . God did not ordain that sin should exist, but He foresaw its existence, and made provision to meet the terrible emergency.—DA 22. {TA 25.2}

[pnattmbtc]

I've addressed this Richard. God knew of the possibility of sin. That's the only thing that makes sense. Otherwise, if sin was an inevitability, this leads to the problems I've pointed out, and you've ignored. To repeat them briefly, God would have set into motion a course of events which would make sin inevitable, making God responsible for sin, and making the idea false that there is no explanation for sin. In this case there would be a very simple explanation: God created a being He was certain would sin. There's nothing mysterious with this explanation!

Again, the SR quote makes clear that the Plan of Salvation was a potentiality, not a certainty. Otherwise, why the meetings of Christ with the Father? Why would Christ have had to convince the Father of anything? That doesn't make any sense given the ideas you're suggesting.

[Guest]

In his first epistle to the Thessalonian believers, Paul endeavored to instruct them regarding the true state of the dead. He spoke of those who die as being asleep--in a state of unconsciousness: ... {AA 257.3}

We all know that death is like sleep. Unless you're trying to make the point that the ones who are dead, or asleep now, are aware of it, then I don't know what your point could possibly be.

The dead know nothing! Doesn't matter if it's the first death or the second death, it's the same. The only difference is that after the second death, their sleep will not be interrupted again.

[Guest]

God and Christ knew from the beginning, of the apostasy of Satan and of the fall of Adam. 1SM 250

You haven't reconciled this.

[Guest]

Do you even read my quotes pnat?

[John317]

God and Christ knew from the beginning, of the apostasy of Satan and of the fall of Adam. 1SM 250

Of course that means that God knew in advance who would be lost and who saved. I believe He knew "from the beginning" what would happen in detail. He knows how many hairs we have on our heads from moment to moment, which means that He knows all about our DNA and things like our fingerprints.

This does not cause me one bit of trouble. It just means that God doesn't create only the beings who he knows will be good and obey Him. If he did, it would be a denial of the freedom of his creatures. His knowledge of what we will do doesn't determine what we will do, any more than our foreknowledge of Kennedy's assassination when we watch the Zapruder film makes it happen.

This also brings up an interesting point about Christ. When He was on the cross, He truly did not know for sure (experientially) if God would accept His sacrifice. He felt the burden of sin and the hatred of God for sin so profoundly that it seemed to Him God couldn't forgive them. All Jesus had at that point were the promises in the Scriptures. He had to depend completely on the promises of the Father, the same as we must.

[pnattmbtc]

Richard, I've explained this several times. I'm responding to your quotes and your questions, but you're ignoring my arguments and the quotes I've presented. I've pointed out a couple of times now problems with your positions, and you've just ignored the comments.

Yes, I read the quotes. I'm well aware of them. They say that God was aware of the existence of sin. There's two ways to take this. One is that God was aware of the possibility that sin would come into existence, and the other is that God was aware of the certainty that sin would come into existence. If the meaning is the latter, which evidently is the way you are taking it, there are the problems I've pointed out several times now.

First of all, it wouldn't be the case that God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss, and there can only be risk where there is uncertainty. Secondly, it would make God responsible for sin, by setting into motion a course of action that made sin a certainty. Thirdly, it would make the statement false that there is no explanation for sin. Fourthly, the meeting in SR would have been a sham. Fifthly, there wouldn't have been any struggle for God to make a decision to let Christ come, as the decision would have been made in eternity past. Sixthly, it wouldn't make any sense to say that heaven was imperiled, as, under your ideas, heaven could never have been in any danger.

Let's consider this last one a moment. Do you believe that heaven was ever in any danger? If so, what danger was heaven in?

[Woody]

Well ... from reading this thread ... there seems to be a lot of ignorin' goin' on.

[Guest]

Either you still haven't read it, or you're just dodging the question. She doesn't say they knew about the possibility of sin. She says they knew exactly what was going to happen. That throws out your theory. Now you've got to find a way to make all the quotes harmonize. How will you do it?

God and Christ knew from the beginning, of the apostasy of Satan and of the fall of Adam. 1SM 250

Keep in mind, when you make statement like "He knows as far as possible what will happen" You make God something far less than what He is, and far less than what He says he is.

Except the fact that your little finite brain can't even begin to wrap around what God is.

[John317]

... They say that God was aware of the existence of sin. There's two ways to take this. One is that God was aware of the possibility that sin would come into existence, and the other is that God was aware of the certainty that sin would come into existence.

It seems to me that Ellen White's statement can only be understood to mean what she says, which is, that "God and Christ knew from the beginning, of the apostasy of Satan and of the fall of Adam through the deceptive power of the apostate." She doesn't say that God knew of the possibility. Does she ever indicate this is what she was saying?

I have no question that when God made Lucifer, God knew in advance that Lucifer would Fall.

According to the EGW statement, God also knew that Adam would Fall. Does this make God responsible for all the wickedness that ensued? No.

Did He cause it? No.

By the way, to get around these "problems," some have proposed that God is really just a very good and wise guesser. It's called the theory of the "openness of God"-- which posits that God changes or evolves along with His creation. It is related to "process theology,"-- a theory influenced by evolution-- first conceived by Mathematician/Philosopher Alfred Whitehead and later developed further by the German theologian, Wolfhart Pannenburg. Some SDAs, such as my former professor, Richard Rice, have bought into it and are advocating it.

See an interesting review of the teaching:

http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/ddd_chc82/articles/openness_god.html

[pnattmbtc]

Either you still haven't read it, or you're just dodging the question. She doesn't say they knew about the possibility of sin. She says they knew exactly what was going to happen. That throws out your theory. Now you've got to find a way to make all the quotes harmonize. How will you do it?

[John317]

I didn't read through the whole long thread, therefore, please forgive me if this was already asked.

Is heaven itself real or metaphorical? The answer to this question is also the answer to this topic's question.

Heaven is a real place, as real as the earth itself is real. The heavenly sanctuary is literal and real. Jesus is truly a human with a glorified human body, which you would be able to touch and feel if you were in heaven, the same as the disciples were able to touch Him when he was on earth just before He ascended. The Bible teaches that Jesus is still in the flesh.