"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[pnattmbtc]

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?

[John317]

Quote:

pnattmbtc: No, she didn't say God knew exactly what was going to happen. What happened in the SR account makes crystal clear this couldn't have been the case.

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

Which, again, means that God knew of the possibility of sin, or of the certainty of sin.

You are changing the language again. She doesn't say "God knew of the possibility." If that's what she meant to say, she would have said it. Ellen White was a clear, deliberate writer. Do you know of any place where Ellen White said that "God knew of the possibility of sin"?

The Bible itself says God knows the end from the beginning. That is literally true. It doesn't say that God knows some possibilities that may happen.

The fact that this causes some people some "problems" with their preconceptions shouldn't cause us to disbelieve plain statements of the Scriptures or of Ellen White. We need to be willing to accept Scriptural and SOP statements for what they actually say, and not try to change them to fit our so-called "universal principles" or preconceptions of what the Bible or SOP must be saying.

[Guest]

Pnat's great brain has him constantly at war with Ellen White and the Bible. Why can't he just believe what it says?

Intellect is no substitute for faith. Pnat you're too smart for your own good, by at least half. LOL

[pnattmbtc]

You are changing the language again.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Pnat's great brain has him constantly at war with Ellen White and the Bible. Why can't he just believe what it says?

If there were any merit to your ideas, you should be able to address the points I've made, rather than just ignore them and poke fun.

I'll ask you again, how was heaven in any danger? COL 196 says that heaven was imperiled for our redemption. What danger was it in?

[Guest]

Quote:

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.

According to the quote you gave it was that the Father didn't want to let Jesus go because he didn't want him to die.

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 for that quote is wrong BTW.

Quote:

it would make the statement false that there is no explanation for sin.

Just because God knew about it doesn't explain it. I don't know where that came from.

[John317]

Quote:

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

Quote:

pnattmbtc: If God created Lucifer, knowing that sin would certainly result as a consequence, then God would be responsible for the entrance of sin, as God, in this case, would have set a course in motion that could only result in sin coming about. And it would be nonsense to suggest that the entrance of sin is a mystery. It would be very simple to explain it's existence: God created a being He knew would sin. There you go. No mystery at all.

You seem to be assuming that God caused sin if he created free beings whom He knew would sin. He allows you and I to live, and in fact He knew ahead of time what we would do. Does that mean God is responsible for what you and I do? Obviously not. Isaiah 45 says that God knew ahead of time what Cyrus would do, and if that is true, God must have known every sin that he committed. Again, that doesn't mean God is somehow responsible for his sins.

Isaiah 53 and Daniel 9 are proofs that God knew in detail what Christ would do and how he would die and who would kill him. Yet people were responsible for it. God was not.

His foreknowedge is not the same as making something happen.

You know that President Kennedy was shot on Nov. 22, 1963. Does that mean your perfect knowledge of that event made it happen? No. But yet God's knowledge of the future may be compared to your knowledge of the past. In neither case does the knowledge cause something to happen.

Let me ask you: Is God so controlling that He only creates beings who He knows will never sin or do wrong? If He did, that would raise an even greater problem. It would mean that He doesn't allow for freedom. It would be like God is an abortionist and simply doesn't allow to live those whom He doesn't want for whatever reason. That would be self-centered, wouldn't it?

[pnattmbtc]

According to the quote you gave it was that the Father didn't want to let Jesus go because he didn't want him to die.

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.

Why didn't He want Him to die? If it was simply a matter of Christ's suffering some pain, it doesn't make sense that there would be any struggle here. Comparing a brief time of suffering to the fate of billions of people is any easy decision, especially for God. However, if it's true that God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss, it becomes apparent that this would be a difficult decision.

However, this isn't addressing the real problem involved, which is that if God knew from all eternity exactly what He was going to do, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever to suggest that He struggled with a decision. These two concepts are mutually exclusive.

I'll ask again, how was heaven in any danger?

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: Richard

According to the quote you gave it was that the Father didn't want to let Jesus go because he didn't want him to die.

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.

Why didn't He want Him to die? If it was simply a matter of Christ's suffering some pain, it doesn't make sense that there would be any struggle here.

Would you give up your son if you knew that he was going to be beaten, and scourged, and spit on by people who are not worthy to even live? And nailed to a cross to die? Do you think that would not be a struggle for you? It wouldn't matter how long you knew it would last.

[pnattmbtc]

pnattmbtc: If God created Lucifer, knowing that sin would certainly result as a consequence, then God would be responsible for the entrance of sin, as God, in this case, would have set a course in motion that could only result in sin coming about. And it would be nonsense to suggest that the entrance of sin is a mystery. It would be very simple to explain it's existence: God created a being He knew would sin. There you go. No mystery at all.

J:You seem to be assuming that God caused sin if he created free beings whom He knew would sin.

[pnattmbtc]

R:According to the quote you gave it was that the Father didn't want to let Jesus go because he didn't want him to die.

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.

p:Why didn't He want Him to die? If it was simply a matter of Christ's suffering some pain, it doesn't make sense that there would be any struggle here.

R:Would you give up your son if you knew that he was going to be beaten, and scourged, and spit on by people who are not worthy to even live? And nailed to a cross to die? Do you think that would not be a struggle for you? It wouldn't matter how long you knew it would last.

Would I give up a son to be beaten, etc. if it meant that billions of people would have the opportunity to have eternal life, and that a numberless multitude would actually make such a decision? This wouldn't take any time at all to decide. Yes, of course. Who wouldn't? How could one even think God would struggle for a moment with such a decision as this?

How was heaven in any danger?

[John317]

Quote:

You are changing the language again.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: You're ignoring quotes you disagree with again. You find one quote you like and fixate on that, regardless of the logical problems this causes.

What quote? I don't know of any, yet, that I've "ignored." Copy and paste it here, pnatt. We can talk about it right now.

I have never fixated on one quote. I'm opposed to doing that. Tell me the quote you think I am fixating on.

As for logical problems, we need to accept the Bible's clear statements and let God worry about the logical problems. Abraham had a hard time with that one.

If we haven't learned to place our faith in God's word instead of in our senses and in our human reasoning, we are going to be in a world o' hurt when we are faced with apparent proofs (that appear to be unquestionable proof) that the Bible is wrong.

Where do we place our trust and faith-- in human reasoning or in the Word of God? Eve chose human reasoning and her senses. She ignored God's clear command. She allowed Satan to persuade her that it was full of mystery and that God didn't mean exactly what He said. She was wrong. Look what it resulted in.

That is what happens when people think they have proof that the dead do in fact know something and are communicating with the living. They haven't learned to put the Bible above their human reasoning and their physical senses.

[pnattmbtc]

What quote? I don't any yet that I have ignored. Copy and paste it here, pnatt.

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: Let me ask you: Is God so controlling that He only creates beings who He knows will never sin or do wrong? If He did, that would raise an even greater problem. It would mean that He doesn't allow for freedom.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: You're saying that God's creating beings He knows won't sin limits freedom? How so? If this were the case, then God shouldn't create *any* beings He knew wouldn't sin. By your own argument, this would mean He doesn't allow for freedom.

This is a specious argument.

You didn't understand what I'm saying. I'm saying that if God ONLY creates those whom He knows will not sin and rebel, He is not allowing for freedom. That would be kinda like a mother killing a baby if she's convinced it will turn out to be a bad kid. He would then be simply not creating the beings he knows will do what He doesn't want them to do. That's not the same as saying God creates beings He knows won't sin. Of course he did that-- evidently He created millions of angels whom He knew would not sin, but He also created those whom He knew would sin. That shows that God chooses freedom even when it is opposed to Him.

[John317]

The following were all cited. I also made arguments based on these quotes, which haven't been addressed.

OK, join the club. You're not alone in that feeling. I've posted probably thousands of quotes that haven't been addressed. Over the years, I've exchanged with some people who respond to maybe one in 20 posts directed to them, yet some of these people would complain if they posted one post that wasn't replied to.

I know many have been posted on this thread that weren't addressed. But when I ask about them, I ususally get a general statement such as that it was already addressed somewhere along the line. And when I ask where, I have been told that it's just as easy for me to look as for the poster to look. Yet they want me to go in search of a post of mine so they can read it, even though I repeated most of what I had said earlier. Go figure.

OH well. I don't hardly even pay attention to that kind of thing anymore. If I worried about it, I couldn't have any fun here, and that's the whole reason I'm here, to have fun and enjoy the exchanges. :-)

[Guest]

God had a knowledge of the events of the future, even before the creation of the world. He did not make His purposes to fit circumstances, but He allowed matters to develop and work out. He did not work to bring about a certain condition of things, but He knew that such a condition would exist. {6BC 1082.3}

[John317]

God had a knowledge of the events of the future, even before the creation of the world. He did not make His purposes to fit circumstances, but He allowed matters to develop and work out. He did not work to bring about a certain condition of things, but He knew that such a condition would exist. {6BC 1082.3}

Wonderful, wonderful quote, Richard. Amazing love-- amazing God!!

All we can do is accept it on faith, because we know nobody like that and have seen the proof of it, except as we get a few glimpses of it by the study of prophecy. Some SDAs are even questioning the existence of true prophecy and see it more as good guessing.

There are just so many things about God and God's way that we don't know or understand. But we have to believe the revelation he's given us and not think we have to change the language to fit our "universal principles" or preconceptions based on a few statements. LET ALL THE BIBLE SPEAK AND BE ITS OWN INTERPRETER.

[Guest]

GOD knows the end from the beginning. He knew, before the birth of Jacob and Esau, just what characters they would both develop. He knew that Esau would not have a heart to obey Him. He answered the troubled prayer of Rebekah and informed her that she would have two children, and the elder should serve the younger. He presented the future history of her two sons before her,... {SR 87.1}

[John317]

Satan in heaven had hated Christ for His position in the courts of God. He hated Him the more when he himself was dethroned. He hated Him who pledged Himself to redeem a race of sinners. Yet into the world where Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity. 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}

The heart of the human father yearns over his son. He looks into the face of his little child, and trembles at the thought of life's peril. He longs to shield his dear one from Satan's power, to hold him back from temptation and conflict. To meet a bitterer conflict and a more fearful risk, God gave His only-begotten Son, that the path of life might be made sure for our little ones. "Herein is love." Wonder, O heavens! and be astonished, O earth! {DA 49.2}

Never can the cost of our redemption be realized until the redeemed shall stand with the Redeemer before the throne of God. Then as the glories of the eternal home burst upon our enraptured senses we shall remember that Jesus left all this for us, that He not only became an exile from the heavenly courts, but for us took the risk of failure and eternal loss. Then we shall cast our crowns at His feet, and raise the song, "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing." Rev. 5:12. {DA 131.2}

Remember that Christ risked all. For our redemption, heaven itself was imperiled. At the foot of the cross, remembering that for one sinner Christ would have laid down His life, you may estimate the value of a soul.{COL 196.4}

Sorrow filled heaven, as it was realized that man was lost and that world which God had created was to be filled with mortals doomed to misery, sickness, and death, and there was no way of escape for the offender. The whole family of 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 out from the Father, His person could be seen. His countenance was calm, free from all perplexity and doubt, and shone with benevolence and loveliness, such as words cannot express. {SR 42.1} ...

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 him." {SR 45.1}

Nothing is more plainly taught in Scripture than that God was in no wise responsible for the entrance of sin; that there was no arbitrary withdrawal of divine grace, no deficiency in the divine government, that gave occasion for the uprising of rebellion. Sin is an intruder, for whose presence no reason can be given. It is mysterious, unaccountable; to excuse it is to defend it. Could excuse for it be found, or cause be shown for its existence, it would cease to be sin. {GC 492.2}

It is important that in defending the doctrines which we consider fundamental articles of faith we should never allow ourselves to employ arguments that are not wholly sound. These may avail to silence an opposer but they do not honor the truth. We should present sound arguments, that will not only silence our opponents, but will bear the closest and most searching scrutiny. Testimonies, vol. 5, pp. 707,708

Those are all good quotes. Thanks for bringing them back to my attention. Of course I have read all of them many times before but we can't read and think about them too often.

Are you saying you thought I was ignoring or avoiding all of these?

I'll gladly discuss each one of these with you beteween tonight and tomorrow. It's now 10: 30 PM on the West coast. I will probably put this away in a few minutes and be back early in the morning on Presidents Day.

[Guest]

If God does not know the future in every detail, then there would be no such thing as prophecy. It would mean that He's just been lucky so far with all the prophecies that have been fulfilled right down to the letter.

[Dr. Rich]

AMEN

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: :I have never fixated on one quote. I'm opposed to doing that. Tell me the quote you think I am fixating on.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: The DA one, page 22 I think.

That can't be right. The only time I've quoted it is to respond to your quote from that page which says "the exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government."

Richard quoted from it a few posts back, "The plan for our redemption was not an afterthought..."

Are you sure this is the page you were thinking of? It's a wonderful page, but then it's by Ellen White, so what can I expect!

Sounds like you don't have very good evidence to support your idea that I "fixate" on some quotes.

However, if I do seem to "fixate" on a quote, it's because it seems to me that it's being ignored or not thoroughly taken into account-- kind of like your idea about a number of quotes.

Those quotes that are being ignored and therefore are ones that you feel I'm "fixated" on are almost certainly found in EW 52-53; 290-291; and GC 660-661. Please read those again and get their meaning fixed in your mind. They have never been dealt with except to dismiss them with a remark so general as to be something that could be said about almost anything.

[Guest]

There are some things that cannot be explained. But if the Bible says God knows the end from the beginning, then I believe it.

It's called faith. And for those who think they have to figure out things intellectually before they can believe it, or that it must make perfect sense before it can be embraced, are in for a rude awakening when Jesus comes.

Those are the ones who put their trust in human reasoning instead of thus saith the LORD. My faith is not based on human reasoning. And I don't put my trust in my intellect, or anyone else's.

That's what God is looking for, people willing to follow him even though they cannot see the path ahead, or understand everything perfectly.

If you have to understand everything perfectly before you can believe it, then you have no faith, and you are a disapointment to God. And faith is what God is looking for when He returns for his children.

Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him:

[John317]

Welcome, Dr. Rich.

Hey you gotta be so agreeable? LOL

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: As for logical problems, we need to accept the Bible clear statements and let God worry about the logical problems.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: That's what the Lutherans say! They argue that there position is not logical, but it is Biblical. That's not the SDA position, however.

"It is important that in defending the doctrines which we consider fundamental articles of faith we should never allow ourselves to employ arguments that are not wholly sound. These may avail to silence an opposer but they do not honor the truth. We should present sound arguments, that will not only silence our opponents, but will bear the closest and most searching scrutiny." Testimonies, vol. 5, pp. 707,708

That's not what I'm talking about. Of course we need to employ arguments from the Bible and from history that are wholly sound. But Ellen White does not say that when there is a conflict between reason and a plain "thus saith the Lord," we should dismiss the Bible and go with human reason and the physical senses. Just the opposite, in fact.

Please show where Lutherans say that their own position is illogical but biblical. Perhaps you mean they admit that their position on some things, such as the Eucharist, is not based on logic, but that is not the same as saying it is illogical. We Seventh-day Adventist do not say that our beliefs are based on logic. They are based on revelation from God in the inspired Word of God and in the Spirit of prophecy. We never could have arrived at these truths in a million years through the use of human logic.

I totally agree with Ellen White's statement that all of our positions should be able to bear the closest and most searching scrutiny-- but not in order to make sure they are all in agreement with human logic and the human senses, but rather to make sure that they agree with what God has revealed through His Holy Spirit in the Bible and in the Spirit of prophecy. That is what she's talking about. See her chapter in GC, called "The Scriptures a Safeguard."

You seem to be arguing as if you think I'm advocating an irrational approach, but nothing could be further from the truth. I'm addressing the problem of when human reason contradicts plain "Thus saith the Lord". For instance, many Christians today don't accept the first chapters of Genesis because they say that human reason and science shows that those chapters are wrong. There are also people on this Forum who say that they don't accept the Bible's teaching about Jesus because it doesn't make sense. I'm sure you've heard Christians who say they don't believe in the virgin birth of Christ because it is against human logic and experience.

That is the kind of thing I'm talking about here. I'm fully in agreement with the above quote by Ellen White. I put it into practice in my own life and I urge others to do the same. I offer my 16,000 posts as evidence of the truth of this.

Quote:

JOHN3:17: Abraham had a hard time with that one [i.e., with putting faith and trust in God's word when he couldn't see how it could be true according to human reason].

Where do we place our trust and faith-- in human reasoning or in the Word of God? Eve chose human reasoning and her senses. She was wrong. Look what it resulted in.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: You're operating under a false premise here. The Word of God is not logically unsound.

What is my "false premise"? I really doubt you even understand what I'm saying here.

Here's what I'm saying: "When the testing time shall come, those who have made God's word their rule of life will be revealed." GC 602

Notice she does not say "those who have made their human reasoning and senses the rule of life." At the same time, it's a given that we should develop our minds and our reasoning to our highest potentional. But we should never rely on it when there is conflict between reason and revelation.

I'm not implying the word of God is not logically sound. I'm saying that there are circumstances and times when it appears that the word of God is wrong according to human reason and the human senses. For instance, I know people who think it's illogical for God to reject practicing homosexuals from the kingdom of God. Others can't see the reason and logic in the seventh-day Sabbath. Or in the prohibition against eating pig. Or in the Investigative Judgment. Or in regards to the difference in the roles of women and men in the home and in the church.

So the word of God certainly is not logically sound in accordance to the thinking of many people. The apostle Paul recognized this. "The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing..."

The Holy Spirit helps us accept the word of God, and gives us faith and trust in it. Otherwise, without the Holy Spirit, we wouldn't accept it or understand it. "The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." "To us who are being saved, [the message of the gospel] is the power of God... Where is the wise?... Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?" 1 Cor. 2: 18; 1:18-20.

"The truths most plainly revealed in the Bible have been involved in doubt and darkness by learned men, who, with a pretense of great wisdom, teach that the Scriptures have a mystical, a secret, spiritual meaning not apparent in the language employed. These men are flase teachers... The language of the bible should be explained according to its OBVIOUS MEANING , unless a symbol or figure is employed.... If men would but take the Bible as it reads, if there were no false teachers to mislead and confuse their minds, a work would be accomplished that would make angels glad..." GC 599