"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[Robert]

Quote:

Robert: Again, the universal principle is - God sees and describes Himself as doing what He does not prevent. It applies all the time....

GC 614.

Not the measuring stick, John....Not the measuring stick....

[Robert]

Quote:

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Adventist Bible scholars and students going all the way back to the beginning of our church have not seen any contradiction between the above verse and the Bible teaching that God has destroyed the wicked and that He will do so again.

Jack (and he makes the Bible the measuring stick):

There is a text which I want you to look for, it’s in the Old Testament, where God is speaking. He says, “I have created evil.” You will find many texts in the Bible where God assumes the blame for many things. For instance God said, “I have hardened Pharaoh’s heart.” These texts cause a lot of problems to many Christians. You wonder why those texts are there. Well, it’s because God assumes the blame until the Day of Atonement. Because He’s sovereign and He allows things to happen, He has to assume the blame.

[John317]

Quote:

Robert: Again, the universal principle is - God sees and describes Himself as doing what He does not prevent. It applies all the time....

JOHN3:17: GC 614.

Quote:

Not the measuring stick, John....Not the measuring stick....

The Bible is the measuring stick, and Ellen White is-- as usual-- in harmony on this point with the Bible.

You may reject what she says but at least I can see that you understand the quote:

"The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits." GC 614.

How does the Bible not say the same thing?

Explain what happened at the Red Sea when the Egyptian army was killed in the waters. How could that be Satan? That would necessitate that God made the waters divide, but the devil made them come back together at Moses' command. Does that make biblical sense to you?

Could you explain?

Please write your explanation and I will enjoy reading it before going to church in the morning.

Have a blessed Sabbath, Rob. It's truly the memorial of God's perfect creation in the past and of the perfect recreation that is yet future.

[Robert]

Have a blessed Sabbath, Rob. It's truly the memorial of God's perfect creation in the past ....

Nope, it's not....Like Jack states, "It must be noted that this Sabbath covenant was made with mankind before the fall. Therefore, had there been no fall we would still be keeping God’s Sabbath as a day of rest. It is the entrance of sin that destroyed the significance of the Sabbath rest, since sin is rebellion against God, in exchange for self-dependence [Romans 1:21; Philippians 2:21]. Thus, when sin separated us from God [isaiah 59:2], no longer did His Sabbath have any significance."

[Robert]

Explain what happened at the Red Sea when the Egyptian army was killed in the waters. How could that be Satan?

Never said Satan drowned them, but through Pharaoh Satan did convince the Egyptians to go after the Israelis.

Verse 25 says that "He caused their chariot wheels to swerve, and He made them drive with difficulty" This sounds like the dry land was becoming wet! It looks like the chariots wheels were becoming stuck in the wet sand.

Verse 27 So Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and the sea returned to its normal state at daybreak [sometime later], while the Egyptians were fleeing right into it [back into the sea away from the Israelis]; then the LORD overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the sea.

There seems to be an interval of time between Moses stretching out his hand over the sea and the collapse of the walls of water.

The language, the Lord did that and this, doesn't bother me. Many times the Lord assumes the blame for that which He allows.

The Egyptians' own fear made them retreat back into the sea. It was after their chariot wheels became stuck that they reasoned, "Let us flee from Israel, for the LORD is fighting for them against the Egyptians." Why should they give up the pursuit just because their chariots weren't moving well? Couldn't they go in on foot? Well, the Bible simply says that they retreated back into the waters.

Now personally I would have never followed the Israelis in....That's stupid, but they did. It was never God's intent for them to follow. This shows how stupid human nature can be when it is given over to its desires (in this case hatred).

So did God drown them? It looks like it. Or did they drown themselves blinded by their hatred?

If you put your head in a lions mouth and survive, I'm not going to also do the same ....But if my ego is controlling me I just might. So it seems the Egyptians had a death wish.

Anyway, it was just plain stupid that the Egyptians followed them into the sea. The opening of the Red Sea was never intended for the Egyptians. So I see them as committing suicide.

That being said, this one is a tough one.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Again, the universal principle is - God sees and describes Himself as doing what He does not prevent.

Right!

WRONG!

Did God prevent Cain from killing Abel? No. Did he describe himself as doing it? NO!

Did God prevent David from having Uriah the Hittite killed? No. Did he describe himself as doing it? NO!

I could go on and on, but at some point surely you must realize that this so called "universal principle" is NOT universal!

No, it's right. You're argument has a number of flaws in it, but I'll address the major one.

The major flaw is that the statement is not asserting that anytime something is described, it's described as God's doing it. Instead what's being asserted is that God sees and describes Himself as doing that which He permits. To prove this statement is true, all that's needed is to present some examples of this, and Robert, and others, have presented many.

So it's undeniably true that inspiration often presents God as doing that which He permits.

Robert's point, and mine, and others who have presented these statements, is that since the language of inspiration often presents God as directly doing something when He doesn't, you can't simply present statements from inspiration presenting God as directly doing something. You'd have to make some sort of argument as to why it should be understood that God is doing the act directly rather than indirectly, as in the many other times.

[pnattmbtc]

2 Thess. 2: 11, 12 is well explained by other verses which show that God wants everyone to be saved, but that when they turn away from God, and refuse to hear the truth, God allows them to believe the lies which they choose to believe. He sends the plain truth in the Bible, but many pervert it and turn back to lies; and when this happens, their eyes are darkened by the truth. They think the truth is a lie, and lies are the truth.

This is hardly of the same category as the verses in Scripture and the passages in the SOP which show that God has used force, has destroyed, and will again use force and destroy in the future.

It's in exactly the same category. The language says one thing, but the meaning is another.

The language says that God sends them strong delusion, but the meaning is that God leaves them to their delusions. You assert this is not the same category, but it's *exactly* the same category. It's a *perfect* example of the point being made, that God is presented as directly doing that which He permits.

[pnattmbtc]

My objection is that it requires changing the language of the Bible. The Bible is speaking of "fine particles of earth," not living eggs.

It's hard to believe you're being serious here. They described what they saw happen without going into specifics. There are lots and lots of examples of this in Scripture. I'm sure you can think of many yourself off the top of your head.

You seem to be quite arbitrary when you become what appears to me to be hyper literal in your interpretations. For example, the Bible speaks of the Holy Spirit dwelling in your heart. Mark takes this as literal, and argues against your idea (and mine) that the heart is not speaking of the chest region. Another example is the Bible says that God will send the wicked strong delusion, but you say this isn't what happen, even though this is the language of the Bible. It says God sent fiery serpents, even though that didn't happen, even though this is the language of Scripture.

How do you decide when to take things literally and when not to? It seems to be based solely on what agrees with whatever point of view you're holding in regards to some particular issue.

[pnattmbtc]

Yes, it is a principle that sometimes applies but it is not a universal principle that applies to ALL Scripture and to all the SOP statements on the subject.

Can you point to a single verse in the Bible or a statement by Ellen White saying that this is a universal principle?

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Remember the statement that both the angels of God and the fallen angels cause destruction. All destruction does not come from a single source.

Read this carefully: "The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits." GC 614.

John, this is an example of what I spoke of before. You bring up a point, or ask a question, and rather then deal with my answers or questions, you just repeat what you said before as if I hadn't responded. I wrote a very long and detailed post dealing with this sentence.

Quote:

Notice this sentence speaks of two sources of destructive power: 1) from holy angels when God commands; and 2) from evil angels when God permits.

Therefore, destruction may come as a result of God's command or by His permissive will.

If we take a single sentence outside of its context, one could make that argument. What about the paragraph that preceded this? Why isn't it important?

Quote:

In this context, Ellen White is clearly saying that it was a holy angel who slayed the first-born of Egypt and a holy angel who punished David for his sin of numbering the people.

The sentence says "will be exercised by holy angels when God permits," and the context is the seven last plagues. Later on in this same chapter she says the character of the seven last plagues is like those of Egypt. If they are of the same character, and evil angels are involved in the seven last plagues, then it makes sense that they were involved in the plagues of Egypt as well.

I explained this in the previously mentioned post.

Quote:

This is what I mean by saying we need to keep in mind this statement by Ellen White, just as we should seriously take into account all her other statements on this subject. ALL of them are important and ALL of them are in perfect harmony with each other.

But you're not doing this. You're not even taking into account the paragraph immediately preceding this sentence. You're not taking into account the statement that "compelling power is found only under Satan's government." You're just taking one sentence, out of context, without consideration of the principles involved, or other statements, or even the preceding paragraph.

Quote:

I'm wondering if you can produce a quote from Ellen White's writings, where, in one place, she ascribes a punishment or judgment from God, but where, in another place, she ascribes the same punishment or judgment to the direct activity of Satan?

It has to be her both times? What couldn't it be Scripture in one place and her in another? For example, Scripture says that God sent fiery serpents, but she says that the serpents were already there and God removed His protection. Why isn't this sufficient?

Quote:

I believe you have shown that you're making a universal principle of a statement that was never intended to be such,

How can you assert that "compelling power is only found under Satan's government" was not meant to be taken as a universal principle? How would you suggest this be taken? Please suggest an alternative wording. "Compelling power is often found under Satan's government, but not always." Does that work? or "Compelling power is only found under Satan's government, except for those cases when it's not." What wording do you suggest?

Quote:

and for which you cannot produce a single statement from Ellen White describing it as a principle that applies universally throughout the Bible and her writings.

This is a ridiculous argument. What you're suggesting is that we can't take anything at all in the writings of Ellen White as a universal principle unless she specifically labels it as such. How about the sentence, "God cannot lie."? Can you produce a single statement that describes this as a universal principle? Or the statement "God is love"? Is that described as a universal principle anywhere? Or how about any statement whatsoever from Scripture? Is there anything in Scripture that is ever described by her as being a universal principle? Given there isn't, we should conclude that there are no universal principles which exist in Scripture.

You don't see the problem with your argument here?

Quote:

On the contrary, it is flatly contradictted by many of her clearest statements as well as those of a flood of Bible verses [no pun intended].

You're saying the statement "Compelling power is only found under Satan's government" is flatly contradicted by many of her clearest statements, unless we take this sentence not to be a universal principle. This is your assertion, right? So how should the sentence be taken? How do you suggest it should be worded?

I'm going to stop here because the rest looks to be just repeating things you've said before, to which I've responded, and which response you're not taking note of.

[pnattmbtc]

But remember the statement that both the angels of God and the fallen angels cause destruction. All destruction does not come from a single source.

"The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits." GC 614.

Notice this sentence speaks of two sources of destructive power: 1) from holy angels when God commands; and 2) from evil angels when God permits.

Therefore, destruction may come as a result of God's command or by His permissive will.

But what is God commanding? If you look at the preceding paragraph, it's evident that God is commanding the angels to release. Given this, it's not surprising that the same destructive power is exercised (because it's actually the same destructive power, as opposed to different destructive power).

[pnattmbtc]

The SDA church has read this quote many times and agrees with it, but virtually the entire church also believes that God will finally destroy the wicked in fire that comes from God out of heaven, just as Rev. 20: 9 says.

[skyblue888]

Excellent point pnatt.

To begin with, verse 9 does not take into account the time gap between the time when the wicked compass the City and when they will finally go into oblivion. As they compass the City in the hope that they can defeat those who dwell inside, they are not immediately destroyed. First Jesus and the redeemed appear on the walls of the City. The multitudes of the wicked are suddenly arrested. The object of their murderous rage are forgotten. They see, in panoramic view, the whole plan of redemption, from the time Satan rebelled in Heaven to the creation of this world, to the birth of Jesus, His ministry, His crucifixion and resurrection all the way down to His second coming in the clouds of heaven. We don't know how long this will last but it will take some time. After it is all said and done, all, including Satan himself, will bow to acknowledge that God's ways are righteous. The controversy is at an end. But the wicked of all ages will not go down without a fight. The weapons which were to be used to take the City are now directed at Satan and his evil angels and they turn upon them with the fury of demons. Everywhere there is strife and bloodshed. From start to finish, their mental agony will be much greater than their physical pain, so much so that they will hardly be aware of any physical harm. Thus the wicked will suffer according to the deeds done in the body. Satan will be the last to fall at the hand of the most terrible of the nations. Thus the Word of God will be fulfilled. "Behold, therefore, I will bring strangers against you, the most terrible of the nations, and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of your wisdom, and defile your splendor. They shall throw you down into the Pit, and you shall die the death of the slain in the midst of the seas." Ezekiel 28:7,8.

The earth is then purified by fire and Satan and his branches will be no more. "They will be as though they had never been." Obediah 16.

Now John, as pnatt pointed out, if verse 9 is to be taken just as it reads, how are we to read verse 10?

sky

[John317]

Quote:

John317: Have a blessed Sabbath, Rob. It's truly the memorial of God's perfect creation in the past ....

Quote:

ROBERT: Nope, it's not....Like Jack states, "It must be noted that this Sabbath covenant was made with mankind before the fall. Therefore, had there been no fall we would still be keeping God’s Sabbath as a day of rest. It is the entrance of sin that destroyed the significance of the Sabbath rest, since sin is rebellion against God, in exchange for self-dependence [Romans 1:21; Philippians 2:21]. Thus, when sin separated us from God [isaiah 59:2], no longer did His Sabbath have any significance."

I'll reply to this now, but if we're going to continue to dialogue about the same subject, it would be best to do it on a separate thread.

This argument is complete nonsense, Rob, and does not have the support of legitimate biblical or historical evidence. The Tem Commandments themselves point to the signifiance of the Sabbath as a day of rest and as a memorial of God's creative power. The ancient Hebrew manuscripts found among the Dead Sea scrolls-- dated to about the time of Christ-- show that this same reason for keeping the Sabbath was in effect at the time Israel entered into the Land of Promise.

So the Sabbath of the Lord our God obviously had significance from Eden to the Exodus, and from that time until the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Hebrews 4 also shows that the Sabbath still has great significance for believers today, both as a rest day and as the memorial of God's creative power and of His re-creative power in people and in the new earth.

[Robert]

The Sabbath is the 7th day, but it is not yet a test of faith...neither is Sunday the mark of the beast, yet....These issues are future.

The Sabbath as it points to creation was ruined. It is meaningless. That's why you see a change, in the law, from creation to redemption. But here we disagree....

[Robert]

John, concerning the question does God kill (related to war in heaven), I guess we will continue to disagree. I see no common ground....It was Paul that said, "For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known"

What's the context of 1 Cor 13? Agape...God's love. We have no problem with God's love manifested thru Christ, but there are those other verses where God looks worse than Hitler. Paul seems to say we won't understand some of these contradictions here, on this earth. We'll have to wait until we see Him face to face.

Rob

[skyblue888]

John, concerning the question does God kill (related to war in heaven), I guess we will continue to disagree. I see no common ground....It was Paul that said, "For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known"

What's the context of 1 Cor 13? Agape...God's love. We have no problem with God's love manifested thru Christ, but there are those other verses where God looks worse than Hitler. Paul seems to say we won't understand some of these contradictions here, on this earth. We'll have to wait until we see Him face to face.

Rob

Paul here is not saying that we will have to wait until we see Him face to face because Jesus Himself said that when the Comforter shall come He would teach us all things. No longer will we say, I cannot comprehend. No longer will we see through a glass, darkly. See D.A.670.

sky

[skyblue888]

The Sabbath is the 7th day, but it is not yet a test of faith...neither is Sunday the mark of the beast, yet....These issues are future.

The Sabbath as it points to creation was ruined. It is meaningless. That's why you see a change, in the law, from creation to redemption. But here we disagree....

I thought this topic was supposed to be a separate thread!

[teresaq]

Quote:

Remember the statement that both the angels of God and the fallen angels cause destruction. All destruction does not come from a single source.

Read this carefully: "The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits." GC 614.

John, this is an example of what I spoke of before. You bring up a point, or ask a question, and rather then deal with my answers or questions, you just repeat what you said before as if I hadn't responded. I wrote a very long and detailed post dealing with this sentence.

Quote:

Notice this sentence speaks of two sources of destructive power: 1) from holy angels when God commands; and 2) from evil angels when God permits.

Therefore, destruction may come as a result of God's command or by His permissive will.

If we take a single sentence outside of its context, one could make that argument. What about the paragraph that preceded this? Why isn't it important?

When David offended against God by numbering the people, one angel caused that terrible destruction by which his sin was punished. The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when he permits. {GC88 614.2}

2Sa 24:13 So Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him,

Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land?

or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue thee?

or that there be three days' pestilence in thy land?

now advise, and see what answer I shall return to him that sent me....

2Sa 24:15 So the LORD sent a pestilence upon Israel from the morning even to the time appointed: and there died of the people from Dan even to Beersheba seventy thousand men.

2Sa 24:16 And when the angel stretched out his hand upon Jerusalem to destroy it, the LORD repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed the people, It is enough: stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD was by the threshingplace of Araunah the Jebusite.

In accidents and calamities by sea and by land, in great conflagrations, in fierce tornadoes and terrific hailstorms, in tempests, floods, cyclones, tidal waves, and earthquakes, in every place and in a thousand forms, Satan is exercising his power. He sweeps away the ripening harvest, and famine and distress follow. He imparts to the air a deadly taint, and thousands perish by the pestilence. These visitations are to become more and more frequent and disastrous. {FLB 328.5}

He is ever imparting His bounties. He raises up the sick from beds of languishing, He delivers men from peril which they do not see, He commissions heavenly angels to save them from calamity, to guard them from "the pestilence that walketh in darkness" and "the destruction that wasteth at noonday" (Psalm 91:6); but their hearts are unimpressed. He has given all the riches of heaven to redeem them, and yet they are unmindful of His great love. By their ingratitude they close their hearts against the grace of God. Like the heath in the desert they know not when good cometh, and their souls inhabit the parched places of the wilderness. {DA 348.1}

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

ROBERT: Nope, it's not....Like Jack states, "It must be noted that this Sabbath covenant was made with mankind before the fall. Therefore, had there been no fall we would still be keeping God’s Sabbath as a day of rest. It is the entrance of sin that destroyed the significance of the Sabbath rest, since sin is rebellion against God, in exchange for self-dependence [Romans 1:21; Philippians 2:21]. Thus, when sin separated us from God [isaiah 59:2], no longer did His Sabbath have any significance."

Sequeira says this? That the Sabbath has no significance since the fall? (John317, I know you said to start a new thread to discuss this, so maybe you'd like to do this(?). I don't really want to discuss this at length, but I'd like to know a bit more about Jack's idea, as, at first glance, it doesn't seem to make any sense, and while I don't agree with all of his ideas, he usually has some logical reason for them).

[pnattmbtc]

Re: #339642, I'm getting a feeling of deja vu!

teresaq, that was an outstanding job. I should have mentioned that before. Nice job of research.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: John317

But remember the statement that both the angels of God and the fallen angels cause destruction. All destruction does not come from a single source.

"The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits." GC 614.

Notice this sentence speaks of two sources of destructive power: 1) from holy angels when God commands; and 2) from evil angels when God permits.

Therefore, destruction may come as a result of God's command or by His permissive will.

But what is God commanding? If you look at the preceding paragraph, it's evident that God is commanding the angels to release. Given this, it's not surprising that the same destructive power is exercised (because it's actually the same destructive power, as opposed to different destructive power).

When He leaves the sanctuary, darkness covers the inhabitants of the earth. In that fearful time the righteous must live in the sight of a holy God without an intercessor. The restraint which has been upon the wicked is removed, and Satan has entire control of the finally impenitent. God's long-suffering has ended. The world has rejected His mercy, despised His love, and trampled upon His law. The wicked have passed the boundary of their probation; the Spirit of God, persistently resisted, has been at last withdrawn. Unsheltered by divine grace, they have no protection from the wicked one. Satan will then plunge the inhabitants of the earth into one great, final trouble. As the angels of God cease to hold in check the fierce winds of human passion, all the elements of strife will be let loose. The whole world will be involved in ruin more terrible than that which came upon Jerusalem of old. {GC 614.1}

[pnattmbtc]

We're sort of going around in circles a bit, so I'd like to discuss the methodologies involved. First I'll say what I see happening, and see if everyone agrees.

There are statements which state principles regarding which, if true, and if universal, would lead to contradictions with other statements which appear to state that God directly destroys.

I see that the side that argues that God does not directly destroy argues like this:

1.Since the principles are true and universal, it must be the case that the statements which are apparently contradictory do not mean what those who take them to say that God directly destroys thinks they mean.

while the other side argues:

2.Since there are statements which state that God directly destroys, it must be the case that the statement of principles involved are not universal, or the principles are being incorrectly understood.

Does everybody agree with this?

Perhaps we can discuss things a bit on this level, rather than simply repeating the same statements. I think we've all see both types of statements many times by now.

I'll continue this on another post.

[pnattmbtc]

So how do we resolve the apparent contradictions?

Specifically, for those who believe that God does directly destroy, how do we know when a statement which says that God directly destroys should be taken as His destroying vs. His permitting destruction? I've asked this many times now, without a response. I think this is really where the rubber meets the road.

There are many examples of statements saying that God directly does something when He didn't. For example, the Bible says that God sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites. But Ellen White writes that the serpents were already there. If we go by the argument that "the Bible says this," then should we conclude that Ellen White is contradicting he Bible? If not, why not?

If we say that Ellen White is not contradicting the Bible, then when it says that God sent fiery serpents, it really means that He removed His protection. Given this is the case, why can't other Biblical statements that say that God directly destroyed be taken the same way Ellen White took this one?

[teresaq]

Re: #339642, I'm getting a feeling of deja vu!

teresaq, that was an outstanding job. I should have mentioned that before. Nice job of research.

you did!

but yes, i agree. if we take one sentence and think that is it, without doing further research....well, we see what happens...

speaking of further research, comparing the two accounts is rather interesting. while chronicles calls it the angel of the Lord, samuels does not give that impression at all. course one could read it that way if so inclined....i mean add in that understanding...

and...

bdb has for "sent"

2Sa 24:15 So the LORD sent a pestilence upon Israel from the morning even to the time appointed: and there died of the people from Dan even to Beersheba seventy thousand men.

1Ch 21:14 So the LORD sent pestilence upon Israel: and there fell of Israel seventy thousand men.

1a1) to give, bestow, grant, permit, ascribe, employ, devote, consecrate, dedicate, pay wages, sell, exchange, lend, commit, entrust, give over, deliver up, yield produce, occasion, produce, requite to, report, mention, utter, stretch out, extend...

so the translators had options but appear to have believed that God was responsible. that explains why ellen white appears to contradict the bible so often. she is merely giving the correct translation...