"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[John317]

Quote:

skyblue: John you quoted the words "with a strong hand shall he let them go" as though the "he" was referring to God when the "he" actually refers to Pharaoh.

Exo 6:1 "Then the LORD said unto Moses, Now shalt thou see what I will do to Pharaoh: for with a strong hand shall he (Pharaoh) let them go, and with a strong hand shall he drive them out of his land." *parenthesis supplied

Yes, sky, I did say that. I researched the verse before using it. I have since done additional research and am even more convinced that I was correct the first first. Below is the evidence for all to inspect.

You might want to do some research on this verse, sky. Check out other translations and Bible commentaries. I don't know of any that say "the strong hand" is that of the Pharaoh. Look at all of the references to "strong hand," or "mighty hand," in Exodus 3: 19, 20; 6: 6; 15: 6, 12. It clearly signifies God's might, or force. You will see more evidence of this below. Please let me know what your conclusion is, based on the evidence.

Here are 12 translations as well as commentary by Hebrew scholar and translator, Robert Alter:

"And the Lord said to Moses, 'Now will you see what I shall do to Pharaoh, for through a strong hand will he send them off, and through a strong hand will he drive them from his land.'"

NOTE by translator on Exdous 6: 1--

"through a strong hand will he send them off and through a strong hand will he drive them from his land. The 'strong hand'-- that is, violent force-- becomes a refrain in the story, here repeated in quasipoetic parallelism. The phrase refers to the violent coercion that God will need to exert on Pharaoh. It is noteworthy that the semantically double-ended 'send' (to send away ceremoniously, to release, to banish) is here paired with the unambiguous 'drive them from his land.' In the event, God's strong hand will compel Pharaoh to expel the Hebrews precipitously, so that 'let my people go' is reinterpreted as something like 'banish my people.' The Exodus, in other words, extorted from a recalcitrant Egyptian monarch by an overpowering God, will prove to be a continuation of hostility, a fearful and angry expulsion of the slaves rather than a conciliatory act of liberation." (The Five Books Of Moses, Robert Alter, p. 338.)

2) "Then the Lord said to Moses, 'You shall soon see what I will do to Pharaoh: he shall let them go because of a greater might; indeed, because of a greater might he shall drive them from his land.'" Tanakh-- The Holy Scriptures, Jewish Publication Society Translation

3) "The Lord said to Moses: 'You will now see how I handle Pharaoh; for he must not merely be compelled to let them go; but he must drive them out of his land by force.'" Marginal note reads, "God forcing him." The Modern Language Bible, New Berkeley Version

4) "'Now you will see,' the LORD told Moses, 'what I will do to Pharaoh, because of My strong hand he will send them away, and because of My strong hand he will drive them out of his country.'" William Beck's The Holy Bible In the Language of Today.

NOTE: "the strong hand" is God's might or power. It is the use of force.

5) "'... Because of my mighty hand he will let them go; because of my mighty hand he will drive them out of his country.'" NIV

6) "Then the Lord said to Moses, 'Now you are going to see what I will do to the king. I will force him to let my people go. In fact, I will force him to drive them out of his land.'" The Good News Bible

7)"'.... For he will be made to let them go because of My strong hand. By My strong hand, he will make them go out of his land.'" The Bible, The New Life Version

8) "Then the Lord said to Moses, 'You're now going to see what I will do to Pharaoh. I will force him to let my people go. In fact, he will beg them to leave the country.'" The Clear Word, Jack J. Blanco

9) "'... Now you shall see what I will do to Pharaoh; compelled by a mighty power he will not only let them go, but will drive them out of his land.'" Smith & Goodspeed, The Complete Bible

10) "'... Now you shall see what I will do to the Pharaoh; he will be forced to let them go; he will be forced to put them out of his country.'" James Moffatt, The Bible, A New Translation

11) "'... Now you will see what I shall do to Pharaoh: he will be compelled to let them go, he will be forced to drive them from his country.'" Revised English Bible

12) "'... Now you will see what I will do to the king of Egypt. I will use my great power against him, and he will let my people go. Because of my power, he will force them out of his country.'" The New Century Version

I could have supplied over 40 more such translations, but the above will, I presume, suffice. They all make the point that the "the mighty hand" is that of God, and not the Pharoah's. Notice the obvious above, that "the mighty hand" of God refers to the use of force against Pharaoh in order to free the children of Israel. This is obvious from the narrative as well as the language used, such as in Exodus 6: 1.

[teresaq]

So let's consider everything the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy say about these things. Let's not stop with just a few paragraphs. Study all she says and all that the Bible says about it.

[John317]

Quote:

John317: So let's consider everything the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy say about these things. Let's not stop with just a few paragraphs. Study all she says and all that the Bible says about it.

Quote:

teresaq(sda): yes, lets do that, shall we. lets look carefully at what the verse itself says and compare other verses with it.

I'm all for it. That is precisely what I've been doing and advocating since the beginning of the thread.

Quote:

John317The Egyptian army was certainly forced to stay forever in the waters of the Red Sea.

Quote:

teresaq(sda): now it looks like you are grasping at straws, john, they seem so ridiculous.

Are you denying that God destroyed the Egyptian army in the Red Sea, and that He caused the water to "swallow them up," as Ellen White herself says? Remember she says the army was trying to return back to the shore when God caused the water to go back over the Egyptians and drown them. The people of Israel were glad that God did this miracle, and I am glad too. I am shocked that other Seventh-day Adventists aren't glad but actually reject the idea that God did it. The Bible gives praise to God for His mighty works. I see nothing wrong with God doing it. No one is happy that humans died but we are glad that God fought for israel and rescued them from slavery and out of the hand of cruel Pharaoh.

Quote:

teresaq(sda): but lets look at this. and lets do it by looking at the bible account instead of just throwing words out, ok?

Yes, indeed. That is exactly what I've been hoping you'd do.

Quote:

JOHN3:17: The Egyptian army was certainly forced to stay forever in the waters of the Red Sea.

Quote:

teresaq(sda):the scripture clearly contradicts you. Exo 14:30 Thus the LORD saved Israel that day out of the hand of the Egyptians; and Israel saw the Egyptians dead upon the sea shore.

OK, lol. Some were washed up dead on the shore. That always happens when masses of people die in the sea. But the point is that they died in the water and were forced to end their lives there. The fact that some of them-- perhaps many of them-- were eventually washed up on the shore hardly changes my argument: which is that God destroyed them in the waters of the Red Sea.

Quote:

John317: Your "universal principle" can be easily proven NOT to be a universal principle, but you first have to be able to recongize "force." Of course as long as you refuse to recognize force when you see it, you can continue to keep your universal principle. So far I think you have what's called a "closed system," in which nothing can be shown to be false.

You simply refuse to acknowledge that fact that "expelled" or "drive out" refers to the use of force, despite those words being commonly associated with its use

Quote:

teresaq(sda): this seems to be the problem: applying what is "commonly associated with its use" to God, and not examining all the scriptures and sop dealing with these issues.

So far, you have not helped in this area of the investigation.

Why don't you show us how it's done. Examine the Scriptures and SOP dealing with these issues and show how they signify something contrary to what I've been saying.

For instance, carefully examine the story of Exodus 14 and tell us how it shows that God did not destroy the Egyptians in the Red Sea. Or show us from Ellen White writings that God didn't destroy them.

Did God use any force in Egypt at all in order to free His people? Did God destroy anyone for the same purpose?

Notice that Exodus 6: 1 says plainly that God did use force, and Exodus 14 plainly shows that God did destroy the Egyptians. If these two things alone are true, you lose the argument that God never used force and has never destroyed anyone.

It's essential to understand the use of language and words. Ellen White and the Bible do not use the language they utilize for nothing. Words have great significance. Show how the words in the Bible and SOP do not support what I'm saying in regard to the Exodus and to the destruction of the Egyptians in the Red Sea.

Quote:

teresaq(sda):i respectfully suggest that it is you that has the "closed system" and are not searching the scriptures but are depending on "arguments" instead.

"Arguments" are reasons based on evidence and logic. They are very good, useful things, much to be preferred to mere claims. I'm still waiting for some discursive writing from you.

I don't have a closed system, because all you have to do to prove me wrong about Egypt is show that God never destroyed anyone or that he never used force. In this case, you need to show that God never used force to help Israel escape slavery in Egypt, and you also need to show that God did not destroy the Egyptians in the Red Sea. Can you do it? Make your best case, please.

[pnattmbtc]

So let me get this straight. Now you want to take a word that I used, in order to explain to you what exterminate means. And replace the word that the prophet used, with this other word. Because you think you can better deal with this word? LOL

[John317]

Quote:

John317: It was obviously God's will that Saul perish.

Quote:

ROBERT: Then it's God's will that all sinners die....All men die, hence it is God's will.

Of course not. How in the world do you come to that conclusion? It was God's will for Saul to die only after he had passed his probation and turned against God. We can't assume that because people die, it is God's will for them to die. But inspiration has revealed to us that it was God's will that Saul die. See 1 Sam. 15: 23; 16: 14; 28: 6; 1 Chron. 10: 13, 14.

That is what will happen at the end of human probation just before the return of Christ. Until that time, God's is working to save humanity, including you and me. He did everything He could to saved Saul, but when Saul became determiend to oppose God, God opposed Saul. Many people today think wrongly that Christ will remain forever a mediator and High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary, but the fact is that He will one day soon lay aside His priestly garments and cease His work as our High Priest. The last sin will be forgiven and then He will then come as King of kings and as the Righteous Judge of the living and the dead. Do you believe this?

[Guest]

Quote:

I'll ask yet again, if a sinner is no more, and there is no one left to sin, is it not the case that sin has been exterminated?

Not if they die on their own, no. The word exterminated describes the how of their demise. And precludes any thought that it will happen on it's own.

[John317]

Quote:

pnattmbtc:

She said that *sin* is exterminated, not sinners. ....

But the extermination of sin is the same as the destruction, or etermination, of Satan and all those who follow him.

Here's the proof of it:

It's very obvious from reading both the Bible and Ellen White that the "extermination" of sin (GC 504) is the same as the destruction of Satan, the evil angels, and all those who follow Satan. Notice she speaks of "the destruction of Satan" on pages, 499 (top line) and of his "blotting out of existence."

She says that in order to "destroy sin," Christ had humbled Himself and become obedient unto death. GC 502, par. 2. This exactly harmonizes with the sentence on the very next page, where she says, "The Son of God passed through the portals of the tomb, that 'through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil'" (GC 503: par. 3).

The above makes crystal clear that to "destroy sin" is EQUAL to destroying the devil. Since the devil is "the originator of evil" (GC 503: par.2), or "originator of sin" (GC 505: par. 1), God couldn't very well destroy, or exterminate, sin without first destroying the devil. She refers to the "final execution of the judgment" (GC 503, par. 2). (This occurs when fire comes down from God out of heaven and consumes the wicked.)

She says that when Christ died on the cross, "the death knell of Satan was rung" (GC 503: par. 3). That is the same as the death knell of sin.

At the end of chapter 29 of the Great Controversy, Ellen White says that the "utter extermination" of "sin" "in the beginning would have brought fear to angels and dishonor to God" but "NOW [at the end of the 1000 years]" this "extermination of sin" "vindicate His love and establish[es] His honor before the universe..."

What is it that would have brought fear and dishonor to God? In one place she calls it "the extermination of sin," but in another place in the same book, she calls it "the destruction of Satan." (See GC 498, 499) It is this, then, which would have brought fear and dishonor to God if God had immediately destroyed Satan. Why? "Had he [satan] been immediately blotted from existence, they would have served God from fear rather than from love."

Since God destroys Satan and the wicked only after sin has run its course, and after all the universe has had opportunity to see the terrible results of sin--- therefore, when God does destroy Satan, the whole universe will sing the praises and declare the righteousness of Jehovah. GC 673. Therefore it is as clear as crystal that by the term "extermination of sin," Ellen White was referring to nothing else than the destruction of Satan and all who follow him.

Notice, also, that Ellen White says "had Satan been immediately blotted from existence," and not "had Satan been blotted from existence." In other words, it is assuming that God will one day blot Satan from existence but after he's been given time to show his true character. She is not saying the angels would be afraid of God if God were ever to destroy Satan, but that they would have been afraid of Him if He had destroyed Satan "immediately," before the holy angels understood the issues involved.

[Robert]

....inspiration has revealed to us that it was God's will that Saul die. See 1 Sam. 15: 23; 16: 14; 28: 6; 1 Chron. 10: 13, 14.

Here's the heart of your references: "The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today and has given it to one of your neighbors--to one better than you."

Again, how? Saul forsook the Lord and therefore God withdrew His presence from the King's life. The result?

"I [God] will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them, [the result?] and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall come upon them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us because our God is not among us?"

So "no" John, God did not kill Saul. Again, God assumes the blame for the results of what happened to Saul. It was never God's will for Saul to perish, never....

[Robert]

The above makes crystal clear that to "destroy sin" is EQUAL to destroying the devil. Since the devil is "the originator of evil"

Evil = the love of self. Therefore, John, you have evil in you. Like Paul states, "I know that in me dwells nothing good...."

If God destroyed the devil & his angels today you would still have indwelling sin. You don't need the devil to be tempted. Your own nature does that quite well.

"Evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual sins, stealing, lying, and cursing come from within."

The devil is a manipulator. He is an orchestrator. He is the agitator, but temptation comes from within. All, did you get that?, all temptation comes from our "bent-to-self".

[Robert]

John, as long as we are on this "God's will" thing, let's look at a verse found in the OT:

Then the LORD said to him [Moses], "Who has made man's mouth? Who makes him mute, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the LORD?

Is it God's will for infants to be born blind?

[Robert]

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

All of you who state that we should take the Bible just as it reads must therefore teach that God is the author of evil. Just taking it as it reads.... teehe

[pnattmbtc]

I accept the statements from Inspiration. Those statements are that God knows the future, including the free acts of people not yet born.

[pnattmbtc]

I believe it's a universal principle to the extent that Ellen White intended the statement to be understood, which is that God will never use compelling force to win the great controversy or to gain the service and loyalty of his intelligent creatures. God never forces people to accept Him.

I'll discuss this, but regarding the list of examples you've mentioned, you just repeat the same things, as if no one's responded. Teresa, as I've pointed out, has a whole thread dedicated to discussing the flaming swords of Eden. Regarding Satan's being cast out of heaven, this whole thread has been discussing this. Other cases have been discussed as well. It would be too time consuming to go through each of these again in any detail. I suggested you pick out two or three to discuss, and we could look at those, and nominated sky to start with, as I think he's done an excellent job in discussing these, and I've agreed with his explanations.

Regarding your point above, it appears you are asserting mutually exclusive ideas. You state that God never uses compelling force to gain the service of his intelligent creatures or to win the Great Controversy, but then you assert things which contradict these ideas. For example, you believe that in the plagues of Egypt that God applied more and more force against Egypt until finally getting His way. Suppose someone came to you and said, "You know, this is a dangerous neighborhood. For a nominal payment, we could make sure nothing bad happens to you." You refuse to pay. Next day you find a window broken. The same pitch is made. You refuse, and the violence escalates, until finally your first born son is murdered, and you capitulate. Now were your forced to act against your will? Of course! Anyone can see this. So to assert on the one hand that God applies more and more force until He gets His way, and assert on the other hand that God doesn't use force to force people to obey Him is obviously contradictory.

Regarding God's not using force to win the Great Controversy, if force, compelling power, violence and torture are things God does, then these form a part of His character and are principles of His government. It's self-contradictory to assert that *anything* that God does is not being done to win the Great Controversy because God wins the Great Controversy precisely by making known what He does!

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: The above makes crystal clear that to "destroy sin" is EQUAL to destroying the devil. Since the devil is "the originator of evil"

Quote:

ROBERT: Evil = the love of self. Therefore, John, you have evil in you. Like Paul states, "I know that in me dwells nothing good...."

If God destroyed the devil & his angels today you would still have indwelling sin. You don't need the devil to be tempted. Your own nature does that quite well.

"Evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual sins, stealing, lying, and cursing come from within."

The devil is a manipulator. He is an orchestrator. He is the agitator, but temptation comes from within. All, did you get that?, all temptation comes from our "bent-to-self".

I completely agree with you, Robert. What you say does not contradict the fact that both the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy say that Satan is the originator of sin and of evil.

Also, while temptation does come from within, temptation also comes from outside of us. Evil thoughts are often put inside people's heads by the devil and his fallen angels, just as good thoughts are put into our minds by the Holy Spirit and by the angels of God. So we are always dealing with temptations that come from within and temptations that Satan introduces into our minds. That's why it's important to pray constantly and have the Holy Spirit and the angels of God protecting us, because they not only give us strength to resist the temptations but they also fight off the influences of the evil angels.

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN317: ....inspiration has revealed to us that it was God's will that Saul die. See 1 Sam. 15: 23; 16: 14; 28: 6; 1 Chron. 10: 13, 14.

Quote:

ROBERT: Here's the heart of your references: "The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today and has given it to one of your neighbors--to one better than you."

Again, how? Saul forsook the Lord and therefore God withdrew His presence from the King's life. The result?

"I [God] will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them, [the result?] and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall come upon them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us because our God is not among us?"

I don't disagree with what you've written above, Robert. But your problem is that you seem to be ignoring the fact that when God withdrew His presence and protection from the king, God knew exactly what the result would be. You also seem to be ignoring the Bible statement that God slew Saul. It is not telling us something that is untrue. The reason it says this is that it was God's actions which led to Saul's death. Saul certainly bears responsibility because he chose to withdraw from God and even oppose God's will, but the point here is that God was fully aware of the consequences of withdrawing from Saul. God was right to do this.

If I am protecting a child from harm but then I withdraw my protection when I know that my decision will result in the child's death, isn't my withdrawal at least partly the reason for the death of the child? Any court would hold a person responsible under those circumstances, would it not?

[John317]

Quote:

Robert: ... as long as we are on this "God's will" thing, let's look at a verse found in the OT:

Then the LORD said to him [Moses], "Who has made man's mouth? Who makes him mute, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the LORD?

Is it God's will for infants to be born blind?

No, not His active will, certainly not. Most of the time He chooses to allow the consequences of sin in the world to follow their natural course. When He interferes and breaks that "natural course," we call it a miracle. If He didn't usually allow people to reap the natural consequences of sin, humans wouldn't learn that sin is a great evil which results in very harmful consequences.

[skyblue888]

I would like to make something clear and that is that so many times we have quoted statements that speak of God's restraining power, restraining the evil angels, holding back the powers of evil, subduing the evil passions of the soul, holding back the winds of strife, and, as much as it is possible to do so, preventing Satan from controlling the powers in nature in order to bring chaos all over the world. This is the constant work of the Holy Spirit and of holy angels. If they didn't exercise this restraining power, there would be no hope for anyone.

"We cannot know how much we owe to Christ for the peace and protection which we enjoy. It is the restraining power of God that prevents mankind from passing fully under the control of Satan. The disobedient and unthankful have great reason for gratitude for God's mercy and long-suffering in holding in check the cruel, malignant power of the evil one. But when men pass the limits of divine forbearance, that restraint is removed. God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown. Every ray of light rejected, every warning despised or unheeded, every passion indulged, every transgression of the law of God, is a seed sown which yields its unfailing harvest. The Spirit of God, persistently resisted, is at last withdrawn from the sinner, and then there is left no power to control the evil passions of the soul, and no protection from the malice and enmity of Satan." G.C.36.

Since Christ is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, the benefits of His sacrifice became effective the moment Adan and Eve fell. On account of the merits of that great sacrifice God has had a perfect right to exercise His restraining power to hold in check the evil agencies on behalf of mankind but when men pass the limit of His forbearance, His restraining power is removed and the sinner is left with no control over the evil passions of the soul and without protection from the malice and malignity of Satan. At first His restraining power is in a measure removed so that a train of circumstances arises that will punish sin with sin. If the Spirit is persistently resisted, this restraining power is gradually removed from the evil agencies of Satan until it is fully removed.

So of course God is restraining evil in our world but the question is, Will God Himself directly destroy the wicked? will He use force to destroy Satan and his angels? The answer is no. "I was shown that the judgments of God would not come directly out from the Lord upon them but in this way--they place themselves beyond His protection." MR 14,3.

Satan and his angels will be destroyed the same way the wicked will be at the time of the sixth plague. They will turn on each other and there will be strife and bloodshed everywhere. The same scenario will take place but on a much larger scale after the 1,000 years when all the unsaved of all ages shall turn upon Satan and his angels with the fury of demons. This is how the Lord "destroys" His enemies. He will not interfere when they shall turn upon each other.

sky

[John317]

Quote:

pnattmbtc: JOHN3:17: I wouldn't verbalize it that way.

Quote:

pnattmbtc:I asked you a question. I'm not asking you to verbalize something.

You certainly are asking me to verbalize something.

Aren't you asking me to put something into words?

What is that if it's not asking someone to "verbalize" something?

You said, "Or, to ask the question in another way, from your perspective of things, God has always been 100% from all eternity that there was no chance at all, the probability was always 0 and always has been, of heaven being lost. Given this, how can you assert that it was imperiled?"

What I'm telling you is that you aren't expressing it-- i.e., verbalizing it-- in any way that reflects my thinking.

There was a very genuine risk involved when God gave His only Son to come here and live as a human being and be tempted by the devil. Christ could have sinned against God. It would have caused a rupture in the Godhead with eternal consequences for the entire universe.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

J:You certainly are asking me to verbalize something.

Aren't you asking me to put something into words?

What is that if it's not asking someone to "verbalize" something?

I was asking you a question.

Quote:

You said, "Or, to ask the question in another way, from your perspective of things, God has always been 100% from all eternity that there was no chance at all, the probability was always 0 and always has been, of heaven being lost. Given this, how can you assert that it was imperiled?"

What I'm telling you is that you aren't expressing it-- i.e., verbalizing it-- in any way that reflects my thinking.

I wasn't trying to. I was asking a question.

Quote:

There was a very genuine risk involved when God gave His only Son to come here and live as a human being and be tempted by the devil. Christ could have sinned against God. It would have caused a rupture in the Godhead with eternal consequences for the entire universe.

I was expecting you would answer the question taking into consideration the salient parts of the question.

Let me try another way.

1.God has always been 100% certain from all eternity that heaven would not be lost. Do you disagree?

2.Given this is the case (you can skip this question if you disagree with question 1), how can you assert that heaven was imperiled?

[pnattmbtc]

No, not His active will, certainly not. Most of the time He chooses to allow the consequences of sin in the world to follow their natural course. When He interferes and breaks that "natural course," we call it a miracle. If He didn't usually allow people to reap the natural consequences of sin, humans wouldn't learn that sin is a great evil which results in very harmful consequences.

I agree with this.

Now if we suppose that God intervenes and causes some terrible thing to happen which is NOT the natural consequence of sin, then humans wouldn't learn that sin is a great evil which results in very harmful consequences. They would simply learn that sin is something God doesn't like, and you better not make God angry by doing things He doesn't like.

[John317]

....So of course God is restraining evil in our world but the question is, Will God Himself directly destroy the wicked? will He use force to destroy Satan and his angels? The answer is no. "I was shown that the judgments of God would not come directly out from the Lord upon them but in this way--they place themselves beyond His protection." MR 14,3.

I agree with much of your post, sky, but this last quote is out of context. It doesn't concern the destruction of the wicked, but concerns the judgments of God that are coming to people in the world during this very time we're living in. She wrote the letter in 1883 about God's removal of his protection from those who refuse to listen to His warnings.

In the same way that it would be a mistake to interpret her words as describing the judgments that fell on Egypt or on the world in the time of Noah or Lot, so it would be a mistake to interpret her words to be a description of what will occur at the end of the thousand years. In order to understand what will happen at that time, we need to read what she wrote about those events. As you know, she wrote most directly about them in GC 664 to 673. Virtually everything Ellen White wrote on the subject of the final destruction of the wicked is also found in the marvellous volume, An Exhaustive Ellen G. White Commentary On Revelation. See especially the chapter related to Revelation 20.

Quote:

Satan and his angels will be destroyed the same way the wicked will be at the time of the sixth plague. They will turn on each other and there will be strife and bloodshed everywhere. The same scenario will take place but on a much larger scale after the 1,000 years when all the unsaved of all ages shall turn upon Satan and his angels with the fury of demons. This is how the Lord "destroys" His enemies. He will not interfere when they shall turn upon each other.

I agree that there will be strife and fighting and that the wicked "turn upon" Satan and against "his agents in deception," but Inspiration doesn't support the idea that these attacks against Satan succeed in destroying him or the evil angels. In fact, on the same page of GC where she describes the wicked turning upon Satan, she says that "fire comes down from God out of heaven." They die from the fire that falls upon them and consumes them, not from fighting and destroying each other.

In EW 294, she writes, "Satan rushes into the midst of his followers and tries to stir up the multitude to action. BUT FIRE FROM GOD OUT OF HEAVEN IS RAINED UPON THEM, AND THE GREAT MEN, THE MIGHTY MEN, THE NOBLE, THE POOR AND MISERABLE, ARE ALL CONSUMED TOGEtHER. I saw that some were quickly consumed while others suffered longer. They were punished according to the deeds done in the body. Some were many days consuming, and just as long as there was a portion of them unconsumed, all the sense of suffering remained."

On the following page, where she describes the death of Satan, she refers to "cleansing flames" in such a way that it's impossible not to consider them literal fires. She says the same fire which destroys the wicked also cleanses the entire earth, burning even the rocks.

Ellen White could not be clearer: "Fire will come down from God out of heaven and devour them-- burn them up root and branch. Satan is the root, and his children are the branches. The same fire that will devour the wicked will purify the earth." EW 51, 52.

Elsewhere she says, "Then the wicked saw what they had lost; and fire was breathed from God upon them and consumed them. This was the execution of the judgment. The wicked then received according as the saints, in unison with Jesus, had meted out to them during the one thousand years. The same fire from God that consumed the wicked purified the whole earth. The broken, ragged mountains melted with fervent heat, the atmosphere also, and all the stubble was consumed." EW 53, 54.

A major problem with the idea that the wicked are destroyed by each other is that the Spirit of prophecy says the portion the wicked must suffer is meted out to them according to their deeds. The Bible says the same thing, that the wicked receive punishment according to the deeds done in the body. It's impossible to see how this could happen if the wicked are to be killed by the other wicked.

The other major problem with it is simply that it contradicts the plain testimony of both the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy, which describe the destruction as being the result of fire from God which utterly burns them up and brings them to ashes beneath the feet of the righteous.

[skyblue888]

John, how many times does it have to repeated what the Lord has said?

The judgments of God do not come directly out from Him upon the wicked, not even upon Satan John. Yes that fire will come "from God out of heaven," (not from Heaven but from the first heaven) but not in the way that we mortals think,, remember John, God's thoughts and ways are different than ours, right? that fire will come from God out of heaven but not in the sense that it will come directly from Him to devour the wicked, but in the sense that God will not interfere as the wicked will fight among theselves,,,,

In this battle of the ages, what sort of weapons do you think will be used? and if we think that Satan and his angels will be untouchable at that time, we may want to reconsider for the Word of God strictly says that Satan and his angels will fall by the hand of aliens for in that day Satan will be like a man and not like a god and that He will die the death of the uncircumcised by the hand of the most terrible of the nations. See again Ezekiel 28:6-10.

sky

and yes Satan will be the last one to fall but still he will fall by the hand of aliens.

[skyblue888]

You believe that that fire will come directly from our good and gracious Lord upon the wicked to devour them all because you read these words, "And fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them," (Rev.19:9) and yet you do not believe the next verse which plainly says that "they will be tormented day and night forever and ever." (Rev.19:10)

You and I understand that the wicked will not be burning in that fire day and night forever and ever, but that they will be like ashes under the feet of the redeemed but even that is a figure of speech because the earth will be made new and there won't be any ashes remaining.

What makes you think that we should take verse 9 literally but not verse 10? make it your best case!

sky

[Guest]

See again Ezekiel 28:6-10.

See again Ezekiel 28:11-19, Early Writings 294,295, GC 504, {1888 p.122} {LDE 241} {EW 102}, {3T 267.2}, {EW 52-54}, {SW, March 14, 1905 par. 12}, {ExV 33.1}

sky you have placed yourself in the same boat with those who don't even believe in God.

Many of them denied the existence of God and attributed the Flood to the operation of natural causes. {PP 119}

The plea may be made that a loving Father would not see His children suffering the punishment of God by fire while He had the power to relieve them. But God would, for the good of His subjects and for their safety, punish the transgressor. God does not work on the plan of man. He can do infinite justice that man has no right to do before his fellow man. Noah would have displeased God to have drowned one of the scoffers and mockers that harassed him, but God drowned the vast world. Lot would have had no right to inflict punishment on his sons-in-law, but God would do it in strict justice. {LDE 241.2}

Who will say God will not do what He says He will do?--12MR 207-209; 10MR 265 (1876). {LDE 241.3},

[Robert]

your problem is that you seem to be ignoring the fact that when God withdrew His presence and protection from the king, God knew exactly what the result would be.

Yes, of course He did...but He didn't abandoned Saul to kill him...He abandoned Saul because "agape" cannot force...it cannot coerce. God, because He is agape, had to remove Himself. And He did this before the battle occurred.

Rob