"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[John317]

Did she say "above" or "equal" to the law.

Where is that statement John?

sky

E.G White 1888 Materials, p. 340, 341

Also in Sermons and Talks, Vol. 1, p. 108.

And when the devil comes and points to your sins and hateful crimes, tell him, “Yes, I am a sinner, but Christ is a Saviour, and He says, ‘I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance’” [Matthew 9:13]. Thus you arm yourself with the whole armor of Christ’s righteousness? How is it you have not on the armor of Christ’s righteousness? What did He come to this world for? Why, if it had been a possible thing for us to have been brought back to keeping God’s commandments, He never would have come to this world; but He came here because it was impossible for man to redeem himself and bring himself into a position where Adam stood before the fall. Then what was he to do? Christ came, our substitute and surety.

Before He came they were under a yoke; but Christ was above law, He was the originator of the law, so there was no yoke upon Him; and the angels were in obedience to Christ, who was not under the yoke. He could come as one equal with the Father, and He could open His breast to the whole woe, grief, sin, and misery, and by an offering of Himself He could bring life and immortality to light through the gospel. This is the only hope of life, and when Christ cried out, “It is finished,” He carried out the devised plan. He had died in behalf of the race, as a freewill offering to God. He was not urged to do it, but He took it upon Himself that He might save the fallen race. He goes down into the grave and comes up out of the grave.

As Satan was triumphing in His death, it was not long before he found out he had overstepped the boundary. In seeking to cause the death and crucifixion of the Son of God, what did he do? .... he claims today among the Christian world, that in taking away the law of God they could establish one of their own that would be better. All the universe of heaven were looking to see what would come out of it.

Why did not God blot Satan out of existence? Why did He not blot sin out? Satan was permitted to develop his character, and unless he had had this opportunity, he would have laid the whole cause of his disaffection upon Christ and the Father. But he had an opportunity here in this world to develop his new principles, and he did it when he crucified the Lord of glory. He acted out his principles, and showed what they would lead to, and we see the same acted out in our world today—what these lawless principles will lead to.

The enemy has worked, and he is working still. He is come down in great power, and the Spirit of God is being withdrawn from the earth. God has withdrawn His hand. We have only to look at Johnstown (Pennsylvania). He did not prevent the devil from wiping that whole city out of existence. And these very things will increase until the close of this earth’s history, because he has come down in great power, and he works with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish. What is he doing? Going about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. And when he sees those who are resisting the light, and that God does not shelter them, he will exercise his cruel power upon them. This is what we may expect.

What is God going to do for His people—leave them with no new light? “Ye are,” says He, “the light of the world.” Then we are to get more light from the throne of God, and have an increase of light....

[Robert]

The very last deception of Satan will be to make of none effect the testimony of the Spirit of God. “Where there is no vision, the people perish” (Proverbs 29:18). ...Why did you say that I was taking it out of context? Why did say it is what "the legalist" does? I quoted it correctly and in context.

Nope, you abused the meaning....She referenced legalism as the problem. She does have some excellent statements against legalism, the problem is that she has those other statements that make her look legalistic herself. But the context is clear:

"So effectually does this delusion take possession of heart and mind that the sharp arrows of the Lord fail to penetrate the armor of self righteousness in which they are encased."

She is speaking of legalism.

[Robert]

Personally I love her and her writings, just as I do God's word. They are both from God.

No, the Bible is from God....

[Guest]

So where are her writings from?

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

Did she say "above" or "equal" to the law.

Where is that statement John?

sky

E.G White 1888 Materials, p. 340, 341

Also in Sermons and Talks, Vol. 1, p. 108.

And when the devil comes and points to your sins and hateful crimes, tell him, “Yes, I am a sinner, but Christ is a Saviour, and He says, ‘I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance’” [Matthew 9:13]. Thus you arm yourself with the whole armor of Christ’s righteousness? How is it you have not on the armor of Christ’s righteousness? What did He come to this world for? Why, if it had been a possible thing for us to have been brought back to keeping God’s commandments, He never would have come to this world; but He came here because it was impossible for man to redeem himself and bring himself into a position where Adam stood before the fall. Then what was he to do? Christ came, our substitute and surety.

Before He came they were under a yoke; but Christ was above law, He was the originator of the law, so there was no yoke upon Him; and the angels were in obedience to Christ, who was not under the yoke. He could come as one equal with the Father, and He could open His breast to the whole woe, grief, sin, and misery, and by an offering of Himself He could bring life and immortality to light through the gospel. This is the only hope of life, and when Christ cried out, “It is finished,” He carried out the devised plan. He had died in behalf of the race, as a freewill offering to God. He was not urged to do it, but He took it upon Himself that He might save the fallen race. He goes down into the grave and comes up out of the grave.

As Satan was triumphing in His death, it was not long before he found out he had overstepped the boundary. In seeking to cause the death and crucifixion of the Son of God, what did he do? .... he claims today among the Christian world, that in taking away the law of God they could establish one of their own that would be better. All the universe of heaven were looking to see what would come out of it.

Why did not God blot Satan out of existence? Why did He not blot sin out? Satan was permitted to develop his character, and unless he had had this opportunity, he would have laid the whole cause of his disaffection upon Christ and the Father. But he had an opportunity here in this world to develop his new principles, and he did it when he crucified the Lord of glory. He acted out his principles, and showed what they would lead to, and we see the same acted out in our world today—what these lawless principles will lead to.

The enemy has worked, and he is working still. He is come down in great power, and the Spirit of God is being withdrawn from the earth. God has withdrawn His hand. We have only to look at Johnstown (Pennsylvania). He did not prevent the devil from wiping that whole city out of existence. And these very things will increase until the close of this earth’s history, because he has come down in great power, and he works with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish. What is he doing? Going about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. And when he sees those who are resisting the light, and that God does not shelter them, he will exercise his cruel power upon them. This is what we may expect.

What is God going to do for His people—leave them with no new light? “Ye are,” says He, “the light of the world.” Then we are to get more light from the throne of God, and have an increase of light....

John, are you suggesting that in that statement the Holy Spirit is saying that "the law of ten precepts of the greatest love ever presented to man" is a "yoke"? In this context the "yoke" is a burden. The living oracles as Christ spoke them at Sinai are not a yoke for they are a transcript of His own divine nature. Christ is not above the law of ten precepts and neither is the Father. God and the Law are one. How can God be above His own Law if it is a transcript of His own character? It may be that Mrs. White here is speaking of the fact that before Jesus came the Jews were under the law in the sense that they were under its condemnation for they did not keep that law. It had become a yoke of bondage to them for they knew not the Spirit of the Law which is Christ Himself abiding in the heart of the believer. The ten commandments as they proceed out of the mouth of God, and received as such, are not a "yoke of bondage" for they impart the very life of the Infinite One to transform the nature and to re-create the soul in the image of God.

sky

There was another law which was said to be a "yoke" and it was the law of circumcision. Christ was certainly above that law but as a man he was subject to it for He was our example. But as God He is above that law but it can never be said that He is above the moral law for He is the moral Law. That law is a transcript of His own nature.

[skyblue888]

"The enemy has worked, and he is working still. He is come down in great power, and the Spirit of God is being withdrawn from the earth. God has withdrawn His hand. We have only to look at Johnstown (Pennsylvania). He did not prevent the devil from wiping that whole city out of existence. And these very things will increase until the close of this earth’s history, because he has come down in great power, and he works with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish. What is he doing? Going about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. And when he sees those who are resisting the light, and that God does not shelter them, he will exercise his cruel power upon them. This is what we may expect."

John317

________________________________________

Wow John, thank you for this statement. It is a powerful testimony to what we have been saying. It does say that when Satan sees those who are resisting the light, and that God does not shelter them, he will exercise his cruel power upon them. This is what we may expect!

Don't you see that this is what some of us have been presenting all along?

sky

[pnattmbtc]

Did you know that Ellen White says Christ alone could come and live and die, and not a created angel, because Christ was "above the law"? An angel could not possibly have come-- despite the claims of Jehovah's Witnesses-- because the angels are subject to law, whereas, of course, the Creator, Eternal God is not.

What does this mean? God could choose not to keep the law if He wanted to? Is that what you mean, or something else?

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Remember that God is often presented as doing that which He permits. How do we know when this is or is not the case? (i.e., when God is taking direct action, as opposed to removing His protection).

For example, we're told that God sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites. What did God actually do here? Did He take direct action, or remove His protection? How do we know?

J:The serpents were an example of destructive power resulting from God's permissive will. He withdrew his protective care from His people.

I asked how we know this. Why do you conclude this is an example of God's permissive will as opposed to active? The language is active.

Quote:

Remember that Ellen White says destructive power comes from two sources: from God's angels when He commands, and from evil angels when He permis.

The "same destructive power" comes from these sources, one of which is commanded to "release," (see the context) the other of which is destructive by nature.

Quote:

Ellen White wrote in PP 429 that this event occurred as a result of God's withdrawing His protective care in order to teach the people a lesson about obedience.

This is irrelevant, unless your response is the way you know that the Bible is speaking of God's permissive will is because of Ellen White said so. Is this your point?

Quote:

God wanted them to understand that as long as they obeyed, He would protect them, but if they peristed in disobedience, He would leave them to reap the consequences of their sins.

When would you say God commanded angels of heaven to exercise destructive power?

Has He ever?

Remember this is different from destructions that comes because God permits the evil forces to work.

Compelling power is found only under Satan's government. The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government.

There are two antagonistic powers involves, which work by different principles. One power is based on self, and uses force/compelling power/violence to achieve its ends. This is the way of the world. These powers are antagonistic to God.

Christ opposed these powers by teaching another way, a non-violent way. God achieves victory not by force or violence or compelling power, but by love and truth.

God does not use the tools of the enemy, or the principles of the enemy.

Consider the following. Before Satan invented sin, did force, compelling power, or violence exist? No, these did not exist until Satan's rebellion. These are tools of his government, and characteristics of him and his followers. We see examples of this throughout history. The few, the powerful, the rich, use the thread of force and violence to enforce their laws. The flame is used to obtain their will.

God's kingdom is not like this. Jesus taught a way of non-violence. If someone strikes you on the cheek, turn the other cheek. Give your enemy to drink. Feed him if he is hungry. Love your enemy. He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword. My kingdom is not of this world (i.e., it has other principles, it is governed differently). This is what Jesus taught.

And Christ lived what He taught. All that man can know of God was revealed in the life and character of Jesus Christ. How did Jesus Christ live? What did He teach? Did He teach that we should set people on fire if they don't do what we tell them to? I can't think of any teaching that would be more diametrically opposed to the life and teachings of Christ than this.

[pnattmbtc]

Do you remember from the Bible where he used wicked nations to punish His people Israel? That is what happened with Babylon. See, for instance, Habakkuk 1. Also Daniel 1: 1, 2.

Ellen White explains this by saying that because they had chosen to transgress, God had to remove His protection from them, and the inevitable occurred as other nations subdued them (quote provided by teresaq). This is how God "uses" other nations (or people, or angels, or natural disasters) to punish.

[pnattmbtc]

I don't know if God was punishing the Jews but I doubt it.

You don't know?!

Consider Jesus Christ. We can know the truth about God. We don't have to be in doubt.

[doug yowell]

What's the moral difference between saying "Obey me or I'll kill you" and "Obey me or I'll let someone else kill you"? How bout this analogy: "Obey me or I'll blow your head off", or "Obey me or I'll open that gate and let those hungry lions eat you for lunch."??? Since the choice of life and death is dependent on the answer, and the conditions are already set,how does letting someone else do your "dirty work" change the equation? Just wondering.

[pnattmbtc]

It's an interesting quote John317 brought out. He actually slightly misquoted her. She didn't say that Christ was "above the law" but that He was "above law." She gave as the reason that He originated the law.

It seems she may have been arguing that as God, the originator of the law, Christ's relation to the law was not the same as it would be for a creature. When Christ became a creature, He voluntarily assumed the same relation to the law that a creature has.

[pnattmbtc]

What's the moral difference between saying "Obey me or I'll kill you" and "Obey me or I'll let someone else kill you"? How bout this analogy: "Obey me or I'll blow your head off", or "Obey me or I'll open that gate and let those hungry lions eat you for lunch."??? Since the choice of life and death is dependent on the answer, and the conditions are already set,how does letting someone else do your "dirty work" change the equation? Just wondering.

[doug yowell]

[Guest]

Doug, you're right.

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

What's the moral difference between saying "Obey me or I'll kill you" and "Obey me or I'll let someone else kill you"? How bout this analogy: "Obey me or I'll blow your head off", or "Obey me or I'll open that gate and let those hungry lions eat you for lunch."??? Since the choice of life and death is dependent on the answer, and the conditions are already set,how does letting someone else do your "dirty work" change the equation? Just wondering.[/

The point is that God was *caused to remove His protection.* If God willy-nilly removed His protection, then you'd be right, there would be a moral problem involved. But God was caused to remove His protection. He did so against His will. It was not God's will that Jerusalem should be destroyed, which was eloquently expressed by Christ:

Quote:

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! (Matt. 23:37)

pnatt

_____________________________________________

Good answer,but it doesn't explain why God would be the bad guy if He executed the judgment Himself.

___________________________________________________

"I was shown that the judgments of God would not come directly out from the Lord but in this way--they place themselves beyond His protection." MR 14,3.

doug, God would be like Satan if He directly hurt or destroyed those who do not appreciate His work or act contrary to His ideas. "There can be no more conclusive evidence that we possess the spirit of Satan than the disposition to hurt or destroy those who do not appreciate our work or act contrary to our ideas." D.A.487.

The whole world sees God doing the work of destruction Himself. Why? Because "Tradition and misinterpretation have obscured the teaching of the Bible concerning the character of God, the nature of His government, and the principles of His dealing with sin." G.C.492.

Not only is the whole world deceived but so are the professed people of God.

"The understanding of the people of God has been blinded, for Satan has misrepresented the character of God. Our good and gracious Lord has been presented before the people, clothed in the attributes of Satan, and men and women who have been seeking for truth, have so long regarded God in a false light that it is difficult to dispel the cloud that obscures His glory from their view." 1 S.M.355.

So we read, "It is the darkness of misapprehension of God that is enshrouding the world. Men are losing (have lost) their knowledge of His character. It has been misunderstood and misinterpreted. At this time, a message from God is to be proclaimed, a message illuminating in its influence and saving in its power. His character is to be made known. Into the darkness of the world is to be shed the light of His glory, the light of His goodness, mercy, and truth." C.O.L.415.

"Darkness covers the earth and gross darkness the people." Isaiah 60:2.

The traditional and universal view is that God stands toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression just as Satan would have the whole world believe and He has succeeded. But the truth is that His judgments do not come directly out from Him upon the wicked, but in this way--they place themselves beyond His protection.

This message will vindicate His character and the earth will be lighted with His glory.

sky

[Guest]

doug, God would be like Satan if He directly hurt or destroyed those who do not appreciate His work or act contrary to His ideas.

That's not what Ellen White believed.

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}

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

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

sky will.

[pnattmbtc]

What's the moral difference between saying "Obey me or I'll kill you" and "Obey me or I'll let someone else kill you"? How bout this analogy: "Obey me or I'll blow your head off", or "Obey me or I'll open that gate and let those hungry lions eat you for lunch."??? Since the choice of life and death is dependent on the answer, and the conditions are already set,how does letting someone else do your "dirty work" change the equation? Just wondering.[/

The point is that God was *caused to remove His protection.* If God willy-nilly removed His protection, then you'd be right, there would be a moral problem involved. But God was caused to remove His protection. He did so against His will. It was not God's will that Jerusalem should be destroyed, which was eloquently expressed by Christ:

Quote:

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! (Matt. 23:37)

Good answer,but it doesn't explain why God would be the bad guy if He executed the judgment Himself.

doug:Good answer,but it doesn't explain why God would be the bad guy if He executed the judgment Himself.

Thanks for the "good answer" comment. You didn't ask the second thing, did you? I was addressing what you said. Do we agree that this has been adequately dealt with? And you're asking a second question? If so, I'll be happy to address that.

[pnattmbtc]

sky:doug, God would be like Satan if He directly hurt or destroyed those who do not appreciate His work or act contrary to His ideas.

R:That's not what Ellen White believed.

[Guest]

Pnat, that quote in DA 487 is referring to us, not God. Notice she says WE. That perfectly harmonizes with LDE 241. Here I'll post it again. Read it this time.

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}

[skyblue888]

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}

______________________________________

But that statement does not say that God directly inflicts this punishment Himself. It is difficult for human beings to accept the idea that God would even give us up to the enemy who is just waiting to make us suffer by fire or whatever means he can use.

"We are not to regard God as waiting to punish the sinner." 1 S.M.235.

Even when it is said that God will take things in hand to punish sin doesn't mean that He does it direclty.

"When parents or rulers neglect to discipline their children God will take the case in hand. His restraining power will be in a measure removed from the agencies of evil so that a train of circumstances will arise that will punish sin with sin." P.P.739.

Richard, this is another example as to how we are to compare statement with statement. This last statement gives us the key as to how to interpret statements the like of which you just quoted.

sky

And if God hurts or destroys those who do not appreciate His work or act contrary to His ideas, then He is no different than Satan Himself. And if we teach that He can do this because He is "above" the law, we are presenting Him before the people clothed in the attributes of Satan.

[teresaq]

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}

______________________________________

But that statement does not say that God directly inflicts this punishment Himself. It is difficult for human beings to accept the idea that God would even give us up to the enemy and that the enemy would make us suffer by fire or whatever means he can use.

"We are not to regard God as waiting to punish the sinner." 1 S.M.235.

Even when it is said that God will take things in hand to punish sin doesn't mean that He does it direclty.

"When parents or rulers neglect to discipline their children God will take the case in hand. His restraining power will be in a measure removed from the agencies of evil so that a train of circumstances will arise that will punish sin with sin." P.P.739.

Richard, this is another example as to how we are to compare statement with statement. This last statement gives us the key as to how to interpret statements the like of which you just quoted.

there are many statements of the retribution of God falling on the jewish people and God punishing them.

all we have to do is read the Destruction of Jerusalem to see how God punished them. it is quite detailed. The Bible and the French Revolution also is a detailed.

but it is our choice if we choose to know or not.

[Robert]

So where are her writings from?

Opinions....

[Robert]

{LDE 241.2}

[Guest]

Quote:

But that statement does not say that God directly inflicts this punishment Himself.

Which part of "But God would do it" are you having trouble grasping?

Quote:

This last statement gives us the key as to how to interpret statements the like of which you just quoted.

No no. You have it backwards. You are not to use one statement to trump another. The only way those two statements can harmonize, is to read them in the light of the statement that leaves nothing out. Which is the one I quoted. To do otherwise, you would have to twist the one statement to the point of distorting it in order to make it not say what it plainly says.

When you have to twist a statement to make it say what you want it to say, then you have obviously abandoned the correct path, for some strange ideology.