Some (extra-potentially influential, based on actual “audiences”) examples include:
“It was not a war of violence with swords or guns, but a war of ideas, of words, of accusations against God on the part of Satan and vindication of God on the part of Michael.”
‘...a war of ideologies, ideas, philosophies, they're not boxing each other!’
-Kameron Devasher - (Recently, a main speaker at FYI 2011 & GYC 2011) - December 4, 2010 Sermon - “Casting Out The Devil - Part 1” [audio] at 10:30-12:54ff. And during 3ABN’s 2012 Anchors of Truth series here [33:22-34:03] & recappingly here [07:19-07:34]; and on 02-08-14, in a ‘Revelation highlighting overview’, here [30:21-30:47].
...And yet, most indifferently so, again from Devasher here [26:50-27:23ff] (June 4, 2014). By now he has become quite deviously skillful in erecting straw man arguments (such as here that: (a) ‘Heaven was not strewn with the bodies of dead angels from a physical fight’) and pointing to red herrings (such as: (b) ‘Satan never openly had a conflict with the Jesus in Heaven’) so that people can believe his novice claims. The Bible and SOP Truth is that (a) no death resulted from that physical war and (b) Satan did not have to fight Jesus head on “He [God] would give the rebellious an equal chance to measure strength and might with his own Son and his loyal angels....” (1SP 21.1a). Either Devasher can’t read, or he does not believe, even direct revelations in, the SOP, and/or is too pridefully drunken by his, at best, amateurish/elementary quack-exegesis. (=Hos 4:16-17)
-Hiram Rester - 3ABN’s 2012 Pillars of Prophecy (Dan 8) [video 1 - 23:51-25:05ff]; [video 2 - 33:09-34:23ff]
-Both these latter two claim that polemos means “politics”[???], and that this was being done in ‘Satan peddling/spreading around his countering views/idea about God.’
-Dave Fiedler - On 10-04-14 here[00:00-00:44]: ‘The Greek polemos is the root of the English “polemics”, and means “an argument”. So the/that (GC) War in Heaven was (also) a “war of ideas” and did not involve “fisticuffs”’.
Jonathan Henderson - On January 30, 2016 here[39:17-40:55ff] claiming the, as also discussed below, mistranslating of polemos in Jam 4:2 as seemingly merely a “quarrel”...(However just earlier in Jam 4:1 it was translated as “fighting”, -a debunking point that Henderson does not mention.).
Then LOL, as with all of these other subjective and misguided preachers, dares goes on to quote “what EGW said”.... Clearly, -as with his other wider false, “Progressive [really: Redactive] Light”, teaching here on the Atonement, they only quote her theological points and revelations when she agree with their humanistic and self-idolatrous false theology.
The only case in the NT where this meaning of a “physical conflict/fight” may not be readily seen is in Jam 4:1 where it is used to seemingly more tamely speak of merely ‘“quarrels” among believers.’ However in that very text, the specific Greek term for a non-physical conflict is seen in the use of the word machai (Strongs #3163/#3164) which is rightly used in both the NT and the LXX to express “disputes.” (See e.g.: John 6:52; 2 Tim 2:23, 24; Tit 3:9). The word “strateuo” [Strongs #4754] is also used in this context, however this is a technical military term used for entrenched, systematized “warfare” and/or its components (e.g., an army, enlisted soldiers, etc), as opposed to an actual outburst of fighting as polemos portrays. Furthermore, the “quarrels/fighting” addressed in James 4:1, 2 may have indeed been quite physical fights. (Today, in our removed context, we cannot say that ‘they surely were not fighting.’ That would actually solely be hopeful thinking.) As proper exegesis is to align seemingly diverging uses with the predominant use, especially in such a 15-1 ratio, then it is therefore more likely the case that these “quarrels/fighting” were indeed physical outbreaks. Therefore there is no precedence in the NT to view polemos as nothing less than a "physical fight."
If solely a “dispute” had occurred in Rev 12:7-8, then the more specific term for this, machai (Strongs #3171), would have been used. The two opposing sides in this 'War in Heaven' were not enlisted soldiers here carrying out their “duty” (i.e., soldiering), but were instead two, relatively, suddenly formed factions, trying to (partially) resolve a conflict, which God knew, in His Just and Prescient Wisdom, would require thousands of years of concrete “playing out” to transparently decide, by here, the temporal use of force. So this battle between Christ and Satan was not a heated debated around a ten-foot table but instead it was an all-out war, an active revolt. (Cf. a similarly-based argument by Mark Finley here [05:31-06:26ff] during his GYC Europe 2012 sermon). As Mrs. White states in Patriarch and Prophets: “God permitted Satan to carry forward his work until the spirit of disaffection ripened into active revolt. It was necessary for his plans to be fully developed, that their true nature and tendency might be seen by all.” (PP 41.2; cf. 1SM 222.2-3). She also describes this conflict in the chapter entitled: “The Fall of Satan” in The Spirit of Prophecy vol 1:17-24. There she unequivocally says:
 Which evidently was also approved and/or believed by those involved in the preparation and presentation of this Net ‘98 topic, and thus who were (pre-)aware of it. (It would be interesting to hear how the 40 translators involved in this presentation rendered this view/statement.)
 Evidently this view is borne out, and/or related to, the popular “Character of God” movement in the SDA Church which unbiblically teaches that “God does not Kill/Destroy”. See an indepth discussion on this with other SDA’s in this Forum thread entitled: “Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death?” which calls the holders of this view to incontrovertible exegetical accountability and responsibility (which actually cannot be done in their view) for both the Bible and SOP. I, “NJK Project” joined in on page 14 to the end. (That 105+ page “Character of God” discussion is outlined in this blog post.) Another thread entitled “The Character of God Movement, is it Counterfeit?” is also interesting on this issue. (It is a Private thread so signing up to the forum and receiving access permission will be required. However you can download a PDF printing of that discussion from this link on the WBSC website).
 By the fourth sermon [02-04-12] (mp3) in his Great Controversy series, Mark Howard may have realized, or been shown, that his ‘merely non-physical argument/controversy’ view was not at all Biblically tenable, including with it not agreeing with SOP revelations, and so he makes the, albeit partially conceding claim that: ‘things ended up in an “all out, knock down, drag out” affair’ [34:27–34:59ff]. Later he deflectively adds to this specification: “if you will” [37:27-38:14]. That’s a great truthful improvement, but the linguistically accurate fact of the matter actually is that, as later detailed, Rev 12:7-9 is only describing the physical portion of the Controversy which had priorly begun in heaven.
 In a strange ambivalent way, apparently solely to be able to continue to advance his intended point that ‘there was a debate involved in Great Controversy in Heaven,’ and/or in non-reprimanding support of his A.R.I.S.E. colleague Mark Howard and his view on this, David Asscherick, in this Jan 2010 sermon [20:32-21:40], (similarly purported in this later, early-Spring 2011 sermon [23:54-26:32]), on one hand incorrectly correlates/associates the Greek word “polemos” with the English word “polemics” and thus assumes that this passage is speaking of a ‘verbal/intellectual debate’; while, on the other hand, he adds that “there may also have been actual/physical fighting”?!?
And... in this 04-16-2013 sermon [20:42-25:45], Asscherick, indifferently, undisturbedly/smoothly, conflates the distinct rebellion phases issues here and continues his now exegetically/substantively vacuous claims in regards to the “war” (=polemos) of Rev 12:7-9, citing the above debunked “politics” association, and newly, even the irrelevant English word “pole”, which he then confuses with “poll”, as definingly determinative of that Greek word. In Greek, as in any language, the morphing of a word through compounding, prefixing, suffixing, can and does, as in indeed does here, alter the pointed significance of a word. And so while these words “pole”, polemikos, polemos, are indeed all related, they are distinct in their pointed mean as “polarize”, “polemic”, and “war” are. And contrary to Asscherick’s straw man posit that ‘one needs to picture what that war would look like, we actually have the testimony of Scripture (when exegetically rightly read) and the SOP which reveal that it was a real, physical “fight”. Indeed, Asscherick wants people to (“disabusingly”....really...because taking the Bible and SOP at its explicit word is: “ab-use/abuse”), not think that Rev 12:7-9 was “overly physical, especially since he, misconstruedly, claims that the SOP says that God could have tossed Satan out as a pebble (DA 759.1). Well the fact of the matter probably is that God actually probably did, “easily”, do so... when the time to toss out the losers of that preceding deciding brute force war came, but in that fight/war, God had actually matched ‘Satan and his angels against Michael and His angels’ (Rev 12:7-8a), with Michael/Jesus being in an incarnate Mighty Angel form, with that most likely involving, (as it did when He later subsequently incarnated Himself as man and then depended squarely on “the ministry of angels” to physically do superhuman (e.g., DA 240.1-3; Matt 26:53; DA 694.5-6) and supernatural/miraculous things (e.g., DA 143.1)), Michael no longer have superior (in this case God-equal) powers and strength, -which is why that War in Heaven was indeed going to be a on a fair, strength for strength, (=brute force) battle. (Cf. A similar emphasis by Adrian Webster here [30:40] in a sermon on Rev 12: “the Battle in Heaven was won by might....”; though the Bible and SOP actually, sequentially, point out that it was actually for reasons of more than merely physically kicking Satan and his followers out of Heaven.). As stated next, the Bible and SOP are distinctly clear about all that was distinctly involved in the War in Heaven, and does not ambiguously and/or ambivalently conflate/fog things as Asscherick and other SDA preachers indifferently do with the stark stipulation of Rev 12:7-9. We are dealing with the “War” here people not the preceding “argumentations” so stop confusing the two. There’s no, “vindicating” need to....things became just what God Himself deemed they validatingly should be.
Indeed, the fact is that Satan was indeed “subtle” first, but then God literally call his inherent bluff and challenged him and his followers to ‘put their welfare, even life (as God may have let them believed), where their mouths/sentiments/convictions were to see if they really wanted to hang on to such beliefs in the face of most likely/evident loss of all that they had enjoyed in Heaven. And their (i.e. the fallen angels, but not Satan’s own as God had long seen that he knew his course was wrong (PP 39.1), =Rev 12:4, discussed later)) genuine/sincere resoluteness in the face of potential inexistence probably indicated/confirmed to God that He must allow them to live for 6000+ years to have this GC demonstrated (cf. PP 42.3), even if it would solely be for the (concrete) benefit/reward of the loyal angels (and subsequently righteous men) particularly as even the loyal angel would not be sure about the issues here even after their (quasi-vexatious) decision at the Cross (DA 761.2-3; 764.4).
So, rightly understanding this outbreak of passionate, physical (yet actually really tangential to the substance of the GC issues “on the floor” then, -which is probably why many knee-jerkly want to explain theses statements away) fighting, actually awakens one to, as seen in war today, to the infinitely non-clear cut, but rather mere decisional, way in which this GC will be resolved, i.e., by people deeming that the ways of God are most likely better than what Satan was suggesting.
The Spirit of Prophecy is clearly not so confused and/or ambivalent on this “witnessed” event. As it will be shown further, this passage in Rev 12:7-9 is not at all concerned about speaking of the philosophical aspect in Heaven’s Great Controversy up to then, but is here strictly relating the physical battle that erupted, and concluded, this whole matter. The war spoken of here is the physical fighting which broke out long after the preceding exchanges of variant “polemical” ideas, (as indeed pointedly allegorically related in Isa 14:12-20 & Ezek 28:11-19; -see also my comments here), had begun and had then here reached this ‘physically conflicting impasse’...as later explained: -if anything at all was going to begin to be settled at that time.
What David Asscherick does not Spiritually grasp here, and thus finds it strange, and so sees it as necessary to rewrite the passage here, is that, and in his own interpreting belief that Ezek 28 is actually merely speaking of Satan’s rebellion in Heaven, and not really of the king/kingdom of Tyre, is that, as already, but succinctly stated here, God saw in what Tyre had done, manifestly through the direct inspiration of Satan, is what Satan would also need to have done, and then on a more global scale, through a Socio-Economic effectuation of Babylon. (=Rev 18). And indeed, skipping right to the Biblically fully validated understanding here as explained in that post, in (Protestant) America, Satan has managed to again raised up a world power which can corrupt the world through such commercialism, especially at the point of, as foundational to current Capitalism, making money just for the sake of making money, and also making money, and not actually available resources, the determinative commodity in itself of what can or cannot be done, and what prices should be.
 Well, again, as Heaven was not into a “Military-Industrial Complex” mentality, i.e., planning and preparing for a outbreak of, moreover civil wars, amongst themselves; they indeed had not been stockpiling such artillery, machinery and ordnance...as if, as discussed with here, 20|35 feet tall angels, moreover, (see in here), with most made of photons vs. “flesh and blood” could be advantaged by such lowly earthly/human type weapons. And even if they were each given “flaming swords” (Gen 3:24)/(~energy band light-sabers) types of weapons, as these ‘fire/light/energy’ weapons would probably at best only be capable of repulsing such “photonic” angelic beings and not actually “physically” kill them, then that fighting war was probably “won” when the 2-1 outnumbered, “not strong enough” (Rev 12:8a) rebelling angels were variously disarmed, and arrestingly neutralized and “cornered”.
 I have characterized such proponents/defenders of this view as akin to “Emergent Church” heretics because they similarly have the same shoddy exegesis approaches as much preferred by these proponents. And that is one which makes whatever actual exegesis may be involved in the proving of their claims, selectively subjective to their personal feelings and psyche. I.e. ‘If they cannot stomach it’ and/or if a Bible teaching will put them in an unfavorable light with non-believers, such as Hell’s torment, [and as discussed in here, at the 09-01-14 Update, where the issue of Women Ordination has effectively been overarchingly, depletingly reduced to an ideologically subjective, humanistic level, -with Light Bearers being prominent supporters of that “Third Option”, of: ‘fairness, justice, equality and really purely cultural’ levels instead of the Recognized Holy Spirit Anointing (=Ordaining) level of matter that is actually is], then they effectively reject it by, at “best”, arbitrarily, selectively, only presenting certain parts of it which harmonize with their personal tenure. And that is seen in all of their supposed “new light/perspective” on Bible doctrines which they claim to believe. And derived from this approach is that underlying heretical “Character of God” agenda which also controls their study of the Bible.
 It is also likely that many of the angels who remained on the loyal side, did so while actually being neutral, but deferring to God’s judgement and wisdom, indeed as revealed by the fact that many of their GC questions were not resolved then and for a long time afterwards, partly at and the beyond the cross. (See e.g., DA 758-764 - See my discussion implicating this GC issue starting in this discussion forum post. (Back track for prior, related, discussions)).