Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

GenevanPreacher, do you?


Recommended Posts

  • Members
1 hour ago, Genevanpreacher said:

My scriptural support is known already by all here, you just refuse to see it because you are taught that it means something else.

1. He is a real entity because of all the times he is mentioned in scripture. A look in a Strongs Concordance will suffice.

2. There is no scriptural support that he was ever not evil, as per our Lords words "He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil."

3. Satan never chose anything. He was ALWAYS darkness. ALWAYS evil. From the beginning! You read the Bible? You know what I am saying.

4. Show me where the fall of Satan and devils occurred in the history of Genesis or before. It exists no where but in the mind of men years ago who tried to explain the existence of the thing named Lucifer and a marvelous story was created AND made doctrine in the Churches.

Why should it be an amazing thing for us to believe in the creation of devils when God made everything else for its purpose?

The nature of a created being is just that...its nature.

And NO, since God created devils, that DOES NOT MAKE GOD A SINNER, Dave! That is a silly thing to even think, much less say.

Why don't you study the real Bible and stop following apostate women's teaching, in this case a lady named Jeannie Weyrick

Dispense with her nonsense and study the numerous passages already explained to you and study Eze 28

15, Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

The beginning in your passage means God's foreknowledge as it always does. He knew what would happen with His Angels who would sin and who would not. God in His Perfect Righteousness will not create sin. How silly is your stance friend, God will not tolerate sin but He created it??? How delusional. Freewill is the central theme of God's Word and it lies on every page of It.

Your misinterpretation is the "avoidance" of Battle Cry for every calvanite.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
6 hours ago, wretched said:

Why don't you study the real Bible and stop following apostate women's teaching, in this case a lady named Jeannie Weyrick

Dispense with her nonsense and study the numerous passages already explained to you and study Eze 28

15, Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

The beginning in your passage means God's foreknowledge as it always does. He knew what would happen with His Angels who would sin and who would not. God in His Perfect Righteousness will not create sin. How silly is your stance friend, God will not tolerate sin but He created it??? How delusional. Freewill is the central theme of God's Word and it lies on every page of It.

Your misinterpretation is the "avoidance" of Battle Cry for every calvanite.

Never heard of her. So don't go blaming what I believe upon some woman's teaching just because you need someone to use to cast my beliefs down on the ground on this forum.

Um...what is a calvanite?

Just a reminder here, angels are created beings, just like animals. They are messengers and protectors from God for mankind. Their job is to serve their creator and be with those who are to be heirs of salvation.Yes, all animals have the ability to pervert their ways, to a degree, but they mostly stay to their nature as God has intended them. That doesn't mean God created them TO sin.

Man is the ONLY special creature. His free will is the only thing that has changed nature BECAUSE of his choice to not follow God and bring sin upon the world - upon human creatures.

Creation was made for man to be the head over. Never angels.

So equating angels and their free will with man's doesn't even make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
6 hours ago, wretched said:

Why don't you study the real Bible and stop following apostate women's teaching, in this case a lady named Jeannie Weyrick

Dispense with her nonsense and study the numerous passages already explained to you and study Eze 28

15, Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

First off - I looked her up!

Shame on you!! That's just like cursing!

Second - everyone is born perfect until the choice to sin comes upon them - that sin is named "iniquity". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, Genevanpreacher said:

First off - I looked her up!

Shame on you!! That's just like cursing!

Second - everyone is born perfect until the choice to sin comes upon them - that sin is named "iniquity". 

Another one for posterity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
3 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Never heard of her. So don't go blaming what I believe upon some woman's teaching just because you need someone to use to cast my beliefs down on the ground on this forum.

Um...what is a calvanite?

Just a reminder here, angels are created beings, just like animals. They are messengers and protectors from God for mankind. Their job is to serve their creator and be with those who are to be heirs of salvation.Yes, all animals have the ability to pervert their ways, to a degree, but they mostly stay to their nature as God has intended them. That doesn't mean God created them TO sin.

Man is the ONLY special creature. His free will is the only thing that has changed nature BECAUSE of his choice to not follow God and bring sin upon the world - upon human creatures.

Creation was made for man to be the head over. Never angels.

So equating angels and their free will with man's doesn't even make sense.

Decided this one was worth keeping too.

Edited by DaveW
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brethren,

In the above posting, presented earlier in this thread, I suggested unto Brother "Genevanpreacher" that he might engage with me concerning Ezekiel 28:11-19 through a study of the grammar and context therein.  Since that posting, it does not appear that he has an interest in so doing.  Therefore, I present the following as such a study for all to consider --

Concerning Ezekiel 28:11-19

Ezekiel 28:1-19 presents two different prophetic utterances against two different individuals of governing authority over the land of Tyrus.  On the one hand, Ezekiel 28:1-10 presents a prophetic utterance against an individual who is designated as “the prince of Tyrus.”  According to Ezekiel 28:2 this “prince of Tyrus” was under God’s hand of judgment because his heart was lifted up with pride and because he had made the claim, saying, “I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas.”  Yet the Lord God Himself responded to this individual’s claim, saying, “Thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God.”  As such, this governing individual over Tyrus, this “prince of Tyrus,” is clearly revealed by the Lord God Himself to be nothing more than a human individual.

On the other hand, Ezekiel 28:11-19 presents a prophetic utterance against an individual who is designated as “the king of Tyrus.”  Furthermore, in Ezekiel 28:14 the Lord God Himself provides an additional designation for this “king of Tyrus,” saying, “Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so.”  Now, the singular noun “cherub” and its plural form “cherubims” are found ninety-five times throughout the Bible.  Of those, two times the word “Cherub” is given, not as a descriptive designation, but as the actual name of a human individual. (See Ezra 2:59; Nehemiah 7:61)  Of the other times, the words “cherub” and “cherubims,” given as a descriptive designation, always refers unto an angelic individual.  As such, this “king of Tyrus” is thereby referenced by the Lord God Himself in Ezekiel 28:14 & 16 as an angelic being.

Yet what about the designation that he was “the king of Tyrus”?  Certainly that designation would indicate that this individual was a human individual in the government over Tyrus, right?  Not necessarily, for designations of governing position are employed in God’s Word for angelic individuals also.  In John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11 our adversary the devil appears to be designated by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself as “the prince of this world.”  Again in Matthew 9:34; 12:24 & Mark 3:22 our adversary the devil appears to be designated as “the prince of the devils.”  Yet again in Ephesians 2:2 our adversary the devil appears to be designated as “the prince of the power of the air.”  Furthermore, in Ephesians 6:12 we believers are informed that those against whom we must spiritually fight and wrestle are NOT “flesh and blood,” human individuals, but are spiritual, angelic beings who are designated with the terminology of governing authority as “principalities,” “powers,” “rulers of the darkness of this world,” and “spiritual wickedness in high places.”  Finally, in Daniel 10:13 Michael, “the archangel” (See Jude 1:9), is designated as “one of the chief princes.”  So then, angelic individuals can indeed be referenced and designated in God’s Word with the terminology of governing authority.

Yet in Ezekiel 28:12 “the king of Tyrus” is specifically designated as a governing official over a specific group of people, that is – the people of Tyrus.  Certainly an angelic being would not be designated as having governing authority over such a specific group of people, right?  Again, not necessarily; for in Daniel 9:21 & Daniel 12:1 Michael the archangel is revealed to be “the great prince which standeth for the children of thy [Daniel’s] people,” that is – the angelic prince for the children of Israel.  So then, angelic individuals can indeed be referenced and designated in God’s Word with the terminology of governing authority over a specific group of people or national group.  Even so, Ezekiel 28:11-19 speaks concerning an individual that is descriptively designated as “the king of Tyrus,” which is a designation that could refer unto either an angelic being or a human being, and that is descriptively designated as “the anointed cherub that covereth,” which is a designation that can only refer unto an angelic being.  As such, we conclude that Ezekiel 28:11-19 is speaking concerning an angelic being.

What then does Ezekiel 28:11-19 teach us about this angelic being? 

1.  He is a created being. (Ezekiel 28:13 & 15)

2.  He was “full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty” when he was created. (Ezekiel 28:12)

3.  He had been “in Eden the garden of God.” (Ezekiel 28:13)

4.  He was “the anointed cherub” that covered the throne of God. (Ezekiel 28:14)

5.  He was set in that position by the Lord God Himself. (Ezekiel 28:14)

6.  He was “upon the holy mountain of God.” (Ezekiel 28:14)

7.  He was “perfect” in his ways at the time of his creation. (Ezekiel 28:15)

8.  Sometime after his creation he chose the path of sin and iniquity. (Ezekiel 28:15-16)

9.  He was motivated to sin when his “heart was lifted up” because of his beauty. (Ezekiel 28:17)

10.  He corrupted his wisdom by reason of his “brightness.” (Ezekiel 28:17)

11.  He has continued to defile himself more and more “by the multitude” of his iniquities, by the iniquity of his traffick. (Ezekiel 28:18)

12.  He will be cast by the Lord God “as profane out of the mountain of God,” and will be destroyed by the hand of God’s judgment. (Ezekiel 28:16)

13.  He will be judged by God through the means of a devouring fire. (Ezekiel 28:18)

14.  He will be judged by God in the sight of mankind. (Ezekiel 28:17-18)

A few questions Bro. Scott -

1] Just what is this verse about then:

"By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned:"

Is this his 'fall'? Was he trafficking in a trade?

Uh...yeah! 

"Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick;"

What about this verse:

"I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee."

Just where Bro.Scott is this mentioned anywhere else that the Lord God would do this to Satan?

Nowhere. Because he is talking to a real man the King of Tyrus.

You are making it sound like God was being deceptive when he told the Prophet - "Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him..." when there was no such king.

But here is the explanation for the sin that the King of Tyrus committed as per the above quoted verse -

"Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick;"

He was sinning in his 'trade' by building up multiple amounts of what was causing his iniquity. Period. 

Satan never did that. And never will.

These are verses after the mention of the king and not referencing the prince. (In theory.)

Edited by Genevanpreacher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
3 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brethren,

I present the following as such a study for all to consider --

Pastor Markle, that was a great study brother! I've never looked up the difference between the words "prince" and "king" in these scriptures before, but your study prompted me to do so. It was fruitful. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Pastor Markle,

Your above two expositions on Ezekiel 28:11-19 is excellent and are doctrinally correct. It is probably the best exposition on this scripture, and the subject of the fall and work of Satan,

1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Yes, after his "fall" from righteous perfection into iniquity, this "fallen" cherub has engaged and continues to engage in the trafficking of some form of "merchandise."  Ezekiel 28:16, 18 makes this clear.  In fact, these two verses reveal the following about his "trafficking" --

1.  He engages in this trafficking with abundance -- "the multitude of thy merchandise"
2.  By nature his trafficking is filled with iniquity -- "the iniquity of thy traffick"
3.  The abundance of his iniquity-filled trafficking expands his accountability of iniquities -- "by the multitude of thy iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick"
     (That is -  A multitude of merchandise-trafficking = A multitude of iniquities -- specifically because the trafficking is iniquity-filled.)
4.  The abundance of his iniquity-filled trafficking fills him with an accountability of violence -- "by the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled thee with violence"
5.  The abundance of his iniquity-filled trafficking expands the defilement of his sanctuaries -- "thou has defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities"

So then, in what "merchandise" does this "fallen" cherub so abundantly traffick?  Our adversary the devil so abundantly "trafficks" in the abundance of deception and lies against the truth, which by nature produce the results of both spiritual and physical violence, murder, and death.  Indeed, in John 8:44 our Lord Jesus Christ rebuked the Pharisees, saying, "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.  He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him.  When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."  His "merchandise" is deception and lies; "for he is a liar, and the father of it [that is -- of all deception and lies]."

 that I have seen.

The short study on "the multitude of thy merchandise," is spiritually enlightening and I am sure is a help to a lot of folks who are interested in spiritual matters.

The subject of, "the multitude of thy merchandise," is a study in itself. I may further add, if a word study is done on "devise," devised," and "deviseth," and "instruments," a person can see a connection with Satan / Lucifer, in the study of, "the multitude of thy merchandise."  As one example, ponder Isaiah 32:7, "The instruments also of the churl are evil: he deviseth wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaketh right."

I would like to encourage you to either continue this study in another thread, or, if the Lord leads you to provide a PDF file on the lesson for us on OnLine Baptist  that would be a blessing also.

Alan

Edited by Alan
grammer spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I love the fact that the overwhelming majority of Pastor Markle's argument is ignored, and the GP response is based on some perceived contradictions that are actually answered in Pastor Markle's first post of this argument.

I also love the fact that Pastor Markle's argument is based solely on Scripture, thereby contrasting the pure speculative and non-scripture based positions that GP has constantly presently largely without ANY scripture reference, or in the rare instance Scripture has been used by GP it has had no reference to angels (with one irrelevant exception referencing Satan but then irrelevant to his origin).

 

Well done Pastor Markle on solid, Scripture based presentation of argument - again.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
49 minutes ago, DaveW said:

I love the fact that the overwhelming majority of Pastor Markle's argument is ignored, and the GP response is based on some perceived contradictions that are actually answered in Pastor Markle's first post of this argument. No they weren't. And any guests can clearly see it.

I also love the fact that Pastor Markle's argument is based solely on Scripture, thereby contrasting the pure speculative and non-scripture based positions that GP has constantly presently largely without ANY scripture reference, or in the rare instance Scripture has been used by GP it has had no reference to angels (with one irrelevant exception referencing Satan but then irrelevant to his origin). His verses had nothing to do with the questioned verses.

Well done Pastor Markle on solid (i.e. traditional), Scripture based presentation of argument - again. Yes, his normal 'follow the traditions' type of teachings that lead to fantasy.

I love how birds of a feather flock together. Thanks Dave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
13 minutes ago, Genevanpreacher said:

I love how birds of a feather flock together. Thanks Dave.

When someone clearly expounds Scripture, I will happily agree with him.

Do you care to actually SCRIPTURALLY address any of his points?

You haven't so far.

You have presented very little Scripture in support of any of your propositions in this thread, and the few Scriptures you did use was not relevant to your proposition regarding the origin of Satan.

Your arguments as presented in this thread have been presented without relevant Scripture and with much conjecture, supposition, guesswork, and imagination.

All the while you accuse others of making up stories.

Well then, present your 'much study' that we are supposed to believe you have done on this subject, and answer the posts that have been posted presenting the "traditional view", in particular Pastor Markle's well presented and Scripturally supported arguments, and DO SO WITH RELEVANT SCRIPTURE as you have failed to do up to this point.

You have up until now basically said we should believe you because you are right and everyone else is wrong.

Give a full and complete SCRIPTURE BASED argument supporting your position.

We will wait for it.

And I suspect we will have to wait a very long time for you to present such a thing.

Edited by DaveW
Phone spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
32 minutes ago, Genevanpreacher said:

I love how birds of a feather flock together. Thanks Dave.

 1Co 1:10  Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, DaveW said:

I love the fact that the overwhelming majority of Pastor Markle's argument is ignored, and the GP response is based on some perceived contradictions that are actually answered in Pastor Markle's first post of this argument. No they weren't. And any guests can clearly see it.

I also love the fact that Pastor Markle's argument is based solely on Scripture, thereby contrasting the pure speculative and non-scripture based positions that GP has constantly presently largely without ANY scripture reference, or in the rare instance Scripture has been used by GP it has had no reference to angels (with one irrelevant exception referencing Satan but then irrelevant to his origin). His verses had nothing to do with the questioned verses.

Well done Pastor Markle on solid (i.e. traditional), Scripture based presentation of argument - again. Yes, his normal 'follow the traditions' type of teachings that lead to fantasy.

25 minutes ago, Genevanpreacher said:

I love how birds of a feather flock together. Thanks Dave.

Brother "Genevanpreacher,"

The most foundational premise of my position on Ezekiel 28:11-19 concerns the designation of "the king of Tyrus" by the Lord God Himself as "the anointed cherub that covereth," with the Lord God indicating that He Himself had set this individual to be so.  Can you provide ANY Biblical evidence (excluding the very passage under question) that the descriptive designation of "covering cherub" does not refer unto an angelic being, but unto a human being? 

You see, if you can bring Biblical evidence against my most foundational premise, then you have some solid doctrinal ground upon which to stand.  However, if you cannot, then . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...